Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
April 30, 2019
There is already talk of re-building Notre Dame, but the question is, as what? We’ll get back to that, but before we do, there is already talk of using the new technology of additive manufacturing or 3D printing to rebuild the cathedral, a process which, incidentally, could conceivably restore the structure more or less to its pre-fire state, according to this article shared by M.W.:
Speaking to FRANCE 24, Eric Geboers, co-founder of Concr3de, said, “As the extent of the damage is becoming clear, it is time to think about how to rebuild this sacred monument that has seen so much history. We propose a strategy to rebuild Notre-Dame in a modern way that maintains the soul and layered history of the building.
“Why not reuse what is left? What if we take the remains of Notre-Dame and use them to build her up again? What if we take the stone that has seen so much history and use that to maintain the soul of the building?”
Rebuilding with the remnants
Concr3de suggests combining old materials with new technologies. They will collect the ash, dust and damaged stone remnants in the nave of the cathedral and turn that into a 3D printable powder. “This powder will have the yellowish grey colour of Parisian stone and will be mixed with the charred remains of the wood. We can use this powder and directly 3D print the destroyed parts of Notre-Dame.
“The ash and limestone that remain would probably make up about half of the required materials. Then we would bind them together. But we would not use any plastics or resins. It would be a much more natural and pure procedure than that.”
“It is impossible to say at this stage exactly how long the work would take, but it would certainly be finished within five years,” said Geboers. “Working with our technique is at least five times faster than cutting stone.
“Of course it will take a lot of work but it is possible. With one large printer, you can produce two cubic metres of material in a day.”
OK, that makes sense, especially if, as Geboers states, one wants to preserve the “soul” of the cathedral, which would seem to imply a restoration of its traditional art-work.
Unfortunately, it would appear that the little popinjay Emanuel Macron’s globaloneyist multi-cultural stupidity and hubris knows no bounds, for what he has in mind for the structure is of the same order as his “there’s no such thing as French culture” statement that he made at the Verdun memorial, surrounded by the graves of thousands of his countrymen who died in that battle to preserve precisely the culture that Macron said didn’t exist. Many people spotted these articles and passed them along:
Now, in case you missed it, the proposals for Notre Dame include (1) turning the top part of it into a greenhouse, and (2) replacing the spire or steeple with a minaret:
Macron’s initial promise to restore the magnificent cathedral to its former glory has been shoved aside. Now he says it will be rebuilt “consistent with our modern, diverse nation”, and at the same time the French Government has announced an international competition to redesign the Notre Dame spire.After the announcement designers haven’t missed the opportunity to respond with their ideas, proposing that it should not be faithfully restored, but rebuilt with “contemporary” features such as a glass roof, steel spire, or even a minaret.The Telegraph published an article claiming it would be a “travesty” to restore Notre Dame, while Rolling Stone quoted a Harvard architecture historian as saying that the burning of a building “so overburdened with meaning… feels like an act of liberation.”Lord Norman Foster, arguably Britain’s most famous modern architect, has unveiled a design topping the ancient cathedral with a glass and steel canopy with a featureless glass and steel spire, which he describes as “a work of art about light” which would be “contemporary and very spiritual and capture the confident spirit of the time”.…Perhaps most controversial is a proposal in Domus, the architecture magazine, by Tom Wilkinson, for the fallen spire to be replaced with an Islamic minaret, to memorialize Algerians who protested the French government in the 1960s.
“These victims of the state could be memorialized by replacing the spire with – why not? – a graceful minaret”, Wilkinson insisted.
About The Author:
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.