Sign into an existing account

Lot's of that in LA images. Nothing new here, this very targeted burning has been going on for over a decade that I recall, probably several decades.

Irrigated landscaping makes trees harder to burn? I'm completely spit-balling, trying to imagine what the non-conspiratorial answer would be. And that answer seems like: green, hydrated vegetation is hard to burn. But at the same time, the fires were too severe, and the ambient temp with all of those houses ablaze seems like it would have to be high enough to ignite the trees. I don't know.

'Unburned trees' near fires is flat earth lite. Trees in image 2 are blackened, as are most yard trees in burned neighborhoods.

It may seem counterintuitive but desert plants hold water much more than dry stucco and timber and the goods that are inside a home. These fires are traveling from house to house not from vegetation to house to vegetation to house. The house catches on fire and the goods like the plastics and other things burn at a very high temperature and continue to burn much longer than scrub brush does. That then throws embers into the air constantly for the next hour and those embers are blown by the wind against other houses and specifically into the attic eaves which are open to the air to promote circulation in the attic. So the air physically forces embers into these attics and they are the embers reignite the next house. That's how these fires are traveling. They are not necessarily traveling with the vegetation. The stuff inside the house is much drier than the desert vegetation whose leaves and limbs and structures are specifically evolved to hold moisture within them. Like those palm trees if you cut that palm tree down and you looked at the trunk of the Palm you'd find it's very wet inside the leaves are very wet and those acacia trees the same way.

That's what she gets for me too'ing Ryan Adams

Nothing to see here, just your typical dumbass MartinTimothy post.

Plants HOLD WATER inside, you absolute mongoloid.