I've just now read through this post, and even with a very rudimentary knowledge of chemistry and synth protocol I can see several problems right off the bat. This threadstarter, and the subsequent posts by IntheEyesofGod, if taken literally, are nothing but an amalgamation of various texts readily findable on the internet.
Now, in order for the individual to TRULY comprehend the possibility of the molecule, and therefore propose it on his own, he would be able to easily answer the some rudimentary HIGH SCHOOL chemistry questions (proposed later).
Any claims that are made as to ignorance of chemistry automatically reveal that this person did NOT propose the molecule, but rather, STOLE the proposition from somewhere else.
Also, as to the claims of 174 I.Q. -- this is something I know a lot about. The irrelevance of I.Q. tests notwithstanding, let us assume for a moment that this person did test this high. A couple of questions:
Was the test a Stanford - Benet standardized test? How many questions were on the test? How was your score annotated? Was there any subscript, or subtext? When were you tested? Where? How old are you? Upon discovery of a score greater than 170, did you take another kind of I.Q. test? What was it? What is the name of the institute/doctor that tested you? What year? Did M.E.N.S.A. contact you, and if so, how, and what was their FIRST statement in their greeting to you?
Lastly, if you took additional intelligence tests (which if you didn't, your score of 174 is suspect), were the tests a measure of the function of static G, fluid G, or neither? What were your scores?
I'm surprised that nobody has asked some specific synth questions to further illuminate the nature of the claims.
Lets start with the most basic few (and I'm sure we'll get an anwer to these, but it won't take long to reveal the truth, believe me):
First off -- Once you received your powder, specifically, how did you avoid accidentally breathing in ANY dust particles? Given the potency of the compound, this would be the FIRST consideration. (Yes, I want to know what steps you wore the protective garb, and what, PRECISELY, that garb was.)
Secondly -- you say you "fooled around" with the dosage at first. What, EXACTLY, was your titration method for your FIRST DOSE, and what, EXACTLY, was your first dose? What were the effects? Onset time? Peak? Duration?
And some SIMPLE chemistry questions:
1. At any time during this synth, is there a replacement of a quaternary amine with phenylpropanolamine? If so, how would one execute?
2. What, if anything, is chemically incorrect about the following chemical proposition:
N-methyl-4-piperidone + methyl iodide ===>
N,N-methyl-4-piperidone iodide + phenylpropanolamine, base ===>
beta-hydroxy-alpha-methyl-phenylethyl-4-piperidone + aniline, NaBH4 ===>
4-anilo-1-(beta-hydroxy-alpha-methyl-phenethyl)-piperidone + (CH2CHCO)2O ===>beta-hydroxy-methylfentanyl
and what relevance would the above synthesis (once corrected, if needed)have to the one you claim to be knowledgeable about?
I realize you can forward the chem questions to any friends with a rudimentary knowedge thereof. But the answers to the I.Q. protocol should prove interesting...