tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post7572786457844637095..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: June 3 - June 9, 2012 DiscussionsEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-34885162281529531382012-06-12T13:18:36.060-07:002012-06-12T13:18:36.060-07:00Yes, these are some interesting links. ThanksYes, these are some interesting links. ThanksJOSEPH from SPAINhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613155643135660092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-58182321062486608502012-06-11T07:55:58.346-07:002012-06-11T07:55:58.346-07:00Anonymous wrote: "You falsely (in error) argu...Anonymous wrote: <i>"You falsely (in error) argued that Taylor did not say he used the lyophilizer -- when he in fact did."</i><br /><br />Nonsense. "Can be used" is not the same as "was used" in any language. It's only people who have other theories - like you - who twist the facts to create an argument where there really is no argument.<br /><br /><b>The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.</b> Arguing that Taylor didn't express himself well is beside the point and just a way to avoid discussing the FACTS which say that Ivins was the anthrax killer.<br /><br />Have you ever even attempted to assemble all the claims used in your "Al Qaeda Theory" to explain the theory step by step? If you try it, you'll see it's a laughable collection of unconnected and unrelated facts which make no sense.<br /><br />The "Bruce Ivins CASE" makes perfect sense, it's based upon solid facts, and the DOJ was presenting the case to a grand jury while also preparing to take it to court. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-62763935160462438512012-06-11T07:40:38.943-07:002012-06-11T07:40:38.943-07:00Ed,
Having no experience with litigation except f...Ed,<br /><br />Having no experience with litigation except for the suit against you for infringement, you don't appreciate that the beautiful and zealous AUSA Lieber has made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. In early statements, Dr. Ivins he had no training or experience to make a dried spore powder. The fact that the lyophilizer was signed out to him was as obvious as the large refrigerator-sized device located in the uncontained B2 just feet away from him while he was there. It was public record that it was used in by him and his colleagues in the 1995 patent he gave authorities. That patent in turn was referenced in the numerous patents in which the former Zawahiri associate thanked him for providing virulent Ames. <br /><br />Saying that he had no training to make a dried spore powder (involving virulent anthrax) is entirely different from using a lyophilizer as part of the vaccine research. Being uncritical and accepting what the earnest prosecutor has alleged, you simply buy into what is her spin and characterization -- as distinguished from evidence. Indeed, the DC US Attorneys Office expressly takes the position that the 302s are not prior statements because they involve the agent's characterization. <br /><br />The United States Attorney Taylor posited drying by lyophilizer and was immediately debunked. You falsely (in error) argued that Taylor did not say he used the lyophilizer -- when he in fact did. <br /><br />For months, you did not even know what the B3 included which led to many months of confused posts which you never corrected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-66598612383794892802012-06-11T06:34:45.280-07:002012-06-11T06:34:45.280-07:00Anonymous,
Ivins claimed he didn't know how t...Anonymous,<br /><br />Ivins claimed he didn't know how to dry spores, yet he was <b>in charge of teaching people how to use the lyophilizer</b>. So, he <b>lied</b>. That appears to be the point Taylor was trying to make regarding the lyophilizer. But, people with little comprehension of the facts of the case - like you - jumped on it to argue that Taylor was saying that Ivins used the lyophilizer to make the anthrax powders. <br /><br />Dr. Majidi clarified the matter, even though the facts were already clear. It was just a matter of people not listening to what was being said, and putting their own spin on things. Which is what you do.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-45770736946367593022012-06-10T15:48:11.534-07:002012-06-10T15:48:11.534-07:00Yes, the scientists had to hastily call a press co...Yes, the scientists had to hastily call a press conference in order to correct the mistake the lawyers made. But you can see the premise underlying the lawyer's "Ivins Theory."<br /><br />On interpreting both Dr. Relman and US Attorney Taylor's statements, it is a matter of a reading comprehension.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-16454113410351718782012-06-10T13:26:04.997-07:002012-06-10T13:26:04.997-07:00Anonymous wrote: "I asked him to correct his ...Anonymous wrote: <i>"I asked him to correct his error but he didn't."</i><br /><br />That's because <b>THERE IS NO ERROR</b>, except on your part. You misstate the facts.<br /><br />If you'll click <a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/06/june-3-june-9-2012-discussions.html?showComment=1339339209604#c8529040320759640944" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> or go to my June 10, 2012 7:40AM comment in this thread, you'll see I corrected YOUR ERROR.<br /><br />U.S. Attorney Taylor said,<br /><br /><i>"A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and <b>can be</b> used to dry anthrax."</i> <br /><br />Taylor did <b>NOT</b> say nor claim nor argue that Ivins used the lyophilizer to make the attack spores.<br /><br />In the <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AnthraxRoundtableAnnotated.html" rel="nofollow">Roundtable Discussion of August 18, 2008</a>, Dr. Majidi of the FBI was far more clear: <br /><br /><i>DR. MAJIDI: You know we really -- we really don't have the -- we don't really have any answers for what process was used to grow additional spores or what methodology was used to dry them. <b>I think that a lot of folks focus on the issue of lyophilizer. You can ask any of the folks and the panel members, and they will tell you that you can dry biological samples in one of dozens of ways. lyophilizer is one of them. You can let the samples heat-dry. You can let the samples -- the water evaporate.</b> You can -- "</i> <br /><br />So, your argument is BOGUS. You made the error, not me. So, it's you who needs to correct your error.<br /><br />I've made many errors over the years, and I've corrected them whenever they were PROVED to be errors.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-88498153763823893392012-06-10T12:46:09.155-07:002012-06-10T12:46:09.155-07:00Ed misstates the facts. He wrote: "There...Ed misstates the facts. He wrote: "There's nothing in that statement that says Ivins used the lyophilizer to make the attack spores. It only says that Ivins knew how to dry spores by using a lyophilizer. So, he knew at least ONE method to dry spores."<br /><br />I asked him to correct his error but he didn't. He never does, leaving every post riddled with basic factual errors.<br /><br /><br />Here is the statement by US Attorney Taylor. <br /><br />http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/opa-080806.html<br /><br />This was their formal written claim to tens of millions of Americans. This was the government's theory until it was demolished by the fact witnesses.<br /><br />"The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and can be used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins’ lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-10312522302314496362012-06-10T12:00:57.651-07:002012-06-10T12:00:57.651-07:00Anonymous wrote: "While Dr. Ivins has an alib...Anonymous wrote: <i>"While Dr. Ivins has an alibi and there is no evidence he was near the mailbox,"</i><br /><br />Your ignorance of evidence is astounding. There is an abundance of evidence that Ivins prepared the powders and the letters, and there is no evidence that he involved anyone else. Therefore, that is evidence that he was "near the mailbox," since the other evidence is enough to prove he mailed the letters. You do not need home movies of him actually putting the letters into the mailbox. <b>The FACTS say he put the letters into the mailbox.</b><br /><br />Your favorite suspects may also have been "near the mailbox," but that fact by itself is meaningless. It's when combined with all the other evidence - as in the case against Ivins - that it becomes clear that Ivins was "near the mailbox" and mailed the letters.<br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"the FBI's experts Velsko and Weber say that the silica and iron signature need further exploration. Ed disagrees. Okay. So what."</i><br /><br />I only disagree with the word "need." The case does NOT <b>NEED</b> further explanation of the silicon and iron signature. But Velsko and Weber might NEED a further explanation to quell their curiosity. From my discussions with them, however, they seem to feel that it's not worth the effort.<br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"The FBI's genetics experts say that the genetics don't point to Ivins. Ed disagrees."</i><br /><br />That's total nonsense. No "genetic experts" have said the genetics don't point to Ivins. The NAS just said that the genetic evidence wasn't scientifically conclusive. But, in court it's not necessary for such evidence to be "scientifically conclusive" if there is ample additional evidence to support the fact that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. And there is such evidence.<br /><br />As you say, Nancy Haigwood's OPINION that Ivins was the anthrax mailer would never be aired in court. So, why do you even bring it up. Is it because it's an OPINION and all you can think about is OPINIONS?<br /><br />It is FACTS which would have convicted Ivins, NOT OPINIONS.<br /><br />You misunderstand the nature of the testimony of the fact witnesses. They confirm the Ivins CASE -- on the facts.<br /><br /><b>Ivins had the means to make the powders.</b> EXPERTS could testify to that in court.<br /><br /><b>Ivins had the opportunity to make the powders.</b> Experts could testify to that in court.<br /><br /><b>Ivins had access to the source of the powders.</b> Documents and Ivins' own word would confirm that in court. <br /><br /><b>Ivins had MOTIVE.</b> Ivins own words would confirm that in court.<br /><br /><b>Ivins had no alibi for the times of the mailings.</b> Ivins could not provide a verifiable alibi for himself. Investigators would testify to that in court. <br /><br /><b>Ivins couldn't explain why he was working unusual hours during the times the powders were most likely being made.</b> His own words would verify that in court.<br /><br /><b>Ivins own words show that he didn't deny making the powders. He just claimed that if the did it, he couldn't remember doing it.</b> Those taped words would have hung him in court.<br /><br />And, I can go on and on. The FACTS say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. There are NO FACTS saying that any al Qaeda member is even a viable suspect, much less a BETTER suspect.<br /><br />Ed<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-68792440699741010672012-06-10T10:26:55.865-07:002012-06-10T10:26:55.865-07:00Ed argues that the FBI's anthrax expert is wro...Ed argues that the FBI's anthrax expert is wrong.<br /><br />Perhaps Ed has not been through a trial before to understand how the trial would go. And perhaps he might want to go and quote US Attorney Taylor's sentence(s) about a lyophilizer to understand he is mistaken. <br /><br />As another example, the FBI's experts Velsko and Weber say that the silica and iron signature need further exploration. Ed disagrees. Okay. So what.<br /><br />The FBI's genetics experts say that the genetics don't point to Ivins. Ed disagrees. Okay. So what.<br /><br />And Ed's main witness says she could not distinguish reality from her paranoid delusions about murderous entities.<br /><br />So, let's see, that leaves the woman who hated him, Nancy, because she thought he was responsible for having her work called tantamount to "cold fusion" in the Washington Post the previous week. She instantly "knew" it was him when she was a cc on a group email. Well, Ed's and Nancy's beliefs are not cognizable in court.<br /><br />Ed misunderstands the nature of the testimony of the fact witnesses. They destroy an Ivins Theory -- on the facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-67576851844622218812012-06-10T10:20:55.788-07:002012-06-10T10:20:55.788-07:00"I never said anything about operatives. &quo..."I never said anything about operatives. "<br /><br />To the contrary, Ed, your argument for the past 10 years and this past week is that the hijackers were all dead.<br /><br />You don't talk about the operatives and argue that they were invisible when actually any reader of newspapers knows a lot about them.<br /><br />While Dr. Ivins has an alibi and there is no evidence he was near the mailbox, that is not true of many of the operatives. <br /><br />At the time the FBI developed their "Ivins Theory" and Dr. Ivins committed suicide, they had not yet learned that on both nights of mailing he attended his group therapy session (he was addicted to alcohol).<br /><br />"June 4, 2012 (B) - I was so busy yesterday debunking what Laurie Garrett talked about in those two interviews that I failed to mention some items of critical evidence she did not talk about:<br /><br />1. The 9/11 hijackers were DEAD for a week at the time of the first anthrax mailing, and DEAD for a month at the time of the second anthrax mailing. I believe that is very good circumstantial evidence that they did NOT send the letters. (Of course, people who believe the 9/11 hijackers were behind the anthrax attack just immediately conjure up an invisible assistant who left no trace of himself anywhere and who remained behind to do the actual mailings.)"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-85290403207596409442012-06-10T07:40:09.604-07:002012-06-10T07:40:09.604-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Mr. Lake, you are the one w...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Mr. Lake, you are the one who falsely said there were no operatives ..."</i><br /><br />I never said anything about operatives. I'm saying that <b>the FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.</b> <br /><br />The FACTS say that the 9/11 hijackers were DEAD for a week at the time of the first mailing, and DEAD for a month at the time of the second mailing. <b>There are <i>NO FACTS</i> showing that the anthrax letters were part of some follow-up to the 9/11 attack launched by al Qaeda. The FACTS say that al Qaeda was NOT involved in the anthrax attacks.</b><br /><br />Anonymous quotes Patricia Worsham as saying, "<i>We did not have anything in containment suitable for drying down anything, much less a quantity of spores."</i><br /><br /><b>Patricia Worsham is absolutely WRONG. She's MISTAKEN. She's stating BELIEFS, NOT FACTS.</b> She's falsely assuming that Ivins used some STANDARD drying procedure. In reality, all Ivins had to do was leave a plate of damp spores in a biosafety cabinet for about 2 hours and he'd have dry spores identical to what was in the letters.<br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"Note that the United States Attorney Taylor, in the remarks prepared by AUSA Lieber, claimed that Dr. Ivins used the lyophilizer."</i><br /><br />Where? Cite the source. <br /><br />During the Aug. 6, 2008 briefing (link <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/opa-080806.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>, Taylor said: <br /><br /><i>"Dr. Ivins was one of a handful of scientists with the capability to create spores of the concentration and purity used in the attacks. The affidavits allege that, not only did Dr. Ivins create and maintain the spore batch used in the mailings, but he also had access to and experience using a lyophilizer. A lyophilizer is a sophisticated machine that is used to dry pathogens, and <b>can be</b> used to dry anthrax. We know others in Dr. Ivins’ lab consulted him when they needed to use this machine.</i><br /><br /><b>There's nothing in that statement that says Ivins used the lyophilizer to make the attack spores.</b> It only says that Ivins knew how to dry spores by using a lyophilizer. So, he knew at least ONE method to dry spores. <br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"On the other hand, the fact witnesses actually competent to testify all argue that Dr Ivins is innocent -- Little, Worsham, Adamovicz, Andrews and countless others."</i><br /><br />Nonsense. They cannot testify that Ivins was innocent. Their OPINIONS wouldn't even have been allowed in the Ivins trial. Their opinions were stated in the Stevens lawsuit, where the claims and legal rules were different.<br /><br />You can cite all the OPINIONS you want. They mean NOTHING when compared to THE FACTS which say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-44106192821584068492012-06-10T04:55:56.702-07:002012-06-10T04:55:56.702-07:00The article "The Amerithrax Case, 10 Years La...The article "The Amerithrax Case, 10 Years Later" in January 2012 issue of Frederick Gorilla featured some statements by two fact witnesses. The article is by Stephanie Yamkovenko. The main fact witness against him is his first counselor, who reportedly told David Willman that Dr. Ivins was the scariest patient she had ever had. As Mr. Willman could have learned from reading her 2009 online book and official records, she actually had just become licensed the previous year. She then quit the part-time practice and left the state upon physical exhaustion from being chased by murderous astral (imaginary) entities. She says she was psychotic in 2000 and that an alien gave her instructions at night. The alien had implanted a microchip, she says, in her butt. Ed Lake has not read her book. That is the quality of his analysis. <br /><br />This is a key fact witness Ed Lake relies upon. He even capitalizes the word FACT -- as if it somehow gave it added weight.<br /><br />On the other hand, the fact witnesses actually competent to testify all argue that Dr Ivins is innocent -- Little, Worsham, Adamovicz, Andrews and countless others.<br /><br />In regards to the emails, Dr. Henry Heine, program director of Florida University’s Institute of Therapeutic Innovation and Ivins’ former colleague, believes their content was taken out of context.<br /><br />“You don’t know what the follow up email is. The FBI is pulling a line—a sentence—out of an email. They could go through any of your emails and pick things out of context and make anybody look bizarre and strange.”<br /><br />“They trash Dr. Ivins’ reputation, even though they have not shown a single link between Dr. Ivins and the letter attacks or the dried anthrax,” he adds. “They have shown nothing more than they did about <br /><br />Dr. Hatfill [another FBI “person of interest” in the Amerithrax case, who was cleared in early 2008], namely that Dr. Ivins had many personal problems and worked with pathogens for the Department of the Army.”<br /><br />Heine says that the Ivins he knew was a fun guy, and he enjoyed his company. “I miss him deeply,” he says. “The Bruce Ivins that has been painted by the Justice Department…I never met that gentleman. That’s a person that, to me, never existed. I never saw that person.”<br /><br />Ed does not agree with the FBI's experts who argue that the evidence such as the genetics evidence does not point to Dr. Ivins.<br /><br />Nor does he agree with the government fact witnesses who explain that there is no evidence that Dr. Ivins was responsible for the anthrax mailings. Instead, he relies on the woman who says she was controlled by the alien!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-84874122345434899702012-06-09T15:10:35.369-07:002012-06-09T15:10:35.369-07:00The FBI's key expert , Dr. Patricia Worsham, s...The FBI's key expert , Dr. Patricia Worsham, says:<br /><br />"I don't believe that we had facilities at USAMRIID to make that kind of preparation. It would have taken a great deal of time it would have taken a huge number of cultures; it would have taken a lot of resources that would have been obvious to other people within containment when they wanted to use those resources.<br /><br />We did not have anything in containment suitable for drying down anything, much less a quantity of spores. The lyophilzer that was part of our division was in noncontainment. If someone had used that to dry down that preparation, I would have expected that area to be very, very contaminated, and we had nonimmunized personnel in the area, and I might have expected some of them to become ill."<br /><br /><br />Note that the United States Attorney Taylor, in the remarks prepared by AUSA Lieber, claimed that Dr. Ivins used the lyophilizer.<br /><br />That was not well-founded. The lyophilizer was not where Dr. Ivins was located in the B3 while working with the rabbits on those nights.<br /><br />In order to make an Ivins Theory plausible, AUSA Lieber had to omit all mention of the rabbits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-24397350369405118072012-06-09T14:56:13.347-07:002012-06-09T14:56:13.347-07:00Mr. Lake, you are the one who falsely said there w...Mr. Lake, you are the one who falsely said there were no operatives -- when instead you just don't know about them because your failure to read. Indeed, you have never even addressed the operatives living in and around New Brunswick, from where the anthrax letters were sent.... such as the subtilis expert in close phone contact with KSM's nephew, the WTC 1993 bomber.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-24427852791660179502012-06-09T14:11:56.769-07:002012-06-09T14:11:56.769-07:00Anonymous,
This forum is about the anthrax attack...Anonymous,<br /><br />This forum is about the anthrax attacks of 2001. If you can't stick the the subject and need to ramble on about irrelevant topics related to al Qaeda, I'll just prevent further such posts from being seen.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-81287215778236619082012-06-09T12:23:56.213-07:002012-06-09T12:23:56.213-07:00It was the June 2001 speech that Dr. Ayman gave ab...It was the June 2001 speech that Dr. Ayman gave about the merger between Al Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad that was summarized by the June 2001 letter to supporters in the US in which Dr. Ayman used the code "School" to refer to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. That is why the CIA should have given first priority in late 2001 to people Dr. Ayman knew to recruit from Cairo, such as the microbiologist from Cairo supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-2742911163155391722012-06-09T12:21:24.795-07:002012-06-09T12:21:24.795-07:00Yes, Ed, I do know what you have and haven't r...Yes, Ed, I do know what you have and haven't read. You post daily reports and take great pride in not having read the handwriting literature on children and ESL students to which I directed you.<br /><br />It is a fact, for example, that you have not read or examined the handwriting samples of Jaber Elbaneh, another Al Qaeda operative you pretend doesn't exist. (Or rather, you have no awareness of given that you are so uninformed on the subject of leads pursued by the Amerithrax Task Force.<br /><br />Jaber A. El-Baneh. A 45-year-old Yemeni known as Jubair, el-Baneh emigrated to New York where he settled for a time in Buffalo. He was viewed as the mastermind of the Lackawanna Six plot in 2003, having financed and recruited other members. A senior Obama administration official said last month that el-Baneh has risen to a leadership position in the Yemen-based Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). “I do see, more and more, el-Baneh being a real concern,” said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. “He has longtime connections, including to Egyptian extremist elements. And he does seem to be more engaged in trying to support attacks.”<br /><br />Before 911, he met Osama Bin Laden. One of the men asks bin Laden about a rumor that something big is about to happen. Bin Laden responds: “They’re threatening us. And we’re threatening them. But there are brothers willing to carry their souls in their hands.” [TEMPLE-RASTON, 2007, PP. 107-108] A couple of weeks later, the seven Lackawanna men and Derwish begin training at the Al Farooq training camp near Kandahar. One day, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri come to their camp and bin Laden gives a speech in Arabic to the hundreds of trainees there. The crowd is told the speech is being videotaped. In his 20-minute speech, he discusses the merger between al-Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. At the end, he calls on the gathering to pray for the 40 operatives who are en route for a very important mission. <br /><br />Jaber Elbaneh was being sought in connection with the case involving the young men from Buffalo. He had travelled to Afghanistan with them. There was up to a $5 million dollar reward for his capture before he was located and detained in Yemen. Agents Edward Needham and David Britten, of the Joint Terrorism Task Force of Western New York, believe Elbaneh may have returned briefly to Lackawanna. In June 2001, he had sold property he owned at 20-24 Wilkesbarre Ave., Jaber Elbaneh to Ahmed Umar for $15,000. The week before 9/11 (ending September 7, 2001), Jaber Elbaneh sold the property he co-owned a 28 Wilkesbarre Ave to a relative for $20,000. <br /><br />One by one, all the members of the group except for Jaber Elbaneh had dropped out and gone home before their basic training course is done. They will later be known as the “Lackawanna Six.” But none of the six tell any US authorities what they learned when they get back to the US before 9/11. Some of the six, such as Taher and Alwan, will later say that on the morning of 9/11 they realize the attack they are watching on television is what bin Laden was talking about when he discussed the 40 men on a suicide mission. [TEMPLE-RASTON, 2007, PP. 136-138]<br /><br />Are Agent Needham and Britten correct that Elbaneh returned to the United States? How did Dr. Majidi exclude Jabeneh as the mailer? <br /><br />GAO: What are the specific dates of Elbaneh's travel from Afghanistan and his travel to the United States. Anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat knew him. He was coming from Kandahar where the Al Qaeda anthrax lab was located. What was his job at Sorrento Cheese?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-21273218914853893592012-06-09T11:54:33.853-07:002012-06-09T11:54:33.853-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake has not read any of...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Ed Lake has not read any of the handwriting literature."</i><br /><br />You don't know what I've read and not read.<br /><br />The only important point is: <b><a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/WritingFacts.html" rel="nofollow">The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters</a>.</b> <br /><br />Opinions are irrelevant, particularly since very few "handwriting experts" agree on much of anything about the handwriting in the letters. <br /><br />And <b>the facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer</b>, so everything you babble on about regarding al Qaeda is just irrelevant babble if you cannot PROVE who wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes.<br /><br />You have <b><i>NOTHING</i></b> in the way of evidence to show that anyone other than Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters. You just have beliefs and opinions from others with beliefs.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-76819852942476158192012-06-09T11:04:17.364-07:002012-06-09T11:04:17.364-07:00Ed Lake has not read any of the handwriting litera...Ed Lake has not read any of the handwriting literature.<br /><br />He has not read the peer literature as it relates to children handwriting or to ESL writers. Instead, he has posted on the internet in a debate with someone whose learning relates instead to graphology.<br /><br />Ed Lake has not even obtained and examined the handwriting samples, for example, of operative Adnan El-Shukrijumah.<br /><br />As a young adult in 1997, Adnan el-Shukrijumah participated in an "English as a Second Language" class, during which he spoke passable but limited English. He received extensive flight training in the late 1990s or early 2000 in Florida and has a flying license for light aircrafts. His father managed to contact him the last time in 2002 when Adnan el-Shukrijumah attended English lessons in Morocco. <br /> <br />After the arrest of Khalid Shaik Mohammed in Pakistan on 03/01/2003 and his primary interrogation Adnan el-Shukrijumah was put on the FBI most wanted list on 03/26/2003 and is suspected of being an Al Qaeda cell leader.<br /><br />There is a $5 million reward.<br /> <br />According to the interrogations 'Jafar the pilot' was selected after The 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden to be the terror group’s next Mohamed Atta for any second wave of attacks on America. <br /> <br />Adnan el-Shukrijumah was in contact with The Pakistani female neurologist Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who lived in the USA and returned to Pakistan on 01/2003 and prosecutors said was willing to participate in an anthrax attack. Aafia has said she researched anthrax as a bioweapon for 6 months.<br /><br />Although Ed doesn't realize it, his point - that he has made for 10 years without so much as reading the literature -- merely supports that the writer was one of several operatives that KSM had recently taught English.<br /><br />By all means, the GAO should obtain and publish all of the FBI's handwriting analyses relating to the letters and the known Al Qaeda operatives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-24038612967314216412012-06-09T08:32:35.943-07:002012-06-09T08:32:35.943-07:00Anonymous wrote: "someone who makes it a poin...Anonymous wrote: <i>"someone who makes it a point not to read material that contradicts his unsupported factual assertion that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters."</i><br /><br />Nonsense. I made it a point to hunt down every comment by every "handwriting expert" I could find to see what they had to say about the handwriting. I even contacted some of them to see what they had to say about the FACTS which show that a child wrote the letters. <b>NO EXPERT WILL ADDRESS THE FACTS.</b> They have stated their <b>OPINIONS</b> and they're sticking by their opinions, since their reputations may be at stake.<br /><br />Irrelevant facts about Muslims involved in 9/11 don't change the FACTS about the handwriting. My book points out that there are VAST differences between the printing done by the 9/11 terrorists and what is in the anthrax letters. <br /><br />Opinions about handwriting don't mean anything unless they address the specific topics of (1)WHY the writer wrote much smaller on the second mailing than on the first, even though the paper and envelopes were the same size, (2) WHY the writer drew certain characters of the alphabet differently in later writings than in the first writings, and (3) WHY the writer used punctuation in the second letter but not in the first letter. <br /><br />NO "EXPERT" has addressed those KEY facts about the handwriting. That's probably because they never even noticed them.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-55482508178236913032012-06-09T08:16:03.757-07:002012-06-09T08:16:03.757-07:00The Al Qaeda operatives like Jdey and Jafar the Pi...The Al Qaeda operatives like Jdey and Jafar the Pilot who were footloose and fancy free in September and October 2001 (and associated with the other 911 operatives) are only invisible to someone who is unqualified to address the issue -- someone who makes it a point not to read material that contradicts his unsupported factual assertion that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters.<br /><br />Those of us who read the relevant information -- to include most any newspaper reader on the street -- know better.<br /><br /><br />Thug from Brooklyn ID’d as possible al Qaeda leader<br /><br />By CHUCK BENNETT<br /><br />June 9, 2012<br /><br /><br />A terrorist with roots in the Big Apple is one of a handful of die-hard jihadists being touted as the next leader of al Qaeda, US officials and security analysts say.<br /><br />Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah, a 36-year-old Saudi who spent his teen years in Brooklyn, is in the running to take a prime leadership role after a US Predator drone in Pakistan took out No. 2 in command Abu Yahya al Libi Monday.<br /><br /><br />Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/thug_from_brooklyn_id_as_possible_TT7X8RqeOWLA55mSDAyBHN#ixzz1xJELcNEKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-73619010734750780702012-06-09T06:49:24.460-07:002012-06-09T06:49:24.460-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Dr. Gast, a chemical engine...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Dr. Gast, a chemical engineer, said the “chemical signatures” in the mailed anthrax and their potential value to the criminal investigation had not been fully explored."</i><br /><br /><b>The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.</b> Exploring possible ways that the "chemical signatures" can be created won't change that. It might make an interesting science project, but it would mean nothing to the case. <br /><br />Dr. Gast and the others on the NAS committee <b>only looked at the science used in certain parts of the investigation</b>. They should know better than to try to argue about the validity of the government's legal case if they only examined one tiny part of it. That is just plain STUPID. The NAS scientists talk from <b>ignorance</b> when they try to discuss the legal case against Ivins. <br /><br />They should know better.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-35613257722348058812012-06-09T06:36:17.931-07:002012-06-09T06:36:17.931-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Ed relies on what anthrax e...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Ed relies on what anthrax epidemiology expert Martin Hugh-Jones describes as lawyer-talk."</i><br /><br />Not true. I rely on the FACTS. I go far beyond "lawyer talk." On my web site (and in my book) I explain all the facts which "lawyer talk" doesn't explain, such as how Ivins made and dried the attack spores. Click <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/HowIvinsMadePowders.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> to visit my web page about HOW Ivins made the attack spores. <br /><br />There are plenty of facts showing the "most likely" way that Ivins made and dried the spores. But, "lawyer talk" just says that Ivins had <b>the means</b> to do it. The prosecutors didn't attempt to define which method Ivins specifically used, since there were several methods available to Ivins, and all would produce virtually identical results. <br /><br />Your arguments are getting more and more silly. <b>The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. The only way that can be challenged is by providing FACTS which say he wasn't the anthrax killer, someone else was.</b> You can't do that by silly arguments about "lawyer talk" versus "non-lawyer talk."<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-77013676843478066252012-06-08T15:08:07.170-07:002012-06-08T15:08:07.170-07:00Ed,
Do you consider the head of the NAS panel exp...Ed,<br /><br />Do you consider the head of the NAS panel expert? She say Dr. Martin Hugh-Jones and his co-authors raise important points that need to be addressed.<br /><br />From the New York Times:<br /><br />"The new paper raises the prospect — for the first time in a serious scientific forum — that the Army biodefense expert identified by the F.B.I. as the perpetrator, Bruce E. Ivins, had help in obtaining his germ weapons or conceivably was innocent of the crime.<br /><br />Both the chairwoman of a National Academy of Science panel that spent a year and a half reviewing the F.B.I.’s scientific work and the director of a new review by the Government Accountability Office said the paper raised important questions that should be addressed.<br /><br />Alice P. Gast, president of Lehigh University and the head of the academy panel, said that the paper “points out connections that deserve further consideration.”<br /><br />Dr. Gast, a chemical engineer, said the “chemical signatures” in the mailed anthrax and their potential value to the criminal investigation had not been fully explored. “It just wasn’t pursued as vigorously as the microbiology,” she said, alluding to the analysis of micro-organisms. She also noted that the academy panel suggested a full review of classified government research on anthrax, which her panel never saw."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-17961606771119878602012-06-08T14:42:07.182-07:002012-06-08T14:42:07.182-07:00Ed relies on what anthrax epidemiology expert Mart...Ed relies on what anthrax epidemiology expert Martin Hugh-Jones describes as lawyer-talk.<br /><br />International anthrax expert Dr. Hugh Martin-Jones challenges the government to test his team’s hypothesis in a lab instead of with “lawyer talk.” He says “I hope [the findings] will add to the pressure that the investigation be actively reopened.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com