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.

 

Mike Bellone's shocking claim on "Conspiracy Theory"

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
reply to post by Sean48
 


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



No

ATS to me means , check your sources

YOU SENT ME TO LOOK AT THE INFORMATION

i did

I just choose to look beyond what you cherry picked

Big fail m8




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 





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

Before the collapse?


There were 2 holes in the Pentagon pre collapse

The upper hole at the 2 nd floor was about 16 ft in diameter - truthers
often point to this and start jabbering "See See the hole is only 16 ft, no
jet airplane could fit in there!" 16 ft is the diameter of the 757 fuselage

The lower hole on the ground level was estimated at about 90 ft. Wingspan of 757 is 125 ft. The dicrepancy can be explained by fact
that wings struck several objects prior to hitting Pentagon - lamp posts
along Columbia Pike, left wing hit a generator on flatbed trailer shearing
off part of it, right wing a vault housing a steam vent. Also wing tips of
airliner, outboard of the jet engines, are lightly constructed and easily
damaged.

Pictures of impact holes






Wider shot of hole

/q67lv

Hope this helps



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Link to wide angle shot of Pentagon impact hole

/q67lv

Sorry for problem



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Clear you have no idea what you are talking about.....

In my fire truck under the seat is a multigas meter - in its memory
is explosive limits for JET A ! Explain if JET A is not explosive why it
tells you the EXPLOSIVE LIMITS! While Jet A has a fairly narrow range
of explosive concentration (between .7% to 4.8%) under the right conditions it will deflagrate (burn with explosive force)

Here are studies by the EXPLOSION DYNAMICS LABORATORY at
California Instutite Technology on flammability/explosion of jet fuel



Flammability and Explosion Limits

Flammability, explosion, and detonation limits are distinct.

Flammability limits refer to the range of compositions, for fixed temperature and pressure, within which an explosive reaction is possible when an external ignition source is introduced. This can happen even when the mixture is cold. Flammability limits are given in terms of fuel concentration (by volume) at a specified pressure and temperature. For example, the lean flammability limit for Jet A (aviation kerosene) in air at sea level is a concentration (by volume or partial pressure) of about 0.7%. The rich flammability limit is about 4.8% by volume or partial pressure. Flammability limits are not absolute, but depend on the type and strength of the ignition source. Studies on flammability limits of hydrocarbon fuels have shown that the stronger the source of the ignition stimulus, the leaner the mixture that can be ignited. Flammability limits also depend on the type of atmosphere (for example, limits are much wider in oxygen than in air), the pressure, and the temperature of atmosphere.





Explosion limits usually refer to the range of pressure and temperature for which an explosive reaction at a fixed composition mixture is possible. The composition has to be within the flammable range. The reaction is usually initiated by autocatalytic (sometimes called self-heating) reaction at those conditions, without any external ignition source. In practical terms, this means that the mixture needs to be sufficiently hot. Explosion limits are given in terms of a minimum autoignition temperature (AIT) for ignition of fuel injected into hot air. The minimum AIT is strong function of the fuel type (atomic composition and molecular structure), pressure, and fuel concentration. For common hydrocarbon fuels, the minimum AIT ranges between 600C (1350 F) for methane (CH4) to 200C (472F) for dodecane (C12H26). A minimum AIT of 190C (450F) is used for the purposes of hazard analysis for aviation kerosene. Note that the minimum AIT is much higher than the flash point and much lower than typical hot surface ignition temperatures, which can be as high as 900C (2000F) for common hydrocarbon fuels (Smyth, K. C.; Bryner, N. P. Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 126, 225-253, 1997).

Detonation limits are the range of composition within which detonations have been observed in laboratory and field experiments. Detonation limits are a strong function of mixture composition, initial pressure and temperature but usually considered to be narrower than the flammabilty limits. In addition, detonation limits are much more strongly dependent on the ignition source, confinement, and the physical size of the experiment than flammability limits. The ability to initiate and propagate a detonation requires a set of critical conditions to be satisfied and despite extensive research into the subject, the limits are empirical in nature



www.galcit.caltech.edu...

Read it - might learn something....



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by CUBD1
While there is another thread on Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory", episode 2, dealing with 9/11, I don't feel the thread does justice to the shocking claim made by recovery worker Mike Bellone.
This requires its own thread, because the claim is that important.


No it isn't. Mike Bellone's background is NOT what you think it is. He's continuously touted as being a firefighter by these conspiracy web sites, but he isn't- he's an HONORARY firefighter, as in the NYFD granted him pretend firefighter status to show their appreciation for helping out at ground zero. All that equipment he's wearing in that photograph wasn't his, and he was only able to get into ground zero to help out becuase he has personal friends in the NYFD. In real life, he runs a children's charity. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Second, there is NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM any possible way that he could know anything about the hijackers being in the cockpit before takeoff. He was never in any position to know any such thing and he doesn't have any professional connections to be told any such thing. Look THAT up if you don't believe me.

Until there's something to back it up other than, well, nothing, don't put too many hopes on being able to use this to support your conspiracy stories, becuase with his misrepresented background and his questionable sources, there's no reason why we should take it at face value. There isn't a single person on the face of the planet who can corroborate this, and you truthers are using too many "undisclosed reports released by anonymous sources" as it is.


First, what does the background of bellone you're citing have anything to do with whether he's credible or not? What does it have to do with anything you're complaining about and denying?

Second, why are you misrepresenting Bellone's testimony? He didn't say he personally was there and had direct knowledge. He said some insiders he knew told him. And how do you know he wasn't in any position to KNOW such information? Whether he was or wasn't, is something you CANNOT know for sure as you implied. So whats to look up? thats an irrelevant straw man.

Third, I suggest you be very careful when you make such absolute claims like there's not a person on this planet that can corroborate what he's put his ass on the line to reveal.

The truth of 9/11 is still in its infancy stages... there's plenty of time for new relevations and people to come forward.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoglordI think the "OS' is pretty much accurate yes.


Well, I guess we now know what line of work Rumsfield ended up doing...




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
Just as the so-called de-bunkers get on a 911 thread and gang up on someone and bombard them with so much disinformation that it is difficult, if not impossible, to respond with the truth. We need to do the same.

And this thread is a perfect example.

I don't see anymore de-bunkers coming on here because they obviously see enough people on this thread with armed knowledge that they know to stay away or get shredded.

This is the most serious of all battles and the future of our country is what is at stake.

I firmly believe that we were born into this time for a reason, and that is because we have the backbone and the humility to withstand the criticism in order to build this movement until we reach a critical mass.
I have been screaming about 911 since the day it happened. At first, I was a lunatic, then I was marginalized. At least now they are calling us truthers.

Because we possess the truth.

And the truth is that we need a new and accurate and impartial investigation into what happened and anyone found complicit should be tried and if found guilty of treason then they should be imprisoned for life or executed.

And that is what the law states. I am not a fan of capitol punishment, but if we do nothing then this a slippery slope leading us straight to hades on earth.

Keep standing for the truth.



wow... If I had a ATS twin or sock, you'd have to be it.... excellent thesis M8... well said. you got my support all the way to the trial and gallows.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I thought those support columns were 'taken out' by the plane ? That aint the hole !



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
reply to post by Sean48
 


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


I am removing this post, even though I do not think that I attacked anyone, and I am doing it out of respect for the ATS monitors.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Josephus23]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

I don't see anymore de-bunkers coming on here because they obviously see enough people on this thread with armed knowledge that they know to stay away or get shredded.





We're just waiting for our orders. Anyway, I'm on Christmas holiday so I'm just doing a bit of working from home. So much nicer than being cooped up in that office, all those little terminals. And the coffee is rubbish.


you got my support all the way to the trial and gallows.



What trial? What gallows? Or are you just being pathetically melodramatic?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.....

In my fire truck under the seat is a multigas meter - in its memory
is explosive limits for JET A ! Explain if JET A is not explosive why it
tells you the EXPLOSIVE LIMITS! While Jet A has a fairly narrow range
of explosive concentration (between .7% to 4.8%) under the right conditions it will deflagrate (burn with explosive force)

Here are studies by the EXPLOSION DYNAMICS LABORATORY at
California Instutite Technology on flammability/explosion of jet fuel



Flammability and Explosion Limits

Flammability, explosion, and detonation limits are distinct.

Flammability limits refer to the range of compositions, for fixed temperature and pressure, within which an explosive reaction is possible when an external ignition source is introduced. This can happen even when the mixture is cold. Flammability limits are given in terms of fuel concentration (by volume) at a specified pressure and temperature. For example, the lean flammability limit for Jet A (aviation kerosene) in air at sea level is a concentration (by volume or partial pressure) of about 0.7%. The rich flammability limit is about 4.8% by volume or partial pressure. Flammability limits are not absolute, but depend on the type and strength of the ignition source. Studies on flammability limits of hydrocarbon fuels have shown that the stronger the source of the ignition stimulus, the leaner the mixture that can be ignited. Flammability limits also depend on the type of atmosphere (for example, limits are much wider in oxygen than in air), the pressure, and the temperature of atmosphere.





Explosion limits usually refer to the range of pressure and temperature for which an explosive reaction at a fixed composition mixture is possible. The composition has to be within the flammable range. The reaction is usually initiated by autocatalytic (sometimes called self-heating) reaction at those conditions, without any external ignition source. In practical terms, this means that the mixture needs to be sufficiently hot. Explosion limits are given in terms of a minimum autoignition temperature (AIT) for ignition of fuel injected into hot air. The minimum AIT is strong function of the fuel type (atomic composition and molecular structure), pressure, and fuel concentration. For common hydrocarbon fuels, the minimum AIT ranges between 600C (1350 F) for methane (CH4) to 200C (472F) for dodecane (C12H26). A minimum AIT of 190C (450F) is used for the purposes of hazard analysis for aviation kerosene. Note that the minimum AIT is much higher than the flash point and much lower than typical hot surface ignition temperatures, which can be as high as 900C (2000F) for common hydrocarbon fuels (Smyth, K. C.; Bryner, N. P. Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 126, 225-253, 1997).

Detonation limits are the range of composition within which detonations have been observed in laboratory and field experiments. Detonation limits are a strong function of mixture composition, initial pressure and temperature but usually considered to be narrower than the flammabilty limits. In addition, detonation limits are much more strongly dependent on the ignition source, confinement, and the physical size of the experiment than flammability limits. The ability to initiate and propagate a detonation requires a set of critical conditions to be satisfied and despite extensive research into the subject, the limits are empirical in nature



www.galcit.caltech.edu...

Read it - might learn something....


Well then.

You really do not understand what I just said.

AT ALL.

I NEVER said that Jet fuel A will not explode.

The autoignition temperature of Jet fuel A is round 410 degree F. That means that an explosion MUST both reach the auto ignition temperature and be in an enclose place.
If not, then the MAXIMUM burning outdoor temperature for Jet fuel A is around 565 degrees F.

PLEASE SEE THE LINK SHOWING THE EXPLOSION.
The hottest that a fire caused by Jet fuel A can get before exploding is around 410 degrees, IF IT IS IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE (the gas tank dude.)

Please, please, please, please look at my links in the previous post.

You obviously have not and I will not repeat them.

After that temperature, it explodes if it is in a closed system. AKA FUELTANK (which is filled with OXYGEN btw... the airline industry has yet to invest in the system that pumps nitrogen into the empty compartment of a gas tank, thus keeping it from exploding).
Before the explosion, it builds temperature rapidly until it explodes (that is, IF it is in a enclosed space).
If the first explosion was from the Jet fuel, which if you took the time to read the Official Conspiracy Theory then you would realize that THEY say that the first explosion was from the jet fuel, then NONE OF IT WOULD BE LEFT TO BURN!!!

PLEASE: SEE THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

Please learn physics and read my posts and respond to what I have actually written AND linked AND laid out.
This involves fairly complicated physics.
So that EVERYONE reading can understand exactly what I meant, I tried to be simple in my presentation and provide a ton of links.

PLEASE re-read my previous post and READ or WATCH the links as well.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Josephus23]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Enhanced enforcement is underway.

All members are entitled to their own opinions on the topic and are welcome to express them.

Comments on anything else, especially personal commentary of any kind whatsoever directed toward other members, are subject to warnings or removal. Repeated behavior of this kind is subject to temporary post bans or permanent account bans.

Please stay focused on the topic, respect the rights of other members to express their own opinions, ALERT us to problems and do your best.


THIS IS A MODERATOR ADVISORY. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST. STAY ON TOPIC.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I am so glad to see people who can keep their cool, obviously I did not with my removed post; however, I did not get warned.
The post was simply off topic. I did not insult anyone.

We need to stick to the topic and keep presenting facts. These folks are going to do whatever they can to goad us into becoming angry and when that happens, we cease to function in the pre-frontal cortex and we go into fight or flight mode, and thus our responses become much more primitive.

Thank you for pointing to that Moderator and thank you for enforcing it.

Even if I was the first casualty.


I know that this is somewhat off topic, but I would like for any future posters to read this and know how succinct their responses must be on this topic.

Thank you for your time.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Let's all go back and read the top of page one, the OP.

THEN try to substantiate or dispel this claim, by one man known as "Mike Bellone"

I suggest everyone take ALL of his claims under direct scrutiny, and ascertain the veracity of this individual.

This should go a long way into determining just how much 'faith' one would wish to invest in this man, and his claims.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
First, what does the background of bellone you're citing have anything to do with whether he's credible or not? What does it have to do with anything you're complaining about and denying?


Bellone's background has EVERYTHING to do with his credibility. If he's actively misrepresenting himself as being a firefighter when he really isn't, then he certainly can likewise actively misrepresent himself as having contacts with knowledgable insiders when he doesn't.


Second, why are you misrepresenting Bellone's testimony? He didn't say he personally was there and had direct knowledge. He said some insiders he knew told him. And how do you know he wasn't in any position to KNOW such information? Whether he was or wasn't, is something you CANNOT know for sure as you implied. So whats to look up? thats an irrelevant straw man.


How am I misrepresenting his testimony? Bellone isn't giving any testimony! The "hijackers were in the cockpits while the planes were still on the ground" claim has gone though three or more people before it got to us, we have no idea where it came from or which plane he was referring to, and it doesn't have a microbe of evidence to back the claim up. We don't even know if Bellone even actually said that to Ventura.

This claim is simply yet another unsubstanciated rumor in a gigantic list of unsubstanciated rumors concernign the 9/11 attack, at this point. Why anyone is giving it any more credibility than that is beyond me.


Third, I suggest you be very careful when you make such absolute claims like there's not a person on this planet that can corroborate what he's put his ass on the line to reveal.


Oh, rubbish. Characters like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones, and Morgan Reynolds have been churning out all sorts of sinister conspiracy claims long before Bellone showed up on Ventura's show. If even 1/100th of what they're claiming was true, particularly that the gov't is so brutally heartless that they'll gleefully murder 3000 people, they'd have disappeared off the face of the Earth long before now. Bellone's paranoia is all in his own head.

I said it before and I'll say it again- you don't need to look under rocks or root through trash cans to find signs of secret dictatorships. Dictatorships are always blatant, and will go out of their way to find you.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So you are playing semantic games to discredit what Bellone says?

Was it Bellone that named himself an honorary firefighter for the clean-up, SimpleOlDave?
 

Mod note: Warning issued. No name-calling. -- Majic

[edit on 12/23/2009 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So you are playing semantic games to discredit what Bellone says?

Was it Bellone that named himself an honorary firefighter for the clean-up, SimpleOlDave?


1) I am merely repeating that many conspriacy web sites refer to him incorrectly as being a firefighter when they mention his testimony that the black boxes were found in the WTC rubble. This claim is either coming from him, in which case he's embellishing his credentials, or it's coming from them, in which case my complains about these "damned fool conspiracy web sites deliberately misrepresenting everything" is justified. There is no third option C.

2) I don't have to point out that posting childish insults like, "SimpleOlDave" is a T&C violation, particularly when Majic just got finished saying that personal attacks of any kind won't be tolerated, do I? My name is "GoodOlDave". Either refer to me in a civil manner like an adult or don't respond to my posts becuase I don't want to be banned along with you. There's no third option C there, either.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
2) I don't have to point out that posting childish insults like, "SimpleOlDave" is a T&C violation, particularly when Majic just got finished saying that personal attacks of any kind won't be tolerated, do I? My name is "GoodOlDave". Either refer to me in a civil manner like an adult or don't respond to my posts becuase I don't want to be banned along with you. There's no third option C there, either.


Fair enough, but your first point didn't cast any doubt on Bellone's credibility as far as I can see.

You are just wondering whether or not he is calling himself a firefighter. I never heard him claim that on Jesse's show, he just said he was a part of the clean-up operation.

So why is it that you automatically don't believe him again?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Fair enough, but your first point didn't cast any doubt on Bellone's credibility as far as I can see.

You are just wondering whether or not he is calling himself a firefighter. I never heard him claim that on Jesse's show, he just said he was a part of the clean-up operation.


Then I invite you to do a google search on Mike Bellone to see his multiple instances throughout the Internet where he talks about the black boxes. Almost all of them refer to him as a firefighter. This embellishment had to have come from somewhere.


So why is it that you automatically don't believe him again?


In truth, It isn't the case that I doubt him, per se. I just doubt the credibility of this claim, becuase...

a) he admits it didn't come from him, but from some other unnamed person, and for all we know, it really came from some third guy who in turn told that unnamed person. THAT had to have come from somewhere, too.

b) We don't even know what exactly Bellone told Ventura or whether Bellone even told that to Ventura, as Ventura is not exactly above embellishing things himself. That supposed commando raid on Hanger 17 was nothing but theatrics. You know that, right?

c) There isn't even a microbe of proof to back the claim up, nor is there any place you can even look for proof. You do know that all airplanes are in constant contact with ground controllers as they're waiting to take off, right?

d) and which plane was this happening on, anyway? There were four planes, and we don't even know that.

Personally, this sounds a LOT to me like "the hijackers were already in the cockpit [in a flight that was already in the air] while the plane [that hadn't been hijacked yet] was still on the ground", which we all already knew. The way it was presented is still technically true, but it's deliberately misrepresented in a way that it sounds like it's saying something diffferent from what it actually says. These damned fool conspiracy web sites have been pulling that exact kind of stunt to get people all paranoid over shadows for as long as I can remember, and I'm not seeing anything different here.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join