Notre Dame Fire Investigation Started From A Priori Assumptions

Paris prosecutor has confirmed that the investigation of the fire at Notre Dame has been established on the a priori assumption that it was all just a big boo-boo. According to a report in Russia Today:

“We are favoring the theory of an accident,” Remy Heitz told journalists. “No evidence indicates it was an intentional act.”

It seems to me that this is not how an investigation is supposed to be started. When you begin an investigation with an a priori assumption, it is al but inevitable that said investigation will conclude in a confirmation of that assumption.

The sad thing is that they assume that the vast majority of people will not understand that and will not call them on it. The still sadder thing is that they are probably correct.

ETA: Sa me Reported by Reuters ...
:

a reply to: incoserv

Fire investigation usually start with fire department determining where the fire started and how.

a reply to: incoserv

I've heard here in the states as them saying this is being investigated as an accident, or this is being investigated as arson.

Fire marshals do the investigation correct? But if foul play is being investigated wouldn't that bring in law enforcement?

That's a legitimate question I do not know the answer to.

And I thought you were eluding to a conspiracy coming from the Priory of Sion!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: incoserv

Fire investigation usually start with fire department determining where the fire started and how.

The possibility of arson was being discounted before the fire was even put out.

a reply to: incoserv

I'm sure that the fire had moved from its place of origin by the time they made that determination.

Most fires are started by accident. Usually, arson is accompanied by accelerants. Is there reason you think they're ignoring or covering up the presence of an accelerant, even though they ruled out arson from the beginning?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: incoserv

Most fires are started by accident. Usually, arson is accompanied by accelerants. Is there reason you think they're ignoring or covering up the presence of an accelerant, even though they ruled out arson from the beginning?

Simply the fact that dozens of churches - many of them sites with nearly as much historical and cultural importance as Notre Dame - have been torched or vandalized over the last few months. There's a pattern. To ignore that even before the fire is really underway is irresponsible at best.

But, hey it'd be the first time ever in the history of the world that a massive cover-up effort would have been put into play. Thankfully governments don't do that. Ever.

Move along, folks.
:

a reply to: incoserv

What do you think you’re doing speculating and thinking outside the official narrative in a conspiracy website?

/sarc

Move along folks... indeed.

a reply to: incoserv

Was Notre Dame torched or vandalized? Anyone taking credit for the fire?

The news outlets are reporting that the fire started small and smoldered for about 20 minutes before it was out of control, according to the cathedrals detection devices.

“What we know at this stage is that there was an initial alarm at 6:20 p.m., followed by a procedure to verify this but no fire as found,” Heitz explained. “Then, there was a second alarm at 6:43 p.m. and at that point a fire was detected in the structure.”

www.msn.com...

a reply to: incoserv

Its just a coincidence that they brought a bunch of Muslims from the worst parts of the world, and now Christian icons and symbols are being destroyed.

I heard theyre planning to rebuild it as a "universal church" inviting all religions, yes even Luciferians and Satanists. Thats probably just an internet rumor, but it will be interesting to see what they do.

There were no construction workers on the site at the time, but theyre trying to blame it on the renovations. Not impossible for a piece of equipment left behind to malfunction, but its absolutely premature to conclude it was an accident.

Every time a human dies in the State of Washington (and probably every other American State) outside of a doctor's care, it Always assumed to be a Homicide and Homocide invesitgators are assigned to the case until homocide is ruled out. I know this was "only a building", but, it kinda seems like, at least with certain buildings, or certain circumstances, in a politically charged atmosphere, they should start to investigate this as an arson until it has been ruled out.

There is just too much of an obvious motive, so its absurd for them to overlook this possibility.

They know its bs and are probably telling themselves "We are doing a GOOD thing by lying to the public. The public is just too simple minded and backward thinking to ever be trusted with The Truth! I mean, just think about it for one second! They actually VOTED FOR US!!! How intellectually retarded could you possibly be! And theres MILLIONS of these morans out there! Yeah. No. There's no way in Hell we're telling them the truth. You have to actually show Some sign of a self-preservation instinct before you can be trusted with the truth. The fact they voted for us shows that they have no concern for their own well being or for that of the future of their nation..."

In the US, investigators us speciality trained dogs to sniff out accelerants. I once worked as a representative of the owner on a construction project where arsen was suspect. It was a very large payout and the insurance company brought in a dog team from Blackwater security. Once the dog hit on the chemicals and a lab test confirmed, the investigation was on. The owner was a commissioner for the state wildlife resources agency, It turned out that two convicted deer poachers had a score to settle and burned the project.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: incoserv

Was Notre Dame torched or vandalized? Anyone taking credit for the fire?

The news outlets are reporting that the fire started small and smoldered for about 20 minutes before it was out of control, according to the cathedrals detection devices.

“What we know at this stage is that there was an initial alarm at 6:20 p.m., followed by a procedure to verify this but no fire as found,” Heitz explained. “Then, there was a second alarm at 6:43 p.m. and at that point a fire was detected in the structure.”

www.msn.com...

Exactly! This is all just a big misunderstanding! The alarm went off, but the people trained for such things in the Nation with some of the most valuable real estate on Earth just couldn't find the fire. A fire gives off smoke, sets kff alarms, and they would know which alarm detected the fire so they would have entered the same room where the detector was able to smell smoke, but they just couldn't find the fire and couldnt smell any smoke so it accidentally was allowed to grow for 20 minutes to uncontrollable proportions, and THEN the firemen noticed it. Whats so hard to understand about that?

They didnt notice it when it was small, they didn't notice it when it was medium, they didnt notice it when it was large, they ONLY were able to detect it when it was a raging inferno that was impossible to put out. Happens all the time. Its an optical illusion type of thing, when youre looking over here, its over there, and when you are looking on one side of the building, its on the opposite side, and it follows you around so that, you enter a room that was just fully ablaze only a moment ago, and it looks totally normal because the fire snuck out the window and came back in through a side door and now its upstairs... and then...

OMG...

THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!! RUN!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a
Fire marshals do the investigation correct? But if foul play is being investigated wouldn't that bring in law enforcement?

My brother in law is a fire inspector and is considered law enforcement, he carries a weapon and can make arrests related to arson investigations. Not sure if it works the same way in France.

originally posted by: 3n19m470
They didnt notice it when it was small, they didn't notice it when it was medium, they didnt notice it when it was large, they ONLY were able to detect it when it was a raging inferno that was impossible to put out. Happens all the time.

It happened in my home town with a national landmark, look up St. Mark's church in West Orange. Almost identical damage and the fire was only detected until it was completely engaged.

meine Freunde,

The evidence would've been all burnt up. If it was a hit, that Muslim extremist knocked it out of the park and with no claim from an organization yet. You'd think ISIS would have claimed it like they did with anything else that they could without proof as they were doing for a while. I guess their social media arm was cut off.

I don't think a Catholic priest's sexual pedo victim turned outspoken or militant Atheist would've been able to pull this off, nor any renegade priests trying to destroy their evidence.

That's a helluva fire to be able to start. Think of how it would have to start and become powerful enough to quickly spread like that. The weather such as wind will be taken into account, as well as electrical which would be the first place they'd look. It didn't start with anyone noticing it, that seems to be the case with no eyewitness or employee accounts of something going wrong in the kitchen or any facility.

Intentionally pulling that off is very unlikely if it had to probably start from inside as the wood was basically encapsulated and surrounded by stone works. To do it somewhere inside without being noticed powerfully enough to cause that is extremely unlikely. From outside is almost impossible I'm assuming.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: incoserv

Anyone taking credit for the fire?

Right. I suppose someone took credit for all of these...and that's just a partial list.

Pretty funny you think the absence of 'taking' credit is despositive of causation.

a reply to: loam

Thing is, the police had reason to conclude that fire was the result of arson. They apparently don't have reason to think the fire at Notre Dame was.

According to initial analyzes, the origin of the fire is criminal, reports the weekly La Vie quoting LCI television channel. The motive and the identity of the suspect remain to be determined. The week before, an individual has already launched a piece of inflamed fabric on the facade, always according to LCI .

www.evangeliques.info...

a reply to: incoserv

In case you don't know:

16 Historic Statues Removed From Notre-Dame Cathedral 4 Days Before Fire

a reply to: Phage

Too early to tell, I would think. Just happened yesterday.

Moreover, it's not like there isn't cause for concern.

originally posted by: loam
twitter.com...

I would agree blaming the fire on an intentional act at this point is as speculative as saying it wasn't.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Exactly! This is all just a big misunderstanding! The alarm went off, but the people trained for such things in the Nation with some of the most valuable real estate on Earth just couldn't find the fire.

So, you think it was inside job, then. Not a Muslim extremist or terrorist group. Probably just some priests looking for an insurance payoff.