This is all really beyond the forefront. I only know of one other researcher working on it: "Korben Dallas", who runs the stolenhistory.org website. IMHO, he's got a lot of things wrong about who "the Controllers" are and how the big picture fits together, but that's going to happen when you're hacking your way through the jungle. Aside from that, his work and the rest of the site are mind-blowing and a gold mine. Wander around there for a while and you'll have a very hard time after that taking any conventional history at face value.
The last time i was active on the site was a few years ago, so surely there have been developments since then, but Dallas was only beginning to see the mud flood as a weapon. No one, including myself, had any speculation as to how it may have worked. You'll develop your own ideas, but a couple of seemingly likely directions can (IMO) be thrown out.
First is the straightforward idea of liquefaction, as in an earthquake. There are indeed a handful of buildings that are tilting, such a the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but all the rest of straight and level. Liquefaction always induces racking and then tilting before collapse and there's no evidence of this in innumerable mud flooded buildings.
Which brings up the concept of "flood" itself. A flood, like a tsunami, would damage buildings, knock them off their foundations, etc, and there's no evidence of that. Fatally, though, there are many mud flood building on flat plains and on top of rises, so it seems there's nowhere from which the mud could have flooded.
Even a heavy precipitation of rocks and dirt does't seem likely, like ejecta from a comet strike or some such. I would think that that would not only collapse the roofs, but take part of the upper walls with them. Again, no evidence.
All of this analysis is just how it appears "to my eyes" at the current time. We're left with perhaps some sort of relatively slow "dust storm" phenomenon. The thing I'd like to look at is the character of the "mud" next to buildings. Is it all fine particulates, or are there sizable rocks and boulders mixed in?
So how did the Tartarians fall to, well, the Satanists that rule us now? It's a big black hole you're trying to draw evidence out of. But I urge you to study the architecture closely: only a noble and magnificent people could have dreamt such wonders, let alone actually created them to stand flawlessly before us centuries later. I have a hard time even imagining what they were like, but it does bring to mind how far we have all fallen or--more fairly to say--been cast down.
But I take the dismay I feel at what has been lost and flip it around to realize that it is just out of reach, barely out of living memory, and that what has fallen may be restored. Take a good look at photos of the "world's fairs" at the end of the 19th Century. Clearly, the societies that built these cities lived in all we need know of an Earthly Paradise.
This is all really beyond the forefront. I only know of one other researcher working on it: "Korben Dallas", who runs the stolenhistory.org website. IMHO, he's got a lot of things wrong about who "the Controllers" are and how the big picture fits together, but that's going to happen when you're hacking your way through the jungle. Aside from that, his work and the rest of the site are mind-blowing and a gold mine. Wander around there for a while and you'll have a very hard time after that taking any conventional history at face value.
The last time i was active on the site was a few years ago, so surely there have been developments since then, but Dallas was only beginning to see the mud flood as a weapon. No one, including myself, had any speculation as to how it may have worked. You'll develop your own ideas, but a couple of seemingly likely directions can (IMO) be thrown out.
First is the straightforward idea of liquefaction, as in an earthquake. There are indeed a handful of buildings that are tilting, such a the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but all the rest of straight and level. Liquefaction always induces racking and then tilting before collapse and there's no evidence of this in innumerable mud flooded buildings.
Which brings up the concept of "flood" itself. A flood, like a tsunami, would damage buildings, knock them off their foundations, etc, and there's no evidence of that. Fatally, though, there are many mud flood building on flat plains and on top of rises, so it seems there's nowhere from which the mud could have flooded.
Even a heavy precipitation of rocks and dirt does't seem likely, like ejecta from a comet strike or some such. I would think that that would not only collapse the roofs, but take part of the upper walls with them. Again, no evidence.
All of this analysis is just how it appears "to my eyes" at the current time. We're left with perhaps some sort of relatively slow "dust storm" phenomenon. The thing I'd like to look at is the character of the "mud" next to buildings. Is it all fine particulates, or are there sizable rocks and boulders mixed in?
So how did the Tartarians fall to, well, the Satanists that rule us now? It's a big black hole you're trying to draw evidence out of. But I urge you to study the architecture closely: only a noble and magnificent people could have dreamt such wonders, let alone actually created them to stand flawlessly before us centuries later. I have a hard time even imagining what they were like, but it does bring to mind how far we have all fallen or--more fairly to say--been cast down.
But I take the dismay I feel at what has been lost and flip it around to realize that it is just out of reach, barely out of living memory, and that what has fallen may be restored. Take a good look at photos of the "world's fairs" at the end of the 19th Century. Clearly, the societies that built these cities lived in all we need know of an Earthly Paradise.