February 5, 2025
Regarding these fires, there's a word that is not mentioned. At least I did not hear it. The key word is "Winter." "Fires in Winter." January is the coldest month of the Winter in California. I think the fires started in late December. In Winter anyway. The weather was cool, nothing is hot in Winter, especially in Southern California. The ground was cool because of the weather, not hot, so even if you were to have 1000 miles per hour winds, it shouldn't be a cause for fire. Musk is right, there was a premeditation.
We could see on television that there was this big fire on, say, that hill, and that in the hill near to it, where the reporter and the camera were, there was no fire, but the wind conditions and the heat could not be different in that hill from this hill.
No such fire ever happened in Pacific Palisades before. An owner who was 93 and had lived in the burned down house more than 60 or 70 years had never experienced such a thing or danger before. And January is literally the last of all months in which this can happen! The previous comparable large fire that happened was in Bel Air-CA in the 1960s, and it's deemed to have been an "accident" (not caused by nature like they say this one is)
So, it's not that the water works and the municipality were inefficient in this one year for behaving like in the previous years. The lady in charge of the water explained that they do their maintenance in January, the best month for it, and that the level of the water is a planned for level. She said this fire was "unprecedented" and "overwhelmed" them. She said that they would have had to plan or decide with two months of anticipation to have the water at the fullest level in December-January, but that's when they do their maintenance. When it's really hot, then the water must be at the top level in LA. I have no time to read the link right now. Are the reasons of the expert better than just looking at one peculiar detail? It's a bad approach. (In Butler, the acoustics experts spread confusion in my opinion.)
It is too easy to criticize the LA water authority, but they were victims of arson or terrorism. Henry Wrinkler was right very early about the arson. They caught one arsonist. Then I heard no more about it. Those of us who think that "arson" should have been forefront and center are a minority, although maybe there a lot of LA homes where people think it was arson or premeditated.
The plane crash with a helicopter in Washington D.C. is my second example of not having to be an expert to center on the most key question that is not dealt with, or that wasn't discussed and asked about when it should have been. What is a war helicopter doing flying or practicing over a civilian airport like that one? Can someone explain this fact? Don't military air forces have their own airfields? They do. Why wasn't it flying over the Edwards Airfield? "Why fly there?" This is the key and the biggest question. No war plane or helicopter should ever be practicing or flying there. This helicopter flew over the landing strip. Practicing with night goggles they say?...