Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The website page was written by their communications officer, a Rebecca something or other.
Click to expand...

Bwahaha! So the guy speaking on camera can't do so without clearance from the legal department to make sure his wording is perfect, but Jenny from communications can just put whatever she wants on the brigade's official web site. The crap you make up...
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You're basing your expert opinion on a lifetime dedicated to studying Googling one example of a fire, are you?
Click to expand...

That's how conspiracy theories work. The people propounding them don't actually know what they're talking about, so they do the best they can. Ship A didn't sink the same way Ship B did, so there must be something suspicious. Building A didn't burn down the way Building B did, so there must be something suspicious. They're just begging you to celebrate their mediocrity.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The fire brigade say it was a diesel. Vixen says they may have been leant on by shadowy figures who ordered them to decieve us.

I weighed it up.
Click to expand...

Vixen's world is chock full of such shadowy figures. She can never take anything at face value because everyone is out to deceive her. I believe there is a word for such a world view.
 
Vixen said:
So, this young lad aged 30, the presumed driver who was arrested was either:

  • driving his parents' car
  • is a well-paid young footballer who can afford £132,000 for a car.
  • Bought it cheap for a few thousand
  • ...and it was cheap because the previous owner couldn't wait to get rid of a faulty vehicle.
Click to expand...

The car was around ten years old. It wasn't worth a quarter of that. And I'm not sure what you think infantilising a 30 year old man achieves. If he wants to spend his money on a decade-old prestige car that's his business. I'm sure he'd have preferred the petrol V8 if he could have afforded to fill it up.
 
Vixen said:
Still valid in some countries*. JLR won't just be worrying about its UK sales.

*For example, Victoria Beckham successfully sued for 'criminal libel; when someone called her boutiques in France rubbish.
Click to expand...

Did the fire brigade say the unnamed diesel car which caught fire was 'rubbish'?

No, they just confirmed it was a diesel.
 
Vixen said:
A burning tyre gives off very thick black smoke; it doesn't 'explode' per se. The airbags are designed to activate in a collision. Perhaps the eye witness said it was a 'fuel tank explosion' because the fireball was towards the back of the car...?
Click to expand...

More non-science from our scientist. Of course car tires can explode in a fire, since the pressure inside will increase with the temperature increase. Air bags deploy because a chemical reaction inside the module. If the temperature inside the vehicle gets high enough, around 350 degrees, they will deploy. It's a danger to firefighters when fighting vehicle fires.
 
Vixen said:
No amount of passive-aggressive repetition changes the truth of the matter.
Click to expand...

passive-aggressive

adjective

characterized by or showing indirect resistance to the demands of others and avoidance of direct confrontation


The only person engaging in avoidance is you - regarding the truth of the matter that the vehicle in which the fire started has been officially reported to have been a diesel. But that wasn't the answer that you desired.

Repeatedly confronting you with a fact that you are determined to ignore, even if that action only serves to illustrate your refusal to address it, is not passive-aggressive. You can't make your arguments better just by peppering your posts with terms like ad hominem, strawman and passive-aggressive. You have to actually understand what they mean and use them in the correct context.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A burning tyre gives off very thick black smoke; it doesn't 'explode' per se.
Click to expand...

Tires very much explode per se when exposed to external heat. This is why airliner tires have fuze patches and fuze plugs (engineered weak spots) that vent the pressure in a controlled way in a fire. This occurs in a rejected takeoff where the brakes will generally catch fire. The RTO certification of a new airframe is one of the most fun, dramatic tests to witness.

Car tires don't have that feature.
 
Vixen said:
They have NOT confirmed the make and model.


Nota bene.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha!!!

That's like someone who thinks Bigfoot has been raiding his bins at night saying, "they said it was a dog tearing open my trash bags, but they didn't say it's breed or color".
 
Foster Zygote said:
Hahahahahaha!!!

That's like someone who thinks Bigfoot has been raiding his bins at night saying, "they said it was a dog tearing open my trash bags, but they didn't say it's breed or color".
Click to expand...

Nothing is ever confirmed in Vixen's world until it agrees with her fantasies. Very few things in Vixen's world are ever confirmed.
 
Vixen said:
How many of the cars in your list caused an entire car park and 1,400 cars to burn down in less than one hour?
Click to expand...
Is there a first time for anything?

Obviously, most of those vehicles weren't in a parking garage. This is not evidence that were they in the same situation, the same result would not have occurred.

There have been many hybrid fires. Hire many of them resulted in a car park collapsing?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A burning tyre gives off very thick black smoke; it doesn't 'explode' per se. The airbags are designed to activate in a collision. Perhaps the eye witness said it was a 'fuel tank explosion' because the fireball was towards the back of the car...?
Click to expand...

Airbags have an explosive charge in them. They will go bang in a fire.
Tyres are pressurised, they will go bang in a fire.

It was a diesel car
 
Vixen said:
In saying 'it appears to be a vehicle fault' that is not in any way laying fault with the manufacturers. The 'vehicle fault' could still lie with the driver (and the driver is the person whom is presumed by the national press to have been arrested) as he has been arrested 'as a precaution' but not charged - so he is on bail - but it also shuts down discussing anything that could prejudice any future trial he might be subjected to were he to be charged; for now: 'on suspicion of criminal damage'. The fault could something as simple as filling up with petrol instead of diesel*.



It is clear there is a gag in place in (a) naming the brand officially and (b) interviewing the driver as to what happened.









*But a petrol fire can be extinguished by the fire brigade quite effectively within ten minutes.
Click to expand...
You're right that vehicle fault is consistent with but does not entail manufacturer fault. But there's no reason they even had to suggest it was a vehicle fault. If you're going for a coverup, then you wouldn't say such a thing.

On the other hand, the make of the vehicle is well known and definitely will come out eventually. There's no benefit to not giving the make. Hence, the fact that it has not been publicly confirmed is not evidence of a coverup.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom