Thursday, April 10, 2014

Subject: Putting 2 and 2 together


Conspiracy theorists and True Believers have once again demonstrated how they think.  Just look at their theories about the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.  Each theorist has a different theory.

But, most of all, they show how they start with a theory and then find things to support that theory, ignoring any fact or evidence that contradicts their theory.  How else could someone connect a Muslim terrorist attack in Pakistan that involved a peddler's fruit cart to the fact that there was a cargo of fruit aboard Flight MH370, and conclude that the two events are evidence that Muslim terrorists hijacked MH370?

Here are some examples of Anthrax Truthers putting 2 and 2 together to get 739 or 395 or 55 or 38 or 1,233,754: 

1.  Ivins couldn't have made the spores at USAMRIID using standard procedures.  Everyone is required to follow procedures at USAMRIID.  Conclusion: Ivins must have been innocent.
Counter argument: Ivins didn't follow standard procedures.

2. Ivins didn't have time to make the spores.  It takes months to make that many spores.  Conclusion: Ivins must have been innocent.  
Counter argument: Ivins used spores from his lab trash that were already made. 
3.  I believe the spores were weaponized with silica.  I believe Ivins didn't know how to weaponize spores with silica.  Conclusion:  Ivins must have been innocent.
Counter argument:  The spores were NOT weaponized with silica.  They contained natural silicon.  
4.  Ivins could not have used the lyophilizer to dry the spores without contaminating the entire area. The lyophilizer was too big to move into a BSL-3 suite.  Conclusion: Ivins must have been innocent.
Counter argument: The spores were air dried.  The lyophilizer was not needed.
5.  Ivins seemed like a nice guy who couldn't hurt a fly.  Ivins was a blabbermouth, so he couldn't have sent the anthrax letters without telling other people about it.  Conclusion: Ivins must have been innocent.
Counter argument:  Ivins routinely did things and even committed crimes he didn't tell others about.  

Ed

37 comments:

  1. In falsely claiming that my theory that a bomb brought down MH 370 -- I favor no theory as I've made plain -- you seem to be meaning to refer to the bomb in the fruit crate in the capital of Pakistan. Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

    Now that you have raised the subject of the mangosteens, in today's news, the government official emphasized that the several tons of mangosteens were merely packed in Muar, not grown there. (Muar is two hours south of KL). Given that it is where Yazid Sufaat's ammonium nitrate went missing long ago, it is worth finding out:
    (1) who packed the mangosteens in Muar? and (1a) where were they grown...
    and
    (2) what was the name of the Muar plantation where only 3 out of 4 tons of Sufaat's ammonium nitrate were found? Various news items are conflicting about how much was missing from two successive orders of four tons.

    Presumably the two businesses are different but it is something that should be checked.

    Relatedly, (3) what happened to Yazid Sufaat's missing ammonium nitrate intended to be used in the bombing campaign. The bombing campaign was as described in interrogation report of anthrax plotter Hambali included recon or plane and airport security and recon of US navy ships. Even an attempt to obtain a ground-to-air missile.

    Finally, (4) where did Yazid Sufaat go in Pakistan after he was released in December 2008. With whom did he meet? Did he meet with anthrax mailing suspect Adnan El-Shukrijumah?

    Yazid Sufaat met with Adnan shortly before Adnan returned to the US immediately after 911. Both lived with KSM. Adnan was the associate of Atta and the hijackers in Florida.

    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Anonymous" wrote: "I favor no theory as I've made plain"

    You've made it plain that you not only favor a theory where Muslim terrorists were behind the disappearance of flight MH370, you are almost OBSESSED with that theory. The fact that you are going to do research to find out who packed the mangosteens and where they were grown is CLEAR PROOF of your obsession with a theory that Muslim terrorists were behind the disappearance of MH370.

    Your arguments MAKE NO SENSE.

    If a bomb brought down MH370, why did the plane disappear at the point where it would have run out of fuel?

    If you don't believe it was a bomb, why are you researching the mangosteens and the "missing ammonium nitrate"?

    If you think it was a Muslim terrorist plot to crash the airliner into an American warship, why did the plane fly all the way to the middle of the Indian Ocean where there is NO EVIDENCE of the presence of an America warship at that time? AND, we KNOW there were American warships A THOUSAND MILES CLOSER. Why weren't those American ships attacked? Why travel over a thousand miles only to MISS?

    You make up one theory after another to support your belief that Muslim terrorists were behind MH370's disappearance.

    You had a theory that terrorists on the plane could use a cell phone ap to locate the warship in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

    When it was pointed out to you that there are no cell phone towers in the middle of the Indian Ocean, you changed your theory to argue that terrorists could have used a GPS locator ap to find the warship.

    When it was pointed out to you that GPS locator aps only tell you where YOU are, not where some ship is, you changed your theory to argue that the terrorists could have used a web site to locate the American warship.

    When it was pointed out to you that there are no wi-fi hotspots in the middle of the Indian Ocean, you explain that you are an expert ham operator, which means absolutely NOTHING at all to your theory. Or, if it does, you refuse to explain what it means for your theory.

    You ignore the fact that no American warship was hit by flight MH370.

    You just believe Muslim terrorists were behind the disappearance of MH370 SOMEHOW, and you're obsessed with proving it one way or another.

    What are you going to do when they find the plane and determine the REAL cause of the disappearance? Are you going to do as you did with the anthrax attacks and argue that the authorities are WRONG, and that YOU and ONLY YOU know what really happened? Are you going to argue that the authorities are all either incompetent or looking at the wrong data, as you did with the anthrax attacks? Are you going to continue to hunt for who grew the mangosteens the way you continue to hunt for proof of your rabbit theory?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ed,

    If you read the Adamovicz, Andrews, Little, Worsham, Byrne, Friedlander, Welkos, Friend, Salerno, etc depositions that I got for you to upload, you will see that you are the odd man out.

    Not a single scientist or expert has ever joined you on the playground.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Anonymous" wrote: "If you read the Adamovicz, Andrews, Little, Worsham, Byrne, Friedlander, Welkos, Friend, Salerno, etc depositions that I got for you to upload, you will see that you are the odd man out."

    Duh! Yes, I would be the "odd man out" in a group of Ivins' co-workers who do not believe Ivins did it because they do not BELIEVE or UNDERSTAND the EVIDENCE or haven't even LOOKED at the evidence.

    And, you would be the "odd man out" in a group of actual EXPERTS who think Ivins DID do it because they looked at the EVIDENCE, like Edward Montooth, Rachel Lieber, Darin Steele, Scott Stanley, Jean Duley, David Willman, Patricia Fellows, etc., etc.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, none of them are experts under the Federal Rules. Indeed, none of them have personal knowledge so as to qualify them to testify other than people making investigative assertions and conclusions.

      All but one of them, Patricia, relied upon the counselor who got her instructions from an alien at night. The alien controlled the counselor through a microchip implanted in her butt. Every time I point that out you delete the comment. Not a single person you call an "expert" has corrected and excised their reliance. (That is a key earmark of an expert).

      You think you can just ignore the evidence of witness reliability that doesn't square with your belief that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. The belief that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters is as nutty as the counselor thinking that murderous astral entities were pursuing her and trying to kill her. (For example, at night, she thought she was pursued by the astral entities from Afghanistan and then would escape through a vortex). You haven't even read her book -- content in being uninformed.

      But I totally understand why you think such a witness is reliable. Compared to your theory, her beliefs about the alien controlling her were very reasonable.

      As for the remaining one in the list, Patricia, I've urged that you seek to obtain and upload her civil deposition in US v. Stevens. You do not know what she said at civil deposition.

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, none of them are experts under the Federal Rules. Indeed, none of them have personal knowledge so as to qualify them to testify other than people making investigative assertions and conclusions. "

      Please EXPLAIN what you are talking about. You seem to be saying that no one who disagrees with you is qualified to testify in court - not even the investigators who PROVED that Ivins did it. Only Ivins friends and co-workers can testify. That is just plain INSANE

      "All but one of them, Patricia, relied upon the counselor who got her instructions from an alien at night."

      TOTAL NONSENSE! That's just one of your screwball obsessions. You believe that no one can testify who even listened to Ivins' counselor. That's INSANE.

      The people you list are NOT people who understand the FACTS and EVIDENCE proving Bruce Ivins' guilt. They would have only testified in court as "character witnesses" during the sentencing phase of the trial after Ivins was convicted.

      As for Patricia Fellows deposition in the Stevens v USA lawsuit, I will send in an FOIA request on Monday. I just wonder why you do not send me the pdf file, if you have it. There must be something in it that you do not want me to make public. Does she say something like what Peter Jahrling said? I notice you don't include Jahrling in your list. Jahrling said,

      "I've always maintained that just because it came from that flask didn't, doesn't mean that Bruce Ivins did it. But, you know, if you combine the circumstantial evidence and all of that with that flask I think if it had gone to a jury trial he would have been convicted. "

      Ed

      Delete
    3. Ed, I never said the listed USAMRIID scientists would be testifying as experts. You are the one who began misusing the term. They would be testifying as people who knew the facts relating to the lab and its workings, etc. -- for example, the FBI didn't even understand the facts relating to practices. As an example, the FBI relied on the lack of after hours work beginning January 2002 without realizing that is when a two person rule was first implemented. Thus, their entire chart on hours was a crock. On Lew's blog, I list examples of experts on the subject, such as FBI expert Claire who says the FBI's use of the science misleading. Or the FBI's head of the lab, the handwriting expert, who issued a formal opinion that Ivins probably did not write the letters. Please turn to those links as I'm not interested in posting here given that you are such an unpleasant person. I post only to suggest that anyone thinks that a First Grader wrote the letters has demonstrated his lack of common sense.

      Delete
    4. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, I never said the listed USAMRIID scientists would be testifying as experts."

      You said of the people on my list: "none of them are experts under the Federal Rules." All I said was that the people on your list aren't "experts under the Federal Rules," either. So why bring up "experts" and "Federal Rules" in the first place? Is it just more of your illogical logic? Were you putting 2 and 2 together to get 739?

      "Anonymous" explains: "They would be testifying as people who knew the facts relating to the lab and its workings, etc. "

      But they had NO CLUE as to what Ivins was doing in his lab at night and on weekends. They weren't there. They wouldn't be testifying on ANYTHING other than as character witnesses during the sentencing phase of the trial AFTER Ivins was convicted. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

      "Anonymous" also wrote: " As an example, the FBI relied on the lack of after hours work beginning January 2002 without realizing that is when a two person rule was first implemented. Thus, their entire chart on hours was a crock. "

      That makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever. What does the "two person rule" have to do with anything? Please explain.

      Your list of "experts on the subject" is just a list of people who have different views and beliefs. NO ONE CARES what they believe. In court, the FACTS would have shown that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer beyond any reasonable doubt. The beliefs of naysayers would mean NOTHING.

      Your endless stream of links on Lew's blog is meaningless. The links prove NOTHING other than that there are people out there with OTHER BELIEFS AND OPINIONS, and most of them are IGNORANT of the facts of the case and/or make arguments that have nothing to do with the legal case against Bruce Ivins.

      Using a list of people with beliefs and opinions to attempt to overrule solid facts and solid evidence is just another demonstration of illogical logic and a lack of common sense.

      Ed

      Delete
  5. I deleted a message posted by "Anonymous" that contains a sleazy, disgusting personal attack. But, the attack was just a couple lines in a long message that also shows how ridiculous his arguments are, and how he needs to distort things to create his arguments. So, I'll show the rest of the post along with my responses.

    "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, I do want to encourage the Malaysians to let the FBI have access to Yazid Sufaat. In correspondence with me, Mr. Yazid does not responsibility for the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings -- so I want to encourage them to get that on formal record. In a 2003 WSJ article, a senior official noted he was a "tough nut to crack."

    Turning more broadly to the mystery of MH 370, as to mangosteens, today's headline reads: THEN FROM WHERE? Now IGP says MH370 mangosteens not ...
    Malaysia Chronicle-12 hours ago

    For those following the story, it is understood to be a question that has been raised and warrants an answer. You have a singularly incurious mind."


    I've very curious about what happened to flight MH370. I'm not curious about irrelevant matters such as the origins of the flight's cargo of mangosteens. I leave that to you to waste your time on.

    "As for the location of US Warships, you don't know the location of a single Aircraft Carrier. Your claim that there was one "A THOUSAND MILES CLOSER" has no factual basis. Nor does your assumption that you know the chronology of events in the plane under any scenario."

    Note that he is changing the subject. I said NOTHING about any aircraft carrier. I said there were "warships" closer to MH370 than the middle of the Indian Ocean. "Anonymous" pointed out that the USS Kidd and USS Pinckney were in the South China Sea.

    Here's an exchange from PPRuNe.org that occurred today:

    "Is it possible to go back in time on AIS and look at what ships (if any) were in the current search area at the "best guess" time MH370 would have run out of fuel on that track?

    It might be possible, but I'd be surprised if anything was there - I've seen shipping lane data which shows that this part of the ocean stands out as being like the back of beyond when it comes to regular vessel traffic."


    "Anonymous" also wrote: "As for your idea that cellphones would not work at 4,000-5,000 when it crossed Malaysia, you are wrong. (One would have wanted to have been protected from the earlier depressurization and lack of oxygen)."

    Again, NO ONE said ANYTHING about cellphones not working over Malaysia. The subject was cell phones working over the middle of the Indian Ocean where Anonymous fantasized they'd be used to target an American warship.

    "You haven't even addressed radio telephony which I have posted about. Indeed, you haven't even addressed the air-ground service typically in Malaysian Airlines Business Class, let alone a mobile radio telephony device someone could bring on board.

    I have also posted extensively about all the other various hypotheses: including pilot suicide and a fire on the aircraft. If I post predominantly on Yazid Sufaat because that is the subject of the thread on Lew's blog. And that is the only way the posts are at all "on-topic."


    I'd say other theories are "mentioned," but the Yazid Suffaat theory is REPEATEDLY and EXHAUSTIVELY argued.

    "And so my position is the same as the Malaysian authorites -- and I join them in again urging Chinese intelligence, MI6 and the FBI in "re-intensifying" their scrutiny of everyone on board and connected to the flight and its cargo."

    The question is: Will you accept and believe their findings if their findings do not point to Muslim terrorists as being behind the disappearance. Time will tell.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  6. What do you think were the three foreign laboratories known by the FBI to have the Ames strain? (Director Mueller has noted that the FBI did not have access or cooperation of some other countries and so wasn't in a position to know about those other countries.)

    But with respect to the three foreign labs that are known, do you agree with the claim in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Spertzel that "Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used."

    Do you agree that the FBI visited Institut Pasteur in 2002?

    What do you think happened to the 29 boxes at Institut Pasteur with the 2300+ missing vials of SARS dna?

    Institut Pasteur anthrax researcher MM worked with the Ames researchers whose depositions you have uploaded explaining Dr. Ivins' innocence. What do they say about whether Institut Pasteur got Ames from USAMRIID?

    Wasn't it Instit Pasteur that Al Qaeda anthrax lab operative Rauf Ahmad (Abdur Rauf) visited with the thousands of pathogens in its BL3?

    Instead of urging that a First Grader wrote the letters, you should aim for a more complete informaiton relating to the distribution of virulent Ames.

    -- “I do things like get in a taxi and say, "The library, and step on it.”
    David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Tell wrote in 2003 that in March 2001, a group of French scientists at the Centre d' tudes du Bouchet publish a report on experiments they'd conducted with their own Ames sample. And explained that they'd collaborated on those experiments with a second French laboratory at the University of Paris. And expressed gratitude for shipments of Ames they'd received from a third French laboratory, the Institut Pasteur. And from a fourth French laboratory at the Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments. And from one Dr. Mats Forman of Sweden, too.

    But when we turn to the literature, and the article he seems to refer, does the article support a claim that Pasteur -- or any of these institutes had virulent Ames?

    Which brings us back to the question: What were the three foreign labs that the FBI knows had virulent Ames?

    A tandem repeats database for baterial genomes
    Philippe Le Flèche,1,2 Yolande Hauck,2 Lucie Onteniente,2 Agnès Prieur,1,2 France Denoeud,2 Vincent Ramisse,1Patricia Sylvestre,1 Gary Benson,3 Françoise Ramisse,1 and Gilles Vergnaud1,2
    Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►

    This article may be the one intended but does it support the characterization?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31411/

    "All strains used here are part of the collection maintained by the Centre d'Etudes du Bouchet (CEB). They originate either from the CIP (Collection Institut Pasteur, http://www.pasteur.fr/) or from AFSSA (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, http://www.afssa.fr/, Dr Josée Vaissaire). DNA from each isolate was obtained by large-batch procedures or by the simplified procedure as described in [2]. In addition, 15 μg of DNA from the B. anthracis Ames strain were kindly provided by Dr Mats Forsman, FOA, Sweden."

    ReplyDelete
  8. It seems that the three foreign labs known by the FBI to have Ames would be Suffield/DRES in Canada and CAMR and Porton Down in the UK. Did Rauf Ahmad (Abdur Rauf) visit CAMR for Dr. Zawahiri? He went to the UK each year. The Centre for Applied Microbiology & Research (CAMR), which is a Special Health Authority responsible to the Department of Health, is based at Porton Down. Its mission is to supply the vaccine to the Ministry of Defence. CAMR is the operating laboratory for The Microbiological Research Authority and is a distinct organisation from the Chemical and Biological Defence sector of DSTL Porton Down, which is responsible to the Ministry of Defence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Anonymous" wrote: "What do you think were the three foreign laboratories known by the FBI to have the Ames strain?"

    It's pretty clear from numerous news articles that the labs were in Canada, England and Sweden. So, it would be Suffield/DRES in Canada, Porton Down in England, and some lab in Sweden.

    From the Aug. 24, 2008 issue of USA Today:

    From 2002 onward, the FBI had requested samples of Ames anthrax held by 16 U.S. labs, and others in Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom, to create a collection of 1,070 Ames "isolates."

    From Aug. 18, 2008 ScienceNow Daily News:

    FBI scientists then worked with outside collaborators to develop assays to look for the four mutations in a repository of more than 1000 samples of the Ames strain collected from labs in the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Only eight samples had all four mutations,

    From the Aug. 20, 2008 issue of Nature:

    The FBI says it found four distinctive genetic mutations in the anthrax used in the attacks. It tested for these mutations in isolates of the Ames anthrax strain from 16 domestic, government and university laboratories, alongside ones from labs in Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

    I could probably find a dozen more places where it says the third lab was in Sweden.

    So, I don't know where you got the idea that one of the labs was in France.

    It looks like you once again put 2 and 2 together and got 735,967.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Anonymous" wrote: "In addition, 15 μg of DNA from the B. anthracis Ames strain were kindly provided by Dr Mats Forsman, FOA, Sweden."

    Dr. Mats Forsman works for the Swedish Defense Research Agency in Umea, Sweden, so that is most likely the Swedish lab that got a sample of Ames from USAMRIID.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  11. Widely quoted nonproliferation expert RHE reports the same to me this morning.

    RHE, who is in a Institut Pasteur lecture hall this morning, says his recollection is that Winnipeg (Canada), Porton (UK), and Umea (Sweden) were the three non-US sites with documented pre-9 /11 access to Ames and/or Ames derivatives.

    What lab did Rauf Ahmad visit with the 1000s of pathogens -- after which he reported to Dr. Zawahiri that he had achieved his targets? What does his resume say about travel to Sweden? DIA told me that Rauf Ahmad was travelling around the continent. Yet the annual conference on anthrax sponsored by Porton Down attended by Rauf Ahmad (Abdur Rauf) in 1999 and 2000 was in UK.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Anonymous,"

    Can't you see how desperately you are trying to fit things to your beliefs? IT'S INSANE.

    Instead of asking meaningless and irrelevant questions, you should try to understand that you are NOT looking at the facts objectively, you are FORCING things to fit your beliefs. That NEVER works.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  13. To the contrary, Ed, I am trying to identify (definitively) the location of virulent Ames in Europe. If you aren't, that is mighty sloppy. As I've said, you have a singularly incurious mind. (GAO will be doing precisely that and considering security at those labs). Similarly, if you are not interested in the lab with virulent anthrax visited by Al Qaeda's operative Rauf Ahmad on his quest to get virulent anthrax for Dr. Zawahiri, that is mighty sloppy. (That too is part of GAO's mandate).

    Now turning to Umea, Sweden lab you specify, am I right that you have no doubt to question the accuracy of the resume of Rauf Ahmad in May 2007? I spoke to Rauf Ahmad using that contact information but he wanted money to cooperate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When I identified the third lab as in Sweden in 2009 and asked this same question of Rauf Ahmad, you never bothered to check his resume, did you? And now four years has passed. You have a singularly incurious mind.

    On Meryl Nass' blog, I wrote:

    Anonymous said...

    The FBI reports that the third country that virulent Ames was in Sweden.

    What was that laboratory?

    January 28, 2009 at 8:06 PM
    Anonymous said...
    At the Annapolis conference organized by Dr. Ivins, a researcher from the National Defense Research Establishment in Umea, Sweden, along with two other scientists from Singapore, presented on a genome-wide analysis of bacillus anthracis. Their paper discusses the virulence plasmids and the Ames strain and so perhaps it was National Defense Research Establishment that had Ames. (An FBI affidavit identified one of the 16 labs known to have had virulent Ames to be in Sweden).

    Dr. Keim has posited that any sample the size in Dr. Ivins' flask might have the same four mutations and so it important to flesh out these sorts of details. (He notes the hypothesis has not been tested).

    What was the lab visited by the scientist that Ayman Zawahiri's scientist had attending the 1999 and 2000 conference on dangerous pathogens/anthrax? Senators and Congressman should find out. The scientist infiltrating the conferences for Zawahiri, Rauf Ahmad, described the lab as having thousands of pathogens, including virulent anthrax. He told Zawahiri he had successfully achieved his targets.

    Did Rauf Ahmad also attend the June 2001 conference organized by Dr. Ivins? He regularly attended conferences, I'm told by a friend at DIA, on dangerous pathogens in Europe. Is there any reason to think he did not attend the Annapolis conference? I was given the dates 1999 and 2000 by the head of Sfam in Europe (the equivalent of ASM). But the director did not have record of the conference in 2001 organized by Ivins as sfam was not helping to organize it. ASM was.

    In his correspondence with Ayman, the scientist said he had learned some processing tricks and made some internet connections. Who was he learning tricks on processing from? Instead of having non-experts spend more time parsing hairs on an exosporium, the public should ask that some basic questions be answered. For example, if Zawahiri's scientist visited a lab with virulent Ames, let's hear about it. It was when the DOJ/FBI started talking about extraditing him that the ISI balked and stopped cooperating with the CIA.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The sfam director promptly provided me confirmation that Rauf Ahmad attended the conferences sponsored by Porton Down.

    The FBI, OTOH, has failed to provide the names of the attendees of the June 2001 conference. So I don’t know whether Rauf Ahmad came to Annapolis in June 2001 — to the conference that Ivins had helped organize — or not.

    Ed, do you agree that GAO should find out and disclose whether Rauf Ahmad attended the June 2001 conference that Dr. Ivins and the other Ames researchers helped organize? Isn't it within GAO's mandate?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here is background:

    Suspect and A Setback In Al-Qaeda Anthrax Case
    By Joby Warrick
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Tuesday, October 31, 2006
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001250.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Anonymous" wrote: "I am trying to identify (definitively) the location of virulent Ames in Europe. If you aren't, that is mighty sloppy. As I've said, you have a singularly incurious mind."

    It's not a matter of being "incurious." I'm just not OBSESSED the way you are. I leave international investigations to the various federal agencies. I don't try to second-guess them in order to prove some theory I have. I leave that to you.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: "Ed, do you agree that GAO should find out and disclose whether Rauf Ahmad attended the June 2001 conference that Dr. Ivins and the other Ames researchers helped organize? Isn't it within GAO's mandate?"

    I have no opinion on the matter. The GAO can do whatever they want. I look forward to reading their review, but, other than that, it's out of my hands and I've got better things to do and think about.

    You are OBSESSED and ranting like a mad man. For days you've been ranting about reports that the security at USAMRIID was not perfect, and therefore the attack anthrax could have been stolen from there.

    Today you rant about the attack anthrax coming from FRANCE. When that is shown to be ridiculous, you start ranting about how Muslim terrorists could have obtained it from SWEDEN.

    You have NOTHING but a BELIEF and an OBSESSION.

    The FACTS say the attack anthrax originated with Ivins' flask RMR-1029. The FACTS say Ivins made the powders in his lab at night and on weekends. The FACTS say Ivins mailed the letters. The FACTS SAY that Sweden didn't get any Ames from flask RMR-1029. They got their Ames from the original stock. So, their Ames would not match what was in the letters. You do not seem to understand that "virulent Ames" includes Ames that came from the original stock AND Ames that came from flask RMR-1029. ONLY the Ames that came from flask RMR-1029 matched what was in the letters. So, who cares who else had Ames? What difference does it make. If terrorists want to use anthrax, they do not NEED Ames anthrax.

    All you have is some OBSESSION to blame Muslim terrorists, apparently because you believe that if we don't all blame Muslim terrorists for the anthrax attacks, then we are just letting them prepare for some new attack.

    That is putting 2 and 2 together to get 597. IT MAKES NO SENSE. There are plenty of agencies out there working very hard to try to prevent Muslim terrorists from launching a new attack of some kind. They've stopped lots of attempts. You may believe you can do a better job than they're doing, but there's no reason for me to do it, too. I'm not OBSESSED the way you are. I'm not PARANOID the way you are. I trust the federal agencies to do the best they can. And, for me, that's good enough.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  18. No, Ed, I never said the attack from anthrax from France. It seems you have reading comprehension problems and/or a lack of integrity in posting on your blog what is posted in the thread above. In the thread above, I was DEBUNKING the claims made about France.

    My theory and views are set forth here:

    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

    Turning to the thread above, I emailed you Rauf Ahmad's resume in May 2007.
    Yet you never bothered to consider what lab he visited and whether it had virulent Ames.

    You should pay less attention to your claim a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters and pay more attention to the distribution of potentially genetically matching virulent Ames.

    The former CIA Director Tenet wrote in May 2007:

    ”Al-Qa’ida spared no effort in its attempt to obtain biological weapons. In 1999, al-Zawahiri had recruited another scientist, Pakistani national Rauf Ahmad, to set up a small lab in Khandahar, Afghanistan, to house the biological weapons effort. In December 2001, a sharp WMD analyst at CIA found the initial lead on which we would pull and, ultimately, unravel the al-Qa’ida anthrax networks. We were able to identify Rauf Ahmad from letters he had written to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Later, we uncovered Sufaat’s central role in the program. We located Rauf Ahmad’s lab in Afghanistan. We identified the building in Khandahar where Sufaat claimed he isolated anthrax. We mounted operations that resulted in the arrests and detentions of anthrax operatives in several countries.

    ”The most startling revelation from this intelligence success story was that the anthrax program had been developed in parallel to 9/11 planning. As best as we could determine, al-Zawahiri’s project had been wrapped up in the summer of 2001, when the al-Qaida deputy, along with Hambali, were briefed over a week by Sufaat on the progress he had made to isolate anthrax. The entire operation had been managed at the top of al-Qai’da with strict compartmentalization. Having completed this phase of his work, Sufaat fled Afghanistan in December 2001 and was captured by authorities trying to sneak back into Malaysia. Rauf Ahmad was detained by Pakistani authorities in December 2001. Our hope was that these and our many other actions had neutralized the anthrax threat, at least temporarily.”

    Notice that the former CIA Director is focused on Rauf Ahmad and not an imaginary First Grader who doesn't exist. I sent you the resume of Rauf Ahmad and not the first grader because there is no first grader. You would know that if you had made even the most basic factual inquiry.

    But I admire your persistence in trying to publish a novel after not publishing the previous six you wrote. Your courage in posting the regular rejections is an example for all aspiring writers.


    Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Anonymous" wrote: "I was DEBUNKING the claims made about France."

    Debunking WHAT claims made about France? The report that Institut Pasteur had Ames? Evidently, they had the DNA for Ames. They may also have gotten some actual Ames from Sweden. SO WHAT?

    Your postings are incoherent and MAKE NO SENSE.

    What are you trying to say?


    You wrote: "You should pay less attention to your claim a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters and pay more attention to the distribution of potentially genetically matching virulent Ames."

    WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Why should I care who has Ames?

    They do NOT have Ames that has the same morphs that were in the anthrax letters, so they are NOT relevant to the anthrax investigation. There were only 8 samples from the 1,070 that had the morphs, and all were labs in the U.S., mostly USAMRIID.

    The fact that other labs have Ames anthrax means NOTHING to me. What does it mean to you? That some Muslim terrorist could steal it?

    Do you believe that Muslim terrorists can ONLY use the Ames strain of anthrax when planning an attack? If so, what is the basis for such a belief?

    If you want to track all the locations that have anthrax because you worry that some Muslim terrorist might steal some from them, why worry only about Ames? Why not worry about "virulent Vollum" or some other "virulent" strain of anthrax?

    You evidently have NOTHING connecting Rauf Ahmad to the anthrax attacks, but you are clearly OBSESSED with finding something - anything. And you inexplicably want me to be obsessed, too. THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  20. In Have We “Met the Enemy”?, Science 3 February 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6068 pp. 540-541, Dr. David Relman, who had been vice-chairman of the NAS Committee

    http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/in-have-we-met-the-enemy-science-3-february-2012-vol-335-no-6068-pp-540-541-dr-david-relman-who-had-been-vice-chairman-of-the-nas-committee-explains/


    In connection with the testing in Afghanistan, were the findings discussed by Dr. Relman Ames? Or were they Vollum.

    Why are YOU suggesting they were using Vollum when the testing results pointed to Ames.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ed,

    Notice that you keep saying "muslims" or "muslim terrorists" instead of El-Shukrijumah or Yazid Sufaat because of your lack of knowledge on the subject. You are so uninformed that you are not even in a position to address the argument -- you don't even know the names of the people.

    In contrast, I learned your theory and showed you were wrong on the facts. I even learned the first day of class for the First Grader you suspect -- and showed that you were wrong. Not only does the First Grader not exist but if he did, he would not have started school the day you claim in your self-published book.

    Now as for anthrax mailing suspect Adnan El-Shukrijumah, 92,000 pages are about to be released under FOIA. That is part of the process envisioned in our democracy and under the rule of law, that includes the freedom of information statutes.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Anonymous" wrote: "Why are YOU suggesting they were using Vollum when the testing results pointed to Ames."

    Your reading skills need work. I made no such suggestion.

    You seem be suffering from rampant paranoia. So, I asked why you were only paranoid about Muslims getting hold of the Ames strain. There are lots of other "virulent" anthrax strains around. Why aren't you paranoid about them, too?

    "Anonymous" wrote: "Notice that you keep saying "muslims" or "muslim terrorists" instead of El-Shukrijumah or Yazid Sufaat because of your lack of knowledge on the subject."

    I'm looking at the pattern. In the past 12 years, you've probably mentioned a hundred different names of people who you think were somehow involved in the anthrax attacks. And ALL seem to be Muslims. There's usually no point in mentioning them by name, since you cannot connect ANY of them to the anthrax attacks. You seem to be pointing at them ONLY because they are Muslim extremists who activate your paranoia.

    You claim the first grader does not exist. But that's just a silly and baseless claim. Your argument this time for claiming the child doesn't exist is because I briefly got the start date of school wrong. That is putting 2 and 2 together to get 759,331. It's hilariously silly.

    In 12 years, you've found NO evidence that Muslims were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001. The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters, and he acted alone. But, you do not accept the FACTS. You believe what you want to believe, even though you've spent over 12 years looking for evidence to support your belief and haven't found a single item that would have any meaning in court.

    Adnan El-Shukrijumah is NOT an "anthrax mailing suspect. He's just another Muslim extremist who activates your rampant paranoia.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ed, while I can prove Yazid Sufaat was part of Al Qaeda's anthrax program -- and he does not deny responsibility for the anthrax mailings -- there is no First Grader as the most cursory factual investigation would have shown. I have been writing about Yazid Sufaat since February 2002. You have stuck your head in the sand because you are a True Believer. One of the first times you mentioned his name was this past week and you spelled it wrong. You have no mastery of even the most basic facts which is why you have been so fundamentally wrong. There is no First Grader. It is your claim that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters is hilariously silly. Ask anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ed, you never even bothered to request Diane's 302s. You aren't a researcher.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymous,"

      I assume you mean Diane Ivins. No, I haven't seen her "302s." Or, if I have, they don't say anything, since Ivins didn't TELL his wife what he was doing. Diane Ivins was totally clueless about all the crimes Ivins was committing. So, what value would her "302s" be? It's highly unlikely that the FBI would have questioned her about things Ivins clearly did without her knowledge. What would be the point?

      If the 302s say something that YOU consider to be PROOF of something, why don't you enlighten us with quotes and links? It should be hilarious.

      Ed

      Delete
  25. "Anonymous" wrote: Ed, while I can prove Yazid Sufaat was part of Al Qaeda's anthrax program -- "

    You don't have to prove it. No one argues about that. The POINT is, who cares? It's not relevant, because the FACTS say BRUCE IVINS was the anthrax killer.

    "and he does not deny responsibility for the anthrax mailings"

    And he evidently doesn't say he did it, either. So, your screwball reasoning is that if a guy doesn't deny responsibility, then that is somehow proof of something. And you think it's better proof than all the FBI's evidence against Bruce Ivins. In what court would that be true? A tennis court?

    "there is no First Grader as the most cursory factual investigation would have shown."

    Then, why don't you PROVE IT. Prove that there is no first grader. The idea that you believe you can "prove the negative" just shows how removed from reality you are. The FACTS say that Ivins used a first grader to write the anthrax letters. In 12 years you have provided NO EVIDENCE to challenge what the facts say. It's just something you BELIEVE because you BELIEVE Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks.

    You endlessly forget that I showed you 31 emails where people agreed to various degrees that a child wrote the anthrax documents. PLUS, that is what the FACTS say. Your BELIEFS do not change what the facts say.

    You have your head stuck in the sand because you are a True Believer. You do not WANT to know the facts. You just BELIEVE that Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks, and no amount of evidence will ever change your mind. You think you know better than the FBI and the DOJ. And you use OPINIONS instead of facts to argue your case. That is just plain nuts.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed Lake writes:
      "The FACTS say that Ivins used a first grader to write the anthrax letters."

      I simply will never tire of having you repeat the statement.

      Returning to the grown-up's table, did you notice that the DNA findings Dr. Relman is discussing in the SCIENCE article is AMES, not some other strain?

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "I simply will never tire of having you repeat the statement."

      Too bad you are incapable of comprehending it.

      "Anonymous also wrote: "did you notice that the DNA findings Dr. Relman is discussing in the SCIENCE article is AMES, not some other strain?"

      Probably. What's your point? Or don't you have one? Are you just demonstrating that you cannot explain anything?

      Ed

      Delete
    3. Dr. Relman, Vice-Chair of the NAS panel, explained the evidence pointing to Ames at the Afghanistan lab where Yazid Sufaat was working with virulent anthrax.

      Although there is no evidence that a First Grader wrote the letters, there is powerful evidence that the strain of the anthrax that Yazid Sufaat was using was AMES (even if you don't know it given your lack of qualifications and your continuing failure to consult with experts on the issue).

      Yazid Sufaat told KSM that he and his two assistants were vaccinated and so using the virulent anthrax was safe. You would not know that because you spend your time hanging out at the gymnasium rather than reading the detainee statements leaked about Al Qaeda's anthrax program.

      Delete
    4. "Anonymous" wrote: "Dr. Relman, Vice-Chair of the NAS panel, explained the evidence pointing to Ames at the Afghanistan lab where Yazid Sufaat was working with virulent anthrax."

      Dr. Relman has shown himself to be just another "expert" who doesn't know the facts and uses his imagination when he should be looking at the facts.

      In the May 2002 issue of "Nature," he's quoted as follows:

      "The problem was that the Ames strain has been all over the world," says David Relman, who studies infectious disease at Stanford University in California.

      Total NONSENSE, of course. The Ames strain is a RARE strain that was only shipped outside of the U.S. to Canada, England and Sweden.

      "Anonymous" also wrote: "there is powerful evidence that the strain of the anthrax that Yazid Sufaat was using was AMES"

      Nonsense. There is NOTHING that says Yazid Sufaat was using Ames. And, even if he was, it wouldn't match the Ames used in the attacks. It wouldn't have the morphs.

      "Yazid Sufaat told KSM that he and his two assistants were vaccinated and so using the virulent anthrax was safe. "

      SO WHAT!? No one denies there were Muslim terrorists prior to 9/11 who were TRYING to develop biological weapons using anthrax. There's just no real evidence that they got anywhere with their plans.

      The tests of that lab in Kandahar, Afghanistan showed NOTHING. It was "UNDER CONSTRUCTION." It didn't even look like any of the equipment had been used.

      "You would not know that because you spend your time hanging out at the gymnasium rather than reading the detainee statements leaked about Al Qaeda's anthrax program."

      That's hilarious. I'll have to use that in my comment tomorrow. You're complaining that I work out at a gym instead of being OBSESSED with finding details about Muslim terrorists plans the way you are? That's funny. It really IS funny.

      Ed

      Delete
  26. In my final posting yesterday, I thought that this statement from "Anonymous" was hilarious:

    "You would not know that because you spend your time hanging out at the gymnasium rather than reading the detainee statements leaked about Al Qaeda's anthrax program."

    "Anonymous" then sent me an email explaining what he meant. The entire email consisted of just these words:

    "Ed, that was a movie allusion: 'Billy, do you like hanging out at gymnasiums?'"

    I didn't recognize the quote. So, I did a Google search for it. That's when I found that he was trying to quote from the movie "Airplane." He's done that in the past in his a couple of his more disgusting attacks via email. This time, however, he got the quote wrong. What he meant was this quote:

    Captain Oveur: Joey, did you ever hang around a gymnasium?

    "Anonymous" could be arguing that the only men who go to gymnasiums are men who like to look at other men in the nude. But, he probably meant something more vile and disgusting than that. Whatever he meant, it was one disgusting attack too many.

    So, I'll be deleting any attempts "Anonymous" might make to post here in the future.

    He's made it totally clear that there is no way to change the mind of a True Believer. If you try too long, they will just resort to vile and disgusting personal attacks.

    And, there's no point in telling him to stop posting such things. I've tried that in the past, and it only causes him to post ten times as much.

    So, posts by "DXer/Anonymous" will no longer be seen on this blog.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  27. So, posts by "DXer/Anonymous" will no longer be seen on this blog.
    =========================================================
    So, just me, Mister Lake and the crickets?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And "Joseph From Spain," and anyone else posting as "Anonymous" who can be determined to not also be "DXer."

      Ed

      Delete