Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Conspiracy v. fact 9/11 [View all]Frank_Norris_Lives
(114 posts)26. Well, that's strange because.....
.....one of the best witnesses, whose immediate photos of the area are familiar to millions of Americans, Steve Riskus, specifically said
"....... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the edge... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building...... I did not see any smoke or debris coming from the plane."
So the plane wasn't trailing smoke & debris. So I wonder why we see a vapor/smoke trail on the tape when there wasn't really one there.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The engines of the plane that hit the Pentagon energetically dissasembled themselves when they diges
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#2
Um, the south tower core columns up to floor 50 or so are visible standing in the dust
AtheistCrusader
May 2013
#78
Luckily, there's VIDEO of that exceedingly short period of time. Remember that? nt
greyl
Mar 2013
#22
That is the 10' EXIT hole in the Pentagon E ring - not the entrance hole in the facade.
hack89
Mar 2013
#50
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place
stevebreeze
May 2013
#76
There's nothing resembling sound premises or valid logical inferences in your argument
William Seger
Mar 2013
#59