If I PROMISE to stfu about the anthrax case until Wednesday

[EFerrari]

would you all consider digging what I put up @ OpEdNews? We've been a couple of days ahead of most of the net and about week ahead of the corporati.

lol

August 18, 2008

The Bruce Ivins coverage, not so good.

By Elizabeth Ferrari

Memo to the our print press: Stop believing your faxes from the FBI about the anthrax case. They’re just making you look really, really bad.

David Willman at the L.A. Times put out what is being called “an independent investigation” of the anthrax case and man, I’m so glad my life doesn’t depend on it.

“Records show that the FBI missed signs pointing to Ivins in the deadly mailings: He used a restricted lab at key times and failed to provide a sample or report a supposed spill. The investigation instead remained locked on a former Army researcher."

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-anthrax15-2008aug15,0,7898836.story?track=rss

Where do we begin? Sorry, David. The FBI lied to you about Ivins’ samples. He turned in the right sample but the FBI screwed up the labwork, as was reported in the New York Times this weekend. Then the FBI turned around and lied about it on CSPAN. This is the Bush Justice Department, after all. You believed them?



http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Bruce-Ivins-coverage--by-Elizabeth-Ferrari-080818-600.html

[babylonsister]

1. Here's a big fat kick! And rec'd! And don't stop!! nt

[EFerrari]

3. Thank you.

:hi:

[Mabus]

2. If you stop talking about it

Who will I talk to about it? Keep the info coming and interest alive.

K&R

[MadrasT]

4. Please don't stfu

I'll DIGG it anyway! If people don't want to read about the anthrax fiasco, they don't have to click on the topic... I've enjoyed your posts.

[EFerrari]

5. Thank you, MadrasT.

You must be a patient poster. :)

[livvy]

8. Completely off topic, but...

my damn frog won't stop talking about your cat. He likes it very much! He insisted I let you know.

:silly: :hi:

[EFerrari]

6. Thank you, livvy.

:hug:

[livvy]

7. LOL...please don't stop! KnR

It would be way to quiet around here.

Nice job on the OpEd.

You go, friend, and don't even think about s(ing)tfu!

:yourock:

[Gregorian]

9. A very proud reccommend.

It's a pleasure to watch this all unfold.

Bravo!

[EFerrari]

24. Hello my friend! It's good to read you.

Thank you for your help. :hi:

[bleever]

10. Dugg!

Keep it up, Beth!

:yourock:

[SpookyCat]

11. Please don't.

This story must get more play. This is terrifing to me, adn the media is either spinning or ignoring it completely.

I'll do whatever you need to keep it alive.

[Beam Me Up]

12. dug etc

:hi:

[stillcool]

13. Happy to!

[lonestarnot]

14. What made you think you had to stfu?

[SalmonChantedEvening]

15. Indeed.

Never stop being the great DUer, and font of information you are.

You too lonestarnot :yourock: :loveya:

[lonestarnot]

17. SCE!

:hug: You tell her! You and she both :yourock:

[EFerrari]

27. You know what we need here? A good parody to celebrate the

FBI's hundreth birthday. :)

[lonestarnot]

30. I like to take my showers in peace thank you!

:P

[SalmonChantedEvening]

43. Copy!!! muahahahaha

:evilgrin:

[LiberalFighter]

57. With Hoover prancing in his pink tutu around the evidence?

[EFerrari]

70. Hoover must be rolling in his grave right now.

[LiberalFighter]

78. Only if he wanted to be buried face down.

[EFerrari]

22. There's important stuff happening. McCrash is an @sshole and stuff!

lol

:hi:

[lonestarnot]

28. LOL

Lying asshole!

[EFerrari]

31. They ALL are.

:rofl:

[lonestarnot]

32. Certainly no arguing that!

Thieves too!

[EFerrari]

33. Rob is headlining this little piece. Go look.

I can't believe we didn't let this story die. :toast:

[fascisthunter]

50. ditto

[AntiFascist]

16. NSTFU and NGU n/t

[bluesmail]

18. I doubt you know how.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

19. You've got a good point there!

lol

:)

[arcadian]

20. Keep it up!

Gotta ask. What resources are you pouring over to find most of your info? DOJ reports? It's outstanding work.

[EFerrari]

21. Just what is out, arcadian. They're doing it right under our noses.

The document dump from the briefing and all the media "reports". Just what anyone can find on line. :hi:

[Uncle Joe]

23. Keep up the good work, sfexpat2000.

:)

Kicked and recommended.

[Wilms]

25. Look. If the MSM figures this out you can have a few days off. Otherwise...

...get back to work.

[EFerrari]

26. The MSM couldn't find the popes in the pizza if they tried.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

29. Yeah, baby! Rob has us up on his front page.

Take that, bastiches.

lol

:woohoo:

[EFerrari]

34. Pass me the tinfoil --

"Majidi said he doubted the FBI will ever be able to satisfy all of its critics with their suspicions about the case, saying it will be like the conspiracy theories that still exist over the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

Except unlike Oswald, you can't even place Ivins at the scene, bushbot.

FBI admits missteps, but defends anthrax probe
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1848794820080819?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

[EFerrari]

35. NYTs reports that 7 "leading scientists" from inside and outside

stood up with the FBI today to explain their science. Well, who were these anonymous "leading scientists" and why isn't NYTs telling us?

And the money shot: “I don’t think we’re ever going to put the suspicions to bed,” said Vahid Majidi, head of the F.B.I.’s weapons of mass destruction division. “There’s always going to be a spore on a grassy knoll.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/us/19anthrax.html?pagewanted=1

ETA: If you scour the article, three of these "leaders" are casually quoted and none of them simply agree with FBI.

[suffragette]

38. Good point about the anonymous scientists

I think the only named one who supports the case was the FBI's scientist.

The others named later in the article are skeptics of the FBI's case. So they don't even count as part of the seven.
They did write that article in a (puposefully?) confusing way, so it might appear at a glance that some named scientists besides the FBI's guy agreed with them.

Dr. Spertzel, in particular has been quite vocal about his skepticism. He stood out since I've seen his name quite a few times now.

I just looked up some articles with quotes by him.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/06/fbi.tactics/?iref=mpstoryview
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.


In another article I found, the pattern is now really standing out of anonymous sources saying Ivins could be guilty and named scientists disagreeing with that. This is an older one, but it really shows the pattern and how early they started it.

Note the title on this one:

Colleagues divided over guilt of anthrax murders suspect
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0804/1217628485411.html

So, who are these colleagues?

First up in the article is Ms. Duley. A colleague? Not so much.

Next is a named colleague and guess what? He doesn't buy the FBI's allegations:
"I really don't think he's the guy. I say to the FBI: 'Show me your evidence,'" said Jeffrey Adamovicz, former director of the bacteriology division at US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID.

Next is the ever popular anonymous "expert." Aside from the FBI's speculation in the article, this is the only expert cited who agrees with the FBI. But wait, what about the title shouting "Colleagues divided." Not the absence of any relationship to Ivins being specified when they cite the expert.

One bioweapons expert familiar with the FBI investigation said that Ivins indeed possessed the skills needed to create the dust-fine powder used in the attacks. At the Army lab where he worked, Ivins specialised in making sophisticated preparations of anthrax bacteria spores for use in animal tests, said the expert, who requested anonymity because the investigation remains active.

Then there's Dr. Spertzel:
"USAMRIID doesn't deal with powdered anthrax," said Richard Spertzel, who worked with Ivins at the Army lab. "I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it. You would need to have the opportunity, the capability and the motivation, and he didn't possess any of those."


Oh and a neighbor, who also doesn't think Ivins did this:
Jaye Holly, who lived next door to the Ivinses until a month ago, said she couldn't believe that her former neighbour, who was obsessed with grass recycling and drove a 20-year-old van, would endanger others for financial gain.


Hmmm, so two named scientific colleagues and a neighbor who don't think Ivins did it. One anonymous "expert" with no specified ties as a colleague to Ivins who buys the FBI speculation (or maybe is FBI). And well, Duley - not a colleague at all.

Thanks for continuing to post about this this. Please don't stop. I dug your article.

[EFerrari]

61. Thank you. And good catch about the anonymous/named pattern.

And when you think about it, it damns the FBI because a lot of the people at Ft. Detrick are under GAG orders. So, the pattern should go the other way around if FBI had a case: there should be people lining up to agree with them and by name and not so many disagreeing with them by name because they (or some of them, anyway) are at risk of losing a job or being sued.

[suffragette]

89. They do love gagging people, don't they?

Very good point about how the pattern should be the reverse.

As it is now, it's allegations wrapped in innuendo, tied up with a big bow of speculation.

Not convincing at all.

[Supersedeas]

93. and yet these national media outlets seem to have an 'unquestioning' agenda

[EFerrari]

106. They're digging their own grave.

If you go to the comments at the WaHo, for example, you don't find many happy campers there.

[orleans]

36. HA! nice. k&r. n/t

[EFerrari]

37. Omfg. The government scientist says postal machinery weaponized the anthrax!

"Burans also said that high-speed mail processing machinery could have crushed the powder more finely -- evidenced by plumes that rose 30 feet above the floor at a postal annex in Washington."

But, they really don't know wtf happened!

"On the other hand, he and the other scientists did not offer an exact explanation of how Ivins was able to prepare the fluffy, dry, powdered anthrax. Ivins, they said, could have used a lab-issue drier called a lyophylizer, but not necessarily."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-anthrax19-2008aug19,0,7852992.story?track=rss

lol

[Wizard777]

39. That's a lie. It would have had to be weaponized before going through the machinery to do that.

If they are going to float that turd. Then did they check the lint trap in his clothes dryer? :eyes:

[suffragette]

41. They sure are working the "could have" in that article, aren't they?

You know, today I "could have" flown to Rio and samba'd all day or I "could have" gone to Paris, relaxed in a jazz club and indulged in some pommeau. But, what I actually did was go to work, then came home exhausted and napped, then logged in way past my bedtime to see your excellent post.

[LiberalHeart]

51. Sent the reporter these questions:

Did the FBI say how Ivins violated the protocol? I'd like to know just how serious the violation was and whether it would have altered the sample's integrity in a meaningful way.

Did the FBI mean, when they said Ivins "helped" create the protocol, that Ivins actually knew what the end product (i.e. the exact wording of the protocol) would be? Or did he merely provide input, and did he follow that input when making his submission -- or did he violate his own suggestions?

If he followed his own suggestions, doesn't submitting the sample prior to an official request work in his favor rather than serving to incriminate him?

About the static electricity theory: I've read that the anthrax floated, suspended in air. Doesn't material with a static charge seek to cling to something rather than float aimlessly in the air?

Do we know if the FBI actually tested its theory that mailing equipment could have crushed the anthrax into a finer form? Did they obtain some of that equipment and run anthrax-laden envelopes through it? Or are they just guessing?

Also, I've heard on NPR that the anthrax was finely milled in a uniform manner. How uniform would it be after being crush by mailing equipment? Wouldn't the anthrax have to be evenly distributed in the envelope for it to get equal crushing across the board?

[AntiFascist]

76. From the scientific stuff I've read....

anthrax spores naturally tend to clump together, probably even more when they are finely milled. Someone once suggested (Alibek?) that silica could have simply been mixed with the anthrax (in the same way as the once proposed bentonate) to prevent clumping. This still doesn't necessarilly explain how static electric charge was removed, or what equipment was used to do this.

[blogslut]

40. Why STFU?

This little snow job by the FBI is a big deal. I would digg your piece but I don't do digg.

[Norrin Radd]

42. kr

[pleah]

44. K&R Please don't stfu!

:hi:

[deminks]

45. Don't stop! Never give up, Never give in. K&R

The truth will out, but we must keep pushing.

[leveymg]

46. Aside from the lukery post, this is about the only thing worth reading. DU August doldrums.

I'm so sick of the trivia and drivel about "crosses in the sand" and "cones of silence" that passes for campaign coverage.

Please, keep writing about anthrax!

[EFerrari]

58. LOL!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. "This is the Bush Justice Department, after all. You believed them? " Perfect 10 Beth!!!!

:hi:

[LiberalHeart]

48. STFU about shutting TFU n/t

[fascisthunter]

49. One of My Favorite Posters on DU

you got it sfexpat2000

[Raster]

52. Don't make that promise--keep talking about it!

[defendandprotect]

53. The FBI desperately wants this case buried --- stick with it ---!!!

and thank you!!

[msedano]

54. do not stfu unless

you want to stfu.

otoh, i don't know how to digg something, though i'm hep to the idea. now i see, gotta register with that company.

recommended here, at least.

mvs

[understandinglife]

55. Delighted to recommend ... do you have it posted to "Digg"?

If so ... link?

Peace,
Bob

[EFerrari]

60. Someone was good enough to post it to digg so it can be dug

at the OpEd link in the OP. Thank you.

[JDPriestly]

56. The journalism standards in the MSM need to be improved.

The reporters don't do the research anymore. They have to produce too fast, too much. The result is that it is \too shallow, too weak. Bloggers write less but better quality.

Daily newspapers just aren't feasible any more.

[CoffeeCat]

59. K&R&Dugg...

Great job, Beth.

I'm astounded at how sloppy this entire mess is. I guess
they're so brazen these days--they're getting lazy with their
evil.

You're showing these people that not everyone is going to sit
silent while they commit crimes.

Thanks for all that you do.

[Maat]

62. Great job!

:)

[Avalux]

63. Why should you shut up about it? We need to stand up -

and demand the FBI publish their analysis on the anthrax spores in a scientific journal. The results need to be made public for peer review. They are trying to condemn a dead man on so-called "specific phenotypical" evidence that is incredibly weak at best.

[EFerrari]

65. The papers are saying it will be done but there is no timetable.

Right.

And you know, I've yet to see one of these presstitutes ask how that anthrax got to Florida.

[Avalux]

67. Then it won't be done unless they're forced.

And the potential 100 other people who could have had access to those specific spores - all ruled out!

[EFerrari]

68. Yeah - that's not something you see in law enforcement everyday.

I was wondering last night if I'd gone off on one of my impossible arguments and may be overlooking something that everyone else sees. But, there still isn't anyone not connected to the government that I know of who believes Ivins could have made that anthrax in his lab.

The FBI is now saying the anthrax was not weaponized. But, they make no attempt to reconcile the two batches or even the anomalies between what they produced and the actual anthrax in evidence. Did the swab from the Princeton mailbox come from the first one? The second one? Do they know?

And they have resurrected their bogus story about Ivins trying to mislead them. The man turned in his first sample BEFORE there was even a subpoena, for pete's sake. People who are dragging their feet usually don't do things BEFORE you ask them to do them.

I don't see who can force FBI to publish their science. It won't happen while Bush is in office. If their IG goes there, they'll just fire him.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. Will you NOT shut the fuck up?!

:kick:

:hi:

[Janice325]

66. Beth, please don't STFU!!!

Happy I could still k&r this.

[mhatrw]

69. What we learned from the FBI yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3820342

Don't ever shut up!

[EFerrari]

71. I'm so glad you put them up all together.

Thank you!

[truedelphi]

72. But they have proven that Ivins mailed the letters from that NJ mailbox

mhatrw typed out:
The FBI linked Ivins to the New Jersey mailbox the letters were mailed from.

Well, um, no.
Patience, Beth, (and mhatrw) you of little faith...
Wait till next week - Ivins' passport will be found, slightly charred from having been on Flight 11, under the bed of one of the young sorority women!!

[LiberalHeart]

74. I wonder when they'll blame the yellow cake forgery on him.

[EFerrari]

75. That must be next!

:)

[truedelphi]

73. BTW K & R'ed n/t

[Supersedeas]

77. pretty clear that David Willman has been exposed--what will he do to restore his credibility?

[EFerrari]

79. That sad thing is, he's just one of a group. Carrie Johnson at the WaHo,

Matt Apuzzo at the AP and his twin, Lara Jakes Jordan. They should all just go apply at Batelle and get it over with.

[Supersedeas]

81. the Apuzzo/Jordan script was aweful but not unexpected from them--there is no restoration for their

kind.

Willman has the capacity to be a real journalist and OUGHT to set the record straight.

[EFerrari]

83. Yes, he should. I mailed the readers' rep about just that a few minutes ago.

I know most reporters are working under a lot worse condition than they were 20 years ago. And, what is the point, if you don't do the job?

[Truth2Tell]

80. Kicked, Recommended, and Dugg accordingly.

And if you actually STFU I swear I'll start spamming the board with Al Franken diaper posts. And trust me, you don't wanna go there.

[Kaleko]

82. Another bump, recommend and digg for the awful truth.

[EFerrari]

84. Thanks, Kaleko.

I appreciate all these recs for me to stfu. :evilgrin:

:hi:

[Kaleko]

88. I appreciate you appreciating our appreciation for not shutting the f up

as long as our reptilian-brained Overlords are cooking more frogs. :)

[BlooInBloo]

85. The day you shut up about this, will be the day I shut up period...

And I'm ok with that - you keep on keepin on!

[EFerrari]

86. Hey.

:loveya:

It feels not a little weird to keep going against the flow. But, there's something not right here. Many things not right. Like, how many mass murderers do you know that have hundreds of people showing up to their funeral? This whole case stinks of BushCo.

[BlooInBloo]

87. If it doesn't add up after doing the research, it doesn't add up. To hell with the flow. :)

[suffragette]

90. "Anthrax suspect's attorney chides FBI's 'evolving' case"

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1462645&nid=25

Attorney Paul Kemp tells WTOP the FBI and prosecutors are tweaking the case against Ivins in a way that wouldn't be allowed in court.

"They get to control the flow of information and are doing so selectively and speculatively in a way that they're trying to implicate Dr. Ivins."

.....

At times, the officials and scientists contradicted themselves, even down to the number of flasks containing the anthrax Ivins had. They eventually agreed it was one one-liter triangular flask capped with cheesecloth that linked Ivins to the attacks.

"Every day you can see this case evolving and it goes from, 'He's the only person who had access to the anthrax' -- to -- 'More than a 100 people had it, but we're convinced he is the one that did it.'"

[EFerrari]

91. This NYTs editorial will probably take responses until 10 am Eastern tomorrow:

Too Little Information

Published: August 19, 2008

An F.B.I. briefing on Monday was supposed to bolster the agency’s conclusion that a lone, disturbed bioterrorism scientist was responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, sickened 17 others and terrified the country. It fell short of its goal.

The F.B.I. spent years pointing a finger at a different suspect. It is not enough for the agency to brush off continuing skepticism. “There’s always going to be a spore on a grassy knoll,” Vahid Majidi, the chief of the agency’s weapons of mass destruction division told reporters.

A group of independent experts needs to look hard at the F.B.I.’s technical analysis and detective work that combined to convince investigators that the mailed anthrax must have come from Dr. Bruce Ivins, a scientist at the Army’s bioterrorism lab in Fort Detrick in Maryland.

The core of the F.B.I.’s case, was the use of new microbial forensic techniques to match the mailed anthrax with anthrax that the agency says was prepared by Dr. Ivins and contained in a flask that he controlled. Experts identified four distinct genetic markers among the anthrax spores in the mailings. They analyzed anthrax samples gathered from laboratories around the world. Ultimately, they concluded that only anthrax batches prepared by Dr. Ivins contained all four mutations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20wed2.html

[suffragette]

92. Sorry, the timing of that was hard for me

Stayed up too late, briefly checking in. Need to run to work.

I'll try to comment on the next one.

Glad more people are calling for a group of independent experts to have access to the data and look at this.

[mogur]

94. About that smoking gun-

I've got Majidi's grassy knoll, hanging. Look, the big difference here is that there are no phony pictures of Ivins in his backyard holding the RMR-1029 flask in one hand, and right to life pamphlets in his other. The fact that the FBI's case is so flimsy and ever-changing is a very good sign. The FBI appears to be just covering their ass, not fronting for the real anthrax killers. Their case appears to just be a re-hash of Hatfield's case. They probably photo-copied the search warrant affidavits from Hatfield to use against Ivins. The Greendale connection in both cases is simply laughable, but shows just how inept and unoriginal the FBI's case is. The more I read about the FBI's behavior against Hatfield, the stronger my feeling of deja vu becomes.

The entire FBI case is just silly, but we may be better served to attack their weakest points, instead of simply flailing against every statement they make. A case in point is the ability of Ivins to produce the mailings anthrax. When I first read Patrick, Spertzel, and a few other microbiologists, I was pretty sure that the mailings anthrax was weaponized and well beyond Ivins' ability to produce by himself with just a freeze dryer. Some scientists had said that the spores in Daschle's letter were either milled or spray dried, coated with silicone to improve friability, and then treated with anti-static agents. All of these techniques were not within Ivins' expertise as a vaccine specialist. But then I kept reading, and eventually it became clear to me that the majority of independent scientific opinion is that the Daschle sample had not been subjected to these sophisticated procedures. While the purity approaches the theoretical limit of a trillion spores per gram concentration of the 1 micron spore size, it is not that difficult to achieve in small quantities. The silicone detected turned out to be within the protective spore walls, as a result of its incorporation during the sporulation process, not added to surface of the spores to weaponize it.

While granting this point to the FBI, it is far from conceding a smoking gun. In fact, if the mailings anthrax is producible in virtually any bio lab, their 'universe' of possible suspects grows to 'impossible to eliminate' proportions. The better argument in this case may be- why would a cunning, revenge killer, who managed to evade leaving any other traces linking back to him, use a gun registered in his own name? Remember that this smoking gun was by the FBI's admission, distributed to over a hundred other individuals who also had the ability to 'easily' use it as a weapon.

[EFerrari]

96. If the silica was naturally occurring, shouldn't it also naturally occur

in the FBI's own product?

You raise a good point. They want to have it both ways: they want the anthrax to be common enough to place it within Ivins' capacity to produce AND they want it to be so unique only he could have produced it.

The FBI really shouldn't bring up the Kennedy investigation, which they really did tank, too. Oswald was in their Dallas office two days before the assassination looking for Special Agent James Hosty. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to be skeptical of the FBI. You pretty much have to be one to believe them. lol

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/hosty-papers.html

[mogur]

97. the fbi...

by their own admission, could not replicate the detected silicon. But that doesn't allow a conclusion that the mailings anthrax had been coated. In fact, Ed Lake did a detailed analysis in 2003 about this point, so he could not have been influenced by the Ivins debacle, and seems to be a great independent resource for this type of info. The culture medium must contain calcium and manganese for proper sporulation, but other minerals will be absorbed if simply present in the culture medium.

[EFerrari]

99. Yes, Ed Lake is good. I have to read science in small doses

and preferably in small words and numbers, too.

The issue about a coating is difficult, though, because the FBI also changed their story about this ca. 2006. And, since this is the Bush FBI, it's difficult to tell why. Did they really change their opinion about the anthrax itself or, did it become more convenient for their case to "conclude" the anthrax was not weaponized? :shrug:

[mogur]

107. There's where the term "weaponized" takes...

on any attribute that the speaker wants it to have. If you take a teaspoon of the liquid anthrax in the RMR-1029 flask, and spread it on a sandwich, then serve that sandwich to someone you hate, you have definitely 'weaponized' it. I am not being flippant, here, this is an important point. McCain, ABC, and a large segement of the Bush administration in Oct, 2001, evoked an image of state sponsored 'weaponized' anthrax, to lay the foundation for an Iraq invasion.

Richard Spretzel jumps on this bandwagon, with his self-aggrandizing claims-

"In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I'm one of them. And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good. Iraq almost certainly had their anthrax spores in a powdered form. They had used silica gel to aid in dispersibility of smut spores, and also indicated they were looking at it as a carrier for aflatoxin, a carcinogen."

Steven A. Lancos, executive vice president of Niro Inc., one of the leading manufacturers of spray dryers jumps on, too-

"Just collecting this stuff is a trick. Even on a small scale, you still need containment. If you're going to do it right, it could cost millions of dollars. You would need chemist who is familiar with colloidal silica, and a material science person to put it all together, and then some mechanical engineers to make this work . . . probably some containment people, if you don't want to kill anybody. You need half a dozen, I think, really smart people."

Harvard University chemical engineer David Edwards said-

"This concept of using something that would serve as a dessicant and a carrier at the same time is new. It's a diabolically brilliant idea."

Of course, this diabolically brilliant idea is aimed at Saddam at that time, not directed towards the lone nut. With the invasion of Iraq safely tucked under their belts in 2003, however, they could then safely release more of their tightly held mailings evidence to independent scientists. Slowly the opinions about its weaponization began to shift towards reality. Then, once the definition of weaponization had transmuted into a feat within the reach of a single lone nut, Hatfield is chosen as a scapecoat. But Hatfield surprised them by fighting back, and they were forced into finding an easier patsy. It is criminal what they then did to Ivins. We need, of course, a full, independent inquiry. Unfortunately, Obama may not have the inclination to pursue this matter, since he is most concerned with healing the political divisions in this country, not further rending them apart. That leaves it up to inquisitive people like you, my friend. And thank you, sincerely.

[EFerrari]

108. I understand that you are not being flippant about that sandwich.

On one hand, a strength of this project of mine is that I am science impaired and that I do think like a civilian.

On the other hand, I wish I did understand more to take on the statements of people like that idiot Majidi who said this was like "blue M&Ms" or like cooking stew. Good grief.

I don't believe Obama will take this on and it's likely that the cowering Congress won't either. Getting this put right is going to be labor intensive and from the ground up. But if the FBI keeps using their past failures as a comparison point, the job will be a little easier.

What they did to Bruce Ivins and to the Ft. Detrick community and to us all is criminal. There is no doubt about that in my mind.

[mogur]

112. I'm no investigative genius, but...

the investigation needs to focus on their weakest points, and avoid a scatter gun approach. They are in a position to release selective evidence that best serves their momentary goals. While it is tempting to just fire from the hip on the assumption that any alphabet badged buffoon has only nefarious intentions, that approach at best muddies the water, and at worst will eventually bite back. We need to question and thoroughly investigate every single scrap of their stinking pile of evidence, but attack only the weakest parts. Case in point, they got nailed on the window of opportunity for the Sept 17 mailing during Ivins' daytime leave of absence. On the other hand, saying that Ivins' son was bribed with $2.5 million and a sports car, or that Duley had 7 DUIs and an assault charge, is not accurate and just serves their purpose. The average person has little tolerance for back and forth volleys of accusations. They will just shun it like they would a quarrelsome couple. Let's keep looking at every detail of their case and save the ammunition for hitting their weakest points. Of course, they will shuffle along to an alternate reality every time we succeed, but the truth will eventually become clear to any reasonable, objective person.

[EFerrari]

114. Agreed. I've been trying to stick with motive, means and opportunity

in the clearest way I can. Taking the PR on piecemeal doesn't really work UNLESS you can take on the talking point of the day as in the "administrative leave" and ream them with it. That doesn't happen very often.

Imho, a successful strategy combines both the basics and the talking point of the moment. Today, for example, NYTs and WaHo both put up editorials asking for that independent panel to examine the science -- in response to "the spore on the grassy knoll".

That creates an opportunity to 1) Remind that motive, means, opportunity have not been established and 2) That just as in that other investigation, this one has been botched from Day 1. If there's time left on the attention span clock, you could also say that 3) determining that anthrax came from Ivins' stock doesn't prove he himself used it in any illegal act.

If skeptics try to remain factual, brief and consistent, we could get somewhere.

[mogur]

117. very succinct n/t

[AntiFascist]

109. Great analysis...

the primary anthrax expert (Ken Alibek) first speculated, in a 2000 interview, that a "Ken Alibek-grade" weaponized, powdered anthrax would be difficult to create even with a million-dollar budget sponsored by Al Qaeda. Interview here:

http://www.homelandsecurity.org/newjournal/Interviews/displayInterview2.asp?interview=2

Then, immediately after the attacks, it was argued that only a state-sponsored program could be responsible for the concentration of anthrax in the Senate mailings (hint: perhaps Iraq did it). NY Times editorial here, with quotes by Ken Alibek:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/nyt120301.html

After the "Iraq did it" argument began to lose steam, then they changed their statements to imply that any well-equipped lab would be capable of making the anthrax. Now, in complete contradiction of the statement he made in his previous interview, Alibek now supports the notion: "Does Al Qaeda Have Anthrax? Better Assume So", National Review article here:

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html#nj020601

Now, of course, all of the evidence is geared toward supporting the lone mad scientist theory.

It begins to look like he is more of an expert at information warfare.

[mogur]

110. Ha! info warfare, good one...

Yes, Alibek is obviously a lap dog of his 'handlers'. Grin. And William C. Patrick III is also a boot-licking self aggrandizer like Spertzel. But as we pursue this, it becomes easier to pick out the people who are not motivated to contribute to this information warfare, and reality is slowly starting to peak through the holes.

[EFerrari]

115. Barbara Hatch Rosenburg was also an interesting player.

She seems like the Judith Miller of the bio defense crowd. She basically bullied Congress and FBI to focus on Hatfill -- unless she didn't "only" do that, i.e., unless she was an actor for some corner of the intelligence community.

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/campaign.html

[mogur]

119. she's ubiquitous...

and not only that, everywhere! ;) Yeah, I haven't had the time to figure out her agenda, but on the surface it doesn't seem to be an objective one. I therefore, have avoided her, for now.

[AntiFascist]

120. That website you link to seems to be clearly 'counter-intelligence' oriented...

they want you to believe that Barbara Hatch Rosenberg is a conspiracy theorist. Unlike Judith Miller, she is not tied into the CFR/neocon crowd.

In fact, reports leaked out to the MSM that the US military had been involved in developing biological WMDs, up to and past the time Nixon banned them decades ago. The DIA, of course, wants the public to know that, eventhough they are developing WMDs for defensive research purposes, that they are small amounts and well within the limits imposed by the biowarfare treaties. Well, now as we know, even small amounts can have a tremendous impact in terrorizing the populace, particularly when Judith Miller types are blowing it all out of proportion.

[EFerrari]

121. That website is pro-Hatfill, no doubt.

But, Rosenberg seems to have done her share to scare the cr@P out of people to no purpose. She didn't come down on gov programs, she came down on an individual. :shrug:

[AntiFascist]

125. Interesting and very detailed right-wing critique of Rosenberg here...

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck1005a02.shtml

...

What Rosenberg is saying is that arms control agreements and international agencies are the way to deal with foreign enemies and terrorist threats. A member of The Working Group, a United Nations-associated non-governmental organization (NGO) on biowarfare matters, Rosenberg's protocol to the Biological Weapons Treaty would create an international committee of experts to monitor and enforce compliance. She probably wants to be a member of such a body. By contrast, John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, says the protocol would endanger the viability of U.S. biological warfare defense programs because its inspection provisions could enable countries with offensive programs to place their agents on the international committee and learn about U.S. national defense programs and devise counter-measures.

If it is proven that a former U.S. government scientist like Hatfill is behind the anthrax attacks, that would prove in Rosenberg's mind that a protocol mandating international inspections of government facilities, including our own, is necessary. She figures the Bush Administration would have to seek ratification of the protocol and its intrusive and compromised inspection regime under those circumstances.

...

[AntiFascist]

128. What's amusing about the webpage linked to above...

as factual as it may be, they seem to have their panties in a bind about the fact that the US could be viewed as a rogue nation. :rofl: It's the Bush family-sponsored CIA factions that have gone rogue, my paleolithic friends.

:kick: NSTFU

[EFerrari]

129. I couldn't agree more.

lol

[mogur]

122. and then there's Gary Matsumoto...

another mystery person entwined in Ivins' life. Geezzzz... so much I have to learn about. What say we divvy up the workload? Want to pick straws for Matsumoto?

[EFerrari]

124. I don't think he's very significant.

Ivins expressed ire about him but when you think about it, people who work under those contracts always have to deal with stuff like that. What Ivins expressed was just the normal pissed offedness that anyone would feel when they have to do their job AND tend to peripheral cr@p. FBI floats Matsumoto. He's their hook.

[mogur]

126. Agreed, Ivins' comment about him is trivial...

I think I might sniff around that bush anyway, since anything the FBI uses as a red herring is worth a cursory look.

[EFerrari]

127. I think that's right. It is worthing looking at. n/t

[mogur]

130. sorry about this noob question...

it took me awhile to find this thread again. How do I mark it? Wait, the big ass mark button at the top of this page? Well, I'll try that. Damn, there are a lot of posters here.

update: naw, that didn't seem to work for me, in fact, i clicked on the checked box next to the thread to see what would happen and it just hid the thread. Oh well, help me out, you seasoned veterans, you. grin

[EFerrari]

132. On the left hand side, top of the thread, it should say

"bookmark this thread" -- right above DISCUSS? If you hit that link, the thread will go into your bookmarks "folder".

[helderheid]

95. It done been dugg

[EFerrari]

98. Thanks! Today, the WaHo and the NYTs both have editorials up

asking for an independent review.

Here's the WaPo's:

Spore on the Grassy Knoll
The FBI's latest anthrax case revelations highlight the need for an independent review of the investigation.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008; Page A14

OFFICIALS AT the Federal Bureau of Investigation presented more evidence this week that they say identifies Bruce E. Ivins as the lone culprit in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others. But even they acknowledged that the evidence is unlikely to win over skeptics. "I don't think we're ever going to be able to put the suspicions to bed," said Vahid Majidi of the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. "There's always going to be a spore on the grassy knoll."

In fact, the FBI's latest disclosure raised more questions than it answered. For example, the agency disclosed that in February 2002, Dr. Ivins provided a sample of anthrax from a flask in his lab labeled RMR-1029; the FBI destroyed the sample, though, because Dr. Ivins allegedly did not submit it using proper protocols. The FBI now says that the spores found in a duplicate sample of RMR-1029 provided by Dr. Ivins at the same time, but stored at a university in Arizona, are almost identical to the spores used in the attack. The agency again acknowledged this week that more than 100 individuals could have had access to RMR-1029; it has not yet explained how it eliminated everyone but Dr. Ivins as a suspect.

The case against Dr. Ivins will never be tested in court; Dr. Ivins committed suicide last month as the Justice Department was preparing to indict him. And while the FBI and Justice Department are right to share information with the public, the slow rollout and the selective nature of what the agency is able or willing to share are not the best way to assess the validity of its claims. To that end, an independent commission or the Justice Department inspector general should review the investigation as a whole. This examination should review the methods used by the FBI in investigating Dr. Ivins and, before him, Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, who was exonerated by the Justice Department this month. It should also examine how Dr. Ivins was able to maintain his security clearance at Fort Detrick despite apparently suffering from serious mental illness. Any review must also scrutinize the FBI's forensic evidence, especially its use of a new test that is said to identify specific strains of anthrax through genetic "fingerprinting." This review would best be done outside of the political arena by scientists with expertise in biological weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081902629.html

[lonestarnot]

100. Liars lacking credibility lack justice lack ability to investigate cow dung w/or w/out maggots.

:)

[EFerrari]

101. Someone said: FBI = Frame Bruce Ivins.

[lonestarnot]

134. What an acronym! Needs a sign!

[AntiFascist]

102. so now the attack anthrax is "almost identical" to that of Dr.Ivins?

:wtf: the evidence supporting their case is getting worse and worse.

[EFerrari]

103. autorank had a theory that I discounted but that seems more true

all the time. Jean Duley went out of control and made this case peak too soon. The more I think about it, the more right that seems. They were running her to undermine Ivins and she went and created a huge media flap -- too soon. They weren't ready to present their case.

[AntiFascist]

104. I think there's only one reason why the FBI is dancing around this investigation...

it's because it involves the DIA and possibly the CIA. It's becoming more obvious to me that Project Jefferson obviously went bad, or became corrupted, and they don't want to admit it. Perhaps the "lax security" reported several times in the MSM at Dugway Proving Ground has gotten out of control?

[EFerrari]

105. Same "lax security" was reported at Ft. Detrick in the early 90s.

We can't get into an airplane without getting an X-Ray and giving a DNA sample, but getting into a "biodefense" lab, no problem.

[mogur]

113. They scared her so bad...

that this self-proclaimed biker was shaking like a leaf at the courthouse. They fed her all that Dr. Irwin background, the 2000 poison tale, the obsession with and hatred of women crap, and the impending indictment bullshit. The time was right for a suicide, since they got Duley to strip him of his professional career, incarcerate him as a nut job, and were getting their pawn to enter their false info into the court documented record. Doesn't strike me as a premature volley. And, of course, it did work out perfect for them. Btw, the hatred of women stuff doesn't fit too well with his letters to the editor that advocated women and married priests.

[EFerrari]

116. I know. I read those letters and read his emails.

And listened to her audio from that hearing where there was nothing, not a single detail when she was spewing that crap to make it credible in the least.

My training is as a reader. She's not credible. She may have believed her own bullshit but, it's clear that bullshit it was.

[helderheid]

111. excellent!

[EFerrari]

118. In the middle of everything, thank you for paying attention to this.

You are my hero. :loveya:

[helderheid]

123. oh no no no no no

You are MINE!

:hug:

[mogur]

131. seriously, san fran ex pat...

can't you put this into the research forum so i can find it again?

[EFerrari]

133. I was off for a while. Look at the link right above the word DISCUSS

on the upper left hand side of your screen. It should say "bookmark this thread". :hi: