MacQueen book exposes failure of 2001 false flag ‘Anthrax attacks’

Nov. 27, 2014

By Barrie Zwicker (Special to Truth and Shadows)

The “anthrax attacks” that followed on the heels of the “9/11 attacks” have receded into memory for most people, even including those of us who were extremely skeptical about alleged al-Qaeda biowarfare at the time.
Prof. Graeme MacQueen, in his latest book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy, [1] sheds light on why most of us have all but forgotten the sensational “anthrax attacks.” They’ve been dropped down the memory hole as a touchstone to justify the “war on terror” because the “anthrax attacks” fraud fell apart.
In his tight (just 214 pages) but definitive account, MacQueen proves beyond doubt that the “anthrax attacks” were a false flag operation. Those who need to be persuaded need look no further than this overdue book.
The “anthrax attacks” were intended as a powerful evil twin of the 9/11 terror fraud. Taken together these ops were to be a one-two punch that would launch the “war on terror,” while simultaneously justifying the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan because allegedly Osama bin Laden directed 9/11 from a cave there. The invasion of Iraq because allegedly Iraq provided al-Qaeda with the anthrax.

But the wheels fell off of the anthrax wagon. MacQueen tracks the twists and turns of the official narrative to show how that happened.
This book, so long overdue, is also most contemporary. The “war on terror” now has been ramped up to the deadly and costly status of a permanent global “war,” a Manichean struggle between “the West” on one side and “the Islamic State” (IS) on the other. The “Islamic State” is a creation of “Western intelligence” serving the corporate militarists of “the West.”
MacQueen could not get deeply into this, since he had to keep his focus on the “anthrax attacks.” But the evidence obliged him to deal with 9/11 because they were twinned at the time. And he has the historical perspective that enables him to write:

…the documentary evidence […] when studied critically, raises serious questions not only about the FBI’s account of the anthrax attacks but also about the U.S. government’s account of what happened on September 11, 2001. Taken together, these sets of evidence erode the rationale for the Global War on Terror.

MacQueen is the founding director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, where he taught for 30 years. He’s a leader among the few academics who dare joust with the 800-pound Gorilla of Deception known as 9/11 – and its spinoffs. [2]
The 2001 Anthrax Deception shows how academically-sound evidence, marshaled in plain language in a rational framework, can be a counterforce against any deception.
And what a whack of deceptions MacQueen has to deal with. Take the intentions of the perpetrators, Cheney & Co. MacQueen invented the term the “Double Perpetrator hypothesis” to describe the intendedly clever deception.

The Double Perpetrator hypothesis had advantages over the simple al-Qaeda hypothesis. Spreading anthrax through mailed letters was a primitive and ineffective means of dispersing anthrax if the goal was multiple casualties. This crudity was reinforced by the text of the letters, with their misspellings and unidiomatic English. In the Double Perpetrator hypothesis these primitive elements could be laid at the feet of al-Qaeda, while the source of the sophisticated B. anthracis spores in the envelopes to the senators had to be a state, Iraq, which was known to have once possessed a stockpile of anthrax. A peculiar paradox was thus resolved.

MacQueen: anthrax fraud.

Adding to the credibility of MacQueen’s Double Perpetrator hypothesis is the fact that the twinning effort had already been launched by George Bush. “…on the day of 9/11 there were plenty of allusions to the possibility of a state sponsor of the attacks,” MacQueen writes. “The formal warning to state sponsors occurred at 8:30 p.m. on September 11 with Mr. Bush’s words: ‘We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.’”
Then, addressing a joint session of the 107th Congress on September 20, Bush said: “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
MacQueen notes that “what Bush said formally, many others said crudely. Neoconservative Charles Krauthammer explained on September 28 that the war against terrorism was not about chasing Osama bin Laden or other terrorists. The war was about getting rid of regimes.”
This theme was echoed by columnist George Will. He wrote that the choice to be given to state sponsors of terrorism was “reform or extinction.” Both Krauthammer and Will “spoke openly about Iraq as a target.”
But it was not just columnists’ opinions that were part of what MacQueen calls “a grand plan, not an opportunistic foray.” He writes:

Already in their surprisingly timely book, Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War, published in early October of 2001, Judith Miller and co-authors William Broad and Stephen Engelberg explained that Iraq might use a “surrogate, a terrorist group” to deliver a bioweapon to its target.

My wish is that MacQueen would be stating outright that Miller was clearly a CIA asset planted within the New York Times. She was subsequently disgraced when her 37-year career at the paper was terminated on November 9, 2005. This was, as I wrote in my book Towers of Deception, “six months after the Times found itself obliged to examine some of her work…” and found that 10 of 12 “flawed stories” on explosive issues had been written or co-written by Miller, including those infamously reporting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). All of her journalism, I suggested in my book, bear the “hallmarks [of] extreme dependence on official sources, especially within the national security state apparatus, a dearth of supporting evidence for numerous assertions, and an ideological through-line in perfect sync with that of the White House, just as her … through-line on alleged WMDs in Iraq matched that of the White House.”
It will not surprise anyone reading The 2001 Anthrax Deception who is knowledgeably critical of the grotesque output of mainstream media (MSM) on issues of war, peace and “intelligence” that much of MacQueen’s book, perhaps a third of it, is devoted to MSM lies and propaganda. Without the almost blanket collusion of “news” outlets, the likes of Bush and Cheney would have been revealed as pathetic emperors with no clothing.
But the wheels fell off Cheney & Co.’s wagon when it became too widely known that the weaponized anthrax could only have come from one of the 15 sophisticated labs in the USA making this deadly stuff.
This is when the perps had to switch gears, change the narrative. “Suddenly,” MacQueen writes, “the White House began retreating not only from the Iraq hypothesis but also from the al-Qaeda hypothesis. Ari Fleischer, making an about-face, said on October 26 that, in the words of the Washington Post, ‘a skilled microbiologist and a small sophisticated lab would be capable of producing’ the Daschle anthrax.” (Thomas Daschle was an influential anthrax-targeted U.S. senator.)
This in turn cleared the way for the Plan B “lone wolf” theory, the eventual frame-up of Bruce Ivins, his almost-certainly-not “suicide” and the subsequent dispatch down the memory hole of the entire botched “anthrax attacks” illusion.
It turned out not to be much of a loss for the Machiavellian perps, however, because Cheney & Co. could go head and launch war on Afghanistan and Iraq as they intended all along without the aid of this substance-abusing false flag op. The monster 9/11 deception was alone enough to do the heavy lifting there.
The general brainwashing was easily accomplished through a surplus of media-megaphoned lies, propaganda and spin. These greased the skids for the illegal and bloody aggressions of the USA and its “allies,” including in the case of Afghanistan, Canada.
Perhaps my favourite chapter is eight, in which the author traces the origin and uses of the term “the unthinkable.” Numerous quotes from establishment figures and media pundits show that their use of the term serves radical right wing ideological fear-mongering purposes.
“Why does this matter?” MacQueen asks. “It matters because ‘the unthinkable’ is an expression that functioned to help launch a new conflict framework, the Global War on Terror.”
Part of chapter eight is devoted to a “simple word study” of the language of the infamous document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, released in the year 2000 by the extreme pro-military right wing Project for the New American Century. MacQueen notes that although the term “security” occurs 94 times in the document, the term “Security Council” does not occur at all. Nor does the term “international law.” Keyword counts count, even when they’re zero.
MacQueen’s admirable critique of language leads me to a shortcoming, in my estimation, of The 2001 Anthrax Deception. This may be minor compared to the book’s strengths, but still is worth mentioning.
The author should in my view have drawn more attention throughout the text to the multitudinous and ongoing abuses of language by the perpetrators and the MSM, particularly their abuse of the word “attack” (as applied to 9/11 or the anthrax situation). Any conceivable attack – the word clearly denotes an assault from outside – is severely at odds with “a domestic conspiracy,” as the book’s title has it. The conspiracy of this book unmistakably is an inside phenomenon.  A feigned attack should never be called “an attack.” Period.
In fairness, MacQueen addresses the language issue at the outset, but only briefly and in part, and in my view mistakenly. At the end of the Introduction, under the sub-head “A Note on the Hijackers,” he explains:

The alleged hijackers of four planes on September 11, 2001 play an important role in the anthrax story and will be mentioned frequently. To avoid repeated use of the word “alleged” or annoyingly frequent scare quotes (“the hijackers’” I will capitalize the term: Hijackers.

This to me is an odd way to downplay the reality that the alleged hijackers never boarded any of the planes, as Elias Davidsson painstakingly proves in his book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence.
In other words, for a book such as The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy to be as effective a counterforce against deception as it can be, the language bombs of the perpetrators must be defused before they can explode. Each. And. Every. One.  Even within the pages of a dissenting academic activist’s book such as MacQueen’s.
The tools of word bomb dismantling include, besides a robust disquisition on the power of language, a plethora of synonyms such as alleged, supposed, claimed, asserted, made out to be, so-called, professed, purported, ostensible, putative, unproven, charged, declared, stated, contended, argued, maintained – and this is not a complete list.
Deployment of the many synonyms available plus quote marks would not, to me, be “annoyingly frequent” but rather refreshingly combative. They necessarily and importantly must be repeated. This is standard operating procedure required when de-fusing word bombs.
Notwithstanding my rant about language use, I fervently hope for more books from Graeme MacQueen. The world needs his assiduous research skills, his courageous tackling of the really big deceptions, his astute analyses and his clear thinking and writing. (Obviously, I don’t mean to attack him. 🙂 )

[1] From Clarity Press, Inc., Ste. 469, 3277 Roswell Rd. NE, Atlanta GA USA 30305, Available in paper and as an e-book 978-0-9860731-3-7
[2] Graeme MacQueen makes a substantial contribution in Adnan Zuberi’s superb 2013 documentary 9/11 in the Academic Community. McQueen is the first person to be seen in a preview of the doc. The preview runs 3:15 and can be found at


  1. I am really glad to be getting a report on Graeme MacQueen’s new book on the Anthrax attacks. Thank you Barrie!
    I just came off of another thread on T&S having a long and tiresome “debate”, and I am quite exhausted. So I will read this report tomorrow when my mind is fresh.
    ~Willy – \\][//

  2. ‘To avoid repeated use of the word “alleged” or annoyingly frequent scare quotes (“the hijackers’” I will capitalize the term: Hijackers.’
    I agree with Barrie that this is a mighty strange way to convey “alleged hijackers.” I would much rather read the word “alleged” or see scare quotes 300 times than have another truther use the word “hijackers” as if there really WERE hijackers.

  3. My own humble contribution to the Anthrax issue comes in this report I did a few years ago where I describe the media complicity in spreading the lie that Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks. This lie was used as one of the justifications to invade Iraq. This is a VERY important investigation and I am eager to get this book.
    The part of the report dealing with anthrax starts at the 3:54 mark.

    1. Elizabeth,
      Just out of curiosity has the consensus panel decided to avoid the compelling pentagon evidence presented by CIT and P4T altogether or is it simply a case where David Chandler and his cohorts have enough veto power on the panel to block it?

      1. I would like to second Adam Ruff’s question to Elizabeth Woodworth, about the issue of the Pentagon. There seems a glaring gap in the Consensus Panel’s findings by ‘apparently’ dismissing the issue of the Pentagon event.
        And there also seems to be a determined position to not answer inquiries such as these when those involved with the Panel touch base on sites such as these. Could this be the fact of the matter?

      2. Your comment to Elizabeth Woodworth and which really is posed as a question is flawed. F.e., you don’t say what CIT and P4T are. I’ve read about CIT in the past and it’s the phony “Citizens Investigation Team” crap, but I don’t have a clue what P4T is. Secondly, you’re a gullible fan of CIT, a crap outfit that might actually have been secretly working with and for the CIA, f.e. Thirdly, your negativism, say, about “David Chandler and his cohorts” is nonsense. He’s performed and provided excellent scientific analyses about the destruction of the WTC towers; 1, 2 and 7. I don’t know of him, and “cohorts”, at all trying to prevent other analyses from being widespreadly known. He’s produced no-nonsense analysis about the WTC towers and, afaik anyway, hasn’t addressed the attack on the Pentagon or the shootdown of UA 93. There’s a great amount of consensus support for the work he’s done on the destruction of the towers.
        Regarding CIT, take, f.e., “To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show'”, by the excellent thinker Victoria Ashley, 2009, at Regarding P4T, you’re apparently using an acronymn that, either, you made up or that many people don’t know or don’t use.
        Lastly, the 9/11 Consensus Panel isn’t obliged to accommodate or include all “theories”, many of which aren’t meritworthy of being called theories or even real/serious hypotheses. If you disapprove of the Consensus Panel, then you can start your own rather than placing the burden on everyone else to believe the nonsense that you believe.
        Learn before criticizing. Check out other content at as well as, Kevin Ryan’s blog,, and also, f.e. CIT isn’t a recommendable source of 9/11 information and the purpose certainly does appear to be to cause division. It’s standard procedure for empire.

        1. Dear Mr. Corbeil,
          Perhaps you subscribed to the comments of this article while making your comment in late December so that you can be notified of this response?! I apologize for being unable to reply earlier.
          [Please do not take this to mean that I am the owner of this blog or otherwise have any obligation to reply. I do so out of courtesy, in part because the others somehow missed your comment and because you deserve an informed reply. Also, on this theme, I am not the expert. Mr. OneSliceShort (or Mr. OSS) is, who you’ll find active on P4T.]
          You wrote to Mr. Adam Ruff:

          [Y]ou don’t say what CIT and P4T are. I’ve read about CIT in the past and it’s the phony “Citizens Investigation Team” crap, but I don’t have a clue what P4T is.

          “P4T” stands for “Pilots for 9/11 Truth”, a discussion forum that goes into lots and lots of detail, among other things, into CIT. The legwork of CIT and its fly-over conclusions aren’t “crap”. They stand up, and have this “duped useful idiot” convinced. [If the contrary side had a more convincing case, I’d be duped by that. I’m objective in that sense.]
          You continued:

          Secondly, you’re a gullible fan of CIT, a crap outfit that might actually have been secretly working with and for the CIA.

          I’m surprised that you aren’t a gullible fan of CIT as well. Their interviews with eye-witnesses are VERY hard to dispute. So hard, in fact, that I’ve never seen it done. CIT always comes out on top in the minds of rational thinkers. Even if purposeful bad behavior of its actors leaves one with questions.
          You continued:

          Thirdly, your negativism, say, about “David Chandler and his cohorts” is nonsense. He’s performed and provided excellent scientific analyses about the destruction of the WTC towers; 1, 2 and 7. I don’t know of him, and “cohorts”, at all trying to prevent other analyses from being widespreadly known.

          I, too, am a big fan of Mr. Chandler for his videos on the high school physics of the towers’ destruction.
          However, Mr. Chandler introduced other issues that mar his “excellent scientific analyses” in other areas. Restricting the discussion here to the towers, Mr. Chandler “went so far but no further.” He parked himself at Dr. Jones’ nano-thermite and could not be budged into an open-minded review of scientific weaknesses of that premise, much less into reviewing other theories that in part come closer to giving us a complete explanation for the energy anomalies.
          Specifically, I refer to Dr. Wood’s textbook. [I am not championing her premises, because disinformation is involved there, too. My beliefs are deviant from Dr. Wood, and have since deviated further still into 4th generation.]
          Mr. Chandler claimed Dr. Wood’s textbook was entirety crap WITHOUT GIVING A SINGLE SPECIFIC. I got him over the hurdle that prevented him from acquiring a copy of the book so that he could read it and offer an informed review. Analysis into the good, bad, and ugly of her work was skirted in a very glaring way by Mr. Chandler, who admits to not finishing reading it, and is par for the course by every major player on the 9/11 Truth Movement’s front lines.
          I know why. Although bad and ugly are present in the book and could result in much hay-making, the issue is with the good in Dr. Wood’s book: the nuggets of truth that remain, that must be rescued, and that must be re-purposed into any WTC theory-du-jour for it to be valid. These blow holes into the mainstream 9/11 Truth Movement’s “concessions” and would have figurative nuclear fall out everywhere [on the political scene, agencies, everywhere…], even today.
          Back to the Pentagon and Mr. Chandler, he co-authored a piece with Dr. Frank Legge on the Pentagon plane that had glaring errors, spotted even by a non-pilot such as myself. Moreover, those on P4T claim that Dr. Legge ran his points by experts on certain forums (including P4T) who were able to flag the errors in those points. These erroring points were exactly what Dr. Legge and Mr. Chandler went on to publish, in addition to including off-topic, dismissive comments about premises and evidence attributed to Dr. Wood.
          In summation, basis exists for Mr. Adam Ruff’s negativity towards this 9/11 Truth Movement hero, [DISCLAIMER] but the above paragraphs do ~not~ reflect Mr. Ruff’s basis. They are the basis for my negativity.
          You wrote:

          Learn before criticizing.

          We all could use a little of that.

          1. Can’t agree. You employ sly language, but taking it is like taking a very slippery slope. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has valuable members, or certainly did for a good while, but the editors or controllers of the website ended up screwing things up. CIT doesn’t at all have the reputation that you pretend that it does. Just because it does in your personal imagination doesn’t make it outer world reality. You say bla bla bla praise for Chandler and then only criticize him, but you provide nothing at all to back up your criticism. You provide no valid references at all to back up any of your reply.
            Regarding Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT, people who want to consider far better information or views about these can simply do a Web search of and or simply The three are wholly associated and will provide readers with far better information than your reply to me does.
            This may seem offencive, but it’s my opinion and yours definitely isn’t going to influence me one bit. After all, and again, you provide absolutely nothing to support your opinion and that’s if it’s a true opinion. It could be shilling, and shills don’t have real opinions, imo, f.e.
            If you want to be persuasive rather than a slippery “snake”, then do better next time.
            And that’s my last word here. The website is new to me from over the past few weeks and I won’t select or checkmark to be notified of more comments or new posts.

          2. Dear Mr. Corbeil,
            You wrote:

            CIT doesn’t at all have the reputation that you pretend that it does.

            I pretend nothing. I’ve seen members of CIT act badly, almost in a purposeful way to get themselves discredited and their theories tossed without review. However, the evidence collected by CIT and its fly-over conclusions are hard to dispute. I point out to the readers that your bla bla bla without substantiation doesn’t dispute it.
            You wrote:

            You say bla bla bla praise for Chandler and then only criticize him, but you provide nothing at all to back up your criticism. You provide no valid references at all to back up any of your reply.

            Your second sentence first: I did post a valid reference to back up what I was saying on a deviant but related theme. Here are more specifics on my exchanges with Mr. Chandler.
            According to your faulty logic, Mr. Corbeil, once you have fallen down to kiss a hero’s ass for achievements in area A, there is no room in that hero’s output for criticism, be it in area B or the sacred area A. Issues with area B (such as Mr. Chandler’s and Dr. Legge’s dreadful “NOC refutation”) would have rational thinkers re-visit area A to see if something else was snuck in. I believe it was, in the form of “thus far and no further” when contemplating true causes for the WTC destruction. They failed their objectivity tests gloriously for being utterly paralyzed from considering anything as remaining valid from Dr. Wood’s work.
            Guess what? 911Review and 911Research, while great sites for the 9/11 newbies, are not without issues. They, too, fall into the “thus far and no further” camp. Where is their chapter-by-chapter (or webpage-by-webpage) review of Dr. Wood’s work? Where is their analysis of nuclear hijinx? In both cases, they ought to have them debunked to all hell. But they don’t. At best, it’d have a few errant pot-shots.
            You go on to write:

            [I]t’s my opinion and yours definitely isn’t going to influence me one bit.

            So I write this “sly” response not for you, but for lurker readers.

            And that’s my last word here. The website is new to me from over the past few weeks and I won’t select or checkmark to be notified of more comments or new posts.

            Thus, proving yourself to be a hit-and-run shill.
            Working backwards then according to your own reasoning, “shills don’t have real opinions” [but instead just have agendas they promote.] Keeping with that and owing to the hypocrit that you are, “you provide absolutely nothing to support your opinion and that’s if it’s a true opinion.” Your repetitive statements were unsubstantiated, and they make a false claim of me supposedly not having provided any references to back up my opinions.
            So, nope. I have no expectations that I will convince you of anything. Run along and darken these hallowed halls no more.
            // a slippery snake

  4. I finally got off the train from Wanksberg and have just now had a chance to read Mr. Zwicker’s marvelous book review of ‘The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy’ by Prof. Graeme MacQueen.
    Having kept up with the case as it went down, there are no surprises for me in the analysis.
    The most important aspect of the book is that it keeps the issue alive and illustrates how it is a rider attached to the grand event of 9/11, rather like a booster shot. And of course it’s timing geared to assure passage of the Enabling Act…er…I mean, the PATRIOT Act.
    Bravo Barrie for remaining on top of the great issues of our era!

  5. From 2006
    USA military Anthrax 2001
    Daschle and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., received the two most potent anthrax-laden letters last October. They were part of a series of anthrax letter attacks that killed five people, including 94-year-old Ottilie Lundgren of Oxford. Thirteen more people were sickened.
    nb Daschle was _not_ against the patriot act. Leahy was for it, then against the renewal in 2006
    So it cant be said for certain that the anthrax letters were intended to help pass the patriot act 2001
    nb wikipedia says :Both were identified in the media[4] as holding up the proposed Patriot Act because of concerns that some parts of it would violate civil liberties.
    J Lancaster. Anti Terrorism Bill Hits Snag on the Hill. The Washington Post. Oct 3 2001
    so maybe the scare worked. Remember the source was never found, but the anthrax strain was USA military
    While Congress admirably resisted adopting the odious Patriot Act in the weeks following 9/11, both chambers quickly caved when two Democratic senators’ offices were subsequently targeted with anthrax-laced letters. ..
    The big story behind the 2001 anthrax attacks, however, was never properly covered: White House staff had started taking Cipro, an anthrax-treatment drug, a full week before the first attack even occurred. You’ve got to wonder what prior information the Bush administration had –
    ..Having anthrax show up at the offices of the two Congressmen [sic] who were blocking the pre-9/11-written Patriot Act was one heck of a coincidence… I went from ‘this is interesting, but how will we ever know’ to ‘wow! there’s a strong case for complicity’ after hearing that David Griffin was writing The New Pearl Harbor .. I would say focus on Building 7 to start with. Show people the collapse. Show them Silverstein making his inadvertent confession. Show them that the 9/11 Commission Report doesn’t even mention any of this — not even a footnote! If that doesn’t get them scratching their heads, I don’t know what will.

  6. Thanks, Adam, for including that video with your original comments on the “anthrax attacks.” Believe it or not, this is the first time I’ve seen what you look like (or did then!). An excellent example of media criticism. Like that touch where you “report from the Fox news center” and later “from abc.” Sardonically right on. They didn’t sue you? Shows they can employ lazy lawyers. I first learned of the remarkable Jane Akre vs Monsanto + Fox + the “justice system” when I read chapter 2 of the anthology Into The Buzzsaw edited by Kristina Borjesson. This case alone should still boggle the mind of anyone left with an unboggled mind (surely a vanishing minority?).

    1. Barrie,
      I have yet to hear from any lawyers for ABC or FOX about my report. Strangely they do not seem to want to talk to me about what I said although I would welcome the conversation so long as it was broadcast on live streaming video to various internet sites. I appreciate the compliment on my report Barrie it means a lot coming from you.
      PS. I still look basically the same. I am going for the Orson Wells look eventually, either that or a representative of sumo wrestler news network SWNN.

  7. I just want to mention of the recent ballyhoo about the TORTURE REPORT.
    Whereas some might think, wow we are finally getting somewhere, and something is finally going to come to a head – I think this is a flash in the pan thing. I don’t think the Amerikan people give a shit whether their leaders are psycho-torturers or not. I think most of the population would be all for it, for torturing ‘the other guy’.
    If this doesn’t illustrate and prove what a psychopathic society the “West is the Best” is, I don’t know what it will take.

    1. And the timing of the release of the Torture Report…just a few weeks before Christmas.
      People aren’t going to want to think about it, talk about it … “I mean after all, t’is the season to be jolly tralalala, why focus on this nasty business now? Have an eggnog!”
      Naïveté is not innocence.

    2. Not that we don’t have enough other data points to discredit the 9/11 Commission Report including the now-waffling support of those on the commission, one of them (Hamilton) made the comment to the effect that one of the report’s crumbling pillars was that a major portion of its actionable intelligence  (e.g. Al Qaeda and its extensive capabilities) was obtained through torture. 
      Good to know, although late via this CIA report, that torture doesn’t yield reliable information. 
      Too bad the public isn’t going to go back and connect this dot that further proves how all of the recent wars were started and heavily promoted under very false pretenses.

  8. I’m amazed that I was so unaware of the anthrax situation till now. I just finished the book and consider it some of the strongest evidence I’ve seen.

  9. Whether or not i fully agree with all of the items, articles and viewpoints, which i have encountered on this wordpress site -which has been very minimal thus far-, i am fully impressed with their determination to get at the full whole truth of a matter.
    The way, or manner in which Barrie Zwicker, and Craig McKee do so thoroughly ‘go after their prey’, with such relished diligence and how they are determined and unflinching in their pursuit of exposing any dark matter is quite encouraging, to say the least.
    I am reminded of the anointed king David, who upon obtaining and securing the ‘green light’, or approval of the Lord, did NOT let up on the pursuance of his enemies -and also God’s enemies-, UNTIL they were overtaken.
    The details of this review alone, help to prepare anyone who may have seen reviews before, yet they were only superficial, didn’t say enough, or were biased in one way or another, and not so balanced.
    Good examination of and/or review of a work, and, a good preparation aforehand of what someone might expect. This, however does not spoil it, but simply ‘whets the appetite’, leaving a curious desire to read it as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Zwicker, for your short yet thorough analysis of Prof MacQueen’s; 2001 Anthrax Deception. Keep up the good work, and i encourage to be balanced in all things, and not ‘sway’ too far ‘this way’ or ‘that way’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *