Sunday, 20 February 2011

National Academies of Sciences: FBI Failed to Prove Anthrax Claims

Vaccine expert Dr. Meryl Nass shreds the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins:

Federal Bureau of Invention: CASE CLOSED (and Ivins did it)

But FBI's report, documents and accompanying information (only pertaining to Ivins, not to the rest of the investigation) were released on Friday afternoon... which means the FBI anticipated doubt and ridicule. And the National Academies of Science (NAS) is several months away from issuing its $879,550 report on the microbial forensics, suggesting a) asking NAS to investigate the FBI's science was just a charade to placate Congress, and/or b) NAS' investigation might be uncovering things the FBI would prefer to bury, so FBI decided to preempt the NAS panel's report.

Mike Rivero at reminds us that there is a suspect in the Anthrax attacks that the FBI refuses to investigate !

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, February 20th, 2011.]


steven andresen said...


It occurrs to me that one of the disputes behind our problem of being able to discuss the role of the U.S and Isreali governments in the 9-11 murders is the issue discussed in philosophical terms as the dispute between realism and phenomenology.

This dispute is amongst those who think that we come to know things through our experiences of those things. The realists think that our experiences are about stuff and things in the world. What we experience is independent of that stuff and things. So if I believe there is a cat on the mat there are two things, there's the cat and there is the belief that I have that there is a cat on the mat. I have this belief because I have seen the cat, or heard the cat, or mabe petted the cat when I passed by the mat. This is realism.

On the other hand, the phenomenologists argue that there is nothing beyond what we experience. There's no distinction, on their view, between what we experience of the world and some world beyond what we experience. So, if I have seen a cat, there's not something else beyond my experience of seeing the cat which is a cat. This is phenomenology.

It's my thought that the perpetrators of 9-11 are now trying to insist that the phenomenologists have 9-11 correct and that those who want to talk about government conspiracies and Mossad agents are trying to foist upon us a bizarre theory of knowledge which requires us to believe in a strange world of objects existing beyond our senses.

I think maybe they get the "conspiracy theories are crazy" argument from this dispute.

I also wonder whether they are wanting to promote the argument that conspiracy theories violate our sense of how we know things just by getting rid of evidence and ignoring that there was evidence and too the effort to get rid of it. The rubble that existed at the bottom of the Towers was a crime scene and yet all the evidence was boxed up very quickly and sent to China or to be thrown inro the sea. Now no-one is supposed to talk about that fact. Yet, talking about what might have been found in that evidence is considered crazy talk because it's about events and protagonists which we now cannot see, hear, or experience.

Do you think that the effort to protect Isrealis in the U.S. government is justified because we are being told there are no such agents, and the dispute is over the question whether there are any such agents, so that those who do claim that there are such agents are thereby engaging in craziness and conspiracy theory and supposing there exist things beyond what normal people have evidence for. Or, has the FBI acknowledged that there is this Isreali Jewish scientist who did work for the anthrax lab and are they just exonerating him for some reason? Does the FBI have a story about him that they give out in public which they use to justify not investigating him?


steven andresen said...


I understand that when I've brought up the arguments of the philosophers that many would wonder whether I've gone too far afield to explain something that seems so practical and down to earth like a crime and it's cover-up.

The reason I've done so is that one theory about the crime seems to be rejected because, it is claimed by the government's apologists, that it is psychologically motivated and not based on considerations of the evidence. This is the view that talk about government responsibility or Israeli responsibility, is crazy talk.

It's crazy and probably anti-semitic of the first order.

I think this rejection for this reason has to be explained in some way. If one doesn't provide some explanation then those who do think that the 9-11 murders were perpetrated by members of the U.S. government, or Mossad, or anyone other than the "lone nuts" on the planes, yet have had their evidence destroyed, and investigations quashed, will never see their day in court.

Does the FBI have a real case about who mailed that anthrax? Why don't they go after the scientist identified by Rivero? Do they have an argument and what is it? Oer, are they just saying that we investigate and prosecute people based on political considerations and not on the evidence?

it seems to me that they too must be invoking some kind of theory that they've gotten from the philosophers in order to explain why they should be able to ignore the arguments people like Rivero have been making.


SpookyPunkos said...


You have an interesting perspective on the matter !

I think an overly subjective view of the 911 crime, taking the phenomenologists view, that "you" have your opinion and "we" have our opinion on the event denies the core argument - in terms of the generally acknowledged evidence. There is no subtle difference here to debate no matter whether you are a realist of a phenomenologist.

In my opinion, rather than talking about a subjective reality, with real apparent differences in perception, the 911 truth deniers are having you believe there is no cat.

To deny there was no molten steel or Iron in the WTC is not a matter of opinion, or perception. To deny a freefall drop of WTC7 is irrational also. Both these phenomena, in our presently constituted reality, by all rational conventions, indicate/imply that there were chemical incendiary devices and Controlled Demolition respectively. To brush this material aside and claim it's all a matter of opinion is absurd. It denies basic science.

Furthermore, tests that showed Thermite + nanothermite, in our level of reality/perception, cannot be miscontrued as showing anything else except if one throws out all rational convention in order to make an absurd statement (ie. there is no cat ! - that's a harmless mouse or it's nothing at all !!).

Even if we suppose nothing is real/solid, that we all perceive things differently, logic tells us that in our own minds we should still stick to arguments based upon established conventions, ones that are functional in terms of logic, and scientific knowledge. (ie. stuff we've tested and know works like steel does not melt unless in a blast furnace or chemical incendiaries).

Even if the world here was a simulation, and that nothing was real outside of your mind, the denial of evidence here is still not logical in terms of the present running simulation - the differing opinions on the forensic evidence being exactly like one group denying the existence of the cat.

Those denying the 911 evidence appear to be the ones that have skewed thoughts here. It seems to me that the deniers of the evidence are running on hubris and distortions rather than anything else (ie a rational, evidence based argument.)

Even if you take "evidence" as a thought construct, the deniers "view" is still an illogical one in terms of the overall "thought matrix" we (you) live in.

If the authorities want to play the denialist/distortion game then they'll have to deal with the logical consequences of having sections of the citizenry rebel against such irrational behaviour - behaviour that helps to condemn us all to a future of endless wars.

Indeed, we can't easily stop false flag terror without exposing it.

It is entirely reasonable to push back against the likely perps and those that would aid their trickery (via disinformation) through an open debate and investigation of the crime.

Spook !