ok im confused.... in the beginning of the article ist says they found a trail of foot prints from the house then they say the fire fighters arrived at the height of the storm and it took them 10 minutes to travel 3 miles to the fire. then it says at the end of the article the storm left a ft of snow... now mind u if they aarrived at the height of the storm and the place was totally involved and caving in, and they were suppose to b busy unloading hoses and getting together quickly to fight this fire in the height of snow fall.....how could they tell about the footprints..??? when i went out to shovel last nite there were no foot prints anywhere while the snow fell .. just a clean white sparlking snow .. and when i went out at 6 am there where no foot prints that where i shoveled from the nite before...so where did they get this foot trail??? r they saying it was set? or it could have been from the owner that just left several hrs ago - foot prints? can someone figure this out????

Yeah I agree this article makes no sense. There was no explanation at all for the footprint statement.

In addition to basic and advanced firefighting skills, many firefighters are also trained to observe and report anything that may be suspicious, enroute to a call, during and after. Being able to see footprints in the snow at the "height of the storm" would lead me to believe they had been created very recently. With the homeowner stating that he had been at the house "hours before" , then the recent footprints could be valuable evidence.

Fireman Phil really should not have commented on what could be determined about the fire, other than to say that it was fully involved upon arrival, especially in light of the fresh footprints...