Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I didn't say it was an EV. My POV is that a lithium-ion fire cannot be ruled out.
Click to expand...

Maybe he had the diesel Rover full of burner cel phones (get it? Burner)? Samsung Note 7s, perhaps? Or maybe there was a big sale on cordless drills and he loaded up?
 
The implication that the official statement must be a deception because it doesn't support the conspiracy theory says all we need to know about Vixen's commitment to uncovering the truth. There's already a growing conspiracy theory movement regarding EVs and hybrids, and the ignorant chatter among such people was clearly the inspiration for the OP, however carefully contrived so as to provide deniability in the form of "just asking questions". From the start, an ordinary explanation was never going to be accepted, no matter the weight of evidence supporting it, because that's not the answer that makes the conspiracy theorists feel especially clever and perceptive. So here we are, rapidly approaching the CT singularity of "that's what the Illuminati/NASA/Elders of Zion/Rand Corporation/Reverse Vampires/Interstellar Shape-Shifting Reptiloids want you to believe" in response to every piece of contradictory evidence.
 
Foster Zygote said:
The implication that the official statement must be a deception because it doesn't support the conspiracy theory says all we need to know about Vixen's commitment to uncovering the truth. There's already a growing conspiracy theory movement regarding EVs and hybrids, and the ignorant chatter among such people was clearly the inspiration for the OP, however carefully contrived so as to provide deniability in the form of "just asking questions". From the start, an ordinary explanation was never going to be accepted, no matter the weight of evidence supporting it, because that's not the answer that makes the conspiracy theorists feel especially clever and perceptive. So here we are, rapidly approaching the CT singularity of "that's what the Illuminati/NASA/Elders of Zion/Rand Corporation/Reverse Vampires/Interstellar Shape-Shifting Reptiloids want you to believe" in response to every piece of contradictory evidence.
Click to expand...


This is a dead giveaway.
 
For my own sanity, I have not followed much of the thread, so this was likely discussed, but:

Why throw shade on EVs? They are clean, and the newish technology should be appealing in that it opens the doors wide for whole new manufacturing paradigms, that it's critics would presumably be lapping up for the opportunity to have a relatively low competition marketplace.
 
The diesel could have had a 12v lithium battery! Or it could have been aliens. Or a space laser. Or aliens using a space laser!
 
phiwum said:
Right. So if you told the truth now, Range Rover or lithium battery sales would tank. But if you mislead the public for several months and then tell them, why, no issue at all! No harm to reputation in that case.

(And, no, no one says that failure to tell the public about actual safety hazards so that a private company doesn't suffer any sales loss is "in the public interest".)

Anyway, risking discovery of the subterfuge just to help Range Rover sales for several months seems pretty low expected payoff, don't you think?
Click to expand...

It's more a case of not laying oneself open to legal action by naming a brand when the cause of the fire might be a driver error.
 
phiwum said:
But, first, most folks seem to agree that it was a Range Rover because of the unofficial images. Second, again, the make and model will be public knowledge soon enough, perhaps prior to the final report, perhaps not. The arrest won't mean bupkis if the final report again states this was a vehicle fault. The "distraction" will be months old and perhaps settled one way or another by the time we hear what the actual cause of the fire was (to the extent that can be determined).

It's really an utterly silly conspiracy involving fire and police officials allegedly ordered to prop up the sales figures of an automobile brand. Frankly, it's unimaginative and dull, considering the fun we've had with kamikaze submarines and steel-eating nuclear waste.
Click to expand...

You might note that the Fire Brigade has actually told us very little. There is little that could be called 'a lie' at a later date.
 
Vixen said:
You might note that the Fire Brigade has actually told us very little. There is little that could be called 'a lie' at a later date.
Click to expand...

They've told us that the car was a diesel, but for some reason you won't believe it.
 
Vixen said:
It's more a case of not laying oneself open to legal action by naming a brand when the cause of the fire might be a driver error.
Click to expand...

If they were concerned about such legal action, they could have named the model and refrained from claiming the cause was vehicle fault. Instead, they claimed the cause was vehicle fault in a context where the public has pretty good evidence of the make.

Again, your theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 
Vixen said:
It's more a case of not laying oneself open to legal action by naming a brand when the cause of the fire might be a driver error.
Click to expand...

What possible legal action could the manufacturer take against the fire investigators for simply correctly reporting the type of car in which the fire started?
 
Vixen said:
It's more a case of not laying oneself open to legal action by naming a brand when the cause of the fire might be a driver error.
Click to expand...

How would that work?
They have already confirmed it was a diesel car
 
Vixen said:
You might note that the Fire Brigade has actually told us very little. There is little that could be called 'a lie' at a later date.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder if there is a poster here who attempts to post their comments in exactly that manner. The child's taunt "takes one to know one!" comes to mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom