Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mojo said:
Has your Private Eye arrived yet this week, Vixen? Page 9 has a nice summary of this thread.
Click to expand...

I won't get my copy for a while, as anything from the UK now has to go through customs (the UK now being a 'third country' and not in the EU). It did have a French distributor for a while, which got around the VAT issue.
 
Vixen said:
...One last riddle-me-ree for you:

Do you have any videos showing a diesel car fire leaping from one vehicle to another within the space of ten or even fifteen/twenty minutes to create an raging inferno?

Here endeth today's lesson.
Click to expand...


No-one has claimed that fire will "leap" from one car to another. Burning liquids flow across the floor and under other vehicles, setting fire to them in turn. Thus the fire spreads and intensifies.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Again, why is the type of fuel important, if as is claimed 'it must have been an electrical fault'? If it was an electrical fault - hot enough to melt a Range Rover fuel tank - why does it matter what type of fuel it ran on?
Click to expand...

For someone who cries "strawman!" so often, you sure make a lot of them yourself.

Show us where anyone has insisted "it must have been an electrical fault". All that has been pointed out is that electrical faults are a common, but not exclusive, cause of vehicle fires.

No one has suggested that an electrical fault is what melted the fuel tank, and that the fire started with fuel spilling from the tank. But because you know so little about automobiles, you don't realize that the greatest risk of fuel fire occurs in the engine compartment. If, in their panic to get out, the driver did leave the engine running, then that has a great potential to exacerbate the fire.

It's like you insist on not understanding anything that doesn't support the moronic conspiracy theory that you're totally not advocating here. It may allow you to continue to deny the simple truth, but it sure doesn't support the narrative of you being six steps ahead of anyone when you seemingly can't understand that a serious car fire can start well before the fuel tank is compromised.
 
catsmate said:
Many years ago T, my SO#1 (then just SO) was approached by one of her students (she was, and is, an academic physicist) with whom she was friendly. Said student had another, male, student, cuffed to the bed in her on-campus room, but one of the cheap handcuffs had a broken spring....
Ooops.

After freeing the young man, T suggested a better source for their toys.
Luckily this was before ubiquitous camera phones.
Click to expand...




Get the fire brigade, get the fire brigade...
 
JayUtah said:
You're claiming the vehicle at fault was an EV or a hybrid and that this is being covered up. The vehicle in question was powered by a diesel-fueled engine, in contrast to the powerplants you're desperately trying to foist on the situation. Nevetheless, all cars contain power sources and systems besides their propulsive elements, and these are often the causes of fires in those vehicles.



Not the claim.

Now are you going to "do the math" for us? Or are you just going to flounder and change the subject endlessly?
Click to expand...


That doesn't address the question as to why it is so desperately important to pin the cause of the fire (which of course cannot yet be confirmed until the investigation is complete) onto a diesel-fueled car?

There is absolutely one certainty here, which I can guarantee: the Fire Regulations for car parks and the concomitant building regulations WILL have to be reformed to take into consideration intense EV and HEV fires. That is a dead cert.


So, I ask again, given this absolute certainty, together with tax and death, why is it so imperative to convince the public it was a diesel car?
 
Vixen said:
'Video not available'.
Click to expand...
If this link doesn't work,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4IObb6bGrGw&pp=ygUIY2FyIGZpcmU=

then simply search YouTube for 'KHON2 News Car erupts in flames'.

Watch the video.


Sloping floor doesn't explain the intensity of the heat.
Click to expand...
You don't need it to explain the intensity, because as the above video shows, an automobile can burn with terrifying intensity.

But still the sloped levels would contribute in two ways, often referred to by the highly technical terms 'convection' and 'gravity'. The slope of the ceiling would allow byproduct gasses to move away from the car more efficiently, drawing fresh air in to help fuel the fire, and the sloped floor has the potential to help flammable fluids flow down grade toward other vehicles.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yes, the fire spread extremely quickly. So why is it important that it be emphasied (although not by Fire Chief Hopkinson) it is a diesel car only and not a hybrid?
Click to expand...

Because it's been confirmed that it was a diesel car
 
Vixen said:
Yes, I understand that this is something that is very important to you.

Can you explain why you are so emotionally invested in the initial car being a diesel car?
Click to expand...

Because that is what it was and for some reason you have been denying it

Do I scent you are about to reverse your statements?
 
How many times...ORIGIN is not the same as CAUSE.

It started in a diesel. We don't know WHY it started in a diesel. The two are different. Why are you constantly conflating the two Vixen? Are you being deliberately dishonest or are you genuinely unable to grasp that the two things are not the same?
 
Foster Zygote said:
The real question is: why is it important to you to exclude it having been a diesel Land Rover?

The rest of us aren't the ones arguing against the findings of the investigators. Contrary to your implied sleight of their ethics, you have offered no evidence to conclude that they've been anything less than professional and responsible in their assessment of the incident that started the fire, insofar as the type of the vehicle involved. The only reason offered to defend the claim that they have lied is the assertion that they're being directed to do so by some conspiratorial entity determined to hide the supposed dangers of Li-ion batteries.

The rest of us aren't invested in any way in finding a diesel powered car to have been the source of the fire. That's simply where the investigation lead.
Click to expand...

There have been no 'findings of the investigators'. Er, the major incident was just three weeks ago. They still haven't even salvaged all of the cars, or made safe the building for investigators to go in.
 
Vixen said:
The picture doesn't show the fuel tank is on fire.
Click to expand...

Well, the car is completely enveloped, the fuel tank will have burned before the video starts. What you see there are the other hydrocarbons and paint burning.
 
Vixen said:
That doesn't address the question as to why it is so desperately important to pin the cause of the fire (which of course cannot yet be confirmed until the investigation is complete) onto a diesel-fueled car?
Click to expand...

The cause of the fire remains unknown. However, the fire originated in a car powered by a diesel-fueled engine, not one powered by lithium-ion batteries, as you insist. Therefore lithium-ion batteries are highly unlikely to be the cause of the fire, and there is no coverup as you suggest.

So, I ask again, given this absolute certainty, together with tax and death, why is it so imperative to convince the public it was a diesel car?
Click to expand...

It's only imperative to convince you of it, since you insist on being so stubbornly wrong about the facts so that you can wallow in your little conspiracy theory. Outside this thread and your game-playing, there is no desperation.
 
Foster Zygote said:
For someone who cries "strawman!" so often, you sure make a lot of them yourself.

Show us where anyone has insisted "it must have been an electrical fault". All that has been pointed out is that electrical faults are a common, but not exclusive, cause of vehicle fires.

No one has suggested that an electrical fault is what melted the fuel tank, and that the fire started with fuel spilling from the tank. But because you know so little about automobiles, you don't realize that the greatest risk of fuel fire occurs in the engine compartment. If, in their panic to get out, the driver did leave the engine running, then that has a great potential to exacerbate the fire.

It's like you insist on not understanding anything that doesn't support the moronic conspiracy theory that you're totally not advocating here. It may allow you to continue to deny the simple truth, but it sure doesn't support the narrative of you being six steps ahead of anyone when you seemingly can't understand that a serious car fire can start well before the fuel tank is compromised.
Click to expand...

Wait, the driver leapt out of the car with the engine still running, and tried to apply a couple of fire extinguishers to it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom