• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

[Continuation] Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
... is a secondary source. The Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service is a primary source for what the Befordshire Fire and Rescue Service says.

There is no aspect of this trivial concept you can honestly fail to grasp. What conclusion do you think people should draw from your continuing rejection of what they say on their own website?
Click to expand...

Primary research is original source. Secondary research is people quoting what they thought guy no. 1 said and opinion (as in market research).
 
LondonJohn said:
As I suspect has already been pointed out on this interminable (and interminably ignorant & ill-informed, on the part of one poster) thread:

It would have taken even an inexpert eye (eg I could have done it myself) no more than a couple of minutes - once the car had cooled down enough to be examined properly - to ascertain with total certainty that

1) there was a sizeable engine under the bonnet (hood) which was clearly the powerplant;

2) the topology of the engine showed clearly that it was a diesel engine rather than a petrol (gasoline) engine; and

3) there was the total absence of either an electric motor or any form of Li-Ion battery cell structure anywhere in the vehicle.

Therefore, it was indeed possible for the Fire Service to be 100% certain, once they'd removed the vehicle to their premises and conducted a proper visual examination as outlined above, that this was a vehicle powered solely by a conventional diesel engine. And that, of course, is precisely what the Fire Service explicitly stated on its own website.

Anything else is either ignorance or obfuscation or both. I suspect both.
Click to expand...


Nope, most of the cars are still ensconced in the building and may never be recovered. We don't know if said Car Zero has been recovered (if it has, must have been done in secrecy or it would have featured in the news!). If you are claiming you have seen a picture of this 'sizeable engine under the bonnet' - and let's not forget half of the chassis is pure styling (cf the BMW: a big car with a small engine); so you can't tell by looking at a vehicle as to its roadworthiness, engine size or even what is under the bonnet - perhaps you can provide us with the picture.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Primary research is original source.
Click to expand...

Reading newspaper is not primary research.

The point stands that you're dismissing what the primary source says, preferring to quibble over what secondary sources say, purely so you can keep your game of pointless contrarianism rolling along.
 
Vixen said:
We don't know if said Car Zero has been recovered (if it has, must have been done in secrecy or it would have featured in the news!).
Click to expand...

Do you imagine journalists waiting around the car park, pencils poised over their shorthand notepads, champing at the bit to break the news the world is holding its breath for?

Good grief. Your notion of 'evidence' that the burnt out car hasn't been examined is that other stories have pushed Luton off the news pages therefore it didn't happen.

I can't help thinking this is just the sort of stuff to which you would retort "So you only believe what the newspapers tell you then?".
 
Vixen said:
Nope, most of the cars are still ensconced in the building and may never be recovered. We don't know if said Car Zero has been recovered (if it has, must have been done in secrecy or it would have featured in the news!). If you are claiming you have seen a picture of this 'sizeable engine under the bonnet' - and let's not forget half of the chassis is pure styling (cf the BMW: a big car with a small engine); so you can't tell by looking at a vehicle as to its roadworthiness, engine size or even what is under the bonnet - perhaps you can provide us with the picture.
Click to expand...


Completely missing the point. Again.

The point I was (very obviously) making was that it will have been extremely simple for the fire service to determine the powertrain type of "Car Zero" by visual inspection alone. Obviously that wouldn't have been possible while the cars in question were still very hot and while the structural integrity of the car park was uncertain (hence the initial "believed to be a diesel vehicle" statement). But once it became possible to conduct even a cursory visual examination of the car, it would have been almost childishly simple to ascertain that the powertrain was a conventional diesel engine (and that there were no electric motors or large battery cell packs within the car). Which is exactly why the Fire Service was able to state with certainty, a few days after the fire, that "Car Zero" was a conventional diesel vehicle.

Ceteris paribus, in loco parentis, primus inter pares, sine qua non.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Do you imagine journalists waiting around the car park, pencils poised over their shorthand notepads, champing at the bit to break the news the world is holding its breath for?

Good grief. Your notion of 'evidence' that the burnt out car hasn't been examined is that other stories have pushed Luton off the news pages therefore it didn't happen.

I can't help thinking this is just the sort of stuff to which you would retort "So you only believe what the newspapers tell you then?".
Click to expand...


Ah, Vixen's critical thinking and analysis faculties are on a higher plane than ours. She demonstrates through her posts that she's not going to be hoodwinked like the rest of us. Would that I could attain those levels.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Reading newspaper is not primary research.

The point stands that you're dismissing what the primary source says, preferring to quibble over what secondary sources say, purely so you can keep your game of pointless contrarianism rolling along.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at reversing places. Original source: verbatim quote from Beds Fire Chief Andrew Hopkinson. Secondary source subeditors and people like yourself looking for a pithy soundbite, disguised as 'information'.

I will await the report when the investigation has concluded and not before.

A good judge and jury does not come to a verdict until he or she has heard ALL of the evidence placed before the court, in this case an investigation.
 
Vixen said:
Nice attempt at reversing places. Original source: verbatim quote from Beds Fire Chief Andrew Hopkinson. Secondary source subeditors and people like yourself looking for a pithy soundbite, disguised as 'information'.

I will await the report when the investigation has concluded and not before.

A good judge and jury does not come to a verdict until he or she has heard ALL of the evidence placed before the court, in this case an investigation.
Click to expand...

You're lying again.
 
LondonJohn said:
Completely missing the point. Again.

The point I was (very obviously) making was that it will have been extremely simple for the fire service to determine the powertrain type of "Car Zero" by visual inspection alone. Obviously that wouldn't have been possible while the cars in question were still very hot and while the structural integrity of the car park was uncertain (hence the initial "believed to be a diesel vehicle" statement). But once it became possible to conduct even a cursory visual examination of the car, it would have been almost childishly simple to ascertain that the powertrain was a conventional diesel engine (and that there were no electric motors or large battery cell packs within the car). Which is exactly why the Fire Service was able to state with certainty, a few days after the fire, that "Car Zero" was a conventional diesel vehicle.

Ceteris paribus, in loco parentis, primus inter pares, sine qua non.
Click to expand...


But don't you see, you are not believing your own eyes. The CCTV image clearly depicts what looks like a classic lithium fire (orange, red flames shooting out with grey smoke) and not a diesel one (thick billowing black clouds). In addition, were the car a completely conventional derv it would not self combust like that. Even if it was an unexpected electrical fault (which to be fair would not be surprising in a Range Rover model, if that is what it was, given its recent history of recall), the Fire Brigade, which arrived in eight minutes (verified fact) should have had no problem in putting it out, even if it had spread to one or more other cars. So definitely more probably a mild hybrid for it to become so intense and uncontrollable within minutes, two empty fire extinguishers as evidence of this.

Hopkinson's statement was obviously one of 'reassuring the public' (i.e., let's not panic about EV's, arson or terrorism) and reassure the public that 'we do not believe it was an EV. It is believed to be accidental and a diesel at this stage, subject to verification'.

Note the gag in naming the model and make or even the driver.
 
Vixen said:
... the Fire Brigade, which arrived in eight minutes (verified fact) should have had no problem in putting it out, even if it had spread to one or more other cars.
...
Click to expand...

Vast sack of bollocks. It was on the 3rd level and close to many other cars.

We've already established that a fire engine couldn't drive in there, leaving the only routes to the fire being up staircases or via a 'cherry-picker' type platform from the outside. How long do you think that kind of operation takes to set up, even if it enables good access to the fire?

Once again, please do review that video of an American fire crew attending a car fire in the open air, in daytime, with very easy access. It takes several minutes to get in position and deploy hoses before beginning the actual fire fighting.

Do stop talking crap.

Caveat emptor
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
...the Fire Brigade, which arrived in eight minutes (verified fact) should have had no problem in putting it out...
Click to expand...

This is silly. Fires are not nearly so predictable. When I was on my township's rescue squad, we saw everything from sustained burning for a half hour to sudden explosions when there was no evident fire. You just don't know. Eight to fifteen minutes for containment are average times, not some kind of absolute.

Vixen said:
...I will await the report when the investigation has concluded and not before...
Click to expand...

Good suggestion, but this thread would not exist if you heeded it.
 
Vixen said:
The CCTV image clearly depicts what looks like a classic lithium fire (orange, red flames shooting out with grey smoke) and not a diesel one (thick billowing black clouds).
Click to expand...

I reject your simplistic and completely inexpert diagnosis.
 
Vixen said:
But don't you see, you are not believing your own eyes. The CCTV image clearly depicts what looks like a classic lithium fire (orange, red flames shooting out with grey smoke) and not a diesel one (thick billowing black clouds). In addition, were the car a completely conventional derv it would not self combust like that. Even if it was an unexpected electrical fault (which to be fair would not be surprising in a Range Rover model, if that is what it was, given its recent history of recall), the Fire Brigade, which arrived in eight minutes (verified fact) should have had no problem in putting it out, even if it had spread to one or more other cars. So definitely more probably a mild hybrid for it to become so intense and uncontrollable within minutes, two empty fire extinguishers as evidence of this.

Hopkinson's statement was obviously one of 'reassuring the public' (i.e., let's not panic about EV's, arson or terrorism) and reassure the public that 'we do not believe it was an EV. It is believed to be accidental and a diesel at this stage, subject to verification'.

Note the gag in naming the model and make or even the driver.
Click to expand...

What in your accountant training allows you to make these declarative statements? I notice you never offered proof of battery location in a Land Rover hybrid, but I never really expected that.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Speaking of which, VIXEN. Do you have an example of a diesel to hybrid conversion? Your two previous attempts to show that it was possible and done were both abysmal failures because they were nothing like what was asked. Will the third time be lucky?
Click to expand...

Well vixen?
 
Vixen said:
Nice attempt at reversing places. Original source: verbatim quote from Beds Fire Chief Andrew Hopkinson. Secondary source subeditors and people like yourself looking for a pithy soundbite, disguised as 'information'.

I will await the report when the investigation has concluded and not before.

A good judge and jury does not come to a verdict until he or she has heard ALL of the evidence placed before the court, in this case an investigation.
Click to expand...

Also the official Fire Service website is a primary source.
It has confirmed several weeks ago that the car was a diesel.
 
Vixen said:
But don't you see, you are not believing your own eyes. The CCTV image clearly depicts what looks like a classic lithium fire (orange, red flames shooting out with grey smoke) and not a diesel one (thick billowing black clouds). In addition, were the car a completely conventional derv it would not self combust like that. Even if it was an unexpected electrical fault (which to be fair would not be surprising in a Range Rover model, if that is what it was, given its recent history of recall), the Fire Brigade, which arrived in eight minutes (verified fact) should have had no problem in putting it out, even if it had spread to one or more other cars. So definitely more probably a mild hybrid for it to become so intense and uncontrollable within minutes, two empty fire extinguishers as evidence of this.

Hopkinson's statement was obviously one of 'reassuring the public' (i.e., let's not panic about EV's, arson or terrorism) and reassure the public that 'we do not believe it was an EV. It is believed to be accidental and a diesel at this stage, subject to verification'.

Note the gag in naming the model and make or even the driver.
Click to expand...

It was confirmed several weeks ago by the Fire Service that it was a diesel car.

You are just trolling now.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I reject your simplistic and completely inexpert diagnosis.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself why the CCTV camera lead up to the fire and the continuation ahve not been shown. It was thought that six months down the line people will have forgotten all about it. Buried on page 5. Likewise, you have not been told the make and model as that would be a dead give away and we can't have Tata's 1m sq foot gigafactory for lithium batteries plan undermined, can we...?
 
GlennB said:
<snip potty mouth>. It was on the 3rd level and close to many other cars.

We've already established that a fire engine couldn't drive in there, leaving the only routes to the fire being up staircases or via a 'cherry-picker' type platform from the outside. How long do you think that kind of operation takes to set up, even if it enables good access to the fire?

Once again, please do review that video of an American fire crew attending a car fire in the open air, in daytime, with very easy access. It takes several minutes to get in position and deploy hoses before beginning the actual fire fighting.

Do stop talking <snip ditto>

Caveat emptor
Click to expand...

What are these things then?


https://www.historics.co.uk/buying/...5-2002-range-rover-carmichael-fire-engine-jg/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_hydrant

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5790687/hydraulic-platforms-up-to-56-meters-north-fire

Clue: spot how a Range Rover can be a fire engine.
 
Thermal said:
This is silly. Fires are not nearly so predictable. When I was on my township's rescue squad, we saw everything from sustained burning for a half hour to sudden explosions when there was no evident fire. You just don't know. Eight to fifteen minutes for containment are average times, not some kind of absolute.



Good suggestion, but this thread would not exist if you heeded it.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, you are a fireman? Hence your handle? Cool.
 
Vixen said:
Ask yourself why the CCTV camera lead up to the fire and the continuation ahve not been shown.
Click to expand...

<thinks> Shown by whom? Who would have considered it sufficiently newsworthy to seek it out and put it online?

People will click on a 20 second video of a blazing car but after that they'll click on the next thing. Your frustration at not being able freely to Google any and all CCTV footage at will is not evidence of a conspiracy to thwart you or your fellow armchair detectives.
 
Vixen said:
What are these things then?

https://www.historics.co.uk/buying/...5-2002-range-rover-carmichael-fire-engine-jg/
Click to expand...
Does Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service have one of these? Was one despatched to the Luton car park fire? Would it be any good for tackling a large scale fire?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_hydrant
Click to expand...

That's a lovely picture of a US fire hydrant. Were any of those available inside (or even outside) the Luton airport car park?

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5790687/hydraulic-platforms-up-to-56-meters-north-fire
Click to expand...

Does Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service have one of these? Was one despatched to the Luton car park fire? If so, was it sent straight away?
 
Vixen said:
JUDGE: <fx bangs gavel> Send this man down for contempt of court.


<fx Jack by the hedge unceremoniously ejected>
Click to expand...

Gavel? "This is not Perry Mason."

Anyway. this is not contempt of court, it's contempt of your trivially false assertion that diesel cars do not catch fire. Shall I repost that list of vehicle fires from the London fire service?
 
Vixen said:
Oh wow, you are a fireman? Hence your handle? Cool.
Click to expand...

Nope. I was on volunteer Rescue before moving to a town with a paid department. We did bodies, firemen did the squirts. My handle refers to a rising column of air, important to other pastimes.

But as the first of the first responders, I can assure you there is little predictable about fires. **** is cray cray, to use the technical terminology.
 
Disbelief said:
What in your accountant training allows you to make these declarative statements? I notice you never offered proof of battery location in a Land Rover hybrid, but I never really expected that.
Click to expand...

My professional standards holds me to protect my objectivity and in the context of being a layman, being easily persuaded by a tabloid news headline would fall under the heading of 'threat to objectivity' the clever headline that misleads. For example: 'LA Fire was Arson' as reported all over the US, when what Gov Newsom actually said was 'at this preliminary stage'. So, objectivity is important. When reading a website, you have to be aware of (a) what is the purpose of this website, what is it wanting to communicate? and (b) the source of the information conveyed: is it a 'Plain English' version of something a lot more complicated; is a source credited and (c) am I looking for information, eg., 'what does Beds Fire and Rescue do?' or 'Interesting facts about Beds Fire and Rescue' or even, 'About us, Fun Facts, Meet Our People!' or (d) News.

You might be aware that in the US there is a difference delineated between what is classed as 'news' and what is a 'magazine'. In the USA, tabloids, such as the DAILY HORROR MAIL would be classed as 'magazines' so borderline is their news content. In the UK, outlets wanting to call themselves 'news broadcasters' have to demonstrate impartiality and a standard of fact checking against fake news. Hence, you will always see the BBC providing the proper quoted source and not a ham-fisted 'Gotcha!' style junk to catch the reader's eye. As a recent example, the SUN had a headline, 'BRAVERMAN WILL JAIL HATE DEMONSTRATORS' (or similar) but she doesn't actually have that power thus was a typical misleading subeditor's headline. You need to be aware that if you are looking for 'information' on whether it is safe to leave your car at a car park, then Beds Fire and Rescue webpage will reassure you that the fire at Luton was a diesel, because the aim is not to let you know how the Fire and Police investigation is coming along but to convey a belief, as initially expressed by Fire Chief Hopkinson. If you want actual news on how the investigation is progressing: bad luck! All you have is the preliminary press statement as there is a gag until the investigation is concluded. News outlets cannot even discuss the driver as he has been arrested so that is potentially subjudice so newspaper lawyers would block attempt to publicise any information about him or interviews.

AIUI the Land Rover Evoque does have a mild hybrid battery under the left passenger seat which is where the flames in the CCTV image appear to be emanating.

Bear in mind that UK cars, unlike in Europe and the USA, have a right hand drive as it still drives on the left hand side of the road.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You address a judge as 'Sir', 'Madam' or 'M'Lud'. This is not Perry Mason.
Click to expand...


Shockingly, this is wrong.

"Senior Judges are addressed as My Lord or My Lady
Circuit Judges are addressed as Your Honour.
High Court registrars should be addressed as Registrar .
Lay magistrates should still be addressed as*Sir or Madam and have been addressed as Your Worships as usually 3 lay magistrates sit together with their Legal Advisor."
https://www.ibblaw.co.uk/insights/c...ddressed as,together with their Legal Advisor.
 
Vixen said:
My professional standards holds me to protect my objectivity and in the context of being a layman, being easily persuaded by a tabloid news headline would fall under the heading of 'threat to objectivity'
[...]
AIUI the Land Rover Evoque does have a mild hybrid battery under the left passenger seat
Click to expand...

Were you 'easily persuaded' by some bloke on Twitter who reckons the hybrid battery fits under the passenger seat?
 
Vixen said:
My professional standards holds me to protect my objectivity and in the context of being a layman, being easily persuaded by a tabloid news headline would fall under the heading of 'threat to objectivity' the clever headline that misleads. For example: 'LA Fire was Arson' as reported all over the US, when what Gov Newsom actually said was 'at this preliminary stage'. So, objectivity is important. When reading a website, you have to be aware of (a) what is the purpose of this website, what is it wanting to communicate? and (b) the source of the information conveyed: is it a 'Plain English' version of something a lot more complicated; is a source credited and (c) am I looking for information, eg., 'what does Beds Fire and Rescue do?' or 'Interesting facts about Beds Fire and Rescue' or even, 'About us, Fun Facts, Meet Our People!' or (d) News.

You might be aware that in the US there is a difference delineated between what is classed as 'news' and what is a 'magazine'. In the USA, tabloids, such as the DAILY HORROR MAIL would be classed as 'magazines' so borderline is their news content. In the UK, outlets wanting to call themselves 'news broadcasters' have to demonstrate impartiality and a standard of fact checking against fake news. Hence, you will always see the BBC providing the proper quoted source and not a ham-fisted 'Gotcha!' style junk to catch the reader's eye. As a recent example, the SUN had a headline, 'BRAVERMAN WILL JAIL HATE DEMONSTRATORS' (or similar) but she doesn't actually have that power thus was a typical misleading subeditor's headline. You need to be aware that if you are looking for 'information' on whether it is safe to leave your car at a car park, then Beds Fire and Rescue webpage will reassure you that the fire at Luton was a diesel, because the aim is not to let you know how the Fire and Police investigation is coming along but to convey a belief, as initially expressed by Fire Chief Hopkinson. If you want actual news on how the investigation is progressing: bad luck! All you have is the preliminary press statement as there is a gag until the investigation is concluded. News outlets cannot even discuss the driver as he has been arrested so that is potentially subjudice so newspaper lawyers would block attempt to publicise any information about him or interviews.

AIUI the Land Rover Evoque does have a mild hybrid battery under the left passenger seat which is where the flames in the CCTV image appear to be emanating.

Bear in mind that UK cars, unlike in Europe and the USA, have a right hand drive as it still drives on the left hand side of the road.
Click to expand...

A lot of words to say that there is nothing in your training that gives you any expertise on this, it's all conjecture. You make claims and expect us to take them at face value, yet no expertise for us to take you seriously.

Bolding mine I notice you changed your story. You first stated that the fire was from the front left in the motor compartment, now you claim that it was in the left middle. I know where the batteries are located, because I'm the one who mentioned it in this thread after you claimed front left.

As for knowing that UK has RHD cars, I work in the industry and have dealt with this for a long time. Considering we ship cars to multiple countries, I am sure I know a bit more about requirements in the various regions.
 
Disbelief said:
A lot of words to say that there is nothing in your training that gives you any expertise on this, it's all conjecture. You make claims and expect us to take them at face value, yet no expertise for us to take you seriously.

Bolding mine I notice you changed your story. You first stated that the fire was from the front left in the motor compartment, now you claim that it was in the left middle. I know where the batteries are located, because I'm the one who mentioned it in this thread after you claimed front left.

As for knowing that UK has RHD cars, I work in the industry and have dealt with this for a long time. Considering we ship cars to multiple countries, I am sure I know a bit more about requirements in the various regions.
Click to expand...

Below front left passenger is where the flames emanate from.
 
Vixen said:
Secondary source subeditors and people like yourself looking for a pithy soundbite, disguised as 'information'.
Click to expand...

No. The official written statement of the responsible authority is not a secondary source.

I will await the report when the investigation has concluded and not before.
Click to expand...

Is it your position that no facts can be known or reported until some kind of final report?

In other cases you have explicitly dismissed final reports in favor of early, unreliable media sources and "guys on the internet."

A good judge and jury does not come to a verdict until he or she has heard ALL of the evidence placed before the court, in this case an investigation.
Click to expand...

Is it your position that no facts can be known or reliability reported until the final report of an investigative body?
 
Vixen said:
Ask yourself why the CCTV camera lead up to the fire and the continuation ahve not been shown. It was thought that six months down the line people will have forgotten all about it. Buried on page 5. Likewise, you have not been told the make and model as that would be a dead give away and we can't have Tata's 1m sq foot gigafactory for lithium batteries plan undermined, can we...?
Click to expand...

Ut has been confirmed by the Fire Service that it was a diesel car
 
Vixen said:
Below front left passenger is where the flames emanate from.
Click to expand...

Yet this is what you said before:

Vixen said:
The fire in the photograph appears to be confined to the front left of the car and towards the lower part. There is no smoke coming from the engine at the front or the fuel tank at the rear. The flames are orange and red with the grey smoke that is a classic of a lithium-ion fire. The driver was unable to extinguish it with a couple of fire extinguishers which would normally do the job, or failing that by the fire brigade who arrived very promptly - 'within eight minutes'.
Click to expand...

Which is different from under the front passenger seat. You do realize there is a lot of car in front of the passenger. Also, you claim to know about the battery location, but you don't seem to realize that different models have them in different locations. Instead of saying you AIUI about the battery location, how about you actually look it up and source it.

ETA: And as Andy Ross so elegantly put it, The Fire Service confirmed it was a diesel car.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The CCTV image clearly depicts what looks like a classic lithium fire...
Click to expand...

No, you're not competent to make that determination.

So definitely more probably...
Click to expand...

No. Vixensplaining is not a substitute for fact. The facts have been observed and reliability reported. You simply wish to believe differently.

It is believed to be accidental and a diesel at this stage, subject to verification.
Click to expand...

It has been verified. You simply choose not to believe that it has.

Note the gag in naming the model and make or even the driver.
Click to expand...

Straw man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom