* anonymous scientist says: it looks like Rep Holt’s office knows something about the weaknesses in the FBI’s anthrax case … he’s put his reputation on the line
Posted by DXer on March 4, 2010
.
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 *
.
******
anonymous scientist …
it looks like Rep Holt’s office knows something here
Congressmen don’t write statements like “We don’t know whether scientists at other government and private labs who assisted the FBI in the investigation actually concur with the FBI’s investigative findings and conclusions” – and put their reputations on the line to fellow Congressmen – unless they already know the answer to the question they are posing.
* analysis *
* conclusions *
* questions *
******
Congressman Holt & FBI Lab Director Hassell
ANALYSIS …
Very interesting that Rep Holt writes:
“We don’t know if the FBI’s explanation for the presence of silica in the anthrax spores is truly scientifically valid. We don’t know whether scientists at other government and private labs who assisted the FBI in the investigation actually concur with the FBI’s investigative findings and conclusions.”
- It looks like Rep Holt’s office knows something here.
- Just reading the FBI’s statements reveals gaping holes in their science.
FBI lab director Dr Chris Hassell made a statement to the National Academy of Science in July of 2009 that makes little scientific sense:
- “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% 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 of both the Daschle and Brokaw letters spore powders precluded the analysis of these samples using this elemental analysis technique.”
- Ironically, in his presentation to NAS, Dr Hassell acknowledged the involvement of Pacific Northwest National Labs.
- This can be seen in slide 14 here:
- He should then be well aware that Pacific Northwest Labs demonstrated in 2005 that accurate quantitative Elemental Analysis can be performed on bacillus spores with samples as small as one nanogram (one nanogram is one thousandth of one millionth of a gram).
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
CONCLUSIONS …
- The quantities of silicon in the ALL the recovered powders should have been known by the FBI within days of receiving them.
- The fact that it took seven years for the FBI to give ONE piece of data on the Leahy powder can only lead to speculation that there is something about these silicon concentrations that make them extremely uncomfortable.
- These quantities of silicon are perhaps the single most important piece of forensic evidence needed to solve the case.
QUESTIONS …
- If there is nothing to hide, why not just reveal the numbers? As the Pacific Northwest results show – it can be done easily.
- It is no excuse for Hassell to claim that there was not enough sample to obtain these quantities.
- The FBI sponsored the VERY LAB that shows 1 ng is enough sample.
- Are these results secret? Why?
******
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks? 
Anonymous Scientist said
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/03/04/nadler-fbis-not-done-on-amerithrax/
Nadler: FBI’s Not Done on Amerithrax
By: emptywheel Thursday March 4, 2010 10:01 am
I know that Rush Holt has already called for further investigation in the anthrax case, but having a Sub-Committee Chair at HJC make the same call might carry different weight.
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, reiterated his call for an independent investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks which killed five people and sickened 17. He issued the following statement:
“Despite the FBI’s assertion that the case of the anthrax attacks is closed, there are still many troubling questions. For example, in a 2008 Judiciary Committee hearing, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller whether Bruce Ivins was capable of producing the weaponized anthrax that was used in the attacks. To this day, it is still far from clear that Mr. Ivins had either the know-how or access to the equipment needed to produce the material. Because the FBI has not sufficiently answered such questions, I join Congressman Holt in urging an independent investigation of the case.”
Anonymous Scientist said
http://nadler.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1400&Itemid=119
Nadler Renews Call for Independent Investigation of Anthrax Attacks
Thursday, 04 March 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, reiterated his call for an independent investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks which killed five people and sickened 17. He issued the following statement:
“Despite the FBI’s assertion that the case of the anthrax attacks is closed, there are still many troubling questions. For example, in a 2008 Judiciary Committee hearing, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller whether Bruce Ivins was capable of producing the weaponized anthrax that was used in the attacks. To this day, it is still far from clear that Mr. Ivins had either the know-how or access to the equipment needed to produce the material. Because the FBI has not sufficiently answered such questions, I join Congressman Holt in urging an independent investigation of the case.”
richard rowley said
I’m not so naive as to think there’s nothing political in Holt’s skepticism but I think his background as a physicist has something to do with that skepticism: it’s easier to bamboozle the non-scientist with technical jargon………
DXer said
Defense Intelligence Agency – We’re DIA