Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Do not twist my words. What I said is that the official line - whether it be the Prime Minister, the CEO of a firm, Chief Police Officer or Fire Officer, that is the official line and that is the go to for reputable news agencies when they require a source.

The relevant web pages for these bodies do not diverge from this official line. They may of course 'put it into simple English' so that it reads like a FB page or a brief information page for casual browsers. Webpages aren't usually a good source for news they are for information and mission statements, 'About Us'.
Click to expand...


If that's what you believe, here is the official web page of the Bedfordshire Fire Service in the act of not deviating from the official line:

The investigation into the cause of the fire continues, but it has been determined that the vehicle that first caught fire was a diesel car.
Click to expand...

The fire started in a diesel car.
 
Darat said:
We are at the point at which a sorcerer controlling a fire elemental is more sensible than Vixen's musings.
Click to expand...
Does the Necronomicon contain Summon/Bind Fire Vampire? And was Formalhaut visible from Luton that night?
 
Andy_Ross said:
My firefighting training was in the navy, it colours how I think about these things. My instinct tells me not to put water on already burning oil unless it's an overwhelming quantity.
I suppose sprinklers before a fire gets established is a different matter.
Click to expand...

I suspect there are different standards for fire fighting on ships. My experience is mainly with buildings. And you are quite correct that water is not the first choice for extinguishing a Class B oil fire, and conventional sprinklers will not extinguish one. But water does have a cooling effect and mitigates the spread of heat to other areas.
 
Vixen said:
Note the arrival of the Fire Brigade at circa 3:33. They have the fire out with good old-fashioned water within five minutes.
Click to expand...
I wonder why it took an hour to respond.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
Why were they so quick to tell us it was a diesel car? Scared of rioting in the streets or summat?
Click to expand...

Let's suppose that this was in fact a hybrid fire and the fire department is trying to mislead the public about that fact. So, it's a diesel hybrid, but for now they claim that it's a diesel powered car, so as not to alarm the public or something. They do so by couching their findings with caveats in the press conference, although they omit the caveats on their web pages because, you know, simplified English or something.

These smart lawyers who told the chief to do this must have a plan. What could it be? Seems to me there are only two obvious options.

The first option is to admit that it was a hybrid at a later date. After all, if the final report is similar to that of the Liverpool report, it begins with a statement of truth and compliance, so there's legal pressure that the final report is accurate.

But if they have to admit publicly that it was a hybrid within months, what has been gained? The public will know the truth and will be greatly offended about the lie. Oh, you could say that the public will forgive them, because maybe the facts were only discovered later, but there's two problems with that prediction. First, a number of people have said from the start that it was a hybrid or EV, so the fact that laymen know the truth suggests the fire experts were lying from the start. Second, according to your posts, average folks are too stupid to understand caveats like "pending final investigation", so they will conclude that the fire brigade was just lying from the start.

So I see no benefit at all from the first option.

The second option is to continue the lie in the final report. Never admit the truth, just keep saying that this vehicle was a bog standard diesel car. But if that's the plan, then what purpose do the chief's caveats serve? He might as well have claimed certainty from the start. For that matter, if we're willing to consider that the officials are likely to baldly lie to us about the origin of the fire, why should we put any stock in their press releases at all? Everything they say should be regarded as suspect, so we're better off, I guess, looking at grainy photos and ignoring what they say.

Thus, the second option puts us in the miserable position of having no authority we can trust. That doesn't make the second option false, but it means that we might as well just ignore whatever the fire experts say. No need to parse the press release for caveats, since if the car really was a hybrid, they'll have to continue the lie straight into the final report or else the initial misleading statement would be for naught.

So we can see that there's no real reason to claim it was a diesel pending verification unless they really believed it was a bog standard diesel but felt compelled to admit that they just might be mistaken. Since, if they had evidence that it really was a hybrid, either they would have to admit this some time later for no gain, or they intend to just flat out lie about it in the final report so why not flat out lie now?

These lawyers don't seem so smart. They seem to be unable to recognize that there's a final report coming at some point.

(Note: The Liverpool fire occurred on Dec. 31, 2017 and the investigation team report was released on May 22, 2018. So we're looking at less than half a year in that case. Of course, different fires are different, but surely this final report will be released within, oh, say two years at the very most. It can't be kicked down the line forever. The very people who make statements now will still be around at that time, at least for the most part.)
 
^ Well put.

In addition, there's the knotty problem of the owner of the vehicle. They know what kind of car it was and, if there's any deception in the final report, might they not blow the whistle? Plus, probably, there's a fair group of people who know the driver and know what kind of car he had. They'd all need an 'inducement' not to let the cat out of the bag (a cat which might earn them a nice sum from a newspaper, say).
 
Vixen said:
I did not say "that a gasoline or diesel car can't catch fire unless it's involved in a collision ". Stop twisting my words to create yet another strawman. YOU claimed that an Audi Cabriolet caught fire after a crash. I simply pointed out that was not like-for-like with the Luton car. It is a matter of fact that a car crashing into you will make your car susceptible to catching fire. Check out the Maserati crash recently in Italy.

IN addition your statistics are meaningless out of context because over time, of course the vast majority of car fires are petrol/diesel. Nobody has argued they are not. Nobody has argued that they do not catch fire. If you understood statistics, you would know that EV's are a small percentage of cars on the road and probably being better maintained and service than most cars, many of them being leased company cars. If as another post claims, EV's are just 0.02% of cars on the road, of course they will not figure in decades-long statistics. In addition, they are relatively new. As they age with wear and tear, we will see their fire damage rates also increase. If anything, it seems to be quite dangerous for such a car to be involved in a crash given a bump can set off the cells int he q-lithium battery. OTOH the electronic system is designed to immediately switch off if there are danger signs from the battery so in that respect, electrical fires pertaining to operation systems are minimised, although quite a few EV drivers have found themselves 'trapped' in their car as they had no idea how to release the door lock in such an emergency.

You keep trying to circumvent the point that the type of fire as seen in the grainy Luton picture looks like a classic q-battery fire and not a fuel tank one.
Click to expand...

More stuff you made up and letting us know you do not understand statistics either.
 
GlennB said:
^ Well put.

In addition, there's the knotty problem of the owner of the vehicle. They know what kind of car it was and, if there's any deception in the final report, might they not blow the whistle? Plus, probably, there's a fair group of people who know the driver and know what kind of car he had. They'd all need an 'inducement' not to let the cat out of the bag (a cat which might earn them a nice sum from a newspaper, say).
Click to expand...

Simple solution there. They are "rescued" by a helicopter crew and "disappeared" to the same place as those dudes on the Estonia.
 
Steve said:
Simple solution there. They are "rescued" by a helicopter crew and "disappeared" to the same place as those dudes on the Estonia.
Click to expand...

And this car was carrying radioactive caesium!
The pieces are falling into place ...
 
Vixen said:
I did not say "that a gasoline or diesel car can't catch fire unless it's involved in a collision ". Stop twisting my words to create yet another strawman.
Click to expand...
I didn't twist your words, because I didn't quote you. I said you implied it.

Vixen said:
If you are in a crash, there is a chance your car will catch fire.
Click to expand...

You are implying that that A5 can't have any bearing on the Land Rover fire in Luton because it was in an accident. You are implying that the only reason to conclude that a car could catch fire without being in an accident is if a Li-ion batter catches fire. What about the X5? Did it appear to have been in an accident?

YOU claimed that an Audi Cabriolet caught fire after a crash. I simply pointed out that was not like-for-like with the Luton car. It is a matter of fact that a car crashing into you will make your car susceptible to catching fire.
Click to expand...
You still can't, or won't, comprehend the difference between the cause of a car fire and its effects. We still don't know, and may never know, the exact source of ignition for the Luton fire. But we do know one thing: the official investigation has determined that the vehicle in which the fire started was a diesel - not an EV or a hybrid.

All your BS about statistics (which I seriously doubt you understand any more than science or engineering) is in response to your failure to dismiss the fact that car fires are common, and that the leading causes of car fires are fuel leaks and electrical faults. The burden of proof is on you. All the rest of us have to do to win this argument is point out that a fire starting in a diesel vehicle is completely unremarkable in its commonality. Your attempts have been focused on trying to prove that a hydrocarbon fire is out of the question, but it's actually, statistically, the most likely type.

Let's look at that ranking of causes again.

1 - Fuel system leaks
2 - Electrical faults
3 - Spilled fluids
4 - Overheating engine
5 - Overheating catalytic converter
6 - Hybrid and EV batteries
7 - Arson
8 - Car crashes
9 - Poor maintenance
10 - Design flaws


You lose the argument.
 
Andy_Ross said:
That is not for fire engine access. Do you think a fire engine goes up to the 11th floor in a block of flats?
Click to expand...
Indeed, Vixen's scan actually showed the appliance used for >11 storey buildings as a "high reach" pumper.
 
Vixen said:
Do not twist my words. What I said is that the official line - whether it be the Prime Minister, the CEO of a firm, Chief Police Officer or Fire Officer, that is the official line and that is the go to for reputable news agencies when they require a source.
Click to expand...


To remind you, here's what you posted again:
Vixen said:
The words of the legally-advised fire chief are the party line. He was advised to word his press statement thus.
Click to expand...


That's a clear claim that the "legally-advised fire chief" was following "the party line" rather than giving his own opinion, neatly clearing the way for a claim that he's therefore not a reliable source.

What evidence do you have for your claim that he was following "the party line" as a result of legal advice? That's the clear implication of your statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom