Missles and Jetliners

Quilly Mammoth · 2003-08-16T22:39:55+00:00

Here is a story from Basically it states that shoulder fired missles might damage, but willnot bring down a modern, large Jetliner. Older models are vulnerable. snippet below. (PS, sounds like everyone had fun a NARAM...see yanext year)"Larger airliners, like the Airbus's, and 757s, 767s and 747s, havenot been brought down because these missiles were not designed to takeon aircraft with such large and powerful engines. While these missileswere originally intended for use against jet fighters operating overthe battlefield, the reality turned out to be different. The mostlikely targets encountered were helicopters, or propeller driventransports. These aircraft proved to be just the sort of thing twentypound missiles with 2-3 pound warheads could destroy. Against jetfighters with powerful engines, the missiles caused some damage to thetailpipe, but usually failed to bring down the jet. This was firstnoted during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where the Egyptians firedhundreds of SA-7s at Israeli A-4 light bombers. Most of the A-4s, withtheir 11,187 pounds of thrust engines, survived the encounter. Largerjets, like the F-4 and it's 17,000 pound thrust engines, were evenmore difficult to bring down. Smaller commercial jets, like the 737 orDC-9 (each using two 14,000 pounds of thrust engines) have provedvulnerable. But a 757 has much larger engines with 43,000 pounds ofthrust, and the 747 is 63,000. Moreover, the rear end of jet enginesare built to take a lot of punishment from all that hot exhaustspewing out. Put a bird into the front of the engine and you can dosome real damage. But these missiles home in on heat, and all of thatis at the rear end of the engine."Quilly Mammoth

S

Scott Schuckert 22 years ago

I don't know that of course, any more than YOU know she didn't - and I'd love to have seen transcripts of the interchange. That last sentence was meant more in a rhetorical sense anyway; as we all know that "asking for it" can mean other than the utterance of a simple declarative sentence.

Remembering that we almost never get the whole story in the news, to some extent we have to take the facts as presented. Note that both the defendants stated they THOUGHT she was over 18, which I take with a large grain of salt.

Vote

S

Scott Schuckert 22 years ago

I believe it has - especially if the offense is one of society's current "hot topics." e.g. "sexual offenses", "spousal abuse", "terrorism", and apparently, anything having to do with "missiles".

You guys may want to check out

formatting link

for stories about third graders being pulled out of class and being charged with making "terroristic threats".

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

Why am I not surprised?

Jerry

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

I wonder if they will be tried as adults due to the seriousness of their crimes?

Jerry

Vote

D

David Weinshenker 22 years ago

What I wanna know is how this whole "zero tolerance" trip got started, and how the term was introduced into the public vernacular in the first place. (Someone I know said it first appeared in a speech by Nancy Reagan - can anyone confirm this?)

Unfortunately, politics being what it is, the trend probably won't reverse until some parent sues a school's brains out and finds a jury willing to make it stick.

-dave w

Vote

J

Jim Yanik 22 years ago

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news:IJAr0uYpgv+ snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:

That's why the police only apprehended the guy when he -travelled- to make the meet.Something about crossing state lines with the intent to commit a felony,I believe.

Vote

J

Jim Yanik 22 years ago

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news:bX4Zng7zFTP+@eisner.encompasserve.org:

Well,I suspect that the authorities have copies of communications between the guy and the 'minor'.Which would reveal any entrapment if there was any.

Vote

J

Jim Yanik 22 years ago

Scott Schuckert wrote in news:190820030923387076% snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net:

The JURORS will get to see transcripts of the communications.

And we do NOT have to blindly accept what 'reporting' the media deigns to present to us.

Vote

R

RayDunakin 22 years ago

It's all part of the "Nerf World" mentality that has taken over modern soceity.

Vote

I

IceAge 22 years ago

Yes, now be quiet before you get yourself into trouble. They are listening.

Patrick

Vote

S

Scott Oliver 22 years ago

(big snip)

Ask Randy Weaver or his (surviving) kids.

Don't know who he is? Google on "Ruby Ridge".

-Scott

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

Which as a matter of practice would be made inadmissible so that the people with jurisdiction cannot make the claim. All they (the cops) have to do to make it inadmissible, is to claim they made a minor error in one of the 5 or so policy procedures needed for a wiretap.

Jerry

Victim of reality.

Vote

J

Jim Yanik 22 years ago

David Weinshenker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:

Well,for starters,one rum&coke is not going to put you anywhere near the BAC for 'drunk driving'. ;-)

Vote

J

Jim Yanik 22 years ago

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:

The authorities would need the transcripts as evidence to support their case. The plaintiff's lawyers would have access to any evidence admitted. The lawyers can also subpoena any evidence they can find to clear their client,so they could easily get the transcripts from either ISP regardless of what the police claim about them.After all,they ARE the property of the ISP.

Reality,Jerry?

And I'm not even a lawyer!

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

Key word "admitted". Only the plaintiff can admit prosecutorial evidence.

Key word, "they can find" AND is admissible once found. But if the prosecution finds a legally valid and morally offensive way to invalidate ket exculpatory evidence it cannot be admitted. I have seen it numerous times as an expert witness in explosives trials. It is truly scary what the government can do. It is in that court every day

24/7 and the defendant attorney is in there maybe once every month or three. Plaintiff counsil has UNLIMITED legal and investagatory funds and DEFENDANT has precisely as much as CDEFENDANT can afford and even when appointed public defenders they have nearly ZERO budget for investigation and about 1/10 the effective work day as a dedicated commercial attoeney who usually also has nearly zero investigative budget, OJ and Clinton notwithstanding.

Reply to that!

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

One of mine might. 7-11 has those thirsty-two ouncers :)

Jerry

Vote

J

Jim Yanik 22 years ago

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:

Since Internet communications have both beginning and ending points,there are -TWO- ISPs that record them.(perhaps more?) And ISPs are not going to eliminate evidence for the police or government.I suspect they would be more likely to -broadcast- the fact that police/gov't asked them to cover up or dispose of evidence. This case of child molestation was not a Federal case,I believe,thus the Feds would not be involved in any 'coverup',and I don't believe a State has the moxie to do this.

Vote

J

Jerry Irvine 22 years ago

Actually the government has a black program to do precisely that. I am not privy to knowing how complete and effective it is, but with the various nodes they have access to for collection, I think it is fair to say they collect better than 99% of all traffic.

Vote

M

Mark A Palmer 22 years ago

I agree (obviously). I'm sure the NSA (No Such Agency) is tasked with this task that doesn't exist and probably do so legally by having our allies (GBR, Canada, etc.) do it for them.....not that I am a conspiracy theorist....more likely a realist.....

Jerry Irv> >

Vote

C

Chris Taylor Jr 22 years ago

that is different. companies record CC information and related info for JUST the purpose you describe.

this is not so for non sensitive data.

ALL internet traffic is recorded. EVERY LAST BYTE but most of it has a very short TTL before it is killed off.

if you can get to it soon enough you can extract it but usually by the time you realize you NEED it it is already gone.

except for CC info. this info is required to be kept I think for 3 or 4 years by federal law (not sure on the length but their is a length where it must be kept)

also they did not record the info about the fradulent user. they recorded the IP address and from that it is Easy to tell what ISP and what geographical area it came from.

from their they can subpoena the ISP for info on WHO was connected with that IP at that time.

Vote

Missles and Jetliners

Join the Discussion

Didn't find your answer?