Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wellstone Crash: Accident or Assassination?

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
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 11:35 PM
Original message
Wellstone Crash: Accident or Assassination?
Edited on Fri Sep-10-04 11:48 PM by stickdog
Any legitimate hypothesis of what happened to Wellstone's plane that fateful morning needs to address a few findings of fact. First, during or just after the final approach turn, the plane veered off to the left of its proscribed approach so much that the CDI needle would have been pegged all the way to side for almost two minutes before the plane crashed. So what happened? Were the pilots tracking something other than the correct VOR? If so, wouldn't the distance indicator have been a dead giveaway?

Therefore, we must assume that the pilots were NOT making a non-precision coupled approached, but a manual approach instead. So who makes a manual approach in overcast, instrument conditions without EVER checking the CDI needle over the last two minutes of flight? TWO pilots and neither ever glances at the CDI needle once during that entire period? Because this is what the NTSB's "shit happens" pilot error non-explanation would have us believe.

See, according to the radar returns, once the plane overshot its final approach turn, it never changed course an any way until it finally veered even further to the LEFT as it was approaching dirty stall speed and still slowing -- even though both the airport AND the proscribed go around were to the right -- just seconds before it hit the trees. Once the final turn was overshot by well over 20 degrees, the plane continued off course in a straight line for the last two of minutes flight -- dangerously losing speed over the last minute. And neither pilot ever even ATTEMPTED to contact ATC during this period. It was basically as if no one was even TRYING to fly the plane this whole time.

So what's the explanation for TWO pilots who disengage the autopilot even though the lead pilot prefers coupled approaches, never even try to communicate any problem to air traffic control, never look at either CDI needle AND never monitor either airspeed indicator over the last full minute of a critical instrument approach -- while carrying a US Senator no less? Furthermore, at its last radar return, the plane was still slightly over dirty stall speed, and the propellers were still spinning when the plane crashed. So there's no actual evidence that the plane ever even stalled. And it hit the ground at a 30 degree angle, so this obviously wasn't a controlled descent into terrain. Further still, the plane turned to the left before crashing, when the proscribed go around was to the right. And there's no evidence that either pilot ever made any ATTEMPT to try to recover from any putative stall, even though the stall horn would have been blaring in their ears when they had more than enough altitude to recover safely.


*****


Any legitimate hypothesis for what happened that morning needs to actually EXPLAIN what happened. But the final NTSB report doesn't even make the barest attempt to do so. "Shit happens" just ain't an acceptable hypothesis by any non-arbitrary standard, especially when compared to hypotheses that are equally consistent with all known evidence and that actually DO explain what happened that morning.

Just for the purposes of illustrating this point, here's one example of a far more explicative competing hypothesis to the NTSB's "shit happens" non-explanation:

1) A "service vehicle" equipped with both a decoy VOR beacon with a stronger signal than Eveleth Airport's VOR and an Active Denial System weapon (see : http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/08/02/daily40.html ) is placed 1-2 miles south of the airport, probably off road, and nearly the same distance from the final VOR approach turn as the airport's actual VOR beacon (so that the DME would read as expected just after the final approach turn).

2) After the plane finishes its final approach orientation and the Duluth ATC signs off, the overriding VOR signal is switched on. Note that Eveleth Airport is seldom used, and that any pilots further than 30 miles away who were using Eveleth's VOR for navigation purposes (if there were any) wouldn't even notice the tiny change in needle (and perhaps course) deflection that homing in on the new overriding target might cause. Further note the "on again/off again" cover story about Eveleth's VOR being "slightly out of tolerance" (see: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/03/03_zdechlikm_wellstone/), just in case somebody DID notice any temporary problem or discrepancy in navigation.

3) In the cloudy, overcast conditions, Wellstone's pilots were probably relying on autopilot (in a nonprecision coupled approach) to guide the plane horizontally to the VOR -- in this case the false, overriding decoy VOR -- resulting in the plane being drawn off course in the exact manner the radar returns demonstrate. (Of course, if they weren't doing a coupled approach, they would have been looking at the CDI needle, and this would have drawn them off course just as surely.)

4) When the plane is drawn off course close enough to get in the range of the ADS weapon (currently classified but almost certainly 1/2 a mile), the cockpit area is zapped -- resulting in an effectively pilotless plane. Of course, many other weapons could have been used, but this one has the expository advantage of recently appearing in several high profile, mainstream news stories.

5) The overriding decoy VOR is then switched off, causing the plane's instruments to reorient to Eveleth Airport's real VOR. This last minute reorientation would cause the still engaged autopilot to attempt a sharp right turn -- "crabbing to the right" in the words of one eyewitness (http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/4376969.htm ) -- exacerbating the loss of control of the already pilotless plane.

6) After the plane crashes, someone would presumably make sure the cockpit instruments were consumed in flames -- just on the remote chance that a serious, full inquiry were to be demanded -- as the "cable TV/power company/telephone service vehicle" makes its escape from the scene of the crime.


*****


Note the fundamental difference between this hypothesis and the "shit happens/pilot error" hypothesis is that this hypothesis actually EXPLAINS what happened in a cogent, step-by-step narrative. Therefore, until somebody comes up with a believable narrative describing step by step how such egregious pilot error occurred, the 6 step hypothesis above is superior to just saying "pilot error by default -- but don't ask how or why."

A summary of the NTSB's findings:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2004/apr/ntsb_wellstone.html

And if you think that drawing a plane off course using an overriding decoy radio beacon is a far out idea, you may find this thread interesting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum4&topic_id=2167138
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Whoops! Bang Bang! SURPRISE!
Accident on purpose!

BFEE EMP (Google)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. further discussion is here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. What's a crime without a motive? $1 billion in enviromental cleanups
$1 BILLION could be a motive.


Grace told the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1998 that its liability for environmental cleanups was more than S230 million. But some EPA officials estimate the company's environmental liabilities to be "substantially greater," adding that it could be closer to $1 billion.
more
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FVP/is_22_2...



OMB and EPA squash the EPA Report
December 29, 2002
Bush administration squashes EPA public health warning that insulation in 15 to 35 million U.S. homes is probably contaminated with an extremely lethal form of asbestos.
According to the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Wichita Eagle, the Bush administration has squashed the release of an EPA public health warning that insulation in 15 to 35 million U.S. homes is probably contaminated with an extremely lethal form of asbestos. The warning was originally planned to be released in April 2002, along with a declaration of a public health emergency in Libby, Montana, where ore from a W.R. Grace vermiculite mine was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos fiber called tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners and their families. Shipping records from W.R. Grace show that at least 15.6 billion pounds of vermiculite ore was shipped from Libby to 750 plants and factories throughout North America, with between a third and half ending up in insulation called Zonolite that was used in millions of homes, businesses and schools from the 1940s through the 1990s.

In early April 2002, the U.S. EPA had a public health warning ready to go: News releases had been written and rewritten, and lists of governors to call and politicians to notify had been compiled. But the declaration was never made - just days before EPA was set to make the declaration, the warning was squashed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), even though the EPA had already greatly watered down the warning at the direction of the OMB.

Both OMB and EPA acknowledge that the OMB was actively involved in quashing the warning, but neither agency would discuss how or why. EPA’s chief spokesman Joe Martyak said, "Contact OMB for the details," while OMB spokeswoman Amy Call said, "These questions will have to be addressed to the EPA." Both agencies have also refused requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to provide documents to and from OMB about the asbestos warning.
http://www.eces.org/articles/000256.php



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Senators Baucus Cantwell Dayton and our late colleague, Senator Wellstone
Murray Questions Why Our Government Isn't Warning Homeowners and Protecting Workers from Dangerous Insulation

For Immediate Release: Thursday, February 6, 2003

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) spoke on the Senate floor about the public health dangers of asbestos-tainted insulation and continued to seek answers to why the White House prevented EPA from telling the American people about this danger.

There are between 15 - 35 million homes, schools and businesses in America that still contain asbestos-tainted insulation. Last year, the EPA developed a plan to warn homeowners of this silent danger. But an investigative report found that EPA never followed through because the White House OMB intervened to kill the plan.

For more information about asbestos, including the investigative report, and Sen. Murray's legislation to ban asbestos in America, go to http://murray.senate.gov/asbestos

Senator Murray's remarks follow:

Ms. MURRAY. Mr. President I rise today to share a story with my colleagues. It's a true story about a family who happened to live in a neighborhood in Spokane, Washington. They could have easily been in Memphis or Minneapolis or Midland as well. But they lived in my state, in Spokane, a typical American city in Eastern Washington.

Mr. President, as part of realizing their American dream, Ralph Busch and his wife Donna bought a house. They were newlyweds, and this was the home they bought after getting married. They soon discovered that it needed roof repairs, and so Ralph spent quite a bit of time in the attic - working on his roof. The following year they found they had to renovate an addition that was put on the house in the 1950s.

They both had full-time jobs, so they spent many nights and weekends working on their home. They knocked down walls and tore through the old insulation, drywall and wood. They sanded and hammered and spent two entire years fixing up the place.

One morning, Ralph was reading the newspaper. Just by chance, he came across a story about a company that manufactured a household insulation called Zonolite. This insulation, he read, was tainted with deadly asbestos. Ralph suddenly realized that Zonolite was in his home. Ralph Busch was stunned as it dawned on him. He had just spent two years in his own home handling Zonolite insulation and he and his wife may have unknowingly been exposed to deadly asbestos.

What would happen from his and his wife's exposure? How come no one had told him he had asbestos in his attic? The Zonolite insulation was a product from the little town of Libby, Montana. It was produced by the W.R. Grace Company.

W.R. Grace mined vermiculite from the hillside near Libby. The company turned the ore into insulation known as Zonolite by heating vermiculite to expand it into light granules. The process was similar to popping popcorn. After sorting the popped vermiculite, W.R. Grace poured it into bags and sold it to use as insulation. The company marketed Zonolite as "perfectly safe"…

But laced throughout the vermiculite in the ground near Libby, another mineral was present: asbestos. W.R. Grace's process to make Zonolite and other products could not, and did not, remove all the asbestos from the end product. Zonolite insulation contains between .5 percent and 8 percent asbestos.

The community of Libby has suffered immensely from decades of mining the deadly vermiculite ore used to make Zonolite insulation and other consumer products. At least 200 men and women from Libby have died from diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite, and hundreds more people from the town are sick.

When inhaled, asbestos can cause deadly diseases – from asbestosis to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lung that is almost always fatal. In fact, mesothelioma kills at least 2,000 people each year and is caused only by asbestos.

The diseases induced by exposure to asbestos result in horrible deaths and they are nearly always fatal. Treatment is harsh and debilitating. These diseases can take years to strike. The late Congressman Bruce Vento and the father of the modern Navy, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, both died from asbestos they had been exposed to years earlier.

The asbestos-tainted insulation manufactured by the W.R. Grace Company was used in homes throughout the country for decades. Vermiculite from Libby first started being sold commercially in 1921, and W.R. Grace bought the mine in 1963. Reviews of invoices indicate that more than 6 million tons of Libby ore was shipped to hundreds of sites nationwide for processing over the decades. This chart behind me shows more than 300 sites across the nation, where ore was processed, in many cases to make Zonolite insulation.

In internal memos and e-mails, the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that as many as 35 million homes, schools and businesses may still contain this insulation. Moreover, W.R. Grace knew the Libby mine contained asbestos when the company purchased it in 1963. But Grace made millions of tons of Zonolite anyway and unabashedly marketed it as "safe."

If the manufacturer of this insulation knew it was contaminated with asbestos, why didn't it or the federal government make sure that Ralph Busch and millions of others across the country knew to leave it alone? The answer to the first question is that W.R. Grace still claims its product isn't harmful. The answer to the second question is more complicated.

According to published reports and internal EPA documents, the EPA was preparing to tell the American people about the dangers of Zonolite insulation. But it didn't happen. An investigation by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Andrew Schneider found that last spring while it was addressing the public health crisis in Libby, Montana, the EPA was preparing to tell the American people about the dangers of Zonolite insulation in millions of homes across this country.

But first, EPA had to deal with Libby. EPA decided it needed to minimize the exposure of Libby residents to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite, and the agency drafted a press release announcing its decision. This document said that EPA – "... will spend $34 million to remove dangerous asbestos-contaminated vermiculite insulation from 70 percent of residential and commercial buildings in Libby."

I am glad that EPA has taken aggressive steps to protect people in that small Montana town. Senator Baucus deserves tremendous credit for the work he has done to bring federal resources to Montana to help people in Libby. And EPA deserves credit for doing the right thing, and going in to remove the insulation from Libby.

But what about the rest of the country? What about the millions of other homes with Zonolite insulation? Since EPA decided to help Libby, the agency anticipated the logical follow-up question of what about the millions of homes nationwide that contain the same Zonolite insulation as homes in Libby.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the EPA had drafted news releases, and drawn up lists of public officials to notify. The agency was preparing to embark on an outreach and education campaign to let people know about this hazard in their homes. But what stopped EPA from following through with its warning?

It may have been the same person or people who blocked another government health agency from warning workers about asbestos exposure. Last April, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was preparing to release new guidance for workers who come into contact with insulation in the course of their daily work.

NIOSH was preparing to alert workers - such as electricians, plumbers and maintenance workers - about how they can better protect themselves from exposure to asbestos in Zonolite insulation. These materials were prepared last April, but they still have not been released.

Let me read from a "Pre-Decisional Draft" of a NIOSH Fact Sheet dated April 11, 2002. I ask that it be printed in the record in its entirity. NIOSH recommended that workers:

"…should isolate the work area from other areas in order to avoid spreading fibers, use local exhaust ventilation to reduce dust exposures, and use appropriate respiratory protection. If the employer or worker is concerned about potential exposure, and if at all possible, the vermiculite should not be disturbed."

But, astonishingly, this guidance was never released. How many of the construction workers, maintenance people, electricians, plumbers and homeowners across the country know they should "avoid spreading fibers, use local exhaust ventilation or appropriate respiratory protection?"

I suspect that like Mr. Ralph Busch, thousands of people across the U.S. are not taking these important precautions because they are simply unaware of the danger. I would like to read to my colleagues another section from the never-released NIOSH Fact Sheet. This was in response to the question about how workers can know if the vermiculite they have is contaminated with asbestos. It says,

"As a rule, we believe that any vermiculite that originated in Libby, Montana, before 1990 should be regarded as potentially contaminated. It is known that vermiculite from Libby was sold as attic insulation under the product name Zonolite Attic Insulation and that this product is still in homes throughout the United States."

But especially interesting is the next section, which is in parentheses as a comment by the author:

"W.R. Grace estimates several million homes contain 'vermiculite attic insulation,' which is most likely very conservative. If we don't wish to provide any indication of the magnitude of the potential VAI (or vermiculite attic insulation) exposure in number of homes, we should be clear about the potential situation to provide a more accurate picture and warning."

I must ask my colleagues, why wouldn't NIOSH or others in the Administration -- when they are taking great pains to do the job in right in Libby -- want to share with workers and the public an indication of the magnitude of the number of homes with asbestos-tainted vermiculite? Isn't it our government's job to protect people from risks associated with hazardous substances such as asbestos? Don't we need to know the scope of the problem in order to help gauge the extent of the potential risks? Why aren't we warning workers and giving them the new guidance that has already been drafted by NIOSH?

Interestingly enough, on April 10, 2002, the day before the date on this NIOSH Fact Sheet, EPA received a letter from W.R. Grace defending their harmful product. The letter read, "Zonolite Attic Insulation (ZAI) has been insulating homes for over 60 years and there is no credible reason to believe that ZAI has ever caused an asbestos-related disease in anyone who has used it in his/her home."

How then does Grace explain the fact that the company has settled at least 25 bodily injury claims caused by exposure to Zonolite? Make no mistake. W.R. Grace is a company with one of the worst public health and environmental records in America.

I draw my colleagues' attention to a 1998 article by Dr. David Egilman, Wes Wallace and Candace Hom published in the journal Accountability in Research entitled "Corporate Corruption of Medical Literature: Asbestos Studies Concealed by W.R. Grace & Co." I will read briefly from the abstract of this article:

"In 1963, W.R. Grace acquired the mine (in Libby) and employee health problems at the mine became known to W.R. Grace executives and to Grace's insurance company, Maryland Casualty. In 1976, in response to tighter federal regulation of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, W.R. Grace funded an animal study of tremolite toxicity. They hoped to prove that tremolite did not cause mesothelioma, the cancer uniquely associated with asbestos exposure. However, the study showed that tremolite did cause mesothelioma. W.R. Grace never disclosed the results of this animal study, nor did they disclose their knowledge of lung disease in the Libby workers, either to the workers themselves or to regulatory agencies. These actions were intentional, and were motivated by Grace's conscious decision to prioritize corporate profit over human health."

Given the facts that W.R. Grace has knowingly manufactured and sold an asbestos-tainted product, has suppressed research findings showing that tremolite asbestos causes cancer, and has denied that their product is potentially dangerous, the company is woefully lacking for credibility.

Which brings us to our question: If EPA was planning to warn the American public about the dangers of Zonolite insulation, what stopped EPA from following through with its plan? Why aren't we warning homeowners nationwide about Zonolite insulation? Why aren't we warning workers and giving them new safety guidelines?

Well, M. President, the answers might lie, not with the EPA, but with the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB. An internal e-mail from John F. Wood, the Deputy General Counsel at OMB, to staff at EPA contained details about finalizing the Action Memo for Libby. Also copied on the e-mail were OMB Deputy Director Nancy Dorn and Associate Director of Natural Resources Programs Marcus Peacock. Here's what OMB's lawyer wrote to EPA, and I ask unanimous consent that this e-mail be printed in the record:

"Thank you for your efforts to alleviate my concerns. Here are just a few edits, which are necessary to avoid the problems we discussed earlier. Please be sure to observe the deletion of the citation of Sect. 104 (a) (4)."

What is Section 104(a)(4)...? It is a clause in the Superfund law, which enables the EPA to declare a public health emergency. And why did OMB tell the EPA to "delete the citation" to Section 104 (a) (4)…? We don't know for sure, but if EPA had issued the public health emergency for Libby under Superfund, then the agency would have had to answer questions about asbestos-tainted insulation from every other homeowner in the country. And here is what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation concluded:

"The Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But, at the last minute, the White House intervened, and the warning has never been issued."

The Post-Dispatch got reaction from an EPA staffer about OMB's intervention:

"It was like a gut shot," said one of those senior staffers involved in the decision. "It wasn't like they ordered us not to make the declaration, they just really, really strongly suggested against it. Really strongly. There was no choice left."

I ask unanimous consent that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article be printed in the record.

Mr. President, because of OMB's involvement, EPA never conducted the planned outreach to warn people about Zonolite. NIOSH's guidance to workers about how to protect themselves was never finalized. In response to these shocking reports, on January 3, 2003, I wrote to EPA Administrator Whitman and OMB Director Daniels to get some answers. Mr. Daniels has not yet responded to the allegations that his office blocked the announcement. Ms. Whitman wrote that she is responding on behalf of OMB. I can only ascribe this to OMB's desire to remain unaccountable and to hide the role it played in these decisions.

Ms. Whitman's response was woefully inadequate. She failed to explain the nature or the substance of OMB's involvement. She also wrote that it is not possible to know how many homes contain vermiculite insulation even though her own agency has estimated it may be between 15 and 35 million homes, schools and businesses. I ask unanimous consent that Administrator Whitman's letter be printed in the record.

Mr. President, my colleagues may be curious about why I am so interested in EPA's decisions regarding vermiculite from Libby. This issue is important to me because residents in my state are being exposed to asbestos from Zonolite. And, Mr. President, constituents in your state and every other state in America may also have this insulation. I am deeply concerned that most people with Zonolite in their homes are completely unaware of this problem.

I am afraid most will not learn of it until they have already been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. And I am most concerned that this administration may be stifling EPA's efforts to warn homeowners, consumers, and workers because of pressure from W.R. Grace. And I must remind my colleagues: there is no safe known level of exposure to asbestos. Deadly diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma can develop decades after just brief exposures to high concentrations of asbestos.

Ultimately, I believe Administrator Whitman wanted to do the right thing by warning homeowners nationwide to be careful if they have Zonolite in their homes when the agency began removing Zonolite from homes in Libby, Montana. But she was stopped. The reasons may never be known – the excuse may be buried in "executive privilege."

So, where do we go from here? First, I hope my colleagues will support efforts to get to the bottom of what stopped the EPA from warning the public. We have to increase pressure on EPA, NIOSH, and other public health agencies to raise public awareness about Zonolite.

Second, I hope my colleagues will support legislation to ban asbestos in America and to warn people about the potential dangers posed by Zonolite insulation. I appreciate the support for this legislation I have received from Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton and our late colleague, Senator Wellstone, who were original cosponsors.

I have been working to raise awareness about the current dangers of asbestos for over two years. In July of 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. In June of 2002, two days after introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act, I testified at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Libby held by Senator Baucus.

My colleagues may wonder whatever happened to Ralph Busch and his wife Donna. After reading about Zonolite in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mr. Busch went to get the asbestos removed from his home. He learned it would cost $32,000 to do so. When he tried to secure compensation from his homeowners insurance to pay to clean up the contamination, his insurance company rejected the claim. He got nowhere with the company that had inspected the home before he purchased it. They hadn't known about Zonolite, either.

When he talked to his realtor about trying to sell his house, Mr. Busch's realtor emphasized that Mr. Busch and his wife would be responsible under the law for disclosing the presence of Zonolite to any potential buyer. According to Mr. Busch, even his realtor and I quote, "...expressed apprehension over entering the house saying he has young children and was fearful of asbestos exposure without a proper respirator... ...this about a house we were living in every day."

In the end, having exhausted all of his options, Ralph Busch and his wife Donna sacrificed their home to foreclosure, having lost thousands of dollars and their good credit rating. They didn't feel that it was safe to live there anymore, or to bring other people into their home. Finally they decided to move out of their "dream house" in Spokane. To this day, that home remains vacant.

Apart from the tremendous economic loss, Mr. Busch and his wife are concerned for their health. They are left wondering what long-term negative health effects they may suffer as a result of their exposure to asbestos fibers from the insulation. Mr. Busch has told me, "I feel like the poster-child for the unsuspecting homeowner who unknowingly set off a time bomb in the process of remodeling his home."

To this day, Mr. Busch is haunted by words he read in the Spokesman-Review almost three years ago. The March 12, 2000, article, entitled, "Zonolite's Effects Outlive Plant," said this about mesothelioma:

"The disease inflicts one of the most torturous deaths known to humankind. Some people require intravenous morphine to numb mesothelioma's pain. Some need part of their spinal cord severed. Some are driven to suicide."

If there is a role for government in people's lives, then it should include protecting the public health. We have an opportunity to protect the public's health so that Ralph Busch and thousands - perhaps millions - of other Americans won't have to be needlessly exposed to the time bomb sitting in their homes, schools and businesses.

And meanwhile, if you are planning to do work in your attic, look at your insulation carefully first to see if it is vermiculite. You can see pictures of what this insulation looks like by going to EPA's web site, which is www.epa.gov/asbestos/insulation.html. If you think you have Zonolite, immediately contact EPA to get additional advice about how to handle it. According to EPA's web site, if you think you have Zonolite insulation, leave it alone and not disturb it.

And, contact your Representative in Congress and ask him or her to pass legislation to ban asbestos, something we all should have done decades ago. We can make a difference, but we must act today
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:nmk9BHdjOCgJ:murra...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. One mans opinion
"One man's opinion"

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/opinion/7306797.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

"Michael Ruppert (fromthewilderness.com, Nov. 1, 2002) has reported, "The day after the crash I received a message from a former CIA operative who has proven extremely reliable in the past and who is personally familiar with these kinds of assassinations. The message read, 'As I said earlier, having played ball (and still playing in some respects) with this current crop of reinvigorated old white men, these clowns are nobody to screw around with. There will be a few more strategic accidents. You can be certain of that.' " "

( Also an interesting part about the FBIs early arrival. )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-30-04 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. If that was meant as a threat

it shows perhaps that somebody would like to silence Ruppert.

As to anything else, anybody could have said the same, off the cuff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-01-04 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Sure
But it wouldn´t carry the same weight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-01-04 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Really?

Do you think that a CIA operative is especially prone to be truthful?

Such an opinion would make a change around here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-01-04 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. You got to look at the context
When is a CIA operative likely to lie?
When is he likely to be truthful?

Then you have to see his statement in connection with the case in question. ( See original message. -This is ofcourse supplement to the original message. )

( Sometimes I think you misunderstand on purpose. But then, that would be a waste of time wouldn´t it...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-01-04 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. When is a CIA operative likely to lie?

To gain attention.

When is he likely to be truthful?

To gain attention.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-01-04 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Let me first clarify
Edited on Fri Oct-01-04 03:41 PM by k-robjoe
When I wrote that it wouldn´t carry the same weight, coming from "anybody", I was talking about the fact that "anybody" wouldn´t have any knowledge about it.

It seems , whenever a misunderstanding is at all possible, you´re right on spot...

About your questions, when would he lie to make himself interesting... Don´t know. To gain attention? Probably not.. For some other gain... More possible

You´ve probably got a good theory...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-01-04 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Wby carry the weight to Ruppert?

If somebody's got proof of a criminal conspiracy is there really nowehere better to go with it?

If they've not got proof it is idle sensationalist gossip, the same as most of what turns up around here.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-02-04 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I can´t say that I find this terribly interesting
Because in the case ( Paul Wellstones death ), this is just supplementary. It could be that Ruppert is inventing this, but it wouldn´t change the facts of the case ( as presented in the original message and in fx the article I linked to ).

Now, if I get get you right, you´re suspecting that Rupperts source is lying. You ask : Why would he go to Ruppert if he´s got proof of a criminal conspiracy?

But you know, he never says he´s got proof of anything, what he says is something to the effect that he is convinced that Wellstone was murdered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-02-04 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Convinced but wothout the proof.

Maybe the disinterest arises from a certain sense of deja vu.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-03-04 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
15. Oh, Lord, not this again
Pilots with history of cockpit management issues flew plane into ground.

How difficult is that to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. That's not an explanation of what happened. What happened on that plane?
Hand waving and saying "shit happens" is NOT a substitute for a blow by blow narrative explanation.

Any legitimate hypothesis of what happened to Wellstone's plane that fateful morning needs to address a few findings of fact. First, during or just after the final approach turn, the plane veered off to the left of its proscribed approach so much that the CDI needle would have been pegged all the way to side for almost two minutes before the plane crashed. So what happened? Were the pilots tracking something other than the correct VOR? If so, wouldn't the distance indicator have been a dead giveaway?

Therefore, we must assume that the pilots were NOT making a non-precision coupled approached, but a manual approach instead. So who makes a manual approach in overcast, instrument conditions without EVER checking the CDI needle over the last two minutes of flight? TWO pilots and neither ever glances at the CDI needle once during that entire period? Because this is what the NTSB's "shit happens" pilot error non-explanation would have us believe.

See, according to the radar returns, once the plane overshot its final approach turn, it never changed course an any way until it finally veered even further to the LEFT as it was approaching dirty stall speed and still slowing -- even though both the airport AND the proscribed go around were to the right -- just seconds before it hit the trees. Once the final turn was overshot by well over 20 degrees, the plane continued off course in a straight line for the last two of minutes flight -- dangerously losing speed over the last minute. And neither pilot ever even ATTEMPTED to contact ATC during this period. It was basically as if no one was even TRYING to fly the plane this whole time.

So what's the explanation for TWO pilots who disengage the autopilot even though the lead pilot prefers coupled approaches, never even try to communicate any problem to air traffic control, never look at either CDI needle AND never monitor either airspeed indicator over the last full minute of a critical instrument approach -- while carrying a US Senator no less? Furthermore, at its last radar return, the plane was still slightly over dirty stall speed, and the propellers were still spinning when the plane crashed. So there's no actual evidence that the plane ever even stalled. And it hit the ground at a 30 degree angle, so this obviously wasn't a controlled descent into terrain. Further still, the plane turned to the left before crashing, when the proscribed go around was to the right. And there's no evidence that either pilot ever made any ATTEMPT to try to recover from any putative stall, even though the stall horn would have been blaring in their ears when they had more than enough altitude to recover safely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. PLEASE talk to a competent pilot about this.
Controllers are willing to admit that some of us are...shall we say "less competent"...than others.

Pilots, by my experience are the same. Everything I've seen points to cockpit management issues. There are good pilots and bad pilots, just as there are good McDonald's employees and bad McDonald's employees.

BTW, your definition of "stalled" is erroneous (as most layperson's definitions would be). When a car "stalls", the engine stops. When a plane stalls, it's a function of lift and thrust being unable to compensate for drag and gravity...it has absolutely nothing to do with the engines (or propellers) stopping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-04-04 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. No "competent pilot" has ever explained what happened that day.
Edited on Mon Oct-04-04 10:38 PM by stickdog
BTW, I know exactly what a stall is. I realize why you imagine that I don't, but I made no misstatements in my original post. My only "error" was not taking the time to explain that the evidence of the propellors running argues against engine trouble, not a stall. I condensed this paragraph from a more lengthy analysis, but I still wanted to mention the propellers running to show why the NTSB concluded that there was no engine trouble, despite some ear-witnesses reports that suggest otherwise.

Despite my admittedly clusmy editing job, every one of my points still stands completely unanswered by you or any of the "competent pilots" that you pretend could set me straight. As I stated, there's no direct evidence that the plane actually stalled that day. The last radar return recorded the plane's speed as slightly above the published dirty stall speed for a King Air A-100.

Furthermore, the King Air A-100 has two strong engines. Every time the NTSB ran a simulation, even when they used a single pilot, loaded the plane down with all sorts of ice that did not exist AND told the pilots to keep slowing the plane until it stalled, the simulation pilots were still able to recover from stall with no difficulty.

According to you and the NTSB, the pilots turned off the autopilot and failed to monitor the plane's direction AND airspeed (or alert air traffic control of any problem) over the entire last 90 seconds flight. The pilots also failed to heed the stall warning horn blaring in their ears, and there's no evidence that they ever even attempted to recover from any putative stall condition. Basically, NO ONE WAS FLYING THE PLANE. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. I disagree.
Obviously, the pilots were flying the plane, just poorly.

Since we know that the last recorded speed was just slightly above dirty stall speed and we know the engines were running and we know the plane crashed, a stall is a sensible conclusion. Absent engine or control surface malfunction (or environmental considerations), an uncontrolled stall is a pilot error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. What evidence do you have that the pilots were flying the plane?
Heading - off by more than 20 degrees
Speed - off by over 60 mph
Altitude - dangerously low

What makes you think someone was flying the plane?

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/03/03_zdechlikm_wellstone/

"I'm confident that when I left the aircraft that to the best of my knowledge that airplane was in fine working order," says Jason Rivera, who piloted the same King Air on a round trip to North Dakota which ended at the St. Paul Airport around 7 p.m. the evening before the crash.

At the time Rivera was a captain for Aviation Charter. He now works for Japan Airlines. Rivera says he doesn't recall whether he used the King Air's deicing equipment on its second to last trip. He does remember though there were no maintenance concerns related to the plane. "I flew it a couple of times that week and there were no problems with the airplane at all and I know that it had flown quite a bit up to that date and when we check in for a flight we always look in the logbook to look at previous write-ups on the airline just so that we're familiar with anything that may have been occurring repeatedly or something that another pilot had experienced within the last few flights so we can be vigilant and look for that problem again and there was nothing to that effect," Rivera says.

Rivera, who's worked as a commercial pilot instructor, says it's incomprehensible to him the plane was flying so slowly. The NTSB had reported that the last radar check clocked the plane at 85 knots. Rivera suspects that neither pilot was watching the instruments, in particular the airspeed indicator. "It's hard for anybody who's flown before to understand that a pilot would let their airplane get that slow -- probably 40 knots too slow -- on an approach because at 85 knots that airplane is probably barely flying really," Rivera says.

...

"When there's two pilots and apparently everything working on the airplane... I mean this aircraft will fly very well on one engine. It's got two sets of instruments. There's no explanation for it other than neither of them were flying the airplane. Nobody was looking at what was going on with the airplane. And most likely in a situation like that, they simply get the airspeed too low and by the time they realize it they've stalled and gone in," says Hvass.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Since you insist upon arguing this all over again
Edited on Tue Oct-05-04 12:23 AM by TrogL
Could somebody post a link to our old threads? Obviously stickdog didn't read them.

The master of copy and paste is at it again. I'd like to be able to do the same.

Do everybody a favour. Go and talk to an actual real pilot, preferably one with some time on a King Air. Look a the navigational chart. This is NOT an ILS approach. You cannot do a coupled approach on a non-ILS beacon. It's impossible. Get over it.

Stalling is caused by insufficient air over the flight surfaces. This causes not one but two problems.

1. Loss of lift.
2. Loss of control.

This isn't like Spaceship1 where you have RCS thrusters to turn you. If you've lost the air flow over the rudder and aerilons you're helpless. To gain lift, you've got to get air moving over the air surfaces. To do that you have to drop the nose. It doesn't do any good to fire up the engines and try to power your way out of it, you can't point the plane until you get out of the stall, you'd just be accelerating into the ground. Given we've got a witness saying the engines were going fast, they may have been doing exactly that.

Here's your blow-by-blow scenario.

1. Pilot(s) damn near flunk flight test (eg. cockpit management issues)
2. Pilot(s) fret about fog.
3. Pilots get into fog/cloud. There may be icing to deal with/fret about. Pilots get busy. (note, this is a cockpit management issue, not an icing issue. The ice is likely gone by the time they are ready to start their leg).
4. Aircraft comes out of fog in the wrong spot (who cares why) and too low. Pilots get busier looking for the airport. They may be so busy nobody bothers watching the altitude.
5. Pilots discover they're too low and attempt to recover. Pilot workload increases to breaking point.
6. Plane stalls. Pilots attempt to recover by revving engines but it's too late. They power it into the ground.

Plain and simple, using the known facts.

No conspiracies, no ray guns, nothing violating known laws of physics.

Competent pilots managed to recovery from a stall in simulator. Fine and dandy. These are not competent pilots. They are not in a simulator at the time.

In the real world perfectly good aircraft in perfect flying condition crash. It's called pilot error.

Get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Here are some links...
NTSB Press Release

NTSB Aircraft Accident Report Abstract (pdf is available from link and here)

Minnesota DOT: Office of Aeronautics
Note: EVM info is under Aviation Operations->Airport Directory

Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport Information (warning - pdf)
Check the second page for runway/approach info.

I checked the DU archives, and couldn't find any threads (other than this one) that were explicitly about the Wellstone crash.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Some DU Wellstone threads
Edited on Tue Oct-05-04 03:17 AM by stickdog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Ahh! They're in GD...
I should've searched there also. Thanks, stickdog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. According to you, non-precision coupled approaches don't exist?
Edited on Tue Oct-05-04 02:42 AM by stickdog
Come on, man. We've been through this before and your buddy jakey set you straight.

Read this article and learn something about aviation:

http://stoenworks.com/Tutorials/Flying%20the%20coupled.html

If there's a VOR with DME (distance measuring equipment), you can do a non-precision coupled approach. And Eveleth Airport has a VOR with DME:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KEVM

Here's YOUR blow-by-blow scenario translated.

Here's your blow-by-blow scenario.

1. Shit happens.
2. Shit happens.
3. Impossible shit happens.
4. More shit happens. Who cares why?
5. Because of all this unknown shit, pilots don't pay attention to their heading for well over 90 seconds, their dangerously slow airspeed for well over 60 seconds, their altitude for at least 15 seconds and the stall warning horn for at least 10 seconds.
6. Plane stalls. Pilots attempt to recover by revving engines but it's too late. They power it into the ground.

I'll grant you number 6. If it was an accident and both pilots were actually still at least ATTEMPTING to fly the plane, #6 is almost certainly what caused the final meltdown. But 1-5 explain nothing. First, their was NO ICE below 4,000 feet in Minnesota that day. Second, the plane was flying under instrument flight rules and the pilot liked to rely on his autopilot for his approaches under any and all flight conditions. Third, the plane's HEADING was the very FIRST thing that went wrong -- about a full minute before there were any other signs of trouble, yet you make NO ATTEMPT to explain how or why this happened.

Let's compare your hypothesis with my hypothesis.

Your hypothesis: They headed off course for over 90 seconds for some unknown reason. Don't ask how or why.
My hypothesis: They flew off course because an overriding VOR signal drew them off course.

Your hypothesis: The plane slowed more than 60 mph below the recommended approach speed for some unknown reason. Maybe because of icing that didn't exist or something.
My hypothesis: The plane slowed more than 60 mph below the recommended approach speed because the pilots were incapacitated.

Your hypothesis: The pilots let the plane get too low because they were too busy not watching either airspeed indicator, not watching either CDI needle, not watching the distance indicator, not hearing the stall warning horn and not radioing air traffic control.
My hypothesis: The pilots let the plane get too low and ignored both airspeed indicators, both CDI needles, the distance indicator and the stall warning horn and made no attempt to contact air traffic control or recover from stall because they were incapacitated.


Your hypothesis doesn't even begin to explain what happened. Mine does. Until you (or anyone else) develops a blow by blow narrative hypothesis that actually ADDRESSES all the known facts of the flight, my hypothesis remains superior. And that's all I'm saying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Shit does happen

Breathe in.

Sample the aroma of fetid dung.

Shit turns up somewhere on just about every DU thread that I've ever seen.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. RH speaks truth!
Edited on Tue Oct-05-04 05:45 AM by tngledwebb
and turns up on every 9/11 DU thread.
And has never met an Official Conspiracy Theory he didn't like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakey Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. Still Ignorant...Still Misinformed
(sigh) Sorry Stickdog...you STILL don't have it right (but what else is new?)

If there's a VOR with DME (distance measuring equipment), you can do a non-precision coupled approach. And Eveleth Airport has a VOR with DME:

Whether a VOR has DME or not is irrelevant to an ability to "couple" an autopilot for a VOR approach. You can ALWAYS "couple" a certified, operational autopilot to track a VOR radial. In fact, if you had an understanding of aviation instrument approaches (beyond your present capability to recognize an aircraft when you see one) you would note the only function that the DME serves in your referenced example approach is to lower your Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) by 100' once you have flown inside the 2 DME fix.

Why don't you do yourself (and this forum) a favor and cease your pretentious pontifications on a subject you know dangerously little or nothing about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-17-04 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Great to see another
professional (pilot, atc?,etc) here to set the skeptics straight with your expertise. But could you rephrase your science lingo into English for us laypersons and refrain from insulting fellow DU'ers at the same time? No, I didn't think so...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-18-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I don't see the problem with using the correct terminology
Google is your friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-18-04 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. The problem is

that when one is willing to pay professional rates for professional expertise one has a right to complain of bad service.

When one is not willing to pay up it sucks, and apart from that there is not really much happening, is there?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-18-04 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. You've completely lost me
that when one is willing to pay professional rates for professional expertise one has a right to complain of bad service

My business is computers. When I talk about computers I use certain (now well-known) terms. Occasionally I get involved in a thread (eg. on the open-source forum) I'll get into some of the heavier duty jargon). Because I'm in a computer thread, I'm unapologetic about using those terms because the audience should be either aware of them already or have the expertise to look them up for themselves.

This is a thread about aircraft and pilots. DME is a well-known term in aircraft discussions. A quick google brought me to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/DM/DME.html.

Where is the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. Funny that jakey proved my point against you while trashing me
and ignoring you.

Or do you still think that you can't do a coupled approach at Eveleth Airport?

Because, if so, you really need to consult your friend Google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. Are you here to find or obscure the truth, jakey?
I said:

If there's a VOR with DME (distance measuring equipment), you can do a non-precision coupled approach. And Eveleth Airport has a VOR with DME.

You said:

If there's a VOR without DME, you can still perform a non-precision coupled approach.

There's no contradiction between anything I said and anything you said. In fact, you confirmed my analysis while obliterating TrogL's ignorant contention that only ILS approaches can be coupled.

So why are you pretending to show me up when you're really backing me up, jakey? Care to explain this to our studio audience?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-04 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
33. i'll say that the crash which killed
DNC Chair Ron Brown was definitely an assassination
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 23rd 2024, 07:27 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