Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Collin said:
My only point I'm trying to make is that it's a lot safer of a practice than having ground crews risk their lives and it will put out the fire much faster and prevent it from spreading.
Click to expand...

It's not. It would burst what's left of the building and would make the fire spread around. The way they're doing it now, they can contain it to the building itself. Again, we're not talking about a forest, we're talking about a city. Firefighters know what they're doing, they have centuries of experience with this.
 
Perun said:
It's not. It would burst what's left of the building and would make the fire spread around. The way they're doing it now, they can contain it to the building itself. Again, we're not talking about a forest, we're talking about a city.
Click to expand...
I only used my experience to relate, which happened to be a forest fire that engulfed 25 acres. I have seen them do it in cities on buildings.
 
Black Wizard said:
Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

I had to mute the audio for a phone call and was reading the captioning ... and it really made no sense. I left it on for a minutes when I turned the audio back on and they are getting at least 1 word wrong each sentence and when anyone uses a French name, it is really bad. one of the bridge names turned into "when Charlotte boys lie"
 
Collin said:
I only used my experience to relate, which happened to be a forest fire that engulfed 25 acres. I have seen them do it in cities on buildings.
Click to expand...

What city? Was it in the historic city centre of a major metropolis, densely built with historic constructions?
 
View from the front side. It definitely looks like there is a fire in the tower.

qXsXn6t.png
 
They seem to be cooling the towers now to prevent damage and letting the fire burn in the main part. Looks like they shifted focus to preserving the concrete surroundings.
 
matic22 said:
They seem to be cooling the towers now to prevent damage and letting the fire burn in the main part. Looks like they shifted focus to preserving the concrete surroundings.
Click to expand...

I guess the concern would that to roof is gone and most of the supports may be as well, I would guess the stone walls collapsing is a concern.
 
Collin said:
Spokane. I know they have done it in Seattle too.
Click to expand...

And these are the same as the Île de la cité?

Look, they're not doing it, because a), the water pressure would burst the cathedral, sending debris around damaging the surrounding building, possibly setting them on fire (this is not a modern fire-resistant exterior, but a 900 year old stone building), and b) the air flow from helicopters or planes passing above will provide more oxygen for the fire.

The firefighters are trained professionals who know to stay out of danger, and they're containing the fire to the building. It's a huge fire they can't put out so easily, so they are making sure it stays confined to the cathedral.
 
It's snowing sparks. Now imagine what would happen if they dumped a massive amout of water. It would be a fire blizzard.
 
Perun said:
And these are the same as the Île de la cité?

Look, they're not doing it, because a), the water pressure would burst the cathedral, sending debris around damaging the surrounding building, possibly setting them on fire (this is not a modern fire-resistant exterior, but a 900 year old stone building), and b) the air flow from helicopters or planes passing above will provide more oxygen for the fire.
Click to expand...
No. Definitely not. But they have used them in highly populated areas.

And I know they won't do it, because they already would have done it.
 
I just hope one day a Paris firefighter will tell you how to do your job before consulting you on what it is you do and why you do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top