Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[LondonJohn]

What are the characteristics of a fire that make it a lithium battery fire? I've never seen a lithium battery fire before, except occasionally in YouTube videos and I'm not confident I could tell the difference between a lithium four and a diesel fire if I didn't already know the type of propulsion the car in question used.

Ah but conspiracy theorists (with little or no education/experience in the subject) can reliably tell the difference - and that's all that matters

 

[zooterkin]

Vixen, you appear to have skipped over these and responded to posts which are not about the core issue of this topic. Perhaps you could do so now?

So, you've had it confirmed that the information on the website is authoritative, and that therefore the car was a diesel and not an EV or hybrid, will you believe it now?

Can we get back to the diesel car where the fire started, and why you are in denial about it, despite having been told, yourself, directly, by a competent authority?

Were you lied to when the response to your FOI request said the car was a diesel?

To remind you, you asked BFRS a question, and they gave you a direct response.

If they're lying now, why would the final report be any different? Are they lying now?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Ah but conspiracy theorists (with little or no education/experience in the subject) can reliably tell the difference - and that's all that matters

Of course, that's how they know they're the Main Character, the people who fail to acknowledge that are just obstacles to overcome on their hero's journey.

 

[whoanellie]

What are the characteristics of a fire that make it a lithium battery fire? I've never seen a lithium battery fire before, except occasionally in YouTube videos and I'm not confident I could tell the difference between a lithium four and a diesel fire if I didn't already know the type of propulsion the car in question used.

If there is one thing our protagonist has it's confidence.

 

[welshdean]

If there is one thing our protagonist has it's confidence.

However misplaced.

 

[JayUtah]

The last few pages have basically devolved into piling on Vixen...

Don't be so quick to defend her. I was ready to move on from it five pages ago. But Vixen insisted that we produce and discuss examples of her alleged unethical behavior.

 

[JayUtah]

What are the characteristics of a fire that make it a lithium battery fire?

Vixen previously claimed that lithium ion battery fires are distinguishable by "jets of flame." Irrespective of whether this is dispositive of one (it isn't), there are no jets of flame in the video she's using as evidence. It's ordinary self-convective combustion (i.e., a campfire).

I've never seen a lithium battery fire before, except occasionally in YouTube videos and I'm not confident I could tell the difference between a lithium four and a diesel fire if I didn't already know the type of propulsion the car in question used.

It's quite likely you couldn't.

There is no uniquely distinguishing feature of a lithium ion battery fire. Much depends on the design of the battery and what else is around it. Often you'll have initial sparking (but also with other kinds of ignition). Sometimes you'll have clouds of vaporized contents (but also with other kinds of initiation). Sometimes you'll have an initial high rate of reaction (but also with other kinds of fire).

 

[GlennB]

Vixen previously claimed that lithium ion battery fires are distinguishable by "jets of flame." Irrespective of whether this is dispositive of one (it isn't), there are no jets of flame in the video she's using as evidence. It's ordinary self-convective combustion (i.e., a campfire).

It's quite likely you couldn't.

There is no uniquely distinguishing feature of a lithium ion battery fire. Much depends on the design of the battery and what else is around it. Often you'll have initial sparking (but also with other kinds of ignition). Sometimes you'll have clouds of vaporized contents (but also with other kinds of initiation). Sometimes you'll have an initial high rate of reaction (but also with other kinds of fire).

Vixen originally found the colour of the flames to be similar to the crimson of burning lithium itself. There was briefly a patch of the flames that could be thus described but there was all manner of stuff under there that would produce flames of many colours. And that's before we get into the question of colour balance in photos and video, etc etc.

Basically, she found a tenuous connection and stuck with it.

 

[JayUtah]

Vixen originally found the colour of the flames to be similar to the crimson of burning lithium itself. There was briefly a patch of the flames that could be thus described but there was all manner of stuff under there that would produce flames of many colours. And that's before we get into the question of colour balance in photos and video, etc etc.

Flame color is notoriously difficult to extract as evidence from video unless you use the special equipment we use in rocketry. We study plume color as evidence of combustion efficiency, but also we try different propellant formulations to reduce plume radiation in military rockets; enemies can detect and intercept rockets by tracking plumes. You can't get accurate plume chromaticity from cell phone video.

Not only color balance issues apply, but also aliasing. Wavelengths outside the visible spectrum often alias into the CCD pickup range. IR aliases up into visible red. UV aliases down into visible blue and violet. If you photograph something that is red, you get red. If you photograph something that is emitting brightly in the near infrared (say, a vehicle fire), it will look red whether it is or not. This is the knowledge we have to apply when using happenstance video as evidence.

Basically, she found a tenuous connection and stuck with it.

Typical of conspiracy reasoning. The complexity of evidence escapes them, so they hang their hats on whatever little thing they think they understand or remember from high school physics and insist that the problem is just that simple.

 

[whoanellie]

Flame color is notoriously difficult to extract as evidence from video unless you use the special equipment we use in rocketry. We study plume color as evidence of combustion efficiency, but also we try different propellant formulations to reduce plume radiation in military rockets; enemies can detect and intercept rockets by tracking plumes. You can't get accurate plume chromaticity from cell phone video.

Not only color balance issues apply, but also aliasing. Wavelengths outside the visible spectrum often alias into the CCD pickup range. IR aliases up into visible red. UV aliases down into visible blue and violet. If you photograph something that is red, you get red. If you photograph something that is emitting brightly in the near infrared (say, a vehicle fire), it will look red whether it is or not. This is the knowledge we have to apply when using happenstance video as evidence.



Typical of conspiracy reasoning. The complexity of evidence escapes them, so they hang their hats on whatever little thing they think they understand or remember from high school physics and insist that the problem is just that simple.

Vixen, what are your thoughts on the aliasing effects JayUtah describes?

 

[JayUtah]

If they're lying now, why would the final report be any different? Are they lying now?

Vixen's latest shift of the goalposts seems to acknowledge that the final report will identify the initial vehicle as diesel-powered. Therefore I too am wondering if she will finally resolve the conflict between her ongoing insinuations and the authoritative statement from the fire services.

The latest goalpost-shift also suggests that unless the final report addresses the conspiracy interpretation of the video, it will be ipso facto incomplete or misleading. Not so.

As I said briefly, conspiracy theorists are too often unwilling to accept that they don't matter. Phrased less pointedly, conspiracy theorists approach real world investigation and data through the lens of the importance and validity that they imagine their own theories to have. Since conspiracy theories are largely ego-reinforcement exercises, they imagine that the real world should consider their contributions to be on par with those from qualified investigators. There is a whole pervasive subtext in conspiracy reasoning that claims the mainstream narrative cannot be accepted because it fails to acknowledge the conspiracy theories and therefore is afraid of them.

If the report addresses the video at all, it will be from the premise established by physical evidence: the video depicts a diesel fire because it is known to be a diesel fire. There is absolutely no reason to delve into inferences or interpretations to the contrary. They are contradicted at the outset by facts determined otherwise, and are thus irrelevant to the findings and a waste of time.

The overall protocol in conspiracy reasoning is to reject the conventional narrative by one standard and then accept the conspiracy theory in a separate step by a different, lower standard. Vixen is priming us for the next iteration of, "The mainstream narrative is suspect because _________," where she fills in the blank with the next ad hoc twaddle. Today the twaddle appears too be, "...they didn't address my interpretation of the video."

 

[JayUtah]

Vixen, what are your thoughts on the aliasing effects JayUtah describes?

Dollars to donuts: she'll demand that we find YouTube video of this, and dismiss it outright unless we do.

 

[JayUtah]

Ah but conspiracy theorists (with little or no education/experience in the subject) can reliably tell the difference - and that's all that matters

As I keep asserting, conspiracism is less about proving that the alternate narrative is true and more about proving that the conspiracy theorist is clever for having come up with the alternate narrative in the first place. The cleverness is the goal. If the conspiracy theorist can mire down in a detail or two here or there (flame color, EPIRBs, blind trusts), then so much the better; it nets them more attention. But the overall goal is to prove the ingenuity and insight of the proponent, not the objective veracity of the claim.

Based on her latest shift of the goalposts, Vixen doesn't care so much about whether the final report concludes with strong evidence that the initial vehicle was diesel. She just wants the adults to acknowledge that she (and/or her YouTube sources) were at least somewhat clever in reading the flames. That's why she's suggesting that lip service to the conspiracy theorists is the new yardstick for the validity of the final report.

She doesn't care so much about Sunak's finances. What she cares about is erasing all the mistakes she made about blind trusts. That's why she tried to hold her own honor hostage to get a rhetorical concession on that point. She doesn't care if you think she's a liar; she only cares if you think she's uninformed.

Yes, I do read all the admonitions from phiwum, gabbygoat, the moderators, and others about how we shouldn't distract from the objective claims and evidence of the thread by piling on Vixen and questioning her competence. Those are valid complaints, especially where the ideals of skepticism are concerned. What you have to balance that against is the notion that every conspiracy theorist's thread is ultimately about inflating that conspiracy theorist's perception of their own competence. That's what they're trying to show, and every argument is subservient to that. You will rarely get a spirited discussion on the proffered evidence or the insinuated propositions. The proponent doesn't care and won't play along.

No, we don't have to meet the competence proposition head-on every time. But rest assured Vixen doesn't care in the least what caused the Luton fire. She just wants everyone to know how clever she is for coming up with her own theory.

 

[LondonJohn]

If there is one thing our protagonist has it's confidence.

There's quite a difference between "confidence" and "pathological hubris"...

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen originally found the colour of the flames to be similar to the crimson of burning lithium itself. There was briefly a patch of the flames that could be thus described but there was all manner of stuff under there that would produce flames of many colours. And that's before we get into the question of colour balance in photos and video, etc etc.

Basically, she found a tenuous connection and stuck with it.

I suspect that the core problem here (and it's a problem that's common to many propagated conspiracy theories) is related to social media and trusted sources.

What happens is this: a person online either embellishes or invents credentials and throws in a bit of pseudoscience (and/or a lay scientific misinterpretation), and their opinion starts to gain traction among the community of people who are amenable to (or should that be susceptible to?) conspiracy theories. And before long, that person's view - often bolstered by that of other fellow travellers - becomes mistakenly adopted by CTers as a trusted source and reference point.

There's obviously plenty of evidence that our CTer in this thread has dived headlong down exactly this sort of rabbit-hole: it's what happens when the toxic combination of extreme hubris, a lack of critical/scientific thinking skills, a need to be viewed as a crusading savant, an inability to weigh sources appropriately, and too much free time, coalesce in one big CT mess.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Just so it's clear: you are stating you earned a BSc(Hon) in the field of psychology. Correct? If so, then I agree that is a STEM degree. I understood you previously to have been referring to your accounting certification as STEM. My assumption, and therefore my error.

I'm not convinced that all psychology degrees should be counted as STEM, at least in the US. A lot of US universities still classify general psychology as a social science, and I know that, at least at one time, NASA wouldn't accept anyone as an astronaut candidate with a psychology degree, unless it was in, IIRC, behavioral, experimental, or clinical psychology. I've also known a couple of general psychology majors, and they were definitely not STEM types.

Having said that, I'm willing to provisionally grant that the psychology degree Vixen completed qualifies as being of the STEM variety. Looking at the Science Council's and the British Psychological Society's websites, I wasn't able to find anything suggesting that they require any specific concentration in order to become either a Registered or Chartered Scientist, or a Chartered Psychologist.

 

[catsmate]

YAWN. Personal attack and flame wars isn't something that interests me.

Running away again. Typical.

For the record, my special interests are history, law, politics and current affairs, which I am more than happy to discuss with you.

Why? Given your posts your knowledge on these subjects appears to be minimal.

 

[catsmate]

That is because sprinklers were only recommended, but not incorporated into building regulations for such structures as of the time it was built.

I have done a case study in the operations of airports and also had to demonstrate I understood how building project management works, as part of my chartered qualification.

I have also undertaken fire risk assessment as part of another project. The risk management report I compiled had to go to the senior partner of the top 50 city firm of accountants, where I was working, as part of fulfilling vocational qualification requirements. I heard nothing back from him, but within days, all of the problems I had reported were suddenly acted upon (for example, there was an entrance to the building that was locked up and unused, with regular great piles of spam mail on the doormat: within days, the letter box was sealed off accordingly, with alacrity, acting on my recommendation; possibly because our previous offices in Bishopsgate had been bombed by the IRA in previous years [before my time]).

OK, so this is white-collar managerial stuff but it still requires an in-depth knowledge of industry, even if one never had to put on a hard hat.

You are not qualified to do that.

 

[JayUtah]

I suspect that the core problem here (and it's a problem that's common to many propagated conspiracy theories) is related to social media and trusted sources.

Yes. Conspiracism aside, more people get their information these days from social and semi-social media. Those of us who take and advocate a critical approach to all sources need a narrative that accepts that emerging reality. Yes, in some cases it's okay to paint with a broad brush and say, "You shouldn't trust YouTube in general." But in other cases it's better to accept that we have information avenues that mix reliable and unreliable information, and talk about how to discern among them without blanket condemntation.

This was the case with the fledgling Internet in the 1990s and is here to stay. It used to be that you couldn't trust the Internet at all. Now in many cases we consider Internet-accessible sources to be reliable primary sources of information. A fire service posting a press release on their website is a primary source.

And before long, that person's view - often bolstered by that of other fellow travellers - becomes mistakenly adopted by CTers as a trusted source and reference point.

It has long been a problem in scholarship at large that repetition breeds unwarranted credibility. Even in putatively rigorous scholarship we see things treated as authoritative just because so many other people have—a long chain anchored in nothing. Relatively new experiences like Facebook seem to have amplified and extended the problem: algorithms that control what you see reward engagement, not substance.

There's obviously plenty of evidence that our CTer in this thread has dived headlong down exactly this sort of rabbit-hole...

Yes. Treating follow metrics or engagement metrics as a proxy for reliability is obviously problematic, especially so when engagement is often the more important goal for contributors. This traps even conscientious people. Not being able to separate click bait and advocacy from information has always been a problem. But our modern information experience seems to be more susceptible to it.

Turning back to conspiracism, the notion that "smart" or "reliable" (i.e., really only "noteworthy") people provide the ideas behind a conspiracy theory, or the theory itself, takes some of the pressure off the proponent. If "hendrix4eva_1969" says it was a lithium-ion fire and he has 5 million followers, then somehow it's okay just to repeat it. Or conversely if someone whose monetized channel needs to provide 5 hours of content a week in order to remain commercially viable, consider that.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not convinced that all psychology degrees should be counted as STEM, at least in the US.

Nor I, but I'm not going to fight that today. I thought Vixen meant her accounting certificate was a STEM degree, but I was wrong about what she was claiming. If she says she has a degree in psychology and that's what she meant by having a STEM degree, I'll take my lumps and move on.

I've also known a couple of general psychology majors, and they were definitely not STEM types.

Same here. So this is when it's prudent to abandon the categorical argument that is occasionally relevant and focus on the empirical argument that's always relevant. Can Vixen demonstrate a correct understanding of the scientific method and the specialized knowledge from the various sciences she invokes? No. Therefore we reject claims she makes in those areas on her own authority.

It's also worth mentioning that a "STEM type" need not exhibit everything that we normally associate with pure science. Engineering, for example, initially presents a great deal of material merely as propositional knowledge, ergo applied science can still be science. It's only through later study and practice that it begins to resemble classical science. The late, great Henry Petroski argues that an engineering design is a scientific hypothesis, and it is tested by following it and seeing whether the design predicted the behavior observed in the built product. You can argue that sciences practiced as licensed, consumer-facing professions had better stay within the boundaries of well-established knowledge, and treat it as propositional, rather than focus on hypothesization and experimentation. You can also argue otherwise.

But no matter how you want to slice it, you still have to know the material and be able to prove you do. Vixen does not and cannot.