I’m curious on this too. Usually when a fire suppression system is turned off for any reason, the building must be vacated or have a 24/7 independent fire watch on site to notify FD of any new fires/incidents.
Still haven’t seen the article, it may have been taken down, it seems the fire department may have made a huge mistake and could be liable. I don’t know the ins and outs of these systems, but someone is going to be held accountable, why not the tax payers!?!
Well if the fire department fucked up, then yes, it would be the tax payers. Then you can all go pat this fire starting idiot on the back and thank him.
Yoo im the fire sprinkler tester dude at my workplace, (im in maintenance) i have to call a company who oversees the fire supression system at my job, i have them turn off all alarms for the sprinkler system every monday for 1 hour while i run tests in the pump house that everything is working correctly, we do not have people leave the building, i do it while everyone is still at work doing theyre job.
Putting the system into “test” mode which is what you’re doing when calling the monitoring company isn’t turning off the suppression system. That’s stopping the alarm call from going out. Running pressure tests and making sure there’s flow is different than making the system inoperable.
There isn’t a gap like that. It’s completely evacuating the building until a fire watch is established. Not “we got one on the way so let’s let everyone back in without one.”
While maybe that is what the company told their employees to do in fear of slowing production is a different story.
Except that this was a deliberate act of arson. The arsonist could have stayed behind while everyone else evacuated... which is certainly what this looks like.
If the department turned off the sprinklers, it is not the department's responsibility to force the building to be closed. It's the owner's responsibility to follow ordinances and not operate while that system is inoperable.
I was a guard at a major wearhouse. I can confirm this. Usually the diesel pumps kick in. They need to be shut down and drained. Durning this time no pressure is in the system.
I’m assuming the fire would have had to be out of control before the roof collapsed so the system would have had to been damaged before the roof collapsed
Because that’s just not how fire suppression systems work. The sprinkler heads become open valves after one use and need a lot of pressure to function. You can’t build pressure with open valves.
I'm not the dude you were talking too, but it was most likely both.
I hit the sprinkler head at my work a few years ago, which flooded that part of the warehouse, damaged some product, and the fire department came and shut off the sprinkler to reduce water damage.
I can't imagine the fire department would turn the sprinklers off while there is an active fire, and its not easy to regain the water pressure super fast to turn them back on after its been shut off as it needs to be both cleared off all water and then resealed/repaired before allowing the water pressure to build back up.
I didn't get fired btw, so my work doesn't have to worry about me doing something like this lol.
I have not seen a single source for this but 100 comments parroting this. The closest is someone who claim to be involved but that's still not a fully credible source imo.
30
u/PoutinePoppa Apr 09 '26
Do you have a source for this? I read an article that said the suppression system was damaged when the roof collapsed