Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

You focused on the first question (about Hopkinson). I focused on the second, about whether we have good reason to believe that the video displays the car that initially caught fire.

Both have good answers. You've given a reasonable answer for the first. I have given, in my unbiased opinion, a stellar answer for the second -- one which is not only logically unassailable, but is also presented with a panache that one rarely sees in modern writing. I don't suppose that such short works are technically eligible for a Nobel, but more's the pity for the reputation of that award.
 
smartcooky said:
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 at bare-face lying to intentionally missing the point.
Click to expand...

You wrote:

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.
Click to expand...

Why did you frame it that way except to try to convey it was an everyday occurrence for 'The fire spreads so other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down', together with the figure of 19,000 to make out it was normal for this to happen? I simply pointed out, citing an official Fire Report dated 2019, that a structural collapse of a car park had never happened in the UK as of that date.

It’s believed the flames were burning at a temperature well over 600°C (1,110°F).
A Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service spokesman said at the time: ‘One half of the structure is fully involved in fire and the building has suffered a significant structural collapse.
Click to expand...

Not an everyday occurrence after all, then.
 
Vixen said:
Why would he even give out that information unless it was for propaganda purposes, or to use a euphemism, 'crisis management'.
Click to expand...

He says that it is (believed to be) a diesel vehicle and you conclude that there's something suspicious about saying that.

He doesn't say the make and model and you conclude there's something suspicious about not saying that.

Now, I wasn't reading or watching any UK press on the evening of the fire nor checking any social media discussion about the fire, but if rumors were already spreading that the initial vehicle was an EV, we can see why he might want to react to such rumors. To do so, the make and model is irrelevant.

Before you mention other fires in which the make and model were given, let me point out that different authorities may choose different information to make public. Unless you can point to some regulation that make and model should be revealed as soon as possible, this difference is also not suspicious.
 
phiwum said:
You focused on the first question (about Hopkinson). I focused on the second, about whether we have good reason to believe that the video displays the car that initially caught fire.

Both have good answers. You've given a reasonable answer for the first. I have given, in my unbiased opinion, a stellar answer for the second -- one which is not only logically unassailable, but is also presented with a panache that one rarely sees in modern writing. I don't suppose that such short works are technically eligible for a Nobel, but more's the pity for the reputation of that award.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may but we haven't been given any information about the driver at all. All we have been told is that 'It is not an electric vehicle'...!
 
Vixen, you have once again ignored my argument that the evidence the video shows the initial vehicle is quite strong. The only responses you have ever given have been attempts to change the subject.

At this point, I will take your silence as acquiescence. You agree that the video very probably shows the first vehicle that caught fire. If this were not the case, you would surely have given some sort of counterargument or rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
He says that it is (believed to be) a diesel vehicle and you conclude that there's something suspicious about saying that.

He doesn't say the make and model and you conclude there's something suspicious about not saying that.

Now, I wasn't reading or watching any UK press on the evening of the fire nor checking any social media discussion about the fire, but if rumors were already spreading that the initial vehicle was an EV, we can see why he might want to react to such rumors. To do so, the make and model is irrelevant.

Before you mention other fires in which the make and model were given, let me point out that different authorities may choose different information to make public. Unless you can point to some regulation that make and model should be revealed as soon as possible, this difference is also not suspicious.
Click to expand...

It's not suspicious to have a media silence whilst there is an ongoing investigation into a serious incident. What was surprising here was the announcement it was not an EV. Then we heard nothing at all as to the cause of the Bristol or the Gatwick fires. Then today, news update that a hospital is stopping EV's from parking until it updates its sprinkler system

But if an EV is harmless, why even go to great lengths to say so, and why would the hospital suddenly start worrying about a sprinkler system in the face of EV's, unless there is a memo going around...?
 
Vixen said:
You wrote:.
Click to expand...

We can add English comprehension to the ever growing list of things you fail at.

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.
Click to expand...


Note the phrase is in brackets is part of a sentence, AND IT HAS A FULL STOP AT THE END.

Anyone with an education level beyond Elementary School will understand that any phrase BEFORE a fulls stop refers to the part sentence BEFORE the phrase, NOT after it.

Sheesh - trying explain simple sentence construction to you is like trying to deal with a toddler

At this point I can't work out whether you are a complete imbecile, or simply cosplaying as one. I believe its the former

(and if a yellow card comes my way for making that statement, I'm prepared to wear it uncomplainingly, because someone has to stand up to your bull-**** lying!)
 
Vixen said:
Be that as it may but we haven't been given any information about the driver at all. All we have been told is that 'It is not an electric vehicle'...!
Click to expand...

Very good. Then we are explicitly agreed.

As Jack by the hedge has argued, it is very plausible that Hopkinson had, in that first press briefing, sufficient evidence to conclude that the initial vehicle was a diesel, pending verification.

And as I have said, there is very good evidence that the video shows the initial vehicle on fire.

Let's call these two points settled and move on. I'll concede as well that we don't know squat about the driver, though I don't find that particularly suspicious.
 
phiwum said:
Vixen, you have once again ignored my argument that the evidence the video shows the initial vehicle is quite strong. The only responses you have ever given have been attempts to change the subject.

At this point, I will take your silence as acquiescence. You agree that the video very probably shows the first vehicle that caught fire. If this were not the case, you would surely have given some sort of counterargument or rebuttal.
Click to expand...


Yes but we have only seen an authentic first video from the back of the vehicle and most people are of the opinion it is an Evoque, none of it confirmed.

Yet we are being browbeaten into accepting that everything is known about this vehicle, including its numberplate registration and DVLA record on the basis of an anonymous X-twitter account.
 
Vixen said:
It's not suspicious to have a media silence whilst there is an ongoing investigation into a serious incident. What was surprising here was the announcement it was not an EV. Then we heard nothing at all as to the cause of the Bristol or the Gatwick fires. Then today, news update that a hospital is stopping EV's from parking until it updates its sprinkler system
Click to expand...

The parking regulations of one hospital in Australia really don't serve as evidence regarding the fire in Luton.

As far as the announcement that the Luton fire was not an EV, as I explicitly said, if online or media speculation had already spread the rumor that it was caused by an EV, it would be good to debunk such rumors from the start (if, in fact, it was a diesel). That seems to explain the early discussion of the fuel system -- if, again, such speculation was already apparent.

But if an EV is harmless, why even go to great lengths to say so, and why would the hospital suddenly start worrying about a sprinkler system in the face of EV's, unless there is a memo going around...?
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps because the people at the hospital, rightly or wrongly, believe that EVs are a particular danger when the sprinkler system is not working. Again, nothing to do with whether the Luton fire was caused by an EV or hybrid.
 
phiwum said:
The parking regulations of one hospital in Australia really don't serve as evidence regarding the fire in Luton.

As far as the announcement that the Luton fire was not an EV, as I explicitly said, if online or media speculation had already spread the rumor that it was caused by an EV, it would be good to debunk such rumors from the start (if, in fact, it was a diesel). That seems to explain the early discussion of the fuel system -- if, again, such speculation was already apparent.



Well, perhaps because the people at the hospital, rightly or wrongly, believe that EVs are a particular danger when the sprinkler system is not working. Again, nothing to do with whether the Luton fire was caused by an EV or hybrid.
Click to expand...

Not Australia, Alder Hey is in England. It is a major children's hospital in the Merseyside region. So I imagine the car park is quite large.

So it seems suddenly they are worrying about sprinklers, re possible hard-to-control EV fires, as a direct result of the Luton Airport incident. Looks like it might become mandatory to have a sprinkler system after this report comes out which would affect large public car parks.
 
Vixen said:
Yes but we have only seen an authentic first video from the back of the vehicle and most people are of the opinion it is an Evoque, none of it confirmed.
Click to expand...

I don't give a damn about what most people think about the make and model. Your question was about whether the video showed the initial vehicle. I'll let those who are more familiar with the Range Rover and other vehicle lines worry about identifying the vehicle shown.

In fact, the actual make and model doesn't matter for the purposes of our original discussion, which is whether or not the initial vehicle was an EV or hybrid. Of course, the latest press release should have put that disagreement to bed.

Yet we are being browbeaten into accepting that everything is known about this vehicle, including its numberplate registration and DVLA record on the basis of an anonymous X-twitter account.
Click to expand...

Curiously, I don't feel browbeaten to have any opinion on the make or model. I do tend to think it quite likely that the second video shows the same vehicle as the first. The position of the vehicle in the lane as well as the fire extinguisher nearby and the similarity of color and appearance of the vehicle make it very probable that the two videos show the same incident. But in the end, what does the second video matter?

What matters is that according to the best information we have, the vehicle was a diesel ICE car. You're getting distracted by side issues. Even if the make and model have been misidentified, the press release of the fire department settles this point -- unless you want to claim that the press release itself cannot be trusted.

Either you should admit that the vehicle was a diesel or you should make an argument that the fire department's official press release should not be considered trustworthy. Pretty simple, really.
 
Vixen said:
Yes but we have only seen an authentic first video from the back of the vehicle and most people are of the opinion it is an Evoque, none of it confirmed.

Yet we are being browbeaten into accepting that everything is known about this vehicle, including its numberplate registration and DVLA record on the basis of an anonymous X-twitter account.
Click to expand...
We are? I wouldn't accept anything on the basis of an anonymous 'X-twitter' account. I do accept official information provided by relevant authorities.

But then I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist with delusions of intellectual superiority.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Is it then your contention that the fire service are telling lies about the car being a diesel?
 
Vixen said:
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,
Click to expand...

Is it your belief that the fire service told lies about the car not being an EV?

Are they deliberately giving out false information about the cause of the fire?
 
Vixen said:
Not Australia, Alder Hey is in England.
Click to expand...

I do apologize. Your excerpt referred to a study backed by the Australian government, so I assumed it was an incident there.

It is a major children's hospital in the Merseyside region. So I imagine the car park is quite large.
Click to expand...

Sure. And I live in the Boston area, so every hospital around here has very large car parks.

But I don't know why the size of the car park matters.

So it seems suddenly they are worrying about sprinklers, re possible hard-to-control EV fires, as a direct result of the Luton Airport incident. Looks like it might become mandatory to have a sprinkler system after this report comes out which would affect large public car parks.
Click to expand...

Well, or an annual inspection showed that there was an issue with the sprinklers and they need maintenance. Or perhaps it is a scheduled upgrade. Or any of a million other possibilities.

What is obvious is that you have no evidence at all that the incident at the hospital is related in any way to the Luton fire. This is mere Post Hoc reasoning. The following sentence continues the pure speculation.

Let's suppose that the hospital was concerned about EV fires because of Luton. How would that work? They know that the official press release says the fire was not caused by an EV or hybrid. Do hospital parking garage officials have access to secret information not available to the public? Did Rishi tell the fire officials to make it seem like it was started by a diesel vehicle, but don't forget to let large hospital parking garage management teams know the truth?

How many folks are keeping this secret? Did they also tell other airport parking garages? What about university car parks? Government building car parks? Privately owned car parks?

The occurrence at the hospital is simply not evidence of the cause of the Luton fire.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Is it your belief that the fire service told lies about the car not being an EV?

Are they deliberately giving out false information about the cause of the fire?
Click to expand...

Not to worry. The truth is on a need-to-know basis and the management of hospital car parks have been informed.
 
Vixen said:
It's not suspicious to have a media silence whilst there is an ongoing investigation into a serious incident. What was surprising here was the announcement it was not an EV. Then we heard nothing at all as to the cause of the Bristol or the Gatwick fires. Then today, news update that a hospital is stopping EV's from parking until it updates its sprinkler system

But if an EV is harmless, why even go to great lengths to say so, and why would the hospital suddenly start worrying about a sprinkler system in the face of EV's, unless there is a memo going around...?
Click to expand...

They're worrying about this because incredibly stupid people, with IQs comparable to rocks, are spreading incredibly stupid stories about EVs being explosive time bombs.

Those incredibly stupid people ignore the fact that petrol and diesel powered vehicles are far more likely to spontaneously catch on fire, and are far more dangerous when they do so, because of the amount of embodied energy stored in the fuel.

Of course, incredibly stupid people won't acknowledge these facts, and will only continue to parrot incredibly stupid conspiracy theories.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom