Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s "National Security Alert"

February 8, 2011

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue. I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters. Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:

Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011

9/11 Pentagon Witnesses: They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010

Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010

“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:

Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon, by Jim Hoffman, July 2009

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011

What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true. One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure. Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle. In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.” And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.

We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.


Richard Gage, AIA

Thank You.

Thank you Richard.

Show "I Also Do Not And Have Not Endorsed Fly-Over Theories" by Aidan Monaghan


The originators of this crap is just as bad. Their "antics" are hideous.

I have to agree

The "antics" are vile. Not the least of which is the game of severely abusing the trust and goodwill of 9/11 survivors and witnesses, in the name of "9/11 truth". But there's so much more, and it's well-documented and has been for quite some time. To continue to be oblivious to this foul behavior while allowing your name to be used to promote it is completely irresponsible and hurts us all.

I'm so glad Richard Gage spoke up about it - and so decisively. It's a good day for 9/11 justice.

Thanks Richard!

I support Jon and Cosmos with their call!

It's not rocket science...

The CIT North of the Citgo approach is not consistent with the crash scene evidence. So as I did, you need to let go of the well crafted and tricky presentation of CIT with NSA and admit the 757-200 hitting the Pentagon from the South side of the Citgo is far more probable as is supported by the hard evidence and the witness testimony.

Consequently supporting researchers (CIT) that will not accept any other conclusion than the "fly over" to their biased work that has convinced many of a fallacy is dangerous and damaging to both you and to us as a movement!

I have lost many friends over this debate because of a lack of leadership on this issue, now is the time to lead.

Kind regards your friend John

There really aren't two sides

There really aren't two sides here to any "debate". In a debate there are two live positions that are equally viable not one. In this case the only reasonable position is that a plane hit the pentagon and people need to start acting like it including you Aidan. I respect your FOIA work, but you need to think this through a little better in order to maintain your good standing in the movement. Testimony, no matter how persuasive, is not relevant when you have physical evidence that contradicts it. That is the case here. If you think otherwise I ask you to tell me how it is that the physical evidence is consistent with any theory according to which a plane did not hit the pentagon. You can't, at least not in good faith. You may not want to take a position because you think the division is unhelpful, but this is just different. You can't be neutral on this without tacitly supporting the position that the evidence is inconclusive, and that just is not the case. The evidence is conclusive, it demonstrates that a plane hit the pentagon, and the burden of proof should be on anybody who thinks otherwise, not on those who believe in accord with the evidence.

You still support their work why not clarify again..

....and state you wish to have nothing further to do with them and wish for your name to be withdrawn from their site?

Kind regards John

I Support Transparency, Not CIT's Unproven "Fly-Over" Theory

I find the information derived from the CIT interviews interesting. I do not support the definitive conclusions drawn from them by CIT (i.e.: the insistence that AA 77 flew over the Pentagon). The interviews do represent one of the few times that Penatgon witness recollections have been scrutinized.

My appreciation for the information obtained from the CIT interviews has been wrongly spun by some as an endorsement of what CIT have done with that information and how they have done it.

There also seems to be examples of ad hominem abuse offered by both sides of this issue, which accomplishes nothing.

It also seems that both sides of this issue have been relying on incomplete circumstantial evidence in order to definitively assert what did or did not happen at the Pentagon.

I don't what happened at the Penatgon because I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I have at least tried to prove what did or did not happen at the Pentagon by suing the FBI 3 times for evidence records, which has cost me several thousand dollars.

Seeking transparency...

"...I don't what happened at the Penatgon because I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I have at least tried to prove what did or did not happen at the Pentagon by suing the FBI 3 times for evidence records, which has cost me several thousand dollars."
---Aidan Monaghan

Thanks for what you do Aidan. Many people appreciate it.

Show "The Pentagon Attack Papers - and what is vile.." by jonathan mark

Smart move

You no doubt will now be on Aldwin Marquis and Scott Ranke's list of "secret under cover operatives and agents" which BTW is a good list to be on.

No I think they will say Victoria has hypnotised him, drugged..

...him, tortured him or maybe even seduced him or maybe all

They will cry patsie or dupe for 9/11 "truth faction" for sure :-)

Regards John

Thank you Richard...

Thank you for making this important statement :)

Related -

David Chandler, Richard Gage - 9/11 and the pentaCON
December, 2010 (paltalk conference)

Audio clip of David Chandler and Richard Gage discussing the issue of the pentagon in reference to American Airlines flight 77 on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Mp3 download link - (6min54sec, 3.16mb)

alternate download link -


That's great

Thank you Jeff. Thank you Richard. Thank you David.


A very important follow-up, Richard, for the many many people who look to you for guidance on the evidence. Thanks for putting this out there.

When I first started off looking into the 9/11 evidence, I automatically assumed that those who had done so much research must have been right about the Pentagon, and all the amazing things that seemed to have happened there. They must have done the research, right?

The problem with the Pentagon issue is that it's been carefully developed and protected from day one, and if you look into who those people were who made the original claims -- a bomb! a missile! a Global Hawk! a flyover with a killer jet! -- it's a real lesson for future researchers into false flags. The earliest advocates of no planes and flyover at the Pentagon withheld the physical evidence that contradicted their accounts and wrote elaborate manifestos which claimed to show that each of the very few witnesses were bogus in one way or another.

Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined.
by Gerard Holmgren, June 2002

Holmgren's supporters included Serendipity, Webfairy, Nico Haupt, Dick Eastman, etc. Their utter nonsense blanketed the strongest evidence and the no plane advocates typically had highly abusive and vitriolic attacks for anyone who disagreed. Good people left the movement early on after being hounded by abusive emails from these entities.

Why were people so easily fooled by these claims early on? Regardless of intention or not, it was a classic example of a psychological distorting of the evidence and the analysis.

I believed no plane could have hit there until one evening at a local 9/11 event where a woman spoke out to object to the no plane claims. She had copies of the witness statements (archived later on 911Research) and she read a few of them aloud. At the time, people in the audience laughed at her for her ignorance of the "real" situation. I did too, but I had a nagging feeling about it.

That was ultimately how I ended up realizing there was something wrong with "no Boeing".

After that event, I did look into the witness statements, and they were surprisingly consistent and documented a horrible event that will never leave any of those people for the rest of their lives. Jim read them with me and we grew concerned. How to reconcile the witness statements with the physical evidence? So we went back and looked at the physical evidence, and the more that we did, the more it did add up to the possibility that the plane did hit there.

The confirmation bias of the no-Boeing case becomes stark when each piece of physical evidence is examined carefully. And when we did that as a group, at a local 9/11 meeting, every person in agreed that we could not actually say that a plane could not have hit there . .. except for one person. That person was the same person who showed up at our Lifting the Fog event with Steven Jones, years later, to claim that Judy Wood's space weapons were the cause the WTC destruction.

To some extent, an important difficulty of the Pentagon attack is that it is a horrific murder. Real people were vaporized, burned and maimed, traumatized for life. Reading the witness statements exposes people to that reality. It's a lot easier to assume that none of that could have happened, then to accept the experience of what the witnesses say.

When one reads the witness statements they have to be exposed to that reality, over and over. Will one accept it, or reject it? I found that almost everyone I'd met who rejected the witnesses had actually never read the statements, or had already read the manifestos which examined each person in turn and attempted to tear them apart.

Many important lessons on many levels can be learned about handling of the Pentagon attack within the 9/11 movement.

For example, the pairing of "no Boeing" with "demolition" has helped make demolition seem like a hoax to average people by wrapping it in the "didn't happen" meme. The dismissal of nano-thermite evidence by Craig Ranke and Jim Fetzer, is interesting in light of the role of their work in the Pentagon.

I hope that others can follow your example, Richard.

Thank you Victoria!

The context you bring here is profound!

I believe there is not any other person that has worked as hard as you against misinformation within our movement.

THANK YOU and THREE CHEERS for another little victory in the info war!

Kind regards John

So, like, what's up?

A plane did or did not hit the Pentagon? ;)

not knowing is good, but what do we agree upon?

I never made any statement in determining what hit the Pentagon. I know a cover-up ensued, no black boxes were claimed, videos to prove what had happened have not been disclosed, the hole seems rather small, windows not busted, but I confer that the Pentagon is great at hiding things, so when investigators are exploring this question, I consider this as positive action. However, I am also thankful that Richard is demanding to be removed from the CIT investigation because his expertise and the proven evidence of WTC demolitions is too strong to filter into more obscure parts of our investigations of what happened on September 11.

However, some in the comments seem too decisive in what hit the Pentagon based on little proof, too. This is as confusing as determining there was proof of a flyover. The evidence have not been shown either way as conclusive, and this will hopefully surface after an investigation happens, which is why I support this post by Richard Gage, to pull out from determining one way or the other on the Pentagon and focusing what his work is really about, showing the proof of a controlled demolition on three high rise WTC building in NYC and its cover-up..

Jonathan Mark
Publisher - FlybyNews

FYI - last issue of FN posted to 911blogger, but still not yet accepted was from the FN issue of February 7th - Democracy + 9/11 Myth = Deceptions.

It seems

legions of former overt or covert CIT supporters are now scurrying to revise history and cleanse it of their involvement in allowing a hoax to continue.

And you keep going:

"However, some in the comments seem too decisive in what hit the Pentagon based on little proof, too. This is as confusing as determining there was proof of a flyover. The evidence have not been shown either way as conclusive"

Thanks for the non-apology apology. I appreciate it nonetheless.

sarcasm and non-apologies

I never was a CIT supporter, except in general terms in supporting anyone researching 9/11, but I definitely have made no statements supporting any of CIT's conclusions. I certainly agree with their skepticism of the official story based on the stand-down to enable airspace in D.C. to be infiltrated more than 45 minutes after the WTC plane-impacts, which alone should make us agree in demanding a thorough investigation and release of all videos around the Pentagon.

This politically incorrect voting up or down at 911blogger based on non-conclusive evidence, and making accusations out of context, is dividing our united call for real investigations. I think, again, we need to unite on what we most all agree upon.

Enough of this infighting!

I say a pterodactyl hit the Pentagon.

Who's with me on this?

Show "Oh yeah?" by Mekt_Ranzz

Thank you

Thank you, Thank you. Thank you all of you thoughtful researchers who are providing us with great compilations of facts to help squash speculation and conspiracy theories. All of your willingness to accept critique and speak to blatant attacks is an example for us all. Did I mention thank you?

Good Job, Richard

It is important to clear up the muddy waters that are being intentionally created to cause good people with good judgment to not see clearly. Like the rest of 9/11 research, once you look into all the facts at the Pentagon exercising critical thinking and with an open mind, you will be able to reach your own conclusions about what happened there. Take heed, there is deception everywhere.

"Take heed, there is deception everywhere."

I'll say that again for you.

"Take heed, there is deception everywhere."

More great news for the

More great news for the movement! Richard thank you for this, it is as important to provide evidence based research as it is to denounce poor research. With your statement and the general thrust of the movement I think we are making great strides. We are succeeding at isolating the troublemakers, and giving a clear path forward for future researchers and concerned citizens. Thanks again, you are bringing us into the light.

My heart

My heart goes

   with all involved


Thank you, Richard

Like you, I went thru my own process of figuring this out; my introduction to 9/11 inquiry was Loose Change and 9/11 In Plane Site, and it seemed obvious at the time that a 757 couldn't have caused the damage. However, as I did more research on 9/11 (Hoffman's articles you linked were very helpful), I realized from looking at the many photos of the damage and plane parts not included in Loose Change and In Plane Site, and the many eyewitness statements to impact, that it could not be claimed conclusively that AA 77 hadn't hit the Pentagon, and that there was a significant amount of evidence that it did.

I realized that if I told people '9/11 is an inside job cuz AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon' I might be misleading them, and I didn't want to destroy my own credibility, let alone that of the 9/11 truth movement, and I would caution people against making the claim. As I continued in my research and activism, I noticed that some of the most hardcore advocates of the 'didn't hit' claims were also the most abusive and disruptive people. Finally, I'd had enough, and began to openly speak out against the 'didn't hit' claims. This article was my first effort, for which I was attacked by a number of people:

I recommend everyone check out the links that Richard provided. The research at these blogs is also very helpful:

Certainly, the govt should release all the photos, videos and other records it has related to the crash, but as long as this issue is effectively dividing, distracting and discrediting the 9/11 truth movement, it reduces the public pressure on the govt to disclose and give a complete, honest account. We can all agree that NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon, and that there needs to be a full investigation.


Thank you Richard.


Thanks for this decision, and thanks for making this decision public.

Very well expressed

This was a well written, well expressed statement.
Richard, Thanks for all you do!!

Let's hope...

...that this will be a unifying moment and that we can get on with the really pressing matters at hand. Thank you, Richard, for keeping your mission above board and reputable.

Thank you!

Yes, I am glad you wrote this, too, Richard.
DJ Green Arrow
Chris Defendorf

It's been a long time commin

Thank you Richard Gage for your leadership.

Nice song.....

Thanks Chris for your work and I'm glad you have buried the hatchet with Dr Legge and have apologised.

Together we will prevail :-)

Kind regards John

It doesn't look as though...

They're in any hurry to remove his endorsement.


i am really thankful, how the moderation-team of 911blogger is handling this.

My thanks as well Mr. Gage

Thanks for clearly explaining your position on this issue as you interpret the evidence.

Although I am in agreement with your pentacon conclusions, I think even those in disagreement ought to be able to come to a similar conclusion that , although they may have their doubts and anything is possible, the evidence is strongest against the pentacon theory. Regardless, one ought to at least respect your opinion as being based upon the evidence and not from peer pressure or malicious intent.

Although this revelation will undoubtedly cause some temporary strain in the movement, it will similarly strengthen it in the longer term. We also ought to be considerate to those whom we know are legitimate truthers but support the pentacon theory. Many of us were fooled at one time or another on different aspects of 9/11 and our patience, understanding and logic will only help to win them over on this issue. Rudeness and arrogance is only unnecessarily divisive.

Greg Kramer

Patient to a point

"Many of us were fooled at one time or another on different aspects of 9/11 and our patience, understanding and logic will only help to win them over on this issue. Rudeness and arrogance is only unnecessarily divisive."

This is true, however having a "no plane impact-fly over" theory before talking to any witness, and having this "theory" depend on an elderly cab driver being "in on it" and then having said cab driver invite you into his home and answer all your questions, only to be accused of being a mass murderer (which was all pre planned and is easily proven) is way way beyond arrogance, it's sick and demented, not to mention dangerous. The people behind this "fly over BS" are the extreme examples of what some will do for attention and to keep their "theories" alive. Those Slandering innocent people and putting their lives at risk for selfish reasons deserve no kindness, respect, or forgiveness IMO.

Thank you


Did you understand my comment?

My comment about extending patience, etc., was not intended for con-men and the like but those innocently deceived by one scheme or another to disrupt the movement. And my comment regarding winning them over on this issue was primarily referring to respecting Mr.Gage's decision as being made in accordance with the evidence.

Although I happen to agree with your stated POV on this issue, I do not agree with the angry, malicious, demeaning, and insulting tone given in many responses from both sides. This is unnecessarily divisive.

Many will argue that they were attacked 1st and only responded in kind. But these are merely words in an online blog, not bullets flying through windows and rude responses are not productive. There is no legitimate excuse for rude and divisive behavior, even towards those who initiated it, except of course immaturity.

I like your approach

9/11 was done because the do-ers wanted us emotional
let's rebel!
lets just use cold hard facts
lets replace emotion and personality bashing with patience and persistence
both sides
especially those who are right and know it - it's better to patiently repeat what you know to the other side in the hope that they will switch, rather than insulting them and scaring them away from the TM
i think obviously one shouldn't waste time barking up the wrong tree but when the other side mentions it one can respond politely and patiently and if there are insults, one can point out that it is improper to behave in that way , and also persistently put one's side of the arguent
(sorry- just saw the kings speech- keep writing "one" ...... PS when's someone going to do a movie about the western industrialist b'sterds that grew hitler's war machine- i get furious when i see the sheeple lied to by omission in any movie account of WWII- this is the closest i've seen and its at the start of a docu about JFK jr

Peter Dale Scott

“Citizen Investigation Team has produced an important documentary video that, using numerous independent witness accounts, successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77’s flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon. It constitutes a further compelling reason for this country to investigate properly, for the first time, the full story of what happened on that day."

Dr. Peter Dale Scott
Former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley
Author, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America

Peter Dale Scott got pentaconned.

You going to fix that Peter?

Another fake endorsement...

for the "praisers"? Would only be the 10th or so.

I still do not get it. These issues were debated all day and all night long, and other, more important threads sometimes get no comment at all.

Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory...

... and neither does (hardly) anyone else who takes a moment to carefully look at it

On reading through the endorsements of CIT's work

I see that some of the endorsers are careful to state they do not agree that the plane flew over the Pentagon as if to assert that this justifies their endorsement.

We all agree now that there is no proof that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon, so this sidesteps the real issue.

So what is the real issue? In considering the work of CIT, the real issue is not whether the plane hit or did not hit, it is whether CIT used proper or improper methods in developing their flyover theory.

It is clear they cherry-picked witnesses who would support the north path. They also misquoted south path witnesses to claim them as north path witnesses.

It is clear they cherry-picked the words of the witnesses to include reference to north path but exclude reference to the plane hitting the Pentagon.

They knew that all their witnesses who could see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon. They therefore knew that their overfly theory was already proved false. Nevertheless they went ahead and presented their theory, asserting that it was undeniable.

Can one conclude anything from this other than that their work was deliberate, knowing deception? Is this not what we call disinformation, and thus fraud?

Is it not clear that to endorse the efforts of CIT is to endorse fraud? Why would any person of good will not immediately follow the courageous example of Richard Gage and withdraw their endorsement?

Powerful reasoning Frank. I

Powerful reasoning Frank. I think people in this movement need to start thinking a little bigger. 911 didn't stop on that day, the perpetrators are still trying to deceive us, and I don't care if you think it's paranoiac, the fact is that these CIT people are most likely intentionally deceiving us.