The Citgo Ghost

[BCR]

I have expressed for many years now that I am a truther. I am quite proud to be a truther and find it particularly disheartening to have that term associated with some of the crazy that is 9/11. A truther is someone who simply does not subscribe to the government's explanation or version of events blindly. I question everything that comes out of Washington, DC because that is what a good citizen should do. Holding government accountable to the governed is what this country is supposed to be about. However, that does not necessarily mean I believe the government was responsible for the events of 9/11.

As many of you know, I assisted Mark Gaffney with his book, 9/11 Mystery Plane. For that book, I wrote an appendix which outlined my analysis of the Citgo video and the "flash". Although a very solid analysis, it drew a lot of fire simply because it suggested strongly that something else was airborne at low altitude to the NE of the Citgo at the time of the Pentagon event. The ridicule came from both sides of the debate, but the fact still remained that light still behaves in a known way and a light source direction is fairly simple to determine using very basic physics and math.

Over the years, my skills with the FAA radar data sets has grown, so this week I decided to revisit the DCA (Reagan National) ASR data one more time. The problem with the "ghost" is that the Pentagon/Citgo sit in a tidal basin which has a radar blind spot at low altitude (< few hundred feet). So, even the ASR was not much help I'm afraid with this one. But when I backed the time up a little, guess what I found? During the time frame of 13:31 - 13:32, in the vicinity of the Citgo and moving to and fro, I found this.

I am not even going to attempt to make an identification. My best guess, a helicopter. For me, that is not really that important at this point. All that is important is, I am not losing my mind. There was something else there, exactly where I said it was.

By the way, a huge document dump (several hundred pages at least) showed up on my front porch this afternoon from the CIA. Seems like they finally got around to responding to one of my FOIA requests from four years ago

 

[Childlike Empress]

 

[GlennB]

What are we supposed to be seeing on this GoogleEarth view of Citgo from 2/1/2011 ?
Did you post the wrong image?

 

[BCR]

What are we supposed to be seeing on this GoogleEarth view of Citgo from 2/1/2011 ?
Did you post the wrong image?

Whatever you want to see GlennB. However, they are radar returns from the DCA ASR data for September 11, 2001 (as stated in the OP) plotted in GE.

 

[DGM]

A truther is someone who simply does not subscribe to the government's explanation or version of events blindly. I question everything that comes out of Washington, DC because that is what a good citizen should do.

I'm wondering where you got this definition of "truther" from and why anyone would think this does not apply to nearly everyone on the "debunker" side?

Maybe this needs a new thread.

 

[BCR]

I'm wondering where you got this definition of "truther" from and why anyone would think this does not apply to nearly everyone on the "debunker" side?

Maybe this needs a new thread.

I did not say who it did and did not apply to. I got this "definition" of "truther" from those of us who are active in 911 Truth issues in a very serious manner. Goes way back to 2006 when I first got involved in this stuff. As you can see by CE's response, there are some folks who give the moniker a bad name.

 

[Childlike Empress]

As you can see by CE's response, there are some folks who give the moniker a bad name see right through my obfuscation attempts.

ftfy.

 

[ozeco41]

I have expressed for many years now that I am a truther. I am quite proud to be a truther and find it particularly disheartening to have that term associated with some of the crazy that is 9/11....

The difficulties of the dynamic of language. Word meanings in accepted use evolve with usage. The example I often use being "terrific" and "terrible" where I understand that historically both meant the same - cause terror - and now both mean something different AND differ from each other.

"Truther" has suffered that fate and you are probably on the losing side if you try to retain the obsolete or obsolescent definition.

My suggestion is that your usage of the word:

...A truther is someone who simply does not subscribe to the government's explanation or version of events blindly. I question everything that comes out of Washington, DC because that is what a good citizen should do. Holding government accountable to the governed is what this country is supposed to be about. However, that does not necessarily mean I believe the government was responsible for the events of 9/11.

...fits better with "sceptic" (or skeptic if on that side of the Atlantic.) You would probably need "9/11 sceptic" to avoid ambiguity. Cumbersome but... The language of common usage has moved on.

The rest of your post goes to your personal area of interest. My area of 9/11 interest mainly the "WTC was it CD?" question - understandable given my civil/structural engineering career and Military experience as an Army Reserve engineer which gave me some demolition training.

So congratulations on your interest leading to:

..All that is important is, I am not losing my mind. There was something else there, exactly where I said it was...

I know the satisfaction of getting something right - even if the confirmation takes years to arrive. I sometimes read a few of my surviving WTC 9/11 posts from 2007-8. A salutary lesson in "did I get it right?" I usually survive the main points but a few embarrassing details are revealed.

By the way, a huge document dump (several hundred pages at least) showed up on my front porch this afternoon from the CIA. Seems like they finally got around to responding to one of my FOIA requests from four years ago

Is the legislation wide open on response time frame?

 

[DGM]

I did not say who it did and did not apply to. I got this "definition" of "truther" from those of us who are active in 911 Truth issues in a very serious manner. Goes way back to 2006 when I first got involved in this stuff. As you can see by CE's response, there are some folks who give the moniker a bad name.

I understand. Sometimes causes get hijacked by the wrong crowd (see "occupy").

 

[DGM]

The difficulties of the dynamic of language. Word meanings in accepted use evolve with usage. The example I often use being "terrific" and "terrible" where I understand that historically both meant the same - cause terror - and now both mean something different AND differ from each other.

My 14 year old the other day had to explain what "mad" meant. Aparently, I'm not "mad cool".

ETA: Apparently I am however "Stacking mad cash". (that's good, I guess).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Even if I did not believe a single word THE GOVERNMENT said about anything, including the events of September 11, I do notice that the experiences and reports of an awful lot of people who are not part of THE GOVERNMENT show that some large commercial airliners were hijacked and deliberately crashed on that date.

Curious, probably spurious, anomalous radar returns plotted on a map without any error bars by someone with no demonstrated training or experience in the interpretation of radar images does NOTHING to change my mind.

 

[Justin39640]

I understand. Sometimes causes get hijacked by the wrong crowd (see "occupy").

IIRC, the first group seeking and using the phrase "the truth about 9/11" were firemen with issues such as the crappy (for the situation) communication gear they had, egress, etc.

 

[BCR]

The rest of your post goes to your personal area of interest. My area of 9/11 interest mainly the "WTC was it CD?" question - understandable given my civil/structural engineering career and Military experience as an Army Reserve engineer which gave me some demolition training.

Exactly why I stay away from the WTC debate. Not my area of expertise so my opinion does not count for much of anything.

Two graphs that may make the circumstance clearer. The first is data from 1330 to 1338 (pre-impact). The second simply extends the time to 1339 (inclusive) to show the debris cloud that has formed over the Pentagon. The "ghost" is the track to the left of the Pentagon, but only shows up during the 1331-1332 (inclusive) time frame. The track to the north is the "Doubletree" helicopter which I discovered back in 2006 (we called it the "flying thing" on the Doubletree videos), later identified as a COG helicopter out of Andrews AFB which passed between the Doubletree and Pentagon about 10 minutes prior to impact and was well north at the time.

 

[BCR]

Even if I did not believe a single word THE GOVERNMENT said about anything, including the events of September 11, I do notice that the experiences and reports of an awful lot of people who are not part of THE GOVERNMENT show that some large commercial airliners were hijacked and deliberately crashed on that date.

Curious, probably spurious, anomalous radar returns plotted on a map without any error bars by someone with no demonstrated training or experience in the interpretation of radar images does NOTHING to change my mind.

Not trying to change anyone's mind and really don't give a damn. But my "training or experience" is not really at issue (expect when folks like you don't like the results).

 

[The Big Dog]

Not trying to change anyone's mind and really don't give a damn. But my "training or experience" is not really at issue (expect when folks like you don't like the results).

Why would anyone not like the results?

Seems interesting but irrelevant to me, it was afterall, six minutes or so before AA 77 arrived.

Perhaps the problem is that I am seeing just a couple pages out of the book?
Perhaps you can explain in a little greater depth your "analysis of the Citgo video and the "flash"?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not trying to change anyone's mind and really don't give a damn. But my "training or experience" is not really at issue (expect when folks like you don't like the results).

In that case I'll pretend to be a psychiatrist and declare you . . . um . . . er . . something bad.

What freaking results do you think you have?

 

[BCR]

Perhaps you can explain in a little greater depth your "analysis of the Citgo video and the "flash"?

I've done that so many times over the years I'm sick of even talking about it. I linked the relevant section from Mark's book, but the old blog that had all of the work no longer exists (had problems with "hackers"). People tend to see what they want to see in such things (called confirmation bias). I've long stopped even making an effort. Even my old buddy Caustic Logic buried his head-in-the-sand on this one.

Just posting the radar results and will leave the rest for others to debate. I've had theories that they are due to "clutter". Could be, but not likely since there is a definite linear motion in one direction and then back. I am even in conversation with someone who was working across the street from the Pentagon who tells me he did not hear a helicopter. But then again, he did not hear or see the one we have conclusively identified either. People are used to helicopters on that side of the Pentagon, so helicopters are not really notable (except for the witnesses who told CNN that one was in the area on their arrival).

So, proof an inside jobby? Proof of nothing at all? Reckon that is for the beholder to decide. Wish those pesky buildings in Crystal City were not blocking the view

 

[BCR]

In that case I'll pretend to be a psychiatrist and declare you . . . um . . . er . . something bad.

What freaking results do you think you have?

Yer not worth the effort Gord.

 

[A W Smith]

 

[BCR]

Just for reference. Here is the DT footage of the first (identified) helicopter. It is first visible as a flash of light (reflected sunlight) at the upper right of the frame.



In the Citgo video, the "reflected" light phenomenon is visible in a number of incidences with cars at the station as they pass by, reflecting sunlight on the walls. But I have to disagree with AW Smith. I don't think it was aliens.