TERRORISM: Airline Crew Reports Missile Attack

www.latimes.com...

"Airplanes approaching LAX [Los Angeles International Airport] are particularly vulnerable because they are flying over mountains"

thats a very informative link, trash, thank you very much. it also references the israeli incident i mentioned earlier, as well as quoting airline executives who feel that it isnt cost effective to equip airliners with anti-missile systems. really shows you how much more important the almighty dollar is than a human life.

Model rockets as in the ones you buy at hobby shops don't go anywhere near 5000. I don't think I've ever seen one that goes 2000. Most go several hundred feet up. Unless you are talking about the BIG model rockets which I doubt anyone would launch near an airport. Anyone working with those kinds of rockets would know you can't launch them near an airport.

Originally posted by Indy
Model rockets as in the ones you buy at hobby shops don't go anywhere near 5000. I don't think I've ever seen one that goes 2000. Most go several hundred feet up. Unless you are talking about the BIG model rockets which I doubt anyone would launch near an airport. Anyone working with those kinds of rockets would know you can't launch them near an airport.

True, in California there is a limit to the size of commercial rocket motor you can legally posess....Not that some one bent on taking out an airliner would be too terribly concerned about the legality of his motor size.

And true, too, that the FAA strictly enforces the airspace in and around commercial airports. But again, if your goal is to shoot down an airliner, are you going to be disuaded by quibbles over where you can shoot down said airliner?

As to the "size' of so-called "model" rockets commercially available (and the motors legally available outside California to propel them), I've attached the following link which outlines a project I was intimately involved with a number of years ago.

www.jpaerospace.com...

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
As to the "size' of so-called "model" rockets commercially available (and the motors legally available outside California to propel them), I've attached the following link which outlines a project I was intimately involved with a number of years ago.

www.jpaerospace.com...

I think Indy meant the widely available rocket kits by Estes that mainly kids build. They wouldn't be able to get past 2,000 ft. (and that's very generous).

Stuff like that custom built monster you linked to is a different story though.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think Indy meant the widely available rocket kits by Estes that mainly kids build. They wouldn't be able to get past 2,000 ft. (and that's very generous).

Stuff like that custom built monster you linked to is a different story though.

Some sure can make 3000 feet, especially if you added a few more stages...
It seems to me that they used to make one that went to almost 5K when I was younger.


www.estesrockets.com...,259

Comanche-3™
Product Code: 1382

When two stages are not enough, try three! A "D" first stage booster gets things going in a hurry. This high flying rocket roars to ultra high altitudes - over a half mile high! The Comanche-3 now has laser cut fins and waterslide decals! Requires a 3/16" (5 mm) Maxi launch rod (EST 302244) - sold separately.

Length: 41" (104.1 cm)
Diameter: 0.98" (24.9 mm)
Weight: 2.1 oz (59 g)
Recovery: Streamer
Fins: Die cut balsa
Maximum Altitude: 2660 ft (811 m)
Recommended Engines: Single Stage Flights: A8-3, B4-4, B6-4, C6-5; Three Stage Flights: Booster Stage: D12-0, Second Stage: B6-0, C6-0, Third Stage: B6-6, C6-7
Notes: Special Requirements: 3/16"(5 mm) Maxi launch rod (EST 302244) - sold separately.


[edit on 12/3/2005 by defcon5]

defcon... and even the one you posted which is bigger than any model rocket I've ever seen in a store wouldn't come close to the altitude of the jet we are talking about. Biggest one I've ever found in a store was a 2 stage rocket and that was back around 1980.

Originally posted by Indy
defcon... and even the one you posted which is bigger than any model rocket I've ever seen in a store wouldn't come close to the altitude of the jet we are talking about. Biggest one I've ever found in a store was a 2 stage rocket and that was back around 1980.

Actually, we had those when I was a kid in school like 20 years ago. It comes as multiple paper tubes, plastic and balsa wood in about a three-foot long plastic pouch (It might even be two or three body tubes, so it would only need to be about a 12 inch bag once you remove the nose cone and the fins.). It most likely costs about $20 US, this is not very large before assembly and is cheap enough that no one much cares if it gets lost. Believe me, when kids are playing around with these it would be no big deal to get multiple ones and mess with adding stages, or modifying what rockets are in each stage. You can actually buy that rocket from any HobbyTown USA, and most likely even at Wal-Mart. This is not a big, fancy, nor expensive rocket. The big ones are sometimes hundreds of dollars, and use an entirely different and much more expensive style of engine and launch equipment.

Though I will have to say that 5000 feet would be really pushing it, if the plane was actually that high when whatever it was passed them.



[edit on 12/3/2005 by defcon5]

Howdie

Some one asked for the opinion of an engineer, while I am not a designer or construction engineer, I did work in Shorts with the actual load testing of the various metals etc used to contruction of modern aircraft, lear jet etc.

To put it simply, most commerical airlines can take around 3 to 4 gs without breaking up under the stresses, but I wouldn't like to see it fly after it gets down on the ground. joints would have stressed and parted in some cases or snapped in others.

IF an airliner was struck by any thing from a simple LAW, M-72 or model rocket with a frag genade, it would have, depending on the location of the hit, enough energy to take the aircraft down easily.

You have to understand that Airliners are nothing more than Coke Cans full of fuel, on take off with a full Pressurised fuel load, I hate to say it but an impact from any explosive device would rip the wing to pieces not to mention the fact that the fuel would combust, taking the rest of the aircraft up with it.

A Fuselage strike at low level... Should surive in theory provided it was hit in the belly hump, where the undercarriage retracts and is stored, any where else, you could either hit a fuel line, control system flight crew or remove the tail. They just aren't designed with some mad man and a SAM in mind.

They need at least some form defensive aids.

NOTE: Airline crews are trained to look for the smoke trail of a SAM, most modern MANPADS have smokey rocket motors, but so do model rockets, I can't say it was or wasn't a SAM BUT I can say that for the flight crew to have seen it, it would have been in their flight path, due to the restrictive view from the flight deck.

- Phil


[edit on 3-12-2005 by gooseuk]

This one has me scratching my head.

As I see it, there are three possibilities as to what really happened:

#1 Someone fired a homemade model rocket of some kind at the aircraft.

#2 Someone fired a real ground-to-air MANPADS of some kind at the airplane.

#3 The pilot was incorrect and either saw nothing (and wanted to make a big stink, either because of a personal issues or because there was some sort of money involvement, such as upcoming salary negotiations); or saw something like a flash of light reflected on the ground and misinterpreted it.

I think #1 is unlikely, since model rockets don't have the altitude and, more importantly, the visual signature. Admittedly, a person could kluge togther a bunch of motors, but it'd be easier just to get a stainless steel tube and pour in some melted ammonium pechlorate. Admittedly, you'd have to take your time, and you'd want to machine in a nozzle, but it's nothing that a handyman with a home metal shop and a couple of undergraduate energetics textbooks couldn't do.

I think #2 is somewhat more likely, and that is a terrifying thought indeed. MANPADS are acquire-able in many places in the Near East and Africa, and can be smuggled in acrous our very porous borders. I don't know what kind of weapon it could be, but I'm thinking that if it were something military, it would've detonated even if it didn't hit the plane, either because of a time delay or something similar.

I think #3 is the most likely, since the news story doesn't appear to have any legs. Now I know this is not a popular view amongst conspiracy theorists, but it's just about impossible today to cover something like this up, especially if one or two real news sources already have hold of it.

If the MIB appeared at a TV station or newspaper and told them to drop the story, the editor would barely be able to stop laughing long enough to call his lawyers. This would be one of the greatest stories of the decade, and it would spell success and instant fame (read: increased advertising revenue) for any newspaper or network who broke the story.

There are simply too many news outlets around, anyway, who would love to tie this terrorism in to the country's foreign policy (which wouldn't be all that hard to do) to cover this one up.

My next-door neighbor and astronomy buddy, Matt Mahoney, will be back this afternoon and I will ask him. He is a first officer driving 737s for Alaska Airlines and a reserve Major in the Air Guard who flew tankers during the recent unpleasantness in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also has an undergrad degree in aerospace engineering and is probably as knowledgeable on civilian aircraft issues as any of my other friends.

He's also very well read, very politically aware, and I'd take whatever he says -- from a technical point of view -- to the bank. I'll see what he has to say and re-post later today, if anyone's interested.

But for now, I'd say:

89% no such thing;
10% real thing; and
1% bottle rocket.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]

I think that this is a very interesting find. The lack of added news coverage is telling. If the original story is correct, one could easily expect that this story would be suppressed.

Keeping in mind the billions of dollars that US airlines lost after 911, it is easy to understand just why this story may have been buried or killed outright. Since 911, we have seen the airlines struggling with traveler confidence and wildly fluctuating fuel prices. One result being many US airlines requiring government handouts to survive. Or, more drastically, airlines filing Chapter 11, bankruptcy. To preserve US airlines economic health is reason enough to stop this story.

Of course, had the airliner had actually been shot down would have been an entirely different kettle of fish. It's sort of difficult to hide a story as big as a passenger plane crash over a large urban setting. But since, "nothing happened", it is reasonable for the government to keep "mum" about the threat. Ignorance, after all, is bliss.

Deny Ignorance....who wants to be blissful anyway?

Originally posted by Indy
defcon... and even the one you posted which is bigger than any model rocket I've ever seen in a store wouldn't come close to the altitude of the jet we are talking about. Biggest one I've ever found in a store was a 2 stage rocket and that was back around 1980.

Like Defcon, I also occasionally build and fly model rockets. While lots of people are satisfied flying the kits, there are those of us who just can't help trying out modifications. There are model rocketry competitions to see who can kit-bash something for special purposes, including a competition for height.

The one OTHER possibility I wondered about was a fast-moving incoming meteorite. If you just saw a flash and the contrail, you might not be able to tell if it was coming or going.

A Matter Of Opinion

It's just my opinion, but I am coming to suspect that attempted terrorist attacks in the United States are being deliberately squelched by the "mainstream media" in cooperation with the federal government.

I don't know if this is actually the case, but it is my working hypothesis these days, after seeing other stories of a similar nature appear from local sources and then apparently get spiked at the national level.

My theory is that this is being undertaken as a strategy to minimize the effects of terrorist acts on the U.S. economy, which is their #1 target.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but my perspective on national news is that I don't trust it, never should have and that it's not healthy to trust the press regardless of who is controlling it -- whether commercial or government interests.

That's not necessarily anything new, but when the press falls under effective government control, it's later than we think.

Your mileage may vary.




“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” --Abbott Joseph Liebling

o.p. by Majic
I am coming to suspect that attempted terrorist attacks in the United States are being deliberately squelched by the "mainstream media" in cooperation with the federal government.

Could this, if true, also be partly due to the fact that one of the few remaining justifications for the occupation of Iraq is "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? Aren't we, in fact, fighting them here as well? It would look really bad for the government if there were to be another successful terrorist attack on US soil. Even failed attempts with no captured 'enemy combatants' wouldn't look very good.

The airline industry is crucial to commerce and national security, and it may be teetering on the verge of economic collapse. The holiday travel season is a huge and desperately needed influx of capital. Hence the timing and choice of target, imo. That is, if this actually was an attempted terrorist attack.

Well my perspective on this may be a bit different from most -- but I live a few towns over from where flt 800 went down and I know some witnesses including the National Guard Helicopter Pilot who said that was a missle -- and believe them. So since we know how seriously those reports were taken I'm not surprised that this is on the back pages of the news and not getting much press.

Originally posted by justme1640
Well my perspective on this may be a bit different from most -- but I live a few towns over from where flt 800 went down and I know some witnesses including the National Guard Helicopter Pilot who said that was a missle -- and believe them.

yeah, but the difference between that and what majic and icarus are talking about is that twa800, if indeed it was a missile, was probably an accidental lock and fire by our own military.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
I think that this is a very interesting find. The lack of added news coverage is telling. If the original story is correct, one could easily expect that this story would be suppressed.

Keeping in mind the billions of dollars that US airlines lost after 911, it is easy to understand just why this story may have been buried or killed outright.

But just think of the financial hit they will take if it can be shown that they knew, or should have known, that a rocket was launched at Flight XXX out of LAX on dd/mm/yyyy, and failed to notify the public. Public confidence will evaporate.

Then take the case of if there is an actual hit on a commercial jetliner next week or next month, and the above is true..



[edit on 4-12-2005 by jsobecky]

Have you ever tried actually seeing a bottle rocket after launching it? It's pretty small.. not much of a footprint at all. There's no way it could be mistaken as a missle. Even a flare??? Obviously for a Pilot to see this it would have to had some kind of size to it...

I think off the street might be right on the money with his observation with this one.More than likely the pilot is going through a relentless interrogation process to make sure he is telling the truth.But i will agree with those who think that this is a cover up of some kind.Since twa 800 and airbus 587 which came down after 911,there has been alot of talk that an event like this would never be reported.I like to see how this turns out.I wouldn't be suprised that the pilot fesses up he made it up

Defensive Measures

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Could this, if true, also be partly due to the fact that one of the few remaining justifications for the occupation of Iraq is "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"?

I don't think the motive for covering up attempted terrorist attacks in the U.S. is necessarily sinister, if that is indeed taking place, which I suspect but cannot be sure of.

Rather, it's sort of along the lines of "What if they gave a war and nobody came?", except in this case it's terrorism.

After all, it's kind of hard to be terrified by something one doesn't know about.

Thus squelching news of domestic terrorism could be considered a defense against their intended effect -- which is to cause terror.

Instead, we can rest at ease knowing that such things are merely "suicides", "accidents" or "bottle rockets".

No need to panic.

Everything is under control.




Edit: As for Off_The_Street's suggestion that real news stories can't be covered up, I disagree. My suspicions are not based only on that particular case, and the evidence of media control is mounting, not evaporating. In an environment where “journalism” consists primarily of parroting what government authorities “leak” and stories aren't carried without official sources or approval, anything is possible.

Further edit: I don't know what the deal is with this story. It may be nothing. However, I don't get the impression it's being carefully investigated by the media, either, so I doubt we'll ever know.


[edit on 12/4/2005 by Majic]