New Scientific Evidence Emerges In Anthrax Case 216
sciencehabit writes "A Science Magazine investigation uses clues from a key document unveiled last week to reconstruct the trail that led the FBI to Bruce Ivins. Among the revelations: Anthrax fingerprinting was not critical to the investigation, as many reports have suggested. Rather, brute-force genetic sequencing, with the help of the J. Craig Venter Institute, helped crack the case. New potential motivations by Ivins are also revealed."
Weak Talking Points? (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a really well done article. One quote reminded me of something odd about this case:
FTA:
I keep hearing this when they interview government types. It's weird, it seems like they're trying to sow doubt about their case, because:
Ivins's lawyer (from NPR):
Response:
Weak...
OK, now you're getting somewhere! Why is it they only go to the relevant part when pressed?
Re:Weak Talking Points? (Score:5, Funny)
What you mean a case is put to rest 7 years later, recent/main suspect is dead and no questions remain.
And something looks fishy? You're just obsessive, these things are never covered up, or evidence is never made to match to current theory.
Doesn't happen.
Re:Weak Talking Points? (Score:5, Informative)
They can't place him there because he wasn't there (Score:5, Interesting)
They can't place him there because he couldn't have been there [firedoglake.com]. According to the FBI's warrants, etc. the letters were mailed from a specific box in Princeton, NJ after 5 pm on September 17, 2001. Ivins was out of the office in Frederick VA earlier in the day (after coming in briefly in the morning), but was back before 5 pm for a meeting. There is no indication that they have cracked his alibi from 5 on sufficiently to allow him to make the round trip during the time window.
Unless they have a real whopper saved up (he hired his secret twin brother to sleep with his wife that night?) Bruce Ivins could not have done it alone. Which (right on the tail of the Hatfill fiasco and the Siegelman fiasco and all the rest) might lead a reasonable person to wonder if he was involved at all.
--MarkusQ
P.S. The best way I've heard of salvaging their case would be if Ivins drove up in the daytime (he might just barely have had time) and asked someone to mail the letters for him. If they had this (presumably innocent foil) in witness protection or something they might actually have a better case than they've shown. But in any case he would have needed an accomplice of some sort.
yet more flawed logic .. (Score:3, Insightful)
What 'evidence' is ther that Irvins was involved, traces of that particular strain was found near by, well they would find it, as he initially helped with the analysis of the anthrax-tainted envelopes. They only turned on Irvins, when the other 'suspect' (Steven Hatfill) refused to roll over
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"the FBI's seeming desire to close this case based upon Ivins being the sole culprit."
it is not a desire, but the only organizationally and culturally viable outcome - our systems of justice and punishment are subordinate to and eons less evolved, less cunning than the corruption and evil of our largest institutions. In the modern era there has been no other conclusion, America cannot process larger, hypocritical evil; it needs a single mind and body to punish, a small man, a troubled man - someone who we c
flawed logic .. (Score:2)
That's because you seen nothing at all, and how by any rules of logic, can you infer the absence of any 'evidence' that he actied alone, as being evidence that he didn't act alone.
not comparable (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the question to be answered is what makes us think it was Ivans rather than someone else in the lab. This part of the case is weak. It seems that many people had access. Other people likely had as strong a motive. Why him specifically?
Evidence that he went to NJ is not strictly necessary, except that so many other areas are weak. Holes don't matter if the rest of the case is very strong, but they can sink a weak case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Glenn Greenwald [salon.com] reports that the alleged timeline of Ivins' activities on the day the anthrax was mailed seems to rule him out as the one who sent the letter from Princeton. He attended a meeting he couldn't have made it back for in time if he had driven to Princeton and mailed it late enough that the letter was postmarked for the following day.
Um, that's not really a problem. I've seen this very situation on Matlock in an episode where he broke a murderous cosmetic surgeon's alibi.
You see, this doctor claimed he was at a major medical conference, with witnesses to prove it, but in fact it was just his hitherto unknown identical twin. Quite simple, really.
Is there anything you wouldn't believe? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-there-anything-you-wouldnt-believe.html [blogspot.com]
I'm sorry, but I can't help mulling over the preposterousness of the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. The anthrax attack was made with state-of-the-art - let me correct myself, beyond-state-of-the-art - weaponized anthrax. The Russians couldn't have made it, the Chinese couldn't have made it, hell, even the Iraqis (ha!) couldn't have made it. Only one tiny group of people in the world could have made it, a handful of scientists at . . . Fort Detrick. I hate to even bring it up, but developing this expertise is completely illegal under treaties signed and ratified by the American government. The main point is that the manufacturing process needed to make this stuff was beyond the ability of anyone other than a tiny number of American scientists, and Bruce Ivins wasn't one of them.
The case against Ivins is based entirely on (questionable) DNA analysis which is said to prove that he had custody of a flask of the base anthrax material from which the weaponized powder was made. How do we get from anthrax spores to weaponized powder? According to the FBI, Ivins made it all by himself in his spare time at night.
Ivins was an immunologist. He worked on vaccines. He had neither the expertise - remember, it is beyond-state-of-the-art - nor the equipment to turn the spores into weaponized anthrax. It is as if he was trained as an accountant and the FBI told us his night-time hobby was brain surgery. Or better, manufacturing gasoline out of crude oil in the oil refinery he built in his lab, without anybody noticing. Or better, manufacturing gasoline out of crude oil in the oil refinery he built in his lab, using beyond-state-of-the-art refining techniques developed over years of experimentation, without anybody noticing.
And yet, we're told he must have done it, as he had custody of the flask. Others, some of whom were part of a team that actually had made beyond-state-of-the-art weaponized anthrax based on years of (illegal) experiments using the most sophisticated equipment and techniques, also had access to the contents of the flask, but they have been 'ruled out'. Somehow Ivins, without training in the right field, the proper equipment, years of (illegal) experiments, and a team of scientists, turned the contents of his flask into beyond-state-of-the-art weaponized anthrax in his spare time at night without anybody noticing. On top of this, he did it without getting any of the notoriously hard-to-contain spores on himself or his car or his home. If you believe this, is there anything you wouldn't believe? I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is there anything you wouldn't believe? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a biologist so I can't comment directly on the necessary skill sets.
What makes me question this story is that neither the US whose bioweapons program shut down in the 72 nor Russians who had an active bio-weapons program through the '90s with dozens, if not hundreds, of scientists working full time, with virtually unlimited funding, were able to produce a weapon of this quality.
The way I see it either a lone researcher on his own, working in a government lab, has enough time to figure out how to create a bio-weapon - without anyone asking questions (remember the best evidence they have is that it was our anthrax,) or we have an active bio-weapons program (in violation of international treaties) that people can surreptitiously remove material from, or Ivins didn't work alone.
It MAY be possible that the state of the art has evolved sufficiently since overt weapons programs were disbanded that a single scientist can now create a bioweapon. This, however doesn't bring much comfort once you consider the consequences.
All three possible scenarios are alarming, especially since the FBI seems content to close the case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Weaponizing anthrax involves having is maintain its infectious properties, while also being dispersable as an aerosol. Ideally, this means casual contact with the spores should result in having them billow into a ultra-fine cloud. Inhalation is required for infection.
Now, pledge allegiance to your PATRIOT act.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
'Weaponizing' anthrax means taking the spores from the mold and making them into uniform bits that are small enough to get into the alveoli in human lungs. This generally involves culturing the anthrax, then freezing it with an adulturant (such as bentonite), then shaving particles off carefully -- 'carefully' so that they are very small particles with no clumps, and also because you're creating a spray of fine particles that will kill you.
This is a very different process from creating a vaccine, but none
Re:Is there anything you wouldn't believe? (Score:4, Interesting)
>could not "weaponize" the anthrax (WTF does that even mean anyway?)
In this context, what it means is managing to take Bacillus anthracis growing in culture, getting it to form spores, extracting those spores in a way that they're still viable, drying them, physically separating them into a homogenous fine powder (called 'milling') and in this particular case, apparently then uniformly coating the powdered bits with a hydrophilic silica that had an associated surface electric charge.
Above taken from this wall street journal article [wsj.com] (which says these weren't physically milled but were particularized in some other way.)
There's a *lot* of work involved in making these samples, and it requires access to large amounts of very high-tech equipment, stuff that a microbiologist who is making vaccines doesn't have. The equipment doesn't exist anywhere outside of the old US bioweapons labs at Fort Dettrick, according to multiple other people [salon.com].
Re:Is there anything you wouldn't believe? (Score:5, Informative)
A weaponized anthrax spores have the following features which will aid its effectiveness as a weapon:
a) Normally the spores will clump together like dough. However, to allow easy dispersal of the spores, the spores will be ground down into very small particles and covered in a special chemical which will prevent the clumps from forming.
b) The each such spore will be given a weak electrical charge so that the spores repel each other. Again, this is to prevent the clumping together of the spores.
c) The strain used will be far more agressive and virulent to maximize the damage it does.
d) The strain will also be made resistant to many available vaccines.
None of these can be done without very specialized equipment which is not available on order. These are custom designed equipment developed specifically for the bioweapons program. It is very unlikely that Ivins could have done any of these things himself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not talking about what evidence would be needed to convict Ivins. I'm talking about the evidence needed to rule out the possibility of other guilty parties, of which the fact that they can't place him in Princeton is just one rather relevant piece.
And, of course, since Ivins is dead, there will be no trial; assuming, of course, that they don't find any evidence of other complicit parties in their zeal to avoid that very thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny that.
American culture has a dull and relatively uneventful history of conspiracies, but a long and rich history of angry loners trying to kill public figures.
Oddly enough, people always suspect conspiracies whenever something bad happens and rarely seem to find the angry loner theory plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, people always suspect conspiracies whenever something bad happens and rarely seem to find the angry loner theory plausible.
Not so odd if you consider it for a moment. People like predictability and control in their lives. Conspiracy theories are a natural expression of that. The idea that there are wild cards out there that are largely unstoppable makes them uncomfortable. It's simply more reassuring to believe that there's a cabal of conspirators behind the evil deeds. Even if the conspiracy is beyond their personal power to stop, the notion that it's possible to stop it satisfies the desire for control.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're just obsessive, these things are never covered up, or evidence is never made to match to current theory.
I'm glad that dude killed himself and they are pinning it on him. You know why? Because I did it. I'll tell you how. See anthracis is easy enough to culture (especially if you are a world expert like me), but getting it to atomize is the tough part. What I did was to add triton x100 as a surfactant and wash the cells a couple of times in a 0.5% solution of triton x100 and pure h2o. You have to pellet the cells between washes and then resuspend. Anthracis is gram positive, so I didn't have to worry too much
Re:Weak Talking Points? (Score:5, Informative)
But Kemp said more than a hundred people had access to the flask
The flask? What is up with this? How in the hell can you chase the wrong guy for five years and then go back and get "The flask". WTF do they mean by this? I don't know anyone who has a single "flask" to maintain a culture. "The flask". I've been in this business for 15 years. I know of frozen culture stocks kept in cryo vials, or transferring a culture from several flasks to another several flasks (you'd be an idiot to have just one flask for a stable culture) indefinitely, etc. Also, it looks like you could keep a stable stock in an envelop if you really think about it (or else you couldn't have the anthrax attacks themselves). But "The Flask", like there is only one--this is pure ignorance or just made up for drama. I'm not saying anything about this case except that the language used to talk about it in the media and by the FBI is sophomoric. I wonder if the language is any indication of their understanding of the science behind this case?
Re:Weak Talking Points? (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if the language is any indication of their understanding of the science behind this case?
The anthrax attacks are what the administration used to make the Iraq connection. John McCain himself was one of the people shopping that idea around the news media. You think this bunch would worry about a few post office employees or mail room people dying? So, yeah, the flask is as convenient as it is inexplicable. Dude committing suicide before the feds had a chance to question him, equally convenient. That the politicized Justice Dept. spent so much time stubbornly pursuing the wrong suspect, convenient. Now all this evidence that looks so obvious in one convenient package. That all the agents working this case in the last seven years either didn't see or didn't put together? Talk about straining credibility.
Incompetence raised to a high enough level is indistinguishable from malice. We know they're incompetent and it certainly isn't straining credibility to think this bunch would be capable of doing it deliberately.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Incompetence raised to a high enough level is indistinguishable from malice. We know they're incompetent and it certainly isn't straining credibility to think this bunch would be capable of doing it deliberately.
The real mystery here is why you think they are so incompetent, when -- also according to you -- just about everything worked out exactly as they wanted it to, and they are almost certainly going to get away from this free and clear.
Re:Weak Talking Points? (Score:5, Insightful)
That was the worst straw-man argument I have ever read.
The parent post simply stated that the people in power wouldn't mind a few innocent people dieing if it served The Greater Good.
Obviously, this is the truth considering the US has been killing innocent people in Iraq for years now - all in the name of The Greater Good.
Re: (Score:2)
I caught the Hot Fuzz reference, if nobody else did.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've heard similar things from a number of articles, but here's one from Naomi Klein in Harpers Magazine: http://harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197 [harpers.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of my friends has a theory that Dick Cheney is just a nihilist who wants to take as many people as he can with him when he dies. It's a pretty harsh thing to say about someone, but my friend was a philosophy major and doesn't assign the word "nihilist" on a whim.
Personally I think he's of the school that says "life's not fair" and then acts to enforce and increase the disparity.
Re:Weak Talking Points? (Score:4, Informative)
I was thinking this same thing: the wording seems odd. After reading several other posted stories (such as http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93381622 [npr.org]) I think that the phrase "The Flask" seems to be casual lab term that was used to relay the information from the investigators on the ground to those that report the story to the news and courts etc. In the same way that a mechanic might casually refer to a window regulator that was replaced on a car. It's not common terminology, but specific to those who work on those systems, and despite our vocabularies, it's a very handy way to refer to the motor and stuff that makes your window go up and down.
These sites:
http://www.bellcoglass.com/searchcategoryresult.aspx?keyword=culture%20flask [bellcoglass.com]
and
http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/58/2/303.pdf [asm.org] would support my statements to some extent. I can't yet find anything noteworthy about there being only a single flask of this culture. It seems like a single flask is identified because of the four markers found in all the attack samples and the flask Ivins had control of. There were probably many flasks of the spores but only this one matched to the spores used in the attacks. At least that is how I read all this, despite the questions that remain unanswered.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been following this on an excellent site [blogspot.com] of Dr. Meryl Nass - highly recommended. Also, might suggest anyone to read this article [ucla.edu].
Thanks for your excellent post.
Re: (Score:2)
good point. As someone else who grows bacteria (but not anthrax) i agree that the use of the term "flask" is wierd - it is basic microbiology 101 that bacteria are not stable in flasks; you keep them as either frozen stocks in a special freezer (-80oC !) or, sometimes, as dried filter papers or on sealed agar slants - The ATCC is a good authority here.
maybe as suggested by another poster, "flask" is just a word that they used to keep from confusing people iwth a tech term like "cryovial" or "agar slant"
The
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, dood, but I call complete and utter BS on the FBI's fairy tale. Try perusing this outstanding site [blogspot.com] by a most knowledgeable individual and also read this excellent article [ucla.edu].
Once upon a time, way back when I worked in Seattle, there was this clown of a police chief named Fitzsimons. Everytime someone was murdered, without any investigation whatsoever, Fitzsimons would proclaim the murder to be drug-related.
Of course, it turned out in 9 out of 10 times to be an unrelated homicide of some sort - but the
Re: (Score:2)
Ivins wasn't the guy. The FBI claims he mailed the letters before 5pm on the day before the letters were postmarked. Any court would throw out their case based upon this one fact for even one letter, but multiple letters means there is almost no chance that he mailed them before 5pm. So the FBIs story is flat wrong.
Of course he could still have done it, but he'd need an accomplice. It's very hard for the FBI to invent such an accomplice since Ivins doesn't fit the right wing nut profile and Irvins finan
Critical Analysis of Ivins investigation (Score:5, Informative)
For those who aren't yet aware of it, Glen Greenwald at Salon.com [salon.com] has been making a rather thorough analysis of the holes in the DOJ's case against Ivins, and is not sparing the media coverage, either.
Read and judge for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, Greenwald is on vacation this week, so he probably won't be adding much to the discussion.
I think Hans Reiser did it. (Score:2, Funny)
Dr Bruce Ivins was just a patsy. Hans Reiser actually did it.
It's the gadolinium level (Score:3)
Was Ivins in Princeton? (Score:3, Interesting)
A glaring omission, meanwhile, is any evidence placing Ivins in Princeton, New Jersey, on any of the days the envelopes could have been mailed from there.
Personally, I don't see that as such a big deal. I'll assume that there's no evidence that he wasn't in Princeton on those days. Lots of criminals have been caught by credit card receipts from gas stations, but those stories have gotten lots of press over the years. Ivins was at least as smart as Lisa Nowak, who planned her crime attempt meticulously. Sure, people laughed about her using adult diapers, but I'll bet there weren't any photos taken of her at rest stops. I'd bet he not only paid cash for his gasoline, he probably checked the driving distance and his car's MPG, and bought exactly the amount used on the trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Ivins was at least as smart as Lisa Nowak, who planned her crime attempt meticulously. Sure, people laughed about her using adult diapers,
Yet another case of the media hyping a false report.
The diapers were BABY diapers, in a box in the backseat of her car left over from a hurricane evacuation a few years prior. No way they would fit an adult woman, even one who was air force fit. [msn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
She wouldn't have to wear them to use them, she could have simply used them to urinate in without making a mess. She herself stated that this is exactly what she did, at least according to the police report. And this would still fit perfectly well with her lawyers statements; all he said was that it was a lie that she drove to orlando wearing a diaper, he never said she didn't use them to collect urine. So the basic gist of the story is likely still accurate (could you drive 950 miles without peeing SOME
Re:Was Ivins in Princeton? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the fed are painting contradictory pictures of Ivins when it suits them: was he a sorority-obsessed homicidal madman in the middle of a psychiatric breakdown or a meticulous criminal mastermind leaving no detail to chance?
What? There's some reason he couldn't be both? [jt.org]
Seriously, though, it's possible that he was an accomplice to the real bad guy. I'm usually the first to quote Hanlon's razor [wikipedia.org], but Dick Cheney seems to think that he's a character in a Tom Clancy novel and I can see this sort of scenario happening:
Ivey worked late to get the anthrax, took off from work to give it to a "plumber" [wikipedia.org] the next day, and went to his early evening appointment to give himself an alibi. After realizing that he'd been lied to about the re
Re: (Score:2)
he probably checked the driving distance and his car's MPG, and bought exactly the amount used on the trip.
Why? In case somebody happened to look at his fuel gauge right before his trip and immediately after, so that they wouldn't suspect he had gone anywhere, despite the odometer change?
Re: (Score:2)
he probably checked the driving distance and his car's MPG, and bought exactly the amount used on the trip.
Why? In case somebody happened to look at his fuel gauge right before his trip and immediately after, so that they wouldn't suspect he had gone anywhere, despite the odometer change?
No, because the police can and will look at your driving habits. I have a short commute to work, and tend to buy the same amount of gas every week-end. If I filled my tank (paying cash) at the end of a crime spree, I'd actually buy less gas with my credit card that week, which they'd want me to explain.
Your odometer readings, OTOH, are generally only recorded when service is done, mostly oil changes. An extra 600 miles would mean your next oil change would be done 10% earlier than expected, which is easi
How much of it is a CYA op? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if we base a clever article on a leaked document, shouldn't we first assume that the document is truthful?
When a high-profile person commits suicide because of the pressure of an investigation, the authorities will always try to justify their action. This was observed many times. I do remember a big scandal where a perfectly honest corner shop owner was investigated by the IRS and harassed in the worst possible ways. He turned out that his books were perfectly clean, but there was nevertheless an attempt at a smear campaign against the poor guy after his death.
I am sure that this suicide is embarrassing some higher-ups at the FBI and that they will do their best to avoid being blamed.
So I'd take these revelations with a grain of salt.
Re:How much of it is a CYA op? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For those that haven't, I'd suggest "41 Shots."
Re: (Score:2)
Or just see how Massachusetts authorities persecuted a guy who had done nothing illegal [slashdot.org], then are desperately trying to come up with some trumped up charges to avoid the lawsuit they so richly deserve.
Re:How much of it is a CYA op? (Score:4, Informative)
Five seconds of Googling find some juicy cases of suicide by IRS. The first link: here [nytimes.com].
So unfortunately, it's not just in movies.
Now, remember, I am not saying that the evidences cited in TFA are fake or incorrect. I am just citing precedent to show what is at stake here.
Always the dead guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me paranoid, but I'm instinctively suspicious when the guy who unexpectedly ends up dead and thus isn't around to defend himself is revealed by the government to be TEH GENIUS CRIMINAL MASTERMIND!!!1.
yeah... (Score:2)
and when that lawyer dropped dead during the Clinton years we spent how many years of amateur sleuths telling us what a grand conspiracy it was?
Just consider this "what goes around, comes around"
There is a conspiracy anywhere you have a crackpot
Case not cracked (Score:4, Interesting)
Forgive me if I don't believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering the avalanche of bullshit the Justice Department has been spewing out (and/or failing to remember) during this administration, I honestly don't know why they're bothering to make a case. I'm not going to bother reading anything about this story because I'm pretty sure its just going to be more of the same.
I was cynical before, but at this point I don't even bother reading the news.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Arlo Guthrie /Reuben Clamzo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo9TxeqeDCE [youtube.com]
Go watch that... If, of course, you haven't already. Watch all of it - no giving up three days into it. ;)
Idiots who run Slashdot at it again (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize I'm expecting a lot, but couldn't a Slashdot summary be accurate, just once.
First, its Bruce IVINS. Not IVANS. The Russians had nothing to do with this.
Second, the linked article doesn't provide any new information at all regarding IVINS' alleged motivations. It just repeats what's been reported already. And those don't make a lot of sense (the claims that he was psychologically unstable make much more sense, if those are reliable).
Third, yes anthrax fingeprinting was crucial to this case. Yes they brute forced the DNA sequencing (duh!) but the main evidence against Ivins is a statistical fingerprint based on four specific mutations in the anthrax that the FBI claims was present in the anthrax mailed to Congress critters, etc. and the anthrax in a vial that only Ivins controlled. But as the linked article points out, without knowing more you can't really conclude much from that. For example, the similarities could occur in portions of the anthrax DNA that are hypervariable which would significantly reduce their value.
So, so far it looks like the FBI case is based largely on two facts: a) Ivins began working late nights in the weeks prior to the anthrax mailings -- he apparently claimed he had trouble at home and found solace in his work which the FBI apparently found absurd; b) a statistical similarity in certain unspecified mutations among the anthrax mailed out and the anthrax in a vial that only Ivins had access to.
The Science article also suggests that the FBI assumed that because the envelopes used to mail the anthrax were purchased in Maryland or Virginia that the anthrax *had* to be produced there, so they then used as a basis for their investigation that the anthrax *had* to come from USAMRIID . . . which is why they focused on Hatfill so intensely.
Maybe Ivins was the killer, but the Science article seems to raise more questions about how solid the FBI's case really is. Maybe future, more detailed information releases will bring this more into focus, but so far this doesn't appear to be the slam dunk that the FBI has so far made it seem.
And what have we learned here? ;) (Score:4, Funny)
Absurd, eh? And what have we learned here? Never do overtime.
If you'd rather stare into a flask than see your wife again, do yourself a favour and go get wasted at the pub. Sure, it ruins your liver, but so does Tylenol. Or get a mistress. Get a divorce. But for the love of Bast, don't be the last guy at the office.
Sure, you may think you're an IT dude, no way someone would link anthrax to your servers. Right? We'll see who laughs last when some idiot script kiddie defaces a DOD web server, and people go "OMG, it was in the same county as a computer which controls the nukes! The hacker mastermind must have planned to reprogram the computer to load itself into a truck, drive there and plug itself into the secure network! It's teh Al Qaeda! Terrorism! Jihad! Concerted attack on our freedoms! It's those dastardly... umm... hey, Jack, which country has oil and we didn't bomb already? Right, it was those dastardly Canadians and their false prophet!"
So leave Slashdot, close that SSH window, turn off the computer (is the uptime willy-waving worth someone inferring that you must have been there if the computer was up and doing stuff on the servers?), tell a bunch of co-workers "good bye" and walk out that door. Yes, you can do it. For the love of all that's good and holy, walk out that door.
And if your boss doesn't like it, tell him you're doing your patriotic duty. When that arab genius mastermind hacks a computer to load itself into a truck and drive to a nuke base, the CIA can chase him instead of wasting valuable time and resources on chasing you. It would be unpatriotic to interfere with their investigation by setting yourself up as a decoy. The future of democracy and freedom may depend on it. If you don't do it, the terrorists win!
Paranoia or logic? (Score:5, Interesting)
How does an anti-terrorist bioweapons expert in the service of US military turn to a domestic terrorist right after terrorists attacked USA, and decide to launch a terrorist attack of his own?
All within one week, creating his own strain of anthrax, getting the stuff needed for manufacturing it and mailing it, all without leaving any evidence? Or was Ivins prepared to carry out the anthrax attacks even before 9-11 took place?
It is apparent that people with GOP connections received warnings and went on Cipro before any of the anthrax letters were even mailed.
Ivins was also a part of the investigation team, which would be standard CIA procedure, if this was a CIA op. (This is why FBI agents and coroners are used for assassinations inside USA, because they can be used to coverup the crimes.) Ivins would also likely have been easy to talk into the op since he was a rabid arab hater and neocon, as well as easy to blackmail later to take the blame, since he had a wife and 2 kids.
A lone person just doesn't spontaneously feel motivated to join al-Qaeda terrorist attacks against their own nation, especially if they work for the US military anti-terrorim team, even if their invention were to get more use.
This Salon guy has lots more discrepancies in the official story:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html
It is clear to me that FBI is covering up one of the GOP's illegal Casus Belli operations for Iraq war. You can keep your head in the sand, while calling others paranoid, but it won't make you any more secure.
No one questioning death by Tylenol? (Score:3, Interesting)
This article [emedicine.com] provides an excellent discussion of the time line of deterioration and eventual death that results comes from Tylenol poisoning.
Re:No one questioning death by Tylenol? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Tylenol typically causes a horrible, drawn-out death that takes two to three weeks. The impression given by the media is that he tossed down a bottle of Tylenol, grabbed his throat and keeled over."
Dying from liver toxicity sucks. But he took tylenol with codeine. Enough codeine tends to suppress breathing (Codeine: toxic dose about 240 mg). Typical doses of codeine are 15 to 60mg with a maximum of 360mg per 24 hours. Not breathing for a period, say over 10 minutes, will tend to result in death.
If you have tylenol with codeine, you probably have enough to overdose.
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough evidence is public (Score:3, Interesting)
It is certainly possible that enough evidence has been collected to nail Ivins. However, the evidence so far produced is far, far from convincing, especially the explanation of the TIGR data. It does seem like they've used a relatively small number of markers to identify the strain. If these markers are SNPs, then there is a fairly non-trivial chance that parallel mutations could cause false positives and that further mutations on the original strain could cause false negatives. And by what criteria did they choose only 4 of the mutations they successfully found? Even if they are less common mutations, there is abundant evidence that mutations of all kinds (duplications, deletions, even inversions) can happen rather frequently. But with no information, we're left wondering.
The interpretation of polymorphism data through ad hoc statistics compounded with arbitrary ascertainment bias could potentially allow the FBI to implicate anyone. If they were malicious (or trying to perform some CYA) they could even choose which markers to use and whatever hand-wavy analyses they wanted to implicate particular strains. Perhaps the research is completely above-board and is rigorous and implicates Ivins beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm very much open to that possibility. However, two things give me pause. First, the sketchy details we have concerning the data render them highly suspect. Specifically, if I'm to take literally everything I've read as being the essence of the most convincing evidence the FBI has, then I'd have to say they don't have a scientific case. (Convincing a credulous jury is another issue. See Simpson, O.J.) Secondly, the way they present the evidence is highly suspect. As one commenter suggested, what does the shoddy description of the details of the case tell us about the FBI's understanding of the relevant issues? As a scientist, I can say that I'm underwhelmed by their ability to communicate basic ideas.
Whether this is the FBI being secretive and leaving out key details or this is just incompetence, I can't tell. In either event, the cloudy picture currently painted in the public sphere is so suspect as to make anyone who knows anything about population variation to hear loud alarm bells regarding this case.
Oh please !! (Score:4, Interesting)
Bruce Ivans wasn't the anthrax mailer. He wasn't even a right wing nut job. He was just who the FBI got the "crack". FBI agents aren't that bright, they just assume anyone who cracks is guilty.
Anyway, read the FBIs story about how he mailed the letters. They claim he drove to Princeton, mailed the letters, and returned to work. He was seen at work that same day at 5pm. However, this story blatantly contradicts the fact that the letters were post marked the following day! How can he have mailed them well before 5pm but have the letters postmarked the following day?
In fact they have given no evidence pointing to Bruce Ivins except for the fact that he committed suicide. Btw, the FBI is also classifying the letter blaming that egyptian guy as a mere coincidence, despite the fact that this letter was mailed first. I'm not sure if the FBI knows who the anthrax mailer was, but it's crystal clear that they don't want to know who blamed the egyptian guy.
The whole anthrax case is ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
trail of evidence .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bruce Edwards Ivins (the Anthrax suspect) aka Jimmy Flathead aka
jimmyflathead@yahoo.com
From: jimmyflathead@yahoo.com (jimmyflathead)
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-903.newsdawg.com
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.literature/msg/d305ab96c3af13b9?hl=en [google.co.uk]
p-903.newsdawg.com = 64.209.5.103
-------
OrgName: Global Crossing
OrgID: GBLX
Address: 14605 South 50th Street
City: Phoenix
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85044-6471
Country: US
NetRange: 64.208.0.0 - 64.209.127.255
-------
Global Crossing [NSA-affiliated IP ranges]
Phoenix AZ US
64.208.0.0 - 64.209.127.255
64.210.0.0 - 64.210.127.255
64.211.0.0 - 64.211.223.255
64.212.0.0 - 64.215.255.255
facts please to squelch the rumors (Score:2)
Like the JFK murder, or the downing of flight KAL007, rumors are starting to change into facts, and we are arguing about what someone said about what someone said about...
Can we get some data and squelch the silly rumors that waste time ?
were the spores weaponized or not ? I see a lot of people with strong statements, but no evidence or data.
Can we get an answer at this point, and move on ?
were the envelopes used really only available in the Va area ?
What are the 8 other labs that the FBI says had the suppo
Impossible for Ivans to be Responsible (Score:3, Insightful)
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html [wsj.com]
Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit
By RICHARD SPERTZEL
August 5, 2008
PageA17
Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.
But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.
I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.
Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.
Information released by the FBI over the past seven years indicates a product of exceptional quality. The product contained essentially pure spores. The particle size was 1.5 to 3 microns in diameter. There are several methods used to produce anthrax that small. But most of them require milling the spores to a size small enough that it can be inhaled into the lower reaches of the lungs. In this case, however, the anthrax spores were not milled.
What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.
Another FBI leak indicated that each particle was given a weak electric charge, thereby causing the particles to repel each other at the molecular level. This made it easier for the spores to float in the air, and increased their retention in the lungs.
In short, the potential lethality of anthrax in this case far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program. In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring to the use of the weak electric charge.
The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax's DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.
Furthermore, the anthrax in this case, the "Ames strain," is one of the most common strains in the world. Early in the investigations, the FBI said it was similar to strains found in Haiti and Sri Lanka. The strain at the institute was isolated originally from an animal in west Texas and can be found from Texas to Montana following the old cattle trails. Samples of the strain were also supplied to at least eight laboratories including three foreign laboratories. Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used. Organism DNA is not a very reliable way to make a case against a scientist.
The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on I
Re:How about..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It assumes competence. I could see something on the level of say, an anthrax attack being possible to arrange with a minimum amount of people involved. Most of the other events you mention would require too many participants to enforce secrecy. I've worked in classified settings for the government, and not to denigrate my coworkers in the least, but secrecy within an organization is a joke. While external secrecy is fairly good, the secrets aren't morally outrageous. I somehow doubt people would take their oaths particularly seriously if they discovered the U.S. government organized any of the above events.
Now if you want to argue that it was a sin of inaction, that someone high up knew an attack was coming and chose to do nothing, that might be plausible, since less people would need to be involved. I wouldn't rule it out completely, though my faith in humanity would be shattered if it were the case. I'm not inclined to believe even that much.
Personally, I think the attacks were unexpected. The people you accuse of conspiracy did not aid them in any way, they just took obscene advantage of the situation.
Re:How about..... (Score:5, Interesting)
You say: Personally, I think the attacks were unexpected.
But just below your post another /.ter mentions another article [salon.com] which says:
"The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.
I hear this claim not the first time, and there should be plenty of physical evidence to support this claim if it's true (such as receipts for Cipro retained at pharmacies.) And if this is true then the attacks were expected, and the "right people" were advised to act ahead of time.
Re:How about..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's likely. And even makes sense. What happens when there isn't enough of an antidote for everyone and you warn the public of a possible attack? So who do you warn? Those that you need to keep the country afloat in case it really happens, for which you do have enough antidote.
The problem is that you can't even justify it later without risking an outrage. It is, from a purely intellectual point of view, the most sensible thing to do. But you can't justify it "morally" that you play god and decide who may live and who will die should it really happen.
And this is how conspiracies are born.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely. And even makes sense. What happens when there isn't enough of an antidote for everyone and you warn the public of a possible attack? So who do you warn?
Ah, but here's the problem with that scenario. We largely went to war because of Anthrax. Remember the so-called "mobile bioweapons lab", etc.? The official explanation is that he worked alone. So, if there was intelligence information warning of an anthrax attack, where did it come from?
Re: (Score:2)
But you can't justify it "morally" that you play god and decide who may live and who will die should it really happen.
We can't? Don't we already have underground bunkers for such people in the event of a nuclear attack?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And how does Richard Cohen, a Washington Post columnist, qualify as one of the "right people"? You need bloggers and columnists to keep the country afloat? (In case magazine sales start to flag, for instance?) Right ...
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the other events he listed (9/11, WTC bombing). Sorry if I wasn't clear. The anthrax mailings I know too little about to give much of an opinion on.
That said, anthrax paranoia does not imply awareness of a specific threat. Remember, at one point a substantial portion of the country thought Saddam:
If that was believed, it would be logical (or at least, movie logical as Bruce Schneier might put it) to take precautionary
Re:How about..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really, it only implies someone thought an attack using anthrax was possible. In other it means nothing except someone was intelligent enough to realize anthrax was a plausible biological weapon. Conspiracy theories exist because human brains are pattern matching machines and if you look enough at something you'll find some form of pattern by pure chance. Science and statistics exist because someone realized that without rigorous standards the conclusion we draw are often less than worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
History books also omit the 50 billion other coincidences that didn't have any backing for them. If you're working in hindsight you can even make things look like coincidences by reinterpreting them (see prophecies of a certain dead guy).
Re: (Score:2)
Now if you want to argue that it was a sin of inaction, that someone high up knew an attack was coming and chose to do nothing, that might be plausible, since less people would need to be involved. I wouldn't rule it out completely, though my faith in humanity would be shattered if it were the case. I'm not inclined to believe even that much.
Well, if it's going to upset you, then you probably shouldn't think about it at all.
Some questions:
Do you think there are Freddie Scappaticcis-type informers [wikipedia.org] in Al Qaed
Re: (Score:2)
I look at our government's inability to keep a secret and, from that, I speculate that it is highly unlikely that this (or the 9/11) attacks were sponsored, ordained, ordered, or even remotely believed to be plausible to our government. It is actually the constant reminders of the abysmal state of the American government that makes me inclined to think that some NYT reporter wouldn't have heard of it and posted it on the front page a long time ago.
Re:Do you want to discuss SCIENCE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well for one, it's spelled "thermite" not "thermate." And while it does indeed burn quite hot, it doesn't even remotely approach the temperature at the core of the sun. Not by a factor of more than a thousand. Also, it takes an enormous amount of heat to initiate the thermite reaction - burning jet fuel won't cut it.
The buildings coming down at freefall speed? Well duh, they're 90% air. Once the tops, which weighed half a million tons, got moving, nothing was going to stop them due to intertia.
People coming out with injuries due to explosives? Not suprising, since the planes impacting the buildings caused GIANT EXPLOSIONS that set multiple entire floors on fire.
Seriously, Bushco is guilty of plenty enough crimes that they actually committed to deserve the deaths of traitors - no need to make shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Outside "I Exist," nothi
Re: (Score:2)
But it looked weird as hell, and I don't believe that the official version is all that credible. I just don't see that running planes into the buildings that far up would make the entire buildings collapse into their own footprints.
"Looked weird as hell"? Of course it did. We've never seen anything on that scale before or since. Unless you have one or more other examples of 100+ story truss-stabilized tubular frame supported structures that were hit by aircraft and then collapsed, you have no grounds to claim that's not what happens. Really, if you have doubts, read the Popular Mechanics debunking. It logically lays the whole thing out. Seriously, the "truthers" theories are completely insane. It's not too to entertain the notion that
Re: (Score:2)
First off, yes they were about 90% air, that's what makes them useful as an office building. Nex
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd take the time to refute you, but someone else has:
www.lolloosechange.co.nr
Also, my personal favorite:
www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Oh, but your comment about thermate is hilarious. I'll give you points for that one.
Re: (Score:2)
1) On the Federal level, you can either have the Constitution OR democracy, not both.
2) The Constitution ended a long, long time ago, and almost no current politicians make any pretense of having any loyalty to it.
3) Fascism is system of government and economics. It is also known as Corporatism (a point of some confusion among the less educated, it has zero to do with the corporation as presently understood). Even if your first paragraph's contentions where true in their entirety,
Re: (Score:2)
No I don't, but I can guess...
Things such as:
1) The glue and/or paper used
- May change area/store to store, and depend on when the envelope was manufactured.
(X + Y chems, means 12:00am on X day, which means transport X would have sent it to X store, etc)
2) If its one of those ones with the pattern on the inside to prevent reading, that pattern.
- which may also have some sort of serial number in it (like money)
3) If you go really far into it, things like the chemicals on the envelope left b
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus H. tapdancing Christ .. (Score:2)
What alleged bio-terrorist, would lick his own anthrax envelopes shut, especially considering he ws a highly trained microbiologist and vaccinologist, go back to your 'John and Jane' books
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who says the war hasn't gone according to plan?? It'll take Iraq 3 decades to rebuild, and we're not leaving till that's DONE (or long term contracts are signed).
Every time I see the news reporting lost weapons, corruption, forged intelligence, and dead middle class idealistic kids I'm thinking of Bush and the neocons, "Bring em on".
good for you (Score:2)
what does that have to do with a dead anthrax scientist?
Re: (Score:2)
And what about a conspiracy to hide incompetence? Also, there is no reason those conspiracies have to be related to each other either. Some government officials had their own reasons for linking Anthrax to Iraq. While some other different government officials, not even connecte
Re: (Score:2)
suggests the actions of a loan deranged scientist...
He tried to murder people with anthrax, because he was upset that his student loans hadn't been repaid??
Re: (Score:2)
suggests the actions of a loan deranged scientist [...]
Sometimes makes me think we should've never borrowed that guy in the first place.
paranoia is not a replacement for intelligence (Score:2, Insightful)
let me be perfectly clear: distrust of government is the mark of a healthy society
i repeat: distrust of government is the mark of a healthy society
have i made myself crystal clear?
meanwhile, rabid kneejerk hobbling distrust is the mark of someone with a personality disorder
you can distrust TOO MUCH just as much as you can trust too much. got that?
you are correct, it is 100% possible to trust too much. but it is also possible to distrust too much. it's a balance
so when you see someone who is trying to balanc
Re: (Score:2)
There are sheeple on both sides of most any major argument. It is an unfortunate truth - people who claim to think for themselves generally don't, they just listen to what someone told them to think. I'm a zealot in my desire for moderation.
In this particular case I'd like more factual evidence to be able to make a reasoned judgment on my own. At this point I acknowledge that I don't know enough but, in this case, I know enough to distrust my government to want more information before opting to believe them
Re: (Score:2)
i repeat: distrust of government is the mark of a healthy society
This is such bullshit.
If our government distrusts us or we distrust the government, and we have a government of, for and by the people, what does it say when people ... CAN'T TRUST THEMSELVES?!
Why is it such a horrible idea that we have an optimistic outlook that MAYBE. JUST MAYBE. Government isn't this horrible ogre trying to run around and break shit? The major breakthrough with civilization is that people trust each other, and to have this outlook is really devolution, not evolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose you would have said that too much distrust of Mortgage lenders was a personality disorder, just a few short months ago.
You think like a first-rate Stalinist. You will go far, in this new and very dark time.