Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

Jack by the hedge said:
We did this already. Don't you remember?

"What's left of the CCTV recordings"? Are you asserting the CCTV from the car park would be monitored, recorded and stored somewhere within the car park itself? I'm not sure that even after all these months you have actually thought this through.
Click to expand...


She might be trying to insinuate that some of them have been deleted.

Without, of course, making an actual claim.
 
Vixen said:
Fear of what Anti-EV's might say cannot be the reason as no effort is made to gag the anti-vaxxers, the 'was it dying with Covid or dying of Covid' brigade, nor any response to 'Where's Kate'.
Click to expand...


What effort is being made to gag you, or any of the other "anti-EV's"?
 
Vixen said:
Out of at least 1,200 cars coming and going all the time from a busy international airport, I cannot see how anyone is in any position to confidently aver which car caused the mass destruction.
Click to expand...


The fact that it was photographed on fire was a bit of a giveaway.
 
Vixen said:
Out of at least 1,200 cars coming and going all the time from a busy international airport, I cannot see how anyone is in any position to confidently aver which car caused the mass destruction.
Click to expand...
So you're suggesting that the vehicle in flames was not the one that started the fire? It just coincidentally happened to be on fire at the same time an EV was going supernova in another part of the garage? Oh, it was on the roof, right? Everyone has simply been distracted by this "benign" diesel car fire that just happened to be occurring at the same moment in the same garage.

There is the ANPR as each vehicle arrives and departs but even then you cannot be sure which one was the culprit without the office staff next morning going through the data and what's left of the CCTV recordings.
Click to expand...
If the CCTV records a Range Rover matching the other one we've seen driving into the parking garage with smoke coming out of it, it's a pretty good indicator of it having been the car that started the fire. Again, you seem to be assuming that your tireless research has uncovered all the available evidence. Do you acknowledge that the fire investigation certainly relied on more evidence than you have yet seen?

Oh, and what do you mean by "what's left of the CCTV recordings"? Do you imagine investigators sifting through the rubble and finding a charred video camera and expressing their hope that there's some useful video left on it?

Certainly, the Fire Brigade's number one responsibility is to contain the fire, and this was not contained unto circa 3:45am.
Click to expand...
Meaning what, exactly? You're saying investigators can't look at video evidence and interview witnesses the next day?

Anyway, I am glad you have confirmed that your main motivation is an aversion to Anti-EV'ers, which is hardly neutral and impartial, when looking at an incident objectively.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that you have confirmed that you are an "Anti-EV'er". You've even capitalized it.

And we don't have an aversion to any of what you've said in this thread. It's simply that your arguments have been easily dismantled crap. They are neither neutral, impartial or objective, nor any other redundant synonyms you might wish to use to pad out your sentences to make them sound more intellectual, such as unbiased, non-partisan, equitable, dispassionate or open-minded.

You're admittedly Anti-EV stance is a position that isn't based on evidence, but rather your desire to find an explanation for which you get to take credit (despite the fact that you are, no doubt, parroting much of what you say from other conspiracy theorists on other sites, do to their relevant expertise in working at car dealerships and parking garages). Any actually impartial review of the available evidence leads to the conclusion that the fire was caused by a diesel vehicle. But you don't like that answer because it isn't one that you get to take credit for, and no one is going to stick it to the refrigerator with a banana magnet and pat you on the head and tell you how clever you are. You've ignored evidence, manufactured evidence in the pretense that you know what you're talking about, presented unsupported innuendo, and outright lied to try to force the conclusion to the one that you've wanted from the very root of the issue.
 
Vixen said:
Anyone who writes 'What Jay said', is clearly unable to formulate their own words in this matter.

But someone at an early point made the decision to (a) decline to confirm vehicle brand, model and year, and (b) insist at point Hour Zero it was a diesel.
Click to expand...

WHY do you continue to LIE???

At 'point zero hour' it was clearly stated that it was SUSPECTED to be a diesel vehicle, which months later was confirmed

One of the many reasons to withhold the owners information (especially now) would be to prevent conspiracy nutcases (coughs) from continually pestering them....
 
Foster Zygote said:
So you're suggesting that the vehicle in flames was not the one that started the fire? It just coincidentally happened to be on fire at the same time an EV was going supernova in another part of the garage? Oh, it was on the roof, right? Everyone has simply been distracted by this "benign" diesel car fire that just happened to be occurring at the same moment in the same garage.


If the CCTV records a Range Rover matching the other one we've seen driving into the parking garage with smoke coming out of it, it's a pretty good indicator of it having been the car that started the fire. Again, you seem to be assuming that your tireless research has uncovered all the available evidence. Do you acknowledge that the fire investigation certainly relied on more evidence than you have yet seen?

Oh, and what do you mean by "what's left of the CCTV recordings"? Do you imagine investigators sifting through the rubble and finding a charred video camera and expressing their hope that there's some useful video left on it?


Meaning what, exactly? You're saying investigators can't look at video evidence and interview witnesses the next day?


I'm glad that you have confirmed that you are an "Anti-EV'er". You've even capitalized it.

And we don't have an aversion to any of what you've said in this thread. It's simply that your arguments have been easily dismantled crap. They are neither neutral, impartial or objective, nor any other redundant synonyms you might wish to use to pad out your sentences to make them sound more intellectual, such as unbiased, non-partisan, equitable, dispassionate or open-minded.

You're admittedly Anti-EV stance is a position that isn't based on evidence, but rather your desire to find an explanation for which you get to take credit (despite the fact that you are, no doubt, parroting much of what you say from other conspiracy theorists on other sites, do to their relevant expertise in working at car dealerships and parking garages). Any actually impartial review of the available evidence leads to the conclusion that the fire was caused by a diesel vehicle. But you don't like that answer because it isn't one that you get to take credit for, and no one is going to stick it to the refrigerator with a banana magnet and pat you on the head and tell you how clever you are. You've ignored evidence, manufactured evidence in the pretense that you know what you're talking about, presented unsupported innuendo, and outright lied to try to force the conclusion to the one that you've wanted from the very root of the issue.
Click to expand...


Not to mention that the owner of the car almost certainly either phoned the Fire Service or spoke to them at the scene confirming the vehicle & it's engine type. I think Vixen has some story about him noticing the car was on fire & thinking "Oh well, I'll just leave it here, no-one will notice and I'll deal.with it when I get back from my holibobs. It'll be fine."

i'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure abandoning a burning vehicle in an enclosed space & leaving without contacting the authorities would get you arrested.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Not to mention that the owner of the car almost certainly either phoned the Fire Service or spoke to them at the scene confirming the vehicle & it's engine type. I think Vixen has some story about him noticing the car was on fire & thinking "Oh well, I'll just leave it here, no-one will notice and I'll deal.with it when I get back from my holibobs. It'll be fine."

i'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure abandoning a burning vehicle in an enclosed space & leaving without contacting the authorities would get you arrested.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Vixen is going to claim he was arrested, because he (she?) was brought in for questioning by the police. But whatever the circumstances of the appearance, he was let go, apparently, without charges.

It's certainly possible that the driver left afterward for some international appointment, business or pleasure, but it seems unlikely he would have simply abandoned his burning car and rushed to catch a flight. Not that it's impossible for someone to be that stupid, but it seems to strain credibility at this point. And I'm not sure how quickly the Luton airport shut down flights, but it also seems unlikely that he could have checked in, got through security and made it to his gate fast enough to catch the flight just as they were about to close the jetway without the flight being cancelled. We're talking about a major international airport, after all. It's more likely that he simply rebooked and flew out a day or two later, having already spoken to the fire service/police.

The difference, of course, is that while we might speculate about the probability of certain events, we aren't going to proceed with anything as evidence unless/until it is confirmed, whereas Vixen will enthusiastically introduce as evidence what is mere internet gossip.
 
SpitfireIX said:
To add to what Jay and others have written ("what they said"), this is just a particularly asinine and insulting excuse to avoid providing a substantive response.




This has nothing to do with what I wrote, so let me pose a direct question. Can you explain, without engaging in special pleading or evasion, how you are not accusing Sunak of engaging in Conspiracy to commit Misconduct in Office, when it is apparent that you clearly are? Recall that, as we have discussed, "no one cares," "he won't be punished," etc., do not alter the fact that the actions you have accused him of taking are undoubtedly criminal. Recall also that an implicit agreement to commit a crime still constitutes a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Someone expressed disbelief that there could be any reason to decline to confirm the vehicle was a Range Rover, or its make. I simply suggested that suppression of information goes on all the time. When asked for a reason as to why anyone would embargo information I suggested that a certain party (Tata) has a great interest in protecting the JLR brand because they had just been awarded multiple hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer monies by someone with the power to embargo information.

In any case, it is quite within protocol for bodies such as the police and fire brigade to keep schtum until they have investigated and prepared their incident report.
 
Mojo said:
She might be trying to insinuate that some of them have been deleted.

Without, of course, making an actual claim.
Click to expand...

In the Liverpool Car Park fire, there came a point when it was impossible to see anything because of the smoke. In addition, given the extent of the damage, there is likely a point in which the CCTV equipment itself was kaput.
 
Foster Zygote said:
So you're suggesting that the vehicle in flames was not the one that started the fire? It just coincidentally happened to be on fire at the same time an EV was going supernova in another part of the garage? Oh, it was on the roof, right? Everyone has simply been distracted by this "benign" diesel car fire that just happened to be occurring at the same moment in the same garage.


If the CCTV records a Range Rover matching the other one we've seen driving into the parking garage with smoke coming out of it, it's a pretty good indicator of it having been the car that started the fire. Again, you seem to be assuming that your tireless research has uncovered all the available evidence. Do you acknowledge that the fire investigation certainly relied on more evidence than you have yet seen?

Oh, and what do you mean by "what's left of the CCTV recordings"? Do you imagine investigators sifting through the rubble and finding a charred video camera and expressing their hope that there's some useful video left on it?


Meaning what, exactly? You're saying investigators can't look at video evidence and interview witnesses the next day?


I'm glad that you have confirmed that you are an "Anti-EV'er". You've even capitalized it.

And we don't have an aversion to any of what you've said in this thread. It's simply that your arguments have been easily dismantled crap. They are neither neutral, impartial or objective, nor any other redundant synonyms you might wish to use to pad out your sentences to make them sound more intellectual, such as unbiased, non-partisan, equitable, dispassionate or open-minded.

You're admittedly Anti-EV stance is a position that isn't based on evidence, but rather your desire to find an explanation for which you get to take credit (despite the fact that you are, no doubt, parroting much of what you say from other conspiracy theorists on other sites, do to their relevant expertise in working at car dealerships and parking garages). Any actually impartial review of the available evidence leads to the conclusion that the fire was caused by a diesel vehicle. But you don't like that answer because it isn't one that you get to take credit for, and no one is going to stick it to the refrigerator with a banana magnet and pat you on the head and tell you how clever you are. You've ignored evidence, manufactured evidence in the pretense that you know what you're talking about, presented unsupported innuendo, and outright lied to try to force the conclusion to the one that you've wanted from the very root of the issue.
Click to expand...

Whoa. Let's wind back the chronology. The fire proper (until it was under control) lasted from circa 20:38 to 03:45: at least seven hours of uncontrollable fire. Regional Fire Chief press conference circa 10:00am, even if CCTV footage is available of the entire fire when did he have time to watch it all, given his role is one of leadership of the Fire Teams and to bring the fire under control, together with safe evacuation of everybody. The investigation can wait. When Mr. Hopkinson gave his press conference, he was asked by a reporter what type of vehicle caused the fire and he replied quite noncommittally that 'we believe it was a diesel at this stage, subject to confirmation'.

As of that time he almost certainly was not aware that a Romanian lady had taken a video on her phone, and someone else posting a day or two later, posted what appeared to be a video from the front view. This looked like a lithium-ion fire to many people. yet the only argument you have is, 'Oh, most fires are caused by petrol/diesel cars' (19,000 according to one poster), or, 'What you saw might be plastics, tyres and exploding tanks, the whole dead parrot sketch.

So no, it was not set in stone on Day One what type of vehicle it was. Yet the PR guys decided to reframe Mr. Hopkinson's words from 'it might be' to 'it definitely was'.
 
Dabop said:
WHY do you continue to LIE???

At 'point zero hour' it was clearly stated that it was SUSPECTED to be a diesel vehicle, which months later was confirmed

One of the many reasons to withhold the owners information (especially now) would be to prevent conspiracy nutcases (coughs) from continually pestering them....
Click to expand...

No that wouldn't be the reason. If the police were looking at a potential criminal offence, that would be the reason not to identify the driver.


The press reports of car model and make (even colour) all the time. Yet not in this case, although they all say it appears to be a Land Rover. But it is not confirmed.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Not to mention that the owner of the car almost certainly either phoned the Fire Service or spoke to them at the scene confirming the vehicle & it's engine type. I think Vixen has some story about him noticing the car was on fire & thinking "Oh well, I'll just leave it here, no-one will notice and I'll deal.with it when I get back from my holibobs. It'll be fine."

i'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure abandoning a burning vehicle in an enclosed space & leaving without contacting the authorities would get you arrested.
Click to expand...

The Romanian lady and her friend were left to find another extinguisher on another level but soon gave up. The driver seems to not have been around as of that stage. The story going around was that he dashed into the airport and asked staff to deal with it as he had to catch an important flight. He wasn't arrested for quite a few days and was released on bail. He was not completely cleared and taken off bail until March, six months later. So much for the police and fire brigade solving the case by 10:00 11 October 2023.
 
Vixen said:
Whoa. Let's wind back the chronology. The fire proper (until it was under control) lasted from circa 20:38 to 03:45: at least seven hours of uncontrollable fire. Regional Fire Chief press conference circa 10:00am, even if CCTV footage is available of the entire fire when did he have time to watch it all, given his role is one of leadership of the Fire Teams and to bring the fire under control, together with safe evacuation of everybody. The investigation can wait. When Mr. Hopkinson gave his press conference, he was asked by a reporter what type of vehicle caused the fire and he replied quite noncommittally that 'we believe it was a diesel at this stage, subject to confirmation'.

As of that time he almost certainly was not aware that a Romanian lady had taken a video on her phone, and someone else posting a day or two later, posted what appeared to be a video from the front view. This looked like a lithium-ion fire to many people. yet the only argument you have is, 'Oh, most fires are caused by petrol/diesel cars' (19,000 according to one poster), or, 'What you saw might be plastics, tyres and exploding tanks, the whole dead parrot sketch.

So no, it was not set in stone on Day One what type of vehicle it was. Yet the PR guys decided to reframe Mr. Hopkinson's words from 'it might be' to 'it definitely was'.
Click to expand...


Let's wind back the chronology, and see if you can figure out whether more than one day elapsed between the fire and March 21st.
 
Vixen said:
When Mr. Hopkinson gave his press conference, he was asked by a reporter what type of vehicle caused the fire and he replied quite noncommittally that 'we believe it was a diesel at this stage, subject to confirmation'.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that that was an off the cuff remark rather than something that had been prepared for him to say?

Is it possible that it was confirmed at some point between the fire and March 21st?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom