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.

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.

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!

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

IT SAYS THAT THAT IS THE SOUTH TOWER IMPACT [FROM FLIGHT 175]!

BUT THAT'S THE NORTH TOWER IMPACT FROM FLIGHT 11!

LOL!

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.

CB_Brooklyn
Nico Haupt
EWing
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."

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