Replies

"The evidence that the anthrax spores were capable of becoming airborne again offers proof that "the natural behavior of these materials was altered," Weis said. He explained that the particles were much smaller than naturally occurring anthrax spores. Weis and his colleagues expected that the anthrax spores "would clump together" and settle on various surfaces in the office. These clumps of small anthrax spores would be unlikely to become airborne again, he said.

"smaller than naturally occurring anthrax spores"? Really? Is that possible? Check it out. Spores only come in one size, and anyone who talks about changing their size to make them smaller is talking through his ass.

I don't know what the people at AFIP meant by "key component". But they did NOT say the spores were coated. NO ONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THE SPORES OR EVEN PICTURES OF THE SPORES HAS SAID THEY SAW A COATING. All talk of a coating is pure speculation.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"smaller than naturally occurring anthrax spores"? Really? Is that possible? Check it out.

That's your misinterpretation. Of course, they really meant clumps of spores being large - all naturally occurring anthrax spores come in clumps of tens or even hundereds of spores. Thus it was very unusual to find single spores.

But you've dodged the question. Do you know better than Chris Weis?

Why are all these qualified PhDs saying the spores were altered? Are they ALL wrong?

And you also dodged my question about Meselson. Do you have full confidence in his skills, knowledge and opionions concerning anthrax bioweapons after his 15 years of getting it COMPLETELY wrong over Sverdlovsk?

"But they did NOT say the spores were coated."

They said silica was a key component. And the Science article provides a theory that the way the key component is applied is by having a coating of silcia nanoparticles. That theory was accepted by all of the reviwers (and I believe some of the reviwers were scientists who had FIRST HAND access to ALL of the analysis). How do you explain this? Do you have a different theory? Are you saying silcia could be a key component WITHOUT being a coating? If that is your theory, then you need to provide a detailed scientific explanation for what precisely the silica did. There is alreay a detailed explantion for what silcia would do AS A COATING. That theory has now been accepted.

What is your theory on how the silica was a key component? How come you know this and none of these scientists know it? Are you going to tell us what your silica theory is, or is it a secret?

If you you're not going to disclose your detailed silcia theory (and remember - it has to expalin why the silcia causes the spores to float and it is NOT allowed to be a coating) - then we will have to assume you are spouting utter nonsense.

Of course, it would help if you published your theory in a peer-reviwed journal - or even had a real scientist endorse your theory. Why don't you try writing to a scientist and ask him to endorse your "silica - key-component-but-not-a-coating" theory. Are you afraid he might laugh too hard at it?

And why do you keep dodging my question about Meselson? Do you or do you not have full confidence in his opinions concerning weaponized anthrax? Bear in mind that he thought, for fifteen years, that 100 inhalational anthrax cases were actually gastrointestinal fatalities caused by eating contaminated meat.