> The fact that his apartment is 'charred' suggests he was doing stuff in it. Or, it suggests that there was a fire, which is not really up for debate. > Coul

> The fact that his apartment is 'charred' suggests he was doing stuff in it. Or, it suggests that there was a fire, which is not really up for debate. > Could be he took the materials with him as he was trying to escape out the back window You are making up a hypothesis to make someone sound guilty with no evidence. > I think it's useful that this was reported on, because it could make people more wary of shelling out money to a guy who was recklessly endangering others even if there were no nefarious motives. This is a poor opinion. First, he has not been found guilty of "reckless endangement", and you are just assuming he's guilty. Do you also expect to see reporting every time someone recklessly endangers others by driving at high speeds through a school zone, or accidently runs through a stop sign? Publishing accusations of someone (especially a very easily google-able person) being a terrorist is not something that should be done lightly without proof. Hell, right now I'm pretty sure I have both bleach and ammonia in my apartment as regular cleaning supplies. When combined, these ingredients are dangerous, but that sure as shit doesn't mean I'm endangering others just by possessing them.