CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Hunting the Anthrax Killer … National Geographic Channel … Sunday, July 26, 9:00pm

Posted by Lew Weinstein on July 22, 2009

to learn more about Lew Weinstein and his novels,

 go to … http://lewweinsteinauthorblog.com/

******

Hunting the Anthrax Killer


National Geographic Channel

Sunday, July 26, 9:00pm

It is the worst biological attack in modern American history, and it occurs just three weeks after 9-11. An anonymous killer mails deadly anthrax to the media and members of Congress. When it is over, five people are dead, 17 others are sickened and many fear the worst: Al Qaeda has struck again. It takes the FBI seven years, but in 2008 it makes the dramatic announcement that its agents have found the anthrax mailer. The accused is not a terrorist, but a U.S. government scientist, Dr. Bruce E. Ivins. But Ivins can never be charged: he committed suicide just days before the FBI’s announcement. Now many of his colleagues insist the FBI has got it wrong. Ivins was not a killer, they say. Is Bruce Ivins a murderer, responsible for the deaths of five people? Or is he a scapegoat in a case that will never be solved?

See an introductory video at … http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hunting-the-anthrax-killer-4437/Overview#tab-Videos/06982_00

LMW COMMENT …

I wrote CASE CLOSED and started this blog because I believe that the FBI’s announcement in August 2008 that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks is an unsustainable conclusion, based on the facts which the FBI has cited and made known.

The people at National Geographic have taken a deep look at the case and those who follow this blog are anxiously awaiting their conclusions.

  • Will the National Geographic special advance what we know about the anthrax case and the FBI’s investigation?
  • Will it nourish the doubts and skepticism expressed by so many on this CASE CLOSED blog?
  • Or will National Geographic conclude that the FBI has indeed solved the case?
  • We’ll all find out on Sunday.

******

What does a novel have to do with the real anthrax case?

******

The readers and contributors to the CASE CLOSED blog do not believe the anthrax case will forever remain unsolved. Together …

  • we are advocating for Congressman Rush Hold’s Anthrax Investigation Commission,
  • we are framing questions for the NAS to consider in their upcoming review of the FBI’s anthrax science,
  • and we take every opportunity to spread “reasonable doubt” about the FBI’s case against Dr. Bruce Ivins.

As we move inexorably toward a refutation of the FBI’s assertion that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks, questions must arise:

  • WHY … did the FBI put forward such an unsupportable conclusion?
  • WHY … did the FBI fail to solve the case?
  • WHO … stood to benefit from the FBI’s failure to solve the case?
  • WHO … had the power to force the FBI to mount a monumental investigation directed away from the truth?

In writing CASE CLOSED, I drew on my author’s imagination to create fictional answers to these serious questions. But readers of my novel see something more than just fiction.

What I have written in CASE CLOSED may not be real, but it could be “true,” in the sense that much historical fiction is actually “truer” than the bare historical facts.

******

Reader comments about CASE CLOSED

posted on amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Closed-Lewis-M-Weinstein/product-reviews/1595943188/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

******

  • Is it really fiction? … The author states loud and clear that this book is fiction. But, anyone who has witnessed the last eight years of American history sees great similarities in the underhanded way the last Administration dealt with issues and the way this “fictional” Administration worked. I never have given much credence to conspiracy theories but the investigation of the Anthrax attacks makes one stop and really think about it.
  • Weinstein raises some very interesting and disturbing theories. If it was not meant to make one think about the real situation, the book would still be a great read. It is suspenseful and a real page turner. Please tell me it’s not true!
  • An action/thriller that makes you think … The writing is sparse, driven by a plausible plot that allows the reader to think through the crime/mystery along with the protagonist. Despite the troubling reality of the subject matter, it is a thoroughly enjoyable and illuminating read.
  • Responsible Americans who believe in holding our government accountable for its actions should read Case Closed to be more informed of the facts of the case, regardless of whether they come to agree with the author’s theory. More investigation is needed.


Advertisements

7 Responses to “* Hunting the Anthrax Killer … National Geographic Channel … Sunday, July 26, 9:00pm”

  1. DXer said

    According to the email Bruce sent Patricia Fellows, he had heard the closest dry powder to the attack anthrax was a dry powder John Ezzell had made. I believe it was secondhand from Tom Geisbert. I spoke to Dr. Ezzell a few nights ago. He made it in 1996. He made it at the request of DARPA.

    At the time, he worked, btw, for FBI’s hazardous materials group. He was head of the Special Pathogens testing lab. The FBI would bring him hoax letters and he would test them. The FBI agents were impressed he drove a Harley motorcycle. Dr. Ezzell says that testing showed that the irradiation had been successful. (It would have been gamma radiation). So if the FBI find it awkward to talk about, it might be because it was the FBI’s scientist who made the closest product. But he by no means is defensive and they should just get over their awkwardness in addressing it if they are going to be persuasive in laying the crime off on Dr. Ivins. The public will want to know (1) why DARPA asked for it, (2) what method was used, (3) did it have the Silicon Signature, (4) who had access or might have used a similar method. etc. One 1996 study has Dr. Ezzell providing gamma irradiated Ames in a soil suspension to someone at Edgewood — in a Soil 1 and Soil 2 taken from the Aberdeen grounds. Did the subtilis match subtilis at APG? Do some soil samples have tin at APG and some not? What were the location of the soil samples used for the soil suspection by Dr. Ezzell in 1996. Dr. Ezzell is a highly regarded microbiologist and deservedly so. He did nothing improper — he was asked to make the product. Given that it was gamma irradiated, he had not seen the “real thing”, he reports, until the attack anthrax. He mentioned that the DARPA project was connected to a University but this is best left to an in-person interview by a professional journalist like Joby or Adam.

    If his “knees were shaking” as described in the memo, note that he has Parkinson’s disease, having retired in 2006. He can explain to all those focused on silica and the process used what equipment he used. In the National Geo video Dr. Michael seems not to appreciate that the word “weaponize” has no usefulness — the key is the probativeness of the Silicon Signature. If Dr. Bannan has continued to refuse to give Dr. Michael the NYP data, I think Dr. Michael show more restraint in making inferences that go both beyond his field and his data.

    Note that contrary to Ed’s suggestion, the stamp no more points to Ft. Detrick than it does to someone in Charlotte, Virginia, home of Battelle bio counterintelligence as I recall. Moreover, the mailbox of course was also hours away from Ft. Detrick. Ed still has not corrected his false statement that there were multiple connections to New Jersey.

    • DXer said

      Who provided the key email that Bruce Ivins wrote to Patricia Fellows, titled “Hot News!”, to FoxNews?

      Who was the “leading anthrax scientist” that the FBI suspected according to that report?

      Who was the “former deputy USAMRIID Commander” that the FBI suspected according to that report?

      Who was the other microbiologist?

      And who was the fourth person?

      Were any of these individuals in any way associated with DARPA’s use of the dry powdered product that it once had Dr. Ezzell, FBI’s anthrax expert, make? Did DARPA ever have other dry powder that was not irradiated made? Was the experiment done at the BL-3 constructed in 2001 at the time of testing the nanoemulsion products there in 2001? Were the Ames in a soil suspension (Soil 1 and Soil 2) preserved from the 1996 experiment? Did Soil 1 have subtilis but not 2? Did Soil 1 have tin, but not 2? I am not at my home computer but perhaps Anonymous Scientist could locate a link to the pdf of the 1996 study I’ve mentioned.

      What dual purpose project might DARPA might have funding that involved a “leading anthrax scientist” and a “former deputy USAMRIID Commander that used such a dry powder?

      Why did Dr. Alibek suddenly leave the country? (He declined to explain his reason for leaving to Dr. Coen; as with Dr. JE, I’ve spoken and emailed Dr. A to have total confidence in him.)

      Codename Zabadi: The Infiltration of US Biodefense
      http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com

    • DXer said

      I believe the title of one study I mentioned for which Dr. Ezzell provided gamma irradiated Ames was “Immunomagnetic – Electrochemiluminescent Detection of Bacillus Spores in Soil Matrices.” At Edgewood, it was the Systems Research Laboratories involved. Dr. Ezzell can tell you whether the separate DARPA project for which the dry powder (involving a University) made was classified. I don’t know. Similarly, he can tell you whether related follow-up DARPA research by the DARPA’s anthrax researchers was classified. I don’t know.

      I can only tell you that the man known to have coordinating with the 911 imam and Bin Laden’s sheik had a high security clearance. He was working for the SRA at the same time as Battelle consultant Charles Bailey, the USAMRIID former deputy USAMRIID Commander, who said that he did not want to talk about the uses of silica because he did not want to give terrorists any ideas. Considerations whether Dr. Ivins had an unrequited crush on a young co-worker and would drive and leave anonymous gifts (both he and she were married and his feelings were not requited) is hardly probative. Given that FBI Director Mueller compartmentalized the three squads, however — over Lambert’s strong objection — the earnest young FBI agents and postal inspectors never stood a chance at “connecting the dots” and they can merely accept the nonsense fed to them.

      Like Ken used to tell me, this isn’t “rocket science.”
      http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com

  2. Anonymous Scientist said

    New video added today (different video than yesterday):

    “Researchers examine samples of anthrax from the 2001 attacks — and their findings could implicate or exonerate Bruce Ivins.”

    Read more: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hunting-the-anthrax-killer-4437/Overview#tab-Videos/06982_00#ixzz0M0DvbjQ2

    • Anonymous Scientist said

      Why doesn’t the FBI release these pesky AFIP lab reports?

      Could it be because, as has been discussed extensively on this blog, they show massive amounts of silicon present in the NYP powder? In fact – they show that the NYP material is MOSTLY polymerized glass (in other words it is 10% spores and the remaining 90% extraneous material is polymerized glass).

      What are the FBI afraid of? Is that why the case is not yet closed? Because then a FOIA could force them to release the AFIP lab reports?

      Will NAS be allowed to see the AFIP lab reports as bloggers from this website have suggested the to NAS?

      I like Joe Michael’s comment on the video “I’m convinced it wasn’t weaponized in the traditional way”.

    • Anonymous Scientist said

      Lake writes: “They present solid facts, and then they present theories and beliefs to counter the solid facts.”

      As usual, Lake tries to create a straw-man argument. It is a SOLID fact that the FBI are refusing to release the AFIP lab reports. That is NOT a theory or a belief.

      It is also a SOLID fact that release of the AFIP data would exonerate Ivins.

      All Sandia presented was that the attack spores did not use the traditional weaponization approach used by Dugway – which is COATING the spores with nanoparticles of silica (something that Lake argued for years was akin to “antiweaponization” – he claimed this would make spores heavier, demonstrating his total lack of understanding of small particles). Then Sandia gave their OPINION and BELIEF that the silica they found in the attack spores had to be natural – in spite of the fact that out of 200 attempts to reverse engineer the process, none matched the silicon signaure of the attack spores.

    • DXer said

      Dr. D. Christian Hassell, Director, FBI Laboratory, wrote NAS panel Chair Dr. Gast in March 2010:

      “It was concluded that this is most likely a biological phenomenon thaL may be diffícult to consistently reproduce if aIl variables are not understood. These data and subsequent discussions supported the decision to discontinue further reverse engineering studies “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: