This is unlikely, but not impossible.

You weren't there, you didn't know what conditions existed up there on the ship. Maybe something flammable was exposed. This could lead to fire which in turn could lead to more fire and burning. It could happen.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Apr 19 2022 03:54pm

He only used blogs because he was banned from this forum but probably had to post daily to get paid

I thought you never believed in things you could not personally verify.. Seems like you take Ivan's conspiracy and believe it with no proof or ability to verify.

Pretty sure it’s just the same dude switching between accounts to avoid suspensions.

I am not defending Chopsticks. I am just questioning something that Santara said because I have my doubts. Skepticism.

I'm actually you.

Yeppers.

And in this specific case, literally neither of you know for sure what really happened. You keep mentioning how unlikely that a cig could burn up a cruiser, which nobody disagrees with. But that is speaking in a general sense. And we are not talking about that. We are talking about this specific vessel and why it got blown up. You are no more right or wrong than Chopsticks.

Why would I believe the .1% event over the 80% event? What evidence do you have that makes the cigarette theory on equal footing?

I am not out to prove Chopstick's theory. I am pointing out that Santara's theory could be wrong.