Now a few people have suggested this article is such a pile of nonsense that it doesn't desserve proper response but I agree with Noel that the lies are so contrary to the truth a fuller response is required. Besides it is good to explain who 'we' are and where 'we' have come from.

Below, Noel has written a letter (his computer terminally crashed so he asked that I post this) and to support his case I have embedded a few links to illustrate it. He was in the process of doing a few final edits before his computer crashed so once back on line he may come along and twek it.

To help readers Smelly Do's letter is indented

Rebuttal of Shelly Doman's Article about the 9 /11 Truth Movement (Britain & Ireland)

The problem about lies is that people hear them and, believing them to be the truth, spread them. I shall assume that Shelly Doman is not a deliberate spreader of disinformation but that she has been deceived by the lies of others. Her article about the 9/11 Truth Movement (Britain and Ireland) is so far from the truth that many have found it funny and have consequently ridiculed it, but I believe we need to put the record straight and I assume that Indymedia will, in the best traditions of free speech, allow a right of reply. Otherwise a falsehood will be perpetuated and spread even further.

The 9/11 Truth Movement in Britain originated out of a series of emails between known campaigners back in the autumn of 2003. As someone who has been intimately involved in its development and growth since then, I will do my best to address each of Shelly’s points from my own experience.

"The Trojan Horse of Activism - British 9/11 "Truth" Movement Shelly Doman | 24.07.2006 19:18 | London

"Founded by Freemasons with the intention of creating a political party, the "British 9/11 Truth Movement" actively aims to collect all forms of ‘truth seeker’ together under the control of one governing body. Using vicious attacks on those who refuse to agree or work with the group they are exposing their true nature to those of us with our eyes open."

"Many activist groups are aware of the infiltration of our movements however those who aim to destroy us have upped their game in recent months."

"Under the guise of ‘activism’ a new breed of control has emerged within the British Isles bent on fighting, alienating and discrediting those who are trying to make positive changed in the world around them. Here I will show the techniques being used by this group.

"Founded by Freemasons with the intention of creating a political party, the "British 9/11 Truth Movement" actively aims to collect all forms of ‘truth seeker’ together under the control of one governing body".

The 9/11 truth movement in Britain was not founded by freemasons. I know all the people involved in its formation personally and none of them, to my knowledge is a freemason. I would be very surprised if any of them covertly turned out to be one.

I am not a freemason myself, but a Quaker, and try to live my life according to the Quaker principles of speaking truth to power and of having only one standard of truth, which means being honest in all matters. Those who make derogatory allegations need to substantiate their assertions with evidence. Shelly Doman has failed to do that.

The campaign is in fact a loose network of individuals who are united in our demand for a further independent investigation of 9/11, who use a combination of local meetings, emails and public discussion forum to keep in touch with each other and help each other advance projects which are the initiatives of individual supporters. We do not and never have had the intention to collect all forms of ‘truth seeker’ together under the control of one governing body.

At present, we have no governing body A small group of us have, however, recently met in Blackpool and agreed to set up a more formal "Campaign for 9/11 Truth (Britain and Ireland)", a body with a constitution whose purpose is to campaign for an independent inquiry into the facts of 9/11, whatever those facts might be. But this body is scarcely functioning as yet. Anyone who wishes to examine its constitution need only search our website. Some further background is available here and here and here and here and here.

As the invite specifies all supporters were welcome to attend. The ‘committee’ referred to was made up of representatives from all the local groups represented at the first national meeting in September 2005. Again this meeting was entirely open and publicized amongst all known campaigners. Hardly the workings of some secretive, sinister and controlling Masonic inspired group.

We are not trying to create a political party, nor to collect all forms of truth seeker under the control of one governing body. We are aware of friends and allies campaigning on related issues (eg 7/7 Truth Campaign, No to ID, Free Gary McKinnon, Campaign Against Criminalising Communities etc) and while many of our supporter also support such other campaigns, we do not try to control them, rather to contribute positively to them and to strengthen them. At the national meeting in September 2005, there was discussion of the possibility to establish a political party, but it did not gain sufficient support and I and the majority of our supporters have had nothing to do with it. If, however, some people wish to campaign in this way, I wish them every success, but I prefer to stay with the main body of the 9/11 truth movement.

"Using vicious attacks on those who refuse to agree or work with the group they are exposing their true nature to those of us with our eyes open."

"Examples:

"Harassment of July Seven London Bombing survivor Rachel North which involved heckling her public speeches, constant calls to her work place and her family members. They have now taken to publicly labelling Rachel North as a "shill", "MI5 agent" or government operative. The fact Rachel North is the most prominent campaigner for an independent inquiry into last years attacks have conveniently slipped the collective mind of the British 9-11 Truth Movement."

We reject all violence or personal attacks on anyone, though we do not have the power to control the actions of individuals (including individuals registered on our forum) from choosing a different path. Further information on our rejection of violence, bigotry and personal attacks and our promotion of a decentralized approach that encourages diversity, respect and grassroots empowerment is available here and here and here.

We also clearly state that we do not endorse the views expressed in the forum and all campaigners are speaking or writing in a personal capacity. This is for the very obvious reason that anyone can join a public forum. Whilst many campaigners are known to me, many are not. The moderators and other posters frequently challenge those who engage in personal attacks. Whilst a few individual posters accused Rachel North of being a “shill” on this thread, it was acknowledged at the time there is no evidence for this. Rachel then accused ‘us’ of being behind a series of alleged attacks which allegedly went far beyond posting shill on a public forum.

If anyone knows who is responsible for these attacks will they please identify them so that we can then check to see if the alleged culprits are connected with us in any way and, if they are, will be able to take the matter up with them. Evidence please? The evidence has been requested from Rachel North (here and here), but she informs us she has passed this evidence to the police. Some how I doubt they will be bothering us

We condemn harassment of anyone, including Rachel North, although she has been extremely rude to us and has repeatedly misrepresented us on many occasions. If she can submit information to us about who has been harassing her, we will check whether these people have anything to do with us and, if they do, will take the matter up with them. Apart from her rudeness, I have a specific issue with Rachel. She insists that the independent inquiry into 7/7 which she is calling for shall not examine who orchestrated the attacks of that day.

Why? I wonder. Tony Blair says in relation to ID cards and other new oppressive laws: "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to be afraid of."

Yes, Mr Blair, so why did you immediately rule out an inquiry into the murderous attacks of 7/7 and why does Rachel North, while demanding an inquiry, insist that it shall not look at who orchestrated those attacks?

Like Jon Ronson, I am here only asking questions.

It appears that Rachel completely accepts the government’s account of who orchestrated the attacks (although the government hase repeatedly and conspicuously lied to justify the "War on Terror"). She also apparently has no problems with overthrowing a basic principle of British justice: that accused people should be presumed innocent unless proven guilty in law.

Nevertheless, we will take up the issue of her alleged harassment when she provides us with details.

"David Shayler is connected and supports the efforts of the group, an ex MI5 agent who is rumoured to be currently working for British intelligence. No labels or attacks have been nor will be tolerated against Shayler."

David Shayler indeed works with us and is an ex MI5 agent who blew the whistle on MI5 when he was assigned to work with a militant Islamic group to assassinate President Gadaffi of Libya. The assassination went wrong and innocent people were killed. I have heard the rumours that he is still working for MI5. If true, they are giving him an extraordinarily grueling assignment, requiring him to spend two terms in prison, one in France and one in Britain, and are currently suing him in the civil courts in an attempt to shut him up from talking about their skullduggery.

In his criminal trial, where he was convicted, in another travesty of the principles of British justice he was disallowed by the court from preventing any evidence in his defense. What I find hard to understand is why MI5 would want him to do such a good job of exposing government lies and generally discrediting them and why, if that is what they want him to do, they are now trying to gag him through the civil courts where he is facing possible damages of thousands of pounds.

I don’t agree with everything he says and sometimes I criticise him, as do others within the movement. There is no penalty for doing so. We aim to promote free speech and debate.

"Jon Ronson has recently been * for simply asking questions on the message board. When a mainstream reporter considers the alternative story of 9-11 to be worth investigating, he too is immediately labeled a "shill" and suspected of ‘working for the other team’ merely because of his race. The aim here is to create the impression that all activists are small minded racists who would prefer to remain under the radar than get our message to a wider audience."

Yes, unfortunately there was rudeness on the website forum towards Jon Ronson which I condemn, though I personally wrote a post welcoming him there. Anyone may post on our forum and it is therefore a place of rough and tumble argument, though it does not get as rough as many such website forums do and the moderators and the majority of posters do intervene to advice against such evidence free attacks

"Again let me clarify, Ronson only asked questions and did not make any assumptions."

I appreciate that and I was very glad that he took the trouble to visit our forum. There was a bit of a frisson when someone posted a comment about him which was arguably anti-Semitic and naturally he took offence. I understand where he’s coming from over that, because, as a member of the gay (rather than the Jewish) minority myself, my antennae are always sensitively on the look-out for any homophobia whenever I enter a new circle of people. But Jon returned to the forum after that and I hope he will return and post again. We have a policy of opposition to the posting of any form of racial or religious prejudice on the forum and repeat offenders are dealt with by the moderators. If Jon feels that we did not adequately deal with the rudeness he met on the forum, we will take the matter up if he complains to the forum moderators.

Posters on the forum need to understand that it is an open public forum and anyone is free to post there. The many varied opinions expressed there do not necessarily represent the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Some of them are frankly crass or antagonistic towards the movement. People may object to the moderators about any expression of racial or religious prejudice, homophobia, sexism, pornography or the advocacy of harassment or violence. The moderators have the power to remove such offensive posts and have done so on several occasions.

Just in case there is an implication here that the founders of the 9/11 Truth Movement in Britain are anti-Semitic, the religious affiliations of the founders are: Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, agnostic, atheist and general New Age spirituality.

"The Indymedia Summer of Truth has been ignored by the British 9-11 Truth Movement. Why?"

Personally I had not heard of it until after the event, but if I had I would have welcomed and supported it. A quick search shows it was promoted on our forum (here and here) but seems to have slipped under my radar and many other people’s radar My impression, possibly a mistaken one, is that 9/11 truth campaigners are not very welcome on Indymedia in general and are inclined to have their views heavily censored there. This may be because of the kind of disinformation about us being spread in this article.

"Surely we are on the same team?"

We should be, but it is hard to make common cause with those who spread disinformation about you. If Shelly will retract the unsubstantiated allegations she has made about us, I shall be happy to regard her as a comrade on the same team, struggling to end this wicked "War on Terror" and the erosion of our civil liberties which it is used to justify.

"No. The British 9-11 Movement demand action and events follow their guidelines, and profit margins or no support is offered."

This is a completely false allegation. Where is your evidence?