ATFE to produce anti-rocketry video

November 4, 2003 - The ATFE and its contractor, Applied Research Associates, have been purchasing high power rocket motors, rocket kits, launch rails, electrical launchers and other items to conduct tests at Hill Air Force Base in Utah. The purpose of the tests is to provide proof that high power rockets can be used to shoot down commercial aircraft during landings and takeoffs. The tests will be documented by videotape. It is expected that the video tape will be released during a press conference for maximum media exposure.

The ATFE plans were first discovered by a high power rocket vendor who recognized the name of ATFE agent, David Shatzer, as he purchased launch rail equipment. Mr. Shatzer has been traveling across the country purchasing other high power rocket supplies using the cover story that he is a high power rocket hobbyist. He changes the story with respect to who he will be flying with depending on his geographical location. Applied Research Associates has purchased at least 40 J350 rocket motors and large numbers of rocket kits from different suppliers.

It was reported to ARSA that Applied Research Associates employees along with ATFE agents were to conduct tests yesterday at Hill Air Force Base using a target drone to simulate a commercial aircraft. The high power rockets were to be launched out of a parked van. The rockets were going to be launched one at a time at the drone as well as several at a time. The rockets did not contain explosive warheads. It is not known whether the drone was rigged to simulate an explosion as a high power rocket passed by.

The information in this story was made available to Senator Mike Enzi's staff. It is not know at this time, what action, if any, Senator Enzi plans to take. Watch for further updates on this story as it develops.

[ from
formatting link
]

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
Loading thread data ...

As bad as this sounds, it could be a good thing properly done. As long as there is some oversight to prevent falsifying the tests, we could prove once and for all what we've been saying. And while we're at it, let's try to get some of those J350 to explode (hope they're not the spongey ones!).

And if done improperly, it could be used to expose the ATFE for heavy handed techniques.

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

Reply to
Alex Mericas

And when they fail to shoot down anything, will they still release the tape to the press...? Or maybe they have a totally fabricated one ready, and the purchases are just a smokescreen...

Things to make you go "Hmmm..." :-)

Reply to
Len Lekx

Stupid beyond belief... a gun, small cannon, or even low-class RPG would be so much more:

a) feasable b) cost-effective c) accurate d) concealable e) transportable

... than would be hobby rocketry models and associated launch gear. Hobby rockets are far more akin to "lobbing" than "aiming". And you'd *still* have to mount it with a warhead, which is already controlled apparatus. No threat assessment of such a scenario even warrants such fear-based ignorance. And yet the stupidity continues...

~Duane "er.. what's that van doing at the end of the runway?" Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Purcahses are NOT a smokescreen.

Reply to
Stephen Corban

Having been following this story "behind the scenes" for some time now, all I can say, is BRING IT ON, if the tests are fair. If they are "rigged" be CERTAIN Mr. Shatzer will be sued personally.

Futhermore, Mr. Shatzer and each and every one of his employees, associates, bosses, etc have violated Federal Law "in his employers opinion" by purchasing non-exempt explosives and should be charged with a crime IMMEDIATELY.

My name is Jerry Irvine.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

This post is a keeper.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I'd like them to test what the DOJ claimed could be done with HPR...

"These large rocket motors could potentially be adapted by terrorists for use in surface-to-air missiles capable of intercepting commercial and military airplanes at cruise altitude and for use in ?light anti-tank? weapons capable of hitting targets from a range of nearly five miles."

Then they'd *really* fail!

- Robert Galejs

Len Lekx wrote:

Reply to
Robert Galejs

If they succeed in convincing Joe Congressman in dangers illustrated thusly, then the attack is against all types of propellant above their designated power range... not just APCP. Then we'll have a BATFEP... add control letters ad nauseum... furturistically to be known soley as, "The Bureau".

~Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

For everything you are reading, the other 95% of what is happening right now is far worse, in terms of government abuses and frauds.

Mark my words.

My name is Jerry Irvine and this is a PUBLIC forum.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Does Shatzer have a LEUP ?

AND storage ?

Or is he using ATFE magazines?

Reply to
Steve Decker

None of the above.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Alex Mericas

With all due respect Alex, this is no joking matter. Believe me.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Hey, why don't we get those "myth buster" guys to look into this??? That would play well in the court of public opinion!

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Who sold him the motors without evidence of these things? Wouldn't that person risk going down with him?

--

--------------- SeeYa !

-------------- Hello....... Is this thing on ?

Reply to
Cyberia

Let's see......a government agency few trust are bankrolling an 'experiment' in secrecy with no impartial observers. It's not hard to figure how they are going to try and be successful. It will be in way which is NOT possible for anyone who cannot sit forever in a field and shoot and shoot and shoot until something happens. Even a near miss is success for them, but the dog and pony show of a 'homebuilt' rocket shooting towards a plane (and IF we see the video we are sure to see very deceiving camera angles) for a 'see I told you so' Schumer scoop.......we elect these dopes......often (but not always Senator Enzi! :-) ) a choice between two dopes.

Why is it the atfe has to purchase commercial reloads? IF they are indeed the supreme master of the industry they should be making their own, and testing their own. How embarassing it is they have to grope around in secrecy to purchase reloads like a little kid collecting quarters off daddy's dresser.

I can see it now ATF video at 5 MYTHBUSTERS ATF video debunking at 11.

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

snipped-for-privacy@acceptable-gains.net (Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Is Mr. Shatzer Level 1, 2, or 3 Certified?

What will BATFE do when they discover this doesn't work?

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

Not unless you believe the ATF points and authorities in the lawsuit. WHICH THEY CLAIM TO.

THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO THEIR OWN STANDARD OF CRIMINALITY.

formatting link

Jerry

line wrap

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Lie.

Proof?

formatting link

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.