SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the insides of Business Insider
As a huge fire took hold of Paris' Notre-Dame Cathedral on Monday evening, alt-right figures were in no time spreading rumours and disinformation on social media linking the blaze to Muslims and hinting at a sinister cover up.
French officials on Monday night were quick to say that arson was unlikely to be the cause of the blaze as it engulfed the roof of the 12th century cathedral, but far-right activists and propagandists were already all over social media channels pushing conspiracies.
Conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec compared the blaze to 9/11, despite no link having made to terrorism by French officials, while alt-right activist Faith Goldy falsely claimed that three days previously "a Muslim jihadis [sic] in Paris was arrested for planning a terrorist attack at Notre-Dame Cathedral.
Funny, there was this little AC scurrying about here on SN yesterday, saying things like this.
- https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=31108&page=1&cid=830165#commentwrap
- https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=31108&page=1&cid=830026#commentwrap
...but well countered here, also by an AC:
See Also:
Police have begun questioning workers who were carrying out renovations at the cathedral. The Paris prosecutor's office has opened an inquiry into "involuntary destruction by fire", indicating they believe the cause of the blaze was accidental rather than criminal.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/notre-dame-fire-cause-everything-know-cathedral-paris/
The Paris prosecutor's office said it was treating the fire as an accident, ruling out arson and possible terror-related motives, at least for now.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:52PM (6 children)
I'm not sure of the point that you are trying to make, but does he mean at the time the fire started or the time it was detected? He cannot know what time it started without knowing how it started, so I suspect he means detected. It might have been smoldering for a significant time before the flames became evident. Was any electrical equipment being used for the renovations? How can he be certain that all equipment was disconnect from a power source? Had anyone been smoking during the day in the workspace? How is smoking controlled, especially regarding how are cigarettes safely extinguished? Would you expect the head of the company responsible for the rennovations to say that the fire might have been started by one of his workers not following the regulations, even if it were true? Can you imagine what the future would be like for that company?
When was the electrical wiring for the lighting installed, and when was it last inspected? Have there been any reports of fuses blowing/circuit breakers tripping?
I live in France and watch French TV. I can assure you that these and numerous other questions are being asked at the moment.
There are many, entirely innocent, ways in which the fire might have started. Lets allow the experts to complete the investigation and let us hear the findings before we make any speculative pronouncements.
(Score: 5, Informative) by quietus on Wednesday April 17 2019, @03:29PM (3 children)
Maybe you missed yesterday evening's 20h news at france2: sensors at 3 places in the roof structure went off at 18:20h, a specially trained team of 20 firemen was deployed but no visible fire meaning they had to check the whole structure in depth, which they never got the chance to: about 20 minutes later the fire suddenly engulfed the central spire.
Likely cause is the electrical circuitry installed for the renovation works; workers were not present on site as Mass was going on (no idea whether they continue working on Sunday).
As I remarked in my previous post, smoldering heat fires that suddenly break out are not unusual, and nigh impossible to model, hence predict (the stuff supercomputers are being used for).
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:51PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday April 18 2019, @09:18AM (1 child)
My apologies, janrinok, for that bit curt reply.
While I'd seen a short breaking news flash on Monday, it was only on Wednesday morning that I came to checking out the news report. It hit me with surprising emotionality -- like standing in delay with the silent crowd of spectators, tears in my eyes.
Then I came to moderating on soylent. If you've taken the time to read at 0, you might understand that I didn't feel overly joyous after that -- yours was still a reasonable post, worth replying to; so I did, but a bit in abrasive mode I'm afraid.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Thursday April 18 2019, @09:39AM
You have nothing to apologise for - if friends cannot have a discussion without taking offence then it is a very sad world indeed.
I had missed those details and I am glad that you pointed them out to me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:43PM (1 child)
I was just trying to participate in the "community discussion".
If I wanted to make a point, what you wrote is an accusation of the repair company wrong doing. While it is less serious than terrorism or conspiracy, it is an acquisition nevertheless. People could lose their jobs and even freedom.
French police is currently, I believe, simply "investigating" It does not mean "they believe the cause of the blaze was accidental rather than criminal". They simply started with the least serious cause.
Having said that, I do realize that French people would want it to be an accident and I truly hope myself it is. This does not mean though the conclusion implied in the summary. Both terrorism and diversion conspiracy are plausible given the times.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:49PM