Ken’s assistant has explained the reason for the silica in a PhD thesis supervised by Ken. She reports that “many experts who examined the powder stated the spores were encapsulated. Encapsulation involves coating bacteria with a polymer which is usually done to protect fragile bacteria from harsh conditions such as extreme heat and pressure that occurs at the time of detonation (if in a bomb), as well as from moisture and ultraviolet light. The process was not originally developed for biological weapons purposes but rather to improve the delivery of various drugs to target organs or systems before they were destroyed by enzymes in the circulatory system” (citing Alibek and Crockett, 2005). “The US and Soviet Union, however, “ she explains, “used this technique in their biological weapons programs for pathogens that were not stable in aerosol form... Since spores have hardy shells that provide the same protection as encapsulation would, there is no need to cover them with a polymer.“ She explains that one “possible explanation is that the spore was in fact encapsulated but not for protective purpose. Encapsulation also reduces the need for milling when producing a dry formulation.” By reducing the need for milling, she means permits greater concentration of the biological agent. If the perpetrator was knowledgeable of the use of encapsulation for this purpose, then he or she may have employed it because sophisticated equipment was not at his disposal.”
So if the product was not stolen outright, then the task for the FBI was to find the scientist knowledgeable about an encapsulation technique.
And this is supposed to be believed? You think it's the definitive explanation for the silicon and oxygen that was detected?
The FACTS say that that explanation is RIDICULOUS.
The very idea that someone writing a PhD thesis and who has never had access to the attack anthrax would provide the definitive explanation for the detection of silicon and oxygen in the attack anthrax is RIDICULOUS.
Since spores have hardy shells that provide the same protection as encapsulation would, there is no need to cover them with a polymer.“ She explains that one “possible explanation is that the spore was in fact encapsulated but not for protective purpose. Encapsulation also reduces the need for milling when producing a dry formulation.”
"one possible explanation" says that she's just guessing. That doesn't make her the definitive expert.