Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001

Mar. 11 - Mar. 17, 2012 Discussions

2012-03-11T08:10:00.003-07:00

The main subject in my comment for Sunday, March 11, is the lunatic theories from the Lunatic Fringe which argue that inconclusive evidence should be considered conclusive toward proving Bruce Ivins to have been innocent.

If, seven years after the attack, Bruce Ivins didn't have the pen that was used to address the anthrax envelopes, the Truthers argue that should mean he was innocent.

Or, isn't that what they're claiming? They don't actually make claims. Instead they make statements: "Experts determined that there was not a single exemplar written by him in which the distinctive “fluid-like” ink used on the envelope was a match." So what!? They don't exactly say why they made such a statement, but they IMPLY that it means something.

It's probably too late to do anything in the Amerithrax case, but it seems like it might be a good idea to create a new law that would authorize the creation of a Special Inquest in situations of national importance where a jury trial cannot be held because the accused killer either died or in some other way became unable to stand trial. It could also be a jury trial in absentia, which occasionally take place when a person on trial escapes custody and thereby waves his constitutional right to face his accusers.

The Anthrax Truthers currently seem to be hoping the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will somehow overturn the DOJ's closing of the Amerithrax case. When that doesn't happen, they'll be claiming that the GAO is part of "the government's" coverup of what really happened.

Many others (including me) hope that some kind of Congressional Investigation of the Amerithrax case will take place. But that seems highly unlikely.

The Internet is giving the Lunatic Fringe a bigger voice in public matters than they ever had in the past. No one wants to cut off their freedom of speech, but many people seem to have the bizarre, almost INSANE belief that dead people should always be presumed innocent because they cannot stand trial. And Anthrax Truthers constantly make up new rules of evidence to suit themselves.

So, it seems that -- in crimes of great national interest -- it might be worthwhile to hold trials or inquests in absentia to allow a jury to decide if the evidence really says beyond a reasonable doubt that a dead person did commit the crimes for which he's accused.

If nothing else, such a trial would stop all the endless arguments about what a jury would or would not have done.

Mar. 4 - Mar. 10, 2012 Discussions

2012-03-04T07:50:00.000-08:00

On Sunday morning I uploaded two PDF files showing FBI photographs of Bruce Ivins' office and laboratory which I obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Click HERE to view the photos of Ivins' Laboratory.
Click HERE to view the photos of Ivins' Office.

I also commented on the continuing attack from Kazakhstan, and on a new problem with someone in China who seems to have a badly written search-engine-type program that changes IP addresses with every read and runs all day long, causing my statistics to show hundreds of visitors that are really only that one guy.

I also commented on last week's arguments on this blog where the Anthrax Truthers continue to distort the facts in the case against Ivins in order to argue that there's something wrong with the evidence. Meanwhile, of course, they continue to avoid showing what kind of evidence they have proving their own suspects are the real culpits, because they they have no real evidence. They seem to think that by discrediting the FBI's case with distortions they can somehow make people think that their own cases have validity.

Feb. 26 - Mar. 3, 2012 Discussions

2012-02-26T09:14:00.000-08:00

One topic mentioned in my Sunday comment on February 26 was the argument I've been having with an Anthrax Truther on this blog. It's probably the first time I've ever gotten a Truther to explain his beliefs, and it was very illuminating.

He argued that the reason there are some traced over characters in the anthrax letter sent to the media is because, in Hebrew writing, "1)straight horizontal lines tend to be extra thick" and "2)straight vertical lines tend to be the thinnest line."

In other words, the writer was trying to imitate writing in Hebrew.

I pointed out to the Truther that the thick and thin form of writing is brush-stroke-calligraphy and has nothing to do with normal writing done with a pencil or modern pen.

The Truther went silent for a day or two and then countered by writing this:

"So if you ARE trying to print something in Latin letters and yet give it a 'pseudoHebrew' style, the way to go is to follow the thickness/thinness style of that first "book print" Aleph, and to do that for ALL the letters which you wish to give that style."

And, of course, I pointed out that "the writer of the anthrax letters did NOT do it with ALL the letters. The writer wasn't consistent with highlighting A's and T's. The T's in DEATH are not highlighted. The A in TAKE is not highlighted, neither is the A in AMERICA or the second A in ALLAH nor the A in ISRAEL."

Any theory about the highlighted characters in the media letter has to explain the following:

1. Why are the first and last characters in the first and last lines highlighted?

2. Why is the A in the misspelled word "PENACILIN" highlighted instead of the A in "TAKE"?

3. Why are only T's and A's clearly highlighted.

4. Why aren't all T's and A's highlighted?

5. Why does every sentence in the letter consist of only three words?

The Anthrax Truther's theory answers none of those questions. The only theory that does answer all five questions is the theory provided by the FBI HERE.

In my Sunday comments, I also mentioned that I'm working on creating a couple pdf files that will show the photographs of Ivins' lab and office that I received via an FOIA request. I created a 2 page test file HERE. It looks like a good way to do it.

Other subjects I mentioned in my Sunday comments were the Portland hoax letters, the continuing attack on my web site from someone in Kazakhstan, and the statement in former Senator Russ Feingold's new book which says this about the anthrax attacks of 2001: "We may never know who really committed this crime."

It seems to me that all that is needed to "know" who committed the crime is to look at the facts. But, some seem to need an "official" finding of some kind -- a different official finding than that which has already been provided. But, would they accept any "official" finding if it doesn't agree with their beliefs? History has definitely indicated that they will not.

Feb. 19 - Feb. 25, 2012 Discussions

2012-02-19T07:35:00.000-08:00

The first topic mentioned in my regular Sunday comment on my web site for February 19 was the connections between Ivins, the KKG sorority and places named "Monmouth." In arguments on this interactive blog, it is more circumstantial evidence connecting Ivins to the attacks that Anthrax Truthers who are "in denial" don't see as being evidence at all.

The second topic was the discovery that Franklin Park, NJ, the town used in the return address on the senate envelopes was just ten miles farther than Princeton along the Lincoln Highway on the way from Frederick, MD, to Newark, NJ. That suggests that Franklin Park was probably where Ivins planned to mail the letters. But, when he reached Princeton, he either spent too much time looking over the KKG office or he simply figured he'd driven far enough and needed to turn around and head home again. So, he mailed the letters in Princeton.

I also realized that the reason that there was no return address on the media letters may have been because the child doing the writing wrote too large, and perhaps ruined an envelope or two before Ivins decided to just use the destination addresses on the envelopes to NBC, CBS, ABC, AMI and the New York Post.

In my Sunday comment, I also mentioned that there has been no dispute of any kind regarding my discovery that the Emerson radio/CD player in Ivins' lab was most likely a "nanny cam" TV spy camera.

And, I also mentioned once again that Anthrax Truthers do not agree with each other about who sent the anthrax letters. But, they ignore that fact in order to appear united in their belief that the FBI was wrong in naming Ivins as the anthrax mailer.

Feb. 12 - Feb. 18 Discussions

2012-02-12T07:44:00.000-08:00

My Sunday comment on February 12 began with details about the completed first draft of my book. (The second draft probably won't be done any sooner than four months.)

I then posted a few of the 52 photographs I received from the FBI in response to a Freedom Of Information Act request I'd filed.

I commented on the photos I posted. They show how cramped and filled with equipment the lab was. And, the only window was the window in the door.

Lastly, I mentioned the discussions from last week which indicate that I'm arguing with one person (Richard Rowley) who truly believes that the person who sent the anthrax letters had Hebrew as his first language. And the other person in last week's arguments ("Anonymous") truly believes that some Muslim sent the anthrax letters. Their arguments seem almost diametrically opposed, yet they don't argue with each other, and they don't present evidence in support of their beliefs. They only argue that the FBI must be wrong - not due to any kind of criminal conspiracy - but due either to incompetence or to laziness and "group think."

A second comment posted on Sunday shows that an Emerson CD player seen in Ivins' lab is also sold as a "nanny cam" that can be used to spy on people. And Ivins was known to purchase and use such spy equipment.

Feb. 5 - Feb. 11, 2012 Discussions

2012-02-05T07:46:00.000-08:00

The main topic of my Sunday comment this week is an examination of inconsistencies and errors in an official police report about the death of Bruce Ivins in July 2008. The intent was to show that humans make mistakes, even in critical situations. So, it can take some analysis to figure out exactly what happened.

The Washington Post "reporter" who re-hashed an error in a court document filed in the Stevens vs USA lawsuit should have realized that mistakes happen and that it DID NOT mean a change in direction for the case, nor was it any evidence of a disagreement between civil and criminal divisions in the DOJ. It was just a human error, which is totally understandable in a case as complex as the Amerithrax case.

Also, last week's news reports that, last October, a university professor in Pakistan mailed some anthrax to the Pakistani Prime Minister seems to have stirred up the Lunatic Fringe. They seem to see it as being connected to the anthrax attacks of 2001 -- until proved otherwise to their satisfaction. But, of course, it can never be proved otherwise to their satisfaction, since facts mean absolutely nothing to Anthrax Truthers and The Lunatic Fringe.

Jan. 29 - Feb. 4, 2012 Discussions

2012-01-29T07:18:00.000-08:00

The (A) topic of my Sunday comment this week was about all the arguments I've been having with Anthrax Truthers on this blog. While the arguments sometimes seem to be a total waste of time, at other times they seem to be very interesting and educational. Even the arguments which are just repeats of old arguments can be beneficial when they force me to find new arguments to challenge their old arguments. And, of course, there's the added benefit of having a record of how Anthrax Truthers think.

It was also made VERY clear by last week's postings from Anthrax Truthers that the disdain they have for the FBI's "circumstantial evidence" against Ivins doesn't apply to the wildly circumstantial evidence they use in support of their own theories.

Lastly, my (C) comment on Sunday was about some additional "evidence" I noticed which seems to further indicate that a child wrote the anthrax letters. The way the writer wrote Y's is very odd. It appears he may have been drawing Y's with THREE STROKES. And, sometimes it seems he drew his Y's starting at the upper left and sometimes starting at the upper right. That is VERY childlike, and it is NOTHING like any example of handwriting we have from the 9/11 hijackers.

Jan. 22 - Jan. 28, 2012 Discussions

2012-01-22T08:04:00.000-08:00

The first subject in the comment I wrote for my web site this morning was about the fact that Bruce Ivins looked at anthrax colonies on agar plates nearly every day, yet he failed to notice that flask RMR-1029 contained countless morphological variants.

Yet, Terry Abshire (who had far less experience with anthrax than Bruce Ivins) noticed morphological variants in the attack anthrax, which eventually led the FBI to flask RMR-1029 and helped identify Bruce Ivins as the anthrax killer.

And, Bruce Ivins evidently believed that morphological variants resulted from passaging. Or he didn't understand what morphological variants were. Either way, it was one of the errors that led to his downfall.

I also mention discussions with various Anthrax Truthers. One tried to convince me that the FBI was wrong in the way they instructed people to create samples for the FBI repository. But, I showed her that she just didn't understand what the real world is like outside of her own microbiology laboratory.

Another Truther tried to convince me that I was a "True Believer" because I accept the facts and can't be persuaded by beliefs and opinions.

And a third Anthrax Truther started posting sermons to this blog about his beliefs, and I had to start deleting them. He also endlessly argues that my conclusion that a child wrote the anthrax letters is wrong, because he has a different theory. And, it doesn't matter to him what the facts say, because doesn't accept the facts as being facts.

And, of course, Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary in spite of the fact that I find it difficult to believe that anyone would vote for him for anything. (It's difficult to believe, but NOT impossible to believe.)

Jan. 15 - Jan. 21, 2012 Discussions

2012-01-15T08:00:00.000-08:00

The main topic of my Sunday comment today was the observation that Ivins committed suicide because his ego had been shattered by learning that he'd made one careless mistake after another in his preparation of the attack anthrax.

1. He thought no one would be harmed, and he killed 5 and injured 17 others.

2. He thought he used a common, totally untraceable strain of anthrax, but the Ames strain was a rare strain used primarily at USAMRIID.

3. He thought his basic lab practices prevented the formation of morphs, but his key creation, flask RMR-1029, was filled with traceable morphs.

He was wrong in all three beliefs. And that was shattering to his ego. He was not the top expert among experts that he believed himself to be. He was a careless scientist who made stupid errors in life-and-death situations. He couldn't live with being viewed that way. That's what led to his suicide.

I also point out that the FBI was wrong in thinking Ivins was giving them false information about flask RMR-1029 in January 2002. The facts say that Ivins believed that the FBI was on the wrong track in thinking that morphs in the attack anthrax would pinpoint the source of the attack powders. Ivins was trying to persuade the FBI to get off the wrong track - the track leading to USAMRIID - and onto the "right" track, the track leading to nowhere.

Ivins wasn't lying. He believed what he was telling the FBI was true. But, he later learned that he was wrong and the FBI was right.

Lastly, my Sunday comment also mentions last week's discussion with "Anonymous" on this blog, where "Anonymous" argues that I am a True Believer because I do not accept his beliefs.

I agree with the facts, and the facts say that Ivins did it. I do not totally agree with the FBI, however. But, our disagreements aren't over the main issue: Ivins' guilt. Our disagreements are over details, like the handwriting, the reason Ivins mailed the letters from New Jersey, the reason Ivins tried to convince the FBI they were wrong about the morphs, etc.

If it were possible to have an intelligent discussion with an Anthrax Truther, it would have to begin with a comparison of evidence: My evidence against Ivins versus their evidence against whoever it is they believe did it.

But, that cannot happen. I'm totally willing to be proved wrong by solid, undeniable evidence. But, all they can do is argue that they do not believe the evidence against Ivins. They believe they are right about whoever they think did it, even though they have no proof to support their beliefs. All they have is an unshakable belief that they are right. And that makes them True Believers.

Ed

Jan. 8 - Jan. 14, 2012 Discussions

2012-01-08T09:10:00.000-08:00

The first topic mentioned in my Sunday comment was the solution to the "Russian Statistics Mystery" that had bugged me for over a year. It appears to be some kind of "residue" left over from the serial.jar Trojan Horse malware put on my host's computer in November 2010. A "Trojan Horse" isn't a virus. Here's what Wikipedia says about the Trojan Horse malware:
---------------
Trojan may allow a hacker remote access to a target computer system. Once a Trojan has been installed on a target computer system, a hacker may have access to the computer remotely and perform various operations, limited by user privileges on the target computer system and the design of the Trojan.

Operations that could be performed by a hacker on a target computer system include:

Use of the machine as part of a botnet (e.g. to perform automated spamming or to distribute Denial-of-service attacks)
Data theft (e.g. retrieving passwords or credit card information)
Installation of software, including third-party malware
Downloading or uploading of files on the user's computer
Modification or deletion of files
Keystroke logging
Watching the user's screen
Crashing the computer
Anonymizing internet viewing
-----------------

It appears that the guy who put the Trojan Horse on my host's computer is still attempting to get back into my host's computer via my web site. And, I'm continuing to block his attempts.

It's still a mystery why he's so persistent, but it's no longer a mystery why all those HEAD reads were showing up in my web site log.

The second subject on my Sunday comment was the way Anthrax Truthers continue to try to mislead people by asking silly and irrelevant questions, with the idea that if the questions aren't answered by the FBI, that means the Amerithrax case wasn't fully investigated -- and Ivins was innocent -- and whoever the Truther believes was the anthrax mailer could still be out there planning another attack (after 10 years).

The Truthers are also trying to mislead people by posting total nonsense. They argue that it was the FBI's fault that Ivins didn't prepare slants properly for the FBI repository. The Truthers say that the instructions were badly written. They ignore the fact that of 1,200+ samples submitted to the FBI repository, ONLY Ivins didn't follow the instructions.

Anthrax Truthers are clearly not interested in finding answers to any questions. They're only interested in creating doubt by asking irrelevant questions, by distributing misinformation and by falsely accusing the FBI of causing Ivins' "mistakes."

Ed

Jan. 1 - Jan. 7, 2012 Discussions

2012-01-01T08:29:00.000-08:00

The main comment this morning is about the Anthrax Truthers continuing to attempt to show that Ivins' "unexplained" hours in his lab alone during the evenings just before the anthrax attacks were actually fully explained by Ivins having to work with test animals during those times.

Their "evidence" is - as usual - a flurry of irrelevant documents which show nothing, but which they imply are proof that Ivins was working with animals.

The facts seem to show that animal handlers took care of mundane tasks like feeding the animals, cleaning their cages. Did they also check on the animals to see if they were all still alive, and make a note on a cage card if any were dead? The documents aren't clear about that.

Documents seem to indicate that veterinarians would do necropsies, NOT principal investigators like Bruce Ivins. For awhile, it appeared that the Anthrax Truthers were arguing that Ivins would do the necropsies (animal autopsies).

Documents seem to indicate that either the animal handlers disposed of the dead animals, or whoever did it just put the animal in an autoclave bag, put the bag into the autoclave and then turned the autoclave on as he or she was leaving for the day. The autoclave would go through its cycle and turn itself off when done.

The Anthrax Truthers seemed to argue that Ivins would stand around for the entire autoclave cycle, and that could account for some of his "unexplained" time in his lab in the evening.

The arguments are becoming standard Anthrax Truther arguments: Prove the negative! Prove that it was totally impossible for Ivins to have been tending to animals during those "unexplained" hours! And, if you can't prove it, that means that Muslims were behind the anthrax attacks. (They, of course, have no proof implicating Muslim terrorists, but they don't require proof for their beliefs, they only require proof for other people's claims.)

A second subject for discussion this week would be the Russians who continue to access my site in a very strange way. It's still an unsolved mystery.

Dec. 25 - Dec. 31 Discussions

2011-12-25T08:59:00.000-08:00

This week's Sunday comment on my web site is about how scientists view their theories versus how True Believers view their theories. I used the news about the Higgs boson to make the point that, if a scientist discovers that he was mistaken, he learns from his mistakes and could go on to make even greater discoveries.

If a True Believer makes a mistake, he never admits to the mistake, he rationalizes ways that he could still be right, and he continues with his beliefs. To a True Believer, anyone who admits to making mistakes is someone who admits to being incompetent.

But, the True Believers seem to have put themselves into a "Higgs boson"-type situation.

They have built a case that Bruce Ivins was innocent because he was working with test animals in Suite B3 during his "unexplained" evening and weekend hours prior to the attacks. He was not making the anthrax powders during that time.

However, the facts seem to say that when Ivins was working with test animals, he was NOT in Suite B3. Therefore, his work with test animals has nothing to do with his unexplained evening hours in Suite B3.

It appears that what is needed to prove or disprove the True Believers' theory about the test animals is solid, undeniable proof of where the test animals were located. Every document they've produced so far says that, either the animals were somewhere else, or the information on the document is so vague and irrelevant that it means nothing one way or the other.

It also seems that it should be fairly easy to determine where the test animals were located in September and October of 2001.

It may only be a matter of asking the right question.

Dec. 18 - Dec. 24 Discussions

2011-12-18T07:58:00.000-08:00

My Sunday post this week was about the various ways I can analyze data gathered about visitors to my web site.

I had a couple other things to add, such as a list which shows "search strings," i.e., what people were searching for via Google, Yahoo or other search engines when the came to my site. But, every image I put on my site is another "hit" when people visit the page, and images use a lot of bandwidth. So, I decided against it. There are already 6 new images in my Sunday comment.

Another image I was thinking of putting in Sunday's comment was a comparison between visitors to my site and visitors to, Lew Weinstein's web site, which is the #1 site used by Anthrax Truthers. However, Since I created the graph, I might as well post it here:

Dec. 11 - Dec. 17 Discussions

2011-12-11T13:26:00.000-08:00

The main topic this week is the silly way the Anthrax Truthers argue. One Truther argued that an FBI/DOJ statement that Ivins NEVER spent the same amount of long hours alone in his lab in the evenings after October 2001 is "specious" because new rules were implemented in 2002 that no one could work alone in a lab. You had to have a "buddy" there, too.

So, the statement by the FBI is true, but the Anthrax Truther considers it to be misleading. It doesn't point out that the reason Ivins NEVER spent any long hours in his lab at night in 2009 was because he was DEAD.

That's the kind of silly argument the Anthrax Truthers constantly use.

Another example: The FBI/DOJ pointed out that Ivins knew how to dry anthrax spores because he was an expert in the use of the lyophilizer, a freeze dryer that Ivins arranged for USAMRIID to purchase. But, the Anthrax Truthers claim that means the FBI and DOJ are saying that Ivins used the lyophilizer to dry the attack spores. The FBI and DOJ never said any such thing - except in an erroneous statement in a document in the Stevens vs USA lawsuit, which was quickly corrected.

The fact that Ivins knew how to dry spores using the lyophilizer does NOT mean he dried the attack spores using the lyophilizer. The fact that Ivins knew how to dry spores using chemicals does not mean he dried the attack spores using chemicals. It just means Ivins had all the expertise needed to make the attack spores.

The method Ivins used was air drying, which is far easier than the other methods, but it still requires being careful and cleaning up afterwards.

Dec. 4 - Dec. 10, 2011 Discussions

2011-12-04T09:11:00.000-08:00

Ivins evidently experimented with drying spores in the lyophilizer. It didn't work as well as other methods. The spores were "wrecked" by the freezing process.

The main comment for this week, however, is about how long it can take a big organization like the FBI to change directions. It appears that some within the FBI were looking at Ivins as early as 2005, maybe 2004. FBI Special Agent Edward Montooth started focusing on Ivins as the prime suspect in 2006. And U.S. Attorney Rachel Lieber seems to have become convinced that Ivins was the killer in early 2008, when she started preparing to have him indicted and put on trial.

The point I tried to make is that the FBI and DOJ are made up of individuals, and each individual looks at the facts from a slightly different point of view. So, when an individual is asked a question, they may give an answer that seems inconsistent with someone else's answer. When that happens, it isn't necessarily because the massive organization called "The FBI" has changed its direction, it's more likely because a different individual simply expressed his or her point of view of what's happening.

Also, did Ivins mail the letters from Princeton because Newark was just too far? He wanted to see al Qaeda blamed for the letters, and UAL flight #93 had left from Newark. Ivins may have wanted to mail the first letters in Newark, but he either couldn't get that far that night, or he changed his mind once he'd reached Princeton.

Nov. 27 - Dec. 3, 2011 Discussions

2011-11-27T06:56:00.000-08:00

The major subject this week should be my new web page How Bruce Ivins Made the Attack Powders ... Allegedly. Together with the page about "When & Where Bruce Ivins Made the Attack Powders ... Allegedly," the two pages should explain everything significant that there is to know about how Dr. Ivins committed the attacks.

The Anthrax Truther arguments, however, will still be that Dr. Ivins couldn't have been making anthrax in his lab because he was tending to test animals there, even though the facts clearly show he was NOT tending to the animal during most of the times he was in his lab in the evenings.

And the conspiracy theorists will argue that Ivins couldn't have made the attack anthrax because it was weaponized with silicon (and tin) in some supersophisticated way that was not in Dr. Ivins' skill set, even though the facts clearly show that the attack anthrax was NOT weaponized with silicon (or tin).

A second subject for discussion could be the transcripts I located for the PBS Frontline interviews of FBI Agent Edward Montooth and U.S. Attorney Rachel Lieber that were done for the October 11, 2011 program called "The Anthrax Files." The interviews thoroughly shoot down a lot of arguments from Anthrax Truthers.

The interviews also show how biased and distorted the PBS Frontline show "The Anthrax Files" was. The show asked questions that were thoroughly answered by Montooth and Leiber, yet Frontline presented them as if they hadn't been answered or as if the answers weren't believable.

The Maureen Stevens vs USA lawsuit was settled on Tuesday for $2.5 million, which is substantially less than the $50 million the suit had demanded.

Nov. 13 - Nov. 19 Discussions

2011-11-13T09:50:00.000-08:00

The big subject for discussion for this week would be the major changes which resulted from me talking with someone with inside knowledge of Building 1425 and Suite B3. Those discussions required that I totally change my thinking about where the keycard readers and the keypad were located.

I also had do do a major overhaul to my new supplemental page called "Where & When Bruce Ivins Made The Anthrax Powders ... allegedly."

Nov. 6 - Nov. 12 discussions

2011-11-06T10:17:00.000-08:00

The big topic for discussion this week is my new web page about Where & When Bruce Ivins made the anthrax powders ... allegedly.

Oct. 30 - Nov. 5, 2001 discussions

2011-10-30T08:22:00.000-07:00

The first comment I made this week was about how the in-out logs clearly show that Ivins was making spore powders in his lab during evenings from August 31 to September 16, 2001. On the 17th he drove to New Jersey to mail the media letters. From the 18th through the 27th, he was waiting for the media letters to be delivered and to create panic.

When the media letters had NO effect, Ivins returned to his BSL-3 lab again on the 28th and started making the spore powders for the senate letters. He continued doing that through the 5th.

On the 6th, Ivins suddenly had no further reason to go into his BSL-3 lab again. He was evidently just waiting for the senate letters to be delivered and to have their effect. He didn't work long hours in his BSL-3 lab again until the 17th of October when Peter Jahrling asked him to quantify the spores in the Daschle letter.

Oct. 23 - Oct. 29, 2001 discussions

2011-10-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

The main topics during this period are:

Mistaken beliefs by Anthrax Truthers that Ivins' unusual time in his BSL-3 lab could be explained by his tending to mice and rabbits being used in tests.

The facts indicate that Ivins had no reason to go into his lab for a week or so after he completed making the anthrax powders. He worked long hours in his lab to make the powders, then he did almost nothing in his lab while waiting for the reaction to the letters. See the graph below:

Oct. 18, 2011 - A ridiculous editorial in The New York Times

2011-10-18T09:54:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to view an editorial from today's New York Times in which they embrace the nonsense from McClatchy, ProPublica and PBS Frontline about evidence in the Amerithrax investigation. The Times makes the same ridiculous arguments. The New York Times' editorial says:

"As for the circumstantial evidence, an investigation by PBS Frontline, assisted by ProPublica and the McClatchy newspapers, cast doubt on two elements that prosecutors had declared important. A contention that Dr. Ivins worked extraordinarily long hours alone at night in his laboratory just before the mailings looked less suspicious after the journalists found that he regularly worked late hours in other labs and offices."

Yes, and the fact that he "regularly" worked long hours in offices and other laboratories explains why the guards and others in Building 1425 didn't pay any attention when Ivins suddenly started working those hours in his BioSafety Level 3 laboratory instead of his office and other laboratories where he'd previously spent his time at night and on weekends. The guards had become accustomed to seeing him in the building at night. They just had no way of knowing that he was doing something different from what he normally did.

The evidence is that Ivins was working in his BSL-3 lab alone and unsupervised with equipment that he could use to create the powders. And why couldn't he explain what he was doing in his BSL-3 lab on those evenings? Why did he suddenly start doing something different? What was he doing? It's the fact that he was in his personal BSL-3 lab doing something DIFFERENT that is the evidence against Ivins. The fact that he normally worked long hours only shows why his time spent making the anthrax powders went unnoticed by others.

Discussion?

Oct. 16, 2011 - Science in anthrax letter case under attack

2011-10-16T08:42:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to read the article by David Willman titled "Science in anthrax case comes under attack."

I wish the Los Angeles Times article and the Science magazine article had addressed a lot more of the baloney printed by McClatchy and The New York Times, put on-line by ProPublica, and aired by Frontline. So much of what was printed, put on-line and aired was total nonsense and can be clearly shown to be total nonsense. But Science magazine and the LA Times just addressed a few pebbles from the mountain of nonsense.

The lesson seems to be that if conspiracy theorists and True Believers just keep repeating their theories and beliefs for year after year after year after year, sooner or later people in the media will forget what the real facts are and start to think that what the conspiracy theorists and True Believers are claiming is actually "news." And, they'll report it to a public that has also forgotten what the real facts are. And fewer and fewer journalists and scientists will stand up and argue for the truth.

That's a direct road to havoc.

Discussion?

Oct. 15, 2011 - McClatchy & ProPublica nonsense continues

2011-10-15T08:10:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to read a new article from McClatchy Newspapers, ProPublica.com and Frontline titled "Despite Evidence of FBI Bungling, New Probe Into Anthrax Killings Unlikely."

The article indicates that all the "experts" McClatchy, ProPublica and Frontline have been depending upon in their "investigation" of the FBI's investigation have a golden opportunity to get the case reopened. The article explains:

To reopen the case, [Former FBI agent and profiler Brad] Garrett said, would take “something fairly compelling … somebody comes forward [or] there’s a new piece of evidence that links it to somebody else.”

Nearly every one of the conspiracy theorists and True Believers believes they have "evidence" that someone else sent the anthrax letters! Unfortunately for them, however, it's obviously not "compelling" evidence or McClatchy, ProPublica and Frontline would have seized upon it and exploited it. Instead, all that McClatchy et al can do is question (and distort) the FBI's evidence against Ivins.

If someone else did it, why is there no solid evidence against anyone else? The answer from the conspiracy theorists and True Believers is just another attack upon the FBI: There is no solid evidence against anyone else because the FBI failed to find it or even look for it. That implies that all the conspiracy theorists and True Believers are totally incapable of finding any evidence for themselves. So, their arguments are all about beliefs and opinions. And, most of them do not agree on who they think sent the anthrax letters. So, among Anthrax Truthers there's unity against the FBI's case, but near total disagreement about who did it if it wasn't Bruce Edwards Ivins.

Is it any wonder that no one wants to reopen the case just because some angry and frustrated conspiracy theorists and True Believers have differing beliefs and opinions about who did it?

Discussion?

Oct. 10, 2011 - PBS asks Clair Fraser-Liggett leading questions

2011-10-14T08:53:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to read PBS's edited interview with Clair Fraser-Liggett. It's titled "Clair Fraser-Liggett: 'This is not an airtight case by any means'."

The PBS journalist doing the interview starts with some good questions then proceeds to ask leading questions which were obviously intended to get answers that would fit with PBS/McClatchy's biased view of the case:

The other conclusion was that it seemed to be that the FBI had overemphasized how the science defined the end results of the case. Explain that.

[Did] the FBI, to some extent, perhaps overemphasize the role of science in proving their case?

Were you surprised at the tone of the FBI as far as how clear they were that Ivins was the man?

Did you feel a little sense of awkwardness about being there, because you realized that you were possibly part of a bit of a charade?

[What about] the thoughts that pressure from the top down, to some extent, perverted the investigation?

So, PBS got the answers they wanted by asking biased questions that would get the right answers from someone who was not really familiar with all the evidence against Bruce Ivins. And they could then report on TV that "one of the FBI's outside experts" didn't fully agree with the FBI's findings.

Discussion?

Oct. 13, 2011 article by Laurie Garrett on her beliefs

2011-10-13T13:39:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to read the article by Laurie Garret titled "The Anthrax Letters."

This statement from Garrett seems almost nonsensical:

if Ivins didn't do it, the terrorists are still out there, ten years later, free to wreck more havoc.

Shouldn't it read: If Ivins didn't do it, and the real terrorists have been out there for ten years, free to wreak more havoc, why haven't they done so?

Garrett doesn't address that question. Instead, she addresses the question of why al Qaeda didn't boast about their role in the 2001 anthrax mailings. Her fantasy answers:

It is possible that a claim of credit was never found because it is in one of the lost letters, and the primary operatives responsible for producing the spores perished on 9/11 in their dastardly hijackings.

And

The second possibility is that al-Qaeda considered the mailings a failure. No Senator or famous news anchor died.

But, the letters caused panic, shut down congress and cost America many billions of dollars. Wouldn't that be plenty of reason for al Qaeda to claim credit? Instead, bin Laden actually denied that al Qaeda was responsible for the mailings.

Discussion?

Oct. 12, 2011 - McClatchy article on anthrax

2011-10-13T13:31:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to read the McClatchy article titled "Was FBI's science good enough to ID anthrax killer?"

The McClatchy article explains (as others have) that there was a conflict between managers at the top of the bureaucracy pushing to get results from the scientists and investigators at the bottom of the bureaucracy who had no way to speed up the process of getting results. (That's a conflict with which I have a lot of personal experience - from the investigators point of view.) The McClatchy article then reports:

Rachel Lieber, the lead prosecutor, said law enforcement officials did try to make sure the science was rigorously vetted. But Lieber said there were limits and that the science was only a piece of a much larger mosaic of evidence against Ivins.

"You look at the lines of a trial and where do we spend our resources," Lieber said. "Are we doing a science project or are we looking for proof at trial? These are two very different standards."

Yes, indeed. Was the Amerithrax investigation a science project or were they looking for a murderer? Answer: They were looking for a murderer. The science helped point the investigators in the right direction, but it wasn't science alone that proved that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer - and would have proved that fact to a jury beyond any reasonable doubt.

Discussion?

Oct. 12, 2011 - Science Magazine Criticizes NYT article

2011-10-13T13:24:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to read the Science magazine article "New Challenge to FBI's Anthrax Investigation Lends an Ear to Tin."

The Science article eviscerates the paper by Martin Hugh-Jones, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Stuart Jacobsen that The New York Times seemingly considered to be very newsworthy, even though it wasn't new and wasn't scientific. Here's part of what was in Science Magazine:

In the new paper, Hugh-Jones, Rosenberg, and Jacobsen [...] don't cite any literature or documented methods for weaponizing anthrax but offer that a "procedure of this kind can be envisioned for encapsulating B. anthracis spores." They write that "the ratio of Tin to Silicon in the attack spores is 'about right' for a Tin catalyst used to produce a silicone coating, according to a chemist in the field."

In other words, the Hugh-Jones et al paper uses "junk science" to challenge real science.

Discussion?

Oct. 9, 2011 - New York Times article

2011-10-13T13:12:00.000-07:00

You can read the article by clicking HERE

Discussion topic: Why is this news? The paper the article is about was written by a couple conspiracy theorists and a veterinarian, and it's been around since June. Plus, it wasn't published in a science magazine, therefore the science was not "peer reviewed." And it contains nonsense like this:

If the authors of the new paper are correct about the silicon-tin coating, it appears likely that Dr. Ivins could not have made the anthrax powder alone with the equipment he possessed, as the F.B.I. maintains. That would mean either that he got the powder from elsewhere or that he was not the perpetrator.

And if pigs could fly, we could all feast on deep fried pig wings.

If Dr. Ivins did not make the powder, one conceivable source might be classified government research on anthrax, carried out for years by the military and the Central Intelligence Agency. Dr. Ivins had ties to several researchers who did such secret work.

And if the powder had been made by Pinocchio, how would he have gotten a mask over his long nose?

Discussion?

Tin in the attack anthrax

2011-10-10T08:42:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has a October 9, 2011, article by William Broad and Scott Shane titled "Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case."

It repeats the old conspiracy theory that the element tin found in some samples of the attack anthrax could indicate a supersophisticated weaponization process that Bruce Ivins couldn't have accomplished all by himself.

At the very end of the article, it also says that tin is a very common meaningless contaminant in laboratories and that spores commonly pick up all kinds of contaminants. But, the reader is left with the idea that the tin could be very meaningful and change the entire case.

The question is: How much money should the government spend on resolving a question that will NEVER be resolved to the satisfaction of conspiracy theorists?

Ed

PBS Frontline "The Anthrax Files"

2011-10-06T14:58:00.000-07:00

The PBS Frontline program titled "The Anthrax Files" is scheduled to air on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, at 9 PM Central Time. If you have thoughts about that program, this is the place to post them.

The attack anthrax was NOT weaponized.

2011-10-06T14:18:00.000-07:00

The facts say that the attack anthrax was NOT weaponized. The spores were examined by Sandia National Laboratories, and it was determined beyond any doubt that the silicon which showed up in the spores was inside the spore coat, which is under the exosporium. Plus, the silicon was clearly accumulated there via natural processes, since they also found the same silicon "signature" in spores that were still inside the "mother germ."

One test of the powder from the New York Post letter supposedly found 10.77% silicon and 0.65% tin. The finding was explained as possible contamination from a shard of glass.

An alternative explanation is that the material was centrifuged before it was dried, and the process of centrifuging resulted in natural silicon being concentrated in one spot in the centrifuge tube. When dried, it showed up in one sample but not in others.

The facts show that the attack spores were not weaponized, so an unexplained finding of an unusual amount of silicon and tin in one sample doesn't change the "weaponization" finding.

Ed