Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[P.J. Denyer]

Your goalposts have now achieved infinite warp. They are moving faster than any goalpost ever has before.

They're moving so fast there's a non zero chance they'll travel back in time and hit the first fish to make it onto the land preventing the human race ever existing. After reading this thread I'm on the fence about whether that's a bad thing.

 

[Steve]

Seems likely. The latest whacked out ideas don't relate to electric vehicles.

But they do maintain the illusion of competency in Vixen's rather singular mind.

 

[Vixen]

There's certainly evidence that she doesn't read the posts she's replying to.

Six steps ahead. Just providing no need for the further five posts in between that leads to mine. It's called efficiency.

 

[Steve]

Six steps ahead. Just providing no need for the further five posts in between that leads to mine. It's called efficiency.

Six steps ahead of reality is not a position to take pride in. And efficiency commonly produces a favorable result. What is yours?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Six steps ahead of reality is not a position to take pride in. And efficiency commonly produces a favorable result. What is yours?

Quite aside from anything else people who are genuinely six steps ahead use that to plan the intermediate five steps to get the outcome they want not skip them and launch a non- sequitur or try to spring a trap no-one is in. Still I guess it sounds good if you're playing to an audience of one.

 

[JesseCuster]

Six steps ahead. Just providing no need for the further five posts in between that leads to mine. It's called efficiency.

You have taken a 90 degree turn and have walked six steps up the imaginary axis, orthogonal to reality.

 

[JayUtah]

Six steps ahead. Just providing no need for the further five posts in between that leads to mine. It's called efficiency.

You’re not ahead of anything. You were making up crap before. And you’re making up crap now. It’s just different crap.

 

[Craig4]

It's called efficiency.

Trying something new are you?

 

[Vixen]

You’re not ahead of anything. You were making up crap before. And you’re making up crap now. It’s just different crap.

It is a chess reference.

How many moves ahead does Bobby Fischer see?
If he studies the position for all of five seconds, he can see five or six moves ahead, sometimes more.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/...e studies the position,win with time to spare.

It was sardonic.

 

[junkshop]

It is a chess reference.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/...e studies the position,win with time to spare.

It was sardonic.

It was pathetic.

 

[JayUtah]

It was sardonic.

No, you're not smarter than everyone. Or, really, anyone.

 

[Craig4]

It was sardonic.

Being honest would serve you better.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The people who had their cars destroyed could in theory add their names to the list of creditors.

While it's at least obliquely related to the post it replies to, I assume this response means that no, you would be in no position to defend your claim the car park was shoddily built or failed to meet its design parameters in any way.

If you do ever find where you put your evidence for your further claim of its having a partially-installed sprinkler system, do let us know.

 

[Craig4]

This might be the point to say, "Gee, I'm sorry; I should not have slandered the Fire Brigade by accusing them of lying about the type of car".

 

[Steve]

While it's at least obliquely related to the post it replies to, I assume this response means that no, you would be in no position to defend your claim the car park was shoddily built or failed to meet its design parameters in any way.

If you do ever find where you put your evidence for your further claim of its having a partially-installed sprinkler system, do let us know.

"where the sun don't shine...."

 

[whoanellie]

It is a chess reference.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/...e studies the position,win with time to spare.

It was sardonic.

We all knew what you meant. It was more ironic than sardonic.

 

[welshdean]

We all knew what you meant. It was more ironic than sardonic.

I took it as misplaced arrogance.

 

[Vixen]

This might be the point to say, "Gee, I'm sorry; I should not have slandered the Fire Brigade by accusing them of lying about the type of car".

Citation?


In addition, whilst you are busy - as you won't find any - (1) look up the meaning of 'slander' and (2) if you want to start a discussion on 'slander' by all means start a new thread.

Oh, and by the way, do look up Article 10 of ECHR principles.

 

[Vixen]

While it's at least obliquely related to the post it replies to, I assume this response means that no, you would be in no position to defend your claim the car park was shoddily built or failed to meet its design parameters in any way.

If you do ever find where you put your evidence for your further claim of its having a partially-installed sprinkler system, do let us know.

I did explain in which way the car park was defective as compared to the Merseyside Liverpool King's Dock Report of 2019 in respect of failure to take on board its recommendations. I referenced Andrew Hopkinson's own observations about how the fire had spread rapidly vertically, and this phenomenon had also been analysed in detail int he Merseyside Fire Brigade Report, and how to avoid it, in respect of how the drainage of vehicle fluids should - or rather should not - be laid out across the floors. So, I explained and justified my reasoning, which may or may not turn out to be well-founded, given:

• how the fire spread UPWARDS indicating a similar fuel fire shower from the floor above, as at Liverpool King's Dock
• how the fire officer teams had to evacuate within circa 18 minutes of fighting the blaze inside
• the observation by a third party (source to be pinpointed) that water pipes had been installed but not the associated sprinklers
• the car park builders having gone 'bust', possibly implying shoddy materials/labour, owing to lack of funds
• the airport car park CCTV showing a whole slab of concrete ceiling dropping down to the floor below causing a car it was holding to explode
• the external steel structure not seeming to have been (optionally) fire-proofed.

 

[Craig4]

Citation?


In addition, whilst you are busy - as you won't find any - (1) look up the meaning of 'slander' and (2) if you want to start a discussion on 'slander' by all means start a new thread.

Oh, and by the way, do look up Article 10 of ECHR principles.

"Oral communication of false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of another."

For crying out loud! A reasonable person will naturally want to understand WHY it is so IMPORTANT to insist from Day One it was a DIESEL and then pretend regular 'updates' that it is still a diesel?

Why is it so important to emphasise this one detail which caused the destruction of up to 1,500 cars and new-ish carpark.

Quote:
@benscribbles
Just seen the demolition of the Luton Airport car park following the fire and was actually speechless at the level of damage.
https://x.com/benscribbles/status/1791487000429674871

It is clearly an attempt at inculcation and therefore you should ask WHY is it important that the make, model and year of the first vehicle should not be confirmed but we have to have it bashed into our brains it was a DIESEL.

Why is that bit important? Explain.

Then we discover a certain person has a whole fleet of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles because he is such a great fan and the wife's father is a close friend of...Mr. Tata who owns JLR 100% and has just been handed multiple hundreds of millions of UK tax payer monies as a subsidy...signed off by you-know-who. And the UK taxpayer has no idea where this person has his £500m portfolio invested as he claims it is all on the 'blind trust' register and thus avoids declaring stuff that ought to be transparent.


AHA!!!!



Penny drops...?!

Are you really going to suggest that the above is not a false or misleading statement that could damage the reputation of another? You clearly suggested that the updates were misleading or dishonest when you had no reason to believe so.

How about you run down to the shops and buy yourself a bottle of integrity?