Support NeoGAF

[DunDunDunpachi]

strange headache
Do you still believe this is an accident?

My first reaction was that the flash seems more consistent with something reflective catching the light instead of a fire being started, but there were two flashes. Two flashes seems pretty suspicious to me.

Glad that there's already more footage coming out. It will help them get to the bottom of this. I've already made my stance known earlier in the thread so I won't speculate further.

 

[Dunki]

Ah yes, more totally serious twitter journalism with sensational BREAKING tags...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/fact-check-notre-dame-fire-conspiracy-theories-debunked-1.4382145

FALSE CLAIM: Suspicious person wandering cathedral balcony

At around 7:51 p.m. (EST), Twitter user @TipsyPianobar shared a low-quality, grainy video and spread the false claim that a suspicious person was walking on a cathedral balcony with the caption: “No workers onsite. Who tf is this?”

The user later claimed the person was “not clergy” or “not a firefighter.”

TRUTH: It was a worker wearing a high-visibility jacket

But the Twitter video appeared to be directly taken from a live YouTube feed from CBNC of firefighters putting out hot spots on the historic building.

At least one unidentified worker in a high-visibility jacket or firefighter attire is seen walking back and forth several times throughout the feed -- at around 30 min, 42 min, 43 min and 45 minutes, for example.

Police officials have not stated any suspicious figures were on the scene.

Stop believing every sh*t that gets shared on social media, Dunki.

This is not the one I am talking about. The first video from the first day was the person on the balcony. This one is different.

 

[strange headache]

This is not the one I am talking about. The first video from the first day was the person on the balcony. This one is different.

That same twitter user already spread one fake video taken out of context, what makes you think this is any different? Also how do you know this wasn't just another official on the scene? From where is that footage taken? When was that video made and at what time exactly? Is it even from the day the fire happened? He claims this was from a "public webcam on that day", if so is any of this verifiable? Too many unknowns to take this for granted.

I'll make up my mind if enough corroborated evidence has been presented by more credible sources than random twitter conspirators and sensationalists.

As far as it stands, the french police thinks the likely cause was an electrical short:

(PARIS) — Paris police investigators think an electrical short-circuit most likely caused the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral, a police official said Thursday, as France paid a daylong tribute to the firefighters who saved the world-renowned landmark.

EDIT: Here is the website he apparently got that footage from, but it only goes back to the 18th of April, so I can't verify the date of that video:
https://www.viewsurf.com/univers/ville/vue/10370-france-ile-de-france-paris-cathedrale-notre-dame

EDIT 2: I found the original footage which seems to be from a webcam that records 1 minute of video every hour, the footage was recorded 17h05:
https://web.archive.org/web/2019041...ewsurf.com/paris02/11/22/media_1555340708.mp4

According to the scaffolding company, their workers left the cathedral at 17h50:

Il affirme par ailleurs que le dernier ouvrier a quitté les lieux à 17h50 (soit une heure avant le déclenchement de l'incendie, NDLR) et le premier à 17h20.

It would be my guess that the public webcam was recording the construction workers who were working on the scaffolding that day and still present on the roof when the public webcam recorded that footage.

 

[Alx]

It's like some people reeaaaaally want it to be arson to prove their point.
The case of the video with flashes of light has been analyzed by the press fact-checking.

D'où vient la vidéo montrant un flash de lumière sur le toit de Notre-Dame avant l'incendie?

Une webcam du site Viewsurf a filmé, à 17h05 le 15 avril, une silhouette se déplacer sur le toit de Notre-Dame de Paris et un flash de lumière. L'entreprise chargée des échafaudages indique que ses ouvriers étaient sur le toit jusqu'à 17h20.

www.liberation.fr

They identified the source of the video (and confirmed its authenticity). They also collected other videos from the same day, and noticed that similar flashes of light appear in them ; they say they look like light reflections, even if they can't be sure.

"Concernant la petite lumière aperçue dans la vidéo de 17h05, CheckNews a également pu en constater d’autres sur les vidéos de la journée (à 15h05 ou 16h05 notamment). Ces lumières semblent s’apparenter à des reflets, même s’il nous est impossible d’être formels sur ce point."

They also confirm that nobody can be seen on site after 18:00, which matches the company claim that workers left it at 17:50..

Light reflections seem the more logical explanation anyway. A worker lighting a cigarette or an arsonist setting fire to something wouldn't emit such light, flames emit light continuously, and not powerful enough to be seen hundreds of meters away.

 

[Rentahamster]

Everyone wants to be an internet detective.

 

[The Scrivener]

This seems like a rash conclusion and I would assume that a proper investigation into a tragedy like this would take more than 48 hours.

Ship the metal off to China.

Did they catch the perps yet?

Of course, if the government say it wasn't arson then it wasn't arson.

 

[CyberPanda]

Apple Donating to Notre Dame Rebuilding Efforts in Paris After Historic Cathedral Damaged in Fire

Apple will be donating to Notre Dame rebuilding efforts to help restore the historic cathedral in Paris, according to a tweet from its CEO Tim Cook. ...

www.macrumors.com

 

[strange headache]

The case of the video with flashes of light has been analyzed by the press fact-checking.

D'où vient la vidéo montrant un flash de lumière sur le toit de Notre-Dame avant l'incendie?

Une webcam du site Viewsurf a filmé, à 17h05 le 15 avril, une silhouette se déplacer sur le toit de Notre-Dame de Paris et un flash de lumière. L'entreprise chargée des échafaudages indique que ses ouvriers étaient sur le toit jusqu'à 17h20.

www.liberation.fr

They also confirm that nobody can be seen on site after 18:00, which matches the company claim that workers left it at 17:50..

So it is as I assumed before.

People are falling for more fake news because they desperately want to find a scapegoat. This may sound harsh, but it worries me greatly to see those who cry foul against the shoddy reporting of MSM, fall for even worse reporting from twitter nobodies and conspiracy nuts. Eschewing their critical thought and helping spread false information simply because it fits their bias. Apparently reasoned skepticism is only applied when it concerns news they don't like to hear, everything else is just blindly swallowed.

Time and time again people in this topic have spread false information from "independent twitter journalists" and "alternative media" that have been demonstrably proven to the factually incorrect. I am honestly getting tired of this nonsense, and if I defend those against the shoddy and harmful reporting of the MSM, I must equally criticize them if they fall blindly for blatant misinformation and engaging in the same kind of behavior that they criticize others for.

It should be known that I'm one of the most vocal critics of religion and have a strong dislike for Islamic fanaticism and it's religious incompatibility with western enlightenment values. If even I am able to remain cautious, so can everybody else. Information, my friends, can only be taken for granted if every other explanation has been thoroughly exhausted.

 

[Eiknarf]

The stark difference between liberal handout culture and conservative benevolence culture.

I just cannot wrap my head around people who begrudge the wealthy for existing, to begin with, and for giving of their hard-earned money the way they see fit.

Immediate backlash for the rapidity for which money was donated to repair Notre Dame. Unba

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/billionaires-raced-to-pledge-money-to-rebuild-notre-dame-then-came-the-backlash/2019/04/18/7133f9a2-617c-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab&utm_term=.ed0bfb2ec700

 

[Teletraan1]

The stark difference between liberal handout culture and conservative benevolence culture.

I just cannot wrap my head around people who begrudge the wealthy for existing, to begin with, and for giving of their hard-earned money the way they see fit.

Immediate backlash for the rapidity for which money was donated to repair Notre Dame. Unba

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/billionaires-raced-to-pledge-money-to-rebuild-notre-dame-then-came-the-backlash/2019/04/18/7133f9a2-617c-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab&utm_term=.ed0bfb2ec700

Those people should open a go fund me for their cause of choice light themselves on fire and see if anyone wants to donate. Be the change you want to see.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Everyone wants to be an internet detective.

first one to break out the enhanced zoom wins

 

[Stitch]

The bees living on Notre Dame’s roof survived the fire | CNN

The bees that live on the roof of Notre Dame are alive and buzzing, having survived the devastating fire that ripped through the cathedral on Monday, the beekeeper Nicolas Geant confirmed to CNN.

edition-m.cnn.com

Notre Dame has housed three beehives on the first floor on a roof over the sacristy, just beneath the rose window, since 2013. Each hive has about 60,000 bees.

Geant said the hives were not touched by the blaze because they are located about 30 meters below the main roof where the fire spread.

 

[CyberPanda]

 

[strange headache]

I didn't say "instead of," did I? The point is that people would ideally pour money into supporting the values of Christianity, not just the symbols. Why wouldn't you use this as an opportunity to show compassion, to prove that it's about deeds and not just words?

No matching. ALL the millions should be helping the less fortunate before spending on luxuries. Practice what you preach. And Im not talking about free TVs, millions of kids dont even have clean water to drink. But I'm sure Jesus would rather have the more fortunate people have pretty buildings.

You are aware that France spends a third of its GDP on social aid and welfare, right? That's around €700 billion each year. So what exactly makes you think that the poor aren't important at all, considering that their social programs budget is one of France's biggest expenses. That's not even mentioning the private donations and welfare NGOs in France who are also helping the poor.

More over, what makes you think that poor people have no interest in restoring the Cathedral? Notre Dame is part of their cultural heritage and an important symbol too. Lastly, what makes you think that the rich people who are donating money to the restoration of this building aren't also making other donations for social reasons?

You're making plenty of baseless assumptions in order to engage in your hollow moral grandstanding.

 

[Aurelian]

You are aware that France spends a third of its GDP on social aid and welfare, right? That's around €700 billion each year. So what exactly makes you think that the poor aren't important at all, considering that their social programs budget is one of France's biggest expenses. That's not even mentioning the private donations and welfare NGOs in France who are also helping the poor.

More over, what makes you think that poor people have no interest in restoring the Cathedral? Notre Dame is part of their cultural heritage and an important symbol too. Lastly, what makes you think that the rich people who are donating money to the restoration of this building aren't also making other donations for social reasons?

You're making plenty of baseless assumptions in order to engage in your hollow moral grandstanding.

Didn't say the poor weren't important, but the fact is that poverty and poor social conditions are still problems in France. If you can afford to spend billions beyond your usual budget restoring a cathedral, you can afford billions extra to break the cycle of poverty in, say, Paris' poorer arrondissements.

Just because you're doing something doesn't mean you shouldn't be doing more. You accuse us of "hollow moral grandstanding," but you seem oddly obsessed with defending the status quo, with making sure nothing actually changes for the better.

 

[strange headache]

Just because you're doing something doesn't mean you shouldn't be doing more. You accuse us of "hollow moral grandstanding," but you seem oddly obsessed with defending the status quo, with making sure nothing actually changes for the better.

I'm not defending the status quo, just making you aware that France is already allocating considerable financial resources to helping the poor and socially disfavored. They are already spending several hundred billions on social aid. What you don't realize is that poverty and social inequality isn't something that can be alleviated with money alone since there are also structural problems to consider. You just made the baseless assumption that not enough importance is put on social problems related to poverty, when in fact a third of France's GDP is dedicated to alleviating exactly that.

Were you truly so worried about the poor people in France, you would find the necessary time and actually inform yourself on the French social system, it's a social democracy after all. Besides, what would be the alternative? Not fixing and restoring the Cathedral? Just not bother with it an tear this integral part of French culture down? I'd say the vast majority of French people, would not be okay with that. One problem does not invalidate another.

Also you failed to address my other two arguments. You just assume that poor people have no interest in saving the Cathedral and you just assume that the rich people making donations to that cause aren't also helping in other domains already.

 

[GAMETA]

Given the sociopolitical scenario of current Europe, it's hard not to believe or at least give credit to the conspiracies.

 

[Aurelian]

I'm not defending the status quo, just making you aware that France is already allocating considerable financial resources to helping the poor and socially disfavored. They are already spending several hundred billions on social aid. What you don't realize is that poverty and social inequality isn't something that can be alleviated with money alone since there are also structural problems to consider. You just made the baseless assumption that not enough importance is put on social problems related to poverty, when in fact a third of France's GDP is dedicated to alleviating exactly that.

Were you truly so worried about the poor people in France, you would find the necessary time and actually inform yourself on the French social system, it's a social democracy after all. Besides, what would be the alternative? Not fixing and restoring the Cathedral? Just not bother with it an tear this integral part of French culture down? I'd say the vast majority of French people, would not be okay with that. One problem does not invalidate another.

Also you failed to address my other two arguments. You just assume that poor people have no interest in saving the Cathedral and you just assume that the rich people making donations to that cause aren't also helping in other domains already.

I agree there are structural issues, but the fact is that structural reforms still cost money on top of shorter-term fixes like better housing and schools.

And like I said, the emphasis was on fund matching, not replacing the funding. I know Notre Dame is important to the country on many levels. I just want to see these same people making a show of donating to Notre Dame also confirming that they're actually doing more than that. You accuse me of assuming that rich people are also helping in other domains, you appear to assume that they are and don't want that questioned.

 

[Aurelian]

Given the sociopolitical scenario of current Europe, it's hard not to believe or at least give credit to the conspiracies.

It's pretty easy to not believe or give credit to conspiracies, because actual evidence is the only thing that matters, not hunches and suspicions. It's fascinating how people who claim to believe in logic and reason throw that out the window when there's a chance to blame an entire cultural group.

 

[strange headache]

I agree there are structural issues, but the fact is that structural reforms still cost money on top of shorter-term fixes like better housing and schools.

The French government spends around €150 billion on education alone, that's like 7% of the GDP. It is their second or third most important expenditure. Again, structural problems, for example unemployment and housing, can not only be solved by throwing more money at it. You fail to understand that a state budget is basically a balancing act between different priorities. Sure, you could throw even more money into social aid programs, but that would require taking money from other necessary expenditures such as infrastructure, education, defense, security and justice or wages.

If you think that the French government hasn't gotten its priorities straight by not putting enough importance on social aid, then please enlighten us what other expenditures should decrease in order to prioritize your preferred domains of public spending. I've already demonstrated that social programs and education represent the largest part of public expenditure. So in what specific way should public spending be rebalanced in order to fit your moral criteria?

And like I said, the emphasis was on fund matching, not replacing the funding.

I've already shown to you that social programs largely exceed most other expenditures, so they're not only matching other funding, but exceeding it. In the context of France's budget and public funding of social programs and education, restoring Notre Dame is but a drop in the ocean.

The reconstruction of Notre Dame will cost something around 2 or 3 billion. Now compare this to the 150 billion that the French government spends on education alone.

You accuse me of assuming that rich people are also helping in other domains, you appear to assume that they are and don't want that questioned.

Contrary to you I'm not making any subjective value statements and moral judgments simply because I do not know these things. I'm not the one criticizing the donations going towards the restoration of a historical monument. Feel free to defend your moral arguments by providing evidence and facts. Failing to do so, only implies that your hollow virtue-signaling is without merit.

It's always easy to make grand claims and requests, if you're not obligated to bring any receipts.

 

[GAMETA]

It's pretty easy to not believe or give credit to conspiracies, because actual evidence is the only thing that matters, not hunches and suspicions. It's fascinating how people who claim to believe in logic and reason throw that out the window when there's a chance to blame an entire cultural group.

Nah man, it's natural. You won't put your kid in a school were other kids were abused, you won't trust a man who's been covicted with murder and robery even after he's free, the same with a terrorist attack in the west being likely to be islan related...

I'm not saying it goes without prejudice, but can you really blame the sheep for being afraid of the wolf? I don't think so... so yeah, giving what's happened in other churches and monuments, the sociopolitical problems faced by western countries in regards of immigration, culture war retaliation, religion, terrorism and whatnot, it's pretty easy to connect dots, even if there's no real connection this time... can you blame people for jumping to likely conclusions? I don't think so.

 

[Alx]

Going from "there's a terror attack, must be linked to islam" to "there's a fire in a cathedral, must be linked to islam" is not exactly the same jump. One is much longer than the other, and hence the prejudice bigger. That's the kind of trend one should avoid, otherwise we'll start suspecting terrorism every time something bad happens (which is more or less what is happening with Notre Dame)

 

[TheShadowLord]

Going from "there's a terror attack, must be linked to islam" to "there's a fire in a cathedral, must be linked to islam" is not exactly the same jump. One is much longer than the other, and hence the prejudice bigger. That's the kind of trend one should avoid, otherwise we'll start suspecting terrorism every time something bad happens (which is more or less what is happening with Notre Dame)

This post sounds reasonable enough. I agree.

 

[Aurelian]

Nah man, it's natural. You won't put your kid in a school were other kids were abused, you won't trust a man who's been covicted with murder and robery even after he's free, the same with a terrorist attack in the west being likely to be islan related...

I'm not saying it goes without prejudice, but can you really blame the sheep for being afraid of the wolf? I don't think so... so yeah, giving what's happened in other churches and monuments, the sociopolitical problems faced by western countries in regards of immigration, culture war retaliation, religion, terrorism and whatnot, it's pretty easy to connect dots, even if there's no real connection this time... can you blame people for jumping to likely conclusions? I don't think so.

As Alx alluded to, there's an important difference: there's still no credible evidence that there might have been a terrorist attack. To use one of your analogies, it's like saying that you won't put your kid in a school because kids have been abused in schools in the past.

While I can understand the suspicion, I don't think we should let people off the hook. It's those very leaps in logic that are partly responsible for the mess the world is in. There are many people who refuse to let go of irrational fears simply because it's easier to assume an entire culture is evil than to put effort into adopting a nuanced, realistic view.

 

[GAMETA]

Going from "there's a terror attack, must be linked to islam" to "there's a fire in a cathedral, must be linked to islam" is not exactly the same jump. One is much longer than the other, and hence the prejudice bigger. That's the kind of trend one should avoid, otherwise we'll start suspecting terrorism every time something bad happens (which is more or less what is happening with Notre Dame)

I would agree if there hasn't been recent criminal acts, including fires, against french churches and general christian monuments. Connecting the Notre Dame fire to the same recent criminal activity doesn't seem too far-fetched.

Whether it is islam related or not is another story.

 

[GAMETA]

As Alx alluded to, there's an important difference: there's still no credible evidence that there might have been a terrorist attack. To use one of your analogies, it's like saying that you won't put your kid in a school because kids have been abused in schools in the past.

While I can understand the suspicion, I don't think we should let people off the hook. It's those very leaps in logic that are partly responsible for the mess the world is in. There are many people who refuse to let go of irrational fears simply because it's easier to assume an entire culture is evil than to put effort into adopting a nuanced, realistic view.

More than 10 french churches were attacked and vandalized in the past 2 months, some of them burnt by arson. Monuments also attacked.

Notre Dame burns:

"Not all arsons"


I mean...

 

[Tesseract]

hard to say, that is an unusual amount of light during the day

post hoc ergo propter hoc applies here

 

[Alx]

I would agree if there hasn't been recent criminal acts, including fires, against french churches and general christian monuments.

None of those acts have been linked to terrorism though. Also the stats about recent acts include all kinds of degradations, including spray painting messages on the walls (which can be religious, anarchist, politic,...)

 

[Aurelian]

More than 10 french churches were attacked and vandalized in the past 2 months, some of them burnt by arson. Monuments also attacked.

Notre Dame burns:

"Not all arsons"


I mean...

The whole point is that it's all too tempting to make an assumption in a case like this, and that you're stronger if you wait for evidence. And like Alx said, it's not even clear that there's a terrorist thread behind those past instances.

 

[CyberPanda]

 

[Eiknarf]

Over 3800 instances of Christian churches being desecrated, vandalized ... Christians and preist’s attacked in France. No response from the left.

One swastika painting on a street in Brooklyn or the N-word yelled out during a bar fight and we have federal investigations. They are treating the abuse of Christians and churches as mere vandalism and harassment.

What if it were desecration and abuse of synagogues and Jews or mosques and muzzies? (I feel and know the outcry would be horrific and quite different.)

 

[Alx]

Over 3800 instances of Christian churches being desecrated, vandalized ... Christians and preist’s attacked in France. No response from the left.

One swastika painting on a street in Brooklyn or the N-word yelled out during a bar fight and we have federal investigations. They are treating the abuse of Christians and churches as mere vandalism and harassment.

What if it were desecration and abuse of synagogues and Jews or mosques and muzzies? (I feel and know the outcry would be horrific and quite different.)

Ahem, source ?
French press and interior ministry mention about 1000 acts against Christians in 2018, covering many categories (including theft, insults, ...). For reference there were 570 anti-semitic agressions in 2018, and 446 islamophobic agressions in 2017.
Even websites dedicated to tracking such events (and with a very broad definition of "anti Christian acts") count "only" 26 cases of arson in or near churches between 2016 and 2018.

 

[Boss Mog]

It didn't take long:...

 

[CyberPanda]

It didn't take long:...

Ewww. no.

 

[ruvikx]

It's pretty easy to not believe or give credit to conspiracies, because actual evidence is the only thing that matters, not hunches and suspicions. It's fascinating how people who claim to believe in logic and reason throw that out the window when there's a chance to blame an entire cultural group.

Okay then. Let's talk about actual evidence. Is there proof the fire was an "accident"? Nope. No actual evidence, explanation or facts have been presented with regards to demonstrating the fire was indeed accidental. In this reality, we can easily throw the "conspiracy" accusation right in the face of the government & media themselves because their conclusion is also based upon... nothing but their own wishful thinking.

As I type, the fire at Notre Dame should be firmly in the "currently unexplained origin & cause" category of disasters.

 

[ruvikx]

It didn't take long:...

There would be a shooting match in France if that happened. 11 million people voted FN in the last election, i.e. it would be seen as a grave insult & provocation against the French people & nation.

 

[CyberPanda]

There would be a shooting match in France if that happened. 11 million people voted FN in the last election, i.e. it would be seen as a grave insult & provocation against the French people & nation.

That's what they want. They want create more division in the community, and further persecute the Christian/Catholic faith.

 

[Papa]

Okay then. Let's talk about actual evidence. Is there proof the fire was an "accident"? Nope. No actual evidence, explanation or facts have been presented with regards to demonstrating the fire was indeed accidental. In this reality, we can easily throw the "conspiracy" accusation right in the face of the government & media themselves because their conclusion is also based upon... nothing but their own wishful thinking.

As I type, the fire at Notre Dame should be firmly in the "currently unexplained origin & cause" category of disasters.

iirc the government attempted to debunk the arson/terrorism angle while it was still burning. They were quite clearly trying to get in front of so-called Islamophobia before they actually knew anything. Combine that with the many cases of other recent arson attempts on churches and it’s pretty easy to understand the speculation. The people saying there’s no evidence while simultaneously suggesting it was an accident with no evidence are being hypocritical.

 

[Aurelian]

Okay then. Let's talk about actual evidence. Is there proof the fire was an "accident"? Nope. No actual evidence, explanation or facts have been presented with regards to demonstrating the fire was indeed accidental. In this reality, we can easily throw the "conspiracy" accusation right in the face of the government & media themselves because their conclusion is also based upon... nothing but their own wishful thinking.

As I type, the fire at Notre Dame should be firmly in the "currently unexplained origin & cause" category of disasters.

Wait, so you say there's no evidence one way or the other (which isn't really true, but let's assume it's true for argument's sake), but you'd readily hurl a bullshit, unsupported conspiracy accusation at officials and the press?

There are reasons they lean toward the "accident" belief right now. There weren't any signs that someone infiltrated the building's top level (or absconded soon after the fire began); there was ongoing construction work; it's an old and frail structure that wouldn't pass safety codes at the best of times. The only countering 'evidence' I've seen is that, well, there were some arson attempts on churches before... but that doesn't prove this was arson.

 

[ruvikx]

Wait, so you say there's no evidence one way or the other (which isn't really true, but let's assume it's true for argument's sake), but you'd readily hurl a bullshit, unsupported conspiracy accusation at officials and the press?

There are reasons they lean toward the "accident" belief right now. There weren't any signs that someone infiltrated the building's top level (or absconded soon after the fire began); there was ongoing construction work; it's an old and frail structure that wouldn't pass safety codes at the best of times.

Notre Dame isn't a building that "wouldn't pass safety codes", it's one of the most important & guarded monuments in the whole of France. Right up there with Versailles. France has extremely strict rules on these matters. Old beams don't burn like petroleum either (factually demonstrated by actual architects & historians). These people (media & government) were screaming "accident" before any proof whatsoever was known & the building was still on fire. They had an agenda & enforced it, without ever even presenting any evidence to support their theory. Just google the "official" versions: their statements with regards to the fire's origin are filled with "could have" & "perhaps". The only part they're definitive on is rejecting any suggestion of foul play.

You choose to believe them, I don't. It's that simple.

 

[Aurelian]

Notre Dame isn't a building that "wouldn't pass safety codes", it's one of the most important & guarded monuments in the whole of France. Right up there with Versailles. France has extremely strict rules on these matters. Old beams don't burn like petroleum either (factually demonstrated by actual architects & historians). These people (media & government) were screaming "accident" before any proof whatsoever was known & the building was still on fire. They had an agenda & enforced it, without ever even presenting any evidence to support their theory. Just google the "official" versions: their statements with regards to the fire's origin are filled with "could have" & "perhaps". The only part they're definitive on is rejecting any suggestion of foul play.

You choose to believe them, I don't. It's that simple.

On safety codes... hey, guess what? You're inaccurate. They didn't install firewalls or sprinkler systems that you'd expect in a modern building (you know, based on safety codes) to limit the spread of a potential fire.

Also, you seem confused. You claim they were "screaming 'accident'" as if they made a definitive declaration, yet in the same breath say they used "could have" and "perhaps." So which is it, definitive or tentative? It sounds like they weren't rushing to conclusions and were simply saying that, based on initial data, they were inclined to think it was an accident. It's okay to provide an initial assessment if you acknowledge that it's incomplete, as they did.

I don't believe those stories at face value, but they make far more sense than the conspiracy theories based on the evidence and logic at hand.