Something's Burning

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:What a bunch of linguistic crap. You apparently found one example of "no evidence of arson" while ignoring the prompt statements claiming that it wasn't arson.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News ... 555411384/

Linguistic crap?

The "no evidence of arson" comes from the prosecutor who also said yesterday that they hadn't ruled out arson because they don't have ANY evidence gathered yet! From that a bunch of news agencies ran with the headline "NO EVIDENCE OF ARSON" or something similar which in simple peoples headspace translates to "there was no arson" which then the conspiracy nuts go totally bonkers about since nobody can know that yet, which means it's a cover up!

As I said up-thread, if you want the real story go to the source , in this case the Paris prosecutor Rémy Heitz and what he said.

Here is a link to an article that directly quotes the prosecutor:

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

And the money quote:

"Nothing suggests that it was a voluntary act ... We are favoring the theory of an accident," Heitz told reporters, adding that a team of 50 people were working on a probe into how the fire started."

Excuse the Hell out of me but how can the prosecutors be "favoring a theory of an accident" when the embers of the fire have not yet cooled enough to allow fire investigators to even examine the scene?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Excuse the Hell out of me but how can the prosecutors be "favoring a theory of an accident" when the embers of the fire have not yet cooled enough to allow fire investigators to even examine the scene?

Because, unlike what you would like to believe, an accident is far more likely than intentional arson.

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Not hardly evidence of arson but definately disturbing:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1117938596952993793

Why? The building is on fire and someone in a hardhat is walking around checking things?

No, I would not call that disturbing - I would call it reasonable.

What utter BS.

The restoration crew had already quit for the day and had left the building. The ONLY people that should have been in the burning building were firefighters in full protective clothing, not construction workers in hard hats inspecting the ongoing damage.

Keep in mind that the fire was so severe that the spire as well as two sections of vaulted ceiling collapsed. (An exercise for an astute student would be to calculate the potential energy of these events.) That building is a pile of stone blocks with no rebar or other tension members holding them together. Primitive quarry workers actually use small fires and water to fracture massive stone blocks. The efforts by the fire fighters to extinguish this inferno was undoubtedly creating some serious stress fractures in the masonry. It was so dangerous that if it had not been such a monument the firefighters would have withdrawn.

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Excuse the Hell out of me but how can the prosecutors be "favoring a theory of an accident" when the embers of the fire have not yet cooled enough to allow fire investigators to even examine the scene?

Because, unlike what you would like to believe, an accident is far more likely than intentional arson.

"An accident is far more likely" when the people working on the cathederal are restoration experts who keep the work area free of any flamable debris and eschew power tools because of the risk of fire?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

The E wrote:Because, unlike what you would like to believe, an accident is far more likely than intentional arson.

"An accident is far more likely" when the people working on the cathederal are restoration experts who keep the work area free of any flamable debris and eschew power tools because of the risk of fire?

And where exactly did you get the idea they were not using power tools?

Btw Fly, I csn think of at least three similar fires in the UK in the last 30 years.

One is still a shell, one you'd have trouble spotting the repairs if you knew where to look. Third I can't remember the state of.

Nature of the beast. The sooner the roof caves in the better.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Annachie, I have to disagree with your opinion. My understanding was that the he disagreed with ruling of accidental fire. He was arguing that the fire could be deliberately set. Their were reports by other news services of attacks of arson on French Catholic Churches within the last year. He's arguing it's too soon to know the cause.

I would argue that was a biblical sign. At the same time of Notre Dame burning. The mosque in Israel (Jerusalem) was burning. That's my opinion. Also, there's a quatrain that points to the fire. (Notradamus)

Yep, definitely a biblical sign. This just confirms the logic chasm between you and the rest of us, smr.

smr wrote:Annachie, I have to disagree with your opinion. My understanding was that the he disagreed with ruling of accidental fire. He was arguing that the fire could be deliberately set. Their were reports by other news services of attacks of arson on French Catholic Churches within the last year. He's arguing it's too soon to know the cause.

I would argue that was a biblical sign. At the same time of Notre Dame burning. The mosque in Israel (Jerusalem) was burning. That's my opinion. Also, there's a quatrain that points to the fire. (Notradamus)

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

https://youtu.be/C7xIOt4qR7M

TFLY: "Hah you silly ~keyboard warriors~, see if you can google this!"

Also TFLY: "This random video on the internet is really concerning and must totally mean something"