Can we PLEASE see a more spirited defense of the FBI's anthrax investigation here?

[mhatrw]

What exactly is your take on this investigation? Do you really think the FBI is capable of blaming an innocent man just to push the whole anthrax deal under the rug? If not, how can you possibly stand by idly as people like Glenn Greenwald speculate about this?

[Bassman66]

1. A patsy?

Are they capable of using a patsy?

They've had a lot of years to perfect the method.

This is all pretty sick.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. You're just going to have to let your false impression of OCT defenders go.

I've not seen enough evidence to say it's Ivins and Ivins alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here's my Kos diary on one part of this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/9/165317/0021?new=true

Your illusions only hamper you, mhatrw.

[mhatrw]

3. Whoa, so the FBI hasn't convinced you that Ivins acted alone!

Unbelievable! You are truly the James Dean of OCTers.

Has the FBI convinced you that Ivins even possibly could have pulled this off alone? What evidence has the FBI supplied that makes you consider Ivins even a legitimate suspect for having pulled off these mass murders alone?

Oh, I forgot. You think that someone working late without "satisfactorily explaining himself" to the the FBI (according to the FBI) is legitimate evidence of participation in mass murder.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. I think the FBI had great probable cause to search Ivins' personal spaces.

Too bad for them the searches didn't turn anything up on him.

I'm the "James Dean of OCTers"? Find me one person here that has stated unequivocally that Ivins did it. That's the outlier in my experience.

Isn't it sad when your confirmation bias is confronted so brutally with the truth? Your common tactic of creating the positions you prefer to fight will be challenged, but no doubt you'll manage. You're already doing that by quoting my Kos diary, which I'd already linked to. I do find his work schedule contributing to a conclusion of his being involved. I don't find it conclusive at all.

[mhatrw]

23. So the fact that he worked OT means that he's "probably, but not conclusively" a mass murderer?

You wrote an entire diary to this effect. Do you believe your own nonsense or not?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Stop misrepresenting what I wrote.

It's not just that he worked overtime, but that his overtime coincided remarkably with the mailings. Long stints of overtime, following by the first mailing and a complete dropoff in overtime. Then another long stint of overtime, followed by the second mailing and another complete dropoff of overtime.

That to me is strong circumstantial evidence that could contribute to a conclusion of his guilt, alone or part of a group. But it still could be his terrible luck to have worked that pattern of hours. Who can say? Without further evidence, no one can.

Stop making factually inaccurate statements about what I've said.

[mhatrw]

26. And that's evidence that Ivins is a mass murderer?

How many government employees would you estimate put in extra OT in the days just after 9/11?

Exactly how did Ivins create extremely lethal, highly milled dried anthrax during these few extra hours?

[Bolo Boffin]

28. See the post you are responding to for your answer.

You have your answer. Any further questions along this line will be seen as harassment and reported as such.

[mhatrw]

30. You didn't answer the questions.

It is not harassment to point this out.

How many other government employees would you estimate worked extra OT in the days following 9/11?

Exactly how did Ivins manage to create finely milled, highly lethal dried anthrax during the few extra hours he worked in a room many individuals use without anyone ever detecting what he was doing?

[Bassman66]

4. Do you think he could have done this on his own?

If you do there is a whole list of questions that perhaps you could elucidate on and help us to see where we are wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. You really, really want an argument on this from me, don't you?

It's like your security blanket.

[Bassman66]

11. Do you have an answer?

Do you believe he could have done this on his own?

It's a simple question that can be answered yes or no.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. No security blanket for you.

I don't have enough information to make that decision yet.

[Bassman66]

15. So you still think he could have done it on his own?

You had an opinion earlier.

What happened to it?

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Bassman, I've given you the best answer I can.

You are going to have to deal with it.

Any further harassment of me will be reported as such.

[Bassman66]

54. Your non-answer is duly noted. nt

[hack89]

5. They screwed up pre-911

no reason they couldn't screw this up too. I have no real admiration for the FBI.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. That crazy FBI...

Look, bentonite! Maybe it was Iraq.... NOT.

Uh... hey, how about that Hatfill fellow! ...NOT

Uh... hey, how about that Ivins guy who committed suicide! Yeah, that's the ticket!

[HamdenRice]

6. OK, I'll give it a try

First of all, no one who has ever worn the mantle of a government position has ever committed a crime. Unless, of course that person is a lone nut. So that means, the perp could only be Ivins, and no one else. After all, he had a sexual fetish and liked Princeton sorority girls.

It's impossible for government functionaries to commit crimes under any other circumstances. Government and corporate functionaries have only the public's interest at heart, and at any rate, they are always following SOP (standard operating procedure) which of course is always innocuous.

The FBI is the best law enforcement organization in the world and is completely apolitical, so why would they target the wrong guy? The entire law enforcement community is solely dedicated to protecting you and I and getting the bad guys, and they are almost never wrong.

Even though the anthrax was weaponized with charged silica particles, he had to have acted alone. That's because if anyone had assisted him, or if two or more people had been involved, that crime would have constituted a conspiracy, and all conspiracy theories are nutty tin foil hat woo woo. Also, if more than one person had been involved, they would not have been able to keep the secret. No conspiracy involving two or more people has ever been successfully kept secret.

So, have I earned my Amazin Randi tree house club (no girlz aloud!) super conspiracy theory decoder ring yet?

[William Seger]

16. Amazin HamdenRice

The only people I know of who have such animosity toward Randi are outright frauds, self-deluded people, the gullible people who really really want to believe the nonsense the other two groups dispense, and people who just appear to hate the limitations of rational thinking. Honestly, I can't figure out which group you belong to.

[mhatrw]

21. How about the people who aren't so gullibly amazed? n/t

[William Seger]

27. Maybe...

... if I could figure out what the hell that's supposed to mean. Maybe an example or two would clear that up?

[HamdenRice]

7. On a more serious note, anyone else notice how stupid the FBI "hours worked" chart is?

The so called "spike" in work hours chart is calculated on a monthly basis. Ivins worked about 32 extra hours in September and about 11 in October.

It is an unbelievably stupid claim to say that this is evidence against Ivins -- for several reasons.

First of all, for anyone who has ever had a real professional job that requires working over time occasionally, 11 hours or 30 hours per month is trivial. Working 30 hours overtime in a month can mean staying late on average a little over 1 hour per day (one hour and 12 minutes spread over 25 working days). That's nothing. Most professionals wouldn't even notice that they had stayed late for an hour or so. Real overtime on a crunch project means working 5 to 10 extra hours each day, or at least 150 hours per month.

Working 11 extra hours per month means staying late about 30 minutes on average per day. You could rack up that "overtime" talking shit with your colleagues about the upcoming World Series.

Is there anyone stupid enough to believe that you could weaponize anthrax spores by working an extra 30 minutes per day?

Moreover, all the alleged extra hours worked after September 18, which includes all of October, are irrelevant. That's because Ivins was one of the world's experts on anthrax and was aware of the attacks. If the biggest bioterrorism attack in US history had occurred when you were one of the country's leading experts, might you not have worked over time a bit, or even been asked to field questions from other government departments?

Another reason the FBI case holds no water is that Ivins could not have weaponized the anthrax in the first place. This was a very sophisticated weaponization. The spores were not just dried anthrax; the spores were linked to electrically charged silica particles. There is no evidence that Ivins had the capacity or equipment or supplies to do this.

The chief bio-weapons inspector for the UN's UNSCOM, and the bioweapons expert for the Iraq Survey Group, says Ivins could not be the person who created the anthrax used in the September 18, 2001 attacks:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

OPINION

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit

By RICHARD SPERTZEL

August 5, 2008; Page A17

Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.

But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.

...

What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.

...

From what we know so far, Bruce Ivins, although potentially a brilliant scientist, was not that man. The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparations, not powdered products.

<end quote>

[Realityhack]

13. Thanks for the UNSCOM link...

unfortunately I don't have the time to read it right now but it looks interesting.

[HamdenRice]

60. You're welcome

Thanks for having an open mind.

[Realityhack]

12. You seem eager for a fight over the offical story.

Some parts are reasonable. They seem to have had reasonable cause to search his place. I don't see the evidence to show it was him. Their is a lot of wiggle room (caveat: I have not read extensively on this).

It seems to me that from what little I know he might have been capable of pulling it off. That is a far cry from having done so. I have yet to see any seriously credible evidence that it would have been impossible for him to have done so. Even the remarks posted by the defense attorney didn't seem to present anything that made it impossible for him to have done this, only pointed out how weak/circumstantial the evidence presented is.

[seemslikeadream]

20. I have not read extensively on this

MAYBE YOU SHOULD SINCE YOU ARE A REALITY HACK

HACK THIS

THE LESSON MAY CHANGE YOUR POINT OF VIEW OF REALITY


ON EVERYTHING

[Realityhack]

36. Calm down...

seriously. I didn't follow the anthrax cases very closely. I can't follow everything in detail.

I (gasp) admitted ignorance on a topic. I seriously doubt the result would change my point of view on reality. Their would have to be aliens involved or a breaking of the known laws of physics or something.

Also, seriously, calm down.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

29. So, you think Realityhack is in on the conspiracy? (n/t)

[mhatrw]

31. Not in on it. Oblivious to it. But, how about you, William Seger?

Do you really think the FBI capable of blaming an innocent man just to push the anthrax murders under the rug? If not, how can you possibly stand idly by while people like Glenn Greenwald speculate about this? Why won't you take up the FBI's cause in this forum? Aren't we making Democrats look nuts by questioning the FBI's official proclamation that they've closed the case? Don't you owe it to the Democratic party to set us all straight?

[William Seger]

32. I think the FBI would really like to close the case

... because they haven't been able to conclusively solve it. I don't think they would have gotten a conviction against Ivins unless they have evidence we haven't seen yet.

But just what is it that you are accusing Realityhack of being oblivious to?

[mhatrw]

33. So what is motivating the FBI to declare "Mission Accomplished"

on the anthrax case by framing an innocent man?

[William Seger]

34. Why...

... do you keep asking questions and ignoring the answers?

[William Seger]

35. And why...

... do you keep saying Ivins is innocent, and that the FBI is deliberately framing an innocent man? How do you know that?

You're really not making much sense in this thread.

[mhatrw]

39. So do you think Ivins is guilty of being the lone anthrax nut?

What evidence leads you to believe that Ivins could have produced and mailed the anthrax, much less that he did?

[William Seger]

40. How would I know? I asked you...

... why you are claiming that Ivins is innocent, and that the FBI is deliberately framing an innocent man? Is that what Realityhack is oblivious to -- he just doesn't recognize your extraordinary ability to divine the truth?

Do you recognize any distinction between reality and your own speculations?

[mhatrw]

41. Here's reality. We have exactly as much reason to believe you are the anthrax

killer as we have to believe that Dr. Bruce Ivins is.

[William Seger]

42. Well, that's bullshit, ain't it

... but it does give some insight into how you think: You really don't make any distinction between your own speculations and reality. Since I'm not sure anyone is much interested in that, this thread seems to be pointless.

[mhatrw]

43. So then, what is the evidence that leads you to believe that Ivins

was a mass murderer who, working alone, targeted media outlets and Democratic Senators with deadly, weaponized anthrax from a New Jersey mailbox?

[William Seger]

44. I already told you, the evidence leads me to believe...

... that this thread is completely pointless.

[mhatrw]

45. It certainly is pointless to the standard bearers of our official conspiracy theories

as not one has managed to make a single point.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. What drives mhatrw and others to need OCTers to combat them?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307161756.htm

[mhatrw]

47. I'm not looking for combat. I'm claiming victory. n/t

[William Seger]

48. Wow

Do you play other online fantasy games, like WOW?

[mhatrw]

52. Cogent reply, as usual. n/t

[William Seger]

53. As usual

... another bizarre thread in which you've ignored most of the answers to questions you've asked, while dodging and tap-dancing around most questions asked of you. Questioning Ivins guilt is a fair topic, and I'll try to give your psychic reading due consideration when I consider the other evidence. But your stated purpose is really baiting an imaginary opponent, and after completely failing at that, you've declared victory. I think asking you what other online games you play is a cogent question.

[Twist_U_Up]

49. touche'. Well done

and I mean burnt.:toast:

[William Seger]

50. Touche'? Well dumb

and I mean burnt.

[Twist_U_Up]

57. Are you stating you were "high" when you posted that ? I dont get it.

[William Seger]

59. I'm just sayin'...

... have another hit and party on, dude.

[Twist_U_Up]

61. Not my style but if you feel the need too, have at it.

but by the looks of your responses I suggest you might... sober up.
just sayin :smoke:

[Bassman66]

55. Pointless.

Yeah, ok.

[Realityhack]

37. This does:

"Can we PLEASE see a more spirited defense of the FBI's anthrax investigation here?"

It sounded like you wanted to argue against someone about it.

Did you mean rub MY nose in it? Seems strange. I don't recall previously saying the FBI was right or anything. If you just wanted to discuss it or make people aware of it the title is a strange choice of words. You came off sounding like you wanted someone to defend the FBI so you could show them they are wrong. Hence my statement.

[mhatrw]

38. No, I was challenging somebody to come forward to defend the FBI,

knowing there's no defense for the sham the FBI is perpetrating.

[Realityhack]

58. Isn't that looking for a fight over it?

Oh well. Maybe I am not understanding your motives. It really doesn't mater.

[mhatrw]

62. My motives are to show that even in DU's debunker's den,

nobody will touch this official story with a 10 foot containment chamber.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. But that only means something to a small subset of people

It does nothing to undermine the facts of what happened on 9/11.

[Twist_U_Up]

17. Here goes........

He did it because he hates our freedoms ?

aaaaa fuk it

Hes just guilty cause they say so.
Get used to it.
This is the New Amerika!

[seemslikeadream]

19. Ayaad Assaad was the start In his honor we created this beast It represents life lower than yeast

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/01/26/assaad/index2.html


"Ayaad Assaad was the start,
with a reputation for not having heart
A 'skimmer' without equal
We hope there's no sequel
In his honor we created this beast
It represents life lower than yeast
Whoever is voted this sucker,
you can't duck her, You must accept blame,
And bear all the shame Unlike Assaad,
that first motherfucker"


The poem continues for five typewritten rhyming pages, ending with:

Well it's time for the camel to pass.
So let's all reach and raise up a glass.
Let's give'm the credit,
the one who will get it,
the poor bastard we're gonna harass.






Henry Rollins - Civil Liberties Under Attack

[AZCat]

51. ...

[Bassman66]

56. Very interesting thread, thanks for posting.

Lot's questions about how could he have done it without answers, the OCTers are usally very forthcoming but not this time.

Will The People ever get to see the FBI evidence now he's dead?

[LARED]

64. Some spirited D-fence

[mhatrw]

65. This is the best to date.

Man, how bad must the FBI's case stink that this is the best anyone can muster?