24 Nov 2016 23:28:58 Thread on 9/11 below continued here.

Can you be more specific [on 9/11], I'm not sure what you're referring to.

{Ed033's Note - If you don't know much about 9/11 (and obviously you do not), then a start is to read a scientific study put into a book - Dr. Judy Wood's book called 'Where did the Towers Go?'

If you won't do that then how about watching the below, which has scientific analysis using 3D models followed by some facts and some theories.

Richard D. Hall - 9/11 3D Analysis 2016 Update

 
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 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.

{Ed033's Note - yes, 9/11 allowed the start of the 'Greater Israel' project.

 
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.

{Ed033's Note - I'm not here to try to convince people of anything only to show them some stuff they may not be aware of and let them make their own mind up.

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

 
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?

 
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.

 
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.