> Either or, is it? Are you totally unfamiliar with the concept of coupling > high explosives with chemical agents? Good god, no wonder you're so confused.
1. Ad hominem is a sign of weakness. 2."Chemical agent" can mean anything. "coupling" can mean anything. 3. Your statements are empty and with shifting focus. Engaging any further on this topic is a waste of time. I should have listened. .............. > Nobody ever claimed terrorists added sodium cyanide to their urea nitrate > bombs for a bigger bang: if you see this as disinformation you're totally > missing the point. Negating non-events do not make events disappear. While wasting time, for the last time ... few messages back, there was a clear claim that H2SO4 and NaCN are components of urea nitrate: "Another fertilizer-based explosive used by terrorists is Urea Nitrate (its components are urea, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and sodium cyanide)" ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
