Replies

What's your theory of an additive that is NOT a coating? You must have one - since you say my statement is "nonsense".

Silica is a common drying agent. One of the suggestions for the presence of silica in the Daschle anthrax is that silica was used as some kind of primitive drying agent - and traces remained. Silica is also a common additive to keep things from sticking together - not as a coating but as a separator. Here's one description from HERE.

Series-SD silica additive is mainly used as the anti-blocking agent, thickener, stabilizer and carrier in the area of the medicine, food and forage, also as the dryness absorbent of the essence and spicy. Its appearance is uniformly ivory powder. Due to the large specific surface area and the sub-microcosmic of the silica, it can separate with other powder substance, at the same time it promote the freedom fluidness resulting in the improvement of the wet absorption and anti-block ability.

So, to repeat, to say that an additive is a coating is total nonsense.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"Silica is a common drying agent."

So? What's that got to do with silica weaponizing anthrax?

The OFFICICAL sources, NAMED SOURCES, such as Florabel Mullick, Frank Johnson and Major General John Parker are ALL ON THE RECORD stating that the silica was A KEY COMPONENT USED TO MAKE THE ANTHRAX FLOAT.

Tell us how silica can be a KEY COMPONENT to make the anthrax float WITHOUT that silica being a coating.

Once again, you are desperately trying to hide behind words. Your PURELY POLITICAL agenda and YOUR CAMPAIGN against Michael Failey, a man the FBI says is INNOCENT is once again totally blinding any logic.

You really ought to TRY to look at ALL the FACTS. When you LOOK at ALL the FACTS together and in light of the OFFICIAL US government statements that the silica was a KEY COMPONENT of the senate anthrax, it becomes clear to all of us that you are simply conducting a campaign of harrassment against Michael Failey.

We can all now see that your "profile" for the "supplier" was simply constructed from the information that you obtained about Michael Failey from links like the one below:

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2001_12_21_biow.html

Your profile:

1. The supplier probably took the Ames anthrax from a government facility.
2. The supplier was probably fired from that facility.
3. The supplier is probably considered an unstable personality, perhaps even a "drunk".
4. The supplier is almost certainly unmarried.
5. The supplier is a loner with few friends - if any.
6. The supplier is disgruntled and uncomfortable working with others.
7. The supplier probably uses phrases like "I keep telling them, but they don't listen."
8. The supplier doesn't care much about "rules".
9. The supplier believes that a free exchange of information is key to advancements in science.
10. The supplier may have had knowledge needed by the refiner/mailer.
11. The supplier is probably in his late 40s or early 50s.
12. The supplier probably lost his security clearance as a result of his actions.

Let's face it - you're busted!

You simply made this profile from every piece of information you had about Failey. This was EXACTLY what BHR did with Dr Steve Hatfill.

Shame on you! You are simply an attention-seeking individual with a narcisstic mental disorder. You had no problem faking the above profile you made - you wanted everyone to believe that you cleverly "deduced" all these details. When in fact you simply read about Michael Failey and then wrote the profile around him.

You are BUSTED!

"3. The supplier is probably considered an unstable personality, perhaps even a "drunk"."

This is a particularly nice touch. Having discovered that Michael Failey has an alcohol problem, you decide to insert this into your "profile". But better not make it too direct though, better just add "perhaps" even a "drunk".

Your arrogance knows no bounds - or your delusions about yourself. You actually had the gall to think people would believe you manged to make all these brilliant "deductions" from nothing!

Somehow you knew the "supplier" was a "drunk". Somehow you knew he had been fired from his job. Somehow you knew he used to work at an institute that had anthrax.

It now turns out that you did a Barbara Hatch Rosenberg - the very woman you have been obssessivley lambasting for the last 2 years for displaying the very same behavior you have displayed.

I'm glad you have a link to this thread on your website - that way your readers can easily find out just what a total and complete fraud you are.

I suppose your other "profile" is also based around a real person. I wonder who that is? I'm sure we'll find out by digging a little deeper.

"4. The supplier is almost certainly unmarried."

Brilliant deduction Lake - what incredible insight you showed. Just using your skill, judgement and brilliant deductive reasoning powers, which are far superior to the rest of us mere mortals, you were able to tell us in your "profile" that the "supplier" was "almost certainly" unmarried.

On the other hand, maybe you just read the article below.

Or to put it another way - maybe your entire "profile" is a total and complete fraud.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/attack/oct01/phd05100401a.asp

Police were summoned to the man's west side home Sept. 18 by his
mother, who feared he would get into a physical confrontation with a
neighbor over damage her son allegedly did with a lawn mower to the
neighbor's property