Yes, but they are totally irrelevant facts until relevance is proven.
None of your facts shows in any way that the anthrax was on the money. You just believe that to be true.
Your facts relate to the 9/11 terrorists, but they in no way relate to the anthrax attacks except in your imagination.
Example: It's a FACT that Porton Down laboratories in England had the Ames strain. So what? So did other labs. Why is that fact anything more than a meaningless, irrelevant fact?
Example: It's a fact that Texas A&M University had a sample of the Ames strain in 1981. So what? Why is that fact anything more than a meaningless, irrelevant fact?
Facts must be shown to be RELEVANT to the issue before they can be anything but meaningless facts.
Fact: The 9/11 terrorists were all DEAD for a week at the time of the first mailing.
Fact: The 9/11 terrorists were all DEAD for three weeks at the time of the second mailing.
Fact: The timing of the death of Bob Stevens IS consistent with his being exposed to anthrax in a letter from the first mailing.
Fact: The timing of the death of Bob Stevens is NOT consistent with the 9/11 terrorists paying their rent.
Fact: The strain of anthrax that killed Bob Stevens is a strain that was only used by a few labs.
Fact: None of the 9/11 terrorists had access to the "murder weapon" - flask RMR-1029.
Fact: No anthrax was found anywhere the 9/11 terrorists went or stayed.
Fact: Cocaine contaminates cash because people roll up paper money and use it to sniff cocaine.
Fact: No one deliberately sniffs anthrax.
Fact: Stephanie Dailey remembers handling a letter that contained a powder.
Fact: No one remembers handling money that was so contaminated with a powder that it spread all over the building.
Your facts may be facts, but the are not relevant facts. They are meaningless facts.
Incorrect.
The 9/11 terrorists paid their rent in cash to their AMI landlord for an apartment within miles of the AMI building.
Thus, the distance from the apartment to the AMI building is relevant. That anthrax easily contaminates cash (such as rent money) is relevant. That 9/11 terrorist rent money had a non-postal route to the AMI building is relevant.
That there was no anthrax letter at the AMI building is relevant. This fact alone means that a non-postal explanation must be pursued, contrary to the blinders placed on the anthrax investigation that traced spores in post offices without considering that the spores could have originated in the mailroom at the AMI building via 9/11 terrorist rent cash instead of a non-existent letter.
Once cash is contaminated with anthrax, the first person to roll up the Dollar bill to later snort coke is going to get inhalation anthrax along with their cocaine high.