Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Foster Zygote]

Just where the passenger seat area is to the left and at the front. (Remember, this is the UK, with a different side drive).

Gee, do they? And you said you didn't know anything about cars.

Sorry, not seeing any "highly directional, jet-like flames". All I see is fire rising predominately from under the left side of the vehicle.

 

[phiwum]

But that would mean making it disproportionately large.

Or, of course, since I'm faking the whole damn video, I could just make it appear that the camera is closer to the vehicle. Or I could add a zoom that would have a side effect of making the license plate legible.

If the video was faked for the purpose of misinformation, then there's no reason in the world to make the plate barely legible or illegible.

You have a habit of taking evidence against your theory and pretending that it's evidence for your theory, you know. I don't think it's intentional. I believe you just don't think these things through.

 

[phiwum]

The owner did not seem to be around as he was not arrested until sometime later (if it was him). The story is, he dashed off to catch a flight, being a very important person and left the forelock tugging serfs to deal with his fire.

Once again, you are credulous when it suits you. You and I don't have any good evidence that he immediately left the country, though we've heard rumors to that effect. Hence, we don't have any good evidence that he wasn't available to answer questions prior to the briefing the next day. Let's ignore rumors that we cannot reasonably evaluate as irrelevant, shall we?

In any case, my point was not to say this is what happened. Rather, it's that the chief very plausibly had some sort of evidence of the kind of vehicle prior to the briefing and his announcement that they believed it to be a diesel. Conversations with the owner are just one possible source of evidence, nothing more significant than that.

The fact that a later video seems to show a Land Rover (Range Rover, whatever) that is compatible with the earlier claim is evidence FOR the earlier claim, not against it. Had it shown a vehicle that has no diesel options, then the claims of Hopkinson would have evidently been false. It didn't.

Once again, you mistake evidence contrary to your theory for evidence in its favor.

 

[JayUtah]

The story is...

...merely a rumor until you support it with evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The owner did not seem to be around as he was not arrested until sometime later (if it was him). The story is, he dashed off to catch a flight, being a very important person and left the forelock tugging serfs to deal with his fire.

We've seen no evidence that this is true. Frankly, it sounds like the sort of urban myth that gets spread because it sounds bizarre. There's nothing particularly gossip-worthy about someone getting a ride home after his car catches fire. But tell a story about someone watching his car go up in flames and then running to catch an international flight... Well now that's interesting gossip.

Why are you credulous about unsubstantiated rumors, gossip and anonymous "experts" when they seem to support your arguments, but so skeptical of facts, official statements and actual experts when they don't? (Remember, in the states we ask questions on the rhetorical side of the query.)

 

[Matthew Best]

If you had any honesty you would know I corrected it shortly afterwards.

Community Note: This is incorrect. Someone else corrected it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Have a look at this at 0:12 onwards.



https://youtu.be/ccF4xOk5ruY?si=-tj84H9GCX-5spts

You mean the bit where it doesn't say the video shows a fuel tank explosion?

Yeah, we've seen that; the video does not show a fuel tank explosion. Why did you suggest anyone claimed this video showed a fuel tank explosion? Is it your legendarily awful attention to detail or did you just pretend it was so and hope to get away with it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Fire responders drive red trucks with flashing lights...

Yep!

Luton has an airport and it's most unreasonable for people to suggest it doesn't.

This 6 steps ahead stuff is easy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I hope it is now clear why there are concerns about Sunak's financial interests and that it is not a conspiracy theory at all.

Six swerves to the side.

Sunak is not registered blind. Making up weird terminology that no accountant would use and them stubbornly sticking to it is very odd behaviour and obviously doesn't help your credibility or support your actual conspiracy theory, which is that the fire service conspired with the PM to lie to the public about a fire safety issue to protect the PM's investments.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't think anyone said 'corruption'...

I think you very strongly implied it in the context of your misquote. It was the obvious interpretation of what you wrote.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Or, of course, since I'm faking the whole damn video, I could just make it appear that the camera is closer to the vehicle. Or I could add a zoom that would have a side effect of making the license plate legible...

While you're faking it, could you add some "highly directional, jet-like flames" please? So far they seem to be imaginary.

 

[JayUtah]

Just where the passenger seat area is to the left and at the front. (Remember, this is the UK, with a different side drive).

None observed.

And yes, from my considerable experience in jet and rocket propulsion, I am professionally qualified to identify and discuss directional, jet-like flames. Any such phenomenon you purport to be depicted in that video is purely your imagination.

 

[Foster Zygote]

None observed.

And yes, from my considerable experience in jet and rocket propulsion, I am professionally qualified to identify and discuss directional, jet-like flames. Any such phenomenon you purport to be depicted in that video is purely your imagination.

I also don't hear any highly directional, jet-like flames in the audio.

 

[Vixen]

We've seen no evidence that this is true. Frankly, it sounds like the sort of urban myth that gets spread because it sounds bizarre. There's nothing particularly gossip-worthy about someone getting a ride home after his car catches fire. But tell a story about someone watching his car go up in flames and then running to catch an international flight... Well now that's interesting gossip.

Why are you credulous about unsubstantiated rumors, gossip and anonymous "experts" when they seem to support your arguments, but so skeptical of facts, official statements and actual experts when they don't? (Remember, in the states we ask questions on the rhetorical side of the query.)

Because he was not arrested until 23 October 2023, some two weeks after the fire 10 Oct 2023. Fits in with a holiday no? (He was finally cleared from suspicion of any wrongdoing in March 2024.)

Police arrest man in connection with Luton Airport fire
Bedfordshire Police said the man was detained as a precaution and investigations so far suggest the blaze started accidentally due to a vehicle fault.
Jamel Smith
Monday 23 October 2023 13:14 BST

Independent

 

[Vixen]

I think you very strongly implied it in the context of your misquote. It was the obvious interpretation of what you wrote.

I very clearly stated that Sunak has not done anything illegal.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because he was not arrested until 23 October 2023, some two weeks after the fire 10 Oct 2023. Fits in with a holiday no? (He was finally cleared from suspicion of any wrongdoing in March 2024.)

Independent

Also could fit in with him being brought in for questioning at that point.

Again, why are you so willing to accept this "story" based on internet gossip, but so keen to dismiss an official statement by a professional fire service?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I very clearly stated that Sunak has not done anything illegal.

After strongly implying that he was having it covered up to protect his financial investments.

Ironically, that's just the sort of weaseling you accuse the fire service of committing when they unambiguously stated that the fire started with a diesel vehicle that was not in any way electrically propelled.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

None observed.

And yes, from my considerable experience in jet and rocket propulsion, I am professionally qualified to identify and discuss directional, jet-like flames. Any such phenomenon you purport to be depicted in that video is purely your imagination.

Also, UK cars use the same bodywork as European models, if they're going to be so!d in the UK or other LHD markets they're designed so the steering wheel, pedals & controls can be fitted on either side. When manuals are translated they dont always account for this change meaning the release/fuse box etc that you're looking for in the passenger footwell is actualy in their driver's side or vice versa.

 

[phiwum]

While you're faking it, could you add some "highly directional, jet-like flames" please? So far they seem to be imaginary.

Can't do it. Remember, I'm pro-EV and I'm trying to shift the blame to a diesel.

That's why I made a fake video of a Range Rover on fire. So you could see the license plate and find out it wasn't a hybrid of any sort. I mean, obviously, I didn't make it so you could really read the license plate, but I told people what it said. See, while I can fake a car fire video set in a car park, complete with fire extinguishers, matching vehicle and so on, I couldn't find a way to make the license plate readable without making the numbers too big.

Nonetheless, I'm quite clever and resourceful in some ways.

 

[phiwum]

Because he was not arrested until 23 October 2023, some two weeks after the fire 10 Oct 2023. Fits in with a holiday no? (He was finally cleared from suspicion of any wrongdoing in March 2024.)

Independent

You've already pointed out that all we know for sure is that someone was arrested, not that it was the driver or car owner.

Mind you, I think it's pretty plausible that it is the driver, but we shouldn't pretend that we have good evidence for this.

In any case, you are digressing. The point is that there are many plausible ways that Hopkinson could have tentatively concluded the vehicle was a diesel. Speaking to the owner (which isn't impossible even if he left the scene) is only one such way.

(Someone called the emergency services. I hope that the driver put in such a call to report the fire. If so, it is totally plausible that the information regarding the car's description and perhaps kind of fuel was conveyed. Do I know this happened? No, of course not. But so long as this and other explanations -- such as firefighters witnessing the vehicle -- are plausible, there's nothing suspicious about Hopkinson mentioning the fuel type in his press briefing the next day.)