F-4 Phantom Test compared to Moving Images Alleged to Hit South Tower 11th of Sept. 2001

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.htmlrocketsled

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

[in the moving images flaunted on TV the "plane" enters without slowing down. In this above vid it does not enter but breaks apart entirely. Why are the two in any way analogous?]

You don't see, in this above Sandia 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 (though according to a report on the test crash the f-4 penetrated some 60mm), 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?

[Obviously, the "767" image portrayed on TV *does not* disintegrate upon inpact with the steel grid wall - it is shown to penetrate it. It is shown to remain intact while entering the building! Whereas the F-4 disintegrates entirely.]

So the proponents 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 resistance?)

[ the TV images portray an object which does not slow down upon alleged contact with the side of the building. The TV images portray, upon close inspection, an object which *does not* lose momentum upon alleged contact with the outside of the building.]

To follow this "logic" of no loss of momentum: would "it" then allegedly hit the central core with the same force "it" hit the outside of the building? Why then, no immediate severe damage to the central core? Enough to cause the top of the building to slouch, crumple or tip?

Yet how would this then be enough energy to disintegrate the "plane," when hitting the steel grid and the cement floors would not?

Where is the force, after the "plane" enters the Tower whole, to totally disintegrate the invincible "plane?"

[The Purdue cartoon moving image shows the "plane" disintegrating into thin air, once it gets inside.]

Or if not, would the alleged intense fires 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 this 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 occurrences.)

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 hole on the North side of the South Tower for any of this debris to have exited?)

If the Sandia test plane breaks up so well upon impact with an immovable object

and

Steel columns, attached to the side of a Trade Tower, are relatively immovable and attached to a 500,000 pound Tower

then

Why did the 767 "plane," in the moving images everyone was shown of the event on TV, remain intact, i.e. not do the same thing the real plane did in the test above?

Here's an example of the Trade Tower columns immovability:

None of the steel column segments appear to break off from where they were attached i.e. pop-out, when allegedly "hit." That implies extreme rigidity of the exterior lattice with the whole of the building. That image implies an extreme integrity of the building as a whole.

So the columns must've been pretty well secured and attached, according to the physics implied in the universe the moving image allegedly represents.

In all the images, the Trade Tower does not appear to sway or react to the impact of the "plane." That means the image implies the wall of the Trade Tower was very secure and solid and put up strong resistence to the alleged impact? Since the Tower is made of metal and cement, not of butter?

The set-up was rigid enough so that when a force was applied THE WHOLE BUILDING MOVED (according to witnesses inside the building, which belies the story told by the evidence of the moving images shown on TV - which show the building *not reacting at all* when allegedly hit by a 767 commercial aircraft.)

What is the implication?:

If the Tower did *not* sway, why not, since it was allegedly hit with an object with such alleged kinetic force. And in that case too, the "plane" itself would've absorbed the full shock/force of the impact. In that case, why did "it" not break apart? And if the plane *did not* absorb or react to the force of the impact, why didn't the Tower? Where did the force of the impact, at the moment of impact, go, as portrayed by the moving images shown on TV?

If the Tower *did* sway, why did that not show up portrayed in the movie images flaunted?

Also, if the Tower did sway, as some testified, why did the rivits which held the steel grids to the side of the building hold when the "plane" shown in the moving image on TV came in contact with the steel grids, if that depiction was real?

If the rivits holding the steel outer lattice did fail, why did not the steel grid lattice break off in a sheet?

Where was the force to cause the clean shearing of the steel columns?

If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of the building, why didn't the building sway? Since the shearing implies that the side of the Tower held tight while the "plane" cut in. Could it have held *that* tight? When it's engineered to sway with the force ofthe wind?

If there *were* resistence, the image should've shown evidence of that.

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 resistance, some of the plane would've broken up and the Tower would've swayed.

If the Tower had put up no resistence, the building wouldn't end up swaying. If the building was soft as butter, and put up no resistence, then you'd see no swaying as a result of the "hit" - which *is* in fact what the TV moving images portray.

According to the presented images, the steel columns were just, supposedly, cut through, as with a cookie cutter - without being dislodged from whereever they were attached to the rest of the building from below.

That would mean the mass of the entire South World Trade Center was behind the "kick" it received from the "plane." Wouldn't a real plane crash?

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 would be if more rigid, less giving? That's why bumpers in bumper car arcade are made of soft rubber. If the material impacted on is more "forgiving'' and softer, there is less damage. If a bumper car hits a *solid* wall, there is more more likelihood the wall wil be damaged. I beleive the bumper the jet hits up against is cushioned - that' why it itself does not break up on impact.

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 representations of what happen to South Tower on 9/11 and the test for nuclear power station safety at Sandia shown in the vid above, did you see the plane break up *completely* upon impact, and the barrier successfully and totally resist penetration. That was the Sandia test. So the barrier portrayed in the 9/11 TV moving images, the wall of the Tower, did not do what it was designed to do, according to those images.

And the Sandia, we assume, was in a real world test? Why the discrepancies 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, as it is 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??

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."

So there is more than one thing strange about the TV and 9/11 Commission Report depiction of events on September 11th.