Why Robert Parry is right about 9/11 Truth

Jan 30th 2011

By Kevin Ryan

Nothing moves through the path of most resistance, and certainly not the human mind.  A recent article written by journalist Robert Parry has provided another good example of this long-standing fact.   In that article, Parry exhibits an astonishing lack of knowledge about the truth movement and the questions posed by honest 9/11 skeptics as he attempts to publicly denigrate those questions and people.  The well-respected journalist Parry provides excellent examples, throughout his article, of how normally reasoned and well-researched professionals can suddenly turn into people who cannot deal with facts or evidence.  Unfortunately, Parry’s comments are correct in one sense as demonstrated by another article published in response to his.  For some people, the 9/11 truth movement is a parlor game.

As an investigative journalist, Robert Parry has spent his life dealing with facts and evidence.  His book, Secrecy and Privilege, is one of the great contributions that he has offered.  That book covers several important events in the last thirty-five years of US history that have been downplayed and covered-up by the mainstream media.  Parry’s work shows that he is clearly one of the most careful writers in terms of not extending evidence beyond what it says directly.  He takes that approach so seriously that oftentimes he cannot say anything directly himself, and appears to be perpetually waiting for a confession before taking a stand.  This latest article takes that position to an extreme, suggesting that the evidence of what happened on 9/11 should not be examined at all until we have confessions from the perpetrators.

Continue Reading: http://visibility911.com/kevinryan/2011/01/why-robert-parry-is-right-about-911-truth/


Clear and powerful reasoning, as usual

Thank you, Kevin.

Robert Parry

Robert Parry writes, "But the truth is that I have devoted way more time to these preposterous notions than they deserve." The amount of time he appears to have devoted to studying 9/11 is comparable to how much time an 8th grader spends on writing a book report. Glance over the CliffsNotes, copy some stuff out of any encyclopedia, throw in some BS and call it complete. But whatever you do, don't actually read the snooze inducing novel you were assigned to read.

Robert Parry's appears to have maybe looked over the Popular Mechanics article(not the book), read through some internet postings, and tried to find the best talking points. I suppose he is not aware of his own ignorance on the subject because everyone he knows is probably equally if not more ignorant. The best way to keep the populace uninformed about 9/11 is for journalists and reporters to remain uniformed about 9/11. Besides only crazy people are interested in examining and asking questions about one of the greatest mass murders in US history. And who wants to be crazy?

Ha, ha

CliffsNotes, love it !!


Once again 9/11 Truth exposes yet another fraud. Bob is only interested in truth insofar as it doesn't affect the bottom line financial success of his beloved website.


If the 9/11 Truth and Accountability movement were a baseball team, Kevin Ryan would be the fan's and head coach's choice for retiring the side.

Robert Parry lets us down

Great article Kevin. Written with incisive clarity. Your article hits Parry hard, as it should, with plenty of detail to make the point. People who have seen Parry's better work need to see your article. It will be tough for them to read, because to his credit, Parry has uniquely documented important crimes of the Reagan/Bush era. Reading your piece is a real eye-blackener for RP, but all of this really needed to be said, and I thank you for saying it, because the topic is so important--9/11 continues to be used to justify unspeakable violence and cruelty. I also like the way your article looks past this piece of lousy Parry thinking and contextualizes it in the larger frame with Fetzer, Cointelpro, Obama's Cass Sunstein, etc.

The problem with Fetzer's article,

which I just read, is that it contains a fair few reasonable statements as well. Which makes it all the more difficult for people to distinguish between what is true and what's not. One can only wonder what the true motivations of his might be for displaying this kind of behavior. Has he been threatened or blackmailed with anything maybe? If so, I suspect he alone might be the only one who knows. Same goes for lot's of other folks like Fetzer I guess. Or maybe they actually believe the stuff they're putting out, but I doubt that.
For me, as an observer and daily follower of 911blogger somewhere in the Netherlands who just tries to have a small number of people at least look into the issue of 911 and it's consequences, I can only say I have been guilty of drawing certain conclusions too soon, or based on insufficient or false evidence. It has not been making things any easier. The matter itself can become very very complicated when u really wanna go deep. Not to mention it can become so frustrating to the point at which I tend to think "Well forget about it, I'm moving on, and leave this stuff alone, it's not getting me anywhere"
But 911 has also become some kind of obsession for me, a topic which has all the ingredients of a great detectivestory, or Ludlum-novel. It has gotten my interest in 2004, and it has stayed with me ever since.

Kevin, if you don't mind my asking, what do you think is necessary, for the truthmovement as a whole, to become a consistent force to be reckoned with? I wrote earlier about getting the armed forces to doubt their mission and the orders of their superiors, but getting the general public to speak out in large numbers and start doubting the intentions and actions of their own (and past) government is of course a phase that must precede the other one. That will require people to look first of all, into the available documented verifiable evidence (while leaving their cognitive dissonance at the door of course).

How will the truthmovement, laying under heavy fire from all forms of disinfo, discrediting by association etc., become a focussed organisation that will have only substantiated documented facts in their arsenal that every member can agree on? And how do we get from that point, to the point that the government will have to actually show accountability for their actions and intentions, especially since that latest article of "The king can do no wrong"? What are your thoughts on that?

Needless to say, I read your article and was delighted to see your usual on the money response to this terrible piece by Parry. Thanks for that.

in the full article by kevin

no 757 crash at pentagon claims mentioned by someone trying to debunk us via strawman
we must all understand we need to not give them a gift strawman by claiming no 757 crash at the pentagon
especially now there's a peer reviewed paper on it

Yes - but

I agree that the claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon is not a productive way to go - especially compared with David Chandler's solid physics - grounded in Newton's laws.

So - for the sake of logic - for those willing to pursue pure, unemotional logic - and not worry about the "debunkers" - let us accept the premise that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon along the flight path indicated by the light poles.

Ok - The question remains: "Which 757 hit the Pentagon?" "American Airlines" Logo on the side of a plane is just a paint job. It does not identify the plane. A tail number is also just a paint job. (And even if it is physically stamped into the tail - no one could read it as it roared past at 500 mph.) Therefore - it is logical that no eyewitness could testify to knowing which 757 hit the Pentagon.

Colonel George Nelson's informative article at Physics911.net educates us to the fact that airplanes are positively identified by the serial numbers on time change parts. They are not identified by paint jobs on their bodies.


Freedom of Information requests for an explanation of how the planes were identified have been denied. Colonel Nelson - an accident investigator - has never heard of any other crash in which the time change parts have not been identified by serial number.

Therefore - it is entirely reasonable to question which 757 hit the Pentagon - even if one is 100% certain that a 757 DID hit the Pentagon.

I see no reason to run away from the fact that whatever did or did not hit the Pentagon has NOT been scientifically or logically identified to the public.

Why run away from this fact? If the government produces an authentic tape and authentic serial numbers that prove that their story is correct vis a vis the Pentagon --- this does NOT derail, or even dent the reality of the violation of Newton's laws in the NIST reports - as explained by Chandler, MacQueen, Szamboti and a host of others.

We don't need to run away from anything.

yes, running away from things can make them explode

like in hollywood movies especially if you dive to the ground, usually in pairs
hehe ;)

in my opinion the perps played with skeptics beforehand by giving a five sided honeypot- giving leads for people untrusting of the government by making it look like there might be more to the pentagon than a 757 crash

one way perhaps was to ensure that there was a lot of confiscation of video evidence and no release of it whether useful or not- that makes it look like perps trying to hide something from being found out
that makes a good honeypot as speculation pours forth

another might be when Rummy 'accidentally' mentioned the missile that hit the pentagon- i think there's nothing accidental about anything Rummy has done in relation to 9/11- the man spent years of his life planning CoG that hinged on 9/11 to get activated- this isn't Columbo where we let the bad guy trip himself up - he tripped several skeptics up by his missile honeypot remark

another possible one might be the fact that FOIA requests have not ascertained by what means the crashed aircraft was identified by the powers that be, as mentioned by Lahar (thx for that point; i didnt know) - another honeypot potentially as some might feel this adds weight to their speculations of missile/no crash/ catapult/ giant Hershey bar etc ... hitting the pentagon


Yes. I have already pointed out that the discussions over what the alleged flight data recorder discloses are pointless without proper identification of the FDR. Apparently its serial number has never been disclosed. If it is genuine there is no reason to keep the serial number secret.
Without it the disclosed data tells us nothing at all about the events of 9112001 except that there has been a massive coverup. For some reason Dr Frank Legge does not get it.

WOW! Thank You Kevin. You Set the STANDARD.

WOW. indeed

The comments seem to be overwhelmingly in our favor, and very well thought out. It's nice to see venues where WE ARE THE MAINSTREAM. Times are changin'.

108 million of us


If you recall, we have huge numbers now, and when someone speaks out against us, we can make it be known all over the web that they are discredited. I do that with Media Matters now, if Media Matters is brought up. I state their worthlessness as of now, after their hit piece.

Any chance we can, we can declare Consortium New / Robbert Parry as now discredited. I do this not out of an attitude of revenge, but as a strategy, with our numbers, and LET"S USE THEM, OUR NUMBERS, to speak against any who dare speak out against us. Of course, web etiquette requires we be on topic, but if Robert Parry comes up, or Consortium News comes up, we will declare them without merit now.

Applause to us all for taking them on.

And, hats off to Kevin Ryan, what a remarkable researcher. We love you, Kevin!

So long as we remember what works best

Let's observe what Kevin Ryan has done in this article, taking apart Parry's 'arguments.' exposing their weaknesses--all without resorting to an ad hominem rant. So let's do our best to do the same. Let's also remember that we'd like to be able to get through, if possible, to members of his readership who haven't yet really been exposed to 9/11 truth. We'd be more likely (in my opinion) to convince such people that he's not so credible when it comes to 9/11 if we accpeted that they might find him credible on other topics, and so refrained from painting him with a broad brush as lacking credibility across the board (yes, even though he paints us with a very broad brush).

Yes, many good comments

but from a different direction, I couldn't help but notice this at Consortiumblog:

'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...'

Whoa! Someone apparently has never hear about Aidan Monaghan!

Not sure

Not sure why this got down votes. All I meant by excerpting that quote was to give another example of critics of the truth movement presuming to know--without any basis--what participants in this movement have and haven't done. At the same time, they are ignorant about the extent of the obstruction we've encountered. We are able to reply to such critics, 'Yes, the truth movement has, in fact, filed FOIA requests,' and that, to my knowledge, is primarily due to the continued efforts of Aidan Monaghan.

Parrying Parry

An excellent riposte Kevin. I do wonder why people like Parry who seem to fully appreciate the corruption within the hidden organs of the
establishment have such a hard time in accepting the possibility that the events of 911might be a false flag.

Cass Sunstein operation?

Gosh, one wonders what contacts Robert Parry has with the office of Cass Sunstein. Just wondering.


you'd be surprised to read that Cass's 10 theses are decodable (via the footnote clues) to the more astute reader
the decode is in the book Cognitive Infiltration

Parry on the press

Re 'I do wonder why people like Parry...'etc.: Isn't that always the question?!

It's all too familiar by now observing how, one after another, writers and intellectuals who have acquired a reputation for courage and insight--whom I have appreciated or even looked up to--seem to encounter their personal Waterloo when it comes to 9/11.

One thing I'll always remember about Parry is how, back in the mid-'80s, after he had broken stories while with Associated Press on the Contra war in Central America (including an exposé on the existence of a CIA assassination manual), his editors at AP began squelching his stories under pressure from the White House, until he finally quit. Years later, in 1997, after Gary Webb's reporting on Contra cocaine trafficking in the U.S. had resulted in his getting hounded out of his job with the San Jose Mercury News, he received a letter of sympathy from Parry. Near the end of his book 'The Dark Alliance,' Webb quoted from this letter, and I found it to be a very memorable passage. Parry wrote to him:

'Like you, I grew up in this business thinking our job really was to tell the public the truth. Maybe that was the mission at one time. Maybe there was that Awakening in the 1970s with Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, the CIA scandals, etc. But something very bad happened to the news media in the 1980s. Part of it was...pressures from the outside. But part of it was the smug, snotty, sophomoric crowd that came to dominate the national media from the inside. These characters fell in love with their power to define reality, not their responsibility to uncover the facts. By the 1990s, the media had become the monster. I wish it weren't so. All I ever wanted to do was report and write interesting stories--while getting paid for it. But that really isn't possible anymore and there's no use crying over it.'

Time and again, we see supposedly alternative journalists like Parry showing an attitude toward the 9/11 truth movement similar to that shown toward them by their nemeses in the corporate media.

anyone still doubting Mr. Parry's real agenda?

What this shows is that when the fix is in the fix is IN. I guess if a limited hangout could be a club for mockingbirds..............Parry would have a gold card membership. Give me a break the guy's a total sham. Don't start making excuses about misinformation see the truth for what it is. His work is shallow on purpose and his contentions are what disinformation is all about. This is a deliberate attempt at sabotage and Parry is now a traitor to the truth! Not to mention the victims.

That anyone who participated

That anyone who participated in perhaps the worst crime of the century, has not yet come forward with an admission of guilt about planting explosives in any of the World Trade buildings, is the best excuse Mr. Parry can give for avoiding a scholarly study of the scientific facts the Truth Movement has presented for years now? To refer to the in depth study of our PhDs and many other experts as "parlor games" is a put down worthy of someone out of Blackwater XE, not the progressive left.

Shame on you Mr. Parry.

The National Geografuck (yes

The National Geografuck (yes I know how it is supposed to be spelled) is running the hit piece tonight.

Dr. Ray Griffin lays clear

Dr. Ray Griffin lays clear the reality, when faced with suddenly stupid (previously insightful) and now... The thing is so clear, if you believe the government sincerely, you are an an extraordinary fool, if you don't believe your own eyes, versus what the government said. Or, you are an extraordinary operator in the game of deceit, and the fog is clearing off the lenses, for us to see who they are. One guy came from another blog, I'd gone by, to the one I visit often, and talk among them. You gotta wonder though, chumps or smokers, one or the other is all they can be. Hiding behind their own subjectivity, in fear of complete objectivity. This piece by Dr. Griffin inspires...