It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Questions for No-Planers (No Criticisms, I Promise)

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:23 PM
These are just a few questions I have for no planers, purely out of curiousity.

While I do not subscribe to the no planer theory, I am always open to new evidence and/or "proof".

In the image above, what caused the sections that I highlighted in green to appear to be knocked inward? If there were an explosion from the inside to simulate the airplane strike, how did this happen?

In reference to the sections highlighted with yellow, why aren't these sections either missing or blown outward? It appears to me that the outer portion of these sections was knocked/blown away while the inner portion remained intact. How would explosions PLACED on the inside allow these sections to remain?

The only really noticeable sections that I see blown outward are the ones I highlighted in red. If there were a primary explosion from the inside, why aren't more of the beams bent outward?

Also, a good bit of the debris on the inside of the building appears to be blown inward. While this could still easily happen if explosions were placed on or within the outer walls, it still seems a bit odd to me.

Please take note that I am not trying to "debunk" or anything else with this. These are honest questions that I have in the interest of learning.


posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:56 AM
This is posted with the best of intentions.

I'm not a "no planer" but I was on a website recently that has some very interesting observations and analysis of the impacts on the towers. One of the observations is that the photo (I'm pretty sure it's the same one.) that you have included in your post is probably photoshopped. Here is the link:

The rest of the website addresses issues that bear on anomalies in the Naudet brothers film of the collision with the North Tower and other plane related material. It's not a "no planer" site and would bolster the claims for real planes but perhaps not the planes that we were led to believe struck the towers.

I hope I'm not derailing any discussion but your photo made me think of this site. I believe there is a lot of worthwhile material on the site, some very well observed analysis.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by ipsedixit]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:02 AM
reply to post by ipsedixit

You aren't derailing at all. Thanks very much for the input and information. I'll go check the site out, though I"ve found fault with serendipity before.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:13 AM
Just because I am curious, in the picture you posted above it looks to me like you drew a red square around something that looks an awful lot like a person looking out of the gaping hole in the building.

When I first saw that picture I assumed this was another critique of the story that flaming jet fuel and catastrophic fires and explosions caused the entire building to collapse. If those things had happened how come that person isn't on fire?

But since that is not the case I would have to agree with you that the destruction there looks an awful lot like a plane hit the building. I'm not sure the no-planers have a leg to stand on here.

Of course the idea that the planes hit the Twin Towers which had been previously mined for destruction is still out there floating. Good work chum!

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by Scalamander

Nah, wasn't trying to highlight what appears to be the person. I was highlighting the smaller section under her that seems bent inward a bit.


EDIT TO ADD: The red box was not my doing.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by SimiusDei]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:45 AM
I believe a large missile hit that was made to penetrate inside. That could account for the FEW beams bent inward.

The yellow section just looks like the aluminum cladding fell off if I understand your question correctly. My question about the yellow section would be could an aluminum wing create that cut-through that looks like a sword sliced through there?

If explosives helped create the hole, couldn't directional explosives be an explanation? Could the bad guys have pre-cut some of the facade columns?

What is odd to me that makes me think it was a missile and not a 767, is where is the plane? Why don't we see any evidence of the plane left? No seats, no luggage. Not even one piece of aluminum dangling somewhere.

Why is there no jet fuel fire on the gash? Fuel splatters everywhere in a plane crash. Did all of the fuel go forward? No jet fuel fire dripping down the facade.

I also haven't see any evidence that any 767 debris fell on the ground below the entry points were debris that bounced back should have landed.

I also believe the logic of "no-planes" makes sense. The towers had to be pulled that day. The official story rests on the illusion that the planes pierced all the way through to sell the story that it caused "great internal damage". If one of the planes missed its target, or didn't crash properly (i.e. most bounced off), the bad guys would have a hard time selling their story of how the towers of what caused the towers to collapse.

The official story of WTC 7 collapsing is that debris from the north tower struck it. If the north tower plane missed its target, the bad guys couldn't destroy the north tower and as a result, they wouldn't be able to destroy the WTC 7.

new topics

top topics

log in