Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Jack by the hedge]

... Sure the vehicle in the CCTV clip is a JLR model but it hasn't been confirmed by anyone official it was the initial vehicle.

You said that the news media didn't use pictures showing the number plate as they couldn't be confirmed to be authentic. But they did use the CCTV of the car, so that's different somehow. Now you're saying that might be some entirely different car, so whoever confirmed to the news media that it was genuine CCTV from the Luton fire is part of your conspiracy.

You should tell the press your theory that whoever confirmed the authenticity of the CCTV footage lied to them. They could confront whoever that was and it might blow the lid off this whole gigantic conspiracy. What do you think? Worth a try?


By the way, how does your preferred source, a random anti-EV YouTuber, authenticate the material he gets sent?

Oh, wait, no: documented authentication is only required for stuff you don't want to be true, to protect your pet theory.

 

[Vixen]

By which I assume you did absolutely nothing to verify the claim.
Then you have the unmitigated gall, when the claim is that the car that started the Luton fire was a diesel, to demand this:



The clear evidential double standard you have is a sure sign of confirmation bias.
"The Gatwick fire was started by an EV, because an anti-EV YouTuber says a worker says it was, and I believe him."
And, at the same time,
"I will not accept the Luton fire was started by a diesel until I see official confirmation!"

Geoff Buys Car is not particularly anti-EV, it is more he is a petrol head who enjoys driving. I think it is healthy to be sceptical about government sanctioned statements, especially those designed to stifle speculation. We haven't been told what caused the Gatwick North Terminal Fire other than 'accidental ignition' (as the next step up from 'it is believed to be a diesel': one size now fits all) so yes, there would appear to be a news embargo, as to what type of vehicle destroyed eleven cars in an uncontrollable fire within minutes.

Nothing conspiracy theory about that.

 

[Dabop]

Please explain.

Australians will fall about with laughter every time they hear this phrase...
(it was a common one made by an extremely bigoted (and not particularly bright') extreme rightwing politician here, along with 'I don't like it')

Every time I have seen that phrase in this thread- I hear it in her voice LOL

 

[Vixen]

It has been confirmed by someone official that the car where the fire started was a diesel. How will knowing the specific model change that?

For heaven's sake the official press release clearly stated, 'It is believed to be.. and it is most probably...'

The fact Jeremy of Communications has dumbed it down into 'plain English', doesn't mean there has been any further updates since that initial statement.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, where they are parked next to each other. One such scenario in the USA is where the guy had an accelerant repair job done on his vehicle and the consequent fire quickly caught on to other vehicles.

A what now?

There is always an exceptional reason for something to seemingly self-combust within seconds.

No, heat, fuel and oxygen usually accounts for it.

According to the car parking document,

it takes at least 300 seconds (five minutes) for a near-fully burning vehicle to cause a car parked next to it to successfully ignite. The guy in the CCTV wasn't parked next to anyone so in order to radiate heat towards other vehicles to cause spontaneous ignition needs it to heat to circa 500 °C IIRC. Yet the fire brigade were there within minutes

Source? We know they weren't, by the way.

and the guy was present when the fire started, although it might have taken him a while before he noticed it. Given the appearance of the flames in the CCTV and the white/grey appearance of the flames and smoke and its location, there is nothing at all unreasonable in the fire being identified as a lithium-ion one given such a fire burns at a MUCH higher temperature than diesel fuel or flame-resistant complex plastics.

Nothing at all, apart from the fact that it was a diesel car.

I will wait for September for the facts, not some 'it is believed'-type opinion.

 

[Vixen]

You wouldn't understand.

So it is just a gratuitous insult which you cannot explain.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You seem not to understand the maths and physics. Steel is a mixture of iron and carbon that can melt at between 1,371-1,540°C. The melting point of steel can vary because of the different elements it contains, which can cause melting point depression. Diesel burns at a recorded maximum temperature of 1,150 °C under controlled conditions. This is insufficient even to buckle steel used in construction...

The previous time you advanced an argument exactly equivalent to 9/11 Truther's "jet fuel can't melt steel" one, you scolded me for comparing you to conspiracy theorists. I had better brace myself for another scolding because you just did exactly the same thing again.

I very much look forward to seeing your reference for your claim that 1,150°C is insufficient to weaken structural steel to the point where it buckles. I feel like looking for that old photo of crazily buckled steel I-beams draped over partly-burned wooden beams like wet spaghetti...

 

[zooterkin]

For heaven's sake the official press release clearly stated, 'It is believed to be.. and it is most probably...'

The cautious wording refers to the exact cause of the fire, not the vehicle in which it started.

The fact Jeremy of Communications has dumbed it down into 'plain English', doesn't mean there has been any further updates since that initial statement.

Oh, do stop lying.

How much more clear do you want it than: "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle"

If you don't believe that, then you believe that the Bedfordshire Fire Service are lying to the public.


https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally

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 vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Stop trying to shoe horn a straight forward current affairs item into a conspiracy theory.

You're the one making it a conspiracy theory. You made the utterly ******** assertion that any firefighter would tell us that a diesel car fire in its early stage can be easily extinguished by anyone with a fire extinguisher. Your above post is simply a way of trying to weasel out of the challenges that have been issued to back that up with evidence, because you can't do so, because it's just something you made up and couldn't resist writing because you're all about pretending that you have the slightest understanding of the issues about which you attempt to lecture others.

Again, if it's so obviously ridiculous to blame the Luton fire on a simple diesel car catching fire, then where are all the firefighters offering their professional objections to the explanation given?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

For heaven's sake the official press release clearly stated, 'It is believed to be.. and it is most probably...'

The fact Jeremy of Communications has dumbed it down into 'plain English', doesn't mean there has been any further updates since that initial statement.

This is what 'plausible deniability' does not look like. "La La La I can't hear you" does not work for written press statements.

You know that thing where people pretend there were no sequels to the movie Highlander, because they were so excruciatingly awful it's funny to pretend you blotted them from your memory? That's you, that is. Making a joke of yourself.

 

[Vixen]

You said that the news media didn't use pictures showing the number plate as they couldn't be confirmed to be authentic. But they did use the CCTV of the car, so that's different somehow. Now you're saying that might be some entirely different car, so whoever confirmed to the news media that it was genuine CCTV from the Luton fire is part of your conspiracy.

You should tell the press your theory that whoever confirmed the authenticity of the CCTV footage lied to them. They could confront whoever that was and it might blow the lid off this whole gigantic conspiracy. What do you think? Worth a try?


By the way, how does your preferred source, a random anti-EV YouTuber, authenticate the material he gets sent?

Oh, wait, no: documented authentication is only required for stuff you don't want to be true, to protect your pet theory.

The BBC never says the car in the CCTV is the car that caused the fire. There is speculation that the flames are coming from a parked car in front of it. The image used by the BBC and the national press has had its number plate pixellated but does appear to be a short-form numberplate. The video which Smart Cooky believes identifies the model as the RR Sprot 2014 with a readable numberpalte, from the front, has never been taken up by the press as the press generally like to verify stuff before they publish it. That video was uploaded by someone on X, who appears to be an EVangelist and with 200 followers. Might be authentic but OTOH the BBC airport-released CCTV shows a completely different terrain, with the car on an uphill slope left of the centre white line. The latter shows the vehicle striding the white line and on a flat surface and in almost a valley, rather than ascending. So IMV a probable deep fake designed to wind-up the anti-EV anti-ULEZ mob.

Geoff Buys Cars is simply dealing with what people are saying at face value. For example, there was a guy in the news claiming his EV was going at 100mph of its own free will and would not stop and some other guy claiming his EV had mounted some car behind and then one in front even though he had switched the whole thing off. Both guys were penalized by the police. Geoff Buys Cars duly reported this and he duly reported doubts on the two guys' stories, without any kind of advocacy for one view or another. You can watch the news and video commentators without being a conspiracy theorist. We can go and live in China or Russia if we want to be nannied and fed government-controlled fake news with opposing views, with citizen's journalism censored.

I am not saying the vehicle was not a JLR: it obviously appears to be. I am suggesting UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is protecting his and Tata JLR's business interests by deliberately putting a veto on the press confirming the model and make of the car involved. Is this a 'conspiracy theory'? No. Why? Because you can have an insight into a person's character by their history of behaviour, Everything Sunak does appears to be motivated in self-enrichment and with the attitude of a dictator a-la- Modi, who introduced Sunak to Cameron and was endorsed by Cameron as a suitable UK politician with an easy ride to the top. It is not difficult to see the cover up here.

 

[zooterkin]

The BBC never says the car in the CCTV is the car that caused the fire.
<Twaddle snipped>

Who cares? The Bedfordshire Fire service unambiguously said it was a diesel, not any sort of EV.

https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/news/fire-airport-car-park-started-accidentally

The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle.

 

[Vixen]

The previous time you advanced an argument exactly equivalent to 9/11 Truther's "jet fuel can't melt steel" one, you scolded me for comparing you to conspiracy theorists. I had better brace myself for another scolding because you just did exactly the same thing again.

I very much look forward to seeing your reference for your claim that 1,150°C is insufficient to weaken structural steel to the point where it buckles. I feel like looking for that old photo of crazily buckled steel I-beams draped over partly-burned wooden beams like wet spaghetti...

The Buckingham Group that constructed the car park are the same people who construct football stadia - indeed a couple of such projects had to be shelved half-way through because of it going into Administration, just five weeks before the Luton Airport car park fire. The car park was constructed within one year in 2019 and Buckingham Group was petitioned into administration in 2021, with the administrators saying it would be compulsorily liquidated some time this year (according to Grant Thornton's Statement of Affairs). Construction is simple; first the metal structures are put up, rather like in a Meccano set, and then the rest added. As I understand it, the car park did have water pipes fitted in readiness for a sprinkler system but was left at that, suggesting Buckingham Group had to skimp on the building work due to either poor management or lack of enough funds to do the job properly. It is a public disgrace, not a conspiracy theory.

 

[Steve]

So it is just a gratuitous insult which you cannot explain.

How did you determine, without the requested explanation, it is an insult? Perhaps it is a complement.

 

[zooterkin]

The Buckingham Group that constructed the car park are the same people who construct football stadia - indeed a couple of such projects had to be shelved half-way through because of it going into Administration, just five weeks before the Luton Airport car park fire. The car park was constructed within one year in 2019 and Buckingham Group went into administration in 2021, with the administrators saying it would be compulsorily liquidated some time this year (according to Grant Thornton's Statement of Affairs). Construction is simple; first the metal structures are put up, rather like in a Meccano set, and then the rest added. As I understand it, the car park did have water pipes fitted in readiness for a sprinkler system but was left at that, suggesting Buckingham Group had to skimp on the building work due to either poor management or lack of enough funds to do the job properly. It is a public disgrace, not a conspiracy theory.

Are you unable to actually read or comprehend the posts you respond to?

 

[Myriad]

I am not saying the vehicle was not a JLR: it obviously appears to be. I am suggesting UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is protecting his and Tata JLR's business interests by deliberately putting a veto on the press confirming the model and make of the car involved.

Please provide a source for this press veto.

Also, how were all press offices worldwide simultaneously informed of the veto? Please provide the text or audio of the communication. Every press office must have received a copy, so it should not be hard to obtain, if you call and ask for it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Buckingham Group that constructed the car park are the same people who construct football stadia - indeed a couple of such projects had to be shelved half-way through because of it going into Administration, just five weeks before the Luton Airport car park fire. The car park was constructed within one year in 2019 and Buckingham Group was petitioned into administration in 2021, with the administrators saying it would be compulsorily liquidated some time this year (according to Grant Thornton's Statement of Affairs). Construction is simple; first the metal structures are put up, rather like in a Meccano set, and then the rest added. As I understand it, the car park did have water pipes fitted in readiness for a sprinkler system but was left at that, suggesting Buckingham Group had to skimp on the building work due to either poor management or lack of enough funds to do the job properly. It is a public disgrace, not a conspiracy theory.

What does it have to do with the car that started the fire being a diesel?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, where they are parked next to each other. One such scenario in the USA is where the guy had an accelerant repair job done on his vehicle and the consequent fire quickly caught on to other vehicles. There is always an exceptional reason for something to seemingly self-combust within seconds. According to the car parking document, it takes at least 300 seconds (five minutes) for a near-fully burning vehicle to cause a car parked next to it to successfully ignite. The guy in the CCTV wasn't parked next to anyone so in order to radiate heat towards other vehicles to cause spontaneous ignition needs it to heat to circa 500 °C IIRC. Yet the fire brigade were there within minutes and the guy was present when the fire started, although it might have taken him a while before he noticed it. Given the appearance of the flames in the CCTV and the white/grey appearance of the flames and smoke and its location, there is nothing at all unreasonable in the fire being identified as a lithium-ion one given such a fire burns at a MUCH higher temperature than diesel fuel or flame-resistant complex plastics.

I will wait for September for the facts, not some 'it is believed'-type opinion.

Again, where did you get September?

If a car can be burning like the BMW or Audi in the previously linked videos in about five minutes, then it doesn't need to be parked directly adjacent to another vehicle to ignite it. Said videos showed cars burning in the open, while the Range Rover in Luton was under a low ceiling, which trapped heat energy and diverted it to the sides, while also allowing fresh airflow to feed the fire through the open sides of the structure. And, as you already conceded, when the fuel tank ruptures, the burning fuel will run down slope. (You even suggested a containment system, presumably like a gutter, which is a really bad idea because it's still going to be directing burning fuel through the building.)

I know I'm not the only one to have called ******** on your "there within minutes" claim. You have not justified this claim, and you know it. That's why you make the vague statement "within minutes", allowing the reader to infer a very short time without actually committing to saying how long, because, after all, "within minutes" could mean fifteen minutes just as easily as three minutes. You also continue to make the ignorant assumption that the fire service drove straight to the parking garage, immediately turned their enormous, critical asset of a pumper truck up the ramp, and speed straight to the burning car to begin dousing it with copious amounts of water, all "within minutes" of the emergency call being received. That's ludicrous.

You have a habit of searching for numbers a posteriori, and when you think you find one you post it as though you actually know what you're talking about. You remind me of other conspiracy theorists who crow that spacecraft in low earth orbit would have to endure the 2,500 °C temperature of the thermosphere without understanding the difference between heat and temperature.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The BBC never says the car in the CCTV is the car that caused the fire.

They showed it to illustrate the car being on fire. I'm content it was the car unless you have a good reason to claim it was not.

There is speculation that the flames are coming from a parked car in front of it.

You're suggesting the driver pulled up beside a burning car and waited there until his car caught fire and then told the authorities it was his car that caught fire.

The image used by the BBC and the national press has had its number plate pixellated but does appear to be a short-form numberplate. The video which Smart Cooky believes identifies the model as the RR Sprot 2014 with a readable numberpalte, from the front, has never been taken up by the press as the press generally like to verify stuff before they publish it. That video was uploaded by someone on X, who appears to be an EVangelist and with 200 followers.

Was it that X user's own video? How many other places was it uploaded?

Might be authentic but OTOH the BBC airport-released CCTV shows a completely different terrain, with the car on an uphill slope left of the centre white line. The latter shows the vehicle striding the white line and on a flat surface and in almost a valley, rather than ascending. So IMV a probable deep fake designed to wind-up the anti-EV anti-ULEZ mob.

No. We did this before. You misconstrued the painted markings on the floor (One lane for one-way traffic, no centre while line, green pedestrian lane to one side) and you rashly assumed all photos had the camera exactly vertical so you misconstrued the slope of the floors.

Geoff Buys Cars is simply dealing with what people are saying at face value.

Has he dealt at face value with the fire brigade saying it was a diesel car?

I am suggesting UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is protecting his and Tata JLR's business interests by deliberately putting a veto on the press confirming the model and make of the car involved. Is this a 'conspiracy theory'?

It's a theory about a conspiracy so...

This fire was a diesel car fire. Telling the public which precise diesel model it was will not make it stop being a diesel car. Have you discovered what type of fuel the Liverpool car used? Why not? What are they hiding from you? The Luton fire was a straightforward diesel fire. Maybe the Liverpool fire was the real coverup. Why can't we be told? Are you part of the disinfo campaign to take attention off the Liverpool fire?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It has been confirmed by someone official that the car where the fire started was a diesel. How will knowing the specific model change that?

After the official fire investigation report confirms that it was a diesel Sport, be prepared for Vixen to complain that it didn't tell us what dealership installed options it had, the brand of tires fitted, or whether or not there was a pine-scented air freshener hanging from the center mirror.