This from the TVNewser Brian Ross interview:

Ross described why it was first reported as bentonite, and explains why ABC News was not lied to. "Their initial conclusion, based on microscopic examination was a brown substance that initially was reported as bentonite. We went back immediately after the White House told us it was not the case. We were told after further chemical analysis it was determined it was a silica, but not bentonite — something they had never seen before but had a brownish color."

So, you are trying to tell me that trained, scientific experts examining this material, who are supposed experts in identifying bio-pathogens and their associated components, had never seen the material they were examining before, so went ahead and identified it as something they were unfamiliar with in the first place (Bentonite)? Bull....shit.

Yet, they (or their bosses, or higher ups in the Administration) ARE knowledgable enough to know that Bentonite exists, and that it is ONLY found in middle-eastern produced anthrax....

No, I don't think so. That makes no sense.

Maybe the "brownish color" is what they relied upon to "call it" as Bentonite. More BS, as that is completely antithetical to the scientific method of examination.

I thought "silica," better known as GLASS, has a pretty standard molecular structure. And due to its common-ness, would be relatively easy to identify. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying.....

They either employ Retardo Montalbons in their chemical analysis wing, or they are lying.

FBI release the results of the swab analysis from Ivin’s house, vehicles, and other places not Ft. Detrick.

Any anthrax found?

Show evidence that others (10 or more) with access to that lab can be eliminated from suspicion, and why

7-529-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf

Page 13--last redaction

[unreadable] feel good about having received anthrax shots.

-----

07-528-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf, seems to have "transparent" redactions also.

I would not surprise me at this point that many of the documents contain "transparent" redactions.

Did it again. How many ways do you need it explained to you that trying to personally identify people with more information than they have willingly given is a breach of their privacy?

Or do you think you're on such a righteous tear that you have a right to trample peoples personal liberties? You know what Louis Brandeis said about Men of Zeal.

those other analyses were carried out ... the technique was developed IN ORDER TO get to a more exact level of specificity based on previously unquantifiable minute genetic differences (I'm wondering about electron microscopy. One report seemed to indicate what sounded like frequency of isomers)

A possible explanation for working late with nothing to show for it: If Ivins was hiding a porn habit by using a PO box, presumably he didn't read (or use) it at home. A late stay at a quiet deserted office would be just the thing.

This isn't farfetched just because it's a secure facility. A friend some years ago worked in a very secure facility where everyone had a super-duper clearance, a level higher than Top Secret. The tradition there was that anyone who went on a business trip brought back an example of the worst porn they found. They kept the collection in the most secure part of the office and occasionally read it there, I'm sure. One day it vanished, stolen by someone who had a security clearance.

Ivins' excuse, that he was staying late because of problems at home, actually rings true to me. If Ivins was having mental problems that aggravated any marital issues he might have had, work (esp for a workaholic) would have been a peaceful sanctuary away from the home front. That 9/11 might have been a particularly stressful time for him is hardly a stretch.

Also, it would be interesting to look at a longer time line to see if he had stayed late in prior years.

...searches of Dr. Ivins’s home in Frederick, Md., turned up “hundreds” of similar letters that had not yet been sent to media outlets and members of Congress, people who were briefed by the F.B.I. on Wednesday said.

Anybody come across anything to this effect in the documents yet?

Sounds to me like by far the most convincing piece of evidence, if these "hundreds" of letters really are similar to those containing the anthrax. I can't quite understand why this isn't the headline, the smoking gun. What am I missing?

7-529-M-01 search warrant affidavit.pdf

Page 15 - last redaction

[?]CW-2 was living in Gaithersburg, Maryland at the time the letter to the editor was published. [?]CW-2 has known and communicated with Dr. Ivins for the past 30 years [unreadable text] shortly after its publication in the paper [it?] denied writing [the?] [unreadable text] News-Post and complained The [paper?] informed CW-2 that

---

[page 16 - redaction continued]

[unreadable text] appeared legitimate possibly because its return [address?] was provided with the letter, they did not feel the need to authenticate the letter prior to publishing.

---

page 16 - second full paragraph - first line - second redaction

[CW-3?]

---

page 16 - second full paragraph - second line - second redaction

[?????W-2?] CW- [?]

---

page 16 - fourth full paragraph - first line - first redaction

November 30, 1982, CW-3 [CW-3's address which I will not give here]

---

page 16 - fourth full paragraph - second line - second redaction

Montgomery County Police

---

page 16 - last paragraph - third line - first redaction

[unreadable text] worked and [rest of redaction are "transparent" but unreadable]

Please make your arguments without trying to disclose personal information about other participants here. I'm reposting your comment in full with only that last part deleted (if you want, I'll also delete the name and address you left at the end):

_________________

Serious flaws in the genetic analysis are evident in the FBI documents:

From the Overview:

1) At the time of the attacks, he was the custodian of a large flask of highly purified anthrax spores that possess certain genetic mutations identical to the anthrax used in the attacks.

First, the attacks never reached the attention of anyone at USAMRIID until Oct 15th, 2001, when the Daschle letter arrived. There is no reason anyone would have been tracking what researcher had what flask, and the strain was spread among at least five labs, and, as the FBI has previously claimed, “quite common.”

The FBI report does confirm the presence of silica, however (NOT bentonite):

“Microscopic examination of the evidentiary spore powders recovered from all four letters identified an elemental signature of Silicon within the spores.”

Oddly enough, there is no mention at all of the initial analysis of the spores carried out by Paul Keim and others from Northern Arizona (the recognized experts in the field). This was reported, also by the Washington Post, back in Dec 16 2001:

The Washington Post December 16, 2001 Sunday

Capitol Hill Anthrax Matches Army's Stocks; 5 Labs Can Trace Spores to Ft. Detrick

Rick Weiss and Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writers

Genetic fingerprinting studies indicate that the anthrax spores mailed to Capitol Hill are identical to stocks of the deadly bacteria maintained by the U.S. Army since 1980, according to scientists familiar with the most recent tests.

Although many laboratories possess the Ames strain of anthrax involved in this fall's bioterrorist attacks, only five laboratories so far have been found to have spores with perfect genetic matches to those in the Senate letters, the scientists said...

...Those matching samples are at Fort Detrick; the Dugway Proving Ground military research facility in Utah; a British military lab called Porton Down; and microbial depositories at Louisiana State University (LSU) and Northern Arizona University. Northern Arizona University received its sample from LSU, which received its sample from Porton Down. Dugway and Porton Down got their samples directly from USAMRIID...

The FBI's investigation into the anthrax attacks is increasingly focusing on whether U.S. government bioweapons research programs, including one conducted by the CIA, may have been the source of deadly anthrax powder sent through the mail, according to sources with knowledge of the probe. The results of the genetic tests strengthen that possibility. The FBI is focusing on a contractor that worked with the CIA, one source said...

The genetic fingerprinting finding was made by a research team led by geneticist Paul Keim at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, which has been comparing the Ames strain bacteria found in the Senate letters to other Ames strain samples retrieved from nature and from various university and government laboratories.

Where did all that work go? Not relevant? When you get to pick and choose the documents you release, you can paint any picture you want. Also, in 2005, the Washington Post printed this statement by the FBI:

In addition, the strain of anthrax used in the attacks has turned out to be more common than was initially believed, the officials said.

Here, however, is the real point: the FBI analysis claims to have used four genetic markers to identify the anthrax - but Paul Keim and his group used something like FIFTY - and that is confirmed, meaning Keim's analysis was much more sensitive than the FBI's. For references:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5548/1810

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6857/full/413657a0.html

That means that for some reason the FBI used a less sensitive technique than Keim et. al to try and attach this flask to Ivins. Why not use the more sensitive technique?

What that means is that the only real evidence tying Ivins to the anthrax is bogus - in all likelihood, hundreds of other people had access to the very same Ames strain, as it was spread around to at least five labs and possibly more - and the quality of the spore preparation pretty much proves he couldn’t have prepared it on his own using a lyophilizer.

Ike Solem

ike_solm@hotmail.com