He did a lot of strange stuff (which you probably didn't notice on your first viewing) which people picked apart in interesting visual analysis. For instance, he jumped out of the plane with a mini fire extinguisher strapped to his leg, hidden under his pants. Why? We don't know, but there are several hypothesis.

If you feel the urge to ask me what those hypothesis are - then I think you'll see the point.

> For instance, he jumped out of the plane with a mini fire extinguisher strapped to his leg, hidden under his pants. Why? We don't know, but there are several hypothesis.

I think this is part of my point because it's obvious why: he crashed the plane on purpose in an extremely dry area, so he took a fire extinguisher with him in hopes of extinguishing any fire he started. He concealed it because he was faking the crash. He's also an idiot there as well because it took him a while to get to the crash site, which was much too long for a mini fire extinguisher to be useful.

So see? It's obvious and not interesting. He's just an idiot.

Granted, what the other commenter pointed out is indeed an interesting facet, which is to your original point as well, but it's more to do with engines and planes being interesting.

If I recall correctly, there was a lot of nuanced discussion of different engine behaviors with different failure modes, and how those did or did not match the video evidence. Sound of the engine, rpms, prop behavior, ect