Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[Dabop]

What do you think happened, then?

They ran out of Californian bush to set fire to, so the Jewish Space Lasers Inc. lasers were sitting idle and unused, so they set fire to the Luton Car Park so they could send the ICE manufacturers a bill and make money by discrediting EVs by cleverly hiding the fact it was a home made EV that caught fire by pretending it was a diesel vehicle...
The proof of this was California has the biggest uptake of EVs in the US, and the bushfires were simply a cover of them attempting to destroy every EV in California, which they have done and they have now moved on to destroying every EV in the UK- all of which were simultaneously parked in the Luton Airport carpark, and there are no BEVs left in the UK at all now either- all those Tesla's and other so called EVs are in reality disguised ICE cars (probably Ladas), so the Russian car/submarine manufacturers can take over the UK car market!!!

See- makes perfect sense...

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No, it was because of a huge number of diesel, petrol, plastic, rubber and, yes, even EV car battery fires all burning at the same time in the same place.

It's like looking at the ashes of a bonfire & saying "one match couldn't do that".

 

[whoanellie]

<sigh> I never claimed that all accountants were scientists. But a large percentage do come from a Maths, science or Economics background.

Running a enterprise or an industry can be considered a science IMV. For example, calculating a production line, space required on supermarkets shelves, bums on seats re airlines, capacity re hotels bookings, etc. etc.

Well, your view is off a bit. Calculating space required on supermarket shelves - whatever exactly you mean by that - is not SCIENCE.

 

[Foster Zygote]

'Lawyer-speak' because they haven't told you anything at all except what is already in the public domain.

"Public domain" is a legal term related to intellectual property rights. Everything that's been stated regarding the cause of the fire has been made public by the fire service investigators, so you can't even claim that they're just parroting what others have already said. Just because a statement contains items that have previously been stated publicly doesn't, in any way, amount to semantic obfuscation.

Face it, "legal speak" was just something you used out of context because you needed some reason to dismiss the unambiguous statement that the automobile in which the fire started was a simple diesel powered vehicle.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen why do you think you're competent to assess this fire? What makes you think you know more than the fire department?

Well vixen?

 

[phiwum]

Nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. The car park fire was an event that happened. It is current news. If you think people being interested in how an entire car park of up to 1,500 vehicles was completely destroyed by one vehicle which had only just arrived with the driver still in his seat are 'nutty conspiracy theorists', perhaps the issue lies with you.

If the report is being deferred until parliament is in recession (after 23 July) and the news media enters into the 'silly season' full of articles by Phil Page then you know there is stuff the government wants covered up. Why would you welcome it unless you think it quite normal?

The release said the report will come out this summer. Initially, you decided (for no reason) that this meant June. Now you decide (for no reason) that this means after July 23 and demand that this isn't normal.

Why do you read so much into a statement that only refers to the summer and not a particular time in the summer?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You have yet to establish that it is a conspiracy theory.

You've done that yourself, by presenting a conspiracy theory involving not only a claim that the real cause of the fire has been covered up, but by implicating the fire service investigators in the lie and insinuating the involvement of the current prime minister of the UK.

As for your last sentence re chromosomes the poster concerned who posted it failed to mention that I corrected it shortly after, so much for which one of us is the honest one.

You admitted your error three days later, after several people had pointed out your error. And it's not even like you can claim it was a simple typographical error, and that correcting it makes all your claims regarding DNA testing fall into place. It was just one of many fundamental errors you made demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the subject.

And why can't you be so forthright about the ignition of diesel oil not requiring high pressure? I mean you watched a video showing diesel in a ceramic dish being ignited with a match. Why can't you admit that the running lights being illuminated doesn't rule out an electrical fault? Why can't you admit that ICE automobile fires are relatively common, and are often severe in nature? Having admitted at the outset that you know virtually nothing about automobiles, why are you pretending to have expertise on the subject?

 

[phiwum]

Oh for goodness sake. The car park did not burn down because of a simple diesel fire.

Why, then, did it burn down? The initial vehicle, at least, was not a hybrid or EV according to the press release. You say that the press release doesn't lie (but uses lawyer-speak), so then what did cause the fire?

 

[Vixen]

Well, your view is off a bit. Calculating space required on supermarket shelves - whatever exactly you mean by that - is not SCIENCE.

See SCIENCE DIRECT here.

 

[Vixen]

"Public domain" is a legal term related to intellectual property rights. Everything that's been stated regarding the cause of the fire has been made public by the fire service investigators, so you can't even claim that they're just parroting what others have already said. Just because a statement contains items that have previously been stated publicly doesn't, in any way, amount to semantic obfuscation.

Face it, "legal speak" was just something you used out of context because you needed some reason to dismiss the unambiguous statement that the automobile in which the fire started was a simple diesel powered vehicle.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I was referring to what was in the public domain re the official report. So we've been told it was probably an electric fire in a diesel car only which spread to others. The important details of HOW this could happen and why the fire brigade who were there quite promptly were unable to contain what should have been an every day fire. There were eventually 100 firefighters from several regions, including the London Fire Brigade itself and they couldn't quell it for several hours, five firefighters, who are trained in self-safety ended up in hospital suffering from noxious fumes, which their fire safety equipment and procedures didn't seem to anticipate.

 

[JayUtah]

<sigh> I never claimed that all accountants were scientists.

You claimed you were a mathematician and a scientist, and that your vocational training in accounting allowed you say so.

But a large percentage do come from a Maths, science or Economics background.

Casting a wider net does not make you a scientist. You claimed you were a scientist. You cannot back that that up with either a recognized credential or a demonstration of scientific proficiency.

Running a enterprise or an industry can be considered a science IMV.

Equivocation. That "science" is an overused term today does not make you the scientist you claimed to be.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Oh for goodness sake. The car park did not burn down because of a simple diesel fire.

Oh for goodness sake. The forest did not burn down because of a simple log campfire.

At this point it's obvious that you know full well that the parking garage contained hundreds of other highly flammable vehicles, and that the fire spread rapidly through them, but you'd rather pretend you don't know that than admit error.

Do you even know why Li-ion batteries burn? Just how much energy do you think is stored in the flammable solvents inside an EV battery? Clearly you think it's enough that the parking garage would have burned just as catastrophically even if it had been empty of all other vehicles, which is utter nonsense.

 

[JayUtah]

...why the fire brigade who were there quite promptly were unable to contain what should have been an every day fire.

You are not competent to determine this.

 

[JayUtah]

You say that the press release doesn't lie (but uses lawyer-speak)...

Indeed, the press release is clear. It identifies the type of car that started the fire. It specifically addresses claims that it might have been some other type of car: specifically the types Vixen has been speculating about. That competent authority has explicitly and conclusive repudiated her ignorant speculation does not suddenly make it "lawyer-speak."

 

[Vixen]

Y<snip quibble>

And why can't you be so forthright about the ignition of diesel oil not requiring high pressure? I mean you watched a video showing diesel in a ceramic dish being ignited with a match. Why can't you admit that the running lights being illuminated doesn't rule out an electrical fault? Why can't you admit that ICE automobile fires are relatively common, and are often severe in nature? Having admitted at the outset that you know virtually nothing about automobiles, why are you pretending to have expertise on the subject?

I have never claimed that ICE fires are not relatively common. That was your strawman, remember?

 

[Vixen]

Oh for goodness sake. The forest did not burn down because of a simple log campfire.

At this point it's obvious that you know full well that the parking garage contained hundreds of other highly flammable vehicles, and that the fire spread rapidly through them, but you'd rather pretend you don't know that than admit error.

Do you even know why Li-ion batteries burn? Just how much energy do you think is stored in the flammable solvents inside an EV battery? Clearly you think it's enough that the parking garage would have burned just as catastrophically even if it had been empty of all other vehicles, which is utter nonsense.

No, sorry. If you drop a lighted cigarette end under a parked car, it should not go up in flames with such intensity the entire car park is ablaze in less than X hours (need to look up the specific time). Just because a car is an EV that doesn't mean it will suffer a thermal runaway if a car nearby has a fire in its engine bay, especially if the fire brigade has arrived promptly.

Li-on batteries burn because of instability within the cells. The ensuing fire feeds on the oxygen that is generated. And what does oxygen do...? Tell me. So do you see why an intensity of heat that was high enough to melt the concrete floor and bend the steel rebars has to be consistent with the type of fire involved?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Oh for goodness sake. The car park did not burn down because of a simple diesel fire.

Are you saying jet fuel cannot melt steel? I believe I've heard that before.

 

[Vixen]

Are you saying jet fuel cannot melt steel? I believe I've heard that before.

Please concentrate on the specific news topic and not try to associate it with 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Vixen's quote about the Silly Season is from an article published 13 July 1861. Anyone want to bet against there having been a few changes in the media since then?

And it doesn't make a scrap of sense. The notorious phrase "a good day to bury bad news" refers to the time when news was completely dominated by 9/11. Not to the silly season when the press are starved of political red meat and desperate for page-filling stories. It's total nonsense.

 

[JayUtah]

No, sorry. If you drop a lighted cigarette end under a parked car, it should not go up in flames...

Straw man.

So do you see why an intensity of heat that was high enough to melt the concrete floor and bend the steel rebars has to be consistent with the type of fire involved?

You are not competent to assess whether the damage observed in that fire was consistent with any claims about its source or combustible load.