Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Jack by the hedge]

Well, we would just compare the two pictures.

Conclusion: 'You ain't no Grévy's, Bro'.

The point which you missed was that your analogy was ridiculous. Telling a zebra from a lion is something a five year old could do at a glance. Telling a burning diesel car from a burning EV is not. Do you see that if it was as obvious as you wish to suggest, that this shows a lithium battery fire, everyone would agree with you?

The fact they don't ought at least to be telling you something.

Also by the way there is no requirement for a car fire to begin by leaving a trail of burning fuel behind itself. The lack of any sign of this does not indicate it wasn't a diesel.

 

[Mojo]

Also by the way there is no requirement for a car fire to begin by leaving a trail of burning fuel behind itself.

But that's how it always happens in the movies. The car leaks a trail of fuel, someone lights the other end, and ... BOOM!

 

[Thermal]

But that's how it always happens in the movies. The car leaks a trail of fuel, someone lights the other end, and ... BOOM!

The really cool ones flick a cigarette butt over their shoulder.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The really cool ones flick a cigarette butt over their shoulder.

Just drive round flicking them out your car window, there's a decent chance that sooner or later you'll cause a car fire (or a verge fire, or a forest fire) & you'll be far gone before anyone knows.

 

[Thermal]

Just drive round flicking them out your car window, there's a decent chance that sooner or later you'll cause a car fire (or a verge fire, or a forest fire) & you'll be far gone before anyone knows.

Were any suspicious smokers seen near the Luton Airport recently? Because I'm pretty confident it was really one of those e-cig thingys.

It was not the Marlboro Man. It was the Vapey Villian.

 

[Foster Zygote]

If such a dangerous wild animal were on the prowl, then as a taxpayer, you have every right to be informed what that animal is.

As long as we're beating this seagull with a banjo, I once read that zookeepers regard zebras as far more dangerous than big cats, because they are highly aggressive and unpredictable. So this really is a good analogy for you false claim that EVs and hybrids are far more dangerous than ICE vehicles.

 

[malbui]

The really cool ones flick a cigarette butt over their shoulder.

... and make some quip about a burning issue or burning bridges or something with an eyebrow raised towards the camera.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The really cool ones flick a cigarette butt over their shoulder.

I thought it was supposed to be a zippo if you are really cool.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Your argument has fallen into such depths of stupidity that you are trying to win by playing infantile games with photographs. "See this? It's a zebra, right? Well I declare that the car fire is as obviously a Li-ion fire as that African equine [sorry, simpler words?] is a zebra, despite having offered no evidence (or even knowledge of what evidence would be) that it is. Therefore I win because you agreed with the completely unrelated fact that I showed a picture of a zebra!!! I WIN!!!".

The Li-ion truly is the king of the jungle.

 

[Vixen]

If the zoo were to say that, I'd think that they'd deliberately made a false statement. I'd probably think they were lying.

So, given that you are so confident that the flames could only come from a lithium battery, is the fire department making false statements in an official capacity?

You wouldn't think the webpage was updated by a back office member of staff and not an actual zoologist...?

Likewise, how do you know the Beds F&RS webpage isn't simply a precis of what Hopkinson said on Day 1?

 

[Vixen]

The point which you missed was that your analogy was ridiculous. Telling a zebra from a lion is something a five year old could do at a glance. Telling a burning diesel car from a burning EV is not. Do you see that if it was as obvious as you wish to suggest, that this shows a lithium battery fire, everyone would agree with you?

The fact they don't ought at least to be telling you something.

Also by the way there is no requirement for a car fire to begin by leaving a trail of burning fuel behind itself. The lack of any sign of this does not indicate it wasn't a diesel.

It was claimed that the flames beneath the car (as one would get in an L-ion fire) was due to leaked fuel/other fluid. So where is the leak showing on the ground. Thermal suggested it was spraying out sideways through a pinhole but there was no impediment to the fluid spraying out from beneath the car.

The point about the zebra is do you believe what you see or do you experience cognitive dissonance and choose to believe an anonymous, unsigned unauthored update titled 'press release' telling you it is a different animal completely? That is the point being made. I cannot get a straight answer.

Perhaps you can supply one?

 

[JayUtah]

Likewise, how do you know the Beds F&RS webpage isn't simply a precis of what Hopkinson said on Day 1?

Because there's no evidence that it is. You're the one making up silly fairy tales for why you think something labeled an official press release should not be considered authoritative information.

 

[zooterkin]

You wouldn't think the webpage was updated by a back office member of staff and not an actual zoologist...?

It doesn't matter who posted it, but if it were inaccurate I'd expect it to be corrected straight away since the veracity reflects on the organisation.

Likewise, how do you know the Beds F&RS webpage isn't simply a precis of what Hopkinson said on Day 1?

Because it has additional information, and if it were incorrect it would have been fixed long before now.

 

[zooterkin]

It was claimed that the flames beneath the car (as one would get in an L-ion fire) was due to leaked fuel/other fluid. So where is the leak showing on the ground. Thermal suggested it was spraying out sideways through a pinhole but there was no impediment to the fluid spraying out from beneath the car.

The point about the zebra is do you believe what you see or do you experience cognitive dissonance and choose to believe an anonymous, unsigned unauthored update titled 'press release' telling you it is a different animal completely? That is the point being made. I cannot get a straight answer.

Perhaps you can supply one?

You certainly seem incapable of giving a straight answer.

Is the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service lying when they say the original car where the fire started is a diesel?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You wouldn't think the webpage was updated by a back office member of staff and not an actual zoologist...?

No, I don't think any sane person would think the webpage must have been written by some office junior so staggeringly stupid that they did not know how to tell a lion from a zebra. This helpfully illustrates how asinine your analogy was, don't you think?

Likewise, how do you know the Beds F&RS webpage isn't simply a precis of what Hopkinson said on Day 1?

It wouldn't matter.

It's their official statement on their own website. If they were irresponsible enough to let some junior just make stuff up and put it out as an official statement then that's almost as bad as knowingly writing false statements.

I don't leap to assume they're that irresponsible or incompetent based purely on the say-so of anti-EV conspiracists wot-I-reckon.

When a competent authority contradicts what some online conspiracists are saying, leaping to assume the only possible explanation is that the Fire Service are either fools or knaves is an idiotic position.

 

[JayUtah]

It was claimed that the flames beneath the car (as one would get in an L-ion fire) was due to leaked fuel/other fluid.

No.

You insist that the flames you see in the video are by themselves probative of a lithium ion battery fire. This is based on nothing more than your say-so. You can't identify in the video the "jets of flame" you say are dispositive of the claim. Your frantic handwaving fails on two levels.

More experienced people than you have pointed out that no directional flames are visible, and have also cited other ways in which directed combustion could occur. That's not an affirmative counterclaim that shifts the burden of proof. It's a point you neglected in your naive analysis.

So where is the leak showing on the ground.

Asked and answered.

Thermal suggested it was spraying out sideways through a pinhole but there was no impediment to the fluid spraying out from beneath the car.

Burning combustible fluid spraying from a ruptured pressurized conduit doesn't pool. It burns. Alternatively, combustible liquids may pool and then burn. You won't see the pool. You'll just see the flames covering the entire surface of the pool.

The point about the zebra is do you believe what you see or do you experience cognitive dissonance...

No.

There's no cognitive dissonance because your say-so is insufficient to establish the fact that would give rise to it. You claim you can diagnose vehicle fires from a few frames of video and come to a better conclusion than professional investigators. You want to pretend it's as straightforward as Baby's First Animal Book. Just like every other worse-than-useless armchair detective, trying desperately to simplify everything to her mediocre level of understanding.

...and choose to believe an anonymous, unsigned unauthored update titled 'press release' telling you it is a different animal completely?

Those are not actual criteria for the issuance of authoritative information from competent authority. You're just tacking those on so you have an excuse to ignore your betters.

I cannot get a straight answer.

Because your little rhetorical stunt didn't work. It was immediately identified as a straw man and a begged question. No one took the bait. Move on.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It was claimed that the flames beneath the car (as one would get in an L-ion fire) was due to leaked fuel/other fluid. So where is the leak showing on the ground. Thermal suggested it was spraying out sideways through a pinhole but there was no impediment to the fluid spraying out from beneath the car.

The fire seen beneath the car very likely was some fluid burning on the ground. There's no reason to suppose the fire started from leaking fluid, so your bewilderment that there isn't a visible trail behind the car is misplaced. It's been said from the beginning that an electrical fire was likely the start and that can rapidly lead to a leak of flammable liquids. Not necessarily fuel; a melted brake fluid or clutch fluid reservoir will do nicely. A pinhole in a pressurised fuel line will certainly provide a highly flammable spray either inside the engine compartment or under the car but I can't fathom what it is you're trying to say about impediment to fluid.

The point about the zebra is do you believe what you see or do you experience cognitive dissonance and choose to believe an anonymous, unsigned unauthored update titled 'press release' telling you it is a different animal completely? That is the point being made. I cannot get a straight answer.

Perhaps you can supply one?

You already have straight answers, you just don't like them. You made a stupid analogy, that telling what type of car is burning in that photo is as trivial as telling a lion from a zebra. It isn't. You try to claim it's suspicious that a press statement doesn't have an author's byline. It isn't.

When you ask an obviously stupid question and don't like getting answers saying "Your question is stupid and here's why...", maybe consider whether the problem is the idiotic question.

 

[Wudang]

A quick google turned up the LinkedIn profile for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue ISO9001 officer. Unauthorised statements on their websites about serious incidents would be a big no.

 

[Vixen]

No, I don't think any sane person would think the webpage must have been written by some office junior so staggeringly stupid that they did not know how to tell a lion from a zebra. This helpfully illustrates how asinine your analogy was, don't you think?



It wouldn't matter.

It's their official statement on their own website. If they were irresponsible enough to let some junior just make stuff up and put it out as an official statement then that's almost as bad as knowingly writing false statements.

I don't leap to assume they're that irresponsible or incompetent based purely on the say-so of anti-EV conspiracists wot-I-reckon.

When a competent authority contradicts what some online conspiracists are saying, leaping to assume the only possible explanation is that the Fire Service are either fools or knaves is an idiotic position.

But they are not part of the investigation. All they have to go on is Hopkinson's words on 11 Oct 2023. For example, until the Covid Report comes out or the Post Office Report comes out, nobody is in any situation to make a pronouncement. The PR guys will just write whatever is the current situation, i.e., what Chief Honcho said at the press conference.

 

[JayUtah]

But they are not part of the investigation.

Of course they are.

All they have to go on is Hopkinson's words on 11 Oct 2023.

Why would you think that?

For example, until the Covid Report comes out or the Post Office Report comes out, nobody is in any situation to make a pronouncement.

Says who?

The PR guys will just write whatever is the current situation, i.e., what Chief Honcho said at the press conference.

No. The notion that official statements published through the customary channels are just what "the PR guys" say is something you made up. The notion that the official statement of the fuel type of the initial vehicle is merely a restatement of an initial—possibly tentative—finding is something you made up.

As usual, all we hear is "Because I say so," from behind the wings of an armchair facing a blank wall.