Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Stop arguing against straw men. Stop pretending you do not know what these are, as I have pointed them out before.

  • Strawman no. 1: I am an advocate against EV's and hybrids.
  • Strawman no. 2: I am an advocate for diesel and petrol ICE only cars.
  • Strawman no. 3: I have no understanding of how car park fires work.
Click to expand...
You clearly still have no idea what a strawman fallacy really is. In the case of the first two, I have at no point stated in any way that you are against EVs and hybrids, nor have I stated that you want only hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. You can't justify your claim of a strawman because you can't point to any post in which I have put any combination of words to those effects in your mouth (or on your keyboard, as it were).

In the case of your 3rd point, pointing out flaws in your arguments, and even saying that they demonstrate your lack of understanding of architecture and its failure modes is still not a strawman fallacy in any form. A strawman fallacy is when someone attributes an argument to someone that they haven't actually made, like when you put words in my mouth in your first two points above.

Asking you to clarify certain positions isn't in any way a strawman, either. If I ask you if you think that the vehicle in question was the sole cause of the damage to the structure, or if you think that the vehicle in which the fire started burned a hole through the floor, those aren't strawman fallacies because I'm not making statements for you, but rather asking you to make a clear statement.

Compounding these ipso facto logical fallacies (strawman) are your attempts at either misunderstanding (let's be charitable and say it is innocent) or actively attempting to deceive, in the following issues:

[*]Your claim no. 4: that fires in diesel cars (together with plastics and other combusitbles) are of the same quality as in EV's and HEV's.
Click to expand...
That's a lie, Vixen. I defy you to a single post in which I stated that a diesel vehicle fire was equivalent to a EV or hybrid fire.

[*]Claim no. 5: that diesel cars do self-combust and the statistics show this is more likely than in EV-equivalents.
Click to expand...
Another lie. What does "self-combust" even mean? Are you committing the strawman fallacy of claiming that I've said that diesel vehicles just spontaneously combust on their own? And statistically, EV fires are less likely than hydrocarbon fires. But I wasn't even the person who pointed that out.

[*]Claim no. 6: You appear not to understand the difference between flash point and ignition point in diesels.
Click to expand...
Going for victory through pedantry, eh? Why don't you come back up to the chalkboard and explain to the class how this relates to your arguments?

[*]Claim no. 7: you claim not to understand that the type of fire in an EV lithium battery is materially different from that of a diesel or ICE car.
Click to expand...
I claimed that? Where? I've pointed out that your "evidence" for it having been a Li-ion battery is faulty. I've never claimed that Li-ion fires are identical to hydrocarbon fires. You're just lying.

For your ease of reference, this video here illustrates why and how a lithium-ion battery fire differs from that of diesel. If you recall, a poster tried to claim that you could start a diesel fire easily but omitted to mention the lit rag soaked in kerosene and application of a leaf blower to do so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1j9TUV5coc
Click to expand...
So you need a kerosene soaked rag and a leaf blower to start a diesel fire, do you? Are you sure about that? Are you saying that something as small as a match flame could not start diesel burning?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7soVqyGq4i4&pp=ygULRGllc2VsIGZpcmU=

I mean, I've already posted the video before, but just look at that dish of diesel being ignited by a wooden match. It takes longer to light than the gasoline, but once the diesel lights, it's actually releasing more heat energy by volume.

And do you understand that because the fire started in a diesel vehicle, it doesn't mean that the first material to burn had to be the diesel fuel?
 
Vixen said:
Point of information: it has NOT been confirmed. Even today, the SUNDAY TIMES reports:



Note the operative qualifier: 'suggests'.

I know that word is not popular with people who like to jump to conclusions or have an agenda.
Click to expand...

Do you really not understand the difference between knowing it was a diesel vehicle and knowing what caused it to catch fire? Or are you just grasping at anything to keep the argument going?

Just saying it was a diesel vehicle isn't saying that diesel caused the fire. That's such a simple concept one has to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. You've claimed to be six steps ahead, but I think you'd be lucky to be as close as six steps behind.
 
Vixen said:
Burning plastics with the diesel fuel 'and other combustibles' doesn't turn it into an especially different type of fire.
Click to expand...

Who has claimed that it does? No one.

You're the one fixated on the single vehicle, which is why I've asked if you understand that the extensive damage was caused by the burning on numerous vehicles. Had the initial vehicle been isolated such that it was the only one that burned, it's unlikely the garage would have suffered the damage it did.
 
Foster Zygote said:
And do you understand that because the fire started in a diesel vehicle, it doesn't mean that the first material to burn had to be the diesel fuel?
Click to expand...

Yes, vehicle fires don't usually start in the fuel tank.

As for 55 degrees, a temperature easily exceeded in the engine compartment of a running vehicle.

If you doubt it, touch the exhaust manifold.
 
Vixen said:
Burning plastics with the diesel fuel 'and other combustibles' doesn't turn it into an especially different type of fire.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it does. So much for any expertise you might try to claim or demonstrate in how fire works.

There's a reason why easily-ignitable and quickly-combustible substances are called "accelerants" in fire investigations. They generally do not contribute more than a marginal effect to the time-integrated heat load. Now in the case of a car park fire, they will contribute slightly more, but an average fuel load of 10-20 liters per vehicle will not dominate the 200-300 kg or more per vehicle fuel load of other combustibles.

Think of your charcoal cook fire. You use an accelerant (usually kerosene sold under various brand names of "lighter fluid") to get the charcoal going. The kerosene is gone in minutes, but it serves to sustain combustion until the charcoal until it can self-sustain. It's a kerosene fire for a minute, then a charcoal fire for the next hour. The charcoal fire is what you cook on, because the charcoal has a much different heat profile than the kerosene.

The difference in the nature of fire produced by the different nature of real world combustibles is why we in the U.S. have test protocols such as ASTM E119. A building element is certified to a certain endurance time according to that test protocol only as a means of normalizing the heat profile for disparate products so that they can be more or less directly compared. Those who try to take those endurance measurements as a real world indicator of fire endurance have to be cautioned that fires involving different combustibles may produce hotter or faster-spreading fires than those in the test protocol.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Do you really not understand the difference between knowing it was a diesel vehicle and knowing what caused it to catch fire? Or are you just grasping at anything to keep the argument going?

Just saying it was a diesel vehicle isn't saying that diesel caused the fire. That's such a simple concept one has to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. You've claimed to be six steps ahead, but I think you'd be lucky to be as close as six steps behind.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference in knowing either. The starting point has to be (1) the type /make/model of the initial car, (2) the situation as of the point it caught fire (was the engine still running, for example) and (3) knowing that a diesel car with an electrical fault fire causing a fuel leak is a different kettle of fish from an exploding lithium battery fire.

From official fire research:

1968 research shows ““The experimental work carried out…..confirms the fact that an outbreak of fire, within a single parked car, is unlikely to result in uncontrollable fire spread in the car park or in serious damage to the structure of the building.”
Click to expand...
Merseyside-FRF-Car-Park-Report.pdf

Read it twice.


As for being six steps ahead here's some good practice material.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0C59pI_ypQ
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
There is a big difference in knowing either. The starting point has to be (1) the type /make/model of the initial car, (2) the situation as of the point it caught fire (was the engine still running, for example) and (3) knowing that a diesel car with an electrical fault caused by a fuel leak is a different kettle of fish from an exploding lithium battery fire.

From official fire research:

1968 research shows ““The experimental work carried out…..confirms the fact that an outbreak of fire, within a single parked car, is unlikely to result in uncontrollable fire spread in the car park or in serious damage to the structure of the building.”
Click to expand...

Merseyside-FRF-Car-Park-Report.pdf

Read it twice.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's read it twice.

1968 research shows ““The experimental work carried out…..confirms the fact that an outbreak of fire, within a single parked car, is unlikely to result in uncontrollable fire spread in the car park or in serious damage to the structure of the building.”
Click to expand...

You don't think that some things might have changed a bit in the intervening 55 years?

I also think it's interesting that you don't actually link to the document in question.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Who has claimed that it does? No one.

You're the one fixated on the single vehicle, which is why I've asked if you understand that the extensive damage was caused by the burning on numerous vehicles. Had the initial vehicle been isolated such that it was the only one that burned, it's unlikely the garage would have suffered the damage it did.
Click to expand...

But wait. The driver was there. He or she or someone nearby applied an extinguisher to it. ( A unverified photo implies.) Some one else has filmed a video of the car in question (unverified) shooting out flames from beneath the vehicle, unlike the classic burning upwards. Another person claims to have filmed the initial vehicle (unverified) from the front. So eye witnesses must surely have called the emergency services promptly. A fire alarm must surely have sounded. Yet the whole building was in the grip of an uncontrollable fire within circa 50 minutes. Do you see the problem with the burning fuel leak theory (albeit caused by electrics and combined with pesky plastics)? In Liverpool, such a fire only spread to two rows of cars on one floor, for almost two hours before spreading upwards to the floor above and it was only then firemen could not contain it?

Yet at Luton despite prompt alarms the whole fire was uncontrollable within fifty minutes of the first call to 999.

So the initial vehicle WAS 'isolated'. It hadn't even been parked.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
From official fire research:

Merseyside-FRF-Car-Park-Report.pdf

Read it twice.
Click to expand...

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

That's based on research from 1965 and points out that:

1. “…the parking area for each car is considerably larger than the floor area which each car covers” (Spacing of Vehicles Fire Note 10 p.2). This indicates that cars manufactured in the 1950’s are considerably smaller than the parking spaces provided under regulatory requirements and this would give a greater distance between cars, thus reducing effects of radiated heat.

However, cars are now considerably larger, reducing the distance between parked vehicles.

2. “One of the major hazards considered was the disruption of the petrol tanks and the flowing of petrol under other cars in the vicinity via the sloping concrete ramp. In no case did this occur.” (Fire Note 10 Explosion Risk p.7). It is estimated 85% of European vehicles have plastic fuel tanks (BRE Fire Spread in Car Parks BD 2552 p.12).

(i.e. at the time, tanks were generally metal), and:

Observations and recommendations
1. The cars used and the materials they were constructed from have a far lower calorific value than modern vehicles.
2. The cars used for the experiment were far smaller than most modern vehicles.

In summary, you have cherry-picked to such an outrageous degree that it amounts to nothing more than you presenting yet another lie.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, the only issue in dispute seems to be the ridiculous claim that the cause of the fire has been settled when objective evidence via unjaundiced eyes doesn't see that as a logical conclusion at all given (a) there is no confirmation that the car in the photos circulating is the same car that caused the fire (b) there is no confirmation that the number plate on one of the photos is genuine.

The person who took the picture on a mobile may not even have taken it at Luton Airport Car Park.

This might explain why the Fire Brigade have declined to confirm it is the culprit car.

AFAIAA there has been no confirmation* from an official source of anything at all as to the cause.

*Look up the meaning of the word 'confirmation'.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing the information available to Twitter's armchair detectives with the information available to the police and fire services.

The fire service are content to publish the information it was a diesel car. Sorry that spoils your fun.
 
Vixen said:
If as is the fire brigade's stated aim for public buildings to to arrive within 3 - 4 minutes, how is it possible that a driver leaping out of his smouldering car, contacting 999 and all the alarms going off, promptly, stops the fire teams from effectively containing the blaze swiftly?
Click to expand...
I'll take your changing the subject to be your conceding the point about the comparison. Okay.
 
GlennB said:
I did.
https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf

That's based on research from 1965 and points out that:

1. “…the parking area for each car is considerably larger than the floor area which each car covers” (Spacing of Vehicles Fire Note 10 p.2). This indicates that cars manufactured in the 1950’s are considerably smaller than the parking spaces provided under regulatory requirements and this would give a greater distance between cars, thus reducing effects of radiated heat.

However, cars are now considerably larger, reducing the distance between parked vehicles.

2. “One of the major hazards considered was the disruption of the petrol tanks and the flowing of petrol under other cars in the vicinity via the sloping concrete ramp. In no case did this occur.” (Fire Note 10 Explosion Risk p.7). It is estimated 85% of European vehicles have plastic fuel tanks (BRE Fire Spread in Car Parks BD 2552 p.12).

(i.e. at the time, tanks were generally metal), and:

Observations and recommendations
1. The cars used and the materials they were constructed from have a far lower calorific value than modern vehicles.
2. The cars used for the experiment were far smaller than most modern vehicles.

In summary, you have cherry-picked to such an outrageous degree that it amounts to nothing more than you presenting yet another lie.
Click to expand...



Stop impugning me. I could hardly quote the entire 62-pages, just the part relevant to my post in question. The above all supports the leaking fuel theory of the Liverpool fire, so does not contradict the thrust of my post at all as I describe how this burning fuel leak spread to two rows of cars of up to 30 cars in all, initially.

Car park space is not relevant here if the pictured car is the one in question, as it was parked on a causeway, not a parking space.
 
Vixen said:
If as is the fire brigade's stated aim for public buildings to to arrive within 3 - 4 minutes, how is it possible that a driver leaping out of his smouldering car, contacting 999 and all the alarms going off, promptly, stops the fire teams from effectively containing the blaze swiftly?
Click to expand...

Are you aware you can't drive a fire engine into a multi-storey car park? They're height restricted, generally 6'6". Cite available, but it's trivial knowledge.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You seem to be confusing the information available to Twitter's armchair detectives with the information available to the police and fire services.

The fire service are content to publish the information it was a diesel car. Sorry that spoils your fun.
Click to expand...

Next step: explain how the fire spread to become uncontrollable and only manageable from outside the building within fifty minutes.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'll take your changing the subject to be your conceding the point about the comparison. Okay.
Click to expand...

From the same report:

Fire Spread in Car Parks
In 1968, The Ministry of Technology and Fire Offices’ Committee Joint Fire Research
Organisation researched and concluded that fire spread from one vehicle to others
would not occur and that if it did, the Metropolitan Brigades would invariably be in
attendance within 3 to 4 minutes. “
Click to expand...

So what was the problem with a bog standard run of the mill electrical fault with the 12-volt battery system?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom