* Jim White … the silicon evidence raises serious doubts that Dr. Bruce Ivins could have worked alone as the FBI continues to assert
Posted by DXer on March 21, 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.”
.
fermenter at USAMRIID
Extracts from Jim White’s article MOST LIKELY SOUCES OF SILICON IN ANTHRAX ATTACK SPORES ARGUES AGAINST PRODUCTION BY IVINS (3/20/10) …
- If the silicon in the anthrax attack spores does indeed come from the material having been cultured in the presence of a silicone antifoam agent that also had silica present, then the FBI’s conclusion that Bruce Ivins acted alone in the attacks is called into serious doubt.
- The alternative explanation to Ivins growing 36 two liter cultures is one fermenter run of approximately 70 liters or more. Note that the FBI investigative summary informs us that Dugway was engaged for the 1997 work precisely because Ivins did not have access to large scale culture equipment.
- If Ivins had grown the spores in his shake flask equipment, he would have had no reason to include any sort of antifoam agent, much less one containing silica, because antifoam is just not used in shake flasks.
- It also seems unlikely that Ivins would have changed his culture process to produce the attack material. If he did not introduce silicon in his early shake flask cultures (and we know he didn’t from the silicon analysis of the RMR-1029 material), it seems unlikely he would have done so with shake flasks for the attack material.
- Note also from the Science report that the only other elevated (but not as high as the attack spores) silicon content spores analyzed came from Dugway, where we know that fermenters are available.
- In conclusion, the finding of high silicon in the spores used in the anthrax attacks suggests that these spores were grown in a large fermenter that used an antifoam agent containing silica.
- Since Bruce Ivins did not have access to a large fermenter, fermenter growth would suggest that he could not have acted alone in the attacks.
NOTE: I have extracted only the conclusions of Jim White’s article.
To read the entire analysis, go to … http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/36259
******
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks? 
DXer said
A Washington Field Memo dated September 26, 2006 explains on the “Fermentor” :
“identification and tracking of fermentors in place at USAMRIID positively identified one fermentor as haivng been in place in Building ___ Room ___ around the time of the anthrax mailings. Additional fermentors of interest have been identified for location, materials used, and operator with an undetermined disposition date. The fermentors ranged in volume from 150-Liters to 5-Liters. The two largest fermentors were manufactured by New Brunswick Inc. and were not portable. These could not likely have been used in a discreet manner. The 5-L fermentor also manufactured by New Brunswick was lent to _______ by Bruce Ivins. __________ indicated the New Brunswick fermentors were likely to predate 2001. Further analysis would be required to determine which fermentors were up and running between 09/11/01 and 10/9/2001.”
DXer said
A January 8, 2007 telephone interview addresses the 5 L fermentor:
Click to access 847373.PDF
_________ advised ___spoke to _______________________________________ concerning the five (5) liter (L) fermentor. Per ____ _____ had previously told an interviewing Postal Inspector that USAMRIID employee BRUCE IVINS lent the 5 L fermentor to ___________ [WFO NOTE: see 279A-WF-222936-POI, Serial 1487]. ____ clarified, __________________, at the time IVINS lent the fermentor was _________________________________ and not ________ _______ _______
_________ reiterated IVINS never lent _______________ the 5-L fermentor, _____________ has never seen it at USAMRIID, nor does ___________ maintain any paperwork associated with the same.
richard rowley said
In my previous comment I wrote:
(heck, all you have to do is look the word “doodling” up in the dictionary to see that it is not, in itself, ‘doodling’)
Of course, I meant ‘all you have to do is look up “doodling” in the dictionary to see that it’s not synonymous with “retracing” or “highlighting” (to use the word the DoJ report used).
My carelessness.
richard rowley said
Posted by Ed Lake:
—————————————————
There also are NO FACTS about any “second gunman on the grassy knoll.” There are only OPINIONS that Oswald couldn’t have made the shots, that he wasn’t a good enough marksman, that the trajectory was wrong, that the impact showed shots from the wrong direction, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. OPINIONS ONLY. NO FACTS. An OPINION that Oswald couldn’t have done it is NOT the same as a FACT.
———————————————————–
Well for YEARS you claimed that one of the ‘facts’ that showed that a child printed the anthrax letters was: (copy and paste from your site follows):
————————
12. Adults generally do not doodle when writing death threats.
The letter writer doodled on the media letter, but not on the senate letter.
[…]
————————————————————–
Efforts by me (and I’m guessing by others) to point out that retracing of letters (in whole or in part) does not constitute “doodling” (heck, all you have to do is look the word “doodling” up in the dictionary to see that it is not, in itself, ‘doodling’) were to no avail.
You finally admitted this, NOT by virtue of any appeal to your reason, but because the final DoJ report said that it wasn’t doodling but part of a ‘code’ (copy and paste from your site):
—————————————————————-
NOTE ADDED February 21, 2010: The FBI’s case summary released on February 19, 2010, contains some interesting new information about this “doodling.” It isn’t “doodling.” It’s a coded message that Dr. Ivins evidently put into the media letters in order to allow him to prove he sent the letters if he should become a national hero for warning America of the pending bioweapons attacks by Muslim terrorists, which he and many scientists thoroughly expected.
————————————————————–
“It isn’t “doodling”. Gee, another way of saying the same thing is: “fact #12” that shows that a child did the printing isn’t a fact at all. Never was. No matter how many times you capitalized the word ‘fact’.
The ‘child’ is your grassy-knoll gunman.
Some of your other ‘facts’ are in fact interpretations of facts, but that’s beyond the scope of this comment.
richard rowley said
Partial post by Ed Lake:
———————–
[…]the FACTS which clearly say that a child wrote the letters. […]
———————————————-
Compare above to:
——————————————-
The FACTS clearly say that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll…………..
———————————————–
The same tendentious selection of “facts” and ignoring of those that don’t agree with you are behind both notions………..
richard rowley said
Posted by Ed Lake:
———————-
Does he have any access to experts? Or does he just give baseless dime-a-dozen opinions to anyone who will read them?
—————————————————————————————–
I’ve noticed that, long term, Mister Lake has an ambivalent relationship to ‘experts’.
1)If they tell him something he doesn’t want to believe——-like the printing of the anthrax letters is very different from that of Bruce Ivins and/or very different from a 6 or 7 year-old’s——-then they merely give ‘opinions’. And are to be ignored.
2) if they agree with what Mister Lake ALREADY thinks, then special weight is given to them….
DXer said
Dr. Ivins told the FBI he thinks the handwriting looks like a Second Grader wrote the letters but Ed has neglected to mention the fact because, ironically, it is incongruent with Ed’s true believing argument that Dr. Ivins entered into a conspiracy with a Second Grader to write the letters. I mean, why would Dr. Ivins rat out his accomplice so readily? :0)
Ed also has expressed no interest in obtaining the expert report on the toner which excludes the photocopier that the DOJ alleges that Ivins used to photocopy the letters.
DXer said
I had overlooked the update in which Ed quotes the report of an interview by Dr. Ivins:
“It was his opinion the writing looks like that of a second grader …”
Roberto said
If he was 6 in 2001, he’d be 15 today. Where is he? Did he forget some creepy dude asked him to write letters and address envelopes for him?
BugMaster said
Who, for that matter, is Ed Lake?
DXer said
And when BugMaster patiently explained to Ed that the genetics did not limit things to Dr. Ivins — but all those with access to a genetically identical isolate — who did Ed consult with over the course of the half year?
The 350 with access turned out to be just those with access at Ft. Detrick at Building 1412 or Building 1425 — before even considering those with access to isolates downstream.
DXer said
The former Zawahiri associate working alongside Bruce Ivins with virulent Ames was co-founder of a small company that received $50 million in investment from Perseus, a DC venture firm, $30 million while headed by Richard Holbrooke, now in charge at DOS of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The company’s decontamination agent was tested at the Capitol and the idea of its hand cream pitched to postal workers.
The scientist and I have a mutual acquaintance. His lifelong friend was recruited into the Egyptian Islamic Jihad by Ayman Zawahiri in a room set aside for the purpose at the medical school. He has published the account of his recruitment in INSIDE JIHAD, which was published May 2008. He now consults for US intelligence community.
The scientist’s patents, in addition to thanking Bruce Ivins for supplying the Ames and his accusers (Former Colleague #1 and Former Colleague #2) for providing technical assistance, discuss silicone oils as an antifoam in connection with the company’s nanoemulsions. After the work with virulent Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins, the company, for example, tested its product at Dugway using an anthrax aerosol simulant.
The Senators were the ones most associated with the detention and alleged mistreatment of prisoners. The “Leahy Law” permitted continued appropriations to security units of Egypt and other countries despite evidence of torture. This had been the subject of islamist press in late August 2001. As Chairman of a key subcommittee, Senator Leahy had the key role for appropriations to Egypt and Israel.
The Egyptian Islamic Jihad leaders had threatened that mailed anthrax would be used if #2 of the Vanguards of Conquest was denied (upon an announcement of the bail hearing in January 2001). See early February 2001 CIA PDB to President Bush. His bail was denied on October 5, 2001 and then the “real deal” was sent. Ayman Zawahiri’s intention to use mailed anthrax to retaliate for the rendering and mistreatment of prisoners was first publicly announced in March 1999 by both detained members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad shura and the blind sheik’s attorney Montasser Al-Zayat.
Letters to newspapers in DC and NYC and people in symbolic positions relating to the detention of WTC plotters was not merely the modus operandi of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad/Vanguards of Conquest, but was its signature (see the Al Hayat letter bombs for which there is a $5 million reward).
Sources: graphics based on official documents including 20+ pages recently uploaded by the DOJ.
http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=df7mn8s4_0ffkjfwhn&interval=5&autoStart=true