Posted on 05/04/2007 3:18:46 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
Maybe those attorneys Bush fired know something about the Anthrax attacks.
/s
You don't blow holes in the list by showing that I cannot prove that it is impossible for al Qaeda to have sent the anthrax. Even if the FBI had arrested and convicted some American scientist for the crime, you could STILL argue that it's all a mistake and that al Qaeda sent the anthrax.
I cannot prove the negative. I cannot prove your beliefs are impossible. But the FACTS say that al Qaeda did NOT send the anthrax.
Nearly everything you say involves imagined alternative explanations which cannot be disproven. You're just saying that if the FBI did things they way you want them done, they would find proof that you are right. Maybe. But that's not an argument. It's a rationalization for not believing the facts.
9)The targets were THE UNITED STATES SENATE and two AMERICAN senators.
The targets were two Senators who were in the news every day at that time because they were fighting to keep the Patriot Act from trampling Civil Rights. The letters told them "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX. YOU DIE NOW. ARE YOU AFRAID?" The letters were clearly intended to get those two SPECIFIC senators to understand the danger of a biological attack. If it had been an ACTUAL attack, would the terrorists have told them that the powder was anthrax? Anthrax doesn't kill immediately. NO ONE in those senate offices was killed by the attack because they were able to take antibiotics.
So, instead of killing people and generating total TERROR, we're supposed to believe that al Qaeda just wanted to politely WARN those two senators -- or all of the Senate -- that a biological attack was possible?
And you want people to believe that the warning was actually an idle threat, because they didn't have any more anthrax? If they didn't have any more anthrax, why didn't they use what they had more effectively?
7) Operatives may very well have produced the attack ‘thrax here domestically. A very small seed stock would be all that was required to create small batches in an unsophisticated lab set up.
So, why wasn't there another attack? You just dream up possiblities to justify your beliefs, even when the dreamed up possibilities are arguments against other dreamed up possibilities.
12) Virulently lethal bacteria is sent through the mail and you speak of precautions. Would a deluded, but “well-intended” domestic expert send such material in the mail and truly believe that the public at large could be safe?
AT THE TIME, EVERYONE believed that anthrax powder would NOT escape a sealed envelope. Lots of people have 20/20 hindsight now, but AT THE TIME even the CDC didn't think anthrax powder could escape from an envelope. That's why the postal facilities were kept open. ALL the studies were about what happens after such an envelope is OPENED.
Fruitless pretty much sums up the case as far as the FBI is concerned.
That is what you BELIEVE because the FBI isn't explaining everything to you personally. And until they DO tell the world everything they know, you can believe what you want. But the FACTS say that they have a LOT of evidence, just not enough to make a solid case in court.
And why do you and ZacandPook think the FBI would be concerned about pointing the finger at al Qaeda without having SOLID proof? Do you think the FBI is afraid that al Qaeda will sue the FBI for slander?
According to ZacandPook, the FBI's main theory is that al Qaeda did it. He points out how the FBI is searching all over the world for any evidence that al Qaeda is working with or has worked with anthrax. And you are saying that the FBI just isn't looking hard enough, because they haven't found what you believe to be true.
It's pointless to argue with beliefs such as yours. You can always rationalize some way your beliefs can be true, regardless of what the facts say.
Heck, you don’t have to go past the message in the letters to find a connection to Al Qaeda.
The message in the letters was a warning for something that did not happen. You can BELIEVE that the letters were sent by al Qaeda, but the FACTS say they were sent as a warning by someone afraid of that Muslims might initiate a biological attack.
The FIRST attack was with a crude powder and the letters containing medical advice went to the media. When that accomplished nothing, the SECOND attack used a much more sophisticated powder and the letters were sent to two senators who were opposing aspects of the Patriot Act.
All your rationlizing and twisting of the facts doesn't address the KNOWN FACT that the culprit first tried one tactic, and when that didn't work, he tried another tactic. He first tried to panic the media, when that didn't work, he tried to panic two senators fighting the Patriot act.
He sat around for THREE WEEKS between the attacks waiting for something to happen as a result of his first attack.
Maybe it's time for you to hunt for some passage in some al Qaeda manual which you can spin to explain why they sent out TWO WARNINGS, but didn't actually follow up. Why wasn't ONE warning enough? They didn't even send out one warning before crashing those planes into those buildings.
You're saying they were very polite and thoughtful al Qaeda members who followed the rules carefully and sent out a nice warning to the media. But why did they then wait around for THREE WEEKS for a reaction? Why didn't they use the lethal powder they had to launch an attack, instead of sending out A SECOND WARNING?
If a warning is not heeded, isn't it supposed to be followed by an attack? That didn't happen. What happened instead was a SECOND warning. Why?
The answer is clear IF you see that the letters were ONLY intended as warnings of a possible biological attack. Two warnings gets people to PREPARE. Actual terrorists don't work hard to get their enemies to PREPARE for an attack. Terror comes from attacks WITHOUT WARNING.
Ed is mistaken on a point that allthough not key to analysis raises an interesting investigative lead. He writes
“AT THE TIME, EVERYONE believed that anthrax powder would NOT escape a sealed envelope. Lots of people have 20/20 hindsight now, but AT THE TIME even the CDC didn’t think anthrax powder could escape from an envelope. “
In a study he no doubt links at his website that links many useful references, a September 2001 report on the threat of mailed anthrax published prior to the mailings showed that the simulant made at Dugway leaked BEFORE opening. It is true that the CDC did not know. The Canadians say they sent it to the CDC but the CDC says it didn’t read its email because they were busy. So the FBI was very interested in who had seen that report — there were about 18 people who had seen the report in the US government at the time of the mailngs. Did Ken Alibek? Did the former USAMRIID head? Did Steve Hatfill? Anyone who did may have been polygraphed as Ken and Steve were.
Ed asks why the FBI would not come out and just say they suspected US-based supporters of Al Qaeda if that is what they thought. Well, it should be obvious that maintaining confidentiality of a criminal investigation is important to a successful resolution often. (This applies only to those for whom Mueller’s “Think 9/11, Think Oklahoma City” is not sufficiently clear.) Indeed, Director Mueller has expressly answered this question. He said he was not willing to brief Congress because of the fear that suspects would flee, concoct alibis, or intimidate witnesses.
By way of example, if JerzeyJohn worked at a video store and in 2006 he reported being asked to make a DVD copy of a videotape of folks practicing in the Poconos for jihad, the FBI would not say they suspected Central New Jersey residents of planning an attack on Ft. Dix using automatic weapons, because then they might go to the video store and take out Jerzey John.
On the question of leakage from the envelope, which Ed thinks looms large as an issue, note that in a recent post he claimed the Daschle envelope was taped relying on media reports. In his book, Daschle emphatically says that those media reports were wrong — that it was not taped. So although Ed overemphasizes what he thinks are FACTS — complete with capitalization — he in fact is actually often asserting facts that have no reliable factual basis.
The Canadian anthrax study DOES say on page iii:
Envelopes with the open corners not specifically sealed could pose a threat to individuals in the mail handling system.
Another version of the page iii comment is on page 13.
On page 4 it explains that the "open corners" refer to the ends where the flap joins with the envelope and glue is usually omitted during manufacturing so that someone using a knife-like letter opener will have a place to insert the letter opener.
What this study shows is that they did NOT even think about the possibility that the powder would seep THROUGH THE PORES IN THE PAPER as was the situation with the attack powder.
Using the information in the Canadian report, concern about spores leaking out of the corners would still be lessened if the powder were inside letters folded with the "pharmaceutical fold," as the attack letters were. That fold is specifically designed to leave no open corners.
In the Canadian study, they used a standard 8.5x11 size sheet of paper which merely needed to be folded in thirds to fit into the business-size envelope. That meant the powder could easly fall out the "open corners".
The culprit used a small envelope and folded the letters with the "pharmaceutical fold" to avoid the dangers mentioned in the Canadian report. He also deliberately trimmed off edges of the letters so they would fold properly and fit properly into a small envelope. Does that mean he read the report? Who knows? It's certainly very likely a reasonably intelligent person concerned about public health would recognize the dangers without reading the report.
So, you are right that someone knew about the dangers of a powder leaking out of an envelope, but it seems clear that EVERYONE was still unaware of how a powder could leak through the pores in the paper EVEN IF the open corners were taped shut.
Analysis is best organized around a consideration of the Means, Motive, Modus Operandi and Opportunity of the crime.
I. Anthrax and the Vanguards of Conquest
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/
This is a chronologically-ordered summary. There has been a steady accumulation of evidence supporting an AQ theory, as over the months and years, new evidence of AQ’s anthrax capability evolved.
II. Means: Al Qaeda’s Biochem Program Codenamed Yogurt
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#Zabadi
This is based on documentary evidence and interrogations of defendants at the Return of the Albanians trial in 1999 in Cairo. You won’t find any memos written among patriots planning on sending an alarm — just memos between the folks involved in the plan to use weaponized anthrax against US targets in retaliation for the rendering of EIJ leaders.
a. The 1999 Announcement of Zawahiri’s Quest to Weaponize Anthrax
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#1999Announcement
AQ/Ayman has announced its intention — announced its motive. So we can cross “motive” off the list. That’s a no-brainer.
Al Zayat has said it was to retaliate against the rendering of former EIJ leaders.
b. Zawahiri’s April/May 1999 Emails To Al Qaeda’s Military Commander Atef
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#ZawahirisemailstoAtef
Atef was killed in November 2001. Cross him off the list of operatives available to participate in a follow-up attack.
c. “I successfully achieved the targets”: Pakistan Scientist Rauf Ahmad’s Assistance in 1999 and 2000
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#Mid-1999%20Documents
The Pakistan ISI hasn’t cooperated with the FBI on this since early 2003. I named the guy in 2002 along with Sufaat but Ed dismissed the suggestion both when I first pointed them out in 2002 and still today.
d. “You are dead! Bang”: Ayman’s Plan To Use Charities And Universities As Cover
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#PlantoUseCharitiesandUniversities
No flowery language in “You are dead! Bang” among the anthrax planning documents found in Afghanistan at the scene of a brainstorming seminar.
Indeed, no flowery language when Atta came on the intercom and said “WE HAVE SOME PLANES.”
e. Al Qaeda’s 2001 Threat To Use Mailed Anthrax In Connection With Jailed EIJ Leader And Former Bin Laden Farm Manager Mahmoud Mahjoub
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#January2001threat
It was this that prompted the February 2001 PDB to President Bush about the CBRN efforts and the September 2001 report on the threat of mailed anthrax.
The White House knew of the anthrax threat not because of some sinister plot but because they knew there was anthrax planning being done in parallel with the other planned specular attacks.
f. Taliban’s Interest In The Anthrax Vaccine Laboratory
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#TalibanInterestinVaccineLab
The interest of Taliban ministers is especially interesting given the claim by an Afghan governor that a Taliban minister was captured recently with packets of anthrax intended for mailing to government officials. The same guy says the Pakistan ISI is protecting Mullah Omar.
g. Hambali, Anthrax Lab Tech Yazid Sufaat, and Ayman’s Anthrax Bomb Maker
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#HambaliandSufaat
It can’t be that the FBI did not know of Sufaat’s central role until 2003 as the President claims. The FBI didn’t interview him until November 2002 (Malaysia was not cooperating and Mueller needed to press them personally) and then only spent 30 minutes asking questions. But Sufaat’s role was obvious in 2002. Perhaps they just mean that he began to talk more freely once Hambali was talking, Barq and Wahdan (Sufaat’s assistants) were captured in 2003 etc.
h. March 2003 Seizure of Anthrax Production Documents On KSM’s Laptop and Arrest of Bacteriologist Dr. Abdul Qudus Khan
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxc.html#KSMandAbdulQuduusKhan
I guess at some point Ed gave up arguing that AQ did not have the means. So you can cross “means” off the list.
i. 2003 Capture of Hambali and Sufaat’s Assistants, and the Seizure of Extremely Virulent Anthrax
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxb.html#ExtremelyVirulent
j. 2007 Capture of Taliban Spokesman With Anthrax Packets Intended For Mailing To Government Officials
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxb.html#TalibanSpokesmanPacketsofAnthrax
This report has neither been confirmed nor debunked. Fascinating that no reporter doesn’t make it a point to do so.
III. Motive: Reason Senators Leahy and Daschle and the Media Were Targeted
a. The Anthrax Letters: “Written In Language You Can Understand”
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxd.html#Motive
b. Profile of an Angry Man: Ayman
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxd.html#ProfileofAnAngry
Ed’s theory is really no different than BHR’s theory — who he harshly criticizes. He just fills in the detail with someone other than Dr. Hatfill.
but all his arguments against her theory applies equally as to his own theory. A patriot sounding the alarm is simply not a motive to commit murder.
c. FBI: “Think 9/11.” “Think Oklahoma City.”
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxd.html#Profile
Hm... This says it all. How does Ed understand “Think 9/11” to mean “a patriot sound an alarm”?
d. Significance of Mailing Dates: Camp David Accord and Sadat’s Assassination
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxd.html#Mailing%20Dates
AQ doesn’t usually plan attacks based on dates. But Ayman/Vanguards of Conquest (the military wing of the EIJ) do plan their messages around dates and anniversaries. Indeed, Ayman has taken to expressly explaining the anniversary.
e. “Leahy Law” and Appropriations to Military and Security Units
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxd.html#Leahy%20Law
Leahy thinks AQ did it. See quote about plane that invaded Capitol airspace. He wasn’t concerned that some patriot was back sounding another alarm.
f. Zawahiri’s View of the “Lies” of the Secular Media
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxd.html#Secular%20Media
g. “Release Him”: Retaliation for Detention of the Blind Sheikh and Other Detainees
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxd.html#RetaliationforDetention
Most of the terrorist matters have involved folks inspired by the Blind Sheik’s detention.
IV. Modus Operandi: “Pouring Musk on Barren Lands”
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#PouringMuskonBarrenLand
The question of tactics has been the subject of sharp debate within the movement and this fact could be helpful in profilng. The perp would favor the view that felt bound by restrictions on the conduct of warfare.
a. Related 1996 Letter Bombs to DC and New York Papers and Symbolic Targets
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#EarlierWTCBombs
This is highly probative as to modus operandi.
b. Targeted Assassination of Individuals in Symbolic Positions
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#TargetedAssassination
Ed used to argue that this was not Ayman’s modus operandi. He likely has abandoned in the face of the facts showing otherwise.
So we can scratch off this argument as to “modus operandi”
c. Requirement Under Laws of Jihad of Warning Before Using Nonconventional Weapons
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#RequirementofWarning
This is the one Ed simply does not get and he never discusses the merits — such as the book the first EIJ leader is coming out, as noticed in today’s press.
That guy’s lawyer is Al-Zayat, the one who explained in March 1999 (it was March 1999, not 1998, as I said earlier in the thread) who said that Ayman would use anthrax against US targets to retaliation for the rendering of EIJ leaders. And so once again the motive has already been announced in advance.
d. Continuing Practice of Sending Poisonous Letters as Threats
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#ContinuingPractice
One using hydrazine sent during a trial said “Set our brothers free. Bastards.” No flowery Arabic phrasing there, Ed.
e. Use of Code:
Jennifer Lopez Letter and Atta’s Jenny Code
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#JennyCode
TrebleRebel once posted a brilliant picture relating to Ramzi’s code for 9/11 which is even more relevant now (along with his Jenny code) now that Ramzi is said by Tenet to be a CBRN player. Ed says the letters show it was not AQ when actually the letters show exactly the opposite.
“School”
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#GreendaleSchoolCode
Given that “school” was Ayman’s code for EIJ, the anthrax mailer is either EIJ or an intel insider.
“In the Hearts of Green Birds” (Inside Green Birds)
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#HeartsofGreenBirds
Go ahead. Click to see a blown up picture of the stamp. Now that Ramzi, Tenet says, was CBRN, his explanation of the “Green Birds”symbolism is even more significant. You won’t find a big picture of this baby on Ed’s website.
KSM and Clouds (Al-Sahab)
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#KSMandClouds
Oh, did I tell you the first anthrax letter had “clouds” pictured on it and Ayman’s and KSM’s group is called Sahab — meaning “Clouds”?
Allusion to Atta and Genomic Sequencing of the Ames Strain
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#Double-liningofA’sandT’s
Hmmm... any OBL supporter read GENOME TECHNOLOGY like we read NEWSWEEK?
f. Summer 2001 Inquiries About Cropdusters and Helicopters
Given the strict compartmentalization, even someone making inquiries for this purpose would be generally left in the dark.
g. KSM’s Plan to Poison A Reservoir
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#KSM’sReservoirPlot
KSM likely would only target an embassy (for example, with cyanide). He’d go to hell if he poisoned a water supply serving children (and based on his statement before the tribunal he seems to ascribe to that view). So his direction to Majid Khan to research the subject perhaps related to poisoning localized water supplies, such as a supply serving a military base.
h. Poisoned Penpal: The Murder of Chechen Rebel Leader Ibn Khattab
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#IbnKhattab
If senior FBI officials had understood the importance of Ibn Khattab, they would have move forwarded with a FISA warrant of Moussaoui’s computer. Elzahabi came from Ibn Khattab in mid-August 2001. If his laptop had been accessed, perhaps 9/11 would have been avoided.
V. Opportunity: Tracking Potential Al Qaeda or Egyptian Islamic Jihad or Islamic Group Supporters
a. Fall 2001 Greenlight of Biological Attack By US-Based Operatives
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#AQFall2001ClaimReUSBasedBio
This claim of responsibility is fun. It claims that the greenlighted attack will be by operatives with access to US government and intelligence information. It was seized years ago but not released until 2006. Zawahiri discusses a different document at the same West Point website in his new video. You won’t find Ed linking the document on his website because he wants to deny that there was any claim of responsibility.
b. Know Not Just Your Enemy, But Who He Knew
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxay.html#KnowNotJustYourEnemy
One by one, they’ve been arrested.
c. Egyptian Scientist In The Library Researching Contaminants in Drinking Water
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxdu.html#AttaandAlMarabh
Serious secrecy on this issue, folks.
d. Kandahar souvenir: Hijacker Ahmed’s Blackened Leg Lesion
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxdu.html#leglesion
Ed has never mentioned the fact that Ahmed had just come from Kandahar where the extremely virulent anthrax was found.
e. Astonishing Aafia
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaedaanthraxdu.html#AstonishingAafia
An AUSA says Aafia would participate in an anthrax attack if asked.
f. Hoax Letters That May Fly As Real Thing
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxa.html#hoaxletters
Any bad guys in St. Petersburg area at the time? (Answer: Yes, to include Adnan El-Shukrijumah, for whom a BOLO was issued along with Aafia).
g. Access to the Ames Strain
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxa.html#AmesStrain
Of 16 labs in the US known to have Ames, authorities narrowed it genetically to 4 labs.
h. Made in the USA: The Cell Culture
AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT
VI. The Sheiks and the Bioweaponeers
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxa.html#SheikandtheBioweaponeers
That's pure bull. The actual statement in Tom Daschle's book about the tape on the letter is on page 147 and reads as follows:
"Contrary to later media reports, the letter was not heavily taped and didn't appear unusual in any way."
The word "heavily" could change the whole meaning. Was it taped but not heavily taped? Or wasn't it taped at all? Who knows? Taping the open corners would not require "heavy taping." One cannot simply assume it was not taped at all. And claiming that Senator "Daschle emphatically says that those media reports were wrong — that it was not taped." is just twisting the facts to create an argument where no argument exists. Senator Daschle wrote no such thing.
When doing an analysis, one has to look at ALL the facts. Statements from different people are often in conflict.
The reports that the letters WERE taped include an article in the New York Times by William Broad and David Johnson. The article says,
F.B.I. laboratory analysts matched the serrated ends of the strips of cellophane tape used to seal the anthrax letters. That meant that whoever sealed the letters, without leaving any fingerprints, tore off successive strips of tape from the same roll, officials said.
Do you really think Broad and Johnson just made that up? For what purpose?
Do you believe that Senator Daschle carefully examined the anthrax letter to look for indications that it had been carefully taped? It was opened by someone who worked for him. And she immediately sounded the alarm.
Marilyn Thompson, in her book "The Killer Strain" says on page 109: "Daschle was out of the office at the time."
Do you believe that Senator Daschle returned to his office after the alarm had been sounded and personally examined the envelope? Or is it possible he merely saw the envelope once it had been placed into a plastic bag? Would plastic tape be clearly visible inside a plastic bag?
Thompson says specifically on page 167 that the Leahy letter was taped shut:
"They opened the bag and sorted through it, letter by letter, until one agent came across an envelope that, like the one addressed to Daschle, bore a telltale childish handwriting and was taped shut".
I sent in a Freedom of Information Act request to try to get a look at the backs of the envelopes, but the request was refused.
So, were the letters taped or not? Maybe just the media letters were taped. We don't have any solid information, but we do have testimony that the letter sent to Senator Daschle was not "heavily" taped. So, what does that prove? What does that MEAN?
It certainly means that what Senator Daschle said does NOT negate what Broad and Johnson wrote or what Marilyn Thompson wrote. The culprit evidently DID tape at least SOME of the letters shut. The facts say so.
Zawahiri’s Sahab productions has issued a video every 3.6 days in 2007. In this week’s hour-long video, Ayman reiterates the importance to Islam of the U.S.-imprisoned, Egyptian cleric Sheikh Umar Abd al-Rahman, “for whose torture the Americans shall pay dearly, with Allah’s permission and help.”
The difficulty with this logic is that Sheik Abdel-Rahman has not been tortured.
Instead, his assistant Sattar admitted that the claim that his insulin was being withheld was a lie intended to generate sympathy. The worst other allegation that has been raised is that authorities don’t cut his fingernails as often as he’d like. Can’t he just tear them like the rest of us do?
His communications were restricted because when he voiced non-support for the cease-fire, 58 tourists were killed at Luxor in his name. Similarly, the Cole bombing, the sheik was told, was done as part of an attempt to negotiate his release.
Whenever you cannot address the facts because they show you to be wrong, instead of posting babble that is not relevant to the anthrax case, why not just post this chant:
"Mmmmmmmmmm I do not hear nonbelievers mmmmmmmmmmmmmm I alone know the truth mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm The only important facts are facts which support the truth as I see it mmmmmmmmmmmm Facts which do not support me are the concoctions of the Devil mmmmmmmmmmmmm The Devil cannot lead me astray mmmmmmmmmmmm My beliefs are the only beliefs of value"
Just copy and paste. You'll save a lot of time that way. And it will clarify your position to everyone.
The FBI suspects Ayman Zawahiri.
Thais retaliation motive figures centrally to his motive.
Such references in his videos likely will be mentioned in the indictment as the issue has been mentioned in other indictments and affidavits, such as involving the Detroit and Buffalo defendants.
Whereas, on the subject of motive, I called and spoke at length to the fellow you suspect and it turned out you were totally wrong even to think he was politically conservative, a patriot, or even someone who had any concern at all about “sounding an alarm.” He didn’t even know anthrax was a bacteria rather than a virus until he read it in the newspapers.
While the FBI suspects Ayman Zawahiri, and it has been 6 years, they closed the case on your fellow over a half decade ago. And it was announced on the national press. Did you miss the report?
You have no idea who I think sent the anthrax letters. You just use this argument to confuse the issue because you have no REAL argument. I've NEVER said the person you are talking about was the anthrax mailer, and you know it.
I've been saying for over 5 years that the anthrax mailer lives and works in Central New Jersey. The person you are talking about lives in Wisconsin.
The guy you called and talked with was suspected by the FBI as being the anthrax mailer, and the FBI may even have been planning to arrest him shortly before Christmas of 2001 before changing their minds for some unknown reason -- possibly because he had a perfect alibi for the time of the first mailing.
So, he's innocent. All Americans are innocent until proven guilty. Or haven't you heard?
And, no doubt because you called him and talked with him that is absolute proof in your mind that he is totally innocent. In my mind, the fact that you called him and talked with him is only proof that you will interfere with the anthrax investigation if your beliefs demand it.
Sure I do Ed.
I think your theory is a fine one. As is BHR’s. It’s just that at least one FBI squad was actively pursuing the Hatfill hypothesis until late 2003. Whereas your theory was discarded in Fall 2001.
On or about December 20, 2001 our mutual friend sent you an ABC article about a fellow who was drunk while mowing and got in an argument with a neighbor. He had worked at Battelle. He was let go. His mom was worried and so she called the police. He drunkenly told the officer that he had an anthrax delivery system in the basement. (He was an ordnance specialist, not a microbiologist). That all happened in the Fall but Brian Ross sensationally reported it on about December 20 and you thought it was hot news. But by then the FBI had already ruled him out. It didn’t slow you a bit. You developed a profile that even suggested that the anthrax perp had a drinking problem — I told you should delete that aspect because it was silly. (see Wayback Machine). Then, when it was pointed out that the guy was not a microbiologist, you invented an imaginary friend in New Jersey. Your profile based on the guy initially involved only the one guy but then you changed it so that there were two. Necessity is the mother of invention.
You have always framed your argument and established your profile based on a report that was debunked by the FBI the very next day after Brian Ross’ story. So specifically, while knowing nothing about this guy whatsoever, you imagined his politics, his motive, mistakenly thought he had access to anthrax, and then later invented an imaginary friend in NJ that you needed him to have. Why don’t you share your profile (see wayback machine) when you still listed the guy as likely being someone who mowed while drunk. And when it was just based on him without a confederate.
Yes, it is true you’ve never named him — in fact, only the Florida paper actually named him. But BHR didn’t name Hatfill either. But he could have been entirely eliminated from consideration if you had actually learned his politics instead of assuming that he was a conservative and a patriot who wanted to sound an alarm. There was no basis for the suggestion.
Clever evasion on the “mailer” — you revised your initial profile that included a drinking problem to posit two people. You posit that this guy had access to Ames (even though he had no such access) and a confederate from Central NJ who likely worked in at a pharma company. He in fact does not know anyone from Central NJ, let alone a pharma company in NJ. If you had interviewed him, you could have learned his politics instead of assuming he was a conservative. You are mistaken as to what the FBI suspected. By December the file was long since closed. Brian Ross was just slow to get the news. (Just as ABC was slow to accept Ari F.’s adamant insistence that it was silica and not bentonite that was detected.)
My point is that he was not politically conservative as you merely assumed. You need to deal with facts, not assumptions. You could have found this all out if you had taken him out and gotten him drunk like I did.
People who didn’t watch as you created a profile that involved heavy drinking — fitting your profile to fit the facts as you read them in a newspaper report — won’t have the insight as to what motivates your failure to address an Al Qaeda theory with the same analytical rigor demonstrated by the FBI.
You write brilliantly about cognitive rigidity and then demonstrate it more than anyone I know. Your defense of Dr. Hatfill was a true public service — that is, unless it turns out he was guilty and trying to “sound the alarm”.
See how flexible I am, Ed? Dr. Hatfill was a fine candidate for that one squad to focus on.
The FBI first suspected Jdey of being the mailer and then suspected Elzahabi. Didn’t you get the memo?
You can pretend to look at facts, but all you do is demonstrate how you twist, distort and ignore facts to make them fit your beliefs.
The first article I received about the "fellow who was drunk" was an article dated October 4, 2001, from The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. October 4 is the day after Bob Stevens was diagnosed with inhalation anthrax. Even though it wasn't known at that time that anthrax had been sent through the mails, the article establishes an alibi for the fellow for the date the first mailing was postmarked (Sept. 18). He was at home in Wisconsin talking to the police, telling them that he had "an anthrax delivery system" in his basement.
I'm not sure exactly when I received that article, although it was probably in mid-November. I didn't start my web site until November 22, 2001. I wasn't keeping good records back then.
I was also just beginning to collect facts, so I had very little to go on to create a hypothesis. A look at the record of the early days of my web site will show that I was changing my mind about things nearly every day.
The fellow you are talking about was the first "person of interest" mentioned by the media. The article in the Journal-Sentinel was followed by other articles about that "person of interest" two months later in December. The ABC news story which stated that the fellow was being investigated was repeated by Reuters on December 19 with the headline "Anthrax Investigators Focus on Scientist", and then Reuters corrected the story the next day to say "Fired Scientist Not Focus of Anthrax Probe". Then, on December 21, The Columbus Dispatch wrote "Anthrax Probe Story Is Baloney, FBI Says". A month later, in January of 2002, The Miami Herald wrote about him:
FBI sources said Thursday that [the scientist] is not a prime suspect in the anthrax mailings but has not been ruled out.
``We have developed no information that he ever had access to anthrax while he was at Battelle, and there was no anthrax in his home,'' said one FBI official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
``He is one among many we have interviewed as possible suspects,'' said another FBI official.
Then on June 23, 2002, The New York Times was evidently talking about the same person when they wrote:
in one case last fall, investigators said they were convinced they had their culprit. They passed the word of a pending arrest up the chain of command to President Bush, but their hopes were dashed when their quarry proved innocent. "We just can't seem to catch a break," one government official said.
While I realize that most people in this forum believe that the FBI is a band of incompentent ninnies, my feeling is that the FBI must have had something fairly concrete if they were about the tell President Bush of a pending arrest. (And the premature leaks about the "person of interest" could have screwed everything up.)
However, it became very clear to me about the same time as it evidently became clear to the FBI that the fellow you mention almost certainly could NOT be the anthrax mailer. He might possibly have driven 800 miles in secret to Trenton for the first mailing, but I don't think he could have done it again for the second mailing. That just makes no sense. And there was no way he could have made the sophisticated anthrax powder during the three weeks in between, even if he HAD the skills and equipment, which he did NOT have. Plus, the letter copies were reportedly made on a copy machine located in New Jersey. And the water used to grow or purify the spores supposedly came from the northeastern U.S.
You may fantasize that I just invented someone in New Jersey, but your fantasies are NOT FACTS. When, in late December of 2001, I put together all the facts I'd collected, I realized that the picture was very different from what I'd been seeing previously. I contacted the FBI via their web site, and they called me on January 2, 2002. When we talked, they were VERY interested in what I had to say about a scientist who lives and works in Central New Jersey, and it seemed clear to me that that particular scientist was already on their radar. While I had some facts they couldn't have been aware of, it was clear that they had other facts. And later I uncovered additional facts which were of great interest to the FBI and made it clear to me that I was on the right track. My analysis of who did it and why was pretty much defined by then, and all that I've seen since then has just added further proof to the analysis.
That doesn't mean that I KNOW who did it. It just means that the facts I've found make sense. ALL THE PIECES FIT. I don't have to distort or ignore any pieces, the way others do. I could definitely still be wrong, but most likely I'm just wrong on some minor details, not about the overall picture.
The FACTS say the anthrax mailer is a scientist who lives and works in Central New Jersey. The FACTS say that the guy you keep mentioning could NOT be the anthrax mailer - even though the FBI and I may have thought so for some brief period of time. As more facts were found, they showed those early beliefs to be wrong.
Just as you show yourself to be willing to interfere with the FBI's investigation by talking with this person in Wisconsin, you also show yourself to be totally irresponsible when you claim that I believe the fellow in Wisconsin is the anthrax mailer when I've stated countless times that that is NOT TRUE and I give solid reasons why IT COULD NOT BE TRUE.
You can believe whatever nonsense you want to believe, but you shouldn't make up stories about what I believe just because you cannot convert me to your beliefs.
Thank you for the fascinating detail.
Now reviewing the anthraxinvestigation webpage and tracing the earlier versions, you explain that a key factual premise of your profile, besides the tape, is your understanding at the time that Senator Leahy has almost nothing to do with foreign policy.
You write: “Why would they pick Senator Patrick Leahy who has almost nothing to do with foreign policy?”
Senator Leahy, in contrast, writes on his webpage:
“As current Chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for the last decade, I have been deeply involved in U.S. foreign policy and foreign aid programs.
***
Among the foreign policy/foreign aid initiatives I am proudest of are the *** “Leahy Law,” which prohibits U.S. aid to foreign military and police forces that violate human rights” (This was waived in September 2001 and there were “extraordinary circumstances” permitting continued appropriations in the case of any country cooperating in the GWOT.)
Indeed, he has the key position related to continued appropriations to Egypt and Israel. This is the main gripe that the head of Al Qaeda’s anthrax weaponization program, Ayman Zawahiri. See his dozens of videos.
Although the details can best be viewed at the wonderful Wayback Machine at archive.org, you say you suspect that the supplier is divorced and that his kid wrote the letters. Oh, and that he likely watches Bill O’Reilly and has a newsletter. Do you think he also might be a Freeper?
Then as to the Wisconsin fellow, in this version below you mention the drinking.
Doesn’t it turns criminal profiling on its head to fit the profile to the persons you suspect? In later webpage posts, as I recall, you say it is pretty much a certainty that a child wrote the lettering. (Common sense, on the other hand, is that it is easy to disguise one’s handwriting using black lettering, especially if you hold the pen differently than you usually do),
How does your theory differ from BHR’s?
http://web.archive.org/web/20030408175529/http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/#theories
Profile of the anthrax supplier:
1. The supplier probably took the Ames anthrax from a government facility.
2. The supplier was probably fired from that facility.
3. The supplier is probably considered an unstable personality, perhaps even a “drunk”.
4. The supplier is almost certainly unmarried.
5. The supplier is a loner with few friends - if any.
6. The supplier is disgruntled and uncomfortable working with others.
7. The supplier probably uses phrases like “I keep telling them, but they don’t listen.”
8. The supplier doesn’t care much about “rules”.
9. The supplier believes that a free exchange of information is key to advancements in science.
10. The supplier may have had knowledge needed by the refiner/mailer.
11. The supplier is probably in his late 40s or early 50s.
12. The supplier probably lost his security clearance as a result of his actions.
Turning now to this other person you suspect of being the refiner/mailer, you say:
****
9. The refiner/mailer probably watches Bill OReilly on the Fox News Channel.
***
12. The refiner/mailer may have some connection to the publication of a newsletter that expresses his beliefs.
***
15. The refiner/mailer may be divorced.
16. The refiner/mailer may have a small child and visitation rights with the child.
17. The refiner/mailer may have used his child to address the envelopes and to write the letters.
***
You have zero reason to think Person A knows Person B. You just latched on to Person A because you needed to have Person B to have access to Ames. BHR at least started out with someone who had worked at a lab with Ames.
LOL. You just reminded me of how back a couple of years ago, some punk troll decided that I was the same person as "The Great Satan" and accused me of being the anthrax murderer.
I got him banned a couple of times, and haven't seen him around lately.
I have ZERO FACTS to show that Person A knows Person B. I have plenty of reasons. But that doesn't mean it is or isn't true. The lack of a proven connection could explain why the FBI is having such a hard time creating a case to take to court. I state that very clearly in my book.
And you are totally WRONG in believing I "latched on to Person A" for any reason other than that I had SIGNIFICANT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE which pointed to him as having means, motive AND opportunity to be the anthrax refiner/mailer. However, I also have FACTS which show a third person may be involved. For all I know Person B could know Person C. For all I know, Person C could be the anthrax mailer. But the FACTS indicate that Person A is more likely the anthrax refiner/mailer and Person C is just a supporter - possibly after the fact.
If I had ALL the facts, the FBI would also have ALL the facts, and the culprits would be arrested by now.
Making up nonsense about what I know or what I believe just proves that you cannot look at the facts accurately, and you attack anyone who does not believe as you believe.
Yes, I remember that and have the threads in my archives.
As I recall, the identity of "The Great Satan" was eventually determined and named on some other forum, and I can state with certainty that he is NOT the person who I think MIGHT BE the anthrax refiner/mailer.
I don't think the anthrax refiner/mailer is a freeper. Or, if he is, he would just be a lurker, not a poster. This type of forum is not his style. He wouldn't have the necessary patience.
What difference does it make? You seem to think that all theories which do not point to al Qaeda are one big pile of nonsense.
BHR believed that the anthrax mailer (a.k.a. Dr. Steven Hatfill) sent the anthrax letters as part of some vast conspiracy by the Bush administration to wreck the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention.
I believe the anthrax mailer sent the anthrax letters to alert the American people to the danger of a biological attack. His letters show that. He sent TWO sets of warning letters, three weeks apart. His first letters said "THIS IS NEXT", i.e., a biological attack is coming next, "TAKE PENICILIN NOW", i.e, prepare for it by taking or obtaining antibiotics. When his first letters were ignored, he sent the SECOND WARNING to two senators who were fighting the Patriot Act instead of using the Patriot Act to round up every suspicious looking Muslim in New Jersey.
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.