Notre Dame fire conspiracies

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sure. Firstly it's not being claimed as "for certain". When investigators take a look at the situation, they don't read conspiracy forums, watch online videos, they don't have a laypersons vague "gut instincts" about it, they didn't "watch it live on TV", they didn't have a discussion about it on an internet forumThey are on the scene, handling the evidence, these people are experts, many of them will have been determining the causes of fires for decades. They will be conducting interviews with all the staff, reviewing internal footage, checking potential sources of the fire, conducting tests, looking at every possible avenue, etcIf early on they e.g. discover that the primary cause may have been an electrical junction box, and witnesses support that, and evidence supports that, and CCTV, etc, etc
They can then "release" some information that they suspect an electrical fault
Obviously that has to be fully confirmed, and confirmation can take a long time. Likewise it could turn out to be incorrect, in which cases the real cause has to be identified.People on the internet looking at the situation is completely different and they can have all these random subjective opinions and notions about it - it really means nothing. Already some have decided it must be a conspiracy of some sort, others follow random ideas or notions they have.

From an investigation point of view, online conspiracies are the equivalent of paranormal investigators taking a look at a crime and deciding who did it, aka a whole bunch of people with no clue making random stabs in the dark to figure out of an event

Whatever the officials involved in the ongoing investigation may or may not think of others discussing what happened (and I'm going to paraphrase what another poster wrote here)

It remains we all get to have an opinion on a discussion forum ...

gozunda

Not linked to any Conspiracy theory btw - the Notre Dame spokesman Andre Finot doesn't think the fire was linked to renovations taking place when the blaze broke out. 

"There were too many protections on these renovations,"

See video in article below @1:00 min

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/notre-dame-cathedral-fire-spokesperson-1b-raised-still-may-not-cover-rebuilding/

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Whatever the officials involved in the ongoing investigation may or may not think of others discussing what happened (and I'm going to paraphrase what another poster wrote here)

It remains we all get to have an opinion on a discussion forum ...

Yup which goes without saying, we can also challenge those opinions, especially the more ridiculous ones

King Mob

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Don’t know where the whole “minutes after arriving” part came from

Comes from here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109967008&postcount=91

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

thing is, the fire services hardly even showed up,

Could you define what you meant by "hardly".
Could you also explain how you personally judge that the time between when the firefighters arrived then then had an idea of the cause of the fire was too short or was other wise suspicious.
Do you have some kind of training that is relevant?
Or is it just a gut feeling from a lay person with no experience or knowledge.

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

and I’d be grateful if someone could explain to me how anyone could possibly be certain it was a short-circuit or so at this stage, as some seem to believe…

No one is saying anything with certainty. (Cept conspiracy theorists of course.)
The firefighters who are actually there and have actual experience and actual training might have a better idea of the cause than most.

It could be as simple as knowing the behavior of the fire.
A fire that resulted from say a gas leak might have different characteristics from one that was caused by dropped cigarette. Additionally it would be something they could judge from the position of a fire, as it would be unlikely to be due to a gas leak if it started somewhere where there was no gas lines.
It would also behave differently from a fire caused deliberately by spreading gasoline around or setting a fire bomb.

It's honestly not that difficult to imagine why experts might be able to make a judgement call in their field of expertise much faster than people expect.
It's especially easy to imagine compared to how ridiculous the conspiracy alternative is.

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup which goes without saying, we can also challenge those opinions, especially the more ridiculous ones

And as no one expects the Spanish inquisition - the logical thing to do is to check that was said and if it doesnt fit with was reported elsewhere then dinkums. What's 'ridiculous' to some may be logic to you and vice versa.

These tedious back and forth 'show me the proof and 'I've asked for the nth time' type rubbish questions is at best tiresome and lazy discussion. But hey that's the way it is.

Of interest Notre Dame spokesman Andre Finot  account doesnt appear to fit with the publicised narrative - is that 'ridiculous'? Or maybe he is in with the conspirators? What do you think?

gozunda

King Mob wrote: »

Comes from here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109967008&postcount=91

Nope. There is nothing whatsover in that link which would translate as what you asked imo viz.

King Mob wrote:

Also could you find something to show that the firefighters were declaring that the fire wasn't suspicious minutes after arriving?..

King Mob wrote:

Could you define what you meant by "hardly".Could you also explain how you personally judge that the time between when the firefighters arrived then then had an idea of the cause of the fire was too short or was other wise suspicious.

Do you have some kind of training that is relevant?

Or is it just a gut feeling from a lay person with no experience or knowledge.No one is saying anything with certainty.

*The firefighters who are actually there and have actual experience and actual training might have a better idea of the cause than most.
It could be as simple as knowing the behavior of the fire. A fire that resulted from say a gas leak might have different characteristics from one that was caused by dropped cigarette. Additionally it would be something they could judge from the position of a fire, as it would be unlikely to be due to a gas leak if it started somewhere where there was no gas lines.
It would also behave differently from a fire caused deliberately by spreading gasoline around or setting a fire bomb.

It's honestly not that difficult to imagine why experts might be able to make a judgement call in their field of expertise much faster than people expect.

*And all that unfortunately elicits the exact same response you've given above - this:

Do you have some kind of training that is relevant? Or is it just a gut feeling from a lay person with no experience or knowledge.

(Cept conspiracy theorists of course.)
It's especially easy to imagine compared to how ridiculous the conspiracy alternative is.

So opinion = conspiracy now? Intersting lack of logic tbh ...

As detailed the Notre Dame spokesman opinion as to what happened appears to be at some variance to the official line atm ...

storker

Just in...

Someone called "Pascal" appears to be responsible for numerous fires outside Irish churches on Saturday evening

French police declared that an unidentified individual was seen in the Notre Dame towers before the fire. CCTV footage suggests that he suffers from a spinal deformity.

The same person?

King Mob

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. There is nothing whatsover in that link which would translate as what you asked imo viz.

Not sure what your objection is there...

gozunda wrote: »

*And all that unfortunately elicits the exact same response you've given above - this:

Do you have some kind of training that is relevant? Or is it just a gut feeling from a lay person with no experience or knowledge.

I have no training or knowledge in the field. None of it comes from gut feelings. Just basic assumptions that could be entirely wrong.

What in my point requires that I have training or experience or knowledge?
These are just some possibilities to consider and check off before you can jump to "conspiracy."

The claim the "that investigators declared the possible cause too quickly" requires some basis.

gozunda wrote: »

So opinion = conspiracy now? Intersting lack of logic tbh ...

Yes, the opinion that there is a cover up or a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory especially when there's no evidence for such and it relies on some pretty shaky foundations.

gozunda wrote: »

As detailed the Notre Dame spokesman opinion as to what happened appears to be at some variance to the official line atm ...

Cool. Does he say it's a conspiracy or cover up?

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Of interest Notre Dame spokesman Andre Finot  account doesnt appear to fit with the publicised narrative - is that 'ridiculous'? Or maybe he is in with the conspirators? What do you think?

I am guessing he didn't read the publicised script..

gozunda

King Mob wrote: »

Not sure what your objection is there...

What you've asked as to what the poster allegedly posted doesn't match up..

King Mob wrote:

I have no training or knowledge in the field. None of it comes from gut feelings. Just basic assumptions that could be entirely wrong.What in my point requires that I have training or experience or knowledge?
These are just some possibilities to consider and check off before you can jump to "conspiracy." The claim the "that investigators declared the possible cause too quickly" requires some basis. Yes, the opinion that there is a cover up or a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory especially when there's no evidence for such and it relies on some pretty shaky foundations.

That's the point - the previous poster is no more an expert than you, in what you are proposing.

And as detailed holding an opinion is not a "conspiracy". It's called 'having an opinion' Opinion may be formed in the absence of evidence or even on tenuous evidence but amongst other things may even be suggested by what has been reported or previous events. That not that hard to understand - is it?

Cool. Does he say it's a conspiracy or cover up?

I really dont know - do you?

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I am guessing he didn't read the publicised script..

Surely as 'spokesman" he would be responsible for writing up any official account, no?

King Mob

gozunda wrote: »

What you've asked as to what the poster allegedly posted doesn't match up..

What's not to understand here.
The poster claimed that the firefighters declared that the fire couldn't have been foul play after "barely getting there".
I have been asking him to detail what this means and provide something more solid to back it up.
I really don't understand what the problem is here.

gozunda wrote: »

That's the point - the previous poster is no more an expert than you, in what you are proposing.

Ok. And what about my points requires that I need to be an expert?

gozunda wrote: »

And as detailed holding an opinion is not a "conspiracy". It's called 'having an opinion' Opinion may be formed in the absence of evidence, but amongst other things may be suggested by what has been reported or previous events. That not that hard to understand - is it?

Sure. And again: if the opinion is that it's a big conspiracy, it's a conspiracy theory.

If you are arguing that the point is "it's suspicious" that doesn't fly as the suspicion implies belief in some conspiracy theory.
If that's not the case, what's there to be suspicious about?

Again, I'm failing to see what point you are making here...

gozunda wrote: »

I really dont know - do you?

Well no, he doesn't say that.
There's no where in the article that quotes him saying that.
Again, I don't see what point you're making here beyond "nuh uh, you are."

gozunda

King Mob wrote: »

What's not to understand here.
The poster claimed that the firefighters declared that the fire couldn't have been foul play after "barely getting there".
I have been asking him to detail what this means and provide something more solid to back it up.
I really don't understand what the problem is here.

This is what the poster said

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...

And you said

Also could you find something to show that the firefighters were declaring that the fire wasn't suspicious minutes after arriving?

Your take and his quote are not comparable imo. He does not mention "foul play" at all or firefighters "declaring" anything tbh.

King Mob wrote:

Ok. And what about my points requires that I need to be an expert? :

They don't. Just as the other poster doesnt needed to be either

king mob wrote:

Sure. And again: if the opinion is that it's a big conspiracy, it's a conspiracy theory.
If you are arguing that the point is "it's suspicious" that doesn't fly as the suspicion implies belief in some conspiracy theory.
If that's not the case, what's there to be suspicious about?

That's you saying that. Not the previous poster. I dont get that's what the poster is saying at all.

I'm not - but eitherway a suspicion or even a couple of disjointed ones do not amount to an entire conspiracy theory

Well no, he doesn't say that.
There's no where in the article that quotes him saying that..."

This is what it says in that article quoting the Notre Dame spokesman. Watch the video for context.

He doesn't think it was linked to renovations taking place when the blaze broke out.

"There were too many protections on these renovations," Finot said.

What do you think it says?

King Mob

gozunda wrote: »

This is what the poster said

and you said

Your take and his quote are not comparable imo. He does not mention "foul play" at all or firefighters "declaring" anything tbh.

Still utterly lost to what you point or objection is here...

gozunda wrote: »

They don't. Just as the other poster doesnt needed to be either

But it does require some sort of basis.
He is claiming that it is suspicious that the firefighters could tentatively rule out a deliberate cause so quickly.
If he has no expertise or experience or rational reason to base this suspicion on, then why should anyone take it at all seriously?

gozunda wrote: »

This is what it says in that article quoting the Notre Dame spokesman

What do you think it says?

What it says.
I dont see him saying anything about a cover up or a conspiracy.

Again I am completely lost to what you are arguing...

Do you believe that there is a conspiracy here?

Wayne Gorsky

King Mob wrote: »

Comes from here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109967008&postcount=91

[...]

Erm, no, but never mind. I really recommend you do a little research yourself and maybe even contribute to the actual discussion, rather than just try to pick apart others’ posts and troll people. It’s a shame that sort of behavior is so common on forums like this, and a good thing we have ‘ignore’ and ‘unfollow’ options available…

Cheerful Spring

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Erm, no, but never mind. I really recommend you do a little research yourself and maybe even contribute to the actual discussion, rather than just try to pick apart others’ posts and troll people. It’s a shame that sort of behavior is so common on forums like this, and a good thing we have ‘ignore’ and ‘unfollow’ options available…

This is Kingmob, however in this case the evidence for a cover up is weak. I agree with you they said the fire was accidental before the investigation started, but it obvious why they done that. Conspiracy theorists blamed Muslims right way and this wrong, as there no evidence any muslim started a fire in Notre Dame delibarately.

There also know evidence the French authorties are trying to hide the evidence the fire was started delibarately. I have not seen anything to show this to be the case.

Wayne Gorsky

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is Kingmob, however in this case the evidence for a cover up is weak. I agree with you they said the fire was accidental before the investigation started, but it obvious why they done that. Conspiracy theorists blamed Muslims right way and this wrong, as there no evidence any muslim started a fire in Notre Dame delibarately.

There also know evidence the French authorties are trying to hide the evidence the fire was started delibarately. I have not seen anything to show this to be the case.

Yes, I agree with all of that…still, with churches being torched and defiled all over the place, with the current political climate, and some (possibly dubious) footage around and all, we need to keep an open mind and consider all possibilities…far stranger things have happened, and governments have lied to people and also influenced investigations before…also, it is clear that, to the authorities, this has to be an accident and they want it to be…though let’s wait and see what they come up with in the end, and if there is any proof it was an accident or something else…and of course we may never know for sure…

edit: just came across this, an interesting read as well, food for thought…

gozunda

King Mob wrote: »

Still utterly lost to what you point or objection is hereBut it does require some sort of basis.He is claiming that it is suspicious that the firefighters could tentatively rule out a deliberate cause so quickly.If he has no expertise or experience or rational reason to base this suspicion on, then why should anyone take it at all seriously?

In a nutshell - What you claimed he actually said or inferred is bulk****e

KingMob wrote:

]What it says.
I dont see him saying anything about a cover up or a conspiracy.

Same as the previous poster then...

King Mob wrote:

Again I am completely lost to what you are arguing...Do you believe that there is a conspiracy here?

Quite simple really - Just because someone doesn't repeat or hold the the most publicised official line about the fire being related to the restoration - does not make it a conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Yes, I agree with all of that…still, with churches being torched and defiled all over the place, with the current political climate, and some (possibly dubious) footage around and all, we need to keep an open mind and consider all possibilities…far stranger things have happened, and governments have lied to people and also influenced investigations before…also, it is clear that, to the authorities, this has to be an accident and they want it to be…though let’s wait and see what they come up with in the end, and if there is any proof it was an accident or something else…and of course we may never know for sure…

I have seen the footage on conspiracy sites and proves nothing. Blurry grainy images is not evidence of a cover up. I seen one video and the conspiracy theorists were claiming a Muslim man was walking along a pathway at the top of the roof in one of the towers. You can see clearly the man was wearing a yellow vest and hard hat and he was just investigating the scene. There not enough information in any of the videos to prove a conspiracy.

It's reasonable to keep an open mind, i agree. Again though there no evidence this fire was started delibarately and fire incidents happen all the time.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have seen the footage on conspiracy sites and proves nothing. Blurry grainy images is not evidence of a cover up. I seen one video and the conspiracy theorists were claiming a Muslim man was walking along a pathway at the top of the roof in one of the towers. You can see clearly the man was wearing a yellow vest and hard hat and he was just investigating the scene. There not enough information in any of the videos to prove a conspiracy.

It's reasonable to keep an open mind, i agree. Again though there no evidence this fire was started delibarately and fire incidents happen all the time.

I'm going to bold this and quote this post for future reference when you post blurry/grainy images in an attempt to make a point.

Wayne Gorsky

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have seen the footage on conspiracy sites and proves nothing. Blurry grainy images is not evidence of a cover up. I seen one video and the conspiracy theorists were claiming a Muslim man was walking along a pathway at the top of the roof in one of the towers. You can see clearly the man was wearing a yellow vest and hard hat and he was just investigating the scene. There not enough information in any of the videos to prove a conspiracy.

It's reasonable to keep an open mind, i agree. Again though there no evidence this fire was started delibarately and fire incidents happen all the time.

Yes, the footage I have seen around the Notre Dame incident does indeed not prove anything at all re the cause of the fire, though the one with that figure moving around up there on the scaffolding could be of interest, if it was taken around the right time and unless site security knew the person was up there and why. I imagine the authorities are going through all footage available to them anyway…

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Surely as 'spokesman" he would be responsible for writing up any official account, no?

That's what a spokesman does? enters in "the official narrative"?

Perhaps he just has his own opinion on the matter

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Quite simple really - Just because someone doesn't repeat or hold the the most publicised official line about the fire being related to the restoration - does not make it a conspiracy.

Looks like we are all in agreement so, considering the forum we're on

King Mob

gozunda wrote: »

In a nutshell - What you claimed he actually said or inferred is bulk****e



Same as the previous poster then...

Again totally lost to what your point is.

gozunda wrote: »

Quite simple really - Just because someone doesn't repeat or hold the the most publicised official line about the fire being related to the restoration - does not make it a conspiracy.

Sure.
But suggesting that the authorities are covering something up and adopting a prepared position before such a position could be reached is a conspiracy theory.
If people want to discuss the engineering of the situation, then they would get better information on an engineering forum.
If people are talking about "suspicions" on a conspiracy theories fourm, then people might think you are talking about a.conspiracy.

And of course if people want to discuss conspiracy theories without some big ol meanie asking difficult questions, plenty of fourms out there that are safe spaces for sensitive ideas.

gozunda

King Mob wrote: »

Again totally lost to what your point is.

Lol. Sure you are.

king mob wrote:

Sure. But suggesting that the authorities are covering something up and adopting a prepared position before such a position could be reached is a conspiracy theory.If people want to discuss the engineering of the situation, then they would get better information on an engineering forum.If people are talking about "suspicions" on a conspiracy theories fourm, then people might think you are talking about a.conspiracy.And of course if people want to discuss conspiracy theories without some big ol meanie asking difficult questions, plenty of fourms out there that are safe spaces for sensitive ideas.

Well if the only thing which should be discussed here is de facto and definitive ' without a doubt' conspiracies and not just inconsistencies and contradictions or as yet unproven or unknown causes of events - then why are you still giving out that you believe someone maybe discussing a 'conspiracy'?

Surely you would agree that this is the right forum if you really believe that? And a bit like the Religion and Christianity forum - those that believe so shouldn't be open season - no?

Anyway it's most likley irrelevant as the poster has clearly stated that despite all the given opinion on inconsistencies etc he has an open mind on the issue etc...

So thats where we are....

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's what a spokesman does? enters in "the official narrative"?

Perhaps he just has his own opinion on the matter

You said previously ...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup which goes without saying, we can also challenge those opinions, especially the more ridiculous ones

Are you going to challenge his opinion - do you think it is ridiculous?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Looks like we are all in agreement so, considering the forum we're on

As long as its understood not everyone's opinion constitutes an entire conspiracy.

King Mob

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. Sure you are.

Yes, I am lost to what your point is.
Not sure why I would pretend to not know.

gozunda wrote: »

Well if the only thing which should be discussed here is de facto and definitive ' without a doubt' conspiracies and not just inconsistencies and contradictions or as yet unproven or unknown causes of events - then why are you still giving out that you believe someone maybe discussing a 'conspiracy'?

Where have I done this?

gozunda wrote: »

Anyway it's most likley irrelevant as the poster has clearly stated that despite all the given opinion on inconsistencies etc he has an open mind on the issue etc...

Ok.
Do you believe that the fire is the result of a conspiracy or a cover up?

gozunda

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, I am lost to what your point is.
Not sure why I would pretend to not know.

Lol. Keep winding.

king mob wrote:

Where have I done this?

Here

king mob wrote:

But suggesting that the authorities are covering something up and adopting a prepared position before such a position could be reached is a conspiracy theory.

"king wrote:

Ok.Do you believe that the fire is the result of a conspiracy or a cover up?

I have made no conclusions as to what has happened.

And before you have an issue with that - I have based my discussion here around there being no requirement to demand or provide absolute proof for what is posted

King Mob

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. Keep winding.

Okay...?

gozunda wrote: »

Here

Ok.
And what part of that is me giving out? Which part do you disagree with?

gozunda wrote: »

I have made no conclusions as to what has happened.

Cool, so it's possible that the fire was started by the same space laser than destroyed the WTC.
Or have you already concluded that that is not a possible explanation?

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Are you going to challenge his opinion - do you think it is ridiculous?

A lot of people involved in the case, that's his opinion. The consensus is generally more informative, including consensus on suspected causes

Do you think a difference of opinion between people involved points to a conspiracy?

If no one in the thread believes a conspiracy is afoot, have to say it's a bit of a first for this forum

gozunda

KingMob wrote: »

Okay...?Ok....

Lol. I believe that has definitively established that you are ..

Cool, so it's possible that the fire was started by the same space laser than destroyed the WTC.Or have you already concluded that that is not a possible explanation?

Do you believe that about the WTC? No problem and I'm happy for you if you do btw. Just curious ...

King Mob

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. I believe that has definitively established that you are ..

Cool.

gozunda wrote: »

Do you believe that about the WTC? No problem and I'm happy for you if you do btw. Just curious ...

Nope I don't believe it was. It however is an example of a very silly conspiracy theory people believe.

So do you believe that a space laser involved in the Notre Dame fire?
If not, then it seems like you don't have an open mind as you are rejecting a possibility.

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A lot of people involved in the case, that's his opinion.

Where does he say that btw?

The consensus is generally more informative, including consensus on suspected causes Do you think a difference of opinion between people involved points to a conspiracy?
If no one in the thread believes a conspiracy is afoot, have to say it's a bit of a first for this forum

Is that your own consensus or the news reports you're basing that off?

I dont know anything about no-one believing in a conspiracy but I reckon if you go back to what is explained at the start of the forum - you might perhaps be less confused by the whole thing and how such things work ...

He's some relevant points ..

The general purpose of this forum is to provide a thriving and constructive place for ladies and gentlemen to discuss topics of a controversial nature: topics in which there is an allegation that they involve some degree of misinformation etc etc ...Theories inherently are based on some supporting evidence, but that evidence frequently can neither be proven true nor false.

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Where does he say that btw?

I wrote it

Is that your own consensus or the news reports you're basing that off?

The consensus of those working on the case

I reckon if you go back to what is explained at the start of the forum - you might perhaps be less confused by the whole thing and how such things work ...

Not confused at all, what's with all this gaslighting?

Just pointed out it's rare that there's a thread where no one thinks it's a conspiracy

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I wrote it

So not 'his' opinion then. Ok

The consensus of those working on the case

But we haven't heard the final report - I thought they were keeping an open mind. Ah well never mind you know so much...

Not confused at all, what's with all this gaslighting? Just pointed out it's rare that there's a thread where no one thinks it's a conspiracy

No idea - is that here? Where? Just that you seem confused tbh. I'm sure someone may think it's a defacto 'conspiracy'. But then unlike some here I can't answer for everyone. But there you go ...

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

But we haven't heard the final report - I thought they were keeping an open mind. Ah well never mind you know so much!

What a strange interpretation of what I wrote

No idea - is that here? Where? Just that you seem confused tbh.

Confused about what exactly?

gozunda

King Mob wrote: »

Cool.
Nope I don't believe it was. It however is an example of a very silly conspiracy theory people believe.So do you believe that a space laser involved in the Notre Dame fire?If not, then it seems like you don't have an open mind as you are rejecting a possibility.

So as you say that's a "very silly conspiracy" and you obviously have an open mind, as it follows that as a dedicated non-conspiratist, you are of course waiting for the results of the investigation. However using the same logic - it appears you are advocating the belief that a space laser was involved in the Notre Dame fire :eek: and your now trying to convince others of the same!

Ok I think we can take it as read- that the taking of the proverbial wee wee has reached its final logical conclusion here lol. Im afraid I can only award 2/10 for effort in this instance btw.

Bye!

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What a strange interpretation of what I wrote

Sometimes truth hurts...

Confused about what exactly?

And only you can answer that conundrum. But there you go. Time to join your friend in the space lasers forum methinks...

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Sometimes truth hurts...

And only you can answer that conundrum. But there you go. Time to join your friend in the space lasers forum methinks...

Cool beans. So looks like we're all in agreement then, no conspiracy yet. Fingers crossed though.

King Mob

gozunda wrote: »

So as you say that's a "very silly conspiracy" and you obviously have an open mind, as it follows that as a dedicated non-conspiratist, you are of course waiting for the results of the investigation. However using the same logic - it appears you are advocating the belief that a space laser was involved in the Notre Dame fire :eek: and your now trying to convince others of the same!

This doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.
You misunderstand my point or you are trying very hard to misrepresent it for some reason.

Again I have no idea what the issue you have here is.
It's bizarre.

I raised the issue of a ridiculous explanation to highlight the fact you don't have a completely "open" mind. You will reject ideas out of hand if they are ridiculous.
The suggestion that there may be a conspiracy or cover up at this incident based on zero evidence is likewise ridiculous.
If you are going to entertain the idea without any basis or rationale, it's just creative writing at that point, so why not introduce something fun like space lasers.

gozunda

King Mob wrote: »

This doesn't make any sense I'm afraid.You misunderstand my point or you are trying very hard to misrepresent it for some reason.Again I have no idea what the issue you have here is.It's bizarre.
I raised the issue of a ridiculous explanation to highlight the fact you don't have a completely "open" mind. You will reject ideas out of hand if they are ridiculous.

The suggestion that there may be a conspiracy or cover up at this incident based on zero evidence is likewise ridiculous.
If you are going to entertain the idea without any basis or rationale, it's just creative writing at that point, so why not introduce something fun like space lasers.

Who here is suggesting there is a de facto conspiracy? I thought we'd clubbed that one to death lol. No matter.

As I'm a generous type of guy and you still seem somewhat genuinely confused - I'll leave this here - I always find it useful when posting here myself - it might help to explain things perhaps?. I can only think you may have missed it? No matter. But there you go ...

Do not demand proof for someone else's theories.This forum is for the discussion of Theories: they may not be readily conclusive. Instead, provide a constructive counter-argument. "eg. Lizard people exist in NYC subways!" "Actually a 2017 study found that subways were only populated by rats - [source link]." & etc

Bye ...

Cheerful Spring

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Yes, the footage I have seen around the Notre Dame incident does indeed not prove anything at all re the cause of the fire, though the one with that figure moving around up there on the scaffolding could be of interest, if it was taken around the right time and unless site security knew the person was up there and why. I imagine the authorities are going through all footage available to them anyway…

Where did they find the video, the source and how they got it? You need to see the date and timestamp and see if its the same day the fire started. It very blurry and there not enough information or detail. I see a figure yes, but there could be a reasonable explantation for why that person was walking there. There was workers doing repairs in this vicinity up to 5pm or 5.30pm.

Wayne Gorsky

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Where did they find the video, the source and how they got it? You need to see the date and timestamp and see if its the same day the fire started. It very blurry and there not enough information or detail. I see a figure yes, but there could be a reasonable explantation for why that person was walking there. There was workers doing repairs in this vicinity up to 5pm or 5.30pm.

Exactly what I have been saying for days now…anyway, this was apparently taken by a cam on the Tour Montparnasse, the links and all were posted by someone around here a few days ago…the low quality would mainly be due to zooming…obviously, the cam operators would have the exact timestamp and all, and site security would know who was up there at any time and why…

Cheerful Spring

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Exactly what I have been saying for days now…anyway, this was apparently taken by a cam on the Tour Montparnasse, the links and all were posted by someone around here a few days ago…the low quality would mainly be due to zooming…obviously, the cam operators would have the exact timestamp and all, and site security would know who was up there at any time and why…

Have you got the original video? The videos are not archived for long it seems. The oldest video is 21th of April.

Wayne Gorsky

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Have you got the original video? The videos are not archived for long it seems. The oldest video is 21th of April.

Nope, seems they only keep two days or so accessible online as you have also noticed, one could try to narrow it down based on the archiving time by trying to find out when first posted…but maybe the cam operators have some sort of archive anyway, and (if timestamp works out) the investigators have access…maybe they have already dumped it because the timestamp was off, or maybe it was automatically overwritten because no-one bothered to secure the original footage in time, who knows…could be nothing or could be huge...

Wayne Gorsky

Not sure if this has already been posted, interesting anyway…loads of contradicting and confusing statements from all different sides over the last couple of days...unsurprisingly...electrical fault? no electrical fault? what else?

Dohnjoe

Seems the conspiracy buzz is already dying down on this one

One interesting thing to note is how the google algorithms have really changed in the last year or two, typing "notre dame fire conspiracy" into Google now leads predominantly to news articles highlighting the spread of fake news and conspiracies on the subject (instead of in the past where we'd be taken to the conspiracies themselves)

Wayne Gorsky

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Seems the conspiracy buzz is already dying down on this one

One interesting thing to note is how the google algorithms have really changed in the last year or two, typing "notre dame fire conspiracy" into Google now leads predominantly to news articles highlighting the spread of fake news and conspiracies on the subject (instead of in the past where we'd be taken to the conspiracies themselves)

What search volume did "notre dame fire conspiracy" have like a year ago? I noticed the same thing during the 2016 Trump campaign…there can be no doubt Google are adapting their algorithms to whatever agenda they are following, which some could see as part of an altogether different conspiracy…

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Seems the conspiracy buzz is already dying down on this oneOne interesting thing to note is how the google algorithms have really changed in the last year or two, typing "notre dame fire conspiracy" into Google now leads predominantly to news articles highlighting the spread of fake news and conspiracies on the subject (instead of in the past where we'd be taken to the conspiracies themselves)

Nah. Do you mean the algorithms used by YouTube which automatically linked this story to 9/11 lol?

And if you type in the word 'conspiacy' of course your going get links to news stories about varios conspiracies - Media sites have higher levels of traffic and will always appear first. Plus a lot of them seem to be tripping over themselves to show how they are the "News"

If you take a look - the other thread on this story has now moved on to a very good discussion as to the various inconsistencies, contradictions and unknowns involved in the currently unexplained cause of the fire.

Just because something may be unlikley does not mean that it is impossible. But it is also important to weigh up what is known against some crazy stuff such things as 'space lasers' on a basis of probability. It's not hard really to keep an open mind and at least wait until the investigation is complete tbh.

Dohnjoe

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

What search volume did "notre dame fire conspiracy" have like a year ago? I noticed the same thing during the 2016 Trump campaign…there can be no doubt Google are adapting their algorithms to whatever agenda they are following, which some could see as part of an altogether different conspiracy…

Would go straight to the conspiracies, usually the likes of Infowars, etc. Youtube have been changed their algo's also