Because a balloon can be punctured by a 2-5 milliwatt beam having the diameter of a needle, as essentially all of the beam energy is absorbed by the rubber. Not so easy to "pop" other materials. It is always hard to do, and the laser weapons we have are dedicated to air defense missions. You are going far, far out of your way to rationalize the involvement of DEWs, when there is no evidence and absolutely no necessity. It is like going to the corner mailbox in an atomic-powered automobile. What is the point when you could just WALK?
You also need to keep in mind that the Cabal is probably awash in contingency plans, for this or that emergency. If an opportunity for a fire arrives on the doorstep in the form of high winds, tell the power company not to shut off the power, and wait and see. You might not even need a team of arsonists. All you really need is a contingency plan (like, block the egress). These guys are likely to make a virtue out of playing it by ear, as they probably have no intellect or patience for a convoluted plan of action.
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?).
For laser ranging and communication, but not for airborne weapon engagements (though they are working toward that).
Yep, a blue laser will reflect off a blue object. Weapon lasers are not optical lasers. You can do things on a tabletop that does not translate to things you can do in the field. I saw a 10-watt CO2 laser produce a dime-sized white-hot spot on a piece of firebrick, but that is no more heat than a 10-watt incandescent light bulb produces and we do not burn down houses with 10-watt light bulbs.
I suppose you could run around with a tabletop laser and power supply, using it to replace kitchen matches. Do you realize how idiotic that would be?
Not strange in other places. It is common for Greek cities in the Aegean Sea to have whitewashed buildings with deep blue roofs. https://www.fantasytravelofgreece.com/fantasy-travel/first-timer-greece "De gustibus non disputandum est." (Of taste there is no argument.)
It IS childish and fantastic. You are on better ground arguing for F-16s and napalm bombs. Oops, there would be evidence of that, wouldn't there? The only benefit of DEWs is the lack of evidence---but the lack of evidence only suggests...the lack of DEWs. It is like invoking an invisible monster. "What invisible monster?" "You can't see it." "Then how do you know it is there?" "Because if you can't see it, it must be there?" (Raised eyebrows.)
They landed with a robot, not an astronaut.
If you work out the optics...it doesn't work. The solar image spot would have a diameter equal to the angular extent of the sun times the focal length of the optics. The only reason a magnifying lens works is because the focal length is very small and it is possible to concentrate the sunlight. The focal length of a satellite-based optical system would be on the order of hundreds of kilometers. The angular diameter of the sun is about 0.54 degree, or nearly 0.01 radian. This means the solar disk diameter from a satellite 200 km distant would be 2 km. The collector size on the satellite would have to be much larger than that in order to get any amplification of the light. And during nighttime, no sunlight in low Earth orbit. How hard would it be? Next to impossible.
Optical wavelengths are not used for laser weapons; they are too inefficient in producing power. If there is enough power, it wouldn't matter what color the target was, because no color is 100% reflective and it would take only a short exposure to say 100 w/cm2 before the paint chars and the absorption coefficient goes up.
The underwater applications are maybe mapping but more likely submarine detection or two-way communication. Not attacking submarines. You are thinking of heating up something that is cooled by a surrounding environment of seawater? Or, you aren't thinking...
Because there is no way to "rule it in." It just doesn't make sense. It is the antithesis of something simple and reliable, and accessible without questions being asked. I know some of you guys like the idea. Having worked with the subject, I think it is nuts. So, I have no idea why you like the idea. Maybe your imagination gets the better of your knowledge.
That is hilarious. It makes no optical sense whatsoever. The targeting image would have to go up to the satellite and down to the laser. You need to have two separate telescope systems on the satellite to pass the beam two ways, with large apertures. (I did a system analysis of this architecture a long time ago.) And how long do you think such a satellite would be in position to exploit the geometry before it passes over the horizon? And we still don't have any sensors that can differentiate ground targets....unless you want television. Will you know what you are looking at? You are just compounding the absurdity by invoking an order of magnitude more complexity and expense.
That would have been a panel off the side of the fuselage.
Ineptitude is creeping into professions. The deadly 737 MAX is a case in point.
I like giant flaming arrows launched by an arbalest. Straight out of the 12th century. But if you need the super-science, they could have been procured by a time machine.
They may not have an option. I'm hearing that there is a lawsuit in motion regarding the downed power lines and a failure to switch off the power in advance of the winds. (Now common practice in California.)
The meter, or a botched installation?
Don't be silly. Bunch of arsonists, with cell phones, waiting for the "start" message? Or even looking at their clock. Occam's Razor says, too easy. When you think super-technology is the way to go, it only shows that you have no idea how to organize something, and nobody to count on. As a result, you think whoever is responsible for this is as feeble and ineffectual as you are---but the reality is that they will go to great lengths to accomplish their intent, if it takes time, people, and resources to do it. How to you propose to beat these people?
No, you are dreaming. But you want to believe your dream, so lack of evidence will not stop you. Fires start very nicely with matches, or even as the result of a discarded glass bottle focusing sunlight on a patch of dry grass. Add wind and you have a nice little blaze with a potential for becoming a gigantic one.
In eastern Washington, we have a wild fire in Medical Lake that has so far consumed over 10,000 acres. Only a few people have been killed, and we know how to fight these fires. It is seasonal for us. This one is not big enough to get notice.
First, there are no space lasers....
And not even a shaped charge. Just a satchel charge pasted to the side of the stone would provide enough overpressure to crack the stone and throw it around.
And the answer is: shooting down ballistic missiles in boosting flight. No secret about that. Not only does the turret need to acquire the elevation and azimuth of the target independent of the motion of the airplane, it has to be able to rotate the aperture to face aft so it is not continually exposed to the airstream while not in use.
Using it to shoot at the ground fails on several counts. (1) There is no targeting system or targeting concept for ground targets. (I actually analyzed this problem for the YAL-1A program.) (2) If there are clouds below the YAL-1A, no targets will be seen (if it had the sensors to see them with, which it did not). (3) If there are water clouds below the YAL-1A, there is the likelihood they would absorb the beam (water is an absorber of most infrared radiation). (4) If there are smoke clouds, the target would be obscured and the beam would be scattered.
This is all idle bullshitting, as the YAL-1A was scrapped not long after its mission success in 2010. Existing DEWs under field test are designed to engage air targets only from the ground or water surface. If you want to light a fire, use a match. Much easier, and it doesn't put you into the wild-eyed ignoramus camp.
I congratulate you on your tenacity and integrity. You have done something that is hard to do. I had no idea that such a big piece remained. Now, everyone here can know.
Perhaps you can appreciate my asperity on this topic, which I do not brag about but find it hard to repress. Where I worked, we built everything from cruise missile to jetliners. It is hard to get this across.
Absolutely nothing new. In World War II, the Japanese had a program for sending balloons adrift eastward across the Pacific Ocean to drop incendiaries on U.S. Pacific Coast forests. Some fires did result, in Oregon, I think. How many here knew about it? Our ignorance is their greatest ally.
Evidence of what? Conspiracy for what?
There is already a video that shows a plane, but the conspiracy theorists are devoted not to see it as anything other than their fantasy. Other videos would simply be dismissed as "more conspiracy".
But why move them at all? Presumably they are already selected for overlapping coverage from ideal locations (if they exist).
Do you even listen to yourself? If a plane, made of metal stronger than the strongest bones in our body, is going to be disintegrated by impact, then it follows absolutely that human flesh will be shredded. The plane's final motions had multiple witnesses---are you going to claim they are all liars, operating to a common plan?
The main deck would be the main penetrator, but the fuselage would be along for the ride until it is stripped off. Which way do you want it? That the whole fuselage penetrated intact? Or that it never penetrated at all? You don't seem to grasp the concept that a collision of this kind involves structure coming apart.
Give it a rest. The evidence is very clear. You just don't like it...for reasons I can only ascribe to personal preference. Why you would have a preference for how a disaster occurred is very strange, since the proper human reaction is to prefer that it never happened, but that is not an option in this case.
I had an exchange with someone who was convinced it was a Scud missile. A complete ignoramus. Didn't understand in any way how a Scud travels to its target. Just as most people don't understand that even a cruise missile does not follow the flight path they imagine. The power of ignorance overwhelms evidence, I am sorry to say. A poor suit for anons to wear.
Being watered down in advance. That is often all that is needed. I once saw a whole hillside in Santa Barbara in flames for about two days. Some houses were lost completely. Others survived. Wetting down helped. Clearing away undergrowth in advance was important.
I am also given to understand that the wealthy survivals were in areas of the island that were not menaced by the fire. Not hard to avoid getting burned if you weren't where the flames were.