• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
GlennB said:
"Video footage has emerged apparently showing the moment a multi-storey car park at Luton Airport partially collapsed after a diesel car caught fire before spreading to other vehicles.

CCTV captured from inside the terminal car park appears to show the ceiling crashing to the ground after one car caught alight on Tuesday night.

The Telegraph has spoken to multiple airport workers who say the footage, which is dated on Tuesday, is accurate."

link (The Global Herald, stating it's The Telegraph's original words)

Is that what you mean?
Click to expand...

The DAILY TELEGRAPH's captions over the video it posted, as I posted. The DT refers to the car in the singular.
 
Vixen said:
Did you try copying and pasting text from my link? Well, what happened? Dodgy site or not, as I said.
Click to expand...

You can't copy/paste text from a screen shot. I took your word for it that the site was dodgy and typed a chunk into google. Found a clean version in seconds. Are you incapable of doing the same?
 
Vixen said:
The DAILY TELEGRAPH's captions over the video it posted, as I posted. The DT refers to the car in the singular.
Click to expand...

:confused: :confused: :confused:

But we know the car#0 fire spread to other cars. The DT mentions that.

We know collapsing floor sections caused what we see in the video.

We're sure the video is of the ground floor, because of the entry barriers, whereas the fire started a couple of storeys higher.

What point are you trying to make?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
If the urban myth turns out to be true and the owner is a toff who could afford a £100,000 personalized number plate and who expected airport staff to deal with his smouldering car whilst he raced off to his flight for his 'urgent meeting', then think of his face when he is hit with the bill for 1,400 cars, his insurers covering the first £2m Public cover maximum. As I recall, the Cork fire bill came to claims of over €30m and that was only 60 vehicles destroyed, plus damage to a shopping centre. Add up the Luton fire and we are seeing £20m building costs (built by Buckinghamshire Construction, which went bust a couple of years ago) plus, plus, plus +++. This urban myth guy, if he is wealthy won't be wealthy for much longer. If he is on benefits, he could pay it off at £1 a week by arrangement with his creditors and DWP Universal Credit.
Click to expand...

We can add "the insurance industry" onto the list of things you do not understand.
 
Vixen said:
If anything, the Liverpool ECHO fire should have been far faster ceteris paribus as despite being classed as an open-sided car park, its sheer floor area gave it the effect of being semi-closed (thus having a detrimental effect on the speed of fire spreading) as is explained in the Merseyside Fire Brigade's report. Fire chiefs said this was the worst car park fire they had seen.

The Luton car park fire spread twice as fast (51 minutes from first alarm to major incident) as the Liverpool one (almost two hours before firemen had to retreat from the building, when it spread to the next floor up).
Click to expand...

:sdl:
 
GlennB said:
Hard to see how it could be anything else. There are entry barriers there and I've only ever seen those at the ground level.
Click to expand...
Well as they have been remarkably lax in releasing the 'flying cars' that we were all supposed to be 'driving around' in back in the 50's and 60's, there seems to be a distinct lack of use to any entry barriers fitted to entry barriers mounted up the upper floors...

:D
Where's our bloomin flying cars we were all supposed to have by now???
roads-where-were-by4553.jpg
 
GlennB said:
You can't copy/paste text from a screen shot. I took your word for it that the site was dodgy and typed a chunk into google. Found a clean version in seconds. Are you incapable of doing the same?
Click to expand...

My link was as follows:

https://90newstime.com/index.php/2023/10/11/a473695827-html/?feed_id=97234&_unique_id=654ca304c9fa2

As I stated, I did not supply the link as it was dodgy. For the second time, it is not possible to copy and paste from it as it diverts to adverts.

Kimmo sabby?

You made out that I had underhand motives, yet again, so I wonder whether you are judging others by your own standards as this would not be the first time.
 
Vixen said:
If the urban myth turns out to be true and the owner is a toff who could afford a £100,000 personalized number plate and who expected airport staff to deal with his smouldering car whilst he raced off to his flight for his 'urgent meeting', then think of his face when he is hit with the bill for 1,400 cars, his insurers covering the first £2m Public cover maximum. As I recall, the Cork fire bill came to claims of over €30m and that was only 60 vehicles destroyed, plus damage to a shopping centre. Add up the Luton fire and we are seeing £20m building costs (built by Buckinghamshire Construction, which went bust a couple of years ago) plus, plus, plus +++. This urban myth guy, if he is wealthy won't be wealthy for much longer. If he is on benefits, he could pay it off at £1 a week by arrangement with his creditors and DWP Universal Credit.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, in the real world...
 
Vixen said:
My link was as follows:

https://90newstime.com/index.php/2023/10/11/a473695827-html/?feed_id=97234&_unique_id=654ca304c9fa2

As I stated, I did not supply the link as it was dodgy. For the second time, it is not possible to copy and paste from it as it diverts to adverts.
Click to expand...

I can follow that link, read the article, copy from it and paste what's copied, all perfectly happily. Maybe you need a better browser, or something?

Why didn't you include the bit that says the family were on the plane for 2 hours before seeing the fire while getting off?
 
Vixen said:
I was quoting the DAILY TELEGRAPH.

Not true. Lithium battery fires burn at a much higher temperature than petrol or diesel.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this claim?

It was a diesel car anyway.
 
GlennB said:
You can't copy/paste text from a screen shot. I took your word for it that the site was dodgy and typed a chunk into google. Found a clean version in seconds. Are you incapable of doing the same?
Click to expand...

Google lens lets you copy text from a screenshot and turns it in to 'real' text.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Google lens lets you copy text from a screenshot and turns it in to 'real' text.
Click to expand...

Ah, cheers. I have Google lens on my phone but use a laptop for ISF. The transfer would be a bit of a hassle, I'm thinking.
 
Vixen said:
If the urban myth turns out to be true and the owner is a toff who could afford a £100,000 personalized number plate and who expected airport staff to deal with his smouldering car whilst he raced off to his flight for his 'urgent meeting', then think of his face when he is hit with the bill for 1,400 cars, his insurers covering the first £2m Public cover maximum. As I recall, the Cork fire bill came to claims of over €30m and that was only 60 vehicles destroyed, plus damage to a shopping centre. Add up the Luton fire and we are seeing £20m building costs (built by Buckinghamshire Construction, which went bust a couple of years ago) plus, plus, plus +++. This urban myth guy, if he is wealthy won't be wealthy for much longer. If he is on benefits, he could pay it off at £1 a week by arrangement with his creditors and DWP Universal Credit.
Click to expand...


:crazy:
 
Having been in the UK for a funeral, Cathy and her family were due to fly out of Luton for Dublin at 9.20 p.m. At around 9 p.m., they received word that there was a major problem.

“We were on the plane and we had started to move when the pilot came on and said that he couldn’t go any further,” she recalls. “He said he’d have to go back. We ended up sitting on the plane for about two hours. I was on Twitter looking at updates and I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.
Click to expand...

Copy/pasted from Vixens supposedly uncopiable link (with no ads either lol)
So much for the 'almost immediate' collapse- her own link says it was far longer...

(maybe you should have a professional check your system for spyware/adware Vixen- hanging around certain conspiracy sites can leave your system infected with those...)
 
Vixen said:
Please remind me what it is you are requesting.
Click to expand...

Why are you so lazy others need to spoonfeed you when they want you to reply to them?

I asked about converting diesel to hybrids and asked for examples and you provided a government website about kit cars.
 
Vixen said:
The Fire Brigade called major incident 21:38 as the time the fire could not be contained. The date and time-stamped CCTV video of the floor collapsing was reported by reporters as being 'about 23:30'. But see Mr. O'Reardon's authenticated video, which he tweeted at 23:15 10 October time-stamped by X/Twitter, so it was even earlier than that. That makes it closer to one and a half hours than two hours. The initial fire was first reported 20:47. 10 October.

Take a moment to think about how incredibly fast all of this was, when Liverpool ECHO Fire took two hours before it was declared uncontrollable.
Click to expand...

Pardon me for not knowing who Mr O'Reardon is but it seems the answer to my question is that floor panels began failing over an hour and a half after the fire service declared a serious incident (when a large number of vehicles were ablaze and the original car fire was by then only one tiny part of the conflagration). And that declaration was over three quarters of an hour after the fire started. So two and a bit hours for fire to begin to cause the building to fail.

All you seem to be puzzled about is that one fire can smoulder for a couple of hours when another takes hold faster. <shrug> Welcome to the real world.
 
Vixen said:
'Vehicle fault' is just a platitudinous variation of 'it appears accidental, at this stage'.


This means from what witnesses have reported this is what it appears to be at first sight. The Fire Brigade still have to investigate properly and bring out a Fire Report into the blaze, this time based on solid fact and not initial speculation.
Click to expand...

Is it ironic or just force of habit that makes you respond to a post which says you're missing the point by missing the point?
 
JayUtah said:
We just had the actor playing Colehouse go "Pbpbpbpbpbp..." with his lips.

All seriousness aside, we experimented with a sound module and speakers, but in the end we had engine noises in the sound mix. This was back in the early 2000s and we didn't have a reliable way to operate the sound module remotely.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Vixen said:
If the urban myth turns out to be true and the owner is a toff who could afford a £100,000 personalized number plate and who expected airport staff to deal with his smouldering car whilst he raced off to his flight for his 'urgent meeting', then think of his face when he is hit with the bill for 1,400 cars, his insurers covering the first £2m Public cover maximum. As I recall, the Cork fire bill came to claims of over €30m and that was only 60 vehicles destroyed, plus damage to a shopping centre. Add up the Luton fire and we are seeing £20m building costs (built by Buckinghamshire Construction, which went bust a couple of years ago) plus, plus, plus +++. This urban myth guy, if he is wealthy won't be wealthy for much longer. If he is on benefits, he could pay it off at £1 a week by arrangement with his creditors and DWP Universal Credit.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: More drivel, bollocks and lies.
 
Vixen said:
The DAILY TELEGRAPH's captions over the video it posted, as I posted. The DT refers to the car in the singular.
Click to expand...

The great fire of London took hold after fire in a bakery. Doubtless the Telegraph, had it then existed, would have referred to the bakery in the singular. So what?

You know perfectly well the fire had been raging on multiple floors long before that video showed a floor panel falling through to the ground floor.
 
Vixen said:
I was quoting the DAILY TELEGRAPH.
Click to expand...
In what context? How does 1.5 hours (presumably from the first 999 call) help your argument that the single car burned through the floor, rather than the spans collapsed due to weakening of the supports due to high temperatures caused by numerous burning cars?

In the video, the whole span clearly collapses suddenly, and exposes the conflagration on the floor above. A single battery wouldn't do that, no matter how hot it got. Anything melting through the floor would produce visible dripping of molten concrete, starting as a trickle, and increasing over time, before the source of the heat fell through.

Do you think that video shows a single, electric powered vehicle melting through the floor of the garage?

That's a simple question. Why won't you answer it?

Not true. Lithium battery fires burn at a much higher temperature than petrol or diesel.
Click to expand...
Which only goes to illustrate that you don't know the difference between heat and temperature.

NHTSA said:
The propensity and severity of fires and explosions from the accidental ignition of flammable electrolytic solvents used in Li-ion battery systems are anticipated to be somewhat comparable to or perhaps slightly less than those for gasoline or diesel vehicular fuels. The overall consequences for Li-ion batteries are expected to be less because of the much smaller amounts of flammable solvent released and burning in a catastrophic failure situation.
Click to expand...

Is the NHTSA part of the sinister plot to hide the dangers of EVs and hybrids from the unsuspecting public?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No media has used it AFAIAA, whilst the back view has been published extensively, including the BBC.
Click to expand...

I am also unaware of the video being used by the media. I'm not convinced that implies it is fake.

Again, I don't think that the AI video creation tools available to a typical minor twitter user are able to match the setting of the other video so well. Perhaps -- perhaps -- a well funded troll farm has access to better tools, but then it wouldn't be released to an account with 200 or so followers.

This is weak evidence. I'm not too concerned about whether this video is real or not and I especially don't swear by the identification of the plate using this video, but the evidence suggests that it is more likely real than not.

You know what I'd have done if I created a video with a fake plate? I'd have made the plate a lot more readable.
 
Vixen said:
'Vehicle fault' is just a platitudinous variation of 'it appears accidental, at this stage'.


This means from what witnesses have reported this is what it appears to be at first sight. The Fire Brigade still have to investigate properly and bring out a Fire Report into the blaze, this time based on solid fact and not initial speculation.
Click to expand...

One more time: If you're trying to deflect blame from the manufacturer, why mention "vehicle fault"? Why not remain silent on the very day you execute a distraction by announcing an arrest?

(Oh, and you might want to look up the word "platitudinous".)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
If anything, the Liverpool ECHO fire should have been far faster ceteris paribus as despite being classed as an open-sided car park, its sheer floor area gave it the effect of being semi-closed (thus having a detrimental effect on the speed of fire spreading) as is explained in the Merseyside Fire Brigade's report. Fire chiefs said this was the worst car park fire they had seen.

The Luton car park fire spread twice as fast (51 minutes from first alarm to major incident) as the Liverpool one (almost two hours before firemen had to retreat from the building, when it spread to the next floor up).
Click to expand...

First, you comment on the design of one car park, but not that of the other car park. Obviously, you better show that the two are different in this respect.

Second, even assuming you're right that ceteris paribus Liverpool should have spread more quickly -- and I don't grant that -- the fact is that not all things are equal besides this design difference. So, you find one difference that you allege would have caused faster spread in Liverpool, but you do not actually take into account the myriad other differences between the two fires.

Third, you say that the time to "major incident" at Luton was much shorter than the time to the retreat at Liverpool. But is "major incident" the same as a call to retreat? You seem to be comparing two different events.

And finally, if we trust the fire brigade to eventually tell the full story, then either they will mention the startling spread that cannot be explained by a diesel-originated fire or they will not. If not, then we will have to compare the expertise and reliability of two competing expert accounts, yours and the fire brigade. I think that I know where I will place my trust.

Of course, if they do say the fire spread faster than a diesel-originated fire can, then bully for you. Let's see what happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom