Here is a REAL Airplane Crash @ 500MPH (Video Link)

Here's a video of a controlled crash to demonstrate how fragile planes really are: South Tower super slow-mo for comparison:



Picture of North Tower (formerly mislabled as South Tower) "plane" impact. Notice the right wing tip? Aluminum through structural steel???





South Tower:


yes, a real F-4 crashing

yes, a real F-4 crashing into a fully fortified wall. and your point is?

the point

should be obvious

but just in case it's not....

the WTC were obviously a cartoon since the planes showed no change in their behavior... just like a cartoon, or sci-fi film, or video game


That F-4 melted into that concrete wall like it was butter!! You are invalidating your own claims! Really, I could argue that that jet in fact just went through the concrete into another dimension from what it looks like. So why shouldn't we assume that the boeing that hit the south tower similarly disintegrated on impact, APPEARING to melt through into the building? You guys are really somethin else. Not truth tellers--somethin' else! :)


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

plus this vid was shot at an extremely high frame rate

which means it could be slowed down and you could see it without skipping. videos of the towers were shot at 30 frames per second, standard video camera frame rate, which means that what you see is almost like stop motion when you slow it down. tough to seriously offer this in comparison!_

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

If that happened @ the Pentagon, how'd they ID the passengers?

Something like that video of the F-4 slamming the concrete block was supposed to have happened at the Pentagon, we've been told. So how the hell did they obtain DNA to ID 63 of 64 passengers on AA77??? They lied, that's how!!! They indeed lied because AA77 never struck the Pentagon!!!

perhaps the passengers

were wearing their anti-incineration jackets .......

good point anon!

PLUS, if they ID'd Hani Hanjour from his remains there, then how did they know it was HIS DNA? did they happen to have it on file? Punching holes in the official conspiracy is as easy as popping bubble wrap!


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Better yet

Where did they get the DNA to match it.I have'nt flown for awhile.Do you have to give a DNA sample before you can board the plane?

where did that

gashing hole in the tower come from then?

again, comparing concrete apples and glass and steel oranges

the towers were not made of the same stuff as a nuclear reactor core, silly. the destruction in the case of the towers was mutual. planes disintegrates/explodes, hole caused in building. what part of this are you having trouble with again?

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

silly dilly

if you're saying flights 11 and 175 were incinerated, then you'd agree that all the wreckage was planted then, right?

Also how do explain flight 11 not being in the BTS database?

The planes were on an angle, not headed at a 90 deg angle into the building. Even if was, the building's were not a simple wall of concrete. They were structural steel and reinforced concrete in an asymmetrical pattern, in relation to the plane. Take your blinders off. Do you understand now?

I never said incinerated

Did I? I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of you showing this F4 video as some kind of support of your no-plane "theory" when if anything it shows that a plane crashing at high speed into something will in fact appear to melt into a solid structure when what is happening is obviously not that at all. There were small pieces of wreckage that survived the impacts which otherwise obliterated the plane and the impact zone on the buildings' facade. I also think that at least for the south tower you're wrong about the angle of impact--looks to me like both engines are impacting at the same time but then again it's hard to say because unlike in the ultra high frame rate video above with the f4, the video captured of flight 175 is totally inadequate to really get much data from since the speed of the plane meant that onlya couple of frames are capturing the impact. Flight 11 not in the BTS database? If that's the case it only means that "flight11" may not have been a real flight but simply a "borrowed" jumbo jet masquerading as a flight with a false signature or something--who knows! The towers were of course not "simply" concrete walls, like the nuclear reactor wall in the f4 video. But what is your point? They still provided resistance, something to release the immense kinetic energy of a heavy plane traveling at high speed, something to cause the plane to explode, etc. What you all are doing with this no planes at the WTC BS is taking low frame rate video, pausing it, and focusing on weird shapes you find in the expanding gas/dust of the ensuing explosion to claim things you have no business claiming based on such poor quality evidence. Many of the videos you all link to seem to be doctored and are invariably low resolution copies of original footage and we only have your word that they have not been embellished. Your arguments really don't hold water and your pretending that they do don't change that. I grow ever more convinced that you are just here to help the real perps confuse honest truth seekers and those they might reach. But I think most people see you all for what you are and are not swayed by your lame attempts to come off as genuine truthers. Keep at it though--the more time you waste on this strategy the tighter the noose closes on the real pepetrators.

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

I won't respond to insults

you wrote: "But I think most people see you all for what you are and are not swayed by your lame attempts to come off as genuine truthers. Keep at it though--the more time you waste on this strategy the tighter the noose closes on the real pepetrators."

Come on, that's a solid block not an office building...

That's a solid block, not an office building! Despite that, a wing can be seen slicing through the massive block near the end of the video! Also, I read that said block was allowed to move backwards (you can see it somewhat) so as to absorb even more force than if it were totally stationary.

This continual disinfo by "cartoon huggers" is sickening

Man, your disifo is so blatant! Just stop already! (At least think up some new b.s. to spew at us.)

shut up fool

if you're too stupid to see it, then just shut up and stop commenting

Explain this away,

Explain this away, clown:
"For seven to 10 seconds there was this enormous sway in the building. It was one way, and I just felt in my heart, Oh my gosh, we are going over. That's what it felt like. Now, on windy days prior to that there was a little bit of a sway to the building. You got used to it; you didn't notice it. The window blinds would go clack clack as they swung. As I said, for a good seven to ten seconds I thought it was over—horrible feeling—but then the building righted itself. It didn't sway back and forth; it just went one way, it seemed, and then back, and we were stable again."

planted explosives couldn't have done that?

get real, dude.

The point is a real plane would NOT leave wing marks like that.

eyewitness statement can be fixed...

and so could data in any government sponsored report ,

but physics cannot change

so, you're saying....

the only thing that will affect an aircaft is a thick concrete wall? And structural steel / reinforced concrete will have the same effect on an airplane as air??

That block represents the wall of a nuclear reactor

That block was made to represent the wall of a nuclear reactor. The most rigid part of the WTC were the 47 steel columns in the center making up the core. A big 500 mph can crash through the windows & outer walls of an office building.

(Who is paying you to keep arguing this b.s.? You should be ashamed of yourself.)

he/she is a good soldier, Anon

Going down with the ship is actually an honorable act. Hats off to the no-planers for their dedication to a failed conspiracy!

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

wingtips generating large holes in WTC

OK, I have seen a straw drilled through a tree trunk by a tornado. After that, I think that anything is possible. I know that it's hard to wrap your mind around somethings, but seeing a straw through that tree trunk tells me that the physics are possible.

Craig O

No Deformation

This video, if we are to take it as a piece of empirical evidence of what happens when planes collide with solid walls seems to negate the NPT argument of Reynolds/Wood/Haupt/etc that serious plane deformation should have been observed upon impact of the 737 on the second WTC. For instance, from Reynolds/Wood paper:

The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research:
"The fuselage disappeared far inside the gash without deformation, no torsion (twisting) and forward wing momentum no greater than the fuselage, despite stout resistance from the tower. In truth, with no direct resistance from the building and powered by full throttle engines, wing momentum would tear the wings from each suddenly-decelerating fuselage. Wing spars are built of strong but brittle forged aluminum and must break off. But back to the government-media fairy tale: As each wing root and its jet fuel and heavy undercarriage crashed into walls and floors, no fuel spilled out and nothing burned across the face of the building, all fuel being carried inside. Since 767 wings are swept back about 35 degrees, each intact wing had to sever steel columns and spandrel belts sequentially over milliseconds, each aluminum forward edge effectively "sawing" through steel columns/belts and steel-reinforced concrete floors with nothing breaking off. Amazing! Despite no structural connection to the main spar, the right wing tip in question survived this assault and then tattooed the aluminum facade, demurely slipping inside each building."

However, in this video the plane collides head on with a solid structure and shows no visible torsion, deformation or distortion except at the immediate point of impact where disintegration is taking place.

Thank you for the video.

Yeah JT, good point

This Reynolds' Rap ain't worth a crap!

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers


Thanks RT... Just looked at your website... Your 7enja WTC game picture made me laugh!!!


WTC7 is the only thing I make fun of because no one was killed there...


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers


Meant 767 instead of 737 wrt the second WTC attack in my above comment...

Also good point above by another commenter on the wings tearing through the slab. I hadn't noticed that on the first viewing.

i don't see wings tearing through the slab...

In fact what happened was the tips of the wings that didn't hit the slab just kept flying straight. It may be that what you see as the wing cutting the slab is actually the slab giving a little which is their point in the video--that's how it absorbs some of the force to prevent it breaking


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Wing tips

I suppose it could also be the wingtips simply detaching from the plane section which impacted the slab and continuing forward with their kinetic energy. You're right though. I'd need to see more video to say anything more conclusively.

here's another

here's a MD-80 or similar crash landing-- note how the force of impact is distributed throughout the plane. an f4 is much smaller than and constructed much differently than a commercial jet.

watch the ~4 WTC2 impact shots, watch the f4 video, and watch the MD-80.

McDonnell Douglas MD-80

WTC2 impact

which of these is more like the other?

which of these is more like the other?

supersonic fight bomber f4

mcdonnell douglas md-80

boeing 767

sorry I miss your point?


"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

Force distribution.

A crash landing has a much different force distribution than a frontal impact. What would be nice to see would be a 767 flying straight into a wall, the same as the F4 video.

plane and simple

a supersonic fight jet is nothing close to a commercial passenger jet (supersonic dude, a f4 can go 2x the speed of sound). a concrete wall (atomic bomb test?) is nothing like WTC towers. you're comparing apples to oranges.

the F4 is going 500mph, not

the F4 is going 500mph, not 1500+mph...

doesn't matter

an f4 is designed completely different than a boeing 767 (f4 designed for supersonic flight). structurally, there is a huge different between a plane designed for subsonic flight (doing nothing but hauling people around) to a plane design for supersonic flight (and a fighter bomber). supersonic flight causes all kinds of extra forces to be applied to the craft. like apples to oranges.

that's true, and I assumed 9/11 Truthers would have

the intelligence to see this. But the rude, namecalling planhuggers are just as brainwashed as boxcutter huggers! They're in complete denial, under to understand simple common sense.

"""The fuselage disappeared

"""The fuselage disappeared far inside the gash without deformation, no torsion (twisting) and forward wing momentum no greater than the fuselage, despite stout resistance from the tower."""

yes that's what we see in the videos - the entire 767 just disappears from nose to tail like mcgyver going thru the stargate - without the slightest bending and crumpling. not one speck of it broke off not even the wingtips and tailtip.
you can't equate a very stiff and sturdy f4 with a flimsy pliant 767. maybe it's not so unusual for the f4's wings not to have bent forward with the instantaneous deceleration when the nose hit, but the instantaneous deceleration that a real 767's wings would have felt when the nose hit the tower would have torn them right off (how much does a 767 engine weigh?)
so: if what we saw on tv and has been recorded for posterity was an actual physical event between a real 767 and the wtc2, did the aluminum 767's plastic nosecone poke thru the wtc steel columns like an arrow or did it bludgeon thru them like a hammer or was it shredded into confetti by them until the engines punched thru them like a hammer or did it flow thru and between them like mercury?

- Ø®£Z - says read this

Why are so many people even commenting/arguing on this bullshit comparison, just feeding further reasons for people like CB_Brooklyn to continue posting nonsense!?

Real 9/11 truth seekers/researchers/activists, let's play a new game. The rules are easy.

Any time that Nico Haupt, EWing, James Ha, CB_Brooklyn and brianv make any posts or comments, completely ignore them and let their bullshit posts and comments disappear into obscurity. Even if they reply or comment about any of our posts or comments. Simply ignore them completely. Do not even acknowlegde them whatsoever.

Feel free to add names of other fake truthers to that list. Those are only a few people from the same "clique" who I could quickly think of off-the-top.

I am already playing. Wanna join the fun? Then simply follow those rules.

the very claim that 4

the very claim that 4 boeings hit 3 landmark buildings relies SOLELY on the images of alleged ua175 so to dispute the claim of 4 boeings one has to refer to the images.

reynolds claims that there are holes in the plane story:

and spooked elaborates:

prof. jones and other truthers insist that there were indeed planes and cite as evidence the eyewitlesses and the video representations of ua175.

regarding the eyewitlesses:

which brings us to regarding the videos. analyses of the manner in which alleged ua175 penetrates the wtc2 reveals the absurdity of an aluminum 767 passing into the wtc2 like a baseball man sliding into home:

as if that wasn't absurd enough, individual images of alleged ua175 have been analysed and found to be nothing more than flawed images:
this is @60fps:

Don't forget

Jones cites more than eyewitnesses and video. He cites a Moire tower displacement study, and a decceleration study. Source: Q&A slides 171-~174.

"..completely ignore them

"..completely ignore them and let their bullshit posts and comments disappear into obscurity...

I like this advice especially for butterbrains like Jonathan Gold, DemBruce and - Ø®£Z himself :)

OK point is made..I see the point

I see the point of the video,and it's true the wings should at least have some bending backwards,but how long is this going to be debated? There are so many things to point out on the one hand the arguement is made that the video's are fake.Ok the video's are fake,I am convinced.
But that does not make Me COINTELPRO,it simply convinces Me that the videos are fake.Fine,that is plausible with a complicit fits. On the other hand, when I ask about the explosions,Nico Haupt and 911 Hoax say this was already determined by them 3-4 years ago,so they agree on the controlled demolition along with many others here,as I do.
But the next step is what? Nico has claimed already that He has given his evidence,or showed it to the Major newspapers and got nothing reported or printed...nothing. Do you think it will be any better with the broadcast media?
Going straight up with things like this,directly to the mainstream media is not feasible for the moment.It would seem to Me that, like everything else, to get things done against such resistance,requires everyones participation.
Grassroots pressure,i.e. the smaller media outlets,town meeting type scenarios. We have done some here in My area,and it is just amazine how so many of the people didn't know,but have suspected(roughly60-70%) and many respond in anger toward our government. We tell them that the only way to get down the road for an eventual investigation is for all to demand answers through small newspapers,local media,town meetings..calling onto other neighboring towns. To stop being a good Republican or good Democrat and become a good American,register with a REAL opposition party,one that supports to get this investigation reopened. There are many holes that can be punched in the governments commission report, but the ones who have not seen the truth are needed to get the movement to critical mass. The sooner,the better.

Come On!

So what is all that supposed to prove? That the crashes into the WTC were not real - come on! With respect, this is not doing the Truth Movement any good. This falls flat on its face simply because you cannot compare a plane being crashed into a hardened structure designed to withstand the impact, and the WTC towers that were designed to ABSORBE the impact - much like a pencil going into mosquitto netting.

Furthermore, and notwithstanding whatever fake videos may be in circulation, there is no question that two planes did hit the towers. The unresolved mystery is why the towers fell, since they certainly did not collapse due to fire.

The planes were most likely a diversion, and by questioning whether they were real you are actually helping those who wanted them to be so! Let us not be arguing about whether or not two planes hit the towers of the world trade center, please. Rather let us ask the REAL questions about WHY the towers collapsed, and why they came down in the manner in which they did!

wrong.... cameras from different angles prove

the airplanes were faked. Look at the different angles and you'll see differnces


if the towers were designed to absorb the impact, the "planes" behavior would have changed instead of "gliding" into the structural steel and reinfornced concrete just like thought the air

"Notice the right wing tip?

"Notice the right wing tip? Aluminum through structural steel???"

Get your facts straight, that's the aliminium cladding that has came off at the right wing tip, leaving it's impression.

it's not an impresssion, it 's a slice

and is that really aluminum cladding? Or structural steel? any vefification that it's aluminum cladding? I'd be interested to see...

You can't be serious...

... if you are trying to suggest that the aliminium cladding didn't exist either... You seriously need a reality check.

I am bending the rule 1 time

To write what I should have included in the other comment.

It would appear that CB_Brooklyn is stupider than already generally accepted. That, or his controllers who pass him information forgot to correctly write the proper tower for his photographic "evidence", so he pasted the wrong information. Or took what he posted from a website with other stupid "no planers" who don't even know the proper tower LOL

There were only two towers, boys. It might seem like a high number for people so incredibly inept as CB_Brooklyn, nico, james, brian, but really, once Kindergarten is begun, the preschool math training will have really paid-off!

Each plane left distinct, immediately recognizable impact holes, as to which tower impact is which, when viewed close-up. Guess the boys were too busy not paying attention to the simplest basics while concocting/learning their fairytale "no plane" nonsense.

In case CB_Brooklyn changes it, here's a screen capture of how the blog entry looked at the time of writing this ---> Screen Capture




Here's a close-up picture of the woman standing in the opening of the North side of the North tower. Notice the visible fire in the left side of the close-up pic -- directly above and to the left of Flight 11's left-engine impact -- is the exact same area on fire with the same impact pattern as the "South" tower pic provided by CB_Brooklyn.

CB_Brooklyn is a stupid moronic imbecile.

I don't need to say anything else about this. And I won't respond to anything that he/she writes in any blog or main page submissions' comments toward me, about me, directed at me or anything else.

Nico Haupt
James Ha
+ brianv

= Stupid idiots

CB_Brooklyn: "I can't even tell the basics of which tower is which simply by looking at the distinctly different, immediately recognizable impact holes. But c'mon and stupidly believe what I write about knowing something more complex like how the planes should have reacted when impacting."

anyone using such childish language just proves themselves

too afraid to understand evidence. Stop projecting your own stupidity onto me you dumb moron!

look at all of

look at all of this:

if you pause/start these you can see that nose thing poking out the back side on both of these.

witness, 2nd vid: "where's this other jet going?"

i think there are 2 men and 2 women voices.

they couldn't possibly have seen that stupid black amputee plane in real life - could they have been seeing the white elephant plane
which must have just flown by in the same direction?:
(flying elephant article)

or could they
have been acting out a scene? i think they seem to be acting out a scene.

on the 2nd one with the academy award winners you can hear the actors but you can't hear the plane - 500mph at sea-level? that thing would've been screaming like the devil. maybe that's why the 1st
one is silent - because it would reveal no engine sound? but whoever did that zoom-out at the precise moment did such a good job that he must've been a 'camera/video buff', and what kind of 'video buff' would not have sound recording on his set-up?

you could walk from the 2nd location to the 1st location in a matter of several minutes, like walking to the store or to your friend's
house. both of these shots are conveniently perfect locations for filming
the wtc2 explosion -

oh and notice that you see the same stupid black amputee plane in both of those videos even though they were filmed from 2 different locations - what is that, the east? maybe there was a pre-arranged
insert all ready to go for those 2 videos of the wtc2 explosion.

Don't feed the troll

put your energy into more productive threads.

OWN the NWO is an f'ed up troll

and a rude asshole for discouraging people from looking at evidence and trying to find the TRUTH of 9/11. What a dumb troll asshole

that is a photo of the wtc1

that is a photo of the wtc1 hole - here is a close-up of the wtc2 hole, which seems to be even smaller than the wtc1 hole:
so maybe cb_brooklyn made a mistake - that doesn't invalidate everything that he's said - both alleged planes were supposedly identical anyway so the holes should be similar which they are.

thanks.. didn't know that was the North tower

I will correct the entry



7 MORE Irrefutable Proofs of the WTC2 Media Hoax

All the material on outside of wall

All this video proves is that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.

You don't see, in this example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly, as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event.

It's true that the F-4 is perhaps made of harder material and more sturdily built, since it's made to travel at higher speeds and that it is smaller than a commercial airline. But if it is harder, then why isn't it even less likely, than a 767, to disintegrate into nothing upon impact?

So the proponants of the authenticity of the Media videos have it both ways - the plane is hard enough to penetrate the outer rigid wall of steel columns, but disintegrates to nothing once it gets inside - where it presumably is met with a lot of air and some central columns.

Did "it" lose momentum upon breaking the shell of the building? As one would assume. (But how could it lose momentum if the side of the building appeared to give no resistence?)

Then to follow this logic "it" would hit the central core with less force than it hit the outside of the building, but this would somehow be enough force to totally disintegrate the plane.

Or if not, the intense fires would burn up all the plane parts.

Yet if a fire from a plane crash can burn up all the parts and leave no debris, why is it that has never happened before? (I fully expect the Media perps/suggestibility specialists to start occasionally to stage such "events" from now on, to normalize freaky occurences.) :)

Why were supposed plane parts, which don't even match the parts of a 767, then found in the neighborhood? (I should say "put on display" there?). When none were shown to fall away in the video presented? Why weren't these parts found in the regular rubble of the "pile?" But instead all about in the street? (Especially when there is no exit whole on the North side of the South Tower for any of this debris to have exited.)

If a plane breaks up so well upon impact with an immovable object, as it does in the above video - and I will say steel columns, attached to the side of a Trade Tower, are relatively immovable, then why didn't the "plane" appear to break up, i.e. do the same thing it did in the test above, in the videos everyone is shown of the event?

Here's an example of the columns immovability:

None of the steel column segments appear to break off where they were attached i.e. pop out, when hit.

So the columns must've been pretty well secured and attached. The set-up was rigid enough that when a force was applied THE WHOLE BUILDING MOVED.

To quote a structural engineer, Pegelow, who spoke recently on the Alex Jones show, ~"The Trade Towers were not a House of Cards, where one event could push their stability over the edge, and trigger a complete collapse."

If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of the building, where did the force come from to cause the building to sway?

If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of South Tower, that means a section of wall, in the outline of a plane, put up no resistance to the entry of the "plane."

If the wall *had* put up resistence, some of the plane would've broken up. If it put up none, the building wouldn't end up swaying.

The steel columns were just, supposedly, punched through - without dislodging from where ever they were attached from below.

That means the mass of the entire South World Trade Center was behind the "kick" it received from the "plane."

The "impact" didn't punch out the entire column. So this implies the columns were all quite well attached and that the side of the building was, of a piece, a relatively rigid barrier. Made of steel, which is stronger than AL. Planes are made of AL for its lightness. So the side of the building was strong compared to the plane.

The wall, shown in the test video above, is made of a specially prepared cement-like material - which one would assume is softer than steel. It's meant to cushion any impact, so as not to be penetrated, as it be would be if more rigid, less giving.

The Trade Tower sides were also all designed to "give" upon having force applied. That is how they withstood wind storms. Witnesses state that the building swung upon "impact." (Not sure how many reading this have felt that swing of a Trade Tower in the wind from inside of one. But you could feel it quite clearly on a windy day. It induced fear in me, and a kind of sea sickness.)

So even though both "rigid" barriers were designed to "give" upon impact, in only one case, if you compare the video representation of what happen to South Tower on 9/11 and the test for nuclear power station safety, did you see the plane break up *completely* upon impact, and the barrier successfully and totally resist penetration.

And that, we assume, was in a real world test. Why the discrepencies between the records? The cement barrier looks hardly scratched.

So why wasn't any material repelled by the wall of the WTC Tower, if it was indeed hit by a real plane? Why did the "plane" totally penetrate the wall of the Tower like a hot knife into butter?

Why isn't the hole/scar on the South Tower even big enough to allow the supposed "plane" entry, in the manner shown in the videos of the event? Why is no plane debris visible in either "mouth"/scar of the World Trade Towers' wounds?

Why isn't there an exit hole on the North side of the South Tower building, even though numerous videos show material and a nose-like object, timed with where the "plane nose" would've been seen, had "it" continued on its apparent trajectory without impediment, exit on that side??

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

Aluminum through structural steel???

More like aircraft grade reinforced aluminum alloy through anodized aluminum panels.

And I quote:

"After the steel structure was in place, the crew attached the outer "skin" to the perimeter -- anodized aluminum, pre-cut into large panels."

Your video footage clearly shows what might have happened were a smaller, not fuel laden, 1960s era American fighter to have crashed into the World Trade Center...assuming the WTC was constructed of the same special material as the reinforced concrete panel that was impacted at ideal angles in the F-4 test...and also assuming that this hypothetical low fuel fighter impact also happened at the before mentioned perfect or ideal angles.

Lets get the issue of mass difference out of the way, or at least simplify it...since the mass of an object pertains to the energy upon impact (velocity also factors in there but we are just looking for a rough contrast…). We will ignore the weight of the fuel to make this easier.

F-4: 29,500 lbs (dry weight)

767: 243,000 lbs (aprox dry weight obtained by subtracting payload max from max takeoff weight)

So we can see that we are dealing with roughly 9 times the mass, or 900% more forward moving stuff with the WTC impact.

Since we conveniently have the second video you provided for us, of the actual impact...a very much larger fuel laden aircraft hitting off angle into a very loosely packed set of vertically stacked reinforced steel cube shapes (think erector set skeleton) wrapped in anodized aluminum sheeting (with some fireproof coating and sheetrock thrown in there to keep the light from shining all the way through)...we can see that the observed impact makes sense given just a light analysis of the factors involved. It surprises me that we did not see more material exiting the building, if anything. Looking at the structural post mortems, the only thing that really stopped the quarter million pound fuel bomb was the elevator and stair cluster running up the center of the trade center. In the case of the North Tower all of these were severed at the point of impact. On the South Tower all but one was severed because of the steep angle of impact for the second (supposed) human-guided fuel bomb.

If there truly is a conspiracy involving the largest mass murder of innocent American civilians in the history of this the greatest nation on earth...then I tell you with all earnestness my brother that you have not found it here. If indeed you have, this evidence does nothing to support your claims. Keep digging. You have the right spirit I think; you just need to point it in a different direction.

Maddox is the shizzle. Follow his links for more objective material analysis regarding steel and heat fatigue and the burning temperature of 'jet fuel'.