Notre Dame Cathedral In Flames

#58
#58
Velo Vol said:
Curious if you know if a structure that size had a modern sprinkler system, if it would have been effective in controlling the fire?
Click to expand...
I doubt it does/did.

You could build a fire suppression system big enough its just a matter of money. in this case it would be a crazy dollar amount, even for the Catholic Church. and for that size of building they would have needed to treat the roof as well (sprinkler heads turned up, and in cavities). But if they were working on the roof, or really anything major, they would have had to turn off the sprinkler system. otherwise any weld going on, or heat producing aspect could set it off. also damage to a charged (live) pipe system could be pretty bad, explosion from a clog etc.

At least in the US. also there would have to be a fireman, or maybe a whole squad, to supervise and watch. but that's life safety at that point, and not building safety.

but as to could it control the fire if operational: it likely could have at the start. kept it isolated and limit damage. but if there was an accelerant present (any number of raw products would do this) probably not. one thing most people don't realize is that almost literally any substance can burn in the right circumstance. especially when aerated (turned into dust).

water based sprinkler systems in general just buy time for the real fire fighters to show up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, McDad and Velo Vol
#60
#60
evillawyer said:
You're right, because I often say tanker when I mean helicopter.
Click to expand...

Depends...a normal "helicopter" can make use of a bucket drop. Google "helitanker" for those that are fitted with actual tanks.

If you really want to get down to it contextually a "tanker" would include any aircraft, be it fixed or rotary, outfitted for use in air attack vs a fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol and NorthDallas40
#61
#61
hndog609 said:
Depends...a normal "helicopter" can make use of a bucket drop. Google "helitanker" for those that are fitted with actual tanks.

If you really want to get down to it contextually a "tanker" would include any aircraft, be it fixed or rotary, outfitted for use in air attack vs a fire.
Click to expand...

It's not even worth explaining to that child about it.
 
#63
#63
hndog609 said:
Depends...a normal "helicopter" can make use of a bucket drop. Google "helitanker" for those that are fitted with actual tanks.

If you really want to get down to it contextually a "tanker" would include any aircraft, be it fixed or rotary, outfitted for use in air attack vs a fire.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I admit I did not know of helitankers. But does anyone on here really believe Trump was referring to this in his tweet? I think it's most likely that he was referring to the big airplane tankers used to fight forest fires.
 
#64
#64
AirVol said:
Once again LG and EL call Trump names for saying tankers. Well, I’ll tell you there are heli-tankers. Maybe you guys are the idiots and boobs.
Click to expand...


Yeah, no.

Trump is in a class all by himself when it comes to simpleton logic.
 
#67
#67
evillawyer said:
Thanks. I admit I did not know of helitankers. But does anyone on here really believe Trump was referring to this in his tweet? I think it's most likely that he was referring to the big airplane tankers used to fight forest fires.
Click to expand...
...or he was most likely shocked like the rest of us and thinking out loud. The fact that this is being analyzed and critiqued while the disaster is happening is a sad commentary about where we are politically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, RDU VOL#14, Notorious B.E.N and 6 others
#68
#68
evillawyer said:
Thanks. I admit I did not know of helitankers. But does anyone on here really believe Trump was referring to this in his tweet? I think it's most likely that he was referring to the big airplane tankers used to fight forest fires.
Click to expand...

Of course he was. He probably held up a model of AF 1 in the Oval Office to explain this to his staff. "Zooooom" Trump says, moving it across the Resolute Desk in a sweeping fashion. "Psshhhhhhh" when it pretend drops water and puts out the fire.
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
Of course he was. He probably held up a model of AF 1 in the Oval Office to explain this to his staff. "Zooooom" Trump says, moving it across the Resolute Desk in a sweeping fashion. "Psshhhhhhh" when it pretend drops water and puts out the fire.
Click to expand...

I imagine something like this, bit with model planes

 
#73
#73
LouderVol said:
I doubt it does/did.

You could build a fire suppression system big enough its just a matter of money. in this case it would be a crazy dollar amount, even for the Catholic Church. and for that size of building they would have needed to treat the roof as well (sprinkler heads turned up, and in cavities). But if they were working on the roof, or really anything major, they would have had to turn off the sprinkler system. otherwise any weld going on, or heat producing aspect could set it off. also damage to a charged (live) pipe system could be pretty bad, explosion from a clog etc.

At least in the US. also there would have to be a fireman, or maybe a whole squad, to supervise and watch. but that's life safety at that point, and not building safety.

but as to could it control the fire if operational: it likely could have at the start. kept it isolated and limit damage. but if there was an accelerant present (any number of raw products would do this) probably not. one thing most people don't realize is that almost literally any substance can burn in the right circumstance. especially when aerated (turned into dust).

water based sprinkler systems in general just buy time for the real fire fighters to show up.
Click to expand...
It should also be noted that even the most stringent building code really only cares about life safety, the people in the building, not so much the building itself. In this circumstance if every worker, and guest got away, but the whole thing came down, after they got out, code would be satisfied, and there would be very little possible liability to any involved unless there was a direct actor.

again, at least for the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#74
#74
evillawyer said:
Thanks. I admit I did not know of helitankers. But does anyone on here really believe Trump was referring to this in his tweet? I think it's most likely that he was referring to the big airplane tankers used to fight forest fires.
Click to expand...
I still don't know what it matters. Politics isn't my religion so political figures are not deities to me. Maybe they are gods to others, though.

Hypthetical tweets and responses:
T: Notre Dam in flames. Sad. "OMG is that the BEST he can do???"

T: Thoughts and prayers with Paris and Catholics to world over. "Yeah likes jTHAT:S helpful.

T: Hope they move quickly to control the flames. "Like what else were they gonna do, moron"

T: ND cathedral on fire. Suspicious this close to a major christian holiday. "RACIST"

I am not fan of Trump. But you guys a simply unhinged. And yet, everyday you actively search for more reason to come unglued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, NorthDallas40, LouderVol and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top