How to distinguish between 9/11 Gatekeepers and Real 9/11 Truthers?

Keenan's picture

It seems that the terms LIHOP and MIHOP are problematic for multiple reasons and perhaps should be replaced by something better. I think that the most important issue people are often addressing when using these terms is to have some way to accurately distinguish the two main opposing camps in the so-called 9/11 truth movement:

A) One which seeks to speak to the complete, awful, False Flag Inside Job Account of 9/11

B) The other which seeks to prop up the fake Evil Muslim Terrorist Myth, thereby ignoring or supressing all types of evidence that contradicts or demolishes the central aspect of the Official Conspiracy Theory. In other words, these are the conscious or unconscious "9/11 Gatekeepers".

The motivation for group B may comprise several different types of witting and unwitting mindsets, including those with psychological blocks firmly in place, those who have been duped by fake truthers (9/11 Gatekeepers), those who are Muslim haters, and finally, those who are disinformation agents.

I think it has been pretty well established (most people in the movement would agree) that the first group who believes in the False Flag aspect of 9/11 comprises the vast majority of 9/11 truthers, or those who would say that 9/11 was an inside job. The second group (9/11 Gatekeepers) seems to have lots of prominent personalities on the Web which seems to be disproportionate to the masses of 9/11 activists. In this way, this situation is very similar to the phenomenon of the progressive and radical left population in the US versus the so-called alternative/left media, which seems to function more as "left gatekeepers" in that on some very important issues, the "left" media is not in agreement with the left masses. The "left" media seems to be covering up or downplaying the full truth of what many of the progressive/radical left knows about what is happening with regards to covert US policy and the shadow/secret government, the full criminality, CIA drug running, domestic assassinations, etc. The rise of the "9/11 media" or the most prominent/well funded entities of 9/11 truth media/internet presence seems to be following this pattern.

Some who complain of the "divisive" labels LIHOP/MIHOP argue that there is not much difference between the two, that the most important thing is that people unify around the demand for a new investigation and to hold any criminal elements within the government (and any external governments/groups) to account and then worry about the specifics of what happened later, and that specific theories of what exactly happened are not important, or are too controversial, or too difficult for the average American to grasp, or that we should "first focus on getting people to LIHOP and then they will move to MIHOP if that is what is needed, don't worry". I strongly disagree for the following reasons:

1) Most people I've met in the truth movement, including myself, were "woken up" after discovering the full, shocking truth of the "False Flag" aspect of 9/11, not by the circumstantial, speculative theories about possible foreknowledge, alleged (unproveable) wire transfers between Pakistan and Atta, suspicious behavior of NORAD in "allowing" the "alleged" hijacked planes to reach their targets unmolested which may or may not have included an explicit stand down order, etc., which seems to point to some people inside government looking the other way but who exactly, and how high up?

2) Most of the LIHOP evidence is speculative and "sure seems suspicious" but is inconclusive about whether or not 9/11 was an "inside job", whereas the MIHOP type of evidence tends to be more concrete, physical, "smoking gun" type of evidence that points more directly to the fact that it had to be an inside job, and that most of the mass murder of the ~3000 Americans was actually done by at least some elements on the inside.

3) LIHOP leaves in place the most grotesqe and monstrous deception of the whole 9/11 operation - the Myth of the Evil Muslim Terrorists, and therefore underpins the whole "War on Terror". Not exposing this myth does little to eliminate the justifications for the current and forthcoming wars, because "even if we stirred them up on purpose, there's still those threatening dangerous terrorists to deal with".

4) Too many LIHOPers are not keeping their end of the bargain, i.e., "Just worry about getting people to LIHOP and then they can move to MIHOP". Coincidently, some of the most vocal LIHOPers in this regard are also trying to downplay or discredit the most concrete physical evidence, including the missing Boeing at the Pentagon and the WTC demolition evidence, as well as evidence that would dispute that hijackers were at the controls of the alleged 4 aircraft, etc.

By definition, False Flag would exclude the possibiliy of a LIHOP explanation of 9/11. Either you agree that 9/11 was a false flag attack, or you are a LIHOPer, but you can't be both.

(I'm out of time but am posting what I have so far)

Comments?