Video shows flames and smoke billowing from Notre Dame cathedral

[Cannons Front]

Maria Kadzhaeva shot this video of the fire at Notre Dame cathedral on Monday.
It show flames and a tower of smoke billowing from the upper reaches of the cathedral in Paris, France.



https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/notre-dame-fire/index.html?adkey=bn

Looks bad, could be the end of this beautiful building

[fbond02]

Looks terrible.

[MMC]

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/images/2019/105/c76081d8-35e2-454d-9185-13bcf4a32989.png


A massive fire broke out at the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris on Monday. It has not yet been confirmed what caused the fire but it may be related to recent construction.


According to Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-notredame-fire/paris-historic-notre-dame-cathedral-hit-by-fire-idUSKCN1RR1UO), the cathedral was undergoing renovations.....snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/04/15/notre-dame-fire-n2544803


Uh yep.....everyone knows how recent construction and renovations always cause fires, Right? :rollseyes:

[Common Sense]

Horrible. It's a very beautiful and important building.

[Common Sense]

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/images/2019/105/c76081d8-35e2-454d-9185-13bcf4a32989.png


A massive fire broke out at the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris on Monday. It has not yet been confirmed what caused the fire but it may be related to recent construction.


According to Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-notredame-fire/paris-historic-notre-dame-cathedral-hit-by-fire-idUSKCN1RR1UO), the cathedral was undergoing renovations.....snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/04/15/notre-dame-fire-n2544803


Uh yep.....everyone knows how recent construction and renovations always cause fires, Right? :rollseyes:

"Always cause fires"? Of course not...but renovations sometimes do pose an increased risk of fire.

[Ransom]

Oh no. Not Easter week.

[MMC]

"Always cause fires"? Of course not...but renovations sometimes do pose an increased risk of fire.

The smokers on the job, huh?

[MMC]

Oh no. Not Easter week.

No coincidincy there, eh?

[Mister D]

Catholic churches in France have been targeted in a recent spate of vandalism and arson.

https://www.newsweek.com/spate-attacks-catholic-churches-france-sees-altars-desecrated-christ-statue-1370800

[MMC]

https://prdcdns3.newsbook.com.mt/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018-12-01T120243Z_2_LYNXNPEEB0245_RTROPTP_4_FRANCE-PROTESTS.jpg

[Sergeant Gleed]

Well. That is a shame, but then again, Notre Dame was scheduled to become an extremely important mosque in our lifetime, so I do suppose that God was just saying "nuh-uh".

[Cotton1]

As long as it doesnt affect recruiting for the football team in America ...:)

[DGUtley]

Very sad.

[Tahuyaman]

Looks terrible.
It also looks like they didn’t make a serious effort to fight the fire.

[EvilCat Breath]

Isis tried to burn it down in 2016.

[FindersKeepers]

That makes me sick to my stomach. I fervently hope it was not arson.

[Common Sense]

It also looks like they didn’t make a serious effort to fight the fire.
I'm pretty sure they did what they could.

Should they have followed Trump's advice and use a water bomber? Lol...

[Mini Me]

This is a great piece of archtecture! Very sad!

https://i.postimg.cc/kgrmKt79/Getty-Images-Cath-drale-Notre-Dame-2.jpg

I sure hope the Hunchback is OK! Kinda looks like Steve Bannon! https://liberalforum.net/images/smilies/lol.gif https://liberalforum.net/images/smilies/lol.gif https://liberalforum.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

https://cdn.britannica.com/s:500x350/97/175597-004-693B1A7E.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

I'm pretty sure they did what they could.

Should they have followed Trump's advice and use a water bomber? Lol...
It sure didn’t look like it.

[Tahuyaman]

I sure hope the Hunchback is OK! Kinda looks like Steve Bannon! https://liberalforum.net/images/smilies/lol.gif https://liberalforum.net/images/smilies/lol.gif https://liberalforum.net/images/smilies/lol.gif



Stupidity on display.

[Peter1469]

Been there a couple of times. Hope they got the art out.

[Cletus]

I'm pretty sure they did what they could.

Should they have followed Trump's advice and use a water bomber? Lol...

Why do you laugh at the suggestion? If one had been available, it may have done much to save the building. Even if it didn't work, it would have been worth the effort.

I really hate it when idiots scoff at something because of who suggested it instead of the merit or lack of merit of the suggestion itself.

[Lummy]

That makes me sick to my stomach. I fervently hope it was not arson.
Believed related to renovation work, not arson, or so I read.

[Chris]

12th century spire toppled...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7J9T0k7n8

Shame.

[FindersKeepers]

Believed related to renovation work, not arson, or so I read.

So sad. You could see the scaffolding in the background so that makes sense. Huge loss.

[Common Sense]

Why do you laugh at the suggestion? If one had been available, it may have done much to save the building. Even if it didn't work, it would have been worth the effort.

I really hate it when idiots scoff at something because of who suggested it instead of the merit or lack of merit of the suggestion itself.
I laugh because it's a simplistic and naive suggestion. I'm not surprised Trump suggested it.

A water bomber is meant to put out forest fires. The force caused by a water bombardment could have likely destroyed the structure and caused more damage.

I'm not scoffing at the idea because of who suggested it. I scoff at it because it's a stupid idea.

[Captdon]

It's destroyed along with the books and art. The roof collapsed. The French say they will rebuild it but it still won't be Notre Dame again. Such a shame.

[Tahuyaman]

Been there a couple of times. Hope they got the art out.
Supposedly they got all of it out.

[Common Sense]

It's destroyed along with the books and art. The roof collapsed. The French say they will rebuild it but it still won't be Notre Dame again. Such a shame.

You'd be surprised how well they may be able to rebuild. The art and relics are lost, but the building and its decor can be recreated. Artisans will be able to recreate carvings, murals and stained glass. It will be expensive and lengthy, but I bet in 5 years it will look almost the same as it did. Probably with much better fire protection to boot. Look what they did to Windsor castle after a large portion of it was destroyed by fire.

[Dr. Who]

A very sad historical and religious loss. However, this kind of fire is rather common with historical structures where heat or sparks from metal work can set incredibly dry timbers afire - hot work. The wooden beams in the Cathedral were about 800 years old. Workers would have been required to remain on site for at least an hour after all work stopped to ensure that there was no ignition.

This will be a massive insurance loss both because of the nature of the virtually irreplaceable articles that may have been destroyed and the enormous cost today of replacing the kind of craftsmanship present in historical buildings. Such artisans are very few and far between today and the timbers in that Cathedral came from 400-year-old oak trees. It's unlikely that they can find such replacement timber today, so the timber will likely be replaced with steel. That will likely alter the acoustics in the Cathedral. It will be rebuilt, but it will never be the same.

[Ethereal]

Why do you laugh at the suggestion? If one had been available, it may have done much to save the building. Even if it didn't work, it would have been worth the effort.

I really hate it when idiots scoff at something because of who suggested it instead of the merit or lack of merit of the suggestion itself.


(CNBC) Donald Trump encourages France to use ‘flying water tankers’ as Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral remains engulfed in flames (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/15/trump-encourages-france-to-use-flying-water-tankers-for-notre-dame-fire.html)

...They did not use aircraft to dump water on the building, a strategy that France’s civil defense agency appeared to dismiss earlier in a pair of tweets.

“The drop of water by air on this type of building could indeed result in the collapse of the entire structure,” the agency wrote in French. “Alongside those ... who are currently doing the maximum to save #NotreDame.”

“Helicopter or airplane, the weight of the water and the intensity of the drop at low altitude could indeed weaken the structure of Notre-Dame and result in collateral damage to the buildings in the vicinity,” the agency added.

[...]

“If you hit that with tons of water from above, that’s going to collapse the entire structure and make the situation worse,” said Wayne McPartland, a retired New York City Fire Department battalion chief. “If you miss, you might hit civilians in the street.”

[Ethereal]

Ironic on so many levels.

A medieval church burns as westerns watch in horror and the French head of state laments (https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/macron-it-is-our-common-history-and-it-is-burning-1494283331684) the burning of "our common history".

Meanwhile, the unique culture and spirit that church once represented are almost entirely gone from the west, thanks in large part to globalists like Macron, who look at French history as nothing more than some pretty buildings to be commodified for the tourism industry.

Perhaps even more ironic than that, though, is the strange spectacle of watching westerners become so distraught over the destruction of a single building even as western governments lay waste to entire cities in Muslim lands. Just as one notable example, in the aftermath of the US invasion, Baghdad's Iraq Museum was looted of thousands of priceless antiquities and artifacts. What's happened to Notre Dame is but a small taste of the pain inflicted on Muslims by the west.

[Peter1469]

I laugh because it's a simplistic and naive suggestion. I'm not surprised Trump suggested it.

A water bomber is meant to put out forest fires. The force caused by a water bombardment could have likely destroyed the structure and caused more damage.

I'm not scoffing at the idea because of who suggested it. I scoff at it because it's a stupid idea.
There are water delivery methods that could safely be used. The question is whether any such assets were nearby.

[Peter1469]

Ironic on so many levels.

A medieval church burns as westerns watch in horror and the French head of state laments (https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/macron-it-is-our-common-history-and-it-is-burning-1494283331684) the burning of "our common history".

Meanwhile, the unique culture and spirit that church once represented are almost entirely gone from the west, thanks in large part to globalists like Macron, who look at French history as nothing more than some pretty buildings to be commodified for the tourism industry.

Perhaps even more ironic than that, though, is the strange spectacle of watching westerners become so distraught over the destruction of a single building even as western governments lay waste to entire cities in Muslim lands. Just as one notable example, in the aftermath of the US invasion, Baghdad's Iraq Museum was looted of thousands of priceless antiquities and artifacts. What's happened to Notre Dame is but a small taste of the pain inflicted on Muslims by the west.
When you see all the French in the streets praying, you have to wonder if any of them were in church on Sunday. I bet 90% of them were not.

Anyway, it seems as if the stone remains intact. Assuming it is safe to do so, they should be able to rebuilt the wood frame.

[Chris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9UeE4P3k5k

[MMC]

Ironic on so many levels.

A medieval church burns as westerns watch in horror and the French head of state laments (https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/macron-it-is-our-common-history-and-it-is-burning-1494283331684) the burning of "our common history".

Meanwhile, the unique culture and spirit that church once represented are almost entirely gone from the west, thanks in large part to globalists like Macron, who look at French history as nothing more than some pretty buildings to be commodified for the tourism industry.

Perhaps even more ironic than that, though, is the strange spectacle of watching westerners become so distraught over the destruction of a single building even as western governments lay waste to entire cities in Muslim lands. Just as one notable example, in the aftermath of the US invasion, Baghdad's Iraq Museum was looted of thousands of priceless antiquities and artifacts. What's happened to Notre Dame is but a small taste of the pain inflicted on Muslims by the west.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/New_Smilies/violin.gif

[alexa]

There are water delivery methods that could safely be used. The question is whether any such assets were nearby.
Air isn't one of them.

Anyone with a passing acquaintance with physics would know that.

Trump should have kept his yap shut.

[alexa]

Sécurité Civile Fr‏ @SecCivileFrance

(https://twitter.com/SecCivileFrance)Hundreds of firemen of the Paris Fire Brigade are doing everything they can to bring the terrible #NotreDame (https://twitter.com/hashtag/NotreDame?src=hash) fire under control. All means are being used, except for water-bombing aircrafts which, if used, could lead to the collapse of the entire structure of the cathedral.

https://twitter.com/SecCivileFrance/status/1117874924268376064?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweet embed|twterm^1117874924268376064&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Ffre nch-officials-subtweet-trump-notre-dame-fire%2F


lol

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/SecCivileFrance/status/1117874924268376064?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweet embed|twterm^1117874924268376064&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Ffre nch-officials-subtweet-trump-notre-dame-fire%2F


lol

The fire was already put out some time ago, alexa: 'The fire is out': Paris firefighters succeed after 12-hour battle to extinguish Notre Dame Cathedral blaze (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/16/notre-dame-cathedral-fire/3481868002/).

[Lummy]

I laugh because it's a simplistic and naive suggestion. I'm not surprised Trump suggested it.

A water bomber is meant to put out forest fires. The force caused by a water bombardment could have likely destroyed the structure and caused more damage.

I'm not scoffing at the idea because of who suggested it. I scoff at it because it's a stupid idea.

At a higher altitude than forest fire bombers drop water, which is near tree top level, it's a brilliant idea. Several passes would have put that fire out.

[alexa]

The fire was already put out some time ago, alexa: 'The fire is out': Paris firefighters succeed after 12-hour battle to extinguish Notre Dame Cathedral blaze (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/16/notre-dame-cathedral-fire/3481868002/).
Once again, you provided useless, outdated information to people who don't need it.

Kudos

[alexa]

At a higher altitude than forest fire bombers drop water, which is near tree top level, it's a brilliant idea. Several passes would have put that fire out.

I didn't think Trump's idea could be worse, but you've done it.

Nice work

[Chris]

Sécurité Civile Fr‏ @SecCivileFrance

Hundreds of firemen of the Paris Fire Brigade are doing everything they can to bring the terrible #NotreDame fire under control. All means are being used, except for water-bombing aircrafts which, if used, could lead to the collapse of the entire structure of the cathedral.

https://twitter.com/SecCivileFrance/status/1117874924268376064?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweet embed|twterm^1117874924268376064&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Ffre nch-officials-subtweet-trump-notre-dame-fire%2F


lol


The fire was already put out some time ago, alexa: 'The fire is out': Paris firefighters succeed after 12-hour battle to extinguish Notre Dame Cathedral blaze (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/04/16/notre-dame-cathedral-fire/3481868002/).


Once again, you provided useless, outdated information to people who don't need it.

Kudos


Talk to yourself much?

[alexa]

Talk to yourself much?
Is the fire still out, Chrissy?

[Cletus]

I laugh because it's a simplistic and naive suggestion. I'm not surprised Trump suggested it.

A water bomber is meant to put out forest fires. The force caused by a water bombardment could have likely destroyed the structure and caused more damage.

I'm not scoffing at the idea because of who suggested it. I scoff at it because it's a stupid idea.

I live in an area that gets hit by forest fires quite regularly. The idea that using a water drop on the Cathedral would have brought enough force on it to cause it to collapse is nonsense. I have seen water (and slurry) drops done over personnel without "tons" of pressure doing them harm. There is more pressure coming from the nozzle of a fire hose than is generated by water dropped from an aircraft.

I guess people who don't know what they are talking about envision some huge tidal wave dropping out of the sky. That is not what happens.

[Cletus]

Air isn't one of them.

Anyone with a passing acquaintance with physics would know that.

Trump should have kept his yap shut.

Again, you display how little you know. There are numerous aerial delivery techniques that could have been used that would not have done any harm to the structure and would definitely have helped extinguish the fire. This fire particularly, because of where it was.

[alexa]

I live in an area that gets hit by forest fires quite regularly. The idea that using a water drop on the Cathedral would have brought enough force on it to cause it to collapse is nonsense. I have seen water (and slurry) drops done over personnel without "tons" of pressure doing them harm. There is more pressure coming from the nozzle of a fire hose than is generated by water dropped from an aircraft.

I guess people who don't know what they are talking about envision some huge tidal wave dropping out of the sky. That is not what happens.

I guess whoever is in charge in France didn't have access to the kind of cool stories we do.

[Cletus]

I guess whoever is in charge in France didn't have access to the kind of cool stories we do.
I suspect they didn't have access to the same kind of firefighting equipment we do. You can flap your gums all you want, but it is obvious that you know little about anything.

[Chris]

Is the fire still out, Chrissy?

:cry:

[Tahuyaman]

You'd be surprised how well they may be able to rebuild. The art and relics are lost, but the building and its decor can be recreated. Artisans will be able to recreate carvings, murals and stained glass. It will be expensive and lengthy, but I bet in 5 years it will look almost the same as it did. Probably with much better fire protection to boot. Look what they did to Windsor castle after a large portion of it was destroyed by fire.
The art and relics were saved. It's not going to be restored to its previous condition. It took 100 years to build it the first time.

[Tahuyaman]

I live in an area that gets hit by forest fires quite regularly. The idea that using a water drop on the Cathedral would have brought enough force on it to cause it to collapse is nonsense. I have seen water (and slurry) drops done over personnel without "tons" of pressure doing them harm. There is more pressure coming from the nozzle of a fire hose than is generated by water dropped from an aircraft.

I guess people who don't know what they are talking about envision some huge tidal wave dropping out of the sky. That is not what happens.
You're wasting time trying to reason with that one.

[Mister D]

The art and relics were saved. It's not going to be restored to its previous condition. It took 100 years to build it the first time.

Well, that's good news.

[Ethereal]

I live in an area that gets hit by forest fires quite regularly. The idea that using a water drop on the Cathedral would have brought enough force on it to cause it to collapse is nonsense. I have seen water (and slurry) drops done over personnel without "tons" of pressure doing them harm. There is more pressure coming from the nozzle of a fire hose than is generated by water dropped from an aircraft.

I guess people who don't know what they are talking about envision some huge tidal wave dropping out of the sky. That is not what happens.
Defending Trump's verbal diarrhea and his embarrassing Twitter addiction is like a full-time job for his cultists.

[Cletus]

Defending Trump's verbal diarrhea and his embarrassing Twitter addiction is like a full-time job for his cultists.

Child, Child, Child... If you knew more, you would talk less.

There are a number of ways Aerial Firefighters could have assisted with that fire, assuming France had the assets in place and knowledge and skill to deploy them. The President's suggestion may or may not have been practical in this particular instance. I don't know if the French even possess the capability, but even if his suggestion proved impractical, it wasn't for the reasons you and the rest of the uneducated and unwashed claimed.

[Peter1469]

Air isn't one of them.

Anyone with a passing acquaintance with physics would know that.

Trump should have kept his yap shut.
Not for the reasons you think. The lead lining the roof is water tight.

[Cletus]

This fire would probably have been an ideal situation for the use of a Bambi Bucket. It would allow precise placement of the water dump, as well as a controlled flow rate and it would have allowed the fire to be attacked from the top.

[Ethereal]

Child, Child, Child... If you knew more, you would talk less.

There are a number of ways Aerial Firefighters could have assisted with that fire, assuming France had the assets in place and knowledge and skill to deploy them. The President's suggestion may or may not have been practical in this particular instance. I don't know if the French even possess the capability, but even if his suggestion proved impractical, it wasn't for the reasons you and the rest of the uneducated and unwashed claimed.
The president's suggestion was stupid and unnecessary, like many of the things he blurts out on Twitter. Being one of his cultists, you simply cannot bring yourself to admit it.

All Trump had to do was say something generic and supportive. Instead, he did what he always does: Try to make himself the center of attention by impersonating a firefighter.

It was idiotic and you know it. But you defend it any way.

[Dr. Who]

I live in an area that gets hit by forest fires quite regularly. The idea that using a water drop on the Cathedral would have brought enough force on it to cause it to collapse is nonsense. I have seen water (and slurry) drops done over personnel without "tons" of pressure doing them harm. There is more pressure coming from the nozzle of a fire hose than is generated by water dropped from an aircraft.

I guess people who don't know what they are talking about envision some huge tidal wave dropping out of the sky. That is not what happens.
It's one thing to drop water over half a mile and another to drop it over a single spot.

One word: Force
F=mass*acceleration.

[Ethereal]

This fire would probably have been an ideal situation for the use of a Bambi Bucket. It would allow precise placement of the water dump, as well as a controlled flow rate and it would have allowed the fire to be attacked from the top.
Trump's a fool and you're a fool for defending him. Throwing around some technical jargon in your typically faux-authoritative manner won't change that.

[Ethereal]

It's one thing to drop water over half a mile and another to drop it over a single spot.

One word: Force
F=mass*acceleration.
Someone already posted a video in this thread of the church's spire collapsing under its own weight. And French fire officials have unequivocally rejected the appropriateness of Trump's advice, which nobody was asking for in the first place. But none of that matters to Trump cultists like Cletus. They will ALWAYS find a way to excuse their cult leader's embarrassing behavior.

[Dr. Who]

Someone already posted a video in this thread of the church's spire collapsing under its own weight. And French fire officials have unequivocally rejected the appropriateness of Trump's advice, which nobody was asking for in the first place. But none of that matters to Trump cultists like Cletus. They will ALWAYS find a way to excuse their cult leader's embarrassing behavior.
Physics matters and unfortunately people are willing to suspend the laws of physics for partisan purposes. All it does is encourage Trump to embarrass himself. His suggestion would have literally been a water 'bomb'.

[Ethereal]

Physics matters and unfortunately people are willing to suspend the laws of physics for partisan purposes. All it does is encourage Trump to embarrass himself. His suggestion would have literally been a water 'bomb'.
Although fair game for criticism, I think the technical accuracy surrounding Trump's suggestion is beside the point.

The embarrassing thing was that Trump offered up any suggestion at all, as if French authorities would have any interest in or use for Trump's Twitter drivel.

These people are professional firefighters in a major city. If aerial methods were warranted or feasible, I think it's safe to assume they would have utilized them. They certainly don't require some jackass like Trump to remind them of how to do their jobs.

[Dr. Who]

Although fair game for criticism, I think the technical accuracy surrounding Trump's suggestion is beside the point.

The embarrassing thing was that Trump offered up any suggestion at all, as if French authorities would have any interest in or use for Trump's Twitter drivel.

These people are professional firefighters in a major city. If aerial methods were warranted or feasible, I think it's safe to assume they would have utilized them. They certainly don't require some jackass like Trump to remind them of how to do their jobs.
I'm referring less to Trump than his acolytes who should really know better.

[Ransom]

How is it tds buffoons can turn a thread about a Catholic Cathedral into an anti-Trump thread? Plenty of threads specially made for Trump bashing, how about a couple of you ride on out. Buy some wheels for that rag you're driving while on the way.

[Cletus]

The president's suggestion was stupid and unnecessary, like many of the things he blurts out on Twitter. Being one of his cultists, you simply cannot bring yourself to admit it.

All Trump had to do was say something generic and supportive. Instead, he did what he always does: Try to make himself the center of attention by impersonating a firefighter.

It was idiotic and you know it. But you defend it any way.

It is apparent you know as little about aerial firefighting as you do most other things. It is unfortunate that you insist on demonstrating how little you know over and over and over again.

[Cletus]

It's one thing to drop water over half a mile and another to drop it over a single spot.

One word: Force
F=mass*acceleration.

8 words... You don't know what you are talking about.

Do you know how a Bambi Bucket works? Of course you don't. It doesn't drop water over "half a mile". It is intended for vertical delivery directly over the flames. The rate of flow from the bucket is controlled by the operator. they can deliver as little as 72 gallons or as much as 2,600 gallons in a single drop.

Why do people insist on yammering on about things of which they know little or nothing?

[Cletus]

Trump's a fool and you're a fool for defending him. Throwing around some technical jargon in your typically faux-authoritative manner won't change that.

Yeah, fact and truth just fuck you up, don't they?

[Cletus]

Someone already posted a video in this thread of the church's spire collapsing under its own weight. And French fire officials have unequivocally rejected the appropriateness of Trump's advice, which nobody was asking for in the first place. But none of that matters to Trump cultists like Cletus. They will ALWAYS find a way to excuse their cult leader's embarrassing behavior.

You are the one who should be embarrassed here.

[Cletus]

Physics matters and unfortunately people are willing to suspend the laws of physics for partisan purposes. All it does is encourage Trump to embarrass himself. His suggestion would have literally been a water 'bomb'.

Educate yourself. Then talk.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Ironic on so many levels.

A medieval church burns as westerns watch in horror and the French head of state laments (https://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/macron-it-is-our-common-history-and-it-is-burning-1494283331684) the burning of "our common history".

Meanwhile, the unique culture and spirit that church once represented are almost entirely gone from the west, thanks in large part to globalists like Macron, who look at French history as nothing more than some pretty buildings to be commodified for the tourism industry.

Perhaps even more ironic than that, though, is the strange spectacle of watching westerners become so distraught over the destruction of a single building even as western governments lay waste to entire cities in Muslim lands. Just as one notable example, in the aftermath of the US invasion, Baghdad's Iraq Museum was looted of thousands of priceless antiquities and artifacts. What's happened to Notre Dame is but a small taste of the pain inflicted on Muslims by the west.

So....we're supposed to pretend it wasn't the Iraqis looting their own museum...?

[Dr. Who]

8 words... You don't know what you are talking about.

Do you know how a Bambi Bucket works? Of course you don't. It doesn't drop water over "half a mile". It is intended for vertical delivery directly over the flames. The rate of flow from the bucket is controlled by the operator. they can deliver as little as 72 gallons or as much as 2,600 gallons in a single drop.

Why do people insist on yammering on about things of which they know little or nothing?
It's for combating wildfires. What makes you think that it's appropriate for use on buildings? The least weight of the water it carries is 670 lbs!https://www.sei-ind.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/BB-3fold.pdf

Just the shock of 670 or more pounds hitting a roof from some height would cause impact related vibrations that could compromise all of the stonework. A roof being a flat, if angled, surface is going to take the impact rather differently than a bunch of trees.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm laughing.

[Tahuyaman]

Everyone knows there only one way to fight a structural fire.


Idiots.

[Sergeant Gleed]

It's one thing to drop water over half a mile and another to drop it over a single spot.

One word: Force
F=mass*acceleration.

And it's quite another to try to treat a liquid falling through aerodynamic drag as a solid body.

The blob of water dumped will rapidly be broken into streamlined droplets no bigger than the droplet's surface tension can resist the shear load from drag..the droplets will get smaller as they go faster...it comes down, from a height, as rain, and spread out, too.

[Cletus]

It's for combating wildfires. What makes you think that it's appropriate for use on buildings? The least weight of the water it carries is 670 lbs!https://www.sei-ind.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/BB-3fold.pdf

Just the shock of 670 or more pounds hitting a roof from some height would cause impact related vibrations that could compromise all of the stonework. A roof being a flat, if angled, surface is going to take the impact rather differently than a bunch of trees.

How long did it take for the firefighters to get water on the burning roof?

Keep pretending you know what you are talking about. You are nothing if not amusing.

[Cletus]

And it's quite another to try to treat a liquid falling through aerodynamic drag as a solid body.

The blob of water dumped will rapidly be broken into streamlined droplets no bigger than the droplet's surface tension can resist the shear load from drag..the droplets will get smaller as they go faster...it comes down, from a height, as rain, and spread out, too.

Give that man a cigar.

[Dr. Who]

And it's quite another to try to treat a liquid falling through aerodynamic drag as a solid body.

The blob of water dumped will rapidly be broken into streamlined droplets no bigger than the droplet's surface tension can resist the shear load from drag..the droplets will get smaller as they go faster...it comes down, from a height, as rain, and spread out, too.
It depends on the height from which it's dropped and the speed of the aircraft dropping it. If a chopper is dropping it straight down, it will be hitting with more force than if a plane is doing a fly by.

[Sergeant Gleed]

It's for combating wildfires. What makes you think that it's appropriate for use on buildings? The least weight of the water it carries is 670 lbs!https://www.sei-ind.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/BB-3fold.pdf

Just the shock of 670 or more pounds hitting a roof from some height would cause impact related vibrations that could compromise all of the stonework. A roof being a flat, if angled, surface is going to take the impact rather differently than a bunch of trees.

Man you're ignorant.

It's all about drag and shear forces. You ever get knocked out from a raindrop?

[Dr. Who]

How long did it take for the firefighters to get water on the burning roof?

Keep pretending you know what you are talking about. You are nothing if not amusing.
Do you assume that the French have no knowledge regarding fighting fires either conventionally or from the air or that they don't know what is not recommended for building fires? In all of the years that I have been working in claims, and that's over thirty, I have never once ever heard of a building fire being addressed with any form of water bombing. I wonder why that is? Perhaps you can come up with even one example where that method was used successfully on a building. I'll wait.

[Ethereal]

It is apparent you know as little about aerial firefighting as you do most other things. It is unfortunate that you insist on demonstrating how little you know over and over and over again.

I defer to the judgement of actual experts, like the fire officials in Paris, over the uninformed drivel spewed by you and your cult leader.

[Sergeant Gleed]

It depends on the height from which it's dropped and the speed of the aircraft dropping it. If a chopper is dropping it straight down, it will be hitting with more force than if a plane is doing a fly by.

You're just ignorant and should stop pursuing this. It's painful to watch.


https://youtu.be/Fw9B2BsOi-0
Even as the balloon is ripping, the surface is breaking into drops. This process continues as the mass of water falls, the wind ripping off drops, which fall slower than the central mass, until there is no central mass, only droplets, which are breaking up as they accelerate...until they reach terminal velocity, which is very slow for a drop of water in free fall.

I'm going to guess you're too ignorant to comprehend the term "terminal velocity". Too bad. Look it up.

Some of us went to college to learn about aerodynamics.

You aren't one of them.

I am.

[Ethereal]

Yeah, fact and truth just $#@! you up, don't they?

The truth is that Trump behaved like a clown. And defending his clownish behavior makes you Trump's clown shoe.

[Cletus]

Do you assume that the French have no knowledge regarding fighting fires either conventionally or from the air or that they don't know what is not recommended for building fires? In all of the years that I have been working in claims, and that's over thirty, I have never once ever heard of a building fire being addressed with any form of water bombing. I wonder why that is? Perhaps you can come up with even one example where that method was used successfully on a building. I'll wait.

How many fires have you seen like that one?

It was burning from the top down. The conventional fire fighting equipment they used was not able for quite some time to even get water on the burning part of the structure. If they had been able to deliver a retardant to the source of the fire early on, they very probably could have saved far more of the cathedral than they did.

Unconventional situations call for unconventional solutions. You are stuck in a box... willingly.

[Ethereal]

You are the one who should be embarrassed here.
I'm embarrassed FOR you and that clown you call a president.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Do you assume that the French have no knowledge regarding fighting fires either conventionally or from the air or that they don't know what is not recommended for building fires? In all of the years that I have been working in claims, and that's over thirty, I have never once ever heard of a building fire being addressed with any form of water bombing. I wonder why that is? Perhaps you can come up with even one example where that method was used successfully on a building. I'll wait.


It's most likely that, since they don't have a lot of forest fires in Paris...in the third week of spring, that they didn't have any water-dropping helicopters ready to fly, anyway.

As you happened to point out, it's not common to drop water on buildings from a helicopter, usually because, which you did not say, the water usually runs off the roof and into the gutters, doing nothing for the fire fighting effort. If someone is considering using a helicopter to stop the fire, the fire is already through the roof, and when fires are through the roof, the building is usually too far gone to make it worth the effort of saving.

How much do you want to bet, if ND had proper modern fire sprinkler systems installed that the muslim terrorist that set the fire shut the water main?

[Ethereal]

So....we're supposed to pretend it wasn't the Iraqis looting their own museum...?
So... we're supposed to pretend like the looting wasn't made possible because the US invaded Iraq based on lies?

[Sergeant Gleed]

How many fires have you seen like that one?

It was burning from the top down. The conventional fire fighting equipment they used was not able for quite some time to even get water on the burning part of the structure. If they had been able to deliver a retardant to the source of the fire early on, they very probably could have saved far more of the cathedral than they did.

Unconventional situations call for unconventional solutions. You are stuck in a box... willingly.

Three hundred feet is a very tall building, even by modern standards. Street level equipment will not reach anywhere near that high.

[Sergeant Gleed]

So... we're supposed to pretend like the looting wasn't made possible because the US invaded Iraq based on lies?

They didn't invade based on lies.

Or didn't you see the memo where WMD's were really found. Nice diversion, but the mulsims raided their own museum.

How about if you get back to this thread topic, boy?

Nobody cares about Iraq, and I never did, not now, not then.

[Ethereal]

How long did it take for the firefighters to get water on the burning roof?

Keep pretending you know what you are talking about. You are nothing if not amusing.
Narcissistic assertions aren't a logical form of argument. Someone should have taught you that somewhere along the road.

[Ethereal]

And it's quite another to try to treat a liquid falling through aerodynamic drag as a solid body.

The blob of water dumped will rapidly be broken into streamlined droplets no bigger than the droplet's surface tension can resist the shear load from drag..the droplets will get smaller as they go faster...it comes down, from a height, as rain, and spread out, too.
Parts of the church fell down under their own weight. Structures that fragile can collapse by subjecting them to even the slightest amount of additional weight. And one structural failure can spread to the rest of the structure like a chain-reaction. So, yeah, there's a pretty good reason not to dump water on the structure from the sky, which is why French fire officials themselves said it was a bad idea. But maybe you and Cletus and Donald Trump know how to fight fires in Paris churches better than the Paris firefighters. It's entirely possible in theory. Let's all entertain that theory so you and Cletus don't have to admit to Trump's clownish behavior.

[Dr. Who]

You're just ignorant and should stop pursuing this. It's painful to watch.


https://youtu.be/Fw9B2BsOi-0
Even as the balloon is ripping, the surface is breaking into drops. This process continues as the mass of water falls, the wind ripping off drops, which fall slower than the central mass, until there is no central mass, only droplets, which are breaking up as they accelerate...until they reach terminal velocity, which is very slow for a drop of water in free fall.

I'm going to guess you're too ignorant to comprehend the term "terminal velocity". Too bad. Look it up.

Some of us went to college to learn about aerodynamics.

You aren't one of them.

I am.
Except I made a career out of losses and ironically, water bombing has never been used, to my knowledge, in fighting a building fire. If you are so knowledgable in the field of fire fighting, please point to all of the cases where water bombing saved a building. I'll wait.

[Ethereal]

Man you're ignorant.

It's all about drag and shear forces. You ever get knocked out from a raindrop?
Nah, Trump and his defenders are the ignorant ones, thinking that Paris fire officials needed to be reminded that water can be dropped from aircraft.

[Ethereal]

Do you assume that the French have no knowledge regarding fighting fires either conventionally or from the air or that they don't know what is not recommended for building fires? In all of the years that I have been working in claims, and that's over thirty, I have never once ever heard of a building fire being addressed with any form of water bombing. I wonder why that is? Perhaps you can come up with even one example where that method was used successfully on a building. I'll wait.
Wow. You think facts and logic matter here? You obviously haven't met Cletus, who thinks the rightness of his opinion is directly proportional to the forcefulness with which he asserts it. And according to his own whimsical metric, Cletus is winning this argument handily! Best just give up now, before he gets REAL forceful with you!

[Sergeant Gleed]

Parts of the church fell down under their own weight. Structures that fragile can collapse by subjecting them to even the slightest amount of additional weight. And one structural failure can spread to the rest of the structure like a chain-reaction. So, yeah, there's a pretty good reason not to dump water on the structure from the sky, which is why French fire officials themselves said it was a bad idea. But maybe you and Cletus and Donald Trump know how to fight fires in Paris churches better than the Paris firefighters. It's entirely possible in theory. Let's all entertain that theory so you and Cletus don't have to admit to Trump's clownish behavior.

I made NO comments regarding how the French should fight their own fires.

Not my problem.

I was correcting some fool that trying to be clever by applying a simple Newtonian law of motion to a very complex fluid mechanics problem.

I personally have never seen professionals use water dropping on a building fire and I will leave that to the professionals.

However, I see no reason why I, as a professional, should be required to remain silent when some armchair dork tries to lecture everyone on his vast ignorance of fluid mechanics.

I don't even disagree with what you said, except for this....breaking one section of the roof by a hydraulic impact could have opened large areas below to water from above....but that is a decision for the professionals on the spot, who either decided against, or, most likely, didn't even have the tools to do the job in the first place. As I will repeat here, it's not likely that France had many water dropping helicopters ready to go on a moment's notice in early spring. Those assets would have been in some phase of pre-season maintenance, getting ready for summer.

Northern France isn't California. It's WET.

How about if you tell your pal that fluid mechanics isn't their thing and they should be quiet on the subjects of their ignorance. They embarrassed themselves.

[Ethereal]

They didn't invade based on lies.

Yes, they did. The entire Iraq war narrative was a pile of lies built atop a foundation of deception and hypocrisy.


Or didn't you see the memo where WMD's were really found.

Oh, a memo... that totally justifies the wanton destruction of an entire country that never attacked us and had nothing to do with 9/11.


Nice diversion, but the mulsims raided their own museum.

Only because the US military invaded Iraq and spread chaos everywhere throughout the country.


How about if you get back to this thread topic, boy?

The topic is the destruction of buildings that have cultural value. Sorry if you cannot see the parallel. But it's there.


Nobody cares about Iraq...

A stupid statement.


...and I never did, not now, not then.

I'm positively shocked that you don't care about a country the US destroyed. That took me by surprise.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Except I made a career out of losses and ironically, water bombing has never been used, to my knowledge, in fighting a building fire. If you are so knowledgable in the field of fire fighting, please point to all of the cases where water bombing saved a building. I'll wait.
All I was doing was pointing out that you're talking through your asshole, juicily, I might add, about fluid mechanics, which makes that a very suitable adverb for you.

You had your physics wrong, so get over it already.

There were too many factors for any of us to say why the French didn't water bomb their greatest historical structure.

What I would like to know, and will never learn, of course, is what procedures they had to respond to a fire there, how their trained for it, or if they gave it no thought and got on site and scratched their asses trying to treat it like any other structure fire.

Their loss, not mine.

I'm building my own monument to eternity even now. I'll let you all know when I'm done.

But you should stick to peddling your lies about the wonders of socialism. You totally SUCK at physics.

[Ethereal]

Except I made a career out of losses and ironically, water bombing has never been used, to my knowledge, in fighting a building fire. If you are so knowledgable in the field of fire fighting, please point to all of the cases where water bombing saved a building. I'll wait.

There must be thousands and thousands of them, judging by the fervor with which Cletus and Gleed are defending that method.

I anxiously await their robust data set.

[Tahuyaman]

There are water delivery methods that could safely be used. The question is whether any such assets were nearby.
No no no.... according to one person here, there’s only one way to fight a structural fire.

[Dr. Who]

How many fires have you seen like that one?

It was burning from the top down. The conventional fire fighting equipment they used was not able for quite some time to even get water on the burning part of the structure. If they had been able to deliver a retardant to the source of the fire early on, they very probably could have saved far more of the cathedral than they did.

Unconventional situations call for unconventional solutions. You are stuck in a box... willingly.

I've had a number of Cathedral fires and all manner of highrise fires. None were addressed with water bombing. Just an FYI I work in reinsurance claims so I see the largest, most expensive losses there are and I work for a global reinsurer. Yet in all of my years, I have never heard of a building fire of any kind that was fought from the air and that includes 911, the affected buildings, including the twin towers w hich we reinsured. If water bombing was a viable solution for buildings, and it's not a new technology, you would think that at some point it would have been used. I'll wait for a single example. If you cannot come up with one, then perhaps you don't know what you don't know.

[Ethereal]

I made NO comments regarding how the French should fight their own fires.

Not my problem.

I was correcting some fool that trying to be clever by applying a simple Newtonian law of motion to a very complex fluid mechanics problem.

I personally have never seen professionals use water dropping on a building fire and I will leave that to the professionals.

However, I see no reason why I, as a professional, should be required to remain silent when some armchair dork tries to lecture everyone on his vast ignorance of fluid mechanics.

I don't even disagree with what you said, except for this....breaking one section of the roof by a hydraulic impact could have opened large areas below to water from above....but that is a decision for the professionals on the spot, who either decided against, or, most likely, didn't even have the tools to do the job in the first place. As I will repeat here, it's not likely that France had many water dropping helicopters ready to go on a moment's notice in early spring. Those assets would have been in some phase of pre-season maintenance, getting ready for summer.

Northern France isn't California. It's WET.

How about if you tell your pal that fluid mechanics isn't their thing and they should be quiet on the subjects of their ignorance. They embarrassed themselves.
Trump's the one telling firefighters in Paris how to do their job. Maybe you should tell him first?

[Ethereal]

I've had a number of Cathedral fires and all manner of highrise fires. None were addressed with water bombing. Just an FYI I work in reinsurance claims so I see the largest, most expensive losses there are and I work for a global reinsurer. Yet in all of my years, I have never heard of a building fire of any kind that was fought from the air and that includes 911, the affected buildings, including the twin towers w hich we reinsured. If water bombing was a viable solution for buildings, and it's not a new technology, you would think that at some point it would have been used. I'll wait for a single example. If you cannot come up with one, then perhaps you don't know what you don't know.
Someone should report this post for being too logical.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Yes, they did. The entire Iraq war narrative was a pile of lies built atop a foundation of deception and hypocrisy.



I'd hate to tell you this, but there was one perfectly valid reason to invade Iraq.



Make that two:



1) Pincer movement on Iran. Yes, you're ignorant of military strategy, so run along and look it up.



2) By what RIGHT does the tyrannical dictators have to claim the throne they stole is theirs forever and no one else has the right to contest it and take it if they can?



Saddam took that throne by force, did he not?



Yes, he did.



So, then what moral code prevents ANYONE else from taking that throne from him, by force, anytime they desire?



Right.



He existed in his position SOLELY on our sufferance and the sufferance of everyone else. We got tired of him, finally, and removed him, as we had a right to do because he was not a leader duly elected by honest and free elections of the people he ruled over.



He had no right to stay, we had every right to remove him.



You aren't very good at the morality of history, are you?



I'll come back in a bit, gotta take a leak...


Oh, a memo... that totally justifies the wanton destruction of an entire country that never attacked us and had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm back. I know you're eager to learn how things came out, but keep it to yourself.

I provided all the justification needed, namely that tyrants who seize their thrones by force lose them by force. They have no RIGHTS.

And that asshole Hussein WAS aiding and abetting terrorists.

He deserved to die.

Should have been killed for what he did to Kuwait.


Only because the US military invaded Iraq and spread chaos everywhere throughout the country.

No, it was a shithole country before that. Muslim, remember?


The topic is the destruction of buildings that have cultural value. Sorry if you cannot see the parallel. But it's there.

Aren't any of those in Iraq.

No. Whatever you list, isn't one of them.


A stupid statement.

A stupid argument.

When I say nobody, I mean I'm the only one that matters. And since I don't care about Iraq, nobody needs to.


I'm positively shocked that you don't care about a country the US destroyed. That took me by surprise.

We're America, bitches. - Our new national motto, for Real Americans Only.

[Dr. Who]

There must be thousands and thousands of them, judging by the fervor with which Cletus and Gleed are defending that method.

I anxiously await their robust data sI'et.
Me too. It will be a revelation to the entire insurance industry. Just imagine how we could have missed this for all of these years regardless of how much research the industry does. I'm anxiously awaiting this information so that I can publish it first in my industry media and then in the insurance media. I'll be famous!

[Dr. Who]

All I was doing was pointing out that you're talking through your asshole, juicily, I might add, about fluid mechanics, which makes that a very suitable adverb for you.

You had your physics wrong, so get over it already.

There were too many factors for any of us to say why the French didn't water bomb their greatest historical structure.

What I would like to know, and will never learn, of course, is what procedures they had to respond to a fire there, how their trained for it, or if they gave it no thought and got on site and scratched their asses trying to treat it like any other structure fire.

Their loss, not mine.

I'm building my own monument to eternity even now. I'll let you all know when I'm done.

But you should stick to peddling your lies about the wonders of socialism. You totally SUCK at physics.
Right - I never billed myself as a physicist but then again I'm not the one advocating fighting fires in buildings by water bombing them, which apparently is not advocated by any actual physicists or engineers and I'm sure if you were not furiously trying to defend foolishness, you would also not advocate. You are leaving the wrong hemisphere in your brain in charge.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Trump's the one telling firefighters in Paris how to do their job. Maybe you should tell him first?

Trump is the greatest president since Lincoln. Why would I interfere with genius?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Right - I never billed myself as a physicist

Then someone hacked your computer and was pretending to be no smarter than you are by parading his ignorance of physics all over the internet.


but then again I'm not the one advocating fighting fires in buildings by water bombing them,

Good for you.

Neither was I.

I was merely correcting your ignorant statements, a task I often find assigned to me by your shouts for help.

You should stop posting and give me a break.


which apparently is not advocated by any actual physicists or engineers and I'm sure if you were not furiously trying to defend foolishness, you would also not advocate. You are leaving the wrong hemisphere in your brain in charge.

I am an engineer, and if you were capable of reading, you would have noticed that I never once suggested fighting structure fires with helicopter water drops. If you were capable of reading, you'd understand I was discussing the feasibility of such things in general, and, of course, correcting your mistakes.

You must be miserable, being wrong like you are almost all the time.

I don't have a violin small enough.

[Dr. Who]

Then someone hacked your computer and was pretending to be no smarter than you are by parading his ignorance of physics all over the internet.



Good for you.

Neither was I.

I was merely correcting your ignorant statements, a task I often find assigned to me by your shouts for help.

You should stop posting and give me a break.



I am an engineer, and if you were capable of reading, you would have noticed that I never once suggested fighting structure fires with helicopter water drops. If you were capable of reading, you'd understand I was discussing the feasibility of such things in general, and, of course, correcting your mistakes.

You must be miserable, being wrong like you are almost all the time.

I don't have a violin small enough.

You seemed to be defending the concept - if you were not advocating it, I apologize. Some of your compatriots were advocating it and you responded to posts directed to others. As to the rest, I am not miserable dealing with people who are partisan first and logical second.

[Ethereal]

Trump is the greatest president since Lincoln. Why would I interfere with genius?
Then maybe Trump should stick to being president and stop pretending to be a firefighter.

[Tahuyaman]

Idiots are often entertaining.

[Cletus]

I've had a number of Cathedral fires

Where? Tell us about them.

[Cletus]

Then maybe Trump should stick to being president and stop pretending to be a firefighter.

Maybe he will... when you stop pretending to be an adult.

[MMC]

Someone should report this post for being too logical.

Actually you should study it thoroughly. Then try and do the same. Now run along and try not to tremble.

[MisterVeritis]

You're just ignorant and should stop pursuing this. It's painful to watch.


https://youtu.be/Fw9B2BsOi-0
Even as the balloon is ripping, the surface is breaking into drops. This process continues as the mass of water falls, the wind ripping off drops, which fall slower than the central mass, until there is no central mass, only droplets, which are breaking up as they accelerate...until they reach terminal velocity, which is very slow for a drop of water in free fall.

I'm going to guess you're too ignorant to comprehend the term "terminal velocity". Too bad. Look it up.

Some of us went to college to learn about aerodynamics.

You aren't one of them.

I am.
Not everyone has experience with rain showers. Or actual showers. I showered today. I used ten gallons of water. That is 80 pounds of water. I should have died!

[alexa]

Although fair game for criticism, I think the technical accuracy surrounding Trump's suggestion is beside the point.

The embarrassing thing was that Trump offered up any suggestion at all, as if French authorities would have any interest in or use for Trump's Twitter drivel.

These people are professional firefighters in a major city. If aerial methods were warranted or feasible, I think it's safe to assume they would have utilized them. They certainly don't require some jackass like Trump to remind them of how to do their jobs.

Oh, c'mon.

Do you think they would have known that they "Must act quickly!" without the Orange One's tweet?

Act quickly to put out a fire?!?!?

That's the kind of out of the box thinking Trumpswabs have come to know and love like their own children.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm pretty sure they did what they could.

Should they have followed Trump's advice and use a water bomber? Lol...
It took them 90 minutes to get the needed fire fighting equipment on site. Trump's suggestion was a good one.

[Common Sense]

It took them 90 minutes to get the needed fire fighting equipment on site. Trump's suggestion was a good one.

...Only if the goal was to destroy the church.

[Cletus]

...Only if the goal was to destroy the church.

You should go sit in the corner with the other ignorant unwashed.

[Ethereal]

Where? Tell us about them.
As soon as you tell everyone about all the building fires that have been put out using aerial delivery methods.

[Ethereal]

Maybe he will... when you stop pretending to be an adult.
A stale insult from a stale old man.

[Cletus]

As soon as you tell everyone about all the building fires that have been put out using aerial delivery methods.
Little boy, I never said there had been. I don't know if there have been or not. It doesn't really matter. The discussion is not about whether the technique has been used. The discussion is about whether the technique might be feasible. If that is over your head, go ask someone smarter than you to explain it. You should not have any problem finding who fits that bill.

[Ethereal]

You should go sit in the corner with the other ignorant unwashed.
You should come up with an argument that relies on actual logic and evidence.

[Tahuyaman]

...Only if the goal was to destroy the church.
Letting it burn for 90 minutes was how they protected the cathedral.

[Cletus]

A stale insult from a stale old man.

Yet, one who is your superior in every measurable way.

[Tahuyaman]

As soon as you tell everyone about all the building fires that have been put out using aerial delivery methods.
Here's a start.

https://fireaviation.com/2017/10/26/night-flying-helicopter-drops-water-on-structure-fire-near-world-series-game/


Night flying helicopter drops water on structure fire near World Series game

[Cletus]

Here's a start.

https://fireaviation.com/2017/10/26/night-flying-helicopter-drops-water-on-structure-fire-near-world-series-game/


Night flying helicopter drops water on structure fire near World Series game

I hadn't even looked for a source. Good find.

Maybe Ethereal and Who can share a plate of worms.

[Ethereal]

Little boy, I never said there had been. I don't know if there have been or not. It doesn't really matter. The discussion is not about whether the technique has been used. The discussion is about whether the technique might be feasible. If that is over your head, go ask someone smarter than you to explain it. You should not have any problem finding who fits that bill.

Providing examples of its past use is the easiest and best way to establish its feasibility.

The fact that you cannot or will not provide any examples indicates that your position is without basis in the real world.

A theory which is amply supported by the public statements of French fire officials, who rejected Trump's suggestion as inappropriate.

Gee, who should people believe? French fire officials or some dumb guy named Cletus? Tough choice.

[Ethereal]

Yet, one who is your superior in every measurable way.
I admit that you are superior when it comes to making bad arguments and getting run over by trucks.

[Cletus]

Providing examples of its past use is the easiest and best way to establish its feasibility.

T'man gave you an example. Now just admit you are a stupid, obnoxious, egotistical little punk who doesn't know shit about shit and move on.

[Tahuyaman]

I hadn't even looked for a source. Good find.

Maybe Ethereal and Who can share a plate of worms.
Some people are so ate up with hate and anger that they can't be reasoned with.

[Ethereal]

I hadn't even looked for a source.

Yes, we know. You're too lazy to support your opinion with actual facts and logic. You just make assertions, repeat them ad naseum, and throw around pathetic insults. That's all you ever do.


Good find.

Maybe Ethereal and Who can share a plate of worms.

Because you found one example? I realize you may not be the most educated individual, but even you should be aware that a sample size of ONE does not even come close to achieving statistical significance.

You've still got a LONG way to go before your position starts to achieve some semblance of legitimacy.

[Tahuyaman]

Water isn't the only thing which can be dropped on a structure which is on fire.

[Ethereal]

T'man gave you an example. Now just admit you are a stupid, obnoxious, egotistical little punk who doesn't know $#@! about $#@! and move on.

Wow... one example. Hypothesis tested and proved!

Did you learn statistics at Trump University or something?

[Tahuyaman]

Some trolls are more imaginative than others, but ultimately they are just trolls.

[Cletus]

Wow... one example. Hypothesis tested and proved!

Did you learn statistics at Trump University or something?

You and the Owl said it couldn't be done without destroying the structure. Try to be a man for once and just admit that you started spouting off just to be critical of the President and you had no idea whether the technique was feasible. Then, you got stuck on stupid and couldn't find your way out so you doubled down and showed us all once again that you are just a little loudmouthed punk who loves to pretend you know things you do not.

Get out your Legos and your Crayons and go play with the other kids in your room The adults have got grownup things to discuss.

[Cletus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy5w4Xg8U7Q

[Cletus]

HERE (https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/russian-helicopter-skyscraper-fires-aerospace-111212/) is an article talking about using helicopters to extinguish skyscraper fires.

[Chris]

Wow... one example. Hypothesis tested and proved!

Did you learn statistics at Trump University or something?


That is the way falsification works, one counterexample destroys a hypothesis.

[Ethereal]

You and the Owl said it couldn't be done without destroying the structure.

Actually, French fire officials said that. Who and I were merely deferring to their expertise over the expertise you and Trump are pretending to.

Try to understand the difference.


Try to be a man for once and just admit that you started spouting off just to be critical of the President and you had no idea whether the technique was feasible. Then, you got stuck on stupid and couldn't find your way out so you doubled down and showed us all once again that you are just a little loudmouthed punk who loves to pretend you know things you do not.

Get out your Legos and your Crayons and go play with the other kids in your room The adults have got grownup things to discuss.

Lots of insults and assertions, zero logic. Your specialty.

[Cletus]

The Netherlands is apparently SERIOUSLY INTERESTED (http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/civil_protection/civil/act_prog_rep/helicopter.pdf) in the concept of using helicopters to fight fires in heavily congested areas.

[Ethereal]

That is the way falsification works...

I know how falsification works.


...one counterexample destroys a hypothesis.

What hypothesis do you think has been destroyed here? And which "counterexample" destroyed it?

[Ethereal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy5w4Xg8U7Q

That's the same example that Tahu brought up earlier.

[Ethereal]

HERE (https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/russian-helicopter-skyscraper-fires-aerospace-111212/) is an article talking about using helicopters to extinguish skyscraper fires.

Okay, so now you have two examples.

Neither of which are even remotely comparable in their composition and structure to a medieval church.

You still have LOTS of work to do.

[Cletus]

Actually, French fire officials said that. Who and I were merely deferring to their expertise over the expertise you and Trump are pretending to.

You were claiming knowledge you did not possess. Your attempt to blame it on some French fireman is just pathetic.

I could probably easily post a hundred or so examples of helicopters being used to fight structure fires or agencies seriously considering the use of helicopters to fight structure fires, but I think the point has been made. You could have done 30 seconds of research and prevented yourself from coming across as an ignorant, pompous little shit, but your arrogance and laziness prevented you from doing so.

Once again, you have exposed yourself for what you are.

[Ethereal]

The Netherlands is apparently SERIOUSLY INTERESTED (http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/civil_protection/civil/act_prog_rep/helicopter.pdf) in the concept of using helicopters to fight fires in heavily congested areas.
That's not an example of the method being used. Your sample size remains two.

[Cletus]

Okay, so now you have two examples.

Neither of which are even remotely comparable in their composition and structure to a medieval church.

You still have LOTS of work to do.

First Rule of Holes, Boy... "When you find yourself in a hole... STOP DIGGING" You are already way over your head. You really should stop digging now.

[Cletus]

That's not an example of the method being used. Your sample size remains two.
Only needed one to prove you wrong and T'man provided that. You can consider my example to be a gift to help educate you.

[Ethereal]

You were claiming knowledge you did not possess. Your attempt to blame it on some French fireman is just pathetic.


"The drop of water by air on this type of building could indeed result in the collapse of the entire structure," the French government civil defense agency tweeted.

It later tweeted out a statement in English, in an apparent response to Trump, saying that "hundreds of firemen of the Paris Fire Brigade are doing everything they can to bring the terrible #NotreDame fire under control. All means are being used, except for water-bombing aircrafts which, if used, could lead to the collapse of the entire structure of the cathedral."

Who should people believe? You and that idiot Trump? Or the French officials whose job it is to fight fires? Tough choice.


I could probably easily post a hundred or so examples of helicopters being used to fight structure fires...

Prove it. And make sure to place special emphasis on the structures that most closely resemble a medieval church.


...or agencies seriously considering the use of helicopters to fight structure fires, but I think the point has been made. You could have done 30 seconds of research and prevented yourself from coming across as an ignorant, pompous little $#@!, but your arrogance and laziness prevented you from doing so.

Once again, you have exposed yourself for what you are.

You're the one who made the claim. Therefore, the onus falls on YOU to do the research and prove your case. Are you so conceited that you do not realize this?

At any rate, nobody has ever denied that structure fires can be fought from the air. We're denying that this particular structure fire could be fought from the air, a position which French officials happen to share. So far, you've failed miserably to support your opinion with anything even approaching significance. Plenty of insults, lots of brainless assertions, and a few lies, but no real argument to speak of.

[Ethereal]

First Rule of Holes, Boy... "When you find yourself in a hole... STOP DIGGING" You are already way over your head. You really should stop digging now.

A non-representative sample size of two proves nothing except your own ignorance of basic logic and statistics.

[Ethereal]

Only needed one to prove you wrong and T'man provided that. You can consider my example to be a gift to help educate you.

One example of a helicopter dropping water on an apartment building does not even come close to supporting your hypothesis.

[Ethereal]

Trump suggests 'flying water tankers' against Notre Dame fire (https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/04/15/trump-tweets-notre-dame-fire-flying-water-tankers-french-civil-defense-responds-sot-ebof-vpx.cnn)

Former FDNY Battalion Chief John LaFemina explains why President Trump's firefighting suggestion of "flying water tankers" would not have worked in the battle against the Notre Dame Cathedral fire.

[Tahuyaman]

Fighting structural fires from the air is a valid concept. TDS is just preventing some from acknowledging that.

[Cletus]

Fighting structural fires from the air is a valid concept. TDS is just preventing some from acknowledging that.

He is a funny little kid. He is so desperate for attention from the grownups that he doesn't mind making a fool of himself time and time again.

[Tahuyaman]

He is a funny little kid. He is so desperate for attention from the grownups that he doesn't mind making a fool of himself time and time again.

He’s perpetually angry. Everyone is an idiot unless they agree with him in every way.

[BenjaminO]

One example of a helicopter dropping water on an apartment building does not even come close to supporting your hypothesis.
You committed the cardinal sin of not falling in lockstep with Donald. When you do so his minions will attack with the frenzy of bees protecting their queen. Even though Donald is, as in this case, usually wrong, they do not care.

[Cletus]

You committed the cardinal sin of not falling in lockstep with Donald. When you do so his minions will attack with the frenzy of bees protecting their queen. Even though Donald is, as in this case, usually wrong, they do not care.

He made the mistake of being petty and not bothering to search for the truth before opening his yap. It would appear you are doing the same.

[Cletus]

He’s perpetually angry. Everyone is an idiot unless they agree with him in every way.
That attitude is very probably why he spent 4 years in the Marine Corps (with a combat tour) and got out an E-3.

[BenjaminO]

Fighting structural fires from the air is a valid concept. TDS is just preventing some from acknowledging that.
So you've now become a fire fighting expert.
Do tell how you're going to present your air firefighting prospects at the next IAFF conference.
Maybe you could get them to change the code to require fire departments have air support available.

[BenjaminO]

He made the mistake of being petty and not bothering to search for the truth before opening his yap. It would appear you are doing the same.
So yet another supposed fire fighting expert pokes his nose into something he knows nothing about.

[BenjaminO]

He made the mistake of being petty and not bothering to search for the truth before opening his yap. It would appear you are doing the same.
Donald is not always right and I know it hurts you to have to realize that.
Take a pill and get some rest.
Sounds like you need it.

[MisterVeritis]

Donald is not always right
Perhaps. The way to bet is with President Trump.

[BenjaminO]

That attitude is very probably why he spent 4 years in the Marine Corps (with a combat tour) and got out an E-3.
At least he had the courage to serve. Unlike Donald cadet bone spurs the coward.
I'd follow an E-3 any day over a coward.
How about you?

[Cletus]

So you've now become a fire fighting expert.
Do tell how you're going to present your air firefighting prospects at the next IAFF conference.
Maybe you could get them to change the code to require fire departments have air support available.

Maybe you should do a little research into aerial firefighting. You would see that it has been used successfully in structure fires and some places, including the EU, are examining the feasibility of incorporating aerial firefighters into their standard firefighting forces.

Educate yourself, then talk.

[MisterVeritis]

At least he had the courage to serve. Unlike Donald cadet bone spurs the coward.
I'd follow an E-3 any day over a coward.
How about you?
I don't particularly care who you follow or where.

[BenjaminO]

Perhaps. The way to bet is with President Trump.
Unlike you Donald minions I have the right and duty to disagree with him.

[MisterVeritis]

The way to bet is with President Trump.

Unlike you Donald minions I have the right and duty to disagree with him.
No one should prevent you from consistently taking the wrong side. Go for it.

[Cletus]

Donald is not always right and I know it hurts you to have to realize that.

It doesn't hurt me at all to know that. In fact, I won't hesitate to point out when he is wrong. In this case however, he was not. The same cannot be said of you.

Take a pill and get some rest.
Sounds like you need it.

Dealing with ignorant fools such as yourself gets more annoying than tiresome.

[Cletus]

At least he had the courage to serve. Unlike Donald cadet bone spurs the coward.
I'd follow an E-3 any day over a coward.
How about you?

Not that E-3.

[Cletus]

Unlike you Donald minions I have the right and duty to disagree with him.

You have a greater duty to the truth. You are derelict in honoring it.

[BenjaminO]

Maybe you should do a little research into aerial firefighting. You would see that it has been used successfully in structure fires and some places, including the EU, are examining the feasibility of incorporating aerial firefighters into their standard firefighting forces.

Educate yourself, then talk.
So you have a presentation to bring to the next IAFF conference?
Shall I expect to see you there?
What fire prevention and fighting experience or certifications gives you the right to tell me to educate myself.

[Cletus]

So yet another supposed fire fighting expert pokes his nose into something he knows nothing about.

You can still back your nose out.

[BenjaminO]

Not that E-3.
Cowards following cowards.
What a fool.

[BenjaminO]

You have a greater duty to the truth. You are derelict in honoring it.
I would be derelict in not calling out a coward and a liar.

[Cletus]

What fire prevention and fighting experience or certifications gives you the right to tell me to educate myself.

We could start with your obvious ignorance displayed in this thread. That is really all that is necessary.

I don't want to make this thread about you. You are no more interesting than Ethereal. If you can demonstrate to us that a water drop from a Bambi Bucket or similar delivery device would have had the effect of dropping a bomb on the cathedral as claimed by some here, please do so and educate us all. If you cannot do so, accept the fact that the President's suggestion was not unreasonable or foolish and move on.

[Cletus]

Cowards following cowards.
What a fool.

For the sake of harmony, I am going to let that remark pass. That doesn't mean I am going to forget it.

[BenjaminO]

For the sake of harmony, I am going to let that remark pass. That doesn't mean I am going to forget it.
Don't much give a damn what you have the capability to remember or forget.
I'm not impressed.

[BenjaminO]

We could start with your obvious ignorance displayed in this thread. That is really all that is necessary.

I don't want to make this thread about you. You are no more interesting than Ethereal. If you can demonstrate to us that a water drop from a Bambi Bucket or similar delivery device would have had the effect of dropping a bomb on the cathedral as claimed by some here, please do so and educate us all. If you cannot do so, accept the fact that the President's suggestion was not unreasonable or foolish and move on.
What ignorance? WTF are you talking about?

[Cletus]

What ignorance? WTF are you talking about?

Do you always have so much trouble following conversations?

[Tahuyaman]

So you've now become a fire fighting expert.
Do tell how you're going to present your air firefighting prospects at the next IAFF conference.
Maybe you could get them to change the code to require fire departments have air support available.
The professionals have already figured that out.

[Tahuyaman]

Do you always have so much trouble following conversations?
He doesn’t want a conversation.

[Cletus]

Don't much give a damn what you have the capability to remember or forget.
I'm not impressed.

Why would I waste any time or effort trying to impress you? I was just stating a fact.

Now, can you contribute to the discussion topic of this thread or are you here just to make yourself feel important?

[Cletus]

He doesn’t want a conversation.

Yeah, I get that. :grin:

[BenjaminO]

Do you always have so much trouble following conversations?
So you won't answer my question.
M'kay

[Tahuyaman]

We could start with your obvious ignorance displayed in this thread. That is really all that is necessary.

I don't want to make this thread about you. You are no more interesting than Ethereal. If you can demonstrate to us that a water drop from a Bambi Bucket or similar delivery device would have had the effect of dropping a bomb on the cathedral as claimed by some here, please do so and educate us all. If you cannot do so, accept the fact that the President's suggestion was not unreasonable or foolish and move on.
How about dropping flame retardant chemicals?

Still, it took them an hour and a half to get the fire fighting effort underway. We shouldn’t be looking at them as experts in the field of fire fighting.

[Cletus]

So you won't answer my question.
M'kay

Okay, I will dumb this down as much as I can for you.

You said the President was wrong in his suggestion to use aerial firefighters to combat the cathedral fire. Since he suggested it, certain types of people immediately took the position that what he suggested was ill conceived, if not downright stupid and that aerial delivery techniques are not feasible to use against structure fires. Evidence to the contrary has been presented that it has not only been used, some places, including a study group for the EU is examining the practicality of incorporating aerial firefighting techniques into traditional firefighting agencies, particularly in areas of heavy congestion (like Paris, for example).

Even in the face of those facts, you chose to maintain the President's suggestion had no foundation. One can only conclude from that that you are either speaking from ignorance or from malice. I guess only you know for sure which one it is.

[Cletus]

How about dropping flame retardant chemicals?

Absolutely. Why not drop retardants, especially if conventional firefighting equipment can't even reach the source of the fire?


Still, it took them an hour and a half to get the fire fighting effort underway. We shouldn’t be looking at them as experts in the field of fire fighting.

I suspect they would probably do quite well if a one story bakery caught on fire, but this was not a one story bakery.

[BenjaminO]

Okay, I will dumb this down as much as I can for you.

You said the President was wrong in his suggestion to use aerial firefighters to combat the cathedral fire. Since he suggested it, certain types of people immediately took the position that what he suggested was ill conceived, if not downright stupid and that aerial delivery techniques are not feasible to use against structure fires. Evidence to the contrary has been presented that it has not only been used, some places, including a study group for the EU is examining the practicality of incorporating aerial firefighting techniques into traditional firefighting agencies, particularly in areas of heavy congestion (like Paris, for example).

Even in the face of those facts, you chose to maintain the President's suggestion had no foundation. One can only conclude from that that you are either speaking from ignorance or from malice. I guess only you know for sure which one it is.
You explained the lack of Donald's suggestion yourself: "some places, including a study group for the EU is examining the practicality of incorporating aerial firefighting techniques into traditional firefighting agencies."

The self proclaimed genius Donald suggested something that isn't currently and wasn't possible and they called him on it.
That was easy.

[Cletus]

You explained the lack of Donald's suggestion yourself: "some places, including a study group for the EU is examining the practicality of incorporating aerial firefighting techniques into traditional firefighting agencies."

The self proclaimed genius Donald suggested something that isn't currently and wasn't possible and they called him on it.
That was easy.

Uh... Video was posted of it being done. It certainly is possible. The study being done by the EU is to see if it can be done on a widespread basis and made a standard firefighting practice.

It would seem you are still having difficulty keeping up.

[Common Sense]

Aerial water bombardment may work on some modern structures...however, using the technique on a massive roughly 800 year old structure of unknown structural stability probably isn't a good idea. It has the potential to cause more damage than the fire, possibly caving in the vaulted ceiling or collapsing the stone structure. It wouldn't be prudent to do it...that's why it wasn't done.

[MisterVeritis]

Aerial water bombardment may work on some modern structures...however, using the technique on a massive roughly 800 year old structure of unknown structural stability probably isn't a good idea. It has the potential to cause more damage than the fire, possibly caving in the vaulted ceiling or collapsing the stone structure. It wouldn't be prudent to do it...that's why it wasn't done.
And...what happened?

[Cletus]

Aerial water bombardment may work on some modern structures...however, using the technique on a massive roughly 800 year old structure of unknown structural stability probably isn't a good idea. It has the potential to cause more damage than the fire, possibly caving in the vaulted ceiling or collapsing the stone structure. It wouldn't be prudent to do it...that's why it wasn't done.

It wasn't done because the people in charge had their heads up their asses.

[Tahuyaman]

Aerial water bombardment may work on some modern structures...however, using the technique on a massive roughly 800 year old structure of unknown structural stability probably isn't a good idea. It has the potential to cause more damage than the fire, possibly caving in the vaulted ceiling or collapsing the stone structure. It wouldn't be prudent to do it...that's why it wasn't done.
There’s more than water which can be used. Plus when water is dropped, it’s not like all that force hits on one small spot.

The surest way to get some people to oppose anything is to get Trump to suggest it. Those people are who others refer to as sufferers of TDS.

[Tahuyaman]

It wasn't done because the people in charge had their heads up their asses.
The fact that it took them an hour and a half to get the proper response in place should tell you that.

[BenjaminO]

Absolutely. Why not drop retardants, especially if conventional firefighting equipment can't even reach the source of the fire?



I suspect they would probably do quite well if a one story bakery caught on fire, but this was not a one story bakery.
Dropping flame retardants into cities? Really?
The earlier video showed one huge flaw right from the start that shows your ignorance.
The first drop missed. That would create a real mess.
How would air filtering apparatus be distributed to all bystanders and homeowners in the area of the missed drop?
Also bystanders including all law enforcement and other first responders required to be in the area.
That and what of the over spray effect of the powder blowing downwind in a city?
Good grief.

[Cletus]

Dropping flame retardants into cities? Really?
The earlier video showed one huge flaw right from the start that shows your ignorance.
The first drop missed. That would create a real mess.
How would air filtering apparatus be distributed to all bystanders and homeowners in the area of the missed drop?
Also bystanders including all law enforcement and other first responders required to be in the area.
That and what of the over spray effect of the powder blowing downwind in a city?
Good grief.

Class A Foams and Water Enhancers are not toxic to humans.

[BenjaminO]

Uh... Video was posted of it being done. It certainly is possible. The study being done by the EU is to see if it can be done on a widespread basis and made a standard firefighting practice.

It would seem you are still having difficulty keeping up.
It's only a study.
It's not a proven method yet.
It is not available yet.


It would seem you have a problem understanding facts.
Let me repeat...it's only a study.

[Tahuyaman]

But but but.... it has to be stupid because Trump suggested it.

[BenjaminO]

It wasn't done because the people in charge had their heads up their asses.
So aerial water bombardment was available and they didn't use it?

[Cletus]

It's only a study.

That study is only a study.

It's not a proven method yet.

It has been done. It is a proven method.

It is not available yet.

I am pretty sure the French still have at least a couple of helicopters.

[Cletus]

So aerial water bombardment was available and they didn't use it?

I don't know if it was available to them or not. That isn't the issue. The issue is people calling the President an idiot for suggesting it.

[BenjaminO]

That study is only a study.


It has been done. It is a proven method.


I am pretty sure the French still have at least a couple of helicopters.
And...as you stated...it's still only a study.
There's more to it than grabbing a couple of helicopters and go drop stuff on a huge fire.

[BenjaminO]

I don't know if it was available to them or not. That isn't the issue. The issue is people calling the President an idiot for suggesting it.
The self proclaimed genius Donald would/should certainly know if it was available to them.
I'm sure you don't know if it was available to them but I going to give you a bit here and expect deep down you know it wasn't.
Just like everyone else knows it wasn't available.
And yes...Donald is/was an idiot for suggesting it.

[Tahuyaman]

The self proclaimed genius Donald would/should certainly know if it was available to them.
I'm sure you don't know if it was available to them but I going to give you a bit here and expect deep down you know it wasn't.
Just like everyone else knows it wasn't available.
And yes...Donald is/was an idiot for suggesting it.
Do you have a working knowledge of the fire fighting capabilities in France?

[BenjaminO]

Class A Foams and Water Enhancers are not toxic to humans.
That is not true. Right now the foam ingredients PFCs (PFOS and PFOA) are being phased out because of concerns about their safety.

[BenjaminO]

Do you have a working knowledge of the fire fighting capabilities in France?
Enough to assure you that aerial water bombardment is and was not available.

[Tahuyaman]

Enough to assure you that aerial water bombardment is and was not available.

It's not " bombardment" and I seriously doubt your claimed knowledge.

[Tahuyaman]

That is not true. Right now the foam ingredients PFCs (PFOS and PFOA) are being phased out because of concerns about their safety.
That could be because some liberal goof-ball claimed that they contribute to global warming.

[BenjaminO]

It's not " bombardment" and I seriously doubt your claimed knowledge.
Okay, there was no way available in the time period of the fire that someone could drop water on the fire from the air.
That's as simple as I can make it for you.

[Common Sense]

There’s more than water which can be used. Plus when water is dropped, it’s not like all that force hits on one small spot.

The surest way to get some people to oppose anything is to get Trump to suggest it. Those people are who others refer to as sufferers of TDS.
I don't oppose it because Trump suggested it. I oppose it because it's risky and impractical.

[BenjaminO]

That could be because some liberal goof-ball claimed that they contribute to global warming.
So what syndrome do you suffer from? PFCs (PFOS and PFOA) are toxic to humans. No mention of global warming.

[Tahuyaman]

Okay, there was no way available in the time period of the fire that someone could drop water on the fire from the air.
That's as simple as I can make it for you.
You know nothing.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't oppose it because Trump suggested it. I oppose it because it's risky and impractical.

please. Be honest.


What's more risky? Dropping water or letting a fire rage uncontrolled for an hour and a half?

[Tahuyaman]

So what syndrome do you suffer from?...

None.

[Common Sense]

please. Be honest.


What's more risky? Dropping water or letting a fire rage uncontrolled for an hour and a half?

I am being honest.

It's possible that the timbers could have completely burned and not impacted the stone structure or even the vaulted ceiling. So I'd suggest that an if attack could have caused damage to the stone structure and certainly the vaulted ceiling. Never mind the damage to the artifacts below.

I understand the fact that the cathedral is on an island and it was during rush hour, but I haven't read any reports that no firefighting measures were used for an hour and a half. It's possible, but I haven't read that.

I just honestly think an air attack could have just made the situation worse.

[AZ Jim]

That could be because some liberal goof-ball claimed that they contribute to global warming.Gawd! You are so damn ignorant. You post just to post donja?

[Tahuyaman]

Gawd! You are so damn ignorant. You post just to post donja?
What?

[Tahuyaman]

I am being honest.

It's possible that the timbers could have completely burned and not impacted the stone structure or even the vaulted ceiling. So I'd suggest that an if attack could have caused damage to the stone structure and certainly the vaulted ceiling. Never mind the damage to the artifacts below.

I understand the fact that the cathedral is on an island and it was during rush hour, but I haven't read any reports that no firefighting measures were used for an hour and a half. It's possible, but I haven't read that.

I just honestly think an air attack could have just made the situation worse.
What’s a more likely cause for timbers burning? Allowing a fire to burn uncontrollably for an hour and a half or attempting to extinguish it?

[Tahuyaman]

TDS is so bad it’s unpredictable.

[Dr. Who]

Where? Tell us about them.

What do you want to know? A cathedral doesn't mean anything more than a church that is run by a bishop. It has nothing to do with size, scale or historical value. There are churches in big cities that are older and larger than cathedrals in some small cities. Back when I was handling mostly property files I had lots of church fire losses because we had programs covering certain Catholic dioceses as well as Church of England (or Anglican) and other faith organizations in various parts of the world. Many of these properties are now uninsured or primarily self-insured because many religious organizations don't maintain their properties very well, making them higher risks for fire. Add to that the incredible costs of replacing things like pipe organs which have to be built to spec and the value of one of a kind religious artifacts and things like stained glass work or paying to replace gothic architecture and you end up with a prohibitive cost to insure these buildings today.

[Dr. Who]

What’s a more likely cause for timbers burning? Allowing a fire to burn uncontrollably for an hour and a half or attempting to extinguish it?
The problem with extinguishing fires in properties with metal roofs of that type, is that the fire is generally fought from the outside, but the metal is impervious to water, so while the beams beneath the roof are burning, by the time that the water can really permeate the fire from the outside is when the roof has melted and by that time the beams are completely destroyed.

[Tahuyaman]

My home is a church at times.

[Tahuyaman]

The problem with extinguishing fires in properties with metal roofs of that type, is that the fire is generally fought from the outside, but the metal is impervious to water, so while the beams beneath the roof are burning, by the time that the water can really permeate the fire from the outside is when the roof has melted and by that time the beams are completely destroyed.
C’mon.

[Common Sense]

What’s a more likely cause for timbers burning? Allowing a fire to burn uncontrollably for an hour and a half or attempting to extinguish it?
You aren't getting what I'm saying. The timbers can burn and leave the stone structure and the vaulted ceiling largely intact. While I'm sure they wanted to put the fire out as soon as possible, the use of a water bomber could have done more damage than the fire alone. Particularly to the stone structure and any unburnt structures or artifacts below. Hoses can be carefully aimed yet still cause unwanted water damage. Air attacks aren't precise in the same way and come with considerable force.

Essentially, putting out the fire with the force of a water bomber could have put the structure below in danger, not to mention its contents.

Here's an illustration of the building.

25819

Dumping water on top with force could compromise what is below.

[alexa]

My home is a church at times.
That's exciting.

[Dr. Who]

C’mon.
It's the truth. These are not the kinds of roofs that you find on commercial structures which are not impervious to combustion. These copper and lead roof coverings don't burn. They are meant to be impervious to water. They just eventually melt when the heat gets high enough but by then the underlying wooden beam structures are so compromised, they collapse. Fire services won't put their people at that kind of risk by sending them inside when there is no human life at risk. The only thing that could have saved that roof would have been sprinklers lining the interior roof structure. That's one of the reasons these buildings are almost uninsurable.

[Dr. Who]

You aren't getting what I'm saying. The timbers can burn and leave the stone structure and the vaulted ceiling largely intact. While I'm sure they wanted to put the fire out as soon as possible, the use of a water bomber could have done more damage than the fire alone. Particularly to the stone structure and any unburnt structures or artifacts below. Hoses can be carefully aimed yet still cause unwanted water damage. Air attacks aren't precise in the same way and come with considerable force.

Essentially, putting out the fire with the force of a water bomber could have put the structure below in danger, not to mention its contents.

Here's an illustration of the building.

25819

Dumping water on top with force could compromise what is below.
People fail to understand the incredible engineering that went into the design of these structures but how susceptible they would be to both losing the roof and being subjected to shock which would weaken the bonds in the stonework and render the building unstable. These buildings are from an entirely different era of architecture and engineering, where there are no redundant safety measures, or additional interior framing but just pure balance and symmetry. These buildings don't survive things like earthquakes very well for that reason.

[Dr. Who]

HERE (https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/article/russian-helicopter-skyscraper-fires-aerospace-111212/) is an article talking about using helicopters to extinguish skyscraper fires.

I didn't say that it is impossible, but that it is not the current state of the art and not a reasonable option for an 800 year old building that doesn't have bolted steel members holding it together. So far we have one example, where they water dropped onto a house. I'm sure they dropped water onto all manner of houses during the California wildfires. Firefighting efforts can be to save a building or alternatively, to avoid the spread of fire, in which case preserving the building is not the main focus. Does that house even still exist? Obviously skyscrapers present a novel challenge for firefighting and aerial solutions may well be the only solution. The buildings will have to be designed with that in mind.

That said, Notre Dame Cathedral is not a skyscraper or a modern structure and you can't treat it as such. A modern structure could survive the shock of the water dump, if it is also constructed to withstand shock. An antique structure which is also a national treasure is an entirely different proposition.

[Dr. Who]

Maybe you should do a little research into aerial firefighting. You would see that it has been used successfully in structure fires and some places, including the EU, are examining the feasibility of incorporating aerial firefighters into their standard firefighting forces.

Educate yourself, then talk.
Again, you need to discriminate between fighting fire to avoid conflagration and fire fighting that is intended to preserve a structure. These are not at all similar things. Fire fighters will deliberately destroy a building if it is liable to set other structures on fire. They will bulldoze it into the ground or otherwise collapse the structure. You need to consider these factors when discussing fire fighting and what the goal of the fire service is at the time.

[Cletus]

And...as you stated...it's still only a study.
There's more to it than grabbing a couple of helicopters and go drop stuff on a huge fire.

They are not studying it to see if it works. They know it works. They are studying it to see if they can implement it on a large scale.

[Cletus]

The self proclaimed genius Donald would/should certainly know if it was available to them.

Why would he know what firefighting equipment Paris has? Do you think he gets that in his Daily Intelligence Brief?

I'm sure you don't know if it was available to them but I going to give you a bit here and expect deep down you know it wasn't.
Just like everyone else knows it wasn't available.

You don't know that.

If it was unavailable, it probably should have been. Again, that is not the issue here. Certain uninformed types here on the forum are saying it was a stupid idea because it would have nuked the church or some such bullshit. They are not even considering availability.

And yes...Donald is/was an idiot for suggesting it.

It was actually quite a reasonable suggestion. If you know as much about firefighting as you have implied in this thread, you know it was.

[Cletus]

That is not true. Right now the foam ingredients PFCs (PFOS and PFOA) are being phased out because of concerns about their safety.
Class A foams and water enhancers are not considered toxic to humans. Some foams contains ingredients that some suggest may have a negative environmental impact.

[Cletus]

That could be because some liberal goof-ball claimed that they contribute to global warming.

That is actually pretty close. Some environmental groups have raised concern about the foam's impact on the environment... NOT about toxicity to humans.

[Cletus]

Okay, there was no way available in the time period of the fire that someone could drop water on the fire from the air.
That's as simple as I can make it for you.

Not that it is relevant to the discussion, but you know this... how?

[Cletus]

I don't oppose it because Trump suggested it. I oppose it because it's risky and impractical.

Okay.

You are wrong, but I will take your word for your reasoning.

[Cletus]

What do you want to know? A cathedral doesn't mean anything more than a church that is run by a bishop. It has nothing to do with size, scale or historical value. There are churches in big cities that are older and larger than cathedrals in some small cities. Back when I was handling mostly property files I had lots of church fire losses because we had programs covering certain Catholic dioceses as well as Church of England (or Anglican) and other faith organizations in various parts of the world.

Okay, so you were bullshitting when you used the word "Cathedral", implying it was something approaching the scale of Notre Dame or other Cathedrals of note.

I figured as much.

[Cletus]

The problem with extinguishing fires in properties with metal roofs of that type, is that the fire is generally fought from the outside, but the metal is impervious to water, so while the beams beneath the roof are burning, by the time that the water can really permeate the fire from the outside is when the roof has melted and by that time the beams are completely destroyed.

I guess you didn't see the flames shooting through the roof. Where the flames can get out, the water can get in.

[Cletus]

You aren't getting what I'm saying. The timbers can burn and leave the stone structure and the vaulted ceiling largely intact. While I'm sure they wanted to put the fire out as soon as possible, the use of a water bomber could have done more damage than the fire alone. Particularly to the stone structure and any unburnt structures or artifacts below. Hoses can be carefully aimed yet still cause unwanted water damage. Air attacks aren't precise in the same way and come with considerable force.

Essentially, putting out the fire with the force of a water bomber could have put the structure below in danger, not to mention its contents.

Here's an illustration of the building.

25819

Dumping water on top with force could compromise what is below.

You are still operating under the misconception that a water drop would be like dropping bowling balls on the roof. You could stand on the ground and a helicopter could dump a Bambi Bucket on you and it probably wouldn't even knock you off your feet.

[Cletus]

I didn't say that it is impossible, but that it is not the current state of the art and not a reasonable option for an 800 year old building that doesn't have bolted steel members holding it together. So far we have one example, where they water dropped onto a house. I'm sure they dropped water onto all manner of houses during the California wildfires. Firefighting efforts can be to save a building or alternatively, to avoid the spread of fire, in which case preserving the building is not the main focus. Does that house even still exist? Obviously skyscrapers present a novel challenge for firefighting and aerial solutions may well be the only solution. The buildings will have to be designed with that in mind.

That said, Notre Dame Cathedral is not a skyscraper or a modern structure and you can't treat it as such. A modern structure could survive the shock of the water dump, if it is also constructed to withstand shock. An antique structure which is also a national treasure is an entirely different proposition.

You just keep talking and spinning and saying nothing.

Amazing.

[Dr. Who]

I guess you didn't see the flames shooting through the roof. Where the flames can get out, the water can get in.
At that point the beams were already toast. They were tinder to begin with. Fire fighters were just in control mode - keeping the fire from spreading. There was no chance of saving that roof without fighting the fire from the inside of the church. None.

[Cletus]

At that point the beams were already toast. They were tinder to begin with. Fire fighters were just in control mode - keeping the fire from spreading. There was no chance of saving that roof without fighting the fire from the inside of the church. None.

So, you have gone from "A water drop would be like dropping a bomb on the building and would collapse the walls (paraphrase)" to "It wouldn't work because the water wouldn't have got into the building to the burning timbers (paraphrase)".

Okay.

[Captdon]

Okay, there was no way available in the time period of the fire that someone could drop water on the fire from the air.
That's as simple as I can make it for you.

How do you know?

[Cletus]

I suspect that both Charles de Gaulle and Orly airports have aerial firefighting capabilities.

[Captdon]

It's the truth. These are not the kinds of roofs that you find on commercial structures which are not impervious to combustion. These copper and lead roof coverings don't burn. They are meant to be impervious to water. They just eventually melt when the heat gets high enough but by then the underlying wooden beam structures are so compromised, they collapse. Fire services won't put their people at that kind of risk by sending them inside when there is no human life at risk. The only thing that could have saved that roof would have been sprinklers lining the interior roof structure. That's one of the reasons these buildings are almost uninsurable.

What sort of fire gets to the 2000 degrees to melt copper?

[Dr. Who]

You are still operating under the misconception that a water drop would be like dropping bowling balls on the roof. You could stand on the ground and a helicopter could dump a Bambi Bucket on you and it probably wouldn't even knock you off your feet.
Yes, I wouldn't be knocked down by several hundred pounds or even 20 pounds of water landing on my head from 300 feet up. It wouldn't have saved the roof and it may well have compromised the rest of the structure by creating stress fractures in the mortar holding together the stone work.

[Cotton1]

This is a thread for the ages and I cannot stop LMAO. 25 pages of insults and below the belt jabs over something none of us can do anything about. Carry on...

[Dr. Who]

You just keep talking and spinning and saying nothing.

Amazing.
Funny. There are zero experts in the field of fire fighting or any engineers supporting the water bombing theory and I'm spinning? Well, if you can't actually prove your argument, do resort to insults. It really adds to your credibility.

[Dr. Who]

What sort of fire gets to the 2000 degrees to melt copper?
A building fire can reach 1100 degrees and with cold water hitting hot copper it can certainly warp at which point some water would enter the structure however again, fighting a roof fire with a copper roof from the outside isn't going to do very much. The wooden substructure will be completely consumed by fire before much water could penetrate. Also some copper roofs are actually lead coated and flashed with lead.

[Cletus]

Funny. There are zero experts in the field of fire fighting or any engineers supporting the water bombing theory and I'm spinning? Well, if you can't actually prove your argument, do resort to insults. It really adds to your credibility.

Look, you made some ridiculous argument at the beginning of this thread about a water drop collapsing the walls like the walls of Jericho and that you knew because of your extensive knowledge as an insurance claims adjuster that aerial firefighting technology had never been used to extinguish a structure fire and it couldn't be done. When it was proven that was not true, you started not only changing your story, you started posting paragraph after paragraph of meaningless fluff. You even threw in some nonsense cathedral fires you had some professional involvement with to try to make yourself sound credible.

The reality is that you were wrong on all counts. You went after the President's suggestion because he was the one who made it and once you committed, you just kept digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole.

I didn't offer the statement about you talking and talking and saying nothing as an insult. I said it because it was a true statement. You said a lot of words, but there was no substance behind them.

[Dr. Who]

So, you have gone from "A water drop would be like dropping a bomb on the building and would collapse the walls (paraphrase)" to "It wouldn't work because the water wouldn't have got into the building to the burning timbers (paraphrase)".

Okay.
You are drawing the wrong conclusion. A water drop would simply have exacerbated the damage without having any beneficial effect on the fire.

[Cletus]

You are drawing the wrong conclusion. A water drop would simply have exacerbated the damage without having any beneficial effect on the fire.

There is no basis for that statement.

[Dr. Who]

Look, you made some ridiculous argument at the beginning of this thread about a water drop collapsing the walls like the walls of Jericho and that you knew because of your extensive knowledge as an insurance claims adjuster that aerial firefighting technology had never been used to extinguish a structure fire and it couldn't be done. When it was proven that was not true, you started not only changing your story, you started posting paragraph after paragraph of meaningless fluff. You even threw in some nonsense cathedral fires you had some professional involvement with to try to make yourself sound credible.

The reality is that you were wrong on all counts. You went after the President's suggestion because he was the one who made it and once you committed, you just kept digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole.

I didn't offer the statement about you talking and talking and saying nothing as an insult. I said it because it was a true statement. You said a lot of words, but there was no substance behind them.
A. The use of an aerial water drop in the absence of proving that it saved the house is not evidence. As I stated, there are two kinds of fire fighting. One is to save the structure. The other is to prevent the spread of fire. If you aren't trying to save a structure, you don't care if you destroy it with a water drop.

B. I have experience with all manner of large church fires and other historical buildings. They are not anything like modern buildings in most respects and they are extremely susceptible to fire. The timbers in these ancient structures are literally tinder, they are so dry. It takes nothing to ignite them and they burn remarkably fast. The mortar in between the stone work is also extremely brittle even in buildings half as old. You can choose to disregard what I am saying, but it doesn't change the truth. Any kind of shock to the building can fracture the brittle mortar and depending on the architecture of the building, the integrity of the entire structure could be destroyed if you weaken that mortar when the roof beams are no longer present. We are not talking about balloon framing here.

C. The President's suggestion was simply ignorant. He has no experience or training in fighting fires or architecture or even any familiarity with ancient buildings or anything remotely related. No other national leader had the audacity to make fire fighting suggestions because that isn't their field.

You are free to believe what you want, but would you take a real estate developer's opinion on medicine? If not, why would you assume that his comment was anything other than a reflex after watching the water bombing of the California fires and the fact that he is compelled to tweet every thought that comes to mind?