I haven't seen it either, thanks for posting the link.
I figured they'd go the path of the "official" explanation (which is fiction IMO). I think the preceeding DC-10 was completely innocent. According to Time magazine's aviation reporter, the French authorities mentioned the day of the accident that the runway was literally littered with engine parts. Think about that for a moment.....engine parts everywhere. I can only presume they meant "Concorde" engine parts since the preceeding DC-10 managed to make it to it's destination.
Take the known circumstances into account, and utilize a little of Occam's razor. After the loud bang heard on the CVR, engines 1 and 2 were both providing only a small fraction of their normal power, so much that the Flight Engineer was heard reminding the FO several times to watch the airspeed.
Concorde was veering left down the runway, the official story blames a missing spacer that supposedly caused drag and pulled the aircraft to the left. But wouldn't a catastrophic twin engine failure on the left side of Concorde, in the latter portions of the takeoff sequence, do exactly the same thing, push the aircraft left? Look where the Concorde is relative to the runway in this shot. Winds that day were runway heading @ 3kts (no significant crosswinds).
You can see just how far off runway heading that stricken bird was flying when it was photographed by the taxiing 747 pax as it passed by. The perspective of the pax's last image clearly displays the Concorde not far from directly above the 747 on the taxiway, the pax was barely able to get the shot I imagine.
In his image you can pretty easily see all the oddly symmetrical cuts to the bottom of the wing with fuel pouring out of them. Those aren't holes from chunks of rubber....how ridiculous. Could those be caused by detached compressor blades? We have seen this kind of thing before. Occam's razor dictates the least complex occurance as the most likely cause.
We have the "a wear-strip burst a tire leading to fuel tank penetration by rubber tire parts, leading to massive fuel loss causing engine failure culminating in a loss-of-control crash" vs. "uncontained twin engine failure" on a seriously high-performance afterburning mach 2.3 experimental aircraft. What is the most likely explanation? A catastrophic uncontained engine failure can certainly and more than likely burst a tire with the ejection of high speed compressor blades.
The problem is if the Concorde was found to have suffered twin engine failure on the same side of the plane...leading directly to a stall/loss-of-control, chances are quite high that it would have lost the certification needed to fly transatlantic. What then?
I think the "meat" of the whole story lies in what the authorities said the day of the accident, that engine parts were littering the runway. The official explanation does not mention these engine parts as being found, and it sure does not jive with the Concorde managing to run over a solitary detached DC-10 engine wear strip lying on the runway amidst a littering of engine parts that the Concorde managed to miss entirely.