Why Robert Parry is right about 9/11 Truth
http://visibility911.com/kevinryan/2011/01/why-robert-parry-is-right-about-911-truth/

In his own recent, over-the-top anti-truth screed, “The 9/11 ‘Truth’ Parlor Game”, Parry exhibits the same disdain for facts and evidence that he attributes to these right-wing propagandists. Parry uses the derogatory term “truthers,” which he continues to put in quotation marks throughout the article, when referring to the people he is criticizing. This indicates that he knows he does not have the facts and evidence on his side and instead must resort to name-calling. Many 9/11 truth advocates, like myself, find this term to be offensive yet the corporate media and Robert Parry often use it in order to belittle us without addressing the evidence.

In his article, Parry rambles for several paragraphs about the “preposterous notions” and “anti-empiricism” of 9/11 truth advocates who, he writes, use “every imaginable example of false logic.” This is strong, emotional language and again shows that Parry must resort to exaggerations when dealing with this issue.

On the one hand, Parry is aghast at media acceptance of the Governments message on a plethora of issues. But, for 9/11 skeptics, he seems assured that all that needs to be known is out there? Please establish why you have such faith in the official story with the data from your NIST and Popular Mechanics sources.

What are the substantive arguments that clearly delineate acceptance of the official story and that of alternative theories? And what are Parry’s credentials for parsing these differences? Parry has been paying attention to this story for nine years and devoting more than appropriate time to understanding its dynamics.

I can only conclude that Parry is incredibly obtuse and not very inquisitive; not especially the best qualities for a edge-cutting journalist. (Not withstanding his accolades in that area.)

His stories are only irritating as they promote nonsense – stuff beyond his understanding. Parry needs to sit down with NIST scientists on one side and prominent scientist and engineers who disagree with the report on the other and take notes. This would be a good story.

The simple truth is that if you provided two groups of scientists with the task of achieving the rapid symmetrical collapse of a steel framed structure, one groups using a ballistic missile filled with fuel and the other positioned explosives one group would have a much easier task than the other. This is not empiricism but rather how the laws of physics work.