Massive Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris

[Ethel mermania]

No, the police should say what they know. If they have a reason to say it wasnt terrorism they should say why.

They were opening an investigation into a fire that was still burning. What were they going to say, if not "We're treating this as an accident"?

My thinking it was a construction accident is, based on ... well every construction project I have been in on, is conjecture. Based on what the public knows it is a more educated guess than terrorism, but it's still guesswork. I would prefer a "we don't think its terrorism", to a "it's not terrorism" while the thing is still burning. It gives me more confidence of a good investigation that covers all bases.

Did they actually say, definitively, "It's not terrorism"?

Again they may already may know the answer, and pending the investigation may not want to let it out. (Negligence on the part of a contractor for example which could lead to criminal charges). But then say so.

What would that do to prevent conspiracy theories?

---

RIght after the fire started some right wingers/conspiracy theorists said "no doubt they will now build a mosque there".
They were right.

Well, partially. The new Notre Dame is supposed to become a monument to diversity, including a synagogue, mosque and inclusivity center.

I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

No saying it isnt anything till you know what it is.

[Galloism]

He mentioned it would be rebuilt to reflect modern France, which has some varying connotations. I think that's where the idea of the shared church comes from.

Actually it was in a daily mail article that was widely shared online. The actual article on the website however does not mention it anymore,

Perhaps the daily fail stealth retracted it.

I was going to send it to a friend who would have had an utter fit over it.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I'm an American.

Weird.

Yeah, I know. It's weird that I like to have evidence before assuming that the French government set fire to one of its most treasured monuments. So put some up or stop telling us that we're weird for not believing you.

[The Blaatschapen]

Actually it was in a daily mail article that was widely shared online. The actual article on the website however does not mention it anymore,

Perhaps the daily fail stealth retracted it.

I was going to send it to a friend who would have had an utter fit over it.

Stop trolling me

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I'm an American.

Then you're even more likely to have blanket trust in the Government to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Jokes aside. Its not even the Government I'm skeptical of, necessarily; its Macron...that weasel would do ANYTHING to distract from the Yellow Vest protests.

President Macaroni may not be the best leader, but that doesn't change the fact that "Macron burned down Notre Dame" has basically the same logic behind it as "Bush did 9/11": there's absolutely no evidence behind it, and (at least in the latter case) quite a bit against it, but it's apparently easier to believe that elected officials are evil conspirators than it is to trust the word of experts in their field.

[Galloism]

Weird.

Yeah, I know. It's weird that I like to have evidence before assuming that the French government set fire to one of its most treasured monuments. So put some up or stop telling us that we're weird for not believing you.

How did those WMDs in Iraq work out?

[Hammer Britannia]

Guys, what if we're all wrong and it was Orthodox terrorists?

[Andsed]

Yeah, I know. It's weird that I like to have evidence before assuming that the French government set fire to one of its most treasured monuments. So put some up or stop telling us that we're weird for not believing you.

How did those WMDs in Iraq work out?

Yes governments lie. But that does not change the fact that there is no proof that the french government was behind the fire.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Yeah, I know. It's weird that I like to have evidence before assuming that the French government set fire to one of its most treasured monuments. So put some up or stop telling us that we're weird for not believing you.

How did those WMDs in Iraq work out?

I don't see how this is even vaguely relevant to what I said unless you seriously think that the only reason I'm disagreeing with you is because I blindly follow authority. Occam's razor cuts deep in this case.

[Dresderstan]

Guys, what if we're all wrong and it was Orthodox terrorists?

What if it were British Protestants who wanted to re-start the wars with France for the glory of Britannia. Normandy and Brittany are British clay.

[The Blaatschapen]

Guys, what if we're all wrong and it was Orthodox terrorists?

What if it were British Protestants who wanted to re-start the wars with France for the glory of Britannia. Normandy and Brittany are British clay.

I thought the British wanted to get out of Europe?

[Galloism]

How did those WMDs in Iraq work out?

Yes governments lie. But that does not change the fact that there is no proof that the french government was behind the fire.

No, there isn't. There's just several really funny coincidences.

1) Macron was set to give a speech where he was allegedly going to give big concessions to the yellow vesters - which was cancelled due to the fire
2) There were two ignition points
3) They declared nothing to see here while the building was literally still on fire
4) The statues on the roof, which would have been destroyed, had been removed for cleaning and polishing
5) Now Macron calls for national unity in the wake of the disaster.
6) Donations are now pouring into the French economy.

Hey, can you pass me that tinfoil? I need a hat.

[Andsed]

Yes governments lie. But that does not change the fact that there is no proof that the french government was behind the fire.

No, there isn't. There's just several really funny coincidences.

1) Macron was set to give a speech where he was allegedly going to give big concessions to the yellow vesters - which was cancelled due to the fire
2) There were two ignition points
3) They declared nothing to see here while the building was literally still on fire
4) The statues on the roof, which would have been destroyed, had been removed for cleaning and polishing
5) Now Macron calls for national unity in the wake of the disaster.
6) Donations are now pouring into the French economy.

Hey, can you pass me that tinfoil? I need a hat.

Fair enough I guess. But for now I feel like all these theories are just really weak.

[Ifreann]

They were opening an investigation into a fire that was still burning. What were they going to say, if not "We're treating this as an accident"?

Did they actually say, definitively, "It's not terrorism"?

What would that do to prevent conspiracy theories?

---

I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

No saying it isnt anything till you know what it is.

I could be wrong, but I really don't think they ever said "It's not terrorism".

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Yes governments lie. But that does not change the fact that there is no proof that the french government was behind the fire.

No, there isn't. There's just several really funny coincidences.

1) Macron was set to give a speech where he was allegedly going to give big concessions to the yellow vesters - which was cancelled due to the fire
2) There were two ignition points
3) They declared nothing to see here while the building was literally still on fire
4) The statues on the roof, which would have been destroyed, had been removed for cleaning and polishing
5) Now Macron calls for national unity in the wake of the disaster.
6) Donations are now pouring into the French economy.

Hey, can you pass me that tinfoil? I need a hat.

1) Him taking advantage of the fire =/= him causing the fire.
2) And? That could have been caused by something as simple as a poorly maintained extension cord that sparked at both ends. Not really that weird.
3) "Nothing to see here" is almost always code for "you're getting in our way, so leave".
4) It's almost as if the building was undergoing renovations and they'd want to get everything out so they can clean it and there's no risk of damaging it during said renovations.
5) Tf does this have to do with anything? Not everyone has a president who actively calls for divisiveness.
6) The donations given are a drop in the bucket compared to the French government's budget. Macron could match them 10:1 and it would barely show up on the graphs.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes governments lie. But that does not change the fact that there is no proof that the french government was behind the fire.

No, there isn't. There's just several really funny coincidences.

1) Macron was set to give a speech where he was allegedly going to give big concessions to the yellow vesters - which was cancelled due to the fire
2) There were two ignition points
3) They declared nothing to see here while the building was literally still on fire
4) The statues on the roof, which would have been destroyed, had been removed for cleaning and polishing
5) Now Macron calls for national unity in the wake of the disaster.
6) Donations are now pouring into the French economy.

Hey, can you pass me that tinfoil? I need a hat.

1) and? He still has to address the issues involved with the yellow vest movement.
2) source?
3) they declared they had ruled out arson. Not hard to do depending on the resources available. Say the ability to determine if unauthorized people had entered the attic, ability to quickly look for evidence of accelerants, the known danger of renovations surrounded by wood hundreds of years old, etc.
4) they had been removed for the renovations, which was also the most likely cause of fire. The renovations were scheduled before the yellow vest protests, removing the statues was a necessary part of the renovations.
5) as leaders always do, but it hasn't done a lot to stop the protests or shore up his government. Honestly portions of his government are probably going to be blamed for this fire, even though it was an accident.
6) money for fixing the cathedral that burned. They arent large enough to effect the greater french economy.

[Holy Tedalonia]

No, there isn't. There's just several really funny coincidences.

1) Macron was set to give a speech where he was allegedly going to give big concessions to the yellow vesters - which was cancelled due to the fire
2) There were two ignition points
3) They declared nothing to see here while the building was literally still on fire
4) The statues on the roof, which would have been destroyed, had been removed for cleaning and polishing
5) Now Macron calls for national unity in the wake of the disaster.
6) Donations are now pouring into the French economy.

Hey, can you pass me that tinfoil? I need a hat.

1) and? He still has to address the issues involved with the yellow vest movement.
2) source?
3) they declared they had ruled out arson. Not hard to do depending on the resources available. Say the ability to determine if unauthorized people had entered the attic, ability to quickly look for evidence of accelerants, the known danger of renovations surrounded by wood hundreds of years old, etc.
4) they had been removed for the renovations, which was also the most likely cause of fire. The renovations were scheduled before the yellow vest protests, removing the statues was a necessary part of the renovations.
5) as leaders always do, but it hasn't done a lot to stop the protests or shore up his government. Honestly portions of his government are probably going to be blamed for this fire, even though it was an accident.
6) money for fixing the cathedral that burned. They arent large enough to effect the greater french economy.

Really as it stands right now, is a possibility nothing more. However if I were to ever conceive a plot like this I’d want it during renovations, and use it to my upmost gain like to unify the nation under one goal. I do not doubt that there’s a good motive for Macron, but I don’t think nows the right time to call it.

[Spirit of Hope]

1) and? He still has to address the issues involved with the yellow vest movement.
2) source?
3) they declared they had ruled out arson. Not hard to do depending on the resources available. Say the ability to determine if unauthorized people had entered the attic, ability to quickly look for evidence of accelerants, the known danger of renovations surrounded by wood hundreds of years old, etc.
4) they had been removed for the renovations, which was also the most likely cause of fire. The renovations were scheduled before the yellow vest protests, removing the statues was a necessary part of the renovations.
5) as leaders always do, but it hasn't done a lot to stop the protests or shore up his government. Honestly portions of his government are probably going to be blamed for this fire, even though it was an accident.
6) money for fixing the cathedral that burned. They arent large enough to effect the greater french economy.

Really as it stands right now, is a possibility nothing more. However if I were to ever conceive a plot like this I’d want it during renovations, and use it to my upmost gain like to unify the nation under one goal. I do not doubt that there’s a good motive for Macron, but I don’t think nows the right time to call it.

I'm pretty willing to call it not arson, given the investigators already did that. This conspiracy would also require Macron somehow knowing there were going to be yellow vest protests shaking the stability of his government months before it happened. And he would then have to come up with this elaborate plan instead of facing the political issues.

Or once the protests and renovations are going he makes the call, to avoid appear on television, have his government fail to save a national historic monument, and only get small and temporary political support.

Neither of those sound very reasonable to me. Macron basically gains nothing, loses some, and has the potential to loose a lot.

[Fartsniffage]

Really as it stands right now, is a possibility nothing more. However if I were to ever conceive a plot like this I’d want it during renovations, and use it to my upmost gain like to unify the nation under one goal. I do not doubt that there’s a good motive for Macron, but I don’t think nows the right time to call it.

I'm pretty willing to call it not arson, given the investigators already did that. This conspiracy would also require Macron somehow knowing there were going to be yellow vest protests shaking the stability of his government months before it happened. And he would then have to come up with this elaborate plan instead of facing the political issues.

Or once the protests and renovations are going he makes the call, to avoid appear on television, have his government fail to save a national historic monument, and only get small and temporary political support.

Neither of those sound very reasonable to me. Macron basically gains nothing, loses some, and has the potential to loose a lot.

Eh, he would just have to have told Inspector Clouseau the the pink panther had been spotted in the Notre Dame roof.

[Galloism]

No, there isn't. There's just several really funny coincidences.

1) Macron was set to give a speech where he was allegedly going to give big concessions to the yellow vesters - which was cancelled due to the fire
2) There were two ignition points
3) They declared nothing to see here while the building was literally still on fire
4) The statues on the roof, which would have been destroyed, had been removed for cleaning and polishing
5) Now Macron calls for national unity in the wake of the disaster.
6) Donations are now pouring into the French economy.

Hey, can you pass me that tinfoil? I need a hat.

1) Him taking advantage of the fire =/= him causing the fire.
2) And? That could have been caused by something as simple as a poorly maintained extension cord that sparked at both ends. Not really that weird.
3) "Nothing to see here" is almost always code for "you're getting in our way, so leave".
4) It's almost as if the building was undergoing renovations and they'd want to get everything out so they can clean it and there's no risk of damaging it during said renovations.
5) Tf does this have to do with anything? Not everyone has a president who actively calls for divisiveness.
6) The donations given are a drop in the bucket compared to the French government's budget. Macron could match them 10:1 and it would barely show up on the graphs.

As I said, it's really convenient. Sometimes convenient things happen.

Regarding number 3, I didn't mean literally "nothing to see here". I mean they ruled out foul play before the fire was even contained. That's impressive. I've seen several fire investigations, and although they're not typically all that long, i've yet to see one that can rule out foul play while the blaze still burns.

Regarding number two, i think we should probably jail any twisted fuck who would extend an extension cord from the rooftop to the north bell tower through midair.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Really as it stands right now, is a possibility nothing more. However if I were to ever conceive a plot like this I’d want it during renovations, and use it to my upmost gain like to unify the nation under one goal. I do not doubt that there’s a good motive for Macron, but I don’t think nows the right time to call it.

I'm pretty willing to call it not arson, given the investigators already did that. This conspiracy would also require Macron somehow knowing there were going to be yellow vest protests shaking the stability of his government months before it happened. And he would then have to come up with this elaborate plan instead of facing the political issues.

Or once the protests and renovations are going he makes the call, to avoid appear on television, have his government fail to save a national historic monument, and only get small and temporary political support.

Neither of those sound very reasonable to me. Macron basically gains nothing, loses some, and has the potential to loose a lot.

The “temporary political support” would likely do more then what you implied. As it builds a reputation base for Macron and his supporters, to the point where people will likely say, “they were the ones who rebuilt Norte Dame”. It also harms the standing of the opposition. If your protesting and causing chaos for the French government, a claim that they are interfering with the reconstruction of Norte Dame is very possible. I think it is also a stretch to say “the government failed to save a national historical monument” as the fire department are likely not being order by the government.

[Galloism]

No, there isn't. There's just several really funny coincidences.

1) Macron was set to give a speech where he was allegedly going to give big concessions to the yellow vesters - which was cancelled due to the fire
2) There were two ignition points
3) They declared nothing to see here while the building was literally still on fire
4) The statues on the roof, which would have been destroyed, had been removed for cleaning and polishing
5) Now Macron calls for national unity in the wake of the disaster.
6) Donations are now pouring into the French economy.

Hey, can you pass me that tinfoil? I need a hat.

1) and? He still has to address the issues involved with the yellow vest movement.
2) source?
3) they declared they had ruled out arson. Not hard to do depending on the resources available. Say the ability to determine if unauthorized people had entered the attic, ability to quickly look for evidence of accelerants, the known danger of renovations surrounded by wood hundreds of years old, etc.
4) they had been removed for the renovations, which was also the most likely cause of fire. The renovations were scheduled before the yellow vest protests, removing the statues was a necessary part of the renovations.
5) as leaders always do, but it hasn't done a lot to stop the protests or shore up his government. Honestly portions of his government are probably going to be blamed for this fire, even though it was an accident.
6) money for fixing the cathedral that burned. They arent large enough to effect the greater french economy.

Re: number 2, this was reported on earlier in the thread.

Okay... now can we speculate? The odds of two different fires starting at the same time in the same building seems quite remote.

I don't know what to think, to be frank. One fire started near the roof top while a second fire started in the north bell tower. From the link:

Michel Picaud, from the Friends of Notre Dame organization responsible for the renovation efforts at the cathedral, told NBC News that, to his knowledge, the church's organ and stained glass windows were not damaged.

"The entire roof is fully destroyed," Picaud said. "The fire started up near the roof top while another fire started in the north bell tower."

For those worried about the pipe organ, it seems to be ok.

Re: number 3, that's ridiculous. You can't rule out something without having examined any of the physical evidence.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

1) Him taking advantage of the fire =/= him causing the fire.
2) And? That could have been caused by something as simple as a poorly maintained extension cord that sparked at both ends. Not really that weird.
3) "Nothing to see here" is almost always code for "you're getting in our way, so leave".
4) It's almost as if the building was undergoing renovations and they'd want to get everything out so they can clean it and there's no risk of damaging it during said renovations.
5) Tf does this have to do with anything? Not everyone has a president who actively calls for divisiveness.
6) The donations given are a drop in the bucket compared to the French government's budget. Macron could match them 10:1 and it would barely show up on the graphs.

As I said, it's really convenient. Sometimes convenient things happen.

Regarding number 3, I didn't mean literally "nothing to see here". I mean they ruled out foul play before the fire was even contained. That's impressive. I've seen several fire investigations, and although they're not typically all that long, i've yet to see one that can rule out foul play while the blaze still burns.

Regarding number two, i think we should probably jail any twisted fuck who would extend an extension cord from the rooftop to the north bell tower through midair.

Yeah, convenient things can happen.

As I recall, they haven't definitively ruled out foul play, but they think it's unlikely and they're approaching the investigation as though it's an accident, which it probably is.

And I don't mean a literal extension cord doing that, I was just using that as an example. Modern electric machinery is complicated, and it's not out of the question that a short somewhere could cause fires in multiple locations.

To restate: I'm not saying it absolutely wasn't intentional, it very well could have been for all I know. What I am saying is that going into this debate under the assumption that it was intentional is both incredibly insulting to the people who were trying to save it and the literal definition of baseless speculation.

[Holy Tedalonia]

To restate: I'm not saying it absolutely wasn't intentional, it very well could have been for all I know. What I am saying is that going into this debate under the assumption that it was intentional is both incredibly insulting to the people who were trying to save it and the literal definition of baseless speculation.

How is it offensive, if they aren’t related to the gov or potential plot at all? It’s almost like you expect them to take direct orders from Macron.

[Galloism]

As I said, it's really convenient. Sometimes convenient things happen.

Regarding number 3, I didn't mean literally "nothing to see here". I mean they ruled out foul play before the fire was even contained. That's impressive. I've seen several fire investigations, and although they're not typically all that long, i've yet to see one that can rule out foul play while the blaze still burns.

Regarding number two, i think we should probably jail any twisted fuck who would extend an extension cord from the rooftop to the north bell tower through midair.

Yeah, convenient things can happen.

As I recall, they haven't definitively ruled out foul play, but they think it's unlikely and they're approaching the investigation as though it's an accident, which it probably is.

And I don't mean a literal extension cord doing that, I was just using that as an example. Modern electric machinery is complicated, and it's not out of the question that a short somewhere could cause fires in multiple locations.

To restate: I'm not saying it absolutely wasn't intentional, it very well could have been for all I know. What I am saying is that going into this debate under the assumption that it was intentional is both incredibly insulting to the people who were trying to save it and the literal definition of baseless speculation.

I just think it's suspicious, that's all.

I'm a bit of a suspicious person by nature though (there's a reason why i'm security captain of our group at work, just saying), and I'm not saying Macron personally slipped in and set a fire, but the circumstances are exceptionally suspicious to an outside observer.