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

* Excerpt from Plaintiff’s filing in Amerithrax civil suit explaining why Dr. Ivins is not perpetrator: Dr. Byrne’s deposition

Posted by DXer on April 30, 2011





64 Responses to “* Excerpt from Plaintiff’s filing in Amerithrax civil suit explaining why Dr. Ivins is not perpetrator: Dr. Byrne’s deposition”

  1. DXer said

    Dr. Byrne explains why the lyophilizer discussed by US Attorney at the August 2008 press conference would not in fact have been used.

  2. Maserati said

    Yeah…I believe JAG….LMFAO! I worked for the DoD long ago. I watched more documents generated and back-dated in any given year working with the Defense department and contractors than in the rest of my life. You can’t even be serious. Claiming the US courts, Defense Department and government agencies like the FBI are even close to being what anyone would call ethical isn’t just comical, it’s delusional.

    • DXer said

      Hi Maserati!

      I’m sorry. I don’t recall the context of the discussion. As for crediting the good faith of others, that is part, IMO, of effective advocacy and civil discourse.

      As for the US courts and government agencies being ethical, having clerked for a federal appellate court and worked for a government agency, I can’t say I have had your experience. As a member of the bar, backdating a document would be grounds for discipline and I have never observed it. As for my perception of men like FBI Director Mueller and former Amerithrax head Michael Mason, I consider them to be highly ethical. As for any lapses in the particulars by individuals — such as the cheating on an open book regarding how to conduct a national security examination by the head of the FBI DC Field Office — that has been duly noted.

      But pretty much all the direct evidence supports is that you watched documents being backdated. You of course should not have allowed such a culture to exist and should have stopped it by speaking up and objecting.

      Just because I think FBI prosecutors and some prosecutors are mistaken does not mean I question their good faith.

      As for someone’s withholding of Lab Notebook relating to the rabbit formaldehyde, that could be probed by the GAO. I don’t know why that happened or the circumstances surrounding FBI’s failure to provide it to USAMRIID so that it could be produced under FOIA. Ivins should not have provided any of his notebooks without making copies. That was foolish.

      • DXer said

        Similarly, this blog duly noted when the lead Amerithrax AUSA Ken K. was lambasted in an unprecedented federal court opinion decrying prosecutorial misconduct relating to violation of a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. The decision was in 2009 or 2010 and would have distracted anyone from correcting mistakes in Amerithrax.

        But the best practice is to only ever rely on direct evidence on such matters — and only ever presume another’s good faith absent direct evidence to the contrary.

  3. DXer said

    errata –
    I meant that M. (below) nowhere addresses Yazid Sufaat’s anthrax lab at all.

    see also

  4. DXer said

    Al Qaeda nowhere address Yazid Sufaat’s anthrax lab at all. He had been part of a since abandoned secret bioweapons program run by Malaysia.

  5. DXer said

    M. nowhere addresses the fact that while the US government focuses on Anwar Al-Aulaqi, the media continues 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.

  6. DXer said

    M. (below) nowhere addresses the fact that Ayman Zawahiri used “school” to refer to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

    M. nowhere addresses the documentary evidence showing that Ayman Zawahiri used “school” as code and not Bruce Ivins.

    M. nowhere addresses the fact that Ali Al-Timimi 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.

  7. DXer said

    M. (below) nowhere addresses the documents dating from April 1999 showing that Ayman Zawahiri’s plan was to recruit a specialist. Who else did Ayman Zawahiri succeed in recruiting?

    M. nowhere addresses the fact that 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?

    M. nowhere addresses why the FBI failed to disclose that Jdey was detained and released as the same time as Moussaoui.

    M. nowhere addresses the fact that 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?

  8. DXer said

    M. (below) nowhere addresses the Egyptian visitor in the B3 who was the lifelong friend of a former Egyptian Islamic Jihad member, a schoolmate, recruited by Ayman Zawahiri.

    M. nowhere addresses the fact that 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 and that the FBI not obtain the relevant documents until February 2005.

    M. nowhere addresses the fact that this document seized in Afghanistan pointed to infiltration of US biodefense. To what was the author referring?

    M. nowhere addresses this Zawahiri correspondence with infiltrating scientist that 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)?

  9. DXer said

    M. (below) nowhere addresses Rauf Ahmad’s notes and handwritten letter (he was one of the scientists working for Ayman Zawahiri).

    M. nowhere addresses the typed correspondence from a later visit by Rauf Ahmad indicating that he had successfully achieved the targets. (And, no, Milton L. did not systematically refute the matter in discussing the correspondence in his book – he avoided quoting this critical language altogether!)

    M. nowhere addresses 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.

  10. DXer said

    Mustafa Hawsawi’s laptop containing anthrax spray drying documents. He was key to the 911 logistics and worked where Hambali worked. Hambali is the one who got Al Qaeda anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat involved.

    Anwar Aulaqi was coordinating with Ali Al-Timimi who shared a suite with the two leading Ames researchers.

    M nowhere addresses the documents from peer reviewed literature in Ayman Zawahiri’s possession.

    M. (below) similarly nowhere addresses the spraydrying documents on Al-Hawsawi’s laptop.

  11. DXer said

    Pharmacist Najmut Tariq in New York City was connected to Al Qaeda anthrax program.

    Yazid Sufaat, in written exchanges, declined to describe to me the experiments led by Egyptian Abu Khabab killing rabbits with poisons under during the month before 9/11 at a camp outside Kabul.

    There was training in late 2001 at the training camp outside Kandahar to introduce poison into water systems.

  12. DXer said

    Yazid Sufaat and his lab assistants worked initially at Omar Hospital in May 2001 while the equipment was en route to the lab being established at Kandahar.

    The Detainee Assessments on this subject are part of the public record and so why does this not inform M’s discussion below? Is the GAO report going to be similarly bereft of highly relevant information?

    “Waly Samar” who was a microbiologist connected to the WTC 1993 participants based on phone records and reportedly lived in the Trenton area in 2001 — an estimated 20 miles from the mailbox. I called and left a message last week but hadn’t hear back when I last checked for messages.
    And, again, it is totally understandable for a journalist and so this is not a fault for a science journalist. It all comes down to one’s personal assessment about what is at stake. And I think on that question — what is at stake — I agree with Laurie 100%.

  13. DXer said

    Dr. Ivins’ first therapist, Judith M. McLean, who writes of how she acquired her psychic abilities in her book available for sale on — from a being from another planet …

    In addition to helping the FBI with Amerithrax, the psychic relied upon the government prosecutors and investigators helped with 911 by her astral travelling and retrieval of etheric body parts at Ground Zero … She reports she was granted her psychic abilities by a being claiming to be an extraterrestrial …

  14. DXer said

    Claire Fraser-Liggett: the genetic analysis of the spores in Ivins’ flask do not indicate Ivins is guilty

  15. Maserati said

    Battelle Memorial Institute made the deadly anthrax, and I understand Ivins was trying to blow the whistle on them when he died (or was murdered) and the crime was blamed on him. BAttelle at the time had the stain and teh machinery to weaponize it. They work for, and with, all federal open and covert agencies, and others around the world. The scare from Amerithrax and subsequent contracts to Bayer AG for ciprofloxin made the Bush family millions of dollars as a major stockholder. Given the circunstances and subsequent investigaion surrounding Amerithrax, there is a sustained possibility this was an “approved” act of the US government under the Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520 legislation in force at the time, and approved by SOD Donald Rumsfeld.

    • DXer said

      Hi Maserati.

      IMO, there is no evidence that Battelle made the deadly anthrax.

      It is true that Battelle had the virulent Ames strain. And it is true that powderized Ames anthrax was made at Dugway and Battelle and one other facility that could not be named by FBI Director Mueller in open Committee hearing.

      But, respectfully, there is no evidence that Battelle made deadly anthrax that was used in the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings. Scott Shane, I believe, wrote about the tragic death of one scientist, formerly of USAMRIID, who went to Battelle and started drinking heavily after coming under close scrutiny. (He died, as I recall, of cirrhosis).

      As for who Ivins suspected, he brainstormed a number of possibilities, as have so many people who followed the matter.

      IMO, there is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Ivins was murdered. Credit card receipts show his purchase of the aspirin. He had attempted suicide several months earlier. He was very upset by the discovery of semen stained panties in November 2007 and then again that Spring of 2008. In a private note the day of his suicide, his wife Diane poignantly wrote that she knew he had nothing to do with the anthrax mailings. He was under tremendous psychological pressure — and his friends had been told not to have any contact with him.

      There also is absolutely no evidence that the mailed anthrax was “approved” — and given the absence of evidence, that offends the sensibilities of most people…

      As for access at Battelle, 42 were known to have access. They apparently had greater security there with cameras and a two-person rule, I believe. But given the ease of removing a small amount of pathogen, even such security does not prevent removal by a motivated individual.

      Given the absence of a persuasive case against Dr. Ivins, it would further analysis if the third location where virulent Ames was made into a powder would help further analysis. I have suggested the possibilty it was SRI in downtown Frederick. There is a state law that might be interpreted as preventing discussion in open committee session (even apart from any classification). In particular, it would be interesting to learn where PROJECT JEFFERSON was done — and to have the details of the dry aerosol project at USAMRIID fleshed out.

      The Ames anthrax researchers with millions of DARPA funding — who had their work with virulent Ames done at SRI — shared a suite with Ali Al-Timimi, who was coordinating with Anwar Awlaki, the 911 imam. Awlaki has called for an anthrax attack from the grave.

      My former Facebook friend Yazid Sufaat does not deny responsibility to me for the Fall 2001 anthrax incidents. But he says the CIA is not going to hear it from his lips. He has been arrested for terrorism.

      I do agree with you that the silicon signal is exculpatory of Dr. Ivins and none of the forensics point to him. The non-scientific evidence was indirectly based on his first counselor’s claims. She has explained that she received her instructions from an alien at night.

      I outline the evidence and supporting documents here. The graphics were done by a federal undercover agent. Given that Battelle does counterintelligence work for the USG — and CIA to be lawful would have to use a contractor in operating in the US — it is important that we take an “evidence-based” approach as to these graphics. IMO, the documents speak for themselves.

      I believe Adnan El-Shukrijumah is the anthrax mailer. Immediately upon 9/11 he called his mother he was coming to the US. He was living at KSM’s house — which is where Sufaat, vaccinated for protection in using virulent anthrax — also lived.

      Dr. Zawahiri’s plan was always to decontaminate the lab — and move it every 3 months.

      • richard rowley said

        DXer wrote:
        It is true that Battelle had the virulent Ames strain. And it is true that powderized Ames anthrax was made at Dugway and Battelle and one other facility that could not be named by FBI Director Mueller in open Committee hearing….
        I don’t suppose you know where I could find a transcript of Mueller at that Committee hearing? (I’m not doubting your word, I’m simply interested in the exact phraseology Mueller used in refusing to name the ‘other facility’). It might be useful for me.

        • DXer said

          Hi Richard,

          While I keep an eye out for a link to that testimony, here is an article on the general point.

          Katherine Heerbrandt: the location of biological agents is top secret in Maryland … including the anthrax lab at the Southern Research Institute’s facility in Frederick, Maryland … why?

          Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 1, 2011

        • DXer said

          Here is background on Southern Research Institute that did the work with virulent Ames for Alibek’s DARPA-funded company. Ken shared a suite with salafist-jihadi Ali Al-TImimi. His case is subject to numerous pending classified motions.

        • DXer said

          Richard here is a newspaper source on the issue. Having seen the filmed testimony on the news, I can vouch for the accuracy of the article.

          The New York Times
          September 18, 2008
          Senator, Target of Anthrax Letter, Challenges F.B.I. Finding
          By SCOTT SHANE

          “Mr. Leahy pressed Mr. Mueller to say what laboratories in the United States were capable of producing dry powder anthrax like that used in the attacks, specifically asking about the Dugway Proving Ground, an Army center in Utah, and the Battelle Memorial Institute, a government contractor in Ohio, both of which have made such powder in small quantities in the past.

          But Mr. Mueller said he could answer the question only in a closed session because the matter involved classified information. The secrecy appeared likely to fuel rumors, circulating on the Internet and denied by the F.B.I., that the attacks had some link to a secret government bioweapons program.”

          As I mentioned, I sense the project some people are most interested in is PROJECT JEFFERSON. 13 years after the fact, I think the location that the project was conducted might usefully be declassified.

          Ali Al-Timimi shared a suite with the leading DARPA-funded Ames researchers — and Ali himself had a security clearance in 1999 while at SRA with his suitemate. In 1999, Ken and Charles were both Battelle aerosol consultants. I think the person to ask might be Ken Alibek, who left the country abruptly for reasons unknown. Prior to that, I always found him to be responsive to inquiries — although he did decline to say where their work with the virulent Ames was done.

          I can only hope that the federal district court judge hearing the Al-Timimi matter finds his way to permit the disclosure of much information that is currently being kept secret. It was the compartmentalization of information that led to 911.

          The biodefense work was deemed lawful under the applicable treaty because of the small quantity involved. Secrecy should not be confused with illegality. But overcoming secrecy is necessary to deal reliably with the issue of the distribution and potential access to Ames. We’ve already seen how horribly the FBI botched its claim that the matching Ames was not also kept in Building 1412. That error added up to a couple hundred people with access who needed to be excluded.

        • DXer said

          I separately learned from Hadron press releases that it was Southern Research Institute that subcontracted under the DARPA contract to do the work with the virulent Ames.

          Most intelligence is open source. You just need to know who to ask or where to look or have the language being used translated.

        • DXer said

          Sen. Leahy on anthrax case: ‘It’s not closed’

          Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 16, 2011

        • Maserati said

          Are you familiar with this?:

          50 USC 1520. Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents by
          Department of Defense; accounting to Congressional committees with respect to
          experiments and studies; notification of local civilian officials

          (a) Not later than thirty days after final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense, whether directly or under contract, involving the use of human subjects for the testing of chemical or biological agents, the Secretary of Defense shall supply the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives with a full accounting of such plans for such experiment or study, and such experiment or study may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date such accounting is received by such committees.

          (b)(1) The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in which the test or experiment
          is to be conducted are notified in advance of such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date of such notification.

          (2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to tests and experiments conducted by Department of Defense personnel and tests and experiments conducted on behalf of the Department of Defense by contractors.

          (Pub. L. 95-79, title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334; Pub. L.
          97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1822.)

          I forced the government to shut down a seven year experiment under this legislation involving 1st degree murder, organ loss and permanent chronic illness when I found ot what they were doing to over 40 factory employees in St. Louis, slowly poisoning and rotting their organs out with controlled carcenogenic and neurotoxic vapors at chronic levels and monitoring the results. Beyond disgusting, to the point of treason and a crime against humanity. I tried to file criminal charges, but was just threatened and assaulted by the police, FBI and DOJ. The media apologized they couldn’t disclose it and hid it, local attorneys were prevented from filing suit, and the courts hid diosclosure on anything connected with this criminal offense.

          Both “alleged” targeted victims of the Amerithrax attack, Senators Dachle and Leahey, said nothing about the FBI doing nothing for seven years. Either they were privy to the attack and just “players” in it, or they actually were victims aqnd couldn’t say anything because both had knowledge and passed the legislation above to poison the American people…but it was used on them. THe quickest way is to find out who in Congress (and friends/relatives) in addition to the Bush family had stock in Bayer AG as it soared from around 10 dollars a share to about 90 dollars due to Ciprofloxin contracts issued to Bayer AG by the government in the aftermath of Amerithrax. “Bayer AG” was changed to “Bayer” in the US a few years later to hide the price history, but it can still be found on the Bayer AG symbol in Europe. Yes this was the CIA and FBI, and Director Robert Mueller III should be the first one hanging from a rope for treason going back before he helped cover up 9-11. We live in a dangerous, scrupulous country…. and will until there is a revolt and those in DC brought to justice for treason.

        • DXer said

          Hi M.,

          1. In quoting the statute, you omitted subparagraph (c) stating that “informed consent” was required. Thus, while you make it seem that such an experiment would be done without the participant’s knowledge, in fact informed consent would be required. The statute on its face has no application to the Fall 2001 anthrax incidents.

          2. You claim that Leahy and Dachle said nothing about the FBI “doing nothing for seven years.” You seem unaware of the facts relating to the investigation — the 17 investigators, the 6000 interviews, the 70 searches. Your claim that the FBI did nothing is contradicted by the open source public record — and indeed only the record as to Dr. Ivins and Dr. Hatfill has been disclosed. Much more has done. If you read the documents provided to the NAS, you would know that your claim that the FBI did nothing has no basis in fact. Moreover, FBI Director Mueller reported on progress directly to Leahy and Senator Leahy has said that Director Mueller would even call his home to address questions he had. Apart from 9/11, it was the largest criminal investigation in history. I believe $100 million is the figure commonly used to estimate its cost.

          3. You claim that “Bayer AG as it sourced from around 10 dollars a share to about 90 dollars due to Ciprofloxin.” Yet you again cite no authority for your claim. I’ve asked that in making factual assertions — you provide authority or that we drop the exchange. Although I am open to a link supporting your claim, here is the stock price chart I get when I chart 1/1/2001 – 1/1/2003. (I spend much of my day checking stock price charts). Given I am by no means expert on price movements, I would gladly ask an expert at a weekly investors meeting to pull up daily and weekly charts for whatever dates you specify. He has expensive software. From the link I provide, it seems that your claim is contradicted by the historic price charts. Each meeting he pulls up a powerpoint of what chart is of interest and walks the audience through the movements.

          In the broad historic date range I specified, I see the price dropping from 50 to 20.

          You can choose the dates, explain your choice, and explain the results But if you don’t provide actual links supporting your claims, let’s stop now. Tommy Tompson wrote of his negotation with Bayer in his book as I recall.

          By all means, link the historical stock price chart that proves your point. If you can’t do that, then we don’t even get to unsupported spurious claims related about profit motive, stock ownership etc. The former President could make $300,000 giving a speech about painting with watercolors. I think you are missing the mark on what motivates a sitting President. (FWIW, I’m a liberal and think invading Iraq was stupid; so my defense of President Bush is on the facts. He was very upset by the anthrax, as Ari F’s account describes).

          4. In the interest in staying on topic, I commend to you the $6 million or whatever the Israeli government paid soldiers in connection with an experiment. (I didn’t read the story) Informed consent is a serious matter. Undisclosed biodefense experiments — such as the spraying of subtilis in San Francisco — is a fascinating historical subject. (See, e.g., audio of William Patrick’s talk about such testing available at And I thought the chapter I read of GM’s Vaccine A was very lucidly written.

          But for relevant tests of a mailed powder, see the Canadian experiment using mailed anthrax published in September 2001 and disclosed to only a score of people in the US prior to that. The powder was made by a Wisconsin dairy processor and then tweaked at Dugway. When opened, it immediately spread across the room. Pursuing your approach, I would love to see the list of the score briefed in Spring 2001 on that study. I assure you that it likely included Ali Al-Timimi’s suitemates.

          5. As a general matter, I’m all in favor of following the money. You just have to be much more sophisticated at doing it and the record evidence needs to support the assertions.

          The millions made were made by NanoBio, which was co-founded by the former Zawahiri associate supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins.

          It was funded by a venture fund firm, Perseus, led by Holbrooke, who then was put in charge of Afghanistan by the USG.

          RH died shortly after our DC conference from an aneurysm or a burst vessel while talking with Hillary Clinton.

          The federal undercover who did these graphics told me about Perseus that first week we met. He asked “Have you ever heard of Perseus?” (I hadn’t).
          He was sent to provide me the missing piece to my little puzzle. Earlier that week he had started talking about nanobio. So it was when I googled NanoBio and Perseus — which he knew I would — I learned of the many many millions in investment. (The FBI knows what I google).

          I then promptly did the research and linked the sources about the millions in investment. So I am more than a little fascinated about the influence of money. I called a former colleague who went to Perseus and left a message asking what due diligence had been done but never heard back. In short, either the FBI or CIA knows a lot more than they are saying. And this blog serves in a fashion as a honey trap.

          I also have been fascinated that Ali Al-Timimi used to work for Andrew Card, the White House Chief of Staff, to whom Director Mueller reported daily. He worked for Card at the Department of Transportation. Andrew would open the door for the Director. The significance of that is if were Ali, I would have asked Mr. Card for a recommendation to the GMU program. So that put the Administration in an awkward position. It wasn’t Saddam who had access, it was Andrew Card’s former assistant — the one coordinating with the 911 imam. But the evidence only supports the claim that it is Ayman Zawahiri who is the bad guy — not anyone in the US government, past or present. They are or were just doing their jobs — and while in the private sector just making money.

          In short, I’m all for following the money. You just are too unfamiliar with the details of the matter to follow the money.

          The co-founder of NanoBio is now head of international vaccines for Merck. He considers himself a lion among monkeys.

        • Maserati said

          Individual consent was not required under 50 usc, Section 1520. While revised 1520a does claim to require individual consent, it’s ludicrous. You can’t give legal permission to be harmed or killed by a bioweapon.

          Bayer AG (not Bayer) price history is available in the history index of the stock. I would hope you would know that, and how to access it.

          Lahey and Dashelle were silent for seven years. I highly dispute the FBI kept tabs with them, because when the press did question them as to their silence after seven years, they both bashed the FBI for doing nothing

          I watched the DoD and federal government use bioweapons on civilians for over seven years and rot their organs and brains out to the4 point of death, and I forced them to shut down the experiment immediately when I found out what they were doing. Using words like “legal” and “ethics” in the same paragraph is like saying feces smells like perfume. Our government, federal agencies and courts follow no law, just breaks them and cover each others rears when they are caught. Amerithrax had no Middle East or foreign terrorist ties. It was purely a government OP for fear mongering and stock profit by our government officials and federal agencies. Don’t ignore the obvious.You claiming I didn’t cite any references for Bayer AG’s stock price….LMAO.

        • DXer said

          Similarly, the price change in Bayer stock from 9/1/2001 to 1/1/2005 seems to have been a drop from 50 to 20.

          The value of requiring linked sources is to avoid wasted time discussing false assertions.

        • DXer said

          Returning to this issue of historical biowarfare experiments that did not involve informed consent, let’s consider the secret cold war chemical testing in St. Louis. You can click on Dr. Martino-Taylor’s dissertation on the subject at the CBS news link.

          It is precisely such history that fuels the need for greater transparency regarding such things why the rabbit documents were withheld from Bruce Ivins, what strain Al Qaeda was using in Afghanistan, and the FBI expert’s conclusion in his comparison of the Fall 2001 anthrax letters with Mohammed Atta’s handwriting.

          Researcher: Poor St. Louis Minorities Targeted for Secret Cold War Chemical Testing

          September 24, 2012 6:00 AM

          ST. LOUIS, Mo. (KMOX) – A St. Louis researcher says she’s discovered proof that poor, minority neighborhoods in St. Louis were unwittingly part of Cold War chemical studies.

          The aerosol was sprayed from blowers installed on rooftops and mounted on vehicles. ”The Army claims that they were spraying a quote ‘harmless’ zinc cadmium sulfide,” says Dr. Lisa Martino-Taylor, Professor of Sociology, St. Louis Community College. Yet Martino-Taylor points out, cadmium was a known toxin at the time of the spraying in the mid 50′s and mid 60′s. Worse, she says the aerosol was laced with a fluorescent additive – a suspected radiological compound – produced by U.S. Radium, a company linked to the deaths of workers at a watch factory decades before.

          Martino-Taylor says thousands upon thousands of St. Louis residents likely inhaled the spray. ”The powder was milled to a very, very fine particulate level. This stuff travelled for up to 40 miles. So really all of the city of St. Louis was ultimately inundated by the stuff.”

          Martino-Taylor says she’s obtained documents from multiple federal agencies showing the government concocted an elaborate story to keep the testing secret. “There was a reason this was kept secret. They knew that the people of St. Louis would not tolerate it.” She says part of the deception came from false news reports planted by government agencies. “And they told local officials and media that they were going to test clouds under which to hide the city in the event of aerial attack.” Martino-Taylor says some of the key players in the cover-up were also members of the Manhattan Atomic Bomb Project and involved in other radiological testing across the United States at the time. “This was against all military guidelines of the day, against all ethical guidelines, against all international codes such as the Nuremberg Code.”

          She says the spraying occurred between 1953 and 54 and again from 1963 to 65 in areas of North St. Louis and eventually in parts of South St. Louis. Martino-Taylor launched her research after hearing independent reports of cancers among city residents living in those areas at the time.

          “At this point, further investigation by government bodies would be welcome. They investigated it in the past and congressional inquiry in the past was not very effective.” She says some of the documents she tried to obtain remain classified, while others she requested had information redacted.

          Dr. Martino-Taylor will be presenting her research Tuesday at St. Louis Community College. Click here for a link to the website.

          For access to Dr. Martino-Taylor’s dissertation click here.


          I once represented a whistleblower who knew of secret industry testing on the presence of benzene in soft drinks. The beverage industry’s outside consultant from the 1991 era had become the current FDA Chairman. The benzene problem was discovered in a secret company project Codenamed Project Denver — but I had obtained data from the secret project from one of the participants.

          I couldn’t understand why on Wednesday at 2:22 p.m., when I emailed about the testing, I got no response. It was a private email that I knew was sure to reach him. But then on Friday he walked out the door with an email to all FDA testing saying he was resigning — with no explanation given. I was at a Boston conference with heavy hitter public interest types when I turned and said, upon news of his resignation, “Someone should check that man’s stock holdings.”

          Then it was a simple matter to trace his financial holdings — the ethics officer had declined to sign off his disclosure form because he had not liquidated the holdings before taking office. The US FDA head had a substantial stock holding in Pespi and Sysco, the food lunch program. (About 70k-80k in each). He was in charge of government policy relating to obesity among schoolchildren. The same US Attorney who botched Amerithrax oversaw his prosecution for a couple of misdemeanors.

          So don’t get me wrong. I just mean to emphasize the importance of contemporaneous documentary evidence in proving any case of a conflict of interest. I just mean to emphasize the importance of being able to cite solid support — which you definitely have not done.

          There were lots of actual or potential conflicts of interest in Amerithrax.

          For example, the fellow who made a powderized Ames at USAMRIID and threw out Dr. Ivins February 2002 sample was the FBI’s lead expert.

          The lead prosecutor Daniel Seikaly’s daughter came to represent “anthrax weapons suspect” Ali Al-Timimi for free. Daniel’s sister-in-law explains that to be born Palestinian is necessarily to be political. Daniel came over from the CIA in mid-September 2001. Before that, he was putting the screws to some former CIA director for bringing home a laptop that had maps of Afghanistan on it.

          The head of the FBI science effort, JB, was the bacteriology collections scientist repository to which Ali Al-TImimi had unfettered access. The science relied upon quickly turned out to be cotton candy and did not point to Bruce Ivins any more than hundreds of others.

          The AUSA who was the driving force behind the Ivins Theory had been reprimanded from going to visit a jihadi in jail with whom “a deal had been cut” — her hands had quite literally been tied by a supervisor.

          And so sometimes you have to rise up and speak for the mute swan that the USG thinks it is okay to kill. Here, Bruce Ivins is that mute swan.

          Sometimes what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

          Sometimes you have to open a can of whoop ass.

          And remind folks that there are no secrets.

          Remind people that they are either part of the solution or they are part of the problem.

        • DXer said

          I’ve just started Dr. Lisa Martino-Taylor thesis, but this author would be fascinating to meet. She writes at page iv:

          “Through this case study, the author explores how a large number of participants inside an organization will willingly participate in organizational acts that are harmful to others, and how large numbers of outsiders, who may or may not be victims of organizational activities, are unable to determine illegal or harmful activity by an organization. The author explains how ethical and observational lapses are engineered by the organization through several specific mechanisms, in an effort to disable critical analysis, and prevent both internal and external dissent of harmful organizational actions. Through studying the process of complex organizational deviance, we can develop public policies that protect the public‟s right to know, and construct checks and methods to minimize the chance of covert projects that are contrary to societal norms.”

          In terms of organizational behavior theory, I already find this paragraph more interesting than the thesis in the DTRA-funded piece I featured recently about how Hambali turned to Al Qaeda because JI needed money.

          My self-styled study program undergraduate was law, organizational behavior and social change. So without prejudging it or what I’ll think after reading it, this is the first PhD thesis I’ve been especially interested in reading in years. I think Dr. Lisa Martino-Taylor might agree that FOIA represents a potentially powerful tool in working towards government transparency and accountability.

          The thesis by Dr. Crockett on the anthrax mailings and debate on the sophistication of the anthrax, was one of the last ones that held my interest. Her office was next door to Ali Al-Timimi and her thesis was advised by Al-Timimi’s suitemates.

          Another of her colleagues used the GMU program as a case study of the risk of infiltration — without naming names. But her advisor was DOD (Peter L) and so that was fascinating too.

          The federal court judge hearing the pending motions in the Ali Al-Timimi has important decisions to make regarding transparency and secrecy.

          Given that compartmentalization of information is what led to 9/11, under these facts, I favor disclosure.

        • DXer said

          Dr. Lisa Martino-Taylor, the dissertation author, writes:

          “I look first at my original concept of ethical autism, defined here as the purposeful reduction or blockage of information inside an organization or group, intending to 1) distort the perceptions of insiders to ensure compliance and advancement of the organizational goals 2) minimize the awareness of collective illegal and/or unethical activity of the organization, 3) create a false sense of security to members within the organization from outside threats due to illegal or unethical activity, 4) to stifle opposition, critical analysis, and ensure conformity to the organizational goals. Ethical autism ensures that the significance of harmful organizational actions will be underestimated by an internal audience; the control of information in this case study was essential to generating ethical autism.”

          Although I find organizational behavior jargon fun, to us lay people it is old-fashioned CYA. In terms of social psychology, under principles of cognitive dissonance, no one wants to believe that some innocent man was driven to suicide. Besides, no one wants it on their resume.

          The purpose of internet posting and uploading of source documents is to break through this “blockage of information.” For example, Vahid Majidi should have known that the FBI did not interview Adnan El-Shukrijumah and should have studied the contemporaneous documents from the rabbit formadehyde experiment. When others next time claim Dr. Ivins had no reason to be in the lab, they can be asked to address the contemporaneous documents.

        • DXer said

          Dr. Lisa Martino-Taylor, the dissertation author, writes:

          “I next propose the original concept of social autism to explain how organizations can successfully, systematically, and purposefully impede meaningful information flow to an external audience, in order to manipulate public opinion, impede public debate and dialogue, and to ensure that the significance of harmful organizational actions will be unknown to or underestimated by an external audience. Three specific mechanisms (snipping, spinning2, and blizzarding), explained herein, are used towards this end. Snipping and blizzarding are original concepts, and unique to the literature. The three mechanisms (along with stonewalling) are used to regulate information outflow in an effort to obfuscate, downplay, or deny damaging organizational information to various internal and external parties. The purposeful and strategic utilization of these mechanisms thereby create internal effects (ethical autism) and external effects (social autism) on various audiences, whereby insiders and outsiders are deceived as to potential dangers or harmful acts, and whereby full and open debate is strategically suppressed. In this way, we can explain how “ethical lapses” might occur inside large organizations or coalitions that employ hundreds or thousands of individuals who move in and out of the organization over extended periods of time, such as during the five decades of state- sponsored human subject testing in the United States. Through strategic use of these mechanisms, organizational leaders can control opposition, resistance, and debate both inside and outside the organization, in an effort to advance uninterrupted, organizational goals. Thusly, as the control of information is essential to generating ethical autism internally, the control of information is also essential to generating social autism in the external community.”


          Consider FBI’s David Hardy’s failure to provide the FBI’s expert handwriting comparison of Mohammed Atta’s handwriting exemplars to the Fall 2001 anthrax letters.

          Is the FBI FOIA operation really so dysfunctional that it should take years to locate and provide such a brief document on such an important issue?

          What was AUSA Lieber thinking when she wrote me I would never get the rabbit formaldehyde documents?

          Does she really think there were any secrets in her office?

        • DXer said

          The thesis author writes:

          “I sent out at least forty Freedom of Information Act requests to every agency that had potential involvement, and that in itself, was a test in fortitude as request after request came back with not a single sheet of data or information. The Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground finally came through, where paralegal Brian May provided me with a “blizzard” of documents in electronic format. This gave me more needles in more haystacks, along with concrete evidence confirming the blizzarding tactic as a response to public inquiry.”

          “After some often-terse written communications with the Office of the Command Judge Advocate at the Department of the Army, Dugway Proving Ground, I was provided with another blizzard of documents at a nominal fee. Appreciative for anything through FOIA, I was nevertheless disappointed that Dugway continued to deny some documents to the public (and to researchers such as myself), by their own admission. In fact, some documents were available for distribution to government agencies only, including a very important, Behavior of Aerosol Clouds within Cities, Part 2; technical Summary, April 1954, which summarized the findings of the St. Louis study. Dugway refused to provide this crucial document to me, even after I appealed the decline. Nevertheless, I appreciate the hundreds of pages of documents that were provided to me by Kateni Leakehe, Major, U.S. Army, Command Judge Advocate at Dugway Proving Ground. The FOIA responses that I received varied from mostly blatant denial, to stonewalling, and blizzarding. Clearly, the control of information that played such a key role in the St. Louis aerosol study and the Manhattan-Rochester Coalition‟s work, and was essential to generating ethical and social autism, was impacting my own research as well.”


          “Information is still controlled through the same mechanisms, and this became quite obvious as I attempted to gather, declassify, and analyze government documents, a full six decades after the first aerosol experiment in St. Louis.”

          “In the 1990‟s, under the direction of President Bill Clinton, Hazel O‟Leary cleared the way for release of tens of thousands of documents related to human- subject testing. Indeed, she played a heroic role in truth seeking for scholars, reporters, lawyers, and American citizens who were victimized by human subject tests. Unfortunately, despite the release of these many documents during the Clinton administration, the military continues to maintain a high level of secrecy related to the St. Louis study- something I found curious, given the release of official records that have revealed some extraordinarily revolting experiments by the military during the same time period. As in the 1950s and 1960s, today the St. Louis aerosol study still remains mostly hidden.”


          IMO, no FOIA requestor should ever waste time complaining of “blizzarding” — so long as the are not requested to pay copying costs. Someone spent time copying or scanning those documents — it was more a waste of their time than the time of the recipient requestor.

          As for a FOIA response to a technical study of a weapons aerosol, there clearly would be grounds for withholding much of the technical discussion under the statutory exemptions of the statute. Such weapons still kill. With respect to Project Jefferson, I am mainly interested in the location of virulent Ames so as to chart potential access to the genetically matching Ames — not technical details.

          It does not help to understand a FOIA production in terms of organizational behavior concepts rather than mandatory exemptions to disclosure under a controlling statute. (I have not yet seen the author cite the exemptions invoked). If a particular redaction or withholding was deemed inappropriate, she had recourse to administrative appeal and litigation. Given that litigation is expensive and protracted (even when done pro se or pro bono), I tend to resort to compliments and flirting and doing my best to explain the public interest favoring disclosure. In case of USAMRC, I made at least a couple of marriage proposals and I keep reminding the DOJ Civil person and his colleagues how expert he is at FOIA and that he is so fair-minded he should be on the federal bench. A flies to honey approach, if you will. Much in life depends on the kindness of strangers. Of course, if that doesn’t work, that’s when you call out the cranky Harvard MBA to be harsh-sounding.

          And if that doesn’t work you tell them that Barry, local to Aberdeen, will sue their ass. As Fonzie told Richie, you have to punched someone once. My friend Ken Dillon, for example, did that with expert national security counsel in connection with withheld Jdey documents. Jdey was an Al Qaeda operative detained at the same time as Moussaoui but then released. Maybe documents were withheld for national security reasons and maybe they were withheld because the people responsible did not want to get in trouble for dropping the ball. Beats me.

          Did the thesis author interview old timers in the biodefense program — some of whom lived in Florida? William Patrick never was shy about openly discussing such experiments. see his audio file at archive org.

          But in reasoning on the merits, one should never go beyond where the documents or witnesses with personal knowledge take you. It otherwise becomes “spinning” — just with a different spin.

        • DXer said

          The author writes:

          “The National Research Council‟s (NRC) Toxicological Assessment of the Army’s Zinc Cadmium Sulfide Dispersion Tests, proved to be one of the only resources for hard data, regarding actual release levels of the material sprayed in St. Louis and other cities in the United States. Notably, the NRC (who by Congressional and Army request, took on the task of gathering information related to aerosol dispersion tests in St. Louis and several other cities such as Minneapolis), found its own path stonewalled by the Army. Thus, even the NRC‟s official data had gaping holes and missing data, which I did my best to fill in from other sources, such as published articles in obscure science journals.”

          The case study is already pointing to the importance of the GAO’s efforts relating to Amerithrax.

          The NAS review was very seriously truncated — they were not allowed to consider Dr. Ivins guilt or innocence. Moreover, the FBI withheld a massive amount of classified evidence.

          The GAO should press hard for documents and interviews — overcoming the many months of FBI stonewalling — and then publish the interviews as is permitted under their procedural rules.

          Meanwhile, Senator Leahy or Senator Grassley or Congressman Nadler or Congressman Holt should ask FBI FOIA to cough up all documents responsive to the long lingering FOIA requests. Some legislator should explain that the requests warrant expedition (while being treated under FOIA’s framework).

        • DXer said

          The case study is serving to demonstrate how important the GAO study requested by Congressman Holt could prove to be.

          “The Oral Histories project was a controversial one at the time, undertaken by President Clinton‟s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, which examined hundreds of radiation studies on American populations by the military and its contractors. The committee, headed by physician Ruth Faden, along with a variety of experts in science, ethics, medicine, and history, painstakingly assembled this oral history archive of interviews with high-ranking scientists and medical personnel who had participated in human experiments or were members of the elite Manhattan-Rochester Coalition, in addition to their various written commission reports and online documents. The Presidential Advisory Committee‟s Oral History Project was a very valuable primary source, that filled in the interview gap.”

        • DXer said

          The author in an appendix writes:

          “Although documents sent to this author in response to a 2011 Freedom of Information Act request to Aberdeen Proving Ground had been declassified years earlier, Aberdeen prohibits the publication of those documents. The following warning was stamped on the documents:

          “Reproduction of this document in whole or in part is prohibited except with permission of the issuing office.””

          The author, it seems to me, should realize that upon being produced under FOIA and being government documents, they are subject to uploading. Indeed, she should ask the agency to upload them to their Electronic Reading Room. Wikipedia explains: “From 1955 to 1975, the U.S. Army Chemical Corps conducted classified medical studies at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland. The purpose was to evaluate the impact of low-dose chemical warfare agents on military personnel and to test protective clothing and pharmaceuticals.”

          If they were subject under FOIPA to exemption from disclosure, the documents would have been withheld from production. Upon being produced, they are in the public domain and available under FOIA to any requestor.

          Lew publishes leaked classified documents all the time and it hasn’t gotten Lew thrown in jail yet. (The documents produced under FOIA have been declassified).

          Heck, as I recall, the FBI’s anthrax expert even once supplied virulent Ames from RMR 1029 provided Aberdeen the Ames suspended in silica.

          So by all means let’s make sure Aberdeen understands the FOIA statute.

          According to the email Bruce sent Patricia Fellows, he had heard the closest dry powder to the attack anthrax was a dry powder John Ezzell had made. See FoxNews report and Anonymous Scientist’s enlargement of redacted text. I spoke to Dr. Ezzell in July 2009. His friend was the SRI VP in 2001 and paved the way for the call by explaining my view that Ayman Zawahiri just outsmarted US biodefense and succeeded in using the weapons of his enemy (as commanded by the hadiths). Dr. Ezzell told me he was under a gag order and that his phone was likely wiretapped. I told him “pshawww…” Dr. Ezzell confirmed to me that he had made the dry powder at the request of DARPA and given to Johns Hopkins.

          Now, if you will, turn to the document that shows Dr. Ivins used virulent Ames from Flask 1029 for a DARPA project in August 2000 and it was examined at Johns Hopkins. Was this made into a dry powder before being examined? The DARPA-funded, former Zawahiri associate working alongside Bruce Ivins with virulent Ames reportedly tested his decontamination agent at Johns Hopkins which is why I am curious. (I don’t know the dates).

          At the time, Dr. Ezzell worked, btw, for FBI’s hazardous materials group, Dr. Ezzell was head of the Special Pathogens testing lab. The FBI would bring him hoax letters and he would test them. The FBI agents were impressed he drove a Harley motorcycle. Dr. Ezzell says that testing showed that the irradiation had been successful. (It would have been gamma radiation). (We saw in the incident involving the Ames Patricia Fellows sent to Oakland Children’s Hospital that sometimes Ames thought to be dead is actually live). So if the FBI find it awkward to talk about, it might be because it was the FBI’s scientist who made the closest product.

          But with the right encouragement explaining disclosure is in the public interest, Dr. Ezzell is by no means unduly defensive (because he knows he was just doing what he was asked as part of the legitimate requirements of his job). The FBI scientists should just get over their awkwardness in addressing it if they are going to be persuasive in laying the crime off on Dr. Ivins. The public will want to know (1) why DARPA asked for it, (2) what method generally was used (and would that explain the Silicon Signature), (3) who had access or might have used a similar method. etc.

          One 1996 study has Dr. Ezzell providing gamma irradiated Ames in a soil suspension to someone at Edgewood — in a Soil 1 and Soil 2 taken from the Aberdeen grounds. Did the subtilis match subtilis at APG? Do some soil samples have tin at APG and some not?

          My curiosity there stems from the fact that the DARPA-funded former Zawahiri associate working alongside Bruce Ivins with virulent Ames also tested his decontamination agent at Edgewood in 2001 reportedly. See 2002 nanoemulsions report. What were the location of the soil samples used for the soil suspension by Dr. Ezzell in 1996. Dr. Ezzell is a highly regarded microbiologist and deservedly so. He did nothing improper — he was asked to make the product by DARPA. Given that it was gamma irradiated, he had not seen the “real thing”, he reports, until the attack anthrax. He mentioned that the DARPA project was connected to a University but this is best left to an in-person interview by a professional journalist like Joby or Scott.

          We need to press on and get at the facts notwithstanding the fact that some FBI scientists were in the same hazardous materials unit when the dry powder was made.

          We need to press on and get at the facts notwithstanding the fact notwithstanding the fact that the former collection scientist for American Type Culture Collection (at GMU) which co-sponsored Ali Al-Timimi’s program, led the FBI’s science effort (along with the fellow who headed the Navy’s biodefense effort). These scientists need to be sensitive to the issue of conflict of interest and be sure to recuse themselves from any issue that implicates such a conflict.

          Dr. Ezzell could explain to all those focused on silica and the process used what equipment he used. In the National Geo video Dr. Michael seems not to appreciate that the word “weaponize” has no usefulness — the key is the probativeness of the Silicon Signature. If Dr. Bannan continued to be involved in the withholding of the AFIP data and spinning of the issue— or for that matter any FBI scientist given that it was their anthrax expert who made the dry powdered anthrax for DARPA — that was wrongheaded.

          Is Pat Fellows the one who prepared the second round of slants (see emails posted) after Dr. Ezzell (apparently) threw out Dr. Ivins’ first submission (which reportedly used a different protocol)? See Pat Worsham’s debunking of the FBI’s reasoning.

        • DXer said

          Heck, if you want to get at classified information, get the documents relating to the $100,000k CIA grant to the Koehler lab in Houston in 2001 relating to the growth of anthrax in a silica solution.

          The lab, which was kept unlocked, upgraded to BL3 in March and then was wiped out by millions of gallons of water in June 2001.

          Aafia Siddiqui used to attend school in the building and her sister-in-law worked down the hall from TK. Didn’t Aafia visit Houston after she finished her thesis? Aafia, her mom and her sister are listed in Ann Arbor, with Aafia’s brother’s family having moved to Houston in 2001.

          After the flooding, the doors at the Koehler not only were kept unlocked, but they were propped open.

          The graduate student Melissa Drydsale was inserting virulent x101 and x102 rendering previous avirulent strains virulent. (Note the upside down plasmid).

          The psychatrist who smeared Ivins and who interviewed Aafia was too busy chasing semen stained panties to follow actual relevant substantive leads.

        • DXer said

          There is a reason that the $5 million BOLO was issued for Aafia Siddiqui, Jdey and Adnan El-Shukrijumah at the same time.

          But especially with Adnan El-Shukrijumah now said to be head of Al Qaeda’s external operations, failure in analysis is not an option.

        • DXer said

          The $100k CIA grant to Koehler’s unsecured BL-3 lab in Houston (upgraded March 2001) was to study the persistence of anthrax in soil. It was legitimate biodefense work by an esteemed biodefense researcher. In 2002 or so she published an article explaining that it was sometimes necessary to work with virulent Ames.

          But these microscope types simply were not aware what a determined and sneaky adversary Dr. Ayman Zawahiri would prove to be.

        • DXer said

          “Bayer AG (not Bayer) price history is available in the history index of the stock. I would hope you would know that, and how to access it.”

          Yes, and I explained the price history. It went from 50 to 20 over the relevant several year period. See link previously provided.

          You offer no factual support for the claims you do make and those claims you do make aren’t relevant to analysis of the Fall 2001 anthrax incidents. You evidence no familiarity with the Amerithrax incidents at all.

          Please cite links after each factual assertion you make.

          I get along very well with Barry, Eric, Meryl and others who share views similar to yours. But they all understand the importance of providing support for factual claims. I encourage you to follow their example.

        • DXer said


          Let’s test your knowledge of Amerithrax.

          1) Were Yazid Sufaat and his two assistants vaccinated to protect them in their use of the virulent anthrax?

          2) Were Yazid Sufaat and his two assistants working with virulent Ames?

          3) What strain of anthrax was sent to the Pakistan Prime Minister?

        • DXer said


          Would you agree it is a simple matter to walk out of lab with a small amount of pathogen?

          DXer … It’s naive and uninformed to think that Al Qaeda could not have obtained Ames just because it tended to be in labs associated with or funded by the US military. … The reality is that a lab technician, researcher, or other person similarly situated might simply have walked out of some lab that had it.

          Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 29, 2013

          Would you agree that the process described on the documents on Hawsawi’s laptop was sufficient to make the anthrax mailed in Fall 2001?

          capture of Mustafa Hawsawi and laptop with anthrax spray drying documents
          Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 18, 2010

          Would you agree that immediately after 911 the housemate of the Al Qaeda anthrax lab director announced his intention to come to the US?

          DXer says: Adnan El-Shukrijumah is the anthrax mailer … on or about 9/13/2001, he phoned from KSM’s house to tell his mom he was coming to the US

          Posted by Lew Weinstein on June 6, 2013

          Would you agree that former WMD Director is mistaken in claiming that all of Atta’s associates in Florida were interviewed and could be excluded?

          FBI’s Undercover Informant Asaad Is Frustrated That He And FBI Missed Opportunity To Thwart Mohammed Atta and Anthrax Letter Suspect Adnan El-Shukrijumah, Al Qaeda’s Current Head Of External Operations

          Posted by Lew Weinstein on May 26, 2013

        • Maserati said


          Our government politicians and agencies did this, and made a lot of money from it like usual. It’s the reverse scam of buying stock short on a manufacturer, then poisoning its products on the shelf to make the stock go down by public fear. Our politicians owned or bought Bayer AG, then executed the Amerithrax poisoning to justify hundreds of millions of Ciprofloxin contracts for drugs that were never used and may not have even been manufactured. If not, pure profit. They claimed stockpiles of the drug were made and then destroyed. The stock went up about 2000% in two years. It cost taxpayers nine lives and a billion dollars to clean up while our politicians walked off with huge personal gains.

          Amerithrax has no Middle East terrorist connection. You two throw Battelle’s name around like it’s Johnson and Johnson or Proctor and Gamble. Battelle was never once mentioned on television, and I seriously doubt if even one percent of the people in this country ever heard of them. It came to my attention when a few of Ivins’ associates stated online that Ivins was trying to blow the whistle on Battelle and get authorities to investigate when he turned up dead. I researched Battelle and was shocked at the amount of weapons of all types they had, and with no government oversight at the time. It’s just another crooked scam, treason and a Crime against Humanity by our siociopathic, psycotic government cult in DC. That simple, and easily proven if the FBI weren’t complicit, treasonous, criminal bastards.

        • DXer said


          The email you gave to the blog is under an ID for scanned IDs to crack posted by “Cracking Queen” from Pakistan.

          Can you tell us about the St. Louis matter so that we might authenticate your identity and bona fides? Thanks.

        • DXer said


          Maserati says Bayer stock went up 2000% in two years even though I linked the stock chart showing it went from 50 to 20 during those two years.

          Maserati, you’ve done nothing but make unsupported factual assertions. And you apparently can’t read a stock chart. Enough already.

        • Maserati said

          You most likely linked Bayer, not Bayer AG. I told you earlier that they changed the name on the American market a few years after the increase to hide the price history. Another little tidbit to show their guilt. I assume you knew how things worked, and I even told you they changed it.

        • Maserati said

          From Wiki:

          “The sale of ciprofloxacin increased dramatically following the anthrax scare of 2001. On 24 October 2002, the Bush administration (2001–2009) announced a deal between the government and Bayer Pharmaceuticals to purchase 100 million tablets of ciprofloxacin at a reduced price of $0.95 per pill.”

          And I guarantee you most was never made…just pencil whipped, then claimed destroyed years later for expiration. You guys really need to learn how these scams work.

      • Maserati said


        The St. Louis matter is not n the public record, though I did go to the press who all apologized fro not being allowed to disclose it. Ironically, you cited the social worker that disclosed the experiments in St. Louis in the 50s and 60s. The reporter that brought her on was Lieza Zigman. Lieza was one of the three I approached years earlier that apologized. Even more ironic, Lieza got breast cancer after hiding the atmospheric poisoning (one of the effects) between when I contacted her and her disclosure by the social worker. You read the legislation, tough you cited the newer version. The former version (section 1520) didn’t even try to hide the treason, and that is what Amerithrax would have been run under. You’re corresponding with the reason the government “tried” to make it “sound” protective. Although as I pointed out, it’s ludicrous and illegal for several reasons. JUst suck it up and face the reality.

    • Maserati said


      There is no connection to foreign entities whatsoever. At the time of the anthrax attack, there was basically NO oversight whatsoever on Battelle, and they possessed practically all forms of the eight common major bioweapons. Battle does research and development in facilities around the world. Battelle does work for several foreign intelligence agencies, and all of ours in the US. As the FBI “allegedly” investigated for over seven years and acutally did nothing, while the Bush family made millons from Bayer AG’s Ciprofloxin (never used and possibly not ever even made) contracts resulting from the Amerithrax attack, it’s pretty clear this was an approved Title 50 USC, Section 1520 “experiment”. That’s why it was blamed on a dead (or murdered) guy and the case closed, even though it was impossible for Ivins to have done it. I find it almost comical you cite the CIA and their “legal” obligations. The CA shoots little girls through the head, has secret prisons with illegal kidnapped hostages, operates covertly on domestic US soil, murders Americans citizens every day…. and you state they follow the law? Really? Amerithrax was a covert US Op for stock market profit and foreign terrorist fear mongering. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. It would be easily proved in a court of law, but you would be dead before the charges were filed.

      • DXer said

        Hi Maserati,

        M. asserts his conclusion there is no connection to foreign entities without addressing

        (1) Ayman Zawahiri’s stated intent to use anthrax to retaliate for the rendering of senior EIJ leaders;

        (2) Yazid Sufaat’s admitted work with virulent anthrax for the purpose of making it a lethal weapon over the course of 6 months; and

        (3) the stated intent of his housemate, a US resident, to come back to the US the week of the first mailing, with that resident, Adnan El-Shukrijumah, now the head of Al Qaeda’s external operations.

        M. says the FBI did nothing when, to the contrary, they for example conducted thousands of interviews, conducted dozens of searches, issued hundreds of subpoenas, conducted hundreds of polygraphs etc. It was the largest criminal investigation ever. To say they did nothing evidences a serious unfamiliarity with the matter.

        M.states there was no oversight on Battelle without addressing their use of cameras and/or two-person rule — and without addressing issues such as thousands of miles to the point of mailing, the Federal Eagle stamp sold in Maryland and Virginia etc.

        A key factor is that at Battelle, there is no such stated murderous intent. Moreover, unlike Dr. Zawahiri, who was a murderer of innocents, the Battelle folks were respected scientists and in a Thursday night bowling league. I questioned the Battelle vaccine manager extensively in writing precisely because David Willman went to a Scandinavian country to interview an angry ex-wife. Reluctantly, the vaccine manager addressed all my questions and there was no “there there” to the theory he was responsible.

        The one “bioweapon” that is relevant, of course, is powderized Ames. And they in fact did have that. Given that it was known that they had it, it would be mighty foolish to have used the strain associated with them. Zawahiri, on the other hand, deemed that the koran mandated that he use the weapons of his enemies. He had an inflitrator, Rauf Ahmad, attending USAMRIID and Porton Down conferences in 1999 and 2000, and visiting a lab to acquire virulent anthrax. Rauf, like Al Qaeda lab director Yazid Sufaat, was responsive to emails but wanted money for substantive answers.

        Battelle ran Dugway also and so in a sense they can be thought of in the same analysis. The key Dugway researcher explained that sometimes it was necessary to work with the real thing — and, mind you, that research was for lawfully authorized biodefense projects. So for example to know whether a decontaminate was going to be effective, you ideally would have to work with the real thing — although when the real thing was used such research would be classified and kept secret.

        Returning to Southern Research Institute in Frederick, the President and Vice-President of SRI at the time declined to tell me when they first obtained Ames. Dr. Ivins’ chief accuser went to head the BL-3 there and was asked by Dr. Ivins what happened to 5 ml of missing Ames. Her civil deposition was shredded.

        Maserati, many of things you are saying have no factual basis. So if there is to be any further exchange after this one on the subject, I would ask that you follow each factual assertion with a link to the factual support. All the points above have been the subject of uploaded documents on this blog. And I in turn will do the same.

        • Maserati said

          How do you “legally” approve Battelle to do bioweapons development, when they “legally” work with enemy nations as well? At he time of Amerthrax, BAttelle had no US government oversight (sorry, it’s true) even though they had all eight major bioweapons and equipment to weaponize them. Who do you think you’re kidding DX?

        • DXer said

          “How do you “legally” approve Battelle to do bioweapons development, when they “legally” work with enemy nations as well?”

          Hi Maserati, I’m sorry. It may because I haven’t read some other post, but you would have to inform me as to what enemy nations they work for.

          I’ve been troubled for example by the fact that Porton Down and Bioport were owned by a non-citizen.

          I was troubled by the fact that the owner of Bioport gave Admiral Crowe a substantial portion and his defense to the issue of conflict of interest was that he didn’t have to do anything for it.

          Indeed, part of my motivation in pursuing Amerithrax is that I know combat equipped helicopters were sold to Iraq and equipped not only with TOW missiles but quick-release pesticide spraying mechanism. And then Halabja happened where the Kurds were gassed.

          But a whodunnit is quintessentially an evidence-based inquiry.

          And the motivation is the protection of innocents from loss of life.

          If yet another $300,000 bribe is paid to some beltway or revolving door hustler, that is not going to inform my analysis of the crime on the evidence. Politics has no role in true crime analysis. At the same time, it will not prevent me from pulling up the fellow’s financials and wonder where he got the money at that job for a $700,000 house.

          Your bad opinion of some player — for example, earlier you evidenced a dislike for the Bush family — is irrelevant to analysis.

        • richard rowley said


          You would do well to think about where (the) Maserati was originally manufactured.

  16. richard rowley said

    It seems to me that this is the closest thing our side can have to a ‘smoking gun’:

    1)Dr Byrne KNEW Ivins (far beyond the brother who had no dealings with him for 20 years, far beyond the ‘group therapist’ who knew him for 6 months).

    2)Dr Byrne knew what the working conditions were like in the Bacteriology Division in 2001 and how this all but precluded unobserved drying of anthrax.

    3)Dr Byrne knew what Ivins was like IN THAT WORK ENVIRONMENT.

    4) Dr Byrne knew what equipment was available for drying anthrax in that work environment.

    5) Dr Byrne had considerable knowledge of Ivins’ skill set as to the drying of anthrax.

    6)Yet because of all the above (and more) Dr Byrne thinks Ivins innocent.

    The government should have just let Amerithrax percolate on the back burner, rather than declare it solved precipitately.

    • Old Atlantic said

      The FBI was unable to find any evidence actually tying Ivins to the crime. The primary evidence is the late nights in the hours. For these nights, the FBI declined to provide any analysis to the NAS about how Ivins could have done it in the time available in that lab space. The FBI also withheld from the NAS the notebooks on what Ivins was doing in the labs during those days as Dxer has pointed out.

      Presumably, these have been subpoenaed in the Florida trial. Moreover, doesn’t the government have a positive duty to introduce documentary evidence it possesses that contradicts its assertions to the court?

    • Old Atlantic said

      Unless the DOJ can show that Ivins could have produced the anthrax in the late nights, can they be admitted as evidence he did it?

      Their trials so far prove he could not have done it during the late nights in effect?

      The lab note books further prove that he was otherwise occupied.

      If the DOJ introduces the nights as evidence Ivins did it, are they not obligated to introduce all the evidence they possess that shows he couldn’t have done it then or is less likely to have?

  17. Old Atlantic said

    The hard drives and computer media taken in the bin Laden raid may contradict the government’s case against Ivins. This presents interesting issues for the litigation pending. If the government has information that is inconsistent with its defense, does it have to alter it?

  18. DXer said

    I’ve FOIAed all the USAMRIID documents provided in this litigation.

    It is wrong for government to settle cases after providing documents and think they can shield those documents from the taxpayers footing the bill.

    This is definitely one to bring suit on — after any denial and denial of an appeal. A wealth of documents are at stake. Not depositions but the documents provided in response to the Plaintiffs’ Requests for Documents. See docket on PACER.

    The USAMRC FOIA person continues to be extremely efficient in shaping the requests so that the government can most appropriately respond. And so even if we end up disagreeing on the legal precedent that applies (a party cannot shield documents from production under FOIA by giving a copy to its lawyers), it won’t change the fact that she has been very efficient in managing and tasking a range of requests.

    • DXer said

      A federal district court recently discussed the principles that apply in a FOIA case:

      “The Government contends that the FOIA permits it to provide the Court with the same misinformation it provided to Plaintiffs regarding the existence of other responsive information or else the Government would compromise national security. That argument is indefensible. Although the FOIA allows the Government to withhold certain categories of documents from requestors such as Plaintiffs pursuant to statutory exemptions, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), or exclusions, 5 U.S.C. § 552(c), the FOIA does not permit the Government to withhold responsive information from the Court…
      An agency is entitled to interpret FOIA exemptions and withhold information pursuant to its belief that a certain FOIA exemption applies. Any agency decision regarding the applicability of an exemption, however, is subject to de novo review by a district court. The agency bears the burden of establishing that an exemption applies, by oral testimony or affidavits with “reasonably detailed descriptions of the documents” that “allege facts sufficient to establish an exemption.” If the agency’s affidavits are “too generalized,” the FOIA authorizes the district court to examine the contents of agency records in camera to determine whether the records or part of the records were properly withheld. The district court has the authority to “enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” Implicitly authorizing the Government to lie to the Court is “antithetical” to the independent judicial review that Congress expressly provided for in the FOIA statute…

      Contrary to the Government’s suggestion, Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not grant the Government a license to lie to the Court. Indeed, Subsection (d) strongly implies that Congress intended to prohibit an agency from misleading the Judiciary. Subsection (d)
      states that “[t]his section is not authority to withhold information from Congress.” Congress expressly prohibited any agency from withholding information from the Legislative Branch. The notion that Congress would implicitly authorize an agency to mislead one branch of government and, at the same time, expressly prohibit withholding information from another co-equal branch is illogical.

      Interpreting the FOIA to allow the Government to mislead the Judiciary would also raise a serious constitutional question. Whenever possible, a statute must be interpreted in a way that avoids an unconstitutional result. As discussed above, an agency’s decision regarding the applicability of a particular FOIA exemption is subject to de novo review by a district court. Judicial review of an agency’s decision to withhold information is meaningless if it is based on misinformation. When the Executive Branch provides a court with misinformation it impermissibly usurps the Judiciary’s authority “to say what the law is.” The FOIA cannot be interpreted to allow the Government to insulate itself from the meaningful judicial review the FOIA expressly mandates…

      The Government has no legitimate basis for deceiving the Court. The Court is well equipped to deal with sensitive and classified information. Federal courts routinely seal warrants and supporting affidavits in order to avoid compromising ongoing investigations. Under the Classified Information Procedures Act, federal courts manage the discovery and admission of classified documents in criminal cases. Federal courts also examine highly classified information in terrorism-related cases, including the cases involving the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program. These are but a few examples of the highly sensitive matters that federal courts deal with on a regular basis. The Court is more than competent to evaluate and protect the information that the Government eventually provided. Filing an in camera declaration concurrently with its public filings would not have compromised national security, and the Government’s argument to the contrary is simply not credible. At the outset of this case, the Government should have given the Court accurate information. The Court can be trusted with the truth.

      The Government argues that there are times when the interests of national security require the Government to mislead the Court. The Court strongly disagrees. The Government’s duty of honesty to the Court can never be excused, no matter what the circumstance. The Court is charged with the humbling task of defending the Constitution and ensuring that the Government does not falsely accuse people, needlessly invade their privacy or wrongfully deprive them of their liberty. The Court simply cannot perform this important task if the Government lies to it. Deception perverts justice. Truth always promotes it.”

  19. DXer said

    The nice weather has slowed me in a major upload of deposition excerpts from FBI investigators and DOJ officials.

  20. 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?

  21. DXer said

    Prior to 9/11, USAMRIID’s John Ezzell, the FBI’s anthrax expert, made a dried aerosol using Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins in Building 1412. He sent the dried spores to Johns-Hopkins Applied Physics he had made at the request of DARPA. Did those spores show a silicon signature?

  22. 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?

  23. DXer said

    This email withheld by JAG for 2 years shows Dr. Ivins knew that 5 ml of virulent Ames had been taken from Building 1412.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: