ATFE to produce anti-rocketry video

We already have 1 in the form of the NH state police testing APCP does not exploded along with Rocketry's 40+ year history of no serious life threatening incidents.

JD

Reply to
JDcluster
Loading thread data ...

As in your other post this imaginary bugaboo of a "high power" vs. model rocket seems to mean something to you.

It don't mean a damn thing as far as the technical requirements for a direct-fire rocket weapon are concerned.

The fact I stated is a simple one, and irrefutable.

Here it is again:

Current motors available to the hobbyist DO NOT and CAN NOT match the military grade castings required for direct-fire rocket weapons.

Reply to
Chuck Stewart

Ah, but then the terrorist would have to obtain high explosives, wouldn't they? HE is already very heavily regulated, far more than what ATF proposes for rocketry. If terrorists can get HE, what difference would it make if rocket motors were regulated?

Not against aircraft.

Against aircraft? If that were true, why would the military waste billions on expensive missiles?

Again, why would they waste time, money and effort to use sport rocketry materials when they could use more effective means, such as a rifle?

Reply to
RayDunakin

Sorry Jim, but you're starting to sound as stupid as the ATF. If terrorists can get C-4, what good would it do to outlaw sport rocketry??

Reply to
RayDunakin

Of course, how foolish of us! If it uses "HIGH POWER" motors it wouldn't need targeting/guidance or any other sophisticated hardware -- those "HIGH POWER" motors will just magically guide the rocket to its target!

Give me a break!

Reply to
RayDunakin

You had to ask. :( Your math is too simple a model for the complex dymanics of a rocket. The real situation is much worse.

Sure, but even a sharpshooter will adjust his sights to the range.

And yet with your over simplified math model, you could hit the fixed target every time with double precision accuracy. ;)

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

No. Don't show that HPR is a risk among many risks. Show that the benefits of HPR to the US and its citizens outweigh the risk. Like gasoline, the risk is outweighed by its benefits.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

And the well considered US government response was to ignore it, even to cover it up. Why does Bush lack the intelligence exhibited in WWII? He has over reacted and multiplied the terror by orders of magnitude, with resulting loss of US GDP and the loss of citizens' rights and freedoms that we fought so hard to preserve in WWII.

Alan, OK so now I'm exaggerating.

Reply to
Alan Jones

Define "close". Then explain how a terrorist would get a van-load of rockets that close to a runway without attracting any attention.

Reply to
RayDunakin

That's in next weeks memo from the BATFE...Chuck was just a little early. We are going to announce this next week when we announce our plans to make model airplanes terrorist weapons. So just forget you saw this.

BATFU...I mean E

Reply to
baDBob

The fact you discuss has been actively covered up in the media. It is an element of the propoganda campaign the networks agreed to the week after

9/11. You should a seen the massive administration groups going through Hollywood that week. Never seen such a thing before, probably never will again either.

What exaggeration?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

J350 at a 5000 foot range target at a 2500 foot range target target at 500 feet and 300mph cross range

These are my estimates of the ATF fraud.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

as I recall the hotel was still standing.

Reply to
tater schuld

Don't be silly. C-4 is harmless.

It's the high power rockets that make it explode.

Zooty

(Yeesh)

Reply to
zoot

You REALLY are missing the point. Do we regulate vans just because some mal-content can pack it with explosives... THIS IS NOT OFF THE SHELF ROCKETRY WHEN YOU PACK IT WITH SOMETHING ILLEGAL.

And what about the ACTUAL kill rate of those Qassam rockets...

I think you'd better read some more... and not just this newsgroup.

Regards, ~Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

OK Jim, start collecting signatures to outlaw everything, including the pen you use to collect the signatures, 'cause you KNOW dang well a terrorist can use that to stick it in the throught of a pilot and take over the aircraft, and crash and burn it, 'cause he only has to be successful once, right...

~Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Remember that there was no Liberal anti-GOP press in WWII. Oh wait, we had a Democrat in office, didn't we?

Today's "we'll sell videos of our mother" media has no morals or sense of honor. They will do anything to get a story, including exposing sensitive material. They will not, however, stoop to exposing bozos like our Senators from the N.E.. Double standards at play.

Alan J> >

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Heh heh. Considering that even many of us still insist on using crapperheads, I would think "not much".

;-)

Reply to
Kurt Kesler

It's funny how the terrorist thing became "THEM versus US" in this butter battle. Ever heard of the "Oklahoma Bombing"? How about the "Unibomber"? How about "Oka"? How about the ever popular "Going Postal" problem? Then there's the daily murder tab that has become routine in urbana.

If you are able to remember further back than three years, your perspective changes from worrying about disarming "THEM" to fixing the problems in "US". With that perspective, these dumb "THEY can do this" and "THEY prefer that this happens" statements lose relevance and meaning completely.

It's amaz> "Duane Phillips" wrote in

Reply to
Dwayne Surdu-Miller

"Todd Lainhart" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

This is called a backup strategy. If they lose their case that the motors themselves can be used as explosives, they have to change the subject to something related so they can't be accused of having been tilting at windmills.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

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.