No Accident?

If the catastrophic fire at Notre-Dame de Paris was a simple accident, why has the French government forbidden state-employed architects to give any further interviews about the fire?

Many thanks to Nathalie for translating this article from Riposte Laïque:

No, no, no, the blaze that engulfed Notre-Dame cannot have been an accident, and here’s why:

Article 1

The Ministry of Culture is said to have forbidden the architects who work for the “Monuments Historiques” [state body in charge of preserving the architectural heritage of France] to give interviews on the subject of Notre-Dame.

Article 2

In this, our second article, we print a series of common sense questions and comments made by Yves-Marie Laulan, an economist and the director of the Geopolitical Institute.

Whilst I do not wish to embrace the wild theories of “conspiracy theorists”, I cannot but ask myself a few intriguing questions regarding the blaze which engulfed Notre-Dame de Paris.

1.   How could those massive centuries-old oak beams go up in flames, like a humble matchstick? Everyone knows that seasoned oak timber dry with time and become as hard as concrete. By what means is it possible to set fire to that kind of centuries-old hardwood?
2.   The fire started at the base of the cathedral spire. What was the spire resting on? How was it anchored to the underlying timber framework?
3.   How could this gigantic frame of both wood and metal burst into flames without the help of some sort of highly combustible material placed either at its base or close by (wood shavings, dead leaves, the odd vegetable matter, or liquid accelerant)?
4.   How can we account for the speed at which the fire spread from the base of the spire to the whole roof if there was no highly combustible material present on the roof of the cathedral?

5.   How is it that some people could, without being hindered at all or encountering any difficulties, meander freely on the roof of the cathedral, as though they were on a public thoroughfare, climbing up the scaffoldings that had been erected against the planned restoration work, and this, just a few hours (or minutes) before the fire started. (Go have a look at the pictures online, especially the selfie of a blond young man, whose silhouette can be seen between the two towers.) Further to some enquiries, we learn that it might have been Simon Nogueira, who, we’ve been told is a professional “free runner”. And if this juvenile “hero” was able to climb up to the roof without being stopped, others less well-intentioned would have been able to do so as well. Food for thought.

To make a long story short, this waste of cosmic proportions is only a reflection of the utter incompetence of the religious authorities who were officiating daily in the cathedral, as well as that of the state as represented by the pleasant Stéphane Berg, a man who was supposedly in charge of the preservation of our heritage. And let’s not mention the Paris City Council and the Ministry of Culture.

This coterie of parasitical nonentities were prancing about and congratulating themselves on the day of the official inauguration, without, for one second, sparing a thought for the fire safety procedures that should have been in place in the sacred building, whose safekeeping was their responsibility.

None of them could organise a piss-up in a brewery, not that this should come as a surprise.

When all is said and done, this horrendous catastrophe, without precedent or real explanation, reflects the Wrath of God. (As the Serbs rightfully contend, who are, contrary to others, in permanent touch with Divine Power.)

On the other hand, a foreigner of a less charitable bent will conclude that the French are incapable of safeguarding their own historical marvels.

Hat tip: DC.

32 thoughts on “No Accident?

  1. When the authorities announced the fire was an accident, while the fire was still burning, the firefighters barely arrived, I knew they are lying… Under the communist times they did the same in Hungary so the old reflexes signalled me the BS alert…
    Of course the leftist french government desperate to keep this under wraps, this was the French 911 event.

    • Whenever [muslims] did it the Quisling Media will call it “workplace violence” or “an accident” or some other such twaddle.
      It’s just like when under age black criminals commit some atrocity the QM will refer to them as “teens.”

    • Not even close to a 9/11 event. Most importantly ND had no fatalities; 9/11 had 2996 fatalities including those who went to their 72 grapes. Secondly the World Trade Center buildings, each with 110 floors, were completely destroyed; ND lost its roof and a relatively contemporary spire. This is a careless comparison, especially when France has had events of mass murder committed by Muslim Terrorists that are more apt to compare to 9/11.

      • This is about cultural significance. Of course the French will still have new attacks, probably with more victims, but it was a blow for the white Christian French population…

        • It was a blow to all the Christian population which consists of all races and countries of origin, e.i. black, white, brown, etc.

  2. It would be quite an accident if it was just an accident 🙂

    When I saw the scaffolding the first thing I thought was “This is something we’d go and climb in our late teenage pub days. Climbing up scaffoldings and powerplant chimneys was one of our past times and it was fun.

    This old cathedral loft, in my opinion, can catch fire quite fast. Depends on how clean the French kept it, but in old lofts like these, there is usually a deep layer of dust and excrement and woodchips that work as a very good firestarter.

    In my opinion, this “prank” could have been done by 14 year old boys as well, but for all the politics involved, it looks like some older boys did it.

  3. The focus is to much on the old oak structural beams.
    Take a look at footage or photo material of the inside of the roof and you see a veritable maze of wooden stairs, handrails and walkways.
    It’s unlikely they were made out of expensive oak.
    I surmise they were made out of cheaper and more flammable woods like spruce or pine.
    Once this bone dry wood caught fire it would spread very quickly and the temperature inside the confined roof space would shot up to perhaps 800 or 1000 degrees ultimately igniting the oak beams.
    I’am sure the rows of ventilation holes towards to top of the roof didn’t help either.
    How it all started we still don’t know. It could be arson. All it would take is half a gallon of gas poured out over those walk ways, toss in a match and run like hell.
    Or someone hurriedly flicked a cigarette butt down towards the masonry of the ceiling and unwittingly it landed on a pile of dirty rags.

    • Whatever the cause there is grosse negligence at play. This is an important cultural artifact, a cornerstone church and a major tourist attraction.
      Given the problems with moslems, given conerns over backlash with the Christchurch shooting, given the scaffolding, you’d think extra precautions would’ve been in place.

      Even if this was an accident, what does it say of the stupidity of those in charge that it happened?

      You have a huge building with timbers erected 800 years ago and which everyone admits were dry with age. So there should have been rigorous policies in place to ensure that there was no risk to fire. If no fire warden is possible 24/7 then it should have been made certain that no electrical devices were ever left unattended.
      I heard some nonsense about a computer being at fault but no explanation of how it was. Does that mean electrical devices were left unattended in this bone dry wooden environment where previous caretakers had removed electrical supply precisely to avoid the risk of fire?

      Arson does seem more likely given the circumstances.

  4. According to the architect that worked there ’til 2013, there were two people in the Church 24 hours a day, for the sole purpose of checking the security and fire alarms.
    Since the police have been guarding synagogues and major buildings throughout France, and since St. Sulpice in Paris was set on fire last week, and St Denis was vandalized, and Notre Dame had been vandalized in two previous incidents that I heard of. I forget the details (memory not working as well as it used to), and since the Church building belongs to the Government, you would think the police would have it under constant surveillance. It was an obvious target, especially with the number of Churches vandalized last year (1,000 +) and this year.
    One account I read said that if the fire was a result of the construction work, the insurance would pay for a substantial amount of the repairs.

    • The owner of the company hired to do the restoration work has said that the scaffolding had just been completed and the construction work had not yet started. He absolutely guaranteed that none of his workers were on the site when the fire started. We all know who started this fire……muslims. I would bet my life on it.

      • I will go with your assessment. It follows the familiar pattern for what is going on in the world today. Hundreds of churches vandalized or intentionally torched, with minimal news coverage. This includes arson when the parishioners have been prevented from exiting the burning church because the doors have been chained shut.
        Also, the timeline is in keeping with past practice. Churches destroyed and Christians killed during the most sacred times.

      • “We all know who started this fire…muslims. I would bet my life on it.”

        I contemplated this wager for a moment and quickly concluded: yup, I would bet my life on it. That the pusillanimous French authorities, terrified of mass-Muslim civil unrest and equally terrified of the French populace fully knowing the dimensions of the demographic problem they have, were stating it was an accident while the building was still burning and no investigation whatsoever as to its cause had yet been undertaken (nor could it have been) tells me all I need to know.

        Well, okay, not all. I also know a little bit about (youngish) hardwoods and their combustibility – the ND’s oak beams were hardwoods that were 800 years older and dryer – they don’t burn easily.

  5. Having read Dr Judy Wood’s book, “Where did the Towers Go?”, in which there are aerial photographs of the WTC buildings, looking at Notre Dame there are resemblances.

    Could something like a Directed Free Energy device have been used to cause this destruction? If so, the implications are truly frightening.

    • The implications are that in the next war, missiles and combat helicopters and tanks will be something like the Polish Air Force against the Luftwaffe, or horses against machine guns.

      Yes, a directed energy weapon is well capable of igniting wooden loft, much easier in fact then the World Trade Center. Still I think a bit too complicated for such an easy target as that old roof.

  6. The mention of the incompetence of the French authorities in taking even the most rudimentary cares for the single most valuable object in France made me think of a thesis by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie

    Their thesis is that the general intelligence of all populations is going down, and would do so even in the absence of immigration dilution. The consequences include the fact that there are simply not enough people around to maintain complex systems. Maintaining the Notre Dame was an important task for almost a thousand years, but we end up today with dull, flat-bottomed bureaucrats in charge of maintaining the safety and good condition of great works. These people are incapable of taking any initiative whatsoever, without being told to do so.

    So, what might have been the most rudimentary precautions years or generations ago is beyond the average functionary today.

    So, the salient alternative to deliberate sabotage is blinding incompetence. The bureaucrats of the French government have an interest in covering either up.

    • Sad, but true. The people now working in the governments are barely qualified. They show up, do as little as possible and wait until it is time to collect their pension. No initiative whatsoever.

    • Increasing levels of socialism in government also creates less personal initiative.

      • Bureaucracy in government is almost by definition socialism: funded entirely by taxes, no competition, and no real accountability. Civil service tenure, or the impossibility of being fired, adds the lid to the coffin. Civil service means that there is no accountability whatsoever. At least elected officials have to run for re-election. Under civil service, management or worse, politicians, have to devote inordinate amounts of time to fire even one person.

        The original rationale for civil service was to assure a degree of professionalism in government not dependent on political favors. Everything is a tradeoff, but I prefer what Charles Laughton said in the movie “Spartacus”…to the effect of, give me good old republican corruption rather than the totalitarian siren-call of absolute dictatorship.

  7. The interdiction to give interviews without the permission and agreement of superiors is a basic rule for ” fonctionnaires”, civil servants, police and military almost everywhere in the world. I did never see privates first class comment on US warfare on TV, nor did a deputy in Charlottesville comment on the events. Not even DA s dare this without support and admission.
    This may be good or bad… not to me to decide.

  8. Thousands of churches are attacked each year. A few tens of churches spontaneously catch fire each year.

    What should your brain first assume?

  9. 2 people on duty at all times…..

    This has almost no meaning these days especially if these people were hired from the immigrant population as an affirmative action gesture to give them employment.

    Reminds me of the security guard with a machine gun who was appointed to guard the safety of a bus load of tourists in Egypt heading to the Pyramids; according to my relatives who were on the bus: he slept through the entire trip.

    • Take a look at some of the recollections of the performers at the Bataclan Theatre in Paris. They sensed that the building’s “security” people – all sons of Allah naturally – were ‘in’ on something before it even took place.

  10. Was tar being used on the roof? Adhesives? Had the timbers been waxed or waterproofed? Were chemicals that are known to spontaneously combust being used? Was there a build up of leaves or dust?

      • The roof was covered in the traditional manner by means of lead sheeting. Tar would not be used at the time.
        The timbers would not be waxed or waterproofed as this technology did not exist at that time nor would it be needed because the lead sheeting would keep the interior dry.

  11. They might get away with covering this one up, but they’ll be hard pressed when Team Mo takes down the Eiffel Tower.

    • Assuming they don’t want to turn the Eiffel tower into a minaret. With loudspeakers in the top of that thing you could hear the Aloha Snackbaring over much of the city.

  12. Timeline is pretty damning of, at the very least, gross incompetence. From the Guardian:

    6.20pm, Monday 15 April
    An alarm sounds during mass at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. The public prosecutor, Rémy Heitz, says later it is unclear whether it was a smoke or a heat alarm. The priest hesitates, then continues with the service, believing it may be a false alarm. But although no sign of fire was found, the 850-year-old building was evacuated as a precautionary measure.

    It is the fault of the priest, it seems, because he “hesitated” according to the Guardian. This is obvious [nonsense], what the priest thought or did is irrelevant.

    First, because at 6.43pm a second alarm went off and the fire was “officially” declared, this begs the question why the 2 lazy [fundament] security guards didn’t follow a “fire alarm going off” protocol and checked every single one of the sensors.

    The “although not sign of fire was found [Notre Dame] was evacuated” tells us clearly there was a fire alarm protocol in place, but the part “fire was not found” means to me that the lazy [fundament] security guard went to check a single sensor, and most likely because he could not be bothered to check the whole ceiling of the cathedral, the [vulgar epithet] decided it was a false alarm.

    Second, the “Remy Heitz says it is unclear whether it was smoke or heat alarm” is obvious [nonsense] also because the 24 7 security guards have this thing called working log, where they are supposed to write any type of stuff out of normal going on. Not to talk about a [vulgar intensifier] fire or heat alarm going off. This is how security personnel works in any [low-quality] building site. Not in the second most important historic building in the capital of France? Sounds like [nonsense] to me.

    Bottomline: I’d say lazy and incompetent “diversity” security guards where the real cause the fire was not detected earlier and put off, so it has been decided to memory hole the whole issue “not to rock the multiculti boat” again, as it happened in Rotherham and many other places. Therefore it was officially an “electrical problem” and “not enough fire alarms” and yada yada, when this is basically insulting anyones intelligence, for the above reasons.

Comments are closed.