JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-bet-he-was-closet-teabagger.html (10 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1267468279-214  Unix-Jedi at Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:31:19 +0000

Obviously a member of the Cult, following orders Verbatim and most likely a hirabi christianist as well.

jsid-1267468336-368  Robb Allen at Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:32:16 +0000

You know what I think? Riech Whingers are cowards. For all the bravado they are afforded by the media about how they're going to revolt against the government, it sure seems like only the brave left have the courage of their convictions to actually do something about it.


jsid-1267470059-802  Russell at Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:00:59 +0000

Well, the left is certainly revolting...

jsid-1267470385-963  Britt at Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:06:26 +0000 in reply to jsid-1267470059-802

Yes but now they're rebelling as well.

jsid-1267471963-247  Ken at Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:32:43 +0000 in reply to jsid-1267470059-802

"You said it, they stink on ice." ;)

jsid-1267473461-827  el coronado at Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:57:41 +0000

what's most interesting to me about the FBI "closure" of the matter by blaming everyhting on the dead guy, ivins - dead men can't defend themselves, and besides, he was an odd duck - is the timing of that annoucement. teh WSJ published a devastating obliteration of the FBI's "case" against ivins on 25 january of this year, written by edward jay epstein.  here are the huglughts:

1) the anthrax in question waa aerosolized by means of attaching the spores to silicon, "according to the US armed forces institute of pathology. (...) if so, then somehow silicon was *added* [my emph.] to the anthrax. but ivins, no matter how weird he may have been, ***had neither the set of skills nor the means*** to attach silicon to anthrax spores." {again, my emph.]
2) "at a minimum, such a process would require highly specialized equipment that did not exist anywhere in ivins's lab - or, for that matter, anywhere at (where he worked)."
3) the FBI was oddly releuctant to inform congress of the precise percentage of silicon contained in the anthrax used in the attacks. this was apparantly because...
4) (finally) "according to the FBI lab, 1.4% of the powder in the leahy letter was silicon. 'this is a shcokingly high proportion', explained stuart jacobson, an expert in small particle chemistry.'it is a number one would expect from a deliberate weaponization of anthrax.'"
5) the FBI stuck to their story: hadda be ivins. maybe he did it at home! so, "to back up their theory, the FBI contacted scientists at the lawrence livermore national labs to conduct experiments in which anthrax is accidentally absorbed from a media heavily laced with silicon. [the results of those tests) effectively blew the FBI's theory out of the water. the livermore scientists had tried 56 times to replicate the high silicon content without any success. (...) they never came close. most results were an *order of magnitude lower* [me again] with some as low as .001%.(!)"
6) therefore, "since ivins had neither the equipment or skills to weaponize anthrax with silicon, the some other party MUST HAVE done it."

the FBI later responded in a WSJ letter to the editor in which they argued, paraphrased, "huh-UHHH!!!!". they offered no other details.

and now, a mere month later, the "case" is "closed". so who do we believe here? a large federal bureaucracy well-known for its belief that maintaining its image supercedes all other priorities, including "truth" and "law enforcement"? or  a man respected worldwide as a meticulous and accurate researcher? and if you choose to believe the FBI is lying, as i do, for whatever reason, what else might they have lied about? hm.....think, think.....coughhoriuchicough....

jsid-1267473672-880  el coronado at Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:01:12 +0000

*sigh* 1) need "preview" function 2) 3 posts?!? i deent do it! 3) i blame society.

jsid-1267479562-181  khbaker at Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:39:22 +0000

I'll fix it when I get home.

UPDATE:  Fixed.

jsid-1267490059-694  TheSiliconGraybeard at Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:34:19 +0000

el coronado - thanks for that summary.  I don't get the WSJ so I had no idea.

There was another guy they were interested in at first (Steven Hatfill) and then dropped.  Your summary of the Ivins case makes that sound like a weak case. Both of these start to sound more like Richard Jewel (sp?) - the hapless security guard that they railroaded as the Atlanta Olympic bomber until the case fell apart and the real bomber was presumably long gone.

There seems to be an attitude that shows up in law enforcement, something along the lines of "we got somebody for it".  It sometimes doesn't seem quite so important that they got the right somebody, just that they got a warm body arrested and/or jailed.


jsid-1267495285-108  Lyle at Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:01:25 +0000

Well there's your problem right there;
"government scientist"
I'm considering adding it to my list of oxymorons.

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>