Aidan Monaghan on "9/11 In Context" on Resistance Radio

On this week's "9/11 In Context" show, which airs Thursday, January 20, at 3pm ET, I will interview researcher Aidan Monaghan, who has investigated the 9/11 flights in great detail with important results. Aidan has also filed a wide range of FOIA requests from government agencies and filed lawsuits seeking information related to the 9/11 attacks. Today's discussion will focus on Aidan's impressive research into the autopilot technology available for 757s and 767s at the time of the attacks, contradictory black box information provided by government agencies, and other unusual circumstances related to the flights.

Listen live at:

or listen to the mp3 which is available at the same link right after the broadcast.

Click "Play" or click on "Download" under the show title ("Aidan Monaghan ...").

A page of links to key articles by Aidan Monaghan is posted at the Resistance Radio forum show page, at

Don't miss the show! It is sure to be worthwhile.

Tod, I haven't listened to

Tod, I haven't listened to the programs yet but was just skimming through the blog entries and wanted to just point out a couple of links you have to sites which have hoax claims. For example:

"9/11 In Context: Plans and Counterplans,"

Although David Griffin has linked to Serendipity, this site has promoted some of the worst 9/11 hoaxes and anti-semitic posts.

For example, this essay -- that David Griffin cites as a refutation of Popular Mechanics attacks on 9/11 researchers -- claims that real planes never hit the WTC (fake debris was ejected in canisters from the explosions):

I would suggest that the object that emerged from the NE corner of the South Tower was in fact a canister containing items of appropriate 'debris', which was propelled from the building to lend credence to the notion that a regular passenger jet hit WTC 2. And if this canister did not originate from the plane we must conclude that it was already planted in the corner section of the tower before the attack, to be fired out at the requisite moment. That it was a pre-planted device is strongly suggested both by its pristine condition when it emerges and its exit from the exact corner of the building. — What Hit WTC2? Another Look at the Second Plane

This is one example among many. Serendipity was closely connected to the Webfairy, among other hoax sites.

And for a review of Serendipity's holocaust denial claims, see:

I also note that you are linking to Rock Creek Free Press for this story by a person who is longer allowed to post on this blog (in part for repeatedly claiming that activists not supporting her views are agents), Sheila Casey. Sheila is a CIT promoter and a disruptor and her publication, Rock Creek Free Press, has attacked this site with claims of censorship of nonsense.

It's best not to link to sites claiming that a plane flew over the Pentagon and no one noticed, and attacking blogs that won't support that claim, if you possibly can.

Links stay around for a long time and keep websites alive by driving traffic to them.


I have found it difficult to keep track of all claims. Thanks for alerting me to the problematic nature of Serendipity. With regard to Rock Creek, I am sorry to learn of the disputes.

This from April 2008

Thu, 3 April 2008
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Blogger and Researcher Aidan Monaghan

This week Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 blogger and researcher Aidan Monaghan. Aidan is an active blogger at and has focused on using the Freedom of Information Act to get information pertinent to the 9-11 attacks and subsequent cover-up. FOIA requests initiated by Aidan have attempted to gain information about the 4 aircraft used on 9-11, information about remote control technology possibly installed on the 4 aircraft, and the reported power down at the World Trade Center in the days just prior to 9-11.

A few questions

>>I have found it difficult to keep track of all claims.

Tod, I find your reply interesting -- does that mean you don't have an interest in the claims about what happened on 9/11, that you don't have an opinion, or don't feel you are in a position to decide? Or something else.

In other words, what is your opinion of the claim that a Boeing airliner did not hit the WTC?

Also, you describe the attacks by CIT and RCFP on blogger as "disputes", and appear uninterested in their relevance.

In the same way, many described the decision by Jim Fetzer to promote nonsense claims via the original Scholars group as a "dispute", and thereby maintain credibility for Fetzer (whose most recent interview topic was the idea that the WTC towers were empty before the attack, just like other buildings which are being prepared for demolition, despite the fact that there is no evidence at all for any such claims).

I was also concerned to see David Ray Griffin refer to Jim Fetzer's "Scholars" group in one of his most recent books, along with all of the other groups, as though this group is a viable representation of the opinions of scholars about the evidence of the 9/11 attacks. Fetzer promotes the ideas that real planes never hit the WTC, that space weapons destroyed the buildings, that the buildings were "empty", etc. and that the scientific method has no role in the analysis of evidence.

As a person now interviewing all of our researchers, you will be a position of notice by activists. It's important to take note of what claims are being made by whom.

One good example is Morgan Reynolds. Do you know of him?

I agree about the need for high standards

I agree about the need for high standards in our work in the 9/11 truth movement. I believe I have adhered to high standards of evidence and rationality in all my own work, and I believe David Ray Griffin has as well. I also believe in high standards of civility, and do not appreciate the tone of interrogation and denunciation in your "questions", Victoria.

My article "9/11 In Context" was first posted at, a site listed as a recommended anti-hoax site at 911research's Misinformation page:

After much of that site went offline, Peter Meyer at Serendipity, without my knowledge, reposted my article. I was and am grateful to him for that. I have, of course, no responsibility for his views, but I do disagree with many of them. In my view, Griffin's citation of Meyer's early response to Popular Mechanics is a perfectly valid procedure. Griffin is not responsible for all of Meyer's views either. Neither of us has ever endorsed the specific views you single out for complaint. Nor does either of us believe that no planes hit the Towers.

Sheila Casey's article on Aidan Monaghan's superb research is an accurate, objective piece of writing. I believe your standard of consigning all the past work at RCFP down the Orwellian "memory hole" because of a dispute which happened later and led to the blacklisting of all persons at RCFP is a bad, and a ridiculous "standard." Furthermore, no one can dictate standards to another person. You can suggest, but not dictate. And of course suggestions are always more effective when they are civil, which yours decidedly are not.

Let's now take a look at the standard maintained at 9/11Research. At the link above, to the recommended sites which fight "Misinformation" in the movement, 9/11Research recommends A Google search for "" at 9/11Research turns up 43 links. Yet calls demolition of the WTC a hoax, asserts that the towers fell through the path of highest resistance and that this makes sense from physical principles, and denies the demolition of WTC 7. The site has pages such as:

"Physical Evidence: a Trap"

"Evidence AGAINST Demolition Theories"

So it certainly does not appear that you are yourself adhering to the new standard you intend to impose here at 9/11Blogger. is a hoax site. Why are you promoting it, Vic?

Despite this lamentable set of serious lapses at 9/11Research, I do not and would not recommend that other researchers attempt to send it down the memory hole. It has good material, but reader beware! It certainly is not uniformly good.

I didn't ask for this argument with you. It was entirely your idea. I have no idea why. But my record of careful, evidence-based work in the 9/11 truth movement is at least as good as yours. I suggest that for the benefit of the movement , and 9/11Blogger, you start practicing what you preach, and extend your standards into the area of interpersonal civility as well.

>>In my view, Griffin's

>>In my view, Griffin's citation of Meyer's early response to Popular Mechanics is a perfectly valid procedure. Griffin is not responsible for all of Meyer's views either.

I'm sorry but I can't agree.

When someone in a leadership position directs activists and readers to websites -- even a specific essay within that site -- that make offensive and nonsensical claims, they mainly serve to build the case that the movement is nutty and hateful, implicitly approving the source by using it. This is not about one person being "responsible" for another, but is about leaders considering the sources they cite to the public and to the people who are following them as a leader and assuming they have done their research.

A number of comments here on 911blogger include objections to the citations which Griffin has made to people like Bollyn, serendipity, etc, such as on this thread. A commentor states on this thread:

Personally, I don't consider Griffin credible, given his consistent citation of discredited/disreputable sources such as Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds, CIT, Bollyn,, and others.

It's not a concern that only a few people have.

>>your standard of consigning all the past work at RCFP down the Orwellian "memory hole" because of a dispute which happened later

Actually I think most of Sheila's writing is extremely poor in terms of research. She can write prose and keep a reader engaged, but if you stop for a minute and consider how she often distorts the facts to fit her view, you might reconsider.

Since the overall position you have is that one call pull out particular pieces which address an issue cogently by people who do otherwise poor, false or nonsensical work, and have no responsibility to either include a caveat or address the larger body of discrediting work, I see you believe you can turn the tables and use Mark R, of, as an example of 911Research doing the same.

The difference is in the word hoax.

>> is a hoax site. Why are you promoting it, Vic?

Actually it's not. Mark R attempts to make his best case against demolition primarily using the official story of events. This is not unlike the vast majority of people out there who are highly intelligent and have spent their lives following what authority tells them, yet cannot get past demolition, feel threatened by the idea, and reject it. Mark incorrectly may believe it to be a hoax, but he himself, nor, advocate hoaxes.

What Mark is attempting to do is critique.

What hoax advocates do is advance a theory that is based on nonsense claims, most typically appearing to the average public as nutty beyond belief, such as the idea that mini-nukes, space weapons, or missiles took down the WTC.

Mark has a long and powerful history of doing amazing debunking of hoaxes. My two favorite pages on his site are:

Bogus claims: "No Planes" hoaxes

The Complete No Planes on 9/11 Timeline

Boy did he take a lot of attack for daring to speak out against the nonsense!

He tentatively supported demolition in the past, then fully backed away at a certain point when he changed his views, and then began to move it into the same category as most other hoaxes. On this I believe he is wrong, but he is not being offensive to survivors or witnesses, he brings up no racial issues, he does not make claims designed to turn the public away from us, etc. His position on demolition is shared by many others who also work to expose truths, but draw the line at demolition.

>>Despite this lamentable set of serious lapses at 9/11Research

It's pretty amazing you'd point to one demolition opponent who does otherwise excellent work as a "set of serious lapses," but have no concerns at all about Griffin citing Peter Meyer in his books.

Perhaps you consider Oilempire a serious lapse because it's work debunking no plane at the Pentagon is so powerful?

>>I didn't ask for this argument with you. It was entirely your idea

Indeedy! I crack the whip around here.

Its true that I can get overly judgmental and critical, and often my tone can surprise and anger people -- sorry -- but it comes from the number of years I've put into 9/11 work and the battles I've had to engage in to help keep the best work at the top: by clearing away the lunatic claims . . . constantly, and sweeping up after messes.

>>But my record of careful, evidence-based work in the 9/11 truth movement is at least as good as yours.


>>I suggest that for the benefit of the movement , and 9/11Blogger, you start practicing what you preach, and extend your standards into the area of interpersonal civility as well.

I don't preach interpersonal civility as a rule, although I try to adhere to it. I do preach advocating our best evidence and defending it. And then the website has some rules that we all follow. Healthy debate is important for the best evidence to survive.


I noticed this on the CIT Corp. "praise" page -

"I was initially skeptical of CIT's findings. But after closer review of the numerous interviews contained in their documentaries, a strong case has been made for an approach trajectory for the plane said to be American Airlines Flight 77 that is hundreds of feet from the official trajectory. The on-scene physical evidence attributed to the official trajectory is incompatible with the trajectory repeatedly described by the witnesses presented and is arguably suspect. Aircraft speeds described in the interviews are also much lower than those alleged by official sources. CIT's documentaries provide the viewer with the transparency and real-time detail regarding events at the Pentagon on 9/11, not provided by accounts offered by the federal government or major media."

Aidan Monaghan

Aidan, Do you still stick by your endorsement of CIT Corp.?


All these "endorsements"

are shit. Who gives a fuck about these fabricated "endorsements", half the people later deny to ever made or which are stretched somewhat.
CIT acts like a cult- we do not need any cult, and I want the truth. Nothing else.

Differences In Interview Accounts & Physical Evidence Are Odd

I find the interviews and the information in them of interest given their conflict with other evidence.

I have not and do not endorse any "fly-over" theories because there is no reliable, empiracally based evidence supporting such claims.

Thank you...

Thank you very much for your reply Aidan ;)