|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 |
![]() |
procopia
![]() |
Fri Jul-17-09 09:37 PM Original message |
9/11, NIST, and Bush Science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Fri Jul-17-09 10:07 PM Response to Original message |
1. Is there any reason you wouldn't just call this "junk science"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KDLarsen
![]() |
Fri Jul-17-09 10:09 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Incidently.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Fri Jul-17-09 10:39 PM Response to Reply #2 |
3. You're broad brushing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Fri Jul-17-09 10:42 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. This has to be the most unintentionally ironic post of some time... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
lovepg
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 02:17 AM Response to Reply #4 |
59. Again thats your CLAIM prove that it indeed is the most.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 02:36 AM Response to Reply #59 |
60. Dude...that's an opinion, not a claim... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Mon Jul-27-09 09:43 PM Response to Reply #59 |
98. You might have been thrown off by the word... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Fri Jul-17-09 10:42 PM Response to Reply #1 |
5. Yes, a good reason... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sat Jul-18-09 04:22 PM Response to Reply #5 |
8. So any science distorted for political reasons is "Bush science"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Sun Jul-19-09 11:44 AM Response to Reply #8 |
13. Just the twisted science during Bush's term by his administration |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-19-09 09:48 PM Response to Reply #13 |
14. As I said, this is a distinction you are only making to smear your discussion opponents. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED
![]() |
Sat Jul-18-09 12:06 AM Response to Original message |
6. It amazing how CT'er can never seem to understand |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kalun D
![]() |
Sat Jul-18-09 12:57 AM Response to Reply #6 |
7. Purpose |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89
![]() |
Sat Jul-18-09 08:33 PM Response to Original message |
9. So why have the global engineering and science communities been so silent on the issue? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED
![]() |
Sat Jul-18-09 08:52 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. This ties in with my earlier post |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Sun Jul-19-09 11:30 AM Response to Reply #9 |
11. We do hear from the rest of the world. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Sun Jul-19-09 11:31 AM Response to Reply #11 |
12. Do you have any proof of that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vincent_vega_lives
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 02:05 PM Response to Reply #11 |
19. So contact one of these so called |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spooked911
![]() |
Mon Jul-27-09 01:11 PM Response to Reply #9 |
95. peer pressure and professional concerns |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Mon Jul-27-09 01:22 PM Response to Reply #95 |
96. Bullshit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spooked911
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:55 AM Response to Reply #96 |
108. this is a different situation and you know it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Mon Jul-27-09 11:40 PM Response to Reply #95 |
102. ...says the outsider. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spooked911
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:59 AM Response to Reply #102 |
109. If they are discussing it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:43 PM Response to Reply #109 |
121. By "sidebar"... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:52 PM Response to Reply #121 |
123. "Truther Logic" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spooked911
![]() |
Thu Jul-30-09 11:03 AM Response to Reply #121 |
132. this is what you wrote-- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Mon Aug-03-09 06:07 PM Response to Reply #132 |
133. Umm, Spooked... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Mon Jul-20-09 11:48 AM Response to Original message |
15. What if this had been "Bush science"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED
![]() |
Mon Jul-20-09 05:34 PM Response to Reply #15 |
16. Well done. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 08:00 AM Response to Reply #16 |
18. Patting each other's backs |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 02:39 PM Response to Reply #18 |
21. Yes, the patting of backs shall henceforth be banned. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 06:08 PM Response to Reply #18 |
24. You have to admit the post was well worth an acknowledgment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 07:59 AM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Four paragraphs of JREF BS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 02:38 PM Response to Reply #17 |
20. Ah, I see the pattern now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 03:07 PM Response to Reply #20 |
22. That particular post |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 03:13 PM Response to Reply #22 |
23. How exactly is it bullshit? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-21-09 09:07 PM Response to Reply #23 |
25. Which of the elements? It's ALL wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Wed Jul-22-09 10:45 PM Response to Reply #25 |
26. It's amusing to me... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 12:53 AM Response to Reply #26 |
27. So you've written your rebuttal paper? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 09:03 AM Response to Reply #27 |
29. To what - the Jones/Harrit paper? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 07:12 PM Response to Reply #29 |
30. Unless you thought I was defending the NIST report |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 07:31 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. You know good and well what the scientific criticisms of the Harrit paper are. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 07:38 PM Response to Reply #31 |
32. Thank you, Bolo Boffin. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 07:42 PM Response to Reply #31 |
33. I meant real scientific criticisms backed by real research |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 07:48 PM Response to Reply #33 |
34. Why should we go to that trouble... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 07:52 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. Deleted message |
AZCat
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 07:56 PM Response to Reply #35 |
36. Having difficulty with comprehension, are we? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 07:59 PM Response to Reply #36 |
37. Speak for yourself |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 08:04 PM Response to Reply #37 |
38. Considering that I already did that... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 08:08 PM Response to Reply #38 |
39. You already did that? I guess I missed it... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 08:14 PM Response to Reply #39 |
40. I don't think you did... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 08:23 PM Response to Reply #40 |
41. Just show me your research-backed criticisms |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 08:24 PM Response to Reply #41 |
42. You hit the Trifecta! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 08:27 PM Response to Reply #42 |
43. Thanks for verifying |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 08:33 PM Response to Reply #43 |
44. Poor procopia. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 11:16 PM Response to Reply #44 |
45. See post #43 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat
![]() |
Fri Jul-24-09 09:46 AM Response to Reply #45 |
46. See all my previous posts which you seem to have missed... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sat Jul-25-09 11:20 AM Response to Reply #31 |
49. Which "scientific criticisms" in that paper are you standing by? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sat Jul-25-09 12:48 PM Response to Reply #49 |
50. You handwave and build straw men so well! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sat Jul-25-09 03:00 PM Response to Reply #50 |
51. Let's take one of my points and see if it is either hand waving or a straw man. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 01:48 AM Response to Reply #51 |
55. The chips are substantially different from thermite and quite similar to paint. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 08:10 AM Response to Reply #55 |
62. You are on a roll with your "weighs the same as a duck" principle. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 11:23 AM Response to Reply #62 |
65. Jones could have spent $40 to determine actual compounds in his paint chips. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 04:34 PM Response to Reply #65 |
68. What is the test he could have gotten for $40? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 04:39 PM Response to Reply #68 |
70. XRD - it would have told them compound composition |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:28 PM Response to Reply #70 |
73. "XRD and TEM analyses are underway." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:30 PM Response to Reply #73 |
74. 5/31/2009 - 7/26/2009 -- XRD analyses aren't that hard. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:53 PM Response to Reply #74 |
79. There would naturally be some time taken to publish the results. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:54 PM Response to Reply #79 |
81. NATURALLY. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:06 PM Response to Reply #81 |
85. Shell game? I guess the facts don't like you so you'll pound the podium some more. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:12 PM Response to Reply #85 |
87. Opening the envelope and reading the results would have confirmed or denied their results like that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:23 PM Response to Reply #87 |
90. So now you advocate that they should not get peer review? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:43 PM Response to Reply #90 |
93. They haven't gotten peer review YET. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 03:54 AM Response to Reply #90 |
106. Saying oops, we made up a bunch of nonsense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sat Jul-25-09 03:47 PM Response to Reply #50 |
52. Let's take another one. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 01:48 AM Response to Reply #52 |
56. The straw man is the "looks like a duck" summation. My argument is nothing of the sort. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:34 AM Response to Reply #56 |
61. That is not what "straw man" means. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 11:24 AM Response to Reply #61 |
66. Jones is not allowing for catagory #1, which is my point. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 04:31 PM Response to Reply #66 |
67. Category #1 is a theoretical possibility, but how realistic is it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 04:35 PM Response to Reply #67 |
69. $40 and one chip would have produced the actual compounds instead of the elemental shell game Jones |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:31 PM Response to Reply #69 |
75. "XRD and TEM analyses are underway." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:52 PM Response to Reply #75 |
78. They'd be done by now. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:53 PM Response to Reply #78 |
80. Analyzing and writing up the results into a paper. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:55 PM Response to Reply #80 |
82. Tick, tock. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sat Jul-25-09 03:55 PM Response to Reply #50 |
53. Looking at a third one. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 01:50 AM Response to Reply #53 |
57. You quoted the Blanchard article - he and others examined the seismographs and found no explosions. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 08:23 AM Response to Reply #57 |
63. That is not the part that is disputed (are you actually reading what GitM and I are saying?) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 11:21 AM Response to Reply #63 |
64. It's Brent Blanchard's claim. He should know. You would not. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 04:51 PM Response to Reply #64 |
71. Blanchard is proved wrong by the fact the Pentagon crash and explosion produced no detectable event. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:10 PM Response to Reply #71 |
72. Blanchard documents actual CDs. Examining seismographs for explosive signatures is part of his job. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:46 PM Response to Reply #72 |
76. An example of hand waving: "You are wrong and always have been wrong." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:51 PM Response to Reply #76 |
77. Pentagon BS is a distraction from the actual issues here. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 06:56 PM Response to Reply #77 |
83. You are the one who has a double standard. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:02 PM Response to Reply #83 |
84. mail@implosionworld.com |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:11 PM Response to Reply #84 |
86. It's your claim. You do the homework if you want it to be given credence. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:13 PM Response to Reply #86 |
88. Blanchard is an expert speaking within his field on a matter he deals with all the time. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:22 PM Response to Reply #83 |
89. Re: Double Standard |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:31 PM Response to Reply #89 |
91. I don't have scientific reasons because Blanchard has disclosed none of his science. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:42 PM Response to Reply #91 |
92. mail@implosionworld.com - Knock yourself out. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 07:55 PM Response to Reply #76 |
94. You have yet to produce the audio. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Mon Jul-27-09 09:37 PM Response to Reply #94 |
97. "It better not be Barry Jennings." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Mon Jul-27-09 09:51 PM Response to Reply #97 |
99. It is, isn't it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Mon Jul-27-09 10:22 PM Response to Reply #99 |
100. False bravado? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Mon Jul-27-09 10:46 PM Response to Reply #100 |
101. Didn't you just imply that I was afraid to discuss Barry Jennings with you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 12:11 AM Response to Reply #101 |
103. I did? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 12:13 AM Response to Reply #103 |
104. Gee, explosions in a building engulfed in flames... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 04:54 PM Response to Reply #104 |
110. WTC 7 was never "engulfed in flames" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 06:41 PM Response to Reply #110 |
111. Call up FDNY and tell them they are... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 09:53 PM Response to Reply #111 |
112. Check your dictionary |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 10:10 PM Response to Reply #112 |
113. So when one firefighter said that around seven floors were fully involved... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 10:36 PM Response to Reply #113 |
115. Seven floors "involved" doesn't mean the building was engulfed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 10:48 PM Response to Reply #115 |
116. It sure isn't "small fires" either. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 10:59 PM Response to Reply #115 |
117. Well, unless you can somehow explain the smoke pouring out of every floor of WTC 7 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:24 PM Response to Reply #117 |
118. You don't actually know where the smoke is coming from |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:27 PM Response to Reply #118 |
119. Oh, jesus.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:30 PM Response to Reply #118 |
120. Nope, it was coming from 7. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:47 PM Response to Reply #120 |
122. Some of it was, not all |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 11:54 PM Response to Reply #122 |
124. "Nor does it show any flames whatsoever" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Wed Jul-29-09 06:54 AM Response to Reply #124 |
127. Sure you would, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Wed Jul-29-09 12:23 AM Response to Reply #122 |
125. Watch that goalpost moving. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Wed Jul-29-09 06:47 AM Response to Reply #125 |
126. That's factually incorrect |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Wed Jul-29-09 11:51 AM Response to Reply #126 |
128. It moved to what was contributing to the smoke plume. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Wed Jul-29-09 02:02 PM Response to Reply #128 |
129. from: "much of it is coming from nearby buildings 5 & 6" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Wed Jul-29-09 02:45 PM Response to Reply #129 |
130. Having trouble building your straw man? How sad. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 12:17 AM Response to Reply #103 |
105. Yes, you did. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 06:55 AM Response to Reply #105 |
107. Funny |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Tue Jul-28-09 10:11 PM Response to Reply #107 |
114. Yes, it is. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer
![]() |
Sat Jul-25-09 04:30 PM Response to Reply #50 |
54. Summing up: all three of your points are hand waving; none of mine are. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin
![]() |
Sun Jul-26-09 01:51 AM Response to Reply #54 |
58. You post factual inaccuracies. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
gwashington2650
![]() |
Thu Jul-23-09 04:30 AM Response to Original message |
28. Interesting information you got there |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
trumanh59639
![]() |
Fri Jul-24-09 11:46 PM Response to Original message |
47. I hate Bush as much as everyone else |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Sat Jul-25-09 07:31 AM Response to Reply #47 |
48. What do you find compelling |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia
![]() |
Wed Jul-29-09 06:10 PM Response to Reply #48 |
131. Nothing? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Tue Jun 18th 2024, 01:49 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 |
![]() |
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