I see the ILS requires 800m vis and has a DA at 200' agl. One assumes they had something better than those to make a 2nd attempt. I also assume that during their 2 hours holding some local operators also made G/A's and diverted. Hint, Hint. Was the ILS working? The NPA requires 160m & 461'.
In post #30 it mentions they seem to make both G/A's from >1500'. Why? If true that is very high and early and they would have been IMC. Even in WS this is quite early unless they had a "WS ahead" warning.
The other curiosity, if FR is correct, is their choice of such high altitudes for their GA's & holding, unless this was a fuel saving measure, but they had plenty. (I have used high holding levels to both be above uncomfortable weather and be at an efficient TOD for return to destination or the diversion alternate.) Against this is the time taken from Wx improvement to FAF on approach.
#77 then tells us that they rose to 4000' on 2nd GA before plummeting. That's 2500', and if they were pitched up by GA thrust and 'lost it' could explain the profile, but 4000', with correct technique, should be enough to recover from a stall. FDR will tell us.
If they did make a GA from 1500'QNH = 4nm from THR and they struck the ground at the THR it does suggest a steep climb & descent. They'd already made 1 GA so were current with the manoeuvre. Do FlyDubai use monitored approaches; manually flown GA's or re-engage CMD; had the crew been there before?
There must have been pressure from somewhere, FTL's or other, not to divert to a close alternate and sit in the ground for an improvement. With loads of fuel and perhaps 2 - 3 sector FTL considerations I can understand their decision might have been coloured.
I hope they find the CVR as well. I would expect that to have much valuable information and put meat on the bones of the sterile FDR.