Indy Anna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,010
- Reaction score
- 3,450
I would think that, if the propane tanks fueled the fire (i.e., if they were the source or a factor in the fire), the fire would have been less destructive on the upper levels of the house. Although the flames would still travel to the upper levels of the house, the propane would have remained in the basement so that the fire above ground would have been less intense and likely not as quick-burning as the fire in the basement. Does this make sense?My husband pointed out something I hadn't considered.
Propane gas is heavier than air.
Not being an expert on arson, I'm not sure if this is significant or not. I tend to think it is but I'm not sure what the significance is.
The significance could be that no evidence of the children's remains indicates they were in the basement when the fire started and the lack of remains is due to the intensity of the fire which was concentrated in the basement. The discovery of the grandparents' and pets' remains, then, could mean they were on an upper level of the house when the fire began, were overcome by smoke inhalation, and their bodies charred when the house crumbled to the ground.
I'm not certain about this, and if I'm correct I know it doesn't help solve the case. How would anyone know where the children were when the fire started if their remains aren't found? They could've been in the basement, but then again they may not have been in the house. We're right back where we started.