Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[JayUtah]

Because a press conference is from the mouth of a verified named official. There has only been one.

You changed "press release" into "press conference."

MarkCorrigan's belief is that there have been several. That is what he is entitled to believe.

There have been several press releases.

That is his opinion.

No, it is an observable fact.

 

[erwinl]

Because a press conference is from the mouth of a verified named official. There has only been one.

MarkCorrigan's belief is that there have been several. That is what he is entitled to believe.

That is his opinion.

And this is what we call a lie.

 

[JayUtah]

Still only your opinion.

No, it is the authoritative judgment by which my state grants academic degrees. I am not only fully competent to assess claims such as yours based on the evidence, it has at times been my job to do so.

You claim to have a STEM degree. You can demonstrate no relevant competence. You claimed you were a scientist, and later tried to claim accounting as that relevant science. You can't even keep your claims consistent.

"High ethical principles" require you to make an extra effort to be transparent, not just an ordinary effort. You have obfuscated your various claims to expertise habitually.

 

[JayUtah]

It was your error, which you refused to correct and apologize for after it was brought repeatedly to your attention. I said nothing whatsoever about her engineering credentials. When you finally chose to address the matter, it was to lie about what you had said, thereby evincing an unethical motive.

You're not finished, Vixen.

 

[SpitfireIX]

That is because sprinklers were only recommended, but not incorporated into building regulations for such structures as of the time it was built.

Yet you've repeatedly insinuated that the fact that sprinklers weren't included in the building is evidence of negligence and/or malfeasance.

I have done a case study in the operations of airports . . .

Irrelevant. I asked about construction, not operations.

. . . and also had to demonstrate I understood how building project management works, as part of my chartered qualification.

You seem to have missed, or forgotten, the part about how far ahead of time the final design is usually frozen, assuming that was even covered.

I have also undertaken fire risk assessment as part of another project. The risk management report I compiled had to go to the senior partner of the top 50 city firm of accountants, where I was working, as part of fulfilling vocational qualification requirements. I heard nothing back from him, but within days, all of the problems I had reported were suddenly acted upon (for example, there was an entrance to the building that was locked up and unused, with regular great piles of spam mail on the doormat: within days, the letter box was sealed off accordingly, with alacrity, acting on my recommendation; possibly because our previous offices in Bishopsgate had been bombed by the IRA in previous years [before my time]).

This has nothing to do with car parks. Further, again, the point isn't whether you're qualified to critique the fire protection incorporated into the final design of the Luton car park (although you're clearly not). The point is that you didn't understand that the Luton design was finalized before the King's Dock fire even happened, so your complaining about the fact that the Luton design didn't incorporate recommendations from the King's Dock report is silly and ignorant.

OK, so this is white-collar managerial stuff but it still requires an in-depth knowledge of industry, even if one never had to put on a hard hat.

Which you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't have.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Because a press conference is from the mouth of a verified named official. There has only been one.

MarkCorrigan's belief is that there have been several. That is what he is entitled to believe.

That is his opinion.

Oh look, a lie.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

It appears the Luton car park was designed and bids sought for its construction before the Liverpool report was published. The worst you can say is it the project was not halted to allow post-Liverpool recommendations to be incorporated. It might be worth noting that the design and the construction are two different jobs, done by different entities, especially as you wish to insinuate that the construction firm going bust a number of years later (like so many firms did when work dried up in the shadow of a global pandemic) implies they did shoddy work previously, but then, you talk about imagined design failings as if they were construction defects which indicates you really haven't thought this through.

• BS. You don't know how the Luton fire spread upwards and you don't know anything at all about the drainage design in the Luton car park.
• BS. The firefighters having to withdraw from the escalating fire is not a design or construction failure of the building.
• BS. Bring evidence of a part-constructed sprinkler system. Or better still see if the neighbouring Car Park 1 has the same.
• BS. Lots of companies went bust during the pandemic. Does that imply they all did shoddy work before?
• BS. Hours passed before fire-weakened floor slabs eventually failed. How long were they designed to resist fire? You don't know.
• BS. The design was approved. How much more would you have paid to have a design which survived fire for, say, twice as long? You have no idea. And that's a design argument, nothing to do with construction.

 

[SpitfireIX]

For example?

I'll also add all the lies you parrot about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. And I'm not talking about your claiming they're guilty. You are entitled to you own opinion on that. You are not, however, as the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, entitled to your own facts.

You routinely tell obvious, long-debunked lies about the pair, even when you've been repeatedly corrected. The fact that they're public figures doesn't magically make that acceptable.

 

[Vixen]

And this is what we call a lie.

So tell me factually how many different press releases there have been.

NB: A press release issued once and then reworded several times, perhaps for clarification, does not count as a new press release.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So tell me factually how many different press releases there have been.

NB: A press release issued once and then reworded several times, perhaps for clarification, does not count as a new press release.

You're lying again. That isn't what happened and you shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming that it is doesn't make it so.

It's pathetic.

Care to deal with the other lies I pointed out you told, like people mocking the dead?

 

[Vixen]

No, it is the authoritative judgment by which my state grants academic degrees. I am not only fully competent to assess claims such as yours based on the evidence, it has at times been my job to do so.

You claim to have a STEM degree. You can demonstrate no relevant competence. You claimed you were a scientist, and later tried to claim accounting as that relevant science. You can't even keep your claims consistent.

"High ethical principles" require you to make an extra effort to be transparent, not just an ordinary effort. You have obfuscated your various claims to expertise habitually.

You see yourself as the final word on 'authoritative judgment' but that is still only YOUR opinion.

 

[SteveAitch]

It was my perception that you sneered at Carol Vorderman's engineering credentials. You claim that in fact it was me that was the target of your insult which hardly paints you in a good light, if we are talking about honourable behaviour.

STILL your perception? Even though it was actually one of my posts and it was later explained to you that it is what we on this planet call 'a joke'. At her expense, to an extent, but also at yours for assuming her expertise in engineering was relevant to whatever spurious point you were making.

 

[JayUtah]

NB: A press release issued once and then reworded several times, perhaps for clarification, does not count as a new press release.

This is so very dishonest.

 

[JayUtah]

You see yourself as the final word on 'authoritative judgment' but that is still only YOUR opinion.

No, the state of Utah sees me as the authoritative judge of who may call themselves a scientist.

I have judged your attempts to play scientist. They are insufficient. You are not even slightly qualified as a scientist in any ordinary sense of the word. Your claims to expertise in STEM are contradicted by evidence you have provided.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No, the state of Utah sees me as the authoritative judge of who may call themselves a scientist.

I have judged your attempts to play scientist. They are insufficient. You are not even slightly qualified as a scientist in any ordinary sense of the word. Your claims to expertise in STEM are contradicted by evidence you have provided.

Even if this wasn't the case and she had never failed miserably at attempting science her own admissions, when we finally get them, show her to not be a scientist. She has admitted that she has a graduate degree in psychology but no further education in STEM and that she works as an accountant. That's not being a scientist.


Oh I've just remembered another lie you told Vixen! You claimed that our objections to you using the delusional, scientifically illiterate crank Anders Bjorkman were due to 'personality conflicts' and not the fact he's a scientifically illiterate crank.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is because sprinklers were only recommended, but not incorporated into building regulations for such structures as of the time it was built.

I have done a case study in the operations of airports and also had to demonstrate I understood how building project management works, as part of my chartered qualification.

I have also undertaken fire risk assessment as part of another project. The risk management report I compiled had to go to the senior partner of the top 50 city firm of accountants, where I was working, as part of fulfilling vocational qualification requirements. I heard nothing back from him, but within days, all of the problems I had reported were suddenly acted upon (for example, there was an entrance to the building that was locked up and unused, with regular great piles of spam mail on the doormat: within days, the letter box was sealed off accordingly, with alacrity, acting on my recommendation; possibly because our previous offices in Bishopsgate had been bombed by the IRA in previous years [before my time]).

OK, so this is white-collar managerial stuff but it still requires an in-depth knowledge of industry, even if one never had to put on a hard hat.

This is so embarrassingly tragic.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh and another! You claimed whenever anyone used a (valid) hypothetical argument that you hate them and never use them, but you often attempt to use (usually invalid) hypotheticals frequently. Thus you are a liar and a hypocrite.

 

[JayUtah]

You're not finished, Vixen.

You're not finished Vixen.

You have asserted that you operate according to "high ethical principles." When objected to, you demanded examples of unethical behavior. I have provided one, which you still have not addressed. To be specific.

1. You lied, claiming that I had questioned the credentials of a fellow engineer.

2. You subsequently sidestepped responsibility for that lie, pretending you had made some other accusation instead.

3. You have lately repeated that evasion, trying somehow to shift blame onto the victim of your false accusations.

You could have apologized immediately and convinced people it was just a sloppy error that you regretted. When you repeatedly doubled down on trying to cover up your lie, you exhibited unethical behavior. This is relevant to the thread because you raised the issue of your purported integrity apropos of nothing as the only defense to evidence offered by others that you had misrepresented the official statements of competent authority.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm still laughing at the ludicrous idea of a chartered ********** accountant being tasked to carry out a Health & Safety assessment of her offices as part of her "vocational training". Did someone mention fabulations.....?

 

[JayUtah]

Even if this wasn't the case and she had never failed miserably at attempting science her own admissions, when we finally get them, show her to not be a scientist.

Correct. For someone who claims a high degree of education, she seems very antithetical to the prospect that the judgment of a professor who has examined a candidate's work is not a valid determiner of the candidate's competence. That's literally how school works.

The evidence that Vixen has lied about her credentials in science is her utter inability to demonstrate any sort of scientific competence. Despite her denials, I am competent to judge that, and my judgment is suitable enough to have legal effect in binding the state to award degrees. Her insistence to the contrary that she has a STEM degree is thus not a very good example of her alleged high ethical principles.