Arguing with TrebleRebel on this subject is a waste of time. I've been telling him the same thing for years and years. He considers Gary Matsumoto's article in Science Magazine to be the holy writ on how the spores were made. Doug Beecher at the FBI labs said that Matsumoto's article was wrong and misleading, but TrebleRebel will tell you Beecher's article is just part of the FBI's sinister plot to keep people from learning the truth about the "supersophistication of the attack spores". My analysis of the Science article is HERE.
In late 2004, I talked with Dr. Alibek on the subject of his formulation for improving the "flyability" of spores. Some details are on my site and in my book. I have excerpts from my discussion on my site. CLICK HERE. I have more details of the formulation in my book. It's really very simple. Unlike the article in Science, it also makes very good scientific sense.
Arguing with Ed lake, whose claim to fame is uncovering fake nude celebrity pictures ( http://www.fake-detective.com/ ), is like trying to persuade the Pope that god is a protestant.
Lake claims that weaponized anthrax spores (and weaponized simulants) are NOT coated with silica. His claims are based on what he was told by Ken Alibek. Apparently the rest of the world disagrees with this. There are numerous pictures and descriptions of weaponized simulants in the Volume “Microbial Forensics”. They are are all coated with silica nanoparticles, as they should be.
Of course that doesn’t deter Lake from his conspiracy theories. He simply says all the scientists who wrote this volume deliberately pretented these were weaponzed spores in order to fool people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
In February 2005, Stephan P. Velsko of Lawrence Livermore National Labs published a paper titled “Physical and Chemical Analytical Analysis: A key component of Bioforensics”.[14] In this paper, Velsko illustrated that different silica coating processes gave rise to weaponized anthrax simulants that look completely different from one another. He suggested that the difference in the look of products could provide evidence of what method the lab that manufactured the 2001 anthrax used, and thus provide clues to the ultimate origin of the material.
In May 2005, Academic Press published the volume “Microbial Forensics” edited by Roger Breeze, Bruce Budowle and Steven Schutzer.[15] Bruce Budowle is with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Forensic Science Laboratory. Although the volume does not directly discuss the silica coatings found in the senate anthrax of 2001, the contributors to the chapters discuss in detail the forensics of silica coated weaponized bacterial spores. Pictures are shown of silica weaponized bacillus spores that are both mixed with silica and fully coated with silica. Pictures of weaponized Clostridium spores coated with colloidal (spherical) silica are also shown. Again, the aim of these studies is to define the forensic fingerprints of silica weaponization processes.
Hundreds of references can quickly be found on the internet from dozens of qualified sources confirming that silica coatings are ubiquitous in weaponizing anthrax spores. Here are a few below:
American Medical Association:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/print/6631.html\
Spores can also be COATED with an electrostatic powder so that they do not clump easily and fall to the ground quickly; these spores would then be more easily aerosolized (dispersed into the air).
Christopher Grace, MD (Univ of Vermont):
http://www.fahc.org/Healthcare_Providers/Healthcare_Providers_Contribution/Bioterrorism_Curriculum/Email_4_April_14.pdf
Anthrax spores that have been weaponized are finley milled to <5um diameter and COATED to prevent clumping.
Alan Zelicoff:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/3nations.html
``The amount of energy needed to disperse the spores [by merely opening an envelope] was trivial, which is virtually diagnostic of achieving the appropriate coating.’’
EDVOTEK (The Biology of Baterial Sporation):
http://www.edvotek.com/pdfs/161.pdf
The spores may also be COATED or mixed with silica.................
DuPont presonal prtotection (technical bulletin):
http://personalprotection.dupont.ca/pa_pdf/h96406techanthrax.pdf
Inhalation exposure is enhanced when anthrax spores are artificially COATED to reduce clumping.
Coulmbia University:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/courses/g4158/presentations/2004/BacillusAnthracis.ppt
Weaponizing anthrax: Basic approach is to COAT the spores with a fine silica.
http://www.forensicnetbase.com/books/2786/1660_09.pdf
Further “weaponization” can be accomplished by processing of the spores such that the tendency for individual spores to clump together is reduced and penetration deep into the distal airways is facilitated. This process results in a detectable COATING of the spore that was seen in oragnisms recovered during the 2001 attack.
I’m not arguing with TrebleRebel and I never find it a waste time to learn from him (or anyone) and look forward to the day it is over beers. Now let me give a quick summary of Debra’s thesis. Alibek and Patrick both wrote forewords. Debra, who does Bill Patrick is responsible for the anthrax mailings? Al Qaeda? Or US-based supporters of Al Qaeda? What about Glen Cross who likely has thought a lot about Amerithrax and was also advised by Dr. Alibek.
The stated purpose of Debra’s doctoral project “Lessons learned from the former Soviet biological warfare program” was to develop the most credible educational tool openly available to enhance the understanding and the application of biological weapons threat analysis. The theory governing the effectiveness of biological weapons was integrated from publications, lectures, and seminars primarily provided by Kenneth Alibek and William C. Patrick III, the world’s foremost authorities on the topic. Both experts validated the accuracy of the theory compiled from their work and provided forewords. An exercise requiring analysis of four national intelligence estimates of the former Soviet biological warfare program was included in the form of educational case studies to enhance retention, experience, and confidence by providing a platform against which the reader can apply the newly learned theory. After studying the chapters on BW theory, the reader can compare his/her analysis of the national intelligence estimates against the analysis provided in the case studies by this researcher. This training aid will be a valuable tool for all who are concerned with the threat posed by biological weapons and are therefore seeking the most reliable source of information in order to better understand the true nature of the threat.
Third sentence: “Highly regarded scientists have publications that unintentionally contain misleading or imprecise information that could misdirect preparation for a biological attack.”
“The only way we can adequately prepare to meet the threat is if we are able to identify it in all its forms. Because we have so few people trained to anticipate the tactics that may be used by our opponents and the realistic threats such tactics pose, many of these individuals we have to rely upon to guide use in our defenses aren’t the optimal individuals to use. They may be experts in very important supporting fields such as microbiology or chemistry however they often lack the specific knowledge and training that would allow them to contribute more broadly to defenses against biological weapons....”
“Aerosol dissemination”” starts at page 56.
“Concentration reaching target” starts at page 6
Separately, Glen A. Cross has a 2007 thesis titled “ Dirty war: The Rhodesian chemical and biological warfare effort, 1975 to 1979” also supervised by Dr. Alibek.
Refresh my recollection, Ed. Was Mr. Cross the fellow who Dr. Hatfill mentioned the idea that a pond would be a way of disposing of equipment? Is he the fellow Marilyn T. then says was hired the FBI as an analyst? If so, another candidate for your summer beach reading is his thesis, which
examines Rhodesia’s effort to identify, develop, and use select chemical and biological agents against a burgeoning African nationalist insurgency during the mid-to-late 1970s. You may recall that Zimbabwe was part of the vapor trail that Don Foster thought followed Dr. Hatfill.
Having granted independence to majority governments in its other African colonies, the British government in the mid-1960s believed it could not grant independence to Rhodesia’s white minority government which ruled a largely disenfranchised African population. After negotiations between London and Salisbury failed to reach a compromise, the Rhodesian government unilaterally declared its independence on 11 November 1965.
Rhodesia’s declaration of independence led the African nationalist groups toward a violent overthrow of the Rhodesian government. From 1965 to 1972, the insurgents launched a disastrous series of raids resulting in the destruction of the insurgent infiltrators. After Portugal withdrew from neighboring Mozambique in 1974, a Marxist government took power that favored the Rhodesian insurgents, and allowed Rhodesian insurgents to establish training bases in Mozambique and launch attacks against Rhodesia, effectively opening a second front in the conflict.
From 1976 to 1979-—with the escalating conflict in Rhodesia-—Rhodesians developed a CBW effort focused on the dissemination of poisoned clothing, food, beverages, and medical supplies destined for guerrilla groups. Biological pathogens and toxins also were employed. Vibrio cholerae also was used to contaminate water supplies. Bacillus anthracis was field tested and considered for deployment at the end of the conflict. Although the Rhodesians considered and may have disseminated some small amount of anthrax in mid-1979, no evidence exists to suggest that the Rhodesian anthrax epidemic (1978-1982) was caused by a Rhodesian release of anthrax into the environment. Some first-hand statements indicate that South African Special Forces were responsible for the Rhodesian anthrax epidemic as part of an effort to punish Matabele villagers for their suspected support of ANC cadres transiting Rhodesia. Although not decisive, the Rhodesian CBW effort resulted in the recorded deaths of over 800 insurgents and possibly hundreds more.
The Rhodesian CBW effort was the progenitor, if not the genesis, of the South African CBW program-—aka “Project Coast.” The Rhodesians provided detailed data on their CBW efforts to their South African counterparts and tested CBW agents for the South Africans. The Rhodesian CBW legacy transmitted to South Africa has resulted in the possible proliferation of that legacy to other unstable regions of the world, meaning that the spectre of the Rhodesian CBW program of the 1970s may remain with us still.