Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Gov. Newsom held a televised press conference and announced a preliminary finding of "malice intent" in the I-10 fire, and preliminary structural analysis indicating a total demolition of the damaged section may not be necessary. According to the rules of reasoning that seem to prevail in this thread, that means that any subsequent official statement from any state office, agency, or investigator can never be trusted. And since Newsom used an ungrammatical phrase instead of the more palatable "malicious intent," that means the governor's statement "must" have been written by lawyers intent on a coverup, but he botched his lines.
Click to expand...


Clearly “malice intent “ was intended to signal distress. Someone should check the video to see he’s blinking in Morse code.
 
JayUtah said:
Gov. Newsom held a televised press conference and announced a preliminary finding of "malice intent" in the I-10 fire, and preliminary structural analysis indicating a total demolition of the damaged section may not be necessary. According to the rules of reasoning that seem to prevail in this thread, that means that any subsequent official statement from any state office, agency, or investigator can never be trusted. And since Newsom used an ungrammatical phrase instead of the more palatable "malicious intent," that means the governor's statement "must" have been written by lawyers intent on a coverup, but he botched his lines.
Click to expand...

Gov Newsom says it is arson. I have no idea what he is basing his information on. The fire chief says:

California Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant said investigators have identified where the fire started and what the cause was after sorting through the rubble for evidence but did not specify what they found. He said there is no suspect information yet. He said they are talking to witnesses, including homeless people and nearby business owners.
Click to expand...
AP


So they have found something that indicates arson. Given that the area is occupied by a camp of homeless people and the building concerned is a lessee who is in arrears in paying Calif. for the lease, not to mention the fire consisting of many stacked up wooden pallets and a substantial amount of [alcohol-based? - thus highly inflammable] hand sanitisers, together with arson being common amongst homeless types with mental health, criminal and alciohol & drug abuse problems, with many using nearby electricity wires for illicit power usage, it is a fair assumption that the fire wasn't caused by a force of nature. Maybe the absent lessee in dispute was committing insurance fraud or had a grudge against California Admin. Maybe someone left a disposable barbecue burning or dropped a cigarette. Unless there are witnesses and police can identify the implement they may have since found, I doubt they will find the culprit and the whole thing will remain a mystery as to who done it.

Who knows what Gov Newsom has been told. For all you know, being a politician, he is eager to pass the buck onto a malevolent other rather than take responsibility as the governor for the hazards of such homeless communities and abandoned warehouses full of inflammable materials.

This goes to show that you should treat each individual case on its own merits and be aware of what is a suspicion and what is a confirmed fact.

AIUI the concrete under the bridge is spalled and not actually collapsed, as in the Luton Airport fire.
 
Vixen said:
If Newsom said, 'a preliminary finding', then that is a variation of the theme, 'at this stage' is it not? Would you say a preliminary finding = confirmation?
Click to expand...

This explains so much.

Preliminary finding = initial investigation points in this direction, but more detailed investigation will determine if it was the right direction or not.

This is, apparently, why you have difficulty understanding how a representative of the fire service in the Luton incident can say something preliminary one day, and then make a definitive statement on a later date.
 
Foster Zygote said:
This explains so much.

Preliminary finding = initial investigation points in this direction, but more detailed investigation will determine if it was the right direction or not.

This is, apparently, why you have difficulty understanding how a representative of the fire service in the Luton incident can say something preliminary one day, and then make a definitive statement on a later date.
Click to expand...

I see where we disagree. California Governor Newsom said in a recent press conference, 'Preliminary inquiries indicates this may be arson'.

News paper sub-editors (see google news feature) shorthand this as a headline 'La 10 Fire is arson'.

Mr and Mrs Man & Woman in the street, 'Ah, arson has been confirmed, it says so in my regional newspaper'.

They don't see the words, 'at this stage' or 'subject to verification'.

I am a lot more conservative than you as I do not see that as a final confirmation and prefer to await the official conclusion.
 
Vixen said:
I see where we disagree. California Governor Newsom said in a recent press conference, 'Preliminary inquiries indicates this may be arson'.

News paper sub-editors (see google news feature) shorthand this as a headline 'La 10 Fire is arson'.

Mr and Mrs Man & Woman in the street, 'Ah, arson has been confirmed, it says so in my regional newspaper'.

They don't see the words, 'at this stage' or 'subject to verification'.

I am a lot more conservative than you as I do not see that as a final confirmation and prefer to await the official conclusion.
Click to expand...
And when the official website of the Governor of California subsequently says, "It was arson", unequivocally, what do you believe then?
 
zooterkin said:
And when the official website of the Governor of California subsequently says, "It was arson", unequivocally, what do you believe then?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
He is a politician.


Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

As determined so many times over a number of threads, Vixen will never believe or accept any official statements, or any evidence, that conflicts with her pre-conceived conspiracy theorist world view. Everyone, everywhere is constantly trying to deceive her. It is a waste of bandwidth to try to explain reality to her - it is just more deception in her mind.
 
Vixen said:
He is a politician.


Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

Translation:

"If the full enquiry confirms the car was a plain diesel then I have my fall-back position established - corruption at the top stifling the truth in favour of EV manufacturers."

It's the sine qua non, folks, the veritable status quo and anyway, dulce et decorum est, ceteris paribus.
 
Vixen said:
I see where we disagree. California Governor Newsom said in a recent press conference, 'Preliminary inquiries indicates this may be arson'.

News paper sub-editors (see google news feature) shorthand this as a headline 'La 10 Fire is arson'.

Mr and Mrs Man & Woman in the street, 'Ah, arson has been confirmed, it says so in my regional newspaper'.

They don't see the words, 'at this stage' or 'subject to verification'.

I am a lot more conservative than you as I do not see that as a final confirmation and prefer to await the official conclusion.
Click to expand...

Ah. I had thought, based on your arguments regarding the fire investigation in Luton, that you were arguing that "initial finding" does equal "confirmation".

By inferring that I was claiming that "initial finding" is equivalent to "confirmation" based on me having written, "preliminary finding = initial investigation points in this direction, but more detailed investigation will determine if it was the right direction or not", only reinforces the perception that you have very poor reading comprehension.

But I suggest that if you really want to fabricate a new conspiracy theory about this fire, you start a new thread, because it's off topic to this thread.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Ah. I had thought, based on your arguments regarding the fire investigation in Luton, that you were arguing that "initial finding" does equal "confirmation".

By inferring that I was claiming that "initial finding" is equivalent to "confirmation" based on me having written, "preliminary finding = initial investigation points in this direction, but more detailed investigation will determine if it was the right direction or not", only reinforces the perception that you have very poor reading comprehension.

But I suggest that if you really want to fabricate a new conspiracy theory about this fire, you start a new thread, because it's off topic to this thread.
Click to expand...

Your talking Edward Learian nonsense doesn't turn it into a conspiracy theory.

A fire did happen at Luton Airport Car Park and the Fire Brigade are investigating and writing the conventional report. This is likely to take at least four months, given that is how long it took to bring out the report into the Liverpool ECHO fire.

Your specious pleadings that it has already been concluded does not succeed.
 
Vixen said:
Your talking Edward Learian nonsense doesn't turn it into a conspiracy theory.

A fire did happen at Luton Airport Car Park and the Fire Brigade are investigating and writing the conventional report. This is likely to take at least four months, given that is how long it took to bring out the report into the Liverpool ECHO fire.

Your specious pleadings that it has already been concluded does not succeed.
Click to expand...

The Fire Service (not Brigade) has already confirmed it started with a diesel car. They confirmed it weeks ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom