Noam Chomsky Schools 9/11 Truther; Explains the Science of Making Credible Claims

We don’t often write up videos posted by 9-11 Truthers, but you can watch an interesting exchange when this particular Truther confronts well-known linguist and political observer Noam Chomsky during the question session after the latter’s talk at the University of Florida. “You’ve mentioned quite a few contradictions from the media and their presentations on things, and I think the most notorious case of this is with September 11, 2001,” says the Truther after taking the microphone. “You wanted to see a consensus of engineers and specialists that understand the actual structures of these buildings and their possible collapse, and there is such a group. It’s called Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.” As the Truther gets into the “consensus of over 2000 of them,” the moderator interrupts, wondering if he actually has a question. (Surely we’ve all endured these moments in question segment.) But the Truther continues: “This consensus shows that Building 7, the third building that fell on 9/11, fell in freefall speed as the [National Institute of Standard and Technology] report acknowledges. Are you ready to come forward and jump on board with 9/11?” Thus asked to comment on whether the media has covered up the manner in which this particular building collapsed, Chomsky replies with a defense of standard scientific procedures.

“In fact, you’re right that there’s a consensus among a miniscule number of architects and engineers. They are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they’ve discovered something. What you do is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, that you’ve discovered something. There happen to be a lot of people around who spend an hour on the internet and think they know a lot physics, but it doesn’t work like that. There’s a reason there are graduate schools in these departments.” But hasn’t the government intimidated those who know the real story from speaking out against the official line? “Anybody who has any familiarity with political activism knows that this is one of the safest things you can do. It’s almost riskless. People take risks far beyond this constantly — including scientists and engineers.” Chomsky has more to say about the facts we can use, the opinions he disavows, and the forces driving the Iraq War in the remainder of the seven-minute clip. “We will let you be the judge of his response,” say the video’s notes. Indeed.

via Critical Theory

Related Content:

Noam Chomsky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Empty ‘Posturing’

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault Debate Human Nature and Power on Dutch TV, 1971

Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley, 1969

Colin Marshall hosts and produces Notebook on Cities and Culture and writes essays on literature, film, cities, Asia, and aesthetics. He’s at work on a book about Los AngelesA Los Angeles Primer. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall.



Make knowledge free & open. Share our posts with friends on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms:

by | Permalink | Comments (55) |

Choose a comment platform

Comments (55)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  1. Shannon Stoney says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 10:34 am

    But Chomsky himself at one time said that 9/11 was retaliation by TX elites against East Coast elites for the Enron bust.

  2. Carson says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 10:42 am

    Pedantic, evasive and disingenuous answer, when this is normally not his style. Disappointing.

  3. Sam R. says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 11:28 am

    No surprises here. Chomsky has always been anti-conspiracy. In his view, everything is basically out there, on the surface, you just have to pay attention to what the power elite are saying to each other. And he’s had that accompanying positivist, scientific, empirical, pro-academe stance forever. Academic research proceeds onward, discovering the truth, etc.nnFrom any reasonable state of mind, though, the whole set of convoluted 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty comical if you actually start reading them. That goes for “the planes got evacuated” to “Jews did it” all the way through the truly inspired “all the videos showing planes are fake.”

  4. skepticR says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 12:08 pm

    I’m a paramedic but my father was a civil engineer and I grew up around heavy construction projects, bridges, locks and dams, sea walls and levees, high rise buildings, even missile silos, etc… and worked in that field to make money for college So I have an intimate real world knowledge of construction (including demolition). When I first started my undergraduate studies I was thinking of following my father into the profession and my studies were heavy on mathematics and physics and was at the top of my class so I have some knowledge in this area (it was only later I decided to switch to pre-med and fell in love with paramedicine while doing observation rides). From a purely engineering point of view there is just NO evidence 9/11 was an ‘inside job’. My father, who was a consulting engineer on the levees around New Orleans after Katrina, reviewed the reports of the 9/11 commission and we had several discussions about it before his death. He also thought the ‘truther’ arguments were ludicrous. But I guess engineering degrees don’t matter anymore because as Noam Chomsky said anybody can go on the internet today and after an hour think they know as much as someone who completed graduate level studies and then spent a lifetime in the field as a working engineer. These people are delusional. But if anyone wants to see an actual SCIENCE based site that explains why there was no government conspiracy and how two planes could bring down not only the towers but the other buildings as well here’s a link to the best one I know of: http://www.debunking911.com/

  5. Andreas Meyer says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 12:21 pm

    Have a look at “manufacturing consent”.

  6. Andreas Meyer says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 12:24 pm

    The official government approved narrative of events is itself a “conspiracy theory”: nhttps://archive.org/details/911WorldTradeCenterAttacksAConspiracyTheory

  7. Sam R. says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 12:56 pm

    In film form? Check out:nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18TylewQWkEnnnnIn book form? Check out the second page of the preface (which is available in the preview on books.google.com), with the paragraph starting:n”Institutional critiques such as we present in this book are commonly dismissed by establishment commentators as ‘conspiracy theories,’ but this is merely an evasion. We do not use any kind of ‘conspiracy’ hypothesis to explain mass-media performance. In fact, our treatment is much closer to a ‘free market’ analysis, with the results largely an outcome of the workings of market forces.”

  8. Ian Fantom says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 4:05 pm

    Very disappointed to hear that from Chomsky. He’s blinding us with science. Why not apply the same science to the politicians who have been advancing the idea that Building 7 fell as a consequence of two aircraft hitting the other towers? The point about 9/11 Truth is not what we believe but what we don’t believe. As regard Chomsky’s own idea that the US government could not have been involved because they didn’t use that as an excuse to invade Iraq, then why not put that one up to scientific scrutiny? In fact the Neocons attempted to do just that, but MI5 advised against it, presumably because they wouldn’t be able to get that past the Brits. So they attacked Afghanistan instead, and then later diverted the military effort onto Iraq, using 9/11 as part of the pretext. What is Chomsky’s game?

  9. Curt Freeman says . . . | October 24, 2013 / 8:01 pm

    I never dreamed that Noam Chomsky would let me down insofar as his statements being, in this case, sophomoric. I submit this opinion humbly. Case in point: NC “has no opinion”, yet he goes on to express his opinion, and meanwhile manages to insinuate that the mainstream media have indeed covered 9/11 with journalistic integrity. He also quite offhandedly not only insinuates but says outright in so many words that people who disagree with the NIST report are “conspiracy theorists”, and that those within Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth” aren’t QUALIFIED to speak to the matter! Are you kidding? These men and women have so much to lose professionally, and are only asking for a new investigation. I’ve always considered Chomsky to be among the most articulate, erudite persons of our times…in this case, one can only assume that he was having an off night.

  10. Chester Whelks says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 4:24 am

    ‘Disappointed’? That’s the problem with Conspiracy Theories – our desire to believe in them clouds our objectivity.

  11. Ian Fantom says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 4:44 am

    Your desire to believe in them, not mine. Not believing what politicians tell us is not a theory. Chomsky himself is well-known for his conspiracy theories concerning the US hegemony of the world. His insistence that the state has no secrets is unscientific. His recent statement is rather like saying: “The moon is made of cheese. If you don’t believe me, then write a scientific paper on it and have it peer reviewed. Otherwise you’re an irrational conspiracy looney”. It’s asymmetrical logic.

  12. Ian Fantom says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 5:00 am

    But none so comical as the Bush-Blair fantasy that a sick man in a cave in the Black Mountains of Afghanistan orchestrated the whole thing whilst under the watchful eye of the CIA. The 9/11 Truth Movement is not a membership organisation, nor is it a vast conspiracy against the state, as some people seem to be suggesting. It’s thousands upon thousands of individuals and small groups who don’t believe in the official conspiracy theory. Of course people have contradictory ideas – especially when red herrings are thrown in to make the whole thing look ridiculous. But who in this whole saga can possibly look more ridiculous than your very own George W Bush?

  13. Gnome says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 5:57 am

    Everything Chomsky is saying about Architects and Engineers, you could say about the govt. story as well. No analyst from the Govt. ever published their findings about 9/11 in a scientific journal so other scientists could evaluate it. No! It was fast, fast, fast. They had their conclusions by the end of the day on 9/11. And there’s been no turning back. George Bush even said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Very scientific!

    Did this guy’s theory ever get any scientific review? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk

  14. Seth Stauffer says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 9:34 am

    The point Chomsky is making is that the conspiracy theorists are making rhetorical arguments, rather than offering up their evidence to the wider academic/scientific to develop credibility for their arguments.

  15. Gnome says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 8:04 pm

    The point you should take away from this is that science is useless against politics. Science is too slow and deliberate. Politics isn’t under the same constraints. It can run on pure emotion. That’s why govt. can offer explanations like, “They hate us for our freedom!” (Honestly, do we need to have someone publish a paper challenging this view in a peer-reviewed sociology journal? Or can we all just agree that it’s bull?)nnThe horror is that politics is in charge of the war machine. So the emotional perspective that politicians play toward isn’t just academically frustrating…it justifies war and destruction. Basically, science is too slow and ill-equipped to debunk the nonsense fast enough to prevent anything at all. Quit turning to it to solve these issues.

  16. Deyan says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 8:23 pm

    You know what was awesome? About a quarter way reading through your post, before you even declared whether or not 9/11 was or wasn’t an inside job, I could already tell that you weren’t going to be a truther. And you know why? Because you actually posted your experiences, and in a very articulate way. And I conclude, everytime, that whoever has experience in this sort of thing, always comes out to the good side.

  17. Deyan says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 8:26 pm

    You do realize that the thousands of members of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth aren’t actual civil engineers? Many of them are students and pretty much have nothing to do with civil engineering. I mean, how easy is it to join this group without any kind of credentials? I see water technicians and landscape architects signing up for that group, both are fields that have nothing to do with construction of a high-rise building.

  18. Deyan says . . . | October 25, 2013 / 8:31 pm

    Terrible analogy. We know the moon isn’t made of cheese, and there is actually scientific literature proving this. The claim “the moon is made of cheese” can therefore be easily disproved. The problem is that you’re acting like the burden of proof is on him, when it’s the 9/11 conspiracy people who have the burden of proof laid on them. We all know what happened that day, four planes were hijacked and crashed into the landmarks of the US. Anyone who disagrees and makes a claim that says otherwise, needs to prove it.

  19. Ian Fantom says . . . | October 26, 2013 / 4:56 am

    We all know there was a conspiracy. The question is who was behind it. The Bush-Blair claim that Osama bin Laden was behind it needs scientific proof. The 9/11 Truth Movement consists of individuals who are asking for that proof and not getting it. Chomsky has turned the burden of proof around.

  20. Deyan says . . . | October 26, 2013 / 8:50 am

    There is proof. Read all 500 pages of the NIST report. It makes sense. It even goes into detail behind the hijackers and their planning, and how they almost got caught. That’s the more interesting part about 9/11, it’s how these guys planned it out.

  21. polfilmblog says . . . | October 26, 2013 / 10:51 am

    Chomsky knows zero about 9/11 and has pointedly refused to look at evidence since that day. If you want to know what someone who has seen the intelligence and knows what they’re talking about, read Senator Bob Graham’s call to “Reopen the 9/11 Investigation Immediately,” exactly what he’s been saying for 12 years:nnhttp://wp.me/pwAWe-1JHnnnNoam Chomsky is a misleader who argues in generalities. He doesn’t actually know anything specific about the issue, nor does he want to. His arguments are baseless in the face of actual evidence (such as Senator Graham’s and 2000 Architects and Engineers).

  22. polfilmblog says . . . | October 26, 2013 / 12:37 pm

    Chomsky the Liar:nnhttp://wp.me/pwAWe-2Wi

  23. Curt Freeman says . . . | October 26, 2013 / 1:15 pm

    I realize that indeed, Deyan, if you’re including people who’ve Liked the Facebook Page as “Members”. I was speaking to Chomsky’s comments directly, and frankly my personal disappointment in them. But to speak to your comment, in the Film “Explosive Evidence: The Experts Speak Out” (produced by A&E For 9/11 Truth”, those persons who are recognized as experts in the field, in nearly every case, actually articulate their professional credentials as well as their experience in Civil Engineering et al. Your argument that persons outside the engineering field agree with the highly qualified experts within in it is weak at best. There are those turdsicles who have exploited the event for reasons both lurid and morbid—even commercial—but if you’ll watch the film, you’ll see people who have a qualified opinion, and a hell of a lot to lose by stating it.

  24. Ian Fantom says . . . | October 26, 2013 / 6:07 pm

    Peer reviewed?! Even the authors themselves discredited it. They even avoided mentioning Building 7. See what the various experts say at nnhttp://www.ae911truth.org/ nhttp://911scholars.org/nhttp://physics911.net/nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZOI4pfeM1onhttp://www.journalof911studies.com/nhttp://stj911.org/nhttp://mp911truth.org/nhttp://pilotsfor911truth.org/nhttp://patriotsquestion911.com/nhttp://www.veteranstoday.com/

  25. Deyan says . . . | October 26, 2013 / 7:06 pm

    Thanks for obscure links which I won’t bother to check out, since they are swimming in an aura of bias.

  26. Ian Fantom says . . . | October 27, 2013 / 5:20 am

    Chutzpah!

  27. PecosinRat says . . . | October 28, 2013 / 10:57 am

    That’s an interesting story, skepticR. However, it doesn’t answer any of the questions raised about the collapses of the buildings at the World Trade Center. Perhaps there is an explanation (other than controlled demolition) for how a building collapses at (or very near) free fall speed of acceleration into its own footprints symmetrically. I’d be very interested in hearing it. There would, of course, be a follow up question, “How did it happen three times on the same day?”

  28. skepticR says . . . | October 30, 2013 / 9:19 pm

    Uh yes it does. I clearly linked to a site that provides detailed scientific analysis of the engineering and physics related to ALL the buildings that fell on 9/11 INCLUDING building seven. But since you are apparently unaware of how to access such a link I will post it again. What you do is place the cursor (that’s the little arrow looking thingy) on it and press the button. Here it is AGAIN—–> http://www.debunking911.com/

  29. PecosinRat says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 3:38 am

    Forgive me, I thought your educational background, discussions with your father, and youthful exposure to the construction world could allow you to help me understand how the top 13% of a building could crush the supposedly undamaged 87% below it, a seeming violation of Newton’s third law–every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It seems to me that Newton would have predicted that the most that the top part of the building could destroy is another 13% as it was destroyed itself. Of course, the videos show the top part of the building disintegrated very shortly after the collapse began, so it wasn’t even there to do the crushing.

  30. skepticR says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 3:47 am

    I don’t know where you went to school but it’s obvious they didn’t cover physics very well because you apparently don’t understand Newton at all.

  31. PecosinRat says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 3:52 am

    Thank you for that appraisal, my teachers would probably have agreed. I’m open to your explanation.

  32. skepticR says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 4:52 am

    Here it is for the THIRD time: http://www.debunking911.com/

  33. PecosinRat says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 6:16 am

    Perhaps it’s best to acknowledge that this teachable moment has passed. Thanks for the conversation.

  34. skepticR says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 6:41 am

    It’s only passed because YOU refused it. I offered you a link to a site that gives detailed answers to EVERY question you asked but you FAILED to take advantage of it THREE separate times. It is not my job to teach YOU physics especially in the comments section of an article such as this when all you have to do is simply click a link to an excellent science based and peer reviewed website that’s already set up. If you don’t understand physics fine but you then have NO business telling those of us who do what it has to say about anything particularly a subject such as this. The answers are there ignoring them will NOT make them disappear nor will it somehow validate your belief in some nonsensical conspiracy fantasy.

  35. skepticR says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 7:09 am
  36. polfilmblog says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 7:32 am

    Non-sequiturs are indeed “BS.” Your cherry picking website says nothing whatsoever about the Saudis aiding the hijackers. Nothing about Omar Bayoumi, the Florida cell, the FBI intelligence and the cover up that continues to this day. If you had integrity you’d acknowledge the cover up, the stuff they refuse to show. That would be honest step one, the starting square.

  37. polfilmblog says . . . | October 31, 2013 / 8:10 am

    Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, notably, have created, aided and abetted the Al Qaeda movement for a couple of decades. These are allies of the US playing both sides. People at the top of the US chain of command know this quite well and use the Al Qaeda brigades in covert wars, chuckling gleefully as they blow up Russians in Afghanistan and Chechnya, destroy Yugoslavia Libya and now Syria.nnnOsama bin Laden may have some connection to the attacks (never shown), but that in no way exonerates the Saudi government nor the Pakistani intelligence, nor our own dark forces who exist in the bowels of CIA and block warnings from reaching FBI agents even when the terrorists are known to have US multi-entry passports and are known to be here on US soil.nnThe 9/11 attacks stink to high heavens, and only a dishonest propagandist would ignore the massive cover up and known warnings and irregularities surrounding this event.

  38. Ian Fantom says . . . | November 1, 2013 / 3:13 am

    Indeed. But it would have been far more difficult for Osama bin Laden to keep such an operation quiet than for the CIA. Furthermore, the CIA has a long history of such attacks on a lesser scale. Look up NATO’s Operation Gladio – in particular the BBC’s Timewatch series in 1992, and books by Daniele Ganser and Richard Cottrell. It looks as if Gladio has spread to the Middle East.nnnI’m just doing a write-up on Chomsky for my newsletter. Send me an email: first name (at) second name (dot) co (dot) uk.

  39. polfilmblog says . . . | November 1, 2013 / 12:52 pm

    I don’t think it was “kept quiet” as we talk about it extensively today, and Bob Graham talks about the “support network” of Saudi government officials. This is where the evidence leads. nnhttp://wp.me/pwAWe-1JH

  40. polfilmblog says . . . | November 1, 2013 / 12:54 pm

    Nist’s “500 pages” (is this proof by page count?) are more noteworthy for what they leave out. The reports have been criticized at length for their unscientific leaps of logic, a product of a government guided “study” rigged to come to the preordained conclusion.

  41. Deyan says . . . | November 2, 2013 / 1:24 pm

    “more noteworthy for what they leave out…. unscientific leaps of logic”nnCan you cite an example specifically from the NIST report?

  42. polfilmblog says . . . | November 2, 2013 / 1:32 pm

    Talk to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. nnhttp://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html#Technical_Articles

  43. Deyan says . . . | November 2, 2013 / 4:08 pm

    Fantastic. Another example of how when I ask a truther a simple question, they want me to do their homework for them.

  44. polfilmblog says . . . | November 2, 2013 / 4:10 pm

    I think you have it quite backwards, son. I’m not doing your homework for you. I actually have a life. If you can read, you may be able to figure out a few things. If not, then oh well. Either way, it’s of no concern to me.

  45. skepticR says . . . | November 3, 2013 / 8:54 am

    That’s it? Your “authority” is a tiny fringe group made up mostly of people who have worked in chemical or electrical engineering but who have ZERO experience in CIVIL or STRUCTURAL engineering? You do realize the difference don’t you? And you do realize this group has been THOROUGHLY discredited by EXPERTS in the RELEVANT fields do you not? If you truly insist on trying to foist this canard on people who actually understand construction you are aware they will only laugh at you right?

  46. skepticR says . . . | November 3, 2013 / 8:57 am

    You are a fucking idiot! Do you also believe in the Illuminatti?

  47. polfilmblog says . . . | November 3, 2013 / 10:31 am

    Are there moderators here, or does anything go? nnSkepticR, I don’t feel the need to respond to morons of your caliber. You can’t disprove a single point I’ve made, and you never will.

  48. polfilmblog says . . . | November 3, 2013 / 10:31 am

    Are there moderators here, or does anything go? nnSkepticR, I don’t feel the need to respond to morons of your caliber. You can’t disprove a single point I’ve made, and you never will.

  49. polfilmblog says . . . | November 3, 2013 / 11:00 am

    Chomsky blatantly spins 9/11, claiming “they” (the Bush regime) blamed 9/11 on their “allies” (the Saudi regime). This is a false reality. nnThe Saudi regime PERPETRATED the crime, and were a party to it. They were not BLAMED by the Bush white house for the crime. That is what is covered up to this day, and what Senator Bob Graham has been talking about for 12 years now…nnhttp://wp.me/pwAWe-1JHnnnChomsky’s false reality, implying that the Saudis were somehow held responsible for this attack on America is through the looking glass. A second conspiracy is clearly evident in covering up Saudi culpability and sponsorship of the September 11th attacks. The cover up itself is treason according to the Constitution, “aid and comfort” to those who wage war on the US. nnnnAll this passes by casually with the dismissals of the thought leader Chomsky, the great misleader of the impotent left. That Chomsky would disregard evidence and a long history of covert collusion between US intelligence and these despotic regimes, tells us plenty about him. Usually, Mr. Chomsky wants to bring out the evidence and elucidate on the meaning of these connections. In the case of 9/11, however, it’s the opposite. He is okay with the cover up, and he doesn’t want to talk about it. nThat is uncharacteristic of him. He is not a trustworthy source on this issue at all, and he does not want to know.

  50. skepticR says . . . | November 6, 2013 / 8:09 am

    Yep you’re an idiot

  51. polfilmblog says . . . | November 6, 2013 / 8:30 am

    Let’s basknin the genius of “SkepticR” who managed to turn on a computer andnpost a hyperlink to a website without regard for specific questions addressed.nHis brilliance assumes that all questions are answered by referencing anwebsite, although he fails to understand what the specific points evennaddress. His reliance on ad hominemninsults like “idiot” require as little thought and logicalnconsistency, but since he placed the word “skeptic” in his cowardlynanonymous screenname, we should assume him to be skeptical, whether or not henevinces any cursory understanding of the word.nn nnOthernskeptics may remain skeptical of a government shown covering up massive amountsnof relevant intelligence and basing their reports of the 9/11 attacks on thentortured testimony of prisoners beyond the reach of investigators. People might remain skeptical of a reportnthat a prominent Senator, Max Cleland, resigned from while citing the WarrennCommission as its model. Said Cleland:n”Iu2019m not going to be part of looking at information only partially. Iu2019mnnot going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. Iu2019m not going to benpart of political pressure to do this or not do that.”nn nnOthernskeptics note that Kean and Hamilton both agreed that the Commission itself wasn”set up to fail,” by those types of “political pressures”nreferenced by Cleland. Staffers werenfired by Bush crony Phillip Zelikow, who pulled the strings behind the scenes,nfor the crime of getting a copy of those 28 redacted pages, which SenatornGraham co-wrote and talk about Saudi state links to the hijackers.nn nnSkepticR,nhowever, knows how to post an irrelevant hyperlink, being a superior thinkernwho requires no evidence of his logic skills, which surely must exist,nevidenced by his blind arrogant cockiness. nFor blind, arrogant cockiness is a sure sign of truth and understandingnin today’s world. Ask Bill O’Reilly ornSean Hannity, Rush or Glenn. SomedaynSkepticR might even post something sort of relevant. We can but wait for those glorious neurons ofnhis to spark.

  52. Edward Caldwell says . . . | November 27, 2013 / 7:13 am

    “Unless they are total lunatics…”, well yes Noam, they are. They are called psychopaths.

  53. Edward Caldwell says . . . | November 27, 2013 / 7:19 am

    There are a lot of people that think Chomsky walks on water or a silver cloud. They don’t know how much they can be duped by this type of chameleon. They like to let an “expert” think for them.

  54. me says . . . | March 4, 2014 / 3:20 am

    The difference between engineers and scientists is that engineers think they aren’t guessing.

  55. Dr A R Bordon says . . . | July 24, 2014 / 5:04 pm

    In the black ops world – all well known that Cheney oversaw the operation. Now watch and listen to this man who I worked with closely at Pine Gap station down under

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yytSNQ2ogD4

Add a comment

Loading Facebook Comments ...
Quantcast