Video is called "The Speed of Lies - Analysis of the Impossible Plane Speeds on 9/11"
As I say in the video description, this is not a no-planes argument, and I am not a no-planer - at least the way I understand the term no-planer.
If a no-planer is someone who is sure that no aircraft hit the South Tower, then I am NOT a no-planer. If a no-planer is someone who questions the airspeed of a 727-200 at 540 MPH at 700 feet, the appendage under flight 175, the ability of amateur pilots to pull off moves that experienced pilots say they could not do, the fact that 175 was not scheduled to fly that day, the fact that 9 of the hijackers were reported to be still alive after 9/11 (BBC, London Guardian, London Telegraph), then most members of the 9/11 truth community are already no-planers. Perhaps it is better to call myself a plane questioner.
This video brings to the table a considerable number of experts who have weighed in on flight 175. It also shows some questionable news footage - not to say this was done to create a plane out of nothing - I don't know why the footage was faked - but that part is not hard to prove.
I do not claim to know what happened or who did it, but I present this to show a consensus of experts (unless someone can find a larger list of experts who accept the official story of flight 175) who cast doubt of the official story.
It seems that it is ok within the 9/11 truth community to question many of the anomalies of flight 175, but once a person becomes convinced that these anomalies amount to a no-plane scenario, they are called disinfo agents, cointel-pro, etc. But one can certainly see the tempatation, especially since it is widely accepted in the truth community that no plane hit the Pentagon. Similarly, questioning the fake news footage generally arouses the same suspicions.
If the no-planes idea is a disinfo campaign, then experts have a duty to inform the rest how indeed a 727-200 flew as alleged. We can say we just don't know, or we might have to agree to disagree, but we can, hopefully, have enough restraint not to slander someone as a disinfo agent for their opinion, especially if that opinion is supported by credible sources.
I encourage more experts to weigh in, including video experts.