Anthrax Mailings: Connecting the Dots [to al-Qaeda]

When you LOOK at ALL the evidence, you will see that BLANCO left a TRAIL of anthrax spores along his mail route, including a trail right to the mailbox area of Bob Stevens.

The most obvious conclusion is that Blanco was infected by the September 19 letter. Bob Stevens was also infected by this letter - and that is what the CDC concluded.

But you need to look at ALL the FACTS, and you are not willing to look at ALL the FACTS. You simply wish to twist and pervert everything to prove, under any circumsatnces, that the September 19 letter did NOT contain anthrax.

Too bad the rest of the world don't agree with you. Have you ever wondered why? It's becasue the rest off the world have looked at ALL the FACTS.

By the way, I'm STILL WAITING for your evidence on the Patrick "no silica" question.

No, what you are doing is demonstrating once again that you cannot read. It's not a "no silica" question, it's a "no coating" question. No one ever said there was no silica. That's just your interpretation because you seem unable to read. And the question was answered in message #124.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Post your evidence that Patrick said there was no silica coating here:

We've already seen the evidence from your "star witness" Meselson. He apparently disagrees with scientists at Detrick, AFIP and the EPA. He was shown a couple of SEMs whilst all the other scientists at the Detrick, AFIP and the EPA had FULL access to ALL of the FACTS and DATA. Also, all of these scientists don't have VERY SERIOUS credibilty issues, like Meselson does.

But I'm sure if Patrick has cleary stated somewhere, like you claim he has, that there was no silica coating, we might be willing to listen.

I've already provided a quote where he unambiguously declares he will NOT talk about silica.

Did he change his mind? Where's your evidence?

I say the CDC date is September 24. That's when Blanco got sick. The Septemebr 24 date is CLEARLY the correct date. The September 28 is CLEARLY wrong.

Okay. So, you do not believe the CDC? Interesting. You prefer your own interpretation? Also very interesting.

I believe the CDC. Blanco's onset date was September 28.

I think you should go back and look at all the messages where you accused me of not believing the CDC. I think you'll now find them as amusing as I found them.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

So you admit you lied in your statememt that Meselson, Alibek and Patrick said there was no silica?

That's just YOUR INTERPRETATION of what Patrick said. Yours and yours alone.

I assume you are going to change the text in your website now, since I have shown that Patrick has clearly stated that he refuses to talk about silica.

That leaves you with one less person who says there was no special silica coating. Now you just have Meselson and Alibek. And we all know about Meselson's credibilty, don't we?

When you LOOK at ALL the evidence, you will see that BLANCO left a TRAIL of anthrax spores along his mail route, including a trail right to the mailbox area of Bob Stevens.

Really. Well, it so happens that I have the charts on my web site which show how the AMI building was contaminated. Here they are:

First Floor

Second Floor

Third Floor where Bob Stevens had his office.

Note that the third floor is the least contaminated floor in the building. Note that the mailroom area is the most contaminated area, and that's where Stephanie Dailey's desk was located. That's where she opened the real anthrax letter.

Note that on the third floor where Bob Stevens' office was located there is very little contamination. And this is the area where the J-Lo letter was opened and passed around to be examined by various people.

These floor charts, by the way, came from the CDC. So, I guess you can disbelieve them, too, in order to retain your absurd conclusions that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

You know you really ought to try looking at ALL the FACTS. If you look at ALL the FACTS you will find that the September 19 letter was one that contained anthrax. The september 25 letter may also have contained anthrax. Indeed the CDC officially concluded that BOTH letters contained anthrax, but they also OFFICIALLY concluded that Bob Stevens got sick from the September 19 letter.

They reached these conclusions by looking at ALL the FACTS. That's something you should try - try looking at ALL the FACTS.

I do believe the CDC - they give his onset date as September 24.

They may have been mistaken and at one time gave his onset date as September 24. If you want to use obsolete data to make your interpretations, I guess that is up to you. But everyone can see that it is obsolete data. Just look at the last time it was reviewed by the CDC.

They clearly state in their official up-to-date data that his onset date was September 28.

I can see you will never be able to understand that, so there's no point in discussing this particular subject again.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You don't know what happened between September 19 and September 25. For all you know the cleaners could have been there between these dates, but perhaps there were no cleaners between September 25 and the date that the building was closed.

The point is, you are totally speculating. The official CDC conclusion is that the September 19 letter contained anthrax. There is no reason to believe that the FBI have concluded otherwise - indeed everything that has been published indicates that they DO agree with the CDC.

But they have looked at ALL the FACTS, and you won't look at ALL the FACTS.

It's only an "obselete" date because you are choosing to call it that.

Your tactics seem to be very similar to Matthew Meselson's. You make a statement of "fact" (which you have fabricated) and then keep repeating it, then you hope that everyone accepts it.

A good example of Mesleson doing this is here:

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxpowdermadesimply.html

"Meselson said the confusion over the possibility of a silica additive may have risen because X-ray studies of the powder detected the element silicon, one component of silica. But he said silicon is naturally present in anthrax, noting a 1980 Journal of Bacteriology paper that found an "unexpectedly high concentration of silicon" in anthrax spores."

Note how Meselson fabricates a "fact". He fabricates that there was "confusion" over the possibilty of silica. The truth is there never was any confusion - apart from the confusion Meselson wanted to create.

He used the same tactics in his Sverdlovsk shenanigans, all of which are well documented.

You are learning well from Meselson. Call something "obselte" just beacuse you want it to be so, then keep repeating it, hoping it will be believed.

If you look at ALL the FACTS, you will see that you are wrong.

"They clearly state in their official up-to-date data that his onset date was September 28."

That is clearly the date that he got really sick, and had the classic secondary symptoms going beyond fatigue.

Blanco's onset date was September 24, which is the key date for understanding which letter infected him.

But you will only see that if you choose to look at ALL the FACTS.

You don't know what happened between September 19 and September 25. For all you know the cleaners could have been there between these dates, but perhaps there were no cleaners between September 25 and the date that the building was closed.

According to Robert Graysmith's book "Amerithrax: The Hunt for the Anthrax Killer", page 29:

At least two weeks passed between the time officials believe anthrax entered AMI and the office was shut down. During that span 350 employees continued to work in a hot building. Janitorial crews vacuumed and cleaned each of those days.

It seems very clear that is is you who does not have all the facts. And apparently you do not care about facts.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Pure speculation yet again from you. You have no idea what parts of the building the crews vaccumed on each day. For all you know they did separate floors on consecutive days.

But you will continue to twist the facts to suit your own political agenda.

You really need to check ALL the FACTS, and not just focus on a few facts that happen to suit you.

Without knowing the specific areas that were vacuumed and the frequency this was done with, you are, once again, TOTALLY SPECULATING.

Your website in nothing more than a political agenda wrapped up in so-callled "factual analysis", in oder for you to arrive at your pre-conceived conclusions.

Once again, do not analyze ALL the FACTS as a WHOLE, you simply warp facts to fit your theory.

"But everyone can see that it is obsolete data."

Once again, another "Matthew Mesleson" tactic. You say EVERYONE can see that the data is obselete - what you really mean is that YOU desperately want this data to be obselete, so you simply say it is, hoping that people will believe you. Don't you think if the data was obselete, the CDC would later on say "oh, by the way we made a mistake in our previous paper, we think Ernesto Blanco's illness had a completely different course than everyone else. Whilst everyone else got fatigue first for several days, we don't think he did, even although he says he did, we don't believe him. Therefore his real onset date was September 28".

Duh! They don't say this, do they? Whch simply means that in your "correct onset date" paper they simply made an error and placed his onset date at the time the secondary symptoms appeared.

Once again, you IGNORE the FACTS. ALL the FACTS need to be examined - and that is something your purely political analysis does not allow you to do.

You say EVERYONE can see that the data is obselete - what you really mean is that YOU desperately want this data to be obselete

No, what I meant to say was that everyone but you can see that you are using obsolete data.

I use data from two different CDC reports. Both reports use September 28 as Ernesto Blanco's onset date. There's the final report HERE and an earlier report which included this graph which also has Ernesto Blanco's onset date as September 28.

Graph of first 21 cases

So, you might speculate that they made an error on the final report, but are you also saying they made the same error on the graph?

Or are you saying that you don't really know what you are talking about?

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I'm saying you are deliberately ignoring the FACTS. The FACTS are that, as the CDC reports, Ernesto Blanco started to get sick on September 24, and I have provided a table in which the CDC give September 24 as his OFFICIAL onset date.

He didn't start to get sick on September 28 - it was 4 days earlier. That is a FACT!

You are desperately posting tables where the CDC, contrary to their other paper, have his onset date as September 28, but that is the date when his SECONDARY symptoms began.

It's funny how you are willing to use CDC data when it suits you, and yet you are unwilling to accept their OFFICIAL conclusion that Bob Stevens was infected from a letter on Septmeber 19.

That's because you are only interested in politics and NOT the TRUE FACTS. If you look at ALL the FACTS you will SEE that Stevens was infected on September 19 and Blanco started to get sick on September 24.

But you prefer POLITICS to FACTS and you will warp any fact to suit your own purely political agenda. Frankly your website is pure politics, and as such is total crap.

ALL the FACTS need to be examined

Right. And if you looked at all the facts, you'd see that if Ernesto Blanco handled the anthrax letter on September 21 when the real anthrax letter could have arrived, because of his age he could have started to feel the effects on September 24.

So, you are just wasting energy by arguing whether his onset date is the official date the CDC uses or the date you want to use. Either one could work. The Sverdlovsk Anthrax Outbreak had inhalation cases with only 2 day incubation periods. So, 3 and 4 are definitely in the ball park.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I still would like to get you on the record as saying that Matthew Meselson who did NOT have access to the ALL of the data is a more credible source of information on the nature of the anthrax than ALL of the scientists who had had acess to ALL of the data - such as all the scientists at AFIP, Detrick and the EPA.

Just answer below:

Who is more credible:

(a) Meselson, of Sverdlovsk fame and shenanigans

or

(b) AFIP, Detrick and the EPA - who have gone on record stating that silica was a key component in altering the spores.

What will it be, Ed. Facts or politics? Your choice.

Pure speculation on your behalf. You are going beyond reporting opinion as facts - you are just making it up as you go along. You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA when the September 25 letter arrived - it could have been September 15 for all we know.

The most logical explanation is that Blanco got sick from the September 19 anthrax letter. Until we know more it is PURE and ABSURD speculation to think otherwise. I realize you need such absurd speculation since your motivations are PURELY POLITICAL, but some people prefer FACTS to POLITICS.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.