Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

Vixen said:
The flames were from the engine bay via an electrical fault, as an AA boffin said 11 Oct 2023 was the 'most likely cause'. For it to be a diesel fire the diesel would have had to have been leaked from somewhere.

Can you explain why the flames in the video appear to be spurting outwards, with no black smoke (as we would have in a diesel fire) at the side, and with what is grey or white smoke, or vapour. In addition, the flames appear to emanate from beneath the car and are yellow/crimson in colour.

How does this fit in with your diesel hypothesis and why would the flames look like classic lithium flames if it was a diesel only vehicle?
Click to expand...

A rather naive post.

Are you aware that there is diesel fuel present in a diesel engine?

Are you aware that uncontained diesel fuel can burn without a large amount of black smoke?

Are you of the opinion that in a vehicle fire started by a lithium battery, or by and ignition of diesel fuel, that only the initial fuel will burn until that fuel runs out and self-extinguishes?

Are you aware that in a vehicle fire there are many substances that will burn beside the initial fuel source?

Are you aware that each of the burning substances in a vehicle fire will have its own flame pattern and color?

Are you aware that flames from burning materials can, and often do, mimic the flames of other burning materials?

Are you aware that your non-expert, and biased, opinion on what "appears" (your word) to be happening has no relevance to reality?
 
Steve said:
Are you aware that your non-expert, and biased, opinion on what "appears" (your word) to be happening has no relevance to reality?
Click to expand...

And more importantly, the ultimate question has been directly answered. There is no need to infer to something different, and no value in inferring to an answer directly contradicted by more direct evidence.

The fire services have confirmed that the vehicle that started the fire was diesel fueled. They have denied that it was an electric vehicle or any kind of hybrid vehicle. They have done so in a manner (i.e., in response to a FOIA request) that precludes any sort of PR-only gloss. It is an official statement, made by someone competent to authorize it. Contrary to Vixen's ignorant protests, it is not impossible to make such a finding at that stage in the investigation, and not inappropriate to release it prior to a final report.

The only way Vixen can get around this seems to be to propound another whole level of wrongdoing on the part of those involved, which becomes even more ridiculous given the change of government that has occurred in the interim. Under no circumstances, however, does her ignorant handwaving amount to any remarkable challenge to the official finding. If there were some technical or scientific merit to it, the picture would possibly change. But since there isn't any such merit, it's just self-aggrandizing puffery. She imagines that her unmatched scientific acumen at dissecting YouTube videos trumps any sort of actual investigation and that bewilderment on her part amounts to something her betters are obliged to address.
 
...and this has what to do with the fact that the BF&RS confirmed over six months ago that the fire started in a diesel fueled vehicle?

That is, as of now, the official position. There is (in my opinion) no compelling or convincing evidence that they have, as Vixen claims (but denies claiming), lied.

Can we not wait until the reports are published and then discuss those, rather than endlessly repeating the same tedious *****.

I like Groundhog Day, it's one of my favourite films. That doesn't mean I want to live it.
 
Vixen said:
OK, so JayUtah wasn't specifically referring to Vorderman's Engineering degree as that was mentioned after his brush-off comment.
Click to expand...

Correct. And?

However, it is unmistakable he simply assumed she was some kind of know-nothing.
Click to expand...

Really? You're going to tell me what I intended? You're going to keep shoving words in my mouth after we've just spent so much time getting you to realize that you did that? Your patina of virtue isn't salvaged by simply accusing me of something else you've imagined in place of the previous thing you imagined. And you still haven't figured out that our joking was at your expense, not hers. You really are terrible at this whole English comprehension thing.

Perhaps Spitfire and JayUtah would like to reconsider their kneejerk belief that someone called Carol Vorderman could not possibly know anything about how blind trusts operate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd like to stop saving face and just come clean. You could also dispense with the straw men. The issue is not whether Vorderman "could not possibly know" how blind trusts work. The issue is that she evidently doesn't. But it's really a non-issue, because it doesn't matter whether it's you or her misunderstanding what a blind trust is. The argument is naive, badly predicated, and unconvincing no matter whose mouth it comes out of.

I acknowledge JayUtah wasn't referring to the Engineering degree but perhaps an explanation is needed as to why he and Spitfire should assume Carol Vorderman doesn't know what a blind trust is.
Click to expand...

It's not an assumption. It's an observation. She writes about blind trusts in a way that illustrates she doesn't know how they work. This is not a hard thing to evaluate, Vixen. But the joke was on you, not her. Try very hard to imagine that I don't really care what Vorderman has to say, since she's not here to defend herself. But the joke was at your expense, because it's your behavior that's so comical and because you're here to defend yourself—albeit ineptly.

Now that we've finally gotten to you to "acknowledge" your error, is there an apology anywhere in our future, or are you just going to keep pretending you've done nothing wrong?
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
There is (in my opinion) no compelling or convincing evidence that they have, as Vixen claims (but denies claiming), lied.
Click to expand...

Correct. The home-grown analysis by a number of interested but unqualified and inexperienced pundits doesn't offer even a scintilla of scientifically significant doubt to the findings provided so far.

Can we not wait until the reports are published and then discuss those, rather than endlessly repeating the same tedious *****.
Click to expand...

That's how we got started on this latest round. Some months ago, the final reports were projected to be available sometime in late summer. Now that that time frame has come and gone, the delay provides another toehold for more frantic handwaving and accusations of nefarious conduct. Not that it was terribly difficult to find out the status of the reporting, but finding out the facts is not what conspiracy theories are about. They're perpetually about kicking the can down the road some more, to keep the conspiracy theorists perpetually relevant—or so they think.
 
Last edited:


Famous psychology experiments have very little to do with a fire in a carpark in Luton airport

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob
 
I've only had time for a quick scan but there are more details later in the report too, including CCTV images of the car.

They go into some detail on page 85:

The fire originated in a red 2014, Range Rover Sport with a 2993cc diesel engine
Click to expand...
 
From the report - "The fire originated in a red 2014, Range Rover Sport with a 2993cc diesel engine."

No mention of the number plate afaics, so it's all just a coverup ;)
 
GlennB said:
From the report - "The fire originated in a red 2014, Range Rover Sport with a 2993cc diesel engine."

No mention of the number plate afaics, so it's all just a coverup ;)
Click to expand...

And even if there was, she'd demand to know the Vehicle Id Number, just in case they were dodgy number plates...
 
MarkCorrigan said:
This should be good.
Click to expand...

I believe I found the out of context cherry she's going to pick.

The report does not say it wasn't a hybrid; it specifies EV or plug-in hybrid. If you ignore the previous sentence in the report, you could (dishonestly) read the report as leaving the possibility of a hybrid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom