why don’t you tell us what they’ve said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny?
You responded,
Meselson stated that AFIP released a spectrum of only silicon. AFIP released a spectrum of silica.
That's not about the anthrax. That's about a spectrum that was NOT a spectrum of the attack anthrax.
Meselson and Alibek said that anonymous sources should not be trusted and that we should wait for named, knowledageable government officials to announce their results. They did anounce them.
That's not about the anthrax. That's your interpretation of a statement about believing unidentified sources.
Beecher said that the media reported that the spores were weaponized. He failed to mention that AFIP, Detrick and the Whitehouse all officially announced on the record that silica had been found.
Failing to mention something you think is important is not something which close scrutiny" would show to be invalid. And the statements are not necessarily incompatible. The presence of something UNSEEN but believed to be silica does not necessarily mean the anthrax was weaponized.
Beecher chose to enter the peer reviewed systam with his unsupported statement. When asked to support it , he ignored the request.
So? That's not about the attack anthrax. That's about the review process.
Alibek said there is no principle to coatings. The US and Russia have used coatings for years to weaponize dry powders and simulants.
Or so you believe. But your belief that they glued silica to spores with organic resin is just plain ridiculous. Plus, Ken Alibek explained to me in detail how they weaponized anthrax, and it didn't involve coating spores. Plus, the way Russia weaponized spores had nothing to do with the attack anthrax since, coating or not, the Russian technique involved silica which would be EASILY SEEN under an SEM.
So, you have NOTHING that they've said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.