Posted on 04/10/2007 11:58:18 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
Anthrax: some new findings Clarice Feldman
Dr. Laurie Mylroie has given me permission to share with American Thinker readers her important analysis of a recent article on the source of the U.S. anthrax attacks by the Shoham/Jacobsen and the extensive comment on the piece by Richard Spertzel, a highly regarded, highly qualified Biological Warfare expert. She writes:
Last week, TNR's Marty Peretz drew attention to an article on the 2001 anthrax letters by Dr. Dany Shoham and Dr. Stuart Jacobsen: The article underscores the very sophisticated nature of the anthrax in the letters sent to the two US senators and suggests that Iraq may well have been responsible for it.
Richard Spertzel, a BW expert formerly with UNSCOM and the Iraq Survey Group, was kind enough to share his expertise with a few colleagues and wrote the following comment on that article:
To start, I have believed all along that Iraqi intelligence had their dirty hands on this event. Based on ISG findings that Iraq had apparently decided in 1994 to not attempt production, but rather only research to enhance "break-out" capability and that the Iraqi and Syrian intelligence services had formed an alliance to develop the field "in chemical and biological of mutual interest," I now suspect that Syria made the anthrax product with Iraqi Intelligence assistance. The cooperation included Iraqi scientists assisting the Syrians.
Much of what these authors say, I can verify. Iraq had air-freighted into Baghdad two Niro spray dryers that were of the type that would yield "plus or minus any particle size" the producer desired. One of these was located at Al Hakam and was destroyed under UN supervision in May/June 1996. The other one we were unable to locate (and, of course, Iraq did not know its whereabouts) until spring 1998. Within two weeks I had a sampling team in Iraq to thoroughly sample the 2nd dryer. Unfortunately, Iraq suddenly had an urgent need for the dryer and had thoroughly disassembled it, cleaned and sterilized it and then reassembled it. We were not able to get permission to destroy it but we kept tabs on it. However, UNMOVIC never checked for it and I believe the US did not after the war. It very well could have been moved to Syria .
Iraq did import 200 metric tonnes of aerosil from Germany in 1988. The silica was for the CW/BW weapons group. We, UNSCOM, believed the silica was intended for making dusty chemical agents, but it could also have been used for BW weapons. We know that Iraq had all the aerobiology technology necessary. It appears that the UN FAO also obtained 25 metric tonnes for Iraq "drug industry" in 2002 (of course this was after the anthrax letters). This also was not checked by UNMOVIC.
There is evidence that the Pasteur Institute in Paris had the Ames strain. We know that Iraq obtained from the Pasteur Institute several strains of anthrax but we were only able to confirm the identity of one strain (Pasteur A15, I believe. I could check it.) Thus one of the other strains might have been the Ames strain; in addition to the two possible sources cited by the authors.
Thus, the authors seem to have done a rather thorough analysis that the FBI should have done. There are some minor flaws in their data but I have not checked against their sources. There is no doubt that the material in the Daschle and Leahy letters as well as the AMI building contained a hydrophilic silica. The polyglass binder came from the FBI itself. I have learned of the addition of the weak like-charge from several sources including some on the inside of the investigations. The pharmaceutical industry is interested in this because, as the authors state it also increases retention of the small particles in the lung. Normally this retention is around 40%, but the like-charge increases this approaching 100%. I suspect this was the interest of whoever did this.
ping
Anthrax? Isn’t that a WMD? How could that come from Iraq?
if this was terrorist related( meaning towell heads)
then it was trial run for more hugh and series stuff me thinks
The article is, unfortunately, complete garbage. There was no silica coating on the anthrax, for example.
Of course, people will apply the usual FR What-I-want-to-believe analytical standards to this.
ping
I wonder, what will be the effect with the public upon the lying democrats who have screamed for years now the lie ‘there were no weapons of mass destruction’? [slaps forehead] Silly me! The mainstream whoredom in media will prevent any revelations from impacting democrats negatively. Truth matters not a whit.
The army lab that analyzed it disagree with you. Did you analyze the material yourself?
http://www.afip.org/images/public/nl081002.pdf
the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), one of the military labs that analyzed the Daschle anthrax, published an official newsletter stating that silica was a key aerosol enabling component of the Daschle anthrax.[13] The AFIP lab deputy director, Florabel Mullick, said “This [silica] was a key component. Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize.
well we have this going for us....these liberal whores DO NOT WANNA DIE right ???.....When Red Dawn hits us
some will be by our side,some we will just have to shoot.
if you looked at past posts of mine I make two points
1. if a moooooslim is charging you in a fox hole with a gunand beside you is a democrat,who do you shoot first ?
2.a re-loader is the best friend you will ever have,save like minded neighbors and family members who can also operate the re-loaded
Pay close attention to Post #8, and then analyze this:
Connolly: Earlier you testified that regarding the scientific aspect of the investigation there was information that was simply in your view too sensitive to share to the public about the particular characteristics of the organism sent in the mail. Is that correct?
Adams: In so many words, yes, sir.
Connolly: I don't want to mischaracterize it. If you think I've mischaracterized it in any way then, please, put your own words on it.
Adams: No, that's fine.
Connolly: Did you feel like you had the same restrictions in informing the senate, congress, or their staff in terms of what it is you would reveal to them about the particular characteristics of the organism that was sent?
Adams: As I've already stated there was specific information that I did not feel appropriate to share with either the media or to the Hill because it was too sensitive of the information to do so.
Now, in light of all this, do you honestly believe that the government is telling us truth regarding the so-called "Amerithrax" investigatgion and the nature of the anthrax? Because you have to admit, there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on here.
The FBI disagrees with you in a more recent scientific paper in the August 2006 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology, by Douglas Beecher of the FBI Hazardous Materials Response Unit:
Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents (6). However, a widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production. This idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone (3, 6, 12; J. Kelly, Washington Times, 21 October 2003; G. Gugliotta and G. Matsumoto, The Washington Post, 28 October 2002). The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations.
Anyway, this is usually the point in these threads where people attempt to spin in amusing fashion a reason why the US government has been covering up Iraqi involvement in the anthrax attacks.
ROFL..somebody already did it while I was typing my second post..
So, go ahead..sell me on the giant Gubbmint conspiracy to cover up Iraqi involvement in the Amerithrax attacks.
Only naive fools and little children really believe that our government tells the truth all the time. This government in particular lies more than just about any that I've seen in my lifetime.
I guess the revelation that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks would destroy a government like the US that failed to attack and overthrow the foreign government that was responsible....er, wait...
...ooops, we went ahead and did that and the administration is extremely unpopular for that war.
Beecher’s paper has been discredited by other editors. Basically he (Beecher) wrote a statement in his paper and provided zero evidence or citations to back it up. Indeed, the citation he made in his paper was to another pulication that DID say silica was present. The AFIP statement speaks for itself - they were the people who analyzed the anthrax - not the FBI.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html
This is the FBI’s first public statement on the investigation since it began analyzing the material in the Leahy letter and the first time the bureau has described the anthrax powder. Beecher, however, provides no citation for the statement or any information in the article to back it up, and FBI spokeswomen have declined requests to interview him.
“The statement should have had a reference,” says L. Nicholas Ornston, editor-in-chief of the microbiology journal. “An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation,” he says.
ping
Just to clarify what I meant:
“Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents (6).”
That sentence in the paper cites reference number (6) to support it. Reference number 6 is this article:
http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/anthrax-powder.htm
This article has quotes from multiple people from AFIP and USAMRID that silica was there (just the exact opposite of what Beecher claims it says):
Military scientists did not back off their findings. The August/October 2002 newsletter from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) reported that a mass spectrometry analysis found silica in the powder sent to Senator Daschle (The AFIP Letter, August/October 2002, p. 6). “This was a key component,” said the institute’s deputy director, Florabel Mullick, in the AFIP newsletter. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize,” she added. Frank Johnson, chief of AFIP’s Chemical Pathology Division, corroborated this in an interview. “There was silica there,” said Johnson, “there was no mistaking it.” Maj. Gen. John S. Parker, commander of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at the time of the attacks, says he saw AFIP’s lab reports. “There was a huge silicon spike” consistent with the presence of silica, he says. “It peaked near the top of the screen.”
Other agencies support this view today. For example, John Cicmanec, a scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, says the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to EPA that the perpetrators did, in fact, use silica to weaponize the Senate anthrax spores. According to an abstract that Cicmanec will present at the annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis next month, this weaponized form of anthrax is more than 500 times more lethal than untreated spores.
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.