Maui Fires

The Maui fire investigators and local government will soon label the firestorm that nuked Lahaina but left its green trees standing in place but wilted, either as arson or climate change. No matter what, Big Media will amp up the verdict, pre-conclusion, as “climate boiling.” They gaslighting jackals will not wait for any type of investigation, whether rigged or not, to hive-drone the noise that the world is coming to an end due to overpopulation and dwindling resources.

Beyond natural wildfire or ground-level arson fires, there is a third and far more likely sore for the firestorm: Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).

Full article

I don't believe there is credible evidence of DEWs being used.

The fact checkers agree with you again. They are out in force on this one, always a good sign the opposite of what they say is the truth.

So what are the evidences of DEWs being used? Random unsourced images on Twitter?

It this following image a good piece of evidence?

Or this?

How would the DEW theory work?

Do they just light the fires (wouldn't it be easier and cheaper with some more conventional methods?)

Or do they keep their lasers or microwaves (or what are they using?) on full blast sweeping from house to housem zapping them like the aliens from War of the Worlds?

Were there actually strong winds in Maui and is it true that they can make fires worse?

Here is another theory to ponder. It certainly wasn't bushfires.

This image, which is featured in @ThePrisoner's video is a timelapse photo of a rocket launch

This one is much older than the Maui fires and most likely it's just a kind of lens-flare or a light pillar.


having no doubt or knowing exactly that something is true, or known to be true, correct, exact, or effective: (source)

Apologies for again providing the definition of the word. I believe it is important to know exactly what we are saying to each other. (Matt 5:37)

How can you be certain it wasn't bushfires? I'm not seeing credible evidence in the video.

Does this video claim that smart meters started the fires? Wow. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Well if you have eyes to see, the fires start around the houses the landward sides are unburnt. Did you actually watch the footage?

Its not exactly a rarity

Not so extraordinary it seems, but I am sure Finnish TV haven't covered it yet.

I don't believe fires are a simple matter that any layman can easily determine things from a few photographs.

Here are some quotes from a member of the incident management team with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Jonathan Pangburn, from this article

"....Fires that spread from house to house generate a force of their own. Embers, broadcast by the wind, find dry leaves, igniting one structure then another, and the cycle is perpetuated block after block. Break that cycle and the fire quits, and destruction can be minimized."

Most telling were the trees. Most of the pines that sheltered this community still had their canopies intact. The needles, yellowed from the intense heat, were not burned — evidence that the winds that morning had pushed the fire along so fast it never had a chance to rise into the trees. But as a surface fire, it lit up the homes that lay in its path...."

"....The phenomenon in Paradise that Pangburn described — the fire spreading from structure to structure, tree canopies intact — is not unique to the Camp fire.

Fire behaviorists have documented it throughout the West, most recently in the aftermath of the firestorms that ravaged Northern California last year.

In spite of this, the popular perception is that wildfires burn through these communities like a wall of flames. In fact, small, burning embers — firebrands — blown in advance of the fire are the primary cause of structural fires.

“When we look at the big flames but not the firebrands, we miss the principal igniter and pay attention to the show,” Cohen said.

Billions of these embers fly into neighborhoods, landing onto flammable roofs, into vegetation around the structure and rain gutters choked with leaves and needles.

Big flame fronts, on the other hand, are less effective in igniting structures because they burn fast — often consuming their fuels in about a minute or less in one location — and move along often so quickly as to not consume the structures themselves....."

Or: Dr. Jennifer Marlon, a professor and researcher at Yale's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies in this article

Another aspect of wildfires contributing to this is that houses are especially vulnerable to embers that spurt off from the flames.

“Embers can be blown for miles ahead of a fire front,” said Susan Kocher, another forest advisor with the University of California Cooperative Extension. “The embers can penetrate the home through the vents or open windows and catch the home on fire, which then burns the trees immediately surrounding the house.”

Kocher said there are cases where neighborhoods catch fire even when the forest immediately surrounding the community isn’t burning because these embers can be blown in from more distant wildfires. Valachovic explained that it can lead to home-to-home ignitions, turning a forest fire into an urban fire.

Maroon said, “Man-made structures have many little holes where embers can fly or get sucked INTO the house and then it's all over (like vents, windows, etc.). And homes have many flat surfaces whereas trees (especially pine trees) are more triangle-shaped to shed particles (like snow) so that they just fall off or through the needles to land on the ground. Anywhere an object can land on a flat surface and sit there is a problem when you're talking about windblown particles.” She said this is especially a problem when those windblown particles can collect together, such as in roof gutters where leaves are piled up or in the V-shaped areas where two parts of the roof meet.

Finally, wildfires don’t always decimate one area cleanly. “The structure of objects themselves, as well as their configuration on the ground, determines how the fire will move and affect things,” Marlon said. “Wildfires naturally burn in a very ‘patchy’ formation because of these differences in fuel shape and structure.”

more discussion

In the photos Note the devastated cars and structures, yet trees see to be left standing with only superficial damage, similar to the Santa Rosa, California fires

What does the word superficial mean in this case?

A large portion of the trees seem quite burned to me and as far as I know green leaves do not combust very easily nor does bark protected wood.

again, from this article

" Why are structures burned down in wildfire areas where trees are not?


Many of the region's trees are adapted to surviving fires. Burn damage can still be seen on their trunks. On the other hand, houses are built in ways that make them susceptible to embers, which is one of the significant reasons wildfires spread."

Marlon added there are other western trees -- including larches, oaks and firs -- that are fire-adapted with features like thick bark and high canopies. Some trees and plants also adapt by being quick to regrow from the roots after the above-ground portion burns.

Yana Valachovic, a forest advisor with the University of California Cooperative Extension, confirmed that was the case. “I visited Paradise a few weeks after the fire started. I have been looking through my photos and generally the area all saw fire, but a lot of the fire was on the ground and not in the crowns or the canopies of the trees,” she told VERIFY in an email. “Part of what prevented the fire from getting into the crowns of the trees were efforts to manage surface fuels to prevent fire from climbing from the ground up into the canopies.”

and from this article:-

But other findings did stand out, said Knapp, a research ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station in Redding.

"It's often not the trees themselves that are necessarily contributing to fire. It's mostly the fuels that are dropped by those trees, like the litter," he said.

and again a quote by Dr. Jennifer Marlon, a professor and researcher at Yale's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies from this article:-

Finally, wildfires don’t always decimate one area cleanly. “The structure of objects themselves, as well as their configuration on the ground, determines how the fire will move and affect things,” Marlon said. “Wildfires naturally burn in a very ‘patchy’ formation because of these differences in fuel shape and structure.”

Now do we trust the forest advisor's explanation or do we just go with "trust me, I'm smart" and with something like:-

  • "trees are wood and wood burns so all the trees should have burned 100%?"

  • "fire moves in a linear predictable way and burns everything it comes across"

Looks like they will grow again....IMHO

What are her qualifications, is she a Botanist?

Ok got it. Yale of Skull AND Bones fame.

Why? Do you believe that as professor and researcher at Yale's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies she might not have the proper education and isn't credible enough to make an assessment and statement as the one below and that you would need to be a botanist to credibly make such a statement?

And do you with your own common sense find the statement feasible or not?

Got what? Do you believe she might be a member of Skull and Bones and is lying?

It's a very vague article why would I take it seriously, its designed for laymen. Hardly a scientific paper. It's waffle.

Do you even know they did the same in Hawaii, no of course you don't? And also I was referring to Santa Rosa and not Paradise, the only think they have in common is being fires in California.

For instance were the wind conditions in Paradise and Hawaii comparable on the days of their fires? Photos I have seen online of Paradise show a tiny settlement. Paradise looks too small even to have a gas station.

Oh, the black trees in these photos? I certainly could not make that determination based on the available data (a low resolution image of apparently charred trees)

Are you a Botanist, then?

And is this a relevant point that they will grow again?

Is not determining whether trees always catch fire and always burn to ashes or not the point here instead?

So it's not her lacking qualifications nor Skull and Bones affiliation but that her statement is too vague and trivial, waffle, and not scientific enough.

Yes, sure, very vague: "Naturally burn in a very ‘patchy’ formation because of these differences in fuel shape and structure." Ridiculous. So vague. We demand a study outlining the exact forms and scientific measurments instead of just silly words like "patchy". We need laser-scans and 3D models. Exact sizes of fire "patches", wind speed, different variables such as tree type, age, size...etc etc.

Or then we just apply common sense and realize that fire and flying embers does not behave in a perfectly linear and predictable ways but behave in complex ways such as jumping from place to place and moving variably in different directions and speeds.

Did what? Of course I don't? Managed surface fuels?

ok Comrade..

Can you explain your whole point, please?

I studied Biological Sciences at London University, years ago, included a few botany course units.