Friday, October 22, 2010

Do YOU want to learn how to synthesize JWH-018?

 UPDATE: 3/26/11
Go here for a full(Unconfirmed) recipe to produce JWH-018 (For educational purposes ONLY) :

Go here to find a link to an outfit in China offering the technology to synthesize all JWHs "in house"  (Unconfirmed-please comment if you get RESULTS):

 Old post is left here, mainly because of the keywords, and serves to attract visitors interested in the subject; please see above articles for updated details.


Anonymous said...

Haha, hows the scam goin bro?

E-Man said...

What scam? A scam involves fraud of some sort. There's nothing fraudulent about selling books. Millions of ebooks are sold every year. Why don't you go to a Half-Price Books or to make a fool of yourself asking them how their 'scam' is going. How's the making yourself look like you can't read any better than the average six year old child, going bro?

E-Man said...

BTW, If you google scam you will find that most scammers do not accept paypal and use western union instead. You won't find my blog mentioned on jwh/ebook/scam related 'watchdog' sites. Yet you make the unsubstantiated implication that I am scamming people. Of course you don't know the first thing about scams, or you wouldn't believe in fairy tales and ignore documented fact. You can't recognize the irrelevance of what is said because you have no idea what they left out like those of us who actually pay attention. People like you either want open borders, or 'enhanced' border security; ignoring the fact that tarrifs and arresting employers would solve the problem just as eliminating them has allowed it to take place. You debate over whether to call it torture, or to call it 'enhanced interrogation', completely ignoring the fact that, despite international law, our highest laws are above it and forbid ALL cruel and unusual punishment regardless of whether you call it torture or not.

You'd rather be conned by criminals and pretend they are public servants.

You just can't defend it or defeat logic/reason/facts/history/physics/ or the government's own data which, much like the NIST reports which last I checked, concluded(not hypothesized, or investigated) that something other than a controlled environment can make a(actually THREE) high-rise steel and concrete structure fall through the path of MOST resistance(DOWN).
People cite the NIST report as if it's conclusive because they made up a conclusion that flies in the face of conservation of momentum and makes no attempt to explain how they could go DOWN. Specifically WTC 7 which had nowhere near the damage required to do this.

NIST states in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft
impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.

This sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.
The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of
aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for
collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

Do you think that when someone points out that initiation does not explain symmetrical and vertical collapse of a high-rise with asymmetrical trusses(WTC 7) that they are scamming you? Simple conservation of momentum is no scam, and neither are the physicists who understand it does not allow a high-rise to fall DOWN in outside of a controlled environment.

Anonymous said...


Did any of that:
a) Make any sense?
b) Stay on point?
c) Make any sense?

Anonymous said...

luls u sound like a 3y/o douche. thanks for wasting my time, and other peoples time which you do not readily deserve. AqFX

E-Man said...

@Anonymous No, none of what you said made ANY sense.

E-Man said...

@Anonymous - Well, for those of us that are capable of forming complete sentences, you sound like a three year old ignoramus. If you can't buy or read a pdf, then you are wasting your own time. I sell copies of a Dr. Huffman/JWH research paper, it has some degree of detail on synthesizing more than a dozen compounds, among them, the now banned JWH-018. I have no way of verifying the information is enough for an expert to synthesize, but I am convinced that is the case- it is not some recipe for making it in your basement- if it were I would not sell a paper about it.

Anonymous said...

You paid 40 bucks for this paper.

E-Man said...

@Anonymous Feb, 1 2011. No I did not pay one cent for this paper. What kind of retard would tell me I have done something when you have no clue what the hell you are talking about. There was a mention on bluelight I believe, by someone claiming they got a detailed synthesis RECIPE(NOT THE RESEARCH PAPER) for about $40. That is not me, I have no connection whatsoever to anyone regarding this paper. It is a publicly available research paper, which I FOUND, and provide for FREE- it is the SERVICE of digging it up that I charge for. If you have time/brains/determination you can find and download this paper for free. BUT, it may not be easy and it may take a while to find it, which is why I offer it here.

Anonymous said...


Bullshit. It's at

How would Elsevier react when they found out you were making money by handing out their copyrighted publication?

E-Man said...

A) That is NOT the paper I offer.
B) To my knowlege the one I offer here is not copyrighted.
C) The paper is completely FREE and it is NOT the paper, but the service of scouring the web to find it that you pay for, because you and every other know-it-all CLEARLY cannot find it yourselves.

D} To date I have not made one red cent from any interested parties.

E}The paper you ASSumed I was not only offering, but profiting off of is absoulutely useless for research as it is about DRUGS, not jwh, or SYNTHESIS, which the paper I offer DOES DETAIIL and btw was not published in 2000 as Huffman released this YEARS later.

F}Huffman released the data knowing the masses would get it, and made sure to eliminate obstacles to this like copywrights/patent infringement.

E-Man said...

What I offer here has nothing to do with Elsevier, I did NOT pay for it, IT is FREELY available on the web if you cam find it. READ BEFORE YOU COMMENT. The paper linked to a few posts up, has no deails on jwh whatsoever and is a about drugs, not chemical synthesis.