Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Nordic » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:06 pm wrote:By the way, thank you stickdog for all the photos. Quite an amazing collection
barracuda » 19 Oct 2017 15:19 wrote:stickdog99 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:06 pm wrote:How could 17 fires start in a 24 hour period all by unplanned, random accidents with zero lightning?
California has had 7700 wildfires this year. Last year we had something like 6500. Divide these numbers by 365 days per year. to get the average number of wildfires per day in California.
As it turns out, 17 such fires in any given 24 hour period is actually a slow day around here.
PG&E has as much as admitted liability as the source of at least some of the fires. The question, then, is: who are they covering for?
Follow the money...
Who stands to profit from the devastation in Santa Rosa the most? Obviously, the charred and flattened neighborhoods will be purchased for pennies on the dollar by some group who will eventually turn around and re-sell at enormous markup and reap a massive fortune.
And who will gain from the destruction of our outdoor marijuana crop?
If we look at these data points dispassionately, there is only one conclusion to be reached - a cartel of underground hydroponic weed growers and Chinese real estate investors have formed an alliance and infiltrated the public utilities, utilizing their space-based energy weapon in an attempt to control the Republic of California.
So you're now an expert on the psyche of arsonists, stickdog? Really, not that many crimes of arson involve profit as most arson crimes are committed by mentally ill people we call "pyromaniacs," to sate their own fantasy. https://tinyurl.com/ybfwgrll
This is why I have great difficulty engaging you in a discussion, stickdog, I ask you what the possible motive would be for starting the fires and you tell me it would be the same as any arsonist's, and that's no answer at all, but more of an evasion.
"We warned you this could happen."
Hey, it's better than directed energy as a first guess.
Okay, I didn't mean to attribute Santa Ana winds to the northern counties. So the "Sonoma Winds" were actually gusting up to 79 mph.
Rory » 19 Oct 2017 20:43 wrote:Sure. They exist in completely different climates, caused by completely different mechanisms
Nordic » 19 Oct 2017 21:06 wrote:Anyone else find it kind of funny that on a board about conspiracies, one that actually got pretty well-known, there is now a permanently parked group of people ready to shoot down and mock anyone posting anything that might suggest a conspiracy?
Having not been here in a very long time, and seeing this place with fresh eyes, this kind of sticks out.
I will now be mocked and derided for suggesting there could be a conspiracy involved in a conspiracy forum.
Did Negligence Cause the California Wildfires?
The flames that have ripped across Northern California’s wine country over the past week scorched almost a quarter-million acres and destroyed 6,700 homes. A majority of the 42 who died were senior citizens — some had celebrated half-century old marriages and survived World War II.
One couple spent their final moments holding each other, as fire consumed the house they’d lived in for the last four decades.
The causes of the inferno have not been confirmed — guesses range from a discarded cigarette to arson — but reports emerged that numerous residents had dialed 911 prior to the fires to notify authorities of downed power lines and exploding electrical transformers. No tapes of such calls have yet been produced.
To the extent that these reports are sound, it may be that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) — California’s largest public energy utility — is responsible for the fires.
Making a move that may be the first of many legal actions, a Santa Rosa couple who lost their abode sued the company Tuesday for failing to maintain its power lines.
PG&E, whose stock has plunged 18.7% since October 9, has been found liable for several wildfires in the past. Following a 1994 Sierra Nevada blaze, the company was convicted of 739 counts of criminal negligence for tree-trimming violations.
In April, regulators fined PG&E $8.3 million for maintenance failures that led to the incineration of 500 Northern Californian homes in 2015.
State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, called for the company to be “split” and expelled from California should its negligence be tied to the recent North Bay fires.
The damage inflicted around Santa Rosa will far surpass those of past wildfires. Economic losses are expected to reach $3 to $6 billion. If lawsuits pile up and investigators decide to pursue charges, PG&E could face liabilities exceeding $12 billion.
Aware of that grim prospect, CEO Geisha Williams points to a larger threat: climate change. During the recent drought emergency (declared “over” by Governor Jerry Brown in April), record high temperatures made California’s fire-prone vegetation even more combustible.
Breezy, bay-hugging San Francisco hit 106 degrees in September. Outside the state, warmer oceans have fueled the recent Category 4 and 5 hurricanes that have devastated parts of Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico.
PG&E has earned praise for the job it is doing to restore power and gas in the impacted areas.
Hot dry winds raged at over 70mph when three fires each tore through a different county Monday night. Even if PG&E’s power lines had been in impeccable condition, they likely would have still been subject to some damage from gale.
Because California has already passed the most ambitious climate laws in the country, the burden falls on utilities and regulators to guard citizens against hazardous conditions and minimize the economic damages of natural disasters.
But if the ferocious storms of 2017 were an augury of seasons to come, it may be naive to believe that trimmed trees and fire-proof poles, though necessary, can alone prevent another deadly blaze.
In the video below, VICE News follows a crew of firefighters for 24 hours as they attempt to extinguish raging flames in Northern California.
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/21/negli ... wildfires/
Nordic wrote:Anyone else find it kind of funny that on a board about conspiracies, one that actually got pretty well-known, there is now a permanently parked group of people ready to shoot down and mock anyone posting anything that might suggest a conspiracy?
Users browsing this forum: Elihu and 48 guests