Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[JayUtah]

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...

Irrelevant supposition.

...but which showed a clear thermal runaway fire.

You have not shown yourself to be competent to determine whether any given deflagration is the result of thermal runaway in a lithium ion battery. Your lay opinion is irrelevant.

To date, the Beds FR&S have declined to confirm the video as being authentic.

You presume incorrectly that it is their job to do so, and that they have the information to do so. Straw man.

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.

Pure speculation; begging the question.

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.

Neither you nor the Romanian lady is qualified to interpret fire propagation evidence and from it deduce the cause in an automotive fire.

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.

No, the competent authority remains the competent authority. What we have are unqualified, uninformed busybodies pretending they are now fire investigators and have meaningful challenges to competent authority. This is no different than the same busybodies pretending they can investigation ships sinking, or murders, or bridge collapses, or vaccine side effects, or presidential assassinations, or missions to the Moon.

You are neither as smart nor as important as you imagine.

 

[junkshop]

I have no comment to make about an unauthored article.

Chicken.

 

[zooterkin]

As I understand it,

I think you have identified the major cause of this thread.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

If the fire service say the car is a diesel but that isn't true and it was an EV. How can the fire service statement not be a deliberate lie?

 

[JayUtah]

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.

You have zero evidence that any of this is or could be the case. It is literally entirely your imagination.

 

[Vixen]

Aluminium drainage channels (not pipes) were a feature of the Liverpool car park. Their job was to be a drainage gutter for rainwater that was carried in by vehicles or driven in by the wind. It was not intended to drain spilled and burning fuel (otherwise rather obviously they would not have used aluminium and plastic parts).

If you think the Luton car park had these too please provide a reference, otherwise we can safely assume you just got confused and forgot which event was which.

See here in the Liverpool King's Dock Report on page 24. https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf

Look very closely at the photograph shown of vertical flames of fire. See them? Those vertical flames were caused by the vertical aluminium trays (sorry, not pipes) and drainage pipes spreading the fire.

The external CCTV image below (fig.2.2.5) appears to show vertical walls of fire at equidistant positions along the length of the level. This would appear to be further evidence of drainage failure and the “waterfalls of fire” that BA crews alluded to.

With temperatures in excess of 1,200°C, very early failure of plastic elbow pipes would have occurred and with a melting point of 660°C, the aluminium drainage trays would also have been subject to failure (see fig.2.2.6) prior to the spalling of the concrete ribbed floor slabs. Failure of the aluminium tray would expose the drainage channel and allow hot gases and flame to be directed to the floor above and impinge on the two rows of cars adjoining this channel.

https://www.bafsa.org.uk/wp-content...er/2018/12/Merseyside-FRS-Car-Park-Report.pdf



Mr. Hopkinson in his press conference states the Luton Fire also spread 'vertically and laterally' - see at point 0:00 - 0:50.


https://www.newsflare.com/video/596...ew-following-luton-airport-blaze-in-luton-uk#

Attached shows a press photo of the Luton fire which shows the same vertical pattern of flames as the Liverpool one.

Compare the Luton flames with the Liverpool ones. Added to the lack of sprinklers, it seems to be an absolute copy of it or how else did the flames travel vertically?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have no comment to make about an unauthored article.

How can it by 'unauthored'? Did it spring spontaneously from the web site?

It's an official statement on an official website.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Eh? The Luton Airport car park fire structure collapse wasn't just caused by car zero

That's what we've been telling you!

there is also the factor of the car park being unable to contain a fire to a restricted area and the factor of why the fire spread so rapidly, vertically and laterally. It is common sense to understand that the defective structure of the car park and the lack of sprinklers is a factor in the failure to contain the fire, given the fire seems to be identical in nature, re fire spread, to the Liverpool one, despite subsequent recommendations and the NFPA edict.

You have no idea of the relevant similarities and differences between the two car parks construction and how that affected their behaviour in fires, You have demonstrated having a hazy and thoroughly confused notion of what the Liverpool report explained about that fire. You don't remember which construction details pertain to which car park. You have no idea whether an "NFPA edict" has any force in the UK.

What does any of this have to do with Sunak, or Land Rover, or lithium batteries?

 

[JayUtah]

As I understand it, it is a requirement for all current and new parking garages.

But you have proven that you don't understand the difference between recommendations from official investigations and binding codes. You seem impervious to the notion that your conspiracy theory is predicated entirely on a foundation of your misunderstandings.

However, the builders, Buckingham Group went into insolvency five weeks before the fire.

Your argument for the relevancy of this statement is that they cut corners on the structure in connection with that insolvency. That is pure inference. You provide no actual evidence for this.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Yes, it is actually an international body, although based in the USA.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

The practice of sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalala I can't hear you is a sure fire winner though. Right?

Otherwise you wouldn't keep denying the existence of the Fire Service Press Statement on the Fire Service website under the title "Press Statement".

 

[Steve]

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

That is indeed Vixen's position. There is no doubt. She has stated it a number of different ways but steadfastly refuses to confirm when asked. It is another aspect of her vast conspiracy requiring the complicity and silence of many persons in positions of authority in a number of different organizations.

(Vixen may not realize that all us posters here in her CT threads are actually active government agents participating in the misdirections...... and the paranoia starts to creep.......)

 

[Vixen]

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.

As of 11 October 2023 when Mr. Hopkinson made his statement it was true because that was their best educated guess based on what they knew so far and what they knew from historical fires.

 

[Mojo]

As of 11 October 2023 when Mr. Hopkinson made his statement it was true because that was their best educated guess based on what they knew so far and what they knew from historical fires.

How about as of 21st March 2024 when the BFRS published a press release confirming that the vehicle the fire started in was diesel-powered, and not an EV or hybrid?

You know, the one you keep lying about.

 

[Vixen]

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


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.

If it remains unexplained in the report when it comes out then yes, I would. In the Liverpool Fire report of 2018 it doesn't give any detail of vehicle zero so I doubt they will here, either. Had the Romanian lady not taken that video and the other person from the front (albeit question marks about its authenticity especially re the numberplate) we would not be arguing about the type of vehicle. As it is, in neither fire have we been officially told what make of vehicle it was.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes, I am sure that someone of Gen Z would look up Merriam-Webster and come to that view. Others, such as myself, are aware it goes back way before the industrial revolution and did NOT originally mean, to drag oneself out of bed to earn a livelihood at the office, or down at t'mill.

All this pretence at having some special insight into the phrase's meaning falls rather flat when it's only deflection to avoid facing up to having quoted it entirely backwards. Or do you intend to astonish us with a reference showing it was originally "where there's brass, there's muck"?

 

[JayUtah]

Those vertical flames were caused by the vertical aluminium trays (sorry, not pipes) and drainage pipes spreading the fire.

Mr. Hopkinson in his press conference states the Luton Fire also spread 'vertically and laterally' - see at point 0:00 - 0:50.

Which differs markedly from the findings you quote, as the fires attributed to drainage channel failure are discrete, equidistant flames. You continue to demonstrate that you are not competent to interpret these findings in a way that produces evidence of a coverup and conspiracy.

Compare the Luton flames with the Liverpool ones.

You cherry-picked the Liverpool report data regarding a different phenomenon to support your claims here. You are not competent to interpret these findings and draw conclusions.

Added to the lack of sprinklers, it seems to be an absolute copy of it...

To the experienced eye, no.

...or how else did the flames travel vertically?

Your failure to understand how things happened is not a valid controversy. Begging the question is not a substitute for your obligation to provide competent evidence. You have proven yourself to be largely scientifically illiterate, so I can't imagine how you think you are able to challenge competent authority based on this line of reasoning.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, it is actually an international body, although based in the USA.

What is your evidence that it did or should have applied to the Luton car park?

 

[JayUtah]

As of 11 October 2023 when Mr. Hopkinson made his statement it was true because that was their best educated guess based on what they knew so far and what they knew from historical fires.

No. You insinuate he was instructed by higher authority to give the source of the fire as a diesel car regardless of what he might have otherwise believed. If he truly believed it was a diesel car, then he needed no instruction to state as much from higher authority.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Originated in the 1600s but had the same meaning - messy jobs can earn good money. Or, in other words, you're ********ting again.

The presence of so many steaming great piles of ******** is surely an opportunity to make a bit of money shovelling it up. In fact I think there's an old saying about that.