Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The inner worlds of conspiracy believers - Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are...
Science News ^ | May 22nd, 2009 | Bruce Bower

Posted on 05/24/2009 12:22:13 AM PDT by neverdem

Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive, a new study suggests.

Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.

“Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says.

His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence.

A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman...

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Testing
KEYWORDS: 911; conspiracies; conspiracy; conspiracybelievers; conspiracytheories; psychology

1 posted on 05/24/2009 12:22:14 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.”

Sounds like me. I’m not one who believes these theories about 9/11 or for that matter Obama’s birth certificate. The fun thing to do when you meet these guys at parties which happens alot here (keep Austin weird?) is to get them going and then find a few things they can’t agree on and let them go at it.

They forget all about you with your Osama did it idea and start screaming over planted explosives or alien lasers or zionist businessmen etc etc. It’s great viewing with popcorn and Shiner Bock!


2 posted on 05/24/2009 12:31:19 AM PDT by Eyes Unclouded (Step 1: Expel half the party and write off huge chunks of the country. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eyes Unclouded
All this psychology would be a great thing to hide behind if you were going to have a large, interlinked global Socialist conspiracy to take over the world.

I think maybe the shrinks are in on it...(/"conspiracy theorist")

3 posted on 05/24/2009 12:42:49 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive..."

and seriously deluded.

4 posted on 05/24/2009 12:48:48 AM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The South Park episode on this is definitive. One in four people are absolute idiots. It’s really no more complicated than that.


5 posted on 05/24/2009 12:53:10 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (Oh, well. Back to the drawing board....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Inquisitive is a kind and soothing word. They’re “inquisitive” and “suspicious” about everything _except_ for conspiracy theories, which need satisfy no standard of logic, evidence or rationality.


6 posted on 05/24/2009 12:59:51 AM PDT by Sandreckoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
After eight years it's easy to forget an important detail.

Most Americans have watched dozens of slow motion building demolitions on TV.

To my eye, the close up slow motion films of the two WTC’s going down looked exactly like every other planned implosion I ever watched.

For weeks after 9-11, I assumed the terrorists had used explosives to trigger the collapse of both buildings.

Only after I learned that the intense heat from the jet fuel fire could soften and weaken uninsulated steel did I completely change my mind.

One thing does still mystify me about the implosion theory.

If it really did happen that way, why do so many people think the USA government did it, and not the terrorists?

7 posted on 05/24/2009 1:05:27 AM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Wow, I like those videos, too, but I never compared them to a planned implosion and still dont. In one shot, you can see the first tower tilt before the smoke pushes out from the collapsing floors above

I am just surpsised at how many idiots dont know that hot steel is not as strong as cold steel regardless of whether it is melted or not.


8 posted on 05/24/2009 1:13:46 AM PDT by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I am just surpsised at how many idiots dont know that hot steel is not as strong as cold steel regardless of whether it is melted or not.

What!?!! You don't think Rosie is qualified as a metallurgist? [big grin]

9 posted on 05/24/2009 1:23:58 AM PDT by rmh47 (Go Kats! - Got Seven? [NRA Life Member])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
To my eye, the close up slow motion films of the two WTC’s going down looked exactly like every other planned implosion I ever watched.

To me it didn't look anything like a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are usually from the bottom up, and you can clearly see it happening before the mass of the structure falls on it's own footprint. That was not evident with towers at all. In fact, it was pretty obvious that it was a top down collapse.

I'm not an engineer, so I don't know what words to use to describe the effects, but to me, it doesn't look anything like the controlled demolitions I've seen...

10 posted on 05/24/2009 1:34:41 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
To my eye, the close up slow motion films of the two WTC’s going down looked exactly like every other planned implosion I ever watched.

Effects were similar, but instead of needing any explosives, the fire would have been enough to weaken the steel supporting the massive weight of building above it, thus the pancake effect.

WTC 7 seemed strange to me, though, with neither aircraft impact nor fire to weaken structural elements.

Maybe someone can explain that one to me.

I;m no 'troofer', but I am curious.

11 posted on 05/24/2009 1:40:16 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Popular Mechanics. They did a good article on the collapse. Don't know what issue though.

Effects were similar...

The only similarity was the obvious effect of gravity. Other than that, it didn't look anything like a controlled demolition as far as I'm concerned...

12 posted on 05/24/2009 2:00:06 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: csense
Well, controlled domolition takes out key structural elements simultaneously (or in a preplanned sequence) so that the weight of the building collapses the structure in a desired fashion.

The fires heated the structural elements of the towers supporting the structure above the fire floors, having the same effect as a controlled demolition would have. Had those structural elements all not been heated similarly and simultaneously, the upper part of the structures would have toppled, collapsing at the site of the greatest weakness first, and causing the upper part of the structure to fall over rather than remain more or less vertical and pancake the floors below it.

In that sense, the effect was similar to a planned demolition (of any building in a developed area) which would not have toppled the building, but caused it to fall vertically, more or less on site.

13 posted on 05/24/2009 2:11:40 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rmh47

“What!?!! You don’t think Rosie is qualified as a metallurgist? [big grin] “

Hey, you stinker...You just blew the post that I was working on :P
Oh well, I will continue to read the rest.


14 posted on 05/24/2009 2:15:36 AM PDT by AlexW (Now in the Philippines . Happy not to be back in the USA for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Never saw it as a planned implosion from the simple fact that each collapse start in the area of the aircraft impact just like you would expect...


15 posted on 05/24/2009 2:25:51 AM PDT by tophat9000 ( We are "O" so f---ed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmh47

Not only is Rosie not a metallurgist, she’s not even a moron. What’s just below moron? Idiot?

Rosie thinks (that’s just too sweet a word to use to describe her mental processes, and so’s “mental”) that the ignition temperature of a substance is as hot as it will ever get. Thus, if jet fuel “burns” at 410 degrees F, then obviously it can’t melt steel - or even sugnificantly weaken it. This is one of the most blatantly stupid, ignorant, mindless, moronic conclusions ever reached by a so-called intelligent being.

Jet fuel will burn at 10,000 degrees F even easier than it does at 410, and not only that the process just keeps getting hotter and hotter as the heat is trapped in the local environment. But such notions are to Rosie as pearls before swine. Finally! An appropriate metaphor!


16 posted on 05/24/2009 2:49:47 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

And of course the building wasn’t designed to take a hit like that. The insulation on the steel supports was blown off, the central core damaged and a sudden hot fire from the jet’s fuel.
Who could build with that possibility in mind?


17 posted on 05/24/2009 2:57:17 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Who could build with that possibility in mind?

Well, the architects, for one. They described how the towers were actually constructed to take a hit from a 707.

18 posted on 05/24/2009 3:36:39 AM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
One in four people are absolute idiots. It’s really no more complicated than that.

You absolutely nailed it!

And I bet you've never even needed to read a pamphlet on psychology to come to that clear conclusion!

19 posted on 05/24/2009 3:38:12 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Last year one of the networks was replaying their 9/11 broadcast in real time. It was pointed out to me that the second plane struck the second tower at a much lower level than the first, in order to increase the effect of gravity on the structure-weakening fire.

And it was the tower that was struck second which was the first to collapse.

Controlled implosions start from the bottom up for exactly the same reason, IMO.


20 posted on 05/24/2009 3:41:44 AM PDT by elcid1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
If it really did happen that way, why do so many people think the USA government did it, and not the terrorists?

Because it happened under Bush and not Gore.

Those same people would have fully accepted 9/11 had Gore been president.

Likewise, an entirely different group would have believed it to be staged if Gore was president.

Remember all the black helicopter stuff during Clinton?

Both sides have conspiracy nuts and they need to be marginalized or the entire movement gets painted with their drool.

21 posted on 05/24/2009 3:42:21 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen; Steel Wolf
If it really did happen that way, why do so many people think the USA government did it, and not the terrorists?

Steel Wolf answered this question on post#5. "One in four people are absolute idiots".
22 posted on 05/24/2009 3:54:29 AM PDT by kb2614 (Cheer up, for the worst is yet to come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Jet fuel will burn at 10,000 degrees F even easier than it does at 410

Not quite true. When something burns it is the chemical reaction of combining with oxygen. If temperatures get too high chemical compounds become impossible. This is why one does not see evidence of chemical compounds on the surface of stars. I still think 911 conspiracy buffs are reality challenged.

23 posted on 05/24/2009 4:00:49 AM PDT by Nateman (If liberals aren't screaming you're doing it wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Eyes Unclouded
A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman...

Can you tell me where to get a box of those 'magic' bullets...I could shoot a whole herd of deer with one shot...Great things, those magic bullets...

24 posted on 05/24/2009 4:17:53 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This misses the real reason for the conspiracy folks and it is the same kind of folks who buy into grand government control theories.

As much as they fear and distrust authority (probably related to their child hood), their real fear is that the authorities are not in control. It is plain to see that our government is not fully in control of events and cannot protect us, just as a child someday realizes that their parents are not able to protect them.

These people cannot handle this truth so they conjure up an imaginary government, a shadow government. This government is the real cause of these events and is always in control of everything. To them WTC event was controlled rather than uncontrolled. To them the recession is manufactured, to them all bad events are in control only they are in control of a shadow government.

Man is no more in control of the evil in this world than he is of the global climate. It is hubris to think otherwise.

They also deny the reality that God is in ultimate control and that the patterns of evil are part of the satanic control that is allowed to control the earth.


25 posted on 05/24/2009 4:30:01 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Here is the definitive report by engineers who were there. Concise, no-nonsense report on why the towers collapsed.

http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1


26 posted on 05/24/2009 4:30:56 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

In one of the basements of 7 WTC were the fuel tanks for the emergency generators for the entire WTC. This fuel burned all day long (and for several days afterward) leading to the colapse of the building.


27 posted on 05/24/2009 4:34:04 AM PDT by Roccus (The Capitol, the White House, the Court House...........America's Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

The one 911 conpiracy believer I know supports Lyndon LaRouche for POTUS. ‘nuff said.


28 posted on 05/24/2009 4:35:46 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Roccus
Only a few pictures exist of the damage to WTC 7 but it was extensive caused by debris from the fallen twin towers. It looked to me almost like the damage done during the Oklahoma City bombing, only turned upside down.

The 9/11 truthers have achieved one slight “victory.” Their refusal to accept reality and facts have basically made most of us who can debunk their theories give up even trying to set them straight as they're too stupid waste our time with.

29 posted on 05/24/2009 5:01:25 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (The man who said "there's no such thing as a stupid question" has never talked to Helen Thomas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

I also forgot to add that in order to destroy the truthers weak premises, one has to first consider that they could be “right,” just for the sake of argument. That’s where they say ah ha, so it could have been done. They don’t care about the laws of physics or any other facts that get in the way. Just that you even considered their idea is enough for them.


30 posted on 05/24/2009 5:17:35 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (The man who said "there's no such thing as a stupid question" has never talked to Helen Thomas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

“These people cannot handle this truth so they conjure up an imaginary government, a shadow government.”


You have real insight in this sentence. I believe that you are correct to say that people need to believe that someone is in control.


31 posted on 05/24/2009 5:24:32 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

Thanks, Roccus, that explains the collapse of WTC 7, which was the one which seemed odd to me. The other buildings’ collapse made perfect sense to me although admittedly, I had not foreseen it.


32 posted on 05/24/2009 5:25:14 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
140 West St. (Verizon bldg) was closer to 1 WTC than 7 WTC was and yet it survived. Though 7 WTC recieved some damage from the collapse of 1 WTC, it was the long duration fuel fed fires that led to its collapse. Most (if not all) the video of 7 WTC that day was taken from the north...the side not facing 1 WTC.
33 posted on 05/24/2009 5:32:24 AM PDT by Roccus (The Capitol, the White House, the Court House...........America's Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

Sure, in principle. But 10,000 degrees F ain’t there yet.

Oxidation of jet fuel at 10,000 degrees proceeds just fine.


34 posted on 05/24/2009 5:50:47 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

It was a demolition and the government used top secret stealth explosives.


35 posted on 05/24/2009 5:54:40 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nateman
"...I still think 911 conspiracy buffs are reality challenged."

In an apparent effort to support the above statement, a member of Democratic Underground contributed the experiment pictured below.

He built a little cage of hardware cloth with concrete slabs, lit a small kerosene fire inside, and eventually stood on top of the whole thing. The structure held his weight, proving once and for all that Bush collapsed the WTC towers.

A classic thread and a truly monumental moment in the history of human logic (DU version).

Click to enlarge
911 Demonsttration

I won't link to DU, but if you want to see the original thread, do a search on Google for "chicken wire concrete 911" this is the #1 hit.

36 posted on 05/24/2009 5:58:17 AM PDT by HangThemHigh (Entropy's not what it used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Sorry about hijacking the thread....as to conspiracies;

I'm not sure I agree with the theories about grand conspiracies (Bilderbergs, CFR, Rothschild's, etc.), but I DO believe that conspiracies abound in our government. It is at the very core of how our government works. (you vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours) Of course in polite circles this is called “compromise.”

There are uncountable small conspiracies in DC. Oftentimes they interconnect and weave through one another. All government is “wheels within wheels.”

37 posted on 05/24/2009 6:01:14 AM PDT by Roccus (The Capitol, the White House, the Court House...........America's Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen; RaceBannon
the intense heat from the jet fuel fire could soften and weaken uninsulated steel

I thought the jets brought down the towers, too, but the noted metallurgical expert Rosie O'Donnell pointed out that this was the first time in history that fire had melted steel, so I'm back to being a 9/11 truther.

38 posted on 05/24/2009 6:05:15 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (I long for the days when advertisers didn't constantly ask about the health of my genital organs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The government is ultimately responsible. Why were these people allowed into the country to begin with? Same reason the border with Mexico is not secured.


39 posted on 05/24/2009 6:31:49 AM PDT by lbama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csense

Good observation.


40 posted on 05/24/2009 6:45:34 AM PDT by Library Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sandreckoner

Not directing this to you, but to be perfectly frank, there are a significant number within this very forum that believe such tripe but do not openly say so. I am not one of them, simply stating the obvious given a number of conspiracy related threads I have seen within this forum in the past...and present. Quix and a number of other members do come to mind...


41 posted on 05/24/2009 8:32:06 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
“WTC 7 seemed strange to me, though, with neither aircraft impact nor fire to weaken structural elements.”

From 9/11 Myths—By Popular Mechanics Pages 53-54

“The collapse of WTC 7 was initially puzzling to investigators, but they now believe the building failed from a combination of long burning fires in its interior and damage caused by debris from the North Tower's collapse. This conclusion is a modification of initial findings from FEMA, reached in a preliminary report released in May 2002, that attributed the collapse almost exclusively to the fires. The report stated there was relatively light structural damage prior to the building's collapse.

Page: 55:

NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down.

Video footage of the fall of WTC 7 shows a crack, or kink, in the buildings facade just before the two penthouses disappared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in diagonal collapse.

Page 55 goes on after that describing the unusual construction of the building. This is a very informative book and I suggest everyone reads it. The building was on fire inside. They think it was due to the broken gas lines in the basement of the building. It posed such a danger to the firefighters, they were pulled out and the building was left to fall.

42 posted on 05/24/2009 8:33:50 AM PDT by waxer1 ( "The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests." -Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard; rmh47

Sad, but awfully funny this many years later!


43 posted on 05/24/2009 9:12:40 AM PDT by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Eyes Unclouded

I am not a 9/11 truther, but the BC issue is absolutely unsolved to any satisfaction

how anyone can accept a digital image as an authentic document is lunacy or just a sign of the times we live in, the digital age, where people think animation is real.

The closer on the bc issue to me is: Why is there BOTH a BC and a COLB?

only ONE is issued at birth.


44 posted on 05/24/2009 9:14:53 AM PDT by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: csense

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html


45 posted on 05/24/2009 9:16:11 AM PDT by RaceBannon (We have sown the wind, but we will reap the whirlwind. NObama. Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
Pancreatic Cancer's Achilles' Heel

GPS signal under threat - A few years of reduced precision might affect scientists worldwide.

Europium’s superconductivity demonstrated

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

46 posted on 05/24/2009 10:31:10 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

THX.


47 posted on 05/24/2009 10:37:32 AM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: waxer1

Thank you. Glad I wasn’t the only one puzzled. I’ll have to find a copy of that book.


48 posted on 05/24/2009 10:57:57 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

I went and looked it up . The temperature where chemical compounds are first encountered in stellar atmospheres is 6300 F . Of course Iron vaporizes at 5300 degrees F and even ROSIE is not stupid enough to believe gaseous Iron will hold a structure up.


49 posted on 05/24/2009 11:02:24 AM PDT by Nateman (If liberals aren't screaming you're doing it wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nateman

And it looks like I stand corrrected....


50 posted on 05/24/2009 9:01:14 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson