Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,alt.conspiracy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Popular Mechanics Pentagon Myth where a 757 turned into a liquid.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 02:56:06 -0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Sender: Jim Pennino <jimp@mail.specsol.com>
Message-ID: <6vjudc-e32.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
References: <lNqdnYyD2fK5OJfLnZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>   <muf4is$qlu$1@dont-email.me> <kb6m0btp7hpk5a0i6234psp0iflb55mf47@4ax.com> <gl6m0bl7dquobckjgo2346m5v66pcgrdlr@4ax.com> <ro7m0b9aigh3c52r2n89ob3v2e8df8i19v@4ax.com> <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me> <charlie-gordon1492-A58522.19025329092015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> <mugo3r$mdp$1@dont-email.me> <nkjo0bh8fnaih9kvaf1lji8vi506igk9t4@4ax.com> <muhsde$h9n$1@dont-email.me> <r63p0bp9rccchbapp8oek4tdlfd3vrankt@4ax.com> <mui4sf$38j$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="db4120ef82bbc153014637d4cd15a795"; logging-data="11754"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pWQePwIrxNi381Cx187EL"
User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:S6lRloI9/yB/WiFfkD6Ni2wGvWA=
Xref: csiph.com alt.astronomy:277182 alt.conspiracy:268817 sci.physics:524052

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:14 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:31:08 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> je suis charly wrote:
>>>>>> In article <muf89u$61i$1@dont-email.me>, "Bast"
>>>>>> <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you think you proved by providing those links
>>>>>>> other than it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the US
>>>>>>> Military already had weapons over 20 years ago that were capable
>>>>>>> of  causing the 9/11 damage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they are different kinds of weapons. Bunker busters are
>>>>>> heavily armorred so they will not shatter on impact; they depend on
>>>>>> the bomb's kinetic energy to break through meters of reinforced
>>>>>> concrete before detonating. Because cruise missiles are primarily
>>>>>> horizontal trajectory the kinetic energy has to come from the fuel
>>>>>> and engines. A bomb dropped from a plane get its kinetic energy from
>>>>>> gravity and it has a primarily vertical trajectory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you now claiming that an explosive warhead can not be used on a
>>>>> guided missile  ???
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you not remember how proud daddy Bush and the pentagon was of
>>>>> their cruise missiles during the first gulf war.
>>>>> Where they claimed and showed video of being able to not only single
>>>>> out, and destroy buildings,....but could accurately target a specific
>>>>> window in the building.
>>>>> Those were the first generation drones, that had a video camera and
>>>>> were remotely piloted.....well over a decade BEFORE 9/11.
>>>>
>>>> Bast Kook now thinks a smart bomb is a drone.
>>>>
>>>> Hahahahaha.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anything remotely controlled is a "drone"
>>
>> "Anything"  ?
>>
>> My Dodge Challenger can be remotely started by the key fob.
>>
>> Is my Challenger a drone?
> 
> If you stuck a camera inside the front, sent the video signal back to your 
> computer at home, and told it to turn, accelerate, and brake, from your 
> computer, and  even dump a dead body in the woods  miles from your 
> home,.....YES it would be considered a drone.

If you added wings so it could fly, it would be an RPV, but unless
you added wings AND the smarts to make it autonomous, it would not
be a drone.

<snip remaining kook babble>


-- 
Jim Pennino