I'm totally with Topbunk. Just a load of recycled tosh with a lie attached -- that they had new evidence on the causes of the crash. Then we had the sentimental ravings of Hutchinson (how does flying it and loving it qualify you to pronounce on its safety?), Walpole, Lowe et al and, the "sheer beauty" bla bla bla cannot get over the fact that all other civil airliner development came to a screeching halt because we were locked into a money pit that sucked in all aircraft development capital.
Sure it was gorgeous, great to fly, lovely to look at, and it was certainly an amazing technical achievement but hang on.... The US looked at it and discovered after sonic bang tests in 1964 that the public would not tolerate them over land: not distant, muffled, blanket-on-the-timpani soft thumps like in the film, but great thunderclaps. We and the French, however, just pretended it wasn't an issue, and ploughed on, heads in the sand, throwing good money after bad, and labelling all sceptics unpatriotic. Heads remained in the sand after the Dulles incident in 79 when they realised that they could not stop tyres exploding, and they just beefed up the rubber and hoped it wouldn't happen again.
It was magnifique, but that is not the kind of guerre taxpayers need or should ever be fighting. What is it about Concorde that causes normally sensible people to suspend their critical faculties?
And yes, previous poster, you did see something nearly the same a few years ago. Concorde, A Love Story, was a Timewatch broadcast in 2003 and covered almost identical ground.