ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: Maui Fire Breaks SCIENCE as we know it…
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (54)
sorted by:
Video removed. Anybody save it?
What I linked to was the livestream while it was live. Here is the same video on that channel now that the stream is complete.
https://youtu.be/Lg2WV-B26pA
I reposted it with the permanent link. https://greatawakening.win/p/16c2W7qEuW/
T/u!
HO LEE SHIT
Looking at the car from the beginning, that is not what happens to a car in a fire. That there was no fire AROUND the car (except a tiny bit of grass) puts to rest any other ideas of a "natural fire."
I can't think of anything other than DEWs that can cause this. That doesn't mean there wasn't another cause, but looking at the evidence, I can't conceive of anything except a microwave energy weapon from above (space lasers).
We've officially reached the Sci-Fi stage of this Show. WOOHOO!!
I might mention that lasers do not project microwave radiation. You really don't know what you are talking about.
It is statements like this that make me think you must be an agent provocateur. Be honest, which three letter agency do you work for?
You can easily make a laser in the microwave spectrum. Technically it's called a maser, I called it a laser because I didn't want to be confusing, and because a maser is a laser variant (i.e. microwaves are just as much light as any other frequency of photons).
Try again big guy.
And it is statements like yours that make me think that you don't think. I am a simple retiree of modest means...but I happen to know my shit.
Masers preceded lasers, according to a different physical implementation. Lasers came along later and they borrowed/updated the acronym. Microwaves are not good at coupling with metal; they bounce off. Which is why they started out being used for radar. They also have significantly more diffraction spreading (proportional to wavelength). You called a maser a laser because you didn't want to be confusing? To confuse something with another is to call them by the same name.
Whatever you are trying is not worth it.
A "Laser" can be of any frequency. Laser means "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation." The "L" just means "light." Microwaves are just light. A maser is just a microwave frequency laser., It lases (makes coherent by stimulated emission of a medium) light in the microwave frequency. Lumping all frequency lasers into the term "laser" is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, since they are all "light". If you don't like it, I'm OK with that, but most people don't mind it at all, as that is how it is commonly done.
"Masers" and "Lasers" (or more precisely, lasers in the microwave frequency)) are exactly the same thing. The lasing medium is different (obviously) but they are functionally identical. You use all the same equations, all the same principles of construction, everything is identical. The actual engineering is different, because the lasing medium is different and the creation of light in the microwave frequency is different, which will require different engineering of the device, and maybe that is what you mean, but the physics is all exactly the same.
Some of their energy goes into moving free electrons around, some gets reflected. If metal has edges (like aluminum wheels, wheel bolts, cars in general) it gets bounced around a lot. The more it gets reflected, the more the electrons move around. If there is enough energy absorption/reflection/electron movement this can create a plasma, which can melt metal.
There are various ways to increase the coupling and/or increase the total energy absorption in metals. You can pulse the laser, for example, creating electric or phononic resonance. You can couple one laser frequency with another, creating runaway thermal effects (localized heating which can begin a melting process, like a torch, which in turn creates more surfaces to bounce off of, which creates more electron movement --> more plasma --> more heating --> etc.). Who knows all the techniques people have come up with. All of these effects are used in various technologies, and all can be coupled with microwaves to heat things up/melt them.
Maybe the DEWs don't use microwaves at all. Maybe they use a different frequency, one that couples with metal better. Maybe they use both.
That microwaves under the right conditions can melt metal is not in question. That DEWs exist is not in question. That microwave frequency DEWs exist is not in question. That DEWs can be put in space is not in question. That microwave energy can be transferred from high altitude or from geostationary orbit to the surface of the earth is not in question.
It is a reasonable question to ask whether or not microwaves (or light of any frequency that has a low(ish) coupling with air) can be used to melt aluminum wheels from long distance DEWs. There are plenty of reasonable objections there. Can enough energy be transmitted from space (or high altitude) to cause that effect? If enough energy is thus transmitted, what would it do to the other materials when compared to the aluminum? What other technologies (pulsing, or additional frequencies e.g.) can be used to improve it's coupling and/or overall energy transfer with aluminum or other metals? What other frequencies might be used in long range DEWs to cause the same effect?
Something strange is going on with these fires. Car wheels never melted from car fires before, so why are they now? It is fair to assume there is a new component. It is fair to think that it might be DEWs since we know they exist, even if we don't necessarily know their capabilities. NO ONE knows their capabilities, so there are a lot of reasonable questions.
You do not seem willing to ask those questions because you know it all already.
Until you can let yourself appreciate that you don't necessarily "know your shit" as much as you think you do, you can never ask the right questions.
Since I was there from the beginning, I can tell you that you are making up a confusion that never existed in the technical media. The maser was first (1953) and the laser followed (1961)---taking its name as a variation of "maser." Anyone who confuses them is simply ignorant. Anyone who tries to say that such confusion is legitimate is trying to back-pedal ignorance.
Since I did study laser engineering---and applied it in the design and analysis of laser weapons---you are simply feeding me stuff I digested a very long time ago. When metal can be polished to 99% reflectance, they become tough cookies to heat up, which accounts for their alarming performance in microwave ovens.
Your various technical ideas are entertaining, but not representative of the field. That microwaves can be beamed from geostationary orbit to the Earth is not in question, but the size of the target zone is. The laws of optics dictate that the smaller the target zone, the larger the projection aperture. Under the best circumstances (large target zone), we are talking kilometers. In order to have pinpoint target selection (meters), the projection aperture must be tens of kilometers in size. This has nothing to do with power level, by the way. So, you are talking about a system so technically infeasible, it would never be built. (Moreover, it could never be kept secret. We are not the only ones who monitor what is in geostationary orbit.) It is for this reason of optical requirements that, when space-based lasers were first considered, the proposed orbital altitudes were not much higher than 1,000 km.
As for car wheels, maybe the tires did not catch fire in previous cases (burns hot). Don't forget that car wheels used to be steel, which melts at a significantly higher temperature than aluminum. There is also the possibility that in a very hot fire, the evaporated aluminum vapor would catch fire, at a very high flame temperature. My junior high school metal shop used to create molten aluminum for lost-wax casting, using a small forge (size of a suitcase) powered by propane. Hardly any more remarkable than melting lead.
Questions are good, but stupid or ridiculous answers are not. It is not "fair" to invoke something that does not exist (spaceborne or airborne DEWs), and for which there is NO EVIDENCE. That is just mental laziness. Yes, compared to you, I do know it all. That is what being in the field means.
You obviously didn't actually read a word I said. I think you are being pedantic, and you are perhaps completely unfamiliar with modern day lingo. A laser is just a laser, regardless of frequency. Everyone knows it but you. Apparently you didn't get the memo.
You didn't get what I was saying. The system I proposed was a dual frequency laser system based on existing technologies. The microwave is a much wider beam (by the time it gets to earth), and the coupling frequency laser, the "igniter" has a smaller beam. I think that because that is how these things are done in some metal 3D printing applications. It is also part of the construction of the solar energy collector I linked to you (though perhaps the stated purpose of the secondary laser is not exactly the same) and because the videos of these aberrant fire events show what appear to be occasional pulse beams, scattering off the clouds/smoke which would not be microwaves.
There is a metric fuckton of evidence, you just refuse to admit that it is, because you can explain it away in a way that is not actually an explaination at all, but a wagon full of suppositions.
That is why I question your motives. You come up with "plausibles" and call it "proof." That is exactly the tactic used to hide things by the media, the C_A, the government, corporations, etc.
I come up with plausbiles as well, but I am not stating my suppositions are "truth," one way or another, I am only showing that it is not impossible. That is always the greatest hurdle, admitting that a thing is not impossible.
You're not much of a hurdler.
It's not that I "didn't get the memo." It's that you are simply ignorant of the history of this technology, and the accepted terminology in this field of endeavor. I can't help it if you embrace the sloppy thinking of an ignorant public.
Your laser (maser?) concept is vague, to be generous. Why you would need "dual frequencies" (we normally discuss this application in terms of wavelengths) is not explained. Microwave and optical wavelengths do not "couple" (whatever you think that to mean). The fact of the matter is that past designs of power satellites require apertures hundreds of meters in diameter to project its beam to Earth---to be received by an aperture of similar size, for an intensity 1/4 that of sunlight. Do you want to burn down huge patches of forest, or just light a fire somewhere? You need to increase the size of the transmitting aperture. It's easy to figure out---if you know how. But I can assure you nothing of that scale has been built, or would ever be concealable from those other nations who jealously guard their slots in the geostationary orbit belt. You are basically engaging in a magical idea: just wave magic wand, no physical calculations required.
You don't have evidence if DEWs if the "evidence" does not display unique features that would be possible only with such weapons. Interestingly, DEWs would not leave behind any traces. You are therefore in the business of taking the evidence you have and construing it as being explicable in only one way---when in fact it is far from inexplicable. Melting aluminum is not very remarkable. I recall photographs of aircraft crash scenes where fire resulted and there was melted aluminum residue. At least my "suppositions" are based on known properties of materials and observed phenomena. Your "supposition" is based only on imagination. Since it assumes things not in evidence nor in prospect, it is pretty much not possible.
You come up with mythology and call it "possible"---then you get all huffy about the rational public dismissing you as "conspiracy theorists."
And then the obligatory name-calling. You don't seem to realize that name-calling is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on an empty argument.
We all knew this from the very beginning despite it being off limits to discuss here. We saw the exact same carnage in Paradise, CA.
Yup. I have family that lived that nightmare and evacuated Paradise. Their home was melted. I looked over the evidence of Paradise quite thoroughly because it hit so close to home. There was never any doubt in my mind that that was not a natural event. Too many trees still standing next to completely destroyed cars. Buildings supposedly in the middle of an "oven" without being singed.
Space lasers baby. I knew it!
I hope your family is okay fren. I saw a tree burned from the inside out in a video about Paradise. That just doesn't happen since the inside of the tree is much "wetter" than the bark. Just like they were in a microwave, they were cooked from the inside out. Then when it was all over, the insurance companies refused to underwrite policies new for the area. That doesn't happen unless they're being prevented from insuring them by a higher authority. I live on the gulf coast and it doesn't matter how many times we get flooded out, the insurance companies are all too happy to offer new polices, just at a much higher price. This is the same thing all over again.
I heard that rhe ground there is so toxic at Paradise they aren't permitting rebuilding; it is condemned. Is that true?
I don't know. My cousins left and never looked back. I haven't looked into building there either. :)
This is the car that was burned by its own gasoline and rubber tires. Aluminum and glass have melting points lower than the flame temperatures. If local winds were driving flames up the adjacent slope, they would envelop the car without even touching the grass. Ignition would be prompt.
I see a lot of people being astounded by the behavior of fire, which only shows how little they know about it.
I'm waiting for the gov to say it was caused by evil ET.
These are just the facts. And the facts don't add up.
But the facts dew add up to something.
You don't have to tell me that, I know. But I'll be sharing your video because it's simple, straightforward, and leaves those unanswered questions. It's perfect. The goal after all is Awakening.
The facts add up perfectly fine as long as you add "space lasers" to the list of possibilities.
And why would you do that? There is no evidence for their existence. No orbit. No operational theory. You do realize that satellites zip along rather rapidly and would only be in view for a few minutes? The facts add up if you admit the behavior of flash fires in high winds.
Melted aluminum in an area where the ambient environment is such that any heat (such as a tire fire) should have dissipated away (thus preventing aluminum from melting) is exactly evidence of their existence. The aluminum wheels and the ground are both excellent thermal conductors, with the ground an infinite thermal sink unless there is a TON of fuel to heat it up. There is no way to melt aluminum with thermal energy alone without the entire surrounding environment being so hot that the boundary conditions between the aluminum and the ground are no longer a thermal boundary.
You could also take five seconds and look at designs for space based solar energy transmission. Such an investigation (beyond wikipedia, but it's a place to start) also addresses your "no theory," "no operational theory," and "satellites zip along rather rapidly" arguments, which are trivially shut down in other ways, but it's all nice and neatly rebutted in a simple investigation into space based solar energy, so I'll leave it at that.
You are speaking nonsense. What was available to burn didn't walk away. If the tires burned, the wheels were right there. You know it takes only a propane torch to melt aluminum---and it doesn't kill the person holding the torch. It was commonly done in my junior high school metalshop class. The only thermal sinking that went on was when the molten aluminum dribbled away from the fire and congealed on the ground. I think you are speaking beyond the realm of practical experience.
I know all about space-based solar energy transmission, since it was first proposed in the late 1970s, looking over the shoulder of Boeing's design work on giant solar panel arrays in orbit. I knew John J. Olson, the engineer who produced some splendid artwork on the subject. There are no such things presently. Moreover, their approach was to use microwave beams (not effective against metal) and at intensities a tenth that of sunlight. The designs had the satellites placed at geostationary orbit altitude and they were BIG, with dimensions in kilometers. Nothing like that exists, and we really don't know if they can be built (aspirations notwithstanding). All the current attempts at "proving" the concept involve satellites in low Earth orbit, where they indeed will "zip along rather rapidly." I've analyzed one proposed system, and it fell apart once the orbital and optical physics were accounted for. It also turns out that there is a very adverse relationship between the diameter of the satellite power aperture and the ground-based receiver aperture. They must both be big...and this has nothing to do with the amount of power being projected, so even a small-powered experiment will have an uphill test. Yeah, I would say understanding the operating theory and having analyzed proposed system examples constitutes "investigation" beyond what your quick scan provided. You flunk your rebuttal. It helps to actually know what is being talked about.
You always start off with an attack. You always then assume people have no idea what they are talking about if they don't put in every possible counter argument from the beginning. It's absolutely ludicrous. Your rebuttals are very often an anecdote that is based on completely different conditions and you then call it "the same," I know you aren't an idiot, yet you make so many argumentative errors; ad hominem, pro hominem, appeals to consensus, straw men, red herrings, etc. While you occasionally address the argument presented, more often than not you don't, rather you employ these argumentative errors and fill in the gaps with hubris (appeals to your "authority"). These tactics are exactly what the "fact checkers" do, which makes me think you might be an agent provocateur.
To address your anecdote and show its error:
A thing will melt if it receives more thermal energy than it can dissipate away. These are heat flows. If the flow coming into a volume is more than the flow going out and the total heat energy in the volume is higher than it's melting threshold (determined by it's chemical bond strength which is largely affected by its crystalline structure), then a metal will melt. That's how it works, it's not complicated. A blow torch is a large concentration of thermal energy in a small area. Its design purpose is to put in more energy into an volume than flows out of that volume. As soon as the threshold is met, it melts. That is what a blow torch is designed to do. That's it's whole purpose. It works on just about anything because again, that is what it is designed to do. It's all about heat energy v. volume v. dissipation rate out of that volume.
A tire fire on the other hand isn't shoving all of it's energy into a tiny spot on the wheel. On the contrary, most of it is going into the atmosphere and not into the wheel at all. What heat does go into the wheel isn't concentrated in one space, but is reasonably uniform (compared to a blow torch), thus the entire wheel will have a relatively uniform heat (there will be variance, but it won't be huge). Because aluminum is an extremely good thermal conductor, that heat energy will go to the nearest sinks. What are the nearest sinks? Well, the wheel is not sitting in free space, it's connected to an iron rod (the axle) and to the ground. The axle will take that heat away reasonably quickly, distributing it to the entire iron structure of the car. again, there will be a fair bit of variance there (more than in the aluminum), but heat still flows well in iron, so it will take away a good amount of heat. The ground is also a very good thermal conductor (relative to many things) and is a huge volume (effectively infinite) so it is, quite literally, a thermal ground (in the "electrical ground" sense). The aluminum wheel is connected to ground, thus as long as the thermal energy flow out to ground is the same or larger than the energy flow in, a wheel will not melt.
Interestingly, there are no reports of aluminum wheels melting from fires prior to a few years ago. Do a restricted date search from before 2012 (when the US Govt was legally allowed to spread propaganda through the media). You won't find any. All such reports come from the past few years.
As for the rest, your argument relies on the assumption that you know every single project that has ever been done. You begin with the absolutely unbelievable assumption that the technologies you may know something about can't be modified. For example:
There are microwave frequencies that can be used to better effect metal, yet you assume no one might have decided to make that change. The project design you know about wasn't capable of the required energy levels, so you inject the assumption that another project couldn't possibly have been created that was different and more effective than the one you know about.
I mean...
What the holy hell kind of gaslighting bullshit is that? It's like you're not even trying.
Your argument is based on the assumption that because you may have some level of experience in a field, that you know the limits of technology. That's fine that you believe that, but I think you are wrong. I think you are wrong because I know first hand that the government shuts down research and silences technological breakthroughs. I also know second hand (from numerous friends and family in top secret research) that the government has compartmentalized secret research projects and secret working technology. "Compartmentalized" means that someone in one top secret research project will likely have no knowledge whatsoever about other research projects, even if they are related technologies. Most importantly, no one knows all of what there is, yet you always assume you do.
It is this hubris that is most telling. You come off as "knowing it all," and you do know enough to make it appear (to those without enough experience) as if your assessment is correct. But regardless of what you do have knowledge of, no one knows it all, yet you spread around your "expertise" as an "authority" and "debunker" all the time. Because of your hubris and the argumentative fallacies you employ in your rebuttals, I am just shy of convinced that you are an agent provocateur. I will point that out every instance you use these fallacious "fact checker" like tactics in your rebuttals.
Very grim debating an encyclopedia. But you omit one terribly important fact about melting metals: if the flame temperature is not higher than the melting point, the metal simply will not melt. If it is higher, then it is a matter of the heat input being larger than the heat rejection.
But, if something is immersed in an environment at a certain temperature, and the temperature is being replenished by exothermic reactions, it will melt. You arm wave about thermal conduction, but iron is not that good a thermal conductor. I have a nice cast iron fireplace insert (stove) in which we get wood fire hot enough that the coals glow red-orange, and the stove is not something you want to touch, but it is far, far away from anything like melting (it, too, will glow slightly red in the darkness). To the extent that the ground is rock, it is a terrible conductor. But if the tire rubber is also on fire, and there is an ambient gasoline fire, all the aluminum wheels can do is sit there and reach melting point.
Aluminum wheels are now popular. Formerly, they were steel, with a higher melting point. And the nature of fires has changed. Now we get lithium battery fires, that are more ferocious than gasoline fires.
The solar power system designs were INTENDED to be safe and therefore had reduced power intensity at arrival. This went well with the required large receiver antenna size, from the standpoint of optics. The output of a satellite was supposed to have been a gigawatt, so there was plenty of power to do damage (enough that such a system would probably need an international treaty to operate, in order to prevent its use as an anti-satellite weapon). But to make that power concentrate enough to get to the melting point of aluminum (about 4 watts/cm2 if I recall correctly) would take an enormous projection aperture.
So, you are talking about building a multi-tens of $ billions satellite, in impossible secrecy (too damn visible), to accomplish the destruction of an automobile? The point is, if the objective is to start a forest fire, Zippo lighters and a crew of accomplices are simpler and cheaper---and whether cars get burnt up is NOT IMPORTANT.
Look, if you want to point to an example, look to YAL-1A. Easily capable of maybe 100 w/cm2 on target. Demonstrated to do the job against boosting targets. But it filled up an entire 747 with equipment and reactants, required lots of care and feeding---and was scrapped by Obama in 2014. End of story. Not necessary to lecture me with arm-waving when I worked on the Real Deal. This program had classified elements, but the program was NOT SECRET. So your all-availing excuse for the lack of evidence---that the culprit was "secret"---is just more bloviating by someone who thinks he knows more than he does.
The stuff that government keeps under wraps...is kept under wraps. It wouldn't be used to do juvenile stuff like start forest fires. I have been in very classified activities and can testify to that. In any case, you can't say that something exists when there is no evidence. Saying the evidence is "secret" is laughable. It just reveals you to be a fantasist.
I don't often use "fact checkers," as I distrust them as a class. But when somebody seems to have done his research and the answers are credible, then they have to be admitted. I make no apology for bringing facts into any discussion---nor should you expect me to apologize. I am, frankly, exasperated at the ignorance and illogical thinking that is accepted in these environs. You don't realize how totally that ruins your credibility to any outside observers.
Completely untrue. A thing will melt if it has absorbed enough heat energy to break the bonds (and the crystalline structure) in a localized area. That is how you can melt steel, which melts at 2500 F with wood, which has a flame temperature of about half that. It requires a insulated kiln to trap the heat to ensure that the steel will absorb enough heat energy.
A flame temperature higher than the melting point is only one way to accomplish melting, and even then, it still will not happen if the dissipation rate is faster than the incoming heat energy flow. That is why a thing doesn't melt instantaneously when exposed to such a flame.
The way I have explained it is how it works. Your understanding is insufficient. Just look it up, it's not hard.
Aluminum wheels have been popular for 30 years. They started melting in 2018. You have not addressed the topic directly, but are pretending you have through a straw man.
It may not be important to them, but it is an important piece of evidence that you still have not correctly addressed. Aluminum wheels will NOT MELT in a tire fire, period. I have given a substantial argument that you did not address (correctly) and perhaps more importantly, there is no actual evidence of it occurring prior to about 2018, and a metric fuckton after that.
From q#2225
Couple this with videos from the Navy of objects that, if the video evidence is as it suggests, can warp space (change directions and accelerate at impossible speeds). If they have technology that can warp space, then there are programs that exist that are FAR outside of the public domain. Your knowledge is irrelevant to what is possible. IRRELEVANT. You don't know shit. I don't know shit either about our technology, but I admit I don't know. I am willing to ask questions, you aren't.
It would be if the intention was to create distrust in the government. In fact, that would be a perfect use of the technology in that case.
I am not, nor have I ever made claims without evidence to back it up. Just because you think the evidence is insufficient, doesn't make it not corroborating evidence. You are completely unwilling to even ask questions, and your responses are very often totally incorrect full of false assumptions, like your concept of "melting". Your level of your own "rightness" would be almost laughable if it weren't interfering in what could otherwise be a productive conversation. Seriously, maybe you should brush up on thermo so we can have a proper conversation. Your physics is obviously a little rusty.
Just a quick search:
Melting point of aluminum: 1221 F
Melting point of glass: 2552 F
Melting point of steel: 2800 F
Forest fire temperature: 1472 F
You are fudging your numbers. The ideal adiabatic flame temperature for wood is 3,596 F. For gasoline (in the car) it would be 3,880 F. Only fused quartz comes close to the temperature you cite. The more common forms of glass (e.g., auto glass) have a high melting point closer to 1,100 F. The car burned itself up.
Somebody else is fudging the numbers. I grabbed those numbers off Google real quick.
Maybe that's a lesson not to shortcut research. I found the data on the internet also, but knew what I was looking for and where to look. The technical areas of Wikipedia are pretty trustworthy.
Forest fires can't melt glass beams.