February 28, 2008

UPDATED: Conspiracy Theories Nobody Is Interested In

Anthrax 2001: A reader in the Comments points out one of the key events in recent history -- the anthrax poisonings right after 2001 that helped stampede the national elite into the Iraq War -- remain unsolved and nobody much cares.

Huey Long - He was a controversial governor and senator with plans for running for President against FDR on a populist platform before being gunned down in 1935 by a doctor (or perhaps by one of his own security guards trying to shoot the doctor who was brandishing a gun at Long) for reasons that still remain murky. Nobody cares.

Martin Luther King - After being arrested in London for the murder of MLK, career criminal James Earl Ray plea-bargained his way out of trial, accepting life in prison, where he eventually died. He eventually tried to recant his plea, spinning various theories about a man named Raoul (Duke?), although admitting to have at least some involvement. Ray certainly shot King, but did Ray act completely alone? Was there any offer of money from someone? Who knows? I would imagine there remains active interest in the black community in this case, but the mainstream media is totally apathetic after a flurry of stories in the 1990s.

Watergate - All along, it looked like the FBI and/or CIA was more heavily involved in the end of the Nixon presidency than in the end of the Kennedy presidency, but nobody cared. J. Edgar Hoover's left hand man, Mark Felt, eventually came forward as Deep Throat, but nobody bought Bob Woodward's book about it.

Pym Fortuyn - The Dutch immigration restrictionist politician was murdered by environmental lawyer Volkert van der Graaf in 2002, the day after Chirac defeated Le Pen in the runoff for the French presidency, the climax of a "two-week hate" in which all right-thinking people in Europe virulently denounced anti-immigrationism. The initial general opinion of Europe's great and good was that Fortuyn had it coming. The consensus later changed to blaming it all on the gunman being one of those animal rights crazies, and that it didn't actually have anything to do with immigration, a position that was debunked by the killer himself in court testimony. Outside of Holland, Fortuyn has largely been forgotten, with Americans more familiar with the subsequent murder of a less important figure, Theo van Gogh by a radical Muslim. Did anybody encourage Fortuyn's killer -- I mean, besides the entire political elite of Europe?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

51 comments:

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

Huey Long - People should be more interested in how Huey Long met his death. He might have become president or siphoned enough votes away from FDR to deny him re-election. The theory that he was done in by one of his own bodyguards is a precursor to the theory that JFK was also done in by a "Mortal Error". A handful of people implicate FDR in Huey Long's death -- without any supporting evidence -- purely for reasons of "cui bono"

MLK - Many blacks are never more at home than when they have occasion to say that the whole world is against them. Certainly, people like that need a more wide-ranging conspiracy theory.

Watergate - Same thing on a broader scale but trending AGAINST conspiracy theorism. Many people need an unregenerately evil Richard Nixon. Those people don't want the Watergate story to develop too many complications. Pitting Nixon against the intelligence community would REALLY mess up their scorecards.

Pym Fortuyn - You mean there was no resolve to make sure that his death was not in vain? I'm shocked!

neil craig said...

Also the murder of Slobodan Milosevic. That he had rhympicin in his blood test is not in dispute. That being in prison under very heavy security involving body searches & zero privacy it would have been virtually impossible for anybody but his jailers to poison him is obvious. That, having spent 4 1/2 years on a "trial" where no actual evidence against him had been produced, delivering a guilty verdict would have been embarrassing is clear. That a not guilty verdict, which implicitly means NATO must have been the war criminals would not be allowed is obvious.

And so he was murdered.

For a good & somewhat amusing article listing the twists, turns & contradictions in the official story see
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2542

fwood1 said...

You could add the shooting of George Wallace by Arthur Bremer, another "lone gunman", in 1972

tanabear said...

The Economist recently released information on the 10 most popular conspiracy theories on the web. Not surprisingly, 9/11 came out on top. 9/11 is the most popular, because it is the most obvious and has the most evidence to support it's claims. The other's on list seem to be popular due to pop culture references.

View the list here: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10715149

Henry Barth said...

As I recall, at the Watergate burglars trial BOTH sides stipulated that there would be no mention during the trial of just what the burglars were after. And there wasn't.

All we were told was that they were planting a bug in Larry O'Brien's office.

But G. Gordon Liddy has said (on his website:www.liddyshow.com) that the burglars were after photos and proof that Maureen Dean had been a hooker before she married John.

John Dean sued Liddy over this charge -- and lost in court.

So what do we know of the motives these many years later?

Not much.

And I don't believe Mark Felt was "deep throat." It should have been the plural “Deep Throats” there were so many informants -- as indeed Woodward has repeatedly said.

David Davenport said...

The following is off topic, but probably of interest to iSteveniks.

It seems that some small circulation scientific journals rather starkly refer to "black Americans" and "whites" as identifiable groups having biochemical differences:



(Hypertension. 2004;43:31.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.

Scientific Contributions


Alpha2-Adrenergic Receptor–Induced Vascular Constriction in Blacks and Whites

Mordechai Muszkat; Gbenga G. Sofowora; Alastair J.J. Wood; C. Michael Stein

From the Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.


Correspondence to C. Michael Stein, MD, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, 560 RRB, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232-6602. E-mail michael.stein@vanderbilt.edu

Black Americans have a reduced hypotensive response to the 2-adrenergic receptor agonist clonidine compared with whites, despite similar central sympathoinhibition. This reduced hypotensive response might be explained by greater postsynaptic vascular 2-adrenergic receptor vasoconstrictive response. ..


(However, the detailed biochemistry needs further research, etc. )

...
These findings do not support the hypothesis that altered 2-adrenergic receptor sensitivity is the explanation for the decreased blood pressure response to systemic administration of clonidine in blacks. The response to dexmedetomidine provides a model that will allow further study of the regulation of 2-adrenergic receptor–mediated vascular responses


Key Words: adrenergic receptor agonists • ethnicity • human • receptors, adrenergic, alpha • vasoconstriction • veins


http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/31

Abbasidim said...

Americans probably remember Theo more easily because of Vincent-- van Gogh, that is. The coincidence of names produces a higher potential in the brain.

Outland said...

What's most shocking about Fortuyn are his columns, which are still available.

He wrote about Kosovo, Joint-Strike Fighter, 9/11, Iraq, Islam, corrupt elites, PC, Leftist bankruptcy, EU collapse, immigration, etc., etc. It all came true. Everything he predicted.

Back then, I didn't think that much of him. Too radical, too angry. Now, I know that he was right all along about almost everything. It's a shame really. He coulda been somebody, he coulda been a contender.

But Dutch politicians are once again creating the climate for new political murders. They already dropped Hirsi Ali's security and Geert Wilders is becoming the most prominent anti-Islam European politician. Therefore, they associate him will with all that's evil in the world. (Maverick anti-Islam airhead PM Verdonk too, btw)

The AIVD (Dutch CIA), Balkenende (president), PC columnists, et al tried to convince him out of his film "Fitna", because they fear "Danish Trouble". If not, we'd face oblivion, Chaos & Old Night. Come to think of it, I'm surprised they're still alive.

They have learned nothing in Europe.

PS I checked La Griffe the other day. The Netherlands had quite a high smart IQ-fraction, one of the highest in the world. Frankly, I don't see the intelligence corresponding in media or politics. Most are truly idiots.

Indeed, PC makes you stupid.

Reader said...

In the case of Nixon, Spiro Agnew claimed he was taken down by the Israel Lobby (as related by former congressman Paul Findley in his book They Dare to Speak Out). His resignation led to Ford, a 33rd degree Freemason, being appointed vice president and later becoming the only American president to have never been elected as either president or VP. His administration was also the first to see the neocons rise to power. Combined with Watergate, this whole situation would seem to be pretty fertile ground for conspiracy theories, although I've never heard of such a theory even proposed.

In the same vein of politicians being removed from office, how about Jim Traficant, the Democratic congressman from Ohio who was one of only a handful of congressmen since the Civil War to be removed from office and then put in jail (on charges of "corruption" that could probably be brought against 95% of congress). Of course, Traficant just happened to be the strongest critic of Israel in Congress, and had successfully defended John Demjanjuk (accused of being "Ivan the Terrible" and sentenced to death in Israel), for which the witch hunters never forgave him. He didn't make too many friends among Democrats either, since he'd been strongly critical of the IRS and of Janet Reno during the whole Waco disaster.

And, since you did a post on attempted Presidential assassinations earlier, doesn't it seem a bit suspicious that several members of John Hinckley's family knew George Bush personally and even contributed to his 1980 primary campaign, considering that if the assassination had been successful Bush would have become president? Bush and Reagan were known to have not gotten along very well.

Reader said...

Another conspiracy theory that isn't mentioned much: isn't it interesting that the three major intern sex scandals of the past ten years (Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Gary Condit and Chandra Levy, and Jim McGreevey and Golan Cipel), all involved Jewish interns in positions conducive to intelligence gathering (Lewinsky at the Pentagon, Levy working for Condit who was on the Intelligence Committee, Cipel as McGreevey's homeland security advisor)?

Sexpionage, anyone?

A. Hitler said...

What about the shooting of George Wallace? People forget Wallace looked like he might win the Democrat Nomination in 1972 when a 'Crazy' shot him and put him in a wheelchair for life.

And I too wonder about Long. IRC, he was shot by a Jewish doctor. Who or what was really behind it.

Anonymous said...

How about:

Malcolm X - gunned down in Harlem in 1965. Official story: murdered by Black Muslim rogues angry about his repudiation of Elijah Muhammad. Conspiracy theory: CIA/FBI involvement. Spike Lee's biopic alludes to this, showing a couple of honkies in suits shadowing Mr. X in Egypt. An even more intriguing rumor concerns Louis Farrakhan's possible involvement.

Operation Northwoods: Joint Chiefs apparently proposed "false flag" terrorist attacks to President Kennedy as a pretext to invade Cuba. Every 9-11 "truther" knows this one by heart. It's a remarkable story, but I've seen very little follow up on it by historians.

Reg Cæsar said...

Another forgotten assassination is that of Mayor Cermak of Chicago, whose bulled just missed, and may have been aimed at, FDR.

The late Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. [sic- that was his byline] once wrote a column opining that political assassinations generally worked, at least in America, because they stopped, or at least retarded, the movements the victims led. That isn't entirely true in King's case, but the combined effect of his death, widespread rioting, and George Wallace's 46 electors did move the movement away from the streets and Congress to the courts in the '70s.

American Renaissance once surveyed readers and asked which figure did the most damage to white interests. I put down James Earl Ray! Here's a thought exercise: what would have ensued had Ray not used a rifle that night in Memphis, but a camera?

Anytime Jesse Jackson spouts off, we're free to ask "Why aren't you home changing nappies?"

a little bird said...

Steve,

Off topic. Check it out

David Paul Kuhn is poaching on your preserve. ;-)

Phil said...

In Germany we have Uwe Barschel, a politician who committed suicide by slitting his wrists in the bathtub of a hotel room, but his family claims there were footprints of strangers in the hotel room.

Anonymous said...

9/11 Conspiracy theories abound because they feed the need for conspiracy theorists to discount the danger of jihad in favor of something not so threatening.

A guy named Abu something screaming Allah Akbar! preparing to blow himself up (and you with him) is too scary to think about. Given the long history of Jihad against America and Westerners. Blaming KKKarl Rove's "Amerikka!" and GWB is not scary. No one's scared of those two. They don't cut off heads, blow up buildings, fly planes into buildings. And if the conspiracy kooks just "expose" the evil doers all is peace and light and puppies and unicorns and rainbows! Perfect for feminists, gays, etc. [Feminists like Naomi Woolf, Susan Faludi etc. are ground central for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorism.]

The other conspiracy that folks ignore is Putin's critics who end up dead. With Polonium in their tea, or falling out of windows, or shot dead in elevators. Which is remarkable since Putin has so much power and so little threat. Old habits die hard I guess. Hammett wrote about being "blood simple" i.e. killing on the brain even when it's not in your interests.

Buckaroo said...

I would add the Great Unsolved Anthrax Case of 2001. Maybe I'm not reading the right (or "left") publications but that one seems just about to have disappeared down the memory hole. You would think that the one documented attempt at using WMDs in the US (although admittedly they didn't prove very "M") would have people more interested. And yet here we are, 6 years later, with just Dr. Hatfil's gratuitously ruined good name to show for it. Seems strange enough to make you believe there was a complicated conspiracy or even conspiracies behind the whole thing.

Kevin said...

Also the murder of Slobodan Milosevic. ... That, having spent 4 1/2 years on a "trial" where no actual evidence against him had been produced, delivering a guilty verdict would have been embarrassing is clear.

When there was such a hue and cry over Saddam's hanging I wondered where the outrage was for Milosevic. At least Saddam got to hear his verdict.

Peter said...

You could add the shooting of George Wallace by Arthur Bremer, another "lone gunman", in 1972

Recently released from prison. He's now living in a Maryland halfway house.

--

Another forgotten assassination is that of Mayor Cermak of Chicago, whose bulled just missed, and may have been aimed at, FDR.

Isn't there some reason to believe that Cermak actually was the intended target?

--

Tupac Shakur's murder remains unsolved.

Paul R, said...

"Also the murder of Slobodan Milosevic. ... That, having spent 4 1/2 years on a "trial" where no actual evidence against him had been produced, delivering a guilty verdict would have been embarrassing is clear."
Absolutley. I never have quite understood why the U.S. and NATO rallied to the defense of foreign (Albanian)-armed rebels to rip to pieces the single stabilizing power in the Balkans.
Steve, here's a column for you. If the Cuban-Americans in Dade County Florida managed to win a vote for independence would the U.S government send troops and aircraft to protect their "legitimate national interests?"

Eric Falkenstein said...

How about Pearl Harbor? I think the case there is pretty strong that FDR basically smothered peanut butter on Hawaii, blockaded the Japanese bear from getting food, and then was shocked by this 'day of infamy'. Uh huh.

see http://www.armageddononline.org/pearlharborconspiracy.php

Veracitor said...

Let us not forget the murder of Vince Foster, possibly to cover up Hillary Clinton's misconduct.

Sy Suckerton said...

Marilyn Monroe is another good one. There are at least six different theories, two or three being at least somewhat credible, and one-that the Kennedys had no involvement with the death itself, but they did cooperate with (or were blackmailed by) psychiatrist Greenson to keep him from serious charges of malpractice and unprofessional conduct-having a very credible chain of evidence indeed.

Anonymous said...

Vince Foster by all accounts committed suicide. The cover up was removing embarrassing documents on how Hillary hectored him -- not good to have a close aide commit suicide and write anguished memos that could be publicized.

Congress is of course a gigantic secrets sieve. I'm sure the Israelis and everyone else uses Congress as a secrets pipeline, but their sex agents are likely to be non-ethnic so as to not stand out. There are some counter-intelligence agents at the FBI after all. Not all of them are incompetent.

Don't know about the Anthrax thing. My recollection is that it was pushed down the memory hole within days. No one ever linked it to Saddam and with Saddam the main worry was over nukes. Which makes sense since the CIA had got it wrong on Pakistan (spectacularly predicting two years before they lit off a nuke that it would take them decades). Getting Saddam wrong on nukes was less costly than losing NYC because you figured it was always 9/10. It's a beautiful Indian Summer day in NYC. What could happen?

If I had to guess, the continued embarrassed silence means EVERYONE is scared of discussing the details of the Anthrax attacks. Why aren't the Dems, Media etc. discussing the attacks? Or GWB? Probably because (a) GWB PC-driven lax efforts at security allowed Atta to mail the letters, and (b) it shows that even AQ can be dangerous with bioweapons. Bad for Bush because again he looks stupid, worse for Dems/Media because they look even stupider since they all sing "there's no danger!" in chorus whenever Bush wants to listen in on AQ abroad (no US persons) without a warrant!

AQ was known to have experimented with both chemical and bioweapons according to 9/11 Commission, unlike nukes you can make Anthrax without lots of $$$ and infrastructure, if you have a friendly government to send you the cultures. [Which would also prove embarrassing -- who sent Osama's boys the start cultures, like maybe Pakistan?]

It's VERY remarkable how quickly the Anthrax Attacks dropped out of the news. Bush, Dems, the Media all wanted it to go away. Hmmm ....

Anonymous said...

Here's another conspiracy. WHAT did Israel hit in Syria? Why won't Israel talk about it? WHY won't Syria complain about it? They screamed violation of sovereignty to the Arab League and UN and OIC when Israel buzzed the Presidential Palace. Why are both Democrats and GWB silent on all aspects of it? Why aren't Code Pink and Moveon screaming about it? Why aren't Move America Forward using it as an example of dangers?

Or another: who blew up Imad Mughniyeh? The Syrians? Israelis (if they did why not claim it)? Hezbollah's Nasrallah? Iran? Delta Force?

If there's one nation that is ground zero for all sorts of conspiracies and weird stuff (i.e. why won't even their enemies talk about stuff) it's Syria.

They have some mysterious site blown up (allegedly by Israelis), everything is literally trucked away including the soil. No one on any side will talk about it. Then Hezbollah's #1 terrorist mastermind, the guy behind the Beirut Barracks bombing, gets blown up in Damascus after a meeting with Syrian officials. You'd expect Syria to at least point the fingers at Israel.

Martin said...

In the late 90's there were a series of apartment block bombings in Moscow. And not small bombs, either. I believe that dozens of people were killed. The Russian government (I believe Putin was prime minister at the time) blamed Chechen terrorists. However I have read accounts by people who claim they saw Russian security goons of some kind (MGB or KGB) in those buildings and doing suspicious things just prior to the bombings.

I haven't heard much about that.

Martin said...

"tanabear said...

The Economist recently released information on the 10 most popular conspiracy theories on the web. Not surprisingly, 9/11 came out on top. 9/11 is the most popular, because it is the most obvious and has the most evidence to support it's claims."

Which is to say, virtually none? The 9/11 conspiracy claims are ludicrous. When a huge airplane loaded with JP crashes into a building at 500 mph, you really don't need to invoke some other agency to explain why the building fell down.

And what about Rumsfeld? Was he in on it? Do you think a man would calmly sit down in his office, knowing that a jumbo-jet is going to crash into the building he's in?

TGGP said...

Economist Ben Olken on the effects of assassination (among other things) here.

Reader said...

9/11 Conspiracy theories abound because they feed the need for conspiracy theorists to discount the danger of jihad in favor of something not so threatening.

A guy named Abu something screaming Allah Akbar! preparing to blow himself up (and you with him) is too scary to think about.



Uhhh, quite the opposite actually. The popularity of the whole "War on Terror" and the concomitant anti-Muslim hysteria stems largely from the fact that Muslims are weak and essentially harmless opponents whom we can crush easily. They're easy targets, but people like to pretend that they're gonna take over the world so that we get to feel tough by beating them up.

Dealing with the fact that 9/11 was done by powerful elements within our own society means we've got a big bully to stand up to, so most people would rather go bury their heads in the sand. This probably explains why there is so much anti-conspiracy hysteria in general, even though it's obvious to any objective and intelligent person that powerful people conspire like crazy all the time.

Reader said...

And what about Rumsfeld? Was he in on it? Do you think a man would calmly sit down in his office, knowing that a jumbo-jet is going to crash into the building he's in?


If it's not a jumbo jet but a guided missile conveniently aimed at the part of the Pentagon that was undergoing renovations then yes I do think he'd be willing to sit calmly in his office.

dearieme said...

Presidents leave office after two terms (unless they take the Hillary option): wouldn't it make more sense to assassinate Supreme Court judges, who can hang around for ever?

Black Sea said...

The "friendly-fire" death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan.

Actually, I think it was an accident, but then again, I'm a sucker in certain ways.

Proofreader said...

Lady Diana's car crash still looks pretty fishy to me. Even though I hold her in utter contempt as a person, I think there's a 50 % possibility she was set up to die.


Another murky and as yet unsolved event: the March 2004 Madrid Bombings.

The trial is over but we don't know who planned the bombings, who actually planted the bombs and what explosive they used.

Aren't those serious failings in a murder case when you lack the motive, the culprits and the weapon used?

We do though know the answer to the old question: "cui profit?" (who benefitted?): Spanish Socialists, Basque and Catalan nationalists, France, Morocco, and the American Neocons.

Look here and ponder:
http://tinyurl.com/8xkhq

Mr Sailer, believe me, there's a scoop for you in this if you manage to delve through the reams of evidence.
http://www.peonesnegros.es/

Anonymous said...

Ever since 9/11, TWA Flight 800 seems to have dropped off the radar, so to speak. I am very close to a former TWA employee who was dispatched to Long Island to work with victim's families in the wake of that, and who spoke to several FBI agents and Coast Guardsmen working the case who wanted to talk off the record. She'll go to her grave convinced that it was in fact an errant Navy missile being test-fired with a dummy warhead was what brought that 747 down, Pierre Salinger's clumsy investigations notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

"AQ was known to have experimented with both chemical and bioweapons according to 9/11 Commission, unlike nukes you can make Anthrax without lots of $$$ and infrastructure, if you have a friendly government to send you the cultures. [Which would also prove embarrassing -- who sent Osama's boys the start cultures, like maybe Pakistan?]"

Brother, you have a serious sight alignment problem with this one.

The anthrax used in the attacks was the Ames strain developed at Ft. Dietrich MD, making it one of the most controlled substances in the world. We would know precisely who had access to it, when, and where they went to mail it. The leads are lying right there on a silver platter.

And the coked-up amateurs just smart enough to steer a plane spread this stuff from the Princeton post office just before the drive to Boston? Let me know how many bio-hazard suits turned up in Atta's apartment.

And then there's the targets of the attack. Who'da thunk AQ had such a hard-on for Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy and a tabloid publisher.

And then there's the letters: "Allah is great!" Teenagers write that sort of tripe to piss their parents off. That is a phrase that would not even occur to a devout, literate Arab Muslim.

Cui bono: the Bush administration and the military-industrial complex get their PATRIOT Act passed thru Congress quicker than castor oil.

Hypotheses: it was a bio-hazard drill that went so stupidly, catastrophically wrong that they dare not reveal the screw-up; or it was an Executive level conspiracy.

tanabear said...

anonymous writes, "9/11 Conspiracy theories abound because they feed the need for conspiracy theorists to discount the danger of jihad in favor of something not so threatening."

Jihadi's are a lot less threatening than than madmen running the world's most advanced military. Cave-dwelling mountain-roaming tribal people are hardly a threat to the United States. Our government is. As conservatives used to say, "love your country and fear your government."

anonymous writes, "Feminists like Naomi Woolf, Susan Faludi etc. are ground central for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorism."

I've suspected that 9/11 was an inside job since late 2003. Naomi Wolf and Susan Faludi are in no way central to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

martin writes, "When a huge airplane loaded with JP crashes into a building at 500 mph, you really don't need to invoke some other agency to explain why the building fell down."

Actually, you do. Plus, WTC7 was never hit by a plane and it collapsed via a controlled demolition at 5:20pm that afternoon. The buildings were designed to survive the impact of jetliners.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center.

Anonymous said...

A good article about the anthrax case:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/anthrax/index.html

Some indicators that it was probably Al Qaeda:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/anthrax/12.html

The anthrax was the Ames strain, which was originally of US origin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_attacks#The_anthrax_material

professor said...

From the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_attacks#The_anthr


Others have claimed Dr. Philip Zack, who worked at Ft. Detrick where the anthrax came from, is a person of interest. [32] Dr. Philip Zack had the means, access to weaponized anthrax, exhibited hostile behaviours towards Dr. Ayaad Assaad, his colleague, and was caught on a security video entering a lab without authorization where anthrax samples went missing. The FBI knew of Zack and his unauthorized access to the lab, and it has been reported that Assaad had been questioned by the FBI in connection with the attacks. [33] [34]

Steve Sailer said...

Dr. Zack is the fellow I wrote about a couple of months ago -- I was sure he was the guy ... until I stopped and looked at the assembled evidence from a more skeptical perspective, then the case against him all felt apart. The scattering of clues against him were more easily explained by less spectacular theories.

steve wood said...

The Anthrax Attax are indeed a fascinating and fertile field for conspiracy theorists. The rapid disappearance of the attacks from the media, however, has a likely non-covert explanation.

The first letters were dated September 18, 2001. The last letter was eventually discovered (more than a month after its postmark) on November 16. I doubt that we have ever had two more preoccupied, terrified months in our history. Not only did the first attacks occur less than two weeks after 9/11, but the war in Afghanistan started in midst of the attacks. Once Stephen Hatfill emerged as "a person of interest" and was obviously not an Islamist operative, the entire country heaved a huge sigh of relief and, I think, made a collective, unconscious decision not to worry about domestic terrorism.

What happened to Hatfill was shameful, and the real story behind the attacks is an intriguing mystery, but I don't think there's any conspiracy not to talk about them. They were driven out of the public consciousness by more pressing matters.

svrdlvsk said...

Steve:

Your career has suffered because you are willing to investigate subjects others won't touch. And then you publish what you have found. I'm not sure you want to go down the anthrax rabbit hole. The warren goes pretty deep.

One of the best commentators on the anthrax mailings is actually in Southern California, at Stanford. I think. He retired from the speculation business a little over a year ago and I haven't heard from him since then. I miss his sense of humor and commentary, but I'm pretty sure he wants to stay out.

I'm not sure if you'd be willing to accept his ideas. His views on world events of the last two decades are pretty different from yours. However, if there's any journalist out there who is curious, courageous and persistent enough to tackle the task, it's you.

But one fellow who is still "in" is Edward Jay Epstein. I believe he has a new book due out this year, some of which may address the anthrax mailings within the context of the times. I dimly recall a post of yours on this blog about the late James Jesus Angleton, the half-Mexican head of CIA Counterintelligence decades ago. I think you would've had to have read some of the Angleton material on Epstein's website. I look forward to Epstein's newest release.

Do you still use that aol email address, Steve?

In closing, I'd like to admire this fine passage by an anonymous commentator above:

Don't know about the Anthrax thing. My recollection is that it was pushed down the memory hole within days. No one ever linked it to Saddam and with Saddam the main worry was over nukes.

ben tillman said...

Aanonymous writes, "9/11 Conspiracy theories abound because they feed the need for conspiracy theorists to discount the danger of jihad in favor of something not so threatening."

No, they abound because the destruction of 9/11 was the result of a secret plan, and the average person has no way of knowing much more than who had a motive and who had an opportunity to commit these crimes. What we can and do know tells us that the government's story is implausible, but it can't tell us just who was involved.

svrdlvsk said...

Steve Wood:

We don't know when the first anthrax letter was mailed. The envelope was never recovered -- it was most likely burned. That envelope was addressed to Jennifer Lopez. It may have been postmarked September 4.

An important item to bear in mind regarding the anthrax letters is the difference in the grade of anthrax within. The letters in the NY Media wave contained clumpy, grainy stuff, which seems to have caused some cutaneous cases, but no inhalational cases. The Senate anthrax, sent to Daschle and Leahy, was totally different in quality. That stuff was so well prepared that it caused accidental inhalational cases among postal workers while the envelopes were still sealed. The Daschle letter contaminated an entire office building shortly after it was opened. A USAMRIID scientist who examined the Leahy letter, thankfully intercepted, watched the contents float up out of the envelope once he opened it. The New York Media buildings weren't closed for a year, like the AMI building in Florida and the Hart Senate Office building.

If that AMI letter was indeed present in the building before September 11, that would be quite problematic, wouldn't it. That's an important point that tends to get glazed over, but it goes to the heart of the motive. For some time, the narrative was that it was a biodefense insider run amok. The AMI letter would seem to either deflate that theory -- or inflate it by several hundred orders of magnitude.

And biodefense insider Hatfill?
Well. I don't believe he's any more guilty than the good Lt. Col. and his mock "Dromedary Association." But nothing about Hatfill's past leads me to think he's some babe in the woods, either.

Anonymous said...

Since Blogger ate my post I'll trim it down:

Why have we given up the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?

Reader said...

Why have we given up the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?


Well, before the 2004 tape was release, virtually everyone assumed he was dead. He was pretty ill during 9/11 and he was widely reported dead in December 2001. When Kerry criticized Bush for letting Osama escape during the presidential debates, Republican pundits defended Bush by saying that everyone knew Osama was dead.

Then, shortly after that, an extremely blurry tape of Osama surfaced criticizing Bush. My opinion is that extremely blurry = deliberately downsampled to cover up the fact that it's a fake. Osama was a multi-millionaire opium kingpin, he could've afforded a Sony Handicam for crying out loud.

So the answer is: Osama is dead, but we pretended he was alive for a long time to frighten Americans into supporting the "War on Terror". Now it looks like they're phasing him out, probably because it's been too tough to come up with evidence for his existence that can withstand scrutiny. I'm sure soon enough we'll be told that he's finally died, and will even be presented with a mangled, unidentifiable Arab corpse as "proof".

Proofreader said...

Why have we given up the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?
Because he's a double agent and as such more useful alive or "missing in action"?
The line between terrorists and spies is blurred. Anybody can hire them.

Martin said...

"tanabear said...

Actually, you do. Plus, WTC7 was never hit by a plane and it collapsed via a controlled demolition at 5:20pm that afternoon. The buildings were designed to survive the impact of jetliners."

The World Trade centers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 landing at or taking off from JFK. A plane in that scenario would have been moving at a speed of about 200 mph at most. Also the 767 is a significantly heavier plane than the 707 - a 767-200 series has an empty weight at least 30% greater than a 707. I don't know about fully-loaded weight, but assuming that it is proportional to empty weight, than the 767's hitting the WTC would have had at least eight times the kinetic energy as the putative 707 in the designer's scenario.

Add to that the fact that the building designers assumed that the fire-retardent sprayed on the steel would prevent weakening of the structural members long enough for the fire to be put out - whereas in the actual event it was largely blown off of the steel by the shrapnel from impact.

Add to that the fact, that the designers may not have adequately designed the building to withstand impact from even a 707. Sure you can say that you have, but absent realistic testing (which as it happens was not done until Sept. 11), it doesn't really mean much.

As for for WTC 7 - no it wasn't hit by an airplane. But it did get sprayed by flaming debris and then burn for nearly the whole day - it was the site of the city's emergency command post, and housed large diesel fuel tanks to run generators and emergency vehicles.

And as for that lame "pull-it" comment: the guy in question meant pull the fire crews, not pull the building. You truthers take every quote, even out of context, to support your case, but you ignore anything said by anyone which disproves your risible "theories" (like for example, things said by Mohammed Atta).

As Steve is fond of saying: Who are you going to believe- Official or Expert X, or your own lying eyes?

For 'truthers' like you, that should be amended to: Who are you going to believe - some internet conspiracy blogger whose realy name you probably don't even know, or your own lying eyes.

I have read a good deal of the writings of 9/11 'truthers'. For the most part you strike me as people who know very little about anything technical. You people are deluded fools. I don't mean that perjoratively either. It is a mere statement of fact. You are deluded. And you have been fooled.

tanabear said...

Martin writes, "A plane in that scenario would have been moving at a speed of about 200 mph at most."

Wrong! A white paper from 1964 states:

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there."
John Skilling, WTC building designer

Martin writes, "whereas in the actual event it was largely blown off of the steel by the shrapnel from impact."

This is speculation. Some of the fire-proofing was blown off and some of it wasn't. This is not that important since NIST discovered that the steel did not get that hot anyway.

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns
had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC(482F...sing metallographic analysis, NIST determined
that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above
600C(1112F)"
NIST, 2005

Martin writes, "But it[WTC7] did get sprayed by flaming debris and then burn for nearly the whole day."

So did WTC3,4,5, and 6. Why did the building that was the furthest away and suffer the least structural damage of all the buildings in the WTC complex collapse? WTC5 had far more extensive fires compared to its size. Why has the government yet to release an official explanation for the collapse of WTC7? FEMA stated in their report,

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

"We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.… But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7." Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the NIST investigation.

So far the "experts" are not capable of explaining the collapse of WTC7.

As well, even though NIST released their report on WTC1,2 in 2005, they still do not examine the actual collapse. They state clearly that their report,

"does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."

In this sense, their report is merely a pre-collapse analysis.

In a Request for Correction issued by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement NIST responded,

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

So who are you going to believe Martin, the Ivy League professor who assures us that the races are all the same or your lying eyes?

Who are you going to believe a government "expert" who can't even explain the collapse of WTC1,2and 7 or your lying eyes?

Anonymous said...

Truthers:

So Bush is willing to blow up the WTC and Pentagon but doesn't even try to plant some WMDs, post invasion, in Iraq to justify his war? Huh?

Truth said...

"For the most part you strike me as people who know very little about anything technical."

Well, technically speaking, how does one justify the passport of one of the 'fluttering out of a fiery inferno and landing face-up on a Manhattan street unscathed. For that matter, how does one justify a 'plane' hitting the Pentagon without leaving wings, engines, seats, bodies, luggage, landing gear or anything else.

Steve tends to discuss IQ a lot on this board I think all IQ tests should be revamped to consist of one question:

Do you believe the official 9/11 story?

Those who answer 'no' would be classified "smart enough"

Those who answer yes would be classified "fertilizer" and immediately executed.

Martin said...

"tanabear said...

Who are you going to believe a government "expert" who can't even explain the collapse of WTC1,2and 7 or your lying eyes?"

I'll believe my lying eyes, which saw the top of one of the towers break off and fall......right about at the floor where the BIG AIRPLANE hit it.

"Truth said...

"Well, technically speaking, how does one justify the passport of one of the 'fluttering out of a fiery inferno and landing face-up on a Manhattan street unscathed. For that matter, how does one justify a 'plane' hitting the Pentagon without leaving wings, engines, seats, bodies, luggage, landing gear or anything else."

Let's see, which side does a coin land on. Heads or tails. Heads? Must be a conspiracy.

So it wasn't an airplane that hit the pentagon. A missle, perhaps? What about the eyewitnesses who saw an airplane? And if it wasn't a plane, where's Barbara Olson today? Living in "The Village"? And why was Rumsfeld there? Wasn't he part of the conspiracy? Wouldn't he have found some excuse to not be in the office that morning?

"Those who answer yes would be classified "fertilizer" and immediately executed."

And you think the government are evil, soulless, murderers? You sound like the sort of guy who'd personally push the plunger on the WTC (your scenario) if it had only been filled with the right kind of people.

I don't think I want any part of your "truth"