Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TrebleRebel
But what about all the other experts who said the silica was a key component?

The term "key component" is open to interpretation. The true experts say the anthrax was not coated. So, what "key component" means is anyone's guess.

You've already said the CDC doctors made an error

If they believe there were two anthrax letters sent to AMI, then yes, they made an error. The evidence says there was only one anthrax letter sent to AMI. The J-Lo letter clearly did not contain anthrax.

The CDC only has testimony that there were two letters which contained powder. Any conclusion that both contained anthrax is a false conclusion. Beyond any doubt.

I'm only saying what the evidence says. If I'm wrong, show me evidence that I'm wrong and I'll apologize and make corrections. Don't show me opinions. Opinions are worthless. The anthrax case shows we can find "experts" with opinions on all sides of every issue.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

122 posted on 01/24/2004 9:59:33 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: EdLake
"The term "key component" is open to interpretation."

Really? Doesn't it just mean "key component"? In other words a component that is essential for the anthrax spores to behave as they were osberved to behave?

What is your other "interpretation"? The Science article clearly quotes a spokeswoman who says that the silica found in the Daschle anthrax was a key component - and that the silica made it into a good aresol that could float easily.

Pehaps you can tell us what she "really meant" by that - since your interpretation seems to differ from what most other people seem to take from what appears to be a very clear and easily understood statement.


Are you also saying you know better than Chris Weis, PhD, and a toxicoligist with the EPA?

Look what he says here:

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

"The evidence that the anthrax spores were capable of becoming airborne again
offers proof that "the natural behavior of these materials was altered," Weis
said. He explained that the particles were much smaller than naturally occurring
anthrax spores. Weis and his colleagues expected that the anthrax spores "would
clump together" and settle on various surfaces in the office. These clumps of
small anthrax spores would be unlikely to become airborne again, he said.

The anthrax in the envelope, however, was apparently altered in some way to make
it more easily airborne, the EPA scientist said."
123 posted on 01/24/2004 10:08:46 AM PST by TrebleRebel (If you're new to the internet, CLICK HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson