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

* 10 questions related to USAMRIID’s secret dried aerosol project … all previously asked on this blog … that the GAO report should have answered … except there is no GAO report!

Posted by DXer on February 25, 2014

holt, gao, ivins, fbi

The FBI’s case against Dr. Bruce Ivins has been thoroughly demolished on this blog. The real perpetrators of the 2001 anthrax attack are still out there. Why does no one seem to care?


In March 2011, in response to a request from Congressman Rush Holt (D, NJ), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) undertook to review the seriously flawed FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

The GAO suggested it would report within 9 months to a year. But now, 3 years later, there is no report.

Congressman Holt has announced he will not run for re-election. Will there ever be a GAO report? Has the GAO become part of the coverup?


DXer has assembled these 10 questions

related to USAMRIID’s secret dried aerosol project … 


1. Who Was The Only Person In [Redacted] Spoke To About The Dried Aerosol Project? Was It Ivins Assistant, The Aerosol Expert Pat F.? It Was Not Ivins Because His Name Would Not Have Been Redacted.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 11, 2012

2. The Dried Aerosol Project At USAMRIID Was to Determine The Breakthrough Point for the Recombinant Protective Antigen Vaccine; Equipment Was Purchased and Preliminary Experiments Were Performed : Dugway Was Considered As Supplier Of Dried Virulent Spores

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 1, 2012

3. Was the sample that Dr. Ivins says he was told was from Iraq — but wasn’t — actually from the dried aerosol project that had been launched at USAMRIID unbeknownst to Dr. Ivins? Who brought it to him? Where did it come from?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 14, 2011

4. Dr. Ivins reports he had not known the FBI anthrax expert made a dried powder out of Ames from RMR 1029 for DARPA until after 9/11; did the FBI scientist and his assistants participate in the dried aerosol project at USAMRIID?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 13, 2011

5. Who did this dried aerosol study at USAMRIID?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on November 27, 2011

6. Who worked alone on the dried aerosol project in Building 1412 and what does he or she say about the research? Was virulent Ames ever made into a dried powder in Maryland or Virginia?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 23, 2011

7. The dried aerosol work in Aerobiology did not continue because dried agents are difficult to contain and decontaminate and because dried agents have dual use implications

Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 19, 2011

8. More on dried aerosol project: Was it Southern Research Institute that was considered for the contract? Who thought he was above the investigation?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on April 19, 2011

9. DXer: John Ezzell forthrightly (to my way of thinking, heroically) answered all my questions relating to the DARPA research in which Flask 1029 (the “murder weapon” to borrow US Attorney Taylor’s term) was used to make a dried powder Ames aerosol.

Posted by Lew Weinstein on December 10, 2010“murder-weapon”-to-borrow-us/

10. why did the FBI keep evidence of John Ezzell’s dried powder from the NAS?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on March 21, 2011

9 Responses to “* 10 questions related to USAMRIID’s secret dried aerosol project … all previously asked on this blog … that the GAO report should have answered … except there is no GAO report!”

  1. DXer said

    1. Was SRI the third lab that could make a powder out of dried anthrax based on this exchange between the Director of the FBI and Senator Leahy?

    The discussion is 1 hour, 30 minutes in, at the 20 seconds in. The Director thought it might be classified and so needed a closed session scheduled; he previously had privately identified the lab to Senator Leahy.

    With a Maryland state law preventing discussion? SRI had B3 capability in Frederick by 2001.

    2. In Spring 2001, Leahy was extremelly angry and said “It is not closed.”

    3. Here are the 2002 Voss (he was the Prez) powerpoints using The Wayback Machine. This is from 2004. SRI lists DARPA as one of its clients.

    Click to access voss.pdf

    Mara Linscott, I believe, said she was always making additional anthrax for other experiments, some of which were not the subject of publications because they were for military biodefense. Her civil deposition was shredded.

    4. Alibek’s company Hadron and the DARPA project had been infiltrated by a scientist coordinating with 911 imam Anwar Awlaki.

    5. There are many pending classified issues currently being briefed before federal court judge involving Al-Timimi/Awlaki. An entire page summarizing issues has numerous classified sub-issues redacted.

    6. SRI was a subcontractor with Alibek’s company under the mutlimillion dollar contract. When I telephoned Dr. Alibek, Ken told me that they did their work with virulent Ames though he had declined to name it.$3.3+Million+Biodefense+Contract+by+DARPA.-a061881475

    PR Newswire
    May 4, 2000, Thursday
    HADRON Subsidiary Awarded $3.3 Million Biodefense Contract by DARPA


    Hadron, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: HDRN) today announced that one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries has been awarded a $3.3 million, one-year contract by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

    Hadron’s subsidiaries, Avenue Technologies, Inc. and Advanced Biosystems, Inc., will perform the biodefense research programs under this contract. The scientific and medical research will consist of several related programs regarding the development of rapid-acting broad-spectrum protection against biological threat agents. Southern Research Institute, a well known research organization … is a subcontractor on this program.

    • DXer said

      I meant in Spring 2011, Leahy was extremelly angry and said “It is not closed.”

    • DXer said

      Who is going to break the story of the third laboratory — the one in addition to Battelle and Dugway?

    • DXer said

      Does the CIA have a right to search the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee to learn about a leak or recover a missing file?

      Is a Title III warrant necessary to conduct a search?

      Does the CIA have a right to search GAO computers to protect the leaking of classified information?

  2. DXer said

    Here is my OpEd this morning about speaking up for the mute swan.

    As in Amerithrax, a governmental agency has attempted to smear a target in an “outreach” program so that the public will overlook gaps in science and logic.

    Citizens must speak out against state plan to remove mute swans (Commentary)

    • DXer said

      In both the case of Bruce Ivins and the mute swan, there have been experts who have come forward with the relevant expertise — and legislation proposed that would bear down on the evidence. But in each case, the freedom of information law is the most reliable tool to establish a sound basis for reaching conclusions. To get people “on the same page,” it helps to literally get them on the same page.

      Eagle Bulletin (Onondaga County) story today:

      “New legislation could save mute swans from mass killings.”

    • DXer said

      The NY DEC Commissioner met with the Post-Standard today.

      But as in Amerithrax, the public should never count on agency to correct its mistakes because they will still see things the same way.

      DEC commissioner Martens: We will ‘likely amend” mute swan plan

      I still think there needs to be legislation requiring that the DEC demonstrate harm based on unbiased, peer reviewed literature.

      The legislation would avoid litigation. DEC’s distinction between trumpeter and mute swans is “arbitrary and capricious” as a matter of law.

      The Post-Standard or someone should upload all the substantive comments — illuminating either the science or facts.

      The freedom of information act is a powerful tool in furthering the best possible government decision-making.

    • DXer said

      This proposed bill announces today is similar to the NAS panel convened in the Amerithrax case.

      The lesson learned in Amerithrax is bureaucratic inertia will prevail. An agency typically will not correct its mistakes on its own.

      Senator Ken LaValle Introduces Legislation For Moratorium To Halt Mute Swan Elimination

      By Long Island News & PRs Published: February 27 2014

      Senator Ken LaValle announced that he has introduced legislation to immediately halt the eradication of the Mute Swan.
      Long Island, NY – February, 27, 2014 – Senator Ken LaValle announced that he has introduced legislation to immediately halt the eradication of the Mute Swan. The bill (S.6667) establishes a moratorium on the killing of Mute Swans and compels the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to hold off any decisions until a new independent study is conducted. “Among the many issues raised about the DEC’s plan were questions of the validity of the justification of the proposed actions. It appears that the DEC utilized 40-year-old data to come to the decision.” Senator LaValle said. He continued, “It’s always been about the science for me. Haphazard planning without the science to back up the theories is not acceptable.”

      The legislation will immediately stop the finalizing of the Mute Swan eradication plans; create a board to review the new research, and require the board to report back within 120 days of receiving the study. “We need irrefutable information to be order to correctly assess the situation. We need to slow down, step back, and ensure any plan moving forward has a balanced, scientific basis. ” Senator LaValle concluded.

    • DXer said

      In Amerithrax, the FBI never was open to the suggestion by dozens of experts that it was mistaken. Amerithrax represented arbitrary and capricious decision-making — and a failure to correct missteps.

      The mute swan kill issue, which I’ve suggested had points of comparison, OTOH, today seems headed in the right general direction.

      State to revise plan to eradicate mute swans in wild
      Michael Risinit12:28 p.m. EST February 28, 2014

      The state Department of Environmental Conservation said Friday it was revising its plan to eliminate all mute swans in the wild and that killing many of them might not be the main option.

      “We appreciate the strong response that the draft plan received, and it’s clear that New Yorkers recognize the importance of a comprehensive mute swan management plan that balances the interests of a diversity of stakeholders,” DEC Commissioner Joe Martens said in a statement. “The revised plan will seek to balance the conflicting views about management of mute swans in New York.”

      Martens also said the DEC will seek more public comments on its revised plan later this spring. The agency in January proposed eliminating free-ranging mute swans in New York by 2025. Under that plan, swans in New York ultimately would be limited to zoos, parks and other captive situations. Some would be killed or have their eggs destroyed.

      Brought here from Europe in the 1800s to decorate estates, the long-necked white birds are an invasive species threatening wetland habitats and native waterfowl, according to the DEC. Other states have instituted similar control programs.

      Martens said the department received more than 1,500 comments, more than 16,000 form letters and 30,000 signatures on various petitions on the original proposal.

      The revised proposal will likely have different population goals for different parts of the state, he said.


      When the DEC Commissioner first announced an intention to amend the plan on Wednesday, I was still headed toward the parapets.

      But now he truly does seem to be signaling a balanced approach. I urge all those inclined against the plan to roll up the sleeves and read all the literature your university library has in their databases while the filed comments obtained through FOIA are uploaded to dropbox. This is precisely the way government works when it works best — interests are balanced and the electorate informs itself.

      But in the meantime, remember heed the wisdom of Elliot Ness (even if he was just all just PR, see recent book at B&N) :
      “Never stop fighting until the fight is done.”

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: