Directed Energy Technology Is the Only Conclusion Drawn from Empirical Evidence

A fantastic, succinct post was published on Jan. 01, 2014 at the Dr. Judy Wood Facebook page, linked here. The writer squashes any debate over whether the use of Directed Energy on 9/11 should be treated as a “theory.” It is not a theory. It is a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence. As the writer says: “Jet fuel, airliners, explosives of any kind, and all other types of destructive forces are not even remotely consistent with the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, but directed energy weapons are overwhelmingly consistent with the evidence.“

It’s like when you can hear the barking of an animal next door, and you can conclude that the bark does indeed come from “a dog,” but you don’t know the dog’s name or its owner. All you know is what that empirical evidence is telling you: there is a dog next door, proven by the existence of a bark.

However, Dr. Judy does not pretend to explain what the name of this weapon was, or who used it because those pieces of information cannot be drawn from the empirical evidence. Those questions need to be answered by further investigation by people who are qualified to dig up THAT empirical evidence. And that is not Dr. Judy’s scope.

Below, I have copied the full text of that post with the author’s permission. Please consider the logic of his points along with this chart that summarizes the top eight threads of empirical evidence that lead to only one consclusion: the destruction in New York City on September 11, 2001 was the result of some kind of Directed Energy Weapon. It is not the purpose of my blog today to lay out the evidence of those eight threads. You can do that yourself by perusing Dr. Judy’s book “Where Did The Towers Go?” or by examining over 500 photos and graphs at her Facebook page here.

Photo Credit: Adam Dwyer (http://debamboozled.com/)
Full Size: http://debamboozled.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/911-evidence-pyramid-v2013-10-05.png

People need to stop ruminating over the “theories” of what caused the destructon. We can see with our own eyes what type of force caused it. So there is no need to pummel ourselves with more theories. What we don’t know is WHO caused it. Who has possession of such a weapon? Who has unlocked the secrets of this type of energy, something so much farther advanced than even nuclear energy? And what was their reason for unleashing this terrorizing weapon in downtown Manhattan on that fateful day?

I myself suspect that the people who possess this technology do not hold any allegiance to any particular government. They are a Super Power unto themselves.  Whoever owns the threat of this power obviously has god-like control over mankind.  It is time for these questions to be answered and for this entity to be exposed.

[Nevertheless, a clue to solving that riddle is presented in Chapter Three of the study publication "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" available to read or listen to, online. Scroll down to the sub-heading "Who Rules This World?"]

Here is the full text of the Facebook post:

===========================
January 01, 2014

Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. 

This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then go research to see if it was consistent with the evidence. 

Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 “research”, including the unscientific ’9/11 Commission Report’. 

After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ (DEW). 

It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. 

This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make. 

Please consider the following simplified example as it helps to crudely illustrate this principle. 

Let’s pretend my attorney provided you with the following verified and certified factual evidence: 

I own a common household pet, that’s a mammal, has four legs, has sharp teeth, eats meat, has lots of hair, barks very loudly, drools when I place food in front of him, wags his tail when excited, eats from under the table, often chases cats, can be trained to do many tricks including ‘sit’, ‘stay’, and ‘roll over’, can play “fetch”, has a strong sense of smell, is often used by law enforcement to fight crime, is often used for hunting, is closely related to wolves, and is known as “man’s best friend”. 

Based on this factual information, you can irrefutably conclude that I own a dog, because there is no other possible explanation to account for all of the verifiable facts that are available to describe my pet. You don’t need theory or speculation, rather, you simply need to study all of the factual evidence that’s available to describe my pet in order to be absolutely certain that it’s a dog. By studying all of the available factual evidence in this exercise, you can irrefutably know that I own a general category of animal known as a dog, because the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive. 

However, if you were to try and guess the specific breed or color of the dog I own, that would be theory or speculation, because the verifiable body of factual evidence only allows you to irrefutably conclude that I own a general category of animal known as a dog.

The empirical evidence from 9/11 is also overwhelmingly conclusive, because there is only one thing that can explain it all, and nothing else comes close. Only the general category of weapon technology known as ‘directed energy weapons’ (DEW) can explain all of the empirical evidence from 9/11, and it does so completely and irrefutably. 

In other words, a general type of weapon known as a ‘directed energy weapon’ was used to transform the WTC buildings mostly to dust in midair on 9/11, and this conclusion is irrefutable because the large body of publicly available, easily verifiable, empirical evidence from 9/11 shows us this beyond any reasonable doubt. 

It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name specific weapon details, such as the location or serial number of the weapon, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. 

This is why the term is left as a somewhat general one, because that is the only logical, irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.

Jetfuel, airliners, explosives of any kind, and all other types of destructive forces are not even remotely consistent with the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, but directed energy weapons are overwhelmingly consistent with the evidence. 

I hope this helps clarify the difference between theory versus a conclusive body of evidence, and why studying all of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is so important. 

This table [posted above] briefly summarizes and compares the various explanations that attempt to address the large body of empirical evidence from 9/11, taken from Dr. Judy Wood’s presentation at the 2012 ‘Breakthrough Energy Movement’ conference in Holland.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=516718861726078&set=a.108769095854392.12444.108768449187790&type=1&permPage=1
Source: http://drjudywood.com/ & http://vimeo.com/57923364

end.

===========================