InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 163
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/27/2012

Re: ColeThornton post# 134717

Friday, 02/03/2012 9:43:19 AM

Friday, February 03, 2012 9:43:19 AM

Post# of 157300
Really? Are you actually suggesting the wind caused the damage? Any reader of that statement with any level of intelligence would realize it was the implied impact with the building/hangar door that resulted in the damage, not the wind by itself.

Perhaps you believe there will be obstacles such as hangar doors at operating altitude that could result in damage to the airship in the presence of strong wind gusts.

The period of highest risk for this airship would be during launch and recovery, or while moving it into or out of a protective enclosure such as a hangar while the airship is on or near the ground.

You're right. This does get funnier. A post suggesting hangars and other obstacles at altitude is even funnier than a post about the company's impending $200,000 secured promissory note payment due March 3rd. You remember, the one where DiMauro would own all the company assets. The same note that was paid by the company back in May 2011. Yes, very funny. Keep them coming, CT, and we'll keep laughing. LOL
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.