It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Porter Goss interview on 9/11 - Explosion Sound

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
This video clip is taken from the National Geographic's Witness: DC 9/11 documentary. It shows Porter Goss being interviewed on 9/11 near the Pentagon.

At the end of the interview there is a sound of something like an explosion and few seconds later it sounds like a jet flying low. So I'm wondering what your thoughts are.

Personally, I never heard a theory that there was an explosion at the Pentagon before the plane.





posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsecret

Did not hear a explosion, I did hear a couple bangs that could be anything. But I definitely heard the jet Thank's!

Now correct me if I'm wrong. Most of the theories say that no jet hit the Pentagon? Doesn't your video help to refute those claims ?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsecret
So another person in our intelligence community saying that using planes as a weapon was not a new idea that no one could conceive.




posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

The theory doesn't involve no plane being present at all.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Greathouse

The theory doesn't involve no plane being present at all.


I'm not speaking about that theory. There are other theories and many of them revolve around no plane. Are you saying you've never heard of these theories?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

People would have to be completely disingenuous to disregard the fact that using planes as a weapon or projectile seemed to fair reasonably well for Kamikaze pilots.

What was that?
5 decades earlier?

The only question is who was flying/in control of the planes/makeshift drones at the time.


Although we'll never actually know that.


So all that matters is that those souls we lost rest peacefully!



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

There is no doubt in my mind use of airplanes as a weapon have been looked into since before World War II by the U.S.


United Airlines Chesterton Crash 1933 Boeing 247 was destroyed by a bomb, with nitroglycerin as the probable explosive agent. A Chicago gangland murder was suspected, but the case remains unsolved.[2] It is thought to be the first proven act of air sabotage in the history of commercial aviation.


They have been just as worried about planes falling on top of things as they have been of them flying into things.



Part of the problem arises with numbers. On the average 50,000 flights a day originate in the US. They can't put a air marshal on every one of them and a investigative team on all the passengers.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: whatsecret

I disagree, I think the people in the video heard the plane before the microphones picked it up.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   


Fast forward to 6:30 in the vid, close up
Zoomed "blow out" or "squib"

What was that??



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Ya sure I have heard the no planes theory, in my infant 9/11 'truther' days I regrettable stood behind it.
I have since seperated my self from that cause it just doesn't make any sort of sense and am embarrassed there is post on this site of me holding that view.

To say that is that most or many theories present no planes is also very disingenuous as that is just not true.
No planes is fringe theory at best in the community that question the OS.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80


The theory doesn't involve no plane being present at all.


Then I'm curious as to why you posted this? In my response I mentioned other theories. Yet as has become the norm, you correct every one of my replies.


Tell me the truth it's not a man crush is it?

edit on 19-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
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.
edit on 19-5-2015 by AshOnMyTomatoes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Na don't flatter your self, I just reply when I want.

I said what I said cause you said most theories say there was no planes and that is just not true.
Also it is not the theory being presented with the video and the OP, that is an explosion followed by the plane sound which sounds like the fly over theory.
Which does involve a plane.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Nope listen to it twice more didn't hear any explosion. Maybe you can explain to me why everyone is standing still and looking up in the sky though?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Although you noticed the word "most" in this reply, you chose not to notice that word in your original reply.

By the way as to your original reply. The word "most" does not mean all.
edit on 19-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Right around 20 second mark. Muffled bang, man behind him looks backward, interviewee pauses and says, with a nervous flutter in his voice, "as you can tell, as we speak, there's still things going on". This puts them all on alert, and then they are craning to find the source of the fighter jet sounds (that I suggest have been overlaid by someone editing the video and adding commercial jet engine noise) towards the end of the vid.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes


Muffled bang, man behind him looks backward,


As I mentioned in my post I heard a bang. But in no way could that bang remotely resemble a explosion.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
To clarify, I'm neither advocating a "no plane" theory or a "missile hit the Pentagon" theory. I'm suggesting someone edited this video to make it appear as if the explosion came before the sound of a low-flying plane. If the explosion came before the sound of a low-flying plane, it would not be consistent with an airliner crashing into the Pentagon.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes


Muffled bang, man behind him looks backward,


As I mentioned in my post I heard a bang. But in no way could that bang remotely resemble a explosion.
So because the bang doesn't sound exactly like a movie explosion sound effect, it's not an explosion? I guess the concept of sound becoming quieter as it travels a distance does not occur to you.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join