Judge May Hold Reporter in Contempt (anthrax, Hatfill)

AP ^ | 2/19/08 | Hope Yen

[ZacandPook]

A DIA source says that Saed Mohammed was mainly just involved in procurement of equipment from Karachi. As you note, he was rendered in December 2001. After Hambali was harshly interrogated in 2003, two technicians were captured. One was named Barq and one was named Wahdan. One was from Egypt and one was from Sudan. Extremely virulent anthrax, Suskind says, was found in Afghanistan from pre-911. Tenet says that the startling revelation was that the anthrax planning was done in parallel with the 9/11 planning. This makes the anthrax spraydrying documents on al-Hawsawi’s laptop especially significant as he was helping the hijackers with logistics from the UAE.

Here is background on what the FBI/CIA currently suspects:

Mary Beth Sheridan, “Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats,” Washington Post, September 3, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR2006090201096.html

Joby Warrick, “Suspect and A Setback In Al-Qaeda Anthrax Case: Scientist With Ties To Group Goes Free,” Washington Post , October 31, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001250.html

[ZacandPook]

Hawsawi, whose computer had the anthrax spraydrying documents on it, was KSM’s assistant in Zawahiri’s media organization called Clouds. He had managed the books in Sudan.

In January 2001, it was announced that Bin Laden’s farm manager in Sudan was going to have a bail hearing in Canada. His name was Mahjoub. EIJ shura member. The official in charge got a letter threatening that anthrax would be used if his bail was not granted. The threat was reported to the President in an early February 2001 PDB that is still classified. Mahjoub’s bail was denied on October 5 — the real deal was sent October 6. Hawsawi’s was Mahjoub’s colleague from Sudan.

The letter sending the first anthrax reportedly had clouds pictured on it. The flagship of American Media, Inc., National Enquirer, described the letter sent AMI as follows:

“Bobby Bender came around the corner with this letter in the upturned palms of his hands,” said photo assistant Roz Suss, a 13-year Sun staffer.

“It was a business-size sheet of stationery decorated with pink and blue clouds around the edges. It was folded into three sections, and in the middle was a pile of what looked like pink-tinged talcum powder.

In admitting that he had taken over supervising the development of anthrax for use against the US upon Atef’s death (in November 2001), KSM separately noted that “I was the Media Operations Director for As-Sahab or ‘The Clouds,’ under Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

Zawahiri worked with Atef in the anthrax planning. It was compartmentalized, Tenet says, at the highest levels. KSM took over from Atef when a missile dropped on Atef’s head in November 2001.

[jpl]

Don't forget "We saw a large spike of silicon and oxygen in the anthrax" equates to "There was no silica in the anthrax".

:)

[TrebleRebel]

LOL :)))

And don’t forget “We do know that we found silica in the samples” means “well we didn’t really find silica actually, and if you reproduce my words I’ll claim the media fabricated them”.

http://www.iwar.org.uk/homesec/resources/anthrax/briefing.htm

Also “It’s going nowhere” means “they are going to make an arrest within days”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/politics/17anthrax.html

[ZacandPook]

“Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive x-ray microanalysis detected the presence of silica, a potential additive in the weaponization process of B anthracis endospores. Atomic force microscopy, which provides a high-resolution image of the cellular surface, can be used to provide information on molecules adhering to the spores and on modifications to the exosporium caused by mechanical and chemical treatments during the weaponization process. Through the use of particle (proton)-induced x-ray emission and scanning transmission ion microscopy, the distribution of elements can be mapped within regions of a single cell. Raman and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy probes molecular bond vibrations and rotations to produce characteristic spectra. This methodology has been used to distinguish between species of spores by probing the first few nanometers of the spore surface. Bioaerosol mass spectrometry has been developed for the rapid identification of individual cells or spores in an aerosol with many background materials in real time and without reagents. The mass spectral signature obtained reflects the intrinsic biologic agent and the matrix material in which it is embedded or coated. Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry captures elemental data (to generate chemical maps) and molecular fragments (to generate mass spectra) on a depth-dependent basis (to generate a depth profile). This complementary technology also can detect the signatures of silica and other additives. Accelerator mass spectrometry combines mass spectrometry and nuclear detection to measure the concentration of an isotope in a sample. Accelerator mass spectrometry reduces the entire sample (<1 mg) to carbon before performing the analysis and provides the 14C measurements on the bulk sample. This can be used to determine the age of the material (ie, when the biologic agent was prepared). Finally, mass spectroscopic methods (eg, liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry and matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight) also have been applied to the detection and characterization of toxins [84], [85].”

[ZacandPook]

TrebleRebel, care to guess who said it?

[ZacandPook]

Okay. The head FBI scientist, Dr. Budowie, along with a co-author from CDC, wrote that in 2006. That was too easy. I have no idea why Ed doesn’t disclose the article on his website given that he lives and breathes silica.

Who said this in connection automated anthrax smoke detector in connection with a November 2007 article.

Does it constitute misdirected research?

“Anthrax attacks were simulated using aerosolized Bacillus atrophaeus spores in fumed silica, and corresponding Tb-DPA intensities were monitored as a function of time and correlated to the number of airborne endospores collected. A concentration dependence of 10(2)-10(6) spores/mg of fumed silica yielded a dynamic range of 4 orders of magnitude and a limit of detection of 16 spores/L when 250 L of air were sampled. Simulated attacks were detected in less than 15 min.

Who funded the research? When will those rocket scientists start listening to Ed?

[TrebleRebel]

Would that be Budowle of the FBI?

Let’s analyze what we have here. Budowle quotes a paper that used XRD to unambiguously identify silica as an additive in a weaponized surrogate sample.

It was EXACTLY the same test that AFIP performed on the Daschle spores. And AFIP announced their results, in plain English. They clearly stated they found silica and it was a key aerosol-enabling component of the Daschle anthrax.

So, we have Budowle claiming that XRD is used to detect weaponized silica in BW samples - that it’s the STANDARD test to check for weaponization with silica. But then we have Beecher totally ignoring the AFIP results and writing that there were no additves in the Daschle anthrax.

Then when Beecher’s paper get’s pointed out to the media all hell breaks loose and we have congressmen writing to the FBI demanding explanations - and not getting them.

[jpl]

You know, on that note, it is going to be VERY interesting indeed to see what is going to happen in the future if Barack Obama gets elected POTUS and the democrats retain full control of Congress.

Because I suspect that Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle, the democrats, the media, and Barabara Hatch Rosenberg are still going to want answers to the unresolved questions surrounding the so-called "Amerithrax" investigation. But instead of the evil George Bush, it will be one of their soul brothers in charge of the F.B.I. It's kind of fascinating to think about, and it will be fascinating to watch, should it actually happen.

[TrebleRebel]

I’ve thought about that - but you know what? I think little will change.
Maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression Daschle and Leahy haven’t tried quite as hard as they could have to get answers. On the face of it - surely they should both be going ballistic - bringing it up at every opportunity, issuing subpoenas. Instead, Holt and Grassley are making more noise (garnted Daschle is no longer in office).
But I get the feeling Leahy is OK with this thing quietly fading away.

[jpl]

Maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression Daschle and Leahy haven’t tried quite as hard as they could have to get answers. On the face of it - surely they should both be going ballistic - bringing it up at every opportunity, issuing subpoenas. Instead, Holt and Grassley are making more noise (garnted Daschle is no longer in office). But I get the feeling Leahy is OK with this thing quietly fading away.

I've noticed that as well, and frankly it still baffles me.

I sometimes wonder if Leahy might know more than what he's letting on. These politicians are capable of being good actors when they need to be.

[TrebleRebel]

Leahy did make a pretty strong statement in September last year, but I think maybe he got caught with his guard down here. If you think about what he actually said below it makes it even more puzzling he isn’t reading the riot act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
September 4, 2007: Senator Patrick Leahy states in an interview with Vermont blog Vermont Daily Briefing that he is unsatisfied with the progress of the investigation and that he believes that some government officials may know more about the source of the anthrax than has been disclosed “I think there are people within our government — certainly from the source of it — who know where it came from.

[EdLake]

I'm pretty sure that neither Michelle Malkin nor David Tell believes that Steven Hatfill was involved in the anthrax attacks. I'm a big Malkin fan, and she is a hardcore conservative, like I am.

I'm not sure this is purely about conservatives vs liberals. But I also don't know much about Michelle Malkin. I don't follow her column.

She points out Judge Walton's comment that "There’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with [the anthrax attacks]" and then writes:

How quickly we’ve forgotten…

Then she posts images of the letters, etc., and provides a link to David Tell's article.

Tell's article ends with this:

Just the same, however discreditable they might be, and assuming that's what we're dealing with here, inaccurate boasts about past accomplishments, even when a man is attempting to secure a government job, are not enough to raise an inference that the fellow is a racist or a murderer.

I guess I could have misunderstood what Malkin wrote. She could have been talking about forgetting about the anthrax case instead of forgetting about all the so-called "evidence" against Dr. Hatfill, which Tell lists.

I'll put a correction of some kind on my site.

Thanks.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[EdLake]

“Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive x-ray microanalysis detected the presence of silica, a potential additive in the weaponization process of B anthracis endospores.

I'm glad you brought this up. When I first received this quote in an email, I fell for your scam and believed it had something to do with the anthrax letters. But, then one of the authors of the article sent me a copy and I realized your distortions were evidently just part of another attempt to mislead people.

You distorted the facts by taking things out of context, by removing the first part of the quote and specifically the reference.

The entire beginning of the paragraph is as follows in red:

Numerous other technologies can be applied to microbial forensics. Schaldach and coworkers [84] used many of these technologies to examine weaponized spore preparations of Bacillus globigii, a commonly used surrogate for B anthracis. Scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive x-ray microanalysis was used to determine the elemental composition of single cells or spores. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive x-ray microanalysis detected the presence of silica, a potential additive in the weaponization process of B anthracis endospores.

So, the paragraph is really talking about the science of microbial forensics and all the kinds of tests they are doing to allow them to figure out how a specific sample of anthrax was made. It is NOT about the attack anthrax.

And the [84] reference is to the chapter in the book "Microbial Forensics" called "Non-DNA methods for biological signatures" which shows pictures of spores MIXED with silica and other spores which were coated with silica in the ways "described in the media." S.P.Velsko's article on this subject describes that they created spores using the "recipes" from the media to show scientists what such things look like, NOT because they are effective bioweapons. And they would clearly NOT make effective bioeapons. Here's what Velsko wrote:

it is important to recognize that would-be bio-terrorists are likely to utilize information from a broader range of sources, including open scientific literature, the internet, underground “cookbooks”, and information that has, unfortunately, been divulged to the news media in recent years. There is no necessary presumption that this information is always accurate or leads to an effective biological weapon. But only by collecting and organizing this information (and keeping it up-to-date) can we hope to recognize the recipe used to make an agent in the widest variety of possible incidents.

If you need to distort the facts to make your point, that just proves your point is invalid.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[EdLake]

I have no idea why Ed doesn’t disclose the article on his website given that he lives and breathes silica.

The article isn't on my site for two reasons: (1) There is no free link to it on any web site I can find. (2) It contains nothing new.

The quote you took out of context means nothing when put back into context. It's just talking about things being done in microbial forensics, things discussed in detail many times over the years.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[ZacandPook]

Ed,

What did you think of the November 2007 article cited and quoted above — by the Ponce group. They used a weaponized surrogate using silica. Funded by NASA. Intended to develop biodetection equipment for the Post Office.

Do you think the research and tax dollars were misdirected? Do you think NASA has access to the information relating to whether the 2001 attack anthrax used anthrax? Or were the scientists just relying the AFIP report. Perhaps someone could ask Dr. Ponce.

I’ll send you a free copy — the link is at his homepage.

As to the other article, I don’t understand you to say I misquoted it. I had sent you the link where it could be accessed by you for free so you could see the context). I understand you to say you jumped to the wrong conclusion upon reading the quoted text.

[EdLake]

What did you think of the November 2007 article cited and quoted above — by the Ponce group.

It's a very interesting article. I sent an email to one of the authors asking what "spore-spiked fumed silica" would look like. We've seen pictures of fumed silica MIXED with spores, and we've seen at least one picture of a spore coated with fumed silica. It's the image on the right below:

Presumably, "spore-spiked fumed silica" would look something like a marble stuck to a chicken feather. It would definitely be something that would be CLEARLY visible to anyone looking at it under a Scanning Electron Microscope. And it certainly would have NOTHING to do with how the attack anthrax was prepared.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[ZacandPook]

As for what Michelle Malkin thinks, we can start with a piece she wrote in Fall 2001 as a first guide. (Even though my politics are left, reading and listening to MM is one my naughty pleasures):

“In wartime, these health officials remain committed to the Nanny
State philosophy. Take last week’s statements by Health and Human
Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, who oversees the CDC, when news broke about the Florida man who had contracted the first case of inhalation anthrax in 25 years.

At a White House briefing, Thompson described the case as “isolated” six times.

He mentioned that the anthrax victim, Bob Stevens, was an
“outdoorsman” and “drank water out of a stream when he was traveling
through North Carolina.” Thompson stated emphatically that “there is no
evidence of terrorism.”

    He did not mention that Stevens lived about a mile from an air strip
where terrorist hijacker Mohammed Atta rented planes or that several of
Atta’s fellow hijackers also visited and asked questions at a
crop-dusting business in Belle Glade, Fla., 40 miles
from Stevens’ home in Lantana.

    Thompson brought along an HHS doctor, Scott Lillibridge, to
pooh-pooh the possibility of nefarious causes for Stevens’ infection.
“Sporadic cases may occur from contact with wool, animal products,
hides, that sort of thing,” Lillibridge said. “These are sporadic,
episodic things that happen from time to time.”

    Others echoed the “don’t worry, be happy” line. “We have no reason
to believe at this time this was an attack at all,” said Dr. Steven
Wiersma, Florida’s top epidemiologist. A National Public Radio report
announced: “Government reassures citizens that a Florida man who
contracted anthrax did not get it as the result of bioterrorism.”

    Well, that was Thursday. On Friday, Stevens died. On Monday, a
second man who worked in the mailroom of Stevens’ workplace was found to
have a small amount of anthrax in his nose. Anthrax spores were found on
a keyboard in the building.

Now the FBI is investigating the Florida cases. And nobody’s blaming it
on wool.

    Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday: “We regard this as an
investigation that could become a clear criminal investigation . . . We
don’t have enough information to know whether this could be related to
terrorism or not.” We don’t have enough information. Isn’t this what
Thompson should have said last week? Why did he say anything at all?
Thompson’s credibility is shot.

***

    Let this be a lesson to Thompson and our great guardians in lab
coats. Arm us with facts or shut up. The prescription for panic
prevention lies in letting us judge the risk — and what to do about it
— for ourselves. Truth is always the most effective antidote to fear.”

Her piece appeared, for example, in the Indianapolis Star.

[EdLake]

I sent an email to one of the authors asking what "spore-spiked fumed silica" would look like.

After posting my message to this forum, I went to my health club for my regular workout. While working out, I started to think a bit about "spore-spiked fumed silica."

Another way of phrasing that would be that "they spiked the fumed silica with spores."

That makes me think of somone "spiking" the Christmas punch with a bottle of vodka. Or spiking someone's drink with knockout drops. In other words, it's adding a small amount of some special ingedient to a large amount of some normal or regular stuff.

And I also got to thinking about the drying process they used which put the fumed silica together with the spores in the first place. Here's how they describe it:

Simulated Anthrax Attack. 2.0106 B. atrophaeus spores, as counted using a hemocytometer, were suspended in 100% methanol and then inoculated to 20 mg of fumed silica. The slurry was allowed to dry overnight under room temperature with constant shaking. The flocculent powder thus formed was used for spore aerosolization experiment.

I don't really have any reason to believe that the spores will stick to the fumed silica after "constant shaking." In fact, the purpose of the "constant shaking" is probably to keep things from sticking together. And, since the purpose for using fumed silica is to create a "flocculent powder," i.e. a fluffy powder, it seems that the results will almost certainly look exactly like what is in the picture at the bottom of the image found HERE.

So, there isn't really anything in the article that has anything to do with what was in the anthrax letters.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[ZacandPook]

Ed, who was the Egyptian, who said he was a former lab technician, researching anthrax in the Canton, Ohio public library in June 2001 with some of the Detroit defendants? Why was he researching anthrax? Is it related to KSM’s and Jabarah’s (and al-Marri’s) plot to poison a reservoir?

Anthrax and Ayman: Biology Teacher Jaballah Spoke Regularly With Zawahiri By Telephone From North America, February 23, 2008
http://www.bloggernews.net/114024