Porter Goss interview on 9/11 - Explosion Sound

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

No because a bang does not remotely sound like a real explosion I've heard plenty of those.

Honestly when I first heard that tiny little bang, the first thing I thought of was lumber being stacked.

originally posted by: whatsecret
a reply to: Greathouse

There is definitely a sound of "explosion" and the people react to it too. That sound could be many things just like that jet could be going somewhere else.

The only thing this video refutes is the claims by our government that no one could even imagine planes being used as weapons. But that has been established a very long time ago.

That is definitely a sound of an explosion, possibly the actual event at the Pentagon but, there is definitely a sound of a very low jet as well. How to reconcile the two in that time frame, is not so easy as there were no military aircraft at Washington, there was two aircraft in the air but not there but elsewhere, supposedly not briefed. The other background noises sounds like a pile driver making foundations. Flight 77 was a big contention as to its behaviour, and how far out it went then came back. I haven't seen that video before, and I'm now trying to figure it out.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

No because a bang does not remotely sound like a real explosion I've heard plenty of those.

Honestly when I first heard that tiny little bang, the first thing I thought of was lumber being stacked.

That is rubbish...*(bangs that is), and I've heard plenty too, still do.

*added in edit.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

However, the roaring at the end doesn't really match anything that is going on. I'd suggest the explosion is real and the reactions of the people are the genuine article, but the roaring at the end has been added to support a "no plane" version of events. It sounds completely out of place. If you listen carefully, you can hear what may be the sound of a fighter jet muffled by the roaring of a jet engine (and by the sounds of it, a jet engine that is idling on the ground). I suggest that is what caught their attention in the sky.

The roaring is also heard in the origional national geographic documentary...

This interview starts at 14:43 mark.

youtu.be...

a reply to: smurfy


So what are you getting at? Are you claiming that little bang was the sound of the gaping hole being put in the side of the Pentagon?

Propane tanks

Pentagon was undergoing renovations . On the roof were number of propane tanks used by the roofers
to melt tar.

Burning jet fuel had ignited fires on the roof which burned in the wooden substrate and in the tar coated horsehair felt
which laid under the slate covering

Several of the tanks blew up from the heat of the fires sending firemen on the roof running

arlingtonfirejournal.blogspot.com...

The Pentagon’s concrete, masonry and slate roof made it a ``very, very difficult system to get through to extinguish,’’ Plaugher said. ``It takes a lot of cutting with special tools and equipment and then a lot of hand work by the firefighters to get up in there.’’

Excerpt from book FIRE FIGHT : INSIDE THE BATTLE TO SAVE THE PENTAGON ON 9/11

Ms. Gross: So, what were the problems in dealing with the roof? Because there were similar problems that the fire fighters had with the blast proof windows.


"They couldn’t get the roof fire out—the firefighters are trained for, you know, they are trained to deal with roof fires on the tops of buildings, and they do all the time, on warehouses, on strip malls, things like that. Again, this just gets back to the unusual and unique, ah, way the Pentagon was constructed. So the roof is about a foot thick of concrete, with different layers of horse hair insulation, which nobody had ever heard of at the time, they didn’t even know that they used to use horse hair as an insulation, and they couldn’t get to the fire, so some part of the wooden structure was sort of sandwiched between a foot of concrete on the top [sic] and other material underneath it, so they just couldn’t get to this wood that was burning, and you would think, how did the fire get there, the fire got there because the jet fuel spewed everywhere, and the jet fuel just got into places, ah, where ordinary flames probably wouldn’t get, and in some areas it lit off right away, and in other areas it just sat there until an ember ignited it, or a gust of wind came and ignited it, and they just could not get to this layer of wood that was sandwiched between, basically concrete on both sides. The wood just kept burning [chuckle] very slowly around the building, all around the building, until it actually started to circle the building on the inner area. At that point, even if there had not been this sensitive stuff on the roof, the fire could then have then gone back down and caught other parts of the building on fire. So it’s just a very tricky problem, by the time they realized how serious it was, they put all the firefighters they could get up there, ladder trucks—they actually put port-a-potties up on top of the roof so they could kind of run this longer-range firefighting operation up there, than they had ever anticipated."


Ms. Gross: So, how did they get around the problem of the concrete?


Initially, there was power tools brought up, saws to cut through cement and concrete. Most of those broke, and the majority of labor was done by firefighters taking off their coats, and using sledgehammers, axes, to just brute-force pound through the concrete.

Lots of time they pounded through the concrete--they tried to do something called a trench cut, where, like cutting a break in a forest fire—so they could catch the fire and stop it before it spread any further. Well they would get to where they thought they were ahead of the fire, pound through the concrete with just incredible effort—you have to remember, it was a very nice day on September 11th, September 12th, bright sunny, this was difficult to work in—there’s smoke everywhere, they’re pounding through the concrete, they get through finally, make a small hole and look through, and the fire has already past that point. It‘s already beat them, and all that effort was for nothing. They have to grab their tools, run 50 feet further down the roof and try to get ahead of it again before it spreads past, so they can make that break and stop the advance of the fire. This happened many times. They did get power tools later on, but even after that, the vast majority of the effort was sledgehammers and sweat. (4:43) 19:07

a reply to: fireladdie

So in the video, that sound of explosion before the sound of a jet is propane tanks?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: smurfy


So what are you getting at? Are you claiming that little bang was the sound of the gaping hole being put in the side of the Pentagon?

Ahh, don't bother me, I'm more interested what time this interview was and just where in Washington, some of the other folk here probably do too.

a reply to: smurfy


Then why did you take time out your discussion to address my post as rubbish?

Just curious?

I apologize if I offended you. But facts can be explained away, circumstance can be explained away. But simple logic is very difficult to explain away. The logical fact is there is no way to correlate that tiny bang into the explosion that tore a hole in the Pentagon.

video unabled.

video link unabled.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
First impression of the video: the explosion sound is genuine, the people and the interviewee all react to it. The man even says "as you can see, things are still happening" and then gets nervous about being in the area. Everyone starts watching the skies.

However, the roaring at the end doesn't really match anything that is going on. I'd suggest the explosion is real and the reactions of the people are the genuine article, but the roaring at the end has been added to support a "no plane" version of events. It sounds completely out of place. If you listen carefully, you can hear what may be the sound of a fighter jet muffled by the roaring of a jet engine (and by the sounds of it, a jet engine that is idling on the ground). I suggest that is what caught their attention in the sky.

You didn't miss much, but there is incidental music in the full video, though you can still hear the jet sound under what is likely a cymbal effect, probably marking the end of a sequence. You can go to the YouTube link and there is another URL for the whole video there in the text below.
To add, This might work now,

This is very interesting. I've never seen it before but you're right there's a big explosion before the plane ever hit. I'd very much like an explanation for that.

I have to say that I normally only am interested in the building collapses. I also believe it was a real plane. It was found wasn't it ? also DNA and the radar data is available. The interesting thing is that the whole no plane thing started with a joke that became very big. However if the two videos that are released are really edited then we have to conclude that it perhaps is a brilliant piece of disinformation to cover up the building demolitions. They will keep the videos, but when 9/11 truth becomes dangerous they will release the videos that show the plane. This will give them another 10 years.

Interesting, but the "explosion" sound could have easily been dubbed over the original video. Perhaps the people in the background are simply reacting to the sound of the jet engine approaching them.

a reply to: NiZZiM

This interview was AFTER the Pentagon was hit by flight 77.

a reply to: whatsecret

There is definitely a sound of "explosion" and the people react to it too

No there is the sound of a "bang".

This is the biggest problem with all of these claims of audio proof of explosions on 9/11, its all about the context.

Really think about it, did you hear a explosion or a bang, because a chuck of building falling or a huge steal girder falling would make a bang, so would a car back firing and really any number of things. Yet in the context of the day of 9/11 many truthers take these bangs and turn them into explosions because it fits in with their already predetermined ideas of what happened that day.

The bang turns into a explosion which then equates to proof that explosives were used on 9/11.

When you really think about it, its quite laughable that some people think this passes for proof of explosives.

Also it baffles me that truthers do not even entertain the idea that the sound of the jet could have been dubbed in.

Does anyone know the sound of an Aircraft slamming into the sound of a building? An Aircraft isnt a bomb.

So then what would you hear, the sound of an aluminum tube smashing through a few concrete walls. I doubt you would hear its fuel igniting.

I think the boom of an aircraft going through the Pentagon would be longer than a bang but as I, as everyone here on ATS has never experienced anything like it, I will give it the IMO.