Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Who Cares What Freepers Think?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 12:46 PM
Original message
9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Who Cares What Freepers Think?
I've been noticing a new meme floating around the various conspiracy theorists here at DU (God love you, you know who you are). It's a reaction to almost every thread concerning 9/11 conspiracy theories being moved to the "basement" of the 9/11 forum.

The meme is simply stated: Who cares what Freepers think?

The implication being that the only reason for moving the threads is avoid the derision of Freepers, as if DU was concerned about what Freepers thought about this site.

Well, folks, that's a load of hogwash. The Freeper opinion of DU couldn't get any worse, frankly, 9/11 conspiracy theories or no. I don't care what anyone who posts at the Free Republic thinks about this site at all.

What I do care about is giving the Freepers ammunition to ruin DU's reputation among otherwise disinterested people. Those people are the opinions I do care about. If a Freeper can email a politically neutral acquaintance and say, "Get a load what DU is saying now - they all believe that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon!" and can provide an actual link to a General Discussion thread where such loopy ideas go unchallenged, then the politically neutral person writes off DU.

So I'm glad the administrators have chosen to keep discussion about these topics open and free, yet slightly off the beaten track. You will note that they haven't gone so far as to give people the option of ignoring the 9/11 threads like we can the DU Lounge threads. The discussion space is there for people who want to participate, and the boundaries of the forum provides a second layer of defense against writing off DU as a conspiracy theory site. (The first, of course, being that DU isn't responsible for what individual people post here anyway.)

So who cares what freepers think? Nobody at DU should. But who cares what mischief Freepers can make of the more irrational theories being publicized and sold as DVDs and books and donation requests? Everyone should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ahhh...but...
Can you deny that there is a body of apparent evidence, regarding 911, that deserves sober consideration and reasoned reflection, instead of being dismissed out of hand?

We all know too well that the official version of events too often diverge greatly from the objective truth. It behoves thinking people to look more deeply into things, rather than just rejecting thing on the basis of an initial appearance of outrageousness.

After all, reality can come up with the most outrageous things all on its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Yes, there is.
Edited on Fri Sep-03-04 03:07 PM by boloboffin
But after reasoned reflection and sober consideration, wheh seemingly absurd claims prove to be absurd all the way through, then we can safely reject such claims no matter how urgently DVD and book salesmen continue to hawk them.

Once you see that every argument of Flight 77 denial is easily shown to be false, it befits us to dismiss any new argument out of hand.

For example, Flight 77, a large American Airlines jet, is trackable on primary radar recording from takeoff until it crashes in DC. People got on board that plane, and their bodies were discovered in the Pentagon. Other people watched in horror as a large American Airlines jet crashed into the Pentagon. Some people were able to view a videotape of this event several times, and have never said that any other plane hit the Pentagon. Pieces of an airplane consistent in composition and mass of a large American Airlines jet were recovered at the crash site.

All of this hardcore, actual evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Whenever someone asks you to believe any number of things, and one of those beliefs is Flight 77 denial, then you have good cause to examine everything that person is asking you to believe with a rigorous eye. If that person is so fervently wrong about such a simple matter, can we expect them to be right about more complicated things?

That's why I'm glad this forum is here. I don't put LIHOP past this president (and am more open to MIHOP than most here would believe), but I believe that so far, the only real evidence points to criminal negligence in the 9/11 attacks. In fact, my tendancy to suspect Bushco of having a deeper hand in 9/11 leads me to view all such claims to a strict standard of evidence. If such a thing is provable, I want people to see it based on the evidence, and not discount it because of my naked desire to see Bush hang for it.

What I am saying: intense partisanship tends to cause doubt in the disinterested observer as to the truth of the proposition. Do we believe this because of the evidence? Or do we believe this because we would believe anything bad that we heard about Bush? One reason we can dismiss out of hand any assertion made by Freepers about Bill and Hillary Clinton is that those nutcases would believe anything bad about him. If we're just as desparate as Freepers for stories about George Bush's evil nature, how are we morally any different?

George Bush is bad enough without trying to show that he and his cronies framed al-Qaeda for the deaths of thousands with switcheroo planes and controlled demolitions. Let's convict George with the real evidence of what happened on his watch. Let's shake the trees for the real perps and how the Bush administration blinded itself to their attack. Pull the strings we can and we'll see what unravels.

That's how Watergate unspun, and that's how this administration will fall too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. The primacy of weak, disinfo "pod/no 77" theories annoy me as well.
However, so does your constant overstatement.

For example, Flight 77, a large American Airlines jet, is trackable on primary radar recording from takeoff until it crashes in DC.

Evidence? Link?

People got on board that plane, and their bodies were discovered in the Pentagon.

Evidence? Link?

Other people watched in horror as a large American Airlines jet crashed into the Pentagon.

Everybody knows that eyewitnesses are one of the WORST forms of primary evidence and several said what they saw was more like a small plane or a missile.

Some people were able to view a videotape of this event several times, and have never said that any other plane hit the Pentagon.

Why can't EVERYBODY see this videotape, then? Seriously. Why not? Why can't we at least read the transcripts of these secondhand eyewitnesses?

Pieces of an airplane consistent in composition and mass of a large American Airlines jet were recovered at the crash site.

Evidence? Link? No NTSB study was ever done. The black boxes were supposedly destroyed, although that's not supposed to happen and no investigation was ever made into just why it happened. We've never seen any of the pieces, and some clean up crew eyewitnesses say, "It's like the plane just disappeared or disintegrated."

All of this hardcore, actual evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

What I see is words on a screen. Where is this hardcore evidence you keep talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. more like a small plane or a missile?
Evidence? Link?

Who is your witness?

I collected eye witness reports.

I read through hundreds of them.

Never once did I find a witness who believes that a missile hit the Pentagon. I have never yet heard of one who was there to see for themselves who has since subscribed to any sort of 'No Boeing' thesis.

The autopsy positively identified 58 of the passengers.

The black boxes were not supposedly destroyed. Information was recovered. Before being so foolish consult previous postings on this forum. The issue was discussed here not so long ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=17954&mesg_id=18301&page=

On Feb. 19, 2002 the NTSB published a "FlightPath Study--American Airlines Flight 77," It is cited on page 455 of the 9/11 Commision Report.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-471.html

Unfortunately the Internet does not omnipotently supply absolute evidence of everything that ever happened in the known Universe. Gor the price you pay what else would yu expect? The Internet does howver, occassionally, give a good idea of what evidencer is available if only you'd be bothered just for once to go get it.

Talk to the witnesses. See what they think of your bright ideas.

:eyes:









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Hahahaha
You say you have investigated the pentagon crash, yet you can only provide one link. Hahaha

The government 9/11 commission finally got around to investigating and all they issued was a whitewash report, leaving many unanswered questions.

You come on here claiming you have "proof." Hahahaha

There is no proof of anything. And you don't have a leg to stand on, coming in here claiming you have proof. Hahahaha

You people are sad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I provided hundreds of links,

way back in 2002.

You must have missed the party.

Check the archives.

Do you have the name of a witness to support your case?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Hundreds?
But now you've lost 'em? Hahahaha

Show me on good pic with conclusive evidence of a 757 at the pent, and I'll repent. Hahaha



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Ha ha ha ha.

:eyes:

Repent at your leisure. Who should care if you do or don't?

I provided a compendium of Pentagon eye witness accounts, the first one to be available. The original version is still online on the Steve Riskus site. I took a later version down because it was taking up too much time to keep up to date, with new material and defunct links, and because others eventually provided similar collections. Why waste the effort for the sake of ignorant ingratitude? A .pdf mirror of it is probably still floating about somewhere.

Five lamp poles were felled on Washington Boulevard. According to witnesses they were hit by the wings of a passing airliner. This was only possible with a wingspan of at least 90 feet. No other sensible explanation has yet been seen.

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Hey, that's my line..hahahaha
Yeah, I've read alot on DU and all I can remember of you RH is your pole pics.

It's funny, isn't it, that a plane in excess of 300mph hit those poles and didn't knock 'em topsy-turvy, just laid 'em down as if they were just so many cut trees?

Also, if the wings clipped them, and the wings are where the fuel is stored, wouldn't the poles have cut the tanks, allowing fuel to spill and when the flames began, the flames would trace back to the poles?

Anyway, seen the pole pics, etc, still nothing to convince me graphically speaking, of a 757 hitting the pent.

Ya got one? Hahahaa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Yes the wings were probably ruptured.

The port side wing may have detached, or begun to attach. I don't know what else would have caused the immediate fire and window damage to the first floor of the Pentagon beyond the port side wing tip. The fuel was imbued with kinetic energy the same as the rest of the aircraft, moving at more than half the speed of sound. In barely more time than it takes to blink it then hit the Pentagon.

So how then would the poles be knocked topsy turvy? The force that cut them in two was gone before the poles had half a chance to accelerate. You also have to consider that the jet blast would tend to blow back anything near to the engines, e.g. the second pole to be hit.

We await your explanation of what else would have cut the poles in two. Funny, isn't it, how rarely anybody dares to attempt an intelligent answer to the question?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #34
44. "The time it takes to blink"
So, if an eywitness blinked, the plane could have gone right over the top, eh?

Look, you are the seeming expert on the poles. Yet your story leaves many unanswered questions. Any true investigation would examine all sides in order to come to the most reasonable postulation. Yet you clearly say that: "nobody dares to attempt an intelligent answer to the question"

You have postulated that a wing cut them in two. I say that is only one idea. And that that idea has holes. I'm not convinced by you, ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Your total failure
to provide an alternate explanation for the pole damage is noted.

:eyes: :boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Your failure is duly noted
And you are an expert? Hahahaha

What could have cut down the poles? Explosive charges. Remote controlled, miniature charges placed there to mislead people like you.

It's possible. Have you ever considered that? I doubt it. Besides, you weren't even there! Hahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Ha ha ha ha.
Search the archives. Explosive charges were suggested as soon as the realisation of the five poles dawned upon the idiots more than two years ago.

The other two jokes are poles brought down by turbulence, and poles that fell from the back of a lorry.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

:eyes:

Want to place a bet on what the taxi driver has to say about it, the one nearly hit by a pole?

Bye bye.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. Are you serious??
Remote controlled, miniature charges???

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #34
66. So where did the wings go?
Just wondering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Wings went to the same place that these went.
to the great wing heaven in the sky:





http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

What else do you think a wing would look like after hitting solid masonry at that sort of speed?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-04 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #66
79. Somebody's not showing it all?
Check this one out!

You can see the jet wings clearly going forward and marking the wall. Just as jet wings will do!


http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

Just as they did at the WTC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-04 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #79
80. I did checked it out, all shown.
According to what basis do you presume to know better than Sandia?

N.B.

"Damage to the target was relatively minor, as shown in Fig.7 indicating that a majpor portion of the impact energy was absorbed in moving the targetand not in producing structural damage. The face of the target was scarred where the aircreft fuselage struck bou tonly superficial damage was inflicted over this region. The penetration depth of the engines, which appear as the 'eyes' of the aircraft in the figure, was a maximum of 60mm and that caused by the fuselage was a maximm of 20mm."

http://911-strike.com/f4crash.pdf

Did you check that out?

I'd thought not.

At the Pentagon the wing tips did mark the wall. They also took out 40mm thick blast resistant window panes. Examine those for instance above the entrance to corridor 4 where the starboard wing tip hit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-04 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. At the Pentagon the wing tips did mark the wall.
Where?

photos please?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #32
65. OmiGod, you're the one behind the Riskus "eyewitness" site?
Tell us, RH, how do you know that RAD DUDE and why did you select his site to sell your wares?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #65
68. No.

I've not even heard from Riskus at all since 2002, nor did I select Riskus in any way at all.

When I'd mailed him a preview of the 'They saw the Aircraft' compendium, merely as a common courtesy, he proposed on his own initiative to put it up as a web page, for his friends to see that he was not alone in seeing the airliner hit the building. Maybe some of his friends had thought he was telling a tall story. I don't know. At the time, curiously he'd been under the mistaken impression that none but a small number of people had seen the event.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. Merely as a common courtesy?
Come on, man, fess up. I'm simply curious because I always wondered what the hell that stuff was doing on his site. His site DID serve the painstakingly collected documentation that you're so proud of, right? So why did you select his site for that purpose? Street cred?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. Fess up?
For Christ's sake, what do want, blood? Go ask Riskus. He's hardly likely to say anything else cos what happened is what I've said happened. That's it. Amen.

I mailed him at an early stage simply because his handle was readily available. He gave it out on his web site:

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. for your information
This below, verbatim, was the exact text of Steve's reply to me, sent Wed 27/03/2002 18:07.


On receipt of his message I formatted the stuff as an html page and sent it on as a mail attachment.

So now y'all know as much about it as I did then.
OK?



=======================================================

Ron,

Do you mind if I put this email up on my site as a text file so people will have something else to look at and wont keep telling me I am the only one that saw this?

Thanks,

Steve

In a message dated Sun, 24 Mar 2002 7:53:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Ron Harvey" <tw45ph@softhome.net> writes:

>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> I have recently assembled the following edited summary of facts, all
> derived from reports available online purporting to originate from on
> scene witnesses, my immediate purpose being to define the identity and
> the flight path of whatever object hit the Pentagon last September.
>
> I post the information without comment, except plead for further
> additions, corrections, refutations or whatever other criticism or
> opinion.
>
> While forming my own opinion as to whether or not to trust the
> official version of September 11th events in general, in these
> particulars I especially wish to emphasise that I am not working with
> or for any particular organisation, nor with any other preconceived
> agenda, merely as a regular member of the England and Wales Green
> Party, concerned to comprehend the ramifications of the moot events
> and the consequent enormity of the political challenges.
>
> Towards an honestly open minded, intelligent approach, sincerely,
>
> Ron Harvey
>
>
> ===================================================================
>
> . Anon, from the Navy Annex.
> As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar
> and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver
> cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right
> shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the
> heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed
> to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia
> Pike
> - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast,
> at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in
> all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for
> approximately 3 seconds.
> The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct
> course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no
> flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly
> left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just
> "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to
> level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he
> impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo,
> tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5.
> http://www.ournetfamily.com/WarOnTerror/emails/pentagonwitness.html
>
> -----------------------------
> . Donald "Tim" Timmerman, a 36 year old resident of Eppington Drive,
> to the south of the Pentagon across Interstate 395, is a navy pilot
> and a photographer.
> "I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking
> the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And
> being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet
> engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came
> right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as it went by the
> Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little
> bit more, and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out,
> and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into
> the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground,
> but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the
> conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
> What can you tell us about the plane itself?
> It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.
> You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?
> 7-5-7.
> 757, which, of course..
> American Airlines.
> American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.
> Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and
> looking at a helicopter. It was just right there. . .
> http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html . .
>
> -----------------------------
> A CNN on-the-sight reporter was interviewed by a fellow from CNN :
>
> You got a close-up look at the damage, didn't you?
> Yes, I was right next to the building.
> And what did you see?
> I saw a big, gaping hole and I could see pieces of the plane inside.
> Earlier, an eye-witness told us the plane didn't crash into the
> building.
> Well, I don't know what it looked like from where he was, but I
> looked right inside the hole and I know it crashed into the building.
> http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/spin.htm
>
> -----------------------------
> . Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter , was en route to work.
> ". . I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: A silver,
> twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over
> the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just
> hundreds of yards away.
> The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments
> exploded in a ground-shaking "whoomp,"
> http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-467181.php
>
>
> -----------------------------
> . John O'Keefe, 25-year-old Northern Virginia commuter, managing
> editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about
> lobbying was "not much more than a football field away" on
> ". saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately
> recognized it as an American Airlines jet,"
> "It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder,
> straight across where my car was heading.
> http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html
>
> -----------------------------
> . Joel Sucherman, USAToday.com Multimedia Editor, saw it all: an
> American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of
> vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning.
> It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground
> and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and
> before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-
> struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the
> Pentagon 100 yards away.
> "My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to
> National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to
> change direction. It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at
> a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its
> target and staying dead on course."
> http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D704%2526a%253D15161,00.asp
> "it came screaming across the highway, route 110"
> Was it a commercial jet? Do you know how many engines?
> "I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail; it was a
> silver jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an
> American Airlines jet, it was not a commercial, excuse me, a business
> jet, it was not a lear jet, it was a bigger plane than that.".
>
> -----------------------------
> . Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side
> of the road when the plane flew over his head.
> "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr
> Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my
> head.
>
> A woman driver wanting to exit from Interstate 395 saw "a commercial
> plane that came in and was coming too fast and too low and the next
> thing we saw was it go down below the side of the road and we just saw
> the fire.."
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html
>
> -----------------------------
> Brig. Gen. Clyde A. Vaughn, deputy director of military support to
> civil authorities.
> was returning to the Pentagon Sept. 11 returned urgently from a
> meeting, north along Interstate 395 . While exiting the ramp to the
> Pentagon he "was scanning the air. There wasn't anything in the air,
> except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over
> Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank," he said. "That may have been
> the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern."
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/pentagon.terrorism
> He pulled his car over and sprinted toward the gaping, flaming hole
> "It took me four to five minutes to get there,"
> http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0901/091401kp1.htm
> http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Sep2001/a20010919fireheroes.html
>
> -----------------------------
> Mark Bright, was the first security officer to arrive at the scene,
> having actually seen the plane hit the building while manning the
> guard booth at the Mall Entrance.
> "I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area,"
> "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very,
> very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."
> He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the
> Pentagon.
>
> http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/6_39/local_news/10797-1.
> html
>
> -----------------------------
> Alan Wallace, a 55 year old Fort Myer firefighter was standing with
> fellow fire-fighter Mark Skipper, about 200 feet away from the
> catastrophe, standing outside their fire station. They bath suffered
> first and second degree burns.
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/635293.asp
> Wallace described a white airplane with orange and blue trim,
> heading almost straight at them. "When I felt the fire, I hit the ground,"
> http://detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/11/nation-291261.htm
> "I just happened to look up and see the plane. It was about 200
> yards away, and was coming in low and fast. I told Mark that we needed
> to get the hell out of there."
> Dennis Young, a third fireman at the scene, but inside the fire
> house, had been one of the first to respond when a Canadian C-130
> crashed near Fairbanks, Alaska in 1989.
> "I knew from past experience that it was a plane crash."
> www.iaff.org/across/news/archives/102401local.html
>
> -----------------------------
> At a media briefing, Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clark told the story
> of Capt. Lincoln Liebner, who was outside the Pentagon when the blast
> took place. He rushed into the building to help. His hands were
> burned, and after he was taken away to a hospital for treatment, he
> returned later in the day to do more.
>
> . Captain Lincoln Liebner, was parking his car at the moment of
> attack:
> 'I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast
> and low,' said Army Captain Lincoln Liebner.
> 'We got one guy out of the fire truck cab,' he said, adding he
> could hear people crying inside the wreckage.
>
> http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/html/webspecial/WTC/wtcnews15.html
> "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast
> and low,"
> "My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I
> realised what was happening,
> Captain Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the
> helipad, setting fire to a fire truck.
> We got one guy out of the cab," he said, adding he could hear people
> crying inside the wreckage.
> Captain Liebner, who had cuts on his hands from the debris, says he
> has been parking his car in the car park when the crash occurred.""
> http://abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010911230953_1.htm
>
> -----------------------------
> . Alfred S. Regnery, president and publisher of Regnery Publishing,
> Inc., a sister company of Human Events saw
> ". . a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a
> couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead."
> http://www.humanevents.org/articles/09-17-01/regnery.html
>
> -----------------------------
> . Mike Walter, 46, USA Today reporter, said
> "I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you
> know, typical rush- hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked
> out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming.
> And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'
> And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It
> went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/attack.in.their.words
>
> -----------------------------
> Sergeant Maurice L. Bease had worked around Marine aviation long
> enough to know what a fly-by was, and it sounded like one as he stood
> outside his office near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Turning around
> expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second
> glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the
> building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed
> into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards
> from where he stood.
> Report by Maj Fred H. Allison, USMCR (Ret):
> http://www.mca-marines.org/Leatherneck/nov01pentagonarch.htm
>
> -----------------------------
> . Afework Hagos, 26, of Arlington, is a computer programmer, a
> consultant for Nextel. On his way to work he was stuck in a traffic
> jam on Columbia Pike, near the Pentagon when the plane flew over.
> "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the
> plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions.
> It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It
> hit some lampposts on the way in."
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550486,00.html
> . He saw a plane flying very low and close to nearby buildings. "I
> thought something was coming down on me. I know this plane is going to
> crash. I've never seen a plane like this so low."
> He said he looked at it and saw American Airline insignia and when
> it made impact with the Pentagon initially he saw smoke, then flames.
>
> http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr
> v/
> metro/daily/sep01/attack.html
>
> -----------------------------
> Dave Winslow, AP Radio Reporter lives across the street. He saw
> ."the tail of a large airliner ."
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4254882,00.html
>
> -----------------------------
> Eugenio Hernandez, an AP video journalist, was driving by the
> Pentagon and saw the plane crashing. He borrowed a tourist's video
> camera began shooting.
>
> http://www.apbroadcast.com/AP+Broadcast/about+us/miscellaneous/in+the+
> ne
> ws.htm
>
> -----------------------------
> Christine Peterson, '73 found herself in the thick of last month's
> terrorist tragedy, and submitted this report:
> ". . I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad
> at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as
> the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window
> to the left
> --
> and saw a plane flying so low I said, "holy cow, that plane is going
> to hit my car" (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew
> over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing."
> http://www.naualumni.com/News/News.cfm?ID=613&c=4
>
> -----------------------------
> Fred Gaskins, was driving to his job as a national editor at USA
> TODAY near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead.
> "(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the
> obvious target, It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any
> hint that anything was wrong."
>
> . Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of
> Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack-usat.htm
>
> -----------------------------
> . Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co. was on
> the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395.
> "I was right underneath the plane. I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw
> debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles. It was like a
> WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."
> Steve Patterson, is a graphics artist who works at home.in a
> 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. While watching events unfold on
> TV he saw a silver commuter jet fly past his window about 150 yards
> away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground,
> He said it appeared to him that a commuter jet which appeared to
> hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but
> was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway.
> The plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter
> jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going
> to land on I-395.
> "at a frightening rate .,.,. just slicing into that building." He
> saw bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.
> John Damoose, a Travis City, Mich. native who was in a meeting said
> "everybody got nervous. .,.,. We didn't know whether to stay inside or
> go outside. The thing with terrorist attacks is that you don't know
> what is the next thing that will happen."
> He said the worst part was leaving the Pentagon and walking along
> Fort Meyer Drive, a bike trail, "you could see pieces of the plane."
>
> http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr
> v/
> metro/daily/sep01/attack.html
>
> -----------------------------
> Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at
> Arlington national Cemetery. McGraw estimates that the plane passed
> about 20 feet over his car, as he waited on the northbound side of
> Washington Boulevard.
> "I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear
> anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars."
> "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us,
> injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.
>
> http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_39/local_news/10772-1.html
>
> http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_crash_eyewitness_comforted_victi
> ms
> .html
>
> -----------------------------
> Allen Cleveland of Woodbridge Virginia looked out from a Metro train
> going to National Airport, to see a jet heading down toward the
> Pentagon.
> "I thought, 'There's no landing strip on that side of the subway
> tracks,' " Before he could process that thought, he saw "a huge
> mushroom cloud. A lady staThe lady next to me was in absolute hysterics."
> " . . a silver pasenger jet, mid sized"
>
> http://mfile.akamai.com/920/rm/thepost.download.akamai.com/920/nation/
> 09
> 1101-5s.ram
> http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170005.html
>
> Meseidy Rodriguez confirms "it was a mid size plane".
>
> -----------------------------
> Oscar Martinez ``.. saw a big jet flying close to the building
> coming at full speed. There was a big noise when it hit the
> building,'' said , who witnessed the attack.
> http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APdc.html
>
> -----------------------------
> Ron Turner, the Navy's deputy chief information officer, was
> standing at a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery:
> "There was a huge fireball, followed by the black cloud of a
> fuel burn."
> "It reminded me of being back in Vietnam, watching Tan Son Nhut Air
> Base burn."
> http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0901/091301j3.htm
>
> -----------------------------
> ARFF fire Crews reported fires on every floor of the "D" and "E"
> rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring.
> "The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we
> saw pieces of the nose gear.
>
> http://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exc
> lu
> sive_11.01.01.asp
>
> -----------------------------
> State Department employee Ken Ford,said he watched from the 15th
> floor of the State Department Annex,just across the Potomac River from
> the Pentagon.
> We were watching the airport through binoculars, Ford said,
> referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane
> was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then
> it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off
> and then it hit the building.
> Daniel and Cynthia McAdams said they were sitting in heir kitchen
> drinking coffee in their third-floor condominium in Arlington,Va.,
> just two miles from the Pentagon when they heard a plane fly directly
> over head around 9:45 a.m. It was unusually loud and low.
>
> http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/09/pdf/09112001EX
> TR
> A2.pdf
> http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2001/0912/wor5.htm
>
> -----------------------------
> Steve Riskus, fortuitously on scene photographer wrote:
> 2I took these pictures less then 1 minutes after I watched the
> american airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on September 11
> 2001. I left shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further
> attacks.
> Feel free to contact me anytime if you have questions about my
> pictures.
> I did acctually see the plane impact the building."
> http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html
>
> -----------------------------
> Mickey Bell, an electrical contractor's foreman was working to
> renovate the second and third floors. Outside, and less than 100 feet
> from the initial impact of the plane, he was very nearly struck by one
> of the wings as they sped by him. He had just left the project trailer
> (that exploded) when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled
> was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the
> blast.
> He got into his truck, parked in the trailer compound, and sped away.
> Plastic and rivets from an airplane were later found imbedded in its
> sheet metal
> http://www.necanet.org/whats_new/report.cfm?ID=1003:
>
> http://www.ecmag.com/industrynews/index.cfm?fuseaction=view&art_id=1115
> "We went out to look at his truck and the truckbed was filled with
> all kinds of debris that must have come from the blast. He's one
> really lucky guy,"
>
> -----------------------------
> Wayne T. Day, President of ' Kirlin', Rockville MD, says
> "We had one guy who was standing, looking out the window and saw the
> plane when it was coming in. He was in front of one of the blast-
> resistant windows,"
> http://www.designbuildmag.com/oct2001/pentagon1001.asp
>
> -----------------------------
> Steve Snaman, manager of the datacom division for Walker Seals,
> watched from Fort McNair (across the river) as the jetliner came in
> low at full throttle, banked left and smashed into the wall of the Pentagon.
>
> http://www.ecmag.com/industrynews/index.cfm?fuseaction=view&art_id=111
> 7
>
> ========================= end ===============================


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-04 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Fair enough. For your information, I have now read all your stuff.
And it's caused me to file the "NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON" theory -- which I've always suspected as being purposeful disinfomation -- into the certain disinformation pile.

Thanks.

However, I don't see any evidence that Flight 77 itself definitively hit the Pentagon, so I'll remain agnostic on that. Nor do I see any evidence that Haji Hanjour piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon, and I remain skeptical of that little conjecture.

And considering the sincere salutation on your email, I'm wondering how you made those little leaps of faith ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-04 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. "leaps of faith"...?
I really don't understand that sort of comment.

In view the evidence there is no possible doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I know of no other aircraft apart from a B757 which would fit so exactly with the damage pattern, nor do I see the slightest trace of any real eveidence of a conspiracy to falsify evidence or testimony. That's where the leap of faith and the conjecture comes into it, to suppose that it is possible for literally hundreds if not thousands of people to be knowingly involved in a criminal conspiracy directly entailing the endangerment of their own mortality! Please do not forget that what the witnesses have been alleged to lie about damm near killed them in the process! Would you have lied about it?

I dont know whether or not Hanjour flew the plane. Maybe he did, maybe not. Whoever did fly the plane I think it most likely that the Pentagon was not an intended target, not at least until the very last minute and that's why they've been so officially quiet about certain aspects of the event. An unintended hit on the Pentagon or an own goal would kinda spoil the effect of the story, wouldn't it? I think the C130 that chased the B757 may have had something to do with it. Chase in that direction and maybe you'll get somewhere. The No Boeing nonsense has been going around and around for more than two whole years, in the same old circles, and its no further to anywhere now than it was when it started.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-04 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. What is the EVIDENCE you speak of that confirms that a 757 -- rather
than another type of plane hit the Pentagon?

Come on, RH. Let's see the EVIDENCE that it must have been a 757 rather than any other plane with a reasonably similar wingspan.

And once you are done with that. Let's see the EVIDENCE that the plane was that hit the Pentagon was Flight 77. Seriously. If you know of any that's been made public, I'd love to see it.

Once again, I agree with you that a plane hit the Pentagon. And it wasn't just a missile or a plane with a very short wingspan like a fighter. But what EVIDENCE tells you more than that?

Did the C-130 pilot tell you something? Or is he one of the witnesses you missed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-04 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #78
81. The evidence I especially refer to:


a) the visible damage to the Pentagon wall above the entrance to corridor 4. The wing tip just clipped the edge of a column and that gives the wing span.

b) the distance between the two points where the engines hit the objects on the ground just before the fuselage hit the building, alongside the need for the gap between the engines to clear the cable spools. Because of the nature of the damage that distance is measurable to within one or two feet.

JP Desmoulins who ran one of the pertinent web sites used to propose that a B737 hit the Pentagon, not a B757. When I then pointed out what I say above he retracted. If you dont want to take his word for it work it out for yourself. Photos of the area, satelite views and local maps are all to be found online.

The fact of Flight 77 was of course confirmed by the subsequent autopsy.

I do not supply official autopsy documents. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology does. Write to Bonnie Short, the FOIA/privacy act officer.

The fact was also confirmed by the discovery of the black box flight recorder, with the usual authorities involved.

Stories about O'Brien, the C130 pilot, have appeared online, with quotes, but it did take some considerable time for that to come out. If you're then wondering why the star witness was not center stage, I shall agree. It is especially odd that stories about the Air Traffic Controller at Washington Dulles failed completely to mention the military aircraft they'd been in contact with at the time.

Why so shy?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #25
63. Well, Flight 93 is my area of expertise.
Edited on Sat Sep-11-04 12:53 AM by stickdog
Concerning your exhaustive eyewitness reports, is this all bad info?

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm

For example, did you talk to Steve Patterson?

The autopsy positively identified 58 of the passengers.

So then I assume that it also found 5 DNA samples that didn't match the passengers -- that is, the HIJACKERS. So what efforts were made to identify these remains?

The black boxes were not supposedly destroyed. Information was recovered.

Really? So why can't the US public get access to this information? Any legitimate reason that you can think of?

On Feb. 19, 2002 the NTSB published a "FlightPath Study--American Airlines Flight 77," It is cited on page 455 of the 9/11 Commision Report.

What the fuck is this supposed to prove? So where are all these FlightPath Studies, anyway? In the 9/11 Commission's FOOTNOTES, for God's sake? Why aren't they on the NTSB website? Have you obtained them, and if so, why don't you let me see them?

Finally, as I said before, everyone knows that eyewitness testimony is notoriously erroneous. Except you, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. Nice try but .........
Steve Patterson was not even talked to by Barbara Vobejda, the reporter who wrote the often quoted Washington Post story. One should therefore urge to file it as one of the most unreliable of all the reports of the time.

The reporter presumably got the story second hand from a Mr. Stauffer who would appear to have been Mr. Patterson's live in "spouse" at the River House Apartments, while also working at the Washington Post.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Marc+Stauffer%22+Pentagon&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=OFAC08CDDE.22C4FE83-ON85256AC5.00497E54%40washpost.com&rnum=8

Ive not heard anything at all directly from Patterson since 9/11, maybe he doesn't even exist or maybe "Patterson" was a psuedonym, but on several occassions Stauffer did turn up on the Internet.

Patterson and Stauffer both have no doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. If you don't believe it ask them.

On September 12th 2001 Stauffer wrote this:

I sit here with the smell of burnt flesh embedded in my nostrils and my
> clothes. I close my eyes and see the blood, body parts and bodies hanging
> from the demolished part of the Pentagon. I relive it. My lover saw 120
> people killed in front of his eyes at one time. I see my immediate
> neighbors whose husbands or wives were killed yesterday. I can also close
> my eyes and see the blood - head to toe on the EMTs and police who tried to
> rescue the dying at the Pentagon. I'm living a nightmare - and I AM angry
> enough to righteously advocate war.



http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Marc+Stauffer%22+Pentagon&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=005401c13be4%240157d440%24579481d4%40ws1&rnum=7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-04 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. After reading your stuff & the associated links,
Edited on Mon Sep-13-04 05:11 PM by stickdog
I now believe there is compelling evidence that A plane hit the Pentagon.

My quest is for the truth, not to prove my advance version of it correct. I think you will find me a careful steward of the facts as I understand them.

But you left all my other questions unanswered.

I still want to know why we can't see any of the surveillance camera footage except the one Pentagon release in which you can't see anything meaningful. I also want to know what's on the Flight 93 & 77 data recorders. I also want to know what attempts we've made to positively ID the alleged hijackers and what was the result of these (assumed) massive, urgent and well-staffed investigations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StClone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just Read on Freeper Wrap
That Clinton's heart condition was cocaine related. And we have problems with questions regarding inconsistencies and oddities of 9-11!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. What's been "moved to the basement"?
I've seen threads relocated to the 9/11 forum from GD, but once here WE decide who stays at the top of the page...by posting.

Have I missed some new policy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carlvs Donating Member (165 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Not quite...
The complaints are actually the reverse - the "tinfoil hat squad" actually want their rantings to be placed in the GD area for the world to see. They somehow think that this would attract more people to their point of view. The idea that the opposite could also happen (i.e: more efforts to debunk their arguments and/or attacks on their mental state) appears to have never entered their minds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yeah, well I'd like to post drink recipies in GD2004....
...it ain't gonna happen.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iriee Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. ?
What does Freeper mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-03-04 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Denizens of FreeRepublic.com
Edited on Fri Sep-03-04 04:57 PM by MercutioATC
...or Republicans if you're speaking in a general sense.

Welcome to DU!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Right
thanks for your precise argument.

Conspiracy theorists are born nutty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-04-04 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
9. DU admin...
may or may not have kept 9/11 threads hidden. Don't know. But you contradict yourself when you say you DON'T care what Freepers think but... they may 'make mischief' of the 'more irrational theories' publicized here, ie, you DO care to some extent, thus watch what you say, nothing too crazy please, the Freepers might use it against us.
Brave words indeed.

Let's take your own blogspot and F 9/11 'plugs' for example. Do you think Freepers see F 9/11 as rational? Are they down with the ideas in your blog? And how to decide what is irrational? Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, gun control, abortion rights, gay rights, etc may be 'highly irrational' depending on politics and cultural perspective.

And there are some, perhaps many, who still find it highly irrational that the most powerful military force in the history of the world allowed Third World terrorists with box-cutters to hijack four passenger planes and hit three prime targets inside US borders, and to date N0-ONE has been held accountable for this unprecedented failure of intelligence and defense. Is it not 'highly irrational' that half of the electorate thinks the Govt that let that happen is strong on terrorism?

Note to newbies and others- there are at least TWO Conspiracy Theory types on these threads. One supports the 'Official' CT, the other does not. Read the threads and decide which CT makes the most sense to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-06-04 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I'm willing to let F 9/11 stand on its own merits when watched.
I try to do the same with my blog.

Flight 77 denial crosses a threshold of rationality, though. People are entitled to their own opinions (F 9/11, my blog) but not their own facts.

I don't find anything irrational in the most powerful military force in the history of the world being blindsided by an asymetrical challenge. But the fact that no one has been held accountable? I don't find that irrational; I find it offensive and outrageous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Agree with last sentence......
You admit tending to LIHOP, semantically close to MIHOP. Well, I wasn't even LIHOP 3 yrs ago- I was an 'incompetence plus luck' person. But Pentagon photos opened up Pandora's box. I question anyone who has looked at the photos that still accepts 'Boeing crash', having shown the photos to skeptics of various political stripes. Afterwards not one accepted a Boeing crash at the Pentagon. They still asked how, where did the plane and passengers go, why would our govt do this, but they no longer believed in 'Boeing crash'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Then you don't understand what you're looking at.
With a combination of the various pictures, you can tell that the initial hole is about 90 ft across, with facade damage stretching out 120 ft. In the middle of the hole it rises two stories high, and one picture shows a mark at the exact angle and place that the tailfin would have struck the building, since the landing gear wasn't deployed. The largest pieces of the plane went inside the building, and the rest was torn to tiny pieces that rained down on eyewitnesses all over the lawn, the highway, and the Pentagon.

Did you also show these people the hundred of eyewitnesses to this crash? Do you know of any, ANY, eyewitness to the crash who currently thinks it was anything but Flight 77? Don't cherrypick me a couple of witnesses here and there who thought at the time that it sounded like a missile or it looked like a small commuter plane: I'm talking about right now. "Sounded like a missile" doesn't equate with "it was a missile". Even people who thought they saw a small commuter plane now say it was Flight 77 - it had to be.

Did you also tell these people about the victims on board Flight 77? Did you show them where the bodies were found? Did you take them to see their families as they buried their relative who boarded Flight 77 that day, and was pulled from the wreckage?

Did you also tell these people about the primary radar evidence that shows Flight 77 at every stage of its journey, from takeoff to crashing at the Pentagon?

There's a site to which we don't link because of its unchecked antisemitism. It has a picture of a huge pile of aluminum outside the Pentagon during the cleanup process. The Pentagon is made of concrete and wood: where did all of that aluminum come from? Did you show these people that picture?

Did you also show them the work of Mr. Bosenkoe, who almost perfectly places a scaled outline of the airplane into the first security cam. If he had rotated it to the angle of approach, and lowered it just a touch, it would have matched the discernable plane on the picture exactly.

Did you also tell them about the employees of the Sheraton hotel that watched a tape of the event over and over? Has any of these employees made any claim whatsoever that something besides Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

In short, TW, you are holding tightly to an erroneous perception based on a few confusing pictures. You are ignoring a great deal of actual evidence to do so. And you are spreading this perception to others without giving them the chance to look at all the evidence. You might want to rethink that.

Oh, and you might want to rethink the Zapruder film too. But that's another topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Then you don't know what YOU are looking at....
(The nerve of some CT'ers!) One good photo please, as requested. I've seen the aluminium bits and whatnot pics, but still need to see a plane, or engine(s) big enough for a Boeing, or a wing or two. And if that hole is 90 feet wide- there's a 2 for 1 offer at Vision Express until the end of the month. One of us should get on down there, asap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. How about a wheel from a commercial airliner?
I'm sure you've seen THAT pic. If it wasn't a commercial airliner that crashed there, where did the wheel come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. the wheel fairies left it. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #22
37. One thing is for sure.

If wreckage was planted whoever planted it was invisible, cos nobody's yet found anybody who saw them do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
58. see!
that proves it cause wheel fairies are invisible! the same with the gnomes that planted the explosives around the WTC, and the pole elves that knocked down the telephone poles around the Pentagon, etc... Not to mention the pixie dust use dto make the pod under the 2d plane to hit the WTC.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Pixie dust was NOT used to make the "pod"!
It was used to levitate the plane into the air because the "pod" eliminated the starboard main landing gear.

Geez, WoodrowFan, sometimes your theories are really silly.

:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #61
73. sorry
(hangs head) I am ashamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Hole 90 ft wide, from column 9 to column 19
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Good. For newbies or others
Please click on the BB's link, you will get an idea of what constitutes evidence to some. Shows why we need to proceed with caution on the net. Still need plane photos though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. I clicked
Stupidest bunch of crap I ever saw. And no photos.

No wonder bolo thinks the way she does. For a long time now, we have asked, pleaded, and begged bolo to provide photos and all she ever came up with is that stupid website! Hahahaha

Those, "Oh, it makes me mad they were so incompetent" Bush believing, Conspiracy Theorists are sad. They have such capabilities, yet they squander themselves defending Bush's story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Tell me what you'd like photos of. I'll provide them if I can.
Just be sure you're prepared to provide physical evidence that supports your assertions.

Your call....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Naked Girls! Hahahaha
Actually, just one pic of something that proves that a 757 crashed into the pentagon. I've seen the burnt wheel rim, the shredded metal (unburned, unconfetti'ed)on the grass, the 16 foot hole, the unburned grass, the fuzzy pic from the air posted on snopes(hahaha), the fan blade and the poles knocked down, but I've yet to see on pic that makes me think a 757 hit the pent.

Ya got one? Just one? Hahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. You've seen all the photos
and you're still talking about a 16 foot hole?

That is really sad.

:cry:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. All available photos, ya, ya, ya
You, RH, the famous researcher, can't show us any more than what's available to the least interested.

Doesn't that give you pause? Doesn't that make you feel that you really don't know much? I admit I don't, and that's why I state that I don't know what happpened.

Ya see, I do know enough to know that what I know is not enough. I've even read most all your stuff and that is not enough.

All I am asking for is ALL the evidence be made available. You, RH, can't give it to us, so why don't you just admit it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Strangely enough

I don't happen to own any evidence.
I didn't happen to pick up any plane parts.
I was not there to see.

So what is the big deal about that supposed to be?

I merely happened to some time to get the picture, found that the whole 'No Boeing' nonsense is obviously enough at best a wild goose chase and at worst a deliberate ploy to distract and besmirch by association, so I thought it a good idea to save others the time or the embarassment.
If you don't then want to know, or hung up on another opinion, too bad, there are plenty of other places to go. I'll shed no tears about it.

Others were there to see.
Go talk to them.
See what they have to say about you doubt and your attitude.

Can you explain the five felled lamp poles except in terms of Flight 77 passing by?

Doesn't that give you pause?

Not one person who was there at or near to the Pentagon to see for themselves has since been known to suscribe to any doubt at all that Flight 77 hit the building.

Doesn't that give you pause?








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. "Not one person"
Ya see, it's statements like that that make me disbelieve you, and discount any theory you have.

Afterall, that is all you have.... a theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. Show us one

Can you show us an eye witness with any time at all to spare for your silly nonsense?

No you can't, can you?

You never actually heard of one did you?

I thought not

Put up or shut up.

Any fool can heckle.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Almost alert, almost
Edited on Fri Sep-10-04 02:03 PM by BeFree
Ya came close. Personal attacks are not allowed. That includes name calling.

Anyway, if it makes you feel better:

Although only 1/10th of the information about AA77 is known by anyone outside the boosh administration, certainly RH has the wisdom and experience to absolutely and without reservation, convince any and all disbelievers of the boosh administration that what they have been feeding us is unquestionable.

Not.

Hahahaha...so very sad that you believe what you say is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you boosh. Hahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Is that all you've got?
The same old extremely boring ad hominem tedium?

As if Hahahaha was not a personal attack?

You've got nothing to actually show that it is not true, have you?

I thought not.

No witness who saw for themselves has since subscribed at all to the suspicion that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Not one.

Which is not really so funny, is it?

:argh:

Bye Bye.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. What is your problem?
If you don't like the fact that I don't see things the same way as you, (and it oughtta be obvious by now that I never will), why do you keep posting here?

Time and again you have said you are wasting your time.

Time and again you have said bye, well, then goodbye.

Are you frustrated that you are not convincing? Is that your problem? 'Cause if it is, I can understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #59
69. That's precisely the problem

You never will.

I'd mistakenly presumed a willingness of some sort to take on board a few significant facts.

Sorry for having wasted the time.

Bye Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #31
38. I'll get right on that :)
Seriously, you say "just one pic of something that proves that a 757 crashed into the pentagon." Then you say that you've seen the picture of the wheel rim and I'll assume you've seen the pictures of the gear strut. I've posted photos of the "burned wheel rim" and a wheel still on a 757 side by side in this forum. They appear identical. That wheel didn't come from an F-16 or a business jet.

If you're not claiming that the wheel was planted, and it's obviously not from a smaller aircraft, why isn't that proof of a large jet crash?

I think it's also important to realize that we only have a dozen or so pictures available to us (of debris). It's probably unreasonable to assume that they represent all of the pictures taken that day or all of the debris that was there. There are eyewitness statements of an engine that ended up by a loading dock. Unfortunately, there are no pictures.

I agree that there isn't much photographic evidence, but none of the evidence that we have seen refutes the claim that AAL77 crashed into the Pentagon. In fact, all of the photographic evidence seems to support that fact. Between the photos, the eyewitness reports, the damage (as explained in the ASCE report) and the DNA recovered I see quite a bit of evidence that AAL77 did, in fact, crash at the Pentagon.

I do agree, however, that more evidence should be released.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. "More evidence should be released"
Yes.

I ask myself: Could those items have been planted?
Yes.

Why only one wheel? Why just one of anything, when a 757 has numerous items that can/did/usually survive such a crash?

Why did the pathologists test the human remains for explosives?

Could some human remains have been planted?

Why is Rumsfeld quoted as saying it was a missile?

Too many unanswered questions. Not enough evidence that is verifiable. Too many loose leads.

The FBI can provide lots of evidence. Why won't they? What are they hiding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. ............

Metal confetti was strewn over a wide area.

If you think that could have been planted, then tell us how and why. If the desired effect was that of airliner crash then why would not an airliner crash suffice? The thesis is absurd from the start.

Why did the pathologists test the human remains for explosives?

Presumably in case the hijackers used a bomb.

Could some human remains have been planted?

If you think the remains could have been planted, then tell us how and why. If the desired effect was that of airliner crash then why would not an airliner crash suffice? The thesis is absurd from the start.

Rumsfeld did not say it was a missile. Read the quote.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. Metal confetti... hahahaha
That is the most absurd thing about ya'lls claims.

Quoting ya'll:

"A hollow tube, whose wings folded up crashed through a hardened exterior, destroyed massive masonary structures and creating holes all the way through said structures, also turned into confetti."

Hahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. That's what happened.
The plane disintegrated.

Like this:





http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #50
62. That what was concluded in the ASCE report.
If you can effectively refute their claim, I'd invite you to do so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #38
43. It is worth remembering that

early in 2002 the pics you're talking about had not yet circlated on the Internet. Then because a lot of people were saying "just one pic of something that proves..." anablep put a lot of time into digging some up.

But still they said "just one pic of something that proves that a 757 crashed into the pentagon." so a few more pics were dug up.

They'd also been saying that because no lamp poles were hit a Boeing could not have hit the Pentagon; the poles would have been hit. Then we showed that they were horribly wrong; five poles were indeed hit, and do you know what? I'd thought that would prove well enough that the converse must be true, that a Boeing must have passed by. What goes up must go down, except that....

This really is a complete waste of time and energy, isn't it?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. What has it got to do with Bush?
Your psychotic obsession with that buffoon may be your own chosen hang up; it is not mine.

:eyes:

I was drawn into this from what I heard from witnesses who were there at the scene, nothing to do with any government or official version. They spoke well before the government did and not one of those who were there to see for themselves has since subscribed at all to the suspicion that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Are you honestly not at all bothered by the simple force of the fact?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. Frankly, Bush knows, and you don't
So, you have reports that can be verified and cross examined? All of your witnesses have current contact numbers that you can make available to anyone who wants to ask follow up questions? You've seen all the FBI info?

Ya see, Bush can give us all that, and more. You can't. Bush has kept the vast pool of info away from me, and you. He can provide all the evidence, but he hasn't, has he? So, until you attack him for witholding the info, I can't place any faith in you.

I do have more faith in those here who realize there are forces constraining the investigation and witholding information. They are more correct. You, otoh, seem to be supporting Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. No, they don't

all have current contact numbers that I know of but most that I checked out some time ago did. Or do you prefer to think that they were all invented?

From the very start, in September 2001 Steve Riskus put up his mail handle and his phone number on his web site. Did you bother to call?
Others happened to be people already in the public eye.

Or you could talk to teachers and students at the Hoffman Boston Elememtary School, those who saw the plane fly over. The school's details are online.

I have not yet seen FBI info. If you see the need, do please go get. The more interesting details would pertain to O'Brien's C130 and the Flight 77 Black Box information

I have no doubt at all that forces constrain investigation but they certainly did nothing to constrain the hundreds of local witnesses who saw the event. They spoke. The loss is in others' refusal to listen. I never yet heard from any one of them of any gagging, coercion or coaching. Did you? Steve Riskus later said that the FBI had never even spoken to him about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. Speaking of eyewitnesses
Was listening to a lady the other day claim that flood waters were supposed to be two feet over the bridge we were standing near.

She was adamant that that bridge was going to flood: "She saw it on TV"

It never flooded. Not even close, yet she was an 'eyewitness'.

There you have it.

My point? Eyewitnesses remember only what they want to remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. Remembering hardly comes into it.

How come you're such an expert om remembering only what you want to?

Does it come with practice?

On Monday the 17 th, the Arlington (Virg.) police released a snippet of logging recorder tape, from the radio transmissions when the plane hit:

Dispatcher: "Motor 11 direct."
Motor 14: "Motor 14, it was an American Airlines plane, uh, headed eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike highway), possibly toward the Pentagon."
Dispatcher: "10-4. Cruiser 50 direct."

Fireman Allan Wallace also reported immediately from the scene:

"Foam 61 to Fort Myer," he said. "We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus."

http://web.naplesnews.com/02/09/naples/d655917a.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
17. Your delight the ghetto-ization of one of the most important current
political topics is delightfully transparent and perfectly in character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-07-04 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Duly noted.
You have anything to add to the discussion beside mindreading and ad hominem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I assume you can see all I've added tonight. Try the top 10 threads in
this little ghetto, if you really feel like playing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-08-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Are you playing?
I'm trying to have a serious discussion on the issues.

You wouldn't be trying to bait me for your own amusement, would you? That would be tacky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-09-04 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Whenever I discuss important issues with obvious shills, I'm playing. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC