The Investigative Summary (pdf) published by the FBI in closing the Amerithrax investigation into the anthrax attacks of 2001 is curiously silent on the presence of a second species of bacteria found in the New York Post and Brokaw letters.
One of the search warrant affidavits (page 5 of linked pdf) released previously had this to say about the presence of Bacillus subtilis:
Both of the anthrax spore powders recovered from the Post and Brokaw letters contain low levels of a bacterial contaminant identified as a strain of Bacillus subtilis. The Bacillus subtilis contaminant has not been detected in the anthrax spore powders recovered from the envelopes mailed to either Senator Leahy or Senator Daschle. Bacillus subtilis is a non-pathogenic bacterium found ubiquitously in the environment. However, genomic DNA sequencing of the specific isolate of Bacillus subtilis discovered within the Post and Brokaw powders reveals that it is genetically distinct from other known isolates of Bacillus subtilis. Analysis of the Bacillus subtilis from the Post and Brokaw envelopes revealed that these two isolates are identical.
In contrast to the highly detailed description of the genetic analyses carried out to pinpoint a set of four mutations present in the population of B. anthracis spores in the RMR-1029 flask and the subsequent comparison of this profile to other anthrax cultures in order to confine this particular profile only to cultures known to be derived from RMR-1029, the Investigative Summary has only one passing reference to B. subtilis (page 18, from list of suspects investigated and cleared):
A foreign-born scientist with particular expertise working with a Bacillus anthracis simulant known as Bacillus subtilis, and against whom there were allegations that s/he had connections with several individuals affiliated with the al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam terrorist networks.
Ah, but notice what has changed here in the description of B. subtilis. Instead of being "ubiquitous" and a "contaminant", this passage admits that B. subtilis is often used as a laboratory simulant of B. anthracis.
Clearly, if the FBI could have identified the strain of B. subtilis detected in the attack letters as available to Ivins, that finding would have played a prominent role in the Investigative Summary.
Even though Ivins can’t be linked to the particular B. subtilis strain used, there is a documented case of B. subtilis being used as a B. anthracis simulant at another facility where we already know that much of the material that went into RMR-1029 was produced. Recall from this diary that I analyzed the available information about the amount of B. anthracis used in the attacks and found it highly unlikely that Ivins could have cultured the large amount of spores used in the attacks with the equipment and time he had available. Much of the material in RMR-1029 was produced at Dugway.
On December 13, 2001, Judith Miller published an article in the New York Times, where she disclosed that "government officials have acknowledged that Army scientists in recent years have made anthrax in a powdered form that could be used as a weapon." She further pointed out that this work occurred at Dugway in 1998. It should be noted that the anthrax produced at Dugway for Ivins that went into RMR-1029 was cultured in 1997.
The Miller article then goes on to quote scientist William C. Patrick on how he coached scientists at Dugway in drying a pound of highly purified anthrax spores in 1998. Miller quotes a Dugway spokesperson as saying a strain different from Ames (the parent of RMR-1029) was used in the drying experiments. Note that a pound of spores is enough dried spores to produce hundreds of letters with the one to two grams of dried spores thought to be in each letter. But in a further bit from the Dugway spokesperson, we have this:
She said Dugway did make one- pound quantities of Bacillus subtilis, a benign germ sometimes used to simulate anthrax.
We know from scientific results discussed in this article that the material dried in 1998 is unlikely to have been in the letters because radiocarbon analysis suggested the attack material was no more than two years old in late 2001. However, both the facilities at Dugway and Batelle appear to have been carrying out anthrax projects in the appropriate time frame. Exactly one week prior to the 9/11 attacks, Judith Miller published two articles on biowarfare. The longer article discusses how US germ warfare research has pushed the limits of international law. She first describes work attributed to the CIA, but near the end of the article we have this, regarding work to replicate a feared Russian engineered strain of anthrax:
Eventually the C.I.A. drew up plans to replicate the strain, but intelligence officials said the agency hesitated because there was no specific report that an adversary was attempting to turn the superbug into a weapon.
This year, officials said, the project was taken over by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Pentagon lawyers reviewed the proposal and said it complied with the treaty. Officials said the research would be part of Project Jefferson, yet another government effort to track the dangers posed by germ weapons.
A spokesman for Defense Intelligence, Lt. Cmdr. James Brooks, declined comment. Asked about the precautions at Battelle, which is to create the enhanced anthrax, Commander Brooks said security was ”entirely suitable for all work already conducted and planned for Project Jefferson.”
The second, shorter article discloses construction of a model germ warfare production facility at Dugway:
In a nondescript mustard-colored building that was once a military recreation hall and barbershop, the Pentagon has built a germ factory that could make enough lethal microbes to wipe out entire cities.
Adjacent to the pool tables, the shuffleboard and the bar stands a gleaming stainless steel cylinder, the 50-liter (53-quart) fermenter in which germs can be cultivated.
The apparatus, which includes a latticework of pipes and other equipment, was made entirely with commercially available components bought from hardware stores and other suppliers for about $1 million — a pittance for a weapon that could deliver death on such a large scale.
Miller goes on to claim that anthrax was never produced at the facility. Note that in my previous diary, I calculated that about 72 L of fermentation capacity would have been needed to produce the spores used in the attacks, so that would be just two "runs" of a fermenter the size of the one in this facility.
A key quote relating to the facility says "The project also showed us how relatively simple it would be for a terrorist to assemble such a facility without being detected". That’s very interesting given this bit from the Chemical and Engineering News article linked above:
Both Meselson and the former military scientist agree that making the purified preparations didn’t require an expensive laboratory setup. As the military scientist says, "A simple facility" is really all that’s needed. "I have concluded that maybe the hardest part is doing it safely so you don’t hurt yourself. Some experience is needed, but it’s probably more an art than a science," he says.
So, what we have now is the Defense Department taking over the lead on multiple anthrax projects from the CIA once the Bush-Cheney administration came into power. They inherited a demonstration facility at Dugway and they expanded a project at Batelle. And our primary source for much of this information is Judith Miller, who is infamous for her work in disseminating Defense Department lies about weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Given what we know about the scientific analysis of the spores used in the attacks, culturing the spores is much more likely to have occurred at Dugway or Batelle than in Ivins’ lab. If we are to believe the isotopic analysis carried out (see the C&E News article) then Batelle seems more likely, but as I have previously pointed out, pre-packaged sterile water and culture media are readily available commercially from sources in the northeast,and would have produced the result seen even if used at Dugway. In fact, if the "simple" facility at Dugway were used, it seems likely that pre-packaged water and media would be employed. We also know that Dugway did extensive work with B. subtilis. The search warrant affidavit does not go into detail regarding the statement that the B. subtilis recovered from the attack spores did not match known isolates. It seems unlikely to me that a clandestine Defense Department program that was pushing the limits on legality would be entirely forthcoming in sharing its entire culture collection with an FBI investigation.
In conclusion, I fail to see how the FBI has eliminated the possibility that the spores used in the attacks were cultured and dried at Dugway or Batelle, with the Dugway "demonstration" facility being the most likely because of its remote location and secret status. Further, the disappearance of discussion of B. subtilis in the Investigative Summary is highly suspicious, and could reflect uncertainty on the part of the FBI that an exhaustive analysis was carried out to identify potential sources.
Under such a scenario, two batches of anthrax spores, using RMR-1029 material (known to have been shared with Dugway) to inoculate (start) the cultures, could have been grown in the demonstration facility, cleaned thoroughly, and dried. The spores for the Post and Brokaw letters would then have been mixed with a crude harvest of B. subtilis, used an "extender" or "carrier" to conserve the supply of purified material, which was used in its pure form in the Daschle and Leahy letters.
Alternatively, the two fermenter batches could have been harvested and purified separately, with the first batch having B. subtilis present either from improper cleaning of equipment after test runs with it or its inclusion as a carrier. The second harvest would then have produced the highly purified material in the second wave of letters.
We may never know what really happened. Given the history of deceit on the part of the CIA, the Defense Department and Judith Miller on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in general, discerning what is true in the various leaked reports on anthrax culturing and processing technology at the facilities at Dugway and Batelle will be difficult without Congressional hearings conducted under oath and threat of prosecution for perjury. Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced of the guilt of Bruce Ivins and strongly suspect a [non-USAMRIID] Defense Department, or a [non-USAMRIID] Defense Department-contracted source for the attack material.
Oh, and adding to the misdirection here, don’t forget the nonlethal fake anthrax letter that Miller received on October 12, 2001. I wonder how much analysis was carried out on that letter. There is nothing in the Investigative Report about it, either.



29 Comments

Another superb, argument-advancing diary, Jim.
In case you can still edit, you might want to catch these (bolded) typos, and reword slightly one key sentence:
Regarding the substance of that first excerpted paragraph, would you mind explaining a bit more about the reason(s) for the apparent need or choice to include an “extender” or “carrier” to preserve the anthrax in the Post and Brokaw letters, and why that preservative would not have been needed or included in the Daschle and Leahy batch(es) of purified anthrax?
You can say that again. Has anyone yet heard a peep out of Rush Holt (or any other Congressional overseer of the Executive Branch) about Friday’s door-slamming by the FBI?
This point drives drives the engine of you analysis perfectly.
I hope Ivins’ family pushes this. As we should too.
Great work. Thank you.
Well done, Jim.
Very well, indeed.
Thanks for your relentless pursuit of the truth.
I’m not a 911 truther, although I don’t doubt Bush & Cheney would have authorized it if they’d thought of it, especially Cheney. I’m not persuaded by the evidence, at this point.
The anthrax letters, particularly if there’s a cover-up under way, may well have been a deliberate DoD plot to elevate public hysteria about terrorism in the wake of 9/11 to carry out a military coup.
I noticed you did not go there, which probably makes sense since your credibility unraveling this mystery is enhanced by objectivity and not straying beyond the known facts. However, I am not similarly constrained, so I’m going to ask the two questions that popped into my conscious mind as I read your post.
1. Why would DoD obstruct or cover-up the investigation and why would the FBI facilitate that effort unless the person or persons responsible are really big fish and too big to fail, so to speak?
2. How might the answer to that question affect how we look at 9/11?
I should have added that I believe a military coup did take place and the MIC is running things.
Thanks, powwow. I edited the “the” to “to”, as I had intended to say. I also changed the second passage to “strongly suspect” as you suggested and added the non-USAMRIID wording to clarify that I was excluding that facility.
As to your question about the possibility of mixing B. subtilis in as a carrier, that is in reference to standard practice with pharmaceuticals and pesticides. The purified active ingredients are incredibly concentrated, so they often are mixed with an inert “carrier” substance so that the volumes of material one is working with aren’t vanishingly small. To clarify my meaning on that passage, I changed “preserve” to “conserve”, because the point I was trying to make was that by mixing other material with a part of the concentrated spore supply, more letters could be packed with a lethal supply of spores. Under that scenario, then, somehow a decision was made to go with the purified material for the second mailing. Note also my alternative scenario just below that, where I posit that two separate harvests took place and the earlier one was contaminated with leftover B. subtilis from an earlier “practice” run.
As to your final question, no, I haven’t seen any responses from Congress about the case being closed.
Thank you, Jim.
The line that jumped out at me is, “The longer article discusses how US germ warfare research has pushed the limits of international law.”
If even Judith notices this, then our international “reputation” may well be “Thugs R Us”.
Who could have imagined.
So, has the FBI no further interest in pursuing the obvious questions?
Keep raising the questions, Jim, so that the rest of us may know what is needful to ask.
DW
And she even put that accusation into the headline. Oh, if only we had an honest soothsayer to peel back the multiple layers of deceit here and tell us which bits are real…
My bet is that shortly after Judy and her group left their tour of the Dugway demonstration facility she so dutifully reported to have been built merely for show, it was fired up to produce the attack materials. That would play into a “limited hang out” scenario where the facility is confessed, but it is claimed to have never been used–only for it immediately to go into use shortly after the confession.
Then the two mailings are, without doubt, connected, as best you may determine, and the same person(s) was behind both and decided to simply eliminate the “carrier”?
Do you imagine that other mailings were anticipated?
Sorry for the silly questions, Jim, but such “motive” as there appears to “be”, is confused and, apparently, did not plan or anticipate further “dispersal”.
DW
Perusing that “longer article” of Miller’s a bit further …
One notes the bipartisan willingness to skirt the “edges”.
From the first page of the article: “Several officials who served in the Clinton Administration acknowledged that the secret efforts were so poorly coordinated that the White House was unaware of their full scope.”
Doubtless, this changed under Bush/Cheney, one imagines.
Playing fast and loose with the law and other things seems the “order” of the day … and the night.
DW
From page 2:
“Intelligence officials said lawyers at the (CIA) agency and the White House concluded that the work was defensive, and therefore allowed. But even officials who supported the effort acknowledged that it brought the United States closer to what was forbidden.
‘It was pressing how far you go before you do something illegal or immoral.’ Recalled one senior official who was briefed on the program.”
So?
White House and “agency” lawyers had looked at some things that Yoo might have taken into consideration … if he had been of a mind to do so …considering “legal ethics” and “professional responsibility”?
There are many “novel” and “extraordinarily complex” issues that “the government attorneys” have been shoveling happy horse manure around.
I wonder what is going to grow from all that fertilizer?
DW
Whether other mailings were anticipated would depend on how much material was produced. I would guess that two batches from the 50 L fermenter would have produced about enough spores the approximately 5 g of spores estimated to have been mailed. (Fermenters aren’t run at full capacity, so 70-75 L would be about right for two runs.) More runs, or runs in a bigger fermenter, would have allowed more letters to have been planned.
And don’t forget that we haven’t accounted for the older dried batches that were much larger (a pound is 454 g!) but from a different anthrax strain. There’s still a lot of powder somewhere…
Jim,
Did they do DNA tests on the woman who died supposedly from contaminated mail?
and what about the very first case, in FLA?
Heh, heh. You wrote that while I was out picking and spreading today’s supply on our farm. I don’t let a very large supply accumulate before I work it back into the soil. Too bad OLC didn’t work that way.
From page 3;
“The question of secrecy.
…
James F. Leonard, head of the delegation that negotiated the germ treaty, said research on microbes or munitions could be justified, depending on the specifics.
But he said such experiments must be done openly, exposed to the scrutiny of scientists and the public. Public disclosure, he said is important evidence that the United States is proceeding with a ‘clean heart’.
‘It’s very important to be open,’ he said. ‘If we’re not open, who’s going to be open?’
Mr. Leonard said the fine distinctions drawn by government lawyers were frequently ignored when a secret program was exposed. Then, he said, others offer the harshest interpretations — a ‘vulgarization of what has been done.’
But, he concluded that the secret germ research, as described to him, was ‘foolish, but not illegal.’”
My silly question: How may one vulgarize what is already patently obscene?
DW
Yes, the DNA matched RMR-1029 in both cases, but there were also other victims. Here’s the Investigative Summary:
Oh, thank you so much!
Bmaz’s very precise legal term, “horse manure”, has undoubtedly been vulgarized by my joyous “addition”, I’m … uh … happy to say.
Heh, heh, heh.
DW
You betcha!
There are quite a few of us who believe that the dubious activities carried out during the Clinton administration (possibly without their knowledge) were directed by the “left behinds” that Cheney and Rumsfeld seeded into DoD during their previous stints there. Kinda like sleeper cells inside our own government. [It's going to take a generation to clean out the sleepers W and Gonzales put into DOJ...]
Big, fat, and hairy cockroaches wearing snakeskin suits.
Personally, Jim, I am of the opinion that a bipartisan effort has been consistently made to make the Executive supreme, for some decades.
Someone at the lake, and I do not remember who it was, postulated that this is traceable to a date coinciding with the use of nuclear weaponry.
Not all Presidents went along or were even aware, but the muckety mucks of both parties, especially them behind the scenes, have had little else on their minds.
Cass Sunstein signaled early, before the election, perhaps even before Obama became all chummy with Paulson, that Obama was “game”.
That is my reading-between-the-lines “take”.
All the dubious (if not nefarious) “activities” have had White House attorneys involved … as far as we know.
My guess is that what we do know ain’t the half of it.
DW
And possessing multiple citizenships?
Or is that just a special class.
Tell me, Mason, mincing no words, would you agree with me that Cass Sunstein, professor, Harvard Law, is an intellectual thug, of the most odious sort?
DW
““This has been a closed-minded, closed process from the beginning. Arbitrarily closing the case on a Friday afternoon should not mean the end of this investigation,” Holt said. “The evidence the FBI produced would not, I think, stand up in court. But because their prime suspect is dead and they’re not going to court, they seem satisfied with barely a circumstantial case. The National Academies of Science review of the FBI’s scientific methods in this case won’t be released until summer, but the FBI doesn’t seem to care.”
Last year, Holt introduced the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248), legislation that would establish a Congressional commission to investigate the attacks and the federal government’s response to and investigation of the attacks. The bipartisan commission would make recommendations to the President and Congress on how the country can best prevent and respond to any future bioterrorism attack. ”
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj12_holt/021910anthrax.html
I do not disagree with his views on animal rights, but I do disagree with his views about the President having more authority to interpret the Constitution than federal judges, his strange view of limiting First Amendment rights to people whose opinions he respects, and his view that government should be infiltrating groups that it regards to be suspicious.
He’s way too authoritarian for me. Quite the federalist. Not likely he and I would agree on anything with the exception of our common love for animals.
Never saw him at a Grateful Dead concert and seriously doubt that he passed the acid test.
He also left his first wife just after their first child was born and I think that exhibits a narcissistic attitude that severely diminishes him to virtual nothingness in my mind.
In short, I would not regard my life as a failure if I were to never meet the man and I certainly do not plan to seek him out.
After all, he’s yet another member of the incredibly evil Chicago Boys produced by the departments of Political Science (Strauss) and Economics (Friedman) at the University of Chicago. I think he met Obama when they taught at the law school at the University of Chicago, but they also may have met at Harvard.
He’s a good example of a smart person who is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is, which is one reason why he is so dangerous.
Is Cass Sunstein “an intellectual thug, of the most odious sort?”
Pretty big category there, my friend. Obama and just about everybody else in his administration fit comfortably within it.
This is frightenly interesting material. I’m a cynic about the supposed weapons potential of anthrax simply because, if it were effective, we’d have insisted on developing it, regardless of international opinion, just as we did with nuclear arms, napalm, and cluster bombs. But anthrax could and arguably has been an excellent political tool.
I’ve read a bit about US bacteriological warfare over the years, and I seem to recall that simulant materials were used in the ’50s and ’60s to clandestinely test dispersal of agents on live subjects in places like the New York subway system. Something like b. subtilis would have the advantage of being readily detectable by experimenters who knew to look for it while going unnoticed by everyone else. Those tests apparently showed that efficiently spreading an aerosol was so difficult and unpredictable that even deadly agents like anthrax were not practical as weapons. Scarey, yes. Deadly in some cases. But nowhere near as militarly effective as plain old high explosive or old fashioned mustard gas.
At this late date, I doubt that there would be much serious military interest in anthrax weapons, outside of a narrow circle of enthusiasts in obscure, DoD funded labs. But Miller’s involvement and the presence of simulants strongly reinforces the suggestion that an artificial anthrax scare was used to justify the Iraq/WMD/terrorism canard and the sudden expansion of executive power. If this was the aim, using actual anthrax in a few, easily contained locations against selected, high-visibility individuals and simulant in a larger number of broadcast incidents would have extended the limited stock of prepared anthrax, maximized panic, and minimized the number of casualties. You’d leave bags of white powder about that would be confirmed to be bacterial in origin just in time for the 7:00 news. Perhaps the planned scenario was rendered obsolete by the actual events of 9/11 and partially aborted.
Be that as it may, anthraxing legislators had to have played a major role in getting authoritarian laws passed, given the me-first self-absorption of our politicians. Once the Congress had done what was wanted and once the Arab connection had fallen apart, they would need a scapegoat to keep Congress resting easily. Ivins would be an obvious choice if he, in fact, had nothing to do with the plot. And he would be able to find out enough after the fact to be dangerous. I wonder if that partly explains his later behavior.
Great Diary what would you do if you ran this investigation?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t have closed it yet. I would spend a lot of time investigating what went on at Dugway and Battelle during the times in question. I also would take a careful look at the fake letter Miller got.
The main unaccounted-for ingredient in this highly purified spore preparation was the silica, wasn’t it? That’s what the AFIP concluded.
Yes, Joeseph Michaels at the Sandia Lab claims otherwise, but they apparently used an ion beam to slice their samples – and that’s likely to blow off a lot of the silica. There’s a whole body of literature on the creation of artifacts in electron microscopy due to this preparation technique – and there are also serious chain-of-custody issues with the Sandia samples – in many cases, they were prepared off-site and then mailed to Sandia. Keep in mind, this is a materials science lab that normally examines nuclear material, etc. They had no experience working with microbes, and it’s likely they’ve made a basic error – and created an analytical artifact. What they really did NOT do is run through a series of standards, as anyone would when doing forensics for the first time on a new material.
The silica is a key component, in that it prevents clumping of the purified spores, and allows them to easily aerosolize into single spores, 1-5 microns in diameter – ideal for inhalation.
If you want some publicly available indicators of the systems used, just look into the dry vaccine research – inhalable vaccines which are manufactured based on this very same principle (unfortunately, most technology is dual-use).
Needle-Free, Inhalant Powder Measles Vaccine Could Save Thousands Of Lives ScienceDaily (Aug. 18, 2009)
Who developed this technology? Here is the reference:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12467500
Now, to take spores, purify them away from the cell growth media and vegetative cell debris to 1 trillion / gram density, and then treat the spores with a silica material that adheres to the spore surface – that requires a host of technology that Bruce Ivins clearly did not have access to.
It’s interesting that Jim White claims that the AFIP report detailing the high silica content was debunked – but by who, and how, since the FBI has refused to release that document?
Likewise, if the case is closed, why are USAMRIID researchers still under FBI gag orders? Why hasn’t the NAS committee been allowed to complete its work?
Is it because the anthrax letters might have originated from the labs of some of the very government contractors and agencies that have benefited so much from the billion-dollar surge in biowarfare spending?
If so, clear evidence that they were silica-coated and purified to a trillion spores per gram – evidence that was verified within a few weeks of the arrival of the Daschle-Leahy letters at USAMRIID – creates fundamental problems for the FBI theory.
What has been thoroughly debunked is the notion that you can grow Bacillus anthracis and get it to either accumulate silica internally or as a coating on the surface. These spore coats are protein coats. Their near neighbor, Bacillus cereus, is known to produce crystals within these coats – but these are crystals of a toxic protein, released as the spores dissolve. The one paper from before 1980 that reports silica-like crystals in B. cereus (the only scientific evidence that exists for the FBI claim) has never been replicated, and was probably a mis-identification.
If not, the FBI could simply take some Ames anthracis to a government lab, grow it, induce it to sporulate, and show everyone the silica coating – hasn’t been done, has it? That’s because it’s nonsense, like so much else behind the FBI case.