Interview 944 – Graeme MacQueen Reveals The Anthrax Deception
Corbett • 09/25/2014
Podcast: Play in new window http://www.corbettreport.com/?powerpress_pinw=12357-podcast |
In his new book “The 2001 Anthrax Deception,” Dr. Graeme MacQueen, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, lays out the case for a domestic conspiracy in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the US. In this conversation, James and Graeme discuss the context in which these attacks happened, the way they were portrayed by the government and the mainstream media, their ultimate effect, and the voluminous evidence that disproves the FBI’s assertion that the attacks were the work of Dr. Bruce Ivins.
Visit the book’s website: http://www.claritypress.com/MacQueen.html
The 1993 WTC Bombing Damage Myth
It is often said that the 1993 WTC bombing was under the north tower and threatened to take the tower down. This is a myth.
The fact is that the bomb was in the parking garage under the Vista Hotel (WTC3) and did only superficial damage to the tower structure.
Popular Mechanics (July 1993) shows a diagram of the damage, which was outside the footprint of the North tower.
As you can see, the bomb damaged the refrigeration plant on the B5 level, which was outside the perimeter wall of the North tower.
Take a look at the strength of the tower during construction. How could this small bomb affect its overall integrity?
Lee Hamilton -- Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission -- admits that the debate about what destroyed WTC 7 on 9/11 still continues when he's asked about it on C-SPAN's Washington Journal on September 12th, 2014.
Coleen Rowley grew up in a small town in northeast Iowa. She obtained a B.A. degree in French from Wartburg College, Waverly, Iowa and then attended the College of Law at the University of Iowa and graduated with honors in 1980 also passing the Iowa Bar Exam that summer.
In January of 1981, Rowley was appointed a Special Agent with the FBI and initially served in the Omaha, Nebraska and Jackson, Mississippi Divisions. In 1984 she was assigned to the New York Office and for over 6 years worked on Italian organized crime and Sicilian heroin drug investigations. During this time Rowley also served three separate temporary duty assignments in the Paris, France Embassy and Montreal Consulate.
In 1990 Rowley was transferred to Minneapolis where she assumed the duties of "Chief Division Counsel" which entailed oversight of the Freedom of Information, Forfeiture, Victim-Witness and Community Outreach Programs as well as providing regular legal and ethics training to FBI Agents of the Division and some outside police training.
In May of 2002 Rowley brought some of the pre 9-11 lapses to light and testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee about some of the endemic problems facing the FBI and the intelligence community. Rowley's memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller in connection with the Joint Intelligence Committee's Inquiry led to a two year long Department of Justice Inspector General investigation. She was one of three whistleblowers chosen as persons of the year by TIME magazine.
In April 2003, following an unsuccessful and highly criticized attempt to warn the Director and other administration officials about the dangers of launching the invasion of Iraq, Rowley stepped down from her (GS-14) legal position to go back to being a (GS-13) FBI Special Agent. She retired from the FBI at the end of 2004 and now speaks publicly to various groups, ranging from school children to business/professional/civic groups, on two different topics: ethical decision-making and "civil liberties and effective investigation."
Must-Read: “The 2001 Anthrax Deception”
Professor Graeme MacQueen has written a must-read book on the anthrax attacks on America: The 2001 Anthrax Deception.
Even those of us who have paid close attention to – and written broadly on – the 2001 anthrax attacks will learn stunning new information.
For example, we learned the following eye-opening facts from the book:
- There was a set of 3 letters sent around the same time as the initial anthrax mailings, which attempted to frame the Russians for the anthrax attacks, and which warned of further attacks. These letters could not have been sent by Dr. Bruce Ivins (the scientist the FBI blamed for the attacks), nor could they have been “copycat” letters
- Less than 3 months before the anthrax attack, the government carried out a simulated exercise called “Dark Winter”, where: a lethal germ had been aerosolized then released; anonymous letters threatened anthrax attacks; Iraq and Al Qaeda are blamed for the attacks; and preparations are made for the drastic reduction of civil liberties in the United States, including martial law
- The National Academy of Sciences found that the anthrax mailed to Congressmen and the media could have come from a different source altogether than the flask maintained by Ivins
- The Department of Justice argued in a lawsuit that the anthrax used in the attacks was of a completely different nature (dried, aerosolized, and specially treated to act as a lethal weapon) than maintained by Dr. Ivins (a standard liquid solution):
- PBS’ Frontline, ProPublica and McClatchy newspaper all found that Dr. Ivins was doing valid and important work during the timeframes when the FBI claims that he “went missing”
- There is reason to suspect that the same people who carried out 9/11 also carried out the anthrax attacks
We’re not the only people who have already spent countless hours researching the anthrax attacks who MacQueen’s work enlightening.
New 9/11 Timeline Entries: White House Staffers' Actions on 9/11, President Apparently in Danger, and More
From the History Commons Groups blog:
A large number of entries have been added to the Complete 9/11 Timeline at History Commons. Most of these focus on the events of September 11, 2001, including the actions of White House personnel in response to the terrorist attacks that day, and a number of apparent threats to President Bush and his plane, Air Force One.
White House Officials Visited Emergency Bunker during Exercise
A new timeline entry describes a training exercise held shortly before 9/11 in which some senior White House staffers were shown to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), a bunker below the White House where numerous government officials went on September 11. Following the first attack on September 11, Josh Bolten, the deputy White House chief of staff, was called by a former member of the Clinton administration who wanted to check that he was aware of the PEOC.
Bolten, according to his own recollection, alerted National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to the second crash at the World Trade Center after seeing coverage of it on television. Later on, he headed to the PEOC where he joined Vice President Dick Cheney and other government officials.
Also early on the morning of September 11, a sheriff in Sarasota, Florida, was surprised to find that when he contacted colleagues who were with President Bush's Secret Service detail, shortly after he saw the TV reports of the first crash at the WTC, those colleagues were unaware of what had happened in New York.
As shown in an earlier post by Richard Johns, there is a new letter on the Journal of 911 Studies which describes dishonest and unethical behavior by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and its parent organization, the ASCE Journals and their Board of Governors, regarding their refusal to correct a clearly dishonest and fraudulent paper they published concerning the collapse of the WTC Towers in January 2011.
The letter can be found here http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf
This stonewalling behavior is similar to that observed of the NIST Director when confronted earlier this year with evidence that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features from its analysis which would have made impossible the collapse initiation hypothesis presented in the report. See the December 2013 letter by attorney William Pepper to the Dept. of Commerce Inspector General on this issue here
A new letter by Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns has just been published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The letter shows how difficult it can be to publish simple engineering facts about 9/11 in a top engineering journal, especially one that has previously supported the fire-induced progressive collapse view. Critics of the official accounts of 9/11 have often been dismissed on the grounds that, if they had valid points to make, they could publish their work in top scientific journals. Our letter is a useful case study on this question. A paper published in the Journal of Engineering mechanics contained obvious errors, such as data concerning WTC1 that contradicted the NIST reports. However, our discussion paper correcting these errors was eventually declined for being "out of scope" for the journal, after being under review for more than 2 years.
Our letter includes a brief timeline of events, a summary of our correspondence with the journal, and the various appeals we made. It also includes the two versions of the discussion paper we wrote, and a link to the article we criticized, so that engineers can judge the technical issues for themselves.