|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 16 2019 05:45 m4ini wrote:The really sad part is that in german newspapers, or rather their comment sections (such as Welt), this is somehow framed as a conspiracy. Something like "No firemen to see, no water to see, no douse-helicopters to see - i wonder why that is". It's sad to see how retarded some people are nowadays. + Show Spoiler +That's the reason why they won't use fire planes. Because it'll do more damage than the fire would. The problem here being that fire will destroy all the wooden beams and furniture, and the glass - the same as water. But water would also destroy foundations/stone. I don't even see how they'd rescue parts of it without destroying them in the process - like the two front towers, how do you prevent the fire spreading there without destroying things yourself through water? I'm not religious, but watching something that's 750 years old or something burn is just gut wrenching. Regardless of what it is. It's something that you don't get back, even if you rebuild it. edit: at 0:31, for some reason can't link directly to the part in the video.
Yeah for whatever reason people act like water doesn't weigh anything.
Even if it was heli-dropped (no horizontal velocity), it's still going to behave pretty close to a family sedan dropped from the same height. It'd punch straight through the roof, and damage everything through to the basement.
|
The structure and the towers are saved according to Libération.
The insurance company manager must be living a freaking nightmare. It is gonna be an absolute nightmare to rebuild...
|
The Interior and firefighters just announced that the structure is globally saved and preserved
|
AFP reports the same.
Notre-Dame’s main structure has been “saved and preserved”, a Paris fire official has told AFP.
At least somewhat good news. Art was rescued as well, if i understand correctly - although its possible that the three medieval rose windows exploded due to heat
There are unconfirmed reports that Notre Dame’s three medieval rose windows – la rosace ouest (1225) la rosace nord (1250) la rosace sud (1250) – have exploded in the intense heat.
edit
The insurance company manager must be living a freaking nightmare. It is gonna be an absolute nightmare to rebuild...
I'd not be so sure about that. Lets be real. Insurance here, insurance there - you can rebuild it by donations alone. Notre Dame is a national pride, and i'm pretty sure religious people worldwide will donate.
The only question is, how much will there be left to rebuild.
|
Is the fire that hot to weaken or collapse walls.
|
A national fundraising will be launched tomorrow by the Fondation du patrimoine for the reconstruction
|
On April 16 2019 06:08 TheDwf wrote:
A national fundraising will be launched tomorrow by the Fondation du patrimoine for the reconstruction
Unsurprisingly. And i'd be very surprised to see it "unsuccessful".
Show nested quote +On April 16 2019 06:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Is the fire that hot to weaken or collapse walls.
It won't melt stone.
It absolutely can and has destroyed wooden beams. If archs for example are supported by wooden beams, they of course will collapse and take walls with them. I'm not 100% sure how Notre Dame is build, but considering the age, i'm pretty sure that a lot of wood was used structurally and not just as ornament.
edit2:
The two towers of Notre Dame have been saved, a firefighting official has told Reuters.
However, a fireman has reportedly been seriously injured.
Reuters confirming now too. Sad to hear that there are injured.
|
The wooden framework was called la forêt [the forest], it was from 1220. Gone. It looked like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
More photos here
|
Basically a fire accelerant.
No wonder it went ablaze so fast.
Question i'm asking myself, how could that've been prevented? You obviously can't have sprinklers in the cathedral, and it's made of 1000 year old wood (well, close enough).
I'm not just no expert, i pretty much have no idea how it works, but shouldn't this have been impregnated by fire-retardants? Admittedly i got no idea if this is even possible, but if the only option is "don't light a match in there", then this was kind of inevitable sooner or later?
Maybe i'm missing something obvious here.
|
On April 16 2019 06:19 m4ini wrote:
Basically a fire accelerant.
No wonder it went ablaze so fast.
Question i'm asking myself, how could that've been prevented? You obviously can't have sprinklers in the cathedral, and it's made of 1000 year old wood (well, close enough).
I'm not just no expert, i pretty much have no idea how it works, but shouldn't this have been impregnated by fire-retardants? Admittedly i got no idea if this is even possible, but if the only option is "don't light a match in there", then this was kind of inevitable sooner or later?
Maybe i'm missing something obvious here.
They've made some pretty crazy advances in fire suppression. The problem comes with preserving the thing you're trying to save. Foam grenades would stop most fires in a matter of minutes but would destroy everything. Covering up everything with foam to begin with would also work but would make it impossible to see the thing you're trying to protect.
|
Making a building this old fire safe while keeping it intact if a fire happens is a nightmare, if even possible at all.
I'm glad the stonework appears to be holding up, interior structures can be rebuild. Losing the outer walls would have been a much bigger blow.
|
That's my point, i know what water etc will do, that's why i ruled it out. I would've thought that there's something that you could impregnate the wood with. You can get fire retardant wood. It wouldn't save the cathedral entirely, but i as a complete layman have to wonder if some of the devastation could've been prevented that way.
edit:
Nah, nevermind. After looking into a bit more detail, there was a lot of wood in (stunning) art form in the cathedral. I don't think you can preserve this other than preventing a match being lit.
I disagree btw, if you could chose between what was lost, and the outer walls, i'd chose the walls every day. They're replaceable (though not easily). The wooden interior of the cathedral, i have my doubts there.
edit2:
Meh doesn't matter. Just gutted that something historical/a heritage site was lost.
|
Its a lot easier to fire proof steel and concrete. Its a lot harder to deal with wood from hundreds and hundreds of years ago let alone dealing with wood which really wants to burn. Like in 9/11 fire retardent will only buy time.
When buying gun safes, in america at least, they aren't fireproof. Even the big ones will only buy time for you to get out of your house and let the fire fighters know about it before failing. If anything would want to have fire proof tech it would be gun safes.
|
I mean replacing wood from year 1200 with modern fire retardant stuff kind of defeats the point of an old building. And once a certain temperature is reached it doesn't matter anyway.
|
I'm surprised they got the art out. They only had 20 minutes or so before the roof collapsed. Granted I know nothing about how much or where the art was.
I am imagining a panicked skinny guy in a $3,000 suit with frames under his arms screaming to save the art though.
|
Doesn't seem too bad though it is the middle of the night.
|
Ah, I wasn't sure if there was a roof in between the collapse or not that makes more sense.
|
Also, the rose windows are gone. There are churches with high gothic vaulted ceilings all over Europe, but those windows and the wooden structure were truly unique.
|
Money is already being announced to help rebuild:
French billionaire François-Henri Pinault said Monday night he and his family will donate 100 million euros to help reconstruct the Notre Dame Cathedral hours after a catastrophic fire tore through the historic structure, collapsing its spire and causing significant damage.
"My father [François Pinault] and I have decided to release as of now from the funds of Artemis a sum of 100 million euros to participate in the effort that will be necessary for the complete reconstruction of Notre Dame," Pinault wrote in a statement.
François-Henri Pinault is the chairman and CEO of the international luxury group Kering, which includes Gucci and Saint Laurent, and president of the French holding company Groupe Artemis, which owns the fine arts auction house Christie's.
French President Emmanuel Macron said late Monday that he planned to launch a national fundraising campaign to rebuild the centuries-old cathedral.
"We will rebuild," Macron told reporters. "We will rebuild Notre Dame because this is what the French expect, because this is what our history deserves, because it is our destiny."
In its more than 800-year history, Notre Dame has undergone extensive and costly restorations to repair and restore one of the finest examples of French Gothic architecture.
When the fire broke out, the spire was being restored as part of a multimillion-dollar renovation to repair water damage to the wooden structure.
In recent years, cathedral officials have sought private funding to buttress the funds the French state dedicates to its upkeep through the Friends of Notre-Dame Foundation.
Source
|
They were fundraising for the renovations in the first place no? irreplaceable things were lost but the renovation is going to be fully funded now, so a bit of a silver lining then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4OAaA1WsAAQIDy.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4OAaAPW0AAkYRN.jpg)
