The very simple reluctance to go around is well documented as a major cause of landing accidents. IMHO one reason for this is check and training concentrates on the difficult manoeuvres of V1 cuts, OEI missed approaches, raw data ILS etc, the garden variety multi mised approach is not practiced because it is so simple!
The other reason is the vast majority of approaches terminate in a successful landing, so therefore most crew come to expect that will be the case. When conditions conspire against the, especially when not expected, the chances of a landing accident increase. A version of "get homeitis", if you like.
Nitpicker330 makes a very good point, if the crew had visual reference then they just flew into the water(not likely). The only logical conclusion, supported by mild undershoot (via the published FDR, )is a lack of visual reference, certainly insufficient visual reference to identify profile decay. Hence a land short. When the captain recognised this it was far far too late. Any comment, and I mean any comment about runway unsighted @ 150 feet (unless conducting cat11or cat111) is call for an immediate go around. Scenario, if one of the crew members makes a statement that he can't see the runway, and the other crew continues, exactly what use to you is the unsighted pilot? He may as well not be on the flight deck. By contueing descent after that statement the unsighted pilot is rendered useless to you as a PM. Who in their right mind would willingly render their PM useless to them?
Two crew is two crew, and as such requires two brains two different points of view, believe me you want your PM to be on the ball actively monitoring, supporting, challenging you etc. when one crew member states" I can't see the runway" @ 150, that is as big of a red flag you are ever going to get.
If this scenario were in a simulator, and you could flight freeze the situation, and ask a couple of open questions of each crew member, then they would collectively decide that the only option at 150 feet was a go around.
We can all learn from this, because most crew in this situation usually end in up in the morgue and an interview is not possible. This crew are very very lucky, and their interview should reveal why they kept descending on an NPA without sufficient visual reference, and why oh why did they not carry out missed approach at the very latest @ 150 feet.