I haven't yet read the article, but it can't contain much of importance if you have to dig through it to find words and parts of sentences you can use to fit your beiefs.
I see an abstract of the article HERE.
The title of the article says it's about DEPOSITING spore particles evenly on a surface so information can be developed on how to do valid samplings. It's not an article about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
In fact, the abstract says it's about correcting problems with sampling methods used back in 2001:
After the anthrax incidents in October 2001, several techniques used for sampling surfaces for biological agents were found to be inadequately validated
So, it's pointing out MORE mistakes made back then.
The abstract also mentions coatings:
The flow-enhanced powder mixture appeared to affect the spores' ability to grow on the agar medium. Three ways of analyzing the agar plates were used to evaluate the effect of spore coatings on viability and to differentiate between number of spore-containing particles and the number of spores.
That seems to suggest that they found that coatings on spores HURT the spores' ability to germinate. In other words, coatings make the powder less effective.
I'll certainly look for a copy of the article. It MIGHT contain something of interest.
Until then, I suppose I'll just have to live with you claiming you have found some words and parts of sentences that validate your beliefs.
If the spores were hampered in germinating by the silica coatings it was a small effect. The paper only speculates that this may have increased the time a large colony took to grew - and even then only slightly.
The thrust of the paper is that EVERY sample they worked up used a silica COATING. The authors stated that the study was intended to simulate the biowarfare agent used in the 2001 attacks. Guess they know something Beecher and Meselson don’t.