Apparently I've struck a nerve with Mr. Holmgren. But I won't be resorting to insults. Allow me to clarify my position.

I've spent alot of time trying to make sense of the webfairies website. The implication that I'm shooting from the hip with my commentary isn't true. And I don't use the word gibberish lightly. I find the Webfairies arguments jumbled and incoherent. I don't know how else to put it.

The issue of 9/11 has attracted all manner of theorists, some more believable than others. I seriously embrace theories that alot of people would consider too bizarre to believe. But it's just my opinion, for what its worth, that the Webfairies theories are just too much!

And it's ironic that I should be labeled someone who just makes statements without supporting them. It was from my correspondence with the Webfairy that I first began to have suspicions. It was she who dimissed my inquiries with no explanation. "Phoney-baloney" she called the photo I sent her. No reason why, just total dismissal. My inquiries are typically reasonably well researched, certainly nothing to just brush aside. This and other behaviour on her part raise serious red flags for me, and I don't cast aspersions lightly.

And Gerard, I wrote a lengthy entry on your Pentagon analysis website months ago(Alberta IndyMedia)fully praising and supporting your research into that event. And I couldn't agree more that the list of anomalies concerning Fl. 11 and Fl 175 are substantial and require serious analysis (I'm more of a "Flight of the Bumble Planes" man myself). But holograms? The planes slamming into the WTC were holograms? I'm sorry but that's just way too much! And the Webfairies explanations of her theories on her site just leave me baffled.

Read my articles on Larry Silvestein's comments concerning the 'pulling' of WTC 7. Somehow I don't think that a countercharge accusing me of "spookiness" is going to hold water. Judging from the widespread coverage this story's gotten among reputable voices on the web I feel my comments are made with some validity.

And Gerard, how do you justify scolding me for calling people names when your response to my entry above is so insulting in tone?

I regret that our correspondence has taken on a negative tone. I've enjoyed our e-mails in the past. But this issue with the Webfairy and Mr. Loughrey just leaves me incredulous, especially after her patronizing dismissal of my own work.

A quick note to Vache qui rit. I didn't mean to imply that, in that case, the man in question was pretending to be a 9/11 conspiracist. From what I understand he just haunted 9/11 threads and slammed 9/11 theory. I only meant to say that these people are out there and must be acknowledged. No biggy.

Certainly we can't just automatically embrace all 9/11 theory. I think we need to be careful what we believe and whose theories we embrace or reject. My judgement of the Webfairy and Mr Loughrey are harsh but it's a well considered and heartfelt opinion. Decide for yourself.