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

Not true - go back and read the book. He saw the fried egg gunk on these spores also.

I have a personally autographed copy of Richard Preston's book in front of me. On page 175 he describes killing the spores in a "cobat irradiator -- which fried the DNA in the spores, rendering them sterile."

On page 176 he talks about static electricity causing the spores to jump all over the place. Then, when he finally gets to see the spores in the SEM, he says, "The spores were stuck together like moon rocks ..." And, "The anthrax particles had an eroded, pitted look, like meteorites fallen to earth. Most chunks were very tiny, sometimes just one or two spores, but there were also boulders." And he described how the chucks fell apart as he watched.

On page 177 is this image of a reference sample, similar in character to the spores in the Daschle letter:

Note that there is NO sign of any silica in that image. The spores in that image look NOTHING like any kind of silica coated spores.

And that's the last mention of what he saw. Where's the mention of "fried egg gunk?"

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

People like Ed Lake ...

Ed’s lackadaisical approach to biosecurity — and his “the clock ticked 5 p.m. so I’m outta here” approach to true crime analysis —

Ed’s lackadaisical approach to biosecurity also extends to the threat posed by salafi-jihadists.

“Do I look like I’m negotiating?”

Your comments are starting to get pretty creepy. You're reminding me once again of what was said about you in another thread:

Nothing personal...but you sound a little bit on the obsessive side, and not completely coherent. Are you surprised that people might ask to have you banned? Besides the obvious trespass of registering under a new name after being banned, you have the sound of someone who might drive halfway across the country to find someone who offended you in a post.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The difference, Ed, is I address the merits of your argument whereas you make ad hominem attacks.

It is you who has a “bogey man” view of Al Qaeda:

You write:
“Al Qaeda terrorists are vicious, dedicated killers who look for maximum damage and maximum impact.

You don’t pause to study the raging debate over tactics and the killing of innocents discussed in FISA and NSA wiretaps — or the prohibition against killing women and children with a poison.

You argue:

“Clearly, the terrorist was warning the recipients that the powder in the letters was dangerous and to act accordingly. That’s certainly not something the Al Qaeda would be likely to do.”

When I quote Al-Timimi, 15 feet from Ed’s expert, on what the hadiths say about the conduct of warfare, you dismiss it as esoteric trivia not worthy of your attention.

You ask:

“And why use the Ames strain of anthrax?” ignoring that the CIA experts like Michael Scheuer have explained that Al Qaeda perceives a duty to use the weaopns of their enemy.

You write: “The evidence almost certainly indicates that the terrorists were not Al Qaeda.”

Yet you have remained entirely ignorant of the relevant evidence by not informing yourself about the Salafi-Jihadists, their motivations, and their tactics.

But then you advance your profile of the perpetrator:

” 8. The terrorist probably watches Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel.”

You continues:

” 13. The terrorist probably has a bumper sticker on his car that reads something like “Clean Up The Environment! Kill a Liberal!”

You continue:

“15. The terrorist may be divorced.
16. The terrorist may have a small child and visitation
rights with the child.
17. The terrorist may have used his child to address the
envelopes and to write the letters.
18. The terrorist’s child is probably home schooled.”

What utter and total uniformed amateurish crock.

Instead, the correct profile would have been someone in current contact with the people who have said — and in fact — moving forward with plans to use weaponized anthrax against US targets. And so the task for the CIA and FBI was to identify that person.

They immediately did and then undertook through investigation to identify what affiliates might have processed and/or mailed the anthrax.

The reason you don’t address the merits, Ed, is you don’t know the merits and are not informed enough to credibly address the true crime matter. If it doesn’t fit your preconceptions from December 2001, you have no interest in exploring it. That’s cognitive rigidity.

If you were a government analyst and you demonstrated this sort of truncated analysis, you should have been fired 5 years ago.

AFIP clearly stated that silica was a key aerosol enabling component of the Daschle anthrax.

No, they didn't. That just more of your twisting of the facts.

In their self-serving newsletter, AFIP said:

“Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,” said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. “This was a key component,” Mullick said. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.”

The AFIP article says the chemical they were trying to detect with the EDX was OTHERWISE UNSEEN and then they explain some things in general terms. But THEY DID NOT SEE ANY SILICA, so its purpose was unknown. Generally, though, "Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize." No one disputes that.

They CERTAINLY didn't see any coating. And General Parker later said,

I’d like to say that, although we may see some things on the microscopic field that may look like foreign elements, we don’t know that they’re additives, we don’t know what they are, and we’re continuing to do research to find out what they possible could be. They’re unknowns to us at this present time.

The fact that AFIP wrote their comment after General Parker said what he said doesn't mean anything. The known information shows that AFIP only saw the Daschle anthrax for a few hours one day. Geisbert brought the sample to AFIP already prepared and ready for the EDX. And he undoubtedly took the sample with him when he left.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Stuart, you have to appreciate Alibek’s reasoning and the basis for that phrasing. He is explaining that anthrax has an exosporium and thus there would be no need for silica except for drying — which relates directly to the question of adhesion and clumping.

My consulting military scientist has sent SEMS of spores — which I’ve shared with you — that if you run an infrared spectroscopy on them they contain a large peak of silica, but no silica particles are to be seen. He says they “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” They look very different from the ones in the aerosol journal article but the same as those represented to look like the Daschle product (except as to concentration). That is because, he reports, they are better than those made for the tests reported in the aerosol article. His lab does aerosol experiments with anthrax simulants. He has worked with the journal authors. No, I can’t tell you how they were made. In one ordinary light microscope picture (phase contrast), the clumps are of dried spores from a water solution and the individual ones are from the dried siliconizing solution (which is your signature polymerized glass). But all of Ed’s obsession about silica is merely due to the total absence of substance to his true crime analysis. I mean you can’t go too far with his analysis when he created his profile around specific individuals and none of the posited traits in fact apply. But when you appreciate that all of his ad hominem labels best apply to him, his theory can be put on the trash heap with a Zack Theory. My military consultant method supports you IMO. He just has not provided an EDX yet to us that would be definitive on these points.

Yup, and he still stands by the statement from Alibek - “there is no principle to coating”.

All you seem to do is attack people who say things you do not believe.

Dugway coated spores with silica. You attack Alibek because you believe he was either lying or incompetent for not knowing or remembering how American biopweapons experts made bioweapons during the Cold War.

You attack Dr. Beecher because he didn't write what you believe he should have written in his article.

You attack Matthew Meselson for every reason you can think of.

Instead of looking at the facts, you want everyone to ignore everything these experts have ever said.

Without going into more personal attacks upon them, why don't you tell us what they've said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ken’s assistant has explained the reason for the silica in a PhD thesis supervised by Ken. She reports that “many experts who examined the powder stated the spores were encapsulated. Encapsulation involves coating bacteria with a polymer which is usually done to protect fragile bacteria from harsh conditions such as extreme heat and pressure that occurs at the time of detonation (if in a bomb), as well as from moisture and ultraviolet light. The process was not originally developed for biological weapons purposes but rather to improve the delivery of various drugs to target organs or systems before they were destroyed by enzymes in the circulatory system” (citing Alibek and Crockett, 2005). “The US and Soviet Union, however, “ she explains, “used this technique in their biological weapons programs for pathogens that were not stable in aerosol form... Since spores have hardy shells that provide the same protection as encapsulation would, there is no need to cover them with a polymer.“ She explains that one “possible explanation is that the spore was in fact encapsulated but not for protective purpose. Encapsulation also reduces the need for milling when producing a dry formulation.” By reducing the need for milling, she means permits greater concentration of the biological agent. If the perpetrator was knowledgeable of the use of encapsulation for this purpose, then he or she may have employed it because sophisticated equipment was not at his disposal.”

So if the product was not stolen outright, then the task for the FBI was to find the scientist knowledgeable about an encapsulation technique.

But all of Ed’s obsession about silica is merely due to the total absence of substance to his true crime analysis.

Of course, my interest in the subject has nothing to do with the fact that silicon and oxygen were detected in the Daschle sample, but no one saw any silica OR poylmerized glass in the sample. And the entire field of Microbial Forensics seems to have been created to determine with scientific accuracy what that silicon and oxygen was and how it got there. If it's "lab contamination" as believed, it would be key evidence in a criminal case.

That may seem unimportant to you, but it seems pretty important to me.

The rest of my interest is simply a matter of showing that Stuart's belief is a lot of hogwash when he tries to suggest that the attack spores were coated with silica and that the entire FBI and thousands of microbiologists are all involved in some sinister plot to keep that information from the American public.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ken’s assistant has explained the reason for the silica in a PhD thesis supervised by Ken. She reports that “many experts who examined the powder stated the spores were encapsulated.

And this is supposed to be believed? You think it's the definitive explanation for the silicon and oxygen that was detected?

The FACTS say that that explanation is RIDICULOUS.

The very idea that someone writing a PhD thesis and who has never had access to the attack anthrax would provide the definitive explanation for the detection of silicon and oxygen in the attack anthrax is RIDICULOUS.

Since spores have hardy shells that provide the same protection as encapsulation would, there is no need to cover them with a polymer.“ She explains that one “possible explanation is that the spore was in fact encapsulated but not for protective purpose. Encapsulation also reduces the need for milling when producing a dry formulation.”

"one possible explanation" says that she's just guessing. That doesn't make her the definitive expert.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I’ve explained based on the SEMS of the anthrax simulant made by the military lab that makes anthrax simulant for the government (for biodefense testing purposes) why silica was detected but not seen. Now that’s science. His results and conclusions are the subject of testing, measurement, and verification.

Stuart is hung up on the characterization of “super-sophisticated” versus the military scientist’s characterization (and Ken’s characterization) of the method as relatively simple. The difference is that the anthrax scientist has done it. But, of course, it is sophisticated. Everything about the work of the lab is sophisticated.

The suggestion that it was due to lab contamination — as you suggest — well, that’s is not subject to duplication and has not been duplicated. But there was nothing improper about Dwight Adams’ citation of that study to Senate Staffers. No conspiracy here on the science, Stuart. Just on the use of the lethal weapon.

Now as to neither Dwight nor Doug being expert on anthrax weaponization, there is no surprise there. That is why they are contracting with numerous outside labs.

So you say. And we're just supposed to simply salute and believe everything you say? That's not science.

Finding one possible explanation for the detection of silica and oxygen and believing it MUST be the ONLY explanation is NOT SCIENCE.

You look for things which support your beliefs, and when you find them you declare that they are the final truth. That's NOT SCIENCE.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ed argues against an Al Qaeda theory:

“It’s all really very simple. It’s just the hard-core al Qaeda theorists who try to complicate things with wild theories about how dead people
could mail letters a week and a month after they died.”

Yet, Ed nowhere discusses the affiliates and supporters of Al Qaeda in the US. First, he reasoned (foolishly) that the FBI would be talking about them (rather than trying to wiretap them while their guard was down). Then when they began talking about them — issuing $5 million rewards etc. — Ed made no mention of them and just has left his “hijackers are dead” theory as the cornerstone of his theory against an Al Qaeda theory.

As someone responded to Ed:

“Ed. It seems you still believe that there are only 19 al qaeda, and
they are all dead from the 911 attacks... “

Ed has no answer. He has this dichotomy: “American scientist” vs. supporter of the Salafi-jihadists. It’s as if Ed does not realize that the two categories are not exclusive. That’s because he has a “Bogey Man” view of Al Qaeda and does not recognize that a Salafist who supports the jihadists might be the nicest (and most consummately professional) guy you ever met.

The reason Ed does not mention Al-Timimi on his website and his lawyer’s admission he is an “anthrax weapons suspect” is that it would blow every puerile argument he has every made about an Al Qaeda Theory to smitheerens. Ali was an American scientist, Ed.

Ed did not explore the possibility that there were American scientists because he was a true believer in his specious drunk bowler theory.

“And we’re just supposed to simply salute and believe everything you say?”

There are thousands of links, organized chronologically, in support of the argument here. I don’t believe you’ll find any broken links.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/bibliography.html

BTW, in case you didn’t see the movie “Michael Clayton,” “Summons to Conquest” is the name of the memo he is holding. It was the name of a chapter in a book explained by his son to him. That name was then selected by senior defense counsel Albert in writing his memo. Given that the Vanguards of Conquest used the anthrax in threatening the destruction of the US, I thought Summons to Conquest was an appropriate title.

“Without going into more personal attacks upon them, why don’t you tell us what they’ve said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny?”

Meselson stated that AFIP released a spectrum of only silicon. AFIP released a spectrum of silica.

Meselson and Alibek said that anonymous sources should not be trusted and that we should wait for named, knowledageable government officials to announce their results. They did anounce them. Meselson and Alibek then pretended the announcement did not exist or else fabricated waht was relased.

Beecher said that the media reported that the spores were weaponized. He failed to mention that AFIP, Detrick and the Whitehouse all officially announced on the record that silica had been found.

Beecher chose to enter the peer reviewed systam with his unsupported statement. When asked to support it , he ignored the request.

Alibek said there is no principle to coatings. The US and Russia have used coatings for years to weaponize dry powders and simulants.

The question was:

why don’t you tell us what they’ve said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny?

You responded,

Meselson stated that AFIP released a spectrum of only silicon. AFIP released a spectrum of silica.

That's not about the anthrax. That's about a spectrum that was NOT a spectrum of the attack anthrax.

Meselson and Alibek said that anonymous sources should not be trusted and that we should wait for named, knowledageable government officials to announce their results. They did anounce them.

That's not about the anthrax. That's your interpretation of a statement about believing unidentified sources.

Beecher said that the media reported that the spores were weaponized. He failed to mention that AFIP, Detrick and the Whitehouse all officially announced on the record that silica had been found.

Failing to mention something you think is important is not something which close scrutiny" would show to be invalid. And the statements are not necessarily incompatible. The presence of something UNSEEN but believed to be silica does not necessarily mean the anthrax was weaponized.

Beecher chose to enter the peer reviewed systam with his unsupported statement. When asked to support it , he ignored the request.

So? That's not about the attack anthrax. That's about the review process.

Alibek said there is no principle to coatings. The US and Russia have used coatings for years to weaponize dry powders and simulants.

Or so you believe. But your belief that they glued silica to spores with organic resin is just plain ridiculous. Plus, Ken Alibek explained to me in detail how they weaponized anthrax, and it didn't involve coating spores. Plus, the way Russia weaponized spores had nothing to do with the attack anthrax since, coating or not, the Russian technique involved silica which would be EASILY SEEN under an SEM.

So, you have NOTHING that they've said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.

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.