Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[smartcooky]

The only possible angles of interest are 1) whether sprinklers should get retrofitted to semi-closed multi-storey car parks.

Well, according to Vixen, a lack of sprinklers causes fires.... and by the way, she has still not explained the mechanism behind that claim, despite being asked several times.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They haven't told you anything, so they cannot be lying. Why do you think people arrested for serious crimes are advised by their lawyer to say, 'no comment' to every question?

They have told us it was a diesel and not an EV.

 

[theprestige]

They have told us it was a diesel and not an EV.

"Dang. Looks like I was wrong on this one. Better luck next time I guess."

Vixen, why is this not your line?

 

[smartcooky]

"Dang. Looks like I was wrong on this one. Better luck next time I guess."

Vixen, why is this not your line?

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14308764&postcount=488

Column I

Row 5

 

[EHocking]

According to one comment I saw, someone claiming to be a fire fighter said that in his training a detonator was added to a bunch of diesel fuel and it never caught fire.

I don't believe you.

Nor should you. Petrol vs diesel “bangs” initiated by a detonator.
“Bangs” from the 3:40 mark.


As to the existence of the fictitious fireman training, that is not my “burden”.

 

[Vixen]

Automotive antifreeze is an accelerant? Wow, the things you learn on the interwebs!

See here re fighting car fires:


Antifreeze car fires from https://www.cafsti.org/wp-content/uploads/Vehicle-Fires-a-Practical-Approach.pdf by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Cited as a possible cause for a car fire igniting surprising intensely, as in the Newark Airport fire. The whole document can be read here:

https://www.cafsti.org/wp-content/uploads/Vehicle-Fires-a-Practical-Approach.pdf

So, if the Luton Airport car park fire was caused by a fully diesel car then something like this might have caused the super-rapid spread to other cars.

 

[Vixen]

Oh this will be interesting....



Oh look Vixen is lying. Cadogan is not an "Auto Expert", he's a journalist with no qualifications who uses YouTube to make money from idiots.


Another idiot with no qualifications and a near pathological hatred of EVs.
And a pro-Putin agenda. Absolute imbecile.

So, let's summarise. The "many experts" Vixen claims support her opinions have become a couple of YouTube grifters.

Utterly pathetic, but equally expected.

Do you have a citation for this, or is it simply an argument along the lines of 'If you criticise EV cars you are supporting Russian oil sales'?

I personally think it is a good thing that ordinary knowledgeable people are allowed to freely express an opinion.

 

[Vixen]

Bollocks. The flash point of diesel is between 52 and 96°C.

That is correct.

 

[GlennB]

That is correct.

Is this your way of admitting you were wildly wrong?

 

[Vixen]

Indeed.

It is an ill-founded myth that diesel is difficult to ignite at atmospheric pressure. Oh sure, it is more difficult to ignite than petrol or kerosene, but it still ignites fairly easily. A diesel-soaked rag can be lit with a match or a cigarette lighter in seconds. What it is difficult to get diesel to do is to detonate.This takes a lot of pressure. Its why the pressure in the cylinders of a diesel engine are so high. They have to reach pressure ratios in excess of 15:1 (225psi) to 23:1 (350psi).

Right from the get-go, Vixen has completely misunderstood the facts surrounding diesel and this misunderstanding stems from her lack of knowledge of the subject material. Consequently, she has to rely on Googling stuff she doesn't know about, such as physics, chemistry, fire theory, language, and changes in social norms in the UK over the last 50 or so years!

As one of the contributors to this thread has been known to say...

"You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"

When 'accusation is confession'...?

 

[Vixen]

No evidence of any kind will make any difference to you. Everyone here knows you will just handwave away ANYTHING that disagrees with your predetermined conclusion.

Even if the actual, registered owner of the car were to come forward and say "....it was my 2014 Range Rover diesel that started the Luton Airport Car Park fire." you would still not be budged from your ludicrous conspiracy theory - you would question whether he was really the owner, and/or you would say that he has been got at and told what to say by the deep state.

As a matter of interest, WHY hasn't the owner come forward?

 

[Vixen]

It confirmed the previously provisional finding that the vehicle involved was not a hybrid or EV. That's an update. You don't like it because it undermines your conspiracy theory, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a genuine update.

If you only allow 'updates' that confirm your theory, that makes your theory unfalsifiable, which coincidentally is a characteristic of conspiracy theories.

No, it is not an update. It is a correction. Someone boobed and omitted to exclude MHEV's.

 

[zooterkin]

As a matter of interest, WHY hasn't the owner come forward?

Why would they?

 

[Vixen]

But according to our in-house conspiracy theorist, this statement was just some PR tosser in BF&RS winging it and making up **** based on his/her own (erroneous, natch) extrapolation of the initial comments to the media made the day after the fire (which is the only statement our CT-ist recognises).

LOL.

Not winging it. It is what reputation damage limitation is all about. It's about protecting the brand. Brand reputation damage being one of the leading causes of business failure (cf Gerard Ratner). So something happens surrounding a product. A crisis management team is put together to issue statements such as 'We take this matter extremely seriously' (or even 'incredibly seriously'): all stops are pulled out to 'reassure the public'.

It's about 'managing expectations'.

I recognise the technique.

 

[zooterkin]

Not winging it. It is what reputation damage limitation is all about. It's about protecting the brand. Brand reputation damage being one of the leading causes of business failure (cf Gerard Ratner). So something happens surrounding a product. A crisis management team is put together to issue statements such as 'We take this matter extremely seriously' (or even 'incredibly seriously'): all stops are pulled out to 'reassure the public'.

It's about 'managing expectations'.

I recognise the technique.

Bollocks. What interest does the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service have in protecting the Range Rover brand, or EVs in general?

 

[Wudang]

See here re fighting car fires:


[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53686854295_03f8e4f343.jpg[/qimg]Antifreeze car fires from https://www.cafsti.org/wp-content/uploads/Vehicle-Fires-a-Practical-Approach.pdf by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Cited as a possible cause for a car fire igniting surprising intensely, as in the Newark Airport fire. The whole document can be read here:

https://www.cafsti.org/wp-content/uploads/Vehicle-Fires-a-Practical-Approach.pdf


So, if the Luton Airport car park fire was caused by a fully diesel car then something like this might have caused the super-rapid spread to other cars.

This says nothing about it being an accelerant. Please stop flailing around.

 

[zooterkin]

No, it is not an update. It is a correction. Someone boobed and omitted to exclude MHEV's.

And yet, it still says it was a diesel. Are they lying?

 

[Vixen]

And also when pretending that plain English is something used to obfuscate.

All language can be used to obfuscate. The purpose of 'Plain English' in official documents was to aid people in, for example, claiming benefits, or applying for a passport. Unfortunately, it is also used to mislead people in - as a prime example - the tabloid press. For example, in the DAILY EXPRESS everybody is in a constant state of 'fury' or 'humiliation' because it is too lazy to use words to report accurately.

 

[Vixen]

You haven't been content yet to wait for the official report. You've made up your mind already. And by saying you might dispute the official report, you're disclaiming any sort of belief in its authority. Finally, you are not qualified in any way to comment on an official investigation. You are neither knowledgeable nor honest enough to do so effectively.



Straw man. Later official releases can and usually are based on better information than was available for earlier statements, and are often also based on reliable work that eventually makes its way into the final report months or years later. There is no problem or loss of rigor in reporting the outcome of that early work early.



You are simply assuming that the official release was written by "a PR guy" and that this person has no contact with the investigation and cannot speak with any knowledge or authority. You have no evidence that this is the case.

In contrast, you place your faith in the most absurd online sources, whom you judge to be reliable simply because of social media metrics. Your sources are neither official nor connected to the investigation nor knowledgeable or qualified in any way.

Fiddlesticks. The press release of 11 October 2023 can only have been based on speculation.

 

[Vixen]

How could you doubt him, or YouTuber Geoff Buys Cars? Surely they are more reliable than some random official statement from the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service?

People talk. It is a free country. Be glad that people are allowed to talk. Unlike in Iran, China or Russia.