Local Authorities, FEMA & Red Cross Betray & PROHIBIT Independent...
https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/donations-breaking-through-maui-blockades:2
No. So do you have any proofs that DEWs were used, please?
So you chose to grasp at straws and attack the Guardian. I had a hunch you would.
Is this video also government propaganda? Should it be disqualified, ignored?
Yes, if someone had filmed good footage of DEWs being used I believe the Guardian would show those videos.
Ok, so it's invisible microwaves that they were using.... Hard to see evidence of that, I guess?
But are there any indications of microwave DEWs being used? No.
Now I'm going to chose to attack the messenger; Stew Peters, because I don't respect his opinion. He makes quite idiotic conclusions on Twitter quite often, and he's even a prominent flat-earther. Sure, he might just be click-baiting and grifting though, and be smarter than what he says.
"Indisputable that a whole lot of facts about this fire are just off"
Indisputable? I'm disputing it. And what are those facts? Waffle is the word.
"How was there this freakish amount of wind perfectly situated to make the fire spread as quickly as possible"
Now that's a jaw dropper. So the wind is in on it too?
Why does footage of the fires show bright flashes at the heart of the fires
Don't know which footage he is referring to. It's very common for bright flashes, so called arc-flashes, to occur in fires/storms when powerlines are downed. Example. It could also be a transformer blowing.
"Why did Hawai's governor....describe the distaster as looking like a bomb of fire went off"
He said, "it does appear like a bomb and fire went off". Yes, I think so too, Lahaina does look that way. My living room is also actually also looking like a bomb went off (doing a bit of spring cleaning and re-arranging). Are we saying a bomb went off? No.
"This is a direct energy weapon that was used to attack Maui, prove me wrong".
Well, they don't prove it. She goes off about the "practically melting cars but the trees were still standing" which can be explained.
No proofs of DEWs in the video, just claims. I also believe it's worth noting that Peter's is making money from his videos with the ads and that this affects his impartialness and trustworthiness. Is he telling us extraordinary claims because they are true and can be proven or because he will make much more money?
Home owners with their garden hoses probably wouldn't have been able to do much...
These claims would need proper sources...
No they wouldn't, stop being naive. You don't really understand how the MSM operates it seems. It's purpose is not to inform. You are a rarity in thIs day and age, someone who believes the MSM.
I hope it's not only the amount of work but the quality of it (whether it is true or not) that impresses you?
Perhaps that's the problem. Being passionate about the truth. If we look at some of the definitions of the word passion:
"strong and barely controllable emotion."
"passions plural : the emotions as distinguished from reason"
"intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction"
Could that happen? Being so emotionally passionate about the truth that you aren't able to control it and lose your ability to reason?
Was I able to point out that his logic and common sense was severely lacking in his maui.pdf ?
An information clearing house? I've only wished to point out inconsistencies and what I've identified as falsehoods here and there.
Again, what is meant with this "in your face" expression? A digital mauling? If my style of vetting and analysis in this thread is somehow bad, do you wish for me to stop doing what I'm doing? And please point out how it's bad instead of vaguely referring it as "in your face" and "digital mauling".
Is it plausible that the firefighters were "called off" and doing nothing in order to let the town burn? Would they do such a thing? Would they spill the beans? Or were they just too busy and then unable to contain the fire?
Just a few tweets showing that Ste Peters is a flat-earther.
It might also just be an act part of his online persona designed to spark controversy and get more click$.
https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/status/1689696743837900800,
https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/status/1689656652335583233,
https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/status/1687867405379444736,
https://twitter.com/realstewpeters/status/1686098089818361856
That video might be from The Guardian but I'm not going to ignore the real messenger in it - Dustin Johnson, who recorded proof that he was one of the survivors in Lahaina and gave testimony that the fire-storm* came through the Banyan tree. Therefore it would seem it was something very visible and non-DEW that burned the building between the Banyan tree and the waterfront.
- I take it he means flying embers, which pass through trees more easily than buildings because of their shape and many gaps. Trees that aren't dry also have the ability to drown out the little fires caused by ignition of some embers, with their own moisture, preventing more extensive damage. The concrete surface where the tree is, extending across a wide area, would have prevented the extent of damage that could have been caused had there been dry grass or roots etc above ground there, as these would have been an extra source of fuel in addition to the flying embers.
The strong wind, coming from the mountain towards the sea, as testified by many survivors, would have in turn protected the Banyan tree from the flames and heat of the building next to it which did catch fire, even as the flying embers went through the tree. Build a campfire where there is wind, place a new log beside the fire where the wind is blowing towards, and that log will catch fire. Build a campfire where there is wind, place a new log beside the fire where the wind is coming from, and that log will not catch fire. Let alone a huge, water-filled log, which is essentially what the live Banyan tree was.
The other thing in the video which was of interest was that Dustin said the fire reached the pier. And indeed just before his video cut off we see flying embers around him. Before and after photographs show that the pier was full of boats and then afterwards the pier is practically empty. Did all of them sink right there? Or were some boats only tethered and not anchored? And if so, could the tethers have burned, setting some boats adrift and on fire? This doesn't exclude flying embers easily starting a fire on a boat but could be in addition to that.
On a general note, video/article/thread titles such as "Maui DEW Firestorm Levels Lahaina" can be problematic. They do not ask the question as to whether DEW may have been employed. Instead they go for the no-doubt, emphatic option to come across as authoritative, and attempt to set a narrative that the viewer/reader is encouraged not to stray from, hence anyone who points out flaws in the alleged evidence offered, even if they do a very thorough, painstaking job of it, may be made to appear like a heretic for not accepting the claim/s at face value. The term "in your face" has been used recently. One should also consider whether such claims/narratives are the first stone being thrown in that in-your-face sense, and if a way of phrasing it differently and more humbly would set a better tone for thread content that will follow. Not only for that reason, but to also safeguard and protect one's own credibility in case the claims turn out to be without substance and have other explanations. Better not to dig oneself into a hole in the first place than have to dig oneself out of it (or dig oneself a deeper hole).
I think most of us might agree that whether or not this was DEW or high winds and fallen powerlines, and whether or not this was planned (the vegetation around the power lines was allowed to grow in contravention of the power company's obligations, oversight or intentional?)... the usual suspects never let a "good" crisis go to waste? The question mark at the end of that sentence is there in case my belief is wrong and someone does not agree, and is more welcoming of different points of view than claiming "All of us agree." Such questions/invitations set a tone for people to feel more liberty to say what they might have to say, and to agree, or disagree in a more agreeable manner (it is possible, and beautiful when achieved, and it is also necessary to pleasantly disagree because there is a long way between each of us and knowing all that is true).
There is a difference between authority and merely sounding authoritative (often accompanied by dismissiveness, high-mindedness, mocking and other negative traits), the former being one of the things people came to notice about Jesus:
Matthew 7
7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
7:29 For he taught them as [one] having AUTHORITY, and not as the lawyers.
One of the differences being that lawyers told the people what they must do/believe and kept them in the dark. Jesus taught the people and opened their eyes. Whenever someone presents objective evidence that impacts a thing we believe, and we find ourselves wanting to close our eyes to it instead of keeping them open and acknowledging it, it can be evidence of discord between our "movie" and Father's movie (reality), regardless of one's professed love for truth. Just going against the mainstream does not cut the mustard and can ultimately lead to divorce from reality for the very simple reason that all lies contain some truth (that's what tricks us), and if we dismiss everything mainstream sources say, we are also dismissing the truths as well as the lies. Logical or not logical? The testimony in that Guardian clip, does it not sound legitimate? If it doesn't, then feel free to point out why it doesn't. Wouldn't more discernment and less out-of-hand dismissing because something doesn't match a narrative, be more pleasant to see and participate in?
1 Like
What the Media Won't Tell You: Maui Fires
What the Media Won't Tell You About the Maui Fires (PART 2)
Dear @cybe.old
- Good quality and lot's of effort - well done and thank-you
- ok - passionate may be the wrong word to use here, maybe not.
- Yes I am sure that those negative effects of passion could happen
- Yes, I agree, the Maui paper that I had sent was incorrect about alot of things and yes - cybe you were able to point it out. Again well done and thank-you
- Truth is critically important and we are surrounded by alot of lies in terms of MSM the internet etc your keenness and efforts to point out inconsistencies and what you have identified as falsehoods here and there is appreciated. I apologies to you and others on the group for the term "in your face" and "digital mauling" - none of that was helpful and probably appears rude. That was not what I intended. my concern here was this approach may lead others not to post things when they feel inspired to do so, which means somethings may be missed. That being said - what actually happened just now is that it inspired Danrock to write the thoughtful and balanced message on this thread. Welcome Danrock !
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=272274
Lahaina Fire Survivor Speaks
Thank you, Adam. And thank you for your comment which is helpful and a good example of how to look inward, examine, and make corrections with Father's Guidance. Lovely jubbly.
you're welcome, good points in addition, all the best Danrock
And to you, Adam.
Fire Hydrants for Fire Fighters were dry too....
Thank you very much for your reply. Perhaps you now understand why I kept requesting you to clarify until you wrote this clear message.
I just hope participants carefully read and fully ponder upon things they post before posting, and perhaps add a note if there is uncertainty, and it has not been verified.
The Maui (Lahaini) Wildfire Has All the Earmarks of a Direct Energy Weapon Attack
Interesting footage at the end of buildings left untouched. They seem to have been jumping-ember protected.
Were Direct Energy Weapons involved in the latest massive burn of a Paradise' resort town - that being Lahaina, Maui Hawaii? When I watched the aerial footage of the fire devastation in Lahaina I was reminded of the same type of footage that I saw during the Paradise Camp Fire of November 8, 2018. Certain buildings survived the 'fire tornado', but most did not. When you see the aerial footage in this video you will see that some homes were sparred the fire's wrath while others in it's wake of destrucion did not survive. Interesting enough was the Lahaina Shores Beach Resort survived the wild fire, but all the buildings around it were wiped out. How does that happen?
Thank-you. Agreed, perhaps as simple as the OP putting a question mark at the end of the thread title could be all that is needed. As that leaves it open to being a possibility, while not discounting any other explanations as also being a possibility.
The events could then be openly investigated by looking at what is available, showing different people's viewpoints for consideration, instead of the thread title coming across as being an unbending statement, that leaves no other options as possibly being true.
This is something that has personally been adopted - adding a question mark - when something is not known for certain. Otherwise, we are making a judgment, by stating something is a certain way when we can't do that, since we can't possibly know it for a certainty.
The fact is that we don't know, unless we really know; even if we may strongly suspect something based on other people's articles.
?
"If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." ― Bruce Lee
1 Like