- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Nutella,
I have seen repeated attempts to shield and protect Philip Zack (and the Camel Club), even to the point of refusing to mention his name, from some key researchers into the 9/11 anthrax attacks who haven't hesitated to smear the names of other suspects, like Stephen Hatfill and Bruce Ivins. The only explanation for this behavior that comes to mind is that the Camel Club was part of a conspiracy that reached to levels of the government high enough to control the FBI investigation into the 9/11 anthrax attacks and to keep it focused away from the truth.
The motive for the 9/11 anthrax attacks should be glaringly obvious: 1) to demonize Muslims and Arabs, 2) to magnify the hysteria generated by 9/11, 3) to help provide the Bush 43 administration and the neoconservatives a pretext to get on with the Iraq War and World World War IV, 4) to intimidate the Democratic Party leadership and 5) to gin up the pressure for developing a police state culture domestically. Notice that the mainstream media absurdly NEVER mention the most obvious motives for conducting an inside job and false flag op of this kind. The two letters ranting about death to America and Israel make the intentions of the 9/11 anthrax attackers perfectly clear. Bush and Cheney seized on this event to try to bully the FBI into blaming Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda for the attacks, even after it was known to the FBI that the attacks came from within the American government.
Bruce Ivins has possibly been the victim of a criminal conspiracy by those who are trying to cover up the true identity of the 9/11 anthrax attackers, while keeping their ideological and policy program on track. That is the best theory that fits the known facts so far. We haven't seen a shred of evidence that points to Ivins as the culprit, but we have seen a great deal of evidence that points away from Ivins.
