Here is the article which mentions it – below that is the "my side" of my part of the story and the e-mail sent to Duncan Gardham.
See update at bottom!
It’s all a government plot, say internet ‘truth activists’
By Duncan Gardham
Last Updated: 2:24am BST 16/08/2006
Duncan Gardham rang me up after I had started an e-mail campaign (see here: www.checktheevidence…) to reject the fake airline terrorism story in the summer. He asked why I thought it was a fake. I told him about 9/11 and WTC 7 (as well as Forest Gate etc and the general lack of any real evidence as a basis for the story). He asked me about details about myself. He said "and your wife is a nurse, yes?" I confirmed that, asking him where he got this information "companies house" he said (I have a limited company, but not a large amount of money in it). He obviously had the facility to do research.
When he published the article, he mentioned my Website (www.checktheevidence…), which I never even mentioned or discussed with him on the phone (I didn’t even realise he knew it was mine, for example). He mentioned that my website "suggests men did not go to the moon". This statement is false. My website mentions the words of Neil Armstrong’s 25th anniversary address at the Whitehouse (and includes a video clip of that address, so the evidence can be verified).
In other words, he wrote a hit piece and ignored the evidence I described to him personally – he didn’t print Neil Armstrong’s words either (which are also listed on a government website, linked on the same page of my website). This is the way the press work on issues of the greatest importance.
Below is the response I sent to Duncan Gardham, on the day the article was published.
Thanks for the article. I am glad you mentioned other people and the numbers of messages you received.
As regards what you wrote about me, it would’ve been fairer to include the words of Neil Armstrong from 1994 (not very long) and it would also have been fairer to include the words of Gordon Cooper, if you were determined to bring in such topics. You also omitted the "smoking gun" of WTC 7 that we did discuss.
I shall be advising my friends of these omissions, so that they know the balance of the article has been changed from what we discussed (i.e. we didn’t discuss other items on my website, so I was not given the opportunity to highlight their importance and validity).
Thanks and regards
Well, it seems that the Jury rejected the idea that one of "Liquid Bombers" was a real threat.
Needless to say, Duncan Gardham has not written and apologised….
Police in crisis after jury rejects £10m terror case
Maybe the media won’t bother reporting the verdicts on the other defendants.