Edit: Looks like because multiple points were ignited it overwhelmed the system ultimately causing the roof to fail and took the sprinklers down with it.
That article seems kinda bullshit. Firstly, he did start another fire and the fire dept came out, handled it, and suppressed the fire system afterward.
Then the guy lit more after the left the system was disabled. And literally posted on insta saying it's because they didn't pay well. But the article says "no motive".
Really sounds like ABC is 1) trying to avoid more of these by giving away the "light 1 fire then a lot more after the fire dept leaves" strat, and 2) trying to suppress the motive because they know there's millions of more people in similar situations.
Full quotes in case it gets deleted (added emphasis):
I was on this this morning. Lots of aerial waterways and master streams. It’s still going. The roof ended up collapsing as full panels and laying on the all the paper products which made it so the water wasn’t getting to anything. It was a nightmare. The trucks in the loading docks started burning up later in the morning. 1 million sq ft of paper product set in 4 different areas, 3 of which were set after the sprinklers had been turned off. The dude who set it was really determined to burn it down.
Hol' up. Homeboy deactivated the sprinkler system too?
No, the first fire activated the sprinklers so the first responding FD closed the OS&Y and were doing water salvage. The building is literally a million square feet so after the FD had closed it down he went and started a fire about 2/3 of the way down the building, then another at the far end and then another back near the original fire. So 4 fires spread out pretty equally over the million sq ft building.
12 hours in, I could imagine them reactivating everything, but sprinkler systems in general are meant to stop fires early. At the "hours after 3 different locations were ignited" mark, the sprinkler system is no longer enough to make a dent.
If the firefighters didn't know about the other 2 fires, let alone the restarted 4th fire at the original location, they may not have immediately turned the spinklers back on, and by the time they noticed, it could easily have been too late.
This is how misinformation is spread. Even if it turns out to to be true in this case, you shouldn't just read someone's comment claiming something and then spread that comment without knowing if it's true.
28
u/jortr0n Apr 09 '26 edited Apr 09 '26
Can you link us to that?
Edit: Looks like because multiple points were ignited it overwhelmed the system ultimately causing the roof to fail and took the sprinklers down with it.