This is an example of the explanatory inversion in conspiracy theories. In a typical explanatory exercise, some particular observation or occurrence requires an explanation. We think of disasters and crimes as the most egregious examples. The task is to retrace the causal chain and determine the most likely case.
A criminal trial is not exactly apt, because it tests only one hypothesis in the absence of all others: the objective at trial is to determine whether a certain person was the cause, not who of all people is the criminal.
We follow a typical exercise of assembling hypotheses, assigning a priori probabilities to them, and assembling evidence to test the likelihood of each hypothesis according to the evidence. In the end, we hope to have a confident determination of cause.
Conspiracy theories often invert the process, and by so doing fail due to subversion of support. Put simply, many conspiracy theories are explanations looking for a something to explain. Such is the case here. Whether real or imaginary, the story of UK government officials wanting to protect private interests is a salacious tidbit looking desperately for a place to be applied. But there just isn't enough controversy in the Luton fire to demand such an explanation. That's why Vixen is working so hard to stir one up. If something doesn't look right to her, it must be a sign that something needs that full-power explanation she's so cleverly concocted. And if you don't agree with her that something is as meatily controversial as she says it is, and for the reasons she says it is, well then you're just not as smart as she is and you have your head in the sand.
Conspiracy theories are about coming up with clever solutions, not about solving problems. It's about trying to show how clever the conspiracy theorist is, not trying to show what explanation is best supported by evidence.
