TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I) (11 posts)

  1. nornnxx65

    Hyperlinks here:

    Dr. Peter Dale Scott, researcher, author and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus, recently praised the latest video from CIT, ‘National Security Alert’. However, due to receiving many emails critical of CIT’s work, he issued a qualifying statement, which I asked for and received permission to post publicly. CIT’s film presents witnesses whose statements indicate, or seem to indicate, that American Airlines Flight 77 did not fly the path that we have been told knocked down light poles and caused the damage at the Pentagon, as well as the testimony of an apparent eyewitness to a plane that flew over the building. The film also contends that it is “conclusive” that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that instead it flew over the building. However, in his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott says, “I do not personally believe it.” He explains, “All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses…. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does.”

    This is Dr. Scott’s statement at CIT’s website:

    Citizen Investigation Team has produced an important documentary video that, using numerous independent witness accounts, successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77’s flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon. It constitutes a further compelling reason for this country to investigate properly, for the first time, the full story of what happened on that day.

    -Dr. Peter Dale Scott

    At the above url, there is a link to the film, National Security Alert.

    This is Dr. Scott’s statement of qualification, in full:

    This is a form letter in response to the flood of letters that has been showered on me by those who do not like CIT.

    I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.

    I must say that I am disappointed by number of ad hominem attacks I have received. I do not believe one incoming letter so far has dealt with the substance of what the Turnpike witnesses claimed and I endorsed.

    In his famous American University speech of June 1963, John F. Kennedy famously said, "And we are all mortal." I would add, "And we are all fallible." For this reason I would ask everyone in the 9/11 truth movement to focus their energies on the substance of what happened on 9/11, and not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.


    Peter Dale Scott

    In his message giving me permission to post, Dr. Scott also said, “I am now aware of [CIT’s] ad hominem attacks on good people, which is a big reason why I am giving you this permission.” In my email to him, I had included a link to the CIT forum thread titled “Face to the Name”, where they post names and photos, and insult and attack those who question their methods, conclusions and behavior:

    My name and photo are on page 4; CIT co-founder Aldo ‘Investigangsta’ Marquis claims I have made “accusations of being disinfo" against CIT. This is not correct; I have criticized CIT’s evidence, claims and behavior, but I have not accused them of ‘disinformation’, i.e. intentionally misleading the public.

    Lessons from Dr. Scott’s message:

    1) Labeling people or questioning their motives instead of critiquing their evidence and arguments is not persuasive to people skilled in research and debate, and may even be offensive. Facts are facts, and offensive behavior does not change the truth, but civil discussion promotes greater understanding. Personal attacks can cloud the issues and cause bad feeling and suspicion among 9/11 researchers and Truth activists. The FBI employed such techniques effectively during their COINTELPRO operation, as a means of disrupting and distracting activists. Dr. Scott wisely asks that those seeking truth “not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.”

    And as 9/11 researcher Arabesque has observed:

    About the issue of "disinformation" and "agents" and all of that. I think it is best to reject labels altogether and just give the information. Particularly since there are disinformation enablers who will use these kinds of characterizations and attacks to defend CIT and their endorsements of CIT. I have seen time and time again how this is used as a straw-man to deflect attention away from the bad information and behavior. Instead of addressing these issues, enablers of disinfo/misinfo will point to the "attacks" and accusations of "disinfo" and simply ignore the information.

    2) CIT claims their collection of witnesses conclusively proves that AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, instead flying over the building. In his qualifying statement, Dr. Scott endorsed the assemblage of witnesses, and said, “I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.” He also said, “I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it.”

    I’ve watched Pentacon and National Security Alert, and have read numerous articles and comments both endorsing and critiquing CIT’s work. While I find both CIT and the witness statements interesting, I personally do not believe the flyover theory either. The witness statements used by CIT are inconclusive, as they are in some cases inconsistent with undisputed facts, with CIT’s interpretation, and with other witness statements.

    Arabesque’s review of Pentacon highlights many of these issues: A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’ Caustic Logic/Adam Larson (no relation) collected statements of 13 witnesses from the public record that support a south-of-Citgo path- including statements by 2 of CIT’s witnesses, Terry Morin and Ed Paik: THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED

    Arabesque has also collected the statements of close to 100 first hand accounts of the plane impacting the Pentagon, as reported by media in the time period shortly after 9/11: 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described

    National Security Alert contains much of the same material from Pentacon, but is updated with Roosevelt Roberts, the alleged ‘flyover’ witness, a partial quote from Erik Dihle, and new video with cabdriver Lloyde England, among other things.

    I’m not sure what to make of Roberts’ testimony; he says that at 9:11 or 9:12 am (the Pentagon was struck around 9:37 am) he went outside the building after the “impact” and saw a “silver” “commercial aircraft” fly from over the top of the Pentagon to the southwest. Caustic Logic has written a number of articles examining the Roberts account- some of his statements indicate he saw AA 77 approach.

    Erik Dihle gave an account to the Center for Military History shortly after 9/11. He had been in his office at Arlington National Cemetery, going outside after the fact. CIT only reports that he said, “The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn't even tell… some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going”. However, the mp3, which is available on CIT’s website, shows that Dihle completes the last sentence by saying, “somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.”

    So far, in the nearly 8 years after 9/11, these are the only first and second hand witness accounts that possibly indicate a ‘flyover’. This is strange if the flyover is a fact, considering that the area around the Pentagon is highly populated and crossed by many roads. A View Shed analysis of a 2 mile radius around the Pentagon gives an idea of how much opportunity there was for a flyover to be witnessed.

    Furthermore, 3 video cameras aimed at the Pentagon did not capture a flyover; the Pentagon and Doubletree Hotel security cameras were rolling prior to and during impact, and video was shot by a passing motorist within seconds after the impact (the camera was turned on before the smoke reached the top of the frame, and the Pentagon is in clear view).

    Cab driver Lloyde England figures heavily in CIT’s latest film, due to his famous account of AA 77 going right overhead and knocking a lamp post through his windshield. There are photos of his cab stopped on a bridge directly in the official flight path of AA 77, along with a street lamp post. As England was on the official flight path and states the plane flew over him, he’s a witness that contradicts CIT’s theory. In 2007, they put out a video short about him titled “The First Known Accomplice?” National Security Alert features new footage with England. In the film, England is shown photos of his cab on the bridge and driven past the location, and he denies that’s where he was. Instead, England claims he was further east- approximately in the area where CIT claims all their witness saw the plane actually flying. While it appears that England is confused- he seems to think there was another bridge in the area (there isn’t)- CIT claims, “This proves that Lloyde was deliberately changing his position on the highway for the interview, to match up with where all of the witnesses saw the plane.” Why would England contradict the official 9/11 story, if he’s an “accomplice”? CIT does not examine this issue. At one point during the driving segment, CIT claims England is unaware he’s being recorded; for them to make this statement, it would seem they intentionally deceived him, and told him the camera was off- otherwise, why would they think he would assume that? During this segment England refers to 9/11 as having been “planned”, that 9/11 is “a world thing” and it’s for the “people who have money”, that he’s “not supposed to be involved in this”, but they “came across the highway together”, and now he’s “in it”. CIT interprets this to mean, “Lloyd in essence admitted his involvement in the 9/11 black operation, but he was cautious to not outright confess.” In my view, a more plausible explanation is that England understands, as tens of millions of Americans do, that 9/11 was planned by people with money, and given that he happened to be driving by when the plane flew over and knocked a lamp post through his windshield, he became famous and of interest to CIT, so now he’s “in it.”

    While the film is an interesting artifact, I don’t find it compelling- let alone “conclusive”- evidence that 9/11 was, in the words of CIT, “a false flag ‘black operation’ involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.” While I don’t accept the official explanations for 9/11, and it’s fair to say ‘9/11’ was and is a ‘deception’, no other information is presented that the official story is false, other than what CIT believes supports the theory that the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon. Furthermore, the only other ‘9/11 Truth’ organization featured in the film is Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which also focuses almost entirely on information that implies AA77 didn’t hit the Pentagon.

    In addition to the questionable evidence and claims, CIT has developed a reputation for abusing people who disagree with them, and have been banned from participating in many popular online forums as a result. Lloyde England, who they’ve called “the Devil” and “a demon” is one, but they have also made accusations against other witnesses whose testimony contradicts their claims, and attacked anyone who contradicts their claims, both 9/11 researchers and Truth activists, and so-called ‘debunkers’.

    For more info on CIT’s bad behavior, see their own ‘Face to the Name’ forum thread:

    And the following articles document still more bad behavior, plus other problems with their evidence and claims:

    CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy – Arabesque

    Arabesque has written a number of articles on CIT, and been the target of numerous attacks; this is a link to all CIT articles by Arabesque

    To Con A Movement – Victoria Ashley

    Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce - Jim Hoffman

    For more info on evidence that a 757/AA 77 did hit the Pentagon, see these articles:

    Pentagon Attack Errors - Jim Hoffman

    The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows - Jim Hoffman

    9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described – Arabesque

    For more info on compelling reasons to doubt the official 9/11 story and demand a full investigation, see these websites:

    The Complete 9/11 Timeline –

    Journal of 9/11 Studies and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and 911Review.COM

    Arabesque 9/11 Truth

    And these books:

    The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America by Peter Dale Scott

    The war on truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

    The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson and the Center for Cooperative Research

    And these films:

    9/11: Press for Truth

    Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime

    9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions

    Improbable Collapse: the Demolition of Our Republic

    9/11: Blueprint for Truth

    Loose Change, Final Cut

    For more info on 9/11 Truth news and activism, see these websites:

    Posted 8 years ago #
  2. mark

    The "flyover" claim is not a "theory" even if some sincere people still are reluctant to admit that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon (peer pressure is not investigative journalism).

    The Complete No Planes on 9/11 Timeline shows how Donald Rumsfeld helped create the "no plane" hoax.

    Any list of recommended videos should also include

    The Truth and Lies of 9/11 Michael Ruppert, Nov. 28, 2001

    Denial Stops Here: From 9/11 to Peak Oil and Beyond Michael Ruppert on the war games and the peak oil motivation

    9/11 Citizens Commission - September 9, 2004 hosted by Cynthia McKinney (much better than the 9/11/2004 event that got more publicity)

    And any list of books should include

    Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert

    Jamey Hecht


    Beginning on the day of the attack, the 9/11 Truth Movement ran the same inevitable course repeated by domestic dissent and political critique so many times: formation, momentum, growth, penetration by unidentified representatives of the critiqued; disinformation campaigns; factionalization, and fizzle. It is always possible, however, to rebuild and extend the work of social repair that such movements represent. Apart from that utopian ambition, it’s inherently valuable just to make sense of the attacks and assassinations, the engineered coups des etats and the falsely triggered wars. That sense-making happens in paperback-and-podium argumentation pitched at various levels of sophistication for various audiences; it happens in documentaries; and it can happens in the arts. It cannot happen in the courts: published in September 2004, Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon was a solidly documented, robustly argued legal case against Dick Cheney and others, constructed strictly around means, motive, and opportunity. Though it remains the 2nd or 3rd best-selling book on 9/11 after the Kean Report itself, Rubicon has been resolutely ignored by the mainstream media and gone unchallenged by any legal (or other) representative of those it accuses. The way to get media attention is to publish – wittingly or unwittingly – a true story mixed with a poison pill of disinformation.

    9/11 research is a rabbit-hole of Byzantine complexity full of snares and delusions and peopled with false friends, lunatics, earnest lost souls and a few heroes. It's not necessary to understand all the nuances of science and bureaucracy that allowed the government to get away with mass murder, blame it on swarthy foreigners (of whom many are eager accomplices) and use the incident as (in the words of the Cheney, Jeb Bush et al cabal, the Project for a New American Century) "a new Pearl Harbor." At this critical juncture in human history, it's only necessary to understand why they did it. The motive was Peak Oil, a disaster which will affect everyone on the planet, about which all must enlighten themselves and for which all must prepare.

    -- Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center Environmental Organization

    Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney by Michael Kane

    Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11.

    Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime."

    Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  3. thevillage


    Isn't flight #77 the one that American Airliens denied even was scheduled to fly that day?

    Additionally, witnesses standing watching the flight of the plane make clear it did not hit the poles and that it was flying a different pathway from originally suggested. We also have the even stranger "evidence" of the cab driver who seemed to want to confess to his part in the "lampost" scheme.

    With all that the conspirators had to do that day do we really think that they wanted to base it all on whether or not they succeeded in simultaneously hijacking four planes? Hey, remember, this was their big chance cause coincidentally NORAD wasn't in the air that day. NORAD was AWOL.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  4. mark

    No and no.

    There was never any evidence that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, even if some shrill websites pushed fake evidence claiming otherwise.

    Hundreds of people saw the plane and the crash. Hundreds more picked tons of plane parts out of the rubble, including the passenger bodies, luggage, seat cushions, etc.

    It's embarrassing that anyone is still pushing this a decade after it was debunked, even by the best researchers on 9/11 complicity information. Thanks are especially due to John Judge for warning us in 2002 that this was a disinformation campaign even if most of its believers are sincere. It's not hard to find people who know eyewitnesses in the DC area and most do not have their comments on websites that people far removed from the scene can read. Of the six that I know of only one has their comments posted anywhere.

    NORAD was in the air after the attacks started, but only managed to arrive on the scenes in NYC and DC after the attacks happened.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  5. truthmod

    Thanks, mark. I think you've put this issue to rest.

    We aren't very interested in going over all this evidence in real time with people who haven't yet got this. It's also a major red flag.

    I would refer thevillage to these two pages on our site:

    And this page on

    Posted 4 years ago #
  6. BrianG

    The flyover theory is easily disposed of. Dozens of witnesses saw the airliner west of the Pentagon, and nobody saw it east of the Pentagon. There was nowhere for the plane to go without being observed from the freeway, from a marina, from a golf course, from other aircraft, from hundreds of windows in high-rise buildings near the Pentagon.

    Landing on Runway 15 at Reagan National (DCA) is no answer. Runway 15 was not long enough for 757s. Traffic was coming into DCA on Runway 19 from the SE, flying into the wind. Flight 77's wrong-way landing from the west, across Runway 19, would have been very conspicuous. I don't see how the Pilots for Truth could ever have believed the Runway 15 theory for a minute.

    Lastly, it is inconceivable that a flyover plan would ever be approved. There was an unacceptable and uncontrollable risk that someone in one of the highrises--someone in a hotel room, an office, or an apartment overlooking the Pentagon--might set a video camera running just on the chance that something interesting might happen at the Pentagon.

    The flyover theory is hooey. The fly-under theory of jimd3100, however, remains unrefuted.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  7. mark

    briang - please post this nonsense somewhere else, there's no fly under, over, sideways hoax that makes any sense.

    Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Get a life.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  8. BrianG

    Mark, I believe flight 77 hit the Pentagon. That was my point. Flyover is easily disposed of.

    You're missing the funny part, Mark (did you never see "A Thousand Clowns"?)

    Fly-under makes just as much sense as Fly-over--that's the point. And Fly-under is at least consistent with Pilots-for-Truth co-founder John Lear's belief in huge military bases underground.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  9. truthmover

    Mark, how are you not getting that fly-under is a joke?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  10. mark

    No, I have not seen 1000 Clowns and don't know what it is. I stopped watching teevee and most hollywood stuff a long time ago.

    The no plane hoax caused more damage to the 9/11 truth movement than the demolition hoax, although the demolition hoax is more popular now than Rumsfeld's Pentagon Missile hoax.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  11. BrianG

    Well how's that "Al Qaeda is a CIA puppet" thing working out?

    Posted 4 years ago #


You must log in to post.