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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Notre Dame fire conspiracies

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Options
    #123
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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)


  • Options
    #124
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Options
    #125
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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


  • Options
    #126
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Options
    #128
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Options
    #129
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Options
    #130
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Options
    #131
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Options
    #133
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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...


  • Options
    #134
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Options
    #135
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users Posts: 7,761 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


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


  • Options
    #136
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Options
    #137
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Options
    #138
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    :confused:


  • Options
    #139
    UpintheAir1
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭UpintheAir1


    tin foil hat to the ready


  • Options
    #140
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.
    :confused:

    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


  • Options
    #141
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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...


  • Options
    #143
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Options
    #144
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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. '


  • Options
    #145
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Options
    #146
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.


  • Options
    #147
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


  • Options
    #148
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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


  • Options
    #149
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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?


  • Options
    #150
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Wayne Gorsky
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Wayne Gorsky


    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…


Advertisement