I get trolled a lot these days by people with all sorts of ideological beef. It gets old, fast.
9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theorists who believe that governments "did" 9/11 and 7/7 criticise me for being too "establishment". On Twitter, arch 9/11 conspiracy wing nut accounts identified as Phil Greaves and Charles Frith have routinely called me a "shill" and a "stooge" of government.
Ironically, right-wing pundits dislike my work on outfits like Quilliam and the Henry Jackson Society, etc. and call me a "conspiracy theorist."
Some ostensible leftwingers accuses me of "conspiriology" for criticising Iraq Body Count, its links to pro-war governments, and systematic undercounting of the death toll.
A few complete idiots have even said that I'm a paid Rothschild propaganda merchant, which sadly is not true, but would be wonderful if possible! ;)
Others in the various "truth" movements have complained that I'm trying to maintain a "mainstream" profile and so I have to walk a "tightrope" of sorts that means I actually believe 9/11 was an inside job but won't say it for "tactical" reasons.
What's really funny is that some right-wing nut jobs have actually said precisely the same thing as the truthers.
I guess what's really amusing about all this, is that every single one of these dolts across the ideological spectrum are basically engaging in unsubstantiated theorising about lil' ol' me.
A few times, for instance, people have linked to this piece to claim that I'm a conspiracy theorist. They are especially shocked by the mere mention of anomalies in the collapses of the World Trade Center.
Worse, what those people ignore is that my work is not, and never has been, about conspiracy theories - as readers of this blog, my reporting, my columns, and my books know.
It's about justice. It's about the 9/11 families, some of whom I've met, and who were the first to take the lines of inquiry I'd identified and run with them in pressuring the Bush administration for an independent public inquiry.
These people ignore, for instance, that I referred in that post to a reputable magazine, Fire Engineering, representing US fire safety services. Their concern was (and remains) not the question of 'inside jobbism,' but simply, fire safety - a matter that could involve systemic negligence, or criminal negligence, at least:
“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official Investigation’ blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure… Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers….”
The rest of the quote from that journal is worth noting:
"Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time...
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions... The destruction and removal of evidence must stop completely."
A subsequent edition of the journal blamed "fire codes that had been too far relaxed when the city of New York revised them in 1968", a scandalous failure so damning, US authorities wanted to cover-up the failure.
A further edition noted the 9/11 Commission's whitewashing of the collapse issue on a range of questions regarding the emergency response that day:
"In early August it was revealed by New York Newsday that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a month before the final 9/11 Commission Report, dispatched a strong memo lobbying the Commission for language that would cast a more favorable light on the city -and, by extension, on city management, past and present. With respect to the hottest hot-button issues surrounding the 9/11 response - radio inoperability, lack of police-fire cooperation and coordination, and the city's poor excuse for a new, 'integrated' incident management system - Bloomberg's wish was granted. The Commission's final report coats the three issues with a layer of political honey.
City management had almost three years to circle the wagons to deflect obvious ineptitude and irresponsibility for which it could and should have been held accountable. Capitalizing on an accommodating and docile press, they've controlled critical information, dismissed many concerns of 9/11 families/survivors groups as grief-driven hysteria, and, with great cunning, used the firefighters who perished in the Towers for political cover..."
Does any of this prove "inside job"? No. Are these fire safety experts "conspiracy theorists" because they reject the 9/11 Commission report as a whitewash designed to deflect high-level accountability, and very likely, entrenched corruption? No.
This material does, however, raise serious questions about corruption and cover-up for vested interests -issues which continue to undermine national security to this day.
Think about this, for instance. We now know that the US intelligence community had received multiple advanced warnings in the years and months preceding 9/11 that al-Qaeda was plotting to launch a major attack on several US targets, including possibly the World Trade Center. We also know from fire-fighters that there remain to this day serious unanswered questions about substandard fire safety at the WTC. In this context, a whole raft of questions becomes relevant. We know also that at least one eyewitness saw one of the 9/11 hijackers at the WTC weeks before the attack - most likely casing the joint. Why did the Bush administration destroy such a huge amount of forensic evidence from the WTC site? Were officials aware that the Port Authority had, according to these fire-fighters, ignored critical fire safety and building codes? Was the NIST investigation compromised by vested interests to avoid this issue coming to light? How did a 9/11 hijacker get through the WTC's security before the 9/11 attacks, and what was he doing there?
I'm on record as having stated several times that my stance on the WTC is not about conspiracy theory - I told a Channel 4 documentary on conspiracy theories some years ago that however the Twin Towers went down, no physical explanation proves an "inside job." Even if, and it's a big if indeed, it were proven beyond doubt that explosives were planted in the WTC, this in itself wouldn't prove that the US government perpetrated 9/11. There's a whole range of various scenarios consistent with this.
As I wrote in a comment on a separate blog post here, responding to a previous comment:
"here, i'm not concerned with jumping the gun to look at the implications of molten steel being at Ground Zero. in fact, pinning down the implications are not so easy. perhaps jones is incorrect in his explanation about explosives. even if he was correct in suggesting explosives were used, establishing the chain of guilt to particular individuals in the US government is another thing entirely.
there are several logical possibilities, and narrowing down which is more likely would itself be a complex task involving a criminal investigation. one might argue, for example, that al-qaeda planted the explosives (assuming jones is completely correct). one might argue further that al-qaeda did so with the help of corrupt elements with access to the wtc, who were bought off (al-qaeda after all has access to funding, and fbi whistleblowers like sibel edmonds have talked about the corrupt relationship between terrorists, mafia and intelligence operatives in certain cases).
indeed, one might say many things. the point is, what you've done is closed off acceptance of a piece of empirical data because you've assumed that it has certain political implications, which you find abhorrent. what i'm saying is, your assumptions about the political implications are not necessarily true, and that even if they could be true, it's not scientific to be 'opposed' to empirical data simply on the basis that it doesn't fit one's standards of political convenience."