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

I similarly believe your claims are unsubstantiated, and require evidence. Not buying the whole, micro processor theory..

The concept this thread brings up is outlandish. Anyone with a working brain knows that technology as miraculous as nanotech computers would cost an arm and a leg. I'm willing to bet that a country that is going through a recession isn't willing to produce millions of these units just to disperse them in the atmosphere. A single nano-computer would be a precious commodity; dumping millions of them in hopes that a handful of them will do a required task seems completely foolish.

If the government wanted to distribute tiny computers throughout the general population, they would plant them in your food and drink; things you will directly consume where they will eventually move their way into our systems. How many of you had a Coke recently? Or a Bud Light? I'm not saying in any way that this is what is going on, but it happens to be the first thing that comes to mind when I imagine distributing something to the mass public without their knowledge. Why waste millions of gallons of chemicals or tiny robots by dropping them on us from airplanes, when they can do the sure thing of contaminating the things we actually need or use on a daily basis?

Please try to stay on topic. The spraying could have many applications. Weather Control Etc.

is this where cloud computing come from sorry i couldnt resist that onewhat would be the purpose for such a thing anyhow?

bro you ever heard of Moore's Law? Nano computers are a possibility BUT not the jibber jabber jive stuff you talking about. One could also limit the theoretical performance of a rather practical "ultimate laptop" with a mass of one kilogram and a volume of one litre. This is done by considering the speed of light, the quantum scale, the gravitational constant and the Boltzmann constant., .......thus ur theory about airborne computers and all that is null and void. ...... bro you mad?

This makes total sense now.

I bet it was the nano supercomputer chemtrails that turned the moon upside down.

Diabolical

So a second-rate photographer writes an article making major claims with not a single citation. Super duper.

But why is it on ATS? And why, pray tell, did it get any attention at all? Because it sounds cool? Does truth mean nothing to almost everyone here? To be blunt, you're making this site look bad.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
Please try to stay on topic. The spraying could have many applications. Weather Control Etc.

Dude, people are staying on topic. They are telling you why it IS science fiction.

And we're making up totally different applications now ?
I didn't see anything like that on your article.

Originally posted by Son of Will
To be blunt, you're making this site look bad.

I totally agree with you.

There is plenty of documentation from the first page . Many posts to back the thread and the issue is not whether it is the truth but rather what you choose to believe. Why don't you doubters post links that say it's a lie.? Because you can't find any right?

Will Thomas, in the OP's article mentions "researcher" Brendan Bombaci.....

Raytheon also reports the weather for NOAA through its Advanced Weather Information Processing System. According to researcher Brendan Bombaci of Durango, Colorado, these Raytheon computers are directy linked with their UAV weather modification drones. Bombaci reports that NOAA paid Raytheon more than $300 million for this "currently active, 10-year project."
She goes on to describe the Joint Environmental Toolkit used by the U.S. Air Force in its Weather Weapons System. Just the thing for planet tinkerers.

OK, so maybe William is unaware that "Brendan" is a male.
Maybe William is just mistaken, or maybe he does not research his researchers (??)

Nonetheless, try reading this from Brendan Bombaci...(alchemist and shaman, and "musician")...try it.....
www.omega432.com...


Is this from his group of researcher sources...really ?

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


I read it. So? Tell you what , why don't you read some of the posts that others who have posted and have given links that support this thread and the possibility it states and answer to their posts. I don't feel like answering all the questions you have or anyone else at this point because the THREAD IS FULL OF CREDIBLE LINKS AND SOURCES. My next thread is a good one too. Coming soon on people who have multiple accounts..

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by EyeDontKnow

 

I read it. So? Tell you what , why don't you read some of the posts that others who have posted and have given links that support this thread and the possibility it states and answer to their posts.

OK, but there are a near equal amount of posts (or more) in this thread that dispute your OP.

Originally posted by CherubBaby

I don't feel like answering all the questions you have or anyone else at this point because the THREAD IS FULL OF CREDIBLE LINKS AND SOURCES.

...but you are responding .

Originally posted by CherubBaby

My next thread is a good one too. Coming soon on people who have multiple accounts..

I'm not concerned about your next thread right now.

What you should have argued, is that just because his source is a professed alchemist, does not mean that the small bit of info culled from her (him) could indeed be true....and that I was just trying to defame the source, not the subject matter presented by the source.
But you did not do that.

William could have done his own research to find this information.....like I just did.....
www.raytheon.com... (type "NOAA" in the search box)

My point being....it seems he is relying on second-hand sources for his article info. Why is he relying on self-confessed alchemists as a source of his argument(s) ?
And if he is relying on secondhand info from alchemists....what other info is he feeding the reader that is also based on hearsay ?

Originally posted by CherubBaby
There is plenty of documentation from the first page . Many posts to back the thread and the issue is not whether it is the truth but rather what you choose to believe. Why don't you doubters post links that say it's a lie.? Because you can't find any right?

There is NO documentation on the 1st page of this thread to support a conclusion that there are nano sized computers being sprayed - not one single bit.

Will Thomas adoesn't even say it is happening - the best he can manage is that it "will" (sic) happen....and most of his evidence is the thought paper "Owning The Weather" as evidence that it "will" (sic) happen!

The "smart dust" he is so afraid of does not exist, and is nothing more than an idea that people think would be really useful - and even then they can only see it as being for sensors, and the Microelectro-mechanical systems he specifically mentions - they are not even nano scale in the first place - they are MICRO scale.

Do you actually KNOW the difference between a nanometre & a micrometre?? Apparently Will Thomas does not.....

So how about you actually justify your own claims with some factual information instead of the mish-mash of incorrect facts, use of fiction as "factual source", and supposition?

Telling other people to prove it is false is a standard conspiracy fail argument called argument from ignorance

reply to post by ProudBird


ok sorry about that, i had the images buried on my windows skydrive for ages. i'll try again with the same order as per my first post.



img.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


img.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


img.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

I hope these are not too big, maybe there is some evidence here that foreign dispersants are being added to our atmosphere. I must try and get out more and take some more pics of these things when i see them.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by UnlimitedSky

 

Well....thanks for explaining "uncapped Internet".

Perhaps this is why, in some countries, ridiculous claims like "chemtrails" still are believed. You see, in many other places (like North America) there are NO caps on broadband usage....for home connections. Sometimes for your mobile device, depending on your network and plan.

So....those of us who have had unlimited access and bandwidth for years can see the fallacy of "chemtrails" easily, since we are not hampered by cost concerns in doing the research online.

By the way....the Internet is not the only source for "information" today. Libraries have not (yet) become obsolete.....

YOU are sooooo funny!!!

With reference to your above post, I would like to clarify that I woke up to and explored chemtrails whilst HAVING uncapped, 24 hour 7 days a week unlimited internet access in Italy during the years 2007 to beginning 2010!

You just contradicted yourself.

You know, what really gets me about you non chemtrail believers is that you always have to come and drop your little 2pence worth into a conversation NOT relating to the validity of chemtrails. Some of you are like religious radicals that just cannot resist barging in with your personal views to try and convince everyone else. What would be much more conducive to this conversation is exploring the WHY of nano particles in chemtrails. But you cannot have a chemtrail conversation, so you always de-rail.

This discussion was not about if they are or are not true. But once again, your convictions has to creep up on you.

Why don't you just NOT go on to chemtrail threads, unless they discuss what you are looking for: whether they are real or not.

scroll, up and read my previous comments and KNOW for yourselves that these nano super computers are a physical impossibility with transistors and silicon wafers even at the molecular level. It simply can't be that small for it will have NO MASS meaning it'll disappear. BUT not to completely debunk the idea , if we were to make computers using aminos and proteins then yea i could see it happening but turns out we ain't got that technology yet.... or do we?

reply to post by ZeroUnlmtd


Another point noted. Next please..

reply to post by UnlimitedSky


Oh, really?

With reference to your above post, I would like to clarify that I woke up to and explored chemtrails whilst HAVING uncapped, 24 hour 7 days a week unlimited internet access in Italy during the years 2007 to beginning 2010!

Pray, tell.

So, this means that your ability to discern ridiculous crap from reality on the Internet was unfettered, regardless of the accessibility available to you?

Thanks for reassuring everyone.

So....not once did it ever occur to you to question the junk pseudo-science? Or, to take the effort to actually get educated about real meteorology, science, aviation, and the many other technical disciplines needed for a fuller understanding?

What a grand waste of time........

reply to post by ProudBird


I don't think his/her studying using direct observation is a waste of time.People can learn alot if not as much by observation and taking the time to compare that observation to what others i.e. book, teachers etc say. Things do change. We have been on this planet just long enough to think we have learned it all. Cmon. You ever see a shooting star? What was it before it became one? Why did it change and who was to say when? The point is books are great. I have read plenty of them. But things do change. ok? The flip side would be like telling someone " Don't bother looking cause everything has been the same forever and always will be" Do you disagree with that?

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky

What would be much more conducive to this conversation is exploring the WHY of nano particles in chemtrails.

What would be much more conducive to denying ignorance is finding any odd nano-particles in contrails in the first place.