Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Jack by the hedge]

Given this was also recommended in 2018 re Liverpool and came out July 2023, updated from earlier in the year, one has to wonder what seriously went wrong at Luton that it did not have a sprinkler system

You appear to be asking the wrong question.

The thing that went wrong might have been a failure to make sprinklers manadatory but that failure happened somewhere other than at Luton.

A car park built in 2019 which was not required to have a sprinkler system might in luxurious hindsight have been a mistake, but the mistake was not that they did not read an interim report published 4 years later and which only says: "Sprinkler provision [...] should be considered as part of a cost-benefit analysis when designing new open-sided/enclosed car parks" because that still doesn't mandate sprinklers.

 

[catsmate]

....of course, a lithium-ion battery fire self-oxygenates anyway.

Bollocks, as usual. The battery may "self-oxygenate" but the vast majority of the flammable material requires external oxygen.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Stop spreading false personal information.

Stop lying about being treated shabbily. He isn't spreading any personal information false or otherwise. You've clearly shown to not understand any of the topics you've brought up in your numerous threads. You run away when people ask you to back up your claims. You ignore posters who ask questions to demonstrate your knowledge.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't understand your objection.

Baby steps then:

You claimed ICE car fires in car parks are not considered likely to spread to other cars.

To support this you lifted a quote from the Liverpool report which mentions 2010 regulations supporting your view, but which in turn are based on 1960s research.

You missed out the immediately-following part of the Liverpool report which criticises that quote you lifted, saying it's out of date and needs revision as it doesn't reflect current realities (of how much larger cars have become and how much structural plastic they use compared to 60 years ago).

So you used a source which criticises your claim to support your claim.

Is that clear enough?

 

[GlennB]

Ah, as I thought, neither of those references are in mine, which goes up to page 1182. <drivel snipped>

95% chance of this being a blatant lie, designed to avoid embarrassment.

 

[Mojo]

The number 10 bus is diverted because of a car on fire at Riding Mill, but no indication of the make and model of the car.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The number 10 bus is diverted because of a car on fire at Riding Mill, but no indication of the make and model of the car.

<immediately suspicious> An electric bus?

 

[Darat]

95% chance of this being a blatant lie, designed to avoid embarrassment.

It is in the next edition to Vixen's (the Millennium Edition) and it is not one of the new additions so yep - she is ..er... mistaken.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

95% chance of this being a blatant lie, designed to avoid embarrassment.

Not necessarily, it isn't in my early 90's Blitz Edition, that's why I referred & linked to Oxford Reference online (twice)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Conspiracy theorists (or rather "conspiracy fantasists") don't like real, awkward problems with difficult solutions. They like simple, fantasy problems they define themselves with easily identified bad guys.

 

[Wudang]

As we can see in the Fire Risk Assessment - see Appendix A-78, a standalone car park with a mix of ICEV/EV's parked as normal represents a 'substantial' level of fire risk should one catch fire.





Mitigation of this risk is listed as a sprinkler system and wider spacing*.



ETA: The recommendation therefore states:

ibid

Given this was also recommended in 2018 re Liverpool and came out July 2023, updated from earlier in the year, one has to wonder what seriously went wrong at Luton that it did not have a sprinkler system and furthermore, fire spread so incredibly quickly to the upper level. There was wind but then so was there wind at Liverpool, and of course, a lithium-ion battery fire self-oxygenates anyway.

*Although, given flames from one ignited car can leap across unfilled spaces (cf Merseyside Fire Report into Liverpool King's Dock fire) it is not clear how wider spaces can help significantly.

Cherry picking again. Did you jump to the Appendix this quoted from and not reason on page 40?

Measure: Provide increased spacing between cars – either in the
design of new car parks or by re-painting the car park spaces in an
existing car park so they are larger than previously.
Reason: Where a new car park is being provided, the car park
layout could be designed to incorporate parking spaces of increased
width, or with walking routes between bays (as provided to
accessible parking bays). This increased distance between parked
cars means that if a parked car is involved in a fire, the adjacent
vehicle is exposed to less radiant heat and is therefore less likely to
become involved in a fire. Current research from NFPA suggests that increased car sizes over the last 40 years have reduced the space between cars and therefore made car-to-car fire spread more likely [43] and therefore, larger spaces should help mitigate this.

It even quotes your beloved NFPA.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You're lying again.

Quote anyone saying that or retract the lie.

Come on Vixen, quote people making the claim you're attributing to them or admit you made it up.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Need to have it confirmed that the vehicle in the video is the initial one.

How many cars do you think independently caught fire that night?

If so, need explanation as to what caused those flames and why the fire brigade were unable to control the subsequent fire.

What fire brigade? I don't see any fire brigade in any of the images from Luton. Do you?

You're still implying that the state of the fire as we see it in the images is exactly as the fire service found it when they somehow managed to get fire hoses trained on the burning car within a few minutes of receiving the call. You can, and no doubt will, continue to ignore the gaping holes in your arguments, but no one else is obliged to do so.

 

[JayUtah]

Stop spreading false personal information.

It isn't false.

I'm challenging information you specifically provided previously in an attempt to establish credibility and support for your claims. You claimed to be a forensic accountant and to have worked on a criminal case. You said this specifically to convey the belief that you knew what constituted legally cognizable evidence and how that evidence might establish that laws had been broken. Therefore you expected that the allegations of lawbreaking and other malfeasance that you incorporate into your various conspiracy theories—including this one—should be given credence and authority as having come from a competent real-world investigator.

Instead we have shown that you do not understand how to read laws and how they are applied. We have shown that you not understand how regulations and regulatory frameworks operate. We have shown that you do not understand how industry recommendations apply to regulatory bodies. We have shown that you do not understand the reports of investigating bodies. We have shown that you do not understand what constitutes legally cognizable evidence, or even competent evidence. We have shown that your knowledge of financial structures and obligations is deficient. All this dooms your conspiracy theory to a very low order of likelihood on the merits because it is premised on your various misunderstandings and demonstrated incompetence.

The result of this voir dire is that your previous claims to expertise are insufficient to rehabilitate the shortcomings in your present argument. Your arguments rely heavily on accepting as true claims you make on your own authority. Since we can show evidence that your authority is not what you claim it is, we have little basis on which to accept your dicta into evidence.

As usual, if you believe you have been personally attacked, report the post for moderation. Do not make accusations to that effect for rhetorical purposes only.

 

[JayUtah]

...so they are pretty much like-for-like.

No. That judgment requires expertise you have shown you don't have.

 

[phiwum]

You know, one big problem with this conversation is that Vixen can't decide what she actually is alleging. She sometimes says that the evidence points to a fire involving a lithium battery, but when you press her, she says that she doesn't have good evidence for this conclusion.

She also says that there is a coverup involved, but any coverup requires that the vehicle is actually a hybrid or EV, which is inconsistent with her reluctance to confirm that this is the case.

This is also at the heart of her obvious contradictions regarding the March 21 press release. She doesn't want to say that there is a false statement in the press release (where it says the car is NOT a hybrid or EV), because she doesn't want to commit to accusing the fire officials of lying, yet she regularly claims that the evidence indicates that the initial vehicle had a lithium battery.

This also explains her reluctance to answer my questions in a clear and concise manner, consistent with her previous claims. She is very reluctant to admit that her theories entail that the March 21 press release contains a falsehood (and clearly a deliberate one).

This conversation would go a lot easier if Vixen simply had the courage of her convictions.

 

[Mojo]

You know, one big problem with this conversation is that Vixen can't decide what she actually is alleging. She sometimes says that the evidence points to a fire involving a lithium battery, but when you press her, she says that she doesn't have good evidence for this conclusion.

She also says that there is a coverup involved, but any coverup requires that the vehicle is actually a hybrid or EV, which is inconsistent with her reluctance to confirm that this is the case.

This is also at the heart of her obvious contradictions regarding the March 21 press release. She doesn't want to say that there is a false statement in the press release (where it says the car is NOT a hybrid or EV), because she doesn't want to commit to accusing the fire officials of lying, yet she regularly claims that the evidence indicates that the initial vehicle had a lithium battery.

This also explains her reluctance to answer my questions in a clear and concise manner, consistent with her previous claims. She is very reluctant to admit that her theories entail that the March 21 press release contains a falsehood (and clearly a deliberate one).

This conversation would go a lot easier if Vixen simply had the courage of her convictions.

There also seems to be a claim of a second conspiracy to do with covering up the lack of a sprinkler system, or possibly of other alleged deficiencies in the design of the car park.

 

[Vixen]

It isn't false.

I'm challenging information you specifically provided previously in an attempt to establish credibility and support for your claims. You claimed to be a forensic accountant and to have worked on a criminal case. You said this specifically to convey the belief that you knew what constituted legally cognizable evidence and how that evidence might establish that laws had been broken. Therefore you expected that the allegations of lawbreaking and other malfeasance that you incorporate into your various conspiracy theories—including this one—should be given credence and authority as having come from a competent real-world investigator.

Instead we have shown that you do not understand how to read laws and how they are applied. We have shown that you not understand how regulations and regulatory frameworks operate. We have shown that you do not understand how industry recommendations apply to regulatory bodies. We have shown that you do not understand the reports of investigating bodies. We have shown that you do not understand what constitutes legally cognizable evidence, or even competent evidence. We have shown that your knowledge of financial structures and obligations is deficient. All this dooms your conspiracy theory to a very low order of likelihood on the merits because it is premised on your various misunderstandings and demonstrated incompetence.

The result of this voir dire is that your previous claims to expertise are insufficient to rehabilitate the shortcomings in your present argument. Your arguments rely heavily on accepting as true claims you make on your own authority. Since we can show evidence that your authority is not what you claim it is, we have little basis on which to accept your dicta into evidence.

As usual, if you believe you have been personally attacked, report the post for moderation. Do not make accusations to that effect for rhetorical purposes only.

Look, I get that there is fun to be had by making derogatory comments because you think it makes you look better so I let it go because IMV your jeers and sneers reflect on you, not me. However, don't spread factual lies. I never said I only had one job nor that I had no experience of regulatory frameworks. Professional chartered accountancy is full of freaking regulatory frameworks. Just so you know, we chased bad guys all over the globe, money launderers, dodgy directors, organized crime, carousel fraud, literally refunded hundreds of millions of pounds of dirty money back to the UK taxpayer.

 

[phiwum]

There also seems to be a claim of a second conspiracy to do with covering up the lack of a sprinkler system, or possibly of other alleged deficiencies in the design of the car park.

Could be, but I have tried to focus only on her most basic claims and settle what they are without getting too distracted by the many other claims she makes.

Either she hasn't good evidence that the initial vehicle was a hybrid or EV, in which case this is all much ado about nothing and all the claims about the prime minister just don't matter, or she has good evidence that the initial vehicle was a hybrid or EV, in which case the press release of March 21 has an obvious and relevant falsehood.

She wants the prime minister-initiated coverup without actually claiming that the fire officials have deceived the public. Which, you know, is the heart of her alleged coverup.

 

[Vixen]

There also seems to be a claim of a second conspiracy to do with covering up the lack of a sprinkler system, or possibly of other alleged deficiencies in the design of the car park.

Hardly a conspiracy. The negligence of the Buckingham Group builders is absolutely glaring.