Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)
US DOJ and FBI Memorandum In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment (Statement of Facts) | April 11, 2008 | Department of Justice

Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 981-987 next last
To: TrebleRebel
Take up your theory that spores don’t clump with an appropriate science journal and go through the peer reviewed process.

Well, on that note I'm going to shut down for today. Maybe I'll be back tomorrow.

This thread seems to be going nowhere. I try to discuss science, but all I get in return is lists of old links and arguments that we should all bow down to experts -- but only those experts who believe what you believe.

I've got better things to do with my time.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

521 posted on 05/07/2008 2:36:17 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

You know when you’re beaten.


522 posted on 05/07/2008 2:37:27 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

Now that your girlfriend has punched the clock, it’s time to punch your clock, Dr. Rebel. Let me try to explain things:

Remarkable technologies permitting the formulation and construction of such bacterial spore powders were chiefly - and independently - cultivated in two countries totally distinct from each other: Russia and Denmark. The Danish firms, Niro Atomizer and Chris Hansen, mastered the technologies pertaining to benign germs and later contributed, one way or another, to ongoing efforts made by Iraq (Niro) and the U.S. (Chris Hansen) to achieve the desirable textures of first-class bacterial powders, whether innocent or infective. The ultimate usefulness of Niro Atomizers for preparing bacterial spore powders has been noticed by Iraq in the 1980s, fully adopted for spray drying BT (as stimulant), and rather perfected, in all likelihood, for BA weaponization. Apparently, the U.S. Army, after using for many years self-made BG aerosols as an aerobiological model germ, lately preferred an appreciably upgraded, spray-dried BG spore powder from Chris Hansen, for investigative purposes.

Let me say it again if you are slow on the uptake: Apparently, the US Army, after using for many years self-made BG aerosols as an aerobiological model germ, lately preferred AN APPRECIABLY UPGRADED, spray-dried BG spore powder from Chris Hansen, for investigative purposes. Chris-Hansen is a dairy processor.

The “Dugway simulant” used in the Canadian study WAS MADE AT CHRIS HANSEN for Dugway. It was appreciably upgraded.

Now do you agree with this technical explanation above? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.

I’m going to show Ed that once he’s out of the ring — I don’t want him to get hurt — you are no match for the likes of the tag team of Zack and Pook. (Pook, btw, means “fart” in Russian).


523 posted on 05/07/2008 3:28:53 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Sure, I agree the Chris-Hansen spray dryer could make a better simulant.

I’m still trying to take the first step in analyzing the spores - namely finding out just exactly what the attack spores had. Was it just silica, just polymerized glass, both? It was definitely something containing silica - and it definitely made the spores fly.

Was it Alibekov anthrax? Maybe.

Was it the same powder described in the Fox email as being almost identical to a powder already made there? Maybe.

Do the FBI consider the spore weaponization to be the most secretly guarded part of the Amerithrax investigation? Well, duh, yes obviously. Mueller was emphatic when he insisted to Lambert that the science be kept completley stovepiped.

We all know that the above is true - but what about the weaponization is the big secret? Obviously you believe it’s because it’s embrarrassing to admit that AQ stole the formula of a classified US bioweapon. But there are other feasible explanations.

Until we can explore these other explanations we still need the basic information. How much silica? What type? Identical to a known process? Who are the at least 6 players in the Fox News email? Will they talk some more?


524 posted on 05/07/2008 3:51:29 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

“Obviously you believe it’s because it’s embarrassing to admit...”

No. You are adopting Ed’s practice of assuming what someone thinks rather than quoting what they have said. As I’ve often noted, First, it is stupid to publicly discuss how to best weaponize anthrax. Reckless even except when you are as confused as Ed. Second, it is extremely poor investigative practice to disclose such signatures of a crime. Third, as Director Mueller has explained, such discussion would allow a terrorist attack to “spoof” detection devices. These considerations were discussed in Lambert’s affidavit to the judge hearing the Hatfill matter. I think you and Ed lack common sense to pursue the subject. You should be submitting your views to scientists privately, not posting in a forum with Ed. The embarrassment I’ve discussed relates to Al-Timimi and relates, for example, to the potential massive civil liability. But such a concern is redundant to and in addition to general principles of fairness that apply (given it has not been charged). The concern also parallels the usual principles of maintaining the confidentiality of an ongoing criminal investigation so that they could maintain effective wiretaps on, for example, Aulaqi (such as they maintained for years).

Having said that, but being bored by seeing you and Ed post the same info back and forth endlessly, I should note that some patents on polymerized glass coatings claims that a coating of dimethyldichlorosilane will aid dispersability. In such a patent no silica is used - only dimethyldichlorosilane. This would lead to coated spores that would have an EDX spectrum similar to that of silica - but chlorine would also be present in the EDX spectrum. I’ve got to admit — I don’t really understand why this would reduce van der Waals forces - but it would likely cause the powder to strongly repel water — and that would certainly help reduce clumping due to “water bridges” between spores. This would explain why some people who examined the spore SEM pictures saw no silica — the spores coated with dimethyldichlorosilane would look fairly normal — until the EDX was examined. Now can you agree with this technical explanation also? I should tell you that Pook was only rough on you earlier hoping to draw Ed into the ring so that I could land a chair on his head.


525 posted on 05/07/2008 4:24:37 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Ed should take a break from talking about silica and read up — if counterterrorism analysis doesn’t interest him — on true crime. Here are the Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913. A fully searchable edition of the largest body of texts detailing the lives of non-elite people ever published, containing 197,745 criminal trials held at London’s central criminal court.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/


526 posted on 05/07/2008 5:14:26 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

The FBI was curious what someone was doing wth the Wayback Machine at archive.org.

“Archive.org Defeats FBI’s Demand For User Information”

“Although we don’t know what they were after due to the settlement, a gag order was just released that kept Internet Archive member Brewster Kahle quiet. The FBI had issued a national security letter to them under the Patriot Act. Kahle fought it. Hard. The EFF came to the aid of his lawyers and what resulted was one of the only three times an NSL has been challenged: all three have been rescinded. The FBI agreed to open some of the court files now for it to be public.

Let’s see if they can keep up with searches relating to Jack the Ripper at Old Bailey.


527 posted on 05/07/2008 5:21:37 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C40069388000257442004ECECE.html?ref=technology

“FBI Assistant Director John Miller issued a statement about the case Wednesday. “The information requested in the national security letter was relevant to an ongoing, authorized national security investigation,” he said. “National security letters remain indispensable tools for national security investigations and permit the FBI to gather the basic building blocks for our counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations.”
***
Kahle’s lawyers declined to talk about the nature of the FBI investigation or reveal the identity of the targeted user.

The NSL sent to the Internet Archive asked for a user’s name, address, length of service, e-mail header information and activity logs. The FBI investigation was “relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities,” according to the FBI letter.

The Internet Archive provided the FBI some information that was publicly available on the site, but could not comply with the FBI request because the site does not track user activity or record IP (Internet Protocol) addresses, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the EFF. The site asks only for an unverified e-mail address when users register.”

Comment: The Wayback Machine is the single most useful investigative tool available to someone with no budget. http://www.archive.org It’s amazing. It lets you see how websites looked years ago. I block my website from being seen as it existed in the past. Ed and TrebleRebel don’t.

For example you can go back in time and view Ed’s website as accessed on particular dates here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com

TrebleRebel’s website as archived on past dates is here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.anthrax2001.blogspot.com/

But I blocked my website from being viewed. I didn’t know how to do it with software code so I had to threaten to sue them. ;)
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com/


528 posted on 05/07/2008 5:53:18 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

http://web.archive.org/web/20020205060806/http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/

Early on, he posited that there were three mailings — with the third from Indianapolis.

He writes:

“The non-anthrax mailing from Indianapolis could be highly significant, yet it seems to be totally ignored!  The threats would be important, the writing would be important, the paper would be important, everything would be important!  But virtually nothing has been reported!  We can only hope that it’s so important that the FBI has good reasons to keep secret nearly everything about them.”

As to motive, he adopted what then was thought of as the Greenpeace/ Barbara Hatch Rosenberg/ Francis Boyle theory. But he added his own Milwaukee twist.

“6.  Who did it?

A Working Theory for who the anthrax terrorist might be:

The terrorist could be someone formerly with the U.S. militarys bioweapons development program, or he knows someone who worked there.

This theory has apparently been common gossip with the Greenpeace movement for some time and around November 28, 2001, was the subject of an article in “Greenpeace Germany” a publication of the environmentalist movement.  The Greenpeace article said: ``It seems the attacker ... wanted to force through an increase in the budget for U.S. research on biological weapons.’’ 

***

The anthrax-terrorist may have sent some “threatening letters” from Indianapolis prior to September 11, in an attempt to wake up various journalists and news organizations.

So, on September 18, 2001, the mentor arranged for a perfect alibi for himself while his disciple used some of the anthrax they had in their possession to send out REAL anthrax letters to the media...”

Now “the mentor” in Ed’s theory was some guy — who is extremely pissed at Ed — who honest to gosh thought anthrax was a virus. His politics are provably nothing remotely like Ed imagines. (He’s not a biologist and never worked decontaminating anthrax as Ed imagined. His field was radio chemistry and nuclear engineering. Battelle does not even work with powderized anthrax in Ohio. (That work is done at Battelle’s Life Sciences facility at Dugway).

Ed sets forth his “Profile”:

“The unidentified anthrax terrorist is most likely part of a team of two people: a “mentor” and a “disciple” (plus, perhaps, an uninvolved child).  The “mentor” could be the Milwaukee scientist, since evidence indicates he knew about the Sept. 18 mailing beforehand, but has a perfect alibi proving he didn’t actually participate.” 

Oh, brother. There are easier ways to establish an alibi than causing a scene that draws law enforcement attention to you.

More fundamentally, Ed just assume that the guy worked with anthrax or had access to the strain — and he merely assumed the guy’s’ politics. Yet, AS THE WASHINGTON POST EXPLAINED BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS OBTAINED UNDER FOIA, BATTELLE DID NOT EVEN HAVE AMES SHIPPED UNTIL MAY/JUNE 2001. This fellow was fired in 1996 and 1999. And thus even if ever he had decontaminated anthrax, which he didn’t — and even if the work needing decontamination was in Ohio, rather than Utah (which it wasn’t), he HAD NOT BEEN AT BATTELLE SINCE 1999.

So Ed’s theory was stillborn from the start.


529 posted on 05/07/2008 6:39:53 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Columnist weighs in on former colleague Locy’s case re District Court order she name her source or face fines -

“Pressed freedom,” Boston Globe, May 8, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/08/pressed_freedom/


530 posted on 05/08/2008 1:50:35 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

Comment #531 Removed by Moderator

To: ZACKandPOOK

From ACLU press release:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/35202prs20080507.html

“The ACLU has challenged this Patriot Act statute in federal court in two other cases where the judges found the gags unconstitutional: one involving an Internet Service Provider (ISP); the second, a group of librarians. In the ISP case, the district court invalidated the entire NSL statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is expected to hear oral arguments in the government’s appeal of that case next month.”


532 posted on 05/08/2008 4:43:22 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Mr. Kahle’s declaration in the Internet Archive litigation explains:

“The Archive’s overarching mission is to provide universal access to all knowledge.” Pretty impressive goal!

“To fulfill its mission, the Archive works with national libraries, museums, universities, and the general public to collect and offer free access to materials on the Internet, including texts, audio, moving images, software, and archived web pages in its collections.”

“One of the unique features of the Archive is a service known as the Wayback Machine, which allows people to visit archived versions of websites. The Archive has created and maintained the Wayback Machine by collecting snapshots of billions of public web pages, except those that have opted not to be archived, every two months for the last ten years. Thus the Wayback Machine makes it possible to surf more than 85 billion pages stored in the Internet Archive’s web archive.”

“[A]n individual wishing to view digital materials on the Archive’s website may do so as an ‘anonymous user — that is to say, without logging in.”

A prominent well-regarded anthrax sleuther has had policy disagreements with Mr. Kahle explained in this New York Times article.

“Bitter Debate on Privacy Debate Divides Two Privacy Experts,” New York Times, December 30, 1999
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E1D61438F933A05751C1A96F958260


533 posted on 05/08/2008 6:35:15 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

The ACLU’s other litigation is titled JOHN DOE vs. ASHCROFT (now MUKASEY). According to the Washington Post, that case involves an “internet consulting business.” “FBI Backs Off From Secret Order for Data After Lawsuit,” Washington Post, United States - 9 hours ago (The two other instances of NSL withdrawals involved a library and an Internet consulting business.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703808.html?hpid=topnews

The District Court’s decision on appeal reads:

“Plaintiffs John Doe, American Civil Liberties Union, and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation initially brought this case in 2004, challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2709, amended by the USA Patriot Act. *** This Court, in a lengthy decision dated September 28, 2004, granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and declared Section 2709 unconstitutional on its face, under the First and Fourth Amendments. See Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Considering the implications of its ruling and the importance of the issues involved,” the Court stayed enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.
***
Moreover, often the target of an NSL is not necessarily the main target of an investigation, and an NSL thus serves as a key tool in allowing the FBI to follow leads.
***
Plaintiffs indicate that as a result of the nondisclosure requirement enforced in this case, they have been precluded from fully contributing to the national debate over the government’s use of surveillance tools such as NSLs, perhaps most particularly consequential in inhibiting their ability to speak and inform public discourse on the issue during Congress’ Reauthorization of the Patriot Act.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe

Wikipedia explains:

“The name John Doe is generally used as a placeholder name for a male party in a legal action or legal discussion whose true identity is unknown. Male corpses or emergency room patients whose identity is unknown are also known by the name John Doe. A female who is not known is referred to as Jane Doe.

Wikipedia notes that other names for unknown persons include Joe Blow, Joe Schmoe, Joe Sixpack, John Smith, Eddie Punchclock (for blue-collar workers), and Vinnie Boombotz (particularly in New York City)”


534 posted on 05/08/2008 7:12:00 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Here is how to find out who is snooping on your email (besides your spouse).

“Who is Snooping on my email?”
http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/emailsnooping.htm

“With all of the controversy about the news that the NSA has been monitoring, since 9/11, telephone calls and email messages of Americans, some folks might now be wondering if they are being snooped on. Here’s a quick and easy method to see if one’s email messages are being read by someone else.

The steps are:
1 Set up a Hotmail account.
2 Set up a second email account with a non-U.S. provider. (eg. Rediffmail.com)
3 Send messages between the two accounts which might be interesting to the NSA.
4 In each message, include a unique URL to a Web server that you have access to its server logs. This URL should only be known by you and not linked to from any other Web page. The text of the message should encourage an NSA monitor to visit the URL.
5 If the server log file ever shows this URL being accessed, then you know that you are being snooped on. The IP address of the access can also provide clues about who is doing the snooping.
The trick is to make the link enticing enough for someone or something to want to click on it.”

For example, you might use the subject “La Cosa Nostra/ money laundering.”


535 posted on 05/08/2008 7:21:02 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

“Washington D.C. reality meets spy movie paranoia?” March 23, 2007
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6170185-7.html

“If I talk, the U.S. government could throw me in jail, says John Doe. Just another guy hearing radio transmissions in his fillings or speaking in code with small six-legged figures from Plant X9-G? Apparently not. Apparently, just an Internet businessman who was ordered to provide client information to the government and refused.”

Today, ‘John Doe’ tells his story in a Washington Post piece. Doe says he’s under a long-term FBI gag order about a national security letter he got.”
***
“Meanwhile, Mr. Doe never gave data to the FBI. The FBI has now withdrawn its NSL asking for Doe’s Internet client data. But Doe is still under gag order, hiding his lawsuit and legal papers from friends and family—to protect the same FBI he’s suing over the gag.”

“My National Security Letter Gag Order,” Washington Post, March 23, 2007; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html

“Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information.”

“When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.”

“I found it particularly difficult to be silent about my concerns while Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 and early 2006. If I hadn’t been under a gag order, I would have contacted members of Congress to discuss my experiences and to advocate changes in the law.”
___________

“I wish to ask my distinguished colleague, has he one scrap of evidence to add now to the defense he did not give and could not give at that same hearing?”
—Senator Joseph Paine in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (1939)


536 posted on 05/08/2008 8:01:25 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
I try to discuss science, but all I get in return is lists of old links and arguments that we should all bow down to experts...

Your problem is that you're not qualified to discuss science. You did not spend 10 years being educated in the sciences. If you had, you might begin to understand that your own everyday view of reality is a completely different world than the reality perceived by objects that are 1 micron in size or less. You cannot imagine what that world looks like or feels like - and you never will.

You endlessly misunderstand words like "cohesive" to mean what they mean in the only world you know - Elmer's glue or suchlike. You ignore the fact that the authors using the phrase "cohesive particles" clearly state in the next sentence that they are referrign to any small particle where van der Waals cohesion dominates.

Here's a clue about reality in another regime:

http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=29118

"Operating in a nanoscale environment is sort of like having flypaper everywhere because of the attraction of van der Waals forces," Raman said.
537 posted on 05/08/2008 10:29:38 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Your problem is that you're not qualified to discuss science.

So, you are incapable of discussing science unless it is with someone who can match your loftly advanced degrees? How very snobbish of you.

The evidence in this thread (and other threads) is that YOU cannot discuss science because it would require you to look at facts which do not agree with your beliefs.

So, instead you just post links and try to make it appear that the articles at those links are proof of what you believe. They're not.

The Aerosol Science article contains an interesting puzzle: Single spores were all be coated by the Dugway process, but tiny clumps of spores were NOT coated, even though they were still in the less-than-5-micron range. The authors of the article say they cannot explain it. They also cannot agree on what force holds the silica to the spores.

I doubt that sending them a bunch of links will help.

All I was suggesting was some discussion of the puzzle.

If the silica WAS stuck to the spores due to van der Waals forces, why wouldn't the silica also stick in exactly the same way to tiny clumps of two or three or ten spores?

Additional silica was added to the powder AFTER the filtering. Why didn't that silica stick to the clumps due to van der Waals forces?

Is static electricity totally out of the question? It could explain everything.

The spores started out as PELLETS of trillions of spores and were broken down by a ball mill. There was a LOT of friction involved. Nothing was done to eliminate the static charge on the surfaces of the spores -- except for the addition of silica to the milling process.

Static electricity in a milling situation would cause the spores to stick together just the way a pair of socks will stick together in a dryer if you don't do anything to prevent static buildup. But, silica somehow either eliminated the static buildup -- OR prevented it from being a problem.

But it wasn't a problem in the clumps. Is it because the clumps fell through the filter first and there wasn't time for a static buildup? Or is it because the very irregular shape of the clumps has some effect on surface static?

I may not be "qualified" to answer these questions, but I feel I'm "quallifed" to ask them. And if I can't understand the answers, I can do some research and study up so I can understand the answers. But it definitely helps if the answers aren't just links to irrelevant web sites.

I apologize if just reading this causes you to lower your scientific standards.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

538 posted on 05/08/2008 11:27:07 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

Dr. Rebel,

Now stoop to my level and talk true crime.

Is the NSL CT server case related to anthrax? The Azzam.com website hosted by a CT server had a FAQ explaining “Inside Green Birds” which was part of the code used in the letters. The website linked the charities under investigation in the US (i.e., Al-Timimi’s charity) and had a direct pipeline to Ibn Khattab who endorsed the website and the charities. Khattab, according to DIA document I’ve uploaded produced to Judicial Watch under FOIA, was involved in anthrax planning early on.

In the NSL matter, there is a case that is “related” to the ISP case involving a FOIA request by ACLU to the CIA/DOD re NSLs. Yet a FOIA request by the same requestors to the DOJ is only deemed a “similar” case. See PACER. (Those are legal terms). Therefore, the origin of the interest in the request can be inferred to be DOD/CIA rather than a US-based criminal prosecution as such. Azzam.com involves a London webmaster whose IP in 2001 indicated he was emailing (to our friend Richard of computerbytesman from a London internet cafe. He is currently being extradited from the UK to the US. His website was mirrored by a North Brunswick, NJ man. But the London AQ operative also used a Connecticut ISP named OLM, LLC.

The NSL case involving “John Doe” President of the ISP/internet business was consolidated for the purpose of decision with a case in Hartford, CT involving librarians. Was that the President of OLM, LLC, George D.?

The request corresponds with when the DOJ made their move against the Al Qaeda website Azzam.com. They had allowed it to keep running as they got leads.

USATODAY.com - Friends say N.J. Webmaster no terrorist, Aug 11, 2004
New Brunswick -AP
The affidavit said Ahmad operated a Web site, www.azzam.com, through a Connecticut-based Internet service provider, OLM. Neither Web site could be accessed ...
www.usatoday.com/community/utils/idmap/12436990.story -

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:6oDJKZL4Ce8J:www.usdoj.gov/usao/ct/Documents/AHMAD%2520indictment.pdf+Azzam.com+%22Ibn+Khattab%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
http://www.olm.net/company-info/standard-policies.html
http://www.olm.net/company-info/
http://web.archive.org/web/20040213134140/http://www.olm.net/company-info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLM.net
http://www.hostindex.com/interviews/olm_ceo.shtm


539 posted on 05/08/2008 11:36:39 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“Single spores were all be coated by the Dugway process, but tiny clumps of spores were NOT coated, even though they were still in the less-than-5-micron range.”

There’s a simple explanation to that. You wrongly speculate that the clumps of spores are immune to coating with silica. It’s likely the other way around. If any clumps are found they became clumps BECAUSE the spores were not coated in the first place - uncoated spores, or spores with poor coverage came in contact with each other during later handling - and they clumped up due to van der Waals attraction.

Thus it would be unlikely to observe single uncoated spores - since they would already have clumped.

Also - the pellets of spores you refer to are not the hard “hocky pucks” of spores that would be dried out after a normal centrifuge process. They used a propietray azeotropic distillation process to dry the spores. This leaves a much softer, more crumbly pellet that is easy to ball mill without damaging the spores.

In fact - the entire process they used is identical to the Patrick process that has been talked about and is protected by secret patents. It’s still an old process - and it;s likely there are much more advanced processes availble today. Don’t forget these defense labs only publish what they are comfortable publishing.


540 posted on 05/08/2008 11:40:20 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 981-987 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson