Your fascination with the FBI’s cover story for the anthrax attacks is only logical.
The actual FBI cover story, however, is not. The “suspect” is dead so he can’t defend himself. How quaint.
Your attacks on me, however, have no such limitation. That you choose to attack everyone who doesn’t swallow the FBI’s “Ivin’s was the lone gunman with the magic bullet in the school book depository” story says a good bit about you.
One hole in the FBI’s cover story is that Ivin’s had no connection to the Florida anthrax attack, but the 9/11 bombers did (renting an apartment from the AMA building manager’s wife, if my memory serves me).
Anthrax is readily carried by and spread by cash, just as cocaine sticks to dollar bills, so too does anthrax. Since the 9/11 terrorists often paid their rent in cash, there is a clear connection from the 9/11 terrorists to the AMA building that was infected with anthrax spores (where no anthrax letter was ever found...convenient witness sotries to the contrary failing to turn up said physical letter).
So Ivin’s didn’t do it; the 9/11 terrorists did (this also explains the hospital visit by one 9/11 terrorist for a lesion on his leg).
So, you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be attacking you? That's typical. That really confirms what I wrote about arguments being viewed as a competition, not a search for the facts.
You have a theory that requires a massive conspiracy, but I gather you do not consider yourself to be a "conspiracy theorist."
"One hole in the FBIs cover story is that Ivins had no connection to the Florida anthrax attack, but the 9/11 bombers did"
The fact that the 9/11 terrorists took flight training in Lantana, Florida was in the news BEFORE the letters were mailed. That could be one reason why Ivins chose to send an anthrax letter to a media outlet in Lantana, Florida. So, people like you would make the connection.
"Anthrax is readily carried by and spread by cash, just as cocaine sticks to dollar bills, so too does anthrax."
And you have scientific reports to substantiate this? Why don't you post them?
If you are interested in "holes in stories," let's look at the holes in your theory:
If the 9/11 terrorist paid their rent in cash, why wasn't their landlord infected? Why wasn't anthrax found in any place the terrorists stayed? And do you really believe that anthrax on cash paid to a landlord somehow contaminated the entire AMI building just because the landlord's husband worked at AMI?
Why was the greatest concentration of spores around the desk of Stephanie Dailey who testified that she remembered opening an envelope with powders and throwing it away. Is she part of the conspiracy, too? Have you determined where in the building the husband of the landlord worked? Why wasn't the area around his workplace as thoroughly contaminated as the area around Stephanie Dailey's desk?
The CBS and ABC letters were also thrown away. No letters were found at those locations, but people there contracted cutaneous anthrax. Do you think those letters were destroyed as part of the government's sinister plot, too?
I gather it doesn't mean anything to you that the NY Post letter was found UNOPENED and filled with anthrax. How does you cash theory explain that? How does it explain the two letters to the senators, which were also found? One was found unopened and full of anthrax. The other was opened and witnesses saw the anthrax puff out.
Those seem like pretty BIG holes in your theory.
But, you help to make the point I tried to make about how people are really, really bad at reasoning. Thanks.
(1) The anthrax letter sent from New Jersey to Florida left a trail of anthrax through postal facilities which show it was addressed to an obsolete address for The National Enquirer in Lantana, Florida.
(2) Because the address was obsolete, it was forwarded to the AMI offices of The National Enquirer in Boca Raton. It was Stephanie Dailey's job to open letters addressed to The National Enquirer.
(3) The person who picked up the mail at the post office and delivered the anthrax letter to Stephanie was Ernesto Blanco, who contracted inhalation anthrax.
(4) Stephanie Dailey tested positive for exposure to anthrax.
(5) The landlord your theory depends upon DID NOT test positive for exposure to anthrax. Neither did her husband.