Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris

buried

The stonework don't look too bad, I thought it would be much worse. Inner columns and arches look intact.

Thargor

How did those candles survive?

Wayne Gorsky

Thargor wrote: »

How did those candles survive?

simply not too much heat in there...

gozunda

Thargor wrote: »

How did those candles survive?

Not real candles?

Anteayer

It's quite likely they're artificial candles but also there wouldn't necessarily have been much heat in the interior. The fire was the attic and hot air rises. The debris just fell in.

coolshannagh28

Anteayer wrote: »

It's quite likely they're artificial candles but also there wouldn't necessarily have been much heat in the interior. The fire was the attic and hot air rises. The debris just fell in.

The Cathedral was built with fire very much in mind as this was the scourge of building in the middle ages ,hence it is virtually all stone including the" ceiling " or vault which protects the interior ,while technically very difficult it lends to longevity.

CelticRambler

seamus wrote: »

The money raised will just get it repaired quicker than it would otherwise have been repaired anyway.

Probably not, seeing as there's a shortage of suitably trained stone-masons and carpenters. But if you're a homeless person in Dublin with a knack for shaping stone or wood, there are 300 paid apprenticeships on offer from September, and it's a damn sight cheaper to live/rent in rural France than Dublin. There's a stone-masonry school not far from me that you can enroll in and I'll put you up for free if you work on my roof in your spare time.

gozunda wrote: »

So tell me where the rich people back in 1163 have their names inscribed in the historical record? Or the people who paid for the Basilica built before that or maybe even Gallo-Roman temple which was first built on the site?

Back in those days, illiteracy was quite fashionable, so the rich people thought didn't worry too much about putting their names on a plaque. Instead, they/their faces were used in the paintings and sculptures that went into the building afterwards. So you - in the 21st Century - could be looking at a picture of the Last Supper and seeing twelve apostles, but your illiterate ancestor in 1519 would have seen the faces of twelve rich blokes that he knew.

Sometimes the tables were turned, though. If the local bishop was known to be an evil bollix or a kiddy-fiddler or some other kind of swampdweller, he'd find his face carved into the wood or stone in an out-of-the-way corner of the church, either as a devil, or as a "tormented soul", or one of the gargoyles on the roof.

Wayne Gorsky

gozunda wrote: »

Some photos showing extent of damage

A before and after shot



Quite incredible that the candles near the alter and on the pillars survived the heat of the fire (zoom in to see detail)



Additional:



Click to zoom

I’d say if the structure can be preserved as is, i.e. with no subsequent collapse and if all is still safe, then all this isn’t too bad…they just need to secure what’s left quickly and put up some temp roof right now, then get a new (steel) roof up…once the roof and the holes in the inner vault are done, there’s no mad rush to finish every last decoration detail…how long it all takes is entirely a question of money and priority, larger projects have been pushed through quicker…

is_that_so

seamus wrote: »

"There are millions of children who could use a basic education"

"Tough, there's a really old cathedral that needs to be rebuilt so people can go look at it".

See, it works both ways.

You're basically agreeing with me; that resources should be allocated across a much wider spectrum of needs than all focussed in one spot at a time.

Money being offered is private and by choice, whatever that choice may be. This is that lazy whataboutery that refuses to recognise that choice on the grounds that you believe it is misplaced or that you have your own personal grouse with what people with a lot of money do with it. This type of project offers clear results as against flashing the cash on areas in which can see no solution but many opinions.

gozunda

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

Amazing that the interior survived so intact considering the inferno raging above so recently.
It's a testament to the craftsmanship & dedication of those artisans from hundreds of years ago.Macron says it will take 5 years to restore the building.
The timescale there is way, way off.

Get a few skips in. Clear out the rubble.
Few sheets of Galvanise for the roof. Heavy gauge, none of that cheap stuff. We wouldn't skimp on a building of this stature.

Up & running in 6 months tops!
Job's a good 'un.;)

Looks like the experts are now planning to install a wide tarpaulin on the roof before rainfall is able to further damage the structurec

The installation will form a “pointed roof” higher than Notre Dame’s original roof, to allow renovation workers to rebuild the frame under its protection.

"The tarpaulin will prevent rain causing further damage and weakening the building. They also need to establish how to take down the 250 tons of damaged steel scaffolding that had been put up around the building for renovation works in recent months"

In other News - the Bees are alive!

https://news.sky.com/story/rooftop-bees-survive-notre-dame-fire-after-being-drunk-11698218

MadYaker

5 years to rebuild it according to Macron, sounds about right looks like a massive job.

Id be more worried about the many original works of art that are in there, paintings, sculptures, relics etc

CelticRambler

MadYaker wrote: »

Id be more worried about the many original works of art that are in there, paintings, sculptures, relics etc

Did you miss the bit about the priests and firemen carrying out everything that wasn't nailed down while the fire was burning above them? Literally!

Those that need some attention are now in the Louvre; the rest have been moved to various secure locations.

take everything

Was this an accident or was it deliberate.

The bombing of churches over Easter seems to be a theme (cf Sri Lanka bombings).

Can anyone link to something that says it wasn't deliberate.

Erik Shun

take everything wrote: »

Was this an accident or was it deliberate.

The bombing of churches over Easter seems to be a theme (cf Sri Lanka bombings).

Can anyone link to something that says it wasn't deliberate.

No, official investigation is underway, there wouldn't be any baseless speculation coming from official sources.

4ensic15

With a deliberate fire one would expect to see some evidence of the use of accelerants. Give that a lot of the lowere levels haven't been badly damages it appears that accelarants were not used.

batgoat

Erik Shun wrote: »

No, official investigation is underway, there wouldn't be any baseless speculation coming from official sources.

An electrical fault is cited as the likely cause.

Danzy

4ensic15 wrote: »

With a deliberate fire one would expect to see some evidence of the use of accelerants. Give that a lot of the lowere levels haven't been badly damages it appears that accelarants were not used.

In fairness, a cup of petrol on a beam would be enough to really get it going.

It probably wasn't arson but given the number of attacks on Churches in France in the last 2 years and the reoeated targeting of Notre Dame by Islamists in the last few years, one can hardly view it as Implausible.

Danzy

4ensic15 wrote: »

With a deliberate fire one would expect to see some evidence of the use of accelerants. Give that a lot of the lowere levels haven't been badly damages it appears that accelarants were not used.

In fairness, a cup of petrol on a beam would be enough to really get it going.

It probably wasn't arson but given the number of attacks on Churches in France in the last 2 years and the repeated targeting of Notre Dame by Islamists in the last few years, one can hardly view it as Implausible.

4ensic15

Danzy wrote: »

In fairness, a cup of petrol on a beam would be enough to really get it going.

It probably wasn't arson but given the number of attacks on Churches in France in the last 2 years and the repeated targeting of Notre Dame by Islamists in the last few years, one can hardly view it as Implausible.

If someone was using petrol they would have placed it lower down in the body of the church. The roof timbers are hunderds of years old and likely very dry. A spark might have set it off. If it was deliberate it would be expected that the arsonists would be more thorough.

janfebmar

Ever tried to get wood to catch fire with a spark? Impossible. Hard enough to get big lumps of wood to catch fire.

branie2

A lot of copies of the Hunchback of Notre Dame have been bought in bookshops here since the fire

4ensic15

janfebmar wrote: »

Ever tried to get wood to catch fire with a spark? Impossible. Hard enough to get big lumps of wood to catch fire.

It depends on how dry the wood is and how thick. Thye fire started on the roof and there may have been inflammables on the roof on account of the work. Cigarettes, newspapers, solvents etc.

CelticRambler

The biggest problem with the arson conspiracy is that the alarm went off, a fire officer went up to look (as per site-specific fire-alarm protocols, saw nothing suspicious and gave everyone the all clear. Some 15-20 minutes later, a second alarm went off, two fire officers went up to look and saw the roof timbers already ablaze. The only way the arson conspiracy can work would be for the first fire officer to be in on it, and given the personal attachment people working in and for the cathedral have for the building, that seems very unlikely.

There does, however, seem to be an inconsistency regarding these old timbers, the established in-case-of-fire protocol and the actual evolution. My house is held together with similar big old beams (though only 300 years old) and they are damn near impossible to set fire to without chopping them up with a chainsaw and putting them into a well-lit wood-burning stove. There was an article in the NY Times the other day wherein some American firefighters took issue with the Architecte de France responsible for drawing up Notre Dame's fire safety statement, and specifically this point about how quickly big old beams catch light. Having seen the crap that passes for good construction in the States, and having witnessed with my old beams not catching fire despite being exposed to naked flames, I'm inclined to side with the French guy ... but there was obviously some other factor involved in this incident for it to spread so quickly and so disastrously.

My own suspicion is that it'll be found to be directly due to some aspect of the renovation work - Li-ion batteries in power tools, stored materials that acted as accelerants, or some weird unfortunate coincidence such as sawdust/wood shavings being swept over an exposed electrical connection when creating an access for repairs.

Wayne Gorsky

CelticRambler wrote: »

The biggest problem with the arson conspiracy is that the alarm went off, a fire officer went up to look (as per site-specific fire-alarm protocols, saw nothing suspicious and gave everyone the all clear. Some 15-20 minutes later, a second alarm went off, two fire officers went up to look and saw the roof timbers already ablaze. The only way the arson conspiracy can work would be for the first fire officer to be in on it, and given the personal attachment people working in and for the cathedral have for the building, that seems very unlikely.

There does, however, seem to be an inconsistency regarding these old timbers, the established in-case-of-fire protocol and the actual evolution. My house is held together with similar big old beams (though only 300 years old) and they are damn near impossible to set fire to without chopping them up with a chainsaw and putting them into a well-lit wood-burning stove. There was an article in the NY Times the other day wherein some American firefighters took issue with the Architecte de France responsible for drawing up Notre Dame's fire safety statement, and specifically this point about how quickly big old beams catch light. Having seen the crap that passes for good construction in the States, and having witnessed with my old beams not catching fire despite being exposed to naked flames, I'm inclined to side with the French guy ... but there was obviously some other factor involved in this incident for it to spread so quickly and so disastrously.

My own suspicion is that it'll be found to be directly due to some aspect of the renovation work - Li-ion batteries in power tools, stored materials that acted as accelerants, or some weird unfortunate coincidence such as sawdust/wood shavings being swept over an exposed electrical connection when creating an access for repairs.

Yeah, some interesting points…thing is we, certainly I, do not know anything about the exact situation up on the site, like if there were any tools left around, what sort of tools, or sawdust or other flammable materials, or if electricity was off as it should have been etc., just a lot of open questions…one would imagine it should be easy enough for the investigators to exclude certain possible causes as they should have access to some inventory from site security of what and who was up there at any time and what work was done etc…hope they do anyway, or just good old laissez-faire…certainly looks like negligence at the very least...

gozunda

CelticRambler wrote: »

The biggest problem with the arson conspiracy is that the alarm went off, a fire officer went up to look (as per site-specific fire-alarm protocols, saw nothing suspicious and gave everyone the all clear. Some 15-20 minutes later, a second alarm went off, two fire officers went up to look and saw the roof timbers already ablaze. The only way the arson conspiracy can work would be for the first fire officer to be in on it, and given the personal attachment people working in and for the cathedral have for the building, that seems very unlikely.

There does, however, seem to be an inconsistency regarding these old timbers, the established in-case-of-fire protocol and the actual evolution. My house is held together with similar big old beams (though only 300 years old) and they are damn near impossible to set fire to without chopping them up with a chainsaw and putting them into a well-lit wood-burning stove. There was an article in the NY Times the other day wherein some American firefighters took issue with the Architecte de France responsible for drawing up Notre Dame's fire safety statement, and specifically this point about how quickly big old beams catch light. Having seen the crap that passes for good construction in the States, and having witnessed with my old beams not catching fire despite being exposed to naked flames, I'm inclined to side with the French guy ... but there was obviously some other factor involved in this incident for it to spread so quickly and so disastrously.

My own suspicion is that it'll be found to be directly due to some aspect of the renovation work - Li-ion batteries in power tools, stored materials that acted as accelerants, or some weird unfortunate coincidence such as sawdust/wood shavings being swept over an exposed electrical connection when creating an access for repairs.

What the sources are saying about that is the fire detection system misreported the location of the fire. That location was checked and nothing found. All the while the real fire burned merrily. So the first person who checked the fire location would not need 'to be in on it" tbh.

I agree with you about old beams especially oak - in my experience they do not burn easily.


https://nypost.com/2019/04/16/alarm-rang-out-at-notre-dame-23-minutes-before-fire-was-found/

Anteayer

Wood can burn quite oddly. It can be initially extremely difficult to light, but then when the temperature is reached you get pyrolysis which starts to produce flammable gasses within the wood itself and you get release of oils. Those two factors can turn what seems like a very hard to light substance into one that burns quite aggressively.

Add to that the height and the structure and you've huge updrafts and so on which could have it burning with conditions more like stove.

We also have no idea if that wood contained oils either naturally or if it had been treated with them over its 800+ years.

Also when you look at how the roof structure entirely disintegrated and burnt pretty heavily, there's really no way someone could have used an accelerant as it would have had to have been used all over the entire structure and that would have been VERY obvious. So, it would suggest it was a self-sustaining fire.

Electrical faults can also be very high risk as they can produce extremely high temperatures.

gozunda

Anteayer wrote: »

Wood can burn quite oddly. It can be initially extremely difficult to light, but then when the temperature is reached you get pyrolysis which starts to produce flammable gasses within the wood itself and you get release of oils. Those two factors can turn what seems like a very hard to light substance into one that burns quite aggressively.

Add to that the height and the structure and you've huge updrafts and so on which could have it burning with conditions more like stove.

We also have no idea if that wood contained oils either naturally or if it had been treated with them over its 800+ years.

Also when you look at how the roof structure entirely disintegrated and burnt pretty heavily, there's really no way someone could have used an accelerant as it would have had to have been used all over the entire structure and that would have been VERY obvious. So, it would suggest it was a self-sustaining fire.

Electrical faults can also be very high risk as they can produce extremely high temperatures.

With regard to the point that an accelerant would have been needed to be used "all over the entire structure"

Afaik all that is normally required to cause surroundings structures to catch fire is a point source with very high temperatures leading to a flashover effect and the potential to cause an unconstrained conflagration

Although a huge oak beam is generally difficult to get burning, as smaller timbers fuel the fire and the temperature rises, the timbers will eventually spontaneously ignite in a phenomena known as a flashover, when everything combustible suddenly becomes engulfed in fire," says Keith Atkinson, a fire safety consultant at Heritage and Ecclesiastical Fire Protection.

For an Interesting article on the fire - See:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/notre-dame-fire-physics-firefighting

Wayne Gorsky

gozunda wrote: »

[...]

For an Interesting article on the fire - See:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/notre-dame-fire-physics-firefighting

Good article…do we know exactly what sort of work was done up there just before the fire. i.e. in the relevant time frame? Surely, the folks involved there will know, I don’t…

BorneTobyWilde

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2019/03/28/vandals-arsonists-target-french-catholic-churches/

The trend of setting Churches on fire in the run up to the Notre Dame fire would lead one to believe it's connected.

Danzy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2019/03/28/vandals-arsonists-target-french-catholic-churches/

The trend of setting Churches on fire in the run up to the Notre Dame fire would lead one to believe it's connected.

At the very least it is following a well established trend.

It probably was an accident but to presume it as a given..

gozunda

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Good article…do we know exactly what sort of work was done up there just before the fire. i.e. in the relevant time frame? Surely, the folks involved there will know, I don’t…

From various reports - afaik it was indicated that restoration itself hadn't started. The scaffolding had been erected - including the installation of
temporary elevator. The statues adjacent to the spire had just been removed in preparation of the work commencing.

Wayne Gorsky

gozunda wrote: »

From various reports - afaik it was indicated that restoration itself hadn't started. The scaffolding had been erected - including the installation of
temporary elevator. The statues adjacent to the spire had just been removed in preparation of the work commencing.

Yeah, I mean had any welding or cutting or so been done on that day in the area in question, basically anything producing sparks or flames, and what tools would have been used and possibly left there on that day...those would be among my first questions if I was a fire investigator anyway…and this clip is interesting re the whole “electrical fault” version and that elevator, and from a mainstream source…

Danzy

Did the Chief Architect of the Church say there was no work in the place it started.

That is not conclusive, nor necessarily indicative but in the rush to pronounce absolution by blaming the wiring, it is worth noting.

I can completely understand why they would deny arson, thing like that could start a civil war.

Same as the Islamist prick who planned to machine gun a Mass there but shot himself in the foot on the way to the door, or the woman on trial for trying to blow it sky high for Allah, this week.

An attack on Notre Dame would leave Bataclan or the twin towers in the hapenny place, even if no dead or less.

BorneTobyWilde

The people in charge of Notre Dame are the ones who put it out there as an accident with zero evidence either way, and the media ran with it. How on earth could they be so confident even as the fire still burned to call it an accident considering all the fires and damage to other churches in the build up to the Notre Dame fire.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Lots of fairly factless opinionising here.

Wayne Gorsky

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Lots of fairly factless opinionising here.

So, Mr. von Peppercorn, what do you think happened? In detail like…

Danzy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Lots of fairly factless opinionising here.

We know that attacks on French Churches are endemic.

We know that Islamists have repeatedly targeted Notre Dame in the last few years. Their own mistakes being the only thing between a Mass bloodbath.

What is your current reactionary take on the fire?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

So, Mr. von Peppercorn, what do you think happened? In detail like…

Electrical fault.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Danzy wrote: »

We know that attacks on French Churches are endemic.

We know that Islamists have repeatedly targeted Notre Dame in the last few years. Their own mistakes being the only thing between a Mass bloodbath.

What is your current reactionary take on the fire?

Electrical fault. Which isn’t “reactionary”. You might want to look up a dictionary.

Wayne Gorsky

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Electrical fault.

But was there electricity in the area at the time in question? There shouldn't have been...

BorneTobyWilde

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Lots of fairly factless opinionising here.

Saying it was an accident as it burned was a baseless conclusion.

gozunda

This Twitter account has a series of videos and photos showing the fire and its spread from the spire along the length of the roof. Scroll down to see the first video with just smoke coming from the Spire and then watch later videos and photos how the fire spread


https://mobile.twitter.com/herpsonc/status/1117833995801309185

gozunda

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

Yeah, I mean had any welding or cutting or so been done on that day in the area in question, basically anything producing sparks or flames, and what tools would have been used and possibly left there on that day...those would be among my first questions if I was a fire investigator anyway…and this clip is interesting re the whole “electrical fault” version and that elevator, and from a mainstream source…

I took a look at what the press in France were saying and it looks like the Restorers and the joint company responsible for the erection of the scaffolding confirmed that there had been no hot work involving soldering etc

There was no work by hot spots or electrical work. Only a few people were involved in erecting the scaffolding. "The assembly is a hammer and a (special) key"

They also stated that

The elevators were seven to eight meters from the cathedral. "At the end of the construction site, as recommended by one of the many draconian safety measures, the men cut off the power supply specific to the construction site, lights and elevator. "The electrical cabinet is then locked and the key given to the concierge," said Marc Eskenazi, advisor in this time of crisis. "When the fire started, no more employees were there," he says.

The company confirmed there were two elevators in use that day. But that these were some 7 to 8 metres away from the roof construction area.

The fact that it is believed that the fire started st the base of the Spire means it is difficult to reconcile any cause attributed to the lift mechanisms.

That said it would appear that the company are getting thrown under the bus with regard to various allegations and accusations in the press and elsewhere with regard to short circuits and scaffolding etc.

Wayne Gorsky

gozunda wrote: »

I took a look at what the press in France were saying and it looks like the Restorers and the joint company responsible for the erection of the scaffolding confirmed that there had been no hot work involving soldering etc



They also stated that



The company confirmed there were two elevators in use that day. But that these were some 7 to 8 metres away from the roof construction area.

The fact that it is believed that the fire started st the base of the Spire means it is difficult to reconcile any cause attributed to the lift mechanisms.

That said it would appear that the company are getting thrown under the bus with regard to various allegations and accusations in the press and elsewhere with regard to short circuits and scaffolding etc.

yup, all a tad nebulous at this point, and just another set of open questions...

When I was a younger fella (mid 90's) my father won an all expenses paid trip to Disneyland Paris. He gave it to my 2 sisters, my nephew and I. It was incredible. There was a Hunchback of Notre Dame themed banquet. All the grub you can eat with the characters serving you in Disneyland. I'll take that memory to the grave.

As I got older, I was brought back again to Paris by one of my sisters. 13 years old with said nephew at my side. Old enough to appreciate the place but not old enough to get lost on the Metro for a few hours. That was scary! I wasn't too fond of Paris after that. Fast forward another 8 years and I'm living in Paris with work and looking at Notre Dame in all its glory nearly every day. An absolute stunning piece of architecture. I wasn't fond of Paris but loved Notre Dame. Was mostly a nice part of my life.

marieholmfan

Snotaul Goodman wrote: »

I wasn't fond of Paris but loved Notre Dame. Was mostly a nice part of my life.

Glad you had the happy memories from your time working there. Was the nephew with you when you got lost?

Wayne Gorsky

The latest I read (on german msn) re cause of fire is that some workers were smoking up on the scaffolding, against the strict rules of course…wouldn’t want to be them right now…probably nothing to do with the fire anyway...

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY4NC2yW63E

How can they deny someone was on roof when it's there on tape, and it's there that they lit something on fire in the exact place the fire started.

Wayne Gorsky

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY4NC2yW63E

How can they deny someone was on roof when it's there on tape, and it's there that they lit something on fire in the exact place the fire started.

depends on when exactly that was taken, and on whether site security know who it was and what the person was doing there...

gozunda

Wayne Gorsky wrote: »

The latest I read (on german msn) re cause of fire is that some workers were smoking up on the scaffolding, against the strict rules of course…wouldn’t want to be them right now…probably nothing to do with the fire anyway...

According to some of the French press - the latest theory is that members of the cathedral staff had installed a system of electronic bells in the central spire.

Allegedly these were installed against fire regulations and without clearing the installation with the relevant authorities. The suggestion is that the wiring may have been damaged whilst the scaffolding was being erected.

https://www.marianne.net/societe/notre-dame-des-cloches-sauvages-et-electrifiees-l-origine-de-l-incendie