Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because in conspiratoid physics it's possible to leave 8 seconds of a collapse out if they don't x-ray vision.
 
Interesting article on the Anthrax attacks in the Wall Street Journal this week. It sounds like the FBI know much much more than they are telling. It doesn't look good folks...

EXERPT.
'' Yet the anthrax grown from it had silicon, according to the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This silicon explained why, when the letters to Sens. Leahy and Daschle were opened, the anthrax vaporized into an aerosol. If so, then somehow silicon was added to the anthrax. But Ivins, no matter how weird he may have been, had neither the set of skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores.

At a minimum, such a process would require highly specialized equipment that did not exist in Ivins's lab—or, for that matter, anywhere at the Fort Detrick facility. As Richard Spertzel, a former biodefense scientist who worked with Ivins, explained in a private briefing on Jan. 7, 2009, the lab didn't even deal with anthrax in powdered form, adding, "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it." So while Ivins's death provided a convenient fall guy, the silicon content still needed to be explained.

The FBI's answer was that the anthrax contained only traces of silicon, and those, it theorized, could have been accidently absorbed by the spores from the water and nutrient in which they were grown. No such nutrients were ever found in Ivins's lab, nor, for that matter, did anyone ever see Ivins attempt to produce any unauthorized anthrax (a process which would have involved him using scores of flasks.) But since no one knew what nutrients had been used to grow the attack anthrax, it was at least possible that they had traces of silicon in them that accidently contaminated the anthrax.

Natural contamination was an elegant theory that ran into problems after Congressman Jerry Nadler pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller in September 2008 to provide the House Judiciary Committee with a missing piece of data: the precise percentage of silicon contained in the anthrax used in the attacks.

The answer came seven months later on April 17, 2009. According to the FBI lab, 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon. "This is a shockingly high proportion," explained Stuart Jacobson, an expert in small particle chemistry. "It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284.html
 
Last edited:
Interesting article on the Anthrax attacks in the Wall Street Journal this week. It sounds like the FBI know much much more than they are telling. It doesn't look good folks...
l

:jaw-dropp Someone sent a story that they posted on their Blog to the WSJ!?!??!
 
Last edited:
:jaw-dropp Someone sent a story that they posted on their Blog to the WSJ!?!??!

Somebody was saying that we should concentrate our attention on exposing the Anthrax attacks as an inside job. Nobody likes the idea of being killed by an invisible silent killer like Anthrax especially if it comes fom your own military labs that you paid for with your own tax dollars.

It becomes clearer and clearer that after the frame up job on Dr.Hatfill failed so disastrously with the US government having to pay out 5.8 Million to Hatfill in compensation that Dr. Ivens was also a frame up job, How he was suicided...well we don't want to go there at this time.

It just gets clearer and clearer that the FBI has lied in a wall-to-wall way since the very beginning of the Anthrax enquiry, the longest and most expensive in FBI history.

So if we can get this out front nothing is like to concentrate the American People's attention as much as facts like all in the Whitehouse began to take Cipro, the antidote to Anthrax on the day of 9/i1 itself- a full week before the Anthrax attacks.
 
So if we can get this out front nothing is like to concentrate the American People's attention as much as facts like all in the Whitehouse began to take Cipro, the antidote to Anthrax on the day of 9/i1 itself- a full week before the Anthrax attacks.
Are you saying they were in on it, knew in advance where the anthrax attacks would come, and therefore started on Cipro because they knew that they would not be exposed???

Or did you just make it up.
 
Yes, if that was 6 seconds (sic) later, where did all the dust go?? How did the date of 9/13/01 get on the bottom of the frame??
 
Somebody was saying that we should concentrate our attention on exposing the Anthrax attacks as an inside job. Nobody likes the idea of being killed by an invisible silent killer like Anthrax especially if it comes fom your own military labs that you paid for with your own tax dollars.

It becomes clearer and clearer that after the frame up job on Dr.Hatfill failed so disastrously with the US government having to pay out 5.8 Million to Hatfill in compensation that Dr. Ivens was also a frame up job, How he was suicided...well we don't want to go there at this time.

It just gets clearer and clearer that the FBI has lied in a wall-to-wall way since the very beginning of the Anthrax enquiry, the longest and most expensive in FBI history.

So if we can get this out front nothing is like to concentrate the American People's attention as much as facts like all in the Whitehouse began to take Cipro, the antidote to Anthrax on the day of 9/i1 itself- a full week before the Anthrax attacks.

Jesus bill. You will believe just about anything. Perhaps if you waited to find out if something you hear is true before you formulate an opinion using it as evidence, you might have better luck debating said opinions. Just a suggestion.
 
Are you saying they were in on it, knew in advance where the anthrax attacks would come, and therefore started on Cipro because they knew that they would not be exposed???

Or did you just make it up.

How would you interpret somebody taking the antidote to a deadly spore a full week before that spore was used for the first time in US history ?
 
How would you interpret somebody taking the antidote to a deadly spore a full week before that spore was used for the first time in US history ?

I would say they were not in charge of the attacks, and did not know if they would be targeted or not.

Do you have any basis for the claim of Cipro. (or 6s collapse for that matter)
 
I would say they were not in charge of the attacks, and did not know if they would be targeted or not.

Do you have any basis for the claim of Cipro. (or 6s collapse for that matter)
Why not test your colleagues here ? Ask them if it's true about the Cipro or not ? I bet they know.
 
How would you interpret somebody taking the antidote to a deadly spore a full week before that spore was used for the first time in US history ?

Because Anthrax had always been a threat.

How's that expression go?? Better safe than sorry??

Yeah, that is why (thank GOD!) you are not in charge of the President's safety and wellbeing.


EAT: IIRC, it is true. Either way, it doesn't matter. They took all nessary precautions.
 
Because Anthrax had always been a threat.

How's that expression go?? Better safe than sorry??

Yeah, that is why (thank GOD!) you are not in charge of the President's safety and wellbeing.


EAT: IIRC, it is true. Either way, it doesn't matter. They took all nessary precautions.

Sure they did...
 
Sure they did...

You are saying that they knew about the plans to release Anthrax, so they had to take precautions against this attack that they were planning against themselves? Seems to me they could save a few steps by not, um, you know, attacking themselves in the first place.

But I guess that is all part of their evil scheme's plausible deniability, right?

:hypnodisk:bunpan:hypnodisk
 
You are saying that they knew about the plans to release Anthrax, so they had to take precautions against this attack that they were planning against themselves? Seems to me they could save a few steps by not, um, you know, attacking themselves in the first place.

But I guess that is all part of their evil scheme's plausible deniability, right?

:hypnodisk:bunpan:hypnodisk

You will note that they didn't tell the Senate or Congress to start taking the Cipro ? But then again they badly needed Tom Daschle for example to cease resisting the passing of the Patriot Act. He complied rapidly and went along woith it right after he had personally received one of the Anthrax letters. Well- you would, wouldn't you ? lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom