Asserting that politicians always lie is as ridiculous as asserting that they never lie. It's a tactic used to attempt to mask one's ignorance and lack of solid evidence.
And what are you arguing now, regarding this unrelated incident? Are we seeing a deeper psychological phenomenon, wherein you wait to see what an investigation has to say, then insist that the opposite is true? Regarding Luton, the investigation first determined that it was likely a diesel vehicle, then said it was definitely a diesel vehicle. Regarding the LA I-10 fire, the investigation said it was probably arson. So are you positioning yourself to start another conspiracy theory that the arson explanation is a cover up for something else?
Stop trying to change the subject. In an almost exact analogy to the Luton Airport Car Park Fire, Governor Newsom said of the LA Highway no. 10 fire, 'At this preliminary stage, it looks like arson', and all of the news outlet sub-editors, including the major news broadcasters, have shorthanded this to 'LA 10 Fire was arson, Gov Newsom confirms'. But the Fire Marshall said they are still investigating this avenue; they have found the place of origin and what seems to have caused the fire, together with needing to carry on interviewing homeless people who lived there (according to yesterday's latest update).
Now, this is based on previous experience of LA under-bridge fires - normally they can be traced to homeless persons, illegally and dangerously accessing electric power cables or anti-social behaviour. California has said that the lessee was in arrears with the lease. The property was piled up to the gills with inflammable materials (wooden pallets and hand sanitisers): another line of enquiry.
Since there is no report of any other possible cause for the fire then of course looking at historical causes of such fires is understandable and makes perfect sense. History says normal fire (as there is spalling of the concrete but repairs can be effected in as early as three weeks) so nothing extraordinary here. Fair assumption.
Likewise, with the Luton Airport Car Park Fire, the fire chief clearly stated - probably based on the previous Liverpool ECHO fire - that they don't believe it was an electric vehicle but it was believed to be a diesel one at this stage subject to verification. A later fire officer gave the opinion that it was likely a fuel-line leak, an opinion surely based on what happened at Liverpool but something he can't know for sure at this stage as the building was still smouldering as he spoke. Cars are still being salvaged, some are likely to be demolished with the remainder of the building. Firemen cannot enter as it is too dangerous, unlike at the Liverpool Car Park. So, yes, a fair assumption to make but it is not a confirmation.
I can recommend a course in content analysis which is useful for deciphering what articles are actually saying. With a lot of persuaders and influencers (aka advertising and marketing) and with people relying heavily on summaries and sound bites IMV it is important for people to understand what is being communicated. It is the same as the art of being a good listener. As an example of what people fail to hear is when I did training as a phoneline counsellor. Parents at the end of their tether rang in for help. The guy training us played us a tape of someone who said they wanted to kill themselves in between a load of other stuff. Almost to a person, counsellors missed that bit and failed to address it, either because it is uncomfortable to hear or because they just did not hear it. But it was important here because you have to hear it and address it, because as a counsellor, you can take action and save a life by discussing it further and offering real help. In other words, to be a good listener or a good reader, you need to note every word, not just the ones that leap out. This is one of the deficits of 'Plain English' because it doesn't always make clear the qualifiers and the disclaimers inherent in a public statement. Many a news headline should be suffixed with 'it is believed' or the other lazy way out, is to put a headline in quotation marks.
Either way, it is important to understand that the fire needs to be investigated. There are no instant answers as to the cause, only speculation and fair assumptions, based on previous history of similar fires. As a fire report takes several months to prepare, then someone who wants to understand how the fire started and how it progressed will wait to see this. Others are not interested and that is fine, too. However, it is a blatant lie to claim that the cause of the fire has been confirmed as of day one or even any time before the report is out.
This has zero to do with conspiracy theory but people who do not understand the concept of investigation who want to browbeat one into accepting their instant lazy, unthought-out answer based on trying to bend people to their will.
