You are providing, at best, weak circumstantial claims of an official cover story.
What you *can't* provide is an anthrax attack letter in Florida...because there wasn't one there.
Moreover, Ivins had no connection to the AMI building in Florida.
In contrast, the 9/11 terrorists were renting an apartment and paying rent money in cash to the wife of an employee at the Florida AMI building.
What you *deny* is that anthrax is carried on cash (like rent money!) just like cocaine.
But your denial is not factual. Of course, neither is your cover story.
But there's testimony and EVIDENCE that there was a letter.
Are you claiming there where no letters sent to ABC or CBS, because those letters were never found, either?
"Ivins had no connection to the AMI building in Florida."
Ivins didn't send the letter to the AMI building. He sent the letter to The National Enquirer in Lantana. It was a major magazine available all over the country. It was the same connection Ivins had to NBC, ABC, CBS and The New York Post. They were all large media organizations who would tell the world that they were attacked.
"What you *deny* is that anthrax is carried on cash (like rent money!) just like cocaine."
I don't deny it. I've just never seen any example of it. It's totally illogical that the entire AMI building could be contaminated by trace amounts of anthrax on money. And all the facts say the anthrax arrived in a letter that Stephanie Dailey testified she opened and threw away.
I should have added that, according to your reasoning, there must be tens of thousands of people who are also conspiring to "cover up" not "nuking" Pakistan by creating evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was actually the killer.
Yet, in spite of claiming that there is a "cover up," you also claim that there is no conspiracy.
Don't you realize your beliefs are totally devoid of logic?