- Joined
- Apr 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,747
- Reaction score
- 20
Still mad. You pretended to not know what the NAS is and other disingenuous positions. Trying to make me jump through hoops. Nope.
<Lmaoo>
Conspiracy nut.
I pretended to know what NAS is? Can you show me where i did that please? You copy and pasted about the NAS committee from wikipedia that had 2 broken links and a paywall.
NAS-National Academy of science but it was a specific NAS committe you cited. look here is the post.
The NAS committee released its report on February 15, 2011, concluding that it was "impossible to reach any definitive conclusion about the origins of the anthrax in the letters, based solely on the available scientific evidence".[167] The report also challenged the FBI and U.S. Justice Department's conclusion that a single-spore batch of anthrax maintained by Ivins at his laboratory at Fort Detrick in Maryland was the parent material for the spores in the anthrax letters.[166][168][169]
So, there goes your story. The NAS can't find its origins, but you can?
Things didn't need to be forged to pull off 911? lol
You confused them not believing Ivins was the single source for the anthrax with it not being the AMES strain, which is was. The problem here is you just googled what you could went to wiki and picked the first thing that you thought that supported your opinion, however since you're a google scholar you were wrong.
It was the Ames strain as identified by Dr Paul Kleim- https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/paul-keim-we-were-surprised-it-was-the-ames-strain/
Bruce edward Ivins was the fall guy for the authorities since they could no longer blame Atta and Iraq in Prague as they knew it was the AMES strain they then said Ivins did it in secret alone from a single-spore batch.
The NAS is saying they don't believe Ivins could have done it, we can't ask him though cause he committted suicide when they came for him, but no charges were formally adopted.
The NAS committee is saying actually we don't think the domestic terrorist angle is real here we don't think he can do it from a single-spore sample. So it actually lends weight to the conspriacy theorists.
You'd have realised this if you were actually debating in good faith and clicking my links (hell you didn't even check your own links , some were dead)
Anyway that'[s enough free education for you.
Yeah but it's me who doesn't know what NAS is?