Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[Andy_Ross]

1968 were the safety standards still in force when the Merseyside Fire Brigade did its report into the Liverpool ECHO fire. It was part of its terms of reference. It looks at the rules and regulations in force at the time and weighs up whether they were adhered to.

It points out that they are no longer relevant to modern cars and conditions.

 

[JayUtah]

...telling you you're a liar or stupid doesn't count when accompanied by evidence of such.

No, an ad hominem statement doesn't have to be false. It just has to be no better than merely adjacent to the substance of the argument.

Someone who has a demonstrable history of lying should not be trusted when they wish an allegation of fact to hold solely on their say-so. Nevertheless, "So-and-so is a liar, so this particular statement is likely to be a lie," is an inferential argument—and not a particularly strong one in most cases. A better rebuttal would stick closer to the substance of the line of reasoning: "You provide no evidence for the truth of that statement," or "Here is evidence that disputes your allegation." Only when the line of affirmative reasoning is, "I am a trustworthy person, therefore you should trust me when I allege this," does the rebuttal, "But here is evidence that you are not a trustworthy person," becomes fully devoid of ad hominem color.

Similarly, calling someone stupid is almost always in the spirit of ad hominem argumentation if only for its uncivil tone. Tone aside, noting that someone lacks a correct foundation for the premises and conclusions they offer is very much within bounds of fair argument. This can have the side effect of making a claimant appear ignorant. But the goal should be to test the foundation of the claim, not to portray the claimant in an unfavorable light. The claimant's lack of understanding is not always cured by citing to outside authority. The claimant still has to understand it and its application to the argument. Finally, the claimant's inability to understand a rebuttal that identifies a faulty foundation and supplies a better one is one of the oldest named fallacies: Aristotle's ignoratio elenchi. But one doesn't need to call the claimant's entire intellectual capacity into question just to point out that a specific argument lacks foundation.

All that said, some repeat claimants cultivate such a notorious reputation that shorthands such as, "I don't believe you; you're not trustworthy," and "You don't know what you're talking about" are serviceable stand-ins for more elaborate and applicable arguments that have been made before.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The farty towels.

Back to thrashing the car

 

[Vixen]

Yes, we can all do web searches that lead us to Wikipedia. You seem to think you're the victim of ad hominem attacks. Instead people are just disagreeing with your conclusions and opinions. When they point out that your expectations are based on a paucity of understanding, this is not an ad hominem argument. It is properly noting that your opinions, expectations, and judgments lack a proper foundation. A claimant's knowledge of the principles and facts that pertain to her claims is not a forbidden attribute of the claimant's character; it is an important element of the substance of the argument.

Uh? What now?

 

[Vixen]

If you feel you've been personally attacked in such a fashion, then by all means report those posts to the moderators. Just don't be surprised when they also inform you that simply being told you are wrong about something is not an ad hominem attack, no matter how much it hurts your feelings.

What? A poster asked for the meaning of ad hominem and I provided it.

Please keep up and stay in context.

 

[JayUtah]

Uh? What now?

How about stop complaining that people who rightly point out that you don't know what you're talking about are attacking you personally.

 

[GlennB]

The dodgy dodgem.

"Conflagration at travelling funfair hushed up? Is Big Battery behind it? More on News at 10"

 

[Foster Zygote]

What? A poster asked for the meaning of ad hominem and I provided it.

Please keep up and stay in context.

The context was that you made accusations that you were being subjected to ad hominem attacks when you clearly weren't. You do remember that, don't you?


Now back to the subject of the thread: are you under the impression that the vehicle in which the fire started caused all the damage to the parking garage?

You've attempted to use 55 year old data as evidence that the other vehicles - what? - didn't burn? Looking at the images of the burning garage, are you saying that that fire consuming the whole garage level was emanating from that one vehicle? Are you really claiming that a Li-ion battery would burn so spectacularly that the fire would consume an entire parking garage level like that?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The context was that you made accusations that you were being subjected to ad hominem attacks when you clearly weren't. You do remember that, don't you?


Now back to the subject of the thread: are you under the impression that the vehicle in which the fire started caused all the damage to the parking garage?

You've attempted to use 55 year old data as evidence that the other vehicles - what? - didn't burn? Looking at the images of the burning garage, are you saying that that fire consuming the whole garage level was emanating from that one vehicle? Are you really claiming that a Li-ion battery would burn so spectacularly that the fire would consume an entire parking garage level like that?

Well it could be Worse a YouTuber I followed is going to do a dumb experiment of Pouring gas and Diesel under a car to prove fire burns up, without realizing how ignorant he is of fire behavior in a collapsing building.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Hilariously I check in every few days to see that 4 more pages have been added of Vixen refusing to believe Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, when they have clearly stated that it was a diesel car.

A Diesel car.

The car wot started it was a diesel.

A car of the diesel variety.

Diesel, diesel, diesel, diesel, diesel, diesel, diesel, diesel, diesel.

Give it up Vixen.

Like it or not, you are coming across as a complete moron.

It was a diesel.

 

[GlennB]

Now back to the subject of the thread: are you under the impression that the vehicle in which the fire started caused all the damage to the parking garage?

You've attempted to use 55 year old data as evidence that the other vehicles - what? - didn't burn? Looking at the images of the burning garage, are you saying that that fire consuming the whole garage level was emanating from that one vehicle? Are you really claiming that a Li-ion battery would burn so spectacularly that the fire would consume an entire parking garage level like that?

Vixen mustn't answer that question, because 'yes' is insane and 'no' means the kind of power train in the original car is is irrelevant. Either way she looks stupid.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

The dodgy dodgem.

"Conflagration at travelling funfair hushed up? Is Big Battery behind it? More on News at 10"

"And finally, a car that runs on marmalade!"




(They did finish one News at 10 with a piece about a car which ran on orange juice, which was about as close as it ever got to that Eye-ism.)

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Vixen mustn't answer that question, because 'yes' is insane and 'no' means the kind of power train in the original car is is irrelevant. Either way she looks stupid.

Not as Stupid as Tony of (Uncle Tony's Garage) though attacking the Electric Viking calling him a Liar, about the car being a Diesel, and thinking he can prove it by setting another car on fire.
I followed his channel because I liked old cars, especially Mopar, and Chevy, but Tony has become quite the Conspiracy theorist.

 

[GlennB]

Well it could be Worse a YouTuber I followed is going to do a dumb experiment of Pouring gas and Diesel under a car to prove fire burns up, without realizing how ignorant he is of fire behavior in a collapsing building.

I'm intrigued ... presumably a wrecked car with an empty tank, but in what kind of location? And his objective isn't at all clear.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I'm intrigued ... presumably a wrecked car with an empty tank, but in what kind of location? And his objective isn't at all clear.

He wants to prove fires burns up, he is a Classic Car Guy Trying to debunk the Internal Combustion Engine once and for all.
Once he does the Experiment I will post a link to the Video here, he actually believes only a Lithium battery can cause the Flames going downward in the collapse video. You would think a Car guy would understand Compression of air and fuel.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The thing about mechanics, professional, home or classic, is that their experience tends to be gained by working on cars that AREN'T on fire!

 

[GlennB]

He wants to prove fires burns up, he is a Classic Car Guy Trying to debunk the Internal Combustion Engine once and for all.
Once he does the Experiment I will post a link to the Video here, he actually believes only a Lithium battery can cause the Flames going downward in the collapse video. You would think a Car guy would understand Compression of air and fuel.

Right, then it needs to be a reasonably modern car with at least some fuel in the tank, otherwise it's a pretty useless experiment. Sounds extremely dangerous.

 

[Vixen]

The context was that you made accusations that you were being subjected to ad hominem attacks when you clearly weren't. You do remember that, don't you?


Now back to the subject of the thread: are you under the impression that the vehicle in which the fire started caused all the damage to the parking garage?

You've attempted to use 55 year old data as evidence that the other vehicles - what? - didn't burn? Looking at the images of the burning garage, are you saying that that fire consuming the whole garage level was emanating from that one vehicle? Are you really claiming that a Li-ion battery would burn so spectacularly that the fire would consume an entire parking garage level like that?

No. The context of my complaining about the use of logical fallacies, in this case, the ad hominem logical fallacy was nothing at all to do with me or my feelings. To illustrate the point, suppose we have Person A and Person B.

PERSON A: The sum of two plus two equals four.

PERSON B: No, it doesn't, you moron, two plus two equals five, you idiot.

PERSON A : Sorry, but your ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

PERSON B: Oh dear, if people call you a moron you should just accept it.

PERSON A: No, actually I was pointing out the logical fallacy of your belief that employing ad hominem wins you the debate that two and two equals five because logically it does not.

Now do you understand why ad hominem is a logical fallacy? I was talking about logic. Nothing to do with me moaning.

The 55-year-old data you refer to include:“The recommendations
in Approved Document B.” (Fire Spread in Car Parks BD 2552 p.15). The fire
resistance requirements under Building Regulations have not increased since the 1968 paper.

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RR(FS)O 2005) to do with safety in Car Parks.

These regulations are what the Merseyside Fire Brigade referred to when it investigated the Liverpool ECHO car park fire. Regulations being old means nothing. Many of the UK's laws are hundreds of years old!

Now you have introduced the logical fallacy of the strawman, claiming that I am arguing that it was just one car that burnt the whole building down. Please stop it. The reason why there is scepticism it was a diesel-only car that started the blaze is because:

• the aforesaid studies into car park fires demonstrated that parked diesel cars were safe and rarely if ever caught fire and spread to the cars next to it.
• The Liverpool Fire was caused by a diesel car which had an electrical fault causing its internal diesel fuel to leak through a hole in the internal pipe.
• This leaking diesel fuel had ignited because of the electrical fire and the leak of burning fuel spread to two rows of cars alongside.
• These two rows of burning cars burned for almost two hours before the upward flames caused the next level to catch fire.
• Teams of firemen INSIDE THE CAR PARK spent those two hours hosing the two rows of cars and dousing the lower floors.
• During that time, there was ample time to escort to safety the horses from their horse boxes on level one, together with several dogs.
• These were part of an equestrian event taking place that day.
• Once the upper level caught fire, with temperatures reaching over 1,000°C and concrete began to spall and with burning fluid draining through to the lower floors via the drains on the sloping floors, the firemen retreated.
• It was at this point some two hours after the first alarm and appearance of smoke that fire officers declared the fire uncontrollable.

So, with the diesel car in the Liverpool fire causing a serious fire that took 24 hours to completely quell, we know it was because of the reasons outlined: an electrical fault leading to a burning diesel spill from a leaking pipe and spreading via these lines of burning fluid to two rows of cars. In addition, this burning fluid was running down the drainage system to the levels below. Firefighters were able to fight this blaze inside the car park from the stairwells for two hours.

Now compare and contrast the Luton car park fire. OK, so we have uncoated steel instead of concrete, meaning they become malleable at 500°C before concrete begins to spall at 600°C bur remaining quite fire resistant, concrete needing circa 1,600°C to 'melt' and collapse as it were. That makes it less 'safe' than the Liverpool car park. But nonetheless, the steel doesn't actually catch fire, just makes the structure unsound and prone to collapsing floors.

The car that started the fire in Luton is again said to be a Range Rover (unconfirmed officially), seeming to already be ablaze whilst the driver is still driving it in.

• It is not parked in a parking bay.
• But the engine is still running as the tail lights appear to be on.
• Flames are already shooting out from the bottom left of the vehicle.
• Even if there was a fuel leak, *it is not alongside other cars* for them to catch fire within minutes.
• The first call to the fire brigade was 20:47.
• The fire brigade arrives shortly after. It almost immediately withdrew from the inner car park due to five people suffering smoke inhalation, despite the premises being open sided.
• Within fifty-one minutes of the first call to the Fire Brigade, 21:38, the Fire Brigade called it a 'Major Incident'.
• One hundred firefighters tackled the blaze from OUTSIDE the building.

So please explain how this 'diesel only' car managed to burn down the whole building within fifty-one minutes, when the Liverpool car park one starting with two rows of 30 cars didn't erupt for two hours?


Are you able to do this?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The fizzy rocket.

The fakey lem.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

• the afforesaid studies into car park fires demonstrated that parked diesel cars were safe and rarely if ever caught fire and spread to the cars next to it.

You're embellishing again. A 1960s UK study would scarcely have considered diesel cars at all as there were so few of them.