Interview 005 – Mike Duddy on 9/11

(Right-click and “save as” to download)
[Download]                 [Play in New Window]
In my podcast, “Why Catholics should care about 9/11″, I laid the groundwork for what I consider one of the most important issues of our time, that the so-called war on terror, the huge increase of the police state, the erosion of our freedom, and so many other things all trace their roots to an excuse that they are needed because of 9/11. Therein, I expressed my complete incredulity in the government story and further, I promised another show in a couple of weeks to talk more in depth on those issues. Well . . . it took a bit due to scheduling issues. At last, today we talk once again with Mike Duddy, a retired sheriff and researcher who has spent years conducting serious research on issues in Theology, History, and more recent history in the way of 9/11, the Kennedy Assassination, and other issues. We last spoke to him in Interview #2 on Fatima. Today he is on the Aude Sapere Interview series to help us examine, what happened at 9/11? This will be a look at the composition of the Twin Tower, Tower 7, and the other towers you’ve never even heard about (Tower 6 for example). Then we vet the official story based on science, and the testimony of qualified experts. Be willing to listen, this is a critique based on science, not some raving theory based on a google search. As always when listening to Mr. Duddy, you won’t be disappointed.

Source notes:

PBS Article on the construction of the towers
WTC Core structures
Pilots for 9/11 truth
John Lear (son of Lear jet founder with nearly 20,000 hours logged flight time) suggests there were no planes on 9/11
John Lear gives sworn testimony that there were no planes
WTC 7 said to have collapsed while still standing on video
BBC argues that it was due to the confusion of the day, and that every American outlet was reporting the exact same thing. Just confusion? Or did the feed get sent out to the news to early? Its possible, but then again, why don’t all the news networks make the correction within a few minutes, as they often do when reporting on breaking stories, in this case, when their own eyes show them the building is still there? I’ll let you determine that for yourselves.
WTC 6 and surrounding buildings mysteriously destroyed, but not hit by planes
WTC 6
High volume of “put options” on United Airlines and American Airlines stock just prior to 9/11 (This article has expert analysis from Max Keiser, a seasoned financial analyst with a good description of the market mechanisms, which refutes many of the attempted debunkings claiming it was just “business as usual)
Spike in 9/11 trading (Journalist Christopher Bollyn)
Update #1: While trying to verify the “CGI of a plane coming out the end and going back in” which Mr. Duddy described i the interview, I have found a number of videos claiming to debunk this. I will get a response from Mr. Duddy and post it here.

21 thoughts on “Interview 005 – Mike Duddy on 9/11

  1. jmichaelortiz

    Wow. This kind of “theory” about 9-11 is unhinged. Don’t care how orthodox you are in the Faith, this is madness. Please reconsider.

    Response: Did you listen? Or write it off without even attempting to gauge its truth or falsity? The latter is the only true madness I can think of.

    Reply
    1. Mike Duddy

      I don’t respond to infantile ‘ad hominem’ knee-jerk reactions; ‘unhinged,” “madness.” I hope you do better than that when you respond to people who disagree with you on religious matters.

      Reply
  2. jmichaelortiz

    I read the Lear affidavit. For that to be true, many other demonstrable things–like two jets hitting the towers for the whole world to see–would have to be false.

    Does every argument deserve a hearing? I think not. GKC would remind us that the insane often lose everything except their reason.

    Reply
    1. Mike Duddy

      My point exactly. For the Lear affidavit to be true, two jets hitting the Towers would have to be false. So that means only the government story about the emperors clothes deserves a hearing?? Logical fallicy, ma man, logical fallacy, along with a little bit of not so subtle ‘ad hominem:’ “the insane lose everything except their reason.”

      Reply
      1. jmichaelortiz

        Well, you seem to have misinterpreted my point. The two jets did indeed hit the towers. Therefore Lear’s theory is false at a rather basic level. I am not an engineer, but I would point out that he appears to take as absolute fact the high rate of speed of the jets on their way to the towers. On what is he basing that on? Surely they were going at a good clip–but one in which enabled them to do what they did.

        When a person denies what the whole world sees as true, well, Houston, we have a problem.

        You are talented, by the way, in putting your words in my mouth–I never said ONLY the government’s version is the one deserving of a hearing.

  3. Konstantin

    At first, I listened to this Podcast with great interest and it all seemed pretty logically. Yet, as you have already pointed out yourself, there is no answer to the how’s that keep popping up in the listener’s head, especially after Mr. Duddy more or less ruled out controlled demolition. Moreover, from what I could gather on the internet, the towers didn’t fall at free-fall speed but rather in about 15 seconds. Since no Catholic in his right mind could believe that this was a miracle (which would be rather blasphemous), and the use of some secret super weapon (how do you get that into NYC without anybody noticing) can probably be ruled out as well, there has to be a logical explanation for all this that is supported by the current knowledge of science. I didn’t expect a show that would only leave open questions.

    In regard to the planes (or non-planes), there must have been a bunch of people in Jersey or any place in NYC with a free view towards the towers looking at them and seeing an explosion without any planes, especially after the first one. Where are they?

    Another one: How can 95 % of the mass (not the volume) of something just disappear? We’re talking about something here that really requires supernatural intervention, which is, as I said earlier, absolutely unlikely and blasphemous to assert. Please review those “facts” of Mr. Duddy.

    I’m sorry but I have to say I feel like I wasted over an hour of my life listening to the podcast.

    God bless,

    Konstantin

    Reply
    1. rubens7 Post author

      I can only say, as for how can 95% of the tower’s material dissappear? I don’t know, but it did. This is rather the point, it points to something we wouldn’t expect. Now, Mr. Duddy referred in the end to a book by Dr. Judy Wood. She examines these issues as we have, from the stand point of science. If there was a controlled demolition, as we have mentioned, it would have turned the glass into thousands of bullets, not to mention, how do you get the explosives into the building? Moreover, they could not have been wired to detonate by remote, for if you do this a number of cell phone frequencies could accidentally set off the detonators. Due to this very problem, when they destroyed the King Dome by controlled demolition, they physically wired the building and used a physical detonator. The controlled demolition scenario just doesn’t work.
      Thus, we know it is physically impossible for planes to have brought down those buildings, and we know it is physically impossible for controlled demolition to have brought down the buildings, such as the evidence is. So where does that leave us? The nano-thermite theory espoused by Architects for 9/11 truth is attractive, but also has problems. The stuff is notoriously unreliable, and would have to be layered on every column, which could only have been done when they built the structure, which strains credulity (though not as much as the official story). Dr. Judy Wood’s conclusion is that it was destroyed by some advance technology, not snuck into New York but in orbit. This is the tricky bit, and for a long time I rejected it because I thought it was absurd. Until in 2008 and 2009 when I read some military publications about lasers. Dr. Wood argues that witness statements about the state of the bodies of those who had jumped out of the buildings, that they just melted, combined with the physical properties of other buildings and the speed with which they fell, that it would require a laser to to have done it. Now they have lasers on the Pentagon, and even recently we read of lasers on air-craft carriers. Could it be they have/had some in orbit? Like I said it sounds absurd, but it is the only thing that conforms to the evidence, so I tend to be more open to it.
      Next, as far as the reality of the planes, I’m not 100% sold on the point, but it is plausible enough. There were drills on 9/11, there were planes flying around, and through cognitive dissonance it is possible that people saw planes, people saw explosions on the building, and the media said planes hit the building and put them together. I know a few people who were there and they said they never saw a plane. On the other hand, and this was my point in the audio, while I agree 100% that the so-called hi-jackers could never have guided a plane into a building, it is not impossible that remote-controlled units could not have done the job. Even though Mike cited John Lear saying that remote tech wasn’t that advanced in 2001, we should remember part of the hypothesis is that other technology that publicly was not that advanced (like lasers) is advocated under Dr. Wood’s thesis as the culprit, meaning the government is sitting on more advanced technology than anyone knows. Given that the stealth bomber was developed in the 60’s, and only known about in the late 1980s, that is not impossible. The question is two-fold: is it possible? Yes. Is it plausible? That is where the major disagreement comes.

      Reply
    2. Mike Duddy

      So the towers fell in 15 seconds, you say. Wow, that would have made all the difference in the world and would have undermined everything I said. Gee, what a difference 5 secs would have made to the scientific principles I discussed. NIST said 9.6 secs and the video measurements reported by other govt. agencies all range between, 9.6 and 11secs. NO,I didn’t rule out “Controlled Demolition;” I ruled out CONVENTIONAL Controlled Delmolition (CCD). Obviously the building was “DEMOLISHED” and that demolishing was “CONTROLLED.” CCD is when one spends weeks, even months, removing windows, non-load-bearing walls, piping, etc., strategically placing multiple RDX charges throughout the building with WIRES attatched (remote control detonation is NOT a possibility) and detonated by a computerized trigger in sequential order. Obviously, if the potential thermodynamic energy of a mere 10,000 gals of kerosine and the laws of Newtonian physics preclude the possibility of the official story, then something else, something VERY UNCONVENTIONAL had to have done it. Your notion or assumption that “some sort of super weapon” could not have been “gotten into NYC without anybody knowing” is gratuitous and presumptuous at the least. Are you an expert in what kind of classified weaponry the US Military has developed?? As far as seeing planes there are many credible witnesses who say they say NO planes. Virtually every witness who says he did was either an executive or an employee of one of the Mass Media conglomerates. How convenient. Your final question of “how can 95%of something just dissappear?” and not have it be “supernatural” is another example of your gratuitous and presumptuos knowledge of classified weaponry. Hmmm. Seems to me the A- Bomb destroyed 95% of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and that weaponry is now 75 years old.

      Reply
      1. Konstantin

        Dear Mr. Duddy,

        this is already quite old, but for the sake of truth I would like to ask you not to misquote me. I did not write “how can 95%of something just dissappear?” as you have incorrectly quoted me, but rather: “How can 95 % of the mass (not the volume) of something just disappear?”

        If you aren’t able to make the correct distinction between 95% of some city being leveled and 95% of the mass of something being removed, you should not be discussing this topic at all.

        My issue with this is a rather general problem that I see often when Trads (I don’t know if Mr. Duddy is a Catholic, but this is a Trad blog) are discussing things they are not experts in, be it geocentrism, evolution, architecture or engineering. It doesn’t take one very long to notice that the person doesn’t really know much about the science behind the topic…

  4. jmichaelortiz

    He says there were no images of planes until the afternoon of 9-11? Demonstrably false. I saw images of it on the news moments after it happened, before 9:30 that morning. WHY do you countenance such garbage? Given your strong Catholic identity on this blog, I would say this materially harms the Faith in the eyes of those who might consider Catholicism, and then see this post of yours defending lunacy.

    Reply
    1. rubens7 Post author

      As far as when the images went on the television, I will forward that to Mr. Duddy and elicit a response from him which will appear in the form of an update. I actually didn’t know he was going to talk about CGI planes and stuff, or else I would have drawn together the rebuttals to get his response.
      Now, as far as whether there were or were not planes, my jury is still out, though I don’t want to throw Mike under the bus here either. He is a researcher who has put together an enormous amount of material from researchers with PhDs, both in the books he cited at the end and elsewhere, I don’t take his opinion lightly.
      As to lunacy, I suppose we can say in the first place, the only real lunacy I can see in anything is believing the media or the US government. Both have such a track record of lying that any witness in the courtroom with the same pedigree would have his testimony thrown out. We don’t believe the media when they report on what the Pope did or didn’t said, we don’t believe the media when they wade into Catholic issues, we don’t believe the media when they talk about abortion, but suddenly we believe the media on 9/11? Likewise, we don’t believe the government on issues like population control, obama-care, sex education, eugenics, the need for certain social programs, the majority of Americans have never believed in the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination, and it is demonstrably so that the US government lied about the causes of the War of 1812, the Mexican American war, it lied about its inefficiencies in the Spanish-American War and the brutality against the population of the Philippines, it lied about the Tuskegee project, Eugenic courts, radiation tests on Americans, the USS Liberty, the Gulf of Tonkin, the nature of Operation Cyclone, the official relationship with Bin Laden prior to his bombing of the Kenyan Embassy in ’98. The government lied about the involvement of intelligence agencies in drug running to raise money, it lied about Iran-Contra, Watergate, WMDs in Iraq, wire-tapping, NSA spying, Benghazi, and the list goes on. Even the Soviet Union would have a hard time keeping up with the lies of the American government. Why do we believe the government story on 9-11, which at least with respect to planes bringing down buildings, is so laughable, so absurd and contrary to all known science that they had to invent new “science” to explain it? Why do we believe they found a terrorist’s passport, which fell magically unharmed from the planes which took down some of the most sophisticated buildings in the world?
      The second point, as to the faith. In the first place, nothing I could ever do would be as damaging as the Pope telling people they don’t need to convert, and saint prosyletism is not Catholic, or find Jesus in your own religion, or who am I to judge? In the second place, this type of work actually brings protestants who have researched these same issues to respect the Church more when Catholics are noticing and commenting on the same things. There is a man who right now is reading the Fathers of the Church and taking the faith seriously for the first time in his life, because we talked about 9/11 and we moved on to the faith from there.
      In the third and final place, Cicero, in one of his legal trials which appeared to be about murder, but was actually about a wider conspiracy of a government official and some rich friends to materially benefit at the expense of the man he was defending, asked the question: “Cui bono?” Literally, to which good, but meaning “Who benefits?” Whatever the case of 9/11, with all the explanations, and then the least likely of all, the government explanation, who has benefited from 9/11? It wasn’t the Arabs. It wasn’t Iran. It has been Uncle Sam who has grown fat in one bill after another, from the Patriot Act, to the Military Commissions Act, the TSA, the NDAA of 2012, the excuse for bills so draconian that they were roundly voted down after Oklahoma City, were now what had to be done after 9/11. When Cheney declared “If you don’t support this, you’re not patriotic” at a moment of high fevers and tensions should give anyone serious pause about the Patriot act, let alone what’s in it. The apparatus for a pure police state is firmly laid, brick by brick, and where will it fall with the socialist liberal regimes in power? On the Church. This is a faith issue which Catholics need to be aware of, and pray for, because a mass persecution is only a few years away, empowered by the fear-mongering in the wake of 9/11. When you look at who benefitted, one should have pause about the story of the beneficiary, just as any investigator in a murder trial would.

      Reply
  5. alan stemp

    Good for you!

    I’m glad that people are willing to look at this, and really look!

    As you pointed out in your last comment, we are lied to every day, and in every way.

    Christ said Satan is the Father of Lies. Lies. That is where everything goes wrong for us. We believe the lies.

    Christ also said the “Truth will set us free.” The only way Truth could set us free is if we were bound in the chains of un-truth.

    Not sure about crazy new weapons, but I am sure that the “Official Report” is way off base.

    Be interesting to interview Dick Cheney with a plank & jug o’ water. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind…ya think?

    Oh well. We’d best remember that vengeance is the Lord’s. We’ll all have a front row seat at the General Judgement, anyway.

    I just hope I’m numbered among the sheep.

    Reply
  6. alan stemp

    This really was a great interview. I do have two quibbles though. The first one is the lack of 95 percent of the buildings. That was not established in the interview, and seems doubtful on its face. Claims like that need to be backed up by some quality evidence before we start believing in secret weapons.

    Second, I don’t think the glass windows are removed from demo buildings, nor do I believe that the glass is a danger. A bullet has speed and direction due to the channeling of exploding gas in the rifle barrel. If you take away the rifle barrel, the bullet really goes nowhere. Just detonating a cartridge outside of a gun maybe stupid, but it is not near as lethal as aiming and firing that gun. Tempered glass shatters into 1/4″ pieces, and compressed air, without channeling and directing its force, could not turn glass shards into bullets. And, as far as that goes, why would you remove glass for this problem, when concrete chips could be every bit as dangerous.

    I think that the preponderance of the evidence shows controlled demolition. You have witness accounts of the explosions, you have video evidence of the squibs detonating in each floor prior to its pancaking, and you have that guy who owned the building admitting on TV that the decision was made to “pull it,” (demo the building). Placing the charges would take time and expertise, but would not be impossible, because the areas where one would do it are outside of the commonly traveled office space of the building. And the security firm that was in charge of the building was owned by the Bush family.

    Reply
  7. Molly

    Years ago, when i was camping more, i used an alcohol stove to cook with. Incase you don’t know, it’s a simple little thing made out of aluminum cans and after being primed, the aluminum conducts the heat of the flame to the alcohol, and it burns the gaseous alcohol. Being a former engineering student, i wanted to check out all this, design a good one and such. I settled on one that used a penny to cover the hole after you fill it. The penny rests in the middle, right under the middle of the flame. despite the penny’s relatively low melting point (1,085-1,455C) there’s no danger since alcohol only burns at like 600-900C.

    long story short, the penny melted.

    it’s not just about the temp of the fuel, it’s about so many other factors. Like the ventilation of the fire, and differance between a liquid burning and a liquid boiling and the gas burning. My friends who do blacksmithing complain about the steel they working with BURNING. As in, the bar of steel catches fire. And that’s just from charcoal. Steel burns if given enough of a draft, which i see in the pictures.

    I’ve seen nothing to make me think that a 9-11 couldn’t have happened the way it appears. Buildings fall down. Far from steel trusses being safe, firefighters have a saying, “never trust a truss”. In college, my favorite subject was statics, building trusses and such. Saying, “this is strong enough to support the whole building doesn’t matter. Two men may be more than strong enough to pick up a piano, but one man cannot pickup half a piano. It’s about where the force is going, not to mention torque and shear. Then there’s the momentum something BIG can buildup relatively quickly, falling even short distances. yes, the building was built way stronger than it needed to be, but that doesn’t mean much. Rockets are built to withstand an order of magnitude more force than they would ever expect them to need to, and they were blowing up on launchpads left and right for decade, and they still blow up. Stuff breaks.

    I enjoy your blog, and hope you continue with the translations and stuff… but the engineering needs work.

    Reply
    1. Paul

      Umm, no, Molly. Comparing steel buildings to pennies is like comparing apples and oranges. You are ignoring the preponderance of evidence in the past, showing that buildings have burned for hours and hours, and yet never collapsed. The collapse of the Two Towers and of Building 7 would be the first ones in the history of engineering due to fire if it ever were true. May I suggest it is your engineering that need work?

      Reply
  8. bill

    I do think the official story is a lie, but one thing which totally discredits Mr. Duddy’s take on the situation is that people I know in Manhattan actually saw the planes physically hit the buildings. Whether they were fake planes or missles made to look like planes I don’t know< but the planes were actually witnessed hit the buildings by people out doors (not watching on T.V.) watching the whole thing unfold before their very eyes, so it couldn't have been CGI. By saying that Mr. Duddy totally discredited himself.

    Reply
    1. rubens7 Post author

      I can’t speak for Mike except to say I followed up with him a little while ago and he has revised his theory somewhat. Particularly, after the negative reactions here I dug into the evidence and challenged him with the fact that there are multiple private videos that show the planes, about 35 in number, there is no way the FBI or whoever could have doctored all of them. I don’t know if I will have him on to talk about his new theory, as I want to look into other issues on 9-11, and the next time he is on we will be discussing a theological topic. Nevertheless, I should stress again that I wasn’t prepared for him to talk about that and I didn’t have any notes in order, which is why I didn’t press him harder on the question.

      Reply
      1. bill

        Thanks for your reply brother. Yeah, the whole “official story” stinks to high Heaven regardless. The planes did actually hit the buildings, but they didn’t take them down. From the research I’ve done there is irrefutable evidence that there was definitely a controlled demolition of those buildings using explosive charges set up before hand. The plans for the attack were known about well in advance and there was a stand down of the military and thousands of lives were carelessly (more likely purposefully) sacrificed. These things are obvious, but I doubt the public will ever be given the whole truth. A “false flag” attack of that magnitude with that many people murdered for a clandestine cause is purely demonic and our government was absolutely complicate in it. Anyway… I just found this site recently and I love it! The interview series is great! I love Fr. Chad Ripperger and my sister said she found a good interview with him and sent me the link. I’ve been systematically listening to all your interviews ever since. Keep ’em coming! The interviewees and the subject matter discussed are totally what I’m interested in hearing about. Your a very good interviewer as well. So happy to have found your website. God be with you.

  9. Wolfgang

    Thanks for covering this issue. Great interview. It is difficult for many, but the truth needs to be faced.

    Reply

Fac responsum tuum hic...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s