What Really Caused the Notre Dame Cathedral Fire?

We were told by, I believe, someone closely connected with Notre Dame that they had not installed fire walls in the attic because they didn’t want to change that historic area, and no automatic sprinklers were installed because they feared electrical wiring in the attic area.

I think we all know what and who caused the Cathedral fire.. just as we all know who torched close to 900 Christian Churches in France.

From a NYT article that contained a fair amount of information from named sources.

*The cathedral’s rector, Msgr. Patrick Chauvet, told the radio station France Inter that the cathedral had fire monitors who checked the wooden framework under the roof three times a day. Notre-Dame did not have automatic sprinklers in the framework of the roof, and its attic space was not compartmentalized with fire-breaking walls, said Frédéric Létoffé, a construction expert.

The same article quotes the prosecutor who is investigating the fire. There were two alarms, about 20 minutes apart. A check of the premises after the first one found nothing.

The article also tells us that the fire started under the roof. (The wooden roof structure was sheathed on the outside in lead panels.)

More here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/world/europe/notre-dame-fire-what-we-know.html

We can´t even positively conclude who killed JFK...and no one can trust government, especially the French government. (Insert Gallic shug here.)

Quasimodo did it.

FTA: Investigators have not been given access to the site yet for safety reasons......and yet they can determine a cause??

Someone, should tell them how to conduct a cover-up. Was Jim Comey providing them with answers? Questions?

Too early to be sure, but no question that they DID NOT make any substantial effort to make it less likely to have a massive fire.

Clearly as soon as outside workers were allowed entry to the interior and roof of the Cathedral, the French should have had a human fire watch in those areas 24/7. Especially since the workers were using electric powered tools and other equipment that could easily start a fire in that wooden roof that was essential a mass of kindling wood. Whose to say at this point that a worker with nefarious intent did not place an electric piece of equipment on a pile of that kindling wood that was modified to eventually overheat and short circuit thus starting a fire. The point is maybe the fire was caused by an electrical short circuit, but the question that should be answered is why did such a short circuit even occur?

I was amazed to discover how poorly prepared the Cathedral was for fire. With the ancient timbers in the attic area, etc....man(!) that was asking for it. They may well have had to compromise or alter some things for the sake of safety and/or fire, but look at what they have now...
Over time, the magnificence of the Cathedral will again be restored.

Wood timbers or boards are combustible not flammable.

Maybe we´ll learn what brought down TWA 800 too.

#13, it has been very clear that a missile took down Flt 800 and that the CIA and FBI, ordered by DoJ Dep AG Jamie Gorelick, covered up that fact. Exactly WHOSE missile has been unclear for a long time, but...
Over the years, it has slowly become more clear that the most likely cause was an erroneous firing of a Standard missile by the guided missile cruiser USS Normandy, there doing a training exercise that night.

If we really want to know, there are people who were on board that night who know the truth. But, apparently they have been threatened with prison time if they tell the truth, ever. I expect some sort of deathbed confession some day, but so far, nothing has come out convincingly from the crew who would know.

Note that Gorelick held the same post that Rod Rosenstein held and still holds in the current DoJ criminal mess.

Sadly, in France the Atheist-Secularist´s are every bit as evil and dangerous and hell-bent on attacking Christian churches as are muslim terrorists!!!!

I would put my money on a "lone wolf" terrorist -- not a member of any group, but strongly believes in their evil beliefs and tactics -- who had the opportunity and took advantage of it. Probably a member of the renovation crew who saw the opportunity and figured he/she could get away with it because all the evidence would be destroyed in the fire.

I truly hope I am wrong, and that it just was a fluke accident. But given the pure evil of both muslims and lie-berals these days, and their track records of violence and destruction, I just seriously doubt it!!!

At about the time the fire was controlled there was a statement from the folks doing the design work and the folks doing the work. These people doing the work are professional restorers. They use the tools that were in use when the building was put up. Those tools modernized, but not electric.
They were firm that there was no electric where they were working. This seems to me just more BS the government is using so that the people will not draw a conclusion that it doesn´t want.

Building on the above, in addition to not using modern tools (no electrical tools were allowed in the attic, no torches, no sources of ignition whatsoever) the restoration company also pointed out that all their workers departed by 6 pm and the fire started at 6:50. They said they were still building the scaffolding and were not working in the attic yet. They also discussed many previous successful restorations of similar structures and the almost fanatical emphasis on avoiding any possibility of starting a fire. An unaffiliated restoration expert was unequivocal about both the restoration firms and the buildings managers dedicated and passionate determination to prevent any possibility of the work igniting a fire.

The beams were very large. Grab the biggest piece of cured (dried) oak (say 6" by 8")you can find, try to light it with sparks or a match, or a cigarette. It is not easy. I can´t easily accomplish this in with oak cured at an 8% relative humidity environment, the church was reported to be attempting to maintain the church at a 40% relative humidity level.

Others have stated that perhaps the attic was filled with boxes of papers or old rags. Pictures of the attic, taken for various reasons at different times show the space completely empty which fits with the emphasis that the buildings curators place on fire prevention.

An early report from NBC . com said that there were two ignition points.

The blaze wasn’t nearly controlled but media goofs were already “informing” us that the cause was either a cigarette butt or a construction related mishap. Call me a conspiracy theorist but I suspect it was to keep someone from wondering aloud who and what really started that and hundreds of other church fires in muslim-infested France.

From another article, about the investigation:

It will focus on the equipment being used by the restorers in a medieval cathedral where light and power sources were limited.

In such circumstances, cables and wires have to be attached to dozens of generators, and hoisted high up on to the building.

Paris prosecutors have opened a preliminary investigation, and have not yet ruled out any theories for the start of the fire, which blazed from 6.50pm on Monday until 3am on Tuesday.

An article from the UK Sun which I hadn’t seen. Many photos taken by French firefighters. The flames blazed as high as 40 feet! Some of the photos remind me of 9/11…

Worth a look and a read as it has great deal to say about the contractors - the restorers and the scaffolding contractor - who were involved in the restoration. More than I’ve seen anywhere else.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8876241/notre-dame-fire-video-flames-firefighters/

We, of course, do not yet really know but:

FTA:"A French expert familiar with the restoration effort was quoted as saying, “I visited the framing of Notre Dame with architects of the “Bâtiments de France” (“Buildings of France”, the highest rank for an architect in France), some years ago. This 13th century timber frame was extremely protected. Each intervention is always accompanied by historians, architects, experts; no work is envisaged without extreme caution; no source of heat, no torch, no electrical apparatus is allowed; a high-performance alarm system is in place; and very strict supervision of all people allowed there. I think we will eventually learn that this was arson.” "

And the odds of a random fire starting in Holy Week? 52:1 against. I am always skeptical of coincidences.

#1, I do not doubt that you are reporting accurately, but their excuse is BS. The normal commercial sprinkler system in the USA has NO electrical components. Pipes filled with water, often a gravity-fed from a roof tank (but not always) and temperature sensitive bismuth or glass actuators (no power, they melt or break at 165F) to open the sprinkler valves. Zero electricity required.

If added valving is somehow required, with remote actuation, it can be done with standard, commercially available air pressure actuated valves. A thin stainless steel pipe will carry the air signal to the valve, ZERO electrical componentry in the attic, again. The controller (with electric components) could be in a different building.

I am sure they said it, but it is not technologically accurate.