OK Ed - you're the man.
Posted on 08/29/2008 7:25:37 AM PDT by Prunetacos
When Norm Covert, a conservative former Fort Detrick public affairs officer, and attorney Barry Kissin, liberal activist opposing Detrick's biolab expansion, agree that Bruce Ivins was not the anthrax killer, either the world's spinning off its axis, or the truth is staring us so hard in the face we'd have to be blind to miss it. Covert's piece this week in thetentacle.com establishes what many in our community, including scientists and support staff at USAMRIID, past and present, know: Bruce Ivins had nothing to do with preparing or sending the anthrax letters. --
(Excerpt) Read more at fredericknewspost.com ...
What about the “schism” that developed amongst scientists familiar with the Daschle-Leahy anthrax samples? Well, Matsumoto is an establishment journalist, which means that he is not permitted to think aloud in public. So he is careful to separate the John Ashcroft designation of Steven Hatfill in August 2002 as a “person of interest” from what follows way below in the article, and careful not to integrate the two facts into a coherent narrative, but to his full credit he does all that he can with a picture that is worth a thousand words. Hatfill is grimacing in fury, not the furtive guilt of a trapped perpetrator:
About-face
By the fall of 2002, the awe-inspiring anthrax of the previous spring had morphed into something decidedly less fearsome. According to sources on Capitol Hill, FBI scientists now reported that there was “no additive” in the Senate anthrax at all. Alibek said he examined electron micrographs of the anthrax spores sent to Senator Daschle and saw no silica. “But I couldn’t be absolutely sure,” Alibek says, “because I only saw three to five of these electron micrographs.” Even the astonishingly uniform particle size of 1.5 to 3 micrometers, mentioned in 2001 by Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), now included whopping 100-micrometer agglomerates, according to the new FBI description recounted by Capitol Hill aides. The reversal was so extreme that the former chief biological weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission, Richard Spertzel, found it hard to accept. “No silica, big particles, manual milling,” he says: “That’s what they’re saying now, and that radically contradicts everything we were told during the first year of this investigation.”
Glassy finish
More revealing than the electrostatic charge, some experts say, was a technique used to anchor silica nanoparticles to the surface of spores. About a year and a half ago, a laboratory analyzing the Senate anthrax spores for the FBI reported the discovery of what appeared to be a chemical additive that improved the bond between the silica and the spores. U.S. intelligence officers informed foreign biodefense officials that this additive was “polymerized glass.” The officials who received this briefing—biowarfare specialists who work for the governments of two NATO countries—said they had never heard of polymerized glass before. This was not surprising. “Coupling agents” such as polymerized glass are not part of the usual tool kit of scientists and engineers making powders designed for human inhalation. Also known as “sol gel” or “spin-on-glass,” polymerized glass is “a silane or siloxane compound that’s been dissolved in an alcohol-based solvent like ethanol,” says Jacobsen. It leaves a thin glassy coating that helps bind the silica to particle surfaces.
“it contained an additive that affected the spore’s electrical charges “
“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 same incident in October 2001; that scientist described the anthrax spore as uncoated but said that 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]).
“it contained an additive that affected the spore’s electrical charges “
“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 same incident in October 2001; that scientist described the anthrax spore as uncoated but said that 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]).”
‘uncoated but said that it contained an additive that affected the spore’s electrical charges ‘
The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at the Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases
“Richard Spertzel, UNSCOM’s biological weapons chief from 1994-199, had described an exquisitely weaponized anthrax contained in the letters to Senators Leahy and Daschle that “far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program.” These included anthrax spores of 1.5-3.0 microns necessary to make a pure spore mix, a polyglass that tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle (to prevent clumping) and a weak electrical charge to optimize dispersion by means of repulsion with no other propellant required. Spertzel concluded:
The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at the Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparation, not powdered products.”
FBI Frame-up of Bruce E. Ivins Made Simple
On Wednesday, August 8, 2008, the Department of Justice held a news conference announcing that Bruce E. Ivins, a former anthrax researcher for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), was the sole person responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks. Headed by U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor and FBI Assistant Director Joseph Persichini, the presentation was noteworthy for often not answering relevant questions, but instead referring reporters to several dozen court documents they had just been provided. After hurriedly reading one of these documents I decided to hedge my strong conclusion in an essay that the FBI had persecuted and framed Ivins in order to protect the actual perpetrators until determining enough facts to decide the matter. I stated, “The most important question is whether Ivins was provided with fully weaponized cutting-edge anthrax that he could use by merely drying it out as the FBI case requires. If not, then the cover-up explodes in the face of the FBI.” See “911 Plotters Bury the Evidence of Anthrax as their Follow-up Punch” http://tinyurl.com/694avu And, indeed, the cover-up had exploded in the face of the FBI and DOJ.
Richard Spertzel, UNSCOM’s biological weapons chief from 1994-199, had described an exquisitely weaponized anthrax contained in the letters to Senators Leahy and Daschle that “far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program.” These included anthrax spores of 1.5-3.0 microns necessary to make a pure spore mix, a polyglass that tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle (to prevent clumping) and a weak electrical charge to optimize dispersion by means of repulsion with no other propellant required.
Spertzel concluded:
The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at the Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparation, not powdered products.
Furthermore, the FBI spent 12-18 months trying to “reverse engineer” the Daschle-Leahy anthrax without success. The FBI case against Ivins gives him 7½ hours in the evening over the course of three days to prepare his first concoction sent in letters postmarked September 18, 2001 and roughly 15½ hours over eight days to prepare the Senate anthrax letters postmarked October 9, 2001. But after reading the first DOJ document, that was suggestive and not apparently made from whole cloth, I was seized by the possibility that the FBI might have been concealing that Ivins had been working with fully weaponized anthrax in order to disguise a violation of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory, hence the hedge in my essay (made on the final day of OPEDNEWS window for editing one’s essays.)
Direct inspection of the BTWC rules out that concern. Apparently what matters is in the heart or mind: one can make fully weaponized materials so long as the purpose in doing so is in some part defensive or prophylactic, as was Ivins’s purpose in testing the efficacy of anthrax vaccines.
The question is thus whether Ivins was working with fully weaponized materials. The answer is that he was not.
Neither the DOJ oral presentation, nor anything in any of its documents states or implies this during a public presentation whose purpose was to convince the American public that the FBI “got the right man” this time. They cannot even bring themselves to say that the spores in Ivins’s possession were of the same consistent tiny size of 1.5-3.0 microns that made them so deadly — something they would surely say were it so.
In fact, the topic is sedulously avoided even though — or precisely because — it is essential to making the case against Ivins. Better, Jeffrey Taylor, who seemed to have a weak grasp of the evidence, in his opening remarks gave away the fact that the anthrax in the letters did not come directly from the flask with the sample of spores “RMR-1029” that Ivins monitored and that were reportedly a genetic match to the anthrax that killed its victims. Mr. Taylor advised:
As the court documents allege, the parent material of the anthrax spores used in the attacks was a single flask of spores, known as “RMR-1029,” that was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins at USAMRIID. This means that the spores used in the attacks were taken from that specific flask, regrown, purified, dried and loaded into the letters.
If there is a png list for anthrax or bio weapons please put me on there
FBI Frame-up of Bruce E. Ivins Made Simple
On Wednesday, August 8, 2008, the Department of Justice held a news conference announcing that Bruce E. Ivins, a former anthrax researcher for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), was the sole person responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks. Headed by U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor and FBI Assistant Director Joseph Persichini, the presentation was noteworthy for often not answering relevant questions, but instead referring reporters to several dozen court documents they had just been provided. After hurriedly reading one of these documents I decided to hedge my strong conclusion in an essay that the FBI had persecuted and framed Ivins in order to protect the actual perpetrators until determining enough facts to decide the matter.
I stated, “The most important question is whether Ivins was provided with fully weaponized cutting-edge anthrax that he could use by merely drying it out as the FBI case requires. If not, then the cover-up explodes in the face of the FBI.” See “911 Plotters Bury the Evidence of Anthrax as their Follow-up Punch” http://tinyurl.com/694avu And, indeed, the cover-up had exploded in the face of the FBI and DOJ.
Richard Spertzel, UNSCOM’s biological weapons chief from 1994-199, had described an exquisitely weaponized anthrax contained in the letters to Senators Leahy and Daschle that “far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program.” These included anthrax spores of 1.5-3.0 microns necessary to make a pure spore mix, a polyglass that tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle (to prevent clumping) and a weak electrical charge to optimize dispersion by means of repulsion with no other propellant required. Spertzel concluded:
The multiple disciplines and technologies required to make the anthrax in this case do not exist at the Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Inhalation studies are conducted at the institute, but they are done using liquid preparation, not powdered products.
Furthermore, the FBI spent 12-18 months trying to “reverse engineer” the Daschle-Leahy anthrax without success. The FBI case against Ivins gives him 7½ hours in the evening over the course of three days to prepare his first concoction sent in letters postmarked September 18, 2001 and roughly 15½ hours over eight days to prepare the Senate anthrax letters postmarked October 9, 2001. But after reading the first DOJ document, that was suggestive and not apparently made from whole cloth, I was seized by the possibility that the FBI might have been concealing that Ivins had been working with fully weaponized anthrax in order to disguise a violation of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory, hence the hedge in my essay (made on the final day of OPEDNEWS window for editing one’s essays.)
Direct inspection of the BTWC rules out that concern. Apparently what matters is in the heart or mind: one can make fully weaponized materials so long as the purpose in doing so is in some part defensive or prophylactic, as was Ivins’s purpose in testing the efficacy of anthrax vaccines.
The question is thus whether Ivins was working with fully weaponized materials. The answer is that he was not.
Neither the DOJ oral presentation, nor anything in any of its documents states or implies this during a public presentation whose purpose was to convince the American public that the FBI “got the right man” this time. They cannot even bring themselves to say that the spores in Ivins’s possession were of the same consistent tiny size of 1.5-3.0 microns that made them so deadly — something they would surely say were it so.
In fact, the topic is sedulously avoided even though — or precisely because — it is essential to making the case against Ivins. Better, Jeffrey Taylor, who seemed to have a weak grasp of the evidence, in his opening remarks gave away the fact that the anthrax in the letters did not come directly from the flask with the sample of spores “RMR-1029” that Ivins monitored and that were reportedly a genetic match to the anthrax that killed its victims. Mr. Taylor advised:
As the court documents allege, the parent material of the anthrax spores used in the attacks was a single flask of spores, known as “RMR-1029,” that was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins at USAMRIID. This means that the spores used in the attacks were taken from that specific flask, regrown, purified, dried and loaded into the letters.
The FBI’s reputation is greatly inflated by its own PR staff.
Always has been always will be.
I have a little ping list I use for anthrax, viruses and tainted blood. I can add you to that. Shermy has a more reliable one for anthrax though.
Ping me for ANTHRAX please.
Oh, yeah? Some anonymous person "confirms" something that NAMED Scientists from Sandia, the FBI and elsewhere say is nonsense, and we're supposed to believe an anonymous scientist? Why? What you are saying has NOTHING to do with the attack anthrax. You just believe it does.
It's a process for growing bacteria. You believe it will result in silicon being left behind inside the spores. But there is NO EVIDENCE to support that belief. And there's nothing in the process that says that would happen.
But it is not impossible for you to be right. And that's what you rely upon. No one can prove you are wrong. Even if experiments were done that showed you to be wrong, you could still claim that the attack anthrax wasn't done that way, and no one could prove you wrong.
I cannot prove that aliens from outer space didn't send the anthrax letters, but that doesn't make it likely or probable or even believable.
It's a waste of time arguing screwball beliefs when we have so many SOLID FACTS to discuss and evaluate.
Do you think that posting nonsense over and over will somehow turn nonsense into facts?
The attack anthrax was NOT coated with silica. There was no "additive" in the attack anthrax. We have pictures of the attack anthrax. We have testimony from NAMED scientists who have EXAMINED the attack anthrax in every imaginable way. Scientific papers have identified how silicon gets into spores. More scientific papers will be released to show exactly where the silicon was located in the attack anthrax and how it has NOTHING to do with weaponization.
There was NO silica or silicon on the outer surfaces of the attack spores. What you are posting is NONSENSE from a conspiracy theorist. His NONSENSE has been shown to be NONSENSE. It was known to be NONSENSE long ago, since it was based upon BAD SCIENCE.
I've really got better things to do than to argue with people who post information from OLD articles that have been PROVEN to be WRONG and even STUPIDLY WRONG.
However, I also realize that no facts will convince a True Believer, so I'm not even going to bother trying. Like I said, I have better things to do. The facts are on my web site. They can be viewed there.
Ed, to the contrary, the WMD head did not confirm it was nonsense. Instead, the WMD said (see transcript above) that the silicon dioxide could have been in the culture medium. Indeed, they offer no other explanation.
I have sent you peer reviewed studies, SEMs, and correspondence with the head of the military lab that has aerosolized anthrax with and without siliconizing solution. I have explained that the silicon spike appears with the siliconizating solution but not without it. The simulant, with or without it, floats like a bumble bee and stings like a bee. You have no training in microbiology and so apparently just don’t understand what the head of the biodefense lab has explained. So you just resort to your usual “moon landing” hoax schtick. When instead the proper approach is for you to contact a scientist who has aerosolized anthrax with and without siliconizing solution, who has measured silicon, and then quote their opinion. Dr. M at Sandia expressly noted he had no knowledge of biological processes. He was just saying it was done in the way that Dugway has historically done it — which it provably wasn’t. If Dugway had already done it, it would not have been patentable. Both the FBI and my consulting expert have suggested you don’t appreciate that there are somethings that it is against sound policy to talk further about.
Dr. Michael is merely pointing to the location of the silica. My expert says you misunderstand the relative unimportance of the exosporium in this context.
Your overall mistake in analysis is the same you made when you argued it was a 95% certainty a First Grader wrote the letters.
Ed, now that you agree your general theory of a conspiracy between the processor and Ames acquirer is “overwhelmingly” weaker (your term) than an Ivins Theory, could you clarify whether you still think a First Grader wrote the letters? Did he wear gloves when addressing the envelopes?
I am going to a family gathering on a glorious sunny day and so it won’t be until tonight until I follow-up.
OK Ed - you're the man.
STUPIDLY WRONG?
Should we all go jump in a Lake?
First grader's handwriting
Yup. I see the similarities
Added.
If you were even remotely interested in looking at facts instead of just voicing your opinions, you could try locating examples of Bruce Ivins' handwriting.
My analysis of the handwriting on the anthrax letters indicates that the date on the media letter was written by a different person than the rest of the writing on the letters and envelopes. And that person would almost certainly be the anthrax mailer.
Here's some information about that:
Note that the person who wrote the date left a zero open at the top, while the person who wrote the rest of the writings NEVER did that, and he even had a habit of going past the joining point when writing small o's.
Note, also, that the person who wrote the date draws a much longer line across the bottom of his 1's than the person who did the rest of the writings.
While it wouldn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other, seeing how Bruce Ivins wrote zeros, ones and nines could be interesting.
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.