Skip to comments.Five Years Later, Anthrax Questions Swirl Anew at FBI
Posted on 10/13/2006 3:46:10 PM PDT by Shermy
click here to read article
I would argue the other way around. You don't get weaponized aerosolization via mere happenstance.
Whatever "weaponized" really means ~
It all points back to the terrorist crowd in Boca Raton.
They had a direct connection to the AMI building (the landlord who leased them their apartment). The Boca Raton postal facility was contaminated. They were seen by a doctor and treated for anthrax symptoms. The letters that were recovered were written in a style compatible with English as a 2nd language.
...And Bob Stevens October 5th death points to an attack originating prior to 9/11/2001.
Moreover, the anthrax from the recovered letters was weaponized and had only a single non-anthrax component: silica...whichs points to a professional clean-room lab operation.
So timing, motive, the weapon itself, personal connections, handwriting evidence, geography, processes involved...it all points to the 9/11 attackers as being behind the anthrax attacks.
Remember, it wasn't a uniform mixture ~ different samples had different silica content.
Simply cleaning the bacterial mat of debris and producing spores "weaponizes" anthrax quite nicely.
I don't think sugar sand is entirely composed of silica... most of it is ground up calcium since it's made of coral, not minerals from the mountains like say, the sand in Virginia. You'd need to dissolve it in some acid to remove the calcium and that may still leave other minerals.
If it were just blowing around on a beach there would be pollen too.
Do you recall the Egyptian that died on the cargo ship off the Canadian coast, presumably from a briefcase full of anthrax? It wasn't too long after the anthrax attacks.
I was just wondering if you have a particular NJ scientist in mind....or just speculating in general about that part?
thanks in advance
DECEMBER 9, 2001 : (NEWSWEEK REPORTS THAT RENEGADE RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS HAD BEEN ASSISTING AL QAEDA IN DEVELOPING ANTHRAX AND A SUPPLY OF THE STUFF MAY HAVE BEEN STOCKPILED) The war in Afghanistan has produced a hodgepodge of disturbing intelligence that investigators are still trying to sift and analyze. Perhaps the most alarming evidence gathered so far concerns Al Qaeda efforts to develop biological weapons. According to intelligence sources, U.S. operatives in Afghanistan have collected information that one or more Russian scientists were working inside Afghanistan with Al Qaeda operatives. One well-placed source tells Newsweek that evidence from the scene indicates that the renegade Russians were helping Al Qaeda to develop anthrax, and that spores of the deadly disease may actually have been stockpiled by the terrorist group. While intelligence sources say they believe any such stockpiles were destroyed in U.S. bombing raids, it is not known how much, if any, of the anthrax ever made it out of Afghanistan. And the infamous Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's closest lieutenant and considered the brains behind Al Qaeda, may have been directly involved in the biological program. Al-Zawahiri, may have been hit by U.S. bombs last week, according to unconfirmed British intelligence reports. ------- "A U.S.-Based Al Qaeda 'Sleeper Cell' Was Poised to Launch a Post-Sept. 11 Attack on a Major Washington Target; Would-Be Terrorists Went Underground or Fled U.S. ," Newsweek, December 9, 2001
I can rememer that - I'll see if I can find it
OCTOBER 26, 2001 : (PAKISTANI JOURNALIST CLAIMS THAT PAKISTANI AUTHORITIES HANDED YEMENI MICROBIOLOGIST JAMIL QASIM SAEED MOHAMMED OVER TO THE US- CIA PLANE ALLEGEDLY USED TO TAKE HIM AWAY) The CIA's plane secret began to unravel less than six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
On Oct. 26, 2001, Masood Anwar, a Pakistani journalist with the News in Islamabad, broke a story asserting that Pakistani intelligence officers had handed over to U.S. authorities a Yemeni microbiologist, Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed, who was wanted in connection with the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
The report noted that an aircraft bearing tail number N379P, and parked in a remote area of a little-used terminal at the Karachi airport, had whisked Mohammed away about 2:40 a.m. Oct. 23. The tail number was also obtained by The Post's correspondent in Pakistan but not published.---- "CIA's private jet an open secret in terror war Amateur spyhunters zero in on agency's secret airline," By Dana Priest Updated: 1:43 a.m. ET Dec. 27, 2004 , msnbc/washpo
OCTOBER 25, 2001 : (COLUMBIA : IRA TERRORISTS REPORTEDLY TRIED TO BUY COCAINE; PLANNED TO MIX ANTHRAX WITH COCAINE) On October 25,2001, Univisions Spanish T.V., "Primer Impacto' and in the late nightly international news, it was reported from Colombia that the IRA terrorists arrested this month in Colombia had their headquarters in Cuba and tried to buy 1,500 kilograms of cocaine in order to be mixed with anthrax for further distribution in the U.S. Although the Spanish TV channel interviewed the DEA agent who exposed the operation, the American media censored this important news that brings forward Castros involvement in bio-terrorism. - "CASTRO AND THE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, A CHRONOLOGY," by Eugene Pons with a foreword by Jaime Suchlicki , Institute for Cuban &Cuban-American Studies, Occasional Paper Series, September 2001
9/11 Hijacker sought treatment for red hands (anthrax).
October 11, 2001. Palm Beach Post.
Tabloid Editor rented apartment to two 9/11 hijackers. The tabloid lost a worker to anthrax.
October 15, 2001. Miami Herald.
Hijackers linked to anthrax.
October 15, 2001. St. Petersburg Times.
9/11 Hijackers treated for anthrax.
March 23, 2002. The New York Times.
April 20, 2002. The Weekly Standard.
Hijacker treated for anthrax.
May 9, 2002. The Wall Street Journal.
Atta tried to buy a cropduster.
June 6, 2002. ABC.
Analysis of anthrax letters.
June 19, 2002. Instapundit.
Freeper My Identity research on anthrax letters. Post #44.
The silica used in the anthrax attacks traced to Iraq.
October 28, 2002. The Washington Post.
Freeper polemikos list of links to investigations regarding anthrax.
December 26, 2003.
Evidence Iraq behind anthrax attacks.
January 1, 2004. Accuracy in Media
Saddam behind anthrax attacks and 9/11 attacks.
And as we know, she is associated with this guy:
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 or later : (SATTAR IS TRANSFERRED FROM A JOB THAT INCLUDED PICKING UP MAIL FROM JFK AIRPORT TO A DESK JOB AT A REMOTE BRANCH OFFICE ON STATEN ISLAND) Until 1997, Sattar had government clearance as a paralegal to visit Abdel-Rahman in federal prisons. Even as the government was tapping his phone, Sattar, a 13-year veteran of the U.S. Postal Service, was drawing a $40,000 salary for a job with the main post office on Staten Island that included picking up priority mail from secure areas of John F. Kennedy International Airport. That job ended when he was abruptly transferred to a desk job at a remote branch on Staten Island after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Sattar had the same job at the Staten Island post office that the first postal worker to come down with anthrax had at the Brentwood postal facility in D.C. The D.C. guy transferred mail between Baltimore-Washington International Airport and the Brentwood facility. 9 posted on 05/13/2002 7:37:47 AM PDT by aristeides
I didn't know that about Lynne Stewart.
BTW, congratulations regarding your mention in David Horowitz's book The Shadow Party. You're one of the best researchers on the web and Free Republic.
Post # 216 very important.
really? something else you made up? Your opinion presented as fact?
You know as well as I that the media has been looking for some explanation why AFIP said what they did when Dr. Beecher AND THE FACTS say just the opposite. That's a question that demands an answer. But AFIP isn't talking to the media -- at the moment.
You also know from our off-forum discussions that a representative of AFIP has made some unofficial comments about Beecher's report which do not disagree with Beecher's report.
Dr. Beecher's report indicates that the FBI is looking to clear up public misconceptions about the attack anthrax. Whatever information they release about the anthrax powder will dispute what AFIP said, so eventually AFIP will have to explain their newsletter, and General Parker and others who initially believed the detection of silicon and oxygen indicated that there was silica in the anthrax will have to acknowledge that they were just making assumptions.
Very well stated. Free-floating anthrax spores have been killing people for countless centuries. It was a regular epidemic in wool-sorting mills during the Industrial Revolution. Free-floating anthrax spores killed a guy in Scotland just a few weeks ago.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, dry spores will float about with any need for additives or coatings. In fact, since spores would be lighter if they didn't have anything attached, they'll float best when it's just a single free-floating spore.
An analysis is NOT speculation. Analysis involves examining the FACTS to see what the FACTS indicate.
I know, however, that I probably don't have ALL the facts. But that doesn't mean I'm speculating. It just means I'm working only with the facts I DO have.
The facts I do have point to a specific scientist (or scientists) who lives and works in Central New Jersey. But, because I know I don't have ALL the facts, the facts which I DO have just indicate who MOST LIKELY sent the anthrax letters. I've talked with the FBI, but, since I could be wrong, I'm not about to publicly point the finger at someone who could be totally innocent.
That incident occurred in April of 2003, more than a year and a half after the anthrax attacks. I have many newspaper reports on my web site about that incident, and the article found HERE says that it was finally determined that the Egyptian sailor did NOT die of anthrax.
In reality, that is exactly what I'm doing. Unlike you, however, I do not always assume some ulterior motive by the FBI. The facts indicate that the FBI does not wish to discuss evidence out of fear of harming whatever legal case they can put together.
I've complained for years that all those misconceptions about coatings and additives could be cleared up without making public any critical evidence. But, I can also see that if the FBI releases one statement, it will just generate a thousand questions -- the way Beecher's report did.
Once you start answering questions from a mob of conspiracy theorists, there's no easy way to stop. You're just giving them information they can twist to support their conspiracy theories. And, if they can't twist it, they'll just ignore it and say it's a lie.
NASA was thinking about putting out a pamphlet answering all the questions from conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landings were just some hoax. But they decided against it, because it just gives the conspiracy theorists some credibility when NASA responds to them.
Has the government published any official response to all the conspiracy theories about how the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives planted by the CIA, and how the Pentagon was hit by a missile instead of an aircraft?
Let's look at some FACTS about the first examinations of the Daschle anthrax:
When Tom Geisbert first examined the Daschle anthrax, he was looking at spores which had been soaking in chemicals used by the HazMat team which handled the letter. Geisbert then made sure the spores were dead by dipping them in chemicals before putting them into the Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM). When the spores were in the TEM, he turned up the power to get a close look to see if there were any smallpox viruses mixed with the spores, and he saw some "goop" oozing out of the spores. He thought it was an additive. He took Polaroids of the "goop". He and Peter Jahrling were still thinking the "goop" was an "additive" ten days later when Jahrling briefed the FBI, CIA and others at the White House.
As a result of that White House briefing, someone leaked the story to The New York Times that an "additive" had been found in the Daschle anthrax. The New York Times reporter talked with some scientists about what it meant to have an "additive" in the spores, and the scientists speculated on what it meant. The New York Times story was headlined "Contradicting Some U.S. Officials, 3 Scientists Call Anthrax Powder High-Grade -- Two Experts say the anthrax was altered to produce a more deadly weapon".
It was speculation using false information. As a result of some conference calls, everyone at USAMRIID evidently realized within the next few days that the "goop" was the result of putting "hydrated" spores in the TEM. In a statement to a Congressional Committee on October 31, General Parker from USAMRIID said this:
On the afternoon of 15 October, USAMRIID received samples from the FBI and the Capitol Police, which included letters addressed to Senator Daschle. The initial observation of the material in one of the letters, performed under biosafety level 3 containment conditions, revealed a fine, light tan powder that was easily dispersed into the air. Preliminary laboratory results including polymerase chain reaction and fluorescent antibody stain indicated Bacillus anthracis spores. USAMRIID reported to the FBI on the afternoon of the 15th the preliminary results indicating that the material was anthrax spores. Further, one of our technicians/scientists made a statement that this material grossly had some attributes consistent with weaponized anthrax. On the evening of 15 October, USAMRIID completed the initial battery of confirmatory tests verifying positive results for anthrax. This additional information was relayed to the FBI that evening and was subsequently re-iterated to the FBI and others in an interagency conference call the morning of 16 October. At that time, USAMRIID revisited the term weaponized and decided the terms professionally done and energetic as more appropriate descriptions in lieu of any real familiarity with weaponized materials.
On 16 October, USAMRIID began to examine the samples further via transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Initial TEM analysis was performed on hydrated powder. This study revealed that the material was comprised solely of a high concentration of spores without debris or vegetative forms, suggesting this material was refined or processed.
USAMRIID participated in an interagency conference call on the morning of 17 October, updating participants on the results of the antibiotic susceptibility profile. Statistical analyses for the spore dimensions from the TEM micrographs were begun on the 17th. On the same day, USAMRIID provided the FBI samples of the powder from the Daschle letter to send to another laboratory for analysis of the material. The results from TEM of the hydrated powder were reported to the interagency phone conference by the 18th.
On 17 October, I briefed the full Senate Caucus, Senator Daschles staff and the assembled Senate staff, in addition to participating in a news conference with Senators Daschle and Lott, on preliminary characterization of the sample.
USAMRIID next began investigating the dry powder on 18 October by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). This method revealed particle aggregates of varying sizes comprised solely of spores without a visible binding matrix. The material seen under SEM ranged in size from single spores to aggregates of spores up to 100 microns or more. The spores within the aggregate were uniform in appearance. The aggregates had a propensity to pulverize. We first relayed these observations to our customer, the FBI, on the evening of 19 October. A written progress report was hand-carried to the FBI on 22 October for a discussion of USAMRIID data in comparison with that of other laboratories contributing to the ongoing analysis and investigation. USAMRIIDs data were briefed to the Secretary, HHS, on 23 October, at his request.
They were making ASSUMPTIONS and MISTAKES from the very beginning, and they soon had the problem of correcting their errors without making themselves look incompetent. They initially ASSUMED the spores were "weaponized", but they quickly decided that was NOT the proper term and "professionally done" was more appropriate.
They made the mistake of examining "hydrated" spores in the TEM, and didn't realize that could result in "goop" oozing out of the spores under high-power magnification, which would heat up the interior of the spores. The "additive" they saw was the "additive" THEY put into the spore themselves when they killed them with CHEMICALS instead of killing them with radiation.
And that was just the beginning. They went to AFIP to see what that "goop" was, and AFIP detected silicon and oxygen. More ASSUMPTIONS were made. There were more leaks to the media. The media found more scientists willing to speculate. And the snowball rolled downhill from there.
Correcting mistakes is seen as a cover up of the "facts" by conspiracy theorists if the facts do not support their beliefs. But even competent people do sometimes make mistakes. You have to look at ALL the data to sort out reality from false assumptions.
The spores in the Daschle letter were PURE. No additives. The "additives" reported in the media were initially the result of a MISTAKE, and then from FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. That's what the FACTS say.
You can believe the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS if you want, but believing won't turn FALSE ASSUMPTIONS into facts.
Actually, you just published your list of assumptions. Yet again. Apparently you cannot understand that they are assumptions.
Obviously not, nor should you. I was merely curious if you had somebody specific in mind or if it was more of a theory.
No, it's you who clearly doesn't understand the difference between facts and assumptions. Which of these facts is an assumption, and why do you believe it is an assumption?
FACT #1: When Tom Geisbert first examined the Daschle anthrax, he was looking at spores which had been soaking in chemicals used by the HazMat team which handled the letter.
FACT #2: Geisbert then made sure the spores were dead by dipping them in chemicals before putting them into the Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM).
FACT #3: When the spores were in the TEM, he turned up the power to get a close look to see if there were any smallpox viruses mixed with the spores, and he saw some "goop" oozing out of the spores.
FACT #4: He thought it was an additive.
FACT #5: He took Polaroids of the "goop".
FACT #6: He and Peter Jahrling were still thinking the "goop" was an "additive" ten days later when Jahrling briefed the FBI, CIA and others at the White House.
FACT #7: As a result of that White House briefing, someone leaked the story to The New York Times that an "additive" had been found in the Daschle anthrax.
FACT #8: The New York Times reporter talked with some scientists about what it meant to have an "additive" in the spores, and the scientists speculated on what it meant.
FACT #9: It was speculation using false information.
FACT #10: As a result of some conference calls, everyone at USAMRIID evidently realized within the next few days that the "goop" was the result of putting "hydrated" spores in the TEM.
FACT #11: In a statement to a Congressional Committee on October 31, General Parker from USAMRIID explained how some errors had been made.
FACT #12: General Parker said, "... one of our technicians/scientists made a statement that this material grossly had some attributes consistent with weaponized anthrax.
FACT #13: General Parker said, "USAMRIID revisited the term 'weaponized' and decided the terms 'professionally done' and 'energetic' as more appropriate descriptions in lieu of any real familiarity with weaponized materials."
FACT #14: General Parker said, "On 16 October, USAMRIID began to examine the samples further via transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Initial TEM analysis was performed on hydrated powder.
FACT #15: General Parker said, "This study revealed that the material was comprised solely of a high concentration of spores without debris or vegetative forms
FACT #16: General Parker said, "USAMRIID next began investigating the dry powder on 18 October by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). This method revealed particle aggregates of varying sizes comprised solely of spores without a visible binding matrix. The material seen under SEM ranged in size from single spores to aggregates of spores up to 100 microns or more. The spores within the aggregate were uniform in appearance. The aggregates had a propensity to pulverize.
Do you believe that these FACTS are assumptions just because these FACTS do not agree with your beliefs?
Ah! I see. All the statements and facts which contradict AFIP are just assumptions, and only what AFIP said is gospel.
Or to put it another way: All the statements and facts which contradict your beliefs are just assumptions, and only what you believe is gospel. And what you believe is that only AFIP speaketh the gospel truth.
I guess you simply do not understand that when there are contradictory viewpoints, you have to evaluate ALL the data to see which viewpoint is most likely correct. Instead, you just pick the one which you like best (because it matches your conspiracy theories) and ignore everything else.
Thanks for making that absolutely clear.
The FACTS are that AFIP said silica was used to weaponize the Daschle anthrax. Your ASSUMPTIONS are just ASSUMPTIONS.
Yes, I think everyone understands what you believe: AFIP speaketh the gospel. Everything else is false "assumptions."
The FBI's top scientist said that it is a "misconception" that "the spores were produced using additives" but, in your mind that must be false because it contradicts the gospel in which you believe.
General Parker said the term "weaponized" was not appropriate for the attack anthrax, and that "professionally done" was more appropriate, but that must be false because it contradicts the gospel in which you believe.
General Parker also said that the Daschle powder "was comprised solely of a high concentration of spores without debris or vegetative forms" but that must be false because it contradicts the gospel in which you believe.
Other experts have viewed images of the Daschle anthrax and have stated that it contained no additives that they could see, but that must be false because it contradicts the gospel in which you believe.
Thanks for making your beliefs absolutely clear.
The FACTS are that General Parker said the anthrax contained silica.
Yes, General Parker said that, but that wasn't all he said. Here's what he said IN CONTEXT during that news briefing on October 29, 2001 after ABC News falsely reported that there was bentonite in the Daschle anthrax:
Major General Parker: Good morning. I won't go through what we already know. There seems to be a lot of questions about bentonite. I'm not sure where they're coming from, or their importance. But if you ask what is bentonite, it's a volcanic clay. And one of its principle ingredients is aluminum. And it varies in percentage of aluminum. And we have subjected the New York Post sample and the Daschle sample to very high energy x-ray studies, and I will say to you that we see no aluminum presence in the sample.
And, therefore, if you go back to the definition, MERK Index, the Internet, and geology centers all over this country, we can say that there is no bentonite in the New York Post sample or the Daschle sample.
Question: To follow up, what does that say about the level of sophistication, and obviously connected to that, the level of expertise needed to -- for something like this, if it doesn't have --
Major General Parker: Bentonite is a lubricant. That's all I know about it by reading, just like you read. It's a hydroscopic compound. I don't know what its significance is, and I've been asked to study the samples thoroughly, from A to Z, to know what's in the sample, what's the character of that anthrax, what its family lineage is, and what it's antibiotic sensitivities are. And I feel very strongly that the scientific data that I'm giving to you this morning is all I know.
Question: Does that suggest then that there was no additive, there's been nothing in the spores to make them more -- or nothing added to the spores to make them more easily aerosolized?
[AND HERE'S THE STATEMENT IN CONTEX:]
Major General Parker: Complicated question. We do know that we found silica in the samples. Now, we don't know what that motive would be, or why it would be there, or anything. But there is silica in the samples. And that led us to be absolutely sure that there was no aluminum in the sample, because the combination of a silicate, plus aluminum, is sort of the major ingredients of bentonite.
But the significance is -- I don't know what the significance is.
Question: Is silica negatively charged, do you know?
Major General Parker: I don't know that. It would depend on what form it would be in. I suppose you could do all sorts of things with it.
Question: Sir, is there anything other than bentonite that can make anthrax less inclined to clump together and more able to float freely?
Major General Parker: Not to my knowledge -- and that's very limited, of course. You understand that, I'm not the expert. I hope there are people that could probably answer your question much more articulately.
Question: John, you've told us a bit about what's not in the Daschle anthrax. From your briefing the other day, could you update us on what you do know about the characteristics of this anthrax?
Major General Parker: May I repeat what I said? The Daschle sample is very fine and powdery. It appears that -- and I'm talking gross, looking at the specimen grossly, not under the microscope. The New York Post sample is very granular, by comparison. And when you look at the two samples under the microscope, the Daschle sample is very pure and densely compact with spores. And so is the New York Post sample, but not quite as dense -- I'm talking magnitudes of, you know, times 10 difference, maybe, between the density of the two samples. Both samples are densely populated with anthrax spores.
Question: I just thought in four days, you would have found out something new about it?
Major General Parker: There's not much more to learn about anthrax. You know, the spore, itself, has been around a long, long time. It dates back into biblical times; we know it's not a good organism to have in your body.
Question: Would further tests show whether bentonite was there? Ari earlier suggested there may be other tests would identify it. Does this, what you're doing rule out bentonite, in your opinion?
Major General Parker: Sir, in my opinion, it rules it out. If I can't find aluminum, I can't say it's bentonite.
Question: Will there be other ways to look for the composition of this additive? Are there other ways, aside from high energy x-rays, to go about looking for --
Major General Parker: The scientists are pursuing that, they're discussing it and are trying to characterize this right down to the point where we know everything about these samples. But you have to know that we don't have much sample, and so doing comparison is very, very difficult and people have to think about it before we destroy more sample to maybe run down a wrong road. So there's a lot of discussion about what is needed.
Question: And in that discussion, is there essentially a debate as to whether or not this additive indicates a foreign source, or whether or not this additive indicates a domestic --
Major General Parker: Sir, I'm not aware of a debate. I'm not aware of a debate.
So, IN CONTEXT, General Parker said, "Complicated question. We do know that we found silica in the samples. Now, we don't know what that motive would be, or why it would be there, or anything."
That directly contradicts AFIP, which had somehow divined what the motive was and why it was there.
General Parker indicated that all they really knew was what the EDX graphs showed them: "But there is silica in the samples. And that led us to be absolutely sure that there was no aluminum in the sample, because the combination of a silicate, plus aluminum, is sort of the major ingredients of bentonite."
If AFIP "knew" silica had been put into the anthrax to aerosolize it, and General Parker at USAMRIID did NOT know that, how did AFIP divine their knowledge? AFIP only had the anthrax in their possession for a few hours, while USAMRIID had it for weeks.
But, I imagine such questions are not allowed when only BELIEFS can be considered "the truth". Correct?
Something tells me that in this particular debate, ne'er the twain shall meet. :)
Yes, it's been going on for years, most of it outside of this forum. His belief that AFIP is infallible is absolute. No facts can change his mind. As we've seen, he considers facts to be "assumptions". And only AFIP knows the facts.
A high purity grade of silica, fused silica (which is around 99.4-99.9% SiO2) is produced by carbon arc, plasma arc, gas fired continual extrusion or carbon electrode fusion.
My point is if a lab says it is Silica, bet your bibby on it.
Ed Lake doesn't know and Ed Lake doesn't care. Heck, Ed Lake doesn't even know that Silicon and Oxygen, when seen together, are Silica.
Ed Lake has posts at the beginning of this very thread in which he clearly tries to say that since only silicon and oxygen were found, that Silica was not there...as if silica was something else.
Thus, Ed Lake is an uneducated rube who is pushing his own agenda, facts be hung.
For instance, in one post on this thread he claimed that AFIP was lacking the hardware required for analysis. On another post in this thread, Ed Lake admits that AFIP has the necessary equipment...but he doesn't realize that is what he is admitting because he doesn't know the equipment that he named.
In other posts on this thread Ed Lake fails to understand how our postal system functions. Other errors on his part include failing to comprehend anthrax incubation periods.
On and on Ed Lake goes, spouting whatever he can to make the bone-headed FBI look somewhat competent (in contrast, anyway).
I'm only surprised that someone so completely ignorant yet arrogant has managed to not win himself a Darwin Award quite yet...but no doubt he's got himself in the competition.