Notre Dame fire conspiracies

Spook_ie

It was all about Brexit, now the EU can add more to the UKs exit bill as a share of the reconstruction costs plus add a whip round for any other public buildings they want to upgrade and makes the Brexit less likely

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please don't dispute mod warnings on thread. I've deleted it in any case.

Bannasidhe

Al Aqsa Mosque went on fire at the same time as Notre Dame...

https://www.thejournal.ie/jerusalem-mosque-fire-4593650-Apr2019/

Apparently it was started by children...

Has anyone questioned the children of Paris?!?!?

Wayne Gorsky

Likely as an accident may seem, the question really has to be how the authorities and media could possibly be content with “Oops” as an explanation for the disaster at this point, not least in the light of all those other catholic churches in France being put to the torch and defiled lately…questions absolutely have to be asked, and speculating is entirely legitimate at this early stage…those who ridicule and stifle an open discussion make themselves part of a mainstream conspiracy and thus part of the overall problem in this world…

Timberrrrrrrr

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Likely as an accident may seem, the question really has to be how the authorities and media could possibly be content with “Oops” as an explanation for the disaster at this point, not least in the light of all those other catholic churches in France being put to the torch and defiled lately…questions absolutely have to be asked, and speculating is entirely legitimate at this early stage…those who ridicule and stifle an open discussion make themselves part of a mainstream conspiracy and thus part of the overall problem in this world…

The French could tomorrow show definitive proof that this was an accident, they could showw cctv footage of the fire starting, they could bring 10 witnessess forward to corroborate the cctv footage and you will still have people say

A. Cctv footage is fake.
B. Witnessess are actirs paid to lie.

Conspiracy theorists gonna conspire no matyer what.

Dohnjoe

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

the question really has to be how the authorities and media could possibly be content with “Oops” as an explanation for the disaster at this point

They aren't, which is why a team of 50 investigators is working on finding the exact causes. They have specified that as of yet there are no indications of foul play

those who ridicule and stifle an open discussion make themselves part of a mainstream conspiracy and thus part of the overall problem in this world…

A bunch of ignorant/paranoid people on the internet with next to no knowledge of the situation, spreading baseless rumours and coming up with conspiracies for fun are not adding anything but disinformation and falsehoods

Cheerful Spring

If this was ISIS they would have come out and said so. I think it was an accident personally. If it was done deliberate, then their investigation team has not found the evidence.

Eric Cartman

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The French could tomorrow show definitive proof that this was an accident, they could showw cctv footage of the fire starting, they could bring 10 witnessess forward to corroborate the cctv footage and you will still have people say

A. Cctv footage is fake.
B. Witnessess are actirs paid to lie.

Conspiracy theorists gonna conspire no matyer what.

Similarly though if you had difinitive proof muslims did it for jihadist reasons and they had come in to the country claiming asylum from syria, you'd still have some politician on (even though nobody asked) calling for open borders and saying that it was justified revenge for something the brits did to africa hundreds of years ago.

Cant have anything these days without somebody thinking its a government coverup, or somebody in the government trying to cover it up / downplay it.

Wayne Gorsky

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The French could tomorrow show definitive proof that this was an accident, they could showw cctv footage of the fire starting, they could bring 10 witnessess forward to corroborate the cctv footage and you will still have people say

A. Cctv footage is fake.
B. Witnessess are actirs paid to lie.

Conspiracy theorists gonna conspire no matyer what.

Sure, but we don't have any such proof, and cctv would not prove anything re arson or not anyway, yet we have every reason to be suspicious, as I said not least in the light of recent events in France...

Hoboo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Conspiracy theorists gonna conspire no matyer what.

Conspiracy theorists don't conspire!!....they theorise that others have conspired to perform a certain act or acts.

gozunda

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If this was ISIS they would have come out and said so. I think it was an accident personally. If it was done deliberate, then their investigation team has not found the evidence.

The investigation has only begun tbh.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/europe/notre-dame-fire-investigation-intl/index.html

As of yet they have not ruled out other scenarios afaik

Timberrrrrrrr

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Sure, but we don't have any such proof, and cctv would not prove anything re arson or not anyway, yet we have every reason to be suspicious, as I said not least in the light of recent events in France...

The reason the damage wasnt as baf as feared was because the fire started in the roof. You can see from the pictures that there is very little damage down on the main area and it's mostly confined to the roof area.

Now, you're an arsonist and you're about to burn down one of the worlds most iconic buildings... do you start the fire on the ground level to do the most damage and also to have a chance to escape? Or do you climb to the roof and start a fire to do a half assed job and possibly die in the process?

CosmicFool

It's was most likely an accident. That wood is 100's of years old. Extremely dry so it wouldn't take much for it to go up in flames.

The Nal

CosmicFool wrote: »

It's was most likely an accident. That wood is 100's of years old. Extremely dry so it wouldn't take much for it to go up in flames.

Oooh interesting, the Muslims would've known this.

Only Luciferian Marxist globalists would deny that.

GinAndBitter

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh I can see why some may have their suspicions following this

This just 5 days ago ...
https://www.thejournal.ie/france-jails-jihadist-woman-accused-over-foiled-terror-attack-in-paris-4590216-Apr2019/

Afaik theres been two prior attempted attacks in the vicinity of the church ...

That said the building work is the most likely culprit. On the news tonight they were detailing that they were starting to interview the workers

It's racist to point out that there have been attacks on churches in France commited by Muslims, apparently it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

Timberrrrrrrr

GinAndBitter wrote: »

It's racist to point out that there have been attacks on churches in France commited by Muslims, apparently it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

Do your arms not get tired banging that same old drum every day? :rolleyes:

Wayne Gorsky

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The reason the damage wasnt as baf as feared was because the fire started in the roof. You can see from the pictures that there is very little damage down on the main area and it's mostly confined to the roof area.

Now, you're an arsonist and you're about to burn down one of the worlds most iconic buildings... do you start the fire on the ground level to do the most damage and also to have a chance to escape? Or do you climb to the roof and start a fire to do a half assed job and possibly die in the process?

Yes, I know that, good point, surely the easiest way would be to walk inside with all the tourists and toss a firebomb on some wooden stuff…though with the construction going on up on the roof, whatever exactly they were doing there, it could also have been done by one of the construction crew, an arsonist masquerading as one of the crew maybe…just speculating wildly here, but stranger things have happened…and we have seen numerous attacks on French churches lately, so there definitely are those who would torch the main one if they could, and for shock and terror rather than complete destruction…with that said, an accident (i.e. neglect) does seem most likely, though such a construction site on a building of that importance would normally have maximum fire safety in place with a 24/7 fire watch and all, and a contingency plan on part of the fire brigade…oh, and cui bono anyway? though who knows, maybe really just laissez-faire…

Cheerful Spring

GinAndBitter wrote: »

It's racist to point out that there have been attacks on churches in France commited by Muslims, apparently it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

It not racist, never mind them. Each event is different and you have to be objective though. I seen some of the threads already on conspiracy forums, and evidence is weak this was deliberate.

The investigation is not over- gozunda link confirms this. Right now though the evidence suggests it was not deliberate, it was an accident.

gozunda

The Nal wrote: »

Oooh interesting, the Muslims would've known this.

Only Luciferian Marxist globalists would deny that.

Well according to the other thread it was obviously a bunch of extreme Christians because the cathedral and / or it's rebuilding is the same as Worshiping the golden calf etc and is therefore not Christian!

Bet no one else came up with that one eh :rolleyes:

gozunda

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The reason the damage wasnt as baf as feared was because the fire started in the roof. You can see from the pictures that there is very little damage down on the main area and it's mostly confined to the roof area.

Now, you're an arsonist and you're about to burn down one of the worlds most iconic buildings... do you start the fire on the ground level to do the most damage and also to have a chance to escape? Or do you climb to the roof and start a fire to do a half assed job and possibly die in the process?

Username fits

Tbh the damage is fairly bad all the same - they reckon it could take up to 1 billion to restore. The roof seems to have been the most flammable part with a 'forest' of nearly 1000 year old roof beams. Certainly setting it on fire would be one way off p*ssingn of the neighbours if anyone had a mind too. Thats said it was the area most likley to go up in flames anyway - same has happened to many old buildings whilst being restored.

Wayne Gorsky

Ipso wrote: »

Because creating conspiracy theories about how everyone is out to get us does wonders for the fabric of society.

Sure, so let’s impose full speech and thought control, stifle free thought and keep things quiet to preserve the fabric of society...

The Nal

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Sure, so let’s impose full speech and thought control, stifle free thought and keep things quiet to preserve the fabric of society...

There has to be evidence for a theory. Assuming it was Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) while the building was still burning is the absolute height of stupidity.

The only thing that should be stifled here is stupidity.

Ipso

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Sure, so let’s impose full speech and thought control, stifle free thought and keep things quiet to preserve the fabric of society...

Yes. That’s the blindingly obvious solution I was implying. Solidarity brother.

Overheal

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

oh, and, as some around here seem to be experts in putting out cathedral fires, what should they have done?

You're the one claiming to be a cathedral fire expert?

SoundsRight

Rooves don't just accidentally catch fire by themselves. Someone started it, either maliciously or through negligence.

The images of one of our most beautiful buildings in flames was very powerful, akin to the twin towers burning. We know these images embolden our enemies.

Overheal

SoundsRight wrote: »

Rooves don't just accidentally catch fire by themselves. Someone started it, either maliciously or through negligence.

https://valleycentral.com/news/local/rio-hondo-isd-issues-early-release-after-high-school-roof-catches-fire

https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-attack/articles/285541018-Carousel-roof-catches-fire-at-amusement-park/

https://www.dailydispatch.com/StateNews/IL/2019/March/13/Roof.Catches.Fire.At.Elk.Grove.Industrial.Building.aspx

https://fox6now.com/2019/01/30/rooftop-heating-unit-catches-fire-at-mercury-marine-plant-in-30-wind-chills/

https://www.wahoo-ashland-waverly.com/news/barn-roof-catches-fire/article_78beeb04-d92a-11e2-8b1d-0019bb2963f4.html

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/video/3863091-ikea-roof-catches-fire/

Just so many false flags

King Mob

Who knew that there was so many experts on cathedrals and fire safety on boards?
Makes you wonder why the Shadowy They bothered trying to fake it when apparently half the internet are qualified to spot the fake immediately.

partyguinness

King Mob wrote: »

Who knew that there was so many experts on cathedrals and fire safety on boards?
Makes you wonder why the Shadowy They bothered trying to fake it when apparently half the internet are qualified to spot the fake immediately.

Indeed.

Like when it comes to 9/11 I am still deeply impressed at the sheer number of experts in metallurgy and aviation out there.

Wayne Gorsky

The Nal wrote: »

There has to be evidence for a theory. Assuming it was Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) while the building was still burning is the absolute height of stupidity.

The only thing that should be stifled here is stupidity.

yeah, just as stupid as declaring "it was an accident", as though anyone knew for sure...oh, and that could also be politically motivated, of course...

King Mob

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

yeah, just as stupid as declaring "it was an accident", as though anyone knew for sure...

But maybe actual experts with actual experience and qualifications in such things who are actually on the scene and actually looking at the actual evidence might be in a better position to make declarations than keyboard detectives with no expertise who might not have even been in a medieval cathedral.

It's a bit mad to suggest the two are on equal footing...

Wayne Gorsky

King Mob wrote: »

But maybe actual experts with actual experience and qualifications in such things who are actually on the scene and actually looking at the actual evidence might be in a better position to make declarations than keyboard detectives with no expertise who might not have even been in a medieval cathedral.

It's a bit mad to suggest the two are on equal footing...

Of course, but I seem to remember the accident was declared even during the blaze...

Overheal

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

yeah, just as stupid as declaring "it was an accident", as though anyone knew for sure...oh, and that could also be politically motivated, of course...

If politically motivated where is the group claiming responsibility? Can't 'own the libs' unless they know they're being owned.

partyguinness

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Of course, but I seem to remember the accident wasdeckared even during thd blaze...

Perhaps it was just an attempt to nip in the bud any suspicious/mad theories. Come out and declare it an accident straight away before the tin hat brigade jump on the loony mobile.

So somebody set fire to a cathedral like that:-

1. In broad daylight
2. Among one of the busiest tourist attractions in the world not just Paris
3. The place thronged with people
4. Oh and up at one of the most inaccessible parts of the building.

That's ballsy.

storker

King Mob wrote: »

But maybe actual experts with actual experience and qualifications in such things who are actually on the scene and actually looking at the actual evidence might be in a better position to make declarations than keyboard detectives with no expertise who might not have even been in a medieval cathedral.

It's a bit mad to suggest the two are on equal footing...

Haven't you learned anything from hanging around here? Those "experts" are part of the conspiracy!

storker

partyguinness wrote: »

Perhaps it was just an attempt to nip in the bud any suspicious/mad theories. Come out and declare it an accident straight away before the tin hat brigade jump on the loony mobile.

So somebody set fire to a cathedral like that:-

1. In broad daylight
2. Among one of the busiest tourist attractions in the world not just Paris
3. The place thronged with people
4. Oh and up at one of the most inaccessible parts of the building.

That's ballsy.

You misspelled the last word.

Ipso

Of course conspiracy theories are never politically motivated.

King Mob

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Of course, but I seem to remember the accident was declared even during thd blaze...

Well, a lot conspiracy theories are based on a lot of faulty memories.
So, maybe that's something you should actually check before declaring...

Regardless, even if that was the case, not seeing why experts couldn't have a fair idea about the cause of a fire even when it's still going. Or at least can have a fair idea that it isn't the result of a firebomb or major arson attack.
Again, these are actual experts in the field who are there at the scene with access to evidence and information.
They are not unqualified, politically motivated randos behind a keyboard thousands of miles away.

Overheal

partyguinness wrote: »

Perhaps it was just an attempt to nip in the bud any suspicious/mad theories. Come out and declare it an accident straight away before the tin hat brigade jump on the loony mobile.

So somebody set fire to a cathedral like that:-

1. In broad daylight
2. Among one of the busiest tourist attractions in the world not just Paris
3. The place thronged with people
4. Oh and up at one of the most inaccessible parts of the building.

That's ballsy.

Indeed, cranks wasted no time pointing fingers at groups, like Muslims, without any evidence, just wild speculation. Because it suits their agenda to enflame tensions against mulsims and outside groups. They don't need to wait for evidence, just say 'it COULD be,' and just gaslight the whole situation - no pun intended.

GinAndBitter

Overheal wrote: »

Indeed, cranks wasted no time pointing fingers at groups, like Muslims, without any evidence, just wild speculation. Because it suits their agenda to enflame tensions against mulsims and outside groups. They don't need to wait for evidence, just say 'it COULD be,' and just gaslight the whole situation - no pun intended.

Yeah sure it's unbelievable that people are speculating that a church that mysteriously went on fire could be commited by a group of people who have been targeting churches. People speculate, welcpme to the Internet.

Same happens here when there is a shooting, who done it, was it feud related etc.. Someone heard such and such was involved blah blah blah, That's how things are.

Wayne Gorsky

Augme wrote: »

They are saying it because the fire services have said it. People in authority will often know before an official investigation is completed and signed off on.

thing is, the fire services hardly even showed up, certainly not around the roof area, and very late, and knew as little as anyone during the blaze...and people in authority will (almost) always toe the line and keep repeating the official version, no matter what...even the least informed and youngest around here should know that by now...though, as said before, I do not doubt it was an accident, i.e. inexcusable neglect, but am just looking at the bigger picture and trying to keep an open mind...but whatever...

King Mob

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

thing is, the fire services hardly even showed up, certainly not around the roof area, and very late, and knew as little as anyone during the blaze..

Before we dive into this more, you're going to have to show this is what happened and not a result of misremembered facts.

A few posts ago you were saying: "I seem to remember..." implying you weren't actually sure.
Now you are declaring these things as established facts.

So first, you should show when the authorities actually stated that they didn't suspect foul play and then where that was in relation to when the fire services showed up.
Then you should show some backing for your claim about what experts can and can't know and how long it takes them to figure something out.

If you can't do this, or you are unwilling to do this why should we take you opinion seriously?

Zorya

Ipso wrote: »

How didn’t they? So are they in league with muslim arsonists or the deep state/planet?

*Sneaks into conspiracy theories, wonders if I should make an alt account ..


Anyways I hope and think it was a definite accident. In fact the workers going off at 5.30 ish, which is about an hour before the smoke first became visible, would kind of specfically implicate a spark/over-heating from machinery/tools that had been used all day therefore heated up etc, a heat source that thus was able to cause a conflagration due to lack of said workers being around to spot it.


Buuuutttttt...since this is the conspiracy and not the skeptical forum I did have a bit of fun looking crooked at this very blurry video from a security camera (apparently?) that was taken on 15/04 (supposedly?). Big cowboy buckle on a belt shining? Where's the safety hat? Yeah, yeah I know, not a savoury tweeter...whatever.

https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1118687891364831232


Also, Professor Benjamin Mouton, who was Chief Architect of Notre Dame from 2003 - 2013 said ''Ca me stupifié beaucoup!'' According to himself he cannot imaginez how such wood as this ancient hard oak - ''c'est tres dur'' - could possiblement catch fire and become an inferno comme it did. It went ''trop vite'', he reckons there must have been ''autre chose''. :eek: :eek: :eek: Autre chose??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap9JrTWFjVs

Am I doing this right? :cool:


Translation of some of video from Youtube comments...

Interview of the former (up to 2010) architect in charge of the conservation of the Cathedral Notre Dame de Paris :

“What do you think of what happened?”
- This type of hard wood does not burn without a massive source of heat.
- It was quick to propagate, I don’t understand how it propagate so quickly.


“Before my retirement in 2010, I have ordered and realised several changes to the security of the cathedral”
- The electrical appliances was upgraded to the 2010 norms : a short circuit is virtually impossible.
- The fire detection technologies was far beyond what was needed for 2010 norms and the system is very efficient. So efficient that it can falsely be triggered on hot days so 2 people are always (days and nights) into the Cathedral to monitor this system and to check if it is a real or a false alert, these people have to call the fire brigade in case of any doubt.


I have no credible hypothesis on how this fire started.


“Could it be a failure of the detectors?”
- Well, I can’t see why, but seeing this everything is possible.
- Like any chantier of a national heritage monument, especially at ND, we have some of the most hardened norms.



“During the 13 years of restauration works, from 1997 to 2013, did you ever see a fire departure?”
- Thanks God, I am pleased that No!

Zorya

Ipso wrote: »

How didn’t they? So are they in league with muslim arsonists or the deep state/planet?

Oh by the way I quoted that post because it made me wonder is there a ''deep planet'' I haven't heard of????? :eek:

Wayne Gorsky

Zorya wrote: »

*Sneaks into conspiracy theories, wonders if I should make an alt account ..


Anyways I hope and think it was a definite accident. In fact the workers going off at 5.30 ish, which is about an hour before the smoke first became visible, would kind of specfically implicate a spark/over-heating from machinery/tools that had been used all day therefore heated up etc, a heat source that thus was able to cause a conflagration due to lack of said workers being around to spot it.


Buuuutttttt...since this is the conspiracy and not the skeptical forum I did have a bit of fun looking crooked at this very blurry video from a security camera (apparently?) that was taken on 15/04 (supposedly?). Big cowboy buckle on a belt shining? Where's the safety hat? Yeah, yeah I know, not a savoury tweeter...whatever.

https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1118687891364831232


Also, Professor Benjamin Mouton, who was Chief Architect of Notre Dame from 2003 - 2013 said ''Ca me stupifié beaucoup!'' According to himself he cannot imaginez how such wood as this ancient hard oak - ''c'est tres dur'' - could possiblement catch fire and become an inferno comme it did. It went ''trop vite'', he reckons there must have been ''autre chose''. :eek: :eek: :eek: Autre chose??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap9JrTWFjVs

Am I doing this right? :cool:


Translation of some of video from Youtube comments...

the footage with that figure is news to me, is that real? crazy...thanks for putting that all together...and what the guy has to say is pretty much in line with what I have heard other (mostly German) experts say...

Zorya

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

the footage with that figure is news to me, is that real? crazy...thanks for putting that all together...and what the guy has to say is pretty much in line with what I have heard other (mostly German) experts say...

Coolio Have fun.

I'm not hanging around for the slagging, though. Unfollows.

Dohnjoe

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

thing is, the fire services hardly even showed up, certainly not around the roof area, and very late, and knew as little as anyone during the blaze...and people in authority will (almost) always toe the line and keep repeating the official version, no matter what...even the least informed and youngest around here should know that by now...though, as said before, I do not doubt it was an accident, i.e. inexcusable neglect, but am just looking at the bigger picture and trying to keep an open mind...but whatever...

Where are you getting this information from?

They did show up, in force and are credited with doing an excellent job in what was a highly complex fire by saving the building, the artifacts and paintings inside

Also, are you a firefighter?

gozunda

Zorya wrote: »

*Sneaks into conspiracy theories, wonders if I should make an alt account ..


Anyways I hope and think it was a definite accident. In fact the workers going off at 5.30 ish, which is about an hour before the smoke first became visible, would kind of specfically implicate a spark/over-heating from machinery/tools that had been used all day therefore heated up etc, a heat source that thus was able to cause a conflagration due to lack of said workers being around to spot it.


Buuuutttttt...since this is the conspiracy and not the skeptical forum I did have a bit of fun looking crooked at this very blurry video from a security camera (apparently?) that was taken on 15/04 (supposedly?). Big cowboy buckle on a belt shining? Where's the safety hat? Yeah, yeah I know, not a savoury tweeter...whatever...

Great more fuel for the fire so to speak

Cheerful Spring

Apparently an attack was stopped at St Patrick Cathedral. It not related to Notre Dame, but interesting news. The man is white and is from Jersey, that all i found out. I did want to make a new thread about it when not a conspiracy.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/us/st-patricks-cathedral-man-arrested-gas-lighters/index.html

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Apparently an attack was stopped at St Patrick Cathedral. It not related to Notre Dame, but interesting news. The man is white and is from Jersey, that all i found out. I did want to make a new thread about it when not a conspiracy.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/us/st-patricks-cathedral-man-arrested-gas-lighters/index.html

Why isn't that a conspiracy?

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Why isn't that a conspiracy?

Because they know who did it? Dont know? Tell us?

I love the Urban dictionaries definition of conspiracy

Definition cannot be released because the government is keeping it a secret .

:pac: