תוספות on ("כתובות ל״ג עמ׳ ב׳ "אלמלי) explains that the גמרא assumes that חנניה, מישאל, & עזריה were not forced to actually worship idolatry, but merely to bow down to a meaningless statue dedicated to the honor of the king. The גמרא says the reason they stood their ground and refused was only because they were tortured, but if they hadn't been tortured they would have bowed to the statue. The insight of תוספות here, quoting רבינו תם, is that they would have been fully within their rights to bow to the meaningless statue, if not for the torture, and that the situation (forced submission on pain of torture and potential death) is what called for a קידוש ה׳, not the nature of the act (i.e., there's nothing wrong with a meaningless gesture to a meaningless statue to show honor to the king and get him to leave them alone).
But this תוס׳ concludes, immediately after presenting this argument, with, "but it does seem like עבודה זרה, which is kind of a difficulty."
Furthermore, on עבודה זרה ג׳ עמ׳ ב׳, this גמרא is referenced by תוס׳ again, and the opinion of ר״ת is again presented, but this time without the contradictory concluding statement.
So who wrote that dissenting opinion in the תוס׳ on כתובות ל״ג עמ׳ ב׳?