Of course 9/11:

(1) wasn't done by 'the Iraqi's.

(2) Bush flying dozens of Saudi's out of the country ASAP, indicating what? Iraq guilt?

(3) the Iraqi's did not have weaponized anthrax in Iraq, in the US or anywhere although we were told they did.

(4) the Bush/Cheney administration played up the anthrax attacks right after 9/11 as fodder to push for the Iraq war.

(5) the anthrax turned out to be of US government origin.

(6) it was pinned on a dead US government employee, 10 years later, (after attempts to pin on another guy failed)...there was no trial.

(7) letters were sent to Democrat Party leaders as the PATRIOT Act neared a vote.

Hard to believe it was all coincidental. It's one thing to 'think' of CIPRO, another to actually start taking it, as the White House did, see link above, starting on 9/11. It is a powerful drug.

Add in that Bush/Cheney had to be forced into investigating 9/11 by victims families, that Bush/Cheney did not give testimony to the 9/11 Commission on the record, they testified for 1 hour together not individually, to only 2 of the commissioners, with no tape and no transcript of what they said allowed for the record.

As the late Gore Vidal said, 'It is taken as an article of faith there are no conspiracies in America'.

Yeah it's gone and I suspect it has something to do with the agreement with the Pentagon censoring Shaffer's book, "Operation Dark Heart".

Some people that have copies of the version that escaped censoring might write stuff on those things, and someone later requests that what they wrote be deleted.

To be honest with you, I didn't read the article carefully, but I didn't see accusations in that article that I hadn't heard before, and long ago. It really didn't strike me as anything new but rehash of old accusations and I didn't feel it was worth a lot of time.

The Pentagon has a tendency to be really nitpicky about not talking about stuff you agreed not to talk about, no matter whether it means anything or not.  Though it could be the case, that doesn't mean the Pentagon has someone deleting articles with things that were censored in the book, it could  also be Shaffer or his lawyer requesting deletion to avoid prosecution given he agreed to the censoring.

A warning: a quick perusal of google results for Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer suggests he's got sympathies on the right side of the aisle--Fox News likes what he has to say, he says he's very close to people in the Oath Keepers movement, he's claimed he knows Obama watched the Benghazi attack in real time in the WH Situation Room, etc

Also if you watch the beginning of this video interview of him, you'll see someone who doesn't really play the victimized whistleblower character, but jokingly suggests he was glad his book was censored because he sold more books that way, and it's also implied that he thinks they were stupid about what they censored, that what was censored didn't mean much.

In summary, my opinion is that there's no there there, no "conspiracy" worth pursuing.