Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
1. A sprinkler system.

2. Do not use aluminium pipes to deal with fuel leaks. Why? Because they melt at high temperature and cause rapid spread of fire to other floors.
Click to expand...


Seems to leave rather a lot unspecified.
 
Vixen said:
... The fire was almost certainly caused by a thermal runaway
Click to expand...

Not remotely plausible in a vehicle which did not have a lithium battery. We know it did not have a lithium battery because the fire service says so unequivocally. The fire service is extraordinarily unlikely to be lying.

Therefore your "almost certainly" claim is obviously false as it requires an absurdly unlikely set of circumstances to be true.
 
As far as implausible claims go, Vixen also has a 'deep fake' video of a burning JLR vehicle being created in order to protect the JLR brand.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Not remotely plausible in a vehicle which did not have a lithium battery. We know it did not have a lithium battery because the fire service says so unequivocally. The fire service is extraordinarily unlikely to be lying.

Therefore your "almost certainly" claim is obviously false as it requires an absurdly unlikely set of circumstances to be true.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it didn't have a lithium battery, my car has a CR2032 battery in its radio to maintain settings etc. if the battery is disconnected.
 
Mojo said:
As far as implausible claims go, Vixen also has a 'deep fake' video of a burning JLR vehicle being created in order to protect the JLR brand.
Click to expand...

To go with an actual saying "What a tangled web we weave..." to quote Shakespeare.

It wasn't Shakespeare, it was Sir Walter Scott in his poem Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field
 
Darat said:
Are you sure it didn't have a lithium battery, my car has a CR2032 battery in its radio to maintain settings etc. if the battery is disconnected.
Click to expand...

Know what the anode of a CR2032 is made of? Lithium!! :eek::eek::eek::eek:


ETA: You obviously already knew that!
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Are you sure it didn't have a lithium battery, my car has a CR2032 battery in its radio to maintain settings etc. if the battery is disconnected.
Click to expand...
(Momentary digression) I don't know what I despair of more: the fact that car radios forget all their settings, which is a decades-old problem makers did not solve, or that they may now have 'solved' it by adopting the same stupid BIOS battery technology that computers have been blighted by for decades.

By the time your need a new car battery, the CR2032 will have quietly died and the radio will lose its settings anyway.

Yes, I am somewhat triggered, by having recently replaced literally dozens of CR2032s in an installation where every device needed a different arcane procedure to regain its wits after the swap. CR2032 is not a solution. It's kicking the can 3 years down the road for some other mug to pick up the pieces.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
(Momentary digression) I don't know what I despair of more: the fact that car radios forget all their settings, which is a decades-old problem makers did not solve, or that they may now have 'solved' it by adopting the same stupid BIOS battery technology that computers have been blighted by for decades.

By the time your need a new car battery, the CR2032 will have quietly died and the radio will lose its settings anyway.

Yes, I am somewhat triggered, by having recently replaced literally dozens of CR2032s in an installation where every device needed a different arcane procedure to regain its wits after the swap. CR2032 is not a solution. It's kicking the can 3 years down the road for some other mug to pick up the pieces.
Click to expand...
Related digression: I have devices that take 2016, 2025, 2032, 1616 and 1632 batteries. Just a tiny bit of standardisation would be great.
 
Back in the 80s if you had a nicked Ford digital radio you could reset the security code by putting it in the freezer overnight so the battery voltage dropped low enough to lose the settings.

Not that I ever had a stolen ford radio you understand.
 
Last edited:
SpitfireIX said:
What "negligent conditions" would those be? Also, what do you mean by "exact vehicle?"




Most politicians could be earning far more in the private sector than their public salaries. This proves exactly nothing.




The obvious answer is because the Tories are likely to get wiped out, and parties in power that expect to lose almost invariably put off elections as long as possible.




You have zero evidence for any of this; it's simply a ridiculous conspiracy theory you've dreamed up.
Click to expand...


Evidence is:

  • lack of sprinklers, as recommended in the Merseyside Fire Brigade report into Liverpoool King's Dock Fire 2018
  • The use of aluminium drainage pipes to disperse leaked petrochemicals, ditto.

In addition, NFPA mandated in Nov 2022 it be compulsory to have a sprinkler system in parking garages.

None of this was in place at Luton, and as confirmed by Andrew Hopkinson.

This equates to negligence, possibly even gross negligence, given it was an airport, which requires extra sensitivity to public safety and security issues.

Oh, and as for exact vehicle, we have not been told and I note the King's Dock report does not specify the vehicle either, even though it is commonly held to have been a Range Rover and the Liverpool Mayor is quoted in LIVERPOOL ECHO as saying it had been subjected to a 'fuel modification'.

Sunak was Chancellor at the time, so join up the dots, although that is subject to speculation, obvs.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Evidence is:

  • lack of sprinklers, as recommended in the Merseyside Fire Brigade report into Liverpoool King's Dock Fire 2018
  • The use of aluminium drainage pipes to disperse leaked petrochemicals, ditto.

In addition, NFPA mandated in Nov 2022 it be compulsory to have a sprinkler system in parking garages.

None of this was in place at Luton, and as confirmed by Andrew Hopkinson.

This equates to negligence, possibly even gross negligence, given it was an airport, which requires extra sensitivity to public safety and security issues.
Click to expand...


What does any of that have to do with the Tata JLR brand?
 
phiwum said:
Except she's in the weird position that she doesn't want to say that BF&R is lying, so it's hard to say that they're lying because Sunak told them to.

I don't really know why she wants to avoid the word "lie". It leads to ridiculous claims that
  • The initial vehicle was an EV or a hybrid.
  • The statement "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," announced by the fire department, is not a lie.
Click to expand...

Look. When Mr. Hopkinson made his statement without any impropriety whatsoever, he was unaware at the time that a member of the public, the Romanian lady, had taken a video on her smart phone (rather dangerously, given the rapidly developing situation). So, whilst he was offering the opinion it was a 'diesel' vehicle, 'at this stage subject to verification', the video that was widely circulated on social media and the national press (even as a BBC video) - none of them able to officially confirm its authenticity - but which showed a clear thermal runaway fire.

To date, the Beds FR&S have declined to confirm the video as being authentic. This could be because they were/are still investigating or because it spoils the narrative of a 'diesel-fueled' vehicle only and not any type of electric one.

An initial report said the Romanian lady described it as 'the fuel tank exploding' but since the fire was at the front of the vehicle, either she was mistaken, or there were (improbably) two separate events in the same vehicle, one at the from and one at the back spontaneously. Of course, if it was a case of a plastic tank exploding, then it would explain the rapid spread of the fire as well.

So, unfortunately for the official line, there are at least two different videos that undermine the claim it was not an EV of any type.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Not remotely plausible in a vehicle which did not have a lithium battery. We know it did not have a lithium battery because the fire service says so unequivocally. The fire service is extraordinarily unlikely to be lying.

Therefore your "almost certainly" claim is obviously false as it requires an absurdly unlikely set of circumstances to be true.
Click to expand...

He said, not knowing a member of the public had a video!
 
Vixen said:
Look. When Mr. Hopkinson made his statement without any impropriety whatsoever, he was unaware at the time that a member of the public, the Romanian lady, had taken a video on her smart phone (rather dangerously, given the rapidly developing situation). So, whilst he was offering the opinion it was a 'diesel' vehicle, 'at this stage subject to verification', the video that was widely circulated on social media and the national press (even as a BBC video) - none of them able to officially confirm its authenticity - but which showed a clear thermal runaway fire.

To date, the Beds FR&S have declined to confirm the video as being authentic. This could be because they were/are still investigating or because it spoils the narrative of a 'diesel-fueled' vehicle only and not any type of electric one.

An initial report said the Romanian lady described it as 'the fuel tank exploding' but since the fire was at the front of the vehicle, either she was mistaken, or there were (improbably) two separate events in the same vehicle, one at the from and one at the back spontaneously. Of course, if it was a case of a plastic tank exploding, then it would explain the rapid spread of the fire as well.

So, unfortunately for the official line, there are at least two different videos that undermine the claim it was not an EV of any type.
Click to expand...


https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally

The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle.
Click to expand...


Vixen, is it your position that that statement is true?
 
Vixen said:
Evidence is:

  • lack of sprinklers, as recommended in the Merseyside Fire Brigade report into Liverpoool King's Dock Fire 2018
  • The use of aluminium drainage pipes to disperse leaked petrochemicals, ditto.

In addition, NFPA mandated in Nov 2022 it be compulsory to have a sprinkler system in parking garages.

None of this was in place at Luton, and as confirmed by Andrew Hopkinson.

This equates to negligence, possibly even gross negligence, given it was an airport, which requires extra sensitivity to public safety and security issues.

Oh, and as for exact vehicle, we have not been told and I note the King's Dock report does not specify the vehicle either, even though it is commonly held to have been a Range Rover and the Liverpool Mayor is quoted in LIVERPOOL ECHO as saying it had been subjected to a 'fuel modification'.

Sunak was Chancellor at the time, so join up the dots, although that is subject to speculation, obvs.
Click to expand...

Builders prior to 2019 were negligent because they didn't follow the 2023 code? :eek:
 
Foster Zygote said:
This is going to revolutionize law enforcement. Any time someone doesn't speak with linguistic perfection, that will be grounds for immediate arrest.

Seriously though, this is the same crap Apollo hoax idiots spew about the Apollo 11 crew's public speaking appearances. I'd be more inclined to suspect someone who spoke with perfect fluency, because that's not how people actually speak in the vast majority of real life verbal interactions.
Click to expand...

Back to the topic. Did you have time to look at the video I supplied you with yet? What does location 1:04 remind you of?



https://youtu.be/M9Cl6_Y2rXU?si=kz5BJhVVYmfq5fj6

Be honest about what you see.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Know what the anode of a CR2032 is made of? Lithium!! :eek::eek::eek::eek:


ETA: You obviously already knew that!
Click to expand...

Might be a good time to brush up on the difference between Darat's little CR2032 battery and a lithium-ion car battery?

Most electric car batteries are made slightly differently than LFP batteries. Electric vehicle manufacturers rely on lithium-ion batteries made from nickel and cobalt to create the cathode to power their vehicles. They use these compounds because they are a much denser form of energy. This can help with propulsion scenarios, which are frequent in electric vehicles. These batteries are called NMC batteries due to their makeup.

Inside the lithium-ion battery for an electric car will be an organic liquid electrolyte. This electrolyte reacts strongly with oxygen, especially at higher temperatures. This is often why you’ve heard stories of explosions or other potential issues due to thermal runaway. They are less stable than LFP batteries.
Click to expand...
https://dragonflyenergy.com/differe...-batteries-for-storage-and-electric-vehicles/
 
Steve said:
Builders prior to 2019 were negligent because they didn't follow the 2023 code? :eek:
Click to expand...

As I understand it, it is a requirement for all current and new parking garages. Obviously, it doesn't happen overnight, and Luton seems to have installed the initial water pipes. However, the builders, Buckingham Group went into insolvency five weeks before the fire.

The 2022 edition of NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, for example, has changed to increase the recommended hazard classification for parking structures from an Ordinary Hazard Group 1 to an Ordinary Hazard Group 2. The effect is a 33 percent increase in the design density, moving from 0.15 gpm/ft2 to 0.2 gpm/ft2.

As of January of 2021, FM Global data sheets have also increased the hazard category for parking garages and car parks from a Hazard Category 2 to a Hazard Category 3.

New to the 2023 edition of NFPA 88A, all parking garages are now required to have sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA 13. Prior to this edition, sprinklers didn’t have to be installed in open parking structures.
Click to expand...
https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and-articles/blogs/2022/11/28/evs-and-parking-structures
 
Mojo said:
What does any of that have to do with the Tata JLR brand?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/ne...p-chairman-after-gigafactory-deal-609670.html
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
What does that have to do with the design and construction of car parks?
Click to expand...


Just to remind you, Vixen. You replied to this post, about a conspiracy to protect the Tata JLR brand:

SpitfireIX said:
Vixen said:
I am sure he is a jolly nice fellow but he is a businessman first and foremost and he will certainly not have changed his spots. The fire was almost certainly caused by a thermal runaway and certainly caused by a Tata JLR vehicle and true to his nature the brand is being protected as that is where some of his fortune lies as well has his social contacts with Tata.
Click to expand...


You have zero evidence for any of this; it's simply a ridiculous conspiracy theory you've dreamed up.
Click to expand...


With this, which is about a conspiracy to cover up deficiencies in car park design and construction:

Vixen said:
Evidence is:

  • lack of sprinklers, as recommended in the Merseyside Fire Brigade report into Liverpoool King's Dock Fire 2018
  • The use of aluminium drainage pipes to disperse leaked petrochemicals, ditto.

In addition, NFPA mandated in Nov 2022 it be compulsory to have a sprinkler system in parking garages.

None of this was in place at Luton, and as confirmed by Andrew Hopkinson.

This equates to negligence, possibly even gross negligence, given it was an airport, which requires extra sensitivity to public safety and security issues.

Oh, and as for exact vehicle, we have not been told and I note the King's Dock report does not specify the vehicle either, even though it is commonly held to have been a Range Rover and the Liverpool Mayor is quoted in LIVERPOOL ECHO as saying it had been subjected to a 'fuel modification'.

Sunak was Chancellor at the time, so join up the dots, although that is subject to speculation, obvs.
Click to expand...


When asked what one has to do with the other, you just went back to the conspiracy theory about the Tata JLR brand.

You now seem to have two separate and opposed conspiracies, both apparently instigated by Sunak.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
What does that have to do with the design and construction of car parks?
Click to expand...

You were the one who asked about Tata.

The negligent conditions at Luton Airport are an obvious factor in why the fire was so ferocious, and as explained by Mr. Hopkinson see from 0:00 - 0:50.

https://www.newsflare.com/video/596...ew-following-luton-airport-blaze-in-luton-uk#

It is clear he is describing the same situation as happened at Liverpool - the fire spreading up and laterally - so nothing was learned.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Look. When Mr. Hopkinson made his statement without any impropriety whatsoever, he was unaware at the time that a member of the public, the Romanian lady, had taken a video on her smart phone (rather dangerously, given the rapidly developing situation). So, whilst he was offering the opinion it was a 'diesel' vehicle, 'at this stage subject to verification', the video that was widely circulated on social media and the national press (even as a BBC video) - none of them able to officially confirm its authenticity - but which showed a clear thermal runaway fire.

To date, the Beds FR&S have declined to confirm the video as being authentic. This could be because they were/are still investigating or because it spoils the narrative of a 'diesel-fueled' vehicle only and not any type of electric one.

An initial report said the Romanian lady described it as 'the fuel tank exploding' but since the fire was at the front of the vehicle, either she was mistaken, or there were (improbably) two separate events in the same vehicle, one at the from and one at the back spontaneously. Of course, if it was a case of a plastic tank exploding, then it would explain the rapid spread of the fire as well.

So, unfortunately for the official line, there are at least two different videos that undermine the claim it was not an EV of any type.
Click to expand...

My post said not a damn thing about any video, so you're changing the subject once again. Let's return to the topic I wrote on.

If it is an EV or hybrid, then the sentence, "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is false, isn't it?

Of course, people can just be wrong about some things. Not every false utterance is a lie. But bear with me here.

That sentence, unlike the Oct. 11 quote, has absolutely no indications of a lack of confidence -- no "we believe", nor "pending verification", etc. The press release expresses a certainty that was lacking in the original briefing.

Moreover, the investigators should certainly know whether they ought to be confident in their claim or not. One knows whether or not he has sufficient evidence to claim that a vehicle is a diesel ICE, so one knows whether or not uncertainty or doubt is warranted.

Of course, it would be irresponsible to publish a press release without input from those involved in the investigation. To allow that to happen shows a disregard for accuracy sufficient to call dishonesty. By its nature, a press release is authoritative.

Taking all of this into account, if the aforementioned sentence is false, at least one of the following would be the case.
  1. The person writing the release knows that the statement is false.
  2. The person writing the release knows that the conclusion is uncertain, but this uncertainty has not been expressed.
  3. The person writing the release is ignorant of the state of the investigation.
Any of these possibilities would involve a deception so blatant that the proper word is "lie".

Hence, if it is not the case that the original vehicle was a diesel ICE, then the fact is that the fire department has lied to the press and public.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Just to remind you, Vixen. You replied to this post, about a conspiracy to protect the Tata JLR brand:




With this, which is about a conspiracy to cover up deficiencies in car park design and construction:




When asked what one has to do with the other, you just went back to the conspiracy theory about the Tata JLR brand.

You now seem to have two separate and opposed conspiracies, both apparently instigated by Sunak.
Click to expand...

There re three separate issues:

  1. What caused the fire - identifying the vehicle
  2. What caused the fire to become out of control within twenty minutes (spread to upper level and fire teams evacuated urgently).
  3. why the UK taxpayer is having information about the initial vehicle withheld (protecting the JLR brand?).
 
Vixen said:
You were the one who asked about Tata.
Click to expand...


No, I asked you how your conspiracy theory about protecting the Tata JLR brand is connected with your conspiracy theory about covering up deficiencies in the design and construction of car parks. What you posted mentioned Tata but not car parks.

The negligent conditions at Luton Airport are an obvious factor in why the fire was so ferocious, and as explained by Mr. Hopkinson see from 0:00 - 0:50.

https://www.newsflare.com/video/596...ew-following-luton-airport-blaze-in-luton-uk#

It is clear he is describing the same situation as happened at Liverpool - the fire spreading up and laterally - so nothing was learned.
Click to expand...


And that mentions car parks but not Tata.
 
Vixen said:
There re three separate issues:

  1. What caused the fire - identifying the vehicle
  2. What caused the fire to become out of control within twenty minutes (spread to upper level and fire teams evacuated urgently).
  3. why the UK taxpayer is having information about the initial vehicle withheld (protecting the JLR brand?).
Click to expand...


So now you have three conspiracy theories!
 
phiwum said:

My post said not a damn thing about any video, so you're changing the subject once again. Let's return to the topic I wrote on.

If it is an EV or hybrid, then the sentence, "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is false, isn't it?

Of course, people can just be wrong about some things. Not every false utterance is a lie. But bear with me here.

That sentence, unlike the Oct. 11 quote, has absolutely no indications of a lack of confidence -- no "we believe", nor "pending verification", etc. The press release expresses a certainty that was lacking in the original briefing.

Moreover, the investigators should certainly know whether they ought to be confident in their claim or not. One knows whether or not he has sufficient evidence to claim that a vehicle is a diesel ICE, so one knows whether or not uncertainty or doubt is warranted.

Of course, it would be irresponsible to publish a press release without input from those involved in the investigation. To allow that to happen shows a disregard for accuracy sufficient to call dishonesty. By its nature, a press release is authoritative.

Taking all of this into account, if the aforementioned sentence is false, at least one of the following would be the case.
  1. The person writing the release knows that the statement is false.
  2. The person writing the release knows that the conclusion is uncertain, but this uncertainty has not been expressed.
  3. The person writing the release is ignorant of the state of the investigation.
Any of these possibilities would involve a deception so blatant that the proper word is "lie".

Hence, if it is not the case that the original vehicle was a diesel ICE, then the fact is that the fire department has lied to the press and public.
Click to expand...

Or:

4. Mr Hopkinson as of 10:00am on 11 October 2023, the ashes and metal frames still red hot stated that, 'it is believed..at this stage...subject to verification'.

5. Jeremy of Communications précised this into 'plain English' due to heavy press enquiries.

6. Or, Jeremy perceiving the queries about EV's to be politically motivated by 'gammon anti-ULEZ' - pro-Big Oil shills', decided to put it to bed firmly, albeit without knowing at this stage (the first and only press conference) the true status.
 
SpitfireIX said:
I imagine Vixen assumes that the pipes should have been made of unobtainium, so that they wouldn't have melted at any temperature.
Click to expand...
They should just make the pipes out of steel.

You can't even melt steel with welding equipment according to Vixen!
 
Mojo said:
No, I asked you how your conspiracy theory about protecting the Tata JLR brand is connected with your conspiracy theory about covering up deficiencies in the design and construction of car parks. What you posted mentioned Tata but not car parks.




And that mentions car parks but not Tata.
Click to expand...

Citation please of where I said the design deficiencies were covered up.
 
Vixen said:
Or:

4. Mr Hopkinson as of 10:00am on 11 October 2023, the ashes and metal frames still red hot stated that, 'it is believed..at this stage...subject to verification'.
Click to expand...


This is true.

5. Jeremy of Communications précised this into 'plain English' due to heavy press enquiries.
Click to expand...


This is a lie.

6. Or, Jeremy perceiving the queries about EV's to be politically motivated by 'gammon anti-ULEZ' - pro-Big Oil shills', decided to put it to bed firmly, albeit without knowing at this stage (the first and only press conference) the true status.
Click to expand...


This is a conspiracy theorist flailing wildly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom