Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

sologic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#21

Post by microcolonel »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #11

this "root" cause analyze everything but how the fire started. was it not there an investigation to find out the ignition source? even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that? root cause cannot be "a confusing panel light" simply because without ignition that alone would not have caused the incident to happen, so I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid or it's…

> even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that?

Because they're afraid of what is believed to be a likely source of ignition. Coincidentally, there happen to be numerous church arsons in and around France lately.

> I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid

They know you have to play dumb, even if anyone with an IQ above 95 is going to notice what's missing here.

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#22

Post by [deleted] »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #11

this "root" cause analyze everything but how the fire started. was it not there an investigation to find out the ignition source? even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that? root cause cannot be "a confusing panel light" simply because without ignition that alone would not have caused the incident to happen, so I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid or it's…

[deleted]

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#23

Post by Grakel »

microcolonel wrote: post #21
LoSboccacc wrote: post #11

this "root" cause analyze everything but how the fire started. was it not there an investigation to find out the ignition source? even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that? root cause cannot be "a confusing panel light" simply because without ignition that alone would not have caused the incident to happen, so I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid or it's…

> even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that? Because they're afraid of what is believed to be a likely source of ignition. Coincidentally, there happen to be numerous church arsons in and around France lately. > I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid They know you have to play dumb, even if anyone with an IQ above 95 is going to notice what's missing here.

During the Enlightenment, all criticism of the church was censored. So Diderot created the Encyclopedia, and claimed that all true knowledge had been addressed in it. By listing absolutely everything except for religion, he said everything he wanted to say without the possibility of censorship. We live in a similar time today.

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#24

Post by AtomicOrbital »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #4

Everything you need to know- > This fire alert system worked exactly like it was supposed to work. A fire alarm was activated and a guard was sent to check it out. However, he was sent to the wrong location. This was because the alarm message was not correctly interpreted by the employee monitoring the system. He was very new to the job – it was his third day. Also, he had already worked an eight-hour shift but was s…

Sounds like a high turnover job, probably not paying a living wage ... A priceless cultural object mismanaged by stripping down costs as though they were under Walmart Inc management practices

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#25

Post by sfkdjf9j3j »

microcolonel wrote: post #21
LoSboccacc wrote: post #11

this "root" cause analyze everything but how the fire started. was it not there an investigation to find out the ignition source? even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that? root cause cannot be "a confusing panel light" simply because without ignition that alone would not have caused the incident to happen, so I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid or it's…

> even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that? Because they're afraid of what is believed to be a likely source of ignition. Coincidentally, there happen to be numerous church arsons in and around France lately. > I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid They know you have to play dumb, even if anyone with an IQ above 95 is going to notice what's missing here.

Are you saying the investigators think it was arson? Wikipedia says the "Paris prosecutor" has said they don't believe it was a deliberate act, but I'm curious what you're referring to.

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#26

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #25
microcolonel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that? Because they're afraid of what is believed to be a likely source of ignition. Coincidentally, there happen to be numerous church arsons in and around France lately. > I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid They know you have to play dumb, even if anyone with an IQ above 95 is going to notice what's missing here.

Are you saying the investigators think it was arson? Wikipedia says the "Paris prosecutor" has said they don't believe it was a deliberate act, but I'm curious what you're referring to.

You can agree or disagree that it’s almost certain that there is evidence that has not been made public, that a statement from a prosecutor might look the same if they knew it was arson or really didn’t think it was, you can fully argue the difference in reasons for why that might be the case.

But... do you really not know or are you being obtuse to pretend you don’t know what he is saying? If you are pretending, don’t.

He’s already being downvoted for implying it (this site and it’s bubble mechanics; chilling effect, better not say anything that the hive will disagree with) so i wouldn’t expect him to explicitly say what we all know he said - again - agree or disagree if he’s right or not.

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#27

Post by [deleted] »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #26
sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the investigators think it was arson? Wikipedia says the "Paris prosecutor" has said they don't believe it was a deliberate act, but I'm curious what you're referring to.

You can agree or disagree that it’s almost certain that there is evidence that has not been made public, that a statement from a prosecutor might look the same if they knew it was arson or really didn’t think it was, you can fully argue the difference in reasons for why that might be the case. But... do you really not know or are you being obtuse to pretend you don’t know what he is saying? If you are pretending, don…

[deleted]

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#28

Post by sfkdjf9j3j »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #26
sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the investigators think it was arson? Wikipedia says the "Paris prosecutor" has said they don't believe it was a deliberate act, but I'm curious what you're referring to.

You can agree or disagree that it’s almost certain that there is evidence that has not been made public, that a statement from a prosecutor might look the same if they knew it was arson or really didn’t think it was, you can fully argue the difference in reasons for why that might be the case. But... do you really not know or are you being obtuse to pretend you don’t know what he is saying? If you are pretending, don…

I really don't know. What are you two talking about?

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#29

Post by tasogare »

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #25
microcolonel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if the source wasn't found, why isn't there an investigation report about that? Because they're afraid of what is believed to be a likely source of ignition. Coincidentally, there happen to be numerous church arsons in and around France lately. > I'm not sure if this is trying to take us reader as stupid They know you have to play dumb, even if anyone with an IQ above 95 is going to notice what's missing here.

Are you saying the investigators think it was arson? Wikipedia says the "Paris prosecutor" has said they don't believe it was a deliberate act, but I'm curious what you're referring to.

The prosecutor job is to look at anything but the most likely cause, in this case arson. And even if the government/justice admit it, then they would try to hide the community of the offender(s). Like microcolonel wrote it, there has been quite a few other cases in other churches (including some in Paris) a few months and weeks before. In fact the Vatican counted attacks against churches in 2018 (iirc): one every two days! That fact alone is also not talked about in news outlets (which is very different from the media treatment of other religions building attack).

We will probably never learn the truth because its implication is too big for the national security.

Re: Root cause analysis on the Notre Dame fire

#30

Post by netsharc »

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #28
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can agree or disagree that it’s almost certain that there is evidence that has not been made public, that a statement from a prosecutor might look the same if they knew it was arson or really didn’t think it was, you can fully argue the difference in reasons for why that might be the case. But... do you really not know or are you being obtuse to pretend you don’t know what he is saying? If you are pretending, don…

I really don't know. What are you two talking about?

I think they're hinting it's arson by people who hate Christianity (i.e. Islamic extremists), but authorities are covering it up because publishing that "truth" would cause a religious civil war (national security danger), and they also can't write that "truth" here because they'll be downvoted (oh the horrors, downvotes!!).

It's fucking disgusting how cowardly these couple of commenters are, but also how many seems to have showed up on this thread.

Post reply on HN