Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Notre Dame fire conspiracies
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »The reason the damage wasnt as baf as feared was because the fire started in the roof. You can see from the pictures that there is very little damage down on the main area and it's mostly confined to the roof area.
Now, you're an arsonist and you're about to burn down one of the worlds most iconic buildings... do you start the fire on the ground level to do the most damage and also to have a chance to escape? Or do you climb to the roof and start a fire to do a half assed job and possibly die in the process?
Username fits
Tbh the damage is fairly bad all the same - they reckon it could take up to 1 billion to restore. The roof seems to have been the most flammable part with a 'forest' of nearly 1000 year old roof beams. Certainly setting it on fire would be one way off p*ssingn of the neighbours if anyone had a mind too. Thats said it was the area most likley to go up in flames anyway - same has happened to many old buildings whilst being restored.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Wayne Gorsky wrote: »Sure, so let’s impose full speech and thought control, stifle free thought and keep things quiet to preserve the fabric of society...
Yes. That’s the blindingly obvious solution I was implying. Solidarity brother.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
But maybe actual experts with actual experience and qualifications in such things who are actually on the scene and actually looking at the actual evidence might be in a better position to make declarations than keyboard detectives with no expertise who might not have even been in a medieval cathedral.Wayne Gorsky wrote: »yeah, just as stupid as declaring "it was an accident", as though anyone knew for sure...
It's a bit mad to suggest the two are on equal footing...
0 -
Advertisement
-
But maybe actual experts with actual experience and qualifications in such things who are actually on the scene and actually looking at the actual evidence might be in a better position to make declarations than keyboard detectives with no expertise who might not have even been in a medieval cathedral.
It's a bit mad to suggest the two are on equal footing...
Of course, but I seem to remember the accident was declared even during the blaze...0 -
-
-
But maybe actual experts with actual experience and qualifications in such things who are actually on the scene and actually looking at the actual evidence might be in a better position to make declarations than keyboard detectives with no expertise who might not have even been in a medieval cathedral.
It's a bit mad to suggest the two are on equal footing...
Haven't you learned anything from hanging around here? Those "experts" are part of the conspiracy!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
How didn’t they? So are they in league with muslim arsonists or the deep state/planet?
*Sneaks into conspiracy theories, wonders if I should make an alt account..
Anyways I hope and think it was a definite accident. In fact the workers going off at 5.30 ish, which is about an hour before the smoke first became visible, would kind of specfically implicate a spark/over-heating from machinery/tools that had been used all day therefore heated up etc, a heat source that thus was able to cause a conflagration due to lack of said workers being around to spot it.
Buuuutttttt...since this is the conspiracy and not the skeptical forum I did have a bit of fun looking crooked at this very blurry video from a security camera (apparently?) that was taken on 15/04 (supposedly?). Big cowboy buckle on a belt shining? Where's the safety hat? Yeah, yeah I know, not a savoury tweeter...whatever.
https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1118687891364831232
Also, Professor Benjamin Mouton, who was Chief Architect of Notre Dame from 2003 - 2013 said ''Ca me stupifié beaucoup!'' According to himself he cannot imaginez how such wood as this ancient hard oak - ''c'est tres dur'' - could possiblement catch fire and become an inferno comme it did. It went ''trop vite'', he reckons there must have been ''autre chose''. :eek: :eek: :eek: Autre chose??
Am I doing this right? :cool:
Translation of some of video from Youtube comments...Interview of the former (up to 2010) architect in charge of the conservation of the Cathedral Notre Dame de Paris :
“What do you think of what happened?”
- This type of hard wood does not burn without a massive source of heat.
- It was quick to propagate, I don’t understand how it propagate so quickly.
“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.
- The fire detection technologies was far beyond what was needed for 2010 norms and the system is very efficient. So efficient that it can falsely be triggered on hot days so 2 people are always (days and nights) into the Cathedral to monitor this system and to check if it is a real or a false alert, these people have to call the fire brigade in case of any doubt.
I have no credible hypothesis on how this fire started.
“Could it be a failure of the detectors?”
- Well, I can’t see why, but seeing this everything is possible.
- Like any chantier of a national heritage monument, especially at ND, we have some of the most hardened norms.
“During the 13 years of restauration works, from 1997 to 2013, did you ever see a fire departure?”
- Thanks God, I am pleased that No!0 -
-
*Sneaks into conspiracy theories, wonders if I should make an alt account..
Anyways I hope and think it was a definite accident. In fact the workers going off at 5.30 ish, which is about an hour before the smoke first became visible, would kind of specfically implicate a spark/over-heating from machinery/tools that had been used all day therefore heated up etc, a heat source that thus was able to cause a conflagration due to lack of said workers being around to spot it.
Buuuutttttt...since this is the conspiracy and not the skeptical forum I did have a bit of fun looking crooked at this very blurry video from a security camera (apparently?) that was taken on 15/04 (supposedly?). Big cowboy buckle on a belt shining? Where's the safety hat? Yeah, yeah I know, not a savoury tweeter...whatever.
https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1118687891364831232
Also, Professor Benjamin Mouton, who was Chief Architect of Notre Dame from 2003 - 2013 said ''Ca me stupifié beaucoup!'' According to himself he cannot imaginez how such wood as this ancient hard oak - ''c'est tres dur'' - could possiblement catch fire and become an inferno comme it did. It went ''trop vite'', he reckons there must have been ''autre chose''. :eek: :eek: :eek: Autre chose??
Am I doing this right? :cool:
Translation of some of video from Youtube comments...
the footage with that figure is news to me, is that real? crazy...thanks for putting that all together...and what the guy has to say is pretty much in line with what I have heard other (mostly German) experts say...0 -
Wayne Gorsky wrote: »the footage with that figure is news to me, is that real? crazy...thanks for putting that all together...and what the guy has to say is pretty much in line with what I have heard other (mostly German) experts say...
Coolio
Have fun.
I'm not hanging around for the slagging, though. Unfollows.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
*Sneaks into conspiracy theories, wonders if I should make an alt account..
Anyways I hope and think it was a definite accident. In fact the workers going off at 5.30 ish, which is about an hour before the smoke first became visible, would kind of specfically implicate a spark/over-heating from machinery/tools that had been used all day therefore heated up etc, a heat source that thus was able to cause a conflagration due to lack of said workers being around to spot it.
Buuuutttttt...since this is the conspiracy and not the skeptical forum I did have a bit of fun looking crooked at this very blurry video from a security camera (apparently?) that was taken on 15/04 (supposedly?). Big cowboy buckle on a belt shining? Where's the safety hat? Yeah, yeah I know, not a savoury tweeter...whatever...
Great more fuel for the fire so to speak 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap9JrTWFjVsAdvertisement