Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Foster Zygote]

Soz, hopeless at names! If I recall correctly, the fire fighter in your scenario remained anonymous*, which rather tends to support my claim of staff being expected to uphold contractual confidentiality issues. As for the Official Secrets Act it has been established that not everybody signs it, as I had thought re the Civil Service and associated public bodies such as the police and fire brigade.

*Extract:

That fails to confirm your statement that a firefighter stated that "the fire looked like an EV fire". It's specifically said that they couldn't get close enough to see.

First, no one has said EV batteries don't burn. That would be as silly as saying that welding metal doesn't involve melting it, or that diesel is so hard to ignite that it should be dismissed as a possibility.

Second, don't you find it curious that he is reported to have said, "EV tanks", rather than "batteries"? Could it be that he was referring to the fuel tanks of hybrid vehicles? As has already been pointed out to you, even a full EV Li-ion battery contains considerably less stored energy than a full average size gasoline tank. And it's not like the unnamed firefighter singled out "EV tanks", even if he meant batteries, as anything more remarkable than fuel tanks and bursting tires. Why didn't he give Li-ion batteries any greater remark if they're as nuclear meltdown dangerous as your trying to argue? Why not, "loud bangs would be fuel tanks and tires, while the thunderous, earth-shaking blasts accompanied by flashes so bright they burn people into the walls as shadows would be EV batteries"?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I mean people who understand how the press works and how politicians work.

The bigger picture.

People like David Icke, Alex Jones, Bill Kaysing, Jim Garrison...

 

[Steve]

I mean people who understand how the press works and how politicians work.

The bigger picture.

There are some of those people in this very thread. You could learn from them.

Or are you claiming that you understand this to the exclusion of all others in this thread? If so, could you please utilize your expertise in yet another two topics and explain to us how they "work".

 

[Mojo]

Soz, hopeless at names! If I recall correctly, the fire fighter in your scenario remained anonymous*, which rather tends to support my claim of staff being expected to uphold contractual confidentiality issues. As for the Official Secrets Act it has been established that not everybody signs it, as I had thought re the Civil Service and associated public bodies such as the police and fire brigade.

*Extract:

A fire officer from London, who attended the scene in the early hours, said they could not now get inside the building to figure out the extent of the damage.

Speaking outside the partially burned-out car park, he said: "We can't get close enough to see. It's too dangerous, it will probably fall down on you, so they will probably do an insurance job and bring it all down."

Another officer, who would not be named, added that the loud bangs audible in videos circulated via social media would have been fuel tanks, tyres, and EV tanks.

It looks as if you need to be reminded what your claim was again. Here it is:

Firefighters from nearby Harpenden (there were firefighters from several regions helping to control the blaze) were reported off the record to have said it looked like a lithium-ion fire.

You later stated that this came from "an online local newspaper". Can you link to this online report? Can you even name the newspaper, or the journalist who reported it?

And why did you wait until you had conveniently forgotten all these details before posting the claim?

 

[Mojo]

Second, don't you find it curious that he is reported to have said, "EV tanks", rather than "batteries"?

Perhaps the "EV tanks" were stolen Soviet-era electric armoured vehicles that had been smuggled out of Tallinn.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What might be more valuable is people who understand how the fire service works.

Do they, for example, routinely lie about the causes of fires whenever the prime minister picks up the phone and orders them to do so? Do their whistleblowers only speak anonymously, and only to reporters for the Brigadoon Chronicle, which disappears when you look for it again?

 

[JayUtah]

The bigger picture.

It doesn't matter how big you make the picture if your argument fails at the smallest scale. In propounding a far-reaching conspiracy to show how clever you are in explaining something, you're glossing over that there's nothing to explain. The rebuttal that's fatal to your theory is still that it has subverted support.

There is no genuine controversy over what kind of vehicle started the fire. Yes, you're desperately trying to stir one up, but that all boils down to, "I think something different should have happened." That in turn boils down to, "I know what I'm talking about." But you clearly don't, so the whole controversy collapses in a heap of ignorance. Your ignorance.

So having failed at establishing the crucial premise to an explanatory argument, you're distracting from it by emphasizing the grandiose scope of your imagination elsewhere. That's classic conspiracy reasoning. Real investigation looks for the de minimis solution: what's the smallest set of facts that explain an observation. Conspiracy theories instead attempt to fill their gaping holes with ever more appeal to conspiracy: more and more supposition and innuendo. The reader is supposed to be impressed with the vast scale of the conspiracy and pay no attention to its lack of foundation.

Saying you have a big picture is not the flex you imagine it to be.

 

[Vixen]

What might be more valuable is people who understand how the fire service works.

Do they, for example, routinely lie about the causes of fires whenever the prime minister picks up the phone and orders them to do so? Do their whistleblowers only speak anonymously, and only to reporters for the Brigadoon Chronicle, which disappears when you look for it again?

I am afraid I am not at liberty to respond to your query.

 

[Mojo]

I am afraid I am not at liberty to respond to your query.

Have Rishi's minions tracked you down and forced you to sign the Official Secrets Act?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I mean people who understand how the press works and how politicians work.

The bigger picture.

Which is very much not you.

 

[malbui]

Perhaps the "EV tanks" were stolen Soviet-era electric armoured vehicles that had been smuggled out of Tallinn.

You mean the top secret underwater caterpillar-tracked ones?

 

[Steve]

I am afraid I am not at liberty to respond to your query.

Tracked you down and silenced you, did they? But allowed you to keep your internet access.

 

[GlennB]

I am afraid I am not at liberty to respond to your query.

I hope that's an attempt at humour. If not, it's very disturbing.

 

[JayUtah]

I am afraid I am not at liberty to respond to your query.

Let me guess: you could tell us but then you’ll have to kill us?

 

[Steve]

I hope that's an attempt at humour. If not, it's very disturbing.

I would never take a post by Vixen to be an attempt at humor.

 

[JayUtah]

I would never take a post by Vixen to be an attempt at humor.

This seems more like ham-fisted evasion.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You could tell us but we might die laughing?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I would never take a post by Vixen to be an attempt at humor.

Well, not a deliberate attempt anyway.

 

[junkshop]

I am afraid I am not at liberty to respond to your query.

Bollocks.

 

[junkshop]

I have never said I was smarter than anybody else. But I don't see why the well-read should be slapped down for being informed.

You may not say it explicitly, but your posts often imply it, clumsily. For example, this one.