We used to read Fine Houmebuilding and other magazines of that ilk, and I think this story was in one of those, now many years ago — but I’ve remembered and used it as a caution lesson.

A youngish couple were building their dream home; got it all finished after much toil and money; did the final varnishing of the wooden floor; dropped all their rags in a heap, and left for the night.

Well, you know what happened next.
Heartbreaking.

Actually, we have even longer than that —
Lots of time for sight-seeing in eternity!

If there are such surveillance pictures, and they captured anything of significance, I wonder what they show?

The question here is their date and time, their source, their veracity, whether they have been manipulated in any way, and the motive or motives behind their appearance.

See http://dcwhispers.com/the-video-authorities-dont-want-you-to-see-mystery-person-flash-of-light-before-notre-dame-cathedral-fire/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/17/man-gas-cans-arrested-st-patricks-cathedral-new-yo/

It seems to me that some occurrences are just so politically charged, their effects–if reported truthfully–so potentially dangerous and disastrous, that the authority’s first instinct, their first response, is to cover them up, to withhold evidence, to mislead people, to–if they can–manufacture such an effective disinformation campaign, to fuzz things up so completely, that no one will ever be able to definitively determine just exactly what happened.

Thus, while many people will have the suspicion, the feeling that “something is not right here,” nonetheless, the most pedestrian, the most benign, the least disruptive explanation will be accepted.

This, I am afraid, is one of those “occurrences.”

The fire at Notre Dame occurred against the background of increasing Muslim terror attacks in Europe and in France, and police reports that, just last year alone, some 850 churches in France were vandalized/desecrated, that there had been vandalism against a dozen churches in France within the last couple of weeks, and that a fire was deliberately set last week in the oldest cathedral in France, that of St. Denis–located in the midst of one of the Muslim “no-go zones,” just outside of Paris.

“No-go zones,” I might add, that some in denial European and French authorities deny even exist.

But after their performances yesterday–in which both Shep and Cavuto shut down people who said that they were suspicious that the fire at Notre Dame had been deliberately set, and might have been terrorism–both of these FOX anchors have revealed themselves to be nothing more than agents of the Islamic Propaganda Department.

How is it that they are so protective of the rights and the image of Muslims and of Islam that they would instantly spring into action to censor such speculations which–it seems to me–are pretty logical and reasonable ones to have, given the background of escalating Muslim terror attacks, and the massive number of attacks against and desecrations of churches in France?

How is it their right to determine which pieces of information–even speculation–are correct or within bounds, and that we should be “allowed” to hear them, and that some ideas, some speculations, are categorically “wrong,” out of bounds, and that we should be prevented from hearing them?

Who are they protecting by doing what they did, Islam and Muslims, or the rest of us, who are the ones under actual and increasing physical attack?

Us so-called “unbelievers,” who need all the information we can get our hands on to try to figure out what is happening, and where we are under attack.

Are they presenting us with all of the information and, then, letting us make our own analysis of it?

Or, are they trying to present us a shaped “narrative,” one designed to lead us to their desired conclusion?

I think the latter.

P.S.–I note that Churches and Mosques, and their symbolism and locations have always been important in Islamic ideology, military, and political strategy, in which Mosques mark the boundaries of conquered territory.