* an observation from the UK … the FBI’s argument is … not unreasonable at all … LMW: “this an example, of which there are too many, of people who accept the FBI’s reasoning without applying critical reasoning of their own, and then say that those who do are part of a “conspiracy industry.”
Posted by DXer on March 2, 2010
.
The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”
* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *
.
******
an observation from the UK …
the FBI’s argument is not unreasonable at all
******
George Smith writes from the UK …
- Obviously, much of the evidence against Ivins is circumstantial. The FBI admits as much.
- Unsurprisingly, with any case as famous, drawn out, terrifying and fraught with initial blind alleys as Amerithrax, there are a large number of people – in separate groups – who will never be able to accept that Ivins was the anthraxer.
- There are those with a professional interest in exonerating him in argument – colleagues at Ft. Detrick.
- The FBI’s argument is technical but not unreasonable at all.
- It is consistent, for example, with this author’s scientific experience with bacterial preparations. Arguments to the contrary rely on equally technical details.
- The press, of course, cannot evaluate independently, being only able to deliver arguments from authority – all depending on who it believes to be authority.
- It is also said the National Academy of Science will get around to exonerating Ivins by blowing the FBI’s methods out of the water.
- The case is closed but the conspiracy industry surrounding it will only increase.
Read the entire article at … http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/02/anthrax_feds_report/
LMW COMMENT …
This is an example, of which there are too many, of people who accept the FBI’s reasoning without applying critical reasoning of their own, and then say that those who do are part of a “conspiracy industry.”
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks? 
Anonymous Scientist said
Ever wondered why the alarm bells rang over the dispersibility of the Daschle powder?
After Bruce Ivins showed that it dispersed into single spores upon plating (>10^12 colony forming units per gram), that was alarming enough. But then the government quickly gathered a collection of dry spore simulants they had availiable in house. These dry spore simulants are ALWAYS weaponized with silica – that’s standard procedure.
When Bruce Ivins plated these the alarm bells really went off – the Daschle powder dispersed into single spores at least 2 orders of magnitude more effectively than the weaponized simulants – in most cases much more than 2 orders of magnitude more.
And we are supposed to believe he made a product orders of magnitude more effective than the simulants all on his own covertly when he had never made a weaponized dry powder preparation before in his life?
The numbers don’t lie – and the science doesn’t lie if you understand it.
It’s all documented in page 121- 130 at http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847545.PDF
BugMaster said
All the more reason for the FBI to not want to figure out and then have to reveal how this was accomplished.
One big problem with this approach.
If the anthrax mailer figured out how to produce material of this lethality, doesn’t that suggest that others could too?