Thursday, September 25, 2014

Subject: The absurd al Qaeda anthrax theory

In the previous thread HERE, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") argued that El-Shukrijumah called his mother from Afghanistan on September 13, 2001, to tell her that he was coming to the U.S. "DXer" views that as evidence that El-Shukrijumah mailed the anthrax letters.  We're supposed to believe that El-Shukrijuma had absolutely no problem flying to the U.S. in the week after 9/11 to mail the letters.  And, apparently, that was all he did, because there was no evidence that El-Shukrijuma did anything at all while he was supposedly in the US in September and October 2001.   

Why couldn't someone else mail the letters?  DXer has no answer.  Why was it necessary for El-Shukrijumah to fly half way around the globe to do it?  DXer has no answer.  He just argues that El-Shukrijumah is known to have left the U.S. months before 9/11.  But, he can't provide any evidence at all that El-Shukrijumah returned in time to mail the first anthrax letters on September 18, 2001. 

Next, DXer argued that al Qaeda's lab in Kandahar had Ames anthrax.  But, the facts say that the lab in Kandahar had no anthrax of any kind.  DXer appears to be relying on some "false positive" readings where pieces of Ames DNA were believed to have been found in the Kandahar lab.  Extensive tests done later found NO TRACE of any kind of anthrax. No doubt they planned to work with anthrax (they even got their inoculations), but there's no evidence they actually did anything with anthrax. 

DXer also seems to believe that al Qaeda got their anthrax from Porton Down.  But Porton Down Ames has been serially cultured so many times that it no longer has the same DNA as Ancestor Ames, which means the DNA is also different from the attack anthrax.

Now DXer is arguing about the fact that "Franklin Park, NJ" was part of the return address on the Senate anthrax letters, and how that must be because some of the 9/11 terrorists worshiped in a mosque in Fort Lauderdale, FL, that was across the street from a small park called "Franklin Park."  He evidently cannot see that as a coincidence.  However, of course, it must just be a coincidence that the anthrax letters were mailed 10 miles from a town in New Jersey called "Franklin Park."

Here are some simple facts:

Ivins had access to the source of the anthrax in the letters.
DXer has no evidence that al Qaeda had access to that source.

Ivins made Ames anthrax spores in his lab routinely.
DXer has no evidence that al Qaeda ever made any Ames anthrax spores.

The handwriting on the letters doesn't match Ivins' or Mohamed Atta's writing.
Ivins had reason to disguise his handwriting.  Atta did not.

Ivins was within driving distance of the mailbox at the time of the mailings.
DXer doesn't know where El-Shukrijumah was at the time of the mailings.

A timeline of Ivins' activities can be found by clicking HERE.
"DXer" (a..k.a. "Anonymous") cannot even construct a logical timeline to support his beliefs.  Sometimes he argues that al Qaeda must have used some Muslim agent to steal Ames anthrax from USAMRIID, other times he argues that al Qaeda obtained Ames from Porton Down.  Sometimes he seems to argue that the letters were filled with anthrax in the USA.  Other times he seems to argue that they were filled with anthrax in Afghanistan and then brought to the USA by El-Shukrijuma.  When and why were the envelopes bought in Maryland?  Why were there two different types of anthrax powder?  Why weren't both batches of letters mailed at the same time?  Why return to the same mail box to mail the second batch of letters.  Why mail the letters in Princeton?         

I could go on and on and on.  The al Qaeda theory is absurd.  I would have used the word "preposterous," but it wouldn't fit in the cartoon illustration at the top of this thread.

DXer needs to provide some EVIDENCE in support of his theory.  It is preposterous to argue that the FBI has "no evidence" against Ivins without DXer providing anything that even resembles evidence to support his argument that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax mailings of 2001.

Ed

30 comments:

  1. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted two postings to this blog overnight. Here is the full text of the first attempt:

    ----------------
    The explanation and numerous links demonstrating that Ed is mistaken are here.

    DXer says: Adnan El-Shukrijumah is the anthrax mailer … on or about 9/13/2001, he phoned from KSM’s house to tell his mom he was coming to the US

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 6, 2014

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/dxer-adnan-el-shukrijumah-is-the-anthrax-mailer-on-9132001-he-phoned-from-ksms-house-to-tell-his-mom-he-was-coming-to-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-34743

    September 23, 2014 at 6:03 pm
    September 23, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    September 23, 2014 at 8:06 pm
    September 23, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    -------------------------------

    DXer considers that meaningless blather to be an explanation of something. All it demonstrates is that DXer (a.k.a. "Anonymous") cannot explain anything.

    DXer's second attempted post, in its entirely, was as follows:

    --------------------
    In arguing against an Al Qaeda theory, Ed wrote:

    "So, what do we know about this "accomplice" other than that he has apparently never been seen in any photograph and that he has never been associated with the dead al Qaeda members?"

    The FBI's urgent pleas for help in capturing Adnan El-Shukrijumah went unnoticed by Ed, as did the discussion in the 911 Commission Report and the numerous witness accounts of Adnan's association with Atta. It was Ed's failure to know that the hijackers had accomplices that led to his confusion.

    ------------------

    The quote is from my Al Qaeda web page HERE, where in 2002 I was ridiculing an article in the New York Times which said:

    "If the hijackers did have anthrax, they would probably have needed an accomplice to mail the tainted letters, bioterrorism experts knowledgeable about the case said."

    DUH! The 9/11 hijackers were all DEAD at the time of the mailings, so OF COURSE they would have needed an accomplice. But WHO?

    DXer may have been arguing in 2002 that it was El-Shukrijumah, but what reason would there be to pay any attention to DXer? He has no evidence to support his beliefs.

    And even now he can't put 2 and 2 together to create a logical argument in support of his beliefs. All he can do is waste time arguing about things said in 2002 or that he believes "Franklin Park" was in the return address on the Senate letters because al Qaeda 9/11 terrorists worshiped in a Fort Lauderdale mosque that was across the street from a park called "Franklin Park," NOT because the letters were mailed near a town in New Jersey called "Franklin Park."

    DXer needs to explain the timeline showing that Mohamed Atta would have known that there was a park in Fort Lauderdale called "Franklin Park" at the time he wrote the letters. But, even then it is far more logical that the return address relates to where the letters were mailed, rather than to some obscure park in Florida.

    The al Qaeda theory makes no sense. It's not even a theory. It's a hodge-podge of unconnected ideas and claims.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't want to get between (or choose sides!) between Mister Lake and DXer. Not on DXer's hypothesis anyway.

    I would observe though:

    1) there's no dispute that Adnan El-Shukrijumah told his mother on the phone he intended to go to the US, this on Sept 13th.

    2) the US commercial aircraft were not flying on the 13th.

    In checking info on this (see: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=156648 scroll 1/4th way down ) I found it seems that traveling into/within the US by commercial carrier would have been fairly difficult.......VERY difficult until the 15th at least, with lesser difficulties later in the month. But note the wide divergencies from one carrier to another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's all I'm saying. It wouldn't have been "impossible" to get from Afghanistan to New Jersey in five days, but, after 9/11 air travel was a mess and there were major security checks going on. Plus, there's no evidence that El-Shukrijumah did it.

      And, the entire theory just doesn't seem logical.

      Ed

      Delete
  3. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous," just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:

    --------------
    The FBI disagrees with you, Ed. The FBI is issuing the BOLO for Shukrijumah under the alias announced that they had reason to believe he travelled sometime after September 1, 2001. You are not privy to the FBI has about El-Shukrijumah's travel under the named alias.
    -------------------------

    There's nothing in that announcement that disagrees with what I'm saying. There's nothing that says the FBI disagrees with me or that I disagree with the FBI on this matter.

    "Sometime after September 1" could be any time in the following few years. And we supposedly KNOW that it wasn't in the first 12 days after September 1, since he supposedly made that phone call from Afghanistan to his mother on September 13.

    All I'm saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE that El-Shukrijuma got to the US in time to mail the first anthrax letters in Princeton before mail pickup time on September 18th.

    Plus, none of the rest of the al Qaeda theory is supported by any meaningful evidence. It's all just a hodge-podge of disconnected ideas, guesses and wild speculation.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yesterday, I did some research into DXer's absurd al Qaeda anthrax theory and found an article which shows just how muddled his theory is. Click HERE for the article. It says,

    Adnan el-Shukrijumah -- believed to be a 27-year-old Saudi citizen -- is wanted for questioning in regard to a possible domestic terrorist plot.
    .....
    Using the alias Ja'far al-Tayar and similar names, el-Shukrijumah is described as standing between 5'3" and 5'5" and weighing at least 130 pounds.

    There has been some confusion on the part of intelligence and law enforcement sources about the identity of el-Shukrijumah, who might also be wanted by the FBI under the name Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan. Khan fits the same physical description as el-Shukrijumah, although the FBI alert -- dated Feb. 7 -- has him as being 36 years old and born in Pakistan. Khan is also a pilot and was last seen in Miami.

    Federal agents recently raided a home in Miami where Khan was believed to be living, but failed to apprehend him. The original FBI warning about Khan acknowledged that law enforcement was unsure about his name, age and place of birth. However, Khan is known to use the same aliases as el-Shukrijumah.

    "Obviously you can tell how hard it can be to track these guys," said one federal law enforcement official. "Whether they're the same guy or not, we want to talk to them."

    "We don't know if they are the same person and, frankly, we're not sure the FBI knows, either," said one terrorism expert. "But we do know this alert was spawned by the interviews with Khalid. There was a warning that Khan entered the U.S. illegally around Sept. 1, 2001. Then we knew he was in Miami. Now we have reason to believe he's a Mohammed Atta-type of guy."


    So, Khan, a 36 year old Pakistani, illegally entered the USA sometime after September 1, 2001, but Shukrijumah, a 27 year old Saudi, was in Afghanistan talking to his mother on the phone on September 13, 2001. And Shukrijuma's parents said that, in November 2002, Shukrijumah was living in Morocco where he was teaching school.

    "Dxer" evidently believes Khan and Shukrijumah are the same person. The facts say otherwise.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  5. This morning, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted to post another message to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:

    --------------------
    Dan Eggen and Manuel Roig-Franzia, "FBI on Global Hunt for Saudi Al Qaeda Suspect," of The Washington Post, Mar. 21, 2003 explain:

    "[Shukrijumah] last entered the United States before the terrorist attacks in New York and on the Pentagon and left later that year, a law enforcement official said."

    You disagree with the FBI about Shukrijumah's travel. Okay.

    Those of us who read the Washington Post thus knew that Mohammed Atta, El-Shukrijumah's associated tied to the Norman Oklahoma flight school and to the immigration office visits of Atta and the other hijacker, had entered and left the United States at the time of the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings.

    Atta's accomplice was coming directly from key operatives involved in Al Qaeda's anthrax program in Kandahar. Indeed, he stayed where Al Qaeda anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat stayed.

    -----------------

    As usual, whatever "DXer" is trying to say, he buries it under a pile of irrelevant material -- this time about Mohammed Atta. Note that "DXer" doesn't cite any FBI source showing when Shukrijumah entered or left the USA.

    I do NOT "disagree with the FBI about Shukrijumah's travel." That's just DXer's way of trying to distort the argument. He is the one who disagrees with the FBI.

    The Washington Post article can be read by clicking HERE. The Post article also says nothing about when the FBI says Shukrijumah entered or left the USA.

    However, it does say this:

    The public plea for information came after weeks of investigation that centered on an alias of El Shukrijumah that the FBI had attached to another man, a law enforcement official said. The bureau yesterday rescinded a February alert issued under that man's name, Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan. That earlier search was one factor that led to the elevation of the U.S. threat level last month.

    So, the FBI evidently no longer cares that Khan entered the USA after September 1, 2001.

    And there is NO indication of when Shukrijumah entered the USA again after he left in May (or June or July) of 2001. It could have been years later.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  6. According to a source HERE,

    Shukrijumah left the United States in May 2001 after receiving his degree in computer engineering and flew to Guyana before entering Trinidad using Guyana passport #A041472141, issued in the United States.

    And, according to Fox News (Click HERE),

    Panamanian Security Council Chief Ramiro Jarvis said El Shukrijumah arrived in Panama legally from the United States in April 2001 — five months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks — and stayed in Panama for 10 days. He also visited Trinidad and Tobago for six days the next month.

    "We don't know exactly what he did during his stay and it is important to find out," Jarvis said.

    Migration records show El Shukrijumah returned to the United States, Interior Department spokesman David Salayandia said. The last place he was seen, however, was in Panama.


    So, it appears that Shukrijumah left the USA in April, went to Panama, returned to the USA after a ten day stay in Panama, and then left the USA again in May to fly to Trinidad.

    And, of course, none of this has anything to do with the anthrax mailings. Nor does it indicate in any way that Shukrijumah was in New Jersey on September 18, 2001, when the first anthrax letters were mailed.

    But, it does show that Shukrijumah did enter the USA earlier in 2001 (in April) prior to leaving again in May. There is still NO information that indicates Shukrijumah returned to the USA until (possibly) over a year later - if then.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  7. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted three more posts to this blog. Here is the first post in its entirety:

    ----------------
    The article states:

    "El Shukrijumah may be traveling on passports from Guyana, Trinidad, Canada or Saudi Arabia, the FBI said. He last entered the United States before the terrorist attacks in New York and on the Pentagon and left later that year, a law enforcement official said."

    ----------------

    Another example of a meaningless post. We know that Shukrijumah went to Panama in April 2001, returned to the USA, and then he left again in May 2001. So what?"

    Here's the second attempted post in its entirety:

    --------------
    The Terrorist List, Volume 2, Adnan G. El-Shukrijumah, p. 257 provides a lengthy discussion of Adnan El-Shukrijumah.
    By Edward F. Mickolus, Susan L. Simmon

    http://books.google.com/books?id=6bgqeBoIXmoC&pg=RA2-PA257&lpg=RA2-PA257&dq=Shukrijumah++%22Mohammed+Sher%22&source=bl&ots=kmCBmffe01&sig=slLo6xktK1rmTbuFSKxMzZJkhQc&hl=jv&sa=X&ei=k9kmVMHfF5GuyATHgYLYCg&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Shukrijumah%20%20%22Mohammed%20Sher%22&f=false

    "The FBI rescinded a February alert issued against Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan, an alias of El Shukrijumah."

    -------------------

    Yes, we know Khan was the person who returned to the USA "after September 1, 2001." And that he was being confused with Shukrijumah. So, DXer adds nothing to the discussion with his post.

    The third post in its entirety was as follows:

    ----------------
    For FBI documents about El-Shukrijumah's association with Atta and what was known about El-Shukrijumah in late 2001 and 2002 by the Florida FBI, see the documents the federal judge is reviewing in the Broward Bulldog FOIA lawsuit.

    The person the FBI knew had returned to the United States was Jafar The Pilot aka Adnan El-Shukrijumah. See the widely reported public announcements in February and March 2003.

    See also this internal FBI document:

    In Sarasota investigation, who was the person associated with the hijackers’ flight school who was discovered to have re-entered the country after 9/11?
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on September 21, 2014
    http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/in-sarasota-investigation-who-was-the-person-associated-with-the-hijackers-flight-school-who-was-discovered-to-have-re-entered-the-country-after-911/

    --------------

    Nothing new there. Just the same argument he has argued before. Now he wants people to look things up. And he cites himself as a source who asked a question: "In Sarasota investigation, who was the person associated with the hijackers’ flight school who was discovered to have re-entered the country after 9/11?" No one is looking for old questions. We're looking for new information.

    All three of "DXer's" posts were just a waste of time.

    That's why DXer is banned from posting to this site. He just says the same meaningless blather over and over, he asks questions that have already been answered or which no one can answer, and he cannot explain anything.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  8. Was the kid who wrote the anthrax letters a boy ... a girl? ... 50/50?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve H wrote: "Was the kid who wrote the anthrax letters a boy ... a girl ... 50/50?"

    Since the "50/50?" part of the question indicates it's not a serious question, I have to assume that it's just another troll question from "DXer" (a.k.a. "anonymous") using a different name.

    However, I have no problem answering the question for the record:

    Since it is not known with absolute certainty that a child wrote the letters, there can be no way to be certain whether it was a boy or girl.

    The handwriting evidence says it was a child who was just entering the first days of first grade. He or she was copying from some other document. That evidence was known for nearly seven years before it was determined that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

    WHO the child was is a totally different question requiring a totally different examination of totally different evidence. It requires knowing which children Bruce Ivins would have been able to access in secret.

    When you look at what is known about which children Ivins would have - or might have known, and which children Ivins would most likely have used in such a way, one child - a boy - stands out as "most likely."

    However, there's nothing more that I can say about that, since identifying the boy any further could label him for all time as "The Kid Who Wrote The Anthrax Letters."

    If he wants to identify himself that way some day, that's up to him. He would be about 19 years old now. Maybe he'll write a book "I Wrote The Anthrax Letters." It would easily pay his way through college.

    Then we'll all know the answer to your question.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Steve H wrote: "Was the kid who wrote the anthrax letters a boy ... a girl ... 50/50?"

    Since the "50/50?" part of the question indicates it's not a serious question, I have to assume that it's just another troll question from "DXer" (a.k.a. "anonymous") using a different name."

    ???? By 50/50, I meant is it equally likely based on the handwriting whether a boy wrote it or whether a girl wrote it. Do girls and boys write the same or are there differences you discern in the handwriting?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve H wrote: "Do girls and boys write the same or are there differences you discern in the handwriting?"

    I don't know. I'm not a handwriting "expert." I just know the "basics." There might be some way for a true "expert" to sometimes tell whether the writing is that of a boy or girl. But, I think when a child is just copying material, instead of writing something original, it could be extremely difficult - if not impossible - to definitively tell if the writer is a boy or girl.

    Instead, it would be much more logical and reasonable to just try to determine which child Ivins' would "most likely" have manipulated to do the writing.

    Based upon that area of analysis, it was "most likely" a boy.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  12. Young girls are easier to manipulate than young boys.

    Young boys are very skeptical.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve H" (who still seems to be "DXer" a.k.a. "Anonymous) wrote: "Young girls are easier to manipulate than young boys. Young boys are very skeptical."

    That's an interesting opinion, but I doubt that it has any basis in reality. My opinion would be that young girls are smarter than boys, so it would be easier to manipulate a young boy. Click HERE for an article from Psychology Today titled "Girls Are More Intelligent Than Boys, But Men Are More Intelligent Than Women".

    However, it's still a pointless argument, since this is not a situation where the "average boy" or "average girl" was involved. In this situation, it would depend on the individual child and how well he (or she) knew Bruce Ivins.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  14. Okay, putting to the side your view that it is easier to manipulate a young boy than a young girl, Hartley does a good job in his article addressing Spear's article in explaining that there are differences in handwriting between girls and boys.

    To wit, girls are neat -- such as the anthrax letters. Boys are sloppy.

    So in addition to being smarter than boys, they are neater.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Steve Howell" (who still seems to be "DXer" a.k.a. "Anonymous") wrote: "Okay, putting to the side your view that it is easier to manipulate a young boy than a young girl, Hartley does a good job in his article addressing Spear's article in explaining that there are differences in handwriting between girls and boys. "

    You continue to argue just like "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous"). You twist what I say. And you force me to look up "Hartley" and "Spear," instead of providing links and quotes. HERE and HERE.

    And, it's all irrelevant. Unless you can PROVE that the handwriting on the anthrax documents is that of a young girl, all you are doing is saying that some "experts" claim that there is a difference between a typical young girl's handwriting and a typical young boy's handwriting. And that means nothing, since the writer of the letters may not be "typical."

    My claim is (1) based on writing differences between the first set of anthrax documents and the second set of anthrax documents, the handwriting on the anthrax documents appears to be that of a child just starting first grade, and (2) the child in first grade that Bruce Ivins would most likely have used is a boy.

    So, what some handwriting experts say about "typical or average handwriting done by children is irrelevant. To be relevant they would have to specifically address the handwriting on the anthrax letters and explain their reasoning.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your theory, Mr. Lake, also does not take into account whether the child you imagine wrote the letters, is right-handed or left-handed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Steve Howell" (who appears to be "DXer" a.k.a. "Anonymous" using a false name) wrote: "Your theory, Mr. Lake, also does not take into account whether the child you imagine wrote the letters, is right-handed or left-handed."

    And why is that relevant? Just like "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous"), you seem to be able to discuss only things that are not relevant.

    I think some "handwriting experts" have indicated the writing was done by someone who is right handed. But, I don't know if the child used by Ivins is right-handed or left-handed. So, the issue is not relevant.

    The only way the subject would be relevant is (1) if a specific child were named, (2) it was known whether he (or she) was right- or left-handed, and (3) ALL the handwriting experts said the handwriting was done by a child who wrote with his other hand.

    All that would prove was that Ivins used a different child.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  18. I agree it wasn't written by that Ivins scientist. But it wasn't written by a child either. It was written by someone sending a lethal letter ... such a person would have no reason to involve a kid... who would go tell his parents. I don't know if you know kids but they are big blabbers. They say whatever they are thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Steve H." wrote: "But it wasn't written by a child either."

    And: "such a person would have no reason to involve a kid"

    I understand that is your opinion or belief, but your opinions and beliefs do not agree with the facts and evidence.

    You are talking about the way YOU would do things. You aren't Bruce Ivins. Bruce Ivins may have had several good reasons to involve a kid.

    I see no reason to discuss beliefs and opinions. It's just a waste of time.

    The facts and evidence say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

    The facts and evidence say that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax documents.

    No beliefs or opinions will change what the facts and evidence say.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  20. There are NO facts and evidence say that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax documents. Your theory is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Steve H" wrote: "There are NO facts and evidence say that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax documents."

    Nonsense. Quite to the contrary.

    There is a MOUNTAIN of facts and evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. Click HERE to read the FBI/DOJ's "Amerithrax Investigation Summary." And you can go to my web site for details about how Ivins most likely made the anthrax powders, etc. Plus, my book will tell you further details.

    There are many UNCHALLENGED FACTS and evidence showing that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax documents. Click HERE to go to my web page where some of the facts are explained. Click HERE to view a YouTube video where I explain 12 FACTS which show that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax documents.

    If Ivins was the anthrax killer and the letters were written by a child just starting first grade, then Ivins MUST have used a child to do the writing. Plus, it makes total sense for Bruce Ivins to have used a child that way, although it might not make sense for the "average" criminal to do it.

    "Steve H" (who seems more and more like "DXER" a.k.a. "Anonymous" every day) also wrote: "Your theory is absurd."

    That is your OPINION. I've been trying to make it clear to you that I have no interest in arguing opinions. It is pointless.

    The only way to resolve an issue like this is through an objective look at the facts and evidence.

    The facts and evidence say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

    The facts and evidence say that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax documents.

    The facts and evidence therefore say that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax documents.

    No beliefs or opinions will change what the facts and evidence say.


    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  22. Today I came across an Amerithrax-related post at blog washingtonsblog.com.
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/review-2001-anthrax-deception.html
    --------------------------------
    It again went over that newish book by Graeme MacQueen. But most interesting for me was a comment by "Stephen" which included:
    ----------------
    For what it's worth, I was at a biological-chemical warfare conference in June 2001 ("Detection of illicit substances, Chemical and Biological"), where about 50% of the participants were directly military, and many of the others under military contract. The theme of the conference was how to build detection systems for these toxins (e.g. a sensor system you could put in a subway station to detect for nerve gas attacks- technically more of a challenge than most people realize).

    One common thread that came up repeatedly over the course of the conference was "what do we do if there is a Uni-Powderer?" This was the term for an anonymous person who started sending anthrax via the post office. So this threat/issue was clearly on people's minds before the October attacks began.

    And because of my participation in that (rather small) conference, I know I ended up on the FBI list of people that were investigated for their role in the Anthrax Attacks. Wheee!
    -----------------------------
    Gee, the Uni-Powderer, it seems the obvious moniker but this is the first I've encountered it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. R. Rowley wrote: "Today I came across an Amerithrax-related post at blog washingtonsblog.com [HERE.]

    The article is a month old, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen it before or not.

    The article also provides a link to a whole series of washingtonsblog.com articles about the anthrax attacks, all apparently from the same anonymous blogger. Click HERE for the link.

    In reality, of course, Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber, not Uni-bomber. The name came from the FBI's file on him "UNABOM": (UNiversity & Airline BOMber).

    So, I'm not sure what "Uni-powderer" would mean.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Dxer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post. It contains his typical distorted nonsense. It begins with this quote from me: "But, he can't provide any evidence at all that El-Shukrijumah returned in time to mail the first anthrax letters on September 18, 2001."

    And then "DXer" asks: "Ed, why didn't you correct this? The FBI is the one saying that El-Shukrijumah came back to the US from Afghanistan sometime after September 1, 2001. Do you disagree with the FBI on this?"

    There's nothing to correct. Your claim is FALSE! What does "sometime after September 1, 2001" mean? Plus, that date applies to Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan, who may or may not be Shukrijumah.

    The FBI has said NOTHING about when Shukrijumah entered the USA. The date DXer cites is from a UPI article HERE dated Feb. 7, 2003. So, that means "after Sept. 1, 2001" could mean any time between that day and Feb. 2003.

    DXer then distorts things by asking, "As for why he would mail from the US, do you think Kandahar had mail service to the US?"

    No one asked why Shukrijumah would mail the letters from the US. The question was: Why did Shukrijumah have to fly all the way to the US just to mail the letters?

    DXer also wrote: " As for why wouldn't someone else mail the letters, who else do you think was working with KSM, Atef, Sufaat and Atta?"

    If the Atta wrote the letters and the 9/11 hijackers somehow filled them with anthrax, then the letters would have had to have been kept somewhere until Shukrijumah arrived in the USA and started mailing them on Sept. 18, 2001. Who was holding the letters until Shukrijumah arrived? Why couldn't that person mail the letters?

    DXer also wrote: "You should correct your mistakes."

    WHAT mistakes? To be a mistake, something has to be proved wrong. Vague notions about SOMEONE entering the US "after Sept. 1, 2001" doesn't mean it was Shukrijuma or that he must have arrived on Sept. 2, or Sept. 3 or Nov. 5 or Jan. 20.

    DXer also wrote: "His mother, by the way, says that on or about September 13 when he called he was calling from Trinidad. (Compare the witness account placing him at KSM's house)."

    So, DXer appears to be admitting that, if Shukrijumah's mother can be believed, Shukrijumah had not yet entered the US on September 13, 2001.

    Is DXer arguing that Shukrijuma entered the US on September 2, picked up the letters from the hijackers, then left the country with the letters to stay in Trinidad for awhile, then flew to New Jersey to mail the letters late on Sept. 17?

    That doesn't make any sense at all. And there's NO EVIDENCE to prove any of it.

    Besides, when it suits his purposes, DXer also argues that Shukrijumah was in Kandahar on Sept. 13, 2001. He clearly has NO IDEA where Shukrijumah was at the time of the mailings.

    The whole "al Qaeda did it" anthrax theory is a total crock. There is no evidence to support any of it. The evidence says that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Vague notions about how some al Qaeda operative MIGHT have done it isn't evidence. It's a baseless BELIEF. End of story.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Added Note: What "after Sept. 1, 2001" appears to mean is that the FBI KNOWS where Shukrijumah was on Sept. 1, 2001, and it was NOT in the USA. So, when they were looking for him inside the USA in 2003, all they could say for certain was that he entered sometime after Sept 1, 2001, when they last knew exactly where he was outside of the USA.

      Ed

      Delete
  25. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted two more posts yesterday evening. They're mostly just gibberish, since DXer seems totally incapable of explaining anything.

    In the first email, DXer began by quoting me: "Why couldn't that person mail the letters?"

    And DXer's apparent attempt to answer that question was as follows:

    Ed, Al Qaeda's anthrax lab was in Kandahar, Afghanistan. That is where Yazid Sufaat had been working with the virulent anthrax. Before that, Yazid Sufaat and the technicians were working at Omar Hospital. That would explain why Adnan El-Shukrijumah found it necessary to travel from Afghanistan to the US.

    As anyone can see, his answer to my question is just blather. It's about why he believes "El-Shukrijumah found it necessary to travel from Afghanistan to the US." His answer doesn't match the question, which was about why the person who was holding the anthrax letters between the time Atta wrote them and the time they were supposedly picked up by El-Shukrijuma couldn't have mailed the letters, so the "answer" is totally meaningless.

    Then DXer asks one of his irrelevant, screwball questions: "What did Adnan El-Shukrijumah discuss with fellow KSM housemate Yazid Sufaat before travelling to the US?"

    DXer believes he is an expert on this. Why ask me? Is it some kind of game? I have no time to try to answer meaningless, screwball questions.

    In the second email, DXer argued, "Ed, Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan was the fake name Adnan El-Shukrijumah used to enter the country."

    That is DXer's BELIEF. But, he has no evidence to support it. Or, if he does, he is incapable of explaining his evidence.

    The rest of the first email was just more meaningless blather, demonstrating that he is totally incapable of explaining anything.

    I realize that it's a waste of time and energy to show his attempted posts here, but I'm hoping that he'll someday learn that his beliefs are meaningless and that he needs to explain his theory using evidence, not irrelevant gibberish.

    To him, it may not be "irrelevant gibberish," but no one cares what it all means to him. The only reason DXer should be trying to post here is to EXPLAIN why his theory that al Qaeda sent the anthrax letters is better than the FBI's findings that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters. Gibberish won't accomplish that.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the 3rd paragraph from the bottom, I wrote "The rest of the first email was just more meaningless blather...."

      I should have written, "The rest of the second email was just more meaningless blather ...."

      Ed

      Delete
  26. "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog today. The post continues "Steve H's" argument, and it raises the confidence level for "DXer" and "Steve H" being the same person to about 75%.

    "DXer" began by quoting me: "They do not reach a conclusion based upon the evidence. They start with a conclusion and then subjectively look for evidence to support it while ignoring all the evidence that shows they are wrong."

    He then wrote: "Ed, in connection with your view that a First Grade boy wrote the anthrax letters and your debate with Stephen Howell about whether First Grade girls or boys are easier to manipulate, what scientific evidence supports your claim that First Grade girls are smarter than First Grade boys?"

    That was an off-topic argument "Steve H" started. There's nothing in my hypothesis that says anything about girls being smarter than boys. "Steve H" just started arguing that boys were smarter, and I showed him "evidence" to the contrary. I have no personal opinion one way or the other.

    "DXer" then wrote: "Did you consider the Common Core testing results of First Graders in claiming that girls are smarter than First Grade boys?

    You perhaps do not address the scientific evidence because you are not informed enough to know about it."


    As stated above, this is an argument "Steve H" started, and it has nothing to do with the hypothesis that the letters were written by a first grader. IT'S NOT A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO ME.

    Click HERE to go to my web page about the handwriting, then do a search for "boy" or "girl." You will find that NEITHER word is mentioned. I always refer to the "child."

    DXer a.k.a Anonymous also wrote: "You offer absolutely NOTHING that would be accepted in court as evidence to support your belief based on your own experience rather than science."

    My hypothesis is a straight-forward layman's handwriting analysis presented for discussion. It has NOTHING to do with the criminal case against Ivins or ANY criminal case. Therefore it would not be presented in court. In court, the DOJ would have argued that Ivins disguised his handwriting in some unknown way. (Technically, that could include using a child to do the actual writing.)

    "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" a.k.a "Steve H") is clearly just trying to twist things to create an argument over something that was never claimed. He apparently has nothing else to discuss or argue about, since he cannot explain his own theory, much less defend it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  27. "DXer" a.k.a. "Anonymous" a.k.a. "Steve H" attempted another post to this blog last night, and he also sent me an email. Both missives were attempts to change the discussion from being about facts and evidence to being arguments based upon beliefs and opinions. I have no interest in such arguments.

    The facts and evidence say that a child just entering first grade wrote the anthrax documents. The facts and evidence are available for viewing on YouTube. Just click HERE. Or you can read my web page title "The Facts say: A Child WroteThe Anthrax Letters" by clicking HERE.

    OPINIONS about whether or not girls are "neater" than boys are irrelevant and of no interest to me.

    And there's no point in reading irrelevant "literature" about handwriting analysis if the specifics of my analysis are not discussed.

    All "DXer" is doing is attempting to argue irrelevant and meaningless issues instead of the facts and evidence.

    He cannot discuss facts and evidence, because he has no facts or evidence to support his belief that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks.

    It's as simple as that.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete