Sigh. Debunked. Over and over. Do your own research. IF you care.

Out.

Perhaps it's just me, but somehow I think after getting back on the ground and consulting with counsel, cigarette-snatching by the FA might be considered acceptable, whereas spraying pax with fire extinguisher and risking eye injury etc. might have just enough whiff of assault to see if the airline would settle in order to avoid examining the question publicly.

Anybody else remember flying when the air inside the cabin looked like THIS, and barf bags regularly got used on long flights?

Yeah, a fire extinguisher is overkill. Pouring water on the fire seems reasonable, though.

No idea to what you're referring as "debunked."

A cigarette ash knocked into the crevice of a seat can smolder for a long time, then flash into major fire under the right conditions (like a high-oxygen environment…).
"Carelessly handled smoking materials" are an extremely common cause of residential fires. They build slowly, so people often have fallen asleep (as they also do on planes) or left the room (less likely) before smoke or flames are noticeable. By then, they may be ready for flashover. Smokers and nonsmokers (in multiple-unit housing) alike end up homeless, or dead. Accounts appear regularly in most newspapers—what variety of citations do you want? News reports? Building/transportation materials specs? FD/criminal investigations?

Some of my volunteer work involves coordinating with firefighters. We are tested on their training materials. We discuss forensics analysis of past and potential fires, as part of our function is hazmat recognition. On really fun days they set small fires of different types for fire-suppression practice (under carefully controlled conditions: at least that's the plan, cf. Los Alamos). I've handled all four common classes of fire extinguishers on live fires. I don't get a cookie unless the fire's out before the extinguisher. You?

Or is it you don't believe something-on-fire-in-plane=very bad thing? Sigh. Where to begin: Swissair 111? Valujet 592? LAX 737/Metroliner collision? (Resulting discussions of on-board materials in plastics-industry and aviation publications of the late 90s make interesting reading, if you have the background to decipher the organic chemistry.) Ricky Nelson's plane wasn't regular commercial service so I'll categorize that OT.

Plenty of older aircraft are still flying whose interiors give off toxic fumes when on fire, too.
Another bunch I hang with (play not work) is comprised of aviation geeks. They tolerate me because, when purloined aircraft accident-deconstruction vid is shown, I'm as like to be the one shouting "No, wait, back up about three frames!" Unlike me, most have actual grown-up careers in aviation—civil, military or both. Some work/ed in SAR, others are one or two degrees of separation from investigators on these events (instructor, CO etc.). Absent confabulation in other areas, I tend to accept their professional opinions/accounts, too.

Perhaps "older aircraft" was your issue? If your flying is limited to "developed" areas you won't see them any more, but elsewhere they're still in commercial service. I saw dozens of working 727s in ALA and TSE this past April. Doubt they all had spiffy new fire-retardant interiors. Even older craft are common in SS'n Africa. A relative who works in Antarctica says they still use DC-3s there, though that may be OT as "not in commercial service" either.

Re AC 797 and Stan Rogers, I've seen nothing that challenges the aircraft experiencing a fire that forced an emergency landing (maybe on those 9/11 conspiracy websites?), nor Mr. Rogers' death of smoke inhalation. The rumours of him making it off the plane then going back to save others are unproven, but barely relevant to whether or not fires are dangerous on airplanes. If that was what needed "debunking," I'm wondering what issue you could possibly have with a good-or-better question about a dead man's character?

So, in your opinion, I should disregard everything firefighter and aviation professionals say or publish in favour of your qualifications, which are...?