Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[Steve]

I suspect someone has decided to temporarily abandon the thread in order to let it die down and do a fringe reset.

I cannot see any honest poster doing that.

 

[phiwum]

To be fair, Vixen hasn't posted in this or any other thread since March 17. It's possible that she's not aware of the latest press release. Our attention to a particular topic tends to wax and wane and sometimes vanish.

 

[theprestige]

The obvious explanation is that Jenny on the blog tipped her off to the latest coverup, and advised her to lay low for a few days until the electric conversion eye of sauron turned its gaze elsewhere or caught fire, either way.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I cannot see any honest poster doing that.

Beautiful.

 

[Vixen]

I just saw on BBC News:

The blaze broke out in Terminal Car Park 2 at about 20:45 BST on 10 October and "rapidly escalated".

In a joint report, Bedfordshire's fire and police services said the most probable cause was an electrical fault or a component failure in a moving diesel vehicle.

It became "overrun with flames" which spread to other vehicles, it said.

<snip>

A fire service spokeswoman said: "As a result of the investigation, all evidence points to the most probable cause being an electrical fault or component failure, which started in the engine bay of the vehicle whilst it was in motion.

"The developing fire spread to other components, and whilst the owner of the vehicle attempted to fight the fire, the vehicle became overrun with flames and spread to other parked vehicles."

The report confirmed the vehicle was "diesel-powered" and not "a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle".

BBC

How curious, another proviso has been added. Suddenly it is 'not a mild hybrid'.

Still no word of the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned.

What's with "the most probable cause"..? Is this another way of saying, 'We are just guessing, because an electric fault is always a good for plausible deniability'? Likewise, "started in the engine bay of the vehicle whilst it was in motion". Ah, so it started in the engine bay. For it to catch fire it indicates there must have been a fuel leak...?

Is the CCTV clip which was released by the airport, the Vehicle Zero? Because what can be seen is the tail lights still on, and the driver switched off the engine before he jumped out, as a reasonable assumption. So the electrics didn't actually cut out because of the short circuit caused by the fire. What was forcing out those flames so intensely if it was only a piddling fuel fire leaking via the fuel leak along the powertrain igniting towards the front (fuel tank being at the back of the car)? Some kind of pressure needed to ignite diesel at all, or vapour at a high temperature...(but that type of explosion would take place in the fuel tank)? Also, it wasn't parked in a standard bay, so how did such a weak fire, as would be expected in a diesel car at an early stage, catch within a few minutes to intensify into a fire that was uncontrollable within half an hour, such that firefighters had to exit the building pronto, presumably because of noxious fumes?

If only we had the make and model of the car so we could look up its powertrain. But that information is still being withheld.

The report is out in June.

 

[Steve]

I just saw on BBC News:

BBC

How curious, another proviso has been added. Suddenly it is 'not a mild hybrid'.

Still no word of the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned.

What's with "the most probable cause"..? Is this another way of saying, 'We are just guessing, because an electric fault is always a good for plausible deniability'? Likewise, "started in the engine bay of the vehicle whilst it was in motion". Ah, so it started in the engine bay. For it to catch fire it indicates there must have been a fuel leak...?

Is the CCTV clip which was released by the airport, the Vehicle Zero? Because what can be seen is the tail lights still on, and the driver switched off the engine before he jumped out, as a reasonable assumption. So the electrics didn't actually cut out because of the short circuit caused by the fire. What was forcing out those flames so intensely if it was only a piddling fuel fire leaking via the fuel leak along the powertrain igniting towards the front (fuel tank being at the back of the car)? Some kind of pressure needed to ignite diesel at all, or vapour at a high temperature...(but that type of explosion would take place in the fuel tank)? Also, it wasn't parked in a standard bay, so how did such a weak fire, as would be expected in a diesel car at an early stage, catch within a few minutes to intensify into a fire that was uncontrollable within half an hour, such that firefighters had to exit the building pronto, presumably because of noxious fumes?

If only we had the make and model of the car so we could look up its powertrain. But that information is still being withheld.

The report is out in June.

I guess any passing relationship with reality is out of the question, huh?

 

[Disbelief]

I just saw on BBC News:

BBC

How curious, another proviso has been added. Suddenly it is 'not a mild hybrid'.

Still no word of the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned.

And there's the denial as others predicted.

What's with "the most probable cause"..? Is this another way of saying, 'We are just guessing, because an electric fault is always a good for plausible deniability'? Likewise, "started in the engine bay of the vehicle whilst it was in motion". Ah, so it started in the engine bay. For it to catch fire it indicates there must have been a fuel leak...?

Because they do not know exactly which component started the fire, but they have a good indication of how it started. There does not need to be a fuel leak to start, there are other items that can catch fire before the fuel gets involved.

Is the CCTV clip which was released by the airport, the Vehicle Zero? Because what can be seen is the tail lights still on, and the driver switched off the engine before he jumped out, as a reasonable assumption. So the electrics didn't actually cut out because of the short circuit caused by the fire. What was forcing out those flames so intensely if it was only a piddling fuel fire leaking via the fuel leak along the powertrain igniting towards the front (fuel tank being at the back of the car)? Some kind of pressure needed to ignite diesel at all, or vapour at a high temperature...(but that type of explosion would take place in the fuel tank)? Also, it wasn't parked in a standard bay, so how did such a weak fire, as would be expected in a diesel car at an early stage, catch within a few minutes to intensify into a fire that was uncontrollable within half an hour, such that firefighters had to exit the building pronto, presumably because of noxious fumes?

Just because one electrical component is bad does not mean that you can not have power to other components. There are multiple wire harnesses running through a vehicle. The fuel tank is in the rear of the car, but where does the fuel flow. Think hard about that one. Once again, more than just fuel burns in a car fire, so the plastic components and other materials would feed the blaze.

If only we had the make and model of the car so we could look up its powertrain. But that information is still being withheld.

The report is out in June.

Back to denial. In June, you will find an excuse as well. Are you stating that the fire service is lying?

 

[zooterkin]

I just saw on BBC News:

BBC

How curious, another proviso has been added. Suddenly it is 'not a mild hybrid'.

You might be unaware, but some conspiracy nutters took what they thought to be a deliberate omission in the list of EVs that the vehicle where the fire started wasn't as an admission that it was a mild hybrid. They've now explicitly excluded that too. Conspiracy nutters will now, of course, find some other way to ignore the facts.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You have claimed, or at least strongly insinuated, that accountants are scientists. So which professional society should accountants join if they wish to become RScis or CScis? And you have completely failed to address the question of why you are not a RSci or CSci.

Bump.

How about answering my questions, Vixen?

 

[JayUtah]

What's with "the most probable cause"..? Is this another way of saying, 'We are just guessing, because an electric fault is always a good for plausible deniability'?

No, it means the cause most favorable to the picture of evidence so far. Which one of your many "Master's degree equivalents" qualified you in forensic engineering investigation? That's right, we already know the answer: None.

For it to catch fire it indicates there must have been a fuel leak...?

You keep making the mistake of thinking that fuel is the only flammable thing in a car.

So the electrics didn't actually cut out because of the short circuit caused by the fire.

Which of your many "Master's degree equivalents" covered fault protection in automotive circuits?

...as would be expected in a diesel car at an early stage...

Which of your many "Masters degree equivalents" covered fire propagation and fluid dynamics?

If only we had the make and model of the car so we could look up its powertrain. But that information is still being withheld.

If only we had a picture of the full extent of your extensive training and experience that lets you set up these authoritative expectations from which you—and you alone—can build up the picture of an anomalous vehicle fire according to the paucity of evidence at your disposal. But that information is still being withheld.

 

[Mojo]

I just saw on BBC News:

BBC

How curious, another proviso has been added. Suddenly it is 'not a mild hybrid'.

Probably because of nonsense like this:

Sudden amnesia now that the full fact is that it was 'a diesel-fuelled car, but not a full EV or a plug in EV', yet failing to confirm it was not a mild hybrid vehicle either. That changes everything. It means it was a hybrid and it was a lithium battery fire.

Or this:

CONCLUSION

Spot the change: Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has gone from ruling out an EV of any sort to including the possibility it might be a mild hybrid diesel-fuelled vehicle, after all.

In other words, the public has also been misled by an organization called 'Full Fact' that it was 'determined' that it was a 'diesel car' full stop and not an EV.

The person who wrote up the initial Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage also changed Hopkinson's wording to, 'it has been determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car'.

But now we find that the only EV's that have been ruled out are "it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)" but not mild hybrids, MHEV's, ahead of the imminent release of the report in April 2024.

In other words, for six months the public has been led to believe, by rewriting the original press release, as copy, saying, it was determined Vehicle Zero was 'diesel fuelled' only, (see Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage), with Full Fact notifying the press and all enquirers that "It was not an EV. This was a diesel powered vehicle", claiming dishonestly to be quoting Hopkinson verbatim (as the quote is in quotation marks).

Why would Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage now add the proviso, "it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)", except to forewarn the public it was a hybrid after all?

This is serious misinformation by Full Fact and Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage because dozens of people on this thread have been using Full Fact and Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service webpage as their Bible and go-to source as verified information.

Now we find it was not the 'full fact' after all.

Cue: massive strop coming up.

Any time now, I expect.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Turns out I was wrong, instead it was different conspiracy slop.

 

[Foster Zygote]

How curious, another proviso has been added. Suddenly it is 'not a mild hybrid'.

Why is that curious? I assume the fire service are well aware of all the ignorant conspiracy theories being thrown about by self appointed armchair accident investigators.

What's with "the most probable cause"..? Is this another way of saying, 'We are just guessing, because an electric fault is always a good for plausible deniability'?

No, it means that based on, almost certainly, the testimony of the driver, they know that the fire started in the engine bay, so they're going with what are by far the most common causes of such fires as the most likely source of ignition.

Likewise, "started in the engine bay of the vehicle whilst it was in motion". Ah, so it started in the engine bay. For it to catch fire it indicates there must have been a fuel leak...?

No. As covered many times previously, there are other sources of ignition for car fires.

Is the CCTV clip which was released by the airport, the Vehicle Zero? Because what can be seen is the tail lights still on, and the driver switched off the engine before he jumped out, as a reasonable assumption. So the electrics didn't actually cut out because of the short circuit caused by the fire.

Remember back on, I think, the first page of this thread when you admitted that you don't know anything about cars? It would be helpful if you remembered that. A car's electrical harness isn't wired in series like old Christmas tree lights. Have you ever experienced a car suddenly shutting down completely because a headlight went out? Years ago the alternator failed on one of my cars, and the lights still worked until the battery was drained.

Some kind of pressure needed to ignite diesel at all...

No. Do you simply not read Tue responses to your claims, or do you just pretend you never read what you don't want to know? Just because diesel engines ignite the air/fuel charge with compression doesn't mean that that's the only way to ignite diesel. You've already seen a dish of diesel oil being ignited with a match. Is that another annoying fact that you've chosen to ignore?

...or vapour at a high temperature...(but that type of explosion would take place in the fuel tank)? Also, it wasn't parked in a standard bay, so how did such a weak fire, as would be expected in a diesel car at an early stage, catch within a few minutes to intensify into a fire that was uncontrollable within half an hour, such that firefighters had to exit the building pronto, presumably because of noxious fumes?

If only we had the make and model of the car so we could look up its powertrain. But that information is still being withheld.

I'm sure that whatever forum you're visiting to feed your CT fix is filled with other people talking ignorant nonsense just like the above.

The report is out in June.

Plenty of time to think of excuses not to accept that it was a diesel car.

 

[Vixen]

You might be unaware, but some conspiracy nutters took what they thought to be a deliberate omission in the list of EVs that the vehicle where the fire started wasn't as an admission that it was a mild hybrid. They've now explicitly excluded that too. Conspiracy nutters will now, of course, find some other way to ignore the facts.

What is it with the sheer desperation to describe what the vehicle is not?* Why not add in 'it was not a petrol car'? Whoever released that press release seems really anxious for it not to be an EV.

"The fire wasn't caused by my smoking my Marlborough lights, Officer, nor by my setting the tablecloth on fire with my lighter, honest, Guv, the fire most absolutely was not caused by my trying to light the gas oven with a blow torch. It wasn't me, honest, Officer." <fx whistles nonchalantly>

I wonder what Shakespeare would have 'methinks' of himself of such a person? Someone help me out with the right phrase.

*Is it an implicit admission that it would be politically disastrous for Vehicle Zero to have been an EV of some sort?

 

[Vixen]

No, it means the cause most favorable to the picture of evidence so far. Which one of your many "Master's degree equivalents" qualified you in forensic engineering investigation? That's right, we already know the answer: None.



You keep making the mistake of thinking that fuel is the only flammable thing in a car.



Which of your many "Master's degree equivalents" covered fault protection in automotive circuits?



Which of your many "Masters degree equivalents" covered fire propagation and fluid dynamics?



If only we had a picture of the full extent of your extensive training and experience that lets you set up these authoritative expectations from which you—and you alone—can build up the picture of an anomalous vehicle fire according to the paucity of evidence at your disposal. But that information is still being withheld.

After five months of investigation they can only guess at what caused the fire? It can always be modelled on the Liverpool ECHO report, since no-one is sure.

 

[Vixen]

See MGUY Australia here in respect of this. From circa 1:47 on.



https://youtu.be/pyYMvZsrhOI?si=VrpoGxH4HfG_X8Rj

 

[JayUtah]

After five months of investigation they can only guess at what caused the fire? It can always be modelled on the Liverpool ECHO report, since no-one is sure.

You didn't answer the question. Which of your many academic accolades allows you to Vixensplain to us how the professionals are doing it wrong? Come on, now, be specific.

 

[phiwum]

What is it with the sheer desperation to describe what the vehicle is not?* Why not add in 'it was not a petrol car'? Whoever released that press release seems really anxious for it not to be an EV.

"The fire wasn't caused by my smoking my Marlborough lights, Officer, nor by my setting the tablecloth on fire with my lighter, honest, Guv, the fire most absolutely was not caused by my trying to light the gas oven with a blow torch. It wasn't me, honest, Officer." <fx whistles nonchalantly>

I wonder what Shakespeare would have 'methinks' of himself of such a person? Someone help me out with the right phrase.

*Is it an implicit admission that it would be politically disastrous for Vehicle Zero to have been an EV of some sort?

"It was a diesel vehicle."

Ah, they didn't say it wasn't a plug-in hybrid! Suspicious!

"It was a diesel vehicle, neither an EV nor a plug-in hybrid."

Ah, they didn't say it wasn't a mild hybrid! Gotcha!

"It was a diesel vehicle, not an EV, plug-in hybrid or mild hybrid."

Look how they bend over backwards to eliminate that it was a hybrid or EV. What are they trying to hide?

 

[Mojo]

They didn't say it wasn't a shape-shifting lizard!

 

[Foster Zygote]

After five months of investigation they can only guess at what caused the fire? It can always be modelled on the Liverpool ECHO report, since no-one is sure.

If the resulting fire destroys the evidence of the exact cause, time will not be a factor no matter how long they take to investigate it. You think you are making "expert noises" by acting as though it is obvious that any real investigation would have given a precise cause for the fire down to the specific component, and that the lack of such precise detail indicates something suspicious. But the mere fact that you think that only further demonstrates your ignorance, in keeping with someone who thinks that a single electrical fault should disable all the electrical systems in the car, or that diesel oil requires high pressure to ignite.

And if they're just lying about the whole thing to protect Sunak's precious capital investments in Big Battery, why wouldn't they just invent a source for the fire, like a battery lead with worn insulation, or a leak in the fuel delivery rail?

This thread has fallen into the same feedback loop as all your other CT threads. The more you try to prove your mastery of the subject, the more you actually demonstrate your ignorance of it. And the more you demonstrate your ignorance, the harder you try to prove your mastery.