The Trees of Lahaina

Interview with arborist sparks firestorm controversy about Directed-Energy Weapons

On the Lahaina Fire, several readers have sent me a video of an arborist talking about the phenomenon of a fire that reduces houses to white ash while leaving trees still standing.

In the video, he begins by stating his reflections on the following aerial photograph (he found on the internet) of Santa Rosa, California after the 2017 fire.

Viewing this photograph, he states:

Yeah, all the houses are missing, they’re white ash, but what are all the trees doing there. Many of these are pines and eucalyptus, and very flammable leaves. It just made no sense to me. I’ve got a background of cooking on campfires for my entire adult life, from sea level to twelve or thirteen thousand feet in the Sierras. I’ve burned everything, and everything burns in a tiny campfire. And this is a horrific firestorm, they said. Why are all the trees still there? So it didn’t work well for me. And I waited a couple of months and I went up there after things died down, and I analyzed every street I could for eight hours. Nothing, I mean nothing, added up.

Based on these observations, the arborist proposes that directed-energy weapons (DEW) were used to ignite and energize the Santa Rosa fire in 2017. As the video progresses, he makes similar remarks about aerial photographs of Lahaina after the fire there. From his observations, he concludes that the still standing trees in Lahaina are evidence that DEW were used to ignite and energize the fire. Though he doesn’t identify the perpetrators, he states:

We have to fight this at every level we can, because they own the military. The billionaires own the government, and that one percent is ruling the planet. Less than one percent. We have to group up together and make a stand. At any level we can. We have to do something.

Before I address the content of these statements, I would like to say a word about conspiracies. In Chapter 30 of our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, we discuss the reality of criminal conspiracies.

After an exposition of the 1953 play, Biedermann and the Arsonists in which we explicitly describe how it is often difficult for people to comprehend the reality of criminal malevolence in their midst, we remark:

. . . “The greatest trick that powerful interest groups ever pulled was convincing the world that everyone who detects and reports their activities is a conspiracy theorist.” Only the naivest consumer of mainstream news reporting would fail to recognize that powerful interest groups in the military, financial, and bio-pharmaceutical industries work in concert to further their interests. Their activities cross the line into conspiracy when they commit fraud or other crimes to advance their interests. The term “conspiracy theory” suggests the feverish imaginings of a crackpot mind. This ignores the fact that the United States government prosecutes the crime of conspiracy all the time. As one prominent defense attorney described this reality:

Any time the government believes that it can allege that two or more individuals were a part of a common agreement to commit the same crime, they will include a charge of conspiracy into the indictment. There is no requirement that all of the members of the conspiracy even know about each other, or even know each other personally.

A person may be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime even if he doesn’t know all of the details of the crime. When COVID-19 arrived, the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex vigorously and exclusively pursued the vaccine solution instead of the early treatment solution. In order to realize their ambition, multiple actors simultaneously waged a propaganda campaign against hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other repurposed drugs.

It’s likely that only a relatively small number of these actors knew they were making fraudulent claims about the generic, repurposed drugs, and knew they were taking action to impede access to these drugs based on fraudulent claims. These actors were the conspirators. Countless others unwittingly played roles in the conspiracy because they themselves believed the propaganda.

In my Substack columns about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, I present evidence that Dr. Fauci and his virologist cronies conspired to conceal the true (laboratory) origin of the causative agent of COVID-19. Thus, I myself have often been called a “conspiracy theorist.” I reply to this accusation with the remark that nowadays the difference between a conspiracy theory and a proven conspiracy is about six months.

Since the financial crisis in 2008 and the ensuing Federal Reserve bailouts of the billionaire class, I have been telling everyone who will listen that the billionaire class has captured our federal government and endangered our Constitutional Republic. I am therefore entirely sympathetic to the underlying political sentiments expressed by the arborist.

However, as much as I sympathize with his underlying political sentiments, I still do not find his assertions about the trees or his conclusion—that their condition after the fire is evidence of DEW—persuasive.

I have now published three books about controversial true crime stories. For all three, I had to persuade the publishers and their attorneys that my key finding and characterizations of key actors were defensible in court. The Austrian publisher of my second book asked me to change the names of some of the key actors (whom I accuse of fraudulent concealment and negligent homicide) in order to reduce the risk of being sued. I told the publisher I was ready to defend my findings in court, and that I would rather shelve the project than protect these corrupt men by giving them aliases.

If citizen investigators, investigative journalists, and licensed private investigators want to speak truth to power in an effective way, they must be able and willing to meet high standards of evidence. Otherwise, they will be easily dismissed as crackpots.

Back to the arborist’s observations of aerial photographs of Santa Rosa and Lahaina. Let’s start with his opening remarks about the Santa Rosa photograph:

Yeah, all the houses are missing, they’re white ash, but what are all the trees doing there. Many of these are pines and eucalyptus, with very flammable leaves. It just made no sense to me. I’ve got a background of cooking on campfires for my entire adult life, from sea level to twelve or thirteen thousand feet in the Sierras. I’ve burned everything, and everything burns in a tiny campfire. And this is a horrific firestorm, they said. Why are all the trees still there? So it didn’t work well for me. And I waited a couple of months and I went up there after things died down, and I analyzed every street I could for eight hours. Nothing, I mean nothing, added up.

If he presented these observations in a criminal complaint alleging mass murder by unknown perpetrators, he would immediately encounter a host of rebuttals and objections. He would not be addressing his remarks to a cheering internet audience, but to a District Attorney who knows that his observations will be challenged by defense attorneys and certified experts about fire, wood, and living trees.

If the case came to trial, defense counsel and its experts would ask the jury to consider the following:

-Seasoned pine, spruce, or Douglas fir framing studs and plywood have a moisture content of around 9-12%

-A living pine tree with healthy roots, standing in front of a house in an irrigated suburb, has a moisture content of up to 250%. For more information about the moisture content of living trees, see the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Wood Hygroscopicity.

-To understand the difference between these two materials, make a campfire out of 2X4 framing studs and freshly cut pine logs. Note how much the framing studs burn before the freshly cut logs burn or even ignite.

-Living pine trees—spaced approximately 30 feet apart in a suburb in which they are irrigated and pruned—are not comparable to a dense pine forest with piles of dead fuel on the ground below them such as you find in California forests. In drought-stricken, beetle-killed stands of pine, the combustibility will be dramatically higher.

-Living pine trees and eucalyptus trees are have adaptations that cause fire and enable them to withstand fire. Indeed, forest fires are actually part of their life cycles. As is elucidated in this article about the Important Relationship between Forests and Fire:

When allowed to burn naturally, forest fires tend to create a mosaic of old growth and new growth, which act as a barrier to the extent of future fires. When a fire hits the border between stages of growth, it is likely to smolder out.

Many trees have adaptations that allow them to survive easier in natural fire. Jack pines and giant sequoias have very thick, fire resistant bark. Most eucalyptus species and pine species utilize tall crowns in order to keep flammable leaves and dead branches high from the ground and away from fire.

-The arborist marvels that the trees are still standing after a horrific fire storm that incinerated the houses, and he implies that this is evidence that the houses were combusted by something other than a natural fire. And yet, according to multiple witnesses, a fire swept through the subdivision and incinerated the houses while leaving many trees still standing. His statement implies that the purported DEW surgically ignited and combusted the houses without subjecting the trees to any fire, but this is obviously not the case.

-Based on his viewing of a grainy aerial photograph, the arborist states that “all of the trees” withstood the fire. However, this photograph is not of sufficient detail and resolution to allow a definitive conclusion to be drawn about the condition of “all of the trees.” The following photographs of the same Coffey Park neighborhood show trees in a more damaged state:

The remarkable ability of pine trees to withstand fire is illustrated by this photo of a still charred pine in front of a rebuilt home years after the Cedar Fire in San Diego (in 2003) incinerated the neighborhood.

The tree in the background appears to be a eucalyptus, and judging by its height, it was also present during the fire and survived it.

Moving on to aerial photographs of Lahaina, the arborist asks about the giant banyan tree in front of the Old Lahaina Courthourse:

Why isn’t it burned up? The building in front was toasted. The roof’s gone.

This is what the banyan tree looked like before the fire:

Note the density of its green leaves being watered by hundreds of roots tapping into Lahaina’s water table. Note also that the grainy areal photograph does not display the east (windward side of the tree), which is very badly burned. The burned material ultimately turned to cinders, which became airborne in the 70 mph easterly wind and were blasted under the seasoned wooden eves of the east side of the Old Courthouse.

In his reflections about the Old Courthouse roof being incinerated while the banyan tree remained standing, the arborist states:

“It’s the wrong flame. And that’s my only answer to that. I can’t describe what the flame’s composition is. I just know that there’s microwave in there somewhere.”

To this assertion, the interviewer asks:

“How do you think the microwave energy is sent down? So you said satellite. So it’s like, I’ve seen some images of, but you know, I don’t know if they are accurate or not.”

“We can really only guess at the delivery system,” he replies.

But they’ve been working on it for forty years and even more. We don’t know, we really don’t know. And maybe there’s ten different types. I always say, maybe it’s like your blender in the kitchen—frappe, stir, crunch. You know, they just put it on a different setting, and they get a different effect. We’re just guessing.

Remarking on trees that are still standing after the Lahaina fire, he asserts:

Why are all the trees still there? They’re a little thin. Cooked again. I’m sure every one of them is dead. Perhaps some of the palm trees will come back. A palm tree is easy to light on fire. We’ve had a few car fires around here on the freeway or in a residential under a palm tree. They burn up in a second. They’re like grass. They’re thin, with a little bit of dead fronds on them. They’ll burn in seconds. Yet I look at them [here] they’re kind of super wilted, which I see often, there’s a black color to all these dead trees. The leaves are cooked like a slow cooked marsh-mellow on your fire. If it doesn’t ignite, these leaves just kind of wilt and turn a dark color. Another anomaly. They should have all been gone. This kind of heat, everything should have been gone. Should have been stumps of trees. That didn’t happen.

Here he acknowledges that, even if the buildings were destroyed by a high power microwave DEW, the trees in the vicinity of the burning buildings were exposed to high heat—high enough to kill the trees. And yet, he doesn’t address why these trees didn’t combust.

In fact, coconut palm trees are fire resistant. As is noted in this article published by the Firesafe Council:

Palm trees have a thick bark that protects the tree from fire. The leaves of palm trees are also high in moisture content, which makes them less likely to catch fire. In addition, the oil that is produced by palm trees is also a natural fire retardant.

If dead palm fronds are allowed to accumulate, these can create a fire hazard, but the living tree is remarkably resistant to combustion, as is evidenced by this palm grove in Vietnam after a napalm attack (jellied gasoline bombs that burn up to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit).

My objective with this post is not to pick on the purported arborist, but to point out that his testimony about trees does not substantiate his conclusion that satellite-delivered microwave DEW were used to destroy Lahaina and murder its residents.

I am currently researching a book on the Lahaina Fire because I recognize that the disaster happened within the context of highly suspicious circumstances. I strongly suspect that, at best, the leaders of multiple agencies and institutions are guilty of gross negligence. However, I am not interested in publishing an account of suspicious circumstances. I am seeking proof of malfeasance, and I intend (if called upon) to defend my findings in court.

If anyone can provide credible witness testimony or clear evidence that DEW were used on Lahaina, please submit it in the comments section, which I will carefully monitor.