There's this thing Called Sprinkler systems...

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I would be curious if the French had equipment that large, and more importantly, the large equipment in that area. Most of their bigger buildings are outside the historic area, and it would make sense to stage that equipment closer to the large building clusters.

Again, no real idea. I was just curious about it after watching some of the video.

I do know that our local department has one custom truck that reaches 126' or about 13 stories.

I live in NYC so he FDNY has plenty of large equipment.

However for most fires in high structures the ladders are only part of the solution. Most times you stage inside the building as well. It's what led to the casualties on 9/11, as they simply didn't have the time to figure out the structural stability of the buildings and still try to fight the fire and evacuate people from the towers.

As an Engineer, I understand the need for time when trying to figure out exactly what happened, but I understand people's need to figure things out RIGHT NOW.

I was 11 when the Challenger exploded, but i had to wait until my 20's after Engineering School to truly understand the Rogers report.

As an Engineer, I understand the need for time when trying to figure out exactly what happened, but I understand people's need to figure things out RIGHT NOW.

Yesterday would have been better in this case.

They goofed....plain and simple. Whether this was arson or not.

Jo

We can't say who goofed or if anyone goofed yet.

I can say it....I listened in horror this morning to a French official who said that the building had nothing at all in the way of mitigation.
That is not acceptable.

Jo

Yeah, we should dig up those stone masons from the Middle Ages and hang them!

 

[rightwinger]

Someone said the wood was Oak. Good sized Oak lumber is tough. Oak is tough to burn through quickly and can still be used if it has most of its strength. I have no idea about their fire suppression plans. But with that building's historical significance I would hope they did everything they could have for protection.

All this Monday Morning Quarterbacking from those who have no concept of the architecture, physics and challenges of making an 800 year old structure fire proof

I’m sure the French were not trying to save a few Euros by ignoring basic fire protection of one of its national treasures
If they could have installed modern fire suppression, I am sure they would have.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Sometimes the government knows what it's talking about. I realize that too many regulations can be stifiling. But folks some of them are there for a reason. Fires have been around for a long time and long before the thought of terrorists using it to make a point whole cities have burned down because no one took the time to put some effort into prevention.

A huge, sprawling structure lke Notre Dame Cathedral is a perfect example. IMO it was arson....but just for a moment let's stop and consider the alternatives... A workman's magnifying glass left out of his tool box in an area where the sun can reach it. For twenty minutes the sun shines through it to the 500 year old, super dried out timber floor, (practically a natural book of matches) underneath it and poof.....you have a blaze. For less than a million bucks a decent system of sprinklers with computer location panels could have easily been installed that would have stopped this thing in it's tracks.

Let's hope they do that on the rebuild eh?

I'm just sayin....

JO

A workman's magnifying glass? WTF are you talking about? You really were stretching for that one!

Do you have any idea what a sprinkler system would do to the architecture and appeal of the original structure?

Now, since they have to rebuild it, a sprinkler system would be much easier to install and less noticeable.

Do you have any idea what a sprinkler system would do to the architecture and appeal of the original structure

I believe it was arson. Yes the magnifying glass was a strectch on purpose.

The aesthetics is precisely why I think there was no form of mitigation. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Jo

Arson? Sure! Let's set a mostly STONE structure on fire and see if it we can get it to burn!

 

[justoffal]

Sometimes the government knows what it's talking about. I realize that too many regulations can be stifiling. But folks some of them are there for a reason. Fires have been around for a long time and long before the thought of terrorists using it to make a point whole cities have burned down because no one took the time to put some effort into prevention.

A huge, sprawling structure lke Notre Dame Cathedral is a perfect example. IMO it was arson....but just for a moment let's stop and consider the alternatives... A workman's magnifying glass left out of his tool box in an area where the sun can reach it. For twenty minutes the sun shines through it to the 500 year old, super dried out timber floor, (practically a natural book of matches) underneath it and poof.....you have a blaze. For less than a million bucks a decent system of sprinklers with computer location panels could have easily been installed that would have stopped this thing in it's tracks.

Let's hope they do that on the rebuild eh?

I'm just sayin....

JO

Was reading that some of the timbers were made from trees that don’t exist at that length any more. Hopefully they use plenty of American made steel in the rebuild.

Yes forget the timbers...
Use aluminum rafters....

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Sometimes the government knows what it's talking about. I realize that too many regulations can be stifiling. But folks some of them are there for a reason. Fires have been around for a long time and long before the thought of terrorists using it to make a point whole cities have burned down because no one took the time to put some effort into prevention.

A huge, sprawling structure lke Notre Dame Cathedral is a perfect example. IMO it was arson....but just for a moment let's stop and consider the alternatives... A workman's magnifying glass left out of his tool box in an area where the sun can reach it. For twenty minutes the sun shines through it to the 500 year old, super dried out timber floor, (practically a natural book of matches) underneath it and poof.....you have a blaze. For less than a million bucks a decent system of sprinklers with computer location panels could have easily been installed that would have stopped this thing in it's tracks.

Let's hope they do that on the rebuild eh?

I'm just sayin....

JO

A workman's magnifying glass? WTF are you talking about? You really were stretching for that one!

Do you have any idea what a sprinkler system would do to the architecture and appeal of the original structure?

Now, since they have to rebuild it, a sprinkler system would be much easier to install and less noticeable.

Do you have any idea what a sprinkler system would do to the architecture and appeal of the original structure

I believe it was arson. Yes the magnifying glass was a strectch on purpose.

The aesthetics is precisely why I think there was no form of mitigation. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Jo

Arson? Sure! Let's set a mostly STONE structure on fire and see if it we can get it to burn!

Well it burned.....soooooo


Jo

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Water weighs eight pounds per gallon. Drop it from a couple hundred feet and you have a virtual sledge hammer hitting the structure

If that water didn't disperse and tend to spread itself out while dropping through the air your point would be a good one, though it would still be better than letting Notre Dame just burn itself to the ground.
And the farther the water has to drop the more it tends to diffuse and spread out due to the effects of wind and motion on the water itself.

You know water doesn't retain the shape of it's container once it's released and put in motion...right? When you throw a glass of water at someone it doesn't retain that shape as it travels through the air. And the further the water travels the more it tends to disperse.

But surely you know all this. I'm wondering why you would try to argue that dropping water on a burning building would be adverse to that building....more adverse than the effects of an uncontained fire, anyway.
I'm guessing you are trying to insult or belittle Trump again.

Trump is the tar baby you are attacking and getting yourself ensnared and caught up yourself. Not that smart. Demonstrably not that smart.

 

[Crepitus]

Retrofitting modern fire safety equipment into a structure that old and that large is never easy.

The right is spinning these stories about how inept French fire fighting is.
Our President has helped spread the rumors with his fire fighting helicopter claims. The French fire fighters were heroic in saving as much as they did

I am sure the French had as much fire suppression systems in the cathedral as they could without impacting the structure. Only so much you can do with rafters over 500 years old

Actually I was listening to a program this morning and was shocked to discover that they had nothing. Now that just pisses me off.

Jo

Again, the problem is getting a functional system into a structure like that. It's easy to slap in a couple of panels and run some small pipe into the building to give the impression of a fire suppression system, but all that does is give a false sense of security.

Installing a viable system for a building of that size and configuration would require massive amounts of water to be thrown about in patterns never considered in modern building construction. Modern structures don't have roof configurations that allowed the blaze to happen, nor are made of centuries old wood that is basically kindling in waiting.

My understanding is that they are planning on some materiels changes and treatments to help with that. Hopefully a suppression system is in the planes as well.

They have planes in a church?

You mean you never noticed?

 

[justoffal]

Water weighs eight pounds per gallon. Drop it from a couple hundred feet and you have a virtual sledge hammer hitting the structure

If that water didn't disperse and tend to spread itself out while dropping through the air your point would be a good one, though it would still be better than letting Notre Dame just burn itself to the ground.
And the farther the water has to drop the more it tends to diffuse and spread out due to the effects of wind and motion on the water itself.

You know water doesn't retain the shape of it's container once it's released and put in motion...right? When you throw a glass of water at someone it doesn't retain that shape as it travels through the air. And the further the water travels the more it tends to disperse.

But surely you know all this. I'm wondering why you would try to argue that dropping water on a burning building would be adverse to that building....more adverse than the effects of an uncontained fire, anyway.
I'm guessing you are trying to insult or belittle Trump again.

Trump is the tar baby you are attacking and getting yourself ensnared and caught yourself. Not that smart.

Trump's suggestion was a good one and they just hate to admit it.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Someone said the wood was Oak. Good sized Oak lumber is tough. Oak is tough to burn through quickly and can still be used if it has most of its strength. I have no idea about their fire suppression plans. But with that building's historical significance I would hope they did everything they could have for protection.

All this Monday Morning Quarterbacking from those who have no concept of the architecture, physics and challenges of making an 800 year old structure fire proof

I’m sure the French were not trying to save a few Euros by ignoring basic fire protection of one of its national treasures
If they could have installed modern fire suppression, I am sure they would have.

Not trying to save a few Euros?

Not so sure about that.

A few dozen wifi heat sensors with a main locator panel .... Cost maybe 10 G....
Would have shown the location immediately.
Part of this was neglect and laziness.

Jo

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trump's suggestion was a good one and they just hate to admit it.

Jo

Trump saw Notre Dame burning down and undoubtedly couldn't understand why the French didn't drop water on the spire and roof, which had been burning for some time, which is a completely logical and understandable reaction.

Probably nine out of ten people watching the spectacle would think the same thing. It's the logical thing to think. Water extinguishes fire....duh!

But of course hateful mentally diseased leftists couldn't pass up the chance to try and make Trump look like a fool.
So they once more made themselves look like pathetic idiots in their uncontrollable urge to attack Trump.

 

[Pilot1]

Trump's suggestion was a good one and they just hate to admit it.

Jo

Trump saw Notre Dame burning down and undoubtedly couldn't understand why the French didn't drop water on the spire and roof, which had been burning for some time, which is a completely logical and understandable reaction.

Probably nine out of ten people watching the spectacle would think the same thing. It's the logical thing to think. Water extinguishes fire....duh!

But of course hateful mentally diseased leftists couldn't pass up the chance to try and make Trump look like a fool.
So they once more made themselves look like pathetic fools in their uncontrollable urge to attack Trump.

An argument could have been made for a controlled (not a dump) drop of water by helicopter IF the conditions permitted it. Yes, the Left tried to use it to criticize Trump who had nothing but good things to say about the tragedy. I am sure he offered that French, Commie President condolences and offers of assistance. Not that there was anything we could do at the time.

 

[justoffal]

Trump's suggestion was a good one and they just hate to admit it.

Jo

Trump saw Notre Dame burning down and undoubtedly couldn't understand why the French didn't drop water on the spire and roof, which had been burning for some time, which is a completely logical and understandable reaction.

Probably nine out of ten people watching the spectacle would think the same thing. It's the logical thing to think. Water extinguishes fire....duh!

But of course hateful mentally diseased leftists couldn't pass up the chance to try and make Trump look like a fool.
So they once more made themselves look like pathetic fools in their uncontrollable urge to attack Trump.

An argument could have been made for a controlled (not a dump) drop of water by helicopter IF the conditions permitted it. Yes, the Left tried to use it to criticize Trump who had nothing but good things to say about the tragedy. I am sure he offered that French, Commie President condolences and offers of assistance. Not that there was anything we could do at the time.

In any case I fail to understand why no mitigation systems at all were present .

Jo

 

[Pilot1]

Trump's suggestion was a good one and they just hate to admit it.

Jo

Trump saw Notre Dame burning down and undoubtedly couldn't understand why the French didn't drop water on the spire and roof, which had been burning for some time, which is a completely logical and understandable reaction.

Probably nine out of ten people watching the spectacle would think the same thing. It's the logical thing to think. Water extinguishes fire....duh!

But of course hateful mentally diseased leftists couldn't pass up the chance to try and make Trump look like a fool.
So they once more made themselves look like pathetic fools in their uncontrollable urge to attack Trump.

An argument could have been made for a controlled (not a dump) drop of water by helicopter IF the conditions permitted it. Yes, the Left tried to use it to criticize Trump who had nothing but good things to say about the tragedy. I am sure he offered that French, Commie President condolences and offers of assistance. Not that there was anything we could do at the time.

In any case I fail to understand why no mitigation systems at all were present .

Jo

This info may come out later, but I'd like to know what type of detection and mitigation system they had. The Facility Manager of the building would be the one to ask. A full blown sprinkler system would be too invasive, I would think, but there are other measures. Maybe they were in place, maybe not.

 

[justoffal]

Trump's suggestion was a good one and they just hate to admit it.

Jo

Trump saw Notre Dame burning down and undoubtedly couldn't understand why the French didn't drop water on the spire and roof, which had been burning for some time, which is a completely logical and understandable reaction.

Probably nine out of ten people watching the spectacle would think the same thing. It's the logical thing to think. Water extinguishes fire....duh!

But of course hateful mentally diseased leftists couldn't pass up the chance to try and make Trump look like a fool.
So they once more made themselves look like pathetic fools in their uncontrollable urge to attack Trump.

An argument could have been made for a controlled (not a dump) drop of water by helicopter IF the conditions permitted it. Yes, the Left tried to use it to criticize Trump who had nothing but good things to say about the tragedy. I am sure he offered that French, Commie President condolences and offers of assistance. Not that there was anything we could do at the time.

In any case I fail to understand why no mitigation systems at all were present .

Jo

This info may come out later, but I'd like to know what type of detection and mitigation system they had. The Facility Manager of the building would be the one to ask. A full blown sprinkler system would be too invasive, I would think, but there are other measures. Maybe they were in place, maybe not.

They had nothing....

Very stupid.

A Halon device could work. Especially in the attic areas.


Jo

 

[rightwinger]

Sprinklers?
You mean using water to put out fires?

Sacré Bleu!....why didn’t we think of that?
We need more French people reading this board