Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Please explain how a diesel-fueled vehicle did all of this within 20 minutes, even with the fire brigade arriving promptly? What makes it so highly probable to have been a diesel car, given it is claimed not to have been a lithium-ion fire?
Click to expand...

Reversing the burden of proof. Tell us exactly what's suspicious about this and exactly how you know.
 
Vixen said:
Question: how can Mr. Hopkinson state confidently that the car involved in the fire was a 'diesel' only and that it was accidental? True, he did qualify his comments but within a day or so the website was stating it as fact, as was full fact.
Click to expand...

Because he knows his job better than you do.

The ONLY explanation is that Hopkinson was ordered to say that by the government.
Click to expand...

Hopelessly speculative.
 
Vixen said:
Are you claiming lawyers are paragons of truth?
Click to expand...


No, I'm claiming that the statement under discussion has a clear meaning which is not dependent on who has written it. Either it is true or it isn't.

Do you think it is true or false?
 
JayUtah said:
Reversing the burden of proof. Tell us exactly what's suspicious about this and exactly how you know.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Are you suggesting people should accept that the Australian knifer in a recent incident in Melbourne was 'XY', because some prat on Twitter claimed to have matched the photograph of the filmed perpetrator in the shopping mall with images on Google? The guy is rightly now suing the suspected Putin-shill. as people like yourself accepted, 'If it's on X-Twitter it must be true! Prove it's not!'

It was not for Mr. XY to demonstrate he had nothing to do with it.
 
Vixen said:
Rubbish. Are you suggesting people should accept that the Australian knifer in a recent incident in Melbourne was 'XY', because some prat on Twitter claimed to have matched the photograph of the filmed perpetrator in the shopping mall with images on Google?
Click to expand...


This is just my interpretation, but I think he's suggesting that we shouldn't accept ridiculous conspiracy theories on your say-so.
 
Vixen said:
Rubbish. Are you suggesting people should accept that the Australian knifer in a recent incident in Melbourne was 'XY', because some prat on Twitter claimed to have matched the photograph of the filmed perpetrator in the shopping mall with images on Google? The guy is rightly now suing the suspected Putin-shill. as people like yourself accepted, 'If it's on X-Twitter it must be true! Prove it's not!'

It was not for Mr. XY to demonstrate he had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Off topic pathetic drivel (and a False Equivalence fallacy in any case)

YOU made the claim that the photos of the car burning were faked

YOU own the burden to support that claim.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
 
Vixen said:
Every year approximately 13,000 people are convicted of cloning numberplates or having false numberplates. Criminals clone numberplates.

Something like 2% of all vehicles on the road are unlicensed.

About 16,000 people every year are caught without insurance or a valid driving licence.

5,500 Range Rovers are stolen every year.

Question: how can Mr. Hopkinson state confidently that the car involved in the fire was a 'diesel' only and that it was accidental? True, he did qualify his comments but within a day or so the website was stating it as fact, as was full fact.

Yet 25% of vehicles and 40% of the car park remains in place where they burnt down.


The ONLY explanation is that Hopkinson was ordered to say that by the government.

The reason being to protect the Tata Jaguar Land Rover brand, which had just been given a huge amount of taxpayer money for nothing.
Click to expand...

He knew it was a diesel because the fire service can recognise a diesel engine in a car.
 
Vixen said:
Every year approximately 13,000 people are convicted of cloning numberplates or having false numberplates. Criminals clone numberplates.

Something like 2% of all vehicles on the road are unlicensed.

About 16,000 people every year are caught without insurance or a valid driving licence.

5,500 Range Rovers are stolen every year.
Click to expand...
And yet, somehow, police are able to determine when a registration number is false. Are you really arguing that there is no way for investors to determine whether a car's tag is real or not?

Question: how can Mr. Hopkinson state confidently that the car involved in the fire was a 'diesel' only and that it was accidental?
Click to expand...
Given that he is the head of the Bedford Fire Service and not some chronic conspiracy theorist combing the comments section of The Daily Mail for "clues", by having access to far more information than you do.

True, he did qualify his comments but within a day or so the website was stating it as fact, as was full fact.
Click to expand...
It was a few days after the first statement - adequate time for law enforcement investigators to have used the considerable resources available to them to have identified the owner and the car involved.

The ONLY explanation is that Hopkinson was ordered to say that by the government.
Click to expand...
Coming from someone who was (is still?) ignorant enough to think she could determine the slope of the floor in an enclosed space from a photo with no spatial references, that's downright hilarious. It's not the only explanation, it's just the only one you're willing to entertain, because it's the only one that makes you the smartest person in the room. You're like someone walking around the scene of a car accident and talking into a broken transistor radio about your investigation of the "crime scene" so that passersby can hear you.
 
Vixen said:
Every year approximately 13,000 people are convicted of cloning numberplates or having false numberplates. Criminals clone numberplates.

Something like 2% of all vehicles on the road are unlicensed.

About 16,000 people every year are caught without insurance or a valid driving licence.

5,500 Range Rovers are stolen every year.

Question: how can Mr. Hopkinson state confidently that the car involved in the fire was a 'diesel' only and that it was accidental? True, he did qualify his comments but within a day or so the website was stating it as fact, as was full fact.

Yet 25% of vehicles and 40% of the car park remains in place where they burnt down.


The ONLY explanation is that Hopkinson was ordered to say that by the government.

The reason being to protect the Tata Jaguar Land Rover brand, which had just been given a huge amount of taxpayer money for nothing.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that e and the fire service are telling deliberate lies and are pat of a conspiracy to suppress the real cause of the fire?

That would make them criminals.
 
Myriad said:
It is highly probable to have been a diesel car because the fire service involved have confirmed the car was a diesel.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? the fire service is part of a criminal conspiracy and they are telling lies.
 
Vixen said:
He who makes the claim should substantiate the claim.
Click to expand...

You're the one who has made the claim that this is a conspiracy. Your "proof" of that has been laughable.

Come September, we'll likely have the finished report of the fire with far more details than just the vehicle that started it. But you won't have the slightest proof that the floor in the second image is sloping the wrong way. Your cry of "fake!" has been found to be unsupported by evidence, and you're just trying to weasel out of that because there is seemingly nothing you hate more than admitting you are wrong about something.
 
There are two theories in play here

Theory 1. A man drives a diesel vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire (something that happens over 19,000 times annually in the UK). The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads so other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down.

Theory 2. A man drives an electric vehicle to park in a multi storey car park. The car has a fault that causes a fire. The man tries to put out the fire but fails to do so. The fire spreads to other vehicles and ultimately burns the whole car park down. The Prime Minister of England has investments in electric cars, so in order to protect those investments from the bad publicity that an electric car fire would cause, he instructs some sooper secret agents from MI5 or MI6 to fake a video, altering it to show an diesel powered vehicle, a 2014 Range Rover Sport. In order to reinforce this ruse, they follow up by planting fake number plates, and make forged entries in the VLA database to register a fake person as the owner of that Range Rover. The Prime Minister also orders the media to lie about the cause of the fire, and threatens the emergency services involved to in order to get them to also lie about the car that caused the fire.

Apply Occam's Razor... the simplest solution is most likely to be the correct one.

But there is another way to tell. Theory 2 is so utterly bat-**** crazy that only a dyed-in-the-wool conspiratard would believe it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom