Saturday, January 15, 2011

The 9/11 'Truth' Parlor Game

By Robert Parry
January 15, 2011

It seems that I have upset some folks on the Left again, this time by mentioning – deep inside a story about Sarah Palin’s proclaimed victimhood over the Tucson massacre fallout – that groups like the 9/11 “truthers” also have contributed to America’s crazed political environment.

Read on.

59 comments:

Positronic Dave said...

Dear Robert,

You cite Popular Mechanics as your source of "proof" that 9/11 Truth activists have no standing with their arguments. Curiously, you don't link to AE911Truth.org, which has over 1300 registered Architects and Engineers willing to stake their professional reputations on their interpretation of the available evidence.

You make claims about what 9/11 Truth activists cite as evidence for their conclusions, but you don't let them do it in their own words.

Ever hear of Barry Jennings? Ever see his testimony about what happened to him and Corporation Counsel Leon Hess in Building 7 that morning?

There is so much you do not know, apparently. I've been a reader and a fan of your work for a long time, sir, but this time I must respectfully, and emphatically, disagree with both your conclusions and your weak attempts to defend them.

Anonymous said...

I used to think Robert Parry was a serious Journalists, but judging from his take on 911 and the truth movemnet, he most definitely isn't!
This guy doesn't what the f88k he is talking about! In fact, he is a scared little man who is afraid of confronting the truth!

Anonymous said...

The crazy tale that is told in this article is indeed quite crazy though no doubt many people do believe parts of it and it may even be possible to find someone out there who believes all of it.

Most likely, many of the details were proposed as possible alternatives to support doubt about the officially sanctioned narrative; there is little reason for putting together a full narrative unless you are a novelist or a government official.

Most of the truth activists really are skeptics and that is why they seem to focus so much on the official narrative of 9/11 (or perhaps I should say narratives, since there have been a number of different versions). Governments in general and Bush's in particular have given good justifications for a habit of skepticism.

Some of the details of the official narratives are contradictory (crazy), just as are some of the details of many of the unofficial narratives. None of us know what really happened on 9/11 and probably we never will. It may seem futile to discuss this topic, but it surely will interest people for many years to come.

Anonymous said...

Seems Mr. Parry should have a chat with Ray McGovern, who also has been taken in by the "preposterous notions" that the government's conspiracy theory is incredible.

Anonymous said...

Could somebody please forward this video ( http://blip.tv/file/3700790 ) to Robert Parry before he spews out more rubbish regarding 911 and thr thruth movement. It is "yellow journalism" such as displayed by Robert Parry in this piece that is preventing the truth about 911 from emerging . . . but it surely will not remain buried for long!

gDog said...

I understand the fatigue, Mr. Parry, and as someone who has followed your work with admiration, I sympathize with the ennui that leads you to say, "enough, alread."

Your rebuttal, however is very unconvincing. I would have expected better.

Anonymous said...

Falling at near free fall speed--- the same timing is cited in the official 9/11 report to Congress, and N.I.S.T--- results in 11 floors collapsing each second of the approximately 10 second drop of each of the Twin Towers. Physics and common sense both maintain that if a bowling ball dropped through air from a height of 1400 feet takes just under 10 seconds to reach the ground, the 1400 foot high roof of a building made from steel and concrete, dropping down through that steel and concrete, cannot reach the ground in anywhere near the same time--- without additional forces helping that to happen.

Kevin Ryan said...

Wow, Bob, you've really gone off the deep end. We all realize that this is a difficult subject and that those who have the most difficult time with it get very emotional as you did in this hatchet job.

If we can get past your name calling, we should note a few of your major errors.

Demolition of a building does not require wiring each of the floors -- not even close. Please try not to exaggerate in your future attacks.

"Truthers" do not insist that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Most people know that and you're going to look pretty stupid for saying it.

Claiming that a deceptive demolition event could not happen because those who placed the charges have not come forward to boast of their handiwork is absurd. Who's going to admit killing nearly 3,000 people? More importantly, are you asking that all investigators throw out their evidence until they get a confession? How would our justice system work with that approach?

You claim that "Much residue found after a major fire can be 'consistent' with thermite". As one of the authors of the series of peer-reviewed papers that has provided the evidence you are trying to debunk, I ask you to please provide examples for your theory. Otherwise, you look very much like you're simply using bare assertions to comfort yourself.

As for your claims that al Qaeda has admitted ito the 9/11 crimes so we should just take their word for it, please consider al Qaeda and its origins. Ask your friends about this, if they can stop laughing.

project_falcon said...

Hi Robert,

As a longtime supporter and reader of your columns, I greatly appreciate all the groundbreaking work you have done to expose the corruption, the hypocrisy (your recent column on Scalia's 14th amendment was brillant), and the many uncovered stories that go missing in the mainstream media.

Thanks for all your hard work over the years.

I understand that most people in the US point blank accept the official story about the planes' jet fuel and impact into the WTC bldgs as the main cause for those bldgs collapse. No one wants to believe the 'bombs in the building' and that 9/11 was an inside job, including yourself, without someone coming forward to spill the beans.

What happened on 9/11 defies imagination: if someone had been involved with wiring up the bldg, or knew about it, they would have stepped forward by now. Well think of 9/11 as having been co-ordinatated as one giant mafia operation: anyone who was involved with this project was probably vetted before they were invited to make sure they would not speak out. If that person or persons were to come forward and speak out now, I'm sure they have been warned that they and their entire family would be rubbed off the face of the earth. So in this case, no one is going to step forward, ever.

My guess is that anyone who was actually involved with the wiring of the thermite cutting charges is probably already dead or they killed off enough of the participants to scare anyone else. It's a massive "you talk, you die" operation. You just don't get it that it could happen. Why would anyone who was involved even attempt to come forward in the last 9 years when they know it's an instant death sentence and no one would believe them anyway? To come forward means a threat of death to themselves or their family, losing their job and worse. Who is going to take on that risk? If you look at the few professors who have stuck their necks out and looked into 9/11 such as David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, both of them got fired for doing so. Kevin Ryan, a Underwriters Laboratories, whistleblower, got fired for looking into UL having certified the steel columns that were able to withstand high temperature fires for up to 3 hours and also that "no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire" before 9/11.

What I am disappointed in is that you have an opinion of all truthers as being nutcases. Not all truthers believe in the theory about a missile hitting the Pentagon instead of a jetliner.
What I ask you to do is look at one piece of the massive 9/11 puzzle: just look at how the WTC bldgs "fell" and the one critical truth is that skyscrapers don't just collapse in freefall style from a hot fire. The WTC bldgs had been designed to withstand the impact of jetplanes in the sixties when these bldgs were built.

I ask one favor: listen to william rodiguez talk about his experience as a janitor on the North Tower WTC bldg in which he saved the lives of 15 people. He was the only person who had a master key to the WTC bldgs. He has a website, www.william911.com, and has some interviews in which he talks about what happened, what he saw, and what he experienced firsthand. He deserves a listen from you. OK? Please? He has a DVD on his website and offer to buy you a copy because it really changed the way I thought about 9/11.

He is not a "truther", he is an actual survivor with his own story of heroism to tell. If you are interested in hearing William's story, please let me know & I will even make a matching donation to consortium news & also will order a copy of william's DVD for you.

OK? All it takes is an open mind.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that when you simply question the Governments account of 9/11 you are instantly called a "Truther" or a "Conspiracy Theorist"?

People are just asking questions.

Anonymous said...

Bob Parry's point proven by the majority of these comments. "He's not a real journalist because he doesn't believe what we believe." The Truth Movement has used bully tactics to get the news media to try and collude with them. If you refuse, you're not a "real journalist" and you don't care about the truth. The truth movement has yet to produce any piece of hard evidence to support its theory. I'd like to know if the Truth Movement has ever bothered to file FOIA requests and if so why it has not made such info available to at least show people that the are actually trying to get to the truth of their unsupported theory (because that's really all it is).

Anonymous said...

TO: Robert Parry (and other "911 deniers")

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXw3jJ3021o&feature=fvw

Anonymous said...

I agree with you, the 'truther' movement is nothing short of delusional. They are also a wee bit racist, in proposing the idea that only the USA could possibly attack the USA they expose themselves.

I've left websites because of the rabid nature of those who advocate the 'truther' movement. These folks don't know the meaning of the word 'truth' nor do they understand the word 'evidence'.

I see a dozen comments above, they're politer than the comments I got when I pointed out the 'truther' movement has no evidence. But the arguments are the same tired old muck.

The article was a good one, but you're talking to people who have 'true faith' that the US government is more competent than it really is; or could ever be.

Anonymous said...

B U L L S H I T

http://www.box.net/shared/z9qdpmxxd2

(((3)))

Mark M Giese said...

The esteemed Mr Parry gives a reason for the WTC 7 bldg fall that the official report could not be bothered with to comment upon whatsoever.

Remember how much fine dust was generated that day, how it blanketed cars and all? How billowing ground clouds of it went up the blocks surrounding the collapsing bldgs?

Gravity does not have enough energy to it to do that, to pulverize on such as scale as that.

The bldgs had ''help,'' explosives which the firefighters heard going off.

That's why those TALL bldgs seemed to collapse into their own basements virtually.

Ah, well, praise Mr Parry his fine points and forgive him his oversights.

Who is perfect and bats 1000?

David Slesinger said...

Bob,

Because I respect your longtime work so much, I was hurt when you referred
to my request we discuss high school physics as a matter of religion. I'm
sure you will agree I was completely polite during that exchange.

It is unreasonable to refer to the Truth movement as a left movement. The complaint
of my old friend Brian Tokar is, in fact, there are too many truth activists who are right of center.
I argue that the rare phenomena of there being a grassroots movement with significant segments
coming from both the left and the right indicates we are not guilty of being knee jerk doctrinaire thinkers.

Since one of the most important distinctions between left and right is their position on racism. David Swanson
just admitted in public questioning by me in Baltimore that if it could be shown Arab Muslims shouldn't be
blamed for 911, it would weaken support for the war. I haven't the slightest doubt you have done more to
combat racism than I have. This, of course, implies nothing about the evidence. It does show progressive
critics of 911 truth have no leg to stand on urging ignorance of 911truth evidence.

You seem unaware that that a March 2001 article in Elevator World describes contemporary work on
the elevator system of the Twin Towers by Ace Elevator as "one of the largest, most sophisticated
elevator modernization programs in the industry's history."

I predict you will have egg on your face on this issue. Please note I don't want you to have egg on your face.
You and so many respected intellectuals in the social socialrealm act as if you have no responsibility to
address issues of hard science.

I seriously doubt you can find a scientist who will agree that your point about the atrium holds water, although
it amuses me that your atrium analysis is not as obviously absurd as the NIST explanation itself.

I issue a loving and respectful challenge to you to find an architect, scientist or engineer who will dialog on
this point with both of us and some technically proficient person of my choice. It doesn't have to be soon.
Let me know if you find anyone of such training to agree with your atrium analysis.

Let's do it in the name of combating Islamophobia.

Dave Slesinger
dslesinger@alum.mit.edu

Anonymous said...

Dear Robert Parry,
I am seriously disappointed with your quoting Popular Mechanics regarding 911, I mean, come on - what f-ing joke, in fact, that's all you need to know when it comes to the "mainstream media".

Your past work is very, very impressive and I still respect your Contra reporting, but you really need to bear down on 911 and get with the program. And don't use such a broad brush with regards to "truthers" and their beliefs.

It's always been extremely strange with 911, no real investigation the weird conclusions of the 911 report - so full of errors... I guess the "hijackers" got real lucky attacking on the day they did. I wish that you would look into it that more, will you please? How did they happen to pick that particular day? Damn lucky, eh?

I don't know why you are so deluded about this topic? You must understand the disinformation regarding the Pentagon and the "missle"... WTF? Do you really believe we were "attacked" by al Qaeda? Can you provide ANY proof of this connection? You may want to look more closely into the collapse of Building 7 and what was inside it. Especially, since it's collapse makes no sense - at least as far as the "official" report. Why is that unexplained?

As much as I respect Robert Parry (tremendously)and his reporting I believe he is wrong on this one.

Jerome0682 said...

Thanks for the share, It is interesting. More power! Bookmarked the page by the way

gDog said...

Weird thing is, I was really hoping for a good rebuttal here. I don't want to doubt the government story - but it requires a credulous forfeit I just haven't been able to surrender, truthfully.

I appreciate that a position skeptical of the official MSM theory (Muslims, whatever?) is difficult for my favorite journalists - including ConsortiumNews, DemocracyNow, and FDL, say, but, don't ask me to reject basic physics to believe the frameup.

Remember how "they" framed the Communists as a bogeyman to advance their capitalist power-grab agenda? And the empty feeling of angst in Bushworld when the Berlin Wall fell? C'mon, man. Give me something I can believe - the Atrium is a good start, but it's just a feint. Give me a full swing!

Ryan said...

"Bush did this, Bush did that" What are you talking about? The guy couldn't tie is own shoes. And anybody with an IQ over 60 knows that Presidents don't do much more then read off the telepromter. So stop lumping 911 truth with a Bush conspiracy.

911 was a Mossad Operation. This stuff is getting more obvious by the day. Had foreknowledge and participated in the events that day.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXddYoeeuOA
How did the buildings get wired for demo? Why don't you question who owned the buildings, who ran the security and the port authority. All Zionists.
Airport security, FAA software, remote control plane technology, PNAC, head of 911 commission, MSM, Zionist, Zionist, Zionist.

Mossad agents ADMITTING they went to NY that day to document the event. Caught with truck bombs trying to blow up GW bridge. Blowing up another van near WT center. Living next to the "terrorists" in Hollywood FL. - most certainly impersonately them as Atta and Mossoui (sp?) couldn't speak their native language to their flight instructors.

Half of the "terrorists" were confirmed to be alive after 911!!! How stupid is this stuff?

There are many people who know this. This ex CIA official is one of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=zGHZGL3k5xA&feature=related

Mark E. Smith said...

How strange that the FBI would support a crazy conspiracy theory by testifying in court that those frantic phone calls from the plane never happened. Is the FBI in cahoots with the Truthers?

Anonymous said...

"Don't confuse me with the facts. I read Popular Mechanics," Robert Parry

Jon Gold said...

http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

Sincerely,

Jon Gold

P.S. Maybe you should read Fact #14 (and the rest of it of course).

Anonymous said...

Maybe it is just because I haven't been listening in the right places -- but most of the truther movement that I have heard from appears to be fairly right-wing. How would you categorize, for instance, Alex Jones?

Howard

Matthew said...

After reading your article The 9/11 'Truth' Parlor Game, I was disturbed by the mischaracterization of the people who are questioning the official 9/11 Commission report and the real issues involved. The claims that you attribute to the movement are not substantiated by naming any source of the statements – only references to “truthers”. Have you read David Ray Griffin’s The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, Thierry Meyssan’s Pentagate, Webster Tarpley’s 9/11 Synthetic Terror or been to a presentation by Richard Gage AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Probably not, or you would have spoken to their research and not about vague “truther” movement conclusions and unsubstantiated claims. The people who seriously question the “official story” know they don’t know what actually happened. It is a different issue to say you question the official story when compared to documented facts and events and the way they have been treated by an official investigation. There are so many inconsistencies and wholesale revisionisms in the Kean/Zelikow report that I am surprised you would spend time talking about unsubstantiated Bush/Cheney conspiracies. FBI agent Coleen Rowley, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Sibel Edmonds, Rep. Murtha, Norman Mineta, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey all gave testimony which contradicts the findings of the Kean/Zelikow report. I am sure there are many others who would come forward if they thought they weren’t going to be demonized in the press. How many years did it take before even the government admitted the Warren Commission conclusions about the JFK murder were false? Please don’t forget how you were treated when you did your fine reporting regarding Iran Contra.

Greg said...

I also respected Mr. Parry's work through the years and was confused as to his characterizing of "truthers" with a disdainful broad-brush . At the very least that group only questioned the official narrative and did not necessarily try to advance a specific explanation as to what went down that day . His normally reasoned thought seemed absent and unscientific when discussing the many government inconsistencies prevalent and obvious .

With friends and acquaintances, the reluctance to delve deeper on their part usually entailed ignorance or bias that overrode reason- I don't think Mr. Parry is susceptible to these factors however , although I could be wrong .

(imo) The Iran-contra "players" may have been involved in the orchestration of the 911 murders and subsequent power grab and for Mr Parry not to at least consider this possibility seems at odds with his past enthusiasm for disclosing of the truth - perhaps he has been threatened ?

Anonymous said...

Robert, I just can't believe a person of your intellect would write such a weak rebuttal of the facts about 9/11. It's as if you have had a sudden suspension of belief of all about this issue that is relevant. Your defense of the party line is preposterously uninformed. You say you have kept abreast of the subject, but it's painfully embarrassing that you have not. After all the wonderful articles of truth searching and expose, why have you closed your eyes to this cover-up?

Reader said...

Guys, you're wasting your breath on Robert. He's has 10 years to look into this and hasn't bothered or made the same executive decision that Democracy Now made -- continue to swim and reject the "truthers" or be taken out like Van Jones if you dare to stray.

It looks like Robert just got scared. That's not hard to imagine, given that guy is probably looking at his retirement and it's probably shrunken and anyway, there are so many other fights to fight, why ruin everything by even considering that B7 was demolished? 9/11 only killed 3000 people, but the Iraq war has already killed so many more . . . why ruin his chances for a future by being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" for the rest of his career?

He's not stupid, and we all know it. Just like Chomsky. But it looks like he's just not going to risk anything . . . not really . . . for this. 9/11 is over and done with.

He made his choice, now leave him be.

Anonymous said...

Wow! I've been checking back on the comments made and want to especially thank those who left url's to check out. I've actually learned new stuff thanks to Parry attributing the main cause of Bdlg 7 to the "atrium" creating a hollow structure--I had never heard that one before. Apparently NIST came up with that.

Interesting that Parry is giving so much credence to Popular Mechanic magazine which is owned by Hearst and has been in the forefront of "debunking" anyone questioning the 9/11 disaster beyond the official story about the WTC bldgs collapse. Even more interesting that he also lists NIST, the National Geographic Channel as his other sources.

I don't know why Parry has deferred to the official storyline on 9/11. But, as he said, looking into it would take way too much of his time.

Bob Parry I know you won't have any interest, but anyone else check out this great radio interview (jan 12) with Kevin Ryan which is the 2nd in a series of interviews on the Guns n Butter weekly radio program:
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/66755
"Demolition Access To the World Trade Center Towers"

Check out the previous week's interview with Ryan on Jan 5th, that's another mindblower. Wow! OMG

Anonymous said...

TWO SHORT VIDEOS(less than 3 minutes)
of Firefighter's and Eyewitness Testimony WILL change Robert Parry's opinion of what went down on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozTnINH6Yls


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Erik said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Erik said...

Mr. Parry, as someone who knows that disinformation was fed to the media about Vietnam, the October Surprise, Iran Contra and the CIA's knowledge/involvement with drug trafficking and the Contras, it's surprising that you don't demonstrate greater skepticism about both 9/11, and the nature of some of the 'crazy' claims that are being hyped as tenets of the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as the claim that a missile hit the Pentagon.

What better way could a movement for truth and justice be marginalized than by misleading people with false evidence of complicity and then engaging in nutpicking when covering said movement?

As someone who has questions about the level of foreknowledge and lack of action, as someone who is concerned about the direction this country has been taken by unaccountable political and economic elites who've lied this nation into wars on a number of occasions, you really owe it to yourself and your readers to take a closer look under the surface.

I suggest checking out Jon Gold's The Facts Speak for Themselves at the link he provided.

70% of the families' questions- very reasonable, obvious questions- were left unanswered answered by a Commission riddled by insiders with conflicts of interest
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Gregory Lynn Kruse said...

I don't know Robert Parry as well as many of you commenters seem to, so I will not try to assess his character. Whenever mind-blowing events such as 9/11 occur, every observer has a story to tell. Putting all these stories into a coherent theory of truth is a daunting task, especially if you have to consider all sides of the issue. Parry is standing on bedrock. In order to even attempt coherence, you'd have to construct the theory first, and then try to prove it with unassailable evidence. The temptation is always to choose evidence that supports your theory, ignore evidence that doesn't, and make evidence to meet a crucial need. Scientific method is required to validate a theory, not religious belief. There is evidence that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and deliberately let it happen. Kennedy may have been killed by Lyndon Johnson, but to this day we don't know for sure even though theorists have spent millions of hours trying to prove these and other theories. I'm with Parry. Let's investigate with a healthy skepticism going in, not with a certainty. In the end, even if the Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. crowd were able to pull off with staggering perfection a plan that rivals Operation Torch, and it could be proven, they will still get away with it, just as they have gotten away with war crimes of the highest magnitude, and bank robberies of staggering scope that could be much more easily theorized about and investigated.

Big Em said...

I heartily agree with your position on this issue Mr Parry. Though many of the 'truthers' like to imply that people like us are naive, or lazy, or dupes, I haven't seen that from yourself, nor other left/liberal/progressive (whatever the hell you want to call us) authors like Alexander Cockburn(1) or Ernest Partridge(2), both LIFELONG liberal writers/activists. It's amusing to hear these truthers call figures like Noam Chomsky a 'government dupe' --- someone like he who has risked so much (and even has his wages garnished for not paying 'war taxes') and been so consistently and repeatedly AGAINST the US government's actions (going back to the mid 1960s), especially abroad. It just once again demonstrates the lack of credibility in the truther movement.
Though many of the truthers like to try to conjure up supposed scientific proof, it quickly evaporates when the WHOLE story is examined by careful, skeptical minds who rely on more than Internet snippets and rumors.

Two very good debunking sites for those who wish to easily read some rational info are:

www.debunking911.com/
and
www.ae911truth.info

You can easily look up ANY of the posts that the previous truthers above offer as 'significant questions' and see them all explained to a highly detailed level, enough for any non-ideologue to see that 99% of what the truthers 'imply' or 'conjecture' is undoubtedly false.

And 'NO', this in no way implies that I or others like me necessarily back Republicans --- I've NEVER voted for a Republican in my 40 yrs of voting, and I believe that 'St' Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents (until "W"). I believe that there HAVE been SOME conspiracies throughout history, but conversely that in no way means that ALL conjectured conspiracies are accurate. As well as Parry's article, Cockburn & Partridge's below articles have good discussions of conspiracy pros-and-cons. But this 9/11 truther stuff MOST reminds me of the old 'Paul-is-dead' Beatles urban myth from the late 1960's, though that was done as an idle lark by the Beatles.

(1) www.zcommunications.org/the-9-11-conspiracy-nuts-by-alexander-cockburn-1

(2) www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

Anonymous said...

BIG EM, this is for you:

TWO SHORT VIDEOS(less than 3 minutes)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozTnINH6Yls


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Anonymous said...

B U L L S H I T

http://www.box.net/shared/z9qdpmxxd2

(((3)))

Anonymous said...

Parry is a truther. He's been endlessly blowing the lonely truther horn about Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, the whole Bush family, Obama and the media. Now, it seems that he wants to have it both ways, maybe because he's gotten a little bit of cred in the MSM, which occasionally features him on TV. I guess that's enough for him, though, to put the kabosh on his investigation into 911.

Yep, he goes right for the truthers' jugular, cause he knows where to find it, having had his own cut many times in the past. He slashes again and again, calling names, belittling people, citing the easily debunkable narratives, and painting it all with the Bush brush. Oh yeah, Bob, truthers think it was Bush flying those planes with remote control, telling the fighter jets to take a day off, wiring the towers while riding his mountain bike down the stairwell. Hell, he's just pretending he doesn't like to read; he's really a master criminal.

Give us a break; we read your long-winded accounts of recently disclosed information about Reagan and Nixon. What, did that surface 20 or 30 years later? Well, forgive the truthers for investigating this too soon. Don't worry, you can still pick apart the 911 commission archive from your retirement as a Fox commentator. How much are those MSM stations paying you for your appearances there? Enough to keep you away from 911, no doubt. Keep up the good work, Bob, helluva guy!

Tim Riley said...

I respectfully ask Mr. Parry and his readers to consider the force required to overcome static resistance of weight bearing vertical columns.

The near to free-fall speeds recorded on 9/11/2001 are impossible to achieve through the path of most resistance without eliminating the thick structural steel box columns. The materials that exploded out into the air around the WTC buildings fell as fast as the tower collapsing down the center path of most resistance, and they did not get deflected to fall through the air as might be expected in a chaotic, assymmetrical structural failure.

For those who believe timed demolition charges could not be set to slice through the columns without anybody noticing, Barbara Bush's auto-biography reminds us that her other son, Marvin Bush sat on the Board of Directors of the company contracted to provide security for the World Trade Center complex. The buildings were not fully rented out and many floors throughout both buildings were unoccupied.

Anonymous said...

Robert,

I'm shocked you deleted twice a post about former CIA asset Susan Lindauer that I made over the past 24 hours, one within the past hour. You complained about no one with inside knowledge about 9/11 stepping forward, well she had foreknowledge and has been roundly punished for coming forward with her information, a year in military prison in Texas.

I am surprised, but hey it's your blog, I understand.
I have contacted her, hopefully she can contact you directly even though you seem to have completely stopped questioning the official NIST 9/11 report and have instead condemmed "truthers" as nutcases.

Here is her website:
http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/

BTW: I thank you for not deleting all the comments left, some contain some great links. but I give up and know you will delete this post too.

if you read this far that is!

Anonymous said...

All

F Y I

http://topblog3.blogspot.com/p/tops-911-studies_01.html

Download button upper right:

http://www.box.net/shared/2ap7avtyz6

(((3)))

Anonymous said...

Mr. Parry, it's you vs. your friends Peter Dale Scott, Coleen Rowley, Lisa Pease, Dan Ellsberg, Ray McGovern, John Newman, Peter Phillips, etc. etc.

Does it make you suspicious that Lee Hamilton was in charge of the 9/11 Whitewash Commission?

Or that Cheney's terrorism "task force" did almost nothing except change the procedure by which hijacked airplanes would be intercepted. After the change, all intercepts would require the approval of the president, vice president or secretary of defense. Interesting, eh? That's in Peter Dale Scott's The Road to 9/11.

As is the strange story of Ali Mohammed, whose actions have never been explained by any official government investigation.

And there's Sibel Edmonds who said (among other things) that Osama bin Laden has a relationship with the CIA up until 9/11/2001.

I don't know what happened on 9/11, but there are plenty of reasons to doubt the official story. Just as the Discovery Channel continues to produce JFK assassination propaganda, it follows that mainstream media will support the official 9/11 narrative, JUST AS THEY DO WITH THE OCTOBER SURPRISE despite the airtight case that you have made over the years.

I have your books and admire you a lot, but you are wrong about this. Yet unlike most guys, you have friends who could easily set you straight. I hope you let them and at least get agnostic about 9/11.

Anonymous said...

nothing signals compliance to mainstream memes like kicking dirty fucking truthers... very disappointing coming from someone who has been kicked out of the mainstream media klub for 'truthing' iran/contra, etc...
you'd think he would know better...

frankly, i didn't bother reading the whole thing, it was self-refuting from the start when he starts in with pop mech propaganda, takes nist, nat geo, and other defenders of the status quo at their 'word'...

for me, i didn't have to know ONE THING about thermite/thermate, or anything else to see that the WHOLE THING STANK to high heavens...
the first day, when i heard about it, BEFORE i saw much video, etc, i thought, 'okay, a plane crashes in an upper floor, takes out the structure, and causes a pancake-type collapse... i guess it could happen...'

...and i guess it could, BUT NOT LIKE THAT; as MANY commonsensical posters have said: a building just DOES NOT fall at as close to freefall speed as you can get WHEN THERE ARE 50-75 FLOORS OF (supposedly) INTACT STRUCTURE TO RESIST the collapse...
IT SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN...
(without something else going on...)

an analagous structure of toilet paper and marshmallows would exhibit more resistance to crushing than the world trade center towers did...

BUT, (for me) the OVERWHELMING 'evidence' that something was askew was all the 'circumstantial' evidence (which will convict you and me any day of the week and twice on sunday):
- the weird (non) reaction of king george ii...
- the totally batshit insane assertions about 'nobody could have foreseen this, blah blah blah...'
- the aug 8 briefing snafu...
- the pronouncement (from the likely perps) that, um, NO, ZERO, investigation was necessary, etc...
WTF ? ? ? that right there was a bigger red flag than what flies over fort mchenry...
(*AND* it took a literal handful of jersey grrls to FORCE the gummint to make the sorry report they did; WITH THE LIKELY conspirators in charge ! ! !)
- the standdown of the military, as well as the -are you fucking kidding me?- factoids (revealed w-a-a-a-y after the fact, and essentially IGNORED by the MSM) about 'war games' going on which 'simulated' multiple hijacks, etc...
(wait, i thought 'no one' could have foreseen this kind of thing... i'm confused, norman, please explain...)
- the explosions heard/felt by innumerable survivors and first responders have NEVER been satisfactorily explained, (simply ignored)...
- etc
- etc
- etc

i could go on listing innumerable 'anomalies' which don't make sense when viewed through a parry-based 'explanation', but make perfectly perverted sense when you consider an evil k-k-k-konspiracy...

but why bother, parry won't bother, he's given up and swallowed the koolaid...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
artguerrilla@windstream.net
eof

Anonymous said...

NICE - Right ON

(((3)))

Betsy said...

This article by Robert Parry ROYALLY pissed me off... I could write a 20 page rebuttal but it's just not worth my time.  He clearly hasn't done the research, looked at the anomalies & contradictions of the Bush Administration's OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory, and I think Bush was kept in the dark initially, it was a Cheney/Rumsfeld-run operation), completely ignores the whistleblowers and other contradicting testimony (as the 9/11 [C]ommission Report did, Sibel Edmonds, Norman Mineta, William Rodriguez, 118 firefighters, not to mention the THOUSANDS of professionals who have spoken out and written well researched & footnoted articles & books... by architects, engineers, military officers, professors & other academics, medical professionals, lawyers, 9/11 first responders, politicians with integrity (not a complete oxymoron), etc.  

INSTEAD, his article points to three sources, Popular Mechanics, National Geographic & NIST (National Institute of Standards & Technology, a gov't appointed & dependent entity, which changed their story re the collapse of the 3 towers several times, then finally announced, the week after Barry Jennings died that "thermal expansion" was the cause of the near free fall collapse of WTC7, a newly discovered physics theory, lol, by NIST...) NIST also refused to look at the thermite/thermate evidence... Why wouldn't they want to look at everything they could about what brought those towers down?

I look forward to the day when Parry, with his tail between his legs, writes a letter of apology to the so-called "truthers" (which he obnoxiously put in quotes throughout this article... I personally prefer "9/11 truth activists" since the "truther" term marginalizes us, but that's another issue...), and the American people when the 9/11 cover up is finally exposed. If he has the kajones.

This "journalist(er)" is so not one, regardless of his excellent previous work on Iran/Contra...  He's a disgrace to his profession, especially since relying only on the 3 sources he did. 

Good Night, Robert, and Good Luck.

Betsy Orr Metz, Non-partisan Truth Activist

Betsy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Betsy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Robert this so absurd and nonsensical it reads as dishonest. Seriously, you don't come off intellectually honest here. You may want to delete your article.

As for the claim that because the crime is so grotesque surely someone would talk, that is precisely the excuse the Catholic church used for 1,000 plus years to discredit those who alleged abuse. "If any of this were true," they would say, "surely someone would talk."

Of course, often times they did speak up, but as soon as they did, they were discredited as kooks and shunned by the congregation. This would shut down others from speaking up.

There are unspeakable truths.

Hank said...

You are wrong. But long winded. Thank you for the respect you have just shown us by spending so much of your precious time on this essay. I assume you saw it as a necessary public service, to keep thousands of others from wasting their time learning about this important event, and the evidence that has been compiled. In this you are a close ally of the previous administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g_m83lXu90 The 9/11 investigation was commenced over a year late, and then only because of pressure of victims families coming to Washington. Now 6 of the 12 Commissioners admit the official story is a sham. See Max Cleland

I encourage your fellows to take the time to research 9/11, despite your call to not 'waste time' on such obvious nonsense. There is certainly a lot too look at, setting aside intricate arguments, as you put it. A good place to start would be to view the testimony of the many people that experienced and witnessed explosions. There is testimony from over a hundred firefighters clearly identifying the explosions. I would suggest looking at the whole Bldg 7 issue, before reading the debunking reviews. I also find the Barry Jennings and William Rodriguez stories compelling.
How many Israelis were arrested in the NYC area that day with explosives?
Why is there not one picture released of the plane that supposedly struck the Pentagon, although there were over 80 cameras that would have had that image? And that is just on the outside.

By the way the Tuscon shooting had nothing to do with Truthers, other than you disapprove of both. I disapprove of the use of this emotional issue by all sides, especially when the killer had no clear political stance or motive.


I will send some relevant clips in subsequent e-mails for those brave enough to defy your censorship

serfdog said...

Bldg 7 fell because the American people are not quite all there. Robert Parry rules.

Anonymous said...

Bob,

You call yourself an "investigative Journalist"? Invetigate this:

"A recent poll in the german magazine "Welt der Wunder" conducted by the well known Emnid Institute results in astonishing 89% of the german respondents not believing the official line 9/11. The magazine in 2010 already published the story of NATOs "secret nuclear war", where the consequences of the widespread use of depleted uranium ammunitions were explained."

http://war-is-illegal.livejournal.com/117639.html

REALJOURNALISM said...

Robert,

You say that no one has come forward yet we are PROVIDING YOU WITH THE PROOF.

Susan Lindaeur gave DOCUMENTED Advance warning of the attacks.

You need to actually do some research instead of spewing the BS Popular Mechanics line.

READ AND LISTEN TO THIS ARTICLE IT IS ALL RIGHT HERE.

Explosive Revelations From 9/11 Whistleblower Susan Lindauer on Pre 9/11 Warnings and the Iraq War

http://theintelhub.com/2011/01/16/explosive-revelations-from-911-whistleblower-susan-lindauer-on-pre-911-warnings-and-the-iraq-war/

Jim Fetzer said...

A travesty. See "9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'" at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/911-truth-is-no-parlor-game.html Rob Kall refused to publish this because "Robert Parry is a valued contributor to this site" and it was regarded as a "hit piece". I think OpEdNews should show more respect for truth and less dedication to friends. If you place friendship before truth, there is only friendship and no truth.

Cincinnati 9/11 Truth said...

Robert Parry,

Your continued lack of any substantive knowledge of the science (particularly) physics and total lack of research into the hard evidence, circumstantial and historical evidence which reveal 9/11 to truly be a false flag operation doesn't come as a shock to me. You and I have exchanged emails before and whenever I have asked you to address to science behind the collapse of World Trade Center buildings one, two and seven and the lack of NORAD response and their multitude of war games on 9/11 you always revert to dismissive insults and ad hominem attacks and comparisons to either Holocaust Denial or a fake moon landing.

This should tell your audience quite a bit about your investigative journalism skills. You're a total hack dude. Cass Sunstein, and the war criminal Obama administration and Bush administration must be very proud of you. Another Operation Mockingbird employee spews forth lies and disinformation for a paycheck. Your mother must be so proud!

For those with any modicum of intelligence I would recommend checking into Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Patriots Question 9/11 and Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Al Qaeda spokespeople claiming responsibility for 9/11 --- aren't these claims just posted on the internet and therefore, anyone could be posting them? Why would one credit something that cannot be confirmed as genuine and could well be posted by another party with an agenda? In honesty, you have to throw those videos/audios/whatever out and it discredits your argument to cite them.

Its my understanding that the US government did not test for explosives in the three World Trade Center buildings, despite the fact that explosives are the most likely explanation for buildings collapsing as those three did. Hard to credit the US government investigation if they will not test for the most likely explanation, a test that would have given an absolute "yes" or "no."

Margaret said...

The narrative you ascribe to truthers is indeed nutty sounding. Have you gone to
www.ae911truth.org for a reasonable look at the events of 9/11, and for hypotheses (not proofs) of what happened on that day, and for that group's push for a new, honest investigation of the disaster which could prove or disprove the speculations.

EDTHEREDPILL said...

Please read 9/11 Truth Is No “Parlor Game”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22923 and check out www.ae911truth.org as well as the many organizations and their web sites at http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

You have always done terrific, needed critical work. Why are you so resistant to the evidence?

Anonymous said...

Robert Parry what a tale!

What an astounding article! I have read some of your writings in the past and I was impressed with your writing skills. However, the problem with this article is that you write about this subject as though you were scientifically knowledgeable, which you obviously are not. So you not only lie to yourself, but you are guilty of deceiving gullible people who read your writings, and there are many out there. What a shame. Wouldn't it have been better to just keep quiet and not reveal your ignorance. May I suggest that you refute what you wrote and apologize to your readers before you lose all credibility.

Without going into detail, I can only tell you that it is quite obvious to the many experienced and qualified physicists and engineers who have examined the facts surrounding this event and they know, by virtue of their training and skills, that the governments' tale about this is technically flawed in so many ways that it strains credulity and they want a proper investigation.

For instance, those buildings could not possibly have fallen in the manner that they did without the use of professionally planted explosives and only the technically ignorant would believe otherwise.

Do you realize that it is irrefutable to a professional structural engineer, that building 7, the third building to collapse, could not have fallen without the aid of professional demolition. NIST, the government's "expert" stated that building 7, which suddenly collapsed several hours after the first two, fell in sympathy with the other two. If you accept that the cause of the collapse of building 7 was sympathy and some small fires, maybe you should stay away from high rise building in the future. For your information, modern high rise steel buildings do not collapse even when on fire. In order to explain the reason for the collapse of building 7 to a simpleton, one wag recited a tale about a lumberjack who went into the woods and sawed down two trees and later in the day, to his surprise, a distant third tree fell in sympathy. Does that make it more obvious to you?

wbradleyjr1 said...

I had great respect for Mr. Parry as an investigative journalist, until this article. For a dose of reality I suggest that you carefully listen to, "Response to Investigative journalist Robert Parry’s vapid attack on the 9/11 truth movement _ on The Kevin Barrett Show" at http://noliesradio.org/archives/29465

Betsy said...

@Anonymous

These types of major virus/Trojan issues have happened to me on my last 3 pc's.. As a 9/11 Truth activist, I will always wonder if I was deliberately hacked into, targeted... My advice: pay a pro to fix, especially if you want to have access to your photos, then purchase an iPad... I only use my PC to do the few things I can't on my iPad1 (wifi & 3G), no need for me to have iPad2 w cameras. I have been stress-free, Trojan-free, since resolving this repeated problem this way...

Betsy