Peter Dale Scott Tries to Rowback His Endorsement of CIT-Heads
Apparently he was taking quite a bit of flak for it:
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.
Here's his claim:
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.
So the obvious question is what does PDS believe actually happened? That the plane approached from North of the Citgo and flew into the Pentagon? But if that's the case, isn't the light pole damage out of place? Doesn't that mean that the exit hole in the C-Ring is mispositioned?
You see the problem? You can't endorse North of Citgo, and then try to say but you don't believe in the flyover, because if the plane really was NoC, then it could not have caused the physical damage seen. So Peter Dale Scott's attempted rowback on this is yet another massive fail.