muscatred’s profile

28 Nov 2016 15:53:15
Hi Jonesy, There are two points up for debate here, the first is whether a 767 could achieve the speeds quoted and the second is would a 767 hold together at that speed. The first part is the speed, 360 knots is the max operating speed of a 767 at sea level but this is a prescribed limitation not a physical one, there is no doubt that a 767 could go faster than this if the throttle is fully opened and the plane is in descent.

A guy called John Bursill claims to have used a simulator to recreate the flight of United 175 and was able to achieve 654mph in level flight at 2000ft and 674mph in a shallow dive, much higher than the 560mph that United 175 is claimed to have been traveling on 9/11.

Of course his findings have been refuted by pilots for truth. The idea that a 767 would break up at that speed is based on an investigation by Pilots for Truth into an Air Egypt 767 which crashed. I found a thread on metabunk.org that tackled this with the conclusion that PfT had either misread the report or were wilfully lying.

The bottom line is that this is a theoretical debate as Boeing aren't too keen to test this with a real plane. It comes down to which internet source you believe is more credible, the sources I read made sense and effectively refuted the claims of Pilots for Truth and, as I'm someone who thinks planes did hit the towers, I'm inclined to believe that a 767 is perfectly capable of doing what the official narrative claimed it did.

I'd be interested to hear what your friend says, I too know someone, an ex-Army Air Corp pilot who now flys airliners out of Dubai, I'm not sure what model he flys but I might bother him for an opinion.

28 Nov 2016 10:39:33
Muscat I would like to see you answer Rians assertion out of interest, I have a close family friend who is a commercial airline pilot, and will be having this discussion with him tonight, if possible. cheers.

26 Nov 2016 13:50:11
I hear you Sanogo. Just remember the official theory (The NIST report) has also not been proven. It's just theory, and bad theory at that.

25 Nov 2016 23:06:08
'Simulations show that that airspeed was easily possible'.

It is abundantly clear you know nothing about aviation.

The maximum operating speed for a 767 is 360 knots, and according to the NTSB UA175 was flying at 510 knots just before it allegedly hit WTC2. That is not possible at 700' above sea level. At least not without the wings snapping off. Ask any pilot if a 767 can do 510 knots at 700 feet. But what would they know?

25 Nov 2016 18:54:41
Ino mate. As long as Israel is protected then the world will see no end of war.

25 Nov 2016 18:42:46
Rian, I'm no steel engineer and have no knowledge personally. The point I'm making is that I've watched loads of videos and read loads of articles on the subject and I'm non the wiser.

I've heard experts say that it was normal and others say it was not normal. I don't know mate I really don't and stay away from the subject usually. Your asking me to answer a question from a conversation with said people over 5 years ago. They did go into detail and I remember st the time not understanding what they were going on about. The only thing I do know that not one single theory has been proven! Only anomalies in the official line.

25 Nov 2016 18:32:15
That's one thing I respect you for ed033! You don't edit pick or choose just put the info out there. I still can't get my head round 9/11 and I don't doubt anything. Keep posting the stuff ed. been a revelation since I found this page.

25 Nov 2016 17:22:26
I wasn't referring to 9/11 but to franky's question about the VIP thing.

As an aside, I watched that when you first posted it. I actually thought it was a really interesting exercise and well put together but what's fascinating is that his conclusions fly in the face of his own investigation. He's gone to all this effort and come to the conclusion that the footage of planes flying into the buildings is genuine but he still can't admit that planes flew into the buildings.

He tries to justify this by presenting some other evidence as fact when it isn't (simulations show that that airspeed was easily possible and soft materials not being able to damage harder materials is nonsense) . Sorry Ed, you'll have to find something a bit more convincing.

25 Nov 2016 16:01:52
Edd033, I remember years ago on YouTube I came across a video of one of the crashes. The video was titled with numbers obviously to deter it being found by those willing to take it down. It was amateur footage. It was footage that I never seen before or seen again. The camera man is sitting right beneath its flight path and he's probably 100 metres away from the tower which it hits.

However as the camera is looking upwards and as the plane / drone enters, the video turns to that old fuzzy grey screen. Basically proves the real football and probably damaging footage was deleted or destroyed. That's why I don't particularly take notice of the videos made available. Because they've been edited or don't show enough. Wings missing and almost cartoon imagery. Even the videos close to towers have the explosion noises edited out. Thus you're making a conclusion of tampered evidence/ videos. It's a shame.

25 Nov 2016 13:24:02
I'm sure that's the book my pal showed me, if it is its a little pricey if your not into 9/ 11. I'm sure he said it was around £30.

25 Nov 2016 09:33:33
By the way sanogo, the NIST report is just a theory and it is full of spurious claims that are not supported by sound scientific analysis.

25 Nov 2016 00:05:44
'The way the towers fell is very normal in their professional opinion'.

Normal how?

24 Nov 2016 23:12:45
if that was the only strange fact about 9/ 11 then you would have a very strong point but as you know there are a number of strange incidents revolving around 9/ 11

towers turn to dust

terrorist passport found unmarked

BBC and CNN, announced the destruction of WTC 7 long before it happened.

bin laden family allowed to fly out of the usa

the pentagon cameras not working also the most secure area allowing a so called plane/ missile

i could go on mate and you prob know all this anyway, but like I said to many things do not add up not just melting steel theory that makes 9/ 11 the biggest tv screened snuff movie .

24 Nov 2016 21:46:53
It's a difficult one frankly . Once previous so called conspiracys get debunked then people will naturally question reality and anything is thrn possible. I wouldn't put anything past the powers that be. But I also can't accept the alternative theorys in the 9/ 11 stuff. I wouldn't put it past them but there are 100's of alternate versions only 1 if any of them can be right! But at the end of the day they are just theory's. I've seen videos where so called steel engineers say that this couldn't happen and this would happen!

But who are these people I don't know them or their credentials so why would I believe them. I've worked with plenty of steel engineers and people with 30+ years in construction and demolition who I know and know their credentials who have all said that the way the towers fell is very normal in their professional opinion.

So who do you believe! like I say I'd put nothing past anyone in power but I'd never say I know that it was definitely dodge until hard evidence comes out and like frankly pointed out above the truth sometimes comes out. There are loads of things that come on this site that I believe are 100% but for me the twin towers stuff is still filed under I don't know.

24 Nov 2016 19:13:40
ok what's your view on the current ongoing vip sexual abuse claims?

24 Nov 2016 16:09:44
Hey Franky, I think you misunderstand me, I don't automatically side with the official narrative, the reason I generally side with it is that I don't find the arguments supporting the alternative particularly compelling.

24 Nov 2016 13:42:29
the guildford four and hillsbourough were once considered conspiracies that have now been debunked as truth, now 40 years later with the the guildford four justice will be not done as most of the perpetrators will be dead, the same thing will happen with hillsbourough and also the vip sex scandal .

what I am trying to say is all three examples are not as big as a 9/ 11 even thou all are terrible and are a miscarriage of justice then once you realise that the people in charge knew and still tried to hide the facts even now .

does not mean you have to agree with every conspiracy on here but writing it off because official establishment organisations tell you to trust official explanations seems very naive feller.

24 Nov 2016 10:47:11
Hey Franky, I don't think I have an unusual definition of a conspiracy theory. Basically it's any alternative narrative to the one published by the relevant authority coupled with an assumption that the authority is deliberately trying to deceive the public.

Chrisp, I'm familiar with Building 7, I'm familiar with a lot of the more common theories, I read a lot of what is posted and shared here because I'm fascinated with the culture. My opinions are based on comparing the arguments in support of the official narrative to the alternative one.

If we look at 9/11 the facts are that four buildings collapsed and a number of others were damaged. The debate is what caused that damage, on the balance of the evidence I've seen I believe the most likely explanation is that terrorists hijacked four planes with the intention of flying them into various land marks.

In the case of the WTC they succeeded in crashing into the twin towers resulting in a chain of events that culminated with the twin towers and WTC 3 and 7 collapsing. The alternative explanations which attempt to argue a different narrative all have flaws far more significant than the official one so, on balance I see no reason not to believe the official story.

24 Nov 2016 09:45:09
You are on this site enough muscatred?! I for one ain't exactly too sure about the twin towers, sandy hook etc. I have seen loads of alternative explanations and don't really buy any of them. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if there's a shred of evidence in them. You just have to make your mind up. Some of it will be true some will be ambiguous and some will be absolute BS.

24 Nov 2016 00:53:02
muscatred out of interest what do you class as a conspiracy?