After the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a lot of things about the government’s narrative struck me as being really off. However, it was Brigadier General Benjamin K. Partin’s report to Congress that really convinced me the government’s narrative was completely untrue. He was the head of the Air Force ordinance development division and arguably he knew more about blowing up buildings than anybody else at that time.

His report had photos and diagrams that proved, as an expert witness, that there was no way a truck loaded with ANFO could possibly have caused the damage to that building. That report is still available here and there, but the photos have pretty much been scrubbed from the web. An example of what is still available is this:

You probably missed it. Try this close up.

That is the smoking gun.

The intact beam (no fracturing or spalling) terminates with unfractured concrete, but the last few feet of the beam has no concrete at all, just bare rebar. That’s all the evidence you need, because that only happens one way. The reason is a high explosive has a blast wave that propagates so fast it literally pulverizes the concrete into sand and gravel, leaving nothing but the rebar. It is literally the signature of high explosive demolition charges. Ergo, the government lied.

Then came 9/11. For this, we only have to see one thing:

That, gentle reader, is World Trade Center 7, which was not hit by a plane but was (admittedly) “pulled” the following day. That’s right, we’re supposed to believe that a huge crew of very skilled demolitions experts transported literally tons of high explosives and miles of det-cord into downtown Manhattan (on 9/11) and managed to do the correct structural analysis, place the charges, wire them all together and “pull” the building all in one day? Impossible. It had to be rigged beforehand and if WTC 7 was wired up to be taken down beforehand, it means the entire government narrative is a lie. But, why did they do it?

I now believe the real reason WTC 7 was destroyed was to give everyone one giant red herring right there in plain sight in order to conceal what really happened on 9/11. I once subscribed to the theory that the twin towers were brought down with explosives based largely in part on watching WTC 7 destroyed. No longer.

I was recently doing some research and ran across some photos and information that I’d never seen before and I’ve had to completely revise my opinion about what happened. I’ve always been of the opinion that the wildest conspiracy theory about 9/11 was the government’s official version of what happened, but I was leaning more toward the Murrah building in trying to explain what happened.

This all started when I took a good look at this photo:

Take a look at that hole in the helo pad of the BP Bluewater Horizon oil rig. Notice the localized heat distortion around the edges. That’s two-inch thick aluminum plate with reinforcement underneath. Let’s take closer look:

There is no way a fire underneath the helo pad did that damage. It is not possible.

All the electrical controls were located underneath the helo pad and all eyewitness accounts state that first the power went out and then the explosions and fires started a few minutes later. The only possible explanation is that hole was cut by a direct energy weapon such as the MIRACL, or Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser operating from space. I would guess they used the markings on the helo pad to calibrate their aim and then began selectively taking shots that would destroy the Deepwater Horizon.

The more I researched, the more interesting it became. Then I ran across the website of Dr. Judy Wood while researching scalar weapons. I believe she has the most comprehensive and satisfactory explanation as to what happened on 9/11 that fits all the facts. Her conclusion is the World Trade Centers were destroyed by direct energy weapons. They were blown to hell and literally pulverized. I’m willing to bet none of the readers here have ever seen any of these photos.

Notice that the building is literally being pulverized as it comes down at free-fall velocity.

What was the end result?

Direct Energy Weapons (such as scalar weapons) are real and the evidence of their use is there for any who have eyes to see. The big question is “Where did the rubble go?”

The buildings were turned to dust and blown into the wind. Perhaps that’s why while there should have been at least 40,000 file cabinets in the “rubble” they only found one. That’s right, only one. Why could they find so few bodies?

The only reasonable explanation is the buildings were brought down with scalar weapons that turned the concrete and steel into dust.

I suppose it’s possible that some explosives were placed in the twin towers, because witnesses did testify that they heard explosions, but the glaring evidence of the lack of rubble means the twin towers were destroyed with direct energy weapons. Go back and look at WTC 7 coming down and compare it to the photos above and you’ll be able to see it.

This is the same old divide and conquer strategy taken to a new level. Provide a false lead in the form of WTC 7 to give a direction to the people who won’t accept the government’s obviously false explanation. Throw the conspiracy theory out there in plain sight, let the arguing begin and pretty soon everybody is sick and tired of hearing about it. That makes any person who points out the most obvious answer that fits all the evidence a totally whacked out conspiracy theorist complete with a tinfoil hat and neither side will listen because they’ve become polarized and in love with their own theories.

Scalar weapons exist. The technology is so secret that very few people know about it. The tech will do things you can’t believe, so we must keep Clark’s third law in mind: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Since people don’t believe in magic anymore, it must not be real.

Interestingly, it is the technology behind direct energy weapons that has historically been guarded most closely because it has so much potential to wreak havoc on established society. This will be covered in my next post on this subject.

This is a reply to Boxer (comment) from Dalrock’s blog (article). I’m posting it here because Dal doesn’t want me discussing polygyny. Out of respect for him, I’ll post it here.

@Boxer

I honestly don”t know any Mormon polygynists, but I do know a bunch of (very) conservative Christian polygynists. How they structure the marriage varies. Some have separate families in separate houses, others have separate living quarters for each wife and her children in one house with common areas. Some have a “blended’ approach in which the children are all together, boys bunked together and girls bunked together. In these situations sometimes each wife has her own bedroom, and some of them have told me “we didn’t get married to sleep alone.”

Some of the traits common to all these families are they are very patriarchal and the husband winds up leading Bible studies and prayer on a daily basis. Almost all I’ve met homeschool their children. They are conservative in both their dress and demeanor.

And a monogamist who is faithfully married to the same woman after 20+ years isn’t in the same position? It seems to me that you’re making the argument against lifelong commitment regardless of the number of wives. Unless you’re arguing for serial monogamy, which would require divorce, the very thing I think most would like to avoid.

There are no political solutions at this point, only individual solutions. I like to focus on solutions, which requires an examination of the real nature of the problem. Once the problem is understood, there is the possibility of finding a solution. In this case, the problem is three-fold: First, the nature of women is hypergamous solipsism and I believe this is because of the curse in Genesis 3:16. Whether it is or it isn’t, it is a trait easily observed in women. Second, the legal system we have empowers that nature, allowing them to nuke their families for any or even no reason at all. Third, we live in a culture that glorifies such behavior.

Obviously, marriage can be avoided by both men and women by simply by having a few FWB’s and getting sex isn’t a problem. However, there is another consideration for people like me.

I am convicted that I have an obligation to obey God, my Creator, as well as the Lord, who is my savior. Therefore, if I want sex it must be within the bounds of marriage. Any children that result would be legitimate and not bastards. In order to be obedient, no marriage means no sex, no companionship, no children and nobody to warm the bed.

With monogamy, even if the couple got married with a marital contract instead of getting a marriage license, in the eyes of the State they’re still married and thus can be divorced according to the whims of the family court judge. Claiming it isn’t a statutory marriage is irrelevant and the court will simply do what it wants. Under the current regime, all advantage goes to the woman. I think everyone on this forum recognizes that.

Question is, for a Christian man who wants a family with children and regular sex, how can he get what he wants without playing the State’s game? How can the marriage be structured in such a way as to reduce the temptation for the women to nuke the marriage? How can he be married in the eyes of God without being married in the eyes of the State within a structure that negates many of the powerful influences of the culture? It boils down to the question of what marriage is. My study of the Bible tells me that the agreement of the parties to marry, consummation of the marriage and cohabitation of the parties are the elements that constitute a Biblical marriage. The key is the context, and that context is a commitment to being married because marriage is for life. It is the commitment that the State has attacked with no fault divorce.

Assume: A marriage with more than one wife utilizing a Marital Covenant without any marriage licenses contrasted with a monogamous marriage in any form (statutory, common law, covenant, etc).

1) The State cannot recognize a union of one man and more than one woman as a marriage and thus there can be no divorce court drama. With a monogamous marriage (in which the man and woman hold themselves out to be husband and wife) the State will recognize such a union to be a marriage and thus no-fault divorce rules apply as if it were a statutory marriage. Ouch.

2) The marriage contract for a polygynous marriage can only be viewed by the State as an enforceable co-habitation agreement because the State cannot recognize the union as a marriage. Kind of like a pre-nup that can’t be thrown out at the whim of a family court judge. With a monogamous marriage the statutory rules apply and the husband can get divorce-raped, lose his kids be forced to pay and that’s all she wrote.

3) In a polygynous marriage, if one of the wives decides to walk, the father has a far greater chance of getting custody of the children (especially if he has children by the other wives and they all live together) and the terms of the contract can be enforced in terms of property (the extent of this can vary, state-by-state). With a monogamous marriage, if the wife decides to walk she’ll get cash, prizes and most likely the kids, he gets to pay.

4) In a polygynous marriage, multiple wage-earners and a SAHM means a higher standard of living than any of the women could expect on her own or in a monogamous marriage. Multiple wage earners means more security in the event one of them loses their job. With a monogamous marriage, a SAHM means only one income. If both parents have to work, the kids are in school/day care and somebody else is raising the children. If the sole bread-winner loses his job it’s an instant crisis that could, in an of itself cause a divorce.

5) The structure of a polygynous marriage places the incentives on staying in the marriage (higher standard of living in the marriage than out, no cash and prizes for leaving and a high probability the dad would get the kids if she did leave). With a monogamous marriage the wife’s incentives are to leave the marriage in order to get cash, prizes, the kids and a regular check from the ex-husband for several decades.

6) In a polygynous marriage, if one of the wives did decide to walk and got custody of her children, child support can only be based on his income, not on the income of the wives who remained in the marriage. Thus, the husband is not financially hurt nearly as badly as he would be if divorced from a monogamous marriage. No marriage? No alimony. With a monogamous marriage the wife has a high probability of getting the kids, child support, alimony (if it’s an alimony state) or chilimony. The husband gets financially raped and if his income increases, the ex can go to court to get his support levels raised. If he loses his job and can’t pay the chilimony, he stands a good chance of going to jail.

7) With a polygynous marriage, intersexual competition between the wives automatically places the husband in a more dominant (attractive) position and the women can get their emotional needs (attention) met from each other. Supply and demand says if the supply of his attention has to be divided between all wives, there is less of his attention available to any individual wife, so his value goes up. That makes his attention the prize they have to compete for and that makes him more attractive. With a monogamous marriage, the wife can withhold sex and sentence her husband to sexual starvation by using sex as a weapon. If he’s serious about his vows, she can use sex as a weapon any time she wants. She will still want him to meet her emotional needs, provide for her (and any children) and “open up” emotionally which actually damages the relationship.

8) For a polygynous marriage, there are a large number of women to choose from who have already preselected for this lifestyle (sharing a man) by being carousel riders. For those who desire a monogamous marriage, there ain’t a lot of virgins out there that are marriage material because of their feminist upbringing. As others have pointed out, trying to wife up a slut in monogamous marriage (even a “reformed” slut) is risky business.

I could keep going, but there is a caveat here that applies to both monogamous and polygynous marriages. Swallow the red pill first. Read and internalize both “The Rational Male” and “Married Man Sex Life” before courting, regardless of what kind of marriage you want.