Nasa bombed the moon in 2009?!

Why did I just hear about Nasa bombing the moon - the project took Nasa over two years do complete, but I hear of this bombing after the fact? Some may have heard about it before, but just a few weeks before, but still.

Media are repeating that Nasa bombed the moon to check if there is water, but I don't believe that one bit.

Why would we bomb the moon for fck sakes?

we can't see anything from the Nasa official video, and certainly can't believe any results they give us.

Why would we bomb the moon for fck sakes?

This makes me angry !

Two clips:

Technically, and still crucially, the "bombing" thing is entirely wrong. They didn't bomb the moon. There was no explosive payload on the craft used. It was intended that the kinetic energy of the craft's impact alone would achieve the mission parameters.
Certain alternative outlets such as the Richard Hoagland's Enterprise Mission hyped this "event" up no end before it occurred claiming that the "alien occupants of the moon would take it as an act of war," and other such nonsense.

In the end there was no bomb. It never occurred. Much alternative media propaganda via loaded terminology certainly unleashed a memetic explosion at the time though.

So, you only heard of this now? Where have you been for the past few months?

What about this?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've been busy, but seems like none of my friends heard of Nasa "smashing" something on the moon in 2009.

You say "In the end there was no bomb. It never occurred." No bomb as in no explosive device, or Nasa did nothing at all?

Seems like they did something to me, because they even admit doing it on their official website.

Note: I used the word "bomb" freely. For example, if I jump in a pool of water and tuck my legs and arms in, I'm actually doing a "bomb" and slashing water. Sending a large heavy object from the sky to create a large impact is akin to bombing a piece of land.

As I posted earlier:

Extant wrote:Technically, and still crucially, the "bombing" thing is entirely wrong. They didn't bomb the moon. There was no explosive payload on the craft used. It was intended that the kinetic energy of the craft's impact alone would achieve the mission parameters.

I was referring to the loaded terminology used by the alternative media when this occurred. You could have sworn that a nuclear warhead was about to detonated on the moon's surface.
When you used the term "bomb" it was instantly reminiscent of the massive hoopla you are unaware of at that time. The more tin foil hat brigade segment of the alternative media blew this out of all proportions. If you're actually bombing something, technically, you have to have an explosive payload. Running a object into the surface of the moon is still not the same as bombing.

NASA impacted a craft on the moon to detect any possible H2O and other elements on the surface. Which they have recently confirmed thanks to that experiment I believe.

Here's a representative example of the sort of myth-mongering that was going on at the time:

The Alien Project Blogspot: SOMETHING IS COMING: NASA's Monumental Moon Bomb! (UPDATED)