Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Myriad]

It took several years of interacting with (originally) 9/11 conspiracy theorists to understand some of what underpins their thinking. I thank the "Truther" who patiently explained to me that of course most people would knowingly participate in a cover-up of treason or of thousands of murders to protect their jobs. He used the made-up but apt analogy of a brain surgeon who discovered a medical breakthrough that would heal brain trauma without surgery. Of course any brain surgeon would hide that discovery instead of revealing it, to protect their source of income! To him this was obvious and undeniable truth.

It shows how much conspiracy theorists reach their conclusions by projecting their own selfish mindset on everyone else. They believe thousands of people were willing to lie or be silent about mass murder to protect their jobs, because they themselves would lie or be silent about mass murder to protect their job. Likewise, they believe an official would perjure themselves on routine orders from higher-ups because they themselves would perjure themselves on routine orders from higher-ups. Their respect for and (secret) approval of authoritarian hierarchies (official hierarchies and shadowy secret hierarchies alike) is bottomless. And if they believe the higher-ups would order such lies and cover-ups to protect their positions or the value of their investments, not occasionally in exceptional criminal circumstances but always and routinely, it's because they know they'd do the same things themselves if they could.

This can go unnoticed for a long time because conspiracy theorists habitually speak from a play-acted position of moral disapprobation or outrage toward the supposed criminal acts they seem so keen on condemning. But isn't that how narcissistic psychopaths usually hide? "Oh, someone stole your lunch again? What kind of heartless creep would do such a thing! (*munch, munch*) That makes me so mad! They should be shot in the kneecaps!"

We often observe that conspiracy theorists don't want the conspiracies they invent and rant about to be exposed, they just want to drag out the conversation indefinitely. But why? We say, for attention or to present themselves as smarter than everyone else, but that's not all of it. The key is, they admire the people they're accusing as conspirators and the acts they're accusing them of. They want to prove their own worthiness to be let in on the conspiracy.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Another word you don't know the meaning of.

And the saying is, "where there's muck there's brass."

And the meaning isn't that where there's money there's corruption, rather it's that there are opportunities to profit from doing literally dirty or unpleasant work.

 

[zooterkin]

Exactly. Smart Cooky was gilding the lily.

And he is furious that I spotted what he did.

Let's add "gilding the lily" to the list of things Vixen doesn't understand.

 

[zooterkin]

Wrongness is Vixen's particular talent that she is so proud to put on display for us in this forum. My estimate is that a minimum of 50% of Vixen's total posts here contain information that is wrong.

And, given that she can pack two or more inaccuracies into even the shortest post, the average is probably higher than that.

 

[catsmate]

Another word you don't know the meaning of.

And the saying is, "where there's muck there's brass."

Exactly. It refers to the remuneration available from hard graft.

 

[catsmate]

I will only accept an official press release, not an edit or clerical amendments to the only press release to date, which was on 11 October 2023. The next official document will be the Report itself, unless there is a press release in advance to explain the findings of the report.

No-one cares what you will or won't accept, reality trumps your asinine fantasising.

 

[Mojo]

It took several years of interacting with (originally) 9/11 conspiracy theorists to understand some of what underpins their thinking. I thank the "Truther" who patiently explained to me that of course most people would knowingly participate in a cover-up of treason or of thousands of murders to protect their jobs. He used the made-up but apt analogy of a brain surgeon who discovered a medical breakthrough that would heal brain trauma without surgery. Of course any brain surgeon would hide that discovery instead of revealing it, to protect their source of income! To him this was obvious and undeniable truth.

It shows how much conspiracy theorists reach their conclusions by projecting their own selfish mindset on everyone else.

See also the "pharma shill gambit", which involves proponents of sCAM being unable to conceive of the idea of someone doing something without being paid for it.

 

[phiwum]

It's plain English for the website - has been from day one. Got fed up of journalists enquiring about the nature of the vehicle so expanded what was meant by 'electric'. That is all.

Those same journalists were capable of understanding "pending verification" from the start. That phrase can be found in many of the initial reports. So, since journalists understand and are willing to repeat the phrase "pending verification", why does the latest press release drop it?

And, of course, you're right that the department went to extra lengths in the latest press release to exclude the possibility that it was a hybrid. You're right that this is likely due to persistent rumors about the initial vehicle being a hybrid (and likely some journalists asked for clarification given that rumor).

But the new release is less ambiguous than previous releases. They added wording in order to state as explicitly as they could that the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. I think they did that because the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. But if I'm wrong, then the current release just baldly lies. It doesn't preserve "plausible deniability". It intentionally states, without caveat, that the vehicle was a diesel ICE.

Come the six-month mark some journalists enquired as to when was the report out (as this was the time frame of the Liverpool ECHO one). 'In the summer' was the vague management of expectations comment. So suddenly all these journalists presented it as new information, headline news. Including the opinion of an AA boff, the most likely cause was an electrical fault in the engine bay...which he already said on day one.


Fake news, peeps!

Repeating what you said before isn't fake news in any sense -- unless it was fake to begin with. But this isn't strict repetition. The initial claim that is was a diesel is no longer reported as "pending confirmation". Hence, we can surmise that the investigators are more confident than they were at the first briefing. It turns out that the initial report was correct and that verification has been found.

 

[phiwum]

Then you will understand why the press are gagged from reporting the fire to have started in (1) a thermal runaway lithium battery fire and (2) that the vehicle is a Jaguar Land Rover vehicle.

You're right that the press is not reporting that this fire was caused by a lithium battery. There are at least two possible reasons for this.

1. They have been ordered not to report this fact.
2. They have no evidence at all that this was the cause.

I'm not sure that (1) is more probable than (2), given all the evidence we've seen and especially given the press release from the fire department.

 

[phiwum]

View attachment 48491

Of course he talked and took questions. Nota bene at the 1:44 mark, when he pauses and begins to stutter. He is clearly remembering what it has been agreed he will say.

Sometimes, I pause and stammer when thinking of what I want to say. Does that look different than someone pausing and stammering as they try to remember what they were told to say?

 

[Andy_Ross]

So much wrong in one sentence. It's almost brilliant!

Play acting.

Grifting for Clicks as it's called on Twitter.

 

[phiwum]

The convention with press conferences is to send out a written press release before, at the same time, or after the press conference, because not all journalists can be there.

That begs the question of whether this was a press conference or not. Do you have any evidence that there was a written press release prior to the comments to the press?

In fact, here's what we see.

• According to this site, the fire chief talked to the press some time around 10:15 or so. By 10:19, he had announced that it was believed to start in a diesel vehicle.
• There is a series of press releases from that day, beginning as early as 7am, but the first mention that the vehicle was a diesel does not occur until 3:30pm.
• Hence, there was not a press release summarizing Hopkinson's remarks until many hours later.

So, it doesn't really matter how you think these things go. We can see that there wasn't a prepared press release prior to or shortly after the briefing.

 

[phiwum]

Listen again.

https://www.newsflare.com/video/596...ew-following-luton-airport-blaze-in-luton-uk#

Andrew Hopkinson very clearly states, 'subject to verification'.


So yes, he is telling the truth as of the time of the press conference 11 Oct 2023 in the morning.

He's not asking about the Oct. 11 briefing. There is a March 21 press release which is unequivocal and does not have any caveats about verification.

Of course, you ******* well know this, so you pretend that the later press release doesn't count.

 

[phiwum]

That is what he was hoping it would convey.

I guess you could ask him rather than intuit his intentions.

 

[Mojo]

That is what he was hoping it would convey.

I see that you are once again lying about things that people have posted.

 

[phiwum]

I will only accept an official press release, not an edit or clerical amendments to the only press release to date, which was on 11 October 2023. The next official document will be the Report itself, unless there is a press release in advance to explain the findings of the report.

Compare the following two pages.

• The press release(s) on October 11.
• The press release on March 21.

Both are found in the same area of the web site. Both have the "press release" classification. The later one does not claim to be a clerical amendment nor is it an edit of the previous one.

The difference between the two is all due to your wishful thinking.

 

[junkshop]

He's not asking about the Oct. 11 briefing. There is a March 21 press release which is unequivocal and does not have any caveats about verification.

Of course, you ******* well know this, so you pretend that the later press release doesn't count.

Vixen was informed of the existence of this press release on the 22nd of March, by Matthew Best, and given a link to it. Every post she has made since then pretending that she was unaware of it is a lie.

ETA: my apologies, the highlighted should have read "existence and content".

 

[Vixen]

And the meaning isn't that where there's money there's corruption, rather it's that there are opportunities to profit from doing literally dirty or unpleasant work.

That is the modern meaning. Look up the etymology of 'muck' and its original meaning then you'll have a better idea of how the phrase arose in its pure sense.

 

[phiwum]

I will only accept an official press release, not an edit or clerical amendments to the only press release to date, which was on 11 October 2023. The next official document will be the Report itself, unless there is a press release in advance to explain the findings of the report.

Here's a simple demonstration of the fact that the Mar 21 press release included new information.

On March 16, a certain poster wrote the following:

Spot the change: Bedfordshire Fire & Rescue Service has gone from ruling out an EV of any sort to including the possibility it might be a mild hybrid diesel-fuelled vehicle, after all.

Today, that same poster wrote this:

It's plain English for the website - has been from day one. Got fed up of journalists enquiring about the nature of the vehicle so expanded what was meant by 'electric'. That is all.

It is clear that this particular poster learned something in the interim. Before the Mar. 21 press release, she believed that the fire department intentionally left open the possibility that the initial vehicle was a mild hybrid. Now, and referencing this same release, she realizes that this possibility has been ruled out.

So, this press release matters. It is not just a reiteration of the same old stuff from October 11. In fact, between March 16 and today, Vixen kind of learned something, as much as she tries to deny it.

 

[Vixen]

Those same journalists were capable of understanding "pending verification" from the start. That phrase can be found in many of the initial reports. So, since journalists understand and are willing to repeat the phrase "pending verification", why does the latest press release drop it?

And, of course, you're right that the department went to extra lengths in the latest press release to exclude the possibility that it was a hybrid. You're right that this is likely due to persistent rumors about the initial vehicle being a hybrid (and likely some journalists asked for clarification given that rumor).

But the new release is less ambiguous than previous releases. They added wording in order to state as explicitly as they could that the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. I think they did that because the initial vehicle was not a hybrid. But if I'm wrong, then the current release just baldly lies. It doesn't preserve "plausible deniability". It intentionally states, without caveat, that the vehicle was a diesel ICE.



Repeating what you said before isn't fake news in any sense -- unless it was fake to begin with. But this isn't strict repetition. The initial claim that is was a diesel is no longer reported as "pending confirmation". Hence, we can surmise that the investigators are more confident than they were at the first briefing. It turns out that the initial report was correct and that verification has been found.

We will see in due course if the vehicle is ever identified officially by brand, make, model and year.

I would disagree the press report things accurately. For example, a press release saying 'X could be back after Easter' is invariably transformed into, 'X back after Easter'. Or 'Could this be the end of the triple lock' becomes, 'Triple Lock to end!' and anything that could be controversial is put in quotation marks and attributed to 'sources'. I shouldn't trust how news is reported in the tabloids if I were you.

The website doesn't have an author so it is not official as is Hopkinson's press release. It simply reiterates what he said but gets rid of the conditional tense.