Remember the anthrax letters that said; “Death to America...Allah is great”.
Remember how we all suspected Osama Bin Laden, until we found out it was American made military grade anthrax?
How ironic. We were so afraid of Osama bin Laden and/or Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, while our own weapon of mass destruction was being used against us – by one or more Americans.
The implications of a conspiracy by insiders to commit a multi-pronged attack against Americans in the Fall of 2001 are worthy of consideration.
First, there's the 9/11 attack on Washington D.C... with so many peculiar twists millions suspect a false flag operation. And then there's the anthrax attack on Washington D.C... from questionable origins... within America. The first attack gets blamed on crazy fundamentalist Muslims. And the second attack gets blamed on a mad scientist (much like the lone gunman theories of the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations).
For years now, the official explanations of the 9/11 and the anthrax attacks haven't been complete, or even credible. (See the recent Wired article; “The Strain... could the Feds have gotten the wrong man?”) Many Americans, maybe even most of us, don't feel like we've been told the whole truth about 9/11 or the anthrax attacks.
(For example: On 9/11, we saw the second tower hit by a jet liner on the right side of the building. We saw a huge plume of fire, from the jet fuel. And we're supposed to believe that the building fell straight down from partial melting of the multiple giant steel beams from the burning of what was left of the jet fuel? I don't think so.)
Personally, I feel like we've been given cover stories. Our relevant questions are ignored. Those who publicly speak out are mercilessly ridiculed and exiled from the mass media. And to top it all off, we are fed dozens of diversionary “conspiracy theories” by the mass media. This is exactly what one would expect a massive cover up to look like.
Maybe I just have too high of expectations for the thoroughness of the investigators. Often the truth is just what we would have expected. Most of the time, there are no surprises. The jealous lover did it. Or the guy just got drunk and drove off the road. But sometimes, the stories are just too full of holes to ignore.
Could the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks have been planned together? We were pretty sure of it when we suspected Osama bin Laden. And then we were immediately convinced (by the mass media pundits) that it wasn't possible. Why?
…Let's go into speculation mode:
What if some inside group was trying to kill off the members of Congress and the Supreme Court? What if the killing of others was just part of a cover story to make it look like terrorists?
We don't know where that fourth plane was headed for on 9/11. It could have been headed for the White House, but we all know President Bush was out of town. Maybe flight 93 wasn't headed for the White House. What if it had hit the Supreme Court building? If so; the balance of power in America could have changed drastically. (The Bush administration would have been able to pick all of the new Supreme Court Justices.)
And in the case of the anthrax attacks; we do know that one anthrax attack was aimed at Senator Tom Daschle.
If these attacks sound related, maybe they are. When we mentally separated these attacks (as soon as we could no longer blame Osama bin Laden for both) we may have overlooked a significant motive – a government takeover – a coup d' etat.
The question we really need to ask ourselves is; what if these attacks had succeeded? What if the Supreme Court was gone and most of Congress was dead?
As you may recall, this was before Homeland Security.
With only the President and the Vice President left alive, what would our government have looked like? It would have looked like the President and the Vice President. In fact, it would have very much looked like a takeover – a coup d' etat of the U.S. balance of power.
As we all know, because of the timing; the probable attack on Washington by flight 93 would have failed because our legislators and Supreme Court Justices were forewarned by the attacks on the World Trade Center. Maybe the timing of the 9/11 attacks went wrong. Maybe flight 93 was supposed to hit first. Maybe the flight 93 “plane” went down in Pennsylvania because it had no mission left to accomplish.
And the anthrax attack? Any scientist worth his microbiology degree would likely have known that this type of anthrax attack wouldn't have worked effectively to kill more than a handful of people... and that it would have been traced. So... what if it wasn't a mad scientist who did it?
What if there was a coordinated effort by American insiders to kill most of America's political leaders in the Fall of 2001? What if they just screwed up?
Over 3,000 people died in the attacks of 9/11. Many more could have died from an anthrax epidemic. If there was an insider conspiracy, they don't care much about human life – and now they've been convinced that surgical attacks aren't effective enough.
What if they try again?
What if next time they just decide to nuke Washington?
If there are insiders who got away with the 9/11 attacks – and have access to highly protected anthrax spores, they may have access to a nuclear weapon.
Is the concept of a nuclear coup d' etat realistic? It would seem so. In fact, if one were not on the short list of next in line for the presidency, killing off all of the leaders might just seem like a practical way of eliminating all the competition.
...Even if all of this speculation about 9/11 and the anthrax attacks is wrong, one thing is still for sure. We need to be seriously concerned about protecting our leaders from a nuclear coup d' etat. Our elected leaders in Washington are at serious risk – because Washington D.C. can be obliterated in an instant.
I'm convinced that the best way to insure against this vulnerability is for there to be more democracy.
If the American people make long-term policy decisions – by vote; there would be far less incentive (for terrorists or insiders) to nuke Washington.
If our leadership were more distributed, there would be no way to cut off our head.