Fire at the historic Notre Dame Cathedral


How do you get new lead to bond to old lead?

Flux, torch, pour, and wipe.

It is possible the old was burned through and wood underlay was ignited. I’ve burned through lead sheeting before trying to flux, it’s easy to do. You have to extinguish it by flooding it with nitrogen to prevent water damage.


Cynic perhaps you should explain it for Samm.


It would seem to me to be judicious to wait for the report rather than wild speculation about the cause of the fire including Islamophobic innuendos and slurs regarding Muslims which abound in this topic.


Doesnt matter to those who have made their mind up that it was a terrorist attack. Regardless of whar the investigation uncovers they will say its a cover up and insist their version of events is accurate

Thats the great thing about conspiracy theories, real evidence is not noted and if the facts contradict the conspiracy then thats proof of a cover up.


Still not a torchdown.


There are no slurs and the only islamaphobic sentiments are those coming from the left in jest as a reaction to speculation that it may be a terrorist attack. Put your big boy pants on and stop trying to limit discussion by attacking our guests.


Because rather than trying to argue over whether it could have been caused by a negligent worker, a win is a win and semantics gets him there.


I personally don’t see it as semantics.

What it is is pushing back on the notion that an accident was deliberate.

Even if it isn’t explicitly said, that is the connotation being conveyed.

It makes one wonder though why someone would have to assign intent to an accident.


I wasn’t stating it was intentionally or deliberate. I was making a point that act of carelessness that could have been easily avoided on job sites.



My apologies.


Good news the bees that living on the Notre Dame roof have survived the fire.

And in further good news they have been cleared of any involvement in the starting of the fire.


Are they Shia or Sunni bees? I’m just asking.


Neither and they are wearing big boy pants as well.


They appear to have narrowed down the cause of the fire to one of two things.


let me guess neither of them are Muslims.


The probability that this fire wasn’t an accident IMO increased again with this curator’s comment.

Michel Picaud of the Friends of Notre Dame, a U.S.-based foundation dedicated to fundraising for the cathedral’s reconstruction efforts, said the entire roof was destroyed.

“The fire started up near the roof top, while another fire started in the north bell tower,” Picaud told NBC News.

What is the probability that two fires would start at the same time in two separate parts of the church? This is one of those things that make you say hmmmmmm.


I agree with you on the probability but I wouldn’t put too much stock on Picaud’s statement. It doesn’t sound like he has been part of the investigation and is really just a fund raiser here in the states. Not sure his one sentence here should be jumped on.

1 Like

Well…it’s a start…amirite? :blush:


Although speculation is the coin of the cable-news realm, an indignant Smith wanted nothing to do with Karsenty providing context to the April 15 fire – nearly 2,000 attacks on French churches in two years – that would suggest an alternative cause should be considered.

And, in fact, as Karsenty pointed out in a phone interview from France with WND, a former chief architect of the Notre Dame – whose analysis has been virtually ignored – believes the accident theory makes no sense.

Karsenty told WND he was “shocked” when Smith abruptly ended the interview.

“I just wanted to put it in context,” he said, referring to the surge of attacks on churches. “And then I said, nevertheless, the media are lecturing us an hour after it started, saying it can only be unintentional.

“I didn’t say it was a terrorist attack. I didn’t say it was criminal,” Karsenty recalled to WND.

There was a very quick PC explanation before any investigations had begun, totally ignoring the most probable cause. Why is that?