Support 911Blogger


Sander Hicks: The “Mad Scientist” Ivins, and Other 9/11 Legends

By Sander Hicks

9/11 Blogger - 8.8.08

As the sun begins to set on the tyrannical Bush/Cheney Administration, a “culprit” for the anthrax attacks has been dropped on us. The government has produced the dead body of “mad scientist” Bruce Ivins, the way a smiling cat produces a mouse carcass. This new lone assassin story holds together quite well: as long as you look only at it, and not at any of the other grisly details about US government involvement in anthrax.

The biggest hole in the current news story is that we all are expected now to reverse seven years of thinking, and suddenly believe that the anthrax attacks had no connection to 9/11. They were the work of an American insider, a psycho killer inside the US Army’s Fort Detrick, the Maryland headquarters of tax-payer funded chemical warfare.

With all the blame on Ivins, the official story has contradicted itself.

For example, look at this:

Above is the letter that was sent to Senator Tom Daschle. Would a crazy mad scientist NOT tied to the 9/11 attacks send his anthrax letters out right after 9/11, with “09-11-01” on top, and end the cover note with “Allah is Great”? Would he be willing to contribute to the public terror and build up the effect of 9/11, resulting in the advancement of the neo-con agenda? And here’s the stickler: Would he drive seven hours to Princeton, NJ to mail the letters, because he’s obsessed with a Catholic sorority there, but at the SAME time he’s sane enough to use the 9/11 attacks as a cover story? One that keeps him safe for seven years?

Something doesn’t add up.

Remember Jerome Hauer? We New Yorkers remember him well as the guy whose idea it was to spray carcinogenic insecticides, at eye level, from small pick up trucks, in residential city neighborhoods, to combat the almost nonexistent threat of “West Nile Virus” back in the Giuliani days. He was a NYC Government bio-terrorism expert who happened to be doing a bio-terrorism drill called “Tripod II” inside the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11. It turns out Hauer is old friends with Steven Hatfill, the other anthrax suspect. It turns out, they both lectured at the Council on Foreign Relations together not too many years ago on the topic of “Building a ‘BioBomb’: Terrorist Challenge.” Yep, Hatfill, who commissioned a report from the CIA on how to attack people using anthrax in the mail, back when he worked at Ft. Detrick.

According to a San Jose newspaper, Jerome Hauer told the White House to go on Cipro on the evening of 9/11/01. They did. (On the phone with me, he denied telling the White House that, for what it’s worth.)

Shortly thereafter, Hauer’s next job was at the National Institute of Health, where he was tasked with, guess what? Investigating the anthrax attacks. And who did he point the finger to? Not Ivins, not Hatfill, not any of the gang at Ft. Detrick, or S.A.I.C., Hatfill and Hauer’s old employer, the military contractor. No, Hauer blamed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Another Democrat reading from the neo-con hymnal.

(In the same way, when Dan Rather looked at the collapse of the towers on 9/11 and on live TV said it looked just like one of those controlled demolitions, Hauer happened to be right there alongside Rather, saying, nope, it’s clear to me right now that it was jet fuel that dropped those structures. He knew more than one page of the hymnal.)

When you hear the media go on and on about Bruce Ivins’ obsession with sorority girls, or his insanity, take it with a grain of salt. A man’s reputation is fragile and it’s the first thing attacked in a situation like this.

For example, take Dr. Graham. He was a 9/11 truth researcher who died two years ago in Louisiana. Dr. Graham was a Louisiana community activist, a Vietnam veteran, an evangelical, an inventor, and a dentist who met two of the 9/11 hijackers in his hometown of Shreveport ten months before 9/11. He warned the FBI that he found the two young Saudis suspicious. But he was verbally abused and threatened by FBI. When 9/11 happened, these same two young Saudis were called Bin Laden’s right hand men. That’s interesting because the same two were protected by various agencies of the Federal government in multiple instances, in various cities across the USA.

In 2004, on the verge of publishing a book about his experiences with the FBI and the 9/11 terrorists, Dr. Graham was poisoned.

Here’s where the Graham story becomes a lot like the Ivins story. Graham was taken to the hospital and the FBI showed up in the ER at the same time. The FBI intimidated doctors, told them he was crazy. The cardiac surgeon abandoned Graham after that. The FBI implied Graham was suicidal to the Shreveport media. Graham died a slow death a year and a half later from the poisoning. The local media there have been reticent to cover this story, and effectively consented to let the FBI write it for them. But it’s the FBI who should be indicted for murder.

Recently, anthrax suspect Steven Hatfill was paid $6 million of your taxpayer dollars. He didn’t like being called a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation and he sued the Department of Justice. Wow, $6 million. I guess it pays to be friends with people like Jerome Hauer and the Council on Foreign Relations. And yet I’m still waiting for answers regarding so much about Hatfill. I wish I had all the time in the world to fully research his alleged ties to far-right fascist groups in South Africa (who used anthrax). And why did the Washington Post Magazine report that a glove box for handling toxic chemicals was found concealed at the bottom of a pond on Hatfill’s property? The $6 million doesn’t exonerate him in my eyes. It sounds like someone pulling favors.

The same Department of Justice that paid him hasn’t responded to my formal request that the Inspector General at Justice look into FBI involvement in the death of Dr. Graham. This might seem unreasonable but they themselves promised a response. They are now five months late. I had called them from Shreveport after I had confronted the local FBI. I felt the walls closing in. The FBI didn’t deny that they had told the local media the Graham was crazy. They stuck to their story and tried to get me to believe it. But they couldn’t provide evidence. There is none. Graham was a good man and his suspicions were right on. The FBI agent I talked to had murder and cover-up just pouring out of his body-language, his nervous twitches, and the way he expelled me and another reporter from their offices.

In the same way, we are being handed an official story about Bruce Ivins. But details are left out. Like why did the FBI have to offer Ivin’s son $2.5 million and the “sportscar of your choice” to say certain things about his dad? If Ivins was guilty, then why the need to fabricate evidence? An offer of $2.5 million sounds heavy handed, like you’re desperate to find a fall guy, dead or alive. Preferably dead, patsies are so much more agreeable that way.

Let’s go back to Jerry Hauer. This was a guy who came up a lot at the Citizens Grand Jury convened by citizen activists in the well-organized 9/11 truth community. When I was researching my story on the Spitzer-Silverstein connection for New York Megaphone, I tracked down Hauer’s home phone number and called him on Labor Day, last fall. My timing was good, because I think he was a little drunk. He said things slightly slurred, and was at times a bit too honest. It was all a joke to him. On the audio file you can hear people laughing in the background.

We discussed the San Diego Citizens Grand Jury Indictment, which he dismissed with insults, but couldn’t say why.

He confirmed that he worked with Hatfill at SAIC. Then, I asked if Hatfill was innocent of involvement in the anthrax attacks. He was less than direct:

HICKS: A lot of people are wondering you know, where these anthrax attacks came from.

HAUER: I have uh…NO idea.

HICKS: Do you think that Hatfill is innocent?

HAUER: I…I…think that the FBI…should not have s…said anything about Hatfield until they knew more. I do not think Steve Hatfield is a murderer. I think Steve Hatfield is very passionate but I don’t think he’s a murderer. I don’t believe he did it.

HICKS: Uhhhh. That seems to be not the most clear, specific response in the world. I’m wondering if you’re saying that Hatfill…Can you say conclusively that Hatfill was not involved in the anthrax attacks? Is that what you’re saying?

HAUER: I’m not going to get into those details.

HICKS: So you’re leaving some room for ambiguity?

HAUER: No, I’m not. I’m not going to get into those details.

HICKS: Why not?

HAUER: I just don’t want to comment on it.

I just listened to the whole mp3 again for the first time in a while. I remember the night I made the interview. And then, using 1/8 inch audio cables, I turned my phone recording tape player into something that could talk to a Mac. Using some mp3-studio shareware I downloaded, I made this mp3. I was excited because I sort of knew that someday, the US Government and the FBI would throw up a sloppy non-answer for the anthrax attacks. And on that day, I knew that this interview would be especially relevant. I felt at the time I had contributed something to advancing the real story on anthrax.

In this audio file, notice how Jerry Hauer sort of acknowledges that the FBI is mishandling the case, and yet he still refers he to them as the place to go for answers. That’s called misprision of a felony, when you know that someone is committing a crime, like covering up the five anthrax murders. But you don’t do anything about it.

Maybe because you were involved.

Audio - Hicks and Hauer:
http://www.voxpopnet.net/podcasts/hauer.mp3

AttachmentSize
note-ivins.jpg36.83 KB
hauer.jpg24.09 KB
graham.jpg28.44 KB
hatfill.jpg26.33 KB

Interesting connection..Hauer and Hatfill

". It turns out Hauer is old friends with Steven Hatfill, the other anthrax suspect. It turns out, they both lectured at the Council on Foreign Relations together not too many years ago on the topic of “Building a ‘BioBomb’: Terrorist Challenge.” Yep, Hatfill, who commissioned a report from the CIA on how to attack people using anthrax in the mail, back when he worked at Ft. Detrick"

It certainly throws an entirely different light on things.

Hatfill may be a part of the agenda after all?

...don't believe them!

The anthrax case has some twists & turns, but it's clear that it

was perpetrated to cause domestic hysteria & help ram through the Patriot Act!

(Let's not forget that one of the initial antrax victims was a rather obscure journalist in Florida who had published some very embarrassing photos of the Bush twins falling-down drunk (underage I think) in a bar! He died a horrible death. Who would've had a motive to do this to him except those in the Bush regime?)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

I'm surprised he stayed on

I'm surprised he stayed on the line that long.

O'Neill is a mystery. We have O'Neill and Scheuer who evidently couldn't stand each other even though we are told (in addition to Richard Clarke) they were the officials who understood the al Qaeda threat better than their colleagues. We have Fran Townsend, one of O'Neill's friends who evidently had no issue with the Bush administration's conduct before and after 9/11. We have the possible conflict between Pickard and O'Neill. It is alleged that O'Neill blamed Pickard for leaking info for the NY Times article.

One wonders what Clarke, O'Neill and Scheuer truly thought about al Qaeda. Would they be aware of the odd conduct of FBI agents in relation to Emad Salem and the '93 bombing? Would they have known that CIA let Sheikh Rahman into the country? Would they have known about Ali Mohamed? What did they know about intel attained from the Yemen hub? It seems Clarke would have known about the 1/00 Malaysia summit. We know O'Neill talked to Brisard and told him investigations were hindered because of US oil interests and their business ties to Saudi officials.

Did Hauer admit that he advised the White House to take Cipro?

Would Hauer really admit something like that to the press? It seems unlikely, and the claim appears to be at best "unconfirmed", if not mis or disinfo. I haven't heard back yet from Sander in response to this email, it's been more than 24 hours. If i do hear back from him, I will update; if anyone does have a verifiable source for this please post.

from erik larson <91erik@XXXX.com>
to sander@voxpopnet.net
date Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:24 PM
subject Re: “Mad Scientist” Ivins, and Other 9/11 Legends
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details Aug 12 (1 day ago)

"Mad Scientist" Ivins, and Other 9/11 Legends
http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/2926/1/

Hi Sander,

I read your above article, which is cross-posted at 911Blogger.com,
and was intrigued by your statement:

"According to a San Jose newspaper, Jerome Hauer told the White House
to go on Cipro on the evening of 9/11/01. They did. (On the phone with
me, he denied telling the White House that, for what it's worth.)"

As far as I know, the White House doesn't dispute staff, including
Cheney's, were put on Cipro on 9/11; they just refuse to give out any
more info ("national security", ya know). I think the first public
reference to this was an AP article 10/23/01:
White House Mail Machine Has Anthrax
By Sandra Sobieraj
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2001; 8:11 p.m. EDT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011023/aponline201158_00...
"At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago.
White House officials won't discuss who might be receiving the
anthrax-treating antibiotic now.
On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office
dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he
was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a
precaution," according to one person directly involved."

FBI & BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUED OVER ANTHRAX DOCUMENTS
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml

Other than your article, the only reference I could find to Jerome
Hauer being the one who told them to do this is here:

UQ Wire: 911 - They Let It Happen On Purpose!
Tuesday, 13 August 2002, 5:10 pm
Article: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00068.htm
"He started to work for the NIH under Tommy Thompson on September 10,
2001 as an adviser on national security. On September 11th, he told
the White House to take Cipro, the antibiotic that works against the
anthrax virus, without bothering to reveal his warning to the American
nation.
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/living/health/3020501.hym
The watchdog group JudicialWatch decided to file a lawsuit against the
NIH, but also against the FBI, CDC and the White House, for the same
reason: Prior Knowledge."

The link in Haupt's article goes to this Knight-Ridder paper, the
Contra Costa Times, which quotes Hauer, but doesn't say Hauer said he
told anyone to take Cipro on 9/11; the August 12, 2002 Archive here is
the first one available of this April 8, 2002 article.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020812151502/http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bay...

Is this the "San Jose newspaper" you were referring to, or were you
referring to a different one?

I know sometimes articles get changed, without "corrections" being
noted; if this is the paper, do you have a cached version? (please
post, if so- at least at 911Blogger.com).

If you don't have a cached version, did you actually see the article
yourself when it did have Hauer's quote saying he advised the White
House and Cheney to begin taking Cipro, or did someone else tell you
that, and if so, who and when?

Do you remember the exact quote, or an approximation, or the context
in which Hauer was quoted in the article?

I would not be a bit surprised Jerome Hauer was the one, given all the
other things he's connected with, but I'd just like some firm
confirmation.

Thanks!

Erik Larson

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:
http://911truth.org/images/resources/Family%20Steering%20Cmte%20review%2...

Complete 9/11 Timeline
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

i sent Hicks a follow up email and got this reply

"Hey there. I did try to track this down, last year.

I think it was the online edition of San Jose Mercury News. Pretty positive of that, that's what I discussed with Hauer. He claimed to never have seen it.

I did not find it online there, but I called the San Jose Mercury News' online editor or staff guy...., but they no longer had it online, and couldn't produce the clip for me. I'm sorry about this. I did try to confirm it, and it is important.

I feel there are enough confirmed facts about Hauer that he's still worthy of a subpoena from the future 9/11 investigation.

But you know, we don't need an investigation, you and I and some of the greatest skeptics and researchers have already investigated. What we need? An INDICTMENT.

S"

According to John A, he gave a very strange presentation in 2004
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/640/page/2?replies=44#post-2778

http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...