Ohhhhhhhhh! Notre Dame Fire Could've Been Caused By A Cigarette, Prosecutors Say

[hlthe2b]

Still not ruling out electrical, but even the thought that some a'hole irresponsibly smoked in Notre Dame and then tossed a cigarette makes me absolutely sick... I think everyone could ultimately accept that an electrical fire occurred--this kind of thing happens, but the alternative would be very hard to fathom

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/notre-dame-fire-cause-cigarette_n_5d149230e4b0e45560383fc8

PARIS (AP) — A preliminary investigation found no evidence to suggest that a fire that gutted large parts of Notre Dame Cathedral was criminal, the prosecutor’s office said Wednesday.

The prosecutor’s office said in a statement that several hypotheses about the cause of the April 15 blaze include a malfunctioning electrical system or a smoldering cigarette — to be further investigated in a new probe.

The prosecutor’s office announced the opening of a judicial investigation led by three judges for “involuntary degradation by fire through manifestly deliberate violation” of security rules or simple imprudence. It targets “X,” meaning anyone or any entity suspected.

The 13th-century cathedral was under renovation at the time of the fire and scaffolding crisscrossed the back of the edifice where the spire was once located.

--snip--
As the detective work continues, workers are taking on what officials have said it one of the most complex operations — cutting down the 50,000 tubes of scaffolding erected for the initial pre-fire renovation. The tubes reached more than 800 C (1,472 F) during the fire, according to a statement Wednesday by the Notre Dame Foundation.

[ValidateThis]

1. Think of it this way

Native Americans cultivated tobacco and gave it to Europeans, who turned it into a consumer product and an addictive drug for millions. Europeans used Christian missionization as a moral fig leaf for the genocide of Indigenous Americans.

Makes you think.

[hlthe2b]

2. Notre Dame is far more than a Cathedral. It is an architecture marvel and essentially a

"museum" for the period.

This isn't a religious argument. I find many who have not had the chance to visit there buy into the "religion bad, so who the hell cares" argument. That is JUST WRONG!

[ValidateThis]

5. Yeah yeah we have been around this argument

Notre Dame is many different things to many different people. Not everyone is persuaded by the historical whitewash of Christianity’s role in genocide and colonization.

And also let’s be clear ND was already a 19th century vision of a “medieval” church in every significant aspect of its presentation. It was rebuilt at the height of French colonial empire, with wealth extracted from Indigenous people.

I’ve been there. It’s an incredible human achievement. Im not celebrating its destruction. I’m just pointing out the ironies of history. If a cigarette was to blame, it didn’t get there by the hand of God. It got there because of history. The very history this or any “museum” of European “civilization” celebrates is also a history of genocide and loss for millions.

[hlthe2b]

6. Yes, you are. n/t

[ValidateThis]

14. No I'm not

But feel free to put words in my mouth.

[malaise]

13. What an interesting post

Lots of truth here

[ValidateThis]

16. Thank you

Some people can’t see shades of gray I guess.

I wonder how many of them care or even know about the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ahyodya. Proves that despite protestation to the contrary, the White “Christian” ancient sacred site matters more to white people than the destruction of sites sacred to non-Christians and brown people. Oh sure, it’s a secular museum of history, not a shrine to the God in whose names Europeans killed millions.

[LanternWaste]

18. Not an irony of history.

But rather an irony within your own particular interpretation of history. History, like science, doesn't care about irony.

[ValidateThis]

20. What a strange thing to say

"History doesn't care?" Since when is "history" an agent or a subject? And, if you are so educated in historiographic theory, explain to me what the difference is between "history" and "a particular interpretation" thereof? You are trying to sound profound, but you come across as ignorant to anyone who has read, say, the work of Hayden White or E.P. Thompson, to name only my favorite historians.

You are defending a "particular interpretation of history" in which a cathedral, built in the european middle ages as a sign of political power and religious faith, rebuilt in the 19th century as a symbol of empire, and burned in the 21st century to mixed opinions worldwide, is somehow outside of history. I'm not celebrating the demise of Notre Dame, which will be rebuilt according to 21st century "interpretations" of history, because what other choice is there? No one has purchase on the "truth" of history. History is a record of human endeavor and opinion. Historiography is always an interpretation of the meaning of those endeavors. Anyone who asserts otherwise is an ideologue, not a historian.

You're arguing out of your intellectual depth, or disingenuously. Irony is a matter of interpretation too. I am entitled to find it ironic that a medicinal sacred plant of the Indigenous Americas may have indirectly caused the destruction of a sacred temple of European colonialism and Christian missionization, rebuilt literally from the blood and bones of those Indigenous people -- where do you think the money came from for the 19th century renovation that gave us the "Notre Dame" people know today and think is a product of "Medieval" imaginations? It is no more so than Gregorian Chant, also basically "invented" in its modern sound in the same 19th century era, when Europe was busy constructing itself as having a "history" and "civilization" as opposed to the heathen non-Westerrn people who only had "culture" and "tradition."


Irony is in the eye of the beholder. I can assure you plenty of brown people found it ironic that the world wailed at the burning of Notre Dame while shrugging its shoulders at the loss of many other sacred sites to other religions and cultures -- most recently in Syria and Iraq, thanks to European "civilization" and its militant nationalism. I find it ironic that a Native American plant might have burned down a French cathedral full of 19th century wood and golden precious baubles looted from Africa and the Americas in the course of a genocidal colonial project that made France the rich and powerful modern nation it is. You don't find it ironic because you either don't know this history or you don't think genocide is a big deal compared to a church.

[LisaM]

26. Plenty of people mourned the loss of other religious sites.

I was horrified when the Taliban blew up 1700-hundred year old Buddha statues in 2001, and I'm not alone in that - it's bothered me ever since. And that's just one example.

[LanternWaste]

17. makes me think you're conflating two separate things.

"Makes you think."

Makes me think you're conflating two wholly separate things to better rationalize artwork burning down.

[ValidateThis]

21. That's because

you're being willfully obstinate.

I am conflating nothing, nor am I rationalizing anything. I have no opinion on ND burning down. I am left cold by it. I don't care.

You are struggling to resist a historical analysis of the meaning of Notre Dame to other people because it upsets your worldview.

I've been to Notre Dame, more than once. I was there two years ago. I am capable of appreciating what it is in a critical framework that is woke to nationalism, colonialism, and Eurocentrism.

Betcha didn't cry over the burning of the Ahyodhya Mosque.


ETA you're so salty about my opinion, I can't figure out why. Who made you the boss of opinions about a French church? Lol.

[Mariana]

3. There are "several hypotheses about the cause of the April 15 blaze".

There are lots of things that can start a fire.

[hlthe2b]

4. As is discussed in the article provided.

The point is that if a cigarette is among the higher possibilities/probabilities, that to me is a singularly tragic cause-- because among those possibilities is the most preventable.

[Mariana]

7. The article doesn't say a cigarette is among the higher possibilities/probabilities. nt.

[hlthe2b]

8. wow... Forget it... Arguing for arguments sake, ignoring the entire point of the article.

[Mariana]

9. The point of the article is that they still don't know what started the fire. nt.

[hlthe2b]

10. The point of the article is (including the headline) is that something we would assume would not

even be a causal possibility in this circumstance, actually IS among the causes being investigated.

I get it. You don't give a damn. Some of us do.

[Mariana]

11. Cigarettes have long been known to cause fires in buildings

so I don't know why you would dismiss it as a causal possibility in this circumstance.

At any rate, speculation doesn't accomplish anything. They've said they don't know how the fire started, they have "several hypotheses" they're looking into, and they named a couple of them, probably after being asked to do so. I hope they do figure it out, and the information can be used to prevent it happening to other old buildings.

[malaise]

12. That was my first comment on probable cause the afternoon of the fire

Was going to post this last night

[canetoad]

23. Mine too

And it was suggested in some news reports that a workman may have tossed a butt.

[malaise]

25. It's a logical assumption

Maybe we'll never know the truth

[Codeine]

15. It's France; that's how all fires start there. nt

[NightWatcher]

19. You're not just whistling Dixie. Everyone here smokes like chimneys (Paris)

I forgot how nice America is since cigarettes are on the way out and not allowed anywhere. At least where I've been so far they don't allow it indoors.

[Wounded Bear]

22. The French do love their cigarettes...

This sounds like the speculation we heard the first couple of days. Am I wrong on that?

[miyazaki]

24. No, you are not wrong.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100212016657#post6