New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!

Click HERE to order from!

Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
(2009-2014 Edition)

& Analysis
Ed Lake

detect (at) newsguy (dot) com

The discussion blog for this web site is at

New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!

Click HERE to order from!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
My original analysis and working hypothesis,
and everything from prior to January 1, 2005, 

can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
All the information gathered and analyzed from
January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008,
can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!

(click on the Section to go to it)

Thoughts and Comments
  Latest references (top)
Latest references (end)

  12 FACTS which  show that a child wrote the anthrax letters
Ed Lake describes his book "A Crime Unlike Any Other"


(click on the name to link to the page)
Where & When Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
How Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Laboratory
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Office
The Bruce Ivins Timeline
The Errors That Snared Dr. Bruce Ivins
Bruce Ivins' Consciousness of Guilt
The Coded Message in the Media Letters (the "smoking gun")
Dr. Ivins' "Non-Denial Denials"
Evidence vs. Beliefs
The Mysteries of the AFIP "Report"
The Facts Say: A Child Wrote The Anthrax Letters

The Attack Anthrax Pictures
The annotated version of the Aug. 18, 2008, roundtable discussion
Van Der Waals Forces & Static Electricity: How they affect bacillus spores
The Steven Hatfill Timeline/The Attempted Lynching of Steven Hatfill
The Campaign to Point the Finger at Dr. Hatfill
Dr. Hatfill & The "Clueless" Media
The Media & Iowa State University
PBS Frontline vs. The Anthrax Facts
Anthrax, Assaad, Terror and the Timeline
Other Theories About the Anthrax Case
The Illogical al Qaeda Theory
Mohamed Atta did NOT write the anthrax letters
Reviews of my first book
My comments about other anthrax-related books


This web site was started on November 22, 2001 to keep track of facts related to the anthrax attacks which had become a major news event during the previous month.  I found that most people only wanted to discuss beliefs, opinions and conspiracy theories.  I wanted to see what the facts said.  Plus, news stories were appearing and then being deleted, and I needed a place to retain the articles which contained new information.  So, for the next seven years I accumulated facts and references and analyzed all the data I could find.  In March of 2005, I even self-published a book describing what the first three years of my analysis had found. 

On August 1, 2008, the news broke that the person the FBI believed to be the anthrax mailer had committed suicide.  His name was Dr. Bruce Ivins, and he worked at the USAMRIID labs at Ft. Detrick, MD.

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers who had argued their beliefs and opinions for the prior seven years were not persuaded by the FBI's evidence.  They continue to argue their beliefs and opinions, claiming that the FBI cannot prove Dr. Ivins was guilty.  After all, if the FBI was right, that would mean they have been wrong for seven years.  And that couldn't be, even though they don't even agree with each other about key facts:

Some still believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
Some still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks
Some still believe a vast Jewish conspiracy was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the Bush administration was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the CIA was behind the attacks.
Some still believe pharmaceutical companies were behind the attacks.
Some still believe a writer was behind the attacks in order to sell books.
Some still believe Dr. Steven Hatfill was behind the attacks.
Some still believe a different scientist was behind the attacks.
Some still believe that a military person was behind the attacks.
Some still believe their next door neighbor was behind the attacks.

Some still believe the attack spores were "weaponized" with silica or silicon and that anyone who says otherwise is either lying or incompetent.  They still believe there must be some vast criminal conspiracy to cover up the real facts, because they simply do not believe anything the government - and particularly the FBI - says.

Some still believe that Dr. Ivins did not have the ability to make the attack anthrax. 

And, perhaps most bizarre of all, some still believe that there is some similarity between the "investigation" of Dr. Steven Hatfill (who was eventually exonerated) and the investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins.  The facts show that the two cases could not be more different.  Dr. Hatfill was the victim of an attempted lynching by conspiracy theorists, people in the media and some politicians.  They worked together for six months to get Dr. Hatfill arrested for a crime he didn't do.  The FBI's Hatfill "investigation" was purely political and based upon "tips" from those same conspiracy theorist scientists who claimed the FBI was "covering up" for Dr. Hatfill when the FBI's investigation found nothing to tie him to the mailings.  The Ivins investigation, on the other hand, was the result of years of detailed scientific analysis and an equally detailed criminal investigation.

The Case Against Dr. Ivins

The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:

1.  He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the "mother" spores which produced the attack anthrax "daughter" spores.  He was in charge of "the murder weapon."

1.1  He tried to destroy "smoking gun" evidence that he had encoded a hidden message inside the media letters, but the evidence was recovered and clearly points to Dr. Ivins as the anthrax mailer.

1.2  He was a diagnosed sociopath.  In 2000, a year before the anthrax mailings, Ivins had talked with his mental heath counselor about his plan to poison a "young woman."  The counselor called the police, but because Ivins hadn't provided a name, there wasn't anything they could do.  The facts indicate the woman was Ivins' former assistant, Mara Linscott.  Ivins evidently changed his mind about poisoning her.

2.  The FBI investigated everyone else who had access to the RMR-1029 flask and eliminated all of them as suspects.  Eliminating potential suspects is routine police procedure.

3.  He had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters.  He could routinely make a trillion spores a week.

4.  He accessed the locked suite (B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

5.  He worked alone and unsupervised in his lab for long hours at night and on weekends during the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

6.  He had no scientific reason or verifiable explanation for working those hours or at those times.

7.  In December of 2001, Dr. Ivins secretly swabbed and bleached more than 20 areas in his lab, destroying possible evidence.   In April of 2002, he did it again.  Both cleanings were unauthorized and against protocol.  His explanations for doing it were contradictory to his actions.

8.  Investigators examined another flask of Ames anthrax spores created by Dr. Ivins for his own use in his work and found that a percentage of the spores in flask RMR-1030 contained silicon just like what was in the attack spores.

9.  It was not commonplace for him to work long evening hours in the Bacteriology Division's Suite B3 before the anthrax attacks or in the months after the anthrax attacks.  His long hours in Suite B3 at that time broke his normal work pattern.  Suite B3 was a BioSafety Level-3 area.

10.  He had multiple motives for sending the anthrax letters.

11.  He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

12.  He had no verifiable alibi for the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

13.  He was known to drive long distances and to use various methods to mail letters and packages so they could not be traced back to him.

14.  He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.  The ZIP Code used in the return address on the senate letters was 08852.  It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ.  According to a letter in Ivins' files, his ancestors on his father's side came from an area then known as Monmouth, NJ.  Plus, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (an obsession of Ivins') was founded.

15.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.   He'd been seeing psychiatrists since 1978.

16.  The pre-stamped envelopes which were used in the attacks had print defects, and one of the post offices which sold those envelopes was a post office which Dr. Ivins used.

17.  His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, Ivins had many contacts with children, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

18.  Investigations found no evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

19.  There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

20.  People commit suicide to escape justice.  People who are unfairly accused sue their tormenters.

Although the case was officially closed on February 19, 2010, there may still be some additional facts pointing to Dr. Ivins' guilt which have not yet been disclosed by the FBI, specifically information related to his sessions with his psychiatrist or psychologist.  That information is still "under seal" by court order.

Meanwhile, those who cannot accept the FBI's findings continue to use every tactic they can to cast doubt upon the FBI's findings.  They have no proof of Dr. Ivins' innocence, so all they can do is try to make it appear that if there is any doubt - reasonable or not - about Dr. Ivins' guilt, then he must be innocent.

Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers 

Because they often support each other in opposing the FBI's official findings, it is sometimes difficult to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a True Believer.  But, there is really are very distinct differences:

Conspiracy theorists often do not know or care who sent the anthrax letters, they only know that "the government" cannot be trusted, "the government" is lying about something, and they want to expose it.

True Believers feel they know beyond any doubt who sent the anthrax letters, and anyone who does not believe as they believe - including the FBI - is just not looking at the right facts.

Both will do anything and everything they can to get the undecided and uncertain to join with their cause.  And there are differences in their tactics as the go about their recruiting: 

The #1 tactic used by conspiracy theorists is junk science.  They wildly misinterpret facts about the case, they claim their bizarre misinterpretations prove something, and they demand that those misinterpretations and baseless claims be either accepted or disproved.
The #1 tactic used by True Believers is to accuse the non-believer of being "closed minded" and to wear down the non-believer as he tries to prove he is not "closed minded."

There's really no point to arguing with a True Believer.  Back in 1951, Eric Hoffer published his landmark book "The True Believer" in which he stated that the only way to change a True Believer's mind is to convert him to a different belief.  So, unless you are prepared to do that, it's best to just avoid them.  They will bury you in irrelevant facts if you don't avoid them, they'll claim that if you do not read everything they read and interpret everything the way they interpret them, then you are ill-informed and your opinion is worthless.

Conspiracy theorists, however, appear ready to debate some of the relevant facts of the case.  They just move on to different facts if they are proven wrong about their first set of facts.  Example:

The initial theory about the anthrax being "weaponized" was that the attack spores were coated with bentonite and the government was covering up that fact.  That theory was quickly shown to be false.  When the next theory that the attack spores were coated with fumed silica was also disproved, they moved on to a new theory that the attack spores had tiny particles of silica glued to them to defeat van der Waals forces.  When that was shown to be nonsense, they moved on to a theory that the spores were treated with a waterproofing substance that would coat the spore coat without leaving any trace on the exosporium. 

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers seem to have a few followers in Congress.  Perhaps there will also be some Congressional hearings.  I hope so.  Congressional hearings seem to be the only way to clarify certain details about others who were caught up in the investigation. 

Thoughts and Comments
by Ed Lake

Updates & Changes: Sunday, September 28, 2014, thru Saturday, October 4, 2014

September 30, 2014 - When is the 13th anniversary of the anthrax attacks of 2001?  Was it a couple weeks ago when the first letters were mailed, or is it next week when people first began to realize there had been an attack?

Thirteen years ago today, Bruce Ivins was presumably going crazy waiting for something to happen.  Back on the evening of September 17, he'd sent out a batch of five letters to the media.  Then he'd undoubtedly waited for the hysterical news reports to appear.

For the first week of the wait, from the 17th through the 24th of September, he'd barely spent any evening hours in Suite B3 at all:

Ivins hours in Suite B3

He did "work" in Suite B3 on the 25th, but it was only to clean the place because Patricia Worsham had ordered him to do the cleaning.  He wrote his famous "Queen of the Universe" email the next day, informing Worsham that he'd done as instructed.

Then, frustrated over the lack of news about anthrax being sent through the mails (and probably thoroughly pissed at having a woman who was younger and less experience than he was order him around), on the 28th he evidently began work on the spores for the second mailing.   It appears he finished preparing those spores on the 5th of October, since he then, once again, had no reason to go into B3 in the evenings.

October 5th was also the day that Bob Stevens died.  But the "experts" in the media were saying that Stevens might have been infected by some natural source while on vacation.  Nothing was going the way Ivins had planned.  He made certain his second batch of letters would leave no doubt that a biological weapons attack was occurring - the powder was more lethal, the letter said it was anthrax, and he would mail the second batch of letters to two important Senators.  Then he would have to wait once again.

Meanwhile, back in today's world of 2014, the search for Malaysia Flight MH370 is starting up again in the Southern Indian Ocean.  According to an article in today's USA Today, the mapping survey of the ocean floor is complete and search ships will soon begin sending down submersibles to do a detailed examination of the area where MH370 is calculated to have gone down. 

The survey, conducted from May through late September by Chinese and Australian ships, has revealed several previously unknown features, including two volcanoes, a mile-deep trench and a mountain ridge nearly 9 miles long, 4 miles wide and rising more than a mile from the ocean floor.
Having completed the seafloor mapping, the Netherlands-owned Fugro Equator has returned to the search area and hopes to begin the latest hunt in the coming days. It will be joined by the Fugro Discovery and the GO Phoenix, owned by Maryland-based Phoenix International. Rough weather is forecast through the rest of the week.

It's early fall here, so it's early spring down there.  Hopefully, it will just take weeks, not months or years to find the plane.  Then I'm hoping they can recover not only the "black box," but also cellphones from the passengers, who will likely have recorded some of what was going on during their final minutes or hours of consciousness.  I'd like to have a major mystery be satisfactorily solved for once -- although I suppose there will always be a band of conspiracy theorists who will be claiming that all the new evidence that is found was simply planted by the CIA and the U.S. government.

Also meanwhile, it seems to take forever to get anything done on my computer these days.  It's like I'm back in the days of "dial-up" connections.  I'm not sure what's going on, but I suspect it's an incompatibility between the ancient software I'm using in my computer and some aspect of new software being used by my up-to-date Firefox web browser and web site developers.  Or maybe all the new software requires more memory space than I have in my computer.  All I seem to be able to think about right now is how to best go about getting reasonably up-to-date with my hardware and software - at least the hardware and sofware I use to work on-line.  I can still use old stuff for off-line work.

September 28, 2014 (B) - I see that "DXer" is posting a whole slew of rambling, silly messages to Lew Weinstein's blog asking Adnan Shukrijumah's brother Nabil about details of the anthrax mailings.  Does "DXer" really think he'll get a reply?  Or is it just another way for "DXer" to argue his beliefs and to pose screwball questions?

It seems pretty clear some of "DXer's" posts are in response to my (A) comment this morning.   In one of his rambling posts, "DXer" says,

The United States Attorney Falsely Alleged That The Federal Eagle Stamp Was Uniquely Sold At Dr. Bruce Ivins’ Post Office And Then That Ran As An AP Headline. In fact, the envelopes with the printing defects are known to have been sold throughout Maryland and Virginia post offices (and that is where the hijackers were).

That is almost certainly in response to this part of my (A) comment:

The post office envelopes used in the mailings were sold in the area where Ivins lived.
"DXer" has no explanation for why al Qaeda would buy envelopes in Maryland.

But, the fact that the hijackers were reportedly in the Virginia/Maryland area at some point in time prior to 9/11 merely poses the question: Is "DXer" saying that one of the hijackers put the two different types of anthrax powders into the letters while they were somewhere within the US?  Are we to believe that the hijackers then set the two batches of letters aside somewhere to wait for Adnan Shukrijumah to come to the US to do the two actual mailings after 9/11?

Instead of asking silly questions of someone who is unlikely to respond, it would seem far more logical for "DXer" to attempt to show that his al Qaeda theory makes some kind of sense.  What is the timeline?  Who did what?  When?  How?  

September 28, 2014 (A) - Maybe it's a quirk of fate or a stroke of luck that I'm currently reading a humorous philosophy book during breakfast and lunch, after I finished reading a different humorous philosophy book a couple weeks ago.   Some days I really need to be humorously philosophical.

In the past months, I've been so busy working on my sci-fi novels while also arguing with Anthrax Truthers, while also doing all the things "normal" people do every day, that I haven't taken time out to update software for my computer.  I'm still using Windows XP, which is no longer supported by Microsoft.  I can't simply load a new operating system, since that would require also reloading all my other software.  And I don't even know if I have the materials I would need to reload my 1998 version of Lotus-123 spreadsheet software which is no longer being sold.  My Microsoft WORD software is from 2003, and I don't know if I have the disks for that, either.  Or my graphics software.  Or my software for creating and maintaining web site pages.  Or my software for uploading web site pages and updates.  And, very importantly, I don't know if I can convert my existing email files to some kind of new email software.  My email software is from 2004.  And I have an archive of over 50,000 emails.

I'm also having problems with my emails.  Sometimes it seems to take forever to download incoming emails.  And sometimes when I try to send an email, it takes so long that it "times out" and I have to try again. 

I keep having to override automatic updates to various pieces of software because the updates will crash my operating system.

And, I probably should put all the new software onto a new computer - probably a laptop computer - before trying to update software on my existing desktop computer, so I can use it as a backup.

But, I really want to work on my sci-fi novels.  I'm thinking of starting a third book and postponing doing the second draft of my second book.

And, I've got this stack of novels on a shelf in front of me that I want to read.

However, instead of doing any of this, I'm endlessly arguing with Anthrax Truthers over minutiae and the meanings of words.  

On Friday, I was really pleased when I found the UPI article which stated that Adnan el Shukrijumah and Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan appeared to be two different people, who just sometimes use the same aliases.  But, "DXer" then posted more articles and references where reporters appear to still believe that Mohammed Khan is an alias used by Adnan el Shukrijumah, and they are the same person.  

I tried to find more information to settle the matter.   There's nothing on the FBI web site about Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan.  It's not even mentioned as being an alias used by Shukrijumah in Shukrijuma's FBI wanted poster.  But, after some thorough searching, I did find a web site HERE which seems to say that Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan really is an alias used by Adnan el Shukrijumah.  And, it provides enough detail to make it seem convincing.  But, it also seems possible that Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan is a real person whose identity Shukrijumah sometimes uses.

I made a BIG mistake in arguing this subject.  It is just a total waste of time.  Even if Mohammed Khan is an alias used by Shukrijumah, the argument is really about what "after Sept. 1, 2001" means in the sentence "The FBI said Friday it is looking for a man called Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan, who entered the country illegally after Sept. 1, 2001."  That sentence is from a Feb. 7, 2003, UPI news article HERE.  A different 
UPI article dated March 20, 2003, says  "There was a warning that Khan entered the U.S. illegally around Sept. 1, 2001." 

"DXer" seems to think "after" and "around" September 1 can only mean "between September 13 and September 18, 2001," since it would have to mean that if Shukrijumah was in Afghanistan on September 13 talking to his mother on the phone, and also in Princeton, New Jersey, on the evening of September 17 or morning of September 18 to mail the first anthrax letters.

The argument is a total waste of time.   It proves nothing. 

The absurd al Qaeda anthrax theory is so full of holes that arguing over one minor piece of minutiae can do nothing but waste time.  In order to make an intelligent case that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax mailings, "DXer" needs to provide BETTER evidence that shows al Qaeda did it than the FBI has showing that Bruce Ivins did it.  But, so far "DXer" hasn't even attempted to do that.  The reasons are pretty obvious:

Ivins had full access to the source of the anthrax used in the letters.

"DXer" has no evidence that al Qaeda had access to that source.

Ivins routinely made Ames anthrax spores in his lab.
"DXer" has no evidence that al Qaeda ever made any Ames anthrax spores.

Ivins was within driving distance of the mailbox at the time of the mailings.
"DXer" doesn't know where Shukrijumah was at the time of the mailings.

Ivins used the biosafety cabinet in his lab to put the anthrax in the envelopes.
"DXer" has no timeline showing when al Qaeda put the anthrax in the envelopes

The post office envelopes used in the mailings were sold in the area where Ivins lived.
"DXer" has no explanation for why al Qaeda would buy envelopes in Maryland.

Ivins had several connections to Princeton, NJ, where the letters were mailed.
"DXer" had no explanation for why al Qaeda chose to mail the letters from Princeton.

It makes sense for Ivins to send two different  forms of anthrax.
It makes NO sense for al Qaeda to send two different forms of anthrax.

It makes sense for Ivins to wait three weeks before doing a second mailing.
It makes NO sense for al Qaeda to wait  three weeks between mailings.

The handwriting on the letters doesn't match Ivins'
or Mohamed Atta's writing.
Ivins had reason to disguise his handwriting.  Atta did not.

Osama bin Laden denied responsibility for the anthrax attacks.
Terrorist are called "terrorists" because they want responsibility for their killings.

Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, September 21, 2014, thru Saturday, September 27, 2014

September 26, 2014 (B) - I should probably save this for Sunday, but I've been doing some research on Adnan el Shukrijuma, the Islamic terrorist who "DXer" inexplicably believes mailed the anthrax letters in 2001.  "DXer" just started a new thread on Lew Weinstein's blog with the title "In February 2003, the FBI announced that “Jafar the Pilot” (aka Adnan El-Shukrijumah) had entered the country sometime after September 1, 2001."

"DXer" doesn't provide a link to where the FBI announced this dubious claim.  Instead, he provides an image of a UPI news article from Feb. 7, 2003, which says,

The FBI said Friday that it is looking for a man called Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan, who entered the country illegally after Sept. 1, 2001.


His aliases include Muhammad Shir Muhammad Khan; Mohammed Essagh; Ja'Far Al-Tayar; Jaffar Tayar; jaafar Al-Tayyar; Ali Abdul Qadir and Abdul Qadir.

Note that there is no mention of Adnan el Shukrijumah anywhere in the entire article, nor is it one of Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan's aliases.

To figure out what "DXer" is talking about, you have to look a the title of the thread he created, which says "Jafar the Pilot" is aka Adnan El-Shukrijumah.  And some of Khan's aliases use variations on the name "Jafar."

The problem is, over a month later it appears things looked a bit different to terrorism experts and the FBI. According to a different UPI article dated March 20, 2003, titled "FBI hunting for alleged al-Qaida terorrist":

Adnan el-Shukrijumah -- believed to be a 27-year-old Saudi citizen -- is wanted for questioning in regard to a possible domestic terrorist plot.
Using the alias Ja'far al-Tayar and similar names, el-Shukrijumah is described as standing between 5'3" and 5'5" and weighing at least 130 pounds.

There has been some confusion on the part of intelligence and law enforcement sources about the identity of el-Shukrijumah, who might also be wanted by the FBI under the name Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan. Khan fits the same physical description as el-Shukrijumah, although the FBI alert -- dated Feb. 7 -- has him as being 36 years old and born in Pakistan. Khan is also a pilot and was last seen in Miami.

Federal agents recently raided a home in Miami where Khan was believed to be living, but failed to apprehend him. The original FBI warning about Khan acknowledged that law enforcement was unsure about his name, age and place of birth. However, Khan is known to use the same aliases as el-Shukrijumah.

"Obviously you can tell how hard it can be to track these guys," said one federal law enforcement official. "Whether they're the same guy or not, we want to talk to them."

"We don't know if they are the same person and, frankly, we're not sure the FBI knows, either," said one terrorism expert. "But we do know this alert was spawned by the interviews with Khalid. There was a warning that Khan entered the U.S. illegally around Sept. 1, 2001. Then we knew he was in Miami. Now we have reason to believe he's a Mohammed Atta-type of guy."

Are they the same guy?  "DXer" obsessively believes so.  But, he also repeatedly says that Shukrijuma was in Afghanistan on September 13, 2001.  (Click HERE.)

So, Khan, a 36 year old Pakistani, illegally entered the USA sometime after September 1, 2001, but Shukrijumah, a 27 year old Saudi, was in Afghanistan talking to his mother on the phone on September 13, 2001.  And Shukrijuma's parents said that, in November 2002, Shukrijumah was living in Morocco where he was teaching school.

It's interesting what "DXer" considers to be "evidence."  It appears he won't accept anything less than home movies of Bruce Ivins putting the anthrax letters in the mailbox in Princeton before he'll accept that Ivins was the mailer (and probably not even then), but he fully believes that Adnan el Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer, even though he doesn't have a clue as to whether Shukrijumah was even in the USA to mail the first anthax letters on September 18, 2001.

September 26, 2014 (A) - This is entirely off topic, but someone might find it interesting:

I see that O'Hare and Midway airports in Chicago are currently shut down because of a fire at an FAA radar center.  It's probably just a coincidence, but last night I watched the first episode of a new TV series titled "Scorpion."  It was about a fictional problem that shut down radio communications at LAX and a couple other airports in the Los Angeles area.  A super-intelligent bunch of misfits are called into help, since there were 54 planes looking to land at LAX, and the government would have to shoot them down over the ocean if radio contact could not be regained before the planes run out of fuel.

I watched about two thirds of the program before turning it off.  The story was just too stupid, and the script was full of holes, although the band of geniuses idea was good.

I had a bunch of other new programs on my DVR that I hadn't had time to watch because I first wanted to view all 14 hours of "The Roosevelts" (which I found very interesting).  After watching the last part of the last episode last night, I started on the other programs I had recorded on my DVR.   I watched two episodes of "Forever," which I thoroughly enjoyed.  It's my kind of show: a super-smart guy with a sense of humor working with a smart, beautiful woman to solve crimes together.  (It fits very well into my current list of favorite TV series: "The Mentalist," "Elementary" and "Castle.")   The first episode of "Madam Secretary" was okay, and I'll probably watch episode #2.  But, I couldn't get through the first episode of "Gotham."  Not my cup of tea.   Too  gloomy.

September 25, 2014 - "Dxer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") continues to argue his belief that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks of 2001 by trying to point at mistakes I've made, instead of by supplying evidence in support of his claim.   This is a common tactic of Truthers who have no evidence to support their beliefs.  They cannot argue that they have a better case, so they instead attack the FBI's case or just argue trivial details.

"DXer" has been banned from my interactive blog for posting disgusting personal attacks and an endless stream of irrelevant, time-wasting materials.   If I allowed any of his new post attempts to go through, he'd probably call me a liar, since I said I wasn't going to allow him to post anymore.  So, instead of once again letting his posts go through, I just quote from them as I post my responses to his nonsense. 

This has been going on for about a week, and what it clearly shows is how preposterous his al Qaeda theory is.  He argues that the FBI has no evidence against Bruce Ivins, but he cannot provide anything that even resembles evidence in support of his own theory.  But, the arguments are sometimes very interesting.   They are so interesting that I just created a new thread titled "The absurd al Qaeda anthrax theory" for my blog.  Hopefully, I'll be able to get DXer to argue his theory there, instead of just arguing that the FBI doesn't do things they way he thinks they should be done, or that I made mistakes in the past and nothing further can be discussed until I correct those mistakes (which are usually his mistakes, but he doesn't see things that way).   

September 24, 2014 - Hmm.  What a difference a day makes.  Yesterday, I felt I had lots to write comments about and no time to do the writing.  Today, I'm sitting around trying to remember what I was so excited about.  The Anthrax Truther who didn't seem to know the difference between a syllogism and logic hasn't posted any further messages to my interactive blog.  The Truther who endlessly argues about al Qaeda tried to change the subject and argue about which mosque some terrorists attended in Florida.  He can't explain what he's talking about, and I'm not in the mood to try to figure it out.

I remember I had watched the movie "Breach" on Monday night, and I was thinking about how the Robert Hanssen case, which completed in early 2001, was supposedly the FBI's biggest investigation ever -- until the anthrax mailings later in 2001.  I thought I'd write a comment about it, but now I can't think of anything further to write.

I remember I was thinking about the incredibly silly arguments made by members of the House Committee for Science, Space and Technology, and how I could try to create syllogisms for their absurd arguments.  For example, Rep. Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas, argued this kind of syllogism:

The Ice Age was caused by global wobbling.
Global wobbling was not included in claims about global warming.
Therefore, global wobbling causes global warming, not CO2 emissions.

The problem is global wobbling occurs over tens of thousands of years, and thus could not cause something that began so recently as global warming. 

Then Rep. Dan Rohrabocher, a Republican from California, argued:

Breathing CO2 would be fatal to all humans.
I'm a human and I haven't been harmed by CO2 in the atmosphere.
Therefore, CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be dangerous to humans.

The problem is that the CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming.  No one said it is causing human asphyxiation.

Then Rep. Larry Bucshon, a Republican from Indiana, argued:

Scientists claim that global warming is a danger.
Some members of the public disagree with the scientists.
Therefore, global warming is not a proven danger.

That's a standard argument from Truthers.  The next comment from Buschon, when turned into a syllogism, seems to explain why he has such stupid opinions:

I do not believe scientists
I believe non-scientists.
Therefore I must believe the scientists are wrong.

The last argument was another one from Representative Stockman:

All the world's ice is floating in water.
All ice turns to water when it melts.
Therefore, when the ice caps melt it won't raise the level of the water.  

The problem, of course, is that the bulk of the ice in Antarctica and on Greenland is on land, not floating in water.

I doubt that any of the above "syllogisms" follow all the rules for creating syllogisms.  But, they certainly illustrate that a syllogism does not have to be logical.  It's a format for creating a logical argument, but a syllogism is not necessarily a logical argument.

Hmm.  I've run out of time again.

September 23, 2014 - Wow!  There are a lot of things I want to write about this morning, but I've been so busy arguing with a couple Anthrax Truthers on my interactive blog that I've run out of time.  One argument over the difference between logic and a syllogism was pretty enlightening.   It seems to explain why one Truther thinks his invalid logic is actually valid logic.  He didn't know the difference between logic and a syllogism.

Meanwhile, someone sent me an email with a link to a new article in PC World titled "Nvidia debunks moon landing conspiracies with new GTX 900-series 'Maxwell' GPUs."

So, there are still people out there trying to convince the moon landing conspiracy theorists that they are wrong.  Good luck.

I also want to mention a segment on last night's "Daily Show with Jon Stewart," where Stewart showed clips of congressmen on the House Committee for Science, Space and Technology arguing against climate change using the most idiotic logic imaginable.  The total stupidity of their beliefs was jaw-dropping.  It wasn't just ignorance.  It was stupidity.  If it wasn't on video and was just in some print article, no one would believe it.  The congressmen didn't have the scientific understanding of a typical sixth grader.  I was as amazed as Jon Stewart was.

I have a bunch of other things to write about, too.  But, it's lunch time and then I need to head to the health club for a workout.  Maybe I'll write another comment later.

September 22, 2014 - Since the search for Malaysia Flight MH370 was supposed to resume today, I checked the news.  I found an article in a British newspaper from Friday titled "Missing Flight MH370 search to resume."  It says,

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) intends to resume the search on 30 September.

So, there has been a delay of about a week.  Interestingly, the article also mentions a new book on the subject:

The authors [of "Goodnight Malaysian 370"] - a New Zealand pilot, Ewan Wilson, and a journalist, Geoff Taylor - theorise that the captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, locked the copilot out of the flight deck and depressurised the plane. The passengers and crew would have passed out quickly and died shortly afterwards. 

They speculate that Captain Shah, using oxygen, then turned the aircraft around and headed south, carrying out a controlled ditching when the plane ran out of fuel. But the airline angrily issued a statement deploring the book: “The authors and publishers should quite simply be ashamed of themselves for what is nothing more than a cheap and maligned publicity stunt, seeking to simply cash in on the suffering of the families and undermining the dignity of all of those onboard.”

It seems like a fairly good premise (or hypothesis) that fits all the known facts (except maybe for the "controlled ditching" part).  At least it isn't a conspiracy theory book. 

Further research finds that, on October 8, NOVA on PBS will be airing a program that mentions Flight MH370.  Click HERE for a preview video of "Why Planes Vanish."

September 21, 2014 (B) - During breakfast and lunch for the past week or so, I've been reading the book "Monty Python and Philosophy," which I obtained from my local library for my Kindle.  I've been highlighting passages, which on a Kindle means I create copies of passages in my "clippings" file.  That also means I can copy and paste the "highlighted" passages from my "clippings" file to a comment here.

For example, in Chapter 5 of the book, University of Wisconsin Professor of Philosophy Harry Brighouse says this about Monty Python's
Argument Clinic comedy skit, in which the clinician simply argues with the patient about everything:

Philosophers like the sketch for at least two reasons. First, argument is just about all we are good at: it is not at all uncommon for a philosopher to exclaim dismissively “but that’s an empirical, not a philosophical, issue,” and by that they mean that evidence is irrelevant: argument is the only guide to the truth.

So, if you want to find out what is true by examining evidence, don't ask a philosopher to for his advice (and definitely do NOT ask a Truther).

Another "clipping" from the book very clearly explains how I view arguments:

It is only through a process of argument with other people can most of us hope to come to have true beliefs about matters of any complexity.

I had very little knowledge of anthrax, spores or microbiology when I first started researching the anthrax letter case.  I had to do a lot of research in order to find the answers to countless questions - and also to ask intelligent questions.  Now I think I can intelligently argue with scientists about how Ivins most likely made the attack spores, and I can probably win most such arguments.  (My experience has been that when I show them how it was done, they stop arguing.)

Here's another clipping from the book:

Philosophy is the systematic study of questions, the answers to which cannot be determined simply by gathering observational data about the world and making hypotheses about those data.

In philosophy, the Amerithrax question is not "who did it?".   The question is: what does the Amerithrax case MEAN  for humanity? (and what does it say about trust, and about a world in which someone you never heard of can do something stupid and kill you?).

Another clipping:

This brings us back to the Argument Clinic. One’s own perspective on moral, and other, matters is necessarily limited. This doesn’t mean that one is completely stuck in one’s own perspective; one can, and should, think as far beyond it as one can. But often, one needs help: someone or, preferably, many people, to present alternatives, with whom one can then uncover agreement and disagreement. Mere contradiction, entertaining as it is to a pantomime audience, simply does not serve this purpose.

When you have an intelligent argument, both sides can learn from the other.  Mere contradiction is what you get from Truthers, instead of argument.  No matter what facts or evidence you present to them, they simply argue that they don't believe it, or that some "expert" doesn't believe it, or that some reporter said he didn't believe it.

Another (and final) clipping:

If we are committed to uncovering the truth about matters of human value or other matters of great complexity, we usually need other smart, good-willed, and intellectually serious people to alert us to perspectives and reasons we would not have been able to conjure up on our own. If more people sought argument clinics the world would be a better place, and not only because philosophers would be richer.

I fully agree.  Unfortunately, "smart, good-willed, and intellectually serious people" are few and far between, and they are usually too busy with their own lives and jobs to debate much of anything.  They rarely have the time to debate something as complex as the Amerithrax case.  So, I mostly discuss Amerithrax with Anthrax Truthers in hopes of figuring out what is true (or most likely) and what is false (or very unlikely).  It is very rare to get intelligent answers from an Anthrax Truther, but it is fairly common to learn something new through the process of posing a new question.  If they ask a new question, it can force me to look at things from a different angle.  The result can be that I understand things more clearly.  And if I am the one who formulates a new question, it can be equally enlightening.  It, too, can provide a different way of looking at things.  The more different ways you view something, the more certain you can be that you thoroughly understand it - or don't understand it.

Reading "Monty Python and Philosophy" also makes me want to create a Python-esque comedy skit to illustrate what I think about Barbara Honneger's two hour talk with fellow 9/11 Truthers.  From my point of view, she is abysmally ignorant of the laws of physics, and her audience was equally or even more ignorant. 

I can envision John Cleese telling an audience how ridiculous "the government" is to try to claim that there are people living on the other side of the earth -- below their feet.

Cleese: Are we to believe that the people on the underside of the world pave their streets with Velco so that their cars can use Velco tires to cling to the road instead of falling off into space?
Audience: (laughter)  

Cleese:  Are we to believe that all the people have Velco soles on their shoes so that they don't go falling off into space?

Audience:  (more laughter)

Michael Palin in the audience: Who can believe such nonsense??!!

Cleese: Do their infant children cling to the bars in their cribs like monkeys?   How does one take a shower when the water is falling upwards?

Audience:  (more laughter)

Eric Idle in the audience: Hilarious!  How stupid to they think we are!?

Cleese: Are we to believe that children on the underside of the world do not play hopscotch?

Audience: (hilarious laughter)

Cleese:  When you go "downstairs" in an upside down building, are you going up or down?  Do you sleep on the floor or on the ceiling?  Or do you sleep in a hammock hanging in the middle, between the floor and the ceiling?  Do people in the government just make up these beliefs, or do they make down such beliefs?

Audience: (rolling on the floor in hilarious laughter) 

When I'm arguing with Anthrax Truthers I'm also reminded of Monty Python's Dead Parrot Skit.  Only instead of me being a customer who is trying to return a parrot I just bought, because the parrot is obviously dead, I see myself more like a customer to whom the clerk is trying to sell a dead parrot.  I refuse to buy their parrot because it is so obviously dead, but the clerk just endlessly continues to try to sell it to me, arguing that it isn't dead, it's just asleep or meditating.

The problem is that there is no Skit Police or Absurdity Control Agency to step in and bring an end to the argument.  So, the argument is now about to enter it's 14th year.

September 21, 2014 (A) - "DXer" on Lew Weinstein's blog just provided an excellent example of the Python-esque reasoning used by Anthrax Truthers.  In a post yesterday evening, DXer wrote:

The anthrax letters used large paper, such as standard in Europe but not in US.

The quote is from an MSNBC article from December 11, 2001, which I cannot find on the Internet anywhere anymore.   However, I can find a Wall Street Journal article from that same day that says basically the same thing:

One clue was contained in the missive to the New York Post: The letter, which read in part, "Death to America," wasn't printed on a paper size normally found in the U.S., says an FBI official familiar with the matter. An FBI spokesman declined to elaborate. Erich Speckin, who runs a private forensic laboratory in Okemos, Mich., says the height-to-width ratio was approximately 1.41 to 1, according to a photo released by the FBI. He says that ratio is common for business letters in Europe and elsewhere but rare in the U.S. That could suggest that the mailer is from another country or has traveled outside the U.S.

And "DXer" uses as a reference a USA Today article from September 28, 2001, (before the anthrax letters were found) which talks about Muslims using "large paper."  So, he put 2 and 2 together and came up with 736,259, evidently concluding that this is somehow evidence that Muslims sent the anthrax letters using large paper they bought in Europe.

The problem is, it's total nonsense.  I also believed it at first (back in 2001), but then the facts quickly became clear when I obtained photos of the letters placed next to rulers so their true sizes could be determined.  On my original web site I showed that the evidence says that all the anthrax letters were trimmed down by cutting off bottoms and/or sides. 

Letter #1 measures approximately 225 millimeters in length by 215.9 millimeters in width.
Letter #2 measures approximately 230 millimeters in length by 165 millimeters in width.
Letter #3 measures approximately 215 millimeters in length by 208 millimeters in width.

American standard copy paper is 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches, or 215.9 mm by 279.4 mm.
The graphic below shows the size of the letters compared to standard 8-1/2 by 11 paper.

anthrax letter size comparison

Letter 2 is the one that has a ratio similar to business letters in Europe.   But the size is totally different - much smaller.

(The reason Dr. Bruce Ivins trimmed off the bottoms and sides of the anthrax letters is almost certainly so they would more easily fit into a small post office envelope after they have been folded with the pharmaceutical fold.)

The real sizes of the anthrax letters have been known since early 2002.  Yet, "DXer" still hasn't learned it. 

To make the situation even more "Python-esque,"  just a few hours earlier yesterday evening, "DXer" also wrote this:

Far too many people don’t read relevant materials and thus are reaching conclusions based on 2002 newspaper articles.

Yes, and "DXer" is a prime example of such a person. 

Updates & Changes: Sunday, September 14, 2014, thru Saturday, September 20, 2014

September 19, 2014 - It appears that we now have another interesting case of "experts arguing with experts."  This one is in the hunt for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.  I just noticed that Duncan Steele and his group of outside experts have published a document that disagrees with the official experts as to where flight MH370 can most likely be found.  Click HERE for the pdf version or HERE for the html version.

The outsider version is based upon opinions and beliefs, of course.  They accept that the satellite data and communication facts say MH370 went down somewhere in the South Indian Ocean along the "7th arc," i.e., around where MH370's final "handshake" with ground stations occurred.  The outsiders, however, believe that MH370 was headed in a more southerly direction, therefore was further south along the arc than what the Air Transportation Safety Board (ATSB) believes.  They also argue:

ATSB considered thousands of paths, with many possible speeds tested. However, the most likely scenario chosen by ATSB (low BTO and BFO errors) had a TAS of 400 kts. But ATSB provides no rationale for a pilot to have made a deliberate selection of this speed. If the aircraft was flying under the control of the autopilot, a human must have selected the configuration. We doubt that a pilot would select 400 kts, and a lower altitude to match, regardless of the motivation. Using our path models, we have confirmed that the path would end on the 7th arc in the ATSB Priority Search Area if the speed was 400 kts, but we note that this result is the least consistent with (a) the most likely speeds a human would choose and (b) the fuel range/performance intersections with the 7th arc.

It's the same kind of problem "outside experts" have with the Amerithrax case.  They don't care what the evidence says, they don't believe Ivins would have done this or that.  And like the "outside experts" in the Amerithrax investigation, the MH370 "outside experts" don't have all the facts that the government experts have. 

So, who should we believe?  Truthers will simply disbelieve the official version from "the government" regardless of what the facts say.  But, I would tend to believe the side that most likely has the BEST data.  That would once again be "the government."  By the standards of one Anthrax Truther, that makes me a government flunky:

What I do have problems with is: your (implicit) repudiation of: observations, hypotheses, summaries made by you simply in order to align yourself with whatever the government's current line is.

If it turns out that Duncan Steele's theory is proved right, I'll find that totally fascinating. If it turns out the government is right, I'll just shrug and say, "Of course.  They had the better facts and better experts.  Ho hum."  If it turns out that neither is right and/or that they just cannot find MH370, I won't automatically assume it is because of some kind of sinister government conspiracy.  I'll just assume that there is some piece of data they are not aware of that changes everything.  That is what happens sometimes when all you have to work with is scattered pieces of incomplete data.  It's happened a million times in the past, and it will happen a billion times again in the future.   

September 18, 2014 - In my arguments with Anthrax Truthers, they keep arguing that the various people who disagree with the official Amerithrax findings have impressive credentials.  Yet, they don't seem to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories - even though many 9/11 conspiracy theorists also have impressive credentials.  Back on January 29, 2012, I wrote a comment in which I said,

Evidently, it's time to repeat the adage: There is no idea so preposterous that you can't find an expert with perfect credentials to support it.

This morning I tried to figure out where that "adage" came from.  It probably wasn't phrased exactly that way.  I did a good search for "perfect credentials" and found nothing meaningful.   Then I did a Google search for ignorant+expert and found a lot of interesting stuff, but not the original wording of that "adage."  I found this:

when we set out to learn a new skill, most of us start out as “unconsciously incompetent.” That is, we don’t even know how much we don’t know. Then we learn a thing or two, and we advance to being “consciously incompetent.” We’ve found out enough to understand just how much we don’t know.

Finally, we learn enough to actually be competent. At first, it takes concentration to produce our best work. But by the time we become a true expert, we turn in superior work as a matter of course, almost without having to thing about it. It’s just what we do. ....

the problem is the “unconsciously incompetent” often looks a lot like the expert to an untrained observer. They’re both self confident — the difference is one is confident because he knows what he’s doing… while the other is confident because he’s simply unaware of how unskilled he really is.

Farther down in the list of links I found a Wikipedia link that had this:

In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another.

That's apparently a quote from scientist Richard Feynman, who also said:

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts

And I found a transcript of a talk by Dr. Feynman on the subject "What is science?".  The final point in that talk is:

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.

It was all very interesting, but it didn't help me find the source of the "adage."  Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.  Or maybe it isn't an "adage" that I actually heard somewhere.  Maybe it's just something I learned from experience.  Maybe it should be an "adage."  But, if so, it should probably have one word changed:

There is no idea so preposterous that you can't find an expert with impressive credentials to support it.

September 17, 2014 - It appears that the GAO review of the Amerithrax investigation may not be released for another month or three.  Blogger Lew Weinstein has asked the GAO for information about the release date and says the GAO is now saying:

Sometime this fall

Previously they said,

We expect it will be the later part of the summer or early fall

Meanwhile, an Anthrax Truther on my interactive blog seems to be arguing that the number of books supporting anthrax conspiracy theories seem to outnumber the books which agree with the government findings, and that somehow means that the official government findings must be wrong:

Mister Lake is in a minority among Amerithrax-book authors in concurring publicly that Ivins, acting alone, did the crimes. I'm unaware of any other author besides David Willman who holds that position

That prompted me to look at some books which challenge the official findings about 9/11.  There are lots and lots of them.  A dozen examples:

I could probably list dozens more of such titles.  Excluding the books which do not try to point fingers but only tell stories of people who survived 9/11, I see only a few books which support the official findings with additional facts, most notably:

How many people feel they have something new to say in support of the official findings about the 9/11 attacks?  Compare that number to the number of people who feel they have something new to say in opposition to the official findings.  Every conspiracy theorist seems to have his own personal theory that he wants to tell everyone

Any nut case can probably publish a book describing some 9/11 conspiracy theory.  And it's much easier to get a real publisher to publish such a book, because there is a market for controversial books.  There just aren't many people who are willing to spend good money to buy a book which simply supports the offical story.   What for?  Unless it involves some interesting personal story, there is no market for non-controversial non-fiction books about 9/11 or the anthrax attacks of 2001.   But come up with an interesting conspiracy theory - no matter how stupid - and you might have a book deal.  That's just the way the publishing business works - unfortunately.

The same holds true for the news business.  The number of media stories which argue against the official findings has nothing to do with the validity of the official findings.  It only has to do with what sells newspapers and gets viewers: Controversy.  

So, listing all the "news" stories which show other points of view about the anthrax attacks of 2001 may just show how low some news outlets will go to make a buck.

September 16, 2014 - When I turned on my computer this morning and did a Google search for anthrax+2001, I found two book reviews for Graeme MacQueen's new book "
The 2001 Anthrax Deception."  One is in al-Jazeera.   It says,

Although the FBI remains committed to the Ivins hypothesis, the case has been disintegrating for the last three years. Currently, it is justly held in contempt not merely by scientists who worked with Ivins but by many journalists as well as several US senators.

Well, as I aways say, "The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with whether it is true or not."   And whether a disbelief is "justly held" or not depends upon what the evidence says.

The evidence says that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.  Contrary beliefs and opinions won't change that.  Only solid evidence can change that.  There is NO meaningful evidence which say Ivins was not the anthrax killer OR that someone else was.

The second book review is on the web site "Centre for Research on Globalization," and is titled "The Smoking Guns of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks."  The "smoking guns" appear to be merely some disjointed or irrelevant facts.  Example:

There was a set of 3 letters sent around the same time as the initial anthrax mailings, which attempted to frame the Russians for the anthrax attacks, and which warned of further attacks.  These letters could not have been sent by Dr. Bruce Ivins (the scientist the FBI blamed for the attacks), nor could they have been “copycat” letters
So, once again we see an argument that, because there were some anthrax hoax letters sent at about the same time as the real anthrax mailings of 2001, that cannot be a coincidence and the hoax and real letters must be connected.  Here's a comment I wrote for my interactive blog on May 22, 2012:

1. The hoax white powder letter phenomenon really began when, a few weeks prior to the December 15, 1997 announcement of the Anthrax Vaccine Program, US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen held up a 5-lb. bag of sugar on the Today Show and warned that if the bag contained anthrax, it could kill half of Washington, DC.

2. Between 1997 and 2000, the number of credible bioterror threats or incidents rose dramatically, up to roughly 200 per year, or one biological threat every couple of days. Most of them were anthrax hoaxes.

3. The number of white powder hoaxes got so bad that the Canadian Military did research on how dangerous it would be to open a letter filled with real anthrax powder. Their report was published in September 2001, just before the mailings. You can read it by clicking HERE.

4. Steven Hatfill and his boss at SAIC asked William Patrick III to produced a similar report at about the same time. It was also produced shortly before the mailings.

5. So, we had a constant flow of hoax letters going through the mails - roughly one every couple days.

That means that NONE of the hoax letters that went out in September of 2001 were "copy cats". They were just more of the same -- more hoaxes in the flood of hoaxes.

All you need to do in order to see some sinister connection between the hoax anthrax letters and the real anthrax letters is to be ignorant of the facts.  Back on March 2, 2002, I created a web page where I looked at the facts.  Click HERE.  It says that, according to Richard Preston's book "The Demon in the Freezer, between 1997 and 2000 the number of hoax anthrax letters rose dramatically to about one every couple days.  Plus, it shows articles about anthrax appearing in the news right after 9/11, long before the first stories about Bob Stevens appeared in early October.  The possibility of Muslim terrorists launching an anthrax attack or some other kind of biological weapon attack as a follow-up to 9/11 was being discussed publicly by a LOT of people.

The real anthrax letters were mailed at a time when hoax anthrax letter were common.  That's why all the real anthrax letters sent to the media were simply thrown away or ignored.  Bruce Ivins got the idea to send out real anthrax in letters at the same time that a lot of others were sending out hoax anthrax letters.  It wasn't a coincidence.  It was Bruce Ivins failing to realize how many hoax letters were also in the mails. 

September 15, 2014 (D) - When I wrote my (A) comment this morning, I failed to mention something I read near the very beginning of "
Monty Python and Philosophy" where they described what the various sections in the book would be about:

Harry Brighouse's contribution, "Why Is An Argument Clinic Less Silly than an Abuse Clinic or a Contradiction Clinic?," makes use of the Python's famous "Argument Clinic" sketch (originally in Epispode 29 of Monty Python's Flying Circus, "The Money Programme") to illuminate how the political philosopher John Rawls (1926-2002) analyzed our beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of social practices and institutions.  Far from being a ridiculous scenario, Brighouse suggests, a real argument clinic could serve a genuine and much-needed social function.

The famous "Argument Clinic" sketch?  When I got home this afternoon, I did a search and found it on  Click HERE.  There's also a Wikipedia article about it HERE.  And a transcript of the sketch is HERE.  There's another HERE.  And HERE.

I'm looking forward to reading that part of "Monty Python and Philosophy."  I can see how "a real argument clinic could serve a genuine and much-needed social function."  But how would you get an Anthrax Truther to go to one?  Argue with him?

September 15, 2014 (C) - If anyone is interested, on my interactive blog I'm currently engaged in another debate with a conspiracy theorist who doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between a belief and an hypothesis.  While doing research for the debate, I found this quote about the difference between a "theory" and an "hypothesis":

Scientists and science writers have a disturbing tendency to misuse these two words. In the vernacular, "hypothesis" and "theory" can be used interchangeably. However, in the scientific literature, scientists and science writers must be careful to distinguish between these two terms. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested through investigation; a theory is an established set of ideas that can be used to make predictions.

As I see it, neither a theory nor an hypothesis cannot be logically compared to a belief.  A belief is something a person "believes" regardless of what the facts say.  Specifically, an hypothesis doesn't have anything to do with beliefs.  It just says if A, B and C are true, one possible explanation could be "D."   No one believes "D" is true.   It's just a temporary answer until more evidence can be found.  It might also help show where to look for more evidence which will either help confirm or disprove "D."   It's a tool.  If the tool doesn't work, you probably need a different "tool."  Beliefs are irrelevant.

September 15, 2014 (B) - Yesterday, someone sent me a link to an article from The New Yorker titled "The Twenty-Eight Pages."  This morning, someone else sent me a link to Tampa, Florida's Channel 10 TV station's web site and an article titled "10 investigates allegations of FBI 9/11 coverup." 

The two articles are related to the old story that some Saudis who were living in Florida at the time of 9/11 helped the 9/11 hijackers, and that Saudi Arabian officials helped finance the 9/11 terrorists.   It seems to be mostly allegations, but there are people who are demanding that those allegations be investigated.  The problem with investigating allegations is that it could harm relations between the USA and Saudi Arabia - and the investigation might not find anything that can make a solid case in court.  And, even a solid case can be made, there's no chance of extraditing anyone from Saudi Arabia. 

Nevertheless, a lot of Floridians and others want to "reopen the 9/11 investigation."  But, it's not to investigate some theory that it wasn't Muslim terrorists who were behind the attacks, it's to find out if there are some additional Muslims who should have been arrested and prosecuted for helping the 9/11 terrorists.

I can see the reasoning behind their call to "reopen the 9/11 investigation."  But I can also see that there could be many political reasons for not opening an old bag of worms.

I see no way this crusade could change the facts of who was behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, so I have no "mission" to seek "the truth" on this matter.  I'll leave that to others.  It's not really a crusade to find "the truth."  It's a crusade to find more people to blame for the attacks, people who, if not arrested, might theoretically some day help perpetrate another attack.  I'm not sure it's a "coverup" when the FBI fails to investigate such a matter.  It could just be a situation of where to allocate limited resources.  That's something that people on a mission do not care about.

September 15, 2014 (A) - This is more or less "off topic," but yesterday I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  I'd been reading this non-fiction book during breakfast and lunch for over a month (when not on a novel reading binge).  Title:
"The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Aristotle, Locke."  As I wrote in my August 17 comment, while it's touted as a philosophy book, it's more like a psychology book.  And psychology is one of my primary lifetime interests.  Philosophy is a very general look at the processes governing human thought and conduct.  Psychology is usually a look at the thoughts and conducts of a particular person or group of persons.  In this case, it's about the thoughts and conduct of the the fictional characters on the TV series "The Big Bang Theory."

The book was so interesting that I bought Season 1 of the TV show on DVD and watched it so that I could understand who was who.  (It is NOT a favorite TV series of mine.)  Since the book is all about the motivation processes and human interaction between the fictional scientists "Leonard Hofstadter" and "Sheldon Cooper" and their next-door neighbor "Penny" and others, I'm also hoping it will help me with my problem of making the characters in my sci-fi novels more interesting.

I also found it interesting that the book is part of a series.  After I finished reading "The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy," I immediately started reading "Monty Python and Philosophy."  I may read "The Avengers and Philosophy" after that.  Or "Batman and Philosophy."  Or "The Big Lebowski and Philosophy."  Those are at my library.  But, some of the others in the series look so interesting that I may actually buy one or two.

I have to be philosophical if I want to continue to argue with conspiracy theorists and True Believers every day.  Remember the motto:
Illegitimi non carborundum                 

September 14, 2014 - While in the past I haven't been particularly interested in conspiracy theories related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, last week I found watching and listening to 9/11 conspiracy theorists Elias Davidsson and Barbara Honegger explain themselves and their theories to be very interesting.  Their thought processes seem to match the thought processes of Anthrax Truthers very neatly.

For example, no matter how much evidence there is in support of a government claim, they can't see any of it.

Here is how Anthrax Truther Lew Weinstein describes the Amerithrax case:

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline.
And here is how 9/11 Truther Elias Davidsson describes the 9/11 case:

There's no evidence whatsoever that the 19 people accused of mass murder boarded the planes on 9/11.

The above quote from Elias Davidsson can be found on a YouTube video by clicking
HERE and going to the 33 minute mark.

A similar quote can be found on another Elias Davidsson video at the 21 minute mark by clicking HERE:

There is not a single item of evidence pointing that these attacks [on 9/11] were perpetrated by people coming from abroad.  ... There is no single proof that any foreigners committed these acts.  No proof that any Arabs went into these planes.  And, so if these Arabs did not go into these planes, then the official story must be a lie.  ... The truth is that there were no Muslims involved in this crime.

Interestingly, Davidsson explains what he finds impossible to believe about the official version of what happened on 9/11.  At about the 37 minute mark in that same video, Elias Davidsson says ,

We cannot state that the passengers died in these crashes.  We have full reason to suspect that the passengers were murdered somewhere else. Murdered in cold blood by the U.S. Government.  ... It's impossible to believe for most people.  But, the fact that we don't have evidence that people died in the crashes - we don't have evidence - and it forces us to consider that they were killed somewhere else.  These people do not exist anymore.  They have died.  There is no question about that.  Their families mourn them, and there are many people participating in the mourning.  ... These people are certainly dead, and somebody murdered them.  And, I don't believe personally that they were in these planes, because if they were in these planes, then somebody would have piloted these planes.  And nobody in his right mind would pilot these planes to crash these planes -- even a Muslim --- even a Muslim.  I'm sorry.  Nobody in their right mind would do that.  Even absent all that I told you about the lack of evidence, just the thought that somebody would have piloted - with a pilot's license - would be capable of piloting a civilian aircraft - which the alleged hijackers did not have - ....

Even beyond the fact that there is no evidence, the official story is so fantastic - it is so science fiction - to believe that anybody in his right mind had ... the capability and the wish to fly a plane like this is so outrageous that to believe anybody would have crashed the planes with these passengers - and kill themselves at the same time - is itself implausible to the extreme.

It appears that "DXer" finds it impossible to believe just the opposite, that the Muslim terrorists who he fully accepts and believes killed thousands of innocent people on 9/11 did not also kill five people and injure 17 with the anthrax letters mailed after 9/11.  Only Muslim terrorists capable of a crime like 9/11 would do such a thing.  It seems DXer simply cannot believe that a lone scientist could or would do such a thing.  Evidence means nothing to people who find it impossible to believe the truth.

Barbara Honegger's two hour-long talk about the airliner that hit the Pentagon is very interesting - and chilling in its display of angry ignorance.  It's a demonstration of how someone who has no understanding of physics or human nature can misinterpret just about everything that happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon.  She seems to believe it is impossible for a mere airplane to hit the side of the Pentagon and do so much damage.  In her imagination, it should have done no more harm than a bug hitting a windshield.  She finds it impossible to believe that the people who were inside the Pentagon when it was hit by Flight 77 could mistakenly assume it was a bomb of some kind  instead of somehow knowing it was a plane.  She seems to find it impossible to believe that every clock in the area wasn't set to the exact same time.   She seems to find it impossible to believe that the first reports from the scene aren't the most accurate reports.  And she seems to find it impossible to believe that everyone in the world wouldn't do things the exact same way she believes she would do things in such a situation.

Elias Davidsson and others find it impossible to believe that a plane hitting the ground at high speed will plow into the ground instead of just splattering all over the place.  That's why they cannot accept what happened to United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.  The physics of mass and velocity seem totally unknown to Davidsson and Honegger.  And, judging by the reactions of their audiences, there are a lot of people just like them.    

It appears that the beliefs of all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the anthrax conspiracy theorists can be summarized as follows:

They find it impossible to believe the government's version of what happened.
They believe government officials must all be either incompetent or lying.
If the government is lying, that would constitute a vast criminal conspiracy.
The government will not provide the evidence needed to prove a conspiracy.
Truthers do not have the power needed to force releasing of "the truth."
Therefore, they want a new investigation to find a "truth" they can believe.
And they are trying to convince the public to demand a new investigation.

What they do not seem to understand is that it takes IMPORTANT NEW EVIDENCE to open a new investigation.  The fact that some individual or group of individuals simply cannot believe that anyone would deliberately crash an airliner into a skyscraper won't bring about a new investigation.  Neither will some individual or group who simply cannot cannot believe that a lone American could be behind the anthrax letter attacks of 2001. 

The idea that there's going to be a new investigation to find new evidence is absurd.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein didn't sit around and wail and complain and demand that the government find evidence of a conspiracy they believe existed.  Woodward and Bernstein found it.   If the conspiracy theorists and Truthers want a new investigation, they need to find some important new evidence that would require a new investigation.

Displaying abysmal ignorance of the existing evidence isn't going to bring about a new investigation.  It will just show the world that the Truthers are truly a "Lunatic Fringe."

Updates & Changes: Sunday, September 7, 2014, thru Saturday, September 13, 2014

September 13, 2014 - This is totally off topic, but someone might find it interesting.

On Wednesday, I visited a store that sells used books.  It had hardback copies of "High Five" and "Twelve Sharp," the two Stephanie Plum novels by Janet Evanovich that I didn't yet have in my reading queue.  They were just $1.89 apiece, so I bought both.  That means I now have eighteen Stephanie Plum novels in various formats on a shelf or in my Kindle waiting to be read.  And nearly as many Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child.  Plus, two Temperance Brennan novels (#2 & #4) by Kathy Reichs.  Plus a few miscellaneous novels from Jonathan Kellerman, Robert B. Parker, Brad Thor, James Patterson and Scott Turow.

Queue of unread books

I'm still having a difficult time getting started on the second draft of my new sci-fi novel, so I was in the mood to read another novel.  But, also on Wednesday, "The Cold Dish," the first book in the Walt Longmire series by Craig Johnson became available in ebook form from my local library.  I already had #2 and #3 in the series in my Kindle, but I was waiting for #1 to become available before reading any of them.  So, on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, I read "The Cold Dish." It took about 6 hours of total reading time.  While enjoyable, it definitely wasn't as enjoyable as the Stephanie Plum novels and Jack Reacher novels I've been reading. 

(Walt Longmire is also the main character in the TV series "Longmire" which ran for three seasons on the A&E network before getting cancelled a few days ago.)

So, now I'm between reading binges again, and I'm again trying to get started on that second draft. 

But, first I have to start working on tomorrow's comment for this site.

September 10, 2014 - Lew Weinstein and "DXer" continue to demonstrate how they have no interest in facts.  If some newspaper with an agenda printed distorted nonsense, and if that nonsense agrees with the beliefs shared by Lew and DXer, they'll endlessly use and distort the nonsense as "proof" of their nonsensical beliefs.

Yesterday, in a new post titled "the holes in the FBI case against Ivins are huge … will GAO point this out? … when will GAO report?" they said:

The Justice Department then highlighted the very points that many have said prove that Ivins could not have committed the attacks:

• That the anthrax used in the attacks originated from but did not come directly from Ivins’ flask.
• That the government’s anthrax was “genetically similar, but dissimilar in its form, to the anthrax that resulted in the death of Robert Stevens.”
• That “it would also take special expertise (even among those used to working with anthrax) to make dried material of the quality used in the attacks,” expertise that many of Ivins’ former co-workers said they didn’t believe he had

The words come from an July 18, 2013 article titled "Department of Justice upholds stance on Ivins" in The Frederick News-Post.  Anthrax Truthers Lew Weinstein and DXer appear to view the claim out of context, even though the News-Post said:

In seeking to prove the anthrax attacks were not foreseeable, the Justice Department notes that it is unclear when preparation for the anthrax attacks began.

The Justice Department then highlighted the very points that many have said prove that Ivins could not have committed the attacks:

  • That the anthrax used in the attacks originated from but did not come directly from Ivins' flask.
  • That the government's anthrax was "genetically similar, but dissimilar in its form, to the anthrax that resulted in the death of Robert Stevens."
  • That "it would also take special expertise (even among those used to working with anthrax) to make dried material of the quality used in the attacks," expertise that many of Ivins' former co-workers said they didn't believe he had.

But Boyd said in his Tuesday statement that "as the several motions filed Friday make clear, the Justice Department and FBI have never wavered from the view that Dr. Ivins mailed the anthrax letters. The Justice Department and FBI stand behind their findings that Dr. Ivins had the necessary equipment in the containment suite where RMR-1029 was housed to perpetrate those attacks and that a lyophilizer which he ordered, and which was labeled 'property of Bruce Ivins,' was stationed in a nearby containment suite."

The quotes originated in the U.S. Government's motion for a summary judgment in the Stevens v USA lawsuit.  The Government was seeking to prove that it was not legally "foreseeable" that Ivins would commit such a crime.  If it was not "foreseeable," then the government cannot be held liable.  The plaintiff, Maureen Stevens, was basically attempting to prove that the crime was forseeable, that the government was negligent, and therefore the government was liable and responsible for Ivins' crime.

So, Anthrax Truthers Lew Weinstein and DXer (aided by the News-Post) have done is distort the facts and twist one claim (that the crime was not forseeable) to argue a totally different and preposterous claim - "that Ivins could not have committed the attacks."

The fact that Ivins didn't send out spores taken directly from flask RMR-1029 in no way says he couldn't have committed the crime.  The Truther claim is pure NONSENSE.

The fact that the dry spores that killed Bob Stevens were "genetically similar" to the wet spores used by USAMRIID, but dissimilar in form (wet vs. dry), is a good legal point showing unforseeablity, but that fact in no way says Ivins couldn't have committed the crime.  The Truther claim is pure NONSENSE.

The fact that it takes "special expertise" to make dried spores, expertise that "many of Ivins' former co-workers said they didn't believe he had," shows those co-workers could not forsee that Ivins would commit such a crime.  But, it no way says Ivins couldn't have committed the crime. 
The Truther claim is pure NONSENSE.

And, of course, the two Anthrax Truthers do not allow anyone to dispute their nonsensical claims on their blog, so I have to point them out here on my site.

September 9, 2014 - While doing some research to analyze the similarities in beliefs between various conspiracy theorists, I found a long discussion about the anthrax case that was stared by Ken Dillon on December 12, 2008.  There were 173 comments.  Click HERE to read it.  It involves a number of different people - including me.  That discussion was preceeded by an even longer discussion started by Mr. Dillon on December 9, 2008, with 984 comments from various people.  Click HERE.  So, there was a time when a conversation could be held without Truthers resorting to personal insults and burying the talk under a flood of endless, irrelevant documents.  Nothing was resolved, of course.  No minds were changed.  And there are some very long speeches.  But it was generally a cordial conversation. 

September 8, 2014 (B) - This morning, I decided to do some additional research on some of the anthrax conspiracy theorists who helped Graeme MacQueen with his new book
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception."  I found four very interesting YouTube videos.

Click HERE for a talk by Barbara Honegger.  It has some truly screwball comparisons between Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
  (Her slide show is HERE.)  She believes that neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 were surprise attacks.

Click HERE for a truly weird talk about the anthrax attacks by Barry Kissin. 

Click HERE for an interview with Elizabeth Woodworth where she rationalizes disputing the official version of 9/11 without attempting to prove any alternative version.  She also disbelieves that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.

If anyone wants to know why conspiracy theorists are viewed as "nut jobs," those 3 videos will explain it - providing you have some comprehension of what really happened.

A fourth video HERE shows Elias Davidsson explaining very calmly, point by point, why he doesn't believe Muslim terrorists were behind 9/11.  He doesn't even believe there were any Muslim terrorists on the hijacked aircraft.  He also seems to believe that tens of thousands of people are involved in the coverup of "what really happened" on 9/11.  He begins his hour long talk by saying it's just his opinion, and he doesn't ask anyone to believe him.  He doesn't seem to be "nuts."  That's what is most scary about him.

September 8, 2014 (A) - In case anyone is interested, it appears that the mapping of the section of the Indian Ocean floor where they plan to continue the search for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 has found some "hard objects."  However, the "objects" could just be some kind of natural rock formation.  The actual search of the ocean bottom will evidently resume on September 22, with additional ships joining the search in October and November.  Meanwhile, the conspiracy theories continue.

September 7, 2014 (B) - Hmm.  In my previous comments, I failed to mention Graeme MacQueen's credentials for writing
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception." says:

[The Author] received his Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard University and taught in the Religious Studies Department of McMaster University for 30 years. While at McMaster he became founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster, after which he helped develop the B.A. program in Peace Studies and oversaw the development of peace-building projects in Sri Lanka, Gaza, Croatia and Afghanistan. Graeme was a member of the organizing committee of the Toronto Hearings held on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and is co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Using's "Look Inside" feature, I also examined
the "acknowledgements" section and checked the names of people who helped him with his book.   He says,

Elias Davidsson and Barbara Honegger were ready to help.  Meryl Nass read the manuscript carefully and gave detailed advice.  Barry Kissin helped me at every stage of the research.  .... Philipp Sarasin's work was an essential source of inspiration .... Herbert Jenkins read an early version of this book and offered constructive criticism.  Elizabeth Woodworth carried out a detailed reading of several drafts and had much useful advice.  She shared generously her own research materials and suggested I refashion into a book what was originally only an academic article.

At first glance, it seems to be the blind leading the blind.  After more thorough reading, it is clear that is definitely the blind leading the blind - or conspiracy theorists helping conspiracy theorists.  Elias Davidsson wrote a book called "Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence."  Here's part of the book description on Amazon:

A large body of literature discusses the preplanned destruction of the Twin Towers and of WTC Nr.7, while mainstream media have extensively reported about the reluctance of the Bush administration to investigate 9/11, the destruction of criminal evidence from Ground Zero and other facts suggesting a government cover-up. But they all stopped short of connecting the dots. Four features distinguish Davidsson's book from the rest. He provides: - The definite (or ultimate) demonstration that there is no evidence of Muslim hijackers

Barbara Honegger wrote an op-ed piece for that says:

So what is the evidence linking anthrax to Sept. 11? 
1) Whatever insiders wrote the letters mailed with the anthrax wanted you to believe they were linked to 9/11. As is well known, the date hand written on the anthrax letters is Sept. 11, 2001. Though the official story -- that the first letter, to Florida photo journalist Bob Stevens, wasn’t mailed until after 9/11 and so anthrax wasn’t part of the actual 9/11 plot -- it’s clear that whoever wrote and dated the letters and added the super-weaponized (3) U.S. military anthrax wanted you to believe there is a direct connection, and that Islamic foreigners were responsible for both.

Reference (3) leads to an article co-authored by Barry Kissin.  That article from Aug. 18, 2008 says:

Ivins had nothing to do with the 2001 anthrax attacks. The attacks were almost certainly carried out by the only group that had the means to produce the highly weaponized anthrax in the letters: the CIA, its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute of West Jefferson, Ohio., and the Army at Dugway in Utah.

Dr. Meryl Nass's opinions are well known.  Her blog is HERE.

Philipp Sarasin wrote a book titled "Anthrax: Bioterrorism as Fact and Fantasy."  This is from a synopsis of the book:

Basing his analysis on government documents and media coverage between the events of September 11, 2001, and the beginning of the Iraq War in March 2003, he shows that the anthrax letters became the necessary fantasy-link between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction."

A Google search for Elizabeth Woodworth finds an article she wrote about Building 7 of the World Trade Center being brought down by a "controlled demolition."

A Google search for Herbert Jenkins finds only a page with his name as the heading, but the page has a YouTube video of an interview with Graeme MacQueen.

(After I posted the above comment, someone advised me of a 5-part video talk by Graeme MacQueen on YouTube.  Click HERE.  He seems to be arguing that, because it wasn't immediately known exactly who sent the anthrax letters, the investigation that followed must all be some kind of U.S. government plot to fool the public.  But he also argues that if anyone disbelieves or disagrees with the official version, then the official version must wrong.  Ignorant opinions override all facts and evidence.)

September 7, 2014 (A) - This morning, I had a comment all written and ready to post to this site as my Sunday offering.  I wrote some of it on Friday and finished it on Saturday morning.  Then, later on Saturday, I read Friday's PressTV article "Neocons confess: 'We did 9/11-anthrax'," which led to Graeme MacQueen's new book
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception."  And this morning I've got only one question on my mind: Why don't the various conspiracy theorists argue with one another?

Dr. Meryl Nass seems to have given Mr. MacQueen's book a glowing review.  Does she agree with MacQueen that the U.S. Government was behind the 9/11 attacks?  Does she believe the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives that were planted by the CIA?  She certainly seems to believe that the U.S. Government was somehow behind the anthrax attacks.  However, all she says in her review is that she disagrees that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer:

"Finally, a book has come out that explodes the FBI's anthrax letters case.  Not
only is there no evidence linking Army scientist Bruce Ivins to the crime--it turns
out his famous flask of anthrax was never proven to be related to the attack
spores!  MacQueen peeks behind the curtain, showing that nothing about the
anthrax letters case is as it seems."

Why don't all these conspiracy theorists argue with one another!?  I think it would be a lot more interesting and we could all learn a lot more if the conspiracy theorists argued with one another, instead of just mindlessly agreeing that the U.S. government cannot be trusted about anything.  I suspect that there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who accept that Ivins was the anthrax killer, but that he was working as an agent or pawn of the U.S. Government.  I'd like to hear them argue with the people who think Ivins had nothing to do with the attacks.

Every day, the cartoon I created in March 2013 seems more and more relevant:

Anthrax Truther beliefs
Why doesn't DXer - who fully and unshakably believes al Qaeda operatives were behind the anthrax attacks - post rants against Graeme MacQueen's book for suggesting that the U.S. Government was behind the anthrax attacks?  This morning DXer posted a large paragraph he found on a the web site which appears copied from Amazon and seems to support the al Qaeda idea before it mildly indicates that MacQueen's point of view is totally different.  And then DXer makes his own point:


“(c) these insiders were connected to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks;”

Yes, but Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks.

In another comment posted this morning in another thread, DXer wrote this:

Has Graeme MacQueen mastered the documents and read the literature? Why would he engage in a structural and historical analysis rather than a documentary and true crime analysis?

Obtain and compare his manuscript to the documents uploaded on this blog.

Instead of arguing his belief that al Qaeda sent the anthrax letters against MacQueen's apparent belief that the U.S. government sent the letters, DXer just asks more of his endless, silly, meaningless questions!  His only argument seem to be that MacQueen doesn't do things the way DXer does them.

Nuts!  I'm running out of time.  I'm just going to post what I already wrote for today.  Here goes:

Writer Leo Rosten once wrote: "I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe." 

I keep thinking I should create a supplementary web page where I would list The Top Ten Most Unbelievable Things Anthrax Truthers Believe.  But how would I rank them?  Sometimes, each seems more unbelievable than the next.

The belief that the GAO is going to somehow overturn the FBI's finding that Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax mailer should probably to be at the top of the list.  But, does anyone really believe that is going to happen?  Or are the Anthrax Truthers just trying to make it happen?  The belief that they can make it happen by posting screwball questions to some obscure blog would be almost as unbelievable.

#2 on the list might be how the Anthrax Truthers seemed to believe that the DOJ prosecutors were "Spinning The Theory That Bruce Ivins Was The Anthrax Processer and Mailer" by claiming that flask RMR-1029 was never stored in Building 1412.  It was incredibly dumb, since the facts clearly say it was the FBI who was trying to prove flask RMR-1029 was once stored in Building 1412 (where Steven Hatfill worked), while Dr. Ivins was claiming that flask RMR-1029 was NEVER stored there.

Are the Truthers still arguing that belief?  I've seen no mention of them learning that they were wrong. The claim remains uncorrected on Lew Weinstein's blog.  The longer it remains uncorrected, the dumber it seems.

#3 on the list could be the unbelievable belief that "The anthrax letters are in the handwriting of [Mohammed] Atta."  Anyone with any knowledge of handwriting analysis can see that it isn't Atta's handwriting.
  The facts show DXer's belief is absurd.  But he won't accept what just anyone says.  He wants some official expert to state officially that it is not Mohammed Atta's handwriting.  Until then, he is evidently going to continue to believe that, because there is a similarity in the way Atta drew the number 2 and the way the anthax writer wrote the number 2, that overrides all the many and varied differences in the handwriting.  That's just plain unbelievable

#4 might be the inexplicable belief voiced by more than one Anthrax Truther that the FBI's failure to find evidence everywhere they look is the same as finding exculpatory evidence showing Ivins to be innocent.  That is truly an unbelievable belief.  How can anyone believe that just because the FBI looked for the culprit's DNA in the mailbox where the letters weren't found and didn't find it, that is somehow exculpatory evidence indicating Dr. Ivins was innocent?  Unbelievable!!!

#5 could be the belief that
Adnan El-Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer.  There's no reason to believe that El-Shukrijuma was even in the U.S. when the anthrax letters were mailed, much less in New Jersey on both dates.  It's an unbelievable belief conjured up by putting 2 and 2 together and getting 437,397.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

#6 might be #1 on some days.  It's the belief that Dr. Ivins didn't have the knowledge to make dry anthrax spores.  That is as unbelievable as beliefs can get.  A three year old child would know that if you leave something wet out in the open air for a few hours it will dry.  Mud will dry and become dust.  There's nothing magic about it.  It's probably one of the first things you learn in microbiology classes: Don't leave wet spores out in the open air.  They'll dry and aerosolize.  Duh!   

#7 ties to #6.  It's the unbelievable belief that Dr. Ivins didn't have the equipment to make the anthrax powders.  It appears to come from some kind of unbelievable belief that the only way anything can be done in a government lab is the safe, official, approved way.  If it is dangerous to make dry anthrax spores, then no one could possibly do it.   If it is not officially allowed to make dry spores, then it cannot be done.  If the approved way to make dried spores is in a drying machine, then that's the only way it can possibly be done.  The fact that dried spores can be created with equipment that is in nearly every BSL-3 lab seems incomprehensible to people with unbelievable beliefs.  All the equipment that Bruce Ivins needed to create the anthrax powders that were in the media envelopes was a biosafety cabinet and some plates covered with anthrax that had been left in a biosafety bag in a corner for a few weeks.  The spores would air-dry in the biosafety cabinet in a few hours.  Or maybe the Truthers have some unbelievable belief that Ivins didn't have any rubber gloves or a utensil to scrape the dried spores out of the plates.  Or do they believe that biosafety cabinets don't work?   

#8 ties to #6 and #7.  It's the unbelievable belief that Dr. Ivins didn't have the time to make the anthrax powders.  DXer endlessly argues his unbelievable belief that if Bruce Ivins had any official work to do during a given day, then Ivins could not possibly have done anything unofficial during that same day.  If Ivins was at a meeting from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m., then he could not possibly have gone anywhere else that evening after 7 p.m.  If Ivins was working with test rabbits in October, then he couldn't possibly have had the time to do anything but work with test rabbits during October -- or September or August. It's another unbelievable belief endlessly voiced by DXer.

#9 is the seemingly unshakable and unbelievable belief some Anthrax Truthers have voiced that the attack anthrax was deliberately "weaponized" with silicone or silicon or silica or most unbelievably - "polymerized glass."  The powder in the media letters was 90% dried slime (matrix material) and dead mother germs.  It was only 10% spores.  It's what you get in a Petri dish when you let anthrax bacteria germinate and grow until they run out of food and room.  You get dead bacteria that failed to sporulate, you get the carcasses of mother germs that produced spores, you get the matrix material that is the after-birth slime of sporulation, and you get spores.  And the whole mess will all dry into a soft, crunchy powder in the open air.  How do you  "weaponize" a spore by coating it with "polymerize glass" when it is still inside the mother germ?  How do you do it without also coating the dead bacteria and leaving most of the "polymerized glass" as part of the dried slime?  Some Anthrax Truthers have a totally unbelievable belief that it must have been done somehow.  If it wasn't done the way they believe, then it wasn't a government conspiracy.  And they find that unacceptable.  For some Anthrax Truthers, it's better to believe the unbelievable than to accept that Ivins could have unintentionally created anthrax spores with a "silicon signature" without using some secret and illegal, government-approved weaponization process.   

And what should #10 on the list be?  The unbelievable belief that the FBI claimed that a lyophilizer was used to make the anthrax powders?  The unbelievable belief that beliefs somehow make
Bruce Ivins innocent and the solid facts showing Dr. Ivins was guilty are meaningless and irrelevant?  The unbelievable belief that the attack powders were made in Afghanistan in two different forms, transported to America and then mailed at two different times by Muslim terrorists who included medical advice in the letters to reduce the danger of someone accidentally being harmed by the anthrax?   The unbelievable belief that if anyone makes a mistake, then nothing they ever do afterward can be trusted ever again?  The unbelievable belief that everyone in the government is part of some gigantic conspiracy and - just like the Borg villains on Star Trek - everyone in the government automatically knows what everyone else knows?  The inexplicable and unbelievable and idiotic belief that the Twin Towers were brought down by CIA planted explosives instead of by the hijacked planes that crashed into the towers?

I could go on and on and on and on.

All prior Thoughts and Comments are also available.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2008.

Click HERE for year 2007.
Click HERE for year 2006.
Click HERE for year 2005.
Click HERE for year 2004.
Click HERE for years 2001, 2002 and 2003.


The FBI's summary report of the Amerithrax case
The revised version of the FBI' summary report of the Amerithrax case
Search warrants and attachments to the Summary report from the DOJ's web site
The 2,720 pages of supplementary files for the Amerithrax case in the FBI's "vault"
Dr. Bruce Ivins' emails while at Ft. Detrick from USAMRIID's web site
NAS "Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the Anthrax Attacks of 2001" - Timeline of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks

Edited version of the Hatfill v Ashcroft et al lawsuit Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v Foster/Vanity Fair/Readers Digest Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v The New York Times Court Docket
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs The United States lawsuit Court Docket (with full depositions)
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs Battelle Memorial, et al lawsuit Court Docket
UCLA's "Disease Detectives" site about the anthrax outbreak of 2001
Frederick Police Department's report on Ivins' Suicide
Report of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel

Click HERE to view references from 2005 through 2008.
Click HERE to view pre-2005 references.

NOTE: The (X) following references below includes a link to my copy of the articles, which may or may not be visible on-line.


The New York Times - Jan. 3, 2009 - "Portrait Emerges of Anthrax Suspect’s Troubled Life - (X)
Scientific American - Jan. 5, 2009 - "A steady stream of clues pointed to Ivins during FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
CNN - Jan. 6, 2009 - "'Let me sleep,' anthrax suspect wrote before suicide" (X)
Associated Press - Jan. 6, 2009 - "Records reveal anguish of anthrax suspect's wife" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Jan. 23, 2009 - "
Army releases some Ivins e-mails" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 4, 2009 - "Science Found Wanting in Nation's Crime Labs" (X)
Science Magazine - Feb. 7, 2009 - "
U.S. Army Lab Freezes Research on Dangerous Pathogens" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 9, 2009 - "Army Suspends Germ Research at Maryland Lab" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Biodefense lab starts inventory of deadly samples" (X) - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Lawer: Evidence against Bruce Ivins 'Undercut'" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Most Research Suspended at Fort Detrick" (X)
Scientific American - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Army anthrax lab suspends research to invertory its germs" (X)
Nature - Feb. 25, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation still yielding findings" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 27, 2009 - "Revealed: Scientific evidence for the 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Rush Holt - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt Introduces Anthrax Commission Legislation" (X) - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt seeks congressional anthrax commission" (X)
FBI Press Release - Mar. 6, 2009 - "FBI responds to Science issues in Anthrax case" (X) - Mar. 7, 2009 - "FBI's Evidence in Anthrax Case Leaves Puzzling Scientific Questions" (X)

Associated Press - Mar. 7, 2009 - "Ruling lets anthrax suit go forward" (X)
Los Angeles Times - Mar. 8, 2009 - "Anthrax hoaxes pile up, as does their cost" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 10, 2009 - "15,300 government workers have access to agents of bioterror" (X)
The Times of Trenton (Opinion by Rush Holt) - Mar. 12, 2009 - "Preventing Bioterrorism" (X)
New Scientist - Mar. 13, 2009 - "Columbus innocent over anthrax in the Americas" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 14, 2009 - "Tracing anthrax's American roots" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 24, 2009 - "Letters mimicking anthrax scare sent to Congress" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 31, 2009 - "Judge dismisses lawsuit over anthrax letter" (X)
The Scotsman - Apr. 4, 2009 - "Dorothy H. Crawford: World waits for ground-breaking anthrax evidence" (X)
Seed Magazine - Apr. 14, 2009 - "The Anthrax Agenda" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Apr. 15, 2009 -
"Judge urges settlement in 'National Enquirer' anthrax case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Columnist/Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Cold Comfort" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Deadly Pathogens May Have Gone Missing at Fort Detrick" (X) - May 6, 2009 - "FBI Anthrax Investigation Under Scientific Review" (X)
The New York Times - May 7, 2009 - "F.B.I. to Pay for Anthrax Inquiry Review" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (editorial) - May 14, 2009 - "End Of Story?" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (commentary by Barry Kissin) - May 24, 2009 - "The Lynching Of Bruce Ivins" (X)
Associated Press - May 28, 2009 - "Prosecutor in anthrax, Blackwater cases resigns" (X)
Frederick News-Post - June 17, 2009 - "USAMRIID finds more than 9,200 unrecorded disease samples" (X)
Associated Press - June 17, 2009 - "9,200 Uncounted Vials Found At Army Biodefense Lab" (X)
The Washington Post - June 18, 2009 - "Inventory Uncovers 9,200 More Pathogens" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 2, 2009 - "Committee to review FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
Microbe - July 2009 - "Questions Linger over Science behind Anthrax Letters" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Amerithrax debate lives online" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Seeking an Ending" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Studies scrutinize lab security, shy away from federal investigation" (X)
Associated Press - July 26, 2009 - "US on verge of closing anthrax probe after 8 years" (X)
The Washington Times - July 30, 2009 - "Lessons learned from the anthrax letters" (X)
Associated Press - July 30, 2009 - "Review begins of FBI science in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 31, 2009 - "Group begins scientific review of FBI's anthrax investigation" (X)
Frederick News-Post (editorial) - July 31, 2009 - "Dubious study" (X)
Nature - July 31, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation probe undeway" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Experts urge panel to deepen forensic understanding" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Lawmaker 'Skeptical' of Anthrax Results" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 3, 2009 - "Anthrax case not closed: Panel reviews Bruce Ivins, mail probe" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2009 - "A Shocking Mockery" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 13, 2009 - "Fort Detrick passes national accreditation" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 25, 2009 - "Panel continues study of anthrax mailings" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 26, 2009 - "Expert: Anthrax spore coatings not unique" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 5, 2009 - "Behind the scenes, system sniffs for biological attacks" (X)
BBC - Dec. 17, 2009 - "Anthrax found in dead heroin user from Glasgow" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 19, 2009 - "A Conspiracy-Theory Theory" (X)
Newsweek - Dec. 21, 2009 - "Red Mind, Blue Mind" (X)
Digital Journal - Dec. 27, 2009 - "NH Woman Critically Ill With Anthrax" (X)
The Associated Press - Dec. 27, 2009 - "Drums a possible source of anthrax in N.H. woman" (X)
Medical News Today - Dec. 29, 2009 - "Anthrax Found in Drums Linked to Infected Woman" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 30, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Drum suspicions are detailed" (X)

Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 1, 2010 - "Who was behind the September 2001 anthrax attacks?" (X)
The Associated Press - Jan. 11, 2010 - "Fed panel wants more scrutiny of biolab workers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - Jan. 24, 2010 - "The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved" (X)
The Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 29, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks still unexplained" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Letter to Editor) - Jan. 31, 2010 - "Anthrax Case: FBI Used Good Science" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 19, 2010 - "
Ivins' attorney: Anthrax case to be closed today" (X)
The Associated Press - Feb. 19, 2010 - "AP Source: FBI formally closes anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 19, 2010 - "F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Letter Case" (X)
Reuters - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthrax investigators looked at 1,000 suspects" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "'Ġodel, Escher, Bach' author downplays FBI anthrax case link" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Q&A: Anthrax and Ivins Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthax investigation closed" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes case on anthrax letters" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "FBI investigation of 2001 anthrax attacks concluded; U.S. releases details" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes 2001 anthrax case" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Anthrax myth persists despite evidence" (X)
The New York Times (opinion from Nov. 10, 2001) - Feb. 20, 2010 - "On the trail of the anthrax killers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. Closes Case in Anthrax Attacks" (X) - Feb. 20, 2010 - "DOJ Rationalizes Away Polygraph's Failure to Catch Alleged Anthrax Killer" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Government  closes 'Amerithrax' case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 23, 2010 - "FBI report fails to end questions about Ivins' guilt" (X)
The Daily Princetonian - Feb. 24, 2010 - "FBI closes anthrax letter investigation" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 24, 2010 (opinion) - "Haste Leaves Anthrax Case Unconcluded" (X)
Asia Times - Feb. 25, 2010 - "Doubts cloud closing of anthrax case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 26, 2010 -
"Bill for more investigation of '01 anthrax case passes House."  (X)
The Times of Trenton - Feb. 26, 2010 - "Holt: Last word not in on anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Feb. 28, 2010 - "The F.B.I.'s Anthrax Case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Feb, 28, 2010 - "FBI reports chronicle Ivins investigation" (X) - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Strange World of Dr. Anthrax" (X) - Mar. 1, 2010 - "Anthrax Letter Scientist 'Obsessed' with Bondage, Sorority"  (X)
The Trentonian - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Smoking Gun reports: Anthrax mastermind was cross-dresser" (X)
The Register (UK) - Mar. 2, 2010 - "The anthrax scare: Case and flask closed" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Police: Ivins not linked to other unsolved cases" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Holt seeks investigation into FBI's case against Ivins" (X)
Anderson Cooper 360 - Mar. 5, 2010 - "Inside the mind of the suspected anthrax killer" (X)
Courier News (opinion) - Mar. 7, 2010 - "Bioterror preparedness needs a boost from congress" (X) - Mar. 10, 2010 - "Lawer Doubts Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
CNN (opinion) - Mar. 12, 2010 - "Can the House trust the Senate?" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Measure" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Bill (Update 1)" (X) - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Protecting agencies from oversight, Obama threatens to veto intelligence funding" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Mar. 20, 2010 - "Adminstration rejects call to further probe Amerithrax" (X)
Pittsburgh Review-Journal (Opinion) - Mar. 21, 2010 - "Anthrax questions" (X)
Accuracy In Media - Mar. 24, 2010 - "Obama Obstructs Oversight of FBI in Anthrax Case" (X)
The Huffington Post - Apr. 14, 2010 - "Crying Wolf: The Terrorist Crop-Duster" (X)
The Atlantic - Apr. 16, 2010 - "The Wrong Man" (X)
MSNBC - Apr. 16, 2010 - "Exonerated anthrax suspect: FBI harassed me" (X)
Foreign Policy - Apr. 19, 2010 - "The Elite Med Squad That Saved You from Anthrax" (X) (Glenn Greenwald) - Apr. 21, 2010 - "Unlearned lessons from the Steven Hatfill case" (X)
UPI (Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Outside View: Anthrax Letters: Was Bruce Ivins Hounded to Death?"  (X)
The New York Times - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
Science Magazine - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Ex-USAMRIID Scientist Defends Bruce Ivins Using Back-of-the-Envelope Math" (X) - Apr. 23, 2010 - "Colleague Says Anthrax  Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X) - Apr. 27, 2010 - "Co-worker says Ivins didn't make anthrax letter spores" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - May 1, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks, cont'd" (X)
The Racine Journal-Times - June 11, 2010 - "The Armchair analyst: Ed Lake has spent nine years tracking the anthrax investigation" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (blog) - Sept. 16, 2010 - "GAO to Take Look at FBI Anthrax Probe" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 16, 2010 - "New Review in Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Sept. 16, 2010 - "Holt: FBI anthrax investigation is itself subject of probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Sept. 17, 2010 - "GAO to review FBI's Ivins investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 4, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, 84, dies (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 10, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, Expert on Germ Warfare, Dies at 84" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 16, 2010 - "In the shadow of 9/11" (X)
The Frederick News-Post -Nov. 30, 2010 - "Amerithrax experts debate FBI findings, insist Ivins was innocent" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Researcher tells how anthrax may have been made" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Ivins' lawyer, colleague share details FBI left out" (X)
Homeland Security Today - Dec. 9, 2010 - "Science Report on FBI Anthrax Probe Delayed Again" (X)
The New York Times - Dec. 9, 2010 - "F.B.I. Asks Panel to Delay Report on Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Miami Herald - Dec. 9, 2010 - "FBI seeks delay in outside review of anthrax probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 10, 2010 - "Amerithrax review delayed after FBI releases more docs" (X)
Science Magazine - Dec. 10, 2010 - "New FBI Material Delays Academy Report on Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 11, 2010 - "National Academy of Science review panel surprised by FBI's last-minute document release" (X)

2011 - Feb. 14, 2011 - "Report on FBI's anthrax findings to be released Tuesday" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Review Faults F.B.I.'s Scientific Work in Anthrax Investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Anthrax report cast doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Evidence linking anthrax to Bruce Ivins 'not as definitive as stated,' panel says" (X)
CNN - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Scientific review reaches no conclusion on source of anthrax" (X)
NPR - Feb. 15, 2011 - "FBI Faulted For Overstating Science In Anthrax Case" (X)
ABC News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel Review Questions FBI Theory in Anthrax Attacks after 9/11" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel can't rule out other sources of deadly anthrax spores" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Ivins case's inconvenient issue: his polygraph" (X)
Nature - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Science falls short in anthrax investigation" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "NRC: Data insufficient for firm conclusion in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Report casts doubt on FBI's investigation of anthrax attacks" (X) (opinion) - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Serious doubt cast in FBI's anthrax case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Scientists critical of FBI's anthrax conclusions" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Sen. Leahy on anthrax case: 'It's not closed.'" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Anthrax expert says NRC report supports FBI" (X)
The Washington Post (Editorial) - Feb. 17, 2011 - "Answers in 2001 anthrax attack are still elusive" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 19, 2011 - "NAS on Amerithrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2011 - "One year after FBI closes Ivins case, doubts still linger" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 21, 2011 - "Flawed Science" (X)
The Boston Globe (Editorial) - Feb. 22, 2011 - "Consider the case solved" (X)
The Brown and White - Feb. 25, 2011 - "Gast heads panel discussing anthrax letters" (X)
Stanford Medicine - Feb. 25, 2011 - "New review of anthrax case discussed by review committee vice chair" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 28, 2011 - "Trouble in the air at Ft. Detrick" (X)
The New York Times (letter to the editor from Rush Holt) - Mar. 1, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks" (X)
University of Maryland (press release) - Mar. 7, 2011 - "University of Maryland School of Medicine publishes scientific paper on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
UPI - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Science behind anthrax letters revealed" (X) - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Institute for Genome Sciences plays key role in investigation of anthrax attacks" (X) - Mar. 8, 2011- "Now, the story can be told - how scientists helped ID 'Amerithrax'" (X)
NPR - Mar. 9, 2011 - "Lab Vs. Courtroom: Different Definitions Of Proof" (X) - Mar. 14, 2011 - "Anthrax in 2001 Letters was Traced to Maryland by Genetic Mutations" (X) - Mar. 17, 2011 - "UMD: Anthrax Investigation" (X) - Mar. 18, 2011 - "Q&A: Meryl Nass" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Mar. 22, 2011 - "Report  Faults Army in 2001 anthrax mailings" (X)
The New York Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel on Anthrax Inquiry Finds Case Against Ivins Persuasive" (X)
CNN - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Suspect in 2001 anthrax case had long history of mental problems" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Expert panel faults Army in anthrax case" (X)
The Miami Herald - Mar. 23, 2011 - "FBI's anthrax suspect is likely killer, panel concludes" (X)
MSNBC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Medical records point to doctor in anthrax attacks, report says" (X)
ABC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Report: 2001 Anthrax Attacks Were Preventable" (X)
The Washington Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel: Anthrax-attack suspect sent up red flags" (X)
Reuters - Mar. 24, 2011 - "U.S. Experts: Army researcher was anthrax attacker" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 24, 2011 - "Anthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy?" (X)
The Times (Trenton, NJ) - Mar. 25, 2011 - "Holt remains skepical about conclusions in anthrax investigation" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 28, 2011 - "Postage Stamps Delivered Anthrax Suspect to FBI" (X)
The Gazette - Apr. 7, 2011 - "Joe Volz: Frederick massacre averted?" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 16, 2011 - "How anthrax sleuths cracked the case by decoding genetic 'fingerprints'" (X)
The Miami Herald - Apr. 20, 2011 - "Was FBI too quick to judge anthrax suspect the killer?" (X) - Apr. 21, 2011 - "Did FBI Target Wrong Man as Anthrax Killer" (X) - April 23, 2011 - "Colleague Says Anthrax Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Apr. 30, 2011 - "Doubt of anthrax suspect's role resurfaces in lawsuit" (X) - May 2, 2011 - "Attorneys contest Ivins' guilt" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 19, 2011 - "FBI lab reports on anthrax attack suggest another miscue" (X) - May 26, 2011 - "Rep. Nadler Criticizes the FBI in Letter to Director Mueller Over Anthrax Probe" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 26, 2011 - "Congressman presses FBI for anthrax information" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - May 29, 2011 - "The anthrax killings: A troubled mind" (X)
The Daily Beast - June 3, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacker Bruce Ivins' Obsessions" (X)
Associated Press - June 3, 2011 - "The anthrax scare and one deeply troubled man" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - June 4, 2011 - "Lessons from Amerithrax" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - June 6, 2011 - "A marathon, not a sprint" (X)
The Gazette - June 9, 2011 - "A treasure trove of information about Amerithrax" (X) - June 9, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks and America's Rush to Judgment" (X)
The Washington Post (Opinion) - June 10, 2011 - "Inside our own labs, the threat of another anthrax attack" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - June 12, 2011 - "Book Review: 'The Mirage Man' by David Willman" (X)
The Boston Globe (Opinion) - June 15, 2011 - "Revisiting Mueller and the anthrax case" (X)
Clinical Psychiatry News - June 21, 2011 - "Use of Psychological Profile to Infer Ivins' Guilt is Problematic" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer (book review) - July 17, 2011 - "Bungled pursuit of a killer" (X)
The Boston Herald - July 18, 2011 - "Justice Department lawyers contradict FBI findings in anthrax case" (X) - July 19, 2011 - "DOJ casts serious doubt on its own claims about the attack anthrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department filings poke holes in Ivins' case" (X)
The New York Times - July 19, 2011 - "U.S. Revises Its Response To Lawsuit On Anthrax" (X)
Associated Press - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects court filing in anthrax suit" (X)
The Washington Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects legal filing regarding anthrax attacks" (X)
MSNBC - July 19, 2011 -
"Government lawyers backtrack on anthrax case" (X)
Village Voice (blog) - July 19, 2011 - "Bruce Ivins Maybe Didn't Send Anthrax, Government Admits in Court Papers" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department retracts court filings that undercut FBI's anthrax case" (X)
The Sacramento Bee - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Dept backtracks on anthrax claims" (X)
Wired Magazine - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department Trips in Anthrax Case.  Again" (X)
Miami Herald - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department waffling in anthrax case could be costly, experts say" (X) - July 20, 2011 - "Government Anthrax Flip-Flop Could Boost Victim's Lawsuit" (X)
CIDRAP news - July 20, 2011 - "DOJ defense of Army lab stirs up anthrax case controversy" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - July 25, 2011 - "Another Ivins twist" (X)
The New York Times - July 26, 2011 - "Suspect's Manifesto Points to Planned Anthrax Use, But Also to a Lack of Expertise" (X)
ProPublica - July 26, 2011 - "Stephen Engelberg on the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
Global Security Newswire - July 27, 2011 - "Norway Killer Wrote of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Kansas City Star - July 27, 2011 - "Judge says US must show 'good cause" to revise anthrax filing" (X)
The Miami Herald - July 29, 2011 - "Judge allows feds to revise filing in anthrax case" (X)
The Washington Post (review) - Aug. 11, 2011 - David Willman's 'The Mirage Man'" (X)
WMD Junction - Aug 22, 2011 - "New Questions About the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
NPR (Laurie Garrett interview) - Aug. 26, 2011 - "A look back at 9/11 in 'I Heard the Sirens Scream'" (X)
National Journal - Sept. 1, 2011 - "After 9/11, Anthrax Attacks Seemed Too Natural" (X)
CIDRAP news - Sept. 1, 2011 - "Public health leaders cite lessons of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Sept. 2, 2011 - "Sen. Grassley asks Justice Department to explain contradictory acts on anthrax" (X)
Montgomery Life - Sept. 7, 2011 - "9/11 Ten Years Later" (X) - Sept. 8, 2011 - "Ten Years after 9/11: ISU Recalls Anthrax Scare" (X)
The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, IN) - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Pence: 'Remember the triumph of freedom'" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 1" (X)
Arizona Daily Sun - Sept. 12, 2011 - "NAU researcher thrust into the maelstrom" (X)
National Review - Sept. 14, 2011 - "Saddam: What We Now Know" (X)
The Guardian - Sept. 15, 2011 - "The anthrax scare: not a germ of truth" (X)
New Scientist - Sept. 15, 2011 - "Did research funding lead to anthrax attacks?" (X)
Asbury Park Press - Sept. 16, 2011 - "Another 10th Anniversary: Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Book Review) - Sept. 17, 2011 - "When Death Came Hand-Delivered" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 18, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 2" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 25, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 3" (X)
USA Today - Sept. 30, 2011 - "Strides in biodefense follow 2001 anthrax scare" (X)
CNN - Oct. 1, 2011 - "Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Al Qaeda lab lingers in anthrax story" (X)
Wired Magazine - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 4" (X)
The Daily Mail (UK) - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The laboratory crush that led the FBI to the U.S. Anthrax killer" (X)
Annals of Internal Medicine - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks 10 Years Later" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks Still A Mystery After 10 Years" (X)
PBS (Press Release) - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Frontline Investigates the Anthrax Mailings" (X)
University of Wyoming News - Oct. 7, 2011 - "UW Professors: Accused Anthrax Killer Couldn't Have Done It" (X)
Aberdeen News - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Ten years since Daschle received anthrax-laced letter" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Oct. 9, 2011 - "A decade on, legacy of anthrax attack lingers in Mercer County and beyond" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Frontline's 'Anthrax Files' takes hard look at FBI role in suicide of Ft. Detrick scientist" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Fresh doubts raised on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Clair Fraser-Liggett: 'This Is Not an Airtight Case By Any Means'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Edward Montooth: 'The Mandate Was to Look at the Case with Fresh Eyes'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Rachel Lieber: 'The Case Against Dr. Bruce Ivins'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Paul Keim: 'We Were Surprised It Was the Ames Strain'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - Nancy Haigwood: “I Had a Gut Feeling It Was Bruce”  (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI’s Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Did Bruce Ivins Hide Attack Anthrax from the FBI?" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Was FBI’s Science Good Enough to ID Anthrax Killer?" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Decade-old anthrax attacks included hit to Boca Raton offices" (X)
Science Magazine - Oct. 11, 2011 - "New Challenge to FBI's Anthrax Investigation Lends an Ear to Tin" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Was FBI's science good enough to ID anthrax killer?" (X)
Caspar Star-Tribune - Oct. 11, 2011 - "University of Wyoming professors seek to clear former colleague's name in anthrax controversy" (X)
The Gazette - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Questions remain 10 years after anthrax mailings" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Newly released files cloud FBI's anthrax finding" (X)
Council on Foreign Relations (opinion by Laurie Garrett) - Oct. 12, 2011 - "The Anthrax Letters" (X)
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Oct. 13, 2011 - "The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations" - Oct. 15, 2011 - "Despite Evidence of FBI Bungling, New Probe Into Anthrax Killings Unlikely" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 16, 2011 - "Science in anthrax letter case comes under attack" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Oct. 17, 2011 - "Who Mailed the Anthrax Letters?" (X)
Fox News - Oct. 18, 2011 - "Doubts Persist About Anthrax Investigation 10 Years Later" (X)
The Daily Reveille - Oct. 20, 2011 - "Professor is worldwide anthrax specialist" (X)
The Washington Post (editorial) - Oct. 21, 2011 - "New questions about FBI anthrax inquiry deserve scrutiny" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Anthrax whodunit" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Was this man the anthrax killer?" (X)
The New York Post - Oct. 23, 2011 - "Anthrax and the FBI" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 24, 2011 - "The Hunt for America's anthrax killer" (X) - Oct. 24, 2011 - "Secret Reports: With Security Spotty, Many Had Access to Anthrax" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 27, 2011 - "The Anthrax Investigation: The View From the FBI" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 28, 2011 - "Lantana anthrax widow settles $50 million lawsuit against federal government" (X)
NPR - Oct. 29, 2011 - "Scientific Case Still Open on 2001 Anthrax Case" (X)
Associated Press - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Settlement reached in anthrax death lawsuit" (X)
Reuters - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Deal reached in U.S. 2001 anthrax death suit: filing" (X)
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Amerithrax review: Lessons for future investigations" (X)
AAAS - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Ten Years After Deadly Anthrax Mailings, AAAS Event Explores Lingering Questions"  (X) - Nov. 21, 2011 - "The Day Terror Came to Oxford" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
AP & Time Magazine - Nov. 29, 2011 - U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
CNN - Nov, 29, 2011 - "Family of 2001 anthrax victim settles with government" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay Lantana widow $2.5 million for the 2001 anthrax attack that killed her husband" (X) (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Federal government settles suit in fatal anthrax attacks" (X)
The New York Times - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. Settles Suit Over Anthrax Attacks" (X) - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Government Settles Case Brought By First Anthrax Victim For $2.5 Million" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 30, 2011 - "Anthrax victim's wife: $2.5 million settlement brings 'a little finality'" (X)


Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Jan. 31, 2012 - "Letter to the Editor in response to 'The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations"
The Washington Post - Jan. 27, 2012 - "Justice Dept. takes on itself in probe of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Slate Magazine - Jan. 30, 2012 - "How fake bioterrorism attacks became a real problem" (X)
Gazette.Net - Mar. 22, 2012 - "Paul Gordon: An exercise in futility"  (X)
The Cavalier Daily - Mar. 23, 2012 - "Panel reviews 2001 attacks" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Apr. 8, 2012 - "Beyond the breach: Officials take a look at security and safety a decade after anthrax scare" (X) - Nov. 26, 2012 - "Nick Kristof: Here Are 3 Things I've Been Very Wrong About."
Racine Journal-Times - Dec. 8, 2012 - "Local Man self-publishes book about anthrax attacks"
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Dec. 17, 2012 - "Evidence for the Source of the 2001 Attack Anthrax"


NewsWithViews - Apr. 20, 2013 - "The Media Wants Arabs Exonerated" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 28, 2013 - "Questions on anthrax suspect linger"  (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 29, 2013 - "Scientists who worked with Ivins still question government's methods" (X)
The Trentonian - Oct. 20, 2013 - State Watch: "Ready for Anthrax Sequel? (X)


Hartford Courant - April 14, 2014 - "Oxford Woman, 94, An Unlikely Victim Of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Accuracy in Media - May 21, 2014 - "Lies of the 9/11 'Truth' Movement" (X)

© 2001-2014 by Ed Lake

All Rights Reserved.