Wednesday, April 17, 2019

"Is Paris Burning?"

Understand that I have never been a fire-fighter, nor dealt with anything bigger than a campfire.  Nonetheless, I know that a fire doesn't start spontaneously in two spots within 100 feet of each other at the same time.  That, according to the early investigators' reports, is what happened in the Cathedral of Notre Dame: one fire at the far end of the nave, up high under the roof, and the other in the north bell tower.

Another oddity: the church closed for the day at 6:00 PM and visitors and staff began filing out, but at 6:20 the staff heard a fire-alarm going off.  They searched for the fire but couldn't find any sign of one.  Local firemen arrived, and couldn't find anything either.  23 minutes later, when everyone had left the building, a second fire-alarm went off -- and this time the fire under the roof had well started.  That's when the firefighters arrived in serious numbers and began fighting the blaze with all the equipment they could bring in.  It took 9 hours to put the devastating fire out.

Everyone saw the live news-feeds of Notre Dame burning, and various officials commenting on it.  The commentators took exquisite care to avoid even hinting at the word "arson";  the closest they would come was to say that the cause of the blaze might have been "accidental", possibly as a result of the actions of the team doing repairs on the structure.  In fact, some officials actually claimed that the fire was "accidental" before the blaze was out, well before any investigators could have gone in and studied it.

There was not a whisper of the "ethnic" makeup of the workmen on those repair teams.  There was not a hint of the fact that, while grieving Parisians outside sang "Salve Regina" and cried as the cathedral's spire fell, further back were crowds of "migrants" laughing and cheering as the cathedral burned.

Nobody mentioned that, just the week before, the church of Sainte Surplice -- the second-biggest church in Paris -- was also burned, and the police had no problem admitting that the cause was arson.  Neither did the news-feeds mention that churches have been burned and vandalized all over France at the rate of at least one per week for the past year and more.  The well-trained media of France haven't mentioned that one of the complaints of the Yellow-Vest protesters is that the working-class of France is being taxed to death to pay for roughly a million "migrants" sitting about on Welfare.  And none of the news-media outside of France mention the "migrant" riots that plague Paris almost monthly -- usually notable for mass tossing of Molotov cocktails.  So far, none of the Jihadist groups have actually taken credit for the burning of Notre Dame, though ISIS-linked groups have called it "retribution" and "punishment" (for what?), and issued threats and warnings of more burnings to come.  Nobody will mention aloud what everyone is thinking.

Only CNN even hinted at the possibility that Jihadists set the fire, and that was a masterpiece of subtlety.  Its news programs showed, repeatedly, the Notre Dame spire falling in flames -- juxtaposed with images of the Twin Towers falling on 9/11/01 -- and let the viewers draw their own conclusions.

The question now is how much do the French police, government and media know, and how much are they only guessing.  Seeing how much they've been concealing for the past year and more, I suspect that they're not guessing.

So why the widespread secrecy?

The comparison with 9/11 is useful.  If it becomes widely known that the Jihadist "migrants" burned Notre Dame -- let alone Sainte Surplice and all the rest -- the French populace won't stand for it, any more than Americans put up with the 9/11 massacre.  The Yellow Vest protests would more than double;  they 'd paralyze the country, demanding that the French government stop supporting or welcoming the "migrants", but turn around and Throw The Bums Out.  They might even demand that the French government join the US in making war on the Jihadists overseas.  In any case, they'd make a point of hunting down and throwing out the Jihadist "migrant" groups, no matter how their apologists whine about "Islamophobia".

In fact, if it becomes clear that the Jihadists burned Notre Dame, "Islamophobia" may become a public virtue instead of a knee-jerk insult.  Very few politicians want that!  It would hasten the inevitable coming war between the Jihadists and the rest of the world.

--Leslie <;)))>< 




Paradoctor said...

A friend and I have a gentleman's agreement. He believes that the world's ruling classes are crooks, controlling events to their gain and our loss. I believe that the world's ruling classes are fools, not in control of events at all. My friend and I consider the other one to be an optimist.

You too are, alas, an optimist. Arson puts the fire within human agency; but I say that that's the fallacy of control. Sometimes shit happens which no one wanted, just from the random objectionableness of nature. You say the fire was war; I say it was chaos; and let's call each other an optimist.

Paradoctor said...

Here's a possibility; incompetent workers. I hear that the flame spread from an open flame the workmen were using. But incompetent labor is a subset of natural chaos.

Leslie Fish said...

The latest word from the French investigators is that *the repairs to the roof hadn't started yet*; the workmen were still putting up the scaffolding. There were no electrical connections, cables or tools anywhere near the roof or the bell towers. There was great care being taken to keep all flammable materials away from the building itself. Also, the workmen stopped for the day at 6 PM, more than 40 minutes before the fire broke out. So no, it couldn't have been clumsy workmen playing with fire. And in over 800 years of lively history, *there has never been a fire in Notre Dame*.

PS: Sorry, I misspelled Saint-Sulpice church.

Alchemy said...

Oh its not just Saint Sulpice church either. Churches all over france have been getting targeted with arson, vandalize and the like.

As far as why... well back in 2016

Course we hardly heard of it in the states since it wouldn't be long until presidential election. From what I've gathered so far, the people involved with it were sentenced earlier this week.

Interestingly enough, while I was pulling up a few news articles about the vandalisim, I've found a lot.. lot more.

I could probably find more rather easily not at work.

Technomad said...

My own take is that I am waiting for more information before drawing conclusions.

I've heard that the wiring in Notre Dame was decades or more out-of-date, and way overdue for replacement. That has been known to cause fires. Here in Iowa, they were renovating the Old Capitol building on the University of Iowa campus (which dates back to before Iowa was a state) and something went wrong with the electricity, causing a fire that severely damaged the building.

Even if it was arson, there are other possible suspects. Just for starters, there has been a strong strain of hostility to the RC Church in France since at least the Revolution. I would also point out that the French RC church has almost certainly had the same sort of problems with endemic child molestation that the US and other branches have had, and there are probably a lot of people out there with deep-rooted grudges on account of it. One such person, working in a place like that, might have been all it took.

Alchemy said...

According to the guy who was supposedly in charge of the church in the 90s, they had actually gone through and replaced all the electrical work back then. The roof was also made of old oak, which apparently isn't easy to burn in most conditions. Dunno about burning myself, but the stuff is like impossible to drill compared to something like pine.

Leslie Fish said...

The only wood denser than European oak is American ironwood, which has to be cut with diamond-tipped tools, won't float in water, and is almost impossible to burn. Judging from the news videos, it did take hours for those oak beams to burn. It was *not easy* to start that fire.

Regardless of the RC church's scandals and bad odor in France, Europeans generally -- and the French in particular -- are quite proud of their artistic heritage. I can see p!ssed-off Frenchmen desecrating churches, but vandalizing and burning? Not to mention RC cemeteries. No, that was not any Christian or secular malice.

Reziac said...

Yep, downright difficult to light big dense old-growth oak timbers without an accelerant. Someone with a blowtorch and 15 minutes unobserved might achieve it, but I wouldn't bet on it staying lit. Trouble is once it gets going, it's equally tough to put out. [Voice of long experience with wood stoves and random scrap. Oak burns well once it gets going, but is a bitch to start.]

Also, I read elsewhere that there was NO electrical in the attic. And I very much doubt that even a serious persistent short (which you'd think would have noticeable effects elsewhere) would light up that oak. Bit of local charring, maybe.

Couple other points: word from a Frenchman on Another Blog[TM] is that Macron mandated half the workforce be migrants. Opportunity didn't just knock, it blew the door down.

And then there's this video from the N.D. webcam:

Notre Dame fire 2019-04-15 -
Person moving and flash on the roof?

"The clip is marked 15/04 17:05 on the webcam-site and the flash is at 23 sek with some movement a couple of seconds before. Meaning this (might be se correction above) is several minutes in real time."

Definitely a person moving, and looks to me like he's signaling associates observing via the webcam (being that's available to anyone with an internet connection).

Also, there was a ...foiled... attempt on N.D. a couple days before -- Muslima with a car full of gas cans... she gave the cops the lamest story ever, which leads me to believe she was involved with the arsonists, either directly or as misdirection.

While I dislike leaping to conclusions, this one is like being punched by Captain Obvious.

Alchemy said...

Besides that I don't think we're going to get much more information or anything along those lines about the fire. It'll just be a thing that happened, its time to move on, nothing to see here.

The news may talk about it one more time next week, but I think they're going to be going on with the mueller report now.

Leslie Fish said...

Macron *mandated* that the repair crews be half "migrant"? After all the church burnings and vandalisms of the past year? I won't even ask who's paying him off to ruin his own country.

Never mind what the US media report. The question is what the French citizens learn -- from their own media, from the Internet, or from word of mouth. Bless video-cams and cell-phones with video-cam apps! Ironic that you mention the Mueller report; the investigation into the burning of Notre Dame had damn-well better be as big and as thorough, and as open to the French voters.

Bill S said...

More than 800 churches in France in a year. Four in SW Germany in March,and over 1000 German statues beheaded in past 10 years.

Alchemy said...

And now over the weekend. :/

Reziac said...

Yeah, on Easter Sunday, Sri Lanka had all sorts of spontaneous outbreaks of terminal 'peace', all mysteriously centered on Christian churches. 207 dead and ~800 injured at last report.

Leslie Fish said...

And I notice that the Sri Lanka govt. is censoring the Internet about the events -- supposedly to suppress "rumors" and "fake news". Uhuh. They know.

Paradoctor said...

Sri Lanka is mostly Buddhist, Christians and Moslems are small minorities, the Buddhists there have a bad history with Christian imperialism, and lately Buddhism there has become part of national identity politics. So maybe the terrorist was Buddhist.

Reziac said...

If you believe it was Buddhists, do I have a bridge for you.

Here's a picture of him:
Looks real peaceful, don't he?

In any event, Islamists have claimed responsibility.

(Islam always claims to have been attacked first, even when it wasn't. You have slighted and attacked Islam by merely being an unbeliever, or perhaps a different sect of Islam.)

Leslie Fish said...

Latest I heard, the Sri Lankan govt. is calling for a ban on wearing burkas in public. They know, they know.

Leslie Fish said...

Hmmmm, tell me why Macron -- practically on the same day -- suggests that the rebuilt Notre Dame should have a minaret instead of a spire, and claims that "political Islamists" want to "secede" from France? Does he really think he can jump both ways at once?

Reziac said...

It's worse than that. Macron may be in on it. This is from a 2017 leak of Macron's documents:

Document is in French, and I haven't got it all run thru Translate yet, but it's fairly damning. One section chosen at random:

3 - Widening of the concordat alsaco-mosellan to Islam
Since the decision of the Constitutional Council, the derogatory regime can no longer be extended. But the author hopes that in the current context the Constitutional Council will operate a turnaround of jurisprudence in favor of a law on the creation of non-contractual professorial posts teaching of the Muslim religion ... What I doubt. But he explains that this would to create a chair of Muslim theology, and to develop a theological discourse compatible with the
expectations of society and the demands of the Republic. " It's a kind of Gallicanism, but we are in a regime of separation and not of control of religions.

Note: if after you download it, your PDF viewer can't find it, replace the accented e in the filename with a normal e.

Reziac said...

BTW I've managed to lose the durn thing but someone just demo'd an attempt to ignite an old oak beam with a welding torch. Five minutes later he had a glowy spot the size of your hand, but it faded to charcoal as soon as he stopped heating it.

Alchemy said...

Well.. Sometimes these politicians use a form of double speak. Like for example the ones who say "We don't /want/ to take your guns." and then they start making laws to do exactly that. Some people are taken by shock. But what the politician really was saying was "We NEED to take away your guns."

What Macron could be saying here is something along the lines.. "We're going to split france. This area where notre dame is standing is going to be built with minaret because we've got these political islamists who want to secede and they'll be taking the land there."

granted, I don't know what the actual words he used, but never make deals with devils and dijin

Leslie Fish said...

Why the hell is he doing this? And what stupid friends does he have that are encouraging him in this? Why are so many other European leaders falling in line? Why are half the govts. of the western world falling for it? All the oil-money in the world wouldn't be enough to pay for selling out half of Europe.

Reziac said...

I remember seeing something right before the election (too late to be of influence) that claimed Macron was not his own man, but rather was someone's puppet. Unfortunately I don't recall who was named but it was not a French concern.

(And no, this wasn't the usual sort of conspiracy theorism involving Rothschilds and EbilJoos. It was something on the order of a Turkish business interest.)

Some people's loyalty extends only to the current high bidder.

Bill S said...

I have forwarded this to a friend of mine from church who works as a translator. She lived in Paris for MANY years, and has friends and family there still. I get some quite unique viewpoints from her on what goes on in France.

Reziac said...

Still haven't found the Macron info I referenced, but did note a whole bunch of interesting links in one of the comments below this article:
Um, this'un:

[The Saker is, IMO, not to be trusted. But sometimes spits up interesting stuff.]

Leslie Fish said...

So, France -- like too many western countries -- has been ruled by a "liberal" corporatocracy that has looted the working class to pay for the "migrants". But why did it bring in the "migrants" in the first place? Surely Macron & cronies knew that this would only place unsustainable stress on the economic system. Why in hell did they do it?

Bill S said...

Migrants were brought in because France has well under the 3.2 birth replacement needed to sustain civilization (1.1 I believe) wherein the Muslims run a birth ratio of close to 8 children per family. Without them WORKING, the French welfare system would collapse (as would/will much of western Europe).

What that does to French culture, however, is pretty destructive. (Same for just about all of western Europe. Eastern Europe (Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, etc) is fighting back.

Leslie Fish said...

Damn idiocy! Those fool govts. could have let their populations shrink a bit, then done what tends to increase the birth-rate -- by providing better-paying jobs, or even making it easier to start a "family" sized business (there's nothing like a legacy to encourage making kids to leave the legacy *to*).

Now their only hope is to THROW THE BUMS OUT, and join the coming war against the Caliphate. Wars and other slaughters tend to encourage baby-making too.

Alchemy said...

>Surely Macron & cronies knew that this would only place unsustainable stress on the economic system. Why in hell did they do it?

There is one conspiracy theory out there where you've got someone who is in the shadows pulling some strings, and is trying to do something out of like a Bond movie. That is to say, take over the world. Its something that has been tried before again and again with Alexander the Great, Napoleon, even the Nazis. Countless others have tried before as well. But the world is huge and even with the advancements of technology, it was never enough. AT least until now. Since WWII there has been huge advancements in technology that allow people and information to travel the world in a matter of moments.

We have the greatest ability to connect to others, while also the greatest ability to separate ourselves from others. We don't have to go to the store, even work with other people, just is a simple button to block people and never have to listen to them again. From there its just a matter of fragmenting people into smaller and smaller groups.

On the flip side, power needs to be gathered, and this is the primary reason you have 'leaders' of these countries trying to destroy the countries economy. Same with various kinds of businesses and the like out there as well. There is only so much "power" in the world, though that goes up and down the more people in the world there is. Every person is born with a certain amount of power, which part of which is given up to society in good faith that its not abused.

This power given up into society is split into different controlling factions. Clan, Church, Community, Company, Country. Each of these fragment the power that was given up by the person. And for someone who wants all the power in the world (essentially taking over the world) this is unforgivable. Which is why there is so many efforts out there to destroy all those institutions, because each one 'steals' power from the one(s) who want it all

So there is a power above France and macroon, The EU who controls a lot of going ons in many of the European countries. If France was to fall, EU could sweep in to "help", making new rules and laws to prevent them from leaving, and take control of the power.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Alc. In that case, why did the EU fail so badly with Greece, when its economy collapsed? Power, like water, can't be compressed -- which means that the more you tighten your grip on a country, the more the power leaks out between your fingers -- as viz. the Yellow Vest revolt, and the Brexit move in the UK, and all the countries (Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and now Italy) refusing to take in any more "Syrian refugees". You'd think the EU movers and shakers would have wised up by now and realized that they'd better change course before they lose the whole pie.

Bill S said...

Like the "left" in the US, the EU movers and shakers subscribe to a religion of WE KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOU and ANYONE who subscribes to a religion is massively hesitant to change because of a few inconvenient facts.

Conservative and "the right" (not the same thing) are also somewhat religious about their political beliefs, but not as fanatic as the "left" "liberal" side.

(NB - I am Orthodox Catholic, and about as tied into my religion as anyone can get)

Alchemy said...

Depends on what you mean by failing. Granted I've not heard much from Greece after they pretty much went bankrupt and where put on life support by the EU.

Brexit is constantly dismissed as being nothing more than a bunch of racist idiots. PM Maybe has spent the last few years (As someone who made her stance to stay with EU clear) constantly delaying brexit, or trying to negotiate terms that are increasingly unfavorable to the UK. Yellow vests are similar tried to be dismissed as nothing more than a terrorist group.

The "Movers and shakers" continuously have the idea that the common folk are idiots and that we need them to save us from ourselves. Though Hillary Clinton has said they need to work on that immigration stuff.

There does however tend to be a thing that people in power do when their authority is challenged and they run in a situation they need to change.. The double down on the old policy instead. In a lot of cases, they feel if they can just scream racism enough, the problem will go away.

Its kinda like certain economic practices, that are claimed to have "never been tried before" and every time it comes in and fails, "Well that wasn't a real version of the economic practice, so it doesn't count!" Or there was Koi gate, in which they zoom in on trump dumping fish food into the Japanse president's koi pond and try to frame ita as the evil actions of a toddler in a mans body who doesn't care about anyone else or anything else and just go t bored feeding the fish. But the whole video shows the Japanese President dumping the food first, and that didn't matter. Just means the Japanese President is just as evil as trump and was forced to do it entertain the toddler.

KateGladstone said...

“the church of Sainte Surplice” — for anyone “Googling this, it’s actuslly “Saint-Sulpice”: a male saint, not a female one, and the spelling of his name isn’t identical with that of a piece of ecclesiastical garb.

KateGladstone said...

“the church of Sainte Surplice” — for anyone “Googling this, it’s actually “Saint-Sulpice”: a male saint, not a female one, and the spelling of his name isn’t identical with that of a piece of ecclesiastical garb.