Fact Sheet - Fire Rebuild

This page presents verified facts about the 2025 Palisades Fire, researched and confirmed by Michael Kureth (Fire Rebuild). All verified facts are publicly available and supported by evidence. No private information, non-disclosure agreement (NDA) materials, or details from private lawsuits are included.

Victims of the 2025 Palisades Fire have endured a historic atrocity and deserve justice. These facts document a pivotal event in history, one that must never be concealed, distorted, or forgotten.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - Weather
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
A001	100 MPH Wind Speeds	FALSE	No weather station in Los Angeles County recorded 100 MPH wind speeds on January 7, 2025
A002	100 MPH Wind Gusts	FALSE	No weather station in Los Angeles County recorded 100 MPH wind gusts on January 7, 2025
A003	Hurricane Force Winds	FALSE	No weather station in Los Angeles County recorded sustained wind speeds of at least 75 MPH on January 7, 2025, a speed that would meet the minimum definition of a Category 1 hurricane
A004	Historical Drought Conditions	FALSE	California has records of longer droughts prior to the period before January 7, 2025
A005	Historical Drought Preceded by Unprecedented Rains	FALSE	California has records of more precipitations preceding longer droughts prior to the period before January 7, 2025
A006	Unprecedented Wind Event	FALSE	California describes the predicted and precedented seasonal winds as "Santa Ana winds" which have been recorded at far greater speeds for decades preceding January 7, 2025
A007	Unforeseen Weather Conditions	FALSE	The National Weather Service forecasted Santa Ana winds and warned of the forecasted fire risk on January 3, 2025 at 6:55am, at least 99 hours before the 2025 Palisades Fire
A008	Unprecedented Weather Conditions	FALSE	Los Angeles County has mitigated far greater fire risks just within 5 years prior to the 2025 Palisades Fire
A009	Unprecedented Perfect Storm	FALSE	Los Angeles County has mitigated far greater fire risks just within 5 years prior to the 2025 Palisades Fire
A010	Record Breaking Fire Risk	FALSE	Historical records for Pacific Palisades, dating back to 1979, show hundreds of days with a far greater fire risk than was present during the 2025 Palisades Fire.
A011	Weather stations are omitted in the Wind Report	FALSE	All weather stations within a 20 mile radius of Pacific Palisades are included in the report and analysis. Again, no weather station recorded 100 mph winds, 100 mph gusts, or hurricane force winds on Jan 7, 2025.
A012	Only "hobbyist" weather stations are in the Wind Report	FALSE	All weather stations, including federal and state owned as well as public news stations and independent "hobbyist" stations are included in the report. Again, no weather station recorded 100 mph winds, 100 mph gusts, or hurricane force winds on Jan 7, 2025.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - Climate
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
B001	Climate Change	FALSE	Historical records for Pacific Palisades, dating back to 1979, show hundreds of days with a far greater fire risk than was present during the 2025 Palisades Fire. This conclusion is based on ten fire risk metrics fire risk is calculated, all of which showed a higher risk historically than recorded on January 7, 2025: Burning Index (BI), Energy Release Component (ERC), Reference Evapotranspiration (ETR), 100 Hour Dead Fuel Moisture (FM100), 1000 Hour Dead Fuel Moisture (FM1000), Maximum Relative Humidity (RMAX), Minimum Relative Humidity (RMIN), Specific Humidity (SPH), Potential Evapotranspiration (PET), and Mean Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD).
B002	Pacific Palisades has the highest Fire Risk	FALSE	The majority of residential areas in California are at an even greater fire risk than Pacific Palisades
B003	The Palisades Fire is a result of Climate Change	FALSE	Climate Change will be the result of the Palisades Fire	Multiple Public
B004	Coastal areas like Pacific Palisades have the greatest fire risk	FALSE	Most residential areas in California are at greater risk than Pacific Palisades. In fact, areas in Altadena and Pasadena (non-coastal areas) are at a far greater risk.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - Fire Department
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
C001	"No one could stop a fire like that"	FALSE	Private fire crews successfully protected both Rick Caruso's Palisades Village and the Getty Villa. Their efforts were so effective that the homes and community surrounding the Getty Villa survived, contrasting sharply with all adjacent properties that were destroyed after being abandoned by the fire department with no effort.	Multiple Public
C002	Los Angeles Fire Department fought the fire	FALSE	The Los Angeles Fire Department was ordered to "stand down" and "let it burn out" at approximately 3:00 PM on January 7, 2025 just 5 hours after the fire began. Multiple witnesses assert the fire department made no attempt to save any person or property.
C003	Los Angeles County Fire Department fought the fire	FALSE	The Los Angeles County Fire Department was ordered to leave Malibu and protect Brentwood. Multiple witnesses assert the fire department made no attempt to save any person or property.
C004	The Fire Department stopped the Palisades Fire	FALSE	The burn scar from the Dec 2024 Franklin Fire stopped the 2025 Palisades Fire from destroying all of Malibu. The Fire Department made no attempt to stop the fire and abandoned Pacific Palisades.
C005	The Fire Department did the best they could	FALSE	Multiple survivors witnessed the fire department making no attempt to save lives or homes on January 7, 2025. Many (including news reporters) note never seeing anyone from the fire department. Water is not needed to knock on doors.
C006	The Fire Department are heroes who risked their lives	FALSE	No heroes were seen by the Pacific Palisades community on January 7, 2025. However, many survivors recorded fire department cowards who laughed as homes burned and at fire victims. This was further evidenced during the Palisades Community Meeting on January 11, 2025, at 6:30 PM, when a hot mic captured the fire department laughing at fire victims for thanking them for their service.
C007	Los Angeles Fire Department was given a standing ovation at both the 2025 Oscars and 2025 Grammy Awards	TRUE	Despite allowing two communities to be completely destroyed and failing to even attempt to do their job, the Los Angeles Fire Department was rewarded, congratulated, and applauded internationally at Los Angeles' two greatest annual award events.
C008	Fire Department puts out fires	FALSE	"They [Fire Department] don't say they put out the fires, they suppress the fires" - Bill Essayli, United States Attorney for the Central District of California
C009	Los Angeles County is safe from fires thanks to the Los Angeles County Fire Department.	FALSE	The LACoFD (Local 1014) has been without a contract since December 31, 2024. The department is managed by the LA County Board of Supervisors who have made excuses for not renewing the contract.
C010	Los Angeles City is safe from fires thanks to the Los Angeles City Fire Department.	FALSE	At the time of the Palisades Fire, LAFD was under budget and facing $49 million in further cuts, following a previous $17 million cut by Mayor Karen Bass.
C011	California state land is safe from fires thanks to Cal Fire.	FALSE	Gavin Newsom vetoed a voter-approved pay increase for Cal Fire firefighters.
C012	Fire department employees have been given cost of living increases	FALSE	Only fire chiefs, captains, and marshals have been receiving pay increases; the firefighters who put out the fires have not.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - Fire Origin
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
D001	The Palisades Fire reignited from the Lachman Fire	TRUE	The Jan 7, 2025 Palisades Fire reignited from the Jan 1, 2025 Lachman Fire
D002	The Lachman Fire was fully contained and "dead out"	FALSE	No, the LAFD failed to use thermal/infrared imaging to confirm the Lachman fire was fully out before the Palisades fire rekindled. Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva and the department’s after-action materials note they decided not to employ thermal checks on the small (8-acre) Lachman incident.
D003	"Underground smoldering can be hard to detect"	FALSE	Multiple witnesses report calling 911 and the fire department with video evidence dated Jan 1 to Jan 6 clearly showing an active fire with smoke emerging from the 8 acre area of the Lachman fire which LAFD failed to fully extinguish.
D004	The State of California, LAFD, and City of Los Angeles are not to blame for the Lachman Fire reigniting	FALSE	The Lachman Fire was on a California State Park. LAFD refused to complete their job in fully extinguishing the fire despite multiple fire fighters requesting to complete the job. National Weather Service forecasted Santa Anna winds on Jan 3. Mayor Karen Bass denied requests from LAFD to pre-deploy fire protection services. Governor Gavin Newsom failed to maintain the overgrown brush on his California State Park where the fire reignited. LAFD failed to respond to witnesses warning of the active fire and smoke days before Jan 7.
D005	The Palisades Fire was caused by arson	FALSE	The Jan 1, 2025 Lachman Fire was allegedly caused by arson from the suspect, Jonathan Rinderknecht. However, the Palisades Fire (origin of 34.07022,-118.54453) began on Jan 7, 2025 at 10:30 AM within feet of a California state park, and the Lachman Fire (origin 34.07592, -118.54696) began on Jan 1, 2025 at 12:15 AM in a California state park.
D006	Fire Fighters were Pre-Deployed	FALSE	Despite Governor Gavin Newsom's false claims, Cal Fire confirmed they were not pre-deployed to state land where the Palisades Fire ignited. Mayor Karen Bass also denied pre-deployment request from city fire department.
D007	CalFire has record of all California fires on state owned land	FALSE	As of November 2, 2025, CAL FIRE's records show 547 fires for the year 2025, yet they have no record of the Lachman Fire or any fire incident in Los Angeles County on January 1, 2025. The fire's origin at Topanga State Park was confirmed in part by a 911 call at 12:17 AM on January 1, 2025, where the caller described the incident as a fire in the Highlands at the Summit which were clarified by the operated as in the "hills like in the brush." Given that CAL FIRE has jurisdiction over California State Parks (State Responsibility Area), the agency should have responded to the Lachman Fire.
D008	LAFD Station 69 (Pacific Palisades) responded to the fire	FALSE	LAFD Station 69 (Pacific Palisades) both ignored calls from residents days before the Palisades Fire and failed to preposition or inspect the fire's origin.
D009	Firefighters were ordered to stop extinguishing the Lachman Fire	TRUE	LA Times reported that crews mopping up the area of the Lachman Fire warned a battalion chief that the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch, and that it was a "bad" idea to leave the scene. However, despite those concerns, the crews were told to leave the area.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - LADWP
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
E001	LADWP maintains their equipment	FALSE	Post-fire analyses and reports indicate that LADWP's infrastructure faced significant challenges. For example, some documentation suggested that the existing water system was not designed to handle the extraordinary water demands of a massive, sustained wildfire, and there were discussions about the need for upgraded technology and fire-hardening measures like undergrounding utility lines.
E002	LADWP power can be be shutoff remotely	FALSE	Reports indicated that LADWP chose not to proactively de-energize power lines in high-risk areas before or during the initial fire. An LADWP spokesperson noted at the time that widespread preventative power outages could be harmful to emergency services. The LADWP infrastructure is outdated and requires manual shutoff of the deadman's cable.
E003	LADWP shut off power during the Palisades Fire	FALSE	LADWP fabricated evidence by altering logs claiming they attempted to shut off power.
E004	LADWP replaced powerlines when residential access was restricted to the fire area	TRUE	LADWP crews, along with other utilities, were active in the closed disaster zone replacing damaged power poles and lines while the area was still under evacuation orders and access was restricted to first responders and authorized personnel.
E005	LADWP had no impact on LAFD	FALSE	LAFD refused to utilize pool water and hydrant water in fear of electrocution because LADWP power was still active. Los Angeles has established fire safety protocol that personnel should never touch a downed power line.
E006	Live power lines had no impact on the fire	FALSE	Evidence in lawsuits confirm that an energized LADWP overhead line fell and caused a "second ignition point" in the fire. Separately, eyewitness reports during the fire described hearing "booms" believed to be transformers catching fire and blowing up near the blaze.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - Water
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
F001	Santa Ynez Reservoir was empty	TRUE	The 117-million gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir near Pacific Palisades was confirmed by LADWP to be empty when the fire began because it had been taken out of service in early 2024 to repair a tear in its floating cover, a necessary action to comply with safe drinking water regulations. This large, empty reserve immediately became a focal point of controversy, as some believed a full reservoir could have provided additional resources to combat the massive blaze, though LADWP maintained the system remained compliant with fire codes even without the reservoir.
F002	LADWP was unaware and did not have time to remediate water.	FALSE	The premise that LADWP leadership was completely unaware of water issues or lacked preparation time is false; LADWP was aware the Santa Ynez Reservoir was offline for nearly a year.
FD003	Water ran out in Pacific Palisades	FALSE	The claim that "water ran out" across the entire Pacific Palisades area is technically false, according to LADWP, who clarified that water was still physically present in the main supply lines (the Westgate Trunk Line) but could not be effectively delivered due to a complete loss of water pressure.
F004	Water was out in certain areas in Pacific Palisades	TRUE	While water did not run out of the entire system, water access was eliminated in critical, high-elevation areas of the Pacific Palisades.
F005	Leadership could not have restored the Santa Ynez Reservoir	FALSE	City and state leadership failed to adequately address the known, critical risk posed by the empty Santa Ynez Reservoir, given the forecasted Santa Anna wind event. City and state officials did not act with the urgency required to restore the reservoir or establish a comparable emergency backup prior to the known fire season.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - Financial
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
G001	Donations to FireAid went to Palisades Fire survivors	FALSE	FireAid's funds were primarily distributed as grants to over 160 nonprofit organizations. Palisades Fire survivors did not receive any of the $100 million raised from FireAid.
G002	The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a significant support to Palisades Fire survivors.	FALSE	Eligible survivors of the L.A. fires have gotten an average of around $4,100 in direct FEMA assistance so far. The maximum received is $43,000.
G003	Los Angeles County is Helping Fire Survivors Rebuild	FALSE	The Blue Ribbon Commission's Resilient Rebuilding Authority announced on July 9, 2025, that they would be offering a "soft second loan" to fire victims. It is important for recipients to understand that this arrangement involves placing a lien on the property. This means the Commission will hold a second position on the home's title.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - Leadership
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
H001	Los Angeles Deputy Mayor of Public Safety, Brian K. Williams, was on leave during the Palisades Fire for calling in a fake bomb threat	TRUE	Williams pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of making threats regarding fire and explosives in connection with a fake bomb threat called into Los Angeles City Hall on October 3, 2024.
H002	Mayor Karen Bass provided her text messages related to the Palisades Fire	FALSE	Mayor Karen Bass deleted her text messages related to the Palisades Fire as well as all messages on January 7, 2025, the day of the fire.
H003	LAFD Fire Chief Kristin Crowley provided her text messages related to the Palisades Fire	FALSE	LAFD Fire Chief Kristin Crowley deleted her text messages related to the Palisades Fire as well as all messages on January 7, 2025, the day of the fire.
H004	LACoFD Fire Chief Anthony (Tony) Marrone provided her text messages related to the Palisades Fire	FALSE	LACoFD Fire Chief Anthony (Tony) Marrone deleted his text messages related to the Palisades Fire as well as all messages on January 7, 2025, the day of the fire.
H005	Fesia Davenport received a $2M settlement for "embarrassment".	TRUE	As the Chief Executive Officer and Director of the County Emergency Organization and OEM, Fesia Davenport was responsible during the 2025 Palisades Fire for organizing and directing the preparedness and coordinated response efforts of the Emergency Management Organization of the County of Los Angeles. Lindsey Horvath and Kathryn Barger (Board of Supervisors) approved a $2 million settlement for Fesia Davenport.

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - LACoFD Community Risk Reduction / Fire Prevention Division (Fire Rebuilds)
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
I001	All Fire Victims with an Access Road can Rebuild	FALSE	As a condition for rebuilding, the LACoFD Community Risk Reduction standard mandates a 20-foot-wide access road with a turnaround. This width is required to allow two fire trucks to pass each other, even though this specific situation will never (and has never) occured during a fire.	coming soon
I002	The Fire Department is responsible for maintaining the fire hydrants on your fire rebuild	FALSE	As a condition for rebuilding, LACoFD Community Risk Reduction mandates that fire hydrants meet specific fire flow requirements. This rule persists despite the fact that hydrants went unused during both the 2018 Woolsey Fire and the 2025 Palisades Fire.	coming soon
I003	LADWP (Palisades) and SCE (Malibu) are responsible for undergrounding utility lines	FALSE	As a condition for rebuilding, LACoFD Community Risk Reduction requires residents to underground power lines and utility poles at their own expense.	coming soon
I004	LAFD and LACoFD are knowledgable and understand their own code	FALSE	Both high ranking officials (Fire Marshalls and Fire Chiefs) and lower level employees (Fire Fighter Specialists) with LACoFD are not aware and do not know fire codes and rebuilding codes for fire victims.	coming soon
I005	LAFD and LACoFD are sympathetic to fire victims by waiving permit fees and honoring previous agreements	FALSE	LACoFD Community Risk Reduction has been observed in meetings, through emails, and calls laughing at fire victims, reneging on written agreements, charging for multiple conflicting rounds of permit revisions, and giving separate set of rules for different people.	coming soon

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - City of Malibu (Fire Rebuilds)
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
J001	The City of Malibu cares about fire victims	FALSE	On Friday, January 10, 2025 (3 days after the start of the Palisades Fire), Yolanda Bundy, City of Malibu Community Development Director, held a meeting with all city recommended expeditors, architects, and contractors. In this meeting, Yolanda Bundy ordered those whom fire victims pay that it is their "job to keep them [fire victims] calm. You are our [the City of Malibu] first line of defense [from fire victims]."	coming soon
J002	The City of Malibu waives permit fees for fire victims	FALSE	2018 Woolsey Fire victims are still paying for new permit fees, including the 2025 newly implemented Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) permit fee for $25,000.00. Palisades Fire victims will incur this expense in about 3 years when they get further along in the permit process.
J003	The City of Malibu allows for fire victims to attend fire disaster meetings	FALSE	On multiple occasions in 2025, the City of Malibu barred fire victims from entering meetings, such as one on January 25, in favor of contractors and those selling services. During a February 10 meeting, the City muted fire victims and threatened to arrest one victim simply for asking to speak. At that same two-hour session, the City allocated fifteen minutes for a single company to promote its services while simultaneously denying fire victims the right to speak at all.	coming soon
J004	The City of Malibu Code Enforcement enforcing code violations	FALSE	The City of Malibu has a separate set of rules for different people, often favoring developers and celebrities over fire victims.	coming soon
J005	The City of Malibu Planning Department understands the permitting process	FALSE	The City of Malibu has delayed permits and put fire victims in the wrong permit process costing years and hundreds of thousands at the fire victim's expense.	coming soon
J006	The City of Malibu knows what they are doing and act in your best interest	FALSE	There is a reason so few homes were rebuilt after 2018 Woolsey Fire and 2025 Palisades Fire in Malibu has the lowest rebuild and permit approval rate.	coming soon
J007	The City of Malibu can be held accountable for mistakes and harm made to fire victims	FALSE	The City of Malibu is immune.	coming soon

2025 Palisades Fire Fact Sheet - Miscellaneous
Claim		Fact Check		Evidence
K001	Artificial Intelligence will improve the fire rebuild process	FALSE	Generative Artificial Intelligence has not and will not improve the fire rebuild process. The only benefit of AI for a fire rebuild is to remove accountability from a human or city employee when continued expenses, delays, and failures occur.	coming soon
K002	The Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire happened at the same time	FALSE	Recorded by CalFire, the Palisades Fire started at 10:30 AM and the Eaton Fire started almost 8 hours later at 6:18 PM on January 7, 2025.
K003	12 "Senior Citizens" died in the Palisades Fire	FALSE	The Palisades Fire directly caused the deaths of at least 12 people. Rory Sykes (32) and Randall Miod (55) were not senior citizens (65) at the time of their deaths.

Fact Dispute

If you wish to dispute any fact, please send the specific fact information along with supporting evidence to contact@firerebuild.com.

Example:
To dispute the statement that “100 MPH Wind Speeds” is False regarding wind speeds recorded in Los Angeles County on January 7, 2025, email contact@firerebuild.com with the subject line A001. Include the code A001 in your message along with all supporting evidence, specifically the date, time, weather station, wind speed (minimum, average, and maximum), wind gust (minimum, average, and maximum), wind direction, station elevation, station height, and station location (latitude, longitude, and address).

Please note that these facts pertain only to the 2025 Palisades Fire, not the Eaton Fire.
If you are a victim of the 2025 Eaton Fire, contact an attorney before January 7, 2027.