One man's thoughts on the whole warehouse situation.

Apr 20, 2026 12:35 AM

JustTodd

Views

34820

Likes

1423

Dislikes

52

I F*CKING HOPE their insurance company immediately thought of that and refused to pay the owners.

3 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Inquiring minds wants to know!

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I mean the reason the sprinklers didn't go off wasn't "hubris" or whatever, There was a fire, they evacuated and turned it off to avoid damage. Our friend took that opportunity to set the fire.

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

I like his hat.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Is the point that we should blame poor security systems and leadership? What about the mistreated workers? How do we solve that? Could there have been a solution that would prevent workers from being this resentful?

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

People (corporations) are always shocked when you give them the same respect, they just gave to you.

3 months ago | Likes 122 Dislikes 2

corporations arn't people. but they allow groups of people to spread around the accountability for choices so thin that it doesn't affect them personally. some middle manager can just say "sorry, business needs" and fire...err i mean "downsize" some people because of quarterly bonus metrics. if people were held to their own choices, things would be very very different.

3 months ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Truth is though, every time a warehouse or business is attacked, the ones who suffers most are the workers. Just normal everyday people who just want a paycheck to have a place to sleep and food on the table. The business owners, they have insurances.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Correkt... and the los of goods wil raise the price next time...

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Citadel had a warehouse fire and the fucking fire marshall was on with a reporter telling why the fire suppression system didn't activate WHILE THE FIRE WAS RAGING. No way anyone could be in there investigating. He was bought and citadel needed that warehouse to burn down because it had a lot of documents proving the fraud they committed on the stock market, similar to why musk used DOGE to end 17 investigations into his stock market fraud and manipulation.

3 months ago | Likes 51 Dislikes 4

My last job? We had rfid enabled badges to get into “secure” (behind the scenes) locations. Except… found out one day there was a door with no access control on it (so members of bands performing most likely) could go “back stage”. Walked through the door and hello area nearby my badged access drops me at. Access to executive floors, cash area and more. So much for access control. General public could come in any other entrance and bypass every single “security” access point employees used here

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

If you want to get technical, it could be “difficult” to access. But study what employees wear, or just go for broke with a safety vest or business casual and a clipboard timed with the band on stage and a busy bartender nearby, no one would probably notice. Hell after a while the area was dark but still open to the public and you may not be suspected either. Cameras are reactive not proactive, so even if they caught you on one, the damage is done the more folks are going through that door

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

I'll never understand the appeal of those ski goggles. 98% of people who own those are douche canoes. But on a serious note, the sprinklers thing was explained already.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

That's a JC Penney, iykyk

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

Pdx represent!

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

My thoughts exactly. What does their insurance say when they notice there is no sprinkler system working?

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

3 months ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

As someone who has worked countless ‘essential’ jobs I can confirm everything this man is saying. The autozone I worked for runs on Linux. The grocery store I worked for runs on some old ass dos based system. Its camera for the alcohol aisle didn’t work, but was still up. The shop I work for now’s cameras work but don’t record, so they’re essentially useless. Corporations don’t care until profits are hit enough to be forced to care.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

somebody needs to burn the warehouse with all those glasses in it. been seeing them everywhere and they're fucking dopey looking

3 months ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 8

They are barely as step up from the shades you get from the eye doctor after he dilates you eyes!

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Hey I keep mine to show how sexy I am at 73 (not).

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Then look at the ground if you don't want to see them.

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

At an old job, they put up cameras in the halls and sent out a big proud memo talking about how they're taking our security seriously. I suspected something was off because the cameras were installed basically overnight in a building the company didn't own, so I went and tugged on one of the cords. It came right out the wall, as there was no wiring in it and they didn't even bother to glue it in place or anything. I kept pulling that cord out and letting it hang til they got real cameras.

3 months ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Even real cameras are often easily circumvented. Most places get what is cheap and have someone cheap install it or an underpaid overworked IT person. So you get exposed wires, bad angles, no safety cage for an outdoor one in arms reach, not enough storage to keep stuff more than a month, etc. Hell where I worked IT once I could see who accessed each camera and when. So you could avoid those patterns and not be seen. Then in a month it would be gone forever. (1)

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

With access though to the system. I could have deleted the footage immediately after or turned off the camera for X time anyways. It would not have been suspicious as many systems operate on motion, have power outages from failed battery backups etc. So dead space is normal. I could have also deleted the backup as well. Systems are full of holes especially from within. They depend largely on people like me having morals and just not doing that. (2)

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Reminds me of the grocery store bank branch I worked at where everyone’s alarm codes were written down in a binder that was stored in the closet that held all the recording equipment.

I hated that job with a passion and dealt with it by developing plans to rob the bank. I had the whole thing figured out except dealing with the grocery store’s camera system…never did come up with a plan for that before I found a better job and quit. Screw those guys.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I work for a gem of a corporation that does care about this shit and everyone throughout the company comes to work with a worker-first mentality all the way up to the top echelons of the company. I'm so lucky. I don't think they'd miss me if I was gone, but they have as much loyalty as they could expect from a pleb.

3 months ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Important discussion. Thanks for posting.

3 months ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 6

You can see it raining pretty hard in that warehouse in the clip that he shows, which sharply undermines his point about the sprinkler system not working and leads me to question his judgment, expertise, and eyesight.

3 months ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 20

Seriously; it's not like he was using thermites,

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

American standards are severely lacking. If they didn't want a warehouse of flammable product to go up in flames, they should have invested in AFFF or CAFS. But they don't because that takes out of the stock holders pockets and ensures a safer work space.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

That just raises further questions about the fire suppression system.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

No sprinkler system will put out a building wide fire.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The suppression system did not work, the place burnt down. Which means it was inadequate for the task (easily known before hand) or parts were disabled leaving only weak sprinklers. Water slowly dripping from the sky isn't the preferred way to prevent fires from spreading in situations like this. They could have massive systems in place, multiple backups in case of any failure etc. They don't care, this is a consequence and he's explaining how thats just a small example of a larger global issue

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

Once a fire really gets going rain won't put it out. As it's going against the top of the fire, when literally every fire extinguisher instruction says to aim at the base where the material burning is. Spraying above the fire is borderline a waste after a certain point.

Just a heads up on that.

3 months ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 3

The main reason fire extinguishers tell you to aim at the base is that most of the time you're aiming laterally, and aiming at the "center" of the fire is just going to have the water or suppressant go straight through to the other side and land on the ground.
The main reason those sprinklers can only do so much is the wide area they're covering compared to the concentrated energy of the fire. I imagine their main purpose is just to slow it down til firefighters can get on scene.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I will say I've worked in an industrial setting for about the last decade and safety procedures are basically an everyday thing. That said fire extinguishers aren't for slowing the fire down. It's for small fires about the size of a wastebasket for a standard extinguisher. Anything bigger, firefighters would prefer you get out of there and call for help that much sooner.

You staying to "help" means a possible person in danger or at least a distraction for them.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

For that portion of the comment I was talking about the overhead sprinkler systems. With that wastebasket example, a sprinkler isn't going to put out any wastebasket fire that's large enough to set off the system, but maybe it can keep it from spreading until firefighters arrive.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Another important factor that’s often overlooked: water has a higher thermal mass than air. Fire produces heat, but it also needs heat to continue - pull the heat away too quickly and it can die out. By flooding a space with water and humidity, you are basically sponging up heat which slows the rate the fire spreads.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I've worked with a big company or two and yeah. The managers in charge of tech and suchlike generally have no idea how any of that stuff works.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Most experts in infrastructure, and this includes everything from basic utilities to IT, will tell you that everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, about how the modern world works is a precarious balancing act that's one sufficiently large accident away from completely collapsing. And the longer it goes without doing so the more inherently unstable everything becomes. A suitably big event could EASILY cripple a nation, such as, say, a broad general strike.

3 months ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 1

Where is the xkcd with the jenga pile showing the single, old, lonely block that supports the whole pile?

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Studies have been done on the US power infrastructure. It is so dated and broken. That each study has said in a war we’d be a joke to disable on that front. Yet despite this thanks to corruption nothing has been done to address it. It is a miracle nothing has happened yet besides Texas’s even shittier one buckling under the cold.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I watched last week a documentary on linux infrastructure. some two months ago all the world bank systems were about to be compromised by what is suspected (not confirmed, mind you) be a russian state operator (RSO).
What most dont realize is that almost everything non personal user (so everything that's not an home pc) use linux. Because it's one fo the most secure system. RSO coudnt attack they system directly, so what they did was to launch an hate campaign aganist the single programmer of>

3 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

a secondary dependency of the secure handshake system that require an encrypted login. He got someone to help since he, well, he dont get paid and he need to work and he aint as young anymore. Then, some time later, started the attacks. Months of social media attacks toward this single guy, attacks no one else noticed, while the helper got more and more responsabilities. Finally the attackers win and the change the component into a backdoor. Do you know why it was discovered? Because the>

3 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

backdoor was so well encrypted it enlonged by 4 decimal of a second the login process. And one beta tester, some guy in germany that primaly work for a dependency of windows, noted it because he microbenchmark his system. Allarm go around and the component get pulled down just in time. The RSO disappear without trace and everything go back to normal.

And no one said a single word of excuse to the first programmer guy.

3 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Varitasium?

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yeah, I saw that documentary as well, and the world was like MAYBE two weeks away from a breach of the security of a crucial piece of Internet infrastructure that could well have destroyed the digital world. The worst part was what was compromised: SSH. SSH is used almost everywhere on Earth.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

yeah. we REALLY have to thank that microbenchmarker. I dont dare to think what would have happened had that MB ignored those 4 decimals of second.
Like, from banks accounts to energy companies, prolly even every government system would have been fucked.
The last one is scary AF.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Squidtips is the goat, guy was radicalized by being held at gunpoint on his motorcycle by a cop who thought he was a suspect. Sued the cops and won, and it paid for like a 30 grand motorbike. He's very honest

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

If he's "the goat", why didn't he simply read how the fire suppression system was bypassed before claiming a conspiracy?

Dude's an idiot that couldn't do a minute's worth of research before yapping for views. Maybe he's more intelligent in other videos, but clearly not this one...

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

As a security professional… Security is built around threat models. If your threat is an insider arsonist, yeah, you let the suppression system activate multiple times, compartmentalize assets, and implement other controls to stop arson. If your threat is theft, you implement controls to stop theft. One expensive-but-easy control is simply higher pay.

For everything left, you have an insurance policy, because at the end of the day, it's just toilet paper. It's likely not worth more protection.

3 months ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 3

Bingo. Also, it was all mostly 2-ply toilet paper that ends up at major concert venues, stadiums, schools, and commercial bathrooms.

It's not the 3 or 4-ply Charmins you buy at Costco.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Venue paper is worth more as a whole than consumer though... Thats absolutely gona hurt the insurance co which will in turn take it out on corpos. Lol that shits gona burn.

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I’m curious why it would be worth more. Surely it’s not more expensive per bathroom trip…. Maybe it’s more densely packed? It’s not squishy, squishy = air, it’s not patterned, patterns =manufacturing time but also more air. It’s advanced toilet paper math, isn’t it? One five pound industrial roll of 2-ply toilet paper = 200+ rolls of 3-ply super soft Charmin with the ridges?

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Volume, production cost from volume and volume due to contracts for promised stock.

One is for sure paid for and is stocked accordingly the other is made for projected sales and timeline of replenishment.

Its just basic bulk sales math. What will move is more valuable than what might or will eventually move. Tldr: economies of scale.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Bruce Schneier talked about hardening targets after 9/11; so much money was poured into combating tactics when all an attacker had to do to make those efforts useless was to change tactics.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Or change targets.

If you think wisely, there are only a few good targets to block a country.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Which is why it has to keep happening. Things won't change until it is more cost effective to pay people more than it is to replace warehouses, stock, lost sales, and increased insurance premiums.

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Yeah it's like why do you expect a toilet paper inventory warehouse to be fort knox or some shit lmao

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

It's far cheaper to build warehouses if you don't care about safety!

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

I mean, they've been pushing for safety rollbacks - and getting several of them! - in these recent years. Because they want to line their pockets, and security features/personnel/procedures cost money. "We foresee nothing ever going wrong, therefore precautions are unnecessary." That's their logic.

Problem is, when something does happen, it's gonna cost more than what you saved. PER incident.

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

That's what insurance companies are for! Of course insurance companies may not like to pay out for events that could easily be mitigated by basic safety procedures, but since the billionaires are following all required regulations they are probably afraid of being sued for refusing to provide cover!

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The insurance CEOs are billionaires, too; why would they part with their billions, to help someone else who already has billions? They can afford lawyers, too, and the offending company not following safety laws puts that company at fault. The insurers would win the suit handily.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No they wouldn't, as long as the company is following all regulated safety requirements the court would rule in their favour. This is why there are so many health and safety laws, because given free reign the orphan crushing machines would run 24 hours a day! As long as you follow the law and do everything by the rules you are ok.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well, I suppose them rolling back safety laws does give them more wiggle room.

Still, there are plenty that will still illegally cut corners just to save a buck.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

These morons in Washington literally gutted CISA. They went all in on Microsoft cloud then found out Microslop was employing Chinese engineers for their Secure Enclaves. We're cooked.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Watch the clip again. This isn't some guy rambling on about nothing. The mans giving you instructions, he's giving you physical examples (the cuts you see him walking around different places). He literally tells you "this is how you can steal from this store" "you can easily hack a lot of big companies" and all that.

3 months ago | Likes 427 Dislikes 8

You are clearly wrong about that. He was having tea with my grandmother, and I will attest to that.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

These are real consequences. Money. Hit them in the pocketbook, even if its a dollar its going to bother the oligarch fucks more than most of anything else in existence. This guy doing some word smithing here, getting you to think he's talking about A but he's really talking about B and B is how you can act. How you can fight back. How the security is weak in many places, how the system isn't as strong as it pretends.

3 months ago | Likes 151 Dislikes 2

I’ve worked places where the appearance of control is more important than actual control… made it hell for employees to perform their expected duties

3 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

The first level of defense is presence, this is how I was taught in the service. Thats why you see old guards at walmarts and stuff or fat ass security at malls (dating myself here). Its not important that they even COULD DO the job, its the presence of an authority/security that turns people away. Of course, following through with actual security is best but a lot of places stop at the first step. Fake cameras etc.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

As a cyber security professiona- shhhh, no he didn't.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I'm glad I did this time. The first bit sounds like it's going into conspiracy theory/false flag territory. But dude knows what he's about.
No war but class war.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Yeah, I realised that partway through. That guy did a great job and I love it.

3 months ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

I work in a hospital and I know the cameras work, but there is rarely anyone watching them as security is always short staffed. I also know that it is easy to get in almost everywhere! Including the badge tap areas.

3 months ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 1

I had to pay off a loan with a shitty company who's webpage refused to let me register. So I went down to their physical office, past the security guard who ignored my question, up the elevator and registered to meet someone. Said security guard came up almost 15 min later shocked that I got up there where I wasn't allowed...

3 months ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

I was delivering food one day and the front door was at the opposite end of the building from parking (srsly wtf). Someone walked out a side door so I decided "phuk walking that far" and just walked in past them.

Turns out, it was the nuclear research building with a micro-collider, dozens of controlled substances, and access to data that typically requires lots of clearances exceeding background checks. I wandered around for a good 10 minutes unchallenged before some Prof asked me who I was.

3 months ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Most companies spend as little as possible on security. It doesn't generate profit, so it's largely seen as a waste of capital.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

And he tells you to protect the dolls.

3 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

He didn't seem suicidal to me

3 months ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 5

Thanks, I was ready to stop watching when he started talking about the sprinklers "failing". Thought he was just an idiot, since they didn't fail, the hero planned and knew policy and tricked the fire department into disabling them.

3 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Could you explain that pls? He disabled the sprinklers?

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He started a single small fire 1st. The policy is that once the fire is contained, the sprinklers are disabled to prevent father damage to product. So he waited until the fire department got control of the little fire, then lit the place up.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

TIL!

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

While wearing a protect the dolls hat, legend

3 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

What? I didn't hear or see anything. I have no idea what you are talking about.

3 months ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 3

I'm a maintenance engineer for very complex industrial equipment. You wouldn't believe how laughably easy it is to just walk into almost any old place. You don't even need the hard hat and vest anymore. Last Friday I had to do a back up and genuinely just walked up in every day clothing and kebab in hand and asked some random dude I've never seen before "if he could buzz me in, been here all week, gotta do an update on your machine" that's all it took. Same as when your inside, just confidently

3 months ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 2

This is so common in a lot of places. The company I work for actually had someone get inside in a very similar way who was not supposed to be there, luckily a staff member started questioning them and made calls immediately to management. After that management and IT made it very clear what a risk it is too just let people in because they say they need to be there. We've had a few dangerous situations and take security seriously now.

3 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Walk where ever you want. Wanna steal shit? Just grab it like it's the most normal thing in the world, and if you can't find what you need, just ask anyone for it. I've been handed equipment worth 5-10k without a second of hesitation or confirmation of who the fuck I am. Hell, often times they just point towards the tool locker and tell you the pin is 1234

3 months ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Back in the early 2000's I was working a contract IT job for the city of Anaheim, updating all their police/fire/city hall laptops with toughbooks. At one point I was pushing the toughbooks I'd prepared for the city hall folks and realized I had more than my yearly income on a cart... the temptation to call some hood friends I know and let myself get robbed....

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nobody's paid enough to give a shit

3 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

It truly seems like the ruling class would rather gleefully fuck a blender instead of paying people a livable wage...

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Yeah, because most CEOs see cybersecurity (and IT in general) as a cost center.

3 months ago | Likes 70 Dislikes 1

I was IT when this all started. Helping run cat5 in 1998 in hollywood. Its always been that way, Tech at Edelbrock as a kid and our head was a CFO dude into gadgets, fucking idiot. So many people back then put so much on our backs it was hilarious, others took hilarious options. School district I worked for just accepted any donation and just threw it onto the network, then told me. Was so many fun experiences with those.

3 months ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 1

r/techsupportgore material right there. 🤣

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

The amount of fucking.... just full on no password I cant recall the name that software where you do all your taxes and run your business etc. Just people throwing that shit away, I grew a hatred for apple and their colorful junk.. but hey, the teachers. I was 22 they were in most cases (elementary school teachers, middle school etc) girls just out of college and I'd come in and make their problems go away. I used that.

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

You used that, huh?

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

I was a part of the 2018 national network update of makeawish office networks at all their state locations. Because they would also do that - some offices were just donated patchworked networks. 20 years and some things don't change 💓

3 months ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Have you ever tried (again, back in the late 90s, early 2000s) networking 20 different OS's from 20 different donated machines (Macs/PCs/Homemade mad machines) to one donated beaten up printer? I just had that memory, that was one classroom to the library printer at a middleschool. Emacs oh good damn the amount of emacs

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm remembering now, I made fucking drivers. Jesus.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I also worked IT for a school once. Teachers will plug-in and open anything. I stopped some ransomware once because a teacher plugged in a usb from the student drop off. Luckily it was caught early by me and only she lost her stuff. I enjoyed working there though.

3 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I'm glad I worked when I did, kids weren't as savvy. The middle school kids I always wanted to kill, we're horrible human beings at that age, the highschoolers stayed away from me (young 20 something looking like a narc) but the gradeschool kids were awesome. Those were the kids that today would be well they'd be in college damn I'm old but they were all so interested. I was the guy who made the "sick" computers better so they were awesome. These days I'd probably hate all the kids heh.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Who knows? Back when I was in high school I was the kid installing SNES emulators on the school PCs and playing old Gundam fighting games. Kids are always looking to push limits.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We recently held an online event in which 200+ medical professionals attended. I saw a list of the operating systems each user joined with. 95% of them were running Windows 10. Not a single Windows user had upgraded away from the system that Microsoft ended support for 6 months ago.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

And those same people probably put off updates until the system forced them.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Very likely one critical tool requires win x and this holds up every OS update

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

In multiple applications and computer settings, Windows 11 identifies as Windows 10 to prevent application incompatibilities.
https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000193571/windows-11-incorrect-os-version-reported

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Oh... interesting.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Remember you could opt in for an extra year of updates thanks to Europe getting that extra year. So it isn’t as big a deal till that ends. Which is October of this year. Since it is pricey for many companies to update and Microsoft making many systems unable to do so. As well as 11’s terrible reputation. I would bet money October 2027 you will see them still though.

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

How is this guy supposed to offer his opinion and not know that the initial fire was set deliberately to bypass the fire suppression system?

3 months ago | Likes 59 Dislikes 13

He did know. As he said it was easily circumvented. They had no redundancy in play for if a second fire started after. Both the system and the firefighters who showed up. He’s saying most systems are setup cheaply like this. So a company can save a buck and underpaid firefighters can get things done. They are saying holes are everywhere if you just look.

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

3 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

He explicitly said "none of these features or they are easily disabled", which is in the ballpark of what your saying circumventing the fire suppression system its at 0:42 sec mark.

3 months ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 4

He asked three questions we already had the answers to...

What is his frame of reference? What "features" is he talking about? Backup systems in other warehouses? Different firefighting procedures? Does fire data show it makes sense to have secondary systems? Is the U.S. lagging behind other developed nations in this area?

Dude didn't do an ounce of research before trying to tell us something. It should not be this easy to pick apart an argument.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The crazy part to me is that I had there not been other one of these I actually thought this might be an inside job. I hate being a tin foil hat conspiracy guy, but the sheer fact that one fire was lit that was able to get the sprinkler system shut off and the same guy was able to hang around to light another one on fire. Like it just doesn't seem to me that you would get enough of a window to do that and not get caught.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

It is actually really easy to set off a sprinkler without starting a fire. The heat-sensitive valve in them is generally pretty delicate to physical attack (poke with a stick is all you need if you know what you're doing). And since they're usually all on the same line, they *all* have to be shut off to work on the one that's spraying. Guy may not even have been the cause of the initial sprinkler activation and just saw his opportunity.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

No, the sprinkler system went off for the first fire, the fire department came and turned it off, and the guy was waiting until after they did that to start another fire.

3 months ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

So the guy knew that the fire department would do that, because that's information he could get, and he figured out a way to use it to cause more damage?

Sure, that puts the blame on the fire department rather than the corporation, but it's still a failure of safety and security.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yes. "Easily circumvented"

3 months ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

Ah yes "There's no way to get around this except getting the fire department to intentionally shut them off" is suuuuuper easy.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

You're not paying attention to the actual message in the video. This bit of minutiae is distracting from the bigger picture he is relaying to the rest of us.

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

More like "start fire" (fire gets put out) - "start second fire" (success)

Doesn't take a lot of planning or skill in the execution. It's literally "we've had one fire yes but what about second fire?"

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Wasn't the sprinkler system working just fine? iirc, it was disabled by the fire department once the initial fire was put out, and then the guy (who was still in the warehouse) started a bunch of new fires. By the time the firefighters tried to stop it, it was already too big to contain it.

I think that's what actually happened there, but don't quote on that, I don't have a citation for it at hand.

3 months ago | Likes 187 Dislikes 4

That's my understanding of it as well.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's usually one manually operated valve, easily disabled for a fire suppression system

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

While this is true, the fact that the firefighters were instructed to shut off the sprinkler rather than re-arming it (or the likelihood that re-arming it wasn't even possible) is still very much in line with what this guy's talking about.

Security is the thing you pay for and hope it never needs to be used. This is terribly inefficient from a cost-saving perspective. Imagine how much money they could save by not worrying so much about the security! Nothing ever happens anyway... right?

3 months ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

Most sprinkler systems work with temperature fuses on each sprinkler. The only way to "rearm" it once it went off is to physically replace the fuse on the sprinklers that were already activated.

Yes, there are other types of systems, but none that would be reasonable to install in a warehouse of that size. The automatic ones are the safest if you want immediate action during an event.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

So not enough time, money, and research has gone into making a better system. Same problem, then.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Correct. I heard that as well. I think that's the most plausible explanation.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I also heard this. What i don't get is why they couldn't just turn it back on.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Because sprinklers work with temperature fuses, so they need to replace the fuse on each of the nozzles that went off during the initial fire before reactivating it.

They probably tried to turn the water back on after they noticed the second fire, but evidently it was too late by that time, and the fire was already too large to contain.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

If thats true then there lies a system vulnerability that can be exploited like the guy did. The ability to be turned back on immediately can be engineered into the system.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes it was. Get the impression what he is talking about also loosely is how major systems are (not) managed in a very hands off way. Large buildings used to have folks manning crucial infrastructure 24x7. Lots of feeling your butt grow and occasional issues cropping up. To cut costs, that isn’t happening more or in a very haphazard way. Floor patrols, cameras (heat sensing devices) etc and someone in a control center probably would have caught it again. Instead it was shut off and he took>

3 months ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Yeah the warehouse I work at has a security shift even when the building is closed. 99,9% of his job is eating pizza and watching youtube videos. Sometimes something cool happens like an after hours trailer dropoff and he gets to open the gate for them, it's a *lot* of activity for that shift. But, he's there if shit really hits the fan, not some remote monitor in SE Asia that has 30k facilities to 'watch over'.

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Advantage of that flaw in the system

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I am quoting you. I also fixed the last sentence. I also shared this with the world. You're welcome.

3 months ago | Likes 67 Dislikes 2

Dastard! He didn't even share the citation.

3 months ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

camn333. Comment on "One man's thoughts on the whole warehouse situation." Imgur, Sun Apr 19 2026 21:45:31 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time), /gallery/2pibuRj/comment/2498033123.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

APA, just in case: camn333. (2026, April 19). Wasn't the sprinkler system working just fine? iirc, it was disabled by the fire department once the initial fire was [Comment]. Imgur. /gallery/2pibuRj/comment/2498033123

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3 months ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 0

Hahahaha I have had a rough 8 hours but this response gave me an amazing laugh I needed

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Chaotic Neutral

3 months ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Sprinklers would ruin the entire supply of TP anyway lol.

3 months ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

It would save the warehouse and the people in it.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Sprinklers have a heat sensitive element in them (usually a low-melting-point metal piece or a thin glass vial with liquid inside) that won't open the sprinkler until it gets hot enough (metal melts, liquid boils and breaks the glass, etc). So the only sprinklers that start spraying are the ones in the heat plume of the fire. Movies where a smoke detector sets off ALL the sprinklers in the building? Doesn't work that way.

3 months ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

I’ve heard that as well but the basic point still stands: the design of the systems is often superficially effective. In the case of the warehouse fire, there was no redundancy to a second attack; they didn’t even properly sweep the building of people if he was able to light a second fire. A LOT of systems and barriers that are in place are more “security theatre” than true security.

3 months ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 1

The warehouse spanned 11 city blocks. It they could have 100 EMS trying to get everyone out and they'd still need another 500 people to actually secure the entire place.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Sure, but that doesn’t detract from the underlying point. Even if it’s too big to secure, fundamentally that still means it’s unsecured.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Agreed; "then we should be mad at the incompetence of the fire department, or the camera systems, or...". The original point still stands; if this was a tragedy, it was one that could be prevented with common sense and current safety laws, which were ignored or overwritten.

The fire is absolutely not the tragic part.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I’d go in a different direction. If this was a tragedy, and we recognize the infeasibility of actually securing the warehouse to be 100% resilient to any and all attacks, then we need to find other ways to defend it - like reducing the amount of motivation someone might have to commit arson against it.

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I can assure you that lighters are banned in almost every single warehouse in the world. Asking a company to prepare for arsons or hire security to repell attacks, is not reasonable. If you are a worker and a fire alarm starts, they shouldn't have to force you to evacuate. By no means I'm defending corporations, is just that what people is saying is insane. And I really hope the guy who ignited the warehouse gets the same support as Mangione does.

3 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

The question isn’t whether they’re banned, it’s whether the ban is enforced - that’s what I mean by the security systems being superficial. But you’re right that protecting against every possible attack is insane. Somebody raised a good point elsewhere in the comments that at a certain point, the security policy becomes “we have insurance for that”. So I guess, if people are feeling up to it, insurance premiums are about to become a whole lot more expensive.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

So, I've got a degree in CyberSec as well and it's worth pointing out - these systems are installed for actual safety, even a fire suppression system is installed for the purpose of "Risk Management" and THAT is in truth a way of mitigating money lost, nothing more. Any safety/security measure installed anywhere can be reduced to a formula of how likely an incident is, how much money can be lost, and how much it costs to mitigate that risk. Something to keep in mind as you evaluate these systems

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Absolutely. I actually have a comment that responds to this idea already, but basically the TLDR is: if the last layer of security is just insurance, then maybe it’s time that insurance premiums start getting more expensive as incidents start happening more often. /gallery/2pibuRj/comment/2498066615

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Indeed, and why we need strong laws with REAL consequences when it's a safety concern. I know for a fact that companies have looked at the penalties for not complying with certain laws and evaluated them as less than the cost of compliance.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

When this guy speaks of hubris, he speaks of the belief that these corporate types have that they're so powerful a single employee won't bring them down. Their hubris is both an insult to every working person, and proof of their own ineptitude.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

*aren't installed for actual safety, fucking autocorrect

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0