Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JesseCuster said:
And what does that have to do with aluminium pipes and carp park sprinklers? Which is the question you were asked!.
Click to expand...

Eh? The Luton Airport car park fire structure collapse wasn't just caused by car zero, there is also the factor of the car park being unable to contain a fire to a restricted area and the factor of why the fire spread so rapidly, vertically and laterally. It is common sense to understand that the defective structure of the car park and the lack of sprinklers is a factor in the failure to contain the fire, given the fire seems to be identical in nature, re fire spread, to the Liverpool one, despite subsequent recommendations and the NFPA edict.
 
catsmate said:
Exactly. It refers to the remuneration available from hard graft.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure that someone of Gen Z would look up Merriam-Webster and come to that view. Others, such as myself, are aware it goes back way before the industrial revolution and did NOT originally mean, to drag oneself out of bed to earn a livelihood at the office, or down at t'mill.
 
Vixen said:
Or:

4. Mr Hopkinson as of 10:00am on 11 October 2023, the ashes and metal frames still red hot stated that, 'it is believed..at this stage...subject to verification'.
Click to expand...

You are being purposely obtuse. I am not asking about what he said on October 11. I am asking about the March 21 press release. Don't pretend not to know the difference between the two.

5. Jeremy of Communications précised this into 'plain English' due to heavy press enquiries.
Click to expand...

Were this the case, then one of the following is true.

  • The author is ignorant of the state of the investigation.
  • The author knows that the conclusion is uncertain but has chosen not to convey this fact.
A press release authored by someone who is ignorant about the facts contained therein is deceptive and an organization which makes this a practice is deceiving the public. I'm happy enough to call such intentional deception a lie.

On the other hand, knowingly hiding the tentative nature of the identification from the press and public is also intentionally deceptive and so the same reasoning applies.

6. Or, Jeremy perceiving the queries about EV's to be politically motivated by 'gammon anti-ULEZ' - pro-Big Oil shills', decided to put it to bed firmly, albeit without knowing at this stage (the first and only press conference) the true status.
Click to expand...

Same thing. If he does not know that the vehicle is a diesel but publishes a press release that confidently asserts this to be the case, then he is intentionally deceiving the public, NO MATTER WHAT REASON HE HAS. Also a lie.

Hence, if the vehicle is not a diesel, then the March 21 press release contains is intentionally deceptive and we call such intentionally deceptive utterances "lies".
 
Vixen said:
Poor show. The practice of shouting, 'You lie!' or 'Conspiracy theory!' shows a deplorable and sadly lacking ability to debate.
Click to expand...

Not as poor a show as someone who lies, and lies, and lies, and refuses to acknowledge documented facts.
 
Vixen said:
Eh? The Luton Airport car park fire structure collapse wasn't just caused by car zero, there is also the factor of the car park being unable to contain a fire to a restricted area and the factor of why the fire spread so rapidly, vertically and laterally. It is common sense to understand that the defective structure of the car park and the lack of sprinklers is a factor in the failure to contain the fire, given the fire seems to be identical in nature, re fire spread, to the Liverpool one, despite subsequent recommendations and the NFPA edict.
Click to expand...


Vixen, you posted this:

Vixen said:
I am sure he is a jolly nice fellow but he is a businessman first and foremost and he will certainly not have changed his spots. The fire was almost certainly caused by a thermal runaway and certainly caused by a Tata JLR vehicle and true to his nature the brand is being protected as that is where some of his fortune lies as well has his social contacts with Tata.
Click to expand...


When it was challenged as having zero evidence supporting it you posted this:

Vixen said:
Evidence is:

  • lack of sprinklers, as recommended in the Merseyside Fire Brigade report into Liverpoool King's Dock Fire 2018
  • The use of aluminium drainage pipes to disperse leaked petrochemicals, ditto.

In addition, NFPA mandated in Nov 2022 it be compulsory to have a sprinkler system in parking garages.

None of this was in place at Luton, and as confirmed by Andrew Hopkinson.

This equates to negligence, possibly even gross negligence, given it was an airport, which requires extra sensitivity to public safety and security issues.

Oh, and as for exact vehicle, we have not been told and I note the King's Dock report does not specify the vehicle either, even though it is commonly held to have been a Range Rover and the Liverpool Mayor is quoted in LIVERPOOL ECHO as saying it had been subjected to a 'fuel modification'.

Sunak was Chancellor at the time, so join up the dots, although that is subject to speculation, obvs.
Click to expand...


Can you explain how that is evidence that the fire was caused by a thermal runaway, and that there is a conspiracy to protect the Tata JLR brand?
 
Vixen said:
It is common sense to understand that the defective structure of the car park and the lack of sprinklers is a factor in the failure to contain the fire...
Click to expand...

No. Forensic engineering is not just the application of uninformed intuition.

given the fire seems to be identical in nature, re fire spread, to the Liverpool one, despite subsequent recommendations and the NFPA edict.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. You are not competent to draw meaningful comparisons and contrasts in the fields of forensic engineering and fire safety. You do not know how recommendations work.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yes, I am sure that someone of Gen Z would look up Merriam-Webster and come to that view. Others, such as myself, are aware it goes back way before the industrial revolution and did NOT originally mean, to drag oneself out of bed to earn a livelihood at the office, or down at t'mill.
Click to expand...

Originated in the 1600s but had the same meaning - messy jobs can earn good money. Or, in other words, you're ********ting again.
 
Vixen said:
Poor show. The practice of shouting, 'You lie!' or 'Conspiracy theory!' shows a deplorable and sadly lacking ability to debate.
Click to expand...

No one is shouting. No one but you is displaying a lack of ability to debate. You are a conspiracy theorist. Your entire performance at this forum has been promulgating one conspiracy theory after another in thread after thread, to absurd lengths. When people point out that your "logic" resembles the irrational flailing of other conspiracy theorists they're familiar with, they're telling you what's wrong with your argument. In any case, I've pointed out your logical errors specifically line by line, using the proper language of logical analysis. But you don't respond to that either. So let's dispense with the illusion that you're waiting for better class of critic.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, and you seem blithely immune to the prospect that everyone can see this.
 
GlennB said:
Originated in the 1600s but had the same meaning - messy jobs can earn good money. Or, in other words, you're ********ting again.
Click to expand...

At risk of labouring the point I'll link to Oxford Reseach again.

And to quote them again-:


Dirty or unpleasant activities are also lucrative. Proverbial saying, late 17th century; brass here means ‘money’.
Click to expand...

The authority here is the Oxford Dictionary of Phrase & Fable (Oxford University Press). Vixen's authority is solely her own and based on her own misquoting of the saying.
 
Vixen said:
Back to the topic. Did you have time to look at the video I supplied you with yet? What does location 1:04 remind you of?



https://youtu.be/M9Cl6_Y2rXU?si=kz5BJhVVYmfq5fj6

Be honest about what you see.
Click to expand...

And I asked you, to which you have yet to give a straight answer, is a lithium-ion battery fire the only thing which can cause a jet of flame like that?
 
phiwum said:
You are being purposely obtuse. I am not asking about what he said on October 11. I am asking about the March 21 press release. Don't pretend not to know the difference between the two.



Were this the case, then one of the following is true.

  • The author is ignorant of the state of the investigation.
  • The author knows that the conclusion is uncertain but has chosen not to convey this fact.
A press release authored by someone who is ignorant about the facts contained therein is deceptive and an organization which makes this a practice is deceiving the public. I'm happy enough to call such intentional deception a lie.

On the other hand, knowingly hiding the tentative nature of the identification from the press and public is also intentionally deceptive and so the same reasoning applies.



Same thing. If he does not know that the vehicle is a diesel but publishes a press release that confidently asserts this to be the case, then he is intentionally deceiving the public, NO MATTER WHAT REASON HE HAS. Also a lie.

Hence, if the vehicle is not a diesel, then the March 21 press release contains is intentionally deceptive and we call such intentionally deceptive utterances "lies".
Click to expand...

In the UK, it is considered politics and not deception. Civil servants and public servants such as the police and fire brigade, together with the defence forces have a chain of command that comes downwards. That is how it works. Technically, certain practices might be deemed unethical to those of us with a philosophical or corporate governance bent but in the real world, yes, ministers pocket taxpayers' cash and yes, they get away with it.
 
Vixen said:
Evidence is:

  • lack of sprinklers, as recommended in the Merseyside Fire Brigade report into Liverpoool King's Dock Fire 2018
  • The use of aluminium drainage pipes to disperse leaked petrochemicals, ditto.
Click to expand...

Aluminium drainage channels (not pipes) were a feature of the Liverpool car park. Their job was to be a drainage gutter for rainwater that was carried in by vehicles or driven in by the wind. It was not intended to drain spilled and burning fuel (otherwise rather obviously they would not have used aluminium and plastic parts).

If you think the Luton car park had these too please provide a reference, otherwise we can safely assume you just got confused and forgot which event was which.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom