You woke Jebbie up.

Yes, Jebbie. Cheeky.

http://www1.picfront.org/picture/05WCG1qC/img/cheeky.jpg

I bet you didn't know that cheeky girls even have a theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX3S1f_7dI4&feature=related

And speaking of bright spots, I want to thank Jim White, PTA Mom, Ondelette and the many, many others who have brought so much thought and hard work to the task at hand here. Glenn and Marcy are the catalysts, but without the contributions of the many folks who have spent countless hours digging for more info, their job would be much harder. So, many thanks to Glenn and the Truth Hordes!

Thanks to the two of you (among many others) for sharing expertise that provides useful context to a lot of what has been being bandied about.

Of course, if Ivins doesn't pan out as the "real" culprit, the two of you (and your kids) are probably going to be seeing a lot of the FBI in coming months. You know too much, y'know what I mean?

Oh, and by the way -- did either of you two tell Ross there was dentonite in the anthrax? Just trying to rule out all the possibilities.

Thank you for your kind offer, Derbig. Sadly I must decline, however. I just would never join any club or gang that would have me as member.

;-)

AnnieW,

I am always arguing with someone. If no one else is around I have trouble arguing with myself. In fact, I prefer that to the former.

Regarding Glenn Greenwald's comments about Ed Lake and secret identities, he does have a point. However, Ed Lake's articles mostly revolve around trying to promote the theory of "low tech anthrax", in the face of AFIP and USAMRIID scientists, as well as the authoritative reporting of Richard Preston (the Hot Zone) and Gary Matsumoto on the issue - and he has no background in the subject.

And you are trying to promote another theory. Everyone has a bias. Perhaps Lake's preferred theory came from his extensive investigation of the matter. You will do you self a disservice by trying to find facts to fit a pre-conceived theory, but you know this, you are a smart fella.

Basically, my limited expertise in this area stems from my scientific background, most of which involves the role of microbes in the environment and in industry. My real interests are global climate change and renewable energy, say the use of microbes to convert cellulose to ethanol, or atmospheric nitrogen to plant fertilizer.

Few people have extensive practical experience in this field, I would think. But you have the technical background necessary. Let's see if you have the investigative chops.

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 Warrick

Washington 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?