The Guardian's reactionary and distractionary reporting of 9/11 has tarnished its image as an independent-minded investigative British newspaper. On the anniversary of 9/11 last year it aped the BBC and other sources by uncritically asserting Keith Seffen had "shattered conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks" on the basis of an analysis that had not been published. When it was, last February, it shattered nothing but the author's reputation.

Initially, together with its sister paper, The Observer, it raised many of the serious questions that were never answered. In 2004, having gone further than most, it apparently lost its nerve and turned its efforts toward ridiculing those who mistrusted the official story.

Uncle Sam's lucky finds
Anne Karpf, Tuesday March 19 2002

Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11 America's most controversial novelist calls for an investigation into whether the Bush administration deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks to happen
Sunder Katwala, Sunday October 27 2002

This war on terrorism is bogus The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Michael Meacher, Saturday September 6 2003

Why isn't the truth out there? The willingness of journalists to accept the establishment's view of the events of, and after, 9/11 is truly staggering, says Paul Donovan
Paul Donovan, Sunday October 5 2003

The Pakistan connection There is evidence of foreign intelligence backing for the 9/11 hijackers. Why is the US government so keen to cover it up?
Michael Meacher, Thursday July 22 2004