Riddle of the spores, The FBI and Anthrax

counterpunch ^ | 5/20/02

[knak]

Why Has the FBI Investigation into the Anthrax Attacks Stalled? The Evidence Points One Way

by George Monbiot

The more a government emphasizes its commitment to defense, the less it seems to care about the survival of its people. Perhaps it is because its attention may be focused on more distant prospects: the establishment and maintenance of empire, for example, or the dynastic succession of its leaders. Whatever the explanation for the neglect of their security may be, the people of America have discovered that casual is the precursor of casualty.

But while we should be asking what George Bush and his cabinet knew and failed to respond to before September 11, we should also be exploring another, related, question: what do they know now and yet still refuse to act upon? Another way of asking the question is this: whatever happened to the anthrax investigation?

After five letters containing anthrax spores had been posted, in the autumn, to addresses in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation promised that it would examine "every bit of information [and] every bit of evidence". But now the investigation appears to have stalled. Microbiologists in the US are beginning to wonder aloud whether the FBI's problem is not that it knows too little, but that it knows too much.

Reducing the number of suspects would not, one might have imagined, have been too much to ask of the biggest domestic detective agency on earth. While some of the anthrax the terrorist sent was spoiled during delivery, one sample appears to have come through intact. The letter received by Senator Tom Daschle contained one trillion anthrax spores per gram: a concentration which only a very few US government scientists, using a secret and strictly controlled technique, know how to achieve. It must, moreover, have been developed in a professional laboratory, containing rare and sophisticated "weaponization" equipment. There is only a tiny number of facilities--all of them in the US--in which it could have been produced.

The anthrax the terrorist sent belongs to the "Ames" strain of the bacterium, which was extracted from an infected cow in Texas in 1981. In December, the Washington Post reported that genetic tests showed that the variety used by the terrorist was a sub-strain cultivated by scientists at the US army's medical research institute for infectious diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland. That finding was publicly confirmed two weeks ago, when the test results were published in the journal Science. New Scientist magazine notes that the anthrax the terrorist used appears to have emerged from Fort Detrick only recently, as the researchers found that samples which have been separated from each other for three years acquire "substantial genetic differences".

The Ames strain was distributed by USAMRIID to around 20 other laboratories in the US. Of these, according to research conducted by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, who runs the Federation of American Scientists' biological weapons monitoring program, only four possess the equipment and expertise required for the weaponization of the anthrax sent to Senator Daschle. Three of them are US military laboratories, the fourth is a government contractor. While security in all these places has been lax, the terrorist could not have stolen all the anthrax (around 10 grams) which found its way into the postal system. He must have used the equipment to manufacture it.

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg has produced a profile of the likely perpetrator. He is an American working within the US biodefense industry, with a doctoral degree in the relevant branch of microbiology. He is skilled and experienced at handling the weapon without contaminating his surroundings. He has full security clearance and access to classified information. He is among the tiny number of Americans who had received anthrax vaccinations before September 2001. Only a handful of people fit this description. Rosenberg has told the internet magazine Salon.com that three senior scientists have identified the same man--a former USAMRIID scientist--as the likely suspect. She, and they, have told the FBI, but it seems that all the bureau has done in response is to denounce her.

Instead, it has launched the kind of "investigation" which might have been appropriate for the unwitnessed hit and run killing of a person with no known enemies. Rather than homing in on the likely suspects, in other words, it appears to have cast a net full of holes over the entire population.

In January, three months after the first anthrax attack and at least a month after it knew that the sub-strain used by the attacker came from Fort Detrick, the FBI announced a reward of $2.5m for information leading to his capture. It circulated 500,000 fliers, and sent letters to all 40,000 members of the American Society for Microbiology, asking them whether they knew someone who might have done it.

Yet, while it trawled the empty waters, the bureau failed to cast its hook into the only ponds in which the perpetrator could have been lurking. In February, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the FBI had yet to subpoena the personnel records of the labs which had been working with the Ames strain. Four months after the investigation began, in other words, it had not bothered to find out who had been working in the places from which the anthrax must have come. It was not until March, after Barbara Hatch Rosenberg had released her findings, that the bureau started asking laboratories for samples of their anthrax and the records relating to them.

To date, it appears to have analyzed only those specimens which already happened to be in the hands of its researchers or which had been offered, without compulsion, by laboratories. A fortnight ago, the New York Times reported that "government experts investigating the anthrax strikes are still at sea". The FBI claimed that the problem "is a lack of advisers skilled in the subtleties of germ weapons".

Last week, I phoned the FBI. Why, I asked, when the evidence was so abundant, did the trail appear to have gone cold? "The investigation is continuing," the spokesman replied. "Has it gone cold because it has led you to a government office?" I asked. He put down the phone.

Had he stayed on the line, I would have asked him about a few other offenses the FBI might wish to consider. The army's development of weaponized anthrax, for example, directly contravenes both the biological weapons convention and domestic law. So does its plan to test live microbes in "aerosol chambers" at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, also in Maryland. So does its development of a genetically modified fungus for attacking coca crops in Colombia, and GM bacteria for destroying materials belonging to enemy forces. These, as the research group Project Sunshine has discovered, appear to be just a tiny sample of the illegal offensive biological research programs which the US government has secretly funded. Several prominent scientists have suggested that the FBI's investigation is being pursued with less than the rigor we might have expected because the federal authorities have something to hide.

The FBI has dismissed them as conspiracy theorists. But there is surely a point after which incompetence becomes an insufficient explanation for failure.

George Monbiot is a columnist for the Guardian. Visit his website at: http://www.monbiot.com

[My Identity]

one of the envelopes appears to have gotten wet

I'm now inclined to believe that the anthrax samples in the Daschle and Leahy letters are exactly identical. The early substantive reports suggested they were different, eventually mentioning cluster size. I thought this reasonably meant that they had two different batches on hand. However, the Daschle envelope and letter were wetted. Contact with moisture would cause the otherwise-identical Daschle powder to clump together, and probably pickup cross contamination from the inks, water, paper cellulose, etc. Identical samples would be consistent with the identical messages, addressing, etc. I haven't seen this issue mentioned previously, so any further info is appreciated.

Are there any general descriptions of the US process on the Web? I'm not looking for details, just an overview beyond "secret chemical process". Its hard to judge "who" is capable of "what" if we don't know what the "what" is. (Just trying to tie-up loose ends on the Iraq scenario). I think I read that Canada uses a simple spray drying technique on spores in distilled water.

[My Identity]

As I mentioned above, I'm also torn as to the rationale of FBI "mis-information" on this attack. While I would be comforted by the notion that the FBI is ahead of the curve, I think it just as likely that certain management types, promoted during the 90s, really do believe the RW nut scenario. It may also be that a CYA action is in progess for some as-of-yet unknown reason. Lastly, it also appears Clinton-era management put in place evidence rules and case policies that heavily discount possible foreign intrigues.

[woofie]

Ill tell you what it is worth...0

[keri]

Thanks for the ping.

[mrustow]

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg hoax alert.

This lady has run one of the more successful hoaxes in recent years. Her success derives from all of the people, like this author, who have been willing to repeat her various, ever-changing stories, often by embellishing a little themselves, in order to try and make it seem as if there is independent support for Rosenberg's fantasies. Rosenberg has no information and no sources. She just makes it up as she goes along.

[My Identity]

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg hoax alert

'Hoax' suggests that she knows that she is peddling falsehoods.
I think she really believes what she is saying.

Delusion Alert or Crackpot Alert may be closer to the mark.
LOL

[Mitchell]

I'm now inclined to believe that the anthrax samples in the Daschle and Leahy letters are exactly identical.

I don't think we know whether the Daschle and Leahy anthrax were the same. But it seems that there's evidence that the Florida anthrax was different from the anthrax in the Northeast, based on differences in symptoms. (I've posted this before, so you might have seen it already.)

This is based on differences in symptomatology among the various anthrax mailings. It's too early to say whether these differences are caused by genetic differences in the anthrax, different physical preparation of the powder, or some other differences in the patients or the environment.

There are three differences in symptoms, of which two appear to require further explanation:

1. Compare the long-term symptoms of the people who contracted inhalation anthrax and survived. The postal workers in the Northeast all continue to suffer from symptoms similar to Gulf War Syndrome, while the patient in Florida is back to his old self.
2. Compare the people who contracted anthrax after being exposed directly via letters opened in their place of business (unrecognized by the recipient at the time). In Florida, the only cases were of inhalation anthrax. In New York, the only cases were of cutaneous anthrax. (The Washington letters can't be compared in this way. The Daschle letter was caught upon opening, and everyone was given immediate treatment. The Leahy letter was caught by the authorities before delivery.)

[The third difference appears to be easily explainable: the number of cross-contamination cases and postal worker infections in the Northeast (many inhalation anthrax) vs. none in Florida. But this can probably be explained by the different machines in use in the Trenton post office, which squeezed powder out of the envelopes there and sent it flying.]

Differences 1 and 2 above may not be statistically significant, due to very small sample sizes (especially in Florida); but they are suggestive of a difference.

If I had to guess, I'd say that difference 1 would appear to be due to a genetic difference between the FL anthrax and the anthrax distributed in the Northeast. It could also be due to some other difference (a chemical agent added to the NY and/or DC anthrax, or some other aspect of the physical preparation). (Or maybe it's just due to chance. Perhaps Blanco in FL was unusually hardy. But he's quite old, which makes me doubt that it's just chance in this fashion.)

Difference 2 is strange. The same bacterium causes both inhalation and cutaneous anthrax; the difference is just the site of infection. My first inclination was to say that this difference indicates a difference in physical preparation (after all, the whole point of "weaponization" is to make the particles small enough to lodge in the lungs, as well as to make them free of electrical charge so they'll move around easily) or in delivery method. But the delivery methods were apparently the same. And what kind of physical preparation could prevent cutaneous anthrax cases from arising at AMI? The building was heavily contaminated, after all.

So I'm not sure what to make of difference 2. Maybe it indicates a genetic difference as well? There could be different genetic propensities for the bacteria to do differentially better or worse at different infection sites.

[Mitchell]

That's a good list of points. Here are three more points (not definitive, but of possible interest):

1. One report says that the Iraqi agent al-Ani was observed handing Atta a vacuum bottle (of anthrax?) at their April, 2001, Prague meeting. See this link (look for the word "bottle", about halfway through the web page).
2. In the letters to the New York Post and Tom Brokaw, the letters "A", "T", "T", and "A" are clearly highlighted by going over them several times with a pen (in the words This, Take, Allah, and the first instance of deAth, look at the letters I've capitalized). This looks like it could be a signature by somebody who was proud of his actions but couldn't actually sign the letter. (If one thinks this isn't a signature, what then was the reason for highlighting those letters? The highlighting obviously was done on purpose.)
   
   The hypothetical "signature" is quite clear once it's pointed out:
   
   
3. One should also add that there is no evidence whatsoever for the Greenpeace/Rosenberg theory. That theory is pure speculation, without even circumstantial support. Yes, it's something that could have happened in some possible world, but there is no evidence that even hints that it really did happen.

[My Identity]

I don't think we know whether the Daschle and Leahy anthrax were the same.

I agree..which is why I said "I believe" versus a stronger statement.
The reports mentioning the bio-weapons experts are most interesting to me:

DASCHLE ANTHRAX
William Patrick, bio-weapon microbiologist, described Daschle in Nov '01 as:
- high-grade
- free flowing
- electrostatic free
- highly concentrated (a trillion spores per gram)
- remarkably free of extraneous material
Patrck said he had learned details from a senior federal investigator.

Richard Spertzel, microbiologist, former head of Iraqi inspection teams, on Daschle Anthrax in Nov:
- weapons quality
- fine particles
- readily dispersible

Al Zelicoff, physician, bio-weapons expert, Sandia on Daschle Anthrax in Nov:
- "the keys to the kingdom"

FBI in Nov on Daschle
- "much more refined" than NY media samples
- "more potent" than NY media samples
- "more easily dispersed" than NY media samples

"Federal experts" in May on Daschle:
- nearly pure spores
- single spores (<3µ) predominate, but some clusters up to 40µ wide

Patrick (in May, 2002) on Daschle:
- relatively high grade but not weapons grade
- 7 on a scale of 10
This is remarkably different from his comments in October (above).
Is FBI letting him see all the evidence (unlikely)
or just feeding him an executive summary (likely).

LEAHY ANTHRAX
Per government sources" in April:
- a microscopic fineness not achieved by U.S. bio-weapons experts
- individually coated anthrax spores

Per "government officials" in May:
- smaller range of particle sizes than Daschle
- finer and more uniform than Daschle

I conclude from the published data, that Daschle and Leahy (i.e., samples ;-)
are essentially the same, except for the cluster size of Daschle. That is:
- predominately single spores
- pure spores, therefore little or no debris
- concentrated
- free flowing (electrostatic free)
- Same envelope, same letter, probably assembled at same time

But how to account for the cluster size disparity?
Originally, I believed that two different samples were involved.
But the wetted Daschle letter suggests the anthrax was exposed
to moisture. If so, that would easily account for the clumping.

[My Identity]

I'm skeptical of the A-T-T-A "signature" of letter 3a (Brokaw)



Using the high-res scans from www.anthrax-letters.com:

Line 1:
T in "THIS"	5-6 horiz strokes	Distinct
T in "NEXT	2 horiz strokes	Possible
Line 2:
T in "TAKE"	3-4 horiz strokes	Distinct
A in "PENACILIN"	2 strokes, all	Possible
Line 3:
A in "DEATH"	2 completely distinct letters.	Probable
H in "DEATH"	2 horiz strokes, 2 vert strokes?	Possible
T in "TO"	2 horiz strokes	Possible
Line 4:
T in "TO"	3 horiz strokes	Possible
Line 5:
A in "ALLAH"	2-3 strokes	Distinct
A in "ALLAH"	2 vert strokes, both sides	Possible
T in "GREAT"	Two vert strokes, 3 horiz strokes	Probable

The distinctions as to what to include and discard from
amongst all the "highlighted" characters is too much for me.
Is it possibly Atta's signature? Sure, why not?
But the "signature" seems scrawled to me.

[Mitchell]

Well, it's not definitive, and we'll probably never know. I'll take a look at the high-res scans again, with this in mind. (When I saw this months ago, I was looking at the photos on the FBI web site.)

I do notice, though, that, in your summary descriptions, the letters that I pointed out were also the most "distinct" or most "probable" in your characterization. Plus, I think those letters really look much more emphasized to the eye than the other letters; it's not just the number of strokes, but how the strokes are arranged and how thick they are.

Who knows though? In any event, this is just one of several pieces of circumstantial evidence connecting Atta to the anthrax mailings; I think it's a good bet that he was involved.

[piasa]

For what it's worth, I think TTAAT (which is what the inked letters look like to me) has something to do with being a chromosonal marker or target used in genetics.

[Mitchell]

For what it's worth, I think TTAAT (which is what the inked letters look like to me) has something to do with being a chromosonal marker or target used in genetics.

You're right, it does look like a nucleotide sequence. That hadn't occurred to me. (At one point, I mentioned the idea that, with genetic engineering, a message could be sent in an organism's genetic code. The hypothetical connection with the anthrax letter is new.) Wouldn't it be bizarre if an extra A-T-T-A (or T-T-A-A, which is the actual order in the anthrax letter) had been placed in the anthrax's DNA sequence, in order to demonstrate their genetic engineering prowess?

Yours is the only alternative explanation I've seen for the highlighted A's and T's in the anthrax letter (Atta's "signature" being my original explanation).

But this is presumably all science-fiction speculation, and none of it is at all likely. It is a strange thought, however.

[Shermy]

re: #29

Patrick back on December 3 said there was no static electric charge. See discussion here:

ANTHRAX, HUMAN - USA: PAPER CROSS-CONTAMINATION

So early on he changed his mind. Perhaps the early info was mistaken.

Seems to me that he's the only one, by name, who said there was such a charge at one time - and he wasn't investigating it then.

Note that this Monbiot article implies the detectives are still trying to discover if there was any charge. Mitchell's right, this is the Hatfill line, in retrospect.

[Mitchell]

Based on the wide dispersal throughout the AMI building, I think that the AMI anthrax is likely to have been free of electrostatic charges, as was the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Daschle and Leahy. (The anthrax mailed to the New York media was of lower quality, and I think it may not have been treated to be uncharged.)