Did NIST use a fake video to show South Tower oscillation?

As I discussed here, NIST used the Scott Myers video of Flight 175 entering the South Tower, which it said was the best video available, to show that the South Tower oscillated, or swayed, in response to the impact.

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/does-nist-prove-no-planes-and-has-jones.html

I stated that the video must be fake because it shows the plane completely penetrating the building without slowing down at all. This is a matter both of common sense and consideration of the kinetic energy balance models of Wierzbicki and Karim and Hoo Fatt. (To be clear, I am not saying they would agree with my conclusions, but I think my use of their models as a premise is sound.)

Now I am wondering if the video can be considered authentic for the purpose of showing oscillation. NIST did not explicitly state that the oscillation was proof that a plane hit the South Tower, as NIST assumed that a plane did hit. However, Steven Jones used the oscillation to prove his "plane" theory. Despite the faked image of a plane penetrating the building, the oscillation aspect of the video could still be real, but it does place the data into question. Some "no planes" theorists have asked whether an internal explosion or impact of a missile might have caused the oscillation, but if this video is the only proof that oscillation even occurred, I wonder if this question even needs to be answered.

Morgan Reynolds suggests that many people in the tower reported oscillation, and that this is not in question:

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth

So my question may not be significant, unless the magnitude or direction of oscillation became an issue.

It's just a little ironic to be using a faked video to prove my case that the video is faked.

NIST used the same video to calculate the speed of "Flight 175," which in turn was used by the engineers as an assumption in their kinetic energy models. (They actually averaged the speed of the "plane" in several videos - Karim and Hoo Fatt assumed 500 mph, compared to 542 mph calculated by NIST for "Flight 175" based on the Myers video.) However, for my purposes, this circular assumption yields conservative results, because if a plane near top cruising speed could not penetrate the building without any apparent resistance or damage, then a slower moving plane could not either. So I will accept this assumption.