The anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 was a highly sophisticated dry powder bioweapon containing silica coatings that were processed with the aid of a super-specialized siloxane binder. What nation developed this process? Who manufactured the 2001 anthrax? Why did the FBI claim the anthrax was an unsophisticated product that almost any microbiologist could create? We are here to answer these questions.
A quick FAQ for first-time visitors to anthrax2001
Q: The senate anthrax, although pure spores, wasn't fully weaponized because the electrostatic charge hadn't been removed, right?
A: Wrong: The senate anthrax wasn't just weaponized - it was doubly weaponized. In the old days of bioweapons it wasn't common to have an electrostatic charge on the spores. In fact it's a myth that the presence of an electrostatic charge causes clumping. The only thing that causes clumping are short range van der Waals forces that only operate over tens of angstroms. These can be effectively blocked by adding a uniform coating of silica nanoparticles. The result is weaponized anthrax. Then an electrostatic charge as added in a corona spray gun. Now it's doubly weaponized - the net-like-charge causes the spores to mutually repel one another forming a spontaneous aerosol. As a secondary effect the charged particles adhere to lung alveoli more efficiently.
Q: Apart from the fact that the anthrax was the Ames strain there is little or no scientific forensic evidence for investigators to trace the manufacturer, right?
A: Wrong. The chemicals and processes used to weaponize the anthrax provide a wealth of scientific forensic evidence - more than enough to trace the spores right to the doorstep of whatever bioweapons laboratory manufactured them. The silica itself contains signature elemental impurities and morphological uniqueness that can allow identification of the manufacturer. But even more importantly, the identity of the specfic siloxane used as a binder, along with any cross-linking agent employed, comes straight out of the cook-book of the nation that developed the process.
Q: Why are the FBI denying that these chemical additives exist?
A: We don't know. It has just been disclosed that one of the FBI's top scientists, Dwight Adams, told congress in a private briefing that the senate anthrax contained no additives. This is in stark contrast to results published by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's analytical laboratory. Either the FBI have made an enormous blunder in the most expensive investigation in their history, or they are passing out misinformation for their own reasons, even in a confidential briefing to their government.
Q: Did Dr Steven Hatfill, or some other lone scientist, make the anthrax all on his own from scratch doing all the fermentation steps, purification, drying, weaponiztion processing and quality assurance steps in some clandestine laboratory without leaving a trace of evidence behind?
A: Er, we're only here to answer serious questions.