$WHACKD

This is my own personal thought and maybe not the first to think it. I don't have much evidence to cite besides what has already been posted several times, but hear me out....

There's that list that has been going around that "proves" the fire was intentional. The People in charge were conveniently out of town that that day, the fire hydrants were dry, escaped routes blocked, no sirens used...I'm sure most have seen the list of screw ups that day. Being thousands of miles away and information overload from the internet, It's hard to verify what on the list is true and what isn't. The general consensus is "burn out the locals so the rich can steal the land".

The one thing on the list that my mind keeps coming backto is that the children were sent home early that day. I've seen reports of less than a hundred are dead/missing to reports of several hundred dead/missing. Has there been any explanations as to why they were sent home (if true)? was it a random 1/2 day of school, fire drill, for fire evacuations? (were the parents notified of this?)

Now, this is where I put on my own tin foil hat...Homes are commonly passed down/inherited thru several generations of family. But...if there is no "next generation" of family to inherit the land, what happens? The property is abandoned/auctioned off or sold.

Sending the children home that day, unsupervised while most parents were at work almost guaranteed certain death. Young, inexperienced, panic and scared, it's easy to see why so many died. Homes, families, children, hope of a future is all lost.

Then in swoops corporations and realtors offering to buy up land while the rubble is still smoking.

Did "THEY" intentional kill the kids, leaving the grieving parents hopeless of a future, nothing to pass on to their children, making it more likely the parents would be overwhelmed and defeated and more likely to sell the land?

Is this a common theory or has my tin foil hat been sitting a crooked since this whole thing started?