What you seem to fail to appreciate is that we are using published information here. All most of us are doing is debating whether the information published immediately after the attacks is as valid as later information which showed that early information to be totally invalid.
Except for ZacandPook, no one is discussing specific manufacturing techniques. And I seriously doubt that anyone is paying much attention to ZacandPook's beliefs since his totally unscientific beliefs are buried inside mountains of irrelevant material that has nothing to do with anything. It may be "misinformation," but it is probably recognized as misinformation by almost everyone.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are here to learn. We know that it's possible to learn even though a waterfall of misinformation is pouring down beside us. The trick is to find the facts amid the torrent of beliefs and opinions. And since it's all based upon published information and not upon new experiments we are performing, I doubt that we're talking about anything that a wannabee terrorist couldn't learn infinitely more about by opening a book on microbiology.
“What you seem to fail to appreciate is that we are using published information here. All most of us are doing is debating whether the information published immediately after the attacks is as valid as later information which showed that early information to be totally invalid.”
What information SHOWED that the early information was invalid? The new information is spun and manipulated by the same people who have constantly attempted to undermine AFIPs statements with new mistatements.
The best example of this is the lie told my Meselson to the aauthor of the C&E article.
Let’s look at this lie and then demonstrate with published information that it is indeed a lie. In fact it’s such a transparent lie it’s almost funny.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html
Sometimes scientists misspoke as well, as was the case with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. AFIP studied the anthrax powder from the Daschle letter using energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry, and a top AFIP scientist, Florabell G. Mullick, reported the presence of silica in an AFIP newsletter. Yet, the spectrum AFIP released shows a peak for the element silicon, not silicon dioxide (silica).
Now we go to the ACTUAL spectrum released by AFIP - and we see that the Meselson lie is the exact OPPOSITE of the spectrum released by AFIP - it shows peaks for silicon dioxide (silica) - NOT silicon.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/841229/posts
Silicon Dioxide (Silica), as it appears through energy dispersive X-ray analysis