* UNCLASSIFIED (FORMERLY SECRET) – Technical Review Panel Meeting Summary, 14 Nov, 2001

******

******

******

******

* Where is the contemporaneous documentary evidence confirming that the seventh batch from Dugway in late 1997 not put into RMR 1029 was in fact autoclaved?

******

******

******

* Dr. Bruce Ivins reported that in Fall 2001 that even USAMRIID Command had no idea that Dugway was working with powdered (virulent) spores

******

******

******

* Doesn’t the detailed report by Dugway by Dan Martin and his co-authors support the view that if Dr. Ivins had processed the anthrax, the process could have been “reversed engineered”?

 

******

******

******

******

******

 

* Dugway Proving Ground … a major U.S. Army resource for bio-defense research and testing … how has Dugway’s budget been impacted by the 2001 anthrax attacks?

the sun sets at the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah

******

see previous posts

* who benefited from the 2001 anthrax attacks? … $50 billion to the biodefense industry … > $6 billion for biodefense research and facilities

* who benefitted from the FBI failure to solve the 2001 anthrax mailings case? … first to benefit … the Bush/Cheney plan to invade Iraq

******

from the Dugway Proving Ground web site …

http://www.dugway.army.mil/index.php/index/content/id/20

Dugway Proving Ground covers 798,214 acres: an area approximately the size of Rhode Island. It is the Army’s largest land mass facility, and thus is an ideal environment to be the Defense Department’s leader in chemical and biological defensive testing, environmental characterization, and remediation technology testing. Such tests evaluate the reliability and survivability of all types of military equipment in a chemical or biological environment.

Life Sciences Division  - Mission

• To design, perform, and report results of biological defense testing in support of the West Desert Test Center (WDTC) mission
• To safely test our warfighters future equipment to the highest standards within cost and schedule.
• Testing is performed in the field with biosimulant aerosol challenge materials.
• In Bio-Safety Level II (BSL2) and Bio-Safety Level III (BSL3) laboratories, respectively, biological simulants and select agents are aerosolized to test detection, decontamination and protection systems.
• Additionally, the division provides materials and a staff of scientists as expert support for testing at Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), as well as biological defense worldwide.

Aerosol Technology Branch – Functions

• Acts as the aerosol center of expertise for Dugway Test Activity, maintaining expertise in the areas of aerobiology, aerosol instrumentation, characterization, dissemination and calibration and aerosol physics.
• Maintains and operates aerosol science laboratories up to Bio-Safety Level III (BSL3), including the Aerosol Characterization Facility, Aerosol Simulant Exposure Chamber and Containment Aerosol Chamber.
• Is responsible for the management and operation of outdoor field trials utilizing biological simulants.
• Prepares test chambers and support equipment for simulant and pathogen aerosol testing. Responsible for the characterization (particle size and concentration) of aerosols utilized for testing to include the operation of test fixtures and aerosol generation and sampling equipment.
• Identifies methodology shortfalls dealing with aerosol issues. Develops and executes methodology investigations to remedy deficiencies.

Bio-Technology Branch – Functions

• Provides expertise in testing and evaluation of biological defense systems and equipment with applications spanning multiple disciplines including microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, metrology, aerosol science, materials science, and environmental science.
• Produces bacteria, fungi, viruses, toxins, agent-like organisms, biological simulates, and environmental interferents for joint CBDP developmental and operational testing and evaluation.
• Operates fully capable Bio Safety Level III (BSL3) laboratories employing personnel certified in Biological Personal Reliability Program and Special Immunization Program.
• Conducts rigorous qualitative and quantitative analysis of biological test materials from government and civilian programs utilizing techniques such as: ELISA, qPCR, RT-PCR, MicroSeq, VNTR, ECL, MIDI, Biolog, API Test Strips, BCA Protein Assay, ProteomeLab PF 2D, GC-MS, HPLC, gradient centrifugation, gel electrophoresis, scanning and transmission electron microscopy, and optical spectrophotometery (FTIR, UV-VIS, fluorescence, and backscatter), as well as practices traditional microbiological, small mammalian, and chemical techniques.
• Designs and implements testing protocols for point- & standoff-detection systems, individual protection and collective protection equipment, decontamination reagents and materials, stability and survivability studies.
• Carries out regular technical readiness evaluations and validation/accreditation studies of acquisition technologies.

******

Carol Ezzell wrote in Nature (1988) …

http://www.foet.org/past/documents/NatureSeptember291988.pdf

• Yielding to pressure from local residents and anti-biotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin, the US army last week announced that it will drop its plans to build a high-containment weapons laboratory at its Dugway Proving Ground in Utah.
• Instead the army intends to construct a less sophisticated facility that would not be suitable for testing the microbes which most worry opponents: genetically engineered microbes and those which cause incurable diseases.
• The army has contended that the tests it plans to conduct at the Dugway facility do not require the highest containment level (biosafety level 4), but that it would prefer to build such a facility in case its needs change, and as an added degree of safety.
• It played down the option of building a lower-containment biosafety level 3 laboratory on these grounds in the environmental impact statement on its biological defence activities. That impact statement was produced as a result of a lawsuit brought by Rifkin in 1985 (see Nature 331, 647; 1988).

******

Leigh Dethman wrote in the Deseret Morning News (5/26/2005) …

• Nobody really knows everything that happens at Dugway Proving Ground.
• The military base in Utah’s west desert where defenses against deadly biological and chemical weapons are tested is a constant target of rumors and speculation.
• But one thing is certain — Dugway’s mission is valuable to the Department of Defense.
• The facility received top rankings from the Pentagon in a report released to the Base Realignment and Closure commission.
• Dugway’s primary mission is to test chemical and biological defense systems. The facility also performs nuclear, biological and chemical survivability testing on defense gear.
• Utah’s congressional delegation believes Dugway’s mission will increase dramatically, but that it will be funded through the Department of Homeland Security.

******

LMW COMMENT …

I have been trying to get Dugway’s budget numbers for bio-defense work in the years since 2001, so far without success. Does anyone have a source for that information?

******

I don’t claim to know who committed the 2001 anthrax attacks.

But I have written a novel which tells a story that many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, say is “quite plausible.”

what do readers say about CASE CLOSED?

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/case-closed-reader-comments/

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

* Dugway Spore Preparations: “Tide’s In… Dirt’s Out!”

.

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

* Dr. Bruce Ivins, upon the poor quality of Dugway spores being produced, and given that he did not trust Battelle to do the spores, thought Southern Research Institute was a possibility

.

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

* Stuart Jacobsen on PROMED … 6 unanswered questions regarding the anthrax attacks

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

.

******

Posted on PROMED by Stuart Jacobsen …

Subject: 6 unanswered questions

******

NOTE: ProMED-mail is a program of the International Society for Infectious Diseases

(1) The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) published a Newsletter in October 2002 in which they stated: “Fort Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,” said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair.  AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. “This was a key component,” Mullick said. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize.” <http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AFIP.html>

In their Newsletter AFIP also included an EDX spectrum of a reference sample of silica titled “Silicon Dioxide (Silica), as it appears
through energy dispersive X-ray analysis”

******

1.1: What was in the AFIP EDX data that allowed them to conclude that silica was a deliberate additive?

1.2: The complete set of EDX spectra and scanning electron microscope pictures for all of the attack powder samples measured by AFIP need to be published in order for independent experts in EDX spectroscopy to assess the validity of AFIP’s conclusion that silica was a deliberate additive.

******

(2) In April 2002 information that an “unusual chemical” had been found coating the attack powders was provided by senior government officials to Newsweek, CNN and the Washington Post. Later on it was revealed by the FBI that this “unusual chemical” was “polymerized glass.”

Source: Newsweek, 8 Apr 2002.
<http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/sophisticatedstrainanthrax.html>
A Sophisticated Strain of Anthrax
By: Mark Hosenball, John Barry and Daniel Klaidman

“Government sources tell Newsweek that the secret new analysis shows anthrax found in a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy was ground to a microscopic fineness not achieved by U.S. biological-weapons experts. The Leahy anthrax – mailed in an envelope that was recovered unopened from a Washington post office last November [2001] — also was coated with a chemical compound unknown to experts who have worked in the field for years; the coating matches no known anthrax samples ever recovered from biological-weapons producers anywhere in the world, including Iraq and the former Soviet Union. The combination of the intense milling of the bacteria and the unusual coating produced an anthrax powder so fine and fluffy that individually coated anthrax spores were found in the Leahy envelope, something that U.S. bioweapons experts had never seen.”
Source: Washington Post, 9 Apr 2002.
<http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxpowdernotroutine.html>
Powder Used in Anthrax Attacks ‘Was Not Routine’

By: Joby Warrick, Washington Post Staff Writer

“Whoever concocted the wispy white powder used in last fall’s [2001] anthrax attacks followed a recipe markedly different from the ones commonly used by scientists in the United States or any other country known to have biological weapons, law enforcement sources said yesterday.

“Extensive lab tests of the anthrax powder have revealed new details about how the powder was made, including the identity of a chemical used to coat the trillions of microscopic spores to keep them from clumping together. Sources close to the investigation declined to name the chemical but said its presence was something of a surprise.

“The powder’s formulation ‘was not routine,’ said one law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ‘Somebody had to have special knowledge and experience to do this,’ the official said.”

Source: CNN, 11 Apr 2002.

<http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/unusualcoating.html>
Official: Unusual coating in anthrax mailings
By: Kelli Arena, CNN Washington Bureau

“Scientists have found a new chemical in the coating on the anthrax spores mailed to journalists and politicians last fall, a
high-ranking government official said Wednesday.

“The discovery of the unnamed chemical, something scientists are familiar with, was surprising, the official said.

“Previously, officials had reported that the coating on the anthrax included silica, which helped the spores not to clump.”

Source: OpEdNews.com
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/World-s-Top-Anthrax-Expert-by-George-Washington-080909-527.html>

“Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That’s what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.”

******

2.1: What laboratory results were performed in order for the FBI to conclude that “polymerized glass” was individually coating the spores?

2.2: The complete set of laboratory data, including any and all spectroscopic results, that led to this conclusion needs to be published in order for independent experts in the chemistry of silanes, siloxanes and polysiloxanes to assess the conclusion that polymerized glass was present as a spore coating.

******

—-
(3) Quantitative elemental silicon analysis results released by the FBI: FBI lab director Dr Hassell made the following statement to the
National Academy of Science in July of 2009:
<http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/fbi-assistant-director-hassell-statement-to-nas-7-30-09.pdf>

“There has been a great deal written regarding the presence of silicon in the samples and the location of that silicon. The FBI
Laboratory used Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) to quantify silicon, as well as other
elements, in the Leahy letter spore powder. The results indicated the Leahy spores contained 1.45 percent by weight. The New York Post letter spore powder was qualitatively analyzed using ICP-OES and was found to have Silicon present in the sample. However, the limited quantity of recovered material precluded a reliable numerical measurement of any elements present within this powder. Insufficient quantities ofboth the Daschle and Brokaw letters spore powders precluded the analysis of these samples using this elemental analysis technique.”

******

3.1: What is the minimum amount of sample needed to perform accurate quantitative elemental analysis on spore samples?

3.2: All of the FBI’s ICP-OES data for all of the spore powders they measured needs to be released and published for independent verification by experts in analytical chemistry.

******

—-
(4) Role of Pacific Northwest National Labs in the Amerithrax investigation: In his slide presentation to NAS in July 2008, FBI lab director Dr Hassell acknowledged the involvement of Pacific Northwest National Labs. This can be seen in slide 14 here:
<http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/fbi-slides-d-christian-hassell-%EF%BB%BFscientific-approaches-to-the-2001-anthrax-letters-investigation/>

******

4.1: What role did Pacific Northwest National Labs serve in the Amerithrax investigation?

******

Pacific Northwest Labs demonstrated in 2005 that accurate quantitative Elemental Analysis can be performed on bacillus spores with samples as small as one nanogram. The Pacific Northwest paper on this technique can be seen here: Differentiation of Spores of Bacillus subtilis Grown in Different Media by Elemental Characterization Using Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry, John B. Cliff, Kristin H. Jarman, Nancy B. Valentine, Steven L. Golledge, Daniel J. Gaspar, David S. Wunschel, and Karen L. Wahl, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2005, p. 6524-6530, Vol. 71, No. 11

<http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/11/6524?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=subtilis&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=630&resourcetype=HWFIG>

******

4.2: Did Pacific Northwest National Labs determine the elemental quantities of silicon and other elements in the attack powders? What was the quantity of silicon they determined for each powder?

******

(5) Amount of spores needed for all of the attack letters: The single flask of RMR-1029 consisted at its origination date of 30g of Ames anthrax spores in a slurry of 1 liter of water. The resources needed to make this 30g of spores consisted of a combination of 12 x 10 liter fermentor runs at Dugway Proving Ground and 22 flask culture lots made at USAMRIID. Dr Bruce Ivins had calculated that to make 30g of spores at USAMRIID it would take approximately one year of work, which is why USAMRIID contracted the large fermentor runs at Dugway in order to fulfill their need for spores for animal vaccine challenge studies.

******

5.1: What calculations did the FBI labs perform that allowed them to conclude that the total quantity of spores needed for all the mailed letters could be made by a single person over a few evenings?

******

(6) Dugway researchers publish in 2008 that the Daschle spores were “fluidized.” In March 2008 authors from Dugway Proving Ground and the CDC published a paper titled: Development of an Aerosol System for Uniformly Depositing Bacillus anthracis Spore Particles on Surfaces. Paul A. Baron1, Cherie F. Estill1, Gregory J. Deye1, Misty J. Hein1, Jeremy K. Beard2, Lloyd D. Larsen2, and Gregory E. Dahlstrom2, 1_Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 2_Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, USA

<http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/168090__790515467.pdf>

In this paper, which was concerned with manufacturing a powder that would display similar aerosol and dispersability behavior to the Daschle powder, the authors make the following statement: “In the anthrax attack of 2001, some of the material was believed to be in a “fluidized” form (defined here as having fumed silica added).”

******

6.1: Were the authors from Dugway Proving Ground privy to the nature of the powder used in the attacks? What led the authors to conclude that the spores used in the attacks were “fluidized?”

******

posted by Stuart Jacobsen PhD, Analytical Chemist

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:459862648644425::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1010,81897

******

* questions for Congressman Holt’s anthrax investigation … Dugway + Battelle = ???

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

Old Atlantic asks some questions for a new review of anthrax and foreign countries.

• Did Dugway make powdered spores? Did they make them to aersololize easily for some clients?
• Did Battelle order the aerosolized powder version to use in challenge experiments?  Was such delivered prior to September 18, 2001?
• Was this treatment to make the anthrax more realistic and rigorous for battle field conditions or use by a foreign power on the United States?
• Was a seed stock from RMR-1029 used to manufacture this anthrax?
• Did al Qaeda or Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Pakistan  have an asset inside Battelle?
• Or someone with links to any of these countries or organizations?
• Did they count on the US blaming domestic terrorists to avoid admitting that it had possibly violated bioweapons conventions or treaties?
• Did this come up in any discussion involving Saudi Arabia,Pakistan, or United Arab Emirates and any US government employee?  Any other country and the US?  Or between another country and a US ally?
• Did the US pick up information of any communication of such a nature using its intel resources at some point in time?
• What persons not originally from the US were at Battelle, Ft. Detrick, Dugway or similar installation from 1997 to 2001?
• What amounts of powdered anthrax were at which sites at which dates?  Were they manufactured to more easily aerosolize?  If so how?
• Did they contain silicon as part of that manufacturing in the spore coat or on the surface?
• Could silicon have been removed from the surface by the means used to prepare it for testing?  Can other anthrax from the letters be tested without removing silicon from its surface?  Can this be checked by lab methods first on other powder with silicon on its surface?
• Does the US have such anthrax or subtilis so treated for use in such experiments?
• Did a foreign power or foreign organization realize that it had a free shot on the US because the US would blame domestic terrorists instead of admitting it had made easily aerosolized powder for use in challenge experiments at Battelle or other sites in the quantity of 10 to 30 grams or more?

******

* Jim White: I remain unconvinced of the guilt of Bruce Ivins and strongly suspect a [non-USAMRIID] Defense Department, or a [non-USAMRIID] Defense Department-contracted source for the attack material.

******

Jim White writes (2/25/10) …

• The Investigative Summary published by the FBI in closing the Amerithrax investigation into the anthrax attacks of 2001 is curiously silent on the presence of a second species of bacteria found in theNew York Post and Brokaw letters.
  • Clearly, if the FBI could have identified the strain of B. subtilis detected in the attack letters as available to Ivins, that finding would have played a prominent role in the Investigative Summary.
• I analyzed the available information about the amount of B. anthracis used in the attacks and found it highly unlikely that Ivins could have cultured the large amount of spores used in the attacks with the equipment and time he had available.
  • Much of the material in RMR-1029 was produced at Dugway.
  • On December 13, 2001, Judith Miller published an article in the New York Times, where she disclosed that “government officials have acknowledged that Army scientists in recent years have made anthrax in a powdered form that could be used as a weapon.” She further pointed out that this work occurred at Dugway in 1998. It should be noted that the anthrax produced at Dugway for Ivins that went into RMR-1029 was cultured in 1997.
• Given what we know about the scientific analysis of the spores used in the attacks, culturing the spores is much more likely to have occurred at Dugway or Batelle than in Ivins’ lab.
• I fail to see how the FBI has eliminated the possibility that the spores used in the attacks were cultured and dried at Dugway or Batelle, with the Dugway “demonstration” facility being the most likely because of its remote location and secret status.
• We may never know what really happened …  discerning what is true in the various leaked reports on anthrax culturing and processing technology at the facilities at Dugway and Batelle will be difficult without Congressional hearings conducted under oath and threat of prosecution for perjury.
• I remain unconvinced of the guilt of Bruce Ivins and strongly suspect a [non-USAMRIID] Defense Department, or a [non-USAMRIID] Defense Department-contracted source for the attack material.

Read the entire post at … http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/31691

******

When I read about the FBI/DOJ press conference in August 2008, I was so upset by the lack of any real evidence against Dr. Ivins that, over the next 45 days, I wrote my novel to explain why  the FBI had failed to solve the anthrax murders. CASE CLOSED is of course a fiction, but it has been described by many readers, including one respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, as a quite plausible scenario .

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

******