Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on July 15, 2012 at 3:44pm

You need to stop sprinkling the paranoia on your breakfast cereal.  I didn't make anything up - I responded to your confused attempt to prove that your two opposing points (fire-rated interior garage door vs. flimsy or open door) somehow led to the same conclusion.  They don't.

I have no paranoia.  I proved in a couple of cases that you LIED about what I said.

I NEVER said they led to the same conclusion.  I said that no matter what there needed to be a line in the living space to check to see if the fire breached the wall or door, or if the door was left open.  If the door was left open, OR the wall or door was breached by the fire, the way to reduce damage to the living space is to make the attack from there and push it back into the garage.  No matter how you slice it if you make the attack from the garage side and the door was left open, or the wall or door was breached by the fire you will push smoke, heat, and gasses into the living space.  Proper vertical venting would solve the majority of that problem but not all of it. 

 

Are you REALLY claiming that a transitional attack through a window or man door is OK and the same attack through the opening in the top of the garage door (you know, the one that you claimed wasn't there, but clearly is) are going to cause different outcomes?  In your confused rambling, it appears as if you did, and that your interior line tactic is going to work the same with or without the transitional attack, and regardless of the status of the interior door.

NO BEN, once again you chose to take things out of context to try and prove your attacks on me have merit.  I said REPEATEDLY that IF the interior door was intact, and the wall had not been breached, AND an interior crew with a line was at that door, I would attempt an attack through a window or mandoor.  Why there and not the top of the garage door?  Because it would be virtually impossible to hit a fire that originated low to the floor from that point.  You know like if the fire started in a car parked in the garage.  You transitional attack at that high point would be counting on steam conversion to exiguish a fire down low.  Unfortunately for that to be effective you need a relatively tight compartment and the garage already has the roof vented.  In my opinion, and I know you will disagree with me because that seems to be your reason for living, you would be chasing flames that were no where near the base of the fire if you hit that fire at the top of the garage door. 

 

There is plenty of research that shows that a factor that you ignore is a primary cause of heat, smoke, and fire spread.  The FDNY is currently conducting experiments in how to handle that very problem.  That factor is the exponentially higher heat produced by modern contents fires compared to legacy contents fires.  The best way to stop that fire spread is to get water on the seat of the fire as quickly as possible, regardless of whether or not the interior door is substantial, flimsy, or open.

WOW Ben!  Thanks for telling me the FDNY is conducting tests.  Like anyone in the fire service that pays attention doesn't know that.

And again, spraying water high at flames like those at the top of the garage door does not put water on the seat of the fire and is a moth to the flame method of firefighting.  The seat of the fire is rarely located at the ceiling, and I doubt it is here either.  So repeating over and over to hit the seat of the fire, while spraying water into the overhead is really kind of silly on your part.

 

UL did extensive testing that supports the contention that hitting visible, flashed-over fire from the exterior BEFORE putting firefighters inside is a likely Best Practice, given modern fuels and their extreme heat production.  The UL testing also debunks the theory of "pushing fire" from the exterior, as there was no heat increase in the interior exposure rooms.

And many veterans firefighters will tell you that depsite those tests they have SEEN with their own eyes fires pushed by hose streams.  Transitional attack is nothing knew, we were doing that way back in the 70's when I started in this business.  Although we didn't call it transitional attack back then.

First you talk about flimsy doors and interior fire spread, then the door is open, then your garages have no mandoors or windows, then the vent hole is too small, but then it is woking fine, then spray water at the top of the garage door to hit the seat of the fire, then you ramble off into transitional attacks and FDNY testing. 

By the way, why is my saying most garages here have windows and doors talking only locally, when you say your garages typically don't have either is so worldly?  It seems ind of hypocritical to say I can't talk about what I experience and you can.   Maybe that is your definition of wordly. 

 

You don't even need to mask up to hit this fire from the exterior.  In the video, a short attack through the open top of the garage door, killing the seat of the fire, then moving the same line a few feet to the front door was a viable tactic without ANY roof ventilation or hunting an exterior man door or window into the garage, then moving the line to another side of the building.  The other alternative to carry out your preferred method is two hoselines, which means either waiting on the 2nd due engine or going interior without cooling the seat of the fire - both worse options than killing the garage fire from the exterior then moving inside with the same line.

Tell me again how spraying water at the top of the door, ceiling area kills the seat of the fire?  Frankly. that is nonsense and even you know it.  The only way that could occur would be with massive steam production and the vent hole prevents that. 

If you have to wait for any significant time to get a second line in operation then your plan of attack makes sense.  On my career FD first and second arriving apparatus arrive within minutes of each other and often almost simultaneously.  On my POC FDs we carry enough in the first out engine to lay 2 attack lines.  So time isn't an issue.

So you go interior with no back up line?  No 2 in 2 out?  I see... 

 

You also used a local example (the departments of which you are a member) in an attempt to claim that you maintain a wider view...while ignoring my comment about the World Wide Web that we're using here. Apparently, you have confused your Wisconsin Wide Web with that other one.  My view is wider than that - national and international-level interest and study into building construction differences, fuel loading differences, etc.  Your view may be fine for your departments, but extrapolating them more widely and then acting shocked that there are things you haven't seen doesn't say "wide view" to the observer.

You presume far too much, and falsely.  But if that helps you sleep at night go ahead.  Your view of me is inconsequential and I won't lose a second of sleep over it.

 

As far as some of the departments in your area not having piercing nozzles, according to your earlier personal attacks on Bob in the Exterior Firefighter Certification debate,  you should be castigating them for not being dedicated enough to get the piercing nozzles instead of defending them.  Apparently, you have a double standard when you compare Wisconsin to Louisiana or South Carolina.

There is NO requirement, NFPA or ISO, to carry a piercing nozzle.  It really is that simple.  if the FDs have decided they need other things more then that is where the money went.  Heck Ben, my career FD doesn't carry any piercing nozzles.  You want to bad mouth them too? 

 

You also used a logical fallacy - The Appeal to Authority - in an attempt to use yourself as a source of expertise.  That's silly - you're using the "Because I Said So" argument, which is meaningless.  If your points are correct, they will stand on their own merits.  Your reaching for personal credentials is evidence that your points can't stand on their own merit.  If they did, you wouldn't be making up that little persecution complex that you seem to have and that doesn't exist anywhere but in your own head.

As you have done for most of this squabble.  The difference is I clearly said there were different ways to fight this fire and I said your tactics are what you are more familiar with and mine are what I am more familiar with.  But you seem determined to try and beat me down with your BS and lies about what I said.

 

This discussion isn't about your imaginary points.  It's about learning, and it's about being open-minded.  You claim to be interested in learning, but when I hear "I've never seen that" and similar comments in response to things outside your comfort zone, your examples don't seem to back up your claims.

Your mind is so closed that I am wondering why I bother to respond to you. 

I never said I was outside my comfort zone.  I merely stated that in MY area the norm is fire rated doors.  You took immediate offense to that and have run with it like a dog with his ball.

Have a nice day Ben...I really think you need to kick back and relax you seem awfully high strung.  I imagine you as the cartoon with the guy saying "I can't go to bed honey because someone is wrong on the internet."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on July 15, 2012 at 4:22pm

That was nothing but imaginary B.S. from beginning to end. 

 

I noticed that you bravely ducked my direct questions and any connection of them to fire behavior - you know, the thing that is actually under discussion.

 

It's pretty childish for you to make riducule links to evidence that supports a position,  That's especially true when the ridicule comes from someone who has demonstrated the inability to obtain supporting evidence from any link or anything other than his personal opinion.  In other words, it's all in your head, just like that persecution complex.   If you can't organize a coherent, unconfused thought here, that's not my fault.

Your inability to discern the difference between a paraphrase and dishonesty is also noted.  BTW, that statement is libelous.  I've never accused you of lying and I've never lied about anything you've said.  Now if you could just post something like a coherent thought, maybe you wouldn't confuse yourself along the way, too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on July 15, 2012 at 4:32pm

Ben I never said anything about the garage door opening or not opening at 00:40.  Please quote me and show me where I did.

Your lying about what I said or didn't say is growing tiresome.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on July 15, 2012 at 4:38pm

Yeah, right.  The homeowner is going to spend extra money to eliminate a solid door and replace it with some non-code el-cheapo, especially in a place that requires the code-rated door.

 

Let me guess, you see this all the time where you work?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on July 15, 2012 at 5:09pm

Here's the cut and paste:

"Yes Ben, I did watch the video.  Look at the video AGAIN and look at about minute 1:26 and you will see that 2 FFs attempt to open the door.  Once they get it open part way the fire takes off.  The truly amazing thing is watch what happens when the door closes again.  The fire coming out the top of the door drops off again and blows harder out of the vent hole.  It isn't until the top panels actutally burn through that the fire blows out the garage door hard again."

You've insisted that your version is the correct interpretation of this video from the beginning.  Your claim about the garage door being opened by the FD at the 1:26 mark is after you missed (or ignored) the firefighter who opened the door at 0:40 proves that your version isn't accurate.  Bottom line - your claim about the sequence is incorrect.  Play word games with "I never said that" if you want, but it's obvious that you insisted on what happened at 1:26 being the key element when it's equally obvious that the garage door opening attempts started at 0:40.

And you wonder why my first comment was "Did you actually watch the video?" ????

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on July 15, 2012 at 5:14pm

You are also putting words in my mouth with your bogus question about me supposedly changing my mind about the vent hole being adequately sized.  I've never said anything but the obvious - it wasn't adequate, or the vent crew would never have had to attempt a second hole.

 

Let me guess, now you're going to accuse me of B.S. or lying because I pointed out where you tried to put words in my mouth.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on July 15, 2012 at 6:55pm

You just can't help yourself can you Ben?  You just love to argue regardless of whether it has any real benefit to the discussion.

 

Apparently, either it happens all the time where you live, or the code doesn't exist, or your building inspectors suck and miss that in the pre-occupancy inspection.  You are the one claiming that the door between the garage and the house is cardboard like, not me...

 

Just asking, since you are so worldly, even been in a business where they breached a firewall to make access to the building next door?  Even seen that hole covered when a new occupant took residency and they covered it with non-rated materials?  I have and it damn near cost a neighboring city an entire block.  My point was so simple that I thought even YOU would get it.  Once a home owner takes residency they can do whatever they want to the inside of that home and unless we go there for a call, or they want to sell the home, no one will ever know what codes they violated.  AND YES, that does happen frequently.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on July 15, 2012 at 7:03pm

Sorry I disagree.  Property conservation, as well as life safety of the residents, calls for the first line to go interior to the door that comes into the house.  If the fire has breached the interior the garage is of little consequence.

AGAIN, explain how you are coming close to the seat of the fire spraying water in at the top of a garage door that is 7 or 8 feet off the floor.  All you will do is knock those flames back at that height but you will most assuredly NOT hit the seat of the fire.  Again the vent hole will pull any steam produced up and out and not allow it to do much smothering or oxygen displacement.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on July 15, 2012 at 7:09pm

Actually you did say that the quick transitional attack you call for would not push steam, heat, or smoke into the living area because the vent hole would take care of that.  So apprently at that point you thought it was adequate...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on July 15, 2012 at 7:17pm

You're confusing two obviously different things - unsurprising.

 

The vent hole was NOT adequate for the actual tactics used in the video.

It WOULD have been adequate if they had quickly put water on the garage fire with a transitional attack.  It's not just about the vent hole - it's about the big picture.

 

Once again the big picture escapes you - still unsurprising.

 

I also noticed that you ducked any comment on your doing exactly the same thing you accused me of on this topic - your double standards are appalling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on July 15, 2012 at 7:56pm

Fire Behavior 101 - Heat rises.  That is obvious in the video from the fire rolling out of the garage door opening and the eventual roof vent hole.

 

It's easy to aim a solid stream into a 6 or 8-inch opening from the partially-open garage door.  The water will take care of the flashover, and if the nozzleman knows what he is doing, the water will bounce off the roof, disperse, and stop the fuel pyrolysis.  I've done it and I've seen it done - in several departments in at least four different states. 

 

With the volume of fire in the garage, the small vent hole will vent some of the steam, but it won't vent it all at once.  That will help stop the flashover. 

 

Either way, that will make things a lot more tenable for the interior team, since the alternative is to have them face high heat pushed by flashover. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on July 15, 2012 at 8:07pm

Pointing out silly "what-if's" has benefit to the discussion.   Your idea that people are going to replace a solid door with a flimsy one, and that you missed the obvious point that they'd have to pay for the new door when they could just leave the original one in place at no cost - is silly.

 

I didn't claim that the door between THIS house and the garage IS cardboard, I said I've seen houses where that was the case.  In the places I discussed, they had no fire code, because the local government didn't adopt one.  As usual, you are putting words in my mouth, and once again doing exactly what you claim I do.  Don't you get tired of your appalling double standards?

Don't you get tired of your simpleminded insistance that every point I make must somehow be about where I currently live? 

 

I've already pointed out to you that I've worked in several states and run mutual aid calls in several others.  The codes and building practices where I live do not limit what I've seen earlier in my career in other states, nor does it limit my observations when I travel or when I do basic research on the World Wide Web.  I've also been on the job long enough to have seen several versions of Frank Brannigan's and Tom Brennan's building construction presentations, with all of the oddities and modifications they saw in their extensive careers.  As stated, I don't limit my thinking to my comfort zone or to my current local situation.

 

Once again, the Wisconsin Wide Web seems to have let you down.

 

I've seen all kinds of owner alterations in buildings from SFDs to strip malls and big boxes - some according to code, some not, and a few actually exceeding the code.  

 

If the homeowners in your area are really removing solid, fire-rated doors and spending the money to replace them with flimsy, non-code doors, then your area must be populated by people with no sense of economic rationality. 

 

My point was simple, but I was pretty sure that you wouldn't get it and that you'd have some thin-skinned reaction to having the obvious pointed out to you. 

Unsurprisingly, that's exactly what occurred.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page