Posted on 10/13/2006 3:46:10 PM PDT by Shermy
Dr Beecher provided ZERO evidence to back up his assertion - apart from a reference to a paper on wet preparations creating measureable aerosols.
He failed to cite the study of secondary aerosolization of the spores in the Hart building.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/288/22/2853.pdf
He failed to cite the 1996 Army study that demonstrated spores do NOT easily form secondary aerosols.
Chinn KS. Reaerosolization Hazard Assessment for Biological Agent Contaminated Hardstand Areas. Dugway Proving Ground, Utah: US Dept of the Army; 1996.
But, hey, he works in the FBI labs, so he MUST be right, even altough he didn't provide a shred of data.
Look at what his illustrious co-workers have achieved:
http://www.amazon.com/Tainting-Evidence-Inside-Scandals-Crime/dp/0743236416
Two crusading journalists investigate the FBI's forensic crime lab and deliver a strong indictment against what goes on there. Federal agents regularly dupe the public into accepting "scientific" findings that aren't based upon science at all, they charge, and the lab is infected with a troubling culture where truth plays second fiddle to prosecutorial interests, with information potentially useful to defendants withheld. The book's hero is FBI-scientist-turned-whistle-blower Frederic Whitehurst, and most of the chapters focus on the crime lab's controversial role in high-profile cases involving O.J. Simpson, the World Trade Center bombing, the Unabomber, and others. The authors at times appear to have a pro-prosecution bias of their own, but their conclusions shouldn't be ignored. They probably won't be; as one attorney tells the authors, "No defense lawyer in the country is going to take what the FBI lab says at face value anymore."
Actually, it is your belief that AFIP is infallable that "borders on religious fanaticism." You simply ignore or ridicule anything which does not support your beliefs.
There are signs that AFIP might soon be forced to explain why they wrote what they wrote. If and when it happens, it could be interesting.
But, I assume that if they say it was just an assumption, you'll argue that they were forced to say that by all those people involved in the grand conspiracy in which you so fanatically believe.
I'm done for today. Signing off.
Ed
There are signs that AFIP might soon be forced to explain why they wrote what they wrote.
really? something else you made up? Your opinion presented as fact?
Please note that the ONLY other periodical they attacked was the Post, and it's a tabloid just like the AMI publications.
Throughout the world the premier publications in virtually every non Western country are TABLOID format.
These guys did the same thing you're doing ~ judging the situation in terms of your own experience.
BTW, I spent several years working on a degree in Middle Eastern studies, and I personally know more Moslems than you've ever seen, even in a large mob.
The weather the day I suggest they used to fill the envelopes had a steady 12 MPH breeze. That was enough to blow loose silica particles into their envelope loading operation, particularly if they used Sugar Sand Park or another park similarly dressed. BTW, that one is advertised as ALCOHOL FREE.
Southie, silica can just blow in if there's lots of finely ground loose silica around. The fact that silica was found can be used to suggest something much more useful like where the envelopes were filled.
He has pretty good credentials for saying that.
True, if silica was the only mitigating factor. However, the anthrax attacks were revealed to aerosolize readily, which indicates professional mixxing, preparation, etc., rather than just random contamination (which would give you some significant percentage of anthrax spore clumps).
It would also be rare for contamination to be only one compound (e.g. silica). You'd expect contamination to celebrate a bit more diversity (e.g. pollen, human skin, dirt, and other common non-clean-room substances that are ubiquitous).
So there are *multiple* factors that evidence professional weaponization of the anthrax in a clean room, followed by reasonably clean packaging of the anthrax into the letters.
You don't need good credentials to say that...because it can be easily tested.
But what you have to ask yourself is why the FBI hasn't published the results of such a test.
That facility in New Jersey is very modern and had the best stuff.
That's fine, but it should be *tested* to see if pure anthrax spores, with silica contamination dumped on top, suddenly aerosolize readily after going through mail processing.
My own opinion is that weaponization of anthrax takes a bit more thorough mixing (at an entirely different molecular level) than that, but why guess when we could test and KNOW?!
Also, keep in mind that it is highly unusual for contamination to be from only one compound/element. Your clothes will have more than one natural element on them after a day of wear outside, after all.
After the anthrax attack they retrofited to use vacuum systems. Most of the aerosolization occurred when anthrax contamination on surfaces was hit with blasts of air at high pressure.
You would not believe......
BTW, I strongly suspect Ken had, in fact, "tested" everything you mention. But that was back, that was back, that was back in the USSR.
There may be some confusion over terms. "Aerosolization" in terms of WMDs is not about just blowing spores with compressed air.
You can blow pure anthrax with compressed air and you'll still be seeing large clumps of spores moving around.
Moreover, the Senate anthrax letters weren't being blown with compressed air when opened, yet their anthrax samples readily aerosolized.
There's no reason to "suspect" or guess. This is a claim that can be verified true or false with a readily repeatable test.
Without such a test being made public, there is no reason to believe it, however. It's just too easy to test to see if true or not. I question any such claim that isn't backed by such a simple, public test.
How big do you want your "clumps" to be? 1 spore, 2 spores, 3 maybe?
The opening unit at the Senate office building uses a high degree of negative pressure so that any contaminant is sucked away from the people opening the mail. This operation has been relocated to a different building with much more elaborate equipment. I would not be surprised to find them equipped with ultraviolet sanitizers.
Yes, that's all true but it doesn't change the fact that the mailed anthrax was prepared so as to aerosolize readily.
Let's put it this way ~ the anthrax appears to aerosolize readily ~ that does not necessary demonstrate the preparer's intent or capability.
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.