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.
Biodefense Researchers Invent Process to Help Create Biofriendly Products
April 13, 2004
Someone implying he was Bruce Ivins created a YouTube account and one of his two comments concerned gouging the eye out of the mole (relating to an episode of the “mole”).
Was that Bruce?
Or is it an FBI or CIA honeytrap? (a website created for the purpose of capturing IPs of interest)
It is unusual that he used something so close to his real name given the standard is something totally fake. For example, beginning in 2006, he used Prunetacos.
Oh, yeah? Some anonymous person "confirms" something that NAMED Scientists from Sandia, the FBI and elsewhere say is nonsense, and we're supposed to believe an anonymous scientist? Why? What you are saying has NOTHING to do with the attack anthrax. You just believe it does.
It's a process for growing bacteria. You believe it will result in silicon being left behind inside the spores. But there is NO EVIDENCE to support that belief. And there's nothing in the process that says that would happen.
But it is not impossible for you to be right. And that's what you rely upon. No one can prove you are wrong. Even if experiments were done that showed you to be wrong, you could still claim that the attack anthrax wasn't done that way, and no one could prove you wrong.
I cannot prove that aliens from outer space didn't send the anthrax letters, but that doesn't make it likely or probable or even believable.
It's a waste of time arguing screwball beliefs when we have so many SOLID FACTS to discuss and evaluate.