Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Foster Zygote]

You know this how?

She's an expert firefighter and automotive engineer who has been called to testify in numerous court proceedings.


I'm just kidding. She made it up like everything else.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There are only two sources I have seen for that video ...

Wait a minute. You've been implying that other people here have been hoodwinked by a probably fake video supplied by one or other of two Twitter users with few followers. But now it seems those users (whom nobody but you has mentioned) do not claim to be the originator of the video and your implication that one or other did originate the video is based solely on their being two sources you happened to find. This is pretty weak stuff even for this thread.

What confirms the video as a likely deep fake is:

• It is uncredited
• it shows a completely different perspective than the 'oficial' airport CCTV clip
• It claims to show a conventional numberplate which someone on twitter claims they managed to decipher and look up on DVLA.
• No mainstream media has picked up on this JLR Sport 2014 claim or video, which indicates it cannot be verified as authentic.

Uncredited video, taken by a different camera than a credited one. A number plate someone claims they could read. News media not showing an uncredited video.

These are the ways you identify a video as a deep fake, are they? Pardon me for being underwhelmed but are you sure you actually mean 'deep fake' and not just regular old-fashioned 'fake'?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

[*]the situation of a lithium battery, if it was one, would have been located exactly where the flames can be seen in the airport video.

"Exactly"? Well, hardly.

You were the one who introduced the idea the flames were perhaps coming from an entirely different car which the Range Rover stopped beside. The airport video only shows the car from behind does it not? The one showing the car from the front is the one you dismiss as "probably deep fake".

Your claim dismisses itself.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

[*]the flames are being 'thrown' out as they would in a lithium-ion fire.

You have zero expertise and a video you decry as deep fake.

 

[wollery]

This has all been covered extensively in threads I and II.

To sum up:

• the situation of a lithium battery, if it was one, would have been located exactly where the flames can be seen in the airport video.
• the flames are being 'thrown' out as they would in a lithium-ion fire.
• the flames are crimson (metallic, and a lithium characteristic), orange and yellow, with white/grey smoke , also characteristic of lithium.
• diesel, plastics and tyre flames give off thick black smoke and only ignite at circa 500ºC.
• If the fire was due to vapour in the fuel tank (at the back of the vehicle) that would ignite as a fireball as at the tank.
• If as is claimed it was 'probably' an electrical fault, then if the power train was involved (say, from leaking diesel fuel or accelerants, such as antifreeze fluid or brake fluid the flames would most likely fan out from the centre of the car in a V-shape.
• The flames in the CCTV airport clip fan out from the left hand lower passenger seat side ONLY as of that stage.
• Arriving firemen decided it was too dangerous to remain in the building owing to noxious fumes - characteristic again of lithium battery fire. ( Five firefighters hospitalised and one airport staff.)
• A lithium-ion car battery does not need heat to catch fire. It can be a simple case of going over a speed bump and causing instability between a couple of cells within the battery to cause a self-oxygenating thermal runway.
• such a fire cannot just be put out by ordinary means as water could cause a hydrogen based explosion.
• Such a fire cannot be put out quickly it can burn for hours and even resume after a few days of appearing dormant.

If it was a 'diesel-fuelled only' vehicle it is quite a coincidence it matches a lithium-ion car fire exactly, even if it was an 'electrical fault' exacerbated perhaps by a leaking accelerant, as was the case at Newark Airport.

Other factors include the floors collapsing, which may or may not be to do with the incredibly high temperatures which would be reached in a lithium-ion car battery fire (2,000º) for the steel structure to give way (1,250ºC depending on type) and at least 600ºC is needed for the concrete to spall, much higher for it to melt completely away. It could be argued the combined temperature of several rows of parked cars, including EV-types would cause such a temperature. However, the construction company, Buckingham Group, were extremely experienced in large scale building works, including two premier league football stadia left unfinished, which indicates they would be well aware of public fire safety standards, especially after the Liverpool ECHO Fire 2018/19 and the ensuing recommendations in the Fire Report. Rows of parked cars would be a risk factor in the car park design and in choosing the strength of materials used in the infrastructure. The company did go into administration (or, rather a petition was applied for) five weeks before the fire. It seems water pipes had been installed but a sprinkler system never implemented, as was recommended from the Liverpool report. It is not mandatory to have one in a carpark. It could however point to Bucking Group skimping on material and labour due to its insolvent status and inability to pay suppliers and other creditors. So that could explain the various collapses. However, the car park was built within one year and post-Liverpool Fire recommendations, and bearing in mind Luton is a major international airport, with a nearby main motorway and main railway station (Luton is categorized as a 'London Airport', so you can imagine the sheer footfall and number of people on any given day, meaning safety would be of the highest paramount importance.

An ordinary diesel fire in a car wherein the driver was still present and able to call for help immediately should not have caused such devastation. Therefore, if it was NOT a lithium-ion fire of any sort, an explanation is required. And it had better be good.

None of which addresses the questions I actually asked.

Try again.

Please explain the defining features of a Lithium flame that would distinguish it from a flame of any other type that might be expected from a vehicle on fire.

Please also explain how you came to the conclusion that the flame in these particular images was a Lithium flame with detailed reference to the RGB colour balance, brightness contrast and angular resolution properties of the CCD chip, the settings of the camera, the processing software, and your monitor that allowed you to note the specific qualities of the flame in question.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

[*]diesel, plastics and tyre flames give off thick black smoke and only ignite at circa 500ºC.

I don't believe you know what burning diesel looks like, and we already know that diesel car fires do happen so your inexpert incredulity that it might ignite is obviously moot.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

[*]If as is claimed it was 'probably' an electrical fault, then if the power train was involved (say, from leaking diesel fuel or accelerants, such as antifreeze fluid or brake fluid the flames would most likely fan out from the centre of the car in a V-shape.

Worthless argument from ignorance that's not even worth nitpicking. It's just bluster.

 

[catsmate]

There are only two sources I have seen for that video and they both appeared circa 12 Oct 2023 on X-twitter, uncredited and with the claim it was verified on DVLA as a RR Sport 2014. If this is true, as catsmate claims it is, how come no-one is able to provide a reliable source? What is the problem with BF&RS confirming it? ISTM the sole aim of the revelation was to rule out an EV of any sort, as JLR didn't start with the mild hybrids until sometime after 2014. People were identifying a JLR Evoque from the airport CCTV release with a very short numberplate albeit pixellated. So ISTM that whoever claimed it was a JLR Sport 2014 was eager to rule out the Evoque, which has been constantly recalled by JLR as faulty and did have an EV version.

What confirms the video as a likely deep fake is:

• It is uncredited
• it shows a completely different perspective than the 'oficial' airport CCTV clip
• It claims to show a conventional numberplate which someone on twitter claims they managed to decipher and look up on DVLA.
• No mainstream media has picked up on this JLR Sport 2014 claim or video, which indicates it cannot be verified as authentic.

It's possible it has not been published for 'reasons of privacy' or alternatively, was put out for the express purpose of misinformation. If it is confidential material for whatever legal reason, X-Twitter has not taken it down, as it usually would.

More nonsensical drivel, mixed with outright lies.

 

[catsmate]

This has all been covered extensively in threads I and II.

To sum up:

• the situation of a lithium battery, if it was one, would have been located exactly where the flames can be seen in the airport video.
• the flames are being 'thrown' out as they would in a lithium-ion fire.
• the flames are crimson (metallic, and a lithium characteristic), orange and yellow, with white/grey smoke , also characteristic of lithium.
• diesel, plastics and tyre flames give off thick black smoke and only ignite at circa 500ºC.
• If the fire was due to vapour in the fuel tank (at the back of the vehicle) that would ignite as a fireball as at the tank.
• If as is claimed it was 'probably' an electrical fault, then if the power train was involved (say, from leaking diesel fuel or accelerants, such as antifreeze fluid or brake fluid the flames would most likely fan out from the centre of the car in a V-shape.
• The flames in the CCTV airport clip fan out from the left hand lower passenger seat side ONLY as of that stage.
• Arriving firemen decided it was too dangerous to remain in the building owing to noxious fumes - characteristic again of lithium battery fire. ( Five firefighters hospitalised and one airport staff.)
• A lithium-ion car battery does not need heat to catch fire. It can be a simple case of going over a speed bump and causing instability between a couple of cells within the battery to cause a self-oxygenating thermal runway.
• such a fire cannot just be put out by ordinary means as water could cause a hydrogen based explosion.
• Such a fire cannot be put out quickly it can burn for hours and even resume after a few days of appearing dormant.

If it was a 'diesel-fuelled only' vehicle it is quite a coincidence it matches a lithium-ion car fire exactly, even if it was an 'electrical fault' exacerbated perhaps by a leaking accelerant, as was the case at Newark Airport.

Other factors include the floors collapsing, which may or may not be to do with the incredibly high temperatures which would be reached in a lithium-ion car battery fire (2,000º) for the steel structure to give way (1,250ºC depending on type) and at least 600ºC is needed for the concrete to spall, much higher for it to melt completely away. It could be argued the combined temperature of several rows of parked cars, including EV-types would cause such a temperature. However, the construction company, Buckingham Group, were extremely experienced in large scale building works, including two premier league football stadia left unfinished, which indicates they would be well aware of public fire safety standards, especially after the Liverpool ECHO Fire 2018/19 and the ensuing recommendations in the Fire Report. Rows of parked cars would be a risk factor in the car park design and in choosing the strength of materials used in the infrastructure. The company did go into administration (or, rather a petition was applied for) five weeks before the fire. It seems water pipes had been installed but a sprinkler system never implemented, as was recommended from the Liverpool report. It is not mandatory to have one in a carpark. It could however point to Bucking Group skimping on material and labour due to its insolvent status and inability to pay suppliers and other creditors. So that could explain the various collapses. However, the car park was built within one year and post-Liverpool Fire recommendations, and bearing in mind Luton is a major international airport, with a nearby main motorway and main railway station (Luton is categorized as a 'London Airport', so you can imagine the sheer footfall and number of people on any given day, meaning safety would be of the highest paramount importance.

An ordinary diesel fire in a car wherein the driver was still present and able to call for help immediately should not have caused such devastation. Therefore, if it was NOT a lithium-ion fire of any sort, an explanation is required. And it had better be good.

More complete nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Steve]

More complete nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about.

But look at all the responses she gets to this long-winded drivel. Her goal is accomplished.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Other factors include the floors collapsing, which may or may not be to do with ...

You're talking about the partial collapse which happened in a location whose proximity to the start of the fire is unknown to anyone here, and which occurred after a large number of cars on multiple floors had been merrily blazing away for several hours.

This tells us what, exactly, about the first of those cars to catch fire?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Burning diesel gives off black smoke?

Here's HMS Sirius at sea. They were steam powered and burned diesel in a furnace to heat the boiler.

Don't see much black smoke.

 

[Vixen]

ERRATUM: The airport video as in the headline, 'Is this the vehicle?' is not the airport approved CCTV, it was taken by a passenger by their car. For avoidance of doubt, the airport CCTV is the one showing a burning car crashing through the floor to the level below.

Notandum: You will note that the aforesaid passenger video of the back of the presumed original burning vehicle is widely distributed and syndicated in the mass media. The one supposedly filmed from the front has not appeared anywhere except on a couple of anonymous Twitter X accounts and referenced as the culprit car in a poorly written blog, cited as a source by Smarty Cooky. (The irony of Smart Cooky striking off a square against himself on his own Bingo card... )

 

[Vixen]

So what? It wasn't shot by a journalist covering a story - it was shot by someone walking through an airport parking garage. The internet is like 50% uncredited pictures of people's cats. This is not a proof of fakery.


Utter ********. See column N row 3 and column I row 5.

You can't tell whether the floor is sloping one way or the other without some photogrammetric reference point - which you don't have. And you're claim about the painted lines being in different locations is falsified just by measuring them with a straight edge. You're just not very good with geometry. But you've already reached the conclusion you want and you can't admit you're wrong, so you're just going to pretend no one has pointed that out.


Probably from a higher resolution copy. Again, is the person who posted that image the person who took it? Is that the first and only time it's been seen?

And it simply confirms what is known from the first image, that it's a Range Rover, which is either a Sport or Evoque based on the shape and taillight configuration. What nefarious purpose does this supposed deep-fake mean to accomplish? What does providing another image that simply confirms what's obvious from first accomplish? Care to explain?


No, it just means that no mainstream media (that you can find) has sought out the rights to the image. You're acting as though everyone else sees this as some twisted mystery the same way you do. Conspiracy theorists always feel like everyone else is supposed to take their crackpot ideas as seriously as they do, but to the news media, it's just another accidental fire that led to a lot of insurance claims.

EDITOR: Do we have a picture of that pile-up on I-95?

REPORTER: Yep.

EDITOR: But do we have every single image any bystander posted on social media?


It could be some mundane reason... But it could be aliens!

To address your points, the photo of the back of the vehicle was taken by a random member of the public who was at their car at the time. It is widely shown everywhere. Therefore, there is no reason the video of the front of the car should not also have been taken up by the media. It has not, which clearly suggests they are unable to authenticate it. The press agency syndicates will rarely accept a video or photo that has clearly been edited or photoshopped (the one recently in the SUN newspaper claiming to be a youthful Kate Middleton bouncing along spritely at a farm shop, a notable exception to the rule).

I do not need to do any geometry on it because I understand how perspective works in art.

A possible reason for faking the video could be to stop the anti-EV brigade from claiming it was an EV fire by pointing to a Range Rover that was outside the time frame to have been a mild EV. If it is genuine, why have the press covered it up and not published it, nor BF&RS's named it on their webpage as being the model make and year? So you see it is not a 'conspiracy theory': they really have not named the model, make and year of the vehicle involved as a matter of fact.

 

[Vixen]

Wait a minute. You've been implying that other people here have been hoodwinked by a probably fake video supplied by one or other of two Twitter users with few followers. But now it seems those users (whom nobody but you has mentioned) do not claim to be the originator of the video and your implication that one or other did originate the video is based solely on their being two sources you happened to find. This is pretty weak stuff even for this thread.

Uncredited video, taken by a different camera than a credited one. A number plate someone claims they could read. News media not showing an uncredited video.

These are the ways you identify a video as a deep fake, are they? Pardon me for being underwhelmed but are you sure you actually mean 'deep fake' and not just regular old-fashioned 'fake'?

I reckon some kind of fakery, even if only the claim they can read the numberplate. Just someone trying to be 'helpful', 'smart' or mischievous.

It's one thing faking a photo but a video is a bit harder, especially with details showing a sign, 'to the airport entrance' or some such wording on the wall above the car.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not need to do any geometry on it because I understand how perspective works in art.

If that’s your claim, then yes you do, and no you don’t. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

 

[Vixen]

I don't believe you know what burning diesel looks like, and we already know that diesel car fires do happen so your inexpert incredulity that it might ignite is obviously moot.

It has a flash point which is very high and most likely will occur in the tank as vapour.

Otherwise some kind of catalyst is needed, such as compression or heating up to 500ºC, which won't happen of its own accord.

 

[Vixen]

Worthless argument from ignorance that's not even worth nitpicking. It's just bluster.

Comes from catsmate's own pdf about fire in parked cars.

 

[Vixen]

More nonsensical drivel, mixed with outright lies.

Have you found a source for your claim it was a RR Sport 2014, yet? Preferably not an anonymous blogger or tweeter.

 

[junkshop]

Have you found a source for your claim that this statement from the BF&RS is untrue yet? Preferably not unevidenced bunk from some anonymous blogger, tweeter or youtuber.