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

* Amerithrax: Dr. Adamovicz addresses the FBI’s failed thinking on the Silicon Signature

Posted by DXer on February 20, 2014

Screen shot 2014-02-19 at 10.27.39 AM

***Screen shot 2014-02-19 at 10.27.58 AM


Screen shot 2014-02-19 at 10.28.09 AM


Screen shot 2014-02-19 at 10.28.43 AM


3 Responses to “* Amerithrax: Dr. Adamovicz addresses the FBI’s failed thinking on the Silicon Signature”

  1. DXer said

    In his new book, INSIDE THE HOT ZONE, Mark Kortepeter describes Jeff Adamovicz, deputy chief of Bacteriology, as sporting “a long beard splashed with gray, reminiscent of Ulysses S. Grant.”

  2. DXer said

    The Deadly Intelligence episode last night finished in 2011 and ignored the microencapsulation data, and the GAO evidence that the letter spores strain relative volimes significantly differed from the contents of flask RM 1029. Martin Hugh-Jones is a go-to expert for scientific insights.

  3. DXer said

    In the recent produced civil deposition of Dr. Gerard Andrews, he discusses silicon:

    “I heard numbers about 2 percent silicon dioxide, which would be essentially glass, in the — in the Senate letters, and much higher levels in the lower quality material in the — in the media letters. There’s no evidence that — that there was any silica in the laboratory at the time.

    Q. Did — you have a — an explanation or a theory, if you want to call it that, for why — why the difference in concentrations and quality of the — of the — between the Senate letters and the media letters of the spores that were found?

    A. I do have a theory. And it is possibly because somebody was doing — conducting an experiment an experiment on the actual downstream processing methodology of the spores, siliconizing them or doing those processes separately and possibly experimenting with varying concentrations of the siliconization compounds that were used.”

    Page 82.

    Dr. Gerard Andrews, in the civil deposition recently produced to the blog under FOIA, explains that when he uses the word “weaponization” it is

    “possibly to protect the spore from detection. Which the was the silica was deposited on the spore, I believe, would completely mask the spore coat. And a lot of detection methods are being evaluated based on the composition of the spore coat.

    Well, if the spore coat was — was covered with polymerized silica, glass, then the spore coat would essentially be hidden from detection.

    So that would be another potential motive for treating these spores with silica, in addition to change the — the natural surface of the spore.”

    Q. Yeah.”

    Page 165.

    Dr. Andrews continues:

    “But, again, something about the — or the… the big difference between the physical properties of these preparations, it almost seems like somebody was — was conducting an experiment with some variables in these downstream methodologies.”

    Page 166.

    At page 168, in the newly produced civil deposition, Dr. Andrews discusses the Sandia report:

    “I don’t know Dr. Kotula’s background, but I know Joe Michaels is not a biologist.

    And the reference to silica, actually, is a reference to a more traditional way of coating spores using — basically using particles in silica.”

    “So if you looked at — at the bacteria — either the bacterial spore without exosporium, because particulate silica cannot — is not cannot pass through the exosporium So you have to basically grind that exosporium away and then siliconize the spores using — if you’re using fumed silica, particulate silica.

    Their conclusion that it was natural — a naturally occurring because — because of the fact that the silica was associated with a spore coat beyond the exosporium is, in my opinion, erroneous since there are chemistries — siliconization chemistries out there, and they’re — they’re basically published, that demonstrate that you’re able to induce polymerization after penetration of a porous surface.

    The exosporium is — is not a solid surface. It’s, by nature, biochemically porous.

    So unpolymerized silica-based compounds can penetrate the exosporium and, basically, a catalyst or — or some other compound added and cause polymerization of the silica around the spore.

    So one of the hypotheses that’s out there is that this is a new technology in terms of its application to a bacterial spore, the silinization process.”


    Some years ago this hypothesis was tested at a leading air force lab focused on detecting and destroying aerosolized anthrax and reported back to me. The process resulted in SEMS that looked just like the mailed anthrax. I circulated the SEMS at the time. Dr. Kiel contacted the FBI but Doug Beecher spurned the theory. The FBI’s conclusions were not based on science. They were based on the rejection of science. Note that silinization did not seem to affect floabability. The product without the process still floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee. But the experiment brings us to Dr. Andrews’ point about how it serves to avoid detection. If Muklis Yunos and Yazid Sufaat were asked nicely, I think they would explain that it protects the anthrax from being destroyed upon explosion. Muklis was working an anthrax bomb.

    “Bruce didn’t understand or have the technology available to him. He didn’t have the facilities available to him at USAMRIID. Nor was there any indication to me, in the 16 years that I’ve known him, that he understood the weaponization technology of anthrax spores.

    Nor did any of my colleagues ever talk to me about his interest or understanding or if he showed any kind of knowledge of being able to downstream process these preparations in dry form.”


    “he did pass two polygraphs. And I understand that the FBI’s argument is that he used deceptive techniques. But I don’t believe that either.”

    Page 172-173.

    Dr. Andrews continues:

    “I forgot to interject this when we were talking about weaponization.

    “This is — weaponization is — is a term, in my opinion, pretty subjective. So someone can, you know, have a completely different definition — definition of weaponization. And it could be in terms of the degree of — of how a particular agent is altered.”

    Page 174.

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 )

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: