There are several important new pieces of information in the mix.

As usual, the sources of the information matter. The motives of the people supplying the information matter. As usual, the pertinence to the facts matter.

Now is not the time for censoring ideas. Nor is it the time to avoid pejorative thinking. Now is the time for cold beady eyed analysis.

A sober consideration of the circumstances surrounding the fire would have to include consideration of the possibility that the fire may have started by accident. By accident we mean that the fire may have started without any deliberate acts having been undertaken by any individuals currently known or unknown.

Next, is the possibility that the fire started as a result of negligence.

In this case the fire is assumed to be the result of acts taken or not taken, that would have prevented the outbreak of the fire.

The most sinister branch of this line of reasoning would posit that the fire began as a result of deliberate acts undertaken by individuals known or unknown. That is, the fire may have started as the result of an act of arson.

The standard saws of motive, means and opportunity do apply here.

No serious observers would consider this line of reasoning without a clear path of logic showing how the perpetrator of the arson would have had the motive, the means, and the opportunity.

All the necessary elements are not present to draw conclusions.

But scenarios that were previously improbable can now be shown to be in fact, quite probable.

Specifically, Adam Vaughan alluded to a certain  redacted who had been redacted the other redacted, while redacted that redacted

redacted statements open the possibility that this individual was not in fact redacted, but rather the redacted, by proxy, of redacted Queen Street West.

This would explain the oddity of redacted, who when redacted, did not know that the building had burned down.

If the putative tenant is actually redacted the property, then that would give him or her a motive for burning down the building. That motive is insurance money.

Further in this line of reasoning, if no one could easily prove redacted, the redacted could easily be seen to have an airtight alibi against accusations that he or she profited from the fire.

On the subject of the subject's means of starting the fire, one must consider redacted, and his alleged training redacted.

Did the subject have the knowledge to construct redacted device? It's hard to see how not.

As for opportunity, the subject had all the time in the world to redacted catastrophe. And catastrophe did come. On 20 February 2008, a fire destroyed 7 buildings, including one housing thousands of dollars of my equipment.