Jump to content

Talk:Charleston Sofa Super Store fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename?

[edit]

The current article name, with the words not capitalized, implies a generic event instead of a specific event, as in "this is a Charleston furniture warehouse fire, and not the Charleston furniture warehouse fire. However, without the store name or date in the title, if there were ever another notable warehouse fire in or around Charleston, there would be a need for disambiguation. I am considering - even though it might sound a little cheesy - renaming this article Charleston Super Sofa Store Fire. Comments? Other ideas? Fjbfour 07:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Charleston furniture warehouse fire of 2007? MoodyGroove 12:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
I went with Charleston Sofa Super Store Fire as it clearly states where the fire occurred and is not very ambiguous. The more I looked at the old name the more I felt it wasn't right to leave it with the generic title. Fjbfour 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, nice catch, MoodyGroove. ("Fire"="fire"). Sorry about that. Fjbfour 19:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BP Next Door

[edit]

It was removed from the article that the reason so many fire fighters were immediately called to a "simply warehouse fire" was because it was next door to the BP gas station. I do not understand why this is considered unimportant. If it wasn't for the gas station being next door, there would have been far less fire fighters called to the scene and the entire situation would have likely been different - likely worse. -- (¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 16:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing simple about a large furniture warehouse with a metal truss roof burning during business hours. I seriously doubt the dispatch center questioned the calling party about whether or not there were any gas stations in the area. It's easy to shut down fuel pumps. Do you have a source to back up this claim? MoodyGroove 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
It is fine with me if we don't want the article to be accurate. Just know that it is currently vague to the point of being incorrect about the deployment of fire teams on the scene and what they did. -- (¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is inaccurate? And where are you getting your information? MoodyGroove 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
As I said, the article is "vague" to the point of implying inaccurate information. My information comes from watching the firetrucks show up while I was pumping gas at the BP and then being held across the street since the blocked off the road I needed to go down to get home. This article (as well as all of the news articles I've read) cover the events from the collapse to the end well, but fail to explain the details from the first car arriving (just after 7:00) to the collapse (around 7:30). It was not an immediate engulfing fire. We didn't immediately have hundreds of firefighters on the scene. But, there were 3 stations that I noticed (due to the numbers on the trucks being different from one another) called in. When they got there, they said they needed to get the hoses pulled between the warehouse and the gas station so the fire couldn't spread there. Then, they pulled the hoses between the warehouse and the car lot on the other side. Then, they started going into the showroom in front of the warehouse. Then, after all of that, the flames were visible through the smoke and they just spiraled nearly straight up in the air. Nothing before 7:30 gave any implication that there would be trouble. It looked like they would just keep hosing down the surrounding buildings and let it burn out. Then, without warning, a wall of hot ash flew across the street and the entire scene changed. From that point on, all of the articles I've read cover what happened very well. -- (¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Kainaw, you had one view of the incident, and you were a bystander. That doesn't make you an expert on fire behavior or fireground operations. The last thing we need to do is put unsourced speculation into this article. The NIOSH report will eventually come out and we'll have some definitive information about what happened. In the meantime, if you have something you'd like to add to the article, then the burden is on you to provide a reliable source. By the way, inflammatory comments like "is fine with me if we don't want the article to be accurate" go against the spirit of the Wikipedia. There are at least two firefighters editing this article right now, and I promise, we want the article to be accurate. MoodyGroove 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
That's fine. Alter the article how you like. I know that the importance is on the death of the firefighters and not how the fire started. You are the one who went after me to start by claiming that it didn't didn't begin as a simple warehouse fire. That is the problem with all of the news I see on this. It all claims that it immediately started as a huge inferno. That is not remotely true. But, that is apparently what everyone wants to read, so fine. In the "spirit of Wikipedia", give the people what they want. -- (¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the fire didn't begin as a simple warehouse fire, I said there's nothing simple about a fire in a large warehouse with a metal truss roof. So please stop being a penis. The article says "Firefighters arrive and attack a fire burning in a covered loading dock area between the showroom and warehouse buildings. They find no fire inside of either building." So what is your problem? MoodyGroove 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
I stated my problem in the very first comment. I made two points: The Sofa Super Store is very close (about 20 feet) away from underground gas tanks that are covered with manholes that have large holes in them so the attendant can measure the remaining gas in the tank without removing the cover. Also, the first responders were not, as usual, the local station. It was at least three stations. Now, read your reply: Fire isn't a threat to a gas station. There was no dumpster fire - it was a blaze in a warehouse from the start. If you simply don't agree that they called at least three stations because of the proximity to the gas tanks, that is fine. Don't start in with statements about fire not being a threat to a gas station and then act as though I'm the one being a penis. -- (¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would you know what's usual for the City of Charleston Fire Department? It's obvious you have no concept of what a typical first alarm should be for a structure fire, let alone a structure fire in a huge furniture warehouse. I wouldn't expect a cardiothoracic surgeon to argue with me about heart surgery, and I'm not going to argue with you about firefighting. MoodyGroove 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
OK. I finally found one article that covers the first 30 minutes, so I used it as a reference to remove the implication that all the trucks showed up right away. I'll just ignore the whole argument about how flammable a gas station can be. -- (¿ʇɐɥʍ) ʍɐuıɐʞ 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested the trucks all showed up at the same time. They almost never do, due to traffic, distance from the scene, and so on. The complete time line will eventually be released by the investigators or officials from the City of Charleston, and the NIOSH report will eventually give every detail of what went wrong. The Newsweek article you provided does not say that Engine 11 and Ladder 5 were the only two units dispatched in the first alarm. "Barrineau ordered firefighters from two stations to respond to the scene. Engine 11 was one of them [...] Another truck, Ladder 5, also headed out." Based on the fact that Engine 10 arrived 3 minutes after Engine 11, it's pretty obvious that Engine 10 was also a part of the first alarm. You're making assumptions, and your assumptions are not improving the accuracy of the article. MoodyGroove 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
If anyone wants to see the footprint for the warehouse and adjacent structures, see this diagram and this interactive aerial photograph at The Post and Courier. You can see the fill covers for the underground LP gas storage tanks in the rear of the BP station, well away from the furniture warehouse. The underground storage tanks hold a lot of fuel, but they are underground, not compressed, and will generally not explode, as the vapor space is capped and locked when 1.) the dipstick is not being used to measure the amount of fuel in the tank or 2.) the tank is not being filled or otherwise serviced. (Do you really believe anyone wants water in the fuel? The fuel to evaporate? Hazardous vapors in the area? Someone to sabotage thousands of dollars worth of fuel? Dispensing fuel is highly regulated by state and federal law.) Once the remote emergency shut-off valve to the pumps is activated -- as it almost certainly was as soon as it was evident there was a large fire next door -- a gas station is about as flammable as any other similarly built structure. MoodyGroove 19:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
"Station No. 10 off Savannah Highway, known to firefighters as the Five and Dime because it's the home of Ladder 5 and Engine 10" - "Fallen Firefighters," The Post and Courier, June 20, 2007. Clearly it's premature to suggest that Engine 11 and Ladder 5 were the first alarm, absent an explicit reference to that effect. I'm making some changes. MoodyGroove 14:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

You do realize that Engine 11 is walking distance to the Sofa Super Store, right? In fact, I just had breakfast there this morning and walked home (one block behind the Sofa Super Store). The address is 1517 Savannah Hwy (if you want to look it up). Engine 10 is at 1 Nicholson St, which is right off Savannah Hwy. It is normally about a 10 minute drive away. With sirens, they could make the drive in a good 5 minutes after leaving the station. The other station that arrived rather quickly is off Ashley Hall Plantation Rd. -- Kainaw(what?) 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That proves nothing. Engine 10 could have been out in the district. Your additions to the timeline were speculative and implied that Engine 11 and Ladder 5 were the only units dispatched in the first alarm. It might be true, but your reference did not support it. I have not yet seen any reliable source that gives details about the first alarm. If you have some additional proof, then present it. MoodyGroove 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
Talk about speculation! Engine 10 was out in the district? You also speculate that the BP gas station has locked covers on the tanks (which they don't - they have open holes in them so the clerk doesn't have to open anything to put the measuring rod in them). Engine 11 arrived first - within minutes of the dispatch call. Engine 10 followed right behind. As for your article about the "five and dime" - that is terribly inaccurate. Ladder 5 was not (and currently is not) at station 10. It used to be there, but not now. As I've said many times, put whatever you like in the article. You obviously know more than anyone else. How do you explain that the side of the building next to the BP did not burn and the furniture on that side was wet and smoke filled, but not burned? -- Kainaw(what?) 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Underground storage tanks are not left open. That is false and easily disproven. Lift up a few covers next time you're at a gas station. When you do, depending on what cover you open, you'll find a capped fill port with overflow reservoir, a small dirt chamber with a pump and an electronic shut-off switch, or cover you can't open because it's a bolted down inspection cap. The hole in the cover is so you can put your finger in and pull off the cover. It's not for the dipstick. I don't claim to know more than anyone, but it's clear I know more than you about this particular topic, which isn't saying much. Most content disputes are easily handled if an editor is willing to provide evidence in the form of reliable sources. So I say it again. Your additions to the timeline were speculative and implied that Engine 11 and Ladder 5 were the only units dispatched in the first alarm. It might be true, but your reference did not support it. I have not yet seen any reliable source that give details about the first alarm. If you have some additional proof, then present it. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. MoodyGroove 19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
I just got back from a week-long business trip without web access, sorry I'm late to the party.
Kainaw, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have positive intentions. At the same time, I ask you to do the same for us. For the record, I removed a mention of the gas station from the article very early on. I don't know (or care) if it was you that had put it in before, but it went away because it was materially irrelevant. MoodyGroove and I are firefighters, and I can assure you that we both want this article to be as accurate and complete as possible, with as much verifiable information as possible, and with a minimum (read: no) speculation. We both know there is much more to the story. From our own personal experience and training between us we could accurately draw many conclusions from the events as reported so far, but we will be patient and wait for the official report. I find your accusatory tone somewhat insulting, but assuming a positive intention I will simply ask you if you think that we have some sort of agenda against your gas station or your perceived threats of fires near gas stations. Hollywood portrayals aside, gas stations aren't all that dangerous, and certainly it played no role in this fire except as a nearby exposure that needed protection no different than any other structural exposure. No, there is no agenda. We're not hiding or suppressing anything. We're shepherding the article so it remains as factual as possible.
If you got tired of reading my long rambly response, I'll sum up: If it cannot be independently verified, if it contains unproven assumptions, if it is primarily point-of-view in nature, it does not belong in the article. I think you already know this, so I won't elaborate. Thanks. Fjbfour 02:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my initial statement, I simply pointed out that it had been removed and pointed out why I thought it was a useful statement. MoodyGroove came back a condescending comment - which is what I had a problem with. I am more than happy to have people disagree. I don't like the condescending tone from MoodyGroove, regardless of what he has to say. -- Kainaw(what?) 14:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Note

[edit]

In the area of the memorial, there is a comment about Mayor Riley not accepting outside assistance in the memorial. The print media should be catching up with the local news by now. For the last week, Riley has repeated that he plans to continue with a small memorial at the scene of the fire, but make the main memorial in a park by his West Ashley Park Circle (or whatever he's calling it these days). This is drawing criticism that he is using the tragedy to get people to back his park project that has had very little support for the last two years.

Now, for what I found in print media. this is a watered down take on what Riley has been saying. The Sofa Super Store is in a high-traffic area right off a congested road, so it is not a serene place for a memorial. His park project would be more serene. He still plans to make the memorial off 17 (for at least $2 million), but wants to funnel money into his park project also. Now, I'll have to find time to look through articles from last year where he was pushing the park idea and couldn't get support. Since it is "speculation" to say he is using the memorial to increase support for a park idea that wasn't supported, being able to say it wasn't supported and he is now planning the memorial idea for the park will allow readers to speculate all they like. -- Kainaw(what?) 17:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of the Memorial Display

[edit]

Anyone want a photo of the memorial display before it is taken down? I can get a shot later today. Also, I was in the warehouse area yesterday. All photos I've seen are from the Savannah Hwy. The warehouse is in back, behind a wood fence. I can get a photo of that side. It is very dramatic because the roof is completely collapsed on that side. Another photo that I feel shows how weird the fire was is the north side of the building (adjacent to the BP station). There is smoke damage, but the building is intact and there is still furniture visible through the windows. I don't want to junk up the page with a bunch of unwanted photos, but I'm happy to get any that are wanted since I walk past the building every day. -- Kainaw(what?) 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think photos of the scene before the warehouse is torn down would be a welcome addition to the article. We can add a photo gallery at the bottom of the article, if necessary. MoodyGroove 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
I verified that pictures from inside the police barrier are not allowed to be released. So, I gathered some of the reasonably nice photos (I am not a photographer) that I have and that are clearly from outside the police barrier. Please feel free to remove (and nominate for deletion) any pictures that are a waste of Wikipedia's space. I figure that adding too many and having it trimmed is better than not adding enough.
My idea was to show the damage of the showroom and warehouse alongside the lack of damage to the neighboring buildings. It is a rather tight area. Also, I don't know why I like it, but I always smile when I walk past the north end and see the furniture still sitting in the showroom window.
Just a side note: Dispatch radioed that city council approved the purchase of the lot this afternoon and is expected to work on the budget for the memorial next. -- Kainaw(what?) 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent photos, thanks very much Kainaw. Fjbfour 03:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

I don't have time to update it now, but this article from The Post and Courier derives a timeline from the dispatch tapes released under the Freedom of Information Act. MoodyGroove 13:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

  • I took a stab at it. It could probably still use some refining, but it is quite a bit different in some places than the original timeline, so it is definitely an improvement. I had hoped this month's issue of Firehouse would have more details, but it had no mention.... I guess they are waiting to do a full and complete (and correct) report, which in the end will probably offer better info than the P&C. We'll see. Fjbfour 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The web-version of that article is missing a lot of the times that were in the printed version of it. If my wife hasn't tossed out the Sunday paper, I'll get them tonight. I need to check on Ladder 5 again. According to the board as Station 11, Ladder 5 was on rotation out of Station 10. But, it responded with Engine 10 - implying that it was at Station 10. It isn't a big deal, but I do remember seeing Ladder 5 pull in shortly after Engine 11. Also, the paper notes that the St. Andrews engines came without being called in, which explains why I never heard them dispatched. I figured I stopped listening to the radio or just couldn't hear because there was a lot of calls stepping on each other. -- Kainaw(what?) 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following are the times that appear to be missing from the web-version of the article, but are in the print version (I may simply be overlooking them):

  • 7:09pm: Engine 11 responds behind the warehouse, but quickly decides to relocate to the front of the warehouse (North end, near the BP station).
  • 7:12pm: Engine 10 (at south end by car lot) begins pumping water on the covered deck. Chief Garvin enters showroom and finds nothing of concern.
  • 7:17pm: Garvin calls for larger hose to handle fire inside the showroom.

The rest of the web-version appears to be rather similar. It omits the dispatch call when Engine 11 arrived calling for the St. Andrews engines to assist - which arrived at 7:19pm. -- Kainaw(what?) 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation Update

[edit]

It should be on some news sources by now that the fire doors did not function properly. It is highly likely that the fusible links did not work. -- Kainaw(what?) 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Congressmen comment" :
    • [http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jun/19/congressmen_brown_and_clyburn_honor_charleston_fir/ "Congressmen Brown and Clyburn honor the Charleston firefighters"], June 19, 2007. Accessed June 22, 2007.
    • [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070619-2.html "Congressmen Brown and Clyburn honor the Charleston firefighters"], June 19, 2007. Accessed June 22, 2007.

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nom

[edit]

I know this article has been pretty static for a while, but I think it's close enough to GA that it's worth nominating, and I'll take care of the associated copyediting, referencing, and cleanup. As always, others are welcome to hop in and help, too. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you in spirit, but unfortunately, this article is nowhere near ready because the Routley phase 2 report needs to be factored in (which is going to be a huge undertaking). It's here if you want to get started. Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
OK, de-nominated for now. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charleston Sofa Super Store fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charleston Sofa Super Store fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charleston Sofa Super Store fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charleston Sofa Super Store fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charleston_Sofa_Super_Store_fire&oldid=1206625889"