- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The Douglas Beecher story is interesting. Orginally broken in the WaPo as:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092401014_pf.html
By Allan Lengel and Joby WarrickWashington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 25, 2006; A01
...What was initially described as a near-military-grade biological weapon was ultimately found to have had a more ordinary pedigree, containing no additives and no signs of special processing to make the anthrax bacteria more deadly, law enforcement officials confirmed. In addition, the strain of anthrax used in the attacks has turned out to be more common than was initially believed, the officials said.
This seems important, because now they are saying that the strain is so unusual that it can be attached directly to Ivins and noone else! Why does the Washington Post contradict themselves so blatantly? Here it is again:
In fact, the anthrax powder used in the 2001 attacks had no additives, writes Douglas J. Beecher, a scientist in the FBI laboratory's Hazardous Materials Response Unit, in an article in the science journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology...The FBI would not allow Beecher to be interviewed about his article. But other scientists familiar with the forensic investigation echoed his description. Whoever made the powder produced a deadly project of exceptional purity and quality -- up to a trillion spores per gram -- but used none of the tricks known to military bioweapons scientists to increase the lethality of the product.
As noted previously, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology used X-ray scattering on a sample of the powder to conclusively demonstrate that it had various silica additives. That WaPo story was also sourced anonymously - and no questioning of how Beecher ascertained "no additives" is allowed.
This is all in direct contravention of previous results - but now it appears that the FBI had ordered that no one at Detrick talk to the press during this "active investigation?"
"Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter," said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. "This was a key component," Mullick said. "Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq."
There you have it: proof that there was no bentonite in the sample, as well as proof that silica was present. That's what good forensic work does for you.
I would have thought that this would have been the centerpiece of the story about bentonite, but just about the only place this was ever reported was in the AFIP newsletter. They stand by their story, I believe. I would urge Glenn to call them up and find out - but I bet that the FBI would claim that they can't release information about an active investigation, right? Only anonymous leaks.
In fact, Richard Preston reports in his book, the Demon in the Freezer, that the AFIP analysis was done soon after the Daschle letter was analyszed. Thus, the leak must have been a deliberate falsehood.
How can this kind of thing get past the Washington Post editors - or are they deliberately aiding the government in a propaganda campaign? An illegal Smith-Mundt violation, isn't that?
