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
From Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
“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.”
Visibility 9/11 presents an interview with physicist David Chandler who has just released his 9/11 Analysis dvd. Chandler talks with host John Bursill about his part in getting the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to admit that WTC 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with freefall, about the need for 9/11 truth and justice and the importance of not becoming the “what hit the Pentagon” movement. Download mp3
Let’s test this hypothesis in the real world. How many hours have brilliant people spent arguing this? How many words typed? How much energy and passion has been drained from creating an orderly presentation of 9/11 Truth to the American public? How many people have sickened of this wretched debate and quit contributing all together? How many hours of public awareness of WTC 7 and many much more obvious facts have been sacrificed? This list goes on and on and on.
“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
– Friedrich Nietzsche
The CIT videos don’t qualify as scientific studies. Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool, the witnesses accounts are far from contemporaneous with the events, and the conversational style of the interviews frequently leads the witnesses. Who knows what conversations preceded the videotaped interviews to either shape or filter the testimonies? The “researchers” ignore the fact that none of their witnesses directly confirms their primary hypothesis: a Pentagon flyover.