lomapaseo
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
There have been complaints that eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen fire prior to the tyre burst were ignored. We've looked at the BEA report and established that
1. the timeline reveals that the crew received no fire warnings or indication of engine failure until after rotation had commenced (which rather rules out pilot error);
2. the engines reveal no physical evidence of having been on fire.
I've asked what else might have been on fire prior to the tyre burst apart from the engines, and why, and why no physical evidence for it has been found, but no-one has answered. Silence is Golden.
We've also looked at the pictures apparently shot from an aircraft on one of the South taxiways, established that the viewing angle is so acute that accurate estimates from occupants of aircraft in that area of what happened where on the runway are unlikely, and because of that and their distance from Concorde, that their verbal testimony was unlikely to add much beyond what can be gleaned from the photographs themselves, which all show that there was no fire on the RH side of the aircraft, contradicting the claims of the firemen.
[In the process of examining the photos and timeline we've also established that there was an aircraft somewhere on S1, that after the tyre burst but before rotation Concorde started to swing to the left, that only Concorde's crew could see exactly what was in front of them, and that on this basis the early rotation was justified to avoid a runway excursion to the left and possible collision with the aircraft on S1.]
I havent read the trial transcript (can't read French) but from news reports and the comments posted here I've gained the impression that Continental's lawyers didn't directly challenge Concorde's airworthiness, but went to great lengths to try to establish a preexisting fire that mitigated the influence of the titanium strip, and therefore the culpability and liability of their client. Please correct me if I have this wrong.
So all in all, Continental's argument appears to me to have been examined and found wanting.
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
I think it is a subset of 2, as you state. Concorde landed or stopped safely after every other tyre burst.
Old Fella
I guess many of those on the accident flight had dreamed of supersonic flight, and look what happened to them. I think the loss of the opportunity by deSitter is somewhat less than their loss of life.
Not to diminish your statement I think that similar can be said for anyone who ever got onto an aeroplane, but never got off again. But I agree with you.
Edit: I should add that on page 92 of the BEA report, the text accompanying the photographs includes a general summary of eyewitness statements.