Jump to content
The Education Forum

Anthrax - the most obvious terror fraud


Sid Walker
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's approximately FIVE years since, in the aftermath of 9-11, a terror scare was unleashed on the USA that killed a few innocent victims and created a stampede in Congress to pass the first version of the PATRIOT Act.

For nearly the same length of time, it's been clear that:

(i) there is an obvious suspect who should be interrogated and held to account.

(ii) the US Government has no intention of 'solving' this crime - although it is willing to ruin the lives of innocent people as a diversionary tactic.

(iii) the mass media is effectively complicit in the criminal cover-up and also has no inention of seriously following up on this story and exposing the truth.

To many of us dubious about the Government version of 9-11 but doubtful inside forces could be so outrageously criminal and so widely supported by the mass medai, the obviously phoney nature of the anthrax attacks and subsequent media follow-up helped clinch the matter.

I was under the impression that civil cases may be brought in the USA in cases one might usually expect dealt with by the criminal justice system. The second OJ Simpson trial is a case in point.

Isn't it time for Americans with sufficient resources to support the anthrax victims' relatives and friends and help bring a civil case against Dr Philip Zack?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was also thinking about the amazingly forgotten anthrax incident.

Consider:

The only dem senator who fully opposed the Iraq invasion on principle died in a small plane crash. He was WITHOUT ANY QUESTION WHATSOEVER THE FURTHEST LEFT OF ALL 100 SENATORS (though this is not saying much)

The anthrax letters were delivered to two vital cogs in the legilative apparatus, the minority leader, and the judiciary leader of the minority party. These were the ones who could have really hindered the insane enabel

i mean patriot act.

Later, Bush gets both Leahy and the Daschel TO AGREE TO SUSPEND THE ANTHRAX INVESTIGATION SO THAT IT DOESNT HINDER THE WAR ON TERROR IN A PRIVATE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH BOTH SENS. HUH???

Do you mean to tell me Len, that you think the FBI cannot conduct an anthrax investigation that was DIRECTED AT THE FUNCTIONING OF AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF THE US gov while also doing the war on terror? Moreover what made them SEPARATE THE TWO?

Given the essential inactivity of the legislative branch--escept as a rubber stamp for the executive-- these events combine to be worthy of very prominant attention. Of course the fact that two citizens are raising the issue instead of two politicians or corporate journalists, means that this can all be dismissed as CONSPIRACY THEORY! How clean the windex mind here in oceana! ok, Len, your turn to type the words conspiracy theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Senator [Wellstone] who's plane 'slipped on a banana skin' and died, did so under very mysterious circumsatances [plane just checked; expert pilot; nice weather; etc. ]

No both pilots of the Wellstone plane were quite incompetent, there is a very long thread about Fetzer's book on the crash in the History Books section. Fetzer omitted a great deal of evidence leading to pilot error including 1) Conry (the pilot) told one of his oldest and closest friends who was himself a pilot that he had difficulty flying, especially taking of and landing King Airs, the accident plane was a King Air on approach (part of the landing phase), 2) Conry told his wife the other pilots at the company thought that Guess, the co-pilot, was incompetent, 3)Guess was fired from his previous piloting job (a sky diving company) for incompetence 4) one of the pilots at the company said that Guess had difficulty landing on his own 5) Conry almost certainly had far fewer flight hours than he claimed 6) most of those flight hours were accumulated before a 12 hiatus due to being sent jail and being legally blind 7) he had lasik surgery to improve his vision but was still required by the FAA to use corrective lens, his wife and friend said he didn’t and the coroner didn’t find any evidence he was 8) three days before the crash Conry screwed up so badly his co pilot suggested he retire 9) a colleague said Conry nearly crashed into the control tower when taking off 10) the pilot who said Conry was very careful had not flown with him for about 12 years 11) the plane didn’t suddenly turn off course, the plane missed a turn off and was on the wrong vector for several minutes 12) there was a problem with the beacon at the airport FAA tests carried out shortly after the crash led pilots very close to the crash location 13) Conry normally let his co-pilots fly so much that many said they could not judge his piloting skills others said he had a tendency to become distracted. (All of the above is documented in the thread)

Also the weather wasn’t nice not even Fetzer claims this.

....

The only dem senator who fully opposed the Iraq invasion on principle
????Several Democratic senators voted against the war
Do you mean to tell me Len, that you think the FBI cannot conduct an anthrax investigation that was DIRECTED AT THE FUNCTIONING OF AN ENTIRE BRANCH OF THE US gov while also doing the war on terror? Moreover what made them SEPARATE THE TWO?

Who said they weren't able conduct an investigation. Why seperate the two? I would assume because there was no evidence the two were connected if by war on terror you mean Al Queda

Len, your turn to type the words conspiracy theory
I'm truely at a loss to get what you are driving at. Do think Walker's post proved anything.

Was Zack the culprit? He could well be but that is far from proven. Did the FBI fail to investigate him properly? The evidence for that is lacking too..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's approximately FIVE years since, in the aftermath of 9-11, a terror scare was unleashed on the USA that killed a few innocent victims and created a stampede in Congress to pass the first version of the PATRIOT Act.

For nearly the same length of time, it's been clear that:

(i) there is an obvious suspect who should be interrogated and held to account.

(ii) the US Government has no intention of 'solving' this crime - although it is willing to ruin the lives of innocent people as a diversionary tactic.

(iii) the mass media is effectively complicit in the criminal cover-up and also has no inention of seriously following up on this story and exposing the truth.

To many of us dubious about the Government version of 9-11 but doubtful inside forces could be so outrageously criminal and so widely supported by the mass medai, the obviously phoney nature of the anthrax attacks and subsequent media follow-up helped clinch the matter.

I was under the impression that civil cases may be brought in the USA in cases one might usually expect dealt with by the criminal justice system. The second OJ Simpson trial is a case in point.

Isn't it time for Americans with sufficient resources to support the anthrax victims' relatives and friends and help bring a civil case against Dr Philip Zack?

There's been so little media follow up of this matter that I almost forgot it had occured.

I think you're right Sid. It stinks horribillus. Like so many other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the lack of "media follow up" is due to the fact there have been NO new developments for about 4 years.

That the best you can come up with Len?

It reminds me of the Talking Heads lyric: "Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens".

Since the FBI refuses to apprehend the most likely suspect, it looks like this particular heaven will be eternal.

But anthrax is soooo 2001, isn't it Len?

How mean of us not to move along like good children and forget all about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid Walker has raised excellent points about the anthrax episodes.

I have always viewed the government and media responses (or lack thereof) as a perfect indicator of the power of fear when it comes to making propaganda more effective. And as Sid implied, their methods do speak to their motivations.

Nathaniel, Peter and Mark also made astute comments.

I know Len has a propensity for defining his own open-mindedness, but his knee-jerk reactions to almost everything conspiratorial dilutes the effectiveness of his more cogent arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post may raise the temperature of what was, until now, a relatively 'typical' exchange between Len, our resident stalwart defender of official verities and a few folk (Peter Lemkin included) seen to have suspicions about the official story or lack thereof.

I feel the need to take Peter to task for his last post.

Here's why...

First, it was plagiarism.

As far as I can tell, Peter reproduced, in entirety yet without accreditation, an article published in 2002 by a certain Mr RJ Ochs - see http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articl...ov_anthrax.html

Now, this may have been no more than an inadvertent 'sin of omission'. But if so, I have a further question. Why did Peter make the post at all?

Unlike many ‘conspiracy’ debates, where the likely perpetrator is far from obvious, in the anthrax case there IS, I suggest, a prime suspect.

The real story here is that the US Government has failed to apprehend that suspect. Due process, it would seem, has not been followed. One can only infer this is to protect the suspect and his affiliations.

Peter’s post, which reproduced a very old article that lists several possible suspects in the anthrax case and reviews the evidence against each of them, takes the debate back to a time, three or four years ago, when it was much more unclear what might emerge. At that time, for instance, Steven Hatfill hadn’t been persecuted for years and ultimately left alone because of a chronic lack of evidence.

The 2002 article by Mr Ochs does, however, consider - and ultimately dismiss - the possibility that Israeli agents were responsible for the anthrax murders:

I suspect that was Peter’s real motivation for posting this material.

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

Suspect #8: Israeli agents:

In the days right after 9/11, an influx of illegal Israelis was interdicted by INS officers. Unlike the Arabs suspects, they were not detained. Israel cited the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan to justify their increasing attacks on Palestine, saying it was part of the war on terrorism. For several weeks, the ploy seemed to be working, as Bush sided with Israel against Palestine. A strong U.S. anti-terrorism Act is seen by Israeli leaders as helpful to their military plans. The anthrax attacks helped produce it.

The fact that the U.S. is a strong ally of Israel does not deter occasional hostile acts by Israel. Israel also has “sleepers” in the U.S., like Jonathan Pollard, who was imprisoned for spying on U.S. secrets.[61] It was reported on Feb. 26 that a scientist, formerly employed at Fort Detrick, Md., Dr. Philip M. Zack, may be the culprit. He allegedly tried to blame an Egyptian co-worker, Dr. Ayaad Assaad. Surveillance cameras allegedly recorded Zack’s entrance after hours at 8:40 PM on January 23, 1992. A co-worker named Dr. Marian Rippy allegedly let him in to conduct unauthorized research. Specimens of anthrax were reported missing during the same period.[62]

Israel also deliberately fired on the U.S. spy ship Liberty off their coast in 1967, killing 34 U.S. seamen so their massacres would not be observed.[63] A ship load of U.S. uranium, which disappeared in 1967 is believed to have been highjacked by Israeli agents to advance its secret nuclear bomb production.[64] The motto of their secret police is “By Way of Deception.” One of their own assassinated President Rabin. Do they have a cabal operating outside the law which is just as fanatic as the Jewish Defense League or the Palestinian Hamas?

Any Zionist who worked at Ft. Detrick or Dugway may have had access to the Ames strain. An Israeli agent would commit this crime only at a risk of inciting anti-Jewish sentiment if caught, which a scientist should be smart enough to know.

Forum members can make their own assessment of the plausibility of Mr Och’s analysis.

Among other things, he assumes a “level playing field” in the mass media in its reportage of Zionist crimes.

Is there any evidence for that?

Recall that it is now five DECADES after the Lavon affair and nearly four DECADES since the Israeli assault on the USS Liberty. The truth about these events has never been 'esposed' by the western mass media - even though the basic facts, in both cases, are no longer in dispute. In the Lavon affair, Mossad DID carry out attacks on US/British facilities in Egypt. In the case of the USS Liberty, Israeli aircraft DID attack and sustain their attack for a considerable time.

In the light of such experiences of gross mass media bias - experiences that stretch over decades - why should we expect the western mass media to investigate a Zionist suspect in the anthrax murder case with any real determination to expose him as the actual culprit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They seek him here,

They seek him there,

Those 17 FBI agents and 10 postal inspectors

Seek him (almost) everywhere!

:):lol::lol:

With such a massive number of people on the case, the culprit's as good as caught.

Nice article by Matt Hutaff. Yes, where are all the flowery commemorations of the victims?

I think this case has a decidedly pungent odour. Hypothetically, if Zack is the culprit, several interesting scenarios emerge. Was he a lone nut or, dare I say it, part of a wider conspiracy?

If the latter, then who would be leading candidates for conspirators? I think I might have a rough idea who.

All wild speculation, of course. :lol:

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Top GOP Senator Joins Critics of FBI Anthrax Probe

By JOSH GERSTEIN

October 25, 2006

A powerful Republican senator is adding his voice to a growing chorus of congressional critics who contend that the FBI may have botched its investigation of the anthrax-laden mailings that killed at least five people in 2001 and have not been solved.

Senator Grassley of Iowa wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales late Monday demanding an update on the status of the probe and expressing frustration at a decision by the Justice Department and the FBI to stop briefing Congress about the investigation.

"How do they expect Congress to do our constitutional responsibility of oversight?" Mr. Grassley asked yesterday in an interview with The New York Sun. "Do they think we're not supposed to be part of the checks and balances anymore?"

Last month, the FBI refused a request from Rep. Rush Holt, a Democrat of New Jersey, for a briefing on the status of the probe. The agency said no further briefings would be offered to members of Congress because of press accounts that followed earlier briefings and cited congressional sources.

In his letter, Mr. Grassley said he was "shocked" by the explanation because leaks from FBI sources led to news reports fingering a former Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, who was never charged. "For the FBI to withhold information from Congress for fear of leaks seems a bit hypocritical, to say the least," the senator wrote.

Officials at the FBI and Justice Department said they had received the letter but had no immediate comment. Mr. Grassley said "irritation" with the FBI contributed to his decision to take the matter directly to Mr. Gonzales. "We ought to have an answer as to why this crime hasn't been solved," the senator said.

In a letter last month to Mr. Holt, the FBI disputed reports that it operated for years under the mistaken impression that the anthrax used in the mailings was of a refined type that only a few scientists could have produced.

"The FBI and its partners in this investigation have never been under any misconception about the character of the anthrax used in the attacks," an FBI official, Eleni Kalisch, wrote. She said 17 FBI agents and 10 postal inspectors still were assigned to the nearly five-year-old investigation.

Mr. Grassley said that if Mr. Gonzales does not respond, Congress could consider other approaches, such as subpoenaing the information. "I also think holding up nominations for the Justice Department is a possibility," the senator said.

Mr. Hatfill is pursuing two libel suits over reports tying him to the anthrax attacks. He is also pressing a Privacy Act case against the federal government over alleged leaks. The New York Times, which is the defendant in one of the libel cases, has acknowledged that two of its confidential sources for columns about Mr. Hatfill were FBI employees. Last week, a federal magistrate ordered the Times to identify those sources and others, but the decision is under appeal.

http://www.nysun.com/article/42249

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

It looks like Rush Holt is still on the case... although he doesn't want to push too hard. After all, the FBI have only had nearly six years to investigate so far... and Congress passed the Patriot Act (1) in a cipro-induced frenzy almost as long ago!

Holt wants answers from FBI on anthrax

He and postal workers seek probe update

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 04/11/07

BY MICHAEL RISPOLI, GANNETT STATE BUREAU

PRINCETON — Nearly six years after letters laced with anthrax spooked a nation freshly worried about terrorist attacks, a federal lawmaker and postal workers gathered Tuesday to call for the FBI to explain the progress of its investigation and why the case has never been solved.

Standing down the street from the drop-box where the first anthrax-tainted letter was mailed, Rep. Rush D. Holt, D-N.J., continued to ask the FBI to brief Congress on the status of the investigation of the origin of the 2001 letters that killed five people and left sick many who came into contact with the bacterium.

Holt, flanked by representatives from postal administration and handlers, said the issue needs to remain upfront and that Congress needs to learn lessons from the probe — specifically whether lawmakers need to readdress how to help combat bioterrorism.

"Central New Jerseyans don't need to be reminded that these deadly attacks originated here — that lives were disrupted, that commerce was disrupted, that people died," Holt said. "And for all we know, the murderer is still at large."

When the anthrax scare began, Ron Procaccino, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 268 in Princeton, said his office was shut down and operated out of a tent for nearly a month.

"People were afraid to take their mail. Everyone was frightened," Procaccino said. "It gets to the point after years and years where you begin to wonder if it's forgotten."

Holt said he was "stonewalled" from being briefed on the investigation by the FBI last September, when a formal request was made seeking an update on the case. Holt said he has begun to wonder if the refusal for a briefing is because the FBI is "embarrassed about their slow progress and the failures so far of the investiga tion."

"If they are making more progress, I'd like to know it," Holt said.

A response letter from the FBI last year declined a classified briefing on the case but said "significant progress" had been made in the investigation, calling it "one of the largest and most complex investigations ever conducted."

Holt was asked by reporters Tuesday if he would go as far as to issue subpoenas to the FBI to respond at a congressional briefing. While not ruling that out, Holt said, "Subpoenas should be used sparingly."

Michael Rispoli: mrispol@gannett.com

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Any news about the anthrax murders?

Is the US public getting value for money from the 17 FBI agents and 10 postal inspectors assigned to the case, I wonder?

Or should we use the usual rule of thumb in the WoT?

If it fails, upsize it!

Perhaps 170 FBI agents and 100 postal inspectors are needed for the next seven years of this deliberately myopic 'inquiry'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the US public getting value for money from the 17 FBI agents and 10 postal inspectors assigned to the case, I wonder?

No, but there's nothing the US public can or will do about it. The corrupt and politicized FBI is "competent" when it needs to be, "incompetent" when it needs to be, and accountable to no one except the crime families who take turns occupying the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...