Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkCorrigan said:
I've never once seen anyone so utterly unable to admit error. It's bizarre.
Click to expand...
Don't you remember the 911 threads? Or whats-his-name, the shroud of Turin crank?
Conspiracy theories are all about ego: the nut strokes his/r ego by believing s/he is special because they can see through to The Truth.


On a related note, an excellent pieCe in The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
When a fire ripped through a car park at Luton airport last month it set off a round of speculation that an electric vehicle was to blame. The theory was quickly doused by the Bedfordshire fire service, which said the blaze appeared to have started in a diesel car.

Yet the rumour refused to be quelled, spreading on social media like, well, wildfire. Even when these stories are patiently debunked, they come back as zombie myths that refuse to die.
Click to expand...

In Norway, which has the world’s highest proportion of electric car sales, there are between four and five times more fires in petrol and diesel cars, according to the directorate for social security and emergency preparedness. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency this year found that there were 3.8 fires per 100,000 electric or hybrid cars in 2022, compared with 68 fires per 100,000 cars when taking all fuel types into account. However, the latter figures include arson, making comparisons tricky.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
I did not refer to any BBC article. You sure do get easily confused.



Ah, so let's see if I understand your argument.

  • All important developments will be announced via press release and reported by the press.
  • Were the assessment of the vehicle as a diesel ICE to move from "pending final investigation" to "confirmed", this would be an important development.
  • There has been no report of the confirmation in the press.
  • Hence, the assessment is still not confirmed.
  • Hence, the announcement that it has been confirmed on the website must be in error.
Is this roughly your argument?
Click to expand...

Re the conclusion: I don't know whether it is in error or on purpose but it is technically incorrect, for whatever reason.
 
Mojo said:
Yes. None of those is a link to a press release, they are all news sources reporting what someone has said.

Can you provide a link to Hopkinson's press release, please?
Click to expand...

A press release is something that is released...to the press. Unless you are the press you don't get the memo.

A press release is an official statement delivered to members of the news media for the purpose of providing information, creating an official statement, or making an announcement directed for public release. Press releases are also considered a primary source, meaning they are original informants for information.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_release
 
Jack by the hedge said:
What "usual press release" are you talking about? The initial statement you cleave to was a live statement made to the press on-site. It was not a press release. (Jenny from accounts does those. Didn't you know?)

You're making up a spurious condition. A hoop you insist they jump through. You're just playing Simon Says and it's frankly stupid.
Click to expand...

In this digital age, it is not necessary for the world's press to descend on a press conference. It is usually sufficient to have five or six key journalists present and to circulate to bureaux, such as AP, Reuters or ANSA, a digital version of what is to be said. It is rare for a hack these days to even venture out to collect news in the old traditional way. An editor will just hire a 'stringer' (say, in another country or on the other side of the world) to do the leg work for them. One stringer could even supply the same information to several different news outlets. The days of any one newspaper getting a SCOOP are long gone, that is why Andrew Hopkinson, Beds Fire & Rescue Chief, is quoted verbatim with the same phrases in news outlets throughout the world, because they are all reading the same press release and they know this press release is authentic, a primary source and reliable.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
... asked the person who fails to notice the difference between a press conference and a press release.

Do we now get 20 pages about how you're not wrong about that either?
Click to expand...

A news conference these days is simply to allow a chosen handful of journalists or broadcasters the opportunity to ask questions. In the meantime, all of the other news outlets get the hard copy press release.
 
Vixen said:
A press release is something that is released...to the press. Unless you are the press you don't get the memo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_release
Click to expand...

Er, yes, that is exactly the point Mojo is making. We don't have the press release (if there ever was one, as opposed to a press conference ), but we do have an official statement, on the official website, a primary source.
 
catsmate said:
<snip irrelevance>

On a related note, an excellent pieCe in The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ater-fire-risk-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
Click to expand...

Yes, did you note the final sentence in the first paragraph?:

"When a fire ripped through a car park at Luton airport last month it set off a round of speculation that an electric vehicle was to blame. The theory was quickly doused by the Bedfordshire fire service, which said the blaze appeared to have started in a diesel car."

Not even the GUARDIAN claims 'it has been confirmed' or 'determined', it correctly states this is simply speculation as of this stage and there has been no further updates to this since.
 
catsmate said:
Ah ha!!! The fjords of Norway which has the world’s highest proportion of EV sales.
Click to expand...

You seem to have the strange perception that the nature of the fire is dependent on statistics. So by your logic, an accident on the M4 motorway at 10:00 this morning was probably caused by a Ford Focus because that is the best selling car in the UK (or whatever it is) when probability theory is neither here nor there as to which car caused that fire.

It is weird and bizarre that all people like yourself can do is bang on about how much safer EV's are than petrol and diesel vehicles and that most fires are caused by petrol or diesel cars. What? What on earth does that have to do with Car Zero in the Luton Airport No. 2 Car Park fire?

If anyone is a conspiracy theorist, it is you.


'They are conspiring against EV's so we have to dream up ridiculous counter-arguments'.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, did you note the final sentence in the first paragraph?:

"When a fire ripped through a car park at Luton airport last month it set off a round of speculation that an electric vehicle was to blame. The theory was quickly doused by the Bedfordshire fire service, which said the blaze appeared to have started in a diesel car."

Not even the GUARDIAN claims 'it has been confirmed' or 'determined', it correctly states this is simply speculation as of this stage and there has been no further updates to this since.
Click to expand...

Do you think you could stop lying?
 
Vixen said:
Not even the GUARDIAN claims 'it has been confirmed' or 'determined', it correctly states this is simply speculation as of this stage and there has been no further updates to this since.
Click to expand...

The fire service states unequivocally that it was a diesel car. Why can't you accept that?

The most interesting thing about that piece, to me, is that it confirms the existence of a community (or communities) of conspiracy theorists promoting this nonsense. I'd even wager that most of the fallacious and ignorant claims you've been presenting here are actually sourced from others in that community.

And I take it you don't want to talk about how your photographic "analyses" are useless because there are literally no controls on the various conditions present when each image was recorded. You can tell us nothing about the exact lighting conditions, camera settings, or even the types of cameras used. The only reason you think you can make any empirical comparisons is because you are completely ignorant of photography.
 
Vixen, what is a primary source, and what is a secondary source?

Can you answer any of the other questions I've put to you instead of just rudely ignoring me again?

You've still failed to find any proof of diesel to hybrid conversions for example, despite providing three separate websites that did not do that as if they did.
 
Foster Zygote said:
The fire service states unequivocally that it was a diesel car. Why can't you accept that?

The most interesting thing about that piece, to me, is that it confirms the existence of a community (or communities) of conspiracy theorists promoting this nonsense. I'd even wager that most of the fallacious and ignorant claims you've been presenting here are actually sourced from others in that community.

And I take it you don't want to talk about how your photographic "analyses" are useless because there are literally no controls on the various conditions present when each image was recorded. You can tell us nothing about the exact lighting conditions, camera settings, or even the types of cameras used. The only reason you think you can make any empirical comparisons is because you are completely ignorant of photography.
Click to expand...

'Unequivocally' is your invention.

Look at this video again, remembering what a lithium-ion fire looks like and where located in a vehicle.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccF4xOk5ruY

Do you really need a subeditor to tell you what you are looking at?
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Vixen, what is a primary source, and what is a secondary source?

Can you answer any of the other questions I've put to you instead of just rudely ignoring me again?

You've still failed to find any proof of diesel to hybrid conversions for example, despite providing three separate websites that did not do that as if they did.
Click to expand...

Wiki is your friend.

In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.[1]

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight are secondary.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Yes, did you note the final sentence in the first paragraph?:

"When a fire ripped through a car park at Luton airport last month it set off a round of speculation that an electric vehicle was to blame. The theory was quickly doused by the Bedfordshire fire service, which said the blaze appeared to have started in a diesel car."

Not even the GUARDIAN claims 'it has been confirmed' or 'determined', it correctly states this is simply speculation as of this stage and there has been no further updates to this since.
Click to expand...
Just stop with the childish drivel. The car was a diesel Range Rover as we all know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom