that's not the 'fishy af' part. what's a bit fishy is the comedy of errors afterwards. only slightly though. it's entirely plausible. had he also tried unsuccessfully to urinate on the fire, then maybe i'd be doubtful.
In all of the zillion times that the same stuff happened without the accompanying errors you never heard about it.
If you look at major aviation or industrial disasters a great many of of them involve two or more unlikely to fail components failing at once. It's not reasonable to look at it after the fact and say "look, a coverup! those two systems wouldn't likely have failed at once!"
If you look at major aviation or industrial disasters a great many of of them involve two or more unlikely to fail components failing at once. It's not reasonable to look at it after the fact and say "look, a coverup! those two systems wouldn't likely have failed at once!"