Peter Dale Scott withdraws endorsement of CIT

Peter Dale Scott has asked me to circulate the following statement:

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.


Peter Dale Scott

A tipping point

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:


This is devastating for CIT....The endorsements for their work were frequently used as a substitute for solid (scientifically sound) research.

PDS shouldn't be associated with these guys anyway.

Thank you...

Dr. Scott.

Good news indeed

Thank you Mr. Scott.

You are correct in joining Mr. Gage and rescinding your endorsement. of CIT.

There is the process we go thru to thoroughly vet ideas and research methods. Eventually baseless theories and biased researchers must be rejected if the TM is to maintain high standards of credibility.

I am now very confident that others will join You and Mr.Gage.

Thank you, Peter Dale 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

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show' by Victoria Ashley

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

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."


So good to hear Peter!

Thanks for posting this Frank ;)


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.