Dr. Judy Wood - Irrefutable.TV

Dr. Judy Wood, "Where Did The Towers Go?" - Irrefutable.TV ...
[we were supposed to be at the Jetsons by now... ]

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Severina Silva, Thanks for caring about this very important topic and for your support of Dr. Judy Wood. I would like to share one small but very important point of clarification to help you better understand the conclusive body of evidence from 9/11.
Dr. Judy Wood does not present theories, rather, she presents a conclusive body of empirical evidence from 9/11, the largest ever assembled, which irrefutably shows us what actually happened on 9/11 beyond any reasonable doubt. Please read the following explanation that I typed up a while ago, as you may find it to be very informative and useful.
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 begin researching 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. 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 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
Sincerely,
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, M.D.
PGY1 Neurological Surgery
B.S. Biology/Neurobiology
https://www.facebook.com/IrrefutableTV