[jimmaswell]

I think I found out the reason everybody is going so crazy over this - a controversial figure from the wrong tribe apparently mentioned flying water tankers. Thus even neutral debate over the subject is wrongthink and has to be extinguished.

Why don't you step back for a moment and just admit that given the premises

-Firefighting airplanes can effectively spray in a way that doesn't harm trees

-Buildings are fine in extended substantial downpours

That it must follow

-Spraying a building with a plane in such a configuration would not collapse it

Otherwise you are the clueless one. This is absurd. At least you downvoters (who are ignoring the site guidelines) are letting me see some aesthetically pleasing upvote configurations again when it goes back up, so I appreciate it.

[CydeWeys]

The relevant French agency has weighed in. https://twitter.com/SecCivileFrance/status/11178596627941130... Translated into English, that says:

"The weight of the water and the intensity of the drop at low altitude could indeed weaken the structure of Notre-Dame and result in collateral damage to the buildings in the vicinity."

So, yeah, I'm gonna trust the experts on this one, not random armchair Internet quarterbacking.

[jimmaswell]

I was clearly talking about the subject in general, in response to a blanket statement against water on buildings made by tomswartz07. Of course an ancient building might fare worse. Also noteworthy is that their comment said collapse would be inevitable but all this tweet says is "might weaken the structure."

[CydeWeys]

It's not so much that it's an ancient building, it's that its structure is heavily compromised by the fire. It might fare better against an assault of water than lots of modern buildings. You can imagine one of those big warehouse spaces could fold up like a house of cards under an assault.

The larger point is that by the time you release high enough to not concentrate a huge amount of force from the water on the building, you're just not doing that much, not that much more than a really heavy natural downpour for a few seconds (which wouldn't be nearly enough to put out a fire this large).

And the trees aren't an apt comparison because the trees aren't taking the brunt of the water; the ground is. However, the roof of the structure would be taking the entire brunt of the falling water. Several tens of thousands of pounds times whatever speed its falling at squared equals a lot of kinetic energy.

[tomswartz07]

My 'blanket statement' specifically says 'a structure like this', meaning an old structure.

But sure, go ahead and retroactively correct yourself.

[jimmaswell]

Misremembered one thing at this point but everything else still stands.

[tomswartz07]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The facts stand, as have been reiterated in the thread above:

- Firefighting airplanes can effectively spray in a way that doesn't harm trees (by releasing the 12,000+ gallons over a very large area)

- Buildings are fine in extended substantial downpours (which is significantly less water per second than an air-tanker dump)

To your thought's end:

- Spraying a building with a plane in such a configuration would not collapse it

Yes, it's possible to spray the cathedral with water in such a way that it will not collapse it, but that configuration is that very little water gets on the cathedral, and is instead spread over pretty much the entire island in the Seine.

At this point in time, however, it likely doesn't matter. Since most of the building has collapsed already, due to the fire. Like we said it would.