First Arriving Network
Powered by the First Arriving Network,Reaching 1M+ First Responders Worldwide

Raw video: Commercial & residential fire in Whiting, Indiana.

Are you keeping up with on Facebook? You will find more fire & EMS news & videos by clicking here & choosing “like”.

Video above from og9898 and below from Christy Matczak Boyle of a fire that started late this afternoon on 119th Street at Sheridan in Whiting, Indiana. The building where the fire began housed Lubia’s Dresses and Events shop and apartments on the  upper floors.

Firefighters continued to fight a fire at a three-story building on 119th Street in Whiting at 7 p.m. Sunday. The fire stubbornly resisted firefighters on the building’s upper floors.

Whiting Fire Chief Gus Danielides said nobody was injured in the fire.

Spectators gathered in downtown Whiting to watch the blaze, which started about 5 p.m. and engulfed all three floors and spread to the back of the building, said Christian Loza, who was watching the fire from the nearby Sunrise Cafe.

Do you want to sell a rig? Click HERE to find out how with



Comments - Add Yours

  • Mack Seagrave

    Reserve fog nozzles for trash, brush and vehicle fires. This video once again illustrates how fog streams are totally ineffective on structures that are heavily involved in fire. Firefighting streams must penetrate to the seat of the fire to have any effect. Fog streams vaporize before they even enter the structure.

    • Cappy

      Really Mack??
      A two hour education on smoothbore verses fog nozzle reach and penetration comparisons is availiable on the internet. Respectfully suggest you do some reading on the subject and discover for youself something counter to what I was taught many years ago. Yea… yea… I know is sounds a little strange.. but I bought that whole line and sinker 30 years ago when we were told that’s how it was and did’nt question it anymore. The data is out there. Smooth bore firestreams…. especially smoothbore masterstreams have not… repeat not…been demonstrated to have any more “reach” or “penetration” by and large than masterstream straightstream firestreams produced by fog nozzles under the same flow conditions. The precieved reach and penetration advantages of smoothbores are far and away a misconception in the vast majority of fireground applications. Some taskforce tip independant field tests have proven this several times. Look at some data (not much out there) measuring the reach and penetration comparisons and you’ll be surprised if still from the school of smoothbore only for theses types of firestream application.By the way.. if conducting your own evaluation during a drill or other opportunity… make sure you are comparing the same flows and not pressures. It’s all about flow/application rate to absorb the btu anyway right?

      • Mack Seagrave

        Task Force Tips (nozzle manufacturer) sent a video around to fire dept’s all over the country years ago in which they stated that smoothbore nozzles were only a viable choice for big city F.D.’s that had lot’s of staffing. Of course that theory makes no sense as a smoothbore only requires 50 psi at the tip as opposed to fog nozzles which to this day most require 70 or 100 psi at the tip for proper GPM’s amking the smoothbore a good choice for departments that are faced with limited personnel for hoseline teams. As far as my statement that, “Firefighting streams must penetrate to the seat of the fire to have any effect. Fog streams vaporize before they even enter the structure.” I stand behind it 100% and would never have made it unless I knew it to be so. BTW Cappy, watch some fire scene video of massive fires with large thermal updraft that are being attacked by a combination of master streams equiopped with fog tips as well as some equipped with smoothbores. You will see that the straight stream from the fog tip actually makes a 90 degree turn when it reaches the thermal updraft and harmlessly turns to steam whereas the solid stream from the smoothbore penetrates directly into the main body of fire. Rather than to listen to manufacturer sales pitches, I (along with my Brother Firefighters) always did our own hands on testing of equipment. Sommthbores were always our nozzle of choice for both offensive (interior) structural attack as well as for Defensive (exterior) attack with great success. We reserved fog nozzles for trash, brush and car fires as well as haz mat decon. Thanks for responding to my statement and providing your point of view Cappy. Stay safe Brother.

        • cappy

          I’m redoubling my research on this topic and hope to share some finer points with you soon. Thank you for your info in the reply.
          Interesting perspective on a wide variety of topics. That’s one among many reasons I view this site nearly every day. Thanks for what you do Dave. Keep on keeping it fresh and real. Still looking for more info on the “Bumper Turret” concept… of course excluding the wildland application… for average engine co. fire suppression ops in the built environment. lol

          • CHAOS

            A lot of us are still looking for that “bumper turret” info, including anyone who has used it, preferrably with some success, on structure fires.

            As far as the fog vs smoothbore thing, I understand that many folks will continue to use fog nozles on interior attack, claiming that the droplets convert and extinguish in a contained area. I can’t understand why anyone would think that the same philosophy would work in an opened-up building, master-stream operation.

    • Fire21

      Fog nozzles give a firefighter options with which to work, from straight stream to wide fog. It takes training and experience to know which pattern to use when. Knowledgable firefighters can use fog nozzles as much or more effectively than a smooth bore nozzle. Smooth bores have their place, and again, it takes training and experience to use one well.

      Both nozzles have their place. It seems that personal (or command) choice is what determines which we use.

  • Fire21

    That’s a lot of fire for a city of 5000 (2011 census). If I’d been running the aerial, I think I’d have lowered it down and tried to get some penetration through the windows. But then, there was nothing to save except exposures when the videos started.

  • Harry Rampe

    Do not know what ther water supply is like,but put away the small ineffective lines and go to master streams.Maybe even a bumper turret.

  • 2w5

    set up the collapse zone

  • Tree 1

    I live an in the area and am a firefighter. Initial staging of tower was directly in front of building. Windows blew out and up she went, so they had to move the first tower. Agree with you that they should have used more deck guns. Problem is they have five guys on the shift! Three on the pumper and two on truck. Wonderful mayor has cut way back! I am intrigued on your knowledge of straigt bore vere fog pattern nozzle. I learned something today. When you get a fre this hot, you need lots of water – Deck guns. To me it didn’t matter if it was straight bore or fog, they needed more volume for a fire this intense!

    • dave statter

      Tree 1,

      You can be immediately banned from this site for an attitude like that. You are supposed to be indignant and defensive. If you are really good you will say something insulting about the heritage of anyone who tries to suggest they do it differently. But never, ever admit that you learned something from someone else on this site. I don’t think that has ever happened before and we certainly don’t want to be setting any precedents.


  • Crowbar

    Sarcasm, another service Dave provides. ;-)