Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Jack by the hedge]

... the video [...] showed a clear thermal runaway fire.

This is wrong.

 

[Steve]

As I understand it, it is a requirement for all current and new parking garages. Obviously, it doesn't happen overnight, and Luton seems to have installed the initial water pipes. However, the builders, Buckingham Group went into insolvency five weeks before the fire.

https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and-articles/blogs/2022/11/28/evs-and-parking-structures

And the negligence that you claimed?

 

[Vixen]

And I asked you, to which you have yet to give a straight answer, is a lithium-ion battery fire the only thing which can cause a jet of flame like that?

Don't just look at the jet of flame as the only thing, have a look at the white vapour coming off (vapour not smoke) and also the colour of the flames and the position from whence the flames are emanating. As in the EVsafe video, earlier, an EV lithium battery fire will appear to emanate from beneath the vehicle.



https://youtu.be/ccF4xOk5ruY?si=ihtTM93V95g5p9-3

 

[Myriad]

The video in question clearly shows a combustion fire, which is emanating from the internal portions of the vehicle. Hence, it is unquestionably an internal combustion vehicle.

(Hey, sauce for the goose...)

 

[JayUtah]

What caused the fire - identifying the vehicle

Competent authority has provided conclusive information on this point. Your unwillingness to accept it does not constitute any sort of valid controversy. The only indication that the source of the fire is being lied about is your fertile imagination.

What caused the fire to become out of control within twenty minutes (spread to upper level and fire teams evacuated urgently).

Despite your correct assessment that the initiation of the fire and the progression of the fire are largely separate issues governed by different bodies of evidence and different underlying principles, you cannot help but conflate them. You want to attribute what you see as a suspicious propagation of the fire to a specific initiation for the fire. You claim that only an EV could produce the degree of subsequent deflagration.

But the only evidence you can present for the Luton fire being suspicious is your lay comparison of it to other fires in unrelated circumstances. It boils down simply to, "Because Vixen says so." That is not sufficient to warrant attention.

Why the UK taxpayer is having information about the initial vehicle withheld (protecting the JLR brand?).

Your pretextual concern for the UK taxpayer is no more credible than your hand-wringing concern for the survivors of MS Estonia. Sufficient information regarding the initial vehicle has been released by competent authority to dispel your insistent conspiracy theory. You apparently believe you are more qualified than, well, practically anybody to determine that the fire authority in this case is lying, based on nothing more credible than your ham-fisted attempts to "analyze" photographic evidence you obtain from convenience sources.

The only argument you can make that information regarding the cause of the fire is being suspiciously withheld is based first on your personal belief that certain personally identifying information should be produced. You provide no justification for this yardstick beyond, "Because I say so." The other premise is the similarly self-aggrandizing belief that the official investigation should be engaging with the conspiracy theories, either to endorse or dispel them. You simply are not that important, nor are the various self-important social medial personalities on which you have relied to spoon-feed you their lay opinion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As I understand it, it is a requirement for all current and new parking garages. Obviously, it doesn't happen overnight, and Luton seems to have installed the initial water pipes. However, the builders, Buckingham Group went into insolvency five weeks before the fire.

Without checking to see if your assumption happens to be correct, it would be the responsibility of the car park's owners to meet any requirements for retrospective fire safety upgrades to their property. They don't need to re-employ the same builders to do the work.

By the way, you quoted NFPA requirements for sprinkler systems. The 'N' of NFPA stands for 'National', but did you check which nation that is? Do NFPA requirements pertain to UK car parks?

 

[Steve]

Citation please of where I said the design deficiencies were covered up.

There were no design deficiencies. The construction conformed to the codes in effect at the time.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't just look at the jet of flame as the only thing, have a look at the white vapour coming off (vapour not smoke)

Explain the process by which you were able to determine from the photographic evidence that you are looking at vapor, not smoke. Describe the particular behavior of liquid versus solid aerosols that support your judgment.

and also the colour of the flames...

Asked and answered. You are unaware of the processes necessary to extract meaningful color information from a photographic record, and hence have not applied them. Your uncontrolled, uninformed opinion of what the flame color is evidence of is irrelevant.

and the position from whence the flames are emanating. As in the EVsafe video, earlier, an EV lithium battery fire will appear to emanate from beneath the vehicle.

Is a YouTube video your only evidence for your claim that direction of flame emanation is dispositive of the ignition and fuel source?

 

[JayUtah]

In the UK, it is considered politics and not deception.

Because Vixen says so?

That is how it works.

Because Vixen says so?

 

[JayUtah]

I have no comment to make about an unauthored article.

The author of the article is the competent authority to make the statement whose authenticity you are directly challenging. Stop dodging. Is the official press release a lie? If not, how do you reconcile it with your claims that seem designed to show it is?

 

[Steve]

Without checking to see if your assumption happens to be correct, it would be the responsibility of the car park's owners to meet any requirements for retrospective fire safety upgrades to their property. They don't need to re-employ the same builders to do the work.

Changes to building codes are rarely retroactive.

 

[phiwum]

In the UK, it is considered politics and not deception. Civil servants and public servants such as the police and fire brigade, together with the defence forces have a chain of command that comes downwards. That is how it works. Technically, certain practices might be deemed unethical to those of us with a philosophical or corporate governance bent but in the real world, yes, ministers pocket taxpayers' cash and yes, they get away with it.

Knowingly publishing false information is simply deception.

You claim (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the sentence in question, "The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle," is false. If so, at this point, the fire investigators either know it is false or know that they haven't sufficient evidence to allege this claim with confidence.

Hence, if it is false, then inclusion of that sentence in a press release is intentional deception.

Nothing about the chain of command changes the fact that this is intentional deception. At best, it may change who is responsible for the intentional deception.

Nor does the claim that politicians get away with intentional deception change the fact that this is intentional deception.

 

[phiwum]

I have no comment to make about an unauthored article.

He didn't ask you about the "unauthored article" (i.e., the official press release of the relevant fire service). He asked whether the sentence,

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

is true or false. Who wrote that sentence is irrelevant to its truth or falsity.

Allow me to help you here. Recently, you wrote

So, whilst he was offering the opinion it was a 'diesel' vehicle, 'at this stage subject to verification', the video that was widely circulated on social media and the national press (even as a BBC video) - none of them able to officially confirm its authenticity - but which showed a clear thermal runaway fire.

Now, unless you doubt the authenticity of this video (which you've never done thus far), or doubt that this video shows the initial vehicle (but you've agreed to that already), it follows that the initial vehicle has a lithium battery and hence is an EV or hybrid.

Therefore, if you are capable of drawing simple logical inferences, then you regard the sentence above to be false.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Or:
...
5. Jeremy of Communications précised this into 'plain English' due to heavy press enquiries.

6. Or, Jeremy perceiving the queries about EV's to be politically motivated by 'gammon anti-ULEZ' - pro-Big Oil shills', decided to put it to bed firmly, albeit without knowing at this stage (the first and only press conference) the true status.

Stuff and nonsense. Made-up garbage you have to pretend to believe to protect your precious conspiracy theory.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Look. When Mr. Hopkinson made his statement without any impropriety whatsoever, he was unaware at the time that a member of the public, the Romanian lady, had taken a video on her smart phone (rather dangerously, given the rapidly developing situation). So, whilst he was offering the opinion it was a 'diesel' vehicle, 'at this stage subject to verification', the video that was widely circulated on social media and the national press (even as a BBC video) - none of them able to officially confirm its authenticity - but which showed a clear thermal runaway fire.

To date, the Beds FR&S have declined to confirm the video as being authentic. This could be because they were/are still investigating or because it spoils the narrative of a 'diesel-fueled' vehicle only and not any type of electric one.

An initial report said the Romanian lady described it as 'the fuel tank exploding' but since the fire was at the front of the vehicle, either she was mistaken, or there were (improbably) two separate events in the same vehicle, one at the from and one at the back spontaneously. Of course, if it was a case of a plastic tank exploding, then it would explain the rapid spread of the fire as well.

So, unfortunately for the official line, there are at least two different videos that undermine the claim it was not an EV of any type.

SO the fire service is telling a deliberate lie and covering up the real cause of the fire on orders from the Prime Minister?

 

[Andy_Ross]

He said, not knowing a member of the public had a video!

Don't you think being able to look at the actual vehicle involved and see if it has batteries or an engine beats a random video?

 

[Steve]

I have no comment to make about an unauthored article.

You recently have made a number of comments regarding building codes, which are never credited to an author.

 

[Mojo]

Of course, if it was a case of a plastic tank exploding, then it would explain the rapid spread of the fire as well.

In other words entirely consistent with BFRS's statements (in an official press release archived on their website) that the vehicle was diesel powered, and not an EV or hybrid.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Or:

4. Mr Hopkinson as of 10:00am on 11 October 2023, the ashes and metal frames still red hot stated that, 'it is believed..at this stage...subject to verification'.

5. Jeremy of Communications précised this into 'plain English' due to heavy press enquiries.

6. Or, Jeremy perceiving the queries about EV's to be politically motivated by 'gammon anti-ULEZ' - pro-Big Oil shills', decided to put it to bed firmly, albeit without knowing at this stage (the first and only press conference) the true status.

So the official statement by the fire service on their official website is a lie?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Poor show. The practice of shouting, 'You lie!' or 'Conspiracy theory!' shows a deplorable and sadly lacking ability to debate.

So tell us if you think the fire service are telling a deliberate lie to cover up the real cause of the fire.