Ed,
I didn’t give you the article so you could sally forth and mangle more science. For years, you’ve been arguing that silica is not used to weaponize anthrax. When, in fact, for years, as Gary Matsumoto explained, that is how Dugway has been creating their anthrax simulants. Your argument that it was absurd that silica would be used to coat (fluidize) spores was mistaken. Now we’ve heard your strident, capitalized and red-lettered insistence on the point for over 5 years now. Gary Matsumoto wrote his article in SCIENCE after speaking with military scientists. If you had taken the time to do the same, by so much as an email, or just credited the written accounts that Dr. Rebel regularly provided you, you would not have been so confused about the use of silica in this regard. Now whether the weight silica was 10%, 20%, or some figure such as the 2% proposed by TrebleRebel - who is an expert in working with silica (and has done work for the military in this connection) — doesn’t need to be considered by lay people in a public forum. Nor need the particulars of such a process be speculated about. But the fact you need to understand is that AFIP detected silica. The fact that TrebleRebel needs to understand is that Ken and Professor M. did not see it on the particular SEMS they were shown. (And given that the expert government scientists could just as easily read the same SEMS, Alibek and Meselson would have just been reporting what they saw). The two data points are entirely consistent with the work being done by the Dugway authors, their analysis and their conclusions.
As another example of how you don’t correct mistakes, above you suggested that I had said that Ken Alibek had the theory that Jdey was the mailer. (Jdey was part of the planes operation and was trained in biology — he disappeared in October 2001) In one post, I just referred to Dr. Dillon as “Ken”, but in a series of closely preceding posts I had referred to him by his full name. He is a former history PhD who is a former State Department analyst. He has served abroad. He is as cautious in his reasoning as he is unfailingly polite. Now for you to err is human and unimportant. I’m not faulting you for making the mistake in rushing through posts. But I’m faulting you for not correcting the error. Moreover, if you don’t even know Ken’s last name, then for sure you are not in a position to rebut his cautious analysis (available at Amazon) or online.
Post your scientific analysis if you like. But why should anyone pay attention to you if you didn’t even know this most basic proposition about silica’s use?
Dr. Rebel, could you post a picture of the BG spores without a coating? Ed has a good question pending to you — why does the picture of “pure spores” (suggested to be a close approximation of the anthrax attack look unlike the images coated with silica)? The answer is found in the means used to increase the spore concentration. The snow ball effect is caused by Vander Waals forces. But a silica coating allows greater concentration and leads to the picture posted by Ed. Think of the biochemistry info available to be accessed by Ali as a way of smushing a bunch of snow balls together leading to product as pure as fluffy snow. Separately, in 2001, you had a radical reduction in particle size in the commercial silica powders available.
Mr. Lake, I’m glad I could be of service to you in providing this study and explaining how it bears. I have lots more from the authoritative literature that I’ll pass on as time permits. Moreover, it was my honor and pleasure to provide you with the 202 Hatfill exhibits. At your service, Pook
Actually, I've been arguing that silica was not used to COAT anthrax. I've repeated said it was MIXED with anthrax to create bioweapons. Ken Alibek explained to me the exact process the Russians used. And Bill Patrick has described how they used silica when MILLING anthrax spores back during the Cold War. Plus, there is plenty of literature which shows that they MIX spores with silica to keep them from absorbing moisture.
This new report says that they used BG spores that were forty years old. It also suggests that they used fumed silica that was equally old. You can't tell from the way it's written if the coated spores were created 40 years ago or if they used 40 year old ingredients to create the samples used for the tests.
So, we're talking about some process developed over 40 years ago, NOT some new super-sophisticated process like what Gary Matsumoto wrote about.
But the main point here is: This process has nothing to do with what was in the anthrax letters of 2001. The picture from Tom Geisbert above shows what those spores looked like. They looked NOTHING like what would come from the process described in the article.
As another example of how you don’t correct mistakes, above you suggested that I had said that Ken Alibek had the theory that Jdey was the mailer.
I DID correct that mistake. I just waited until after I read the article to do it. Check back a few messages.
Mr. Lake, I’m glad I could be of service to you in providing this study
Thanks for providing it. You can interpret it to fit your beliefs, but the FACT is that that process does NOT produce spores which looked the way the attack anthrax spores looked. So, the main question is: Of what value is that report to any argument about the attack anthrax of 2001?
So, you coat spores to increase concentration? You better explain that, since coating the spores makes the BIGGER particles and would therefore REDUCE concentration.
Are you saying van der Waals forces cause the silica to bind to the spores? Hmm. In Gary Matsumoto's article he said the silica particles were glued into place by "polymerized glass." (That stuff that AFIP never detected.)
Mastumoto wrote:
... a technique used to anchor silica nano-particles to the surface of spores. About a year and a half ago, a laboratory analyzing the Senate anthrax spores for the FBI reported the discovery of what appeared to be a chemical additive that improved the bond between the silica and the spores. U. S. intelligence officers informed foreign biodefense officials that this additive was "polymerized glass."
But you raise a good question. What causes the silica to bind to the spores? Presumably, based upon the description of the coating process, it was static electricity. But I imagine that presumption would get a lot of arguments.