I agree, the test conducted by FM did show combustibles, at different locations, were ignited, but these incidents were not due to the rocketing aerosols causing what FM calls satellite fires. In the 24 test conducted, and with two being the most likely to produce this type of result, no secondary fires were started. In the two tests where it was expected that the secondary fires would occur I believe the contents of the containers were hair spray and paint. These contents are classified as level II and level III. The additional text describing the results of the two scenarios was, “In neither test were any satellite fires ignited, and in neither tests were any aerosol cans containing flaming aerosol contents propelled beyond the storage array to elsewhere in the test center. This fact suggests that the formation of satellite fires in a controlled aerosol fire scenario is at least somewhat unlikely, based on this limited data.”

There is no question these test took place in warehouse conditions. Their video of the test clearly show aerosols rocketing before sprinkler activation. The fact is none of these rocketing containers caused a secondary fire. Where you are correct with the conclusion stated as to their statement, additional text tends to indicate more of what one could expect to find after a fire where aerosols are involved. In their report they stated that in 11 small scale test, dealing with cans of paint, “a few flaming cans flew out from the platform, although most such rockets appeared to go out before they hit the ground.”

I do not disagree with those that say there will always be a possibility of this event taking place, but there are many factors that must be considered by the investigator before reaching a conclusion that it did take place. The first information that must be evaluated is the contents of the container. Based on the type of propellant being used and the type of product in the container the investigator should be able to start to develop a hypothesis as to the potential for this action causing a secondary fire. After learning the contents of the can then it would be necessary to determine the orientation of the can at the time of the failure. Along with this information one would need to know the location and type of failure that took place. Without this information to evaluate the only thing the investigator would have to support a conclusion as to a rocketing aerosol starting a secondary fire is speculation.

I believe that due to the different court rulings and the development of documents such as 921 investigators must have some data in support of their conclusions. If one were to say a secondary fire was caused by a rocketing aerosol, what supporting data would he or she need for this conclusion to be accepted.