Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mitchell
Yes, I was wondering why this article is all about chemical weapons, and makes no mention of bioweapons.
26 posted on 11/18/2002 5:03:56 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: aristeides
Richard Spertzel is quoted in both articles.

The first article, in the Washington Post, is just about anthrax. Here's a short excerpt from the Washington Post article:

Several sources agreed that the most likely way to build the coated spores would be to use the fine glass particles, known generically as "fumed silica" or "solid smoke," and mix them with the spores in a spray dryer. "I know of no other technique that might give you that finished product," Spertzel said.

In contrast, the Washington Times article that this thread is about is only about dusty VX. This article says that Spertzel was "stunned" when informed of Iraq's recent purchase. It doesn't say whether he was stunned because of the prospect of dusty VX, as the article implies, or because of the prospect of weaponized anthrax, as would be suggested by the earlier article.

So did Iraq purchase the fumed silica for VX, or for anthrax, or even conceivably for some other weapon (it's clearly of general applicability)?

29 posted on 11/18/2002 7:15:45 AM PST by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson