Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[LondonJohn]

"Very likely" or 'implies' does not mean the same as 'it is confirmed'.

You mean like the recent official press statement from BF&RS which stated that "it is confirmed" that the vehicle which first caught fire was an ordinary diesel car, and not an EV of any flavour whatsoever?

 

[LondonJohn]

The little matter mentioned in my post?

• The fire was deemed a critical incident for three hours (9:38pm to 12:20am)
• It was finally extinguished at 8:45 am - more than twelve hours after it started (circa 8:38pm the previous evening).
• 10:00 am 11 Oct 2023 same day, Andrew Hopkinson said it was believed to have been a diesel vehicle that was the cause and not an electric one.

New update as of five days ago:

"Luton Airport said more than 60% of the affected car park had been dismantled and 75% of the 1,300 vehicles affected have been ‘removed by salvage experts on behalf of insurers’." Daily Mail


This means 40% of the car park structure has still not been dismantled and about 325 cars still remain in place over six months after the fire.

In other words, it is /has been far too dangerous for ANYBODY to walk into the worst affected area and have a look at the power drive or identifying numberplate, half burnt or not, let alone a Tdi number.

What is 'trivial' about that fact? Nobody has been able to get near it as of 26 April 2024.

Yet you are claiming this was done within two hours of the fire being extinguished, whilst the embers were still red hot and only a fool would have attempted to access the building.

Please explain to the class just how your exemplary deductive reasoning powers have led you to take the following statement...

...more than 60% of the affected car park had been dismantled and 75% of the 1,300 vehicles affected have been ‘removed by salvage experts on behalf of insurers[

...and infer from this statement that

In other words, it is /has been far too dangerous for ANYBODY to walk into the worst affected area and have a look at the power drive or identifying numberplate, half burnt or not, let alone a Tdi number

You're really not very good at all at this critical thinking malarkey, are you?

 

[Vixen]

Oh dear. Here's someone called 'Sam' with 0 followers, on 11 Oct 2023 8pm (or is that 10pm)?

https://x.com/sam35634560605/status/1712190548046450723

@sam35634560605
Front footage of the range rover which was first alight at luton airport fire
#LutonAirport #lutonairportfire #RangeRover

Then he goes on to add:

@sam35634560605
Slightly higher res i think i can make the plate out to be E10 EFL which comes back correct on DVLA website

https://x.com/sam35634560605/status/1712200593022799996

And people treat this as gospel.

1 following, 0 followers. She-eesh!

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'll have a close look. However, I am sceptical the front view video is authentic.

For reasons that are totally ridiculous.

Are you ever going to admit that you have no empirical way to establish the slope of the floor in either image?

 

[Vixen]

You mean like the recent official press statement from BF&RS which stated that "it is confirmed" that the vehicle which first caught fire was an ordinary diesel car, and not an EV of any flavour whatsoever?

Take a close look at the first, second, third and fourth picture down, taken in the last six days. The third is a panoramic view but it is worth downloading it and enlarging each section.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/luton-airport-fire-hundreds-burnt-32668109

How can it be 'confirmed', when it is still too dangerous to even remove the vehicles for now?

Browse pictures of the fire and you can see the fire was largely contained on the top level for quite a while. Indeed, an eye witness put a time on it: 'Just after 9:00pm' the whole of the top level was ablaze within minutes.

 

[JayUtah]

1 following, 0 followers. She-eesh!

How many social media followers should someone have to reach credibility by your standard?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Oh dear. Here's someone called 'Sam' with 0 followers, on 11 Oct 2023 8pm (or is that 10pm)?

https://x.com/sam35634560605/status/1712190548046450723



Then he goes on to add:

https://x.com/sam35634560605/status/1712200593022799996

And people treat this as gospel.

1 following, 0 followers. She-eesh!

Say, Vixen, how many followers do you have?

Seriously, who gives a ****? Thinking the number of subscribers someone has on an internet site establishes the veracity of anything they say is definitely in the category of logical fallacies.

And no one here has taken the registration tag as gospel, only as compatible with what we know so far. You're just upset that no one is taking any of your nonsensical arguments and completely false "facts" as gospel. It's the oldest play in the CT handbook: "You credulous sheep! Stop questioning what I'm telling you!"

 

[Steve]

You mean like the recent official press statement from BF&RS which stated that "it is confirmed" that the vehicle which first caught fire was an ordinary diesel car, and not an EV of any flavour whatsoever?

There is confirmed as understood by most people, and there is Vixen confirmed. The two are significantly different.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh dear. Here's someone called 'Sam' with 0 followers, on 11 Oct 2023 8pm (or is that 10pm)?

https://x.com/sam35634560605/status/1712190548046450723



Then he goes on to add:

https://x.com/sam35634560605/status/1712200593022799996

And people treat this as gospel.

1 following, 0 followers. She-eesh!

No-one accepts it because this persoon says it. We accept it because an actual authority confirmed it, this person just happened to also say it

If sam said that the sun rises in the east would you also mock us for beleving something said by someone with 0 followers?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The little matter mentioned in my post?

• The fire was deemed a critical incident for three hours (9:38pm to 12:20am)
• It was finally extinguished at 8:45 am - more than twelve hours after it started (circa 8:38pm the previous evening).
• 10:00 am 11 Oct 2023 same day, Andrew Hopkinson said it was believed to have been a diesel vehicle that was the cause and not an electric one.

New update as of five days ago:

"Luton Airport said more than 60% of the affected car park had been dismantled and 75% of the 1,300 vehicles affected have been ‘removed by salvage experts on behalf of insurers’." Daily Mail


This means 40% of the car park structure has still not been dismantled and about 325 cars still remain in place over six months after the fire.

In other words, it is /has been far too dangerous for ANYBODY to walk into the worst affected area and have a look at the power drive or identifying numberplate, half burnt or not, let alone a Tdi number.

What is 'trivial' about that fact? Nobody has been able to get near it as of 26 April 2024.

Yet you are claiming this was done within two hours of the fire being extinguished, whilst the embers were still red hot and only a fool would have attempted to access the building.

You just made all that up.

You don't know which bits haven't been cleared and you don't know how dangerous it is to go in to them.

It has been confirmed by the fir eservice that it was a diesel car.

 

[Vixen]

You just made all that up.

You don't know which bits haven't been cleared and you don't know how dangerous it is to go in to them.

It has been confirmed by the fir eservice that it was a diesel car.

For goodness sake, this is how it looks just five or six days ago:

Screenshot 2024-05-02 010108 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Image reproduced for educational purposes.

Do you really believe Hopkinson managed to get the cause confirmed the same morning?

 

[Foster Zygote]

For goodness sake, this is how it looks just five or six days ago:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53694824313_c0a514d705_c.jpg[/qimg]Screenshot 2024-05-02 010108 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Image reproduced for educational purposes.

Do you really believe Hopkinson managed to get the cause confirmed the same morning?

But he didn't confirm it that morning, did he? At first they said they thought it was likely a diesel, then later they confirmed it was definitely a diesel.

It's almost comical the way you assume that no one could have access to more information than you have. It's a certainty that the investigators know the identity of the owner of the vehicle. By this point, they may have looked into the vehicles service records, as they may be. It's a certainty that you have nothing but a paltry handful of tidbits from which you're trying to establish the "real" truth of what happened, as though you're an Important Person doing Important Detective Work.

By the way, just for educational purposes, that photo shows only a small fraction of the whole scene, so you can't tell us what other parts of the scene look like from that.

Also, just for educational purposes, diesel can be ignited with something as small as a kitchen match, welding melts steel, a car's electrical harness can have an arcing fault without disabling the lights, and you can't determine from the images which way the floor is sloping.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you really believe Hopkinson managed to get the cause confirmed the same morning?

How would you know if that's an inaccessible accident scene? You have no relevant training or experience. You do appear to be an expert at begging the question, however.

 

[junkshop]

Edit: NVM.

Ì'm going to wait for the report to be published before I comment further.


<sub>That's the plan, at least.


I'll do my best, but I make no promises.</sub>

 

[Mojo]

What has this to do with the fact that it would be trivial for the fire brigade to identify whether the vehicle had a mahoosive tray for lithium batteries, or an internal combustion engine, or both?

At this stage all Vixen has left is an appeal to personal incredulity.

 

[Mojo]

Do you really believe Hopkinson managed to get the cause confirmed the same morning?

Do you really believe that the government are shape-shifting lizards?

 

[phiwum]

Do you really believe Hopkinson managed to get the cause confirmed the same morning?

As is common in statements to the press, especially early on, Hopkinson reported only his conclusions and did not comment on how he reached those conclusions. Thus, it's a bit difficult for us to evaluate how he made the observations that led to the conclusion.

It's possible that he leaped to a conclusion a bit readily that first day, though he did give the "pending confirmation" caveat.

Now, weeks later, the confirmation has evidently occurred. There is no longer any caveat about the claim that it was a diesel ICE vehicle. Still, it's not clear how they confirmed it, but perhaps the initial vehicle was relatively easy to examine even after the collapse. You and I could guess about how likely that is, but (1) unlikely things sometimes happen and (2) we would both be talking out our asses in any case.

 

[Andy_Ross]

For goodness sake, this is how it looks just five or six days ago:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53694824313_c0a514d705_c.jpg[/qimg]Screenshot 2024-05-02 010108 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Image reproduced for educational purposes.

Do you really believe Hopkinson managed to get the cause confirmed the same morning?

Is that the location of the car that started the fire?

Someone has obviously gone in, they took a photo

 

[JesseCuster]

New update as of five days ago:

"Luton Airport said more than 60% of the affected car park had been dismantled and 75% of the 1,300 vehicles affected have been ‘removed by salvage experts on behalf of insurers’." Daily Mail

Followed later by:

How can it be 'confirmed', when it is still too dangerous to even remove the vehicles for now?

Which is it Vixen, is the car park too dangerous for anyone to go in and identify the car in question or has 60% of the car park been dismantled and 3/4 of the cars been removed by salvage experts?

Both your statements cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive.

If you're going to respond, please just answer the question.

 

[Steve]

Followed later by:

Which is it Vixen, is the car park too dangerous for anyone to go in and identify the car in question or has 60% of the car park been dismantled and 3/4 of the cars been removed by salvage experts?

Both your statements cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive.

If you're going to respond, please just answer the question.

In Vixen's world both of those statements actually are true.