No planer tries some maths

[Mancman]

Actually a (relatively*) valiant attempt at analysing some footage. Unfortunately for him, and inevitably, it has obvious fatal flaws.

He predicts where the plane should be at the start of the footage by using a rate of descent (and speed) extrapolated from the last ~0.5 seconds of flight when the camera is zoomed in, and keeps these constant.
Since Flight 175 is not where he predicts, he of course concludes that the plane has been edited into the footage.



However, this footage shows that the plane is rapidly descending prior to 'levelling out' for the last 2 seconds or so before impact, thus the rate of descent in the last ~15 seconds was much steeper than he has accounted for, and the plane would be high above where he predicted.

5 people who have commented on youtube seem convinced though.

*Relative to other no plane verbiage. Which doesn't say much, I admit.

 

[eddyk]

At least he tried, which is more than I can say for most of them.

 

[Oliver]

Hello Mancman,

could you edit your post and insert this code for
the imbedded videos to make them work?

[yt]IfxjBfQZ9qU[/yt]

[yt]yCsnja4PPeU[/yt]

Cheers,
Oliver

 

[Anti-sophist]

Actually that wasn't so bad, until the end. His final claim was totally ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, that dude is the Isaac Newton of Conspiracy Theorists. He even thought enough to try to a second-order motion model.

 

[Mancman]

http://911logic.blogspot.com/

Here is the link presented at the start of the video. Never seen it before.

ETA: And I'm glad I hadn't. It's absolute lunacy, full of disturbing analysis of plane witness statements.

 

[Brainster]

It doesn't seem to occur to him that the plane would be about 1/19th the size in the wide angle frame as it is in the close-up shot; indistinguishable on the low-quality video, in other words.

Still Digging is a big buddy of Nico Haupt's. Check out his "analysis" of the eyewitnesses to the second plane for some amusement.