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.
I am so glad you actually read my statement and replied to it! Thanks a lot for that!
I would like to help as much as I can with sources that I have on the topic. Just please review what you need and I will send you several documentaries or short clips on the topic. If you are still not convinced, I will send more to prove my point, or you are absolutely correct to refute any of it.
I understand misunderstanding in a written communication, so I won't hold that against you. I have done that on multiple occasions, so if I do hold that against you, it would mean that I am the hypocrite.
Alright, let's take the graphene oxide as a posibility, just to see how well it fits in the NWO scenario.
Cryptocurrency.
Microsoft patent ID 2020/060606
Mark of the beast is 666, carbon fits the bill.
"Iron and Clay don't mix" - as stated in the Bible. Meaning that the very flesh of men (clay) would be mixed with something foreign that seems like iron/metal/rock/ inorganic material.
That being said, let's see how it connects to the NWO directly:
A foreign substance that the NWO has a patent for (graphene oxide structures) will make any vaccinated a property of the government. Hulk scenario.
ModeRNA is short for modification of RNA. They were later forced to change that name since people realized it changes them as human beings, to mRNA or messenger RNA. Giving messeges to muscles will mean controlling them. Perhaps even worse for someone's brain.
5G towers emit waves that goes to several GB. It is important to note that Graphene Oxide becomes a SUPERCONDUCTOR when it reaches EM levels of just several GB. I've made previous posts elsewhere about the specifics, so if you ask, I will have little trouble to find them for you. Anyway, that means that your input of EM waves will drastically mutliple in case there's Graphene Oxide present. Who knows the implications of a material that goes superheated or superactive in case of GB level of EM radiation that is already under the skin?
Doctors find these bubbles that connect as a network to be the graphene quantum dots. I can send you a link where they are exposed on page 666 in a Chemistry Journal. I am having the feeling that you might appreciate the interesting synchronisity of this... It may be only a page. But it may also be a GOD's law that even the devil cannot brake.
Recent research on the topic of nanotech or quantum chips:
While Carbon is hated by climate change propaganda, it is actually the materal that is worth the most nowadays. So many new factories have been created to collect carbon and turn it into Graphene...
Graphene is known as far back as 2008, I think. The scientists, who perfected the extracting of the compound, got Nobel prizes.
I am sure I can find whatever you seek from all I have written on the topic, because I have downloaded many of the videos / pages that explain that.
Don't agree with me immediately, as you've already stayed sceptical, I respect that. But just give me a chance to present my case. If I put forth arguments that I cannot defend, you will be right to doubt me. I encourage you to expose me, if I lie about my arguments. But if you are willing to dig deeper into what I am saying, or any question that arises in your mind on the topics shared, I would be happy to deliver.
Let's start with these and you let me know if there's anything unclear. I wish I can explain everything to you. But if I am wrong, I wish for you to disprove me with arguments. Deal?
It is important to note that Graphene Oxide becomes a SUPERCONDUCTOR when it reaches EM levels of just several GB.
GB? Are you sure you don't mean GHz?
Also do you have a citation for that, I've never heard that microwaving graphene oxide makes it a superconductor. I know that graphene by itself (no oxide) is a great conductor on its own. For graphene oxide I've read it can be a not so great conductor. Someone here asked a question about it on Research Gate, and apparently the less oxidized it is the better it can conduct, but graphene by itself would always be superior. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whether_graphene_oxide_is_a_good_electrical_conductor_or_not
Doctors find these bubbles that connect as a network to be the graphene quantum dots.
I could use a citation on this.
Overall I don't think the way you are presenting this argument is clear or one thing following with another. A lot of what you mention applies to whether or not the parasite class wants to do or is planning to do all these things. Or course they are. The question I have is whether or not these particular shots causing their particular problems are graphene or graphene oxide by and large.
You mentioned a paper about magneto-proteins for mind control, I've seen that too. However it has nothing to do with graphene. I still think graphene could be a red herring or predictive programming. They will roll it out later, but for now they jump the gun on it.
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.
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.
I am so glad you actually read my statement and replied to it! Thanks a lot for that!
I would like to help as much as I can with sources that I have on the topic. Just please review what you need and I will send you several documentaries or short clips on the topic. If you are still not convinced, I will send more to prove my point, or you are absolutely correct to refute any of it.
I understand misunderstanding in a written communication, so I won't hold that against you. I have done that on multiple occasions, so if I do hold that against you, it would mean that I am the hypocrite.
Alright, let's take the graphene oxide as a posibility, just to see how well it fits in the NWO scenario.
That being said, let's see how it connects to the NWO directly:
Recent research on the topic of nanotech or quantum chips:
I am sure I can find whatever you seek from all I have written on the topic, because I have downloaded many of the videos / pages that explain that.
Don't agree with me immediately, as you've already stayed sceptical, I respect that. But just give me a chance to present my case. If I put forth arguments that I cannot defend, you will be right to doubt me. I encourage you to expose me, if I lie about my arguments. But if you are willing to dig deeper into what I am saying, or any question that arises in your mind on the topics shared, I would be happy to deliver.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2016/mar/24/magneto-remotely-controls-brain-and-behaviour
https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/open.202000200 //// I think you can download the .pdf, if you can't I have it downloaded. Let me know.
https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2013/07/controlling-genes-light
Let's start with these and you let me know if there's anything unclear. I wish I can explain everything to you. But if I am wrong, I wish for you to disprove me with arguments. Deal?
GB? Are you sure you don't mean GHz?
Also do you have a citation for that, I've never heard that microwaving graphene oxide makes it a superconductor. I know that graphene by itself (no oxide) is a great conductor on its own. For graphene oxide I've read it can be a not so great conductor. Someone here asked a question about it on Research Gate, and apparently the less oxidized it is the better it can conduct, but graphene by itself would always be superior. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whether_graphene_oxide_is_a_good_electrical_conductor_or_not
I could use a citation on this.
Overall I don't think the way you are presenting this argument is clear or one thing following with another. A lot of what you mention applies to whether or not the parasite class wants to do or is planning to do all these things. Or course they are. The question I have is whether or not these particular shots causing their particular problems are graphene or graphene oxide by and large.
You mentioned a paper about magneto-proteins for mind control, I've seen that too. However it has nothing to do with graphene. I still think graphene could be a red herring or predictive programming. They will roll it out later, but for now they jump the gun on it.
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.