The Government as Wizard of Oz in Anthrax and 9/11 Investigations. . . "Don't Look at the Man Behind the Curtain" → Washingtons Blog
The Government as Wizard of Oz in Anthrax and 9/11 Investigations. . . "Don't Look at the Man Behind the Curtain" - Washingtons Blog

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

The Government as Wizard of Oz in Anthrax and 9/11 Investigations. . . "Don't Look at the Man Behind the Curtain"

As top independent anthrax experts, physicists, engineers and architects confirm, the government makes claims in the anthrax and 9/11 investigations but does not provide the details which would allow the claims to be independently tested by scientists not affiliated with the government. At the end of the day, the government is simply begging us - like the Wizard of Oz - not to look at the man behind the curtain.


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".


Similarly, the government admits that World Trade Center building 7 did not collapse due to damage from debris falling from the Twin Towers, or due to the diesel stored in the building. And the government admits that no other modern steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire alone.

In fact, the government's argument that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire is based entirely on computer models (along with the false claim that thermal expansion is somehow a "new phenomenon" unique to this particular building). However, the models don't match actual observation. Moreover, the government refuses to disclose the data underlying the models, the programming used in the models, or the actual results of the experimental runs made using the models (see Kevin Ryan's comments to NIST's report on WTC7).

Again, the government's scientific argument is really "just trust us".

Given the numerous documented lies by this government, including by its scientific agencies, should we just trust them? Top anthrax experts, scientists, engineers and architects say no: we should demand that the government release all of the details.

No comments:

Post a Comment

→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.