Question about the Seattle arson fires

[1990 UM fan]

I read in an update about the case that the Blackstock lumber yard fire once thought to have been the target of an arsonist was not an arson but an accident. That doesn't explain to me as to why they found an unknown accelerant that caused fires raging to 7000 degrees that burned down warehouses and other buildings in the area. Firefighters weren't able to extinguish these blazes because they were deadly hot and the water from their hoses only made the fires bigger. The fires themselves were so hot they boiled concrete and evaporated steel. Can anyone here help clear my confusion? Did they or did they not find anyone responsible for these fires?

[RobinW]

The only updates I've ever seen claim that the fire was an accident (even though I can find no official source confirming it), but I'd really be interested to know how seriously they looked at this guy.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911...keller-caught/

Sure, he doesn't resemble the composite sketch at all, but just because those witnesses thought the guy looked a little suspicious doesn't mean that he was actually responsible for the fires. Most of Keller's known acts of arson were committed in 1992-93, three years after the lumberyard fire, but they do believe he had a thing for setting fires ever since he was a child. However, his M.O. was not to bring his own accelerant to start the fires, so he would have had to have used something that was already onsite to make the fires burn that strongly. I guess that make it easier to assume that the fire was an accident.

[1990 UM fan]

Originally Posted by RobinW

The only updates I've ever seen claim that the fire was an accident (even though I can find no official source confirming it), but I'd really be interested to know how seriously they looked at this guy.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911...keller-caught/

Sure, he doesn't resemble the composite sketch at all, but just because those witnesses thought the guy looked a little suspicious doesn't mean that he was actually responsible for the fires. Most of Keller's known acts of arson were committed in 1992-93, three years after the lumberyard fire, but they do believe he had a thing for setting fires ever since he was a child. However, his M.O. was not to bring his own accelerant to start the fires, so he would have had to have used something that was already onsite to make the fires burn that strongly. I guess that make it easier to assume that the fire was an accident.

Thanks for this info. I'm curious to know if this case is still open. Did they ever suspect Paul Keller was responsible for the other arsons?

[RobinW]

Originally Posted by 1990 UM fan

Thanks for this info. I'm curious to know if this case is still open. Did they ever suspect Paul Keller was responsible for the other arsons?

I can find no evidence that Paul Keller was ever seriously considered a suspect in the Blackstock Lumberyard fire, but here's an official newspaper article where they state that they believe it may have been caused by transients, not a professional arsonist. Apparently, the official ruling was not arson or accidental, but "undetermined".
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=5084,908059

[WishfulDreamer]

I've also read that the fires were considered accidental, but I don't know how that is since these fires were supposed to be full of chemicals and elements that created way hotter than average fires?

[1990 UM fan]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

I've also read that the fires were considered accidental, but I don't know how that is since these fires were supposed to be full of chemicals and elements that created way hotter than average fires?

I'm also curious to know what available chemicals might've been inside the buildings at the time of the fires that could've produced such an inferno.

[Schmoopie]

Wow, interesting stuff! I'm surprised that I'm not more up to date on this! Thanks for the info!