"... I noticed an increase in professional opinions here, regarding the events."

In using the term "professional opinions" here, are you suggesting there are verified people here getting paid? Or are you simply complementing the polemic of the many posts on the subject?

I don't believe anyone is really debating the existence and the use of DEWs in Lahaina, Maui or previously. In fact, I believe they were most likely used on 9-11. Dr. Judy Wood provides the question in her book, "Where Did The Towers Go?" And photographic evidence that seems not explainable by existing well-known technologies.

The problem with leading with the DEW narrative is that as long as the government has a monopoly on the 'official' narrative, it's going to be a tremendous mountain to climb and overcome in order for the general public to accept it. Not only is this a large obstacle to overcome, but it tends to distract from the most poignant and pressing issue. That is, the growing cover-up itself. "Where are the missing children?" Why is everything locked down? Why is a curtain being constructed around the burned out areas? Why is a no-fly zone imposed? Why is there no cell phone use? Why is there a restriction area declaration in Lahaina? It appears instead of gathering other community help, this place has become very secretive and they are bringing in foreign help. The following are the obvious things the public can easily acknowledge. 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.

In any criminal case, these are questions that lead us to those people responsible. Interrogating them help in determining the masterminds behind it all. Regarding the DEW narraitive, history provides us with many examples of the government's mastery of using 'plausible deniability'. There are so many examples, It would take paragraphs and even pages to list them. I will provide a relating example though. We can look no further than Dr, Judy Wood and how she was discredited and made to appear like a nutcase. Here's one example published by Cambridge University Press using Judy Wood as psychological case:

"This chapter examines 9/11 as a wellspring of both apocalyptic trauma and contemporary techno-conspiracies. Its centerpiece is a discussion of Dr. Judy Wood’s remarkable 9/11 conspiracy theory about directed-energy weapons. It is my contention that Wood’s theories reveal a complex nexus of anxieties over the American technological regime: from urban technologies, such as skyscrapers, to media technologies to the legacy of the atomic bomb. It also reveals the workings of a poignant fantasy about energy in a time of ecological crisis."

I have no doubt, the DEW argument is real. I even asked whether the cell towers in Lahaina could have been weaponized for this to occur. However, this is only a hypothesis based on zero facts. The growing 'cover-up' is prima facie evidence that the general public can easily see. Focusing on this will eventually lead us to the 'how' argument though. It is said,'The cover-up becomes the bigger crime', and we have this benefit for the general public to see. With the Dr. Judy Wood example above, another web page viciously discredit's her by,

"One thing it does is demonstrate Dr. Wood’s refusal (after over a decade since the crime of 9/11) to even have an opinion on who perpetrated the crime – this in spite of the mountain of evidence unrelated to hers, which in fact points directly at 9/11 being ‘an inside job.’"

Even this critique asks the most important question, Who is responsible for the crime? The 'how' doesn't directly get us there and just like in the past, the enemy will use 'conspiracy theory' narrative to discredit and derail the public's demand of who is responsible.

"... I noticed an increase in professional opinions here, regarding the events."

In using the term "professional opinions" here, are you suggesting there are verified people here getting paid? Or are you simply complementing the polemic of the many posts on the subject?

I don't believe anyone is really debating the existence and the use of DEWs in Lahaina, Maui or previously. In fact, I believe they were most likely used on 9-11. Dr. Judy Wood provides the question in her book, "Where Did The Towers Go?" And photographic evidence that seems not explainable by existing well-known technologies.

The problem with leading with the DEW narrative is that as long as the government has a monopoly on the 'official' narrative, it's going to be a tremendous mountain to climb and overcome in order for the general public to accept it. Not only is this a large obstacle to overcome, but it tends to distract from the most poignant and pressing issue. That is, the growing cover-up itself. "Where are the missing children?" Why is everything locked down? Why is a curtain being constructed around the burned out areas? Why is a no-fly zone imposed? Why is there no cell phone use? Why is there a restriction area declaration in Lahaina? It appears instead of gathering other community help, this place has become very secretive and they are bringing in foreign help. The following are the obvious things the public can easily acknowledge. 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.

In any criminal case, these are questions that lead us to those people responsible. Interrogating them help in determing the masterminds behind it all. Regarding the DEW narraitive, history provides us with many examples of the government's mastery of using 'plausible deniability'. There are so many examples, It would take paragraphs and even pages to list them. I will provide a relating example though. We can look no further than Dr, Judy Wood and how she was discredited and made to appear like a nutcase. Here's one example published by Cambridge University Press using Judy Wood as psychological case:

"This chapter examines 9/11 as a wellspring of both apocalyptic trauma and contemporary techno-conspiracies. Its centerpiece is a discussion of Dr. Judy Wood’s remarkable 9/11 conspiracy theory about directed-energy weapons. It is my contention that Wood’s theories reveal a complex nexus of anxieties over the American technological regime: from urban technologies, such as skyscrapers, to media technologies to the legacy of the atomic bomb. It also reveals the workings of a poignant fantasy about energy in a time of ecological crisis."

I have no doubt, the DEW argument is real. I even asked whether the cell towers in Lahaina could have been weaponized for this to occur. However, this is only a hypothesis based on zero facts. The growing 'cover-up' is prima facie evidence that the general public can easily see. Focusing on this will eventually lead us to the 'how' argument though. It is said,'The cover-up becomes the bigger crime', and we have this benefit for the general public to see. With the Dr. Judy Wood example above, another web page viciously discredit's her by,

"One thing it does is demonstrate Dr. Wood’s refusal (after over a decade since the crime of 9/11) to even have an opinion on who perpetrated the crime – this in spite of the mountain of evidence unrelated to hers, which in fact points directly at 9/11 being ‘an inside job.’"

Even this critique asks the most important question, Who is responsible for the crime? The 'how' doesn't directly get us there and just like in the past, the enemy will use 'conspiracy theory' narrative to discredit and derail the public's demand of who is responsible.