“On the scientific angle, I think the writers are echoing the FBI story,”
That they DNA sequenced not the anthrax powder found, not anthrax lodged in lungs, but supposedly got the anthrax from Stevens’ blood.
Some FReeper scientist has got to explain that one.
Did they accidently destroy the other anthrax?
BTW, the reporters site the Beecher letter for the proposition that the FBI says the anthrax had no additives. First problem, any non-scientist can tell Beecher’s short comment showed no evidence, AND, the footnoted cites go to an article that say completely the opposite.
But I guess we’ll never know, right? I bet the “anthrax in the blood” that got through from the lungs wouldn’t carry the silica or whatever additive into the bloodstream.
The Beecher article is reaching its predicted usefulness. A way for the FBI to claim by some authority says there was no additive, although the authority is totally baseless, unsupported, and spoken by a person without the appropriate expertise.
Really now, they only tested anthrax from blood?
Certainly the "fibbies" have people with the investigative accumen of Freepers (who took down Dan Rather as we all recall), but this is kindergarten stuff they're coming up with.
Does the Director perhaps want us to knock this stuff down step by step? Maybe he could finally come out in the open and discuss it with us where we can focus on his understanding and not a ignorant blather in the press.