Graeme MacQueen Reveals The Anthrax Deception - James Corbett • 09/25/2014


Interview 944 – Graeme MacQueen Reveals The Anthrax Deception
Corbett • 09/25/2014

Podcast: Play in new window |

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:

Another good interview with Graeme MacQueen

MacQueen gave another very good interview about his book on the Gary Null Show a couple of days ago. You can listen to it here:
(The interview with MacQueen begins about 42 minutes into the show.)

Suspicious powder suggested Mohamed Atta link to Anthrax attacks

MacQueen has mentioned in interviews about his book numerous examples of attempts that were made to link the Anthrax attacks to 9/11 and al-Qaeda. Another possible example of this occurred near the end of October 2001, when, as the Complete 9/11 Timeline describes, "Brad Warrick, the owner of a Florida company that rented cars to [Mohamed] Atta," reported "finding about a teaspoon of an unidentified white powder in the trunk of a Ford Escort used by Atta in the days before the attacks." The FBI impounded the car for two weeks after 9/11 and it was not used after then. However, an FBI spokeswoman said it was "unlikely that agents would have missed a suspicious powder" and suggested the powder "could be fingerprinting dust."

September 12-October 29, 2001: Cars Belonging to 9/11 Hijackers Recovered; Suspicious Powder Found in Car Rented to Atta

Doctor thought 9/11 hijacker had anthrax

Here is another apparent attempt that was made to link the anthrax attacks to 9/11 and al-Qaeda:

As the Daily Telegraph reported in March 2002, "A Florida doctor revealed he had treated one of the September 11 hijackers for what he believes was a form of [anthrax]." Dr Christos Tsonas, an emergency room physician at a Fort Lauderdale hospital, said that in June 2001, "he had prescribed an antibiotic for a black skin lesion on the leg of a man who said he was a pilot." Tsonas "had thought no more of it until approached by FBI agents in October [2001]."

Tsonas had then "recognized a photograph of Alhaznawi and of a second suspected hijacker, Ziad al-Jarrah, who had accompanied him to the hospital. On checking his records, the doctor found his description of the leg sore fitted in with the symptoms of cutaneous anthrax." He reportedly believed that "the hijacker had the less lethal form of anthrax, and may have been handling a version of the disease." (Source:

Furthermore, according to the New York Times, a pharmacist in Delray Beach, Fla., said that in October 2001, "he had told the FBI that two of the hijackers, Mohamad Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, came into the pharmacy looking for something to treat irritations on Mr. Atta's hands." (Source: I guess the implication here was that the irritations were caused by Atta handling anthrax.

Great documentary on the Anthrax attacks

I would recommend that anyone interested in learning more about the 2001 Anthrax attacks and bio-warfare in general watch the excellent documentary film, Anthrax War. You can watch this online here:

More details on this documentary are on its official website, here:

The filmmakers, Bob Coen and Eric Nadler, wrote a book to accompany their film, titled Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail, which I can imagine would make a very good companion to MacQueen's book.

Anthrax War (embedded) Must See

Still a success, basically

Excellent interview. I differ, though, with the conclusion that this episode should be understood as a botched false-flag event. While it's apparent that the degree of consensus and preparation among deep-state actors was less in this instance than in other false-flag events, it was the early reports that claimed to show a link to Iraq that most made an impression on the minds of the public, while subsequent corrections were downplayed in the media. This propaganda was still at work in people's minds when the Bush administration (with considerable effect) began conjuring images of Al Qaeda getting WMD from Iraq in the fall of 2002--even though, by that time, the FBI's Amerithrax investigation had shifted its attention to Steven Hatfill. After Hatfill successfully defended himself, the resulting problems proved to not be that great: They eventually found another 'lone nut' to hang it on, Bruce Ivins. While former co-workers of Ivins were constrained by non-disclosure agreements, members of Congress who weren't satisfied were eventually brought to heel (and their objections, again, received only a fraction of the coverage as did that purporting to prove Ivins guilt).

One of the things that I think is important to take from this episode is that, even when the evidence for inside job is glaring, institutional forces (e.g., the FBI and the media, in this case) can still prove to be more than sufficient to protect the perpetrators; who, moreover, still achieve much of their purpose in the process.

Great analysis rm

Well stated point about the "success" of a clearly demonstrable "failure" of a false flag operation. Imagine yourself to be a clandestine operative. It would be akin to living in three dimensions when the rest of the world lives in two, as in the classic book, Flatland, by Edwin Abbot Abbot. Such nuances of success and failure would be as familiar as breathing air. The rest of us are still in the process of learning to think in terms of the supremacy of appearance over substance.

The 2001 Anthrax Deception

Interview with Graeme Mac Queen

Posted on Nov 21, 2014

Interview starts at 40 minute mark


A really fine interview that hits all of Graeme's essential points. Very well done, Robbie.

I want to add an observation from Graeme's work that has perhaps been overlooked, and that is the absurdity of the "hijackers" researching crop dusters when - by the official narrative - the suicide "hijackers" will all soon be dead. Wouldn't "real" terrorists spray anthrax FIRST and THEN commit murderous suicide on 9/11? Seems illogical.

Really appreciate the

Really appreciate the feedback, thank you. I agree with you about the crop duster scenario. I feel like I've slept on Graeme's body of work for far too long, I had seen him before in panels and various places but not until I heard of his anthrax book did I delve specifically into his previous research. I have to say I'm really impressed by what I've seen so far. Hope more people in the movement get interested in anthrax as a result of his book. From my perspective at least Graeme's case, and more or less the same case I present in American Anthrax are virtually non-debunkable subjects. I've yet to see a debunker even try (has there been one?).

Any ideas for who I should have on as a guest next? I was hoping to do future episodes about Richard Reid and the DC sniper incident. What's the general consensus on either of those on 9/11 blogger? I haven't seen anything that tried to dig very deep into Reid of the DC snipers. I found Richard Reid's contact info in the federal prison, and part of me is tempted to try and open up some kind of dialog. On the surface these things, just like anthrax don't seem 9/11 related but I believe they helped escalate Americas into the state of fear and panic required to open the door for all the middle eastern wars past Afghanistan. So maybe there is something more there to find, or... maybe not.

Hey Robbie

One avenue might be the former co-workers of Dr. Ivins such as Dr. Henry Heine. Apparently he worked with Bruce and expressed severe incredulity at the FBI's conclusions upon his retirement. I believe he was the guy who said the FBI's estimate that Ivin's working late in the lab some 34 hours in the months prior to the attack was "about 8000 hours short" of what would be required to create the attack anthrax. Could be a gold mine of interviews there. Primary sources!

Just some suggestions, Robbie. All the best.

P.S. If you're not yet familiar with the work of author Douglas Valentine, you might consider it. Doug has personally interviewed countless insiders high and low to understand the structure and goals - both stated and unstated - of the key organizations that direct and control the political world. I've personally found Doug's work essential to piecing together the hows and whys of modern empire. Here's one interview from BFP though his most recent BFP follow-up interview (highly recommended) requires a subscription. Others can be found by poking around youtube and the net. Take care.

I'll check out Valentine's

I'll check out Valentine's work, thanks for the recommendation. I'm not familiar with Dr. Henry Heine, so i'll look into that. Has anybody else from the truth movement interviewed him? I know Dr. Meryl Nass, a colleague of Ivins has gone on a few shows including Corbett's, but she had more of a long distance working relationship with Ivins. I'm very curious why Ivins' surviving relatives like his son, daughter or wife haven't publicly disputed the 'verdict'. It seems unusual to me for a case that was on such shaky ground for the surviving relatives to not speak out about it. (which makes me think I might have missed something important).


"It seems unusual to me for a case that was on such shaky ground for the surviving relatives to not speak out about it."