TAM confirmed that the right engine revers thruster had been disconected. This was confirm with the Airbus manual, allowing the airplane to operate in this condition during ten days befor reperation.
But this is only the half of the truth. Because Airbus makes restrictions in that case, and this restrictiones had not been observed. You may land during this time only on absolutely dry runways of great length and carrying far less than the maximum weight. But the airport has a very short runway, was in that moment wet und the aircraft heavely loaded. Under this conditions it had no clearence to operate. The reponsability of the fatal accident has by no means the aircompany TAM. In this case it is the minor question why the pilot landed with overspeed, if the runway was slippery (the reverse thrusters work independently of the surface conditions - if they work, naturally!) or why the pilot's decision to take off again come too late. In that conditions the airplane was not allowed to fly.

Claus Reyno, Toledo, Spain

Apparently this tragedy has become far more a political matter than its essence as an airplane crash.
There are enough indications (video recordings of landing for one) to show the plane had other reasons to end up crashing where it did, so far to the left from the runway end (no skidding off!).
The truth of the matter is the opposition (+ the media) are trying at any cost to nail the government for the crash.
Naturally there are lots of problems to be solved here, mainly caused by: huge growth in the number of passengers flying, overbooking and pressure by greedy airlines, and even inability by under-staffed (and badly paid) military air traffic controllers (many cannot communicate in English properly). The Air Force will tell us their equipment is fine, but that's hard to confirm (though int'l aviation authorities back such statements).
There are problems, indeed. But the Tam plane crash seems to be no more than an extra terrible, sad fatality in the middle of a crisis.

Jorge Santiago, São Paulo, Brazil

I speak Portuguese and I saw a Brazilian TV interview where they showed the plane moving down the runway and their "aviation expert" claimed that the reverse thrusters were both operating. He claimed he could see the effect of reverse thrust on the water on the runway and it must have been both sides operating as otherwise the plane would have veered to one side. Shortly after that a small flame appears to come from one of the engines which he claimed could happen under sudden acceleration. So his theory is that the pilot realised he couldn't stop and at the last minute he tried to take off and go around again. Of course the important question is why was he travelling faster than some other aircraft appeared to be at the same point. There was a vaguely similar incident with an A320 in Warsaw in 1996, in which a couple of people died. On that occasion there was a strong tailwind and reverse thrust was slow to operate and the aircraft impacted something at the end of the runway.

Andrew Kelsey, Royston, UK