Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, GG said:

 

 

Goodie, now he's an expert in firefighting again.


He's not wrong. The height is what is preventing this from being contained. There are fireboats on the Seine right now, and from the CNN reporting, they can't do anything as the flames are so high in the spire (which appears to have fueled the roof fires, and allowed it to spread).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beginning of Holy Week makes you at least wonder if there is a chance that this could have been on purpose... wouldn't be surprising. 

 

 

Obviously just conjecture this early... 

 

 

Counter point:

 

I guess I hesitate to believe either side this early in the process...

Edited by whatdrought
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


He's not wrong. The height is what is preventing this from being contained. There are fireboats on the Seine right now, and from the CNN reporting, they can't do anything as the flames are so high in the spire (which appears to have fueled the roof fires, and allowed it to spread).

 

It's more of an oddity for a POTUS to be dispensing on the spot advice to a local fire chief in a foreign country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yeah, I don't know what's fueling that fire but it's spitting flames now. That can't be good.

 

If there's a lot of timber construction in the roof, it has to be centuries-old. Old wood that is dry as hell burns hot.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I am sure there will be plenty of conspiracies linked to this... here's one floating in my mind... If the fire was intentional, and the government of France felt that they could cover that up easily enough, would they? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

I am sure there will be plenty of conspiracies linked to this... here's one floating in my mind... If the fire was intentional, and the government of France felt that they could cover that up easily enough, would they? 

 

It's too early to know anything - but if (and it's a huge if) this was deliberately set, the motivation which seems most clear to me is to bring to an end the yellow vest protests. Destroy the building (April = fire sacrifice) and bring forced unity to France for a brief period. 

 

There's also a chance that was set by the same group that has been burning churches throughout Paris... 

 

Or, it's what they're saying, just an accident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's too early to know anything - but if (and it's a huge if) this was deliberately set, the motivation which seems most clear to me is to bring to an end the yellow vest protests. Destroy the building (April = fire sacrifice) and bring forced unity to France for a brief period. 

 

There's also a chance that was set by the same group that has been burning churches throughout Paris... 

 

Or, it's what they're saying, just an accident. 

 

It could certainly go either way. 

 

One thing that I find suspicious (as a suspicious mind) is that the police are already reporting it as an accident.. seems that something with this much scrutiny ought to be thoroughly understood before declarations are made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's too early to know anything - but if (and it's a huge if) this was deliberately set, the motivation which seems most clear to me is to bring to an end the yellow vest protests. Destroy the building (April = fire sacrifice) and bring forced unity to France for a brief period. 

 

There's also a chance that was set by the same group that has been burning churches throughout Paris... 

 

Or, it's what they're saying, just an accident. 

 

Most likely accidental. 

 

My second thought, when I heard it, was "What, was it under renovation?"  It's too common for renovation work to start fires.   (My first thought, honestly, was "How can I tie this to Pizzagate?")

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Most likely accidental. 

 

My second thought, when I heard it, was "What, was it under renovation?"  It's too common for renovation work to start fires.   (My first thought, honestly, was "How can I tie this to Pizzagate?")

 

 

You would think that the first goal of renovation would be to not destroy the building... some things are too hard to assume i guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

If there's a lot of timber construction in the roof, it has to be centuries-old. Old wood that is dry as hell burns hot.

 

Every fire is different but I was up in Salisbury Cathedral last summer. There was a bad fire there in the 1800s and they almost lost it. They saved it by putting out the fire by bucket brigade.

 

I have a photo of a burnt timber from that fire. I can't upload it from my phone because I don't know how to re-size it. 

 

Salisbury and Notre Dame were built around 100 years apart. There's hope yet. 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...