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
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.
So you can prove the military doesn't have these things in secret programs.
Go ahead.
Just cause you can't find it with Google is silly.
My example of the stealth fighter actually being in service, long before we learned about it, tells me all I need to know. The same was true with the u-2 and the and blackbird.
It is generally not possible to prove a negative; you should know this, and not use that as an empty challenge. I can't prove that somebody didn't obtain arbalests from the 12th century and used them to fire self-consuming incendiary arrows. (Can you?) Why should the military have any DEW in secret programs when all the ones it has built are in open programs? What could be more impressive than the YAL-1A, conducted totally in the open?
You are correct about the U-2 and the F-117, but not about the SR-71 Blackbird. It's existence was announced 5 months before its first flight. Secrecy is relevant only when it is relevant. The B-21 Raider bomber is classified, but its existence is not secret (public rollout in 2022).
The point is: you can't "assume" the existence of something just because you can't prove its non-existence. That opens the door to fire-breathing dragons, fire-bombs carried by balloon (per Japan in World War II), or secret agents throwing bottles of napalm. Especially when the credible culprits are downed and sparking powerlines (evidence).
I do know that,but you implied that these planes don't exist cause you don't know about them.....
That not a real argument, why did you use it?
I've clearly proven with examples that the military keeps secrets.
As I would expect them to do. The technology of shooting lasers at the ground, from aircraft is not complex. If they wanted this capability, they would have it. And if they wanted it kept secret it would be...