Sure, I agree the Chris-Hansen spray dryer could make a better simulant.
I’m still trying to take the first step in analyzing the spores - namely finding out just exactly what the attack spores had. Was it just silica, just polymerized glass, both? It was definitely something containing silica - and it definitely made the spores fly.
Was it Alibekov anthrax? Maybe.
Was it the same powder described in the Fox email as being almost identical to a powder already made there? Maybe.
Do the FBI consider the spore weaponization to be the most secretly guarded part of the Amerithrax investigation? Well, duh, yes obviously. Mueller was emphatic when he insisted to Lambert that the science be kept completley stovepiped.
We all know that the above is true - but what about the weaponization is the big secret? Obviously you believe it’s because it’s embrarrassing to admit that AQ stole the formula of a classified US bioweapon. But there are other feasible explanations.
Until we can explore these other explanations we still need the basic information. How much silica? What type? Identical to a known process? Who are the at least 6 players in the Fox News email? Will they talk some more?
“Obviously you believe it’s because it’s embarrassing to admit...”
No. You are adopting Ed’s practice of assuming what someone thinks rather than quoting what they have said. As I’ve often noted, First, it is stupid to publicly discuss how to best weaponize anthrax. Reckless even except when you are as confused as Ed. Second, it is extremely poor investigative practice to disclose such signatures of a crime. Third, as Director Mueller has explained, such discussion would allow a terrorist attack to “spoof” detection devices. These considerations were discussed in Lambert’s affidavit to the judge hearing the Hatfill matter. I think you and Ed lack common sense to pursue the subject. You should be submitting your views to scientists privately, not posting in a forum with Ed. The embarrassment I’ve discussed relates to Al-Timimi and relates, for example, to the potential massive civil liability. But such a concern is redundant to and in addition to general principles of fairness that apply (given it has not been charged). The concern also parallels the usual principles of maintaining the confidentiality of an ongoing criminal investigation so that they could maintain effective wiretaps on, for example, Aulaqi (such as they maintained for years).
Having said that, but being bored by seeing you and Ed post the same info back and forth endlessly, I should note that some patents on polymerized glass coatings claims that a coating of dimethyldichlorosilane will aid dispersability. In such a patent no silica is used - only dimethyldichlorosilane. This would lead to coated spores that would have an EDX spectrum similar to that of silica - but chlorine would also be present in the EDX spectrum. I’ve got to admit — I don’t really understand why this would reduce van der Waals forces - but it would likely cause the powder to strongly repel water — and that would certainly help reduce clumping due to “water bridges” between spores. This would explain why some people who examined the spore SEM pictures saw no silica — the spores coated with dimethyldichlorosilane would look fairly normal — until the EDX was examined. Now can you agree with this technical explanation also? I should tell you that Pook was only rough on you earlier hoping to draw Ed into the ring so that I could land a chair on his head.