2 Retired CA Fire Captains show evidence of DEW Ca Camp fire

Jon Lord has been interviewed before but he is joined by a fellow retired CA firefighter and both went to paradise, examined evidence and took pictures. what they found is stark evidence of microwave, guided plasma or electrically-induced fires that reached temperatures considerably higher than your average house or forest fire. Well worth the considerable time to watch all.

These men are professionals who have seen countless fires, they understand all the variables and what they found they could not explain using conventional methods of fire. Agents outside of "normal fires" have been introduced to Northern California since the Santa Rosa fires.

There are pictures of melted steel and glass, trees burning from the roots up, places were anything wood touching metal were burned at the point of contact with it and other anomalies. The most thorough and professional of investigations I've seen in to the Camp fires to date.

Deleted

a reply to: Asktheanimals.

Last I heard was that these video's were scrubed from ytube. Glad to see someone has them, I will be saving to disk.f

I first saw some of the info after the Santa Rosa fire.

There is a vid talking about Agenda 21 from a person has well researched the info.

Also a vide of some aerial craft at the Camp fire.

Going to bed soon and can't look up.

So glad you posted this. Important for people to understand.

a reply to: liveandlearn

If they burn 50,000 people out of their homes and nobody questions it then we are inviting disaster. These were not natural fire but acts of arson perpetrated on the public. More evidence is surfacing to that effect and it deserves a hearing. We cannot let them get away with this.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Why do you need a direct energy weapon when lighting, sparking power lines, careless campers, a match, fireworks, a grill, a candle, burning trash, sparks from a car, sparks from a welder can start a wildlife?

How many fires were started this year with a known cause, yet someone started another fire using a billion dollar energy weapon when a one cent match will suffice?

By the way.

HOW SEVERE FIRES IMPACT OUR SOIL

calforests.org...

During the past two years, high-severity wildfires have been increasing. The 2013 Rim Fire burned at 38 percent high severity. For a fire to be considered “high severity” for soil, the temperature must exceed 950 degrees Fahrenheit; the Rim Fire burned at more than 1,450 degrees. Nearly half of the 97,000-acre King Fire in 2014 burned at high severity, much of it in a few hours in the Rubicon River watershed about 50 miles from Sacramento.

Severely burned soil not only impacts vegetation growth in the area, it also impacts habitats and infrastructure downstream. Since burned soil repels water instead of pulling it into the ground, the soil is no longer absorbent and stable, dramatically increasing the potential for landslides and sedimentation. In King Fire-impacted areas, the U.S. Forest Service predicts that more than 300,000 tons of topsoil will ultimately erode into the Rubicon River, causing siltation of prime aquatic habitats and water storage infrastructure. With California in its fourth year of drought, we cannot afford to let our reservoirs be filled with silt that contaminates drinking water systems and destroys vital wildlife habitat.

What is the purpose of setting wildfires with energy weapons?

So a couple of retired guys know quite a bit about physics.

Higher odds it's the Democrats fault then a DEW

So a couple of retired guys know quite a bit about physics.

Higher odds it's the Democrats fault then a DEW

I watched a video of a compound that had been raised with fire and the shells of VW campers broke my heart , but they seemed to be in the middle where the flames and heat might find it hard to reach , I did see the videos of telegraph poles on the ground burning in the middle and thought WTF that is a new one

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Agents outside of "normal fires" have been introduced to Northern California since the Santa Rosa fires.

Energy weapons from space or Hells Gates opening by CERN?

Give me a juicy hint before committing time to the videos, pretty please

a reply to: neutronflux

The answer is obvious why DEW induced fires are preferred over more common fire starting methods.

Can you figure it out?

No evidence , just a coincidence?

Star wars anybody ?


www.stuff.co.nz...

The satellite was launched in 2007 as part of Russia's "Oko" ICBM
detection system. Norad, the North American Aerospace Defense
Command, also confirmed that the brightly coloured object,
which fragmented as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere, was
Kosmos 2430, The Guardian reported.

the chips fall where they may ,
and mushrooms live on the ground

a reply to: Asktheanimals

You said it well. No matter what it is that was used to cause this, it is willfully caused and not natural.

That intent whose purpose was to destroy and hurt must be sought out and terminated.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: neutronflux

The answer is obvious why DEW induced fires are preferred over more common fire starting methods.

Can you figure it out?

That it didn’t happen?

Trump have been questioning the CA fires for a while...

What happens when CA is in serious debt and lost priority aid from the FED gov due to sanctuary status (illegal)?
Light fires.
Declare State of Emergency and req billions from FED.

I'm telling you guys there's a shadow government trying to undermine its own people.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: neutronflux

The answer is obvious why DEW induced fires are preferred over more common fire starting methods.

Can you figure it out?

That it didn’t happen?

You just dodged your own earlier question with that response. You wanted to know why, but it's obvious you do not. Dishonesty in scientific discovery is rampant these days. Your cover was blown long ago though so it is really immaterial.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

instead of being evasive - why dont YOU explain it coherently - as you alledgedly support the claim

so - why is an alledged DEW system preffered [ for starting forrest fires ] ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Because they can?

They didnt have to drop The A-bomb..

They did it anyway.

The need to see how affective in a 'real world' situation and how easily they can manipulate the aftermath.

Is it at all possible some energy weapon is the cause of the fires? Sure it's possible. It's also possible that Guam will sink beneath the waves if you put too many people on the island.

But is it *probable*? No.

Setting California on fire as a proof of concept weapons demonstration is not a viable explanation.

Look no farther than Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely: someone careless with a cigarette or a campfire, combined with lots of flammable material and the wind, makes for a dangerous situation. And there are a lot of smokers and campers, as well as gas-powered engines that send out sparks. Burning embers from a fire can be carried aloft for many miles and start a fire elsewhere.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Again it’s a moot point because there was no energy weapon used. Two, energy weapons are not needed. Three, a match is a one cent solution. Four, what is the motive to start the wildfires that are already stated by lightning, deficient electrical infrastructure, and careless people. Five, if you are referring to avoiding detection, how many arsonists avoid being caught each year. If there are being started by the government, why would they worry about being caught.

How many wildfires before supposed energy weapons whose methods of ignition were never determined. Now wildfires are because of energy weapons. Stupid logic.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Excellent OP!
SnF

When ever I see the uncompromising opposition, furiously
attacking someone with ad hominem remarks, or unsupported statements (no links), I
begin to believe the OP. There is a lot to say about the quote,"The lady objects too much."
Sadly, I've noticed that several of these argumentative contributors have the same writing styles.
Word choice, sentence fluency, specific context, purpose, and the way writing is dressed up (or down),
all contribute to the style of writing. The choice of words and sentence structures used
to achieve a certain effect is also an element of style. I see that several of the usual objecting members,
embody the identical style of writing. I'm not saying that there are members with multiple accounts, but it does make me wonder.