Posted on 05/21/2011 12:55:30 PM PDT by Palter
Buried in FBI laboratory reports about the anthrax mail attacks that killed five people in 2001 is data suggesting that a chemical may have been added to try to heighten the powder's potency, a move that some experts say exceeded the expertise of the presumed killer.
The lab data, contained in more than 9,000 pages of files that emerged a year after the Justice Department closed its inquiry and condemned the late Army microbiologist Bruce Ivins as the perpetrator, shows unusual levels of silicon and tin in anthrax powder from two of the five letters.
Those elements are found in compounds that could be used to weaponize the anthrax, enabling the lethal spores to float easily so they could be readily inhaled by the intended victims, scientists say.
The existence of the silicon-tin chemical signature offered investigators the possibility of tracing purchases of the more than 100 such chemical products available before the attacks, which might have produced hard evidence against Ivins or led the agency to the real culprit.
But the FBI lab reports released in late February give no hint that bureau agents tried to find the buyers of additives such as tin-catalyzed silicone polymers.
The apparent failure of the FBI to pursue this avenue of investigation raises the ominous possibility that the killer is still on the loose.
A McClatchy analysis of the records also shows that other key scientific questions were left unresolved and conflicting data wasn't sorted out when the FBI declared Ivins the killer shortly after his July 29, 2008, suicide.
One chemist at a national laboratory told McClatchy that the tin-silicone findings and the contradictory data should prompt a new round of testing on the anthrax powder.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...
She didn't roll up the $20's and use them to snort cocaine.
They didn't keep the anthrax in their apartment.
Money changes hands and moves around buildings rapidly.
He didn't roll up the contamined $20's and snort cocaine through them.
He took a bath in the 6 weeks from exposure to FBI field-testing of the AMI building.
Because he wasn't sucking, snorting, or blowing air across his contaminated money.
Surface tension. Static electricity. Spore capture, and general physics.
Incorrect. The contamination could have been entirely invisible to the naked eye, mostly invisible to the naked, or could have resembled cocaine residue to the naked eye.
Incorrect. I'm simply stating facts. It is a **FACT** that there was no AMI anthrax letter. It is a fact that the 9/11 terrorists rented an apartment from an AMI landlord. It is a **FACT** that anthrax contaminates cash easier than does cocaine. It is a fact that the 9/11 terrorists paid their AMI landlord in cash.
In other words, the facts support theories other than your own.
Incorrect. The person who opened a letter that contained powder (two such letters over weeks were delivered) could not identify the powder...and neither letter left an anthrax trail of spores in the waste baskets, garbage bags, refuse bins, or garbage trucks that serviced the AMI building which means that no anthrax letter was ever thrown away.
Indeed. The NYT Post letter left an anthrax trail through the garbage bag, garbage cans, and into the freight elevator where it was found.
No such garbage trail of anthrax spores was detected at the AMI building, however, which means that no anthrax letter ever existed there.
She didn't roll up the $20's and use them to snort cocaine.
Neither did Bob Stevens, Ernesto Blanco and Stephanie Dailey.
According to your logic, Bob Stevens and Ernesto Blanco must have obtained some of the contaminated money and stuffed it up their noses - or used it to snort cocaine or something else. They were infected, yet the landlady, who you say handled the contaminated money the most, was NOT infected.
Southack, your logic makes no sense. It doesn't agree with the facts.
Money changes hands and moves around buildings rapidly.
Does it? On what planet? The monthly rent must have been hundreds of dollars. What reason would there be for hundreds of dollars to be changing hands and moving around the AMI building? Do you theorize that the AMI building was really a bookmaking establishment?
And why was most of the anthrax contamination found in the mail room and around Stephanie Dailey's desk? If the landlady's husband gave Dailey lots of money, how come only Dailey was exposed to it and not the husband?
Your reasoning makes no sense. It is disproved by the evidence. Your beliefs are total nonsense.
He took a bath in the 6 weeks from exposure to FBI field-testing of the AMI building.
You have not looked at the facts. The testing of people at AMI was started as soon as it was learned that Bob Stevens had inhalation anthrax. Stephanie Dailey and Ernesto Blanco were tested, and they tested positive.
It doesn't make any difference how many baths a person takes, baths aren't going to get rid of spores that are stuck in the hairs deep inside a person's nostrils. That is where testing is done. They stick swabs deep into your nostrils, as far as the swabs will go, and they collect what's there. They do not swab your hands after they've been washed fifty times.
Your logic is based upon an ignorance of the facts. Your logic makes no sense. Your logic is disproved by the evidence.
Incorrect. The contamination could have been entirely invisible to the naked eye, mostly invisible to the naked, or could have resembled cocaine residue to the naked eye.
Cocaine contamination on money would be mostly invisible to the naked eye. That's because most of it is snorted up the addict's nostrils. After snorting, there isn't so much cocaine left on money that it can contaminate an entire building. You would need all the cocaine that was snorted and more to do that. You'd need a PILE of cocaine - about a gram. If a gram of cocaine was left on money, it would be much more cocaine than was snorted.
There was about a gram of powder in the letter sent to the National Enquirer that was opened at AMI. That's almost a teaspoon full. You can't have that much anthrax on money without it looking like powdered sugar all over the money. It would be falling off the money when the terrorists handed it over to the landlord. It would leave a cloud of dust in the air every time it was handled. And, you claim that the contaminated money was first turned over to the landlord, and then she turned some or all of it over to her husband (for some unknown reason) and he then turned some of it over to people at AMI (for some fantasy reason), and the only place contaminated was the AMI building.
Your reasoning is contradicted by the evidence. The facts say the idea that the anthrax got into the AMI building on rent money is totally preposterous.
Incorrect. The person who opened a letter that contained powder (two such letters over weeks were delivered) could not identify the powder...and neither letter left an anthrax trail of spores in the waste baskets, garbage bags, refuse bins, or garbage trucks that serviced the AMI building which means that no anthrax letter was ever thrown away.
Stephanie Dailey SAW the letter. After opening it, she threw it into a waste basket next to her desk.
Stephanie wasn't a scientist, and her desk wasn't a laboratory where she could examine and verify that the powder was anthrax, but all the FACTS say it was anthrax. She tested positive for exposure to anthrax.
There WAS a trail of anthrax supporting what she saw. The area around her desk was the most contaminated area in the building.
People walking past Stephanie's desk helped spread it all over the building. But, the main concentration was around her desk. Trails were left everywhere.
There were no such trails leading away from the landlord's husband's desk.
Your belief is disproved by the evidence. You only have a belief, and you rationalize everything to make it fit your belief.
Indeed. The NYT Post letter left an anthrax trail through the garbage bag, garbage cans, and into the freight elevator where it was found.
Nonsense. There was no anthrax trail to the NY Post letter.
Joanna Huden was diagnosed with cutaneous anthrax. By that time everyone knew that anthrax was being sent through the mails. So, a NY Post employee looked for any letters she might have thrown away. He tracked down where her trash went, and he found the letter in a trash bag on the freight elevator. He tested positive for exposure to anthrax, too.
No such garbage trail of anthrax spores was detected at the AMI building, however, which means that no anthrax letter ever existed there.
There was a trail of anthrax into the building. The van that Ernesto Blanco used to bring mail into the building was contaminated. And the post offices between Princeton and Boca Raton were contaminated.
You fantasize that there was so much anthrax powder on the money that it could not only contaminate the entire AMI building, but it could also have contaminated the OUTGOING mail, and you theorize that is how the post offices between Boca Raton and Princeton go contaminated - by OUTGOING mail. And, by pure coincidence, the only outgoing mail that was contaminated was something going to Princeton, New Jersey via Lantana, Florida? That is beyond preposterous.
And you theorize that there was so little anthrax on the money that no one could see it, yet there was so much that it contaminated an entire building, a van, post offices and several people. Your theory contradicts your own theory.
Your theories are not supported by the evidence. Your theories are contradicted by the evidence. You are just rationalizing to create preposterous scenarios to make the facts fit with your beliefs.
Incorrect. She saw lots of letters, just no anthrax letter because there was no anthrax letter sent to AMI. For example, there was no anthrax contamination of her trash can, no anthrax contamination of garbage bags, and no anthrax contaminiation of the garbage trucks that serviced AMI.
The lack of refuse-contamination is a fact. The fact means that an anthrax letter was never thrown away. Since no anthrax letter was ever found at AMI, another fact, the combination of those two facts means that no anthrax letter was ever sent to AMI.
The combination of those 3 facts above means that AMI was contaminated via a non-postal method.
Your theory has an anthrax path in, but no anthrax path out of AMI. You have no way for the anthrax to have left the building undetected.
In contrast, my theory has an anthrax path in to AMI (contaminated 9/11 terrorist rent money), plus a path for the anthrax to have left AMI (the tainted money was handled extensively in the mailroom of AMI, further contaminating outgoing mail).
Only one of our theories explains the evidence in hand. Only one of our theories shows a path in to AMI as well as out of AMI.
C'est la vie.
Incorrect. She saw lots of letters, just no anthrax letter because there was no anthrax letter sent to AMI.
You're using absurd logic. You're saying there was no letter because you do not believe there was a letter.
Stephanie Dailey SAW the letter. She testified that she SAW the letter. She SAW THE POWDER in the letter. She testified that she threw it in the trash basket. She was interviewed by the media about it. The area around her desk was thoroughly contaminated. She tested positive for exposure to anthrax spores. (They FOUND spores in her nostrils.)
Claiming that it wasn't anthrax because she didn't perform tests on it to determine that it was anthrax is ABSURD. She was a secretary in an office, not a microbiologist in a laboratory.
If they didn't find any spores in her waste basket, it would be because she had a plastic bag lining the basket (as is the case in most offices), and the spores that didn't spill onto the carpet went into the plastic bag.
The plastic bag gets picked up by the cleaning crew, and they carried out to the dumpster. Spores inside the plastic bag can't escape into the dumpster or into garbage trucks.
Your "non-postal method" is total nonsense. It took at least a teaspoon of powder to contaminate the building and all the post offices en route to AMI.
Your "non-postal method" cannot explain how that much powder got into the AMI building, the post offices and everywhere else along the way. Your "non-postal method" is preposterous. There doesn't seem to be anyone else in the world who believes such nonsense. It's absurd.
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.