Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (128806)	4/9/2004 11:55:04 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks. I sort of remember that story, which was before the lake was drained. I don't believe that they found anything else after they drained the lake. I thought the under water story was far fetched. I can believe that a person would use an environmental box for handling the anthrax. But they need to get the anthrax and the envelopes in the box before they put it underwater. Once you've accomplished that, there's no additional advantage in doing the work underwater. And then you have to get the envelopes out of the box, which you're not likely to do underwater. If one were to speculate a scenario that involved the box, it seems a lot more reasonable to suggest the work was done in the box. The envelopes removed and then the box dumped in the lake. As far as I know there wasn't any anthrax residue found in the box either. I don't know the forensic likelihood of finding anthrax residue in a box that was tossed into a lake. jttmab