Salty Cracker and Wall Street Apes are now insinuating it. The op was a success, they've created a narrative binary where either space lasers did it or climate change (MSM narrative) did it. Meanwhile the much more likely story (strategic arson ahead of high winds + collusion with crooked state and local officials to mishandle the response on purpose) has effectively been shoved under the rug. Now instead of having the entire internet digging into that to possibly find some arsonists or conspiracies to mishandle response, they are instead "laser focused" on space lasers.
Of course, if the DEW theory is correct, this is fine. I just don't think it is.
endrant
The only lasers (no "z" in the word) mounted on planes are for sensor purposes, not weapons. The big airborne laser (YAL-1A) was scrapped by President Obama a decade ago. There are no "simple" weapon lasers (and it is more true to say there are no "simple" lasers at all). All the weapons to date are based on an air or missile defense mission, where they are looking at a target against a sky background (shooting upward or co-altitude). No application to shoot at the ground (ground target against a ground background?).
So is it possible to mount one on a plane that shoots down and does what is suspected?
And is it not true that hitting targets on the ground that doesn't move is much easier. Seams to me we have a plane with a 105 mounted on it, that hits the ground pretty easy.
And how long was the stealth fighter in service before we learned about its existence?
Of course it is possible. Targeting lasers have been pod-mounted for years. The point is that they are clear-weather devices and suitable only for specific targets. What would you target to start a fire? Anything? A patch of ground has no contrast against...ground. Targeting and ranging lasers are low-power and have to share optics with other sensors. You can't run a hundred kilowatts through a sensor system.
The AC-130 with the cannon is aimed by eyeballs and flies slowly in a circle around the target.
And how long was the YAL-1A in service before we found out it was junked? You don't get any points for "what if?" arguments. What if fires were set by airplanes dropping flares? What if conspirators had automobile safety flares? What if fire-breathing dragons came down for a roast? These are all equally possible BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (which is nil). The present status of DEWs has been a matter of record. The ability to fly one (again) in an airplane would be announced, as it is a matter of anticipation. The laser guys like to advertise progress. It helps to secure budget. They are not developing arsonist equipment.
The most plausible explanation is dropped power lines that were still energized...since they happened. Evidence. Why do you even bother with nonsense? You have to be self-aware, because delusions are a symptom of paranoid psychosis.
Read what I actually said.
At no point did I say, that they did it this way. I mainly posted cause people keep thinking it had to be space based weapon.
My point that it can be done much simpler still stands.
It could have been done with WW2 surplus flamethrowers........
Well, you started out with unsubstantiated allegations that we currently have DEWs on airplanes (not) and they can be made "cheep and easy" (not). And that companies that make them are "owned and controlled by globohomo..." (proof?).
Then you posed a bunch of questions, suggesting you entertained the idea. Ending up with a speculation instead of evidence. How much of the blanks am I expected to fill in? A space-based weapon would be even less credible, I will admit, but not much less. And the fire could have been caused by bad weather and power lines in bad repair (as it apparently was).
But okay. Space weapons are over-the-top, I agree. DEWs are less credible than half a dozen other ideas (also without evidence). I don't think you can purchase surplus flamethrowers any more, but jars of home-made napalm are definitely credible (and nasty). But let's not get wrapped around the axle of an event that affected only 1% of the island.