Considering the aircraft took off with an 11 knot tailwind, from a rough part of the runway due for resurfacing, without a spacer, with 10 extra items of unweighed luggage it was predestined for disaster.
Air France (and BA when it flew Concorde) also ignored a safety report years ago with many recommendations one including inserts in the fuel tanks to avert damage. This was due to numerous incidents based on a history of 48 plus tyre burst incidents, numerous other tyre wear and inflation issues.
While many aircraft have incidents Concorde had an Achilles heel, that partially due to it being a huge money pit from day one, no expenditure was seen as justified until the boundaries were pushed too far and lives were lost. The most serious ones being:
1979 Burst tyres 5 and 6 engines 1 & 2 replaced wheel and brake damage locking hydraulics
Engines 1 & 2 replaced
1979 burst tyre 6-wing damage hydraulic servo valve and landing gear
1979 Washington burst tyre 5 destruction of wheel, tanks 2,5,and 6 penetrated, hydraulic, and electrical circuits torn from aircraft and engine 2 damaged
1979 Washington Burst tyre 6 damage engine 2-intake and rubber marks/denting on wing.
1979 burst tyre 3 engine 3 damaged landing gear damaged
1979 Burst tyre 4 Wheels n° 7 and 8 damaged and engines 3 and 4
1979 Burst tyres 5, 6, 7, and 8 electrical failure and wheel deflector
1980 Burst tyre 8 braking systems jam, hydraulic system failure and wheel
1980 Burst tyre 8 Burst Takeoff damage engine 3, gear door and tyre deflector
1981 Burst tyre 2 Engine 1 & 2 damaged
1981 burst tyre 5 damage engine 2 and gear
1981 Burst tyres 1 & 2, tank 5 penetrated, hydraulic damage and elevon and engines 1 & 2
1981 Burst tyre 6 fuselage damage, damage engine 2 and brake servo valve and wheel deflector
1981 Burst tyres 1 & 2, hydraulic damage and tyre deflector
1982 Burst tyre 6 Burst damage landing gear and hydraulics
1984 Burst tyre 2 wing damage and engine 2 and deflector
1984 Burst tyre 1 damage brakes and tyre deflector
1985 Burst tyre 8 servo valve, landing gear wheel and hydraulic damage
1985 Burst tyre 7 damage landing gear and hydraulics
1985 Burst tyre 5 Burst damage fuselage, door, engines 1 & 2 and tank 5 penetrated
1987 11/08/87 G-BOAC New York Burst tyres 1,2,4,5,6 and 8 damage brakes, wing, engine 3, and gear doors
1,2,4,5,6 and 8 Burst Braking
1988 Deflation tyre 3, loss of wheel bolts, wing impact and damage to tank 7
1988 Burst tyre 1 damage brakes and hydraulics
1988 tyre 7 pressure loss damage brakes and hydraulics
1993 burst tyres 7 & 8 damage fuselage, landing gear and actuator, air intake tyre mark, air intake engine 3, wing root fairing and deflector
1993 Burst tyre 4 damage brakes, landing gear jam, wing damage, tank 8 penetrated, hydraulics, engine 3 damaged
1993 burst tyre 2, damage servo valve and landing gear and brake piping
1993 Burst tyre 2 damage wing and tank 1 penetrated
1995 Burst tyre hydraulic leak
1998 Burst tyre 8 damage servo valve
2000 Burst tyre 4 Burst Servo valve and landing gear
2000 Takeoff Deflector
Concorde was a brilliant innovation from it's prototype in 1968 into service in the late 70's but neglected and became antiquated rather quickly.
What you said in the Brazilian case also fits the Concorde accident. I think most people would find that the real fault was in the design of the plane. The fact that a simply blown tire could damage the fuel system (& potentially lead to a fire) had been known & ignored by the plane's designers & operators for years. But as if for national pride, the French courts sometimes fail to blame high profile French corporations. A good example of which is the finding in the 1988 Paris Air Show crash of an A320 where it failed to climb after performing a low pass & crashed into trees. The pilot who claimed the new fly-by-wire system had failed to accept his throttle input, was found guilty & sentenced to prison time. It is incomprehensible to me that a well trained pilot would allow his plane to fly into trees when all he had to do was increase power. But that's what the courts said.