Notre Dame Burning: Arson Not Ruled Out
by David Sims
ALTHOUGH the French authorities are calling the Notre Dame fire “an accident,” it follows a considerable number of incidents of arson and vandalism of Catholic churches in France, as was reported here on Monday.
The hypothesis that the Notre Dame fire is the result of intentional arson is plausible. There are regulations about keeping a fire-watch for several hours after the end of a working day, if not continuously. Also, the reported speed of the spread of the flames is consistent with the use of accelerants, such as petrol or kerosene. The timing of the start of the fire is consistent with someone touching it off shortly after all (or most) of the workers had left the building to go to their homes. And as I said, there has been, in France, a significant uptick in arson/vandalism attacks on Catholic churches in recent months. Yessir, it’s not rational to rule out the possibility that this is arson, and that the reason the French authorities are denying it is to prevent suspicion from falling on non-White Muslim invaders prematurely (or at all).
How carefully everyone is avoiding saying the obvious about possible causes of the fire. I’ll say what others won’t: Certain recent arrivals in France have a history of setting things on fire: cars, buildings, etc. Also, what about the fire-watch required on any important construction site? Why has that gone completely unmentioned?
I really don’t understand how the Paris police could “rule out” arson so quickly, before an investigation into the cause of the fire has even begun — unless they are following orders. Perhaps Emmanuel Macron does not want his immigration policies called into question.
Or maybe the French police have not ruled out arson. Maybe they have merely declined to give an opinion on the question, and the leftist media thereafter have put words into their mouths, as we’ve seen them do so often in the past.
Here is a timeline of events relating to the Notre Dame fire, which I found on the Web site of the Miami Herald:
At 7:30 (pm, local time), the French media quoted the Paris fire brigade saying the fire was “potentially linked” to the renovation work.
At 7:45, French authorities said that the fire could be linked to renovation work.
At 7:55, the police in Paris said that the cause of the massive fire enveloping the spire of Notre Dame Cathedral wasn’t yet known.
At 8:05, the timeline repeated that the cause of the blaze wasn’t yet known.
At 11:15, the Paris prosecutor’s office said that the fire was being regarded as “an accident for now.” It also said that they have “ruled out” arson in “Monday’s fire.”
By what evidence did the prosecutor’s office (not the police) do that ruling out? The investigation could hardly have been concluded so quickly (i.e., within four hours). The declaration was obviously politically motivated, as it could not possibly have been the result of discovered facts.
The circumstantial evidence makes arson a very plausible explanation, and the Paris prosecutor’s office has not had anywhere near enough time to make any determination to the contrary. The fact that the prosecutor did so anyway strongly implies a political motive for the declaration.
The Jewish-controlled media are promoting the conclusion that the Notre Dame fire was an accident. But, from what we know now, arson is an equally reasonable conclusion. Both “it was an accident” and “it was the result of arson” are conclusions. Neither of those is a default position. The default position, in the absence of evidence either way, is to say “I don’t know.” Full stop.
When someone promotes a conclusion for which there is no evidence, the first thing to suspect is that the promoter has a political motive.
Unless the accident-theorists can show pictures of spark-throwing bare electrical wires in proximity to dry wood in the attic of the cathedral, or some evidence of equivalent quality, then there is no good reason to suppose that the fire was an accident.
Unless the arson-theorists can show evidence that someone was in the cathedral after the fire started, or that traces of kerosene or some other accelerant were present in the cathedral attic, then there is no good reason to suppose that the fire was started by an arsonist.
Until evidence is found, the only proper attitude is “I don’t know.” That’s as true for the accident-theorists as it is for the arson-theorists.
The haste with which the mainstream media and the government declared that the fire was an accident is very suspicious. That conclusion (if it is true) should have been the result of a fire marshal’s investigation. The only way the media or the government would have any special knowledge about the cause of the fire, before an investigation was completed, is if they knew in advance that it would occur, in which case the fire certainly would not have been an accident. I suspect that no one would have any information about the cause of the fire, so quickly after it started, if it were accidental.
* * *