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

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFfQUXVgDnVhDt_RdxG3hZzbrHjAD90FO1CO0
Florida court hear arguments in anthrax death lawsuit

“Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Bucholtz and Battelle lawyer Tami Lyn Azorsky argued there’s no way their clients could foresee the material would be used as a terror weapon because it had never happened before. The facilities use anthrax to develop counter measures and drugs to protect against or treat it, the lawyers said.
***
Stevens’ lawyer, Phillip Burlington, argued such high-risk materials are an exception to the special relationship rule and that its potential misuse should have been obvious.
“When you are dealing with biological warfare materials it is not unreasonable in this day and age to expect the government to reasonably anticipate that, or a private lab,” Burlington said.
***
The suit also claims the government and Battelle are negligent because they failed to keep it secured.”

In terms of Al-Timimi’s potential access, both leading anthrax scientist Ken and former deputy Charles were consultants to Battelle in 1999. What did they do for Battelle?

Here is a Statement by Dr. Kenneth Alibek Program Manager, Battelle Memorial Institute, before the Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress, Wednesday, May 20, 1998

“Terrorist and Intelligence Operations: Potential Impact on the U.S. Economy”
http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/intell/alibek.htm

Having closely followed these issues since 2001, and having first corresponded with Dr. Alibek in 2003 and as recently as last month or so, I estimate the probability that Ken is at all complicitous (or that the former deputy USAMRIID commander who was his co-founder of the Center for Biodefense), to be about zero. He has always been fully responsive and forthcoming.

The fact that Al-Timimi’s attorney says Ali — who was not much more than 15 feet away from Dr. A and Dr. B — is an “anthrax weapons suspect” is entirely consistent with that assessment. In a case of infiltration, the organization infiltrated and its officials are seldom complicitous. Just ignorant of the threat posed by the infiltrator.

***
In his testimony, he states:

“What is the Potential Impact of Terrorist Use of Biological Weapons?

While we should not ignore the continuing threat of military use of biological weapons, we are not at present poised for war with any nation known or suspected to possess biological weapons (with the possible exception of Iraq). A more likely threat is that posed by the terrorist use of biological weapons. Terrorist use can occur on the level of state-sponsored terrorism; on the level of a large, independent organization like the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan; or on the level of an individual acting alone or in concert with a small organization, such as a militia. For these three types of terrorist attack, the expected impact will differ considerably.
***
Furthermore, there is no doubt that we will see future uses of biological weapons by terrorist groups, as there have been several attempts already.”

***

Our General Preparedness for Military and Terrorist Biological Attacks

Fortunately, in the course of the past four or so years, our preparedness for military and terrorist biological attacks has changed considerably for the better. Heightened awareness of the biological threat has lead to a number of positive developments, such as:
***
• analysis of possible attack scenarios and their consequences
***
• development of new, and revision of existing, manuals and h
***
Addressing these requirements—medical research, threat analysis, manual revision and defense against unusual biological weapons variants—will greatly enhance U.S. preparedness for a biological attack.

http://www.battelle.org/news/98/42alibek.stm
June 29, 1998
RENOWNED EXPERT IN BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS RESEARCH JOINS BATTELLE
Dr. Kenneth Alibek, a renowned expert in the area of biological weapons research, has recently joined Battelle.

1999-
KENNETH ALIBEK
The Soviet Union’s Anti-Agricultural Biological Weapons
Ann NY Acad Sci 1999 894: 18-19. [Full Text] [PDF]
Battelle Memorial Institute, Arlington, Virginia 22202, USA. Address for correspondence: Dr. Kenneth Alibek, Battelle Memorial Institute, 1725 Jefferson ...
www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/full/894/1/18?ck=nck

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:62NhSAE8ftYJ:sec.edgar-online.com/2002/04/18/0000928385-02-001521/Section6.asp+%22Kenneth+Alibek%22+Battelle&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us
Prior to joining the Company, Dr. Alibek served as Program Manager for Battelle Memorial Institute from 1998 to
1999.

I’ll trust the named scientists who actually looked at the Daschle anthrax:

exerpt from “Demon in the Freezer”:

10/25/01 Geisbert tests a sterilized sample of the Daschle anthrax. X-rays, and other tests show two materials present: silica and oxygen...glass.

“The silica was powdered so finely that under Geisbert’s electron microscope it had looked like fried-egg gunk dripping off the spores.” Geisbert calls his boss, Peter Jahrling on a secure STU phone and says: “Pete ! There’s glass in the anthrax.”

...superfine powdered glass,known as silica nanopowder,which has industrial uses.The grains of this type of glass are very small. If an anthrax spore was an orange,then these particles of glass would be grains of sand clinging to the orange. The glass was slippery and smooth,and it might have been treated so that it would repel water. It caused the spores to crumble apart,to pass more easily through the holes in the envelopes and fly everywhere, filling the Hart Senate office building and the Brentwood and Hamilton mail-sorting facilities like a gas.”

Stuart,

The whole argument over electrostatic forces and Van der Waals forces in regards to spores is kind of silly. First, any chemist or biochemist knows that the former are much stronger than the latter (which are among the weakest of forces). Hydrophobic effects, sometimes called Van der Waals forces (actually the attractive force, not what follows), but better described as the force of trying to escape water (like attracts like in hydrophobic forces) . The repelling forces of hydrophobicity are so strong that they drive molecules together and close enough for the Van der Waals forces to add up. Hydrophobicity is a very strong influence. You see it in action when you try to wash grease off a frying pan in which you have cooked a lot of bacon. It takes a lot of soap or detergent to do so and probably not all of the grease is ever removed (good for the frying pan since it protects it from rusting if it is an iron skillet). When the spores are dispersed in water and then dried, the same thing kind of happens unless they are coated with an electrostatic material (could be protein, could be exosporium, or something else). Electrostatics only allow the spores to stick to things of the opposite charge or if a divalent cation (an ion with two positive charges) is present, then to each other by the bridging positive charges. Without this double positive charge, a monovalent cation simply neutralizes the charge and then we are back to the above, no attraction or perhaps hydrophobicity. The latter usually doesn’t happen with a soluble counter positive ion because it dissolves in water and if the spores are washed thoroughly in distilled water, the ion can be washed away. The result is we have a negatively charged spore. When these are dry they don’t stick together, they fly apart (with electrostatics opposites repell). No matter what you do you cannot contain such spores. They literally levitate off of a negatively charged surface (some plastics or other materials) and fly and stick only when wetted (water can form a positive counter ion and the spores are more wettable than the hydrophobic kind-—these require detergent to wet—Tide). So it does make a difference whether one uses silica (silicon oxides), silicates (silicon acid negative ions), silanes (silicon organics), or silanols (silicon alcohols). Perhaps the best thing is to not make a hydrophobic or neutral spore.

You should go make a BG simulant and submit it for testing. If you haven’t made aerosols, the federal judge would disqualify you from testifying on how to make something that “floats like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” To warrant being deemed an expert on making weaponized anthrax, you have to have done it and then you need to be in a position to submit your work to others for testing and objective measurement in an aerosol chamber — and submit it for a SEMS and EDX.

Now quit picking on Ed. Although he got a little full of himself for a half decade or so by not relying on experts, his Suzy the Spore cute. It is just the bait we need to get the First Grader he suspects to take the bait. You, go, Ed.

Now, note that Dr. Alibek was Program Manager at Battelle when they used Dugway simulant and tested it as the Battelle Life Sciences facility (which includes air chambers) in Utah. But like I said — the Daschle product does not look like the Dugway simulant made by those aerosol article authors.

But like I said — the Daschle product does not look like the Dugway simulant made by those aerosol article authors.

No, it probably doesn't look exactly the Dugway simulant. That particular simulant in the picture above from Dugway contains a whopping 20% by weight of silica. The actual senate spores likely contained 1% silica or less. That would mean it was a state-of-the-art product - much more advanced than the Dugway simulant.

There is little doubt, however, that the silica could actually be seen in the SEM. This follows from the "Demon in The Freezer" account given above - Geisebrt and Jahrling actually said they could see the silica - they described it as "fried egg gunk dripping off the spores". You do agree that this would count as seeing it - right?

But this is fully backed up by AFIPs Newsletter. AFIP stated that there was an unkown material that was seen by Detrick - they then identified that material as silica. You do agree that it would be difficult to identify a material if that material is invisible to begin with, right?

As far as identifying the material as silica - this is trivial - the software loaded in the EDX will even do it for you.

As far as misidentifying silica as "naurally occurring silicon" is concerned - NOPE - that doesn't work either. The peak for free silicon is at a different energy than silica. Also, an oxygen peak is present for silica - and all of this is calibrated with a standard sample of known silica.

AFIP released their actual EDX spectrum of the standard silica sample they used. It's shown below. This is contrary to Meselson's fabricated statement that AFIP only released a spectrum with a silicon peak.

TrebleRebel and Ed,

Consider the anthrax simulant used Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio, to determine ECASOL’s effectiveness in summer 2001.

On December 4, 2001, a representative from the United States Marine Corps testified before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, confirming that the decontamination technology developed by Nevada-based Electro-Chemical Technologies Ltd., produces a highly effective biocidal agent which is not only a highly effective anthrax killer, but also harmless to human beings.

Mike Grosser, technical director and program manager for the U.S. Marine Corps’ Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defense Systems in Quantico, Va., explained that the decontaminant known as ECASOL is produced by the electro-chemical activation technology developed by ELCH.

The ECASOL generator (delivery device) designed jointly by Electro-Chemical Technologies and Battelle Memorial Institute for the Marine Corps can produce up to 600 gallons of ECASOL per hour.

What anthrax simulant did it use? What Ed calls the “horse and buggy” simulant used in the aerosol experiments done under Ken’s supervision in 1998 and 1999 when he was Battelle Program Manager? Or something different.

I prefer not to use Ed’s fabricated jargon - the onlt reaosn he invented that phrase was to distract from the fact that he now has to admit that weaponized spores are indeed coated with silica.

But to answer your question. The Sverdlovsk anthrax was coated was silica - but after Sverdlovsk Alibek developed the “Alibeov Anthrax”. It contained 2 key additives - and could float 4 times more efficiently than the Sverdlovsk anthrax.

Preston describes it thus:

http://cryptome.org/bioweap.htm
The Alibekov anthrax became fully operational in 1989. It is an amber-gray powder, finer than bath talc, with smooth, creamy particles that tend to fly apart and vanish in the air, becoming invisible and drifting for miles. The Alibekov anthrax is four times more efficient than the standard product.

So I would imagine that Alibek transferred this technology to Battelle. This technology would be different than the Dugway simulant above. Note there are TWO additives.

Link to Soviet Weaponization Technology
In 1998 Ken Alibek was interviewed by Richard Preston for an article titled “The Bioweaponeers” published in the New Yorker[2]. In this interview Alibek disclosed details of a new advancement in Soviet dry powder anthrax technology. Preston wrote “The Alibekov anthrax became fully operational in 1989. It is an amber-gray powder, finer than bath talc, with smooth, creamy particles that tend to fly apart and vanish in the air, becoming invisible and drifting for miles. The Alibekov anthrax is four times more efficient than the standard product.”

Alibek also disclosed to Preston that the Alibekov anthrax contained two additives. Preston wrote “The Alibekov anthrax is simple, and the formula is somewhat surprising, not quite what you’d expect. Two unrelated materials are mixed with pure powdered anthrax spores. It took a lot of research and testing to get the trick right, and Alibek must have driven his research group hard and skillfully to arrive at it.”

Although Alibek revealed to Preston the identities of the two materials, Preston did not publish them. However, in the same year, Alibek was also interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a documentary titled “Red Lies” [3]. This documentary outlined the Soviet’s continued development of advanced anthrax dry powder technology even after the Sverdlovsk accident killed up to one hundred people. The “Red Lies” documentary did provide details of the additives, stating “In the years since the Sverdlovsk accident, Alibek and a research team had taken the Soviet military’s anthrax and made it even more deadly. He developed a process to take ground up anthrax spores and coat each particle in plastic and resin. It kept the anthrax aloft four times longer, increasing its ability to infect people.”

These details have to be compared to descriptions of the 2001 senate anthrax that were leaked to the media in the period 2002-2003. The first set of leaks were made to Newsweek [4] , CNN [5] and the Washigton Post[6]in April 2002. Newsweek wrote “The Leahy anthrax — mailed in an envelope that was recovered unopened from a Washington post office last November — also was coated with a chemical compound unknown to experts who have worked in the field for years; the coating matches no known anthrax samples ever recovered from biological-weapons producers anywhere in the world, including Iraq and the former Soviet Union. The combination of the intense milling of the bacteria and the unusual coating produced an anthrax powder so fine and fluffy that individually coated anthrax spores were found in the Leahy envelope, something that U.S. bioweapons experts had never seen.”

The second set of leaks were made to the Washington Post [7] in November 2002 who wrote “Investigators and experts have said the spores in the Daschle and Leahy letters were uniformly between 1 and 3 microns in size, and were coated with fine particles of frothy silica glass.” In November 2003 Science Magazine [8] reported that in addition to silica the senate anthrax contained “polymerized glass” and its purpose was to chemically bind the silica to the surface of the spores. Some speculate that the similarities between the descriptions of the Alibekov anthrax and the senate anthrax demonstrate a link to technology secretly developed in the Soviet Union in the late 1980’s and possibly transferred to the US after Alibek’s defection in the 90’s.

That particular simulant in the picture above from Dugway contains a whopping 20% by weight of silica. The actual senate spores likely contained 1% silica or less. That would mean it was a state-of-the-art product - much more advanced than the Dugway simulant.

And that is the totally dreamed-up basis for your conspiracy theory. You ASSUME that Dugway was making anthrax powders using new techniques in violation of international agreements.

But what the Aerosol Science article shows us is that they use OLD techniques BECAUSE developing new techniques would violate international agreements!

I just put a new comment about all this on my web site. Here's what I wrote:

Here's some background information from www.cdi.org about the agreements:

U.S. efforts to eliminate biological weapons began in earnest under the Nixon administration. On November 25, 1969, President Nixon declared that the United States would not use chemical weapons in a first instance, and he renounced the use of biological weapons in any situation. Future biological weapons research was confined to defensive measures such as immunization, detection and safety. Consequently, the Department of Defense destroyed large stockpiles of biological weapons. Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom followed suit and began to abolish their BW stockpiles as well.

The United States, through the United Nations Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, discussed the possibility of an international agreement with the Soviet Union. On August 5, 1971, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to a revised draft of the convention and a vote in the General Assembly resulted in 110 for the treaty, and 0 against. The United States Senate ratified the convention in 1974 during the Ford administration.

Developing new techniques for making bioweapons would not be considered a defensive measure in any context allowed under the treaty.

To conspiracy theorists [like TrebelRebel], the fact that the end-product from those old techniques was nothing like what was in the anthrax letters mailed in September and October of 2001 was seen as "proof" that the anthrax powder in the letters came from some NEW and totally illegal program. And their beliefs were enflamed by articles in the media, such as "Terror Anthrax Linked to Type Made by U.S." in the December 3, 2001, issue of The New York Times, the "FBI's Theory On Anthrax Is Doubted" article from the October 28, 2002, issue of The Washington Post, and, of course, the absolutely absurd, pure conspiracy theory article "Anthrax Powder - State Of The Art?" from the November 28, 2003, issue of Science Magazine.

Your conspiracy theories have taken a BIG hit with this new information. They've always been ridiculous, but now we can see just how ridiculous.

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.