As a consequence, I’ve added a postscript to my original article.

You make a number of extremely valid points, but when it comes to Craig Murray’s site, there is but a single thread/post he has set up in which to discuss the events of that day:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post.html

My personal suspicion is that Ambassador Murray has got enough problems as it is – he has been accused of cavorting with strippers in sleazy bars, sneaking prostitutes into British Embassies, being drunk all the time (particularly when supposed to be working), failing to attend vital duties, and so on. None of these accusations were found to be true, but it’s hard to beat them off, particularly when they’re brought up again and again.

To add to this an extremely non-official opinion such as how the twin towers and WTC7 were demolished would make that his other infamous claim to fame (besides the supposed debauchery and alcoholism) from his many detractors.

Craig Murray is mostly concerned about human rights. I’d like him to get behind demanding the truth about 9/11, but he clearly thinks it would detract from his human rights focus. He wants to concentrate on unarguable facts, and – sadly – what happened to the WTCs is still a “debate” as yet.

Take a look at that thread if you like ( http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post.htm ) – I’ve made some contribution to it myself. You’re most welcome to do so too!

Why? It’s obviously nonsense, or “political truth” as Edward Jay Epstein would call it, i.e., a proposition that it would be too inconvenient to defend publicly by anyone with an interest in a public career.