Mike Bellone's shocking claim on "Conspiracy Theory"

reply to post by weedwhacker



Then it was bloody invisible then cos i could'nt find it anywhere in ANY photograph ! So therefor if it wasnt mythical it was invisible ergo black boxes were invisible ! So they found invisible black boxes (christ these guys are good) ? So which one is it ? Simple factor is an aeroplane that size does not fit into a hole sixteen thats SIXTEEN not seventy five not even seventeen but SIXTEEN feet wide and if you can't see that with your own eyes then i am (be polite Pro') afraid my man 'YOU ARE BLIND ! either that or your p1ssed !

reply to post by ProRipp


Quite a few false bits of information there, again it's not your fault, it's the junque being spread by those conspiracy sites...

But, since this is supposed to be about Mike Bellone, and HIS claims that relate to the WTC, this question can best be answered with a little more in depth investigoogling on your own.

You did raise a good point, though...and didn't even realize it.

YOU said the Pentagon airplane disappeared, therefore you think it didn't exist, yet you're perfectly fine with the way the OTHER two airplanes in New Your City ALSO disintegrated on impact, as is natural to assume would happen given the fact that they hit BUILDINGS, just like in Arlington Virgina. The airplane that hit the Pentagon was destroyed on impact, just as surely as the two in NYC were.

AND, it was NOT a "sixteen-foot" wide hole there. That is yet more of the bogus claims that keep floating around. Even most conspiracy nuts have stopped claiming that, it is OLD NEWS...but, the nature of the Internet being what it is, stuff once written and posted NEVER goes away.......

reply to post by weedwhacker



I've been reading this thread , off and on , and of the de-bunker crew

your opinion I do give merit too.

What size was the hole in the Pentagon after the initial impact.

Before the collapse?

EDIT to say , after rereading my post , it almost looks like a demand,

not my intent , just asking politely

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Sean48]

reply to post by Sean48


There are plenty of photos....the damage was extensive.

I don't have the links to the website, it was some time ago that I saw them, another ATS member posted them...

One could review the thread started by 'CatHerder'....title is "A Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon" It's been around for some time, and is fairly definitive.


Here it is: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ProRipp

 

the OTHER two airplanes in New Your City ALSO disintegrated on impact, as is natural to assume would happen given the fact that they hit BUILDINGS, just like in Arlington Virgina. The airplane that hit the Pentagon was destroyed on impact, just as surely as the two in NYC were.

.......

I have one word for this......... BOLLOCKS



PS to Sean 48 ....SIXTEEN . Like i said NOT 75 like the OSers would like us to believe ! That was after the outer wall collapsed AND there ARE photographs to PROVE just that ! Hope that helps sean ?

[edit on 053131p://12America/Chicago22 by ProRipp]

reply to post by ProRipp


You agree that there were two jets in NYC, one each hit a Tower???

Well, there was one jet at the Pentagon, it hit the Pentagon building.

They were regular passenger jets.

That's it. Nothing much new to add.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ProRipp

 

You agree that there were two jets in NYC, one each hit a Tower???

Well, there was one jet at the Pentagon, it hit the Pentagon building.

They were regular passenger jets.

That's it. Nothing much new to add.

Where is it ?

There is at LEAST one instance of a fire resulting in FDR and CVR damage that was sufficient enough to render the data virtually unusable.
WTC --- check. Very hot fire, for long time.

I am sorry guys, but the disinformation police are out tonight in droves.
This last statement is nothing but a distracting fairy tale.

I am learning to tone down my pedantic style rants on here for a more direct "you are wrong deal with it" type of approach. Pardon me.
I really want to be objective and respectful.
So, if I fail...
Please point it out to me. I will apologize.
That is...
If I am wrong.

Shall we begin?
Let's.

Please explain to me how this explosion and resulting fire, that was supposedly SO intense could result from Jet fuel A.

Jet A is the standard jet fuel type in the U.S. since the 1950s and is only available here. Jet A is similar to Jet-A1, except for its higher freezing point of −40 °C (vs −47 °C for Jet A-1). Like Jet A-1, Jet A has a fairly high flash point of 38 °C (100 °F)

Note the flash point of 100 degrees F. It is very important.
A flash point is the temperature that an object will catch fire if a flame or heat sufficient enough to cause a flame is applied to said object.

Here is another quote regarding Jet fuel A.

The first jet fuels were based on kerosene or a gasoline-kerosene mix, and most jet fuels are still kerosene-based.

Remember that Jet Fuel A is basically interchangeable with Kerosene.
While the first jet fuels might have been gasoline or naptha mixed with Kerosene to give more compression, modern Jet fuel A is interchangeable with Kerosene. This insures stability, and cuts down on danger during flight and transportation.

So, now that we know that it takes a 100 degree F temp applied directly to Kerosene/Jet Fuel A to cause a flame, that tells us that it is relatively stable.
(I know that I seem to repeat myself a lot, but this is so simple; however, the government spin doctors are working overtime to force us into a more compliant belief)

Kerosene's stability is one of the reasons that it was used a a primary lighting source for so long.
It takes a direct flame to cause it to catch fire, thus making it much more stable than Petrol-based or Naptha-based Jet fuel.

So, now let's look at Kerosene/Jet fuel A's fire point.

For all of you too lazy to look up the link that I have provided:

The fire point of a fuel is the temperature at which it will continue to burn after ignition for at least 5 seconds. At the flash point, which is a lower temperature, a substance will ignite, but vapor might not be produced at a rate to sustain the fire. Industrially, fire point is the lowest temperature at which industrial greases produce sufficient vapors to form a mixture in air that continuously supports combustion after ignition.

I really want you guys to think about the fire point of Kerosene/Jet fuel A, because the fire point is the crux of your entire argument.

For the "30 minute inferno" to have happened that "weakened the steel" as you have all contended, then the fire point of kerosene would need to be extraordinarily HIGH. No exceptions.

If not, then it would have all burned off in the initial explosion.
(Do you remember the first link that showed you the supposed explosion due to jet fuel?)

I really hope that I am making this as obvious as possible for you guys.

The funny thing about a low fire point fuel is that when you exceed it, fumes starts to burn off very rapidly leading to an explosion.
See link above.
But with a higher fire point, a fire can burn for a while.

Guess what the fire point of kerosene/jet fuel A is:
answer to fire point of kerosene: bottom of pg 62

In case you didn't look, it is 110 degrees F.

So just out of curiosity, kerosene/jet fuel A catches fire at 100 degrees F, but will only continue to produce vapors for ignition at a temperature of around 110 degrees F.

Now, how exactly did the jet fuel that obviously caused the first explosion recycle itself to burn for 30 more minutes at temperatures that are physically impossible.
(800- 1200 degrees F. WHAT?! See below:

The maximum open air burning temp for Kerosene/Jet Fuel A is 549.5 degrees F.

Most airplane crashes on land don't encounter A) Such intense heat, for so long, nor: B) Do not involve a massive structure collapsing on top of them.

Please re-read the last bit of well researched information that I posted above.
What you are suggesting is impossible.

It completely violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Better yet, repeat the event as an experiment for me.
Look up what the OCT(Official Conspiracy Theory) says about this in the 911 commission report and then simply repeat it, and I will let you have a controlled setting. Make sure your experiment tests what the report said happened.

I would suggest calling in the local FD and wearing protective flammable gear. That is if you decide to do such foolish behavior.
You will MOST DEFINITELY get hurt and it will turn out horribly.

Now, here's something to stick into our thinking cap I mean, according to the conspiracy website woo-woos, the ENTIRE 9/11 event was an "inside job" and "staged"...so, why just 'hide' the WTC recorders??

This is another hasty-generalization.
No one truly informed concerning 9/11 ever states that the government did it.
What we are stating is that the facts do not add up and that the anomalies beg for a new investigation.
We are talking about the worst domestic loss of human lives in America for quite a while.
The absurd 9/11 commission treated this as a joke and now the families who have lost everything, meaning the people they love, are left to suffer.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Josephus23]

First you state the following:

"AND, it was NOT a "sixteen-foot" wide hole there. That is yet more of the bogus claims that keep floating around.

And then you refer us to a post by CatHerder which states the following:

"Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet"

So basically, it was NOT a 16 foot wide hole, it was hole somewhere between 13 and 16 feet. Gee, now that's quite a difference there. Maybe it was 15 feet and 11 inches, but definitely NOT 16 feet!

I guess the weaker nose section of the plane was easily able penetrate the concrete wall of the Pentagon while the stronger engine parts just bounced off, or better yet, as previously mentioned, "disintegrated". That wouldn't even be believable in some crappy B-movie.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Oh, jeeze.....how hard is this to understand???

The crash in 1989 did NOT have a skyscraper and mass of steel, concrete and other debris fall on it!!!

So, let's recap (and this is part of YOUR continuing re-education):

There is at LEAST one instance of a fire resulting in FDR and CVR damage that was sufficient enough to render the data virtually unusable.

WTC --- check. Very hot fire, for long time.

Most airplane crashes on land don't encounter A) Such intense heat, for so long, nor: B) Do not involve a massive structure collapsing on top of them.

Now, here's something to stick into our thinking cap:

Let's say, just for once, that this character named Mike Bellone is correct and he DID see at least one of the recorders in the WTC wreckage, and that he DID see an official (FBI??) take those alleged boxes away...

To what purpose??? Meaning, the OTHER four recorders, AAL 77 and UAL 93 were found, and three of four were readable. Would not THEY be equally as 'damning'???

I mean, according to the conspiracy website woo-woos, the ENTIRE 9/11 event was an "inside job" and "staged"...so, why just 'hide' the WTC recorders??

No, the veracity of Bellone's latest claims (the hijacking before take-off) serious throw into doubt (as if there wasn't enough doubt already) his earlier claims of seeing the recorders at the WTC clean up site.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend what was happening there in New York??

The PRIMARY concern was to find any possible survivors, and co-incidentally, to find the human remains. They had cadaver dogs to assist...and as far as I know, dogs aren't trained to sniff out flight recorder boxes.

Certainly, finding anything that even remotely resembled a recorder would have been important, but in that sort of carnage I am not surprised that nothing recognizable was found.

This very hot fire talk is a load of baloney and if you would, please read my post and look at all the links and then refute the logic.

You are spreading lies and disinfo.

Bottom line.

When you can prove me wrong then I will believe you.

"The absurd 9/11 commission treated this as a joke"


And here it is, straight from the horse's mouth as to why the 9/11 Commission treated the attacks as a joke. How people can still take that report seriously after watching this explains quite a lot.

Weedwhacker ! Where is it ? Oh and don't show me the bits placed neatly on the lawn by agents of the perps ! While your at it why don't you circle for me the hundred foot wide gauge in the lawn that the invisible/mythical plane made ?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"The absurd 9/11 commission treated this as a joke"


And here it is, straight from the horse's mouth as to why the 9/11 Commission treated the attacks as a joke. How people can still take that report seriously after watching this explains quite a lot.

Dude GREAT FIND!!!!

Stars for you around.

And to add onto that thought about the Pentagon and the plane literally sliding into the Pentagon, into that perfect hole...

What happened to them MIGHTY BIG ENGINES attached to the wings.

Let me guess, shredded and melted too, although the planes that hit the towers all exploded, the "plane" that hit the Pentagon didn't explode, but it was vaporized anyway. Excuse me. It was "shredded" and then it "melted" from the intense fire.
Even though the Pentagon is equipped with state of the art fire fighting technology.

WHATEVER.

It is really truly beyond me that so called rational intelligent people can actually believe that an aerplane that size can actually 'vaporize' ! Please c'mon, please tell me, this is'nt real is it ?

[edit on 073131p://12America/Chicago22 by ProRipp]

Originally posted by Doglord
Not to mention the fact that I posted evidence of a "black box" that was never recovered despite crashing over land (and in very similar circumstances to the WTC crashes, only less extreme) several pages ago.

Based on this thread I can only conclude that "truthers" have little to no interest in the truth.

Actually I read it. Considered it. And agree with it.

The question is:

Could DNA survive the same?

Quit dodging this issue please.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyone who thinks otherwise is itchin' for a fight!

I'll "fight" ya. In the form of a debate. Care to join me in the debate forum?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"The absurd 9/11 commission treated this as a joke"


And here it is, straight from the horse's mouth as to why the 9/11 Commission treated the attacks as a joke. How people can still take that report seriously after watching this explains quite a lot.

Yes, because that's the inference you get from watching the uncut footage of the exact same speech.

That it was treated as a joke.



video.google.com...#

While I may not agree with the conclusions of the 9/11comission, I see no evidence that it was treated as a joke.

It also shouldn't have to be said (but due to the nature of the internet does have to be said) that the 9/11 commission is not the same as the 9/11 investigation. From is own mission statement

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

In other words it was designed to (as the commissioners state again and again in the linked footage) "tell the story" of 9/11, in a way that an average American could understand, and make recommendations that could prevent it from happening again. It wasn't designed to find the truth, but to distill the truth in a way that was easily communicated and understood. The facts of the 9/11 commission do not lie in the report, but in the footnotes.

That doesn't mean that the narrative told by the 9/11 commission was incorrect, but that it was an intentionally simplified version of the events.

The actual events were chaotic, jumbled, and non-narrative in nature. Or as anyone with any scientific ( or military ) understanding would term it, the model (or map) describes the reality ( or the terrain) but the model (or map) is not the reality (or the terrain)

The nearly complete and almost total lack of either critical thinking, or independent research evidenced in this thread is truly depressing. As a basic example, it took me less than 5 minutes on google to find a PDF version of an accident investigation report which detailed a "overland plane crash" in which a "black box" was never recovered. This incident happened in 1992, in Amsterdam. Despite this, it has been parroted as gospel for nearly a decade, including in the recent TV show that inspired this thread that " Never before in history has a "black box" NOT been recovered. (sometimes amended to "when the plane crashed on land")

If I, a person of merely average intelligence, can find this to be grossly false in less time than it takes me to smoke a cigarette, then what the hell excuse do the rest of you have?

Once again. ElAl flight 1862, crashed into a 11 story apartment building in Amsterdam on October 4th 1992. The CVR, one of two "black boxes" was never found.

www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl...

It crashed into a 11 story apartment building. Not a 110 story skyscraper. It was travelling less than 26o knots. Not around 404 knots, as flight 11 was. In short the amount of energy, mass, and temperature involved in the WTC impacts was orders of magnitude higher than ElAL flight 1862.

These are all fact, or as some might term it, "Truths"


It just a shame so few of you are interested in understanding them.

reply to post by Doglord


Interesting find my freind, perhaps if you included the REST of the story,

and not the part the Fits your angle ,

Israeli plane carrying chemical components for Sarin

Mossaud agents doin the clean up

www.airliners.net...





[edit on 22-12-2009 by Sean48]

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"The absurd 9/11 commission treated this as a joke"


And here it is, straight from the horse's mouth as to why the 9/11 Commission treated the attacks as a joke. How people can still take that report seriously after watching this explains quite a lot.

Yes, because that's the inference you get from watching the uncut footage of the exact same speech.

That it was treated as a joke.

video.google.com...#

While I may not agree with the conclusions of the 9/11comission, I see no evidence that it was treated as a joke.

It also shouldn't have to be said (but due to the nature of the internet does have to be said) that the 9/11 commission is not the same as the 9/11 investigation. From is own mission statement

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

In other words it was designed to (as the commissioners state again and again in the linked footage) "tell the story" of 9/11, in a way that an average American could understand, and make recommendations that could prevent it from happening again. It wasn't designed to find the truth, but to distill the truth in a way that was easily communicated and understood. The facts of the 9/11 commission do not lie in the report, but in the footnotes.

That doesn't mean that the narrative told by the 9/11 commission was incorrect, but that it was an intentionally simplified version of the events.

The actual events were chaotic, jumbled, and non-narrative in nature. Or as anyone with any scientific ( or military ) understanding would term it, the model (or map) describes the reality ( or the terrain) but the model (or map) is not the reality (or the terrain)

The nearly complete and almost total lack of either critical thinking, or independent research evidenced in this thread is truly depressing. As a basic example, it took me less than 5 minutes on google to find a PDF version of an accident investigation report which detailed a "overland plane crash" in which a "black box" was never recovered. This incident happened in 1992, in Amsterdam. Despite this, it has been parroted as gospel for nearly a decade, including in the recent TV show that inspired this thread that " Never before in history has a "black box" NOT been recovered. (sometimes amended to "when the plane crashed on land")

If I, a person of merely average intelligence, can find this to be grossly false in less time than it takes me to smoke a cigarette, then what the hell excuse do the rest of you have?

Once again. ElAl flight 1862, crashed into a 11 story apartment building in Amsterdam on October 4th 1992. The CVR, one of two "black boxes" was never found.

www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl...

It crashed into a 11 story apartment building. Not a 110 story skyscraper. It was travelling less than 26o knots. Not around 404 knots, as flight 11 was. In short the amount of energy, mass, and temperature involved in the WTC impacts was orders of magnitude higher than ElAL flight 1862.

These are all fact, or as some might term it, "Truths"


It just a shame so few of you are interested in understanding them.

You cherry pick what is easiest for you to determine as truth or fiction at the time.
You exemplify the average individual who gets all of their information from the MSM, and as for these "critical thinking skills" that you speak of.

See my post where I use your own words to prove you wrong.
Then come talk to me about your "critical thinking skills"

Have you not figured out that you are wrong?
You only want to focus on the mistakes that people make that you can jump on, but admitting your own mistakes will not creep into your mind.
Some call that Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The Greeks referred to that personality type as "choleric"

My most recent post deals with the resulting fire and how the temperatures and time and length of the supposed "fire" are all physically impossible.
Look through the many links and do the math and then prove to me that I am wrong.

I guess that right and wrong is like an individual's religion. Personal mistakes are interpreted, apparently very liberally by you.

Oh and I would tell you the mistake that you pointed out of mine, but I would rather keep you guessing.

reply to post by Sean48


Yes, because if ATS proves anything, its that everything you read on an internet forum is absolute truth.