Excellent interview of Graeme MacQueen by James Corbett covering Graeme’s book on the October 2001 anthrax attacks

Here’s a good interview of Graeme MacQueen by James Corbett covering Graeme’s book on the October 2001 anthrax attacks.  https://t.co/4LG0hjNlP5 pic.twitter.com/IJmf74DnE1

— Kevin Ryan (@KevinRyan911) September 18, 2024

Wow.  Ryan provides Graeme MacQueen's book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy, here at The International Center for 9/11 Justice. 

23:00. We often think of September 2001 as a crucial time.  I t was.  That's when the 9/11 attacks happened.  But October 2001 in a way is just as important.  That's when the bombing in Afghanistan begins.  That's when very overt preparation begins for attacking Iraq.  That's when the PATRIOT Act is passed.  That's when the NSA as we know now begins mass spying on US citizens. That's when the anthrax attacks happen.  So as you said earlier, it's not just a matter of September, these events were drawn out over the fall.  That's the leading hypothesis up until the PATRIOT Act that was signed into law on the 26th of October. And George Bush when he gives his little speech justifying the PATRIOT Act on that day, he refers to 9/11 and he refers to the anthrax attack and his speech assumes that they were done by the same group or at least related group with extremists.  But rapidly after the Patriot Act is passed the narrative begins to crumble and one of the reasons it begins to crumble is because of hard science on those who look at the spores it seems clear that some of the people who examined the anthrax spores had not been fully brought into this fraud.  They're saying, you know, I'm sorry but this looks like an American product.  This looks like it comes from our own domestic programs, not just American but from US military and intelligence, and that really quite rapidly becomes accepted for very specific reasons.  By the end of the year, by the end of December 2001, all the frauds meant to frame Al-Qaeda and Iraq have crumbled.  There is a group that continues to kind of revive those theories from time to time over the next year but the main consensus, and that includes the FBI, it includes Homeland Security, it includes the White House, is that somehow this has come from within our own biological weapons program, and at that point the FBI goes into damage control mode and tries to create these narratives of a lone nut somehow and eccentric, dangerous, possibly mentally unbalanced individual in our system had done these attacks.  And if that's true, of course, it tells us really nothing. 

27:35  Apparently there was a 2005 civil case filed by the family of Robert Stevens, 62, died on October 5, 2001, the first victim of the anthrax attacks, and that case actually provoked the Department of Justice to issue a summary for a motion of judgment, wanting to dismiss the case.  

[A summary judgment is when a civil court rules in favor of one party over the other without a full trial.  When a party files for a summary judgment, they are then referred to as the "Moving Party."  Two requirements: first, the parties to the lawsuit have to agree to the material facts, the facts that are important to the legal decision.  Second, the law must say these undisputed facts entitle the "Moving Party" to a judgment.  The evidence must be admissible.  The judge can only look at what is allowed by the evidence code.  Your testimony and that of a key witness are down on paper.  The witness has to sign the evidence on paper in front of a notary, called an affidavit.  Both you and your opponent can bring affidavits.  Written arguments are called Memorandum.]