Zeke's Theory on "energy weapons" causing wildfires as part of Agenda 21

Zeke3276

New Member
Does anyone... CT person or rational person... have any reason why the govt. would use mystery space age energy weapons to destroy a couple of fast food places that are not entirely near the area that is on fire? If the theory is floating around, there must be some hypothetical reason that they might do it. Right?


Research "U.N. Agenda 21" and you'll have your answer. It's a real agenda and there is nothing irrational about stating so. People are beginning to see television commercials for it in some countries. It will be sold to the masses as "sustainable development" and many people will buy into the brainwashing, in fact it's already happening. Look at how easily the millennial generation is misled and manipulated.

It will accomplish it's goals via many interlocking sub agendas, strategies, and techniques. Chief among these will be crisis, one right after another, all made to appear organic, happenstance, unavoidable, inevitable, etc. However, in the end people will have to ask themselves how they lost their country, their property, and their freedom in such totality and permanence through a series of unplanned accidents, coincidents, and bad luck.

Watch what unfolds over the next couple of decades. It's all deception and manipulation. Some will see and understand, and others won't. Most will defend the lies and fight the truth.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Research "U.N. Agenda 21" and you'll have your answer. It's a real agenda and there is nothing irrational about stating so.
Agenda 21 is (or rather was, as it's pretty old news - drafted 25 years ago!) a voluntary framework for sustainable development. The whole document is publicly available and contains absolutely none of the sinister things that conspiracy theorists love to attribute to it.

As you will find out if you actually read Agenda 21. It's a real mystery to me how such an innocuous document has attracted such a large amount of woo, but that is getting very much off topic.
 

Zeke3276

New Member
Agenda 21 is (or rather was, as it's pretty old news - drafted 25 years ago!) a voluntary framework for sustainable development. The whole document is publicly available and contains absolutely none of the sinister things that conspiracy theorists love to attribute to it.

As you will find out if you actually read Agenda 21. It's a real mystery to me how such an innocuous document has attracted such a large amount of woo, but that is getting very much off topic.


I've been researching it along with other aspects of the agenda for almost as many years, but its actually much older than that. The plan has been in the making for generations.

The public face of Agenda 21 is designed to appear innocuous, beneficial, even noble. They have to sell it. The brainwashing wouldn't take or work any other way. For the record, I don't see myself as someone who is immune to brainwashing, but rather someone who is gradually shaking it off. I think we've all been brainwashed.

As for the California fires, I'm not certain that anything beyond the normal effects of large scale forrest fires took place there. I've seen some photos and footage that seemed bizarre enough to make me wonder if something more exotic and sinister happened, but then I've also seen conventional explanations for much of the same that seemed plausible, even probable.

Knowing that what the elite have planned can only be accomplished through tremendous upheaval, I'm always a bit suspicious of large scale events that reorder the landscape so to speak. That suspicion led me here. I'm not familiar with metabunk, but I thought it was an interesting site so I registered.

Like I said, I'm not certain one way or the other. What I am certain of is that we are living in a time of universal and very sophisticated deception. Few things are actually what they appear to be on a surface level. I was a strict scientific materialist for most of my life, but I eventually found that science and its practitioners can be every bit as dogmatic in their thinking and understanding as any Abrahamic fundamentalist. Skepticism is just like any other mindset in that it can conceal as much as it reveals.

An atheist no more, I know that evil is real. Mankind has an enemy, and his enemy is hard at work and cunning beyond human imagination. It takes advantage of man's mind, turns it around and uses it as a weapon against him. Memes and concepts like "woo" are a good example of this.

Unfortunately, there's nothing that I can do or say in the course of a simple internet discussion thread to prove the reality and nefariousness of the agenda underway. It took me thousands of hours (no exageration) of research, study, contemplation, and collaboration with others to understand what's happening, why it's happening, and where it's leading. I don't think there's any substitute for doing so for most people, but there are some who seem to intuitively understand.

The fact that you're a subscriber to a site like this is a positive sign. It means you think for yourself and don't believe everything you hear. Good. Just don't let it close your mind off to larger possibilities. Reality is about to get very strange. You'll need an open and limber mind to roll with the punches. Good luck and God bless.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I've been researching it along with other aspects of the agenda for almost as many years, but its actually much older than that. The plan has been in the making for generations.

The public face of Agenda 21 is designed to appear innocuous, beneficial, even noble. They have to sell it. The brainwashing wouldn't take or work any other way. For the record, I don't see myself as someone who is immune to brainwashing, but rather someone who is gradually shaking it off. I think we've all been brainwashed.

As for the California fires, I'm not certain that anything beyond the normal effects of large scale forrest fires took place there. I've seen some photos and footage that seemed bizarre enough to make me wonder if something more exotic and sinister happened, but then I've also seen conventional explanations for much of the same that seemed plausible, even probable.

Knowing that what the elite have planned can only be accomplished through tremendous upheaval, I'm always a bit suspicious of large scale events that reorder the landscape so to speak. That suspicion led me here. I'm not familiar with metabunk, but I thought it was an interesting site so I registered.

Like I said, I'm not certain one way or the other. What I am certain of is that we are living in a time of universal and very sophisticated deception. Few things are actually what they appear to be on a surface level. I was a strict scientific materialist for most of my life, but I eventually found that science and its practitioners can be every bit as dogmatic in their thinking and understanding as any Abrahamic fundamentalist. Skepticism is just like any other mindset in that it can conceal as much as it reveals.

An atheist no more, I know that evil is real. Mankind has an enemy, and his enemy is hard at work and cunning beyond human imagination. It takes advantage of man's mind, turns it around and uses it as a weapon against him. Memes and concepts like "woo" are a good example of this.

Unfortunately, there's nothing that I can do or say in the course of a simple internet discussion thread to prove the reality and nefariousness of the agenda underway. It took me thousands of hours (no exageration) of research, study, contemplation, and collaboration with others to understand what's happening, why it's happening, and where it's leading. I don't think there's any substitute for doing so for most people, but there are some who seem to intuitively understand.

The fact that you're a subscriber to a site like this is a positive sign. It means you think for yourself and don't believe everything you hear. Good. Just don't let it close your mind off to larger possibilities. Reality is about to get very strange. You'll need an open and limber mind to roll with the punches. Good luck and God bless.
Don't worry about confusing us. Most here are very familiar with Agenda 21.

Simply share the very best evidence that convinced you that what does appear to be
"innocuous, beneficial, even noble" is actually sinister. Whatever enlightened you, could enlighten us!
If you're right, then it's important...and no time to be stingy with vital evidence. Thanks in advance. :)
 

Zeke3276

New Member
Don't worry about confusing us. Most here are very familiar with Agenda 21.

Simply share the very best evidence that convinced you that what does appear to be
"innocuous, beneficial, even noble" is actually sinister. Whatever enlightened you, could enlighten us!
If you're right, then it's important...and no time to be stingy with vital evidence. Thanks in advance. :)

I'm not trying to confuse anyone, but I guess I sure did ramble. In order to comply with your request I'm going to have think about it for awhile. I can't conclusively or irefutably prove it. I don't think anyone can. I had to learn a great deal about many other related subjects before I was able to understand it. I'm not sure how to go about breaking it down. Let me ruminate a bit.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I'm not trying to confuse anyone, but I guess I sure did ramble. In order to comply with your request I'm going to have think about it for awhile. I can't conclusively or irefutably prove it. I don't think anyone can. I had to learn a great deal about many other related subjects before I was able to understand it. I'm not sure how to go about breaking it down. Let me ruminate a bit.
Why do you have to think about it? If you have been studying it for years you should know what convinced you.
 

Zeke3276

New Member
Why do you have to think about it? If you have been studying it for years you should know what convinced you.

I understand your question. The answer is because it's complicated. There wasn't any one or two things that convinced me. I'm just trying to think of the best way to approach it, plus I'm a migraine sufferer and have a bad one at the moment so I'm working on a handicap.
 

qed

Senior Member
Simply share the very best evidence that convinced you that what does appear to be "innocuous, beneficial, even noble" is actually sinister. Whatever enlightened you, could enlighten us! If you're right, then it's important...and no time to be stingy with vital evidence. Thanks in advance. :)
I am not leaving the OP alone on this one. I have been googling and these ideas have main stream support.
They have to sell it. The brainwashing wouldn't take or work any other way. For the record, I don't see myself as someone who is immune to brainwashing, but rather someone who is gradually shaking it off. I think we've all been brainwashed.
There does appear to be some main stream support for this notion.
Agenda 21: Georgia GOP State Senators Attend Briefing On U.N. Sustainability Program

Republican state senators in Georgia attended a four-hour closed door briefing last month in which they were told that President Barack Obama and the United Nations are using "mind-control" practices to force through a land use agenda. The briefing, organized by state Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), consisted of a presentation by birther activist Field Searcy regarding Agenda 21, a sustainability plan adopted by the United Nations in 1992.

Field Searcy: They do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.
Content from External Source

As to sinister, consider Ted Cruz on Agenda 21.
The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property. He has given millions to this project. But he is not the only one promoting this plan; in fact, the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) now consists of over 600 cities in the United States. Agenda 21 attempts to abolish “unsustainable” environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. . . . Agenda 21 subverts liberty, our property rights, and our sovereignty.
Content from External Source
Listen to FOX.
Knowing that what the elite have planned can only be accomplished through tremendous upheaval, I'm always a bit suspicious of large scale events that reorder the landscape so to speak. That suspicion led me here.
As can be seen in the following Agenda 21 in fact plans (amongst many other nefarious deeds) to make most of the USA out of bounds for human habitation.
I am not saying the OP is correct. I am simply pointing out why a conservative American might "rationally" have come to hold the position of the OP.
 

qed

Senior Member
The ads were made by Glenn Beck to wind up Jones etc.
That is putting it nicely.
TheBlaze is an American conservative multiplatform news and entertainment network available on television, radio, and the Internet founded by talk radio personality and entrepreneur Glenn Beck, based in Irving, Texas.
Content from External Source
Wikipedia.

TheBlaze has commented, negatively, on Agenda 21 many times. For example, read-our-report-on-the-international-land-grab.
Then , on TheBlaze, adverts are broadcast that seem to be UN Agenda 21 adverts. Controversy swirls. Eventually, it turns out that these are adverts produced by the founder and talk radio personality Glenn Beck himself!

Finally, Beck admitted that the United Nations did not pay for the ads, he did. “I made them and I paid for them.”
Beck finally revealed that he is publishing a fictional book called “Agenda 21.” The ads, he explained, were part of an effort to reach more people and get them interested in learning more about the “terrifying” — and real — United Nations initiative. The host also said TheBlaze TV will be doing a special on the U.N.’s Agenda 21 initiative in the upcoming weeks.

In other words, the ads really were about promoting awareness regarding Agenda 21 along with promoting the upcoming release of the book. While fictional, the book uses the real-life goals of Agenda 21 to imagine its successful implementation, Beck said. “If I took it and we had a storyline that said, lets play this out, lets take their agenda and their own words and play it out. What happens to the United States? And, what does the United States look like?”
Content from External Source
With conspiratorial fake news like this, is it a wonder conservative Americans leap from "deny Americans 95% of their land" to "purposely burn the land"?

When powerful mainstream forces purposely exaggerate ("that sounds nice, but imagine..."), lie and conspire, the work required to debunk this bunk is overwhelming for a normal human being. We need to be aware that there are mainstream conspiracy theory sources (feeding the global warming CT, Agenda 21 CT, and possible others), and that this is why many "normal people" currently believe in the global warming CT and the Agenda 21 CT.
 

Zeke3276

New Member
Don't worry about confusing us. Most here are very familiar with Agenda 21.

Simply share the very best evidence that convinced you that what does appear to be
"innocuous, beneficial, even noble" is actually sinister. Whatever enlightened you, could enlighten us!
If you're right, then it's important...and no time to be stingy with vital evidence. Thanks in advance. :)
Don't worry about confusing us. Most here are very familiar with Agenda 21.

Simply share the very best evidence that convinced you that what does appear to be
"innocuous, beneficial, even noble" is actually sinister. Whatever enlightened you, could enlighten us!
If you're right, then it's important...and no time to be stingy with vital evidence. Thanks in advance. :)

I appologize for taking so long to respond. A family emergency has kept me preoccupied. My mother was hospitalized with pancreatitis, but she's doing okay. I had just about forgotten this thread.

Below is a link to a New American article that does a good job of detailing some of the reasons that Agenda 21 trips the Trojan Horse alarms of so many people. It begins with the details of the cases of a couple of businessmen who were negatively impacted by the repercussions of Agenda 21 before moving on to an analysis of Agenda 21 source documents.

A few excerpts:

"AGENDA 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth.... It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people...."

"Effective execution of AGENDA 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources."

The Guide asks the rhetorical question: “What is Sustainable Development?” It then provides this revealing answer:

"The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained.... Sustainable development, therefore, is a program of action for local and global economic reform — a program that has yet to be fully defined."

Yes, that is correct; the program that is absolutely essential to our very existence “has yet to be fully defined.” It goes on:

"No one fully understands how, or even if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is a growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis."

There you have it; even though we don’t know what it is, there is a “growing consensus” that it “must be accomplished.”

"Much has been written in academic terms about the meaning of sustainable development and the need to integrate ecological and economic principles into personal and public decision-making....

However, there is no agreed definition of the concept and perhaps there is no need for one.... Thus, sustainable development is an “emerging concept” in two ways, first, because it is relatively new and evolves as we learn to grasp its wide implications for all aspects of our lives, and, second, because its meanings emerge and evolve according to local contexts."

In other words, “sustainable development” is a despot’s dream-come-true: an emerging all-purpose, open-ended, “enabling act” granting global central planners carte blanche to claim it means whatever they want it to mean.


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6911-your-hometown--the-united-nations-agenda-21
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I appologize for taking so long to respond. A family emergency has kept me preoccupied. My mother was hospitalized with pancreatitis, but she's doing okay. I had just about forgotten this thread.

Below is a link to a New American article that does a good job of detailing some of the reasons that Agenda 21 trips the Trojan Horse alarms of so many people. It begins with the details of the cases of a couple of businessmen who were negatively impacted by the repercussions of Agenda 21 before moving on to an analysis of Agenda 21 source documents.

A few excerpts:

"AGENDA 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth.... It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people...."

"Effective execution of AGENDA 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources."

The Guide asks the rhetorical question: “What is Sustainable Development?” It then provides this revealing answer:

"The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained.... Sustainable development, therefore, is a program of action for local and global economic reform — a program that has yet to be fully defined."

Yes, that is correct; the program that is absolutely essential to our very existence “has yet to be fully defined.” It goes on:

"No one fully understands how, or even if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is a growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis."

There you have it; even though we don’t know what it is, there is a “growing consensus” that it “must be accomplished.”

"Much has been written in academic terms about the meaning of sustainable development and the need to integrate ecological and economic principles into personal and public decision-making....

However, there is no agreed definition of the concept and perhaps there is no need for one.... Thus, sustainable development is an “emerging concept” in two ways, first, because it is relatively new and evolves as we learn to grasp its wide implications for all aspects of our lives, and, second, because its meanings emerge and evolve according to local contexts."

In other words, “sustainable development” is a despot’s dream-come-true: an emerging all-purpose, open-ended, “enabling act” granting global central planners carte blanche to claim it means whatever they want it to mean.


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6911-your-hometown--the-united-nations-agenda-21
First: good luck with your mum's health.

Second, we obviously all already know that "sustainable development" is a necessary given for
long term survival of humans on this planet. If a course is unsustainable, we're gone, virtually by definition.
As world population grows by the billions, as billions further industrialize and begin burning fuels
at the rate the U.S. does, as the planet warms and extreme weather conditions occur more often...
it doesn't take a genius to realize that, as a species, we're going to need to do better, re. protecting the livability of our only home...this little planet.

That no one knows exactly what long term sustainable development looks like, at present is hardly
surprising or alarming. Broad strokes, sure, but details will constantly evolve as technology improves.

I must say, I'm very surprised by your post. There isn't anything juicy even by low conspiracy theorist standards,
never mind for any rational person to leap the gigantic chasm from "innocuous, beneficial, even noble" planning
to something sinister, to be feared. I have no doubt that what you just posted is not what turned you
into an enthusiastic hater of Agenda 21...there's just a little weak sauce there...nothing remotely persuasive.
 

Zeke3276

New Member
First: good luck with your mum's health.

Second, we obviously all already know that "sustainable development" is a necessary given for
long term survival of humans on this planet. If a course is unsustainable, we're gone, virtually by definition.
As world population grows by the billions, as billions further industrialize and begin burning fuels
at the rate the U.S. does, as the planet warms and extreme weather conditions occur more often...
it doesn't take a genius to realize that, as a species, we're going to need to do better, re. protecting the livability of our only home...this little planet.

That no one knows exactly what long term sustainable development looks like, at present is hardly
surprising or alarming. Broad strokes, sure, but details will constantly evolve as technology improves.

I must say, I'm very surprised by your post. There isn't anything juicy even by low conspiracy theorist standards,
never mind for any rational person to leap the gigantic chasm from "innocuous, beneficial, even noble" planning
to something sinister, to be feared. I have no doubt that what you just posted is not what turned you
into an enthusiastic hater of Agenda 21...there's just a little weak sauce there...nothing remotely persuasive.

Well, you're correct in your assumption that there is much more than what was covered in the New American article that convinced me Agenda 21 is not what it appears to be. However, most of it falls outside the scope of the subject of this thread. So just a quick summary:

I do believe that the New World Order agenda is real. I do believe that the powers that be desire to do away with national sovereignty and amalgamate all nation states into a Global state under centralized control. I do believe that they want to greatly reduce the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country and all others in furtherance of the above, and I do believe that they desire to greatly reduce the human population level of the planet.

I think that Agenda 21 is just a wrench in their toolbelts, but taken as an individual subject I must admit that there's not enough smoke to warrant shouting fire. However, there are things that I do find fishy about it.

The fact that the powers that be have outlined such an ambitious and far reaching plan to radically reorient all human activity on Earth along environmental lines seems very suspect to me. I don't believe that the so called global elite are an altruistic bunch. I don't think that they've ever been motivated by much more than self agrandizement and the desire to preserve and multiply their power and wealth. So I just don't buy that this agenda they're proposing is the fruit of a genuine desire to save Mother Earth and deliver a nicer, cleaner world to future plebeians. I smell an angle, a way for them to accomplish the goals I listed above by convincing a generation or two that we're headed for some kind of ecological apocalypse if we don't do something radical about it asap.

I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject of psychopathic personality disorder and the diagnostic criteria for the disorder reads like a laundry list of the kind of characteristics and behavior that we see displayed by our leaders on a scandal by scandal basis. In fact, Dr. Robert Hare, one of the world's leading experts on psychopathy, is on record as stating that in his estimation the most cunning psychopaths are to be found in politics and the financial sector and that consequently those fields are probably dominated by a psychopathic culture that keeps the normals voting the party line as well.

If Hare's hypothesis is correct, I don't think it takes any great flight of speculative fancy to imagine that the people in question are psychologically capable of setting into motion a cascading chain of events that will ultimately lead to the early demise of large numbers of people and the enslavement of the remaining. The history books are full of accounts of such people and such deeds. Most people don't have any problem believing those accounts, but tell them about something similar that may be in the works today and it's suddenly off the table and impossible.

I think that's strange. One of the few unchanging constants in this world is human nature. If those types of monstrous characters walked among us centuries ago then they most certainly walk among us today, and having modern methods and technology at their disposal makes them potentially much more powerful and lethal.

Only time will tell if guys like me were on to something, but in the meantime I believe we serve a useful function in keeping people on their toes a little bit. However, we certainly should not be blindly believed because we get things wrong just like everyone else. In that respect I believe that both the conspiracy theorist and the skeptic are necessary and play complementary rather than adversarial roles.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Well, you're correct in your assumption that there is much more than what was covered in the New American article that convinced me Agenda 21 is not what it appears to be. However, most of it falls outside the scope of the subject of this thread. So just a quick summary:

I do believe that the New World Order agenda is real. I do believe that the powers that be desire to do away with national sovereignty and amalgamate all nation states into a Global state under centralized control. I do believe that they want to greatly reduce the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country and all others in furtherance of the above, and I do believe that they desire to greatly reduce the human population level of the planet.

I think that Agenda 21 is just a wrench in their toolbelts, but taken as an individual subject I must admit that there's not enough smoke to warrant shouting fire. However, there are things that I do find fishy about it.

The fact that the powers that be have outlined such an ambitious and far reaching plan to radically reorient all human activity on Earth along environmental lines seems very suspect to me. I don't believe that the so called global elite are an altruistic bunch. I don't think that they've ever been motivated by much more than self agrandizement and the desire to preserve and multiply their power and wealth. So I just don't buy that this agenda they're proposing is the fruit of a genuine desire to save Mother Earth and deliver a nicer, cleaner world to future plebeians. I smell an angle, a way for them to accomplish the goals I listed above by convincing a generation or two that we're headed for some kind of ecological apocalypse if we don't do something radical about it asap.

I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject of psychopathic personality disorder and the diagnostic criteria for the disorder reads like a laundry list of the kind of characteristics and behavior that we see displayed by our leaders on a scandal by scandal basis. In fact, Dr. Robert Hare, one of the world's leading experts on psychopathy, is on record as stating that in his estimation the most cunning psychopaths are to be found in politics and the financial sector and that consequently those fields are probably dominated by a psychopathic culture that keeps the normals voting the party line as well.

If Hare's hypothesis is correct, I don't think it takes any great flight of speculative fancy to imagine that the people in question are psychologically capable of setting into motion a cascading chain of events that will ultimately lead to the early demise of large numbers of people and the enslavement of the remaining. The history books are full of accounts of such people and such deeds. Most people don't have any problem believing those accounts, but tell them about something similar that may be in the works today and it's suddenly off the table and impossible.

I think that's strange. One of the few unchanging constants in this world is human nature. If those types of monstrous characters walked among us centuries ago then they most certainly walk among us today, and having modern methods and technology at their disposal makes them potentially much more powerful and lethal.

Only time will tell if guys like me were on to something, but in the meantime I believe we serve a useful function in keeping people on their toes a little bit. However, we certainly should not be blindly believed because we get things wrong just like everyone else. In that respect I believe that both the conspiracy theorist and the skeptic are necessary and play complementary rather than adversarial roles.
Wow! That's a whole lot of sizzle, and virtually no steak. :oops:

I'm not sure I can even agree with your premise that spreading unsubstantiated hysteria about Agenda 21,
etc., is somehow a positive thing. If folks get used to people crying 'Wolf!' loudly, at things that you admit,
seem to be "innocuous, beneficial, even noble"...then they may become more likely to not recognize a
genuine threat in the future. No, if I were spreading this kind of stuff, I'd leave it off my resume...
 

Zeke3276

New Member
Wow! That's a whole lot of sizzle, and virtually no steak. :oops:

I'm not sure I can even agree with your premise that spreading unsubstantiated hysteria about Agenda 21,
etc., is somehow a positive thing. If folks get used to people crying 'Wolf!' loudly, at things that you admit,
seem to be "innocuous, beneficial, even noble"...then they may become more likely to not recognize a
genuine threat in the future. No, if I were spreading this kind of stuff, I'd leave it off my resume...

Maybe you're right. Maybe the skeptics have always been right. I hope so. God bless.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the skeptics have always been right. I hope so. God bless.
Trust me, I'm definitely not always right. (And a worldly person learns to distrust anyone who claims to be).

But there's just nothing there (unless you're hiding superior evidence).

Good luck.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I do believe that the New World Order agenda is real. I do believe that the powers that be desire to do away with national sovereignty and amalgamate all nation states into a Global state under centralized control. I do believe that they want to greatly reduce the rights and liberties of the citizens of this country and all others in furtherance of the above, and I do believe that they desire to greatly reduce the human population level of the planet.

Can you provide any actual evidence of your beliefs? Citing a voluntary program promoting global cooperation that, in fact, says NONE of the things you believe does not seem to be a very convincing argument.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
RE: the past CA fires...
.... Many Agenda 21 conspiracy believers were sure that these fire disasters were to move people out of certain areas, to corral more people into clustered urban areas.
However, recent reports from the previous devastated Santa Rosa burn area, indicate that rebuilding is slow, but is increasing.
There are always obsticals and legal hurdles to overcome for any rebuilding, but there seems to be good federal and local support to allow residents move back to that area. (or sell their property for others to build, new.)
https://srcity.org/2796/Rebuild-Process

There are reasons for the slow rebuilding.......(bold).......

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/speci...ebuilding-sonoma-county-fountaingrove-rebuild


Nearly half of the 3,100 Santa Rosa homes reduced to ash in the Tubbs fire were in the Fountaingrove neighborhood.

But nine months after the most devastating wildfire in state history, just 16 percent of the homes being rebuilt in the city are in the hillside enclave. The rebuilding effort in the area, while picking up, still lags behind other areas of the city.

Of the 266 homes under construction in the city last week, just 44 were in the Fountaingrove and Hidden Valley areas, comparing to 222 in Coffey Park.

The explanations for the slower pace of recovery in those areas are by now familiar: The cleanup of the larger lots generally took longer. The gap between insurance payouts and the cost of reconstruction is in many cases greater for an area where most of the homes — many of them custom — exceeded $1 million in value. The average age of residents in the area was greater, leaving many less motivated to endure two years or more of rebuilding. And the uncertainty created by the water supply contamination in a section of the neighborhood covering 350 homes has given many pause.
Content from External Source
The water contamination has been resolved (fixed) https://srcity.org/2801/Water-Quality-Advisory

Not surprisingly, newer and stricter building and fire-protection codes are likely to be created and enforced.
But there seems to be ample resources to help rebuilding...


https://srcity.org/2675/Rebuilding

The City of Santa Rosa is committed to helping residents recover from the October 2017 wildfires. This unprecedented disaster requires a dedicated response, therefore, the City has created the Resilient City Zoning Areas. Building and home owners within six identified neighborhoods affected by the fires will be directed to the Resilient City Permit Center for assistance expediting the process of design, permitting and review. To help review an estimated 3,000 rebuilding permits over the next few years, the City has contracted with an outside firm to support the workload, ensure rebuilding applications are given priority and allow other review work to continue without added delay.

Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
One reason lasers from the sky (if even feasable) would not be effective to target areas in a fire, is that such a "laser" would need a clear atmosphere to be effective. They are not effective in cloudy or smoke-filled enviroments.
So even a lightly wind-blown fire has smoke ahead of the active fire path, leaving little or no opportunity for "lasers" to help advance the fire's foreward path, because those areas would have an already smoke-filled sky.
 
Last edited:
Top