The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: Dual1ty on August 29, 2023, 05:34:12 PM
-
9/11 + California 2017 all over again...
RIP The Victims (estimated to be well over a thousand).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PSYNqZqAVs
(https://i.imgur.com/kOzVAhV.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zik2vcn1yk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg2WV-B26pA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9L9WvlCli0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs3o3z0G8tw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXNHgNUomDI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuWtCL6S7cs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtXjYI-Rz0g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mppuqs7YF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oro78Z6RNvs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9205GPrC8k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2VYrxfuXGY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB9bl7aDXq4
-
The establishment isn't even trying to hide it anymore. Plus you don't have the usual suspects here trying to deny this was a total government wipeout and abandonment of its own citizenry.
-
The establishment isn't even trying to hide it anymore. Plus you don't have the usual suspects here trying to deny this was a total government wipeout and abandonment of its own citizenry.
Yep. After they got away with 9/11, they don't care anymore.
Fortunately, more people are looking into this now. I even saw YouTube removing thousands of views from those videos.
-
I'm sorry, what?
Directed energy weapons? From space?
Do you know now much power that would take?
-
I'm sorry, what?
Directed energy weapons? From space?
Do you know now much power that would take?
Why does it have to be from space exactly?
-
I'm sorry, what?
Directed energy weapons? From space?
Do you know now much power that would take?
Why does it have to be from space exactly?
Fair point.
Ok, where was it from and what kind of energy?
-
Fair point.
Ok, where was it from and what kind of energy?
Could be from your mom's house for all I know.
Why don't you start asking REAL questions such as why are the cops tasked with not allowing people to film or document anything? Luckily they did before the pigs got there. So now you get to see the EVIDENCE.
-
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106717
US Government website
-
Fair point.
Ok, where was it from and what kind of energy?
Could be from your mom's house for all I know.
Why don't you start asking REAL questions such as why are the cops tasked with not allowing people to film or document anything? Luckily they did before the pigs got there. So now you get to see the EVIDENCE.
Because filming burnt corpses for youtube is generally considered in bad taste?
-
Fair point.
Ok, where was it from and what kind of energy?
Could be from your mom's house for all I know.
Why don't you start asking REAL questions such as why are the cops tasked with not allowing people to film or document anything? Luckily they did before the pigs got there. So now you get to see the EVIDENCE.
Because filming burnt corpses for youtube is generally considered in bad taste?
Where are the corpses, you effing ____?
They're coming up with all types of excuses to prevent filming & documenting the crime scene. The only corpses I've heard of are the ones that were in the water that probably died of asphyxiation. None of the footage on YouTube shows any corpses other than a dog or two.
-
Speaking of which - how tf did this dog's hair not get burned??
Can you please explain, Mr. Dave??
(https://i.imgur.com/XKd4N4Q.jpg)
-
Speaking of which - how tf did this dog's hair not get burned??
Can you please explain, Mr. Dave??
While the dog hair is unusual, that is not evidence the dog died at that spot while the car was aflame.
-
Speaking of which - how tf did this dog's hair not get burned??
Can you please explain, Mr. Dave??
While the dog hair is unusual, that is not evidence the dog died at that spot while the car was aflame.
Well, true, but then again everything about the evidence shown is unusual.
-
Speaking of which - how tf did this dog's hair not get burned??
Can you please explain, Mr. Dave??
(https://i.imgur.com/XKd4N4Q.jpg)
Better question: why is that between a bumper and the frame?
Odds are it was deposites afterwards.
-
Fair point.
Ok, where was it from and what kind of energy?
Could be from your mom's house for all I know.
Why don't you start asking REAL questions such as why are the cops tasked with not allowing people to film or document anything? Luckily they did before the pigs got there. So now you get to see the EVIDENCE.
Because filming burnt corpses for youtube is generally considered in bad taste?
Where are the corpses, you effing ____?
They're coming up with all types of excuses to prevent filming & documenting the crime scene. The only corpses I've heard of are the ones that were in the water that probably died of asphyxiation. None of the footage on YouTube shows any corpses other than a dog or two.
You asked why they'd prevent filming. I gave you a reason. Why are you shocked that the film of things I said wouldn't be allowed to be filmed, aren't on youtube?
Also, its technically an active crime scene if they don't know the cause. Inhaven't followed it. This thread is literally all I know about the fire.
-
Better question: why is that between a bumper and the frame?
Odds are it was deposites afterwards.
Yeah, but they said they could smell a dead animal.
So presumably it's not just hair from the "friendly neighbour's" well & alive dog.
You asked why they'd prevent filming. I gave you a reason. Why are you shocked that the film of things I said wouldn't be allowed to be filmed, aren't on youtube?
Also, its technically an active crime scene if they don't know the cause. Inhaven't followed it. This thread is literally all I know about the fire.
They ARE on YouTube, get your facts straight. No corpses anywhere.
"This thread is literally all I know about the fire." I know. You have MSM and gov. to blame for that because they want the least amount of attention drawn to this. And YouTube is removing views from key videos as we speak (and probably burrying them like they do with important FE videos).
They don't want you looking at the evidence and that is exactly what's going on and what you are doing.
-
it is literally impossible to put dog hair on something and then lie about it
-
Better question: why is that between a bumper and the frame?
Odds are it was deposites afterwards.
Yeah, but they said they could smell a dead animal.
So presumably it's not just hair from the "friendly neighbour's" well & alive dog.
Then there should be a body. Animals typically don't burn to ash and vanish. Nor humans. Even in the worst fires.
You asked why they'd prevent filming. I gave you a reason. Why are you shocked that the film of things I said wouldn't be allowed to be filmed, aren't on youtube?
Also, its technically an active crime scene if they don't know the cause. Inhaven't followed it. This thread is literally all I know about the fire.
They ARE on YouTube, get your facts straight.
"This thread is literally all I know about the fire." I know. You have MSM and gov. to blame for that because they want the least amount of attention drawn to this. And YouTube is removing views from key videos as we speak (and probably burrying them like they do with important FE videos).
They don't want you looking at the evidence and that is exactly what you're doing.
???
Why are you assuming its because MSM and the US government is to blame and not the fact that I haven't visited a news site in weeks nor watched news tv in years?
-
Better question: why is that between a bumper and the frame?
Odds are it was deposites afterwards.
Yeah, but they said they could smell a dead animal.
So presumably it's not just hair from the "friendly neighbour's" well & alive dog.
Then there should be a body. Animals typically don't burn to ash and vanish. Nor humans. Even in the worst fires.
You don't say?
Please, keep telling me about it and ignoring what I said 2x about bodies not being seen while admitting that you know nothing about this event.
???
Why are you assuming its because MSM and the US government is to blame and not the fact that I haven't visited a news site in weeks nor watched news tv in years?
Because unless you've been living in a cave for the past 3 weeks, you would've heard it form someone who has if it was given as much attention as 9/11.
Do you think I read news or watch TV myself? You don't seem very intelligent, "Dave".
-
Ok, saw a bit of the first video.
Looks staged.
1. Why did only one aluminum rim melt?
2. Why does it look so pristine when the other melted things look dirty and full of carbon and ash?
3. Why does he think a hood protecta an engine from fire? Because of oxygen? Does he not know how cars work?
I'm also having issues finding the exaxt location on google maps. But thats just me having to look for landmarks carefully.
-
Better question: why is that between a bumper and the frame?
Odds are it was deposites afterwards.
Yeah, but they said they could smell a dead animal.
So presumably it's not just hair from the "friendly neighbour's" well & alive dog.
Then there should be a body. Animals typically don't burn to ash and vanish. Nor humans. Even in the worst fires.
You don't say?
Please, keep telling me about it and ignoring what I said 2x about bodies not being seen while admitting that you know nothing about this event.
My point, dipshit, is that they don't show any animal body. Or don't seem to since you don'f seem to have seen it either. Why not? Why didn't they film the animal body?
???
Why are you assuming its because MSM and the US government is to blame and not the fact that I haven't visited a news site in weeks nor watched news tv in years?
Because unless you've been living in a cave for the past 3 weeks, you would've heard it form someone who has if it was given as much attention as 9/11.
Do you think I read news or watch TV myself? You don't seem very intelligent, "Dave".
I've been living in norway getting poor sleep for the last 4 weeks and at present, I give 0 fucks about some fire in hawaii and don't have chats with people who do. This forum is about all social I am right now.
If you don't read or watch news, how did you learn about it if not from news or someone who watched the news?
-
Oooh poor baaaby has been getting poor sleep in Nooorway. Awwww.
Go sleep then, you have nothing to offer here anyway.
I fucking wish i could.
But while I'm up, why don't you calculate the power required to melt a car with a directed energy weapon.
-
I fucking wish i could.
But while I'm up, why don't you calculate the power required to melt a car with a directed energy weapon.
Surely you would need to know what process was used before you do any calculations?
"Dave", I really think you need that sleep. And I don't think you know anything about DEWs (especially not ones of this caliber & sophistication), so stop the clown show.
-
shit sucks.
maui is wonderful and i got to go to the old lahaina luau in 2016, one of the best times i ever had. chipped in $500 so far to direct gofundme type things, encourage others to help if they can.
-
I fucking wish i could.
But while I'm up, why don't you calculate the power required to melt a car with a directed energy weapon.
Surely you would need to know what process was used before you do any calculations?
"Dave", I really think you need that sleep. And I don't think you know anything about DEWs (especially not ones of this caliber & sophistication), so stop the clown show.
Not really. Power is power. Regardless of its a laser or IR or microwaves, it all uses power and if you're gonna heat something up hot enough to cause spontanious combustion on a car and melt one of four aluminim caps (not rims, caps) then you're gonna use alot of power. The only factor is effectiveness. Pure heat is the most efficient with everything else requiring higher levels of energy.
And I am aware of DEW. The US uses them to shoot down missiles. Requires a truck to haul enough batteries to heat a spit the size of a laser pointer hot enough on an incomming missile to cause the explosives to detonate.
And why DEW? Why not just a bad fire?
I mean, those guys obsess over two cars knowing nothing about what was in them prior. For all we know, they were soaked in gasoline and lit on fire for the insurance money. Or they were already melted in a previous fire and this one just made it freshly singed? Who knows? But its certainly no evidence of a directed energy weapon.
-
melt one of four aluminim caps (not rims, caps)
The rims were melted, not caps.
-
melt one of four aluminim caps (not rims, caps)
The rims were melted, not caps.
You're right. Appoligies.
-
So assuming the rims were pure aluminum and weighed about 15 lbs,
The energy required to melt JUST THE RIMS is 1 kWh.
Or 1 kW for an hour.
Or 60kW for one minute.
Or 3,600 kW for one second.
That is just melting the rim. One rim. With no air between the device and the rim. Because otherwise you'd heat the air too and that would take away from your total power output.
You'd basically need to haul around a tesla battery pack just to melt off one rim.
-
Speaking of which - how tf did this dog's hair not get burned??
Can you please explain, Mr. Dave??
(https://i.imgur.com/XKd4N4Q.jpg)
My guess is that it's not dog hair but more likely the fiberglass insulation from the underside of the hood.
-
So assuming the rims were pure aluminum and weighed about 15 lbs,
The energy required to melt JUST THE RIMS is 1 kWh.
Or 1 kW for an hour.
Or 60kW for one minute.
Or 3,600 kW for one second.
That is just melting the rim. One rim. With no air between the device and the rim. Because otherwise you'd heat the air too and that would take away from your total power output.
You'd basically need to haul around a tesla battery pack just to melt off one rim.
Sure, I'll buy that.
Now you know why they use hurricanes as the power source for this type of attack.
INB4 "ridiculous", "impossible" or "how?".
-
So assuming the rims were pure aluminum and weighed about 15 lbs,
The energy required to melt JUST THE RIMS is 1 kWh.
Or 1 kW for an hour.
Or 60kW for one minute.
Or 3,600 kW for one second.
That is just melting the rim. One rim. With no air between the device and the rim. Because otherwise you'd heat the air too and that would take away from your total power output.
You'd basically need to haul around a tesla battery pack just to melt off one rim.
Sure, I'll buy that.
Now you know why they use hurricanes as the power source for this type of attack.
INB4 "ridiculous", "impossible" or "how?".
>_>
And uhh... How exactly are you gonna harness that?
And how are you gonna deliver that kind if power?
Because, note: that power was just one rim with nothing between it and the device.
Wait.. the fire started DURING A hurricane?!
No DEW is gonna work in that shit!
-
So assuming the rims were pure aluminum and weighed about 15 lbs,
The energy required to melt JUST THE RIMS is 1 kWh.
Or 1 kW for an hour.
Or 60kW for one minute.
Or 3,600 kW for one second.
That is just melting the rim. One rim. With no air between the device and the rim. Because otherwise you'd heat the air too and that would take away from your total power output.
You'd basically need to haul around a tesla battery pack just to melt off one rim.
Sure, I'll buy that.
Now you know why they use hurricanes as the power source for this type of attack.
INB4 "ridiculous", "impossible" or "how?".
>_>
And uhh... How exactly are you gonna harness that?
And how are you gonna deliver that kind if power?
Because, note: that power was just one rim with nothing between it and the device.
Wait.. the fire started DURING A hurricane?!
No DEW is gonna work in that shit!
Figure it out, genius.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcdzhIsN--s
-
ITT, Dual1ty demonstrates the absurdly low level of evidence he requires for things which fit his worldview.
Compare and contrast with the absurdly high level he requires for things which do not.
-
Honeycomb and snowflakes in perfect symmetry. Sine waves. Remarkable.
So your latest theory is that the mysterious "They" (Some government? Thrush? I don't know, not fully explained) have used the principles alluded to in this video to transform the power of a hurricane and burn some cars. For some reason. Why not just have the hurricane wreck the cars in the first place?
Cui bono?
Figure it out? Sorry, need more to go on.
-
Honeycomb and snowflakes in perfect symmetry. Sine waves. Remarkable.
So your latest theory is that the mysterious "They" (Some government? Thrush? I don't know, not fully explained) have used the principles alluded to in this video to transform the power of a hurricane and burn some cars. For some reason. Why not just have the hurricane wreck the cars in the first place?
Cui bono?
Figure it out? Sorry, need more to go on.
With every large-scale conspiracy there is always a "they".
Maybe because a hurricane alone is not selective like an advanced DEW is? Or as destructive? Of course, the DEW is not perfect, which is why you get anomalies like the ones shown in the videos. Are you going to ignore all that evidence in favour of "I want to believe there are no nefarious interests here and that it's a completely normal wildfire"? If there's nothing to see here in your opinion, I can't make you put those shades on.
Hence why I titled this thread "Nothing To See Here".
EDIT: To add to that - they're saying that it's all a toxic wasteland now. That wouldn't happen if it was a hurricane alone.
-
So assuming the rims were pure aluminum and weighed about 15 lbs,
The energy required to melt JUST THE RIMS is 1 kWh.
Or 1 kW for an hour.
Or 60kW for one minute.
Or 3,600 kW for one second.
That is just melting the rim. One rim. With no air between the device and the rim. Because otherwise you'd heat the air too and that would take away from your total power output.
You'd basically need to haul around a tesla battery pack just to melt off one rim.
Sure, I'll buy that.
Now you know why they use hurricanes as the power source for this type of attack.
INB4 "ridiculous", "impossible" or "how?".
>_>
And uhh... How exactly are you gonna harness that?
And how are you gonna deliver that kind if power?
Because, note: that power was just one rim with nothing between it and the device.
Wait.. the fire started DURING A hurricane?!
No DEW is gonna work in that shit!
Figure it out, genius.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcdzhIsN--s
That video was a full on waste of my time.
It was non-stop buzz words that tried to make itself sound smart but ultimately requires the viewer to not know anything such as the difference between a tachyon and a gravaton.
So you want me to "figure it out"? Well I have and the answer is: they can't. So unless you have something of substance, you're basically trying to apply scifi logic to reality because you want the government to be burning parts of a city with a death beam for some reason.
-
That video was a full on waste of my time.
It was non-stop buzz words that tried to make itself sound smart but ultimately requires the viewer to not know anything such as the difference between a tachyon and a gravaton.
So you want me to "figure it out"? Well I have and the answer is: they can't. So unless you have something of substance, you're basically trying to apply scifi logic to reality because you want the government to be burning parts of a city with a death beam for some reason.
lol OK. I'm glad that it was a waste of time for you.
It's not my fault that it all goes over your head.
I don't care about terms such as "tachyon" or "graviton". Only sci-fi fans like you care about those.
It doesn't matter that he's using a lot of sci-fi buzz words such as the above or "spacetime" - what matters is what happens in reality. What matters is reality.
But to answer your question - I couldn't care less if you figure it out or not.
-
That video was a full on waste of my time.
It was non-stop buzz words that tried to make itself sound smart but ultimately requires the viewer to not know anything such as the difference between a tachyon and a gravaton.
So you want me to "figure it out"? Well I have and the answer is: they can't. So unless you have something of substance, you're basically trying to apply scifi logic to reality because you want the government to be burning parts of a city with a death beam for some reason.
lol OK. I'm glad that it was a waste of time for you.
It's not my fault that it all goes over your head.
I don't care about terms such as "tachyon" or "graviton". Only sci-fi fans like you care about those.
It doesn't matter that he's using a lot of sci-fi buzz words such as the above or "spacetime" - what matters is what happens in reality. What matters is reality.
But to answer your question - I couldn't care less if you figure it out or not.
Its hard to understand literal nonsense.
"The vortex energy creates a subsonic pulse which enhances electrical energy outout and allows us to make 98 LEDs light instead of 8." <- literally nonsense.
They didn't even explain anything. I saw no formulas or even examples of this "new math language" which also means nothing if they aren't gonna put up and show it.
And moding a torus. Oohhh big show. Been doing that with math for centuries.
And who else cares about gravatons and tachyons? Theoretical physisists who try to find those particles. Geeze.
Anyway, why don't you show me how to build the power enhancer machine he had? I'm sure you saw the diagram, yes? Since he said he wants to make this free for the world?
-
This thread is about Maui (mostly intended to be about the evidence).
I know that you're sleep-deprived, but try to stay on topic.
Or, don't and leave the thread, which is preferable for everyone - including you:
I give 0 fucks about some fire in hawaii
For someone who claims to "give 0 fucks", you sure posted a lot here already.
-
This thread is about Maui (mostly intended to be about the evidence).
I know that you're sleep-deprived, but try to stay on topic.
Or, don't and leave the thread, which is preferable for everyone - including you:
I give 0 fucks about some fire in hawaii
For someone who claims to "give 0 fucks", you sure posted a lot here already.
My hobby is arguing with people online. Lets me vent my rage.
Anyway, i haven't seen the second video but so far the first video seems to claim the evidence is two cars that caught fire and melted all but the steel and 3 aluminum rims. And they use this plus the blockaids to conclude it was a death ray?
Seems even more unlikely in a hurricane, which typically has alot of rain, making Energy Weapons based on heat largely useless.
-
My hobby is arguing with people online. Lets me vent my rage.
Chemo?
Anyway, i haven't seen the second video but so far the first video seems to claim the evidence is two cars that caught fire and melted all but the steel and 3 aluminum rims. And they use this plus the blockaids to conclude it was a death ray?
Seems even more unlikely in a hurricane, which typically has alot of rain, making Energy Weapons based on heat largely useless.
Again making assumptions about what process or type of DEW was used.
This is not a regular DEW like the ones that everyone knows of that they use for missiles/drones. Or crowd control. Whatever.
-
My hobby is arguing with people online. Lets me vent my rage.
Chemo?
No, middle aged.
Anyway, i haven't seen the second video but so far the first video seems to claim the evidence is two cars that caught fire and melted all but the steel and 3 aluminum rims. And they use this plus the blockaids to conclude it was a death ray?
Seems even more unlikely in a hurricane, which typically has alot of rain, making Energy Weapons based on heat largely useless.
Again making assumptions about what process or type of DEW was used.
This is not a regular DEW like the ones that everyone knows of that they use for missiles/drones. Or crowd control. Whatever.
Directed Energy to cause something to burn by heating it up, yes?
And aren't you assuming it IS a DEW of some unknown kond because you don't know of any DEW that can do what you claim happened?
Essentially you are assuming it was a DEW and because it can't be any known one based on the evidence, your conclusion is it must be one you know nothing about.
Kinda like saying God makes people sick.
-
Guys, forget about the disruptors who are here to argue from ignorance because they have nothing better to do and help Maui.
I already gave some money even though I don't have much. I recommend GiveSendGo.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXNHgNUomDI
Just another friendly reminder from gov. and MSM that there's nothing to see here:
https://goo.gl/maps/Wr6vmSyMwzMtgF4z9 (https://goo.gl/maps/Wr6vmSyMwzMtgF4z9)
-
Seems even more unlikely in a hurricane, which typically has alot of rain, making Energy Weapons based on heat largely useless.
Actually, once you catch metal on fire, water is effectively useless in combatting that type of fire. DEW's tend to vaporize other materials.
-
Seems even more unlikely in a hurricane, which typically has alot of rain, making Energy Weapons based on heat largely useless.
Actually, once you catch metal on fire, water is effectively useless in combatting that type of fire. DEW's tend to vaporize other materials.
They also turned the water off during this event, so people couldn't fight the fires for that reason.
If they hadn't turned the water off, it would've been obvious that they were not normal fires.
-
Aren't DEWs line of sight weapons? If so, where was the nearest hurricane that would have been in direct line of sight of Maui at the time?
-
Seems even more unlikely in a hurricane, which typically has alot of rain, making Energy Weapons based on heat largely useless.
Actually, once you catch metal on fire, water is effectively useless in combatting that type of fire. DEW's tend to vaporize other materials.
I'm more referring to the transmission of the energy. You do know that DEWs need to heat up the rain and air before it hits the car, right? Which would be very difficult in a hurricane given the amount of rain that's constantly falling, not only abosorbing the beam, but refracing and weakening it as well.
Also, metal doesn't burn. Well, most don't anyway. Steel can have the carbon burned out but that's it.
The others are more exotic metals that one doesn't have in high quantities in one area.
https://www.scutumlondon.co.uk/help-advice/detect-and-extinguish-class-d-fires/
And yes, water is useless in combatting. If anythiing, if you had potassium, water would make it worse. But cars aren't typically made with these metals. Except EVs. Lithium fires are a thing.
-
Aren't DEWs line of sight weapons? If so, where was the nearest hurricane that would have been in direct line of sight of Maui at the time?
Hurricane Dora was apparently 770 miles SE of Hāna, Maui.
-
Aren't DEWs line of sight weapons? If so, where was the nearest hurricane that would have been in direct line of sight of Maui at the time?
Hurricane Dora was apparently 770 miles SE of Hāna, Maui.
Just a coincidence like this, I'm sure:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/010911.erin.towers.gif)
Imagine thinking this was a coincidence...
-
Aren't DEWs line of sight weapons? If so, where was the nearest hurricane that would have been in direct line of sight of Maui at the time?
Hurricane Dora was apparently 770 miles SE of Hāna, Maui.
Just a coincidence like this, I'm sure:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/010911.erin.towers.gif)
Imagine thinking this was a coincidence...
It was. Why wouln't it be?
-
It was. Why wouln't it be?
Because you didn't even know about it before I posted that picture. DON'T LIE.
They tried to hide this / keep it on the low, plus there were never any warnings about it IN NEW YORK even though it was a major hurricane HEADING FOR NEW YORK.
Since you can't deny that it happened, you're left with "it was just a coincidence". You're just a very boring and ignorant person, "Dave". I don't think you have anything to offer here at all.
-
It was. Why wouln't it be?
Because you didn't even know about it before I posted that picture. DON'T LIE.
They tried to hide this / keep it on the low, plus there were never any warnings about it IN NEW YORK even though it was a major hurricane HEADING FOR NEW YORK.
Since you can't deny that it happened, you're left with "it was just a coincidence". You're just a very boring and ignorant person, "Dave". I don't think you have anything to offer here at all.
??
It wasn't heading for new york. It was hundreds of miles off the coast, veering far away.
And as I recall, september 11, 2001 was fairly nice day, weather wise.
I should know. I was there. I lived about 50 north of NYC.
And asking me about a hurricane from 22 years ago is just dumb. I may have known about it 22 years ago but I can't remember now as such information was not important to retain.
-
??
It wasn't heading for new york. It was hundreds of miles off the coast, veering far away.
And as I recall, september 11, 2001 was fairly nice day, weather wise.
I should know. I was there. I lived about 50 north of NYC.
And asking me about a hurricane from 22 years ago is just dumb. I may have known about it 22 years ago but I can't remember now as such information was not important to retain.
No one knew shit about this at the time. Or even years after. It was barely even mentioned. Even today very few know about it.
How did they know it wasn't going to be a problem? Did they have a CRYSTAL BALL? No hurricane predictions are 100% accurate. Considering it was a major hurricane HEADING FOR NEW YORK (it doesn't matter that you deny this, it's still true), they would've given some type of warning or at least discussed it if there was no agenda to keep silent about it.
Conveniently, It didn't start veering off until AFTER 9/11 and AFTER it reached peak intensity about that time.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WEATHER/09/10/erin/
Because it wasn't predicted to make any landfall, apparently. Note the date.
Odd that such a page existed at that date yet you claim no one knew about it?
Tell me .. where did you live at that time?
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WEATHER/09/10/erin/
Because it wasn't predicted to make any landfall, apparently. Note the date.
Odd that such a page existed at that date yet you claim no one knew about it?
Tell me .. where did you live at that time?
It was barely mentioned like I said. And only to say that it wasn't going to be a problem and that it was going away soon.
Why does it matter where I lived at the time? Huh?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhbZNOSvNsA
Again, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
(They don't allow embedding of this, which is sad.)
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WEATHER/09/10/erin/
Because it wasn't predicted to make any landfall, apparently. Note the date.
Odd that such a page existed at that date yet you claim no one knew about it?
Tell me .. where did you live at that time?
It was barely mentioned like I said. And only to say that it wasn't going to be a problem and that it was going away soon.
Yes. The reason for the first sentence is the second sentence. Like, why would they spent time on a hurricane that posed no danger?
Why does it matter where I lived at the time? Huh?
Because if you lived somewhere not on the East Coast, you'd have heard even less about it. And likely less about every hurricane compared to the people who are affected by such storms.
So YOU claiming that it was barely mentioned maybe also colored by your typical local media coverage.
But I get it. Don't wanna say and sound like an idiot.
-
SHARE!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs3o3z0G8tw
-
Please watch & share the video above "48-yr Arborist questions Maui WildFire and shares insights.". It's extremely important and relevant.
Also, see the ongoing tyranny for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9205GPrC8k
I thought the USA was supposed to be the freest country on Earth?
Now even Saudi Arabia is freer thanks to all the new generations of government-indoctrinated idiots like that insufferable woman cop.
But this brave woman gave one of the best speeches of all time and it will never get MSM air time (so share it too):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2VYrxfuXGY
-
Bump to commemorate 9/11's anniversary and to give this more visibility.
"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."
- Osama bin Laden, September 2001
(https://i.snipboard.io/Y1ftUz.jpg)
-
What are you highlighting?
-
What are you highlighting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FnuKGTfbfk
-
Why are they talking like that pile of rubble is everything? Can't they see the rubble everywhere? Thats literally a pile on top of a larger layer of rubble.
-
Why are they talking like that pile of rubble is everything? Can't they see the rubble everywhere? Thats literally a pile on top of a larger layer of rubble.
There was barely any rubble left and it was all at ground level or very close to ground level.
Don't make sense if it's supposed to be 500000 tons that just "fell down".
-
Why are they talking like that pile of rubble is everything? Can't they see the rubble everywhere? Thats literally a pile on top of a larger layer of rubble.
There was barely any rubble left and it was all at ground level or very close to ground level.
Don't make sense if it's supposed to be 500000 tons that just "fell down".
From https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/ground-zero
Crews built roads across the site to make it easier to haul away the debris. (By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.)
Further how would not "just falling down" (whatever that would be) reduce the mass of the buildings? Quite a large number of folks watched them fall live on television. So just what are you claiming?
-
By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.)
You got any proof (ok, let's say evidence to make it easier for ya) of that? I know that the trucks were working hard to remove all the evidence... but 1.8 million tons? Well, let's just say that I had a 1.8 million ton shit yesterday, you just have to believe me.
-
By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.)
You got any proof (ok, let's say evidence to make it easier for ya) of that? I know that the trucks were working hard to remove all the evidence... but 1.8 million tons? Well, let's just say that I had a 1.8 million ton shit yesterday, you just have to believe me.
Merely claiming that every source that does not match your claims is not to be trusted is hardly credible. Further you failed to address my questions. Your trolling is really at a pathetic level.
-
Merely claiming that every source that does not match your claims is not to be trusted is hardly credible. Further you failed to address my questions. Your trolling is really at a pathetic level.
Actually the question was if you had any evidence for the claim you just tried to pass as a fact one comment ago.
No? Ok, then.
I would prefer it if you didn't tarnish this thread with your pathetic unsubstantiated claims.
-
Merely claiming that every source that does not match your claims is not to be trusted is hardly credible. Further you failed to address my questions. Your trolling is really at a pathetic level.
Actually the question was if you had any evidence for the claim you just tried to pass as a fact one comment ago.
History.com is seen as pretty reliable as far as I know.
The questions you did not answer were MY questions and are pretty basic
Further how would not "just falling down" (whatever that would be) reduce the mass of the buildings? Quite a large number of folks watched them fall live on television. So just what are you claiming?
-
One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...
-
One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...
I know more about it than you. Which is not saying much. But that's okay, you didn't have a lot of time on this Earth to study and you have video games to play.
-
One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...
Perhaps. Though their MO seems to be to demand proof of anything claimed by established sources while blindly accepting random cruft on the internet. A from of extreme trolling for lack of a better label. Such would not require that they actually believe that they are correct but that they enjoy claiming that everyone else is wrong. Which seems to be a pretty dominant theme among FEers generally. Oh well.
-
Perhaps. Though their MO seems to be to demand proof of anything claimed by established sources while blindly accepting random cruft on the internet. A from of extreme trolling for lack of a better label. Such would not require that they actually believe that they are correct but that they enjoy claiming that everyone else is wrong. Oh well.
So you won't provide any evidence for the claim you cited from the "established source" because belief is good enough for you. That's fine, but this is a serious thread. I didn't ask if history.com is an "established source", I asked you to provide evidence for the ridiculous claim that you tried to pass as a fact. Won't do it? Okay, I suggest you move on then. Your opinion about me or "they" is not required AND not welcome, and it only tarnishes the thread. Not to mention that it doesn't look good for you when you also believe making empty claims makes you right.
This is the second time I tell you. Will you behave or not?
-
Perhaps. Though their MO seems to be to demand proof of anything claimed by established sources while blindly accepting random cruft on the internet. A from of extreme trolling for lack of a better label. Such would not require that they actually believe that they are correct but that they enjoy claiming that everyone else is wrong. Oh well.
So you won't provide any evidence for the claim you cited from the "established source"
If you do not accept the established count of truckloads removed from the site, what evidence would you accept?
Since there is no doubt at all that the buildings did indeed collapse, where would the mass of the buildings end up other than in the debris pile?
-
If you do not accept the established count of truckloads removed from the site, what evidence would you accept?
Oh, you established that count, did you? How did you establish it? Or did gov. and history.com did that for you?
Are you capable of thinking for yourself little buddy?
Can you explain why it's exactly 108,000? Why not 177,999 or 108,001? Why not 169,876 or 111,755? Damn, what a coincidence that it was exactly 108,000 truckloads needed for 1.8 million tons. Not less, not more.
"Established count" LOL
-
If you do not accept the established count of truckloads removed from the site, what evidence would you accept?
Oh, you established that count, did you? How did you establish it? Or did gov. and history.com did that for you?
Yes I let history.com and their sources establish it for me.
Are you capable of thinking for yourself little buddy?
I was not present at the site counting the trucks, were you?
Can you explain why it's exactly 108,000? Why not 177,999 or 108,001? Why not 169,876 or 111,755? Damn, what a coincidence that it was exactly 108,000 truckloads necessary for 1.8 million tons. Not less, not more.
"Established count" LOL
What difference does it make if its +/- a few truckloads? The loads were certainly not uniform either so the 1.8M tons is also just an estimate.
AGAIN: Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?
-
You don't say that it's an estimate that someone pulled out of their ass? But I thought your whole argument was that it was an "established count" lmfao. Not anymore, I guess.
Maybe you're learning something after all. Baby steps...
-
You don't say that it's an estimate that someone pulled out of their ass? But I thought your whole argument was that it was an "established count" lmfao. Not anymore, I guess.
The count may well be exact but the tonnage is clearly an estimate (I thought that was obvious). Even if the count is approximate, again (which of course you will not answer) what difference does it make?
and the key question for which you obviously have no answer is:
Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?
-
The count may well be exact but the tonnage is clearly an estimate (I thought that was obvious). Even if the count is approximate, again (which of course you will not answer) what difference does it make?
It's not about the estimate, it's about how much was actually removed.
Are you learning yet?
-
The count may well be exact but the tonnage is clearly an estimate (I thought that was obvious). Even if the count is approximate, again (which of course you will not answer) what difference does it make?
It's not about the estimate, it's about how much was actually removed.
Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?
-
Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?
That's your assignment for next week. You have to figure it out.
Until then you'll just have to believe me like you believe history.com when I tell you that nowhere near 1.8 million tons were removed. :-*
-
Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?
That's your assignment for next week. You have to figure it out.
So you have no answer. Classic troll behavior.
-
So you have no answer. Classic troll behavior.
I do have an answer. Not for you, though. Not until you're willing to do your homework and turn your brain on.
This thread is not about 9/11, so this is already off-topic and I think you have tarnished this thread enough. So, enough nonsense from you already. Control yourself, please.
-
*sigh* his claim is that most of the mass was incinerated. Vaporized. Turned to nothingness. By a hurricane powered laser beam.
Nevermind the required energy to vaporize cement or the whole atomic explosion that would result in converting matter to energy.
-
*sigh* his claim is that most of the mass was incinerated. Vaporized. Turned to nothingness. By a hurricane powered laser beam.
Actually, it's not. My claim is that most of it got dustified and turned into fine dust. Because that's what happened.
That's why you have people coughing up blood and dying to this day, or having all types of health problems and cancers. Never forget that the gov. told you the air was safe to breathe. Did the planes cause all those health issues too? Must be the deadliest planes in history bar none. They even kill people 20 years later! And they didn't even carry any bombs. Wow!
-
*sigh* his claim is that most of the mass was incinerated. Vaporized. Turned to nothingness. By a hurricane powered laser beam.
Actually, it's not. My claim is that most of it got dustified and turned into fine dust. Because that's what happened.
That's why you have people coughing up blood and dying to this day, or having all types of health problems and cancers.
There was certainly a lot of dust which was not healthy to breath. I don't think anyone disputes that. But you have not begun to establish the mass of material needed to produce that dust so as to claim it was an appreciable porting of the total building mass.
-
There was certainly a lot of dust which was not healthy to breath. I don't think anyone disputes that. But you have not begun to establish the mass of material needed to produce that dust so as to claim it was an appreciable porting of the total building mass.
The evidence speaks for itself. Can you show me the 1.8 million tons? Where did they go?
-
There was certainly a lot of dust which was not healthy to breath. I don't think anyone disputes that. But you have not begun to establish the mass of material needed to produce that dust so as to claim it was an appreciable porting of the total building mass.
The evidence speaks for itself. Can you show me the 1.8 million tons? Where did they go?
Staten Island
https://www.dsnyremembers.org/fresh-kills-recovery
-
Actually, I'mma gonna question 1.8 million tons too.
https://911memorial.org/learn/resources/world-trade-center-history#:~:text=The%20towers%20were%20massive.,its%20own%20zip%20code%3A%2010048.
Says each tower was 250,000 tons. So the total rubble should be like 500,000-900,000 given other buildings, room fixtures, office stuff, toilets, tile, etc....
1.8 million tons would be double both towers.
-
There was certainly a lot of dust which was not healthy to breath. I don't think anyone disputes that. But you have not begun to establish the mass of material needed to produce that dust so as to claim it was an appreciable porting of the total building mass.
The evidence speaks for itself. Can you show me the 1.8 million tons? Where did they go?
Staten Island
https://www.dsnyremembers.org/fresh-kills-recovery
Oh wow, that's definitely evidence of those 1.8 million tons. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
I also noticed that this webpage was seemingly created in 2021 and not 2001 or 2002. Of course, I'm sure it's just coincidence.
-
Tho .. Duality, did you and your videos, take into account the 5 stories under the towers too? They were full of rubble too.
-
The physics factbook at
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml
says 500,000 for EACH tower.
Though I'm not sure what difference it makes. Everyone agrees there was a lot of dust that was not healthy to breath in and has lead to many bad health outcomes for those that did so. Not sure what Daulity's point is, or if they even have one.
-
Tho .. Duality, did you and your videos, take into account the 5 stories under the towers too? They were full of rubble too.
That's the thing. The stories below ground did not "pancake" like those above ground. Why not?
Supposedly 500000 tons fell down on them, remember. Do you know what would've happened to those 5 floors if that was true? And to "the bathtub" around them?
-
]
Oh wow, that's definitely evidence of those 1.8 million tons
Where did that figure come from?
The Twin Towers weighed around 500,000 tons:
https://911memorial.org/learn/resources/world-trade-center-history#:~:text=The%20towers%20were%20massive.,its%20own%20zip%20code%3A%2010048.
Your original claim was that there was “barely any rubble left”. This is incorrect, multiple sources testify to that.
It’s hilarious how you hand wave away anything which doesn’t fit your narrative. Compare and contrast with a video you posted the other day which you claimed was real testimony. The video was some YouTuber who claimed he had information from a retired pilot who’d emailed the YouTuber but wanted to remain anonymous. That’s the level of evidence you’ll accept when something does fit your narrative. Embarrassing.
I also noticed that this webpage was seemingly created in 2021 and not 2001 or 2002. Of course, I'm sure it's just coincidence.
Coincidental with what? Why does it matter when the article was written?
-
Your original claim was that there was “barely any rubble left”. This is incorrect, multiple sources testify to that.
It’s hilarious how you hand wave away anything which doesn’t fit your narrative. Compare and contrast with a video you posted the other day which you claimed was real testimony. The video was some YouTuber who claimed he had information from a retired pilot who’d emailed the YouTuber but wanted to remain anonymous. That’s the level of evidence you’ll accept when something does fit your narrative. Embarrassing.
Well, if you presented actual evidence I would not dismiss it. So you need to try harder. I already know that evidence doesn't exist, but keep trying to find it with your Google searches. You probably know nothing about 9/11 anyway since you were probably born around that time by my estimations.
Again you're bringing up things that are from AR here. But anyway, yes, that pilot, or whoever, made a statement. I don't see you making a thread to debunk what that pilot's, or whoever's, point was. Because in the end it doesn't matter if it's a pilot saying it or not, a piece of information got presented and I don't see any debunking of it. Just you complaining like a child.
Oh, and btw, forgot to say that he's no longer anonymous.
-
The physics factbook at
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml
says 500,000 for EACH tower.
Though I'm not sure what difference it makes. Everyone agrees there was a lot of dust that was not healthy to breath in and has lead to many bad health outcomes for those that did so. Not sure what Daulity's point is, or if they even have one.
Weird that the 911memorial.org would have the wrong numbers... or the other one would....
Tho .. Duality, did you and your videos, take into account the 5 stories under the towers too? They were full of rubble too.
That's the thing. The stories below ground did not "pancake" like those above ground. Why not?
Supposedly 500000 tons fell down on them, remember. Do you know what would've happened to those 5 floors if that was true? And to "the bathtub" around them?
https://assets1.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/2018/09/08/32f9d3a9-2bd2-4c6c-8785-5cabc88f8b12/gettyimages-1164270.jpg
I'm pretty sure it all got flattened or at least very destroyed. Likely not fully pancaked becauae the structures were braced against the solid ground and not all the mass fell on it. As you noted, alot of the concrete was pulverized. Debris fell and spread as it did, as things do in uncontrolled demolitions.
-
I'm pretty sure it all got flattened or at least very destroyed. Likely not fully pancaked becauae the structures were braced against the solid ground and not all the mass fell on it. As you noted, alot of the concrete was pulverized. Debris fell and spread as it did, as things do in uncontrolled demolitions.
You're "pretty sure"? It didn't happen. None of the floors underground got "flattened"/"pancaked" like (supposedly) the floors above. In fact some of the underground WTC stuff survived with minor damage, and "the bathtub" was unscathed too. Amazing considering 1 million tons fell on it. Not only that, but you got even people surviving 500000 tons falling on them. Wow!
-
I'm pretty sure it all got flattened or at least very destroyed. Likely not fully pancaked becauae the structures were braced against the solid ground and not all the mass fell on it. As you noted, alot of the concrete was pulverized. Debris fell and spread as it did, as things do in uncontrolled demolitions.
You're "pretty sure"? It didn't happen. None of the floors underground got "flattened"/"pancaked" like (supposedly) the floors above. In fact some of the underground WTC stuff survived with minor damage, and "the bathtub" was unscathed too. Amazing considering 1 million tons fell on it. Not only that, but you got even people surviving 500000 tons falling on them. Wow!
???
Nnnooo... the mall was destroyed. The rail station was destroyed too. And that was the lowest level. Did you not click the picture link?
-
Well, if you presented actual evidence I would not dismiss it. So you need to try harder.
Your definition of "actual evidence" is "something which confirms which you want to believe". Anything else you just dismiss without explanation.
I already know that evidence doesn't exist
QED :)
You probably know nothing about 9/11 anyway since you were probably born around that time by my estimations.
I'll add this to the ever growing list of things you're wrong about :)
But anyway, yes, that pilot, or whoever, made a statement.
And by "that pilot" you mean some person who the YouTuber claims emailed him but wishes to remain anonymous so there's no way of checking his credentials, determining whether he really was a pilot or even if he exists at all. But that's the level of evidence you'll accept when something confirms your worldview. Anything that doesn't is dismissed immediately.
Oh, and btw, forgot to say that he's no longer anonymous.
He was at the time of the YouTube video you presented, but you didn't care about that. He was saying something which fitted your narrative so no further questions. :)
-
The child needs his quote-mining tactic and his projecting in another desperate attempt to make himself look right. And he needs to tell me what evidence is when he hasn't the faintest. He believes a story on some webpage is "evidence" just like the "ichoosereality" buffoon. You don't choose reality, you choose to believe everything and anything that goes with the narrative. Sad, pathetic, lazy non-thinking.
Enough of your deplorable childish nonsense. Grow up.
-
And he needs to tell me what evidence is when he hasn't the faintest.
Of course I know what evidence is. It's something which confirms what you want to believe.
Anything that doesn't do that isn't evidence.
Simple! :)
-
And he needs to tell me what evidence is when he hasn't the faintest.
Of course I know what evidence is. It's something which confirms what you want to believe.
Anything that doesn't do that isn't evidence.
Simple! :)
Now look into a mirror and say that, and maybe - just maybe - you will learn something.
Your standard of "evidence" is so miserable that it's not even worth addressing.
Meanwhile, you just hand-wave dismiss any actual evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs, and then you project that onto me like a mental patient.
I'm done with you. Like I said, time for you to grow up.
-
The child needs his quote-mining tactic and his projecting in another desperate attempt to make himself look right. And he needs to tell me what evidence is when he hasn't the faintest. He believes a story on some webpage is "evidence" just like the "ichoosereality" buffoon. You don't choose reality, you choose to believe everything and anything that goes with the narrative. Sad, pathetic, lazy non-thinking.
Enough of your deplorable childish nonsense. Grow up.
Isn't that how you get your info? A story on a website?
Or do you have first hand experience with the amount of debis that was removed as well as the damage?
Did you see the rubble pile in person?
-
Isn't that how you get your info? A story on a website?
Or do you have first hand experience with the amount of debis that was removed as well as the damage?
Did you see the rubble pile in person?
9/11 is one of the most documented crimes in history (in fact, more likely than not it IS the most documented large-scale crime), I don't need to have been there in person. Most people in the world weren't there in person.
But nice try, "Dave".
I have studied 9/11 EXTENSIVELY. From your comments, I know that you haven't studied it at all. So I would suggest that you humble yourself accordingly.
And, let's not forget that this thread isn't about 9/11. Thank you.
-
Isn't that how you get your info? A story on a website?
Or do you have first hand experience with the amount of debis that was removed as well as the damage?
Did you see the rubble pile in person?
9/11 is one of the most documented crimes in history (in fact, more likely than not it IS the most documented large-scale crime), I don't need to have been there in person. Most people in the world weren't there in person.
But nice try, "Dave".
I have studied 9/11 EXTENSIVELY. From your comments, I know that you haven't studied it at all. So I would suggest that you humble yourself accordingly.
And, let's not forget that this thread isn't about 9/11. Thank you.
And you studied it... how?
What sources did you use? Were they in books or on websites?
-
And you studied it... how?
I bet he's dOnE hIs OwN rEsEaRcH.
Yes, I do mean watched a load of YouTube videos. In his world that seems to pass for independent thought. Weird.
-
Forget about the abundant menchildren here and listen to a real man tell you about the real situation in Maui:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hobyFp05_tM
-
Forget about the abundant menchildren here and listen to a real man tell you about the real situation in Maui:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hobyFp05_tM
Listen to someone bitch about his life?
And that celebrities are trying to raise money?
Is that how you define a man? Cause I get up at 4am. And I can afford to replace a headlight and 4 tires at the same time.
-
Listen to someone bitch about his life?
And that celebrities are trying to raise money?
Is that how you define a man? Cause I get up at 4am. And I can afford to replace a headlight and 4 tires at the same time.
HE LOST EVERYTHING AND RECEIVED NOTHING. SAME WITH EVERYONE ELSE. NOBODY SEES A SINGLE PENNY FROM THOSE CLOWNS.
Don't get me pissed off because it's not gonna be pretty.
When did he say he lost everything? Seems like he's got a house, car, business....
-
Don't get me pissed off because it's not gonna be pretty.
What are you going to do, type in all caps?
He didn't lose everything, it doesn't sound like he was even there or lost anything. He's just whining about rich celebrities asking ordinary people for money.
He has a point to be fair, but it's nothing to do with this thread.
-
He didn't lose everything, it doesn't sound like he was even there or lost anything. He's just whining about rich celebrities asking ordinary people for money.
He has a point to be fair, but it's nothing to do with this thread.
Ok, I double-checked and for once you are right.
But it does have something do with the thread. This thread is not about 9/11, it's about Maui.
-
I get up at 4am. And I can afford to replace a headlight and 4 tires at the same time.
Wow, amazing. I don't get up anywhere near that early and I can still afford repairs. In fact I just repaired my car last week.
Getting up at 4 am isn't healthy, but that's your problem.
-
I get up at 4am. And I can afford to replace a headlight and 4 tires at the same time.
Wow, amazing. I don't get up anywhere near that early and I can still afford repairs. In fact I just repaired my car last week.
Getting up at 4 am isn't healthy, but that's your problem.
Baby. My son doesn't always sleep well and doesn't sleep through the night so wife and I take shifts. She has 7:30am-4am.
I have 4am-7:30am 6:00pm-7pm.
-
Also, why show a guy mad others ask people to donate to maui?
Because seems like the worse offenders are super rich people who ask for money from ordinary people so he can use it on himself.
-
Also, why show a guy mad others ask people to donate to maui?
Because seems like the worse offenders are super rich people who ask for money from ordinary people so he can use it on himself.
Inform yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFXDktQgeP4
It's clickbaity but nowadays you have channels like this on YouTube that do a better job at informing people than any MSM nonsense.
Alas, they forgot about the blue shirts.
And no, I don't agree with every conspiracy theory that is mentioned in the video. It's information, and some of it I'm pretty sure is wrong.
-
Also, why show a guy mad others ask people to donate to maui?
Because seems like the worse offenders are super rich people who ask for money from ordinary people so he can use it on himself.
Inform yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFXDktQgeP4
It's clickbaity but nowadays you have channels like this on YouTube that do a better job at informing people than any MSM nonsense.
Alas, they forgot about the blue shirts.
And no, I don't agree with every conspiracy theory that is mentioned in the video. It's information, and some of it I'm pretty sure is wrong.
Then Tom Hanks should bring it out to the Hawaii state police.
Or at least post this info on his own channel.
-
Then Tom Hanks should bring it out to the Hawaii state police.
Or at least post this info on his own channel.
It's not about Tom Hanks, but feel free to call him up to bring it to his attention lol.
If I linked a video is for you to watch it, not to assume the content based on a clickbaity title and thumbnail, which I already told you was clickbait beforehand.
I would tell you you can do better than that, but I know you're not capable because you've shown that.
But anyway, even if you watched it I doubt that you would have any valuable opinions about it.
-
Then Tom Hanks should bring it out to the Hawaii state police.
Or at least post this info on his own channel.
It's not about Tom Hanks, but feel free to call him up to bring it to his attention lol.
If I linked a video is for you to watch it, not to assume the content based on a clickbaity title and thumbnail, which I already told you was clickbait beforehand.
I would tell you you can do better than that, but I know you're not capable because you've shown that.
But anyway, even if you watched it I doubt that you would have any valuable opinions about it.
And I doubt you even understand the video. Its just another brainwashing program for you, isn't it?
Especially if Tom Hanks isn't actually talking in it.
And why would I give some con artist a view?
-
And I doubt you even understand the video. Its just another brainwashing program for you, isn't it?
Especially if Tom Hanks isn't actually talking in it.
And why would I give some con artist a view?
I would strongly suggest that you give up your hobby of arguing with people online (you said it, not me) when you're such a weak opponent that you're not willing to look at information.
Added to ignore list because you're a time-waster.
-
And I doubt you even understand the video. Its just another brainwashing program for you, isn't it?
Especially if Tom Hanks isn't actually talking in it.
And why would I give some con artist a view?
I would strongly suggest that you give up your hobby of arguing with people online (you said it, not me) when you're such a weak opponent that you're not willing to look at information.
Added to ignore list because you're a time-waster.
When you show me information and not fantasy, I'll look at it.
-
This video got burried by all the nonsense, so I'm gonna go ahead and post it again due to its importance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs3o3z0G8tw
Also, before anyone gets any ideas of "I know better", remember that you're not supposed to argue with the teacher.
-
This video got burried by all the nonsense, so I'm gonna go ahead and post it again due to its importance:
....
Maybe learn something about how fire spreads before spreading more manure. Perhaps these will help https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42851/are-these-photos-of-burned-home-surrounded-by-pristine-trees-in-california-due-t
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-maui-wildfires-trees-poles-standing-944458337667
-
This video got burried by all the nonsense, so I'm gonna go ahead and post it again due to its importance:
....
Maybe learn something about how fire spreads before spreading more manure. Perhaps these will help https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42851/are-these-photos-of-burned-home-surrounded-by-pristine-trees-in-california-due-t
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-maui-wildfires-trees-poles-standing-944458337667
Could you please address any specifics from the video please? Since you're clearly the expert and you did not just copy-paste the first two links that you found on Google that seem to debunk hypotheses that there's anything at all suspicious with the Maui fires.
Guess what, they don't debunk anything. I looked at the info in those links and they address exactly zero specifics. At best it is broad conjecture.
-
This video got burried by all the nonsense, so I'm gonna go ahead and post it again due to its importance:
....
Maybe learn something about how fire spreads before spreading more manure. Perhaps these will help https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42851/are-these-photos-of-burned-home-surrounded-by-pristine-trees-in-california-due-t
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-maui-wildfires-trees-poles-standing-944458337667
Could you please address any specifics from the video please? Since you're clearly the expert and you did not just copy-paste the first two links that you found on Google that seem to debunk hypotheses that there's anything at all suspicious with the Maui fires.
Guess what, they don't debunk anything. I looked at the info in those links and they address exactly zero specifics. At best it is broad conjecture.
They (and others like say this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/photos-from-california-wildfires-reveal-lessons-for-b-c-1.4905324 ) address why structures are OFTEN reduced to ash while nearby trees remain. The structures are made of dry wood so ignite easily and burn fast and hot. So fast that nearby trees do not get hot enough to burn. The phenomenon is well known.
-
They (and others like say this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/photos-from-california-wildfires-reveal-lessons-for-b-c-1.4905324 ) address why structures are OFTEN reduced to ash while nearby trees remain. The structures are made of dry wood so ignite easily and burn fast and hot. So fast that nearby trees do not get hot enough to burn. The phenomenon is well known.
The previous incidents in California that you're offering as "evidence of wildfire" are put into question too - especially so by the expert in the video I posted. So what are you supposed to be debunking by offering that? Did you even watch the video? Clearly you did not.
-
They (and others like say this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/photos-from-california-wildfires-reveal-lessons-for-b-c-1.4905324 ) address why structures are OFTEN reduced to ash while nearby trees remain. The structures are made of dry wood so ignite easily and burn fast and hot. So fast that nearby trees do not get hot enough to burn. The phenomenon is well known.
The previous incidents in California that you're offering as "evidence of wildfire" are put into question too - especially so by the expert in the video I posted. So what are you supposed to be debunking by offering that? Did you even watch the video? Clearly you did not.
Yes I watched most of it. The arborist in your video is a self-proclaimed fire expert but simply logic shows him to be wrong. In many instances we see structures burn but nearby trees or poles do not. So clearly the house being on fire does not produce sufficient heat to ignite the trees. The only question remaining then is how does the fire spread from structure to structure. This also is easily explained by embers which can easily ignite DRY material in and around a house (draperies, wood shingles, rugs, etc.) but will not ignite growing trees which are wetter. His claim that space based microwave weapons were used is silly. If sufficient energy were transmitted to ignite a dry house, nearby wet trees would explode. Further who does he claim is doing this, the US (why?) the Russians (why would we not call them out for such an act of war?). and doing it for decades? That makes no sense either. His whole video is just layering nonsense speculation on top of ignorance.
-
Yes I watched most of it. The arborist in your video is a self-proclaimed fire expert but simply logic shows him to be wrong. In many instances we see structures burn but nearby trees or poles do not. So clearly the house being on fire does not produce sufficient heat to ignite the trees. The only question remaining then is how does the fire spread from structure to structure. This also is easily explained by embers which can easily ignite DRY material in and around a house (draperies, wood shingles, rugs, etc.) but will not ignite growing trees which are wetter. His claim that space based microwave weapons were used is silly. If sufficient energy were transmitted to ignite a dry house, nearby wet trees would explode. Further who does he claim is doing this, the US (why?) the Russians (why would we not call them out for such an act of war?). and doing it for decades? That makes no sense either. His whole video is just layering nonsense speculation on top of ignorance.
lol No, that is not the only question remaining. Not even close. Which again tells me you did not watch the video. Or you didn't pay attention. And you're supposed to watch all of it, not "most of it" (whatever that means lol).
I don't care about your opinion, I only care about facts. You haven't addressed any specifics, you just offer "embers explain everything" while ignoring that they do not. Again, not even close.
So, either show facts and start addressing specifics, or stop typing.
But if you have nothing to offer except "embers explain everything" then I already know that this conversation is going nowhere because it is clearly just your confirmation bias at work and you show you know nothing about this subject. The reality of the situation is that flying embers explain either very little or nothing. Unless you wanna claim that somehow Maui got firebombed or napalmed (but that would still not explain the many anomalies that don't match either of those claims).
-
Yes I watched most of it. The arborist in your video is a self-proclaimed fire expert but simply logic shows him to be wrong. In many instances we see structures burn but nearby trees or poles do not. So clearly the house being on fire does not produce sufficient heat to ignite the trees. The only question remaining then is how does the fire spread from structure to structure. This also is easily explained by embers which can easily ignite DRY material in and around a house (draperies, wood shingles, rugs, etc.) but will not ignite growing trees which are wetter. His claim that space based microwave weapons were used is silly. If sufficient energy were transmitted to ignite a dry house, nearby wet trees would explode. Further who does he claim is doing this, the US (why?) the Russians (why would we not call them out for such an act of war?). and doing it for decades? That makes no sense either. His whole video is just layering nonsense speculation on top of ignorance.
lol No, that is not the only question remaining. Not even close. Which again tells me you did not watch the video. Or you didn't pay attention. And you're supposed to watch all of it, not "most of it" (whatever that means lol).
I don't care about your opinion, I only care about facts. You haven't addressed any specifics, you just offer "embers explain everything" while ignoring that they do not. Again, not even close.
So, either show facts and start addressing specifics, or stop typing.
I gave facts, the links I offered give more, you simply do not want to hear them.
-
I gave facts, the links I offered give more, you simply do not want to hear them.
Well, when a child tells me that a car runs on marshmallows and it needs more because it gets hungry he thinks he's giving me the facts too.
-
Why a DEW and not a particle weapon?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inUEwY0IwrM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oro78Z6RNvs
-
... youtube link deleted ...
Fires were burning on Maui long before 2:20pm 8/8/23
https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-deadly-wildfires-maui-day-day/story?id=102253075
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inUEwY0IwrM
IR or near IR has nothing to do with the color blue.
100s of kw range? BWAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHA
Oh my god... does he not know how to do math?
Also... 1 mile long? Then its not even close to orbit. Low Earth Orbig is 1,200 miles from the surface.
And now they're talking about 1 megawatt? Make up your mind video.
And how is he doing his math?
OH I see now.
He's doing selective copying...
https://www.misterrobots.com/lasers
So the video is taking alot of assumptions not in the original calculations.
Like the whole burning is either a piece of paper or dry grass.
It would take 8.8 seconds of CONTINUIOUS ENERGY to melt 1 alumunum wheel.
And as is pointed out
"Most likely severe fire temperatures could also cause liquification of aluminum allow car wheels"
Basically... the whole video is bunked.
Of course, this video contradicts your assumption that its a US decivce using Vortex energy.
So... maybe you can stick to just one script?
-
Fires were burning on Maui long before 2:20pm 8/8/23
https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-deadly-wildfires-maui-day-day/story?id=102253075
And?
-
Fires were burning on Maui long before 2:20pm 8/8/23
https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-deadly-wildfires-maui-day-day/story?id=102253075
And?
The video claims they were started at 2:20pm 8/8/23, did you not watch it yourself?
-
The video claims they were started at 2:20pm 8/8/23, did you not watch it yourself?
Uuuh no, it doesn't.
The actual claims are at 3:14.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mppuqs7YF0
-
If this was a laser, how'd he survive? How'd those trees survive?
Me thinks this was a normal fire...
-
If this was a laser, how'd he survive? How'd those trees survive?
Me thinks this was a normal fire...
I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically) - you just took the narrative from the previous video and told me that's now my "script" because you desperately need a straw man to attack and you think everyone's running on a script like you.
You're either on the wrong forum or you have the wrong brain or the wrong intentions, hence why you're appropriately going to continue to get ignored by me more likely than not.
-
If this was a laser, how'd he survive? How'd those trees survive?
Me thinks this was a normal fire...
I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically) - you just took the narrative from the previous video and told me that's now my "script" because you desperately need a straw man to attack and you think everyone's running on a script like you.
You're either on the wrong forum or you have the wrong brain or the wrong intentions, hence why you're appropriately going to continue to get ignored by me more likely than not.
When you post something, especially without comment, it is understood to be something you support. If you post a video but do not agree with its content, you should say so.
-
When you post something, especially without comment, it is understood to be something you support. If you post a video but do not agree with its content, you should say so.
Is that so?
All the videos I post are food for thought for those who are actually capable of thinking for themselves (not my fault that this is hard for you). Not to mention that it's all pieces of a larger puzzle because no one knows exactly what happened and hence using your brain and using discernment are obviously required.
Your interpretation that I "support" everything the videos say is utter garbage just like pretty much everything you post. And your opinion that I should announce what I personally agree or don't agree with irrelevant.
-
The video claims they were started at 2:20pm 8/8/23, did you not watch it yourself?
Uuuh no, it doesn't.
The actual claims are at 3:14.
I was referring to the section at 7:10.
I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)...
Are you claiming that an object in space was powered by a hurricane a few thousand miles below it? How even in theory would that occur?
As LordDave says, if you do not agree with the contents of something you post it would be good to point that out.
-
I was referring to the section at 7:10.
Yeah, well, the actual claims are where I told you, so curb your nonsense. That 2:20 pm is just one of the times given for a different satellite and it is in UTC. So your whole "argument" is just pathetically wrong just like everything you've said in this thread so far. Stop embarassing yourself.
-
I was referring to the section at 7:10.
Yeah, well, the actual claims are where I told you, so curb your nonsense. That 2:20 pm is just one of the times given for a different satellite and it is in UTC.
True enough, but it still does not match the timeline.
I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)...
I note you declined to explain your claim.
-
I was referring to the section at 7:10.
Yeah, well, the actual claims are where I told you, so curb your nonsense. That 2:20 pm is just one of the times given for a different satellite and it is in UTC.
True enough, but it still does not match the timeline.
Please do elaborate.
I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)...
I note you declined to explain your claim.
I would explain nothing to you even if you paid me. You already tried to misrepresent my claim and turn it into "Are you claiming that an object in space was powered by a hurricane a few thousand miles below it?". Wtf are you talking about. Everything you say makes zero sense, so I'm already suspecting that it's all deliberately meant to not make sense and confuse people. It's either that or you really are that stupid.
-
I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)...
I note you declined to explain your claim.
I would explain nothing to you even if you paid me. You already tried to misrepresent my claim and turn it into "Are you claiming that an object in space was powered by a hurricane a few thousand miles below it?". Wtf are you talking about.
I did not misrepresent anything, I only asked a question. Obviously I am talking about your statement that the weapon, in orbit, "..used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)."
-
your statement that the weapon, in orbit, "..used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)."
You're stitching together a part of my statement with your own garbage and claiming it is still my statement. Now you just went from suspicious to dishonest and next it's going to be you're a liar.
Elaborate about the timeline or GTFO.
-
your statement that the weapon, in orbit, "..used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically)."
You're stitching together a part of my statement with your own garbage and claiming it is still my statement. Now you just went from suspicious to dishonest and next it's going to be you're a liar.
Here is your statement
I never said it was "a laser" or made any claims about the weapon other than it used the power of the hurricane in some way (obviously electrically) - you just took the narrative from the previous video and told me that's now my "script" because you desperately need a straw man to attack and you think everyone's running on a script like you.
What does that mean? Aren't you talking about a weapon in orbit? and how would it use the power of a hurricane?
re the timeline of the fires, the video you present makes very precise claims, like "the Olinda fire was ignited at approximately 10:47pm August 7th". But the reports I find like this one
https://www.mauicounty.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=12621 (https://www.mauicounty.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=12621)
only sayShortly after midnight this morning, a brush fire was reported in the Olinda Road area of Kula. Residents in the Auli’i Drive area were evacuated at 3:45 a.m. At 4:50 a.m. residents of Hanamu Road were also evacuated. Firefighter crews from Kula, Makawao, Kahului, and Wailea are on scene. The Fire Department’s Air One helicopter was launched at daybreak to conduct aerial assessment of the fire.
So could it have started at 10:47pm? sure, but we do not know that as far as I can tell. Claiming things that precisely match a particular scenario but are not established facts is a classic misinformation technique.
-
re the timeline of the fires, the video you present makes very precise claims, like "the Olinda fire was ignited at approximately 10:47pm August 7th". But the reports I find like this one
https://www.mauicounty.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=12621 (https://www.mauicounty.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=12621)
only sayShortly after midnight this morning, a brush fire was reported in the Olinda Road area of Kula. Residents in the Auli’i Drive area were evacuated at 3:45 a.m. At 4:50 a.m. residents of Hanamu Road were also evacuated. Firefighter crews from Kula, Makawao, Kahului, and Wailea are on scene. The Fire Department’s Air One helicopter was launched at daybreak to conduct aerial assessment of the fire.
So could it have started at 10:47pm? sure, but we do not know that as far as I can tell. Claiming things that precisely match a particular scenario but are not established facts is a classic misinformation technique.
Well, you would find the source of those claimed timings if you actually did your research instead of trying to misrepresent my claims with "weapons in orbit" when I never talked about weapons in orbit in my entire life. And I also never said that the hurricane "powers the weapon", just that the weapon utilizes the power of the hurricane in some way, which is completely different. So I would appreciate if you don't keep trying to misrepresent what I say.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/lahaina-residents-say-police-barricades-prevented-people-from-fleeing-raging-fires-5483563 (https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/lahaina-residents-say-police-barricades-prevented-people-from-fleeing-raging-fires-5483563)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-maui-fire-start-cause-lahaina-hawaii-wildfire/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-maui-fire-start-cause-lahaina-hawaii-wildfire/)
https://www.facebook.com/countyofmaui/posts/671173878373895/ (https://www.facebook.com/countyofmaui/posts/671173878373895/)
-
re the timeline of the fires, the video you present makes very precise claims, like "the Olinda fire was ignited at approximately 10:47pm August 7th". But the reports I find like this one
https://www.mauicounty.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=12621 (https://www.mauicounty.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=12621)
only sayShortly after midnight this morning, a brush fire was reported in the Olinda Road area of Kula. Residents in the Auli’i Drive area were evacuated at 3:45 a.m. At 4:50 a.m. residents of Hanamu Road were also evacuated. Firefighter crews from Kula, Makawao, Kahului, and Wailea are on scene. The Fire Department’s Air One helicopter was launched at daybreak to conduct aerial assessment of the fire.
So could it have started at 10:47pm? sure, but we do not know that as far as I can tell. Claiming things that precisely match a particular scenario but are not established facts is a classic misinformation technique.
Well, you would find the source of those claimed timings if you actually did your research instead of trying to misrepresent my claims with "weapons in orbit" when I never talked about weapons in orbit in my entire life. And I also never said that the hurricane "powers the weapon", just that the weapon utilizes the power of the hurricane in some way, which is completely different. So I would appreciate if you don't keep trying to misrepresent what I say.
I am not trying to misrepresent what you say, only to decipher it. So if not in orbit, where is this weapon you are referring too and in what way does it or even might it (electrically as you say) use the power of a hurricane?
-
I am not trying to misrepresent what you say, only to decipher it. So if not in orbit, where is this weapon you are referring too and in what way does it or even might it (electrically as you say) use the power of a hurricane?
Yeah, sure... go decipher why you believe any narratives from government or MSM or "fact-checkers" even if they don't make physical sense.
Now you're asking me for the location of the murder weapon as if I am the one who did the murder. You make so much sense as always. Next you're gonna ask me to describe exactly how it operates. You're already doing it. What a genius you are.
If you must know where I stand TODAY, right now regarding the "CCP NORAD" satellites (and this is for anyone reading this, not just you because I don't care to explain anything to you) - In my opinion, the satellites probably have something to do with those specific fires (they probably were capable of igniting small local vegetation fires that spread further due to high winds and dry conditions), but nothing to do with houses and people literally getting "dustified" and nothing to do with the many anomalies such as liquified rims all over the place next to intact asphalt (which is intact all over the place too) that make it obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that no wildfire caused the resulting destruction. I could name anomalies all day AND provide evidence for said anomalies because unlike you I actually do research before opening my mouth - that's the difference between me and you who are here just to bust my balls and is happy to believe any "nothing to see here" narratives.
-
When you post something, especially without comment, it is understood to be something you support. If you post a video but do not agree with its content, you should say so.
Is that so?
All the videos I post are food for thought for those who are actually capable of thinking for themselves (not my fault that this is hard for you). Not to mention that it's all pieces of a larger puzzle because no one knows exactly what happened and hence using your brain and using discernment are obviously required.
Your interpretation that I "support" everything the videos say is utter garbage just like pretty much everything you post. And your opinion that I should announce what I personally agree or don't agree with irrelevant.
So... if I disagree with a video and pick apart its analysis, I'm not thinking for myself? Just making sure I understand where you stand on what "thinking for yourself" means. If I had simply agreed with the video without asking questions excpt those presented in the video, would that be "thinking for myself"?
I am not trying to misrepresent what you say, only to decipher it. So if not in orbit, where is this weapon you are referring too and in what way does it or even might it (electrically as you say) use the power of a hurricane?
Yeah, sure... go decipher why you believe any narratives from government or MSM or "fact-checkers" even if they don't make physical sense.
Now you're asking me for the location of the murder weapon as if I am the one who did the murder. You make so much sense as always. Next you're gonna ask me to describe exactly how it operates. You're already doing it. What a genius you are.
If you must know where I stand TODAY, right now regarding the "CCP NORAD" satellites (and this is for anyone reading this, not just you because I don't care to explain anything to you) - In my opinion, the satellites probably have something to do with those specific fires (they probably were capable of igniting small local vegetation fires that spread further due to high winds and dry conditions), but nothing to do with houses and people literally getting "dustified" and nothing to do with the many anomalies such as liquified rims all over the place next to intact asphalt (which is intact all over the place too) that make it obvious to anyone who isn't a complete idiot that no wildfire caused the resulting destruction. I could name anomalies all day AND provide evidence for said anomalies because unlike you I actually do research before opening my mouth - that's the difference between me and you who are here just to bust my balls and is happy to believe any "nothing to see here" narratives.
Why would the tar and asphalt being intact be odd?
What, exactly, do you think would happen when hit with the intense heat of a wildfire then cooled once the fire ends?
-
Cop-assisted mass murder.
Yep. That's what happens when you're just an order-following robot.
I have no respect for those PIGS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAV0bM2aDgE
People should've floored it out of there despite the police roadblocks.
What a bunch of sheep.
Then again, they didn't get killed by a wildfire.
Still, the ones who made it out are the ones who didn't just stand still waiting for their slaughter. Fact.
-
Yeah, heard the roadblocks caused a lot of issues and got people killed.
Thats bad logistics, pure and simple. And in a place with fires and volcanos, you'd think they'd have a better plan in place.
-
Imagine calling coordinated mass murder "bad logistics".
-
Imagine calling coordinated mass murder "bad logistics".
Imagine assuming it was coordinated mass murder and not just someone fucking up badly without evidence of intent to comit mass murder.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4XXm8OUP4
-
Imagine calling coordinated mass murder "bad logistics".
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's razor
-
“The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.”
― Harlan Ellison
-
Imagine calling coordinated mass murder "bad logistics".
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's razor
Why can't it be both?
It's obviously both considering that there are order-GIVERS and order-FOLLOWERS.
Let's take a look at who the chief of Maui PD is since 2021, shall we?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/08/15/maui-police-chief-john-pelletier-las-vegas-response/70594938007/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/08/15/maui-police-chief-john-pelletier-las-vegas-response/70594938007/)
Do you remember Las Vegas? Another mass murder event that had nothing to do with the official narrative & was covered up.
No such thing as coincidences when it comes to these events.
It's the same fucking guy! Time for you sleepyheads to wake the fuck up.
-
Imagine calling coordinated mass murder "bad logistics".
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon's razor
Why can't it be both?
It's obviously both considering that there are order-GIVERS and order-FOLLOWERS.
Let's take a look at who the chief of Maui PD is since 2021, shall we?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/08/15/maui-police-chief-john-pelletier-las-vegas-response/70594938007/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/08/15/maui-police-chief-john-pelletier-las-vegas-response/70594938007/)
Do you remember Las Vegas? Another mass murder event that had nothing to do with the official narrative & was covered up.
No such thing as coincidences when it comes to these events.
It's the same fucking guy! Time for you sleepyheads to wake the fuck up.
So whats his motivation? Why would he intentionally want to burn as many people as possible?
-
So whats his motivation? Why would he intentionally want to burn as many people as possible?
Oh, I don't know. Let's ask ChatGPT about it.
Dual1ty: Why would a conqueror intentionally want to burn as many innocent people as possible and not just raze their homes to the ground?
ChatGPT: The actions of conquerors throughout history have often been driven by a complex combination of factors, including political, strategic, psychological, and cultural considerations. While it's essential to recognize that not all conquerors have intentionally sought to harm innocent people or engage in wanton destruction, there have been instances where such actions occurred. Here are some possible reasons why a conqueror might intentionally choose to burn and harm innocent people rather than just razing their homes:
1. Psychological Warfare: Conquerors may engage in acts of extreme violence and terror to demoralize and intimidate the local population and any potential resistance. By causing fear and trauma, they hope to subdue resistance more effectively.
2. Revenge: Sometimes conquerors have personal or collective grievances against the people they are conquering, which can lead to a desire for vengeance. Burning homes and harming civilians can be seen as a way to exact revenge for perceived wrongs.
3. Ethnic or Religious Conflict: In cases where conquerors belong to a different ethnic or religious group than the local population, there may be deep-seated hatred or animosity, leading to violence against innocent people as a means of asserting dominance.
4. Economic Gain: Conquerors may pillage and burn to seize valuable resources, including crops, livestock, and other assets. Destroying the livelihoods of the local population can weaken their ability to resist and may serve the conqueror's economic interests.
5. Establishing Authority: Some conquerors may believe that by inflicting violence and destruction, they can establish their authority more firmly, demonstrating their power and ruthlessness to both the local population and potential rivals.
6. Deterrence: Conquerors may want to deter other potential adversaries from challenging their rule in the future. By making an example of a conquered population through extreme violence, they hope to discourage any resistance.
7. Cultural and Ideological Factors: Ideological or cultural factors can also play a role in the decision to harm innocent people. Conquerors may have a belief system or ideology that justifies such actions, viewing the conquered population as inferior or deserving of punishment.
8. Lack of Control: In chaotic or unorganized conquests, conquerors may lose control over their forces, leading to indiscriminate violence and destruction. This can result in the harm of innocent people, even if it wasn't the conqueror's original intent.
It's important to note that such actions are widely condemned in modern times and considered war crimes or crimes against humanity. Conquerors who engage in these actions can face significant international and legal repercussions. Additionally, not all conquerors throughout history have pursued such brutal tactics, and many have sought to establish rule through negotiation, diplomacy, or assimilation rather than violence and destruction.
Yes, it would be widely condemned if people understood what's going on, but they choose the "nothing to see here" narrative because it's a lot less gruesome.
By the way, this is the oppositve of a "chaotic or unorganized" event, so #8 doesn't apply. Not to mention that the cops didn't know what they were doing because they don't realize they are robotized idiots.
-
JUST LISTEN!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuWtCL6S7cs
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtXjYI-Rz0g
-
So whats his motivation? Why would he intentionally want to burn as many people as possible?
Oh, I don't know. Let's ask ChatGPT about it.
Dual1ty: Why would a conqueror intentionally want to burn as many innocent people as possible and not just raze their homes to the ground?
ChatGPT: The actions of conquerors throughout history have often been driven by a complex combination of factors, including political, strategic, psychological, and cultural considerations. While it's essential to recognize that not all conquerors have intentionally sought to harm innocent people or engage in wanton destruction, there have been instances where such actions occurred. Here are some possible reasons why a conqueror might intentionally choose to burn and harm innocent people rather than just razing their homes:
1. Psychological Warfare: Conquerors may engage in acts of extreme violence and terror to demoralize and intimidate the local population and any potential resistance. By causing fear and trauma, they hope to subdue resistance more effectively.
2. Revenge: Sometimes conquerors have personal or collective grievances against the people they are conquering, which can lead to a desire for vengeance. Burning homes and harming civilians can be seen as a way to exact revenge for perceived wrongs.
3. Ethnic or Religious Conflict: In cases where conquerors belong to a different ethnic or religious group than the local population, there may be deep-seated hatred or animosity, leading to violence against innocent people as a means of asserting dominance.
4. Economic Gain: Conquerors may pillage and burn to seize valuable resources, including crops, livestock, and other assets. Destroying the livelihoods of the local population can weaken their ability to resist and may serve the conqueror's economic interests.
5. Establishing Authority: Some conquerors may believe that by inflicting violence and destruction, they can establish their authority more firmly, demonstrating their power and ruthlessness to both the local population and potential rivals.
6. Deterrence: Conquerors may want to deter other potential adversaries from challenging their rule in the future. By making an example of a conquered population through extreme violence, they hope to discourage any resistance.
7. Cultural and Ideological Factors: Ideological or cultural factors can also play a role in the decision to harm innocent people. Conquerors may have a belief system or ideology that justifies such actions, viewing the conquered population as inferior or deserving of punishment.
8. Lack of Control: In chaotic or unorganized conquests, conquerors may lose control over their forces, leading to indiscriminate violence and destruction. This can result in the harm of innocent people, even if it wasn't the conqueror's original intent.
It's important to note that such actions are widely condemned in modern times and considered war crimes or crimes against humanity. Conquerors who engage in these actions can face significant international and legal repercussions. Additionally, not all conquerors throughout history have pursued such brutal tactics, and many have sought to establish rule through negotiation, diplomacy, or assimilation rather than violence and destruction.
Yes, it would be widely condemned if people understood what's going on, but they choose the "nothing to see here" narrative because it's a lot less gruesome.
By the way, this is the oppositve of a "chaotic or unorganized" event, so #8 doesn't apply. Not to mention that the cops didn't know what they were doing because they don't realize they are robotized idiots.
Ok.
So that tells me nothing.
I'm sorry but you haven't established he's a conquror nor have you established a motive. Half of those reasons only apply if you openly want to oppress people. And it requires actualky ordering the destruction, not just taking advantage of it.
You can't start with the assumption that someone is an evil conquror, you must prove it. And thus far I haven't seen him try to take over Hawaii.
-
Ok.
So that tells me nothing.
I'm sorry but you haven't established he's a conquror nor have you established a motive. Half of those reasons only apply if you openly want to oppress people. And it requires actualky ordering the destruction, not just taking advantage of it.
You can't start with the assumption that someone is an evil conquror, you must prove it. And thus far I haven't seen him try to take over Hawaii.
Well, of course it tells you nothing. That's expected.
Let's just conveniently forget the fact that Hawaii is all conquered land and Lahaina was one of the important pieces of land (potentially the most important?) that they didn't fully own . And now gov. + the banks & the corps are going to own it all. But that's just life, I guess.
That guy's not top of the food chain anyway. Not even close.
-
Ok.
So that tells me nothing.
I'm sorry but you haven't established he's a conquror nor have you established a motive. Half of those reasons only apply if you openly want to oppress people. And it requires actualky ordering the destruction, not just taking advantage of it.
You can't start with the assumption that someone is an evil conquror, you must prove it. And thus far I haven't seen him try to take over Hawaii.
Well, of course it tells you nothing. That's expected.
Let's just conveniently forget the fact that Hawaii is all conquered land and Lahaina was one of the important pieces of land (potentially the most important?) that they didn't fully own . And now gov. + the banks & the corps are going to own it all. But that's just life, I guess.
That guy's not top of the food chain anyway. Not even close.
You'll have to excuse my poor history of hawaii knowledge.
Why is Lahaina so important? Or the most important? And why is it unowned by the state of hawaii like the rest of Hawaii?
-
You'll have to excuse my poor history of hawaii knowledge.
Why is Lahaina so important? Or the most important? And why is it unowned by the state of hawaii like the rest of Hawaii?
You just have to do 2 minutes of research to find the info.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/analysis-burning-of-lahainas-sacred-sites-is-a-major-loss-for-native-hawaiians-but-their-history-will-live-on (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/analysis-burning-of-lahainas-sacred-sites-is-a-major-loss-for-native-hawaiians-but-their-history-will-live-on)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=801399451773263 (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=801399451773263)
That woman user her brain and she knows what's going on unlike you.
-
You'll have to excuse my poor history of hawaii knowledge.
Why is Lahaina so important? Or the most important? And why is it unowned by the state of hawaii like the rest of Hawaii?
You just have to do 2 minutes of research to find the info.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/analysis-burning-of-lahainas-sacred-sites-is-a-major-loss-for-native-hawaiians-but-their-history-will-live-on (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/analysis-burning-of-lahainas-sacred-sites-is-a-major-loss-for-native-hawaiians-but-their-history-will-live-on)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=801399451773263 (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=801399451773263)
That woman user her brain and she knows what's going on unlike you.
See, thats more plausable than a space laser from china creating wildfires.
Is it possible this is a land grab by evil corporations and rich people? Sure.
But you've just shown speculation. No actual evidence this is occurring. And after 9 pages, this is the first time you've even mentioned it.
So your goal is to, instead of assuming this is a conspiracy, prove it. Show me developer contracts or demands from the locals who were burned out/killed showing they wanted the land. Don't just tell me.
-
So your goal is to, instead of assuming this is a conspiracy, prove it. Show me developer contracts or demands from the locals who were burned out/killed showing they wanted the land. Don't just tell me.
It really is not. The goal of what I post is to get people aware & thinking and to do their own research and use their own brain & discernment.
But here's one of the projects. Just one. Plus more interesting info and statements from the people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB9bl7aDXq4
-
So your goal is to, instead of assuming this is a conspiracy, prove it. Show me developer contracts or demands from the locals who were burned out/killed showing they wanted the land. Don't just tell me.
It really is not. The goal of what I post is to get people aware & thinking and to do their own research and use their own brain & discernment.
But here's one of the projects. Just one. Plus more interesting info and statements from the people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB9bl7aDXq4
I'm confused. Why would anyone elect people to do a job like run the department of housing, if they want to do the job via democratic vote?
Like... most people don't know how to do city planning. They want things that make no sense or don't actually work. Like they can look at a huge offramp and go "why is it so big? Just make it a short, straight line. " all because they don't understand descelleration.
So why wouldn't those people do their job?
Also: when I ask questions and use my brain to refute your videos, you call me an idiot and a sheep. Doesn't seem like your goal is to make people think, unless they think what you think.
-
I'm confused. Why would anyone elect people to do a job like run the department of housing, if they want to do the job via democratic vote?
Like... most people don't know how to do city planning. They want things that make no sense or don't actually work. Like they can look at a huge offramp and go "why is it so big? Just make it a short, straight line. " all because they don't understand descelleration.
So why wouldn't those people do their job?
Also: when I ask questions and use my brain yo refuse your videos, you call me an idiot and a sheep. Doesn't seem like your goal is to make people think, unless they think what you think.
What an asanine comment considering the information given in the video and what happened.
Ok, pal. Clearly, you're on the wrong forum again.
All you can do is ask dumb questions and talk about space lasers when 99% of what I'm talking about has nothing to do with space lasers.
-
I'm confused. Why would anyone elect people to do a job like run the department of housing, if they want to do the job via democratic vote?
Like... most people don't know how to do city planning. They want things that make no sense or don't actually work. Like they can look at a huge offramp and go "why is it so big? Just make it a short, straight line. " all because they don't understand descelleration.
So why wouldn't those people do their job?
Also: when I ask questions and use my brain yo refuse your videos, you call me an idiot and a sheep. Doesn't seem like your goal is to make people think, unless they think what you think.
What an asanine comment considering the information given in the video and what happened.
Ok, pal. Clearly, you're on the wrong forum again.
All you can do is ask dumb questions and talk about space lasers when 99% of what I'm talking about has nothing to do with space lasers.
Having finished the video, I totally agree with you. This was a consoiracy ti take land for the development of a bike and walking path.
Its totally obvious! Who makes that? People who wear custom baby seal leather boots that's who!
And all those angry people spouting angry and random bits if information and calling it a conspiracy is totally right. I mean, how else do you determine the truth except for random, angry people yelling loudly about things they know nothing about? Its how we KNOW thst the DC pizzaria had that whole sex dungeon in its basement that totally exists but no one can find it.
But in all seriousness, I saw nothing presented that actually sounds evil.
I mean, this fire may have been caused by a careless tourist, which would make it a non-natural disaster. But I doubt the governemnt intentionally wanted to burn away all those houses just so the insurance companies would need to pay up alot of money to rebuild them.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH8RCqmYZfc
-
... joe rogan experience video link removed ...
As is often the case with him, this is at best a huge distortion of what the governor actually was talking about. Which was about ways to prevent developers from rushing in to take advantage of the local people.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/maui-city-smart-project-state-lands-josh-green/
-
As is often the case with him, this is at best a huge distortion of what the governor actually was talking about. Which was about ways to prevent developers from rushing in to take advantage of the local people.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/maui-city-smart-project-state-lands-josh-green/
Yeah, they don't want to allow any free-market nonsense, do they? Gov. and club members only.
Previously the land owners and the people were resonsible for managing their land and now the government is. Thanks for "fact-checking" nothing.
Oh, I forgot the government stooges are the good guys and they no doubt want what's best for the people.
-
As is often the case with him, this is at best a huge distortion of what the governor actually was talking about. Which was about ways to prevent developers from rushing in to take advantage of the local people.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/maui-city-smart-project-state-lands-josh-green/
Yeah, they don't want to allow any free-market nonsense, do they? Gov. and club members only.
Previously the land owners and the people were resonsible for managing their land and now the government is. Thanks for "fact-checking" nothing.
Oh, I forgot the government stooges are the good guys and they no doubt want what's best for the people.
Question:
When the people manage their land, what kind of system do they use to manage it? Like disputes or public projects like road construction/patching? Or water delivery?
-
Question:
When the people manage their land, what kind of system do they use to manage it? Like disputes or public projects like road construction/patching? Or water delivery?
Yeah, you just described what government should be for instead of a superstructure that rules over everything tyranically while whispering sweet-nothings into the ears of corporate "journalists" who don't even live there. Thanks for "fact-checking" nothing again.
Don't forget to pay your taxes.
-
Question:
When the people manage their land, what kind of system do they use to manage it? Like disputes or public projects like road construction/patching? Or water delivery?
Yeah, you just described what government should be for instead of a superstructure that rules over everything tyranically while whispering sweet-nothings into the ears of corporate "journalists" who don't even live there. Thanks for "fact-checking" nothing again.
Don't forget to pay your taxes.
I ask a question and you answer with nothing.
I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by the people managing their own land becauase I was under the impression they could already do that, within legal limits. (Ie. No dumping hazardous waste)
-
https://youtu.be/zFG8n3jsU6A
-
BIG NEWS!
https://youtu.be/0XMaQ1IWrNo
@bobf9749 19 Hours ago
I believe there is a slight error. 21:00 Aug 8 UTC was 11:00 am Hawaii time. The next entry is 00:00 UTC. That’s 2:00 pm Hawaii time. I believe he went from 11:00 am Hawaii time to 00:00 UTC and forgot to convert UTC to Hawaii Standard time. An understandable mistake. However, there is a twenty-four hour gap between 18:00 Aug. 7 and 18:00 Aug 8. That’s 8 am to 8 am Hawaii time. That’s where the loop jumps. A whole day’s worth of images gone missing. If this were being investigated as a criminal case, this would be evidence.
@Jennifermcintyre 21 Hours ago
I went through the satellite images (not weather related) from an independent company just after the fires.. this company compiles images from 5-10 different satellites. ALL the satellite images from multiple satellites were not there. When I contacted the company to see about ordering the missing images from the day of, before and after the fire.. I received a very rude response email… stating that not all images are available on every day…. Even though ive scoured their site and I’ve NEVER found another date/location where the images weren’t readily available. They have scrubbed the Internet of any and all satellite images from the Lahaina area of the day of the fire.
-
BIG NEWS!
https://youtu.be/0XMaQ1IWrNo
@bobf9749 19 Hours ago
I believe there is a slight error. 21:00 Aug 8 UTC was 11:00 am Hawaii time. The next entry is 00:00 UTC. That’s 2:00 pm Hawaii time. I believe he went from 11:00 am Hawaii time to 00:00 UTC and forgot to convert UTC to Hawaii Standard time. An understandable mistake. However, there is a twenty-four hour gap between 18:00 Aug. 7 and 18:00 Aug 8. That’s 8 am to 8 am Hawaii time. That’s where the loop jumps. A whole day’s worth of images gone missing. If this were being investigated as a criminal case, this would be evidence.
@Jennifermcintyre 21 Hours ago
I went through the satellite images (not weather related) from an independent company just after the fires.. this company compiles images from 5-10 different satellites. ALL the satellite images from multiple satellites were not there. When I contacted the company to see about ordering the missing images from the day of, before and after the fire.. I received a very rude response email… stating that not all images are available on every day…. Even though ive scoured their site and I’ve NEVER found another date/location where the images weren’t readily available. They have scrubbed the Internet of any and all satellite images from the Lahaina area of the day of the fire.
(https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232200940-20232201510-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif)
Whoever that is is clearly trolling.
The animation he shows is FAR away from hawaii so it wouldn't show up. Look at the map coordinates: between 15N and 20 N (Hawaii is between 19 and 22N) and the longitude of that image is 175W and 180W. Hawaii is about 155W to 160W.
So yeah, wouldn't show it because that date is for August 12th.
Now if he scrolls to the top of the history page, he'll see the link for the archived images. "Download images". Which gives ALL the images and animation loops for ALL the dates. Like the one above.
Man... that video is just... 100% pure troll.
Fortunately,
-
I believe there is a slight error. 21:00 Aug 8 UTC was 11:00 am Hawaii time. The next entry is 00:00 UTC. That’s 2:00 pm Hawaii time. I believe he went from 11:00 am Hawaii time to 00:00 UTC and forgot to convert UTC to Hawaii Standard time. An understandable mistake. However, there is a twenty-four hour gap between 18:00 Aug. 7 and 18:00 Aug 8. That’s 8 am to 8 am Hawaii time. That’s where the loop jumps. A whole day’s worth of images gone missing. If this were being investigated as a criminal case, this would be evidence.
Found em!
August 7 08-13:40
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232190810-20232191340-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
August 7 1340-1910
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232191340-20232191910-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
August 7 1500-2110
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232191540-20232192110-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
I could go on and on and on but just look at the images yourself.
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/
I mean, you can't even SEE the island of Maui So its largely a moot point.
-
I believe there is a slight error. 21:00 Aug 8 UTC was 11:00 am Hawaii time. The next entry is 00:00 UTC. That’s 2:00 pm Hawaii time. I believe he went from 11:00 am Hawaii time to 00:00 UTC and forgot to convert UTC to Hawaii Standard time. An understandable mistake. However, there is a twenty-four hour gap between 18:00 Aug. 7 and 18:00 Aug 8. That’s 8 am to 8 am Hawaii time. That’s where the loop jumps. A whole day’s worth of images gone missing. If this were being investigated as a criminal case, this would be evidence.
Found em!
August 7 08-13:40
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232190810-20232191340-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
August 7 1340-1910
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232191340-20232191910-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
August 7 1500-2110
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232191540-20232192110-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
I could go on and on and on but just look at the images yourself.
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/
I mean, you can't even SEE the island of Maui So its largely a moot point.
Yes, exactly - you can't see Maui because those are the DORA tracking images. Where are the Maui images???
-
I believe there is a slight error. 21:00 Aug 8 UTC was 11:00 am Hawaii time. The next entry is 00:00 UTC. That’s 2:00 pm Hawaii time. I believe he went from 11:00 am Hawaii time to 00:00 UTC and forgot to convert UTC to Hawaii Standard time. An understandable mistake. However, there is a twenty-four hour gap between 18:00 Aug. 7 and 18:00 Aug 8. That’s 8 am to 8 am Hawaii time. That’s where the loop jumps. A whole day’s worth of images gone missing. If this were being investigated as a criminal case, this would be evidence.
Found em!
August 7 08-13:40
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232190810-20232191340-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
August 7 1340-1910
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232191340-20232191910-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
August 7 1500-2110
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/20232191540-20232192110-GOES18-ABI-EP052023-GEOCOLOR-1000x1000.gif
I could go on and on and on but just look at the images yourself.
https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/FLOATER/data/EP052023/GEOCOLOR/
I mean, you can't even SEE the island of Maui So its largely a moot point.
Yes, exactly - you can't see Maui because those are the DORA tracking images. Where are the Maui images???
Why would a storm tracking sattelite track a wildfire in maui instead of the storm?
-
I'd use FIRMS https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#t:adv;d:today,today;l:landsat,noaa20-viirs,viirs,modis_a,modis_t,country-outline,noaa20_crtc,street;@-155.8,20.3,11.7z
-
Why would a storm tracking sattelite track a wildfire in maui instead of the storm?
I posted the following, which you ignored and you keep ignoring:
@Jennifermcintyre 21 Hours ago
I went through the satellite images (not weather related) from an independent company just after the fires.. this company compiles images from 5-10 different satellites. ALL the satellite images from multiple satellites were not there. When I contacted the company to see about ordering the missing images from the day of, before and after the fire.. I received a very rude response email… stating that not all images are available on every day…. Even though ive scoured their site and I’ve NEVER found another date/location where the images weren’t readily available. They have scrubbed the Internet of any and all satellite images from the Lahaina area of the day of the fire.
Can you explain why you ignore this, Mr. DAVE?
Yes, it is very convenient that you can't see Maui in the Dora tracking images.
-
Why would a storm tracking sattelite track a wildfire in maui instead of the storm?
I posted the following, which you ignored and you keep ignoring:
@Jennifermcintyre 21 Hours ago
I went through the satellite images (not weather related) from an independent company just after the fires.. this company compiles images from 5-10 different satellites. ALL the satellite images from multiple satellites were not there. When I contacted the company to see about ordering the missing images from the day of, before and after the fire.. I received a very rude response email… stating that not all images are available on every day…. Even though ive scoured their site and I’ve NEVER found another date/location where the images weren’t readily available. They have scrubbed the Internet of any and all satellite images from the Lahaina area of the day of the fire.
Can you explain why you ignore this, Mr. DAVE?
And why should I believe a random internet person who says "an independant company" without naming said company? I can't even try to email them myself. So this is unverifiable.
-edit-
They did write the company name. Apollo mapping.
So I'mma gonna go test their claim.
[/Quote]
Yes, it is very convenient that you can't see Maui in the Dora tracking images.
[/quote]
I mean... you only need so many miles around a storm to track a storm. Why photograph the whole hemesphere?
-
And why should I believe a random internet person who says "an independant company" without naming said company? I can't even try to email them myself. So this is unverifiable.
Ok, you provide the images, then. Cause with Dora it wasn't a problem because Maui isn't there (possibly cropped out??). Provide the Maui images or STFU.
-
And why should I believe a random internet person who says "an independant company" without naming said company? I can't even try to email them myself. So this is unverifiable.
Ok, you provide the images, then. Cause with Dora it wasn't a problem because Maui isn't there (possibly cropped out??). Provide the Maui images or STFU.
Ok. I'll do it after work.
-
Ok. I'll do it after work.
How was it so easy for you to provide all the Dora images -that don't have Maui in them- but now all of a sudden you have delays?
-
Ok. I'll do it after work.
How was it so easy for you to provide all the Dora images -that don't have Maui in them- but now all of a sudden you have delays?
Because now I'm at work.
I posted the DORA images while at home. At night. Long after work.
It is now 12:20 pm on Tuesday. I'm on the toilet while at my job.
I assume you understand the concept of time.
I would post them now but I don't use my work pc for personal stuff and my phone doesn't work great with https://landsatlook.usgs.gov/
So I gotta do it while at home. Likely around the same time as I posted the DORA pics.
I'm sorry(not sorry) that I have a job. I understand its not something you're familiar with so I won't take offense to your question.
-
Ok. I'll do it after work.
How was it so easy for you to provide all the Dora images -that don't have Maui in them- but now all of a sudden you have delays?
Because now I'm at work.
I posted the DORA images while at home. At night. Long after work.
It is now 12:20 pm on Tuesday. I'm on the toilet while at my job.
I assume you understand the concept of time.
I would post them now but I don't use my work pc for personal stuff and my phone doesn't work great with https://landsatlook.usgs.gov/
So I gotta do it while at home. Likely around the same time as I posted the DORA pics.
I'm sorry(not sorry) that I have a job. I understand its not something you're familiar with so I won't take offense to your question.
I don't give a shit about your personal life or your assumptions about mine or the fact that you're taking a shit right now LMAO. Either provide the Maui images or STFU!!
P.S. STFU means Silence, you Tuna-Flavored Umbrellabird, btw.
-
How unfortunate. All I can get are pics from the 7th at 20:48 UTC At least from landsat. I'll have to look at tracking, see what was flying overhead that day.
In the meantime, just so you know I tired, here's the pic of Lahaina in Surface Temperature Band (B10)
(https://i.ibb.co/4PFRZjG/LC08-L2-SP-063046-20230807-20230812-02-T1-ST-B10.png) (https://ibb.co/xJ2qSM0)
And here's the Near Infrared for that same time.
(https://i.ibb.co/8m1ZhPt/map-view.png) (https://ibb.co/MgF0XPQ)
-
Well, I'll be damned...
So you thought you were going to work, come back and debunk this in 5 minutes? Unfortunate for you.
Sleep tight knowing that there's a cover-up going on. Even without mentioning satellite images it was already a hard fact that there was a cover-up going on, because it's obvious.
Your lack of comments regarding zFG8n3jsU6A were duely noted as well. Not that I would want to argue with you about facts because facts are facts. But you can always embarass yourself like now.
-
Well, I'll be damned...
So you thought you were going to work, come back and debunk this in 5 minutes? Unfortunate for you.
Sleep tight knowing that there's a cover-up going on. Even without mentioning satellite images it was already a hard fact that there was a cover-up going on, because it's obvious.
Your lack of comments regarding zFG8n3jsU6A were duely noted as well. Not that I would want to argue with you about facts because facts are facts. But you can always embarass yourself like now.
*Sigh*
Ok, first off, what do you even expect to see? What would you spot and point to as evidence of... whatever evil bit of technologj caused the fire?
Secondly, i do not watch every video you post. Why would I? I only eat so much troll bait a day.
Third, yeah, I did think I'd debunk it in 5 minutes. Who knew satelites had predictable paths and imaging satelites don't fly over hawaii every hour? Its crazy, right? There should be a public imaging satelite flying over hawaii all the time, right?
Tho the ISS did several passes over maui during the times of the fire. Why haven't you considered the ISS shot the laser?
-
*Sigh*
Ok, first off, what do you even expect to see? What would you spot and point to as evidence of... whatever evil bit of technologj caused the fire?
Secondly, i do not watch every video you post. Why would I? I only eat so much troll bait a day.
Third, yeah, I did think I'd debunk it in 5 minutes. Who knew satelites had predictable paths and imaging satelites don't fly over hawaii every hour? Its crazy, right? There should be a public imaging satelite flying over hawaii all the time, right?
Tho the ISS did several passes over maui during the times of the fire. Why haven't you considered the ISS shot the laser?
I don't care about opinions, I care about facts.
Sleep tight now, no need to cause a ruckus because you were wrong.
-
*Sigh*
Ok, first off, what do you even expect to see? What would you spot and point to as evidence of... whatever evil bit of technologj caused the fire?
Secondly, i do not watch every video you post. Why would I? I only eat so much troll bait a day.
Third, yeah, I did think I'd debunk it in 5 minutes. Who knew satelites had predictable paths and imaging satelites don't fly over hawaii every hour? Its crazy, right? There should be a public imaging satelite flying over hawaii all the time, right?
Tho the ISS did several passes over maui during the times of the fire. Why haven't you considered the ISS shot the laser?
I don't care about opinions, I care about facts.
Sleep tight now, no need to cause a ruckus because you were wrong.
Oh you do not care about facts. What you care about is supporting your narrative. And absense of evidence is your evidence. Hell, your first video post here is two guys looking at a destroyed car and going "Yeah, this is weird" despite having no actual experience with car fires. They flat out have no idea what could have caused it so it must be a coverup/a weapon. God forbid they interview fire experts.
And I'll ask again: what do you hope to see? Because any satellite image would have been programmed to filter out anything obvious. I have no idea what but yeah, pictures will only show you the fire in progress from low earth orbit.
-
oh hey, found it.
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/scene/metadata/full/5e81f14f59432a27/LC81661982023221LGN00/
10:25pm hawiian time, August 8, 2023.
The second image of the three is thermal. You can see the fires up in the upper right.
Its very interesting: landsat 8 and 9 use different measurements for ascending and descending. Most of the data comes from daytime, ascending, because duh... daytime imaging. But when its descending, it'll sometimes takes images and scans.
And here's GEOS 18 for all day views.
https://satlib.cira.colostate.edu/event/maui-wildfires/
Sorry it took me a few hours. Its my first time researching historical satellite data.
-
Oh you do not care about facts. What you care about is supporting your narrative. And absense of evidence is your evidence. Hell, your first video post here is two guys looking at a destroyed car and going "Yeah, this is weird" despite having no actual experience with car fires. They flat out have no idea what could have caused it so it must be a coverup/a weapon. God forbid they interview fire experts.
Nope, that's you - and your narrative is always predictably the same: it's always the "large-scale conspiracies don't exist" narrative, "therefore there must be other explanation".
That would be fine if it didn't imply dismissing evidence and facts that don't suit that narrative. But, you must do that and you do do that and that and that tells me everything I need to know.
You're just here to perform a pathetic attempt at debunking and it's very obvious. Personally, I don't care because you're not a threat to anyone who -unlike you- does research. You are simply annoying like a fly that doesn't stop flying in my ear when I'm trying to focus on the research. Overall, you're just a time-waster - and that's really your "job" here even if you don't realize it yourself. But like a programmed bot, that's what you're here to do.
I already posted an interview with an expert and you didn't even attempt to touch that. I wonder why? That said, I really couldn't give a rat's ass what you think about it. You might think you know better than the expert or the fire experts that he talked about - well, you don't. For the most part, you have nothing to offer but your personal opinions and personal opinions don't matter to me - especially not yours.
-
oh hey, found it.
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/scene/metadata/full/5e81f14f59432a27/LC81661982023221LGN00/
10:25pm hawiian time, August 8, 2023.
The second image of the three is thermal. You can see the fires up in the upper right.
Its very interesting: landsat 8 and 9 use different measurements for ascending and descending. Most of the data comes from daytime, ascending, because duh... daytime imaging. But when its descending, it'll sometimes takes images and scans.
And here's GEOS 18 for all day views.
https://satlib.cira.colostate.edu/event/maui-wildfires/
Sorry it took me a few hours. Its my first time researching historical satellite data.
Some BS you found... You can't see shit. The whole fire is just a few orange pixels and you can't even see any buildings. The fuck is this.
I'm not even going to mention the other gray trash that you posted.
-
oh hey, found it.
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/scene/metadata/full/5e81f14f59432a27/LC81661982023221LGN00/
10:25pm hawiian time, August 8, 2023.
The second image of the three is thermal. You can see the fires up in the upper right.
Its very interesting: landsat 8 and 9 use different measurements for ascending and descending. Most of the data comes from daytime, ascending, because duh... daytime imaging. But when its descending, it'll sometimes takes images and scans.
And here's GEOS 18 for all day views.
https://satlib.cira.colostate.edu/event/maui-wildfires/
Sorry it took me a few hours. Its my first time researching historical satellite data.
Some BS you found... You can't see shit. The whole fire is just a few orange pixels and you can't even see any buildings. The fuck is this.
I'm not even going to mention the other gray trash that you posted.
And there's the moving goalpost.
You don't understand what you're looking at so it must be shit. Nevermind its literally what you said doesn't exist. And now you bitch because an image taken from orbit can't see people's houses? Its not a spy sattelite, its a research sattelite. Its job is not to identify which houses are currently burning. No wonder you can't find evidence: your expectations are too high. You think this is the movies where some hightech imaging sattelite is always pointed at whatever you want to see? No one but the army has that and they aren't gonna make any of those pictures public.l even if they pointed it at hawaii.
And the video about such images would have shown the same thing. The 'missing pictures' are all from research sattelites. That is literally as good as it gets for anyone until you put in drones, high altitude planes and maybe there's a higher resolution satelite. Maybe a higher resolution image. But I didn't get that. Thats not the data offered. I don't have the raws. (Except that first one which you don'tseem to even understand what it is. Its near IR spectrum.)
I'll have to look at whichever video has this fire expert and see what it says. Feel free to tel me which one.
-
And there's the moving goalpost.
You don't understand what you're looking at so it must be shit. Nevermind its literally what you said doesn't exist. And now you bitch because an image taken from orbit can't see people's houses? Its not a spy sattelite, its a research sattelite. Its job is not to identify which houses are currently burning. No wonder you can't find evidence: your expectations are too high. You think this is the movies where some hightech imaging sattelite is always pointed at whatever you want to see? No one but the army has that and they aren't gonna make any of those pictures public.l even if they pointed it at hawaii.
And the video about such images would have shown the same thing. The 'missing pictures' are all from research sattelites. That is literally as good as it gets for anyone until you put in drones, high altitude planes and maybe there's a higher resolution satelite. Maybe a higher resolution image. But I didn't get that. Thats not the data offered. I don't have the raws. (Except that first one which you don'tseem to even understand what it is. Its near IR spectrum.)
A bunch of orange pixels and some gray trash is useless for research purposes. But I already know you're not here to do any research.
By the way, I thought you said you would email that company Apollo Mapping (that was the whole point besides Maui not showing up in the weather images, remember?). How's that coming along?
You didn't even send that email, did you Dave? instead you offer some gray trash and some orange pixels... and you think that debunks what, exactly?
Also Dave, can you please provide evidence that https://satlib.cira.colostate.edu/event/maui-wildfires/ (https://satlib.cira.colostate.edu/event/maui-wildfires/) existed by the time the video about missing Maui in weather images was published (or even by the time I posted it here)? Thanks in advance, sweetheart.
-
And there's the moving goalpost.
You don't understand what you're looking at so it must be shit. Nevermind its literally what you said doesn't exist. And now you bitch because an image taken from orbit can't see people's houses? Its not a spy sattelite, its a research sattelite. Its job is not to identify which houses are currently burning. No wonder you can't find evidence: your expectations are too high. You think this is the movies where some hightech imaging sattelite is always pointed at whatever you want to see? No one but the army has that and they aren't gonna make any of those pictures public.l even if they pointed it at hawaii.
And the video about such images would have shown the same thing. The 'missing pictures' are all from research sattelites. That is literally as good as it gets for anyone until you put in drones, high altitude planes and maybe there's a higher resolution satelite. Maybe a higher resolution image. But I didn't get that. Thats not the data offered. I don't have the raws. (Except that first one which you don'tseem to even understand what it is. Its near IR spectrum.)
A bunch of orange pixels and some gray trash is useless for research purposes. But I already know you're not here to do any research.
By the way, I thought you said you would email that company Apollo Mapping (that was the whole point besides Maui not showing up in the weather images, remember?). How's that coming along?
I got a very pleasant response.
What I wrote:
Hi,
I'm doing a study on fire spread in urban and suburban areas and your site came recommended for satellite imagery. However, when doing the search for the 8th of August to the 9th of August (the UTC times for the fire) I was unable to find any images for the time period.
I'm also unable to determine what sat "PS" is as it does not appear in any of the satellite tracking databases.
Were there no available satellites in the area during the timeframe and can you help me find out the name of the Sat you designate as "PS"?
Thank you,
Their reply:
Hi David - yes it is likely we have nothing in high res from those two dates. If you send me a KMZ polygon, I can verify it.
PS is 3-meter PlanetScope data.
I sent them the KMZ file. Here is their reply.
No thermal data that we can offer. No PS either. We have these WV3 and GE1 images from 8/9:
https://imagehunter.apollomapping.com/search/791800e9faf64683a4ae6d293538f5be
The WV3 data will be better and more detailed. The GE1 data was collected at a high off-nadir so it is ore of a side view.
So... there you go. Nothing nasty, just a pleasant email saying that they don't have anything for that day. It happens.
You didn't even send that email, did you Dave? instead you offer some gray trash and some orange pixels... and you think that debunks what, exactly?
That the images exist and there is no coverup to remove them all from existence.
I'm still trying to find out what YOU hope to achieve if you even got High definition images. Like... what do you expect to see? What would you look for to prove that it was some kind of weapon and not a fire that came as a result of a downed powerline?
Also Dave, can you please provide evidence that https://satlib.cira.colostate.edu/event/maui-wildfires/ (https://satlib.cira.colostate.edu/event/maui-wildfires/) existed by the time the video about missing Maui in weather images was published (or even by the time I posted it here)? Thanks in advance, sweetheart.
(https://i.ibb.co/y5MybHj/RAMMB-url.png) (https://ibb.co/VDhSPf4)
Apparently google has it dated August 22nd.
I, of course, can't verify when the video was created only that it was uploaded on October 1st.
So unless you wish to dispute google, I think this is sufficient evidence.
-
Nothing nasty, just a pleasant email saying that they don't have anything for that day.
Why not?
It happens.
Does it?
-
Nothing nasty, just a pleasant email saying that they don't have anything for that day.
Why not?
I didn't ask but presumably the PlanetScope satelite, which is the most frequent visitor to that area, was not passing over at the time. The 8th isn't the only day missing out of the year, after all.
It happens.
Does it?
Well think of it this way.
If you're right and this is a giant coverup for some new weapon that can destroy towns via not-normal fire, why would you schedule it on a day when the European Space Agency will have a satellite overhead? Or any satellite with high resolution imaging capabilities?
One does not use a secret weapon when everyone is watching.
But yes, go take the dates from January 1-September 30. You'll find several missing days. The site does not even host all US government satellite imagery. (Likely due to not being allowed to sell them)
Now please, stop avoiding my very simple question: what would you even look for in a satellite image or images? How would you know what is normal and what is not?
-
I want to quickly toucb on something that i was reminded of in another thread.
A conspiracy to buy destroyed land cheap and build high price homes/condos is plasable and has happened. While I have only seen angry people yelling as evidence of this (so no evidence) its not impossible. I could even be convinced that they hired the police chief they did and brought him in on the scheme, tho you'd need compelling evidence of that.
But i digress. My issue is not the motivation or potential one of the local government. My issue is that it requires some kind of directed energy weapon powered by a hurricane's vortex enervy to make it work. Its alot of work and risk of discovery and money just to do what a can of gasoline, an EV, and a match can do. Like buying a leaf blower just to blow out some birthday.
-
Necro!
So I got bored and looked further into how things went.
Long story short: Predatory buying was made illegal and anyone who tried (developers, rich people, etc..) are being investigated.
Almost everyone kept their property unless they decided to sell locally.
So... Project Bluebeam seems to have been a failure by the rich to get cheap land.