Sunday, May 26, 2013

Subject: Facts vs Evidence

"DXer" on Lew Weinstein's web site, who posts here as "Anonymous," seems to believe he has more and better evidence that an Islamist militant named Adnan El Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer, versus what the FBI has presented proving that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

Examples of "DXer's" so-called "evidence":

1. The J-Lo letter (which the facts say didn't contain anthrax and had nothing to do with the anthrax mailing) was reportedly written on stationery decorated with blue clouds. And there's a militant Islamist organization called "Al-Sahab" or "The Clouds."

2. The anthrax letters were mailed in pre-stamped Post Office envelopes. The stamp on those envelopes was an American Eagle design. The eagle is blue or blue-green in color. And, according to "DXer," "It was widely published among the militant Islamists that martyrs go to paradise “in the hearts of green birds."

3. The return address on the anthrax letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy was:
According to "DXer," the use of the word "green" refers to the "green birds" in which Islamist militants go to heaven, and "school" is a code word meaning "Islamist militants."

4. According to "DXer," 4th grade is American slang for "sergeant," which is also the rank of a militant Islamist commander.

5. "Dxer" claims that his lead suspect, El-Shukrijumah, worshiped in a mosque in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, that across the street from a park called "Franklin Park." (In reality, however, he seems to have worshiped in a mosque over 13 miles from Franklin Park.

6. According to most Truthers who believe al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks, the FBI found an al Qaeda "anthrax lab" near Kandahar, Afghanistan. In reality, the FBI found no anthrax of any kind in that lab. They just found three pieces of DNA which evidently resulted in "false positives." The FBI went back, dismantled the lab and performed 1,254 more tests, all of which were NEGATIVE for anthrax.

The above is what "DXer" calls "evidence" and what he believes is better "evidence" than the fact that Ivins controlled the murder weapon, the fact that Ivins was observed throwing away the code books used to encode the hidden message in the first anthrax letters, and that he had motive, he had connections to the crime scene, he attempted to destroy evidence, he tried to intimidate witnesses, etc., etc., etc., etc.

If I've missed any other "evidence" that "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") wishes to explain, I'm ready to discuss such "evidence."



  1. This morning, "Anonymous" using his real name, sent me an email with this as the subject:

    "throughout the investigation, your argument related to this unidentified associate -- Adnan El-Shukrijumah -- that only you did not know about apparently"

    And this text:

    "For a decade, you argued the hijackers were dead and the FBI was not talking about anyone accomplice. Given the hijackers were dead, you argued Al Qaeda therefore was not responsible.

    The FBI of course has engaged in massive publicity about Adnan El-Shukrijumah and his connection to Atta. Your entire argument was specious."

    He then copied and pasted in a lot of what I wrote in 2004 on my web page "Other Theories about the Anthrax Mailings."

    In reality, of course, I argued that al Qaeda was probably not responsible because the FBI had determined that use of the Ames strain was largely restricted to US military laboratories and there didn't seem any reason for al Qaeda to use the Ames strain, which had never been used in any bioweapon and wasn't well-suited to use in bioweapons, since just about any antibiotic can kill it.

    My "Other Theories" web page also says this:

    "No one is saying in any way that the al Qaeda wasn't looking into obtaining anthrax for possible use in terrorist attacks against the United States. They almost certainly were - and are. All that is being said on this web site is that the evidence indicates that the anthrax mail attacks of September and October 2002 were almost certainly NOT perpetrated by al Qaeda. The evidence indicates it was someone else - most likely an American scientist with an overwhelming compulsion to awaken America to the threat of bioterrorism, which he certainly accomplished - while killing 5 people in the process."

    It appears that "Anonymous" is just looking for new arguments, since he cannot provide any real evidence that al Qaeda or other Islamist militants were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001.

    The FACTS say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

    The facts which "Anonymous" uses to argue that Islamist militants were behind the attacks are a hodgepodge of unrelated facts which no one who understands evidence would see as "evidence" of anything - other than evidence that someone is trying very hard to make connections where there are no connections.

    For over a decade, "Anonymous" has been researching al Qaeda to try to connect them to the anthrax attacks of 2001. So, he knows a lot of details about El-Shukrijumah and other Islamist militants.

    I've been researching the anthrax attacks of 2001, which the facts say did NOT involve al Qaeda or Islamist militants.

    So, I am more knowledgeable about the evidence against Bruce Ivins, and "Anonymous" is more knowledgeable about Islamist militants.

    Totally different subjects.

    If "Anonymous" believes Islamist militants were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, he needs to start producing evidence. Complaining that I don't know as much as he does about specific Islamist militants has nothing to do with evidence. It's just a way of AVOIDING discussing evidence.


  2. This morning, "Anonymous" (using his real name) sent me an email in response to the comment I had just written for my web site. The subject of the email was "to the contrary, Ed," and the entire email reads as follows:

    "The reason I think Adnan El-Shukrijumah is the mailer is because he had just meet with Al Qaeda anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat and KSM to discuss the operation. Adnan then called his mom on or about 9/11 or 9/13 and told her he was coming to the US -- over her protests that he would be arrested. He had previously spent a week in DC, NYC and Montreal earlier that year (on KSM's instruction) casing targets. The Blind Sheik's lawyer had previously announced that Dr. Zawahiri was going to use anthrax against US targets to retaliate for the rendering of senior EIJ leaders and the Blind Sheik. Adnan was the son of the Blind Sheik's translator. I have spoken to Al Qaeda anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat and he does not deny Al Qaeda's responsibility."

    There are some facts in what "Anonymous" wrote. But, are the facts evidence of anything -- other than that al Qaeda is up to no good?

    "The reason I think Adnan El-Shukrijumah is the mailer is because he had just meet with Al Qaeda anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat and KSM to discuss the operation."

    Although I haven't seen any supporting evidence, I'll accept it as a "fact" that those two fellas met prior to the anthrax attacks. But, where is the evidence of the claim that they met to "discuss the operation"? What operation?

    Adnan's phone call is meaningless and not evidence of anything.

    Casing targets in NYC, DC and Montreal has no clear meaning to the anthrax letter attacks.

    "The Blind Sheik's lawyer had previously announced that Dr. Zawahiri was going to use anthrax against US targets to retaliate for the rendering of senior EIJ leaders and the Blind Sheik."

    That goes to motive. But it doesn't prove means. There's no evidence that they actually carried through with their threat.

    Adnan's relationship to the Blind Sheik's translator has no obvious significance, other than to imply that evil people had motives for the attacks. We already KNOW that.

    "I have spoken to Al Qaeda anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat and he does not deny Al Qaeda's responsibility."

    "Does not deny" is NOT the same thing as an admission. And even an admission from an Islamic militant would need some kind of supporting evidence before it can be believed - particularly when there is so much evidence that al Qaeda was NOT responsible for the anthrax attacks.

    What does the email from "Anonymous" add up to as "evidence" that al Qaeda was behind the attacks? All it says is what everyone already knows: Al Qaeda had motive for the attacks, since they'd just demonstrated that they were so desperate and anxious to kill Americans that they flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of Americans.

    Simply having "motive" certainly isn't enough to overcome the MOUNTAIN of evidence that shows Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Others argue that drug companies had motive, and that Dick Cheney had motive, and that the Bush administration had motive.

    Motive does NOT make a case, and it's not even enough to make a good argument.


    1. "Anonymous" just sent me an email asking that I change "meet" to "met" in the first line of his email statement.

      Making such a change would be very easy if it were in the heading, but when it's in the comments, it becomes difficult.

      The only way I can do it is to go through the following steps: (1) copy the existing post, (2) delete the existing post, (3) paste the copy as a new post, (4) make the correction to the typo, and then (5) re-do all the html coding which cause italics and bold printing. (The copy and paste steps do not copy and paste the html coding when working with comments.)

      So, I'm just going to leave it the way it is. This note acknowledges that the typo was made but I did not correct it because it's too much work for an error so minor.