Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Vixen]

So, you do believe that the Bedfordshire Fire Service are lying to the public?

They do what they are allowed to do.

Perhaps your son can provide the model and make of the original vehicle since he is not under any contractual obligation to keep schtum?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That issue has been dealt with. 'Electrical fault' is the second most common cause of car fire and more often than not it is to do with poor maintenance and people messing about with their engines. My post merely pointed out any number of reasons it could have caught fire.

Nope, that's a lie.

You claimed that the vehicle might have been a diesel converted to hybrid. I linked to you doing so in a post above. Why do you even lie about what you write let alone us?

 

[Vixen]

You do love to make things up, don't you? Where on earth are you getting this nonsense from?



Who said there should be a visible fuel leak behind the vehicle?

The Liverpool fire was assessed to be a line of leaking fuel on fire spreading from one car to another along the ground as the initial cause of two rows of cars having caught alight by the time the fire brigade arrived.

For an electrical fault to spread immediately to nearby cars before it reaches the point of circa 500°C to cause ignition of nearby vehicles, it needs to have some kind of conduit, such as burning leaking fuel. Yes, the sophisticated plastics in the framework will ignite but that doesn't happen instantly, and besides the flames in the CCTV are crimson, orange and yellow and not the black smoke of diesel, tyres and plastics.

No leaking fuel can be seen on the ground beneath the vehicle in the CCTV.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It most certianly relates to how the car owner was unable to put out the fire with a simple fire extinguisher as soon as he became aware his vehicle was on fire. It takes time for a vehicle to reach a sufficient temperature to radiate enough heat to cause nearby vehicles to ignite.

How often do car owners succeed in fighting a car fire if they manage to find an extinguisher? Do you have a percentage in mind?

(I appreciate you have no expertise, having previously suggested opening the bonnet to fight the fire which is a real no-no.)

Also you appear to be claiming the owner was still trying to extinguish the fire when neighbouring cars began to catch fire. How does the photo of abandoned extinguishers next to the only burning car support that idea?

 

[Vixen]

How do you know of that relationship? How many car fires have you put out? How many car fires have you personally investigated?



How much time? How do you know that? We know you are incompetent at physics, so tell us how this general statement makes your theory more viable than the prevailing narrative.

According to the document as posted by catsmate re parked cars.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Which of the questions do you think that answers?

 

[Vixen]

Was there a sign of a fuel leak in CCTV from Liverpool? I think there was not. So not seeing that would not appear to prove anything.

What type of fuel was hypothesized to have leaked on the ground at Liverpool and hypothesized by whom please?

It's in the report that the fuel liquid did not drain properly which is why it spread to other floors. That report recommended proper drainage of fuel leaks.

 

[zooterkin]

They do what they are allowed to do.

Well, I don't think they're allowed to tell lies to the public, which is what you seem to be saying they are doing.

Perhaps your son can provide the model and make of the original vehicle since he is not under any contractual obligation to keep schtum?

It's telling that this ludicrous statement is not in the top ten of ludicrous statements by you in this thread.

Since my son is not in the Bedfordshire Fire Service, anything he says is likely to be second or third hand, at best. Why go there, when we have first-hand information from the Bedfordshire Fire Service stating unequivocally that it was a diesel car?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is nonsense to say the Gatwick North Terminal car park fire is 'just not news' as it was national news at the time. See here, for example: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1876888/gatwick-airport-fire-live-car-park

You can't seem to decide whether the Gatwick fire was reported by the press or embargoed on orders from above. Let us know when you make up your mind.

So far as I can tell (and it looks like you Googled the same results I did) the story was picked up by the Daily Express and by local papers. That's all.

Do you know how many other car fires, EV or not, happened that month? Of course not because your research data is googled press reports and car fires are mostly not news.

... especially given how close the Luton one was to the airport, railway station and main motorway.

Station? Motorway? How many miles exclusion zone do you propose placing around EV car fires?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The Liverpool fire was assessed to be a line of leaking fuel on fire spreading from one car to another along the ground as the initial cause of two rows of cars having caught alight by the time the fire brigade arrived.
...
No leaking fuel can be seen on the ground beneath the vehicle in the CCTV.

This is worthless nonsense. You're trying to compare how the Liverpool fire might have spread with how the Luton fire may have started.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's in the report that the fuel liquid did not drain properly which is why it spread to other floors. That report recommended proper drainage of fuel leaks.

Completely avoiding addressing the post you replied to. There's CCTV from Liverpool. The driver paused before leaving his car as he thought he could smell burning, but eventually decided the smell was from some other passing car. No fuel running across the floor at that point.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

This is worthless nonsense.

The official tagline of this thread.

 

[JayUtah]

It is nonsense to say the Gatwick North Terminal car park fire is 'just not news' as it was national news at the time.

Your argument is that the event was newsworthy such as to demand exactly the extent and type of coverage you're contending is now suspiciously missing. You have the burden to prove all those premises. However, as usual, your argument in favor of the premises boil down to nothing but, "Because I say so." Unconvincing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Gatwick North Terminal car park is entirely open air.

So what does it have to do with Luton?

 

[JayUtah]

They do what they are allowed to do.

Still merely appealing to conspiracy.

 

[JayUtah]

For an electrical fault to spread immediately to nearby cars before it reaches the point of circa 500°C to cause ignition of nearby vehicles, it needs to have some kind of conduit, such as burning leaking fuel.

You are not competent in the field of heat transfer. This "Because I say so" argument assumes you are.

Yes, the sophisticated plastics in the framework will ignite but that doesn't happen instantly, and besides the flames in the CCTV are crimson, orange and yellow and not the black smoke of diesel, tyres and plastics.

You are not competent to evaluate structure fires.

You are not competent as a photographic interpreter.

None of these "Because I say so" arguments rests on a competent foundation.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You will note, we have had all of these 'updates', but then Mojo (inadvertently) showed that all of the updates are simply reiterations of what Mr. Hopkinson already said on 11 October 2023. For example, what he said about sprinklers, reappearing [in 'where's-kate'?-style] six months later. Very clever ploy that, as if it is a genuine update.

I don't believe for a minute that it was 'a diesel fulled car' probably with an electrical fault. This is simply a rehash of what AA's Greg Carter said at the time:



Old wine in new bottles.


Absolute scandal.

Are you then saying that the fire service involved is telling a deliberate lie?

 

[JayUtah]

According to the document as posted by catsmate re parked cars.

Please answer my other questions. They were designed to reveal how competent you might be to interprtet that report in a way that leads to the conclusion you drew. Alternatively, provide analysis from a different competent interpreter.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It illustrates well that there is a news embargo on reporting EV fires in public places.

So why is a used car salesman allowed to post his videos about EV fires in public places?

Wouldn't they take action against him and his videos be taken down if there was an embargo?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It most certianly relates to how the car owner was unable to put out the fire with a simple fire extinguisher as soon as he became aware his vehicle was on fire. It takes time for a vehicle to reach a sufficient temperature to radiate enough heat to cause nearby vehicles to ignite.

How long does it take?
Fuel spreading from the fire would transfer the heat.