by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
A few days ago I blogged about the fires in the panhandle of the State of Texas, and the suspicions I attach to them. As I pointed out, some of those fires are inconveniently close to the Pantex plant north-north-east of Amarillo. In case the reader may have forgotten or may not have read that article, the Pantex plant is where many of this nation’s nuclear warheads are assembled, and in the case of obsolete or obsolescent nuclear weapons, disassembled. The plant, in other words, forms a vital and crucial link in the country’s nuclear deterrent infrastructure, just as important in its way as tactical, intermediate range, or inter-continental nuclear missiles or B-1 or B-2 strategic bombers.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
In that blog I also entertained some speculation, which was quickly taken up and expanded upon by some commentators: were the fires a “warning shot” across the bow? If so, from whom? What was the message? If the fires were deliberately set, were they a warning from Mr. Globalooney to cut back on cattle ranching and for people to quit eating beef? Were they a warning from the lunatic political leadership class of this country for Texas and its governor Greg Abbott to quit upsetting the open borders agenda? Were they started to warn Texas not to indulge any further talk and discussion of the secession of the state? Were they designed to wipe out the Pantex plant and deny the State access to crucial nuclear weapons infrastructure in the event the state did secede?
Or are they simply what they appear to be? An unfortunate and sad incident? It is a measure of the times we’re in, and the trust that people now have of the institutions and “leadership” class ruling the country and clutching at global domination, that we should even entertain such questions as reviewed in the previous paragraph. The gradual awakening of the general populace to all manner of exotic technologies and methods of inducing such fires has not helped. In that vein, and on this website, I have often reviewed my suspicions about the fires in California, and I have entertained the possibility that they were not accidental. I still lean to that view, because the fires suspiciously occurred in areas where property was being sought by large moneyed interests, and where in some cases “smart meters” had been installed on homes and people took many pictures from those fires that tended to corroborate the view that some of the fires were initiated at those meters. Indeed, as I have pointed out any number of times, with the right equipment, skill, and knowledge, it is possible to use power lines themselves as a signal broadcaster, and it is therefore possible to modulate information into the currents being carried by such lines, information like transients (power surges and so on), transients which can in turn start fires.
With that context in mind, consider now the following “official admission”:
Note what is said:
Power lines ignited massive wildfires across the Texas Panhandle that destroyed homes and killed thousands of livestock, officials said Thursday, including the largest blaze in state history that the utility provider Xcel Energy said its equipment appeared to have sparked.
The Texas A&M Forest Service said its investigators have concluded that the Smokehouse Creek fire was ignited by power lines, as was the nearby Windy Deuce fire.
The utility provider Xcel Energy said Thursday that its equipment appeared to have played a role in igniting the Smokehouse Creek fire, though it did not believe its equipment was responsible for the Windy Deuce fire. (Italicized and boldface emphasis added)
The wording here is – to me at least – strangely ambiguous and capable of all sorts of interpretations. However, basically we’re being told that (1) it’s fairly certain now that the officials and utility company personnel have had a chance to examine the evidence available to them thus far, that the power lines themselves initiated the fires and (2) that the utility company’s equipment “was not responsible for the Windy Deuce Fire.” So the bottom line is, the power lines both were, and were not, responsible.
Now the obvious interpretation here is… well… obvious: something caused the powerlines to initiate fires. Perhaps a twig or branch fell on the lines, momentarily shorted them out, caught fire, fell to the ground on fire, and voila, we have a grass fire. As anyone who lives in such regions where the wind “comes sweeping down the plain” (to quote the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical Oklahoma), such winds very quickly dry out moisture in crops and grasses, making such fires a constant feature and hazard. In short(no pun intended), the most likely explanation of the fires is precisely that some similar sort of freakish accident is “responsible.”
As one might expect, however, I have some high octane speculation to add to this volatile mix besides that of the nearby Pantex plant, which, for a moment, let us return to. As noted, that plant is a crucial component of the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal and its maintenance infrastructure. Its presence in the context of the fires must therefore and in my opinion factor into any potential explanation of the fires that views them as potentially deliberately set. In that case, again, the power lines and deliberately modulated transients within them become potential sources of the fires, making the wording of the denial by Xcel Energy that “it did not believe its equipment was responsible for the Windy Deuce fires” even more intriguing, for that might be a way of saying – for a lay audience or readership – that no evidence of a transient originating from their equipment was found. This is not to say that someone not connected to the company might not have done so via direct connection to the line somewhere else. In other words, the transient was inserted somewhere along the line, and not at the closest powerplant, for example, insertion at a substation or transformer. A specially modified transformer designed to do so on the command of a remote signal. There are any number of ways of doing it that might elude the power company until after the fact: by the time the transient occurred, any line monitoring equipment at the utility would have registered it, but the event (and the initiation of the fires) had already occurrred. Thus, one could definitely and legitimately end up with the contradictory wording of the article: the power lines are responsible, but “our equipment” was not. In other words, it may have been someone else’s equipment.
