Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Please explain how a diesel-fueled vehicle did all of this within 20 minutes, even with the fire brigade arriving promptly? What makes it so highly probable to have been a diesel car, given it is claimed not to have been a lithium-ion fire?
Click to expand...

Reversing the burden of proof. Tell us exactly what's suspicious about this and exactly how you know.
 
Vixen said:
Question: how can Mr. Hopkinson state confidently that the car involved in the fire was a 'diesel' only and that it was accidental? True, he did qualify his comments but within a day or so the website was stating it as fact, as was full fact.
Click to expand...

Because he knows his job better than you do.

The ONLY explanation is that Hopkinson was ordered to say that by the government.
Click to expand...

Hopelessly speculative.
 
Vixen said:
Are you claiming lawyers are paragons of truth?
Click to expand...


No, I'm claiming that the statement under discussion has a clear meaning which is not dependent on who has written it. Either it is true or it isn't.

Do you think it is true or false?
 
JayUtah said:
Reversing the burden of proof. Tell us exactly what's suspicious about this and exactly how you know.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Are you suggesting people should accept that the Australian knifer in a recent incident in Melbourne was 'XY', because some prat on Twitter claimed to have matched the photograph of the filmed perpetrator in the shopping mall with images on Google? The guy is rightly now suing the suspected Putin-shill. as people like yourself accepted, 'If it's on X-Twitter it must be true! Prove it's not!'

It was not for Mr. XY to demonstrate he had nothing to do with it.
 
Vixen said:
Rubbish. Are you suggesting people should accept that the Australian knifer in a recent incident in Melbourne was 'XY', because some prat on Twitter claimed to have matched the photograph of the filmed perpetrator in the shopping mall with images on Google?
Click to expand...


This is just my interpretation, but I think he's suggesting that we shouldn't accept ridiculous conspiracy theories on your say-so.
 
Vixen said:
Rubbish. Are you suggesting people should accept that the Australian knifer in a recent incident in Melbourne was 'XY', because some prat on Twitter claimed to have matched the photograph of the filmed perpetrator in the shopping mall with images on Google? The guy is rightly now suing the suspected Putin-shill. as people like yourself accepted, 'If it's on X-Twitter it must be true! Prove it's not!'

It was not for Mr. XY to demonstrate he had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Off topic pathetic drivel (and a False Equivalence fallacy in any case)

YOU made the claim that the photos of the car burning were faked

YOU own the burden to support that claim.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
 
Vixen said:
Every year approximately 13,000 people are convicted of cloning numberplates or having false numberplates. Criminals clone numberplates.

Something like 2% of all vehicles on the road are unlicensed.

About 16,000 people every year are caught without insurance or a valid driving licence.

5,500 Range Rovers are stolen every year.

Question: how can Mr. Hopkinson state confidently that the car involved in the fire was a 'diesel' only and that it was accidental? True, he did qualify his comments but within a day or so the website was stating it as fact, as was full fact.

Yet 25% of vehicles and 40% of the car park remains in place where they burnt down.


The ONLY explanation is that Hopkinson was ordered to say that by the government.

The reason being to protect the Tata Jaguar Land Rover brand, which had just been given a huge amount of taxpayer money for nothing.
Click to expand...

He knew it was a diesel because the fire service can recognise a diesel engine in a car.
 
Vixen said:
Every year approximately 13,000 people are convicted of cloning numberplates or having false numberplates. Criminals clone numberplates.

Something like 2% of all vehicles on the road are unlicensed.

About 16,000 people every year are caught without insurance or a valid driving licence.

5,500 Range Rovers are stolen every year.
Click to expand...
And yet, somehow, police are able to determine when a registration number is false. Are you really arguing that there is no way for investors to determine whether a car's tag is real or not?

Question: how can Mr. Hopkinson state confidently that the car involved in the fire was a 'diesel' only and that it was accidental?
Click to expand...
Given that he is the head of the Bedford Fire Service and not some chronic conspiracy theorist combing the comments section of The Daily Mail for "clues", by having access to far more information than you do.

True, he did qualify his comments but within a day or so the website was stating it as fact, as was full fact.
Click to expand...
It was a few days after the first statement - adequate time for law enforcement investigators to have used the considerable resources available to them to have identified the owner and the car involved.

The ONLY explanation is that Hopkinson was ordered to say that by the government.
Click to expand...
Coming from someone who was (is still?) ignorant enough to think she could determine the slope of the floor in an enclosed space from a photo with no spatial references, that's downright hilarious. It's not the only explanation, it's just the only one you're willing to entertain, because it's the only one that makes you the smartest person in the room. You're like someone walking around the scene of a car accident and talking into a broken transistor radio about your investigation of the "crime scene" so that passersby can hear you.
 
Vixen said:
Every year approximately 13,000 people are convicted of cloning numberplates or having false numberplates. Criminals clone numberplates.

Something like 2% of all vehicles on the road are unlicensed.

About 16,000 people every year are caught without insurance or a valid driving licence.

5,500 Range Rovers are stolen every year.

Question: how can Mr. Hopkinson state confidently that the car involved in the fire was a 'diesel' only and that it was accidental? True, he did qualify his comments but within a day or so the website was stating it as fact, as was full fact.

Yet 25% of vehicles and 40% of the car park remains in place where they burnt down.


The ONLY explanation is that Hopkinson was ordered to say that by the government.

The reason being to protect the Tata Jaguar Land Rover brand, which had just been given a huge amount of taxpayer money for nothing.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that e and the fire service are telling deliberate lies and are pat of a conspiracy to suppress the real cause of the fire?

That would make them criminals.
 
Myriad said:
It is highly probable to have been a diesel car because the fire service involved have confirmed the car was a diesel.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? the fire service is part of a criminal conspiracy and they are telling lies.
 
Vixen said:
He who makes the claim should substantiate the claim.
Click to expand...

You're the one who has made the claim that this is a conspiracy. Your "proof" of that has been laughable.

Come September, we'll likely have the finished report of the fire with far more details than just the vehicle that started it. But you won't have the slightest proof that the floor in the second image is sloping the wrong way. Your cry of "fake!" has been found to be unsupported by evidence, and you're just trying to weasel out of that because there is seemingly nothing you hate more than admitting you are wrong about something.
 
There are two theories in play here

Theory 1. A man drives a diesel vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire (something that happens over 19,000 times annually in the UK). The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads so other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down.

Theory 2. A man drives an electric vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire. The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads to other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down. The Prime Minister of England has investments in electric cars, so in order to protect those investments from the bad publicity that an electric car fire would cause, he instructs some sooper secret agents from MI5 or MI6 to fake a video, altering it to show an diesel powered vehicle, a 2014 Range Rover Sport. In order to reinforce this ruse, they follow up by planting fake number plates, and make forged entries in the VLA database to register a fake person as the owner of that Range Rover. The Prime Minister also orders the media to lie about the cause of the fire, and threatens the emergency services involved to in order to get them to also lie about the car that caused the fire.

Apply Occam's Razor... the simplest solution is most likely to be the correct one.

But there is another way to tell. Theory 2 is so utterly bat-**** crazy that only a dyed-in-the-wool conspiratard would believe it.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
This guy for one:

ibid any newspaper dated 11 oct 2023.

Just browse the early images for yourself.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't say the fire started on the roof, does it? In fact, it says he saw fire on the roof "just after 9:00 pm". The fire was reported to have started at 8:45. Even if we grant that the vague "just after 9:00" means a couple of minutes, that's still over ¼ hour after the blaze is reported to have started. It could even be as much as 25 - 30 minutes after.

You'll have to do a lot better.
 
Vixen said:
Please explain how a diesel-fueled vehicle did all of this within 20 minutes, even with the fire brigade arriving promptly? What makes it so highly probable to have been a diesel car, given it is claimed not to have been a lithium-ion fire?
Click to expand...

It's already been explained. You've seen the videos of how quickly a lone car fire can turn into a serious blaze. You've been informed that diesel burns even more energetically than gasoline. You've been shown that diesel, far from being difficult to ignite, can be set alight with a common match. You know that the garage was an enclosed space with many hundreds of cars packed in close proximity. You've also been shown a NHTSA report advising firefighters that while Li-ion batteries can be harder to extinguish, they don't burn with any greater intensity than ICE vehicle fires.

You're clinging to a bad science fiction fantasy about how Li-ion batteries burn.

And define "promptly". You've tried really hard to imply that the fire service was trying to extinguish the burning car within minutes without ever actually justifying that with any evidence, because you need it to be some ridiculous warp core meltdown scenario where the fire service was driven back by a terrifying fireball like nothing anyone has ever seen .
 
smartcooky said:
There are two theories in play here

Theory 1. A man drives a diesel vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire (something that happens over 19,000 times annually in the UK). The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads so other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down.

Theory 2. A man drives an electric vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire. The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads to other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down. The Prime Minister of England has investments in electric cars, so in order to protect those investments from the bad publicity that an electric car fire would cause, he instructs some sooper secret agents from MI5 or MI6 to fake a video, altering it to show an diesel powered vehicle, a 2014 Range Rover Sport. In order to reinforce this ruse, they follow up by planting fake number plates, and make forged entries in the VLA database to register a fake person as the owner of that Range Rover. The Prime Minister also orders the media to lie about the cause of the fire, and threatens the emergency services involved to in order to get them to also lie about the car that caused the fire.

Apply Occam's Razor... the simplest solution is most likely to be the correct one.

But there is another way to tell. Theory 2 is so utterly bat-**** crazy that only a dyed-in-the-wool conspiratard would believe it.
Click to expand...

I would add to theory 2 - Exactly one person has been able to figure the whole thing out just by using Google searches. Rather than go to the media to expose the conspiracy that person chooses to present them only on a backwater internet discussion site. And the far reaching fingers of the very controlling government that has been able to silence thousands of media and fire department personnel are totally incapable of silencing this lone voice.
 
Vixen said:
The videos uploaded by 'Sam-multiple number' 0 followers, 'Bitcoin Bertie', 517 followers and 'Amy-multiple number', 222 followers have not been presented as evidence anywhere. Not one publication or broadcaster has validated it.

Yet here we are: Smart Cooky, Foster Zygote and catsmate believe in it ardently and claim to be Skeptics.

It's come to a pretty pass.
Click to expand...

You're lying again. No one has validated the second video, only pointed out the false claims you've used to justify your claim that it is a "deep fake". The argument that it was caused by a diesel Range Rover is not dependent upon the second video in any way. But for some reason you've decided you need it to be fake, for "reasons", as though the first video isn't already consistent with it having been a diesel ICE.
 
Mojo said:
This, given that you are unable to say it isn't true.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was going to look that up. It seems there were ten days, not "a day or so", between the fire and the statement that it was "diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle".

For all Vixen's attempts to establish a timeline, you'd think she'd write some things down.
 
Vixen said:
Are you claiming lawyers are paragons of truth?
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Claiming that they must be lying because they are lawyers is just as stupid an argument as claiming that they must be telling the truth because they are lawyers.

It would be like a prosecutor who failed to provide evidence of a defendant's guilt in an organized crime case saying, "are you saying that Italian Americans never commit crimes?". So much for your bragging about your reasoning ability.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Thanks, I was going to look that up. It seems there were ten days, not "a day or so", between the fire and the statement that it was "diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle".

For all Vixen's attempts to establish a timeline, you'd think she'd write some things down.
Click to expand...


Over five months actually, the press release is dated 21st March, not October.
 
Vixen said:
This guy for one:

ibid any newspaper dated 11 oct 2023.

Just browse the early images for yourself.
Click to expand...

Do you think that "upper floor" means "rooftop level"? Not at all obvious to me.
 
Vixen said:
Liverpool King's Dock (ECHO) fire report:

16:29 31.12.17 Internal car park CCTV - first signs of fire (smoke) from the vehicle
17:52 31.12.17 Internal CCTV – first signs of flame from level 4, in location away from ramps and above initial fire on level 3 p1

Time frame 1 hour 23 minutes.

Luton Airport fire: fire first spotted at circa 8:38pm. Witness saw next level up (top floor) on fire shortly after nine, where it spread rapidly.

Time frame 20 minutes.

Please explain how a diesel-fueled vehicle did all of this within 20 minutes, even with the fire brigade arriving promptly? What makes it so highly probable to have been a diesel car, given it is claimed not to have been a lithium-ion fire?
Click to expand...

I asked you whether you agree that the car in the video is very likely the first car caught on fire. This does not appear to be an answer. In fact, it is not in the least bit relevant to my question, beyond the fact that it mentions the fire in the car park.

For ****'s sake, you took the time to list several questions. I suggested we talk about Question 7. How come you can't actually keep to that subject for just a minute?
 
phiwum said:
I asked you whether you agree that the car in the video is very likely the first car caught on fire. This does not appear to be an answer. In fact, it is not in the least bit relevant to my question, beyond the fact that it mentions the fire in the car park.

For ****'s sake, you took the time to list several questions. I suggested we talk about Question 7. How come you can't actually keep to that subject for just a minute?
Click to expand...

I agree. Let's talk about question 7.


Question 7: How was Mr. Hopkinson in a position to state so confidently it was 'not an electric vehicle but a diesel one' as of within hours of the fire being extinguished? Even if the owner had provided an ID how can he know that the DVLA description was accurate and how can he be absolutely certain it was the vehicle filmed by the Romanian lady that started the fire?
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, how confident was he? The first description of what he said within hours of the fire being extinguished was
“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said. “It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification.”
Click to expand...

That seems to set a very low bar indeed for confidence, which really only amounts to saying such information as he'd received so far indicated it was a diesel car and nothing he'd received contradicted it. So the answer to Q7 seems likely to be as simple as the driver of the car told them it was a diesel, which seemed entirely plausible since most cars of that model are diesels, and that was sufficient to say it was believed to be a diesel, subject to verification. He doesn't need to be "absolutely certain" because he isn't claiming to be, and he makes no claim about Romanian ladies or videos so that's irrelevant.

Does that seem like a satisfactory answer to Q7?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
There are two theories in play here

Theory 1. A man drives a diesel vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire (something that happens over 19,000 times annually in the UK). The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads so other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down.

Theory 2. A man drives an electric vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire. The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads to other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down. The Prime Minister of England has investments in electric cars, so in order to protect those investments from the bad publicity that an electric car fire would cause, he instructs some sooper secret agents from MI5 or MI6 to fake a video, altering it to show an diesel powered vehicle, a 2014 Range Rover Sport. In order to reinforce this ruse, they follow up by planting fake number plates, and make forged entries in the VLA database to register a fake person as the owner of that Range Rover. The Prime Minister also orders the media to lie about the cause of the fire, and threatens the emergency services involved to in order to get them to also lie about the car that caused the fire.

Apply Occam's Razor... the simplest solution is most likely to be the correct one.

But there is another way to tell. Theory 2 is so utterly bat-**** crazy that only a dyed-in-the-wool conspiratard would believe it.
Click to expand...

Your Theory 1. You are completely clueless if you believe car parks are burnt down 19,000 times a year, and totally ill-informed. There has not been one structural collapse of a multi-storey car park in the UK because of fire until Luton Airport car park 2023.

Although there were no cases of structural collapse of a car park due to fire in the UK, there have been cases in Europe. Notably, Gretzenbach in
Switzerland, where an underground car park collapsed, resulting in the death
of 7 firefighters (BD2552 Fire Resistance p.98).
Click to expand...
see p 14 of the Liverpool Fire Report.



Your Theory 2. Haha! No expertise needed to fake an image or a four-second video. If the video of the car from the front was authentic, whoever took it could have received a very healthy sum of money from a newspaper such as the SUN, who paid some guy with a VERY dodgy blurry video purporting to be that of a 'missing' well-known person a whopping quarter of a million pounds. Come off it. The video will have been looked at by the Beeb, SkyNews, News International, Mirror Group, Reach, etcetera, yet not one has touched it nor even quoted the claim it was an identifiable RR Sport 2014. The reason? Because they were not able to verify it, i.e., it was an edited photoshop. In addition, DVLA records will not show the name of the owner.

Police hold back information all the time. This was a joint operation between the police and the fire brigade. You have not been given any information, other than what the newspapers already said on day one. The claim it was not an EV is just pure propaganda to prevent a signal to the markets, which are very sensitive, The UK Prime Minister will not reveal how much he has signed off for Tata JLR to received out of taxpayer pockets as an unrefundable 'subsidy'. And you are scratching your head as to why it is so important for the car to be perceived as a diesel car, when the investigation cannot possibly have even started beyond being opened.
 
Vixen said:
Your Theory 1. You are completely clueless if you believe car parks are burnt down 19,000 times a year, and totally ill-informed. There has not been one structural collapse of a multi-storey car park in the UK because of fire until Luton Airport car park 2023.

...
Click to expand...

Ye gods :eek:

Are you OK?
 
Foster Zygote said:
But it doesn't say the fire started on the roof, does it? In fact, it says he saw fire on the roof "just after 9:00 pm". The fire was reported to have started at 8:45. Even if we grant that the vague "just after 9:00" means a couple of minutes, that's still over ¼ hour after the blaze is reported to have started. It could even be as much as 25 - 30 minutes after.

You'll have to do a lot better.
Click to expand...

So in other words, the Liverpool car park fire took one and a half hours to permeate the floor about, helped by a drainage system that accumulated petrochemicals. Luton was built post-Liverpool and presumably did not have the same drainage issue (we shall have to await the report to find out whether or not this is so). The Luton Fire reached the highest floor within twenty minutes, despite the fire brigade having turned up within eight minutes of it being reported, i.e., before it spread upwards.

Question: what is different between the Liverpool Fire and the Luton one?

1. Weather factors, perhaps with wind speed of 10miles/per hour at Luton.

2. Liverpool was caused by a diesel car, Luton from the images, intensity and jetting out of lithium-ion-like flames and enough heat to collapse one half of the entire structure within two hours of it being called a 'critical incident', almost certainly was not an innocuous diesel fire caused by an electrical fault in the engine bay, as quoted by an AA boff on day one as one of the most common causes of car fire.

3. The structure itself was faulty, builders went bust, water sprinklers not installed despite water pipes being in evidence.

So, we have a lithium-ion car fire (only about 5% of cars in the road are EVs) and poor building project management, no solvency for materials or manpower: all of this adds up to the disaster we saw.

Insulting UK taxpayers' intelligence by claiming, nothing to see here, it was just a diesel so that's all right then as absolutely par for the course in the UK. Politicians are rarely called to account. And people just accept it as normal behaviour. <shrug>
 
Foster Zygote said:
You're lying again. No one has validated the second video, only pointed out the false claims you've used to justify your claim that it is a "deep fake". The argument that it was caused by a diesel Range Rover is not dependent upon the second video in any way. But for some reason you've decided you need it to be fake, for "reasons", as though the first video isn't already consistent with it having been a diesel ICE.
Click to expand...

The 'fact' of it supposedly being an identifiable RR Sport 2014, depends solely on that video which claims the numberplate is readable, and hence, cross-referenceable to DVLA.

Question: how come the numberplate you reckon is authentic looks a completely different length from the one at the back and how come only Bitcoin Bertie and co. can even read it?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I agree. Let's talk about question 7.




Well, first of all, how confident was he? The first description of what he said within hours of the fire being extinguished was


That seems to set a very low bar indeed for confidence, which really only amounts to saying such information as he'd received so far indicated it was a diesel car and nothing he'd received contradicted it. So the answer to Q7 seems likely to be as simple as the driver of the car told them it was a diesel, which seemed entirely plausible since most cars of that model are diesels, and that was sufficient to say it was believed to be a diesel, subject to verification. He doesn't need to be "absolutely certain" because he isn't claiming to be, and he makes no claim about Romanian ladies or videos so that's irrelevant.

Does that seem like a satisfactory answer to Q7?
Click to expand...

Why would he even give out that information unless it was for propaganda purposes, or to use a euphemism, 'crisis management'.

As many criminals use dodgy vehicles, since when did the police ever take for granted what some driver in a very serious accident tells them? This guy is believed to have got on a flight shortly after! Why would they presume he was of good character and even if he was, why put out the information the same day as though it was of great importance that people do not suspect an electrical fire. This is an absurd belief, if the fire on the roof was a whole load of frigging EV's shooting lithium flames all over the place,
 
Vixen why do you dodge questions repeatedly, and why do you persist in "misreading" or "misunderstanding" what people tell you?
 
Looks like the industry is taking on board the ramifications of the Luton Airport Fire. Report today:

A father who was taking his child to Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool says he was turned away from the car park because he was driving an electric vehicle (EV).

Paul Freeman-Powell said he was told to park next to nearby grass because his car "could explode."

The hospital says it has temporarily banned access to the car park while it improves its sprinkler system.
Click to expand...
BBC

Further down in the article, it is hilarious to see all the usual suspects popping up with all the tired old arguments (so much denial!):

Colin Walker, head of transport at the research group the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, agreed that the evidence did not support the hospital's position.

“Data from EV FireSafe, which is backed by the Australian Government, indicates that petrol cars are over 80 times more likely to set on fire than EVs,” he told the BBC.

He also highlighted a report released last year from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency which found that in 2022 there was an average of 3.8 fires per 100,000 electric and hybrid cars, and 68 fires per 100,000 cars of all fuel types, with these figures including arson.
Click to expand...

Zzzzzz. Missing the point by a mile, as we have come to expect.
 
Vixen said:
Your Theory 1. You are completely clueless if you believe car parks are burnt down 19,000 times a year
Click to expand...

You are completely clueless if you think that is what it was meant.

At this point, I cannot believe you are doing anything beyond deliberately acting stupid, and bare-faced lying to intentionally miss the point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom