To Truther or not to Truther, that is the question

Comment is free: 9/11 - the big cover-up?

Gay greenie and general lefty pest Peter Thatchell writes a Comment is Free article (above) in which he says he is not into conspiracy at all, but:

There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.

And:

Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

And:

There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11.

Yet, when quite a lot of Guardian readers call him out for claiming not to be a conspiracist, while at the same time saying that the conspiracists are onto something, he gets all indignant:

I am very surprised and disappointed by the way some of the posts on this list have seriously misrepresented what I wrote in the article above.

They have used the insinuation of "conspiracy theorist" (which I am not and which I reject) as a convenient way to evade serious engagement with the issues I have raised.

What I tried to do in my article is make a clear distinction between wild, unfounded conspiracy theories, and legitimate, credible questioning of the official account...

So, to Tatchell's mind, suggesting (as he clearly did) that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and stating that there are other (completely un-specified) "strange unexplained facts" about 9/11 is not part of a "wild unfounded conspiracy" theory. Just reasonable, ordinary,run of the mill conspiracy theory then, I suppose.

As Bugs would say, what a maroon.