• 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
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
DAILY TELEGRAPH seems to think it is one car that is falling through the floor not dozens.
Click to expand...

So an official, superseding statement from the fire service has to be dismissed because it's somehow not sufficiently authoritative. But Jenny, who has a part-time job at the Telegraph writing short captions for their social media video clips, is somehow an authority on the whole tragedy.

Typical conspiracy crap: find one tiny bit of allegedly bellwether evidence and hang everything on that to the exclusion of all else.
 
JayUtah said:
So an official, superseding statement from the fire service has to be dismissed because it's somehow not sufficiently authoritative. But Jenny, who has a part-time job at the Telegraph writing short captions for their social media video clips, is somehow an authority on the whole tragedy.

Typical conspiracy crap: find one tiny bit of allegedly bellwether evidence and hang everything on that to the exclusion of all else.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you see one of these posts that just sums it all up.
 
Vixen said:
AFAICS the NHTSA is setting out to 'reassure the public'. It is called 'change management' where you try to allay the fears of people afraid of change.
Click to expand...
Called it. I knew any systematic study that contradicted the conspiracy theory that gives its followers that warm, fuzzy feeling of intellectual superiority would be dismissed as obviously being part of the ever growing sinister plot. So you're going to stick with qualified experts, like people who post in the Daily Mail comments section and self-identify as having worked at a dealership or a garage.

Oh, and since we're now implicating U.S. governmental agencies in a plot already involving the U.K. Prime Minister and his wife, can we just admit that you've now expanded your conspiracy theory to include basically all governments?

I am not interested in being manipulated.
Click to expand...
But you are being manipulated - by your own desire to believe that you're among the very few too smart to be fooled by the sinister agencies controlling reality from behind the curtains.

Only interested in the actual facts.
Click to expand...
No, you're not. You're only interested in "facts" that support that feeling that your armchair detective work (or that of other people on conspiracy theory sites) has uncovered a deep state plot that almost everyone else has been fooled by.

Not propaganda and reassurance that 'most car fires are gasoline and diesel, doncha know?'
Click to expand...
But most car fires are gasoline and diesel vehicles. Dismissing that fact as "propaganda" just demonstrates the lie that your arguments are fact driven. You would rather maintain willful ignorance than admit any errors or lack of qualification. You've desperately tried to portray the very notion of a diesel car fire as suspicious by its very nature. But it's not. Statistically it's a very common occurrence, and has been since long before hybrids and EVs were available for commercial sale.

Or you could, you know, provide some actual evidence that gasoline and diesel fires are highly unusual, and that the great majority vehicle fires involve hybrids or EVs.

I'm expecting that the answer to that is it must be true because They® have hidden all the evidence and replaced it with disinformation about the common nature of gasoline and diesel fires.

Just the facts will do, thanks.
Click to expand...
Clearly they won't do. Not for you. You're doing what every conspiracy theorist pseudo-scientist does. You're starting with the conclusion that you want and then trying to find evidence that leads to it, while making excuses to dismiss any evidence that doesn't.

Adult here.
Click to expand...
It seems to me an adult would be able to admit when they know next to nothing about technical matters related to, or that they believe to be related to, their arguments. Just as one example, the "pressure ignites diesel" claim.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Vixen claims to care only about facts are shown to be a lie any time anyone bring facts that disagree with her personal narrative up. Then those facts are dismissed and vixen tries to ignore them as best she can, or simply lies about them.

Vixen, you're a liar, and we all know you're a liar. Your lies have been demonstrated many times. Sometimes you even lie about what people have said as if we can't just go back and look.
 
Steve said:
Worked for the Jaegers in Pacific Rim. (That was a documentary, wasn't it?)
Click to expand...

No, you're thinking of Atlantic Rim.

ETA: no, my mistake. Atlantic Rim wasn't a documentary, it was found to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
 
Pacific Rim was the story of when the human race faced an invasion of monsters but thankfully the Transformers generation knew the solution would be a huge robot that punched things.

It made more sense than this thread.
 
In related news, an elevated section of Interstate 10 near downtown Los Angeles is closed indefinitely, following a fire that melted steel guardrails and has probably weakened the reinforced concrete support structure.

Neither the LA Fire Department nor any city officials nor California governor Newsom have stated that the fire definitely wasn't a burning lithium battery from an electric or hybrid car. Therefore we can safely assume that it was, and it's being covered up.
 
Myriad said:
In related news, an elevated section of Interstate 10 near downtown Los Angeles is closed indefinitely, following a fire that melted steel guardrails and has probably weakened the reinforced concrete support structure.

Neither the LA Fire Department nor any city officials nor California governor Newsom have stated that the fire definitely wasn't a burning lithium battery from an electric or hybrid car. Therefore we can safely assume that it was, and it's being covered up.
Click to expand...

Luton - LA...... both start with L. C'mon Vixen! Ferret out the connection for us.
 
Myriad said:
In related news, an elevated section of Interstate 10 near downtown Los Angeles is closed indefinitely, following a fire that melted steel guardrails and has probably weakened the reinforced concrete support structure.

Neither the LA Fire Department nor any city officials nor California governor Newsom have stated that the fire definitely wasn't a burning lithium battery from an electric or hybrid car. Therefore we can safely assume that it was, and it's being covered up.
Click to expand...
Until the investigation is complete we won't know for sure, but the video I watched appears to show a vehicle that burned a hole through the overpass and dropped down into the storage yard below. The insane speed at which this occurred and complete lack of sooty black smoke is proof that it must have been the lithium battery in a hybrid or EV that did it. The gaping hole in the roadway would make it impossible to deny that a lithium battery was the cause, but the authorities are covering it up. ;)

However even if it turns out not to have been a lithium battery that started the fire, some of the parked cars that subsequently caught fire almost certainly were EVs, which explains why the conflagration was so hard to extinguish. It had nothing to do with acres of wooden crates stacked high under the bridge.
 
Gov. Newsom held a televised press conference and announced a preliminary finding of "malice intent" in the I-10 fire, and preliminary structural analysis indicating a total demolition of the damaged section may not be necessary. According to the rules of reasoning that seem to prevail in this thread, that means that any subsequent official statement from any state office, agency, or investigator can never be trusted. And since Newsom used an ungrammatical phrase instead of the more palatable "malicious intent," that means the governor's statement "must" have been written by lawyers intent on a coverup, but he botched his lines.
 
JayUtah said:
Gov. Newsom held a televised press conference and announced a preliminary finding of "malice intent" in the I-10 fire, and preliminary structural analysis indicating a total demolition of the damaged section may not be necessary. According to the rules of reasoning that seem to prevail in this thread, that means that any subsequent official statement from any state office, agency, or investigator can never be trusted. And since Newsom used an ungrammatical phrase instead of the more palatable "malicious intent," that means the governor's statement "must" have been written by lawyers intent on a coverup, but he botched his lines.
Click to expand...

You are catching on nicely. You may yet become a top level conspiracy theorist.

What do you think Vixen? Is the potential there?
 
JayUtah said:
Gov. Newsom held a televised press conference and announced a preliminary finding of "malice intent" in the I-10 fire, and preliminary structural analysis indicating a total demolition of the damaged section may not be necessary. According to the rules of reasoning that seem to prevail in this thread, that means that any subsequent official statement from any state office, agency, or investigator can never be trusted. And since Newsom used an ungrammatical phrase instead of the more palatable "malicious intent," that means the governor's statement "must" have been written by lawyers intent on a coverup, but he botched his lines.
Click to expand...


Clearly “malice intent “ was intended to signal distress. Someone should check the video to see he’s blinking in Morse code.
 
JayUtah said:
Gov. Newsom held a televised press conference and announced a preliminary finding of "malice intent" in the I-10 fire, and preliminary structural analysis indicating a total demolition of the damaged section may not be necessary. According to the rules of reasoning that seem to prevail in this thread, that means that any subsequent official statement from any state office, agency, or investigator can never be trusted. And since Newsom used an ungrammatical phrase instead of the more palatable "malicious intent," that means the governor's statement "must" have been written by lawyers intent on a coverup, but he botched his lines.
Click to expand...

Gov Newsom says it is arson. I have no idea what he is basing his information on. The fire chief says:

California Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant said investigators have identified where the fire started and what the cause was after sorting through the rubble for evidence but did not specify what they found. He said there is no suspect information yet. He said they are talking to witnesses, including homeless people and nearby business owners.
Click to expand...
AP


So they have found something that indicates arson. Given that the area is occupied by a camp of homeless people and the building concerned is a lessee who is in arrears in paying Calif. for the lease, not to mention the fire consisting of many stacked up wooden pallets and a substantial amount of [alcohol-based? - thus highly inflammable] hand sanitisers, together with arson being common amongst homeless types with mental health, criminal and alciohol & drug abuse problems, with many using nearby electricity wires for illicit power usage, it is a fair assumption that the fire wasn't caused by a force of nature. Maybe the absent lessee in dispute was committing insurance fraud or had a grudge against California Admin. Maybe someone left a disposable barbecue burning or dropped a cigarette. Unless there are witnesses and police can identify the implement they may have since found, I doubt they will find the culprit and the whole thing will remain a mystery as to who done it.

Who knows what Gov Newsom has been told. For all you know, being a politician, he is eager to pass the buck onto a malevolent other rather than take responsibility as the governor for the hazards of such homeless communities and abandoned warehouses full of inflammable materials.

This goes to show that you should treat each individual case on its own merits and be aware of what is a suspicion and what is a confirmed fact.

AIUI the concrete under the bridge is spalled and not actually collapsed, as in the Luton Airport fire.
 
Vixen said:
If Newsom said, 'a preliminary finding', then that is a variation of the theme, 'at this stage' is it not? Would you say a preliminary finding = confirmation?
Click to expand...

This explains so much.

Preliminary finding = initial investigation points in this direction, but more detailed investigation will determine if it was the right direction or not.

This is, apparently, why you have difficulty understanding how a representative of the fire service in the Luton incident can say something preliminary one day, and then make a definitive statement on a later date.
 
Foster Zygote said:
This explains so much.

Preliminary finding = initial investigation points in this direction, but more detailed investigation will determine if it was the right direction or not.

This is, apparently, why you have difficulty understanding how a representative of the fire service in the Luton incident can say something preliminary one day, and then make a definitive statement on a later date.
Click to expand...

I see where we disagree. California Governor Newsom said in a recent press conference, 'Preliminary inquiries indicates this may be arson'.

News paper sub-editors (see google news feature) shorthand this as a headline 'La 10 Fire is arson'.

Mr and Mrs Man & Woman in the street, 'Ah, arson has been confirmed, it says so in my regional newspaper'.

They don't see the words, 'at this stage' or 'subject to verification'.

I am a lot more conservative than you as I do not see that as a final confirmation and prefer to await the official conclusion.
 
Vixen said:
I see where we disagree. California Governor Newsom said in a recent press conference, 'Preliminary inquiries indicates this may be arson'.

News paper sub-editors (see google news feature) shorthand this as a headline 'La 10 Fire is arson'.

Mr and Mrs Man & Woman in the street, 'Ah, arson has been confirmed, it says so in my regional newspaper'.

They don't see the words, 'at this stage' or 'subject to verification'.

I am a lot more conservative than you as I do not see that as a final confirmation and prefer to await the official conclusion.
Click to expand...
And when the official website of the Governor of California subsequently says, "It was arson", unequivocally, what do you believe then?
 
zooterkin said:
And when the official website of the Governor of California subsequently says, "It was arson", unequivocally, what do you believe then?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
He is a politician.


Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

As determined so many times over a number of threads, Vixen will never believe or accept any official statements, or any evidence, that conflicts with her pre-conceived conspiracy theorist world view. Everyone, everywhere is constantly trying to deceive her. It is a waste of bandwidth to try to explain reality to her - it is just more deception in her mind.
 
Vixen said:
He is a politician.


Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

Translation:

"If the full enquiry confirms the car was a plain diesel then I have my fall-back position established - corruption at the top stifling the truth in favour of EV manufacturers."

It's the sine qua non, folks, the veritable status quo and anyway, dulce et decorum est, ceteris paribus.
 
Vixen said:
I see where we disagree. California Governor Newsom said in a recent press conference, 'Preliminary inquiries indicates this may be arson'.

News paper sub-editors (see google news feature) shorthand this as a headline 'La 10 Fire is arson'.

Mr and Mrs Man & Woman in the street, 'Ah, arson has been confirmed, it says so in my regional newspaper'.

They don't see the words, 'at this stage' or 'subject to verification'.

I am a lot more conservative than you as I do not see that as a final confirmation and prefer to await the official conclusion.
Click to expand...

Ah. I had thought, based on your arguments regarding the fire investigation in Luton, that you were arguing that "initial finding" does equal "confirmation".

By inferring that I was claiming that "initial finding" is equivalent to "confirmation" based on me having written, "preliminary finding = initial investigation points in this direction, but more detailed investigation will determine if it was the right direction or not", only reinforces the perception that you have very poor reading comprehension.

But I suggest that if you really want to fabricate a new conspiracy theory about this fire, you start a new thread, because it's off topic to this thread.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Ah. I had thought, based on your arguments regarding the fire investigation in Luton, that you were arguing that "initial finding" does equal "confirmation".

By inferring that I was claiming that "initial finding" is equivalent to "confirmation" based on me having written, "preliminary finding = initial investigation points in this direction, but more detailed investigation will determine if it was the right direction or not", only reinforces the perception that you have very poor reading comprehension.

But I suggest that if you really want to fabricate a new conspiracy theory about this fire, you start a new thread, because it's off topic to this thread.
Click to expand...

Your talking Edward Learian nonsense doesn't turn it into a conspiracy theory.

A fire did happen at Luton Airport Car Park and the Fire Brigade are investigating and writing the conventional report. This is likely to take at least four months, given that is how long it took to bring out the report into the Liverpool ECHO fire.

Your specious pleadings that it has already been concluded does not succeed.
 
Vixen said:
Your talking Edward Learian nonsense doesn't turn it into a conspiracy theory.

A fire did happen at Luton Airport Car Park and the Fire Brigade are investigating and writing the conventional report. This is likely to take at least four months, given that is how long it took to bring out the report into the Liverpool ECHO fire.

Your specious pleadings that it has already been concluded does not succeed.
Click to expand...

The Fire Service (not Brigade) has already confirmed it started with a diesel car. They confirmed it weeks ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom