Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[Andy_Ross]

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?

Bacause it wasn't a 'diesel only' fire.
Nobody has claimed this.

It has been confirmed by the fire service that it started with a diesel car.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK, fair enough. It just says cars. But petrol cars ae far more inflammable than diesel. A simple spark will do it. So if a parked petrol ICE car is safe as far as the Fire Brigade is concerned, then so should be a diesel.

Its findings:

https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf

Again you miss the part where they say that the 1960s study isn't completely applicable because modern cars are bigger and carry much more flammable materil.

Why do you keep doing that?

Modern cars have a lot of plastic on the outside, bumpers, grill, wing quarters, roof channels etc.
1960s cars didn't have any plastic on the exterior and very little inside.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

They obviously did because five immediately became overcome by smoke inhalation. Now I wonder what type of car burns so fiercely it fires off lighted projectiles setting other vehicles alight, gives off highly noxious fumes and falls through the melted concrete floor in flames, instead of the heat rising up to the ceiling as in Liverpool.

Pretty sure other vehicles caught fire at Liverpool, too. I wonder what type of car did that.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Plastic Tanks and fuel spillage, water spreading an oil fire.

Once the tank melts the fuel follows the path of gravity, and water only spreads the fire.

Do you ever do qny cooking? Same reason you cover an oil fire to smother it.

Bare in mind that you're talking to someone who said that the way to deal with a fire in the engine compartment is to open the bonnet to let the smoke out. (Post #234) Fire safety

 

[Andy_Ross]

They obviously did because five immediately became overcome by smoke inhalation. Now I wonder what type of car burns so fiercely it fires off lighted projectiles setting other vehicles alight, gives off highly noxious fumes and falls through the melted concrete floor in flames, instead of the heat rising up to the ceiling as in Liverpool.

Projectiles?
Melted concrete?

Are you drunk?

It's been confirmed that it was a diesel car
Ask the fire service.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Bare in mind that you're talking to someone who said that the way to deal with a fire in the engine compartment is to open the bonnet to let the smoke out. (Post #234) Fire safety

*Bear

"Bare in mind" means something else. Something far more entertaining than this thread.

 

[Thermal]

*Bear

"Bare in mind" means something else. Something far more entertaining than this thread.

Whether via Freudian slip or autocorrecting to frequent words typed, out typos reveal so much about searchpornnow.

 

[JayUtah]

falls through the melted concrete floor...

No.

 

[JayUtah]

Now I wonder what type of car burns so fiercely it fires off lighted projectiles setting other vehicles alight...

"Fiercely burning" is still localized. What sets other cars alight is burning accelerant traveling down sloping ramps. It doesn't matter whether that accelerant is gasoline or diesel.

...gives off highly noxious fumes...

What gives off highly noxious fumes is burning plastic and rubber.

...and falls through the melted concrete floor in flames...

Are you seriously suggesting that heat from a fire causes concrete to soften and melt?

 

[GlennB]

... falls through the melted concrete floor in flames ...

Why are you repeating this ignorant drivel?

 

[JayUtah]

Why are you repeating this ignorant drivel?

As opposed to all the other ignorant drivel?

 

[GlennB]

As opposed to all the other ignorant drivel?

Fair point.

 

[Thermal]

...the melted concrete floor...

Aaaaaaaand melty concrete takes it away. Honest to God, you just don't see some of the twists and turns coming.

 

[erwinl]

Aaaaaaaand melty concrete takes it away. Honest to God, you just don't see some of the twists and turns coming.

Note how each and every post has been meticulously crafted in order to contain at least one 'whopper' of a statement. Put there to act as a distraction so that more attention can be obtained.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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...

No. Instead of grasping at a poor analogy, why don't you do what I asked and point out where I committed an ad hominem against you. If you can do that, I'll report it to the moderators myself. But you can't, because your accusation was a lie.

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?

So that's your argument, that both fires, in different buildings, with no doubt different initial conditions, didn't burn in exactly the same way, with exactly the same timeline? Seriously?

This is a pathetic attempt to put the burden of proof on me, knowing full well (or maybe not) that such a report would require detailed investigations of all aspects of both fires, and careful cross comparisons of the two. There are numerous reasons why one fire may spread faster than another. We are definitely not left with "the Luton fire must have started in something other than a diesel car" as the only logical conclusion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They obviously did because five immediately became overcome by smoke inhalation. Now I wonder what type of car burns so fiercely it fires off lighted projectiles setting other vehicles alight, gives off highly noxious fumes and falls through the melted concrete floor in flames, instead of the heat rising up to the ceiling as in Liverpool.

You're still just inventing details.

What type of car burns so fiercely? A modern car. Did you watch the YouTube video posted yesterday of a BMW X5 burning? If that had been under a roof so the heat was contained and reflected, do you imagine that intense fire would not have flashed over to other cars a couple of metres away in very short order? Of course it would.

What gives off noxious fumes? Plastics for one thing, and modern car are full of them.

You're still stuck on the fantasy idea the car you saw fall in a floor collapse must be the original car that caught light. You have no good reason to suppose it was.

Melted concrete? What?

 

[Steve]

Why are you repeating this ignorant drivel?

When all you have is drivel.......

 

[JayUtah]

So that's your argument, that both fires, in different buildings, with no doubt different initial conditions, didn't burn in exactly the same way, with exactly the same timeline? Seriously?

Yes, that's literally every conspiracy theory ever. The Kennedy assassination wasn't like some other gunshot wounds or murder investigations. Apollo spacecraft and missions weren't like some Soviet spacecraft and missions. The collapse of buildings on 9/11 wasn't like other building collapses. The sinking of MS Estonia wasn't like some other ship sinking.

This is a pathetic attempt to put the burden of proof on me...

Correct. When a claimant isn't competent in the specialized knowledge required to knowledgeably assess the prevailing narrative, that claimant falls back to facile analogies and comparisons that beg the question of congruence. In many cases, the critic is in no better position to deploy specialized knowledge to question the congruence and dispel suspicion. So yes, it effectively amounts to shifting the burden of proof.

And in addition to begging the question and shifting the burden of proof, it's also an argument from silence. The answer to why X didn't unfold identically to Y may be difficult for both parties to determine. But that doesn't mean we default to a conspiratorial explanation.

If Vixen wants to argue that there's something strange about the Luton airport car park fire, the answer is to be found in that body of evidence, not in analogies or parallels naively inferred from dissimilar occurrences.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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's not unconfirmed, it's literally confirmed by an official statement to have been a diesel Land Rover.

It is not parked in a parking bay.

Parking garages have sloped floors. Land Rovers have composite fuel tanks. Once the tank melts, diesel will spill out.

But the engine is still running as the tail lights appear to be on.

No, sorry. But the lights being on doesn't indicate that the engine is running. It may be, but pointing out the running lights are on indicates nothing about whether the engine is running or not. If it was running, however, that means that the fuel pump is also running, which means that a rupture in the fuel delivery system would still be spraying fuel, feeding the fire.

Flames are already shooting out from the bottom left of the vehicle.

You do know that Li-ion batteries aren't mounted on the left, despite what the sorts of people who comment on Daily Mail articles might assert.

Even if there was a fuel leak, *it is not alongside other cars* for them to catch fire within minutes.

Again, I refer you to this video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4IObb6...Q2FyIGZpcmU=

The first call to the fire brigade was 20:47. The fire brigade arrives shortly after.

How shortly? According to the fire chief, they arrived on scene about ten minutes after the first 999 call.

Here's another video, of an Audi A5, also not available with anything other than gasoline or diesel engine. At the start of the video, the car is burning similarly to the video from the Luton garage. Firefighters begin extinguishing the blaze four minutes later, by which time the car has been fully consumed by the fire.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJSf80UZhI&

It almost immediately withdrew from the inner car park due to five people suffering smoke inhalation, despite the premises being open sided.

Was there a mighty wind blowing through the garage to clear away all the smoke? You do realize that the open structure of the parking garage, necessary to prevent the accumulation of carbon monoxide, is actually a problem with fire, because it lets in more oxygen to feed the flames. The open structure actually works against your argument.

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.

Again, imagine a car fire, like the above videos, spreading to other vehicles, and then having an hour to spread throughout hundreds of cars.

So please explain how this 'diesel only' car managed to burn down the whole building within fifty-one minutes...

That's like asking someone to explain how one little cigarette can burn down a whole house.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

*Bear

"Bare in mind" means something else. Something far more entertaining than this thread.

In my school we wro...... No..

In cockney it's spel.... No..


I'll go with "Thank you. For some reason I can never remember which one it is when I come to write it".