This was a great post to support what did actually happen as the fire spread. The reasons it started in the first place however make me really angry and the fact that water was withheld and the power lines not turned off for 10 hours even more so. The government of Hawaii needs to be completely replaced. Lahaina was a known high risk for fire for at least a decade and there appears to have been zero risk management done. The policy decisions on the move to green energy and the diversions of funding away from maintenance of the existing infrastructure is a prima facia case of incompetence driven by “Climate Change advocates” to enrich investors and sellers of the “green” infrastructure.
thanks for providing that. Amazing viewpoint from a controlled drone slowly covering the large area. I kept hoping to see more of the field of burned grasses considering that is where it started. . .
One thing I did notice is that there were a few buildings that had portions of their shingles missing; seemed to be all on the side facing the mountains-- where the fire came from and the hot gases blew from. To remove shingles it would seem near, hurricane level winds are required. So, the gusts with flame in them could really torch a matchstick town.
Thanks for that. I'm not seeing anything unusual in that. The driving embers of a firestorm impacts older wooden houses with little cracks, they ignite into raging fires, resulting in more likely house to house transmission. Houses that are resilient enough to withstand the firestorm (newer, less flammable material) such as in the estates don't create neighbour to neighbour transmission. Perhaps the solar panels helped to anchor the roofing materials, allowing for fewer ember entry points. I was a bit teary watching, having seen similar from my own home town.
I find that very interesting. Blue for some reason isn't harmed by lasers...I saw a video about it. Search for blue colour is untouched by laser. "The Simpsons left the blue building standing" - Maui blue umbrella conspiracy erupts as laser video goes viral. Explain this! Color Blue Repels DEW Laser Beams Maui 🔥 🔥 🔥 https://www.bitchute.com/video/DCfMQb3AfTp9/
-- depending on the laser wavelength an object will have more or less absorbance from the energy projected.
-- High absorbance materials for INFRARED radiation are black.
-- Some lasers contain minimal infrared energy. Depending on the laser design have most radiation output in targeted areas of the spectrum for which they are used on objects of HIGH absorbance.
Apparently the color blue is in the high REFLECTANCE / LOW absorbance spectrum for a laser when it fails to light up.
In Marysville (whole town surrounded by eucalypts lost to fire on a very bad day in 2009) a lot of shade cloth (not blue, natural colours) didn't burn. Perhaps they had fire resistant fabric?
And what did burn in the middle of huge areas NOT burnt is quite radical to imagine.
Whole situation reeks to high heaven; especially now when NOBODY except the Govt., FEMA, Natl. Guard and Police Ordered to close all access points are allowed on-sight, drones are not allowed to be flown and huge tarps are now enclosing the area disallowing monitoring by anybody including those owning the land to begin with.
BUILD BACK BETTER euphemistic for Loss of Private Property Ownership, installation of Concentration Camps/Constant Surveillance, loss of mobility, Independence, Inalienable Rights.
Who and what generated the Directed Energy Weapons? I do not see any evidence that airplanes were flying overhead to do it. Satellites? Impossible to have such direct energy from space....otherwise, nations can kill off thousands of satellites and also vaporise the millions of debris.
You do realize that Hawaii is full of different military bases and that they have developed Directed Energy Weapons there? Do you think they need an airplane when they are located atop the mountain? Do a little research and see if your search engine will actually let you see what they don’t want you to see. This murderous act doesn’t have to be either-or. It contains a lot of different elements to hide behind. It’s called preponderance of evidence and motive.
we do have satellite based communications lasers, at least that is what they are admittedly used for. In 2018 they said they were going to test some others.
The electricity companies in Victoria Australia had to make very large settlements to the people after our 2009 fires. Two very major fires were started by broken lines/faults on a very bad day.
Really? Niagara Falls was supposted to start with 10,000 Horseepower of wireless power; That was 1895! And, there is already A/C electric power dumped into the ground for worldwide submarine communication. 8 Watts, that can be amplified at the receiver to 80 Watts. The only problem is, that you don't have a "properly designed receiver". - NT https://bitchute.com/video/XRQilq8HQf6y/https://bitchute.com/video/y4frqt7PuREo/ Not my fault you get screwed over the last 128 years from Con-Edison and JP Morgan's GE. They're the ones that were found guilty of starting the California fires; and sued for $4B. Chump change when you have a monopoly. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/southern-california-edison-sued-by-us-over-wildfire-damages
Notice Robert- nice Mary Johnson agrees with you -this is all due to incompetence and mismanagement of our natural resources. Why would you would put such an extraordinary amount of effort into misdirecting people? Actually I don't particularly care to know your rationale for why you are writing such tripe, the answer is self evident. A fire explained away by an unfortunate confluence of dry grasses, moisture laden airs, gusty winds and the bellows affect, my ass. All the while ignoring the weapons platform flying overhead that microwaved everything into oblivion. Thousands of men women and children are dead by the hand of a murderous ruling cabal and you take the time and effort to write a long treatise on natural fires and melting temps etc in an effort to confuse the confound. And like the contortions required to support the lone gunmen theory- a totally absurd exercise. Directed Energy Weapons- and their relation to use in starting fires etc -it's not a "conspiracy theory" when the technology is openly acknowledged to exist, that the effects are exactly what we can see as plainly evident in Lahaina fires as in so many others. Yes, Virginia, our own government wants to kill us. Wake the fuck up, you are doing nothing but helping run cover for the enemy talking like this. Or you already know exactly what you are doing, and why. Either way the result is the same.
they could have put emergency hydrants and sprinklers in using ocean water. Absolutely the same as people I have known who lived on lakes and used lake water to sprinkle their yards. In many fire prone places, sprinkler lines are permanently installed to the roof to protect the structure from fire.
The power lines might not have started the fire. In one video "proof" that I saw, you could see heavy smoke bellowing by before the downed power line sparks that allegedly caused the fire.
Just as plausible would be Hawaiian squatters in the field with an illegal fire cooking their I'a (fish) and Moa (chicken).
How did all of the more than one of the airplane's jet engines disappear before Jamie McIntyre got out to the lawn to report, live on television, that there was no airplane debris there?
No airplanes to leave debris. BTW, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, as claimed, and nothing hit bldg 7 at the WTC. Then there was the nano thermite in the debris, which has not been allowed on any US passenger carrier since the '50s... but IS used regularly in controlled demolitions.
Correct. If you look carefully you can find an engine housing and intake fan..unfortunately it was about 3-4 in diameter..better associated with drones.
Actually I meant 3-4ft. Small drone. The hole in Pentagon was 16ft...trying to picture passenger jet in it. I guess the 9k gallons of jet fuel just wouldn't burn 😆
Unless one believes the uncorroborated report from Jamie McIntyre that there wasn't any aircraft debris on the Pentagon's lawn, the only other option is planted explosives similar to those used in the three towers. I doubt we'll get to see the seized surveillance video before we get to see the original Zapruder film.
I am sure you’re being facetious and you make a good point. In truth the inside job at WTC did also involve nuclear events. The strangely burned vehicles there are but one indication of that fact.
Ask the folks that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki about that. Radiation burns can be very ugly. There are other signs at WTC showing a nuclear event(s) that day, including govt satellites recording at least 3 other hotspots visible from space sensors. Those were quickly suppressed from public view.
Have you ever considered that the perpetrators used both thermite and nuclear? That’s my theory for years. Check out Heinz Pommer on the subject. He is a German nuclear physicist.
I suggest doing some research on 'Scalar Interferometry' -- Tesla did some work on this and the Russians picked up on it when they beat the FBI to Tesla's papers in his NY apartment when he died. The US apparently has the tech now as well. Scalar interferometry is the ONLY explanation known to explain where all the WTC rubble went. It can also create earthquakes like Turkey 2023 and off Japan that led to the Fukishima disaster. Loosely, matter is converted to energy at the intersection of two (or multiple) scalar (longitudinal energy) beams. (reference Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden for more information.) Judy Wood observed the phenomenon, but I never heard her reference this possible energy source as a WTC cause. It would also explain 'toasted cars' away from the zerio-point site and the oddities in their destruction.
Can you tell me which government agency used Geiger counters at WTC? Can you point me in the right direction to determine the results of those tests?
Are you familiar with the story of the FEMA photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld?
Are you familiar with the findings of the DELTA Group and Thomas Cahill regarding the air quality at WTC?
Probably not, but if you read the work of Christopher Bollyn you might become informed about these findings. If you read the work of Heinz Pommer or watch it on You Tube you might widen your understanding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjQudegz1qI&ab_channel=kinmeru
I am familiar with the Cahill study that found a soup of highly toxic particles in the dust. As an engineer, I was well aware of the health risks from that dust plume from day one. I also had staff in the buildings and surrounding area, so I have 13 different first hand witness accounts of what happened. I would have been there had it not been for a vacation.
Thank you for forwarding the names of the folks proposing the nuclear bomb theory. I reviewed Heinz Pommer's 2019 presentation in detail, outlining his theory of the nuclear explosion. It is a very complex theory but I think it doesn't pass the sniff test for a number of reasons that contradict information we have.
I am only going to mention Building 7 once because he makes the claim it collapsed uniformly at the rate of gravity. I have seen many similar claims about the towers themselves. I also get a kick out of this because I would love to know how people measured this with the relatively low quality digital video feeds we had in 2001. People seem to forget that most of the video captured had gone through digital processing for compression and noise removal which would have altered many elements. He makes the same gross error when he describes the video noise after the camera is enveloped in dust. Those digital cameras were not designed for low light conditions, and at high sensitivity, those electronic sensors will pick up lots of noise which is filtered out by algorithms under higher light conditions. This is a major oversight and results in the making of very poor assumptions. A complete analysis of the specific camera and the algorithm they were using is required to make any judgement of noise and even timing measurements. Huge oversight.
Consequently, the sensitivity of the evidence does not IMO provide the precision to determine the exact rate of fall. I have seen time lapse video of the building 7 collapse and it is not uniform when it started.
From very basic photos, one can see the collapse of the south tower was significantly slower than gravity, because we see debris broken off from the top falling well ahead of the pancake collapse of the main structure. Major hole in the assumptions here.
Notably, I think his comments on page 50 are completely accurate:
"Often the observed destruction of the individual floors is pointed out and this is interpreted at the same time as the proof of a synchronously controlled ignition of hundreds of explosive charges. The videos are unambiguous, the eyewitnesses report – with karate chops starting from high up, moving downwards – from their observations. In fact, these are NOT explosive charges that were detonated with a short time delay from top to bottom. Rather, it is the structural failure of the individual, outer steel segments. These resist the growing internal pressure per floor for about a tenth of a second and are then torn apart segment by segment."
This is quite accurate IMO and aligns with parts of the official assessment of the collapse. It also dispels the notion that the building was detonated with conventional explosives or thermite because that would have to
The idea that nuclear bombs were placed during construction in specially formed cavities deep below the towers also has significant problems:
1) there would have had to be engineering diagrams with a tens if not hundreds of people having had access to these cavities and yet there is not a single person who has come forward claiming this.
2) nuclear bombs deteriorate over time and need refurbishing after a couple decades to ensure their viability
3) why would they only place bombs under three of seven buildings? How would they know 30 years in advance where records would be placed?
4) To destroy records, you don't need to collapse buildings, you simply need a fire. You don't even need to burn the records, you simply need to remove the records and start a fire and say they were burned. That is a LOT easier than pre-planning nuclear detonation 30 years in advance.
5) an EMP pulse 10 seconds before the plane impact would not have gone unnoticed. At a minimum it would have disrupted all the electronics in the building especially on the lower floors and I know for a fact that those electronics were undamaged and fully working until they were crushed by the collapse. I know this because my friends carried those devices out and they were all working. I know this because they stopped inside the buildings and made phone calls with fully working equipment.
6) The two buildings did not collapse the same way. The South tower collapsed due to an initial failure in the outer supporting structure (coincident with where the hottest fire was, and as noted by the toppling of the top). The North tower failed first in the core supports (coincident with where the hottest fire was). How do two nuclear devices create completely different failure scenarios?
There are so many holes in this even if we ignore the extreme complexity of the scheme.
Here is a sample of other huge erroneous assumptions that I found:
"Due to the rapid rusting process and small auxiliary explosions, it turned into a small pile of rust."
The photo does not show a pile of rust. It shows metal structures with rust on it. It takes less than 24 hours for rust to form on unprotected steel. Anyone who lives near infrequently used rail tracks knows this (or anyone who leaves a metal file outside overnight). There is nothing unusual about the amount of rust.
The "dust" lady who died of stomach cancer was caused by radiation? Please, I know numerous people covered in the dust (from being located very close) who did not get any cancer. There were hundreds of cancer causing agents in the air according to Cahill et al, and not only that, trauma itself is a known cancer causing agent. To assume her death was from radiation without a shred of evidence is plain ignorant IMO.
Sorry, but there are so many holes in this theory that contradict known facts, that I simply don't find it remotely plausible.
I appreciate your honest observations. I find it interesting that Heinz Pommer did not analyze it until 10+ years later, but as a layman I found his analysis very persuasive. Years before his analysis came Jeff Prager, and he used a different approach and style, more of a police detective analyzing known facts. I’m not sure his original work is still available on the well censored internet. To your question about EMP and more, if you’ve studied the testimonies of Willy Rodriguez who worked in the towers you would know he was in the basements section that morning and DID describe an explosion in the lower levels just seconds before the first strike on the towers. You should also investigate the fascinating story of the FEMA photographer onsite. He published numerous photos that were in the public domain for days or weeks before they were removed. Very incriminating for the official narrative. Prager published them in his book. More later
Thanks for providing more interesting stuff to look at. I've taken a look at many many different serious (and unserious) theories regarding the collapses and attacks over the years.
Across all the themes of the various theories, there is one constant, that is malfeasance by the government.
There is no question in my mind there was malfeasance. At this point (and it took 18 years for me to firmly conclude this) I believe it was a false flag done with a minimum of government knowledge if not assistance.
My biggest beef with most of the theories is not the motive, but the methods. I honestly believe the buildings collapsed because of fires started by planes that crashed into them. That is based on my own engineering background and based on balancing the probabilities and uncertainties across all the theories (which includes the official one).
Malfeasance can come from many places:
1) A desire to hide incompetence
2) A desire to hide hazards from people required to clean up or live there
3) Opportunistic malfeasance to use the event as cover for some other malfeasance
4) Intentional malfeasance involving planning the event itself
At this point, I am pretty sure all of these came into play. #1 for sure across the board including the intelligence and military organizations. #2 by FEMA who knew for certain that dust was going to be severely hazardous for thousands of people cleaning up and millions living there. #3 money trails by Wall street which largely occupied the buildings and #4 that at a minimum the CIA knew about the plans and allowed it to happen because they were clearly involved with people who carried it out.
Which means a lot of people are trying to hide something, which then leads to a lot of conspiracy theories.
When I look at all the conspiracy theories, I can say this, one doesn't need a nuclear bomb to accomplish any of the conspiracy goals. Crashing the planes into the buildings would have accomplished most, if not all the goals needed for the motives of those conspiring.
The challenge is we will forever have incomplete information for several reasons: people hiding things based on the 4 reasons I listed and more importantly, the buildings were structurally unique, the planes crashing into them was unique, the subsequent fire was unique, the collapse was unique, and the effects on surrounding buildings was unique.
It's also impossible to replicate in an experiment, and it's nigh impossible to model such complexity accurately with so many factors and unknowns. This leads to a lot of posturing about what is "possible" or "impossible".
I can't take Dr Judy seriously, because she makes this wild claim asking where the debris from the miles high towers went and thus concludes a disintegration weapon was used. The vast majority of any building is actually empty space, in fact, that is the design intent. To create covered space. This makes her argument utter nonsense. Even worse, the building had a massive amount of concrete which obviously gets pounded into it's base components of dirt/dust. This is what happens when I smash a piece of concrete in my backyard and we know how big that dust cloud was. After that, I had a lot of problems taking her seriously.
The story of Willy is an interesting one though, but honestly, I think there is a relatively simple explanation for it as well. We know sound takes time to travel. The sound of an explosion will follow the vibrations from the impact itself. He was located near the very foundations of the building, which is holding up tremendous forces and it is a very rigid structure along the lines where it is bearing the forces. That means that any vibrations (or explosions) will very quickly travel through the structure to the base.
When that first plane hit the building up top it hit with a lot of force. So much force it caused a huge sway in the building (I know from someone who was on floor 40, they saw the horizon move up and down). That is a lot of force, from an impact that would most certainly have been carried down near instantly to the basement, and then it would have radiated out along the foundation.
If you've ever been in a highrise building where they are drilling the concrete pillars, that noise and vibration is carried throughout the whole building and it literally sounds like they are drilling right on your floor. This only happens on the foundational pillars, because they are under such high compression forces.
So, that initial boom, would have been the shock of the impact translated down to the foundation and radiated back up. The second boom would have been from the fuel explosion that travelled down the elevator shafts.
That's my reasoning, which IMO fits the physics, the observations, and is a hell of a lot simpler than a nuke planted 30 years before.
Planting explosives, timing them and coordinating them with the exact floors that the planes crashed into is simply very very complicated and hard to keep secret base on the number of people required to keep it secret.
15) 2018 fire in Lahaina caused by category 4 hurricane Lane passing to the south. 2019 fire in the Central Valley on Maui, caused by high winds and dry grasses, 9k acres burned. This was not unprecedented.
16) Electric company had fire protection plans for the grid, hadn’t gotten around to implementing.
17) 100% of the committee that regulates the electric company has a financial interest in the electric company.
People in Lahaina have reported intact plastic flower pots in the midst of ashes. We all know how quickly plastic melts just when it’s close to an ordinary source of heat. Also, there are pictures of cars where the glass melted but half the car is basically untouched. It is these reports that make people wonder what caused the fires--at least in part. Explanations need to account for all the evidence.
Are we sure about this? The energy behind the DEW theory just seems to me as a fostered distraction from the manipulation of atmospheric pressure to intentionally create the conditions for this fire.
Understand DEW isn't used to burn a large area. It is not about high power so much as it about direction energy in a very precise location. The Raytheon units are a combination laser and charged particle energy. The energy is precisely discharged in arrays and patterns and 'pinpoints' to create a burn area with a specific flame dispersion. In a battle scenario it can be used in terrain denial, perhaps to deny an enemy an escape route...
A burn to be 'steered' in a specific direction through thermal pressure gradients (as they do with Haarp heaters) due to where heat is greater in a specific pattern or direction. The energy is discharged by very precise computer controlled targeting. The beam is extremely high energy but narrow. It's particularly effective in heating metals, as it's similar to the energy of a microwave oven, which is why we don't put silverware or foil in the oven when we're cooking something. The beam is infrared because that is the easiest to keep in a concentric and cohesive beam which keeps the energy transmission the highest. It also cannot be seen by the naked eye in clear dry air. It loses most of its energy in cloud or fog or dust or smoke but that diffusion could be seen as a diffuse beam of light caused by oxidizing material superheated by the beam.
My understanding is the aircraft fly at altitudes from about 15000-25000 feet.
Why can't it simply be a fire like the Tokyo fire bombing in WWII, or the Great Chicago Fire, or the Dresden fire bombing, or the long ago London Fire? This shit happens.
Add to that the coinciding high velocity winds originating from natural weather and your have a natural blowtorch moving from up in the mountains down their Lee side and into a waiting tinderbox town. The stuff that burned is random due to highest tinder level in front of the flame. That is, likely, all there is to this. Helped by non-caring, non-thinking emergency officials and city management for years failing to prepare.
actually the fire bombings, an act against man and God, are very different than the Maui fire. The bombings fires were started where the bombs fell. They created a "fake' wind compared to Maui. The fire bombings created updrafts from all directions into the center, kind of like a chimney. While they got very intense, their impact was to focus the oxygen flow inward, concentrating the heat into furnaces. The Maui winds were off the mountains, moving sideways through town. While they would provided additional oxygen for fuel sources (mainly buildings0 to ignite, they would rapidly blow the heat away, diluting it and lowering air temperatures. While still brutally hot, much lower than near the fuel source. You may want to see my comment about an hour ago for more details.
Well, I offered both fire bombings(Dresden and Tokyo) and regular fires(London & Chicago) in my examples. The point is, regardless of the origins of ignitions the fire "exists". Once it exists air flow into the conflagration is dependent on a variety of variables and they dictate how the propagation ensues. NO wind, straight up rocket fire as you describe. Directional wind: Lahaina, London, Chicago fires. Regardless, the degree of metal-melting / complete annihilation of objects is dependent upon the relative TIME of residence of the highest intensity fire burning optimal fuel.
I agree with both these points. There were what appeared to be weather balloons reported the day before. I’ve read balloons of some technology can be used to manipulate high pressure weather systems at anyplace and or time of their choosing. Reports were the hurricane never made landfall. Was more than 500 miles south of Hawaii and Maui is North of Hawaii. The other islands, as well as other parts of Maui did not experience the same wind intensity. In addition, the water being turned off, the sirens not turned on, and the roads to evacuate blocked were all very telling. It may not have been a DEW but it sure appears to have been intentional.
Thank you John for offering the relevant science on fire dynamics. I think that the fire there was naturally occurring, but there is certainly the chance of old-fashioned arson by humans. As a young pyromaniac myself, I must agree with Alex Jones that under those conditions a box of matchsticks used properly could have started it up. I haven’t seen the video yet, but some claim there is video evidence showing downed power lines on the upwind side igniting dry grass.
That said, there are too many other factors like blockaded roads suggesting some malicious behavior by someone in authority. It has many features of a deliberate act, an inside job.
I'd like to see you start a fire like that in 80 mph wind with a box of matches. You could0n't have been a very successful pyromaniac. Maybe with some gasoline.
The thing that is most concerning at this point is death toll. Obviously the government is trying to minimize the numbers to reduce the level of embarrassment so those numbers are suspect. The recorded missing and presumed dead is one thing but what about the homeless or vacationers who don’t show up in the records? The numbers keep climbing but is it 500, a thousand or a couple of thousand - and who will investigate to get to the truth.
The pure electric car phase is a menace to the earth and I predict will be a passing fad. Hybrids may stick though. Especially if the battery tech improves.
Great post. The natural conditions there (spark, wind, fuel), combined with negligence of the utilities and disaster planners, and piss poor lazy idiot government employees were bad enough to cause the damage and death without the need to explain it by way of DEW’s or lasers or other conspiratorial possibilities. And I count myself as a fairly well-informed conspiracy therapist and fan of Alex Jones. It was a preventable tragedy. They even had plans on how they would prevent such a tragedy but kept putting off implementing them. Typical Democrat-run government.
Alas, I fear the presentation of facts will not be enough to silence the DEWs HAARP brigade and the chemtrail/weather modification fan club. I'm coming to the conclusion that these people prefer to believe rather than be convinced by rational, evidence-based mundane explanations.
"Falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind"--Rousseau 18th century
One day we all will face the truth. My wake-up call came 20yrs after I got back from Nam. The Gulf of Tonkin was a non-event that resulted in 58k dead of my fellow soldiers. Most of the dead were around 20-22yrs old. The truth matters.
Heat radiates in all directions. If you burn a car on asphalt the asphalt will melt from the radiated heat alone. But it takes significantly more heat to get asphalt to burn. Like the heat of burning magnesium which is pretty common in cars. Melted asphalt, unless it is acted upon by a an outside force will simply stay in the same shape it was in before it was melted and re-solidify. Burned asphalt is easy to break apart as the tar in it is a binder for the aggregate and once it burns you have ash and aggregate left over.
Heat radiates in all directions depending on the wind and heat vortexes within the blaze. A wood bur ing fireplace radiates much differently than a wind blown fire with incindiaries everywhere.
The radiation of heat is independent of the wind or "heat vortexes" within the blaze. A wood burning fireplace and a forest fire radiate heat in precisely the same ways. And the wind and wind blown "incindiaries" have exactly zero influence on the radiation of heat. You should read up on radiant heat, it can do some impressive things, like traveling through a "curtain of water" without heating the water but heating an object it strikes after passing through the water. It can also travel through a vacuum and heat a solid object afterwards. It is important to note that there is no "wind" in a vacuum. Wind can have an effect on the accumulation of heat in a surface, it is why we blow on soup to cool it, but it cannot affect the amount of energy radiated from a source to strike a surface.
Once the wind and vortexes become involved it is no longer radiant heat transfer but convection heat transfer. I've been a firefighter for a good long while and read all the books at one point or another. You seem to be confusing those two methods of heat transfer slightly. The short version is if air currents have any effect on the heat transfer then it is convection, radiant transfer is wholly independent of air currents or even a lack of air as in a vacuum. The wind can absolutely blow heat around and cause fire spread as well as fuel drying which will allow the radiant heat already there to start a fire more readily.
Fire is weird, I remember once standing on a mountainside watching a huge fire burning. The fire was over a mile away and it was hard to stand facing it because the radiant heat was so high. The really weird part was the air temperature was in the 70's but once the sun went down and the mountain breezes changed the air temperature increased to over 100* in the space of a few minutes. That is convective heat. You could practically feel the moisture leaving the trees and grasses around us. The change in the wind brought firebrands from the fire toward us. Actual flaming tree branches 3-4 feet long dropping out of the sky. It was hopeless at that point to stop the fire there and we hiked out in the "dark", it wasn't really dark, there was plenty of light from the fires popping up around us. We redeployed to a different ridge and watched the next day when the winds changed and the fire snuffed itself out by trying to go back through the area it had already burned. The demarcation between the burned and unburned areas was striking.
Error--why were plastic items untouched next to melted steel? You can microwave plastic. COULD--not was--Lahaina have been incinerated by microwave weapons? What other explanation is there?
These questions are continously asked by people with zero fire experience.
I am sure there is puhlenty of melted and evaporated plastic from this fire. Because there are some photos of some plastic that didn't doesn't mean anything outside of not understanding the bizzare and violent actions of fire.
Okay. First off, I was in a landlord arson fire in SF years ago. It was part of the Levi Straus factory--the building they did not sew jeans in. Really old wood structure. It didn't burn particularly hot. Of course, the climate and winds were totally different. Enough of it survived to turn it into toney therapists' offices.
My neighbor couldn't sell her McMansion so she had it torched for insurance. Her propane tanks blew but it took a very long time and they didn't add much to the conflagration. The firefighters just let it burn itself out. It took five hours. The fire marshal knew it was owner arson but couldn't prove it. It was wood construction also with fake stone wall attached. That was the only thing that didn't burn; it fell as one piece at the very last.
As for Hiroshima, yeah, I had some relatives in that debacle. Most people in the bull's eye did not survive, and many in the next perimeter didn't either. Your point? Are you saying this was another Hiroshima?
Sorry. I was referring to two different fires, 2500 miles apart. Levi Strauss across from the Greek Orthodox Church. Yes. The McMansion is in Appalachia. (Of course!) Which is why it wouldn't sell. No, you could hear the explosion but it didn't do much to the fire. But even there, our little two-bit volunteer squad made a little dam in the little creek alongside the property and used it to pump water on the flames. They didn't even try that in Maui. And they had the whole Pacific Ocean to use.
What's done is done. The important thing is to protect native Hawaiian rights.
Yes. Entirely possible. But if you look at the entire mess of contradictions, it's a little too good to be true, from the developer and 15-minute city POV. Holding residents from leaving is weird. Refusing to allow boats from neighboring towns into the harbor to save people or give them food and water is weird. Kids sent home without their parents' knowledge is weird. Plat maps and deeds to property burned to a crisp is awfully convenient. The whole thing is convenient. Plus the winds were blowing from 500 miles away. Did you watch Hurricane Hilary days afterward? I did. It moved so slowly and the only winds it pushed 500 miles away were strong rain, thunder, flooding--none of which Lahaina experienced. National Guard and military were there quite quickly--quick enough to keep people from saving themselves. It's all a bit too neat. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't. Like the completely pristine passport that was found DAYS after 9/11 as "proof" who the "terrorists" were. Plastic toys could have been planted afterwards but people weren't allowed back in. So who did the planting? The military? The National Guard? FEMA? I ask questions, "dude". That's why I still have a life.
Thank you John. I agree. There is WAY too much speculation on what supposedly accelerated the Lahaina fire. I live on the south shore of Kauai for 12 years. The trades themselves can accelerate fires; a neighbor of mine lost his home in such a fire - the winds were no where near the level of those in Lahaina. I do agree that the Hawaii government has been, was, and is negligent about basic infrastructure and safety. I emailed the then-Lt-Governor of the state, Josh Green, about hydroxychloroquine and how effective it was against covid - he actually responded to tell me I was wrong. I had also called out Sweden's early covid response as the correct response - he disagreed as well. Green is a climate-change zealot. Expect big, ugly changes in the islands soon. I am very happy we fled the state in early 2021 to Florida. People of Hawaii - Please do not comply. Peace.
This was a great post to support what did actually happen as the fire spread. The reasons it started in the first place however make me really angry and the fact that water was withheld and the power lines not turned off for 10 hours even more so. The government of Hawaii needs to be completely replaced. Lahaina was a known high risk for fire for at least a decade and there appears to have been zero risk management done. The policy decisions on the move to green energy and the diversions of funding away from maintenance of the existing infrastructure is a prima facia case of incompetence driven by “Climate Change advocates” to enrich investors and sellers of the “green” infrastructure.
Wonder why those darn blue umbrellas didn’t burn????
DAY AFTER FIRE FOOTAGE: 4K Drone Lahaina Maui Fire - Longest & Most Detailed Aerial View https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PSYNqZqAVs
Many of the blds untouched had solar panels on the roof - just an observation. Of course don't know if the burnt buildings had them.
thanks for providing that. Amazing viewpoint from a controlled drone slowly covering the large area. I kept hoping to see more of the field of burned grasses considering that is where it started. . .
One thing I did notice is that there were a few buildings that had portions of their shingles missing; seemed to be all on the side facing the mountains-- where the fire came from and the hot gases blew from. To remove shingles it would seem near, hurricane level winds are required. So, the gusts with flame in them could really torch a matchstick town.
Thanks for that. I'm not seeing anything unusual in that. The driving embers of a firestorm impacts older wooden houses with little cracks, they ignite into raging fires, resulting in more likely house to house transmission. Houses that are resilient enough to withstand the firestorm (newer, less flammable material) such as in the estates don't create neighbour to neighbour transmission. Perhaps the solar panels helped to anchor the roofing materials, allowing for fewer ember entry points. I was a bit teary watching, having seen similar from my own home town.
I find that very interesting. Blue for some reason isn't harmed by lasers...I saw a video about it. Search for blue colour is untouched by laser. "The Simpsons left the blue building standing" - Maui blue umbrella conspiracy erupts as laser video goes viral. Explain this! Color Blue Repels DEW Laser Beams Maui 🔥 🔥 🔥 https://www.bitchute.com/video/DCfMQb3AfTp9/
By Karishma Rao
Modified Aug 23, 2023 21:27 GMT
https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/news-the-simpsons-left-blue-building-standing-maui-blue-umbrella-conspiracy-erupts-laser-video-goes-viral
Interesting!
Here's the science to this:
-- depending on the laser wavelength an object will have more or less absorbance from the energy projected.
-- High absorbance materials for INFRARED radiation are black.
-- Some lasers contain minimal infrared energy. Depending on the laser design have most radiation output in targeted areas of the spectrum for which they are used on objects of HIGH absorbance.
Apparently the color blue is in the high REFLECTANCE / LOW absorbance spectrum for a laser when it fails to light up.
In Marysville (whole town surrounded by eucalypts lost to fire on a very bad day in 2009) a lot of shade cloth (not blue, natural colours) didn't burn. Perhaps they had fire resistant fabric?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg2WV-B26pA
And what did burn in the middle of huge areas NOT burnt is quite radical to imagine.
Whole situation reeks to high heaven; especially now when NOBODY except the Govt., FEMA, Natl. Guard and Police Ordered to close all access points are allowed on-sight, drones are not allowed to be flown and huge tarps are now enclosing the area disallowing monitoring by anybody including those owning the land to begin with.
BUILD BACK BETTER euphemistic for Loss of Private Property Ownership, installation of Concentration Camps/Constant Surveillance, loss of mobility, Independence, Inalienable Rights.
Your spot on here! All you need is DEWs and then the natural properties of fire mentioned in this article can do the rest.
Essentially two things can be true.
I like how you picked up on climate change though. This event is due to climate change, vs how it was actually “green measures” that led to this.
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-hidden-profits-of-climate-change
No, all you need is a match.
I saw a video of a downed power line blowing in the wind and sparking.
That'll def do it, just like Paradise.
Who and what generated the Directed Energy Weapons? I do not see any evidence that airplanes were flying overhead to do it. Satellites? Impossible to have such direct energy from space....otherwise, nations can kill off thousands of satellites and also vaporise the millions of debris.
You do realize that Hawaii is full of different military bases and that they have developed Directed Energy Weapons there? Do you think they need an airplane when they are located atop the mountain? Do a little research and see if your search engine will actually let you see what they don’t want you to see. This murderous act doesn’t have to be either-or. It contains a lot of different elements to hide behind. It’s called preponderance of evidence and motive.
Why on earth would they use a laser to start a fire, when you can use a magnifying glass, or simply watch the power lines fall and spark for hours?
Honestly, people saying it was DEWs are looking for the most complex solution possible.
What makes you think they don't have such satellites? Just because they haven't yet been used doesn't mean they don't exist...
we do have satellite based communications lasers, at least that is what they are admittedly used for. In 2018 they said they were going to test some others.
https://www.cnet.com/science/nasa-is-ready-to-launch-a-satellite-that-shoots-lasers-at-the-earth/. We also have large military drones with blue lasers (ABLs), and bases in HI to keep them.
The electricity companies in Victoria Australia had to make very large settlements to the people after our 2009 fires. Two very major fires were started by broken lines/faults on a very bad day.
Really? Niagara Falls was supposted to start with 10,000 Horseepower of wireless power; That was 1895! And, there is already A/C electric power dumped into the ground for worldwide submarine communication. 8 Watts, that can be amplified at the receiver to 80 Watts. The only problem is, that you don't have a "properly designed receiver". - NT https://bitchute.com/video/XRQilq8HQf6y/ https://bitchute.com/video/y4frqt7PuREo/ Not my fault you get screwed over the last 128 years from Con-Edison and JP Morgan's GE. They're the ones that were found guilty of starting the California fires; and sued for $4B. Chump change when you have a monopoly. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/southern-california-edison-sued-by-us-over-wildfire-damages
Notice Robert- nice Mary Johnson agrees with you -this is all due to incompetence and mismanagement of our natural resources. Why would you would put such an extraordinary amount of effort into misdirecting people? Actually I don't particularly care to know your rationale for why you are writing such tripe, the answer is self evident. A fire explained away by an unfortunate confluence of dry grasses, moisture laden airs, gusty winds and the bellows affect, my ass. All the while ignoring the weapons platform flying overhead that microwaved everything into oblivion. Thousands of men women and children are dead by the hand of a murderous ruling cabal and you take the time and effort to write a long treatise on natural fires and melting temps etc in an effort to confuse the confound. And like the contortions required to support the lone gunmen theory- a totally absurd exercise. Directed Energy Weapons- and their relation to use in starting fires etc -it's not a "conspiracy theory" when the technology is openly acknowledged to exist, that the effects are exactly what we can see as plainly evident in Lahaina fires as in so many others. Yes, Virginia, our own government wants to kill us. Wake the fuck up, you are doing nothing but helping run cover for the enemy talking like this. Or you already know exactly what you are doing, and why. Either way the result is the same.
they could have put emergency hydrants and sprinklers in using ocean water. Absolutely the same as people I have known who lived on lakes and used lake water to sprinkle their yards. In many fire prone places, sprinkler lines are permanently installed to the roof to protect the structure from fire.
The power lines might not have started the fire. In one video "proof" that I saw, you could see heavy smoke bellowing by before the downed power line sparks that allegedly caused the fire.
Just as plausible would be Hawaiian squatters in the field with an illegal fire cooking their I'a (fish) and Moa (chicken).
The electric company has deeper pockets.
It is a good thing that the fire didn't happen around the World Trade Center towers.
Or bldg7...gee I wonder why Pentagon didn't catch fire after stuffing fully fueled passenger jet into the 16ft hole?
How did all of the more than one of the airplane's jet engines disappear before Jamie McIntyre got out to the lawn to report, live on television, that there was no airplane debris there?
No airplanes to leave debris. BTW, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, as claimed, and nothing hit bldg 7 at the WTC. Then there was the nano thermite in the debris, which has not been allowed on any US passenger carrier since the '50s... but IS used regularly in controlled demolitions.
Correct. If you look carefully you can find an engine housing and intake fan..unfortunately it was about 3-4 in diameter..better associated with drones.
Or radio controlled model airplanes...
A 787 can be radio controlled.
Now, yes, but not in 2001, & throwing 1 of those multimillion dollar babies away would be a real waste of money. Those are very new planes too.
How much thrust can a 3-4 inch diameter jet turbine produce?
Actually I meant 3-4ft. Small drone. The hole in Pentagon was 16ft...trying to picture passenger jet in it. I guess the 9k gallons of jet fuel just wouldn't burn 😆
Unless one believes the uncorroborated report from Jamie McIntyre that there wasn't any aircraft debris on the Pentagon's lawn, the only other option is planted explosives similar to those used in the three towers. I doubt we'll get to see the seized surveillance video before we get to see the original Zapruder film.
Hahahaha! I know right? I actually just wrote about that here and how Maui is strangely familiar:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/how-to-tell-whats-real-in-the-land
I am sure you’re being facetious and you make a good point. In truth the inside job at WTC did also involve nuclear events. The strangely burned vehicles there are but one indication of that fact.
Nuclear doesn't leave burn marks.
Ask the folks that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki about that. Radiation burns can be very ugly. There are other signs at WTC showing a nuclear event(s) that day, including govt satellites recording at least 3 other hotspots visible from space sensors. Those were quickly suppressed from public view.
Radiation burns don't leave burn marks like thermate does.
Have you ever considered that the perpetrators used both thermite and nuclear? That’s my theory for years. Check out Heinz Pommer on the subject. He is a German nuclear physicist.
I suggest doing some research on 'Scalar Interferometry' -- Tesla did some work on this and the Russians picked up on it when they beat the FBI to Tesla's papers in his NY apartment when he died. The US apparently has the tech now as well. Scalar interferometry is the ONLY explanation known to explain where all the WTC rubble went. It can also create earthquakes like Turkey 2023 and off Japan that led to the Fukishima disaster. Loosely, matter is converted to energy at the intersection of two (or multiple) scalar (longitudinal energy) beams. (reference Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden for more information.) Judy Wood observed the phenomenon, but I never heard her reference this possible energy source as a WTC cause. It would also explain 'toasted cars' away from the zerio-point site and the oddities in their destruction.
There are no nuclear warheads that wouldn't have vaporized everything in the World Trade Center campus.
Geiger counters are very cheap and simple to use. There was no nuclear event at the WTC towers.
Can you tell me which government agency used Geiger counters at WTC? Can you point me in the right direction to determine the results of those tests?
Are you familiar with the story of the FEMA photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld?
Are you familiar with the findings of the DELTA Group and Thomas Cahill regarding the air quality at WTC?
Probably not, but if you read the work of Christopher Bollyn you might become informed about these findings. If you read the work of Heinz Pommer or watch it on You Tube you might widen your understanding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjQudegz1qI&ab_channel=kinmeru
I am familiar with the Cahill study that found a soup of highly toxic particles in the dust. As an engineer, I was well aware of the health risks from that dust plume from day one. I also had staff in the buildings and surrounding area, so I have 13 different first hand witness accounts of what happened. I would have been there had it not been for a vacation.
Thank you for forwarding the names of the folks proposing the nuclear bomb theory. I reviewed Heinz Pommer's 2019 presentation in detail, outlining his theory of the nuclear explosion. It is a very complex theory but I think it doesn't pass the sniff test for a number of reasons that contradict information we have.
I am only going to mention Building 7 once because he makes the claim it collapsed uniformly at the rate of gravity. I have seen many similar claims about the towers themselves. I also get a kick out of this because I would love to know how people measured this with the relatively low quality digital video feeds we had in 2001. People seem to forget that most of the video captured had gone through digital processing for compression and noise removal which would have altered many elements. He makes the same gross error when he describes the video noise after the camera is enveloped in dust. Those digital cameras were not designed for low light conditions, and at high sensitivity, those electronic sensors will pick up lots of noise which is filtered out by algorithms under higher light conditions. This is a major oversight and results in the making of very poor assumptions. A complete analysis of the specific camera and the algorithm they were using is required to make any judgement of noise and even timing measurements. Huge oversight.
Consequently, the sensitivity of the evidence does not IMO provide the precision to determine the exact rate of fall. I have seen time lapse video of the building 7 collapse and it is not uniform when it started.
From very basic photos, one can see the collapse of the south tower was significantly slower than gravity, because we see debris broken off from the top falling well ahead of the pancake collapse of the main structure. Major hole in the assumptions here.
Notably, I think his comments on page 50 are completely accurate:
"Often the observed destruction of the individual floors is pointed out and this is interpreted at the same time as the proof of a synchronously controlled ignition of hundreds of explosive charges. The videos are unambiguous, the eyewitnesses report – with karate chops starting from high up, moving downwards – from their observations. In fact, these are NOT explosive charges that were detonated with a short time delay from top to bottom. Rather, it is the structural failure of the individual, outer steel segments. These resist the growing internal pressure per floor for about a tenth of a second and are then torn apart segment by segment."
This is quite accurate IMO and aligns with parts of the official assessment of the collapse. It also dispels the notion that the building was detonated with conventional explosives or thermite because that would have to
The idea that nuclear bombs were placed during construction in specially formed cavities deep below the towers also has significant problems:
1) there would have had to be engineering diagrams with a tens if not hundreds of people having had access to these cavities and yet there is not a single person who has come forward claiming this.
2) nuclear bombs deteriorate over time and need refurbishing after a couple decades to ensure their viability
3) why would they only place bombs under three of seven buildings? How would they know 30 years in advance where records would be placed?
4) To destroy records, you don't need to collapse buildings, you simply need a fire. You don't even need to burn the records, you simply need to remove the records and start a fire and say they were burned. That is a LOT easier than pre-planning nuclear detonation 30 years in advance.
5) an EMP pulse 10 seconds before the plane impact would not have gone unnoticed. At a minimum it would have disrupted all the electronics in the building especially on the lower floors and I know for a fact that those electronics were undamaged and fully working until they were crushed by the collapse. I know this because my friends carried those devices out and they were all working. I know this because they stopped inside the buildings and made phone calls with fully working equipment.
6) The two buildings did not collapse the same way. The South tower collapsed due to an initial failure in the outer supporting structure (coincident with where the hottest fire was, and as noted by the toppling of the top). The North tower failed first in the core supports (coincident with where the hottest fire was). How do two nuclear devices create completely different failure scenarios?
There are so many holes in this even if we ignore the extreme complexity of the scheme.
Here is a sample of other huge erroneous assumptions that I found:
"Due to the rapid rusting process and small auxiliary explosions, it turned into a small pile of rust."
The photo does not show a pile of rust. It shows metal structures with rust on it. It takes less than 24 hours for rust to form on unprotected steel. Anyone who lives near infrequently used rail tracks knows this (or anyone who leaves a metal file outside overnight). There is nothing unusual about the amount of rust.
The "dust" lady who died of stomach cancer was caused by radiation? Please, I know numerous people covered in the dust (from being located very close) who did not get any cancer. There were hundreds of cancer causing agents in the air according to Cahill et al, and not only that, trauma itself is a known cancer causing agent. To assume her death was from radiation without a shred of evidence is plain ignorant IMO.
Sorry, but there are so many holes in this theory that contradict known facts, that I simply don't find it remotely plausible.
I appreciate your honest observations. I find it interesting that Heinz Pommer did not analyze it until 10+ years later, but as a layman I found his analysis very persuasive. Years before his analysis came Jeff Prager, and he used a different approach and style, more of a police detective analyzing known facts. I’m not sure his original work is still available on the well censored internet. To your question about EMP and more, if you’ve studied the testimonies of Willy Rodriguez who worked in the towers you would know he was in the basements section that morning and DID describe an explosion in the lower levels just seconds before the first strike on the towers. You should also investigate the fascinating story of the FEMA photographer onsite. He published numerous photos that were in the public domain for days or weeks before they were removed. Very incriminating for the official narrative. Prager published them in his book. More later
Thanks for providing more interesting stuff to look at. I've taken a look at many many different serious (and unserious) theories regarding the collapses and attacks over the years.
Across all the themes of the various theories, there is one constant, that is malfeasance by the government.
There is no question in my mind there was malfeasance. At this point (and it took 18 years for me to firmly conclude this) I believe it was a false flag done with a minimum of government knowledge if not assistance.
My biggest beef with most of the theories is not the motive, but the methods. I honestly believe the buildings collapsed because of fires started by planes that crashed into them. That is based on my own engineering background and based on balancing the probabilities and uncertainties across all the theories (which includes the official one).
Malfeasance can come from many places:
1) A desire to hide incompetence
2) A desire to hide hazards from people required to clean up or live there
3) Opportunistic malfeasance to use the event as cover for some other malfeasance
4) Intentional malfeasance involving planning the event itself
At this point, I am pretty sure all of these came into play. #1 for sure across the board including the intelligence and military organizations. #2 by FEMA who knew for certain that dust was going to be severely hazardous for thousands of people cleaning up and millions living there. #3 money trails by Wall street which largely occupied the buildings and #4 that at a minimum the CIA knew about the plans and allowed it to happen because they were clearly involved with people who carried it out.
Which means a lot of people are trying to hide something, which then leads to a lot of conspiracy theories.
When I look at all the conspiracy theories, I can say this, one doesn't need a nuclear bomb to accomplish any of the conspiracy goals. Crashing the planes into the buildings would have accomplished most, if not all the goals needed for the motives of those conspiring.
The challenge is we will forever have incomplete information for several reasons: people hiding things based on the 4 reasons I listed and more importantly, the buildings were structurally unique, the planes crashing into them was unique, the subsequent fire was unique, the collapse was unique, and the effects on surrounding buildings was unique.
It's also impossible to replicate in an experiment, and it's nigh impossible to model such complexity accurately with so many factors and unknowns. This leads to a lot of posturing about what is "possible" or "impossible".
I can't take Dr Judy seriously, because she makes this wild claim asking where the debris from the miles high towers went and thus concludes a disintegration weapon was used. The vast majority of any building is actually empty space, in fact, that is the design intent. To create covered space. This makes her argument utter nonsense. Even worse, the building had a massive amount of concrete which obviously gets pounded into it's base components of dirt/dust. This is what happens when I smash a piece of concrete in my backyard and we know how big that dust cloud was. After that, I had a lot of problems taking her seriously.
The story of Willy is an interesting one though, but honestly, I think there is a relatively simple explanation for it as well. We know sound takes time to travel. The sound of an explosion will follow the vibrations from the impact itself. He was located near the very foundations of the building, which is holding up tremendous forces and it is a very rigid structure along the lines where it is bearing the forces. That means that any vibrations (or explosions) will very quickly travel through the structure to the base.
When that first plane hit the building up top it hit with a lot of force. So much force it caused a huge sway in the building (I know from someone who was on floor 40, they saw the horizon move up and down). That is a lot of force, from an impact that would most certainly have been carried down near instantly to the basement, and then it would have radiated out along the foundation.
If you've ever been in a highrise building where they are drilling the concrete pillars, that noise and vibration is carried throughout the whole building and it literally sounds like they are drilling right on your floor. This only happens on the foundational pillars, because they are under such high compression forces.
So, that initial boom, would have been the shock of the impact translated down to the foundation and radiated back up. The second boom would have been from the fuel explosion that travelled down the elevator shafts.
That's my reasoning, which IMO fits the physics, the observations, and is a hell of a lot simpler than a nuke planted 30 years before.
Planting explosives, timing them and coordinating them with the exact floors that the planes crashed into is simply very very complicated and hard to keep secret base on the number of people required to keep it secret.
Kurt Sonnenfeld is the photographer name
Grateful for your rational explanations.
But here's the thing....people grasp for explanations when the idiocracy becomes too much to deal with:
1) kids sent home - parents at work
2) fireefighter leaving fire
3) no warning siren
4) no electricity shut off when winds are 80 mph or more
5) no cell phone texts/service down
6) no fire engines in the streets
7) no water
8) police blocking off exits
9) chief of police did not a good job in las vegas...no reports, no explanation of no explanation
10) rules on rebilding changed two months before
11) no indepedent news in or out
12) no local help/supplies/in or out.
13) conference on 15 minute cities and green maui sechedued for September.
14) guy who woulnd't turn on sirens gone. Water guy tranferred...
How many dolts botching shit do you accept before you accept its a bit more than idicocracy?
I live on Maui. May I add:
15) 2018 fire in Lahaina caused by category 4 hurricane Lane passing to the south. 2019 fire in the Central Valley on Maui, caused by high winds and dry grasses, 9k acres burned. This was not unprecedented.
16) Electric company had fire protection plans for the grid, hadn’t gotten around to implementing.
17) 100% of the committee that regulates the electric company has a financial interest in the electric company.
thanks for the info Heidi......I think our bureaucracy in this country has reached peak
corruption and stupidity...and now it is killing people. Time for a huge change, but I don't know what.
I’d like this comment a million times if possible, as much as I hate how right you are.
Rebuilding - two weeks before.
People in Lahaina have reported intact plastic flower pots in the midst of ashes. We all know how quickly plastic melts just when it’s close to an ordinary source of heat. Also, there are pictures of cars where the glass melted but half the car is basically untouched. It is these reports that make people wonder what caused the fires--at least in part. Explanations need to account for all the evidence.
Are we sure about this? The energy behind the DEW theory just seems to me as a fostered distraction from the manipulation of atmospheric pressure to intentionally create the conditions for this fire.
Understand DEW isn't used to burn a large area. It is not about high power so much as it about direction energy in a very precise location. The Raytheon units are a combination laser and charged particle energy. The energy is precisely discharged in arrays and patterns and 'pinpoints' to create a burn area with a specific flame dispersion. In a battle scenario it can be used in terrain denial, perhaps to deny an enemy an escape route...
A burn to be 'steered' in a specific direction through thermal pressure gradients (as they do with Haarp heaters) due to where heat is greater in a specific pattern or direction. The energy is discharged by very precise computer controlled targeting. The beam is extremely high energy but narrow. It's particularly effective in heating metals, as it's similar to the energy of a microwave oven, which is why we don't put silverware or foil in the oven when we're cooking something. The beam is infrared because that is the easiest to keep in a concentric and cohesive beam which keeps the energy transmission the highest. It also cannot be seen by the naked eye in clear dry air. It loses most of its energy in cloud or fog or dust or smoke but that diffusion could be seen as a diffuse beam of light caused by oxidizing material superheated by the beam.
My understanding is the aircraft fly at altitudes from about 15000-25000 feet.
Respectfully, just simply not necessary in these conditions, conditions I believe were constructed through geoengineering.
Why can't it simply be a fire like the Tokyo fire bombing in WWII, or the Great Chicago Fire, or the Dresden fire bombing, or the long ago London Fire? This shit happens.
Add to that the coinciding high velocity winds originating from natural weather and your have a natural blowtorch moving from up in the mountains down their Lee side and into a waiting tinderbox town. The stuff that burned is random due to highest tinder level in front of the flame. That is, likely, all there is to this. Helped by non-caring, non-thinking emergency officials and city management for years failing to prepare.
actually the fire bombings, an act against man and God, are very different than the Maui fire. The bombings fires were started where the bombs fell. They created a "fake' wind compared to Maui. The fire bombings created updrafts from all directions into the center, kind of like a chimney. While they got very intense, their impact was to focus the oxygen flow inward, concentrating the heat into furnaces. The Maui winds were off the mountains, moving sideways through town. While they would provided additional oxygen for fuel sources (mainly buildings0 to ignite, they would rapidly blow the heat away, diluting it and lowering air temperatures. While still brutally hot, much lower than near the fuel source. You may want to see my comment about an hour ago for more details.
Well, I offered both fire bombings(Dresden and Tokyo) and regular fires(London & Chicago) in my examples. The point is, regardless of the origins of ignitions the fire "exists". Once it exists air flow into the conflagration is dependent on a variety of variables and they dictate how the propagation ensues. NO wind, straight up rocket fire as you describe. Directional wind: Lahaina, London, Chicago fires. Regardless, the degree of metal-melting / complete annihilation of objects is dependent upon the relative TIME of residence of the highest intensity fire burning optimal fuel.
Are you referring to stratosphere aerosol injections?
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-dangers-of-stratospheric-aerosol
No, manipulation of the pressure system that drove the winds.
However, I do not rule out pre-fire spraying of incidiaries to further fuel the intensity.
I agree with both these points. There were what appeared to be weather balloons reported the day before. I’ve read balloons of some technology can be used to manipulate high pressure weather systems at anyplace and or time of their choosing. Reports were the hurricane never made landfall. Was more than 500 miles south of Hawaii and Maui is North of Hawaii. The other islands, as well as other parts of Maui did not experience the same wind intensity. In addition, the water being turned off, the sirens not turned on, and the roads to evacuate blocked were all very telling. It may not have been a DEW but it sure appears to have been intentional.
Thank you John for offering the relevant science on fire dynamics. I think that the fire there was naturally occurring, but there is certainly the chance of old-fashioned arson by humans. As a young pyromaniac myself, I must agree with Alex Jones that under those conditions a box of matchsticks used properly could have started it up. I haven’t seen the video yet, but some claim there is video evidence showing downed power lines on the upwind side igniting dry grass.
That said, there are too many other factors like blockaded roads suggesting some malicious behavior by someone in authority. It has many features of a deliberate act, an inside job.
100% agree!
I'd like to see you start a fire like that in 80 mph wind with a box of matches. You could0n't have been a very successful pyromaniac. Maybe with some gasoline.
Whatever it takes....
In Australia arsonists have thrown bundles of matchsticks.
Where were pink plastic piggy banks a foot from melted steel untouched by the fire?
Did someone place them there?
Just be prepared for this incident to get riddled with phoney information.
Absolutely agree with you. Still, I think it behooves everyone to watch Lahaina and ask lots of questions. This was a test case. It won't be the last.
Oh I agree on that. Waiting to get burned out again myself.
Thanks for the factual information but facts bother most people. Laser and microwave weapons are so much more cool
So pitiful..expand your mind..do the research for yourself. NO ONE thinks they are cool.
The irony of your comment 🤣🤣
So true.
The thing that is most concerning at this point is death toll. Obviously the government is trying to minimize the numbers to reduce the level of embarrassment so those numbers are suspect. The recorded missing and presumed dead is one thing but what about the homeless or vacationers who don’t show up in the records? The numbers keep climbing but is it 500, a thousand or a couple of thousand - and who will investigate to get to the truth.
If that's what can happen when traditional fuel catches fire imagine how bad it will be when those electric cars get in there.
The pure electric car phase is a menace to the earth and I predict will be a passing fad. Hybrids may stick though. Especially if the battery tech improves.
Great post. The natural conditions there (spark, wind, fuel), combined with negligence of the utilities and disaster planners, and piss poor lazy idiot government employees were bad enough to cause the damage and death without the need to explain it by way of DEW’s or lasers or other conspiratorial possibilities. And I count myself as a fairly well-informed conspiracy therapist and fan of Alex Jones. It was a preventable tragedy. They even had plans on how they would prevent such a tragedy but kept putting off implementing them. Typical Democrat-run government.
Meanwhile, in Greece
https://www.aol.com/news/greek-police-arrest-dozens-arson-131409651.html
( I have read 9 'arson' so far today re Portugal, Alberta, BC )
Alas, I fear the presentation of facts will not be enough to silence the DEWs HAARP brigade and the chemtrail/weather modification fan club. I'm coming to the conclusion that these people prefer to believe rather than be convinced by rational, evidence-based mundane explanations.
"Falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind"--Rousseau 18th century
One day we all will face the truth. My wake-up call came 20yrs after I got back from Nam. The Gulf of Tonkin was a non-event that resulted in 58k dead of my fellow soldiers. Most of the dead were around 20-22yrs old. The truth matters.
@Jaime: This video is so important for you to see that I need not to say more, especially the second half:
https://youtu.be/t32RbQq10mE?si=VL0RBhNLLZ-bA9PB
'A lot of things that are blue withstood the fire'.
To prove this, they show a video of red, green and white buildings remaining intact in the midst of other buildings reduced to ashes!
https://youtu.be/t32RbQq10mE?t=826
And, they can not say for certain that not a single blue building burned.
I'm waiting for videos of the town being strafed by this blue laser. Haven't seen any yet.
Can you comment on why the asphalt didn’t melt into sticky tar?
At what temperature does the human body disappear? A human cremation takes about an hour to deliver small rocks.
Heat rises.
Heat radiates in all directions. If you burn a car on asphalt the asphalt will melt from the radiated heat alone. But it takes significantly more heat to get asphalt to burn. Like the heat of burning magnesium which is pretty common in cars. Melted asphalt, unless it is acted upon by a an outside force will simply stay in the same shape it was in before it was melted and re-solidify. Burned asphalt is easy to break apart as the tar in it is a binder for the aggregate and once it burns you have ash and aggregate left over.
Heat radiates in all directions depending on the wind and heat vortexes within the blaze. A wood bur ing fireplace radiates much differently than a wind blown fire with incindiaries everywhere.
The radiation of heat is independent of the wind or "heat vortexes" within the blaze. A wood burning fireplace and a forest fire radiate heat in precisely the same ways. And the wind and wind blown "incindiaries" have exactly zero influence on the radiation of heat. You should read up on radiant heat, it can do some impressive things, like traveling through a "curtain of water" without heating the water but heating an object it strikes after passing through the water. It can also travel through a vacuum and heat a solid object afterwards. It is important to note that there is no "wind" in a vacuum. Wind can have an effect on the accumulation of heat in a surface, it is why we blow on soup to cool it, but it cannot affect the amount of energy radiated from a source to strike a surface.
I respect our disagreement and you sound smarter than me, however, radiant heat is impacted by wind and vortexes within the firestorm.
I have with my own eyes seen structures burned to the ground and structures right next to it not. Fire is very weird. Especially crafted fire.
Once the wind and vortexes become involved it is no longer radiant heat transfer but convection heat transfer. I've been a firefighter for a good long while and read all the books at one point or another. You seem to be confusing those two methods of heat transfer slightly. The short version is if air currents have any effect on the heat transfer then it is convection, radiant transfer is wholly independent of air currents or even a lack of air as in a vacuum. The wind can absolutely blow heat around and cause fire spread as well as fuel drying which will allow the radiant heat already there to start a fire more readily.
Fire is weird, I remember once standing on a mountainside watching a huge fire burning. The fire was over a mile away and it was hard to stand facing it because the radiant heat was so high. The really weird part was the air temperature was in the 70's but once the sun went down and the mountain breezes changed the air temperature increased to over 100* in the space of a few minutes. That is convective heat. You could practically feel the moisture leaving the trees and grasses around us. The change in the wind brought firebrands from the fire toward us. Actual flaming tree branches 3-4 feet long dropping out of the sky. It was hopeless at that point to stop the fire there and we hiked out in the "dark", it wasn't really dark, there was plenty of light from the fires popping up around us. We redeployed to a different ridge and watched the next day when the winds changed and the fire snuffed itself out by trying to go back through the area it had already burned. The demarcation between the burned and unburned areas was striking.
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Some of that asphalt under the line of burned out cars (Front Street?) looked pretty deformed to me...
You can feel my road shifting on a hot summer day. It's almost like walking on water.
It's land clearance... It's been going on for hundreds of years...
Error--why were plastic items untouched next to melted steel? You can microwave plastic. COULD--not was--Lahaina have been incinerated by microwave weapons? What other explanation is there?
Spend some time in a fire. Talk to a firefighter.
These questions are continously asked by people with zero fire experience.
I am sure there is puhlenty of melted and evaporated plastic from this fire. Because there are some photos of some plastic that didn't doesn't mean anything outside of not understanding the bizzare and violent actions of fire.
Hiroshima had survivors.
Okay. First off, I was in a landlord arson fire in SF years ago. It was part of the Levi Straus factory--the building they did not sew jeans in. Really old wood structure. It didn't burn particularly hot. Of course, the climate and winds were totally different. Enough of it survived to turn it into toney therapists' offices.
My neighbor couldn't sell her McMansion so she had it torched for insurance. Her propane tanks blew but it took a very long time and they didn't add much to the conflagration. The firefighters just let it burn itself out. It took five hours. The fire marshal knew it was owner arson but couldn't prove it. It was wood construction also with fake stone wall attached. That was the only thing that didn't burn; it fell as one piece at the very last.
As for Hiroshima, yeah, I had some relatives in that debacle. Most people in the bull's eye did not survive, and many in the next perimeter didn't either. Your point? Are you saying this was another Hiroshima?
My point about Hiroshima is that fire and energy can provide results that do not make sense to the casual observer.
Propane tanks at 14th and Valencia? Or wherever that building is, been awhile....
Sorry. I was referring to two different fires, 2500 miles apart. Levi Strauss across from the Greek Orthodox Church. Yes. The McMansion is in Appalachia. (Of course!) Which is why it wouldn't sell. No, you could hear the explosion but it didn't do much to the fire. But even there, our little two-bit volunteer squad made a little dam in the little creek alongside the property and used it to pump water on the flames. They didn't even try that in Maui. And they had the whole Pacific Ocean to use.
What's done is done. The important thing is to protect native Hawaiian rights.
Maybe they showed up after the fire. Get a life dude
Yes. Entirely possible. But if you look at the entire mess of contradictions, it's a little too good to be true, from the developer and 15-minute city POV. Holding residents from leaving is weird. Refusing to allow boats from neighboring towns into the harbor to save people or give them food and water is weird. Kids sent home without their parents' knowledge is weird. Plat maps and deeds to property burned to a crisp is awfully convenient. The whole thing is convenient. Plus the winds were blowing from 500 miles away. Did you watch Hurricane Hilary days afterward? I did. It moved so slowly and the only winds it pushed 500 miles away were strong rain, thunder, flooding--none of which Lahaina experienced. National Guard and military were there quite quickly--quick enough to keep people from saving themselves. It's all a bit too neat. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't. Like the completely pristine passport that was found DAYS after 9/11 as "proof" who the "terrorists" were. Plastic toys could have been planted afterwards but people weren't allowed back in. So who did the planting? The military? The National Guard? FEMA? I ask questions, "dude". That's why I still have a life.
Thank you John. I agree. There is WAY too much speculation on what supposedly accelerated the Lahaina fire. I live on the south shore of Kauai for 12 years. The trades themselves can accelerate fires; a neighbor of mine lost his home in such a fire - the winds were no where near the level of those in Lahaina. I do agree that the Hawaii government has been, was, and is negligent about basic infrastructure and safety. I emailed the then-Lt-Governor of the state, Josh Green, about hydroxychloroquine and how effective it was against covid - he actually responded to tell me I was wrong. I had also called out Sweden's early covid response as the correct response - he disagreed as well. Green is a climate-change zealot. Expect big, ugly changes in the islands soon. I am very happy we fled the state in early 2021 to Florida. People of Hawaii - Please do not comply. Peace.