You are silly. The news anchors for WNBC described the ball's turn around the towers. NO PLANE...TOO BAD FOR YOU.
No,they didn't.....and there was no 'ball' or anything shaped like one,, by the way,the towers were 140 feet apart...want to rething your 'No plane of any type or size' comment?
I'm gonna prove right here that you refuse to answer a simple question that goes to your false belief that a plane was captured near T2. Did flight 175 go in between the towers and circle around them before T2 exploded? It's a very simple question. You cannot use chopper 4 as proof of a plane without ignoring facts that outright refutes that nonsense.
Because it happened on live video. Many people said there was no plane, just an explosion, or reported something smaller.
The ball was the object and the media called it a plane and said the following. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs "There you see the plane...between the two buildings...and then you see the explosion...right there, unbelievable." A plane of no size could have made those turns. Maybe you can claim they were mistaken or the ball footage was faked?
The flight path of 175 has been very well studied, and very clearly defined using data from multiple sources. It approached from the southwest and hit the south east tower. The aircraft did not go between the buildings. From the perspective of the viewer in your .gif the aircraft past behind both the buildings. You've clearly made a false assumption about how a three dimensional object is represented in a 2 dimensional space. That's why I posted the link that I did. That's why you're confused about the position of the aircraft, the size of the aircraft, and the speed of the aircraft. You've thrown out an entire dimension of information about the object you're trying to understand the motion of, not to mention all the information you threw out by compressing the video of the object into an animated .gif
You have posted nothing to change what the media accurately observed. The ball made two turns behind the towers. That's a fact. The vertical black mark is the object making those turns between the buildings. Something of course no plane could ever have done. Your path excludes it from passing east of T1 below the height of the towers. You were told this and shown this years ago. You keep ignoring it because this real path was not performed by any plane.
I realize I'm not clear on what you're trying to show here, but it seems you may not see the airplane approaching from behind. At least the little bit that was uncut from this GIF edit.
The media was looking at exactly the same view and they expose your false statements. The object went between the buildings. That wasn't a plane of any kind or size. Slow-motion really shows the black shadow of the object quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs "There you see the plane...between the two buildings...and then you see the explosion...right there, unbelievable."
Nothing you have said has disputed my conclusion that your issue is related to a misinterpretation of a 2 dimensional video. If the flight path I have outlined is correct, and it is, what would you have expected to see in the video, that you don't see now?
Realizing you are ignoring me.... is there any screen shot exactly showing this "between the buildings" claim?
Nothing you have said has disputed my conclusion and the media's conclusion that an object went between the rear of the towers that was not a plane. If the flight path I have outlined is correct, and it is, we all would expect to see a ball in every other video coming from the west. We don't because many were faked.
I don't know where you get this claim about "the media" but I'm certainly not opposed to saying that you're wrong. The plane did not go between the towers, and the video you posted does not show it doing such.
Yeah, I did. That's why I was asking. All I see is a plane approaching from behind two buildings. Nothing "between". But now that I see there is no explanation, I am more interested in your habit of deleting a post, before each of your posts.
A plane could not have crashed into the southeast corner just before coming from the west on a straight path without making video game-like turns. It wasn't a plane for that reason and some others.
It doesn't look anything like a real plane or all the fakes you'd call a boeing 767. It's a dot, I guess.
It;s a poor video rendering.....you can see sunlight glinting off the wings,and the sky was bright blue that day,not brown
