According to the official story, the top part of each twin tower crushed itself, and the entire intact undamaged structure below it, into fine powder, in something just a little bit longer than free fall time. Fast "collapse" times require very low resistance from below, because the greater the resistance, the more energy is absorbed by the resisting part, the less energy is available to accelerate falling mass downward, the slower the collapse time.

On the other hand, the building and all its contents were converted into very fine powder. Mechanical crushing requires extremely high resistance. A hammer requires an anvil. A mortar requires a pestle. You can smash a piece of ice into small chips with a hammer, but it better be sitting on a hard floor.Imagine trying to shatter a piece of ice while in free fall. It won't work.

And then imagine that while in free fall, you not only manage to shatter the ice, but shatter the hammer as well. It makes no sense whatsoever. As a rule, collisions between objects do not cause mutual annihilation. This contradiction was pointed out by many, and dubbed “The Resistance Paradox” by Gerard Holmgren. [1]

Clearly, the twin towers were blown to kingdom come. Period. I apply the same reasoning to the real airplane hypothesis.

No official airplane theory exists. To the extent that it does, it is argued there that mass times velocity gives total kinetic energy, thus the impacting airplane is equivalent to so many tons of TNT. This treats the entire airplane as a single mass, a single solid object.

But, in explaining why the back part of the plane does not appear to slow down, the official theorists say that the plane is more like a liquid, or a constellation of very small parts, unconnected. It atomizes, completely shatters, thus relieving the back part of any obligation to slow down.

Just as in the case of the towers’ “collapse”, the official story is trying to have it both ways. The plane is both strong enough to act like a solid in terms of the total kinetic energy, but weak enough to act like a liquid in terms of the deceleration of the back part. It makes no sense.

To actually think about it correctly, we must consider the power of the impact. Power is force over time. That is force divided by time. The longer a period of time over which a force is spread out, the less power it delivers, and the less destruction it causes. A burning log releases more energy than a stick of dynamite. The reason a stick of dynamite can destroy your fireplace, while a burning log cannot, is that the dynamite releases its energy in a much shorter period of time than does the fire. The dynamite has less energy, but much more power.

If indeed the airplane is weak enough to atomize on impact, which I think is basically correct based on the Sandia F-4 video, then it would be like a bug on the windshield to a twin tower. Much of it would turn to confetti, large parts like wing flaps or tail sections would bounce off. Engines, being steel and titanium, are strong, and might make a significant dent or maybe sever a column. A plane-shaped hole is strictly ruled out.

Ghostplane and the other airplane entry videos look cartoon-ish because they depict cartoon physics. They show no crash physics at all. My recreation of Ghostplane looks essentially identical to the original, devoid of crash physics. [2]

### Conclusion

Thus, a consideration of Newton’s Laws and the Force Paradox lends no support to the real plane hypothesis, while being perfectly consistent with the compositing hypothesis.