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

* How could Dr. Bruce Ivins have moved the large and heavy lyophilizer (3 shelf Freeze Unitop) HL600 from the B5 into the B3? Would even a single one of the prosecutors or investigators be able to do it?

Posted by DXer on November 12, 2011




7 Responses to “* How could Dr. Bruce Ivins have moved the large and heavy lyophilizer (3 shelf Freeze Unitop) HL600 from the B5 into the B3? Would even a single one of the prosecutors or investigators be able to do it?”

  1. DXer said

    Dr. Vahid Majidi and his colleagues claimed at the August 2008 conference that Dr. Ivins used a lyophilizer to process the anthrax.

    The lyophilizer was not even in the B3 where Dr. Ivins provably was at those times.

    Where does Dr. Majidi address the issue of lyophilizer in his new manuscript on the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings?

    Wasn’t his manuscript a key opportunity to correct the mistake — and acknowledge that Dr. Ivins did not use the lyophilizer as United States Attorney Taylor claimed?

    (If I missed it, I look forward to having it pointed out to me where he discusses US Attorney Taylor’s claim that the lyophilizer was used.)

  2. DXer said

    A leading expert who presented at the NAS on behalf of the FBI, Dr. Worsham, had an office in B3 where Dr. Ivins is alleged to have made the dried powder. She explained:

    “We did not have anything in containmnet suitable for drying down anything, much less a quantity of spores. The lyophilizer that was part of our division was in noncontainment. If someone had used that to dry down that preparation, I would have expected that area to be very, very contaminated, and we had nonimmunimzed personnel in that the area, and I might have expected some of them to become ill.

    Indeed. The FBI’s leading expert at the NAS shared the same space that Dr. Ivins is alleged to have made dried powdered anthrax and says that the FBI’s theory is not plausible.

    There is no indication that the prosecutors have even so much as seen or been in the presence of the lyophilizer they allege was used.

  3. DXer said

    Where is the missing anthrax made by Dr. Ivins lab assistants?

    US Attorney Taylor expressly claimed that Dr. Ivins used a lyophilizer. That is what he based his conclusion. That suggestion was not well-founded.

    Taylor expressly claimed that Dr. Ivins’ in the lab was unexplained — and he made it seem suspicious. That claim was not well-founded — Ivins’ time was totally explained. Even more so when you understand some finer points as earlier studies involving only 2X’s checks daily, for example.

    There is no “there there” to the USG’s case and stuff about forging a letter to the editor a quarter century earlier likely is not even admissible.

  4. It was air-dried. Or so it has been suggested. How are you going to disprove that?

    • DXer said

      By suggesting that the FBI can demonstrate for the GAO how that would be possible. Under the FBI’s theory, they can take the 463 plates the NAS estimates is necessary and then see where they could have been possibly air dried and when.

      I have suggested that the large amount of missing Ames made by Dr. Ivins assistants was used (and in fact was not made from frozen stock). It was made to replenish RMR 1029. Thus, under my understanding of things there was no time needed to grow the anthrax.

      Once one understand the importance of this missing Ames so casually dismissed by the FBI in a footnote, one quickly turn the anthrax that Dr. Ivins gave the DARPA researchers to make dried microencapsulated powder (for the purpose of biodetection work). DARPA needed to know that it could be detected through the matrix.

      FBI does not appreciate the information that is already out there and known. People are gambling with their career needlessly — making themselves someone else’s fall guy.

      • If the assistants made anthrax, they didn’t bake silicon and tin inside the spore coat. That would have happened in a fermentor most likely. You have to add sillicon and tin as Bugmaster has pointed out. They didn’t add those for shaker flask production at USAMRIID. And a fermentor run would require special precautions even if they had one. And presumably they would remember that.

        I suggest putting up that page you emailed around and posting your question to see what response if any there is.

        • DXer said

          Do you recall Dr. Ivin’s flask that had a silicon signature? Why did it have a silicon signature? What was done with it? It was supplied to Dugway.

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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: