TOPICS

"debunkers" #gifiles #occupywallstreet 7/7 bombings 9/11 9/11 attacks 9/11 Citizens Commission 9/11 Commission 9/11 Commission Report 9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip 9/11 Fahrenheit 911 9/11 families 9/11 phone calls 9/11 survivor 9/11 truth 9/11 Truther 9/11 Truth Movement 9/11 victims 9/11 War 9/11 War Games 9/11 Wars 9/11 Whistleblowers 9/11 workers 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington 9/11: Press For Truth 10th Anniversary 757 911 first responders 911 museum 911blogger 911truthnews.com 2012 Abbottabad Able Danger accountability ACLU activism activists Adam Curtis Adam Syed AE911truth ae911truth.org Afghanistan aftermath Ahmadinejad AIPAC Air Force One al-Awlaki al-Qaida Alan Colmes Alan Grayson Alec Baldwin Alec Station Alex Jones Alfreda Frances Bikowsky Alhazmi Ali Soufan Al Jazeera Almihdhar al Qaeda Amalgam Virgo American War Machine Among the Truthers Andrew Card Andrew Napolitano Andrews Air Force Base anniversary Ann Wright Anonymous Anthony Shaffer Anthony Summers Anthrax Antonio Martinez Anwar al-Alwlaki Anwar al-Awlaki Anwar Awlaki architects Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth artifacts assassination Atiyah abd al-Rahman Australia Australian Broadcasting Corporation b BAE Ban Ki-moon Barack Obama Barcelona Barnes and Noble Barrie Zwicker baseball cards BBC BCCI Behrooz Sarshar Benedict Sliney Ben Fordham Ben Sliney Bill Clinton Bill Doyle Bill Maher Bill Moyers Bill O'Reilly bin Laden Blackwater Bloomington Bob Bowman Bob Graham Bob Kerrey Bob McIlvaine Bosnia Brett Smith Brian Kilmeade Brooklyn Bridge Bruce Ivins Building 7 Building What bureaucracy Bush Bush Administration C-SPAN Camp David cancer capitalism Cass Sunstein censorship Champion Cheney China Chip Berlet Chris Hedges Chris Mohr Christian Chuck Schumer CIA Cindy Sheehan CIT Citizen Investigation Team Civil Disobedience civil liberties Classified Woman classroom CNN Cofer Black COG Cointelpro Cold War Cole Bombing Coleen Rowley Colin Powell Colorado Colorado Public Television Condonleezza Rice Con Edison congress conspiracies conspiracy conspiracy theory Constitution consumerism contradictions Cordoba Initiative corporate media Cosmos Counter-Terror Expo Counterpunch counterterrorism coverup cover up CPT12 cryptome.org cybersecurity Cynthia McKinney Dahlia Wasfi Daniel Ellsberg Daniel Pipes Daniel Sunjata Dave Frasca David Chandler David Long David Ray Griffin David Swanson David Weigel DC debris debunking Deep Politics Democracy Now Democratic Party demolition Demos Dennis Kucinich detainee detainees Detroit DIA Dick Cheney Dick Gregory Disconnecting the Dots disinformation documents Donald Rumsfeld donations Donna Marsh O'Connor Downing Street drones dust Dwight D. Eisenhower DynCorp Egypt Egyptian Revolution Eleanor Hill Elena Kagan Eleventh actions Emanuel Sferios Emily Louise Church empire engineers entrapment Eric Bolling Eric Holder Eric Margolis espionage act Evan Dando evidence exercises explosions extremism F-16 FAA facebook Fahrenheit 9/11 Fake Phone Calls theory FBI FDR Analysis Fealgood Foundation FEMA firefighters first responders Flight 77 flight 93 Florida FOIA foreknowledge FOX FOX News Frances Bikowsky Frank Legge Fran Townsend fraud Fred Burton fresh kills funding FX Gareth Newnham Gawker General Assemby George Bush George Tenet George W. Bush Geraldo Rivera Germany Geronimo Gladio Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald globalization Global Jihad Unit Graeme MacQueen Green Party Gregg Roberts Ground Zero Ground Zero mosque groups Guantanamo Guantanamo Bay Gulf of Tonkin hackers Hamid Karzai Haqqani health Health Bill hearing Heather Penney Heroin hijackers hijacking Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton History Commons historycommons.org hit piece Homeland Security Howie Hawkins HR 847 Huffington Post Hypothesis Image Comics immunity Indefinite Detention India infiltration Inspire magazine Intelligence Advisory Board intercept International Center for 9/11 Studies investigation Iowa Iran Iran-Contra Iraq Iraq War ISI Islam Israel issues James Bamford James Gourley Jane Mayer Janet Napolitano Janette MacKinlay Jason Leopold Jay Carney Jeffery Farrar Jellyfish Jersey Girls Jesse Ventura JICI Jim Corr Jim Fetzer Joe Biden Joe Rogan John Albanese John Ashcroft John Bursill John Duffy John Feal John Gross John Judge John Lennon John Pilger John Stewart John Walker Lindh Joint Congressional Inquiry Joint Forces Intelligence Command Jonathan Barnett Jonathan Cole Jonathan Kay Jon Cole Jon Faine Jon Gold Jon Stewart Joseph Doyle journalism Journal of 9/11 Studies Joy Behar Judge Hellerstein Judy Wood Julia Gillard Julian Assange justice Justice Department KALW Katherine Bigelow kdub Keith Olbermann Kent Gibson Kevin Barrett Kevin Bracken Kevin Fenton Kevin Ryan Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Korey Rowe Kosovo Kristen Breitweiser KSM LaborTech Langley Larry Silverstein Laurie Manwell Lawrence Wilkerson lawsuit Lee Hamilton Leon Panetta Libya lies limited hangout Link TV Liz Cheney Lloyd's of London London Truth Action Loose Change Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup Lorie Van Auken Lupe Fiasco Mahmoud Ahmed mainstream mainstream media Manny Badillo Mark Basile Mark Bavis Mark Rossini Mark Ruffalo Matt Taibbi Media Matters Media Roots MEK Mexican drug cartel Michael Anne Casey Michael Canavan Michael Goodwin Michael Moore Michael Mukasey Michael Mullen Michael Ruppert Michael Scheuer Mickey Huff Mike Gravel Mike Huckabee milestone Military Tribunals Mindy Kleinberg Mohamed Osman Mohamud Mohammad Atta Mohammed Junaid Babar Morocco Mosque Mother Jones msnbc Muburak Muhammad Hussain Mumbai attacks Murdoch Muslim Muslim Center My Pet Goat Nafeez Ahmed nano-thermite Naomi Klein Naomi Wolf National Institute of Standards and Technology National September 11 Memorial NATO NBC NDAA Netanyahu Newburgh 4 news News Corp New York New York City New York magazine New York TImes New Zealand NFL Niels Harrit NIST Noam Chomsky NORAD NORAD. FAA Norman Mineta Norway NSA NYC NYCCAN NYPD Obama Occupy Wall Street official account Official Government Version Oliver North Olympia Snowe Operation Dark Heart Operation Northwoods Opium Osama Bin Laden Oslo Ottawa OWS P2 Pakistan Palestine Panetta Pat Curley Patriot Act Patriot Defense Group Patty Casazza Paul Thompson Peace of the Action Pentagon Pentagon Papers PENTTBOM Peter Dale Scott Peter King Peter Phillips petition Philadelphia Philip Giraldi Philip Zelikow phone hacking photographs photos physical evidence Pilots for 9/11 Truth Pinochet Pipeline Pittsburgh Steelers plane crash PNAC podcast Political Prisoners political research associates Port Authority Preet Bharara press press release Press TV Prince Bandar Project Censored propaganda pseudo-journalism psychology Pumpitout Radio Qatar Quantico questions R. Leslie Deak rachel maddow radar Radio 2GB Ramzi bin al-Shibh Rap News Rashard Mendenhall Ray Kelly Ray McGovern Raymond Davis Ray Nowosielski Rediscover911 remains Remember Building 7 Rescue Me Research Rethinking Counterterrorism RIBA Richard Blee Richard Clarke Richard Falk Richard Gage Richard Mellon Scaife foundation Richard Meyers Rich Blee Rick Veitch Rita Katz Robert Fisk Robert Foster Robert Parry Robert Scheer Rock Creek Free Press Rolling Stone Rory Albanese Roseanne Barr Rosie O'Donnell Rudy Giuliani Russ Baker Russia Today Saddam Hussein Saeed Sheikh Samir Khan Sarasota Saudi Saudi Arabia Saudis SCAD scads Scott Ford Scott Noble Screw Loose Change Sean Penn secrecykills.com self-deception Senate Senator Mike Gravel Sept. 11 September 11th September 11th Advocates September 11th attacks settlement Shadow Government Shanksville Shoestring shoot down Sibel Edmonds Sibel Emonds simulations SITE sounds South Park Spain speculation speech SPLC spying State crimes against democracy State Department State Of Emergency Stephen Cozen Steve Dusterwald Steven Hatfill Steven Jones Strategy of Tension Stratfor Supreme Court surveillance surveillance state Susan Rice Syed Shazad Taliban taped terrorism terror plot Terror Timeline The Big Lie The Corrs The Daily Show The Eleventh Day of Every Month The Facts Speak For Themselves The Hard Evidence Tour The Huffington Post The Jersey Girls The New Yorker The Pentagon The Post-9/11 World The Power of Nightmares Thermate The Third Stage Thierry Meyssan think tank Thomas Kean Tom Drake Tom Owen Tom Ridge Tom Wilshire Tony Shaffer Tony Szamboti Topps Top Secret America torture Toward Justice Toxic to Democracy Truth Truth Action truthaction.org Truth Action Ottawa Truth Be Told Comics truther Truth Movement truthout.org Truth Revolution Truth Rising TSA twin towers twitter U.S. UN underwear bomber United 93 United 175 United Airlines United Nations University of Colorado University of Virginia UN Watch US government US Military vaccines Valerie Plame Vanessa Lang Langer victims videos videotaped visa express visibility Visibility 9-11 Wall Street war war crimes war games warnings War on Terror Washington Post We Are Change Welt der Wunder Whistleblower whistleblowers White House Who Is Rich Blee Whoopi Goldberg Wikileaks William Blum Willie Nelson Will McCants wiretaps World Series World Trade Center WTC WTC 7 WTC7 Xe Yemen Zacarias Moussaoui Zadroga Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act Zelikow

Richard Gage Completely Withdraws Support from CIT

richard-gage-withdraws-support-from-cit
February 8, 2011
Category: COMMENTARY

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, blogs, 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 Journalof911Studies.com):

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.

Sincerely,

Richard Gage, AIA

  1. tonywicher says:

    I quite agree with Richard. CIT’s work does not meet scientific standards. It would be a grave error to rely on it. At first it was believed that there were independent grounds for thinking no plane hit the Pentagon, particularly the pictures showing no debris and those showing too small a hole for the plane to enter into the building. But since then pictures of debris, and better pictures of the damage to the building have come out, and so there is no physical evidence pointing to no plane hitting for CIT’s flyover hypothesis to account for. I don’t doubt CIT is sincere as are many of their supporters, but at this point I think their ambition to make a name for themselves has become more important than furthering the cause of 9/11 truth.

  2. Ford says:

    I also agree with Richard and I encourage all CIT supporters, and new people to 9/11 Truth, to step back and review all of the available evidence and be wary of those who profit from “Conspiracy Theories” who, at the very least, have shown to have poor judgment.

  3. tonywicher says:

    Although I have expressed agreement with what has been called the “scientific wing” of the movement, I have no reason to suppose that CIT or those who support them are intentionally trying to discredit the movement. I have a very good personal friend who is as dedicated to 9/11 truth as I am and who fully supports the work of the scientists – Chandler, Ryan, etc – but who is equally convinced that the flyover theory is also correct. We are not going to lose our friendship over this but discussion has gotten pretty heated. As a person who has studied magic and illusion quite a bit, he just finds it genuinely persuasive. Let us do our best to avoid personal attacks.

    I find the January 2011 article by Jim Hoffman http://911truthnews.com/the-pentagon-attack-what-the-physical-evidence-shows/ to be persuasive. For me, this analysis of the physical evidence outweighs CIT’s eyewitness testimony. I’m not saying CIT might not be right, but we cannot affort to bet our 9/11 credibility on it.

    • Julian says:

      I appreciate your respectful approach but I believe that you’re a bit off base on a couple points.

      I think we are all trying to be kind to those who have been fooled, as I believe your friend has been. After all, most of us have been fooled before. I thought the plane pods were fascinating for a couple weeks. Then I realized it was just crap. And, in fact, this movement is very specifically about reaching people who have been fooled. We do what we can not to insult them or push them away. And that can include playing along with people’s assumptions in order to build a bridge. But that doesn’t mean it’s alright for them to believe in fallacies, otherwise we wouldn’t be doing this.

      ‘Flyover’ is more convincing on it’s face to many that plane pods. But it really is total fallacy. Gage lays that out very clearly. As many of us have been saying for years, their evidence actually directly contradicts their conclusion. That means your friend is wrong. And telling people they are wrong isn’t disrespectful.

      Another disagreement I have with your post is that while we may be respectful to those who have been fooled, those doing the fooling are NOT acting in good faith. That is far more clear to me than what I believe about what happened on 9/11. If you aren’t familiar with all of the negative behavior, I encourage you not to ignore the many long-time movement participants who have been paying close attention and keeping track of it. And you should trust that none of us enjoy it or would be paying attention if we didn’t think it was in the movement’s best interest.

      I have no respect for Ranke, Marquis, Ruff, or Syed as they very clearly have no respect for the truth. And, honestly, it’s very easy to tell when someone is actually debating you or just pushing a line. I’ve had direct contact with these people and they have NOT argued honestly. In addition they have now called me and others, such as the editors of this site, disinformation agents.

      I’m not going to try to peg them or their motives, but I know they have lied on a regular basis. And that’s not something anyone involved in 9/11 truth should feel they need to compromise about or respect.

  4. tonywicher says:

    I suspect that CIT is sincere but ego-driven. They want to make a name for themselves. Once ego takes over, truth goes out the window. I realize that CIT has engaged in personal attacks, which is again the result of ego, but I do think that we should not reply in kind. Probably as much as half of the 9/11 truth movement believes that no plane hit the Pentagon, and we will only put them off, not win them over, with personal attacks. Instead we should continue to publish objective articles such as Hoffman’s that refute CIT with evidence and reason. CIT has never attempted to publish an article addressing Hoffmans’s paper point by point, nor do I believe they have the necessary scientific ability to do so. Their personal attacks should be answered simply by pointing out that they are personal attacks, not rational arguments, but this also should be done objectively and unemotionally, and not by responding in.

    • Julian says:

      “I suspect that CIT is sincere but ego-driven.”

      I’m curious about what behavior suggests that to you. I haven’t found any of those I listed remotely sincere in their communication online or behavior toward other movement participants.

      • tonywicher says:

        Well, this is just a subjective impression based on a couple of interviews I watched. I think it’s a good policy to presume the best of people, and let their actions speak for themselves. To me they seemed more like ambitious young guys out to make a name for themselves. They came up with a theory that has some plausibility and they are selling it. There have been many buyers, including my old friend, who is quite a savvy guy in many ways. My friend of 45 years is not a disinfo agent, and unlike CIT themselves has nothing to gain personally from the acceptance or rejection of the theory, and yet his passionate attachment to the CIT theory was so strong that he started to engage in some of the same sort of personal attacks against me and other CIT critics as CIT did. For a minute there he was looking at me like I had betrayed him or something. It’s just amazing how strongly people become attached to theories. A true scientist is supposed to be objective, which means he is not attached to any theory. He is supposed to be able to restrain himself from all such attachments so as to ascertain what is true. The greatest scientists are those most able to exercise such restraint. But to become attached and lose one’s objectivity is a human weakness we are all heir to. Based on watching those interviews, CIT’s behavior has gone way over the top and I do support 9/11 Blogger’s decision to ban them.

        • Julian says:

          Now we’re on the same page. You seemed a bit certain for my taste. This post confirms for me that you aren’t a troll and that we share common ground on this issue.

          Sounds like you have close personal experience with this concern. I see why you have a distinct opinion and I certainly respect your awareness of basic scientific behavior. More rare than it should be in a movement that demands it.

          To cut to the chase, your comments suggest that you may not be as familiar as others with the negative behavior or those who RUN CIT. Advocates off the table. In my opinion they are downright shady. I’m some kind of an adept with non-verbal communication, writing included, and it makes me a bit of a human lie detector.

          I don’t let that ability pull my life apart as it could, but in this context it’s in full effect. Craig Ranke is a fraud. Period. I’m quite a bit more certain of that than my assumptions about 9/11. But, OF COURSE, don’t take my word for it. Everything you need to know is on the Truth Action forum.

          Speaking of which, I would like to encourage you to back off expression of certainty regarding the nature of the 9/11 attacks. If I were better educated I feel I could quickly convince you that the most scientific orientation is what I expressed above. We have a winning case for a cover up and well founded probable cause to suspect some kind of complicity at some level. (Keeping in mind that this has little resemblance to what I believe happened.)

          In other words, the cover up should compel an investigation. That’s LIHOP, gatekeeper talk to big tent folks. To me that’s knowing what we’ve got and who we are trying to reach. Marketing.

          Finally, I’d like to you honestly consider for just a moment that someone out there would like you focused on physical evidence more than documentary evidence. CD has legs. I’m not denying it. But without the rest of the argument, CD is easy to marginalize.

  5. cosmos says:

    From Peter Dale Scott:

    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.

    Sincerely,

    Peter Dale Scott

You must be logged in to post a comment.