Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)

TrebleRebel writes:

He believes everything Alibek says like the word of a divine entity.

ZacandPook writes (in message #258):

To clarify Ken’s theory, he theorizes that Jdey mailed the anthrax letters after making the martyrdom video.

TrebelRebel says I accept every word Ken Alibek says as if it were gospel. And ZacandPook says I'm not listening to Ken Alibek and should pay attention to what Alibek says.

You guys need to get your acts together. Together you might make one good clown act.

The reality is: I don't accept anyone's beliefs as gospel. I only talked with Ken Alibek because I wanted to confirm certain aspects of the SCIENCE involved in working with anthrax spores. He did that. He also told me -- even though I didn't ask -- he believed the anthrax was sent by Muslims. Am I supposed to believe that's true because he's some kind of "expert?" Or am I supposed to believe that everything he says is a lie because TrebelRebel seems to mindlessly hate him?

Ken Alibek told me that there is no principle for coating anthrax.

You guys have found an article which you claim shows that Dugway did coat anthrax with silica spores many years ago. Does that mean there's a "principle" for it?

The images show the whole thing is NUTS. The images in the book "Microbial Forensics" show the same thing --- the idea is NUTS.

The first of these new images show what appears to be a spore coated with a kazillion tiny particles of silica. And ZacandPook says I'm wrong in believing that that would make the spore less effective as a bioweapon. How can it not? What possible purpose can it serve to coat a spore that way? It makes the spore heavier, it reduces the ability of the spore to germinate, and there is NO OFFSETTING BENEFIT.

The second image you're showing us appears to be a CLUMP of spores fused together by some process of coating spores with silica. Is creating CLUMPS of spores suppose to be some kind of technological breakthrough? The scale indicates the CLUMP is less than 5 microns across, but the scale also indicates that the spores are somewhat smaller than typical anthrax spores.

You show these images and pick sentences out of context in an attempt to prove something. All you are proving is that you have to take things out of context to make anything fit your screwball beliefs.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

“One minute you’re telling us the coated spores were created fifty years ago. The next minute you’re telling us the coated spores were created to simulate what was used in the attacks of 2001? Which is it?”

It’s both. They looked at BG spores coated with silica that were made 40 years ago. Then they made Bacillus Anthracis dry spore powder (Sterne strain) and worked it up with silica - COATING the spores. It was the silica COATED Sterne anthrax spores that simulated the ACTUAL attack powder.

They referenced Beecher’s paper but apparently they weren;t impressed with his unsupported conclusion that the attack anthrax had no additives. Guess they have better sources than Beecher - which is not surprising since it was the ARMY that analyzed the anthrax for the FBI.

But it is hilarious watching your house of cards collapsing round about you.

Weaponized spores are COATED, COATED, COATED.

These are the FACTS.

Then why do NONE of the pictures of coated spores we've found in the past few years look anything like what Tom Geisbert says the attack spores looked like? Here's an image that Geisbert says shows spores "similar in character" to what was in the Daschle letter:

How come ALL the pictures of coated spores we've seen show that it would be STUPID, STUPID, STUPID to coat spores the way shown in the pictures?

Is that new picture of a fused clump of spores supposed to show that coating spores with silica prevents clumping?

Is that new picture of a spore coated with silica until it looks like a snowball supposed to show that such a coating won't add to the weight of the spore or reduced its ability to germinate?

A copy of the Aerosol Science article showed up in my inbox overnight. I'll be reading it after I do some chores. I'll be back then.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Okay. I've done my first reading of the article. I'm going to have to study it some more, but it does seem to confirm that completely coated spores will not germinate.

At the bottom of page 169 it says,

This means that if the spore particle is completely coated with silica, it may not have sufficient contact with the growth medium to grow and be detected as a CFU [Colony Forming Unit].

There's so much else in the article that seems totally bizarre for any attempt to simulate the attack anthrax of 2001 that I can't comment further until I've really had the chance to study the article in detail and to (hopefully) talk with at least one of the authors -- or some other expert on the subject. (Not to find someone to believe, but to find someone to clarify some things.)

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

This means that if the spore particle is completely coated with silica, it may not have sufficient contact with the growth medium to grow and be detected as a CFU. However, when the spore does grow, only a single CFU is detected for a particle even when the particle contains more than one spore. With the misting technique, the deposited particles are coated with a liquid layer that either washes off the coating from the spore or provides better contact between the spore and the growth medium.

As I suspected you take one sentence out of context to pervert the message of the entire article. What might happen on a settled agar plate is completely different to what happens inside a moist lung. The spores are ALL COATED - ALL WEAPONIZED spores ARE COATED with silica. That’s because only COATED spores can form effective aerosols.

Oops. In message #321 I wrote:

TrebleRebel writes:

He believes everything Alibek says like the word of a divine entity.

ZacandPook writes (in message #258):

To clarify Ken’s theory, he theorizes that Jdey mailed the anthrax letters after making the martyrdom video.

Going through ZacandPook's endlessly long and numerous postings is so totally tedious for me that I failed to notice which "Ken" he was talking about in that particular quote. He was evidently referring to Ken Dillon, not Ken Alibek.

But, no matter. It's just a simple switch to go back to message #169 where ZacandPook wrote:

Ken is very responsive and straight-forward. You should email him and ask them to clarify any of the scientific matters.

That "Ken" is definitely Ken Alibek, since we were discussing Ken Alibek's patent, and ZacandPook suggests I contact him for scientific answers.

Meanwhile, of course, TrebelRebel claims I believe "everything Alibek says like the word of a divine entity" and evidently wants me to disbelieve Alibek because TrebelRebel hates him so much.

So, the clown act might still work. And it might be even funnier if it involved multiple people named "Ken."

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

What might happen on a settled agar plate is completely different to what happens inside a moist lung.

My point exactly. An agar plate is designed to allow anthrax spores to germinate easily. A lung is not. Therefore, the test doesn't seem to reflect the real world.

The spores are ALL COATED - ALL WEAPONIZED spores ARE COATED with silica. That’s because only COATED spores can form effective aerosols.

Yes, we understand that is your fantasy. Yet the picture provided by Tom Geisbert shows spores which are NOT coated. And that is what he says the attack spores looked like.

And you have NEVER been able to find ANY pictures of coated spores that look anything like the UNCOATED spores in Geisbert's photo.

And every picture you have found shows coatings that no one could possibly interpret as being "pure spores."

The FACTS say beyond any doubt that the attack anthrax spores were NOT coated. The spores DID however contain the elements silicon and oxygen in some form that could NOT BE SEEN under a scanning electron microscope. So, whatever form the silicon and oxygen was in in the attack anthrax, it has NOTHING to do with the process used in the tests done by these folks from the CDC and Dugway.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ed,

I didn’t give you the article so you could sally forth and mangle more science. For years, you’ve been arguing that silica is not used to weaponize anthrax. When, in fact, for years, as Gary Matsumoto explained, that is how Dugway has been creating their anthrax simulants. Your argument that it was absurd that silica would be used to coat (fluidize) spores was mistaken. Now we’ve heard your strident, capitalized and red-lettered insistence on the point for over 5 years now. Gary Matsumoto wrote his article in SCIENCE after speaking with military scientists. If you had taken the time to do the same, by so much as an email, or just credited the written accounts that Dr. Rebel regularly provided you, you would not have been so confused about the use of silica in this regard. Now whether the weight silica was 10%, 20%, or some figure such as the 2% proposed by TrebleRebel - who is an expert in working with silica (and has done work for the military in this connection) — doesn’t need to be considered by lay people in a public forum. Nor need the particulars of such a process be speculated about. But the fact you need to understand is that AFIP detected silica. The fact that TrebleRebel needs to understand is that Ken and Professor M. did not see it on the particular SEMS they were shown. (And given that the expert government scientists could just as easily read the same SEMS, Alibek and Meselson would have just been reporting what they saw). The two data points are entirely consistent with the work being done by the Dugway authors, their analysis and their conclusions.

As another example of how you don’t correct mistakes, above you suggested that I had said that Ken Alibek had the theory that Jdey was the mailer. (Jdey was part of the planes operation and was trained in biology — he disappeared in October 2001) In one post, I just referred to Dr. Dillon as “Ken”, but in a series of closely preceding posts I had referred to him by his full name. He is a former history PhD who is a former State Department analyst. He has served abroad. He is as cautious in his reasoning as he is unfailingly polite. Now for you to err is human and unimportant. I’m not faulting you for making the mistake in rushing through posts. But I’m faulting you for not correcting the error. Moreover, if you don’t even know Ken’s last name, then for sure you are not in a position to rebut his cautious analysis (available at Amazon) or online.

Post your scientific analysis if you like. But why should anyone pay attention to you if you didn’t even know this most basic proposition about silica’s use?

Dr. Rebel, could you post a picture of the BG spores without a coating? Ed has a good question pending to you — why does the picture of “pure spores” (suggested to be a close approximation of the anthrax attack look unlike the images coated with silica)? The answer is found in the means used to increase the spore concentration. The snow ball effect is caused by Vander Waals forces. But a silica coating allows greater concentration and leads to the picture posted by Ed. Think of the biochemistry info available to be accessed by Ali as a way of smushing a bunch of snow balls together leading to product as pure as fluffy snow. Separately, in 2001, you had a radical reduction in particle size in the commercial silica powders available.

Mr. Lake, I’m glad I could be of service to you in providing this study and explaining how it bears. I have lots more from the authoritative literature that I’ll pass on as time permits. Moreover, it was my honor and pleasure to provide you with the 202 Hatfill exhibits. At your service, Pook

For years, you’ve been arguing that silica is not used to weaponize anthrax. When, in fact, for years, as Gary Matsumoto explained, that is how Dugway has been creating their anthrax simulants.

Actually, I've been arguing that silica was not used to COAT anthrax. I've repeated said it was MIXED with anthrax to create bioweapons. Ken Alibek explained to me the exact process the Russians used. And Bill Patrick has described how they used silica when MILLING anthrax spores back during the Cold War. Plus, there is plenty of literature which shows that they MIX spores with silica to keep them from absorbing moisture.

This new report says that they used BG spores that were forty years old. It also suggests that they used fumed silica that was equally old. You can't tell from the way it's written if the coated spores were created 40 years ago or if they used 40 year old ingredients to create the samples used for the tests.

So, we're talking about some process developed over 40 years ago, NOT some new super-sophisticated process like what Gary Matsumoto wrote about.

But the main point here is: This process has nothing to do with what was in the anthrax letters of 2001. The picture from Tom Geisbert above shows what those spores looked like. They looked NOTHING like what would come from the process described in the article.

As another example of how you don’t correct mistakes, above you suggested that I had said that Ken Alibek had the theory that Jdey was the mailer.

I DID correct that mistake. I just waited until after I read the article to do it. Check back a few messages.

Mr. Lake, I’m glad I could be of service to you in providing this study

Thanks for providing it. You can interpret it to fit your beliefs, but the FACT is that that process does NOT produce spores which looked the way the attack anthrax spores looked. So, the main question is: Of what value is that report to any argument about the attack anthrax of 2001?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The answer is found in the means used to increase the spore concentration. The snow ball effect is caused by Vander Waals forces. But a silica coating allows greater concentration and leads to the picture posted by Ed.

So, you coat spores to increase concentration? You better explain that, since coating the spores makes the BIGGER particles and would therefore REDUCE concentration.

Are you saying van der Waals forces cause the silica to bind to the spores? Hmm. In Gary Matsumoto's article he said the silica particles were glued into place by "polymerized glass." (That stuff that AFIP never detected.)

Mastumoto wrote:

... a technique used to anchor silica nano-particles to the surface of spores. About a year and a half ago, a laboratory analyzing the Senate anthrax spores for the FBI reported the discovery of what appeared to be a chemical additive that improved the bond between the silica and the spores. U. S. intelligence officers informed foreign biodefense officials that this additive was "polymerized glass."

But you raise a good question. What causes the silica to bind to the spores? Presumably, based upon the description of the coating process, it was static electricity. But I imagine that presumption would get a lot of arguments.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ed,

That’s fascinating if the Dugway authors were using 40 year old fumed silica. Do you have a sentence in support? If true, that seems to suggest that authorities suspect that the perp used 40 year old fumed silica.

TrebleRebel,

Can you post the picture where the old BG are gathered in groups, snuggling together in a big snowball? Overcoming the VanderWaals forces is what allows them to assume the look of the Geisbert picture. I’ve uploaded it to my table of contents page but I don’t know how to post it from there to here.

Note that the second phase involves testing the anthrax they made to duplicate the anthrax attack by multiple labs. If there is testing at multiple labs and they are attempting to duplicate the attack anthrax, then the second phase is going to be very significant indeed.

Gentlemen, sometimes I oftentimes think that the difference between the two of you is semantical. Folks are too hung up on the word “coating.” One man’s coat is another man’s residue. When you take a chicken breast and put it in breaded crumbs, if you have dipped the chicken breast in milk beforehand, a residue of crumbs will remain on the chicken breast. Or if you like, it will be coated.

In connection with the Canadian experiment done after the anthrax threat relating to the Vanguards of Conquest #2 detained in Canada (and after the February 2001 PDB on that anthrax threat), Gary and TrebleRebel always admitted that the “coating” could not have been done AFTER the mixing the silica at the dairy processor in Wisconsin. And so no special coating was put on at Dugway after processing. A key “trick” in processing occurred prior to mixing. (see, e.g., Rauf Ahmad correspondence to Ayman about his consulting with [redacted] on some tricks relating to weaponization.

In the Canadian experiment, the simulant used was made at Dugway, but it was made at the Wisconsin dairy processor. It was tweaked at Dugway but that might have just been either sequential filtering (or possibly a unipolar charge being added). The performance parameters of the simulant used in the Canada experiment (reported 9/10) was the same as the Daschle product.

Ali had access to all this info. He shared a fax with the two men consulting with Battelle. Charles was the #1 guy for Defense Threat Reduction Agency/DIA advising on biological threats. Both Ali and Ayman followed the rule that the koran/hadiths required that you use the weapon of your enemy. That’s what they did.

But I’m skeptical Jdey was the mailer although Dr. Dillon’s logic is compelling. Given Ed’s spectacular performance in demolishing a Hatfill Theory, I need Ed’s help showing Jdey was not a mailer (without the polemics and empty “belief/conspiracy theory etc. rhetoric) .

(It would be nice if he also made sure the Zack Theory was put to rest by emailing them the news he remained a practicing Catholic). They likely are not keeping up-to-date and so will need to be emailed.

Well - now you know it IS used to COAT anthrax.

I had to run some errands, and while doing that I thought a lot about what this article says about the way they made anthrax bioweapons back during the Cold War.

The article CERTAINLY has NOTHING to do with the attack anthrax of 2001, but it might answer some other questions -- including one I never bothered to ask.

Somewhere there's an article which says that back during the Cold War the U.S. used silica to eliminate or reduce the static charge that would build up in spores as they were MILLED. I never really dug into HOW that was accomplished. This article seems to answer that.

Bill Patrick always refused to discuss the subject of silica. This article might explain why. What Patrick WOULD discuss was the fact that the processes from the Cold War didn't match what was in the anthrax letters. He said repeatedly what was in the anthrax letters wasn't from a MANUFACTURING process. It was small quantity lab stuff.

Ken Alibek said there was no principle for coating anthrax. I don't know if he was aware of this kind of detail about how AMERICA made anthrax bioweapons. It certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with the way RUSSIA did things.

I'm more than willing to go back and modify my web site as soon as I can figure out exactly how this information changes what.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

That’s fascinating if the Dugway authors were using 40 year old fumed silica. Do you have a sentence in support?

Near the bottom of page 167:

The coating apparently solidified from exposure to water in the air over the years of sample storage and use.

If true, that seems to suggest that authorities suspect that the perp used 40 year old fumed silica.

No, it doesn't suggest that at all. Dugway used 40 year old spores AND, evidently, 40 year old fumed silica. (It MAY have been 40 year old spores already coated with 40 year old silica. The sentence isn't clear.) That information says absolutely NOTHING about what the anthrax mailer did.

We know from numerous news reports that the spores in the letters were no more that 2 years old. And we also know that there was no fumed silica in the attack anthrax, because experts said they couldn't see any.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I need Ed’s help showing Jdey was not a mailer

Sorry, that's all yours. I have nothing to do with it and want nothing to do with it. Since you say he was not a mailer, why should I even bring it up? No one but YOU has ever mentioned it to me.

That's also your baby. I haven't been putting information on my web site about Zack for two reasons: (1) I didn't want to help the Neo-Nazis point the finger at him by making more people aware of what they were saying. (2) Dealing with Neo-Nazis is a distasteful business. If you disagree with them they attack you with a hundred times the ferocity that you and TrebelRebel attack me. I don't want to have ANY contact with them at all. So, I'm not about to start emailing them with stuff they will not like.

Notice that I do not even mention Zack's name in my comment about him. That's because I do not want Google or Yahoo! to come to my site for information about Zack. The way I wrote the comment ONLY informs the readers of my web site -- a few of whom might be Neo-Nazis, since they occasionally to write me if I say something Neo-Nazis do not like.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.