THE FRAUD FIGHTERS {namebase}

IF THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF A 757, THEN WHAT ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE SEEING?

This is to list and organize sub-posts dealing with the specific people mentioned in my many posts here who have taken a stand against the Frustraing Fraud. The post is a work in progress, and will be updated as needed.

I'm in a small but growing minority that almost seem to be laying out - or discovering, pick one - a conspiracy of disinfo almost as vast as the alleged 9/11 conspiracy itself - how could all these people conciously buy into and promote what is clearly untrue? We must be off our rockers, you'll say. That's just about every member of the "9/11 Truth Movement" that's implicated on the Fruad namebase. But just go back and check my arguments, examine the evidence for yourself, and look again at these peoples' claims.

I'd like to officially open the post up to readers to submit their own nominees for examination as effectively taking on the no-plane/small-plane theories, your opinions on the list so far, etc. in the comments sections below. Any new personalities warranting mention here will be pulled up and added to the masterlist. I do try to be fair. This is basically anyone who's taken an explicit stand on the Pentagon attack, official or unofficial. Any new facts or opinions about those on the list I deem fit will be incorporated as well. Although it may seem odd, I’m including both people in the mainstream (at least the most relevant or entertaining) and in the 9/11 Truth movement. Anybody from anywhere that’s gone on the record in a noteworthy way. The list originally mixed in with 757 deniers as well, but was way too long, and so far my list of fraud fighters is too short to split up into two posts, though I will sort them into Defenders and opponents of the official story. Their motives differ almost like night and day, but their methods and words are all worth looking at.

Defending the Official Story:
- "James B.": The "Chief" of Screw Loose Change, a site dedicated to de-bunking the video Loose Change. They and their readers seem largely dedicated to bolstering the official story, and James B is a Chief Warrant Officer in the Army National Guard. The comments section on the page features numerous fans, detractors, critics, and interesting back-and-forth. Pretty liberally moderated.
- - Loose Change vs. Tight Continuity
- - James B. on the bodies at the Pentagon

- Alexander Cockburn: A prime example of what many call “Left Gatekeepers,” though he strongly criticizes Bush and the “War on terror,” Cockburn denies 9/11 as an inside job in any respect, including blaming the failed air defense on a simple and expected series of screw-ups. November 28 2006, he described conspiracy theorists as "torturing the data [...] like mad Inquisitors [...] till the data confess." For example, "there are some photos of the impact of the "object" - i.e. the Boeing 757, flight 77 - that seem to show the sort of hole a missile might make. Ergo, 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. It WAS a missile. It wasn't smoke in some photographs obscuring a larger rupture in the fortified Pentagon wall.”

- Guillaume Dasquié: Authored the 2003 book "The Big Lie: Theses and Nonsense about September 11" in an attempt to de-bunk Thierry Meyssan's works, even to the extent of stealing the name. It must be noted he is neither a Bush ally nor devoid of his own conspracy theorizing: That same year Dasquié co-authored "Forbidden Truth" with Jean-Charles Brisard, accusing Bush of complicity in 9/11 by being too soft on the Saudis, who have been trying to take over the world since the 1800s. He takes on the fraud but not from my angle. He's a War on Terror propagandist.

- Chris Farrell: Director of investigations, Judicial Watch - conservative legal watchdog group defending the official story by debunking the Frustrating Fraud. JW is also suing FBI for pre-9/11 counter-terror negligence.

- Tom Fitton: President of judicial Watch in 2006 when they started releasing Pentagon attack videos: "we wanted to help put to rest conspiracy theories out there that were suggesting that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, that the government murdered the passengers on Flight 77, and other outrageous stuff. Just having the videos released is one more leg of the conspiracy theory that has been knocked out. This also reminds Americans of the evil we are facing.”

- Mark Iradian: Producer of the video Screw Loose Change. Has to have made some specific and useful argument about the Pentagon attack tho I haven't watched it yet. “When you try to label the government for being a butcher and slaughtering 3000 of his own people, you better provide concrete evidence to back that up."

- Sgt. William Lagasse: pentagon police officer and Pentagon attack eyewitness. In a 2003 letter to 757 flyover proponent Dick Eastman: "Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day [...] The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step." Lagasse tricked into bolstering another overflight theory (The PentaCon, 2007) with his recollections, now found curiously inconsistent with the official story.

- James Meigs/the editors of Popular Mechanics: "Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States."

- Mark Roberts: Author of a sharp debunking of Loose Change. Responding to the video's assertion "the two engines should have been found relatively intact at the Pentagon," Roberts quipped "You must be thinking of the old Pentagon, which was made of balsa wood and marshmallows. What sort of schooling have you received that's led you to believe that an airplane striking a reinforced concrete building at over 500 mph isn't going to break into small pieces? That's a serious question, by the way." He also penned "Loose Change Creators Speak," which spurred another Iradian video of the same name.

- Sarah Roberts: In late 2002 she bucked the trend of showing the lawn with so little plane wreckage, and instead compiled and released exclusive photos from inside the building that did show what she felt were parts from a 757. These photos, among the most telling used as evidence on this site, she summed up, "clearly show pieces of landing gears, a large turbofan engine, and fuselage. The evidence inside the building is consistent with the evidence of plane wreckage outside - indicating that a commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon on September 11th."

- Michael Shermer: Publisher of Skeptic and lead author of Scientific American's mid-2005 anti-9/11 conspiracy theory article "Fahrenheit 2777." Closing quote from that: "All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales."

- Matt Taibbi - Authot of "The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement," (Rolling Stone, Sept. 2006). Imagined planning session:
"CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, okay.
RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them."
Summarizing the "movement:"
"[I]f there were any conspiracy here, I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying."

- Mike J Wilson: Creator of an excellent animated Pentagon attack sequence that explains all the major evidence in confomity with a 757 strike. The video is viewable at You Tube.

Opposing the Official 9/11 Story but Accepting the 757 Evidence:
- Arabesque: Talented 9/11 truth blogger - in a massive and thoroughly detailed critical review of the PentaCon, my favorite passage so far is: "Even more significant is that the structural damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly with the flight path as suggested by the light pole damage and generator as shown above. The filmmakers even acknowledge this point when they claim that the plane could not have caused the structural damage inside of the Pentagon if it approached from north of the CITGO gas station. This is very strong evidence that the PentaCon eyewitnesses are wrong." Exactly!

- Scott Bingham: 9/11 skeptic, against the HTB case. Seems to believe a real 757 was flown in by remote control. Bingham is the site administrator for Flight77.info to document his lawsuits against the FBI and DoJ to get the video of the Pentagon attack released, but his role has been eclipsed by similar but later lawsuits by Judicial Watch. Bingham believes Hani Hanjour was not the agent of the Pentagon attack, but “if you believe that Hanjour was not flying the plane because there was no plane, you've been suckered into the myth that something other than a 757 hit the pentagon - which happens to be most people now that the virus known as 'loose change' has infected so many.”

- Margie Burns: I'm unaware of her stand on 9/11 directly, but she's focused on drawing attention to the Bush family’s possible role in the attacks, notably Marvin's work on WTC security. Author of "Foolish no-planers getting all the attention; could that be the idea?" August 10 2006.

- Jean-Pierre Desmoulins: Author of site "Pentagon 2001 / 9 / 11 : the fraud !" Initially a Meyssan supporter posulating a Fighter jet attack, he later back off from this after looking closer at the evidence. Later said in mid-2004 Meyssan's theory was "technically incoherent and contradicts all the witness accounts." and also noted: "The efforts to promote the MIHOP 1 and MIHOP 2 theories [lead] the public to think that the official thesis are opposed only some wild "conspiracy nuts" theories which can be easily debunked by a technical analysis. This "noise" injected into the the system masks the "signal", i.e. that the truth is probably somewhere beetween the LIHOP and the MIHOP 3 theory. Obviously, deliberately or not, this is disinformation."

- Finatan Dunne: Irish multimedia activist - administrator of Break for News.com, formerly Wagnews, etc. Focusing on many issues - on 9/11 he's about exposing what he thinks are psychological operations (psyops) and discarding the tinfoil theories - like the Frustrating Fraud. He's gone so far as to call several activists, including Mike ruppert, "CIA bitches," and to dismiss 9/11 Truth itself as part of the 9/11 psyop campaign.
- -On the Pentagon attack as the "honeytrap" of 9/11
- -On the bodies found at the Pentagon

- Jamie Hecht: From the Wilderness, led the charge against the fraud there. Hecht called Robinowitz’ “Identifying Misinformation” as “one of the most effective teaching tools about America’s Reichstag Fire and the perpetual cover-up it launched.”

- Jim Hoffman: 9-11 Research.com, 9-11 Review.com, wtc7.net. Primarily a specialist in the WTC demolition, Hoffman's solid evidence analysis points to a 757 but probably not piloted by Hani Hanjour. His research is cited in numerous posts here. "Many working on social justice causes like 9/11 are reluctant to admit that there are saboteurs in their midst. The idea that the struggle to expose the crime is just a contest between the official story and alternatives is comforting in its simplicity. Recognizing that the struggle is a two-or-more-front war of ideas can be intimidating or even overwhelming."

- Alex Jones: Radio host, multimedia activist, "mr megaphone" in Richard Linklater's movies. Jones is an invaluable ally but not my spokesman by a long shot. He's generally a populist but a bit brash and too "Conservative Christian" for me, and he exagerrates and sometimes distorts facts. But to his credit he's gone on the record against both the Frustrating Fraud and the official story. As far as this site's mandate, he should be clean, but whether by 9/11 shock jock instinct or whatever, he's at least passively pushed the fraud in the past. (see Fraud namebase).

- Steven Jones: BYU professor and Scholars for 9/11 Truth member who famously has claimed the WTC was felled by thermate demolition. He doesn't buy the fraud, but has remained somewhat vague on it. Joe R says compared to fellow st911 member Jim Fetzer, Jones "is much more reasonable and thinks the no-757 evidence is no good, but also thinks we need more data."

- John Judge: Coalition on Political Assassinations, saw the fraud right away. In October 2002 Judge released "Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon." A VERY interesting read with some early info that has since been contradicted by the official story (the radar tracking part was interesting), it warned "there is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings. [...] Let's discover and present the hard facts and force the coincidence theorists to come up with plausible explanations instead of spewing out speculations we cannot back up and leaving ourselves on the defensive."

- Russell Pickering: PentagonResearch.com - Seattle Area firefighter. 9/11 Skeptic specializing in analysis of the Pentagon attack. Though he seems open to different theories, his careful ly compiled evidence seems to point to a 757.
- -The Blue TarpSmuggling Op Exposed.
- -The A3 Skywarrior Theory
He's been working with the Loose Change forum on an ad hoc investigation, and on air with Micael Collins Piper Aug 14 2006 he sounded I thought a bit vague and questionable. But when Piper seemed to corner his site as debunking the 757 theory, Pickering stood his ground perfectly, reiterating that a 757 could well be responsible and does not make or break the case - there's still remote control as a possibility.

- Joël van der Reijden, AKA Joe R. - Has done an excellent analysisof the plane's damage to the Pentagon and the Fraudsters' to the search for 9/11 Truth. Dismissing logicless debates, he has said: "Forget all those discussions. They never solve anything as there's usually at least one side that defends a certain interest (or is just plain stupid) and is not interested in the truth. Do your homework; give other people your opinion and sources when they ask for it; then go do something useful."

- Mike Rivero: Whatreallyhappened.com. "Government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon." Wrote "The “Pod People” And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon." Quote: "Only in Warner Brothers cartoons does the Coyote leave a cookie-cutter outline of himself as he crashes into the rock face. In the real world (someplace that the "pod people" need to spend more time in) collisions are more complex. Airplanes do not make clean outline holes in buildings they collide with any more than cars make clean outline holes in walls they collide with. [...] At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact, and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web."

- Mark Robinowitz: Creator of Oil Empire websites, a “follow the money” type 9/11 Skeptic, inspired by the best of the Ruppert tradition. Long-time denier of the no-757 Pentagon theories since late 2004 at least, and formative in my own growing doubts.

- Ruppert, Michael C: From the Wilderness. He has warned fellow 9/11 truthers to look out for discrediting disinfo, primarily urged not getting tangled in the physical evidence. In December 2005 From the Wilderness published Robinowitz’s concerns that “Meyssan and Rumsfeld manufacture[d] the missile hoax” that was "is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax.” This was more Jamie Hecht’s work though, and Ruppert had already revealed he believed it was not a 757 (see Fraud namebase).

- Emmanuel Sferios: 9/11 Visibility Project. Most notably in a September 11 2006 piece, he warned that the Frustrating fraud was wrong and harming the credibility of the Truth movement. "“[T]o prove that agents are among us, and that they have succeeded in taking over the bulk of the movement, one needs to go no further than compare the number of people who believe no plane hit the Pentagon with the number of people who know about the simultaneous wargames that were taking place on the morning of 9/11, and that prevented NORAD from intercepting the planes before they hit their targets. The former claim, widely believed, is perhaps the most successful and sophisticated disinformation campaign injected into the 9/11 Truth Movement. Supported by doctored video footage released by the Pentagon itself, it has almost single-handedly made the movement the laughing stock of Washington DC residents, hundreds of whom saw the plane hit the building, and thousands of whom have relatives or friends who did. And this was likely its intention, for it has successfully alienated from the movement precisely those DC professionals (senators, congressmen, federal judges, prosecutors, etc.) who hold enough power to effectively investigate and prosecute the crime. It has also been the primary wedge used to divide the movement from itself.” - Sferios on Disinfo and Cointelpro and the Pentagon

- Joe Vialls: Enigmatic and eceentric researcher, died mid-2005. He's not a credible source, but has railed against the Fraud. March 2002: "In what appears to be a major disinformation exercise, a French web site has caused a minor storm on the Internet by claiming American Airlines Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon on September 11." He called the theory a "sick joke," and noted "Captain Charles Burlingame’s widow is unlikely to appreciate the humor." Vialls' alternate remote control theory would be considered by many a sicker joke yet, but it does at least make more sense.

- Jeff Wells: Rigorous Intuition: "I think there's a grave problem of "sexing up" the truth with spectacular yet specious arguments. For instance, some of the splashiest and attractive 9/11 material is devoted to supporting the "Pentagon Missile." Sure, it gets people's attention - in fact, it dominates the public perception of alternative theories of the attacks - but is it right? Well, no; as I've said, I don't think so. And truth will suffer again and again when those who fell for the missile "hook" come to the same conclusion and chuck the whole thing, and those who were turned off the "missile" refuse to look any further."
"There is simply too much to counter the fantastic claim for the 9/11 truth movement to be squandering its integrity on such speculation."
"There was no guided missile, but I believe control of the aircraft was taken from Hanjour in flight so Flight 77 would behave as a guided missile."

9/11 Beliefs unsure:
- Ron Harvey: An early 9/11 theory debunker from the UK focused on the Pentagon attack and evidence for a 757 strike. His most noted achievements are assembling the early 2002 witness compilation website “They Saw The Aircraft” and for first plotting the five downed light poles.

- "Cat Herder": ATS member, author of the classic thread "9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon" – accused by Joe Quinn of disinformaion – possibly so – a number of major errors, like seeing the impact damage on the second floor - have allowed no-757 theorists to dismiss the work and continue their charade – seems less revelation in retrospect than limited platform for “debunkers” and almost part of the game… http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

- Penny Schoner – compiled eyewitness accounts supporting a 757 strike in response to Meyssan et al.