I tend to agree with grumpy.
As to the aircraft - I will await the results of the investigation into the incident with interest. I have confidence that the AAIB will conduct a thorough investigation and present the outcome clearly. I also hope that a clear cause can be found and that subsequent events can be fully identified. Like many other aviation professionals, I have some possible event scenarios in mind that may have been involved. Some may be right, some will not be. Informed 'rumour' such as one might find on this site is interesting but it's not my areas of expertise and I have nothing of substance to add to the discussion - so I read and think about the points raised whilst I await the investigation report.
On the topic of CFR/RFFS response, I do have some expertise and it is frightening to read some of the drivel here, especially from those who purport to have knowledge of the subject.
In response to Chu Chu (and I recognise he/she claims no particular knowledge), whilst you are quite correct that if there is no possibility of the Ethiopian aircraft re-igniting nothing physical would have stopped units standing by at the 787 fire from redeploying somewhere else. But without replenishing water and foam concentrate supplies (along with anything other media and equipment that might have been used), the immediate response capability would be so severely limited as to make the presence of the vehicles almost irrelevant. If hoses had been run out to hydrants for the first event, repacking them will take time and tenders without water/extinguishing media and without hoses to draw additional water are of even less value.
CFR/RFFS cover requirements involves many complexities and there are many sources of relevant information. Maybe it would be a good idea for some posters to look for some of it before spouting misleading rubbish.