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

* Index of Documents Provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the NAS

Posted by DXer on February 17, 2011

Index of Documents Provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

BATCH 1

Module 1: Technical Review Panel Meetings

Technical Review Panels

1. November 5, 2001 WFO Anthrax Expert Panel Review (pp. 2-27)

2. December 7, 2001 External Technical Review Panel (pp. 28-39)

3. December 12, 2001 External Review of Analytical Plan (pp. 40-46)

4. June 11-12, 2002 Progress to Date Review (pp. 47-65)

5. August 8, 2005 Chemistry Review Panel (pp. 66-195)

Module 2: USAMRIID

Initial examination of the letter spore preparations for physical characteristics

(microscopy and electron microscopy) and spore viability studies.

1. 18 Oct 2001 SPS02.57 (Daschle) CFU Report (p. 3)

2. 21 Oct 2001 EM Report of Dasch1e Letter (pp. 4-19)

3. 24 Oct 2001 SPS02.88.1 (NY Post) CFU Report (pp. 20-21)

4. 25 Oct 2001 EM Daschle “Si” Report (pp. 22-25)

5. 25 Oct 2001 Simons Letter re NY Post (pp. 26-28)

6. 28 Oct 2001 EM/CFU Report of NY Post (p. 29)

7. 27 Nov 2001 Report on Isolates from Daschle and NY Post Letters (p. 30)

Special Pathogens Sample Test Laboratory Analytical Test Reports: Results of Analysis

of Letter Material

8. SPS.02.88 NY Post Powder 10/22/2001 (pp. 32-33)

9. SPS.02.44 Brokaw Envelope 11/4/2001 (pp. 34-35)

10. SPS.02.57 Daschle Letters and Powders 11/9/2001 (pp. 36-45)

11. SPS.02.266 Leahy Powder (pp. 46-53)

Microbiological examinations and identification of phenotypic variants (Morphotypes)

which appeared different than the predominant “Ames” phenotype

24 The Committee on the Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI’s Investigation of the

2001 Bacillus anthracis Mailings initially received FBI materials related to the science of the Anthrax

Mailings Investigation in two batches. A third batch of documents was provided later. In addition to the

documents in the three principal batches of materials, the FBI also provided several supplementary

documents in response to committee requests. Unless otherwise noted, this index reflects the order in

which the materials were received from the FBI, the manner in which the documents were organized by the

FBI, and the language used by the FBI when describing the documents. Page numbers in parentheses after

document titles are the page numbers assigned to the document by the FBI or, in cases where the FBI did

not assign page numbers, the number of pages in the respective document.

12. Report #1 Analysis of Evidentiary Material (pp. 55-68)

13. Report #2 Analysis of Repository Samples (pp. 69-79)

14. Report #3 Analysis of Environmental Samples – AMI (pp. 80-90)

15. Report #4 Examination of Repository Spore Preparations: Screening for the

Hemolytic B. subtilis Contaminant (pp. 91-95)

16. Report #5 Analysis of Repository Samples (pp. 96-99)

Isolation of Morphological Variants from FBI Repository Samples FBIR 049 004

(Leahy) PowerPoint Photos

17. Isolation of Morphological Variants from FBI Repository Samples FBIR 049

004 (Leahy) PowerPoint Photos (pp. 101-109)

Module 3: Ames Strain Identification

Reports

1. Forensic Analysis of Putative Anthrax Samples, Batch E0001 v02.01.02

(MLVA-8) (pp. 3-10)

2. MLVA-15 Molecular Typing (Batch E0001) 4/16/02 (pp. 11-14)

3. Laboratory Reports NAU-0001 (May 30, 2002) to NAU-0038 (May 5, 2008)

(pp. 15-167)

Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures

4. Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures for Forensic Analysis V09.2303

(pp. 168-204)

5. Guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures for Forensic Analysis: Real-

Time PCR species Specific, Canonical and Strain Specific SNP Genotyping of

Bacillus anthracis and Francisella tularensis V11.03.04 (pp. 206-231)

6. Real-Time PCR species Specific, Canonical and Strain Specific SNP

Genotyping of Bacillus anthracis V04.11.07 (pp. 232-272)

7. Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Analysis (pp. 273-280)

Literature

8. “Multiple-Locus Variable-Number Tandem Repeat Analysis Reveals Genetic

Relationships within Bacillus anthracis” (Keim et al., 2000,

182:2928-2936) (pp. 282-291)

Progress Reports

9. NAU DNA-Based Strain Typing of Anthrax Samples (pp. 293-649)2

2 The FBI did not assign a name to this document. The descriptor was assigned by the committee.

Module 4: Analysis for Evidence of Genetic Engineering

Reports

1. 19 October 2001 LANL Receipt letter (pp. 3-4)

2. Laboratory Reports (pp. 5-55)

Presentation

3. Analysis of the Amerithrax B. Anthracis Ames Isolates for Evidence of Genetic

Engineering (pp. 57-79)

Module 5: Genomic Sequencing

Publications

1. “Global Genetic Population Structure of Bacillus anthracis,” M. Van Ert et al.,

(2007) PLoS ONE 2(5); e461. doil- . 1371/jpornal . pone.0000461 (pp. 2-11)

2. “The Complete Genome Sequence of Bacillus anthracis Ames ‘Ancestor,’” J.

Ravel et al, J. Bacteriology, Jan 2009, Vol 191, No. 1, p . 445-446 (pp. 12-13)

Reports

3. Genomic Analysis of Bacillus anthracis Isolates Relevant to the Amerithrax

Investigation, June 1, 2004 (Morph A, B, C, D, Wild type) (pp. 17-75)

4. Genomic Analysis of Bacillus anthracis Isolates Relevant to the Amerithrax

Investigation, June 4, 2005 (Morph E (Opaque, Post/Leahy B.s.) (pp. 76-159)

5. Multiple Locus PCR-based Assay for the Direct Comparison of unknown

B. subtilis isolates to B. Subtilis, New York Post, May 15, 2006 (pp. 160-220)

TIGR Progress Reports

6. TIGR Progress Reports (pp. 221-458)

Module 6: Sandia National Laboratory (SNL)

Reports

1. Sandia National Laboratory Final Report (pp. 3-42)

Historical Literature

2. “Distribution of Calcium and Other Elements in Cryosectioned Bacillus cereus

T Spores, determined by High-Resolution Scanning Electron Probe X-Ray

Microanalysis,” M. Stewart, A.P. Somlyo, A.V. Somlyo, H. Shuman, J.A.

Lindsay, W.G. Murrell, J .Bacteriology, July 1980, Vol 143, No. 1, pp. 481-

491 (pp. 44-54)

3. “Scanning Electron Probe X-Ray Microanalysis of Elemental Distribution in

Freeze-Dried Cryosections of Bacillus coagulans Spores.” M. Stewart, A.P.

Somlyo, A.V. Somlyo, H. Shuman, J.A. Lindsay, W.G. Murrell, J .

Bacteriology, Aug. 1981, Vol 147, No. 2, pp. 670-674 (pp. 55-59)

4. “Automated Analysis of SEM X-Ray Spectral Images: A Powerful New

Microanalysis Tool,” P.G. Kotula, M.R. Kennan, J.R. Michael, Microsc.

Microanal., 9, 1-17, 2003 (pp. 60-76)

5. Silicon Summary Bibliography of Select Publications (pp. 77-81)

PowerPoint Files of Individual Sample Results

6. PowerPoint Files of Individual Sample Results (pp. 82-532)

Module 7: Chemistry Unit, FBI Laboratory

FBI Laboratory Reports

1. 020322006 April 15, 2002 Q13 SPS02.88 (Post) (pp. 3-4)

2. 020605001 June 18, 2002 Q12 White Powder (Leahy) (pp. 5-6)

3. 020110004 August 26, 2002 Q12, Bc 14579, Bs/Ba+/ (pp. 7-10)

4. 020605001 October 16, 2002 Q13 SPS02.88 Elemental (pp. 11-12)

5. 040624018 June 28, 2004 Leahy Powder Elemental (pp. 13-14)

6. 030519001 October 15, 2003 Culture Media Elemental (pp. 15-22)

7. 031008001 October 30, 2003 Burans 12 Elemental (pp. 23-25)

8. 031124029 December 11, 2003 10 DPG growths Elemental (pp. 26-28)

9. 030819015 June 29, 2004 Commercial Media (pp. 29-34)

10. 050321004 April 18, 2005 Media Salts and Spores (pp. 35-37)

11. 050118006 April 18, 2005 19 DPG Stubs SEM (pp. 38-54)

12. 050408005 May 18, 2005 2 DPG Stubs SEM (pp. 55-67)

13. 050408005 July 6, 2005 2 DPG Stubs SEM (pp. 68-91)

Elemental Analysis Summary

14. 1 Elemental Analysis Summary Table (pp. 93-94)

15. Comparison of results from 2 different instruments (by 2 different FBI

examiners, 2 years apart in 2 different Labs (HQ VS Quantico)

Envelopes and Particle Transport

16. FBI Laboratory Electron Microscopy of Envelope surfaces and particle

transport thru envelopes (pp. 96-111)

Module 8: Carbon-14 (14C) Dating

Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (CAMS), Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory

1. CAMS background information (pp. 3-14)

2. Proposal (pp. 15-16)

3. Quantitating Radiocarbon Concentrations in Isolated Samples of Biological

Origin: Standard Operating Procedures for FBI Measurements of Natural 14C

(pp. 17-23)

4. LLNL Report 10/14/02 (pp. 24-29)

5. LLNL Report 1/16/04 Addendum (pp. 30-33)

6. LLNL Data Table 3/30/04 DPG Samples (pp. 34-39)

7. Scientific References (pp. 40-50)

National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Facility (NOSAMS), Woods

Hole Oceanographic Institute

8. NOSAMS background information (pp. 52-55)

9. General Statement of C-14 Procedures (pp. 56-57)

10. Amerithrax Sample Handling Procedures (pp. 58-72)

11. Final Report (pp. 73-83)

12. Scientific References (pp. 84-112)

Module 9: Stable Isotopes

Stable Isotope Reports

1. Isotopic Characterization of Water Samples 3/14/03 (pp. 3-10)

2. Isotopic Characterization of Anthrax Samples 7/30/03 (pp. 11-19)

3. Isotopic Characterization of Water Samples 10/15/03 (pp. 20-25)

4. Isotopic Characterization of Spore Samples 1/5/04 (pp. 26-31)

5. Stable Isotope Characterization of Anthrax Sample SPS 02.266 2/22/04

(pp. 32-44)

6. Isotopic Characterization of Microbial Spore Samples 5/20/04 (pp. 45-53)

7. A Report on the Stable Isotope Ratios of Envelope Samples 9/17/04 (pp. 54-58)

8. A Report on the Stable Isotope Ratios of Treated and Untreated Envelopes

11/7/04 (pp. 59-64)

9. A Report on the Stable Isotope Ratios of Treated and Untreated Envelopes

12/22/04 (pp. 65-77)

10. Isotopic Characterization of RMR 1029 5/6/05 (pp. 78-80)

11. A Tabulation of Stable Isotopes of Tap Water Samples Analyzed for the FBI

3/23/05 (pp. 81-247)

Proposals and SOWS

12. Proposals and SOWS (pp. 248-269)

Kreuzer-Martin Publications

13. Kreuzer-Martin Publications (pp. 271-310)

Stable Isotope Ratios and the Forensic Analysis of Microorganisms PowerPoint

14. Stable Isotope Ratios and the Forensic Analysis of Microorganisms

PowerPoint (pp. 312-342)

Module 10: Agar and Heme Analysis

Agar Assay University of Maryland

1. Unsolicited Proposal SOW (pp. 3-8)

2. Progress Reports (pp. 9-55)

3. Summary of Chromatograms (pp. 56-72)

4. Final Agar Report (pp. 73-94)

5. Reductive Hydrolysis Procedure Steps (pp. 95-96)

6. Reductive Hydrolysis Literature References (pp. 97-118)

7. ASMS Abstract Poster (pp. 119-120)

Agar Assay Validation – BMI

8. Task 4 Spot Report 27 Aug 2002 (pp. 122-126)

9. Task 4 Interim Report 17 Sept 2002 (pp. 127-136)

Heme Assay (UMD)

10. SOW (pp. 138-149)

11. Progress Reports (pp. 150-182)

12. Analysis of Heme by MALDI Procedure (pp. 183-190)

13. Filter Sterilization Validation (pp. 191-192)

14. Heme Final Report (pp. 193-216)

15. Heme A.C. publication (pp. 217-222)

Heme Assay Validation – ECBC

16. Interim Report (ECBC) (pp. 224-238)

17. Analytical Test Report (ECBC) (10 Aug 2005) (pp. 239-246)

Agar Overview

18. Agar Overview (pp. 248-251)

Module 11: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Reports

1. Residual Agar Determination in Bacterial Cultures by ESI/MS, DHS Final

Report (pp. 3-99)

2. Detection of Agar, by Analysis of Sugar Markers, Wunschel et al., J.

Microbiol Methods, 74, (2008), 57-63 (pp. 101-107)

3. Residual Agar Determination in Bacterial Cultures by ESI/MS, K.L. Wahl et al.

submitted for publication (pp. 108-141)

Presentation

4. FBI Samples Data Summary PowerPoint (pp. 143-197)

Module 12: FBI Laboratory Renocal Assay

Reports

1. FBI Lab Report 070829018 (pp. 2-3)

Standard Operating Procedures

2. Meglumine Diatrizoate Analysis by LC/MS/ESI (pp. 5-26)

3. Performance Monitoring Protocol (QA/QC) for the Finnigan LTQ LC/MS

(ESI) Instrument (pp. 27-45)

Reference

4. Detection of Trace Amounts of Meglumine and Diatizoate from Bacillus Spore

Samples Using Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry; submitted to

Anal. Chem. (pp. 47-74)

Module 13: DPG Production Methods

Test Plan

1. Test Plan (pp. 3-24)

Project Overview PowerPoint

2. Project Overview PowerPoint (pp. 26-60)

Final Report Dated 2/1/06

3. Final Report Dated 2/1/06 (pp. 62-118)

SEM Photos of Production

4. SEM Photos of Production (pp. 120-255)

Module 14: Preparation of B. anthracis Ames on Commercial and Prepared Media

Report

1. Preparation of B. anthracis Ames Spores on Commercially Prepared Media and

Media Prepared at USAMRIID (pp. 3-6)

BATCH 2

Module 1: B. Subtilis Contaminant

Battelle

1. Report of isolation of contaminant from Brokaw letter in “Summary of

Microbiological Analysis 19 Oct 2001” (pp. 3-5)

Centers for Disease Control

2. Report of identification of contaminant submitted by BMI as B. subtilis

including morphology, hemolysis, gram staining, antibiotic resistance and 16s

rRNA sequence match (pp. 7-19)

Novazymes

3. Identification of the NY Post contaminant as B. licheniformis (p. 21)

Applied Biosystems

4. Identification of the B. subtilis isolated from the Brokaw and NY Post letters by

16s ribosomal RNA gene sequence analysis (pp. 23-32)

TIGR

Genomic Analysis of Bacillus anthracis Isolates Relevant to the Amerithrax

Investigation, June 4, 2005 (Morph E (Opaque), Post/Leahy B.s.) (see Batch 1,

Module 5, Document 3)

Multiple Locus PCR-based Assay for the Direct Comparison of Unknown B.

subtilis Isolates to B. subtilis, New York Post, May 15, 2006 (see Batch 1, Module

5, Document 4)

Module 2: Whole Genome Assembly of B. subtilis Isolate

Technical Proposals and SOW

1. Microbial Genetic Services in Support of the Amerithrax Investigation (FBI

SOW) (pp. 3-42)

2. Whole Genome Assembly, Closure Annotation of Bacillus subtilis GB22

(TO1) (pp. 43-57)

3. Multiple Locus PCR-Based Assay of the Direct Comparison of One Unknown

B. subtilis Isolate to B. subtilis New York Post (TO3) (pp. 58-74)

4. Training for Use of Affymetrix Comparative Genomic Hybridization Arrays

(TO4) (pp. 75-91)

5. Develop an Annotation File Specific to the FBI B. Subtilis Comparative

Genomic Hybridization Arrays (New TO5) (pp. 92-101)

Progress Reports

6. Whole Genome Assembly, Closure and Annotation of Bacillus subtilis GB22

12/07-4/08 (TO1) (pp. 103-106)

7. Multiple Locus PCR-based Assay of the Direct Comparison of One Unknown

B. subtilis Isolate to B. subtilis New York Post 1/08-4/08 (TO3) (pp. 107-114)

8. Multiple locus PCR-Based Assay of the Direct Comparison of One Unknown

B. subtilis Isolate to B. subtilis New York Post 5/08 (TO3) (pp. 115-122)

Standard Operating Procedures

9. Affymetrix GB22 Tiling GeneChip SOP (pp. 124-136)

Final Reports

10. Whole Genome Assembly, Closure and Annotation of Bacillus subtilis GB22

(TO1) (pp. 138-142)

11. Multiple Locus PCR-Based Assay of the Direct Comparison of One Unknown

B. subtilis Isolate to B. subtilis New York Post (TO3) (pp. 143-166)

12. Genome MTV Manual (TO4) (pp. 167-185)

Module 3: Genetic Diversity and Phylogenetic Characterization of B. subtilis

Statement of Work (SOW)

1. Genetic Diversity and Phylogenetic Characterization of B. subtilis (pp. 3-14)

Progress Reports

2. 8 Monthly and 1 Quarterly Report 12/06-11/07 (pp. 16-79)

Standard Operating Procedures

3. Allele-Specific Oligonucleotide (ASO) Typing Assay for Bacillus subtilis (pp.

81-82)

Final Reports

4. Genetic Diversity and Phylogenetic Characterization of B. subtilis 11/30/07

(pp. 84-124)

Module 4: B. subtilis Screening

Standard Operating Procedures

1. Bacillus subtilis Analysis by Singleplex Real-Time PCR Standard Operating

Procedure (pp. 3-10)

Synopsis of Assay Development

2. Synopsis of Assay Development (pp. 11-55)

Standard Operating Procedures

3. Analytical Plan, Acceptance of Work (AOW) 40 (pp. 57-104)

Analytical Plans

4. Analytical Plan, Acceptance of Work (AOW) 46 (pp. 106-115)

5. Analytical Plan, Acceptance of Work (AOW) 47 (pp. 116-183)

6. Analytical Plan, Acceptance of Work (AOW) 57 (pp.184-187)

7. Analytical Plan, Acceptance of Work (AOW) 58 (pp. 188-193)

8. Analytical Plan, Acceptance of Work (AOW) 62 (pp. 194-239)

9. Analytical Plan, Acceptance of Work (AOW) 68 (pp. 240-244)

Assay Validation

10. Serial Dilution/LOD NBFAC.061117.001 (pp. 246-253)

11. Assay Validation NBFAC.061019.002 (pp. 254-259)

Laboratory Reports

12. Location Searches NBFAC. 061113.001 (pp. 261-279)

13. Repository Screening NBFAC.070215.0001, NBFAC.070314.0001 to

NBFAC0.70314.003 (pp. 280-359)

14. Environmental Samples NBFAC.070723.0001 (pp. 360-380)

15. Location Searches NBFAC.070727.0001, NBFAC.071102.0001,

NBFAC.080828.0001 (pp. 381-440)

Module 5: Molecular Analysis of Pathogen Strains and Isolates and Genetic

Mutations A1 and A3

Technical Proposal and FBI SOWs: Genetic Discrimination of Bacillus anthracis Isolates

Using Molecular Biological Techniques

1. Technical Proposal and FBI SOWs: Genetic Discrimination of Bacillus

anthracis Isolates Using Molecular Biological Techniques (pp. 3-65)

Assay Development Morph A1-A3

2. Progress Reports: May 2002-Jan 2004 (pp. 67-499)

Assay Development Morph A1-A3

3. Final Report (pp. 501-603)

4. Validation Study Morph A-1 Protocol (pp. 604-712)

5. Validation Study Morph A-2 Protocol (pp. 713-820)

6. Validation Study Morph A-3 Protocol (pp. 821-932)

Assay Development Morph A1-A3

7. Morph A Overview PowerPoint (pp. 934-957)

Repository Screening Morph A1 and A3

8. Progress and Final Reports, March 2004-Oct 2007 (pp. 959-1295)

Module 6: Genetic Mutations B and D (CBI)

Assay Development: Technical Proposals

1. DNA Assays for Minor Genetic Variants of Bacillus anthracis (pp. 3-76)

2. Task 1 Technical Proposal Morph B SNP (pp. 77-94)

3. Task 2 Technical Proposal Morph D Deletion (pp. 95-114)

Assay Development: Progress Reports

4. Morph B (pp. 116-160)

5. Morph D (pp. 161-222)

Assay Development: Standard Operating Procedures

6. Morph B Protocol (pp. 224-268)

7. Morph D Protocol (pp. 269-310)

8. Appendix 1-10 (pp. 311-867)

Module 7: Genetic Mutations B and D (IITRI)

Assay Development: Technical Proposals

1. Technical Proposal (pp. 3-51)

2. Task 1 DNA Assay Development – Morph B SNP (pp. 52-97)

3. Task 2 DNA Assay Development – Morph D Deletion (pp. 98-137)

4. Capabilities Brief (pp. 138-176)

Assay Development: Progress Reports

5. DNA Assays for Minor Genetic Variants Meeting Minutes 2/23/05 (pp. 178-

179)

6. Task 1 Morph B SNP Progress Reports (pp. 180-215)

7. Task 2 Morph D Progress Reports (pp. 216-251)

Assay Development: Validation

8. Validity Test Reports B SNP (pp. 253-408)

9. Validity Test Report D Deletion (pp. 409-661)

Assay Development: Standard Operating Procedures

10. Standard Operating Procedure Real-Time PCR Assay for the Detection of the

Morph B SNP (pp. 662-686)

11. Standard Operating Procedure Real-Time PCR Assay for the Detection of the

Morph D Deletion (pp. 687-710)

Repository Screening Morph D: Progress Reports

12. Monthly Status Reports (pp. 711-800 and 803-955)

13. FBI Kick-Off Meeting (pp. 956-996)

14. B. anthracis Morph D DNA Screening Progress Reviews (pp. 997-1016)

Repository Screening Morph D: Final Reports

15. Technical Repository Screening Final Reports (pp. 1018-1134)

16. Option Period I, II, III Final Reports (pp. 1135-1212)

Module 8: Genetic Mutations B and D (MRI)

Assay Development: Technical Proposals

1. Volume 1 Technical Proposal (pp. 3-57)

2. Task 1 DNA Assay Development – Morph B SNP (pp. 58-80)

3. Task 2 DNA Assay Development – Morph D Deletion (pp. 81-102)

Assay Development: Progress Reports

4. Task 1 Morph B SNP Progress Reports (pp. 104-170)

5. Task 2 Morph D Deletion Progress Reports (pp. 171-242)

Assay Development: Validation

6. Morph B SNP Assay Validity Test Report (pp. 244-260)

7. Morph D Deletion Assay Validity Test Report (pp. 261-272)

Assay Development: Standard Operating Procedures

8. Extraction of DNA from Bacillus anthracis Cultures (pp. 274-281)

9. PCR-Based Assay for the Detection of Morph B SNP (pp. 282-315)

10. PCR-Based Assay for the Detection of Morph D Deletion (pp. 316-350)

Assay Development: Final Reports

11. Task 1 Morph B Final Administrative Report (pp. 352-358)

12. Task 2 Morph D Final Administrative Report (pp. 359-366)

13. DNA Assay Development Morph B SNP (pp. 367-380)

14. DNA Assay Development Morph D Deletion (pp. 381-396)

Repository Screening Morph D: Technical Proposals

15. Volume 1 Technical Proposal (pp. 398-435)

Repository Screening Morph D: Progress Reports

16. DNA Screening of Ames Strain Anthrax Samples for Morph D (pp. 437-628)

Repository Screening Morph D: Final Reports

17. Technical Repository Screening Report (pp. 630-670)

18. Technical Repository Screening Report Addendum 1 (pp. 671-675)

19. Technical Repository Screening Report Addendum 2 (pp. 676-680)

Module 9: Genetic Mutation E (TIGR)

Assay Development: Technical Proposals

1. LL19 Detection Assay: Validation Study Analysis Plan (pp. 3-7)

2. LL19 Detection Assay: Analysis Plan for 1060 Blind Samples (pp. 8-13)

Assay Development: Progress Reports

3. June 2004 thru Sept/Dec 2005 (see Batch 1, Module 5)

Assay Development: Standard Operating Procedure

4. Opaque Assay Development SOP (pp. 16-58)

Assay Development: Validation

5. B. anthracis LL19 Detection Assay: Validation Study (pp. 60-123)

Assay Development: Final Report

6. Genomic Analysis of Bacillus anthracis Isolates Relevant to the Amerithrax

Investigation, June 4, 2005 (Morph E (Opaque, Post/Leahy B.s.) (see Batch 1,

Module 5)

Repository Screening Morph E: Final Report

7. Analysis of a Repository of Bacillus anthracis for the Presence of the LL19

Opaque Deletion Genotype (pp. 126-323)

Module 10: Statistical Analysis

Technical Proposal and SOW

1. Determination of the Significance of the Markers Discovered in the Evidentiary

Material of Amerithrax Investigation (pp. 3-21)

Final Report

2. Statistical Report of Amerithrax Data (Sept 30, 2008) (pp. 23-135)

Module 11: Cross Contamination

Reports

1. “Risk Assessment of Anthrax Threat Letters,” Defense R&D Canada,

Technical Report DRES-TR-2001-048, September 2001 (pp. 3-36)

2. “Forensic Application of Microbiological Culture Analysis to Identify Mail

Intentionally Contaminated with Bacillus anthracis Spores,” D.J. Beecher,

Applied Environmental Biology, Aug 2006, p. 5304-5310 (pp. 37-43)

Module 12: Declassified Reports

Technical Review Panel Meetings (NAS-1)

1. November 14, 2001 Technical Review Panel Meeting (pp. 3-13)

Agar and Heme Analysis (NAS-1): Agar Assay Validation – BMI

2. Statement of Work B-Task-04 Chemical Process Troubleshooting (pp. 14-20)

3. SPOT Report on B-Task-04 Technical Progress Summary (pp. 21-27)

Chemical and Physical Characteristics (NAS-2) (see Batch 2, Module 13)

Module 13: Chemical and Physical Properties

Reports

1. Determination of Concentration of Culturable Bacteria in Sample

02.57.03(Daschle)

Oct 17-18, 2001 (pp. 3-7)

2. Preliminary SPOT Report on Particle Size Analysis Oct 18, 2001 (pp. 8-22)

3. SEM Images Sample A (Daschle) Oct 19, 2001 (pp. 23-28)

4. Summary of Microbiological Analyses Oct 19, 2001 (pp. 29-31)

5. Preliminary SPOT Report on Sample Analyses Oct 22, 2001 (pp. 32-57)

6. Preparation Steps and Associated Equipment Oct 25, 2001 (pp. 58-61)

7. Analysis of Silicon and Silica in Powder Samples November 21, 2001 (pp. 62-

74)

8. Analysis of Silicon and Silica in Powder Samples SEM/EDS Analysis Nov 26,

2001 (pp. 75-88)

9. The Analysis of Surrogate Dry Powder Bacillus Spore Product December 28,

2001 (pp. 89-98)

10. Analysis of SPS02.266.02C (Leahy) Feb 12, 2002 (pp. 99-144)

11. Summary of Sample Analysis (SPS02.266.02C) 28 Feb 02 (pp. 145-178)

Module 14: ASM Bio Defense Meeting Presentations

CBI, Mr. Thomas A. Reynolds

1. The Science Behind the Amerithrax Investigation: Morph A1 and A3 Assays

(pp. 3-11)

MRI

2. Morphotype D Assay Development and Validation (pp. 13-33)

NAU, Dr. Paul Keim

3. The Ames Strain: Frequency, Distribution, and Forensic Analysis (pp. 35-51)

SNL, Dr. Joseph R. Michael

4. Elemental Microanalysis of Bacillus anthracis Spores from the Amerithrax

Case (pp. 53-71)

TIGR, Dr. Jacques Ravel

5. The Genomics Behind the Amerithrax Investigation (pp. 73-106)

BATCH 33

1. Amerithrax Science Update – 04-26/2002 – 11/25/2005 (271 pages)

2. EC dated 2/8/2005 – Technical Review Panel Meeting Agenda, Anthrax Review

Panel, Amerithrax Panel Summary 11/14/2001; 12 page PowerPoint (17 pages)

3. EC dated 12/21/2001 – Meeting of Analytical Chemistry Expert (279A-WF-222936-

LAB serial 37 and 1A 579) (7 pages)

4. EC dated 2/11/2002 – Proposed Lab Analysis and R&D Strategy Analytical Flow

Chart (279A-WF-22936-LAB serial 65) (5 pages)

5. EC dates 11/14/2005 – Case Agent Meeting (attached WFO Forensic & Investigation

update meeting 11/05/2001) (279A-WF-22936-LAB serial 1308 and 1A 6553) (30

pages)

6. EC dated 11/14/2005 – Scientific Review Panel Meeting June 11-22-2002 (279AWF-

22936-LAB serial 1310 and 1A 6554) (22 pages)

7. EC dated 12/21/2001 – External Expert Review of Analytical Plan (279A-WF-22936-

LAB serial 25 and 1A 533) (7 pages)

8. U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Reference Material

Receipt Record (1 page)

9. 279A-WF-222936-BATTELLE Serial #914

10. 279A-WF-222936-SC118 Serial #3 (8 pages)

11. 279A-WF-222936-USAMRIID/BEI Serial #19 (7 pages)

12. 279A-WF22936-USAMRIID Serial #1418 (2 pages)

13. Dr. Ivins USAMRIID Laboratory Notebook #4010 (30 pages)

14. Incoming Shipment Records for the 8 Positive FBI Repository Samples (origin is

FBIR Database) (19 pages)

15A. United States District Court Search Warrant Application and Affidavit Case#07-

524-M-01 (33 pages)

15B. United States District Court Search Warrant Application and Affidavit Case#07-

525-M-01 (27 pages)

15C. United States District Court Search Warrant Application and Affidavit Case#07-

3 The FBI did not assign page numbers to this batch of materials.

4 While this document was listed in the Batch 3 table of contents provided to the committee by the FBI, this

document was not provided to the committee because of its security classification.

526-M-01 (28 pages)

15D. United States District Court Search Warrant Application and Affidavit Case#07-

527-M-01 (28 pages)

15E. United States District Court Search Warrant Application and Affidavit Case#07-

528-M-01 (28 pages)

15F. United States District Court Search Warrant Application and Affidavit Case#07-

529-M-01 (39 pages)

16. FBI Repository Shipment Records5 (32 pages)

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS6

1. AFIP Materials related to USAMRIID Specimens October 2001 (41 pages)

2. Preparing and Shipping TSA Slants for B. Anthracis Ames (1 page)

3. FBI WFO [Washington Field Office] Report on Samples from an Overseas Site

Identified by Intelligence7 (18 pages)

5 The FBI did not assign a name to this document. The descriptor was assigned by the committee.

6 The FBI did not assign page numbers to supplementary documents provided to the committee.

7 The FBI did not assign a name to this document. The descriptor was assigned by the committee.

135 Responses to “* Index of Documents Provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the NAS”

  1. DXer said

    USAMRIID’s Special Pathogens Branch, which was working closely with the FBI, would send out more b.anthracis than was requested (to places like UAB and IITRI and University of Maryland).

    Special Pathogens would lyophilize the excess amount of the secondary stocks to avoid temperature requirements in shipping. (279A-WF-22236-USAMRIID, FBI 302, dated 4/17/2003, page 5.)

    Can you imagine how Abby on NCIS might have handled this? Without spending the millions of dollars over the course of a decade?

    She would have said to the FBI scientists in October 2001: “by any chance, have your people been sending out dried anthrax without recording it on the paperwork?”

    Then maybe Amerithrax could have been solved and the US wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Maybe Dr. Zawahiri would have been captured at Tora Bora, Maybe ISIS would not have been been born.

    Maybe Dr. Ayman Zawahiri would not be free this week to urge that the US be attacked in another 9/11.

    When the next 9/11 occurs — and it will — it will be the fault to everyone who did not respond to questions, did not locate and provide the relevant documents, and people like Dr. Majidi who spun Dr. Ivins’ guilt and avoided reaching these questions — even while knowing all that he knows.

    Just like when the US sold TOW-equipped helicopters to Iraq at the height of the Iraq-Iran war — which were ostensibly for the purpose of agricultural spraying missions — it never hurts to follow the money.

    Anthrax, Al Qaeda and Ayman Zawahiri: The Infiltration of US Biodefense
    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

  2. DXer said

    http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=663265&Itemid=30

    News conference regarding the release of a special report that examines confidential material related to the 2001 anthrax attacks. (News Media Only)

    WHY:
    In 2009, an independent Panel was convened to examine previously unreleased and confidential material relating to the 2001 anthrax attacks. The panel was made up of nine nationally prominent experts in behavioral science, toxicology, medicine, terrorism, and organizational systems and operations.

    The panel’s printed, bounded, 285-page report, partially redacted, will be available in limited numbers immediately following the conclusion of this pressconference.

    WHO:
    Independent Panel of National Experts; Represented by the Panel’s Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Member Representative

    WHEN:
    March 23, 2011, 8:30 a.m. EDT; 1 hour to include Q&A

    WHERE:
    University Hall (2nd Floor), The University Club of DC

    1135 16th St NW

    Washington, DC 20005

    Continental breakfast provided

    The Research Strategies Network is a nonprofit educational organization that conducts research and educates the public, including government officials, community leaders, and others, concerning national security, international affairs, counter-terrorism, public safety, and other important public policy issues.

    CONTACT:
    Patrick Walsh
    703-356-6567
    Patrick.Walsh@researchstrategiesnetwork.org

    SOURCE Research Strategies Network

  3. DXer said

    What is the source for the FBI’s suggestion that it is 90% certain that Dr. Ivins knew of the genetic mutations issue prior to submission of the February 2002 samples (the first submission which was thrown out by Dr. Ezzell’s lab but which the duplicate sent to Dr. Keim’s lab showed to have 4 morphs). Whose estimate is that? (See FBIR Submission timeline)

  4. DXer said

    His former assistant explained in a 302:

    “Ivins would determine the LD-50of pathogenic organisms with mice. Ivins used BALB-C and CBA-J mice, per the publications. Because of his work with spores, Ivins would do weekly spore check swipes of the bacteriology suites, and there would occasionally be a small contamination somewhere in the lab (e.g., phone, doorknob).”

  5. DXer said

    I have read the 9600 pages that the FBI provided to the NAS but cannot find any mention that the scientist in charge of collecting the samples had made a dried aerosol out of Flask 1029 — that he says was more pure than what was mailed to Daschle and Leahy. Yet, I see documents relating to Dr. Ezzell’s and Terry Abshire’s collection of samples from Battelle and Dr. Ivins’ lab, and documents showing the FBI’s keen interest in testing Terry Abshire’s own samples. Shouldn’t it have been disclosed to the panel, which included a federal district court judge, that its own expert had made a dried powder out of Flask 1029?

  6. DXer said

    AMERITHRAX SCIENCE UPDATE, 4/18/03

    “University of Utah (UUT)

    UUT has completed the isotope analyses of 20 drinking water samples collected from areas throughout the United STates. The geographic distribution of water isotope values were generally consistent with the known trends for water in the United States. Five out of eighteen cities had similar isotopic ratios to include Columbus, OH; New York, NY; Princeton, NJ; Frederick, MD and Fort Dawson, WV. However, these water samples were distinguishable from other cities such as Dugway, UT; Livermore, CA; Oklahoma City, OK and Miami, FL.

    In preparation for the water sample collection from foreign locations by the Legat Offices, AMX-2 will discuss with UUT scientists which countries will be significant to ensure an adequate sampling. Several Legat Offices cover numerous countries and to ensure a sufficent sampling is conducted, specific countries need to be identified and samples collected from those areas.”

  7. DXer said

    9/05/2002 update –

    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI)
    WHOI has completed the isotopic analysis of the samples it has received from another agency regarding microbial forensics. In cooperation with a midwest university they have demonstrated that oxygen and hydrogen isotope rations can be used to indicate the source of water in which the cultures were grown. The Chem Bio Sciences Unit (CBSU) of the Lab will examine the forensic utility of applying this tecnique to the evidence in this case.”

    Comment:

    As published, the article indicated that the funding was from the CIA. Later it was determined that there were too many confounding variables to rely on isotope analysis of the water — for example, given the nutrients.

  8. DXer said

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – AMERITHRAX Sample Status for for 7/26/02

    “FBI Laboratory

    Counterterrorism Forensic Science Research Unit has completed a background report on the use and manufacturing of stainless steel in biological processing equipment. The report indicated that trace element analysis of the particles could provide differentiation among individual production batches within a given source or allow sorting among a few sources. There are limitations in relating measurements on grain-sized particles (similar to those in this case) to the bulk composition due to the expected heterogeneity of such small samples.”

  9. DXer said

    The interview was conducted in Washington, D.C.

    The lead suspect was dead There were “questions, concerns and uncertainties about whether they in fact had the right person” and so there was a call for a review of the science.

    “Congress said to FBI and FBI said to NAS: Please tell us how we did.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl

  10. DXer said

    The FBI should produce all emails written on his home computer, all contemporaneous notes he made in the lab when he allegedly was weaponizing anthrax, all receipts etc. If the FBI does not produce them, the GAO should obtain them — by subpoena if necessary. That is the approach a researcher would take if he were interested in understanding whether the documentary evidence, without more, establishes an alibi. And of course if you haven’t read the 302s from the family you haven’t even heard from the alibi witnesses.

    The difficulty in establishing an alibi was that Ken and Rachel refused to identify the “window of mailing” — and when they did after his death they did not disclose the documentary evidence from that day and the days he was in the lab (and they still haven’t).

  11. DXer said

    Forensics Under the Microscope

    More courts are starting to question the ‘facts’ proved by scientific evidence.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/17/forensics-under-the-microscope.html

    For his forthcoming book, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong (Harvard University Press, April 2011), University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett examined the trial transcripts and other legal documents of the first 250 people to be exonerated by DNA in this country. He discovered that in more than half these cases, trials were tainted by “invalid, unreliable, concealed, or erroneous forensic evidence.” The errors ranged from analysts making up statistics on the fly, implying that their methods were more scientific than they actually were, and exaggerating or distorting their findings to support the prosecution.

    Peter Neufeld, a lawyer in New York and cofounder of the Innocence Project, which has helped to facilitate many of these exonerations, calls it the “elastic expert: no matter what you see, I can distort it so that it would be a match.”

    This “elasticity” is possible because the tests are largely subjective. Just how much human judgment is required depends on the discipline: DNA testing is mostly—though not entirely—done by machine, for instance, whereas microscopic hair comparison is based solely on the analyst’s opinion. Even fingerprints, which many of us regard as foolproof tools for identifying culprits—think Dexter feeding a print into his computer and a bad guy’s photo and driver’s license appearing on the screen—in fact rely largely on human interpretation, and therefore are subject to human error.

    Part of the problem is what social scientists call “context bias.” Most forensics labs are located within police departments, so analysts may see themselves as working “for” the prosecution. They also usually have information about the evidence they’re testing—for example, that the suspect has a prior record. “There’s a lot of research to suggest that knowledge could have biasing effect,” says Jennifer Mnookin, a professor at the UCLA School of Law.

    In a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that whether consciously or not, an analyst “responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure—or have an incentive—to alter the evidence in a manner favorable to the prosecution.” The judges’ ruling means that forensic test results may be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as any other evidence, and an analyst from the lab that ran the test must be present in court to be cross-examined, just like any other witness.

    “Obviously, most people in this community are trying to do their jobs well and are not trying to frame innocent people,” says the University of Virginia’s Garrett. “But what we’ve seen come out of these exoneration cases and in additional scandals at the laboratories is that this is not a problem of a few bad apples. Who is the competent analyst that can testify about a technique that’s fundamentally unreliable? That’s not a bad-apple problem. That’s a serious problem with our entire system.”

  12. DXer said

    On Netflix –

  13. Lew Weinstein said

    QUIZI MOTO said to ED … The NAS report is clear that the information used by the FBI to do so doesn’t hold water. Not by some slim margin, but in its entirety it does not prove the anthrax came from RMR-1029.

    LEW … QM and many others are so right about this, but will never convince Ed. Can I suggest that we stop debating this particular point and move on to many other issues where actual evidence can be adduced to prove guilt or innocence.

    • BugMaster said

      Novazymes

      3. Identification of the NY Post contaminant as B. licheniformis (p. 21)

      From Wikipedia:

      Bacillus licheniformis is a bacterium commonly found in the soil. It is found on bird feathers, especially chest and back plumage, and most often in ground dwelling birds (like sparrows) and aquatic species (like ducks).

      Sparrow!? When I think of a ground dwelling bird, I think of chicken, not “sparrow”!

      • DXer said

        Wikipedia continues:

        “Currently, scientists are exploring its ability to degrade feathers for agricultural purposes. Feathers contain high amounts of non-digestible proteins, but researchers hope that through fermentation with B. licheniformis, they can use waste feathers to produce cheap and nutritious feather meal to feed livestock.”

        The scientist who lived a mile from me in 2001 who was arrested when Ali Al-Timimi’s townhouse was searched is an animal geneticist whose mentor worked on a US Army device called MICROBIAL VAC that sequentially filtered and concentrated anthrax by a factor of 10. He was involved in food research relating to breeding better animal feedstuffs. I called him to ask him about these matters — for example, silica which his mentor and friend said he was expert at mixing with — but he said too much was going on to talk. His arrest as a material witness was part of something called OPERATION IMMINENT HORIZON.

  14. DXer said

    And the fact that Bruce Ivins supplied a former Zawahiri associate virulent Ames doesn’t trouble Ed because he doesn’t read things that don’t involve his sorority theory.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/the-lifelong-friends-of-dr-tarek-hamouda-supplied-virulent-ames-by-bruce-ivins-actively-denounce-their-former-medical-school-associate-ayman-zawahiri-as-a-fanatic-one-serving-as-president-of-ca/

  15. DXer said

    You won’t find Ed discussing the Ames that was KNOWN to have gone missing.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/a-new-email-withheld-for-2-years-shows-that-ivins-recognized-that-some-of-his-ames-was-missing/

    He would rather engage in character assassination as if it were probative of the issue at bar.

  16. DXer said

    Rather than mentioning the weaponized anthrax known to have gone missing, Ed prefers to focus on theft of a book pre-1985 and dress it up as a relevant and probative felonious burglary.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/will-it-take-congressional-subpena-power-to-fill-in-the-blanks-in-the-email-asking-about-weaponized-anthrax-that-came-to-detrick-and-then-was-shipped-out-and-some-was-missing/

  17. DXer said

    Ed trotted out a graph of overtime without ever acknowledging that the 2-person rule precluded such overtime (such as Dr. Ivins worked in December) beginning in 2002.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/dxer-questions-about-overtime-worked-by-dr-bruce-ivins/

  18. DXer said

    As an example of Ed’s failure to focus on the probative evidence, he has never even evidenced any awareness of the issue of the photocopy toner — rather than merely examination of the “tracks” left by the device that grips the paper.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/photocopy-toner-at-usamriid/

  19. BugMaster said

    Ed:

    “we know that there are a few co-workers who are very vocal about NOT believing that Ivins did it? Examples: Dr. Henry Heine and Dr. Jeffrey Adamovicz.

    They have reason to be be vocal: If Ivins was guilty, then they failed to notice what Ivins was doing right under their noses. If Ivins was guilty, that makes Heine and Adamovicz unobservant and negligent for not noticing that they were working with a dangerous sociopath who used materials from USAMRIID to kill five people and injure 17 others.”

    So most of us that don’t accept the FBI’s “case” against Ivins are clearly part of the lunatic fringe, as in conspiracy theorists or true believers.

    And in the case of Adamovicz, Heine, and Andrews, you are essentially stating that they don’t accept the FBI’s “case” against Ivins because they can’t accept the truth and consider what they could have done differently, and therefore, according to your analyis, are COWARDS!.

    Several years ago, Ed, I was having a conversation with a well-known credentialed journalist. Your name came up, he had interviewed you sometime earlier.

    His response, regarding Edwin G. Lake:

    “He is a very compromised man”.

    At the time I thought, “That’s rather harsh!”.

    But now, I think he was being only too kind!

  20. DXer said

    Ed keeps talking about what he asserts is the “evidence” and yet one item is that he asserts Dr. Ivins did not have an alibi when the documentary evidence, that Ed nowhere addresses, establishes he did. Ed has said that the window for mailing began at 5 p.m. on September 17. He should be asked then what time Bruce’s group therapy session was and when he imagines Dr. Ivins travelled.

    We need less media analysis and fewer repeated assertions of disputed facts — and more quotation of and uploading of the relevant documentation.

    Ed argues that it is 99% certain a First Grader wrote the letters — and if that were true it would serve, without more, as basis for to obtain an acquittal given the doubt that would ensue.

  21. DXer said

    BOSTON GLOBE:

    Consider the case solved
    February 22, 2011

    “THE MAILED anthrax spores that killed five people in 2001 provoked fears of bio-warfare by overseas terrorists, particularly since the attacks came on the heels of Sept. 11. The FBI investigation that followed was one of the most intensive ever, finally concluding that a microbiologist at the Army’s laboratory in Fort Detrick, Md., Bruce Ivins, mailed the anthrax. Ivins committed suicide, so prosecutors will never get the chance to prove the FBI’s case in court. But a National Academy of Sciences panel reviewed the scientific analysis used by the FBI to link the mailed anthrax to a sample in Ivins’s lab. And it was convincin enough. Barring a shocking new development, the anthrax case should be considered solved.

    The panel’s report last week made no judgment about Ivins’s guilt or innocence. It examined only the scientific methods used in the FBI investigation. And while it found that the FBI’s genetic analysis of the anthrax “did not definitively demonstrate’’ that the mailed anthrax came from Ivins’s stock, it declared that the analysis was “consistent with and supports an association’’ of the spores in the fatal letters with those controlled by Ivins. In other words, the evidence gathered by the FBI is persuasive, and perhaps conclusive, even if it does not equal scientific certainty.

    Nonetheless, the FBI’s flawed pursuit of another scientist before targeting Ivins, combined with the conclusion that the link to Ivins’s lab was not completely definitive, suggests that the case will be fodder for endless conspiracy theories. It would be truly unfortunate if those theories led people to fear that overseas terrorists still possess deadly spores and are preparing for another attack. That’s highly unlikely. Scientific clues as well as circumstantial evidence gathered in the FBI investigation point toward a lone perpetrator — almost certainly Ivins — and away from Al Qaeda.”

    I am doing a very fun Boston.com photo scavenger hunt this month with my daughter and so that paper can do no wrong in my book. The logic of the analysis, however, points as well to an infiltration of US biodefense and the former Zawahiri associate supplied Ames by Bruce Ivins.

    But not even the people regularly following the case have read the pertinent materials to know that — and so I am not going to blame an editorial writer.

    Indeed, as I recall (and I may be mistaken) Boston Globe’s Farah Stockman did some of the most important work regarding the lab in Afghanistan that showed a jar of what presumably was Sterne and had been harvested in early June 2001. You could see the AP photographer’s reflection in the bottle. (I am pretty sure FS toured the lab). The paper was the only one that carried the AP photo. Moreover, FS has done important reporting on Aafia and anyone who has stepped over broken shards of glass at a lab in Afghanistan has earned their paper the right to weigh in on the debate.

    But now as to the merits of the analysis that an infiltrator in the US supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins — rather than folks in Afghanistan — was responsible:

    • Ali Mohammed, the head of intelligence for Egyptian Islamic Jihad who had a document on his computer seized by the FBI that outlined principles of cell security that would be followed, trained Dahab, a Cairo medical drop-out, to make deadly
    letters. Who does Ali think is responsible?

    • Dr. Bruce Ivins hosted one Egyptian visitor in the B3 who was the lifelong friend of a former Egyptian Islamic Jihad member, a schoolmate, recruited by Ayman Zawahiri. Who does he think is responsible? …

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/dxer-reports-that-ivins-hosted-one-egyptian-visitor-in-the-b3-who-was-the-lifelong-friend-of-a-former-egyptian-islamic-jihad-member-a-schoolmate-recruited-by-ayman-zawahiri/

    • Dr. Bruce Ivins hosted one Egyptian visitor in the B3 who was the lifelong friend of a former Egyptian Islamic Jihad member, a schoolmate, recruited by Ayman Zawahiri. Why did the FBI not obtain the relevant documents until February 2005? …

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/dxer-reports-that-ivins-hosted-one-egyptian-visitor-in-the-b3-who-was-the-lifelong-friend-of-a-former-egyptian-islamic-jihad-member-a-schoolmate-recruited-by-ayman-zawahiri/

    • This document seized in Afghanistan pointed to infiltration n of US biodefense. To what was the author referring?

    • This Zawahiri correspondence with infiltrating scientist was part of parallel compartmentalized cell operation. Who else did Ayman attempt to recruit (besides the schoolmate and close friend of Bruce Ivins’ co-worker)?

    • The documents dating from April 1999 show that Ayman Zawahiri’s plan was to recruit a specialist. Who else did Ayman Zawahiri succeed in recruiting?

    • The lifelong friends of Dr. Tarek Hamouda, supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins, actively denounce their former medical school associate Ayman Zawahiri as a fanatic – one serving as President of CAIR-St. Louis and the other as author of INSIDE JIHAD. After the FBI first obtained in 2005 the documents relating to Dr. Hamouda’s work with Dr. ivins, did they contact Dr. Hamid who reports he was recruited into the Egyptian Islamic Group by Ayman Zawahiri while in medical school? Did they contact his brother who publicly announced that he could not identify a sleeper cell if he did not know about it?

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/the-lifelong-friends-of-dr-tarek-hamouda-supplied-virulent-ames-by-bruce-ivins-actively-denounce-their-former-medical-school-associate-ayman-zawahiri-as-a-fanatic-one-serving-as-president-of-ca/

    • Why did the FBI fail disclose that Jdey was detained and released as the same time as Moussaoui?

    • Ayman Zawahiri had an extensive recruiting network for his anthrax planning and the announcement of his plans in March 1999, including the blind sheik’s son who spoke alongside Ali Al-Timimi and was on Al Qaeda’s 3-member WMD society. Did the blind sheik’s son recruit Ali Al-Timimi?

    • Wasn’t the interpretation of the code the brainchild of the two scientists, Mara and Pat, who were thanked for technical assistance by the former Zawahiri associate supplied Ames by Bruce Ivins.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/ivins-coded-message/

    • Shouldn’t the Intelligence Community have known that Ayman Zawahiri used “school” to refer to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad given that Ayman Zawahiri’s letter to his supporters (which was obtained by the CIA)?

    • Isn’t it Ayman Zawahiri who used “school” and not Bruce Ivins who used “school” as code and had reason to do so?

    • While US government focuses on Anwar Al-Aulaqi, why does it continue to overlook Aulaqi’s connection to fellow Falls Church imam, a scientist sharing the suite with the leading bioweapons Ames anthrax researchers with whom defense counsel says Aulaqi was coordinating?

    • Shouldn’t GAO subpoena the records relating to the connection between Ali Al-Timimi and the Ames researchers at the DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense? That is where he had unfettered access to the largest microbiological repository in the world where the bacteriology collection scientist was the future head of the Amerithrax science investigation who would guide the NAS review and the production of documents from the FBI to NAS.

  22. Lew Weinstein said

    ED says …

    DXer thinks some Muslim did it.
    Anonymous thinks it’s all a government plot to cover up some illegal bioweapons program.
    Lew seems to have a theory that the government is covering up for the real killers.
    BugMaster has a theory that the entire FBI is “stupid” and anyone who disagrees with her is “ignorant.”
    Richard Rowley seems to have a theory that some German was behind the anthrax attacks.

    LEW says …

    But all of us, and almost all of the rest of the world except you, sees very clearly that the FBI case against Dr. Bruce Ivins is not even close to convincing, and we all wonder why.

    • richard rowley said

      Partial post by Mister Lake:
      —————
      Ah! That is your biggest fantasy of all. Almost all of the rest of the world has no interest in the anthrax case, and they assume that since there haven’t been any further attacks that the FBI got the real culprit.
      ================================================
      Ah! For once Mister Lake has written a paragraph that I fully agree with. I would only add however,

      1)that people who have “no interest” in the anthrax case are INEVITABLY going to be people whose knowledge of it is shallow, often shallow in the extreme. That likely DOES apply to ‘the rest of the world’ (ie outside the precincts of Amerithrax sceptics)

      2)since there were no “new attacks” from October 2001 to July 2008 (when Ivins committed suicide), the fact that there have been no new attacks since July 2008 isn’t of much even probative value, so the ‘assumption’ that the FBI got the real culprit is indeed an assumption. And of the most silly sort.

      • DXer said

        Dr. Ivins did not know Steve Hatfill contrary to Ed’s suggestion.

        Dr. Ivins was not the reason for the attention paid to Steve Hatfill.

      • richard rowley said

        Partial post by Ed Lake:
        —————-
        “Dr. Ivins did not know Steve Hatfill contrary to Ed’s suggestion.”

        It was not my “suggestion”. It was part of a quote from BugMaster. She was quoting an NPR reporter.
        =============================
        And the NPR reporter:

        1) thought Ivins knew Hatfill.
        WRONG!

        2)thought Ivins put the finger on Hatfill.
        WRONG!

        3)thought that “all” (!!!) of Ivins coworkers thought him guilty.
        WRONG!

        So, this would-be expert on Amerithrax got even the ABCs wrong.
        —————————–
        Another partial by Ed Lake:
        ———
        So, of course, BugMaster attacked Temple-Raston because she doesn’t believe as BugMaster believes.
        —————————
        I think he was likely pointing out that she was banking on her prestige as a reporter. Plus the fact that the average audience member would have no independent knowledge base with which to contradict those howlers.

      • DXer said

        The FBI’s anthrax expert, John Ezzell, was asked specifically whether he thought Dr. Bruce Ivins was guilty. You are mistaken if you think he said that he did. His response was filmed.

        You also have no basis whatsoever for suggesting that Pat or Mara think he is guilty. In fact, the record evidence shows that Mara fervently hoped that what she had told the FBI would not be misconstrued by the FBI. You haven’t even read the pertinent 302s, it would seem. Have you even read Diane’s 302 interview?

        I previously have, in a numbered items, listed 67 or so people who knew Ivins and were confident that he was innocent. You just named three who knew him well – John hired him — and yet you have no evidence whatsoever that any of the three think he is guilty. And that’s even with John on film on the precise question.

        You quote a diagnosis reported by the woman, an addictions counselor under house arrest for a second DWI, who spells her profession “theripist” in her last week of work there.

        Most anyone would be homicidal if the FBI were going to test his semen on panties and call his family — even though the DNA testing had nothing whatsoever to the case. Note in the recent ACLU suit for violation of the First Amendment, according to headlines, the FBI sought information about the sex lives of people.

        Only you Ed are actively arguing he is guilty while expressing no interest in such fundamental things like — what time was the email he sent to Mara sent? You need to take greater care in getting facts as basic as whether Dr. Ezzell thinks Bruce is guilty.

      • DXer said

        This portion does not contain the portion where he is asked if Ivins could have done it but does contain a separate portion where he is asked if Al Qaeda could be responsible.

      • DXer said

        Unlike you, Ed, the FBI’s anthrax expert is reserving judgment. You had your mind made up when some web poster first suggested in December 2001 that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. Dr. Ezzell is waiting for probative evidence relating to who is responsible for the anthrax mailings of Fall 2001.

        And as to Pat and Mara, you just assert your assumptions as facts with scant basis — assumptions commonly contradicted by the public facts. I once undertook a listing of the dozens of factual errors on your page and you never corrected any of them.

    • DXer said

      It is mistaken to think that just because something occurred that there can be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it did.

      We can only ask that when people suggest a particular scenario they address the documentary evidence.

      Here, relying on the FBI finding, Ed asserts that the mailing occurred sometime after September 17 at 5 p.m. but he never addresses Dr. Ivins group therapy session on that date as providing an alibi.

      The reason attorney Paul Kemp could not previously point it out as establishing an alibi is because AUSA Rachel Lieber had never narrowed the window of mailing.

      I would ask that Ed explain when he thinks Dr. Ivins travelled to New Jersey to mail the first batch based on the evidence relating to that week in September 2001 — and not events that occurred 15-25 years earlier to Dr. Ivins’ taking of a book.

  23. BugMaster said

    Module 1: B. Subtilis Contaminant

    Novazymes

    3. Identification of the NY Post contaminant as B. licheniformis (p. 21)

    Does anyone have a copy of page 21 to post!??

    Why the interest in licheniformis?

    Note that when searching the ATCC website for licheniformis strains, approx. 20% of them come up as “(initially) deposited as b. subtilis”.

  24. DXer said

    Why didn’t the NAS review include a review of the documents from peer reviewed literature in Ayman Zawahiri’s possession rather than allow the former collection scientist from ATCC narrowly frame the questions around the USAMRIID scientist who tragically committed suicide? That analysis was done by Amerithrax and was important science relied upon.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/dxer-documents-in-the-possession-of-ayman-zawahiri-and-his-associates-illustrate-the-dangers-of-scientific-openness/

  25. DXer said

    Doesn’t the documentary evidence showing that the key 16 pages was not obtained by the FBI until February 2005 suggest that Amerithrax is the biggest FBI/CIA intelligence failure in the history of the United States?

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/dxer-reports-that-ivins-hosted-one-egyptian-visitor-in-the-b3-who-was-the-lifelong-friend-of-a-former-egyptian-islamic-jihad-member-a-schoolmate-recruited-by-ayman-zawahiri/https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/from-dxer-documents-related-to-university-of-michigan/https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/aaa_um-researcher.jpghttps://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/newly-released-ivins-emails-show-that-no-record-was-kept-of-transfers-to-former-zawahiri-associate-because-it-was-done-at-usamriid/https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/the-lifelong-friends-of-dr-tarek-hamouda-supplied-virulent-ames-by-bruce-ivins-actively-denounce-their-former-medical-school-associate-ayman-zawahiri-as-a-fanatic-one-serving-as-president-of-ca/

  26. DXer said

    Prior to 9/11, when did USAMRIID’s John Ezzell, the FBI’s anthrax expert, who made a dried aerosol using Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins, send the dried spores to Johns-Hopkins Applied Physics he had made at the request of DARPA? Did those spores show a silicon signature?

    • DXer said

      Why was the FBI asking everyone whether they had seen olive oil in one of the aerosol rooms. Was that indicated by the forensics?

  27. DXer said

    Didn’t the only expert interviewed by the FBI about the code in the letters for which documents were produced disagree with the FBI’s theory of code in the letters?

  28. DXer said

    When did SRI first obtain virulent Ames and from whom?

    • DXer said

      Where was the research on the corona plasma discharge and sonicator on Ames spores supplied by Bruce Ivins conducted for DARPA? Anywhere else? Where were aerosol studies done using dried powder?

  29. DXer said

    Ivins notes that the original researcher who obtained the slants from Texas came to work for the CIA. When did he start working for the CIA?

  30. Lew Weinstein said

    ED … It is not any single item which points to Ivins as the anthrax killer, it is the sum total of the evidence.

    LEW … as much as I think you are wrong and that there is no real evidence against Dr. Ivins, I do have to admire your unrelenting defense of the FBI. But I wonder why you do it. If the FBI has prevailed, why does it need such continuing support. Sometimes I fear you “doth protest too much.”

    • Anonymous said

      Do still believe the FBI did not try to reverse engineer the attack powder?

      I’m just curious to see how you will continue the deny this – given the FBI have explicitly stated in their now released weekly updates that’s exactly what they tried to do – giving details of how they did it – and how it didn’t work.

      • Anonymous said

        Extract From Amerithrax Weekly Report: September 2, 2004.

        “……. a series of experiments will be designed to attempt to replicate the silica signature that is noticed in the evidence”

      • Anonymous said

        What Ed Lake has previously written about reverse engineering. This is just one example. He has written similar comments probably hundreds of times.

        No doubt he will continue to deny the FBI tried to reverse engineer the powders – in spite of this newly released rather plainly and clearly worded statement: “……. a series of experiments will be designed to attempt to replicate the silica signature that is noticed in the evidence”

        https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/hunting-the-anthrax-killer-national-geographic-channel-sunday-july-26-900pm/

        Repeating nonsense about the 200 attempts to “reverse engineer” the attack anthrax appears to be your version of “solid facts.” It’s TOTAL NONSENSE. The scientist who was doing the work made it very clear that THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO REVERSE ENGINEER THE ATTACK ANTHRAX. Dugway didn’t even analyze the anthrax. Some others misspoke when they talked about “reverse engineering.”

      • Anonymous said

        ““Reverse engineering” assumes you have already figured out everything about the end result, and you are going to reproduce the end result in some new way without knowing exactly how the original was created.”

        Utter nonsense of course. Not surprising coming from someone who has never reverse engineered a chemical process in their life.

        It is clear that your years of denials about the fact the FBI tried and failed to reverse engineer the spores is because it exposes the single biggest weakness of their fairytale case against Dr Ivins.

      • Anonymous said

        “Do you really know that much about Daniel Martin, or are you just attacking him because he disagrees with you?”

        Your usual strawman argument – I don’t even know who Daniel Martin is – and you claim I am “attacking him”.

        Apparently you haven’t read the FBI Anthrax Weekly reports. It’s all spelled out in detail over many years. Dugway did indeed make spores for the FBI in “normal ways”. But then after that set of experiements they deliberately tried to reverse engineer the attack spores – by deliberately adding silicon. It didn’t work.

        Then after that the FBI contracted Edgewood labs in Maryland. They were given the job of specifically reverse engineering the attack spores to replicate ways they had been made incorporating the silicon signature. They tried for months. They tried – and they failed.

        For someone who pretends to be an expert on the anthrax attacks (when in fact you are simply a shill) – you should at least read the facts before you spout your nonsensical statements.

        The FACTS are that the FBI focussed like a laser beam on the exogeneous silicon containing compounds that were actually seen in ALL the samples – Leahy, Daschle and New York Post. The New York Post had a much higher concentration of the expogeneous material – but it was still there in the other powders.

        Clearly the exogeneous siliocn marterial is the raw material that gave the siliocn signature in the spore coats. It was added deliberately and is the key piece of evidence in the entire investigation. It was such a key piece of evidence that the FBI created a separate team called the “AMX 2 silicon team”.

        The FBI siezed scores of potential starting materials from USAMRIID and analyzed them for silicon – not one contained the amount of silicon that could explain anything that produced the attack spores. In other words they completely and utterly failed to understand the silicon or link it to USAMRIID. So they decided to pretend after spending 8 years focussed on it, that it didn;t matter since the alternative was admitting Ivins couldn;t have done it.

      • Roberto said

        I’d just feel a little better if whatever method could be duplicated with the constraints that Ivins labored under… seeing is believing I guess.

        Silicon probably did occur naturally (I’m not sure what an unnatural chemical reaction is anyway – but I get the point).

        RE: chemical structures… Flotability is only one part of the level of nastiness; sticking to your lungs the right way is another; toughness is another.

        Even if the silicon occurred ‘naturally’ this doesn’t mean hanky-panky didn’t also occur. If a person picked a method from the get-go which guaranteed naturally occurring silicon, for whatever reason, is this really all that different from adding it later if there was some desired effect?

        I have no idea what effect the silicon had on the product – seems like the jury is still out on that point. It’s established, it seems, that it didn’t aid dispersability. Did it do anything?

        But nevertheless, whomever made the anthrax may have believed silicon *would* have some effect on it – regardless of whether or not they were correct in this belief. We don’t know this one way or the other.

      • DXer said

        Roberto is correct on the differing ways a pathogen can be made nasty. As explained in the book by Michael Osterholm and a NYT journalist in 2000 (which was on Ayman’s list in his memo to Atef), it is misleading to equate weaponization to with floatability. For example, the purpose served by microencapsulation under the Russian program was to increase the resistance of pathogens to sunlight and heat.

        As noted in the PhD thesis by Dr. Alibek’s assistant Crockett (advised by William Patrick and Ken Alibek at the DARPA Center for Biodefense), it also serves to reduce the need for expensive equipment in milling. For example, the researchers there in the “Microdroplet Cell Culture” method used silica in the culture medium to concentrate the anthrax — not for floatability. The scientist coordinating with Anwar Aulaqi, Ali Al-Timimi, shared a suite with Ken Alibek and the former deputy USAMRIID Commander, Charles Bailey, a prolific researcher who used Southern Research Institute to do the BL-3 work. Former Colleague #2, Patricia Fellows, left USAMRIID to work at the BL-3 lab there.

        The FBI scientists/contractors spent a great deal of time experimenting with silica in the culture medium. People are being misled by the FBI’s use of the word “naturally” — Dr. Burans is using the term to describe the incorporation in the spore coat pursuant to the growth process. Not dirt contaminating a lab.

        If these scientists did not obscure discussion of processing anthrax — or have analysis fall short on the details — we would blame them for that. I think we should spend less time finding fault with those who reach a different conclusion, and more time encouraging them to make it a priority to read relevant documents and conduct relevant interviews.

    • Quizi Moto said

      Mr. Ed Lake repeatedly uses the DOJ/FBI Summary Report as if it is a credible document. The document uses the term RMR-1029, 114 times in the report to make a great number of assumptions in the anthrax mailings. Ed the NAS report proves those assumptions made by the FBI, at the time of writing their report to be wrong.

      Why keep quoting a document based on bad science?

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed Lake said: “But that science was only part of the investigation, and the mountain of evidence”

        Mountain of evidence?

        Is there anything that proves Dr. Ivins was responsible?

      • Quizi Moto said

        What “Mountain” of evidence?

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed I don’t just click on links.

        Could you please describe it for me?

        Or what your links are suppose to lead to?

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed Lake said: The MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE proves Dr. Ivins was responsible. Why is that so hard to understand?

        Ed the links you provided do not lead to a mountain of evidence against Dr. Ivins. Here is some of the evidence you claim shows Dr. Ivins is responsible for the anthrax letters. If you have read the NAS report you will understand why it is not evidence. There is no evidence that shows Dr. Ivins had anything to do with the anthrax letters.

        The items below are copied from your website reached by the links you provided.

        He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the “mother” spores which produced the attack anthrax “daughter” spores. He was in charge of “the murder weapon.”

        The FBI investigated everyone else who had access to the RMR-1029 flask and eliminated all of them as suspects. Eliminating potential suspects is routine police procedure.

        He accessed the locked room (lab B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

        Investigators examined another flask of Ames anthrax spores created by Dr. Ivins for his own use in his work and found that a percentage of the spores in flask RMR-1030 contained silicon just like what was in the attack spores.

        Investigations found no evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

        There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

        People commit suicide to escape justice. People who are unfairly accused sue their tormenters.

        He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

        He had multiple motives for sending the anthrax letters.

        He had no verifiable alibi for the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

        He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.

        He accessed the locked room (lab B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed Lake said: “If you have read the NAS report you will see that the report is not about Bruce Ivins. It is about science. The idea that “There is no evidence that shows Dr. Ivins had anything to do with the anthrax letters” is preposterous.”
        Ed the NAS committee printed their findings in Section 6.7 Committee Findings on page 118 of the report. One of the things they say in that section is “It is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origins of the B. anthracix in the mailings based on the available scientific evidence alone.”
        To me, this means that the FBI’s statements on how RMR-1029 was the source of the anthrax used in the letters is unproven scientifically. Yet you still are claiming the following is evidence that Dr. Ivins is connected to the letters:

        “He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the “mother” spores which produced the attack anthrax “daughter” spores. He was in charge of “the murder weapon.””

        “The FBI investigated everyone else who had access to the RMR-1029 flask and eliminated all of them as suspects. Eliminating potential suspects is routine police procedure.”

        “He accessed the locked room (lab B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.”

        “He accessed the locked room (lab B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.”

        As for the Boston Globe article That may be there interperatation but I would be willing to bet that the person who wrote the article, like you, have not read the NAS Report.

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed you really should read the NAS report.

        It can be reached by the following the URL.

        http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13098

        There is no evidence that show Dr. Ivins is connected to the anthrax letters!!!

        If you truly believe that there is show me.

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed I know that the NAS report is primarily about the science used to connect the anthrax used in the letters to the anthrax in RMR-1029.

        The report is clear that the information used by the FBI to do so doesn’t hold water. Not by some slim margin, but in its entirety it does not prove the anthrax came from RMR-1029.

      • Quizi Moto said

        Lew Weinstein said: “QUIZI MOTO said to ED … The NAS report is clear that the information used by the FBI to do so doesn’t hold water. Not by some slim margin, but in its entirety it does not prove the anthrax came from RMR-1029.

        LEW … QM and many others are so right about this, but will never convince Ed. Can I suggest that we stop debating this particular point and move on to many other issues where actual evidence can be adduced to prove guilt or innocence.”

  31. Lew Weinstein said

    Ed Lake says … regularly scheduled group therapy sessions aren’t an alibi. It’s only an alibi if Ivins was actually there and it somehow proves he couldn’t be somewhere else before or later.

    Lew asks … so, did the FBI investigate that potential alibi? and if so, with what result? I have to believe if the FBI had found that Ivins wasn’t there, they would have made much of it and we would know. Does anyone know the facts of Ivins’ attendance or non-attendance?

  32. DXer said

    What happened to the other slant sent from Texas? Did it go with Gregory K who Bruce says left USAMRIID and ended up working with the CIA?

  33. DXer said

    Who was Dr. Ivins writing about the Ames missing from building 1412 and the autoclaving of samples there? Pat?

  34. DXer said

    Given that the FBI estimates that up to 377 had access required elimination (allowing for some duplication who had access in both 1425 and 1412), why did US Taylor think and falsely claim that only 100 needed to be eliminated — only those with access at Building 1425?

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/dr-henry-heine-former-colleague-of-dr-bruce-ivins-freed-of-the-gag-order-interviewed-on-his-last-day-at-usamriid/

  35. DXer said

    Will it take Congressional subpoena power to fill in the blanks in the email asking about weaponized anthrax that came to Detrick and then was shipped out and some was missing?

  36. DXer said

    Why did the FBI never disclose the email withheld for 2 years that shows Dr. Ivins knew that 5 ml of virulent Ames had been taken from Building 1412?

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/a-new-email-withheld-for-2-years-shows-that-ivins-recognized-that-some-of-his-ames-was-missing/

  37. DXer said

    Who was the colleague with whom Dr. Heine says he did research regarding antifoam in creating aerosols?

  38. DXer said

    Why did the FBI let USAMRIID General John Parker’s false claim that USAMRIID did not make dried powder stand when the FBI and the scientists overseeing the investigation knew its own expert had made dried powdered aerosol using Ames?

  39. DXer said

    Why didn’t the FBI disclose that examination of the photocopy toner — as opposed to examination of the “tracks” made when the paper was gripped, permitted the USAMRIID photocopies to be excluded as the source of the Amerithrax letters? Who were the other two scientists in the library with Bruce on the one occasion?

  40. DXer said

    Why didn’t US Attorney Taylor in explaining Ivins’ overtime in Fall 2001, including November and December, not realize that the 2-person rule that in 2002 precluded such overtime and that Ivins moreover was working overtime with his assistant for OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE?

  41. DXer said

    Why didn’t the DOJ credit the uncontradicted 302 interview statement that checking the health of the animals typically would take 2 hours and was a one person job? And note that Bruce was checking on BOTH mice and guinea pigs.

  42. richard rowley said

    Partial post by Mister Lake:
    —–
    The known facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. But, there are things that are UNKNOWN which IF KNOWN might show that aliens from outer space were really behind the attacks.
    ——————————————————–
    Uh, Mister Lake has gone to this well once too often.

    What annoys me is that he is saying/implying that if you think the case again Ivins weak, then you are no better than someone who believes that aliens did it.

    Let me suggest some OTHER, more plausible theories:

    1) the mailer was someone angry at a number (if not all of) the addressees. (A murderous Ivins would have likely sent anthrax to Kappa Kappa Gamma and/or to one of the women he had an obsession with in 2001)

    2) the mailer was someone looking for publicity, hence the high-profile targets. (Ivins seems to have never sought publicity for himself in any other context)

    3) the mailer lived a bit closer to Princeton, New Jersey than Bruce Ivins did.

    4) the mailer had some reason for first sending anthrax via a J-Lo letter. (as tortured as the government case against Ivins is, it doesn’t quite claim he was obsessed with Jennifer Lopez)

    5) the mailer’s printing is a better match for the printing on the envelope.

    6) the mailer had a grudge against the FBI and reasoned that such an ‘insoluble’ case would humiliate them.

    • DXer said

      As I mentioned, the USG never announced the window of the first mailing until after Dr. Ivins’ death. When they did, it turned out he did have an alibi. The time they say it was mailed was when he had his regularly scheduled group therapy. You are the one ignoring the material evidence. You haven’t even mentioned this in mistakenly asserting he did not have an alibi.

    • DXer said

      With respect to working late, the DOJ — without any justification whatsoever — has withheld the lab notebook pages showing his contemporaneous observations about what he was doing, which according to one expert, estimated would typically be a 2 hour job for one person. He was tending to BOTH mice and guinea pigs. The failure to produce the CONTEMPOMRANEOUS NOTES recording what he was doing would result in swift and severe action by a federal district court judge when he has to listen to speculation about events predating 1985. Ed even throws in things that have never been shown to have been done by Dr. Ivins, such as the shaving cream or whatever on someone’s car.

      • DXer said

        Ed says Bruce worked alone on nights and weekends. Most professionals do. Ed punches a clock at 5 p.m. but Bruce was a professional who lived very near where he worked and it would be common for a professional in that situation to work alone on nights and weekends. Of course, that’s precisely when the observations of the animals needed to be made.

    • BugMaster said

      “10) At the time of the anthrax mailings, Ivins’ life’s work with anthrax vaccines was in danger of coming to an end.
      11) Ivins had a motive to generate a demand for new anthrax vaccines by sending anthrax to large media organizations.”

      Wrong, Ed, Wrong!

      Ivins had no motive! After all, according to the FBI, he was a mentally ill individual who couldn’t control his impulses.

      But to be on the safe side, the FBI claims he had motive as well!?

      In otherwords, the “kitchen sink” approach. Throw everything in, that way, it is so much more convincing!

      It makes Ivins that much more guilty, right!

      And, of course, be sure to toss in the “Davinci Code” bullshit!

      • BugMaster said

        “The danger of losing control of his life’s work was a genuine motive that even normal people might have”

        Loosing control over his life’s work?

        Clearly, Ed, you have no comprehension whatsoever as to what a life’s work in microbiology (or any type of research) involves.

        “Having control” over much of anything is just not part of the equation!

        If it was, it wouldn’t be research!

      • BugMaster said

        “Dr. Ivins was sending [Mara Linscott] e-mails stating that USAMRIID was down to its last approved lot of the vaccine, after which – if the company could not get FDA approval to resume production or make available lots meet current potency standards – the vaccine would be completely depleted.”

        You are correct, here, Ed, and:

        IVINS TASK WAS TO CORRECT THIS POTENCY PROBLEM, WHICH IN FACT HE EVENTUALLY DID!

        So what, the one individual that was tasked at solving a problem at the onset of war in Iraq (where the threat of an anthrax attack was a real concern) would instead be told “its just not working, we are going to give up?!”

        The FBI has put forth a number of absurd claims here, but the claim here that Ivins felt his work would be over as an example of “motive” only demonstrates the extent of their stupidity (and that of those ignorant laypeople who buy into this nonsense!)

      • BugMaster said

        In regards to stupidity, Ed, here I am specifically referring to the claim that Dr. Ivins had motive based on the perception that his life’s work was threatened due to potency issues with the AVA vaccine.

        I am not the only one who has this view, BYW.

      • BugMaster said

        How many years experience do you have working in the vaccine industry, Mr. Lake?

  43. DXer said

    Well, let’s consider who was doing experiment with growing anthrax in soil in 2001. That would be Theresa Koehler’s lab in Houston. She had a $100,000 grant from the CIA to study the persistence of anthrax in soil. (Strictly biodefense work directed at protecting our troops in connection with a battlefield attack).

    Now Gregory K.’s Ames anthrax was the focus in addition to Bruce’s. See documents produced by FBI to NAS.

    After leaving USAMRIID, according to Bruce, he went to work for CIA.

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/when-did-the-scientist-sent-the-ames-strain-from-the-dead-cow-in-texas-first-start-working-for-the-cia/

    He was the one who originally received the Ames from the dead cow. (He faxed the correspondence file relating to the shipment of Ames from Texas to an ISU professor from a fax at AFRRI (think NMRC) after 911.)

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/there-were-two-slants-of-ames-sent-from-texas-and-ivins-only-had-one/

    TK’s lab upgraded to BL-3 in March 2001. Her grad student Melissa D. was doing research inserting plasmids into nonvirulent samples rendering them virulent.

    That lab in the basement was wiped out by a tropical storm in June 2001 upon being flooded by millions of gallons of water. The doors were propped open.

    Aafia’s brother and sister-in-law moved from Ann Arbor to Houston in 2001. Her sister-in-law (Dr. Khawaja) worked down the hall from TK.

    And so the distribution of Ames — including the suggestion that there could be parallel evolution of the mutations — remains highly relevant.

    The same people threatening to use anthrax against Wall Street Journal are threatening to kill anyone who talks ill of Aafia.

    Which is why I always take care to point out her beautiful doe-eyes in explaining that the AUSA said in open court that she was willing to participate in an anthrax attack.

    And given the games Rachel Lieber has played over the USAMRIID photocopier and withheld Dr. Bartick’s examination of the toner, there simply is no reason to have confidence that these folks have kept the US safe from an anthrax attack.

    Dr. Majidi says there is 100% attack the US will be attack by WMD.

    Well, it would be best to correct mistakes now and set things on the right course before an attack — than have a wringing of hands and finger-pointing afterwards.

    Much more information has already gone out the door than realized by the senior FBI officials — and if they don’t come clean, it will be exposed who has made the decisions to withhold key and material information.

    The political activists and pornographers should sit this one out. Amerithrax represents the greatest failure of intelligence in US history.

    The threat the country faces is existential.

  44. DXer said

    Were all the Amerithrax Weekly Science Updates provided? If not, what was the justification for not producing the others?

  45. DXer said

    Location searches regarding subtilis contamination extend for 60 pages. (pp. 381-440)

  46. DXer said

    Among the DPG Production Methods, what did the SEM photos for spraydried spores look like?

  47. DXer said

    Who were the attendees on the FBI kick-off meeting on genetic mutations?

  48. DXer said

    If anyone wants particular documents, let me know and I’ll email them to the extent they are under what I expect is a 20 MB email limit. (Perhaps someone can remind me of the process by which it is possible to email documents up to 25 MB documents. On my own initiative I will email those that I think of special interest, perhaps routing OldAtlantic’s to Lew (as I don’t think I have that email).

    There is a wealth of material that I propose that Lew upload in the future. I recommend that we prioritize the material along criteria, favoring for posting by Lew:

    (1) those documents that are most concise, and
    (2) in plain english.

    I recommend we let the documents speak for themselves in the actual posting by Lew of the documents while top scientific experts are given a chance to weigh in.

    To facilitate the availability of highly technical documents to a wider audience, I nominate Anonymous in time to upload key arcane laboratory reports and the like to google documents.

    For fun, I may render some images to a jpeg and upload them on flickr, which I’ve just discovered and enjoy using. I will be taking a 2 week break from new formatted (“Infiltration of US Biodefense”) graphics while we emphasize the documents themselves — given how many there are that need to be made available to a wide audience.

    If there are other methods of sharing large documents that are better than google docs, please let me or Anonymous know.

  49. DXer said

    Why does the discussion of the subtilis contamination not extend to the NY Post contaminant B. lichenformis.

    Is that equally potentially probative? Is it genetically distinctive? Have various locations been swabbed for B. lichenformis? Is it ubiquitous in the environment? Does it vary by geographic region?

  50. DXer said

    Under “Amerithrax Sample Handling Procedure, pp. 58-72, who sent the copy to NAU? Did the FBI anthrax expert at USAMRIID, John Ezzell, who was collecting the samples and who had made a dried powder out of Flask 1029 Ames? Or did the individual scientists around the county.

  51. DXer said

    (U) 28 July 2009
    (U) From: Laboratory Division, TEOAC
    (U) To: Record
    (U) Subject: Declassification

    1. (UIIFOUO) This is to certify that the attached report titled, “Analyses of Silicon
    and Silica in Powder Sampies-SEMIEDS Analysis” dated 26 Nov 2001 [1-13
    pages] has been declassified by David L. Wilson (section chief, OCA/DIDO) in
    accordance with Executive Order 12958 as amended (part 3), FBI Intelligence Policy
    Manual (section 3.4), and FBI Security Policy Manual (section 5.4.3). Effective 28
    July 2009, this product is designated as UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE
    ONLY.

  52. DXer said

    (U) 28 July 2009

    1. (UI/FOUO) This is to certify that the attached report titled, “Analysis of Silicon
    and Silica in Powder Samples” dated 2.1 Nov 2001 [1-12 pages] has been
    declassified by David L. Wilson (section chief, OCAIDIDO) in accordance with
    Executive Order 12958 as amended (part 3), FBI Intelligence Policy Manual (section

    3.4), and FBI Security Policy Manual (section 5.4.3). Effective 28 July 2009, this
    product is designated as UNCLASSIFIEDI/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.

    2. (U) Please direct any questions regardingJhis memorandum to the TEDAC
    Security Classification ‘Office, point of contae . ~fbi.sgov.gov b6
    ~

    • DXer said

      “Analyses in Powder Samples
      21 November 2001

      (3) Objective: These analyses were conducted to detemrine whether samples 02.88.01
      and 02.57.03 contain silica, a material used as a flow aid for powders.”

  53. DXer said

    A November 25, 2005 Amerithrax Science Update, withheld from the NAS and public for 2 years, states:

    “Analysis of samples collected OCONUS, for the presence of Bacillus anthracis

    An OCONUS mission was conducted by FBI personnel from the WFO, HMRU, and partners from other intelligence agencies in May 2004. Numerous samples were taken from several sits inluding buildings, wells, and buried latrines. These samples were transported CONUS and were accessioned and processed by the NBFAC. Three samples tested positive by PCR for the presence of Bacillus anthracis.

    Further strain typing results from these samples revealed that these samples contain DNA from the Ames strain of Bacillus anthracis, consistent with the evidence. As a result of these findings, an OCONUS mission to collect additional items of potential evidentiary value was conducted in November, 2004.

    A Hazardous Evidence Storage Facility at ECBC, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland was used to receive and process the collected materials from the second OCONUS mission. HMRU and CBSU processed the evidence at the ECBC. DNA extraction and PCR conducted on a subset of these samples at MRI revealed results consistent with the May, 2004 mission.”

    Comment:

    Why were the Amerithrax Science Updates — clearly relevant beyond question — withheld for 2 years? Who made the decision to withhold them until after NAS had submitted its draft report? What is that person’s justification? These documents are not classified.

  54. DXer said

    There was great focus in 2003 on the 19 samples taken from Terry Abshire’s refrigerator. She was the assistant to FBI anthrax John Ezzell who was thanked by the DARPA researchers for her help in the article about testing the dried powder made using Ames from Flask 1029 with a sonicator and corona plasma discharge. The key to ruling them out — and it was an ongoing process with some left to go yet — was testing for the Silicon Signature. They focused on Renocal with no mention of Percoll (a density gradient consisting of colloidal silica).

  55. Anonymous said

    Extract From Amerithrax Weekly Report: September 2, 2004.

    “……. a series of experiments will be designed to attempt to replicate the silica signature that is noticed in the evidence”

    This was after growing spores in 30 different ways with and without silicon containing antifoam and not seeing the same silica signature as seen in the attack spores.

    • Anonymous said

      Extract From Amerithrax Weekly Report: September 4, 2003.

      “A total of 10 of the 19 Abshire samples have been analyzed using TEM elemental mapping techniques. The first group of 6 samples, all grown on New Sporulation Media (NSM), showed the absence of a well-defined Si layer, as found in the evidentiary material. In the evidence, most of the spores show a complete Si layer around the spore coat.”

      • Anonymous said

        The amazing thing about these weekly reports over the years is the laser-like focus on the silicon signature. But that gets conveniently forgotten about when it cannot be linked to Bruce Ivins

        They even had a “silicon task force” called AMX#2.

        They tried to reverse engineer the powder at Dugway to reproduce the silicon – but failed.

        It seems to me they tried doing thigs that didn’t make sense – they used Dow antifoam 204 in preps – but found no silicon. Then weeks later remarked they just found out Dow antifoam 204 doesn’t contain silicon (something that a Google search can tell you in 30 seconds). So they then tried Dow antifoam C – that does contain silicon – and they then found silicon between the spores but not in the spore coats.

        That should not have surprised them – Dow antifoam C consists of a suspsension of small polydimenthyl siloxane particles – so it could not produce the contnuous coat under the exosporium.

        They next tried taking RMR-1029 spores and post treating them with Dow antifoam C. That didn’t work either.

        What they didn’t try was the obvious thing – treat the spores with the liquid monomer form of polydimenthyl siloxane (Repelcote) which in it’s still liquid form would penetrate the exosporium and polymerize on the spore coat creating a complete coating.

  56. DXer said

    7/21/2003 AMERITHRAX SCIENCE update

    discusses perceived need for test to distinguish between two mailings so as to be able to determine whether AMI powder was closest to one or the other.

    References “Cell Morphology and Membrane Characterization using Scanning Probe Microscopy: Capabilities, Current Undertandings and Issues received from Sanida National Laboratories on 7/292003

  57. DXer said

    7/28/2003 Amerithrax Science update

    subtilis was not only contaminant – Bacillus licheniformis was also in New York Post mailing

  58. Quizi Moto said

    This is a little off topic of the Index of documents provided by the FBI to NAS, but I was hoping one of the science geeks, that contribute greatly to this blog, could explains some of the stats on the FBI’s test on RMR -1029 in section “6.6 Analyses Based on Resampling of RMR-1029 and Interpretation of Results”, pages 115-118.

    In that section it discusses 30 tests the FBI completed on samples taken from RMR-1029 to try and show Dr. Ivins submitted a false sample. All of which were taken per the protocols established in the subpoenas for submitting samples to the FBIR.

    Their results were only 16 of the 30 test samples taken by the FBI from RMR-1029 had all 4 of the morph types and the other 14 test samples matched 3, 2, 1, or 0 of the morph types.

    Does this mean that the FBI may be half right or half wrong in their conclusions?

    • Quizi Moto said

      Thank You for your responce Ed.

      But what I want to know is since their 30 test showed that only about 50 percent of the time will you be able to get all four morph types when sampling directly from RMR-1029 doesn’t that mean that, at best, they might be 50 percent right about what samples in the FBIR matched RMR-1029? You know the testing done by the FBI to see what labs had submitted samples that matched all 4 of the morph types?

      You know the testing they used to show only several places had samples of RMR-1029.

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed Lake said “Does that answer your question?”

        No Ed, it does not answer the question.

        If you read the material you may better understand the question.

        “6.6 Analyses Based on Resampling of RMR-1029 and Interpretation of Results”, pages 115-118.

        In that section it discusses 30 tests the FBI completed on samples taken from RMR-1029 to try and show Dr. Ivins submitted a false sample. All of which were taken per the protocols established in the subpoenas for submitting samples to the FBIR.

        Their results were only 16 of the 30 test samples taken by the FBI from RMR-1029 had all 4 of the morph types and the other 14 test samples matched 3, 2, 1, or 0 of the morph types.

        That was testing completed by the FBI and they could only come up with the 4 morph types in 16 out of 30 test taken directly from RMR-1029.

        So that set of test completed by the FBI showed that it can only match all 4 morphs types about 50 percent of the time when taking samples directly from RMR-1029.

        So doesn’t this also mean that the very best that could have been accomplished with the testing of all the samples in the FBIR might is that there comparision of morph types can at best be right about 50 percent of the time?

      • Roberto said

        from the rpt:

        Another challenge with the repository was that, since the importance of the mutant
        genotypes was not fully understood when the subpoena protocol was written, the document was
        vague (e.g., “use an inoculum taken across multiple colonies”), and was not written in a way that
        would maximize the chance that variant genotypes in a mixed stock population would be
        submitted. Thus, if the four assayed genotypes had been present in a laboratory culture at low
        frequency, it is not clear whether they would have found their way into the sample of the culture
        submitted to the repository, since as few as two colonies would have satisfied the instructions
        provided in the subpoena protocol. After the importance of the mutant genotypes became known,
        there was no request for additional samples using a revised protocol that might have improved
        the sampling.

      • Roberto said

        The lack of replication in the assays of the FBIR samples makes it impossible to quantify
        the strength of any finding relating to the presence or absence of genotypes in the repository
        samples since some absences may be false negatives. Because samples were not retested and
        because the dilution experiments demonstrate the potential for different results on the same
        sample, one cannot quantify the strength of any finding related to the absence or presence of
        genotypes in the repository samples: thus, some test results of “negative” could well be false
        negatives (“present but unable to detect”). Consequently, the finding of all four genotypes in
        both RMR-1029 and seven samples from one laboratory clearly suggests a relationship between
        RMR-1029 and three of the four attack materials, but it is impossible to calculate any measure of
        “statistical strength” for this association.

      • Roberto said

        In
        the chapters that follow, the committee uses the following four qualifiers of association, listed in
        order of increasing certainty (decreasing uncertainty):
        • consistent with an association
        • suggest an association
        • indicate an association
        • demonstrate an association

        just sayin’

      • Quizi Moto said

        Thank You Roberto

      • Roberto said

        But Ed’s point is relevant… if you flip a coin 4 times and get tails 3 out of 4 times, you can still be sure the coin has heads… 100% sure.

    • Quizi Moto said

      To add to my post and clarify.

      The NAS report makes it clear that the science used cannot match the anthrax used in the attacks to RMR-1029 or any other source. But what I am looking for is the best percentage of times the FBI may have been right with thier conclusions on which samples in the FBIR matched RMR-1029.

      • Roberto said

        “it is not clear”

        • Quizi Moto said

          Reberto said “it is not clear”

          In the NAS report page 118 section 6.7 Committee Findings

          “It is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origins of the B. Anthracis in the mailings based on the available scientific evidence alone.”

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed you really should read the NAS report. It is located at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13098&page=R1

        Not the easiest to read but until you get your copy you can review it.

        The paper work was not always right and The scientific testing did not confirm what the paperwork said.

        So basically you are saying that the FBI based thier conclusions on the paperwork and that the science backed them up.

        What about just the science.

        Were they 50 percent right or wrong?

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed Lake Said: “These are the same “possibilities” argued by conspiracy theorists and True Believers. They ARE possibilities, but they don’t change what is known. They just create extremely remote possibilities of other explanations for what happened.”

        Ed I am only trying to learn about the science here. Not True Belivers,conspiracy theorists, or space aliens.

        In the NAS report.

        section “6.6 Analyses Based on Resampling of RMR-1029 and Interpretation of Results”, pages 115-118.

        In that section it discusses 30 tests the FBI completed on samples taken from RMR-1029 to try and show Dr. Ivins submitted a false sample. All of which were taken per the protocols established in the subpoenas for submitting samples to the FBIR.

        Their results were only 16 of the 30 test samples taken by the FBI from RMR-1029 had all 4 of the morph types and the other 14 test samples matched 3, 2, 1, or 0 of the morph types.

        To me a layperson I believe this indicates that thier testing only showed the 4 morph types about 50 percent of the time. Of course that is just a study of 30 samples taken by the FBI from RMR-1029.

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed Lake Said: “Like I said, it seems like an arcane or meaningless question for which only you see relevance.”

        Did you say that only because the answer does not support the FBI’s Conclusions?

      • DXer said

        “I think they were right 100% of the time because they were using paperwork to make the determination of which samples came from flask RMR-1029, not scientific testing. The scientific testing just confirmed what the lab paperwork said.”

        Ed is mistaken. For example, the paperwork showed that UNM came from Flask 1029 but the lack of morphs contradicted that. The scientific testing contradicted the paperwork.

      • Roberto said

        It looks to me what the NAS study reveals about the morphs, etc., is NOT that there’s some chance that Ivins’ samples could have somehow come from RMR1029 with no morphs (they’re pretty clear that there’s not much chance of that, <1%). The odds are that Ivins, somehow, provided samples from some container other than RMR1029. The FBI looks at that and says AH-HA! I say it doesn't look good, but could be explained some other way besides treachery. Which leads to my next observation:

        The NAS reports seems to say that the implication of all the other negative observations of morphs in all the other samples is more questionable that what the AMX Summary implies. I think the gist of the AMX Summary is that "we didn't find morphs anywhere but in Ivins' 'good' original sample." The NAS seems to say hold on, not so fast, you didn't really do a great job of testing all those other samples so we're not totally sure what it means that there were no morphs found…

        It is possible that the reason no morphs were found in other samples is the same reason no morphs were found in Ivins' re-sample.

      • DXer said

        The april 24, 2002 email and 2003 302s indicate that it was not Bruce who submitted the slants -but rather his assistant.

      • Quizi Moto said

        Ed Lake Said: “Your question seems to contain some misunderstanding that you do not see but which causes it to make no sense to me.”

        As I mentioned earlier maybe you should read the NAS report then you might have a better understanding.

    • BugMaster said

      “The NAS panel concluded that there was a 1 percent chance that the sample came from the key vial.”

      This is in the NAS report, Ed?!

      These are the exact words, or once again are you putting words in someone else’s mouth!

      Wrong, Ed, Wrong!

  59. DXer said

    27 Nov 2001 Report on Isolates from Daschle and NY Post Letters (p. 30)

    From the very start, Dr. Ezzell’s special pathogens lab at USAMRIID played a key role in the various aspscts of the investigation — to include collection of samples, examination of the product, and detection of morphs. This memo by Dr. JE dated November 27, 2001 listed above (see index which also appears in NAS report) reported his assistant Terry Abshire’s observation about the morphs — referring to specific designated colonies. Given his forthright discussion of the issues, he would be a great interview. He is to be commended for the great integrity and forthrightness he has shown on these issues.



  60. DXer said

    “Determination of Concentration of Culturable Bacteria in Sample 02.57.03 (Daschle)” dated 17-18
    Oct 2001 [1-4 pages]

    On this question of bi-modal distribution, note that the David Smith, FBI Section Chief, in July 2009 declassified the examination of the Daschle product by Battelle. The data clearly confirms and describes the important bi-modal distribution that Old Atlantic has helpfully focused our attention.

    You’ll recall Agent Smith from Marilyn T’s book and the great scene under the tent with John Ezzell — where they were trying to talk and the band was too loud. Old Atlantic has correctly pointed out the NAS reference to the presentation by Martin from Dugway that noted that the same bi-modal distribution was observed upon lyophilization.

  61. DXer said

    Let’s take an example of how easy it will be for a motivated GAO or Congressional investigator to scope out any documents that the FBI scientists withheld.

    Among the FBI lab reports, as an example, we see (batestamp number 000095) Related pages extend to 000102. Now the paralegal’s index includes all of these. If one were missing, one would immediately know to what it pertained.

    Envelopes and Particles Transport which indicates:

    “Preliminary experiments by the FBI laboratory have demonstrated that micron sized particiles can be transported through Pre-Stamped USPS Envelopes by simulated mechanical action.

    The attached photomicrographs show the surface of the envelope and the size of surface holes int he 20-50 micron range.

    The transport of particles through the envelope is also demonstrated using micron sized aluminum particles that are clearly visible with the light microscope.”

    Therefore, the first document the GAO folks should seek, now that they have the disc of FBI documents, is the paralegal’s index.

  62. Old Atlantic said

    It may be the preparers hoped he dispersant would lead to suitable behavior. But the first mailing was a failure for them. It is possible they actually measured the particle size of leftover stocks of the first mailing and determined they did not have enough small particle size in the sample.

    So then they prepared the second sample and measured its particle size prior to sending it out to make sure it had enough of the small particle size to achieve the desired effect.

    Battelle had the know-how and apparently had simulant stock on hand already lyophilized prior to the mailings that they used as a reference in their study from Oct 17, 2001 to Oct 19, 2001 on the particle size in the Senate letters compared to a simulant that had been lyophilized. This short period is most consistent with Battelle having already grown, lyophilized and measured the simulant. This is most consistent with this is why Battelle was chosen to do this measurement and comparison, because they volunteered they already had done such a measurement prior to the mailings and knew what distribution of micron sized particles was needed for dispersal as in the Senate office buildings.

  63. Anonymous said

    Huge silicon levels detected by ICP-OES. They compared the NYP powder with surrogate samples of Bs without dispersant and Bs with dispersant (persumably the dispersant is silica). They detected zero silicon in the Bs without dispersant. The NYP powder had MORE SILICON PRESENT than the Bs that had dispersant.

    1.56 % for the Bs with silica and 10.77% for the NYP powder – see pages 9 and 12.

    Huge silicon quantities in NYP (10.77%), Daschle (1.8%) and Leahy (1.47%). They had these results in 2002, but pretended to Congress in 2009 that they only had Leahy – Daschle and NYP were just too big to admit.

    It is clear from results commentary that the analysts were particularly looking for four key features of reverse engineered samples (a) “crystals of a silicon containing compound” located between spores (b) High silicon content (c) High Iron content (d) High tin content. It was clear they considred all of these as evidence signatures. They did not find any reverse engineered sample containing any of these features.

    • anonymous said

      “Why continue to try to convince people that the FAULTY CONCLUSION ABOUT THE ADDED SILICON was actually a valid conclusion?”

      Because Keim doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to non-microbiology matters. He has gotten personally very wealthy from the FBI contracts over the last 9 years. He is obviously totally compromised and will say anything to keep the spin going for the FBI.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: