9/11 is the conspiracy theory of the internet age.So far so good, right? I mean, at least they are talking about this and putting some basic facts in the public domain, right?
Put "9/11 conspiracy" into Google and you get 7.9 million hits. Put in "9/11 truth" and you get more than 22 million.
Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.
A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.
In the UK a survey by the BBC's The Conspiracy Files, carried out by GfkNOP in 2006, found that 16% of those questioned thought there was a "wider conspiracy that included the American government".
This summer will be a key moment for those who question the official explanation of what happened on 9/11, the self-styled "9/11 truth movement".
Nearly seven years after the terrible events of that September day, the US authorities are due to publish the final report on a third tower that also collapsed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, this 47-storey, 610-foot skyscraper was not hit by a plane.
The official explanation is that ordinary fires were the main reason for the collapse of Tower 7. That makes this the first and only tall skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Yet despite that all the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were carted away and melted down.Can this be happening? Is the BBC set to blow the lid on this story?
The way official bodies have investigated Tower 7 at the World Trade Center has made some people think they're hiding something. It's destruction was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
An inquiry by the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building for emergency generators. But its report said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed. That was in May 2002.
First they report disparaging comments from officials at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who are conducting the enquiry. Then they note that " oh yes, even the BBC" has been subject to conspiracy theories.
This summer we will find out whether NIST's report has answered the many questions that have been raised, or whether it will suffer the same fate as the Warren Commission on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and merely add fuel to the conspiracy theories.Just don't expect the BBC or any other mainstream news media to take the lead. Oh, and don't expect anything but official cover-up crap from NIST. In fact, what will be most interesting - as with so much before - will be what they DON'T say.
Just to give an idea of how puerile reporting of this incident is, take a look at this "IT WASN'T US!" BBC video disclaiming any part in a Building 7 conspiracy. They actually read out a premature wire from Reuters about the collapse of Building Seven (yes, that building specifically) before it even happened, yet they never even ask how Reuters knew about that, or how such a coincidence could have happened. Just so long as nobody blames Aunty!
9-11 changed everything you know. Coincidences just started growing on trees...