I’ll trust the named scientists who actually looked at the Daschle anthrax:
exerpt from “Demon in the Freezer”:
10/25/01 Geisbert tests a sterilized sample of the Daschle anthrax. X-rays, and other tests show two materials present: silica and oxygen...glass.
“The silica was powdered so finely that under Geisbert’s electron microscope it had looked like fried-egg gunk dripping off the spores.” Geisbert calls his boss, Peter Jahrling on a secure STU phone and says: “Pete ! There’s glass in the anthrax.”
...superfine powdered glass,known as silica nanopowder,which has industrial uses.The grains of this type of glass are very small. If an anthrax spore was an orange,then these particles of glass would be grains of sand clinging to the orange. The glass was slippery and smooth,and it might have been treated so that it would repel water. It caused the spores to crumble apart,to pass more easily through the holes in the envelopes and fly everywhere, filling the Hart Senate office building and the Brentwood and Hamilton mail-sorting facilities like a gas.”
The SEMS I’ve showns you made with a siliconized solution look like the Daschle product. That’s your signature.
As usual, you just pick things you can twist to support your beliefs. Geisbert dipped the spores in chemicals to kill them. Then he put them under a Transmission Electron Microscope. And when he turned the power up, he saw some mysterious "goop" ooze out of the spores. He didn't realize that the "goop" was the chemicals he just used to kill the spores, and heating the chemicals with an intense electron beam caused them to expand and ooze out of the spores.
This is all described in detail in Chapter 15 of my book.
When Geisbert killed the spores with radiation, he didn't get that effect. Why would that be? All he saw was "pure spores."
If an anthrax spore was an orange,then these particles of glass would be grains of sand clinging to the orange.
That statement is not from Geisbert. It is from the author of "The Demon In The Freezer," and his interpretation of what Geisbert believed at that point in time. BTW, that author, Richard Preston, highly recommends my book.