Read the Smartlynx accident report. The initial causes for the ground strike may have been different, but the behaviour of the aircraft post go-around is chillingly similar. The guys in Tallinn were saved by quick thinking (they did a teardrop rather than a full circuit) plus luck (no obstacles), but still slammed into the approach lights. Without the built-in area AP-BDO would have made it to about the same point before 25L but already inside airport grounds:
https://avherald.com/h?article=4b57c3dd

I think Robdean and a couple of others are closest to the truth. I think the aircraft was serviceable during first, fast approach. Gear was forgotten or raised early. Why? Who knows. Maybe the CVR with give an answer. Time will probably tell.
As for the belly landing, if the tower saw the first scrape, then I think asking about it was a fair question.

There has been many mishaps from touching the runway with the gear up. Some get away with it others have not.

As for the cultural aspect mentioned above, does PIA penalise pilots for missed approaches, too much fuel etc?

Only 1400 meters to go to the 25L piano keys.
And just 200 meters to the right, uninhabited, rough but flat terrain in front of 25R. Which could have made it a much more survivable crash.
I know, hindsight is easy.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0c9abc6f82.png

ATC, realising they were too high and fast, offered them a 330 degree left turn to lose height and re-establish on the localiser. Why would you turn that down?

and the ATC transmissions on the video posted above are (time) edited and partial.
Those recording are mostly made by spotters small scanners that only work line of sight and will often miss transmissions., as was last demonstrated for instance in the recent Kathmandu Dash 8 accident as we had here dozen of pages debating a scenario based of the partial R/T which had little to do with the real situation if you had access to the full recording.....
Drawing conclusions on those partial communications is futile.

. .

Speedbrakes?
 

What aural alarm would sound when deploying speedbrakes with flaps? Maybe that distracted them?

theres no ‘automatically extend the gear option’
The only ‘protection is the gear can’t be extended over 10k above max extension speed

Common , do you understand the meaning of "established on ILS "? and who is responsible for what in this situation ?

... and in a normal landing configuration, shouldn't the flaps and slats be extended? on this picture (post118) flaps and slats seem to be still fully retracted. (sorry I fly helicopters and we don't have flaps here)

None.

The warning heard on the tape is the flap over speed. Nothing to do with speedbrakes.

If he'd seen the pod strike and sparks, and whether or not he had it would be hard to miss the smoke trails on climb-out, did the ATCO tell the aircraft they'd struck the runway? If not, why not?

Comparable gear-up strike at Shannon in 1999 with a Lockheed Electra. Pulled away from runway but two out of four engines failed, electrical power lost, etc, only just made it back round
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19990301-0

flaps full & speedbrakes is a single
chime master caution and yellow Speedbrakes message on the SD -lower ECAM screen. The speedbrakes will automatically retract if any of the high angle of attack protections are active -a prot or a max..

Very interesting picture from DIBO. They were quite literally seconds from reaching the clear ground in front of the runway. Dead sticking a medium jet is something we do not seriously train for, I have done it a handful of times in the last twenty years of sim training more for fun when time was left over than real training. If the picture of the aircraft post first attempt at landing is to be believed then the gear was up. When they selected it down would have been crucial on the second attempt and may well have made the difference to reaching the runway or at least landing short but everyone surviving like the British Airways 777 at Heathrow and the sad result we see here. Rob Dean's post 192 sums up pretty well what may well have led up to this.

I think you will find that all SOP's call for gear up after a positive rate of climb

Damaged fuel supply lines? Enough gets through at high power and the engines are obviously good enough to get them to 2000ft. But when the power is reduced so is the fuel pressure and the engines struggle.

There’s a lot of plumbing at the bottom of nacelle. Fuel Oil Heat exchange;Generator oil and fuel return lines; hydraulic pumps to name a few. It’s not designed to withstand and impact like that and damage to any one of those systems becomes rapidly fatal. The pictures show dark staining under the engines that support a fluid leak that could easily be catastrophic.

if they came in really hard and fast, and the mlg fully compressed, could there be enough wing flex for the engines to scrape?

I guess a Gear Up (even partially) touch down is a possibility. So is the engine stains a result of that, possibly.
By the way, did anybody show the METAR there?

Positive rate: as in positive vertical rate, rising baro altitude, rising radio altitude.