Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
What effort have you made to establish who owns and controls what is published on the website in question? Have you routinely sought out similar information on all the websites you use as sources?

This is pathetic. Your 'argument' is either the absurd "what if the fire service didn't imagine it mattered what they said despite all the conspiracy nuts on social media yelling that it was an EV battery fire?" or the less charitable and full on loony-tunes "what if the fire service are all part of the Big Battery conspiracy?".
Click to expand...

Think about it. You are interested in say, a political issue, such as 'Stop the Boats'. One person is happy to simply glance over news headlines. Others might look further into specialist experts' opinions. Puzzled by a seeming lack of information, or conflicting information, you might think, right, I'll look up what the actual laws say about asylum seekers, domestically and as per the UNHCR. It all depends on whether you are looking for actual facts or whether you are happy to just glance at a newspaper headline. Whilst it is understandable most people are happy with a potted summary, that is not to say that someone who is fact-finding should be browbeaten into accepting a layman's version of the issue.

I get that there are three groups of stakeholders hereL

  • the need for the Fire Brigade & Police to reassure the public (allay public anxiety).
  • The political elements who are Pro-EV versus the Big Oil/anti ULEZ groups.
  • the public who want the objective facts of the matter.

The first is public duty; people need to be told that such a fire was likely accidental, there are no arsonists or terrorists about and there is no need to worry about parking next to an EV (because those are the questions the press is asking).

The second is an interesting category and I am sure the conversation between Big Oil and the Environmentalists is a fascinating one but that would be for another thread.

The third group is Joe Public. It wants to know the model and make of the car and what is the story the driver is telling. That information has not been released. It is signally untrue that it has.

Obvs it will take time for the Fire Brigade and Police to ascertain the exact circumstances.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Weasel words. Take the unnecessary word "press" out of that carefully misleading claim and it would become a lie. This is how you set out to deceive. The fire service's official statement, published for anyone to read, not filtered through secondary sources like the press, is that a diesel car started the fire, not a hybrid.
Click to expand...

A diesel can be a hybrid.
 
Dabop said:
It was a PRELIMINARY news statement, made only 2 days after the fire...

(Plus your own link says it was a diesel... even at that time...)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-caused-the-luton-airport-fire-b2429048.html


The ONLY person here pushing the CONSPIRACY THEORY that it was a lithium hybrid is YOU...
Click to expand...

The only place it says it is a diesel is in the headline = written by a subeditor.

It is a précis of what Hopkinson actually said, which is the bit in quotation marks.

Only the bit in quotation marks is a primary, authenticated, named, official source.

All else is someone else's words/interpretation.
 
Vixen said:
Nothing to do with being an armchair detective. It is about the art of debate.
Click to expand...

Only insofar as that exercise is further about your incessant search for some way to appear smarter and cleverer than your critics. It translates into you pretending to know a lot of things you don't and hiding behind a lot of childish rhetorical dance steps to propagate that for page after page. Or just straight-up lying.

It is about using on your own senses and developing observation skills. Look at each of the following two videos carefully. ... Forget anything that has been said about either incident. Just use own your eyes to observe what you see, without evaluation or drawing a conclusion.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why armchair detectives are worse than useless. You aren't developing skills. You're simply pretending your existing skills and knowledge are all you need in order to figure out what happened.

It's ignorant, arrogant, wrong, and worse than useless.
 
Vixen said:
I am pretty sure another poster answered your question but you can find all of the information you require on this webpage here:


https://www.joinbonnet.com/post/ev-conversion-law-uk
Click to expand...

Failed again. That's conversion to an ev.

Are you incapable of reading or do you think the rest of us are?

ETA apparently the problem lies with you since you claim that's a how to website when it obviously isn't.

If you can't tell the difference between a website discussing regulations when it comes to converting a diesel to a full electric vehicle and a how to website on converting a diesel to a hybrid I'm not sure you're smart enough to be let out of the house on your own.

Of course the real answer is that you're desperately deflecting to protect your fragile ego.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Failed again. That's conversion to an ev.

Are you incapable of reading or do you think the rest of us are?

ETA apparently the problem lies with you since you claim that's a how to website when it obviously isn't.

If you can't tell the difference between a website discussing regulations when it comes to converting a diesel to a full electric vehicle and a how to website on converting a diesel to a hybrid I'm not sure you're smart enough to be let out of the house on your own.

Of course the real answer is that you're desperately deflecting to protect your fragile ego.
Click to expand...

Is this any better? Eindhoven University of Technology.

https://www.tue.nl/en/news/news-overview/03-07-2020-convert-your-old-diesel-into-a-hybrid

Convert your old diesel into a hybrid
 
Vixen said:
The only place it says it is a diesel is in the headline = written by a subeditor.

It is a précis of what Hopkinson actually said, which is the bit in quotation marks.

Only the bit in quotation marks is a primary, authenticated, named, official source.

All else is someone else's words/interpretation.
Click to expand...

And this is the EXACT quote- which does not say it was a hybrid- diesel or otherwise...

“We don’t believe it was an electric vehicle,” Andrew Hopkinson, chief fire officer for Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said.

“It’s believed to be diesel-powered, at this stage all subject to verification. And then that fire has quickly and rapidly spread.”
Click to expand...
The Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service then verified and confirmed on their own website later that yes it was indeed a diesel vehicle- NOT a hybrid....
 
phiwum said:
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/syria/

This is a US state department report on Syria. Obviously, it is not reliable since no author is named.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It cites original sources extensively, as one would expect. For example:

  • (see section 1.g.)
  • The UN Commission of Inquiry for Syria (COI)
  • UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict verified

Looks like a well-written and well-sourced document to me, were I looking for some such.
 
Vixen said:
As an objective person who bases conclusions on fact-finding - and this can only be done as a result of an investigation in the case of a major fire - that is correct. That is my position.

I get that people uninterested in a topic are happy to just go along with an early opinion.
Click to expand...

Hogwash. You're not an objective person who bases her conclusions on fact-finding. You're one of the more dogged conspiracy theorists on this forum in years, and famously incapable of admitting even the most egregious errors.

Further, the other conspiracy theory you've been plugging on this forum for years requires you to take exactly the opposite position. You've thrown out multiple carefully considered professional studies in favor of early confused news reports, conflicting witness statements, and armchair nuttery. So kindly don't patronize us with your newfound and hypocritical professions of respect for lengthy investigation.

As for 'guys on the internet', I am quite capable of sifting false fact and opinion from confirmed fact.
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. You rely on self-proclaimed yet obvious cranks like Anders Björkman and infamous anti-Semites. Nowadays you hide the names of these sources because you know how unreliable they are, and defend them with more tortuous rhetoric. You clearly can't tell good information from bad, and you clearly don't care.

So yes, I can cope with people having a different opinion from myself. I do not find it threatening.
Click to expand...

You can't admit error. On the matter of primes notation, you filled an entire thread pretending you were still somehow right, changing your story several times.

I think people find people with an opinion different from their own threatening because they do not have enough confidence in their critical ability...
Click to expand...

No. People challenge your claims because you're wrong and they know better than you.

so they often see a counter argument as a personal affront but mainly, the problem is they do not understand how debating works or the rules of debate. So they believe the only solution is to demand that a debate be shut down.
Click to expand...

No, you're the one complaining about being personally attacked when your claims are challenged.

Kindly stop pretending that you're the only one around here with principles and integrity.
 
Dabop said:
And this is the EXACT quote- which does not say it was a hybrid- diesel or otherwise...


The Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service then verified and confirmed on their own website later that yes it was indeed a diesel vehicle- NOT a hybrid....
Click to expand...

...citing Hopkinson's press release.
 
I've checked the website of XYZDynamics, the company mentioned in that article. They deal with grond support vehicles for airports primarily and I could find nothing on their website about converting a diesel passenger vehicle into a hybrid.
 
Vixen said:
Is this any better? Eindhoven University of Technology.

https://www.tue.nl/en/news/news-overview/03-07-2020-convert-your-old-diesel-into-a-hybrid

Convert your old diesel into a hybrid
Click to expand...

And another swing, and a miss...

Rather than looking at a 'startup blurb' from 2020 why not see if they actually offer this package???
If you had- you would have found they still don't...
https://www.xyzdynamics.nl/

Screenshot-from-2023-11-20-03-18-54.png


They still do NOT have a 'diesel hybrid conversion' available...
 
Vixen said:
Is this any better? Eindhoven University of Technology.

https://www.tue.nl/en/news/news-overview/03-07-2020-convert-your-old-diesel-into-a-hybrid

Convert your old diesel into a hybrid
Click to expand...

Seems out of date. If you'll look at the current website for this company, they're offering services only for Ground Service Equipment at airports. Perhaps the service isn't cost-effective for regular passenger vehicles.

In any case, it does not seem to support the claim that passenger SUVs are regularly being converted from diesel ICE to diesel hybrids.
 
Vixen said:
The only place it says it is a diesel is in the headline = written by a subeditor.

It is a précis of what Hopkinson actually said, which is the bit in quotation marks.

Only the bit in quotation marks is a primary, authenticated, named, official source.

All else is someone else's words/interpretation.
Click to expand...


Yes, but we no longer need to rely on it, because we have a later statement from the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, saying without qualification that it was a diesel vehicle.

What sort of moron would fail to understand that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom