The strangeness of the California Fires

[James Newell]

Another viewpoint that strains the fabric of believability is that Calif has been purposely setting these fires for the fed disaster money. I don't particularly want to believe it, but I do believe the current admin of cal could do that.

[Bob]

Posted by James Newell (here)
Another viewpoint that strains the fabric of believability is that Calif has been purposely setting these fires for the fed disaster money. I don't particularly want to believe it, but I do believe the current admin of cal could do that.

James I think your theory holds merit. Especially if the conditions UNDER the powerlines would start the fire and the correct wind conditions would raise the glowing coals' temperature up to steel melting temperatures. In other words, was there something that kicked off the incidents that cascaded into the downed lines and the fires.. A cracked High voltage insulator most certainly could kick the cascade into action.. And done from a distance, no witnesses.. especially if the weapon was suppressed. (suppression: a silencer on the front of the weapon to reduce the rapport, noise "gunshot" sound)

Here is a picture of a high voltage power-line insulator which has been shot (sabotaged)..

Here is a utility site which discusses sabotage - https://www.bpa.gov/news/newsroom/Pa...pair-bill.aspx



An insulator damaged from gunshots:



A sniper weapon could possibly have been used - especially with incendiary rounds - targeting the power line insulator obviously then would put blame on the Power Utility company.. Interesting theory indeed.



Obviously when the authorities can get in there and inspect the power-lines themselves, the insulators observed forensically, that could put to rest that it was some form of vandalism or sabotage..

[wavydome]

There are multiple issues ablaze here and i know i do not know enough about them all to satisfactorily handle them. A few of them are familiar. I was a volunteer fireman from the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s and put out some fires. I have also burned many cords of wood to heat our home for nearly 50 years, with solar greenhouses as well, encompassing a range of hand worked skills from electric welding to refractories to concrete, carpentry etc… (Rather than earning a pension to support me nowadays: )

One note is using a vertical parlor stove in this fall weather, lets me burn, (start up), so hot as to illuminate the stove side and stove pipe, all of sheet metal, without damage and certainly not to pulverized metal and stone. The difference being that actual charcoal or industrial coke are needed to productively melt iron or steel. Such heat to weld metals would require oxy-acetylene or oxy-hydrogen, or charcol or coke, when working in open air. The pictures in this thread and presumably of the present fires, show the car wheels seemed intact and not melted…

Melted wheels of other fires in other times and CA locations were photographed and this in part could be due to aluminum wheels, which melt at half the heat. No matter still, because those earlier ‘fires’ weirdly appeared more like artificial arcs in terms of the ‘dustification’, more or less, as evidenced in the images and vids. Again, the current fire pictures show the rubber tires burned, leaving the metal wheels in place.

What ever ignition places and how ever many places ensued is another matter all together, where there are witnesses reporting in sequences, with observations of separate reports. The alternative reports get my attention, just as much as do the other reports and i do not disqualify either… Nor claim i know absolutes. Rather these all remain hypotheses in my mind.

As to dead trees, i doubt these can induce fires equal in temperatures to welding methods, though indeed large volumes of red hot flames would do great damage and possibly quickly pass with a gale force or such, but not reach white candescence, for steel melting temperatures. I admit in all such vids i was staining to see if vegetation lingered in the suburban areas of earlier fires. In some cases it did appear that foillage survived near to houses, which appeared to be blasted with titan forces and not ordinary fire. Houses half burned as if with a giga-mega-laser so fast, that the remainder of such a house was left intact, incredulously.

If the trees fell in the forest and nobody heard the deforestation, because they were so overwhelmed with pertaining matters, did it really happen? I don’t knopw about that either, but i do know we live of an ecocide-happy world, where big money talks.

[James Newell]

I am not a big Q head, but he did an interesting post re these fires in cal: post 2467 https://qmap.pub/
Maybe this the wrong place to put this here.

[wavydome]

Posted by James Newell (here)
I am not a big Q head, but he did an interesting post re these fires in cal: post 2467 https://qmap.pub/
Maybe this the wrong place to put this here.

In case you referred to the following links, my most serious concern is that big money might determine that a “safe forest” is to clear cut and plant monoculture plantations… Which by the way is more subject to pestilence, which is remedied with more sprays or GMO experimentation. (Hit the public with a gamblers frock).

https://cdn.qmap.pub/images/054a8dd5...5c5fe65792.jpg

https://cdn.qmap.pub/images/d7e499d9...a358dcf603.jpg

A Meditated Solution?

The right solution might just be to stimulate the upwardly mobile, Californian, technocratic investors with the ideas of full-forest-employment using advanced man-sized machines, controlled with robo-tractors, using advanced electronic systems, to better bring the timber to market, without creating over-sized diesel monsters which crush everything in sight, wasting far more fuel in the process, with erosion and poisoned waterways besides.

If one google/images "robotic ecto skeleton”, the concepts of having a human- operator-worker inside a powerful machine, but smaller and much more efficient than large forest ruining machines, could save the good trees while removing only the infested trees …and keep the physical types employed very productively… And keep society balanced with objective-physicality, instead of wholey sedentary clicking the keyboards.

Here in populated parts of Maine, forestry relied on smaller contractors to clear up the devastation of ice-98 (the 1998 ice storm of the north eastern USA and Quebec.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by James Newell (here)
I am not a big Q head, but he did an interesting post re these fires in cal: post 2467 https://qmap.pub/
Maybe this the wrong place to put this here.

Jim, I'd not say this on the main 'Q' threads: but I do think Q very often simply tells people what he thinks they want to hear.

(And, I have to say: this 'Q' is either the 4th or the 5th 'Q' that's taken over the 'drops' since the beginning of it all, over a year ago. The linguistics are now completely different.)

[James Newell]

I agree on that Bill, Fires, elections, deep state; the art of leading thought processes and movements by subtleties.
And back to topic Calif should be doing more clearing and removal( and back fire burning ) prior to the fire season.

[Ba-ba-Ra]

Below is partial article from Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. . . . .Note: I personally feel what he says is only one of the major reasons for these disasters, and I suspect there are other components at play. (i.e.PG&E mis-management of equipment, what is happening in the seismic regions BOTH naturally and as a result of our drilling for gas/oil/steam into areas we shouldn't be - and who knows what else).

From Health Ranger:
Actions have consequences, and bad actions often have bad consequences. . . . .Years ago, the California government began interfering with local efforts to bulldoze the deadwood out of forests as part of a forest management plan to reduce fire risk. This was all done, of course, under the banner of “environmentalism,” usually with emotional pleas to “save the wildlife” by leaving all the forests alone.

Year after year, the deadwood built up. It was only a matter of time, of course, before a fire would be ignited by lightning (Mother Nature’s natural fire starter). Fueled by the tremendous underbrush that was no longer being cleaned out of the forests, the fires erupted with catastrophic ferocity.

“Extreme environmentalists have shut down public access. They talk about habitat, and yet they are willing to burn it up,” warned Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in an interview with KCRA. “This has nothing to do with climate change. This has to do with active forest management,” he said.

Complete article: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-...-policies.html

[onawah]

Camp' Fire UPDATE Day 4 -11 Nov '18 113,000 Acres, 29 confirmed fatalities

blancolirio
Published on Nov 11, 2018

Here's the update...North winds return.
LINKS:
Satellite views:
http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-today/i...

Cal Fire Daily brief:
https://www.facebook.com/CALFIREButte...

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2nWuZ8J0Go

[onawah]

California Forest Fires-DEW and PTSD Joe From the Carolinas
Joe just posted this on youtube:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br6umIsLQ_Y

"California Forest Fires-DEW and PTSD. Thoughts on Directed Energy, the fires raging in california, and california fires and PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder). "

(I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here ahead of him. )

[RunningDeer]

Posted by onawah (here)
California Forest Fires-DEW and PTSD Joe From the Carolinas
Joe just posted this on youtube:
"California Forest Fires-DEW and PTSD. Thoughts on Directed Energy, the fires raging in california, and california fires and PTSD (posttraumatic stress disorder). "

(I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here ahead of him. )

I was just about to post this along with Joe's last link in the summary: Mental Health Resources in California

Subscribe here: Joe from the Carolinas

[norman]

Something to see here:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wDNohyQ1Aw

Probably a fuel tank, but is it?

[Bayareamom]

Just found this article at the Daily Mail:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-wildfire.html

Regarding the above link I posted above: Apparently, the subject (female) of this article was contacted by PG&E about power line issues that were causing 'sparks' in the area. They asked her, via email, for permission to enter her property to check this out.

SNIP:

..."The email said the company was sending employees to work on the high-power lines because 'they were having problems with sparks.'

Two days before the fire started, PG&E told customers in nine counties, including Butte County, that it might shut off their power November 8 because of extreme fire danger.

But the utility company called off the shutdown, telling customers nine hours after the Camp Fire began that the weather conditions 'did not warrant this safety measure'.

The fire started about 6.30am that morning..."

[Hervé]

California's wildfires are man-caused -- but not in the way they tell us

Chuck DeVore Forbes
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:05 UTC

The Cranston Fire burns in San Bernardino National Forest on July 26, 2018 near Idyllwild, California. Fire crews are battling the 4,700-acre fire in the midst of a heat wave. © Mario Tama/Getty Images

California is once again on fire. Northern California's Carr Fire has killed six people, two of them firefighters, and continues to burn out of control, claiming more than 700 homes and about 100,000 acres.

As a citizen-soldier in the California Army National Guard for two decades, I often heard the gallows humor quip that California's four seasons were: flood, fire, earthquake and riot.

But, what was once an expected part of living in the Golden State is now blamed on larger forces. A crisis, we are told, should never go to waste.

In that vein, the Sacramento Bee editorial board blamed the Carr Fire foursquare on a man-caused buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere []. In an editorial headlined, "The Carr Fire is a terrifying glimpse into California's future," they write,

"This is climate change, for real and in real time. We were warned that the atmospheric buildup of man-made greenhouse gas would eventually be an existential threat."
[ ] [hear what Blancolirio has to say about the "Sacramento Bee"]

The Bee editorial board goes on to attack President Trump for proposing to end California's exceptional waiver from federal law regarding auto emissions -- in this case, California's push to curtail tailpipe carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when the Clean Air Act was debated in 1970. At the time, the concern was pollution that directly harmed health rather than carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas exhaled by every living animal.

The problem with the Bee's editorial is that making a passionate argument is no substitute for the truth.

In 2005 while a freshman California Assemblyman, I had the chance to visit Northern California and meet with the forest product industry professionals who grew, managed, and harvested trees on private and public lands. They told me of a worrisome trend started years earlier where both federal and state regulators were making it more and more difficult for them to do their jobs. As a result, timber industry employment gradually collapsed, falling in 2017 to half of what it was 20 years earlier, with imports from Canada, China, and other nations filling domestic need.

As timber harvesting permit fees went up and environmental challenges multiplied, the people who earned a living felling and planting trees looked for other lines of work. The combustible fuel load in the forest predictably soared. No longer were forest management professionals clearing brush and thinning trees.

But, fire suppression efforts continued. The result was accurately forecast by my forest management industry hosts in Siskiyou County in 2005: larger, more devastating fires -- fires so hot that they sterilized the soil, making regrowth difficult and altering the landscape. More importantly, fires that increasingly threatened lives and homes as they became hotter and more difficult to bring under control.

In 2001, George E. Gruell, a wildlife biologist with five decades of experience in California and other Western states, authored the book, Fire in Sierra Nevada Forests: A Photographic Interpretation of Ecological Change Since 1849. Gruell's remarkable effort compared hundreds of landscape photographs from the dawn of photography with photos taken from the same location 100 years later or more. The difference was striking. In the 1850s and 1860s, the typical Sierra landscape was of open fields of grass punctuated by isolated pine stands and a few scattered oak trees. The first branches on the pine trees started about 20 feet up -- lower branches having been burned off by low-intensity grassfires. California's Native American population had for years shaped this landscape with fire to encourage the grasslands and boost the game animal population.

As the Gold Rush remade modern California, timber was harvested and replanted. Fires were suppressed because they threatened homes as well as burned up a valuable resource. The landscape filled in with trees, but the trees were harvested every 30 to 50 years. In the 1990s, however, that cycle began to be disrupted with increasingly burdensome regulations. The timber harvest cycle slowed, and, in some areas, stopped completely, especially on the almost 60% of California forest land owned by the federal government. Federal lands have not been managed for decades, threatening adjacent private forests, while federal funds designated for forest maintenance have been "borrowed" for fire suppression expenses. The policies frequently reduce the economic value of the forest to zero. And, with no intrinsic worth remaining, interest in maintaining the forest declined, and with it, resources to reduce the fuel load.

Some two decades ago, California produced so much wood waste from its timber operations, including brush and small trees from thinning efforts, that the resulting renewable biomass powered electric generating plants across the length of the state. But cheap, subsidized solar power, combined with air quality concerns (wood doesn't burn as cleanly as natural gas) and a lack of fuel due to cutbacks in logging, led to the closure of many biomass generators. What used to be burned safely in power generators is now burned in catastrophic fires. Including the growing capture and use of landfill methane as a fuel, California's biomass energy generation last year was 22% lower than it was 25 years before.

The issue was summarized by the Western Governors' Association in their 2006 Biomass Task Force Report which noted:

...over time the fire-prone forests that were not thinned, burn in uncharacteristically destructive wildfires, and the resulting loss of forest carbon is much greater than would occur if the forest had been thinned before fire moved through. ...failing to thin leads to a greater greenhouse gas burden than the thinning created in the first place, and that doesn't even account for the avoided fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions due to the production of energy from the forest thinnings. In the long term, leaving forests overgrown and prone to unnaturally destructive wildfires means there will be significantly less biomass on the ground, and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The Sacramento Bee editorial concludes with a stark warning:

"California must plan now for these and other aspects of global warming, as more of the state becomes too hot, too dry, or too fire- or flood-prone to safely live in, and as more of the world braces for the era of climate refugees."

Whether global climate change is a problem that can be solved by California is a dubious proposition -- one year's worth of emission growth in China is greater than California's total emissions. But the action needed to reduce the state's growing forest fire threat would be the same regardless of one's belief in any problems posed by climate change: start managing our forests again.

Chuck DeVore is Vice President of National Initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He was a California Assemblyman and is a Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army Retired Reserve.

=================================================

Staggering when one considers the whole climate change/global warming swindle is based on flawed conclusions founded on false data...

[Tam]

Posted by Ba-ba-Ra (here)
Below is partial article from Mike Adams, the Health Ranger. . . . .Note: I personally feel what he says is only one of the major reasons for these disasters, and I suspect there are other components at play. (i.e.PG&E mis-management of equipment, what is happening in the seismic regions BOTH naturally and as a result of our drilling for gas/oil/steam into areas we shouldn't be - and who knows what else).

From Health Ranger:
Actions have consequences, and bad actions often have bad consequences. . . . .Years ago, the California government began interfering with local efforts to bulldoze the deadwood out of forests as part of a forest management plan to reduce fire risk. This was all done, of course, under the banner of “environmentalism,” usually with emotional pleas to “save the wildlife” by leaving all the forests alone.

Year after year, the deadwood built up. It was only a matter of time, of course, before a fire would be ignited by lightning (Mother Nature’s natural fire starter). Fueled by the tremendous underbrush that was no longer being cleaned out of the forests, the fires erupted with catastrophic ferocity.

“Extreme environmentalists have shut down public access. They talk about habitat, and yet they are willing to burn it up,” warned Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in an interview with KCRA. “This has nothing to do with climate change. This has to do with active forest management,” he said.

Complete article: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-...-policies.html

This seems totally valid, and I'm a conservationist/environmentalist at heart.

My question, though, is this: long before we showed up, or at least expanded to the level we are at now, forest fires were a thing. Deadwood piled up, etc. There were no humans with bulldozers around to clear the kindling, as it were.

But from what I understand, the wildfires in California have been particularly violent and massive the past 5 or so years, moreso than records show for quite a long time.

Which begs the question: how much of this is natural?

Nature somehow manages perfect harmony when humans aren't around to muck it up. Even when there's massive destruction, it's ultimately balanced out in the long-term.

Are fires really getting worse, or are they just getting worse for us, with all of our housing and towns burning along with it?

[onawah]

Read 2 posts above: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1259598

Posted by Indigris (here)
Are fires really getting worse, or are they just getting worse for us, with all of our housing and towns burning along with it?

[Hervé]

Posted by Indigris (here)
[...]
Are fires really getting worse, or are they just getting worse for us, with all of our housing and towns burning along with it?

If you ever get around to read post # 74, above, you'll get an answer to that.

[Tam]

I did indeed read these posts before commenting. I don't make it a habit to simply chime in without informing myself first.

The thing I was getting at, and I should have been clearer in my initial post (my bad), is this: while forest management could certainly do with improvement, perhaps looking its way as the sole reason for these massive wildfires is, ultimately, an oversimplification..

Think about it for a little bit. While I don't doubt for a second that not thinning the treeline will have disastrous long-term effects, it was something that was systematically done for decades. We knew why we were doing it (lumber + fire mitigation). Then we stopped (environmental and economic reasons).

But if it was standard procedure for decades, surely we would have known what would happen when we stopped, and, by extension, not done so at the scale we have now.

Yet we did.

I understand that humans are flawed and government and big money are limitlessly greedy, (as well as incompetent), but there's a certain point where you look at this whole tree thinning thing, add up the odds and ends, and still come up short.

There's something more to the picture here.

We wouldn't just stop a basic thing like that relatively overnight. There was a degree of expertise involved in thinning the treeline; it wasn't done for ****s and giggles.

Sure, we reduced it. And as a result, wildfires are worse than they have been in our recorded history.

But something tells me there's more to it than that. That this is just one layer of it.

Now, the big question is, what is it?

[Blacklight43]

My instinct says barium and aluminum might have something to do with the intensity of some of the fires.

[Ba-ba-Ra]

Posted by Blacklight43 (here)
My instinct says barium and aluminum might have something to do with the intensity of some of the fires.

Last year our utility district SMUD (Sacrament municipal utility dst) held a public meeting to discuss their plans to double their efforts for cloud seeding. They held the meeting in the middle of the day on a Wednesday in Strawberry, which is a long way from any population. IMO, it was purposely calculated this way so few would show up. About 12 people did, 2 of which were friends of mine.

They presented a long list of chemicals that would be used in the seeding. I wish I had saved a copy. When folks who attended questioned that several of the chemicals were highly toxic and others highly flammable, SMUD presented studies that proved that the amounts used would not be a problem.

From Indigris: Sure, we reduced it. And as a result, wildfires are worse than they have been in our recorded history.
But something tells me there's more to it than that. That this is just one layer of it.
Now, the big question is, what is it?

Yes, Many layers, and I believe they must be looked at together. Analyzing one layer alone is rather like looking at one piece of a puzzle and thinking you can see the whole puzzle.