A Tale of Three Patsies and One False Flag

Patsy #1:

Assaad

another anthrax/ft detrick story from 2002
Submitted by gretavo on Tue, 2008-08-05 13:57.

I wonder why the Hartford Courant is the source for so much of this. I imagine someone should be talking to Jack Dolan and Dave Altimari...

Monday, January 21, 2002 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Deadly specimens disappeared from Army research lab in '90s
By Jack Dolan and Dave Altimari

The Hartford Courant

Lab specimens of anthrax spores, Ebola virus and other pathogens disappeared from the Army's biological-warfare research facility in the early 1990s during a turbulent period of labor complaints and recriminations among rival scientists there, documents from an internal Army inquiry show.

The 1992 inquiry also found evidence that someone was secretly entering a laboratory late at night to conduct unauthorized research, apparently involving anthrax. A numerical counter on a piece of lab equipment had been rolled back to hide work done by the mystery researcher, who left the misspelled label "antrax" in the machine's electronic memory, according to the documents obtained by The Hartford Courant.

Experts disagree on whether the lost specimens pose a danger. An Army spokeswoman said they do not, because they would have been killed by chemicals used to prepare them for microscopic study. A prominent molecular biologist said, however, that anthrax spores could be retrieved from a treated specimen.

In addition, a scientist who once worked at the Army facility said that because of poor inventory controls, it is possible some of the specimens went missing while still viable, before being treated.

Not in dispute is what the incidents say about disorganization and lack of security in some quarters of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, at Fort Detrick, Md., in the 1990s. Fort Detrick is believed to be the original source of the Ames strain of anthrax used in the mail attacks last fall, and investigators have questioned people there and at a few other government labs and contractors.

It is unclear whether Ames was among the strains of anthrax in the 27 sets of specimens reported missing at Fort Detrick after an inventory in 1992.

One of the 27 sets was later found and is in the lab; an Army spokesman said it might have been in use when the inventory was taken. The fate of the rest remains unclear. In addition to anthrax and Ebola, the specimens included hantavirus, simian AIDS and two labeled "unknown" — an Army euphemism for classified research.

The 27 specimens were reported missing in February 1992, after a new officer, Lt. Col. Michael Langford, took command of what Fort Detrick brass viewed as a dysfunctional pathology lab. Langford, who is no longer at Fort Detrick, said he ordered an inventory after he recognized there was "little or no organization" and "little or no accountability" in the lab.

More troubling to Langford than the missing specimens was what investigators called "surreptitious" work being done in the pathology lab late at night and on weekends.

Mary Beth Downs told investigators she had come to work several times in January and February of 1992 to find that someone had been in the lab at odd hours, clumsily using the sophisticated electron microscope to conduct some kind of off-the-books research.

After one weekend that February, Downs discovered that someone had been in the lab using the microscope to take photos of slides and apparently had forgotten to reset a feature on the microscope that imprints each photo with a label. After taking a few pictures of her own slides that morning, Downs was surprised to see "Antrax 005" emblazoned on her negatives.

Downs also noted that an automatic counter on the camera, like an odometer on a car, had been rolled back to hide the fact pictures had been taken over the weekend. She wrote of her findings in a memo to Langford, noting that whoever was using the microscope was "either in a big hurry or didn't know what they were doing."

It is unclear if the Army ever got to the bottom of the incident, and some lab insiders believed concerns about it were overblown. Lab technician Charles Brown, who conducted the inventory for Langford, said the scientific process doesn't always follow a 9-to-5 schedule.

"People all over the base knew that they could come in at any time and get on the microscope," Brown said. "If you had security clearance, the guard isn't going to ask you if you are qualified to use the equipment. I'm sure people used it often without our knowledge."

Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor, Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick. A surveillance camera recorded Zack being let in at 8:40 p.m. on Jan. 23, 1992, apparently by Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist and close friend of Zack's, according to a report filed by a security guard.

Zack could not be reached for comment. In an interview last week, Rippy said that she doesn't remember letting Zack in, but that he occasionally stopped by after he was transferred off the base.

"After he left, he had no (authorized) access to the building. Other people let him in," she said. "He knew a lot of people there and he was still part of the military. I can tell you, there was no suspicious stuff going on there with specimens."

Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They were accused of harassing Egyptian-born Ayaad Assaad, a former Fort Detrick scientist who had extensive dealings with the lab and who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination.

Assaad said he had believed the harassment was behind him until October, when it suddenly surfaced after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He said that is when the FBI contacted him, saying someone had mailed an anonymous letter — a few days before the existence of anthrax-laced mail became known — naming Assaad as a potential bioterrorist. After interviewing Assaad, FBI agents decided the note was a hoax.

But Assaad said he believes the note's timing makes the author a suspect in the anthrax attacks, and he is convinced that details of his work contained in the letter mean the author must be a former Fort Detrick colleague.

Brown said he doesn't know who sent the letter, but that Assaad's nationality and expertise in biological agents made him an obvious subject of concern after Sept. 11. Brown said the tipster might have been acting in the country's best interest.

"It probably was someone from Detrick," he said. "Some people are more patriotic than others."

We don't yet know if it was Zack who sent it but it sure looks like it was him. The key here is that the letter accusing Assaad of plotting biowarfare was sent before the anthrax mailings. It seems plausible that the intent was to make Assaad the default suspect once the mailings were sent. Moreover, see this article that states the FBI is withholding the accusatory letter--that was back in 2003 when Hatfill was still an alleged suspect. What is their excuse now? SO it becomes obvious to the perps that the Assaad trick is transparent so they instead try to frame Hatfill, who apparently is a bit of a right winger (blame arabs, then blame a white right winger? hmmm...) When Hatfill fights back they are stuck either telling the truth or...

Source: Washington Times, August 10, 2003

Accused scientist says letter links to anthrax mailers

By Guy Taylor, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The FBI won't release an anonymous letter, which in the days before the 2001 fatal anthrax mailings, accused an Egyptian-born scientist of plotting biowarfare against the United States, saying it would divulge secret sources in the continuing investigation.

In a July 7 note citing the sources, the FBI denied Ayaad Assaad, the letter's subject, access to the evidence. Mr. Assaad said he's convinced it is linked to a person or a group responsible for the anthrax mailings that killed five persons.

"They know damn well that this letter is connected to the anthrax sender," he said, adding that the FBI's refusal to provide a copy suggests "they're trying to protect whoever sent it."

He said he suspects it led investigators to the Army's biodefense lab at Fort Detrick.

Asked about the anonymous letter Friday, a spokeswoman at the FBI's Washington field office said it is "unrelated to the anthrax mailings."

However, that assertion hasn't stopped the bureau from withholding it for nearly two years from Mr. Assaad. According to the July 7 note to him, in which the Justice Department denied his latest request for a copy of the letter, releasing it "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identities of confidential sources and information by such sources."

About two weeks before the anthrax mailings became known, the FBI was given the unsigned letter describing Mr. Assaad, who once worked at Fort Detrick, as an anti-American religious fanatic with the means and expertise to unleash a bioweapons attack.

He has been seeking a copy of the letter ever since agents with the FBI's Washington field office questioned him about it on Oct. 3, 2001.

The Hartford Courant first reported the FBI's continued refusal to release it last month. During an interview with The Washington Times on Thursday, Mr. Assaad said he's baffled by what he calls the FBI's contradictory actions.

"They're trying to protect someone who hurt me," he said, explaining that from what he saw of the letter it was laden with false and negative statements about him. While it didn't specify his religion, he said it called him a "religious fanatic."

Mr. Assaad, who holds graduate degrees from Iowa State University and has lived in the United States since the mid-1970s, claims he was discriminated against when he worked at the Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick. He now works as a toxicologist for the Environmental Protection Agency.

He said when the FBI questioned him about the anonymous letter, agents told him he could file a Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts request to get a copy of it. When the interview was completed, the agents cleared him and said he was free to go.

However, he said when he made repeated calls to the FBI asking if agents wanted to speak with him again or if his past work with bioweapons could assist in their investigation, he was turned away.

Meanwhile, he said, the FBI had given him a wrong case number for filing the request to obtain a copy of the letter. FBI agents recently were seen near Fort Detrick unsuccessfully squishing through the muck at the bottom of a drained pond in search of evidence in the anthrax mailings. They reportedly were hunting for something tangible to connect the anthrax mailings to scientist Steven Hatfill, whom authorities have called a "person of interest" in the case.

No charges have been filed against Mr. Hatfill, but investigators who searched his apartment twice last year are said to have him under 24-hour surveillance.

Mr. Hatfill denies involvement in the anthrax mailings. He worked at Fort Detrick for two years, until 1999, before taking a job with defense contractor Science Applications International Corp., where he worked as a senior scientist until March 2002.

According to a report last month in The New York Times, he was involved in building mock biological weapons labs to train special operations personnel on what to look for in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

 

Patsy #2:

Hatfill

here is why Hatfill was picked after the evil arab muslim...

Submitted by gretavo on Wed, 2008-08-06 14:16.

Just like OKC.  Try to frame the arabs.  Then try to frame the "white christians"  (read hmmm... racists!)  Make sure everyone knows that if you tell the truth you will suffer consequences.  These are classic Zionist tactics.  The idea of emphasizing the "inside job" scenario is to divide Americans and to make them distrust each other.  It's not hard to do because a) we do have collaborators in our midst, b) we have not always been perfect with domestic or foreign policy, and c) we suffer from the effects of a divisive and polarizing media tradition.  We can't confuse the efforts to cover up the truth and take the "offer that can't be refused" with ultimate agency--but that is exactly what the fake truth movement tries to make us do, in order that we not come to the realization that the enemy is not really domestic, although it has a domestic component.

"In his statement, Hatfill did refer to mistakes in his past, saying "there are things I would do or say differently than I did 10, 20 or more years ago." He may have been referring to published reports of extreme right-wing political views and claimed service in military units of the former white government of Zimbabwe, then Rhodesia. Hatfill lived abroad from 1978 to 1995, attending medical school in Zimbabwe and conducting medical research in South Africa and England."

WHOA! JDL Goons were Hatfill's biggest accusers!

Submitted by gretavo on Wed, 2008-08-06 20:56.

Really amazing stuff here...

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/Bioter/huntinghatfill.html

3 Where does the notion that Hatfill is a racist come from?

Hatfill has lived in two different African countries formerly ruled by white minority regimes, and he appears in the past to have claimed a "military background" or "combat experience" in one of those countries, and "reserve" and "consultant" relationships with the army of the other. What these claims might mean, and what part of them is true, are wide open questions that probably can't and won't be settled until Hatfill comes forward with a clarification. For now, he is operating under an attorney's instructions not to answer media inquiries about his past. So there remains a quite considerable leap of speculation between what is known for certain about Hatfill's student days, on the one hand, and the widely circulating charge, on the other, that he "served in the armed forces of two white racist governments," as New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has put it. Documentary and testimonial corroboration of this "fact" (sometimes attached to vaguely sourced "suspicions" that Hatfill helped the racists kill black people with germs) is very hard to find, as it happens. And, oddly enough, what little, shaky evidence there is, insofar as anyone ever bothers to cite it, inevitably traces from -- or through, or back to -- an outfit called the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO).

That group's current role as a central clearinghouse of Hatfill demonology is never acknowledged by mainstream reporters who make use of the material -- and for obvious reasons. JDO is located at the farthest, shadowy margins of American public life. It was founded in the 1980s as a radical, breakaway faction of Meir Kahane's already-quite-radical Jewish Defense League (JDL) by a man named Mordechai Levy. And under Levy, JDO has established a long record of scurrilous, sometimes even homicidal attacks on its real or imagined enemies. One day in August 1989, for example, when process servers attempted to present him with legal papers in a libel action brought against the JDO by a leader of the rival JDL, Levy mounted the roof of a Manhattan apartment building and opened fire on his visitors with an automatic rifle, missing the intended targets and wounding a 69-year-old bystander instead. For which crime Levy was sent to prison. More recently, in April 2000, Levy pled guilty to charges of assault after a 12-year-old boy told police that the man had kicked him in the face and testicles.

Levy and the JDO have not yet threatened Dr. Hatfill with bodily harm, though visitors to the organization's website -- every American reporter on the anthrax beat has surely been there -- immediately discover that its top-featured section (www.jdo.org/hatfill.htm) includes a lovingly imagined account of some future day, very soon, when "Dr. Steven 'Mengele' Hatfill," having first "attempted suicide," will be "awakened at 4 a.m. and transported to a cold, damp, and dirty holding cell," then tried, convicted, and given a lethal injection, "just like the lethal injection his former boss, Wouter Basson, gave to hundreds of black South Africans." This and much, much else besides is contained in an extraordinary, 50-some-page, always expanding dossier, "soon to be a paperback book," entitled The Bioevangelist and purporting to prove that "he did it."

To wit: Hatfill is a "Nazi" who "participated in genocide." Hatfill's "mentor" at the Godfrey Huggins School of Medicine was supposedly one Robert Burns Symington, "father of Rhodesia's biological warfare program." Hatfill helped Symington and the "white supremacist regime" start an epidemic of anthrax "in the latter phase of Zimbabwe's liberation war." The White Man having lost that war, Hatfill then took his wares to the "Medical Special Operations Battalion of the South African Army founded in 1981 by Wouter Basson," the Afrikaner regime's notorious biowarfare capo. While in South Africa, Hatfill was a "close associate of Eugene Terre Blanche," head of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement and a convicted murderer. And so on.

Trouble is, nothing in the many, impressive-looking footnotes appended to The Bioevangelist substantiates these assertions. Nothing links Hatfill to Robert Burns Symington. Nothing links Symington to anthrax, and nothing explains how Hatfill, then a first-year medical student with no biochemical laboratory training, could have helped Symington weaponize anthrax spores in the first place. Nothing links Hatfill to a "Special Operations Battalion" in South Africa. Nothing links Hatfill to Wouter Basson. And nothing links Hatfill to Eugene Terre Blanche (Terre Blanche denies the connection) -- except a risibly amateurish South African news-service story, which cites a photograph that no one can find, and an unnamed "former colleague" who says Hatfill once claimed to have run a Resistance Movement training session (whose leader denies that).

Trouble is, too, that transparent innuendo like this -- in sanitized, journalism-school, "some say," "is alleged" form -- has now entered the American news-media bloodstream (thanks most prominently to New York Times columnist Kristof), casting an awful cloud of "racism" over Steven Hatfill's head.

Asked by e-mail for his name, and for additional evidence to buttress his case against Hatfill the "Nazi," the author of The Bioevangelist has sent The Weekly Standard a reformatted version of the same essay, with many additional but entirely peripheral citations, and he has identified himself as A.J. Weberman.

4. Who is A.J. Weberman?

During the 1970s, A.J. Weberman was briefly famous (in certain circles) for having decided, by virtue of extremely close, drug-fueled analysis of the lyrics to Bob Dylan songs, that Dylan was a heroin addict. In an effort to prove the point, Weberman then began collecting . . . things. He took out newspaper classified ads: "If anyone has a sample of Dylan's urine, please send it to me." He once broke into Dylan's home to confront the singer. And, most notably, he developed a habit of going through Dylan's garbage can and publicizing whatever he found. Weberman retains a casual interest in Dylan even today, it would seem. (A Dylan song plays in the background on the JDO Bioevangelist web page, if you have the right browser.) But Weberman eventually suspended his full-time practice of Dylan "garbology," moving on to the trash bins of such as Jackie Kennedy and Norman Mailer. And Weberman then, at some point, abandoned garbology altogether -- and hooked up with Mordechai Levy and the JDO.

It was from the rooftop of A.J. Weberman's apartment building that Levy sprayed lower Manhattan with automatic rifle fire that day in 1989; the two men were named co-defendants in the libel action Levy was attempting to evade. And it was with A.J. Weberman as named co-defendant that Levy and his organization were very recently and successfully sued for libel again -- by a man whom JDO's website had called a "pathological liar" and "psychopath." Six months ago, a Brooklyn, New York, jury unanimously assigned Weberman responsibility for $300,000 of a total $850,000 judgment.

 

Patsy #3:

Ivins

 

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/%e2%80%98suicide%e2%80%99-o...

Let's deconstruct this a little, shall we?

    Though the underlying ideology is a bit difficult to discern, he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma. He wrote things like this:
     

        Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.

        Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.

You know what, that doesn't sound like a dogmatist to me--sounds like someone who is opposed to anti-religious dogma.  But hey, they gotta try to make him sound like a right wing christian nut, right?  I think that the intro to the quote above is quite tellingly overstated given the actual content not being much proof of what it claims is so obvious...

    And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:

        Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."

        By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

Uh oh--looks like Ivins might have been a not so closeted "jew-hater!"  Or does no one else read this as totally sarcastic?

I think it's becoming clear why Ivins has been framed--he does seem to have probably known more than he should have and was apparently not too fond of Jewish supremacists.  Hmmmm.

I don't think Rosenberg sent the first letter framing Assaad
Submitted by gretavo on Wed, 2008-08-06 17:34.

and I have no idea if it was Dr. Zack, but that's hardly the point. The point is that SOMEONE tried to frame an Arab for biowarfare activities shortly before the anthrax mailings. Then when the feds didn't bite, Barbara Rosenberg seems to have been behind the charge to point the finger at Hatfill, who has what many would consider an unsavory past and right wing proclivities--neither of which make him guilty as we have seen. After a costly effort to pursue Hatfill, we are given Ivins, another guy with perhaps an unorthodox personal life as a suspect with little apparent evidence, and who cannot defend himself or be tried for the crime. All of this points to me that there are a number of people (a conspiracy) trying to conceal the actual nature of the anthrax attacks. These conspirators have blamed first an arab and then a white right wing type and finally on a Catholic. All of these are known to be disliked militant Zionists. Even Ivins is quoted as criticizing in a letter to the editor a rabbi's decision not to have a dialogue with a local Imam. I don't think there is any doubt about what is being covered up in this case or with 9/11.

A False Flag Thwarted

Neocons always insist that Americans not involved...

Neocons Allege Iraq Behind Anthrax, Among Other Things...

Weekly Standard Says hatfill Innocent

WSJ op-ed says Ivins unlikely to be Anthrax culprit

WSJ Op-Ed Writer is a Neocon Shill

My take is this. The FBI, knowing it can't just tell the truth (Zionists were behind this and 9/11) is trying to make the case go away. they may even be doing a poor job of it so as to invite suspicion in the hope that the truth will out without them outing it.

On the other hand, the neocons are not content having those evil arab muslims let off the hook so easily so they insist, through their media friends that no no no, Ivins is a patsy, the FBI is incompetent. Because of course they can't possibly come up with a reason for why the FBI would be protecting al Qaeda, bin Laden, or Saddam, or Ahmedinejad.

The power struggle seems to be the same as from the beginning--between the Bush Sr. pragmatic types who like to keep their oil buddies (the arab muslims) as happy as possible and with the neocons who used Dubya to get their hands on the wheel, the "crazies" including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz and other PNAC signatories.The crazies keep pushing the envelope and the pragmatists keep trying to slow them down or stop them, with the media (e.g. William Safire, et al) taking the side of the crazies. What the pragmatists know they can't say of course is--"Look everyone, this is all bullshit, 9/11 was a fraud, etc." Why? Some of them may fear for their safety, others for their deep dark secrets, and some may simply not be that much against what the crazies are doing. Others may EVEN believe the myths! To think that what's been happening could happen with NO ONE in elite circles taking issue with it is absurd. Those who aren't psychotic or radically militant either have to be bought off or intimidated for the attempted coup to continue.