What caused the plane shaped holes?

This post is about what caused the plane shaped holes in the twin towers. Now, if you are the typical American sheep (and I hope you are not), your automatic thought will be: "Duh. The planes crashing into the buildings caused them. What else?". If you think this, its not really your fault because you have been conditioned by the main stream media and the U.S. Government not to apply any critical thinking skills to anything that happened on 9-11-2001 or appeared to happen on that date.  

There are many unthinking people whose brains are not wired to question any narrative that appears to be accepted by the herd. I would say that the majority of people fit in this category. For them, WYSIWYG. Thankfully not all Americans are so simple minded to believe this. The fact is that the U.S. Government and main stream media are dishonest and routinely lie to the American people. The blue pilled cannot accept that but the red pilled have seen many many examples of it. Once you accept the inherent dishonesty of these "trusted" institutions then you have the proper mindset to see and understand hidden truths. 

There is a problem of logic concerning these holes which I am about to elucidate.  Before I do I want to show a video clip of how the main stream media wants you to believe both of these holes were created.

What this image appears to show is an aluminum plane going through the steel outer frame of this building (the south tower of the WTC complex) as if the exterior of the building offered no physical resistance to the plane as it "entered" and later apparently caused the huge "shock and awe" fireball in the interior. The fireball and what caused it are a different subject. What we are concerned about here is the feasibility of an aluminum plane doing what is shown here and leaving these apparent plane shaped holes that even include the wings of the plane that are so fragile that they cannot even be walked on without collapsing. In this image even those fragile wings go through the exterior of the building and leave their apparent shape as a jagged hole later. 

In the real world when an aluminum plane impacts something solid there is incredible damage to the plane. For example, in the below image this plane struck a bird (or the bird struck the plane). Either way just a single bird that is a fraction of the hardness of the steel beams surrounding the WTC buildings did this damage. It does such damage because the plane is hollow and not a rigid steel structure. It does not take a lot to damage it in an impact scenario.

Imagine if this same plane had slammed into the face of the South tower. What do you think would have happened? Would this plane just go through the exterior or it would the plane have been obliterated with relatively minor damage to the building, even if the plane was going 500 miles per hour? You know the answer to that question. The entire plane would be destroyed immediately upon impact. It would not go through the steel exterior of the building as if the steel exterior did not even exist. Anyone can see this.

So there is a problem of simple logic with the explanation that planes caused these holes. How could two Boeing 767 jetliners, which are essentially big hollow aluminum tubes, cut through multiple steel girders and concrete floors to completely penetrate the massive steel towers, with no deceleration visible, and disappear without a trace, with no plane wreckage visible in the holes and no wreckage fall to the ground below the impact zone? It is a physical impossibility.  

Above is an image of the plane shaped hole in WTC 1 allegedly caused by Flight 11. Certainly it looks like this hole was caused by a plane impacting the building, penetrating it and going inside it with no signs of any part of the plane on the outside. No aluminum wrapped around the steel columns is seen. In fact nothing of the plane is seen except the hole that appears to be plane shaped. 

This post is to attempt to answer this question: If physical planes did not create these holes then what alternate explanation(s) are there for their existence or apparent existence. I use the word apparent because not everything that appears to be real that is shown on the television news is actually real. Do you need examples of this? Many such cases. 

More to Come if you want it