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

Skip to comments.

FBI looks to pond for anthrax clues (CNN says anthrax detected from "object")
CNN ^ | 5/11/03 | Kevin Bohn and Kelli Arena

Posted on 05/11/2003 9:09:37 PM PDT by TrebleRebel

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A search into a Maryland pond in December turned up an item with traces of anthrax, a government source told CNN on Sunday.

Investigators are hopeful that the discovery will provide leads in the search for a suspect in several anthrax mail attacks in fall 2001. FBI and other law enforcement agencies have returned to the same pond in Frederick, Maryland, several times, including last week. The mayor of Frederick said she has been told the pond might be drained to search for more evidence.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: anthrax; antraz; injury; inspectorclouseau; keystonecops; wildgoosechase
Well - the plot thickens - now we have a source leaking that anthrax has actually been found. But I don't understand the statement below. Surely if it's been ID'd as anthrax it's possible to grow unlimited quantities? You have to culture it to detect it.

"The amount of anthrax found was so small that the source did not know whether it could be compared to the type used in the anthrax mail attacks."

1 posted on 05/11/2003 9:09:37 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan; pokerbuddy0; twigs; Shermy; Sacajaweau; Sabertooth; Mitchell; Allan; bonfire; ...
ping
2 posted on 05/11/2003 9:12:17 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Does the discovery of mobile laboratories in Iraq lead us back to a domestic suspect/person of interest in the headlines?
3 posted on 05/11/2003 9:16:05 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
This could be a desperate attempt to force the "suspect" Hatfill to run. Who knows? But it certainly isn't consistent with trying to make distance between Hatfill and the anthrax attacks. If Hatfill was a willing patsy this is certainly not the way to finish the deception.
4 posted on 05/11/2003 9:21:04 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
The amount of anthrax found was so small that the source did not know whether it could be compared to the type used in the anthrax mail attacks.

Riiight. Whatever you say, officer.

(steely)

5 posted on 05/11/2003 9:27:54 PM PDT by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Surely if it's been ID'd as anthrax it's possible to grow unlimited quantities? You have to culture it to detect it

Not necessarily. If you only had part of the DNA of one anthrax bacterium, you could build up a usable quantity of DNA using PCR and test the DNA directly (using various methods) without ever growing the anthrax.

If they have such a small sample, it raises the possibility that they are just seeing cross contamination from some other source. Hopefully they are careful enough to avoid this.

6 posted on 05/11/2003 9:30:48 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideminded
If you only had part of the DNA of one anthrax bacterium, you could build up a usable quantity of DNA using PCR and test the DNA directly (using various methods) without ever growing the anthrax.

Well OK then, but if you could amplify the DNA like this, wouldn't you be able to identify the strain of anthrax - is it Ames, for example?
7 posted on 05/11/2003 9:36:09 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideminded
If they have such a small sample, it raises the possibility that they are just seeing cross contamination from some other source. Hopefully they are careful enough to avoid this.

Anthrax is naturally found in the soil. The famous Ames strain of anthrax came from a soil sample collected near the town of Ames, Iowa.

Finding a very small sample could mean very little.

8 posted on 05/11/2003 9:37:08 PM PDT by CurlyDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
if you could amplify the DNA like this, wouldn't you be able to identify the strain of anthrax - is it Ames, for example?

Only if the part of the DNA you started with contained the sequences that distinguish the Ames strain from other strains. I'm not sure how much of the anthrax DNA varies between strains.

9 posted on 05/11/2003 9:40:27 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: keri
PING

According to "The American Heritage Dictionary"

"A protocol
that sends a message
to another computer
and waits for acknowledgment
often used to check
if another computer
on a network
is reachable."

And comes from the phrase: Packet Information Groper.

However
despite the ignorance
of Computer Scientists
who claim to have invented this word
as well as the Internet,
the first known use of the verb
"to ping"
was in the year 897
in King Aelfred's translation
of Gregory's "Pastoral Care"
and means to poke, to push, to urge.
This verb has survived
through the centuries
still is frequently used
by non-computer people
in some English dialects.
(By the way
the past tense is "pung"
and the past participle is "punged")


10 posted on 05/11/2003 9:47:17 PM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
"How bizarre is this?"
11 posted on 05/11/2003 9:54:22 PM PDT by _Jim (Guangdong doctor linked as source of SARS in China: http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030320/09/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Ah, another anthrax thread.

John HK will be arriving shortly to set you all straight and make it clear that the filthy American right was behind it all...

12 posted on 05/11/2003 10:02:53 PM PDT by WarSlut (Boycott Disney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel; Badabing Badaboom; Mitchell; oceanview; riri; Fred Mertz; bonfire; birdwoman; ...
Investigators maintained that no arrest was imminent.

Right. The FBI go hunting in a specific pond for a biosafety cabinet, based on a specific scene from "person of interest" Steven Hatfill's unpublished bioterrorism novel, Emergence. Supposedly, they find the cabinet -- just where it ended up in Hatfill's novel -- and some vials "wrapped in plastic" (echoes of Chandra Levy), and traces of anthrax. All of this, by the way, is said to have happened four months ago. But no arrest is imminent. No grand jury has been empanelled. How very curious. And how very curious that this story is being fed to the press now.

So, what does this mean? Does it mean Saddam is about to pop up in Belarus or the like, and we need to give the "domestic" angle a booster shot to ride out the potential for an "Aha!" moment in the press corps? Are we about to enter the period of maximum danger, from the standpoint of avoiding any perception that the US was blackmailed by Hussein? Dunno, but that's what it smells like to me.

13 posted on 05/11/2003 10:06:11 PM PDT by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allan; keri
PING
According to "The American Heritage Dictionary"
...
comes from the phrase: Packet Information Groper.

I'm not sure exactly why I'm posting this, but here goes....

This is an incorrect folk etymology, according to the author of the "ping" program, who should know. See Eric S. Raymond's Jargon File (published as the New Hacker's Dictionary); there it says that the word "ping" is "from the submariners' term for a sonar pulse".

I tend to believe ESR on such things.

Also, the past tense of "ping" is now "pinged." King Aelfred can post about this on FR and defend the continued use of "pung" if he disagrees.

Just thought you would want to know :-).

14 posted on 05/11/2003 11:46:25 PM PDT by Mitchell (And who remembers Pong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
An Internet ping is done by sending out a special TCP/IP packet (port 0) that is suppose to be bounced back from the server who's IP you are pinging to confirm that it is there and to also quantify the quality of the routing to and from.

A submarine sonar ping is similar to this and I believe the root of the Internet usage of it.
15 posted on 05/12/2003 12:20:26 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
So is Saddam Hussein still blackmailing George W. Bush with "this" anthrax and the President is still covering it up? Wasn't that your theory a year or so ago? The blackmail didn't seem to stop the invasion and so far "this" anthrax hasn't shown up. Or has the story line changed?
16 posted on 05/12/2003 12:25:25 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DB
A submarine sonar ping is similar to this and I believe the root of the Internet usage of it.

Yes, I agree that this makes sense and has the right feel to it.

By the way, I don't think ping is really a TCP thing at all. As I recall, it's at the lower IP level, making use of the ICMP mechanism.

17 posted on 05/12/2003 12:34:08 AM PDT by Mitchell (And who remembers Pong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ordinary_American
So, what you think, Saddam Hussein is dead?
18 posted on 05/12/2003 12:34:14 AM PDT by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
and some vials "wrapped in plastic" (echoes of Chandra Levy)

What is the meaning of the Chandra Levy reference here?

19 posted on 05/12/2003 12:48:34 AM PDT by Mitchell (And who remembers Pong?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell; The Great Satan
Whoops, I forgot to remove the tag line for #19. It was meant for just one use a couple of posts back (where it made a tiny bit of sense!).
20 posted on 05/12/2003 12:51:49 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
So, what you think, Saddam Hussein is dead?

I don't know, but Saddam Hussein's ability, if he is indeed alive, to blackmail the President is dubious. The connection between the alleged anthrax blackmail and Amerithax as part of a Presidential conspiracy to cover-up that alleged blackmail is even more dubious. In regard to the FBI, they may actually believe that they are on the trail, however clueless that might appear to some.

21 posted on 05/12/2003 12:59:10 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Saddam was killed in the bombing strike on the restaurant just before the Marines entered Baghdad. His doubles are still in Baghdad, using the international media to audition for the role of Saddam in future TV movies. Unless they find Hatfill's name and address on the submerged lab equipment, I doubt he will ever be charged with the anthrax attacks.
22 posted on 05/12/2003 1:06:07 AM PDT by carl in alaska (Let's pray for the birth of democracy in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
The packet format is TCP with an IP address and a port number of 0. It is at the lowest levels of the stack but it is still within the TCP stack.

At least that is my understanding of it...
23 posted on 05/12/2003 1:06:25 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
I'm always puzzled as to why the FBI is so sure the terrorists had nothing to do with this.
24 posted on 05/12/2003 1:10:03 AM PDT by The Raven (Ever notice the tax advocates make lots more money than you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
Maybe someone else here will chime in here.

You may be right because TCP normally requires an ack or it resends. A ping does not behave that way.
25 posted on 05/12/2003 1:10:35 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
What is the meaning of the Chandra Levy reference here?

Feds back off anonymous tip on Levy

26 posted on 05/12/2003 6:06:16 AM PDT by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
I didn't understand the Chandra Levy comment either. Thanks for the link. I remember that story very well. I think we'd call it a wild goose chase.
27 posted on 05/12/2003 6:14:22 AM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Does the discovery of mobile laboratories in Iraq lead us back to a domestic suspect/person of interest in the headlines?

That is a very good question, given the timing of this breaking story.

28 posted on 05/12/2003 6:17:18 AM PDT by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Some additional info from UPI article:

One person may be behind anthrax attacks

By Dee Ann Divis and Nicholas M. Horrock

Pulished 5/11/2003 4:42 PM

WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- One person, operating alone, could have placed anthrax in envelopes through tiny slits by using a hypodermic needle and a "glove box" or "glove bag" to protect himself or herself from contamination, United Press International has been told by a source knowledgeable of the case.

Five people died in the fall of 2001 after anthrax-laden letters were mailed to people in New York, Florida and Washington. One letter, mailed but not delivered to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was recovered unopened with anthrax still in it.

This spring, after a grueling 18-month investigation, the source told UPI that it is possible that one person with basic scientific knowledge and access to Ames strain anthrax could have carried out the anthrax attack.

"One person could absolutely do it," said the source who has insight into what the investigation has uncovered.

There has been significant debate over whether one person could have carried the attack. One of the key issues is that the anthrax found in the letters to Congress was "weaponized" -- dried and physically ground or "milled" into smaller pieces to make it linger in the air and more likely to be deeply inhaled and more deadly. Experts disagree over how complicated it would be to do that and the extent of manpower and equipment necessary to pull it off.

"There are several ways to dry it," explained the source. "One of the ways would be a lyophilizer -- it's piece of equipment that takes bacteria and dries it. It's a freeze-drier basically. (The anthrax) becomes a dry spore. At that point you have to contain it."

The container, the source suggested, would be a glove box. These are large sealed boxes that the researcher can see into. A scientist reaches into the box from the outside through holes that have gloves attached to them. The gloves extend into the box so the seal is never broken. There are also "glove bags" that operate in a similar way but are smaller and cheaper.

Milling could be done with a commercially available machine called a miller or even equipment as simple as a mortar and pestle.

"You would have to open up the containers inside the glove box and grind the spores with the mortar and pestle or some type of miller -- at that point it's going to float. It's going to go in the air," the source said. "It's going to act like gas. So you have to be able to contain it inside the glove box, collect it and put it inside the envelopes."

The powder could have been placed in the envelopes using a hypodermic needle said the source. Though the envelopes did not have holes from a needle this source said the anthrax could have been inserted through slits in the envelope. One envelope had a slit in it, the source said.

The Washington Post quoted two sources in its Sunday editions as saying that FBI searches had recovered a "clear box that could accommodate gloves to protect the user as he worked. Also recovered were vials wrapped in plastic."

The FBI has been conducting searches for traces of anthrax and pieces of equipment for months. Last Dec. 12, it began a search of several ponds in the Frederick, Md., watershed, 40 miles north of Washington, that lasted into January. The box was reportedly found in the ponds.

The paper said that "entering the water to manipulate virulent anthrax bacteria would provide some degree of protection from the finely ground spores, which disperse through the air and can live for decades. But expert opinions vary on whether spores from the containment equipment could later be in a natural body of water."

The paper said that the FBI has informed the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the City of Frederick that it will drain the pond on June 1, which would allow it to sift silt at the bottom.

The pond is in the Catoctin Mountains, not far from Frederick and Fort Detrick, a U.S. Army facility that has conducted experiments with Ames strain anthrax.

The site is also not far from the onetime apartment of Steven Hatfill, a medical doctor and former Army scientist at Fort Detrick. Attorney General John Ashcroft identified Hatfill as a "person of interest" to the FBI this case.

Hatfill has repeatedly said he had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks and many in the legal community said the FBI's repeating of his name without legal charges or any evidence is a violation of his rights.

In an interview with UPI last year, he said the bureau centered on him because he met the "profile" of the perpetrator that the bureau constructed. He said he had only been in the woods areas around Catoctin and Gambrill in working with young scouts.

Over the months, the bureau has searched Hatfill's apartment, his girlfriend's apartment and storage areas belonging to his parents without finding any trace of anthrax.

The investigation has been difficult for the FBI. Very early in the case it issued a profile of the type of person it thought could carry out this crime. It described a disgruntled, middle-aged white man with scientific training and experience working in government research labs. But legal critics argue that the description could fit dozens of people at Fort Detrick and other Army facilities or former bio-terrorism experts.

Ask why the case has taken so long, one source told UPI: "Because they have to build a good strong case in court.

"A lot of the case is circumstantial so -- why you wait is to put together a case with the attorney's office. It is the U.S. Attorney's Office that makes the decision to either indict the case or not indict it."

Pat Clawson, a spokesman for Hatfill told UPI the FBI was wrong to bring up Hatfill's name in connection with the case at this point.

"The truth of the matter is that Steve Hatfill had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. ... If the FBI had any evidence they should charge him. They should charge him or clear him. To destroy his life and career with a pattern of leaks and innuendo is really immoral and un-American."

29 posted on 05/12/2003 6:27:58 AM PDT by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Makes ya wonder if Hatfill hasn't helped contribute to this compelling, cloak and dagger story line; considering his writing talents...
30 posted on 05/12/2003 6:29:51 AM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
golly sakes....deep throat, again.
31 posted on 05/12/2003 6:49:11 AM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz; bonfire
I think we'd call it a wild goose chase.

The people who came up with this whole ruse have a very rich vein of source material to mine to embellish and embroider the story. Of course, the two basic templates were the Unabomber case and the Richard Jewel case. The essential idea was to set up something that could look like one or the other, depending on what the audience want to believe. Thing is, as long as the leftists believe Hatfill's a Kaczinski, the rightists believe he's a Jewel, and the average Joe standing around the water cooler believe it's still up in the air, everybody is still left with the desired notion: those letters were anything but blackmail threats from the state sponsor of 9/11. Because, if it turns out that the author of 9/11 should pop up in Belarus, or some place like that, and it turns out a deal was struck to make that happen, then people are otherwise going to wonder if that was because he threatened us with WMD. And that is a perception that we very much want to avoid.

32 posted on 05/12/2003 6:52:08 AM PDT by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wideminded
If they have such a small sample, it raises the possibility that they are just seeing cross contamination from some other source. Hopefully they are careful enough to avoid this.

How can they rule out contamination of the box through anthrax in the soil (which running water could have carried into the pond)?

33 posted on 05/12/2003 6:57:33 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
Thanks for the link.
34 posted on 05/12/2003 7:22:47 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
How can they rule out contamination of the box through anthrax in the soil (which running water could have carried into the pond)?

This is an excellent question. From what I can tell, the tub with holes was embedded in sludge at the bottom of the pond. What is the expected concentration of anthrax spores in ANY soil sample from an area that has accomodated bovine grazing over the last 10,000 years? 1 ppm perhaps? What is the detection limit on the detection system that was used?

We shouldn't forget that any element or compund occurs just about everywhere. Ther's probably more than 1ppm of gold in the sludge - but not worth mining economically. There's also probably more than 1ppm of anthrax - but hardly likley to cause any disease at that concentration.

I'll do a search later today and see if I can find any literature concerning the normal concentrations of anthrax spores in soil.
35 posted on 05/12/2003 7:30:41 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: *Anthrax
Bump
36 posted on 05/12/2003 8:10:41 AM PDT by m1-lightning (Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD , the people he chose for his inheritance. Psalm 33:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
My gut instinct says keep your eye on the ball. Election 2004.

Or is that wishful thinking? Sometimes, it is hard to tell.

37 posted on 05/12/2003 10:42:05 AM PDT by riri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
I'm not sure exactly why I'm posting this

To increase the ratio of fact to speculation on this thread.

38 posted on 05/12/2003 11:21:43 AM PDT by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Allan
To increase the ratio of fact to speculation on this thread.

LOL.

But wait a minute... Is that considered a good thing or a bad thing around here?

39 posted on 05/12/2003 12:22:55 PM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: pokerbuddy0; Mitchell; Fred Mertz; Badabing Badaboom; oceanview; riri; bonfire; birdwoman
They attributed it to a false positive -- but of course given that the testing happened weeks ago, it was more in the nature of a seriously botched news report.

Accidents will happen!

But to their credit, they seem to have corrected it within 24 hours.

Now that nobody's listening. Mission accomplished! First the Big Lie -- then the Deniability. Absolutely canonical propaganda ploy, absolutely consistent with the established MO of Operation Amerithrax.

41 posted on 05/14/2003 1:19:47 AM PDT by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

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