Now just keep in mind that EdLake claims that not a single fact supports my view.
In short, EdLake is saying that the 9/11 terrorists weren't renting an apartment from the wife of an AMI building employee (a fact). EdLake is saying that the 9/11 terrorists didn't pay their rent in cash to said wife (another fact). EdLake is claiming that anthrax doesn't stick to paper money like cocaine (yet another fact).
Fact after fact supports my view.
No RELEVANT fact supports your view.
The fact that anthrax might stick to money is IRRELEVANT if all the rest of the evidence says the anthrax entered AMI via a letter.
The fact that 9/11 terrorists rented an apartment from a woman whose husband worked at AMI is IRRELEVANT if no anthrax was found in that apartment or anywhere else they went.
The fact that the 9/11 terrorsts paid their rent in cash is IRRELEVANT if there is no evidence those al Qaeda members had access to the flask controlled by Bruce Ivins - which was PROVEN to be the source of the attack anthrax.
Your "facts" support your view, but they are IRRELEVANT facts. They are not supported by any actual EVIDENCE in the case.