Just a thought about the cause of the Notre-Dame fire

Filed in NEWS ANALYZES by on 18 April 2019 17 Comments

source: thenational.ae

We would rather not speculate, but if you study the images, the fire on Notre Dame looks very much like a well-controlled fire. You could say that it would be very convenient for Macron to be able to play the great leader, such as the Reichstagfire in Berlin from 1933 Adolf Hitler also came in very handy. That fire was put in the shoes of the Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe. Are we going to see the same in France now? Are we going to experience, for example, that "research shows" that a yellow vest activist was part of a restoration team and deliberately ignited the fire?

Ik wrote already that the fire was also a good distraction from the simultaneous fire in the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, but in most Psychological Operations (PsyOps) there is a double bottom. Of course there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a PsyOp, but nothing is excluded in these times where, from a technological point of view, nothing stands in the way of fooling the people through media spectacles.

First of all, it is noticeable that the fire was apparently not so hot that it melted the steel scaffolding. Wasn't that the problem with 911; that the steel cores became too hot and melted? Why could this jetty handle the heat? Because it wasn't getting so hot? With open flames, the temperature will indeed not reach the melting temperature of steel. The question is whether this could be the case with 911, but that aside.

The video below gives a reasonable picture of the fire. Read further under the video.

What is striking is that only the wooden roof is burning and if you look at the images afterwards there is hardly a splash of soot on the building construction. The church was apparently immaculate by fire. I myself have sometimes burned organic waste in a concrete bin behind my former farm. If you then burn the fire for half an hour, the outer layer of the concrete starts to burst and everything is blackened. Why does the construction of Notre-Dame still look so clean and there is no visible damage? You could say that this is because the fire brigade has managed to keep the fire under good control, but that is exactly what is remarkable. Of course we have seen images of a destroyed interior, but you and I are probably not entering the church to check the images for truth and if you watch the videos there is only burnt wood in the center of the church. The lamps are just sitting undamaged in the church lighting and most of the statues are just neat and clean in place. The stained glass windows also look neat and clean and are all still in the window frame. The walls where all the firewood is located are still virgin. No sign of soot.

What if the roof had to be removed anyway? What if the wooden construction was damaged by boktor or woodworm? I admit, it is a guesswork, but apparently it seems to be a well-controlled fire, in which the spire also fell neatly into the center of the fire instead of next to the building. That was of course because most of the heat came from the center of the roof. We all hear and read stories about the heat of the melting lead, but then probably the pews must have fallen on the pews and set them on fire too. Can I say that I think the interior looks very clean? (Watch the video and read below)

Here we are again confronted with a large media show in combination with technology that has made it possible to realize a well-controlled fire, in order to bring the world into shock again. And that while as far as I know, no deaths have occurred. This bee colony of yourself 150.000 bees survived the fire.

Now you may wonder why I think this fire has been properly controlled and how it might have been carried out. I explained the 'why' above. I explain the 'how' with the video below from NASA. It may take a couple of weeks to put such heat shield panels under the wooden construction, but it doesn't seem like an impossible task. Assuming that such a material has been used, it explains a lot about how we were able to see this beautiful fire show and also explains a lot about how the fire could have been so well encapsulated. (watch the video below and continue reading below)

The website citylab.com reports the following:

The blaze stopped short of the two belfry towers that house the cathedral's immense bells, the site immortalized by Victor Hugo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. "The worst has been avoided even though the battle is not completely won," said French President Emmanuel Macron.

That's the good news about Gothic architecture: It's strong stuff, built to stand with an inferno.

"It's not that they're designed to be burned down, but it's designed so that if the roof burns off, it's hard for [the fire] to spread to the rest of the building," says Lisa Reilly, an associate professor of architectural history at the University of Virginia and a scholar of medieval architecture. "In the Middle Ages, the thought was that stone vaults used to prevent the spread of fire."

So suddenly the stone building is 'strong stuff' while the concrete of the twin towers turned out not to be 'strong stuff' enough. The steel scaffolding is still standing, the stone and even the plaster, just like Maria, seems to be completely immaculate and so we may well ask ourselves whether we might have a big media show again.

What also stands out in the profile photo posted with this article is that the windows are made dark. In the (second) video in this article you can see that the stained glass is still there. It seems strongly that a shadow filter has been used to make the windows look blackened. However, because the glass and lead are still completely straight, this is simply not correct. That should then be warped or partially melted. A filter was clearly used to create the impression that the stained glass is blackened (which is not the case, see video).

Source link listings: thesun.co.uk, thenational.ae


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (17)

trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Personally, I think that everything is lit, because even in the Netherlands you are obliged to have a fire extinguisher to hand when working with burners on a flat roof.

    The ceiling of Notre Dame and the roof construction are (or were) two different constructions; there was therefore an empty space between the roof and the ceiling. The ceiling was made of stone, while the skeleton of the roof construction was made of wood. The stone ceiling could have (partially) blocked the blaze for a while. Time will tell how the fire is spread.

  2. Martin Vrijland wrote:

    Local resident Michel Dupont said those living around the cathedral were upset more equipment was not on site to spray water at the flames high up. "A lot of us are asking questions about the authorities" response, "he said.

    I see very little material on the movies ..


  3. Camera 2 wrote:

    The racks (tubes) are therefore drilled with holes from which water flows and thus holds the rack upright, it seems, the rack with an irrigation system :-), it looks like it is because the
    boards of the position should have long and wide with those towering hot flames.

    Fire watch and fire brigade have been specifically involved in this type of monumental renovation, there are fire guards, security officers on site continuously.

    It does indeed seem to be a controlled fire, a suggestion below ...


    • Martin Vrijland wrote:

      "The scaffolding is 'so' embedded with holes .."
      I understand your creative thought, but that might stand out. Then you should see spray jets on the images.
      I think my idea about the heat shields is not so bad.

      By the way, I do wonder whether there was no sprinkler system in the roof. That seems to be something you install in such a building with a wooden roof. That may have already smothered the fire.

  4. frameworks wrote:

    In the last few years, several monumnetal buildings have been set on fire (see, for example, Windsor Caslle). What they all have in common is that maintenance has been carried out. When you add up the damage it seems to me that it is not that difficult to spend a little more money for fire prevention during maintenance work and, for example, to have people perform fire surveillance continuously. Costs many many many times less than rebuilding. However, the question is why is this not done. There are still plenty of people who recognize, assess and mitigate risk for a project (something called risk management)

  5. Martin Vrijland wrote:

    Neat fire. That roof has been neatly burned off and can be re-erected there. That really doesn't have to cost a billion. The entire construction is still fully intact and even contains little or no soot. The walls are still spotless! What material are those semi-transparent unburned panels on those risers actually?

  6. SalmonInClick wrote:

    Crypt fire disrupts Palm Sunday services at Cathedral of St. John the Divine
    April 15, 2019


  7. SalmonInClick wrote:

    Israelis are going to tackle it in a much bigger way, so it can also be best people a new tower of Babel '😀

    Tel Aviv Skyscraper: Remake or Tower of Babel or Preparation for Third Temple?

    The Azrieli Group, an Israeli real estate and holding company, announced their plan to build Israel's tallest building as an addition to their already impressive Azrieli Center Complex in Tel Aviv. Topping out at 91 stories and reaching 1,150 feet toward the heavens.

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to 'allow cookies' to give you the best browsing experience possible.If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click on "Accept" below then you agree with these institutions.