No, I do not feel the Boston 9-alarm fire was an act of arson. The fire began in the basement which is a typical place for fires to begin. Furnaces generally are located in basements, and many times furnaces are not inspected often enough to be sure they are safe. Basements also have water heaters, another potential source of fire. Clutter and sometimes garbage may be found in basements, so once a fire starts, it expands quickly. Unfortunately, basements also are used to store flammable items like paints, thinners, and even gasoline or other fuels. While likely preventable, I doubt this fire was arson.
I don't believe assuming the worst is the best idea. Arson is a terrible crime, but we shouldn't assume all fires are the result of arson. Fires start for several reasons and looking for evidence before considering the causes can lead to the wrong determination. I wouldn't consider it an act of arson until that accusation is proven.
According to an article by The Boston Globe, Fire Chief Joseph Finn has no reason to believe arson was involved. It was also noted, however, that the building had no history of any problems occurring. It seems at this point that there is no way to determine whether it was arson or not, but there is also no reason to think that it is anything but a fluke fire.
The question indeed speaks for itself about the question as a whole dealing with the whole issue. It is way too early to speak about the fire especially about speaking on the whole issue if we believe that it is an arson. We need to look at this issue way more.