Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[catsmate]

They won't because it is against protocol to do so before the report is published.

Yet more bollocks. The media regularly publishes leaked reports.

 

[catsmate]

No it hasn't been identified 'repeatedly'. You have simply had your expectations managed by repetition of what was said whilst the building was still burning. Notice the update was at the six-month stage. Give the peasants a morsel pretending it is new information, as though they are not entitled to know but here's a few crumbs to let you know we have not forgotten your need for information.

Yes it has, you're lying again.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It turned out to be an 'update' on what was already said on 11 October 2023.

IOW not a genuine update as to the cause of the fire.


Reminds me of similar 'updates' re a particular famous person. It is simply a PR ploy called 'managing expectations' by simply repeating what was already said the other day.

It is pathetic that people are satisfied with this type of non-news, insofar they do not realise the cynical manipulation of their 'expectations'.

It explicitly states that the fire started with a diesel powered vehicle, not an EV.

 

[Mojo]

It turned out to be an 'update' on what was already said on 11 October 2023.

IOW not a genuine update as to the cause of the fire.

It confirmed the previously provisional finding that the vehicle involved was not a hybrid or EV. That's an update. You don't like it because it undermines your conspiracy theory, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a genuine update.

If you only allow 'updates' that confirm your theory, that makes your theory unfalsifiable, which coincidentally is a characteristic of conspiracy theories.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No it hasn't been identified 'repeatedly'. You have simply had your expectations managed by repetition of what was said whilst the building was still burning. Notice the update was at the six-month stage. Give the peasants a morsel pretending it is new information, as though they are not entitled to know but here's a few crumbs to let you know we have not forgotten your need for information.

It has been stated officially by the fire service that the fire started with a diesel powered vehicle, not an EV.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They won't because it is against protocol to do so before the report is published.

What would happen after the report is published? You suggest the press are covering up a conspiracy to protect the prime minister's scheme to make money for himself from car batteries.

Will they reveal the fact of this cover up and their complicity after the report is released?

I don't think you have thought this through.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It turned out to be an 'update' on what was already said on 11 October 2023.



IOW not a genuine update as to the cause of the fire.





Reminds me of similar 'updates' re a particular famous person. It is simply a PR ploy called 'managing expectations' by simply repeating what was already said the other day.



It is pathetic that people are satisfied with this type of non-news, insofar they do not realise the cynical manipulation of their 'expectations'.

You're in denial. If you take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying la la la it might help.

 

[Vixen]

Will you be supporting these claims with evidence?

https://youtu.be/QZEku6lHfDM?si=LIwsHgW_niPtbGWI



5:48 onwards.

 

[JayUtah]

They won't because it is against protocol to do so before the report is published.

Oh really? And how many forensic engineering investigations have you participated in, that you would know this? That’s right: zero. Does it ever occur to you not to make up crap?

 

[JayUtah]

No it hasn't been identified 'repeatedly'.

It clearly has.

You have simply had your expectations managed by repetition of what was said whilst the building was still burning. Notice the update was at the six-month stage. Give the peasants a morsel pretending it is new information, as though they are not entitled to know but here's a few crumbs to let you know we have not forgotten your need for information.

No. Your yarn-and-strings conspiracy theory is not a substitute for facts.

 

[JayUtah]

https://youtu.be/QZEku6lHfDM?si=LIwsHgW_niPtbGWI



5:48 onwards.

Evidence, not opinions from ignorant YouTubers groveling for eyeballs.

 

[Vixen]

Oh this will be interesting....



Oh look Vixen is lying. Cadogan is not an "Auto Expert", he's a journalist with no qualifications who uses YouTube to make money from idiots.


Another idiot with no qualifications and a near pathological hatred of EVs.
And a pro-Putin agenda. Absolute imbecile.

So, let's summarise. The "many experts" Vixen claims support her opinions have become a couple of YouTube grifters.

Utterly pathetic, but equally expected.

So your views are based on political beliefs rather than the actual cause of the fire.

 

[Mojo]

https://youtu.be/QZEku6lHfDM?si=LIwsHgW_niPtbGWI



5:48 onwards.

But what about this?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

 

[junkshop]

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...

This is, in my 'ever so 'umble, the crux of this thread. Vixen, as you know, the BF&RS have publicly stated that the instigating vehicle was a diesel and not an EV or a hybrid. Do you believe, as you have insinuated, that this statement was knowingly false?

If so, then you are accusing them of lying.

Waffle about some imagined Jenny/Jeremy in Comms/PR is irrelevant. The published opinion of the BF&RS is that it was a diesel powered vehicle.

Waffle about British deference to the authority of the upper classes is irrelevant. The BF&RS are not the upper classes.

Waffle about the Two Ronnies is, obviously, irrelevant. They are both very much dead.

So, do you believe that the unambiguous statement by the BF&RS is knowingly untrue? Are you accusing them of lying?


ETA: To clarify, I'm not yet asking why you believe that they are or aren't lying, that comes after. For now I am asking you to clarify whether or not you believe that their unambiguous public statement is knowingly false (a lie).

 

[Vixen]

What would happen after the report is published? You suggest the press are covering up a conspiracy to protect the prime minister's scheme to make money for himself from car batteries.

Will they reveal the fact of this cover up and their complicity after the report is released?

I don't think you have thought this through.

Show me the newspaper report that confirms make, model and year of the vehicle concerned. They have the video posted by 'Bitcoin Bertie' so what is the problem, since you are claiming complete transparency?

 

[SpitfireIX]

So your views are based on political beliefs rather than the actual cause of the fire.

And, naturally, you ignored the "no qualifications and a near pathological hatred of EVs" part of catsmate's post. Further, did it occur to you that a Putin shill would have an interest in attempting to discredit the British government?

 

[Vixen]

This is, in my 'ever so 'umble, the crux of this thread. Vixen, as you know, the BF&RS have publicly stated that the instigating vehicle was a diesel and not an EV or a hybrid. Do you believe, as you have insinuated, that this statement was knowingly false?

If so, then you are accusing them of lying.

Waffle about some imagined Jenny/Jeremy in Comms/PR is irrelevant. The published opinion of the BF&RS is that it was a diesel powered vehicle.

Waffle about British deference to the authority of the upper classes is irrelevant. The BF&RS are not the upper classes.

Waffle about the Two Ronnies is, obviously, irrelevant. They are both very much dead.

So, do you believe that the unambiguous statement by the BF&RS is knowingly untrue? Are you accusing them of lying?


ETA: To clarify, I'm not yet asking why you believe that they are or aren't lying, that comes after. For now I am asking you to clarify whether or not you believe that their unambiguous public statement is knowingly false (a lie).

They haven't told you anything, so they cannot be lying. Why do you think people arrested for serious crimes are advised by their lawyer to say, 'no comment' to every question?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Indeed, her claim that she can just intuit the effective slope because she's seen art that uses perspective is comically desperate and naive.

Ironically, rotation about the optical axis is the only affine transformation that is preserved in the projection. You can literally apply the same transformation to the projected data and obtain the same result as rotating about the optical axis prior to projection.

Affine space is the three dimensional space in which objects nominally exist. Affine transformations are those we apply to affine measurements which preserve the "affinity" of the data. Moving a car one meter to the left does not change the distance between the points of the car. And it changes the distance from all the points of the car to some reference plane by exactly and only a linear function of the parameter of the transformation. Ditto scaling and rotation. Affine transformations can be accumulated, and the affinity is a function of the accumulation—again linear.

What we see in photographs is projective space. The projection transformation is not an affine transformation and is not affinity-preserving. Transformations of the measurements in affine space are not preserved through the projection. For a simple lens, the projection is governed by a scalar parameter. For most lenses used today, the projection parameter is a function. This is referred to in the literature as the "lens model."

Photogrammetric rectification is the process of inverting the projective transformation. This is difficult in some cases because projection is not theoretically invertible. Several points in affine space will project to the same point in projective space. Thus the inversion of a point in projective space is a line in affine space. This is all linear algebra—points, vectors, and matrices. The projection matrix is a 4x4 matrix. The photogrammetrist's job is to populate this matrix for some photographic frame with actual numbers. Then by inverting the matrix insofar as possible, we can obtain a line in affine space that corresponds to a point in projective space. We use other cues to locate a desired point along the line. Only then can we say that we have points in affine space derived from a photograph that you can then use to reason about angles in affine space that provide such practical information as terrain slope.

Numbers, points, and vectors are not Vixen's strong suit. Pretending that she can perform this exacting calculation in her head simply because she's seen art that uses perspective is as arrogantly presumptive as claiming one can produce an accurate recipe for soup by seeing a photograph of a bowl of it.

That is affine post.

 

[junkshop]

They haven't told you anything, so they cannot be lying. Why do you think people arrested for serious crimes are advised by their lawyer to say, 'no comment' to every question?

Don't be ridiculous. Do you need to be spoonfed links to the MULTIPLE and increasingly specific press releases published by the BF&RS since their CFO's initial press conference yet again?

No, you are well aware of what they have stated in their press releases. Stop fannying around and answer the question.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Indeed.

It is an ill-founded myth that diesel is difficult to ignite at atmospheric pressure. Oh sure, it is more difficult to ignite than petrol or kerosene, but it still ignites fairly easily. A diesel-soaked rag can be lit with a match or a cigarette lighter in seconds. What it is difficult to get diesel to do is to detonate.This takes a lot of pressure. Its why the pressure in the cylinders of a diesel engine are so high. They have to reach pressure ratios in excess of 15:1 (225psi) to 23:1 (350psi).

Right from the get-go, Vixen has completely misunderstood the facts surrounding diesel and this misunderstanding stems from her lack of knowledge of the subject material. Consequently, she has to rely on Googling stuff she doesn't know about, such as physics, chemistry, fire theory, language, and changes in social norms in the UK over the last 50 or so years!

As one of the contributors to this thread has been known to say...

"You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"