In general I don't like conspiracy theories. But I dislike premature government pronouncements even more. And too often, especially in cases of large disasters, they sound like misdirection of the public. A recent New York Post article on the Notre Dame fire yesterday contained one of those premature announcements.
The French regional manager announced that the fire was an accident. The French stated there was no evidence of arson. Then they stated that 50 investigators were interviewing workers to find out what happened. And they were supposedly starting from the assumption that it was an accident.
How can you say it was an accident when you have 50 investigators trying to find out what happened? My presumption would be, when starting an investigation, that it was arson or an act of terrorism. Sure, you investigate all possibilities. But you don't want to miss arson because the arsonist says it was an accident.
Since the statement it was an accident was obviously premature, this is one of those cases where I think the French government is intentionally trying to convince the public that the cause was what they prefer to find. They don't want another blatant act of terrorism or arson, possibly by immigrants who are not Christian, to inflame bad feelings in their nation.
What really bothers me is the possibility that if they find something other than an accidental cause, they will label it a state secret and bury the results. If that is not a possibility, why say it was an accident rather than that they were still trying to identify the source of the fire?