Posted on 04/24/2002 8:51:24 PM PDT by knak
Physicist’s Theory Differs From Mainstream View
The United States government may still believe that whoever perpetrated the anthrax attacks last year is an American, but a UC Berkeley scientist vehemently disagrees.
Physics professor Richard Muller believes that the real culprit is none other than Al Qaeda. His ideas were published in the April 16 issue of MIT's Technology Review.
White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said in a press briefing on Feb. 25 that that it appears that the anthrax mailings were not a foreign scheme.
"All indications are that the source of the anthrax is domestic," he said.
But according to Muller, the letter attacks follow a scenario set up by the previous airplane hijackings—break no laws, play it safe.
"The scenario is that these people have learned that if they try to do something complicated to the United States…they get caught," said Muller. "Then the FBI is going to infiltrate (them). They try to do things that are absolutely safe."
"When the anthrax hit, a week later, it was exactly in that scenario. This was just what we would expect from Al Qaeda. But it only killed four people. So people say, well, therefore it couldn't be Al Qaeda."
According to Muller, it is wrong when success—in this case a high death toll—becomes equated with intent.
"But (the attacks) failed. That's what people don't appreciate," Muller said. "They had a million lethal doses in these envelopes and they killed four people, total. Bin Laden isn't going to take credit for a failed attack."
"There was every reason for them to expect that the anthrax would kill thousands, because the information on how you spread anthrax is not widely available. What was widely available is the fact that a millionth of a gram is a lethal dose."
Reportedly, two grams of anthrax was in the letter sent to Sen. Patrick Leahy.
Muller asserted that even terrorists are not experts, and the greatest mistake they made during their quest to commit mass murder was believing everything they read.
A Sept. 1 study posted on the Internet by the Defence Research Establishment Suffield in Alberta, Canada suggested that envelope-borne anthrax spores could be aerosolized very effectively by the simple act of opening mail.
According to Muller, the study probably piqued the terrorists' interest, but, for a variety of reasons, most likely did not reflect the behavior of anthrax spores in the real world.
The question that remains is how a million spores did not kill at least hundreds of targeted U.S. leaders and media personalities.
According to UC Berkeley plant and microbial biology professor Antje Hofmeister, if Al Qaeda was the culprit, their dispersal method may have been the plan's fatal flaw.
To obtain a biologically effective anthrax, the spores need to be of a very narrow size range, she said.
"It's really, really challenging to get the right size," Hofmeister said.
The method of delivery could have caused sticking or other side-effects that could have altered its expected lethality, Hofmeister said.
Due to mostly circumstantial evidence in favor of it, Muller said that his opinion is shared by a scant few.
However, his argument may be gaining support from others.
An article published Monday in the political journal The Weekly Standard supports Muller's views, and carefully rebuts the government arguments.
David Tell, the author of the article, who is also the opinion editor of The Weekly Standard, remains just as skeptical as Muller.
"I've never been especially impressed by the FBI's apparent reasons for thinking it is a lone American," he said.
However, I'm still intrigued by a primary point in the article now. That is: Why send so much weaponized anthrax as a warning? Recall the amount and the number it could kill. Reasonably expected dispersal (based on published yet flawed information) did not occur. Don't you think it is possible that more of this stuff was intended to get in the air?
I suppose the quantity could have been used to demonstrate that they can produce enough to kill a lot of people, and get it into the country at the same time. If it is obvious to the experts that a real delivery method could be employed, then the warning shot would carry more weight. Recall the extremely grave concern demonstrated by various government officials around that time, while only issuing vague warnings?
Remember the planes flying over boats in FL and spraying substances, as well as some of the other "false alarms" that never had an explanation? Is there still a missing crop duster out there? Perhaps we were sent a two part warning. First part: They have the anthrax. Second part: They have the ability to spread it in a more effective manner.
If that is the case, then those events were equivalent to detonating a "test" nuke to demonstrate that one has the ability to use it, while also lauching a "test" missile to demonstrate that one has the ability to deliver it. In essence, Sadam may have not so subtley told us that he has WMD and has the means, as well as the will, to use them.
It's possible that they may have hoped to kill a few more to convince us that they mean business, but that couldn't have been too important to them, since the letters contained specific warnings (mentioning penicillin and anthrax).
I suppose the quantity could have been used to demonstrate that they can produce enough to kill a lot of people, and get it into the country at the same time. If it is obvious to the experts that a real delivery method could be employed, then the warning shot would carry more weight.
Yes, this is how I interpret it. We have to figure that if they can afford to waste this much high-quality anthrax in the U.S. just on a warning, they must have a lot more here that they could use in a real attack. Is this a bluff? Perhaps, but probably not, and we can't take that chance.
Also, the anthrax is said to be of a higher grade of weaponization that anybody else has produced in the past. This says something about the military efficacy of their biological weapons program. They needed to include a large enough sample in the envelope that we could test it in the lab and easily see the high degree of weaponization.
Remember the planes flying over boats in FL and spraying substances, as well as some of the other "false alarms" that never had an explanation? Is there still a missing crop duster out there? Perhaps we were sent a two part warning. First part: They have the anthrax. Second part: They have the ability to spread it in a more effective manner.
I have no idea whether any of those things are related or not. As far as I know, there's still a missing State Dept. cropduster, but it could well have simply been lost over the ocean when flying back from, say, the drug war in Colombia.
But it doesn't matter. They can get cropdusters if they want to; that can't be stopped. And there are other dispersal methods more suited to indoor contamination.
If that is the case, then those events were equivalent to detonating a "test" nuke to demonstrate that one has the ability to use it, while also lauching a "test" missile to demonstrate that one has the ability to deliver it. In essence, Sadam may have not so subtley told us that he has WMD and has the means, as well as the will, to use them.
Yes, this is exactly the point. It's like conducting a nuclear test for the express purpose of demonstrating to the other side that you have a working deterrent. In the case of anthrax, there are several components to this, all of which have been demonstrated: they have high-quality weaponized anthrax in large quantities, they are able to transport it to the U.S. (or make it here?), they have agents in the U.S., and they are willing to carry through on the threat. The clear connection with 9/11 also makes it obvious that they are brazenly willing to attack our civilian population indiscriminately.
Sorry -- I didn't mean to pick on your words. I just wanted to keep track of the larger, very long-term picture.
We haven't seen that yet.
Let's pray we never do.
That's the biggest problem I have with Iraq being the guilty party. Their Scud missiles were not very effective in the Gulf War (Iraq did very poorly in the Gulf War in general), and the Iraq-Iran war was essentially a stalemate. Has Iraq improved its military effectiveness that much? Or are we looking at somebody else, in fact? (Maybe Pakistani scientists have contributed significantly?)
This is the real possibility
for a suitcase bomb
not the nuclear one
that everyone talks about so much.
I didn't mean that Scud missiles would be the delivery method used. What bothers me is that Iraq really hasn't been very technically adept in the past, nor has it been particularly competent militarily. Saddam Hussein is full of bluster, he takes calculated chances, and he's certainly a cruel dictator, but he wasn't even able to put up a fight in the Gulf War, in spite of all his talk. The Scud missiles were just an example of technical/military incompetence. Iran fought Iraq to a stalemate (in spite of Iraq's WMD program).
I think one can only characterize much of Saddam Hussein's actions as bumbling (dangerous, but bumbling). What has changed that he is suddenly able to develop an extremely high-quality biological weapon? (It also seems as if he may have figured out how to parlay his possession of it to both military and political advantage, but only time will tell on this.)
This makes me wonder if perhaps it's not Iraq after all. Maybe it's a country with a more competent scientific establishment (Pakistan? China? Maybe even Cuba?) Or maybe it's a coalition, with perhaps Iraq providing the political leadership and perhaps Pakistanis providing the scientific and technological development, or something like that?
Maybe I'm simply underestimating Iraq here. They were close enough to a nuclear weapon for Israel to destroy the Iraqi nuclear facilities, after all.
Well, I'm just musing here. It's hard to know what to make of all this.
Maybe it came from the moon.
The lettering was D- grade draftsmans lettering to my eyes.
The problem is life scientists generally don't take drafting. Engineers did. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a draftsman in america anymore. They all use computers.
Sorry, I was being slightly sarcastic, as is my wont.
I was responding to your reasons against believing
that Iraq could have produced such a high grade anthrax.
I agree with you totally.
But as I go through the list of possible sources,
I can think of strong reasons why each of the others, also
could not be the source.
(No point listing all these reasons.)
So I guess we still are left with Iraq as chief suspect,
with Pakistan second on the list.
But, as I indicated, if the anthrax came from (ISI?) in Pakistan,
you would think they also would have provided it
to their comrades in arms next door in Afghanistan.
I hope this is clear now.
What are the arguments against Iran? Iran has been heavily involved in supporting Palestinian terrorism. The Iranians have made very aggressive statements as of late. And the messages in the anthrax letters reads just like a typical chant in a demonstration in Iran.
And what about China? What is known about the Chinese biological weapons program? China stands to benefit more than anyone else from a protracted war between the West and the Muslim world.
On the Batchelor Alexander program on WABC tonight
(a great program, by the way, covering the war
every weekday night from 10pm to 1am
saturdays 9pm to 1 am EDT)
there was a section on anthrax,
in which the following statement was made:
"Spertzel has told congress
that Iraq has conducted military exercises
simulating the dispersal
of anthrax spores
from crop-dusting aircraft."
And they usually know what the heck they're talking about.
March 1, 2002 Friday
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
U.S. SENATOR DANIEL AKAKA (D-HI) HOLDS HEARING ON IRAQ
SPEAKER:
U.S. SENATOR DANIEL AKAKA (D-HI), CHAIRMAN
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.
WITNESSES:
ROBERT EINHORN, SENIOR ADVISER, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
DAVID KAY, VICE PRESIDENT, SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, CORPORATION
RICHARD SPERTZEL, FORMER HEAD OF U.N. SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BIOLOGICAL, WEAPONS INSPECTIONS AND FORMER DEPUTY COMMANDER, USAMRID
(snip)AKAKA: Dr. Einhorn, Mr. Einhorn, there have been reports about Iraq developing an unmanned aerial vehicle program. How concerned should we be at this time about this program especially as it relates to biological or chemical weapon agent delivery?
EINHORN: Mr. Chairman, I think we should be concerned. We're aware that the Iraqis have taken trainer aircraft and sought to adapt it for unmanned use. I believe they've had special modified spray tanks that they've tried to hook up to such a vehicle, and the assumption is that this is for delivery of chemical or biological weapons. I think we ought to be concerned about that program.
SPERTZEL: Could I comment on that, sir?
AKAKA: Dr. Spertzel?
SPERTZEL: I'd like to add that of course Iraq had such a program which they claimed was for bio, but which it appears was actually for bio and chemical delivery both, and that was with converting a MIG to an unmanned vehicle.
The continuation with the trainer that was mentioned just a few minutes ago involved the same Iraqi experts, engineering experts, as those involved in adapting both the drop tank, as well as attempts to modify a MIG fighter to be an unmanned.
So, absolutely, there is major reasons for being concerned about the development of such a weapons delivery system.
AKAKA: At this time, I'd like to call on Senator Thompson for his questions.
(snip)
But I read in an article a while back that papers were found in Kabul about converting a pesticide into a nerve gas with the addition of ingredients. I thought this might have been what they were thinking when they scoped out the crop-dusters.
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.