New South Tower Video Fakery Smoking Gun

Kind of interesting to compare this frame from the Hezarkhani video with the damage done to the facade of the South tower in the NIST figure below:




Focus on the leftward, port wing-- and how in the frame, that wing has gone into the tower-- and there is basically a black line indicating where the wing went in. The wing HAD to have gone in, because the starboard wing is half in, and the official trajectory was such that the port wing went in first.

Now note that in the damage diagram, to the left of the port engine, there are two large sections of columns blown away.




How exactly did those sections of columns get blown away when the wing went in without apparently displacing the columns?

Unlike closer to the fuselage, where there is some distortion in the image, so it is hard to rule out column sections being knocked in, out by the wing, the facade is pristine next to the wing.

In the damage diagram, the columns are knocked in on a lower level to where the port engine went in-- and that section of facade is clearly untouched in the actual video!

The whole "impact" sequence can be seen here. The larger damage from the "port wing" does start to appear, in the later frames. But it SHOULD have appeared right as the wing went in-- if the wing actually caused it.

This finding, once again, indicates the video image of the plane is a fraud.

What DID knock these columns inwards is another question, and for that we can only make guesses. My best guess would be some sort of specialized shaped charges.

(Honestly, someone could, should, write a book on the Hezarkhani video, analyzing it frame by frame. Like what's the deal with those engine puffs, etc?)

UPDATE: What would a shill say if forced to "debunk" this "smoking gun"?

I can imagine two main lines of arguments:
1) the image is too low resolution to see the damage
2) some sort of debris cloud is covering up the damage

More desperate arguments would be:
3) the wing is not in yet
4) there is a delay between when the wing goes in and the column damage appears

#1 is clearly wrong as in later frames, the damage can be clearly seen.

#2 is wrong as well, since the black line of the wing is quite even and not obscured by any sort of debris at all.

#3 goes against the official version of the trajectory-- and even the frame-by-frame evidence.

#4 is illogical.

Failing in the debunking, the shill would resort to the standard techniques of mockery and pretending this evidence doesn't exist.