TonyZ2001 wrote:
Absolute Zero
wrote:
TonyZ2001 wrote:
Absolute Zero >>>
wrote:
This was military grade anthrax, trillion spores per gram anthrax, if
they got it on their hands then it was all >over them and everywhere they
went.
Wrong.
It is entirely possible that a minute >>amount could have gotten through
their protect measures. No need for it >>to be "everwhere", that's all in
your
head.
Was anyone seen posting letters in a bio-suit? I emphasise again
that the anthrax was so fine that it leaked right through the envelope
paper.
And? You cannot imagine that the letters were placed in sealed plastic bags
prior to be mailed?
It's simple enough, you can't handle 1,000,000,000,000 spore per gram
anthrax without specialist equipment and not leave traces.
Wrong, one of the hijackers sought attention for a cough; Atta sought
attention for a reddened hand. You stated they both sought attention for
skin inflammation. Another porky-pie.
Wrong again. Look it up pinhead, one >>of the others came into an Emergency
room
with a blackened sore on his leg.
Produce a cite that says both of the hijackers who visited the pharmacy
suffered reddened hands, please. All the quotes I have found reffer to
Atta suffering the inflamation the other >having a cough.
Ok, guess I'll have to find it for you.
hehe.
Which of course is the first thing one is told to do if you get
Anthrax on your
hands. He wanted something for his >>hands, as well as Antibiotics.
Conclusive proof, eh?
When you're dealing with 2 Terrorists >>planning a horrific attack and
Anthrax
attacks happen at around the same >>time, it sure is.
The point is this... there any number of reasons for a rash, as you
surely know, the pharmacist was right to say that it *could* have been
produced by bleach... but neglected for obvious reasons to mention the
plethora of other possibilities. You and yours seize on this as though
it were the only possibility.
Because you have to put 2 and 2 together.
And get 5.
Ari Fliesher:
"The evidence is increasingly looking >>>like >it was a domestic source."
And what evidence is that exactly?
Do you suppose that beyond the >evidence that's in the public domain,
they've told everything? Of course not, all >sorts of information is
witheld for all sorts of reasons.
Don't ask me, ask them. My guess is >that either comes down to
embarassment, perceived national security or both.
Whatever, you're arguing against your >own beloved administration.
I've done so before.
Tom Ridge:
we're all more inclined to think
that the perpetrator is domestic.
So, is the administration lying?
Not neccessarily. One goal of >>Terrorists is to create a panic and a
feeling of unease in the society that >>they are attacking.
To point blame toward a lone American >>will tend to calm the public,
whereas to >>say we know it was Al Qeada, but we
haven't caught them yet would cause a >>panic.
Lame. In all likelyhood it was a lone >Israeli... but that is beside the
point.
Not lame at all, quite true. What is lame, in fact wacky, is your suggestion
that it was an Israeli.
Wacky? It explains the anti-Islamic motive that got Zack kicked out of
Ft Detrick in the first place.
There's no evidence for your scenario >>>beyond a single circumstantial
visit
to the pharmacist.
Nope, the 2nd one at the ER with the >>blackened sore on his leg. Pefect
description of cutaneous Anthrax.
If as you claim, someone stole >>"samples" from Fort Detrick, then that
means in order to produce "Trillions" of >>spore that they would need an
elborate
laboratory and the means to keep any >>from getting out.
So where is this undetectable lab?
LOL - Fort Detrick you twit,
Nope. Very small samples were taken from Fort Detrick, not nearly enough to
carry out the several attacks we saw in Sept-Oct 2001
Well, if you'd read the article before you snipped it away <== loser
alert...... you'd know that it is suspected that there's a deal more
missing than the records indicate.
Here's a question for you... seeing as your Atta => Prague trip doesn't
stand up to examination, where did you now suppose this US military spec
anthrax came from? Additionally, if Al Qaeda had access to Ames, why, in
June 2001 did they set up an amateur, makeshift lab in Afghanistan in a
failed attempt to grow their own third-rate >anthrax?
-A
If they were given small amounts from Iraq, they then would have to set up a
lab to produce more.
Yes, but the strain they were attempting to produce in Afghanistan
wasn't Ames.
The strain used is not exclusive to the USA.
To save my breath...
=>
The strain of anthrax used in the letters sent in the US, the Ames
strain, was not the strain that Iraq used in their weapons manufacture.
Further, every source the Iraqi's could have used to obtain a sample of
the Ames strain was tracked down, and no indication was found that the
Iraqi's had obtained any. The carrier that Iraqi weapons manufacture
used to weaponize anthrax spores was bentonite, a clay that is used to
help the spores disperse more easily in the air. The carrier in the
anthrax letters was tested, and conclusively found to not be bentonite.
In fact, there was some speculation that the carrier was actually
something new, because the dispersion was so wide.
<=
The possible sources were checked out.
The only location that it can reasonably (given the evidence) be assumed
to have come from is Ft Detrick.
-A
Tony
.
