For information on Project Gutenberg and their affiliates, and tips on using these files on your reading device, please refer to my Newsletter: My NEXT Step in Technology.

Forest Fire as a Military Weapon

Craig C. Chandler and Jay R. Bentley

Click the title for your free ebook!

    I began Part 3 of my AI series on August 17, but so many events are coming now so fast that I can barely keep up. With the horrendous catastrophe that happened in Lahaina, plus all the other raging and anomalous wildfires all over the globe now, I decided to start reading, and writing reviews/articles on the government/military documents I have downloaded concerning weather warfare, and this one took priority. As they often do, these docs will serve double duty as reviews and articles. The AI article will come next, and it will be found on my Articles Index, then a Disclosure article, which is the Farm Series for 2023, in case you are a new readers, of which I am far behind in my writing.
    I will begin with some personal comments on this document. First, it made me sick. As Dane and I both know, trees (and plants) are sentient beings, but to these people (and it's doubtful whether they are actually human) trees, throughout the document, were referred to as "fuel." And the question came to mind, "Don't these people have anything fucking better to do with their lives than to devote a good portion to it trying to figure out the best way to start a forest fire?" I mean, seriously. People like this don't have a life.
    This "secret" document just became available to the public last year, in 2022. It was published in June, 1970, but the data was collected in the late 1960s, when the U.S. was still fighting the "war," in Vietnam, which poses my second question: What the fuck were we doing in Vietnam anyways? Having grown up in the 50s and 60s, I know I'm not alone in asking that question.
    And third, these "experiments" (gosh, there's that word again), were done before the fine art of weather warfare was brought to the perfection that we are suffering through now. Many of the potential difficulties they faced in creating a nice, big, lethal conflagration were related to not having favorable weather, but hey, now . . . no problem, eh? If the weather isn't suitable, then we make it suitable. Am I sounding sufficiently sarcastic? Disgusted?
    And last, for years now, I have been saying that it was after WWII that the U.S. Department of Agriculture got into bed with the U.S. Military and together they began doing all sorts of horrible things to the planet. Well, this project was actually done by the Department of Agriculture Forest Service (along with the military). As Dane asks, is it the job of the Forest Service to figure out ways to burn them down?
    Everyone on the planet needs to read this publication. It can be downloaded for free at the above link, as a PDF, which can be read with a Kindle app. or on your desktop with Adobe. I usually don't read documents on my desktop, but with this I did, because I could highlight text rather than taking notes. It is technically 171 pages, but most are graphs and charts. A significant part of the whole is at the end—a summary, then examples of the different types of climate and forestation across the globe, with detailed information on how to start these places on fire. Or, here in 2023, we can just use Directed Energy Weapons in apparently most situations. I will cover that in detail in the next article. After the review, I have also added material about current wildfires and other news.
    Since the text part isn't all that long, I'll just cover key points.
    It begins with a summary of what the document will cover. Here's the first paragraph.

In 1965, the Joint Chiefs of Staff requested that the Secretary of Defense initiate research to determine the feasibility of measuring the flammability characteristics of forests and jungle growth, modifying flammability so that vegetation would readily support combustion. and developing measures to destroy large areas of forest or jungle growth by fire. This research has been conducted by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture, under sponsorship of the Advanced Research Projects Agency through ARPA Order 818.

    The main body of the text begins with a quote from the Bible. Seriously? Maybe these people should READ the Bible, like the part about Thou Shalt Not Kill. They begin the first paragraph, stating that leaders like Robin Hood and Fidel Castro "learned to conduct successful military operations from forest havens." They then detail the situation in Vietnam.

Although considerations of communications, food supply, strategic location and availability of support all enter into the selection of a particular area as an insurgent base or safe haven, the major requirement is dictated by the need for concealment from above. Dense forest growth offers the best possible overhead concealment for base operations of company size or larger.

    They determined that 83 percent of the bases were located in dense forests, "large enough that it cannot be surrounded nor effectively swept by conventional forces." So they decided to explore ways to just burn them out.

On December 20, 1965, the Advanced Research Projects Agency initiated ARPA Order 818 with the Division of Fire and Atmospheric Sciences Research of the Forest Service to conduct a research program of environmental modification techniques (Project EMOTE). The program was concerned with basic flammability problems of the major vegetation types of the world: although specific emphasis was given to humid forests, particularly the jungles of Southeast Asia. The major objectives were to develop the knowledge and technology needed to:
I. Describe, measure, and express quantitatively the flammability characteristics of forests and associated vegetation.
2. Modify flammability of vegetation types so that the fuel masses will readily support combustion.
3. Achieve rapid mass ignition and burning as required to remove each kind of canopy.

    Incidentally, the ENMOD Treaty, was not approved by the UN until December, 1976, prohibiting "military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques." It was signed by the U.S. in 1977 and ratified in 1980. A lot good it did, eh? I will be reviewing that document at some point as part of my HAARP Series. Hmm, gosh, just look at where "test fires and naturally occurring fires" were analyzed. Australia. Hawaii. Southeastern U.S. . . . .

Further research was conducted in 1968 and 1969 to determine the specific limiting factors for forest fire initiation in humid tropical forests. Both test fires and naturally occurring forest fires were observed and analyzed in Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand. Bougainville, Australia, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the southeastern United States.

    They continue with just how efficient a weapon forest fires can be, stating: "The burning of the U Minh Forest in March and April 1968 resulted in a burned-over area of more than 1000 square miles from an expenditure of 20 aircraft sorties and 36 naval gunfire support missions. The damage caused by this fire was equivalent to that of a 20 megaton nuclear device." But the downside was that infernos such as this were still dependent on the weather, which, again, is not the case today, at least to such an extent.
    The next section describes in detail the four different types of "recognized forest fire types, and the amount of damage they cause." They are: Creeping ground fire; Running surface fire; Forest crown fire; and Firestorm. There are also photos included, but they are such bad copies of the original that they're useless. They include a statement on their "success" with "Operation Hot Tip in 1965," and apparently by "population" they probably mean innocent civilians, too. Wow! What a victory . . . .

Intelligence reports following Operation Hot Tip in 1965 listed two hundred VC casualties out of an estimated population of two thousand VC in the 21 square kilometer target area. Since only 17 percent of the target area burned as a crown fire, this seems to substantiate the thesis that casualties will be limited to, and closely correlated with, the areas burned by crown fires.

    I want to include their description of Firestorm, because it describes, I believe, what is happening now on this planet on a regular basis. Lahaina may have been even worse.

A firestorm occurs when a large area (generally greater than 2 1/2 square kilometers) is burning at one time under meteorological conditions such that the entrainment of air to the fire is confined to a relatively shallow layer near the surface, and air enters the fire area with an appreciable tendency to rotate. This combination results in the development of strong surface winds which act to fan the fire and increase its burning rate. The increased burning rate causes more rapid air entrainment with a consequent further increase in wind speed, which increases burning rate still further which increases etc., etc. until all available fuel has been burned. Wind velocities exceeding 100 miles per hour are often attained during peak firestorm development. Experts are not in full agreement on the conditions necessary for firestorm formation. In general, any factor contributing to a rapid vertical heat release rate, or to marked surface wind vorticity will be favorable. Such factors include:
I. Heavy fuel loadings of unusually dry material.
2. Many simultaneous ignitions.
3. Intense solar insolation.
4. An unstable atmospheric lapse rate.
5. Marked vertical and/or horizontal wind shear.

Because of the intense heat and high winds, firestorms are extremely destructive. All dead material, regardless of size, and all living stems and branches smaller than 1-2 inches in diameter are consumed. Firestorms can be expected to cause extensive casualties to troops in the field. The mortality rate can be high, even among experienced firefighters, when even a part of a forest fire reaches firestorm conditions.

     The next section covers "Requirements For Successful Forest Burning." They say:

Forest flammability depends on the amount and arrangement of dead vegetation at ground level, the moisture content of this fuel, and the weather at the time of burning. A technique for successful forest burning must involve feasible procedures for developing adequate fuels, for bringing the fuels to proper moisture content, and for burning under satisfactory weather conditions.

    They discuss desiccants quite a bit throughout this "manual," and of course all of us who follow Dane know that the toxic shit they dump on us every day is filled with not only desiccants but incendiaries and defoliants, such as Monsanto's Dicamba, used by farmers, which drift onto other peoples' farms, such as mine and destroy crops that are still in production, which is called "Dicamba drift." Military operations also spray defoliants on a regular basis in the fall in areas with deciduous trees that haven't dropped their leaves because the weather is too warm. This is to make people think it's fall and everything is fine. The document states that 25 percent moisture in ground litter is the upper limit for successful "incendiary operations of military value," and the relative humidity should be below 50 percent. They include a series of tables that represent "ten fuel situations." "The remainder of this report discusses forest fire behavior as determined by specific fuel, weather and ignition system factors, and shows how these factors can be utilized in considering and planning forest incendiary operations."
    Next the document covers vegetation, or "fuels" that are available for burning. Here is the list:

I. Grass
II. Shrub
III. Conifer Forest
   A. Pine
   B. Other conifers
IV. Hardwood Forest
    A. Deciduous
   B. Evergreen

    Each of the types are described, including the types within each category, and their burn characteristics, including what all species have in common. For instance, here is what is written about grass:

The grass type includes all areas where more than 50 percent of the ground surface, as viewed from the air, is covered with grasses, forbs, sedges, reeds, canes or mosses. This includes such vegetative cover as tundra, steppe, savanna, prairie, meadow, marsh, bamboo, and open woodland.

The grass type varies from cover a few inches high with a fuel weight less than 0.04 pounds per square foot in the tundra to 20 foot tall stands of elephant grass that weight over I pound per square foot in parts of the Congo. Yet all grass type fuels have certain characteristics in common that produce a profound effect on fire behavior.

1. Individual plants with very thin leaves provide an extremely fast burning fuel that ignites easily when dry.
2. A moisture content that is well indicated by color. Green grass won't burn, yellow grass will.
3. A uniform distribution of fuel, both horizontally and vertically, produces fires that stabilize quickly and spread evenly and predictable.
4. Fuel surfaces that are completely exposed to rain, sunshine and the full sweep of the wind.

Consequently, fire behavior in grass types is particularly affected by the weather of the moment. A pasture that cannot be made to burn at dawn may nearly explode from a single spark at 3 p.m., and this fire once started may go out by itself shortly after sundown.

    Each category is described in increasing detail, obviously because when you get to the larger plants, there is more at stake. They also explain the difference between pines and other conifers, and deciduous trees and shrubs and evergreens. For instance, "Because of their heavier fuel weights, firestorms are more common in conifers other than pine, than in any other fuel type." Deciduous hardwoods are more prone to fires. "The dead leaves themselves add considerable fuel to the normal ground litter (a single large oak tree will drop about 900 pounds of leaves in the fall)." Hmm. Well. I question that statement, because my farm is full of oak—big ones—and I am quite certain they have never dropped that many leaves in a season.
    The next section is on climate and they go into great detail, with much emphasis placed on when and how much toxic chemical substances should be sprayed to make them a successful incendiary fuel. Doesn't all this make you outraged? Anyways, as stated earlier, I think "natural" climate is much less an issue now (what is natural climate anymore?) because they can get in their planes and make any kind of climate that suits them. I will skip sharing this part, however, at the end of the document, as mentioned above, they provide charts for each type of environmental situation, and I will share one of those for an example—the one for the Mount Shasta region. Yes, Dane's home. A section on "Precipitation Regimes" is included, but again, they can create whatever precipitation regime they please, although I think they are losing control of the whole shebang. Anyways, they have the "possible climatic situations" divided into 42 categories. This is an extremely detailed investigation on how to successfully conduct environmental warfare. They even describe what kind of film to use if you are doing aerial photos of the area to be observed!
     Fuel characteristics are discussed, using the example of setting a Christmas tree on fire, which may or may not burn your house down, providing charts, lots of charts for everything. Here is what you should consider if you are planning on setting fire to your Christmas tree: "Moisture content; Thickness.; Surface-Volume Ratio; Chemistry; Fuel Bed Characteristics." Another area they discuss is the chemical reactions that take place during burning. Toward the end, a detailed description of the use of forest fires during the U.S. occupation of Vietnam is supplied.

    Anyways, you get the idea, and I hope everyone will take the time to read this document so that you understand what we are ALL up against, and it's all much more lethal now with the toxic technology, such as HAARP, Directed Energy Weapons, 5G, and more that's available now. I will close with the info for Mount Shasta, then share some current news. It is called "APPENDIX B: Pertinent Incendiary Data by Climatic Types." There are 31 altogether, but those designated with a "Short Burn" or "No Burn" status did not have graphics to accompany the text. Ironically, it is these areas, the polar regions, that are now burning up. Dawson, Yukon is listed with a "NO BURN SEASON," but there was a fire there as I typed this on August 22. Here's a screenshot. It is there, Dawson City right at the border of Alaska.

    Here's the example for Mount Shasta from Appendix B: "Pertinent Incendiary Data by Climatic Types." Incidentally, while these examples covered much of the globe, the single country most covered was the U.S. and the state most covered was . . . you guessed it—California. Here are some interesting statistics: 193 cities or locations are represented, and 68 of them are in the U.S.—31 states plus, yes, Washington D.C.. Here is the breakdown on these states and how many cities of theirs were represented, which I found interesting.
California-10
Texas-7
Florida-4
Arizona, Washington State, Nevada, Colorado-3
Utah, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, South Carolina, Minnesota, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming, Missouri-2
The remainder are represented by one city:
New York, Maine, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Nebraska, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, North and South Dakota, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C..

    And now to current news, beginning with Dane's latest interview with Greg Hunter. Greg is really catching on now!! And Dane's reports keep getting more and more dire. Here it is:
Lahaina Incineration is Deadly Weather Warfare—Dane Wigington
    It is a very good interview and Greg gave him 55 minutes—more than he often does. Of course, they began with the horrific event in Lahaina. Dane mostly dismissed the idea of Directed Energy Weapons, which so many are saying were used. I disagree with Dane, and I have information I will be sharing in Part 3 of my AI series. They actually covered a lot of areas, and Weather Warfare in general. I had commented previously that I don't always agree with Dane's opinion on the motivation for these activities, and even he said that, while the facts prove without a doubt what is going on, we still must speculate on the reasons behind it. As I have been saying, if we are indeed living in a simulated reality and Artificial Intelligence has taken over, it is possible there is no reason, or it is just an experiment being done by beings so much more advanced in intelligence than us, but not human or perhaps not even organic and certainly without souls or morals.
    Anyways, there is a lot of good material here, and Dane's plea continues to grow louder. He mentioned that he knows someone from NOAA, and that they know this is going on but are not allowed to talk about it. Dane said they all must band together and confront it as a group. I've been saying that to grocery store employees about bioengineered products they carry, which are taking over the shelves. People have this idea that they can't do anything about it, or are afraid of getting fired, but Dane also pointed out that there's no need to worry about a paycheck and pension, because if we don't stop this NOW, we will be DONE and money and a job won't matter. He expects something big to happen before the end of the year, and I have been expecting that for months. The feeling grows stronger every day.
    Here is the YouTube video Dane did when this document was released last year.
    Here is the page with text
Wildfires As A Weapon: US Military Exposed
    Here is some of the latest on Lahaina. Hmm. Take a look at this one. Maybe it's just me, but I don't remember ever seeing a news article calling for people to provide DNA samples. Yeah. They certainly are obsessed with DNA these days, aren't they?
850 people are still missing after Maui wildfires, mayor says
    Here is a thought-provoking article.
What the Media Won't Tell You About the Maui Fires
    And here's more to think about.
Why was there no water to fight the fire in Maui?
    And now onto other anomalous fires, like the ones in Canada.
About 30,000 people ordered to evacuate as wildfires rage in Canada's British Columbia
     And a related story. And no, it's NOT climate change.
Yellowknife residents wonder if wildfires are the new normal as western Canada burns
    This is on the fires that hit Washington State.
Washington state wildfire leaves at least one dead, 185 structures destroyed
    And more fires in Greece. Of course, the EU blames it on "climate change." I'm getting sick of that phrase.
18 burned bodies, possibly of migrants, found in northeastern Greece after major wildfire
    And one more.
Major fire at historic Rhode Island hotel prompts state of emergency
     have not seen any updates to this one as to the cause of the fire, but I remember quite a few years ago when, in a town in my county north of me, a number of buildings just suddenly caught fire, and I never heard any explanation as to why, but conditions were not particularly favorable. Early experiments with Directed Energy Weapons? There is a military base located between me and the town, and the reason I remember this situation is that the vet I had gone to for years, who was also a friend, had his second clinic in this town, where he also lived. One of his long-time associate vets ran it. I remember being so worried about evacuating the animals, especially if there were surgeries going on, or pets recovering from surgery. Do I think, if someone gives the order, that they will destroy my property, or your property or ANYTHING on this planet that suits their agenda? As Dane says, "Why wouldn't they?" If we do NOT BAND TOGETHER and put these people, or whatever they are, out of commission, we are DONE. Wake the fuck up and HELP!!!

All material on this site copyright © 2023 by Laughing Crow.
This site designed and written by Laughing Crow.