Click here to read or return to "CIT responds To An E-mail Re: Richard Gage's Recent "Complete Withdrawal of Support" Statement"
Complete Withdrawal of Support by
Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT's "National Security Alert"
Submitted by richardgage on Tue,
02/08/2011 - 8:00pm
February 8, 2011
Author: Richard Gage
Source: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
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 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
Click here to read or return to "CIT responds To An E-mail Re: Richard Gage's Recent "Complete Withdrawalof Support" Statement"