In writing up the story, Fox added a “not”. (It became a mangled double negative only by the mistranscription).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506727,00.html

The grant award was titled “‘Nanomolecule Based Agents for Pathogen Counter Measure.” The original budget 3/1997 - 2/28/2002 was $10,890,561.

The anthrax attacks: the FBI’s incurable disease
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/02/the_anthrax_attacks_the_fbis_i.php#more

Codename ZABADI: The Infiltration Of US Biodefense
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com

2/27 - New Scientist - “Revealed: Scientific Evidence for the 2001 Anthrax Attacks”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126974.100-revealed-scientific-evidence-for-the-2001-anthrax-attacks.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

In the study discussed in this April 2001 report (Aberdeen Proving Ground appears on bottom of first page but the authors are Dugway), the best performing decontamination nanoemulsions were University of Michigan (U.Mich.), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLNL).

http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/bt/key_ref/DOD/decon_tech_bio_agent.pdf

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

Here is a 1996 report on a study done at Edgewood involving irradiated virulent Ames provided by John Ezzell that was used in a soil suspension.

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/62/9/3474.pdf

This article discusses Ames supplied by the Battelle-managed Dugway, subtilus, and use of sheep blood agar.

Bacillus Spore Inactivation Methods Affect Detection Assays, Received 12 January 2001/Accepted 25 May 2001
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/67/8/3665

Did Battelle have virulent Ames across I-95?

Edgewood tested nanoemulsion biocidal agents at Edgewood during this time period, according to a national nanobiotechnology initiative report issued June 2002.

I will institute a stand down of all biological select agents and toxin (BSAT) activities beginning on Friday, the 6th. This is necessary to conduct a complete inventory to identify all BSAT in USAMRIID. The standard we have employed for 100% accountability has been the ability to find every sample listed in the AIMS database. However, the standard for 100% accountability understood by the Army and DoD is the ability to account for every container of BSAT in the Institute. We have previously discovered BSAT not captured in AIMS database. This is probably due to accounting errors, transcription errors, or BSAT that had not been reassigned when an employee left the Institute. When this occurred, we either added it to the database or documented destruction, but overages now require submission of a Serious Incident Report, which goes to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. I believe that the probability that there are additional vials of BSAT not captured in our AIMS database is high.

We must take immediate steps to meet the Army and DoD definition of 100% accountability. Therefore, we will stand down until we have inventoried all freezers and refrigerators. I will need certification that the full contents of each freezer and refrigerator have been evaluated and that all BSAT is included in our inventory. We will use tomorrow to develop a process to conduct this inventory and provide that to you.

We will notify our funding partners. Animal research currently underway and animal care will not be affected by this stand down.

I apologize for the ramifications this action will have on your research, but I assure you this is an action we must take.
jps

John P. Skvorak
COL , VC
Commanding

“Science Found Wanting in Nation’s Crime Labs,” New York Times, February 4, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html?ref=us

http://www.radiodujour.com/people/bamford_james/

JAMES BAMFORD: Well, the very first clue to the 9/11 attack occurred in late December 1999, when the NSA picked up a message from a house in Yemen. The house was being used by bin Laden as his operations center. He didn’t have much capability to operate out of Afghanistan, so all the phone calls, all the messages, email and all that would go to this house in the city of Sanaa, the capital of Yemen. NSA had been eavesdropping on that house for a number of years, and in late December 1999, it picked up a particular intercept, picked up a particular phone conversation.

And the phone conversation said that-send Khalid and Nawaf to Kuala Lumpur for a meeting. So, NSA picked that up, and they-first of all, they figured that Nawaf and Khalid had to be very important potential terrorists, because they were being assigned by bin Laden out in Afghanistan to go to a meeting in Kuala Lumpur. That seemed like a terrorist summit meeting. NSA gave that information to the other intelligence agencies, and the CIA set up a surveillance in Kuala Lumpur, and then they lost them in Kuala Lumpur.

After they lost them, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi went to California. They got in without any problem. NSA, even though they had the last name of Nawaf al-Hazmi in their computers, they never bothered to check, so they both got in without any problem into the United States. They went down, and they lived in San Diego. And they began calling back and forth to that house in Yemen, the house that NSA was eavesdropping on. So NSA is picking up their conversations to the house in Yemen, translating them and then sending out the conversations to-or summaries of the conversations to the CIA without ever telling anybody that they were in the United States. And they were in the United States for almost two years. Al-Hazmi was there from January 2000 to September 2001. And again, they’re communicating back and forth; NSA is picking up but not telling anybody that they’re in the US.”

The intelligence failure that led to 9/11 is being repeated with Amerithrax. It helps to think of Hani and Nawaf as on “the Straight Path” — and it is critical to connect the Kuala Lumpur, San Diego, Falls Church and New Jersey dots.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/anthraxandalqaed.html#HaniandNawaf

Nawaf Hazmi and a colleague had arrived the previous year in San Diego, where they had been unsuccessful in learning to fly. Upon arriving in San Diego in 2000, he met with Imam named Aulaqi — perhaps even the same day as arriving. The 911 Commission Report said that Nawaf and his fellow hijacker and “developed a close relationship with him.” Aulaqi in early 2001 moved to Falls Church. Several months later, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, who by then had joined them in San Diego in December 2000, also moved to Falls Church, Virginia.

On September 10, 2001, Hanjour, al-Mihdhar, and al-Hazmi checked into the Marriott Residence Inn in Herndon, Virginia where Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official — who later was appointed to head the mosques at Mecca and Medina — was staying. He was the uncle of Sami al-Hussayen, the webmaster of the Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”). The uncle had met with officials from Ann Arbor, Michigan charity, IANA, for which his nephew raised funds and was the webmaster. Microbiologist Ali Al-Timimi — the Falls Church iman who was 15 feet from the leading anthrax scientist in the world and former deputy USAMRIID commander — was the IANA’s leading speaker. NSA intercepts allegedly show, and his counsel admits, he was coordinating with the 911 imam and Bin Laden’s sheik. IANA had a spin-off and dba in Syracuse, NY. KSM was captured (two weeks earlier than publicly reported). The government then moved forward in the US. The day and minute Al-Timimi’s townhouse was searched, 100 agents came to Syracuse and simultaneously interviewed 150 people.

Al-Timimi had received a letter of commendation from the White House for his work. He had a high security clearance while at SRA in 1999 for doing mathematical support work for the Navy. For 2 months in 1996, his defense committee said, he had been the assistant to former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card (who would have been at the automobile association at the time). As White House Chief of Staff, Mr. Card sought to influence the 911 Commission’s investigation.

If we do not understand history, we are bound to repeat it.

http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com

“The 65th letter to JP Morgan Chase & Co. did not contain white powder but included a threat of the “McVeighing of your corporate headquarters within six months.” This letter also threatened to “utilize any strategy and tactic to inflict financial damage to your company.”

The investigation revealed that a computer in a library on the University of New Mexico’s Albuquerque campus was used in early October to access Chase’s web site and search for addresses for nearly all of the Chase Bank locations that later received white powder threat letters. The same computer was used the same day to access OTS’s website and search for all the OTS office locations that later received white powder threat letters.

It was also used the same day to access the FDIC’s website. Richard Goyette’s listed his address in the emails as Tijeras, New Mexico, which is a small community located on the outskirts of Albuquerque.

In addition, a computer at Central New Mexico Community College in Albuquerque was also used to conduct branch locator searches on Chase’s website on September 30, 2008 — six days prior to the computer searches at the University of New Mexico. Records obtained from Yahoo! show that Goyette’s angry emails to FDIC and OTS in late September were also sent from a computer at Central New Mexico Community College.

According to records obtained from Citibank, Jurek used a credit card to rent a car in Albuquerque on October 17, 2008, the day before the threat letters were postmarked. Goyette, using his New Mexico driver’s license under the Jurek name, rented the car at 11:51 a.m. at Enterprise Rent-a-Car in Albuquerque and obtained permission to drive the car into Texas. He returned the car approximately 24 hours later on October 18, 2008, at 11:48 a.m., putting 630 miles on the car. It is approximately 284 miles from Albuquerque to Amarillo.”

Mister Lake has repeadedly said that circumstantial evidence is perfectly valid and can be more than sufficient to convict.
But there’s GOOD (ie indisputable and next-to-impossible to explain otherwise) circumstantial evidence and there’s flimsy circumstantial evidence.
The case against Ivins is extremely flimsy.

How do you prove a dead man guilty? You cannot try a dead man in court.
—————————————————
No, but you can adduce evidence of such reliability as would have stood the challenge of defense attourneys in court. For example:

1) say OJ Simpson had died in a plane crash on the way back from Chicago back in June 1994(?).

2) the blood evidence on his car, his socks, his repeated threats against his wife, photos of his abuse of her and MOST of the rest of the “mountain of evidence” would have still been presentable.
NOT to a court (he’s dead under this scenario, but to public opinion.

Her posts are here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:biodefensestudent/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change

She began participating online after a LA Times article was written that she did not like. She is close to Dr. A and an ardent defender. I like Dr. A and find him very forthcoming and helpful. But if he adopted an anonymous screen name and then began arguing that I was mistaken in arguing that the man working with the 911 imam and Bin Laden’s sheik had access to Dr. A’s know-how to concentrate anthrax using silicon dioxide, I would politely suggest that he should not conceal his bias. Dr. Al-Timimi came to be 15 feet from Ken and the former deputy USAMRIID commander who was such a prolific researcher using the Ames strain.

In the free marketplace of ideas, such concealed interest would constitute counterfeit goods.

Dr. A btw has long publicly argued that Al Qaeda was responsible. I have pretty much always credited his views both as to who was responsible and the science (which he summarizes in a draft of Biohazard 2). But I especially credit the insights of Peter’s Leitner who was at GMU and an expert on infiltration.

Analogously, I also find Dr. Serge P, who is currently with the Center for Biodefense program, to be forthcoming and very helpful and responsive. He, of course, has great expertise and his opinions carry weight when he suggests that the silicon signature likely was due to an antifoaming agent. But in the case of his opinion his bias is not hidden and can be taken into account. He currently is close and works for the other co-inventor of the patent that contemplates use of silicon dioxide in the culture medium to concentrate anthrax. The forensics indicate may have been done here (according to the FBI’s WMD head) and it is the FBI that has had the resources and expertise to dispassionately bring to bear on the science relating to the Silicon Signature — not people close to the inventors of the March 14, 2001 patented process to concentrate anthrax by using silicon dioxide in the culture medium.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705282197,00.html

The National Security Agency is the largest intelligence-gathering organization in the world, three times the size of the CIA. And, as it turns out, the NSA eavesdropped on the terrorists who plotted the 9/11 attacks — and never turned that information over to the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.

That’s the conclusion of “NOVA: The Spy Factory” (7 p.m., PBS/Ch. 7, which seeks to understand how that could possibly have happened.

“That’s the question we pose in the program, because NSA has not answered that question, and the 9/11 Commission never bothered to look into it,” said James Bamford, author of “The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America.”

As it turns out, the NSA was eavesdropping on terrorists Kahlid al-Midar and Nawaf Al Hamzi for years in both Yemen and the United States.

“The question was — why didn’t NSA pass that information on?” Bamford said. “And one possible reason is that the head of NSA at the time, Gen. Michael Hayden, had to worry about being called before the Senate and asked to explain why he’s eavesdropping on Americans. The problem is, he could have eavesdropped on these terrorists in the United States without ever coming into any type of trouble, because he could have gotten a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court to do it. That’s why it was set up that way.

Given that we occasionally discuss Al-Timimi and access to know-how at the GMU Center for Biodefense, can I ask whether you studied at GMU’s Center for Biodefense? They offer a masters program in biothreat assessment. The Bugs N Gas gal I know and have always enjoyed reading has a BS in biology and a masters in biothreat assessment as I recall. Even more specifically, were you taught by Dr. Alibek? While I don’t mean to intrude on a screen name or intrude on your privacy, in case you are an alum of that program, I thought I should ask and should know.

Kind of like most of James Michner’s novels.

Who was the spy at Ft. Detrick? (Milton L. insists there was none, or at least that other aspects of his book relating to Soviet suspicions of illegal programs are crock and that no USAMRIID scientist fit the description of the mole at USAMRIID. ) Expert Dr. Zilinskas now says he has changed his view and is pretty sure there was a mole at Ft. Detrick.

Kousimonov names some names in one interview.

http://calitreview.com/62

“I can give you a few examples:First, two ‘illegals’ codenamed TREFY. They operated in Western Europe, especially in Western Germany. One of their tasks was to gather information about classified and secret military medical and biological labs in Western Europe, especially in Germany, and the research experiments that were carried out in them. Their other task was to seek out people who were involved in secret medical/biological experiments or who had access to them, who could be approached for co-operation with Russian Foreign Intelligence.In the UK was a husband-and-wife team codenamed ROSA and ROMAN. ROSA operated in England from the end of the 1970s under cover as a research-microbiologist. She worked in a scientific research institute in a town near London. The institute was involved in experiments with potentially dangerous pathogens of lethal human and animal diseases, and we justly presumed that it was also involved in England’s covert biological warfare program. Copies of reports about the results of experiments in her lab came from ROSA regularly. She also sent ‘live stuff’: test tubes and ampoules with cultures of new strains, media, samples of new vaccines, etc. ROMAN, a molecular biologist by training, was sent as her back-up. He completed his PhD in one of London’s universities, and became a member of the young scientific research community. His primary task at this stage was to help ROSA gain intelligence information about secret microbiological research experiments, and the secret study and cultivation of research-biologists and government officials with good prospects in areas of interest to Department 12. ROMAN died in a car accident in 1984, shortly after finishing his PhD while both ‘illegals’ were on holiday in Italy.I helped to train an ‘illegal’ codenamed ANVAR who was deployed to Western Europe to work in Scandinavian countries and in the UK. His primary tasks were biological espionage and support in the development and cultivation of agents.One of my agents, codenamed RIO, was born in Brazil. He operated in Portugal and in France. His long-term assignment as a young research microbiologist included penetration into the Pasteur Institute in France, one of Department 12’s main targets in that country. We also planned to use RIO in the USA.Another of my agents, YAN, was a young medical doctor from East Germany who operated in Western Germany. We planned to use him for the secret study of Western specialists – medical researchers, biologists and officials – with the ultimate goal being their recruitment. He was also directed to obtain information about German genetic-engineering research with dangerous pathogens, and the protective and preventive measures against them that existed in Germany. YAN was to learn the addresses of research laboratories, institutes, centers and military facilities in the countries of Western Europe that were undertaking covert experiments with recombinant micro-organisms, and to develop relationships with their researchers and officials.In addition, I would like to mention a few ‘illegals’ who I did not control, but about whom I write in my book. It is hard to name all of them in the interview, but if a reader is interested in more details about how Directorate S works with ‘illegals’ and valuable agents, he may find more details in my book.Another husband-and-wife team of illegals, Elena and Dmitry Olshevsky, operated in Canada in the 1990s. They were arrested in 1996 and sent back to Moscow in 1998. In Toronto, they lived under the names of Ian and Laurine Lambert.The ‘illegals’ Igor and Natalia Lyuskow, were documented as citizens of the UK under the names of James Peatfield and Anna Marie Nemeth. They were arrested with British passports during their training assignment in Western Europe in 1992.Before my time there was the famous husband-and-wife team of Moris and Leontina Cohen, aka Peter and Helen Kroger (codename DACHNIKI). They operated at the start of the 1940s in the USA and made enormous contributions to the Soviet efforts to obtain atomic secrets. Moris Cohen also was the head of an agent-network codenamed VOLONTERY (Volunteers) in the USA. Later, in the 1950s - till 1961, under new cover they operated in England. In England, this husband-and-wife agent team was put under the control of Gordon Lonsdale, aka Konon Molody, of the KGB Illegal network. Until 1961, these illegals gathered and transferred to the Soviet Union Britain’s most valuable secrets about the creation of biological weapons.”

If they think the target would be unwilling to work for the Soviets, they sometimes would use “false flag” recruitment.

“You mention an interesting intelligence technique called ‘false flag’ recruitment. What is that, and can you tell us of any specific instances that you were aware of?As a rule, this method of recruitment was used by the Soviet and then Russian Foreign Intelligence Services when it (on the basis of secretly studying the ‘object of cultivation’ – a citizen of a target country) was sure that it would be impossible to approach and recruit in the name of the Soviet-Russian intelligence service. We would instead let the person believe they were providing intelligence to another organization.Normally, Directorate S would recruit in the name of the following types of organisations:
• non-harmful ones, for example an ‘ecological’ and/or ‘free-trade movement’, ‘fighters for world peace’, ‘for clean environment’, ‘for clean genetic technologies’ or ‘a GE-free society’, ‘medical doctors for peace’, a religious group and/or sect, and many other similar ones, - a reader may imagine the rest;
• in the name of another (Western) country’s secret intelligence service and/or police;
• or even in the name of a terrorist or extremist organisation.
I mention in my book that for such serious operations (recruitments using ‘false flag’) Directorate S usually used its Special Reserve Officers which are active ‘illegals’ still operating in target countries, former ‘illegals’, and career professionals, who, after lengthy years of overseas work, were recalled to the Moscow Centre and assigned to the staff of Directorate S in order to carry out the most important assignments in target countries. In the case of ‘false flag’ recruitment, Russian intelligence carries out recruitment in such a way that it cannot be found out that in reality he or she has agreed to work for Russian Intelligence, rather than for, for example, say Islamic Fundamentalists, Interpol, MOSSAD, MI6, MI5, FBI, CIA, or Chinese Intelligence (GRI), several philanthropic organisations, ‘research centres,’ etc., under which names the person might have been approached ‘for help.’ Through all the years of their ‘co-operation,’ Directorate S would continue to preserve the source’s belief that he or she is being controlled by people from ‘overseas ecological’, ‘economic’, ‘free-trade’, centres; or from ‘terrorist’, ‘religious’ centres, or from Lyon, Jerusalem, London, Washington or Beijing, and not from the Moscow Centre.”

“Mole may have infiltrated Md. lab in ’80s,” Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, MD)

Publication Date: 30-JUL-06
Jul. 30–It could be the plot of a Cold War thriller: A Soviet mole burrows into America’s top biodefense lab and steals strains of the deadly viruses that cause Rift Valley and Lassa fevers. He ships the killer microbes back to Moscow in the bags of Aeroflot pilots, who turn them over to a super-secret arm of the KGB that plots bioterror attacks. A chilling tale of fictional intrigue? Some biowarfare experts think it actually happened at Fort Detrick in the 1980s, and they say there is evidence to support their suspicions. Alexander Y. Kouzminov, a biophysicist who says he once worked for the KGB, first made the allegation last year in a book, Biological Espionage: Special Operations of the Soviet and Russian Foreign Intelligence Services in the West. ***

in recent weeks, another former Soviet scientist told The Sun that his lab routinely received dangerous pathogens and other materials from Western labs through a clandestine channel like the one Kouzminov described. Also, a U.S. arms control specialist says he has independent evidence of a Soviet spy at Fort Detrick.”

***

Serguei Popov, a scientist once based in a Soviet bioweapons lab in Obolensk, south of Moscow, said that by the early 1980s his colleagues had obtained at least two strains of anthrax commonly studied in Detrick and affiliated labs. They included the Ames strain, first identified at Detrick in the early 1980s. It became the standard used for testing U.S. military vaccines, and it was the strain contained in the 2001 anthrax letters that killed five people and infected 23 in the U.S. Popov, now at the National Center for Biodefense and Infectious Disease at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., said Obolensk researchers could easily obtain organisms mentioned in Western research papers. “If you wanted ’special materials,’ you had to fill out a request,” he said. “And, essentially, those materials were provided. How and by whom, I can’t say.” *** Those included samples of specific disease strains, the growth media used to raise microbes, and vaccines the labs developed. The Soviets also wanted the aerosol powders U.S. scientists used to infect animals with bioagents during drug and vaccine tests. At least three KGB spies targeted U.S. biodefense efforts in the 1980s, Kouzminov said. But the biophysicist, who worked primarily in Western Europe, offers no details about what the other two did. He wrote that his superiors called “our man at Detrick” their key biological agent.

Kouzminov and the biological moles worked in the KGB’s Department 12 of Directorate S, housed in a high-rise building in a forested patch of southern Moscow. The group’s mission, he said, was to develop germ weapons and poisons, to steal biodefense secrets and to plot biochemical terror attacks to be launched in the event of war. The description of Department 12 in Biological Espionage squares with those of other defectors, said Oleg D. Kalugin, a retired KGB major general now living in the U.S. Raymond Zilinskas, a bioweapons expert with the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and two colleagues wrote a scathing review of Biological Espionage in Nature, a British scientific journal.
***

“It was clear there was somebody at Fort Detrick” who worked for Soviet intelligence, Zilinskas says. According to Kouzminov’s account, the KGB delivered biological materials to Moscow through what was called the VOLNA channel. Aeroflot pilots who were also KGB officers carried these sometimes-lethal microbes to Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport in their personal luggage. By the late 1980s, Department 12 was receiving about 20 parcels a year through VOLNA from agents in its American section, which included North, Central and South America. In an e-mail, Kouzminov said he didn’t know the identity of the Detrick spy or other details of the USAMRIID espionage. Such knowledge was closely guarded, even within the KGB. *** William C. Patrick III, a retired Detrick biologist and veteran bioweapons expert, said he has long suspected penetration by Soviet agents. His suspicions cropped up in the early 1990s, when he debriefed Ken Alibek, who as Kanatjan Alibekov served as the deputy chief of Biopreparat, the leading Soviet bioweapons research agency. Alibek emigrated to the U.S. less than a year after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

As he and Alibek traded stories, Patrick said, both realized that the Soviet and American programs had moved in a curious lock step during the 1950s and ’60s. “Anything we discovered of any import, they would have discovered and would have in their program in six months,” Patrick said. He doesn’t doubt that the Soviets kept spying beyond the end of the U.S. offensive program. After his conversations with Alibek, he recalled, “For the next two weeks I tried to think, ‘Who the hell are the spies at Detrick?’”

In Amerithrax, the CIA has known who the spies were since mid-December 2001. The FBI and CIA needs to reach a successful resolution of Amerithrax or else a whole lot of people need to be fired.

Similarly, even a cursory check of the biography of the man described by his lawyer as a “anthrax weapons suspect” would have revealed him to have been the former assistant White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card (for 2 months in 1996). His Defense Committee once touted the fact. A check of his room number at George Mason University would have revealed him to be 15 feet from the leading anthrax scientist and former Deputy USAMRIID Commander, a prolific researcher with the Ames strain of anthrax. Research would have shown them to be co-inventors of a patent filed March 14, 2001 that used silicon dioxide in the culture medium to concentrate anthrax. Search of the scientific literature in 2001 would have revealed access to virulent Ames.

While Ed claims that no one has pointed to the reason for the suppression of information, he is not being accurate. I have been very specific for the reason for the suppression of information (at least as to Al-Timimi) and for the related politicization of the prosecution by the US Attorneys Office of the District of Columbia.

In 1994, there was a joke circulating about the Ames affair that can be adapted to the infiltration underlying Amerithrax.

“Who is the Enemy?”
CIA OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE: “We know who the enemy is, but telling you would endanger the source.”
CIA INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORATE: “We wrote about who the enemy is and what they might do, but management politicized the conclusions.”
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: “We wrote the same thing CIA-DIA did, but by the time it got through the review, the enemy had come and gone.”
THE NSA: “We know who the enemy is and what they choose to do, but you aren’t cleared for that code word.”
MARINES: “Doesn’t matter. Mess with the best, die like the rest. Do you like John Wayne movies?”
FBI Field Agents: “The CIA”
Quantico: “The lone nut.”
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: “The prosecutors are all bummed the guilty individual committed suicide — in court we would have made a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and succeeded in obtaining the death penalty.”

A hammer will tend to find a nail. It was perhaps inevitable in the compartmentalized bureaucracy that the FBI would find its lone nut and the hearts of Ed and the FBI scientists would be gladdened to find a hairy exosporium. But history likely will reveal the mistake to be as big for the FBI as the Ames case was for the CIA — unless DOJ/FBI corrects its course.

The NSA instituted a warrantless tap on Al-Timimi on or about October 7, 2001 but the USG maintains that no one can have access to his discussions with Bin Laden’s sheik, the 911 imam and others. It’s time to bring Amerithrax to a successful conclusion. The embarrassment and difficulties relating to other operatives supporting the jihadists is even greater than with Al-Timimi. But it is time for the US DOJ and CIA and DARPA to swallow hard and take the medicine.

[”Yuri” - KGM]
“If we are guilty of putting up a big neon sign, as you say Ames claims, then why did it take your CIA and FBI nine more years to arrest him?”

[Wash Po reporter Pete Early]
“I don’t think the CIA wanted to admit that it had a traitor working for it, and I don’t think the FBI is as clever as you do.”

[”Yuri”]
“Peter, c’mon, how can this be possible? Yuri said, in a friendly voice. “Think about what you are asking me to believe. Intelligence services all over the world know that they can be penetrated. They watch for the very first sign, the very first hint of such treason. Surely the CIA is not so inept as to not see this big neon sign. No, my friend, perhaps there is another reason why in 1994 they suddenly arrested Mr. Ames.”

Source: Confessions of a Spy: The Real Story of Aldrich Ames, Peter Early (author of “Family of Spies”)

Current events:

“Imprisoned Spy, His Son Face Conspiracy Charges,” Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 30, 2009; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012902903.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Comment:

Personally, I think Amerithrax in the end may prove to be a tremendous FBI and CIA success story. At the same time, Ivins is innocent of the mailings. If it turns out he obstructed justice by knowingly submitting a false sample, giving a false statement, or made an unregistered transfer after April 1997, then he may have been subject to being charged, even an accessory before the fact. But an Ivins Theory, as such, never passed the giggle test. The opinion of the Senators who were experienced prosecutors was sound. Giving the US Attorney the benefit of the doubt — as he deserves — he was making the best out of a bad situation and trying not to undermine the prospect of success in a difficult national security investigation.

It not only was the modus operandi of the Vanguards of Conquest, it was their signature, with the planning borne out by the documentary evidence and the warning required by the Hadith.

It was intended to be really funny in a morbid sort of way.

Lighten up. He was cautious in taking precautions to avoid harming anyone. He was helpful in providing medical advice.

He was a cautious and helpful “terrorist” who killed five people through his insanely STUPID actions.

I was just pointing out that that is not the typical modus operandi for a terrorist.

And, if he isn’t dead, we have less to fear from him than from terrorists who would never think of being helpful or cautious.

Of all the things you have posted, Ed, this really takes the cake! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

It is really funny in a morbid sort of way, but also rather pathetic because even though I don’t always agree with you, I still would prefer to continue to hold you in somewhat high regard.

“It is ABSURD to worry that the cautious and helpful person who sent the first letters will suddenly have a personality change and become a real terrorist when THERE ARE LOTS OF REAL TERRORIST ALREADY OUT THERE!”

Ed, the “the cautious and helpful person who sent the first letters” IS a real terrorist.

There are AT LEAST 5 bodies to prove it, if you haven’t noticed.

(It is very likely there were additional unknown victims of the anthrax attack that were misdiagnosed. At the very least).

http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com

including hundreds of hyperlinked authorities.

In early 2001, the Salafist-Jihadis had threatened to use anthrax if bail was denied the former EIJ/ Vanguards of Conquest #2 Mahjoub. The threat was explained in the CIA’s briefing of President Bush in the PDB in early February 2001. Mahjoub’s bail was denied on October 5, 2001. The mailer immediately rushed to mail the anthrax upon learning of the news that the bail had been denied. The CIA has known this since December 2001.

It is a continuing national security matter. Ed, you have not even educated yourself on the open source intelligence. Electronic surveillance under FISA and Title III is continuing as are undercover operations. United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor likely appreciates that it is not over until the fat lady sings.

The anthrax attacks of 2001 were perpetrated by someone who took a LOT of precautions to avoid harming anyone. Among the precautions were including MEDICAL ADVICE in the first mailing, telling the recipients to take Penicillin. In the second mailing, it was stated that the powder was ANTHRAX, making certain that the recipients would seek medical advice. Plus, the culprit placed the powders inside a sheet of paper folded with the pharmaceutical fold which is intended to keep any powder from escaping, and he taped the envelopes shut to further prevent any powder from escaping.

THIS IS NOT A GOOD MODEL TO USE FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE ATTACKS!!!

Worrying that next time he may not be so helpful and concerned about hurting people is a step in the right direction, but the real concern should be that the next time SOME TOTALLY DIFFERENT entity will launch a TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF ATTACK.

It is ABSURD to worry that the cautious and helpful person who sent the first letters will suddenly have a personality change and become a real terrorist when THERE ARE LOTS OF REAL TERRORIST ALREADY OUT THERE!

It is NOT necessary to believe that al Qaeda was responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks in order to understand that al Qaeda WANTS to launch a devastating bioweapons upon America TODAY, TOMORROW AND ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE.

We need to be constantly prepared for chemical and bioweapons attacks from al Qaeda and others who would do us harm.

The fact the the person who sent the anthrax in 2001 is most likely dead, does NOT mean that someone else couldn’t or isn’t planning to try the same thing in a more devastating way.

But deluding yourself into believing that another attack MUST come from the same place as the first just makes NO SENSE.

WE NEED TO BE ALERT TO ALL POSSIBLE THREATS!

And, as Michael Mason posited once, never intended to kill.

My information is probably better than yours. You quote Science’s INTERPETATION of what was said at the roundtable discussion on August 18. What was actually said at the roundtable discussion was:

“DR. MAJIDI: Two institutions had the eight samples.”

Source: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AnthraxRoundtableAnnotated.html#two-institutions

One source was identified as USAMRIID. The other is most likely Battelle.

The 1,070 samples came from 15+ labs.

Kathryn Muratore also wrote: “But Dr. Lake expects us to take on faith that they looked at more than 4 mutations.”

No. What I said is that it’s a NO BRAINER. If they didn’t look at more than 4 mutations, they would need to explain why, since there were WELL OVER A DOZEN mutations in the attack anthrax AND they only selected the 4 because they were the most stable and easiest to detect.

Kathryn Muratore also wrote: “My molecular biology training leads me to think it is highly unlikely that there would be genetic differences between these 8 samples anyway,”

You are missing the point. It’s not about genetic DIFFERENCES. It’s about genetic SIMILARITIES. It’s about mutations that are KNOWN to be in the attack anthrax and which therefore COULD ALSO be in the source of the attack anthrax.

Kathryn Muratore also wrote: “So there is no reasonable assurance that these are the only 8 flasks in the whole world.”

First of all, it’s not 8 flasks. It’s 8 SAMPLES. There’s only one flask in this discussion. That’s the flask known as RMR-1029. 1,070 SAMPLES of the Ames strain were obtained from labs around the world. The four mutations reduced the number of possible sources for the attack anthrax to 8 SAMPLES. One of those 8 SAMPLES was taken from the flask known as RMR-1029.

Secondly, while we cannot be absolutely certain that some supervillian didn’t sneak into USAMRIID one night and carry away a sample from flask RMR-1029, there is NO EVIDENCE to support such an idea.

Scientists are supposed to work with evidence and facts, not with imaginary possibilities.

Kathryn Muratore also wrote: “If there is more evidence, they haven’t made it available, and the scientific evidence is not very strong on its own.”

They’ve stated that the information will be made available in scientific papers to be published in scientific journals. AND they’re setting things up so that the National Academy of Sciences can review the science of the case.

I don’t know if you’ve published any scientific papers or not, but, if you have, you know it is a long and drawn out process. And getting important science published is VERY important to scientists and their careers. The scientists involved in this investigation would be VERY distressed to have their work become unpublishable because it was previously published and/or distributed by the FBI. I’ve talked with several of them. I can verify that.

Kathryn Muratore also wrote: “We do still live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, right?”

How do you prove a dead man guilty? You cannot try a dead man in court. The rules MUST be different in this case because there CANNOT BE A TRIAL. You cannot assume that because he’s dead he must be forever innocent. Plus, there is absolutely no possibility of convincing EVERYONE of anything. So, no matter how much proof there is, there will still be people who won’t believe it.

Kathryn Muratore also wrote: “Don’t forget that if Dr. Ivins is innocent, then the Amerithrax killer is still free and unknown.”

Don’t you forget that IN ADDITION to the facts which say that Dr. Ivins did it, there are also FACTS which say that others could NOT have done it.

The FACTS always said that Dr. Hatfill didn’t do it. The “investigation” of Dr. Hatfill had nothing to do with facts; it was ENTIRELY based upon TIPS from scientists who felt Dr. Hatfill most likely did it, and who didn’t believe the FBI had checked him out thoroughly enough. Plus, there is an abundance of facts that al Qaeda was not involved (although True Believers can rationalize anything in order to believe otherwise). There are FACTS which say that others also couldn’t have done it.

Any objective look at the FACTS shows that Dr. Ivins is the #1 suspect. He had all the necessary abilities, equipment and access to flask RMR-1029. He worked long hours alone and UNSUPERVISED in his lab at the time the anthrax in the letters would have been prepared. And he had no verifiable alibi that would prevent him from having done the mailings.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that the actual culprit could still be running around out there. But THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT.

And, she’s almost certainly totally wrong about none of the other seven samples being located at USAMRIID. For all we know, 7 of the 8 finalists could have been from USAMRIID.

You’re right that I mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that the 7 other flasks were not at AMRIID, but you are wrong that all but 1 could have been from AMRIID. According to the Aug 18th Science article I linked to, the unaccounted for flasks were from AMRIID “and to a few labs outside of the U.S. [AMRIID].” So at least 3 flasks were not from AMRIID, and it is possible that all of the 7 other flasks were not from AMRIID. From what I’ve read, it is not stated clearly in the “full” report that was made public. This whole investigation is shrouded in secrets. But Dr. Lake expects us to take on faith that they looked at more than 4 mutations. My molecular biology training leads me to think it is highly unlikely that there would be genetic differences between these 8 samples anyway, although from what I’ve read it is difficult to be sure about this judgement one way or the other because the full report just doesn’t have enough detail on this matter.

She wants to know why the FBI didn’t check samples that the FBI doesn’t know exists.

Well, Dr. Lake just misread what I was saying here. I know why the FBI didn’t check these samples - they don’t know about them. So I don’t expect them to check these samples. I am only pointing out the obvious: bioweapons research is by definition highly confidential. So there is no reasonable assurance that these are the only 8 flasks in the whole world. I don’t blame the FBI for this, but a careful observer must acknowledge this possibility, and it is unsatisfactory that the media do not question the FBI’s findings on these grounds.

The open-shut case that the FBI fed us and that the media supported is not scientifically conclusive. I would hope that the the FBI has done some regular gumshoe work to tie it all together, but they themselves trumpeted the scientific evidence as their smoking gun. If there is more evidence, they haven’t made it available, and the scientific evidence is not very strong on its own. I can’t see how it would have held up in court, and the media (and Dr. Lake) have convicted a dead man based on weak and incomplete evidence. We do still live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, right?

What Dr. Ravel says is what I said: They used the four mutation markers to reduce the number of possible sources of the attack anthrax from 1,070 down to 8.

He says NOTHING about how the FBI further reduced the number down from 8 to 1.

Some might ASSUME that the FBI did it with standard investigative techniques, checking out everyone who had access to all 8 samples.

But, why wouldn’t they use DNA to check for OTHER matching mutants? There were WELL OVER A DOZEN mutations in the attack anthrax. The fact that they picked 4 to make the first reduction of possible sources doesn’t mean they never used any other mutations.

It’s a NO BRAINER that they would use the other mutations to further reduce the number of possible sources. If they didn’t, they would need to explain why they didn’t. Because it’s an OBVIOUS thing to do.

Think of it this way: You have 1,070 people in a room who could be the parent of a child. Quick DNA tests indicate that the parent is Asian. That immediately eliminates all but 8. Only 8 people in the room are Asian.

Why wouldn’t you use the rest of the DNA to further reduce the 8 down to just 1? It’s a NO BRAINER.

Dr. Muratore, on the other hand, is just talking nonsense. She wants to know why the FBI didn’t check samples that the FBI doesn’t know exists. She wants to know why the FBI doesn’t make decisions based upon IMAGINARY possibilities that other samples exist.

And, she’s almost certainly totally wrong about none of the other seven samples being located at USAMRIID. The 8 samples were from two locations, and one of those two was USAMRIID. The sampling showed that the AVERAGE lab had SEVENTY different samples of Ames. For all we know, 7 of the 8 finalists could have been from USAMRIID.

Dr. Muratore’s ridiculing remarks can also be applied to her. What kind of scientist bases his or her reasoning on IMAGINARY possibilities?

Kathryn Muratore is an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at American University. She holds a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/muratore9.html

We found out in the original written brief that the scientists tested more than 1000 samples from labs around the world. This is presumably an exhaustive sampling of all known samples of Ames strain anthrax.

Problem #1: They could necessarily only test samples of Ames strain anthrax that they already knew existed. What if there are samples of Ames strain anthrax that the scientists did not test because they did not know they existed? … I could easily imagine any number of other governments (including our own) with highly secretive bioweapons programs hiding this information from the FBI’s anthrax investigators.

All the FBI can say is that the flask in Ivins’ possession is one possible source. They can’t prove that it is the only source.

Problem #2: To allay these concerns, the FBI can claim that it is likely that it is the source since, out of 1000 samples tested, all of the ones that matched could be traced to Ivins’ flask.

What?! More than one sample matched?! Yes – a total of 8 samples matched. “B-but, b-but, they could all be traced to Ivins,” stutters the FBI. We already know that Ivins was not the only person with access to “his” flask. But now we learn that, in addition to the 100 other people who had access to Ivins’ flask, there are at least 7 other people (and probably many, many more) who had access to anthrax that is biologically identical to the mailed anthrax. These 7 other samples were not located at AMRIID.

So, although we were initially told by the FBI-parroting media that sophisticated scientific techniques could uniquely identify Ivins’ flask as the smoking gun, we learn that even this flimsy piece of evidence isn’t true: there are 8 known smoking guns and a theoretically infinite number of unknown smoking guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2008-08-24-fbi-anthrax-science_N.htm

“RMR-1029, it turns out, was an unusual collection of spores, created in batches of growths from the original “wild type” Ames anthrax collected from a Texas calf that ate contaminated grass (anthrax is fond in the wild) and died in 1981. Researchers at the Army’s Dugway Proving Grounds started the collection with 13 “production runs” of anthrax growth, followed by Ivins adding another 22 runs, to create 164 liters of spores in 1997. That collection, dubbed RMR-1029, was concentrated by Ivins down to two flasks by 2001, and to a one-liter flask by 2004.

Keim suggested that such a large number of growths, in which one colony might hold a trillion generations of anthrax spores, offered a larger-than-normal opportunity for mutations to crop up.

From 2002 onward, the FBI had requested samples of Ames anthrax held by 16 U.S. labs, and others in Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom, to create a collection of 1,070 Ames “isolates.” At the same time, the bureau sent Ravel’s lab blind copies of anthrax samples to search for distinct genetic mutations that might set the attack anthrax apart from the wild type.

Most bacteria colonies just look like splotches of gunk grown on test-tube material. Some, less than 1% of attack anthrax colonies, had unusual rough edges, Majidi says. Sequencing the genomes of these aberrant colonies revealed a number of mutations, says Ravel, that were distinct to the attack anthrax.

“That’s what took so long,” Ravel says in a post-discussion interview. Sequencing the genomes of at least seven aberrant colonies took three months at least, longer for high-quality genomes. And they had to be done one at a time in the lab, to prevent cross-contamination that would hinder their use as evidence in court someday. “This was science at the very highest level, the most precision. We learned a great deal from the investigators,” Ravel says. “We always knew that someone was looking over our shoulders and would want to see our lab notebooks someday.”

A separate “red team” of scientist-consultants selected four “insertion and deletion” mutations, places where genes had been permanently removed from a genome, that were distinct to colonies from the attack anthrax. Those were used in a test that by late 2006 had assessed all 1,070 samples in the FBI repository. Deleted genes, thousands in some cases, wouldn’t just reappear in a genome, Ravel says, giving scientists a great deal of confidence in their use as markers. Only eight isolates, either from USAMRIID or one other unnamed lab, had the four markers.”

The research he is publishing relates to this publicly stated conclusion.
His research is precise, his scientific standards (and that of the Task Force) exacting — and he speaks in plain English.

Here’s the entire message I was sent: “Ed, will you upload the Jacque Ravel powerpoints slides if I send them to you?”

I suppose one could believe that he wanted to make sure I would NOT upload them, but he’s always pestering me to put things on my site, so I can only assume that’s what he wanted in that instance, too.

He doesn’t seem to be able to get my responses to his emails, so we have no real way to communicate. He sends me emails, I respond, but the doesn’t get the response. And he evidently doesn’t know how to fix his problem.

No, I haven’t seen it. Someone wanted to send it to me, but ONLY if I put it on my site.

I contacted Dr. Ravel and he said,
—–
“I provided my slides to those who attended my presentation at MIT with the explicit understanding that it should not be shared with anybody until publication of the work. I do not want my slides to be posted on any website prior to publication nor should that person share the slides unless they directly contact me.

“I hope you can understand my concerns of preserving the integrity of the peer-review process.”
——–

I advised the person who wanted me to put the presentation on my site of what Dr. Ravel said, and that was the end of it.

I’ve discussed the slides with no one except Dr. Meryl Nass who drew some incorrect conclusions about what the slides showed, and she put a correction on her site about that. She wasn’t at the presentation, so she just misinterpreted what was on the slides - which is EXACTLY what Dr. Ravel is trying to avoid.

Assuming you have not seen the powerpoint presentation, have you discussed it with someone who attended?

Have you seen Jacques Ravel’s powerpoint presentation?

Does that support your understanding or does it support what has been explained by the NYT article using him as a source as well as an unnamed prosecutor.

Only scientists who have an agenda to try to disprove the FBI/DOJ findings.

Some reporter wrote:

“But at least eight other anthrax samples gathered from researchers in the investigation carried the same genetic signature as Ivins’ batch at Fort Detrick, Md., court documents say.”

Not true. The court documents only talk about the four selected mutations used to reduce the number of samples from 1,070 to 8. That would not be the end of DNA testing. It’s just a starting point for FURTHER testing. There were “well over a dozen” mutations in the attack anthrax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/science/21anthrax.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp

The seven samples came from Fort Detrick and one other laboratory in the United States [actually, it was clarified as one institution with multiple locations], F.B.I. scientists said at the Monday news conference, held at F.B.I. headquarters.

The source of the seven was a master flask of Ames anthrax known as RMR-1029 which was kept by Dr. Bruce Ivins. “That’s when the genetics caught up with the investigators,” a Department of Justice prosecutor said.

There, the scientific conclusions end. The bureau then began a second phase of the inquiry, that of ascertaining who had ACCESS TO THE FLASK AND ITS SEVEN DESCENDANTS.

Comment:

The genetics reached a dead end at the 8 isolates — and then after that the investigation has to rely on other investigative or scientific means.

The subtilis contamination, the stable isotope ratio research, the Silicon Signature, the fiber analysis and other scientific aspects do not point to Dr. Ivins.

Bacillus Spore Inactivation Methods Affect Detection Assays, Received 12 January 2001/Accepted 25 May 2001
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/67/8/3665

They tested nanoemulsion biocidal agents at Edgewood during this time period, according to a national nanobiotechnology initiative report issued June 2002.

Did Battelle have virulent Ames across I-95?

“DNA is just anthrax clue, not clincher. Its use in distinguishing bacteria is limited. Some scientists want to know what else implicated Bruce Ivins.”

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20080810_DNA_is_just_anthrax_clue__not_clincher.html

“By Faye Flam
Inquirer Staff Writer

DNA evidence alone wasn’t a smoking gun in the case against Bruce Ivins as the perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks, say microbiologists and other experts who have read details of the investigation released last week.

Genetic sleuthing was useful in narrowing the list of suspects, they say, but it wasn’t conclusive since DNA from bacteria doesn’t often carry a unique genetic fingerprint the way human DNA does.

At first, prosecutors seemed to suggest that forensic DNA had solved the case. U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor said science had enabled the government to link the anthrax spores in the 2001 attack to a flask “created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins” in his federal lab.

But at least eight other anthrax samples gathered from researchers in the investigation carried the same genetic signature as Ivins’ batch at Fort Detrick, Md., court documents say.

***

Investigators eventually found four such SNP-type mutations that distinguished bacteria used in the attacks from samples of the original Ames strain.

Those four mutations were found in only eight of the 1,000 samples under investigation. This subgroup was labeled RMR-1029.

According to the FBI, all the people with positive samples said they had obtained them from Ivins.

But the sample Ivins initially provided in 2002 tested negative for the four key mutations.

In 2004, the documents say, investigators entered Ivins’ lab and seized samples, including the “parent” flask that had allegedly supplied the other positive RMR-1029 samples.

The bacteria in that flask allegedly carried the four telltale mutations.

That analysis alone, however, doesn’t rule out researchers who worked with the eight samples.”

“Unique” means “different from all others; having no like or equal.”

RMR-1029 could not be the “genetically unique” parent of the attack anthrax if there are seven other possibilities with the exact same DNA who could also be the parents of the attack anthrax.

Some scientists may want further proof to confirm this, but no one is saying that it is untrue.

Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-opa-697.html

“Genetically unique” means genetically unique. The spores in RMR-1029 were the genetically unique parents of the spores in the attack anthrax. There were seven other samples with four of the MORE THAN A DOZEN mutations in the attack anthrax, but only RMR-1029 was the genetically unique parent.

You can assume that no further DNA testing was done to match OTHER mutations in the attack anthrax to the eight samples which matched on the five mutations, but that’s not what the DOJ/FBI says.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument the processor used a Buchi 290 mini spraydryer, used a novel method to concentrate the spores, and then mixed the product with silica. ABC News, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Kenneth Alibek have all suggested a spray dryer could have been used; moreover, that without more, could explain why there was a static charge. The US Technical Applications engineer for the Buchi spraydryer (at Brinkman) reports that “some of our products come out so electrostatically charged that we want to ‘zap the charges out’ and never are able to.” The Buchi Product Manager for the spray dryer in Switzerland says that it “is with great probability possible to do a coating of spores on silica particles in a lab-bench spray dryer. Two reasons for this assumption: i) The systems can be used with small amount of samples and thus intended to be used with biological systems; ii) the spray drying process is used for heat sensitive products due to short retention time and mild evaporation conditions in the spraying chamber.” He explained “that biological application and spray drying has quite a broad range of overlap.”

There were an estimated 200 mini spray dryers in the US (when you include the 190 and 191 models, which had basically the performance parameters). There really was no competitor –the smallest Niro model was far bigger. Notwithstanding all the containment and safety features available as accessories to the Buchi 290, the processor needed to be wearing a protective suit (or at least gloves and mask). The Product Manager for the spray dryer in the US (at Brinkman) reports: “There are not really any safety features to prevent breathing of the final product. Once you are done, you remove the vessel and proceed to remove the powder from the vessel. If you don’t want to breathe it in, then you would have to use a gas mask of some sort which is obviously not provided by us or Buchi.”

Siloxane, according to Anonymous, reportedly was detected — pointing to use of a hydrophobic treated fumed silica. Would it be observable by SEMs? Is that why Meselson and Alibek didn’t see any silica?

The product manager for the US reports that there would also be some contamination of the spray cylinder: “Also keep in mind that the glassware does become coated with whatever you are spray drying, so you also have “containment issues” when cleaning the glassware. If it is water soluble, then we always just take the glassware to the sink and wash the product off and let it go down the sink. Some of the product on the glassware is heat destroyed product and is not viable ”

Under this proposed scenario, the perp needed (1) access to Ames, (2) access to a Buchi mini spraydryer, (3) protective suit or at least mask and gloves, (4) a means of inserting the product into the envelope, and (5) he likely was a supporter of Ayman Zawahiri’s goals and recruited by him, Atef, KSM, Hambali or an intermediary . A Buchi mini spray dryer would cost up to $45k with accessories and, thus, if indicated, is quite limiting.

Although I’ve suggested that the pilot plant scale Niro spraydryer was not used here — and that a smaller laboratory model is indicated by the small batch used — early in the investigation the FBI did contact Niro in Denmark about its spraydryers (according to a news report). Niro has sold over 2000 units of its Mobile Minor laboratory scale Spray Dryer — nearly one a week for 50 years. Niro maintains a Drying Technology Center at its Columbia, MD and Copenhagen, Denmark sites, with spray dryers, fluid bed dryers, flash dryers and its fully equipped analytical lab.

The processor here likely would not only have expertise using a laboratory or pilot spray dryer in such applications that use fumed silica, siloxanes or silicon oil, but he or she would have experience with using the additive with bacteria. Without such experience — which there is no indication Dr. Ivins had — one likely would render the bacteria unviable by not knowing the appropriate inlet temperature or not know the right flow velocity to get the right particle size. A perpetrator would not want to have to be on a learning curve such as accusers of Hatfill or Berry or Ivins may imagined began after 9/11 — when, they imply, the idea occurred to the mischief maker. When dealing with a deadly pathogen, you don’t suddenly grab the bacteria, open up a laboratory manual, and power up a spray dryer for experiments — super patriot or super poet or not. The perp necessarily — prior to 9/11 — had experience with a spray dryer and use of silica (or some other means of drying. Notwithstanding any teach-ins with William Patrick, has Dr. Ivins ever even used a mini-spray dryer with fumed silica and an anthrax simulant? Had he ever even used a fluid bed dryer?

In one report of an experiment involving biodetection equipment, after noting that “Silica is a common material for aerosolizing Anthrax spores, and would likely be found in a weaponized biological agent mixture,” the researchers then add it to bacillus thuringiensis in order to test their equipment. Here, in addition to the Silicon Signature, bacillus subtilus contamination was found.

Biodetection is the key mission of the biodefense community — Edgewood maintains a database of simulant properties. The info and equipment, including spraydrying equipment, was available to participants in the SBIR — promoting small business innovation. So might it require learning of a state? Well, to get that, all you needed to do was go to the program that shares such research for the purpose of innovation in the area of biodefense. That is, if good old American know-how relating to its commercial applications wasn’t enough (and maybe it was).

Dr. Keim has posited that any sample the size in Dr. Ivins’ flask might have the same four mutations and so it important to flesh out these sorts of details. (He notes the hypothesis has not been tested).

What was the lab visited by the scientist that Ayman Zawahiri’s scientist had attending the 1999 and 2000 conference on dangerous pathogens/anthrax? Senators and Congressman should find out. The scientist infiltrating the conferences for Zawahiri, Rauf Ahmad, described the lab as having thousands of pathogens, including virulent anthrax. He told Zawahiri he had successfully achieved his targets.

Did Rauf Ahmad also attend the June 2001 conference organized by Dr. Ivins? He regularly attended conferences, I’m told by a friend at DIA, on dangerous pathogens in Europe. Is there any reason to think he did not attend the Annapolis conference? I was given the dates 1999 and 2000 by the head of Sfam in Europe (the equivalent of ASM). But the director did not have record of the conference in 2001 organized by Ivins as sfam was not helping to organize it. ASM was.

In his correspondence with Ayman, the scientist said he had learned some processing tricks and made some internet connections. Who was he learning tricks on processing from? Instead of having non-experts spend more time parsing hairs on an exosporium, the public should ask that some basic questions be answered. For example, if Zawahiri’s scientist visited a lab with virulent Ames, let’s hear about it. It was when the DOJ/FBI started talking about extraditing him that the ISI balked and stopped cooperating with the CIA.

I believe your mistake is in seizing on the language “mother” and “daughter” and thinking to how a human mother is genetically different from her daughter. But here we have been told that the mother and all 7 daughters are IDENTICAL.

Upon visual inspection of the Bacillus anthracis organisms used in the mail attacks, researchers have discovered numerous phenotypic variations, which distinguish it fiom the original Ames anthrax isolated in 1981, which is the earliest known sample. The phenotypic variations were identified as differences in morphology (i.e. shape, color, texture) fiom the original Ames anthrax. Changes in morphology can be attributed to individual genetic mutations within the Bacillus anthracis DNA. As a whole, the collection of all of the genetic mutations found in the anthrax used in the 2001 mailings, serve to provide a “DNA fingerprint” which can, and has been used to investigate other Ames isolates collected from laboratories possessing the Ames strain. Four individual, highly sensitive, and specific molecular assays capable of detecting four of the genetic mutations discovered in the Bacillus anthracis used in the mail attacks have been developed and validated.

Following the mailings, sixteen domestic government, commercial, and university laboratories that had virulent Ames strain Bacillus anthracis in their inventories vrior to the received Arnes strain Bacillus anthracis isolates or samples from all sixteen domestic laboratories, as well as, fiom laboratories in Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. All total, the Task Force has obtained more than 1000 isolates of the Ames strain of Bacillus anthracis fiom these laboratories and archived these isolates in the FBI Bacillus anthracis Repository (hereinafter “FBIR”).

The four aforementioned molecular assays have been applied to each of the more than 1000 Bacillus anthracis samples contained within the FBIR. Of the more than 1000 FB’R samples, only eight were determined to contain all four genetic mutations.

The Task Force investigation has determined that each of the eight isolates in the FBIR is directly related to a single Bacillus anthracis Ames strain spore batch, identified as RMR-1029. RMR-1029 was stored in the B3 biocontainment suite within Building 1425 of the United States Army Medical Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. Access to the suite is afforded only to those personnel who are approved by the USAMRIID Security, Safety, and Special Immunizations Program to have the required background check, training, and medical protection (vaccination or personal protective equipment (PPE)). Dr. Bruce Ivins has unrestricted access to the suite and has been the sole custodian of RMR-1029 since it was first grown in 1997.

But the fact that the other 7 isolates were IDENTICAL is the reason that critics scoff at the US Attorney’s overemphasis on his sole custody of the flask. For example, once an identical isolate is in Dugway, it is available to be accessed there. That required elimination of people with access through investigative means. Skeptics, faced with the absence of evidence pointing to Dr. Ivins, therefore ask: so how did you eliminate everyone else?

Although the flask was under the control of Dr. Ivins, there were over 100 other scientists at Ft. Detrick who might have accessed it without Dr. Ivins’ permission. Those 100+ per elmininated by routine investigative techniques.”

And what is your source for this? Everyone else interprets what was said in the August press conferences as meaning there were 8 identical isolates, to which 100-300 had access THOSE ISOLATES (including those in Utah and Battelle). And that the FBI concluded Ivins was responsible by a process of elimination — by eliminating the 100-300 by INVESTIGATIVE means. (In contrast, NYT adds isotopes to the equation to narrow the field).

I asked that you clarify the issue with the head genetics scientist, PK, and he responded that he had no knowledge of narrowing it (based on genetics) beyond the 8 isolates. So on what are you relying given that your interpretation of the press conferences statements is not shared by any of the other commentators (e.g., Salon etc.) and is not shared by the leading microbial forensics on genetics.

Indeed, Dr. Keim has reported that the same mutations likely would result from the same quantity of anthrax kept elsewhere (although the hypothesis has not been tested).

You have even corresponded, as I have, with Jacques Ravel, and yet he offers nothing in support. And so on what basis do you say genetics narrows it to the flask, does he? The meaning and importance you place on “daughter” / “mother” as spoken by the US Attorney? Perhaps you could ask Dr. Bannan or Dr. Beecher for a sentence that resolves the difference between your understanding of the August press conferences on this issue and that of all other commentators. Thanks.

It is such a central question that without more, it would explain why you are the only outside observer I know who has reached the conclusion you do.

No, they do NOT have to do the same with everyone. If they can determine that a person had no expertise in making anthrax spores, that will help clear him. If they can determine that a person was in Bermuda at the time of one of the mailings, that will help clear him. If a guy needs a wheelchair to get around, that may help to clear him. If a guy has records which show exactly what he was doing at the time of the mailings, that might help clear him. If the guy was working with a bunch of other people on a major project at the time of the mailings, that might help clear him. Etc., etc., etc.

You might try to argue that there could be some POSSIBLE way that each and every one could still have done it, but that kind of argument means nothing except to conspiracy theorists.

I made no such claim. DNA narrowed the search down to flask RMR-1029. Period.

Although the flask was under the control of Dr. Ivins, there were over 100 other scientists at Ft. Detrick who might have accessed it without Dr. Ivins’ permission. Those 100+ per elmininated by routine investigative techniques.

Look at it this way: The breakthrough in the case came when they discovered that there were well over a dozen mutations in the attack anthrax AND those mutations could be used to eliminate many of the possible sources for the attack anthrax.

Using just five of those mutations, they were able to determine that there were only two labs which had samples containing those five mutations. And, it appears they were then able to use the rest of the “over a dozen” mutations to narrow the search down further to a single flask at Ft. Detrick. That flask was the source of the attack anthrax, NOT some sample elsewhere that contains “daughters” of what is in the flask.

That narrowed down the search a lot better than any tests involving the water.

Scott Shane’s FBI source says that they know the water came from Ft. Detrick. My FBI source says that they couldn’t make that determination with any scientific certainty.

Those to statements might seem contradictory, but, in reality, something that cannot be used in court can still be used by investigators. If tests showed that the water used to create the spores PROBABLY came from Ft. Detrick, that’s good enough for investigators to focus on Ft. Detrick, even though it’s nothing they can use in court. Scott may have talked with an investigator. I talked with a scientist. Investigators and scientists sometimes view things differently.

1) it is ONLY known that the Ft Detrick substrain in question matches the Amerithrax virus.

2) THAT could mean: it produced ‘daughter cells’ with the exact same mutations and that these daughter cells—-processed and grown who knows where——where used in the attacks.

The information is NOT incompatable - as long as the “Northeastern U.S. includes Maryland, which it does in many ways of figuring.
—————
That reconciles Mister Shane’s 2009 summary of the case with the NBC story of 2003 or 4.
But that is inconsistent with ‘results of no value to the investigation’.
Observe:

IF you could pinpoint to the EXACT CITY (ie Frederick Maryland) where the anthrax was grown, it would eliminate most American microbiologists….

How does it help the investigation to know that the water used to make the spores came from the Northeastern U.S.?
——
Ask yourself: why did the task force do/have done the test in the first place?

If you know:

1) how and where the spores were acquired

2) where (to the most precise detail) and how they were grown/processed

3) at what time they were actually dropped in the mailbox in Princeton etc.

THEN

1) you have a MUCH better idea of who (at least the TYPE of person) and that person’s location did the mailing and/or processing

2) it works eliminatively as well: some Hawaian microbiologist would have a MUCH more difficult time in a) acquiring Northeastern water
b) mailing them from Princeton

How does it help the investigation to know that the water used to make the spores came from the Northeastern U.S.?

Does it even help the investigation to know the water used to make the spores came from the Ft. Detrick area? How. It’s KNOWN from OTHER and BETTER information (like the DNA) that the spores came from Ft. Detrick. What does the story about the water being from Ft. Detrick add to that? It doesn’t pinpoint any single individual.

The information is NOT incompatable - as long as the “Northeastern U.S. includes Maryland, which it does in many ways of figuring.

Whether or not the information was deliberately leaked is totally irrelevant.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/SIAC/2003/1_2002.html&query=Zawahiri&method=boolean

At the heart of those concerns and motivation for attacks over two decades is retaliation for the rendering of the leaders of those groups.

Shihata, in charge of EIJ special operations, was Canadian detainee Jaballah’s brother-in-law. So when considering the anthrax mailed (as threatened) immediately after the denial of bail of the EIJ leader Mahjoub, US-based connections to Shihata are of special interest.
Based on the Canton, Ohio public librarian’s description, did Jaballah go to Michigan and then Ohio in the summer of 2001 and research anthrax in water in a public library — only to be arrested back in Canada in August 2001?

The historical modus operandi of the EIJ has been infiltration of the army and through sedition. Thus, those responsible for the mailings likely will know both Zawahiri and Shihata and have accessed know-how or materials through infiltration. They likely will also know key members of the London EIJ cell. This has all been apparent through open source material since December 2001.

1) reports I. and II. are largely compatible, especially if we ’stretch’ the Northeast to include the state of Maryland: report II. merely gives more detain than report I. did.

II) report III. (ie what Ed Lake was told by an investigation insider) is wholly INCOMPATIBLE with what at least 2 journalists, one working at NBC in 2003 or 2004, the othre working at the NY TIMES in 2008-9 are reporting.

Without purposeful leaks on this matter it is all but inexplicable.

I. In 2003 or 2004 NBC NEWS reported:

a) a test was done.

b) that test confirmed that the growth water was from ‘the Northeast’.

II. Very recently Scott Shane in the NY TIMES reported

a) a test was done using water samples from 60 different locations around the world.

b) the testing said the ‘growth water’ came from Frederick Maryland EXCLUSIVELY.

III. Also fairly recently, Mister Lake said that HIS sources said that

a) a test was done.

b) its results were of no use to the investigation.
—————
—————
Question: how does one reconcile ALL THREE REPORTS? Especially since there is little chance that the news stories were made of whole cloth………..

Besides, these past 6 months have given the new investigators more time to read more deeply into the investigation and consider motivations that don’t involve young blind-folded and bound sorority initiates. The most senior officials have many varied responsibilities.

But I do know that if US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor attempts to close the case he better damn well know everything that other people know because it is not going to remain confidential. And it may look like he obstructed justice for political reasons. It is alleged that the illegal NSA wiretapping was tightly controlled and above Mr. Taylor’s pay grade.

Richard Rowley wrote: “Well, for SURE they leak false information to manipulate unknown perps.”

This is becoming a waste of time. You were talking about using false information to identify “Confessing Sams.” When I showed that that wasn’t done, you change the argument
—————-
You did NOT “show” it (which would be a demonstration of same: you merely made a categorical statement to that effect. There IS a difference. And if you are unable to discern that difference, you aren’t going to be able to make much progress…….Adieu!
—————-
For others:
The connection: in both instances the law enforcement agency uses disinformation to advance ITS investigation (either eliminitatively or in a way that provokes the perp). Sometimes the SAME misinformation does both tasks: the ‘chemical signiture of the water uses to grow the anthrax (the reports of same) seem to fit the bill there…..

One of the vaccines that my lab added this adjuvant to was AVA, the vaccine against anthrax. My group collaborated with Dr. Ivins on that work. He helped provide background, ideas and reagents, and performed some studies at USAMRIID using highly infectious anthrax that I could not study in my lab. My lab did a great deal of basic immunology studying the mechanism of action of these adjuvants.”

Let’s consider sailing the Good Ship Anthrax.

In June 2001, the good ship anthrax sailed in Annapolis, Maryland, the “sailing capital of the world.” The 4th International Conference on Anthrax was held at St. John’s College in historic Annapolis, Maryland, June 10 - 13, 2001. The conference was organized by the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, and managed by the American Society for Microbiology. The 74-foot classic wooden schooner was named WOODWIND. Martin Hugh-Jones had convened the conference along with Peter Turnbull, the Porton Down scientist who had led the UK conferences attended by Ayman Zawahiri’s scientist, Rauf Ahmad. Reports of livestock and national park outbreaks were followed by a summary by Dr. Turnbull. Other anthrax notables who spoke included senior USAMRIID scientist Dr. Ezzell, who had one of the first looks at the Daschle product, and Dr. Paul Keim, who would play a key role in the genetic investigation. Other talks focused on cell structure and function such as the S-layer, exosporium, and germination. Theresa Koehler from the Houston Medical School gave a talk titled “The Expanding B. anthracis Toolbox” while Timothy Read from The Institute of Genome Research summarized research on The B. Anthracis Genome. Houston Medical School, the UK’s biodefense facility Porton Down, and Pasteur Institute each fielded three presenters. UK scientists presented on the characteristics of the exosporium of “the highly virulent Ames strain.” Researchers from Columbus, Ohio and Biological Defense Research Directorate (BDRD) of the Navy Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, assisted by Porton Down scientists from the UK, demonstrated that inoculated mice survived a challenge with b.anthracis spores. Researchers used b.anthracis containing a plasmid with a mutated lethal factor. The mice were “immunized via gene gun inoculation with eucaryotic expression plasmids encoding either the protective antigen (PA), a mutated form of lethal factor (LF) or a combination of the two.” Dr. Phil Hanna from University of Michigan was there and presented, as he had been in the UK at the conference attending with Rauf Ahmad.

A Kazakhstan Ministry of Health scientist presented on the re-emergence of anthrax in Kazakhstan , which brings to mind that upon the break-up of the Soviet Union the first job offer Ken Alibek fielded was the position of Minister of Health in Kazakhstan. He protested when he realized that his new employer’s job description shifted to “you know the job,” and he realized that they just wanted to do what the Soviets had been secretly doing in an illegal and massive bioweapons program he had supervised as its First Deputy. After the KGB asked to meet with him, he asked to schedule the meeting in two weeks, so that he might visit his parents, and then found a secret expedited way of coming to the United States.

Pakistan Rauf Ahmad was the predator looking for the Ames strain and consulting on weaponization techniques at the UK conference. Did the Amerithrax perp attend this conference or work on any of the research presented? Ali Al-Timimi had a high security clearance for mathematical support work for the Navy. Why? When? What did his work involve? The Daschle product used an Ames strain with an inverted plasmid — a combination of two cultures. Was it just a natural mutation or is it highly probative? Did Ali participate in the research by the Navy’s Biological Defense Research Directorate (BDRD) demonstrating that mice injected with the DNA vaccine with the mutated lethal factors survived? What strain was used in challenging the mice? Where was the challenge done? Navy’s Biological Defense Research Directorate (BDRD) has been a leader in biological weapons defense research. BDRD investigators worked in DNA vaccines to protect against anthrax. By 2001, BDRD had expanded its program to include genomics — Ali Al-Timimi’s field — the analysis of the structure and function of genes.

At the time, the original requestor of anthrax strains for vaccine research by USAMRIID, Dr. Gregory Knudson, worked at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute at the National Naval Medical Center. His work involved vaccine studies involving mice. In the Fall of 2001, he apparently faxed the letter from his file showing the mailing label used to ship the Ames strain. (The sender is evidenced by the fax line on the mailing label that I obtained from an ISU professor who receive the fax from the Naval Medical Center in Fall 2001). Thus, if genomics expert Al-Timimi was helping with the genomics involved in using the mutated plasmid for the Navy, he may have had access to the Ames strain there.

In January 2002, FBI Assistant Director Van Harp told the 40,000 members of the American Society for Microbiology that it was “very likely that one or more of you know this individual.” They very likely did.

http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com

http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/the_pale_horse_in_packets_bioterrorism_in_an_envelope

I understand the science behind this, and know why they are claiming this was an American researcher, but I would suggest it far more likely that American biological weaponry fell into the hands of the enemy, or that an American scientist-notably Bruce Ivins but possibly including others-was working for Al-Qaeda; possibly under duress.This is the old “lone crazed gunman“ routine that has served so well. While I am not a conspiracy theorist by and large, I do know that the government is prone to hiding unpleasant facts from the public in the interest of the general welfare. I suspect this was covered up to downplay the threat to the public, and to deny Al-Qaeda the prestige of striking with such a weapon of terror.

I don`t believe for a second that Ivins acted on his own.

Now, some will claim that the U.S. government did this to push the Patriot Act through, which is really tinfoil-hat stuff. Why bother sending real Anthrax at all? And if the government were to do that, why not do a better job of framing Saddam Hussein? Surely we could cobble up a (poor) Anthrax delivery system and strain that was available to Saddam. This conspiracy theory falls of its own weight.

But the crazed lone gunman just doesn`t hold water, either, and I believe that Al-Qaeda has had a robust bioterror research program.

This is becoming a waste of time. You were talking about using false information to identify “Confessing Sams.” When I showed that that wasn’t done, you change the argument. Now we’re talking about putting out news stories that the culprit is a homosexual or hates his mother in order to make the culprit do something in anger that might get him caught.

That’s a totally different situation.

I think this thread is dead. I’m not even going to bother to check it anymore.

Law enforcement organizations don’t leak false information in order to tell “Confessing Sams” from the real thing.
——
Well, for SURE they leak false information to manipulate unknown perps. John Douglas the most famous of the FBI profilers says that in some instances this manipulation via the media is one of the best ways to smoke out the perps……………….

An NSA employee now tells Keith Olbermann of MSNBC that metadata and filters are used to hone in on calls of interest (as under the old ECHELON program in Europe). In considering whether the story is supported by the facts, Eric Lichtblau’s BUSH’S LAW (2008) is important background reading.

“In one of the operations that I was in, we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them,” Tice told Olbermann. “What I was finding out, though, is that the collection on those organizations was 24/7 and 365 days a year — and it made no sense. … I started to investigate that. That’s about the time when they came after me to fire me.”

When Olbermann pressed him for specifics, Tice offered, “An organization that was collected on were US news organizations and reporters and journalists.”

“To what purpose?” Olbermann asked. “I mean, is there a file somewhere full of every email sent by all the reporters at the New York Times? Is there a recording somewhere of every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York?”

NSA wiretapping is being briefed currently in the case of the other “anthrax weapons suspect” (to borrow his counsel’s phrase).

282 UNDER SEAL Government’s Motion for Treatment of Certain Defense Filings as Classified, filed by USA as to Ali Al-Timimi (original w/ Court Security). (tbul, ) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

281 ORDERED that pleadings 277 and 278 be and are removed from the public file and placed under seal with the Court Security Officer until further order of the Court; and, it is further ORDERED that [MSNBC legal commentator Turley] defense counsel scrupulously adhere to the Protective Order of December 3, 2004, as further violations of the Order could result in counsel losing his clearance; and, it is further ORDERED that any half sheets prepared for the public file be presented to the Court Security Officer before being tendered to the Clerk’s Office to avoid any inadvertent disclosure of classified information as to Ali Al-Timimi. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 12/23/2008. (jlan, ) (Entered: 12/24/2008)

271 ORDER: For the reasons stated in open court, the defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery 269 is GRANTED IN PART; and it is hereby ORDERED that the government provide a response to the five specific inquiries in the accompanying memorandum 270 . The response must include what, if any, relevant information was generated by, or is in the possession of, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency; and it is further ORDERED that the defendant’s Sealed Motion to De-Classify and Unseal the Government’s Ex-Parte Filing and the Instant Motion 264 and his Motion to Compel Discovery of Undisclosed Surveillance Evidence 268 be and are DENIED; ***”

Law enforcement organizations don’t leak false information in order to tell “Confessing Sams” from the real thing. They WITHHOLD information, and if the “Confessing Sams” don’t know the information that was withheld, then they can be viewed as nothing but “Confessing Sams.”

Nothing worthwhile comes from “what iffing.” We’re far beyond that stage. Dreaming up new theories about the anthrax attacks is a total waste of time unless it is accompanied by NEW AND SOLID EVIDENCE of some kind.

This would explains stuff that so far:

1) the conspiracy theorists all attribute to a government coverup.

2) Mister Lake attributes to media laziness/incompetence.

Perhaps it is neither…..

What if the FBI PURPOSELY leaked false information about the anthrax—–here I mean in particular about the water used to grow it—–in order to discern ‘Confessing Sams’ from…..

The House Committee on the Judiciary Majority Staff Report to
Chairman John Conyers, Jr. recommended:

“The President should rescind Bush White House memoranda that significantly restrict the use and disclosure of non-classified information. In particular, the memoranda that should be revoked include White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on “Action to Safeguard Information Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and Other Sensitive Documents Related to Homeland Security,”(March 19, 2002) and President Bush’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies on the Sharing of Controlled Unclassified Information” (May 9, 2008).

Reason: While national security concerns may legitimately require preventing the disclosure of certain classified information, those arguments fall away when that information is already declassified and in the public domain. The 2002 memo staked out broad Executive
authority and encouraged agencies to reclassify information that was no longer classified and, similar to the Ashcroft memo on the Freedom of Information Act, encouraged the use of various
FOIA exemptions to withhold disclosure of sensitive but unclassified information, which was not defined. The 2008 memo introduced “Controlled Unclassified Information” as a new government
category that replaced “Sensitive but Unclassified.” Rescinding the memos would promote greater transparency of government records by reducing the avenues by which documents could be
withheld from the public for classification reasons.

Similarly, while the Bush Administration claims that the purpose of the 2008 memo is to standardize practices and improve information sharing, it effectively continues an expansion of secrecy in government by adding an unnecessary level of uncertainty for government employees deciding which documents may be released in response to public inquiry. Although the Memorandum explicitly states that the use of the “controlled unclassified information” label “may inform but [does] not control” the decision to disclose under FOIA, lower-level staff, seeing the label on responsive documents, may instinctively treat it as protected and withhold it from
disclosure.1682 Poorly-trained or ill-informed junior staff, unfamiliar with these new designations, may be overly cautious in withholding documents, which is currently the norm in cases of
uncertainty as a result of the memos described above. Because of the threat of under-disclosure, the incoming Administration should reduce potential room for error by minimizing the number of
classification designations (in addition to mandating a presumption of disclosure, as described above).

HM El Zawahry, MR Hamza, SA Essa, NM Ali - Current Therapeutic Research, 1996 - Elsevier
… Address correspondence to: Prof. Heba El Zawahry, 32 St. … Page 2. HM EL ZAWAHRY
ET AL. isms and the availability of new antimicrobial agents. ..

Non-toxic antimicrobial compositions and methods of use
US Pat. 6559189 - Filed Jun 25, 2001 - Regents of the University of Michigan … Ames and Vollum 1 B strains, were kindly supplied by Dr. Bruce Ivins …

Non-toxic antimicrobial compositions and methods of use
US Pat. 6635676 - Filed Sep 27, 2001 - Regents of the University of Michigan … Ames and Vollum 1 B strains, were kindly supplied by Dr. Bruce Ivins …

Methods of preventing and treating microbial infections
US Pat. 6506803 - Filed Apr 28, 2000 - Regents of the University of Michigan … Ames and Vollum 1 B strains, were kindly supplied by Dr. Bruce Ivins …

“The release of such agents as biological weapons could be catastrophic in light of the fact that such diseases will readily spread the air.”

In late August 2001, NanoBio relocated from a small office with 12 year-old furniture to an expanded office on Green Road located at Plymouth Park. After the mailings, DARPA reportedly asked for some of their product them to decontaminate some of the Senate offices. The company pitched hand cream to postal workers. The inventors company, NanoBio, is funded by DARPA. NanoBio received a $3,150,000 defense contract in 2003.

The University of Michigan researchers presented in part at various listed meetings and conferences in 1998 and 1999. The December 1999 article titled “A Novel Surfactant Nanoemulsion with Broad-Spectrum Sporicidal Activity of against Bacillus Species” in the Journal for Infectious Diseases states:

“B. anthracis spores, Ames and Vollum 1B strains, were supplied by Bruce Ivins (US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases [USAMRIID], Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD) and were prepared as described elsewhere. Four other strains of B. anthracis were provided by Martin Hugh-Jones (Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.”

In the acknowledgements section, the University of Michigan authors thank:

Shaun B. Jones, Jane Alexander, and Lawrence DuBois (Defense Science Office, Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) for their support.

Bruce Ivins, Patricia Fellows, Mara Linscott, Arthur Friedlander, and the staff of USAMRIID for their technical support and helpful suggestions in the performance of the initial anthrax studies. [Pat and Mara were mentioned in the police report relating to questions Mrs. Ivins was asked].

Martin-Hugh-Jones, Kimothy Smith, and Pamela Coker for supplying the characterized B. anthracis strains and the space at Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge).

Robin Kunkel (Department of Pathology, University of Michigan) for her help with electron microscopy and a couple of others for technical assistance and manuscript preparation.

The researchers found that their nanoemulsion incorporated into the growth medium completely inhibited the growth of the spores. Transmission electron microscope was used to examine the spores.

The authors explained that “The nanoemulsions can be rapidly produced in large quantities and are stable for many months *** Undiluted, they have the texture of of a semisolid cream and can be applied topically by hand or mixed with water. Diluted, they have a consistency and appearance similar to skim milk and can be sprayed to decontaminate surfaces or potentially interact with aerosolized spores before inhalation.”

An earlier publication of the University of Michigan Medical school, Medicine at Michigan, (Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 1999) described the DARPA-funded research:

“In studies with rats and mice in the U-M Medical School under the direction of James R. Baker, Jr., M.D., professor of internal medicine and director of the Center for Biologic Nanotechnology, the mixture, known as BCTP, attacked anthrax spores and healed wounds caused by a closely related species of bacteria, Bacillus cereus. (The letters BCTP stand for Bi-Component, Triton X-100 n-tributyl Phosphate.)

Dr. Baker describes the process as follows: “The tiny lipid droplets in BCTP fuse with anthrax spores, causing the spores to revert to their active bacterial state. During this process, which takes 4-5 hours, the spore’s tough outer membrane changes, allowing BCTP’s solvent to strip away the exterior membrane. The detergent then degrades the spores’ interior contents. In scanning electron microscope images, the spores appear to explode.” The rapid inactivation of anthrax bacteria and spores combined with BCTP’s low toxicity thus make the emulsion a promising candidate for use as a broad-spectrum, post-exposure decontamination agent.

***

The research is sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the central research and development organization for the U.S. Department of Defense.”

Dr. Baker, by email, advises me that Ivins did the studies involving Ames for them at USAMRIID. He reports: “We never had Ames and could not have it at our UM facilities.” Before September 2001, it’s office was described as in the basement of a downtown bank which seems to describe 912 N. Main St., Ann Arbor, just west of University of Michigan campus. [The September 26, 1998 presentation by Michael Hayes would be a reliable guide as to whether Ames was one of the virulent strains that were killed by the biocidal agent in petri dish].

An article in the Summer of 2000 in Medicine at Michigan explains:

“Victory Site: Last December [December 1999] Tarek Hamouda, Amy Shih and Jim Baker traveled to a remote military station in the Utah desert. There they demonstrated for the U.S. Army Research and Development Command the amazing ability of non-toxic nanoemulsions (petite droplets of fat mixed with water and detergent) developed at Michigan to wipe out deadly anthrax-like bacterial spores. The square vertical surfaces shown here were covered with bacterial spores; Michigan’s innocuous nanoemulsion was most effective in killing the spores even when compared to highly toxic chemicals.”

As Fortune magazine explained in November 2001: “Then bioterror struck…. It moved to a bland corporate park where its office has no name on the door. It yanked its street address off its Website, whose hit rate jumped from 350 a month to 1,000 a day.” NanoBio was part of the solution: “in the back of NanoBio’s office sit two dozen empty white 55-gallon barrels. A few days before, DARPA had asked Annis and Baker if they could make enough decontaminant to clean several anthrax-tainted offices in the Senate. NanoBio’s small lab mixers will have to run day and night to fill the barrels. ‘This is not the way we want to do this,’ sighs [its key investor], shaking his head. ‘This is all a duct-tape solution.’ ” James Baker, founder of Ann Arbor’s NanoBio’s likes to quote a Chinese proverb: “When there are no lions and tigers in the jungle, the monkeys rule.”

The investigation is a confidential and ongoing national security investigation. While you assume there is no evidence of access to virulent Ames by the Ann Arbor researchers, I instead see a half dozen patents and journal articles expressly thanking Bruce Ivins for supplying virulent Ames and participation in aerosol experiments at a Battelle-managed lab at Dugway which is known to have Ames from the flask. The very purpose of the Ames was to control the input in this DARPA-funded research so that different products could be compared — so, for example, the efficacy of the intranasal vaccine and biocidal agent could be compared with those of alternative countermeasures. Why isn’t that documentary evidence of a transfer of Ames by Bruce Ivins to the Ann Arbor researchers and their access to that Ames (regardless where particular research was done)?

The regulations took effect in 1997, btw, the year the research was first subject to a patent. As Curtis Thorne, an eminent vaccine researcher of years past has explained, virulent anthrax would be sent by ordinary mail.

It is clear by now that no such record exists.

“In his conference presentation, Hayes described how even low concentrations of BCTP killed more than 90 percent of virulent strains of Bacillus anthracis spores in a culture dish.”

Mr. Hayes has a BS. He is a lab assistant. You don’t think the work he did involving virulent strains bacillus anthracis in a culture dish was done in Michigan? Why not? Pre-911 anthrax was a BL-2 pathogen in liquid form. Virulent strains (e.g., Vollum) was in the cabinet Aafia walked by every day at Brandeis. Virulent strains were in Iowa. Virulent strains were at numerous university labs. Why, given the researchers expressly thank Bruce Ivins for supplying virulent Ames, do you think that virulent strains were not used by Mr. Hayes at Ann Arbor — given he says in plain english “even low concentrations of BCTP killed more than 90 percent of virulent strains of Bacillus anthracis spores in a culture dish.” Lab space was made available at LSU but I don’t know the time frame. I have an email into Mr. Hayes. Where do you think he did the research he reported at ICAAC on September 1998?