Something's Burning

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Certainly does not look like a construction worker in a hardhat to me.

https://youtu.be/C7xIOt4qR7M

It could also be that the guy is walking around with a big shiny tinfoil-hat.. Or perhaps you need a new pair of glasses?

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Certainly does not look like a construction worker in a hardhat to me.

https://youtu.be/C7xIOt4qR7M

It could also be that the guy is walking around with a big shiny tinfoil-hat.. Or perhaps you need a new pair of glasses?

I'm shocked, Shocked, SHOCKED by the suggestion that the same Islamic Jihadists who bombed churches in Sri Lanka might have torched an unoccupied cathederal in France.

smr wrote:Annachie, I have to disagree with your opinion. My understanding was that the he disagreed with ruling of accidental fire.

You mean the ruling that nobody made?

He's making up a finding, so he can invent a "cover-up".

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Annachie, I have to disagree with your opinion. My understanding was that the he disagreed with ruling of accidental fire.

You mean the ruling that nobody made?

He's making up a finding, so he can invent a "cover-up".

Extract your cranium from your rectum and clean the feces from your eyes so you can read!

https://www.dw.com/en/notre-dame-fire-w ... a-48348777

The money quote:

"Nothing suggests that it was a voluntary act ... We are favoring the theory of an accident,"

The prosecutor can obviously claim ignorance about how the fire started because fire investigators had not even begun to examine the cathedrral. However; to make this assesment and public statement while the building is still smoldering is absurd. It is pure propaganda.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:However; to make this assesment and public statement while the building is still smoldering is absurd. It is pure propaganda.

Hey TFLY, I thought you were against political correctness.

gcomeau wrote:

smr wrote:Annachie, I have to disagree with your opinion. My understanding was that the he disagreed with ruling of accidental fire.

You mean the ruling that nobody made?

He's making up a finding, so he can invent a "cover-up".

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Extract your cranium from your rectum and clean the feces from your eyes so you can read!

https://www.dw.com/en/notre-dame-fire-w ... a-48348777

The money quote:

"Nothing suggests that it was a voluntary act ... We are favoring the theory of an accident,"

The prosecutor can obviously claim ignorance about how the fire started because fire investigators had not even begun to examine the cathedrral. However; to make this assesment and public statement while the building is still smoldering is absurd. It is pure propaganda.

How about the preliminary investigation coming to the conclusion that it was an electrical fire?

And it was not assessment btw, it was a preferred theory. Bending peoples words to fit your made up narrative doesn't make it true.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

gcomeau wrote:You mean the ruling that nobody made?

He's making up a finding, so he can invent a "cover-up".

Extract your cranium from your rectum and clean the feces from your eyes so you can read!

https://www.dw.com/en/notre-dame-fire-w ... a-48348777

The money quote:

"Nothing suggests that it was a voluntary act ... We are favoring the theory of an accident,"

The prosecutor can obviously claim ignorance about how the fire started because fire investigators had not even begun to examine the cathedrral. However; to make this assesment and public statement while the building is still smoldering is absurd. It is pure propaganda.

That's not a ruling genius. It was an initial suspicion based on what they knew at the time. And a pretty solidly based suspicion given the circumstances.

Nothing DID suggest it was deliberately set. And the theory of an accidentally started fire in a construction area surrounded by bone dry ancient wood is not exactly long odds.

Here is an example of a responsible statement about the cause of a cathederal fire,:

1984 fire
Edit
On 9 July 1984, York Minster suffered a serious fire in its south transept during the early morning hours.[15] Firefighters made a decision to deliberately collapse the roof of the South Transept by pouring tens of thousands of gallons of water onto it, in order to save the rest of the building from destruction.[16] A total of 114 firefighters from across North Yorkshire responded to the fire and contained it,[15] while York Minster's staff and clergy rushed to preserve historical objects in the building.[15] The glass of the South Transept rose window was shattered by the heat but the lead held it together, allowing it to be taken down for restoration.[17][16] A subsequent investigation found an 80% chance that the fire was caused by a lightning strike to a metal electrical box atop the roof, a 10% chance that the fire was caused by arson, and a 10% chance that the fire was caused by an electrical fault.[15] Some traditionalist Anglicans suggested the fire was a sign of divine displeasure at the recent consecration as Bishop of Durham of David Jenkins, whose views they considered heterodox.[18]

Notice that this assessment is offerred AFTER rather than BEFORE the investigation.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Here is an example of a responsible statement about the cause of a cathederal fire,:

1984 fire
Edit
On 9 July 1984, York Minster suffered a serious fire in its south transept during the early morning hours.[15] Firefighters made a decision to deliberately collapse the roof of the South Transept by pouring tens of thousands of gallons of water onto it, in order to save the rest of the building from destruction.[16] A total of 114 firefighters from across North Yorkshire responded to the fire and contained it,[15] while York Minster's staff and clergy rushed to preserve historical objects in the building.[15] The glass of the South Transept rose window was shattered by the heat but the lead held it together, allowing it to be taken down for restoration.[17][16] A subsequent investigation found an 80% chance that the fire was caused by a lightning strike to a metal electrical box atop the roof, a 10% chance that the fire was caused by arson, and a 10% chance that the fire was caused by an electrical fault.[15] Some traditionalist Anglicans suggested the fire was a sign of divine displeasure at the recent consecration as Bishop of Durham of David Jenkins, whose views they considered heterodox.[18]

Notice that this assessment is offerred AFTER rather than BEFORE the investigation.

And I'm sure once the investigation is complete here you will see a similarly structured official statement.

And I'm sure if anyone had asked the fire officials at the fire you just cited *while the fire was burning* if they thought it was arson they would have said something along the lines of NOT HAVING ANY REASON TO THINK THAT if they didn't have any reason to think that.

Learned something new today.

The French Government rather than the Catholic Church actually owns the Notre Dame Cathderal. As a result, it is the state rather than the church that has authority over the building.

They will replace the collapsed spire with a mineret from which will issue the muslim call to prayer four times a day.