ISIS pair on trial for attempted arson on Notre Dame

splashuum

I came across interesting information earlier regarding a pair in court today over the attempted arson of Notre Dame cathedral in 2016. Sky news labeled the women involved as radical islamists.

“On Sept. 4, 2016, they parked a Peugeot carrying six gas canisters by Notre Dame, doused them with diesel fuel and tried to set them alight. But they failed, and fled”

All this leads me to wonder if the actual Notre Dame blaze was infact started by people of a similar agenda? Considering no detailed reports came out about the blaze I’d like to know other people’s opinion on this.


https://news.sky.com/story/three-women-charged-over-notre-dame-cathedral-gas-canister-plot-10576221

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/23/islamic-state-pair-on-trial-for-2016-arson-attack-against-notre-dame-cathedral/

Quantum Erasure

think it was just an electrical fault, they were working on the wiring at the time. how are the Islamists at electrics?

Gregor Samsa

A preliminary investigation found no evidence to suggest that a fire that gutted large parts of Notre Dame Cathedral was criminal, the prosecutor's office said Wednesday.

The prosecutor's office said in a statement that several hypotheses about the cause of the April 15 blaze include a malfunctioning electrical system or a smoldering cigarette — to be further investigated in a new probe.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/notre-dame-fire-cause-cigarette_n_5d149230e4b0e45560383fc8

Btw, the line “I came across interesting information earlier“ makes it sound like you’re conducting some kind of investigation rather than just reading the news like you actually were.

20Wheel

splashuum wrote: »

I came across interesting information earlier regarding a pair in court today over the attempted arson of Notre Dame cathedral in 2016. Sky news labeled the women involved as radical islamists.

“On Sept. 4, 2016, they parked a Peugeot carrying six gas canisters by Notre Dame, doused them with diesel fuel and tried to set them alight. But they failed, and fled”

All this leads me to wonder if the actual Notre Dame blaze was infact started by people of a similar agenda? Considering no detailed reports came out about the blaze I’d like to know other people’s opinion on this.


https://news.sky.com/story/three-women-charged-over-notre-dame-cathedral-gas-canister-plot-10576221

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/23/islamic-state-pair-on-trial-for-2016-arson-attack-against-notre-dame-cathedral/

feasible.

theres no way to say for certain one way or the other, but given the attempt its not beyond the bounds of reason.

left agenda will say definitely didn't go down like that.
right agenda will say opposite + cover up.

and neutral opinions will vary. but no way to know for certain unless you've access to the french govts secret archives.

splashuum

It’s pretty freightening seeing people gobbling up these “smouldering cigarette” or “unexplained electrical fault” reports as gospel.

Imo its far more believable to suggest it was a targeted arson and if it was, the French gov have great interest to keep it under wraps.

Gregor Samsa

splashuum wrote: »

It’s pretty freightening seeing people gobbling up these “smouldering cigarette” or “unexplained electrical fault” reports as gospel.

Imo its far more believable to suggest it was a targeted arson and if it was, the French gov have great interest to keep it under wraps.

That’s the great thing about conspiracy theories. Anyone who denies or questions them can be easily dismissed as either a naive patsy or a duplicitous conspirator.

Cookie_Monster

splashuum wrote: »

It’s pretty freightening seeing people gobbling up these “smouldering cigarette” or “unexplained electrical fault” reports as gospel.

Imo its far more believable to suggest it was a targeted arson and if it was, the French gov have great interest to keep it under wraps.

err, why?

Sonics2k

splashuum wrote: »

It’s pretty freightening seeing people gobbling up these “smouldering cigarette” or “unexplained electrical fault” reports as gospel.

Imo its far more believable to suggest it was a targeted arson and if it was, the French gov have great interest to keep it under wraps.

Genuine question here, but why is it more believable that it was targeted arson?

There was active works happening on the site, namely around the wooden areas of the architecture to replace the rotting/old parts. There was a fault in an electronic which sparked and caused a fire.

While I'm not a fireman, I do believe that a large portion of fires are started by a faulty electrical.

Gregor Samsa

20Wheel wrote: »

feasible.

theres no way to say for certain one way or the other, but given the attempt its not beyond the bounds of reason.

left agenda will say definitely didn't go down like that.
right agenda will say opposite + cover up.

and neutral opinions will vary. but no way to know for certain unless you've access to the french govts secret archives.

There is a way. It’s called the ongoing investigation. The preliminary report has found no evidence of criminality. The investigation continues to establish the cause.

Why would the “left agenda” deny ISIS involvement in anything (other than for lack of evidence)? I wasn’t aware of people of the more liberal persuasion denying Islamic fundamentalist involvement in September 11, the Charlie Hebdo attack, the London Bridge attack or any of the others.

20Wheel

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

There is a way. It’s called the ongoing investigation. The preliminary report has found no evidence of criminality. The investigation continues to establish the cause.

Why would the “left agenda” deny ISIS involvement in anything (other than for lack of evidence)? I wasn’t aware of people of the more liberal persuasion denying Islamic fundamentalist involvement in September 11, the Charlie Hebdo attack, the London Bridge attack or any of the others.

(1) Its potentially a very politically sensitive topic. (Y/N)

(2) Therefore a state cover up is a possibility. (Y/N)

(3) In the case of a state cover up there would be no way to tell outside of access to state intelligence. (Y/N)

Which of these do you have trouble with?

Gregor Samsa

20Wheel wrote: »

(1) Its potentially a very politically sensitive topic. (Y/N)

(2) Therefore a state cover up is a possibility. (Y/N)

(3) In the case of a state cover up there would be no way to tell outside of access to state intelligence. (Y/N)

Which of these do you have trouble with?

Without any evidence, all of them.

20Wheel

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Without any evidence, all of them.

You understand the concept of potential, right?

And as for why it would be politically preferable for the left if it wasn't an intentional attack, or why it would be politically preferable fot the right if it actually was an intentional attack, dont have me explain to you why.

Gregor Samsa

20Wheel wrote: »

You understand the concept of potential, right?

And as for why it would be politically preferable for the left if it wasn't an intentional attack, or why it would be politically preferable fot the right if it actually was an intentional attack, dont have me explain to you why.

I do understand the concept of potential, in the very loose and meaningless way in which you’re using it. It works like this: Potentially you did it. I’ve yet to see any evidence that you didn’t, so I’ve just as much cause to believe that you did it as anything else.

Regarding political preferablility, I think most people, both right and left, tend to stick to believing things as supported by evidence. It’s the wing-nuts on both sides that bring the unwarranted conspiracy madness into situations like this.

K.Flyer

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

[..]how are the Islamists at electrics?

Shocking..

20Wheel

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I do understand the concept of potential, in the very loose and meaningless way in which you’re using it. It works like this: Potentially you did it. I’ve yet to see any evidence that you didn’t, so I’ve just as much cause to believe that you did it as anything else.

Regarding political preferablility, I think most people, both right and left, tend to stick to believing things as supported by evidence. It’s the wing-nuts on both sides that bring the unwarranted conspiracy madness into situations like this.

Well you're not going to see evidence if its covered up now are you.

And if you think the mere mention of govt cover up is automatic tin foil then Ill remind you of Iraq and the famous WMD's.

Go back to the three questions above. Tell me which one you're having trouble with.

biko

For the fire we all saw, police investigators says it's probably electrical fault, but I'm sure it will be discussed for years to come.

The recent news

Five women go on trial over planned Notre Dame car bomb attack

Five women have gone on trial in Paris over an attempt to set off a car bomb near Notre Dame Cathedral, in a case that aims to shed light on the role of female French jihadists in homegrown terrorism.

On the night of 3 September 2016, Ines Madani and Ornella Gilligmann parked a grey Peugeot 607 with no number plate on a narrow street in front of busy restaurants near the cathedral in central Paris. The car was loaded with six gas canisters. Fuel was poured over the car and a lit cigarette thrown at it.

But they had chosen diesel fuel, much less flammable than standard petrol and, despite several attempts, the car did not catch fire. If it had done it would have caused a devastating firebomb. “Only a poor choice of [fuel] meant their attempt failed,” investigative judges said. They said if the women had succeeded, there would have been “carnage”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/23/five-women-trial-planned-notre-dame-car-bomb-attack

pjohnson

biko wrote: »

For the fire we all saw, police investigators says it's probably electrical fault, but I'm sure it will be discussed for years to come.

The recent news
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/23/five-women-trial-planned-notre-dame-car-bomb-attack

Any stabbings to add to the tale bik?

Richard Hillman

Fire investigators have an absolutely outrageous ability to tell how fires begin, in an outrageously quick time.

If the police for Notre Dame are saying "it may have been an electrical fire", is absolute nonsense. The investigators will know, there is no "may have been" with them.

There have not been a massive spait of Church fires in France due to electrical faults.

Tokyo

pjohnson wrote: »

Any stabbings to add to the tale bik?

Mod: Quit it with the smartarse comments.

Boggles

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Fire investigators have an absolutely outrageous ability to tell how fires begin, in an outrageously quick time.
.

Someone has been watching too much CSI.

irishgeo

If ISIS had started the fire they would have claimed it and been jumping up and down about it.

I hate this everything is a conspiracy/false flag bull****.

Deub

It is an incorrect information...

The goal was to target bars and restaurants NEAR Notre Dame.
The second link is misleading information while the first one omitted to give the targets and only prefers to mention the location.
Honest mistake or clickbait?
I have my idea.

weldoninhio

Sonics2k wrote: »

Genuine question here, but why is it more believable that it was targeted arson?

There was active works happening on the site, namely around the wooden areas of the architecture to replace the rotting/old parts. There was a fault in an electronic which sparked and caused a fire.

While I'm not a fireman, I do believe that a large portion of fires are started by a faulty electrical.

Did the site foreman not state that all electricity to the site had been turned off about an hour before the fire started?

osarusan

Deub wrote: »

Honest mistake or clickbait?
I have my idea.

Desperate attempt by a member of the tinfoil hat club to make a link, however tenuous, between that arson attempt and the actual fire in Notre Dame.

splashuum

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/europe/paris-gas-canisters-isis-women.amp.html

New article on this issue.
Heavy sentences for all involved in the Islamic attack.