Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date

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
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 03:29 AM
Original message
14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date
From the summary of results from John Doe's "Tracking the alleged hijackers and their doubles".
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?23.2486


The list of all alleged hijackers that apparently entered the US before their official entrance date (based on Commission Report and FBI):

Saeed Alghamdi
Ahmed Alnami
Ziad Jarrah
Majed Moqed
Salem Alhazmi
Hani Hanjour
Khalid Almihdhar
Nawaf Alhazmi
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Marwan Al Shehhi
Satam Al Suqami
Mohamed Atta (according to Able Danger)
Marwan Al Shehhi (according to Able Danger)


Here his comment I'd like to put up for discussion:

Comment: The case of alleged hijackers clearly being in the US before their official entrance date is by far more than only a proof of an inaccurate investigation. It is far more than that. The entrance date are documented by INS papers. Therefore we can conclude that either these documents have been faked by the INS then we need to wonder what could be so important to cover up? Or the INS documents are authentic than we can conclude that one person with the name of an alleged hijacker did indeed enter the country while another person with the same name of an alleged hijacker was already in the US. So, it would be another proof of having two different people using the very same identity.
Very interesting is the case of Able Danger: As Atta, Al Shehhi, Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi have been identified as a terrorist cell in January 2000 although Atta and Al Shehhi still were in Germany and Almhdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi only arrived mid-January in the US (but not in New York but in California) we can conclude that the persons being identified as possible terrorists cant be the same that at the same time still lived in Germany or just arrived at the other coast of the US.


For info on each alleged hijacker and presenatation of evidence that he entered the country before the official entrance date see:
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewforum.php?23
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Very interesting

This John Doe is really a fox. Apparently, duplication is the big underlying principle of 9/11.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Duplication...
Maybe this is to have back-ups for establishing an official story. (Kind of like how Saeed Sheikh was originally the money man, but then substituted when that name was compromised, in the classic articles by Chaim Kupferberg.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. No, Woody.
"This John Doe is really a fox. Apparently, duplication is the big underlying principle of 9/11."

Duplication is ONE option of several possibilities. It was taken for the main "hijackers" - the pilots.

Dulication is a way to produce leads. That is the behest, the goal. There are other ways too. Invent a person, give it a paper trail, and you only need ONE agent to do all the physical show ups. It is efficient and who cares for the contradictions except John Doe II ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. But he is a fox. n.t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Dupliction and paper trail
I think that in many cases there are clear signs of TWO persons really being around eg the two Attas.
With the entrance date there is certainly also the possibility of producing leads and paper trails.
In any case: The facts are there. At least 14 alleged hijackers entered the US prior to their official entrance date.
Why does nobody ask the simple question: How can that be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harald Ragnarsson Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 03:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's like Deja Vu all over again
Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Where did you get these pictures from? nT


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harald Ragnarsson Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. One of the JFK websites
Did a google image search.

They have been out there for a long time. The Cia was watching Oswald in Mexico, the Warren Report mentions that, but they don't include these pictures.

Somone else was impersonating Oswald at other points in time as well. Even while he was living in the USSR.

Oswald was CIA/INTEL up to his eyeballs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
9. :Kick:
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. the beauty of this is it blows the official 9/11 story APART
and doesn't even rely on the physical evidence that so many people find controversial (or pretend to find controversial, hard to know).

Great Job, Andre!!!!!!!!!!
:toast: :thumbsup: :loveya: :headbang: :yourock: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. by the way, I'm curious why so many of our official debunkers always
ignore evidence like this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oblivious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I'm curious why so many 911 researchers focus on less important issues.
The hijackers are the story - the reason for the war in Afghanistan, for the war on terror (i.e. war on Muslims). It's also the part of the story that has most easily been proved false. Yet there is so much effort to focus on the Pentagon and WTC. I don't get it.

Or maybe I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-26-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. hmmm..I know what you mean,
But, I think a lot of bad information was planted along with the hijackers - double names, they are still alive!, One had another suspected 'terrorist's' (who was in Germany) passport (found "at the scene")...and there ARE NO ANSWERS, so I think people go on looking for something else, and yes, some of it is disinformation. Sometimes, it seems like it all is disinformation...hijackers AND "physical"...and that is exactly the intention, I think...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #12
23. because the hijackers were patsies, and we would like to know who was
really behind the attacks.

The hijacker stories PROVE the official story is bullshit. Now, the idea is to move beyond that and figure out what really happened.

For instance, what the heck happened to flight 93?

Can you find the Boeing?
http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonerian Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Yes!
If only Charlie Sheen had mentioned Rudi Dekkers, Wally Hilliard, Mohammed Atta, and the government protected Venice Airport drug operation instead of talking about controlled demolitions. Venice, FL is where Jeb Bush and his C130 made a bee-line to within a few hours of the 911 attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. Excatly - if this part of the official CT is so easily debunked,
why bother with endless debates over demolition, etc.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
15. the 'hijackers' got off
there weren't any hijackers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-11-06 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
16. Kick
in view of Kevin Fenton's finding on Almihdhar and Salem Alhazmi:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
18. Still
no answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quickesst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I'd like....
to keep this thread kicked up until there are some responses from those who believe the official gubment story. I have noticed that the revenuers here are pretty selective in the topics they wish to address. Thanks.
quickesst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Why does nobody ask the simple question: How can that be?
Because nobody is interested to clear up the fairy tale fog. In the mainstream.

The simple truth and the simple logic are cut out .

Why did Saddam not use his WMD when he had them ?

And better: why, when the "coalition forces" were really sure that Saddam had WMD- wjy did they risk the attack ?

The normal people do not slam into the faces of meadia makers. They do not complain at least. That is why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-04-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. So true ....! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
22. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Hey why isn't this "debunked" on that 911Myths site?
or 911 debunked? Or whatever they are called... Hmm.. debunkers, where are you with your weak arguments now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. self delete
Edited on Mon May-08-06 04:24 PM by Andre II
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Laughable site
Their articles on UA 93 are really badly written. I don't want to use the word "researched".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 04:50 AM
Response to Original message
27. Add
Banihammad and it makes 15.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-30-06 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Any rebuttal?
How do you explain this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 05:13 AM
Response to Original message
29. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma2007 Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-22-07 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
30. Do you insinuate complocity ?
It might be coincidence, you know ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-26-07 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Coincidence?
Why would the officials lie about the entrance date of no less than 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers?
What's about the INS papers that should be proof of the entrance date?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
33. So which one of these are still alive? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma2007 Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-13-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Weong Question
The right question is always: who were the perpetrators, and where is the proof ?

It is not OUR claim to know who is alive or dead, perpetrator or not. It is the same problem lke in this video:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=7904132463363393417&q=daily+show+bush

It is a hard job to prove the non-existence of something. Much easier is to prove the allegations which the Bushists utter. If they are true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-13-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I can't ask which of the hijackers are still alive...
on a thread about 14 of 19 hijackers entering the US before their official entrance date?

We keep getting told that some of these people are still alive. At least eight, right?

So of these 14 out of 19, which ones are still supposed to be alive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-21-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Why do you hijack this thread?
Didn't I read your comment in several threads advising people to stay on topic??
Why don't you?
Does the OP claim that alleged hijackers are still alive? No.
Did I claim that anywhere? No.
Did John Doe II claim this anywhere? As far as I know No.

So, why do you bring up this horseshit?
Why don't you stay on topic?

Why did 15 enter before their official entrance dates?
Why 15 official lies?
Or can you challenge the claim and show that some of the 15 did indeed only enter the US on their official entrance date.
Talk facts. Don't hijack threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Besides changing the subject without any reason
do you have anything sustantial to say concerning this thread?
Only on the issue of the entrance date the government lied no less than 15 times.
Is this correct or wrong?
If it is correct does this pose a problem to you and you wonder why they lied?
If it is wrong please show for every case that in fact the alleged hijackers only entered the US on the official entrance date.
(Paul Thompson's Timeline might help ....)
Have fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. do you have anything sustantial to say concerning this thread?
Does he ever?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. no, he doesn't. ever.
kiX0r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Some old reports of hijackers named who are still alive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ma2007 Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Yes, the formula was used, but ...
.... everybody who ever said "hijackers alive" knows that it is impossible to be alive after hijacking THESE 4 plans . So it always points to the non-identification of the alleged hijackers . We should refrain from this formula, because it makes things unclear. The issue here is that the alleged perpetrators are obviously not described correctly. Which implicates a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-23-07 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
40. Kick...
saving the OP the trouble of having to kick his own post.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. I'm sure you have anything interesting to say
concerning the question raised in the OP??
Are the presented facts wrong? Which one?
Or why does the official account lie?
It's your choice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-10-08 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
44. And another ocassion
where an alleged hijacker was seen in the US although officially he hadn't arrived there yet.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a061101saeeddeluxe#a061101saeeddeluxe

Again and again I'd like to ask why does the official Report lie in no less than 15 of 19 cases?
And why do they lie?
What do they have to cover up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
45. self delete n/t
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 06:42 AM by Andre II
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
46. The usual suspects.
Conspicuous by their absence (except for a token gesture).

Perhaps we need a new investigation, who could disagree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. I don't think anyone opposes a new investigation
Bush, after all, did commit impeachable offenses - 911 should have been prevented. It just won't happen - unless you really believe all planning and preparation for 911 took place in the 8 months after Bush took office. At a minimum the plotters infiltrated the Clinton administration and set up everything under his nose. I think the Democrat would not want to draw attention to that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Did Poppy's CIA connections and influence end...
...when he became VP for Reagan?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
49. I'm sorry, but I don't see the significance of this offhand ....
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 10:54 AM by Diane_nyc
Regarding the claim that http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=76270&mesg_id=76270">14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date, as discussed in the O.P. of this thread and on the http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?23">Team8Plus website:

Look in any big city phone directory (say, the white pages for any of the five boroughs of New York City) and you'll find lots of bunches of people with the same name.

Do some of these people have not only the same name, but also identical photos, birth dates, etc.? Now that might be interesting.

Admittedly I haven't yet looked at the referenced site in detail. But before I take the time to do so, I would appreciate it very much if someone advocating this claim could let me know, more precisely, what is meant here by two people having the same "identity."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andre II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Welcome
Hi Diane,

no of course it's not based on phone books. You know not the ones that the CIA apparently was incapable of looking into in order to find Nawaf Alhazmi and friend.
No basically all cases are bsed on eyewitness accounts and especially intersting as often several of the alleged hijackers are seen together (see eg post 44 here) or have a look at Embry-Riddle.
Easiest way in fact is to look up the timelines on Team8+ of the 15 alleged hijackers and check out the summary at the beginning.
Btw have a look at this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x119843

the identity question has never been answered and I believe it's a key.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane_nyc Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. I didn't say it was based on phone books ....
Edited on Sun Jun-22-08 06:07 PM by Diane_nyc
My point in bringing up phone books, int http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=76270&mesg_id=211105">this post, was simply to point out that many different people can have the same name.

In the case of extremely common names, there can even be multiple groups of people containing multiple distinct people with the same names. For example, there could be a Joe Smith and a Mary Jones in Group A, and another Joe Smith and another Mary Jones in group B.

If I'm not mistaken, the names of some of the alleged hijackers were extremely common Arab names.

So, to identify them uniquely, you would need more than just a name, even when these people appear in pairs or even groups. You would also need, say, a photo and a date of birth.

In the presentation of your evidence, do you take this into account? Or do you tend to assume that same name = same person?

The last time I looked at your website, it appeared to me at first glance that you were identifying people just by name, at least in most places. Is that impression wrong? Admittedly I haven't yet explored your website in depth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpikyPenguin Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
52. 11 Hijackers in London...
Sorry to mess with y'all...

The British Metropolitan Police have absolutely no credibility at all, however, they have confirmed on numerous occasions that eleven of the hijackers were in London prior to the attacks. To my knowledge this has not been retracted, just not picked up on by the 'struth movement'.

Here is a snippet from the BBC website:

Was it a failure of British intelligence too? (26 September 2001)

"...More than half the hijackers responsible for the outrages in America were here earlier this year and the FBI are asking Britain to follow up more than one hundred leads."

The BBC also reported:

Minister warns of fresh terror attacks (28 September 2001)

...Home Secretary David Blunkett has admitted that 11 of the suspected hijackers in the attacks passed through Britain on their way to America.
But UK newspaper reports on Friday carried conflicting accounts of how long they spent in the UK.

According to The Sun, an MI5 source said "most of them were merely transit passengers".

The source said the network in the UK had been "disrupted and is no more" - and that there was no specific attack target in Britain.

But The Times, citing intelligence chiefs, said five of the hijackers left London airports in June to fly to the US after possibly partaking in "a vital planning meeting".


Over to the New York Times:

Attacks may have been planned in UK - Thursday 27 September 2001

"The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington may have been planned in Britain, according to a statement issued by London's Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner David Veness.

He said police were following up reports of individuals who passed through the UK to examine how long they were in the country, if they had assumed multiple identities, if any, and what they did between arrival and departure. Mr Veness said the investigation would try to find out if suspected individuals merely passed through the UK or whether some of the preparatory activity for the US attacks took place in the UK.

The statement was the first confirmation by British police that some of the suspected hijackers, who flew planaes into the Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, had been in Britain before the attacks.

In other developments, Britain's Home Secretary David Blunkett told BBC's Newsnight program that 11 people suspected of involvement in the attacks had not been under surveillance while in Britain."


I would post the whole article but this forum says 'excerpts only'. Now, how come none of the timelines and conspiracy theories have the hijackers in London? The UK Home Secretary might be a liar but he has more credibility than any of the people that vouch for the hijackers being anywhere else.
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 Aug 03rd 2021, 07:12 AM
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