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

Skip to comments.

GRASSLEY SEEKS ANSWERS TO FBI’S AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION (Anthrax)
Grassley's office ^ | August 7, 2008

Posted on 08/08/2008 11:44:22 AM PDT by Shermy

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today began asking tough questions of the Department of Justice and the FBI following the release of documents implicating Dr. Bruce Ivins as the only suspect in the Amerithrax investigation.

“This has been a long investigation full of missteps and mistakes. There’s been too much secrecy up to this point and it deserves a full and thorough vetting,” Grassley said. “There are clearly a lot of unanswered questions and it’s time to start a dialogue so we can get answers.”

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley’s letter.

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20535

Dear Attorney General Mukasey and Director Mueller:

Thank you for ensuring that Congressional staff received an advanced briefing yesterday of the information released to the public in the Amerithrax investigation. The three affidavits provided represent an important, but small first step toward providing Congress and the public a full accounting of the evidence gathered by the FBI.

At yesterday's briefing, Justice Department and FBI officials invited follow-up questions after there had been time to read the affidavits. Indeed, there are many important questions to be answered about the FBI's seven-year investigation, the basis for its conclusion that Dr. Bruce Ivins conducted the attacks alone, and the events leading to his suicide. To begin this inquiry, please provide complete and detailed answers to the following questions:

1. What is the date (month and year) that the FBI determined that the anthrax came from a specified flask in Ivins’s lab ("RMR-1029")?

2. When (month and year) did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill never had access to the anthrax used in the killings?

3. How did the FBI determine that Dr. Hatfill did not have access to the anthrax used in the killings? Was that because the FBI determined that Dr. Hatfill no longer worked at USAMRIID when the powder was made?

4. Was Dr. Hatfill or his counsel informed that Dr. Hatfill had been cleared of any involvement in the anthrax killings before the Department of Justice offered a settlement to him? Was he informed before signing the settlement agreement with him? If not, please explain why not.

5. Was Judge Walton (the judge overseeing the Privacy Act litigation) ever informed that Dr. Hatfill had been eliminated as a suspect in the anthrax killings? If so, when. If not, please explain why not.

6. Was Dr. Ivins ever polygraphed in the course of the investigation? If so, please provide the dates and results of the exam(s). If not, please explain why not.

7. Of the more than 100 people who had access to RMR 1029, how many were provided custody of samples sent outside Ft. Detrick? Of those, how many samples were provided to foreign laboratories?

8. If those with access to samples of RMR 1029 in places other than Ft. Detrick had used the sample to produce additional quantities of anthrax, would that anthrax appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?

9. How can the FBI be sure that none of the samples sent to other labs were used to create additional quantities of anthrax that would appear distinguishable from RMR 1029?

10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the spores used in the anthrax attacks.

11. Was there video equipment which would record the activities of Dr. Ivins at Ft. Detrick on the late nights he was there on the dates surrounding the mailings? If so, please describe what examination of the video revealed.

12. When did the FBI first learn of Dr. Ivins’ late-night activity in the lab around the time of the attacks? If this is powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation?

13. When did the FBI first learn that Dr. Ivins was prescribed medications for various symptoms of mental illness? If this is circumstantial evidence of his guilt, then why did this information not lead the FBI to focus attention on him, rather than Dr. Hatfill, much sooner in the investigation? Of the 100 individuals who had access to RMR 1029, were any others found to suffer from mental illness, be under the care of a mental health professional, or prescribed anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medications? If so, how many?

14. What role did the FBI play in conducting and updating the background examination of Dr. Ivins in order for him to have clearance and work with deadly pathogens at Ft. Detrick?

15. After the FBI identified Dr. Ivins as the sole suspect, why was he not detained? Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office object to seeking an arrest or material witness warrant? If not, did anyone at FBI order a slower approach to arresting Ivins?

16. Had an indictment of Dr. Ivins been drafted before his death? If so, what additional information did it contain beyond the affidavits already released to the public? If not, then when, if ever, had a decision been made to seek an indictment from the grand jury?

17. According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide. These aggressive, overt surveillance techniques appear similar to those used on Dr. Hatfill with the apparent purpose of intimidation rather than legitimate investigation. Please describe whether and to what degree there is any truth to these claims.

18. What additional documents will be released, if any, and when will they be released?

Please provide your responses in electronic format. Please have your staff contact (202) 224-4515 with any questions related to this request.

Sincerely,


TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 110th; amerithrax; anthrax; antraz; bruceivins; cyapolicy; doj; domesticterrorism; fbi; grassley; ivins; probe

1 posted on 08/08/2008 11:44:23 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel; jpl; Mitchell; Allan; Calpernia; Stentor; okie01; blackdog; The Invisible Hand; ...

ping


2 posted on 08/08/2008 11:45:14 AM PDT by Shermy (OOOOOOObama where the waffles come sweeping down the plains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
F.B.I. Presents Anthrax Case, Saying Scientist Acted Alone

Anthrax : a REAL investigation tells another story (peer reviewed study published in 2007)

3 posted on 08/08/2008 11:49:22 AM PDT by Shermy (OOOOOOObama where the waffles come sweeping down the plains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Grassley has been on a witchhunt against the FBI for many years. I understand he has, in some cases had a detrimental affect on some sensitive cases

Why?


4 posted on 08/08/2008 11:51:23 AM PDT by elpadre (nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

They paid Hatfill so they wouldn’t have to answer these questions.


5 posted on 08/08/2008 11:51:43 AM PDT by weegee (Hi there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
According to family members, FBI agents publicly confronted and accused Dr. Ivins of the attacks, showed pictures of the victims to his daughter, and offered the $2.5 million reward to his son in the months leading up to his suicide.

Wow. This is disgusting.

Everything about the way this investigation has been handled since Day 1 has been reprehensible.

6 posted on 08/08/2008 11:52:57 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Best. Press Secretary. Ever. ~~ RIP, Tony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elpadre

“I understand he has, in some cases had a detrimental affect on some sensitive cases”

“Detrimental effect” - does that mean embarassment from incompetence being exposed?

I think people here could add numerous more questions.

For one, show us photos of the actual anthrax used in the attacks.

Two, state when Social Worker Duley first cooperated with the FBI.

Three, did Dr. David Irwin also cooperate with the FBI and starting when.


7 posted on 08/08/2008 11:56:57 AM PDT by Shermy (OOOOOOObama where the waffles come sweeping down the plains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: weegee

If Hatfill had committed suicide, the case would have been closed and pinned on him.

It looks like Ivins was more cooperative. It’s a little smelly.


8 posted on 08/08/2008 11:58:10 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

That’s because the attack probably originated in Saddem’s Iraq and not in Maryland.


9 posted on 08/08/2008 12:00:23 PM PDT by CyberSpartacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I'm really getting tired of the BS I'm getting from this government.

Between Muller and Hayden I'm starting to wonder, "Where's Larry?"

10 posted on 08/08/2008 12:10:10 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser, fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel; jpl; ZACKandPOOK; drzz; Carry_Okie; Mitchell; Battle Axe

TR posted again yesterday the info how “Dugway” couldn’t reverse engineer the stuff over 18 months, etc. The recent news has Ivins’ superiors talking about “another” piece of equipment and that Ivins couldn’t have made it.

Got me thinking. What if the difficulties Dugway had in recreating the “process” was that the FBI restricted their research to use only equipment available at Ft. Detrick to Hatifll (or Ivins)? E.g., no use of a mill. IOW, the FBI was first interested in proving the stuff could have been made at Ft. Detrick?


11 posted on 08/08/2008 12:14:00 PM PDT by Shermy (OOOOOOObama where the waffles come sweeping down the plains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: elpadre
Grassley has been on a witchhunt against the FBI for many years. I understand he has, in some cases had a detrimental affect on some sensitive cases

Did you even read the questions?

They were very detailed and in context to the situation.

I believe Congress has oversight on the FBI, is that not so?

So please explain why this is a witch-hunt?
12 posted on 08/08/2008 12:15:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (GOP: If you reward bad behavior all you get is more bad behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

How do officials believe Ivins made the anthrax? The FBI says Ivins used his lab to convert anthrax spores into powdered anthrax, but no proof has been presented that he had the equipment or the expertise to do so.

“I’m waiting for it to be shown that the quantity and the quality of the powders in the anthrax letters could have been produced in those suites” at Fort Detrick, said W. Russell Byrne, who retired from Fort Detrick in 2003 and was Ivins’ supervisor from 1998 to 2000. “I don’t know how to make the stuff,” he said.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-anthrax0807,0,4430001.story?track=rss


13 posted on 08/08/2008 12:25:21 PM PDT by Shermy (OOOOOOObama where the waffles come sweeping down the plains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Sure.

And we are supposed to believe them after all the other FBI Lab false results !!

14 posted on 08/08/2008 12:27:18 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elpadre
Right... Grassley's the problem with this clustf**k of an investigation.

How much has he had to pay out in settlements for his incompetence/corruption anyway? How many perfectly innocent people has he destroyed.

15 posted on 08/08/2008 12:27:54 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Best. Press Secretary. Ever. ~~ RIP, Tony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Amazing, isn’t it? Virtually all the real experts in the field say that this was the most incredible product they had ever seen, it was so sophisticated our government couldn’t even reproduce it, yet this one guy supposedly did it by himself in a few nights of overtime after 9/11.


16 posted on 08/08/2008 12:28:50 PM PDT by jpl ("Present." - Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I haven't really followed this case. I was merely questioning the use of a ball mill strictly as an engineering problem when spray drying gives good particle size control albeit it is more difficult to contain.
17 posted on 08/08/2008 12:30:13 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser, fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CyberSpartacus

That exactly right. That’s why this investigation has been completely politicized. Saddam’s WMD and terror ties are both confirmed if the truth ever gets out.

Ivins had as much to do with those attacks as you or I.


18 posted on 08/08/2008 12:32:22 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Best. Press Secretary. Ever. ~~ RIP, Tony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Answers, Shmanswers, can’t you recognize the spoken truth for what it is.

Dr. Ivins be da “anthrax” man.


19 posted on 08/08/2008 12:43:18 PM PDT by swarthyguy (Osama Freedom Day: 2500 or so since September 11 2001! That's SIX +years, Dubya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

At this why would ANYONE want to cover up any purported ties of anthrax to Saddam. Who benefits from that.

OTOH, who benefits from another lone gunman being nailed as the anthrax perp after 7 years of mystery?


20 posted on 08/08/2008 12:45:49 PM PDT by swarthyguy (Osama Freedom Day: 2500 or so since September 11 2001! That's SIX +years, Dubya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
One possibility:

"The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States."

Source

21 posted on 08/08/2008 1:15:30 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

But the current govt is not handling any or doesn’t have to for Saddam’s Baathi Regime.

Claims against Saddam are moot, but I’m not a lawyer, and god knows they can come up with some doozies.

That said, how pitiful, because of potential litigation we play these games. Bah!


22 posted on 08/08/2008 1:19:08 PM PDT by swarthyguy (Osama Freedom Day: 2500 or so since September 11 2001! That's SIX +years, Dubya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: elpadre
"Grassley has been on a witchhunt against the FBI for many years. I understand he has, in some cases had a detrimental affect on some sensitive cases"

Too bad. If the FBI weren't such bumblers in this case, there would not be ample reason for skepticism.

I don't believe Ivins did it. I believe he was hounded to death by the FBI, and now that he's dead, he's a convenient scapegoat with which to close the file.

Evidence presented so far does not convince me.

23 posted on 08/08/2008 1:27:46 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Bernanke is a Monetary Slut!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jpl
Ivins' Lawyer Rebuts DOJ Anthrax Allegations

Attempts To Deceive Investigators

PROSECUTION: Investigators say that in 2002 Ivins submitted two samples of anthrax from the flask in question and that neither of those genetically matched the spores used in the attacks. Agents later seized the flask and found the anthrax in it did in fact match the spores used in the attacks. Taylor said Ivins did this "presumably to mislead investigators."

DEFENSE: Ivins' lawyer says there was confusion about what kind of sample the FBI had wanted — a "pure" sample or one that captured the mix of spores in the flask. Kemp says Ivins submitted a pure sample at first.

--------------------------------------------------

24 posted on 08/08/2008 1:28:12 PM PDT by Shermy (OOOOOOObama where the waffles come sweeping down the plains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All

The mailed letters were photocopies. Early in
the investigation, much was made about the Feds
search for the machine that produced them.

Has there been any word about evidence on
that front?


25 posted on 08/08/2008 1:46:57 PM PDT by JerseyJohn61 (Better Late Than Never.......sometimes over lapping is worth the effort....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

19. Has Richard Jewell been polygraphed in the course of the investigation?


26 posted on 08/08/2008 1:49:44 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
At this why would ANYONE want to cover up any purported ties of anthrax to Saddam. Who benefits from that.

Pretty much everyone hostile to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That includes the entire democrat party, the countries that profited off Saddam during the oil-for-food scam, the countries that armed him and the countries that continue to arm Iran and other enemies of the west.

OTOH, who benefits from another lone gunman being nailed as the anthrax perp after 7 years of mystery?

The same folks. The "No WMD/No terror ties" lie has been the backbone of the antiwar movement. It's been their mantra since the beginning, going as far back as the first reports after 9/11 that Mohammad Atta twice visited the Iraqi embassy in Prague. Without that lie, there can be no legitimate objection to the Iraq war because the invasion would be completely justified. If it's proven that Saddam passed a WMD off to the 9/11 terrorists... it's game over. Nobody can make a peep about the invasion of Iraq and be taken seriously.

There are plenty of people out there with strategic and financial reasons for wanting America to fall on her face in Iraq. Iran, Russia and China to name three. And they have a great deal of power and influence in our government, our schools and our media.

27 posted on 08/08/2008 2:04:26 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Best. Press Secretary. Ever. ~~ RIP, Tony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

I’m afraid that polygraph would merely show a flat line...


28 posted on 08/08/2008 2:06:38 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
A problem ~ when it comes to Postal matters I don't trust this Grassley guy further than I can spit. I also don't trust the FBI ~ they usually just want to close the case and move on ~ an institutional problem of theirs that dates back to the 1930s.

So, what to do ~ maybe if Grassley were to start pulling his questions out of Free Republic I might be willing to support him in this effort. As it is his ambition here is most likely to continue the coverup on all the Postal MTE that got contaminated with anthrax and then sent all over the country with mail shipments BEFORE the attack had even been detected.

Maybe he'd like to ask questions about that ~ particularly contaminated MTE in central NJ ~

29 posted on 08/08/2008 2:14:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

certainly Congress has oversight, but for Grassley it seems to go beyond.

the man has been an FBI hater for many years


30 posted on 08/08/2008 2:49:15 PM PDT by elpadre (nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Shermy


10. Please describe the methodology and results of any oxygen isotope
measurements taken to determine the source of water used to grow the
spores used in the anthrax attacks.

Good for Senator Grassley.
With those sort of analytical questions, we’ll find out if the FBI
has built an invincible case against Dr. Bruce Ivins...
or just decided to “punt”.
I suspect that if asked “question 10”, a fair number of people with
bachelors degrees in Chemistry would stumble in trying to explain why
employing isotopic descrimination could validate (or disprove)
the FBI’s case.

For the record, let me say that I’m open to the possibility that
Ivins was the guy.
But there are plenty of unanswered questions...how did a lone wolf
like Ivins produce what the FBI has (in press releases) produce high-quality weaponized anthrax with a very narrow margin of
particle size (without milling), coated with a polyglass coat, and
weakly charged to make sure it would suspend in air for enhanced inhalation?

These and other inconvenient questions/facts were raised in
The Wall Street Journal in anarticle from the Aug. 5 issue.
As I don’t have on-line access to WSJ, I re-post a similar passage from CNN.

FBI accused of hardball tactics in anthrax case
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/06/fbi.tactics/?iref=mpstoryview

(excerpt from end of article)
Peter Hotez, chairman of microbiology at George Washington University,
rejected the government’s contention that Ivins’ access to a sophisticated
lab device called a lyophilizer — used to dry anthrax — was in any
way damning.

And Richard Spertzel, a former colleague of Ivins at Fort Detrick,
said there was “no way” a lyophilizer could have created the fine
anthrax spores used in the 2001 letters.

In addition, Spertzel said, no one working at a U.S. government
lab could have produced such high quality anthrax in secret.


31 posted on 08/08/2008 3:08:43 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

You’re kidding? They were about to indict this guy, they drove him to suicide, and they have “not fully explained” the presence of silicon?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/08/ST2008080803414.html

Since the fall of 2001, federal officials have made contradictory statements about whether the powdered anthrax contained a form of the mineral silicon. The presence of silicon dioxide — also known as silica — would be highly significant, suggesting that the bioterrorist took additional steps to ensure that the powder would not clump and would penetrate deeply into victims’ lungs. Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.

On Nov. 7, 2001, then-Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said at a news conference that the anthrax powder contained silica, a statement that implied that the bioterrorist had access to secret government formulas for making biological weapons.

But in the documents released this Wednesday, the FBI clarified Ridge’s statement. The powder contained not silica but silicon, which was present “within the spores,” the documents said. There was no silica coating on the spores, as would be expected if someone had deliberately added the material to keep the spores from clumping.

Two government scientists with knowledge of the FBI’s investigation said the presence of silicon, while not fully explained, does not appear to be significant. The scientists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the silicon was probably an inadvertent contaminant and might have been introduced when the bacteria was being grown in the lab.

Still, numerous scientists and biodefense experts continued to complain that the FBI has not publicly addressed questions about silicon as well as other technical facets of the case. Many scientists, including colleagues of Ivins, say the evidence presented so far has not conclusively linked Ivins to the anthrax letters.


32 posted on 08/08/2008 9:38:17 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shermy; jpl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/08/ST2008080803414.html

Since the fall of 2001, federal officials have made contradictory statements about whether the powdered anthrax contained a form of the mineral silicon. The presence of silicon dioxide — also known as silica — would be highly significant, suggesting that the bioterrorist took additional steps to ensure that the powder would not clump and would penetrate deeply into victims’ lungs. Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.

On Nov. 7, 2001, then-Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said at a news conference that the anthrax powder contained silica, a statement that implied that the bioterrorist had access to secret government formulas for making biological weapons.

But in the documents released this Wednesday, the FBI clarified Ridge’s statement. The powder contained not silica but silicon, which was present “within the spores,” the documents said. There was no silica coating on the spores, as would be expected if someone had deliberately added the material to keep the spores from clumping.

Two government scientists with knowledge of the FBI’s investigation said the presence of silicon, while not fully explained, does not appear to be significant. The scientists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the silicon was probably an inadvertent contaminant and might have been introduced when the bacteria was being grown in the lab.

Still, numerous scientists and biodefense experts continued to complain that the FBI has not publicly addressed questions about silicon as well as other technical facets of the case. Many scientists, including colleagues of Ivins, say the evidence presented so far has not conclusively linked Ivins to the anthrax letters.

It seems ANONYMOUS sources are being given credit here.

Let’s remind ourselves what Meselson (the disgraced US microbiologist) and Alibek (the crook defector who is now in hiding back in what-the F@#k-is-stan) said back in 2002 about “anonymous sources”:

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxundermicroscope.html

The Oct. 28 front-page article “FBI’s Theory on Anthrax Is Doubted” reported that silica enabled anthrax spores sent through the mail last fall to become airborne. The article quoted unnamed sources as saying that the spores had been formulated with a product called fumed silica, which, under an electron microscope, “would look like cotton balls strung together into strands that branch out in every direction.”

Both of us have examined electron micrographs of the material in the anthrax letter sent to Sen. Tom Daschle, but we saw no evidence of such balls or strands. In July 1980, the Journal of Bacteriology reported an “unexpectedly high concentration of silicon” to be naturally present in the outer spore coat of bacillus cereus, a close relative of bacillus anthracis. Is it possible that the unnamed sources misinterpreted silicon naturally concentrated in spore coats as something that was artificially added.

Until knowledgeable government investigators announce their results, statements attributed to anonymous sources or from persons who have not examined the actual evidence should be greeted with cautio


33 posted on 08/08/2008 9:42:23 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Bump.


34 posted on 08/08/2008 11:08:08 PM PDT by nw_arizona_granny ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1990507/posts?page=451 SURVIVAL, RECIPES, GARDENS, & INFO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
I agree with you. This is "Politics". To ever admit that Iraq played a roll in the Anthrax attack would alter the Bash Bush policy (and ultimately McCain).

So Who benefits from this?? OBAMA...a born and raised Muslim. Imagine that.

35 posted on 08/09/2008 4:30:47 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

People seem to have an impossible time believing that the FBI and Justice Departments has become this politicized.

My answer to them is, look at the State Department. Or the CIA, for that matter. Every leftist in our government practices treachery on a daily basis. It is what they do. It is their nature.

If anybody needs evidence of this, just look at what they did to Hatfill.


36 posted on 08/09/2008 10:14:35 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Rumsfeld/Cheney 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

It’s kind of typical for them. They were a very necessary agency in the days of Al Capone, but have since lost much credibility in law Enforcement.
They need restructuring and refocusing.


37 posted on 08/09/2008 5:32:28 PM PDT by Munz (Infiltrate Interrogate Eradicate NEXT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

“Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.”

hmmm...I had never considered a soviet connection, but when you think about Putin’s tendency to poison his enemies in various unique and creative ways (polonium in your tea?) - I suppose that is another possibility.
Although, I’m not really sure what Putin would have gained from something like that.

In the other cases, he clearly wants to send a bold signal to those journalists and former spies who he held a grudge against.
Don’t know what the motive would be here.


38 posted on 08/10/2008 9:30:31 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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