But his words are vague and, similar to Sunstein, one can read the exoteric and esoteric meanings. It all depends on how you define the "it" in LIHOP. If "it" refers to 9/11, then there is a definite esoteric interpretation. Perhaps Cheney/Rumsfeld sat on their hands and allowed the Mossad to rig the towers? [ETA Scrap that; when typing this post I forgot about his mention of the August PDB] One person at blogger did point out that JV's words do not rule out an inside job. Now, of course, if "it" means "an attack by Muslim terrorists," then yes, the LIHOP position does indeed keep alive the myth that the attack was, "in fact," an Islamic terror attack.

He clearly advocated controlled demolition last season, and this season, if I'm not mistaken, the entire hour is on the Pentagon, and particularly an interview with April Gallop (I'm sorely hoping that the North of Citgo evidence will be covered but I'm preparing myself for disappointment), who clearly believes that a plane did not crash there and that the scene was staged with explosives.
Not only can such a scene at the Pentagon NOT be staged by "Islamic terrorists" but they can not be staged by MI6, CIA, ISI, OR  the Mossad. All heads have to turn towards Rumsfeld in the Pentagon scenario.

So with that being said, I'm far from convinced that JV is a "shill."

Did you read his American Conspiracies book?  It's very good; I learned a lot.

ETA That being said, zombie's post was just silly.