Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Vixen]

Still completely failing to address the actual questions I asked.

I can only assume that you either didn't read my post (either time I posted it) or are simply trying to evade the questions because you have no idea how to answer them.

No need to listen to me. Take a look at what a couple of car experts say.

First, Auto Expert John Cadogan, who brought out this video shortly after the fire:



https://youtu.be/zk0MWDsueMY?si=qlZTs4rJA20e4a8W

Luton Airport car park fire: What the media is not saying | Auto Expert John Cadogan

Skip the VPN paid promotion bit about five minutes in.

Too long, didn't watch: see 11:50 re media reports; 18:49 re type of car; 19:47 re cause of fire and 20:50 re EV effectts on public car parks.

Almost half a million views, so you cannot just brush him off as an inconsequential 'conspiracy theorist'.

Then there is a really excellent summing up by citizen investigative YouTuber Geoff Buys Cars:



https://youtu.be/QZEku6lHfDM?si=3p4tV7Q8elIRLcml

The Luton Fire Part 3 - Summing Up.

Too long: didn't watch: see 5:13 to 6:26, which deals with the 4-second uploaded video from the front; and the issue of the second generation of RR Sport post-2018 from 7:53.


Bear in mind, we have had NO confirmation that the widely-distributed video of the professed Vehicle Zero from the back is the vehicle that caused the fire. It might be a video from a completely different event. One hopes the BBC et al would have checked the video's metadata and were satisfied it was authentic.

 

[Vixen]

So? Diesel needs a source of ignition. Diesel car fires do happen. So the combination of fuel leaks and sources of ignition do happen. What are you arguing for here? Are you trying to deny diesels are much represented in car fire statistics? You would be wrong.

If it was a diesel car, the source of the fire likely was not the diesel fuel itself, so it is difficult to understand the emphasis the tightly controlled press releases place on the type of power train.

 

[Vixen]

Keep in mind that Vixen has actually seen a video of a dish of diesel oil being ignited with a common match.

According to one comment I saw, someone claiming to be a fire fighter said that in his training a detonator was added to a bunch of diesel fuel and it never caught fire.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Yes, just look at the sheer numbers of Brits in this thread urging people to trust the initial report that the initial vehicle, within minutes of the the blaze coming under control, that it was NOT an EV of any sort.

You are, as noted ad nauseam, an astonishingly unreliable reporter of facts. You spent weeks arguing that the vehicle was never confirmed not to be an EV of any sort. You nailed your colours to the mast that it would eventually be revealed to be some kind of EV. Now you're still trying to defend a fantasy world where that isn't wrong.

Not to mention the strong macho attitude towards moi-même that still seems to exist in - hello? - 2024.

No. You're not being criticized because you're a woman. You're being criticized for championing a ludicrous conspiracy theory simply because once you get an idea in your head it can't be shifted and you require reality to bend to your will.

 

[Vixen]

Is the fire service telling deliberate lies when it says the car was a diesel?

But it is not actually lying is it? It has told you almost nothing at all, and the fake 'update' in March was simply a repeat of what was already said in October.

As the model make and year of the vehicle has not been confirmed, nor even confirmation as to whether the widely-publicised video is genuine, then it retains plausible deniability that it ever lied.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If it was a diesel car, the source of the fire likely was not the diesel fuel itself, so it is difficult to understand the emphasis the tightly controlled press releases place on the type of power train.

Tightly controlled press release, my arse.

You know exactly why there was a press release which belaboured the point that it really was just a diesel car and not any form of EV. It was because of conspiracy nutcases who could not let go of their obsessive idea that it must have been an EV and the fire service were concealing something in crafty wording in their previous statements.

It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that you flipped from "why are they being slightly vague - isn't that suspicious" to "why are they being so specific - isn't that suspicious" when they said "oh FFS no it wasn't any kind of EV".

 

[Steve]

You seem to be forgetting that your Middlesex County Council education meant that you "walked into jobs without even being barely interviewed."

When the Middlesex County Council hires fire investigators they forego interviews and relevant education in favor of all-important claimed internet search skills.

 

[Vixen]

You've decided that one of the two videos you saw on twitter within a couple of days of the fire was real and one was a fake. And you know it's fake because someone claimed they could read the number plate, which is unacceptable as it contradicts your secret EV conspiracy theory therefore it must be disinformation. And you think it was most likely produced by someone working directly for the Prime Minister, because you noticed he has previously had people to help him make a campaign video, and who else has access that kind of technology?

Well, when you take a step back and consider it, that sounds insane.

Also, throwing in stuff like "EVangelist" and "intelligence operative" make you sound as if you have spent an unhealthy amount of time immersed in crank social media chatter and have picked up their lingo.

You misunderstand. In response to Gabey Goat's sarcasm that Sunak needed a 200-follower tweeter to create the front-view 4-sec video, I was responding in kind as to IF it was one of Sunak's team, THEN.. the possibilities would be one of the Tufton Street mob, but I never gave any credibility that the said video emanated from Sunak at all. Why should it, when he has the power of press embargo?

 

[zooterkin]

But it is not actually lying is it? It has told you almost nothing at all, and the fake 'update' in March was simply a repeat of what was already said in October.

As the model make and year of the vehicle has not been confirmed, nor even confirmation as to whether the widely-publicised video is genuine, then it retains plausible deniability that it ever lied.

Is 'lying' another word which has its own definition in Vixenworld? If knowingly telling the opposite of the truth is not lying, what is it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

But it is not actually lying is it? It has told you almost nothing at all, and the fake 'update' in March was simply a repeat of what was already said in October.

As the model make and year of the vehicle has not been confirmed, nor even confirmation as to whether the widely-publicised video is genuine, then it retains plausible deniability that it ever lied.

Jesus ******* Christ on a bike.

Give the pulpy corpse of that dead horse another few whacks - I think it twitched. The window for "not actually lying" closed when they said it was no kind of EV. They did not have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they said it. They did not forget to say "Simon Says". It was not some big boys who wrote it and ran away.

There is no scenario in which you get to pretend the fire service have left wiggle room for its being an EV.

 

[Steve]

Jesus ******* Christ on a bike.

Give the pulpy corpse of that dead horse another few whacks - I think it twitched. The window for "not actually lying" closed when they said it was no kind of EV. They did not have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they said it. They did not forget to say "Simon Says". It was not some big boys who wrote it and ran away.

There is no scenario in which you get to pretend the fire service have left wiggle room for its being an EV.

Vixen is quite understandably reluctant have her own personal reality shattered.

 

[Vixen]

So with enough air to burn there isn't any smoke?

Black smoke is because of the soot generated by partial combustion.

 

[Mojo]

But it is not actually lying is it? It has told you almost nothing at all, and the fake 'update' in March was simply a repeat of what was already said in October.

You seem to have forgotten that, in March, you complained that "another proviso has been added." How could this be if it was "a repeat of what was already said in October"?

 

[Andy_Ross]

No need to listen to me. Take a look at what a couple of car experts say.

First, Auto Expert John Cadogan, who brought out this video shortly after the fire:



https://youtu.be/zk0MWDsueMY?si=qlZTs4rJA20e4a8W

Luton Airport car park fire: What the media is not saying | Auto Expert John Cadogan

Skip the VPN paid promotion bit about five minutes in.

Too long, didn't watch: see 11:50 re media reports; 18:49 re type of car; 19:47 re cause of fire and 20:50 re EV effectts on public car parks.

Almost half a million views, so you cannot just brush him off as an inconsequential 'conspiracy theorist'.

Then there is a really excellent summing up by citizen investigative YouTuber Geoff Buys Cars:



https://youtu.be/QZEku6lHfDM?si=3p4tV7Q8elIRLcml

The Luton Fire Part 3 - Summing Up.

Too long: didn't watch: see 5:13 to 6:26, which deals with the 4-second uploaded video from the front; and the issue of the second generation of RR Sport post-2018 from 7:53.


Bear in mind, we have had NO confirmation that the widely-distributed video of the professed Vehicle Zero from the back is the vehicle that caused the fire. It might be a video from a completely different event. One hopes the BBC et al would have checked the video's metadata and were satisfied it was authentic.

It has been confirmed by the fire service that the car that started the fire was a diesel.

Are they telling lies?

 

[Andy_Ross]

If it was a diesel car, the source of the fire likely was not the diesel fuel itself, so it is difficult to understand the emphasis the tightly controlled press releases place on the type of power train.

What do you think the source of the fire was?

It is usually an electrical fault or fuel leak.
Why would the fuel itself be the source of the fire?

 

[Vixen]

Jesus ******* Christ on a bike.

Give the pulpy corpse of that dead horse another few whacks - I think it twitched. The window for "not actually lying" closed when they said it was no kind of EV. They did not have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they said it. They did not forget to say "Simon Says". It was not some big boys who wrote it and ran away.

There is no scenario in which you get to pretend the fire service have left wiggle room for its being an EV.

For crying out loud: the original press release says, 'it is believed...at this stage'. The fact Jeremy of Communications précised this into 'plain English' does not equate to 'updated information'.

Shee-eeesh!

 

[Andy_Ross]

According to one comment I saw, someone claiming to be a fire fighter said that in his training a detonator was added to a bunch of diesel fuel and it never caught fire.

In my training at the HMS Raleigh firefighting school, diesel was ignited with a diesel soaked piece of on the end of a stick set alight with a cigarette lighter.

What's your point?

 

[Andy_Ross]

But it is not actually lying is it? It has told you almost nothing at all, and the fake 'update' in March was simply a repeat of what was already said in October.

As the model make and year of the vehicle has not been confirmed, nor even confirmation as to whether the widely-publicised video is genuine, then it retains plausible deniability that it ever lied.

It has said that the fire started in a diesel car.


If it was really an electric car then surely they are telling deliberate lies.

If you think they are telling lies at least have the courage to say so.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Black smoke is because of the soot generated by partial combustion.

So with enough air to burn there won't be any smoke?

 

[LondonJohn]

I reckon some kind of fakery, even if only the claim they can read the numberplate. Just someone trying to be 'helpful', 'smart' or mischievous.

It's one thing faking a photo but a video is a bit harder, especially with details showing a sign, 'to the airport entrance' or some such wording on the wall above the car.

So your position must be that Beds Fire & Rescue Service was flat-out lying when it stated, unequivocally, that the vehicle which first caught fire was an ordinary diesel car and not any form whatsoever of EV.

And once you confirm that this is indeed your position, perhaps you can tell us why BF&RS would flat-out lie about this matter. Is it your position that either the UK Government or Rishi Sunak himself has instructed/ordered BF&RS to lie?

Please confirm (or deny) these two elements of your position, so that we can move forward with this current affairs story manifestly ridiculous conspiracy theory. Thanks in advance.


(Oh and by the way, the reason why none of the UK mainstream media are chomping at the bit to "get to the bottom" of this story is that..... it's simply not a newsworthy story. It was newsworthy on Day One, mostly because there was reasonably dramatic footage of the fire in progress. But beyond Day One, it rightly fell completely off the news agenda. For someone who claims to know how the UK media work, you sure don't know how the UK media work.....)