And then you would have to not only admit that weaponized spores are coated with silica, but that the purpose of the silica is to foil van der Waals forces. Just exactly as I said 5 years ago.
Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
I have plently of literature I can cite that shows that untreated silica nanoparticles stick to surfaces (including larger particles) by van der Waals forces. Van der Waals forces are omnipresent. They are weaker than chemical bonds, and that’s why more robust coated spores can be made with a binding agent.
The problem we have is that when you ask questions, you tend to ask them in such a way that the only possible answer is the answer you want. So, the answers cannot be trusted.
The anthrax in the letters was not "raw spores." The spores were treated with a surfactant before drying. Did you ask if it was possible to treat spores with an ORGANIC surfactant that would create a powder like that in the letters? If not, why not?
This paper here:
http://web.njit.edu/~dave/Dry-Coating-Flow.pdf
describes the theory of van der Waals forces causing particles to clump as well as being the adhesion source of the silica nanoparticles to the surface of the corn strach particles.
This is identical to the effects of coating anthrax spores with silica as the CDC/Dugway paper studies.
The paper at the above link used many different grades of silica - some with small primamry particles - some larger. Some of the SEM pictures look remarkably similar to the Dugway picture.
I suggest you get the person you are corresponding with to state in plain, clear English that there is no connection whatsover with this work on powder flowability and aerosol behavior of nanoparticle silica coated powders to their work on aerosol studies of nanoparticle silica coated spores.
No, I am saying you are BS-ing everyone.
Beecher's article never used the term "raw spores." What are "raw spores?"
Beecher said,
Purification of spores may exacerbate their dissemination to some extent by removing adhesive contaminants and maximizing spore concentration. However, even in a crude state, dried microbial agents have been long considered especially hazardous. Experiments mimicking laboratory accidents have demonstrated that simply breaking vials of lyophilized bacterial cultures creates concentrated and persistent aerosols.
And ..
In essence, even if most of a spore powder is bound in relatively few large particles, some fraction is composed of particles that are precisely in the size range that is most hazardous for transmission of disease by inhalation.
After the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology detected silica, former USAMRIID Deputy Commander Charles Bailey, identified as a scientist at Advanced Biosystems Inc. at George Mason University, declined to comment on the purpose of the silica. He told one reporter: ”I don’t think I want to give people — terrorists — any information to help them.”
Oops. Too late.
Ed, a key fact you’ve ignored — just as you ignored Dugway’s use of silica in 2001 — is that in the Daschle anthrax the exosporium, which is a loose-fitting protein envelope surrounding about 7-10 spore coats that overlay the cortex, had traces of silica. The exosporium is the spore’s outermost layer.
A PhD student supervised by Matthias Frank, a big star at Livermore in developing the biosensor, addressed these issues in 2004. Lawrence Livermore lab was tasked with combating the Bin Laden anthrax threat in 1998 and is steeped in biodetection, the subject of the PhD thesis. LLNL researchers have developed advanced technologies to rapidly detect the airborne release of biological threat agents. The student cites Gary Matsumoto’s Science article and says:
“In the case of anthrax, it is known that Van der Waals forces cause unprocessed spores to clump together. Large particles are not deposited efficiently in human lungs and also settle rapidly from the air. Both are undesirable properties if maximal lethality is desired. Silica powers and nanoparticles have long been used to prevent agent particles from coming close enough together for Van der Waals forces to become significant.” *** Military scientists have stated that the ‘weaponized’ anthrax letters sent to Senator Daschle’s office contained silica. In the Senate anthrax letter, there is also evidence that the bond between the silica nanoparticles and spores was further enhanced by the use of sol-gel or polymerized glass. Some believe that the spores may have even been electrostatically charged to aid their dispersal. At any rate, the end result of the processing was a powder far more potent than a simple combination of anthrax spores, cells and residual growth medium.”
Now that you’ve been shown to have been oblivious about the use of silica generally, there is no reason to persist on the subject.
You place great weight on the fact that former Russian bioweaponeer Ken Alibek and Harvard biologist Matthew Meselson, however, have opined that there was no special silica coating observable in the Scanning Electron Microscope (”SEM”) images they saw. The presence of any silica, Drs. Meselson and Alibek say, may have come from the environment because of the special tendency of anthrax spore coats to attract silicon. (The lead FBI scientist Dwight Adams relied on the study provided the FBI by Meselson in briefing the Congress in November 2002.) Indeed, the silica may have been in the culture medium and then removed as described by a mid-March 2001 and related patent filed by researchers at Dr. Alibek’s Center for Biodefense at GMU. Dr. Alibek reports that, like Dr. William Patrick, he was also given a polygraph.
A scientist from the FBI Laboratory, Dr. Doug Beecher, in a July 2006 issue of “Applied and Environmental Microbiology” provided me a copy of his article that reports that:
“a widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production. The issue is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone. The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations.”
But what is so difficult in making the Dugway simulant? It was made at a dairy processor in Wisconsin, not some military weapons factory. The vague and ambiguous passage that upsets Dr. Rebel so mere confirms Dr. Alibek’s point that a sophisticated product can result from a relatively simple method.
Harvard University Matthew Meselson reviewed the language in the FBI scientist’s article before publication. “The statement should have had a reference,” editor-in-chief of the microbiology journal told a trade periodical. “An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation.” The two passages, footnoted or not, essentially said what Dr. Alibek had been saying: “’[J]ust because you have a sophisticated product doesn’t mean the technique has to be sophisticated.’ “ Silica in the culture medium would not be a sophisticated “additive” but would permit the agent to be concentrated.
In a Letter to the Editor in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Aug. 2007, p. 5074, titled “Unsupported Conclusions on the Bacillus anthracis Spores,” Kay A. Mereish, at the United Nations, reports:
“In a meeting I attended in September 2006, a presentation was made by a scientist who had worked on samples of anthrax collected from letters involved in the [anthrax letters] incident in October 2001; that scientist described the anthrax spore as uncoated but said it contained an additive that affected the spore’s electrical charges. (D. Small, CBRN Counter-Proliferation and Response, Paris, France, 18-20 September 2006; organized by SMi [www.smi-online.co.uk)”
Dr. Mereish tells me that her letter to the editor was not intended to agree or disagree with the FBI scientist. She merely notes that his two sentences that related to this issue of additive were not supported by the scientific experiment and data that he published. She relies on Dr. Small who made her statement based on her scientific research finding in connection with her work on the anthrax samples. Dr. Mereish’s letter, however, is another example where the use of “electrical charges” scientists as Dr. Patrick and Dr. Alibek are failing to distinguish between electrostatic charges and Van der Waals forces, thus resulting in some of the confusion in the press reports.
Kathryn Crockett, Ken Alibek’s assistant — was just a couple doors down from Ali Al-Timimi — addressed these issues in her 2006 thesis, “A historical analysis of Bacillus anthracis as a biological weapon and its application to the development of nonproliferation and defense strategies.” She expressed her special thanks to Dr. Ken Alibek and Dr. Bill Patrick. Dr. Patrick consulted with the FBI and so the FBI credits his expertise. “I don’t want to appear arrogant. I don’t think anyone knows more about anthrax powder in this country,” William Patrick told an interviewer. Dr. Alibek’s access to know-how, regarding anthrax weaponization, similarly, seems beyond reasonable dispute. Katie successfully defended the thesis before a panel that included USAMRIID head and Ames strain researcher Charles Bailey, Ali Al-Timimi’s other Department colleague. She says that scientists who analyzed the powder through viewing micrographs or actual contact are divided over the quality of the powder. She cites Gary Matsumoto’s “Science” article in summarizing the debate. She says the FBI has vacillated on silica. “Regarding the specific issue of weaponization,” Dr. Alibek’s assistant concluded in her PhD thesis, “according to several scientists at USAMRIID who examined the material, the powder created a significant cloud when agitated meaning that the adhesion of the particles had been reduced. Reducing the adhesion of the particles meant that the powder would fly better.” She explains that “The most common way to reduce electrostatic charge is to add a substance to the mixture, usually a silica based substance.”
On the issue of encapsulation, she reports that “many experts who examined the powder stated the spores were encapsulated. Encapsulation involves coating bacteria with a polymer which is usually done to protect fragile bacteria from harsh conditions such as extreme heat and pressure that occurs at the time of detonation (if in a bomb), as well as from moisture and ultraviolet light. The process was not originally developed for biological weapons purposes but rather to improve the delivery of various drugs to target organs or systems before they were destroyed by enzymes in the circulatory system” (citing Alibek and Crockett, 2005). “The US and Soviet Union, however, “ she explains, “used this technique in their biological weapons programs for pathogens that were not stable in aerosol form... Since spores have hardy shells that provide the same protection as encapsulation would, there is no need to cover them with a polymer.“ She explains that one “possible explanation is that the spore was in fact encapsulated but not for protective purpose. Encapsulation also reduces the need for milling when producing a dry formulation.” By reducing the need for milling, she means permits greater concentration of the biological agent. If the perpetrator was knowledgeable of the use of encapsulation for this purpose, then he or she may have employed it because sophisticated equipment was not at his disposal.”
One military scientist who has made anthrax simulants described the GMU patents as relating to an encapsulation technique which serves to increase the viability of a wide range of pathogens. More broadly, a DIA analyst once commented to me that the internal debate seemed relatively inconsequential given the circumstantial evidence — overlooked by so many people — that US-based supporters of Al Qaeda are responsible for the mailings.
As I said, he told me there was no agreement between the authors of the article as to what causes the silica to bind to the spores.
I mentioned my web page about this subject to him and asked if he knew anyone willing to discuss it. Maybe he'll get back to me.
Hmmm. It's five p.m. The whistle just blew. Time to shut down for the night. I'll be back tomorrow.
TTFN
By the way Ed, I’m just curious. Do you still maintain that the pictures of weaponized anthrax simulants shown in the book “Microbial Forensics” are just samples that the authors made up to show how ridiculous it is to coat spores?
Yes - you probably do.
“TV review: Warning of attack tragically ignored,” Scotsman, May 7, 2008
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/TV-review-Warning-of-attack.4055217.jp
The same was true of the anthrax attacks as was true of the 1998 embassy bombings addressed by the tv show.
In United States v. Ali Al-Timimi, attorneys wrangled in 2007 about the government’s failure to produce law enforcement interviews of Al-Timimi after WTC 1993 and after 9/11 — as well as failure to produce NSA intercepts from 2002. Al-Timimi’s original attorney was the first to tell us in 2003 that the FBI raided Ali’s townhouse on February 26, 2003 because they feared he was part of a planned WMD attack. Al-Timimi’s townhouse was raided two weeks after the blind sheik’s son, Mohammed Abdel-Rahman — a member of Al Qaeda’s 3-member WMD committee — was captured in Quetta, Pakistan. Al-Timimi’s attorney, Edward McMahon, in the Moussaoui case, stipulated to a timeline of events in 2001 related to what the US knew about a planned attack. Over this same period the United States government was failing to disrupt the coming attacks, microbiologist Al-Timimi was publicly lecturing on the signs of the coming day of judgment. In both July and August 2001, in Toronto and then London, Al-Timimi was lecturing on the end of times alongside the man known as the “911 imam.” “911 imam”, Awlaqi, was a fellow Falls Church iman who counseled key hijackers first in San Diego and then in Falls Church. Before that, in 1993 and twice in 1996, the man joining Al-Timimi at the podium was none other than Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, the blind sheik’s son. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman would serve on Al Qaeda’s WMD committee and recruit scientists. Al-Timimi was granted a high security clearance and allowed to work alongside top anthrax bioweaponeers at the same time law enforcement and intelligence memos were flying fast and furious about Al Qaeda’s interest in biological weapons and the planned attack known to relate, in part, to the detention of blind sheik Abdel-Rahman.
Although the timeline by Al-Timimi’s attorney McMahon begins on February 6, 2001, let’s add some notes from the first week in February 2001 that set the stage. In February 2001, the CIA briefed the President in a Presidential Daily Brief (”PDB”) on “Bin Laden’s Interest in Biological and Radiological Weapons” in a still-classified briefing memorandum. Like the PDB on Bin Laden’s threat to use planes to free the blind sheik, the February 2001 PDB would illustrate the wisdom that most intelligence is open source. There was little about Ayman’ s plan to use anthrax against US targets in retaliation for rendering of EIJ leaders that was not available to anyone paying attention. The blind sheik’s attorney in Cairo had announced that Zawahiri likely would use weaponized anthrax to protest the detention of senior Egyptian militants. The previous military commander of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, then on trial, had made the same claim, along with yet another EIJ shura member. In September 1999, a London cleric even had a dialogue with Bin Laden, in open letters read at mosques in Pakistan and London, in which the cleric called for a holy biowar against the United States and Bin Laden responded.
The timing of the specific PDB on Al Qaeda’s biological weapons in early February 2001, however, was due to anthrax threat letters sent in late January 2001 to the Immigration Minister in Canada and the Justice Minister. The letters were sent upon the announcement of bail hearing for a detained Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader who had managed Bin Laden’s farm in Sudan. Canada announced on January 18, 2001 that an Egyptian Islamic Jihad Shura member, Mahjoub, would have a January 30 bail hearing. Someone sent an anthrax threat letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister Caplan had signed the security certificate authorizing Mahjoub’s detention. After arriving in Canada in 1996, Mahjoub continued to be in contact with high level militants, including his former supervisor in Sudan, al-Duri, an Iraqi reputed to be Bin Laden’s chief procurer or weapons of mass destruction. Beginning on February 6, 2001, another former colleague of al-Duri in Sudan, Jamal Ahmad Al-Fadl, began his testimony in the Southern District of New York in United States v. Bin Laden about his own early efforts on Bin Laden’s behalf to obtain WMD. Then Assistant United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was the prosecutor. (The United States has been required to produce 900 pages of transcripts of video conferences between FBI agents and al-Fadl.) Al Duri, while living in Tucson, Arizona, was acquainted with Wadi al Hage. Wadi al Hage was another witness cooperating with authorities in connection with the prosecution of Bin Laden in Spring 2001 relating to the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa. So if you want to know what the United States government knew and when they knew it, one resource would be the 900 pages of transcripts of the conversations with al-Fadl.
Returning for now just to the timeline stipulated to by Al-Timimi’s former attorney, Edward McMahon, in the Moussaoui case, however, let’s see what can be gleaned from intelligence briefings of senior executives about Bin Laden’s planned attacks. I have added some notations in parentheses.
On February 6, 2001, a Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (”SEIB”) indicated a heightened threat of Sunni extremist terrorist attacks against United States facilities, personnel, and other interests. (A SEIB, once called the National Intelligence Daily, is a CIA-produced intelligence summary similar to the President’s Daily Brief; it must be returned to the CIA within 5 days. The person signs it indicating he has read it. Unauthorized disclosure is subject to criminal prosecution and it may be not photocopied).
In March and April 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency disseminated a series of reports warning that Abu Zubaydah was planning an operation in the near future.
On April 13, 2001, the FBI sent an all-office message summarizing the intelligence reporting to date on the Sunni extremist threat.
On April 20, 2001, a Senior Executive Intelligence Brief indicated that that Osama Bin Laden was planning multiple operations.
On May 3, 2001, a SEIB indicated Bin Laden’s “public profile may presage attack.”
On May 23, 2001, a SEIB reported a possible hostage plot against Americans abroad to force the release of prisoners, including Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was serving a life sentence for this role in the 1993 plot to blow up landmarks in New York City. (The anthrax letters followed the pattern of letter bombs mailed in late 1996 to NYC and DC newspaper offices, along with people in symbolic positions associated with the detention with Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and the WTC bombers. That is, the modus operandi of the anthrax letters was not just the modus operandi of The Friends of Abdel-Rahman, it was their signature).
On May 26, 2001, a SEIB indicated that Bin Laden’s plans were advancing.
(In June 2001, over the course of a week, Yazid Sufaat briefed Ayman Zawahiri and Hambali on his efforts at cultivating anthrax).
On June 19, 2001, a CIA report passed along biographical information on several terrorists mentioned, in commenting on Khalid Mohammed, that he was recruiting people to travel to the United States to meet with colleagues already there so that they might conduct terrorist attacks on Bin Laden’s behalf. (An early December 1998 PDB to the same effect to President Clinton — declassified and included in the 911 Commission Report — reported that the aircraft and attacks were being planned by the brother of Sadat’s assassin, Mohammed Islambouli. Islambouli was in a cell with Khalid Mohammed (”KSM”), who by December had come to lead the cell planning anthrax attacks in the United States.)
On June 21, 2001, after a press report from a journalist reporting from Bin Laden’s entourage, United States embassies raised the force protection condition for United States troops in six countries to the highest possible level, Delta. The embassy in Yemen was closed. (In February 1999, militants had threatened to attack with anthrax if Americans did not promptly leave the country; the militants were thought to be connected to Abu Hamza in London; Ayman Zawahiri was in contact with a cell in Yemen).
The unclassified portion of “Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update” for June 22, 2001 under “Newly Reported Threats and Incidents” (recently uploaded to intelwire.com) states:
“State notified all embassies and the national security community of a terrorist threat warning on 6/22/01. ‘The State Department has been made aware of the following uncorroborated threat information indicating a possible near term strike against U.S. interests (NFI). Usama Bin Laden reportedly intends to strike against U.S. interests within the next two days according to the information held by an Arab in Kabul, Afghanistan on 6/21/01. The Arab in Kabul was sure that the strike, whose location he did not disclose, would generate an American response. The DOD European also put out a similar warning to all military commands.”
On June 22, 2001, the CIA notified all its station chiefs around the world about intelligence suggesting a possible al Qaeda suicide attack on a United States target over the next the few days. The same day, the State Department notified all embassies of the terrorist threat and updated its worldwide public warning.
On June 23, 2001, the title of a SEIB warned, “Bin Laden Attacks May be Imminent.”
On June 25, 2001, a SEIB titled Bin Laden and Associated Making Near-Term Threats reported that multiple attacks were being planned by Bin Laden and his associates over the coming days, including a ’severe blow’ against United States and Israeli “interests,” during the next two weeks. (Senator Leahy is in charge of the subcommittee that oversees appropriations to Egypt and Israel).
Also, on June 25, 2001, an Arabic television station reported Bin Laden’s pleasure with al Qaeda leaders who were saying that the next few weeks “will witness important surprises” and that the United States and Israeli interests will be targeted. At the end of June 2001, an Qaeda intelligence report warned that something “very, very, very, very” big was about to happen, and most of Bin Laden’s network was reportedly anticipating the attack.
In late June 2001, a CIA terrorist threat advisory indicated a high probability of near-term “spectacular” terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties.
On June 30, 2001, a SEIB titled “Bin Laden Planning High-Profile Attacks,” repeated that Bin Laden operatives expected near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences of catastrophic proportions. The SEIB contained an article titled “Bin Laden Threats Are Real.”
The intelligence reporting at the end of June consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a calamitous level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil and that they would consist possibly of multiple — but not necessarily simultaneous — attacks.
Threat reports surged in June and July 2001.
On July 2, 2001, a SEIB indicated that the planning for Usama Bin Laden’s attacks continue, despite delays.
Also on July 2, 2001, the FBI issued a National Law Enforcement Telecommunications (”NLETS”) message concerning potential anti-United States attacks. The message summarized the information regarding the threats from Bin Laden and warned that there was an increased volume of threat reporting. The message indicated a potential for attacks against United Statets targets abroad from groups “aligned or sympathetic to Usama Bin Laden.” The message further stated, “The FBI has no information indicating a credible threat of terrorist attack in the United States.” The message asked recipient to “exercise extreme vigilance” and “report suspicious activities” to the FBI. (Later that summer, when a flying school instructor reported Zacarias Moussaoui and it was known he was associated with Bin Laden’s colleague Ibn Khattab, who intelligence showed was related to Bin Laden’s CBRN aspirations, FBI HQ denied the request that a FISA warrant be sought for his laptop.)
On July 5, 2001, the CIA briefed the Attorney General on the al Qaeda threat, warning that a significant attack was imminent. In addition, the Attorney General was told by the CIA that preparations for multiple attacks were in late stages or already complete and that little warning could be expected. The briefing addressed only threats outside United States.
On July 13, 2001, a SEIB indicated that Bin Laden’s plans had been delayed, maybe for as long as two months, but not abandoned.
On July 19, 2001, one of the items mentioned by the Acting FBI Director in a conference call with his special agents in charge, was the need, in light of increased threat reporting, to have evidence response teams ready to move at a moment’s notice, in case of an attack. The Acting Director did not task FBI field offices to try to determine whether any plots were being considered within the United States or to take any action to disrupt any such plots.
On July 25, 2001, a SEIB stated that one Bin Laden operation was delayed, but that others were ongoing.
On August 1, 2001, the FBI issued an advisory that in light of the increased volume of threat reporting and the upcoming anniversary of the bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa (which occurred on August 7, 1998), increased attention should be paid to security planning. The advisory noted that while most of the reporting indicated that the potential for attacks were on U.S. interests abroad, the possibility of an attack in the United States could not be discounted.
On August 3, 2001, the CIA issued an advisory concluding that the threat of impending al Qaeda attacks would likely continue indefinitely. The advisory suggested that al Qaeda was lying in wait and searching for gaps in security before moving forward with the planned attacks.
An article in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (”PDB”) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S” was the 36th PDB item in 2001 relating to Bin Laden or al Qaeda and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States. The PDB again mentioned the detention of the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman as motivating the attack.
On August 7, 2001, a SEIB indicated that Osama Bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States.
On August 23, 2001, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet received a briefing on Zacarias Moussaoui, titled “islamic Extremist Learns to Fly.” (Both Zacarias Moussaoui and Mohammed Atta had made cropduster inquiries during the summer).
On August 24, 2001, a foreign intelligence service reported that Abu Zubaydah was considering mounting terrorist attacks in the United States to Attack Targets in the United States.
The Stipulation ended just before the most interesting pre-911 data point.
A report titled “Risk Assessment of Anthrax Threat Letters” issued on September 10, 2001. It was a study of the mailed anthrax threat in January 2001. In contrast to a 1998 study by William Patrick that had been requested by Dr. Hatfill’s employer SAIC, the Canadian study found considerable exposure to those in the room resulted when such a letter was opened. Bacillus globigii spores (in dry powder form) had been donated by the US Department of Defense (Dugway Proving Ground, Utah). “The letter was prepared by putting BG spores in the center of a sheet of paper, folding it over into thirds, placing the folded sheet into the envelope and sealing using the adhesive present on the envelope. The envelope was then shaken to mimic the handling and tumbling that would occur during its passage through the postal system.” The aerosol, produced by opening the BG spore containing envelope, was not confined to the area of the desk but spread throughout the chamber. Values were almost as high at the opposite end of the chamber, shortly after opening the envelopes. 99% of the particles collected were in the 2.5 to 10 mm size range. The report explained: “In addition, the aerosol would quickly spread throughout the room so that other workers, depending on their exact locations and the directional air flow within the office, would likely inhale lethal doses. Envelopes with the open corners not specifically sealed could also pose a threat to individuals in the mail handling system.” The authors of the study emailed the study to the head of the CDC’s investigation of the anthrax mailings but he did not open or read the email. The lead CDC investigator explained: “It is certainly relevant data, but I don’t think it would have altered the decisions that we made.” In the week after 9/11, only an estimated 16 individuals in the United States knew of the report). Question: Was Ali-Al-Timimi one of the 16 who knew of the Canadian report on the danger of anthrax aerosols from mailed anthrax? Was the Canadian report faxed to the Alibek/Bailey/Timimi fax number or sent to his mail drop? Dr. Alibek had been Program Manager at Battelle in 1998 and 1999. By 2001, he and Dr. Bailey were co-founders of the DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense at GMU. Dr. Alibek was the recipient of the largest biodefense awards in history.
On October 5, 2001, bail was denied for Egyptian Islamic Jihad shura member Mahjoub. The anthrax mailer then rushed to mail the potent anthrax to the author of “Leahy Law” — that allows continued appropriations to security units in the event of “extraordinary circumstances.” The postmark was Tuesday, October 9, but Monday was a holiday, leaving the possibility the anthrax was mailed as early as October 6.
People like Ed Lake lament that the United States Department of Justice and Lousiana State University were opposed to having someone work in a taxpayer-funded program where he had forged a PhD certificate in gaining access to the deadly ebola pathogen. But would it not have been irresponsible NOT to exclude him? (The training of law enforcement and first responders was going to include exercises at Dugway). Ed says it is “blaming the victim” to not allow someone who forged a PhD in gaining access to a BL-4 — to the contrary, the victim of the fraud is the government. Taxpayers are the victim of the fraud. At deposition, Dr. Hatfill could not even begin to remember how many times he had falsely claimed to have a PhD. He was falsely claiming to have a PhD at the time he briefed the FBI’s DC Field Office on bioweapons. Ed’s lackadaisical approach to biosecurity — and his “the clock ticked 5 p.m. so I’m outta here” approach to true crime analysis — is precisely the attitude of many who work for the government. When they do stand up and make the right decisions aimed at avoiding know-how from being allowed to fall in the hands who lack integrity and moral responsibility, they should not be faulted.
Ed’s lackadaisical approach to biosecurity also extends to the threat posed by salafi-jihadists. The blind sheik’s son, Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, would come to the United States and speaking alongside Ali-Timimi at IANA charity conferences He was a close associate of the “911 imam.” His mentor was a self-described recruiter for jihadis. His other mentor with whom he was actively working was Bin Laden’s sheik. IANA was a charity formed after WTC 1993 to spread the views of Bin Laden’s sheiks who were the subject of the 1996 Declaration of War and the claim of responsibility for the 1998 bombing of the embassies
The USG has explained in an indictment: “On or about September 21, 2000, an Arabic television station, Al Jazeera, televised a meeting of Usama Bin Laden (leader of the al Qaeda terrorist organization), Ayman al Zawahiri (former leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jiha organization and one of Bin Laden’s top lieutenants), and Taha. Sitting under a banner which read, “Convention to Support Honorable Omar Abdel Rahman,” the three terrorist leaders pledged “mad to free Abdel Rahman from incarceration in the United States.” During the meeting, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, a/k/a “Asadallah,” who is a son of Abdel Rahman, was heard encouraging others to “avenge your Sheikh” and “go to the spilling of blood.”
Now why did not United States counterintelligence not pick up and act on the fact that Mohammed Abdel Rahman was speaking alongside Ali Al-Timimi at a charity conference at a time he was a government employee working for Andrew Card, then Secretary of the Department of Transportation? Why wasn’t Al-Timimi’s Salafist-jihadist connections explored before he was granted a security clearance in working for the Navy while at SRA International? Why after 9/11, was his office moved to not much more than 15 feet away from the leading anthrax scientist in the world and the man in charge of threat assessment for the United States government, a former deputy commander of USAMRIID? We, of course, now have the benefit of the hindsight and even electronic intercepts. Prior lapses perhaps can be excused given Ali’s moderate demeanor and well-crafted speech. But what could excuse Ed and TrebleRebel NOW in not understanding what happened? The USG is under no similar misapprehension and has had clarity on these issues for at least half a decade. TrebelRebel has tunnel-vision on a narrow issue that has blinded him to the correct true crime analysis.
While Al-Timimi was recruiting for the Taliban, he was also connected to one of the principals on Al Qaeda’s WMD Committee, Mohammed Abdel-Rahman. The CIA and FBI have known this for years now but have kept it secret as part of their ongoing confidential national security and criminal investigation. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman spoke at the first conference of the Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”) in 1993 and was noted to be from Afghanistan. Mohammed Abdelrahman spoke alongside Ali Al-Timimi again, for example, in 1996 in Toronto and again that December in Chicago at the annual conference. The December conference was held after blind sheik Abdel-Rahman was indicted. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation was closely involved in the financing and promotion of IANA activities. Al-Buthi of Al-Haramain was in contact with Bin Laden’s sheiks and also his brother-in-law Khalifa who had funded the KSM-led Bojinka operation. Global Relief Foundation participated in and sponsored a number of annual conferences. GRF sent money to IANA to offset the conferences’ costs. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman was close to bin Laden and was engaged in planning key operations. OBL considered him like a son. Mohammed was on the three member WMD committee with Midhat Mursi. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman ran a training camp that was part of the larger complex of several camps. He was an explosives trainer.
The “Superseding Indictment” in United States of postal employee Ahmed Abdel Sattar et al., explains that on February 12, 1997, with Mohammed Abdelrahman back in Afghanistan, a statement issued in the name of the Islamic Group threatened, “The Islamic Group declares all American interests legitimate targets to its legitimate jihad until the release of all prisoners, on top of whom” is Abdel Rahman. Three months later, on May 5, 1997, a statement issued in the name of the Islamic Group threatened, “If any harm comes to the [S]heikh [,] al-Gama al-IsIalamiy[y]a will target [] all of those Americans who participated in subjecting his life to danger.” The statement also said that “A1-Gamaa al-Islamiyya considers every American official, starting with the American president to the despicable jailer [] partners endangering the Sheikh’s life,” and that the Islamic Group would do “everything in its power” to free Abdel Rahman.
The same person who posted notice of the 1996 conference where Al-Timimi, Bilal Philips and Mohammed Abdel-Rahman spoke, then posted notice of a protest titled “STOP RAILROADING OF SHEIKH OMAR ABDEL RAHMAN - PROTEST US POLICIES AGAINST ISLAM.” The Rally was to take place on June 20, 1997 in front of the US Bureau of Prisons in Washington DC.
An FBI affidavit, drafted in support of a warrant for the search of Post Office employee Sattar’s Staten Island apartment, explains that Sattar was the communications hub to and from the imprisoned Abdel-Rahman. The 42-year-old postal worker worked as a paralegal during the blind terrorist’s federal trial for attorneys Lynne Stewart and Stanley Cohen. Sattar was in frequent contact with IG leaders worldwide, including Rifa’i Taha Musa (”Taha”) and WMD Committee member Abdel-Rahman’s son Mohammed.
Al Qaeda continued to seek religious approval from blind sheik Abdel-Rahman for its attacks. The US indictment of the Post Office worker in contact with Mohammed Abdel-Rahman alleged: “On or about June 19, 2000, one of Abdel Rahman’s sons, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, spoke by telephone with SATTAR and asked SATTAR to convey to Abdel Rahman the fierceness of the debate within the Islamic Group about the initiative, and said that “even if the other side is right,” SATTAR should tell Abdel Rahman to calm the situation by supporting “the general line of the Group.” The indictment of the US Post Office worker Sattar further alleges: “On or about June 20, 2000, SATTAR spoke by telephone with Mohammed Abdel Rahman and advised him that a conference call had taken place that morning between Abdel Pahman and some of his attorneys and that Abdel Rahman had issued a new statement containing additional points which made clear, among other things, that Abdel Rahman was not unilaterally ending the initiative, but rather, was withdrawing his support for it and “stating that it was up” to the “brothers” in the Islamic Group now to reconsider the issue.
In December 2001, the blind sheik’s lawyer Montasser Al-Zayat — the fellow in touch with US Post Office employee Sattar who claimed in March 1999 that Zawahiri was going to use weaponized anthrax against US targets — claimed that Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, 29, had died from wounds received during the bombardment of the Tora Bora caves in eastern Afghanistan. He said his information came from an Islamic activist in London. The report was false. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman was arrested in mid-February 2003 and Ali Al-Timimi’s townhouse was searched two week later.
The FBI feels that they are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. They are criticized for making arrests too soon — other times they are criticized for not acting sooner. They are criticized when they don’t give out any information. They are criticized when they do. All the while, the public is seldom well-positioned to second-guess the issue and commenators like Ed and TrebleRebel remain willfully ignorant of the steps the FBI has taken to neutralize the anthrax threat.
“Summons to Conquest”
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J751cTFWVM
“Do I look like I’m negotiating?”
— George Clooney in “Michael Clayton”
It would be legitimate to reproduce simulants of what an adversary has developed - in order to test defenses against any new advance in technology.
So, you're saying that the international ban on developing bioweapons doesn't ban a country from developing bioweapons if that country does it in secret and does it because someone believes that some other country is developing bioweapons in secret?
That's an interesting interpretation. It seems like something that can be checked.
No, I’m not saying that.
I’m saying it would be legitimate to reproduce what a defector has revealed were the specifications of an adversary’s latest BW. That would essential to ensure that counter-measures are effective. In some cases it might even be legtimate to make not just simulants of the new technology but actual small quantities of the real stuff.
Going beyond that and making even more sophsticated powders may be illegal under the treaty.
As usual, you just pick things you can twist to support your beliefs. Geisbert dipped the spores in chemicals to kill them. Then he put them under a Transmission Electron Microscope. And when he turned the power up, he saw some mysterious "goop" ooze out of the spores. He didn't realize that the "goop" was the chemicals he just used to kill the spores, and heating the chemicals with an intense electron beam caused them to expand and ooze out of the spores.
This is all described in detail in Chapter 15 of my book.
When Geisbert killed the spores with radiation, he didn't get that effect. Why would that be? All he saw was "pure spores."
If an anthrax spore was an orange,then these particles of glass would be grains of sand clinging to the orange.
That statement is not from Geisbert. It is from the author of "The Demon In The Freezer," and his interpretation of what Geisbert believed at that point in time. BTW, that author, Richard Preston, highly recommends my book.
Ed,
1, I wrote that. It seems like it might be something that you could have checked before you made your comment yesterday attributing a point of view to Dr. Rebel that is totally at odds with the one he has expressed.
2. Dany Shoham and Stuart Jacobsen explain: “The likely operational involvement of al-Qaida has thereupon been indicated as well, implying, naturally that elements in Saudi Arabia, the cradle of al-Qaeda.” But then rather than taking 15 baby steps down the hall of academia to the leading anthrax scientist and former deputy commander, Jacobsen takes a wild fantastic and baseless leap to Dr. Wouter Basson, described as a “masterly South African scientist who had strong bonds within the Arab world and beyond.” What speculative crock! Given that someone who was working closely with the “911 imam” shared a fax with the leading anthrax scientist and former deputy commander — when is Jacobsen going to grow some balls and face up to the obvious calculated infiltration that occurred. Dany is former Israeli intelligence. Dr. J is just along for the ride on an intelligence analysis that has no connection to the supporting evidence. Rather than solid factual evidence such as “USAMRIID shipped Battelle Ames in May/June of 2001” — or “the GMU researchers were supplied Delta Ames by NIH as part of the contract with USAMRIID (and the Daschle anthrax revealed an inverted plasmid)” — we are treated to such speculation as “[Basson] could have handed over the Ames strain to the Iraqis.”
The authors say that Al Qaeda “itself could be the intermediary (and the perpetrator, but not the [weaponized anthrax] producer).” Right off, the authors have overlooked the possibility that the weaponized anthrax was just stolen from a US program, let alone the possibility that the know-how was stolen and then executed by people with far more experience in making powders from organic materials than do the authors. If it was stolen, that would serve as an additional reasono as to why there was no follow-up.
I like both the authors. But this is not the time to allow folks to be comfortable and go unchallenged just because they feel comfortable in their settled views — wearing them like a pair of old, worn smelly slippers.
TrebleRebel,
Ed assumed Hatfill had government approval for his alleged white nationalist activity (weapons training).
Ed writes in a thread he started that he titled “Steven J. Hatfill and The Clueless Media”:
“The CRAP about “a man like Dr. Hatfill who had served in the armed forces
of two white racist governments” is what REALLY bothers me. According to
Hatfill’s resume, between June of 1975 and March of 1978 Hatfill was with
BOTH the United States Army Institute for Military Assistance AND the SAS
in Rhodesia. To me that says that Hatfill was in the U.S. Army and was
assigned to the SAS in Rhodesia as some kind of advisor or observer or
consultant.”
Plus, and correct me if I’m wrong on this, but as I recall from reading
history books about The Flying Tigers and The American Eagles with the RAF
during World War II, an American cannot serve in the armed forces of
another government without losing his U.S. citizenship - - UNLESS he has
U.S. Government approval.
Ed “
Hatfill never was in the US Army as Ed imagined. The media writing on the subject was steeped in sources from South Africa on this precise issue. It was Ed who lacked solid information.
When Geisbert killed the spores with radiation, he didn’t get that effect. Why would that be? All he saw was “pure spores.”
Not true - go back and read the book. He saw the fried egg gunk on these spores also.
Maybe you should put your energies into finding out why Beecher failed to provide his data - after all, it was quite a simple request. Publish SEM and EDX data of the attack spores demonstrating the complete absence of additives. He claimed there are no addtives - and, as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
One of the authors of "Microbial Forensics" explained why they created some of those "ridiculous" coated spores:
... it is important to recognize that would-be bio-terrorists are likely to utilize information from a broader range of sources, including open scientific literature, the internet, underground “cookbooks”, and information that has, unfortunately, been divulged to the news media in recent years. There is no necessary presumption that this information is always accurate or leads to an effective biological weapon. But only by collecting and organizing this information (and keeping it up-to-date) can we hope to recognize the recipe used to make an agent in the widest variety of possible incidents.
Two of the examples provided look like this:
The image on the left now looks like they might possibly be spores "weaponized" via the Dugway method. The image on the right, however, still seems to be a ridiculous way to "weaponize" spores. In both cases, the key would be the method used to get the silica to stick to the spores. If it was some kind of "glue," the effectiveness of such spores as a bioweapon would still be highly questionable.
But Ken Alibek's formula did NOT coat spores. So, coating spores would have nothing to do with Alibek's weapon. It's only in YOUR screwball fantasies that he glued silica onto spores with some kind of organic resin glue.
And what about your other screwball fantasy where silica was glued to spores using "polymerized glass?" Alibek's formula didn't use "polymerized glass" in any way. How do you rationalize that it would be okay to develop that kind of bioweapon without breaking the treaty?
And you never seem to answer the question: If AFIP didn't detect any "polymerized glass," and Gary Matsumoto claims there was "polymerized glass" in the Daschle anthrax, who screwed up?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.