Welcome aboard, Arabesque.

Well stated. The accusations of LIHOP usually have the same general effect: They put the accused in a defensive position, made defensive because the accusation suggests that the speaker is too passive in his diagnosis. How is one passive in his diagnostic of 9/11? By not making claims that are exaggerated enough. By sticking to the known facts. Tarpley can dress his work in the robust garb of MIHOP because he includes speculations that aren't supported by the known facts. This is where I might disagree with you: Ruppert and Tarpley may have similar theses, but Tarpley includes chapters on "what hit the Pentagon?" and "Shanksville," two notoriously contentious issues.

But back to my point: I think the effect LIHOP/MIHOP is supposed to achieve, or does achieve, is to encourage skeptics to make outrageous claims. It's like a schoolyard taunt. You want to be a Truther with balls, don't you?