90 more seconds.
A gentle wind blowing from the opposite direction.
That is all that made the difference between our house being the and one house was severely damaged vs. one of the houses that were destroyed in all the news reports.
Well, it would be if any of the news reports were correct. Even individual reports started out claiming that 3 houses were destroyed with a paragraph or two later claiming that a bulldozer arrived to tear down the two houses that were destroyed with one house receiving cosmetic damage (Uh… that my house’s entire electrical subsystem is melted and the laundry room is a black pit of doom doesn’t seem cosmetic).
Here are some facts. This is not a complete set, but merely a set of facts that are all quite directly addressed at the wild inaccuracies in the press:
- 1 house was destroyed completely, 1 house was gutted save for the garage, and 1 house — our house — was heavily damaged on the side facing the house that was destroyed.
- Of the two destroyed homes, only one is down and that is because it was collapsing once the fire was under control. The bulldozer was used to pull it down further so that hot spots could be uncovered so they could be doused with foam (in fact, one such hot spot reared up and produced 6′ flames at midnight, nearly 7 hours after the blaze was brought under control).
- Of the two destroyed homes, the families have lost everything.
- There were no gunshots. There were explosions. At least three of them in fact. And the propane tanks that were the source of [most of?] those explosions are currently in my backyard (but the firefighters moved them into my yard to get ’em out of the way).
- The fire was not caused by a gas leak, nor was there a gas leak during the blaze. The fire was fueled by gas because the fire destroyed both gas pipes in the house and then the meter at the front of the house. So, yeah, that is sort of a gas leak. But not really.
- It took a while to turn off the gas because you can’t just turn off a whole neighborhood without the gas in the pipes feeding the flames for quite a while. Turning off the gas to a single home in an older neighborhood involves either turning off the gas at the meter (which was in flames) or digging up the connection to the gas mains and disconnecting the pipe there.
- I found Tyson, the dog, after the fire when we were first allowed to go into our house. Or he found me. When I walked into the backyard, he was standing in the backyard of his (now destroyed) home. I’m not entirely sure where he bunked down during the fire (most likely in the shadow of a stump), but there he was without even a bit of singing. He greeted me with a wag and bolted out the front door to find Paul, the kid who rescued him in the first place and for whom he shows a loyalty that only a dog can exhibit. Fantastic dog, by the way.
- There was no large scale evacuation. The immediate neighbor next to the fire was evacuated from her home. Beyond that, neighbors voluntarily left and stayed behind the lines of defense established by the fire department. Most of us hung out in a neighbor’s yard, generally being very supportive (our neighborhood is awesome), and sharing a bit of wine.
Beyond the simple fact that having your house damaged or destroyed by fire really really sucks, it is quite odd to be one of the unwilling subjects of a major news story. We heard tale from neighbors that their families in other states were calling them because they saw a blurb on the news.
The odd part is how every single article out there got one or many of the bullet points above wrong. I chose that particular set of facts because I read a story that incorrectly made a claim in conflict with said facts. Things move fast and I understand how such errors might happen, but to see a single article claim both that all three houses were destroyed and one house was destroyed and two houses had minor damage is indicative of how little importance is given to accuracy.