Even though this topic has been given far more attention than it deserved, here I am...

In my view, the fault should lie squarely with the club owners for not having a sprinkler system installed when the 'restaurant' was converted to a 'nightclub', then installing highly flamable packing material as sound proofing material and then allowing (not discouraging) pyrotechnics to occur. From what I read about the investigation, the difference in flamability and cost of each material are drastically different, despite their similarity in appearance.

But you wanted links as proof, so...

The National Fire Protection AgencyThe National Fire Protection Agency's case study report on Nightclub Fires, where the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (Chapter 13) clearly states:

NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, addresses pyrotechnics in existing assembly occupancies, as well as referencing NFPA 1126, Standard for the Use of Pyrotechnics Before a Proximate Audience, in Chapter 13 on Existing Assembly Occupancies.

Chapter 13 Existing Assembly Occupancies

13.7.2 Open Flame Devices and Pyrotechnics. No open flame devices or pyrotechnic devices shall be used in any assembly occupancy, unless otherwise permitted by the following:

(1) Pyrotechnic special effect devices shall be permitted to be used on stages before proximate audiences for ceremonial or religious purposes, as part of a demonstration in exhibits, or as part of a performance, provided that both of the following are met:
(a) Precautions satisfactory to the authority having jurisdiction are taken to prevent ignition of any combustible material.
(b) Use of the pyrotechnic device complies with NFPA 1126 , Standard for the Use of Pyrotechnics before a Proximate Audience.

A similar requirement is also located in NFP A 1, Uniform Fire Code (1:20.1.4.2)[/size]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) web site contains an in-depth study done by their Building and Fire Research Laboratory containing, in great detail, the various physical testing and computer simulations to study the cause and effect of the start of the fire.

Given those two official agencies' findings, there is no other proof necessary to determine where the liability was in this tragedy, therefore:

Jack Russell should NOT have to apologize to anyone... EVER!

Debbie

_________________________________________________________
Whatever, it's all just meaningless drivel anyway...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2013 05:24PM by RockerChic.