My Conversation With a Ft. Detrick Scientist

[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 su ions 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 su ions 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]

As the court do ents 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 Ins ute 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 Ins ute 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

[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.

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?