Notre Dame fire conspiracies

Wayne Gorsky · 18-04-2019 6:21pm

gozunda wrote: »

Great more fuel for the fire so to speak

Well, despite the fact that we know it was an accident because the authorities and some smart people around here have said so, I still wonder what the story is with that footage…when exactly it was taken etc., could be nothing or could be huge…

Wayne Gorsky · 18-04-2019 6:26pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Apparently an attack was stopped at St Patrick Cathedral. It not related to Notre Dame, but interesting news. The man is white and is from Jersey, that all i found out. I did want to make a new thread about it when not a conspiracy.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/18/us/st-patricks-cathedral-man-arrested-gas-lighters/index.html

seems burning churches is the latest trend...

gozunda · 18-04-2019 7:38pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Well, despite the fact that we know it was an accident because the authorities and some smart people around here have said so, I still wonder what the story is with that footage…when exactly it was taken etc., could be nothing or could be huge…

Theres more footage apparently...

A time lapse camera installed just hours before Monday’s devastating blaze at Notre-Dame de Paris may contain vital clues as to what caused the inferno, a French scaffolding company working at the cathedral said on Thursday...

The scaffolders started leaving work at 5:20 p.m. on Monday evening and by 5:50 p.m. – half an hour before the first alarm sounded – all were gone, Eskenazi said.

“The procedure says that at the end of the day, electricity on the site is turned off. So we turn off the lifts and the scaffolding’s lights, and we hand over the keys to the sacristy’s concierge,” he said.

“That’s exactly what the workers did. They followed the procedure, and it was of course duly noted in the registers at the sacristy.”

There was no welding machine or blowtorch on the site, he added.

Police sources confirmed no welding was being done at this stage to the site.

The outside scaffolding had no sprinkler system, but was equipped with movement detectors which did not go off, Eskenazi said. The alarms that activated were the cathedral’s own, he added. That may also yield clues as to where the fire started.

Investigators are trying to understand why the fire was not detected when the first alarm rang at 6:20 p.m., prosecutor Heitz has said. A second alarm sounded at 6:43 p.m., at which point the fire was detected in the roof.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-time-lapse-shots-of-notre-dame-spire-may-yield-clues-on-blaze/

Wayne Gorsky · 18-04-2019 7:44pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

Rooves don't just accidentally catch fire by themselves. Someone started it, either maliciously or through negligence.

[...]

that much is clear, and that is the big question...negligence or intent, has to be one of the two...

Wayne Gorsky · 18-04-2019 8:04pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Where are you getting this information from?

They did show up, in force and are credited with doing an excellent job in what was a highly complex fire by saving the building, the artifacts and paintings inside

Also, are you a firefighter?

Mostly from watching hours of live stream while it was happening...you will have to forgive me if I cannot go through hours of footage now to find the exact moments certain things were said, and that I cannot remember every last detail in 100% accuracy…but feel free to check if you have the time, think I was watching mostly CBSN and BBC stream, besides a few others…
of course it was a complex and unusual situation, yet you would think they must have planned and trained for just that for many years…there was not much to see or hear of any firefighting efforts for quite a while, and I reckon it was too late by the time they arrived in some sort of strength, and then they apparently didn’t really have any equipment to reach even roof height anyway…and of course they were praised afterwards, that's again politics...and no, I'm not a firefighter...

Wayne Gorsky · 18-04-2019 8:08pm

gozunda wrote: »

Theres more footage apparently...[...]

I take it you wouldn't know where to find that? I'd be curious...

gozunda · 18-04-2019 8:16pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

I take it you wouldn't know where to find that? I'd be curious...

From the article linked - it is being currently examined. I doubt it's in the public sphere.

Found a really good site which had a full 3D laser scan both inside and out of the cathedral dating from 2015. Fantastic detail and footage of the cathedral. Went back later and access to the website was restricted

Wayne Gorsky · 18-04-2019 8:18pm

gozunda wrote: »

[...]Found a fantastic site which had a full 3D laser scan both inside and out of the cathedral dating from 2015. Fantastic derail and footage of the cathedral. Went back later and access to the website was restricted

crazy...

Dohnjoe · 18-04-2019 8:43pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Mostly from watching hours of live stream while it was happening...you will have to forgive me if I cannot go through hours of footage now to find the exact moments certain things were said, and that I cannot remember every last detail in 100% accuracy

Yup I watched it live for several hours as well

of course it was a complex and unusual situation, yet you would think they must have planned and trained for just that for many years

No reason to think that they didn't

…there was not much to see or hear of any firefighting efforts for quite a while, and I reckon it was too late by the time they arrived in some sort of strength,

They arrived within 10 minutes
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-notredame-firefighters/paris-firefighters-got-on-notre-dame-site-in-less-than-10-minutes-idUSKCN1RT1N7

and then they apparently didn’t really have any equipment to reach even roof height anyway

That wasn't their goal or their strategy
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47945471

…and of course they were praised afterwards, that's again politics...and no, I'm not a firefighter...

They were praised for their excellent work. And as you mentioned, you aren't a firefighter.

Wayne Gorsky · 19-04-2019 12:14pm

On a side note, kind of funny how they keep repeating how the cathedral “survived two world wars” and all...well, so did my grandparents’ garden shed...and all that only because no-one ever tried to destroy either during any of the two world wars...not like Paris was ever bombed in any serious way…

Timberrrrrrrr · 19-04-2019 12:22pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

On a side note, kind of funny how they keep repeating how the cathedral “survived two world wars” and all...well, so did my grandparents’ garden shed...and all that only because no-one ever tried to destroy either during any of the two world wars...not like Paris was ever bombed in any serious way…

Yer grannies garden shed wasn't smack bang in the middle of the 2 largest wars in history either.

gozunda · 19-04-2019 12:36pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yer grannies garden shed wasn't smack bang in the middle of the 2 largest wars in history either.

To be fair a lot of sheds back then were designed to be bomb proof....

Dohnjoe · 19-04-2019 12:36pm

Latest is that investigators think it may have been caused by an electrical fault

Wayne Gorsky · 19-04-2019 12:39pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yer grannies garden shed wasn't smack bang in the middle of the 2 largest wars in history either.

Sure, but why would the cathedral not have survived the world wars, considering all of Paris survived with minimal damage…

Overheal · 19-04-2019 1:21pm

“Before my retirement in 2010, I have ordered and realised several changes to the security of the cathedral”
- The electrical appliances was upgraded to the 2010 norms : a short circuit is virtually impossible.

There's a lot more to it that just buying new appliances - which would be 9 years old now. Unless they gutted all the wiring and redid it up-to or exceeding modern building code (I highly doubt it) there's always the risk of a short at any point in the wiring, and there are bound to be miles of it in the cathedral.

Plus that's assuming that the short would be at one of the appliances he mentions, and not something else left plugged in. Could be as innocuous as a cheap chinese iphone charger someone left plugged in.

Overheal · 19-04-2019 8:55pm

More reporting on firefighters efforts

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/04/17/66-minutes-the-frantic-race-to-save-notre-dame/

evolving_doors · 20-04-2019 10:43am

Aaaaaaannd finally.... the proof you've been waiting for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRKQurD68NM

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 11:11am

evolving_doors wrote: »

Aaaaaaannd finally.... the proof you've been waiting for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRKQurD68NM

Someone posted that here the other day, could be nothing or could be huge, not least depending on when it was taken…

The Nal · 20-04-2019 11:23am

evolving_doors wrote: »

Aaaaaaannd finally.... the proof you've been waiting for.

Proof how exactly? When was that video taken? Wheres the fire?!

Why are people so thick?

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 11:31am

The Nal wrote: »

Proof how exactly? When was that video taken? Wheres the fire?!

Why are people so thick?

Yes, we would need a timestamp first of all…as I said, could be nothing or could be huge…of course, they will have to check who was walking around up there and why, like who was or was not supposed to be there at that time...site security and all...

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 11:35am

Overheal wrote: »

More reporting on firefighters efforts

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/04/17/66-minutes-the-frantic-race-to-save-notre-dame/

There are different reports and opinions on the fire services’ performance, and many wonder why it took them so long to show up in force and all, there are open questions, like here…I reckon the lads did the best they could with the limited planning and lack of equipment…and to think the folks at the church initially ignored a fire alarm, that could have made all the difference…

Dohnjoe · 20-04-2019 11:40am

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Yes, we would need a timestamp first of all…as I said, could be nothing or could be huge…

Let's use a bit of critical thinking here..

The "timestamp" is on the video (although the footage could be from any time as there's a cut)

Why does it only show a short clip, if it's the "source" of the fire, why don't they keep playing and capturing it from there? it makes no sense to show only a portion

Why would someone "set" the fire so high up in the metal scaffolding? again, doesn't seem to make any sense

Why would they put this on Youtube and not be submitting it to the investigators if it is "something"? again, no sense

And lastly it's likely a workman, with the sun reflecting off something. Without context and proper timestamps, these videos are meaningless, they are meant to garner views from people who already want this to be a conspiracy/mystery (there's a demand and lucrative market for this)

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 12:01pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Let's use a bit of critical thinking here..

The "timestamp" is on the video (although the footage could be from any time as there's a cut)

Why does it only show a short clip, if it's the "source" of the fire, why don't they keep playing and capturing it from there? it makes no sense to show only a portion

Why would someone "set" the fire so high up in the metal scaffolding? again, doesn't seem to make any sense

Why would they put this on Youtube and not be submitting it to the investigators if it is "something"? again, no sense

And lastly it's likely a workman, with the sun reflecting off something. Without context and proper timestamps, these videos are meaningless, they are meant to garner views from people who already want this to be a conspiracy/mystery (there's a demand and lucrative market for this)

That’s what I meant; they could have added any date.
That webcam is apparently at the Tour Montparnasse, hence the zoom and poor quality…whoever operates it there might have more footage (with exact time when taken and all), and that could well be with the authorities, we (at least I) wouldn’t know that…certainly should be…
Now, just assuming there actually was arson, setting fire on a construction site like that would make sense to me, unless they wanted to be arrested immediately…and probably easier to do major damage to the building that way, as a firebomb inside could have been put out more easily…maybe the arsonist knew the fire brigade had no equipment to get up there…who knows…and maybe that figure was just a building inspector days earlier…

Dohnjoe · 20-04-2019 12:10pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

That’s what I meant; they could have added any date.
That webcam is apparently at the Tour Montparnasse, hence the zoom and poor quality…whoever operates it there might have more footage (with exact time when taken and all), and that could well be with the authorities, we (at least I) wouldn’t know that…certainly should be…
Now, just assuming there actually was arson, setting fire on a construction site like that would make sense to me, unless they wanted to be arrested immediately…and probably easier to do major damage to the building that way, as a firebomb inside could have been put out more easily…maybe the arsonist knew the fire brigade had no equipment to get up there…who knows…and maybe that figure was just a building inspector days earlier…

Yup, which is why there's an investigation by experts, on site, with the evidence, etc

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 12:11pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, which is why there's an investigation by experts, on site, with the evidence, etc

exactly, they just need to keep politics out of it…

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 2:02pm

Nice little video of Notre Dame and the inside of the roof etc., also some interesting info on electricity up there, esp. in light of the current official ‘mostly likely a short-circuit’ version…considering electricity on the construction site was apparently also cut at the end of each working day…it’s all getting a tad confusing…

King Mob · 20-04-2019 2:11pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Nice little video of Notre Dame and the inside of the roof etc., also some interesting info on electricity up there, esp. in light of the current official ‘mostly likely a short-circuit’ version…considering electricity on the construction site was apparently also cut at the end of each working day…it’s all getting a tad confusing…

Do you have something to show that electricity was cut at the end of the day?

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 2:13pm

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have something to show that electricity was cut at the end of the day?

Read that somewhere the other day, will try to find the source again…

King Mob · 20-04-2019 2:24pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Read that somewhere the other day, will try to find the source again…

Please do.
Also could you find something to show that the firefighters were declaring that the fire wasn't suspicious minutes after arriving?
I asked for previously, but you seem to have missed that post.

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 2:28pm

King Mob wrote: »

Please do.
Also could you find something to show that the firefighters were declaring that the fire wasn't suspicious minutes after arriving?
I asked for previously, but you seem to have missed that post.

That may have been said by some official, possibly during some live stream, I’ll post what I can find again when I have the time…though I would also encourage you to do your own research, interesting stuff out there…

King Mob · 20-04-2019 4:21pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

That may have been said by some official, possibly during some live stream, I’ll post what I can find again when I have the time…though I would also encourage you to do your own research, interesting stuff out there…

Again, conspiracy theorists always claim stuff like this.
"I remember..."
"I think they said..."
"I read that..."

But when pressed, none of these things could be backed up.
Yet, from these recollections, massive conspiracies are invented.

The possibility that the person just misremembered or misread something is rejected entirely.

I have a sneaking suspicion this is the case here as you are now saying "may have said..." and "possibly..."

Is it possible that you just misremembered or misread/mishead something?
If so, why would we not accept that at the explanation before inventing a conspiracy?

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 4:29pm

King Mob wrote: »

Again, conspiracy theorists always claim stuff like this.
"I remember..."
"I think they said..."
"I read that..."

But when pressed, none of these things could be backed up.
Yet, from these recollections, massive conspiracies are invented.

The possibility that the person just misremembered or misread something is rejected entirely.

I have a sneaking suspicion this is the case here as you are now saying "may have said..." and "possibly..."

Is it possible that you just misremembered or misread/mishead something?
If so, why would we not accept that at the explanation before inventing a conspiracy?

don't be ridiculous, open your mind and look around a little, you will find loads of info yourself...and as I said, I'll post what I can find...

King Mob · 20-04-2019 4:43pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

don't be ridiculous, open your mind and look around a little, you will find loads of info yourself...and as I said, I'll post what I can find...

It's not looking good when you are telling me to look myself rather than providing the information that should be trivial to provide.

The idea that this is an conspiracy is ridiculous.
It is not ridiculous to suggest that a person on the internet misremembered or misread something or overstated what they facts actually were.

I'm open to being shown that you are right, but experience tells me not to hold my breath.

Pinch Flat · 20-04-2019 4:45pm

Media reports said it was an electrical short circuit, probably a bit of stray tin foil that caused it

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 6:09pm

King Mob wrote: »

It's not looking good when you are telling me to look myself rather than providing the information that should be trivial to provide.

The idea that this is an conspiracy is ridiculous.
It is not ridiculous to suggest that a person on the internet misremembered or misread something or overstated what they facts actually were.

I'm open to being shown that you are right, but experience tells me not to hold my breath.

Take it easy, and apologies for not wording all my posts entirely to your liking.
Anyway, “accident” was the official word during the event, check this one for example or that…as for power at the construction site, I cannot find where I first read it (will post if I do), yet some hints can be found here…I’ll leave it at that, you may believe what you want and cannot do your research for you…

King Mob · 20-04-2019 7:02pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Take it easy, and apologies for not wording all my posts entirely to your liking.
Anyway, “accident” was the official word during the event, check this one for example or that

Ok. But these articles contradict what you 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....

The first does not mention when the authorities declared it was not intentional in relation to when the fire started.

There's a tweet and after some digging, it seems to have gone out an hour after the fire started. But I can't really be sure how accurate that is.

Your second link states:

Around midnight police confirmed that the fire was not a criminal act, but a regrettable accident...

Live images of red flames that broke out at about 6:30 pm local time...

So that's a good five and half hours before the official word got out.

Neither really gel with your statement.

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

…as for power at the construction site, I cannot find where I first read I (will post if I do), yet some hints can be found here…

This article contains nothing to support your claim that the power was off.
No one will be convinced of an article you only say you remember.

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

I’ll leave it at that, you may believe what you want and cannot do your research for you…

Well you're the one who buys into these conspiracy theories, shouldn't you be doing the research?
You're the one who made these claims, so you kinda need to back them up before anyone will take them seriously.
Otherwise, it looks pretty much the same as what happens in other conspiracy theories. You are just misremembering and mis reading things and then imaging from there.

King Mob · 20-04-2019 7:48pm

gozunda wrote: »

To be fair - no one has to hand feed anyone here, whether they agree with someone or otherwise. If you doubt what's said or there's good reason to think that it's otherwise - look it up and prove the poster otherwise. Tbh that's better than some big song and dance along the usual lines of 'I'm now asking for the nth time's blah blah....

Or, mad thought, the person who makes the claim provides the evidence on the first time being asked?

Not sure why that's such a problem.

UpintheAir1 · 20-04-2019 7:55pm

tin foil hat to the ready

gozunda · 20-04-2019 7:57pm

King Mob wrote: »

Or, mad thought, the person who makes the claim provides the evidence on the first time being asked?
Not sure why that's such a problem.

Well for example I did a quick search - and I was able to find a bunch of quotes about the electricity been turned off in about 5 seconds - it's not difficult tbh. Otherwise it just gets into a daft back and forth which really is not needed tbh.

"The procedure says that at the end of the day, electricity on the site is turned off. So we turn off the lifts and the scaffolding's lights, and we hand over the keys to the sacristy's concierge," he said.

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1RU0ZO?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1RU0ZO?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 8:02pm

gozunda wrote: »

Well for example I did a quick search - and I was able to find a bunch of quotes about the electricity been turned off in about 5 seconds - it's not difficult tbh. Otherwise it just gets into a daft back and forth which really is not needed tbh.

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1RU0ZO?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1RU0ZO?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

That’s exactly the one…funny, thought I read it on some German site and never considered Reuters…thanks for finding it anyway…

King Mob · 20-04-2019 8:07pm

gozunda wrote: »

Well for example I did a quick search - and I was able to find a bunch of quotes about the electricity been turned off in about 5 seconds - it's not difficult tbh. Otherwise it just gets into a daft back and forth which really is not needed tbh.

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1RU0ZO?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1RU0ZO?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Ok great. We can move on then.
Not sure why it needed the whole rigmarole...

So the builders claim the power was off.
We now move on to the next problem with the conspiracy theory.
That still doesn't follow that an electrical fault was impossible.
There's still tons of ways for it to happen before it's time to consider a big giant conspiracy. Like for instance that the builders failed to turn off the power completely. Or there was another source of electricity that hasn't been mentioned. Or that there's still some way for an electrical short to happen with the equipment...

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 8:12pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok great. We can move on then.
Not sure why it needed the whole rigmarole...

So the builders claim the power was off.
We now move on to the next problem with the conspiracy theory.
That still doesn't follow that an electrical fault was impossible.
There's still tons of ways for it to happen before it's time to consider a big giant conspiracy. Like for instance that the builders failed to turn off the power completely. Or there was another source of electricity that hasn't been mentioned. Or that there's still some way for an electrical short to happen with the equipment...

No-one claims it was impossible…just wondering how anyone could be sure at this stage that it was one…and when you have people around who torch churches in France, it is something you have to take into account…though we may never know the truth, as any evidence may have gone up in smoke anyway…so I see two possible causes: negligence and intent, has to be one of the two…

gozunda · 20-04-2019 8:17pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok great. We can move on then.
Not sure why it needed the whole rigmarole...

So the builders claim the power was off.
We now move on to the next problem with the conspiracy theory.
That still doesn't follow that an electrical fault was impossible.
There's still tons of ways for it to happen before it's time to consider a big giant conspiracy. Like for instance that the builders failed to turn off the power completely. Or there was another source of electricity that hasn't been mentioned. Or that there's still some way for an electrical short to happen with the equipment...

And that was exactlly the point I made tbh.

If you doubt something- best look it up and prove it wrong imo. It's not difficult to find that type of information easily and quickly these days.

And Just because someone details that the electricity was said to be turned off" or whatever does not make it a de facto friggin ' conspiracy theory. '

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 8:28pm

gozunda wrote: »

Did you actually state about the "firefighters declaring that the fire wasn't suspicious minutes after arriving?"in this thread or did you talk about it being declared an accident?

Don’t know where the whole “minutes after arriving” part came from, though they were talking about it being an accident while the blaze was still on, on many sources and as anyone who watched live streams will know...and I do not doubt it could have been an accident, but we have to look into all possibilities, especially with people around torching churches in France right now...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…

gozunda · 20-04-2019 8:31pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Don’t know where the whole “minutes after arriving” part came from, though they were talking about it being an accident while the blaze was still on, on many sources and as anyone who watched live streams will know...and I do not doubt it could have been an accident, but we have to look into all possibilities, especially with people around torching churches in France right now...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…

Fair enough. I couldnt find where you had said tbh.

Thing is atm - nothing is certain as far as I can see. No harm keeping an open mind at this stage of the investigation.

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 9:00pm

gozunda wrote: »

[...]
Thing is atm - nothing is certain as far as I can see. No harm keeping an open mind at this stage of the investigation.

my point exactly, basically…

Dohnjoe · 20-04-2019 9:33pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Don’t know where the whole “minutes after arriving” part came from, though they were talking about it being an accident while the blaze was still on, on many sources and as anyone who watched live streams will know...and I do not doubt it could have been an accident, but we have to look into all possibilities, especially with people around torching churches in France right now...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…

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 forum

They 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, etc

If 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

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 9:46pm

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 forum

They 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, etc

If 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

Haha, alright…that reads like a fire investigator’s job description, and is entirely meaningless right now…so how do we know it was a short circuit? And I mean not “because the media said so”…fact is, nobody could possibly be 100% certain about anything at this stage (unless they know it was arson, which I would not be privy to)…do you seriously believe a professional investigation would come out with a final verdict (and I don’t think they have) some five days after the fire?

Dohnjoe · 20-04-2019 9:58pm

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Haha, alright…that reads like a fire investigator’s job description, and is entirely meaningless right now…so how do we know it was a short circuit?

We don't know, they suspect it.

fact is, nobody could possibly be 100% certain about anything at this stage

No one is 100% certain at this stage

do you seriously believe a professional investigation would come out with a final verdict (and I don’t think they have) some five days after the fire?

No, because they haven't. Yet you seem to keep projecting that they have, which is strange.

Wayne Gorsky · 20-04-2019 10:01pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We don't know, they suspect it.

No one is 100% certain at this stage

No, because they haven't. Yet you seem to keep projecting that they have, which is strange.

I see we largely agree, which is good...so let's wait and see, and keep in mind what’s happening out there…

Notre Dame fire conspiracies

Comments