Original Anthrax Patsy Says Ivins “Didn’t Kill Himself”
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Will anyone around here step up and say they think the whole Anthrax BS is fishy ass shit, or are you thinking its another looney tune conspiracy theory, right up there with Deborah Palfrey, who actually went on record saying she wouldn't kill herself?
lol
Original Anthrax Patsy Says Ivins “Didn’t Kill Himself”
:cool:
lol
Original Anthrax Patsy Says Ivins “Didn’t Kill Himself”
Assaad wrote:“He’s a great man. He’s honorable, sincere, honest and most important, he didn’t kill five people and he didn’t kill himself,” Assaad told the newspaper.
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
wondering how long it would take for you to post a conspiracy on it. but thank you. if i had to endure another McCain/Palin?Obama thread i would shoot myself.
i'm sure Drifting would link your suicide back to the CIA though.
It was all over the news when i was in San Francisco and the evidence they had for him actually committing the crimes was very weak and i can't see a real reason for him killing himself.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Every neighbor of every serial killer has said pretty much the same thing.
Oh, he's such a nice man. I had no idea anything was wrong. He seemed so pleasant. Blah blah blah.
I'm glad Assad liked the dude, but it is hardly convincing.
People close to Gilyard, described him as reliable, friendly, helpful, hard working and "quick to make a joke."
Gilyard, neighbors described Gilyard also as friendly and helpful. Once, when he picked up trash on his street, he knocked on a neighbor's door because the neighbor had forgotten to put out his trash.
Neighbors said he was proud of his job and the two Mercedes automobiles he babied and drove on weekends and that he sometimes hit golf balls in his backyard.
On Gilyard's front door hangs a wood sign engraved with "Gilyard" and below the names "Lorenzo" and "Jackie." Though he has been married several times, the latest marriage has lasted about a decade.
Neighbor Lee Weldon said "I'm shocked, he's a real nice guy, a nice neighbor."
http://www.serialkillers.nl/lorenzo-gilyard/biography.htm
DNA evidence be damned! His neighbor says he's a great guy. Case dismissed.
And just what evidence exactly does the government have against this guy?
not much
The government admits that Dr. Bruce Ivins passed 2 lie detector tests, that hair samples and handwriting samples don't implicate him, and that there is no direct evidence linking him to the anthrax murders.
However, the government claims that a "new scientific method" links Ivins' flask of anthrax to the killer anthrax used in the letters (even though another lab had the same stuff, Ivins' flask was also stored in another room at Ft. Detrick, 200-300 hundred other people had access to the flask, and an unknown quantity of anthrax was removed from the flask).
But the government refuses to disclose the details of the "new scientific method". For example, they won't say which genetic markers are distinctive in Ivins' mixture of anthrax, or how the government ruled out the other lab known to have had the same strains.
And the government's response to evidence that scientists originally said that the killer anthrax was highly weaponized with a silica coating and an electric charge is that the silica was "naturally occurring" and no charge was found.
But the government refuses to disclose how much silica was found, how the government knows it was "naturally occurring" when it has previously been proven that artificial silica coatings can penetrate inside the anthrax spores, or how the government knows there was not originally an electric charge when electric charges quickly wear off, and when the type of processing used would likely change the properties of the anthrax.
In other words, the government's entire scientific case against Ivins is that genetic markers lead to Ivins' flask of anthrax and that silica found in the anthrax was naturally occuring, but they won't disclose what the genetic markers were and whether they could be explained by other causes, the nature of the silica and whether it could be explained by other causes, or the details of what scientists originally found when they examined the killer anthrax.
In summary, the government's entire scientific argument really boils down to 2 words: "trust us".
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Congress seeks answers from FBI in anthrax case
Robert Roos News Editor
Sep 9, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – Members of Congress plan to press the FBI for more information about its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks at hearings scheduled Sep 16 and 17, amid persistent doubts in some quarters about the bureau's conclusion that the late microbiologist Dr. Bruce Ivins was the culprit.
Ivins, who had worked for years at the US Army Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Frederick, Md., committed suicide Jul 29 as the FBI was about to bring charges against him. Five people died and 17 others became ill after envelopes containing anthrax spores were mailed to two senators and several news media offices in the fall of 2001.
The FBI announced its conclusions about Ivins's role and released a collection of documents on Aug 6. Besides citing considerable circumstantial evidence, the agency asserted that a new DNA fingerprinting technique had enabled investigators to match the letter anthrax to a batch of anthrax that was in Ivins's custody at USAMRIID. But many observers subsequently expressed doubts about the FBI's case.
In a Sep 5 letter to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, leaders of the House Judiciary Committee said, "Important and lingering questions remain that are crucial for you to address, especially since there will never be a trial to examine the facts of the case."
The committee members, including Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., asked Mueller to report back to them on several questions in advance of the hearing, scheduled Sep 16. The committee asked:
Why the government allowed Ivins to keep his security clearance at USAMRIID for about 2 years after he became a suspect
Whether mistakes by the FBI delayed the linkage of the anthrax used in the attacks with anthrax in Ivins' possession
The committee leaders also asked Mueller to explain media reports that the White House initially had pressed the FBI to say that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by al Qaida or that the anthrax used was of a "weapons grade," implying a possible link to Iraq.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also will question Mueller at an FBI oversight hearing set for Sep 17. The hearing was scheduled weeks ago as part of an ongoing series, but Mueller is likely to face questions about the anthrax probe, according to a Sep 7 New York Times report.
"There are some very serious questions that have yet to be answered and need to be made public," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., ranking Republican on the Senate committee, as quoted by the Times. [EVEN MR. SINGLE BULLET THEORY ISN'T BUYING IT! YEAH. THE GUY THAT WAS HELL BENT ON FRAMING OSWALD DOESN'T BELIEVE THE FBI!]
The Times story, based on interviews with two dozen bioterrorism experts, veteran investigators, and members of Congress, along with FBI documents, included some new details about the investigation.
For example, it said the agency told Ivins in a formal letter in April 2007 that he was not a target of the investigation, even though the mailed anthrax had already been genetically linked to his laboratory. Also, the story said the first time agents took a mouth swab from Ivins for a DNA sample was only a week before he died.
John Miller, the FBI's assistant director for public affairs, told the Times that the bureau plans to release much more information on the case, including notes of interviews with Ivins and other suspects and witnesses and surveillance logs detailing his movements. But because private and classified information must be purged from the materials, the disclosures are likely to be months away, the story said.
Ivins's attorney, Paul F. Kemp, said the FBI has not reviewed three boxes of papers that Ivins had marked for Kemp's attention, because the records must be reviewed to determine if they should be kept secret under attorney-client privilege, the Times reported. A government lawyer not involved in the investigation will review the papers with Kemp, the story said.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I was going to make the same comparison. How convenient.
For those unfamiliar with the story of Dr David Kelly, check this out: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/category.asp?id=40
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
Yup.
Kelly really got the shaft too.
Although, i think the motives in these cases isn't as comparable as that between Ivins and one like Lee Harvey Oswald.
Those two cases come a lot closer to having the same motive,
as both involved a PATSY that, had a TRIAL ever occured, SERIOUS DOUBTS about their guilt would have arisen.
Thus the "suspects" were simply killed before they were given their chance at American justice.
But it does go a good ways towards illustrating that governments have no problems with the disposition of those they find to be politicaly inconvenient.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The sad thing is that people do, and i cannot understand why.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
When it leaked out that the anthrax actually came from a US government lab, the Bush Regime tried to frame a US scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, but failed. On June 28th, the Los Angeles Times reported that Hatfill, “The former Army scientist who was the prime suspect in the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings agreed Friday to take $5.82 million from the government to settle his claim that the Justice Department and the FBI invaded his privacy and ruined his career.” Indeed, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton allowed Hatfill’s attorneys two years to review all news reports and FBI evidence. Judge Walton stated: “there is not a scintilla of evidence that would indicate that Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with this.”
The anthrax matter was again news last week when another US government scientist, Bruce E. Ivins, “committed suicide.” Instantly, the deceased Ivins was fingered as the culprit. Overnight a man, liked and respected by his colleagues, who had worked on American biological warfare weapons for years, became a deranged homicidal maniac who decided to murder Americans at random in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 by sending them letters containing anthrax.
I don’t believe a word of it. But assume that it is true. Blaming the anthrax letters on Ivins does not resolve the issue of why the Bush Regime lied to Brian Ross and used ABC to put the blame on Saddam Hussein in order to invade an innocent country. Wouldn’t a government that would lie about something this serious lie about other serious matters?
The Bush Regime stands against against the truth. That is why it pretends to have the power to prevent executive branch officials wanted for questioning by Congress from appearing before the people’s representatives. Nothing could make clearer the contempt that the Bush Regime has for the American people and their elected representatives than its arrogant claim that it is unanswerable to them.
Obviously, neither the President nor the Vice President respect their oaths of office. If they will betray such a serious oath, won’t they lie about everything?
According to the discredited 9/11 Commission Report, a few Muslims hatched a multi-year plot that went undetected by the vast security agencies of the United States and its allies, and within one hour on one morning at four different locations defeated airport security, NORAD, the US Air Force, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Pentagon’s defenses and crashed three hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers and the heart of the US military. Muslims were able to achieve this fantastic feat operating out of caves in Afghanistan.
We now know for a fact that the “terrorist anthrax attack” had nothing whatsoever to do with Muslim terrorists. Even the US Government now blames white American citizens, employees of the federal government, for the anthrax letters that, at the time, were blamed on the “Osama bin Laden al Qaeda plot against America.”
We now know for a fact that this was intentional disinformation planted by the Bush Regime on a gullible and incompetent ABC News reporter, who is a disgrace to journalism. No one denies this.
We also know for a fact that ABC News will not say who planted on ABC the lies that committed the United States to the dishonor of an illegal invasion, war crimes, and executive branch attack on the US Constitution. How can anyone anywhere in the world rely on ABC News when it serves as a disinformation agency for a criminal regime?
The anthrax letters made the “terrorist attack” seem wider and more general. This increased the sense of peril and Americans’ fear and anger, thereby opening wider the door for the Bush Regime’s attack on Iraq and US civil liberty.
Now that the dead Ivins can be conveniently blamed for the anthrax mailings, the Bush Regime can declare the case closed, thus protecting the false flag operation from further risk of exposure.
Many Americans lack the mental and emotional strength to confront the facts. The facts are too unsettling and many are relieved when the “mainstream media” spins the facts away. Many Americans find it too appalling that any part of “their” government, even a rogue operation, could possibly have been involved in any way in the anthrax attacks. No evidence--not even full confessions--could convince them otherwise. Many Americans have welcomed their brainwashing by the neoconservatives: America is pure; her shining virtue causes evil men to attack her; they hate us because we are good and they are evil.
For the sake of argument, let’s accept this make-believe. It does not explain why, in order to protect us from evil men, the US Constitution needs to be dismantled and civil liberties set aside. Our Founding Fathers said that dismantling the Constitution and setting aside civil liberties are precisely what would make us unsafe in the extreme. The Bush Regime has never explained how the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution interfere with any legitimate response to terrorism.
The fact still remains that the Bush Regime responded to 9/11 and anthrax letters with a comprehensive assault on US civil liberty. The Bush Regime’s assault on America has been much more successful than its assault on “terrorism.” Who remembers the promise of a “six weeks war”? Americans have been mired for 6 years in two wars without end which the neoconned Bush Regime, in alliance with Israeli zionists, seeks to expand to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Republican candidate for president has given his commitment to a 100-year “war against terrorism.” Many Americans will vote for this candidate who wants to fight against a hoax for 100 years.
Look up, read what Friendlyfired posted, folks.
Its all there, its not hard to understand.
The government mailed anthrax to congressmen and news reporters to intimidate them and to scare the American public, and to work political alchemy with fear. Then they framed a man, and murdered him to stop the trial.
This is "your" government folks, know it, hate it, change it.
please.
If I opened it now would you not understand?