I don't know who you are trying to convince with this nonsense. The transcript of the August 18, 2008, roundtable scientific discussion is now available HERE
It is explained a dozen different ways in the discussion that the the attack spores were NOT coated with silica. And it was NOT necessary to have a silica coating on the spores for the spores to have the effect they did.
And we also have pictures of the attack anthrax HERE
The picture on the left shows a clump of spores with at least a thousand spores in it. NO silica. It's what was in the senate letters.
If you simply cannot believe the facts, you have a serious problem. But there is no need to tell me about it. I don't care.
I’ve had it confirmed that this below was the technique. It used silicon dioxide or a siliconizing solution in the culture medium. See FBI WMD head and consulting scientists who have aerosolized anthrax using siliconizing solution.
“The micro-droplet technique combines cell cultures (micro-droplets) in a liquid media with hydrophobic silica (a sandlike substance), which coats the micro-droplets. The coating allows the micro-droplets to maintain a consistent shape that offers more surface area for replication.” Adequate aeration, another step in the replication process, is achieved through spaces between the silica-encapsulated droplets.
The major advantages of the micro-droplet technique over liquid fermentation and surface cultivation include the portability of the process, minimal power supply needs, and lack of requirement for a complex infrastructure for the process, Bailey explains.
http://gazette.gmu.edu/articles/5545/
Biodefense Researchers Invent Process to Help Create Biofriendly Products
April 13, 2004
“it contained an additive that affected the spore’s electrical charges “
“In a meeting I attended in September 2006, a presentation was made by a scientist who had worked on samples of anthrax collected from letters involved in the same incident in October 2001; that scientist described the anthrax spore as uncoated but said that it contained an additive that affected the spore’s electrical charges (D. Small, CBRN Counter-Proliferation and Response, Paris, France, 18-20 September 2006; organized by SMi [www.smi-online.co.uk]).
