Free Republic

What bothers me about the New York Times article by William Broad and Scott Shane is: Why are they suddenly printing nonsense by conspiracy theorists?

The Times' article is about a paper written by Martin Hugh-Jones of Louisiana State University and two well-known conspiracy theorists, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Stuart Jacobsen.

The Hugh-Jones et al paper was previously published back in June on the BioWeapons Prevention Project's web site. It's been on-line since then HERE. Now it will supposedly be published in The Journal of Bioterrorism and Biodefense, an Internet publication where articles are distributed free to anyone who wants them.

So, the paper is NOT new and the journal is NOT a science journal. Why is it "news" for the New York Times?

The Broad-Shane article should have been in the Times' humor page (if they have a humor page) showing how there's no amount of evidence that can ever change the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"The three Postal Inspectors who interviewed me here in Indiana told me that they knew it went through Ames, Iowa before it went to Ft. Detrick.

Were they lying to me?"

I don't know. I would be only guessing. They could have been telling you what you wanted to hear in order to keep you talking. They could have been fishing for information about something else entirely. They could have been unaware of the actual source of the Ames strain and that it was never in Ames, Iowa. Or, you could have misinterpreted what they told you.

The question is: Why did they talk to you in the first place? The answer seems to be: (1) They wanted to find out what you knew about the people you mentioned, or (2) they wanted to figure out if you were dangerous, or (3) they were just following up on all possible leads and had no way of knowing whether you actually had something of value or not.

There is NO DOUBT that the Ames strain went directly from Texas to USAMRIID and never went to Iowa. We know who shipped it, we know where he shipped it, we know why he shipped it, we know who received it, and we know how the label was misinterpreted and gave the strain its name. And we have statements from people at Iowa State University and the USDA that they never heard of the "Ames Strain" until the media came around asking about it.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The Ames strain never went anywhere near Ames, Iowa. It got its name as a result of someone misreading the mailing label when it was sent from Texas directly to USAMRIID in Maryland.

And, there should be absolutely no doubt that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters.

Ivins was fascinated with secret codes. He put a hidden message in the anthrax letters he sent to the media.

When he became afraid of getting caught, he was observed throwing away the book and the magazine he had used to develop the coded message in the media letters.

The hidden message in the media letters related to two of Ivins' colleagues, one by name (PAT) and the other by attacking her favorite city (FNY).

Ivins had used similar DNA-based coding in an email sent to a colleague.

The anthrax letters were placed in the mailbox nearest to the Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) office in Princeton, NJ. Ivins had an obsession with the KKG sorority.

Ivins used ZIP Code 08852 on the senate letters. That ZIP Code is for Monmouth Junction, NJ, where Ivins' family on his father's side came from. And, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the KKG sorority was founded.

Ivins' father graduated from Princeton University, which was across the street from where the letters were mailed.

Ivins frequently drove long distances to mail things so they couldn't be traced back to him.

Ivins frequently drove long distances at night without the knowledge of his wife and family.

Ivins drove long distances to burglarize KKG sorority houses, stealing ritual books and coding materials.

Ivins repeatedly harassed KKG member Nancy Haigwood as a result of an obsession that lasted for thirty years. She told the FBI that Ivins was someone likely to have sent the anthrax letters.

Two of Ivins' psychiatrists believed he should never have been allowed to work with anthrax.

Ivins' first psychiatrist (from 1978 to 1979) immediately thought of Bruce Ivins as a possible suspect when she first read about the anthrax attacks.

Ivins' second psychiatrist (from February to May 2000), Dr. David Irwin, diasgnosed Ivins to be "homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions."

In June of 2000, Ivins told his psychiatric counselor that he planned to poison a "young woman" if she lost a soccer game. The counselor called the police, but no one knew who the young woman was.

Ivins had multiple motives for the attacks.

At the time of the mailings, Ivins believed that the Ames strain was used in labs all over the world and was totally untraceable. That's why he used it.

Ivins contracted an infection on his hand around the time of the attacks and failed to report it, although it was required that he report any infections.

The infection on Ivins hand was cured with the antibiotic the CDC recommends for anthrax.

Ivins had no alibi for the times of the mailings.

Ivins couldn't explain the long hours he worked in his BSL-3 lab at night and on weekends at the time the anthrax letters were being prepared.

The anthrax spores used in the attacks were not "weaponized" and could easily have been made by Bruce Ivins.

Ivins suggested to the CDC that Bob Stevens could have contracted inhalation anthrax from various natural sources, even though Ivins knew such sources couldn't give anyone inhalation anthrax.

In an email to a colleague written just days before the anthrax mailings, Ivins used terms similar to what were in the anthrax letters.

One target of the media mailing was The National Enquirer. Ivins wrote about the National Enquirer in emails before the attacks, and he had a stack of Enquirers in his office.

The anthrax letter sent to the National Enquirer used an obsolete address. The stacks of Enquirers in Ivins' office contained that obsolete address.

"Greendale School" was the second line of the return address on the senate letters, and Ivins had just donated money to a cause related to an incident at a Greendale School in Wisconsin.

The Greendale School incident in Wisconsin involved a 4th grader. The first line of the return address on the senate letters was: "4th Grade"

One of the targets of the senate mailing was Senator Daschle, who had been critical of the anthrax vaccine Ivins had helped develop.

Senator Leahy, the other target of the senate mailing, was concerned about the civil rights of Muslims being questioned after 9/11, and this upset Ivins.

On September 22, 2001, before the anthrax letters were found, Ivins joined the American Red Cross and mentioned his expertise in anthrax research (which he'd never mentioned before).

On September 26, 2001, before the anthrax letters were found, Ivins wrote to Mara Linscott, "You should feel good about having received anthrax shots."

Ivins controlled the flask that was the source of the spores used to grow the attack anthrax.

Ivins had all the necessary skills and equipment for making the attack anthrax.

Ivins tried to mislead the investigation by submitting a sample to the FBI from Flask RMR-1029 in February 2002 that was improperly prepared and could not be used as evidence.

The other samples Ivins prepared for the FBI in February 2002 were all properly prepared.

The replacement sample submitted in April of 2002 was apparently not from Flask RMR-1029. He falsified evidence.

In December of 2001, Ivins performed an unauthorized cleaning of areas where he may have left evidence behind. He destroyed evidence.

In April of 2002, Ivins performed a second unauthorized cleaning of areas where there may have been evidence. He again destroyed evidence.

Ivins lied about why he did the unauthorized cleanings. The areas he cleaned didn't match with his explanations.

In attempts to mislead the FBI, Ivins identified many of his colleagues as potential suspects in the case.

Ivins deleted all of his emails from 2001 from his work computer and claimed he didn't know how it happened. (Some of the emails were recovered from other computers.)

Ivins attempted to intimidate potential witnesses in the case.

In later years, Ivins said that, if he sent the anthrax letters, he didn't remember doing it.

Before his suicide, Ivins stated that he planned to murder his co-workers for what they'd done to him and go out in a "blaze of glory."

Ivins committed suicide so he wouldn't have to stand trial and be found guilty.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

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

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

"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

"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

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

"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

"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

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

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

"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

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

...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

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

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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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

" 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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"there was no anthrax letter mailed *to* AMI, but rather, the anthrax arrived at AMI via tainted cash which contaminated outgoing mail."

Then you should be able to explain a few things:

How did the anthrax on the money get to AMI if it was paid to a woman who does NOT work at AMI?

Why wasn't the lady landlord infected?

Why didn't the apartment the 9/11 terrorists rented test positive for anthrax?

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

If it got to AMI via her husband, how do you KNOW it got to AMI that way?

Why did the landlady give all the rent money to her husband? Isn't that a lot of money to carry around?

Why wasn't the husband infected?

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

Why wasn't the area where the husband worked the most infected area in the building?

How does that much anthrax get transported on a few bills of money?

The amount of anthrax in the building would have required that the bills be coated like frosting on a cake. How come no one noticed or mentioned money that was coated with white powder like frosting on a cake?

How come the landlady didn't notice that she was paid with money that was coated with white powder?

Your beliefs make absolutely no sense and are totally unsupported by any facts.

The anthrax letter WAS seen by the person who opened it. She testified that she threw it away. She tested positive for exposure to anthrax. The area around her desk was the most contaminated area in the building. All the facts say that the anthrax letter arrived by mail and was thrown away.

Why doesn't your theory have supporting facts like those?

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. Unfortunately, the ABC letter, the CBS letter and the AMI letter were thrown away and could not be recovered. But we know they existed because the evidence says they existed.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"don't expect rational people to agree with you."

Do any people at all - rational or non-rational - agree with you on your theory?

I've been discussing theories about the anthrax case with hundreds of people over the years, and I've never heard anyone but you claim that the AMI building was contaminated with anthrax on rent money.

Nearly everyone else in the world is divided into two camps: (1) The group that believes the J-Lo letter contained the anthrax. (2) The group that believes a letter to the National Enquirer contained the anthrax.

There is a scientific report in the works that is expected to be published any month now. It will prove conclusively that there was only one source for the anthrax that contaminated the AMI building, and that source was the letter that Stephanie Dailey opened and threw away.

"your thoery doesn't explain why no anthrax letter was sent to the Florida AMI building.

The FACTS say that the anthrax that contaminated the AMI building arrived in a letter that was mailed at the same time as the letters to Brokaw, the NY Post, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

The letters to Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were also thrown away. We don't have those letters, either, but like the AMI letter, we know those letters existed because the FACTS say they existed. A child was infected near Peter Jennings' office, and Dan Rather's assistant was infected.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Southack wrote: "The 9/11 terrorists paid their rent in cash to their AMI landlord for an apartment within miles of the AMI building."

But the 9/11 terrorists didn't have any anthrax. They left no trace of anthrax in the apartment they rented. So, the location of the apartment is totally irrelevant.

"That anthrax easily contaminates cash (such as rent money) is relevant."

No, it is NOT relevant. It is a meaningless fact. Anthrax easily contaminates bikini bathing suits, too. So what?

"That 9/11 terrorist rent money had a non-postal route to the AMI building is relevant."

No, it is NOT relevant. Did the money blow in the wind from the apartment to the AMI building? Do you have evidence of that? Did the landlady take the money to the AMI building and spread it around the entire building? Do you have evidence of that? Why didn't she contract anthrax if she did something like that? Did her husband take the anthrax to work and spread it around? Why didn't he contract anthrax? Do you believe they took the money into the AMI building taped to their clothes, and then they danced around the building? Is that how you believe the building became so contaminated?

The facts say that the anthrax arrived by letter. Stephanie Dailey SAW the letter. She testified that she THREW AWAY the letter. She tested positive for exposure to anthrax, confirming what she said. The area around her desk was the most contaminated area in the building, further confirming what she said. There was a letter.

The fact that the letter was thrown away does NOT provide evidence that there was no letter. It provides evidence that your theory about the money is baseless.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"Once cash is contaminated with anthrax, the first person to roll up the Dollar bill to later snort coke is going to get inhalation anthrax along with their cocaine high."

But, it didn't happen. And the attacks were nearly ten years ago.

All the money that you believe was so covered with anthrax that it was able to thoroughly contaminate a three story building didn't infect the woman who collected the rent, it didn't infect her husband who presumably took it into the AMI building, it didn't infect anyone who handled the money at the bank, and there was no sudden epidemic of inhalation anthrax among coke sniffers.

Your theory makes no sense. It is totally contrary to all known facts, and it is unsupported by any facts.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Southack wrote; "Those are the facts."

Yes, but they are totally irrelevant facts until relevance is proven.

None of your facts shows in any way that the anthrax was on the money. You just believe that to be true.

Your facts relate to the 9/11 terrorists, but they in no way relate to the anthrax attacks except in your imagination.

Example: It's a FACT that Porton Down laboratories in England had the Ames strain. So what? So did other labs. Why is that fact anything more than a meaningless, irrelevant fact?

Example: It's a fact that Texas A&M University had a sample of the Ames strain in 1981. So what? Why is that fact anything more than a meaningless, irrelevant fact?

Facts must be shown to be RELEVANT to the issue before they can be anything but meaningless facts.

Fact: The 9/11 terrorists were all DEAD for a week at the time of the first mailing.

Fact: The 9/11 terrorists were all DEAD for three weeks at the time of the second mailing.

Fact: The timing of the death of Bob Stevens IS consistent with his being exposed to anthrax in a letter from the first mailing.

Fact: The timing of the death of Bob Stevens is NOT consistent with the 9/11 terrorists paying their rent.

Fact: The strain of anthrax that killed Bob Stevens is a strain that was only used by a few labs.

Fact: None of the 9/11 terrorists had access to the "murder weapon" - flask RMR-1029.

Fact: No anthrax was found anywhere the 9/11 terrorists went or stayed.

Fact: Cocaine contaminates cash because people roll up paper money and use it to sniff cocaine.

Fact: No one deliberately sniffs anthrax.

Fact: Stephanie Dailey remembers handling a letter that contained a powder.

Fact: No one remembers handling money that was so contaminated with a powder that it spread all over the building.

Your facts may be facts, but the are not relevant facts. They are meaningless facts.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"Well, you certainly can't show me an anthrax letter at the AMI building."

So, your argument is that no amount of testimony, no amount of evidence can convince you that a letter existed at AMI if it cannot be shown to you personally?

The fact that there was a trail of anthrax spores through the various post offices from Trenton to Boca Raton is just some kind of coincidence?

The fact that Stephanie Dailey remembers opening a powder filled letter is just a coincidence?

The fact that she was responsible for opening letters addressed to the National Enquirer is just a coincidence?

The fact that the letter she opened arrived at the right time to have been mailed with the Brokaw and NY Post letters is just a coincidence?

The fact that she tested positive for exposure to anthrax spores is just a coincidence?

The fact that the area around Stephanie Dailey's desk was the most contaminated area in the AMI building is just a coincidence?

Everything is just a coincidence EXCEPT the fact that one of the 9/11 hijackers rented an apartment from the wife of one of the editors at AMI? That is not a coincidence because it supports your belief?

Is that what you are saying?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"You are smoking Grade C crack."

I can only show you the facts. If you prefer to ignore the facts and just believe what you want to believe, that's up to you.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"Utter rubbish. Ivans didn't even *buy* the NE."

From page 43 of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report:

"Among the recipients of the first set of anthrax letters was the parent company of the National Enquirer, American Media Inc. (AMI), then based in Boca Raton, Fla. The address of the parent company at that time — the address to which the letter was sent — was the former address of the National Enquirer itself, as listed in the back issues that had piled up in Dr. Ivins' office. One copy of the paper was found in the hot suite."

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"Show me the emails or fail."

From page 40 of the FBI Summary Report:

Through the end of the summer and into the fall of 2001, Dr. Ivins was expressing his increasing frustration with this criticism of the work he had been doing. This frustration was only compounded by demands for more information regarding the anthrax vaccine research program, largely from Matsumoto, who had written a critical article in Vanity Fair magazine in May 1999, and who was working on a follow-up book entitled Vaccine A (which was eventually published in 2004). Within days of reading Matsumoto’s Vanity Fair article, Dr. Ivins commented in an e-mail to a former colleague: “[T]hanks for passing these along to me. I wonder when the National Enquirer will come out with its headlines on ‘Guinea Pig Soldiers Get Killer Vaccine.’”

From page 72 of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report:

His therapist thought his symptoms “may be that of a paranoid personality disorder,” he wrote her in July. He also indicated that he would like to serve as a case study for her medical training, and that he did not want to see “PARANOID MAN WORKS WITH DEADLY ANTHRAX” as a headline in the National Enquirer.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"Ivins had no connection to the Florida AMI building attack, so it’s absurd to blame him for the anthrax killings."

1. Ivins talked often about the National Enquirer. He envisioned the Enquirer having a headline about him: Crazy Scientist works with deadly bacteria -- and he envisioned the Enquirer having a headline about his vaccine - Army performs experiments on troops with untested vaccine. (The exact quotes are in his emails.)

2. Ivins had a stack of National Enquirers on his desk. Someone else in the lab bought them, and Ivins saved them.

3. The anthrax letter was sent to the National Enquirer at an obsolete address in Lantana, Florida. It was then forwarded to the AMI building. There was a trail of spores through the post offices showing how it was rerouted.

4. In the stack of Enquirers on Ivins' desk were Enquirers with that obsolete address.

5. Stephanie Dailey recalled opening a letter containing a powder. It was her job to open letters addressed to the Enquirer.

6. Stephanie Dailey tested positive for exposure to anthrax.

7. The area around Dailey's desk was the most contaminated area in the building.

8. The area where the so-called "J-Lo letter" was opened and passed around - on the third floor - was the LEAST contaminated floor in the building.

9. The person who opened the so-called "J-Lo letter" did NOT test positive for exposure to anthrax.

10. There's a scientific report in the works which proves beyond any doubt that the J-Lo letter did not contain anthrax.

The fact that someone at AMI rented an apartment to one of the terrorists means absolutely NOTHING. It's just a meaningless connection. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE showing that the 9/11 terrorists were involved in the anthrax attacks. They were all DEAD at the time of the first mailing, and DEAD FOR THREE WEEKS at the time of the second mailing.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Thanks for the ping.

This is just a re-hash of old theories about "weaponization" that were debunked nearly ten years ago.

It has been shown conclusively that the silicon in the attack spores had nothing to do with "weaponization." The silicon was absorbed into the spore coats when the spores were formed. It was NOT added later as part of some "weaponization" process.

But, there are still some unanswered questions.

1. Investigators don't know exactly what method Bruce Ivins used to create the spores, so they can't reproduce his results exactly.

2. The New York Post powder evidently contained some clumps of material that had a high percentage (10% or so) of silicon. How that high percentage occurred can only be a educated guess.

The educated guess is: The material in the NY Post powder had been centrifuged, and, as a result, loose silicon in the "matrix material" (the slime left behind when the mother germ dissolves and releases the spore) and in the growth media concentrated as a layer in the centrifuge tube. The material was then dried and chopped up or ground up to produce the powder. The silicon layer is the material that tested as being 10% or more silicon.

There's nothing difficult about it. But, since no one can state with certainty that that is the true and only explanation for the silicon concentration, the conspiracy theorists can continue to argue that the silicon concentration is proof of some highly-sophisticated weaponization process that can only be done by some super lab run by some large government.

The conspiracy theories are total nonsense. But how can anyone conclusively prove they're nonsense? And how do you get the conspiracy theorists to accept the proof?

And how do you get reporters to debunk things that are told to them by scientists with perfect credentials?

Reporters need to be able to tell the difference between scientists with beliefs and scientists with facts. The scientist cited in this article had other theories about weaponization that were totally debunked. This is just his latest theory.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The government is not a credible witness IMHO.

So, because you don't like something "the government" once did, and you don't believe what "the government" reported about TWA-800, you will never trust anything "the government" ever says about anything?

There's no chance that the NTSB was correct in their findings about TWA-800??

You don't have to believe what "the government" says about Bruce Ivins and the anthrax attacks. The facts are very clear that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. You can study the facts for yourself. The only people who aren't convinced are people who demand home movies of him making and mailing the anthrax. And, even then, they'll probably assume that the government somehow faked the movies.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

After researching all of the clues published at the time of the attacks, it was my common sense conclusion that Al Qaida was knee deep into those attacks.

It's been nearly TEN YEARS since the attacks. A LOT of new and better information has been published since the time of the attacks. The new and better information clearly shows that Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

I’ve never understood the government’s need to cover up the obvious by accusing innocent disturbed people.

You probably can't understand it because it's preposterous nonsense. Bruce Ivins was diagnosed as "homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions" a year before the anthrax attacks. It was after he told a psychiatrist about his plans to MURDER a young woman who once worked for him.

The facts show there is absolutely NO DOUBT that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I’d be very skeptical of any medical records produced without sworn supporting testimony from the physicians themselves, and of those, only the ones who do not work for the government. And of those, only the ones who are retired and have left everything to their children.

It appears that what you are saying is: You don't care what the facts say, you're going to believe what you want to believe.

That's a very common point of view.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Why did Ivins mail anthrax to a man at the National Inquirer married to the 9/11 terrorist’s landlady?

Stevens wasn't married to any 9/11 terrorist's landlady. Gloria Irish, the wife of Sun editor Michael Irish, had rented an apartment to two of the 9-11 hijackers, Hamza Alghamdi and Marwan al-Shehhi.

Ivins didn't mail the letter to Bob Stevens. He mailed it to the National Enquirer. Bob Stevens never saw the letter. No one knows exactly how Stevens became infected, but his age may have been a critical factor. He was 63 and the other victim at AMI was 73.

AMI employed a lot of people. It really isn't much of a coincidence that one of them had an innocent connection to the terrorists who stayed in Florida for awhile.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The report confirms that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and says he was seeing psychiatrists as far back as 1978, which is before he was hired at USAMRIID.

The report praises the mental health care professionals who called the police on Ivins in 2008, since it was clear that he intended to kill many of his co-workers and go out in a "blaze of glory."

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Two different counselors, two different murder plots - eight years apart.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but the counselor who in June of 2000 listened to Bruce Ivins describe a plan to murder a "young woman" (who was actually his former assistant) was NOT repeat NOT the same counselor (Jean Duley) who in July of 2008 took out a restraining order against Ivins after he told his therapy group that he was planning to murder his co-workers and "go out in a blaze of glory."

Both counselors worked for Comprehensive Counseling Associates, but the counselor from 2000 refused to deal with Ivins any further after she was forced to call the police because of his murder plot involving poison. We don't know her name, we only know what she told the Washington Post.

Jean Duley had only been working with Ivins for about six months in 2008 before he made his threats about killing his co-workers.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I also hope that there will be a commission to study the Amerithrax investigation. It can only help. It can't hurt. And it can only help show that Ivins was the sole culprit.

The GAO will be reviewing the case, too. They have been working on it for some time. They were just waiting for the NAS to finish before they began working on their conclusions.

CIDRAP news has an article titled "Anthrax expert says NRC report supports FBI" which contains these tidbits of information:

The National Research Council's (NRC's) report on the FBI's anthrax investigation amounts to a general endorsement of the agency's scientific approach, even though the NRC found that the purely scientific evidence on the source of the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks was not conclusive, a leading anthrax expert said today.

"I actually have been telling people this is a qualified endorsement of the science in the [FBI] investigation," Paul S. Keim, PhD, a Northern Arizona University microbiologist who helped the FBI investigate the anthrax attacks, told CIDRAP News. ......

Keim said the NRC panel is not saying the FBI was wrong, only that the scientific evidence wasn't as strong as the agency suggested. ....

Keim—who described himself as a friend of Ivins' who was surprised when the probe led to him—noted that some media headlines have said the NRC committee doubts the link to Ivins. "The committee isn't saying that. . . . All the major conclusions that the FBI came to, the committee said, 'Yeah, the evidence is consistent with that.'"

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"I certainly wouldn't be writing any book about how Ivins is the definitive culprit."

You might not, but I certainly would.

In June of 2000, over a year before the anthrax attacks, Ivins planned to murder a former co-worker just because she went back to medical school. He couldn't cope with her leaving his lab.

That's the kind of nut that Ivins was. The anthrax attacks were just part of a long series of criminal acts - including burglaries and harassment of other women he knew.

And he did all of his crimes while working for the government.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"That doesn't mean they shouldn't pay me the REWARD MONEY"

The reward was for "information leading to the arrest and conviction" of the anthrax mailer.

A "clue" is unlikely to fit that requirement unless it's a "smoking gun" clue, like movies of Ivins mailing the letters.

And, technically, since Ivins was never convicted, there can be no reward - even if you had movies of him mailing the letters. But, some lawyer might take your case on a contingency basis.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"the bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins"

Yeah, the FBI said it was "definite" and they should have said it was "nearly definite."

The FBI didn't calculate the ODDS that all four mutations could have spontaneously appeared somewhere else. They just determined that the odds were extremely tiny.

To scientists, that's not good enough. They think like True Believers and Conspiracy theorists: If it isn't an absolute certainty, then anything is possible.

That may be true, but it is of no help in determining what actually happened.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com