Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Biological weapons development in the US
#7
Long article,but worth reading!
Cover-Up
The Truth About The Anthrax Attacks
By Barry Kissin
I. INTRODUCTION – THE SMOKING GUN
November 15, 2009 "Truth Jihad" -- On September 16 and 17, 2008, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees respectively, conducted “Amerithrax oversight” hearings consisting of questioning FBI Director Robert Mueller. Despite widespread concern about the integrity of Amerithrax, the colloquy during these hearings was largely feeble. Congressman Nadler did manage to ask the $64,000 question. Salon.com journalist Glen Greenwald recounted this as follows:
“Nadler asked one of the most central questions in the anthrax case: he pointed out that the facilities that (unlike Ft. Detrick) actually have the equipment and personnel to prepare dry, silica-coated anthrax are the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Ground and the Battelle Corporation, the private CIA contractor that conducts substantial research into highly complex strains of anthrax. Nadler asked how the FBI had eliminated those institutions as the culprits behind the attack. After invoking generalities to assure Nadler that the FBI had traced the anthrax back to Ivins' vial (which didn’t answer the question), Mueller's response was this: I don't know the answers to those questions as to how we eliminated Dugway and Battelle. I'll have to get back to you at some point.
“Nadler then pleaded: please try to get back to us with the answer quickly. Mueller replied: ‘Oh, absolutely Congressman.’”
Shortly thereafter, Nadler’s question was put into writing and sent to the FBI with other questions from the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler’s question read:
“How, on what basis, and using what evidence did the FBI conclude that none of the laboratories it investigated were in any way the sources of the powder used in the 2001 anthrax attacks, except the U.S. Army Laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland? Please include in your answer why laboratories that have publicly identified as having the equipment and personnel to make anthrax powder, such as the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Grounds in Dugway, Utah and the Battelle Memorial Institute in Jefferson, Ohio, were excluded as possible sources.”
Seven months went by before the FBI responded. Its response read:
“Initially, the spores contained in the envelopes could only be identified as Bacillus Anthracis (Anthrax). They were then sent to an expert, who “strain typed” the spores as Ames. Once the strain type was identified, the FBI began to look at what facilities had access to the Ames strain. At the same time, science experts began to develop the ability to identify morphological variances contained in the mailed anthrax. Over the next six years, new scientific developments allowed experts from the FBI Laboratory and other nationally recognized scientific experts to advance microbial science. This advancement allowed the FBI to positively link specific morphs found in the mailed anthrax to morphs in a single flask at USAMRIID. Using records associated with the flask, the FBI was able to track the transfer of sub samples from the flask located at USAMRIID to two other facilities. Using various methods, the FBI investigated the two facilities that received samples from the parent flask and eliminated individuals from those facilities as suspects because, even if a laboratory facility had the equipment and personnel to make anthrax powder, this powder would not match the spores in the mailed envelopes if that lab had never received a transfer of anthrax from the parent flask.” (Emphasis added).
On its face, the FBI’s response is absurd. The response literally says that after identifying “two facilities” that received samples of anthrax from the USAMRIID (Bruce Ivins’) flask, these facilities were excluded as possible sources of the attack anthrax because they “never received” anthrax from said flask.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Buckminster Fuller
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Biological weapons development in the US - by Keith Millea - 16-11-2009, 08:06 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Iraq's chemical weapons stockpile covered up and now in ISIS hands David Guyatt 0 3,065 16-10-2014, 08:05 AM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Israel's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Ed Jewett 9 7,676 31-08-2014, 04:43 PM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  Pentagon-Funded ‘Fun to Play’ Games Would Crowdsource Weapons Testing Ed Jewett 0 2,896 21-01-2012, 03:10 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  Pentagon Directory of Non-Lethal Weapons Ed Jewett 0 1,888 09-01-2012, 06:28 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  More than just Depleted Uranium weapons apparently being [secretly] used in modern battles! Peter Lemkin 2 3,344 24-12-2011, 12:21 PM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  Five Aerial Weapons That Could Change Warfare As We Know It Ed Jewett 1 2,452 04-12-2011, 05:45 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  US Weapons 'Full of Fake Chinese Parts' Keith Millea 4 2,886 10-11-2011, 08:57 AM
Last Post: Magda Hassan
  US missing 36k Pounds of Its Own Weapons Grade Uranium and Plutonium? Ed Jewett 2 3,514 17-09-2011, 11:10 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century Ed Jewett 1 3,052 10-09-2011, 07:04 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  CIA Iran is Not building Nuclear Weapons Bernice Moore 0 3,140 21-07-2011, 02:20 PM
Last Post: Bernice Moore

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)