The Terrorist attack you are supposed to forget...









What do you think about that terrorist attack that occurred in the U.S. involving WMD? Whenever I ask somebody that they don't know what I'm talking about. Which is what they are supposed to do. It served its purpose. I am talking about the Anthrax letters, which killed several people, and was a textbook example of state sponsored terrorism. Anthrax is a WMD isn't it? Isn't that why we've killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq? Because Saddam Hussein didn't have a stockpile of anthrax but since it was claimed he did by our government that was good enough, to go kill, invade, and stay there?





The anthrax attacks and the terrorist attack of 9/11 are part of the same event. The only way you can possibly separate the two is if you believe a person was watching his TV on 9/11 and suddenly realized that the anthrax he had been making in his multi million dollar bioweapons research facility and was coincidently just now being perfected for delivery can now be sent out and blamed on anti Israel anti-American Muslim fanatics. That is a bit far fetched I think you would have to agree. Take a look at the actual anthrax letters themselves:





"The anthrax letters attack was classic terrorism in that rather than designed to kill as many people as possible, was designed to terrorize as many people as possible. The choice of a variety of media as targets seems to have been cleverly designed to ensure a broad spectrum of publicity about the attacks. The choice of Senators Daschle and Leahy suggests that the perpetrator may lean to the political right and may have some specific grudge against those Senators.” {b}

"This is next" the letters say. "We have this anthrax,” another states. The President of the United States was telling us the same thing wasn't he? That the next wave of attacks would be wmd, by these crazy terrorists, and Saddam has this anthrax? But lets get real now. These terrorists that G Bush is warning us about are NOT the ones who actually attacked us with WMD. So who did? Who are the real terrorists? It isn't hard to figure out.





Every letter says 9-11-01, which BTW is the western (American) style of writing dates, and is showing its link with the event. The first letter was mailed on 9-18-01. This is absolute proof, that the anthrax letters and 9/11 are part of the same event. "In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I'm one of them," said Richard O. Spertzel, chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998. "And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good." {a} I think he might be a little off, in his estimate of 4 or 5 people but not much, according to a former defense scientist the number of defense scientists with hands-on anthrax experience and the necessary access is under 50. {b} That should narrow the suspects down if the evidence points in this direction and it clearly does.









There was only one week between Sept 11 and Sept 18, when the first two letters (and probably another letter, never found, to AMI) were postmarked. This suggests that the anthrax was already in hand, and the attack largely planned, before Sept 11. {b} The perpetrator was ready before Sept. 11 and simply took advantage of the likelihood that Sept. 11 would throw suspicion on Muslim terrorists.

So, lets figure out who was behind the anthrax attacks. I think you would agree that if Iraq did not have any anthrax, and had shut down their bioweapons facilities, it would be impossible to blame them right? Al Qaeda doesn't have the means to make it.





A classified report dated February 1999 discusses responses to an anthrax attack through the mail. The report, precipitated by a series of false anthrax mailings, was written by William Patrick, inventor of the US weaponization process, under a CIA contract to SAIC. The report describes what the US military could do and what a terrorist might be able to achieve. According to the NY Times (12 Dec. 01) the report predicted about 2.5g of anthrax per envelope (the Daschle letter contained 2g) and assumed a poorer quality of anthrax than that found in the Daschle letter. {b} So the intelligence agencies of the United States had already conducted a hypothesis of what a terrorist attack using anthrax mailings would be like, isn't that interesting?





"Authorities aren't even certain the anthrax cases are connected to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- believed to be the work of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- but the Bush administration is certainly suspicious of a link." "I wouldn't put it past him, but we don't have hard evidence yet," President Bush said of bin Laden. {c} Nope no evidence, not yet and he never has and never will, because the anthrax that was sent was the most potent ever released into society and could only be made by a nation state, and guess what we found out when we invaded Iraq? It wasn't them. Not even close.

"Officials acknowledge that the strains of anthrax seem to be from the same source. In the case of the letter sent to Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), weapons-grade anthrax was detected. Weapons-grade anthrax is a chemically altered form, which makes the disease able to survive in the air. Some experts argue this type of bacteria comes from only three countries: the United States, Russia and Iraq". {d} The anthrax spores that contaminated the air in Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle's office had been treated with a chemical additive so sophisticated that only three nations are thought to have been capable of making it, sources said. "The United States, the former Soviet Union and Iraq are the only three nations known to have developed the kind of additives that enable anthrax spores to remain suspended in the air, making them more easily inhaled and therefore more deadly, experts said yesterday".





Anthrax cannot be weaponized by terrorists, and it could probably never be used successfully as a military weapon. It has to be converted to spores suspended in the air, which is technically very difficult; and the lethality is nowhere near the terror that it is made out to be. To use anthrax as a weapon, it must be converted to a powder, which can be inhaled. Only the US and Russian militaries have succeeded in doing that. Even Iraq used anthrax in liquid form, which is totally ineffective. The first requirement would be to aerosolize the spores. The spores would have to be converted to a dry powder, because a liquid would create globs, which would fall to the ground, rather than staying suspended in the air. How do workers clean the equipment without getting spores everywhere? A likely procedure would be to enclose the equipment in a pressure chamber and steam sterilize it for several days. Such an operation costs hundreds of millions of dollars, considering related facilities and development. Only countries do that, not radical groups. In fact, military and UN inspectors only found two Iraqi warheads with anthrax in them (in liquid form). If Iraq had anthrax in an effective form, it would have had it in hundreds of warheads, as they did with nerve gas. So Iraq knew its anthrax was useless. {f} Terrorists cannot weaponize anthrax. The weaponized powder came from the US weapons labs, as demonstrated by a chemical that was on it. Some weird loner didn't make this stuff in his basement.





But lets look at what the US Government was doing as far as bioweapons research in the time leading up to 9/11, since it is looking more and more like it was from this source it came from, and the anthrax had to have been prepared before the 9/11 attacks. What the US Government was doing was withdrawing from the Bioweapons Convention and refusing to go along with inspection teams to enforce the treaty.