I'm Still Convinced

that the plane paths I described in the previous post are different.

To convince myself that the discrepency was not some artifact of parallax, I did some modeling using two wooden blocks proportional to the twin towers, string for the plane path and a little plane model to get the plane perspective right.

What I see is that in the shot from the northeast (VideoB), where the plane disappears behind a couple of buildings before it hits, you can see the plane coming in straight south of the tower for at least four tower widths (about 800 feet; one tower width = 208 feet). If you set up a plane path with that as a guide, and then have the plane path at a southwest angle before it hits the tower similar to the panoramic view video shot from the NNE (VideoA), the time it takes the plane to hit the tower after it disappears behind the towers is simply not enough to traverse the path laid out by videoB.

If you try to have the plane come in at a more shallow angle in videoA, it takes even longer for it to get to the tower after it disappears behind the towers AND this approach doesn't fit the direction the plane is pointing in VideoA.

Also, the plane in VideoA can't come in from TOO far out, as it shows almost no change in size from start to end, and thus has no significant change in perspective.

I could not find a plane path that would satisfy both videos and fit the timing of VideoB.

I don't think videoA is flawed, as there are a few versions (at least three "cuts") of this video, and they all show the same timing.

I welcome anyone else to try to reconcile the plane paths.

MOST importantly, these are not the only examples where the plane paths contradict.