Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[gabeygoat]

Pretty sure this thread is dead until the report and a certain person complains that they didn't say how many layers of clear coat were on it

 

[JayUtah]

Indeed, now that more competent research has shown that the responsible authority has had the audacity to explain itself for the record, and thus ruin all Vixen's conspiratorial fun, we'll just have to wait for the inevitable fringe reset.

 

[Mojo]

Indeed, now that more competent research has shown that the responsible authority has had the audacity to explain itself for the record, and thus ruin all Vixen's conspiratorial fun, we'll just have to wait for the inevitable fringe reset.

On 9th June Vixen said that she had "now followed [her initial enquiry] up with another FOI request as advised above. No reply by return this time." The FOI act says they should respond within 20 working days, so perhaps we can expect some sort of complaint by early to mid-July.

 

[Vixen]

And to make certain that no popular products of Tata Motors are blamed for the incident.

So you see, the information about the brand, model and year of the vehicle involved was being withheld from the public, and thus not 'a conspiracy theory' after all. So much for catsmate and another poster claiming they knew for a fact that it was a Range Rover Sport 2014.

I can see no valid reason for withholding this information as it is hardly information that is normally withheld nor any breach of privacy. As for the numerous other agencies dealing with the issue, the Health & Safety Executive won't give a toss about the make, it almost certainly is looking at the almost certain shoddy construction of the car park. As you may recall this was by a company that went into Administration five weeks before the fire and will go into Compulsory Liquidation by September (according to Administrator Grant Thornton) and which left two major football stadia half completed when it became no longer an ongoing trader (= bust). The issue of a dodgy builders won't be affected by the make of the car that started the fire.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So you see, the information about the brand, model and year of the vehicle involved was being withheld from the public, and thus not 'a conspiracy theory' after all.

Nice try to move the goalposts, but nope.

The fact that the information was not being reported by the fire service was self-evidently true. The conspiracy theory element is speculation about why.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... the Health & Safety Executive [...] almost certainly is looking at the almost certain shoddy construction of the car park.

I suppose a firm that has already gone into liquidation is unlikely to sue you, but if we imagine for a moment that they did, would you be in any position to say in what way their building failed to meet or exceed its design specification?

 

[JayUtah]

So you see, the information about the brand, model and year of the vehicle involved was being withheld from the public, and thus not 'a conspiracy theory' after all.

Nice try. You proposed that the fire services and the Prime Minister's office were conspiring to withhold the make, model, and year of the car in order to protect PM Sunak's alleged business interests. Your conspiracy theory regarding the purported reason for withholding that information has now been contradicted by competent authority pursuant to your request.

I can see no valid reason for withholding this information...

Too bad.

Pursuant to your request, the responsible agency has refuted your conspiracy theory as follows:

1. The web site statement is authoritative and represents the agency's current position. There is no "Jenny in Communications." The statement confirms that the initial vehicle was diesel-powered and was no sort of hybrid.

2. The agency has reconfirmed the essence of the web site statement in response to a specific claim: the vehicle was diesel-powered and no sort of vehicle. There is no further need for you to pretend you can determine by vibes that it was in fact an electric vehicle.

3. The responsible agency has confirmed that it holds the information you request, which you wrongly seem to believe is critical for determining the type of vehicle that started the fire. It has provided a legally cognizable and plausible reason for withholding that information until certain investigation activities are complete. This refutes your claim that the only reason such information should be withheld is by nefarious interference from the Prime Minister, or a good-ol'-boys understanding. Your unwillingness to accept that reason is irrelevant.

 

[JesseCuster]

So you see, the information about the brand, model and year of the vehicle involved was being withheld from the public, and thus not 'a conspiracy theory' after all.

Don't be deliberately obtuse.

The conspiracy you have been proposing isn't that the make, model and year of the vehicle is being withheld from public.

The conspiracy you have been proposing is a shoddy mess involving deliberate disinformation about the vehicle, Jenny from communications, a deep fake video, anti-ev trolls (or was it pro-ev trolls?), a junior minister, government lawyers, the PM, his wife and his father in law's investments, etc.

 

[JesseCuster]

The issue of a dodgy builders won't be affected by the make of the car that started the fire.

What exactly does the issue of dodgy builders have to do with Rishi Sunak, his wife and his father in law and and their supposed investments in Tata Motors and the whatever point you're trying to get at?

 

[welshdean]

I suppose a firm that has already gone into liquidation is unlikely to sue you, but if we imagine for a moment that they did, would you be in any position to say in what way their building failed to meet or exceed its design specification?

I've resisted this since the ridiculous accusation was initially made. The car park was built to spec and would not have been signed off if it failed to meet said specifications. To suggest it was thrown together willy-nilly, ignoring the architect's plans and then blindly paid for is painfully stupid, to say the least.

 

[Spektator]

(snip)

2. The agency has reconfirmed the essence of the web site statement in response to a specific claim: the vehicle was diesel-powered and no sort of vehicle.(snip)

I think you dropped an adjective, Jay. No sort of electric vehicle, right?

 

[JayUtah]

I think you dropped an adjective, Jay. No sort of electric vehicle, right?

Yes, that’s what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So you see, the information about the brand, model and year of the vehicle involved was being withheld from the public, and thus not 'a conspiracy theory' after all. So much for catsmate and another poster claiming they knew for a fact that it was a Range Rover Sport 2014.

I can see no valid reason for withholding this information as it is hardly information that is normally withheld nor any breach of privacy. As for the numerous other agencies dealing with the issue, the Health & Safety Executive won't give a toss about the make, it almost certainly is looking at the almost certain shoddy construction of the car park. As you may recall this was by a company that went into Administration five weeks before the fire and will go into Compulsory Liquidation by September (according to Administrator Grant Thornton) and which left two major football stadia half completed when it became no longer an ongoing trader (= bust). The issue of a dodgy builders won't be affected by the make of the car that started the fire.

********. That's all ********.

First of all, I was referencing your completely unsupported claims that at least one of the videos we've seen was a "deep fake" intended to blame the source of the fire on a diesel Range Rover in order to protect Sunak's investments in Tata EV manufacturing. But Range Rover is now owned by Tata Motors, making your conspiracy theory downright laughable. And the thing is, you knew that was my point. But you think you can gaslight your way out of the flaming wreckage of that dumb conspiracy theory.

Second, your inability to see a valid reason regarding any of this is irrelevant, because you have zero experience or authority regarding this matter. Even your use of the word "withhold" is deliberately meant to imply obfuscation or deception. The simple fact is that the official incident report has yet to be released. I expect we'll see a food deal of previously unreleased information in the final report.

Third, you have so far failed to prove that it is standard procedure to identify the year, make and model of any vehicle involved in an accident. You tried to establish this by referencing a single news report, but failed to mention (or failed to read far enough to discover) that the driver of the described vehicle had fled the scene of the accident and was being sought by the police.

 

[Craig4]

So you see, the information about the brand, model and year of the vehicle involved was being withheld from the public, and thus not 'a conspiracy theory' after all. So much for catsmate and another poster claiming they knew for a fact that it was a Range Rover Sport 2014.

I can see no valid reason for withholding this information as it is hardly information that is normally withheld nor any breach of privacy. As for the numerous other agencies dealing with the issue, the Health & Safety Executive won't give a toss about the make, it almost certainly is looking at the almost certain shoddy construction of the car park. As you may recall this was by a company that went into Administration five weeks before the fire and will go into Compulsory Liquidation by September (according to Administrator Grant Thornton) and which left two major football stadia half completed when it became no longer an ongoing trader (= bust). The issue of a dodgy builders won't be affected by the make of the car that started the fire.

Since we can establish that the vehicle was not an electric of any type and was, in fact a diesel that make and model for your purposes doesn't matter. The construction of the garage seems a rather odd side quest.

 

[JayUtah]

Since we can establish that the vehicle was not an electric of any type and was, in fact a diesel that make and model for your purposes doesn't matter. The construction of the garage seems a rather odd side quest.

Indeed, but this can happen when the claim is based on inference and insinuation from various indirect arguments, and when the claimant has a history of never backing down on anything. It's easy to accuse someone here of losing the plot. But in fact it's we who have lost the plot—or perhaps never had it. The plot is not, "The Luton fire was caused by an electric vehicle." The plot instead is, "Vixen has figured out something that all the smart people missed." It doesn't much matter what that is, as long as it remains ego-reinforcing. Hence the tap-dancing and goalpost-shifting.

The proposition, "The Luton fire was caused by an electric vehicle," is based on inductive reasoning, as almost all such empirical exercises are. The best parts of her reasoning border on fantasy. The worst parts are pure, uninformed fantasy. The inductive leap endemic to all post hoc, happenstance investigation is a galaxy-wide chasm in Vixen's case. Now that the electric vehicle hypothesis has been directly refuted, the inferential precursor-premise arguments should just disappear into mootness. But conspiracy rhetoric is not based on establishing some particular proposition. It's based on the meta proposition that the conspiracy theorist is always knowledgeably right, even if what they're right about isn't what we started with and doesn't ultimately matter.

"It must have been an electric vehicle," is based partly on Vixen's purported ability to look at indistinct video and declare that the vehicle in question has lithium ion batteries and that the visible flames are characteristic of this. Irrelevant; the vehicle was a diesel.

It's based partly on Vixen's yarn-and-pushpins argument that the U.K. Prime Minister has business interests that are suspicious and must be preserved at all costs in a way that denies the involvement of an electric vehicle. This follows the conspiracy rhetoric that says if you can't show evidence that something did happen, just insinuate that it must have because someone had a motive to do it. Irrelevant; the vehicle was a diesel, and maybe even part of Sunak's business interests anyway. Thither the cover-story excuse.

It's based partly on Vixen's self-purported ability to determine that one structure fire is suspiciously different from another that she insists it should have resembled. It happened so fast at Luton, she argued, because the source of the fire was so intense that it cannot have been an ordinary hydrocarbon-accelerated fire, but could only be explained by the purported intensity of a lithium-ion battery fire. This got us off and running on the purported dereliction on the part of the builders, how the structure should have had various fire-suppression features, and how recommendations following a previous fire were "suspiciously" not incorporated.

That last part has nothing to do with electric vehicles. But it has everything to with whether Vixen got some sort of right answer. Just like how she has "shown" That P.M. Rishi Sunak is a scoundrel and "shown" that uncomfortable facts can be blamed on Jenny in Communications, she has "shown" that the fire at Luton was suspiciously intense due to the dereliction of its builders and overseers. It's no longer relevant to what started the fire, but isn't she ever so clever for figuring it all out?

But it can't be let go, because Vixen never lets go. Armchair detectives are obsessed not with getting the right answer, but instead with being thought clever. All these indirect arguments that formerly led to the ultimate question now have lives of their own. That's because the "ultimate" question was never the ultimate question. The ultimate proposition was always, "Vixen is so smart because she figured out the real cause of the Luton fire." And now it simply shifts to, "Vixen is so smart because she found Sunak's secret money stash," and "Vixen is so smart because she uncovered a builder's sloth and dereliction." It doesn't matter what comes after the "because" as long as each proposition begins with, "Vixen is so smart because..."

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Is the answer "42" ?

 

[catsmate]

So you see, the information about the brand, model and year of the vehicle involved was being withheld from the public, and thus not 'a conspiracy theory' after all. So much for catsmate and another poster claiming they knew for a fact that it was a Range Rover Sport 2014.

I can see no valid reason for withholding this information as it is hardly information that is normally withheld nor any breach of privacy. As for the numerous other agencies dealing with the issue, the Health & Safety Executive won't give a toss about the make, it almost certainly is looking at the almost certain shoddy construction of the car park. As you may recall this was by a company that went into Administration five weeks before the fire and will go into Compulsory Liquidation by September (according to Administrator Grant Thornton) and which left two major football stadia half completed when it became no longer an ongoing trader (= bust). The issue of a dodgy builders won't be affected by the make of the car that started the fire.

You're lying again.

 

[catsmate]

Is the answer "42" ?

54, except in base thirteen.

 

[JayUtah]

You're lying again.

I'm puzzled why you and others are saying this. The fire service has confirmed that they know the make, model, and year of the initial vehicle. As far as I know, no one has ever seriously contested that they did. The fire service confirm that they will not presently publish that information, citing exemptions to the FOI laws and alluding to the factors that motivate those exemptions. This is what I understand to be the contended point. Vixen argued that the only reason for not publishing the vehicle details was to protect Sunak's business interests in electric vehicles. The fire service has provided a different reason. The conspiracy theory as I understood it was about why the details were withheld, not that they were.

 

[Wudang]

1. The web site statement is authoritative and represents the agency's current position. There is no "Jenny in Communications." The statement confirms that the initial vehicle was diesel-powered and was no sort of hybrid.

Their responses to FOIA requests go through an ISO9001 officer and are thus definitely official statements and thus not from Jenny in Comms or the webmaster.