Well, it certainly coated the spores in this report. I acknowedge that. But what that has to do with the anthrax powder from 2001 is the real question. The anthrax powder of 2001 did not include coated spores.
And we really don't know why they coated the spores this way at Dugway. The process they describe doesn't seem to match the manufacturing process used back then to make bioweapons. It seems to be a process for creating test materials.
Ed,
That’s fascinating if the Dugway authors were using 40 year old fumed silica. Do you have a sentence in support? If true, that seems to suggest that authorities suspect that the perp used 40 year old fumed silica.
TrebleRebel,
Can you post the picture where the old BG are gathered in groups, snuggling together in a big snowball? Overcoming the VanderWaals forces is what allows them to assume the look of the Geisbert picture. I’ve uploaded it to my table of contents page but I don’t know how to post it from there to here.
Note that the second phase involves testing the anthrax they made to duplicate the anthrax attack by multiple labs. If there is testing at multiple labs and they are attempting to duplicate the attack anthrax, then the second phase is going to be very significant indeed.
Gentlemen, sometimes I oftentimes think that the difference between the two of you is semantical. Folks are too hung up on the word “coating.” One man’s coat is another man’s residue. When you take a chicken breast and put it in breaded crumbs, if you have dipped the chicken breast in milk beforehand, a residue of crumbs will remain on the chicken breast. Or if you like, it will be coated.
In connection with the Canadian experiment done after the anthrax threat relating to the Vanguards of Conquest #2 detained in Canada (and after the February 2001 PDB on that anthrax threat), Gary and TrebleRebel always admitted that the “coating” could not have been done AFTER the mixing the silica at the dairy processor in Wisconsin. And so no special coating was put on at Dugway after processing. A key “trick” in processing occurred prior to mixing. (see, e.g., Rauf Ahmad correspondence to Ayman about his consulting with [redacted] on some tricks relating to weaponization.
In the Canadian experiment, the simulant used was made at Dugway, but it was made at the Wisconsin dairy processor. It was tweaked at Dugway but that might have just been either sequential filtering (or possibly a unipolar charge being added). The performance parameters of the simulant used in the Canada experiment (reported 9/10) was the same as the Daschle product.
Ali had access to all this info. He shared a fax with the two men consulting with Battelle. Charles was the #1 guy for Defense Threat Reduction Agency/DIA advising on biological threats. Both Ali and Ayman followed the rule that the koran/hadiths required that you use the weapon of your enemy. That’s what they did.
But I’m skeptical Jdey was the mailer although Dr. Dillon’s logic is compelling. Given Ed’s spectacular performance in demolishing a Hatfill Theory, I need Ed’s help showing Jdey was not a mailer (without the polemics and empty “belief/conspiracy theory etc. rhetoric) .
(It would be nice if he also made sure the Zack Theory was put to rest by emailing them the news he remained a practicing Catholic). They likely are not keeping up-to-date and so will need to be emailed.
Ed,
“Test materials” are simulants.
Simulants are simulants of bioweapons.
Simulants are intended to be the same as the actual bioweapon but not lethal (so that they can work with it).
On the face of the article, the Dugway authors have sought to make it as close as possible to the attack anthrax.
If the simulant were not the same (except for lethality) then you wouldn’t be developing an effective detection, decontamination or whatever.
“And we really don’t know why they coated the spores this way at Dugway.”
They coated the spores to make them aerosolize. Uncoated spores clump. Coated spores do not clump.
Alibek’s statement that “there is no principle to coatings” is plain wrong. He deceived you.
Anthrax is weaponized by coatings.
Surely you must have read about that before?
American Medical Association:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/print/6631.html\
Spores can also be COATED with an electrostatic powder so that they do not clump easily and fall to the ground quickly; these spores would then be more easily aerosolized (dispersed into the air).
Christopher Grace, MD (Univ of Vermont):
http://www.fahc.org/Healthcare_Providers/Healthcare_Providers_Contribution/Bioterrorism_Curriculum/Email_4_April_14.pdf
Anthrax spores that have been weaponized are finley milled to <5um diameter and COATED to prevent clumping.
Alan Zelicoff:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/3nations.html
``The amount of energy needed to disperse the spores [by merely opening an envelope] was trivial, which is virtually diagnostic of achieving the appropriate coating.’’
EDVOTEK (The Biology of Baterial Sporation):
http://www.edvotek.com/pdfs/161.pdf
The spores may also be COATED or mixed with silica.................
DuPont presonal prtotection (technical bulletin):
http://personalprotection.dupont.ca/pa_pdf/h96406techanthrax.pdf
Inhalation exposure is enhanced when anthrax spores are artificially COATED to reduce clumping.
Coulmbia University:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/courses/g4158/presentations/2004/BacillusAnthracis.ppt
Weaponizing anthrax: Basic approach is to COAT the spores with a fine silica.
http://www.forensicnetbase.com/books/2786/1660_09.pdf
Further “weaponization” can be accomplished by processing of the spores such that the tendency for individual spores to clump together is reduced and penetration deep into the distal airways is facilitated. This process results in a detectable COATING of the spore that was seen in oragnisms recovered during the 2001 attack.