Is spiked's Emily Hill stupid, or just 'plane stupid'?

Emily Hill is a freelance writer for UK's spiked who recently wrote another hit piece about 9/11 conspiracists. In her article, she mentions me and my 200+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' page that lists over 200 hundreds pieces of evidence found in the mainstream media that points to 9/11 being an inside job.

In her first two paragraphs about me, she mentions a couple 'smoking guns' on my page and calls them "ridiculous" (emphasis mine):

These theories are 'plane stupid' – but popular

Tuesday 5 September 2006

~

Most of these ‘truths’, however, are still stuck at point ridiculous. The conspiracy website Killtown has an itemised list of 231 problems with the official account of 9/11. At number 14 is the apparently telltale sign that Salman Rushdie was banned from US airspace on 3 September 2001. At number 36 it is explained that the ‘Twin Towers were hated, poorly designed money-losers subsidised by the State and weren’t torn down before because of expensive asbestos removal’; so apparently ‘9/11 benefited the owners by efficiently destroying the complex in a way that they didn’t have to pay for’.

In a section titled ‘Fundamentalist Muslims “gone wild”’, Killtown argues that in May 2001, ‘Several alleged hijackers [were] seen at Las Vegas Strip clubs; several also patronised Nardone’s Go-Go Bar; Flight 77 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi hang out at Cheetah’s nude bar; Sept 10 – Atta and two Arab men allegedly spend hundreds [of dollars] on drinks and lap dances at FL strip club the Pink Pony.’ On the evening before the attacks, ‘Four alleged hijackers spend the night looking for prostitutes in Boston’ while ‘Hamza Alghamdi watched a porno in his hotel’. Here, speculation about what the hijackers got up to in their final few days bizarrely turns into speculation about whether they could have carried out the attacks, which then, of course, turns into speculation about who did carry out the attacks. One piece of speculation leads to another and another….

About the fundamentalist Muslims not acting so fundamentalist, Emily seems to say that I'm suggesting that they could not have carried out the attacks because of their previous nights behavior. Maybe she didn't choose the best wording, but I'm not suggesting they could not have carried out the attacks because they were "hung over" from their excessive partying or something, it's just that the evidence presented suggests that these alleged "fundamentalist" Arab Muslims do not fit the profile of fundamentalist Muslims by their "immoral and sinful" behavior leading up to the attacks. I'm sure some skeptics will counter with that since they were about to die for their cause, they felt that it was ok to sin a little bit before they would forgiven by their god for their "heroic deeds" right before they are given their 72 virgins or whatever.

But that is not the kicker of Emily's appalling article. Get this:

Other theories are stuck at point ‘here we go again’. Various websites claim that ‘Jews control the world’ and ‘America has become the Zionists’ whore’. Killtown claims that, shortly after 9/11, Mossad agents were ‘caught celebrating while filming themselves with the WTC burning in the background and [were] later arrested and found with boxcutters, multiple foreign passports, maps linking them to the attack’. Apparently they were also found with ‘explosives’ and a ‘large amount of cash in their white van’. There is, of course, no evidence for any of this. But who needs evidence when you have bright red headlines and lots of exclamation marks?!!!! With such colorful, capitalised emphasis, it must be true.

First, Emily tries to smear me by throwing me in with the "Jews did it" crowd (whatever that means) and then says something so absurd that I'm wondering if I just woke up with bad vision today. She says there is "no evidence" for the information I listed about the dancing Israeli's at the WTC and their white van. Hmmm. Um, Emily, did you what, think I just pulled all that information out of my ass or something? Did you not see the, um, NEWS SOURCES and HYPERLINKS TO THEM at the end of that 'Smoking Gun' entry where I FOUND THIS EVIDENCE???...

9/11 - Israeli spies caught celebrating while filming themselves with WTC burning in background and later arrested and found with boxcutters, multiple foreign passports, maps linking them to the attack, explosives detected, and large amount of cash in their white van (ABC, The Forward, Bergen Record)

Is Emily really that stupid that she couldn't even read or see the links to the sources where I found this evidence? Now she might not like or agree with this evidence stated in these news articles, but for her to say that there is "no evidence" when theses multiple mainstream news articles are littered with evidence about the Israeli spies at the WTC is one of the most absurd and unbelievable statements I've ever from a journalist.

There a couple of other things to point out about Emily's "top notch" article. She quotes me as saying that when the Israeli's were caught that "explosives" were found in their van. No, my 'Smoking Guns' list says that explosives were "detected" in their van. She says the spies were caught "shortly after 9/11." No, the were caught on 9/11 unless she thinks 9/11 ended earlier that day. She then tries to mock me by saying who needs evidence when all I have are "bright red headlines and lots of exclamation marks?!!!!" and "with such colorful, capitalised emphasis, it must be true". Do you see any of what she just mentioned on my 'Smoking Guns' page? Maybe she was talking about my related blogpost where I do have colored emphasis throughout the news articles to highlight the EVIDENCE, but I don't have "capitalized" emphasis and don't have any added exclamation marks there either.

Let spiked's editors know how you feel about Emily's 'plane stupid' article. Apparently they don't have very high standards for their writers because Emily's article and journalism skills are, as the Brits like to say, complete rubbish.