Well said Bud.
A couple of things had occurred to me:
The thread keeps referring to a smell of fuel being reported in the cabin. Reported by whom? If a reliable source had reported that, surely they would have reported other salient points (such as crew announcements etc).
There are comments referring to landing with a fuel leak. I understood the Captain had reported an oil leak so where does the fuel leak idea come from?
Does anybody here have experience of the old paraffin blow torches? The damn stuff wouldn't light until the jet was pre-heated and the paraffin pressurised. If the fire was indeed fuel, how was it pressurised, given that the engine had apparently been stopped for quite some time (presumably in flight)?
On the other hand, the Saudia L-1011 disaster in 1980 has never been given a root cause of the fire that destroyed that aircraft and killed so many. But then, the accident report was compiled by the Presidency of Civil Aviation. Having worked for them at the time of this incident, I wouldn't have any faith in what they said anyway. However, I remember seeing a documentary some years ago covering an investigation by the UK AAIB into what could have initiated the fire. And the conclusion there was it was most likely due to a tiny leak in a hydraulic line, resulting in atomised fluid being sprayed onto and soaking the insulation cladding the centre engine exhaust where it was routed through the cargo hold. And in their tests, they replicated this theory and showed an extremely intense fire. So, is it possible the fire seen in the SIA videos could have been burning hydraulic fluid, rather than fuel? To the Captain and the fire crews, a fire is a fire and it would be natural to assume it was fuel that was burning. Perhaps it wasn't?