Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
In the Liverpool Fire report of 2018 it doesn't give any detail of vehicle zero so I doubt they will here, either.
Click to expand...

Do you consider it suspicious that the Liverpool report does not identify the initial vehicle by make and model? Do you consider it suspicious that it did not publish the name and details of its owner? If so, why are you citing it as governing authority in the Luton case? If not, why are you now considering it suspicious that those details are not forthcoming now in the Luton case?

Had the Romanian lady not taken that video and the other person from the front (albeit question marks about its authenticity especially re the numberplate) we would not be arguing about the type of vehicle.
Click to expand...

No. The only debate about the identity and fuel type of the initiating vehicle in the Luton case is coming from self-appointed experts stumbling their way through a lay exercise vaguely trying to resemble an investigation.

Competent authority has settled the question of what kind of vehicle the initiating vehicle was. They are under no obligation to address and dispel every conspiracy theory that arises.
 
JayUtah said:
You have zero evidence that any of this is or could be the case. It is literally entirely your imagination.
Click to expand...

The main objection to the idea that the car involved is some kind of EV seems to be, 'but most fires are ICE fires', followed by loads of figures about how ICE fires exceed anything of EV's (cf. Smart Cooky and his 19,000 burning cars), when it is completely beside the point.
 
Vixen said:
Let's see if it gives any detail of the vehicle in the report.
Click to expand...

You are not interested in the final report. You continue to challenge the official findings and statements in lieu of a report. In none of the other accidents or incidents you have made the subject of your conspiracy theories have you given deference to official findings that dispute your uninformed beliefs. There is no reason to believe you will do so in this case and no reason to believe it constitutes a valid reason for you to avoid the criticism you are faced with now.
 
Vixen said:
The main objection to the idea that the car involved is some kind of EV seems to be, 'but most fires are ICE fires', followed by loads of figures about how ICE fires exceed anything of EV's (cf. Smart Cooky and his 19,000 burning cars), when it is completely beside the point.
Click to expand...

No. The main objection to the idea that the initial vehicle is that competent authority has issued a finding to that effect, and that all you can provide to dispute that finding is a whole bunch of, "Because I say so," speculative conspiracy twaddle, and a lot of frantic handwaving from social media.

You have no credible evidence to support your objection. Now address the actual arguments instead of trying to stuff others in your critics' mouths.
 
Vixen said:
As of 11 October 2023 when Mr. Hopkinson made his statement it was true because that was their best educated guess based on what they knew so far and what they knew from historical fires.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask about what Hopkinson said on October 11.

I asked whether the sentence
The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle.
Click to expand...
is true or false.

Just read that sentence and consider whether it is true or not. That's all.

When doing so, keep in mind that you have said that,

So, whilst he was offering the opinion it was a 'diesel' vehicle, 'at this stage subject to verification', the video that was widely circulated on social media and the national press (even as a BBC video) - none of them able to officially confirm its authenticity - but which showed a clear thermal runaway fire.
Click to expand...

You have also conceded that the video very probably shows the initial vehicle on fire.

Hence, if the video showed it was a thermal runaway fire, then the vehicle must have been an EV or hybrid.

Now, with all that in mind, is the quoted sentence true or false?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


It seems to have come from a Germanic root meaning "soft" via an Old Norse word meaning "dung". It's unclear how this is supposed to help your argument.
 
Vixen said:
In the UK, it is considered politics and not deception.
Click to expand...

That is simply untrue.

The notorious euphemism in the UK for politicians misleading people is "being economical with the truth". But that is not happening here because it does not mean lying. It is presenting only some of the facts to encourage others to reach wrong conclusions.

Despite your denialism, that is not happening here. The Fire Service are not equivocating. They say flat out this was not a fire in any type of EV. Your bizarre denial that they say this is absurd and wrong.
 
Vixen said:
If it remains unexplained in the report when it comes out then yes, I would.
Click to expand...

The truth of the sentence
"The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle."​
does not depend on the future. It is a sentence about something which has already happened. It is about the vehicle which started the fire in Luton.

Is that sentence true or false right now? (It's truth value will not change in the future, mind you.)

Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? Do you reckon the car in question was a hybrid? If so, that sentence is false.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, it is actually an international body, although based in the USA.
Click to expand...

The National Fire Protection Association is really an International organisation. Right...


The question, anyway, was whether its requirements apply to the UK. Can you show that they do?
 
Vixen said:
The main objection to the idea that the car involved is some kind of EV seems to be, 'but most fires are ICE fires', followed by loads of figures about how ICE fires exceed anything of EV's (cf. Smart Cooky and his 19,000 burning cars), when it is completely beside the point.
Click to expand...


No, the main objection to the idea that the car involved is some kind of EV is that the BFRS has stated explicitly that it wasn't.
 
Vixen said:
I have no comment to make about an unauthored article.
Click to expand...

I have a comment to make: It is copyright the Bedford Fire and Rescue Service.

I have a second comment too: your constant fishing for excuses to pretend the fire service don't state it was a diesel car are comically absurd.
 
JayUtah said:
No. The main objection to the idea that the initial vehicle is that competent authority has issued a finding to that effect, and that all you can provide to dispute that finding is a whole bunch of, "Because I say so," speculative conspiracy twaddle, and a lot of frantic handwaving from social media.

You have no credible evidence to support your objection. Now address the actual arguments instead of trying to stuff others in your critics' mouths.
Click to expand...

No, the findings were not out on 11 October 2023. The Fire Brigade were giving a polite update to the press, which is the normal convention in a serious incident. You will have to wait for the report to discover the findings.
 
phiwum said:
I didn't ask about what Hopkinson said on October 11.

I asked whether the sentence

is true or false.

Just read that sentence and consider whether it is true or not. That's all.

When doing so, keep in mind that you have said that,



You have also conceded that the video very probably shows the initial vehicle on fire.

Hence, if the video showed it was a thermal runaway fire, then the vehicle must have been an EV or hybrid.

Now, with all that in mind, is the quoted sentence true or false?
Click to expand...

I do not have sufficient information to come to a conclusion.
 
Vixen said:
No, the findings were not out on 11 October 2023. The Fire Brigade were giving a polite update to the press, which is the normal convention in a serious incident. You will have to wait for the report to discover the findings.
Click to expand...

Quite right! It was an update. It included new information not previously disclosed, namely that the fact it was a diesel is no longer in doubt and that it was not a hybrid of any sort.

Glad to see that you agree the March 21 press release is an official statement with information not previously disclosed.
 
Vixen said:
No, the findings were not out on 11 October 2023. The Fire Brigade were giving a polite update to the press, which is the normal convention in a serious incident. You will have to wait for the report to discover the findings.
Click to expand...
Poppycock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom