So this week in the news the Notre Dame Cathedral caught on fire. What devastating news, its such a beautiful building and 800 plus years old. I remember this was one of the first buildings that got my attention in school because of the flying buttresses and the grace and elegance all of that bestowed.
The first thing that came to mind to me is: was it arson? and then that question was answered shortly by the authorities. No it was not arson. This answer came even while it was still burning which seemed suspicious to me. As the days have gone by the answer is still no, but more information has become available that makes me question things.
1. Monday April 15th was the first day of Easter Holly Week
2. How can you say arson is most likely not the cause while the fire is still burning and no investigation has been done?
3. There have been 12 other French churches have been desecrated in the past week.
4. Although not claiming credit for the destruction, ISIS has used the fire as propaganda.
In my opinion any one of these items could be chalked up to coincidence, but all four kind of make you look up and say "Huh"
Scaffolding had been set up in the mid section of the cathedral surrounding the midsection and spire, and although repairs were scheduled, actual repairs had not yet commenced, with the scaffolding not yet being complete. My experience with scaffolding is that there is reason for electricity or flame, open or otherwise while constructing scaffolding, and since it was not complete there were no other trades on site working. Now certainly the people erecting the scaffold could have been smoking and tossed an errant cigarette but out while sneaking a cigarette, but the roof was sheeted in lead, and in my opinion highly unlikely to burn. from watching the video from the fire it looks like the fire could have started at the spire, which possibly may not have been metal or stone, but quite possibly was constructed at least in part of wood, which could have lent a place for a cigarette butt to smolder. That said, it seems like quite a coincidence that a cigarette butt could smolder for less than 20 minutes before becoming a conflagration which ultimately destroyed almost the entire roof of the cathedral albeit exceptionally dry, these timbers were talking about were heavy timbers of oak, and very difficult to get to burn, although I don't know what type of wood the spire was constructed of it was built of wood and sheeted in lead, and seems highly unlikely that a random stray butt could have caused a fire.
Its been stated in the media numerous times that the attic area of the cathedral was called the forest because of all the wood and trees that went into creating the structure, and that because of the dryness of the wood, that all open flames, electrical, and anything else that could generate a spark were not allowed in this area, and that renovations to the building were quite stringent as to what could and could not be done such as unplugging any extension cords when not in use where they were permitted.
In my opinion, this is what could have happened. A workman assembling the scaffold was possibly a lone wolf and was able to plant some kind of incendiary device near the spire that would start a fire after they all left, and most likely not be discovered afterward due to the excessive heat, and destruction, or someone climbed up the scaffolding and did the same thing. The problem with that is the person doing so would have had a limited time to do the job, as the workmen setting the scaffold had only left about 30 min earlier, although the person could have sneaked up earlier and simply waited for the workmen to leave, I think that is unlikely as it would have increased the odds of being caught. After setting the device the person, if they were not planning on dying would have had to escape back down the scaffold, and you would have thought someone would have seen someone exiting quickly, as well as the fact that scaffold is not designed for quick movement. there would have likely been squeaking and some movement of the actual scaffold that would have caught someone's attention.
As far as the report that the fire is not arson, that is at best possibly wishful thinking on the part of the person saying that early on, and evidence will be found to the contrary. And at worst, someone is trying to perpetuate a cover up, so as not to inflame people against most likely Muslims which I honestly believe had something to do with it, and only time will tell
