...that your article should itself succumb to the loaded use of language it's reporting as problematic:

"links directly to 9/11 conspiracy theorists"

Who are they then? There are many theories and hypotheses about 9/11, some bonkers, some worthy of investigation, some official, some conspiratorial and absolutely *none* of them proven anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt, most definitely including the official ones. Indeed there is a fair body of perfectly intelligent, logical people who would suggest that it is not in the US gov't interests to prove their hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt - they certainly display no signs of wishing to do so, five and a half years on.

While I'll stay away from the Army/Marines battle, I would like to know if the following:

"El Reg's considered, impartial advice is not to trust anything you read on the internet. ®"

is a self reference, or not?

Of course we all KNOW that El Reg is the best and most accurate there is!