Motoring1 min ago
Why Were The French Authorities So Quick To Rule Out Arson?
111 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
SR, //Now would be a good time for you and Danny to apologise to AOG.//
For what?Having a different opinion to him?
https:/
For what?Having a different opinion to him?
https:/
I hope the French don't have a fake "Official Inquiry" (like the Americans do all the time) and pin the blame on the poor electrical contractors, if it wasn't their fault.
I was surprised how quickly, when the place was on fire, the Govt said that it was caused by an electrical fault, when they couldn't possibly have known that.
I was surprised how quickly, when the place was on fire, the Govt said that it was caused by an electrical fault, when they couldn't possibly have known that.
I'll never get this obsession with inventing conspiracies or malice when carelessness is usually to blame. Far less in the world is planned, one way or another, than conspiracy theorists would have us believe. An electrical fault is pretty common and there's no need to invent any other reasons or drive speculation.
"An electrical fault is pretty common and there's no need to invent any other reasons or drive speculation." Now that sounds really, really logical. It's too bad that the expert fire investigators in Paris are not aware of this fact. Just think of all the money and time that could be saved by not even beginning a rigorous investigation into the incident.
I think there is a need to explore the "conspiracy" theory.
A need to put forward a theory, in other words.
It was (probably) an electrical fault. But it (might) ... just might have been something else. Something sinister.
People who do bad things always hope that the idea will be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". They hope that no one will question the official story.
Teddy Kennedy hoped that no one would question his lies about Chappaquiddick.
The Vatican hoped that no one would ask too many questions about priests who had been moved to cushy new jobs, away from any children.
The US Govt hoped that no one would question how the President had come to authorise arms transactions with Iran, which led to the illegal funding of the Contras in Nicaragua.
The US Govt hoped (through several Inquiries) that no one would ask how a deciphered communique on 6 December 1941 (the day before Pearl Harbour), which indicated that there was going to be a Japanese attack on an American Pacific target (ie Pearl Harbour), somehow did not get passed on to the fleet commanders at Pearl Harbour (which was handy, because Roosevelt's "Eight Point Plan" for the War, in 1940, required Japan to commit "the first overt act of war" ... Shame about all the deaths, but great for the US war strategy, and ultimately helped justify Hiroshima ... convenient, huh?)
Nixon hoped that no one would ask questions about Watergate.
The Russians hoped that no one would ask questions about the death of Alexander Litvinenko.
The Novichok poisoners hoped that no one would question the story that they were in Salisbury "to visit the cathedral"
And so on ...
And so on ...
Some theories are right. Some are wrong. But it's important to question the official story ... when it looks a bit flaky.
Because, if we don't question challenge flaky stories ... we are acquiescing in the wrongdoing.
If the people in authority can prove that the official story is true ... then fine. But ... if they are conspiring, and we do not challenge them ... then we are complicit in the perpetration of evil.
If something sounds not quite right ... and we are quickly fobbed off with a "official explanation" ... then we HAVE to challenge it. And we must not be fobbed off as "conspiracy theorists".
If we stop having theories, then evil people will get away with evil things.
Well, that's what I think, anyway.
A need to put forward a theory, in other words.
It was (probably) an electrical fault. But it (might) ... just might have been something else. Something sinister.
People who do bad things always hope that the idea will be dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". They hope that no one will question the official story.
Teddy Kennedy hoped that no one would question his lies about Chappaquiddick.
The Vatican hoped that no one would ask too many questions about priests who had been moved to cushy new jobs, away from any children.
The US Govt hoped that no one would question how the President had come to authorise arms transactions with Iran, which led to the illegal funding of the Contras in Nicaragua.
The US Govt hoped (through several Inquiries) that no one would ask how a deciphered communique on 6 December 1941 (the day before Pearl Harbour), which indicated that there was going to be a Japanese attack on an American Pacific target (ie Pearl Harbour), somehow did not get passed on to the fleet commanders at Pearl Harbour (which was handy, because Roosevelt's "Eight Point Plan" for the War, in 1940, required Japan to commit "the first overt act of war" ... Shame about all the deaths, but great for the US war strategy, and ultimately helped justify Hiroshima ... convenient, huh?)
Nixon hoped that no one would ask questions about Watergate.
The Russians hoped that no one would ask questions about the death of Alexander Litvinenko.
The Novichok poisoners hoped that no one would question the story that they were in Salisbury "to visit the cathedral"
And so on ...
And so on ...
Some theories are right. Some are wrong. But it's important to question the official story ... when it looks a bit flaky.
Because, if we don't question challenge flaky stories ... we are acquiescing in the wrongdoing.
If the people in authority can prove that the official story is true ... then fine. But ... if they are conspiring, and we do not challenge them ... then we are complicit in the perpetration of evil.
If something sounds not quite right ... and we are quickly fobbed off with a "official explanation" ... then we HAVE to challenge it. And we must not be fobbed off as "conspiracy theorists".
If we stop having theories, then evil people will get away with evil things.
Well, that's what I think, anyway.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Property Owned As Tenants In Common
Law10 mins ago
Gisèle Pelicot - Husband Jailed...
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.