It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Spraying of NANO CHEMTRAILS !!! It's Not Science Fiction Anymore. MUST READ !!

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:19 AM

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by wirehead

Your wrong , your figures are wrong period. If you did a little research you would find plenty of information on the Nano tecnology.I will include a link. You need to read and continue reading all the information. and the ongoing links in the story below. The cost is minimal and the "Computers" that you are thinking of, are not the computers you are thinking of.( In the general sense ) The link below is not a fairy tale.

Oh believe me, I know a great deal about nano technology and computers in general. As a result, I know that you can't make a meaningful distinction between a one and a zero (that is, store a single bit of data) without a physical state that can assume several different states. In fact, there is a theoretical limit to the amount of information one could represent in a given volume. Quantum computers can represent 32 bits with one qubit, but that still requires an extremely regulated environment in order to prevent decoherence.

Still, a single qubit or two which you might fit on one molecule is worlds away from a functioning computer with a processor, instructions and data processing. Let alone one with teraflops of computing power, give me an F'in break. I'm sure if I bothered to carry out the computations, I could demonstrate to you (not that you'd care to listen) that it would be impossible to process a teraflop of bits in the physical volume of a molecule without creating a black hole. Again, I refer you to information theory.

Graphene is one of the hottest subjects of study in condensed matter physics today. Any university worth its salt has at least a team studying graphene. Linking me to an article about graphene does nothing to prove any of the flatly absurd claims made in this thread about teraflop-computing molecule-sized nano computers being sprayed on us by nefarious TPTB. Please. Learn some critical thinking, for your own good.

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 03:26 AM
And still, bringing graphene into this does nothing more than prove my point. There is still no cost-effective method for producing graphene in large quantities, even assuming that graphene would make "nano-computers" possible in the first place, which it wouldn't. Graphene, and carbon nanotubes, are still at least a decade away from being anywhere near mass produced at reasonable cost.

Edit: I suppose someone would go through all the trouble involved in making these computers, which would be literally revolutionary in the history and theory of computers in general, at completely unimaginable cost, and then spray them in the frikkin air all over the place, for no real discernable reason, rather than distribute them easily through the water supply or through tainted produce or any number of other, more reasonable methods?
edit on 16-11-2011 by wirehead because:

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:21 AM
I have been following this thread for several days now, and it appears to me that Mr. Cherubbaby is simply not amenable to explanations involving the details of digital computing, physics at the micro- and nano-scale, and procurement economics.

I proposed -- on a different thread last week -- that people who take anything on faith and ignore reason, whether that "thing" is the existence of a Diety, Secret Underground FEMA Extermination Camps, or "chem-trails", exhibit the hallmark of religion. I believe that, for Mr. Cherubbaby, "chem-trails" are a religion, and he would be no more swayed by your arguments, valid as they are, then would a Biblical fundamentalist be swayed by any evidence of evolution you might offer.

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:07 AM
reply to post by Off_The_Street

I appreciate your post. The fact is I didn't place the subject on the title #1 I thought it an interesting read because of the recent Nano news and weather control stories etc. I don't question what you may or may not believe in. It's not my business. For myseelf, I don't go into threads that contain subject matter I have no interest in, unless asked. But thats just me. As far as chem/contrails , I don't know for sure. When I do, I will post about it. I do know that the sky is full of streaks constantly. It uused to be the exception and now its the rule. So I am curious. Is that ok with you? thx..

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 09:33 AM

Originally posted by CherubBaby So I am curious. Is that ok with you? thx..

Of course it is! We are free to believe (or disbelieve) anything we wish, and we are free to base our belief on any reason (or or article of faith) we choose.

posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by wirehead

the trick to nanotech is self replication.

All you need to do is make one nanobot. A general assembler, which has the capability to, among other things, build copies of itself. And from there its just an exponential waiting game

posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by Off_The_Street

Thank you. Alot of people wouldn't agree with you.

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by VonDoomen

Wake me up when anyone comes anywhere near to making universal constructor nanobots. Right now, I believe the state of the art are molecular motors which are powered by scanning tunneling microscopes, i.e., giant, delicate, room-sized apparatuses. Perhaps you can appreciate the difference.

posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:05 PM
So im still hit or miss on the 'chem-trail' thing. Nano bots.... less likely; but im gonna be very honest, there are times when I look up at all the s*** in the sky and its been every other day now that something just doesnt feel right. In a post pages back someone posted valuable info from as far back as the 50's explaining air temp and how exhaust can linger.... but again, there are times when I walk out my front door in the morning on the way to work and... I sense something is off. Sorry for being vague, but that is the best I can describe.

One of the best quotes I have received that has really stuck is:

"what you feel, you really feel" from an artist, Yendri

So, I am going with what I feel...

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:13 AM
I had to post this. This is from another thread long ago. It's a link to an ex CIA High Level Official interview on radio. You will enjoy this if you are serious about the possibilities and need answers to spraying ,Chem/Contrails,,, It's called "Project Cloverleaf"

s/f op thx for the thread

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by CherubBaby

5:16 "Not coming out of the engine. It's coming out of aerosols."


And of course, the requisite images of the "spray" tanks. If "chemtrails" are real, why do people have to lie so much to try to convince people of it?

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:29 AM
reply to post by Phage

I don't know why you think someone is lying just because they post a picture of the evidence? I think the video is compelling and gives a side to the story and some insight that is a good balance to offset the doubters and debunkers.

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by CherubBaby

The pictures are of ballast testing of aircraft. They are frequently used as "evidence" of "chemtrails". It is a lie. Why do they have to lie?

edit on 11/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:52 AM
reply to post by Phage

I can't say one way or the other on that issue but I can say there is alot more to the video than just 2 pictures. Directing people to 5 mins into the clip skips alot of the opening information and other important pictures of the interview. What do you think of the testimony of the CIA retiree? Did you listen to the entire interview? I am curious.

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:02 AM
reply to post by CherubBaby

What other "important" photos. All the other photos are of contrails.

The "CIA retiree"? Oh, you mean Griffith. Sure, he's a CIA retiree (and the NSA). Sure, he was in on "Project Cloverleaf". Sure, he knows what he's talking about.

A.C. Griffith says that oil leak is unstoppable and uncontrollable , it could be leaking for another year the oil will spread as far as the shores of Europe , Obama administration is a fascist administration says A.C. Griffith they want to send swat team down to the Gulf of Mexico , this is a catastrophe of first magnitude it could be the demise of the United States as we know cannot stop oil coming out of the ground , the earth bed has cracked it could cause the splitting of the line up north to the great lakes says A.C. Griffith....the Dollar will collapse by the end of this year , and there will be no United States of America 4 years from now , so Omaba is not worrying about getting re-elected says A.C. Griffith....

edit on 11/22/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:31 AM
reply to post by Phage

Let's look at this. You say,

A.C. Griffith says that oil leak is unstoppable and uncontrollable

Last I heard there are 9 ships or more at the site of the accident and not long ago there was reports of leaks still on the ocean floor, not from the cap but the ocean floor.

it could be leaking for another year the oil will spread as far as the shores of Europe ,

It has been over a year and,

In August 2011, oil and oil sheen covering several square miles of water were reported surfacing not far from BP’s Macondo well.[15] Scientific analysis confirmed the oil is a chemical match for Macondo 252

I would say the quote below is believeable

the Dollar will collapse by the end of this year , and there will be no United States of America 4 years from now

The quote below is also possible. Maybe he doesn't think there will be an election.

Omaba is not worrying about getting re-elected says A.C. Griffith....

I mean are people voting in a time of World War? He can stay in as long as he wants as long as he starts a war.

Besides the CIA retiree is not judged by me for his fortune telling abilities. I don't think a requirement for being hired and becoming a senior official is having a crystal ball in your closet is it?

edit on 22-11-2011 by CherubBaby because: typo

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:52 AM
reply to post by CherubBaby

Interesting PDF, thought I would share it. There is a section about Nano Tech

Nanotechnology is technology pertaining to very tiny robots and tiny computers that are in the range of nanometer-size (10 to 1,000 billionth of a meter). Nano means "one-billioneth". In other words, extremely microscopic, we are talking about robots & machines one-billionth of a meter large. The Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM) makes it possible to see something the size of a single atom. The STM will also pick up atoms and move them. People who are interested in nano-technology have regular meetings in the Silicon Valley. A Johannesburg, South African company Nanoteq (recently taken over by the Amer. company Microchip Technology) was the company that created nanotechnology encoders (based on a non-linear logarithm that mixes transmission lines and changes codes frequently). Microchip Technology is putting these encoders into their series of microcontrollers which are EEPROM-based.

The encoders are called Keeloq hopping-code technology. They are good in protecting micro-wave, ELF, infrared and radio-wave transmissions. Microchip Corp. is creating a sub-company group called Secure Data Products to work with this type of technology. In other words, the ALEX system reported on in Vol. 2 is being miniaturized. Another Nanotechnology company is Nanosystems, which is working with the Jansen Pharmaceutica N.y. unit of Illuminati-controlled Johnson and Johnson. We know numerous companies like the two mentioned above, who are working on Nanotechnology. We also know that they are not going to tell us their trade secrets and what they have really developed. For instance, this author had a hearty laugh when he read The New York Times (11/19/96 pg. Cl) article "Feat of the minuscule: scientists make abacus with carbonmolecules: invention at Swiss research laboratory may be a step toward building faster computers", because the article is patently disinformation! According to the article a Dr. James M. Gimzewski and colleagues discovered how to make tiny balls of 60 carbon-atoms each. They call these balls "Buckyballs". They can move these balls via what they call a "scanning tunneling device". A picture of the teeny-tiny 60-atom balls was shown in the article. So what did they do with this ability? They built an abacus (yeah sure! Come on guys!). If the reader understands computers--a computer at the most basic level is simply a base 2 number system.

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Continued .....

Anything that can consistently move or switch can be the basis for a computer. A computer is simply an enormous amount of on/off switches, where 0 can stand for off and 1 for on, etc. The article states, "Scientists at Switzerland have invented an ultraminiature abacus in which spherical carbon molecules sliding along the microscopic copper groves act as the counting beads for performing arithmetic calculations." (So they are using it for arithmetic, yeah sure!) IBM reported that its scientists used the STM to move individual atoms so that they spelled "I-B-M" in atoms. If you believe that the ability to arrange individual atoms and tailor-build molecules was so that IBM scientists could spell IBM, then this book isn’t for you. A more recent NY Times article (2/2/97, p.E6) discusses how Xerox Corporation has created sensors the thickness of peach fuzz. These are called EMS(micro-electomechanical systems).

The article states, "MEMS are all about doing more with less, about being lean, mean, and next to invisible." The article is lean on facts. It does give a hint of the incredible power these little gadgets have when the writer launches into his propaganda tirade at the end of the article, "Paradoxically the fear that accompanies the fantasy of nanotechnology is not that the culture will be as stratified and fragmented as Victorian England, but that the new culture will be one that is unrecognizable to everyone alive today." That is true, this nano technology is taking us to the place that society will not be recognizable. The age of the future is planned to be the age of robots--humans if they are to survive are to be robotic slaves for the illuminated elite. However, this is not paranoid fear as the NY Times writer implies, but it is the unfortunate reality humanity faces. Some people apparently are already experiencing it. One victim of mind-control, whose father is Military Intelligence and whose family is part of the Illuminati, claims that he has been subjected to tiny robots called nanobots.

These nanobots have been featured on TV, where they have been billed as an asset for surgeons. Reportedly, these tiny robots can work off of 10-100 kilohertz of beamed power. They have coilshaped antennas, 2 little six-pointed "wings" to attach and move themselves with. These tiny boron-carbon nanobots have all kinds of purposes. One use is for multitudes of these Nanobots to be placed into a single victim’s head, where they are programmed to migrate to certain programmed positions where they can suppress the optical signals to the brain and replace these signals with their own holographic images that can be externally transmitted to the nanobots or preprogrammed in. They are trying or have succeeded, depending upon who is talking about nanobots, in making self-replicating assemblers. In other words, they have built miniature robots that build other robots. (Sounds like something the Japanese would do.) Nanobot researchers talk about how great it will be to have tiny robots that are smaller than a red blood cell circulating in our blood removing fat, bacteria, and viruses.

SOME SOURCES. Recent articles on nanotechnolgy include: Electronic Times (12/7/95), Electronics Weekly
(11/29/95), Electronic Engineering Times (11/27/95), the L.A. Times (11/11/94, 12/21/94, 2/7/96, 2/20/96), the
NY Times (4/30/94, 11/19/96, 2/2/97), the Wall St. Journal (5/12/94, 1/9/96, 2/26/96). Eric Drexler wrote
Engines of Creation (Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986), a book about nanotechnology.
Books that will provide more information on nanotechnology:
Drexler, K. Eric and Peterson, Chris and Pergamit, Gayle. Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology
Revolution. Morrow, 1991.
Hameroff, Stuart R. Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology. Elsevier Science
Pub., 1987.
Whitehouse, D.J. and Kawata, K., eds. Nanotechnology: Proceedings of the Joint Forum/ERATO Symposium
held at Warwick Univ., 21-22 August 1990. Adam Hilger, 1991.

posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 04:19 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Indeed - nano tech is already the "basis" for computers - chips are manufactured with electronic pathway seperation measured in nanometers - 16nm chips are expected in 2013.

That's not the same thing as having nano-sized computers tho.

Even if these measurements were bought down to 1 nanometer, the computers themselves still have to be much larger in order to have input & output devices, for many bilions of transistors to be put onto a single chip, etc - a 1 bit computer is simply not powerful no matter how small it is.

perhaps some day such small transistors will be able to be combines with some network technology to provide some for of highly distributed powerful computing and even circulated in your bloodstream - but AFAIK that IS still Science Fiction - although I have little doubt people are working on the concepts, and what it would take to achieve right now.

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Your a pretty smart guy/girl whatever it doesn't matter. Let me ask you a question and I rarely question people in a thread. (Read my posts and you will see that is true) I let them have the freedom to come to their own conclusions. That is ok with me because its fair , until they start saying what they think 50 times a day and repeat the same thing over and over to get attention. Be that as it may here is the question. In the most basic way, how would you define a computer to an average person who you wouldn't think is as smart as you? Can you give maybe less than a page on this one?

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in