How many homes burnt in the fires were "under water" in debt vs those not burnt?

I've watched too many of these fire video's where one house is burnt often along with the car sitting in the middle of a concrete dirveway (maybe 50ft from the house) with nothing close to it, while the surrounding houses are not even touched. I'd like to know how these cars spontaneously catch fire when nothing flammable is close to them, while trees 3-5ft from the burning house still have leaves, are unburnt - while a car 50+ft away supposedly caught fire from the heat of the house? BS.

I would be very interested to know a few things regarding the ownership of these houses.
How many of these houses were "full time residence" and was the owners only house?
How many were second houses or even 3rd or 4th houses?
How many owners have either lost a job, income, etc and can no longer afford payments on these houses?
How many houses were behind on mortgage payments and or were no longer valued as high as the purchase price of the home?
How many of these house owners are registered to each political party (a blind poll is fine, just curious if there is a much higher correlation to one party or another)?
Has the declared value of any of the burnt houses been greatly increased since the purchase of the house, the review/valuation of the house for insurance purposes (and was this ever done by a professional or was it taken at the home owners word)?
Has the home owner suffered any other insurance losses in the last 5-10 years?


I'd like to think that people wouldn't set fire to their own houses but after listening to eyewitness accounts of homes bursting into flames, completely engulfed in under a minute, when over a mile ahead of the front line of the fire. Now this could be a home owner setting fire or some one else setting fire to an empty house (no one home, or a speculation house/insurance fraud house) - or there is the possibility of an external force setting fire (energy weapon or whatever). If a house a mile or more in front of the front of the fire completely engulfs in flames so quickly, I think it can be ruled out that a single ember started the fire or it was drenced in accelerant - which make the ignition method moot.

Edit: I'd also like to note that it is EXTREMELY unlikly that aluminum, barium or magnesium was used (sprayed from aircraft or chemtrails) to start these fires. they pyrophoric nature of these materials when in such fine particle size creates tremendous heat (spontaneous combusion) when they touch air - releasing behind an airplane would leave a massive trail of white flame. I'm writing a thead about that now. It is possible that a localised "bomb" could be used to release this fine particles inside a house. Just the dispersion of the aluminum would be enough to burn these houses as we saw.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I don't want to believe it's true, but there's a decent amount of evidence that DEW's were used. I won't claim to know how they work exactly, but there are too many peculiarities like the scenario you mentioned to write off all of these fires as 100% natural or even arson.

Jumped the gun and commented on the title only.

At least your honest about it! I've had to reply to SO many people who never read the OP and then argue with them b/c they never read the post, just the title. Thanks for being honest. I'm kind of curious of what you wrote, TBH.

Ok, so I drink almost a 5th a night (under water) and while I'm staying in Glendale, CA I have major issues with my heart each night while trying to sleep (major heartburn = home burning) during this fire nonsense. I'm sure it's NOT REMOTELY RELATED. Nope, obviously not.

originally posted by: FlukeSkywalker
Ok, so I drink almost a 5th a night (under water) and while I'm staying in Glendale, CA I have major issues with my heart each night while trying to sleep (major heartburn = home burning) during this fire nonsense. I'm sure it's NOT REMOTELY RELATED. Nope, obviously not.

Are you saying that you drink b/c you are in debt or are you mocking what I wrote?

I see your analogy but I'm not sure what you are relating it to, esoteric type thing, weather manipulation, directed energy (or even 5G), or just saying the thread is non-sense..?




Also, I added an edit to the OP at the bottom, if anyone who already read wants to read that part.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Actually, I was watching a news broadcast a few days ago and thought the same.

It was on Fox, and the reporter was pointing to and talking about a house he lived in, literally 200 ft from a house that was burned to the ground. The camera panned around and not a single other house was touched and the trees all around were green. It was so strange.

I understand embers can travel and start a fire, but with it being as dry as they say it is, if that one house caught then it should have lit the neighborhood up.

It seemed very out of place and i thought the exact same thing....I wonder if the owner just lit it up because they wanted to rebuild or were underwater.

I would bet there were more than a few that did this.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Actually, I was watching a news broadcast a few days ago and thought the same.

It was on Fox, and the reporter was pointing to and talking about a house he lived in, literally 200 ft from a house that was burned to the ground. The camera panned around and not a single other house was touched and the trees all around were green. It was so strange.

I understand embers can travel and start a fire, but with it being as dry as they say it is, if that one house caught then it should have lit the neighborhood up.

It seemed very out of place and i thought the exact same thing....I wonder if the owner just lit it up because they wanted to rebuild or were underwater.

I would bet there were more than a few that did this.

Here what I see. A major fire happeneing in surrounding areas and people are majorly in debt with the house - or it was a speculation house planned to be burnt at some point. They think the fire is going to hit them eventually and they can speed it along to ensure it's destruction.

I had the same thoughts during the Redding/Carr fires and all the previous ones as well. The same things happened there.

I wonder how many people who have houses that burnt have moved out of state since then - like to Idaho, Texas and the other "hot spots" for Cali "refugees".

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

That was amusing. I never post satire. I'm speaking the truth about my existence and what I do with my life. It's not my fault that the world revolves around me.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof


I like that you thought of such a thing. But I am too drunk to look into it ATM.
S&F for tomorrow to see where this goes.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Firespotting might be why houses 1 mile away from the main fires caught fire. Embers can be flung pretty far from a fire.
"[Wildfires] may also spread by jumping or spotting as winds and vertical convection columns carry firebrands (hot wood embers) and other burning materials through the air over roads, rivers, and other barriers that may otherwise act as firebreaks." Wikipedia

More detail below, but it's a pdf.
link to pdf of scientific journal on wildfires

As sad as what happened to Paradise, yes, just like any disaster that has ever happened, some people use the situation as a means of gaining wealth. It was even suspected in a few homes when the Boston houses were popping from gas line overpressure... but you will never know, and in a way I don't want to know. Funny, people with that conscious attitude are either very successful business people.... or stupid.

originally posted by: FlukeSkywalker
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

That was amusing. I never post satire. I'm speaking the truth about my existence and what I do with my life. It's not my fault that the world revolves around me.

LOL It is hard to know how other people usually post, sorry for not knowing, I didn't look.

About your post, that is a very odd correlation. Did you mean you are under-water with the house/debt? Did you buy at the top of the market or loose a job? I'm sorry you are in that position and I know many don't deserve to be in it and often is no fault of their own.

What is scary is to think that many of these homes could have been in "developments" where most of the people were in debt. Ever hear the phrase of "everyone on the block is under-water". The houses are often targeted and sold to groups (same demographics) of people. I wonder how many could have done this and then killed a neighbor who wasn't in on it. over 1,000 missing and 60+ dead.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

i found it interesting some of the structure fires were nothing else was burned around it.

granted embers in the air could cause random fires but some of the houses and business seem like it was arson, great way to get out of debt by getting insurance claim money

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
What is scary is to think that many of these homes could have been in "developments" where most of the people were in debt. Ever hear the phrase of "everyone on the block is under-water". The houses are often targeted and sold to groups (same demographics) of people. I wonder how many could have done this and then killed a neighbor who wasn't in on it. over 1,000 missing and 60+ dead.

Sounds like a great new HBO series

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Do you think that's more a symptom of poorly thought out, baity titles that don't reflect what you write in the post? Just wondering. It sure isn't the first one, lol.

As for the thread topic though I think people are trying too hard to find conspiracies everywhere. Bad # happens sometimes. Or a lot.

Well, an old friend since grade school lost his entire house in Paradise. Everything.

He just bought it last year and has a dang good job.

I bet that if you talk to or know people actually affected by the fires, you'd find that you're way off base.

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Firespotting might be why houses 1 mile away from the main fires caught fire. Embers can be flung pretty far from a fire.
"[Wildfires] may also spread by jumping or spotting as winds and vertical convection columns carry firebrands (hot wood embers) and other burning materials through the air over roads, rivers, and other barriers that may otherwise act as firebreaks." Wikipedia

More detail below, but it's a pdf.
link to pdf of scientific journal on wildfires

I understand this in theory. My problem is that the embers caught a house on fire, yet somehow that house did not catch others on fire.

It is like the embers hit them and ONLY burned that house down, yet the fire from that house did not touch any of the surroundings....

Also a thought on this....how in debt is CA? How much money is thrown at a massive fire by the government?

Thousands of acres are burned and plenty of homes. Is the money given for burned federal land more than the value of the homes which are paid out by insurance?