My Conversation With a Ft. Detrick Scientist

[Galileo]

My Conversation With a Ft. Detrick Scientist

2001 Anthrax Attacks | anthrax | Anthrax attacks | weaponized anthrax

Today (August 9), I spoke with a PhD scientist who works at Ft. Detrick. The scientist knows Dr. Bruce Ivins very well and has worked with him for many years.

The scientist is an acquaintance of mine who I've known for about five years.

The scientist is a specialist in infectious diseases, including airborne diseases.

The scientist does not want their name given out. The FBI has told all the scientists at Ft. Detrick they cannot speak with the media or they will be fired.

[Its interesting to note that scientists at Ft. Detrick can't exercise their first amendment rights, but the FBI can illegally leak confidential investigative information to the media. Its also interesting that some of the info leaked to the media by FBI informants is not legitimate investigative material, but instead, material meant to character assassinate Dr. Ivins. Its also interesting that the FBI leakers can avoid detection, given the Patriot Act.]

The scientist's eyewitness statements and expert opinions are based on personal knowledge, not media reports, and the scientist has not read hardly any news articles about Dr. Ivins. The scientist has heard media reports that have character assassinated the good name of Dr. Ivins. I will be sending some important news articles regarding the anthrax case to the scientist today.

The scientist's political views tend to lean on the right side, while the views of Dr. Ivins tend to lean on the left side. This is based on the fact that the scientist tends to vote republican or conservative libertarian, while Dr. Ivins was a regular voter in democratic primaries. Therefore, the statements of the scientist have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with the facts.

The scientist says that "Dr. Bruce Ivins is innocent and that all the scientists who worked with him know he is innocent".

The scientists says that "Dr. Ivins doesn't have a motive to kill anyone", and was instead, "dedicated to saving lives by making anthrax vaccines". "Dr. Ivins has 30 years of service in protecting human life".

The scientist says that "Dr. Ivins did not make weaponized anthrax, does not know how to make weaponized anthrax, and does not have the equipment to make weaponized anthrax".

The scientists says that this holds true for every scientist at Ft. Detrick, and "none made weaponized anthrax, none know how to make, nor do any have the equipment to make it".

The scientist says all the scientists at Ft. Detrick have been harassed by the FBI. The scientist says that the "FBI harassment has been totally awful and disgusting the way the scientists were treated".

The scientist says that "two doctors who came over form the Soviet Union and work at the facility think the FBI's behavior is worse than the KGB".

The scientist says that "Dr. Ivins was driven crazy and racked with fear from the FBI harassment which amounted to psychological torture".

The scientist says the "FBI essentially murdered Dr. Ivins by driving him crazy".

The scientist says that "Dr. Ivins innocent and doesn't know who sent the anthrax".

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17058#comment-194263

[ChumpDumper]

I also spoke with a PhD scientist that works there. He said Ivins did it.

I have just as much proof of the conversation as this douche.

[cool hand]

if you didn't do it, then don't kill yourse..............ooops! too late.

[ChumpDumper]

The scientist says that "Dr. Ivins innocent and doesn't know who sent the anthrax".What the hell kind of quote is that? Did he interview Dr. Tonto?

[Galileo]

I also spoke with a PhD scientist that works there. He said Ivins did it.

I have just as much proof of the conversation as this douche.

so that means you never read all the bullshit leaked by the FBI?

[Galileo]

What the hell kind of quote is that? Did he interview Dr. Tonto?

what's wrong with the quote?

[ChumpDumper]

so that means you never read all the bullshit leaked by the FBI?I have read all the bullshit posted by you.

[ChumpDumper]

what's wrong with the quote?Do you say "I doesn't" and not use verbs?

[Galileo]

Fort Detrick Scientist: Ivins Innocent, FBI Worse Than KGB!
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/

[FromWayDowntown]

Everything is a conspiracy!!!!

No -- Really.

Everything is a conspiracy!!!!

[Galileo]

Everything is a conspiracy!!!!

No -- Really.

Everything is a conspiracy!!!!

Not everything. Defending an innocent man is NOT a conspiracy.

[Galileo]

Q: If Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, why didn't he kill himself with anthrax?

Huh?

[I. Hustle]

Sounds like your conspiring to conspire

[FromWayDowntown]

Not everything. Defending an innocent man is NOT a conspiracy.

But surely there's some massive governmental conspiracy to target an innocent man -- of all people in our nation, this innocent man! -- and allege that he's responsible for killing a half dozen people.


Q: If Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, why didn't he kill himself with anthrax?

Huh?

Perhaps because he wanted to take an easier way out and not have to wait a long time for death to occur. That, or, there would be the crazy possibility that he had been immunized from anthrax, given the nature of his work . . . .

[ChumpDumper]

Q: If Dr. Bruce Ivins wasn't the anthrax killer, why did he kill himself with Tylenol?

[Galileo]

Conclusive evidence of means, motive and opportunity are missing
Case Analysis in a Nutshell

1. Ivins cannot be placed at the Princeton mailbox at either of the two times he would have to have been there.

2. There are additional hoax letters that have not been discussed by FBI in the information released Wednesday; may we assume Ivins could not be placed at those mailbox locations during the requisite windows of opportunity?

3. No official evidence has come forward indicating the nature of the Daschle/Leahy spore preparation, nor whether Ivins possessed the knowledge regarding its production, or access to the necessary equipment.

4. No convincing motive has been presented, although a variety of implausible motives have been suggested.

5. Although many other people with a strong motive can be identified, there is no evidence they were investigated by FBI and exculpated.

6. "The FBI sought out the best experts in the scientific community and, over time, four highly sensitive and specific tests were developed that were capable of detecting the unique qualities of the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks." However, details about the microbial forensic analysis have not been released, and may not be available for months or years pending publication. Scientists doubt that any forensic analysis can do more than identify the precise strain of anthrax.

7. The pre-franked envelopes could not be identified as coming from Ivins' post office, as initially claimed, but were instead sold in multiple post offices, none of which was definitely in Frederick.

8. Ivins was not the "sole custodian" of the RMR-1029 strain; over 100 people had access to it and they may have shared it with others. How was Ivins selected as a suspect and the others exonerated?

9. Handwriting analysis has not linked him to the crime.

10. He could not be linked to the Quantico letter that fingered Dr. Assaad. He could not be linked to any efforts to finger Dr. Hatfill.

11. No physical evidence links him to the crime: this includes the tape on the letters, fibers, human DNA, spores in his car, home or personal effects, evidence of any kind he travelled to the areas where the letters were mailed, including purchasing enough gasoline for a 7 hour trip to Princeton, twice.

12. He passed two polygraph examinations at Fort Detrick.

13. Since the FBI has been unable to build a convincing case against any one individual in the 7 years since the letters were sent, why didn't it focus on identifying a conspiracy of individuals who together may have been able to perform the complex actions required to send the anthrax letters and hoax letters?

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 9:45 AM
comments:
Home



http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2008/08/conclusive-evidence-of-means-motive-and.html



LATEST NEWS



Open Questions on a Closed Case



by Gerry Andrews



ON Wednesday, the United States Justice Department revealed its evidence that Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, on his own, committed the worst act of bioterrorism in the country’s history. This 18-year veteran scientist of the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., is accused of killing five people and sickening 17 others in the fall of 2001. Dr. Ivins died on July 29 of an apparent suicide without a chance to give his side of the story.



After reading the affidavits and listening to the Justice Department briefing, I was both disheartened and perplexed by the lack of physical evidence supporting a conviction.



Dr. Ivins was a friend and colleague of mine for nearly 16 years. We worked together at Fort Detrick. He was a senior scientist, and I was, first, a bench scientist and, from 1999 to 2003, the chief of the bacteriology division.



READ MORE:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10andrews.html?_r=1&oref=slogin



Gerry Andrews is an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Wyoming.



GeorgeWashington's blog

http://www.911blogger.com/blog/4



George Washington is an attorney

[Galileo]

But surely there's some massive governmental conspiracy to target an innocent man -- of all people in our nation, this innocent man! -- and allege that he's responsible for killing a half dozen people.



The guy is innocent, you figure it out.

[ChumpDumper]

The guy is innocent, you figure it out.No, you tell us why the FBI made all of this up to frame an American instead of Iraq and/or Al Qaeda and why they didn't make up more to have a less ambiguous case against the American they had no reason to frame.

[Galileo]

Anthrax Attack Was State-Sponsored Terror (But the State Was America)
The chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998 - who describes himself as one of the "four or five people in the whole country" who could make the type of anthrax used in the 2001 attacks - noted in testimony to Congress:


"I have maintained from the first descriptions of the material contained in the Daschle letter that the quality appeared to be such that it could be produced only by some group that was involved with a current or former state program in recent years. The level of knowledge, expertise, and experience required and the types of special equipment required to make such quality product takes time and experimentation to develop. Further, the nature of the finished dried product is such that safety equipment and facilities must be used to protect the individuals involved and to shield their clandestine activity from discovery."
Similarly, a manufacturer of specialized anthrax equipment said:

"You would need [a] chemist who is familiar with colloidal [fumed] 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."
The U.N. biologist mentioned above also said that the equipment to make such high-tech anthrax does not exist at Fort Detrick, where Ivins worked. People who work at Fort Detrick have confirmed this.

In other words, a lone scientist couldn't have done it without the support of a whole government laboratory. And Fort Detrick was not one such potential laboratory.

What Does the FBI Say?

Until 2006, the FBI seemed to support this conclusion, but then suddenly and inexplicably changed its mind. According to the New York Times, the FBI changed its mind and took the position that the anthrax was not high-tech -- and thus could have been produced by a "lone nut" -- based upon a single paper published by one of its scientists.

The new theory was shown to be unsupported by any evidence in a various scientific papers
(see this and this). And even the editor of the journal in which the new FBI hypothesis was published later criticized the article:

"The statement should have had a reference. 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."
In other words, the FBI scientist just made up the new claim that the anthrax was not so high-tech that it had to have been made by a government-sponsored bioweapons program.

So why did the FBI change its tune, based upon an unsupported statement by one of its scientists?

Well, if the evidence pointed to state-sponsored terror, ruled out states the U.S. government wanted to blame the attack on (such as Iraq), and actually pointed towards America as being the "state sponsor", the government might want to distract people from the true culprits, right? Especially given that producing weaponized anthrax violates laws to which the U.S. is a signatory, and could constitute war crimes, right?

Indeed, on September 4, 2001, the New York Times revealed that the government was going to produce a highly-potent anthrax strain at a military lab in Ohio.

And Dugway Proving Grounds had been producing high-grade, dry, weaponized anthrax for quite some time before the attacks, and had shipped Ames strain anthrax "back and forth" with Fort Detrick.

Since 16 labs and many hundreds of people had access to the exact strain of anthrax used in the attacks, a state-sponsored operation could have been set up almost anywhere in the U.S.

They needed a patsy to pin the attacks on and deflect the fact that this was a false flag operation which also implicated an illegal bioweapons program.

The anthrax attacks was a crime in search of a patsy.

And see this.
Posted by George Washington at 9:35 AM
Older Post Home

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/anthrax-attack-was-state-sponsored.html

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if the evidence pointed to state-sponsored terror, ruled out states the U.S. government wanted to blame the attack on (such as Iraq), and actually pointed towards America as being the "state sponsor", the government might want to distract people from the true culprits, right? Especially given that producing weaponized anthrax violates laws to which the U.S. is a signatory, and could constitute war crimes, right?Since they made up all the evidence, they could have just made up evidence pointing away from US sources and towards Iraq, right?

Right?

[cool hand]

Isn't there real conspiracies to uncover? use your brainpower and energy for that.

here's one

OPEC and the Oil Cartels are one in the same......wrap your mind around that for a while.

[FromWayDowntown]

And Dugway Proving Grounds had been producing high-grade, dry, weaponized anthrax for quite some time before the attacks, and had shipped Ames strain anthrax "back and forth" with Fort Detrick.

So, wait -- either my feeble mind is misunderstanding this sentence or it would seem that this sentence indicates that the sort of anthrax that Fort Detrick couldn't produce was, in fact, available at Fort Detrick. Am I missing something?

[Galileo]

So, wait -- either my feeble mind is misunderstanding this sentence or it would seem that this sentence indicates that the sort of anthrax that Fort Detrick couldn't produce was, in fact, available at Fort Detrick. Am I missing something?

you are missing something, read the whole article.

[ChumpDumper]

Since 16 labs and many hundreds of people had access to the exact strain of anthrax used in the attacks, a state-sponsored operation could have been set up almost anywhere in the U.S.Since Ivins had access to the exact strain of anthrax used in the attacks, a single-person operation could have been set up at Fort Dietrick.

[FromWayDowntown]

you are missing something, read the whole article.

I've read the article. It says to me that it would take all sorts of people and equipment to make that strain of anthrax and that none of those things existed at Fort Detrick. But it also says that the strain of anthrax in question was shipped to Fort Detrick from another lab, ostensibly one that was capable of producing that strain of anthrax. As such, the article would seem to suggest that the Ames strain of anthrax was available at Fort Detrick, despite the limitations of the labs at Fort Detrick.

Rather than this coy routine, why don't you explain where I'm incorrect.

[Galileo]

I've read the article. It says to me that it would take all sorts of people and equipment to make that strain of anthrax and that none of those things existed at Fort Detrick. But it also says that the strain of anthrax in question was shipped to Fort Detrick from another lab, ostensibly one that was capable of producing that strain of anthrax. As such, the article would seem to suggest that the Ames strain of anthrax was available at Fort Detrick, despite the limitations of the labs at Fort Detrick.

Rather than this coy routine, why don't you explain where I'm incorrect.

the Ames strain was shipped back & forth, but not the dry weaponized anthrax. Ft. Detrick only had wet anthrax of the Ames strain.

[FromWayDowntown]

the Ames strain was shipped back & forth, but not the dry weaponized anthrax. Ft. Detrick only had wet anthrax of the Ames strain.

That's curious, since the article that you posted says:

And Dugway Proving Grounds had been producing high-grade, dry, weaponized anthrax for quite some time before the attacks, and had shipped Ames strain anthrax "back and forth" with Fort Detrick.

The article also says nothing about the strain transmitted to Detrick as having been "wet" anthrax -- indeed, the way the sentence is written, the natural assumption of any neutral reader would be that the Ames strain anthrax shipped back and forth with Fort Detrick was the "high-grade, dry, weaponized anthrax" mentioned in the preceding clause of the sentence. In fact, I don't find a single reference in the article to "wet" anthrax. Do you have some other source or something?

[Galileo]

That's curious, since the article that you posted says:

And Dugway Proving Grounds had been producing high-grade, dry, weaponized anthrax for quite some time before the attacks, and had shipped Ames strain anthrax "back and forth" with Fort Detrick.

The article also says nothing about the strain transmitted to Detrick as having been "wet" anthrax -- indeed, the way the sentence is written, the natural assumption of any neutral reader would be that the Ames strain anthrax shipped back and forth with Fort Detrick was the "high-grade, dry, weaponized anthrax" mentioned in the preceding clause of the sentence. In fact, I don't find a single reference in the article to "wet" anthrax. Do you have some other source or something?

the sentence is poorly worded. I didn't write it. Dugway had the weaponized anthrax. Both Dugway and Ft. Detrick had the Ames strain. Email the author if you don't believe me.

[ChumpDumper]

the sentence is poorly worded. I didn't write it. Dugway had the weaponized anthrax. Both Dugway and Ft. Detrick had the Ames strain. Email the author if you don't believe me.I'd rather see it from a legitimate source.

[FromWayDowntown]

the sentence is poorly worded. I didn't write it. Dugway had the weaponized anthrax. Both Dugway and Ft. Detrick had the Ames strain. Email the author if you don't believe me.

If you're trying to get people to believe your story, this is a poor way to do it. Offering information and then saying that a key sentence doesn't mean exactly what it says is hardly convincing.

[Galileo]

If you're trying to get people to believe your story, this is a poor way to do it. Offering information and then saying that a key sentence doesn't mean exactly what it says is hardly convincing.

It does mean exactly what it says. The comma is in between the two claims.

[FromWayDowntown]

So the sentence implies a "wet" that arises from no source within the article?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, coming from Galileo, I have to call the details B.S. I have however had my own suspicions on the issue. My opinion is that the Dr. is innocent, setup, and killed by the real people involved. Who is it? Probably someone the Dr. knew and discovered.

Just opinion, don't make too much of it please.

[Nbadan]

Well, coming from Galileo, I have to call the details B.S. I have however had my own suspicions on the issue. My opinion is that the Dr. is innocent, setup, and killed by the real people involved. Who is it? Probably someone the Dr. knew and discovered.

Just opinion, don't make too much of it please.


Scary...but I think your kinda right....Dr. Ivins didn't have the capability to weaponize the anthrax the way it was to make it more lethal...he certainly didn't have the capability to do it in a hotel room, or at the weapons lab.....like Chumpy thinks...

[ChumpDumper]

So who do you think really pulled off the anthrax attacks, dan?

Should I start another thread dedicated to that or will you be as much of a coward as you are when it comes to 9/11?

[ChumpDumper]

Anthrax can't be weaponized at a biological weapons lab?

News to me.

[Nbadan]

.....well then again you did manage to find a explanation for 911 despite the fact that NIST has been able to do so for 7 years and counting and Calculus makes your eyes glaze over..

[ChumpDumper]

.....well then again you did manage to find a explanation for 911 despite the fact that NIST has been able to do so for 7 years and counting and Calculus makes your eyes glaze over..I pointed out a fundamental flaw in your equation that rendered it useless.

Now, if you want to talk about 9/11....

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes


As the court documents allege, the parent material of the anthrax spores used in the attacks was a single flask of spores, known as "RMR-1029," that was created and solely maintained by Dr. Ivins at USAMRIID. This means that the spores used in the attacks were taken from that specific flask, regrown, purified, dried and loaded into the letters.

So, that's the game and the frame-up right there. Regrown spores don't weaponize themselves. They do not regrow super-small and covered with state-of-the-art anti-clumping silicon with a weak electrical charge for dispersion. And how do we know, aside from voluminous ongoing reports that we will soon examine, that there was such silica on the spores, and that it was cutting edge technology?

What do the DOJ and FBI offer us for how Ivins could have done all this? Silence and disinformation. The aforementioned affidavit states:


Culturing anthrax and working safely with dried anthrax spores requires specific training and expertise in technical fields such as biochemist or microbiology. It also requires access to particular laboratory equipment such as a lyophilizer or other drying device, biological safety cabinet or other containment device, incubator, centrifuge, fermentor, and various protective fear, all of which Dr. Ivins had readily accessible to him through his employment at USAMRIID.

The above paragraph is a carefully worded frame up. Yes, a special drying device is needed to coat the anthrax with silicon in the right way; it is a spray dryer -- a device that works with intense heat to vaporize nearly instantly a water suspension of silicon particles that then is drawn to the anthrax. Ivins had access to a lyophilizer, but not to a spray dryer. A lyophilizer freeze dries liquid anthrax into a powder. So the affidavit slips the fact that Ivins lacks even the basic tools by including "or other drying device" and states (truly and deceptively) that Ivins had access to "all of which," i.e., the unhelpful lyophilizer but not the essential spray dryer, let alone the specialized silicon and team of colleagues to make it work. The Post continues about the requirements


"Surface tension will pull those little [silica] particles together onto the big one," said California Institute of Technology chemical engineer Richard Flagan. "You will end up with some degree of coating."

The following year, Gary Matsumoto wrote an article for Science 28, November 2003, Volume 302 that stated that "a schism now exists among scientists who analyzed it for the FBI." Initially, there was consensus:


Whoever made such an aerosol would "need some experience" with aerosols and "would have to have a lot of anthrax, so you could practice," Edwards said. "You'd have to do a lot of trial and error to get the particles you wanted." It would also help to have an electron microscope to examine the results.

This would mean at least several hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment, several experts said. Niro's cheapest spray dryer sells for about $50,000. Electron microscopes cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In all, said Niro's Lancos, "you would need [a] chemist who is familiar with colloidal [fumed] 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."

The following year, Gary Matsumoto wrote an article for Science 28, November 2003, Volume 302 that stated that "a schism now exists among scientists who analyzed it for the FBI." Initially, there was consensus:


Early in the investigation [once it took to heart the science needed to produce the spores], the FBI appeared to endorse the latter view: that only a sophisticated lab could have produced the material used in the Senate attack. This was the consensus among biodefense specialists working for the government and the military. In May 2002, 16 of these scientists and physicians published a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association, describing the Senate anthrax powder as "weapons-grade" and exceptional: "high spore concentration, uniform particle size, low electrostatic charge, treated to reduce clumping" (JAMA, 1 May 2002, p. 2237). Donald A. Henderson, former assistant secretary for the Office of Public Health Preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services, expressed an almost grudging respect: "It just didn't have to be that good" to be lethal, he told Science.
As the [criminal] investigation dragged on, however, its focus shifted. In a key disclosure, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft revealed in August 2002 that Justice Department officials had fixed on one of 30 so-called "persons of interest":Steven J. Hatfill, a doctor and virologist who in 1997 conducted research with the Ebola virus at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Maryland. (Hatfill has denied any involvement in the anthrax mailing.)

Thus, the FBI had begun with the "backyard biokiller" profile, then was forced to abandon it by the advanced design of the anthrax that points the finger where it belongs at state-sponsored terrorism, and then embraced it again once it felt that Steven Hatfill could be made to fill the role of "patsy." But in order to convict Hatfill, the FBI would need to demonstrate how Hatfill could have produced the anthrax in the Daschle-Leahy letters, hence their effort to "reverse engineer" the process. One lovely comparable historical example is the FBI's fantasy that the WTC was car-bombed in 1993 by dozens of committed Arabs urinating to generate the "uric acid" needed for its imaginary "home-made" bomb in order to conceal that high-grade military explosives provided by FBI mole Emad Salem were used in that event. But those were Muslim "terrorists," easy to convict with the help of Judge Michael Mukasey, since promoted to Attorney General. Something better was needed for Hatfill, so the FBI tried, and failed:

Much, much more at: OpedNews: FBI Frame-up of Bruce E. Ivins Made Simple (http://www.opednews.com/articles/FBI-Frame-up-of-Bruce-E-I-by-Michael-Green-080812-624.html)

[ChumpDumper]

One lovely comparable historical example is the FBI's fantasy that the WTC was car-bombed in 1993 by dozens of committed Arabs urinating to generate the "uric acid" needed for its imaginary "home-made" bomb in order to conceal that high-grade military explosives provided by FBI mole Emad Salem were used in that event.:lol

So what do you think really happened on 2/26, dan?

Should I start a new thread about your comprehensive theory about the 93 bombing, or will it just be part of your forthcoming epic 9/11 post?