Dear MIJ (whoever you are),
There is nothing wrong with questioning what’s in NFPA 921, or what’s not in 921 and should be there. Everyone of the more than 200 public and committee proposals from the current cycle did just that.
There is something wrong with doing so and not offering or seeking a solution. NFPA 921 does not exist to chide the unworthy, though the unworthy feel that it does. 921 exists to save lives, not only from the threat of fire, but also from the rare, but very real threat of being executed for a crime, not only which you did not commit, but never really was a crime in the first place.
So just saying that 921 can never be a standard because it is incomplete, without any real attempt to fix the perceived problem, neither leads, follows, nor gets out of the way. It is just nay saying. If one is not part of solution, they are not only part of the problem they are the problem - The exact problem which was the original subject of this strand.
As for “pour patterns” – I say use them – IF anyone can find any credible, scientific research to support such a methodology. By the way, if anyone can reference such research they should bring it to the fire investigation science community, either by submitting such research in a proposal to NFPA 921 or publishing a research paper in the accepted, peer-reviewed fire investigation literature. As of now, the NFPA has been unable to find such a methodology which supports the use of “pour patterns” (based simply on pattern morphology without other reliable supporting data). This is clearly expressed in NFPA 921 section 6.17.8.2 Irregular Patterns.
Pat Kennedy, CFEI, CFPS, MIFireE
Fire and Explosion Analyst
Sarasota, Florida
[
www.kennedy-fire.com]