* The FBI’s genetic analysis in Amerithrax rested on the UNVALIDATED scientific assumption that all samples that had been inactivated were in fact dead and that such samples thus could not have been the source of the virulent anthrax mailed shortly after 9/11.

* Dr. John Ezzell, the FBI’s anthrax expert, attended a recent conference on the anthrax mailings … his comments answered some questions and raised others

Dr. John Ezzell, Lew Weinstein, Ross Getman, Dr. Meryl Nass, Paul Kemp, Dr. James Van de Velde at the Anthrax Mailings Investigation seminar ... UC Washington Center Nov 29, 2010

******

see Lew’s seminar interview on You Tube

“Case Closed” Author Lew Weinstein Discusses FBI Anthrax Cover-up and Possible Al-Qaeda …Involvementhttp://www.youtube.com/user/americassurvival#p/u/4/4zI69unuq6A

******

Dr. John Ezzell, the FBI’s anthrax expert,

and formerly Dr. Bruce Ivins’ colleague at USAMRIID,

shown above speaking at the anthrax mailings seminar.

His comments answered some questions and raised others

******

DXer has assembled the following points from documents produced by the FBI and from Dr. Ezzell’s comments at the conference and in past correspondence  …

1. Dr. Ezzell made dried powdered anthrax using Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins (which had been irradiated in the slurry).
2. his resulting dry powder was more pure than the Daschle product.
3. he made it at the request of DARPA for testing of mass spectrometry for biodefense detection purposes.
4. The work Dr. Ezzell did was done in Building 1412 at USAMRIID.
5. The virulent Ames was kept in the unlocked refrigerator.
6. The aerosol samples were put on tapes.
7. The DARPA researchers were testing the effect of a sonicator and corona plasma discharge on Ames spores.
8. In 2001 (and for a couple of years after that), Dr. Ivins had not known that dried powdered anthrax was being made at USAMRIID.

from which DXer asks the following questions …

Question #1: When was the dried powder created?

Question #2: Might the renografin Dr. Ezzell used create a Silicon Signature?

Question #3: Would traces of renografin be found (if it had been used in the mailed anthrax)?

Question #4: Is it correct that no traces of renografin were found?

Question #5: What is the effect of a corona plasma discharge on Ames spores? Would it create a unipolar charge?

Question #6: What is the effect of a sonicator?

Question #7: Besides Building 1412 and Johns-Hopkins, where else was the research involving a sonicator and corona plasma discharge done?

******

Sources: audiotape and videotape of Dr. Ezzell’s question and answer (link will be posted as soon as available)

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/91_1.jpg

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/screen-shot-2010-04-08-at-8-54-20-am.png

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/83_aaa_jhapl_4.jpg

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/aaa_clues.jpg

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/aaa_ezzell_rev_rev_rev.jpg

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/aaa_casebook_rev.jpg

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/screen-shot-2010-04-07-at-3-52-07-pm.png

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/screen-shot-2010-04-07-at-3-52-23-pm.png

https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/screen-shot-2010-04-07-at-3-53-57-pm.png

******

******

******

LMW COMMENT …

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why doesn’t the FBI offer America a credible story?

I can imagine only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …

1. The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
2. The FBI, despite the most expensive and extensive investigation in its history, has not solved the case and has no idea who prepared and mailed the anthrax letters that killed 5 Americans in 2001 … EVEN LESS LIKELY
3. The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons … THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as perhaps more plausible than the FBI’s unproven assertions regarding Dr. Ivins.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

******

* the Nov 29 anthrax letters seminar

Dr. John Ezzell, Lew Weinstein, Ross Getman, Dr. Meryl Nass, Paul Kemp and Dr. James Van de Velde at the November 29 anthrax seminar sponsored by the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) and the UC Washington Center

LMW COMMENT …

Kudos to the Frederick News Post and to Megan Eckstein, the only media which still seems interested in this case.

Why does the FBI continue to hold back on crucial details about this case while continuing to assert without “proof beyond many reasonable doubts” that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax attacks?

I can imagine only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …

1. The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
2. The FBI, despite the most expensive and extensive investigation in its history, has not solved the case and has no idea who prepared and mailed the anthrax letters that killed 5 Americans in 2001 … EVEN LESS LIKELY
3. The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons … THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as perhaps more plausible than the FBI’s unproven assertions regarding Dr. Ivins.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

* Frederick News Post: the Ivins case lives on … despite FBI judgment

Dr. John Ezzell, Lew Weinstein, Ross Getman, Dr. Meryl Nass, Paul Kemp and Dr. James Van de Velde at the November 29 anthrax seminar sponsored by the University of California Institute for Global Conflict and Cooperation and the UC Washington Center

******

Editorial in the Frederick News Post (12/5/10)

Ivins case lives on — despite FBI judgment

• A group of 25 scientists, professors, writers and terrorism experts convened Monday to discuss and debate the anthrax investigation. None of them believe Bruce Ivins was the culprit. The panel, which lasted for four hours, talked about that investigation, lessons learned and its broader implications.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_editorial.htm?StoryID=113323

******

LMW COMMENT …

I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the FBI’s stonewalling refusal to make clear to the American people what they know about the anthrax murders is a problem of equal importance to the fatal mailings themselves. To have an out-of-control police force in a democracy, answerable to no one, is a serious matter. We must not let the FBI win by letting this case fade away. Someone committed a bioterrorist attack against the U.S. It wasn’t Bruce Ivins, at least on the evidence so far made public. America needs to know the truth, no matter who is embarrassed or imprisoned.

* selected extracts from the presentation of Dr. Meryl Nass at the Nov 29, 2010 anthrax seminar

Dr. John Ezzell, Lew Weinstein, Ross Getman, Dr. Meryl Nass, Paul Kemp, Dr. James Van de Velde at the Anthrax Mailings Investigation seminar ... UC Washington Center Nov 29, 2010

******

The full text of Dr. Nass’ presentation has been posted on her blog site …

http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2010/11/fbis-anthrax-letters-investigation.html

Here are selected extracts …

• FBI tried to close this case on August 1, 2008, 3 days after Bruce’s death.  The FBI orchestrated a crescendo of leaks about Bruce over several days, full of lurid details that aimed to create a picture of a “lone nut” for the American public.  Much of this material was inaccurate or exaggerated … a tawdry attempt to bury one of the most important cases the FBI has ever investigated.
• the anthrax letters helped pave the way for passage of the USA Patriot Act, for going to war with Iraq … and for expansion of the federal biodefense budget to 50 billion dollars and counting.
• Were aspects of Bruce’s death orchestrated as well?  Although the anthrax letters case was one of the FBI’s biggest ever, Bruce’s death somehow didn’t warrant an autopsy or an inquest. I have seen no report or evidence that the FBI informed anyone, especially Bruce’s medical providers, of his Tylenol ingestion.   Doing so in a timely manner would have almost certainly saved Bruce’s life and allowed the FBI to bring its case against him to its legal conclusion. Nor did FBI intervene to hasten Bruce receiving medical attention after his ingestion.

SOME FAILURES IN THE FBI’S CASE …

1.    FBI sent a letter to Bruce in April 2007, stating that he was not a target of the investigation.

2.    Why was no DNA obtained from Bruce until the week before his death?

3.    Why did Bruce retain his security clearance until 19 days before his death?

4.    FBI has failed to find evidence placing Bruce in New Jersey where the letters were mailed.

5.    FBI has failed to show how Bruce could have been at the mailbox during the window of time in which the letters were sent.

6.    FBI failed to find any anthrax contamination in Bruce’s car, home or possessions, although the simple act of placing a letter in the mailbox would have led to massive spore contamination of everything in the area, including the mailer. (See paper by FBI’s Doug Beecher)

7.    FBI’s February 2010 report tries to have it both ways.  It claims that flask RMR1029 was under Bruce’s exclusive control between its 1997 creation and the anthrax letter attacks.  The report claims that “only a very limited number of individuals had access” to the flask.  Later it admits that approximately 400 people at USAMRIID and a Midwest contractor laboratory had access to the spores.

8.    FBI claims Bruce had the know-how to produce the weaponized spores found in the Leahy-Daschle letters.  But FBI itself has failed to reverse engineer the spore production method, does not know what that method entails, and therefore cannot possibly know if Bruce had either the knowledge or access to all the equipment needed to produce such spores.

9.    FBI has failed to find any trace of the strain of Bacillus subtilis that contaminated the anthrax spores in the first set of letters, at USAMRIID or anywhere else.  Had the contaminated batch of anthrax been made at USAMRIID, the Bacillus subtilis strain would have contaminated the work space and been identified.

10.    FBI claims it ruled out 400 people who had access to the spores, but fails to explain anything about the processes used to rule these people out.

11.    Bruce passed two FBI polygraph tests, but later FBI claimed he used “classic” countermeasures to thwart the polygraphs.  Experts dispute this FBI claim.

12.    FBI’s report claims Bruce had access to a photocopier, but fails to note it was not the copier used to produce the anthrax letters.

13.    FBI initially reported that the water the spores were grown in came from the Frederick, Maryland area.  FBI later backed off this claim.

14.    FBI initially said that minor deviations in the pre-franked envelopes used for the anthrax letters showed they were purchased from the Frederick, Maryland post office.  Later FBI acknowledged they were sold widely in Maryland and Virginia.

15.    Nowhere in the February 2010 FBI report is there any acknowledgement that the crime could have involved more than one person.  Yet in my opinion, the logistics are such that it is almost a certainty more than one person was involved.

16.    The FBI obtained nearly all its 1,000 anthrax samples voluntarily from labs in the US and abroad.  This assumed that theanthrax mailer fully complied with the FBI request, even though it might incriminate him.  I’d call this a risky assumption, which undermines the foundation of the FBI’s entire case.

17.    FBI’s report postulates that two one-week windows of opportunity existed in which each batch of anthrax letter spores could have been grown, processed and mailed.  The time period for the first set of letters was September 11 through 18, 2001.  The period for the second set was October 1 through 8, 2001 (see page 6 of the FBI report).  FBI therefore reported focusing its investigation on individuals who had access to flask RMR 1029 and an anthrax “hot room” (a.k.a. BL 3 or 4 high containment laboratory) during these periods, in its attempt to identify and investigate all potential perpetrators. However, there are several problems with this assumption.  First, the US government did not know how many high containment labs existed in the US and abroad in 2001, as they did not have to be registered or inspected.  Some may have belonged to private companies or individuals. Second, although the anthrax letters were mailed during short windows of time, and the text included with the letters was probably written shortly before mailing, there is no reason to think that the spores had to be grown and processed during these periods. Since the FBI was unable to duplicate the process used to produce the spores, it is uncertain whether production in a particular lab could be completed during a one-week period. Spore production and processing could have taken place considerably earlier, and/or the spores might have been supplied to the mailer by another person.

NAS review of FBI’s anthrax science

The National Academy of Science panel will issue its report on the FBI’s microbial forensics soon.  But given the lack of information available for evaluation in the open literature, the NAS panel is handicapped by its overwhelming reliance on briefings by the FBI and its contracted scientists.  Until the standard procedures of peer review described above are completed, it will be very difficult to determine the validity and usefulness of the FBI’s research.

******

LMW COMMENT …

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt. So what really happened? And why doesn’t the FBI offer America a credible story?

I can imagine only 3 possible “actual” scenarios …

1. The FBI has more evidence against Dr. Ivins but is, for some undisclosed reason, withholding that evidence … POSSIBLE BUT NOT SO LIKELY
2. The FBI, despite the most expensive and extensive investigation in its history, has not solved the case and has no idea who prepared and mailed the anthrax letters that killed 5 Americans in 2001 … EVEN LESS LIKELY
3. The FBI knows who did it (not Dr. Ivins) but is covering up the actual perpetrators, for undisclosed reasons … THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as perhaps more plausible than the FBI’s unproven assertions regarding Dr. Ivins.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

******

 

* from DXer … what the FBI did not do … and won’t let the NAS do either (bad science or no science)

.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

******

from DXer …

what the FBI did not do …

and won’t let the NAS do either

(bad science or no science)

******

Excerpts from a comment by DXer adding to the post … * from DXer … the DOJ should disclose the 2004 article provided by Dr. Bruce Ivins to the FBI regarding silica and Bacillus spore suspensions

• isotopic analysis … The isotopes did not support their FBI Theory and so the FBI did not even present it to the NAS so that the NAS could review their conclusion that it was inconclusive.
• the copier in the library … one more example: when the examination of the copier in the library shows it was not the copier used, the lawyer nonetheless includes it in the accusatory Summary without disclosing that the science shows that it was NOT the copier used. Then the FBI does not have the NAS review that evidence that is exculpatory.
• Federal Eagle envelope … the Federal Eagle envelope issue is far more narrowing than the genetics; yet the science is not presented to the NAS for review.
• creating aerosol powder … there is not even a single expert on the (NAS) panel qualified to address the central issue of creating an aerosol powder

So it is not surprising that the lengthy FBI summary

doesn’t rely on any science.

******

* Jim White believes a 100-fold math error in the Amerithrax investigation improperly excluded suspects … do you agree?

Dr. Bruce Ivins

see related post … * Old Atlantic in response to Jim White

Jim White believes a 100-fold math error in the Amerithrax investigation improperly excluded suspects

• Substantial flaws still remain in the FBI’s explanation of the technical analysis on which they concluded that Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks of 2001.
• I have found what appears to be an error in the analysis of how much material from RMR-1029 would have been required to produce the spores used in the attack letters.
• The result of this error is an overestimate, by a factor of 100, of how much material from RMR-1029 would have been needed to be used for each letter.
• Partially because of this overestimate, the FBI excluded as suspects other researchers who received samples from RMR-1029, claiming that they lacked the expertise both to produce such a large volume of material and to then prepare it as attack material.
• With the smaller estimate, most of the basis for excluding these individuals goes away, as simple procedures could be used to dry such a small amount of material.
• In doing his microscopic analysis, Ivins states clearly that he is working with a 100-fold (or, 1:100) dilution of material from the RMR-1029 flask. He also states that this dilution is at an approximate concentration of 3 X 108 spores per mL. From the information present on this page of the notebook, it is clear that the concentration of spores in RMR-1029 is approximately 3 X 1010 per mL.
• Ivins recovered 0.013 grams of powder from the envelope. He suspended this powder in water and then plated it out to determine the concentration of bacteria. He then computed a concentration of 2.1 X 1012 colony forming units per gram of powder. For spores that are perfectly viable, one spore corresponds to one colony forming unit. That means that 0.013 g of the powder contains 2.7 X 1010spores.
• A leading anthrax researcher who assisted the investigation expressed his expert opinion that 100 ml would have been required to create sufficient material to be used in one letter, for a total of 500 ml for the five letters. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty how much material was used in the letters.
• One hundred mL of RMR-1029 would be 3 X 1012 spores, 100-fold more than Ivins recovered from the envelope he analyzed. The only way the opinion of the anthrax researcher makes sense is if they mistakenly took Ivins’ 3 X 108 notation in the notebook as the concentration of spores in RMR-1029, when Ivins clearly states that is the concentration of the diluted material he analyzed.
• The lower concentration makes no sense as the spore concentration of RMR-1029 for several reasons.
  • First, the description of how many large cultures were produced at Dugway and small cultures in Ivins’ lab to produce RMR-1029 would suggest that the purification process resulted in the loss of most of the spores produced, if the lower concentration of RMR-1029 is correct.
  • In other words, the lower concentration for RMR-1029 would mean that the final concentration of RMR-1029 was approximately at or below the concentration of spores one achieves in a standard bacterial culture, even though over a hundred liters of culture were used to produce the one liter purified material in the RMR-1029 flask.
• An alternate explanation for the discrepancy would be if Ivins collected only one percent of the material in the envelope for his analysis, but that would mean that there was so much material in the envelope that it would appear overly stuffed.
• The bottom line, then, is that only one mL, not 100 mL of RMR-1029 would be required to produce the material in one envelope.
• I can see that statement being accurate for someone drying 100 mL of RMR-1029 five times (or 500 mL once), but most of the concerns about equipment and space go away if only 5 mL needs to be dried to produce the attack material without a need to grow and purify a large new culture using the RMR-1029 material as inoculum. Rather than a lyophilizer, simple vacuum filtration or air drying could be used on such a small amount of material, and the procedure could be carried out without attracting much attention.

It appears to me that the FBI has excluded hundreds of potential suspects on the basis of a math error.

Read more at …http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/30737

see related posts …

* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request

* tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax; more questions for UM and LSU researchers

* USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

* FBI slides – D. Christian Hassell – Scientific Approaches to the 2001 Anthrax Letters Investigation

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED takes headline events and weaves a credible scenario around the anthrax scare and government departments working under the radar.”

“Lew Weinstein is a meticulous researcher and a determined storyteller. CASE CLOSED  will keep you up at night — reading, then worrying.”

“This scary scenario is as close to truth as fiction can come.”

.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

.

******

Scientific Approaches to the 2001 Anthrax Letters Investigation

D. Christian Hassell, PhD

FBI Laboratory

30 July 2009

National Academy of Sciences

*****

click here >>>

Hassell Slides – July 2009 – NAS

Dr. David Christian (Chris) Hassell ... FBI Laboratory Director

NOTE: Slide 14 is particularly interesting when read in context with:

Differentiation of Spores of Bacillus subtilis Grown in Different Media by Elemental Characterization Using Time-of-Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry … John B. Cliff, Kristin H. Jarman, Nancy B. Valentine, Steven L. Golledge, Daniel J. Gaspar, David S. Wunschel, and Karen L. Wahl

^{Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2005, p. 6524-6530, Vol. 71, No. 11}

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/11/6524?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=subtilis&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=630&resourcetype=HWFIG

******

(slides courtesy of Anonymous Scientist)

******

* Epstein (WSJ 1-24-10) … The FBI says Ivins was the sole perpetrator, but it has presented no evidence to support that conclusion … and the largest case in FBI history is still open

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

The (fictional) DIA team considers the role of the President and Vice-President in the early days of the FBI’s anthrax investigation …

“Then a curious thing happens. A second attack is made against the great country, this time with lethal anthrax powder mailed in envelopes. Is it a coincidence that this occurs within days of the launching of a massive retaliatory attack on Osama? The answer to that question is currently outside the bounds of this fable, although if it was not a coincidence, our tale becomes much, much darker.

“The very best police force in the land is assigned to track down the person or persons who prepared and mailed the lethal anthrax envelopes. But even before any evidence is obtained, the great leader announces the desired result – there may be some possible link to Saddam, he says; I wouldn’t put it past him. The great vice-leader also chimes in, saying that Saddam had henchmen who were trained in the use and deployment of these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together.

“I would ask you to note that these instantaneous, unsupported allegations are directed at Saddam; Osama, who sent the planes, is not mentioned.”

******

The FBI says Ivins was the sole perpetrator,

but it has presented no evidence to support that conclusion

… and the largest case in FBI history is still open

******

Edward Jay Epstein writes in the Wall Street Journal (1-24-10) …

• The investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks ended as far as the public knew on July 29, 2008, with the death of Bruce Ivins.
• Less than a week after his apparent suicide, the FBI declared Ivins to have been the sole perpetrator of the 2001 Anthrax attacks.
• The FBI’s six-year investigation was the largest inquest in its history, involving 9,000 interviews, 6,000 subpoenas, and the examination of tens of thousands of photocopiers, typewriters, computers and mailboxes.
  • Yet it failed to find a shred of evidence that identified the anthrax killer—or even a witness to the mailings.
  • Eventually, the FBI zeroed in on Ivins.
  • The FBI turned the pressure up on him, isolating him at work and forcing him to spend what little money he had on lawyers to defend himself.
  • He became increasingly stressed. Then came his suicide (which) provided an opportunity to close the case.
    

    FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed

• But there was still a vexing problem—silicon.
  • Silicon was used in the 1960s to weaponize anthrax.
  • since weaponization was banned by international treaties, research anthrax no longer contains silicon, and the flask at Fort Detrick contained none.
  • Yet the anthrax grown from it had silicon, according to the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
  • This silicon explained why, when the letters to Sens. Leahy and Daschle were opened, the anthrax vaporized into an aerosol. If so, then somehow silicon was added to the anthrax.
• But Ivins, no matter how weird he may have been, had neither the set of skills nor the means to attach silicon to anthrax spores.
  • At a minimum, such a process would require highly specialized equipment that did not exist in Ivins’s lab—or, for that matter, anywhere at the Fort Detrick facility.
• The FBI’s answer was that the anthrax contained only traces of silicon, and those, it theorized, could have been accidently absorbed by the spores from the water and nutrient in which they were grown.
  • No such nutrients were ever found in Ivins’s lab, nor, for that matter, did anyone ever see Ivins attempt to produce any unauthorized anthrax (a process which would have involved him using scores of flasks.)
  • Natural contamination was an elegant theory that ran into problems after Congressman Jerry Nadler pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller in September 2008 to provide the House Judiciary Committee with a missing piece of data: the precise percentage of silicon contained in the anthrax used in the attacks.
• The answer came seven months later on April 17, 2009.
  • According to the FBI lab, 1.4% of the powder in the Leahy letter was silicon.
  • “This is a shockingly high proportion,” explained Stuart Jacobson, an expert in small particle chemistry. “It is a number one would expect from the deliberate weaponization of anthrax, but not from any conceivable accidental contamination.”
• in an attempt to back up its theory, the FBI contracted scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs in California to conduct experiments in which anthrax is accidently absorbed from a media heavily laced with silicon.
  • When the results were revealed to the National Academy Of Science in September 2009, they effectively blew the FBI’s theory out of the water.
  • The Livermore scientists had tried 56 times to replicate the high silicon content without any success.
  • Even though they added increasingly high amounts of silicon to the media, they never even came close to the 1.4% in the attack anthrax. Most results were an order of magnitude lower, with some as low as .001%.
  • “If there is that much silicon, it had to have been added,” Jeffrey Adamovicz, who supervised Ivins’s work at Fort Detrick, wrote to me last month.
• If Ivins had neither the equipment or skills to weaponize anthrax with silicon, then some other party with access to the anthrax must have done it.
• So, even though the public may be under the impression that the anthrax case had been closed in 2008, the FBI investigation is still open—and, unless it can refute the Livermore findings on the silicon, it is back to square one.

Read the entire article at … http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

******

LMW COMMENT …

Readers of this CASE CLOSED blog have been aware of everything in Mr. Epstein’s article, and much more, for months.

The FBI’s case has always been unfounded, and the FBI’s insistence that Dr. Ivins was the sole perpetrator does a disservice to our nation.

It’s time for Director Mueller to fess up. Either the FBI doesn’t know who perpetrated the attacks, or they do know and they’re covering up the truth.

Which is worse?

* an open email to Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible and is probably just te tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

Click here to buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

******

An open email

to Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President

National Academy of Sciences

******

Dear Dr. Cicerone,

I am the author of CASE CLOSED, a novel dealing with the FBI’s failure to solve the 2001 anthrax case, and also the host of a very active blog on the same topic.

For some months now, I have been attempting to understand the NAS failure to comply with the law or offer any lawful reason for its failure to comply with the FOIA requirement to disclose documents received by the NAS from the FBI in conjunction with its review of the FBI’s anthrax science.

Please see …  https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/nas-continues-to-stonewall-will-not-provide-fbi-submitted-documents-nor-state-reasons-for-not-providing/

… for my specific questions and the non-answers provided by Mr. William Kearney of the NAS.

I think the NAS is doing itself a serious disservice in this matter, and is tarnishing its otherwise superb reputation as a result.

You are creating the impression that you are complicit with the FBI in illegally keeping from the public information about the horrendous 2001 bioterrorist attack which resulted in 5 deaths and which directly targeted members of the U.S. Senate.

You are also undermining and embarrassing what I have no reason to believe is anything but a sincere and honest effort on the part of those prominent scientists who have volunteered to be part of the NAS panel.

I hope you will take this matter under review and reverse whoever has made this so far unfortunate decision. I look forward to hearing from you shortly as to what action you have decided to take.

Lewis Weinstein

see related posts …

* does the NAS/FBI contract support the sequestering of FBI-submitted documents until the end of the NAS study?

* here is the complete NAS/FBI contract for review of FBI anthrax science

******