I sent you a link with information that you are wrong. You are not willing to accept it? Then reap what you sow, hypocrite.
Obviously, your ignorance doesn't allow you to win this argument, and your arrogance doesn't allow you to lose it. You are a product of your own demise.
Graphene may be carbon, but it is a flat sheet and not a tube. That also requires an electric field and a hell of a lot more material than could be inside a small injection.
Literally, the 2nd sentence from the link
Tour developed a process for “unzipping” carbon nanotubes so that they transformed into graphene.
Your assumption, that the one small injection is not enough, could be easily refuted by the fact that nanotech is using atoms as a scale. How many atoms are you tall? Have you wondered? Now compare those to an injection with 98-99% of graphene nanoparticles?
I would support your claim and even further it, if you would just review the possibility of mine, instead of directly disbelieving it. They don't bank on "one small injection", that's why they focus to "boost" as much as possible every single human.
I only wanted to expand the conversation. I might've started it wrong, but this time I hope to come across in a better way.
And think about the genius of such a scenario. Medical professionals will not spot graphene, since they don't look for it. Engineering prefessionals will not spot it, since they don't know where to look for it.
Remember Daniel's prophesy about the endtimes 2:43 "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay."
Everything is going digital, even humans. Anyway, I hope I was able to put forth a better argument this time. Let me know what you think.
Ok, I see. I wasn't clear on that follow up sentence. The "that" I was referring to is the stringification you showed in the video of carbon nanotubes under an electric field. Not production of graphene from carbon nanotubes, which was not in my mind.
The paper you showed confirmed my first sentence, "Graphene may be carbon, but it is a flat sheet and not a tube" which is what I'm seeing.
Also, although 5G used EMF (which includes an electromagnetic component) a microwave emf does not behave the same as a pure electric field, so it isn't certain such an effect would be produced by it unless the experiment uses emfs directly. Not to mention the fact it was using carbon nano tubes and not graphene molecules. I don't claim I know for sure all of what graphene can do, just saying there is insufficient evidence to conclusively say the rope clots are from that.
They don't bank on "one small injection", that's why they focus to "boost" as much as possible every single human.
Perhaps. Maybe they are adding more and more machinery to build a network. I can't say. I just think there needs to be more data on the graphene argument to make a compelling case. It's not a solid case yet for the long clots and I have my doubts. Though I also know they want to make people transhuman.
Yeah, you don't even understand what I was saying to begin with about graphene and carbon nanotubes. Go back and re-read.
I sent you a link with information that you are wrong. You are not willing to accept it? Then reap what you sow, hypocrite.
Obviously, your ignorance doesn't allow you to win this argument, and your arrogance doesn't allow you to lose it. You are a product of your own demise.
Now stop bothering people.
Ok I'll bite. What claim do you think I made, and what in the article proved that wrong? Please quote me and the article.
You:
Literally, the 2nd sentence from the link
Your assumption, that the one small injection is not enough, could be easily refuted by the fact that nanotech is using atoms as a scale. How many atoms are you tall? Have you wondered? Now compare those to an injection with 98-99% of graphene nanoparticles?
I would support your claim and even further it, if you would just review the possibility of mine, instead of directly disbelieving it. They don't bank on "one small injection", that's why they focus to "boost" as much as possible every single human.
I only wanted to expand the conversation. I might've started it wrong, but this time I hope to come across in a better way.
And think about the genius of such a scenario. Medical professionals will not spot graphene, since they don't look for it. Engineering prefessionals will not spot it, since they don't know where to look for it.
Remember Daniel's prophesy about the endtimes 2:43 "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay."
Everything is going digital, even humans. Anyway, I hope I was able to put forth a better argument this time. Let me know what you think.
Ok, I see. I wasn't clear on that follow up sentence. The "that" I was referring to is the stringification you showed in the video of carbon nanotubes under an electric field. Not production of graphene from carbon nanotubes, which was not in my mind.
The paper you showed confirmed my first sentence, "Graphene may be carbon, but it is a flat sheet and not a tube" which is what I'm seeing.
Also, although 5G used EMF (which includes an electromagnetic component) a microwave emf does not behave the same as a pure electric field, so it isn't certain such an effect would be produced by it unless the experiment uses emfs directly. Not to mention the fact it was using carbon nano tubes and not graphene molecules. I don't claim I know for sure all of what graphene can do, just saying there is insufficient evidence to conclusively say the rope clots are from that.
Perhaps. Maybe they are adding more and more machinery to build a network. I can't say. I just think there needs to be more data on the graphene argument to make a compelling case. It's not a solid case yet for the long clots and I have my doubts. Though I also know they want to make people transhuman.