Posted on 09/27/2019 6:44:42 PM PDT by marshmallow
The French government seems to have been suspiciously quick, perhaps eager, to deny the possibility that a crime of arson was responsible for the near loss of Notre-Dame de Paris.
Twenty-four hours after the blaze at Notre-Dame last April 15 was brought under control, the cause of the fire was officially announced by the Élysée. In the professed view of the French government, the disaster could only have been an accident. The possibility of a deliberate attack upon the cathedral was dismissed.
Nicholas Dupont-Aignan, President of Debout la France, was skeptical from the start. The government’s certainty, he suggested, did not appear to agree with its warning that the inquest into the fire’s origin would be long and difficult. Four months later, as reported in a three-part feature printed in Valeurs Actuelles (22 August 2019), Dupont-Aignan was persisting in his skepticism in the face of condemnation by the political class. “I have informed myself of the business, I have discussed it with the connaisseurs of Notre-Dame: it would require a sequence of exceptional circumstances to set fire to such a frame [as Notre Dame’s]. I do not say that an accident is impossible, but I claim the right to investigate.”
Dupont-Aignan’s skepticism is supported by the fact that on April 25 the brigade criminelle was granted access to the scene to investigate the cathedral. As Valeurs notes, the famous brigade is generally employed in cases involving homicides, kidnappings for ransom, and so on—personal crimes of the sort Georges Simenon’s Jules Maigret was charged with solving. Why then was it brought in to handle a case involving the accidental near-destruction of Notre-Dame?
The firefighters affirm as one man that the fire destroyed, among so many other things, every trace of its causation. Their testimony allowed the Procurator of France to reaffirm the.......
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicworldreport.com ...
Umm? Muslims?
Lone nut in a hotel room? No wait that was vegas.
An accident with 2 flash points. What are the odds?
Who else?
There is no French “opposition” to Muslim immigration: the war is over.
One does not dare wear kippa in but a few parts of Paris, and NEVER in Marseilles: it is asking to be beaten.
France is no longer French. They took it like they took the “Dome of the Rock,”
Like they took “Hagia Sofia...”
France simply has not come to terms with the demographic bomb that went off long ago...
Just silly people talking about the past, atheists climbing the remains of their old churches while their family names turn to dust.
Islam won France. Hitler didn’t, but Islam did.
Burning down Christian churches, tossing homosexuals off of buildings, and cutting your daughter’s throat because she’s dating a Jew...just “cultural” differences. Judging by our own, civilized standards would be racist!
The French authorities want to avoid panic.
The firefighters arrived and allegedly searched but didn't locate either the source of the smoke or the fire.
They left.
The smoldering or the fire continued until it became a full blaze.
My question is: if the firefighters did a proper search why didn't they find the source of the smoke or the fire?
Why were they quick to clear the situation and leave?
Were they lazy and did they do a half-hearted search or were they incompetent?
Did one of the fighter fighters actually find the source of the smoke or fire and if so, why didn't they report it to the crew and put it out? (There are reported cases of firefights who start fires).
There WAS either smoke or a fire. WHY didn't they find it?
Did they question each of the FF separately?
They know the general area where the fire started. Which FF searched that area and why didn't he locate the smoke or the fire?
Whether it was an accident or arson, there was a fire. Why wasn't it found before it got out of hand?
Either the firefighters failed to do their job properly, one or more of the firefighters set the fire or let it burn without reporting it (there are firefighters who turn out to be arsonists), or someone was in the building and set the fire after the firefighters left.
The last one is plausible. The culprit may have set the first fire but it went out before the firefights first arrived which is why they didn't find a fire. After the firefighters left he could have reset the fire at his leisure and when the second alarm went off the firefighters considered it another false alarm.
Muslims would be my guess too. If true the blowback would be pretty violent.
why would you think that blowback would be violent?
Is there anything that you see that would support this?
Because the French have a boiling point. Once hit they become very violent.
Historically perhaps, but they have been “rioting” for more than 3 months and have been nicely managed by the government.
I don’t think that France will save itself.
Too many invaders in their midst.
Look at all the church burnings that they are keeping from themselves, look at what the invaders have done to their cities like Lyon!
there is nothing that I see that would indicate that they are able to defend themselves.
France is an old and incapable man and you are remembering his behavior in his youth.
Expressions of surprise and shock at 11:00.
We don’t know the truth. But IF a muzz did it, Macron would have suppressed the truth immediately. A big, beautiful Catholic church, icon of Paris, destroyed by a muzz would not have been a pleasant thought. We don’t know if a muzz did it, but the French government would have hidden the truth.
I’m surprised the long running yellow vest protests have not gotten more violent beyond the car burnings. Of course that could have been others taking advantage of the situation.
French just tantrum for goodies.
their invaders damage ruin and will kill for everything.
I’m hoping you are wrong. It’s a depressing scenario
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.