Old Guy Saves House By Not Leaving And Using Garden Hose...
https://youtu.be/CCSp5e4HGR0?si=zjOmRhAn-CU8EUDB
Makes you wonder...
.... why the trees and bushes behind and aside of his house aren't burnt down.
Did he sprinkle all of those as well, or has the fire simply not reached his house?
Why is there a cut in the video between him walking past a destroyed house and him walking towards his house where left and right of the street all the bushes are green?
This is such a bad fake, I wouldn't even wonder if his house weren't in CA.
Eh? There's a direct pan from the house behind his - burnt to the ground! - on to his back yard at ~ the 2:50 mark on there!! 😂
Incredible fake more like...
I've seen that, but something doesn't add up there.
First you have to realize there's a cut at 2:50, so whatever is shown up to 2:50 is a different property, probably in a different location.
The camera going over the property on the left from 2:51 to 2:53 shows burnt trees all the way as far as the camera can see. Then from 2:55 on, on his property the camera shows only green trees as far as the camera can see, with the exception of 2 trees on the property to the right which don't look burnt, but simply without leafs, maybe because it's winter there or too dry for the trees to keep their leafs.
So either the fire ended by itself, or by the work of firefighters in an exact straight line along the border between the two properties and extended to the horizon, or the two properties are not located next to each other, where his explanation to have saved his house with a garden hose cannot possibly explain how that shall have saved all the trees in the background at 2:59, nor can it explain how a visibly dried out tall hedge between the 2 properties, visible at 2:55 shall not have caught fire while half a meter away a whole building burnt to the ground. Some branches of the hedge actually reach far enough to the left that they would have been inside the burning house, but didn't get burnt.
There's trees / shrubs in place everywhere. Plenty of conspiracy theories stuff and refutals about that online...
shareThere are other not burnt houses in the middle of destructed ones, but this one appears to be the only one claiming he saved it with a garden hose.
shareThere are other not burnt houses in the middle of destructed ones...
Makes no sense - There aren't other houses in the middle of other houses, destructed or not... Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Also, not true - saw some German dude with his kids talking about how they hosed down there's and neighbouring houses with a hose drawing water from their pool.
Check out James Wood's video here:-
https://youtu.be/lxCKUgjRUWo?si=JX7_5Z8f2LCMzZ3N
Some houses fine, others knackered...
You really, genuinely think this is some faked story? 🫤 share
Check the posting by DarthAckbar in this thread, 12 hours before the time I'm posting this reply here.
That's what usually happens when you try saving a house from a huge fire with a garden hose.
It may be possible iffffffff the house is at the edge of the area on fire or some coincidencial wind conditions do not fly many sparks onto a house, but believing one could save a house in the middle of an out of control fire just with a garden hose is delusional.
Even if I grant you the trees in the distance being possible, the not burnt hedge half a meter away from a completely burnt down house is just too far off anything believable, because the guy himself didn't even try to claim he had saved that one as well.
I do believe the video is intentionally recorded and cut together to give the impression it would be in the center of the burnt area, while in fact it isn't.
How far away from the center of the burnt area can only be speculation, without a photo from above showing the whole neighborhood in one image there's no way of telling.
I saw and replied to his thread reposting that.
But yeah, horses for courses...
The guy in the video talks about watching the embers and spraying where they landed. That's basically how his house didn't burn down.
That makes sense only if his house it at the outer edge of the burnt area where a little garden hose can in fact make the difference between being the last house that burns down or the first one that doesn't.
But then, not every spark ignites a fire, there's no way of telling whether the garden hose really made the difference, given the fact all the little bushes in his yard and even outside in front of his house aren't burnt, I'd say there can't have been many embers and it can't have been one single garden hose to save all that.
Either way, if I were that guy, not knowing how far the fire would go, I wouldn't have tried anything with a garden hose, the risk of dying relative to the chances of success is just too high.
I'm not sure whether surviving trees / bushes really tell any story.
The video on this link is interesting as well:-
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-08/night-of-terror-in-altadena
House next door in the process of burning to the ground. Theirs is going to be fine. Plenty of untouched big trees out front and untouched shrubs between the two houses themselves.
Like I said before though, it's really just horses for courses and making a judgement call.
That's another of those stories, actually even more ridiculous.
How much water (or whatever else) is in a regular fire extinguisher?
Answer: 5 liters, 1.1 gallon.
How much fire can you extinguish with 5 liters of whatever stuff?
The video below actually shows how pathetic a garden hose is relative to the size of the fire next door, it does next to nothing, all that matters is the direction of the wind and where that blows how many embers.
But they're not trying to use the hose to put out the massive fire next door.
They're using it to stop these little embers taking hold on their roof shingles and causing their house to burn down as well.
That's basically how these guys have saved their houses.
(Agreed re the extinguisher though, I was just referencing the hose video)
No, it isn't, it just can't be.
Do the math, even if those guys were keeping the water running 24 hours a day, spread over the total surface of the house, how much water would they be able to put onto the surface per m², how much of that water would just drain down and how much would vaporize in the dry air?
The answer is, with a garden hose you cannot even keep half the surface wet, let alone wet enough to extinguish an amber.
How many breaks could they take per 24 hours?
None, because however much water they might have sprinkled on the surface, will have drained and dried within 10 minutes.
Therefore sprinkling the house in advance is just a waste of water and whether or not they will be able to keep up with incoming ambers remains to be a question of wind direction and speed.
As I said, there's a tiny chance at the borderline in between being the last one being burnt and the first one not burnt where a garden hose can make a difference, but that chance is so small, it's not worth risking your life on it.
It's not a case of sprinkling the house in advance or continuously. It's about spraying the embers when they land on the roof...
Here's the math:-
Abandon your property and 100% chance even one ember landing on the roof could burn it down.
Stay there and spray five / ten / whatever number of embers actually fall on your roof then < 100% chance your house burns down...
These guys obviously chose the latter odds.
You don't seem to be grasping how these fires spread.
Roof tiles aren't made of wood, they aren't flammable, neither is the cover of most flat roofs and not every spark ignites a fire.
Chances for one single ember or even a few of them to burn down a house are slim even if you don't extinguish them.
The more ember the higher the chance one will fall onto something flammable, i.e. slip through a crack between roof tiles and reach the wood underneath, or miss the roof and fall onto a balcony with flammable stuff stored there.
Of course it can happen from a single ember, which is why occasionally houses 2 or 3 miles away from a fire can burn down, but that's not common or else much more of LA would have burnt down by now.
Problem is when chances for ignition are high, you're dealing with 100s of embers from a nearby fire that the wind carries over, like in this picture.
https://ibb.co/FVXfYwT
You simply do not know which of them might land on something flammable, meaning you'd have to extinguish all of them and that you just cannot do with a garden hose, because they will cover your entire house.
As I said before, you might succeed with very few embers when you're either located far away from a fire or the wind blows in the opposite direction, but in these cases chances are it won't burn down either way.
I don't really disagree with what you said there.
It really depends upon the circumstances and where you were in relation to the wildfires hitting the city.
Like your picture there, probably no chance. But like the videos I've linked to, the embers are more manageable. And also other factors, like if the wind speed dropped.
But as per my previous post, if you're not there, 0% chance you're stopping something which has dropped on your roof and burned through...