October 4th National Emergency Alert Test
(www.usatoday.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (28)
sorted by:
Also, if we discuss only safe stuff we won't get anywhere. We do a lot of theorizing and searching for clues and answers. The evidence has been shown on this site, and discussed a lot.
Foremost, we want remedy for the Lahaina, Maui residents that lost loved ones and their homes to this act of terror. No one is really denying that this is a possibility. Personally, I believe the possibility of it, but also recognize this has next to no feet to travel with the public. The reason for this is what you call "evidence" is really circumstantial evidence.... Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. It's easy to test this by whether the evidence raises more questions than answers. Circumstantial evidence always raises more questions. It is for this reason it is not allowed in a court of law.
This happens also to be the 'opening' used by the authorities (perpetrators and enforcers) to respond by calling out publicly the need to suppress free speech.... "These 'conspiracy theories' are dangerous to our democracy"...... The government has a monopoly on the use of 'plausible deniability'.
Ever notice the guilty have the loudest voices for censorship? To resolve any crime you follow the facts. In this case, the most glaring facts are found in the growing cover-up. This is becoming the prima facie evidence and prime mover for getting to the bottom of all of this. The last thing anyone should do is give the criminal a weapon to use against those seeking to solve a crime.
If you are going to entertain the theory that DEW was used, you need to find the equipment used. Just like in a murder case, the weapon used is paramount for the prosecution to proceed. Where is the DEW equipment that caused this deadly conflagration? If you can't provide the weapon as evidence, you better have eye-witnesses that witnessed those perpetrators responsible for carrying out the crime. Who was behind this heinous act?
These questions are left unanswered and following this path is IMHO the most difficult path for bringing the criminals to justice. On the other hand, the following are the obvious things the public can easily acknowledge and pursue. So far, we have learned:
Fire prevention practices throughout the Lahaina area were purposely neglected and previously abandoned.
There appears to be evidence that fires in Maui were purposely set.
The water was turned off.
No fire fighting units were dispatched to prevent the fires from descending into the city.
The roads were blocked by the police preventing people from escaping in their vehicles when the conflagration rapidly approached.
Over a thousand people died as a result.
The cover-up has become blatantly obvious and provides the best pathway for getting people to talk in exchange for a plea deal. Perhaps, the DEW question will be leaked. Then, this can be exposed.
It sounded as though you were in the denier crowd about the existence of DEWs, so many bash me on my belief and they still deny after seeing the gov website.
I agree with about 95% of your explanation. I think we have to at least look at circumstantial evidence as it can lead to more solid evidence. Thankfully it is not legal in court----most of the time. In poorer areas in California it has been used, the public defenders sometimes don't know or don't care. My friend told me that you have to plead guilty if you can only afford a public defender. I had to show her the law and she freaked, she really studied the real Law and even took on a cop and one. He apologized to her for acting military.