Soon after revelations concerning Bush administration prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks ("Memogate"), a number of well-known media "liberals" and "progressives" launched a heavy-handed series of broadsides against independent 9/11 researchers who had been developing alternative theories in response to the deeply flawed and fraudulent official story. Why would they do this, at precisely the point that the Bush administration was clearly sweating bullets and in deep trouble? This question is particularly important in light of the fact that the anti-conspiracy critics have not been able (nor apparently willing) to articulate their own theory of what happened on 9/11 (and why) which can explain the devastating evidence and contradictions that have been exposed by independent researchers. Instead of offering a credible explanation, the gatekeepers merely saw fit to pathologize 9/11 skeptics as "paranoid conspiracy nuts" and "a danger to our movement." Not surprisingly, the rank and file didn't buy into the hype—nor were many convinced by the gatekeepers' offhand, passionless calls for an official investigation. Interest in alternative 9/11 reporting continued to grow, and by the time that members of 9/11 victim's families began publicly demanding an end to the government coverup and even mainstream media outlets such as the NY Times were admitting that the lack of an independent investigatory commission was "extraordinary," the Left media gatekeepers backed down and adopted a new tactic of silent stonewalling and tacit support for the official story.
http://www.questionsquestions.net/topics/left_911.html