It’s good to know that not even a tragic, devastating fire can hold people’s attention when an idiot president talks about things he clearly doesn’t have the first idea about, and of course someone will rise to his defense of what, uh, brains he has.
Well, it’s early days yet to confidently predict anything about recovery from this fire, but I think the French government might have a wider range of options available for repairing smoke damage in Notre Dame than you and your parents did for cleaning your kitchen.
I hope so.
Anyone that’s dealt with even a small fire knows how hard soot is to clean. The smell is something you never forget. The building will reek of it for months. Especially on damp days.
I think I understand about the rose windows. They weren’t talking about the glass, but the structure or the frame that the glass is set into.
Yes, and??? load the plane with the amount you want to drop.
Look at the first 2 passes in this video. The same precise drop by both planes. Given today’s WAAS enabled GPS systems it puts an airplane plus or minus a couple of feet. The Cathedral sat on an island surrounded by water.
Even if they don’t they still have a guidance system that gives them precise control of altitude and flight path and that controls the spread pattern. The advantage of Notre Dame is that it sits on an island. you can either watch it burn uncontrolled for 5 hours from a distance like the fire fighters did or drop water on it from above.
It’s not like it’s a secret what happened. It’s a smoldering shell.
Al Aqsa mosque also burnt today. Wondering if that gives you the same shivers.
Doubt it, :rolleyes:
Apparently someone has faked a video supposedly depicting Muslims celebrating at the scene.
The important thing is that you know better than the actual French firefighters what resources they have, what will work, how well and how safe it would be.
I don’t understand why you would say such a thing. What justifies your “doubt”?
I’ve never been to Al Aqsa mosque and know little about it other than its location. So, no, it doesn’t have as much personal relevance to me as Notre Dame cathedral. I don’t know why that should be a matter of eye rolling, however. Paris is more important to my personal life than Jerusalem is. I don’t consider that to be a matter of pride or shame.
If it’s a structure of architectural, historical, and cultural importance, then its loss is still a tragedy. I’m not going to go around saying “I don’t like the style so I’m not going to miss it.”
This thread, and these particular comments make me think of a poem by the late great British comedian Spike Milligan.
Holy Smoke
I am the Vicar of St Paul’s
And I’m ringing the steeple bell,
The floor of the church is on fire,
Or the lid has come off hell.
Shall I ring the fire brigade?
Or should I trust the Lord?
Oh dear! I’ve just remembered,
I don’t think we’re insured!
‘What’s this then?’ said the fire chief.
‘Is this church C of E?
It is? Then we can’t put it out,
My lads are all R.C!’
The bells of hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling.
How do they know “the amount they want to drop”, given that dumping large amounts of water on the building could have caused the whole structure to collapse, which by the way is why they didn’t do it?
Although the French are not surprisingly appalled at the destruction caused by the fire, I’m pretty sure that they prefer to have the cathedral a “smoldering shell” than collapsed in a heap of wet rubble.
I mean, c’mon, it’s really not as though there weren’t any qualified people in Paris during the emergency thinking about this issue. The fact that you and they came to different conclusions about what they should do prrrrrrrrrrrrrobably does not imply that they’re the smugly ignorant and incompetent ones in this situation.
Have they said why there wasn’t a fire suppression system in place? Dry chemicals might have been an option instead of water in areas with valuable artifacts.
Isn’t that part of building code in most modern countries?
What could it have been due to? Ashtray? Tightly coiled power cable? Heater?
Magiver, you seem to be very invested in being right about this. Would it make any difference to you to know that every single professional firefighter interviewed for this story on the various news stations said that using an airplane to drop water on the cathedral was not just unfeasible, it would have resulted in catastrophic damage to the cathedral, the surrounding buildings, and the people on the ground?
I think you need to check your theory. The people who know this business don’t agree with you anymore than the people here do.
It’s a construction site. Anyone of two dozen things can cause it. While precautions are supposed to be taken, people get lazy. And or unlucky.
The initial fire seems to have been concentrated on the scaffolding.
The wooden frame is more or less gone. Engineers will need to examine it once it cools, stone cooling and contracting (after expanding) will put incredible stresses on the structure, equivalent of God knows how many freeze, thaw, heat, cool cycles.
Very likely damaged beyond economical repair.
It’s stature means the “economical” bit will be mostly ignored.
But out of Commission for years, if not decades? Yup.
Because you can calculate the dispersion rate at different heights and thus the loads created. By limiting the amount carried you can control the length of the release.
If you looked at the link I posted you would see a very precise release repeated seconds later by the next plane.
The math and physics involved in these calculations are many magnitudes less than what went into designing the plane itself.
I heard about the al-Aqsa mosque a few hours ago. I was very happy to learn that the damage had been minimal. It is the third holiest site in the Muslim world, it is very old, and it is very beautiful. Losing it would have been a cultural tragedy, as losing Notre Dame would be. Luckily, while the damage to Notre Dame is far worse than that at al-Aqsa, it seems that both buildings will survive and Notre Dame will be restored.
I call that two wins.
Ultimately, I’m questioning who made the decision and what were the calculations used. “Nuh uh, water’s heavy” is not a calculation. Here’s a video of the same plane discussed putting out a truck fire on a highway. A very precise strike. That could have been Notre Dame.