I will say it again, that is still speculation on some folk's part just like the cigarette thing.
We agree on that. In fact, I made that very point in an earlier post in this thread.
Early reports said that it started on a balcony, but did it really?
I understand that the experts identify the place where a fire starts in a very early stage in an investigation and use that information to identify possible sources of ignition, etc. Thus, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of this statement in the most recent reports.
When the final investigation report is published, I'll read it and make my conclusions basaed on the evidence that they present.
So will we all. Nonetheless, I don't see any reason not to state what's obvoius from the information at hand.
There was an accelerant involved to generate that intense heat and fast spreading fire.
If one regards the fuels carried aboard the ship as accelerants, the involvement of an accelerant seems very likely as not much else would have generated enough heet to melt the steel decks of the balconies. Of course, one cannot discount the possiblity that the presence of an accelerant was the work of an arsonist yet.
The cause of the fire - electrical malfunction.
That's certainly plausible, but it seems unlikely.