• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

My, for a brilliant logical mind, you seem unable to stick to the claims. Points (3) and (4) do not assert that the initial vehicle is the same as the pictured vehicle.

And point (5) does not speculate on why the attempt to use a fire extinguisher failed.

Here, let's look at the claims again.

  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).

Claim (3) is merely that the pictured vehicle is in the driving lane (evident from the photo) and that the initial vehicle was also abandoned in the driving lane. Now, it's conceivable that I'm wrong about the initial vehicle being in the driving lane, but the press release says the following:
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.
Click to expand...
So I feel pretty confident that both vehicles are similar in this regard: they both were ablaze in the driving lane, not in a parking space. I am not claiming that this proves they are the same vehicle.

Claim (4) is also about an apparent similarity. The pictured vehicle has a fire extinguisher on the floor nearby and the driver of the initial vehicle attempted but failed to extinguish the fire on his car. Again, from the press release:
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.
Click to expand...
This also does not prove that the initial vehicle is also the pictured vehicle, but it is a notable similarity.

Statement (5) is simply that the initial vehicle is not the same as the pictured vehicle. This must be the case, given (1) and (2).

So, let's try again. Do you accept that (1)-(5) are accurate representations of your current understanding of the Luton fire? I'm not playing gotcha. The five statements are not logically inconsistent, so it is possible that all five are true. I tend to think it's unlikely that all five are true, but I won't argue the point unless I know whether you reckon that all five are true.
 
Vixen said:
The reference is from the LIVERPOOL ECHO 24 Jan 2019:

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

I notice that the Mayor's statement was made on January 24, 2018 while the report cited by Jack by the hedge was released sometime in or after March (since the author reports on his investigation from January to March 2018). Hence, the Mayor's statement was earlier than the final report.

The final report makes only one comment regarding the fuel type, far as I noticed. That is that it had a current MOT and the owner said it was a petrol engine. Others have claimed here (I think) that the MOT would somehow indicate the current fuel type, but I don't know if that's true.

In any case, the fire investigation team do not allege that the vehicle was anything other than a petrol. Doesn't seem to me that the mayor would know more about the incident months prior to the completion of the investigation. Or did Big Battery get to the investigation team?
 
Carrot Flower King said:
I have done a number of aptitude tests, which included a logical reasoning component among many other things...
Click to expand...

As has almost anyone who has obtained at least college undergraduate degree, which I suspect comprises most of the people participating in this thread.

The categorical reasoning problem here is that a "logic test" is not the same as "a test that includes a logic component" if one's evident goal is to report the aggregate score of a comprehensive test as if specifically dealt with logic. One could score quite high on, say, the verbal or spatial reasoning components, and relatively poorly on the logic section, and still come away with an enviable aggregate score.

But the salient point is that claiming to have scored very high on multiple "logic tests" to insinuate a qualification that forces us to ignore demonstrably poor reasoning is a feeble ploy. No one asked Vixen how she scored on these or any tests. She's offering it up voluntarily as some sort of reason why we should ignore her inability to reason.
 
Vixen said:
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]
Click to expand...

Note also (paragraphs 7.14 and 7.15) that the owner and insurance company cooperated with a police interview on the condition that the Chief Fire Officer not attend. It's still a bit odd, but it seems that perhaps the company and owner thought that the Chief was antagonistic or something similar.

You're still right that they were uncooperative to an extent but not wholly so.
 
phiwum said:
...

The final report makes only one comment regarding the fuel type, far as I noticed. That is that it had a current MOT and the owner said it was a petrol engine. Others have claimed here (I think) that the MOT would somehow indicate the current fuel type, but I don't know if that's true.

...
Click to expand...

The UK government MOT web site does list power source:



The vehicle in question is the milk float from Last of the Summer Wine. ;)

There's also a .GOV site that gives the MOT history for a vehicle.
 
Last edited:
SteveAitch said:
The UK government MOT web site does list power source:

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_75818660dad95a47b1.jpg[/qimg]

The vehicle in question is the milk float from Last of the Summer Wine. ;)

There's also a .GOV site that gives the MOT history for a vehicle.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information.

So, either the MOT also stated that the vehicle is a petrol or the Chief didn't actually check (or didn't comment about the discrepancy). The Chief doesn't say that he checked the information about MOT and fuel type reported by the owner, but I think it's fair to assume he did.

It's possible of course that the vehicle changed fuel type after the last MOT renewal or that it changed fuel type before but the records weren't updated, but the latter seems very unlikely and the former pretty unlikely.

It seems then that there is pretty good evidence that the car in question in the Kings Dock incident was indeed a petrol vehicle. That seems to be better evidence than the Mayor Joe's comment early on that the vehicle had been converted to a "different fuel arrangement".
 
phiwum said:
Well, we're all real impressed down here, I can tell you.
Click to expand...

That's kind of my point. It's not important or impressive particularly, it just means you passed an iq test. If I thought it was actually important I might have joined, I was just curious.
 
JayUtah said:
Social clubs testing your proficiency at logic? That's hysterical! Whatever for? Name the clubs, please.
Click to expand...

I was once a member, and president for a year, of a social club called the W.I.S.E. Club. One might think a logic test would be a membership requirement there. But actually it was an acronym for Wales Ireland Scotland England. And the main requirement was a healthy appetite for alcohol.
 
Steve said:
I was once a member, and president for a year, of a social club called the W.I.S.E. Club. One might think a logic test would be a membership requirement there. But actually it was an acronym for Wales Ireland Scotland England. And the main requirement was a healthy appetite for alcohol.
Click to expand...

Sounds logical to me.
 
JayUtah said:
As has almost anyone who has obtained at least college undergraduate degree, which I suspect comprises most of the people participating in this thread.

The categorical reasoning problem here is that a "logic test" is not the same as "a test that includes a logic component" if one's evident goal is to report the aggregate score of a comprehensive test as if specifically dealt with logic. One could score quite high on, say, the verbal or spatial reasoning components, and relatively poorly on the logic section, and still come away with an enviable aggregate score.

But the salient point is that claiming to have scored very high on multiple "logic tests" to insinuate a qualification that forces us to ignore demonstrably poor reasoning is a feeble ploy. No one asked Vixen how she scored on these or any tests. She's offering it up voluntarily as some sort of reason why we should ignore her inability to reason.
Click to expand...

I was simply refuting Mojo's claim that I was an 11th percentile Dunning-Kruger person who thinks they are 62nd percentile, on tests such as humour, or logic. You can claim 'demonstrably poor reasoning' but only one person in two hundred passed the Civil Service Fast Track exam back in the day. This was an objective test marked by independent assessors.
 
Vixen said:
... 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?
Click to expand...

I doubt they do.

They appear to have been unforthcoming to a particular fire station manager. There is more than one report document on this event. This particular one was from the fire service's incident investigator, an expert witness with no special powers to compel anyone to cooperate with him.
 
Steve said:
I was once a member, and president for a year, of a social club called the W.I.S.E. Club. One might think a logic test would be a membership requirement there. But actually it was an acronym for Wales Ireland Scotland England. And the main requirement was a healthy appetite for alcohol.
Click to expand...

Mrs by the Hedge always told me those events were "Women In Science and Engineering". Tch. She's a crafty one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom