Is interesting to note that the factor which apparently persuaded Peter to go one step further and fully withdraw support from CIT was that he became aware of their methods.

We are all very busy one way or another and cannot be fully aware of all relevant issues, especially in situations where the evidence evolves gradually.

It is to be hoped that more people will become aware of the particular concerns which exist with CIT's methods, and will come to appropriate conclusions. Here is a convenient place to study this issue:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebutting-cit

Dr. Scott.

If CIT's presentation is all one sees, the witness testimony seems compelling; how could so many people be wrong about which side of the Citgo the plane was on? But NSA omits the fact that the witnesses who said this also reported seeing the plane hit the Pentagon. NSA also omits the witness testimony that supports the S path, incl. elements of the statements of witnesses they used, plus other witnesses they interviewed, besides ones they didn't, such as those that went on the record around the time of the attack, some of which Jeff Hill interviewed in the last year or so.

CIT's habit of making excuses for inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses they use, while seizing on anything in order to discredit witnesses whose testimony contradicts their N path/flyover conclusion is also problematic. Even worse is their habit of accusing witnesses and critics of being disinfo agents, and even complicit in the attack, such cab driver Lloyd England, who Aldo and Craig referred to as the devil and a demon.

I recommend the following articles for documentation of the above points:
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy By Arabesque
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show' by Victoria Ashley
http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html

As Peter said, he has never endorsed the flyover conclusion, and specifically clarified he didn't support it, August 2009:
Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I) – Erik Larson
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/peter-dale-scott-does-not-end...

Now that he's learned more about CIT's methods, he has completely rescinded his original limited support of CIT's work.

Peter Dale Scott's research on 9/11 and other deep state events has been consistently thorough, credible, enlightening and useful. I recommend his book, "Road to 9/11" and look forward to reading "American War Machine."
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-12/review-american-war-machine-peter-...

It's not easy for people in leadership positions to retract a statement, so I just want to acknowledge these actions by Peter and Richard -- they really do matter. We are all human and not superhuman! Good to know . . and thank you.