Ok, to get the obvious out of the way, this is really funny, especially the images of the foam releasing out of the hangar.
Now for the serious part: I've been a firefighter for...a while, and I joined the Cellar just so I could reply to some of the crap on this post. As somebody else pointed out, the foam is AFFF, typically used to suppress ignition of combustible fluids (more on that in a moment), especially JP and gasoline, where the vapors are explosive and heavier than air (thus they can obtain a vapor density sufficient to be combustible). The goal of AFFF is NOT to combine with (i.e. emulsify) the fluid but to sit on top of it and smother the fire by dispersing the vapors and limiting atmospheric esposure to the liquid, which limits evaporation, which means it can't burn (I'm skipping the Junior Chemistry on exothermic oxidation reactions
). The surface tension of the bubbles further suppresses other chemical reactions which can allow spontaneous oxidation and combustion (in other words, some emulsification is a good thing). Of course, the mass of the foam and the relative temperature differential also plays a significant part in limiting oxidation as well. So, for those of you who just had the lightbulb go off in your head, yes AFFF is also effective at suppressing class "A" fires. The reason it isn't more widely used for class "A" fires (structure fires, in particular) is a complicated issue, although apparatus manufacturers (most notably Pierce) has been trying to convince more fire companies of the significant advantages of fighting all class A and B fires with AFFF. My recollection (although someone else can correct me on this) is that AFFF is NOT electrically conductive and therefore can also be used on class "C" fires. Again, I don't know that for sure. Class "D" fires (combustible metals) are not candidates for suppression with AFFF.
Anyway, AFFF is typically fractioned at 1-4%, depending on the situation and application, although some fractioners only disperse AFFF at one concentration for ease of use. Can you suffocate in this stuff?
Hell yes. You are in soap suds, but dense soap suds, not like the stuff on the top of your bubble bath. As you can see from the runoff from the hangar, and the dispersal pattern from the nozzles, there is a significant density to the solution, which means significant air displacement, and thus significant fire suppression and cooling. I have never been in AFFF of a depth even approaching 1m (espcially in a confined space), so I can't tell you what the differential is between the top and bottom. At the depth of the solution in the hangar it would be impossible to carve out a significant air pocket to ensure survival.
The good news is that you are a lot more likely to survive an AFFF near-drowning than you are a flashover.
This system was surely modified after this test to limit the total flow to ensure that a situation like the one illustrated for the test ever occurred, in case it was impossible for personnel to evacuate the hangar, or to release the foam.
Oh, and one other thing: yes, AFFF is essntially dish soap, although I believe it also contains a surfactant to ensure consistent bubble size. Being cheap by nature (AFFF is expensive), most of us in our department have acquired old Class "A" fire extinguishers (water cans) and have filled them with homemade AFFF (check the net for a recipe that suits you - I use a general purpose one because I don't know if I'll be first-on-scene at a car fire with entrapment or a brush fire).
Anyway, to repeat, the pictures are damn funny.