[diamondjoe]

A few problems with that info: "The leasing agent (Bob Stevens wife) for Atta and partner's condo has always been too coinicdental for me. That the first letter would be mailed to him and kill him is just too suspicious."

The letter was actually mailed to the National Enquirer, but was mailed to the address they hadn't occupied for a year. Stevens just happened to come into contact with it. It wasn't mailed to him, or to his employer. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.

"Add in Atta's visit to the pharmacy with a red rash on his hands just days before he left for his deadly mission is another too coincidental thing. I still believe they were responsible and probably had someone else mail the letters."

First of all, it wasn't Atta. Second of all, it was a lesion on his leg. Thirdly, the doctor who thinks it might have been anthrax recalled it months later, and most experts doubt, from his description, that it was anthrax. (Not to mention that if someone was working with weaponized anthrax, why the heck would they go to a doctor, who would diagnose it immediately??)

[Shermy]

IMO, the description of the letters as being warnings from someone who cares about us isn't too convincing (though not impossible).

One could say, why didn't the first letter mention anthrax? Simple enough, and just like any numerous hoaxers in the past.

Why mention "penacilin?" If a terrorist, why wouldn't he/they give a hint? They want the disease to be linked with their message, else the letter would be likely disregraded like any other kook mail.

Why not a mass attack? Maybe the "terrorist" didn't have a lot of the stuff. Or read "Vector". Why AMI? Why the NY Post and not the NYTimes?

< /shrugging shoulders>

[denydenydeny]

First of all, it wasn't Atta.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Second of all, it was a lesion on his leg.

See link above. When trying to debunk a theory, it always helps if you know what you're talking about.

Thirdly, the doctor who thinks it might have been anthrax recalled it months later, and most experts doubt, from his description, that it was anthrax.

Most experts???? Documentation, please.

(Not to mention that if someone was working with weaponized anthrax, why the heck would they go to a doctor, who would diagnose it immediately??)

Lots of possible explanations, the most immediate one being that Al-Haznawi (the person who did have the leg lesion, not Atta) was unaware that anthrax was involved at all. Recall that the non-pilot 9/11 hijackers (of which Al-Haznawi was one) did not know what the mission was until the morning of 9/11/01.