A320 down in Pakistan

Judging by the black cloud fuel burn 'mushroom' cloud that billowed up immediately after impact, I think this is very unlikely.

Amazing that 2 people on the flight appeared to have survived.....!

Yep, ATC transmission on first approach are indicating that ATC didn't think that they would make the first approach, and you'd think that if they were ignoring the gear down chimes and bongs ATC would also have verbally warned that don't have the gear down, so the very late botched go-around with a sink n scrape seems the most plausible theory.
Also, it seems that the aircraft had been operated on a regular basis until March 22nd, and then not again until 7th May for a 2 leg, then another break until operating a 2 leg on 19th May, then a 2 leg on 21st May, and then next day for the crash flight.

A320 (and variants) do not have the capability to dump fuel. The max landing weight is the same as max take off weight so it is not needed.

I'm referring to the tendency in the film world to make something appear simple, which isn't necessarily the case in the real world. Whilst I've not visited Karachi tower, it's possible the appropriate controller doesn't have a clear view in which to tell whether the undercarriage is down or not, so wouldn't be able to supply a warning.

It's part of the role to ensure the runway is available & clear of obstructions, & monitor the aircraft as it flies the final approach & lands; however, the practicalities of how much can be seen from the tower will be a function of the airfield layout, weather, etc - there are always compromises, unfortunately. The view from the tower could be the last line in the defence, but may be too late to change the outcome.

Indeed - occasionally it's been helpful, in in the old days perhaps, when speeds were slower, airfields smaller, etc: but these days, for airliners at large airports, there are better, & more reliable, protection systems on the aircraft.

There wasn't air traffic control is the 1930s, Eric... & not every aircraft is an airliner, or a jet. I'm familiar with the Gatwick example; the aircraft did land on the wrong runway, but there's no relationship between alerting the crew to a misidentified runway, & seeing whether the undercarriage is down. I've been involved in examples where a gear up warning has worked, but, as said, it's not always possible.

They were already focused on this a/c anyway, given that their initial approach seems to be questionable if its true they were at 3500' at 5nm distance from runway.......and were appearing to attempt a Khe Sahn approach in an A320!

ATC also immediately asked crew if they were going for a wheels up on the go-around, so were clearly watching it, so the theory of a badly misjudged initial approach and late go-around attempt with a premature gear retraction and subsequent sink back onto the engine nacelles and crew flying it off the engines, does start to seem the most plausible sequence of events.
Its astonishing the thing stayed in the air as long as it did to almost complete a circuit in the circumstances...!!!

Not ATC in the form we have it now, by any stretch of the imagination, & that's really not the point at issue: vigilance isn't the issue, either, it's the practicalities of what you can see from the tower. Agreed, workload can sometimes be an issue too, & as Aeropilot says, if the reports of their profile are correct, that would certainly have their attention, but whether that means they could see the state of the undercarriage, who knows, & I doubt was of any significance to the outcome.

So they either tried a belly up landing way too fast, or forgot the landing gear?

Wonder if it will transpire there were other issues like lack of flap control? (would explain an abortive/screwed up attempt at a belly landing?)