Incorrect. The contamination could have been entirely invisible to the naked eye, mostly invisible to the naked, or could have resembled cocaine residue to the naked eye.
Incorrect. The contamination could have been entirely invisible to the naked eye, mostly invisible to the naked, or could have resembled cocaine residue to the naked eye.
Cocaine contamination on money would be mostly invisible to the naked eye. That's because most of it is snorted up the addict's nostrils. After snorting, there isn't so much cocaine left on money that it can contaminate an entire building. You would need all the cocaine that was snorted and more to do that. You'd need a PILE of cocaine - about a gram. If a gram of cocaine was left on money, it would be much more cocaine than was snorted.
There was about a gram of powder in the letter sent to the National Enquirer that was opened at AMI. That's almost a teaspoon full. You can't have that much anthrax on money without it looking like powdered sugar all over the money. It would be falling off the money when the terrorists handed it over to the landlord. It would leave a cloud of dust in the air every time it was handled. And, you claim that the contaminated money was first turned over to the landlord, and then she turned some or all of it over to her husband (for some unknown reason) and he then turned some of it over to people at AMI (for some fantasy reason), and the only place contaminated was the AMI building.
Your reasoning is contradicted by the evidence. The facts say the idea that the anthrax got into the AMI building on rent money is totally preposterous.
Nonsense. Individual spores may be too small to be seen with the naked eye, but it took BILLIONS of spores to contaminate the AMI building. There MUST have been close to a teaspoonful of powder to do that. That is consistent with delivery via a letter and shows that your idea of distribution from "entirely invisible" particles on money is laughably absurd.