Well, I don't happen to have that in my Roladex. The point was: the anon matched the flight path to a map with the location of major buildings and determined that the airplane did indeed fly "behind" the building that obstructed the view of the wingtip. And what was wrong with that? The uninformed viewer starts out with an incorrect assumption of the depth of the images---which is a characteristic of images taken at long distance. Normal perspective cues for distance are obliterated by the fact that the images are all at the "same" distance. There wasn't anything to "show" except his statement of what he found.

But the fact seems to be that you give creds to the credulous.