[Lord Dave]

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.

[Dual1ty]

This video got burried by all the nonsense, so I'm gonna go ahead and post it again due to its importance:



Also, before anyone gets any ideas of "I know better", remember that you're not supposed to argue with the teacher.

[ichoosereality]

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

[Dual1ty]

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.

[ichoosereality]

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.

[Dual1ty]

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.

[ichoosereality]

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.

[Dual1ty]

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).

[ichoosereality]

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.

[Dual1ty]

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.

[Lord Dave]

Why a DEW and not a particle weapon?

[Dual1ty]

[Dual1ty]

[ichoosereality]

... 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

[Lord Dave]

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?

[Dual1ty]

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?

[ichoosereality]

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?

[Dual1ty]

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.

[Dual1ty]

[Lord Dave]

If this was a laser, how'd he survive?  How'd those trees survive?

Me thinks this was a normal fire...