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

* Aren’t the documents identifying the Red Team scientists who advised against pursuing the Silicon Signature subject to FOIA?

Posted by DXer on March 15, 2011

******

******

Advertisements

6 Responses to “* Aren’t the documents identifying the Red Team scientists who advised against pursuing the Silicon Signature subject to FOIA?”

  1. DXer said

    Soraya, Yazid Sufaat’s daughter, posts a video on hydrophobic sand in water. (She is a student and differences and it is a cool subject).

    OTOH, I believe hydrophilica sand (silica) would disperse and be dissolved. Phil meaning “love” and phobic meaning “hate.”

    It was hydrophilic silica that the consulting experts discerned in November 2001 according to this formerly classified report. One of Rauf Ahmad’s paper addressed contamination of water at the Dangerous Pathogens 2000 conference sponsored by Porton Down.

  2. DXer said

    Do we have to resolve whether it was hydrophilic or hydrophobic to know that the Red Team who advised that the silica signature not be pursued?

    Compare

    UNCLASSIFIED (FORMERLY SECRET) – Technical Review Panel Meeting Summary, 14 Nov, 2001
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 27, 2011
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/unclassified-formerly-secret-technical-review-panel-meeting-summary-14-nov-2001/

    Aren’t the documents identifying the Red Team scientists who advised against pursuing the Silicon Signature subject to FOIA?
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 15, 2011

    In what was produced on the scientific issue of the Red Team’s decision not to probe the silicon signature, the FBI redacted their names.

    At the same time, in the manuscript, hasn’t Vahid Majidi mistakenly purported to have identified all such scientists?

    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/arent-the-documents-identifying-the-red-team-scientists-who-advised-against-pursuing-the-silicon-signature-subject-to-foia/

  3. DXer said

    Dr. Majidi, author of a new book defending the FBI’s investigation of the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings, earned his BS degree in chemistry from Eastern Michigan University and his PhD degree from Wayne State University. Dr. Majidi was associate professor at the University of Kentucky where he conducted research on laser-based techniques, gas phase chemistry, and solid substrates from 1989-1996.

    In making decisions, Dr. Majidi had available to him the expertise of scientists like FBI’s anthrax expert John Ezzell.

    We have seen through his filmed presentation at the conference in DC moderated what by Lew what a distinguished and straight-talking gentleman John Ezzell is. He forthrightly answered all questions posed to him.

    Questioning only stopped when the ambulance had to be called. IMO, there wasn’t a single member in the large audience that did not appreciate his willingness to focus on and answer the hard questions.

    But in making many decisions, such as the decision not to pursue the Silicon Signature, the names of the scientists whose judgment Dr. Majidi relied upon is redacted.

    In what was produced on the scientific issue of the Red Team’s decision not to probe the silicon signature, the FBI redacted their names.

    At the same time, in the manuscript, he mistakenly purports to have identified all such scientists.

  4. Lew Weinstein said

    … and are we not also entitled to know the names of those who are withholding this information or directing that it be withheld?

    • DXer said

      No one is entitled to the membership of the Red Team without having submitted a FOIA request. The USG cannot be criticized for having withheld documents in connection with a FOIA request never made. Nowadays, requests can be made of the FBI on a page set up electronically for that purpose.

      And upon denial and denial of an appeal, an action can be brought to enforce FOIA. (But I doubt that the information would be denied and if it were, I expect attorneys fees would be recoverable.) The FOIA officer and FOIA appeals officer would be tasked with responding.

      • DXer said

        If and when the DOJ denies Anonymous’ FOIA request and appeal, then counsel could consider the applicability of FACA (in addition to FOIA).

        Attorney Kissin is a fierce and articulate advocate and prompted the AFIP report to be produced as I recall (giving an assist to Anonymous).

        In the event his FOIA request and appeal is denied, I recommend that Anonymous see if Barry can bring suit in DC. Anonymous knows the ropes enough to submit the actual request and even appeal on his own.

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: