Guardian of truth?

The Guardian's reactionary and distractionary reporting of 9/11 has tarnished its image as an independent-minded investigative British newspaper. On the anniversary of 9/11 last year it aped the BBC and other sources by uncritically asserting Keith Seffen had "shattered conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks" on the basis of an analysis that had not been published. When it was, last February, it shattered nothing but the author's reputation.

Initially, together with its sister paper, The Observer, it raised many of the serious questions that were never answered. In 2004, having gone further than most, it apparently lost its nerve and turned its efforts toward ridiculing those who mistrusted the official story.

Uncle Sam's lucky finds
Anne Karpf, Tuesday March 19 2002

Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11 America's most controversial novelist calls for an investigation into whether the Bush administration deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks to happen
Sunder Katwala, Sunday October 27 2002

This war on terrorism is bogus The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael Meacher, Saturday September 6 2003

Why isn't the truth out there? The willingness of journalists to accept the establishment's view of the events of, and after, 9/11 is truly staggering, says Paul Donovan
Paul Donovan, Sunday October 5 2003

The Pakistan connection There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?
Michael Meacher, Thursday July 22 2004

And another one

Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please? Why is the British Prime Minister the only person who seems to be unaware of the US hawks' agenda?
Terry Jones, Sunday March 2 2003

Bucking the trend, a voice of dissent is heard again in 2007:

9/11 - the big cover-up? Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'
Peter Tatchell, Wednesday September 12 2007

Because he wants tobe first European President thanks Bilderberg

Herblay FRANCE

he can not risk to show he is really Mr Tony Bliar. If he did become aware he could never be the fisrt European President ( as has been promised to him by the Bilderberg group ?).

Yours John

Last week I asked a Guardian reporter to look into this

I wasn't aware of the Panorama program

I wasn't aware of the Panorama program - reminiscent of the FOX TV Lone Gunmen episode aired six months before 9/11, which depicted a secret U.S. government agency behind a plot to crash a Boeing 727 into the WTC via remote control and blame it on foreign terrorists in the hopes of generating a bigger military budget.

I don't know what to make of these coincidences, but the fact that there seems to be no CCTV footage of the terrorists on the much surveyed London Underground and the camera on the bus wasn't working cannot be dismissed as accidental. And the statistical odds against Visor Consultants choosing the precise stations on the very day of the attacks are astronomical. It is outrageous that the public who use the network are not allowed to know Visor Consultant's client that day. How do we know Visor were not either part of the plot or dupes of the terrorists when they have not been investigated?

And what happened to the affected trains' carriages?

They have probably been destroyed...

Even the fact that the Panorama program depicted the bombings should have raised a lot of eyebrows. Millions of Britons must have watched it. Add to that the publicly acknowledged exercise at the same time as the real attacks!

I don't understand this. It's as if nothing surprises people.

And another one

Already posted by Reprehensor, but for the sake of completeness:

Who knows what happened on 9/11? Dan Hind, The Guardian, Thursday July 17 2008

And another UK paper that toyed with the idea of doing some real journalism:

Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11 The Independent, Saturday, 25 August 2007