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 not tortured, but if they had been tortured they would have bowed to the statue. The insight of תוספות here, quoting רבינו תם, is that even though it was a meaningless statue not bowing down to it was still a קידוש ה׳.
But immediately after presenting this explanation תוס׳ concludes that the language of the gemora seems to suggest that it was an real idol.
Furthermore, on עבודה זרה ג׳ עמ׳ א׳, 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׳?