Leifer
Senior Member.
A rational reason ? No.
A common irrational reason is...'the gov't is practicing their methods for future depopulation'.
(speculation from fear)
Last edited:
Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons"
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conspiracy theory weapons
A common irrational reason is...'the gov't is practicing their methods for future depopulation'.
(speculation from fear)
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]
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
"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.
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 )
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 )
Agenda 21 discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/zekes-theo...causing-wildfires-as-part-of-agenda-21.t9229/
https://www.metabunk.org/zekes-theo...causing-wildfires-as-part-of-agenda-21.t9229/
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)
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
....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
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:
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)
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
....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
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:
Last edited:
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.
But it shows this is now part of the established mythology for some, and will continue to crop up.
Leifer
Senior Member.
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.....
...and I called him on it.
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.....
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)
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:
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?
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
http://blog.davey.com/2017/08/fireproof-landscapes-with-fire-resistant-plants-trees-and-shrubs/
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.
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.
Hevach
Senior Member.
Did... Did you just go into your attic and rip out a couple boards?
Well all the 9/11 folk keep telling me that buildings have structural redundancy, so I figure I can use at least half the wood that's up there for firewood.
Actually, there were a few pieces of scrap up there, probably left by the builders. Ideal as it's the same wood.
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.
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.
Last edited:
john Mont
New Member
You would. also have to ask why would an energy beam burn houses and cars and not trees?
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
That kind of logic rarely crosses the mind of those who are looking for weird sci-fiesque shenanigans and evil NWO plots in every incident.
Last edited:
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.
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:
(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”.
(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/
This latest idea about DEW and wildfires seems to be an extension of a pre-existing obsession among a certain population.
Here's a typical example: https://youarenotmybigbrother.blog/...ected-energy-weapon-attacks-with-supplements/
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...
Seems I'd underestimated the power of the human imagination...
NoParty
Senior Member.
And yet that's infinitely more likely than that we live on a flat earth.
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
