You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Proof that official UA 93 story is a hoax [View All]

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
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-05 02:57 PM
Original message
Proof that official UA 93 story is a hoax
Advertisements [?]

Proof that the official UA 93 story is a hoax

by Team 8+ and Zaphod 36

The official story of the last minutes of UA 93 is that the alleged hijackers decided to crash the plane themselves as they judged the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them (Commission Report, 14). According to the map in the Commission Report the plane came in from northwest (CR, 33). It crashed with a speed of 580 mph (CR, 14).
The innumerous contradictions about what is supposed to have happened aboard UA 93 have been already analysed in detail in UA 93: Too many contradictions :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
The following article will present the evidence we do have for what happened in Shanksville and will compare it to the official explanation. Afterwards all theoretically possible scenarios will be examined if they do account for the found evidences.


First of all we will present the evidences we do have for what happened in Shanksville on 911. Remark that all presented evidence is based on many different sources and many different witnesses. Remark that all witnesses accounts were made within days of 911.


I. EVIDENCE:

1. A plane coming in from northwest:
According to the official flight path in the Commission Report UA 93 came in from northwest. That indeed a plane came in from this direction is confirmed by at least 15 witnesses. Here is a list of theses 15 witnesses and their localisation which is north, northwest and west of the crash site.


(Remark: The locations of witness (blue spots) are approximate only)



Boswell: (about 8 miles away) Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry. They noticed the plane at 2000 feet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...
(Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)

Oakbrook Golf Course: (about 8 miles west) Larry Williams heard the engines roar real loud and shut off.
(Daily American, 9/12/01)

Hooversville: (about 5 miles) Laura Temyer. She heard (but didnt see) the plane.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...

Stoystown: (about 4 miles)
Terry Butler saw the plane at about 500 feet.
Bob Blair saw the plane.
Linda Shepley saw the plane at 2,500 feet.
Rob Kimmel saw the plane at 100 or 200 feet flying southeast.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912somerscen...
(Jere Longman: Among the Heroes)
(Daily American, 9/12/01)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagenam...
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...

Lambertsville: (about two miles) Anita McBride heard and Eric Peterson saw the plane at maybe 300 feet.
(Cox, 9/12/01 b)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/xm...
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010911somerset0...
(Plain Dealer, 9/12/01 b; US News & World Report, 10/29/01)

Lambertsville Road: (one mile) Paula Pluta saw the plane through her window.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12940.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...
(New York Times, 9/12/01; AP, 9/12/01)

Shanksville: Charles Rhodes heard (being less than a quarter of a mile away) and Kelly Neverknight (Stony Creek Township of Shanksville) saw it.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...

http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...
(Daily American, 9/12/01)

Lambertsville Road: Tom Fritz (quarter of a mile) and Nevin Lambert (less than half a mile) saw the plane.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...
(Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/04)

The witnesses are all very sure to have seen the last minutes of the hijacked plane:
Interviews today with 10 people who saw the plane in its final five minutes seemed to support the possibility of a cockpit struggle.
The witnesses said the jet was flying east-southeast, very low and wobbly above the steep hills of the Laurel Mountains before it slammed into the ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...


The following eyewitnesses being west or northwest of the crash site saw the plane until it vanished behind some trees and supposedly crashed immediately afterwards:
Paula Pluta: (She) saw the plane dip sharply at a 60 degree or 70 degree angle as it flew southward and fall to the earth behind a line of trees in this area of cornfields and rolling hills. A fireball ballooned as high as 100 feet above the tree line, she said.
(New York Times, 9/12/01 d)

Eric Peterson: The plane continued on beyond a nearby hill, then dropped out of sight behind a tree line. As it did so, Peterson said it seemed to be turning end-over-end.
Then Peterson said he saw a fireball, heard an explosion and saw a mushroom cloud of smoke rise into the sky.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2...

We couldnt see past the tree line, but we knew it crashed. I didnt think it was going to clear these places. It looked like it tumbled.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12942.html
Rob Kimmel: "I saw the top of the plane, not the bottom," Mr. Kimmel said.
Within seconds , Mr. Butler and Mr. Kimmel said, they felt the concussion of the crash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/national/14PENN.html?...

Terry Butler: He said the plane disappeared behind a tree line on a ridge. "I knew it was going to crash," Butler said. About a second after it disappeared, he heard the boom and saw the smoke rise above the trees. "It was eerie."
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/A_blu...

And also Bob Blair is sure to have seen the plane that crashed:
I saw the plane flying upside down overhead and crash into the nearby trees. My buddy, Doug, and I grabbed our fire extinguishers and ran to the scene, said Blair.
(Daily American, 9/12/01)


Conclusion of first evidence:
We can summarize as evidence that at least 15 people witnessed a plane coming in from northwest to the crash site. 5 of them explicitly state (or implied) that they felt the crash right after the plane vanished behind the treeline.
A very approximate flight path would be:



Therefore we should be pretty sure that this plane was UA 93, shouldnt we?



2. A plane was coming in from the east:
But we dont only have at least 15 people who witnessed a plane coming in from the northwest but we do also have people who witnessed a plane coming in from the east. They are located at or close to the Indian Lake Marina:




Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12969.html

Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake, where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before falling apart on their homes.
People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling,
a state trooper said.

(Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 9/13/01)

One eyewitness that sees a plane is Jim Stop:
Jim Stop of Somerset was fishing at the Indian Lake marina , about three miles from the crash site, when he looked up and saw the plane overhead.
I heard the engine whine and scream, Stop said.
He then heard an explosion and saw a fireball.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12942.html

Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.
(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01)


Being inside Indian Lake Marina several witnesses heard a plane crossing Indian Lake:
All of a sudden the lights flickered and we joked that maybe they were coming for us. Then we heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom, said Fleegle, pointing to a clearing on a ridge at the far end of the lake.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html
(Newsday, 9/14/01)

Jim Brant, owner of Indian Lake Marina, said he rushed outside Tuesday morning when he heard the roar of jet engines overhead, then saw a fireball rise into the air.
(AP, 9/13/01 c)


Conclusion of second evidence:
Several people witnessed a plane coming in from the east just before the crash happened. All of them are sure that the plane they witnessed is the plane that crashed. Some also saw parts of the plane falling down.
Based on this the approximate flight path would be:





3. The raining debris:
Besides the crater of the plane two other debris fields were found:
Considerable debris washed up more than two miles away at Indian Lake, and a canceled check and brokerage statement from the plane was found in a deep valley some eight miles away that week (at New Baltimore).
http://web.archive.org/web/20011116093836/http://dailyn...

Strangely the debris wasnt continuous.

The FBI at first had its doubts that debris could have landed on Indian Lake.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html

"How it got there we're not sure," State Police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said.
(AP, 9/13/01 c)

One day later the explanation sounds pretty clear:
Szupinka said that lighter, smaller debris probably shot into the air on the heat of a fireball that witnesses said shot several hundred feet into the air after the jetliner crashed. Then, it probably rode a wind that was blowing southeast at about 9 mph, (FBI Special Agent Bill ) Crowley said.
According to the NTSB, not only is that possible ... it is probable that this stuff is debris from this crash,"
he said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914...

The FBI conclusion: "Nothing was found that was inconsistent with the plane going into the ground intact. "
http://web.archive.org/web/20021113183810/http://news.i...

But the journalist of the Independent openly questions the official wind theory:
Aviation experts I have contacted are very doubtful about this. One expert expresses astonishment at the notion that the letters and other papers
would have remained airborne for almost one hour before falling to earth.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021113183810/http://news.i...

Watching the video from webfairy one realizes that also the direction of the wind most likely wasnt east, southeast as officially claimed (and as necessary to explain the raining debris).
http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/emptyhole.htm
Also on several photos that show the smouldering crater the wind doesnt seem to blew the official direction.

But while the doubts about the real direction of the wind dont suffice to put to rest the official explanation the eyewitnesses do:

Meanwhile, investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake, where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before "falling apart on their homes."
"People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling,"
a state trooper said.
Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane.

(Pittsburgh Tribune, 9/13/01)

The wind would have needed 10 minutes (given the reported speed of 9 or 10 mph) to blow the debris from the crash site to Indian Lake Marina.
But there is not a single eyewitness that supports the official explanation.
Some see the debris raining down on the lake before, some right after the crash and some within minutes after the crash.
Nobody speaks of ten minutes.


Also in New Baltimore (8 miles east) debris was found eg: a payroll check.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html
This would imply that this check was blown by the wind for around 50 minutes without touching the water of the (not very small) Indian Lake it had to cross and to land in perfect condition in New Baltimore as it was still readable.
If this is difficult to believe the following eyewitness account from New Baltimore is in clear contradiction to the wind theory as the debris should have fallen on New Baltimore only about 50 minutes after the crash.:
The village of New Baltimore is a dozen or more miles by automobile but eight as the wind blows, which it was doing a year ago. Melanie Hankinson was at the church next to her home, transfixed before a television that showed the World Trade Center ablaze, when the man who sprays her lawn stopped by to tell her he was finding odd things in the weeds.
"He said there was a loud bang and smoke and then these papers started blowing through your yard," she said. "I said, 'Oh.' Then I went back to the TV." Then the parish priest, the Rev. Allen Zeth, told her an airplane had crashed in Shanksville.
For the next few hours, Hankinson gathered charred pages of in-flight magazines, papers from a pilot's manual -- she remembers a map showing the Guadalajara, Mexico, airport -- and copies of stock portfolio monthly earnings reports.
"And there was some black webbing -- a lot of people found that," she said. The webbing, flexible where it hadn't burned, crisp where it had, was from insulation lining the belly of the jetliner.

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/20020911roddy091 ...

For a list of the eyewitnesses and their accounts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Debris was also found that is much heavier than paper:
Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville said they found clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914...

By Wednesday morning, crash debris began washing ashore at the marina. Fleegle said there was something that looked like a rib bone amid pieces of seats , small chunks of melted plastic and checks.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12967.html
How can a wind of 9 mph blew pieces of seats over 1 miles?


Conclusion of third evidence:
The wind simply cannot have been responsible for the debris that was found on Indian Lake and in New Baltimore. The official explanation stands in sharp contrast to all eyewitnesses. Therefore the FBI and the NTSB lied.
The debris can only have come from a plane that was coming in from the east and crossing the Indian Lake. It cannot have come from a plane that was coming in from northwest.


Coroner Wallace Miller now claims that no human remains were found on Indian Lake: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842...

But right after 911 several accounts pointed out that indeed human remains were found on Indian Lake:
Brant has been taking FBI and ATF agents onto the lake to recover airplane parts and human remains.
(AP, 9/13/01)

On Wednesday morning, marina Service Manager John Fleegle found what he figured was a bone, washed up on one of the marina's concrete boat launches.
"It was maybe five inches long. It put me in mind of maybe a rib bone," Fleegle said. "I called the state police. They contacted the FBI, and they picked it up.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010914scene0914...
(Newsday, 9/14/01)

the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp...

It is hard to see why two eyewitnesses (working for the Indian Lake Marina) would lie about the human remains and why parts of seat cushions were found on Indian Lake (at least 1 miles east) but human remains (according to coroner Wallace Miller in his first statement about this topic which dates from March 2005) were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842...

If we believe the Jim Brant and John Feegle then also the human remains found on Indian Lake can only be from the plane coming in from the east. This is likely but we dont consider it as evidence as Wallace Millers word stands against it.


The crater:
A detailed analysis of the crater casts doubts that it can be possible that the plane coming in from the northwest caused the crater. The form of the crater indicates that the plane crashed at an angle of 90. If the eyewitnesses that estimated the altitude of the plane that flew horizontally before it vanished behind the trees arent completely wrong then the plane wouldnt have had the needed altitude in order to crash at an angle of 90.
For further details see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Remark that we dont consider this to be objective evidence. But it is still noteworthy as it casts serious doubts about the official theory.

Conclusion of the presented evidences:
Already at this point we can draw some disturbing conclusions:
We do have witnesses that saw a plane coming in from northwest and we do have witnesses that remarked a plane coming in from the east. Therefore it is quite likely that we talk about two planes. Both groups of witnesses were sure to have seen the plane that crashed. Given the fact that there was only one explosion and one fire as high as 200 feet it doesnt seem possible that we talk about two crashes. (Moreover there is only one crater and the fact that there was another crash would immediately imply a cover up).
We do have two planes coming in from opposite directions and one explosion. As it is hard to imagine that the plane crashed at the very same place exactly at the same time (but even this scenario implies a cover up) we have at least to assume that two planes were at the crash site within seconds of each other (otherwise we must ignore complete group of witnesses). In that case what happened with the second plane?


Before we examine all theoretical possible scenarios here a few remarks for a better background understanding:

- The coincidence that the very same C-130 that was present when the Pentagon was attacked is present when/or minutes after UA 93 crashed.
(Minnesota Star-Tribune, 9/11/02)
- The FBI knew since at least 15 minutes that the passengers tried to attack the hijackers (although bizarrely the FBI didn't give the passengers any advice via telephone).
- In case UA 93 really was shot down one has to remark as well that not a single eyewitness saw the white plane doing the required procedure of rocking the wings etc. before shooting down.
- The FBI officially declared that there has been no explosion aboard.



II. POSSIBLE SCENARIOS:
Now based on the evidences shown above we will examine all theoretical possible scenarios of what have happened in Shanksville on 911.
Decide for yourself the likelihood of every scenario.


ONE PLANE:

There was only one plane and it came in from the northwest:

This is the official theory. It corresponds with the flight path of the Commission Report and all the witnesses in the northwest of the crash site that saw the last minutes of the plane.
Problem: This theory cannot explain the raining debris east of the crash site. Nor does it explain the witnesses from Indian Lake.


There was only one plane and it came in from the east:
This scenario supported by the eyewitnesses in the east and it might also explain the raining debris.
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. (Why should the government lie about this?) All 15 eyewitnesses in the northwest would have had hallucinations. While the plane in this scenario is the source for the falling debris we dont have the cause for the raining debris yet. If the plane was holed: By whom? If there was a bomb aboard that exploded: Why should the FBI lie about it? (only to protect one security agent at Newark?!)


A plane came in from the northwest crossed Indian Lake and made a U-turn over New Baltimore and then finally came from east to the crash site:
This theory explains the eyewitnesses from the northwest and from the east at the same time.
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. This scenario is also in stark contradiction to the eyewitnesses. Five eyewitnesses saw the plane from the northwest vanishing behind the trees and heard then "within seconds" the sound of the crash. If the plane would have made the assumed U-turn it wouldn't have crashed seconds later but at least 3 minutes later (for the U-turn the plane needed to fly 17 more miles and to do a complete circle). But there are also not a single witness that saw the plane from the west flying towards New Baltimore. While for the last 8 miles of the plane from the west are at least 15 witnesses there would be not a single one for the 8 miles to New Baltimore. Moreover the plane was either holed or a bomb went off aboard.


A plane coming in from northwest and crossing then crossing Indian Lake
This scenario accounts for the eyewitnesses and implies that the witnesses in the east simply got the direction of the plane wrong.
Problem: Jim Stop sees the plane and the explosion. The witnesses inside the Indian Lake Marina hear a plane crossing the lake and then see the explosion. All the witnesses imply that it was the same plane. None mentioned that the plane crossing the lake was flying away from the crash site and therefore cant have crashed. Moreover even if theses witnesses got it wrong this scenario implies that the plane witnessed in the northwest didnt crash but simply crossed the crash site. As this is the only plane it implies the disturbing question what caused the crater then and which plane is in the crater?


TWO PLANES:
As all scenarios with only one plane are in strong conflict with the eyewitness accounts and the raining debris the logical move seems to assume the presence of two planes.


Two commercial planes:
Remark that the presence of two planes at the crash site is very coincidental to say the least.
Remark that right from the start this implies that the official side covered up the presence of one plane.
Remark that no commercial plane was scheduled to fly in this area.
Remark as well that one plane somehow managed to vanish after the crash as there is no eyewitness who remarked a commercial plane leaving the site after the crash.


"UA 93" came in from the northwest. Another commercial plane came in from the east:
Problem: The raining debris on Indian Lake can be from UA 93. The raining debris indicates that the commercial plane from the east was either holed or a bomb aboard went off. This certainly cannot have been made by the official hijackers. Why would a plane that wasn't UA 93 have been shot down? Or why was there a bomb? And officially UA 93 is in the crater so how can the commercial plane from the east have managed to mysteriously disappear after it was holed or had an explosion aboard?


A commercial plane came in from the northwest. "UA 93" came in from the east:
Problem: This contradicts the official flight path. The raining debris indicates that "UA 93" was either holed or a bomb went off aboard. Who could have shot down UA 93? How did the plane from the northwest manage to vanish after the crash?
This scenario clearly implies help on the ground and help with the cover up.


One commercial plane and the white plane:
While the scenario of two commercial planes is hardly believable we analyse now the possibility of a scenario involving the white plane that was seen at the crash site by at least seven eyewitnesses. Therefore theses scenarios dont have the problem of a mysteriously vanishing plane.


UA 93 came in from northwest chased by the white plane:
This scenario seem to correspond to a last minute decision to shoot down UA 93.
Problem: No explanation for the raining debris in the east nor for the witnesses in the east. Not a single witness in the west saw two planes.


UA 93 came in from the east chased by the white plane:
This scenario would be a shoot down scenario that explain the raining debris.
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. At least 15 witnesses in the west would have had hallucinations. Not a single witness in the east remarked two planes.


"UA 93" came in from the northwest. The white plane came in from the east:
This scenario comes close to the believe that the US-government decided to shoot UA 93 down.
Problem: The raining debris in the east is not explained by this scenario as long as we don't assume that the white plane dropped debris on purpose. This of course implies an event that must have been planed before 911. It therefore proves that it was an inside job.


The white plane came in from the northwest. "UA 93" came in from the east:
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. This scenario is in conflict with the eyewitnesses from the northwest. Although many eyewitnesses saw the plane in the northwest flying at a very low altitude and none remarked that it was a white military plane but apparently all witnesses believed to have seen "UA 93". The raining debris indicates that "UA 93" was either holed (but not by the white plane because they reached each other only at the crash site) or a bomb went off aboard. In case of a bomb there is once again the question why the FBI should lie about it?
The coincidence that a bomb went off aboard UA 93 just before it met the white plane at the crash site and that it wasnt recognized by a single eyewitness as a white military plane is hard to believe.



THREE PLANES:
The last logical possibility would be that in fact there have been even three planes at the crash site. Two commercial planes (coming from northwest and from east) plus the white plane.
In general this assumption already implies that the government lied about the presence of a second commercial plane (remark there was no commercial plane scheduled to fly in the area of the crash site. Moreover all commercial planes had been asked to land at the next airport since .).


UA 93 and the white plane from the northwest. A commercial plane from the east:
Problem: Not a single eyewitness saw a white plane following a commercial plane in the northwest. As after the crash only the white plane was seen: How did one commercial plane vanish? How could that have been possible without help on the ground and a cover-up? Why did the commercial plane in the east loose debris?


UA 93 from northwest. A commercial plane and the white plane from the east:
Problem: Not a single eyewitness remarked two planes coming in from the east. The debris certainly didnt come from UA 93. Why did the commercial plane in the east loose debris? How could one plane vanish? How could this be possible without help on the ground (preplaned) and a following cover up?


White plane and commercial plane from the northwest. UA 93 from the east:
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. In case UA 93 wasnt holed (by whom?) the only explanation is that a bomb went off aboard. Not a single eyewitness remarked two planes coming from the northwest. How did one plane manage to vanish?


A commercial plane from the northwest. UA 93 and the white plane from the east:
Problem: The official flight path would be a lie. Not a single eyewitness remarked two planes coming from the east. UA 93 was either holed or a bomb went off aboard. How did one commercial plane manage to vanish? Without help on the ground (preplaned) and a following cover up?


Rsume:
We examined every single theoretical imaginable scenario of what happened in Shanksville on 911.
The official explanation stands in sharp conflict with several evidences.
All scenarios that would correspond to an unfortunate last minute decision to shoot down UA 93 cant explain all the found evidences neither.
In fact all scenarios that do account for the above mentioned evidences prove some officials had a clear pre-knowledge of what happened to UA 93. Therefore what happened to UA 93 was a prepared action from the inside and not the result of the alleged hijackers work.

Therefore we can draw the conclusion that whatever happened to the plane that crashed in Shanksville:
The official explanation is a lie.
This lie doesnt cover up an unfortunate last minute decision to shoot down UA 93.
Based on the presented evidences is seems extremely likely that what happened to UA 93 was not done by the alleged hijackers but was the result of an inside job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | 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