What are the facts indicating Dr. Ivins?
Fiber evidence? No. There is none.
Silicon Signature? No.
Subtilus contamiantion? No.
Method of weaponization? No.
Handwriting analysis? No.
Witness statement? No.
Lack of alibi? No.
Known motive? No.

There are no facts establishing his guilt. As an example, you think it is a fact that a First Grader wrote the letters and reason that it shows Ivins is guilty. You reason his wife provided daycare for preschool children and that points to Ivins’ guilt. There is no factual basis for your assertion.

Reader asks: What are the facts indicating Dr. Ivins?

Here are some of them:

1. He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the “mother” spores which produced the attack anthrax “daughter” spores.

2. He had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters.

3. He accessed the locked room where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

4. He worked alone and unsupervised in his lab for long hours at night and on weekends during the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

5. He had no scientific reason or verifiable explanation for working those hours or at those times.

6. He had MULTIPLE motives for sending the anthrax letters.

7. He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

8. He had NO ALIBI for either of the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

9. He was known to drive long distances and to use various methods to mail letters and packages so they could not be traced back to him.

10. He had multiple connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.

11. He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.

12. The pre-stamped envelopes which were used in the attacks had print defects, and one of the post offices which sold the envelopes with those print defects was a post office which Dr. Ivins used.

13. His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

14. Investigations found NO evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

15. There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

There may also be other facts pointing to Dr. Ivins which have not yet been disclosed by the FBI. The case has not been officially closed. And it is known that many scientific reports with details of the scientific investigation are being written, are going through the peer-review process and/or are awaiting a publication date in scientific journals.

Reader wrote: Dr. Ivins would have had no reason to use the strain for which he was the “go-to” guy and would have pointed to the US biodefense program.

Do you know for a fact that Dr. Ivins had OTHER strains of anthrax available to him that he could have used WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL?

If he commonly used the Ames strain, wouldn’t it require an explanation for him to use another strain?

There were about 16 OTHER labs with the Ames strain. That fact created enough suspects to dilute any suspicion toward him.

He GOT AWAY WITH IT until someone discovered something Ivins didn’t know about: there were mutant bacteria in the flask he controlled.

Mr. Lake on his webpage points out that the US Attorney offered only speculation as to a possible motive. He emphasizes that “Speculation about ‘a possible motive’ is not an accusation.”

The US Attorney can speculate about a possible motive of Dr. Ivins — and Mr. Lake can speculate about the motive of the First Grader allegedly conspiring with Dr. Ivins.

Neither argument passes the all-important “giggle test.”

As one news account noted: “Ask Keim [the FBI's key scientist on the issue] if he thinks Ivins was the anthrax letters terrorist and he says he just doesn’t know. ‘It remains to be seen.’ ”

Another FBI expert, Claire Fraser-Liggett, is professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and director of the University of Maryland Institute for Genome Sciences and an adviser to the FBI on Amerithrax. She asks, “What would have happened in this investigation had Dr. Hatfill not been so forceful in his response to being named a person of interest. What if he, instead of fighting back, had committed suicide because of the pressure? Would that have been the end of the investigation?” It was Fraser-Liggett’s genetic analysis of the anthrax spores in the letters led to Ivins’ flask. “The part that seems still hotly debated is whether there was sufficient evidence to name Dr. Ivins as the perpetrator,” Fraser-Liggett says. “I have complete confidence in the accuracy of our data,” Fraser-Liggett says, but she says it does not indicate Ivins is guilty.

In early August, Mr. Lake wrote on his blog:

“There are certainly a lot of people who seem to believe that they understand it. A mentally ill Ft. Detrick scientist is the anthrax mailer? Of course. People have been claiming for years that the anthrax must have been made at Ft. Detrick as part of some illegal U.S. Government bioweapons program. So, now they’ve got a dead guy who a lot of people are saying was the anthrax mailer, and he worked with the Ames strain at Ft. Detrick. What more could anyone want?”

He continued:

“What some people want is answers. What evidence is there against Dr. Ivins? How did a family man manage to make two trips to the Princeton area without being missed?”

In late September, Mr. Lake wrote:

“Presumably, he then drove to New Jersey to mail the letters Senators Daschle and Leahy. He would have arrived back home at about 5 a.m.”

Unlike Mr. Lake, what some people — such as these FBI experts quoted above — still want is answers. What evidence is there against Dr. Ivins? For example, how did a family man manage to make two trips to the Princeton area without being missed? Mr. Lake’s suggestion that he was out until 5 a.m. and not noticed missing from a small house with three adults in it has no factual basis — but merely is his speculation. He is making assumptions to fit his accusations in the absence of facts on the subject. (He does the same with isotope ratios, subtilis contamination, fiber analysis, method of weaponization, motive etc.)

Reader wrote: What evidence is there against Dr. Ivins? For example, how did a family man manage to make two trips to the Princeton area without being missed? Mr. Lake’s suggestion that he was out until 5 a.m. and not noticed missing from a small house with three adults in it has no factual basis — but merely is his speculation.

No, it is NOT speculation. If transcripts of the FBI’s questioning of Dr. Ivins are ever released, they will show that the FBI says they show: Dr. Ivins would take long drives at night to get away from his family, and he would lie to his wife, telling her he had slept on a cot at the lab. Sometimes, he actually WOULD stay overnight at the lab, sleeping on a cot in the day room. And he would also work very late hours. He talked often about a need to get away from his wife.

When he was asked to explain his long hours in the lab just before the mailings, when the anthrax mailer would have been preparing the powders, he said he was having problems at home and just hung around the lab to avoid going home.

HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MISSED on those two occasions when he presumably drove to New Jersey.

You may BELIEVE otherwise, but that is what the FACTS say.

Here’s what one of the search warrants says:

On March 31, 2005, Dr. Ivins was asked by the FBI about his access to Suite B3 and could provide no legitimate reason for the extended hours, other than “home was not good” and he went there “to escape” from his life at home. A review of Dr. Ivins’s and co-workers’ laboratory notebooks and projects at the times in question was conducted and determined that Dr. Ivins’s role in the experiments were minimal, and did not justify the time he spent in B3. Dr. Ivins has admitted to investigators that the research he was conducting in 2001 did not require, and does not explain, his late night hours in the B-3 laboratory around the time period of the anthrax mailings.

BURANS: Basically, it would take somewhere between three and seven days. …

Mr. Lake writes that James B. says it “would take somewhere between three and seven days.” Dr. B., as I recall, is to be employed by Battelle as head of a new billion dollar lab at Ft. Detrick. Battelle is the quasi-governmental entity that had the Ames at West Jefferson and Dugway (at the Life Sciences lab). Ed, other experts have said that Burans estimate is ridiculous. I have no way of choosing between the various experts (Gerry A., Jeff. A, or James B.). But would you agree that it is appropriate for Dr. B to recuse himself from the investigation given that he has negotiated a high salary while opining that “it would take somewhere between three and seven days”? Or at least that it behooves us to get an opinion from an outside expert? I could similarly acknowledge that Ivins’ former co-workers are disqualified. You can judge for yourself, whether world renown microbiologist Dr. Popov is both such an expert and not disqualified.

“Ivins would have made money off patents if he work went well. He had a financial motive.”

Mr. Lake, how much money would Ivins have made off-hand? (His co-inventors have spoken to the question but I don’t recall it offhand; it was my sense it did not qualify as motive for murder whatsoever).

Reader wrote: it was my sense it did not qualify as motive for murder whatsoever

Well, that’s the basic problem here, isn’t it?

That IS a motive, but you do not believe it. And, if you do not believe it, then it cannot be true.

Why not just say it: You don’t care what the facts say, you’re going to believe what you want to believe.

Ed,

Do you understand the concept of conflict of interest? If the other party that received Ames was Battelle, and Dr. Burans is an employee of Battelle (who they refuse to identify) then he should sit down, enjoy his new job, and let other independent experts speak to the issues. You don’t appear to understand the concept of a conflict of interest.

Reader wrote: Do you understand the concept of conflict of interest?

I understand that you are using it as an excuse to IGNORE the facts.

A conflict of interests does NOT PROVE that something is incorrect. You may BELIEVE it does, but it doesn’t.

And your example is nonsense. The FBI checked out the people at Battelle who had access to the RMR-1029 samples. After checking out all the people with access to the RMR-1029 samples, only Dr. Bruce Ivins remained as a suspect.

AND THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW DR. IVINS HAD MEANS, MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY. Plus, he worked long hours in the lab where the RMR-1029 spores were available to him during the times the spores would have been made — WITH NO EXPLANATION for why he was there and NO ALIBI for the times when the letters would have been mailed. And he tried to MISLEAD the investigation.

Trying to MISLEAD the investigation is what someone does when there is a conflict of interest. It is what IVINS DID. Everything Burnans did was VERIFIED BY OTHERS.

“What motive would he have for telling mom and dad about routine things he did at the Ivins’ house before or after school?”

But, Ed, I’ve confirmed for you that Diane never provided daycare for someone about 6. She provided daycare for toddlers.

Ed says that Dr. Ivins tried to mislead the investigation even thought it is a matter of record that he provided the correct sample to Dr. Keim, the one doing the genetic investigation.

Reader wrote: But, Ed, I’ve confirmed for you that Diane never provided daycare for someone about 6.

No, you have NOT confirmed it. You merely stated it as something you believe, apparently because daycare providers primarily take care of pre-schoolers. But daycare providers typically also take care of children before and after school who are too young to be at home alone.

The facts say that a child of about 6 wrote the anthrax letters. There were children in and around the Ivins home all the time. What is your evidence that there was no child of 6 in or around the Ivins home in September and October of 2001?

Reader wrote: “There is not one substantial motive,” Andrews [his former supervisor] said.

What classifies as a “substantial motive” is a matter of opinion. Plus, his former supervisor would have a “conflict of interest” in the case. If Ivins was the anthrax mailer, his supervisor would have been the one responsible for ALLOWING Ivins to use the lab to create powders which killed five people.

Dr. Ivins had MULTIPLE motives. His friends may believe that NONE of them were “substantial.” But only Dr. Ivins would really know what his motive was and whether or not all of his motives would add up to something “substantial.”

Reader wrote: We certainly can agree that the FBI Ivins Theory is far stronger than your theory for the past 7 years.

I’ve stated that on my site many times. I had only weak circumstantial evidence that someone in New Jersey mailed the letters. That’s why I never identified the person. When NEW FACTS presented themselves on August 1, 2008, I changed my analysis IMMEDIATELY.

But, my ANALYSIS of the anthrax attacks was much more than just about who did it.

I was RIGHT in stating that Dr. Hatfill was innocent.

I was RIGHT in stating that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks.

I was RIGHT in stating that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks.

I was RIGHT in stating that Dr. Philip Zack had nothing to do with the attacks.

I was RIGHT that the attack spores were NOT WEAPONIZED.

I was RIGHT about the spores not being coated with silica.

I was RIGHT that the first scientists who saw what they thought were additives OOZING OUT OF THE SPORES were totally mistaken.

I was RIGHT that AFIP was mistaken in their ASSUMPTION that the spores were weaponized with silica.

I was RIGHT in stating that the J-Lo letter had nothing to do with the attacks.

I was RIGHT in my analysis of the effects of static electrics and van der Waals forces on spores.

I was RIGHT that a motive for the attacks was to awaken America to the danger bioweapons attack.

Is there ANYTHING you can show about your beliefs of the past seven years which has been proven to be correct? Anything at all?

You constantly go back and delete everything you wrote so that no one can show where you were wrong. How many different suspects have you had over the years? The fact that they were all Muslims doesn’t change the number.

For those who would like to know more about the Israeli angle.

The Anthrax Mystery: Solved

http://web.archive.org/web/20050211195615/www.anthraxattacks.net/the-anthrax-mystery-solved.htm

As you note on October 23, 2002:

“The TV version began with Peter Jennings summarizing the anthrax case to date, and then saying,

‘The FBI tells ABC News that it is very confident that it has found the person responsible.’ “

I agree with the comments that the silicon was added deliberately. But one has to distinguish between “deliberately” meaning deliberately adding an antifoaming agent to a fermenter, such as Dow antifoam, and deliberate silicon weaponization. Some Dow antifoam agents contain silicon, some do not. It’s only needed in a fermenter (to prevent excessive foam), not in a flask preparation. It would be added “deliberately” but only to stop foam, not to impart any special properties on the final spores, such as anti-clumping. If present in an antifoam capacity method it’s likely the concentration of silicon is only around 0.1%-0.5%.

In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that a siloxane agent was deliberately added not as an antifoam agent but to aid dispersability. Likely this was something like “Repelcote”. Replecote is the trade name for dichlorodimethylsilane. It would penetrate the exosporium in it’s still monomer form (single molecule) and then polymerize in situ. That is, the polysiloxane polymer would form on the spore coat, underneath the exosporium. That’s why Sandia thought it wasn’t weaponized – they were looking for silica nanoparticles OUTSIDE the exosporium. That was the problem with having metallurgists from Sandia work in secret for 7 years on a biological weapon problem. They didn’t understand other forms of weaponization. If they had been allowed to discuss their results with any BW weaponeer with know-how they would have quickly concluded the true facts. One cannot conduct science in secret.

Incidentally when dichlorodimethylsilane polymerizes it loses HCl, so the final polymer does not contain the element chlorine. The EDX spectrum only shows a massive silicon peak accompanied by a smaller oxygen peak.

The presence of the polysiloxane coating on the spore coat would make the spores highly hydrophobic. Water droplets would not form on the surface of spores, and therefore spores would not clump through water-bridging mechanisms. Indeed, it seems Bruce Ivins reported that the powder was very difficult to get into water, as he needed to do to perform serial dilution and obtain spore counts.

In this case there would be much more than 0.1%-0.5% silicon present. More like greater than 5%.

Anonymous wrote: In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that a siloxane agent was deliberately added not as an antifoam agent but to aid dispersability. Likely this was something like “Repelcote”. Replecote is the trade name for dichlorodimethylsilane. It would penetrate the exosporium in it’s still monomer form (single molecule) and then polymerize in situ. That is, the polysiloxane polymer would form on the spore coat, underneath the exosporium. That’s why Sandia thought it wasn’t weaponized – they were looking for silica nanoparticles OUTSIDE the exosporium.

I’ve heard that theory before. It’s bunk.

“Repelcoat” will WATERPROOF the spores. That is evidently what they do when creating HARMLESS simulants, but it makes no sense when trying to create a bioweapon. If the spores are WATERPROOF, how will they germinate? And, if they cannot germinate, they are harmless.

Sandia didn’t look for silicon in any particular place. Silicon had been detected by AFIP, but no one could see it under a scanning electron microscope. So, Sandia was asked to MAP where it was located. They found it was INSIDE the spore coat, NOT ON THE SPORE COAT as you claim.

The silicon was evidently in the nutrients and became part of the spore just as iron gets in your blood and becomes part of you when you eat raisins, or zinc when you eat peanuts. It doesn’t coat you, it’s INSIDE you.

The conspiracy theory that the spores were “weaponized” with silicon began with claims that the spores were coated with fumed silica. When that theory was shown to be total nonsense because such a coating would be CLEARLY seen under a scanning electron microscope, they changed the theory to a nearly invisible coating of tiny silicon particles on the outside of the spores. When that was also shown to be total nonsense, they then started this new theory about “Repelcoat.”

Sandia will be releasing scientific reports that show the silicon is INSIDE the spore coat, not ON the spores. Then the people who insist the attack spores MUST have been “weaponized” will have to dream up a new screwball theory.

The director of the Al Qaeda Afghanistan anthrax lab, Yazid Sufaat, was just released from prison. He would be a fascinating interview — especially as to his opinion about the FBI’s Ivins Theory.

The email he used to communicate with Zacarias Moussaoui was greenlab@hotmail.com but was accessed by the FBI September 19, 2001.

Yazid is a graduate of Sacramento State, as is his wife. He can be reached through his wife’s current email to arrange an interview.

Participants at a key meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 included Hambali, Yazid Sufaat, two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar, Cole planner Attash aka Khallad, and others. Attash came to lead Bin Laden’s bodyguards and was an intermediary between Bin Laden and those who carried out the bombing of the Cole in October 2000. Attash also had been a key planner in the 1998 embassy bombings, serving as the link between the Nairobi cell and Bin Laden and Atef. Al-Hindi, who along with Jafar the Pilot would later case the NYC landmarks, had gone to Kuala Lumpur with Attash. (While not at the meeting with the hijackers, he met Hambali shortly after that meeting.)

Zacarias Moussaoui was alleged, at least initially, to have received his money from Yazid Sufaat, under the cover of a company managed by his wife named Infocus Tech. A legitimate company, the company has eight employees and virtually no connection to the US. The company was an importer of US computer software and hardware.

After authorities found a letter signed by Yazid Sufaat purporting to authorize Zacarias Moussaoui as its marketing representative, authorities went looking for Sufaat. But by then, he had left for Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to his wife, he went to Pakistan in June 2001 because he wanted to do his doctorate in pathology at the University of Karachi. According to his wife, Sejarhtul Dursina, “He had planned to set up a medical support unit in Afghanistan, near Kandahar.” (Kandahar is where Al Qaeda established its anthrax lab and where extremely virulent (but unweaponized) anthrax was found at a home identified by Hambali after his capture.)

Dursina had attended Sacramento State with Sufaat. It was her mother who encouraged Yazid’s religious studies.

Sufaat graduated from California State University, Sacramento in 1987. He received a bachelors degree in biological sciences, concentrating on clinical laboratory technology, with a minor in chemistry. Sac State biological sciences professor Robert Metcalf taught Sufaat a food microbiology class in the spring of 1986. The first lesson in class was to teach students how German physician Robert Koch proved that anthrax was caused by a specific bacterium. “All of my students know how to isolate anthrax in soil samples,” Metcalf told the Chicago Tribune. “Anthrax was the first organism we talked about.” Sufaat joined the Malaysian army, where he was a lab technician assigned to a medical brigade. After five years, he left the service with the rank of captain and worked for a civilian laboratory. In August 1993, he set up his own company, Green Laboratory Medicine. The 9/11 Commission Report notes that Sufaat started work on the al Qaeda biological weapons program after he participated in JI’s December 2000 church bombings. In December 2001, Sufaat was arrested upon returning from Afghanistan to Malaysia where he had been serving in a Taliban medical brigade.

Malaysian officials, at the time, sought to minimize Sufaat’s role — as they are doing this week. Sufaat merely was a foot soldier who provided housing and false identification letters and helped obtain explosives. “I would put it this way: If Hambali [Al Qaeda's point man in Southeast Asia] was the travel agent, Sufaat was the guy at the airport holding up the sign.” Sufaat admits to having purchased 4 tons of ammonium nitrate to build a truck bomb for the Singapore cell. The 9/11 Commission Report indicates Zacarias Moussaoui was also involved in arranging the purchase — one plan was to load the explosives on a cargo plane.

The Malaysian officials report that they believe that Sufaat had no knowledge of what the hijackers who stayed at his condominium or Zacarias were planning. That is consistent with the principles of cell security ordinarily followed — also evasion in interrogation. At a minimum, however, the established facts relevant to the Amerithrax investigation show that in the Summer and Fall of 2001 an Al Qaeda supporter who had assisted in the 9-11 operation — and who was a lab technician working with anthrax — was in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Was he the fellow perceived as Filipino who the journalist met in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2001 bragging about his ability to manipulate anthrax?

According to Sufaat’s attorney, Sufaat gave two FBI agents no fresh evidence during a 30-minute interrogation finally conducted in November 2002 (where they mainly wanted to know how he knew Zacarias). The U.S. asked for his extradition in connection with hosting of the two 9/11 hijackers, but Malaysia refused. President Bush reports that US officials did not fully appreciate Sufaat’s role in Al Qaeda’s anthrax program until after KSM’s capture in March 2003.

Mr. Rolson:

As far as I know, no comments have been edited or removed. If there is something missing from one that you submitted, it could be the result of some computer problem, though that seems unusual. Please resubmit any comment that appears to have been removed.

Kirk Rolson wrote: To Mr. Lake- your comments about concentrating down the anthrax productions runs. You can’t be serious and certainly have no facts to support your statements.

The information comes from the FBI’s roundtable discussion on August 18, 2008. Here are links to the Google version and my annotated copy:

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc3wqmd7_33d2tjs5ct

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AnthraxRoundtableAnnotated.html#RMR-1029

The link to my annotated copy will take you directly to this statement:

BACKGROUND OFFICIAL: If I can clarify that for the record. RMR-1029 is a conglomeration of 13 production runs of spores by Dugway, for USAMRIID, and an additional 22 production runs of spore preparations at USAMRIID that were all pooled into this mixture. It is a total of over 164 liters of spore production, concentrated down to about a liter.

You can get further details from Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=RMR-1029+1997+Ivins&btnG=Search

Anonymous wrote: Coating spores with nanoparticles does not render them harmless – indeed, it was the old method of weaponization. The new method is Repelcote.

Anonymous is using JUNK SCIENCE to argue his case. The old Dugway method which resulted in spores covered with tiny bits of crushed fumed silica is explained in detail on my web site: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AnthraxPictures.html

Anonymous may not be able to see any difference between a method that results in silica particles temporarily clinging to spores due to static electricity (as in the old Dugway process) and the fantasy method of GLUING tiny particles of silica to a spore to reduce van der Waals forces (as described in Science Magazine), OR his newest method of coating spores with Repelcoat to make them WATERPROOF, but there are BIG differences.

Arguing that these methods are similar in some way is just a JUNK SCIENCE argument to avoid addressing the KEY FACT that the Repelcoat method would waterproof the spores and make them harmless.

Silica particles clinging to a spore due to static electricity would NOT make the spore waterproof. Water would disperse the static electricity and quickly wash away the silica.

Silica particles glued to a spore to reduce van der Waals forces is a brainless fantasy that has nothing to do with reality.

Waterproofing spores with Repelcoat as a method of weaponizing them is JUNK SCIENCE. It’s a method of creating a HARMLESS simulant.

To: Simon Barrett – BNN Editor

I really appreciate that you have taken the time to check.

What I saw happening was portions of my comments seemed to have been deleted. I am using Internet Explorer 8 and have had a few problems with it.

After restarting my system and checking the comments all of them were displayed as I had entered them.

Thank You for checking it is greatly appreciated!

Mr. Lake,

In your comments you attack anyone that doesn’t accept the FBI’s case. When they make a point they wish to discuss or share you attack them as if they are some kind of conspiracy nut. You offer statements that counter what they say and then you cite links you claim support your statements, but in fact when checked they don’t support you at all.

If you choose to believe theories based on sororities fantasies, a few 750 mile trips in the middle of the night, and claims that the Florida anthrax letters were from some other anthrax mailer, more power to you.

Kirk Rolson wrote: In your comments you attack anyone that doesn’t accept the FBI’s case.

Mr. Rolson,

If you read what I wrote, you will see I attack other people’s FACTS and BELIEFS. I do not attack them as a person.

The facts support the FBI’s case. That means that if I argue the facts of the case, I will be generally arguing on the FBI’s side. But, MY arguments also include things which the FBI has NOT stated in their case, such as the handwriting evidence.

You wrote:
“claims that the Florida anthrax letters were from some other anthrax mailer”

What claims are those? I state that the J-Lo letter had nothing to do with the anthrax case. It was not an “anthrax letter.” It contained no threat. It contained no anthrax. It was just an odd letter that was sent around the same general time as the anthrax letters, and it contained a powder – LAUNDRY DETERGENT. The box for the detergent was also in the large brown envelope that became known as the “J-Lo Letter.”

The facts about that letter are here: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/J-LoLetter.html

You also wrote:
You offer statements that counter what they say and then you cite links you claim support your statements, but in fact when checked they don’t support you at all.

Tell me exactly which statements you are talking about and I’ll clarify things for you.

BugMaster wrote: “There wasn’t a report of ANY letter received by AMI that contained ANY threats. No “We have this anthrax”, “take penicillin”, “Are you afraid”, “You die now”, or any references to 9-11. If you have any information, such as witness accounts suggesting otherwise, please post them.”

Here’s a link to a CDC report for you:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no10/02-0354.htm

According to that report, Stepanie Dailey opened a letter containing a powder. The report says:

“She recalled opening an envelope that released powder in her office on or about September 25. Afterwards, she discarded it in the trash without reading it. The letter most likely had arrived during the previous 2 weeks while she was on vacation. No other workplace mail likely to contain B. anthracis was suggested through further interviews.”

The area around her desk was the most heavily contaminated area in the AMI building.

The trail of anthrax through the postal system indicated that the anthrax letter was addressed to an obsolete address for the National Enquirer in Lantana and was forwarded to the current address at the AMI building in Boca Raton.

Stephanie Dailey was responsible for opening letters addressed to The National Enquirer.

The 3rd floor area where the J-Lo letter was opened and passed around was the LEAST contaminated area in the buildling.

The CDC says no one remembered any other letters with powders during that time frame.

Is that enough?

So did Bob Stevens.

Any eyewitness accounts of any letter being received at AMI containing any threats, references to 9-11, or any other messages similar to those in the media letters that were recovered?

Oh, and did the FBI find the contaminating bacillus at the AMI crime scene?

Ed:

By “contaminating bacillus” I was referring to the contaminating bacillus subtilis found in the media letters that WERE recovered.

As far as “threats and nutty letters”, were there any treats or nutty letters specifically mentioning anthrax, 9-11, or messages similar to those in the media letters that were recovered.

One would expect that someone would have some recollection of any such threats, particularly if they were received right after 9-11.

So, Ed, the answers to these two questions, are (go ahead and say it, Ed!):

NO.

and:

NO.

BugMaster wrote: By “contaminating bacillus” I was referring to the contaminating bacillus subtilis found in the media letters that WERE recovered.

As far as I know, the FBI had no reason to look for the Bacillus subtilis at AMI. Someone who was JUST CURIOUS might wonder if they could find it, but NOTHING would be proven by finding it or not finding it. It was a minor contamination, and Bacillus subtilis is EVERYWHERE. Why go through the expense of looking for something that would be of no value to the case?

BugMaster,

Thank you for your interest in “the other anthrax mailer from Florida”.

The anthrax laced letters from Florida that I am referring to are two letters received in South America and both had been laced with the Sterne Strain of anthrax which is used in vaccine production at Bioport.

One of the letters was sent from Miami Florida during the month of October 2001 to a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Then a second letter was sent in November of 2001 from Zurich Switzerland which although postmarked from Florida it was shipped via DHL to Dr. Antonio Banfi. Dr. Banfi letter had been postmarked from the same bulk mailing machine located in a business in Florida that marked the letter sent to the woman in Buenos Aries. Also the anthrax used in both of those mailings was the Sterne Strain used in Vaccine production.

Here are several links where the authors explain it better than I can.

http://apex.oracle.com/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:1720436792652856::::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_ARCHIVE_NUMBER,F2400_P1001_USE_ARCHIVE:1001,20011027.2647,Y

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/23/chile.htm

For myself I find it difficult to believe that there were two separate anthrax mailers mailing letters in, and connected to, the United States during the same two month period.

I find it even more difficult to believe that the FBI hasn’t been looking into the anthrax laced letters from Florida. From the science used to connect Dr. Ivins sample to the anthrax used in the media and Senators letters we know that they could track down the source of the Sterns strain used.

Another key operative, who also worked for “Clouds”, had anthrax spraydrying documents on a laptop seized at the home of a senior bacteriologist.

On March 23, 2003, the Washington Post reported on documents allegedly discovered at the Abdul Qadoos Khan residence — on a seized laptop — relating to biochemical weapons. The documents indicated that Al Qaeda leaders may already have manufactured some of them. The documents at the Qadoos home reveal that Al Qaeda had a feasible production plan for anthrax. Confronted with scanned handwritten notes on the computer, Mohammed reportedly began to talk about Al Qaeda’s anthrax production program. KSM, however, denies that it was his computer — he says it was the computer of Mustafa Hawsawi, who was captured at the home the same day. In 2001, before departing for the UAE, Al-Hawsawi had worked in the Al Qaeda media center As Sahab (Clouds) in Kandahar. (The letter containing the first anthrax went to the American Media in Florida had blue and pink clouds on it.)

Hawsawi worked under KSM who in turn worked for Zawahiri. Al-Hawsawi was a facilitator for the 9/11 attacks and its paymaster, working from the United Arab Emirates. He sent thousands to Bin Al-Shibh in the summer of 2001. After 9/11, he returned to Afghanistan where he met separately with Bin Laden, Zawahiri and spokesman Abu Ghaith. KSM worked closely with al-Hawsawi. It would make perfect sense that the computer is actually al-Hawsawi’s. The fact that the anthrax spray drying documents were on that computer, however, and that Al-Hawsawi had worked for Al Sahab in Kandahar in 2000, serves to suggest that the undated documents predated 9/11, particularly given that extremely virulent anthrax was later found in Kandahar. At the same time, it suggests that Al-Hawsawi has personal knowledge relevant to anthrax. Al-Hawawi in turn worked with Aafia Siddiqui’s husband-to-be, KSM’s nephew Al-Baluchi, in the UAE in the summer of 2001 providing logistical support for the hijackers.

Hawsawi worked as a financial manager for Bin Laden when he was in Sudan. He was associated with Egyptian Islamic Jihad shura leader Mahjoub, who was Bin Laden’s farm manager in Sudan. Mahjoub was the subject of the anthrax threat in January 2001 in Canada, upon announcement of his bail hearing. The day after Mahjoub’s bail was denied on October 5, 2001, the potent stuff was sent to US Senators Daschle and Leahy.

The Washington Post explained that “What the documents and debriefings show, the first official said, is that “KSM was involved in anthrax production, and [knew] quite a bit about it.” Barton Gellman in the Post explained that Al Qaeda had recruited competent scientists, including a Pakistani microbiologist who the officials declined to name. “The documents describe specific timelines for producing biochemical weapons and include a bar graph depicting the parallel processes that must take place between Days 1 and 31 of manufacture. Included are inventories of equipment and indications of readiness to grow seed stocks of pathogen in nutrient baths and then dry the resulting liquid slurry into a form suitable for aerosol dispersal.” The Washington Post story notes that U.S. officials said the evidence does not indicate whether al Qaeda completed manufacture. The documents are undated and unsigned and cryptic about essential details.

An unclassified memo lists some of the contents of the computer that had the anthrax spraydrying docs.

In addition to establishing him as paymaster for the hijackers, Al-Hawsawi’s computer disks reportedly also included lists of contributors worldwide, to include bank account numbers and names of organizations that have helped finance terror attacks. In press accounts, one unnamed government official confirmed that the information has yielded the identities of about a dozen suspected terrorists in the US. In his substituted testimony in the Moussaoui case, Al-Hawsawi says he became part of Al Qaeda’s media committee in Afghanistan in about July 2000. KSM joined the committee in February 2001. Hawsawi lived at the media office. For about 4-5 months in 2000, Hawsawi worked as a secretary on al Qaeda’s media committee. Hawsawi’s role “was to copy compact discs and reprint articles for the brothers at the guesthouse in Qandahar. After 2000, Hawsawi worked at the direction of Sheikh Mohammed, transferring funds, and procuring goods.”

The first time that Hawsawi was asked to be come involved in operational activities was about March 2001, when he took his second trip to the UAE. Although Sheikh Mohammed did not use the word “operation,” Sheikh Mohammed told Hawsawi that he would be purchasing items, receiving and possibly sending money, and possibly meeting individuals whom Hawsawi would contact or who would contact him. Sheikh Mohammed also told Hawsawi that his stay would be lengthy, so he should rent an apartment. Sheikh Mohammed said Hawsawi did not need cover because he was carrying a Saudi passport, and it was a common practice for a Saudi to rent an apartment in the UAE. In approximately August 2001, Hawsawi, with Sheikh Mohammed’s blessing, decided to take an English course.

Sheik Mohammed told Hawsawi that he would be in contact with individuals called ‘Abd Al-Rahman (Muhammad Atta) and the “Doctor” (Nawaf al-Hazmi). Atta called Hawsawi four times while in the US. Hawsawi says he was never in contact with Hani or Nawaf while in the US. On September 9, Ramzi bin Shibh told him the date of the planned operation and urged that he return to Pakistan. He flew out on 9/11 and after a night in Karachi, flew on to Quetta. Hawsawi stated repeatedly that he never conducted any activity of any type with or on behalf of Moussaoui and had no knowledge of who made Moussaoui’s travel arrangements. Documents, however, reportedly show that al-Hawsawi worked with the Dublin cell to finance Moussaoui’s international travel. Hamid Aich was an EIJ operative there who once had lived with Ressam, the so-called millennium bomber, in Canada. The indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui named al-Hawsawi as an unindicted co-conspirator. Moussaou had tried to call KSM and Hawsawi as witnessses.

Zacarias Moussaou reportedly was in Karachi with the recently released anthrax lab tech Yazid Sufaat on February 3, 2001 when they bought air tickets through a local travel agency for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. They reportedly left on a flight for KL on February 8, 2001. Moussaoui began at the Norman, Oklahoma flight school on February 26, 2001. KSM says that Moussaoui’s inquiries about cropdusters may have related to Hambali and Sufaat’s work with anthrax.

Another reason not to underestimate Hawsawi’s possible role in an anthrax operation is his contact with al-Marri. Al-Marri, who entered the country on September 10, 2001, was researching chemicals in connection with a “second wave.” Al-Marri was also drafting emails to KSM. Although al-Marri denies being in contact with Hawsawi, phone records show otherwise. Email evidence also confirms messages drafted by al-Marri to KSM. An article by Susan Schmidt in the Washington Post on al-Marri notes that al-Marri picked up $13,000 in cash from al-Hawsawi. Al-Marri made the mistake of opening the briefcase containing the money in bundles and peeling off a few hundred dollars to pay his bail after being stopped on a traffic charge a couple days after 9/11.

References to al-Hawsawi turned up in the Dublin, Ireland, office of a Saudi-backed charity suspected of having links to bin Laden upon a raid after 9/11 by Irish authorities.

Reader,

To me this seems to make it more likely that the letter wasn’t contaminated at the lab in Chile.

But contaminated by the person who sent the letters to both Dr. Banfi in Chile and to the woman in Argentina.

http://www.nae.edu/NAE/pubundcom.nsf/webviews/Engineering+Innovation+Podcast+and+Radio+Series?OpenDocument&count=3

Listen Was something added to the anthrax letters attack spores to make them more deadly? We’re learning more about some high-tech forensic findings of the case.
12/07/2008

Randy Atkins: The anthrax attack samples did contain silicon and oxygen, the elements of silica…which can make spores more readily float – and be inhaled – says Joe Michael, a Sandia National Labs materials scientist. But, Michael says, those elements weren’t found in the most likely place for a biological weapon.

Joe Michael: The silicon and oxygen were not located on the outside surface of the spores. They were on an internal structure.

Randy Atkins: Michael and colleagues used a powerful electron microscope to probe the specific location of chemical elements in thin samples of spores from the attack envelopes and…

Joe Michael: We have tested material from the flask that the FBI says the anthrax materials came from, the mailings came from. We found that there was no silicon signature in these spores.

Randy Atkins: Possible explanations, in Part 2.

The FBI says spores from the anthrax attack letters are genetically linked to spores in a flask controlled by Fort Detrick researcher Bruce Ivins. But high-tech microscopic analysis shows what might be a key difference.
12/14/2008

Randy Atkins: The chemical element silicon is in spores from the letters, but not in the flask. This means the spores used in the attack weren’t taken directly from the flask, but grown elsewhere…in the presence of silicon. But Serguei Popov, a George Mason biologist and former Soviet bioweapons researcher, says the levels of silicon are too high to be an accident – that it was either purposely added to weaponize the spores or…

Serguei Popov:…could have come from the use of foam suppressant agents, typically employed in the process of large scale fermentation of bacteria.

Randy Atkins: While the FBI thinks Ivins grew the spores at Fort Detrick, they haven’t been able to re-create them. Paul Kotula, an electron microscope expert at Sandia National Labs…

Paul Kotula: We looked at over 200 samples in our lab that were various attempts to reverse-engineer the process under which these powders were made and did not find a match.

Comment: Ed, did I mention that the fermenter available to Ivins had a seized motor? Source: Dr. Andrews. Whether the fermenter had a seized motor is a verifiable fact.

Bruce Ivins was an expert in anthrax.

He would know that the aerosolized form is most lethal. So why spend so much time in BL3? He could handle anthrax outside of a BL3 level containment facility with minimal risk, being thoroughly proficient in the pathogenic potential/mechanisms of infection. He could have made it in his garage. A novice probably could not have, but he could without putting himself in danger.

Here is a Sandia video explaining their research and comments in response:

Sandia aids FBI in investigation of anthrax letters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHJNZUiyLGo

Mouse2Ben (3 weeks ago)
Sandia should have announced the location of the silica and sat down. The implications it drew went far beyond their training and field.

Colinthemoviecritic (3 weeks ago)
The FBI’s WMD head explained that the silica could have been in the culture medium. This finding can be credited. No silica was found in the Ivins flask. There is no indication that Ivins used silica in the culture medium. Thus, unless explained, the Silicon Signature tends to be exculpatory of Ivins.

annegg123 (3 weeks ago)
When you grow bugs in a fermenter with a vigorous stirring for a good aeration, in contrast to flasks on a shaker you have to suppress a formation of foam. Siloxanes are widely used for this purpose, but they are chemically reactive. Therefore, the presence of silicon is a signature of a fermenter, but not a routine lab prep. The presence of silica in the core of the spore is another indication that it has been incorporated in the process of growth, but not simply added afterwards.

NateNotLate (3 weeks ago)
I agree with all scientific conclusions of the Analytical Chemistry article except for the one that the silicon in the spore coat excludes its artificial origin. Sandia people think about the exosporium as an absolute barrier for small molecules but it is a diffuse, loosely-bound, and permeable layer. We can think about the spores as impregnated with the silicon compound. It may be true that the silicon did not help make the spores more dispersable, but it was added on purpose.

karlsnakebit (3 weeks ago)
Sandia found some vegetative cells that were going through the sporulation process and the spore within the mother cell had this same Silicon Signature. The dry weight percentage was of the silicon was high. As found both by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in the course of its bulk analysis and by Sandia, it was a significant peak in the x-ray spectra.

FrankInSpeech (3 weeks ago)
The important part of the evidence presented was merely “that the materials of the letter with the genetic mutations could exclusively be related only to RMR-1029.” Depending on who you credit, that means from 100 to 300 people are known to have had access. The one with whom the Ames strain was associated (the “go-to” guy) would be the least likely to use the strain. Someone who had access and strong motivation but is not known to have taken it from the lab is the most likely.

DarlingMarla07 (3 weeks ago)
The FBI offers only speculation as to a possible motive. There are no facts implicating Ivins: (1) they have no evidence as to the means of drying or means of growing additional spores, (2) no explanation linking him to the Silicon Signature, (3) no evidence linking him to the Subtilus (which was genetically distinctive), and (4) the isotope ratio analysis does not support an Ivins theory.

ValerieWinwood (3 weeks ago)
An adviser to the FBI, Claire Fraser-Liggett, director of the University of Maryland Institute for Genome Sciences, recently was quoted in the press asking: What would have happened in this investigation had Dr. Hatfill not been so forceful in his response to being named a person of interest. What if he, instead of fighting back, had committed suicide because of the pressure? Would that have been the end of the investigation? She says the investigation is by no means closed.

godmothermaureen (3 weeks ago)
But he used fake screen names! He edited Wikipedia chrissakes. He must be guilty or multiple murders. Then he got enraged after his career was ruined by the accusations and the constant hounding of his friends and family! Who cares if the FBI had his lab swabbed for subtilus 7 years ago and did not disclose to the judge in application for a search that there was no match.

carolethebetterhalf (3 weeks ago)
GMU professor and former Soviet bioweapons researcher Serge Popov said: This number of plates is impossible to handle inconspicuously. It would be impossible to cover up these activities. W. Russell Byrne, who preceded Andrews as the divisions director, said nearly 1 gram per contaminated letter would have hundreds of agar plates, on which the spores are grown.

KevinTripG (3 weeks ago)
The FBI had wined and dined up to 40 scientists from mid-June to mid-July at a beachfront retreat in Naples, Florida. The scientists were paid well and worked 8 hours a day. It is not yet known whether any of those same scientists have had a role in formulating the task and charge of the National Academy of Sciences which was asked by the FBI to provide an independent check on its work.

nickcold1 (3 weeks ago)
Sandia clearly do not understand biological samples. They are metallurgists and material scientists. It’ odd that they would have been asked to determine if a bioweapon contained weaponization additives since they had no experience in this arena .They are way off base making a 100% conclusion that the location of the silicon meant the powder was not weaponized.

Dad2Grace (3 weeks ago)
Nick, Bact. Div.’s was broken down since at least ’99 (possibly a year prior to that). It was never repaired. Even aside from this, a fermenter is a difficult instrument to operate. Only a couple folks knew how to run the one at RIID — Bruce wasn’t one of them.

PHHardyBoys (3 weeks ago)
According to the patent, cells are cultivated in individual microdroplets of liquid media. These microdroplets are created by aerosolizing liquid media that has been inoculated with the cells of interest and coating the aerosolized droplets with hydrophobic particles of silicon dioxide. The individual microdroplets are stabilized within the hydrophobic solid particles. Silica dioxide is removed from the surface by repeated centrifugation. But the absorbed silicon is still dectectable.

ericw694 (3 weeks ago)
Cold1, You should study the contributions of Barbara Hatch Rosenberg (Sept. 9). I find quite intriguing Dr. Rosenberg’s reference in footnotes 21 and 22 of her analysis to U.S. Pat. App. # 09/805,464 by Charles Bailey and Ken Alibek, March 14, 2001. The patent (#6,649,408) was issued on Nov. 18, 2003. The patent addresses silica used in the culture medium to achieve greater concentration of the anthrax or biocide or other bacteria.

Mother2Alex (3 weeks ago)
The “quasi-governmental” lab that had Ames at more than one location is Battelle Memorial Institute. Is there any Battelle employee guiding the forensics who should recuse himself … who should have recused himself prior to the August 2008 briefing? The mere fact that the FBI has refused to disclose the distribution of the matching isolates — while urging that they have excluded all other sources — would add to the appearance of a conflict of interest.

EverBGreen (3 weeks ago)
My friend is head of a military lab that as part of its biodefense research makes anthrax simulants. His lab, in a controlled study, made anthrax with siliconizing solution in the slurry and without. When it was made with the siliconizing solution, the simulant showed the high spike for silicon as in the Daschle product. The product without the siliconizing solution did not. Thus, Sandia lab actually does not offer up the most pertinent data.

Dad2Grace (2 weeks ago)
The Ann Arbor researcher Ivins supplied with Ames received his PhD from Cairo Medical in ’94. He got his first degree from Cairo Medical in December 1982; Zawahiri railed against the US there. The microbiologist was in charge of the DARPA project involving nanoemulsions. The vats of the researcher’s biocidal agent looked like skim milk. The lab was a mile from the Ann Arbor charity founders DOJ prosecuted. What does the PhD say about the research with Ivins using Ames strain?

Reader wrote “Comment: Ed, did I mention that the fermenter available to Ivins had a seized motor? Source: Dr. Andrews. Whether the fermenter had a seized motor is a verifiable fact.”

The use of an anti-foaming agent in a fermenter is just one possibility. Sergei Popov seems to have latched onto it after I first brought it up. Personally, it’s not my favorite theory for the source of the Silicon. Silicon is also used as a THICKENER for nutrients. Since speed was an important factor for the culprit, one has to ask: Would bacteria grow faster in a fermenter, in shaking flasks or in solid media? I’ll ask Sergei.

Reader wrote: “You might ask if instead an antifoaming agent may point to use of a mini spraydryer (lab top).”

I can’t ask any questions which make no sense to me.

The Silicon in the attack spores was PART OF the spore coating. NO KNOWN method of applying Silicon AFTER the spore is formed would result in Silicon being PART OF the spore coat but NOT part of the exosporium or inner core. The fact that the Silicon was PART OF the spore coat says that the Silicon accumulated as the spore coat was formed – it came from the nutrients or the water. You are what you eat and drink.

I solicited Serge’s written opinion in September or so. His in-depth lucid analysis (and supplements) are uploaded on Dr. Meryl Nass’ wonderful webpage.

Nicely put Bugmaster.

BugMaster wrote: “All Ivins defense team needed for acquittal was to raise reasonable doubt.”

You need to do some research on criminal court procedures. You cannot create “reasonable doubt” by simply bringing up some screwball theory in court. NO judge would allow that. You need to first present a solid legal and/or scientific foundation for using such evidence.

If courts were to allow any screwball theory as evidence in court, there would be no convictions of anyone.

The reality is: The justice department and the FBI worked for YEARS to get microbial forensics validated for use in court in the Amerithrax case, and, even after all their work, there was still a POSSIBILITY that a judge might not allow it, and it first would have to go to the U.S. Supreme Court for validation.

Let me give you an example of what constitutes relevant admissible evidence relating to design or intent.

Two letters written to Ayman Zawahiri — one typed and an earlier handwritten one — written by a scientist named Rauf Ahmad detailed his efforts to obtain a pathogenic strain of anthrax. He attended conferences on anthrax and dangerous pathogens such as one in September 2000 at the University of Plymouth co-sponsored by DERA, the UK Defense Evaluation and Research Agency. A handwritten letter from 1999 is written on the letterhead of the oldest microbiology society in Great Britain. The 1999 documents seized in Afghanistan by US forces by Rauf describe the author’s visit to the special confidential room at the BL-3 facility where 1000s of pathogenic cultures were kept; his consultation with other scientists on some of technical problems associated with weaponizing anthrax; the bioreactor and laminar flows to be used in Al Qaeda’s anthrax lab; a conference he attended on dangerous pathogens cosponsored by UK’s Porton Down and Society for Applied Microbiology, and the need for vaccination and containment. Rauf had arranged to take a lengthy post-doc leave from his employer and was grousing that what the employer would be paying during that 12-month period was inadequate. Malaysian Yazid Sufaat, who told his wife he was working for a Taliban medical brigade, got the job instead of Rauf.

I have uploaded a scanned copy of a typed memo reporting on a lab visit, which included tour of a BioLevel 3 facility, where there were 1000s of pathogenic samples. The memo mentioned the pending paperwork relating to export of the pathogens. The documents were provided to me by the Defense Intelligence Agency (”DIA”) under the Freedom of Information Act. I also have uploaded a copy of earlier correspondence between Rauf Ahmad and Dr. Zawahiri from before the lab visit described in the typed memo. The handwritten letter was reporting on a different, earlier visit where the anthrax had been nonpathogenic. Finally, on the same linked page, there are handwritten notes about the plan to use non-governmental-organizations (NGOs), technical institutes and medical labs as cover for aspects of the work, and training requirements for the various personnel at the lab in Afghanistan.

Ayman codenamed his project to weaponize anthrax Zabadi or “Curdled Milk.” His plan to use NGOs and universities as cover for specialists to weaponize anthrax was described in a memo he wrote to Atef in early 1999. That letter also would be admissible.

Perhaps some microbiologist type or other researcher could help me find the ICAAC (of the ASM) proceedings for September 1998. (Not the journal but the proceedings). I am looking for the presentation by Michael Hayes showing that the biocidal agent they developed killed 90 percent of the virulent anthrax in the petri dish. The UofM researchers repeatedly thanked Dr. Ivins for supplying the Ames strain. Maryland-based NovaVax was working in association with the research by NanoBio researchers. I have a FOIA request pending but should be able to pull up the presentation from the proceedings. The CIA and FBI came down like a ton of bricks on the Ann Arbor-based or connected charities beginning in mid-December 2001 which allegedly were fronts for OBL or OBL’s sheiks.

Ed:

“You cannot create “reasonable doubt” by simply bringing up some screwball theory in court.”

You are absolutely correct. If the Ivins case had gone to trial, I doubt the defense would have bought up the inability of the FBI to locate a child in the Fort Detrick area who’s handwriting matched that of the letters as an argument to establish reasonable doubt.

The attorney for USAMRIID scientist Bruce Ivins represents the DOJ whistleblower Thomas Tamm (who leaked info re NSA wiretapping)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/page/1

Ed:

Silicon is never used as a thickener for solid media. We use agar. Thus the term: “Agar Plate”.

Spore material recovered from the surface of an agar plate would tend to be more clumpy, and encased in a polysacharride matrix (slime). Perhaps the antifoam / surfactant (they are the same thing) was used as a detergent, to aid in the solubilization and separation of the spores from the slime during whatever purification and concentration process was used. The silicon may also have been introduced from the purification / concentration process used, but this is pure speculation on my part, and I am not going to provide any details.

And yes, I agree with Sergei, plates would be the easiest. You can even order them pre-poured and (obviously) sterile from a number of sources.

Sergei feels that several hundred plates would be needed, I came up with a very rough estimate of about 50 or so. (Sergei has much more background information on the specifics of anthrax sporulation than I). Either way, that is not a lot of plates, I routinely pour 120 to 200 in a single sitting (although not for the growth of any kind of bacillus).

BugMaster wrote “The silicon may also have been introduced from the purification / concentration process used”

Sergei Popov keeps telling me that Bacillus anthracis grown on plates will PURIFY and CONCENTRATE ITSELF if given the time. Natural enzymes eat away all the sporulation debris.

So, all that is needed is to wash and filter the spores to get rid of the “slime” and leftover nutrients. Does that seem reasonable?

The media anthrax was filled with debris because the culprit didn’t have the time to let all the bacteria go through the entire process. That seems to be the best explanation so far. Do you disagree?

Interesting observation about enzymes eating away the debris (although they would’t eliminate all of it). Perhaps that is why some cultures while growing rapidly in the early stages of growth produce so much slime.

I don’t think diffusion of silica into the spore through the spore coating can be ruled out, as the coating has to be somewhat permeable. I don’t believe there is any mechanism where a bacillus will concentrate silica in its spores to serve a structural purpose, however.

BugMaster wrote: “Silicon is never used as a thickener for solid media. We use agar. Thus the term: “Agar Plate”.”

Here’s what I found back on Sept. 14:

“One drawback to agar is the fact that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to purify it fully of trace impurities. Thus, when agar is added to a chemically-defined liquid medium, the medium must be considered complex. If an absolutely chemically-defined solid medium is required, silicon-based solidifying agents can be employed.”

Source: http://www.jlindquist.net/generalmicro/102bactnut2.html

“A low-cost antifoam additive for agar-based culture media

“A highly effective, low-cost silicone-based antifoam emulsion is described which, at a final concentration of 100 ppm, prevents bubble formation during the preparation and dispensing of agar media.”

Source: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120153747/abstract

I can’t say that any of this applies to the attack anthrax. It just says to me that one scientist’s fiction is another scientist’s fact.

I’ll do some further research.

BugMaster wrote: “It would strike me as quite odd if the anthrax mailer was so obsessive / compulsive as to feel compelled to use “an absolutely chemically-defined solid medium”.”

Obsessive/compulsive might be a good way to describe Dr. Ivins, for all I know.

And, for all I know, he may have preferred some technique that involved silicon. Scientists often have certain practices they prefer, based upon past experiences and what they feel comfortable with.

BugMaster wrote: “As far as anti-foam to avoid bubbles on the plates, yes, it works well, but usually if you have problems with foam on the surface of your agar plates, it is due to improper technique,”

I would think that “improper technique” would be in order when you are making anthrax in secret and need to make it quickly. “Proper technique” would include recording every step. I doubt he did that.

I envision Ivins taking all sorts of shortcuts to get the job done. I don’t know that adding some form of silicon wouldn’t speed up some process. The silicon came from somewhere. The people who believe it was added to “weaponize” the spores cannot show HOW silicon inside the spore coat would help dry spores to disperse. They just SAY it would and demand that others prove it wouldn’t.

The silicon was also in the crude powder, so it evidently had nothing to do with anything that is ONLY done to pure spores.

I think a lot more progress would be made on this question if more people were talking about ways silicon can get into spores from nutrients and lab process, instead of just ASSUMING the silicon MUST have come from some highly secret and totally illegal weaponization research project.

I’m not saying you are doing that. I’m saying that this whole thing is only a debate because some people INSIST that the silicon MUST have come from some weaponization process.

The Ivins case is wrapped up, but it apparently cannot be closed until “the illegal weaponization case” can be wrapped up.

BugMaster,

According to a reporter at the August 18 roundtable news conference, there was ten times more silicon in the crude powder than in the pure powder.

According to Sandia, the spore coat of spore which were still inside their mother germs in the crude powder, contained the same silicon signature as the pure spores in the Senate Powder.

Here are a few quotes from the roundtable discussion:

DR. MICHAEL: First of all, we did find we did find that the spores contained silicon and oxygen. Our quick SEM analysis, that’s Scanning Electron Microscopy, we detected silicon and oxygen within the spores. Later when we had thin sections for high resolution microanalysis in the scanning transmission electron microscope we then could localize that silicon and oxygen to the spore coat, which is a layer on the spore that’s within the spore itself.

DR. MICHAEL: The spore coat is a layer, as I understand it, that’s within the spore and it’s not the outermost layer of the spore. So the spore had sequestered silicon and oxygen in the same location on the spore coat. We found no additives; no exogenous material on the outside of the spores. We did have the opportunity to look at weaponized material to compare it to the letter material and they were very different. And the weaponized material the additives appear on the outside of the spore. Again, in the letter materials the silicon and oxygen were co-located on the spore coat, within the spore. In fact, we found some vegetative cells that were going through the sporulation process and the spore within the mother cell had this same signature.

And here’s what a reporter (presumably Gary Matsumoto) asked at the roundtable discussion:

QUESTION: But we have information to the contrary. That there was ten times more silica in the media powder sent to New York than there was in the powder sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy.

The response was:

DR. MAJIDI: Well, the water in New Mexico has ten times more silicant in it than the water in some other states.

Here’s a link to my annotated copy of the roundtable discussion: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AnthraxRoundtableAnnotated.html

BugMaster,

And don’t drink the water in Albuquerque. It’s high in arsenic.

To use the technical Army expression with such a biohazard, it had “major pucker factor.” After the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology detected silica, former USAMRIID Deputy Commander Charles Bailey, identified as a scientist at Advanced Biosystems Inc. at George Mason University, declined to comment on the purpose of the silica. He told one reporter: “I don’t think I want to give people — terrorists — any information to help them.” The WMD head has now confirmed that the silica could have been in the culture medium.

In Fall 2001, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (”AFIP”) had detected silicon dioxide (silica) in the attack anthrax — with a characteristic big spike for the silicon. The reason for the silicon dioxide/silica claimed to have been detected by AFIP has never been explained (and it’s been nearly a half decade). No silica was observable on the SEMs images that Dr. Alibek and Dr. Matthew Meselson saw. The Daschle product was “pure spores.” Was silicon dioxide used as part of a microdroplet cell culture process used prior to drying to permit greater concentration? As explained in a later related patent, the silica could be removed from the surface of the spore through repeated centrifugaton or an air chamber.

Dr. Alibek and Dr. Bailey had filed a patent application in mid-March 2001 involving a microdroplet cell culture technique that used silicon dioxide in a method for concentrating growth of cells. The patent was granted and the application first publicly disclosed in the Spring of 2002. Weren’t the SEMS images and AFIP EDX finding both consistent with use of this process in growing the culture? It’s been suggested informally to me that perhaps the silicon analytical peak was more likely due to silanol from hydrolysis of a silane, used in siliconizing glassware. But didn’t the AFIP in fact also detect oxygen in ratios characteristic of silicon dioxide? Wasn’t the scientist, now deceased, who performed the EDX highly experienced and expert in detecting silica? Hasn’t the AFIP always stood by its report. In its report, AFIP explained: “AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica.” Perhaps the nuance that was lost — or just never publicly explained for very sound reasons — was that silica was used in the cell culture process and then removed from the spores through a process such as centrifugation.

Dr. Morozov is co-inventor along with Dr. Bailey for a patent “Cell Culture” that explains how the silicon dioxide can be removed from the surface. Perhaps it is precisely this AFIP finding of silicon dioxide (without silica on the SEMs) that is why the FBI came to suspect Al-Timimi in 2003 (rightly or wrongly, we don’t know). The FBI would have kept these scientific findings secret to protect the integrity of the confidential criminal/national security investigation. There was still a processor and mailer to catch — still a case to prove. After 9/11, intelligence collection takes precedence over arrests. As Ron Kessler explains in the new book, Terrorist Watch, many FBI officials feel that they are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. Outside observers are constantly second-guessing them about how to proceed rather than trusting that they are in the best position to balance the competing considerations of national security, intelligence gathering, the pursuit of justice, and the safeguarding of civil liberties. Above all, in disclosing the theory of access to know-how, the FBI has needed to protect the due process rights of Al-Timimi while he defended himself on other charges.

In seeking the NSA wiretaps be produced, Professor Turley described his client’s status as “anthrax weapons suspect.”

Dr. Al-Timimi’s counsel summarizes:

“we know Dr. Al-Timimi:

* was interviewed in 1994 by the FBI and Secret Service regarding his ties to the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing;

* was referenced in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”) as one of seventy individuals regarding whom the FBI is conducting full field investigations on a national basis;

* was described to his brother by the FBI within days of the 9-11 attacks as an immediate suspect in the Al Qaeda conspiracy;

* was contacted by the FBI only nine days after 9-11 and asked about the attacks and its perpetrators;

* was considered an anthrax weapons suspect;

[redacted]

* was described during his trial by FBI agent John Wyman as having “extensive ties” with the “broader al-Qaeda network”;

* was described in the indictment and superseding indictment as being associated with terrorists seeking harm to the United States;

* was a participant in dozens of international overseas calls to individuals known to have been under suspicion of Al-Qaeda ties like Al-Hawali; and

***

The conversation with [Bin Laden's sheik] Al-Hawali on September 19, 2001 was central to the indictment and raised at trial. ***

[911 imam] Anwar Al-Aulaqi goes directly to Dr. Al-Timimi’s state of mind and his role in the alleged conspiracy. The 9-11 Report indicates that Special Agent Ammerman interviewed Al-Aulaqi just before or shortly after his October 2002 visit to Dr. Al-Timimi’s home to discuss the attacks and his efforts to reach out to the U.S. government.

The letter attached as an exhibit notes that in March 2002 Al-Timimi spoke with Al-Hawali about assisting Moussaoui in his defense. Al-Hawali was Bin Laden’s sheik who was the subject of OBL’s “Declaration of War.” Moussaoui was the operative sent by Bin Laden to be part of a “second wave” who had been inquiring about cropdusters.

The Court in a recent hearing in the Al-Timimi matter notes generally: “In this age, what seems clear is not always clear.”

First, despite the claims at the press conference, there is no physical or other evidence connecting Ivins to the crime. That’s why they haven’t closed it even after 5 months.

Second, anthrax is actually at the heart of the ongoing Al-Timimi case in the classified filings — and there are a number of filings and documents that even the distinguished defense counsel (who has a very high clearance) has not been permitted to see.

The transcript of the last hearing in the Al-Timimi matter is instructive. The judge and counsel talk openly about the NSA program, about getting documents from the NSA, FBI, CIA and DOD, and even about collection by private contractors. But there is some elephant in the room the judge finds she can’t talk about even elliptically: “The problem we have here is that things are classified in such a way that it’s very difficult to speak about them and very difficult in many respects understand them.” Professor Turley notes “we’ll rely, obviously, on the classified motions, which even speaking elliptically is going to be difficult to talk about, but one of the things that I was hoping the Court would clarify is that the government should not confine the scope of its search to particular dates or agencies.”

One phone number the defense wanted any discovery for was 202-361-7081.

BugMaster,

FWIW, this discussion and the other one at http://www.bloggernews.net/118978 have made it even more certain for me that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

I just added a comment to my site at http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/ showing how an article in The Washington Post on the evening of September 28, 2001, seems to relate to the fact that, on that exact date, Dr. Ivins appears to have begun working every evening in lab B3. The article is about the sudden public demand for anthrax vaccines, and the fact that there was no supply available to the public.

Meanwhile, this discussion gave me an idea that I could only share with the FBI. It made me realize there MIGHT be a way to find a TRUE “smoking gun” pointing directly at Dr. Ivins.

I have to wait for their reaction before I can comment further.

It’s probably an idea that the FBI had years ago, checked out and found nothing of use.

Kirk:

I do not have any experience with critical micellular concentration determinations. I have seen the question regarding ingredients in inhalers posed before, however.

I doubt very much that silica-containing compounds are present in any inhaler ingredients for human therapeutic use. Silica in high concentrations in the lungs causes lung disease, I have been told by several sources over the years that high enough concentrations either inhaled or ingested are carcinogenic.

Also, remember, inhalers do not typically deliver a dry material, but rather an atomized aqueous solution.

The concentrated wet spore material Ivins produced as challenge material for the anthrax vaccines was delivered to the test animals as an liquid prep via an inhaler or nebulizer. If this material was simply dried down to prepare the attack anthrax, I am sure we would have heard about it, as that would be compelling evidence against Dr. Ivins. Also, anything he prepared as a challenge isolate would certainly not contain any vegatative cells or debris, it would have to contain only spores.

Hosenball and Isikoff, “A Germ Warfare Guru Goes Free: Why did Malaysia release Al Qaeda’s bioweapons expert?” Dec. 17, 2008
http://www.newsweek.com/id/175679

In the autumn of 2003, author Ron Suskind reports, U.S. forces in Afghanistan found a sample of the virulent anthrax at a house in Kandahar. Pulitzer Prize winning author Ron Suskind writes: “One disclosure was particularly alarming: al Qaeda had, in fact produced high-grade anthrax. Hambali, during interrogation, revealed its whereabouts in Afghanistan. The CIA soon descended on a house in Kandahar and discovered a small, extremely potent sample of the biological agent.” He continued: “The anthrax found in Kandahar was extremely virulent. What’s more, it was produced, according to the intelligence, in the months before 9/11. And it could be easily reproduced to create a quantity that could be readily weaponized.”

Suskind writes:

“Ever since the tense anthrax meeting with Cheney and Rice in December 2001, CIA and FBI had been focused on determining whether al Qaeda was involved in the anthrax letter attacks in 2001 and whether they could produce a lethal version that could be weaponized. The answer to the first was no; to the second, ‘probably not.’ Though the CIA had found remnants of a biological weapons facility — and blueprints for attempted production of anthrax — isolating a strain of virulent anthrax and reproducing it was viewed as beyond al Qaeda’s capabilities.

Suskind continued:

“No more. The anthrax found in Kandahar was extremely virulent. What’s more, it was produced, according to the intelligence, in the months before 9/11. And it could be easily reproduced to create a quantity that could be readily weaponized.”

“Alarm bells rang in Washington. Al Qaeda, indeed, had the capabilities to produce a weapon of massive destructiveness, a weapon that would create widespread fear.

The next puzzle piece was tucked, inconspicuously, inside a computer. The computer was picked up in late August in Pakistan in a sweep by ISI of apartments that were once safe houses for al Qaeda operatives. On the hard drive were pictures of a very precise, very professional casing effort in New York City. Grand Central Terminal, and its cavernous vaults, from many angles. Banks. Hotel lobbies.

The headquarters of famous Manhattan-based companies, with pictures that included everything from heating, ventilation, and air-condition systems to locks on security doors.

Many of the sites photographed represented closed spaces, each ideal, in different ways, for mubtakkar attacks or, now, an anthrax attack.”

Based on the additional information being provided in 2003, authorities also captured two mid to low level technicians — an Egyptian and a Sudanese. President Bush has explained that these mid-to low level technicians were part of a Southeastern Asian based cell that was developing an anthrax attack on the United States.

In Fall of 2006, President Bush first explained:

“KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda’s efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda’s efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent — and he identified one of the individuals as Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM’s arrest. In fact we did not know about Yazid’s role in al Qaeda’s anthrax program. Information from Yazid then helped lead to the capture of his two principal assistants in the anthrax program. Without the information provided by KSM and Yazid, we might not have uncovered this al Qaeda biological weapons program, or stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States.”

Sufaat wrapped things up in the Summer of 2001, according to Tenet, and briefed Hambali and Zawahiri over the course of a week.

Hambali was arrested in mid-August 2003 in Thailand. Hambali had fled Malaysia with his wife, Lee, not long after 9/11. His wife and her sister had studied at the school of Bashir, JI’s religious leader. He told his mother they were moving to Thailand. Hambali worked and his wife studied Arabic. Over the next two years, he also spent time in Cambodia and Myanmar. Soft-spoken and polite, the neighbors said he kept to himself in the apartment building. He reportedly underwent plastic surgery to alter his appearance.

After being shipped to Jordan, where he was harshly interrogated, Hambali eventually began providing information about Al Qaeda’s anthrax production program. He told interrogators that the terror network had what author Ron Suskind describes as an “extremely virulent” strain of anthrax before the September 11 attacks.

Meanwhile, the United States Department of Justice discovered that a USAMRIID scientist frequently edited Wikipedia, used several different screen names in posting on the internet, sometimes played Secret Santa, was capable of driving long distances for personal reasons, and got very angry after his life’s work and reputation had been destroyed. The Salafist-Jihadi who had a high security clearance and worked as the assistant for the White House Chief of Staff was effectively cleared of suspicion when Dr. Bruce Ivins was declared the “sole suspect” after he committed suicide. Ongoing judicial proceedings involve highly classified material that will never be revealed now that the Amerithrax investigation is going to be closed.

That, Rachel, is lame duck quackitude.

The ratio isotope analysis was not cited in support of the Ivins’ searches.

The FBI scientists have been able to distinguish between water isotopes ratios in the anthrax. Brian Williams reports that investigators have told NBC that the water used to make the spores came from the Northeastern United States. Researchers have been able to establish that anthrax grown in water in the Northeastern United States is distinguishable from anthrax grown in water from the Southeast and Pacific Northwest. In one published anthrax study, researchers grew Bacillus subtilis, a harmless bacteria that resembles Bacillus anthracis, using local water from five different U.S. cities. The scientists were able to distinguish those grown in various cities. The method can be used to narrow the number of possible origins of the water based on the number of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes. Interviewer Kestenbaum said: “Ehleringer is now creating a map showing how the isotope ratios of water vary anthrax was grown, it may rule some places out.”

Ehleringer and his colleagues published a March 2007 article titled “Stable isotope ratios of tap water in the contiguous United States” in “Water Resources Research.” The study was funded by the “federal government.” The raw data survey results have been embargoed by the federal government.” (The agency would usually be identified). In other water isotope ratio studies the funding agency was identified as the CIA or whatever agency it was — it varied. Perhaps this March 2007 study was funded by the Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of Investigation and was done specifically for the purpose of laying the scientific groundwork of a prosecution in Amerithrax.

Separately, a press release announced in September 2003 that University of Maryland researchers have developed a technique to help the FBI track the origins of deadly anthrax spores by identifying the medium used to grow it. The FBI asked Maryland professor Catherine Fenselau to turn her mass spectrometry lab to the forensic task of sleuthing how bacillus spores, such as anthrax, are prepared. While the Utah scientist in this study was looking at the tap water, Helen W. Kreuzer-Martin, the Maryland scientist in a study published in April 2007 titled “Stable Isotope Ratios and the Forensic Analysis of Microorganisms,” was looking at the nutrients in the culture.

By looking at the oxygen, hydrogen and deuterium geospatial distribution, authorities can more precisely identify where the water came from. For example, the deuterium map might be relied upon to eliminate an ambiguity left by the range indicated by the oxygen and hydrogen maps.

Why hasn’t the Task Force released the isotope ratio analysis? Ft. Detrick made its own de-ionized water (as do all military labs apparently). The FBI’s expert James Ehleringer advises me that “there are regional stable isotope ratios for drinking water, including many locally-bottled waters. If de-ionization is completed by a reverse-osmosis process, then the isotope ratios of the de-ionized and pre-de-ionized waters should be the same.”

Ed, what did Dr. Ivins typically use? agar vs. heme?

FBI Amerithrax technical analysis of recipe used for culture medium
http://www.analytik-news.de/Presse/2003/319.html

“There are several common types of chemicals that are used to grow anthrax spores,” said Fenselau. “One is agar, and another is a blood-based medium containing heme. People tend to develop and use their own recipe to grow the spores.

“By analyzing for traces of these media, we can say a lot about how the spores were grown. That information can help investigators connect the growth with a certain recipe.”

***
“Our theory was that if you look at what is stuck to the outside of a spore, you can find out how it became a spore.” Fenselau said. “Even when you try to clean up the spores, there are still scraps of stuff on the surface.”
***
The Maryland researchers worked with non-toxic bacillus spores, “first cousins that have a similar genome to anthrax, but don’t have the capability to synthesize the killer toxins,” said Fenselau.

The Maryland researchers worked on the analysis from August, 2002 to February, 2003, producing a method where, said Whiteaker, “the heme medium jumps out.”

The heme analysis was developed in collaboration with scientists at the FBI Academy.”

Copies of the following references relating to a selective medium for bacillus anthracis were seized in Fall 2001 in Afghanistan along with the correspondence between Zawahiri and a scientist infiltrating Western biodefense for Ayman.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5652/1898/DC1

Morris, EJ. (1955). A selective medium for Bacillus anthracis. J. Gen. Microbiol.
13:456-460.

Pearce, TW, and Powell, EO. (1951). A selective medium for Bacillus anthracis. J. Gen.
Microbiol. 5:387-390

Thorne, CB, and Belton, FC. (1957). An agar-diffusion method for titrating Bacillus
anthracis immunizing antigen and its application to a study of antigen production. J. Gen.
Microbiol. 17:505-516.

There were handwritten notes on:

Knisley, RF. (1966). Selective medium for Bacillus anthracis. J. Gen. Microbiol. 13:456.

Knisely, RF, Swaney, LM, and Friedlander, H. (1964). Selective media for the isolation
of Pasteurella pestis. J. Bacteriol. 88:491-496.

Knisely wrote

: J Bacteriol. 1965 Feb;89:543-4.
EFFECT OF HEMATIN ON THE RECOVERY OF BACILLUS ANTHRACIS AND RELATED ORGANISMS.

Now I know Sufaat had a blood testing company — and in August 2001 was looking for capital from a charity called WAFA related to starting a similar venture in Afghanistan.

But what culture medium did Sufaat use?

What culture medium did Ivins use?

What culture medium did other labs that had access to Ames use?

The ASM obituary for Dr. Ivins describes his “R medium for growing Bacillus anthracis” as “well-known.”

http://www.asm.org/microbe/index.asp?bid=61457

Also has anybody hear of any test results for the anthrax that was found at the University at Storrs Ct?

Did the FBI even check to see that it was cows blood and not from a guinea pig?

Reader wrote: “Why wasn’t this science, if it supported Dr. Ivins’ guilt, used in support of the August 2008 searches?”

The 2008 searches were of Ivins’ home and car and various web locations.

They probably didn’t need search warrants to go into Ft. Detrick labs. It’s a federal facility.

If the analysis of the culture medium supported the search of his home, one would expect it to be included in the warrant relating to the search of his home (which included mention of agar plates).

They might have alleged that he is known to have used a culture medium with heme such as was used by the Amerithrax processor — rather than, say, mentioning that he edited Wikipedia.

Reader,

Okay. I stand corrected. You asked about searches done in 2008, so I just checked those search warrants. They DID use search warrants in 2007 to go into his office, lab and locker.

So, back to your question:
“Why wasn’t this science, if it supported Dr. Ivins’ guilt, used in support of the August 2008 searches?”

I don’t know. Because it wasn’t needed?

Reader wrote: “How likely is it that a single scientist working alone could complete the postulated actions? What would be the required time and equipment needed?”

At the roundtable discussion on August 18, this exchange took place:

——————-
QUESTION: Can you tell me in your preparations how long it took you to make a spore like this as of the SI enhancer or whatever — the drying, et cetera? How long did that take?

DR. BURANS: Basically, it would take somewhere between three and seven days.

QUESTION: That’s all? How many people did it take to do that to that; to –

DR. BURANS: One person can perform the operation.

Source: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AnthraxRoundtableAnnotated.html#time
—————–

Assuming that the FBI and all the scientist working with the FBI are all incompetent or were all involved in some massive conspiracy is NOT a “reasonable inference.”

Assuming that because you think something SHOULD have been in a search warrant that wasn’t in the search warrant is a “reasonable inference” that it would have proved Dr. Ivins innocent is just a different way of claiming that everyone at the FBI is either incompetent or involved in some massive conspiracy. It is NOT a “reasonable inference.”

I was discussing this subject with someone at the FBI yesterday. The fact is: There are no published scientific studies which would demonstrate and explain EXACTLY how and how much silicon is deposited inside spores from media thickeners, from anti-foaming agents, from lab glassware, from different water sources, from different types of media, etc.

So, it’s not a matter of something being “exculpatory of Dr. Ivins.” It’s a matter of there being no forensic basis for such evidence to prove guilt OR innocence.

Reader wrote: “You have accused one of Mrs. Ivins’ daycare wards of writing the anthrax letters.”

Not true. I just say the facts show that a child of about six wrote the anthrax letters. The facts also say that Mrs. Ivins ran a daycare center. But I’ve stated that Ivins also played piano at some kind of church school and did other things with kids. There are no facts which say that the child MUST have been in the daycare center.

Reader wrote: “The issue I’ve been asking you about is the culture medium.”

You endlessly ask irrelevant questions and questions that I cannot possibly answer. This is just another one.

If I somehow managed to find out what kind of medium Dr. Ivins NORMALLY used, that wouldn’t mean that he used that medium for the attack anthrax. If he thought there was any possibility that his process would leave specific traces in the anthrax, he’d have used a different process for the attack anthrax.

Plus, we don’t know the silicon came from the media. The traces of silicon found in other spores came from the water. Still other traces of silicon in other spores were assumed to be from lab equipment.

So, it is pointless to spend time and effort trying to find evidence that the FBI and others have ALREADY spent countless hours gathering. It’s not only pointless, it’s brainless.

Unlike you, the anthrax attacks aren’t my life’s mission. It’s just one hobby among several. I spend more time watching movies than I do on the anthrax attacks.

By all means, there is no need for you to read the FBI funded study on detecting heme in culture medium. The post is only directed to those interested in the microbial forensics relating to Amerithrax or the source of the silicon signature (and its implications).

The DARPA-funded invention in 2001 invented by the learned scientists in Al-Timimi’s suite related to the cultivation and growth of cells in a plurality of individual microdroplets of liquid media which are interspersed within a matrix of hydrophobic silicon dioxide microparticles. The patent was called “Cell Culture.” It related to using silicon dioxide to concentrate anthrax. The FBI WMD head’s remark was on point. Both the Sandia work and his remark can and should be credited. As explained by the FBI WMD head at the science briefing, this method is indicated. He explained that the silica could have been in the culture medium.

Now turning to the implications of the forensic finding — known by the FBI for many years — we find a patent INVENTED BY AL-TIMIMI’S COLLEAGUES AND SUITEMATES relating to a cell culture method comprising the steps of: introducing liquid media inoculated with cells to be cultured into a vessel; converting the inoculated liquid media into individual microdroplets; introducing a sufficient quantity of hydrophobic particles OF SILICON DIOXIDE in the form of a dry powder into the vessel to coat the individual microdroplets; and growing the cells within the individual microdroplets.

Typically, growing cells are cultured either in liquid media (submerged cultivation) or on the surface of a solid nutrient (surface cultivation).

The object of the DARPA-funded “Cell Culture” invention was to provide for the growth of a microbe or cell culture with a hybrid method that both combines the beneficial features of submerged and surface cultivation while eliminating some of the negative features inherent in both procedures.

One object of the invention was to provide a method for cell culture that eliminates the need to concentrate organisms following cell growth.

Another object of the invention to provide a method and apparatus for cell culture with substantially enhanced simplicity of operation and portability.

According to the invention, cells are cultivated in a plurality of individual microdroplets of liquid media. These microdroplets are created by aerosolizing liquid media that has been inoculated with the cells of interest and coating the aerosolized droplets with hydrophobic particles of solid material, such as silicon dioxide. The individual microdroplets are stabilized within the hydrophobic solid particles, thereby providing a large number of small cell culture reactors. The coated microdroplets each provide a sterile environment for the individual microdroplets contained within the culture.

The apparatus and methods of the present invention provide for concentrated growth of cells in minimal amounts of liquid medium, without the need for extensive further concentration of cells or their metabolic products.

The media may be introduced through means of a spray nozzle. In addition, it is only required that the hydrophobic particles be introduced into the coating vessel at a time such that they are able to homogeneously mix with the microdroplets of liquid media.

In one embodiment of the invention, the inoculated media is converted into microdroplets prior to introduction into the coating vessel. Such a process is enabled by introducing the inoculated media via a spray nozzle that dispenses individual microdroplets into the vessel. It is not essential to the practice of the invention that the microdroplets be created prior to the introduction of the droplets into the coating vessel. Thus, in yet another embodiment, the microdroplets are created after the inoculated liquid media is introduced into the coating vessel. Ferromagnetic particles are sterilized and introduced into a non-magnetic mixing/coating vessel. Electromagnetic inductors are mounted in parallel on either side of the coating vessel. Activation of the electromagnetic inductors causes an electromagnetic field to exist within the vessel. Oscillations of this electromagnetic field are induced by the inductors. The ferromagnetic particles orient along and follow the field lines of the electromagnetic field and follow the oscillations of the field. The rapid motion of the field and particles vigorously mixes the hydrophobic particles and liquid media, inducing the formation of droplets.

The size of the microdroplets will vary, with an optimum size for the cultivation of microorganisms, for example, usually being between 0.5 and 2.0 mm in diameter.

The size of individual microdroplets can be regulated by adjusting such factors as the size of the nozzle or portal delivering the liquid or aerosolized media, the volume of the vessel, the speed at which the various components are added, the power and frequency of electromagnetic induction (in one embodiment of the invention), and the type of hydrophobic particle utilized, for example.

In one particular embodiment of the invention, the vessel is contained in a refrigerated environment to prevent the rapid random motion of the electromagnetic process from destroying the inoculated microdroplets with excessive heat.

Once the microdroplets of inoculated media have formed, the hydrophobic particles can then intercalate between and around individual microdroplets, creating a semi-liquid slurry comprising a matrix of interspersed microdroplets of inoculated culture and hydrophobic particles. In one embodiment of the invention, the particles are pumped into the coating vessel while the ferromagnetic particles and liquid media are agitated, resulting in the simultaneous agitation and mixing of the hydrophobic particles along with the microdroplets. In another embodiment, the hydrophobic particles are introduced through a second opening positioned such that the particles encounter the aerosolized microdroplets of inoculated media as the droplets enter the vessel.

In a particularly preferred embodiment, the silicon dioxide particles are Aerosil 300, produced by Brenntag N.V. of Belgium. In another preferred embodiment, the silicon dioxide particles are selected from the group comprising the AEROSIL series of powders manufactured by the Degussa-hüls Corporation (i.e., AEROSIL R 104, AEROSIL R 106, AEROSIL R 202, AEROSIL R 805, AEROSIL R 812, AEROSIL R812.S, AEROSIL R 972, AEROSIL R 974, and AEROSIL R.8200). Other silicon dioxide particles are contemplated and within the scope of the invention. The choice of silicon dioxide particles will vary depending on the organism to be cultured and the amount of aeration required. In general, silicon dioxide particles that are useful in the practice of the present invention will be hydrophobic and have a surface area between 50 and 380 meters 2 per gram of weight.

It is contemplated within the practice of the invention that the percent composition of coating particles to inoculated medium will vary, depending on, but not limited to, such factors as the cell type, the size of the individual microdroplets, and the desired final density and phase of growth that is the objective of the particular culture. In one embodiment of the invention that the ratio of individual coating particles to cultured inoculum may be within a range of 99:1 and 1:99. In one preferred embodiment of the invention.

Once the microdroplets are formed and coated, they are evacuated from the coating vessel through narrow slotted openings at the bottom of the vessel. In one particular preferred embodiment, the slotted openings will be between 1.5-2.0 mm wide but may vary depending on the size of the microdroplets formed.

In most cases, the space between the coated microdroplets provides adequate aeration of the cell culture. It is a particularly useful and beneficial feature of the present invention that the space which exists between individual coated microdroplets provides an optimum environment for the concentrated growth of cell cultures. The adequate aeration provided with the present invention allows the growing cultures to make optimal use of the liquid media contained within each microdroplet.

As can readily be appreciated by one skilled in the art, it will not always be necessary or preferable to separate the hydrophobic particles away from the liquid cell culture following cell growth. For example, since silicon dioxide is frequently utilized in soil treatment, there is no need to remove the silicon dioxide from cell cultures that are grown for the purposes of soil treatment.

It is a particularly beneficial feature of a preferred embodiment of the present invention that the enhanced aeration of cultured cells, combined with the efficient removal of metabolites, allow for microbial cultures to divide to a density that consumes all of the available liquid present in a microdroplet. Thus, in a preferred embodiment of the invention there is no need to (1) concentrate cultures or (2) remove the hydrophobic particles from the microdroplet culture. When all of the liquid media is consumed, the hydrophobic particles disassociate from the cell cultures, allowing the cells to interact directly with the surrounding environment.

Alternatively, once cell growth is complete, the liquid media can be isolated away from the hydrophobic particles through a simple centrifugation step. As can readily be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the time and force of centrifugation will vary depending on the organism and hydrophobic particle employed in the process. The silicon dioxide particles can be sterilized and re-used in another microdroplet cultivation process.

As for expert opinions addressing the patent, see the opinion by the learned Dr. Rosenberg and the very well-informed Dr. Popov. Dr. Popov has worked closely with both co-inventors over the years, and continues to work closely with the co-inventor who was the former deputy USAMRIID head.

What culture medium did they typically use at USAMRIID?

What culture medium did they typically use at the GMU Center for Biodefense?

What culture medium did they typically use at the University of Michigan in connection with the work using Ames supplied by Dr. Bruce Ivins?

Bugmaster,

What do you think of the Silicon Signature being due to use of an antifoaming agent:

(a) In connection with a fermenter,

(b) or alternatively in connection with a Bucchi mini-spraydryer.

Serge P. ventures (a) and does not know about (b). He says he has persuaded BHR of (a) as the most likely explanation.

Dr. Alibek had once thought a mini-spraydryer was used which is why I asked and in googling I see discussion of use of anti-foaming agent. The Bucchi trade rep says a charge is unavoidable because of the speed out of the nozzle.

BTW, the motor of the RIID fermenter was seized, and was not something Dr. Ivins used. (Source: Dr. Andrews). Thus, Serge’s argument is exculpatory of Dr. Ivins.

I like being guided Occam’s Razor and appreciate your input. Although it goes beyond microbial forensics, let me describe Al-Timimi’s connection to AQ WMD committee member Mohammed Abdel-Rahman.

While Al-Timimi was recruiting for the Taliban, he was also connected to one of the principals on Al Qaeda’s WMD Committee, Mohammed Abdel-Rahman. The CIA and FBI have known this for years but have kept it secret as part of their ongoing confidential national security and criminal investigation.

Mohammed Abdel-Rahman spoke at the first conference of the Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”) in 1993 and was noted to be from Afghanistan. Mohammed Abdelrahman spoke alongside Ali Al-Timimi again, for example, in 1996 in Toronto and again that December in Chicago at the annual conference. The December conference was held after blind sheik Abdel-Rahman was indicted.

OBL considered him like a son. Mohammed was on the three member WMD committee with Midhat Mursi. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman ran a training camp that was part of the larger complex of several camps. Mohammed has been captured and his whereabouts are unknown.

Occam’s Razor counsels that we consider as a prime suspect the man 15 feet from the leading anthrax scientist in the world, 15 feet from the deputy USAMRIID head (who, btw, a prolific Ames researcher) who is coordinating and in communication with the 911 imam and Bin Laden’s sheik, and the head of the Al Qaeda WMD Committee.

Like Dr. Alibek says, it ain’t rocket science.

The nanobiotechnology researchers funded by DARPA who thanked Ivins for supplying Ames have continued to use sheep blood agar, for example, in testing Nanoemulsion Vaccines (intranasal delivery). “Nasal toxicity testing in rats was performed by gavaging up to 8 mL per kg of 25% nanoemulsion. The rats did not lose weight or show signs of toxicity either clinically or histopathologically. There were no observed changes in the gut bacterial flora as a result of nasal administration of the emulsions.
In a particular embodiment, Bacillus cereus was passed three times on blood agar (TSA with 5% sheep blood, REMEL).”
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080254066

BugMaster, do you know of any test results from the anthrax found at the University at Storrs?

I have heard all of the stories and news releases on it, but have never heard of any test results confirming the statements made by the FBI.

BugMaster:

One more question.

There is one reduction agent I am interested in. Called Tris Carboxyethyl Phosphine (or TCEP). When I try to find the ingredients they use equations that are above my level of understanding on the subject.

The product information can be found at:

http://www.piercenet.com/files/0647dh4.pdf

Would you take a look and let me know if that has silica in it.

Thank You!!!
Kirk

The attack anthrax was contaiminated with a distinctive B. subtilus strain. No matching subtilis was found in swabbing of the USAMRIID labs were Dr. Ivins worked. This tends to be exculpatory.

Many researchers doing biodefense work for DARPA under the Unconventional Pathogen ountermeasures Program in 2001 used B. subtilis spores as a surrogate — to include the researchers who thanked Ivins for supplying virulent Ames.

See, e.g., Letters in Applied Microbiology, Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 86-90. Jan. 21, 2002
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118950033/HTMLSTART

Did Dr. Ames use B. subtilis spores in 2001 at USAMRIID?

The affidavit in support of a search warrant explained:

“Both of the anthrax spore powders recovered from the Post and Brokaw letters contain low levels of a bacterial contaminant identified as a strain of Bacillus subtilis. The Bacillus subtilis contaminant has not been detected in the anthrax spore powders recovered from the envelopes mailed to either Senator Leahy or Senator Daschle. Bacillus subtillus is a non-pathogenic bacterium found ubiquitously in the environment. However, genomic DNA sequencing of the specific isolate of Bacillus subtilus discovered within the Post and Brokaw powders reveals that it is genetically distinct from other known isolates of Bacillus subtilis. Analysis of the Bacillus subtilis from the Post and Brokaw envelopes revealed that these two isolates are identical.

Phenotypic and genotypic analyses demonstrate that the RMR-1029 does not have the Bacillus subtilis contaminant found in the evidentiary spore powders, which suggests that the anthrax used in the letter attacks was grown from the material contained in RMR-1029 and not taken directly from the flask and placed in the envelopes. Since RMR-1029 is the genetic parent to the evidentiary spore powders, and it is not known how the Bacillus subtilis contaminant came to be in the Post and Brokaw spore powders, the contaminant must have been introduced during the production of the Post and Brokaw spores. Taken together, the postmark dates, the Silicon signature, the Bacillus subtilis contaminant, the phenotypic, and the genotypic comparisons, it can be concluded that, on at least two separate occasions, a sample of RMR-1029 was used to grow spores, dried to a powder, packaged in an envelope with a threat letter, and mailed to the victims.”

“Why wasn’t this unique B. subtilis strain looked for in Bruce’s lab — or any other lab in the BSL-3 suite?” Ivins’ former boss Andrews. “It may, in fact, serve as a marker for where those preparations were really made.”

BugMaster,

Let me ask your opinion on another hypothesis relating to silicon signature.

One of the Al Qaeda instruction manuals advised putting silicone sealant on the inside of the letter so as to avoid killing the postman. (Thus, the modus operandi of the EIJ/VOC regarding sending poisonous letters, established by the documentary evidence, is to take steps to avoid killing the postman.) Under Occam’s Razor, given the natural tendency of silicon to be absorbed, might the silicon have been caused by silicone sealant on the interior of the envelope? (Use of silicone sealant would be consistent with the use of tape along the edges).

I have some thoughts on the nature of the silicon signature, as well as the opinions of Dr. Andrews and Dr. Popov.

I haven’t come across any info as to the nature of the reported anthrax found at Storrs (not familiar with the incident). Should have more time to post later in the day. For now, I’m going out to play in the snow.

BugMaster wrote: “Not sure what to make of your talk-like-a-pirate response, but no, I do not think the silicon / silicone / silica found in the anthrax letter was the result of someone trying to apply a formula or system used in a FDA-approved (no silicon) or experimental drug delivery system. In otherwords, I agree with you.”

It wasn’t a talk-like-a-pirate response. It was Charlie Brown’s cry of total frustration.

You said “I doubt very much that silica-containing compounds are present in any inhaler ingredients for human therapeutic use.

“Also, remember, inhalers do not typically deliver a dry material, but rather an atomized aqueous solution.”

And I have been arguing for over six years with people who refer to silica-containing compounds that ARE present in inhaler ingredients for human theraputic use. And those inhalers use DRY material.

So, we agree that that method was NOT used to make the attack anthrax, but your argument was based upon an INCORRECT belief that silica is not used in inhalers. It is. Therefore, to the people arguing about silica in the attack anthrax, your agreement would be proof that you don’t know the facts.

It’s frustrating when someone agrees with me because they DON’T know the facts. I’d prefer that they agree with me because we both agree with the facts.

BugMaster wrote: “The point is, Ed, WHAT MAKES A CHILD’S HANDWRITING CHILDLIKE? A child is having to deliberate on the process, concentrating on forming every loop, crossing the t’s just so, forming each letter in a correct and consistent fashion.”

If you would even bother to look at the facts, you would see that is EXACTLY what the writer was doing. Just look at these examples:

The Brokaw letter. Kindergarten style: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/R-01.jpg

The Brokaw envelope. First grade style: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/R-02.jpg

You can see how the writer wrote R’s as they write in kindergarten where they merely copy what is on a blackboard. He draws CIRCLES for the top of the R. He spent a YEAR writing that way.

But in first grade they teach you to the correct way to write characters like the letter R. You draw an R with an ARC, not a circle. That’s what he did, but you can see he still has a tendency to want to draw a circle the way he used to do it.

The anthrax letters where mailed around the time when school was starting.

In kindergarten you write on blank sheets of paper, and you write large because hand/eye coordination is less well developed.

In first grade, you write on lined paper, and you are taught to write SMALLER.

The writing on the media letters is TWICE the size of the writing on the senate letters. The writer was learning to write smaller.

What is your theory for why the writing on the senate letters is HALF the size of the writing on the media letters? Just a tactic to confuse people?

And another thing you learn in first grade that you didn’t learn in kindergarten, is punctuation. Why is there punctuation on the senate letters but NOT on the media letters? Just another tactic to confuse people?

In first grade, before they teach you to write in upper and lower case, they teach you to write in the modified Uncial style of writing, where you write in all capitals but write the first letters of a sentence and certain nouns LARGER than the other letters. That is the way the letters were written.

The writer, however, is inconsistent when capitalizing when writing larger letters, like he’s unsure when to do it and when not to do it. The word “NOW” is not a proper noun, nor is “TO,” yet they are capitalized in the media letter. In the senate letter, the writer capitalizes “YOU” and possibly another “TO.”

When the writer drew large O’s, he did them perfectly with indications of hesitation where the circle comes together. But, when the writer drew small letter o’s, he would draw a complete circle and then continue on for another quarter circle. What adult does that? That indicates a child’s lack of hand/eye coordination.

You can dismiss the idea that a child wrote the letter simply because your mind is totally closed to the idea, but that’s what the facts say. And I’ve just listed a few of those facts.

BugMaster,

FYI: The idea that the handwriting on the letters is that of a first grader is NOT my idea. I initally dismissed it they same way you do. But unlike you, I collected and looked at the facts. They soon began to add up to the point were it now seems a near certainty that a child wrote the letters.

The idea first came from Brother Jonathan: http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj110201.html

Check out the comments at the bottom of that page.

BugMaster,

You said that you have some thoughts on the nature of the silicon signature, as well as the opinions of Dr. Andrews and Dr. Popov.

I would really like to hear them, if you feel you can share them.

Thank You
Kirk

Thank You BugMaster!!

Dr. Andrews comments provide quite a bit of information regarding the process Ivins used to produce his vaccine challenge material. Andrews, as Ivin’s supervisor from 2000 to 2003, speaks with quite a bit of authority here.

He states that for 10 envelopes, 100 preparations would be required. So if we take the often reported 1 gram of material per envelope (the statement, “over 1 gram of material” was reported repeatedly in the case of the Leahy mailing), that means that a standard preparation in Ivin’s lab was approx. 100 mg. Note this is 100 mg of final PURIFIED material.

Typical yields for non-purified bacillus spores from a non-anthrax bacilli in a fermentor range from 1 to 3 grams / liter. This is the yield for sporulated material that is just centrifuged and dried (no purification). So let’s assume a yield for the Fort Detrick RAW material produced in a shake flask is ABOUT 1 gram / liter. Yields in liquid tend to be a bit less in a shake flask than in a fermentor, but this is not always the case. The point here is not to pick an exact value, but rather, come up with a reasonable estimate to be able to better understand the scale of the process (how much material actually has to be produced, and how it can be purified).

The final prep is 100 mg of highly PURIFIED spores. The higher the purification, the lower the yield. Let’s assume a yield of 20% of the raw material. This may be a bit low, it more likely would be on the order of 30 or 40%, but it is very unlikely the final yield would be much higher than that.

That means we need 500 mg of raw material. Shake flasks are typically run at 20% volume. The volume needs to be that low for adequate aeration and mixing. The largest shake flasks I have ever seen used are 2 liter, but 125, 250, and 500 mls is more typical. If we round that up to 6 500 ml flasks containing 100 mls each, you have close to the number that would fit in a typical shaker. You could probably pack a few more in, but not many.

Andrews said: “Day 1 to prepare the materials and start seed cultures”. This would involve transferring a small amount of material from the 1029 flask into a small volume of media in a small shake flask. Preparing the materials would mean preparing the media for your 6 production flasks and sterilizing them. The next day, the seed flask would be grown up, several mls from it would be inoculated into each of the 6 (or so) shake flasks.

The limiting factor here both in time and capacity is the centrifugation and purification steps. Obtaining a purified spore preparation (which has been reported by the FBI as “Ivin’s signature”) is both a science and an art. Contrary to what Ed has reported on his website, there is more to it in this case than “just a few filtration and centrifugation steps.”

Filtration would not be used. There would be very little undesirable material filtered out, and quite a bit of loss of the desired spores (they would get stuck in the filtration media along with the slime). There are volume limitations. Having the equipment that can handle a volume of 500 or 600 mls of raw material is one thing (10 to 12 50 ml centrifuge tubes could be used), having the equipment and time to handle 10 times (500 ml to 1 liter centrifuge bottles) as much is quite another. There are multiple centrifugation / wash steps involved, and they must be performed with precision. The protocols developed to handle the volume associated with what Andrews describes and a single preparation (centrifuge time, concentration of raw starting material, etc) would be of very little use at a larger scale. (the entire process would have to be re-developed).

The use of a fermentor to be able to produce more material at once time would gain nothing. The question regarding the silicon signature is would antifoam still be used? Normally, it is used in a fermentor to prevent a build-up of foam that would block the fermentor’s exhaust filter (thus, no more air could be introduced to meet the culture’s oxygen demand). This is not a concern with shake flasks. However, quite a bit of foam usually does form on the liquid surface when using shake flasks. The foam can reduce the amount of oxygen that will diffuse into the liquid, so antifoam MIGHT have been added to address this issue. Another possibility previously mentioned is that a silicone-containing surfactant was used in the purification process.

The question is, that if this is the case, why can’t the silicon signature be duplicated? The FBI certainly had access to all of Ivin’s protocols, could have obtained samples of the possible antifoam agents and media components used, and produced material by using his procedure. They could even have tried water from Phoenix!

The FBI can’t just write the silicon signature off as “natural variation” If that is the case, they would have obtained material with characteristics within that “natural variation.” In otherwords, duplicated the signature!

The silicon signature is the fingerprint of the individual that prepared the material used on the letters. And I do not believe individual was Bruce Ivins.

I’ve been going over some of Dr. Popov’s comments on this and other websites, and what he says tends to describe an entirely different procedure. I will give this some more thought, and post later.

Ed:

“They just had Dugway and others prepare anthrax spores in a variety of ways so that tests could be done to see if various scientific instruments could pinpoint specific differences in the results.”

Dugway is administered by the “quasi-governmental agency” Battelle. Not exactly an impartial source.

“The “silicon signature” proved to be a trail that went nowhere. So, the FBI didn’t use it in their case against Dr. Ivins. They didn’t need it.”

Particulary after Ivins committed suicide.

“you also have to ask yourself if a guy working in Ft. Detrick would make spores using the same process he normally used”

We know the process wasn’t exactly the same. The end result was dried spores. Two possible reasons the initial part of the process (production of the wet spore material that was later dried down) may not be that normally used by Ivins:

As you mentioned, Ivins altered the process to cover his tracks.

And another possiblity: IT WASN’T BRUCE IVINS!

“Too much is being made of the silicon in the spores. Conspiracy theorists claimed it was proof of “weaponization.” It was NOT”

I agree. I do not believe in anyway whatsoever that the silicon is proof of “weaponization”.

“If the FBI finds a method that can repeatedly duplicate the amount of silicon exactly, how can they prove that is the method that Ivins used?”

They may not be able to. But if a method is found that can actually duplicate the amount of silicon, it may provide some clues as to who actually performed it.

“The silicon issue could be a dead end. Why pursue dead ends if there is no way they can prove anything?”

If this case is closed, how come it isn’t closed? And is the silicon issue a dead end if additional information comes forward that indicates otherwise?

BugMaster Just want to let you know that your help in explaining this area is very much appreciated.

I really apprecate your thoughts on the subject alot of what is said is above my level of understanding and your explantions make so I can understand it.

Survey Reports Scientists ‘Suspicious’ Of FBI
by David Kestenbaum

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98577473

I’ve always urged that we should hug an FBI agent whenever possible. They do important work (whether it is national security, public corruption or public safety).

In terms of outreach, I admire the pro-active networking effort by the FBI to wine and dine up to 40 scientists for 30 days at a beachfront resort in Naples, Florida in connection with WMD.

But if I find that any scientist paid in mid-June to -mid-July participated in framing a restrictive approach to the tasks and charge of the National Academy of Scientists in its independent review — then the FBI and those scientists are going to have to defend the participation under whatever conflict of interest standards that apply.

Of course, if Congressman Holt’s quite reasonable broader approach is adopted, then by all means, the scientists can do the work in their swimming trunks and remain tanned, rested and ready.

KRolson:

Are there any available images of the hoax Miller letter?

Bug Master,

The text of the letter to Judith Miller from St. Petersburg threatened President Bush and the Sears Tower.

(Dr. Al-Timimi’s associate was convicted of a plot to kill President Bush and KSM has confessed to plotting against the Sears Tower.)

It was not signed. I believe it was postmarked October 5 and opened October 12.

A letter postmarked from St. Petersburg postmarked September 20 read: “The unthinkable. See what happens next.”

Like the letters containing virulent anthrax from Trenton, they had no return address.

It was after the “extremely virulent” anthrax was found in Kandahar that, a few days before Christmas 2003, the country returned to “orange” temporarily and brought in the New Year under high alert. Then, in late February 2004, Zawahiri promised another attack on the homeland was coming. This, perhaps overblown (perhaps not) threat was embodied in the dimunitive Adnan G. El-Shukrijumah aka Jafar the Pilot.

Adnan G. El-Shukrijumah was born on August 4, 1975, in Medina, Saudi Arabia to a 16-year-old mother and a 44-year-old Islamic scholar who had headed a mosque in Brooklyn. El-Shukrijumah’s father once translated for the blind sheik. His father, Gilshair, testified as a character witness at a trial of defendants charged with conspiring to blow up New York City landmarks in 1995. He appeared on behalf of Clement Hampton El, who was convicted of plotting to blow up the Holland tunnel and the United Nations in the case presided over by Judge Mukasey. Jafar the Pilot’s father was the mentor of Bilal Philips who in turn was the mentor of GWU microbiology grad student of Ali Timimi. Adnan’s father had been sent to the Caribbean country of Trinidad and Tobago by the Saudi government as an Islamic missionary. The family lived there until 1983. When his father was transferred to New York City to lead a Brooklyn mosque, the family returned to Saudi Arabia.

Brooklyn had long been important to the infrastructure in the US for obtaining jihadi recruits. Established in the mid-1980s by Egyptian Mustafa Rahman as a joint venture with Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Al-Kifah (or Struggle) Refugee Center in New York originally recruited and raised funds for Mujahedeen headed for Afghanistan. In Peshawar, the organization was headed by Mohammed Islambouli, the brother of Anwar Sadat’s assissin. In 1993, the group announced it was switching its operations to Bosnia. These “mujahideen” recruitment centers spread throughout the USA, to places such as Portland, Oregon, which opened a branch in October 1994 — and to Boston where Aafia Siddiqui attended Brandeis and MIT. In the mid-1990s, KSM and Islambouli were given safe haven in Doha, Qatar by the religious minister there. Mohammed Islambouli and his plan to attack using the aircraft and other means was the subject of a December 4, 1998 Presidential Daily Brief that the CIA provided President Clinton. The group’s intent to use anthrax was described in a February 2001 PDB after the announcement of a bail hearing of the EIJ #2. (The bail was denied on October 5 and then the “real stuff” was immediately sent).

In 1995, after Adnan had graduated from high school, his father retired from his missionary job as Imam in Brooklyn and the family to Florida, moving the family to Miramar in 1996. The modest retirement home was next door to a small mosque at which the father would preach. For the next two years, Adnan studied computer engineering at Broward Community College, though he did not get a degree. Imam at the mosque next door to his house, Adnan’s Dad often taught at other mosques. One of the mosques he and Adnan would frequent was in Fort Lauderdale — the one across from Franklin Park. It was there that Adnan met Jose Padilla, the ”enemy combatant” charged in connection with a plot to explode a radioactive bomb in the United States and arrested en route to meet Adham Hassoun, another worshiper at the mosque who was part of a “Florida cell” that was prosecuted and convicted. Another defendant convicted had been an adjunct professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.

The former imam of that mosque, Awad, confirms El-Shukrijumah and Padilla knew each other. Adnan’s father counseled Padilla’s wife when he left to go to Egypt and she sought a divorce. (When the Padillas were divorced in 2001 Jose Padilla gave an address in Egypt.)

Adnan was responsible at a young age, with his father absent in Brooklyn. The family acknowledges that Adnan had a quick temper. In 1999, Adnan held garage sales and car washes to raise money for Muslim refugees of the war in Bosnia. The fundraising supported Global Relief Fund, which the government has alleged funded terrorist organizations. In May 2001, he went to Saudi Arabia via Trinidad and Panama to sell Islamic goods and trinkets. He didn’t like the permissiveness of American society — he objected to scantily clad women. He wanted to get married. He allegedly was at one or more meetings in the Summer of 2001 in Pakistan at which KSM and Sufaat were present. After 9/11, the FBI began visiting the family home. His mother told him to stay away and not come home. ”I tell him we don’t want to know where he is.” She said the last she knew he was teaching English in Morocco and had gotten married.

Adnan El Shukrijumah holds a green card but did not become a U.S. citizen. He is still a citizen of Guyana. Saudi Arabia is quite emphatic that he is not a citizen of Saudi Arabia. Officials say he uses a half-dozen aliases and passports, from such countries as Canada, Trinidad and Saudi Arabia.

Not only is he an alleged associate of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed but of Ramzi Binalshibh, another key 9/11 plotter. George Tenet, former CIA Director, noted that Ramzi Yousef had a CBRN role. Apparently, Adnan Shukrijumah accompanied Mohammed Atta and another hijacker in visiting an INS office in Miami in May 2001. The INS employee is 75% sure it was him, having commented to a colleague at the time at how good looking the fellow was.

The Special Branch Trinidad & Tobago Police said they have records that El Shukrijumah was in Trinidad in 2001 and 2002 into 2003. The Express was told: “We have records on him coming and leaving including the fact that he left on a BWIA flight for London in 2001 but on the last occasion he was here we only have records on him coming to Trinidad but none of him leaving.” El Shukrijumah has been associated with the Darul-Uloom Institute, an Islamic institute in Central Trinidad. Part of the problem is that El Shukrijumah has several passports including a Trinidad and Tobago passport and has in the past used several aliases to escape law enforcement agencies. He is known to have Guyanese links. The US authorities also report that he may have been in Canada in 2002 looking for nuclear material for a “dirty bomb.”

US officials found a letter advising Egyptian El-Maati that he had been granted Canadian citizenship and a patient’s card from Toronto General Hospital. His brother, Ahmad Abu-Elmaati, in a written confession, that he now has recanted, described a plan to drive a truck bomb into the Parliament buildings in Ottawa.

In late May 2004, Jafar allegedly was spotted a Tegucigalpa Internet cafe. According to Honduras security official, he made phone calls to France and the United States. The witness, the owner of the cafe, says he was with two other men, “all badly dressed and bearded,” who spoke English and French. Security Minister Oscar Alvarez claimed Shukrijumah was involved in a plot to disrupt shipping in the Panama Canal.

People can look at the uploaded jpeg of the Troxler letter and the Amerithrax letters and judge for themselves whether they were by the same writer.

The FBI has aggressively pursued the “Florida cell” which it suspects of providing logistical support related to a possible WMD attack on the United States. The so-called “Florida cell” had connections to the so-called “Canadian cell.”

On the return address, Greendale School purported to be in Franklin Park. Padilla, the former Broward man suspected of plotting to explode a ‘’dirty bomb’’ to spread radiation in the United States, worshipped at a Broward County mosque, Masjid Al-Iman, in Fort Lauderdale. That mosque was across the street from Franklin Park. It’s address was 2542 Franklin Park Drive. Padilla was a former gang member who converted to islam while in South Florida and became an extremist while in Egypt beginning in 1998. He attended al Azhar University in Egypt and started a family there after leaving his American wife. In 1999, Padilla left for Pakistan. Authorities detained him May 8, 2002 when he got off a plane at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. The FBI has found no ties between Padilla and the September 11 hijackers, even though several of them had lived in Broward County.

While in Pakistan, Padilla had reported to KSM, the al Qaeda’s No. 3 leader who had anthrax production documents on his laptop when he was arrested. It appears that in April 2002, Khalid Mohammed dispatched Padilla to the United States, with several thousand dollars for a mission to disperse a radiological device that was still in the thinking stage. He was placed in a military brig in North Carolina and was held incommunicado for years, forbidden from contacting his family or attorney.

A Padilla acquaintance, Adham Hassoun, was detained in June 2002 in Sunrise by federal agents. His home had been searched in November 2001 but authorities laid back, not arresting him and hoping surveillance would lead to insights. Hassoun once served as distributor of a magazine published in Australia advocating Muslim holy war and was associated with one or more charities accused by the Bush administration of funding terrorists. Padilla reportedly had contacted Hassoun from overseas and was apparently en route to meet Hassoun when he was arrested. Investigators monitored the communication between Padilla and Hassoun and arrested Hassoun after he was called by a reporter from Miami about his acquaintanceship with Padilla. State records indicate that he was the Florida registered agent of the Chicago-based Benevolence International Foundation. The leader of the mosque across from Franklin Park was Awad, the Florida representative of Holy Land Foundation.

Hassoun had established Benevolence International Foundation in Plantation, Florida in 1992. In 1993, the headquarters was moved to Chicago area. A man named Mohammed Loay Bayazid was its president in 1993 and 1994. He was arrested while visiting Northern California in December 1994 along with Osama Bin Laden’s brother-in-law. Bayazid, according to authorities, had been looking to purchase enriched uranium for Bin Laden. On his driver’s license, his listed address was BIF headquarters. Thus, things had quickly come full circle for BIF to once again be involved in an investigation relating to Al Qaeda’s attempt to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

In late 2002, it was announced that authorities were urgently seeking a Florida pilot El Shukrijumah, who worshipped at this same Fort Lauderdale mosque across from Franklin Park and had possible ties to Adham Hassoun. The pilot El Shukrijumah is said to be at the level of Mohammed Atta and is thought to have been associated with Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT-trained biologist. Aafia Siddiqui reportedly also has a yet-undisclosed connection to Adham Hassoun. Mohammed Atta lived 11 miles away from this mosque across from Franklin Park, where these members of the Egyptian Islamic Group worshipped. Holy Cross hospital ­where Dr. Tsonas treated Flight 93 hijacker Ahmad al-Haznawi for a suspicious leg lesion that he and other experts think was due to cutaneous anthrax — is only 7 miles from the mosque. Is it all a coincidence? Possibly.

Remember: Given that using the same address helps the second recipient receiving the letter to identify it and avoid opening it, the mailer would have no reason to use the same address unless he was communicating something and wanted to draw attention to it.

There was a detailed description at a June 1, 2004 press conference of Padilla’s plot and his relationship with Jafar the Pilot by a senior DOJ official. The official also described Padilla’s relationship with Atef, Zubaydah, KSM, and Ramzi Binalshibh. He emphasized that there is an urgent need to find Adnan (Jafar). Ali Al-Timimi’s mentor, Bilal Philips, was a good friend of Jafar the Pilot’s father.

The Amerithrax Task Force explanation of Greendale School in the return address is as follows:

“The investigation into the fictitious return address on envelopes used for the second round of anthrax mailings, “4th GRADE,” “GREENDALE SCHOOL,” has established a possible link to the American Family Association (AFA) headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi. In October 1999, AFA, a Christian organization, published an article entitled “AFA takes Wisconsin to court.” The article describes a lawsuit filed in federal court, by the AFA Center for law and Policy (CLP), on behalf of the parents of the students at Greendale Baptist Academy. The articles focuses on an incident that occurred on December 16, 1998, in which case workers of the Wisconsin Department of Human Services went to the Greendale Baptist Academy. The article focuses on an incident that occurred on December 1, 1998, in which case workers of the Wisconsin Department of Human Services went to the Greendale Baptist Academy in order to interview a fourth grade student. The case workers, acting on an anonymous tip that Greendale Baptist Academy administered corporal punishment as part of its discipline policy, did not disclose to the staff why wanted to interview the student. The case workers interviewed the student in the absence of the student’s parents and informed the school staff that the parents were not to be contacted. The AFA CLP filed suit against the Wisconsin Department of Human Services, citing a violation of the parents’ Fourth Amendment rights.”

____________ donations were made to the AFA in the name of “Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Ivins” on eleven separate occasions beginning on December 31, 1993. After an approximate two year break in donations, the next donation occurred on November 11, 1999, one month after the initial article referencing Greendale Baptist Academy was published in the AFA Journal. It was also discovered that the subscription to the AFA Journal, in the name of ‘Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Ivins,’ … was active until March 2005.”

The logical fallacy is Ivins would have had no reason to use the same address unless he was sending a message he wanted to be received. There was no audience that reasonably would have perceived the message being sent. He had no reason to send such a message. The theory was fine for an affidavit in support of a search of a residence — but not on which to close a case.

”Greendale” School is the return address of the anthrax letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy. In December 2002, the Arabic paper London Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that correspondence on Zawahiri’s computer (which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal) shows Zawahiri uses “school” as code for Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The letter was found on Al Zawahiri’s computer. The letter was designed to look innocent. It was dated 3 May 2001 and signed “Dr. Nour, Chairman of the Company.” Nour is one of Zawahiri’s aliases. In this context, it was Egyptian Islamic Jihad, not Al Qaeda, of which he was Chairman.

“We have been trying to go back to our main, previous activities. The most important step was the opening of the school. We have made it possible for the teachers to find openings for profitable trade.”

The letter read:

“To: Unknown

From: Ayman al-Zawahiri

Folder: Letters

Date: May 3, 2001

The following is a summary of our situation: We are trying to return to our previous main activity. The most important step was starting the school, the programs of which have been started. We also provided the teachers with means of conducting profitable trade as much as we could. Matters are all promising, except for the unfriendliness of two teachers, despite what we have provided for them. We are patient. [This apparently refers to an internal dispute with two senior London Egyptian islamists].

As you know, the situation below in the village [Egypt] has become bad for traders [jihadis]. Our Upper Egyptian relatives have left the market, and we are suffering from international monopolies. Conflicts take place between us for trivial reasons, due to the scarcity of resources. We are also dispersed over various cities. However, God had mercy on us when the Omar Brothers Company [the Taliban] here opened the market for traders and provided them with an opportunity to reorganize, may God reward them. Among the benefits of residence here is that traders from all over gather in one place under one company, which increases familiarity and cooperation among them, particularly between us and the Abdullah Contracting Company [bin Laden and his associates]. The latest result of this cooperation is the offer they gave. Following is a summary of the offer: Encourage commercial activities [jihad] in the village to face foreign investors; stimulate publicity; then agree on joint work to unify trade in our area. Close relations allowed for an open dialogue to solve our problems. Colleagues here believe that this is an excellent opportunity to encourage sales in general, and in the village in particular. They are keen on the success of the project. They are also hopeful that this may be a way out of the bottleneck to transfer our activities to the stage of multinationals and joint profit. We are negotiating the details with both sides.”

The full message, decoded, is thought to say:

“We have been trying to go back to our military activities. The most important step was the declaration of unity with al-Qaeda. We have made it possible for the mujahideen to find an opening for martyrdom. As you know, the situation down in Egypt has become bad for the mujahideen: our members in Upper Egypt have abandoned military action, and we are suffering from international harassment.”

But Allah enlightened us with His mercy when Taliban came to power. It has opened doors of military action for our mujahideen and provided them with an opportunity to rearrange their forces. One benefit of performing jihad here is the congregation in one place of all mujahideen who came from everywhere and began working with the Islamic Jihad Organization. Acquaintance and cooperation have grown, especially between us and al-Qaeda.”

In December 2002, the Arabic paper London Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that correspondence on Zawahiri’s computer (which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal) shows Zawahiri uses “school” as code for “Al Qaeda.”

Dr. Jean Rosenfeld, a researcher associated with the UCLA Center for the Study of Religion, and an expert on the symbolism of religious extremist movements, wrote me: “Greendale’ to me signified a conscious choice to use the symbolic color of Islam.” She continued: “The franked eagle on the envelope of the anthrax letters was identical to the one I caught on a documentary that showed a one-second shot of the site where Sadat was assassinated ­- the huge eagle above the podium where he was when he died. That assassination was of great significance to Egyptian Jihad and produced the pamphlet by Faraj that justifies “fard ‘ayn”/individual duty as the basis of jihadist doctrine.” She explained that Al Qaeda “is rooted in Egypt and Salafism, not Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. Al-Zawahiri, I believe, is intensely nostalgic for the Nile Valley.”

The CIA factbook explains that the color green — such as used by anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat in naming his lab “Green Laboratory Medicine,” and by the mailer who used the return address “Greendale School” ­ is the traditional color of islam. Green symbolizes islam, Mohammed and the holy war. In its section on Saudi Arabia, and the “Flag Description,” the CIA “Factbook” explains that the flag is “green with large white Arabic script (that may be translated as There is no God but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God) above a white horizontal saber (the tip points to the hoist side); green is the traditional color of Islam.”

An intelligence document first released in 2007 involves an operation by EIJ members headed by Atef and including Saif Adel in which the group headed to Somalia to work at developing a new base of operations. The group was called The Green Team. “Greendale School” was used as the return address in the letters and likely is code referring to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The stamp on the prestamped envelopes was of a green bird. For a video depicting the Green Bird’s point of view and invoking Allah’s guidance to “the straight path,” see this video “The 3D Kabah – A green birds eye view.” The koranic “Green Birds” reference is from the sentence relating to being set on “The Straight Path.” Timimi, the graduate student who had access to the Alibek/Bailey patent about concentration using hydrophobic silica, advised the EIJ founder Kamal Habib in writing for the publication called Assirat Al-Mustaqeem (“The Straight Path”).

Likely for the same reason, Al Qaeda anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat and Zacarias Moussaoui used the name Green Laboratory Medicine as the name of the company that he used, for example, to buy 4 tons of ammonium nitrate, and that he used to cover his anthrax production program. In a Hadith the Messenger of Allah explains that the souls of the martyrs are in the hearts of green birds that fly wherever they please in Paradise.

Green dale refers to green “river valley” — Egypt, Cairo, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and/or Egyptian Islamic Group. Put it all together and you have their new official name (though the American press does not use it) — Qaeda al Jihad. At the Darunta complex where jihadis trained, recruits would wear green uniforms, except for Friday when they would be washed.

In the conversations that the blind sheikh’s spokesman, Sattar, had with people like the blind sheik’s successor Taha, EIJ/Vanguards of Conquest al-Sirri, and the blind sheikh’s son, they used the same language found in emails between Zawahiri and the Yemeni cell in email. If a brother was in the hospital, it meant he was in prison. If he had an accident, it meant perhaps that Egyptian security services had killed him.

Given that using the same address helps the second recipient receiving the letter to identify it and avoid opening it, the perp would have no reason to use the same address unless he was communicating something and wanted to draw attention to it.

Adham Hassoun and Kassem Daher used “school” as code. Canadian businessman Daher is an associate of EIJ member Jaballah, who was detained in Canada and had maintained regular contact with Ayman by satellite telephone after coming to Canada in 1996. “Is there a school over there to teach football?” Hassoun asked, using what the FBI says is code for jihad.

Ed:

Excellent analysis of the oxygen to silicon ratios. Yes, the ratios make no sense. Silicon added as silicone would be in the form of polymerized [R2SiO], R being an organic group, but note that the silicon and oxygen are present in equimolar amounts. Silcon introduced as silicic acid would be in the forms H2SiO3, H4SiO4, H2Si2O5, or possibly H6Si2O7. In the case of some of the silicon being introduced from these sources, there would be clearly more oxygen than silcon.

Ever wonder why the NY Times and/or Judith Miller never got a real anthrax letter? Instead, a letter went to the NY Post. The NY Post is a Murdock publication, as in Fix News, the “Fair and Balanced News Source”. And yet, the senators targeted were two of the most liberal.

You are of course aware of the article Miller and Broad wrote for the NY Times, that was published on September 4, 2001.

Maybe someone didn’t want to be too obvious.

BugMaster wrote: “You are of course aware of the article Miller and Broad wrote for the NY Times, that was published on September 4, 2001.”

Yes, and their book “Germs” came out the same week as the attacks. I’ve gotten a lot of emails from people who think that cannot be a coincience, and therefore Miller and Broad MUST have been involved in the attacks.

I created a web page about the timing of the anthrax attacks and all the things that were going on related to anthrax at the time. It’s here: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/timing.html

BugMaster,

They have a challenge strains and vaccine strains of Anthrax. so I am guessing, but that sujest to me that they need to grow the vaccine strain to make the vaccine.

Probably on a larger level to produce the vaccine. I have seen paperwork that indicates that Bioport had 4 stainless steel Fermentation trains which was upgraded from a single 100 lt glassline fermentor to produce the vaccine.

To me it would seem likely that they would have grown the vaccine strain on a larger level than Ivins did when he was producing the challenge strain.

Also that considering the problems with silicon, which you point is a likely carsinagen, it would seem likely that they would use different antifoams anti-foams.

Also on Greendale: There is a Greendale township in Michigan where they were producing the vaccine at the time of the mailings.

It is on a route between Midland Mi and Lansing Mi. Lansing is where Bioport was located at the time of the mailings.

Infact if you were driving from Lansing to Midland you would need to know that you take enter the township of Greendale and take the first right turn after you pass a street named Greendale Court then proceed East and pass South Greendale rd then continue to Midland.

Is my logic on the antifoam correct?

sorry didn’t work after posting.

Here is a new one.

http://www.nae.edu/NAE/pubundcom.nsf/webviews/Engineering+Innovation+Podcast+and+Radio+Series?OpenDocument&count=3

Popv said “could have come from the use of foam suppressant agents, typically employed in the process of large scale fermentation of bacteria.”

KRolson:

You are correct, the challenge strains and vaccine strains are different. The vaccine strain is selected for its ability to produce the desired antigens (toxins) and is most likely asporus (unable to sporulate) and attenuated (unable / very unlikely to be able to) cause infection. This is for safety and ease of handling.

The challenge isolate is selected to provide as close a challenge as an actual biological attack. The Ames strain was selected because of its virulence (ability to infect).

I have heard a little about the Bioport facility before it was renovated, and nothing I heard about the place was positive. If they were actually using a glass-lined fermentor, it was a primitive place indeed.

Obviously, the volumes needed for vaccine production are orders of magnitude greater than that needed for challenge material.

As far as antifoam, silica causes health problems in large concentrations. Silica inhaled into the lungs can cause silicosis (a problem with some miners), feeded rats large amounts of cellulose (which contains silica) during studies into trying to develop better laxatives resulted in some of the rats developing cancer. But the amount of antifoam used in a fermentor is trace, usually the stock solution is diluted 1:10,000 or so.

I don’t believe Greendale Township in this case has any significance.

What are the implications of the findings detection by Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (“AFIP”) AFIP’s of silicon and oxygen and conclusion it was silica?

The FBI recently has made it clear that the silica detected by the AFIP was not an additive used for the purpose of weaponization. I gave the press a copy of the article I got from the FBI lab scientist (Dr. Beecher) in an attempt to resolve the debate as to silica as an additive once and for all. While the press just focused on the fact that there was no “additive,” does the AFIP conclusion that silica was strongly indicated shed critical light on the investigation of the anthrax mailings in the Fall of 2001?

The surface of the anthrax spores showed silicon and oxygen on the EDX and General Parker, head of USAMRIID, reported that silica was detected (though at the time he stated that they did not know the reason). If silica was detected as officially reported, why?

Hypothesis #1:

Use of sol-gel as a drying agent. Russian bioweaponeer Ken Alibek has explained that: “There is an old microbiology or chemical technique to dry out some stuff. Actually it involves silica gel. That’s what you need to keep in mind. Because, if you remember when you buy shoes what you got inside shoes is silica gel. So, you got silica gel. It was put in there for a specific purpose – to remove moisture.”

Hypothesis #2:

In 2003, I had speculated that the silica on the spore surface was due instead to a silicone sealant spray on the inside of the envelope (rather than as a coating). The standard manual instructions on poison letters advise using such a spray or sealant so as to avoid killing the mailman. In “Target: Terrorism: Look at Al Qaeda’s Dreadful Recipe Book,” CNN on November 15, 2001 quoted the manual: “Write a letter to the victim mentioning very exciting and very interesting news.” Wipe the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant”)

The FBI seized a Gatorade bottle filled with glue in its first search in November 2001) The owner of the home searched said: “Then they took away our Elmer’s glue for testing. I told them, ‘You’ve been surveilling this house for weeks, and this is what you do?”

Hypothesis #3:

Perhaps the FBI is looking for someone coming from some place with very high levels of silica in the water. Water is used both in culturing the anthrax spores and can be used in purifying them. Silicon does not occur as a free element in nature, but it occurs as silicates and silicon dioxide. Silica, like arsenic, is found in the makeup of water from regions of high volcanic activity. Parts of California, New Mexico, Mexico, and other regions contain silica concentrations in excess of 30 mg/L.

The Senior Scientist, Directorate of Science and Technology, Central Intelligence Agency, has been one of those involved in determining whether stable isotopes of elements in the water used as a culture medium can identify the geographic origin or water used in culturing the anthrax used in the mailings. The published journal articles indicates that the CIA funded the research. “Stable isotope ratios as a tool in microbial forensics–Part 1. Microbial isotopic composition as a function of growth medium.” “Stable isotope ratios as a tool in microbial forensics: Part 2. Isotopic variation among different growth media as a tool for sourcing origins of bacterial cells or spores”; “Stable isotope ratios as a tool in microbial forensics–part 3. Effect of culturing on agar-containing growth media.”

I tested a number of Russian mineral waters and elsewhere associated with geothermal springs that had very high TDS (or Total Dissolved Solids). (One imported mineral water from a geothermal spring in Mexico (that I bought in Phoenix) tested above the legal limit for arsenic but has not been recalled; another water, an apparently unauthorized counterfeit Muslim holy water, has been recalled for excessive levels of arsenic). Sandia presumably has tested the hypothesis that Muslim holy water was used.

As one possible solution to the Amerithrax puzzle, the Balkans have extremely high levels. the US-based Al Qaeda operative Elzahabi came from the Balkans to the Twin Cities where Zacarias Moussaoui was located in mid-August 2001. He lived at a house in Dinkytown near the University of Minnesota that also served as a mosque. He should be asked if he brought anthrax that had been cultured in water with high silica content.

According to what investigators tell NBC, the hypothesis that the anthrax was made abroad has been rejected by the FBI. A study of the water shows that the water came not from a foreign source, but from the Northeastern United States. See NBC NIGHTLY NEWS, NBC TV, 7 PM, October 5, 2006 reported: “Investigators tell NBC News that the water used to make them came from a northeastern U.S., not a foreign, source.”

Hypothesis #4:

If the silica detected by AFIP is due to some other sort of lab contamination generally, lots of things contain silica that may have leached, such as rice hull ash.

Hypothesis #5

For example, the example cited in a November FBI 2001 memo was leaching from glassware.

Hypothesis #6

The silica was the result of the use of a siliconizing solution in the slurry prior to drying. My friend is head of a military biodefense lab that makes aerosols of anthrax simulant. He says his lab achieved the same spike as in the Daschle product in a controlled experiment. He says the March 14, 2001 patent I’ve previously described represents a method that increases the viability across a wide range of pathogens. I tend to favor the hypothesis supported by the data in the controlled experiment (which is repeatable by Dr. Beecher and his colleagues).

Hypothesis #7

Expert Serge Popov has explained that the Silicon Signature may indicate use of an antifoaming agent in a fermenter. (The motor of the fermenter, according to Dr. Ivins’ former supervisor, at RIID was seized).

Hypothesis #8

I had long posited use of an anti-foaming agent in a mini-spraydryer (Bucchi model).

Bugmaster wrote:
“Excellent analysis of the oxygen to silicon ratios. Yes, the ratios make no sense. Silicon added as silicone would be in the form of polymerized [R2SiO], R being an organic group, but note that the silicon and oxygen are present in equimolar amounts. Silcon introduced as silicic acid would be in the forms H2SiO3, H4SiO4, H2Si2O5, or possibly H6Si2O7. In the case of some of the silicon being introduced from these sources, there would be clearly more oxygen than silcon.”

However, Bugmaster, one has to run simulations of the EDX spectra in order to obtain accurate results, you cannot just compare peak heights and expect these to correspond to elemental ratios. The electron energy makes a difference as well as the resolution (peak width). Clearly the Daschle powder contained up to 5% silicon in some places, and more than that in another spot. The NYP results posted here would indicate that most of the extraneous non-spore material in that sample is a polysiloxane.

If you are interested in running simulations you can download a free EDX simulation package here:

http://microanalyst.mikroanalytik.de/manual.html

FBI Focusing on ‘About Four’ Suspects in 2001 Anthrax Attacks — March 28, 2008

WASHINGTON — The FBI has narrowed its focus to “about four” suspects in the 6 1/2-year investigation of the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, FOX News has learned.

Among the pool of suspects are three scientists — a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist — linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.

The FBI has collected writing samples from the three scientists in an effort to match them to the writer of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed to two U.S. senators and at least two news outlets in the fall of 2001, a law enforcement source confirmed.

***
[I]n an e-mail obtained by FOX News [which was provided by Dr. Bruce Ivins], scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.

“Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared … to duplicate the letter material,” the e-mail reads. “Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same … his knees got shaky and he sputtered, ‘But I told the General we didn’t make spore powder!’”

*** The FBI would not comment about the pool of suspects, but a spokeswoman said the investigation clearly remains a priority.

“How do you get 5% silicon from any of these numbers”

I suggest you download the free EDX software and demonstrate this for yourself.

http://microanalyst.mikroanalytik.de/manual.html

(1) The EDX spectrum on page C-2 of the Edgewood report is quite challenging, since it contains a lot of Na, Mg and Cl. It also has a small Si peak. Try entering the following quantities in the simulator table: 0.2% Si, 78% C ,18%O. Mg Cl and Na range from about 0.7% to 3%.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA426293&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

One can obtain a pretty good simulation of this EDX spectrum – note that the best simulation contains about 0.2% Si. (note that you have to enter atomic numbers for the elements, so for C this is 6, O is 8, Si is 14, etc)

(2) Now try entering Carbon = 25.5%, Oxygen = 29.5% and Silicon = 45%. Use 10keV as the excitation energy. What do you produce?
It’s the AFIP spectrum of silica – the reference spectrum of silica that AFIP used to compare with the spectra they produced from the attack spores (the original AFIP spectrum is enclosed).

Plague Wars:
http://books.google.com/books?id=y69nhn-9FqcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=plague+wars#PPP1,M1

Below are some excerpts from this terrific book. The authors, two veteran investigative journalists, one American one British, do not paint a flattering picture of Matthew Meselson. It was Meselson who first suggested to the FBI that the silicon found in the mailed spores was “naturally occurring”. It seems Meselson has a history of claiming things are “natural” when they are far from natural.

CHAPTER NINE Incident at Sverdlovsk

Page 76:

The Soviets now went to extraordinary lengths to buttress their lies and make them supportable and credible worldwide. What had begun as a local cover-up in Sverdlovsk, now became an international fairy tale, a fiction of breathtaking audacity.

Page 77:

Throughout the rest of the 1980s, Matthew Meselson, a respected Harvard professor of microbiology and longtime arms control activist, unwittingly helped the Soviet caravan of deception and disinformation gain acceptance in the West.
Meselson emerged as the leading scientific expert to oppose his own government’s interpretation of Sverdlovsk in favour of the Soviets’ old tainted-meat cover-up. He defended the Soviets’ case publicly and doubtless from the most honest of beliefs. President Reagan was now in the White House and, no matter how forcefully his administration complained about Sverdlovsk, Meselson remained utterly convinced that there had been an accident with bad meat and it had nothing to do with any secret biological weapons plant.
………
With his well-deserved and impressive academic/scientific credentials, his views were usually sought and carefully listened to. He also became an important figure for the US media to consult. His opinions about Sverdlovsk were widely quoted in the serious press, books, and prestigious scientific journals. The record shows that after 1980 his publicly stated views on Sverdlovsk broadly agreed with the explanations issued by the Soviets themselves.

Page 81:

But the guilty involvement reached even higher. Next, it emerged that Boris Yelstin himself also must have known about the cover-up. In May 1992, Yeltsin’s new Russian government formally acknowledged what was now well known, but still had no official imprimatur. The man who had been the powerful communist party chief of the Sverdlovsk region in 1979 was none other than President Boris Yeltsin. He now admitted that the outbreak had been caused by an accident at the biological weapons facility, and not by natural causes. This presumably correct version became the official position of the Russian government, and remains so to this day.
Meselson, however, remained unfazed. In the face of Yeltsin’s admission and the Russian and US press disclosures, the professor assembled a team of expert American scientists and went with them to Sverdlovsk in June 1992 to see for himself. They interviewed two outstanding Sverdlovsk doctors Faina Abramova and Lev Grinberg who participated in the 1979 autopsies at Hospital 40. For thirteen years, these brave pathologists had secretly hidden incontrovertible medial evidence from the KGB including preserved tissue samples, slides, and autopsy reports which proved that the victims had died from breathing in the anthrax.
Meselson later claimed that he and his team had made the discovery of the new truth from these important witnesses, but again, the facts were against him. The two Russian doctors had previously spoken to Soviet reporters and the Wall Street Journal, so Meselson was simply taking credit for being the final arbiter who had authenticated the evidence.
After making a second trip to Sverdlovsk, Mesleson finally published his results in 1994 in the journal Science; the article accepted that the tainted-meat story was bogus. But, perversely, he still would not admit that the US government had been right for fifteen years, or that he had been wrong. Rather, he trumpeted the fact that he anf his team had finally uncovered the “defenitive proof” that the true cause of the outbreak was pulmonary anthrax.
“This should end the argument about where the outbreak came from,” Meselson somewhat pompously told the New York Times “Right up until now, people have still been debating the matter.”
Yet, to the bitter end, Meselson still clung to a benign interpretation of Soviet motives. He noted that the cause of the accident was still not determined, which implied that it may have involved only a Soviet research centre, one for finding an antidote to an anthrax attack, and not a military production centre for biological weapons. By clinging to this position, he could still argue that the Soviets were not violating the BWC, but were conducting permissable research under the treaty.

I am not sure what to make of this information regarding the morphologic variations. There aren’t a whole lot of details, so one really can’t come to any hard conclusions. I’m sure more information will be available over the coming days and weeks.

But I have a bad feeling about this. It could mean that such information could only be considered “inclusive evidence”. Because the Leahy anthrax had 5 variations, and the Post material 3, that is close to what is in Ivin’s original flask. Thus, Ivins was a logical suspect. The problem may be (and once again, this is a gut feeling trying to interpret small amount of limited information) was that it was also used as “exclusive evidence” as in a lab that submitted sample X from material originally obtained from Ivin’s flask (an example would be Battelle) that showed only 2 variations was ruled out as the source.

Pure conjecture on my part, I’m sure there will be much more on this.

I have to wonder why the fact that Bioport did challenge testing at their facilities has never been made public.

Some items on the subject.

1. LAWSUITS COULD SHED LIGHT ON ANTHRAX PROBE
Pay-Per-View – Palm Beach Post – NewsBank – May 14, 2005
BioPort “represented to us it did not use the Ames strain of anthrax that he contends killed Bob Stevens,” Schuler said. In court filings, the company said …

2. 10/14/04 44 NOTICE of voluntary dismissal as to Bioport Corporation only by Maureen Stevens (kw) [Entry date 10/19/04]

3. 3/24/05 46 ORDER dismissing complaint as to dft Bioport only (Signed by Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley on 3/24/05) [EOD Date: 3/25/05] (ck) [Entry date 03/25/05]

Reader:

Regarding the lawsuits info, thank you.

At the time of the 1998 inspection the business was named Michigan Biological Products Institute. It was privatized and sold to Bioport on September 4 1998.

It is clear by the FDA Inspection report that they did do challenge testing at MBPI. Also petition filed with the FDA to considered at the October 2001 hearings on the anthrax vaccine an attached trip report offered as evidence written by a Safety Officer from USAMRIID Mr. Kuehne Indicated;

“2. Purpose of trip: to visit and inspect the anthrax vaccine production and animal testing facilities of the Michigan Department of Public Health to assess adequacy to fulfil requirements of MRDC contract as specified in the CDC/NIH Biosafety Guidelines.”

Also in one of DR. Nass’s papers she states that Bioport had received the strain used in the attacks.

Dr. Nass is a very repected authority on the subject.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447151

Since I truly do not have a very good understand of the law I don’t know how Bioport could make the claim that they didn’t use the anthrax, used in the attacks, for challenge testing.

There are three sources that show that they did. If you get a chance to read the Report I am sure that you will find that they did.

A Question.

If people knew that Bioport had used the same anthrax used in the attacks how do you think it may of affected the investigation?

Thank You Reader
Kirk

Also the samples were all collect six to ten months following the letters.

FWIW, I took the chart of Dr. Ivins’ overtime hours in lab B3 that was in the search warrants and re-did it to show year 2000 and 2001 separately, instead of as overlapping graphs.

The result is here: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/IvinsOT.jpg

While the chart makes it clear that Ivins spent a LOT of time in lab B3 at the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared, far far more than at any other time in the two years, the most curious thing the graph shows is that he began working long hours in lab B3 in AUGUST of 2001, the month BEFORE 9/11.

That seems to indicate that whatever he was doing, it wasn’t entirely connected to the events of 9/11.

But, then again, if he was worried about a possible anthrax attack and/or the lack of available anthrax vaccines, there’s no reason to believe that that worry would have suddenly popped into his head on 9/11.

One could conclude that he was EXPERIMENTING or PRACTICING in August. The fact that he had no explanation for what he was doing says that whatever it was, it wasn’t something he wanted the authorities to know about.

Dr. N just emailed to say that she counts on me to do the heavy lifting on distribution of Ames.

And I aim only to suggest you need to keep looking for evidence Bioport had it in Lansing — as presently we only have reason to think that they “had access.”

Indeed, all it did was narrow the field to 1/10 or 1/3 of those previously identified as having access.

It previously had been estimated that 1,000 had access.

It now is thought that 100+ to 300 had access.

Also what appears to be the personal collection listed in the FDA Report.

My favorite sentence is “There were unlabeled vials (looked like media only) in a rack labeled “anthrax spore suspension” in the anthrax refrigerator.”

in the section listed as

18. Regarding cold storage of critical seed stock:

“I was unable to match the log books for each refrigerator/freezer to the contents. The majority of the contents were sparsely labeled, as in just a sublot number and no dates or further description. There were boxes of old sera, that were hand labeled but not dated. There were unlabeled vials (looked like media only) in a rack labeled “anthrax spore suspension” in the anthrax refrigerator. In the anthrax freezer there were unlabeled glass vials with rubber stoppers that was possibly sera. In general, both refrigerator/freezers contained items that were not involved in the production of Anthrax Vaccine or — — – ———— and/or that were unknown as to their content.”

Kirk,

~The virulent strain was rec
from – , 7/22/97, received from _”

You are right, we don’t know that it was Ames.

The thing to do is to pull up Bioport court filings.

Note that with respect to the Wash Po FOIA request, transfers were only required to be registered after the effective date of the 1997 regulations (and offhand I don’t know that date). I’ve emailed EJE to ask if he thinks it was in Lansing (he wrote in the WSJ about Bioport). I can also ask Dr. Ivins former supervisors. I don’t mean to discourage the hypothesis — I’m just saying that we haven’t seen any solid evidence that they had it (and there seems to have been a formal representation made in court that they did not). Without more, that inspection report does not address the precise question.

Dr. Ivins began working long hours in lab B3 in August of 2001, the month before 9/11, when problems arose with the BioPort contract (as I recall the timeline, the FDA suspended production and Merck was in the wings). Thus, the suggestion that his hours related to an opportunistic attack precipitated by 9/11 is based on an unsound premise.

The broad claim he could not justify his time spent in a 2005 interview is to be expected. Moreover, it likely is no more reliable than the claim that only his post office sold the envelopes and other factually incorrect statements made at the press conference (with the US Attorney entirely omitting that the envelopes were sold in Virginia).

The FBI can release his polygraph from 2001 and we can judge his statements — characterizations of statements of general statements he made in a 2005 interview are worthless. He would have no reason for having a detailed recollection of what he did 4 years earlier.

Anonymous wrote: “If I understand the new information correctly – that there are now FIVE variations in the Leahy anthrax instead of just the FOUR in the RMR-1029 flask, it means either that, by chance, a NEW mutant was made during the creation of the Leahy batch – or else there is ANOTHER master flask somewhere (Battelle anyone?) that contains all FIVE.”

As usual, you do NOT understand things correctly.

There were “well over a DOZEN mutations” in RMR-1029. The scientists simply FOCUSED on four (4) of them as key to their investigative analysis. All four were in the Leahy anthrax. Three of the four were in the NY Post anthrax.

The fifth mutant found in the Leahy anthrax may or many not have been in RMR-1029. It’s IRRELEVANT.

If it was in RMR-1029, it’s simply further proof that the Leahy powder was made from a RMR-1029 sample.

If a NEW mutant DID appear in the Leahy anthrax, it would mean nothing. Mutations are PURELY random. So, it is key to the scientific analysis that there is statistically almost NO chance that the same four (or three) mutants are going to pop up in some other sample grown from some other source.

Anonymous futher wrote: “Because there are trillions of spores in the flask, you will draw a statistically significant sample of them – even if there are less than 1% mutant variations, you will pick up a significant number of them.”

Nonsense. You make the FALSE ASSUMPTION that the “well over a DOZEN mutations” in RMR-1029 were in equal quantities in the flask. That is virtually impossible. Therefore, taking a small sample from RMR-1029 has NO CHANCE of getting all of the 12+ mutations.

The four mutations that were picked as “key” were undoubtedly picked for scientific reasons that would eliminate even a remote chance that every sample from RMR-1029 would contain those mutations. We’ll have to wait for the scientific reports to see the details.

Reader wrote; “Dr. Ivins began working long hours in lab B3 in August of 2001, the month before 9/11, when problems arose with the BioPort contract”

And you believe that Dr. Ivins would have forgotten all about that? And that’s why he couldn’t explain his long hours in B3?

If it was somehow related to Bioport, what would he be doing that he wasn’t previously doing? Just working longer hours? Why? Why couldn’t he EXPLAIN why he was working longer hours?

Anonymous wrote: “We are not taking 10 M&Ms from a bag of 1000 M&Ms here, we’re taking millions of spores from trillions of spores.”

Yes, but in millions of spores there may be NO mutations if mutations only occur once in a BILLION replications.

Reader:

Did Dr. N tell you about the map?

It’s great if she did.

Don’t believe every Anonymous rumor, Kirk.
We only develop such mysterious secrets to keep from Ed for sport.

But let’s get back to this question why Dr. Ivins should be expected to reconstruct the details 4 years after the fact (and why we are not provided instead with the lab books and polygraph answers from 2001).

Ed imagined that the letters were written by the homeschooled child of a right-winger. Even though we have various electronic datum points available to us, it likely is hard for him to remember what you did on these days and why he did it — let alone justify why he felt it was necessary to weigh in on the subject.

On December 15, 2001, he wrote:

“I’m certainly not an expert on the writing of young children, and I’d like to see
some web sites where there are lots of good examples.
***
Mainly, the handwriting in the anthrax documents tells me that it was not someone
pretending to write like a child, the writer actually writes that way
***

That tells me the anthrax letters and envelopes are the writing of a kid.

I think what you are missing is that the kid wasn’t writing a letter the way a kid
would write a letter, he was writing a letter the way an adult told him to write a
letter.
***
One thing it could indicate: home schooling.

Ed

On December 16, 2001, you wrote:

“I’m totally convinced that the writing is either by a child (or – much less likely
- by some adult who has the physical and mental abilities of a child.

The child wouldn’t tell anyone if the child didn’t realize what was happening.
It’s very easy to trick a child. Just make it look routine. And since this child
is probably home-schooled, there’s little reason he would see anything out of the
ordinary, and he wouldn’t have the the same opportunities to tell other kids or a
teacher as a child in school might.

Ed”

On January 2, 2002, you wrote:

Who rants against the media and “liberal”
politicians besides the Right Wing?

***
He’s not a member of the Aryan Nations or anything like that. ***
He’s just an angry American bioweapons expert who thinks America should be taking more precautions against bioterrorism than we are.

And you are totally wrong about Right Wingers and their kids. Right Wingers
start teaching their kids to be Right Wingers from the moment they are born.”

Ed’s theory from the start was just political.

And I bet he doesn’t remember why.

I wonder why the fact that they did testing there was never made public. I think that it would have forced a closer look at Bioport.

Any thoughs?

Having had experience working in a Federal Contracting/Purchasing Department there are several points to consider. In the terms of the contract or purchase agreement do you ship to a distribution center in California and then ship the item back to the same state the manufacturer is located in. Do you ship right from the manufacture to the local shops or take on the additional cost of opening a separate distribution network for the state just to handle the smaller shipping traffic.

Ed:

Please. You consider 17 or so overtime hours Ivins logged in August 2001 as LONG HOURS!

You clearly have never worked in a research / biotechnology / process development lab, or have much comprehension as to what is sometimes involved.

17 hours over the course of a month does not represent “long hours”. In fact, if these were the only overtime hours Ivins put in during a time where there were significant problem with the AVA vaccine from the renovated Bioport facility meeting potency, then I would say that at least that month, Ivins was a bit of a slacker.

17 extra hours over the course of a month is not “long hours”. In this business, 17 OT hours over the course of 3 or 4 days is considered long hours, and although not routine, COMES WITH THE TERRITORY!

Maybe Ivins could’t remember what he was doing during these “long hours” because the number of hours is not really significant. Even the 32 or so hours of additional time he spent in September 2001 averages out to less than 10 extra hours a week, hardly a big deal.

BugMaster wrote: “17 extra hours over the course of a month is not “long hours”. In this business, 17 OT hours over the course of 3 or 4 days is considered long hours, and although not routine, COMES WITH THE TERRITORY!”

You miss the point(s):

1. The 12 hours Dr. Ivins worked in August 2001 were spent in Biolab B3, where the RMR-1029 flask was stored.

2. In the 18 months prior to August 2001, never spent even HALF that number of hours in B3.

3. In the year prior to August 2001, he was averaging about 2 hours per month in B3.

4. The 12 hours he spent in B3 in August 2001 were followed by 32 hours in B3 in September, the month the first anthrax powders were mailed, and 17 hours in October when the second anthrax powders were mailed.

5. After October, his hours dropped back down to ‘normal” again.

So, it’s not the number of overtime hours that is important, it’s the time he spend in lab B3 without having any reason for doing so and WHEN he spent those hours in B3.

“The DUMBEST possible thing we could do is assume that all the scientists working on the case are incompetent or involved in some vast conspiracy, and only some scientist using JUNK SCIENCE for his arguments knows the “truth.””

That isn’t the issue here. The scientists who did the sequencing are not in on any “conspiracy”. They just did the sequencing. Then the FBI over-interpreted what it meant.

If flask RMR-1029 contained 1 gram of spores then it contained one trillion spores. Drawing an aliqout of 1ml is drawing one billion spores. It would be impossible to make the NYP powder from RMR-1029, and NOT also extract the mutations that were missing from the NYP sample (as we have now learned).

This isn’t exactly the first time the FBI labs have taken good science and turned it into junk science. They did exactly the same with lead in bullets analysis. Until the National Academy of Sciences reviewed their methods and ripped them a new one.

All the embarrassing details of that fiasco can be seen at the video here, complete with red-faced FBI chief scientist Dwight Adams:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/tech/main678678.shtml

Reader,

I knocked around many many MANY ideas over the years. I put them on my site to see if people will find flaw with them and present FACTS to show where I was wrong. Many times people did show me where I was wrong about things, and when the new facts invalidated old ideas, I changed my analysis to reflect the new facts.

I could go back and change my web site to make it look like I was never wrong, but the purpose of my web site is show how I got to my current understandings of the facts. It was NEVER a direct route. I went down MANY blind alleys.

At the top of my site, I invite people to correct me when I’m wrong. And many MANY times they have done so. But they have to supply FACTS to show I’m wrong. Opinions and beliefs and baseless theories mean very little to me.

The theory that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks was shown to be nonsense in 2001. You and Ken Dillon may still believe in it because you can dream up ways it could still be POSSIBLE, but imaginary possibilities are a long way from being facts, much less solid evidence.

In November 2001, Dr. Ivins spent twice the overtime hours in B3 than any month from July 2000 through July 2001.

In December 2001, Dr. Ivins spent more time in B3 than any month from July 2000 through July 2001.

Indeed, In August 2001, he spent several times more overtime in B3 than any month from July 2000 through July 2001.

This was many weeks after — and in August many weeks before — the anthrax letters had been mailed.

The logical inference is that his time was not related to the anthrax mailings.

From press reports, we see that in August 2001, Congress and the Pentagon publicly said they were considering giving up on BioPort and its failures in getting operations up to snuff. Meanwhile, BioPort brought in more business partners and consultants from established vaccine companies and government contractors to figure out how to regain its license

BioPort filed hundreds of pages in support for its anthrax drug in mid-October 2001.

The day after US Attorney Jeff Taylor closes the case naming Ivins as the mailer he should resign.

Dramatic developments will occur on January 20, 2009.

The FBI might want to set things on course before then.

The FBI might want to set things on course before then.

I hope they do.

Sat views indicate that Bad Santa’s workshop has been busy.

Peace Out

Merry Christmas Everyone.

Like I said ed:

If you choose to believe theories based on sororities fantasies, a few 750 mile trips in the middle of the night, claims that the Florida anthrax letters were from some other anthrax mailer, and a six year old wrote the letters & addressed the envelopes, more power to you.

what ever Ed.

Ed,

Genome sequence comparison of B. anthracis Ames Porton
to the draft genome of B. anthracis Ames Florida identified
polymorphic sites between these two isolates of the Ames
strain. Interestingly, at each of these polymorphic loci, B.
anthracis Ames Ancestor was identical to B. anthracis Ames
Florida, indicating that the polymorphisms reported were most
likely the result of the plasmid-curing process associated with
B. anthracis Ames Porton rather than polymorphisms specific
to Ames Florida.

Has US Attorney Jeff Taylor seen the February 2001 PDB from the CIA to President Bush about Al Qaeda’s plan to use anthrax?

In late January 2001, the Immigration Minister in Canada and the Justice Minister had received an anthrax threat in the form of anthrax hoax letters. The letters were sent upon the announcement of bail hearing for a detained Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Mahmoud Mahjoub. Mahjoub had managed Bin Laden’s farm in Sudan. Minister Caplan had signed the security certificate authorizing Mahjoub’s detention. After arriving in Canada in 1996, Mahjoub had continued to be in contact with high level militants, including his former supervisor, an Iraqi reputed to be Bin Laden’s chief procurer of weapons of mass destruction.

On October 5, 2001, Mahjoub’s bail was denied.

Someone who knew Ayman Zawahiri well then rushed to carry out the earlier threat. They mailed a finely powdered anthrax to the two United States Senators they deemed most responsible for the rendition of Egyptian Islamic Jihad leaders and appropriations to Egypt and Israel.

Has Jeff Taylor seen this February 2001 CIA briefing to the President in a Presidential Daily Brief (”PDB”) on “Bin Laden’s Interest in Biological and Radiological Weapons”? (It is still still classified but should be declassified). Like the PDB on Bin Laden’s threat to use planes to free the blind sheik, the February 2001 PDB illustrated Richard Clarke’s suggestion that most intelligence is open source. The PDB likely will be found to address the detention of Mahmoud Mahjoub, his status in the Vanguards of Conquest/Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and threats of revenge relating to the conviction and sentencing of senior militant Egyptians. There was little about Ayman’s plan to use anthrax against US targets in retaliation for rendering of EIJ leaders that was not available to anyone paying attention.

President-Elect Obama now needs to ask for CIA’s February 2001 PDB to President Bush on the planned use of anthrax in retaliation of rendering and detention of IG and EIJ leaders. Amerithrax would be seen with entirely new eyes.

I wrote: “Daughter spores won’t spawn daughter spores, they’ll spawn granddaughter spores. The only source of “mother spores” was RMR-1029.”

Paul Keim has written some interesting papers on how they can use DNA to show that batch A produced batch B which produced batch C which produced batch D, E and F, and batch D produced batch G, H and I, etc.

Check this link: http://cstsp.aaas.org/files/Keim%20AAAS%201-24-08.pdf

Ed Lake said, “Opinions and beliefs and baseless theories mean very little to me.”

Yet you choose to believe theories based on sororities fantasies, a few 750 mile trips in the middle of the night, claims that the Florida anthrax letters were from some other anthrax mailer, and a six year old wrote the letters & addressed the envelopes, more power to you.

what ever Ed.

The letter sending the first anthrax reportedly had clouds pictured on it. The flagship of American Media, Inc., National Enquirer, described the letter sent AMI as follows:

“Bobby Bender came around the corner with this letter in the upturned palms of his hands,” said photo assistant Roz Suss, a 13-year Sun staffer.

“It was a business-size sheet of stationery decorated with pink and blue clouds around the edges. It was folded into three sections, and in the middle was a pile of what looked like pink-tinged talcum powder.

In admitting that he had taken over supervising the development of anthrax for use against the US upon Atef’s death (in November 2001), KSM separately noted that “I was the Media Operations Director for Al-Sahab or ‘The Clouds,’ under Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

The letter sent to AMI in Florida sought to dissuade Jennifer Lopez from a planned marriage. A wedding or marriage is well-known Al Qaeda code for an attack. The sender asked her to marry him. Stevens noted at the time it was especially off the wall given that the Sun did not deal with celebrities, which was the subject of the sister-paper Globe. Stevens’ fellow photo editor Roz Suss was looking over his shoulder: “With that Bob says to me,” Hey, I think there’s something gold in here. It looks like a Jewish star sticking out of the powder.” I walked up behind him and reached over his shoulder. I pulled this little star out of what looked like a mound of powder in this letter. I remember it as a fine white powder.” “It looked like something from a Cracker Jacks box,” she says. She picked it out of the powder and tossed it in her wastebasket. Stevens’ colleague Bobby Bender has a different recollection. He says he opened a letter to Jennifer Lopez, recalls handling a large envelope to Jennifer Lopez, care of the Sun. In it was a cigar tube containing a cigar, a small Star of David charm, and something that seemed like detergent. Hambali and two al-Qaeda minions considered attacking an Israeli restaurant, with a Star of David above it, in the Khao San Rd. backpacker area in Bangkok.

A December 1998 Presidential Daily Brief to President Clinton explained: “An alleged Bin Ladin supporter late last month remarked to his mother that his impending ‘marriage,’ which would take place soon, would be a ’surprise.’” The December 1998 PDB continued ‘marriage’ is often a code word for attacks.” Of course, sometimes, a young man may just advise someone he intends to marry. Similarly, sometimes folks who write to tabloids are merely commenting on JLo’s impending nuptials.

Jennifer Lopez’s fame had withstood a number of under performing movies, to include the movie “The Cell” in the year 2000. In the movie, following a trail of bodies, an FBI agent tracks down and captures a disturbed serial killer. Before the killer can reveal the whereabouts of his next victim (a woman trapped in a cell on the verge of drowning), he falls into a coma. Enter beautiful FBI psychologist Lopez, who uses a radical link to the killer’s brain that could destroy her own sanity. “Her mission: Find the cell’s location before time runs out, and avoid getting trapped inside the killer’s head.” According to an early National Enquirer, Stevens held it up to his face and then put it down on the keyboard (where traces of anthrax were found). Note that the publisher’s wife was the real estate broker who rented to two of the hijackers.

The heaviest concentration was in the mailroom on the first floor, with positive findings in many cubicles throughout the first floor. The second floor had positive traces mainly in the hallways. The third floor had the fewest positive traces. The FBI has a theory that the spores were distributed on copy paper, perhaps having fallen onto an open ream of paper in the mailroom where it was stored. Perhaps instead spores could have been spread by a vacuum cleaner and collected at copier machines because of the electrostatic charge and the fans on the machines.

Mrs. Stevens recently explained: “They get strange letters sometimes, and the consensus seems to be that if Robert wasn’t wearing his glasses and if it was something funny, he would hold the letters up to his face. They think perhaps that’s how he got it. Just bad luck.”

The key expert evidence on this issue of the Jennifer Lopez letter thus far is the New England Journal of Medicine in which Stevens’ doctor concludes that the letter, opened 9/19 and resulting in symptoms appearing 9/30, evidenced an incubation period consistent with inhalational anthrax. (He refers to the 1979 accidental release in Russia). A recent CDC report discusses a second letter of possible interest thought to have been opened on September 25 by a different woman who was exposed. The jury will have to remain out unless and until there is more information on the letter(s) that transmitted the anthrax to AMI. The FBI went back to AMI in August 2002.

A February 2003 article in Esquire says the “cops and the doctors” have concluded that there were two letters, following two different paths, with one having been mailed to an old address of the National Enquirer before being forwarded. If there were two different letters, were they to two different AMI publications? That would make sense — with one directed to the Sun and one directed to the National Enquirer.

What does the J.Lo letter tell us about the sender, or senders? J.Lo is what they used to call a “sex bomb” — and the biggest one at the time. She had international fame. The vehicle had a “weird” love letter, a Star of David, maybe a cigar. Who had “issues” and weird obsessions with women, sex (with a cigar being a crude symbol) and Jewish symbolism? Atta, for example, had strict instructions in his will about what women would be allowed to do at his funeral. Follow the anomalies.

Two of the hijackers had subscriptions to AMI publications, as did Al Qaeda operative al-Marabh. Boston cab driver Al-Marabh had been in contact with the hijackers, to include Alghamdi who rented an apartment from the wife of the AMI publisher. Atta was seen at the apartment of Al-Marabh and his uncle (the co-founder with Jaballah of an islamic school in Toronto in the Spring of 2001. After coming to Canada in 1996, Jaballah spoke with Ayman regularly on Ayman’s satellite phone.

Reader wrote: “The letter sending the first anthrax reportedly had clouds pictured on it.”

So, you simply dismiss all the facts which CLEARLY show that the J-Lo letter had nothing to do with the anthrax mailings?

The facts are here: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/J-LoLetter.html

The facts mean nothing to you? Are you saying that your BELIEF that symbols in the J-Lo letter which you have INTERPRETED are more important than any facts from the CDC, the FBI or anywhere else?

On November 18, 2007, the results of an investigation into the operations of the FBI crime lab were printed in the Washington Post and broadcast on CBS News 60 Minutes. The Forensic Justice Project (“FJP”), a project of the National Whistleblower Center, in Washington, D.C., and FJP Executive Director Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, cooperated with the joint Post-60 Minutes investigation by providing records released by the FBI to FJP and Dr. Whitehurst under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). These FBI FOIA records document the serious misconduct and other problems reported in the joint Post-60 Minutes investigation.

http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/2007/11/articles/forensic-justice-1/bullet-lead/bulletlead-case-records-and-stonewalling-by-the-fbi/

The FBI and DOJ should have disclosed all of this information to the courts as well as criminal defendants and their attorneys years ago. Instead, the DOJ and the FBI deliberately chose to operate in the dark, out of public view, and conceal the evidence that is scientifically flawed but which was still used in criminal cases. This has severely prejudiced people who have been hurt by the FBI Lab’s misconduct.

Reader,

First thank you for you work mentioned in your last post.

Second you mentioned that under new regulations effective December 1 the FBI need only seek and do justice.

Could you please expand on that.

Thank You!!
Kirk

Maverick,

Excellent post!!

You stated that “Most believe Ivins is innocent, and that there is likely another lab involved, not Detrick.”

Any chance they say the name of the lab?

do you feel comfortable saying it name?

Thank You
Kirk

Maverick wrote: “Privately I’ve been told that many of those scientists involved feel totally hoodwinked and are angry that the FBI independently leapt to outrageous and overstated conclusions. Most believe Ivins is innocent, and that there is likely another lab involved, not Detrick.”

Isn’t that what always happens when one group has ALL the facts and another doesn’t?

Those who felt “hoodwinked” will just have to wait for the scientific reports to be published, so they can see all the facts. They were kept in the dark to make certain that there test results were not biased.

What kind of scientist would not be able to understand that if you grow bacteria from spores in RMR-1029, the NEW bacteria will show trace elements of what is in the NEW growth medium, NOT what was used to grow RMR-1029?

What kind of scientist would not be able to understand that you do not need all four markers to be in the NY Post powder to prove that the spores were grown from a sample taken from RMR-1029? Three is plenty. And the fact that the Post powder spores were “daughters” of the spores in RMR-1029 and not GRANDdaughters from some other route says that RMR-1029 contained the “mother” spores.

It’s understandable that there are plenty of scientists at Ft. Detrick who feel the attack anthrax came from Battelle. After all, if it came from Ft. Detrick, then all those scientists at Ft. Detrick FAILED TO NOTICE WHAT DR. IVINS WAS DOING.

What lab did the scientist working for Ayman Zawahiri go to in 1999 on his mission to obtain virulent anthrax? Ed does not know and is not curious. He has never addressed the issue. HE HAS FAILED TO NOTICE WHAT AYMAN ZAWAHIRI WAS DOING. And it was Ayman Zawahiri who had a specific intent to use anthrax against US targets, not Dr. Ivins.

In 1999, a scientist from Porton Down had reported to sfam members on a conference in Taos, New Mexico in August that included a talk by Tim Read, (TIGR, Rockville, USA) and concerned the whole genome sequencing of the Bacillus anthracis Ames strain. The Ames strain may have been a mystery to many after the Fall 2001 mailings, but not to motivated Society for Applied Microbiology (“SFAM”) members, one of whom was part of Ayman Zawahiri’s “Project Zabadi.”

George Tenet in his May 2007 In the Center of the Storm says: “Al-Qa’ida spared no effort in its attempt to obtain biological weapons. In 1999, al-Zawahiri had recruited another scientist, Pakistani national Rauf Ahmad, to set up a small lab in Khandahar, Afghanistan, to house the biological weapons effort. In December 2001, a sharp WMD analyst at CIA found the initial lead on which we would pull and, ultimately, unravel the al-Qa’ida anthrax networks. We were able to identify Rauf Ahmad from letters he had written to Ayman al-Zawahiri. … We located Rauf Ahmad’s lab in Afghanistan. We identified the building in Khandahar where Sufaat claimed he isolated anthrax. We mounted operations that resulted in the arrests and detentions of anthrax operatives in several countries.”

As described by Dr. Peter Turnbull’s Conference report for SFAM on “the First European Dangerous Pathogens Conference” (held in Winchester), at the September 1999 conference, the lecture theater only averaged about 75 at peak times by his head count. There had been a problem of defining “dangerous pathogen” and a “disappointing representation from important institutions in the world of hazard levels 3 and 4 organisms.” Papers included a summary of plague in Madagascar and another on the outbreak management of hemorrhagic fevers. Dr Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University presented a paper on multilocus VNTR typing, for example, of Bacillus anthracis and Yersinia pestis. There were more than the usual no-show presenters and fill-in speakers. In his report, Dr. Turnbull looked forward to a second, fully international conference in 2000 focused on the ever increasing problems surrounding hazard levels 3 and 4 organisms and aimed at international agreement on the related issues. University of Maryland researcher Milton Leitenberg reports that the conferences described in the correspondence had been in July and September 1999.

The Sunday at the start of the Organization of the Dangerous Pathogens meeting in September 2000, which the sfam director confirmed to me that Rauf Ahmad also attended, was gloomy. Planning had proved even more difficult than the International Conference on anthrax also held at the University of Plymouth, in September 1998. The overseas delegates included a sizable contingent from Russia. The organizers needed to address many thorny issues regarding who could attend. One of the scientists in attendance was Rauf Ahmad. The Washington Postreports: “The tall, thin and bespectacled scientist held a doctorate in microbiology but specialized in food production, according to U.S. officials familiar with the case.” Les Baillie the head of the biodefense technologies group at Porton Down ran the scientific program. Many of the delegates took an evening cruise round Plymouth harbour. The cold kept most from staying out on the deck. Later attendees visited the National Marine Aquarium — with a reception in view of a large tankful of sharks. Addresses include presentations on plagues of antiquity, showing how dangerous infectious diseases had a profound that they changed the course of history. Titles include “Magna pestilencia – Black Breath, Black Rats, Black Death”, “From Flanders to Glanders,” as well as talks on influenza, typhoid and cholera. The conference was co-sponsored by DERA, the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.

Les Baillie of Porton Down gave a presentation titled, “Bacillus anthracis: a bug with attitude!” He argued that anthrax was a likely pathogen to be used by terrorists. As described at the time by Phil Hanna of University of Michigan Medical School on the sfam webpage, Baillie “presented a comprehensive overview of this model pathogen, describing its unique biology and specialized molecular mechanisms for pathogenesis and high virulence. He went on to describe modern approaches to exploit new bioinformatics for the development of potential medical counter measures to this deadly pathogen.” Bioinformatics was the field that Ali Al-Timimi, who had a security clearance for some government work and who had done work for the Navy, would enter by 2000 at George Mason University in Virginia. Despite the cold and the sharks, amidst all the camaraderie and bonhomie no one suspected that despite the best efforts, a predator was on board — on a coldly calculated mission to obtain a pathogenic anthrax strain. The conference organizer Peter Turnbull had received funding from the British defense ministry but not from public health authorities, who thought anthrax too obscure to warrant the funding. By 2001, sponsorship of the conference was assumed by USAMRIID.

According to the Pakistan press, a scientist named Rauf Ahmad was picked up in December 2001 by the CIA in Karachi. The most recent of the correspondence reportedly dates back to the summer and fall of 1999. Even if Rauf Ahmad cooperated with the CIA, he apparently could only confirm the depth of Zawahiri’s interest in weaponizing anthrax and provided no “smoking gun” concerning the identity of those responsible for the anthrax mailings in the Fall 2001. His only connection with SFAM was a member of the society — he was not an employee. The Pakistan ISI, according to the Washington Post article in October 2006, stopped cooperating in regard to Rauf Ahmad in 2003.

I have uploaded scanned copies of some 1999 documents seized in Afghanistan by US forces describing the author’s visit to the special confidential room at the BL-3 facility where 1000s of pathogenic cultures were kept; his consultation with other scientists on some of technical problems associated with weaponizing anthrax; the bioreactor and laminar flows to be used in Al Qaeda’s anthrax lab; and the need for vaccination and containment. He explained that the lab director noted that he would have to take a short training course at the BL-3 lab for handling dangerous pathogens. Rauf Ahmad noted that his employer’s offer of pay during a 12-month post-doc sabbatical was wholly inadequate and was looking to Ayman to make up the difference. After an unacceptably low pay for the first 8 months, there would be no pay for last 4 months and there would be a service break. He had noted that he only had a limited time to avail himself of the post-doc sabbatical. I also have uploaded ahandwritten copy of earlier correspondence from before the lab visit described in the typed memo. The Defense Intelligence Agency provided the documents to me, along with 100+ pages more, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). 90 of the 100 pages are the photocopies of journal articles and disease handbook excerpts.

The Post, in an exclusive groundbreaking investigative report, recounts that the FBI’s New York office took the lead U.S. role — and its agents worked closely with the CIA and bureau officials in Pakistan in interrogating Rauf. Though not formally charged with any crimes, Rauf agreed to questioning. While the US media focused on the spectacle of bloodhounds alerting to Dr. Steve Hatfill and the draining of Maryland ponds, this former Al Qaeda anthrax operative provided useful leads. But problems began when the U.S. officials sought to pursue criminal charges, including possible indictment and prosecution in the United States. In earlier cases, such as the othopedic surgeon Dr. Amer Aziz who treated Bin Laden in the Fall of 2001, the Pakistani government angered the Pakistani public when it sought to prosecute professionals for alleged ties to al-Qaeda. In the case of Amer Aziz, hundreds of doctors, engineers and lawyers took to the streets to demand his release. In 2003, the Pakistanis shut off U.S. access to Rauf. By then, I had noticed the reporting of his arrest in a press article about the raid of a compound of doctors named Khawaja and published it on my website. According to Pakistani officials, there was not enough evidence showing that he actually succeeded in providing al-Qaeda with something useful. The CIA basically viewed him as an untalented loser. Since then, the Post reports, Rauf has been allowed to return to his normal life. Attempts by the Post to contact Rauf in Lahore were unsuccessful. Initially the government agency had said an interview would be possible but then backpedaled.

“He was detained for questioning, and later the courts determined there was not sufficient evidence to continue detaining him,” Pakistan’s information minister told the Post. “If there was evidence that proved his role beyond a shadow of a doubt, we would have acted on it. But that kind of evidence was not available.” Yazid Sufaat got the job handling things at the lab instead of Rauf Ahmad. More importantly, Zawahiri, if keeping with his past experience, would have kept things strictly compartmentalized — leaving the Amerithrax Task Force much to do.

Rauf Ahmad provided me his resume and graciously offering to answer any further inquires, saying he was looking forward to an “optimistic exchange” (as I was also). After I indicated that I had the correspondence with Zawahiri, he did not respond to any questions.

You absolutely need all 4 markers to be present in the NYP material to prove that the material was drawn from RMR-1029. As another poster pointed out, drawing even 1ml of liquid from flask RMR-1029 is drawing one billion spores. These one billion spores are absolutely guaranteed to contain all 4 markers. If they’re not there, then it didn’t come from RMR-1029.

Ed says:

“The scientific investigation is NO LONGER CONFIDENTIAL. Information is only being withheld ….”

Ed, the scientific information is not going to bear on Ivins’ guilt or innocence. Showing that the mailed anthrax came from the flask does not narrow things down from the 100-300. As the genetics scientists have explained in plain English, it does not indicate that Ivins is guilty. Only 1,000 were estimated to have had access in the first place and so the advance in recent years on genetic front merely narrows things to that extent.

Moreover, proving the federal eagle stamp was sold in Maryland and Virginia would not either.

So what scientific findings do you expect to be disclosed that may establish Dr. Ivins guilt? You haven’t pointed to any.

How will the scientific analysis of the HUMAN DNA inculpate Dr. Ivins?

Why did the investigators want the DNA? This should be disclosed. We know it was not a match with the DNA of the hair in the mailbox.

How will the scientific analysis of THE FEDERAL EAGLE ENVELOPE implicate Dr. Ivins?

A government investigator explains: “Approximately 45 million Federal eagle 6 3/4″ envelopes were manufactured by Wastvaco Corporation (now known as Mead WestVaco Corporation) of Williamsburg, Pennsylvania, between December 6, 2000 and March 2002. These Federal eagle 6 3/4″ envelopes were manufactured exclusively for and sold solely by the U.S. Postal Service between January 8, 2001 and June 2002.” “[E]nvelopes with printing defects identical to printing defects identified on the envelopes utilized in the anthrax attacks during the fall of 2001 were collected from the Fairfax Main post office in Fairfax, Virginia and the Cumberland and Elkton post offices in Maryland. The Fairfax Main, Cumberland, Maryland, and Elkton, Maryland post offices are supplied by the Dulles Stamp Distribution Office (SDO), located in Dulles, Virginia. The Dulles SDO distributed “federal eagle” envelopes to post offices throughout Maryland and Virginia. Given that the printing defects identified on the envelopes were used in the attacks are transient, thereby being present on only a small population of the federal eagle envelopes produced, and that envelopes with identical printing defects to those identified on the envelopes used in the attacks were recovered from post offices serviced by the Dulles SDA, it is reasonable to conclude that the federal eage envelopes utilized in the attacks were purchased from a post office in Maryland or Virginia.”

Investigators told the Washington Post said there was “no solid evidence” indicating his guilt.

As you say, none of the scientific papers will change that.

Reader wrote; “How will the issue of SUBTILIS CONTAMINATION implicate Dr. Ivins?”

It can’t. That’s why it wasn’t used in the evidence the FBI described to show that Dr. Ivins was the culprit.

When you present a case in court, you use evidence which IN ITS TOTALLITY will conclusively prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

You do NOT use evidence which proves NOTHING. The judge and jury have better things to do than to look at IRRELEVANT FACTS.

Anonymous wrote: “Any evidence that doesn’t fit Ivins being guilty is irrelevant evidence. If it doesn’t fit, ignore it”

Any evidence that cannot be shown to be relevant is irrelevant.

In court, it’s called “establishing a foundation” for the admission of evidence.

The Bacillus subtilis contamination cannot be shown to be relevant. You might want the FBI to investigate it for the next thousand years or until they find some relevance, but that’s not the way the legal system works.

Ed writes:

“The Bacillus subtilis contamination cannot be shown to be relevant.”

To the contrary, it is highly relevant. It is genetically distinctive. It would serve to identify the location of, or equipment used, in processing the mailed anthrax.

In discussing comments by Chertoff, AP reported yesterday:

“Officials are most concerned about biological agents stolen from labs or other storage facilities, such as anthrax.”

Ed, in contrast, is not focused on this issue of anthrax stolen from labs. So he is not interested in why Dr. Al-Timimi, who was working with OBL’s sheik and the “911 imam,” had a high security clearance for work for the Navy.

As another example, the microbiologist working on the DARPA project with Ivins had just come from the medical school where Ayman’s father taught as Professor of Pharmacology and Ayman’s two sisters were on the faculty. One sister, Heba, worked with antimicrobials. But Ed isn’t interested in what the scientist supplied Ames by Dr. Ivins for the DARPA project involving the lyophilizer says about the research.

Similarly, Ed is not interested in the key FoxNews report about the FBI’s theory. Ed last March wrote:

The statement “‘A leading theory is that the anthrax was stolen from Fort Detrick and then sealed inside the letters.’ is almost certainly referring to the leading theory by conspiracy theorists, NOT any theory held by Amerithrax investigators.”

Ed continued:
“Fox New just put an article titled “FBI Focusing on ‘About Four’ Suspects in 2001 Anthrax Attacks” on the Net. It’s one of those stories from anunidentified “law enforcement source.” The story begins this way:

The FBI has narrowed its focus to “about four” suspects in the 6 1/2-year investigation of the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, FOX News has learned.Among the pool of suspects are three scientists — a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist — linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.”

Ed has expressed no interest in the identity of the “a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist” — even though the email that the FoxNews report was discussing had been provided by none other than Dr. Bruce Ivins.

The FBI cannot discuss Al-Timimi because of the pending legal proceeding on remand.

Dr. Al-Timimi’s counsel explains the FBI’s suspicion that Al-Timimi was connected to the conspiracy to send the anthrax letters as follows:

“we know Dr. Al-Timimi:

* was interviewed in 1994 by the FBI and Secret Service regarding his ties to the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing;

* was referenced in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”) as one of seventy individuals regarding whom the FBI is conducting full field investigations on a national basis;

* was described to his brother by the FBI within days of the 9-11 attacks as an immediate suspect in the Al Qaeda conspiracy;

* was contacted by the FBI only nine days after 9-11 and asked about the attacks and its perpetrators;

* was considered an anthrax weapons suspect;

[redacted]

* was described during his trial by FBI agent John Wyman as having “extensive ties” with the “broader al-Qaeda network”;

* was described in the indictment and superseding indictment as being associated with terrorists seeking harm to the United States;

* was a participant in dozens of international overseas calls to individuals known to have been under suspicion of Al-Qaeda ties like Al-Hawali; and

***

The conversation with [Bin Laden's sheik] Al-Hawali on September 19, 2001 was central to the indictment and raised at trial. ***

[911 imam] Anwar Al-Aulaqi goes directly to Dr. Al-Timimi’s state of mind and his role in the alleged conspiracy. The 9-11 Report indicates that Special Agent Ammerman interviewed Al-Aulaqi just before or shortly after his October 2002 visit to Dr. Al-Timimi’s home to discuss the attacks and his efforts to reach out to the U.S. government.

[IANA head] Bassem Khafagi was questioned about Dr. Al-Timimi before 9-11 in Jordan, purportedly at the behest of American intelligence. [redacted ] He was specifically asked about Dr. Al-Timimi’s connection to Bin Laden prior to Dr. Al-Timimi’s arrest. He was later interviewed by the FBI about Dr. Al-Timimi. Clearly, such early investigations go directly to the allegations of Dr. Al-Timimi’s connections to terrorists and Bin Laden — [redacted]“

Reader quoted me: “The Bacillus subtilis contamination cannot be shown to be relevant.”

Then Reader commented: “To the contrary, it is highly relevant. It is genetically distinctive. It would serve to identify the location of, or equipment used, in processing the mailed anthrax.”

But it DIDN’T. The FBI said it didn’t really lead them to anything specific.

So, in your FANTASIES it is significant. But, in the REAL WORLD, it led nowhere. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the case.

But, I understand that in your fantasy world you expect the FBI to chase that lead until something significant IS found – regardless of how long it takes or how much is costs.

Reader wrote: “Ed has expressed no interest in the identity of the “a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist” — even though the email that the FoxNews report was discussing had been provided by none other than Dr. Bruce Ivins.”

I wasn’t interested in speculating. And it now seems like that Fox news story was about an email that Ivins wrote trying to point the finger at someone else. What would that have told us back then — knowing what we know now? It could only have led to further mindless speculation.

However, it turned out it was true that the FBI was focusing on Ft. Detrick, and I didn’t believe it at the time. Doesn’t that prove I am open to new facts?

My comments about that are still on my web site. You should be pointing that out to BugMaster who assumes that, if I say something that is incorrect, I’m going to shut down my site or erase it so that no one will see it.

Did I ever claim to be right about everything?

If you check the top of my web site, you’ll see it begins with a list of things I was wrong about and things I was right about.

Ed:

I never assumed that if you were proven wrong, you would shut down your site.

There were two points to my message to you. #1 is that you really need to be more object, if only to avoid considerable embarrassment in the future. Point #2 is that you occasionally post “facts” that are ridiculous and laughable.

Today’s classic pontification from Ed Lake regarding the science of microbiology:

“Daughter spores won’t spawn daughter spores, they’ll spawn granddaughter spores. The only source of “mother spores” was RMR-1029.”

Where did you get your science degree from, Ed, a Cracker Jack box?

BugMaster it seems Ed’s only reason for coming here is to argue.

He is clearly not hear to learn share or question. Just to argue and disrupt any thoughts offered or expressed.

Clearly he shows no consideration for anything except a point to argue.

Ed has worked very hard on his website, and he has been a valuable source of information over the years. But I find his behaviour quite frustrating at times.

“If you were to make a guess as to the sex of the indivual based on the fiber evidence would you say male or female?”

I am not working on the matter because I am in the position of guessing the identity of the mailer.

BugMaster,

Is bacillus subtilis common in a lab environment?

We know that Dr. Ivins created the contents of the vial labeled RMR-1029 some time in 1997. RMR-1029 was a combination of what were called production runs containing around 22 production runs from Ft. Detrick and around 12 or so production runs from Dugway.

The evidence provided by Dr. Nass that the Media letters only contained 3 of the indles or mutations that were in RMR-1029.

Would it be likely that the anthrax sent to the media would be either the Dugway or the Fort Detrick and not both?

Also if that is possible: If a lab that did challenge testing of the vaccine and had the anthrax with the 3 indels was cited by the FDA for Bacillus Subtilis contamination would that indicate it is a likely source of the media anthrax?

Or is laboratory contamination by Bacillus Subtillis common?

Thank You BugMaster

Search warrants, affidavits and lists of evidence recovered through searches of property and work spaces belonging to Army scientist Bruce Ivins are found here:

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/amerithrax/index.html

KRolson:

B. subtilis is one of the most common laboratory contaminants. You don’t even have to try to isolate it, it will find you. I had one colony grow on a plate of selection media I had prepared several months ago, and I pour my plates and perform all my manipulations (transfers) under a vertical laminar flow hood / biosafety cabinet. (I wear gloves and roll up my sleeves, but do not, however, put on dust-free arm covers like I would if I was doing cell culture, so the contaminant probably got in from a speck of dust blown off my skin). When I was working with my plates on an open bench, about 1 in 20 would come up with contamination of some kind of spore former or another, usually a mold, but in about 20% of the time, a bacillus.

It is ubiquitous in the environment, if you swab your floor and walls and rub the swabs on a few rich media plates, you will isolate it. When the FBI took swabs from Ivin’s home, they most certainly isolated some b. subtilis. If they didn’t, either they are the world’s worst microbiologist, or Ivins dosed his entire house and car with massive doses of gamma radiation. The b. subtilis isolated wasn’t, however, genetically identical or even close to the contaminant found in the media letters (if it was, we would have heard about it!). The FBI certainly swabbed Ivin’s lab and the Fort Detrick facility (they had to have, I can’t believe they stupid enough not to, and didn’t need a search warrent, just permission from the base commander) and obviously didn’t find a matching strain.

Take swabs from the basement or floor or soil in front of the building the attack material was produced in, and you will get a genetic match. The subtilis didn’t come from outer space.

Unlike myself, Ivins was working with a dangerous pathogen, and would have been required to use techniques that provided a higher level of containment. This goes both ways, so procedures meant to keep stuff from getting out also prevents contaminants from getting in.

The pooled material in RMR-1029 contained all 4 morphs of interest. It would be impossible to transfer even a fraction of a milliliter of material from this flask without getting all 4 morphs. However, whether or not all 4 morphs persisted as the attack material was grown is not guaranteed. They don’t all grow at the same rate, so if material from the original flasked is passed (transferred from one flask to another) or grown long enough, all 4 may not still be present in a high enough concentrations to be detected. Another thing, none of the morphs were isolated from the victims, indicating that they do not persist or cannot infect in the case of an actual infection.

Contamination at the pre-renovated Bioport facility was probably fairly common. Like I mentioned in the past, word on the street regarding this facility was that they had a lot of problems.

I do not believe Bioport ever had the Ames strain, and did not do inhalation anthrax challenges. Note that one of the reports referenced “an area where the test animals were inoculated with the pathogenic anthrax” or something to that effect. Inoculated, as in injected, so their potentcy test was probably a challenge to cutaneous anthrax using a strain other than Ames from RMR-1029.

Inhalation challenges, even using Ivins wet spore prep, could not have been done at Bioport, certainly not as a routine potentcy testing.

In 1998, Ken Alibek lived in a rented condominium in Arlington, Virginia, a five-minute walk from his office at a private consulting firm. The New Yorker at the time explained:
“One day, Ken Alibek and I were sitting in a conference room near his office talking about the anthrax he and his research team had developed. “It’s very difficult to say if I felt a sense of excitement over this. It’s very difficult to say what I felt like,” he said. ‘It wouldn’t be true to say that I thought I was doing something wrong. I thought I had done something very important. The anthrax was one of my scientific results — my personal result.’

I asked him if he’d tell me the formula for his anthrax.

‘I can’t say this,’ he answered.

‘I won’t publish it. I’m just curious,’ I said.

‘Look, you must understand, this is unbelievably serious. You can’t publish this formula,” he said. When I assured him I wouldn’t, he told me the formula for the Alibekov anthrax. He uttered just one sentence. The Alibekov anthrax is simple, and the formula is somewhat surprising, not quite what you’d expect. Two unrelated materials are mixed with pure powdered anthrax spores.’”

The FBI had found a clipping of a quote by Dr. Alibek had been found in the trash of US charity that supported Bin Laden and his colleagues. The article underscored in highlighting the claim that US was not prepared for bioterrorism.

Ayman Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden had been talking about the possibility of weaponizing anthrax over the past year.

According to one cable I’ve uploaded (produced by DIA to a FOIA request), Bin Laden had also been discussing it with his friend Ibn Khattab. Mohammad Abdulrahman, the blind sheik’s son, was another adviser on WMD and served on Al Qaeda’s three-member WMD committee. Mohammad was like a son to Osama. Abu Abdulaziz (Barbaros) was another respected fighter in Bosnia he consulted on such issues.

In April 1999, Zawahiri wrote a memo to military commander Atef about how to best go about developing anthrax and noted

“The enemy started thinking about these weapons before WWI. Despite their extreme danger, we only became aware of them when the enemy drew our attention to them by repeatedly expressing concerns that they can be produced simply with easily available materials.” Ayman continued: “I would like to emphasize what we previously discussed—that looking for a specialist is the fastest, safest, and cheapest way [to embark on a biological- and chemical-weapons program].”

A June 1999 memo from Ayman to military commander Atef said that “the program should seek cover and talent in educational institutions, which it said were ‘more beneficial to us and allow easy access to specialists, which will greatly benefit us in the first stage, God willing.’

These Bin Laden advisors on anthrax were a well-travelled lot. Mohammad Abdulrahman would come to the US to speak at the conferences of Ali Al-Timimi’s charity, the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA). Abu Abdulaziz (Barbaros) would also speak at the same conferences. He was featured in a well-known interview in a related magazine advised by Al-Timimi. Even Sayyid Qutb’s brother, Mohammad Qutb, would speak. Mohammad Qutb had been Bin Laden’s sheik Al-Hawali’s mentor at University.

Bilal Philips, Al-Timimi’s mentor, would be a regular speaker at IANA events, as would Al-Timimi, the most celebrated IANA speaker of all. Philips has explained that one of his roles was to recruit US Army personnel to jihad.

So it was only natural that the charity and university that Zawahiri would turn to would be Al-Timimi’s charity. This was the charity where Bin Laden WMD advisers came to speak.

Even the “911 imam” himself would speak alongside Ali Al-Timimi –such as at conferences in July and August 2001 in Canada and the UK.

Ayman Zawahiri’s friend, Kamal Habib, the founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, was IANA’s leading writer.

So consistent with Zawahiri’s plan, Ali Al-Timimi the next year joined GMU Department associated with Dr. Alibek. The infiltration was quite elaborate and painstaking. After the New Yorker article (and dozens like it appeared), Al-Timimi submitted an application to apply to grad school.

Ali came to share the same fax and maildrop as not only this leading anthrax scientist but the former head of USAMRIID, who would prove a prolific Ames researcher. (Although briefly the acting head of USAMRIID, he is more widely known among RIID scientists to have been Deputy Commander.)

In 1999, Al-Timimi had a high security clearance for mathematical support work for the Navy. That was his field: bioinformatics, which is said to be critical in understanding anthrax. Serendipitiously, for two months he had briefly worked as an assistant to Andrew Card, who in 2001 was the White House Chief of Staff and had worked hard to guide the 911 Commission away from revelations that would embarrass the White House.

Ali did not talk religion or politics at work. Except for preaching about the end of times publicly alongside the WMD advisers of the man who had sworn to destroy the US, there was no reason not to allow Al-Timimi to work in the same scientists who were doing biosecurity threat intelligence work for the US and developing innovative technical solutions.

The scientists working alongside Al-Timimi at GMU’s Discovery Hall were employed by the private company, Hadron, led by Alibek and former deputy commander Charles Bailey.

But this biothreat analysis was all too complicated to discern. It required google. FBI agents were not allowed to use google so there is no reason for them to have known.

But what’s your excuse?

So how does Ayman Zawahiri go about recruiting scientists? Well, years ago, at Cairo Medical, the Egyptian Islamic Group was given a room, Zawahiri would be invited to speak to recruit medical students to jihad, and professors would be intimidated into not scheduling lectures that would conflict. Indeed, the two other leaders of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Agizah and Al-Sharif) were doctors who graduated from Cairo Medical. The original founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who wrote for Al-Timimi’s IANA charity in 2001, was not a doctor, but had studied political science at Cairo University and graduated at the top of the class. Ayman’s two sisters for years have taught on the faculty and Ayman’s father, who passed in 1995, was a Professor of Pharmacology.

The scientist working with Dr. Bruce Ivins, who thanked Dr. Ivins for supplying virulent Ames, attended Cairo Medical when Ayman would come to speak — and then got his microbiology PhD there 13 years later. The DARPA-funded scientist would be a good source for insights on whether Ayman was a persuasive public speaker.

Given the scientist’s private and university labs were within a mile for the headquarters of Al-Timimi’s Ann Arbor-based charity, the scientist might know whether the FBI suspects that virulent Ames was surreptitiously obtained in Ann Arbor by one of the Salafist supporters of blind sheik Abdel-Rahman and the Bin Laden sheiks promoted by IANA.

The following is an excerpt from Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam (2007) by Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a former Egyptian Islamic Group member who consults with intelligence agencies and has known the DARPA scientist for years (since childhood):

“As its influence grew, Jamaa Islamiya began to intervene with the secular traditions of the medical school. They insisted on separate seating in the lecture halls for men and women, and sometimes forcibly separate students who did not comply. Occasionally, they would use violence to stop students from playing music or singing, activities the members considered “un-Islamic.”

One naturally asks, “Why medical students?” Westerns are often astonished to observe highly accomplished Muslim doctors in the terrorist ranks. These include Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri (surgeon) second in command of Al-Qaeda *** Doctors almost universally agree to the Hippocratic Oath and swear by another of Hippocrates’ maxims: “First, do no harm.” How then could a group like Jamaaa Islamiya gain traction in a medical school?

It is actually not a surprise to me that I became radicalized there. Our medical schools at that time were a vanguard of fundamentalism in most Egyptian universities.

***

Eventually in my first year I was approached by a promising member of Jamaa named Muchtar. He was in his fourth year and known in the group as amir, or “prince.”

***

Doctor “Ayman”

It happened one afternoon that a guest Imam came to deliver a sermon. His topic didn’t concern itself with dry details of prayer and fasting. He was fiery and charismatic; his passion was holy war. His topic didn’t concern itself with dry details of prayer and fasting. He was fiery and charismatic; his passion was holy war. It was to be fought on all fronts, against all non-believers, without compromise, until all people either converted, submitted to Sharia, or were slain. He made us feel that we could make the glorious days of the Islamic conquest return. After the sermon, a fellow member, Tariq Abdul-Muhsin, asked me if I knew the Imam. When I answered I didn’t, he told me that the speaker was Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Because I was a new member, Tariq offered to introduce me to him.

In person, Al-Zawahiri was very polite and decent with the members of Jamaa. It was hard to reconcile his fiery sermons with the quiet man before me.***

***

I remember feeling very proud when Zawahiri told me: “Young Muslims like you are the hope for the future return of Khalifa [Caliphate or Islamic global dominance].” He made me want to fight for him, to show him my courage and loyalty. Zawahiri himself came from a wealthy, well-known and well-educated family and was a top post-graduate student at the medical school. He was active in a number of Islamist groups so he did not devote all of his time to Jamaa. We used to call him “Dr. Ayman.”

***

He was a master of at attracting new recruits and inciting them to jihad. It is worthwhile studying his use of Islamic texts in terms of the phrases and tactics we have mentioned, particularly hatred, superiority and war.

***

Islamic Jihad … was extremely violent. They would concentrate on the assassination of important political leaders. Their violence was not diffuse, but highly targeted.

***

There remains, at last, Jamaa Islamiya (literally, “Islamic Group”). It concentrated on recruiting from society’s “best and brightest” by entrenching itself in universities and medical schools. Having done so, Jamaa prepare the theoretical foundation for jihad and propagated them to promising students who could best absorb them. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaa didn’t participate directly in terror — it would have been counterproductive to provoke a crackdown from school administrations. Jamaa was more of a ‘gateway’ groups, which, having indoctrinated recruits and equipped them with jihadist knowledge, encouraged them to assume leadership positions in Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, or to practice jihad in other countries.

Intellectually, Al-Zawahiri was much affected by the teaching of a Muslim Brotherhood leader named Sayyid Qutb. He used to praise Sayyid by saying ‘Rahimahu Allah’ whenever he mentioned his name. The expression means, ‘May Allah show him mercy and kindness’.

***

By the late 1970s, Islamists had penetrated into every aspect of Egyptian life. *** In 1981, not long before I graduated, President Sadat was assassinated by a military lieutenant named Khaled Islambouli — a member of the Islamic Jihad.

***

The “Blind Sheikh”, Omar Abdel-Rahman was a spiritual leader ***. Americans will recognize his name — he resides now in the US, in solitary confinement, for conspiring to blow up the United Nations building, New York City FBI branch, and for attempting to destroy the World Trade Centers in 1993 — a job finished by al-Qaeda in 2001. Though estimates vary, it is thought that 75% of Al-Qaeda’s top leadership is Egyptian.”

Indeed, the accents heard on the tape of the dog being killed were Egyptian. The experiments were headed by Egyptian Abu Khabab, who was on the 3-member WMD Committee with Mohammed Abdel-Rahman. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman had come to speak for Al-Timimi’s charity. Mohammed has been captured by the US and his whereabouts are unknown.

FBI Director Mueller chose not to conduct an effective investigation of the media leaks regarding Hatfill — which turned out to have been by the father of Al-Timimi’s lawyer. Director Mueller said it would be bad for morale.

Well, I would venture that not solving Amerithrax and appearing so clueless with the cockamamie tales of Wikipedia editing and sorority pranks is bad for the country’s morale.

Attorney General Mukasey, FBI Director Mueller, US Attorney Jeff Taylor and Ken Wainstein at the White House should give the DOJ and the FBI reason to be proud by bring Amerithrax to a successful conclusion. Fidelity. Bravery. Integrity. Either embrace the agency’s ideals or step down.

If there is a concern that issues of NSA warrantless wiretapping, the rendition of Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, and torture, would prove embarrassing, get over it, swallow hard and do justice.

I know a scientist who consults for the FBI on anthrax. I have known her to follow Amerithrax now for nearly 7 years. She consulted for the FBI full-time for the 30 days shortly before Ivins’ suicide. I find her analysis very lucid and find her to be a very quick study. She wrote this analysis shortly after hearing of Dr. Ivins’ suicide. It’s clear that the FBI has very learned and sharp scientists working for them.

“1. Ivins had just been immunized against anthrax. He was required to have yearly immunizations, and some anthrax scientists have chosen to be vaccinated every six months for safety, since the vaccine’s efficacy is weak–and Ivins had proven its weakness in several animal models. In his career he had probably received about 33 separate anthrax vaccinations.

2. Earlier, we heard the envelopes came from the specific post office he frequented. Today the affidavit states it is “reasonable to conclude” they were purchased in Maryland or Virginia.

3. Choosing a strain that would direct suspicion at Ivins. The perpetrator(s) were tremendously careful to leave no clues vis a vis the envelopes. For example, block lettering was used, which is the hardest to identify with handwriting analysis. Second, stamped envelopes were chosen to avoid using saliva. Third, there were no fingerprints on anything.

Why would the person(s) who took such care select an anthrax strain that would focus suspicion on himself? In 2001, strain analysis was possible. It had been discussed many times as a forensic tool for biowarfare, including in a paper I wrote in 1992, which Ivins had read, and in which I thanked him for his contributions.

4. Ivins was the “sole custodian” of the strain. But the strain was grown in 1997, and many people had access to it over that four year period. Having received a sample, or obtained it surreptitiously, they would be “custodians” of it too.

5. *** Between September 11, 2001 and the first anthrax letter being found, there was a LOT of talk about a biological attack being next. I was deluged with queries about this at the time. So if Ivins was trying to work harder under the cloud of an impending attack, it makes sense to me, because I was working harder.

6. If the motive is that he was mentally disturbed, agitated, out of control, then the care he took with those envelopes is paradoxical.

7. He was under pressure to help Bioport with its substandard anthrax vaccine. So he wanted to help Bioport by creating an attack? That doesn’t make sense. He had proven Bioport’s vaccine had limited efficacy. He knew about the safety data implicating the vaccine in chronic illnesses, particularly autoimmune illnesses. His colleague at Detrick, _________ took the possibility the adjuvant was causing illness seriously, and had published on this. Bruce told me he thought he might have a blood illness due to the anthrax vaccinations he had received.

But most critically, Bruce had created new anthrax vaccines designed to replace Bioport’s (now Emergent Biosolutions’) vaccine. Why would he want to do Bioport a favor?

And the vaccine that was used after the attack was Bioport’s (licensed in 1970, when Ivins was still in school) not Ivins’, since Ivins’ vaccines were not licensed or fully tested.

8. The affidavit carefully wordsmiths around Ivins’ lack of knowledge for making weaponized anthrax, by emphasizing that he might have known some of the things needed to make such a product. The statement is this: “Dr. Ivins was adept at manipulating anthrax production and purification variables to maximize sporulation and improve the quality of anthrax spore preparations. He also understood anthrax aerosolization dosage rates and the importance of purity, consistency and spore particle size due to his responsibility for providing liquid anthrax spore preparations for animal anthrax spore challenges.” After 28 years making anthrax, it would be odd if he weren’t expert in all these areas.

***

10. The Naval Medical Research Center held all the samples, under contract to FBI. This is a trivial point, but the Army and Navy are longstanding competitors. [ Additional Note by Reader: The Navy allowed a Salafist-Jihadist, who preached on the inevitability of a clash of civilizations and the end of times to work for it with a high security clearance at the contractor SRA in 1999; it was the Navy's laxity in such regard that was at the start of infiltration of US biodefense.]

11. Mental health. If Ivins was so out of control, so scary, why was he allowed to keep working in a high containment lab with access to some of the world’s deadliest pathogens for so long? Is it true, as has been reported, that it was an FBI agent who suggested Ms. Duley ask for a protection order? The wording on the order suggests she was coached by the FBI; how else would she know Ivins was to be charged with capital murder? More information on her finances and pre-existing legal troubles, and whether they had been remedied recently, is needed.

[about how Ivins wrote an email saying that journalist Gary M. could kiss his ass -- he had better things to do than shine his shoes -- but haven't we all told Gary that at one time or the other?]

13. *** Surely the FBI sought information on these dates and places from everyone with anthrax access in the US and probably abroad, shortly after the letter attacks. Either Ivins had an alibi or he didn’t. Put up or shut up: this is the most critical evidence in this case. If Ivins cannot be placed in New Jersey on those dates, he is not the attacker, or he did not act alone. [Additional Note From Reader: As Ed explains, he would have had to travel on the second mailing overnight, returning about 5 a.m. in the morning -- his 3 adult family members are his alibi]

Furthermore, there were other letters. Some contained other powders. Some were said to contain some anthrax in contemporaneous news reports. Some were warnings. These were mailed from other places, on other dates. The FBI has sat on this collateral evidence. If these envelopes, ink or block print were the same, the attacker would have to be placed at the scene when those letters were mailed. What happened to this evidence? Pony up.

14. The anthrax letters were sent for effect, not to kill. (See my 2002 article for more on this.)

***
I am still waiting to hear about how the FBI eliminated from consideration those with a real motive.

Hmmm. I see there are some VERY interesting postings here this morning.

But first, there’s this one:

BugMaster wrote: “There were two points to my message to you. #1 is that you really need to be more object, if only to avoid considerable embarrassment in the future. Point #2 is that you occasionally post “facts” that are ridiculous and laughable.”

#1. I try VERY hard to be objective. The fact that I disagree doesn’t mean I’m not being objective. You, KRolson, Reader, Anonymous and Maverick all have DIFFERENT viewpoints. The only thing you all really agree upon is that the FBI cannot be right, since you must be right. Looking at things objectively, I find that the FBI CAN be right. They supply better FACTS than all the people arguing against them.

Reader repeatedly tells me via his real name that I need to agree with others more often in order to gain credibility. If that is how one gains credibility, I’ll have none of it. I’m looking for the truth, not credibility.

#2. The people working with tracking the DNA of the attack anthrax are working with the complete genome. It’s my understanding that they CAN tell if any of the seven OTHER samples of anthrax which contained all four markers could have produced the attack anthrax. There is more in those samples than just the four markers. The four markers were simply used as a technique for sorting through the 1,070 samples to see which MIGHT have produced the attack anthrax.

When they found there were EIGHT that MIGHT have produced the attack anthrax, they then found that seven of the eight came from the eighth – RMR-1029. Seven were “daughter” bacteria from the “mother” bacteria in RMR-1029.

And the attack anthrax ALSO contained “daughter” spores.

And they can use OTHER DNA tests to show that ONLY RMR-1029 could have produced what was in the attack anthrax.

Even in a bacteria as stable as Bacillus anthracis, using the full genome they can today tell if batch A produced batch B, or if it was the other way around. I believe they can also tell if there must have been a batch B between batches A and C.

Here’s another fact that people need to understand:

The four mutants selected were selected from the “more than a dozen” in the ATTACK anthrax. That almost certainly means that they knew from the very beginning that the media anthrax had only three of the four mutants. How could they not?

They didn’t select the four mutants from RMR-1029. They used the four mutants to FIND RMR-1029.

JUNK SCIENCE claims that the four mutants MUST have been in all samples taken from RMR-1029 is just JUNK SCIENCE. People only make such JUNK SCIENCE claims because they are not being objective and need to find flaws in the FBI’s science in order to satisfy their own subjective BELIEFS.

BugMaster wrote: “Take swabs from the basement or floor or soil in front of the building the attack material was produced in, and you will get a genetic match. The subtilis didn’t come from outer space.”

But what would be proved if there was a genetic match to Bacillus subtilis found in the soil in front of the building? They already knew that the anthrax came from RMR-1029 which was inside that same buliding.

People here are arguing that the FBI should have tried harder to find the source of the Bacillus subtilis because the people here need proof that there was someone else involved or that the culprit wasn’t Ivins. They have none.

If they took swabs YEARS after the anthrax was made and didn’t find a match, that doesn’t mean that the Bacillus wasn’t there in 2001, nor does it mean that more swabs would or wouldn’t have found a perfect match somewhere.

The FBI said the Bacillus subtilis was a clue that led nowhere. Who says that all potential clues must lead somewhere?

Here’s a good example of some good information:

BugMaster wrote: “The pooled material in RMR-1029 contained all 4 morphs of interest. It would be impossible to transfer even a fraction of a milliliter of material from this flask without getting all 4 morphs. However, whether or not all 4 morphs persisted as the attack material was grown is not guaranteed. They don’t all grow at the same rate, so if material from the original flasked is passed (transferred from one flask to another) or grown long enough, all 4 may not still be present in a high enough concentrations to be detected. Another thing, none of the morphs were isolated from the victims, indicating that they do not persist or cannot infect in the case of an actual infection.”

Whether or not it is “impossible” to take a sample from RMR-1029 and not get all four mutants is a question that can only be answered by people who know a lot more about WHY those four mutants were chosen instead of four others.

The FACTS say that they KNEW that only three of the four were in the media anthrax when they picked the four. The four CAME from the attack anthrax. So, whether there were only three mutants in the media anthrax because only three were taken from RMR-1029 or because only three survived in sufficient quantities is really not critical to know. What IS important to know is that three were still enough to show that RMR-1029 was the source.

Ed Lake wrote:

“I find that the FBI CAN be right. They supply better FACTS than all the people arguing against them.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml

FBI’s Bullet Lead Analysis Used Flawed Science To Convict Hundreds Of Defendants

Joby Warrick has a story about how the CIA uses viagra for bribery in Afghanistan. I haven’t had a chance to read it to see if he included the background of the story in the version appearing in the Wash Po.

The troubles of Cairo Medical School graduate (’71), San Jose physician Ali Zaki, over taking Ayman Zawahiri and Bin Laden’s head of intelligence around the US in 1995 had just about faded from memory when in January 2000, a new problem then reared its head involving viagra to be shipped overseas.

In 1999, he had prescribed $164,000 in prescriptions for Viagara, a syringe of a drug for renal insufficiency and a vial for hypogonadism. (Bin Laden suffered from renal insufficiency.) The California Board governing physicians found that Dr. Zaki violated regulations because no patient was named and he had kept no records. The drugs were ordered ostensibly for a fictitious business MedChem.

When an investigator went to check out the listing it was the address at 550 Bevans Drive it turned out to have been a recently closed deli called Landmark Gourmet Delicatessen. Owned by Hasan Ibrahim, the business had been evicted. According to the decision, the drugs reportedly were for resale abroad. If they were intended for Afghanistan, someone must have expected a lot of action with some virgins. Perhaps erectile dysfunction was common there because of the cold, harsh conditions and the stress in that line of work. One of the allegations in the January 21, 2000 “Accusation” alleged that “On or about June 15, 1999, respondent ordered 100 bottles of Viagara, 30 tablets per bottle, at 100 milligram strength.” Cost: $164,000. Memories: Priceless. The public reprimand issued in August 2001.

In 1995, Ayman came once again to the United States where he was accompanied by US Army Sergeant Ali Mohammed on his travels to California, then Brooklyn, then the Washington, D.C. area in an attempt to develop the US infrastructure (as had been decided was the plan at a meeting in Khartoum). Who did Ayman visit in Washington, D.C.? Zawahiri traveled to the US in 1991 and 1995 under an alias (though the dates are disputed). Zawahiri sometimes was accompanied by two brothers, a New Jersey pharmacist and a viagra dispensing California doctor, Ali Zaki (a fellow Cairo Medical alum who denies knowing who Zawahiri was).

They were joined by a former US Army sergeant and key Al Qaeda operative, Ali Mohammed. In Santa Clara, Ayman reportedly stated at the home of Ali Mohammed, even though Mohammed had recently been subpoenaed to testify about what he knew about Bin Laden’s activities. Dr. Zaki says he was a good friend of Ali Mohammed and that it was widely known that Ali Mohammed was a liaison between the islamists in Afghanistan and the CIA. In one of his trips, he also reportedly went to Texas. One of the most important starting points of the FBI’s Amerithrax investigation should have been to trace the contacts that al-Zawahiri made on his last trip to the United States. He met with supporters associated with the Maktab Khidmat al-Mujahidin (the Al-Mujahidin services office) in the US.

All of this was known by the CIA in December 2001 and I have the documents to prove it. 7 years later we are handed this cockamamie Kappa Gamma story after the Hatfill Theory didn’t fly. Make whatever decisions you like (in good faith) in conducting the War of Terror. But lie to the American public and be prepared to leave office no later than January 20.

Ed:

“And they can use OTHER DNA tests to show that ONLY RMR-1029 could have produced what was in the attack anthrax.”

No, Ed, they can’t, and here within lies the problem! Your statement is essentially the saying, “There is absolute proof that the original RMR-1029 flask is the only possible source for attack material, material from the samples that matched (the so called “daughter spores) couldn’t be the source”.

Ed:

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

This is the problem, Ed. If the FBI could come up with enough DNA evidence to prove that the attack anthrax could only have been produced from starting material TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE FLASK, there wouldn’t be any debate here. We would all agree “Case Closed”.

They do not have these “OTHER DNA tests”. And the case is not closed.

BugMaster wrote: “This is the problem, Ed. If the FBI could come up with enough DNA evidence to prove that the attack anthrax could only have been produced from starting material TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE FLASK, there wouldn’t be any debate here. We would all agree “Case Closed”.”

Agreed. That is the problem. You do not believe the FBI has that evidence. The FBI says they DO have that evidence. AND they say it will be published as soon as it can get through the peer review and publication queue processes.

Here’s what the FBI and DOJ said (note the use fo the word “parent”):

“First, we were able to identify in early 2005 the genetically-unique parent material of the anthrax spores used in the mailings. As the court documents allege, the parent material of the anthrax spores used in the attacks was a single flask of spores, known as “RMR-1029,” that was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins at USAMRIID. This means that the spores used in the attacks were taken from that specific flask, regrown, purified, dried and loaded into the letters. No one received material from that flask without going through Dr. Ivins. We thoroughly investigated every other person who could have had access to the flask and we were able to rule out all but Dr. Ivins.”

and

“The initial science breakthrough, if you will, came in early 2005, in terms of having validated science that could be used to show the flask was the parent; science that could be used at trial, that could lead to admissible evidence. Then in 2007, as we conducted additional investigative steps, we were able to narrow the focus even further, exclude individuals, and that left us looking at Dr. Ivins.”

Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-opa-697.html

Reader quotes a scientist as saying, “6. If the motive is that he was mentally disturbed, agitated, out of control, then the care he took with those envelopes is paradoxical.”

The fact that Dr. Ivins was mentally disturbed is NOT a “motive” per se. It is a possible EXPLANATION for what he did and why he did it.

Does it really make any sense to say his motive was that he was mentally ill? Motive is about what MOTIVATES someone. Is he motivated by his mental illness, or does his mental illness PROVIDE the motivations?

If his mental illness made him think that he was the only person with enough courage and sense to awaken America to the dangers of a bioweapons attack, his motivation is to awaken America to the dangers of a bioweapons attack. It was NOT his mental illness.

Again, this makes me think of the other Bruce case: Bruce Pardo was definitely “mentally disturbed, aggitated and out of control,” yet he prepared a homemade flame thrower, he prepared a booby trap for his car, he disguised himself as Santa Claus to gain access, he purchased tickets and obtained money for his getaway, etc.

Methodical and detailed preparation for a criminal act is what one would EXPECT of someone mentally disturbed, not an aberation.

Ed wrote:

“First, we were able to identify in early 2005 the genetically-unique parent material of the anthrax spores used in the mailings. As the court documents allege, the parent material of the anthrax spores used in the attacks was a single flask of spores, known as “RMR-1029,” that was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins at USAMRIID. This means that the spores used in the attacks were taken from that specific flask, regrown, purified, dried and loaded into the letters. No one received material from that flask without going through Dr. Ivins. We thoroughly investigated every other person who could have had access to the flask and we were able to rule out all but Dr. Ivins.”

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

The statement above is simply not true. It’s as untrue as the FBI’s old claims that they could trace a bullet to the particular box purchased by their favorite suspect. As we have recently learned, BOTH the NYP AND Leahy spores were genetically DIFFERENT ! It is absolute and complete nonsense to claim they “came from that specific flask”. What’s even more hilarious is that RMR-1029 was NOT in B3 in October 2001. It was in a completely different building. That’s how amateurish and pathetic the FBI case is.

Anonymous wrote: “What’s even more hilarious is that RMR-1029 was NOT in B3 in October 2001. It was in a completely different building.”

You need to provide a verifiable source on that before any intelligent person would believe it.

And, even if it were in another building in October of 2001, you’d need to show that it wasn’t where Ivins could use it in August, September AND October 1-6, 2001. If it was moved to another building after that, who cares?

The FACTS are that RMR-1029, NYP and Leahy anthrax are all genetically DIFFERENT. The FBI would have been laughed out of court with this pathetic case. And that’s even without the little question of the missing silicon in RMR-1029 that Sandia have now admitted to.

What would prevent Dr. Ivins simply from walking with it from 1412 to 1425? Isn’t it easy to simply walk out the door with it?

Reader asked “What would prevent Dr. Ivins simply from walking with it from 1412 to 1425? Isn’t it easy to simply walk out the door with it?”

Security at Ft. Detrick was lax, but I seriously doubt that it was that lax. There were guards and there were CCTV cameras on the entrances. You might smuggle out some envelopes or even a small Petri dish, but not a thousand milliliter Ehrlenmeyer flask half full of spores suspended in a liquid.

The New York Times said:

“The seven samples came from Fort Detrick and one other laboratory in the United States.”

The WMD head clarified his statement to say he meant institution — which had more than one laboratory location. Separately, he said it was quasi-governmental.

The description fits only Battelle, with Ames for example at locations such as Dugway and West Jefferson.

The biggest bullshitter of all at FBI briefing was Dr James Burans…….

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/august08/anthraxscience_081808.html

He’s the guy who spouted off about how “easy” it must have been for Bruce Ivins to have made weaponized powder inside Detrick, without anybody noticing.

The FBI went to a great deal of length to not use a certain word when describing who he actually works for.

That word is Battelle:

http://www.bionity.com/lexikon/e/National_Biodefense_Analysis_and_Countermeasures_Center/
Battelle is well suited for this job as it has experience successfully running other US National Laboratories. (If you need to name names please cite Pat Fitch, Mike Kuhlman and Jim Burans – they are running the place.)

No conflict of interest here or anything like that

Congressional Research Service Report which was updated January 31, 2008 on the Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics indicates that a company such as Bioport would be considered a Quasi Government institution.

This is based on the money supplied to Bioport for its renovations and its major source of income coming from the sale of their vaccine to the Military and other government entities.

It seems that it may also include Battelle because of the research and additional spending there by the government.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30533.pdf

We know that the investigation has gone to great lengths to prevent us from knowing who the other institution, or Quasi-governmental, is.

Who funded this recent study on the integration of stable isotope and other mass spectral data for microbial forensics? The genetically distinct Bacillus subtilis is ATCC 6051.

Title: Integration of Stable Isotope and other Mass Spectral Data for Microbial Forensics
Authors: Kreuzer-Martin, H. W.; Jarman, K. H.
Affiliation: AA(Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 999 Battelle Blvd, P8-13, Richland, WA 99352
Publication: American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #H51C-0812 Publication Date:

Abstract

The nascent field of microbial forensics requires the development of diverse signatures as indicators of various aspects of the production environment of microorganisms. We have characterized isotopic relationships between Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6051 spores and their growth environment, using as a database the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen stable isotope ratios of a total of 247 separate cultures of spores produced on a total of 32 different culture media. We have analyzed variation within individual samples, between cultures produced in tandem, and between cultures produced in the same medium but at different times in the context of using stable isotope ratios as a signature for sample matching. We have correlated the stable isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen of growth medium nutrients or water and spores and show examples of how these relationships can be used to exclude nutrient or water samples as possible growth substrates for specific cultures. The power of stable isotope ratio data can be greatly enhanced by combining it with orthogonal datasets that speak to different aspects of an organism’s production environment. We developed a Bayesian network that follows the causal relationship from culture medium recipe to spore elemental content as measured by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios, and to the presence of residual agar by electrospray ionization MS (ESI-MS). The network was developed and tested on data from three replicate cultures of B. subtilis ATCC 49760 in broth and agar-containing versions of four different nutrient media. To test the network, data from SIMS analyses of B. subtilis 49760 produced in a different medium, from approximately 200 ESI MS analyses of B. thuringensis ATCC 58890 and B. anthracis Sterne grown in five additional media, and the stable isotope data from the 247 cultures of B. subtilis 6051 spores were used. This network was able to characterize Bacillus spores grown under multiple culture conditions with an error rate of less than 0.07 in characterizing carbon and nitrogen source, addition of metals, and presence of agar, and an error rate of 0.19 in characterizing the culture medium recipe. The integration of multiple analytical techniques allowed us to maximize the amount of information obtained from unknown source microorganisms. The Bayesian network approach allowed us to combine scientific understanding with well established statistical methodologies to characterize a microbe’s growth environment without the need for reference signatures. Similar approaches could be applied to data from other scientific disciplines, as well as to other problems of attribution.

Bayesian-Integrated Microbial Forensics

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, June 2008, p. 3573-3582, Vol. 74, No. 11

Kristin H. Jarman,* Helen W. Kreuzer-Martin, David S. Wunschel, Nancy B. Valentine, John B. Cliff, Catherine E. Petersen, Heather A. Colburn, and Karen L. Wahl
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/74/11/3573

“In the aftermath of the 2001 anthrax letters, researchers have been exploring ways to predict the production environment of unknown-source microorganisms. Culture medium, presence of agar, culturing temperature, and drying method are just some of the broad spectrum of characteristics an investigator might like to infer. The effects of many of these factors on microorganisms are not well understood, but the complex way in which microbes interact with their environments suggests that numerous analytical techniques measuring different properties will eventually be needed for complete characterization. In this work, we present a Bayesian statistical framework for integrating disparate analytical measurements. We illustrate its application to the problem of characterizing the culture medium of Bacillus spores using three different mass spectral techniques. The results of our study suggest that integrating data in this way significantly improves the accuracy and robustness of the analyses.”

This work was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program. Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC06-76RLO operates PacificNorthwest National Laboratory for the U.S. DOE.

KRolson wrote: “We know that the investigation has gone to great lengths to prevent us from knowing who the other institution, or Quasi-governmental, is.”

Baloney. Anyone could figure it out.

The FBI is NOT going to name all the scientists who the investigation showed were NOT involved. And they are NOT going to list all the laboratories which the investigation showed were NOT involved.

It’s NOT a conspiracy. It’s the LAW. There are LAWS which say that such investigative details are to be kept confidentical. And it’s common decency, since the media and conspiracy theorists would tear those other people and places apart looking for something they can twist, distort and sensationalize.

errata

It appears that Ed’s views are predicated on his understanding that the isolates were not an exact match.

Ed is also mistaken in thinking that the subtilis contamination is irrelevant. To the contrary, it is relevant and it may be highly probative.

Ed:

“NO, it could NOT. They determined that the attack anthrax could ONLY have come from someone with access to RMR-1029. That flask contained the PARENTS of the attack spores AND the PARENTS of the bacteria in the other seven samples.

The other seven samples were SISTERS, not PARENTS.”

Once again Ed, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

There is no scientific evidence, known, or even theoretical explainations that can support your claim. Any one of the so-called “sisters” (note this is not a microbiological term”)could have been the “parent” of the attack material.

“The scientific reports will presumably SHOW the science behind HOW they determined that the attack anthrax spores MUST have been made from PARENT spores in RMR-1029 and COULD NOT have been made from the bacteria in the other seven “SISTER” samples.”

I note that you state “presumably” here. You have concluded that the FBI has developed scientific methods not yet disclosed that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you state is true.

They DO NOT have these methods, they are a scientific impossiblity. (Ed, you are not a microbiologist!) What you have stated in your above conclusion (proving the attack material could not have been made from the so-called “sister samples”) cannot be done!

What the FBI has done is to narrow down the original source of the attack anthrax to 8 possible starting points. They claim to have eliminated all other suspects (how much faith one would place in that is based on how much faith one feels the FBI deserves, personally, my answer is NONE!) based on standard policework and investigative techniques, not cutting edge microbial analysis.

As to the basis for my lack of faith in the FBI, one short answer is “Steven J. Hatfill”.

Bug Master is of course correct.

Ed you are entitled to your theories, and we even most days allow you your own facts (you dismiss any inconvenient facts as irrelevant). But please stop making up your own science. A good man knows his limitations.

Instead, I want you to read the 2008 articles on microbial forensics relating to the anthrax attacks and report what the scientists advise us.

For example, with appropriate choice of sugar marker and analytical procedure, detection of sugar markers for agar has considerable potential in microbial forensics. So you might focus, as I’ve previously suggested, on the culture medium used to grow the anthrax.

Samples (including the virulent B. anthracis Ames were provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) were provided these researchers who this year published “Detection of agar, by analysis of sugar markers, associated with Bacillus anthracis spores, after culture,” Wunschel et al. The lead author is from PNNL.

BugMaster wrote: “O.K., now Ed, I have tried to understand this statement, and I’ll admit I’m totally lost here.”

The FBI has stated that RMR-1029 was the PARENT of the attack spores. They also stated that RMR-1029 was the PARENT of the SEVEN other samples from the 1,070 samples that were tested. That makes the attack spores and the seven other samples SISTERS.

The mutants were merely used to FIND the parent. They did NOT determine which one was the parent. The COMPLETE DNA analysis determined which one was the parent.

Comprendo?

Ed presumes that the articles relating to microbial forensics support the FBI’s conclusion that the dead guy was responsible.

Instead, Ed, a sounder approach — if you are interested in true crime analysis — would be to read the articles and share your lay person’s opinion if you like. (Better yet, focus on soliciting the opinion of experts).

For example, what did you think of Kreuzer-Martin’s “Integration of Stable Isotope and other Mass Spectral Data for Microbial Forensics”

and

Wunschel’s “Detection of agar, by analysis of sugar markers, associated with Bacillus anthracis spores, after culture.

Do you think they support or undermine the FBI’s Ivins Theory? And why?

I wrote: “The mutants were merely used to FIND the parent.”

I should have written: The mutants were merely used to FIND POSSIBLE PARENTS.

The COMPLETE DNA analysis determined which one of the possibilities was the actual parent.

This guy Ed Lake is a certified nutcase. See his ugly mug here:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/fakers.html

These Are Definitely Not Scully’s Breasts

Inside one man’s crusade to save Gillian Anderson and the rest of the world from the plague of fake celebrity porn.

In Wunschel et al., “Detection of agar, by analysis of sugar markers, associated with Bacillus anthracis spores, after culture,” J Microbiol Methods. 2008 Aug;74(2-3):57-63. Epub 2008 Apr 12, we see that D. Fetterolf of the FBI provided irradiated Ames for to make sure that there was not something that undermined the method as they sought to use it with the anthrax letters.

The authors wrote:

“For example in the anthrax attacks of 2001, the strain employed was widely reported in the media to be B. anthracis Ames and it was not sufficiently different from other widely used Ames strains to allow determination of its source. (citation omitted) However, determining information about growth characteristics remains a challenging task that has only recently begun to be addressed. It is vital to be able to assay trace contaminants. Furthermore, in chemical analysis of such a precious sample there is only a finite amount of material that can’t be replenished (e.g. by growth or polymerase chain amplification, PCR, as for molecular diagnostics). Markers for agar which is, of course, a constituent of all widely used solid media could be used to differentiate prior growth in liquid media. Other components of media may be indicative of a specific medium (e.g. one containing animal constituents, such as sheep blood agar …)”

So of the 100+ -300 with access, it would be relevant (and it may be highly probative) if some of those used sheep blood agar.

Bugmaster wrote:

“As to the basis for my lack of faith in the FBI, one short answer is “Steven J. Hatfill”.”

I’ll provide a few more reasons for lack of faith in the FBI:

(1) Perry Mikesell
(2) 2 other unnamed Detrick scientists the FBI harassed ( http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022008/news/nationalnews/scientist_slam_fbi_thrax_probe_in_bid_to_136476.htm?&page=0 )
(3) FBI labs fabricated lead in bullets scandal ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml )
(4) FBI labs fabricating evidence for years ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-17463941.html )

What a track record……

BugMaster wrote: ““The COMPLETE DNA analysis determined which one was the parent.”

“Once again, NO, Ed, NO! Not possible!

“The FBI has done everything to give this impression, but it is not true.”

You say it is not possible, but you do not explain WHY you BELIEVE it is not possible. That is “junk science.” You simply say it is not possible and demand that the other person show that it IS possible.

It isn’t just the FBI that is saying they can tell a “parent” from “daughter,” I believe it is mainly Paul Keim, who is the #1 expert on anthrax DNA.

Your beliefs may be based upon the science of a few years ago, before they could INEXPENSIVELY evaluate the ENTIRE GENOME of an anthrax sample.

Bacillus anthracis may be a very stable bacterium, but DNA changes still DO occur between batches. You can’t see the changes by just looking for key markers, but you CAN see the changes by looking at the entire genome and figuring out which change must have come first.

That’s the way I understand it. And just saying it’s “impossible” without explaining WHY it is impossible won’t change anything.

KRolson wrote: “We know that the FBI destroyed 1 of the two original samples Dr. Ivins submitted of RMR-1029. The other sample was sent to Dr. Keim who retained it until it was latter confiscated by the FBI.”

and

“How did the FBI know which sample to destroy?”

The FBI destroyed ALL the samples they had which did not follow established protocols for evidence, and therefore would have been worthless in court. They had just ONE such sample.

Two samples were taken from RMR-1029. One was kept by the FBI, the other was sent to Keim. Some time later, the FBI found their sample to be worthless as evidence and destroyed it.

Fortunately, Keim didn’t destroy his sample because, whether or not it followed proper protocols was not a concern of his – or because he never got around to it – or because he didn’t even know the FBI had reason to destroy their sample.

BugMaster wrote: “So has this method actually been applied to the attack material to determine if it was from material cultured on plates?

“If so, why hasn’t the FBI disclosed the conclusions?”

Here’s why it presumably hasn’t been used:

“The study presented here serves only as an initial proof of concept of the approach. A scientifically defensible Bayesian network for microbial forensics should integrate biological models, as well as a statistical description of each node based on carefully collected data. Additionally, a sensitivity study characterizing changes in the performance of the Bayesian network with changes in the specified parameters would provide a measure of the robustness of this approach. Finally, the network needs to be demonstrated under realistic conditions. The effects of different species on our models
need to be established, and a broader range of culture media need to be studied. In addition, the effects of interference and the presence of complex backgrounds need to be evaluated.”

In other words, it’s just a CONCEPT, NOT a procedure ready to be put to work.

Ed Flake wrote:

“In order to show a “track record,” you must also show the number of successes”.

Bullshit – the FBI lab have already earned their reputation:

http://www.amazon.com/Tainting-Evidence-Inside-Scandals-Crime/dp/0743236416

as one attorney tells the authors, “No defense lawyer in the country is going to take what the FBI lab says at face value anymore.”

KRolson wrote: “Why did they not answer any of the questions about the other submissions of Dr. Ivins?”

I don’t know what questions you are talking about.

The first two samples which Ivins submitted were before the search warrant defined the protocols, BUT Ivins helped develop the protocols, so he knew them without reading them in the search warrant. Yet, he didn’t follow protocols. Why don’t you ask WHY he didn’t follow protocols?

The second set of samples he sent were not from RMR-1029. Why not? They were supposed to be from RMR-1029.

Why was an supposedly innocent man (in your mind) deliberately trying to mislead the FBI?

Ed:

“Bacillus anthracis may be a very stable bacterium, but DNA changes still DO occur between batches. You can’t see the changes by just looking for key markers, but you CAN see the changes by looking at the entire genome and figuring out which change must have come first.”

Changes occur over many generations. So how many generation were in the batches used to produce the attack anthrax?

1.) Not known.

2.) Even then, there will not be enough generational changes between a primary subculture and a secondary subculture to detect.

Let me try to put this in layman’s terms, since I am a scientist and you are not.

For the FBI to be able to claim what you think you are claiming, they would literally have to be able to solve for two variables with one equation.

It can’t be done.

Ed the questions and answers that are different and avoid answering the questions about Dr. Ivins other samples are listed on pages 26 – 39 at this link:

http://www.avip2001.net/DOCS/080818_FBI%20Anthrax%20Briefing.pdf

Not only do they all seem to give conflicting statements on the second sample but they go to great lengths to avoid answering any question on Dr. Ivins other first submissions.

Of course the answers do not match the statements in the search warrant affidavits either.

Yet you do not question why!

Krolson wrote: “Ed the questions and answers that are different and avoid answering the questions about Dr. Ivins other samples are listed on pages 26 – 39 at this link:

I’ve viewed those questions a dozen times or more. There is no inconsistency in the answers, there are only diffent questions which require different answers.

If you see some inconsistency, then maybe you just don’t understand the questions and answers.

The questions and answers are clear and the answers do conflict repeatedly. It is clear that you read with your blinders on.

Ed:

I realize basic microbiological concepts can be difficult for someone not well versed in the art to understand.

This should help:

A generation is more commonly referred to as a “doubling”. If started from a single bacteria, 1 becomes 2, the next generation of the culture 2 becomes 4, then 8, 16, 32, 64, etc. The culture experiences a phase called logarithmic growth (for obvious reasons).

“Therefore, there were 871,000,000,000 spores in the Leahy letter.

If started from a single bacterium, that would be 870,999,999,999 generations”

No, that number represents about 37 doublings, or 37 generations (2 raised to the 37th power. (I could be off by one or two, I haven’t memorized the exponential functions in Excel).

The material COULD NOT have been started from a single microbe! It had to have all 4 of the morphs present in RPA-102! That is the one point the FBI has been making that most agree on! That part of their science is sound, if you ask me.

The inoculant (portion transfered, or sub-cultured) would have contained in excess of 1.0 x 10 raised to the 9th power spores even if 1/10th of a ml. was used. And in this inoculation, the morphs would have been present in the same proportions of that in the culture they came from (Ivins flask or 1 of the 7 other sources that contained all 4 morphs).

No, Ed, there are not enough changes in the material from one subculture to another. Such changes occur over many generations. Since Ivins flask contained a pool of many batches from many generations, (and not derived from a single bacterium!) many morphs were present.

KRolson,

Do you really expect me to go through every single question and answer on those 13 pages and explain in detail why they are all consistent? You’d just say I was not reading them properly.

I think it would be much easier if you just pick TWO inconsistent answers – and we can discuss them.

BugMaster wrote “You did bring up an excellent point in one of your past posts. We need more information about the slides described on the Nass website.”

Yeah. A big problem with conspiracy theorists is that whenever they see something that doesn’t seem right, they assume it’s evidence of the conspiracy. They don’t even TRY to figure things out.

I’ve sent an e-mail to Dr. Ravel asking for clarification, but everything is probably shut down until some time in the new year.

And if any conspiracy theorist had bothered to ask Dr. Ravel for clarification, you can be sure that we’d never hear the response unless Dr. Ravel declared that everything the FBI said was a big lie.

He notes:

“The publication is about to be submitted to an Open-Access journal so it is available to everybody free of charge.”

BugMaster wrote: “This is quite bizarre, I didn’t notice this before. And I don’t care who the hell he is, this statement is WRONG!

“Maybe someone should contact him, he really should better explain himself here. I don’t think he knowingly made a false statement, rather, what he was trying to explain in layman’s terms got lost in translation.”

I’ve exchanged many emails with Dr. Keim.

You provide this example of YOUR thinking: “If you have two children, and they got married and each had two children, you would have 4 grandchildren. If they were all to visit for thanksgiving dinner, how many generations are present? The answer is, including yourself, 3. By your logic, you would answer 7.”

But a Bacillus anthracis bacterium CANNOT HAVE 2 children. Therefore, if you were single female and gave birth to one child, and that child did the same, that means that, including yourself, you would still have 3 generations and only 3 people.

One thing you are ignoring in your human analogy is that mutations do not affect EVERY child in a human family. In a family of ten kids, only one might be born with three arms, yet you consider each one of them to be the “second generation.”

Mutations where a child is born with three arms may occur only once in a million births.

When you have a million different people giving birth at the same time, that means 1 should have three arms.

Bacillus anthacis mutations that occur once per billion births do not require a billion LINEAR doublings. If you start with a billion pregnant bacteria, only ONE doubling is needed.

Does that explanation help?

NUTS! I was about to shut down when I realized what I wrote could be misinterpreted. I wrote: “Or would you have a thousand mutations after just 42 doublings?”

I should have written “Or would you have a thousand UNIQUE mutations after just 42 doublings?”

Each of the thousand UNIQUE mutations would of course, in theory, have many reproductions of themselves in the trillion spores.

Trying to shut down again. Nighty night.

Ed Let us start with a very easy one.

How many times did they say that Dr. Ivins submitted his first sample prior to the subpoena before the dates of the subpoena was announced?

Total 10

The total number of times they said Dr. Ivins submitted his first sample prior to the subpoena after the subpoena dates were announced?

Total 1

How many times did they say Dr. Ivins submitted his first sample after receiving the subpoena but before the subpoena date was announced?

Total 0

How many times did they say Dr. Ivins submitted his first sample after receiving the subpoena after the subpoena date was announced?

Total 2

Ed that is only on the pages 26 – 39 at this link:

http://www.avip2001.net/DOCS/080818_FBI%20Anthrax%20Briefing.pdf

BugMaster I do know that you are right about most of it. I think the only thing we don’t agree on is Bioport vs. Battelle.

I really appreciate your help in understanding the Microbiology end of things.

A $50 million interest in the subject matter of the litigation would seem to be a disqualifying interest under usual circumstances. I’m sure some of the country’s best minds have noodled over how to handle that one and gave it the same scrupulous care that they gave the question whether waterboarding constitutes torture and whether NSA wiretapping of US citizens requires a warrant in light of FISA.

The Florida Supreme Court issued a decision October 30, 2008 holding Battelle owed a duty of due care to avoid unauthorized access to the virulent anthrax:

“The complaint stated that despite this knowledge, the government failed to provide adequate security for the handling or shipping of the materials, and, as a result, sometime before October 2001 anthrax was improperly intercepted either from USAMRIID or from another research facility to which the materials had been sent.

The complaint against Battelle alleged that Battelle breached its duty of care to Mr. Stevens by failing to implement adequate security procedures at its facility. The suit alleged, inter alia, that Battelle failed to properly maintain the anthrax it was using for research, monitor employees who had access to the anthrax, or secure the facility from unauthorized access. The complaint also alleged that Battelle was negligent in its hiring practices because it failed to conduct background investigations prior to hiring individuals who would have access to anthrax. Finally, the complaint alleged negligent supervision of employees working with anthrax. As a result of these failings, the complaint alleged that anthrax was obtained and sent to American Media.

***
In the instant case, we have no way of knowing whether Stevens will ultimately be able to prove a case against the defendants. However, we conclude that Stevens’ allegations are sufficient to open the courthouse doors. The allegations assert that the government and Battelle have affirmatively chosen to work with an ultrahazardous substance that poses virtually unparalleled risk of injury to the general public if its security is not assured. ***

We hold, therefore, consistent with the analysis set out above, that a laboratory that manufactures, grows, tests or handles ultrahazardous materials does owe a duty of reasonable care to members of the general public to avoid an unauthorized interception and dissemination of the materials.”

Bug Master,

I’ve had a long heart-to-heart with the anthrax mailer. He’s convinced me that the US DOJ has problems that are far more difficult to resolve than the embarrassment over allowing Al-Timimi’s infiltration, him once being the assistant to the White House Chief of Staff, or the hundreds of millions that Battelle has made and spread around over the past 7 years.

Yes, but while there is no evidence that Battelle was involved, there is massive documentary and direct forensic evidence that US-based operatives of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad were responsible. The Hadith instructed to use the weapons of your enemy. By doing so, Zawahiri brilliantly messed up the US and the Bush Administration, for its own self-interested reasons, allowed it. Continuing to urge Bioport and Battelle has no factual basis (and not even a particularized basis). There is no there there. For example, if Kirk wants to continue to post a BioPort theory, then he should at least obtain the court filings where they formally deny they had Ames, for example.

http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com

Reader in your statement

“It’s time now for Condoleeza Rice to have that open and honest dialog about the unsavory associations the Administration has had in gaining BCW intelligence.”

Are you talking about the Amerithrax Task Force?

While I’ve forgotten my password if Ed pulls those two pleadings I cited for you, I’ll give him a copies of all scientific journal articles gratis as they appear (including those that have appeared to date). It’s fine to harbor the belief based on undisclosed information, but it’s not okay to make the suggestion without disclosing and making available all the contrary documentary information. For example, in raising the “Mr. Z” story in its particulars in the early July 2002 column journalist NK should have first contacted Dr. Hatfill. You should find a way to get the filings (they are just 8 cents). I’m usually pretty good at sending along documents to Ed — and can formally commit to sending all of them along – if he does us this one favor.

You posit acquisition in 1997.

Anything prior to that would be irrelevant given the creation of the flask in 1997. The strain used was a mix of two sources (Dugway and West Jefferson) that was created in 1997.

I meant to say “Let’s consider the documentary evidence regarding who leaked the hyped sensational story regarding Hatfill that derailed the investigation for years and consider whether it traces] it back to Battelle, Bioport, the CIA, the Saudis, or serendipity.”

Toward that end, let’s consider the internal FBI emails relating to its failure to get to the bottom of the investigation of the media leak (which should have been a simple matter).

In early August 2002, the head of the District of Columbia Field Office initiated a leak investigation related to Amerithrax information. The first leak investigation concerned leak of bloodhound story to Newsweek (according to email discussed in deposition of lead prosecutor Daniel Seikaly in which he repeatedly pled the Fifth Amendment). A memo from DC Field Office head Van Harp read:

TO: OPR
NSD
From: Washington Field
ADIC’s Office: Harp Van A (202) xxx-xxxx
***
Title: UNSUB
UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE AND/OR
MEDIA LEAK IN CONNECTION WITH THE
AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
***
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
The appearance of this information in the media affects the conduct of this investigation as well as the morale of the dedicated personnel who have expended enormous energy and effort on this investigation.

As such, I am requesting that either a media leak or OPR investigation be initiated. In the event a leak investigation is initiated then the enclosed LRM should be hand delivered to AAG Chertoff. [REDACTED]

The investigation was closed in October 2002. The memo read:

Date: October 8, 2002
To: Mr. H. Marshall Jarrett
Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
United States Department of Justice
From: David W. Szady
Assistant Director
Counterintelligence Division
Subject: [REDACTED[

The purpose of this memorandum is to notify your office of the closing of the FBI's criminal investigation of the captioned media leak matter. It is the understanding of the FBI that your continued investigation of this matter will be pursued by your office.
[REDACTED]
***
After a January 9, 2003 “exclusive” report by ABC’s Brian Ross that the FBI was focusing on Hatfill and was going to conduct a second round of interviews with other former and current government scientists so that they might rule them out by the process of elimination, the FBI initiated a second media leak investigation. This time it was to proceed with “extreme zeal.”

The memo read:
Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 1/13/2003
To: Director’s Office
Washington Field
From: Washington Field
Contact Richard L. Lambert 202-xxx-xxxx
Approved by: Harp Van
Lambert Richard L
Title: AMERITHRAX
MAJOR CASE 184
00: WFO

Synopsis: To request the opening of new OPR media leak investigation regarding captioned case.

[large redacted passages]

To demonstrate the seriousness with which the FBI views this matter, it is requested that the OPR inquiry commence with an interview of IIC Rick Lambert who will waive all Fifth Amendment privileges and accede to a voluntary polygraph examination to set a tone of candor, forthrightness and cooperation.

[redacted]

The instant matter is the second unauthorized media disclosure to occur in this investigation. Its potential detriment to the effective prosecution of the case is substantial. Accordingly, in the interests of both specific and general deterrence, the Inspector in Charge requests that this OPR inquiry be pursued with unprecedent zeal.”

A June 2003 email then shut the barn door long after the horse had left the building:

From: DEBRA WEIERMAN
To: Lisa Hodgson
Date: Wed, June 4, 2003 12:18 PM
Subject: AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
Lisa: Please disseminate to all WFO employees. Thanks, Debbie

For the information of all recipients, Director Mueller has ordered that no one discuss the AMERITHRAX case with any representative of the news media. The WFO and Baltimore Media Offices have released several media advisories, which were coordinated with the US Attorney and FBIHQ, to explain specific milestones in the case. However, NO FBI WFO EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING MYSELF AND INSPECTOR RICK LAMBERT, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF AMERITHRAX, IS TO RESPOND TO ANY MEDIA INQUIRIES, THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS DEBBIE WEIERMAN IN THE MEDIA OFFICE. All inquiries from reporters or journalists received by any WFO employee are to be immediately referred to Debbie at xxx-xxxx, and she will handle.

I thank everyone at WFO for their dedication to the job and to this office. I also thank you for your cooperation in this very important matter.

Mike Rolince

In October 2007, the former Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Daniel Seikaly, was deposed in the civil rights action by Steve Hatfill about whether he was the source of leaks relating to Steve Hatfill in connection the use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation and the draining of ponds in Frederick, Maryland. Key stories appeared in Newsweek and Washington Post. Attorney Seikaly pled the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in connection with most substantive questions.

Attorney Seikaly has had a very distinguished career. In 2001, Mr. Seikaly went from being Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Central Intelligence Agency to Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. There he supervised eighty-five Assistant United States Attorneys involved in the prosecution of all federal offenses in the District of Columbia. He also served as a technical expert for U.S. Department of State funded rule of law programs in Croatia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand. Before accepting the appointment to Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Mr. Seikaly was Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Central Intelligence Agency. While with the CIA, a profile at his current law firm’s webpage explains, “he conducted and supervised numerous investigations concerning allegations of misconduct by employees, contractors and vendors involved in CIA programs. In that position, he routinely interacted with senior officials within the intelligence community, other executive branch agencies and Congress concerning intelligence investigations.” The profile continues: “From 1996 to 1998, Daniel served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice and was Director of the Department’s Executive Office for National Security. There he was responsible for the coordination and oversight of the national security activities of the Department of Justice, including intelligence operations, international law enforcement, relations with foreign countries and the use of classified information. Reporting directly to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General and acting with their authority in national security matters, Daniel was a primary point of contact between the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies with national security interests such as the National Security Council, the Department of State and the Department of Defense.”

Here are some excerpts from the deposition:

“Q. … calls this article, quote ‘An exclusive look at the search for the perpetrator of America’s worst bioterror attack.” Did you tell Mr. Klaidman [of Newsweek] that you were giving him an exclusive on this information?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI was acting on a tip when it searched the pond in Frederick?

…

Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that FBI agents had interviewed the acquaintance of Dr. Hatfill’s that was supposedly the tipster?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the acquaintance had told the FBI that Dr. Hatfill said toxic bacteria could be made in the woods and the evidence could be tossed in the lake?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that the FBI might drain the entire pond the month after this report?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

[Lawyer defending deposition] Mark, let me say something on the record so we all understand the assertion because the manner in which — or the type of questions you’re asking here. My client has been instructed to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege regardless of whether or not the answer to the question would be yes or no, because even if the answer were to be no, if he answered no to certain questions, I think an inference could be drawn from that as to what he does or doesn’t know.

So I just want to make sure you understand in terms of our Fifth Amendment assertion here is that he’s asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege to questions that may have a yes or no answer, and it’s not fair to assume that the answer to every one of these questions would be yes or no if he were to answer the questions. Does that make sense?

Q. It makes sense, but we will be seeking an adverse inference as to all questions where the fifth amendment is taken.

***

Q. Mr. Seikaly, do you deny any of the statements attributed to you by Mr. Klaidman with respect to the [Newsweek bloodhound story]

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q Is it actually even true whether the search of the pond was prompted by a tip?

Q. Are you aware of any information that might have been used as a predicate for the pond search having been obtained as the fruits of electronic surveillance?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q Did you tell Mr. Klaidman that agents might be looking for a wet suit that could have been used to dispose of — that could have been used and disposed of by the anthrax attacker?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q. Did you give Allan Lengel of The Washington Post any information reflected in this article?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Mr. Lengel has testified that you told him the FBI search of the pond in Frederick was tied to Steven Hatfill and that it was triggered by a hypothetical statement Dr. Hatfill has made about anthrax; is that correct?

A. That Mr. Lengel testified about that?

Q. Is it correct that you told Mr. Lengel about those things?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q. Why did you decide to disclose information to Mr. Lengel about the pond search?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up to that point included a clear box with holes that could accommodate gloves?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

Q Did you tell Mr. Lengel that the items recovered from the pond up that point included vials wrapped in plastic?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

Q. Do you specifically deny making any statement that Mr. Lengel has attributed to you?

[deponent invokes Fifth Amendment]

***

[ and so on ]

His daughter has represented Ali Al-Timimi pro bono in defense of his prosecution for sedition.

The press has been so focused in defending itself from the charge that it was unfair to Dr. Hatfill — and law enforcement officials have been so chastened by the civil rights suit brought by Dr. Hatfill — that five years ago there stopped being meaningful coverage of Amerithrax by the mainstream press altogether. Online journalists like the fellow at Slate and bloggers like Dr. Nass have provided critical coverage of an Ivins Theory. Given that it seems the press nowadays only ever has the budget to take spin handed under the table to them by government officials anyway, perhaps the First Amendment is not as worth prioritizing, in the balance of competing interests, as it used to be. The wisdom of the fictional City Desk Editor at the Baltimore Sun on the HBO’s series “Wired” in parsing out such First Amendment issues involving competing considerations — and that of Professor Archibald Cox — will be sorely missed.

But I sense Archibald Cox would never have tolerated the baloney that has gone in connection to Amerithrax.

I fully appreciate that they think they can’t move forward. But I think Barack Obama’s watchword — like Archibald Cox — will be VERITAS. There’s no truth he can’t handle, get to the bottom of, and explain.

And I think that truth is that Ayman Zawahiri ran circles around the US government in the period 1999-2001 just as he did in the case of the earlier infiltration of Bin Laden’s chief of intelligence Ali Mohammed.

For what it’s worth, there was a response from Dr. Jacques Ravel in my email inbox this morning. I don’t have permission to quote him, so I’ll just paraphrase:

He says the slide mentioned on Dr. Nass’s site refers to a list of morphotypes/wild type isolates that were SEQUENCED, and it does NOT refer to their presence or absence in the Leahy letter or the New York Post letter, even though both letters are also mentioned on that slide.

He adds that that is exactly why he didn’t want the slides distributed because he knew that the information without him explaining could be very easily misinterpreted.

He says he can CONFIRM that all four mutants were in EACH of the anthrax letters AND in RMR-1029.

So, what we have on Dr. Nass’s site is just another example of scientists misunderstanding something and ASSUMING that the only explanation can be some error by the FBI.

AP reports:

“The FBI began a file on Eagleton in February 1958, apparently after the young prosecutor — speaking to colleagues while in a Las Vegas coffee shop — criticized an FBI fingerprint examiner’s testimony for helping derail the prosecution’s case in a St. Louis robbery trial. One of the others at the table worked for the FBI and Eagleton’s slight made it all the way to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.”

The FBI would be less sensitive to criticism if there was less unconstructive name-calling and more constructive working to establish the facts. Info re who used sheep blood agar, genetically distinct subtilis, up-to-date literature searches, historical research etc.

Personally, I’m a big fan of the FBI and just think it’s not so easy to solve crimes. They can always use some help — even from those who disagree with their announced conclusions.

An FBI agent once asked me why I didn’t apply after I commented FBI agents had dream jobs (and for years had always been enthusiastically admiring of the principles of Director Mueller and Amerithrax head Michael Mason who for years worked at the office here).

I told him that it was the money — but privately a separate reason is this:

Can you imagine the frustration of an agent or prosecutor who sees the case being bungled by higher-ups more concerned with avoiding embarrassment or responding to political pressure than catching the bad guys?

That’s why I would much rather represent a whistleblower. A whistleblower from the “Dark Side” would be fun. But a whistleblower who was a Salafist-Jihadist would be most fun of all.

Here, where Ayman Zawahiri’s credible threat is to launch an attack that dwarfs 9/11 — perhaps an aerosolized anthrax attack on New York City and Washington, DC — I would have thought by now FBI Director Mueller would be acting more like Gary Cooper in “High Noon” and less like a White House troubleshooter fronting for a cowering townspeople.

Majidi’s comments about “spores on a grassy knoll” were outrageous. No grassy knoll’s here, no magic bullets, no extra shots.

The samples exist – they have a silicon signature – likely resulting from treatment with a siliconizing agent (a polymerized glass). They have a source, and that silconizing agent points right to that source (hint: It ain’t Detrick).

The first question I’d ask at hearings is to SEE THE LAB REPORTS from April 2002 that ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATED THE PRESENCE OF POLYMERIZED GLASS. It was the FBI themselves that leaked that information to Newsweek, CNN and the Washington Post.

Incredibly, today we a have a 180 degree turnaround – we have Sandia claiming they knew all along (since December 2001) that the mailed spores only contained “natural silicon”. Obviously that’s exactly the opposite of the April 2002 lab findings (funny how they don’t get talked about anymore, isn’t it?)

See links below:

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/sophisticatedstrainanthrax.html
Government sources tell NEWSWEEK that the secret new analysis shows anthrax found in a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy was ground to a microscopic fineness not achieved by U.S. biological-weapons experts. The Leahy anthrax — mailed in an envelope that was recovered unopened from a Washington post office last November — also was coated with a chemical compound unknown to experts who have worked in the field for years;

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxpowdernotroutine.html
Extensive lab tests of the anthrax powder have revealed new details about how the powder was made, including the identity of a chemical used to coat the trillions of microscopic spores to keep them from clumping together. Sources close to the investigation declined to name the chemical but said its presence was something of a surprise.

The powder’s formulation “was not routine,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Somebody had to have special knowledge and experience to do this,” the official said.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/unusualcoating.html
Washington (CNN) — Scientists have found a new chemical in the coating on the anthrax spores mailed to journalists and politicians last fall, a high-ranking government official said Wednesday. The discovery of the unnamed chemical, something scientists are familiar with, was surprising, the official said.

On a minor point, Is he an agent? Or is he the FBI’s WMD head. It is not this WMD head who said the Silicon Signature may be due to silica in the culture medium who should be faulted. He’s right.

The WMD head is relying on the investigative work — not the scientific work — to exclude the 100-300 with access. The genetic analysis thus far disclosed is sound. It just does not come close to establishing an Ivins Theory. Ed thought it did because of the FBI’s overselling of it — and they all had been ordered by President Bush to wrap all biosecurity issues up in his term.

It is Ken W. at the White House, the key national security guy at the WH on this you should fault, not the FBI’s WMD head. Ken W. was the former DC US Attorney, former head of the DOJ division fusing national security and law enforcement, and Mueller’s former chief of staff. He is the one who has orchestrated this, not the WMD head. You *are* keeping all your emails, right Ken?

Earlier, in 2002, I would faulted the FBI profiler Jim F. who thought that the bizarre nature of the attacks is the work of a single individual — and who has evidenced no awareness at all of the Al Hayat letter bombs, Zawahiri’s announced plan to use anthrax, the training of the Cairo Medical recruiter to make booby-trapped letters, his recruitment of 10 operatives in the US etc. But as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in his New Yorker article, that’s just the nature of profiling.

You say “the bizarre nature of the attacks is the work of a single individual. I think it is very unlikely there was any conspiracy regarding the initial crime.” To the contrary, there was nothing unusual about them. They fit the pattern exactly of the last attack by the same group — the same group that previously had announced that it now was going to use anthrax, and then announced it was going to use anthrax if bail was denied it’s #2 leader, the one whose bail was denied on October 5, 2001, at which time the mailer rushed to deliver the real deal to those responsible just as had been promised.

The FBI is far more on-the-ball than outside commentators on this. They made numerous related arrests and obtained numerous convictions — all while maintaining great secrecy and avoiding leaks. In contrast, most every outside poster (BM, Kirk, Dr. Nass, Anonymous, Ed etc) have never bothered to educate themselves about Zawahiri’s infiltration of UK and US biodefense establishment for the purpose of using anthrax against US targets and gaining the necessary know-how that would gain them the leverage they have sought. I could hyperlink a source showing Dr. Ivins fedex virulent Ames to Ayman Zawahiri in Afghanistan and you folks would continue to talk about M&M’s and look at the 6,436 titties on Ed’s pornography page.

We know that BM, Kirk, Anonymous, Dr. Nass and others do not subscribe to an Al Qaeda theory. In contrast, the Amerithrax investigation and work of that one investigative squad OTOH is still confidential, intense, and on-going. The CIA in particular kicks butt and doesn’t issue press releases. There have been long-running taps for 7 years now that will bear fruit for years to come.

An entire Amerithrax squad — one of two investigative squads — has been devoted to the theory full-time for 7 years and they don’t much care about what appears in the press because this game is being played for keeps. Nothing less than the Western Civilization Al-Timimi hoped would be destroyed is at stake.

It is my recollection that Ed made up the story about long drives “at night.” The statements at issue merely referred to long drives.
There is a big difference between being gone — and being gone until 5 a.m. His family in fact provides him with an alibi and would have defeated an Ivins Theory if they in fact had moved forward.

Spouses and people in relationships often are not where they say they are — and keep secrets.

How many husbands tell their wives they visit Ed’s pornography site? Instead, they go to work and look at in a locked BL-3.

Ed Lake wrote:

“Who the hell are you talking about?”

Ed obviously can’t read. The poster is referring to anyone who misled the investigation, including those employed by the FBI. There are good reasons to suspect that the investigation was conducted improperly. Leads may not have been properly followed up and there may have been a politically-motivated cover-up of certain key leads, and an avoidance of following up certain key leads.

Two mean are dead (Perry Mikesell and Bruce Ivins) another had his reputation ruined (Steve Hatfill). Conceivably there could be indictments if there has been wrongdoing. At the very least there are still ongoing civil suits and likely more will follow.

Anonymous wrote: “Ed obviously can’t read. The poster is referring to anyone who misled the investigation, including those employed by the FBI.”

Who says anyone misled the investigation? What reason is there to believe that someone in the FBI misled the investigation?

You are creating some kind of fantasy about someone misleading the investigation, and then you create a new fantasy that that person is going to be hunted down and prosecuted. FOR A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION???

Anonymous wrote: “Only in your fantasies and total lack of understanding of science does that make any sense.”

Aren’t you the same guy who said that the attack anthrax could not have come from RMR-1029 based upon your screwball misinterpretations of slides discussed on Dr. Nass’s web site?

BugMaster wrote: “the case against Ivins has imploded. They have virtually no support in the scientific community, much less the biotechnology community at large.”

BugMaster,

You are making a VERY common mistake of believing that because you know a tiny group of people who believe as you believe that your tiny group represents the entire universe. It does NOT.

Even if there are doubts among the other scientists, the vast majority have enough common sense to await the published reports and to NOT prejudge the case or the evidence based upon what someone NOT involved with the case said, or based upon idiotic MISINTERPRETATIONS of something someone else said – like the discussion of Slide #16 on Meryl Nass’s web site.

Reader wrote: “Ed, the FBI questioned Dr. Ivins repeatedly in 2001 and 2002. Indeed, they polygraphed him — twice as I recall.”

Okay, I stand corrected. But the question is still based upon 20/20 hindsight. They didn’t know in 2001 or 2002 what they knew in 2007 or 2008.

Everyone would do some things differently if we knew back when what we know now.

Ed suggests we know more now.

Let’s see:

Like that sheep blood agar was used and Ivins did not use it?

LIke that Ivins did not use the genetically distinct subtilis but other POIs did?

Like that Ivins alibi stood up to aggressive questioning of the 3 adults who provided the alibi?

Like that he passed his polygraph?

Like that he sometimes misled his wife as to where he was? (bwahaha! get real!)

Like that he edited Wikipedia? Used fake screen names?

Like that he worked late in November? December? August?

Like that he gave virulent Ames to someone who knew Ayman Zawahiri, Zawahiri’s father, and Zawahiri’s sisters? Who knew the founders of the key Al Qaeda charities?

Like that Ayman’s MO was to use universities and charities as the cover for specialists he recruited?

Like that extremely virulent anthrax was found in Afghanistan?

Like that DOD appointed as their sole anthrax analyst (who interrogated the anthrax lab techs at gitmo) someone who had been publicly accused of murder by the investigating police chief, in a still pending case in which there is a substantial reward?

Like that Ayman used a scientist to infiltrate UK biodefense?

Everything we have learned since 2001 points away from Bruce Ivins, not towards him.

The scientist he was supposedly stalking was mad at him because she was mad that her vaccine innovation had been torpedoed — a journal article that was critical to its success was shot down at the journals to which it was submitted. A September 2001 Washington Post article described it as akin to cold fusion — which infuriated her. It’s just like when you reported me to the FBI for terrorism after I got you kicked you out of our email group for all your name-calling.

My favorite silly report was the AP story — never retracted — that he was stalking the scientist — that he followed her to the locality in Maryland. When actually he had moved there to Gaithersburg first. Then moved out to Frederick. Then she arrived at Gaithersburg. And this was all knowable from searches of local newspapers at the time. The story was never corrected and it was one of those bells that is hard to unring.

Ivins did some stupid things. And if Agent Montooth follows through on his promise, we’ll be learning a lot more things that are humiliating to him. But the letter to the editor he wrote about sorority initiation would not even be admissible in court.

Ed Flake wrote:

“Would Dr. Keim know any of the details about the seven samples beyond the fact that their DNA showed they COULD NOT have produced the attack anthrax?”

This is classic Ed Flake. Make a statement that even he knows is false, and repeat it endlessly on the internet and on his website, hoping that someone might believe it.

To repeat. The attack spores be related with ANY of these flasks at some time in history, but the attack spores did NOT come directly from RMR-1029 without being manipulated in some way to change them (both genetically and chemically (addition of siliconizing agent for weaponization)). There are tenuous genetic links between the attack spores and ALL of these flasks – but that’s as much as can be said.
The FBI have completely overstated the link between Ivin’s RMR-1029 flask and the attack spores. It is obvious from recent comments made publicly by independent scientists who conducted the analysis for the FBI that they also now understand who over-stated the FBI’s genetic case is. What they are saying privately will hopefully come out at hearings. They didn’t act improperly, the FBI just exaggerated the meaning of their results.

Posted by Ed Lake in response to me:

The FBI had no reason to question Dr. Ivins in 2001 or 2002. He was not a suspect or even a “person of interest.”
——-
I’m not interested in those labels: they tell us nothing. What was significant was:

1) it was an anthrax attack.

2) Fort Detrick is the Mecca of biological agent research in the US.

3) therefore it has probably one of the largest supplies of various toxic biological agents. Including anthrax.

4) the allegations against Mister Hatfill CENTERed, at least in part, on his past work (from 1997 to 1999) at USAMRIID.

5)Dr Ivins worked for many years on anthrax. Was, in fact, in charge of research on anthrax(and apparently on anthrax exclusively)

6)AT THE VERY PLACE (USAMRIID)where Hatfill worked/could have stolen the spores.

THEREFORE not delving into the backgrounds of those people—–and we have no idea how many co-workers/subordinates Ivins had in the same pursuit of anthrax vaccines(which itself makes it difficult to evaluate the likelihood that Ivins could have done surreptitious spore-growing AND the more unusual spore-drying without arousing anyone’s suspicions)—was rather negligent. And it makes inevitable that honest people aren’t going to be able to remember (ie come up with an ‘alibi’)SIX FULL YEARS later. I can’t remember where I was on September 17th 2001 or October 8th 2001. That hardly indicates I’m the anthrax killer. It just means that if you base your case on human memory, you can’t wait years and years to ask for an alibi.

It’s LIKELY that Mister Ivins was sleeping (at home or on his lab cot)during the crucial hours on both occasions. But so were hundreds(?thousands?) of other microbiologists. Some of whom worked at USAMRIID. How can one prove that one was sleeping on 2 given nights in the fall of 2001? Or where one was sleeping? I know I couldn’t do that.
———
By Ed Lake:
He didn’t become a suspect until flask RMR-1029 led to him and after all other possible suspects with access to the flask were ruled out. That was YEARS later.
——–
Okay, the part about “all other possible suspects with access to the flask were ruled out” is something you are taking on FAITH from the FBI. It would NOT be admissible in court. At least not in that form. The FBI/prosecution would have to show in painstaking step-by-step fashion how they came up with a list of suspects with “access to the flask”. Each step would be examined by a defense attourney. Each step of ELIMINATIVE reasoning would be questioned. The (very real) possibility that someone had been overlooked would be invoked as ‘reasonable doubt’ (in a real trial).
——–
By Ed Lake:

The FBI doesn’t need to have videos of Dr. Ivins putting the letters into the mailbox to prove that he did it. They can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he made the anthrax, he had motive, he had means, and he had NO ALIBI for the times of the mailings. So, the jury can CONCLUDE that he MUST have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters even though there are no home movies of his trip. Juries do that sort of thing all the time, and it is perfectly correct to do so. The judge instructs them to do so if they feel it makes sense.
——————————-
Don’t agree. While you say he had MULTIPLE motives, I say ‘the FBI can’t make up their minds about what his motive MIGHT have been so they IMPUT several motives and hope one sticks’.

Yes, sometimes a jury could conclude that a defendant ‘must’ have done a sub-task since it ‘fits in’ with the overall picture. But that is NOT the case here. Here we have a theory—–as wild as any conspiracy theory—and the task force/prosecution is asking for a leap of faith on the part of the ‘jury’ (here the jury of public opinion).
Worst of all, this Ivins fiasco will make prosecuting the true perp that much more difficult….if they ever find the true perp(s).
Put me down for Kenneth Dillon’s option #5:
Domestic Terrorists or Mad Scientists.

“How can one prove that one was sleeping on 2 given nights in the fall of 2001?”

That’s easy.

By living in a small house with a wife, a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old — all of whom say he was never out all night and that they are aware of his return from working.

Right, they came from someone outside the FBI who then was hired by the FBI who then wrote a very lengthy PhD thesis on anthrax in Zimbabwe. But you miss RR’s point.

The point is: they questioned him on the mailings and polygraphed in Winter 2001.

A new friend of mine lives down the street from Battelle Charlottesville where they do biological warfare counterintelligence analysis, including unconventional operations and intelligence gathering.

We were at a campfire this Fall after Bruce took his life. He was talking about nanobiotechnology.

He had known Dr. Nass in Maine where he sought her out — driving 3 1/2 hours — to discuss vaccine issues. Then Dr. Ivins killed himself and he abruptly moved here to NY to join me at the campfire with my good friends.

I told the FBI that I didn’t mind someone parachuting into Syracuse, but parachuting into a campfire with friends was a bit rude.

But I don’t think Battelle is responsible.

I think he was explaining to me how the Ames coming from Ivins flask actually proves the theory I’ve long urged to you. He was talking about how particles so small that they enter the [I try to avoid saying anything scientific but you get the idea].

BHR, perhaps because of the limits of Boolean searching — and perhaps due to the limits of the underlying FOIA search done by Wash Po — missed the supply by Bruce of Ames to a former colleague of the Zawahiri medical clan. The first patent did not appear until 2003.
(If Kirk is right, maybe Ames at BioPort was also missed).

I guess my point is that given that my new friend showed up at my daughter’s pajama party and social gatherings asking if I knew Dr. Nass, and his working phone number is down the street (at his home) from Battelle Charlottesville, I have more reason than most to be dubious of Battelle.

We’re going sledding or something when he get back from Charlottesville and I’ll see if snowboarding works.

The minute they searched Ali’s home, 100 agents came here and simultaneously interviewed 150 people, arresting (as a material witness) a drying expert (who mixed with silica) and whose mentor consulted on a US Army funded device called the Microbial Vac that concentrated and sequentially filtered anthrax samples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVAWKfJ4Go

William Broad, author of GERMS, has an article today about Russian spying about the hydrogen bomb.

Why are outside commentators in the field of biological weapons so naive about spying regarding biological weapons? The most noted analyst in the field adamantly (and inexplicably) disagreed with the claim by various former Russian scientists/KGB officials that Ft. Detrick had a spy.

Serge Popov for example explained that if you wanted something you would just fill out an order form. Ken Alibek explained that Russia had Ames. And a former KGB agent gave a pretty specific description of the spy at Ft. Detrick (not fitting Dr. Ivins).

US Army Sergeant Ali Mohammed was an infiltrator hiding in plain sight. An FBI agent distracted by a son-in-law killing his parents was using him as an informant on immigration issues. The CIA had used him as an operative. The US Army was using its supply sergeant at Ft/ Bragg to advise on Mideast issues.

Meanwhile, he was moving Bin Laden to Sudan, conducting recon for the 1998 embassy attacks, and teaching a Cairo Medical dropout to make booby-trapped letters and recruit US operatives.

Soviets Stole Bomb Idea From U.S., Book Says

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: December 29, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30bomb.html

The book says that Mr. Stillman, a physicist who worked at Los Alamos from 1965 to 2000 and served for more than a decade as the lab’s director of intelligence, took his suspicions in the 1990s to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But the F.B.I. inquiry, the book says, was “botched beyond recognition” and went nowhere. The alleged spy, the book adds, is now dead.

The F.B.I., often accused of disarray in cases of atomic spying, declined to comment.

***

Harold M. Agnew, who worked on the world’s first H-bomb and eventually became director of Los Alamos, said the Soviets probably had had numerous spies divulging the secret. “We were always surprised,” he said, “at how quickly they moved ahead.”

The new book is due out in January from Zenith Press. A main focus is how spies spread nuclear secrets around the globe.

***

In recent years, the ranks of known Soviet spies in the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb have swollen to a half dozen or so, and more are expected to be named. But so far, accounts of the ensuing project at Los Alamos to build the hydrogen bomb have documented no major episodes of atomic spying.

Here is an article today about a complaint filed today against an Iraqi spy who worked at a Laurel, Maryland restaurant. He was a cook.

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-29/1230596654128450.xml&storylist=simetro

If I were in charge of recruiting spies, I would recruit pizza delivery people near the Pentagon.

You could always tell when an invasion was being mounted by a spike in pizza orders (also, cars in the parking lot).

      In the very interview with Al-Jazeera in which they admitted 9/11, and described the codes used for the four targets for the planes, KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh admitted to the Jenny code, the code for representing the date 9/11, and used the symbolism of the “Green Birds.”

It was widely published among the militant islamists that martyrs go to paradise “in the hearts of green birds.” The stamp’s image of a green-blue colored bird was designed by artist Michael Doret. Mr. Doret provided me “a file made directly from the original art [he] created, so the color is an accurate representation of the printed envelope.” Michael advises me that the color of the eagle is a “teal” or greenish-blue.

Osama Bin Laden later invoked the symbolism in his video “The 19 Martyrs”, describing a hijacker as “A man of worship who enjoined good and forbade evil. His body was on earth but his heart roamed with the green birds that perch beneath the Throne of the Most Merciful.” Isn’t “green birds of paradise” discussed in Abdel-Rahman’s 2,000 page PhD thesis on the chapter in the Koran called “Repentance,” which addresses the foreign policy and military affairs of the Islamic state?

      A FAQ on Al Qaeda’s website, the Azzam Publications website, explained that “In the Hearts of Green Birds” refers to what is inside. The actual Arabic word used in the Hadith is not Qalb (heart) but it is Jowf which can mean any of interior, inside, or heart (as in center). There was a video based on the hadith with the title In The Hearts of Green Birds about foreign mujahideen that had been martyred in Bosnia. The audiocassette was created in August 1996 and its 3rd edition was released in January 1997. The azzam.org website selling the “In the Hearts of Green Birds” audiocassette was shut down after 9/11 because authorities thought it might contain codes and instructions to militants. British and US intelligence sources reportedly suspected that some of Azzam.com’s jihad photos and graphics contain messages embedded with a technology known as steganography. The code instead perhaps was there for all to see on the stamps of the lethal missives being sent.

      In early Fall 2001, the Azzam.com website was mirrored by someone who lived 6 miles from the mailbox where the anthrax was mailed. He was indicted in Spring 2007 for income tax invasion. To the left of the advertisement for the “Green Birds” video, you’ll see the description of al-Hawali’s imprisonment. The imprisonment of al-Hawali and certain other scholars was the “Cover Theme” (which includes a related article on the torture of prisoners in Saudi prisons). GMU microbiology grad al-Timimi drafted a letter for al-Hawali and had it hand-delivered to every member of Congress on the first anniversary of the anthrax mailings.

      Of course, given that the symbolism used in this regard in the anthrax mailings had an origin in religious writing, there is no direct tie with the website — the tie could be with the hadith. The London webmaster once said that the FBI allowed it to remain up (while it moved from server to server) for another year hoping to get leads on supporters.

      Even Zarqawi invoked the imagery in a 60-minute audio message:

“The martyrs rejoice in the bounty provided by God. Their souls are inside the bodies of green birds that fly in heaven.”

      Bin Laden was using “Green Birds” in the same way he used the repeated phrase “Looming Tower” to hint of what was to come with the planes attack on the World Trade Center. He would say:

      “Wherever you are, death will find you,
      even in the looming tower.”

      In a prerecorded tape aired October 7, 2001, at the time of the anthrax mailing to the Senators, Bin Laden said “The winds of faith have come.”

      An advertisement for “In The Hearts of Green Birds” sold by Al Qaeda’s website read: “In the Summer of 1996, Azzam Recordings released the first audio tape of its kind to be produced in English. The name of this tape was: ‘In the Hearts of Green Birds.’ It outlined some of the stories of these men. This tape was so successful, that it spread, by the Will of Allah, throughout many Muslim homes in the UK, North America and Australia. Due to popular demand, in the Summer of 1997, Azzam Recordings produced the sequel to this tape: ‘Under the Shades of Swords.’ We ask Allah to accept the Shuhadaa’ and shower His Mercy upon them.” (It appeared in the 21st issue of Nida’ul Islam magazine (http://www.islam.org.au), December-January 1997- 1998). The Virginia Paintball defendants really liked videos like “In the Hearts of Green Birds” and “Russian Hell” and found them inspirational.

Bug Master,

Did you get your Masters at an institution attached to the DIA?

I value your input very much. But especially given that you and I are both sensitive to this issue of disqualifying conflict of interest involving Battelle employees, I think it is a fair question.

You dismissed the hypothesis about concentrating anthrax using silica dioxide by the inventors 15 feet from the scientist working with the 911 imam and Bin Laden’s sheik. The patent was funded by DARPA. Not even Serge or BHR were similarly dismissive, and Serge works closely with the co-inventor of the patent in the same program.

Al-Timimi had a letter threatening dire consequences if Iraq was invaded on the first anniversary of the anthrax to the Senators and the FBI in fact suspects him of accessing the biochemistry information.

I know much more about the FBI and CIA than they know about the anthrax mailer.

In your day job, Bug Master, you work with biosecurity threat-related issues on a daily basis. In 2003. my friend, the DIA analyst for anthrax who interviewed the lab techs working for Sufaat at Gitmo, did not know that Bruce Ivins had supplied Ames to the Ann Arbor researchers. The CIA and FBI did. Does DIA know that now? Most intelligence is “open source.”

The 2007 GAO report, HIGH-CONTAINMENT BIOSAFETY LABORATORIES: Preliminary Observations on the Oversight of the Proliferation of BSL-3 and BSL-4 Laboratories in the United States, published the testimony of Keith Rhodes of the GAO, who explained that there are now 15 BSL-4 labs in operation or planning within the U.S.

Rhodes testfied:

“No single federal agency, according to 12 agencies’ responses to our survey, has the mission to track the overall number of BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in the United States. Though several agencies have a need to know, no one agency knows the number and location of these labs in the United States. Consequently, no agency is responsible for determining the risks associated with the proliferation of these labs.”

Didn’t the proliferation occur and the billions get spent because the fact of infiltration either had been suppressed or not recognized?

Advanced BioSystems is now AFGBiosolutions.

Located in Gaithersburg, MD, Dr. Alibek is its President.

I don’t know the law, but it seems that it shouldn’t matter considering they are will to consider the first sample sent to Dr. Keim as evidence.

I sure would like to see the subpoenas for both the first set and the second set of samples.

We all know that he didn’t have anything to hide,(except Ed), and the only sample that was destroyed was the sample received by the FBI that was from RMR-1029.

It seemed pretty clear that the panel members started playing dumb, when the questioner started asking about the other samples that Dr. Ivins would have submitted for other Ames anthrax that he had. Since we know that they were not destroyed.

At the time that they destroyed the sample they didn’t know that the science would eventually lead back to RMR-1029.

This is only speculation but Dr. Ivins probable did send what was requested in the second subpoena and it is likely they didn’t ask for RMR-1029.

So a copy of that second subpoena would be a true smoking gun showing cover-up.

On the subject of GMU’s Discovery Hall, here are the posts by Dr. Alibek’s assistant “Biodefense Student” who shares my liking for him.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:biodefensestudent/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change

I thought I would share here my thoughts about another avenue of thought about the Amerithrax Case. To my mind, even though it is seldom expressed this way, the Amerithrax crimes are of the ‘poisoning’ variety: there’s a good chance that, if it wasn’t POLITICALLY motivated, that the motivation would be similar to (perhaps IDENTICAL to)the motivation of more conventional poisoners. In particular I found this helpful:
http://books.google.com/books?id=T9e6AZz0GnEC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=psychology+of+poisoners&source=web&ots=KC2rKXPkiQ&sig=MprSK-um3eOovKNOnjOQG1ocDhA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

A bit of it:

In the personality of the poisoner the investigator will probably find some of the following traits: an absolute defiance of legal authority; a refusal to accept any moral basis for life; killing in order to gain either emotionally or materially; an unfortunate married life for the offender; a childhood in which the poisoner has been either spoiled by parents or reared in an unhappy home; feeling that they have failed to make any kind of impression on life; a tendency to be dreamers and fantasists; a touch of an artistic temperament; possible connections with the medical world as physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, other health care workers, or laboratory workers familiar with chemicals; possession of vanity in thinking they cannot be discovered in that they carefully calculate the odds and believe that they can get away with the crime; a limited mind without sympathy; and weak, cowardly and avaricious temperament (Glaister, 1954; Rowland, 1960)

One sees in the childish personality of the poisoner an immature desire for their own way, and a dreamy, romantic disposition.
———————–
Plus much much more!

Krolson wrote: “There is a total of 2 times that the answers state that Dr. Ivins had in fact submitted the sample in response to the subpoena.”

You’re right in that “Background Official” corrected Dr. Majidi TWICE. I didn’t notice that. It’s interesting — but irrelevant.

We’d have to sit down with them to find out why they disagree on whether Dr. Ivins knew the right procedures because he helped develop them or because he read them in the subpoena.

“Background Official” is a DOJ prosecutor. Dr. Majadi is an FBI scientist.

“Background Official” has the actual dates. Dr. Majidi is working with something else – we don’t know exactly what. It might be information that is hear-say and not useable in court, while the actual dates ARE useable in court.

Dr. Majidi might be trying to make the point that Dr. Ivins helped develop the protocols and therefore KNEW BEYOND ANY DOUBT what the protocols were. While “Background Official” prefers to used documented evidence that is useable in court to make his case that Dr. Ivins knew the protocols — even though a defense attorney might be able to argue that Dr. Ivins simply misread what was in the subpoena.

It’s just an example of two people not agreeing on specific details of what a third person did, even though they totally agree on the overall conclusion: Dr. Ivins knew the protocols but didn’t follow them.

When dealing with human beings, you have to expect that.

Trying to use this as some kind of “evidence” of the FBI being “inconsistent” is not accurate, since “Background Official” is from the DOJ, not the FBI. But, in the big picture IT MEANS NOTHING. BOTH AGREE THAT DR. IVINS KNEW THE PROTOCOLS BUT DIDN’T FOLLOW THEM.

Ed writes:
“BOTH AGREE THAT DR. IVINS KNEW THE PROTOCOLS BUT DIDN’T FOLLOW THEM.”

This is consistent with a scenario where Dr. Ivins knew he had given Ames to someone without registering the transfer as required by the 1997 regulations (eff. April 1997). If he suspected that a “mole” had obtained the anthrax provided from the flask (and the transfer was not registered as required) that would make him an accessory before the fact to multiple murders. That would (1) give him an incentive to submit a false sample, and (2) cause him to fly into rages and make extreme posts about gouging the eyes out of the mole.

Dr. Ivins wrote under his screen name BruceIvi:

“Steve had a great chance to Kill Kathryn that would go down as the primo moment in reality TV.

After the fake fainting he’d say, “Kathryn, do you know what a mole is? It’s a blind useless,animal that humans hate. And do you know what we do to moles? We kill them!”

[...]

With that he should have taken the hatchet and brought it down hard and sharply across her neck, severing her carotid artery and jugular vein. Then when she hits the ground, he completes the task on the other side of the neck, severing her trachea as well. The “Blind” mole is dead and Steve is a hero among heroes! I personally would have paid big money to have done it myself.

[...]

Maybe something really dreadful will happen to Kathryn Price. If so, she will richly deserve it! The least someone could do would be to take a sharp ballpoint pin or letter opener and put her eyes out, to complete the task of making her a true mole!

The commenter seemed to almost immediately think about what he’d written, posting, “Sorry if my comments offended people. This occurred several years ago. It was meant as a macabre twist to a pretty lame reality show [...] burceivi. [sic]“

Ed Thank you for responding.

I would like to point out that both Dr. Majidi and the Background Official responed 5 times each that the samples were submitted prior to Dr. Ivins received the subpoena.

The Background Offical corrected the facts after the questioner began asking about the dates of the subpoenas.

The Statements made by the Background Officals and Dr. Majidi that Dr. Ivins had sent the samples prior to the subpoena were general as part of the reason the sample of RMR-1029 was destroyed.

The destuction of a sample of the anthrax used in the attacks.

While you say “When dealing with human beings, you have to expect that.”

These two human beings are in charge of the case they should not only know the facts but state them honestly.

They were repeately asked and they repeately answered with false information.

KRolson wrote; “They were repeately asked and they repeately answered with false information.”

Nonsense. Both responded with the facts as they saw them.

But I did say: They were repeately asked and they repeately answereed with false information.

It is a waste of time talking to you ed you seem to be unable to tell truth from fiction.

Ed,

Fact 1:

Dr. Ivins knew that Ames was used and fervently argued that Al Qaeda was responsible. WSJ article.

Fact 2

Dr. Ivins told the FBI he thought two specific USAMRIID linked scientists were involved. You are incurious as to what he urged and just speculate as to why the FBI has not closed the case.

Fact 3

Fox News reported that the FBI had narrowed their theory to 4 persons of interest at the same time they reported on the email that Dr. Ivins gave them. Who were the individuals?

So we are not talking aliens here, Ed. We are talking about what as a factual matter Dr. Ivins was urging to the FBI. You are incurious about that. That’s because you don’t address the facts and never have. You just reached a conclusion — based on your confusion that only the one was matching rather than all 8. For 7 years, you pedantically urged your theory that in 2006 you estimated had a 30 percent chance of being right — even though upon interviewing the person you said had acquired the Ames, I explained to you why it was zero. While you pontificate about the facts, you rarely address the facts.

For example, you have never bothered to address Kirk’s argument, based on the inspection report etc, that BioPort had virulent Ames.

I’m not going to discuss fantasies no matter how thoroughly the other person believes in those fantasies.

The more thoroughly they believe their fantasies, the LESS likely I’ll get into any argument about the fantasies.

And, NO I cannot prove that it is totally impossible for their fantasies to be true, just as I cannot prove that it is impossible for invisible aliens from outer space to have been involved in the anthrax attacks.

Ed,

Do you think, based on the patents and literature I’ve quoted (all thanking Dr. Ivins for supplying the virulent Ames), that Dr. Bruce Ivins supplied virulent Ames from the flask for the DARPA intranasal vaccine research and biocidal agent work they were doing? Would he ordinarily use Ames from that flask for DARPA vaccine work so that the input was controlled?

Among other things, in addition to writing poetry and singing in church, in October 2001, Dr. Ivins was working on a revision of a study co-authored with Dr. Fellows and others. They were doing on the efficacy of the vaccine (anthrax vaccine adsorbed, AVA) in which they tested in golden Syrian hamsters against a virulent Bacillus anthracis spore challenge with spores of various B. anthracis isolates including Ames. They submitted the revision on October 26, 2001.

This poem memorializes his workon Syrian hamsters with a special tribute to both the Kappa Gamma sisters and Ed.

Rats Live On No Evil Star
(Ed Ode)

(A palindrome reads the same forwards and backwards)

Ma handed Edna ham
Ma is as selfless as I am

Kayak salad, Alaska yak.
Campus Motto: Bottoms up, Mac

Wow! Sis! Wow!
Wonton on salad? Alas, no, not now!

“Desserts, sis?” (Sensuousness is stressed).
Desserts I desire not, so long no lost one rise distressed.

“Do nine men interpret?” Nine men, I nod.
Doc, note I dissent. A fast never prevents a fatness. I diet on cod.

We panic in a pew.
We’ll let Mom tell Lew.

‘Tis in a DeSoto sedan I sit.
To Idi Amin I am an idiot.

Race fast, safe car.
Rats live on no evil star.

Toot! Toot!
Too hot to hoot.

Stop, Syrian! I start at rats in airy spots.
Stop! Murder us not, tonsured rumpots.

Trap a rat! Stare, piper, at star apart!
Trade ye no mere moneyed art.

If I had a hi-fi!? If I had a hi-fi!?
I, madam, I made radio. So I dared! Am I mad? Am I?

Ah! A mop, a man, a map: Omaha!
Was it felt? I had a hit left, I saw.

Solo gigolos.
So many dynamos.

Oh, no! Don Ho.
Ogre, flog a golfer. Go!

Ten animals I slam in a net.
Pets, Ed, I sidestep.

Nurse, save rare vases, run!
Now, sir, a war is won.

Mad? Am I, madam?
Madam, in Eden, I’m Adam!

Reviled did I live, said I, as evil did I deliver.
Revered now I live on. O did I no evil, I wonder ever?

Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
Are we not drawn onwards, we few, drawn on to new era?

Reader wrote: “Ed, you dismissed … If you had studied …. Actually, all you needed to do, as we did … If you ever actually did any investigation, you would know … ”

What is it you keep trying to tell me? That unless I do things the way you do things, I’ll never come to your conclusions?

We have no argument about that.

“I haven’t really thought about what he used for his DARPA-funded research. But, since you ask: Clearly there were OTHER supplies of Ames at Ft. Detrick BEFORE the RMR-1029 material was created.”

RMR-1029 was created in 1997.

Bruce supplied the Ames to the Ann Arbor researchers after RMR-1029 was created. See literature and patents, ASM presentations, and ICAAC presentation.

The purpose of the flask was so that all the DARPA vaccine research would have the same input so that results could be compared.

So you appear to be merely assuming it did not come from RMR-1029 or had not thought about it.

Now have you revisited the FoxNews report from March 2008 to consider what two scientists Bruce was pointing the finger at? Perhaps we could ask them whether it came from the RMR-1029 flask.

The FBI’s WMD head specifically pointed to silica in the culture medium. You credit his expertise, informed by the Sandia research, right? Do you have a better explanation for the Silicon Signature than the one offered by the FBI WMD head?

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc3wqmd7_33d2tjs5ct

DR. BURANS: It’s known that Bacilli are capable of mineralizing different types of elements including silicon, so as early as 1982 Bacilli species Bacilli species have been shown to localize silica within their spore coat.

QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up?

DR. MAJIDI: It could have been within the growth media.

Ed, am I right given the extensive resources applied and scientists consulted by the FBI, that as a lay person, you have no reason not to credit the statement by the FBI’s WMD head that it could have been in the growth media? The Silicon Signature, of course, is a key fact, and you offer no explanation explaining why it points to Dr. Ivins.

Ed,

When the FBI Director Mueller emphatically denounced the theory as baloney, the day after the first ABC report on December 21, 2001 or so, why did you think he was not telling the truth? Why did you think he was just trying to mislead the public in furtherance of the investigation? Wasn’t it on the face of it baloney?

Your theory was addressed in December 21, 2001 by the FBI.

Anthrax Probe Story Is Baloney, FBI Says,” Columbus Dispatch, December 21, 2001

But for the next 7 years you thought they were just saying that — but that they actually agreed with you.

Why didn’t you just accept what the FBI was saying, Ed, given that the fellow you suspected given that the fact: the fellow did not have any access to Ames and was not even a microbiologist.

Mr. Lake has done a masterful job at marshalling the facts showing that the suggestion Dr. Hatfill is the anthrax mailer has no factual basis. See his carefully organized and detailed website sections on the subject. Mr. Lake stood the tide against both the FBI and the press in defense of Dr. Hatfill — and so your vague suggestion is not credible.

Nor is there any match to his handwriting.

Marilyn Thompson of the Washington Post said that:

“The government has many samples of Hatfill’s cursive handwriting and printing pulled from government files and work records. These have been analyzed and reanalyzed, and apparently bear no resemblance to the distinctive and creepy script used on the anthrax envelopes.”

The FBI has posted a psycholinguistic assessment of the writer of the anthrax letters:

“PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ASSESSMENT

“While the text in these letters is limited, there are certain distinctive characteristics in the author’s writing style. These same characteristics may be evident in other letters, greeting cards, or envelopes this person has written. We hope someone has received correspondence from this person and will recognize some of these characteristics.

The characteristics include:

1. The author uses dashes (“-”) in the writing of the date “09-11-01.” Many people use the slash (“/”) to separate the day/month/year.

2. In writing the number one, the author chooses to use a formalized, more detailed version. He writes it as “1″ instead of the simple vertical line.

3. The author uses the words “can not,” when many people prefer to spell it as one word, “cannot.”

4. The author writes in all upper case block-style letters. However, the first letter of the first word of each sentence is written in slightly larger upper case lettering. Also, the first letter of all proper nouns (like names) is slightly larger. This is apparently the author’s way of indicating a word should be capitalized in upper case lettering. For whatever reason, he may not be comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case lettering.

5. The names and address on each envelope are noticeably tilted on a downward slant from left to right. This may be a characteristic seen on other envelopes he has sent.

6. The envelopes are of the pre-stamped variety, the stamps denoting 34 cents, which are normally available directly from the post office. They are not the traditional business size envelopes, but the smaller size measuring approximately 6 1/4″ x 3 1/2.”

Representative Purchase Orders filled out by Dr. Hatfill obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show substantial differences between Hatfill’s writing and the anthrax letters.

First, he used the European style rather than popular American style. (In US government circles, the “European style” is known as the “military style” of writing dates). Instead of March 30, 1996, he rendered the date 30 March 1996. The anthrax letters, in contrast, used the popular American style of writing.

Second, when he wrote the month using a number rather than the name of the month, he used a slash (“/”) rather than a dash (“-”) as used in the anthrax letters.

Third, he commonly used 5 digit zipcodes rather than the 9 digit zipcodes used by the anthrax mailer.

Fourth, he commonly used a single number in referring to the day of the month and did not put a “0″ in front of it as in the anthrax letters.

Fifth, Dr. Hatfill makes the number one with a single vertical line whereas the FBI psycholinguistic profile noted that “In writing the number one, the author chooses to use a formalized, more detailed version. He writes it as ’1′ instead of the simple vertical line.”

Thus, representative Purchase Orders filled out by Hatfill differ in these respects from the anthrax letters.

Handwriting experts similarly did not find a match with Bruce Ivins handwriting.

Reader & BugMaster,

I want to thank you both for your help in explaining some of the information for me.

I find it difficult to be open and truly share the information that I want to share here.

If you are interested I can be contacted here and we can be a little more open.

http://www.soundclick.com/members/krolson2

There is a contact section in the left hand colum.

The one thing to avoid doing in addressing these issues is to make the imply there are facts that you have that you cannot disclose.

Instead, the most important thing to do is to contact the person or corporation and given them every opportunity to provide contrary information — and then pass on that information without comment (if you are going to address the issue publicly at all). In the case, you should be quoting Bioport’s denial that had Ames at every chance.

You need to get a copy of any and all Bioport filings and submit FOIAs. I may have been a mistaken that they made such sworn filings. In looking at the titles of the filed documents I listed they just related to the voluntary dismissal. As I noted, the Plaintiff’s attorney may have felt that the government’s then Hatfill Theory did not justify naming Bioport. If Ed had not abandoned all spirit of objective inquiry, he would have pulled them for you.

BTW, if you sign up, you won’t be charged anything at all for anything under $10 (and so your cost will be zero).

In the case of the supply of the Ames by Bruce to the NanoBio researchers, University of Michigan responds to a FOIA request that they have no documents relating to work relating to NanoBio’s work with anthrax in the Director’s office or in the nanobiotechnology center. (That was the phrasing of my request as I wanted to avoid search costs). At the very least, I would expected them to provide the numerous publications and patents I’ve cited.

EJE, who argued a Bioport Theory, is an example of someone who will go to Prague if that is where the documents are on an issue.

Hopefully, someone in the DC area will delve into the 911 documents released on January 14 (if they are not widely available on CD-Rom).

I’ve previously used the example of how NK should have called Hatfill before writing the early July column. (Before that the columns had been more general and did not require a call).

The components of a Hatfill Theory — such as the ”Greendale” School in the return address of the anthrax letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy — would melt like a popsicle on a sidewalk whenever held up to light.

For example, on June 26, 2002, ABC’s Brian Ross first reported on the Morning Show,

“Investigators also are intrigued by the fact that Hatfill lived for years near a Greendale Elementary School while attending medical school in Zimbabwe. Greendale School, as you recall, was the phony return address used in the anthrax letters. Hatfill has told ABC News he had nothing to do with the deadly anthrax mailings, but he says he understands his background and comments make him a logical subject of the investigation.”

In the Fall of 2001, political scientist and former senior CIA counterterrorism analyst, Dr. Stanley Bedlington, said: “Frankly, when I heard the news [of 9/11], I thought, ‘It’s got to be biochemical.” “This is frightening enough and yet, you could take a small plane and sprinkle anthrax over New York City and wipe out half the population.” He wrote a very insightful Op Ed piece in the Washington Post, dated October 28, 2001, in which he discusses the importance of piercing Osama Bin Laden’s myth of invincibility. He evidenced the sophistication of his knowledge by pointing to the influence of the Egyptian writer named Qutb on the Al Qaeda leaders. But by August 2002 (in an interview with CNN’s Paula Zahn) he was talking about anthrax-smelling bloodhounds and the fact that Dr. Hatfill lived near a place (Greendale) used in the return address. He curiously said the “evidence was mounting.”

From an August 4, 2002 interview:

BLITZER: Stan Bedlington, take a look at this, I want to put it up on the screen, the return address of one of the letters. Look at this, fourth grade, Greendale School, Franklin Park, New Jersey, then the zip code. Greendale School — there is no Greendale School in Franklin Park, New Jersey. But, Greendale, as far as you know, did ring an alarm bell, when you heard that mention of that word.

BEDLINGTON: Yes, it did. Steve Hatfill got his MD at what is now the University of Zimbabwe. It had another name in those days. And I looked it up on the Internet. And, in fact, it is located in Greendale, which is a suburb of Harare. So you have what I think is an amazing coincidence between the two names.

Dr . Bedlington knew Dr. Hatfill from weekly lunches at a bistro in McClean where former work colleagues get together to swap stories, and once had been shown, privately, a scrapbook of mock pictures of Dr. Hatfill preparing plague in his kitchen (Dr. Bedlington recalls the discussion as relating to anthrax).

There is no Greendale School in Zimbabwe — even though there are many in the United States. No Greendale Primary School or Greendale Elementary School. There never has been. ABC led the pack repeatedly getting it wrong in suggesting that there was a Greendale School that Hatfill lived nearby, in a neighborhood of Harare. ABC’s Brian Ross has relied on a source named Pete Velis who has spent his own money urging his biodefense insider theory with a twist. Velis argued that the CIA was framing Hatfill.Hartford Courant followed on the Greendale point, relying on ABC. My posting of the City Atlas listing and the numbers of the two Greendale schools did little to stem the false reports. The closest in name is Greengrove, which was a considerable ways from the University. And if you started counting Greendales rather than Greendale Schools, then perhaps most people in the United States are just as closely connected to some Greendale. Most important of all, a perp simply has zero reason to use a name from his past. Indeed, the only reason to use the same address on both envelopes — which helped the second letter be identified before being received — is if something is being intentionally communicated.

There are 18 Greendales in the US. 6 Greendale Elementary Schools. As well as a Greendale Elementary School in Maryland near Andrews AFB in Prince George’s County that was closed.

Coincidences can be surprising. But the Greendale conjecture always seemed an unsound point to rely on in publicly suggesting that a medical doctor was guilty of murdering people. As Richard Spertzel, who has told the Baltimore Sun that he has met Hatfill but does not know him well, said: “He’s being railroaded.”

Instead, let’s consider the documentary evidence relating to the use of “Green” and “School” relating to Zawahiri’s plan to use anthrax against the US. In December 2002, the Arabic paper London Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that correspondence on Zawahiri’s computer (which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal) shows Zawahiri uses “school” as code for Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The letter was found on Al Zawahiri’s computer. The letter was designed to look innocent. It was dated 3 May 2001 and signed “Dr. Nour, Chairman of the Company.” Nour is one of Zawahiri’s aliases. In this context, it was Egyptian Islamic Jihad, not Al Qaeda, of which he was Chairman.

“We have been trying to go back to our main, previous activities. The most important step was the opening of the school. We have made it possible for the teachers to find openings for profitable trade.”

The letter read:

“To: Unknown

From: Ayman al-Zawahiri

Folder: Letters

Date: May 3, 2001

The following is a summary of our situation: We are trying to return to our previous main activity. The most important step was starting the school, the programs of which have been started. We also provided the teachers with means of conducting profitable trade as much as we could. Matters are all promising, except for the unfriendliness of two teachers, despite what we have provided for them. We are patient. [This apparently refers to an internal dispute with two senior London Egyptian islamists].

As you know, the situation below in the village [Egypt] has become bad for traders [jihadis]. Our Upper Egyptian relatives have left the market, and we are suffering from international monopolies. Conflicts take place between us for trivial reasons, due to the scarcity of resources. We are also dispersed over various cities. However, God had mercy on us when the Omar Brothers Company [the Taliban] here opened the market for traders and provided them with an opportunity to reorganize, may God reward them. Among the benefits of residence here is that traders from all over gather in one place under one company, which increases familiarity and cooperation among them, particularly between us and the Abdullah Contracting Company [bin Laden and his associates]. The latest result of this cooperation is the offer they gave. Following is a summary of the offer: Encourage commercial activities [jihad] in the village to face foreign investors; stimulate publicity; then agree on joint work to unify trade in our area. Close relations allowed for an open dialogue to solve our problems. Colleagues here believe that this is an excellent opportunity to encourage sales in general, and in the village in particular. They are keen on the success of the project. They are also hopeful that this may be a way out of the bottleneck to transfer our activities to the stage of multinationals and joint profit. We are negotiating the details with both sides.”

The full message, decoded, is thought to say:

“We have been trying to go back to our military activities. The most important step was the declaration of unity with al-Qaeda. We have made it possible for the mujahideen to find an opening for martyrdom. As you know, the situation down in Egypt has become bad for the mujahideen: our members in Upper Egypt have abandoned military action, and we are suffering from international harassment.”

But Allah enlightened us with His mercy when Taliban came to power. It has opened doors of military action for our mujahideen and provided them with an opportunity to rearrange their forces. One benefit of performing jihad here is the congregation in one place of all mujahideen who came from everywhere and began working with the Islamic Jihad Organization. Acquaintance and cooperation have grown, especially between us and al-Qaeda.”

In December 2002, the Arabic paper London Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that correspondence on Zawahiri’s computer (which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal) shows Zawahiri uses “school” as code for “Al Qaeda.”

Dr. Jean Rosenfeld, a researcher associated with the UCLA Center for the Study of Religion, and an expert on the symbolism of religious extremist movements, wrote me: “Greendale’ to me signified a conscious choice to use the symbolic color of Islam.” She continued: “The franked eagle on the envelope of the anthrax letters was identical to the one I caught on a documentary that showed a one-second shot of the site where Sadat was assassinated –- the huge eagle above the podium where he was when he died. That assassination was of great significance to Egyptian Jihad and produced the pamphlet by Faraj that justifies “fard ‘ayn”/individual duty as the basis of jihadist doctrine.” She explained that Al Qaeda “is rooted in Egypt and Salafism, not Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. Al-Zawahiri, I believe, is intensely nostalgic for the Nile Valley.”

The CIA factbook explains that the color green — such as used by anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat in naming his lab “Green Laboratory Medicine,” and by the mailer who used the return address “Greendale School” – is the traditional color of islam. Green symbolizes islam, Mohammed and the holy war. In its section on Saudi Arabia, and the “Flag Description,” the CIA “Factbook” explains that the flag is “green with large white Arabic script (that may be translated as There is no God but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God) above a white horizontal saber (the tip points to the hoist side); green is the traditional color of Islam.”

An intelligence document first released in 2007 involves an operation by EIJ members headed by Atef and including Saif Adel in which the group headed to Somalia to work at developing a new base of operations. The group was called The Green Team. “Greendale School” was used as the return address in the letters and likely is code referring to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The stamp on the prestamped envelopes was of a green bird. For a video depicting the Green Bird’s point of view and invoking Allah’s guidance to “the straight path,” see this video “The 3D Kabah – A green birds eye view.” The koranic “Green Birds” reference is from the sentence relating to being set on “The Straight Path.” Timimi, the graduate student who had access to the Alibek/Bailey patent about concentration using hydrophobic silica, advised the EIJ founder Kamal Habib in writing for the publication called Assirat Al-Mustaqeem (“The Straight Path”).

Likely for the same reason, Al Qaeda anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat and Zacarias Moussaoui used the name Green Laboratory Medicine as the name of the company that he used, for example, to buy 4 tons of ammonium nitrate, and that he used to cover his anthrax production program. In a Hadith the Messenger of Allah explains that the souls of the martyrs are in the hearts of green birds that fly wherever they please in Paradise.

Green dale refers to green “river valley” — Egypt, Cairo, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and/or Egyptian Islamic Group. Put it all together and you have their new official name (though the American press does not use it) — Qaeda al Jihad. At the Darunta complex where jihadis trained, recruits would wear green uniforms, except for Friday when they would be washed.

Given that using the same address helps the second recipient receiving the letter to identify it and avoid opening it, the perp would have no reason to use the same address unless he was communicating something and wanted to draw attention to it.

Adham Hassoun and Kassem Daher used “school” as code. Canadian businessman Daher is an associate of EIJ member Jaballah, who was detained in Canada and had maintained regular contact with Ayman by satellite telephone after coming to Canada in 1996. “Is there a school over there to teach football?” Hassoun asked, using what the FBI says is code for jihad.

As to Ivins, the Amerithrax Task Force explanation of Greendale is as follows:

“The investigation into the fictitious return address on envelopes used for the second round of anthrax mailings, “4th GRADE,” “GREENDALE SCHOOL,” has established a possible link to the American Family Association (AFA) headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi. In October 1999, AFA, a Christian organization, published an article entitled “AFA takes Wisconsin to court.” The article describes a lawsuit filed in federal court, by the AFA Center for law and Policy (CLP), on behalf of the parents of the students at Greendale Baptist Academy. The articles focuses on an incident that occurred on December 16, 1998, in which case workers of the Wisconsin Department of Human Services went to the Greendale Baptist Academy. The article focuses on an incident that occurred on December 1, 1998, in which case workers of the Wisconsin Department of Human Services went to the Greendale Baptist Academy in order to interview a fourth grade student. The case workers, acting on an anonymous tip that Greendale Baptist Academy administered corporal punishment as part of its discipline policy, did not disclose to the staff why wanted to interview the student. The case workers interviewed the student in the absence of the student’s parents and informed the school staff that the parents were not to be contacted. The AFA CLP filed suit against the Wisconsin Department of Human Services, citing a violation of the parents’ Fourth Amendment rights.”

____________ donations were made to the AFA in the name of “Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Ivins” on eleven separate occasions beginning on December 31, 1993. After an approximate two year break in donations, the next donation occurred on November 11, 1999, one month after the initial article referencing Greendale Baptist Academy was published in the AFA Journal. It was also discovered that the subscription to the AFA Journal, in the name of ‘Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Ivins,’ … was active until March 2005.”

The logical fallacy is Ivins would have had no reason to use the same address unless he was sending a message he wanted to be received. There was no audience that reasonably would have perceived the message being sent. He had no reason to send such a message. The theory was fine for an affidavit in support of a search of a residence (and we thank the agents for their good-faith and diligent work) — but not on which to close a case.

Current USAMRIID scientists are under a gag order which is why they cannot respond to emailed inquiries. But when such a gag is lifted, they can address, for example, whether Ivins flask on those night was in 1425 — as the US Attorney and Ed claim — or 1412. The claim that Ivins flask was stored in 1425 was the centerpiece of the FBI’s Ivins Theory.

This handwritten letter from Jabarah, a detainee from Niagara who was the go-between between anthrax planner KSM and anthrax planner Hambali, illustrates the relationship an FBI agent can develop. Jabarah, a young man, was held at a military base with some FBI agents. He was living with them while cooperating.

In the handwritten letter, Jabarah explains how close he feels to the agents. He says he is sorry about stealing the steak knife, the hit list, the news article about the death of a friend that says “I will revenge your death” etc., the picture of Bin Laden in which he has written his oath of loyalty etc.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/685.PDF

Reader wrote: “You have every opportunity to correct yourself. All 8 isolates had the 4.”

I think you’re reading someone else’s writings, not mine. I don’t know what you are talking about. It was Dr. Meryl Nass and “Anonymous” who misintepreted Dr. Ravel’s slides, not me. If you check back to my posting on this blog on December 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am, you’ll see what Dr. Ravel told me.

Reader also wrote: “Ed, did you notice that Dr. Fraser-Liggett, who could not have spoken more plainly in disagreeing with you ”

No, I haven’t noticed that. I don’t know what you are talkinga bout. Unless you’re talking about some statements she made regarding needing further proof of Dr. Ivins’ guilt.

Reader wrote: “Claire Fraser-Liggett, the professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and director of the University of Maryland Institute for Genome Sciences who advised FBI on Amerithrax.

“She asks, “What would have happened in this investigation had Dr. Hatfill not been so forceful in his response to being named a person of interest. What if he, instead of fighting back, had committed suicide had committed suicide because of the pressure? Would that have been the end of the investigation?”

Dr. Fraser-Liggett clearly has issues. But her argument is STUPID.

Can you list ANY case in the past 50 years where some innocent person committed suicide because he was falsely accused of a crime?

How many HUNDREDS of cases can you name where some GUILTY person committed suicide to avoid being arrested or prosecuted for a crime. How many have there been so far this month?

Dr. Hatfill was ACCUSED BY IDIOTIC SCIENTISTS, not by the FBI. The FBI merely called him a “person of interest” because so many conspiracy theorist scientists were pointing at him. It was a term which was intended to say that he was just someone whose name came up in the case. IT CAME UP AS A RESULT OF IDIOTIC CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SCIENTISTS OUTSIDE OF THE FBI POINTING AT HIM.

AnthraxSleuth wrote: “Bad news Ed.
“I have facts and evidence, Physical evidence that Steven Hatfill is the Anthrax Mailer.
“More Bad news Ed.
“I have facts and more physical evidence that the FBI, one agent in particular, have fallen all over themselves to not investigate the real culprits.”

Yes, I’ve exchanged emails with LOTS of people with LOTS of screwball theories over the years, all claiming to have “evidence” of some kind. Some claim that they can’t turn the evidence over to anyone, because they might destroy it. Others claim that they can’t get the FBI to verify their evidence. Others claim they can’t even get the FBI to look at their evidence. You seem to fall into that category.

They usually come to me AFTER trying many times to get the FBI to take them seriously. So, I assume that the FBI has talked with a HUNDRED of these people for every one that has actually contacted me.

The facts say and have ALWAYS said that Dr. Hatfill was innocent. It was merely some conspiracy theorists SCIENTISTS outside of the FBI who were pointing at Dr. Hatfill.

If you have proof of Dr. Hatfill’s guilt, why have you been keeping it a secret for SEVEN YEARS?

AnthraxSleuth also wrote: “Poor Ed, the truth is coming out, I’m making damn sure of it. But Ed, your like 80 or something so, you may not live to see it.”

I’m only 71, so I may last longer than you think. But I don’t think ANYONE will live long enough to see YOU prove anything. It ain’t gonna happen.

What do you have? A hidden picture of him in the anthrax letters? Numerological translations of the words in the letters? Astrological signs? Visions of seeing Dr. Hatfill make the anthrax? Interpretations of statements he made over twenty years ago in Africa?

Don’t keep it a secret for another seven years.

Ed,

Have you read the other Fall 2008 study does as part of this microbial forensics about the genetically distinct subtilis? And how the isotope ratio information can be integrated with other information relating to the medium?

Ivins did not use that genetically distinct subtilis, did he?

The isotope ratio points to growth in swaths that included the yellow swath on Dr. E’s map isotope ratio, didn’t it?

Ed looks so dashing when he and his friends wear their matching detective suits that I would have guessed 60 just by looking.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display_comments.htm?StoryID=80031

In September and October 2001, Fraser-Liggett, the former president and director of The Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, was finishing work on the sequencing and analysis of the first genome of a strain of Ames anthrax.

***

Because of the nature of the life of anthrax spores, which spend most of their time dormant, mutations are relatively infrequent, Clare Fraser-Liggett said. More than 99 percent of the DNA of anthrax spores are identical. The Ames strain involved in the attacks, which was discovered in a cow in Texas in 1981, left little time for mutations to occur.

Scientists thought this would present an enormous challenge in trying to do any sort of forensics work.

“This would be the equivalent of trying to do DNA forensics on nearly identical twins,” she said.

Fraser-Liggett and other researchers obtained their first anthrax sample from the spinal fluid of the first victim, Robert Stevens, a photo editor at a Florida tabloid.

Researchers then compared the sample to their genome for anthrax and discovered four mutations.

They then developed a rapid technique to screen samples with the goal of comparing them to the original Ames genome sequence.

The FBI provided about 120 coded samples, collected from labs in the United States and other countries that stored the Ames strain. Those samples were about 11 percent of the total tested.

According to the FBI, eight of the roughly 1,100 samples could be traced to a single source flask under the control of Bruce Ivins at United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, Fraser-Liggett said.

“I think that this is where the FBI is really hanging its hat on the validity of the science,” she said.

In August, the Justice Department named Ivins as its sole suspect in the mailings. The scientist committed suicide on July 29, just before media reports revealed investigators were preparing to indict him for the mailings.

Ivins’ attorney has maintained his client’s innocence.

More than 100 people at two labs (and the other quasi-governmental “lab”, the FBI WMD head, says had more than one location) — USAMRIID and a lab officials have refused to identify — had access to the flask. Officials did not explain how they eliminated those other people from their investigation.

On Wednesday, Fraser-Liggett said she believes that since the Ames strain in the flask was composed of so many generations of spores, it had time to develop the four mutations, a question that had lingered until about a month ago.

She said she never believed the science alone would solve the anthrax investigation…”

You just misunderstood, Ed, that the question of access related to all the locations where the matching isolates were found. You are the only one who misunderstood this and that has been central to your support for the still-born Ivins Theory. You call Dr. Fraser-Ligett’s “stupid” when she is the FBI’s lead expert and, in contrast, you don’t even read the articles on microbial forensics when they come down.

“The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer.”

You keep saying that, Ed, but don’t have any facts that support your assertion. On the key fact, whether someone with access to one of the matching isolates could have done it, you are just confused. You go so far as to call the opinion of the FBI’s lead expert stupid.

You just dismiss the facts relating to agar, method of weaponization, subtilis contamination, Silicon Signature etc., alibi as irrelevant when in fact they are the material facts.

Indeed, you reasserted “The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer” without addressing the factual questions I asked you about the recent articles on agar, isotope ratios, and subtilis. You may be used to just asserting in the arguments with webposters you love “Those are not her tits — that’s a FACT” but that does not fly as critical reasoning in the area of true crime analysis.

FWIW, the 7th Annual ASM Biodefense and Emerging Diseases Research Meeting is scheduled for February 22-25, 2009 in Baltimore, MD.

On Tuesday, February 24, 2009 there will be a “Plenary Session” titled “The Science behind the ‘Anthrax Letter’ Attack Investigation” from 8:30 AM until 12:00 PM.

The Moderators will be:
P. Keim; Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
J. D. Bannan; ChemicalBiological Sciences Unit, FBI, Quantico, VA.

The Presentations:

1. “The B. anthracis Ames Strain and the Development of an Investigative Strain Repository” – PAUL KEIM, PhD.; Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ.

2. “The Silicon Content in B. anthracis Spores Is in the Spore Coat, not Exogenously Applied” – JOSEPH R. MICHAEL; Sandia Natl. Lab., Albuquerque, NM.

3. “Comparative Genome Analysis to Identify Minor B. anthracis Mutant Components in the AnthraxLetters Spores” – JACQUES RAVEL, Ph.D.; Microbial Genomics, The Inst. for Genomic Res.,
Rockville, MD.

4. “A1 & A3 Assay Development” – THOMAS R. REYNOLDS, BS.; Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc., Richmond, VA

5. “Morph D Assay Development” – VALORIE T. RYAN, Ph.D..; Florida Division, Midwest Res. Inst., Palm Bay, FL.

6. “FBIR Process, Validations and Synopsis of the Results” – JASOJASON D. BANNAN, Ph.D..; ChemicalBiological Sciences Unit, FBI, Quantico, VA.

Dr. Bannan gave the same presentation this summer in Naples, right?

And we’ve seen that that there is nothing in Dr. Michael’s work that implicates Dr. Ivins. (see Sandia video)

And we’ve already discussed the conclusion that can be drawn from the genetics.

So while hope springs eternal for you, Ed, it is the comment by the FBI’s scientist from University of Maryland Medical School that sums things up — with no experts in microbial forensics supporting your conclusory assertions. We are left with the old fashioned type inquiry: such as the fact the FBI reports it has no solid evidence (Wash Po) and he has an alibi.

Reader wrote: “such as the fact the FBI reports it has no solid evidence (Wash Po)”

The WASHINGTON POST reported that the FBI “no solid evidence.”

U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor said on August 6:

“MR. TAYLOR: The evidence I described in my statement and that I’ve described throughout this question-and-answer period, as I said, led us to conclude that Dr. Ivins is the person who committed this crime. We are confident based on the evidence we have that we could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-opa-697.html

Do you think that Mr. Taylor was just shining everyone on in order to cover up for the real killer – some Muslim that you suspect?

Reader wrote: “And we’ve seen that that there is nothing in Dr. Michael’s work that implicates Dr. Ivins.”

Did anyone ever say there was?

What Dr. Michael’s work shows is that the silicon that was detected was NOT the result of any form of “weaponization” as conspiracy theorist scientists and journalists have been claiming for seven years.

Different issue.

If anyone is going to talk about facts pointing at Dr. Ivins, it will be Dr. Ravel in his talk about “Comparative Genome Analysis to Identify Minor B. anthracis Mutant Components in the AnthraxLetters Spores.”

The mutations in the attack anthrax were the breakthrough that led to Ivins.

But we are making progress Ed.

The agar work does not lead to Ivins.

The subtilis work does not lead to Ivins.

(You agree) the silicon work does not lead to Ivins.

The fiber analysis does not lead to Ivins.

The handwriting analysis does not lead to Ivins.

The ink analysis (of the ink used to address the letters) does not lead to Ivins.

The isotope ratio analysis does not lead to Ivins.

And the mutations lead to up to 300 known people.

And maybe someday the FBI will explain how they eliminated the others and why they have any confidence there was not a theft by someone not known to them.

Ed,

To do a credible analysis, you first have to understand whether the matching Ames was just at Ft. Detrick or at other locations. You have had it very plainly explained to you by numerous scientists and law enforcement officials in press conferences and articles — many of whom are available to you by email — and you still don’t even understand this point. Why don’t you ask Dr. Bannan whether the other matching isolates are excludable by the genetics? Or Dr. Beecher? Or Dr. Ravel? These scientists are very responsive to emails. The mere fact that Dr. Ravel responded to your email and you did not even ask this question shows that you find it very awkward to correct your mistake. (On a much finer point, in contrast, Dr. Nass issued an erratum immediately).

Your usefulness in debunking a Hatfill theory was that you paid to download the PACER filings and you bothered to upload all the articles (some of which otherwise would not be maintained by google news). For that, thank you. But do try to get this one location (Ft. Detrick) versus other locations point down because you are embarrassing yourself.

To exclude one or more matching isolates, other methods are needed under the Bayesian approach described. An investigator would consider the agar used, the isotope ratios, the Silicon Signature, the availability of equipment that might have been used etc.

Your confusion is due to you not being a microbiologist. But as the result of your confusion, you have not moved on to the real issues.

Bayesian-Integrated Microbial Forensics Kristin H. Jarman,* Helen W. Kreuzer-Martin, David S. Wunschel, Nancy B. Valentine, John B. Cliff, Catherine E. Petersen, Heather A. Colburn,and Karen L. Wahl

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, June 2008, p. 3573-3582, Vol. 74, No. 11

“In the aftermath of the 2001 anthrax letters, researchers have been exploring ways to predict the production environment of unknown-source microorganisms. Culture medium, presence of agar, culturing temperature, and drying method are just some of the broad spectrum of characteristics an investigator might like to infer. The effects of many of these factors on microorganisms are not well understood, but the complex way in which microbes interact with their environments suggests that numerous analytical techniques measuring different properties will eventually be needed for complete characterization. In this work, we present a Bayesian statistical framework for integrating disparate analytical measurements. We illustrate its application to the problem of characterizing the culture medium of Bacillus spores using three different mass spectral techniques. The results of our study suggest that integrating data in this way significantly improves the accuracy and robustness of the analyses.

The anthrax mailings of 2001 dramatically heightened concerns about the possibility of terrorist incidents involving microbiological agents. In the wake of the attacks, microbial forensics has emerged as a new focus area for research. Microbial forensics involves characterization of microorganisms used as weapons for the purpose of identifying and convicting those responsible. Researchers in this nascent field have been working to develop methods that provide information useful in an investigation and ultimately a courtroom.

It became clear early in the investigation of the anthrax letters that genetic identity alone was not necessarily sufficient to lead investigators to a perpetrator. Analytical methods were needed that could differentiate genetically identical organisms produced under different conditions and also provide information about how a particular batch of organisms was produced. In response, scientists have been exploring the use of a variety of analytical approaches to characterize changes in microbial signatures with culture conditions. A major task faced in these studies is assessing how the profile of a given species varies in response to different culture conditions.

Different organisms prefer different growth media. Nearly all media, however, contain carbon and nitrogen sources, sulfur, mineral ions, and water. Sugar, yeast, soy, peptone, and protein hydrolysates are just a few of the different sources of carbon used in culture media. ***

Many aspects of microorganisms are known to vary with the culture medium and thus could provide clues to production conditions. For example, the protein expression and content of microorganismsvary with growth conditions as does the lipid content . The stable isotope ratios of heterotrophic microbes, like those of other heterotrophs, are a function of the stable isotope ratios of their growth medium nutrients and water and thus vary with the growth environment. In addition to triggering intrinsic variation in the compositions of microorganisms, growth media may also leave direct traces, such as medium-specific metabolic products or unused medium components, on microbial cells.

The utilities of various analytical techniques and approaches for characterizing an organism’s growth environment have been explored. Valentine et al. . demonstrated reproducible differences in matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI MS) signatures of Bacillus subtilis spores grown in different culture media. Kreuzer-Martin and Jarman have discussed the usefulness of 13C/12C and 15N/14N isotope ratios for characterizing culture media. Cliff et al. suggested secondary-ion MS (SIMS) as a means for identifying a culture medium based on the metalcontent. Edberg et al. (H. C. Edberg, C. E. Petersen, N. B. Valentine, D. S. Wunschel, and K. L. Wahl, presented at the 54th ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics, Seattle, WA, 2006; H. C. Edberg, C. E. Petersen, N. B. Valentine, and K. L. Wahl, unpublished data) demonstrated a method for detecting the presence of agar in microbial samples based on electrospray ionization (ESI) MS and derivatization gas chromatography MS. Whiteaker et al. developed a MALDI MS-based method for detecting heme on Bacillus spores.

Each of these individual techniques has the potential to capture one aspect of an organism’s growth environment. However, by combining information from different “orthogonal” techniques, a more complete characterization seems possible. We previously presented a Bayesian classification scheme for identifying the culture medium of an unknown source microorganism when signatures of the organism in candidate culture media are available (K. H. Jarman, K. L. Wahl, N. B. Valentine, J. B. Cliff, H. Kreuzer-Martin, C. E. Petersen, H. C. Edberg, and D. S. Wunschel, presented at the 54th ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics, Seattle, WA, 2006). Built from probability models of isotope ratio MS (IRMS), SIMS, MALDI MS, and ESI MS data, this scheme integrates disparate data sets by converting them into a likelihood score ranging from zero to one and multiplying the different likelihoods to produce a single, integrated score for every candidate culture medium. By integrating the different instrument data using this scheme, the culture media were correctly identified 92% of the time on average, as opposed to the 61% average correct identification rate for the individual instruments.

This approach has some serious drawbacks. First, it requires a signature for the microorganism in every culture medium of interest. While it may be possible to collect such signatures when reference samples from a suspect laboratory are available, in many cases no reference samples will be available. Even if a large database of culture medium signatures could be constructed, the culture medium from an unknown sample could be made from atypical components, spiked with additional metals or other compounds, or made without following any known recipe, making a database-matching approach extremely challenging. The question then becomes one of whether a data analysis framework can be developed so that culture medium characterization is possible when traditional signatures are unavailable.

Here, we expand on the previous work by developing a Bayesian network for microbial forensics. This new approach alleviates the need for a database of specific signatures of interest and allows us to characterize culture medium components as opposed to complete culture medium recipes. It also has several other benefits. First, a Bayesian network provides an intuitive visual representation of the relationships between culture media and analytical measurements. Second, it allows us to model dependencies that sometimes occur between nominally orthogonal measurement techniques. Finally, an existing network can easily be expanded to include more measurement techniques and more culture medium components, particularly with the use of a free or commercially available Bayesian network software package.

[extensive technical discussion omitted]

[ *** ]

“the GENETICALLY-UNIQUE PARENT material of the anthrax spores used in the mailings [...] was a single flask of spores, known as “RMR-1029,” that was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins at USAMRIID.”

Some thoughts:

Lots of scientists outside of the FBI were involved in VALIDATING the science used by the FBI to make that statement. But it would be FBI scientists who would have assembled all the scientific information and who would have determined that only one of the eight samples with the four mutants could be the “genetically-unique parent” of the attack anthrax. NO ONE outside of the FBI and DOJ would likely be in a position to know ALL the facts that the FBI assembled.

I don’t know that Dr. Keim ever saw any of the other seven samples, or, if he did, that he knew what they were.

Checking my recent email to him, I see I didn’t ask anything about that. I merely asked if it is possible to determine that the attack anthrax came from RMR-1029 and NOT from any of the other seven samples with the four mutants.

So, the arguments boil down to this: Some people who do NOT have all the facts do not agree with the people who DO have all the facts.

My money is on the people who have ALL the facts.

Consider some comparisons.

Dr. Hatfill forged a PhD in gaining access to the deadly ebola virus.

Dr. Ivins forged a letter to the editor defending sorority initiation rites.

Dr. Hatfill had a silencer.

Dr. Ivins had homemade body armor.

Dr. Hatfill obtained numerous refills of Cipro and a prescription in his girlfriend’s name was hidden in her coffee jar.

Dr. Ivins received anthrax vaccinations for his job.

Dr. Hatfill no longer had a security clearance.

Dr. Ivins’ value as a researcher was heightened by 911.

Dr. Hatfill had access to the Ivins flask in 1997.

Dr. Ivins would not have used the strain for which he was known.

Dr. Hatfill worked with William Patrick and claimed on his resume to know how to make dry anthrax powder.

Dr. Ivins had no such experience.

The problem with a Hatfill Theory is that there was no evidence supporting the claim he was responsible. And there isn’t today. And your repeated post is not credible.

“I merely asked if it is possible to determine that the attack anthrax came from RMR-1029 and NOT from any of the other seven samples with the four mutants.”

Great. Let us know what he responds. And ask Dr. Ravel the same thing. Until then, read the microbial forensics articles that have come out this Fall so you advance discussion rather than hold them back.

Ed asked me:

“Can you list ANY case in the past 50 years where some innocent person committed suicide because he was falsely accused of a crime?”

A simple google search pulls up thousands of examples.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=suicide+%22falsely+accused%22&btnG=Search

Reader:

“Dr. Hatfill had access to the Ivins flask in 1997.”

What?! I think not, I don’t even think the flask existed in 1997. My understanding is that the possiblity that Hatfill had access to the flask has been well established as impossible.

AnthraxSleuth is a Flake, a SUGAR Frosted Flake.

And he’s far from grrrreeaaat!

Even though he thinks he is.

Silicon from residual contamination from silanizing glassware?

No.

The flask was created in 1997. see affidavit.

As for access, see description of the **12 location rather than **25 location. But as I’ve discussed, I know of no evidence pointing to Dr. H’s responsibility for the anthrax mailings.

My information on the silanizing glassware hypothesis is from the head of the Air Force lab who did controlled experiments using a siliconizing solution in the slurry — which led to spikes the same as the Daschle product with no spike when it was not used. He is the one who describes the patent I’ve discusssed as a “Wow!” patent that increases the viability over a wide range of pathogens. See also Crockett thesis discussion of microencapsulation.

His reference to the silanizing glassware hypothesis likely would be from communication with Dr. Doug Beecher, who had a greater role in these matters than one might think. As discussed above, it’s not the hypothesis I favor.

A related patent co-invented by the scientist who inherited Al-Timimi’s telephone number explains how the silica dioxide is then removed from the surface through repeated centrifugation.

As for the question of Dr. Hatfill’s access, the Affidavit in support of the Hatfill search states:

“While employed at USAMRIID in Frederick, Maryland, from 1997 to 1999, Hatfill worked in the laboratory building in which the United States Army houses various biological agents, including the same “Ames strain of Bacillus anthracis contained in the letters. Hatfill had access to the unlocked storage freezers in which the Ames strain B.A. was then kept.”

So given that we haven’t even been told where the other 8 isolates were kept, BugMaster, what is the basis for saying that Dr. Hatfill did not have access?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090101.SPY01/TPStory/National

This news article reports on the Maryland cook alleged to be an Iraqi spy who served as a part-time accountant at the Iraqi embassy at 1801 P St, near the corner of 18th and P St. It was located in a beautiful orange-brick three-story brick building off Dupont Circle, the converted townhouse of Mabel Boardman.

The father of anthrax weapons suspect Ali Al-Timimi, Mehdi, worked at the embassy — stood in front of that fireplace.

The Education of Ali Al-Timimi – The Atlantic (June 2006)
Back in the late seventies Ali al-Timimi used to hang around our house with my son …Mehdi, his father, was a lawyer who worked in Iraq’s embassy and, …
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/viorst-terroris

Here is an image showing 7 windows per side. When in 1993 Iraqi officials moved in, they found “The name of this chamber is peace” inscribed above the fireplace.

http://www.dupontcircle.biz/ks/351.jpg

In 2003, an article describes how Mr. Chalabi and his aides removed the posters and pictures to “de-Baathify” the house, and then notes that Mr. Chalabi also paused to “ask several questions in Arabic of the interest section’s part-time accountant, Mouyad Darwish [the alleged spy], about the state of its finances.”

The day they hoisted the old red, black and green Iraqi flag up at 1801 P St operators began answering “Iraqi embassy” rather than “Iraq Interest Section.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22282-2004Jul1.html

Chalabi and Vice-President Cheney spoke about the risk of bioterror in September 2001. [CITE]

Did Chalabi and Vice-President Cheney know that the son of an embassy lawyer was working along the Hadron biodefense people at GMU’s Discovery Hall? Did they know he was preaching on the end of times alongside the 911 imam? That he was coordinating with Bin Laden’s sheik? Did they know he had a high security clearance? Did the FBI?

Given the NSA wiretap that had been ordered, someone did, even though information that there was an NSA wiretap was not even shared with the DOJ #2.

Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn used to call foreign embassies “spy dens.”

If you watch the videotape of US Attorney Jeff Taylor’s press conference, it seems that he was nervous when he (incorrectly) claimed that Dr. Ivins had never worked such long hours before or after the mailings. To the contrary, in the excellent bar graph done by Mr. Lake, we can see the same long hours in August (before the mailings) — and November and December (after the mailings). US Attorney Taylor no doubt is highly experienced in counterintelligence matters relating to suspected spying in the DC area (as was Michael Mason, the former head of the FBI DC Field Office and the former US Attorney Ken W.) US Attorney Taylor advised Attorney General Gonzalez on national security matters before taking his current job and now Ken W works on national security issues at the White House. He formerly had headed the DOJ division that fused law enforcement and national security and he had also served as FBI Director Mueller’s chief of staff.

Did US Attorney Taylor know that what he was saying at the press conference about Bruce Ivins was inaccurate? (See Mr. Lake’s bar graph). Or had AUSA Ken Kohl (who has long worked on the matter and who also has a lot of experience in counterintelligence matters) or Ken W. just give him a bum script.

Did this recently arrested part-time accountant and driver know Al-Timimi’s father? (Yes) Was Al-Timimi’s father working for Iraq and the Baathist party while working at the Iraqi Embassy? (Yes)

“US charges Iraq-born Canadian for secretly aiding Saddam”