Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m a-drivin’ in the rain
Tears are fallin’ n I feel the pa-a-ain
Wishing this was an ICE
To end this misery
And I wonder, wah, wah, wah, wah wonder
Why-ee. Wah wah wah wah why [~that’s quite enough. Ed]


Happy to share the earworm I have had since yesterday.
 
Vixen said:
I’m a-drivin’ in the rain
Tears are fallin’ n I feel the pa-a-ain
Wishing this was an ICE
To end this misery
And I wonder, wah, wah, wah, wah wonder
Why-ee. Wah wah wah wah why [~that’s quite enough. Ed]


Happy to share the earworm I have had since yesterday.
Click to expand...

Your prayers are answered, it was a diesel.
 
zooterkin said:
Your prayers are answered, it was a diesel.
Click to expand...

But that would mean that the fire service was lying, assuming there was other evidence proving it was an EV, such as highly directional, jet-like, fuchsia flames, photos where the floor is sloping different directions, the inability of benign diesel oil to ignite without the application of high pressure, the fact that temperatures of 400°C can't be achieved outside a laboratory, or the mere existence of politicians with investments in a companies that manufactures electric cars and their Illuminati/Freemason/Shape-Shifting Reptiloid level of power to control the distribution of information by all sources public and private.
 
Vixen said:
I’m a-drivin’ in the rain
Tears are fallin’ n I feel the pa-a-ain
Wishing this was an ICE
To end this misery
And I wonder, wah, wah, wah, wah wonder
Why-ee. Wah wah wah wah why [~that’s quite enough. Ed]


Happy to share the earworm I have had since yesterday.
Click to expand...

Once again, let's focus on the consequences of your claim that the initial vehicle was a hybrid or EV.

Simple question: do you agree with the following sentence?

If the initial vehicle is a hybrid or EV, then the statement "The initial vehicle is not a hybrid or EV," is false.​

Yes or no? Is it possible that it was, say, a hybrid and yet it's also not a hybrid? Or must only one sentence, "It was a hybrid," or "It was not a hybrid," be true? That is, don't you recognize that if one of those is true, the other must be false?

If you're incapable of realizing that the truth of a sentence entails the falsity of its negation, then you have serious problems understanding logic and language.
 
And can we talk about the fact that Vixen's conspiracy theory has Sunak ordering the fire service to lie about the vehicle being an EV, then ordering a "news embargo" on the make and model of the "real" car, in order to protect his investments in Tata Motors. To accomplish this, they produce deep fake images clearly showing a Range Rover, a make that is now wholly owned by Tata Motors.

Seriously. Our nefarious villains needed to deflect scrutiny from their product, so they misdirected it toward another of their products. This argument is the same level of ridiculous as the one about NASA silencing Gus Grissom by staging an "accidental" fire in the Block 1 Command Module, and doing so because they were afraid he'd go to the press with his safety concerns about the Command Module.
 
Vixen said:
I’m a-drivin’ in the rain
Tears are fallin’ n I feel the pa-a-ain
Wishing this was an ICE
To end this misery
And I wonder, wah, wah, wah, wah wonder
Why-ee. Wah wah wah wah why [~that’s quite enough. Ed]


Happy to share the earworm I have had since yesterday.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
Your prayers are answered, it was a diesel.
Click to expand...


Conspiracy theorists squirmed,
Venting rage 'til apoplectic,
When the Fire Service confirmed
'Twas neither hybrid nor electric.​
 
Vixen said:
I didn't know Luton was a part of Sadiq Khan's manor. Taking 'Greater London' a bit far? Perhaps revise your Philip's School Atlas..?
Click to expand...

That's more or less what I thought when they decided they'd start calling it "London Luton Airport". Cheeky monkeys.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
That's more or less what I thought when they decided they'd start calling it "London Luton Airport". Cheeky monkeys.
Click to expand...


Luton has been a staunch Silly Party stronghold since Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim bus stop ◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊ Ole Biscuitbarrel carried it in 1970. So it shouldn't be any surprise.
 
phiwum said:
Once again, let's focus on the consequences of your claim that the initial vehicle was a hybrid or EV.

Simple question: do you agree with the following sentence?

If the initial vehicle is a hybrid or EV, then the statement "The initial vehicle is not a hybrid or EV," is false.​

Yes or no? Is it possible that it was, say, a hybrid and yet it's also not a hybrid? Or must only one sentence, "It was a hybrid," or "It was not a hybrid," be true? That is, don't you recognize that if one of those is true, the other must be false?

If you're incapable of realizing that the truth of a sentence entails the falsity of its negation, then you have serious problems understanding logic and language.
Click to expand...


Context is all. That sentence is unauthored.
 
Foster Zygote said:
And can we talk about the fact that Vixen's conspiracy theory has Sunak ordering the fire service to lie about the vehicle being an EV, then ordering a "news embargo" on the make and model of the "real" car, in order to protect his investments in Tata Motors. To accomplish this, they produce deep fake images clearly showing a Range Rover, a make that is now wholly owned by Tata Motors.

Seriously. Our nefarious villains needed to deflect scrutiny from their product, so they misdirected it toward another of their products. This argument is the same level of ridiculous as the one about NASA silencing Gus Grissom by staging an "accidental" fire in the Block 1 Command Module, and doing so because they were afraid he'd go to the press with his safety concerns about the Command Module.
Click to expand...

Please keep within the confines of what I said. A poster asked WHY would such news be embargoed and I SUGGESTED as an EXAMPLE, PM Sunak's links to Tata JLR, which is a reasonable one.

In PRIVATE EYE nr. 1623 p. 8, it confirms that the Post Office (shareholder, us the Taxpayer c/o the government) had its Communications Director (Mark Davies) put out a constant PR that the computer system (Horizon) was robust and that no fault had been found, when all along Deloitte and forensic accountants Second Sight in their audits and investigations TOLD the Post Office the system was not safe at all. I mention this example, because many people will be familiar with it (not as a talking point for that topic, which can be found elsewhere). This illustrates HOW government executives (some on multimillion pound salaries and bonuses) cynically and habitually use PUBLIC RELATIONS as a tool to withhold facts and mislead the public.

The trick is in distinguishing PR from genuine news. It is obvious to me that you have been taken in by PR because you do not trust what your own eyes tell you from the two videos.
 
Vixen said:
Please keep within the confines of what I said. A poster asked WHY would such news be embargoed and I SUGGESTED as an EXAMPLE, PM Sunak's links to Tata JLR, which is a reasonable one.
Click to expand...

You were asked for evidence of the embargo you claimed had been applied. Imagining what some person might have done is not evidence. It is even less convincing when that imaginary tale is based on stubborn ignorance of the underlying legal and financial principles.

The trick is in distinguishing PR from genuine news. It is obvious to me that you have been taken in by PR because you do not trust what your own eyes tell you from the two videos.
Click to expand...

No. "Your own eyes" are not the criteria for identifying official information. "Because I say so," is not a credible foundation for your arguments. You've taken a convenience source, interpreted it ignorantly, and are now presenting that as superlative to official statements from competent authority. Genuine news is that which is presented by the primary authority in its official channels. YouTube videos badly handwaved over by incompetent armchair detectives are in no fashion genuine news.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Context is all. That sentence is unauthored.
Click to expand...

So what, exactly?

So nothing.

It doesn't make a scrap of difference. The press statement, indeed the whole website, is copyright Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service. A byline name would only make it that person on behalf of BF&RS. So the statement is theirs. Deal with that.

"Lalalalala I can't hear you" is not a sound argument. Rejected. Again.
 
Vixen said:
In PRIVATE EYE nr. 1623 p. 8, it confirms that the Post Office (shareholder, us the Taxpayer c/o the government) had its Communications Director (Mark Davies) put out a constant PR that the computer system (Horizon) was robust and that no fault had been found, when all along Deloitte and forensic accountants Second Sight in their audits and investigations TOLD the Post Office the system was not safe at all. I mention this example, because many people will be familiar with it (not as a talking point for that topic, which can be found elsewhere). This illustrates HOW government executives (some on multimillion pound salaries and bonuses) cynically and habitually use PUBLIC RELATIONS as a tool to withhold facts and mislead the public.
Click to expand...


From Sky News:

Post Office spin doctor said he was in a 'corporate cover up' - years before apology issued to Horizon victims

An email presented to the inquiry on Tuesday showed the Post Office's former group communications and corporate affairs director Mark Davies believed he was part of a cover-up and conspiracy.

"It's fascinating to be part of a conspiracy. To be at the heart of a corporate cover-up," Mr Davies said in an email to Post Office communications staff, a legal team member, and another director. [italics added]​
So please explain to us again, Vixen, how you're not claiming that whoever is responsible for the press release is part of a conspiracy, and how you're not proposing a conspiracy theory.
 
Vixen said:
The trick is in distinguishing PR from genuine news.
Click to expand...

No. That's wrong. The issue is not why they say it. The issue is your mule-headed pretence that they do not say it.

The trick is only one of discerning whether this statement is what BF&RS claim as fact. Answer: Yes it is. The primary source is their own website. It does indeed make the claim.

Once you have recognised that the statement is indeed what their own website currently claims as fact, you can waste all the keystrokes you like on trying to convince the world they didn't mean to say that or they were just kidding or some office junior did it without approval, but continuing to pretend it's not really there is just making you look stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom