Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Vixen]

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.

That is exactly what is wrong with the RR 2014 Sport theory. If the person who uploaded the video can get the wording on the overhead slat saying, 'this way to Terminal 5' (or whatever), how come he or she could not manage to achieve a readable numberplate? Given the very high quality resolution of most smart phones, these days. What an unhappy coincidence that the only person able to read the numberplate is an anonymous Twitter/X account with zero followers and everyone on ISF believes this makes it 'FACT!' it is said Range Rover 2014 Sport [diesel-only] yet has the audacity to call me a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Me realist, you..?

 

[Vixen]

You told us where there was brass there would be muck, and that there was lots of brass, and we should follow the money. If the muck you were alluding to was anything other than corruption then you made a piss-poor job of expressing it.

It has never been considered corruption for a capitalist to try to make as much money as possible by way of investment, avoiding tax and strategic planning.

More an ethical issue.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, and to expand on this, keep in mind that a modern fuel-injected diesel engine, when running, will also produce jets of flame if there is a fire involving a leak in the fuel system.

This is because in modern diesel powered cars, the fuel system is under pressure when the engine is running (and my understanding is that the engine was still running). Normal fuel pressure in a Land Rover engine is between 25,000KPA (3,600 psi) and 140,000 KPA (20,000 psi) depending on load and engine speed, and this pressure is supplied by the fuel pressure pump located at, or very near to, the fuel tank. This means the whole fuel line is under this pressure, so even at idle, a leak in a fuel line being ignited will result in a pretty spectacular jet of flame, and since the entire fuel system in cars is in vehicle's under body, that jet of flame is going to appear to come from under the vehicle.

There is a video on youtube available that replicates what you describe, I take it?

 

[Mojo]

The problem arises if the only reason the Luton Airport fire Range Rover is (a) being protected from brand reputation damage and (b) EV-industry reputation damage is because Sunak is protecting his investment assets, and that possibly of family friend, Mr. Tata, then that becomes an issue of foreign interest coming before the interests of the UK taxpayer, who is entitled to have the information re faulty JLR vehicles that keep catching fire and whether the Range Rover involved (although this information has been withheld for no reason I can discern) was an EV because it is in the public interest to have this important information, even if it does affect Jaguar Land Rover's business reputation and the Prime Minister's family's foreign investments.

Begging the question. You have been arguing that the conflict of interest is evidence of a cover-up.

 

[CompusMentus]

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

From that article (my bold):-

'It is understood the man had been arrested several days after the fire and officers believe the blaze started when a diesel car, possibly a Range Rover, suffered an electrical fault or leaking fuel line'

Where does it it state he was arrested on the 23rd of October?

Compus

 

[Vixen]

Polishing is left for some future thread. This thread is producing the raw materials.

Polishing a turd does not have the same meaning as gilding the lily. One means putting a gloss on something inherently unglossy, the other is to do with hyperbole; inflating a superlative or unnecessary embellishment of an absolute.

Next!

 

[Mojo]

From that article (my bold):-

'It is understood the man had been arrested several days after the fire and officers believe the blaze started when a diesel car, possibly a Range Rover, suffered an electrical fault or leaking fuel line'

Where does it it state he was arrested on the 23rd of October?

Compus

Do you expect Vixen to have read the sources she cites?

 

[Vixen]

And boy is it providing a LOT of those 'raw materials'....
[qimg]https://i.postimg.cc/T30J2pkK/Screenshot-from-2024-05-11-15-47-07.png[/qimg]

'There's brass to be had there, lad!'

 

[Vixen]

Begging the question. You have been arguing that the conflict of interest is evidence of a cover-up.

The make model and year of the said vehicle obviously has been 'covered up' because it has never been confirmed.


No mystery there.

 

[Vixen]

From that article (my bold):-

'It is understood the man had been arrested several days after the fire and officers believe the blaze started when a diesel car, possibly a Range Rover, suffered an electrical fault or leaking fuel line'

Where does it it state he was arrested on the 23rd of October?

Compus

That is the date of the article.

 

[Mojo]

That is the date of the article.

Did you read beyond that?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Nothing to do with Criminal Law. The issue is the thorny subject of ministerial probity, ethics, governance and accountability. When an MP is elected, there has to be a mechanism for them to claim a second home inside or outside of their constituency, expenses and under an eighteenth century Act of Parliament, the wherewithal to practice without having to give up their business interests, which might be a conflict of interest. Whether or not the Constitution is tight enough to ensure highest standards is more a matter for discussion in the politics section. The only thing we are worried about here is the issue of Sunak's potential interests in (a) a foreign company (Tata in respect of Jaguar Land Rover int he UK) and (b) transparency in his business dealings, his business being hidden away in a foreign country and registered as 'blind'.

The problem arises if the only reason the Luton Airport fire Range Rover is (a) being protected from brand reputation damage and (b) EV-industry reputation damage is because Sunak is protecting his investment assets, and that possibly of family friend, Mr. Tata, then that becomes an issue of foreign interest coming before the interests of the UK taxpayer, who is entitled to have the information re faulty JLR vehicles that keep catching fire and whether the Range Rover involved (although this information has been withheld for no reason I can discern) was an EV because it is in the public interest to have this important information, even if it does affect Jaguar Land Rover's business reputation and the Prime Minister's family's foreign investments.

You don't think ordering the fire service to deliberately tell lies about the cause of a fire and enforce a cover up by the media so you can personally profit from it isn't criminal?

 

[smartcooky]

There is a video on youtube available that replicates what you describe, I take it?

No. Why?

 

[Mojo]

Nothing to do with Criminal Law.

SpitfireIX actually identified a crime that would have been committed if your conspiracy theory was true.

 

[GlennB]

No. Why?

Row X, column Y. Demand 'evidence' that's unlikely to exist. Even if you found it she'd complain it's a different vehicle.

Vixen-weaseling (xviii). It's pathetic to watch.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Nothing to do with Criminal Law.

Are you seriously suggesting that if Sunak ordered the fact that an EV started the fire covered up in order to protect his or his friends' business interests, it wouldn't constitute Misconduct in Public Office??

The issue is the thorny subject of ministerial probity, ethics, governance and accountability. When an MP is elected, there has to be a mechanism for them to claim a second home inside or outside of their constituency, expenses and under an eighteenth century Act of Parliament, the wherewithal to practice without having to give up their business interests, which might be a conflict of interest. Whether or not the Constitution is tight enough to ensure highest standards is more a matter for discussion in the politics section. The only thing we are worried about here is the issue of Sunak's potential interests in (a) a foreign company (Tata in respect of Jaguar Land Rover int he UK) and (b) transparency in his business dealings, his business being hidden away in a foreign country and registered as 'blind'.

No, the issue is that you are insinuating that Sunak is orchestrating a coverup of the "fact" that the fire was started by an EV. You're just using the blind trust/blind management arrangement (which you can't admit you mistakenly referred to as a "blind register") issue as evidence that he has a motive to do so.

The problem arises if the only reason the Luton Airport fire Range Rover is (a) being protected from brand reputation damage and (b) EV-industry reputation damage is because Sunak is protecting his investment assets, and that possibly of family friend, Mr. Tata, then that becomes an issue of foreign interest coming before the interests of the UK taxpayer, who is entitled to have the information re faulty JLR vehicles that keep catching fire and whether the Range Rover involved (although this information has been withheld for no reason I can discern) was an EV because it is in the public interest to have this important information, even if it does affect Jaguar Land Rover's business reputation and the Prime Minister's family's foreign investments.

What Mojo said.

 

[phiwum]

That is exactly what is wrong with the RR 2014 Sport theory. If the person who uploaded the video can get the wording on the overhead slat saying, 'this way to Terminal 5' (or whatever), how come he or she could not manage to achieve a readable numberplate? Given the very high quality resolution of most smart phones, these days. What an unhappy coincidence that the only person able to read the numberplate is an anonymous Twitter/X account with zero followers and everyone on ISF believes this makes it 'FACT!' it is said Range Rover 2014 Sport [diesel-only] yet has the audacity to call me a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Me realist, you..?

Once again, your argument uses evidence that works best AGAINST, not FOR your theory.

If you are making a video from scratch, in order to spread the rumor that it was a diesel vehicle, then you'd make it so that the license plate is readable. There's not a reason in the world you can't do this.

The license plate can't be read in the current video primarily because the person filming is too far away[1], but if it's a generated video, THERE IS NO PERSON FILMING! You just make the video as if the person filming were closer. Or you make the video with the person zooming in on the vehicle, "coincidentally" making the license plate legible.

Your story is silly. They could easily have made the plate legible if they wanted to.

Note also that if the video were faked and the license plate number is attached to a vehicle that had nothing to do with the fire, then it's a little surprising that we haven't heard about the real owner of that plate. It seems somewhat likely that someone would have tracked him down and he would, of course, have quite loudly protested his non-involvement with the incident. Now, this is speculative enough that I wouldn't claim with confidence that the plate number discussed online is real, but if I were making the damn video, I would not be publicizing a plate number that had nothing to do with the fire.

Yet, that is precisely what your theory involves. The point of the video is to include the plate of a vehicle that isn't a hybrid. Of course, it's an illegible plate, but you still posit that the forces behind the video also posted the license plate number -- one necessarily for a vehicle that was uninvolved. It's a stupid plan, both because they didn't make the plate legible yet that was the point of the video and because a plate number for an uninvolved vehicle will quickly be debunked.

[1] Probably the quality has been downloaded downgraded in the upgrades uploads too, but the fixes mentioned above would still allow the plate to be read.

 

[SpitfireIX]

[1] Probably the quality has been downloaded in the upgrades too, but the fixes mentioned above would still allow the plate to be read.

Did you mean to say "downgraded in the uploads" here, Rev. Spooner?

 

[Dabop]

No Vixen I am not going to waste time searching for 'evidence' on youtube- science and physics tell us exactly what happens when a fuel is atomised when exiting a small hole under pressure- its been in use for over a century- powering the bloody cars!!!
You are the one making the extraordinary claim- you get to provide the proof (of which to date you have provided exactly zero- ever...)
Three threads on this nonsense alone, plus your other multiple conspiracy theories (several also multiple chapters...)

 

[phiwum]

The make model and year of the said vehicle obviously has been 'covered up' because it has never been confirmed.


No mystery there.

It has not been disclosed to the public. That is not necessarily a coverup. A coverup requires an intent to deceive, that there is some fact that is relevant to the public but that has been willfully omitted or lied about. All we know here is that this information hasn't been disclosed.

Is it policy to disclose information about the make and model prior to the end of the investigation? Or is it simply something that may be disclosed, up to the discretion of the investigators?

Note also that there's no reason for the fire department to discuss the video unless it's relevant to their investigation. If so, this will come out in the report. If not, why bother taking the time to try to validate or refute a video that has nothing to do with the conclusions?

You are leaping to conclusions unsupported by the evidence again.