http://www.afip.org/images/public/nl081002.pdf
The AFIP lab deputy director, Florabel Mullick, said “This [silica] was a key component. Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011029-4.html
MAJOR GENERAL PARKER: We do know that we found silica in the samples.
MAJOR GENERAL PARKER: We do know that we found silica in the samples.
Distorting facts again, I see. Why else would you omit the rest of what General Parker said?
MAJOR GENERAL PARKER: We do know that we found silica in the samples. Now, we don't know what that motive would be, or why it would be there, or anything.
AFIP mistakenly claimed they knew why it was there, but General Parker didn't. If the "silica" were VISIBLE, it would be clear to everyone why it was there. But, since no one could SEE any trace of additives, the intelligent person would admit that he didn't know why it was there. Anyone claiming to know why it was there would be making assumptions.
MAJOR GENERAL PARKER: May I repeat what I said? The Daschle sample is very fine and powdery. It appears that -- and I'm talking gross, looking at the specimen grossly, not under the microscope. The New York Post sample is very granular, by comparison. And when you look at the two samples under the microscope, the Daschle sample is very pure and densely compact with spores. And so is the New York Post sample, but not quite as dense -- I'm talking magnitudes of, you know, times 10 difference, maybe, between the density of the two samples. Both samples are densely populated with anthrax spores.
...
Q Will there be other ways to look for the composition of this additive? Are there other ways, aside from high energy x-rays, to go about looking for --
MAJOR GENERAL PARKER: The scientists are pursuing that, they're discussing it and are trying to characterize this right down to the point where we know everything about these samples. But you have to know that we don't have much sample, and so doing comparison is very, very difficult and people have to think about it before we destroy more sample to maybe run down a wrong road. So there's a lot of discussion about what is needed.
It would be months before they were able to determine that their assumption about silica was FALSE and that the silicon and oxygen was actually in the form of polymerized glass.