Friday, 19 April 2019

"Brexit is just the start; the EU’s old order is cracking"

BREXIT AND YELLOW VESTS JUST THE BEGINNING! AND FOR VERY PREDICTABLE REASONS!!!



the Houndog

This is a Great article that basically supports what I have said and that is people are strongly attached to their roots. They suddenly feel that they don`t belong .... anywhere..... most of the EU is now a shambles of unemployment and deteriorating living conditions leading to a loss of hope for the future.…






https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-is-just-the-start-the-eus-old-order-is-cracking-pghlnvsjh


The Democrats will now be out for Robert Mueller's blood

Mueller was supposed to be the Democrats' savior, but now they’re out for blood


Mueller was supposed to be the Democrats' savior, but now they’re out for blood

RT,
18 April, 2019


The Mueller report has finally dropped and instead of being relieved to discover, once and for all, that the president didn’t collude with a foreign power to steal an election, Democrats and media pundits are utterly devastated.

This is America in the era of Russiagate.

The partly-redacted, nearly 400-page report, delivered to Congress on Thursday afternoon, offered no new evidence or indication that Donald Trump or his 2016 campaign were in cahoots with Moscow to prevent Hillary Clinton from ascending to what Democrats believed was her rightful presidential throne.


Of course, their high expectations for the report had already come crashing down when Mueller wrapped up his investigation mid-March and Attorney General Bob Barr sent a four-page letter summarizing its anti-climactic findings to Congress. No evidence of collusion, it said.


The opposition party and the media’s most ardent Russiagate pushers had been moving the goalposts on “collusion” for months. In the earliest days of the two-year investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was given savior status; he would be the one, they said, who would deliver them from the evil of the Trump presidency. “Wait for the Mueller report!”they had screamed, as the weeks and months dragged on with “bombshell” after “bombshell” evaporating into thin air.

Wait for the Mueller report!” quickly morphed into “Barr must be lying — wait for the full Mueller report!”

But Barr hammered the final nail into the Russiagate coffin on Thursday as he emphatically reiterated during a pre-release press conference that evidence to support theories of collusion did not exist and that all Americans should be “grateful” to hear that news. They were not grateful, though. In fact, they were acutely distressed by the news that Trump had been telling the truth about “no collusion” all along.

On the question of whether Trump had obstructed the investigation, Mueller’s report offered Russiagaters slightly more hope, in that it did not make a final determination and suggested that congress has the authority to take action in that regard.



He also noted that Trump “took no act” that deprived Mueller of documents necessary to conduct the investigation and said he believed there had been no “corrupt intent” to hamper it. Not only that, but Barr also told shell-shocked reporters that Trump had not exerted executive privilege over parts of the report (as he legally could have done), "in the interests of transparency.”But Barr enraged reporters by arguing it was necessary to take “context” into consideration when assessing potential obstruction. He said Trump faced an “unprecedented situation,” “relentless” media speculation and held a “sincere belief”that the investigation was “undermining his presidency.”

Russiagaters masked their disappointment by trying, in endless formations, to spin the situation into a vindication of their theories; ‘Barr is lying for Trump!’ ‘Maybe Mueller was in on it?’ ‘He didn't investigate the right things!’ ‘It wasn’t about collusion, it was about obstruction!’ – and the most pathetic of all attempts: ‘It doesn't matter anyway, we know in our hearts collusion is real!’


The fact that the report was partly redacted (“standard for prosecutors handling sensitive information,” as the New York Times put it), triggered yet another meltdown from Democrats and Russiagate media stalwarts in advance of its publication. Casual observers of this seemingly never-ending saga might have been led to believe the report would be redacted beyond all comprehension. Indeed, it appears as though that’s what Russiagate truthers would have preferred. The more redactions, the bigger the scope for new conspiracy theories to emerge. Sadly for them, Barr also said an almost completely unredacted version would soon be made available to a bipartisan group in congress.


CNN should have a countdown clock for when their attacks on Robert Mueller start. It's not long now.

In a sign of just how desperate they had become, Democrats also spiralled into a total frenzy on Wednesday upon hearing that the aforementioned press conference would be held before the report was handed over to Congress. They genuinely seemed to believe that Barr might stand in front of the entire news media and lie about the contents of a document he was about to post publicly online a couple of hours later.

Why did it matter that he held a press conference summarizing its findings before the release? It didn’t matter, of course, but it was something to cling to. Remember, the Democrats and the media spent two years convincing Americans that Trump and members of his family were going to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the White House in handcuffs – so, at this point, they’ll latch on to anything.


On the eve of the long-awaited Mueller report about an already discredited conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory's top proponent dubs the Mueller report the "Barr Report" & tries to make an issue out of Barr holding a news conference a few hours before the report is released:

Focus will now shift to Mueller’s expected testimony before Congress, which is due to happen no later than May 23 – and some are still holding out hope that the investigator will pull through at the last minute and say or do something to rehabilitate the entire narrative.

Journalist Aaron Mate, who has painstakingly covered the Russiagate drama, noted on Twitter that Mueller at times used “suggestive wording” in his report while simultaneously acknowledging that no evidence of collusion actually exists. This is likely what Democrats will be watching for during his testimony; any shred of doubt or uncertainty from Mueller on even the tiniest of details.

At the end of the day, however, the fact will remain that Mueller overturned every Russiagate rock and did not charge or arrest even one American for conspiring or colluding with Moscow, despite issuing more than 2,800 subpoenas, 500-plus search warrants and interviewing about 500 witnesses in excruciating detail.

But Russiagate was really always about Democrats and their inability to accept two basic truths: Hillary Clinton lost the election because she ran a terrible campaign – and because of the abject failure of the US political system to deliver basic changes that Americans want and need. Trump offered them hope, however false, of something new – and he won. There is no bigger mystery.


Years from now, when Trump is hosting some post-presidency reality TV show or living out the rest of his days at Mar-a-Lago (rather than in a prison cell), Rachel Maddow will probably still be ruminating over the finer details of the investigation and inviting the most discredited analysts onto her nutty show to help figure out how it all went wrong. Luke Harding is likely gearing up to write a sequel to his “COLLUSION” best-seller as we speak. Maybe he can call the next one“COVERUP” and profit off Russiagate for another two years.But the cries of “collusion!” will continue for months, if not years, and the media will meticulously pick apart the pages of the Mueller report for weeks, hoping to land on something that can credibly carry the conspiracy forward – and as they do so, they will be handing Trump a great gift going into the 2020 election.

The elaborate and demented conspiracies of Russiagate could fill a library, but the strangest thing of all about this saga might just be how much they fiercely wanted it to be true.

Memo to POTUS: "The Fly in the Mueller Ointment"


VIPS Fault Mueller Probe, Criticize Refusal to Interview Assange

The bug in Mueller’s report released on Thursday is that he accepts that the Russian government interfered in the election.  Trump should challenge that, says VIPS.
16 April, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: The Fly in the Mueller Ointment
April 16, 2019
Mr. President:
The song has ended but the melody lingers on. The release Thursday of the redacted text of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election” nudged the American people a tad closer to the truth on so-called “Russiagate.”
But the Mueller report left unscathed the central-but-unproven allegation that the Russian government hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails, gave them to WikiLeaks to publish, and helped you win the election. The thrust will be the same; namely, even if there is a lack of evidence that you colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin, you have him to thank for becoming president. And that melody will linger on for the rest of your presidency, unless you seize the moment.
Mueller has accepted that central-but-unproven allegation as gospel truth, apparently in the lack of any disinterested, independent forensic work. Following the odd example of his erstwhile colleague, former FBI Director James Comey, Mueller apparently has relied for forensics on a discredited, DNC-hired firm named CrowdStrike, whose credibility is on a par with “pee-tape dossier” compiler Christopher Steele. Like Steele, CrowdStrike was hired and paid by the DNC (through a cutout).
We brought the lack of independent forensics to the attention of Attorney General William Barr on March 13 in a Memorandum entitled “Mueller’s Forensic-Free Findings”, but received no reply or acknowledgement. In that Memorandum we described the results of our own independent, agenda-free forensic investigation led by two former Technical Directors of the NSA, who avoid squishy “assessments,” preferring to base their findings on fundamental principles of science and the scientific method. Our findings remain unchallenged; they reveal gaping holes in CrowdStrike’s conclusions.
We do not know if Barr shared our March 13 Memorandum with you. As for taking a public position on the forensics issue, we suspect he is being circumspect in choosing his battles carefully, perhaps deferring until later a rigorous examination of the dubious technical work upon which Mueller seems to have relied.
Barr’s Notification to Congress
As you know, the big attention-getter came on March 24 when Attorney General William Barr included in his four-page summary a quote from Mueller’s report: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Understandably, that grabbed headlines — the more so, since most Americans had been convinced earlier by the media that the opposite was true.
There remains, however, a huge fly in the ointment. The Mueller report makes it clear that Mueller accepts as a given — an evidence-impoverished given — that the Russian government interfered in the election on two tracks:
Track 1 involves what Barr, echoing Mueller, claims “a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA)” did in using social media “to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.” A careful look at this allegation shows it to be without merit, despite Herculean efforts by The New York Times, for example, to put lipstick on this particular pig.  After some rudimentary research, award winning investigative reporter Gareth Porter promptly put that pig out of its misery and brought home the bacon. We do not believe “Track 1” merits further commentary.
Track 2 does need informed commentary, since it is more technical and — to most Americans — arcane. In Barr’s words: “The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.”
We are eager to see if Mueller’s report contains more persuasive forensic evidence than that which VIPS has already debunked. In Barr’s summary, the only mention of forensics refers to “forensic accountants” — a far cry from the kind of forensic investigators needed to provide convincing proof of “hacking” by the Russian government.
But They Were Indicted!
Circular reasoning is not likely to work for very long, even with a U.S. populace used to being brainwashed by the media. Many Americans had mistakenly assumed that Mueller’s indictment of Russians — whether they be posting on FaceBook or acting like intelligence officers — was proof of guilt. But, as lawyers regularly point out, “one can easily indict a ham sandwich” — easier still these days, if it comes with Russian dressing.
Chances have now increased that the gullible folks who had been assured that Mueller would find collusion between you and Putin may now be a bit more circumspect — skeptical even — regarding the rest of the story-line of the “Russian hack,” and that will be even more likely among those with some technical background. Such specialists will have a field day, IF — and it is a capital “IF” — by some miracle, word of VIPS’ forensic findings gets into the media this time around.
The evidence-impoverished, misleadingly labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment” of January 6, 2017 had one saving grace. The authors noted: “The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation — malicious or not — leaves a trail.” Forensic investigators can follow a trail of metadata and other technical properties. VIPS has done that.
A “High-Class Entity?”
If, as we strongly suspect, Mueller is relying for forensics solely on CrowdStrike, the discredited firm hired by the DNC in the spring of 2016, he is acting more in the mold of Inspector Clouseau than the crackerjack investigator he is reputed to be. It simply does not suffice for Mueller’s former colleague James Comey to tell Congress that CrowdStrike is a “high-class entity.” It is nothing of the sort and, in addition to its documented incompetence, it is riddled with conflicts of interest. Comey needs to explain why he kept the FBI away from the DNC computers after they were said to have been “hacked.”
And former National Intelligence Director James Clapper needs to explain his claim last November that “the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done.” What forensic evidence? From CrowdStrike? We at VIPS, in contrast, are finding more and more forensic evidence that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked by the Russians or anyone else — and that “Guccifer 2.0” is an out-and-out fraud. Yes, we can prove that from forensics too.
But the Talking Heads Say …
Again, if Mueller’s incomplete investigation is allowed to assume the status of Holy Writ, most Americans will continue to believe that — whether you colluded the Russians or not — Putin came through for you big time. In short, absent President Putin’s help, you would not be president.
Far too many Americans will still believe this because of the mainstream-media fodder — half-cooked by intelligence leaks — that they have been fed for two and a half years. The media have been playingthe central role in the effort of the MICIMATT (the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank) complex to stymie any improvement in relations with Russia. We in VIPS have repeatedly demonstrated that the core charges of Russian interference in the 2016 election are built on a house of cards. But, despite our record of accuracy on this issue — not to mention our pre-Iraq-war warnings about the fraudulent intelligence served up by our former colleagues — we have gotten no play in mainstream media.
Most of us have chalked up decades in the intelligence business and many have extensive academic and government experience focusing on Russia. We consider the issue of “Russian interference” of overriding significance not only because the allegation is mischievously bogus and easily disproven. More important, it has brought tension with nuclear-armed Russia to the kind of dangerous fever pitch not seen since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the Russian provocation was real — authentic, not synthetic.
Sober minds resolved that crisis more than a half-century ago, and we all got to live another day. These days sober minds seem few and far between and a great deal is at stake. On the intelligence/forensics side, we have proved that the evidence adduced to “prove” that the Russians hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails and gave them to WikiLeaks is spurious. For example, we have examined metadata from one key document attributed to Russian hacking and shown that it was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
Who Left the Bread Crumbs?
So, if it wasn’t the Russians, who left the “Russian” bread-crumb “fingerprints?” We do not know for sure; on this question we cannot draw a conclusion based on the principles of science — at least not yet. We suspect, however, that cyber warriors closer to home were responsible for inserting the “tell-tale signs” necessary to attribute “hacks” to Russia. We tacked on our more speculative views regarding this intriguing issue onto the end of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to you entitled “Intelligence Veterans Challenge Russia Hack Evidence.”
We recall that you were apprised of that Memorandum’s key findings because you ordered then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to talk to William Binney, one of our two former NSA Technical Directors and one of the principal authors of that Memorandum. On October 24, 2017, Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney by explaining the genesis of the odd invitation to CIA Headquarters: “You are here because the president told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you.”
On the chance Pompeo has given you no report on his meeting with Binney, we can tell you that Binney, a plain-spoken, widely respected scientist, began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. Pompeo reacted with disbelief, but then talked of following up with the FBI and NSA. We have no sign, though, that he followed through. And there is good reason to believe that Pompeo himself may have been reluctant to follow up with his subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate.
Obfuscation’
A leak from within the CIA, published on March 31, 2017 by WikiLeaks as part of the so-called “Vault 7” disclosures, exposed a cyber tool called “Marble,” which was used during 2016 for “obfuscation” (CIA’s word). This tool can be used to conduct a forensic attribution double game (aka a false-flag operation); it included test samples in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Korean, and Russian. Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima, to her credit, immediately penned an informative article on the Marble cyber-tool, under the catching (and accurate) headline “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.” That was apparently before Nakashima “got the memo.” Mainstream media have otherwise avoided like the plague any mention of Marble.
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Directorate of Digital Innovation have been with the White House — or with former Director Pompeo — on this touchy issue. Since it is still quite relevant, we will repeat below a paragraph included in our July 2017 Memorandum to you under the sub-heading “Putin and the Technology:”
“We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. Hackers may be anywhere,” he said. “There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.”
As we told Attorney General Barr five weeks ago, we consider Mueller’s findings fundamentally flawed on the forensics side and ipso facto incomplete. We also criticized Mueller for failing to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.
Political Enemies & Mainstream Media (Forgive the Redundancy)
You may be unaware that in March 2017 lawyers for Assange and the Justice Department (acting on behalf of the CIA) reportedly were very close to an agreement under which Assange would agree to discuss “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” in the leak of the DNC emails and agree to redact some classified CIA information, in exchange for limited immunity. According to the investigative reporter John Solomon of The Hill, Sen. Mark Warner, (D-VA) vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, learned of the incipient deal and told then-FBI Director Comey, who ordered an abrupt“stand down” and an end to the discussions with Assange.  
Why did Comey and Warner put the kibosh on receiving “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” [read Russia]? We won’t insult you with the obvious answer. Assange is now in prison, to the delight of so many — including Mrs. Clinton who has said Assange must now “answer for what he has done.”
But is it too late to follow up somehow on Assange’s offer? Might he or his associates be still willing to provide “technical evidence” showing, at least, who was not the culprit?
You, Mr. President, could cause that to happen. You would have to buck strong resistance at every turn, and there all manner of ways that those with vested interests and a lot of practice in sabotage can try to thwart you — with the full cooperation of most media pundits. By now, you know all too well how that works.
But you are the president. And there may be no better time than now to face them down, show the spurious nature of the concocted “evidence” attempting to put you in “Putin’s pocket,” and — not least — lift the cloud that has prevented you from pursuing a more decent relationship with Russia.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras, former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS) 
Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren,U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Robert Wing, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (former) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

Another attempt to burn down a cathedral


Man Arrested Entering St. Patrick's Cathedral with Gas Cans, Lighters



18 April, 2019
A New Jersey man was arrested after attempting to enter St. Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan with two gasoline cans last night.  Investigators say he was also arrested at a church in New Jersey Monday night - and had booked a one-way ticket to Rome, according to police. 
Authorities say church ushers stopped 37-year-old Marc Lamparello around 8 p.m. and notified nearby officers with the NYPD Critical Response Command, who took him into custody. 
 

No one was injured. 

Authorities say the Hasbrouck Heights, NJ man drove to St. Patrick's, parked in front of Saks and took two gas cans and lighter fluid from the car into the cathedral, where he was stopped. 

"A guy was standing there with two gallons of gas, and somebody was talking to him," a taxi driver who witnessed the incident said. "He looked like a security guard or police officer. He said, 'I need gas for my car.' (The officer) said, 'Where's your car?' He said, "I don't know where I left my car.'" 


"His basic story was that he was cutting through the cathedral to get to Madison Avenue, that his car had run out of gas," NYPD Deputy Commissioner John Miller said. "We took a look at the vehicle. It was not out of gas, and at that point, he was taken into custody and brought to the Midtown North station house." 

Miller said that Lamparello is known to police. In fact, authorities say that he had been arrested on Monday after refusing to leave Sacred Heart Cathedral in Newark. 
 Lamparello was sitting in the cathedral for about an hour Monday, and then refused to leave when the church was closing. 

When Essex County Sheriffs Officers asked him to leave, he told them he still wanted to pray. 

When they tried to remove him, he told them they would have to arrest him. 

Lamparello was charged with resisting arrest, trespass and disorderly conduct in that incident. 

Law enforcement then discovered that Lamparello had a one-way plane ticket booked for Thursday night from Newark Airport to Rome. 

Several law enforcement agencies are now looking into his background and intentions. A neighbor told said Lamparello lives in the basement of his parents' house and that the family is very religious. 
The St. Patrick's incident came just two days after the fire at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris

There was a heavy police presence early Thursday morning outside the cathedral on Fifth Avenue. 

"I've come to trust what we've got at St. Patrick's Cathedral, not that we can ever take it for granted," Timothy Cardinal Dolan said. "Last night proves that it works. We've got a very well trained interior security staff, we've got the constant help of the NYPD, which usually has an officer on the block for ready assistance, we've got the ready attention of the FDNY." 

Dolan added, "Does that mean its fail safe? No, but that's why we come to church to pray for Gods protection." 

St. Patrick's Cathedral, built in 1878, has installed a sprinkler-like system during recent renovations and its wooden roof is coated with fire retardant. 


https://www.yahoo.com/gma/man-arrested-approaching-historic-st-patricks-cathedral-gas-023400197--abc-news-topstories.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca&fbclid=IwAR1lI9MNjT3sTBlV3NlvtnDc7tnpUESizv4lD1qZWFMuxqW_WXX3OqRgXzc

Wikipedia: the next stage of censorship


IMPORTANT: Luke Rudkowski & WeAreChange BANNED On Wikipedia For Exposing Russian Collusion Hoax!



Wikipedia has decided who is a reliable source and who is not, we are not...


Daniel McAdams and Anya Parampil discuss the release of the Mueller Report


Mueller Exonerates Trump, But 'Russiagate' Will Not Die



RonPaulLiberty Report

Today's extraordinary release of the Mueller Report tracks closely with Attorney General Barr's recent summary: no collusion between the Trump campaign or any American with the Russians to help get Trump elected. Do not expect this to improve relations with Russia, however. There are poison pills in the report that ensure the push to war with Russia - in Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America - will continue. Investigative reporter Anya Parampil joins today's Liberty Report.

France is not capable of rebuilding Notre Dame as it was

France no longer has trees tall enough to rebuild Notre-Dame's roof as it was


17 April, 2019
  • Bertrand de Feydeau, the vice president of the preservation group Fondation du Patrimoine, said France no longer has trees tall enough to rebuild Notre-Dame Cathedral's frame as it was.
  • The cathedral could be rebuilt with smaller beams or a metal frame, two options that would be "unpopular with purists," The Washington Post reported.
  • A fire broke out in the cathedral's attic on Monday, causing most of the roof to collapse.When Notre-Dame Cathedral is rebuilt, it most likely won't look quite the same.
That's because France no longer has trees tall enough to make its roof as it was, Bertrand de Feydeau, the vice president of the preservation group Fondation du Patrimoine, told France Info on Tuesday.
"We will have to implement new technologies that will leave the appearance of the cathedral as we love it," he said in French.
Notre Dame Cathedral
Flames and smoke inside the cathedral.
REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer
The cathedral is 427 by 157 feet, with a 115-foot roof. While the facade that visitors could see from the nave — the central part of the church — was stone, the beams above it were wood. The fire on Monday started in the attic and destroyed most of the roof.
According to Notre-Dame's website, 1,300 trees were cut down for its roof between 1160 and 1170, and many could have been 300 to 400 years old at the time.
De Feydeau told CNN that he wasn't sure whether there were enough trees in Europe that fit the description of what would be needed to rebuild the roof as it was.
notre dame attic
A view of the attic — where Monday's fire started — that was posted on the cathedral's website.
Notre-Dame de Paris
Fransylva, a federation representing private timber growers in France, has asked for oak trees to rebuilt Notre-Dame.
"Loggers want Notre-Dame's 'forêt-charpente' reconstructed with French oak trees, in keeping with the same traditions and good quality of the first builders," Fransylva said in a press release, using the nickname of the frame, "the forest," as it was made of so many trees.
notre dame inside
Charred beams were on the floor of the cathedral on Tuesday.
Christophe Petit Tesson/AP
Groupama, an insurance company, also offered to pay for 1,300 trees to rebuild the frame. The company said they should be oaks from the forests of Normandy, in keeping with the original construction.
Mechtild Rössler, the director of the Unesco World Heritage Center, told Business Insider's Hilary Brueck on Tuesday that the cathedral should be rebuilt as it was originally.
"We'll use modern methods, but it should be done by the books," Rössler said, "which includes a lot of craftsmanship."
Notre-Dame Cathedral ceiling before
The Notre-Dame Cathedral before the fire.
Jorge Láscar/Flickr
Other experts said that based on Monday's fire, wood wouldn't be a good idea for rebuilding the roof.
"I doubt they'll use wood," Carolyn Malone, a professor of art history and gothic architecture at the University of Southern California, told Brueck in an email.
Alternatives include smaller beams or even a metal frame, though either would be "unpopular with purists," The Washington Post said.