Always good to be cautious, but I don't quite buy the thesis of the article Peter links above, nor do I really find it that well researched.
"At this very moment in time they are getting him ready for the major talk show circuit. They are grooming him as the atom bomb to destroy the 911 truth movement.."
Hopsicker wishes he had this much attention. Sander Hicks' THE BIG WEDDING has a chapter on Hopsicker which notes how DH, in an attempt to get airtime for some of his drug traffic expose videos, appeared on camera onetime in interview with another figure who was later linked (loosely, indirectly, I forget all the details) to unsavory right-wing racist groups. Hicks states right away that he doesn't feel that Hopsicker shares any of those aforementioned racist viewpoints, but that he made a clear error of judgement (or failed to properly research his interviewee) by appearing with the chap on camera. When questioned about the incident, Hopsicker argued with some frustration (if I recall the chapter accurately) that it was hard enough to get any airtime anywhere. (I could be misremembering the section in THE BIG WEDDING but I recall this is a fairly accurate paraphrase of it). Anyway, this is hardly the act of someone carefully grooming themselves in preparation for appearances on mainstream TV.
Citizen Spook Blog then quotes a prior article by Hopsicker and critiques it for not being aggressive enough regarding the likelihood of direct US government involvement in the attacks. Hopsicker's article is dated as November 7th 2001, barely a handful of weeks after the attacks themselves. I date the first 9/11 truth book as probably being Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's THE WAR ON FREEDOM from 2002 (later revised by that author into THE WAR ON TRUTH), the first Western mainstream media questioning of the event being Barrie Zwicker's late 2001 / early 2002 analysis in Canada, and the first major articles seriously digging in to the inconsistencies surrounding the attacks being those by Michael Ruppert and Stan Goff through early 2002 onwards. (Ruppert's OH LUCY! YOU GOTTA LOTTA 'SPLAININ TO DO. A TIMELINE SURROUNDING SEPTEMBER 11TH' is probably the most notable of those). German author Mathias Broeckers was questioning the event nearly immediately after the attack but his articles didn't appear in English translation until 2006. The sporadically brilliant Xymphora blog managed four or more years solid of important 9/11 analysis (before drifting perhaps too heavily into aggressively anti-Zionist polemics) but even that blog didn't get all its ducks in a row regarding 9/11 until probably the turn of 2001 / 2002. Hopsicker's failure to completely dive into all the inconsistencies of the 9/11 story since then is worthy of comment, but I'm prepared to cut him some slack regarding an article written less than eight weeks after the event. Sibel Edmonds and Coleen Rowley, to name two of many, have been equally careful about pointing direct fingers but their own critiques remain of great merit. To date, I think Webster Tarpley has appeared on mainstream US TV more often than Daniel Hopsicker.
Hicks accurately notes Hopsicker as being the point man in establishing Atta and his cohorts as being lovers of pork chops and devotees of drugs and strip clubs, not really behavior typical of radical muslims preparing for holy suicide. In the Hicks book, asshole 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben Veniste reacts with dismay and snide anger when Hicks mentions both Barry Seal and the above Atta facts in an interview. Anyone that gets under the skin of creeps like Ben Veniste deserves some credit, and Hopsicker deserves recognition for keeping those facts in the public spotlight, even if only to a minor extent.
As an aside, though I haven't finished listening to the whole thing, there's a pretty good (and long) interview between Alex Jones and Hopsicker here -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37ZU-yBOdt8
