Why Were The French Authorities So Quick To Rule Out Arson?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.infowars.com/lou-dobbs-it-was-a-political-decision-to-rule-out-arson-in-notre-dame-blaze/

[ABSpareEditor]

Although this is a fair question, could members refrain from attributing any alleged act of arson to a particular race or religion and please can we keep speculation to a minimum.

This thread is now open.

[retrocop]

Thank you spare-ed

[anotheoldgit]

Thank you ABSpareEditor.

[naomi24]

If arson had been suspected I don't think it would have been ruled out. We'd have still been waiting for the result of investigations.

[spathiphyllum]

It was simply an act of the devil.

They took the gargoyles away (the protection of the church/cathedral what not) then only days later hells fire is swallowing notre dame's spire.

Coincidence? Probably ;)

[retrocop]

It takes more than a day to forensically examine all available remaining evidence so any firm pronouncement of the cause at this stage is risible and ought to be ignored.

[spathiphyllum]

Maybe Quasimodo left his hair straighteners on?

[Mamyalynne]

Spath, I think over the past few days we have had our fill of threads being turned into comedy capers.

[naomi24]

Retrocop, it does indeed take more than a day to examine the evidence. Perhaps the announcement was made to avoid speculation. Doubtless more will be said at a later date.

[andres]

I think that the authorities are keeping investigations under wraps at the moment until forensics have been fully checked. It must be very difficult to stop the Parisian people wondering and speculating though. After all it is only three years since the last attempt on Notre Dame .

[spathiphyllum]

If investigations are not yet complete then it's silly to start ruling likely possibilities out.

[ichkeria]

The authorities haven’t ruled out arson and the link provided is to a dubious conspiracy theory website so while Im not blaming the messenger (OP) I don’t think it’s a reasonable question at all.

[youngmafbog]

I think it is a reasonable question, howerver as I pointed out yesterday something like 80% of fires in these old buildings are caused by/during renovations. Working with any tool that creates a spark or naked flame (roofing) is a real problem with old timber. So yes a reasonable question but unlikely it is anything but a construciton incident.

Perhaps the authorities should simply say they are keeping an open mind until the investigation is complete. They could add something like "Early signs are a construction incident" if they wished.

[pixie374]

That would be a good way to put it, ymb. I doubt they actually rule anything in or out until they actually know. It is natural for the public to speculate but you wouldn't expect professionals to.

[pixie374]

At least, not publicly.

[ichkeria]

The authorities have not ruled out arson as Mr Jones claims. But they similarly haven’t found any obvious evidence suggesting it IS arson.
That link is a hotchpotch of supposition, wishful thinking, paranoia and fake news.

[youngmafbog]

They (and I dont just mean the FRench authorities) need to manage the message a bit more Ick.

If they did that then it would trash the conspiracy theories before they happened.

We get quite a few of these sort of incidents they should be able to do it by now.

[sanmac]

Someone actually posted this on another thread: "Obviously initially it will treated as a accident...". I was going to ask the poster if she was actually implying that the investigators pose a hypothesis of the cause prior to the investigation and then try to fit the findings to prove that theory? Some investigation that would be!

[Khandro]

Not saying they are responsible, but only one group in the entire world appears to be celebrating;
https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/16/isis-notre-dame-cathedral-fire-destruction-poster-report/

[sanmac]

"Early signs are a construction incident". I think the fire started around 6pm Paris time. Would the construction crew still be on site at that time of the day?