Iron Duck
It is, but now seems to be in a 3-way stalemate between:
1. those who appear to believe that the crash happened because Concorde was actually on the runway and shouldn't have been because it was not airworthy;
2. those who adhere to the evidence in the report, which states that the aircraft was airworthy and would have enjoyed an uneventful flight had it not rolled over the titanium strip; and
3. Continental's lawyers, who appear to have thought that they wouldn't get away with using argument 1, and therefore used an "it wasn't me, mister" argument based on an alleged fire existing before Concorde hit the strip, rendering the strip incidental to the accident.
I'm not so sure about the allegations of an argument as put forth in (3)
above unless it was somehow precised somewhere in this thread
and of course you omitted my suggestion as:
2a. Those who posit the argument that the aircraft was airworthy and would have safely landed after a tyre failure had it not been for the unlikely combinations of damage following a designed for tyre failure