Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Jack by the hedge]

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!

If it is your contention that subsequent statements by the fire service contain no new detail then I will attribute that to your lack of attention to detail.

If it is your contention that the new detail contained is not factual but careless writing by a junior staff member who doesn't know the facts then I'll put it down to desperation to protect your conspiracy theory from inconvenient facts.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I will await the detailed report. Then I will give you my opinion as to whether it lied about it being a diesel car.

An initial press release within minutes of the building behind still smouldering cannot possibly provide a final confirmation as to the cause of the fire. If it turns out to have been a hybrid fire, I would not consider it lying because as of that stage, as they said, they could only speculate. Speculation is not confirmation.

I don't give a toss what some PR guy on a website writes, who has nothing to do with the investigation proper.

 

[ferd burfle]

.If as is claimed it was 'probably' an electrical fault, then if the power train was involved (say, from leaking diesel fuel or accelerants, such as antifreeze fluid or brake fluid the flames would most likely fan out from the centre of the car in a V-shape.

Automotive antifreeze is an accelerant? Wow, the things you learn on the interwebs!

 

[LondonJohn]

I will await the detailed report. Then I will give you my opinion as to whether it lied about it being a diesel car.

An initial press release within minutes of the building behind still smouldering cannot possibly provide a final confirmation as to the cause of the fire. If it turns out to have been a hybrid fire, I would not consider it lying because as of that stage, as they said, they could only speculate. Speculation is not confirmation.

I don't give a toss what some PR guy on a website writes, who has nothing to do with the investigation proper.

L.M.A.O.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But the fire and Rescue organisation have said it was a diesel and have explicitly ruled out an ev or hybrid.

 

[LondonJohn]

But the fire and Rescue organisation have said it was a diesel and have explicitly ruled out an ev or hybrid.

But according to our in-house conspiracy theorist, this statement was just some PR tosser in BF&RS winging it and making up **** based on his/her own (erroneous, natch) extrapolation of the initial comments to the media made the day after the fire (which is the only statement our CT-ist recognises).

LOL.

 

[Mojo]

But the fire and Rescue organisation have said it was a diesel and have explicitly ruled out an ev or hybrid.

But apparently that doesn't supersede the earlier provisional statement, because Vixen says so.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Indeed, because Vixen says so is the entirety of both the argument and the evidence for anything Vixen says.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Automotive antifreeze is an accelerant? Wow, the things you learn on the interwebs!

That was one I almost nitpicked and then just lost the will.

Ethylene glycol will actually burn, but when it's mixed 50:50 with water, it's kinda hard to light. A bit like anything, really. Newspaper? Flammable. Newspaper soaked in its own weight of water? Not so much.

 

[Steve]

I don't give a toss what some PR guy on a website writes, who has nothing to do with the investigation proper.

And yet here you are, not even a PR guy, expounding at great length on a website about things that you have no experience or education with while having nothing to do with the investigation proper. Can you say "hypocrite"?

ETA Ninja'd by LondonJohn.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I will await the detailed report. Then I will give you my opinion as to whether it lied about it being a diesel car.

An initial press release within minutes of the building behind still smouldering cannot possibly provide a final confirmation as to the cause of the fire. If it turns out to have been a hybrid fire, I would not consider it lying because as of that stage, as they said, they could only speculate. Speculation is not confirmation.

I don't give a toss what some PR guy on a website writes, who has nothing to do with the investigation proper.

There was a later press release and statement, you know that, why do you ignore it?

 

[Steve]

But the fire and Rescue organisation have said it was a diesel and have explicitly ruled out an ev or hybrid.

But that was just Jeremy, the PR guy, who wrote this without any consultation with, or input from, the Fire and Rescue organization. They just told him "write whatever you like and stop bothering us".

 

[Mojo]

There was a later press release and statement, you know that, why do you ignore it?

Because it ***** her conspiracy theory.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Because it ***** her conspiracy theory.

This is the key to the whole thread, succinctly put.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Which isn't surprising because explosives are frequently used to put out well head fires.

Again, you saw a video of a dish of diesel oil being ignited with a simple match, and yet you still cling to this conspiracy theory fantasy that it's ridiculous to think that a diesel powered car could just catch fire without being subjected to extraordinary laboratory conditions. You even cite someone completely unknown to you who claims to be a firefighter with complete credulity because you think it will give you an out for your preposterous claims about the near impossibility of creating the conditions to ignite diesel in a car. Even the evidence of your own eyes is dismissed by citing "some guy, from somewhere, who says he knows stuff". That's the essence of a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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!

Do you really not see how obviously desperate you are when you pretend that inconvenient information just doesn't exist? You even telegraph that you know you're ignoring further evidence by referring to it as "the original press release" rather than simply "the press release".

 

[Foster Zygote]

By the way, Vixen, I'm still interested in knowing exactly how you established the precise orientation of the cameras in those images so as to be able to calculate the slope of the floor relative to true level. Maybe they took those photos with theodolites?

 

[JayUtah]

The fact Jeremy of Communications précised this into 'plain English' does not equate to 'updated information'.

Yes it does. Your purely speculative desired to attribute the official press release to some person unauthorized or uninformed is simple desperation. There have been multiple official statements identifying the vehicle type. Your bizarre insistence that we respect only the initial oral statement is a denial of evidence.

 

[Mojo]

Do you really not see how obviously desperate you are when you pretend that inconvenient information just doesn't exist?

And also when pretending that plain English is something used to obfuscate.

 

[JayUtah]

I will await the detailed report. Then I will give you my opinion as to whether it lied about it being a diesel car.

You haven't been content yet to wait for the official report. You've made up your mind already. And by saying you might dispute the official report, you're disclaiming any sort of belief in its authority. Finally, you are not qualified in any way to comment on an official investigation. You are neither knowledgeable nor honest enough to do so effectively.

An initial press release within minutes of the building behind still shouldering cannot possibly provide a final confirmation as to the cause of the fire.

Straw man. Later official releases can and usually are based on better information than was available for earlier statements, and are often also based on reliable work that eventually makes its way into the final report months or years later. There is no problem or loss of rigor in reporting the outcome of that early work early.

I don't give a toss what some PR guy on a website writes, who has nothing to do with the investigation proper.

You are simply assuming that the official release was written by "a PR guy" and that this person has no contact with the investigation and cannot speak with any knowledge or authority. You have no evidence that this is the case.

In contrast, you place your faith in the most absurd online sources, whom you judge to be reliable simply because of social media metrics. Your sources are neither official nor connected to the investigation nor knowledgeable or qualified in any way.