• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.
Click to expand...

Jesus! The irony.
 
Vixen said:
As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire. They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference. The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front. Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti-EV mob. They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.
Click to expand...

Answer the question, please.
 
junkshop said:
Answer the question, please.
Click to expand...

What's really funny is that Vixen is using the same sort of evasive ambiguity she accuses the fire service of using in order to obfuscate the fact that she can't demonstrate how the fire service statement is in any way ambiguous.
 
Vixen said:
It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part.
Click to expand...

What a fertile imagination you have.

He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.
Click to expand...

No. You blatantly lied.

You claimed I had been "contemptuously scornful of Carol Vorderman having a degree in Engineering." I did no such thing, and you know it. Furthermore, your false accusation came on the heels of your latest evasion from substantive argument by accusing me of spreading false personal information about you. Someone as apparently concerned as you are about spreading false information should not do so herself, and should hasten to correct it when she has.

As usual, you resisted all the initial attempts to hold you accountable for that lie. When you decided to address it, it was to add additional accusations. You continue to cover up being caught lying by amplifying your personal attacks. You aren't at all sorry. You have no regard for what is obviously true.

Keep that in mind as you facetiously try to challenge your betters regarding the Luton fire. We certainly will.
 
Vixen said:
Oh dear. Thank you for admitting you are prejudiced by thinking this has anything whatsoever to do with 9/11, Apollo or JFK.
Click to expand...

How is it biased to note that the flawed reasoning in your conspiracy theory mimics the false reasoning in more popular conspiracy theories? Your implied rejection of those theories should result in the rejection of your own conspiracy theory.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Am I reading this right: Vixen is misreading your mockery of *her* (Vixen's) way of tracking credentials as mockery of Voldemort Vordeman's actual credentials?
Click to expand...

At the time I made the statement, I had no idea what Vorderman's credentials were. I don't know who she is. I don't care who she is. I was simply responding to Spitfire IX's estimate that Vorderman didn't know what a blind trust was.

And yes, "Master's equivalent" is a reference to Vixen's idiom for her accounting credentials. It has nothing to do with engineering. It has nothing to do with anyone but Vixen. Hence my consistent application of the cautionary quotes when I use it.

As to whether I was "scoring points," that depends. It was a throwaway quip, meant to elicit nothing more than a chuckle. For the humor-impaired, I will explain that I insincerely thought Vorderman's apparent confusion over blind trusts could be explained by her having only one "Master's equivalent" (i.e., Vixen's dubious credential), whereas Vixen has two, and is thus "properly" qualified. If you didn't get the joke or don't appreciate the humor, don't award me the points. I promise my ego won't suffer too badly, and I vow to be more liberal with the smilies in future.

SteveAitch offered a more accessible bit of humor: that Vorderman was qualified as an engineer, and something all too true about a hammer. That was the first time I'd been told what Vorderman's field of expertise actually was. As was said: this is what we on Planet Earth call a "joke."

The matter would have been lost to the torrent of the thread but for Vixen's untruthful accusation. Unfortunately this requires me to take action, because—as an engineer myself—I have a professional responsibility not to question the relevant qualifications of others in my profession without cause. It doesn't matter that my actual comments were about some unrelated matter and in ignorance of her qualifications; if Vixen's accusation could be reasonably believed, I would stand in violation of my professional ethics. Hence my vigor in holding Vixen to account, and the belabor in establishing its falsehood.
 
Vixen said:
It's enshrined in many facets of law. Spouse has joint rights in many areas. Considered so close they are excused from giving evidence against each other in a criminal trial. Unless there is a specific will the spouse gets everything should one of them die (in the UK). A spouse has the right to carry on living in the spousal home should the other half die, ceteris parabus. So the idea of passing one's wealth over to the spouse and then claiming not to have an interest is nonsense.
Click to expand...
A mix of outright lies and irrelevant nonsense.
 
Vixen said:
It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.
Click to expand...
Childish nonsense.

 
Vixen said:
As I have stated multiple times by now, ...
Click to expand...

Or, more accurately, you have refused multiple times to address a direct statement by competent authority by this same made-up belief for how it arose and why. Your Jenny story seems to exist only to absolve you from having to admit that you are accusing the investigating authority of lying, and of doing so by orders from on high to unlawfully protect individual financial interest.

Again we find the hair split that so often decorates your arguments, and is further characteristic of conspiracy reasoning. You walk right up to the desired conclusion without actually drawing it. Phiwum has provided a detailed an referenced analysis of this. But without actually drawing the only conclusion your argument points to, you think you can escape responsibility for it and shift the moral disapprobation for allegedly jumping to it onto your critics. This lets you berate them for their apparent animus.

"I never claimed this or that," gets you another ten pages of attention every time, while your critics continually reconstruct your argument for you to show that this-or-that fairly is what you're claiming. Your reluctance to draw the conclusion your arguments inevitably lead to—and which you ostensibly intend—doesn't protect your virtue; it stains it with the colors of dishonesty.

Further, your well-worn fairy tale about how you think the authoritative statement regarding the initial vehicle in the Luton fire came about further illustrates what I've said multiple times: arguments made solely on the basis of your own purported authority lack foundation and are thereby unconvincing. The only foundation for this fantasy is your insinuation that you know how things work—a skill you've amply demonstrated you don't have. When that purported knowledge the only basis for your argument, it is the only appropriate subject of rebuttal. When you complain that those rebuttals hurt your feelings, you are only reaping the fruits of your own decisions.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It said on Day One that it was subject to verification.
Click to expand...

That verification came later. Your unwillingness to regard it doesn't make it go away for everyone else or make your subsequent arguments valid by omitting it. Your desire to limit your examination of the evidence to only what was said on Day One does not evince better judgement.

Nothing has been confirmed in the press...
Click to expand...

Straw man. It was confirmed by competent authority in their customary way.

...except that people are unable to make out that the whole thing is conditional on the outcome of the investigation.
Click to expand...

No. You are not an authority on investigations. I am, and I will correct you. That certain interim conclusions may be reliably drawn early in an investigation and published by competent official authority before a final report is entered does not compromise either the authority of the early statements or the comprehension of the final report. In fact, it is common these days to publish preliminary findings that include reliable factual findings thus far, as well as less sure developments in the ongoing investigation. The issue of the final report marks the determination of the last relevant and discoverable detail, not all of them en masse.

The notion that no information may be considered reliable until the conclusion of the investigation and the publication of the final report exists in your imagination alone.

The guy who was arrested was not even cleared until six month's later, so what makes you think 'the case is closed' as of Day One even?
Click to expand...

Straw man. The determination of which vehicle caused the fire is not tantamount to "case closed."

Let's see if the make, model and year and power train type is ever revealed in the final report.
Click to expand...

Straw man. You seem to be hedging your eventual rejection of the official findings if they does not comport to your arbitrary and uninformed imagination. You have yet to put any faith in any official findings in all your various conspiracy theories at this forum. There is no reason to believe you'll accept this one regardless of what it says.
 
Hah

Never trusted TFL after that Sunak guy took charge or should that be Sadiq Khan. I think we'll have to ask vixen for her experttise.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Honestly I'm amazed that this whole thing hasn't been blamed on the CIA for some reason.
Click to expand...

The driver disappeared for ten days because he was secretly abducted by helicopter from the car park roof, as directed by the prime minister on orders from the CIA, and placed on a rendition flight to... where can you get to from Luton? Ibiza.

It's just this thing prime ministers do for the CIA. Quite normal.
 
welshdean said:
It can't be true, you can't melt steel outside of a lab.
Click to expand...

Has anyone determined if the ground is sloping the same direction in all those photos? There may even be some street signage that's a little too indicative of a London street scene, if you know what I mean. [wink wink]

We may be looking at another deep fake. We're through the looking glass, people!
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The driver disappeared for ten days because he was secretly abducted by helicopter from the car park roof, as directed by the prime minister on orders from the CIA, and placed on a rendition flight to... where can you get to from Luton? Ibiza.

It's just this thing prime ministers do for the CIA. Quite normal.
Click to expand...

Where do the Rand Corporation, the Saucer People and the Reverse Vampires fit in?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The driver disappeared for ten days because he was secretly abducted by helicopter from the car park roof, as directed by the prime minister on orders from the CIA, and placed on a rendition flight to... where can you get to from Luton? Ibiza.

It's just this thing prime ministers do for the CIA. Quite normal.
Click to expand...

thum_7376764c8421c6872b.png
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The driver disappeared for ten days because he was secretly abducted by helicopter from the car park roof, as directed by the prime minister on orders from the CIA, and placed on a rendition flight to... where can you get to from Luton? Ibiza.

It's just this thing prime ministers do for the CIA. Quite normal.
Click to expand...


If he was disappeared it must have been the Swedes. What awards have the crew of the helicopter been offered to keep them quiet?
 
Vixen said:
As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Vixen said:
They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Vixen said:
The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front.
Click to expand...

Evidence?


Vixen said:
Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti-EV mob.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Vixen said:
They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
Vixen said:
It's exactly that. JayUtah gets very very angry if he thinks someone is queering his pitch. He thinks this is HIS pitch. Hence the mockery on his part. He's defending his pitch by loudly wailing.
Click to expand...

He's not defending anything. What he is doing is calling out your lies, your false claims of certification, authority and expertise. He has pointed out numerous basic blunders, and failures to understand the most basic terminology and nomenclature of your claimed expertise. That is what really chaps your arse - you can't get away with the lies you tell with people like him in the debate.

I see you as being to the Luton Car Park Fire what Jarrah White is to the Moon Landings, a blundering conspiracy theorist with no clue. On a credibility scale from 1-to-10, JayUtah rates a 10 - you rate a ZERO.
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
I am asking you if the statement is true.

Yes or no.
Click to expand...

And I would like to add, this is not a loaded question*, i.e. not a yes/no question that can only lead to the same conclusion.

So, Vixen, we want you to answer the question posed by junkshop (et al) with a "Yes" or a "No". The first word in any reply you give must be either "yes" or "no". You earn the right to elaborate only once you have done so.

_________________________________________________________________


* For those who do not understand what a loaded question is, and who are laboring under the misapprehension that all yes/no questions are loaded questions....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

So,

"Do you still beat your wife? Yes or No" is a loaded question, because it presupposes facts, so answering either yes or no results in the same conclusion, namely, that you are or have been a wife beater.

However...

"Do you beat your wife? Yes or No" is NOT a loaded question, because there are no presupposed facts, so answering "yes" results in a different conclusion from answering "no".
‎
‎
 
Last edited:
MinimumWageShill said:
Oh no

Another fire in London claimed to be a diesal fire. Obviously Fire Service covering up again due to no mention of manufacturer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxxxgk05e8no
Click to expand...

/me puts on his derpy derp hat.

Clearly a conspiracy because everyone knows that diesel can't catch fire unless exposed to temperatures and pressures equivalent to the sun.

I note that diesel is spelled 'diesal' in the above, that's a tip to alert all the conspirators that this was really an illegal diesel hybrid conversion.
 
smartcooky said:
He's not defending anything. What he is doing is calling out your lies, your false claims of certification, authority and expertise. He has pointed out numerous basic blunders, and failures to understand the most basic terminology and nomenclature of your claimed expertise. That is what really chaps your arse - you can't get away with the lies you tell with people like him in the debate.
Click to expand...

Allow me to offer a gentle refinement to this endorsement. I see sufficient difference between holding Vixen accountable to her insinuations of proficiency when they are the foundations of her own claims about Luton etc., and challenging the far more egregious accusation she leveled personally against me and is an outrageous lie.

The former is at best a secondary rebuttal and is justified only insofar as the foundation of her argument is plausibly that insinuation to knowledge or expertise. Where rebuttals can be based on evidence or logical analysis that transcends personal details, those should prevail. Vixen sadly provides little toehold for those, preferring “Because I say so” claims instead.

The latter needs no elaborate moral support. Vixen lied. And she did so not to further her argument or rejoin her point, but with little other plausible purpose than to lash out in frustration. Given that what she’s accused me of doing is frowned upon by my profession, it bears more effort on my part to ensure she is made to answer for this particular malicious lie.
 
Vixen said:
As I have stated multiple times by now, Jeremifer, in charge of a webpage, has nothing at all to do with the investigation into the fire. They just bang up whatever the Fire Chief said at his press conference. The Fire Chief has had just one such Press briefing, and as of that time, had not seen the Romanian lady's video, nor the one from the front. Jeremifer simply put it into 'plain English' and being an eco-warrior thought it 'kinda' amusing to sock one in the eye to the anti-EV mob. They probably go chucking orange paint over famous paintings at weekends.
Click to expand...

So the very people who more or less dictate the fire official's early press briefing do not read the official press releases on the department's website. That's a curious oversight, isn't it?
 
Vixen said:
Beds F&RS hasn't deceived you. It said on Day One that it was subject to verification. Nothing has been confirmed in the press except that people are unable to make out that the whole thing is conditional on the outcome of the investigation. The guy who was arrested was not even cleared until six month's later, so what makes you think 'the case is closed' as of Day One even?

Let's see if the make, model and year and power train type is ever revealed in the final report.
Click to expand...

The sentence is on an official press release even today. It is, according to you, a false statement. Hence, we are currently being deceived unless you are wrong and the car is in fact a diesel ICE vehicle.

It's not too hard to see how this necessarily follows from your own claims. You claim that any fool can see the car is a hybrid or EV. Hence, the statement that it is neither is a false statement. That statement is in an official press release of the BF&RS, and so it is clear that we are being deceived by the BF&RS officials, who surely have the duty to ensure that official press releases reflect the best understanding of the cause of the fire.
 
smartcooky said:
tHeRmAl rUnAwAy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boggled::eek:
Click to expand...

I'm assigning Sunak blame
'cause of funny colored flame
Why won't you folks agree
That the car was an EV and I wonder
I won won won won wonder
Why why why why why why you people say
I'm proposing a conspiracayyy
With my thermal runaway
Run-run-run-run-runaway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom