Ah, so that's what we saw going on.
Coming almost a full week after the events in question, the Conspiraloon in me suspects that the timing and the hyperbole of the piece is more an exercise in speculation limitation than a news story. It also doesn't really explain why the specialist airport fire fighters didn't blanket the car with retardant foam and kill the fire stone dead straight away
In fact, the article claims that the car was drenched in foam...
"The airport's firefighters poured foam on the burning jeep while some of their colleagues joined Strathclyde firefighters in training water jets on the fire which had spread to the terminal building."
and then, two lines later, it says
"Mr Adams said: "It was my risk assessment that by then, the fire would have set off any secondary device (!!?) but the cylinders still posed a danger so I ordered firefighters to drench the jeep with water while their colleagues searched the building."
None of this testimony squares with the endlessly-looped video footage of the firefighting shown that day - no foam - a car packed with gas cylinders left to merrily burn away in a most photogenic manner - a couple of water hoses playing around the scene for effect...
utter, utter arse biscuits