Mike Bellone's shocking claim on "Conspiracy Theory"

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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.

He said he personally saw one of the boxes, and was told by a government agent (if I recall his testimony correctly) that 2 others had also been found and they were looking for the 4th.

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?

I know, but he has a TV show. You won't find a single TV show without "theatrics." He didn't lie about anything, though.

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?

I am talking about the black boxes claim, I assume you are talking about the hearsay at the end? Because that was hearsay. But it still could be correct. The Flight 77 data recorder happened to also record that its cockpit door was never opened during flight.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Josephus23


1 Fuel does not need to reach auto ignition temperature

There were plenty of ignition sources around

2 Fuel does not need to be vaporized or exceed its flash point to explode
Nor does it need to be contained like in a fuel tank (aka TWA 800)

A fuel dispersed as an aerosol mist when ignited will explode - it is called
deflagration. Fuel does even have to be a liquid or gas - flour or grain
dust works just as well the resulting explosion will level a reinforced building. Look up WESTWEGO LOUISANA All it takes is flammable
material suspended in the air. The Jet fuel from the impacting planes
was dispersed as an aerosol mist from the impact - simple example is
spraying water from hose, air resistance will break up stream into
droplets which the farther they travel become smaller and smaller
The jet fuel from the ruptured tanks falling down elevator shafts broke up
into aerosol mist which was ignited producing a fireball. Numerous
witnesses in lobby and on street report the fireball blowing down
elevators burning many people

I've seen this happen at fire in chemical plant - hose stream stirred up pool
of spilled liquid which ignited in fireball blowing out windows

Then please explain to me what caused the original explosion.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by thedman

The boxes are designed to resist extreme conditions - problem was the
situation at WTC was too extreme. Being slammed into skyscraper at
500 mph, exposed to fires for long period of time, falling 1000 ft in midst
of churning debris pile, burned for 3 months in debris pile.

Can assume the boxes were destroyed....

HUH???!?!?!

500 mph into what??!?!?!?!?!??

the OS claims the alleged planes passed through steel and concrete effortlessly and exploded!.... thats what the visual evidence also shows. There was almost no resistance... So stop giving the impression there was some sort of major resistance that contributed to the fdrs being destroyed....You can't have it both ways. the planes either SLAMMED into something solid, or they didn't... so thats not a major factor in a force that contributed to destroying the boxes... and 2nd, what are you talking about as to falling 1000ft and exposed to fires for a long PERIOD OF TIME? You're suggesting that fdrs which were made to withstand extreme conditions, were destroyed because they didn't withstand such conditions they were made to?

And whats your idea of a long period of time? What kind of fires couldn't they survive? OFFICE FIRES? for an hour or two? You're kidding right?

The only reason the fdrs wouldn't have been FOUND within 1 to 2 days tops in this case (aside from the fact Bellone has claimed he saw the boxes and was told to shut up about it by the FBI), is if that was true, or they didn't want to find them or THEY NEVER EXISTED to begin with.

Whatsmore, you're actually serious in claiming that one reason the fdrs weren't found was because they burned for 3 MONTHS? They wouldn't have even PINGED the first day or two?? Hahaha!!

your assertions are nothing more than disinfo and pure speculation.... please cite a link or source that corroborates the same details you're claiming for the fdrs not being found. The fact is, the odds of both fdrs not being found in this case is ZERO.



[edit on 24-12-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

The request for an instance prior to 9/11 when a land-based aircraft crash site 'black boxes' were 'never' found is irrelevant, and is a diversion tactic, and everyone can see it as such.
[edit on 22 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

HOW IS IT IRRELEVANT WW!?!?!?! you've offered no logical argument addressing this other than your typical excuses and disinfo diversions.

There is nothing diversionary about stating the fact that the odds of NOT recovering the boxes are almost ZERO and impossible in a scenario that occurred and that was land-based.

So why can't you or anyone offer any remotely comparable scenario as to why the conditions were too extreme and BOTH boxes couldn't have been recovered? Lets see your claim supported with scientific evidence how the conditions were too extreme. NOT SPECULATION. FDRS are made to withstand extreme conditions and citing an OCEAN BASED condition is whats IRRELEVANT to this scenario.

Your disinfo, evasions and excuses have become so transparent and blatant its amazing you'd think anyone with a brain and a shred of honesty or objectivety would ever agree with you.

[edit on 24-12-2009 by Orion7911]

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.

Before I continue, let me get this straight.... is this the "evidence" and post you're talking about you posted several pages ago?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Please cite an historical example of a land based aircraft crash where the black boxes were NEVER FOUND.

We have continually asked that but you refuse to offer an example. I suspect there is no example of this and you misinterpreted your own source...or you were lying. I will give you the benefit of the doubt of course.

So whats been WW's final answer? Did I miss it? Seriously. The scampering, excuses, diversions and backpeddling throughout this entire thread is truly fascinating.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, I don't care if the moderators yank this post, it still needs to be said- this type of attitude is just plain horribly godawful IGNORANT.

How so???

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This isn't some children's game where we try to deduce that Professor Plum killed Mr. Boddy in the kitchen with the candlestick, you know, you're accusing the US gov't (plus 100,000 other bystanders of myriad levels of society) of orchestrating MURDER.

NO, I'm accusing a faction within the US government and others of MURDER and TREASON... YOU BET. FACTS ARE FACTS. and the evidence is overwhelming. But I wouldn't expect a disinfo agent to understand or agree.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
For something that hard core serious, we need to look at BOTH sides of the issue to see which side has the better credibility. That's the whole reason why we have a trial by jury- to listen to both sides of the story,

except this isn't a trial yet... and those who control the government, control whether this would go to trial and control the evidence are the ones who perpetrated 9/11. So whats your point? Its a non issue and absurd to utilize such an argument.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
and that's the whole reason why I'm here- to give people the information that these damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately withholding from people.

so you claim without any proof whatsoever.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If I'm saying somethign that's incorrect, fine, then tell me why it's correct and I'll stop saying it.

something truthers have been asking you to do over and over which you've continually failed to do.

so yes, you're wrong. stop saying it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I said it before and I'll say it again- The truth never has to run and hide from falsehoods..

Now you know why the TM continues to grow. TRUTH, science, facts and common sense is on our side. 9/11 was an inside job. simple really. unless of course you live in a fantasy world where normal laws of physics and reason dont apply.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's always falsehoods that have to run and hide from the truth. Twist this into whatever way you want to look at it, Orion, but at the end of the day, I'm not running from the material you post. You're running from the material I post.

so you claim without any proof whatsoever.


[edit on 24-12-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by thedman

The boxes are designed to resist extreme conditions - problem was the
situation at WTC was too extreme. Being slammed into skyscraper at
500 mph, exposed to fires for long period of time, falling 1000 ft in midst
of churning debris pile, burned for 3 months in debris pile.

This post makes me curious. How far do FDRs usually fall when a plane fails in flight? I was under the impression they were usually higher than 1000 ft. Can you clarify?

More importantly, why discuss the impact, the fall, and the fire destroying them if they were never found? How do you know they were destroyed and how if they were not found?

reply to post by Josephus23


Jet fuel pouring down elevator shafts - volatile fuel/air mist was then ignited
and exploded.

Numerous witnesses in lobby and basement report fireballs blowing out of elevator shafts along with smell of kerosene

Most people can make the logical connection

fireballs blowing out of elevators + smell of kerosene = jet fuel explosions

Originally posted by bsbray11


I am talking about the black boxes claim, I assume you are talking about the hearsay at the end? Because that was hearsay. But it still could be correct. The Flight 77 data recorder happened to also record that its cockpit door was never opened during flight.

Yes, I am talking about the heresay at the end. This is what I thought the "shocking claim" was that this thread referred to, since Bellone's other claim that he saw the black boxes is old news and is hardly shocking.

As for his claim that he saw the black boxes, pinch yourself, it's true, but I *agree* with you- his claim that he actually saw the black boxes cannot be ignored, becuase if it's true, it means that someone, somewhere ripped them off. If memory serves, the exact same thing happened with the plane crash/bombing at Lockerbie, where some idiot truck driver grabbed a piece of wreckage as a souvenier...which unknown to him, turned out to be a piece of the circuit board of the bomb that brought it down. Scotland Yard went medieval on that guy and rightly so.

What you hope to find from the analysis of said black boxes, OTOH, will be of dubious value to you. The black box from AA77 WAS found, and a lot of conspiracy theorists are fighting tooth and nail against the credibility of the information that was recorded on it becuase they can't bear to accept the possibility it really was AA77. You know that and so do I.

It seems to me that the the black boxes actually missing is of greater value to your movement than anything you'd ever find on them.

reply to post by GoodOlDave



I am not here to debate you, I am here to tell you how I feel.

My Brothers were murdered and you and others are working very hard to obstruct any investigation or discussion of who was responsible, you do not simply disagree, you attack, ridicule and insult the character of anyone who asks question or reveals information that goes against your agenda.

You goal is to scare or ridicule people into silence.

So many people have come forward at this point that it makes anything you say sound really silly, I know what I heard and felt, Dave, and no amount of lies will change that.

I called you all those things and I meant it, I mean it when I say that I will never give this up and while you can sit here with these kids going back and forth wasting their time I will not subject myself to it, I have been at this for 8 years and I know well that 9/11 stinks to high heaven.

No amount of evidence will sway you and we both know why.

I have been around long enough to know when someone has something up their sleeve.

I don't feel that you are genuine and I am calling you on it, I could care less about how anyone feels about it.


This is my life we are talking about, don't be so shocked that I am livid at your attempts to bury this issue.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Bellone wasn't the only one to claim black boxes had been found. The other guy they talked to, the journalist, said that he had been told by a federal employee that all 4 black boxes had been recovered, but that this was not their official position on the issue if you were to call their press office. That would mean that the feds KNEW that the black boxes had been found, and lied about it.

Amazing how, if Glen Beck or Hannity or Bill O'reilly jumps onboard with an endorsement of a theory it is taken as gospel because the TV never lies. If it is not picked up by major networks then it is considered suspect. Look at Climategate for example, under the MSM radar with little coverage but a truly big deal it is whitewashed. Look at H1N1, a non event but lots of hype, coverage so it has to be a big deal. Doesn't anyone ever question the fact that media networks have an agenda too.
Back on topic here about 911. If the gov't has nothing to hide why did they initially try to squash an investigation, then try to plant Henry Kissinger to head the investigation. Why did they deny access to the site by impartial investigators. Why did dozens of Israeli's with Mossad connections get quickly ferreted out of the country even though some failed lie detector tests. Why was video footage confiscated from gas stations and hotels near the Pentagon. With a ton of cameras on the side of the, Pentagon did they release only 5-6 grainy photos that were improperly dated. The NIST report talked about sulphur residue on columns in the WTC. Why was there no follow up. Why didn't the official report talk about bldg.7.
Why were witnesses that heard secondary explosives not interviewed. Is it because firemen and mtce. workers have no credibility. Why did the EPA allow work to continue on the site when they knew it was contaminated.
Why were no large body parts recovered from the twin towers. Why were no large objects found, like desks, chairs, computers, file cabinets.
If these facts and many dozens of others were brought out and examined on CNN or Fox we would have no debunkers lining up to discredit the evidence.
When Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife and disposed of her in San Diego the networks were all over the covered up evidence like a pack of pit bulls. This story got more coverage on MSM than 911. Because Scott used chlorox to cover up any DNA evidence etc. he was assumed guilty by the lengths he went to in order to cover evidence. The public saw this as suspicious.
Here the gov't cleans up a crime scene refusing to allow impartial experts onsite, confiscates video footage, tries to plant a war criminal(freedom fighter) as the head of the investigation, destroys control tower tapes and the public chalks this up to government incompetence because the TV says that is the case. Nobody finds it suspicious that the president and VP refused to be interviewed indepently by the commission. The fact that the investigation got a smaller budget than Monicagate is considered normal. Yet this event led to two costly wars where more than a million lives were lost where Monicagate was little more than a soap opera drama with no loss of life.
Whether the guy actually saw a black box or not on the site or whether or not he accurately reported knowledge of the hijacking before the plane left the ground is no reason to discredit the report. There is plenty of other evidence whick casts doubt on the official story. Two PHD's have independently through rigorous scientific tests proved explosives were used to bring down the bldgs. Many other witness heard violent explosions in the buildings and seismic evidence supbstantiates this. Weaker evidence than this ie. Scott Peterson has sent people to prison for a long time.
With fact after fact after fact casting doubt on the official story of 911, why does the public have such a difficult time coming to the conclusion that there is a need for a new investigation. Do they think politicans because they are dressed in $500 Armani suits, have greater integrity and honesty than engineers, clean up workers, firemen and College professors? If this is the case, then lets get Henry Kissinger back and settle it once and for all. Maybe they are putting too much fluoride in the water.

reply to post by cayrichard


Great post. There's only a couple explanations. People are in full shock and denial mode and can't handle the truth, or they have their own agenda for spreading disinfo. This is the only way anybody that has taken the time to look at this in an objective manner, could deny that 911 was an inside job.