Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[phiwum]

My bad, I should have realised earlier that the 'latest announcements' and revelations were nothing of the sort; simply hack, Phil Page, presenting old news as new. The British press is very different from the US press and other parts of the world. For example, the etiquette in the UK when there is an official investigation, be it a trial, a public inquiry or an investigation into a fire, such as this one, the press do not as a matter of protocol ask questions until the report is out. It's rare for things to leak as the national press has legal advisers to block unofficial stuff or things that might cause legal problems, such as stating something that later needs to be retracted as inaccurate. That is the protocol, so there is not much point in discussing this case until the report is published. September, according to the BBC. So yes, an embargo for sure as we have been told the make of such vehicles in the past but also just de rigueur to wait for the report.

Is that true? Can you show me where the BBC reports this?

Because last I heard, a report would come out this summer.

 

[Foster Zygote]

They showed it to illustrate the car being on fire. I'm content it was the car unless you have a good reason to claim it was not.

Showing an image of a car on fire, and then having to explicitly state "this is the car in which the fire started", seems more like the sort of accommodation needed by Daily Mail readers than the BBC.

 

[JayUtah]

There is always an exceptional reason for something to seemingly self-combust within seconds.

Because you say so?

According to the car parking document, it takes at least 300 seconds (five minutes) for a near-fully burning vehicle to cause a car parked next to it to successfully ignite.

That's a naive statement. Heat transfer is affected by a number of factors.

Given the appearance of the flames in the CCTV and the white/grey appearance of the flames and smoke and its location, there is nothing at all unreasonable in the fire being identified as a lithium-ion one...

Asked and answered. You are not an expert in photographic interpretation.

given such a fire burns at a MUCH higher temperature than diesel fuel or flame-resistant complex plastics.

Asked and answered. Not a true statement.

I will wait for September for the facts, not some 'it is believed'-type opinion.

But in the meantime you're going to spew all kinds of ignorance and express expertise you do not have, and all everyone else sheep for not following you. Got it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Vixen, what geometric references are you using to determine the actual angle of the floor in the two photos?

Again, with feeling, there is no way to determine the angle of the floor because you don't know the precise angle of the camera in either image. You are simply demonstrating your ignorance of geometry. And, as you have already been informed of this fact, your continued use of the claim shows that you don't actually care about facts.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... The car park was constructed within one year in 2019 and Buckingham Group was petitioned into administration in 2021...

Well that's highly suspicious. It's not as if there was a global pandemic to explain a business failing around that time.

But what has this got to do with diesel fire being unable to weaken structural steel as you claim?

Construction is simple; first the metal structures are put up, rather like in a Meccano set, and then the rest added.

Thanks for the Dunning-Kruger guide to construction.
But what has this got to do with diesel fire being unable to weaken structural steel as you claim?

As I understand it, the car park did have water pipes fitted in readiness for a sprinkler system...

Reference?

 

[JayUtah]

I think it is healthy to be sceptical about government sanctioned statements, especially those designed to stifle speculation.

Which statements are those, and how do you know they were "designed" to stifle speculation? And how precisely would that happen?

We haven't been told what caused the Gatwick North Terminal Fire other than 'accidental ignition'

The expectation that it must be otherwise comes only from your fertile imagination.

...so yes, there would appear to be a news embargo...

A conclusion you are drawing by inference, not according to facts.

as to what type of vehicle destroyed eleven cars in an uncontrollable fire within minutes.

What isn't a one-size fits-all solution is heat transfer in a structure fire.

Nothing conspiracy theory about that.

Except for the parts that are a conspiracy theory:

1. The government is trying to stifle speculation.
2. The cause of the Gatwick fire is being deliberately withheld.
3. The spread of a fire is suspiciously fast.

Literally every point you made in your post.

 

[JayUtah]

Construction is simple...

No, it isn't. Exactly how many structures have you designed and built? Exactly how may construction systems have you designed and built? Exactly how many construction companies have you worked for or supervised?

...suggesting Buckingham Group had to skimp...

It is a public disgrace, not a conspiracy theory.

Except for the highlighted part, which is a conspiracy theory. All your arguments involve you simply making up nonsense in specialized fields you've demonstrated you don't understand. Then you measure real-life performance against your naive standards and attribute any failure to a conspiracy you imagine. That is exactly conspiracy reasoning. There is no other kind.

 

[JayUtah]

I very much look forward to seeing your reference for your claim that 1,150°C is insufficient to weaken structural steel to the point where it buckles. I feel like looking for that old photo of crazily buckled steel I-beams draped over partly-burned wooden beams like wet spaghetti...

Depending on the type of steel member involved, even cold steel will do this. Look carefully at the "draping" of the steel over the ship's bow in the collapse of the bridge in Baltimore. This is because I-section members (and—to a lesser extent—H-section members) are strong only when loaded in the plane of the web. They are considerably weaker when loaded out of plane, or loaded in torsion. Thus any through-truss structural system will pay considerable attention to keeping the members properly in plane and braced. This results in lower cost and greater structural efficiency. However, it comes at the cost of lower survivability in fires or under a high amount of imposed structural damage.

Vixen's claim that temperatures of 1,000 ºC or greater will not affect structural steel is ludicrously wrong. And, as in the World Trade Center fires on 9/11, the heat loading here was not primarily from liquid hydrocarbon fuel, but from other classes of combustibles present.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Depending on the type of steel member involved, even cold steel will do this. Look carefully at the "draping" of the steel over the ship's bow in the collapse of the bridge in Baltimore. This is because I-section members (and—to a lesser extent—H-section members) are strong only when loaded in the plane of the web. They are considerably weaker when loaded out of plane, or loaded in torsion. Thus any through-truss structural system will pay considerable attention to keeping the members properly in plane and braced. This results in lower cost and greater structural efficiency. However, it comes at the cost of lower survivability in fires or under a high amount of imposed structural damage.

Vixen's claim that temperatures of 1,000 ºC or greater will not affect structural steel is ludicrously wrong. And, as in the World Trade Center fires on 9/11, the heat loading here was not primarily from liquid hydrocarbon fuel, but from other classes of combustibles present.

I refer the reader to "Sherman's Neckties"

 

[Vixen]

Again, where did you get September?

If a car can be burning like the BMW or Audi in the previously linked videos in about five minutes, then it doesn't need to be parked directly adjacent to another vehicle to ignite it. Said videos showed cars burning in the open, while the Range Rover in Luton was under a low ceiling, which trapped heat energy and diverted it to the sides, while also allowing fresh airflow to feed the fire through the open sides of the structure. And, as you already conceded, when the fuel tank ruptures, the burning fuel will run down slope. (You even suggested a containment system, presumably like a gutter, which is a really bad idea because it's still going to be directing burning fuel through the building.)

I know I'm not the only one to have called ******** on your "there within minutes" claim. You have not justified this claim, and you know it. That's why you make the vague statement "within minutes", allowing the reader to infer a very short time without actually committing to saying how long, because, after all, "within minutes" could mean fifteen minutes just as easily as three minutes. You also continue to make the ignorant assumption that the fire service drove straight to the parking garage, immediately turned their enormous, critical asset of a pumper truck up the ramp, and speed straight to the burning car to begin dousing it with copious amounts of water, all "within minutes" of the emergency call being received. That's ludicrous.

You have a habit of searching for numbers a posteriori, and when you think you find one you post it as though you actually know what you're talking about. <snip conspiracy crap>

BBC:

A full report by the fire service is expected in September.

3 Apr 2024


According to this video at 20:31 the fuel drainage system as recommended by the Merseyside Fire Brigade report into the King's Dock (ECHO) fire of 2018/19 is illustrated here:




https://youtu.be/_Nvt_6D7ijs?si=nqQ4mjn8SgrBfTHg

As at 29:00 it states recommendations including that the initial firefighters should be there within three to four minutes of the first fire alert.

At 49:00 it shows the aftermath of the Newark Airport fire, USA which was 17 cars rapidly ignited due to accelerant in an unlicensed and recently repaired truck. A description of such a fire can be found in this cafsti pdf document page 4, that specifically deals with someone driving along and

"noticed the engine was overheating or
saw steam coming from the engine compartment and when
they stopped the engine burst on fire"

which seems to fit the scenario at Luton Airport car park fire.

 

[GlennB]

...

As at 29:00 it states recommendations including that the initial firefighters should be there within three to four minutes of the first fire alert.

...

Quite possibly, but - as has been pointed out many times - it's a very different calculation for beginning to tackle the fire.

Open-air car park? They can start fighting the fire quickly.

Upper levels of a multi-storey? Nope. A fire truck can't just drive in and get close, it takes platforms sufficiently close to the blaze to be effective and wind direction is important. etc etc etc

But you know all this. You're just mindlessly repeating the same (supposed) get-outs over and over.

 

[Vixen]

They showed it to illustrate the car being on fire. I'm content it was the car unless you have a good reason to claim it was not.

You're suggesting the driver pulled up beside a burning car and waited there until his car caught fire and then told the authorities it was his car that caught fire.

Was it that X user's own video? How many other places was it uploaded?

No. We did this before. You misconstrued the painted markings on the floor (One lane for one-way traffic, no centre while line, green pedestrian lane to one side) and you rashly assumed all photos had the camera exactly vertical so you misconstrued the slope of the floors.


Has he dealt at face value with the fire brigade saying it was a diesel car?


It's a theory about a conspiracy so...

This fire was a diesel car fire. Telling the public which precise diesel model it was will not make it stop being a diesel car. Have you discovered what type of fuel the Liverpool car used? Why not? What are they hiding from you? The Luton fire was a straightforward diesel fire. Maybe the Liverpool fire was the real coverup. Why can't we be told? Are you part of the disinfo campaign to take attention off the Liverpool fire?

The CCTV footage (the one accepted as verified by the press) obviously shows a JLR car so what is the problem with publishing the make, model and year instead of leaving it to anonymous bods on X or youtube (or even Smart Cooky, Foster Zygote and catsmate on ISF) to try to identify it?

The government is obviously hoping that that specification will be ignored and I wouldn't be surprised if the report fails to mention it either. Because, hello? Tata - lithium battery factory - £500,000,000 taxpayer money straight into Tata JLR pockets, together with any future potentially enormous profits to be made out of the UK EV industry. This is typical Sunak behaviour. What is it people are resisting? Sudden transparency, honesty and compassion for the average Brit? Or his usual cashing in big time on a blind register so no-one can tell [until it's too late, probably]?

Here is a screenshot of the verified airport image:

front by Username Vixen, on Flickr

and this is a screenshot of the one uploaded on to X/twitter professing to be have an identifiable numberplate of a 2014 RR Sport.

back by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Make of them what you will.

 

[JayUtah]

The government is obviously hoping that that specification will be ignored...

Speculation.

Because, hello? Tata - lithium battery factory - £500,000,000 taxpayer money straight into Tata JLR pockets, together with any future potentially enormous profits to be made out of the UK EV industry. This is typical Sunak behaviour. What is it people are resisting? Sudden transparency, honesty and compassion for the average Brit? Or his usual cashing in big time on a blind register so no-one can tell [until it's too late, probably]?

This yarn-and-pushpins argument is not a substitute for evidence for your claims.

Make of them what you will.

What I make of them is that the nature of the combustible load cannot be determined reliably from them without additional information. I'm qualified, licensed, and experienced to offer those findings. You are not.

 

[Vixen]

Depending on the type of steel member involved, even cold steel will do this. Look carefully at the "draping" of the steel over the ship's bow in the collapse of the bridge in Baltimore. This is because I-section members (and—to a lesser extent—H-section members) are strong only when loaded in the plane of the web. They are considerably weaker when loaded out of plane, or loaded in torsion. Thus any through-truss structural system will pay considerable attention to keeping the members properly in plane and braced. This results in lower cost and greater structural efficiency. However, it comes at the cost of lower survivability in fires or under a high amount of imposed structural damage.

Vixen's claim that temperatures of 1,000 ºC or greater will not affect structural steel is ludicrously wrong. And, as in the World Trade Center fires on 9/11, the heat loading here was not primarily from liquid hydrocarbon fuel, but from other classes of combustibles present.

We are talking about a multi-storey extremely busy airport car park. The WTC analogy is not like-for-like because of course the contructors would not expect to:

• mitigate risk in case a terrorist plane hit it
• mitigate the risk of up to 1,500 vehicles all burning together.

One is a highly unlikely scenario the other, a low to medium risk but a definitely possible one


Likewise, the fire risk assessment for a skyscraper office containing up to 10,000 people on dozens of floors will be completely different from a car park. In the former, it needs to be far more pro-active in fire prevention and evacuation. In the case of the latter, the aim is not to protect the building so much as the need to safely evacuate people within one hour before it is burnt down.

 

[phiwum]

Oh please. The fire was out of control within less than half an hour, with fire fighters overcome with fumes and having to leave the building. A diesel car fire is something a team of firefighters can put out within ten minutes.

Sorry, can we be explicit here?

Just tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement.

* The evidence strongly suggests that the initial vehicle was NOT a diesel ICE vehicle, despite what the current press releases allege.

Obviously, if you disagree agree, then honestly, one wonders whether the press releases or even the final report matter, since the authors are either deceitful or incompetent. Is that where you're leaning right now?

Disagree. This is just based on the initial press release and we have had nothing since then.

Huh.

You said "A diesel car fire is something a team of firefighters can put out within ten minutes." You also agree, I assume, that this fire was not put out in ten minutes. I thought this would mean that you don't think this was (started by) a diesel car fire.

But now you claim that there's no strong evidence that this WASN'T a diesel car fire.

Isn't the fact that the firefighters didn't put it out in 10 minutes strong evidence that this wasn't a diesel car fire (given that, as you claim, firefighters can make quick work of such fires)?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As at 29:00 it states recommendations including that the initial firefighters should be there within three to four minutes of the first fire alert.

Well, they weren't there in 3 to 4 minutes. What now?

The first responders to arrive got there in 8 minutes, travelling from Stopsley, 2½ miles away, and then found the car fire was not in an easily accessible area but 3 floors up in the multi storey car park.

So what point are you making? Do you wish fire engines could drive faster? Do you doubt the time response actually took? Do you think Rishi Sunak delayed them? It's not clear what point you want to make.

 

[JayUtah]

As at 29:00 it states recommendations including that the initial firefighters should be there within three to four minutes of the first fire alert.

That would be nice, but it has little to do with when firefighting efforts begin for any specific fire, nor indicates a yardstick by which performance can be adjudicated as suspicious.

which seems to fit the scenario at Luton Airport car park fire.

According to whose judgment and what set of criteria?

 

[phiwum]

It could be a hoax, who knows?

Ah, so you have no reliable evidence that the Gatwick fire started with a Tesla?

Or, to put it differently, your evidence that the Gatwick fire started with a Tesla is just as strong (and no stronger) as the evidence that the Luton fire started with a Range Rover. If you want to claim the former, you can't very well deny the latter.

 

[JayUtah]

We are talking about a multi-storey extremely busy airport car park.

Irrelevant. Your statements regarding steel construction and heat loading are unquestionably incorrect.

One is a highly unlikely scenario the other, a low to medium risk but a definitely possible one

Irrelevant. Your statement of expectations for the performance of structural steel in a fire are factually incorrect.

Likewise, the fire risk assessment for a skyscraper office containing up to 10,000 people on dozens of floors will be completely different from a car park. In the former, it needs to be far more pro-active in fire prevention and evacuation. In the case of the latter, the aim is not to protect the building so much as the need to safely evacuate people within one hour before it is burnt down.

What is your professional experience in steel frame design and analysis, and risk assessment in those design exercises?

I have to repeat that I just love it when you try to Vixensplain my profession to me.

 

[phiwum]

As I recall there was much jubilation when it was reiterated that it was not believed to be an MEV, PHEV or full-EV.

Reiterated?

You made much hay about the possibility it was a diesel hybrid precisely because they hadn't explicitly said otherwise. Now you're claiming that we all knew it wasn't a diesel hybrid and they told us nothing new in the latest press release.

Consistency is a virtue, you know.