By process of elimination, the cigarette emerges as the most probable cause. It wasn’t arson, electrical, lightning, an appliance, or spontaneous combustion. How else would a heat source get introduced to an area where flammables were kept?
Now your are assuming! I am not a smoker just tired of people making conclusion not based on fact but assumption. Just like you assuming I am a smoker. I made a vaild agruement so stop the assumption
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Nice – They have no evidence but pick an easy target so more people hate the Smoker. If they do not know then the should not speculate
well use your brain, Little Dumb Person. Cigarettes are little mobile FIRES, and the store CAUGHT ON FIRE.
“If they do not know then the should not speculate”
LOL where does it say that they “do not know”? The article says they concluded.
Nice with the name calling – but you are right it does not read ‘don’t know’ it reads ‘remains unknown’ which means the same thing.
So who is the Little Dumb Person(lol)
By process of elimination, the cigarette emerges as the most probable cause. It wasn’t arson, electrical, lightning, an appliance, or spontaneous combustion. How else would a heat source get introduced to an area where flammables were kept?
Again an assumption – but if I had to guess I would say fire breathing dragon
LDP: Only a smoker would be so defensivie and obstinate and refuse to acknowledge the most probable cause.
Now your are assuming! I am not a smoker just tired of people making conclusion not based on fact but assumption. Just like you assuming I am a smoker. I made a vaild agruement so stop the assumption