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

Skip to comments.

FBI lab reports on anthrax attacks suggest another miscue
McClatchy Newspapers ^ | 20 May 2011 | Greg Gordon

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 ...


TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: amerithrax; anthrax; bobstevens; bruceivins; ivins; silicone; weaponizedanthrax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-97 last
To: EdLake
" The New York Post letter was also thrown away. It was thrown away UNOPENED. They found it in a garbage bag on a freight elevator." -EdLake

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.

51 posted on 05/27/2011 2:26:42 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Why wasn't the lady landlord infected?" -EdLake

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.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

52 posted on 05/27/2011 7:56:26 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"If it got to AMI via her husband, how did the money in his wallet contaminate the entire AMI building?"

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.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

53 posted on 05/27/2011 8:06:13 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Why didn't the husband even test positive for exposure to anthrax if he infected the entire building?"

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.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

54 posted on 05/27/2011 8:12:46 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"The amount of anthrax in the building would have required that the bills be coated like frosting on a cake."- EdLake

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.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

55 posted on 05/27/2011 8:30:08 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"The anthrax letter WAS seen by the person who opened it." -EdLake

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.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

56 posted on 05/27/2011 8:45:27 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Southack
" The New York Post letter was also thrown away. It was thrown away UNOPENED. They found it in a garbage bag on a freight elevator." -EdLake

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.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

57 posted on 05/27/2011 9:05:12 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"Stephanie Dailey SAW the letter. After opening it, she threw it into a waste basket next to her desk." -EdLake

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.

58 posted on 05/27/2011 10:06:39 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"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." -EdLake

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.

59 posted on 05/27/2011 10:10:32 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Stephanie Dailey SAW the letter. After opening it, she threw it into a waste basket next to her desk." -EdLake

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.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

60 posted on 05/27/2011 1:37:00 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"Only one of our theories explains the evidence in hand."

Only one theory explains the evidence at hand - the theory that the anthrax came via a letter.

The letter was seen. It was opened. The powder was seen. The person who opened the letter had anthrax spores in her nostrils. The area around her desk was thoroughly contaminated. THAT IS EVIDENCE.

There is NO EVIDENCE supporting a "non-postal method" of contaminating the AMI building.

The fact that the 9/11 terrorist paid their rent in cash is evidence of NOTHING.

The fact that the landlord who collected the rent had a husband who worked at AMI is evidence of NOTHING.

The woman who collected the rent probably took it directly to a bank. There's no reason to believe any of it ever went to AMI. You are just imagining that is what happened. Your imagination is proof of NOTHING.

All your "evidence" is just your BELIEF that irrelevant happenings mean something. They mean NOTHING.

Your theory cannot explain how a teaspoonful of anthrax powder can get transported around on money without anyone noticing the powder and without anyone being contaminated by the powder.

You can't even provide any evidence that the money went anywhere near the AMI building. Your theory is 100% fantasy.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

61 posted on 05/27/2011 1:53:13 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"You're using absurd logic. You're saying there was no letter because you do not believe there was a letter." -EdLake

Incorrect. There was no AMI anthrax letter. That's a fact. There is no anthrax letter in the AMI evidence locker. That's a fact.

62 posted on 05/27/2011 3:42:50 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"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." -EdLake

Incorrect. Moreover, you are showing a complete lack of knowledge of anthrax spore sizes. Anthrax spores are so small that they flow freely through plastic garbage bags like mosquitos flying through chain link fences do on a similar, but larger, scale.

63 posted on 05/27/2011 3:45:06 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"Your "non-postal method" cannot explain how that much powder got into the AMI building, the post offices and everywhere else along the way." -EdLake

Incorrect. The 9/11 terrorists paid their rent in cash to their AMI landlord mere miles away with more than 1 piece of contaminated paper money. That explains how the anthrax came in to the AMI building.

Moreover, your theory has no exit path for anthrax leaving AMI. In contrast, the contaminated cash that tainted the AMI mailroom likewise contaminated their outgoing mail, which in turn contaminated multiple postal centers.

64 posted on 05/27/2011 3:49:58 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"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."

Nonsense. Individual spores may be too small to be seen with the naked eye, but it took BILLIONS of spores to contaminate the AMI building. There MUST have been close to a teaspoonful of powder to do that. That is consistent with delivery via a letter and shows that your idea of distribution from "entirely invisible" particles on money is laughably absurd.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

65 posted on 05/28/2011 7:47:25 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Southack
you are showing a complete lack of knowledge of anthrax spore sizes. Anthrax spores are so small that they flow freely through plastic garbage bags like mosquitos flying through chain link fences do on a similar, but larger, scale.

Just more of your total nonsense. There's no way for spores to get through a plastic garbage bag. If a plastic bag can hold water, it can contain spores.

When the letters found, they were put into plastic bags for moving from the scene of the crime to the laboratories, and from one laboratory to another. They are probably inside plastic bags right now.

The idea that spores can get through plastic bags is laughably ridiculous.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

66 posted on 05/28/2011 7:59:09 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"The 9/11 terrorists paid their rent in cash to their AMI landlord mere miles away with more than 1 piece of contaminated paper money. That explains how the anthrax came in to the AMI building."

No, it does NOT. It says NOTHING about how the anthrax got into the AMI building. You ASSUME or BELIEVE that the terrorists had a supply of anthrax. You ASSUME or BELIEVE that the anthrax somehow got onto the money without getting into the apartment. You ASSUME or BELIEVE that the money somehow got transported to the AMI building. You laughable ASSUME or BELIEVE that there was enough "invisible" anthrax on the money to contaminate the entire building, to infect the mail delivery person Ernesto Blanco, and to kill Bob Stevens. You have no evidence that any of that actually did happen.

There is no evidence to support your preposterous assumptions. The evidence shows your assumptions are preposterous.

"the contaminated cash that tainted the AMI mailroom likewise contaminated their outgoing mail, which in turn contaminated multiple postal centers."

That is a laughable rationalization. It assumes that the contaminated OUTGOING mail first went to Lantana and then to Princeton and NOWHERE ELSE. That's is just plain ridiculous.

The FACTS say that the AMI letter was mailed at the same time and place as the Brokaw, NY Post, ABC and CBS letters, and it went first to an obsolete address for the National Enquirer in Lantana, Florida, because Ivins had used that address from the old copies of the Enquirer he kept in his office. The letter was then forwarded to AMI at Boca Raton.

To suggest that the only contaminated outgoing mail from the AMI building first went to Lantana and then to Princeton is just plain preposterous. It's laughably absurd. It makes no sense. It makes even less sense because of your absurd belief that there was not enough anthrax on the money to be seen.

Can't you see why you appear to be the only person in the entire world who believes your absurd theory?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

67 posted on 05/28/2011 8:18:34 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"Just more of your total nonsense. There's no way for spores to get through a plastic garbage bag. If a plastic bag can hold water, it can contain spores." -EdLake

Office workers don't seal water-tight plastic garbage bags of discarded mail.

The sheer act of hand-closing a plastic garbage bag will force out anthrax spores as if blown out onto the garbage pail from a bellows. This in turn contaminated the exterior of the garbage bag. That in turn contaminated each garbage bin that the bag goes in to, and in turn the bag contaminated each garbage truck.

No such garbage pails and garbage trucks servicing AMI were contaminated with anthrax, however, rendering your "oh, we just can't find an anthrax letter because it was thrown away" theory obsolete.

68 posted on 05/28/2011 11:47:20 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"The FACTS say that the AMI letter" -EdLake

There is no AMI anthrax letter in any evidence bin. There is no trace of any potential AMI anthrax letter in any garbage truck that serviced AMI.

Thus, there was no anthrax letter at AMI. Your "anthrax letter" at AMI is a myth, unsupported by physical evidence.

69 posted on 05/28/2011 11:50:27 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"Individual spores may be too small to be seen with the naked eye, but it took BILLIONS of spores to contaminate the AMI building. There MUST have been close to a teaspoonful of powder to do that. That is consistent with delivery via a letter..." -EdLake

No, but it might be consistent with delivery via an envelope. The difference is not subtle. A "letter" goes through postal routes. An "envelope" might simply contain rent money inside it.

Anyway, I'm not claiming that the 9/11 terrorists put contaminated rent money inside an evenlope to give to their AMI landlord. What I am pointing out is that it is plausible for a tenant to put place rent money in an envelope, so if the required amount of anthrax contamination is so large that it demands delivery via envelope, you still can't rule out the rent money theory (well, *you* can rule it out, but that's only because you are wedded to an obsolete, different theory).

70 posted on 05/28/2011 12:02:34 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Your "anthrax letter" at AMI is a myth, unsupported by physical evidence."

You obviously do not understand what "physical evidence" means.

The spores taken from Stephanie Dailey's nostrils ARE physical evidence.

The spores found on the carpet around her desk ARE physical evidence.

The spores found in the post offices between Trenton and Boca Raton ARE physical evidence.

The spores taken from the nostrils of the guy who delivered the mail ARE physical evidence.

The spores taken from the mail van ARE physical evidence.

The spores taken from the mail slots in the mail room ARE physical evidence.

All this physical evidence points to the anthrax coming through the mails and contradicts your ridiculous money theory.

Your ridiculous money theory is unsupported by any physical evidence.

There is NO physical evidence supporting your theory that the 9/11 terrorists had access to anthrax.

There is NO physical evidence supporting your theory that the anthrax was on rent money.

There is NO physical evidence supporting your theory that the landlady's husband took the money to AMI.

There is NO physical evidence supporting your theory that the contamination at AMI had any connection to any money.

You argue that there is no evidence that the anthrax was thrown into the garbage and was disposed of with the garbage. The absence of evidence is NOT EVIDENCE. So, even that part of your absurd theory proves nothing.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

71 posted on 05/28/2011 12:11:02 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Southack
What I am pointing out is that it is plausible for a tenant to put place rent money in an envelope"

What I'm pointing out is that your arguments get more and more absurd with every posting.

You now fantasize or rationalize that there could have been an envelope because it would be ridiculous for all that powder to be on the money itself. Thus, you now argue that the money could have been in an envelope.

You're just making stuff up to explain away the evidence that your theory is absurd.

Question: Why would the money be carried into AMI in an envelope?

Answer: Because you need that to be true in order to explain away the undeniable fact that it couldn't have been on the money itself.

Money in an rent envelope isn't going to contaminate the mailroom. It isn't going to contaminate mail bags. It isn't going to contaminate the mail van. It isn't going to put spores into Stephanie Dailey's nostrils. It isn't going to put spores into Ernesto Blanco's nostrils. It isn't going to contaminate mail sorting slots. And it certainly isn't going to leave a trail from Trenton to Boca Raton (or vice versa).

Your attempts to rationalize ways your theory could still be true - in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is total nonsense - are just getting more and more ridiculous.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

72 posted on 05/28/2011 12:25:51 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"Money in an rent envelope isn't going to contaminate the mailroom. " -EdLake

...because people in the mailroom are banned from having money. Oh wait...

73 posted on 05/28/2011 12:31:12 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Southack
...because people in the mailroom are banned from having money. Oh wait...

Is it your latest rationalization that the landlady's husband took the envelope full of money to the mailroom and passed the money around to the people working there?

And what fantastical reason have you dreamed up for him to do that?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

74 posted on 05/28/2011 12:56:26 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Silly boy. It doesn’t take a “fantastical reason” to have money change hands in the mailroom.

...the same can’t be said for inventing a letter that never existed.


75 posted on 05/28/2011 1:02:30 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Silly boy. It doesn’t take a “fantastical reason” to have money change hands in the mailroom.

Does that mean that you cannot dream up any non-laughable reason why the landlady's husband would be waving money around in the the mailroom and emptying the rent payment envelope on the floor around Stephanie Dailey's desk?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

76 posted on 05/28/2011 2:04:05 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

The cash rent money from the 9/11 terrorists was real. The anthrax “letter” at the AMI building was not.


77 posted on 05/29/2011 2:48:23 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"The cash rent money from the 9/11 terrorists was real. The anthrax “letter” at the AMI building was not."

The cash rent money from the 9/11 terrorists was real, but there is no evidence of any kind that it had anything to do with the anthrax that contaminated the AMI building, that killed Bob Stevens, that infected Ernesto Blanco, and that almost infected Stephanie Dailey.

All the evidence says that the anthrax arrived via a letter that was mailed from Princeton at the same time as the NY Post and Brokaw letters they found, and the ABC and CBS letters, which they didn't find.

Stating beliefs that are contradicted by the evidence does not change what the evidence proves.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

78 posted on 05/29/2011 8:23:37 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"All the evidence says that the anthrax arrived via a letter ..."

Preposterous. There is no AMI anthrax letter in the evidence bin.

79 posted on 05/30/2011 3:38:17 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Southack
There is no AMI anthrax letter in the evidence bin.

There is an abundance of evidence that the letter contaminated the AMI building, and there is testimony that it was thrown away.

There is NO EVIDENCE supporting any rent money theory.

By your reasoning, that money never existed either, since the money isn't in the "evidence bin."

Where is this anthrax contaminated money? If you can't produce it, then by your own reasoning, it never existed.

Testimony that the rent money existed can't be evidence, since you say testimony that the letter existed can't be evidence.

Your own reasoning says you have no evidence.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

80 posted on 05/30/2011 7:06:59 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"There is an abundance of evidence that the letter contaminated the AMI building..."

There is no AMI anthrax letter. Shut up if you can't show the actual letter.

It doesn't exist.

81 posted on 05/30/2011 12:48:35 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Southack
It doesn't exist.

Yesterday doesn't exist, either, but we know it did exist because there is evidence that it existed. And there are over 6 billion witnesses.

The argument that the letter never existed is even more crazy than the argument that the anthrax was on rent money where no one saw the powder, no one knows how the rent money got into the AMI building, and no one can explain how a powder that no one could see on the money could kill one person, infect another, contaminate an entire building, and leave a trail of anthrax through post offices from Trenton to Boca Raton.

Except for you, is there is anyone on this planet who believes your preposterous theory?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

82 posted on 05/31/2011 6:45:23 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

There was never an anthrax letter at AMI.
There is no AMI anthrax letter in any evidence bin today.

You view the above as inconsequential. You are wrong.


83 posted on 05/31/2011 1:25:57 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"There was never an anthrax letter at AMI.

"You view the above as inconsequential. You are wrong."

No, I view your comments about there never being an anthrax letter at AMI as ridiculous. The FACTS clearly say there was such a letter.

Your ridiculous beliefs do not change the facts.

Your ridiculous beliefs just show that you are wrong, and you continue to insist on being wrong no matter what the facts say.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

84 posted on 05/31/2011 2:24:03 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

First, there is and was no AMI anthrax letter.
Second, there was no anthrax spore-trail through garbage bags, trash cans, and garbage trucks.

That means that no one threw an anthrax letter away.

Ergo, the “AMI anthrax letter” theory has no exit path to explain the “missing” letter.


85 posted on 06/01/2011 2:40:27 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"there was no anthrax spore-trail through garbage bags, trash cans, and garbage trucks."

The absence of evidence is NOT EVIDENCE.

What is your evidence that there was "no anthrax spore trail through garbage bags, trash cans and garbage trucks"?

Is it something that you just made up?

The entire building was contaminated. The cleaning crew should have been dumping vacuum cleaner bags containing spores into trash cans and garbage trucks. The areas around copy machines were thoroughly contaminated, so the waste paper from those areas should have gone into trash cans and garbage trucks, too.

What is your evidence that there was no such trail?

And, if you have evidence, how do you explain that there was no trail from cleaning crew, either?

Wouldn't that mean that your argument is that there was no anthrax in the AMI building at all?

And, of course, that would mean that the anthrax couldn't have come from the money, either.

No matter how you look at it, you have no evidence to support your beliefs, because all the evidence says that the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens came in a letter addressed to the National Enquirer that was opened and thrown away by Stephanie Dailey.

Your arguments do not change the facts, they only verify the facts which say that the anthrax came in a letter - because you must ignore the facts in order to make your argument.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

86 posted on 06/01/2011 6:52:44 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

That’s silly. You are now claiming that the FBI botched the anthrax investigation (by contaminating garbage trucks) as your defense of why the FBI didn’t botch the investigation!

Way to go, Ed!


87 posted on 06/01/2011 3:45:16 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Southack,

I asked you for your source in claiming that there was no contamination of the trash and the garbage trucks, and you change the subject to talk about the FBI.

The first people to check the AMI building for spores were from the Florida State Department of Health. The CDC came in next. Then, months later, the FBI with the help of other agencies did a comprehensive check of the building to determine exactly where the spores entered the building and how the spores got spread around. Some details about that analysis are in the process of being published in a scientific journal.

Changing the subject won't alter the fact that you have no evidence to support your beliefs. You ignore the evidence that says you are wrong. And you continue to argue even though you have nothing to support your beliefs.

Can't you see that you are the only person in the entire world who believes that the anthrax that contaminated the AMI building was brought in on rent money?

Who are you trying to convince of your beliefs? Me? The only way you can convince me is to provide SOLID NEW EVIDENCE that all the currently known evidence is somehow misleading. You'd have to provide evidence that not only explains how unseen anthrax on rent money could contaminate and entire building, you'd have to provide evidence showing that it's a BETTER explanation than the letter explanation.

All you have is beliefs. The only people you can convince with beliefs are people who know absolutely nothing about the case and who are willing to trust you to give them guidance. I doubt there are any such people on this planet.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

88 posted on 06/02/2011 6:52:38 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

It’s not about me, Ed. It’s about a botched investigation.

There is no AMI anthrax letter. Other theories besides an anthrax letter are therefor needed. It doesn’t have to be my theory.

My theory simply gives a plausible non-postal route of anthrax attack...something that can’t be done with the FBI’s theory.


89 posted on 06/02/2011 11:01:29 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"My theory simply gives a plausible non-postal route of anthrax attack...something that can’t be done with the FBI’s theory."

Your theory is totally implausible, since it is contradicted by the facts and makes absolutely no sense.

The "FBI's theory" isn't a "theory." It's what the facts say. The facts very clearly say that, based upon the time it arrived at AMI, the AMI letter was mailed at the same time and from the same place as the other media letters; it left a trail of spores through postal facilities between Trenton and Boca Raton; the guy who carried the mail bag with the letter from the Boca Raton post office to the AMI building contracted inhalation anthrax; the woman who opened it remembers the letter and remembers throwing it away; it was her job to open letters addressed to the Enquirer; there were spores in her nostrils from handling the letter; the area around her desk was the most contaminated area in the building, and Bruce Ivins was known to be a reader of The National Enquirer and kept old copies on his desk.

All you have is a belief that is totally unsupported by any facts. That makes it pure speculation, but, if you want to call it a "theory," that's up to you.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

90 posted on 06/02/2011 12:54:13 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

The FBI botched their investigation. Their theory requires an AMI anthrax letter, yet there is no AMI anthrax letter.

Because their theory is flawed, and because you are married to that flawed theory, you are choosing to focus elsewhere, such as on my theory.

But my theory isn’t the end-all/be-all. It’s just one example that uses existing facts. Other theories might do the above even better than mine, and pretty much *any* theory is going to be better than the one that you support relentlessly as though married to it.

Fact #1 is that there is no AMI anthrax letter. It never existed. The FBI certainly doesn’t have it. Neither do you.


91 posted on 06/02/2011 1:46:54 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Fact #1 is that there is no AMI anthrax letter. It never existed."

You just continue to spout absolute nonsense. If something gets thrown away, to you that means it never existed - no matter how much proof there is that it did indeed exist. And witnesses mean nothing.

I throw out garbage all the time, and the garbage man comes and takes it away. By your reasoning, I never threw out any garbage. It no longer exists, and my testimony means nothing. So, what does the garbage man do for a living? Why is he always banging things around outside early on Tuesday mornings?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

92 posted on 06/02/2011 2:08:24 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

If you think that it’s nonsense, then show me the AMI anthrax letter.

You can’t.

It doesn’t exist.


93 posted on 06/02/2011 6:02:56 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Southack
show me the AMI anthrax letter.

You can’t.

It doesn’t exist.

And, therefore, yesterday never existed because I cannot show you today that it still exists.

That's any interesting view of the world. Nothing ever existed if it does not exist today. Evidence means nothing. Testimony means nothing.

Your argument seems to be that your beliefs are the only reality. We are all just figments of your imagination. Your brain is the universe.

Then why are you trying to get me to believe as you believe? What is your purpose in arguing? Why not just change your mind?

Do you think that by just claiming things to be true over and over and over and over, I'll somehow be converted to your beliefs?

That ain't gonna happen. I'm only "converted" by solid facts. You have only beliefs. The facts all say that the anthrax got into the AMI building via a letter that was mailed at the same time and from the same place as the other anthrax letters sent to the media.

Repeating your beliefs over and over won't change the facts.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

94 posted on 06/03/2011 8:24:51 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

The fact is that there is no AMI anthrax letter.


95 posted on 06/04/2011 2:21:38 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The fact is that there is no AMI anthrax letter.

Yes, and the evidence says that is because it was thrown away. But, to you and you alone, it means it never existed.

Clearly, you see your beliefs as the only proof of anything. If you believe it, then it must be true - regardless of what the facts say.

And, you've made it very clear in this thread that there isn't any fact or testimony that can change your mind.

End of story, I guess.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

96 posted on 06/04/2011 8:06:38 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

No, the evidence says that there is no anthrax trail of spores in the garbage cans, trash bins, and garbage trucks that serviced the AMI building.

So no AMI anthrax letter was “thrown away” because no facts support that theory.

And no AMI anthrax letter was found in the AMI building.

So the **FACTS** show that no AMI anthrax letter was there and no AMI anthrax letter was thrown away.

Thus: the conclusion is that there was no AMI anthrax letter because that’s what the *facts* dictate.


97 posted on 06/04/2011 12:55:14 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-97 last

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.

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

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