ATFE to produce anti-rocketry video

I think they would be just as likely to hit a drone with a watermelon from a trebuchet.

My point is that the ATFE is trying to prove the wrong thing. It probably is possible to hit something with a rocket, given enough tries. But would it be the way the terrorists actually WOULD do it? Would they go try to buy commercial motors, thus needing goverment permits and hobby certification? Of course not. They could mix their own motors, or much more likely yet they could just buy missiles on the black market. Thus the new regulations do nothing to hinder terrorists, but hinder innocent hobbyists instead. How do we get that message to the congressmen, and others, who are meant to be mis-led by this ATFE propaganda?

-- David

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

What exactly are they trying to prove here? That a model rocket motor can disable an aircraft at takeoff or landing. In all likelihood their tests will prove that it is possible for someone to pull off a stunt like this, but what exactly does this prove? Even flying animals are likely to damage, disable, and even crash a plane on takeoff and landing and are a greater daily threat to planes than any rocket ever will be.

If someone was intelligent enough to rig rocket motors up to damage an aircraft during takeoff and landing, they would also be intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that there would be far easier ways to do the same thing without a rocket motor. A shotgun/cannon like they used to use to hunt ducks is the first thing that comes to my mind.

All this proves is that our hobby is succumbing to terrorism indirectly by the US government's acts of enforcement over a hobby that they obviously know little about

It is VERY simple.

The government is trying to reduce the (its) effort of enforcement (in this case against PERCEIVED NOT REAL terrorism) to ZERO.

NOT to reasonable.

To ZERO.

THAT is precisely and exactly what this is all about.

RIGHTS be damned.

I am right. The sooner you get on the bandwagon the better.

This started 20 years ago. It accelerated 9-11-01 alot.

Jerry

How much do you want to bet they do not test that?

Their goal is to justify their existence (no matter how difficult) and budget. Literally that is the ONLY thing they care about. Integrate that into your thinking and this all makes perfect sense.

Jerry

Remember **I** am the guy vilified by NAR and TRA.

Two questions:

I bet someone could take down an aircraft with one of those "punkin-chunkin" air cannons. I bet they wont make any video of that.

-- Drake "Doc" Damerau

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

snip for brevity

Nothing like a how-to film for terrorists.

"punkin-chunkin"

"Plane shot down by terrorist potato cannon using only hairspray and a 6 foot length of 4" PVC... film at 11..."

~Duane Phillips.

snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAM.rogers.com (Len Lekx) wrote in news:3fa8147e.38826538@nntp:

Think of a multiple-rocket launcher like a Soviet BM-21,that fires dozens of rockets,and is portable,trailer-able. That would do it,with unguided rockets.Terrorists already use them on Israel.

"Duane Phillips" wrote in news:PFUpb.105534$HS4.882776@attbi_s01:

hey,a DENTIST in the Tampa area made his own C-4,and was planning to attack mosques in the area. Building a warhead is easy.Building a 'Stalin-organ' would be easy,the terrorists are already doing it to attack Israeli targets.

Where did this joker buy 40 J-350 reloads with no LEUP and no HPR Level 2 cert?

-- Joe Michel NAR 82797 L1

"Duane Phillips" wrote in news:6kVpb.108367$e01.371370@attbi_s02:

Terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank,and Lebanon already build "Qassam" rockets that do some damage,and they aren't buying APCP to propel them,AFAIK.

Perhaps if the video doesn't work out for bashing hobby rocketry they can translate it to Farsi and sell it as a training or recruiting film.

Bob Ellis

Dishonest???? Is there any doubt that they are dishonest??? I read that letter to the DOJ. If they really believe what they wrote, they're so out of touch as to be ridiculous. If they don't really believe it, then they are... dishonest.

-- David

... Irregardless of the BATF weird behavoir regarding regs that apparently don't exist...

The actual point of the silly cloak-and-dagger routine is that the BATF wants to be able to shout loudly that "Terrorists can easily get model rockets!" while showing vids of this character doing just that... wait till they trot out those vids at the scarefest... er... "press conference".

They can't... since it's not the "magic" potential they were lying about to the press.

BTW... when did level 3 aspirants begin reaching 30,000 feet?

Applied Research Associates apparently has the tools to make an impressive report even without using real rockets. I suspect software tools will be used heavily with footage thrown in for effect.

See

-Bruce OBrien

snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAM.rogers.com (Len Lekx) wrote in news:3fa8147e.38826538@nntp:

Gosh, it'd be great if there were one or more camcorders in the area when the tests are conducted. BTW, I'd *hate* to be in the van when they cook off a bunch of J350s! Sheesh, can't those guys read the safety code?

"Duane Phillips" wrote in news:PFUpb.105534$HS4.882776@attbi_s01:

What kind of range could you get with a horizontally fired J350? A couple hundred yards? If they can get the rocket to fly straight enough to aim at something, we should invite them to submit a research paper at NARAM next year... because my rockets sure don't fly that straight!

Besides, you can't buy hobby rocket motors anonymously on the black market

- you have to actually show up in a store.

N O N E

IF THIS WERE A HTML FORUM I WOULD HAVE USE LARGE BOLD FLASHING RED FONT.