Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[LondonJohn]

So Mr. Hopkinson was up all night browsing the ANPR records, DVLA and CCTV. The man arrested, presumably the driver, wasn't arrested until some ten or so days later - the rumour circulating is that he abandoned his burning car to run to catch a flight to some important meeting or a holiday leaving staff and the Romanian lady to deal with his little 'accident' - or maybe Mr. Hopkinson just did a Shadrach, Meshak and Abednego: looked into the flames and made out a hazy fourth figure, which was the culprit vehicle and he could just about make out it was NOT an EV, not an EV of any sort, no sir-rEE!!!, not a full, Ev, not a plug-in EV and not a mild hybrid EV, you hear? It was a diesel. Honest, guv, hand on heart, it was a diesel, or I lose my job and my bonus. Honest!

It is your position that BF&RS is lying when it states it confirms that Car Zero was an ordinary diesel car and not an EV of any flavour?

 

[smartcooky]

I see Vixen is desperately grasping at the straws she's spewing.

So you are claiming that the fire service involved are telling lies and they are part of a conspiracy to cover up the real cause of the fire?

It is your position that BF&RS is lying when it states it confirms that Car Zero was an ordinary diesel car and not an EV of any flavour?

Yup.

Any evidence that does not fit with her personal, predetermined convictions is branded "opinion" and summarily dismissed without further discussion.

Any evidence that does fit with her personal, predetermined convictions is branded "fact", regardless of its truth, its lack of veracity and/or the dubiousness of its source.

Conspiracy Theorist 101.

 

[CompusMentus]

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

Schrodinger's car?


Compus

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So Mr. Hopkinson was up all night browsing the ANPR records, DVLA and CCTV. The man arrested, presumably the driver, wasn't arrested until some ten or so days later - the rumour circulating is ...

Up all night? You're really bad at this.

That the man was arrested ten days later does not indicate (as you appear to imagine) that he was on the run for ten days. There's no good reason to suppose he ran away. There's no good reason to suppose he wasn't entirely cooperative with the fire service and police.

Having had the driver tell them what happened and give them his details it would take moments to check his car's history. It would take the car park owners moments to confirm the car's number plate from when it entered the structure.

You're clutching at straws and it shows.

 

[Georg]

It is your position that BF&RS is lying when it states it confirms that Car Zero was an ordinary diesel car and not an EV of any flavour?

I doubt that she will state so that clear.
There will be more insinuations, pussyfooting around or simply not answering that question.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As Hopkinson said on Day One, only half of the car park was involved in the blaze. It follows that the 60% dismantled so far is the part that wasn't too dangerous to do so. Ditto the 900 or so cars now salvaged.

No. That does not follow.

Priority for salvaging cars will have been for the undamaged ones if a way can be found to recover them intact. The burned ones are next to worthless and just potential hazardous waste.

When you're knocking a building down, your major concern is not whether some parts of the building are unsafe to enter. Your job is to make the whole thing unsafe to enter by knocking it down.

 

[Mojo]

...and who knows how much investment he or his wife have in Tata. (All 'blind' of course!)

Just to remind you: if it's blind, Sunak doesn't know.

 

[Mojo]

Schrodinger's car?

It could be worse, if it was Heisenberg's we would have no idea what its velocity was, given that its location was firmly established.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Question 4: The video taken by the Romanian lady from the back of the vehicle (and even the one posted by 'Bitcoin Bertie') clearly shows the burning vehicle to be on a lower level (see the ceiling in the video).

I notice this isn't a question.

Question 5: Why do witnesses, and please look carefully at all of the early images [Daily Mirror: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/luton-airport-fire-carpark-live-31154091 say the fire started on the roof of the car park, with no ceiling?

Which witnesses say the fire started on the roof of the car park with no ceiling? Please look carefully yourself, and indicate any who say that explicitly (rather than any who say they saw "the top floor" on fire, perhaps unaware that there is a roof level too).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Question 6: If the fire spread from say, level 2 to Level 3 - the top level with no ceiling - how did it spread within apx 20 minutes to the next floor up, yet the cars on the same floor (level 1 or 2) do not show any ongoing fire in any of the early photos? All of the images show vehicles blazing on the top level only, not on any of the lower ones.

There appear to have been five levels in the car park, including ground floor and roof (level 4, presumably). I think this may explain your bewilderment that photos show fire on upper floors but not lower ones. You did ask us to examine all the newspaper photos carefully. Did you do the same yourself, and note how many floors the structure had? It seems you did not.

I reject your claim that "all the photos show vehicles blazing on the top level only".

 

[JayUtah]

As Hopkinson said on Day One, only half of the car park was involved in the blaze. It follows that the 60% dismantled so far is the part that wasn't too dangerous to do so.

No, that does not follow at all.

You have no training or experience in structural mechanics. You have no training or experience in fire investigation. You have no training or experience in disaster recovery. You seem to have a keyboard, an armchair, a lot of free time, and a poor idea of how things actually work.

 

[JayUtah]

That is your opinion...

So Mr. Hopkinson was up all night browsing the ANPR records, DVLA and CCTV. The man arrested, presumably the driver...

Priceless. You demand, "Answers please" from everyone else, but your best offering is this ongoing yarn-and-pushpins fantasy. Armchair detectives are worse than useless.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I looked up similar plates to the E10 EFL which has been suggested as the plate of the vehicle in the video on a couple of different resale sites (by putting in random characters and two digit numbers) E10 FEF - £319. R11 SLD - £895. K16 MHL - £553. Rarely does a number of LNN LLL go over £1000.

But if you want a plate saying something like N1 GEL, that will cost several thousands of pounds (that one isn't currently available).

By coincidence, when I went out to get some lunch, a Maybach drove past with the number plate B7. That plate probably cost something commensurate with buying a Maybach.

Reminds me of seeing a Rolls Royce years ago with PEN 1 S. I'm told that was Paul Raymond the porn publisher.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it. But there is zero evidence that the front view video of the vehicle is even authentic.

Column N, row 1.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't authentic. Your attempts to do so have failed completely.

 

[The Greater Fool]

As Hopkinson said on Day One, only half of the car park was involved in the blaze. It follows that the 60% dismantled so far is the part that wasn't too dangerous to do so. Ditto the 900 or so cars now salvaged.

I assumed that the driver of the initial car that caught fire, the person that used the extinguisher unsuccessfully, didn't just leave their blazing car and continue on to their flight. I figured the driver lingered at least until the fire department arrived then told the firefighters what happened and provided information on the car.

 

[JayUtah]

But there is zero evidence that the front view video of the vehicle is even authentic.

Except for all the evidence presented. Authenticity vs. fraudulence has a very clear epistemology in the real (not YouTube or Twitter) world of investigation: claims of fraudulence always have the burden of proof. And the standard of proof is typically quite high. "Well I think it may be a deep fake," is armchair nonsense.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Schrodinger's car?


Compus

The quantum superposition isn't resolved until there's a press conference.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It could be worse, if it was Heisenberg's we would have no idea what its velocity was, given that its location was firmly established.

Don't look at the speedo or you'll get lost.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The quantum superposition isn't resolved until there's a press conference.

Similarly, the flogged horse is both dead and alive until the report is published.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So Mr. Hopkinson was up all night browsing the ANPR records, DVLA and CCTV.

He and poor Barney Fife must have been so overwhelmed doing everything alone out there in little Mayberry. And if they'd looked up the registration info that night, don't you think they might have confirmed that it was definitely a diesel then. Remember, they didn't confirm it was a diesel the next morning, as you erroneously claimed. And even then, your complaints that it would take all night for the police to look up a registration number is just you being histrionic.

The man arrested, presumably the driver, wasn't arrested until some ten or so days later - the rumour circulating is that he abandoned his burning car to run to catch a flight to some important meeting or a holiday leaving staff and the Romanian lady to deal with his little 'accident'.

Maybe you could get back to us when you have more than unsourced rumor to go on?

Do you really think that you are so important and skilled an investigator that you have access to all the information that's available?

Or maybe Mr. Hopkinson just did a Shadrach, Meshak and Abednego: looked into the flames and made out a hazy fourth figure, which was the culprit vehicle and he could just about make out it was NOT an EV, not an EV of any sort, no sir-rEE!!!, not a full, Ev, not a plug-in EV and not a mild hybrid EV, you hear? It was a diesel. Honest, guv, hand on heart, it was a diesel, or I lose my job and my bonus. Honest!

You're being histrionic again. And you're still arguing against him knowing it was a diesel during the first statement, which, as all but you seem to be aware, was not the case.

There is nothing implausible about the police and fire service having viewed the CCTV video and seen that the vehicle that started the fire was a Range Rover Sport of a model inconsistent with electric power and said, provisionally, that they didn't think it was anything other than a diesel.