Notre Dame on fire in Paris

a reply to: szino9

Yours is a valid point, now that you mention it.

If it turns out this fire was intentionally set (which we will likely never know), then the EU and the globalist regime are far more evil than even I contemplated.

I do have to say though, reconstruction of a building like this does involve a lot of trades which could cause fires (i.e. welding, cutting, grinding and flammable chemicals, paints and strippers). And, given the lack of modern fire protection systems and the age of the structure itself, it's not hard to picture how a fire could be easily started by accident.

Again though, if this turns out to be an intentional act to create an international distraction I will be truly...afraid...of what they will try next!

a reply to: Kentuckymama

I believe the fire in the bell tower was started by the fire on the roof.
I could be wrong. (easily)

a reply to: Mover3

It is true..."never let a good tragedy go to waste"...is a very real political tool. No argument there.

I just don't see this incident getting much political mileage in comparison to the damage done. And yes, I realize Notre Dame was not 'completely' destroyed.

originally posted by: Kentuckymama
After watching the news this morning and hearing them say there is no sign of arson, I went online to see pictures. In an article I found a quote from NBC.

from NBC News:

“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.”

Doesn't that make it more likely it was arson? Or, is it common for a fire to spontaneously start in two locations at the same time? Honest question, as this is not an area I am knowledgeable in. How are the able to definitively rule out arson and terrorism when three hours ago they said it was still unstable and forensic police haven't been able to go into the church yet?
www.msn.com...

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.” 

Doesn't that make it more likely it was arson? 

Saw that article too; and yes in my humble opinion the fact that it started in TWO SEPARATE LOCATIONS... far apart makes it very suspicious..

Well the communists destroyed temples in Tibet... Buddhist temples. I remember reading about it years ago. The BBC our out an article today that they saved the stone foundation. I believe artifacts were also saved. My husband told me that the crown of thorns of Jesus was there. Symbolically he asked what was happening that a focus if Mother Mary was being destroyed.
It was also being called an accident mostly. I personally felt great grief when I heard about the fire on the news. It was inexplicable.

a reply to: szino9

Given the circumstances... the construction, where the fire started and most notably the lack of added accelerants
which are pretty easy to detect it would not be hard to offer an initial report on the cause.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
There was no active works at the time when the fire started. Also interesting that the first call for the fire fighters came at 6.20pm but they did not find the fire at that time. The second call came at 6.43pm and it was to late to stop the fire by then.

a reply to: szino9

Who said there was no active work? I didn't see or hear that.

a reply to: Sillyolme

It was reported on the news. Also sky news interviewed a joiner who worked to restore the cathedral n York I believe and he also commented that it was very odd for the fire to start outside of work hours when there were no workers on site.

a reply to: vinifalou

500 million Euros have been raised already to rebuild this building.

That's all well and good, but i have to love the attitude and tenacity of some people with some of the other socioeconomic dilemma that are staring us in the face as a race.

Can you imagine well all banded together and tried to raise the capital to end world poverty instead?

Bloody well let the Vatican foot the bill to rebuild the place!

After all its not like they or there coffers and vaults would in any way even notice.

I watched this live for hours yesterday.

One thing that came to mind. How hard would it be to use a high powered laser to start the fire from a distance? I am not saying it was intentional, just a question.

You can buy pretty high powered small lasers now for cheap. If someone were in a top floor of a nearby building, aiming the laser at the roof, or some of the construction materials being used for renovations, it seems like a prolonged beam would heat it up enough to ignite. I know there are ones that can ignite paper and wood easily out there.

It would be almost impossible to prove, but an interesting thought.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: vinifalou

500 million Euros have been raised already to rebuild this building.

That's all well and good, but i have to love the attitude and tenacity of some people with some of the other socioeconomic dilemma that are staring us in the face as a race.

Can you imagine well all banded together and tried to raise the capital to end world peace instead?

Bloody well let the Vatican foot the bill to rebuild the place!

After all its not like they or there coffers and vaults would in any way even notice.

You want to end world peace? 🤔

😂

a reply to: RMFX1

I just this moment saw that the police are interviewing the workers. ( still streaming on another tab)
Why would that be if they were not there to witness what happened?
Would they?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

People can't be manipulated emotionally if they don't view it as a tragedy, fortunately no lives were lost (as far as I'm aware) and the building is largely in tact... in time it will be restored just as York Minster was.

Macron has already postponed his response to the protests (political mileage), I can see him continuing to postpone it in the hope Notre Dame replaces the consensus developing among French people.

It was reported that there was no one there. I suppose that they would still want to interview them seeing as they were working on the roof, apparently where the fire started wether they had left fir the day or not.

a reply to: Sillyolme

They could be interviewing them to understand what equipment was on site/their routine etc, they don't necessarily have to be interviewing them because they were there at the time.

a reply to: RMFX1

Fixed in the edit before you even posted, but my bad. LoL

Small phone screen, auto correct, my Dyslexia take your pick.

But my sentiment remains the same.

Let the Vatican and insurance companies foot the bill.

The people are after all on their arse already.

a reply to: MrRCflying

It doesn't even have to be a fancy piece of technology like a laser, Joan Collins flat was set on fire because the sun reflected on a mirror.

a reply to: RMFX1

I am merely speculating here so dont bite.... the site is a tourist attraction. Is it possible the workers came on shift at the end of the day at 5PM?

I'm trying to wrap my head around what is being reported by different sources.
some say they are interviewing workers
your report that there were no workers
the stained glass is lost
the stained glass is saved

its a whirlwind of speculation and scattered reports.
I'd give it a day to settle down. Let them get in there and have a good look-see.

originally posted by: RMFX1
It was reported that there was no one there. I suppose that they would still want to interview them seeing as they were working on the roof, apparently where the fire started wether they had left fir the day or not.

my question is who called the firemen at 6.20pm when they could not find the fire. If i see a fire and call the firemen i would tell them the location...