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 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 951-987 next last
To: EdLake
What about other types of small particles where van der Waals forces play absolutely NO role at all?

That's easy to answer. There are no such small particles where van der Waals forces play no role. Van der Waals forces are omnipresent. They can be reduced by coating with artificial asperities (or "bumps").

That's why silica coatings are used to weaponize anthrax spores.

It's all explained here:

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/iec/publications/papers/Lit_Review.pdf
551 posted on 05/08/2008 2:36:37 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
There are no such small particles where van der Waals forces play no role. Van der Waals forces are omnipresent.

Really? What about particles of gold or aluminum 1 micron in diameter? Do van der Waals forces work on those particles exactly the same way and with the same force as on spores and lactose particles 1 micron in diameter?

I'll be back tomorrow to read your answer.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

552 posted on 05/08/2008 2:56:36 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

That depends on the relative Hamaker’s constants. Also it depends on the shape of the particles.
Every material has a Hamaker’s constant - that’s just physics and is absolute.


553 posted on 05/08/2008 2:58:53 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

The target of the Hartford-area library NSL is thought to have used one of these libraries (apparently).

http://www.libraryconnection.info/librarygrid.html


554 posted on 05/08/2008 3:10:53 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

The librarian testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2679&wit_id=6284

“[T]he letter requested information we had about the use of a specific IP address that was registered to Library Connection, Inc. He also pointed out the letter’s gag order prohibited Library Connection from disclosing to anyone that the FBI was attempting to obtain information from our library business records.”

“The requested information was for use of an IP address five months earlier, on February 15 [2005].”

Thus, one can infer that surveillance indicates that a particular person used a library computer in the Hartford area on February 15, 2005.

The letter just asked about the specific IP address and not a patron by name. But now anyone who knows the FBI is surveilling him (or her) and read the testimony indicating that their interest relates to his or her visit to use the library computer on February 15, 2005, knows of the FBI’s awareness of that computer use.

The DOJ reports that it was surveillance of a New York City library computer that was critical at thwarting an attack (as I recall).


555 posted on 05/08/2008 3:34:43 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

TrebleRebel,

These NSL cases actually can be related to your fear that the silica issue is being obfuscated to cover up the government’s incompetence or worse.

In the two court ACLU challenges, the District Court judges ruled that the NSL’s automatic gag orders violate the First Amendment. One judge explained:

“The self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction. … A categorical and uncritical extension of non-disclosure may become the cover for spurious ends that government may then deem too inconvenient, inexpedient, merely embarrassing, or even illicit to ever expose to the light of day. At that point, secrecy’s protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe country as simply to save face.

Similarly, when these cases got up to the court of appeals, one Reagan-appointed judge (who I had the great pleasure of clerking for once), Richard Cardamone, said of the gag orders: “A ban on speech and a shroud of secrecy in perpetuity are antithetical to democratic concepts and do not fit comfortably with the fundamental rights guaranteed American citizens. Unending secrecy of actions taken by government officials may also serve as a cover for possible official misconduct and/or incompetence.” Doe v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415, 422 (2d Cir. 2006) (Cardamone, J., concurring).

Amerithrax might be said to illustrate the principle. It took a DC law firm’s willingness to devote services probably valued close to $1 million to obtain discovery that showed that the FBI conducted a totally lame media leak investigation in 2002. If a good faith and effective investigation had been conducted, the same prosecutor (Seikaly) would not then have continued the outrageous hyping of the baseless pond and bloodhound stories associated with Hatfill, derailing a balanced understanding of Amerithrax. The DC FBI Field Office head Van Harp’s unwillingness to provide a waiver of confidentiality destroyed the DOJ’s claim that it was committed to a full and successful investigation. Van Harp should have followed Lambert’s example in 2003 of voluntarily submitting to a polygraph and waiver of confidentiality to any reporter. The FBI has allowed Amerithrax to be an anchor around its neck in terms of the world’s perception of the US — it has allowed conspiracy theories to needlessly proliferate that have damaged the country’s standing in world opinion.


556 posted on 05/08/2008 4:06:19 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Friday, May 9, 2008 11:00 AM Courtroom 20
Judges Ginsburg, Rogers and Kavanaugh
08-5049

Steven Hatfill v. Baltimore Sun Company
15 min per side


557 posted on 05/08/2008 4:35:44 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

I’m confused about the caption on the Court’s calendar cut and pasted above.

But in any event, here is the brief on appeal of the federal defendants filed last month.

“Summary of argument.

The only issue addressed by the federal defendants on this
appeal is whether a plaintiff can demonstrate intentional or
willful disclosure of agency records under the Privacy Act
without identifying the government official who allegedly
released such information.

To make out his Privacy Act claim, Hatfill must show that
any alleged disclosures were made willfully or intentionally—a
question that turns on the acts of the specific agency officials
involved. He must likewise show that the information in question
was derived from protected agency records, rather than from
private knowledge, surmise, or other sources independent of such
records. Those inquiries are not possible without knowing the
identity of the agency official who is alleged to have made the
unlawful disclosures. To the extent Locy suggests otherwise,
that contention is mistaken and should be rejected.”

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:uYM-nbpMPHMJ:www.rcfp.org/shields_and_subpoenas/hatfill_federal_appellees_20080411.pdf+08-5049&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


558 posted on 05/08/2008 4:47:05 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Ed,

By letter filed April 29, the DOJ advised the court that the federal appellees’ do not plan to present oral argument

It would be great if you obtain or find — and then link on your webpage — the following briefs of those arguing (counsel Hatfill and Locy). Otherwise, I’ll add them to http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com which has avoided the wrangling over the press subpoena issues given that you do such a thorough job of making materials from the dockets available.

Tapes and transcripts won’t be available unless the reporters group pays for the transcript and uploads it. (How archaic! Even the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.. D.C. rather than federal... allows you to watch in real-time. The 7th Circuit, for example, has had arguments online for a few years now.

These are the key briefs:

APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF [1111974] filed by Toni Locy [Service Date: 04/18/2008 ]

APPELLEE BRIEF [1110632] filed by Steven J. Hatfill [Service Date:04/11/2008 ]

04/11/2008
  
APPELLEE BRIEF [1110694] filed by Michael B. Mukasey, et al., [Service Date:04/11/2008 ]

Now, put silica aside, and do what you do so well. Be our docket rocketeer.


559 posted on 05/08/2008 5:22:34 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel9-2008may09,0,7865641.story

FBI is called slow to join the terrorism fight
A Senate committee wonders whether the bureau can transform itself. Gaps in training and vacancies in key positions are among the issues cited.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 9, 2008

WASHINGTON —

***
Among the Senate committee’s other findings:

* The FBI is still without an effective training program for intelligence analysts despite “revamping” training almost every year since 2002.

* Most intelligence analysts are supervised by special agents who have little or no experience conducting intelligence analyses.

* The bureau has hired just two “senior intelligence officers” two years after getting authority from Congress to fill 24 of the “critical” positions.

* Only a third of special agents and intelligence analysts have access to the Internet at their desktops. FBI personnel lack the ability to store and share images and audio files associated with intelligence investigations.

* A new weapons-of-mass-destruction directorate within the bureau is “poorly positioned to work across FBI programs that are likely to encounter WMD threats and investigations.”


560 posted on 05/09/2008 4:36:35 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

“........the American public deserves a real investigation.”

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Connolly.pdf

Do you agree with Hatfill’s lawyer? Do we deserve a real investigation?

What do you think he meant by that?


561 posted on 05/09/2008 4:48:32 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
No, my argument makes perfect sense. BG spores clump when they are not coated. If they came through the sieve as single uncoated spores (becoming single spores for a short time due to collisions with the ball mill bearings) then these uncoated spores would be the very spores to find each other and clump up. It’s exactly as it should be - all the uncoated spores are in clumps at the end of the day.

You're not addressing the question. You're just rationalzing.

First, the spores were stuck together in a pellet before they went into the sieve. There's no reason to believe they ALL got unstuck and then some of them got restuck on the other side of the sieve. The clumps are small enough to get through the sieve AS clumps.

But second, and most importantly, the tiny clumps are not coated with silica. Why not?

Yes, I know that if there was silica between the spores, the spores would not stick together. But only PARTS of the spores are touching one another. Why aren't the spores totally coated with silica where they are NOT touching one another?

If you have two spores stuck together, are van der Waals forces different than for just one spore alone? On one spore alone, silica sticks to ALL SIDES. Why wouldn't silica stick to all EXPOSED sides of a 2-spore particle?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

562 posted on 05/09/2008 7:42:13 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

I think there has been a real investigation. I think they charged alternative crimes in neutralizing the threat. For example, in the case of Al-Timimi, who they suspected of accessing biochemistry information, they charged sedition.

It makes sense from a national security point of view (avoiding an attack). But they perhaps don’t appreciate that Zawahiri has won the media game which to him was always fully half the game. Allowing truther / French / BHR / Boyle/ TrebleRebel / Velis / EdLake / computerbytesman / Horowitz etc. type theories to proliferate has hurt America’s prestige and respect in the world. That greatly undermines “national security.”

One small thing they might have done different — and perhaps this rested solely with a personal judgment FBI DC Field Office Head Van Harp made — is that he should have fully cooperated with the leak investigation even after retired. His loyalty to US Attorney Roscoe Howard and his colleague, head of criminal prosecutions Daniel Seikaly, was understandable — but those under scrutiny will often have loyalty to others. If he believes in the FBI’s mission, he should, first, furthered that mission by voluntarily providing the waiver as to confidentiality such as Lambert did. (And he should have submitted to a polygraph even though polygraphs are unreliable).

For the US Attorney to talk about wanting to do a creditable job was total BS if he in fact did not tell Van Harp of his and his colleague’s contact with Newsweek.

I’m not concerned with whether there was any punishment for the 2002 leaks (even discipline). My point is that if a proper investigation had been done in August 2002 or immediately in January 2003, the leaks (Seikaly’s misdirection) would have stopped. Instead, if I am remembering correctly, leaks continued into June 2003. If the FBI couldn’t identify and be forthright about the leaks, what chance is there they can identify the anthrax mailer? It’s from the same Administration which brought you Condi’s “Who could ever have imagined that they would fly planes into buildings” when no imagination was necessary — just reading the intelligence about past plans and plots.

In an earlier draft of one of Locy’s article, she referred to a source as a senior FBI official. See Hatfill’s opposition to motion to stay pending appeal. So if ordered to name an additional source, I’m not sure who she’ll name.

Given that I think a Hatfill theory was plausible — and just mistaken — I have less difficulty in crediting the good faith of the investigation. It’s only that Mr. Seikaly’s leak and his daughter’s representation of Al-Timimi — the “POI” of the other squad — that could only occur in the inside-the-beltway culture. The media’s silence on the issue is deafening. Inside the beltway (or perhaps in government generally), the civil servants don’t need to care about the governmental mission so long as they land as head of corporate security of a major credit card company or partner at a DC law firm. Director Mueller’s legacy will be judged in part by Amerithrax and its final resolution. I have total faith but I see that the faith is blind. A blind man recently bowled a 300 game, so here’s hoping.


563 posted on 05/09/2008 7:49:05 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
That depends on the relative Hamaker’s constants.

Ah, yes. Your old favorite: Hamaker's constant. The experts I've talked with say there is no way to calculate Hamaker's constant for an organic, living object like a spore. And I certainly couldn't do it. So, any argument that ends up at Hamaker's constant is a dead end argument.

Yes, I know you fantasize that Hamaker's contant would be the same for a spore as for a particle of lactose (or was it corn starch?) but fantasies don't solve scientific questions.

What I'm trying to do it define our exact point of disagreement. Look at it this way:

If you claim you can see city hall from the corner of 6th and main, and I claim you cannot, we could then go to the corner of 6th and main to see who is right.

If we get there and we cannot see city hall, then I am right.

If you then say, well, you can see it from the top of the Blake Building which is on the corner of 6th and main, we can climb up to the top and see. If we can see city hall from there, you would be right AFTER we clarified that you could not really see it from the CORNER of 6th and main but ONLY from the top of a building at that corner.

The argument would be resolved.

The dispute we have over van der Waals forces is similar.

You claim van der Waals forces act between molecules AND particles.

I claim that van der Waals forces act between molecules and between atoms of noble gasses. The interaction between particles is not really between particles, it's between the molecules IN the particles WHEN and at the point WHERE the particles are touching one another.

You claim that van der Waals forces are "universal." My understanding is that they are NOT universal. Since van der Waals forces act only between molecules and atoms of noble gasses, that leaves out such ordinary things as rocks, salts, and metals, which, according to Wikipedia, are composed of atoms or ions, and are not made of molecules.

Particles of gold or aluminum get bound together by metallic bonding, NOT by van der Waals forces.

So, what I'm trying to do is discuss our points of disagreement without getting into a Hamaker's constant dead end. And I'm also trying to do it without you just posting some link where there's something which YOU INTERPRET as proof of your argument, and if anyone disagrees, then you claim they just don't understand science as well as you. That's another dead end.

I'm trying to avoid the dead ends that we've been running into for the years we've been debating.

Comprendo?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

564 posted on 05/09/2008 8:20:38 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK
It would be great if you obtain or find — and then link on your webpage ...

The Toni Locy situation has been endlessly and thoroughly described in the media. I have no reason to spend money to get legal documents via PACER. It wouldn't accomplish anything.

The debate about the science of tiny particles CAN solve something because it's a scientific argument where facts can be determined and points of disagreement can be resolved.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

565 posted on 05/09/2008 8:56:29 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

On appeal, Hatfill theme is that the investigators came under tremendous public pressure to demonstrate progress toward solving the crimes, and that when genuine progress was not achieved, government officials sought to relieve that pressure by gradually making over one hundred leaks of investigative information to the media all suggesting that Hatfill was a murderer. Counsel claims that it made him “a pariah in the field that he chose to go into.” Appellee emphasizes that this case has nothing to do with shining an investigative light on government misdeeds — that was not the nature of the leaks. “The case involves government manipulation of journalists to disseminate “life-shattering” information about an innocent citizen in violation of federal law. Instead of disclosing government wrongdoing, counsel argues, the media ended up concealing governmental wrongdoing.

Now I’ve already overly belabored, perhaps, the point that Hatfill has not yet faced squarely the fact that he was made a pariah first by forging a PhD certificate and repeatedly falsely claiming he had a PhD in gaining access to the ebola virus and obtaining work in a governmental biolevel-4 lab (you know, the kind where you wear a space suit such as described in Preston’s HOT ZONE). Moreover, lying about having a PhD may also have implications for a standing as an MD if he were to seek to become licensed in some state. Any argument that does not address that difficult issue runs the risk that the decision-maker will place undo importance on the information not being disclosed.

I can’t say that the brief convinces on the issue whether Locy did anything wrong. She was just doing her job and had every reason to rely on the solid sources she was relying on. Of course, whether now she should be forced to disclose those sources is a separate and complicated policy question. People can disagree. But I don’t see how anyone can fault her reporting which was very balanced.

Now her performance at deposition was a little more problematic. Counsel argues: “She refused to disclose anything about where the fourth person worked and,in particular, whether that person was affiliated with DOJ. She invoked work product and refused to say whether she had sought waivers. At her second deposition she had just begun to reach out to people — when by then she should have had a firm response, yes or no, to a request for a waiver.

“Locy’s position seems to be that, because her financial means are modest, Hatfill should pay the price though loss of evidence. But why should a party already injured by her sources’ illegal disclosures have to do without relevant evidence so that she can enjoy the luxury of clinging to a legal position the court has rejected? The reality is that it actually is enormously costly to get evidence from reporters, because the reporters typically fight at every step of the process without any intention of complying with any contrary rulings.”

As counsel notes “Locy has it within her power to pay nothing.”

If the busy, timepressed, and underfunded media better understood what was going on in Amerithrax, and had not been misled by years of leaks by people in authoritative position, they would digest that their profession requires that they now expose the wrongdoing that occurred, which is entirely different from initial appearances. Their understanding of a matter should not have to rely solely on the spinning by an agenda-driven government official. That hardly is fulfilling the highest ideals of the Fourth Estate. They should now explore the motivation of the leaker and consider whether it was “personal” such as alleged by Van Harp at deposition.


566 posted on 05/09/2008 9:24:21 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
The experts I've talked with say there is no way to calculate Hamaker's constant for an organic, living object like a spore.

Really? Guess they need to learn about Hamaker's constant and living microorganisms then, don't they.?

http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/149/11/3239?ck=nck

Hamaker constants for micro-organisms interacting with glass surfaces ..... values ranging from 0·56x10-21 to 6·9x10-21 J have been reported (Busscher & Weerkamp, 1987; Rijnaarts et al., 1995; Mafu et al., 1991).

Brown, D.G. and Jaffé, P.R. 2006. "Effects of nonionic surfactants on the cell surface hydrophobicity and apparent Hamaker constant of a Sphingomonas sp." Environ. Sci. Technol., 40(1):195-201.

So apparently scientists routinely use Hamakers constants for bacteria. Perhaps you'd like to give us the names of the "experts" who say otherwise.
567 posted on 05/09/2008 9:36:17 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
My understanding is that they are NOT universal.

Yes - we know. You constantly remind us all here of your level of understanding.

http://www.fyslab.hut.fi/nanomat/PDF%20publications/Deagglomaration%20Osaka%2030082005%20esko.pdf
Powders that consist of particles of micrometer-sized or submicron particles tend to be strongly adhesive, mainly due to omnipresent van der Waals forces.
568 posted on 05/09/2008 9:42:02 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
You claim van der Waals forces act between molecules AND particles.

For the 5 thousandth time - the only type of van der Waals forces relevant to the discussion are the particle-particle variety. Single molecule van der Waals forces are NOT relevant to this discussion.

Read this:

http://www.erpt.org/051Q/leed-01.pdf

Van der Waals forces exist not only between atoms and molecules but also between particles.

Read it again:
Van der Waals forces exist not only between atoms and molecules but also between particles.

One more time:
Van der Waals forces exist not only between atoms and molecules but also between particles.

Got it yet?
569 posted on 05/09/2008 9:50:11 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel; EdLake

Locy on appeal argues that the District Court’s opinion did not address her lack of memory. From the bench, however, the Court did say that, while crediting her good faith, if “I don’t remember” certainly would prove a convenient response by a reporter. Does anyone truly believe she does not know the fourth individual she declined to name? She reports that she had no schedule for throwing notes away but would discard them when her desk came to be cluttered. Those notes, she explains, if they existed at all, would have been discarded before Dr. Hatfill first raised these issues in his Amended Complaint. She was not required to reveal the identity of her confidential sources to her editors. (Since 2004, policies at USA Today have changed.) Now reporters are required to do so. She relied on a wide range of sources, and her sources were undifferentiated — that is, the same sources that might advise her on the subject of terrorism generally might comment on the Hatfill matter. She always contacted Hatfill’s representatives before writing a story — this is a lesson NYT’s NK should have followed before writing his early July 2002 column, if not before. She notes that Hatfill’s counsel complimented the balance of her coverage and lamented the lack of balance of some other coverage by others. She emphasizes that at her second deposition, counsel never asked her who gave her info about Hatfill specifically but was asking about who gave her information about anthrax generally.

She says the balance between the public’s need to know about terrorism and Hatfill’s rights, the balance tips against compelled disclosure.

I’m not sure I see why. I don’t see why prosecutors could not have provided information about leads they were pursuing, reasons for searches, etc., without having to do it on the condition of anonymity. We expect them to pursue leads. We assume a search, such as the search of several dozen scientists, is part of the investigation.
It is only when you have anonymous hyped stories that the investigation becomes less transparent, not more transparent. More things should be said in front of a podium, and less spun by anonymous senior officials obfuscating the source. Then, for example, when it turns out that gloves (see WP story) were not in fact found — or traces of anthrax were not in fact found — we know who to fault. We will know who to poke fun of when the “glove box” turns out to be a minnow trap. A minnow trap is a lot like being named a “person of interest”. The person can swim in but can’t swim out.

It will be very anticlimactic if and when Ms. Locy is ordered to name the source (with no further stay). We likely will learn a name. It will not at all surprise us. Nothing much will have been advanced either in the Hatfill suit or in the public’s understanding of Amerthrax. Like Ed’s discussion of the Hamaker constant, the Hatfill civil litigation and these First Amendment issues shed no light on the solution of Amerithrax.


570 posted on 05/09/2008 9:58:39 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

AP is reporting on the oral argument that the federal appeals court “appears reluctant to uphold a contempt order.”

“Appellate judges on Friday questioned whether the order went too far or whether Hatfill even needs the information.”

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvCt5W7XdTkiiE06HsUTwoBn1EEAD90I7LM8D

For a discussion of all the aspects of a “Hatfill Theory,” see the last sections at
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com


571 posted on 05/09/2008 10:19:50 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Van der Waals forces exist not only between atoms and molecules but also between particles.

So, instead of discussing this subject, you are doing as I figured you would: You post a link to an article which YOU INTERPRET as confirming your beliefs, and you consider anyone who does not INTERPRET that article the same way as having no scientific understanding. Is that about it?

I showed how that phrase in that article is misleading. Van der Waals forces act between molecules, and ONLY act between particles when the particles touch and the molecules can interact.

Finding a phrase in a paper that you can INTERPRET to mean otherwise, doesn't change anything. I can find a hundred articles where it says that van der Waals forces act between molecules and atoms of noble gasses.

You have this misconception about van der Waals forces. You have this conspiracy theory about the attack anthrax being coated. The basis for your conspiracy theory is your misconception about van der Waals forces. And you confirm your misconception by claiming that anyone who does not believe as you believe doesn't understand science.

What about van der Waals forces and particles of gold and aluminum? Are you going to just ignore that question?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

572 posted on 05/09/2008 10:30:16 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Van der Waals forces exist not only between atoms and molecules but also between particles.

If van der Waals forces work between particles in a way other than the way I describe, why don't you explain to us exactly HOW you believe van der Waals forces act between particles?

Or is a quote from an article all you know?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

573 posted on 05/09/2008 11:08:22 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
I can find a hundred articles where it says that van der Waals forces act between molecules and atoms of noble gasses.

I'm sure you can - and I find hundreds of articles on basket weaving - which is about as relevant as molecules, atoms and noble gases are to anthrax spores. I'm sorry that particle van der Waals forces are firmly established in science - I realize it upsets you a lot.

And what about gold and aluminum? Are you going to claim they break the laws of physics as well?
574 posted on 05/09/2008 11:11:09 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
If van der Waals forces work between particles in a way other than the way I describe, why don't you explain to us exactly HOW you believe van der Waals forces act between particles?

The explanations are all in the paper I provided. All particles of every substance have a Hamaker constant - it varies with material. The relevant adhesion forces can be calculated knowing the Hamaker constant and the radius of the particle. The adhesion forces have their physical origin in spontaneous fluctuating dipoles at the surface of the particle.
575 posted on 05/09/2008 11:17:55 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“You’ve got enough to go to trial. You think you can win,” Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg told Hatfill’s lawyer. “Why is more evidence critical to the case? That seems to be a contradiction.”

***

“I think you have an argument that the court didn’t do the necessary balance,” Judge Judith W. Rogers said.

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the third member on the panel, expressed skepticism that Locy had a constitutional right not to identify her sources. But he said she had a very strong case under a more general legal principle, known as common law.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-05-09-locy-appeal_N.htm

Comment: Nothing would prevent the appellate court from narrowing the District Court’s ruling and ordering Locy to compel the name of the fourth source. Courts on Appeal commonly engage in balancing and line-drawing when faced with an overbroad ruling by a court below.


576 posted on 05/09/2008 11:23:23 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

ABC -

The three-judge panel seemed skeptical of Locy’s attorney’s claims that she couldn’t remember which of her sources had provided information on Hatfill. The judges said it was clear from previous hearings that she knew about four or five people who were the sources.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4823142&page=2


577 posted on 05/09/2008 1:28:23 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Will the judges annouce their decision today?

If they announce that she needs to pay the fines, will she file another emergency appeal with a higher court?


578 posted on 05/09/2008 1:34:25 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=6743

“[Court of Appeals judge] Kavanaugh contended that leaving the existence of the privilege up to the “vagaries of a balancing test” applied by a “random district court judge” would do little to encourage and protect the communications between sources and journalists. 

He added that there has been a material change from the time the Supreme Court rejected an absolute common law privilege in the early 1970s: 49 states have established either legislative or judicial rules protecting reporters from subpoenas. Given that the court looks to the states for guidance when establishing common law evidentiary privileges, that change could indicate that the current landscape demands an absolute privilege.

Leaving the courthouse, Locy said that she was “encouraged” by the morning’s hearing.

“I just wanted to get my day in court,” Locy ... said, adding that she thought the judges asked good questions during the oral argument.


579 posted on 05/09/2008 2:05:22 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

In contrast to Ed’s candidate who he imagined to be a right-winger, but who along with his wife, was a staunch Gore supporter and focused on green issues, the documentary evidence shows that Ayman Zawahiri, as part of his weaponization of anthrax for use against US targets, sought to infiltrate US and UK biodefense establishment.

Among the supporters of these militant islamists were people like US scientist Ali Al-Timimi and Pakistan scientist Rauf Ahmad who blended into society and were available to act when another part of the network requested it. Two letters — one typed and an earlier handwritten one — written by a scientist named Rauf Ahmad detailed his efforts to obtain a pathogenic strain of anthrax. He attended conferences on anthrax and dangerous pathogens such as one in September 2000 at the University of Plymouth cosponsored by DERA, the UK Defense Evaluation and Research Agency. A handwritten letter from 1999 is written on the letterhead of the oldest microbiology society in Great Britain. The 1999 documents seized in Afghanistan by US forces by Rauf describe the author’s visit to the special confidential room at the BL-3 facility where 1000s of pathogenic cultures were kept; his consultation with other scientists on some of technical problems associated with weaponizing anthrax; the bioreactor and laminar flows to be used in Al Qaeda’s anthrax lab; a conference he attended on dangerous pathogens cosponsored by UK’s Porton Down and Society for Applied Microbiology , and the need for vaccination and containment. Rauf had arranged to take a lengthy post-doc leave from his employer and was grousing that what the employer would be paying during that 12-month period was inadequate. Malaysian Yazid Sufaat, who told his wife he was working for a Taliban medical brigade, got the job instead of Rauf.

I have uploaded a scanned copy of a typed memo reporting on a lab visit, which included tour of a BioLevel 3 facility, where there were 1000s of pathogenic samples. The memo mentioned the pending paperwork relating to export of the pathogens. The documents were provided to me by the Defense Intelligence Agency (”DIA”) under the Freedom of Information Act. I also have uploaded a copy of earlier correspondence between Rauf Ahmad and Dr. Zawahiri from before the lab visit described in the typed memo. The handwritten letter was reporting on a different, earlier visit where the anthrax had been nonpathogenic. Finally, on the same linked page, there are handwritten notes about the plan to use non-governmental-organizations (NGOs), technical institutes and medical labs as cover for aspects of the work, and training requirements for the various personnel at the lab in Afghanistan.

Ali Al-Timimi was a celebrated speaker with the Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”). I drove by the charity’s spin-off, Help The Needy, each day — it was about a mile away from me in Syracuse. Al-Timimi was a graduate student in the same building where famed Russian bioweapon Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID head Charles Bailey worked at George Mason University. The three worked at the secure facility at Discovery Hall at the Prince William 2 campus. Dr. Alibek and Dr. Bailey headed a biodefense program funded by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (”DARPA”). Al-Timimi had a top security clearance and had worked for SRA International doing mathematical support work for the Navy. In 2000 and 2001, Timimi was a graduate student in computational sciences. His field was bioinformatics. Al-Timimi tended to travel to give speeches on interpretation of the koran only during semester breaks. Al-Timimi spoke in very moderate, measured tones in the UK, Canada, and Australia — once even in China. He spoke against feminism, about the unfavorable treatment of islam in the secular media, about signs of the coming day of judgment, the correct interpretation of the koran and hadiths, and the destruction of the Buddha statutes by the Taliban. Locally, he spoke regularly at the Falls Church center that also housed offices of the charity, the Muslim World League. Timimi was associated with the charity Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”), based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The group had a spin-off in Syracuse focused on Iraq, called Help The Needy. Ali’s colleague from the small DC-based Society for Adherence to the Sunnah, Idris Palmer, served as Vice-President. Al-Timimi’s speeches are widely distributed on the internet and tend to focus on religious rather than political issues.

A district court judge would say that his later speeches tended to favor violent jihad. After 9/11, they were removed from the website of the Center he had founded. The night of 9/11, he got in a heated debate with some colleagues. He said while islamically impermissible, the targeting of civilians was not impermissible where they were used as a shield. Others thought that it was reckless to say that so soon after the 9/11 attack when emotions were so inflamed. Years earlier, the blind sheik’s son, Mohammed Abdel-Rahman was scheduled to come from Afghanistan to speak at the IANA 1993 conference alongside Ali Al-Timimi and former EIJ member Gamal Sultan. He spoke alongside the blind sheik’s son again in 1996, the year Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War against the United States. In July and August 2001, Al-Timimi spoke in Toronto and London alongside “911 imam” Awlaki and WTC 1993 “unindicted co-conspirator” Bilal Philips.


580 posted on 05/09/2008 2:19:57 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Hamaker constants for micro-organisms interacting with glass surfaces ..... values ranging from

If you have to distort things to make your point, it just shows that your point is probably invalid. Look at the part you cut out:

Hamaker constants for micro-organisms interacting with glass surfaces are not well known and values ranging from 0·56x10-21 to 6·9x10-21 J have been reported (Busscher & Weerkamp, ...

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

581 posted on 05/09/2008 2:21:39 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
The adhesion forces have their physical origin in spontaneous fluctuating dipoles at the surface of the particle.

WHAT fluctuating dipoles?

Are you saying that all particles have fluctuating dipoles?

Or are you acknowledging that the "physical origin" of van der Waals forces is the molecules within the particle? What if the molecules do not HAVE fluctuating dipoles? Do the substances you constantly refer to -- lactose and corn starch -- have fluctuating dipoles?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

582 posted on 05/09/2008 2:30:14 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
And what about gold and aluminum? Are you going to claim they break the laws of physics as well?

I've never said anything breaks the laws of physics. If you have to distort things to make a point, it just proves that your point is probably invalid.

I said,

Particles of gold or aluminum get bound together by metallic bonding, NOT by van der Waals forces.

Metallic bonding and van der Waals forces operate VERY differently.

Yawn. Byebye.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

583 posted on 05/09/2008 2:45:50 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Eric Lichtblau and Philip Shenon, “From Places Unexpected, Support for the Press,” New York Times, May 10, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/washington/10shield.html?ref=us


584 posted on 05/09/2008 8:36:53 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“Toni Locy’s ‘Day in Court’ POGO Project On Government Oversight

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2008/05/toni-locys-day.html


585 posted on 05/10/2008 5:21:34 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

Here is a new webposting re anthrax. It counsels that it be left to experts which is also what a memo from Ayman to military commander Atef in Spring 1999 recommended.

http://assadleon.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/jihad-from-small-arms-to-wmds/

If someone speaks Arabic, and the writing around the anthrax letter and around the petri dish are readable, I would be interested in a translation.

It violates the hadiths to use poison but there is no mistaking Ayman’s plans to use experts and the cover of NGOs and universities as cover to weaponize anthrax.

George Tenet in his May 2007 In the Center of the Storm says: “Al-Qa’ida spared no effort in its attempt to obtain biological weapons. In 1999, al-Zawahiri had recruited another scientist, Pakistani national Rauf Ahmad, to set up a small lab in Khandahar, Afghanistan, to house the biological weapons effort. In December 2001, a sharp WMD analyst at CIA found the initial lead on which we would pull and, ultimately, unravel the al-Qa’ida anthrax networks. We were able to identify Rauf Ahmad from letters he had written to Ayman al-Zawahiri. ... We located Rauf Ahmad’s lab in Afghanistan. We identified the building in Khandahar where Sufaat claimed he isolated anthrax. We mounted operations that resulted in the arrests and detentions of anthrax operatives in several countries.” [Ed’s argument on the issue of the hijacker’s leg lesion overlooks the fact that the hijacker had just come from Kandahar a few days earlier].

Delivering the James Smart Lecture, entitled “Global Terrorism: are we meeting the challenge?” at the headquarters of the City of London Police, Ms. Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, said: “Western security services have uncovered networks of individuals, sympathetic to the aims of al-Qa’ida, that blend into society, individuals who live normal, routine lives until called upon for specific tasks by another part of the network.” She concluded: “The threats of chemical, biological and radiological and suicide attacks require new responses and the Government alone will not achieve all of it; industry and even the public must take greater responsibility for their own security.”

In 1999, a scientist from Porton Down had reported to sfam members on a conference in Taos, New Mexico in August that included a talk by Tim Read, (TIGR, Rockville, USA) and concerned the whole genome sequencing of the Bacillus anthracis Ames strain. The Ames strain may have been a mystery to many after the Fall 2001 mailings, but not to motivated Society for Applied Microbiology (”SFAM”) members, one of whom was part of Ayman Zawahiri’s “Project Zabadi.”

The First European Dangerous Pathogens Conference” (held in Winchester), at the September 1999 conference, the lecture theater only averaged about 75 at peak times by his head count. There had been a problem of defining “dangerous pathogen” and a “disappointing representation from important institutions in the world of hazard levels 3 and 4 organisms.” Papers included a summary of plague in Madagascar and another on the outbreak management of hemorrhagic fevers. Dr Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University presented a paper on multilocus VNTR typing, for example, of Bacillus anthracis and Yersinia pestis. There were more than the usual no-show presenters and fill-in speakers. Organizers looked forward to a second, fully international conference in 2000 focused on the ever increasing problems surrounding hazard levels 3 and 4 organisms and aimed at international agreement on the related issues.

The Sunday at the start of the Organization of the Dangerous Pathogens meeting in September 2000 was gloomy. Planning had proved even more difficult than the International Conference on anthrax also held at the University of Plymouth, in September 1998. The overseas delegates included a sizable contingent from Russia. The organizers needed to address many thorny issues regarding who could attend. One of the scientists in attendance was Rauf Ahmad. The Washington Post reports: “The tall, thin and bespectacled scientist held a doctorate in microbiology but specialized in food production, according to U.S. officials familiar with the case.” Les Baillie the head of the biodefense technologies group at Porton Down ran the scientific program. Many of the delegates took an evening cruise round Plymouth harbour — the cold kept most from staying out on the deck. Later attendees visited the National Marine Aquarium — with a reception in view of a large tankful of sharks. Addresses include presentations on plagues of antiquity, showing how dangerous infectious diseases had a profound that they changed the course of history. Titles include “Magna pestilencia - Black Breath, Black Rats, Black Death”, “From Flanders to Glanders,” as well as talks on influenza, typhoid and cholera. The conference was co-sponsored by DERA, the UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.

Les Baillie of Porton Down gave a presentation titled, “Bacillus anthracis: a bug with attitude!” He argued that anthrax was a likely pathogen to be used by terrorists. As described at the time by Phil Hanna of University of Michigan Medical School on the sfam webpage, Baillie “presented a comprehensive overview of this model pathogen, describing its unique biology and specialized molecular mechanisms for pathogenesis and high virulence. He went on to describe modern approaches to exploit new bioinformatics for the development of potential medical counter measures to this deadly pathogen.” Bioinformatics was the field that Ali Al-Timimi, who had a security clearance for some government work and who had done work for the Navy, would enter by 2000 at George Mason University in Virginia.

Despite the cold and the sharks, amidst all the camaraderie and bonhomie no one suspected that despite the best efforts, a predator was on board — on a coldly calculated mission to obtain a pathogenic anthrax strain. The conference organizer Peter Turnbull had received funding from the British defense ministry but not from public health authorities, who thought anthrax too obscure to warrant the funding. By 2001, sponsorship of the conference was assumed by USAMRIID.

According to the Pakistan press, a scientist named Rauf Ahmad was picked up in December 2001 by the CIA in Karachi. The most recent of the correspondence reportedly dates back to the summer and fall of 1999. Even if Rauf Ahmad cooperated with the CIA, he apparently could only confirm the depth of Zawahiri’s interest in weaponizing anthrax and provided no “smoking gun” concerning the identity of those responsible for the anthrax mailings in the Fall 2001. His only connection with SFAM was a member of the society — he was not an employee. The Pakistan ISI, according to the Washington Post article in October 2006, stopped cooperating in regard to Rauf Ahmad in 2003.

I have uploaded scanned copies of some 1999 documents seized in Afghanistan by US forces describing the author’s visit to the special confidential room at the BL-3 facility where 1000s of pathogenic cultures were kept; his consultation with other scientists on some of technical problems associated with weaponizing anthrax; the bioreactor and laminar flows to be used in Al Qaeda’s anthrax lab; and the need for vaccination and containment. He explained that the lab director noted that he would have to take a short training course at the BL-3 lab for handling dangerous pathogens. Rauf Ahmad explained that his employer’s offer of pay during a 12-month post-doc sabbatical was wholly inadequate and was looking to Ayman to make up the difference. After an unacceptably low pay for the first 8 months, there would be no pay for last 4 months and there would be a service break. He had noted that he only had a limited time to avail himself of the post-doc sabbatical.

I also have uploaded a handwritten copy of earlier correspondence from before the lab visit described in the typed memo. The Defense Intelligence Agency provided the documents to me, along with 100+ pages more, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (”FOIA”). It turns out you just have to ask nice. 90 of the 100 pages are the photocopies of journal articles and disease handbook excerpts.

The Post, in an exclusive groundbreaking investigative report, recounts that the FBI’s New York office took the lead U.S. role — and its agents worked closely with the CIA and bureau officials in Pakistan in interrogating Rauf. Though not formally charged with any crimes, Rauf agreed to questioning. While the US media focused on the spectacle of bloodhounds alerting to Dr. Steve Hatfill and the draining of Maryland ponds, this former Al Qaeda anthrax operative provided useful leads. But problems began when the U.S. officials sought to pursue criminal charges, including possible indictment and prosecution in the United States. In earlier cases, such as the othopedic surgeon Dr. Amer Aziz who treated Bin Laden in the Fall of 2001, the Pakistani government angered the Pakistani public when it sought to prosecute professionals for alleged ties to al-Qaeda. In the case of Amer Aziz, hundreds of doctors, engineers and lawyers took to the streets to demand his release. In 2003, the Pakistanis shut off U.S. access to Rauf. I had noticed the reporting of his arrest in a press article in December 2002 (I think) about the raid of a compound of doctors named Khawaja and published it on my website. According to Pakistani officials, there was not enough evidence showing that he actually succeeded in providing al-Qaeda with something useful. The CIA basically viewed the lead as a dead end. Since then, the Post reports, Rauf has been allowed to return to his normal life. Attempts by the Post to contact Rauf in Lahore were unsuccessful. Initially the government agency had said an interview would be possible but then backpedaled.

“He was detained for questioning, and later the courts determined there was not sufficient evidence to continue detaining him,” Pakistan’s information minister told the Post. “If there was evidence that proved his role beyond a shadow of a doubt, we would have acted on it. But that kind of evidence was not available.” This statement is odd given the documentary evidence that Rauf Ahmad was part of a conspiracy to obtain the anthrax under false pretenses and then weaponize it for Al Qaeda.

Yazid Sufaat got the job handling things at the lab instead of Rauf Ahmad. More importantly, Zawahiri, if keeping with his past experience, would have kept things strictly compartmentalized — leaving the Amerithrax Task Force much to do.

http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com


586 posted on 05/10/2008 7:01:49 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
All particles of every substance have a Hamaker constant - it varies with material. The relevant adhesion forces can be calculated knowing the Hamaker constant and the radius of the particle.

Here's the question that may lead to all the answers:

Why don't the silica particles stick to each other?

If tiny particles -- such as spores -- must be "weaponized" to keep them from sticking together, and if the "weaponization" process involves the use of tiny particles of silica, what prevents the tiny silica particles from sticking to other tiny silica particles?

When making simulants at Dugway, they pour fumed silica into the ball mill? How come fumed silica particles can be poured? How come the tiny particles aren't one big CLUMP of silica?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

587 posted on 05/10/2008 7:31:22 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

They do. That’s why it’s difficult to process these coated powders.
http://web.njit.edu/~dave/Dry-Coating-Flow.pdf
However, most flow agents like fumed silica consist of very fine particles that have a strong tendency to form agglomerates.

Don’t you read further than the first 3 words of any article?


588 posted on 05/10/2008 8:06:15 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“Particles of gold or aluminum get bound together by metallic bonding, NOT by van der Waals forces.”

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4161826.html

Finally divided aluminum metal particles, especially in the range of from 2 to 5 micrometers tend to agglomerate and cake to such an extent that their free-flow characteristics are severely impaired. The free-flow characteristic of aluminum powders is necessary in order to improve its dispersibility in the industrial processes which find it to be a value. The powder particles tend to agglomerate by weak interaction in order to form clusters which usually exhibit a size greater than 35 micrometers. Interactions of this type arise from non-specific attractive forces which can usually be described in terms of van der Waals forces and electrostatic attraction. The aggregation of aluminum particles may also involve small contributions from metallic as well as hydrogen bonds. These attractive forces which exist between aluminum particles can be described by the following relationship: F=A(d 1 d 2 /d 1 -d 2 ) (1)

Where A is a constant independent of the dimensions of the spherical particles and d 1 and d 2 represent the diameters of the 2 solid spheres. The letter A encompasses the number of attracting atoms on the spheres, the van der Waals constant, and the distance between the centers of the surface molecules or atoms of the two spheres. Electrostatic forces are considered to be a minimum in this size range. In similar studies, electrostatic contributions were found to be less than 9 percent.

Although molecular or van der Waals forces are generally considered to be weak forces, they can nonetheless be considerable between micrometer sized particles at very short distances. Evidence of this is provided by the observation that aluminum powder dispensed from evacuated canisters exhibits a greater agglomerative tendancy than powder that has not been subjected to vacuum treatment. It was theorized, therefore, that the removal of naturally adsorbed atmospheric gases enhances interparticle attraction by permitting closer contact.


589 posted on 05/10/2008 8:24:32 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
They do.

Yet, they don't. When fumed silica is mixed with spores, the particles of fumed silica make the powder "slippery" or "flowable." They do not turn the powder into a big clump.

You endlessly find words in papers which you can INTERPRET as support for your argument, but your interpretations do not explain anything.

Your interpretation says that you cannot pour fumed silica from a canister because the fumed silica will be one big clump bound together due to van der Waals forces. Your "proof" is an article which says: "most flow agents like fumed silica consist of very fine particles that have a strong tendency to form agglomerates."

So, you are claiming what is done every day cannot be done because you can twist a phrase in an article to "prove" it can't be done.

Instead of finding phrases in articles which you can twist to mean anything you want, why not just discuss the science?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

590 posted on 05/10/2008 8:42:44 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

In early September 1999, the London Sunday Times reported that London Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad, a friend of Abu Hamza, the mullah with metal claws for hands, in an open letter read out in mosques across Britain and published on the internet, called on Osama Bin Laden to use biological weapons against America and its allies. Sheik Omar Bakri posted his open letter to Bin Laden on his own website and read in mosques in Sheffield, Bradford, Leicester and London. When US officials complained, the letter was taken off the internet. “Using any biological weapons in self-defence is, in Islam, permissible, and I believe that we are currently operating under a defensive jihad. Obviously, we regret what could happen to innocent people, but there are always people who are war casualties or, if you like, victims of war.” He recommends that biological weapons be used against the “occupiers” of holy lands.

Ed was not aware of the article and did not link it.

In 1998, Bin Laden sent a fax from Afghanistan to a Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, a London-based Muslim imam who dubs himself the “mouth, eyes, and ears of Osama bin Laden.” Bakri publicly releases what he calls bin Laden’s four specific objectives for a holy war against the US. The instruction reads, “Bring down their airliners. Prevent the safe passage of their ships. Occupy their embassies. Force the closure of their companies and banks.” The Los Angeles Times noted in October 2001 that “Bin Laden hasn’t been shy about sharing his game plan.” [Los Angeles Times, 10/14/2001] But the same notice was given relating to the planned use of anthrax.

“Muslim Calls for Bio-Weapon Holy War.” Sunday Times , September 5, 1999
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/callforbioholywa.html

He thus did not know to be on the look-out for someone infiltrating the UK biodefense establishment.

Undated typed correspondence from Pakistan scientist Rauf Ahmad to Ayman Zawahiri regarding the weaponizination of anthrax
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze43v8m/letters.html


591 posted on 05/10/2008 8:57:25 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
The powder particles tend to agglomerate by weak interaction in order to form clusters which usually exhibit a size greater than 35 micrometers. Interactions of this type arise from non-specific attractive forces which can usually be described in terms of van der Waals forces and electrostatic attraction. The aggregation of aluminum particles may also involve small contributions from metallic as well as hydrogen bonds.

Again you use some words in some article to "prove" your case, when the article doesn't really prove anything.

Firstly, the article SAYS that other forces also contribute, including metallic bonding.

Secondly, the particles being discussed are a thousand times smaller than a spore and are made from a single substance.

Thirdly, and most importantly, as with all such articles, they are the words of a single person or small group of people. They are not the "definitive word" on the subject. People (a term which includes scientists) are prone to writing what they believe instead of what is scientifically known.

The Aerosol Science article is a prime example. Top experts from the CDC and Dugway believed total nonsense from The Washington Post that there was fumed silica in the attack anthrax. They had no direct knowledge of the attack anthrax, they just assumed that, because it was in The Washington Post, it must be true.

And you assumed that they knew what they were talking about when they talked about the attack spores being coated with fumed silica because it fitted with your beliefs.

You've shown me dozens of articles and papers where scientists blindly accepted the total crap a reporter wrote in Science Magazine because, if it was in Science Magazine, it must be true. But we know that that same reporter wrote prior articles that were PROVEN to be total crap. And the editor of Science Magazine didn't even consider the article to be a scientific article based upon original research, it was merely a reporter's OPINION.

So, finding phrases in some scientific paper that you can twist and claim is "gospel" is just a bulls**ter's way of avoiding discussing the science.

If you undertand the subject, you can explain the subject. If you need to find phrases in some paper that you can twist to prove your beliefs, it just proves that you do not understand the subject.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

592 posted on 05/10/2008 9:04:14 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

Ed similarly fails to link (or be informed about) the articles relating to the FBI’s suspicions relating to another “anthrax weapons suspect” — this one who infiltrated US biodefense.

Intelligence early on showed that Zawahiri’s efforts extended not only to the UK but to the US. In October or November 2001, Al Qaeda’s spokesman al-Kuwaiti drafted a letter to the Administration threatening that they would use their biological weapons if the US did not stop their financial and military support for Israel and the muslim regimes. The letter from Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Kuwaiti outlined the next attack against the Americans and issued a statement to the Americans to let them know of their fighters’ readiness to kill hundreds of thousands with their nuclear and biological arsenal. The letter has been declassified and cleared for release (and was released by West Point Combating Terrorism Center in 2006).

Your Brother Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Kuwaiti; 1- Announcing publicly the next attack.2- Announcing publicly that we gave some groups the green light to move.3- The groups that are present in America and Europe are above suspicion. 4- We obtain our intelligence information from your government and intelligence agencies.5- The statement/letter should be directed to the American people.A- There is no animosity between us. You involved yourselves in this battle. The war is between us and the Jews. You interfered in our countries and influenced our governments to strike against the Moslems.

If the American people are ready to die as we are ready to die, then our combat groups along with our military, nuclear, and biological equipment will kill hundreds of thousands of people we don’t wish to fight. ***”


593 posted on 05/10/2008 9:05:32 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“Secondly, the particles being discussed are a thousand times smaller than a spore and are made from a single substance.”

1 micrometer = 1 micron = size of a spore

You asked about aluminum (a single substance) in the first place.


594 posted on 05/10/2008 9:10:18 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4161826.html

How many times has the definition of van der Waals forces changed since that patent was applied for in 1979? How do you know what definition they were using? From Wikipedia

In physical chemistry, the name van der Waals force refers to the attractive or repulsive forces between molecules (or between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent bonds or to the electrostatic interaction of ions with one another or with neutral molecules.[1] The term includes:

* dipole–dipole forces

* dipole-induced dipole forces

* London (instantaneous induced dipole-induced dipole) forces

It is also sometimes used loosely as a synonym for the totality of intermolecular forces.

....

..some texts mean by the van der Waals force the totality of forces (including repulsion), others mean all the attractive forces (and then sometimes distinguish van der Waals-Keesom, van der Waals-Debye, and van der Waals-London), and, finally some use the term "van der Waals force" solely as a synonym for the London/dispersion force. So, if you come across the term "van der Waals force", it is important to ascertain to which school of thought the author belongs.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

595 posted on 05/10/2008 9:19:28 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

So how do you go about identifying a mole with a connection to USAMRIID?

    Let’s start with the usual suspects. Raymond Zilinskas, who was researching a history of the Soviet bioweapons program, told The Baltimore Sun a couple years ago that “his sources now say that Soviet intelligence routinely obtained details of work at USAMRIID that went beyond the descriptions in scientific journals.” The Sun quoted him saying: “It was clear there was somebody at Fort Detrick” who worked for Soviet intelligence. Alexander Y. Kouzminov, a biophysicist who says he once worked for the KGB, had first made the claim in a book, Biological Espionage: Special Operations of the Soviet and Russian Foreign Intelligence Services in the West. Initially, Dr. Zilinskas had dismissed the memoir because the Russian had made separate fanciful inferences about the US program being offensive and some bizarre specific claims unrelated to infiltration of the US program.

     The Sun article explained that then “another former Soviet scientist told The Sun that his lab routinely received dangerous pathogens and other materials from Western labs through a clandestine channel like the one Kouzminov described.” A second unnamed “U.S. arms control specialist” told the Sun he had independent evidence of a Soviet spy at Fort Detrick.”

     The Baltimore Sun, in the 2006 article, also relied on Serguei Popov, who was “a scientist once based in a Soviet bioweapons lab in Obolensk, south of Moscow.” Dr. Popov “said that by the early 1980s his colleagues had obtained at least two strains of anthrax commonly studied in Detrick and affiliated labs. They included the Ames strain, first identified at Detrick in the early 1980s.” Ames was used for testing U.S. military vaccines and was the strain used in the 2001 anthrax letters that killed five people and infected 23 in the U.S. Dr. Popov is now at George Mason University’s National Center for Biodefense and Infectious Disease at in Fairfax, Va. “If you wanted ’special materials,’ you had to fill out a request,” he said. “And, essentially, those materials were provided. How and by whom, I can’t say.” One colleague, Popov told the Sun, used this “special materials” program to obtain a strain of Yersinia pestis, a plague bacterium being studied in a Western lab. But he didn’t know whether that particular germ came from Ft. Detrick. Former KGB operative and author Kouzminov says the KGB wanted specific items from Western labs — including Detrick — that were closely held and were willing to pay for the privilege. The Soviets also wanted the aerosol powders U.S. scientists developed for testing during vaccine tests.

     Raymond Zilinskas, the bioweapons expert with the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and two colleagues wrote a scathing review of Biological Espionage in Nature, a British scientific journal. But Zilinskas later told The Sun “that his sources now say that Soviet intelligence routinely obtained details of work at USAMRIID that went beyond the descriptions in scientific journals.”

     Expert William C. Patrick III, a retired Ft Detrick bioweapons expert, and famed Russian bioweaponeer Ken Alibek agree. Patrick’s suspicions arose when he debriefed defector Alibek in the early 1990s. Alibek emigrated to the U.S. upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991. Patrick and Alibek both recognized that the Soviet and American programs had moved in a curious lock step during the 1950s and ’60s. “Anything we discovered of any import, they would have discovered and would have in their program in six months,” Patrick told the Sun. After his talks with Alibek ended, he told the Sun: “For the next two weeks I tried to think, ‘Who the hell are the spies at Detrick?’”

     Both former Russian bioweaponeers Ken Alibek and Serge Popov worked with Ali Al-Timimi at George Mason University. Dr. Al-Timimi has been convicted of sedition and sentenced to life plus 70 years. Popov and Alibek worked at the Center for Biodefense funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (”DARPA”). At one point, Al-Timimi worked not much more than 15 feet from both Dr. Alibek and former USAMRIID head Charles Bailey, who has been a prolific author and listed on a number of publications involving the virulent Ames strain. Neither Dr. Alibek nor Dr. Popov knew Ali to ever have worked on a biodefense project. He had a high security clearance for some work for the government, involving mathematical support work for the Navy, but no one seems to be able or willing to say what it involved. In the Fall of 2006, the Washington Post reported that when they raided his townhouse in late February 2003, two weeks after the capture of the son of blind sheik Abdel-Rahman, they suspected Al-Timimi of being somehow involved in the anthrax mailings. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman was on Al Qaeda’s 3-man WMD committee and had spoken alongside Ali Al-Timimi at conferences of the Islamic Assembly of North America in 1993 and 1996. Years ago Ken told me had known Ali was a hardliner. More recently, Ken described Ali to me as a “fanatic.” But at the same time everyone would agree he did not talk politics or religion to his colleagues and was very moderate in his demeanor.

     Ali Al-Timimi is a Salafist and supporter of the jihadists who infiltrated US biodefense establishment.


596 posted on 05/10/2008 9:21:00 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
1 micrometer = 1 micron = size of a spore

Right. My mistake. Sorry. I'd just been reading about particles in the nanometer range.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

597 posted on 05/10/2008 9:23:06 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

    Ali Al-Timimi worked at George Mason University’s Discovery Hall throughout 2000 and 2002 period. The Mason Gazette in “Mason to Pursue Advanced Biodefense Research” on November 17, 2000 had announced: “The School of Computational Sciences (SCS) and Advanced Biosystems, Inc., a subsidiary of Hadron, Inc., of Alexandria, are pursuing a collaborative program at the Prince William Campus to enhance research and educational objectives in biodefense research. The article noted that the program was funded primarily by a grant awarded to Advanced Biosystems from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

        Instead of starting a center from scratch, GMU chose to join forces with Dr. Alibek and Dr. Bailey’s existing research firm, Hadron Advanced Biosystems Inc. Hadron was already working under contract for the federal government, having received funding from DARPA. Dr. Alibek told the Washington Post that he and Bailey had spent their careers studying an issue that only recently grabbed the country’s attention, after the anthrax mailings the previous fall. Dr. Bailey and Alibek met in 1991, when a delegation of Soviet scientists visited the USAMRIID at Ft. Detrick. Dr. Bailey explained that the purpose of the tour was to show the Soviets that the US was not developing offensive biological weapons. Bailey said he tried to engage Alibek in conversation but Alibek remained aloof. Alibek, for his part, explains that he was suspicious of this American smiling so broadly at him. A year later, Alibek would defect to the US and reveal an illegal biological program in the Soviet Union of a staggering scope. Alibek says that one reason he defected was that he realized that the Soviet intelligence was wrong — that the US research was in fact only defensive.

        Former USAMRIID Deputy Commander and Acting Commander Ames researcher Bailey coinvented, with Ken Alibek, the process to treat cell culture with hydrophobic silicon dioxide so as to permit greater concentration upon drying. He was in Room 156B of GMU’s Discovery Hall at the Center for Biodefense. The patent application was filed March 14, 2001. Rm 154A was Victor Morozov’s room number when he first assumed Timimi’s phone number in 2004 (and before he moved to the newly constructed Bull Run Hall). Morozov was the co-inventor with Dr. Bailey of the related cell culture process under which the silica was removed from the spore surface.

        One ATCC former employee felt so strongly about lax security there the scientist called me out of the blue and said that the public was overlooking the patent repository as a possible source of the Ames strain. ATCC does not deny they had virulent Ames in their patent repository pre 9/11 (as distinguished from their online catalog). The spokesperson emailed me: “As a matter of policy, ATCC does not disclose information on the contents of its patent depository.”

        George Mason University, Department Listings, accessed August 17, 2003, shows that the National Center For Biodefense and Center for Biomedical Genomics had the same mail stop (MS 4ES). The most famed bioweaponeer in the world was not far from this sheik urging violent jihad in an apocalyptic struggle between religions. Dr. Alibek’s office was Rm. 156D in Prince William 2. The groups both shared the same department fax of 993-4288. Dr. Alibek advises me he had seen him several times in the corridors of GMU and was told that he was a religious muslim hard-liner but knew nothing of his activities. At one point, Timimi’s mail drop was MSN 4D7.

Charles Bailey at 3-4271 was the former head of USAMRIID and joined the Center in April 2001. He continued to do research with Ames after 9/11. Dr. Alibek reports that shortly after the mailings, he wrote FBI Director Mueller and offered his services but was advised that they already had assembled a large group. A 2004 report describes research done by Dr. Alibek and his colleagues using Delta Ames obtained from NIH for a research project done for USAMRIID. There were two grants from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from 2001. One $3.6 million grant dated to July 2001 and the other was previous to that.

        Ali Al Timimi had the same telephone number that Dr. Victor Morozov of the Center for Biodefense would later have when he joined the faculty and occupied the newly constructed Bull Run Building, which opened in late 2004 (Rm. #362). Dr. Morozov focuses on the development of new bioassay methods for express analysis, high-throughput screening and proteomics. He has recently developed a new electrospray-based technology for mass fabrication of protein microarrays. Dr. Morozov is currently supervising a DOE -funded research project directed at the development of ultra-sensitive express methods for detection of pathogens in which slow diffusion of analytes is replaced by their active transport controlled and powered by external forces (electric, magnetic, gravitational or hydrodynamic). His homepage explains that: “A variety of projects are available for students to participate in 1. Develop methods for active capturing of viruses and cells. 2. AFM imaging of macromolecules, viruses and cells. 3. Develop active immunoassay. 4. Analyze forces operating in the active assay of biomolecules and viral particles. 5. Develop immobilization techniques for antibodies and other biospecific molecules. 6. Study crystallization dynamics and morphology of organic and inorganic crystals in the presence of protein impurities. 7. Develop software to analyze motion of beads. 8. Develop software to analyze patterns in drying droplets. 9. Develop an electrostatic collector for airborne particles.”

        Al-Timimi obtained a doctorate from George Mason University in 2004 in the field of computational biology — a field related to cancer research involving genome sequencing. He successfully defended his thesis 5 weeks after his indictment. Curt Jamison, Timimi’s thesis advisor, coauthor and loyal friend, was in Prince William II (Discovery Hall) Rm. 181A. The staff of Advanced Biosystems was in Rm. 160, 162, 177, 254E and several others. Computational sciences offices were intermixed among the Hadron personnel on the first floor of Prince William II to include 159, 161, 166A, 167, 181 B and 181C. Rm. 156B was Charles Bailey, former deputy commander (and acting commander for a couple months) of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, who was head of the Center for Biodefense. Defense contractor Hadron had announced the appointment of Dr. Bailey as Vice-President of Advanced Biosystems in early April 2001. “Over 13 years, Dr. Bailey had served as a Research Scientist, Deputy Commander for Research, Deputy Commander and Commander at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute. As a USAMRIID scientist, he designed and supervised the construction of BL-3 containment facilities. His hands-on experience with a wide variety of pathogens is chronicled in 70 published articles. During his 4 years with the Defense Intelligence Agency, he published numerous articles assessing foreign capabilities regarding biological weapons.” When I asked Dr. Bailey to confirm Al-Timimi’s room number relative to his own, his only response was to refer me to University counsel. Counsel then never substantively responded to my inquiry regarding their respective room numbers citing student privacy. Ali’s friend and thesis advisor, Dr. Jamison never responded to an emailed query either. GMU understandably is very nervous about losing the $25 million grant for a new BL-3 regional facility to be located very near our country’s capitol.

        In Fall 2001, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (”AFIP”) had detected silicon dioxide (silica) in the attack anthrax — with a characteristic big spike for the silicon. The reason for the silicon dioxide/silica claimed to have been detected by AFIP has never been explained (and it’s been nearly a half decade). No silica was observable on the SEMs images that Dr. Alibek and Dr. Matthew Meselson saw. The Daschle product was “pure spores.” Was silicon dioxide used as part of a microdroplet cell culture process used prior to drying to permit greater concentration? As explained in a later related patent, the silica could be removed from the surface of the spore through repeated centrifugaton or an air chamber. Ed dismisses an “encapsulation method” even though time and time he has shown that he is not scientifically trained and both the Alibek -supervised thesis by Alibek’s assistant and my consulting military scientist points to such a method as reason silica was detected.

        Dr. Alibek and Dr. Bailey had filed a patent application in mid-March 2001 involving a microdroplet cell culture technique that used silicon dioxide in a method for concentrating growth of cells. The patent was granted and the application first publicly disclosed in the Spring of 2002. Weren’t the SEMS images and AFIP EDX finding both consistent with use of this process in growing the culture? Didn’t the AFIP in fact also detect oxygen in ratios characteristic of silicon dioxide? Wasn’t the scientist, now deceased, who performed the EDX highly experienced and expert in detecting silica? Hasn’t the AFIP always stood by its report. In its report, AFIP explained: “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.” Perhaps the nuance that was lost — or just never publicly explained for very sound reasons — was that silica was used in the cell culture process and then removed from the spores through a process such as centrifugation.

        Dr. Morozov is co-inventor along with Dr. Bailey for a patent “Cell Culture” that explains how the silicon dioxide can be removed from the surface. Perhaps it is precisely this AFIP finding of silicon dioxide (without silica on the SEMs) that is why the FBI came to suspect Al-Timimi in 2003 (rightly or wrongly, we don’t know). The FBI would have kept these scientific findings secret to protect the integrity of the confidential criminal/national security investigation. There was still a processor and mailer to catch — still a case to prove. After 9/11, intelligence collection takes precedence over arrests. As Ron Kessler explains in the new book, Terrorist Watch, many FBI officials feel that they are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. Outside observers are constantly second-guessing them about how to proceed rather than trusting that they are in the best position to balance the competing considerations of national security, intelligence gathering, the pursuit of justice, and the safeguarding of civil liberties. Above all, in disclosing the theory of access to know-how, the FBI has needed to protect the due process rights of Al-Timimi while he defended himself on other charges.

        A spokesman at the GMU “Office of Media Relations” emailed me in mid-December 2007 noting: “While working toward a doctorate in bioinformatics here at George Mason University, Mr. Al-Timimi had no access to any sensitive or secure materials or matter. If you have any other questions, don’t hesitate to let me know.” When I emailed him questions, he did not know of the answers and then never got back to me.

        Presently, Al-Timimi’s prosecution is on remand while the defense is given an opportunity to discover any documents that existed prior to 9/11 about al-Timimi and to address an issue relating to NSA intercepts after 9/11. In May 2007, Ali’s defense counsel has explained to the federal district court, upon a remand by the appeals court, that Mr. Timimi was interviewed by an FBI agent and a Secret Service agent as early as February 1994 in connection with the first World Trade Center attack. The agents left their business cards which the family kept. Defense counsel Turley further explained that “We have people that were contacted by the FBI and told soon after 9/11 that they believed that Dr. Al-Timimi was either connected to 9/11 or certainly had information about Al Qaeda.” The federal prosecutor, Mr. Kromberg responded: “I’d like to clarify something. Mr. MacMahon (Timimi’s earlier defense counsel) never said that the document that he saw showed that there was electronic surveillance. If there was an interview of Ali Timimi in 1994 and he did not say anything exculpatory about what happened in 2001, it’s hard to imagine how that, how that conceivably could be discoverable in 2003 or 2004.” Kromberg continued: “The same thing with the interview after 9/11. The government never denied that the FBI interviewed Al-Timimi nine days after 9/11. Our position was that there was nothing discoverable about that interview.” The court, for its part, weighed in: “Yes, but I think, I think most prosecutors err on the side of caution on that one, because who determines what is relevant? I mean, again, that’s why we have an adversary system.” According to Al-Timimi’s defense counsel in a court filing, Ali “was described to his brother by the FBI within days of the 9-11 attacks as an immediate suspect in the Al Qaeda conspiracy.”

  


598 posted on 05/10/2008 9:36:03 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Ed on his webpage argues that an Al Qaeda theory is invalid because (1) the hijackers were dead and (2) if there were any others suspected as being suspect in an Al Qaeda conspiracy, the FBI would be talking about them.

Ed was mistaken in thinking that the FBI would be talking about such a suspect rather than secretly conducting electronic surveillance, running undercover operations, and the like.

The USG only has a few days more to produce any discoverable electronic interceptions from 2001 and 2002.


599 posted on 05/10/2008 9:42:53 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
So, if you come across the term "van der Waals force", it is important to ascertain to which school of thought the author belongs.

When discussing powders the only relevant van der Waals forces are the particle-particle ones. The ones that science has known about and understood for decades - the ones that you appear to still deny the existence of.
600 posted on 05/10/2008 9:48:56 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650 ... 951-987 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