As an avid observer of coincidences, patents in connection to "natural" events, and the amount of gas-lighting we've had from media and politicians in the past five years; nothing is a stretch anymore. It's all on the table. We are under attack, our civilian society is terrified to admit it, and the casualties mount.
It's obviously not normal fires, but how on Earth do you get real evidence of DEW? Reminds me of Billy Connolly when he went to some communist country and someone said "watch out for the secret police". How do you watch out for the secret police? So it's a genuine question; how do you get evidence of DEW? Evidence of something weird and unnatural, yes, but nothing more than that. No?
Well, yes, ok, but DEW exist and we can understand how it works. We can go to Lockheed - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/directed-energy.html. But how would it work in the fires? Airplanes? Satellites? Navy ships out in the ocean? Small ones, big ones, etc. Once we know HOW it would work, we could then look for evidences and clues, but just saying DEW kinda means nothing. Am I too confused?
clearly, they are selling climate change. This whole thing is an ad for climate change and "green" energy so it's the very height of irony to have that Moss Point plant burning up at the same time; that is allegedly "green energy."
Climate chaos and "green energy" are two different things. Lots of people do not think the second is a solution to the first, and there are quite a few who are convinced that the first is real and the second is a scam, a fake "solution."
Does that mean that climate crisis isn't real? There are lots of fake solutions being put forth for problems which are very real, such as poorly performing schools being used to pitch School Choice and online education. Or 24/7 monitoring of ecosystems via satellites and the like to solve ecocide. That's ALL i have to say. Outta here.
<< I am drawing the relationship, I think plain to see — "climate crisis" is the sales pitch for "green energy." >>
I make no assumptions in that statement, only observations. What is implied by political and corporate leaders is that their "solutions" address what they are selling as the "causes" of a phenomenon that nobody really understands the dynamics of.
And it is into this state of misunderstanding, confusion and chaos that a diversity of powerful interests are selling a claimed solution when they have skipped all the proofs to demonstrating that their "solution" addresses the the problem as being described. Assuming a climate crisis and not merely the possibility that climate is unstable, or goes through periods of instability, identifying the source of the problem is important.
It is my understanding that water damage was being repaired on the Great Sphinx during the Old Kingdom c 2700 BC. That is now a desert. Where I am sitting was, in another epoch, under the ocean. I know where to go right now to pluck a fossil of sea floor out of a cave about seven miles from here (though it's a little dark atm). Climate changes, and sometimes it changes FAST. Faster than our climate is changing.
I am not trusting of anything that Gavin Newsom thinks is a solution.
It is ironic, but it could be an extra super powerful source of fire. AND it makes people think that, since it is green energy, then it must be natural, cause they wouldn't hurt themselves etc. Just thinking....so many possibilities, so little time...
as an experienced older gardener, who lived in the Dandenongs as a child, (a flammable area in Victoria, Australia) I am somewhat flabbergasted by that film. and yet it chimes in with WOOD's "where did the towers go" book on the 9/11 destruction, altho' I was under the impression that DEWs needed some form of natural energy, such as a tornado/typhoon etc. 'behind' them, Now that doesn't seem to be the case; we've worked out how to power them with whatever - microwaves ??. We humans indeed 'play with fire', and go bananas with power.
I don't see ANYTHING which remotely convinces me that a DEW was involved. White stuff? Isn't that supposed to be what made everything combustible, yet it's still there? Melted aluminum? Melts at 1300 deg F, Forest fires get to 2000 deg F, and these persist for long periods. Some melted steel? Only certain types of steel melt at 2800 deg F, that temp is for structural steel, like used for steel frame hi rises. Scorched cars? See below re the DEW hypothesis for the WTC destruction. A lot of sensationalist junk, and lots of people, especially MAGA, weighing in with JUNK.
Lots of people brought up 9/11. Judy Wood's analysis of the destruction of the WTC towers, asserting this was done with directed energy weapons, is BUNK!! There is no other such analysis, so i will stick to it.
She asserted little was left of the steel in the structures, it was mostly vaporized, In fact, there are ample photos of steel beams spread out over the WTC site after the event, which was all quickly shopped off to China. A Bunch of steel beams were cast horizontally., not what a DEW would do, got embedded in nearby buildings such as Bankers' Trust, there are photos of this. The cars near the East River a couple of miles from the WTC which bore scorch markings was put forth by her as evidence that the energy went all over the place. In fact, those cars were towed there from the WTC site after the event. And so on and on...
And the biggest VETO. What can be seen on video of WTC1, and its descent. The antenna on the roof began descending before the entire top section did so. This not only shows that the top could not be a pile driver, as per the official story, but that the destruction began on the inside of the structure, the inner core columns, and the truss hat which was on top of them which supported the antenna, This could not be done without the outside being damaged first, and it wasn't. See this,
What Happened to the World Trade Center? Richard Gage, Founder of Architects+Engineers for 911 Truth, Planet Waves, 2/7/24. An hour and 33 minutes.
The relevant part starts at 46:03, when a video of the destruction of WTC1, the North Tower, is played, clearly showing that the top section of the tower (above the plane impact zone) began disintegrating before it started moving. Thus, the top could not have acted as a pile driver smashing the lower section, as per the official story in all its 3 varieties. But also, it shows the antenna beginning to descend without anything showing on the outside of the building. This means the tower's inner core columns were taken out, as well as the hat truss which supported the antenna., but from the inside. A DEW would have had to impact the outside first. Case closed.
I brought her up because of all the comments at the Reese page (where this was originally posted) which did, and asserted that the evidence she presented reinforced what the video asserted. Note how the trees were said to be burned from the inside out. HOW? How does an energy pulse skip through the outside of either a WTC tower or a tree, and vaporize the inside?
The trees burning on the inside is in the video. And the video itself had allusions to 9/11, even if (Judy) Wood wasn't mentioned. My first para is totally about the video.
My family's house is a few miles from the Maui fire, I know the area and the seasonal conditions very well. I went 4 months after the fire and saw the random melted cars myself, while nearby houses and trees were untouched. The Vegas cop, no water in the hydrants, no warning system, police blocking the only northbound exit, extreme out of season wind, and no answers, taken altogether it's sus as hell.
Eric I would if I thought I had more to offer than what I wrote. Here's a link to a video I made with links to contacts that were there during the fire:
It seems real estate developers, perhaps in cahoots with some evil geniuses, have discovered the ultimate weapon for clearing lots while leaving the trees relatively unscathed- keeping things picturesque for wealthy new homeowners. Call it eco-friendly deep state tyranny. I can't prove any of this, but seeing trees in relatively good shape amidst neighbourhoods reduced to ash by extreme fires just doesn't add up.
I can grasp that something other than the familiar is happening. Not hard for me based on the evidence observed.
As an avid observer of coincidences, patents in connection to "natural" events, and the amount of gas-lighting we've had from media and politicians in the past five years; nothing is a stretch anymore. It's all on the table. We are under attack, our civilian society is terrified to admit it, and the casualties mount.
It's obviously not normal fires, but how on Earth do you get real evidence of DEW? Reminds me of Billy Connolly when he went to some communist country and someone said "watch out for the secret police". How do you watch out for the secret police? So it's a genuine question; how do you get evidence of DEW? Evidence of something weird and unnatural, yes, but nothing more than that. No?
DEW is the name for that something weird and unnatural that causes fires and we do not understand.
Well, yes, ok, but DEW exist and we can understand how it works. We can go to Lockheed - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/directed-energy.html. But how would it work in the fires? Airplanes? Satellites? Navy ships out in the ocean? Small ones, big ones, etc. Once we know HOW it would work, we could then look for evidences and clues, but just saying DEW kinda means nothing. Am I too confused?
If we knew how they have done it, they would not have been able to do it.
Fair question.
But how do they get to climate change as the cause?
clearly, they are selling climate change. This whole thing is an ad for climate change and "green" energy so it's the very height of irony to have that Moss Point plant burning up at the same time; that is allegedly "green energy."
Climate chaos and "green energy" are two different things. Lots of people do not think the second is a solution to the first, and there are quite a few who are convinced that the first is real and the second is a scam, a fake "solution."
I am drawing the relationship, I think plain to see — "climate crisis" is the sales pitch for "green energy."
Does that mean that climate crisis isn't real? There are lots of fake solutions being put forth for problems which are very real, such as poorly performing schools being used to pitch School Choice and online education. Or 24/7 monitoring of ecosystems via satellites and the like to solve ecocide. That's ALL i have to say. Outta here.
This is what I said:
<< I am drawing the relationship, I think plain to see — "climate crisis" is the sales pitch for "green energy." >>
I make no assumptions in that statement, only observations. What is implied by political and corporate leaders is that their "solutions" address what they are selling as the "causes" of a phenomenon that nobody really understands the dynamics of.
And it is into this state of misunderstanding, confusion and chaos that a diversity of powerful interests are selling a claimed solution when they have skipped all the proofs to demonstrating that their "solution" addresses the the problem as being described. Assuming a climate crisis and not merely the possibility that climate is unstable, or goes through periods of instability, identifying the source of the problem is important.
It is my understanding that water damage was being repaired on the Great Sphinx during the Old Kingdom c 2700 BC. That is now a desert. Where I am sitting was, in another epoch, under the ocean. I know where to go right now to pluck a fossil of sea floor out of a cave about seven miles from here (though it's a little dark atm). Climate changes, and sometimes it changes FAST. Faster than our climate is changing.
I am not trusting of anything that Gavin Newsom thinks is a solution.
It is ironic, but it could be an extra super powerful source of fire. AND it makes people think that, since it is green energy, then it must be natural, cause they wouldn't hurt themselves etc. Just thinking....so many possibilities, so little time...
Maybe the battery factory was not done by the same actor?
I guess....because when the King says so, it is so.
as an experienced older gardener, who lived in the Dandenongs as a child, (a flammable area in Victoria, Australia) I am somewhat flabbergasted by that film. and yet it chimes in with WOOD's "where did the towers go" book on the 9/11 destruction, altho' I was under the impression that DEWs needed some form of natural energy, such as a tornado/typhoon etc. 'behind' them, Now that doesn't seem to be the case; we've worked out how to power them with whatever - microwaves ??. We humans indeed 'play with fire', and go bananas with power.
I don't see ANYTHING which remotely convinces me that a DEW was involved. White stuff? Isn't that supposed to be what made everything combustible, yet it's still there? Melted aluminum? Melts at 1300 deg F, Forest fires get to 2000 deg F, and these persist for long periods. Some melted steel? Only certain types of steel melt at 2800 deg F, that temp is for structural steel, like used for steel frame hi rises. Scorched cars? See below re the DEW hypothesis for the WTC destruction. A lot of sensationalist junk, and lots of people, especially MAGA, weighing in with JUNK.
Lots of people brought up 9/11. Judy Wood's analysis of the destruction of the WTC towers, asserting this was done with directed energy weapons, is BUNK!! There is no other such analysis, so i will stick to it.
She asserted little was left of the steel in the structures, it was mostly vaporized, In fact, there are ample photos of steel beams spread out over the WTC site after the event, which was all quickly shopped off to China. A Bunch of steel beams were cast horizontally., not what a DEW would do, got embedded in nearby buildings such as Bankers' Trust, there are photos of this. The cars near the East River a couple of miles from the WTC which bore scorch markings was put forth by her as evidence that the energy went all over the place. In fact, those cars were towed there from the WTC site after the event. And so on and on...
And the biggest VETO. What can be seen on video of WTC1, and its descent. The antenna on the roof began descending before the entire top section did so. This not only shows that the top could not be a pile driver, as per the official story, but that the destruction began on the inside of the structure, the inner core columns, and the truss hat which was on top of them which supported the antenna, This could not be done without the outside being damaged first, and it wasn't. See this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYux1A4iLyU
What Happened to the World Trade Center? Richard Gage, Founder of Architects+Engineers for 911 Truth, Planet Waves, 2/7/24. An hour and 33 minutes.
The relevant part starts at 46:03, when a video of the destruction of WTC1, the North Tower, is played, clearly showing that the top section of the tower (above the plane impact zone) began disintegrating before it started moving. Thus, the top could not have acted as a pile driver smashing the lower section, as per the official story in all its 3 varieties. But also, it shows the antenna beginning to descend without anything showing on the outside of the building. This means the tower's inner core columns were taken out, as well as the hat truss which supported the antenna., but from the inside. A DEW would have had to impact the outside first. Case closed.
we're not talking about Judy Wood. We are talking about trees and fence posts.
I brought her up because of all the comments at the Reese page (where this was originally posted) which did, and asserted that the evidence she presented reinforced what the video asserted. Note how the trees were said to be burned from the inside out. HOW? How does an energy pulse skip through the outside of either a WTC tower or a tree, and vaporize the inside?
I am requesting that you please not muddle the conversation and keep your comments confined to the evidence presented in this video.
The trees burning on the inside is in the video. And the video itself had allusions to 9/11, even if (Judy) Wood wasn't mentioned. My first para is totally about the video.
My family's house is a few miles from the Maui fire, I know the area and the seasonal conditions very well. I went 4 months after the fire and saw the random melted cars myself, while nearby houses and trees were untouched. The Vegas cop, no water in the hydrants, no warning system, police blocking the only northbound exit, extreme out of season wind, and no answers, taken altogether it's sus as hell.
Clay thank you -- and this is why I am keeping this conversation alive. Would you be willing to do an audio or video interview? Can be anon.
Eric I would if I thought I had more to offer than what I wrote. Here's a link to a video I made with links to contacts that were there during the fire:
https://clayisland.com/maui/
there is a comment somewhere about what I "seem to think" or "seem to believe." I cannot find it and am occupied prepping tonight's edition.
It seems real estate developers, perhaps in cahoots with some evil geniuses, have discovered the ultimate weapon for clearing lots while leaving the trees relatively unscathed- keeping things picturesque for wealthy new homeowners. Call it eco-friendly deep state tyranny. I can't prove any of this, but seeing trees in relatively good shape amidst neighbourhoods reduced to ash by extreme fires just doesn't add up.