The alternative sites are, as you say, mostly antiwar sites. That is sort of their underlying mission. Yes, they have other issues they cover, but antiwar is the most important to them, it seems.

But it has become clearer and clearer to me that antiwar activism is completely wasted time and energy these days. The "system" knows how to ignore this kind of activism, and the population in general doesn't get excited enough about stopping war for anything to change.

The ONLY way I can see of stopping our imperial wars and militarism here at home is getting out the truth of 9/11.
It is my ultimate goal.
And, actually, I am not even so extremely antiwar, compared to many others. I see a place for a military and even war at times. I spent 30 years in the military, in different capacities and groups, but what I see now is completely unnecessary wars for resources and special interests, and none of our wars now have to do with defending our great nation. The wars and occupations are, in a word, immoral.

I am so disappointed in the antiwar organizations like MoveOn, and the antiwar alternative media. We would have long ago convinced the world that 9/11 was an inside job, and had a real investigaton, had the media done its job.

that Alternet, Antiwar, Counterpunch, DemocracyNow, HuffingtonPost and Daily Kos have an "anti-conspiracy theory" policy... They have all in one way or another, through public statements about comment moderation, hate-filled ridicule or abrasive columns, affirmed this position. Publicly. It's no secret. However, I just don't think there is more to it than reflexive aversion. And much of that aversion is because of the relentless promotion of theories such as 'no plane hit the Pentagon'.

Any reasonable person, including and especially intellectuals from the left would deem that grounds for complete exclusion of anything that even remotely resembles 9/11 Truth. I took me a while to come to my senses w.r.t. the Pentagon attack, and I have to say I'm flabbergasted that so many say (or imply, by faux agnosticism) that no plane hit there. Another example is the 'hijackers alive' material. Our Achilles heel is mistaking falsification as rational grounds for substitution of the generally accepted version of events for a narrative based on baseless conjecture. Contrast that with the nanothermite paper. The nanothermite paper is positive evidence, or verification, of wrongdoing, just like the anthrax attacks. I might step on a few toes again by bringing this up, but there is no point in looking away. In fact, looking away is the worst possible option.

In another comment, John Wright (LeftWright) said that he spoke to Amy Goodman and his take on the matter was that she was mortified of addressing 9/11 Truth. Another plausible explanation lost in a sea of disgruntled speculation about the alternative media. I agree that these alternative media outlets are part of the cover-up, because their editors should themselves be able to separate the wheat from the chaff instead of a wholesale denunciation of critical thought and 9/11 skepticism. But I do not agree (yet) that they are 'globalist mockingbird media' to borrow one of the more hysterical snitchjacketing headlines often seen at Infowars and their siblings. Globalism is a word devoid of meaning, like 'new world order', because it can mean anything to anybody, regardless of either malicious or naive, world-bettering intentions.

The answers to the questions about alternative media censorship are right in front us. We need only open our eyes.

For additional context: Dan Rather.