Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[LondonJohn]

Based on the various entrance tests, 11-plus, entrance exam to take Psychology, Civil Service Fast-Track exam and for two social clubs. None of them were online.

LMAO.
Yes, I remember having to take a written logic test as a precondition to joining my (social) club in London.....


(....not)

 

[phiwum]

I'm still looking for confirmation that I understand your commitments as of today. Could you confirm or correct? See below.

As of today, it has never been confirmed that the car as pictured by the mass media is the culprit. If it was the culprit, then what can be seen in the picture closely resembles a Jaguar Land Rover vehicle of some sort and the flames being bright crimson and literally jetting outwards, with white and grey smoke and from its lower left position in the vehicle certainly points to a lithium-ion battery fire and not to the black smoke fire one would expect from diesel or tyres. In addition, the fire was in an early stage and if a diesel or petrol fire could have easily been put out by firefighters within ten minutes.

We have not been told the make, year and model of the vehicle concerned, as has been the case in the Liverpool fire so one can't help wondering if the whole coyness is to do with protecting the Tata brand and its recent £1,200bn [iirc] grant (=it doesn't have to ever pay it back even if it goes bust, as at the Tata steelworks in Port Talbot) to set up a million-ha lithium car battery factory in the UK.

Okay, so as of today you reckon the following:

1. The initial vehicle has been confirmed to be a diesel, neither EV nor hybrid.
2. The pictured vehicle clearly displays a Lithium-Ion battery fire.
3. Both the pictured vehicle and the initial vehicle were in the driving lane, not parking spaces.
4. The driver of the initial vehicle attempted to put out the fire with an extinguisher and the pictured vehicle has an extinguisher next to it.
5. Despite (3) and (4), the two vehicles are not the same (because (1) and (2) require they are different).
   

Does that sound about right? I may have made errors in (3) and (4), so let me know if I've confused some facts.

I suppose it's worth asking: Suppose that the fire department officially confirms that the pictured vehicle IS the initial vehicle. I don't know whether they will ever say anything about that photo or not, but if they do, will you concede that you were wrong? That, in fact, it turns out that you could not distinguish a battery fire from a diesel fire just by looking at a photo?

 

[LondonJohn]

Irrelevant. You appear to be deliberately missing the point.

The obstacle you keep banging your head against is not "Could a diesel Range Rover be modified?" rather it's "Does anyone ever convert a diesel into a diesel hybrid?".

Available evidence suggests the answer to that question is "No, nobody does that".

So having had quite some time to consider whether the fire at Luton was caused by a home-made conversion to diesel hybrid, and having searched but failed to discover any single example of anyone anywhere doing that conversion to any car ever, have you begun to form any opinion on its likelihood?

Well, of course the ultimate question (and the only one that's really relevant for the purposes of this pitiful thread) is "Was the car that caught fire in the Luton Airport car park any form of electric vehicle (including a post-purchase EV modification of any sort)?"

And we know the definitive answer to that question. Vixen's seeming ongoing inability to understand this is truly pathetic.

 

[LondonJohn]

The car that caused the Liverpool fire in 2018 had had its fuel source 'modified' according to the Liverpool Post, so I see no anomaly in considering whether the car fire at Luton was caused by a similar event.

Are you seriously still unable to comprehend the (unequivocal) statement issued by Beds Fire & Rescue Service regarding the initial vehicle which caught fire? Seriously?

 

[catsmate]

AIUI BRE standards are followed.

Not an answer to the question asked.

The car that caused the Liverpool fire in 2018 had had its fuel source 'modified' according to the Liverpool Post, so I see no anomaly in considering whether the car fire at Luton was caused by a similar event.

It was an ICE Land Rover. No Li batteries.

 

[JayUtah]

The tests were all 'normed' and not online ones.

Then you should be able to name those tests exactly, so that we can verify that they are part of the standard body of such tests. And you can provide more detail regarding why you had to take them, because otherwise your claim is facially suspect.

Further, if by "normed" you mean norm-referenced, then your claim to have scored at "maximum or near maximum" is patently false, because no such value exist for a norm-referenced test.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. Of course it is supposition. Is that supposition realistic? I think not.

You may remember my posting some London fire brigade statistics indicating they attend many hundreds of car fires per year. What proportion of car fires do you suppose the national newspapers inform us about? What proportion of those which they do report do you suppose the press later revisit with updates?

One would have thought after the Luton fire, the press would be champing at the bit to report the Gatwick one - let's face it, the press are after clicks. But nothing. Nada. Zilch.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The car that caused the Liverpool fire in 2018 had had its fuel source 'modified' according to the Liverpool Post...

Do you have a reference for that claim because it suggests they know something the fire brigade do not.

https://www.merseyfire.gov.uk/media/1588/kings-dock-car-park-fire-iit.pdf

Their incident investigation team note that the car couldn't be inspected because the building was unsafe and the car's owner and his solicitor and his insurer were uncooperative. But CCTV shows his activity after parking, which made them think he suspected something was wrong with his car, and some unusual activity with its lights suggested similar. Eight or so minutes later it started to smoke.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

One would have thought after the Luton fire, the press would be champing at the bit to report the Gatwick one - let's face it, the press are after clicks. But nothing. Nada. Zilch.

They did report it. They got their clicks.

Now you want follow-up reports. No clicks there.

 

[Vixen]

I'm still looking for confirmation that I understand your commitments as of today. Could you confirm or correct? See below.



Okay, so as of today you reckon the following:

1. The initial vehicle has been confirmed to be a diesel, neither EV nor hybrid.
2. The pictured vehicle clearly displays a Lithium-Ion battery fire.
3. Both the pictured vehicle and the initial vehicle were in the driving lane, not parking spaces.
4. The driver of the initial vehicle attempted to put out the fire with an extinguisher and the pictured vehicle has an extinguisher next to it.
5. Despite (3) and (4), the two vehicles are not the same (because (1) and (2) require they are different).
   

Does that sound about right? I may have made errors in (3) and (4), so let me know if I've confused some facts.

I suppose it's worth asking: Suppose that the fire department officially confirms that the pictured vehicle IS the initial vehicle. I don't know whether they will ever say anything about that photo or not, but if they do, will you concede that you were wrong? That, in fact, it turns out that you could not distinguish a battery fire from a diesel fire just by looking at a photo?

Regarding your points 3 and 4. It has never been confirmed that the CCTV images widely circulated was the car in question. The source of yet another video, circulated only by someone on Twitter with 200 followers, supposedly taken from the front with a visible number plate has never been accepted as credible information by any publication that I can discern. yet catsmate thinks this video, which I believe is deep fake, as none of the press has touched it when normally they would leap on such a scoop, reveals the vehicle to be a particular Range Rover Sport 2014 and therefore diesel-fuled only.

Yet it is a fact that many of the early hybrids were simply registered by DVLA as petrol or diesel cars.


As to number 5, the driver only appears to have tried to put out the fire. for all we know, he may have found the fire extinguisher to be empty or faulty.

 

[JayUtah]

Based on the various entrance tests...

So none specifically to test your ability at logical analysis? Just general, standardized proficiency and aptitude tests?

11-plus

This test includes a logic segment, but is not a "logic test." Further, it is a norm-referenced test, so you cannot have scored a "near maximum" on it.

entrance exam to take Psychology

Specifically what test? What exactly do you mean by "to take Pyschology?" You've been especially coy on that particular point.

Civil Service Fast-Track exam

That is a general aptitude and suitability test, not a "logic test."

and for two social clubs.

Social clubs testing your proficiency at logic? That's hysterical! Whatever for? Name the clubs, please.

Just like your "five years of physics," you seem to have taken no more standardized exams than many other people in the UK, nor any of them specifically to test your ability at logic.

 

[JayUtah]

...this video, which I believe is deep fake, as none of the press has touched it when normally they would leap on such a scoop...

Your evidence that a certain video is a deep fake is that the media didn't behave as you think they should regarding it?

That's an inference based on an unfounded speculation.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yet it is a fact that many of the early hybrids were simply registered by DVLA as petrol or diesel cars.

Early hybrids? Do you perhaps mean so early that they did not yet have a separate category for hybrid cars, or that their staff had not yet been properly trained to take note of it?

I presume you'll have a reference for this claim so we can see for ourselves if it has any relevance to a 2014 car.

 

[Vixen]

Do you have a reference for that claim because it suggests they know something the fire brigade do not.

https://www.merseyfire.gov.uk/media/1588/kings-dock-car-park-fire-iit.pdf

Their incident investigation team note that the car couldn't be inspected because the building was unsafe and the car's owner and his solicitor and his insurer were uncooperative. But CCTV shows his activity after parking, which made them think he suspected something was wrong with his car, and some unusual activity with its lights suggested similar. Eight or so minutes later it started to smoke.

The reference is from the LIVERPOOL ECHO 24 Jan 2019:

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson has revealed what caused the ECHO arena car park fire.

Almost 1400 cars were destroyed on New Year’s Eve when the multi-storey car park burst into flames after a 16-year-old car caught fire on the third floor.

At tonight’s full council meeting Mayor Joe said that the car that started the blaze had been converted to a “different fuel arrangement“.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mayor-joe-reveals-what-caused-14199555

 

[Vixen]

Your evidence that a certain video is a deep fake is that the media didn't behave as you think they should regarding it?

That's an inference based on an unfounded speculation.

They all released the CCTV clip with headlines such as 'Is THIS the car that caused the fire?' None confirmed it was Vehicle Zero. If it was the vehicle concerned, then it appears to have a very short number plate which again indicates its make, which doesn't tally with 'Range Rover Sport 2014' of the deep fake Twitter one, but can't recall which make it does spring to mind to those familiar with how number plates work.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Thank you.

If the mayor was correct, and as the car was a diesel, it's likely that's a reference to the car having been "chipped" - remapped to improve power, torque or economy, maybe at a cost to emissions or more strain on the engine components. A modification you should of course declare to your insurer.

It's not, as the Echo appears to say, an explanation for a car catching fire while parked.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

LMAO.
Yes, I remember having to take a written logic test as a precondition to joining my (social) club in London.....


(....not)

MENSA springs to mind, the social club for people desperate to for other people to know they can reach an arbitrary score on an IQ test.

 

[Vixen]

Thank you.

If the mayor was correct, and as the car was a diesel, it's likely that's a reference to the car having been "chipped" - remapped to improve power, torque or economy, maybe at a cost to emissions or more strain on the engine components. A modification you should of course declare to your insurer.

It's not, as the Echo appears to say, an explanation for a car catching fire while parked.

Forgive my sceptical nature but if as you say, "Their incident investigation team note that the car couldn't be inspected because the building was unsafe and the car's owner and his solicitor and his insurer were uncooperative [Merseyside Fire Brigade Report 2019]

How on earth is this possible, when the law of the land supersedes any private contract between individuals or corporations. The Merseyside Fire Brigade collaborated with the Merseyside police. I cannot understand how it is an acceptable explanation that "the car's owner and his solicitor and his insurer were uncooperative".

How does "the car's owner and his solicitor and his insurer", trump the powers of the police and the statutory powers of an inquiry?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Thank you.

If the mayor was correct, and as the car was a diesel, it's likely that's a reference to the car having been "chipped" - remapped to improve power, torque or economy, maybe at a cost to emissions or more strain on the engine components. A modification you should of course declare to your insurer.

It's not, as the Echo appears to say, an explanation for a car catching fire while parked.

Or coverted to LPG or biodiesel.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

So none specifically to test your ability at logical analysis? Just general, standardized proficiency and aptitude tests?



This test includes a logic segment, but is not a "logic test." Further, it is a norm-referenced test, so you cannot have scored a "near maximum" on it.



Specifically what test? What exactly do you mean by "to take Pyschology?" You've been especially coy on that particular point.



That is a general aptitude and suitability test, not a "logic test."



Social clubs testing your proficiency at logic? That's hysterical! Whatever for? Name the clubs, please.

Just like your "five years of physics," you seem to have taken no more standardized exams than many other people in the UK, nor any of them specifically to test your ability at logic.

Hmmmm, 11+ being more than pass or fail? Not what I heard from those who took it; and those of us (Co Durham) who had our work from our last 2 years of primary school taken in for assessment for grammar school certainly didn't get more than pass or fail.

Not aware of any psychology departments requiring specific entrance exams (certainly not Sheffield or Newcastle, the 2 I know best); when I was a bairn Oxbridge colleges still had their opaque entrance exam system, but that is long gone.

No mention of having done something like a full WISC or WISC-R (Vixen has a psychology degree and so will know what I mean) or any adult equivalent.

Happy to be corrected on any of the above.

I have done a number of aptitude tests, which included a logical reasoning component among many other things, and scored in the top 5% on everything, which I would expect, since I went top university when only 6 or 7% of the year group did. Just for some UK context.