Luton Airport Car Park Fire

[Vixen]

Here you go, submit a FOI request, if you're that dubious.

https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/contact-us/requests-information

Thanks, but I have already got the official press statement.

 

[GlennB]

If you look at the video, it is just one vehicle plunging through the floor.

There's no way of knowing, as it/they appear well over to the edge of the picture. Also, given that the fire broke out on level 3 and that car falling through is at ground level (judging by the barriers and ticket machines) then I'd say it marks the point where general collapse of the floors first reaches the ground.

In that case the chances of the car/s we see are extremely unlikely to include the car that started it all.

p.s. While you're here - could you be so kind as to address the point (made very well by Jay Utah) that no 'melting' of concrete is required to cause catastrophic collapse of concrete floors.

 

[Vixen]

How did you verify the identity of Jenny from Communications? Did Jenny from Communications put her byline on the post? If not, has Jenny from Communications given you permission to publicize her role in this matter? Do you have a factual basis for insinuating that Jenny from Communications is prone to erroneous posts in her professional capacity, or is this just some casual defamation along the way? Jenny from Communications not only works long hours as a dedicated expert communicator, she volunteers for her church and cares for her ailing mother despite her own frequent crippling arthritis pain, so she really doesn't need you crapping all over her hard work.

Public bodies are told to use simplified language.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is not a lie in that context it is merely summing up of the original press statement.

No. Just no.

Everyone knows the contentious point is whether the car had an EV battery or not. Calling it specifically a diesel would clearly be a deliberate deception if it had been a hybrid. Stating to Full Fact that it was a diesel and not a hybrid would have been a flat lie.

Forced to choose between (a) the fire brigade lying and deceiving the public to make them ignore a fire hazard and (b) your gaggle of anti-EV instant experts on social media being wrong, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows the wot-I-reckon crowd are the weakest link.

You have absolutely no grounds for declaring that everything the fire brigade has said since the 11th has been nothing but a summary of the chief fire officer's initial statement to the press. None at all. It's merely a convenient contrivance to pretend your fantasy isn't dead and buried.

 

[GlennB]

Sheer amount of footfall. During that period of the fire, there were some 25,000 passengers who had flights cancelled. Not all will have come by car of course as parking for several days is expensive. However, the car park is designed for long-stay vehicles and would be very busy, as compared to a supermarket wherein people are in and out within a couple of hours.

Utter nonsense. They're designed to cope with maximum load, i.e. when the place is full. Anything else would be criminally dangerous design.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you look at the video, it is just one vehicle plunging through the floor.

So what? Do you know exactly which slab of car park floor you happened to see fall, or even which floor it was on? Do you know how many slabs eventually fell in total?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sheer amount of footfall. During that period of the fire, there were some 25,000 passengers who had flights cancelled. Not all will have come by car of course as parking for several days is expensive. However, the car park is designed for long-stay vehicles and would be very busy, as compared to a supermarket wherein people are in and out within a couple of hours.

Doesn't make sense.

If two car parks had similar occupancy levels but one had shorter-stay customers then both would support a similar static load but the short-stay one would also endure many more vehicle movements.

 

[Vixen]

There's no way of knowing, as it/they appear well over to the edge of the picture. Also, given that the fire broke out on level 3 and that car falling through is at ground level (judging by the barriers and ticket machines) then I'd say it marks the point where general collapse of the floors first reaches the ground.

In that case the chances of the car/s we see are extremely unlikely to include the car that started it all.

p.s. While you're here - could you be so kind as to address the point (made very well by Jay Utah) that no 'melting' of concrete is required to cause catastrophic collapse of concrete floors.

From a video of the salvaging, it would appear that Luton Airport Car Park no. 2, that was burnt down, is on various levels with a ramp leading up to presumably the ground floor - the lower level being basement - and then there is an open level at the very top (no roof), Level 3. If we count the ground floor as 0, as in the UK, then level 4 would be the open air level, which is obviously not where the fie started. The car was on the level just below that and crashed through to level 2. It is hard to tell as on arriving at a level it is probably the same layout as the other levels. The CCTV cameras were also likely destroyed by the time the blaze was at its zenith.

Looking at the pictures, the concrete looks pretty warped to me but best address your question to the master engineer.

 

[GlennB]

So what? Do you know exactly which slab of car park floor you happened to see fall, or even which floor it was on? Do you know how many slabs eventually fell in total?

At least two were falling in that cctv video. Screencap:

[imgw=500]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=48325&stc=1&d=1698252845[/imgw]

eta: I have a screencap a fraction of a second later than that if you want.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Thanks, but I have already got the official press statement.

You only have the initial press statement and the wish to pretend nothing subsequent exists. We know you're wrong. You know you're wrong. You and we all know you'll stubbornly stick to being wrong until hell freezes over.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Public bodies are told to use simplified language.

Are they told to lie if it uses fewer, simpler words than the truth?

 

[Vixen]

No. Just no.

Everyone knows the contentious point is whether the car had an EV battery or not. Calling it specifically a diesel would clearly be a deliberate deception if it had been a hybrid. Stating to Full Fact that it was a diesel and not a hybrid would have been a flat lie.

Forced to choose between (a) the fire brigade lying and deceiving the public to make them ignore a fire hazard and (b) your gaggle of anti-EV instant experts on social media being wrong, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows the wot-I-reckon crowd are the weakest link.

You have absolutely no grounds for declaring that everything the fire brigade has said since the 11th has been nothing but a summary of the chief fire officer's initial statement to the press. None at all. It's merely a convenient contrivance to pretend your fantasy isn't dead and buried.

I have read the press statement and having critical faculties, I could see it was heavily qualified.

I would have thought a life time of reading the UK press would have alerted you to what is definitely confirmed and what is not. To help you out, any headline that includes the word 'Could' can be safely disregarded, as in 'The Fire Could Have Been Caused by a Derv- says Fire Chief'.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The CCTV cameras were also likely destroyed by the time the blaze was at its zenith.

This is the second time you've mentioned this. Do you think there is some significance to the cameras being destroyed some time after they produced the pictures which you have watched? Or is it just padding to make it look as if you have a meaningful reply?

 

[Vixen]

Are they told to lie if it uses fewer, simpler words than the truth?

The press lies to you all the time, have you not noticed? It'll be one thing in the headline but when you get to a verbatim quote it is 'not what it says on the tin'.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I have read the press statement and having critical faculties, I could see it was heavily qualified.

You have read the press statement and then stopped. Time has marched on, leaving you irrelevant in the past. You will go no further because confirmation is toxic to your game.

We know the fire brigade said it was not a hybrid. You know the fire brigade said it was not a hybrid. We know you are playing a game of Simon Says to pretend they didn't say it properly so it doesn't count.

It's pathetic.

 

[phiwum]

The press lies to you all the time, have you not noticed? It'll be one thing in the headline but when you get to a verbatim quote it is 'not what it says on the tin'.

Are you having trouble following the conversation? We were speaking about an official statement of the Fire Brigade.

You claim that such statements are written in simple language. I'm not sure that "pending final verification" is complex language, but whatever. The page right now says that the fire started with a diesel. It doesn't say anything about "pending verification". Rather it seems stated with certainty.

If they aren't certain, then this is grossly misleading at best. Do you think they prefer to be grossly misleading over somewhat complicated sentences?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The press lies to you all the time, have you not noticed? It'll be one thing in the headline but when you get to a verbatim quote it is 'not what it says on the tin'.

Maybe not just the press.

Anyway this was supposed to be where you support your claim about public bodies, not about the press. I see you will not support your insinuation public bodies will deceive us if a lie is easier to read than a fact.

 

[Vixen]

This is the second time you've mentioned this. Do you think there is some significance to the cameras being destroyed some time after they produced the pictures which you have watched? Or is it just padding to make it look as if you have a meaningful reply?

There have been only four videos that I know of. There is one taken on a smart phone by presumably another driver parked nearby, which just misses the far left of the burning vehicle. The there is one, presumably from the car park CCTV that gets the burning vehicle on centre. Then there is a fourth that professes to show the vehicle from the front, with a fire extinguisher on the ground in front of it and a registration plate claiming to belong to a 2014 Range Rover diesel and then there is the clip of the car plunging through the ceiling.

None of these are clips released by the Fire Brigade or the Police. However, they have not objected to them or said they are fake.

Why? Why cannot hey release official clips and pictures. What's with the heavy hinting. So the story appears with a clip of what looks like a Land Rover model. So now everyone says its a land rover but why not say so in an official statement? Why is the public left to work it out for themselves?


To me it seems clear the JLR brand is being protected from Brand Reputation damage.

 

[zooterkin]

Sheer amount of footfall. During that period of the fire, there were some 25,000 passengers who had flights cancelled. Not all will have come by car of course as parking for several days is expensive. However, the car park is designed for long-stay vehicles and would be very busy, as compared to a supermarket wherein people are in and out within a couple of hours.

Tell me you know nothing about structural engineering without saying you know nothing about structural engineering...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

A lot of things seem clear to you that are patently not true though vixen, so forgive us if we don't take your word for it.