Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

[Vixen]

What local reporter?




How do you know, if you don't know who the reporter was?

I have a good memory.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The value is that some local reporter did what journalists should do more often; he or she went to the site and asked eyewitnesses questions.





I don't think this is worthless at all and the reporter was perfectly impartial one way or the other.

You don't even remember your source. Stop telling us completely made up stuff about intrepid reporters.

 

[Vixen]

The use of press releases isn't some sort of conspiracy, the sad thing is that it's just cheaper than employing journalists.

I didn't say it was 'some sort of conspiracy'. I was simply pointing out that there are still reporters who turn up at a scene and ask eye witnesses questions. That reporter is not claiming anything other than quoting a person verbatim, or by paraphrase. It is not intended to be 'evidence' or 'an investigation'.


In the case of the Luton Fire it is clear that information is embargoed because it was in the hands of the police and the Fire Brigade at an early stage. It doesn't cancel out what a reporter wrote at the scene at the time.

 

[JayUtah]

Here come the cheap ad hominems.

What would those be? Showing how your arguments fit a pattern common among conspiracy theorists is not ad hominem, especially when we can show that those patterns embody demonstrably irrational lines of reasoning.

Pointing out that you're factually wrong when you claim "conspiracy theory" has no meaning is not an ad hominem. You previously claimed expertise in psychology as a basis to your other arguments. It's not ad hominem to expect you to know the field and to rebut you when it's clear you don't.

Pointing out that your "news items" are all invariably just conspiracy theories is not ad hominem.

 

[Mojo]

I have a good memory.

Not on the evidence provided by your posting history.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't know why people get so upset about someone expressing a view.

That's ironic, isn't it, because trying to rile people up with provocative, contrarian views is your entire schtick.

 

[Mojo]

I didn't say it was 'some sort of conspiracy'.

You implied it when you posted about "'authorized' information".

 

[JayUtah]

I didn't say it was 'some sort of conspiracy'. I was simply pointing out that there are still reporters who turn up at a scene and ask eye witnesses questions. That reporter is not claiming anything other than quoting a person verbatim, or by paraphrase. It is not intended to be 'evidence' or 'an investigation'.

What a tap dance.

Turning up at the scene to ask witnesses questions is not investigating. Something relevant said by a claimed eyewitness is not evidence. Black is white. Up is down.

Or here's a better angle: Once again you got caught making stuff up and now you're trying to backpedal away from it.

 

[Steve]

Citation, please.

As for your cousin, captain of a firehouse in northwest Illinois, is he aware that it is not just about pumping loads of water but that water would be contaminated by highly toxic chemicals?

The other 'nightmare' is the toxic fumes. Breathing in the fumes of a burning lithium-ion fire can damage your lungs within minutes. Why else did the fire brigade stand well away from the building at Luton?

But then you knew all that.

You requesting citations while steadfastly refusing to provide any for your own outrageous and ignorant claims is one of the more continuously amusing aspects of these threads.

All firefighting run-off water contains chemicals that are toxic to various degrees. Containment is provided whenever practical, but is secondary to immediate life safety and control of a dangerous fire.

Toxic fumes are a hazard present in all fires. Firefighters in most jurisdictions are required to wear Self Contained Breathing Apparatus at all times when actively fighting a fire. The presence of toxic fumes alone would not be a reason for them to "stand well away" from a fire.

But then you surely did not know that.

 

[Mojo]

In the case of the Luton Fire it is clear that information is embargoed because it was in the hands of the police and the Fire Brigade at an early stage.

Can you support this claim, and hence the conclusion you draw from it, with any evidence?

 

[Vixen]

That's ironic, isn't it, because trying to rile people up with provocative, contrarian views is your entire schtick.

What is provocative and contrarian about this news item?

It is factual. It is an event that happened. It is not abstract. It is not about religion, philosophy or the paranormal.

On one side it seems to be people saying: accept the limited information press release.

On the other hand, the public and various pundits will talk about it. What is so provocative about people discussing an event that is newsworthy?

It is not the end of the world if someone has a different view from the official initial statement.

 

[Vixen]

Can you support this claim, and hence the conclusion you draw from it, with any evidence?

Fire broke out circa 20:30 on 10 Oct 23. The press release was put out next day on 11 October 2023 and there have been no updates since, other than peripheral information about insurance claims, and salvage.

 

[Vixen]

Not on the evidence provided by your posting history.

Please explain.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Fire broke out circa 20:30 on 10 Oct 23. The press release was put out next day on 11 October 2023 and there have been no updates since, other than peripheral information about insurance claims, and salvage.

and the statement on the fire service official website that says it wasn't an EV.

 

[Mojo]

Nice bit of insinuation, there, implying the photo somehow supported the unsourced statement. The photo was published in the Daily Mail, among other places. What is the source for the comment?

What was the exact quote? Was it about the diesel car where the fire started, or the overall blaze, which almost certainly included at least one EV on the balance of probabilities? Was it simply a comment that the fire looked similar to one involving a lithium-ion battery, or was it a claim that the fire must have started in an EV?

It's a bit sad that when Vixen finally finds a report of fire service personnel saying that "it looked like a lithium-ion fire" she forgets to make a note of where it was reported or who reported it.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have a good memory.

Imagination maybe. Not memory.

Indeed you frequently 'misremember' conversations only a page or two back in your many conspiracy threads. You frequently 'misremember' what your interlocutors have said to you and regularly 'incorrectly remember' their arguments to the point where you're not arguing against anything anyone has actually argued.

 

[Mojo]

Please explain.

You frequently need to be reminded what the posts you are responding to were about.

 

[JayUtah]

Please explain.

Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that you post the same gibberish multiple times in every thread, apparently forgetting everything that was said in response since the last time you posted it.

 

[Mojo]

Fire broke out circa 20:30 on 10 Oct 23. The press release was put out next day on 11 October 2023 and there have been no updates since, other than peripheral information about insurance claims, and salvage.

Your claim was that embargoed information "was in the hands of the police and the Fire Brigade at an early stage". What you have posted here in no way supports this claim.

 

[novaphile]

Fire broke out circa 20:30 on 10 Oct 23. The press release was put out next day on 11 October 2023 and there have been no updates since, other than peripheral information about insurance claims, and salvage.

This is another lie.

The fire service put out an update ON THE SAME DAY explaining that the vehicle was a diesel vehicle.

Have you already forgotten your endless pages of ******** about super secret illegal diesel hybrid backyard conversations, for which you provided exactly zero evidence?

Good memory my ass.

All you have is lies, innuendo and conspiracy theories.

Everyone can see through your pathetic dances.