The Washington Post in September 2006 says that the FBI came to suspect Ali Al-Timimi of involvement in the anthrax mailings. He was a very pious and well-spoken imam who worked in the same department of former Russian bioweaponeer Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID Charles Bailey.
Al-Timimi’s colleagues, Dr. Ailbek and Dr. Bailey co-invented a patent in mid-March a process by which hydrophobic silica would be used so as to permit greater concentration. The former Russian bioweaponeer who inherited Al-Timimi’s telephone number then co-invented the process with Dr. Bailey for removing the silica through repeated centrifugation. That is why Dr. Alibek and Dr. Meselson apparently did not see silica in the images they were shown. This is why FBI Director Mueller was upset at the leak about silica — because it pointed to this method and the line of investigation they have been aggressively pursuing all along. The FBI is travelling to Afghanistan, Asia and the Middle East in Amerithrax precisely because unlike Ed, they credit an Al Qaeda theory. The Hatfill Theory was abandoned in late 2003 when “extremely virulent” anthrax — treated in a way that made it readily weaponizable — was found in Kandahar, where the hijacker with the lesion had come.
An example of Ed’s treating his assumptions as what he pedantically calls “FACTS” is when he says that militant islamists would not warn in connection with the use of nonconventional weapons. To the contrary, all the experts (e.g., Michael Scheuer), who have studied the militant islamists for years based on documentary evidence seized and sigint and humint intelligence, argue that they WOULD warn — and indeed, it is required by the hadiths. The violence is religiously motivated — to not give warning, would cause them to go to hell. Indeed, Dr. Timimi and others have given entire lectures on the importance of following the hadiths and written about the rules governing warfare (to include Ramzi Binalshibh).
Ed argues it is not their modus operandi — when in fact Ayman’s group sent lethal letters to newspapers in DC and New York to protest the detention of the blind sheik in 1997 and WTC 1993 detainees, along with people in symbolic positions. Indeed, Ayman’s group the Vanguards of Conquest warned they would use anthrax in a letter protesting the detention of an Egyptian Islamic Jihad shura leader in January 2001.
Leahy — through his “Leahy Law” — has the greatest symbolic role of all in the rendering of islamists. Under the “Leahy Law” security forces do not have appropriations cut off if they torture detainees if there are “extraordinary circumstances” (i.e., we support them in the war on terror). Daschle had the paramount role in appropriations.
Ed’s central argument against an Al Qaeda theory has always been that the hijackers were “dead, dead, dead.” That’s correct. They did not mail the anthrax — nor did they process the anthrax. Instead, isotopes show it was processed in the Northeastern United States (according to an NBC report).
Amerithrax consists of a complex web of prosecutions and the Attorney General has said FBI Director Mueller expects some sort of resolution that can be publicly announced in the near future. Dr.Alibek has told me that although the FBI has suspected Al-Timimi all along, he is just a “numbers guy.” They know what Al-Timimi had for dinner on September 16, 2001. So the investigation has focused on finding the processor and mailer and they appear to be coming close to some sort of resolution. Everyone should support the FBI and CIA in their efforts on this as we are not in a position to second-guess them (particularly given people’s tendency to expect to resolve one of the most criminal complex investigations in history in a 600-word OpEd).
Actually, the September 2006 Washington Post article titled Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats says:
The FBI even came to speculate that Timimi, a doctoral candidate pursuing cancer gene research, might have been involved in the anthrax attacks.
But the article then goes on to say:
On a frigid day in February 2003, the FBI searched Timimi's brick townhouse on Meadow Field Court, a cul-de-sac near Fair Oaks Mall in Fairfax. Among the items they were seeking, according to court testimony: material on weapons of mass destruction.
There was, in the end, nothing related to that in the house. And yet, as the investigation proceeded, officials learned that some of Timimi's followers had indeed been practicing for possible armed jihad during their paintball games.
So, the FBI investated and found NOTHING to connect Al-Timimi to the anthrax attacks. Why do you leave that part out? If you have to distort facts in order to make them support your beliefs, that just proves your beliefs are FALSE.
You say,
That is why Dr. Alibek and Dr. Meselson apparently did not see silica in the images they were shown. This is why FBI Director Mueller was upset at the leak about silica — because it pointed to this method and the line of investigation they have been aggressively pursuing all along.
Your speculations are not facts. All you are doing is trying to twist facts to make them fit your beliefs. But, of course, you say the same thing about me.
The FBI is travelling to Afghanistan, Asia and the Middle East in Amerithrax precisely because unlike Ed, they credit an Al Qaeda theory.
So, you're suggesting that if the FBI didn't believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks they wouldn't travel to Afghanistan, Asia and the Middle East to look for signs that al Qaeda might be working on Weapons of Mass Destruction? Really?
Even if it wasn't part of their job to look for possible threats upon this country, wouldn't it still be part of their job to check out ALL theories about the anthrax attacks, even those which they do not particularly believe? They certainly demonstated that with their search of that pond in Maryland and with their investigation of Dr. Berry.
The fact that the FBI is looking at al Qaeda doesn't mean that al Qaeda did it any more than the fact that they were looking at Dr. Hatfill. It's called an "investigation" because they investigate all reasonable leads.
And you really should try to contact Senator Grassley who seems to believe that the FBI is only looking at domestic suspects and it NOT looking at al Qaeda. He's pushing the FBI to look at al Qaeda.
An example of Ed’s treating his assumptions as what he pedantically calls “FACTS” is when he says that militant islamists would not warn in connection with the use of nonconventional weapons.
Did they warn about attacking the World Trade Center? I don't recall that. Or is flying airliners into sky scrapers and killing thousands of people something you consider "conventional"?
Plus, if the letters were a "warning", what happened to the actual attack? Yes, I know you can rationalize a response in many ways, you can say it will come SOMEDAY. You can say they were sidetracked and didn't follow up. You can rationalize all sorts of explanations for why the FACTS do not fit your beliefs, but it just proves that your beliefs are not supported by facts.
Ed’s central argument against an Al Qaeda theory has always been that the hijackers were “dead, dead, dead.” That’s correct. They did not mail the anthrax — nor did they process the anthrax. ...
So the investigation has focused on finding the processor and mailer and they appear to be coming close to some sort of resolution. Everyone should support the FBI and CIA in their efforts on this as we are not in a position to second-guess them
No one should second guess them? Except you, of course.
You seem to be suggesting that if someone doesn't support your belief that al Qaeda was behind the attacks, then they are somehow helping al Qaeda.
Do you really feel it is totally impossible for the FBI to BOTH hunt for the anthrax killer AND hunt for al Qaeda members in the U.S. and around the world? Do you believe they should they drop everything and focus ONLY on hunting for al Qaeda members?
By posting your beliefs everywhere you can find on the Internet, even endlessly pestering me to put them on MY site, you are showing that your beliefs are in the area of an irrational obsession. If you believe that anyone who does not believe as you believe is somehow helping al Qaeda, what do you plan to do to these people if you cannot convince them to accept your beliefs?