ATFE to produce anti-rocketry video

ROFL

Very little damage so far, since their missiles have no targeting and guidance systems. They might as well make mortars instead, it would have the same effect and would probably be easier to make.

1. Probably bought them from several sources.
2. No LEUP needed -- J350's are still "easy access".
3. How do you know the guy didn't have a (real or fake) TRA/NAR card showing Level 2 certification?

Heck, why even bother with missiles at all, when they could simply use a hunting rifle? It would certainly be far cheaper, easier, more accurate and more effective than using hobby rockets. And if for some reason they were too dumb to use a gun, there are plenty of other creative ways to bring down a plane -- air cannon (pumpkin-sized), release a few hundred mylar balloons (or doves) from a truck under the takeoff path, etc.

Strong point.

Having a knowledgeable, impartial observer on hand to document the entire test would be better.

BTW, this ATF "contractor" that is supposedly going to conduct the test -- are they the same outfit that hopes to sell their anti-missile defense systems to the airlines?

Association of Retarded Agents!!!

Dennis

And what has Jerry done about it, or is going to do about it, other than the usual tactic of slandering NAR/TRA?

Oh great, computer simulations instead of real testing. No wonder the ATF is so confident -- this makes it a lot easier to get whatever results the customer (ATF) wants.

Of course it does! The ATF isn't interested in a real world test, they're only interested in putting on a dog and pony show for the politicians and media. If this means using military hardware to do it, they'll just conveniently neglect to mention that part of it in their report/video.

"Hey, Lab guys (long time beneficiary of GOVT contracts), we need to prove a model rocket can be adapted into an anti-aircraft weapon by terrorists. And to make a video of it which will scare the bejezuz out of the sheeple........ No, not just politicians, the public, too."

"No problem, Agents (more money, more GOVT friends). Okay, send a guy out to buy something, anything, that has to do with rockets. That will cover easy availability of the components. For the actual test, just leave that to us (a dedicated research firm who specializes in this kind of stuff and who has expertise, resources, and government friends unavailable to common terrorists)."

[Lights flash and eerie sounds come from the Lab where scientists and engineers develop a carefully designed and analyzed anti-aircraft test to show model rockets are dangerous to airliners.]

"Okay, Agents, listen up. It's pretty hard to hit a moving aircraft with an unguided rocket; that's why its not usually even attempted by military organizations. But, we can use anything a terrorist MIGHT use, right? And we don't really HAVE to hit anything, just make people believe we MIGHT be able to, right? That'll scare em. And the simple fact the GOVT is testing the idea will make it seem plausible to most, anyways. All you need is a "proof" of concept to stop rocketry dead in its tracks. Now, take all this stuff out to the Air Force Base and follow these detailed instructions."

[Test ensues. Results are as expected based upon requirements of test; they found what the test was designed to reveal.]

"Thank you, Senator Schmuzer, it's always a pleasure to help out. Now, about the possible use of high power rifles, or [fill-in-the-blank], against aircraft taking-off or landing: we have an interesting test that makes those rockets look positively harmless in comparison..."

The fact that this "terrorist operation" experiment was uncovered means nothing, I guess.

It is trivial to design an experiment to yield predetermined results. It is the standard MO for unethical scientists and FUD mongers of all types; environ wackos, health wackos, govt wackos, etc, and the public laps it up as "proof" of something. (A REAL experiment doesn't "prove" anything. In fact, the most useful and valid experimental results DISPROVE hypotheses.) I have NO doubt the BATFE will "prove" their experimental hypothesis, whatever it may be. Then WE will look like the "bad guys", again, trying to shoot holes in their experiment. Its just another PR ploy and it WILL work, I'm sad to say, on Congress and the Public.

here is some publically available information on Mr. Shatzer's credentials. Seem's he has been with rocketry via the NFPA for awhile.

I particularly liked the TWGFEX Symposiums theme (see below).

- iz

David S. Shatzer US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Explosives Study Group

650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Judiciary Square Federal Bldg. Washington, DC 20226

[ reference

National Center for Forensic Science (NCFS) Technical Working Group for Fire and Explosions (TWGFEX) Member, Scene Job Requirements & Certifications Committee

Note: TWGFEX is hosting the "Third Annual TWGFEX Symposium For Fire and Explosion Debris Analysis and Scene Investigation', a symposium comprising workshops, lectures, verbal presentations of current research, and discussion sessions. The general theme of the 2003 Symposium is "Raising the Bar ? From Opinions to Facts." Topics will be relevant to fire and explosion investigations, at the scene and/or in the laboratory. The symposium will be held at the Hawthorn Suites at the Orlando International Airport November 19th through November

23rd, 2003 [ reference also see ]

Technical Working Group for Bombing Scene Investigation (TWGBSI) Member, National Bombing Scene Planning Panel contributor to "A Guide for Explosion and Bombing Scene Investigation"

[ reference ]

NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) Principal, Technical Committee on Explosives Principal, Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics Principal, Technical Committee on Special Effects

[ reference

NFPA 1126 - Standard for the Use of Pyrotechnics before a Proximate Audience (2001 Edition) NFPA 1127 - Code for High Power Rocketry (2002 Edition) NFPA 495 - Explosive Materials Code (2001 Edition) NFPA 1127 - Code for High Power Rocketry (1998 Edition) NFPA 1122 - Code for Model Rocketry (1997 Edition) NFPA 1125 - Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors (1995 Edition)

[ reference named NFPA documents as primary or alternate committee member ]

The Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) Natiomal Symposium on Comprehensive Force Protection November 1-2, 2001 Program moderator for Session 7, Track 3 New Technologies for Design and Evaluation

[ reference also see ]

But - is that a system used against aircraft, or does it try to saturation-bomb a stationary target?

As I read about it in Bill Gunston's "Encyclopedia of Rockets and Missiles" it was definitely an antiaircraft weapon. It caught my attention and I looked up some news articles that seemed promising .. and now, decades later, I can't find a hint about it on the web.

Am I spelling it right? It was a box launcher holding a cluster of very high speed unguided rockets to be launched at enemy aircraft. circa 70's.

And needless to say the ground support, radar tracking, computer-aimed launcher, and above all else propellant specification demands render such a system utterly unattainable by even the most ingenius of terrorist-wannabes if they tried to implement it with model rocket engines.

Chuck Stewart wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@anapuma.nekolabs.edu:

That still begs the question of why they would want to, even if they could. It would be much easier to just my military weapons on the black market, with all the engineering already complete.

Just watch.

You need some better ignitors.

This explains what Bob at Great Lakes Hobbies told me the other day. He said he was contacted by someone who said he was working for the "Air Force" and that they wanted to buy a large number of G80 motors and have them shipped to a test range in Utah. He thought it was odd that when he asked about which delay they wanted they didn't seem to care about it. Bob said he sent them a price quote but he wasn't sure if he would accept the order because it seemed they intended to modify the motors in some way.

He also said he was talking to one of the kit manufacturers and that the same guy had contacted them and bought a bunch of "specially" modified kits.

John

I hope someone is documenting all the details for behind the scenes post-mortem analysis when they publish the fraud.