Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons"

Leifer

Senior Member.
Does anyone... CT person or rational person... have any reason why the govt. would use mystery space age energy weapons to destroy a couple of fast food places .....

A rational reason ? No.
A common irrational reason is...'the gov't is practicing their methods for future depopulation'.

(speculation from fear)
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
What I find entirely missing from the accusations that it was DEW, is any confirmation from the residents and homeowners or businesses in that area.
I imagine a few will surface, but with what evidence ?

Currently, the accusations are coming from outsiders, who weren't there.

I've seen more than the usual empathetic gestures from DEW and CT believers, toward those who lost homes and family members. I hope it stays that way.
[off topic text removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

novatron

New Member
I believe this explains a lot as to why people are so ready to believe these conspiracies in regard to wild fires, as these researchers says "fire is a mysterious phenomenon"


"Massive wildfires cost billions of dollars and burn millions of acres in the U.S. every year, but we know surprisingly little about the basic science of how they spread. At the Fire Lab in Missoula, Montana, researchers reverse-engineer spreading fires using wind tunnels, fire-whirl generators, and giant combustion chambers. They're finding that fire is a mysterious phenomenon, and the physics behind it is often counter-intuitive."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnvWW4kYhnk

 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Additional info and analysis about the winds, temps, etc... before/during the fires in the region....
(pertaining to the on-line claims, "the winds weren't that high")

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-real-story-behind-california.html
You can see the banded structure of strong winds over and immediately downstream of major terrain features, with lower speed winds near sea level. I inserted a terrain map below...you can see how the wind maxima were oriented the same way as the ridge lines. And the model reveals something else: the enormous horizontal variability of the winds during such events.
Content from External Source
One of many maps and graphs....

0600ytc.jpg
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Two time-lapse videos showing the CA fires and how they spread via the wind....

First vid shows some security cams (original source ?).
Second is from a field cam/game cam, from one of the fire response teams.
(Video created by Marin Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 1775 - iaff1775.org )


 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Some quick debunks of additional claims of DEW (proof !) usage in the fires, that are circling youtube....

Claim #1 This is a still grabbed from the video(s), showing "proof" of a laser weapon from above, caught on camera.
Most Likely: Someone captured a guy taking a selfie during the fire.
VIDEO LINK
(pics shown with my captions)
selfie_flash_before.jpg selfie_flash.jpg

Claim #2 A laser weapon is accidentally caught on video from a helicopter, and the gov't perpetrators quickly move the camera away from the laser beam, because "they're" not supposed to record that. oops!!
Most Likely: It's the Sonoma Co Sheriff Dept's rescue helicopter "Henry 1" and someone is recording out of the window in the middle cabin area, behind the pilot seat (front right). The person recording, moves the camera, and captures one of the side pillars around the window. It's only seen for one second of the entire video. (Henry 1 = Bell 407 )
I don't think it was the pilot taking the video....he's too busy.
SOURCE VIDEO at 0:36
heli_support_pillar.jpg



....Now there's this guy, retired Fire Captain "John Lord", who actually sounds legit.....except for his conspiracy beliefs.
He believes it was Agenda 21 related, and the fires were intentionally set, probably from DEW, and that it's "obvious" to him based on his knowledge of how fires should burn normally.
Although, he admits he was not at the fires nor did he visit the scene after the fires, and gets all his news from youtube and the internet.

Did I look him up ? ...extensively. I couldn't find him. I took all his stated qualifications and job descriptions, and did a keyword and image search...no Capt. John Lord found.
He might be using an alt name for personal reasons.
He's entitled to his personal view, but he seems to be implying it should be obvious to other fire-trained personnel, therefore a coverup because they remain silent.

EDIT: This might be him, with an old picture ???
https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-lord-a474a836


VIDEO LINK
john_lord.png

UPDATE:
An email I sent to the Petaluma Fire Dept, asking if Capt. John Lord was ever a real employee there, in the 1980's.... was confirmed. He was.
Their email reply:

Thank you Mr. Leifer for your message. Yes, we are aware of this video and, no, he does not have authority to speak on behalf of Petaluma Fire, though he is a long-retired member. I’ve gone ahead and passed your message and concern up the chain of command. I’m not sure what processes are in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening. I’m sure other departments throughout the country have faced similar quandaries from time to time.

THANK YOU!

S. T., Administrative Assistant
Petaluma Fire Department
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In Los Angeles Skywatch email announcement, the fires are being characterize as "California's 911". LA Skywatch is a fringe group that grew out of the local 9/11 Truth movement. There's an extreme fringe group of 9/11 Truthers who think the twin towers were destroyed with "directed energy weapons". But even most chemtrail believers would find this a little hard to swallow.

But it shows this is now part of the established mythology for some, and will continue to crop up.

John Knox and Bob Levy will lead us on a further exploration of the Santa Rosa fires. Robert Babish
presented as part of his SkyWatch talk last month a well informed explanation of what happened in Santa Rosa. Now 4 weeks later we want to expose this catastrophe even more. Why? Because the fires and the destruction done in Santa Rosa, Napa and Sonoma is California’s 911. We will play in its entirety a 45 minute interview with Elena Freeland author of Under the Ionic Sky: From Chemtrails to Space Fence Lockdown. Her interview is not abstract and complicated, on the contrary, her language depicts the directed energy technology and what likely happened in Santa Rosa.
Content from External Source
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
There's an extreme fringe group of 9/11 Truthers who think the twin towers were destroyed with "directed energy weapons". But even most chemtrail believers would find this a little hard to swallow.
But it shows this is now part of the established mythology for some, and will continue to crop up.

Soon after the October fires when the DEW theory arose, people were suggesting "check out 911 (and DEW) and read-up on Dr Judy Woods".
But to their dismay, Woods has since publicly disagreed with the use of DEW in these fires, saying such ideas are from people who are "gullible", "stupid" (her words), and are hurting the conspiracy movement as a whole.

Woods Interviewed (30 mins.)

(Dane Wigington also disagrees with the DEW theories /CA fires.)
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
I've posted in the comments of several DEW/Fires on YouTube videos, politely explaining the conspiracy inaccuracies and listing facts.
I even got one CT video maker to agree with me, and he removed his video, and now he's debunking other vids on the same subject (the selfie flash/laser idea).

Then there's youtuber "Mental Boost", who seems to be having a good time and gaining popularity from his videos of "visual anomalies" re: the DEW fires.......with rather slick videos. I was suspicious and had a look at his YT "About" page.....
Cutting edge conspiracy satire exposing dark truths about our reality. And now spear pointing FireGate... the latest mystery
Content from External Source
...and I called him on it.

mental_boost_1.jpg
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
There's another flaw in the thinking, as to why trees are left alive near DEW targeted vehicles or structures.

DEW proponents suggest that because nearby trees are "still-alive" this is evidence that homes or cars were targeted, and that's why/how they caught fire.
But..... once the cars or structures did catch fire..... they became normal fires. (which is what is seen and recorded)

So what they really should be concentrating on, is how normal fires don't always kill nearby trees.
(and this has been explained in this thread, and elsewhere)
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
Not to get off subject, but now the more recent So Cal fires are getting the same DEW analysis and accusations by some of the same youtube video makers, plus some new ones.
I expected this, not surprised.
I expect this DEW idea to become attached to all new fires.
 

bob mcfall

New Member
just gonna address the ones who say that trees are like camels they hold water.....so how do you explain ALL the other actual real forest fires in the past that turned into uncontrollable infernos and burned hundreds of acres. why do the forestry dept make land owners who own forests make a 'fire stop'? (where they clear the trees in wide areas to prevent fires from spreading? like a wide treeless field in the forest that go for miles) if trees are too wet to burn?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
just gonna address the ones who say that trees are like camels they hold water.....so how do you explain ALL the other actual real forest fires in the past that turned into uncontrollable infernos and burned hundreds of acres. why do the forestry dept make land owners who own forests make a 'fire stop'? (where they clear the trees in wide areas to prevent fires from spreading? like a wide treeless field in the forest that go for miles) if trees are too wet to burn?
In part it depends on the tree, vegetation is defined as being "phyrophytic" (fire loving) if it burns easily. You'll notice a lot of the "forest fires" occur in conifer forests, and not deciduous forests. When you see a fire break it's almost always in a conifer forest.

http://www.napafirewise.org/defensable-space-live/09_defensiblespace.html

Pyrophytic Species are “fire-loving” vegetation which is adapted to or which contributes to rapid burning, high heat output, and ember creation.

Many brush species – such as broom, manzanita, coyote bush, and juniper – are highly flammable and burn with an oily heat. Anything that smells when crushed has oils which volatize and burn readily, including bay, fir and eucalyptus trees.

Chaparral species are those brush species which grow in dense, pure or mixed stands and which create impenetrable fields that burn with intense heat and are very difficult to suppress or control.

They include manzanita, coyote brush, buck brush, broom, chamise, mountain mahogany, as well as scrub oaks and other flammable species. Chaparral species are among the hardest to manage and to keep fire safe.

Conifers are evergreen trees that have needles for leaves, and most of these have resins and pitch in addition to a tendency toward twiggy growth. Coniferous species should be considered pyrophytic near homes.

Hardwood trees, particularly deciduous species, are less flammable than conifers,

Content from External Source
Developers in fire areas like Socal would tend to landscape with fire resistant trees:
http://blog.davey.com/2017/08/fireproof-landscapes-with-fire-resistant-plants-trees-and-shrubs/

Fire Resistant Trees (With California Natives)
All trees with an asterisk are native to California.

  • Black oak (zones 3-9): A large, drought-tolerant tree that birds love
  • Cherry* (~zones 3-9): Many varieties of cherry trees are resistant to fire.
    • The hollyleaf cherry is native to California.
  • Crabapple* (~zones 2-8): A small ornamental tree with stunning flowers that pollinators love
    • The Pacific crabapple tree is native to California.
  • Hawthorn* (~zones 4-8): A tree that grows to be about 30’ tall with snowy-white blooms
  • Honeylocust* (zones 3-9): A strong, fast-growing shade tree that can be up to 70’ tall
  • Maple* (~zones 3-9): One of the most popular trees, you can find the right variety for you!
  • Poplar (zones 3-9): A fast-growing shade tree that loves the sun but is prone to broken limbs
  • Quaking aspen* (zones 1-7): A fast-growing tree with golden fall foliage
  • River birch (zones 4-9): A birch with glossy green leaves that is the most resistant to birch borers
Content from External Source

Another factor is dead trees, which no longer hold much water. In a conifer forest the trees often die standing up, creating a huge fire hazard.

We have a mix of trees in my (Northern California) back yard. I'll stick some on the fire and see how they burn. Normally you'd use wood that's dried for a season. Fresh wood is really hard to burn. 2x4s are incredibly easy to burn.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Another factor to consider. Trees in a drought stricken forest are gonna be either dead or tinder dry. Trees in ornamental gardens, parks and vegetative borders around buildings are going to get watered and tended to keep them looking nice, so wont be as dry and combustible as forest trees.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
There's also a threshold at which even a healthy tree will burn. Dead wood's threshold is much lower, so a house will ignite before a tree.

Fallen wood or dead leaves will ignite before a tree, also. A trick to getting wet wood to burn is to pack it with dead wood or various forest floor litter and lighting that on fire, and hoping the close contact and heat will dry it enough to allow it to burn.

This can happen in a forest, where the leaf litter goes right up to the trunk and dead wood lies where it falls, and where branches freely intermingle allowing fire to spread from tree to tree through leaves and peripheral twigs that will burn easier.

This does not happen easily in a neighborhood, where leaf litter is raked up or mowed into mulch, and where there's an enforced gap between the dead wood of the house and the live wood of the trees.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Backyard science in progress:


Scavenging wood from the attic20171211-110956-lmq0n.jpg

And a live tree:
20171211-111101-pi5a9.jpg

Cutting to size:
20171211-111157-j4p20.jpg

To be continued...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Live Wood vs. attic wood. Basically the live wood never burnt, but the attic wood caught fire. It was hard to maintain with a big piece of wood on a small fire.
DSCN7342-a.jpg
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I saw a fire official say that we need to stop viewing homes as somehow protected or different than the surrounding forest, and we should start viewing them as "fuel".

Generally, when you see people starting (camp) fires with "wet wood", this means using wood that has been rained upon (wet), so it's only wet on it's exterior. (unless from a rain forest, where it never really dries out)

Green wood that's freshly cut from a live tree contains moisture (water) all the way through almost to it's center. Heartwood is the small center core, and usually drier.

Green wood CAN be set fire, but it's incredibly difficult. It takes a lot of time and effort.
This video is a bit "tongue-in-cheek" says the author, because of the difficulty (he uses an electric fan, then an air compressor)
He also uses a fire-starter, with flame directly on the green wood, and does not do the job on it's own.
green_wood_campfire.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've done an overview post (with video!) for the non-burning trees, which I've moved to the top. Seems like the melted car wheels could be in its own thread though.
 

john Mont

New Member
This photo is actually from 2015

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/09/2...evacuate-injures-firefighters-in-lake-county/



I'd say that the burnt structures here are were potentially more likely to have burning embers settle on them and get caught up in corners where they can start a fire than trees with wind blowing through them. Note that there's nothing on the ground to allow fire to spread. Just speculating though
You would. also have to ask why would an energy beam burn houses and cars and not trees?
 

Minimalists 56

New Member
I have fought forest fires as part of a Forest Service in a state here in the US....If you have never been in the middle of one of these things its hard to explain other than its hot! I have seen wildfires take out trees in one spot and never touch the one next to it.

As far as the unburned trees next to structures it could simply be a matter of the fire running out of fuel and burning itself out...Thats the reason you will see them doing back fires in these situations. You burn up the fuel the fire burns itself out.
 

Tedsson

Member
Most forest fires do not burn all the trees in the forest. A quick Google of “forest fire aftermath” shows thousands of images like this:

A9260459-E25B-4B89-BFD1-7A326A691B3A.jpeg
(Aftermath of wildfire in Portugal).

Some even show the topmost foliage intact (although this could be fresh growth - which is an obvious indication that the tree is still alive). Nearly every picture shows the majority of tree trunks still standing (with smaller branches stripped off).

It is also comparable with images from WWI which frequently show tree trunks remaining upright despite the most horrendous exposure to explosives and fire.

This reminds me of the “Fireproof cabbages” thread.

As the OP states here and on the nonflammable cabbages thread “it’s water, dummy”.
 

dc_hatman

Member
Several years ago I traveled to Canberra (Australia's capital) to help out the parents of a friend of mine who's suburb was under threat by bushfires. Thankfully my friend's parents place was spared, but the house on either side of their's were damaged by fire, one burnt totally to the ground. And I can clearly remember being amazed that so many trees on their street escaped unscathed, while so many houses were damaged. I even saw burning embers blowing in the wind and landing on a house, which has a much larger surface area therefore is a much larger target for blowing embers than a tree. In fact a member of the Rural Fire Service (RFS) told me at the time that the relative large size of a house compared to a tree make it much more likely to be damaged during a bushfire.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Just a reminder. The subject of "Directed Energy Weapons" is big in the "targeted individuals" community. Just do a search with both terms.

Here's a typical example: https://youarenotmybigbrother.blog/...ected-energy-weapon-attacks-with-supplements/


One of the most emotionally and painfully devastating affects of Directed Energy Weapon torture directed at targeted individuals is the deterioration of health of which many report as longterm “slow kill” operations.

The symptoms include energy weapon nerve damage, joint, tissue and muscle deterioration, blisters appearing on the body, large bruised areas where the skin is cooked, cataract, and perhaps for many contributing to severe depression, is hair loss and premature aging of the skin. Nothing ages the skin faster than the burning, drying heat, from this energy.


In “The Program” [i.e. the shadowy group of evil people who are targeting certain people] specific areas are being strategically focused on within these operations due to knowing it is extremely difficult to prove, strategically. This is true also within the medical community as NOT occurring naturally but actually synthetic deterioration. This makes revelations of the intentional deterioration of human bodies, by individuals working in shift after shift, who are employed in these slow death campaigns the perfect plan. Hips, knees, shoulders, and basically all joints of the human body are key areas which many targeted individuals reports are being hit in ongoing extremely low-frequency attacks designed to kill tissue and organs slowly and covertly.

One of the known outcome, related to the creation of technology joint deterioration is deadly illnesses, for example, Autoimmune Joint Disease. This is after systematic, repeated attacks, to every joint on the target’s body. These heinous efforts are revealed as unethical by the fact that, once a person is targeted in this program, it is lifelong or until death, sooner or later, and at the time even includes complete irradiation of the body which could lead to Cancer also:

http://www.everydayhealth.com/autoi...sorders-of-the-joints-muscles-and-nerves.aspx

Specific joint locations are key areas today many targeted individuals report being the sporadic focus by Directed Energy Weapons through both aerial attacks, and portable technology beams, beamed, into their residences from neighborhood efforts deploying portable technology set-ups from locations around the target, via portable antennas.
Content from External Source
This latest idea about DEW and wildfires seems to be an extension of a pre-existing obsession among a certain population.
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
If you ever see pics of burnt vehicles in these fires where the body is gone (melted, vanished)...
You can point to cars that may have aluminum bodies. (or rarer plastic fiber)
Ford 150 is an example.......
Aluminum is seen as the best way to reduce hundreds of pounds of body weight all at once. Ford is placing a huge bet on its aluminum crash diet, using the alloy for all of the body panels and the bed of its redesigned F-150 pickup. It claims that aluminum can improve the vehicle’s fuel economy by as much as 29 percent.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/02/pros-and-cons-of-aluminum-cars-and-trucks/index.htm
Content from External Source
ford.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
I've watched this thread with some amusement: a few months back, to try to prove a point to a diehard CTer, I put to him the harebrained notion that the California wildfires were part of some secret government conspiracy, thinking I'd chosen something that was beyond doubt 'as it appeared'.

Seems I'd underestimated the power of the human imagination...
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Finding something that's beyond reach for a conspiracy theorist is like creating satire that nobody will fall for. Somebody, somewhere, somehow, will get angry that Trump is renaming the White House to Breitbart Presents Trump Tower Luxury Resort DC.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Finding something that's beyond reach for a conspiracy theorist is like creating satire that nobody will fall for. Somebody, somewhere, somehow, will get angry that Trump is renaming the White House to Breitbart Presents Trump Tower Luxury Resort DC.
There's even a name for the phenomena, Poe's Law
 

Nicole Schnaß

New Member
I have now the science explaning of the tree who was burned only inside the tree.

It is because, there was inside the hole tree a mushroom who had penitrated the tree.

This video is in german language. It shows how you could start a fire with a mushroom which living inside trees.

I beg my pardon of my bad English.

So I think there will videos in English as well in Youtube, how you could startet a fire with mushrooms.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xdnSPy-_tY
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
It is because, there was inside the hole tree a mushroom who had penitrated the tree.
There's more than one possible cause why a tree is becoming hollow. Usually, when the bark is hurt, there are indeed fungi that can penetrate it (more like the German "Schimmelpilz" than real mushrooms). They can lead to the tree dying from the inside.

Regarding redwood trees, there is a speciality though. Their bark is actually flame-resistant. Besides being thick and isolating like foam used in house building, it contains tannin which acts as a fire retardant.

Scientists are even trying to extract and use it:
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ta/c7ta03768f#!divAbstract
Fire-resistant elastic materials made from tannin, a natural polyphenol extracted from tree barks, and having the appearance and the consistence of rubber are described. They can be produced in any dimension and with any shape based on a quite simple protocol, only consisting in mixing tannin, water and ethylene glycol, in the presence of a low amount of p-toluene sulphonic acid.
Content from External Source
So it's quite plausible that the extreme effect seen in videos like the one in post #33 is limited to redwoods and similar tree species.
 

c.eileen

Member
Wouldn't the composition of a house play as large or larger a factor as moisture? Trees are covered in nor contain flammable petrochemicals, houses do. Once a house catches on fire, the petrochemical fuels help ignite the whole structure very quickly. Materials such as asphalt shingles and roofing paper seem like a happy fuel to get things started.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wouldn't the composition of a house play as large or larger a factor as moisture? Trees are covered in nor contain flammable petrochemicals, houses do. Once a house catches on fire, the petrochemical fuels help ignite the whole structure very quickly. Materials such as asphalt shingles and roofing paper seem like a happy fuel to get things started.

This is more about explaining why trees do not burn than why houses do burn. But yes, there are things other than wood in houses. Modern shingles are actually pretty fireproof compared to the wood shingles of the past. Here's Richard Nixon watering down his roof in the Bel Air fire - a fire that had very similar patterns of houses destroyed next to relatively intact trees.
 

marcus112

Member
A member ( DJC) posted 3 pictures of trees burning internally on the 1st page of this thread. The pictures are 4//5 of the way down the page. The trees aren't really burning however. One tree has solid yellow fire 'inside', the other 2 pic's are of the same tree, and the fire in that tree is very red/orange. That might possibly be due to the type of tree, but I would bet against that being the case. Notice the fires in each tree completely fill the space in every case,....except one. The tree with the yellow flames has one 'fire' near the bottom that only fills roughly half of the open space in that 'hole'. Look closely at that one, the lowest 'yellow fire' on that tree. If you can zoom in a little, you'll see it much better. Up close, it's a solid, basically square 'thing' that could pass for a hunk of cheese or a tb of margarine.
 
Top