Reply #17: You're not really this bad? I seem to remember better...

[JackRiddler]

"None of this is evidence of an inside job."

In telling the story in detail, not every fact related must on its own constitute such evidence. But I know, all you ever see is trees, trees, everywhere, and these horrid forest theorists claim otherwise.

In that first list, Thompson's action (4) is evidence of negligence, the Ames action is evidence of destruction of evidence. Don't these things merit prosecutorial scrutiny on the probable cause standard? No questions there, because you think you have plausible answers set up in advance of investigation?

"Ever heard of Post Hoc?"

Yes, it and "cui bono" do not constitute proof, but are routinely and usefully deployed as criminological starting points in working out (or ruling out) possible suspects and motives for a crime. Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

And why can't you advance any kind of post hoc evidence for your space aliens? (Never mind, I know it's in Bedunker Union rules to mention UFOs and such unprompted, every chance you get.)

"Sounds like a worthwhile experiment."

Actually, it's a violation of the biowarfare conventions, which also prohibit development of weapons on the defensive principle, and was cited as such in the French protest to the UN, prompting the Pentagon to give Miller a tour of the facility. And it establishes that the government had revived its anthrax programs in 2001 prior to September 11th.

"Well, this could indict the Bush Administation or Al Qaeda or our invisible space aliens. If anybody could build the factory, right?"

Anybody (with a million dollars, note) didn't build the factory. The US government did, as part of its revival of anthrax programs.

"Cipro: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/cipro.htm It's such a specific drug. Are you fucking kidding me?"

As I mentioned, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, but advertised as the best for anthrax, after the fact. Judicial Watch put in a suit to ask on what basis this move was made. Do you object to the release of the White House's rationale for preemptively having staff take this antibiotic? Apparently, you do.