I watched this earlier did a little searching.
According to the Utah government, the most intense wildfires burn at up to 1200 degrees Celsius. Aluminum melts slightly above 1200 (edit: aluminum melts at 1200 Fahrenheit, not Celsius. Thanks @inquimous for the correction). Glass melts around 1600 Celsius. So how the fuck did a small grass fire melt windshields, aluminum wheels and engine blocks?
I thought, perhaps a car burning could produce enough heat to do this, but found a test that was done which burned 2 vehicles and the highest recorded temperature was 900 Celsius.
Like most disasters in recent memory, nothing they are telling us makes any sense.
Glass is much more variable as there are so many types, plus thickness is a factor. Most will start to soften at about 1350. Remember glass is technically a very, very viscous liquid and doesn't melt the same way metal does.
https://glassbeast.com/glass-melting-point/
Tempered glass in windshields has a melting point of 1300-1500 F and a lower transition point.
A number of people have tried burning up cars to see what the heat is like. Here's one,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214157X17301053
but it seems they focus on how hot it is inside the car.
I am sure the burning rubber from tires contributes, again research reporters are fixated on what it takes to set a tire on fire, 750 F, but not what kind of heat they produce. More, presumably, and they are hard to put out because rubber tends to hold heat and re-ignite.
The temperature had to be way higher than the pure meting point because the aluminium was liquefied, not just melted.
Pure aluminium melting point applies to environment where the temperature is the same all around, e.g. in a foundry furnance, which wasn’t the case here.
The temperature of the same 1-2 metres away from the car was lower so the aluminium should reduce its original temperature while moving through the ground (not possible the sand had the same temperature of 1200).
The conclusion is that the original temperature had to be way, way higher for the aluminium to not lose its liquidity and move along cold sand 1-2 meters away.
It isn't pure aluminum. Here's an ordinary family with a firepot cobbled together, using 50 lbs of self-starting BBQ charcoal to melt about 30 lbs. of aluminum scrap and pour it in an anthill. These anthill castings, of which there are hundreds you can see online, demonstrate how easy it is to melt a lot of aluminum, how much it flows, how it can be done without setting everything around on fire.
In order to set a tire on fire it takes not just 750F, but a sustained heat of the entire surrounding environment for a minimum of four minutes (@750F). In order to melt Aluminum it takes not just heating it to 1200F, but sustaining the heat for long enough for it to transition and melt. In order to not just melt, but flow downhill like a river (as in the video) it has to retain that heat the whole time it is flowing, even though the ground is quickly absorbing the thermal energy (dirt is a very poor insulator but a fantastic heat sink). The same conditions must be met to melt glass, only the temperatures required are even higher.
If you can even ignite a tire in the open air it is not going to melt an aluminum wheel (though it might work the other way around). Aluminum melting is not going to melt glass. None of these things are going to cause the others. In order for a fire like this to occur, the entire surroundings must be above the melting point of glass (and thus the melting/combustion point of the other materials). This thermal input (ambient environment) must be sustained for long enough for everything to absorb all the heat, melt, and flow away, despite the ground working very hard to dissipate the heat of the melted materials.
None of that is possible in a grass fire in an open field. Hell, that's unlikely in any outdoor fire, unless it is has so much fuel, and the air is so contained, that an effective kiln is created. That does not happen in an open field
Another way to make aluminum melt, or steel belted tires combust, or glass melt is to add other types of energy besides thermal. For example, you can stick an aluminum can in the microwave and it will melt, no thermal energy input needed. If you stick iron in the microwave in a glass container you can melt the glass, even if the iron doesn't melt (though that can happen too if your microwave is powerful enough).
The only possible way to melt a car in an open environment like this without an obvious fuel source (or as in other pictures, where the melted cars are next to green trees) is with a directed energy weapon.
As far as I am aware, that's it. You simply can't melt cars next to unburnt trees or in open fields unless you have a microwave laser (not counting direct application of a fuel source like thermite). This was not a natural fire. This was a god damn space laser.
The real question is, what was the thermal input that caused the tires to be exposed to 750 F for 15 minutes? I'm taking the lower time because it must have been generally hot in the area, meaning less chance for any heat to dissipate by conductivity or radiation: instead, the fires feed themselves. How do we know this car caught on fire in that spot? Maybe it happened a short distance away and he drove off the road. In any case, cars are full of flammables and once any oil or gas started burning it would spread. I don't think it takes lasers. There are cars on fire on every highway every day and in this situation no one was putting them out, so the thoroughly burned.
I didn't suggest that a burning tire couldn't ignite the other material in a car (plastic, foam, etc.). I said it couldn't melt aluminum. Of course if you can contain the heat in a confined area (kiln e.g.) you can do a lot more than if the thermal energy has a larger environment to interact with. But I explicitly stated that the conditions for the suspected car fires were not conditions that would melt aluminum, much less glass.
All of the evidence you have presented has been under completely different conditions than that in all of the fires which are suspected of being caused by DEWs. No one is saying a fire can't melt aluminum. What people are saying is that if a fire is hot enough, and sustained enough to melt aluminum, it's going to do a whole lot more damage to the immediate surroundings than it is.
In the paper you presented on cars burning in a car park, the car park was an enclosed environment and it still didn't melt the aluminum wheels, much less the glass. The reason it didn't melt the aluminum wheels is because the heat had somewhere else to go. You need insulation to contain the heat, or the entire surrounding environment needs to be hot enough that the immediate environment is effectively insulated because the boundary of the thermal energy release is sufficiently far away.
Heat is constantly moving, usually quite quickly, out of any local environment. In order to melt aluminum, not only does it need to absorb enough total heat (BTUs), it needs to retain it until it meets a threshold. But aluminum is an excellent thermal conductor. So is the ground. It is going to send that heat energy directly away from itself. It is not going to melt from a tire fire. It can only melt if it is in an actual oven, which means the air and the ground are near the melting point of aluminum. Otherwise it will happily give off it's heat to the air and the ground.
The real question is, what was the thermal input that caused the tires to be exposed to 750 F for 15 minutes?
The real question is how was the local environment so hot that the aluminum wasn't able to dissipate enough heat that it melted. It takes an oven. Any oven hot enough to melt aluminum is going to wreck havoc on the local environment. There has to betons of spent fuel immediately surrounding melted aluminum. In all cases there was not.
How do we know this car caught on fire in that spot?
I do not think that this is a meaningful question. Your speculation after is ludicrous however. This was not the only car, it was one off dozens that I saw, many parked. Some parked next to green trees. Others parked in empty parking lots (like this one). And this is not the only fire where this happened. Several CA fires had similar occurrences. Fires in Greece, same thing.
When you plug "fire melts aluminum wheels" into google you will get all sorts of hits. When you restrict the date range to before 2010 you don't get any results. As far as I can find, there were zero instances of car wheels melting in normal fires before a few years ago. Now they are all over the place. (I don't know the year it changed, I picked 2010 because it was a date before 2012 and Obama's NDAA rewrite, which allows the government to spread propaganda through news agencies).
There are cars on fire on every highway every day
And none of them have their aluminum wheels melt. Car fires just can't burn hot enough. Not even in an enclosed environment (like your carpark example previously). They must be totally enclosed in an insulated oven to melt aluminum.
I'm not saying it's impossible to melt aluminum wheels in a normal fire. If it is big enough that the heat can't dissipate away fast enough then it can absolutely happen, and there is evidence of melted aluminum in some of the fires from my 2010 search, but the examples were in environments of total destruction with tons of fuel immediately around it. It wasn't in areas where there were trees standing green and tall ten feet away. It wasn't in areas where there was no other fuel source. It was strictly in areas where miles and miles around it was all burning, thus the local environment was so hot that the heat had no where to go.
I don't think it takes lasers.
You have yet to provide any argument or evidence which suggests an alternative. In each case of your argument so far you are not appreciating how quickly heat dissipates, i.e. you are mislabeling the boundary conditions. Especially between the aluminum and the ground.
I provided direct argument against your argument. In other words, your arguments for "how it could be other than a DEW" are, imo, all shown false. That is how every case for something is made.
I don't have a picture of a satellite or high altitude airplane shooting a high powered maser at Maui on Aug. 8. Instead I have to analyze the evidence that exists. I have shown, imo, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wheels did not melt due to thermal energy from the combustion of the available fuel.
If you disagree, you will have to actually address my argument.
If the aluminum wheels did not melt due to thermal energy, there is a perfectly reasonable way they might have melted, i.e. via microwave radiation from above.
If all you really want is for me to show you a picture of a space based microwave laser facility, that's easy.
Nothing makes sense from the MSM/Government because they are liars, thieves, and murderers.
The whole thing was done on purpose for landgrab, depopulation, 15 minute cities, 'be happy own nothing', WEF/Vatican multinational/international banks/corpo Fascist as Fuck New World Order.
The heat shield fiberglass will burn like that. The stuff is used around exhaust pipes to keep the rest of the car from melting. I've seen it turned to powered around some pretty hot diesel powered "play" trucks exhaust piping. Turbo diesels can create some heat well over 1500F.
True...It was a VW probably with that pos 2.0 turbo in it. Maybe that was part of the downpipe wrap? Or the plastic and lead plates in the battery shielded the glass mat from getting consumed - like insulation.
Whatever it is - this Maui thing is really f'd up. Make sure you check out the video with the 6' tall black fences they're putting around with NG keeping people moving along and private security preventing people from entering.
That makes a lot more sense. The fur would've burned with everything else. Unless there were firefighters or others on site to stop the fire, the way that there are lines where the burning just stopped doesn't make sense. Can anybody here provide some clarity on that?
If you've ever been around a big bon fire the gasses around burn to were the heat from the center of the fire reaches to. What makes sense is that the grasses had moisture in them and an outside foreign element was energizing the burning up to a certain specific spot. The heated grasses within range dried out and burned but the grasses burning was not enough to keep the fires spreading to dry out more grass and keep it going. Most everything about this messed up situation can easily point to non existent weapons.
I wonder if one of those vehicles had a "smart meter" or was connected the the "internet of things" to provide the coordinates so as to paint a target for a fancy James Bond super space age Nintendo zapper weapon that doesn't exist...
I watched this earlier did a little searching. According to the Utah government, the most intense wildfires burn at up to 1200 degrees Celsius. Aluminum melts slightly above 1200 (edit: aluminum melts at 1200 Fahrenheit, not Celsius. Thanks @inquimous for the correction). Glass melts around 1600 Celsius. So how the fuck did a small grass fire melt windshields, aluminum wheels and engine blocks? I thought, perhaps a car burning could produce enough heat to do this, but found a test that was done which burned 2 vehicles and the highest recorded temperature was 900 Celsius.
Like most disasters in recent memory, nothing they are telling us makes any sense.
Pure aluminum melts at 1200 F and alloys much less, about 600-700 F. Not Celsius. https://www.onlinemetals.com/en/melting-points
Glass is much more variable as there are so many types, plus thickness is a factor. Most will start to soften at about 1350. Remember glass is technically a very, very viscous liquid and doesn't melt the same way metal does. https://glassbeast.com/glass-melting-point/
Tempered glass in windshields has a melting point of 1300-1500 F and a lower transition point.
https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/safety-glass-applications-design/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempered_glass
A number of people have tried burning up cars to see what the heat is like. Here's one, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214157X17301053 but it seems they focus on how hot it is inside the car. I am sure the burning rubber from tires contributes, again research reporters are fixated on what it takes to set a tire on fire, 750 F, but not what kind of heat they produce. More, presumably, and they are hard to put out because rubber tends to hold heat and re-ignite.
Important to notice:
The temperature had to be way higher than the pure meting point because the aluminium was liquefied, not just melted.
Pure aluminium melting point applies to environment where the temperature is the same all around, e.g. in a foundry furnance, which wasn’t the case here.
The temperature of the same 1-2 metres away from the car was lower so the aluminium should reduce its original temperature while moving through the ground (not possible the sand had the same temperature of 1200).
The conclusion is that the original temperature had to be way, way higher for the aluminium to not lose its liquidity and move along cold sand 1-2 meters away.
It isn't pure aluminum. Here's an ordinary family with a firepot cobbled together, using 50 lbs of self-starting BBQ charcoal to melt about 30 lbs. of aluminum scrap and pour it in an anthill. These anthill castings, of which there are hundreds you can see online, demonstrate how easy it is to melt a lot of aluminum, how much it flows, how it can be done without setting everything around on fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBxgb2yYqCU
In order to set a tire on fire it takes not just 750F, but a sustained heat of the entire surrounding environment for a minimum of four minutes (@750F). In order to melt Aluminum it takes not just heating it to 1200F, but sustaining the heat for long enough for it to transition and melt. In order to not just melt, but flow downhill like a river (as in the video) it has to retain that heat the whole time it is flowing, even though the ground is quickly absorbing the thermal energy (dirt is a very poor insulator but a fantastic heat sink). The same conditions must be met to melt glass, only the temperatures required are even higher.
If you can even ignite a tire in the open air it is not going to melt an aluminum wheel (though it might work the other way around). Aluminum melting is not going to melt glass. None of these things are going to cause the others. In order for a fire like this to occur, the entire surroundings must be above the melting point of glass (and thus the melting/combustion point of the other materials). This thermal input (ambient environment) must be sustained for long enough for everything to absorb all the heat, melt, and flow away, despite the ground working very hard to dissipate the heat of the melted materials.
None of that is possible in a grass fire in an open field. Hell, that's unlikely in any outdoor fire, unless it is has so much fuel, and the air is so contained, that an effective kiln is created. That does not happen in an open field
Another way to make aluminum melt, or steel belted tires combust, or glass melt is to add other types of energy besides thermal. For example, you can stick an aluminum can in the microwave and it will melt, no thermal energy input needed. If you stick iron in the microwave in a glass container you can melt the glass, even if the iron doesn't melt (though that can happen too if your microwave is powerful enough).
The only possible way to melt a car in an open environment like this without an obvious fuel source (or as in other pictures, where the melted cars are next to green trees) is with a directed energy weapon.
As far as I am aware, that's it. You simply can't melt cars next to unburnt trees or in open fields unless you have a microwave laser (not counting direct application of a fuel source like thermite). This was not a natural fire. This was a god damn space laser.
You guys could really debunk the idiots who believe office fires brought down the steel-structured WTC7!
Been there, done that.
It takes 15-25 minutes of exposure to the ignition temperature to get a tire burning. After that, tires produce more BTU per weight than coal.
https://ecogreenequipment.com/is-burning-tdf-better-than-fossil-fuels/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257562111_Burning_Characteristics_of_Automotive_Tires
Two burning tires can definitely burn up a car. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB95257390.xhtml
The real question is, what was the thermal input that caused the tires to be exposed to 750 F for 15 minutes? I'm taking the lower time because it must have been generally hot in the area, meaning less chance for any heat to dissipate by conductivity or radiation: instead, the fires feed themselves. How do we know this car caught on fire in that spot? Maybe it happened a short distance away and he drove off the road. In any case, cars are full of flammables and once any oil or gas started burning it would spread. I don't think it takes lasers. There are cars on fire on every highway every day and in this situation no one was putting them out, so the thoroughly burned.
I didn't suggest that a burning tire couldn't ignite the other material in a car (plastic, foam, etc.). I said it couldn't melt aluminum. Of course if you can contain the heat in a confined area (kiln e.g.) you can do a lot more than if the thermal energy has a larger environment to interact with. But I explicitly stated that the conditions for the suspected car fires were not conditions that would melt aluminum, much less glass.
All of the evidence you have presented has been under completely different conditions than that in all of the fires which are suspected of being caused by DEWs. No one is saying a fire can't melt aluminum. What people are saying is that if a fire is hot enough, and sustained enough to melt aluminum, it's going to do a whole lot more damage to the immediate surroundings than it is.
In the paper you presented on cars burning in a car park, the car park was an enclosed environment and it still didn't melt the aluminum wheels, much less the glass. The reason it didn't melt the aluminum wheels is because the heat had somewhere else to go. You need insulation to contain the heat, or the entire surrounding environment needs to be hot enough that the immediate environment is effectively insulated because the boundary of the thermal energy release is sufficiently far away.
Heat is constantly moving, usually quite quickly, out of any local environment. In order to melt aluminum, not only does it need to absorb enough total heat (BTUs), it needs to retain it until it meets a threshold. But aluminum is an excellent thermal conductor. So is the ground. It is going to send that heat energy directly away from itself. It is not going to melt from a tire fire. It can only melt if it is in an actual oven, which means the air and the ground are near the melting point of aluminum. Otherwise it will happily give off it's heat to the air and the ground.
The real question is how was the local environment so hot that the aluminum wasn't able to dissipate enough heat that it melted. It takes an oven. Any oven hot enough to melt aluminum is going to wreck havoc on the local environment. There has to be tons of spent fuel immediately surrounding melted aluminum. In all cases there was not.
I do not think that this is a meaningful question. Your speculation after is ludicrous however. This was not the only car, it was one off dozens that I saw, many parked. Some parked next to green trees. Others parked in empty parking lots (like this one). And this is not the only fire where this happened. Several CA fires had similar occurrences. Fires in Greece, same thing.
When you plug "fire melts aluminum wheels" into google you will get all sorts of hits. When you restrict the date range to before 2010 you don't get any results. As far as I can find, there were zero instances of car wheels melting in normal fires before a few years ago. Now they are all over the place. (I don't know the year it changed, I picked 2010 because it was a date before 2012 and Obama's NDAA rewrite, which allows the government to spread propaganda through news agencies).
And none of them have their aluminum wheels melt. Car fires just can't burn hot enough. Not even in an enclosed environment (like your carpark example previously). They must be totally enclosed in an insulated oven to melt aluminum.
I'm not saying it's impossible to melt aluminum wheels in a normal fire. If it is big enough that the heat can't dissipate away fast enough then it can absolutely happen, and there is evidence of melted aluminum in some of the fires from my 2010 search, but the examples were in environments of total destruction with tons of fuel immediately around it. It wasn't in areas where there were trees standing green and tall ten feet away. It wasn't in areas where there was no other fuel source. It was strictly in areas where miles and miles around it was all burning, thus the local environment was so hot that the heat had no where to go.
You have yet to provide any argument or evidence which suggests an alternative. In each case of your argument so far you are not appreciating how quickly heat dissipates, i.e. you are mislabeling the boundary conditions. Especially between the aluminum and the ground.
After all that, you fail to provide any proof that it was a DEW, only that you don't want to believe anything else. You are better than that
What the hell?
I provided direct argument against your argument. In other words, your arguments for "how it could be other than a DEW" are, imo, all shown false. That is how every case for something is made.
I don't have a picture of a satellite or high altitude airplane shooting a high powered maser at Maui on Aug. 8. Instead I have to analyze the evidence that exists. I have shown, imo, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wheels did not melt due to thermal energy from the combustion of the available fuel.
If you disagree, you will have to actually address my argument.
If the aluminum wheels did not melt due to thermal energy, there is a perfectly reasonable way they might have melted, i.e. via microwave radiation from above.
If all you really want is for me to show you a picture of a space based microwave laser facility, that's easy.
Careful fren... you'll get a week off for discussing conspiracies... as if almost everything on here wasn't one not to long ago.
I am providing evidence and argument for a specific event. If they ban me, they will get a mouthful and a half when I get back, and they know it.
I got a week off for saying I thought it was being handled poorly and genuinely encouraging some caution. I admire your determination. Godspeed fren!
Nothing makes sense from the MSM/Government because they are liars, thieves, and murderers. The whole thing was done on purpose for landgrab, depopulation, 15 minute cities, 'be happy own nothing', WEF/Vatican multinational/international banks/corpo Fascist as Fuck New World Order.
I originally posted this video in this thread while it was being livestreamed.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16c2W7os8H/another-smoking-gun-maui-fire-br/
The link on that thread no longer works, so I am reposing it here. Link to old thread for access to the discussion that already occurred there.
Doubt that's "someone's pet"...
Appears to be the remnants of an AGM/fiberglass mat battery...
The heat shield fiberglass will burn like that. The stuff is used around exhaust pipes to keep the rest of the car from melting. I've seen it turned to powered around some pretty hot diesel powered "play" trucks exhaust piping. Turbo diesels can create some heat well over 1500F.
True...It was a VW probably with that pos 2.0 turbo in it. Maybe that was part of the downpipe wrap? Or the plastic and lead plates in the battery shielded the glass mat from getting consumed - like insulation.
Whatever it is - this Maui thing is really f'd up. Make sure you check out the video with the 6' tall black fences they're putting around with NG keeping people moving along and private security preventing people from entering.
I saw that video. "Nothing to see here! And "move along" comes to mind. They really don't want any evidence of this attack getting out.
That makes a lot more sense. The fur would've burned with everything else. Unless there were firefighters or others on site to stop the fire, the way that there are lines where the burning just stopped doesn't make sense. Can anybody here provide some clarity on that?
If you've ever been around a big bon fire the gasses around burn to were the heat from the center of the fire reaches to. What makes sense is that the grasses had moisture in them and an outside foreign element was energizing the burning up to a certain specific spot. The heated grasses within range dried out and burned but the grasses burning was not enough to keep the fires spreading to dry out more grass and keep it going. Most everything about this messed up situation can easily point to non existent weapons.
I wonder if one of those vehicles had a "smart meter" or was connected the the "internet of things" to provide the coordinates so as to paint a target for a fancy James Bond super space age Nintendo zapper weapon that doesn't exist...