are you kidding!

bottle rocket!

not good at all, time to install counter measures on all planes like ElAl

I'm not sure about the incident, but the flight number has to be wrong. American 621 goes from Minneapolis to Dallas and then on to Orange County (I only know that because I flew on that flight over the weekend).

Wouldn't a SAM (even a shoulder launched type) create a radar signal? In that area the radar coverage should be quite comprehensive.

Nothing to see here... move along...

But nooo!

The exact opposite is happening.

Airline passengers soon will be allowed to take small scissors and screwdrivers aboard planes again, Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley announced Friday.

Hawley said the change will take effect Dec. 22 and is part of a broader effort aimed at having screeners spend more of their time searching for explosives rather than small, sharp objects that don't pose as great a risk. The small implements were banned after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

... Because the small implements CAUSED the September 11 attacks!

Flare...SAM...I get them mixed up all the time.

It is inevitable, is it not, that if we deny Muslims the ability to use their bodies as bombs, they will resort to missiles?

The planes at LAX take off over the water near Marina Del Rey...It's possible that somebody fired a flare from a boat.

On the other hand, a boat just off the coast is an ideal spot for a terrorist to fire an anti-aircraft missile at a plane taking off.

Bottle Rocket?

or

Bottle Rocket?

The former has a range of a hundred feet...max.,the latter has a range of a couple hundred feet...max.

Coast-to-Coast AM reported on this last night/morning. A key point made was bottle rockets don't go 5000-6000 ft up. Nor do hobby rockets.

Okay, not those small implements exactly. Not a scissor or a screwdriver, but hell.

Why the f&^* would anyone be taking a screwdriver onto a plane?

I despair for our future. This is not a good morning for me.

DailyPundit has covered this to some extent.

FBI agents believe it was a flare or a bottle rocket, but say they may never know if that’s what it actually was.

Apparently the F.B.I. disclaimer news releases are know being written by Joe Isuzu.

A bottle rocket? A BOTTLE ROCKET! Geez how lame can you get?

These must be the same dumbasses that described the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens as a "minor geological event".

I posted this a few days ago here... asked if anyone heard about it.. seems to be buried so far down in the news as to be non exsistant... and why is it burried so far down in the news...

no bottle rocket I have ever seen could ever go that high... methinks someone is thinking the public is filled with idiots again...

se eya
cathy : )

Yeah. Bottle Rocket. That's it. That's the ticket.

OT

11 more days Ladies and Gents until this whole Tookie Williams saga will thankfully be over. Tookie Williams should and will pay for the lives he took with his own life.

#12 Michael_in_TN:

6,000 feet up. Is that distance from the ground, that the "bottle rocket" would have to travel, or is that altitude from sea level?

Was the plane anywhere near the mountains when the "incident" in question occurred?

Bottle rocket - ridiculous. Flare - possible, but it would have opened a parachute, and been visible for a long period. In reality, these are rarely used these days, because everybody has cell phones. Neither theory has much chance of being true.

Perhaps there is some basis for the FBI to guess that it was a flare or bottle rocket. There is nothing more confidence inspiring than than someone closing their eyes, putting both hands over their ass and making a guess.

I do not believe that LAX uses radar to guide planes or examine it's airspace.

If the jet was at any alatitude at all it would be well on it's way to 500 knots or so. I don't know of any bottle rocket that will attain that speed, let alone altitude.

An Estes type rocket will get some speed, but the engines crap out rather quickly. Looks to me like the FBI is blowing smoke up our asses to make us feel not so rattled by this.

It's all becasue we've created terrorism with our illegal invasion of Iraq.

Free Saddam!

Cut and run, and the friendly ROPers will stop shooting at our planes.

Hey, maybe it was the same folks who shot down TWA Flight 800, which they did with the foresight that Bush would be elected four years later, stage 9/11 and invade Iraq.

Ten Marines were killed in Iraq today (or maybe late yesterday).

Celebrations, Wellstone-style, will be held at DNC offices around the nation.

Al-Qaeda flags will be at half staff at those offices.

A flare or a bottle rocket. Please. I don't know whether it was a missile or not but a flare or a bottle rocket? I'd as soon believe that a giant, flaming condor farted as it flew by.

Abuot four years ago, somebody told me that he was talking to some Homeland Security guy (add your salt here) who said that after TW 800 exploded, "four guys were found in a boat with a rocket launcher. They were interrogated and quietly killed. They actually thought they were firing at an El Al flight, but hit TW 800 instead." The investigators had to tell everbody who reported seeing a rocket trail to change their story.

/FWIW

A key point made was bottle rockets don't go 5000-6000 ft up. Nor do hobby rockets.

Well, the big ones can...our students make rockets that go up a mile. But I am almost positive they don't point them at aircraft. :)

#26 song_and_dance_man

Was is Arlen Specter who came up with the bottle rocket theory?

That sounds more like Richard Clarke's speed.

30 Bob's Kid

Well, the big ones can...our students make rockets that go up a mile. But I am almost positive they don't point them at aircraft. :)

Or fire them off of boats.

sky rockets in flight, afternoon delight

Hmmm.

Considering that many airline pilots are military reserve pilots or former military pilots I think they're probably able to determine if an object is a missile or a bottle rocket.

For the record, I'm still not at all convinced that te plane that went down over Queens (AA #587 - 11/12/01) was an accident as a result of engine malfunction.

30 Bob's Kid

the big ones can...our students make rockets that go up a mile.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the actual firing period on even the big ones is limited, and most of the time they are coasting until all of the kinetic energy is converted into altitude. This would mean that even if it got that high, there would be no smoke trail after the first 5 or 10 seconds.

#37 Jheka

Agreed. And I also don't believe that TWA 800 had an electrical short in the center fuel tank.

Must be the Palestinian Space Program in action.

#39 E2M:

Yup ... I'm no tinfoil hatter but the government had very good reasons to label both of those as accidents, even if they weren't.

#38 Earth2moonbat

I was thinking the same thing. Water aerosol still occuring as the bottle rocket passes the cockpit?

OT for all you C-SPAM junkies and Mapes checkers.

Brent Bozell's interview of Martyr Mapes and her attempt at literary tap dancing will air this weekend on C-SPAM.

Nothing else to do this weekend? Watch C-SPAM or stick needles in your eyes...decisions...decisions...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the actual firing period on even the big ones is limited, and most of the time they are coasting until all of the kinetic energy is converted into altitude. This would mean that even if it got that high, there would be no smoke trail after the first 5 or 10 seconds.

Our kids make these huge rockets (they're about 6' long) for a competition sponsored by NASA, and since the requirement is that they go up a mile, that's how high they go (and they have to carry a scientific payload of student design). Regarding how long the engines fire, that I don't know. But by the time you can no longer see the rocket, it is still firing.

But even if they did put it in a boat and did fire it at an airliner (not an easy thing to do given the airliner's velocity) and did manage to actually hit the aircraft, what would it do? Likely bounce off, as it has no explosive payload, and couldn't carry much of one even if it did.

#29 Who Watches the Watchmen?

Somehow I doubt that. Sounds like an urban myth. I know a few security guys who stick to the adage "Bad news is great news" - that is, if they could have proven it was a terrorist strike, they would proclaim it loud and clear with the final statement - "We need X dollars to stop this from happening again".

It sounds cold hearted, but it's true. Most security doesn't come into place until after an attack, so when an attack happens, it's the only chance to get the budget to actually do some things.

#39 Earth2moonbat, yes the more they make obvious lies the more it calls into question any explanation the give when people actually die. They're burning credibility fast.

What happened is the pilot was drunk.

Just because the FBI is saying publically that the incident involved a bottle rocket does not mean they really believe it was a bottle rocket.

#44 Bob's Kid:

heh ... you bought the "NASA" story ... my mom did too :)

I heard the plane that crashed over Queens crashed because it was a poorly built French Airbus, the plane encountered wake turbulence, the copilot "over-corrected" with rudder and stabilizer control, and the plane was poorly designed enough that the co-pilot could pull on the rudder enough to snap the tail off.

This conflict with the crazies is SO far from over; eventually they will get through with another really henious attack and then even Nancy Pelosi will shut up, and we will go ape shit on them and finish the job.

IMHO.

#44 Bob's Kid

But even if they did put it in a boat and did fire it at an airliner (not an easy thing to do given the airliner's velocity) and did manage to actually hit the aircraft, what would it do?

It would depend on exactly where it hit. Most likely you're right; it would't damage the plane. I do remember in the '70's, a Cessna hitting a 727 off of San Diego, and taking it down, but a Cessna has a lot more mass than one of these.

Does old vapor trail + active imagination + jumpy pilot = mistaken missile siting?

The people at U.S. Water Rockets have the current overall world record for height achieved by a water and air propelled rocket. Their design flew to an amazing 523 meters (1715 feet)
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

That statement is almost so absurd that the FBI must know no one would believe it.

The folks in LA should expect to see search flares going up tomorrow afternoon.

They'll be looking for the UCLA defense.

The standard "Stinger" type heat seeking missile is a heat seeker, IIRC, so if it hit anywhere on a plane, it would hit an engine with a comparitively small explosive. Unless the engine itself grenaded and did further damage, the plane should fly.

Unless, they were leaving John Wayne Airport. Scariest airport in the world, to make the rich people happy, as soon as the plane gets airborne, (and we were warned, and it was still scary!) the pilot cuts way, way, back on the engines, and points the noise way, way high, and it feels as if the plane is getting ready to stall and crash. I suspect having an engine blown up at the moment it barely hs enough engine power to stay airborne would be a bad thing.

47 Roger

Not to get sidetracked on TWA 800, but I think the blogosphere and several websites pretty much debunked the center fuel tank theory. Not enough altitude for an explosive mixture. Their credibility is already running on empty.

#52 Ojoe:

I doubt it. That kind of will simply does not exist nationwide. For every person who will want massive retribution, there will be one who's instinct is to surrender. Besides, everything takes time. The vast majority of Americans were willing to do whatever it took to defeat our enemies on September 12, 2001. That uniformity of purpose dissipated within weeks.

As for Pelosi and her ilk, a nuke could go off in downtown Chicago and people like McKinney, McDermott, Kucinich, etc. will condemn the attacks, appeal for calm ... and then call for immediate impeachment hearings.

The Northeast Intelligence Network has been reporting this story for a few days now... Apparently someone heard on an ABC Radio newsbreak about this occurring on Sunday night over the Pacific...

Yet another coverup. As someone who knows people who saw TWA 800 attacked by a missile, you can;t trust the government on this story at all...

Pilots aren't dumb. If he saw a smoke trail, he was fired upon by a bogey.

If it was a bottle rocket, that manufacturer will soon be in real high demand since it's impressive to see a single bottle rocket go more than a couple hundred feet in the air before fizzling out.

However, if it was something a bit more dangerous - say a SAM, wouldn't the missile fall into the water after it exhausts its fuel? Figure out the course, conduct a search of the waters, and we might have a better idea of what happened.

Or, let's just believe that it was a super-duper bottle rocket.

And for the record, Flight 587 likely crashed due to a combination of mechanical and pilot error. The plane should have not disintegrated as a result of the pilot trying to adjust course for wake turbulence from the plane ahead.

Flight 800, on the other hand was caused by an electrical short over the centerfuel tanks, conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

#7 Chicken Kiev:

Because the small implements CAUSED the September 11 attacks!

I disagree. Beyond the obvious (the crazies wielding the implements were what caused the attacks), the problem onboard was the culture of passivity that had been dictated by decades of "don't resist the hijackers" mentality. Hijackers today attempting to take over a plane by wielding nail scissors wouldn't stand a chance; they'd do as well or better seizing wine bottles from First Class and wielding those. Personally, I think the new TSA rule is a welcome change.

#41 Jheka:

but the government had very good reasons to label both of those as accidents, even if they weren't

Such as? And why those two in particular, as opposed to, say, covering up Lockerbie and pretending it was an accident?

#53 E2M

Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182, a 727, over the North Park neighborhood west of I-805.

And water aerosol and smoke look entirely different.

You'd think that with all the people on Dockweiler Beach and Venice Beach and adjacent areas, and all the pleasure craft going to and fro from Marina del Rey, someone would have seen what happened. I'm sure there are eyewitnesses out there who do not know that an investigation is going on. Why? Because there is essentially no media coverage of this.

LA is saturated with media. Why is the story being broken by a Philadelphia radio station? And subsequently LGF?

Pilots aren't dumb. If he saw a smoke trail, he was fired upon by a bogey.

I guess we can count our blessings that the bad guys have bad aim, eh?

#65 OR

You've got a point there. We wouldn't just sit there watching ourselves be overtaken by a guy with a pair of scissors. Things have changed.

Not to trivialize, but I find if vey difficult to think that a missle shot at a large plane from apparently close range would miss. If it was a missle, isn't it far more likely that the plane would have been shot down?

The fact that the FBI statement is absurd and patronizing notwithstanding, 'm of the opinion that we have a jumpy pilot who didn't meet his sleep quota.

a nuke could go off in downtown Chicago ... and they'd say it was just a bottle rocket.

Lord knows when I used to shoot bottle rockets they would usually end up in geosynchronous orbit around the earth. How fucking high does they government think they (and the public) can go? I'll bet you one thing for sure: whoever fired the missle probably practices a great, peaceful religion.

I remember that PSA 727. There was a phot of the plane going down, streaming flames from underneath the inner wing, and you could see the blurry faces of the passengers looking out the windows at the glow.

So it's not a bottle rocket. If it were a SAM, is it ironclad that it would have been picked up on radar?

Otherwise, as far as the source for the smoke trail, I'm going with abnormally flatulent migratory waterfowl.

Are we sure this isn't warren beatty?

if the plane was over the water west of LAX that means it had at least a couple thousand feet of altitude. the water is just west of the runways and you're over water very quickly every time you fly out of LAX.

i think its highly unlikely that a "bottle rocket" could reach such a speed and height that a pilot would see a visible smoke trail.

bottle rockets go hundreds of feet up, not thousands.

Bottle Rocket?

#68 zombie

That's a good question, but it kind of depends on what this is. If it's a daytime distress flare, it would go up, and then make smoke for several minutes, as it slowly parachutes down. They are designed to be seen. Someone would have seen it. Outside chance that it's a malfunctioning flare, but unlikely.

Even if it's a missle, it most likely would have been seen by somebody. Remember the 800+ eyewitnesses to TWA 800 all up and down Long Island? Remember how the press initially reported them, and then in less than 24 hours they vanished from the media?

This will interesting to watch; and see what eyewitness reports surface in the blogosphere.

#65 OR:

On 11/12/01 the US travel and tourism industry was just beginning to recover (I mysel was flying on the return leg of my first trip ... to Vegas ... since 9/11 on that day). If it was reported that terrorists had taken down another plane over a residential NY neighborhood, you could have pretty much stuck a fork in the airlines and every city and industry that depended on tourism (not to mention places like Jamaica, Aruba, etc. that depend on American tourism). To get hit out of the blue (more or less) like we were on 9-11 is one thing ... to get hit again 2 months laetr when we supposedly had implemented safeguards and the government was telling us that it was safe to fly again ... well, that would have buckled U.S. confidence in a very real and significant way.

69 Bob's Kid

I guess we can count our blessings that the bad guys have bad aim, eh?

If it's a missle, it's most likely heat-seeking. We can count our blessings that Russian (or possibly Chinese) QC isn't up to snuff.

TO: Charles Johnson
RE: Sounds Like...

"The plane was over water when the pilot said he saw a smoke trail pass by the cockpit.

FBI agents believe it was a flare or a bottle rocket, but say they may never know if that’s what it actually was." -- Charles Johnson, citing report.

...BS to me.

A 'bottle rocket'? Yeah...sure... Like the thin trail of a bottle rocket would be noticed by a pilot travelling at 200+ mph.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Size DOES matter.]

If it's a missle, it's most likely heat-seeking. We can count our blessings that Russian (or possibly Chinese) QC isn't up to snuff.

Indeed. Ya know, I never much liked to fly under the best circumstances...stories like this are going to even more keep my on the ground where I can't fall far.

#60 Ed Mahmoud

John Wayne O.C. Airport noise abatement takeoff resrictions --

spooky isn't it, taking off nearly straight up then loose your cookies on the weightless bellyflop at about 3000 ft throttleback.

They've been doing this for some time, and I'll my bud who flies America West if the train in the simulator about losing an engine just at that moment.

I would expect that if so, and they train for it, nosing down and increasing throttle quickly enough would avert a stall ...

... but euwww there's always those important hydraulic lines in the wings to worry about, not to mention fuel cells haning out there in the wings.

No. 62 Jheka:

Wow, where did the will go? If anything, I want to extinct these islamics even more now than on 9-11.

I'm fed up.

Something to do with the will to live, and in a decent way too.

#80 Jheka:

Dude, I enjoy your writing, but this post is pure speculation, and carries a whiff of Indymedia about it, to be perfectly frank. Sounds a bit like "the evil Bush regime LIED to protect the Big Corporate Tourism Industry". I'd need a LOT more evidence to believe that than "the tourism industry was just starting to recover [really? compared to? did we all know that at the time?] so it would have looked bad so it MAY have happened this way". And you skipped over my related query on TWA 800--what was particularly time-critical that made THAT alleged "coverup" necessary? Was there anything wrong with the US tourism industry in July of 1996?

I don't do much flying anymore, but if I ever go to SoCal again I'll try to avoid that airport.

#12 Michael_in_TN - I haven't seen any news story which indicated how high the airliner was when the smoke trail went past. I agree that no bottle rocket I've EVER heard of could go more than a few hundred feet tops. Some Flares will go 2,500 or 3,000 feet, but I've never heard of one going past 5000 feet.
Do you have a link for where you saw the height of the airliner when the smoke trail went past it? I would also imagine that an airliner is moving pretty quickly a few thousand feet after take off and the report said that the smoke trail went PAST the airliner. And this was reported by the pilot, not some UFO or crazy type of passenger.

Bottle rocket? Fire this moron now! If your going to lie at least try to make sense.

I'd rather the FBI said nothing, keeping it to, "We're looking into it," instead of saying something that sounds suspiciously inadequate. It would make me have more confidence in the FBI as an agency. Right now, they just sound condescending or worse, clueless. As a member of John Q. Public, I can appreciate our law enforcement agencies can't give away too much, lest they tip off hostiles, but being talked down to is very annoying. Public Relations, dudes! Can-do-better. Cleaning out the jihadi moles in the agency would also do a lot to restore public confidence.
Now, off hand explanations like bottle rockets and flares - who is allowed shoot those things off next to an airport anyway? We're talking a very short trajectory - think of the speed an aircraft is going on take-off - they had cleared the runway and were over water. Because an aircraft is so large, it appears to be moving slower than it really is. The pilot reported that the smoke trail PASSED by the cockpit of the plane. With that reporting, bottle rockets and flares (colored smoke anyone) don't really cut it.

#13 Chicken Kiev
Okay, not those small implements exactly. Not a scissor or a screwdriver, but hell.

Why the f&^* would anyone be taking a screwdriver onto a plane?

I despair for our future. This is not a good morning for me.

Perhaps they work for a living. I used to carry toolkits containing a 3# drilling hammer, battery-powered saws, screwdrivers (one with a 12' shank), etc. in a former job.
This was before 9-11, and I perferred carry-on so I could be sure the needed tools would get where I was going.

#86 Occasional Reader

Was there anything wrong with the US tourism industry in July of 1996?

No, but there was an election coming up.

#91 razorbacker

Me too, carried it in my briefcase onboard so it wouldn't end up in Boston when I was in Virginia Beach.

Now I can't even carry my tiny needlenose pliers.

93 Sarah D

Now I can't even carry my tiny needlenose pliers.

'Tis a different, though not necessarily better, world in which we live.

#92 Earth2:

No, but there was an election coming up.

Oh, come on.

There's always an election coming up, or bad news that needs a "distraction" to be forgotten, or some alleged motive from which one can spin a conspiracy theory. But to jump from that to, "the US government deliberately lied about a terrorist attack, AND bribed/threatened/brainwashed dozens if not hundreds of FAA/DOT/NTSB investigators and other personnel to play along"... sorry, I'm not playing.

#82 Chuck Pelto

Hey Man, long time no "Good Cop, Bad Cop routine".

I think other than a longstanding series of miracles from G_d we will lose an airliner eventually.

When the Russians start losing them too, they may cut back on sale of Shoulder fired MANPAD's.

From Michael Yon's "Devil's Foyer", Mosul. I think his follow on said 35 or so of these were operational.

So there's alot of this stuff Floating around and recent convictions show plenty of people willing to import them into the U.S. and 3 Al Queda caught at the Arizona Mexican Border.

In time it's going to happen, then watch the video of the celebrations in Gaza and Jennin.

I agree, and airspeed over the ocean after takeoff was probably 300-400+ and climbing so at least 3,000-6,000 ft and climbing.

If it was a bottle rocket or a flair with that kind of range & speed, e-mail me the manufacturer.

So fly out of Burbank or Ontario, Oakland, Sacramento and Philly not JFK/LaGuardia. O'Hare and Detroit will be a problem.

The article doesn't say anything about altitude. If he had just rotated and passed over the beach, it could be a flare. I wonder what their max altitude was over the ocean, as they wer making their u-turn headed back toward Chicago?

Hare are those LAX pictures again, for some perspective:

California Coastal Records Project

Microsoft TerraServer

Re: my number 88, I just found a source (can't vouch for it's validity) which says the airliner was at 6,600 feet when the "object" went flying PAST it. Also, apparently AA has not flight log times or other normal information on that flight.
[Link: www.dailypundit.com...]

Read the ending portion of this column written by a pilot:

Now, you'd think if noise abatement was involved the power would come back sooner to keep the noise level down somewhat. Not so! In fact, noise abatement procedures often include reducing power later (higher) than we normally would. Why? Because it is more effective to gain altitude more quickly, putting the source of the noise higher and thus farther away faster than if we reduced our power at a lower altitude.

Probably the very best example of this is the takeoff from SNA (Santa Ana's John Wayne Airport) where we take off with maximum power, then maintain this to a somewhat higher altitude than what would be considered standard for most airports in the U.S. I get many letters from passengers who mistakenly think the noise abatement procedure at SNA must be dangerous because they think we immediately reduce our power after takeoff, but the exact opposite is true. We actually keep our maximum power longer than we do at other, less noise-sensitive airports.

Throughout our climb you'll hear and feel power being repeatedly added, then taken off again. This is for precisely the same reason we adjust our power numerous times during the descent phase of our flight which I wrote about in a previous column. Air traffic control will always issue us an initial climb altitude. Taking off from Chicago O'Hare, for instance, we'll normally get an initial assigned altitude of 5,000 feet. Out of LAX it's usually just 3,000 feet. We may or may not have to level off at this initial altitude depending upon how quickly ATC assigns us a higher altitude, but we "step up" to our cruise altitude in increments just like we "step down" during descent, climbing in increments until reaching our cruise altitude.

So, it looks like the plane could have been at 3,000 feet, which is more easily reached by a rocket of some kind.

95 Occasional Reader

And the official report defies the laws of physics. I'm not playing.

97 Ward Cleaver - see my #98. 6,600 feet altitude.

Reminds me of PIA 712 off the coast of N.Y. in 1996. In the recording, the tone of the comment at the end 'Firecrackers don't go past 16,000' is priceless.

PIA 712: It was a streak of light like some kind of a large firecracker rocket or something like that coming from below ... from the coast side - left to right ... climbing beyond our altitude. At that time we were about 16,000 feet.
FAA: OK. Thanks very much.

FAA: Yea ... we had a Pakistan just reported ... looked like a firecracker that was passing from left to right about 30 miles south of Hampton.
TWA 884: 884 heavy thank you.
TWA 884: Firecrackers don't go past 16,000
FAA: I hear ya!

Anyone remember the terrorist attack on the hotel somewhere in Africa targeting Israeli's? The same terrorist group also attempted to bring down aircraft using a couple of 'old' shoulder fired missiles, but failed because the batteries used to finalize the targeting were too weak. I think they were old Russian, or Chinese models.

It's been reported that some of these same type of shoulder fired missiles have been seen in Mexico. It sure wouldn't be a major problem for them to bring something smuggled into Mexico across the border.

I'm with ojoe on how I feel about the Islamofacists. I can barely tolerate seeing them on the street, but if anything major should happen, all bets are off!

Obviuosly a bottle rocket or flare is rediculous, but something about this doesn't add up.

A SAM is a heat seeker, right? As such, it isn't just going to miss a commercial airliner that did not even know it was there and took no evasive action.

And suppose it was not a heetseeker...just some portable straight line missle that is not navigatable. Certainly they would have to know that their chances of successfully hitting a moving jet at that distance are closer to none than slim. So why waste the missle on a virtually impossible shot that won't even have the added bonus of landing in the city in the event of a miss?

They take the trouble to get this thing, put it on a boat and get in position just to take a pot shot and let the thing land in the ocean?

If terror was the goal, fire it at a building, a school bus, a bridge or a boat. SOmething that would make sure Americans would know they were hit and be "terrorized". Something that can't be covered up.

These terrorist train and plan for this stuff. A pot shot that splashes down in the water seems pretty suspicious too, doesn't?

Out of LAX it's usually just 3,000 feet.

Seems like the jihadis would be attracted to LAX?

#82 Chuck Pelto

Looking at the map, you're probably right.

Still, speed and altitude would have been beyond anything I can think of that would reach it other than a really really big Model Rocket on the beach.

A MANPAD from a small boat or large jet ski.

95 OR

There's always an election coming up, or bad news that needs a "distraction" to be forgotten, or some alleged

Admit it.
You're channeling Tommie Lee Jones, from MiB, right?

It's a Bush/Rove plan to allow the US to invade another "innocent" Mid-East nation.

/moonbat off

Chris69

Don't assume too much.

The heatseeking SAMS fired at the Israeli Passenger jets last year also missed.

They seem to have about a 50/50 60/40 hit capablility even when handled by cool calm military professionals.

#99 zombie

So, it looks like the plane could have been at 3,000 feet, which is more easily reached by a rocket of some kind.

Not really. Bottle rockets are only good for a few hundred feet. I don't know about a distress flare (the most innocent possible explainiation), but I don't think that they are good to 3000 ft. That would leave some fool trying to launch an Estes type rocket, and a very large one at that, off of a boat, when he knew that an airplane was overhead. Possible, but if so, that dolt should serve some time. What kind of an idiot shoots model rockets off of boats, when there are airplanes flying overhead?

A terrorist remains a possibility until demonstrated otherwise.

Added thought, LAX is on the jihadi top ten hit list, anything that is odd there is worth be concerned about. Someone once researched why - I don't remember who it was - commenting after the first attack on the World Trade Center in the early 1990s - that symbolism is everything and that the World Trade Center was the epitomie of Western arrogance. It was because of that man's analysis that made me so furious when the Towers were hit on 9/11. It was in the public domain thus for years before that the jihadis would keep trying, in order to finish the job. (some poster will be able to identify the name I hope - this should ring some bells).
Most LGF readers are aware of all this history - just refreshing it in light of this report.
LAX is a known target - the jihadi aprpehended at the Canadian border with explosives was one attempt (that we know about).
I have never understood why LAX specifically is so irritating to jihadis. Anybody know the rational? Did Osama bin Laden get a bad meal there once? It's not a particularly distinctive place - it's not like it's a national monument or anything. Any inputs?

#107 sgt tom:

You're channeling Tommie Lee Jones, from MiB, right?

"Why else would they hold it in Queens?"

104 Chris69

As such, it isn't just going to miss a commercial airliner that did not even know it was there and took no evasive action.

That assumes two things; that it's wasn't defective (how do you test such a device?), and that there isn't a minimum distance required for the heat-seeking guidance mechanism to stabilize.

#96 Havoc

I agree, and airspeed over the ocean after takeoff was probably 300-400+ and climbing so at least 3,000-6,000 ft and climbing.

Depending on how far offshore, the altitude could be in the 2000 - 4000 ft range. Takeoff procedure at LAX is that the aircraft remains on line with the runway until feet wet (crosses the coast) - and generally will be at 1000-1500 right at that point. It's possible they could be higher than 4K if further offshore as they turn east. However, your speed estimates are way off. For the most of this part of the takeoff, the aircraft is under 250 knots - and they hold around that speed until they climb above 10K.

I find it very strange that a flare / bottle rocket of any type would be visible / noticeable by a airliner pilot during this phase of takeoff.

Remember the LA / LAX based FBI - Homeland Security teams took 8 months to declare a July 4th shooting and killing of 2 people at the El Al checkin counters in the Bradley Terminal by an islamofascist Egyptian an act of terrorism - they spent the entire time prior playing down any terrorism connection. This seems very similar.

I fly all the time, and I think of all the Stinger missles that are unaccounted for. We gave thousands to the Taliban when they were our pals fighting the Soviets (Including Osama)

I think how easy it would be to observe flight patterns from major airports and fire off a smuggled stinger missle. If I think about it, tell me terrorists have not thought about it. FBI is probably scrambling right now and throwing this ludicrious "bottle rocket," cover story out there for idiots to consume.

Following is just a small bit about the current threat from a casual Google:

There are now thousands of Stinger missiles in the hands of many rogue governments and various terrorist groups around the world and, according to the FBI, in the hands of local groups here in the U.S. On June 12, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arrested two persons on a sting operation in West Palm Beach, Florida after the two were about to trade a large amount of heroin for stinger missiles. In addition, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that hundreds of Stinger missiles went missing during the Gulf War and it is a common fact that the CIA supplied over 1,000 Stinger missiles to the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan to fight the soviets. Also, Red China stole the plans for Stinger missiles and they now manufacture thousands of them each year which they do not hesitate to use in trade with rogue governments which in turn supply them to terrorist groups.

112 OR
Bingo!

Yeah, too many strange issues going on in flying these days...
I don't like to get into conspiracy theories, and I certainly don't mind if the authorities want to pronounce it as "swamp gas" as long as I'm pretty convinced that they're on top of this... I'm just concerned that we're going to get blindsided again.

And as far as the notion that it's silly to waste a shot with an older weapon... it's just as silly to strap a bomb belt on and go splodey-dope, but it happens.

Most of our guys in the AOR are pleased that the jihadis are such bad shots.

and it is a common fact that the CIA supplied over 1,000 Stinger missiles to the Mujhadeen in Afghanistan to fight the soviets.

On *those*, at least, my understanding is that their guidance systems have built-in obselescence and are now worthless.

#101 realwest

Thanks.

The coastline website is pretty cool. It's run by some el cubo and his wife. They've taken pictures from a helicopter of the CA coastline. Except around Vandenburg AFB, where DoD told them they couldn't take any pictures.

Moonbat Barbra Streisand sued them over a picture that includes her estate in Malibu:

Linky

Something else to consider - most of the hand held heat seekers don't have very effective all round heat detectors - the SA7 / Stinger variant really need a good heat source view - which means from the rear of the a/c.

On a boat offshore, they will be trying to get their initial lock from the front aspect of the airliner. Also, the aircraft as they take off are at full throttle - the largest heat bloom. But soon after takeoff, they also throttle back to a more economical maneuver / climb rate which will diminish the heat bloom. It's very possible a missile fired at this point, from the front, would not have a very strong lock - making the odds of a miss higher even with a trained operator.

#110 Earth2moonbat

What would be the effect of the turbulance of a an airplane of this size versus the small mass of a "bottle rocket" or "flare?"

The plane is in full take-off mode, engines going full tilt, right? Lots of power, lots of lift, lots of "whoosh."
Just how many posters have actually shot off a bottle rocket or flare? (I see have few have bottle rockets have been mentioned - can you all confirm just how SMALL we're talking? Ours were mostly cardboard - wouldn't give it much odds of holding ANY kind of trajectory in the wash of a commercial aircraft.)

earth2mb and Havoc

I guess you may be right.

It just seems to me that if they had a weapon like that and were that close to Los Angeles they could have arranged a no-doubt-about-it success over a 50/50 or 60/40 shot at yet another plane.

What kind of air defense to we maintain in that area? I am just wondering about a scenario where one of our own missles fired, erroneously or through malfunction (no conspiracy theory), and then the ground crew grabbed control of it and made it miss.

I watched something on History channel last night about our ability to control or destroy such a missile if it is 'out of control'

Makes the FBI's "maybe it was a bottle rocket...guess we'll never know!" line make a little more sense.

115 jehu

Which raises a question in my mind (anyone out there have an idea?) of what the shelf life of a stinger it. They must be getting pretty old by now, and I don't know how easy it is for a jihidi to overhaul them. If this was a stinger, possibly a battery of other perishable part wasn't working.

wanumba

I have never understood why LAX specifically is so irritating to jihadis. Anybody know the rational? Did Osama bin Laden get a bad meal there once? It's not a particularly distinctive place - it's not like it's a national monument or anything. Any inputs?

Cause along with NYC it is the media center of the world, or rather LA and Hollywood. And what could be more terrible to the Islamo-facist mind than Hollywood? All those half naked extremely stupid women what just love your terrorist ass. And then you have men like Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins on your side? Heck no wonder they want to blow it up.

120 wanumba

I was think of that myself; a distress flare, caught in the turbulence of the plane, might have had its parachute torn off. I would still expect it to be seen by people on the beach, and boaters, though. And besides, flares are very rarely used these days, because people call for help with cell phones.

#86 OR:

Of course its speculation. What else could it possibly be? However, I would posit that an attack that successfully took down an airliner AND hit residences on 11/12 would have been devastating to the national psyche to such a degree that, if it HAD been a terrorist attack, the government would have been smart to not reveal it as one if at all possible. I'll remind you that the declarations that it was not a terrorist incident came out almost immediately ... much too quickly for the people who were making them to actually know for sure one way or the other.

Whether or not it was a terrorist attack, it would not have been reported as one ... and rightly so (just because it's a coverup doesn't mean that it's a bad thing). I don't know if it was a terrorist attack. I would not be aeven a little bit surprised to learn that it was.

As for TWA #800, I just don't know one way or the other ... planes crash but there have been plenty of good questions raised about that incident. Obviously, if it was taken down by a missile, either shot by terrorists or (politically) worse, our own armed forces, there would be plenty of motivation to cover that up.

121 Chris69

I am just wondering about a scenario where one of our own missles fired, erroneously or through malfunction (no conspiracy theory), and then the ground crew grabbed control of it and made it miss.

These have no ground control capability. Once it's fired, it's on it's own. The heat-seeking control isn't foolproof, though.

The best defense against such a thing is a bunch of flares, which distract the missle.

Anyone recall that just three years ago (almost to the day) terrorists shot missiles at an Israeli airliner? Those missed too.

#122 Earth2Moonbat

Which raises a question in my mind (anyone out there have an idea?) of what the shelf life of a stinger it. They must be getting pretty old by now, and I don't know how easy it is for a jihidi to overhaul them. If this was a stinger, possibly a battery of other perishable part wasn't working.

My thinking also, if it was a stinger it may have malfunctioned. They are deadly at under 10,000 feet. But if fired from a boat in front of the plane, may have not had enough heat signature to lock, or may have been old. Don't know the shelf life.

Same thing with suitcase nukes. Which according to the "Al Queada Connection," the terrorists probably have. Osama was bilked out of 200 million from some Russians for fake suitcase nukes...I don't imagine he has quit trying. Problem with those nukes are they are maintenance intensive.

And it requires specialized and sophisticated knowledge to keep them viable...something about all the triggering mechanisms. We have not been hit, I think, simply because of disruption of their networks and plans. But all it takes is one nuke, or dirty bomb, or a case of Stingers.

Heck a bunch of the bastards could suicide bomb a Mall, or walk through one with AK 47's and cause havoc. We keep having this debate with liberals, instead of going full-tilt war against these bastards. We will get hit again...just a matter of time. I can only wish the hit is in the center of Berkely to reduce damage to sane Americans

#123 jehu

post

Cause along with NYC it is the media center of the world, or rather LA and Hollywood. And what could be more terrible to the Islamo-facist mind than Hollywood? All those half naked extremely stupid women what just love your terrorist ass. And then you have men like Sean Penn, and Tim Robbins on your side? Heck no wonder they want to blow it up.

Now, lets go back to #118 Ward Cleaver's post about Barbra Streisand's Malibu house.

To save LAX, there are maps of celebrity homes...let their butch security guards deal with the jihadis and leave the regular schleps alone at LAX.

I suppose the problem is, there are no people at the HOLLYWOOD sign so it isn't worth the powder to blow it up.

According to this, marine distress flares typically go up about 250'. Scratch that theory.

#128 Jheka

Really? What was the exact date? Numbers, anniversaries, always significant.

122 Earth2moonbat

Shelf life of stingers

In 1999, the Indian government claimed that Muslim rebels in Kashmir used a Stinger to down a military helicopter, killing all five soldiers on board.

So why waste the missle on a virtually impossible shot that won't even have the added bonus of landing in the city in the event of a miss?

I thought the jihadis were devolving from trained specialists to amateur stand-ins and small independent groups.

Me, I'm picturing some jihadi wannabee looking up and going ""Crap, it missed! This was harder than I thought. I told Abdul we needed to smuggle in more than one rocket."

My mother-in-law is flying into LAX Sunday. -shudder-

Once upon a time, unidentified flying objects were called UFOs.

Now it seems they become missiles.

Airbus isn't the only plane manufacturer that encountered design problems; Boeing and MD (rememeber Flight 261?) had theirs too. But apparently saying this is not allowed.

#114 Athos

I agree with you on closer scrutiny.

Likely the Pilot not only got interviewed extensively by FBI FAA, but likely also "Advised" to keep his mouth totally shut or have his flight medical pulled and time to hit the unemployment line.

Obviously I am not military, so I am not overly familiar with these things. I just watched a Modern Marels last night on 'Firing Ranges' and it talked about how we train pilots and SAM crews over the California desert with missiles that they can control if needed because they are so close to possible civilian populations.

Thought maybe we would have the same type of missile near a major metropolitan area, just in case.

The fact that the missiles fired at the Isreali airliners also missed just makes me think all the more though that the terrorists would learn not to waste a valuable munitions in such a way when it could be used to definately hit something. Had they fired it at the city it would have hit at least something and caused the desired affect.

If they had such a missile close enough to LA to hit a skyscraper, or cruise north and hit the Golden Gate Bridge, then the speculation that they could also shoot down a plane would have been more effective than this miss.

#133 Keep and Bear

Probably not, the stinger were designed to have an unreplaceable battery and shelf life of just a couple years as I recall.

However "Russian" made MANPAD s
have flooded asia, Africa and probably south america too.

Judith

You are very probably right. LOL

#61 Earth2moonbat

Not to get sidetracked on TWA 800, but I think the blogosphere and several websites pretty much debunked the center fuel tank theory. Not enough altitude for an explosive mixture. Their credibility is already running on empty.

Kinda like the way it's been "proven" that the WTC was rigged for demolition, and that there is no longer any credibility in the theory that the heat from the fires caused the collapse?

FBI agents believe it was a flare or a bottle rocket

Do we only hire retards at the FBI?

133 keepandbear

It's hard to tell from that whether or not there is a shelf life issue (the 1999 incident was against a helicopter, which may not have required a working heat-seeking guidance system), but the fact that there are other SAMs out there makes it somewhat moot. They are going to have access to them, one way or another.

#141 Beagle

Interesting question.

One would hope that a "No Comment" would be better than something so obviously lame.

140 Spiny Norman

No, not like that. Kerosene doesn't have enough vapor pressure to produce an explosive mixture at that altitude.

Bottle rocket? I have to think that an experienced pilot knows a vapor trail when he or she sees one. If that was a bottle rocket then the double stuffed oreo cookies I'm scarfing down at my desk are only 10 calories apiece, the check's in the mail, and I was only going 2 mph over, officer. Hey FBI, who are you fooling?

#104 Chris69

So why waste the missle on a virtually impossible shot that won't even have the added bonus of landing in the city in the event of a miss?

Perhaps they were counting on the hand of Allah to guide their missile? This is the kind of claim they make all the time.

#143 Athos

One would hope that a "No Comment" would be better than something so obviously lame.

Over water, "smoke trail passes cockpit" I'm thinking that rules bottle rocket right out. I guess I should have called them "problem-denying slaves to political correctness" to avoid offending legitimately mentally-challenged people who could be relied on to attempt to do their job.

29-who watches--Yeah I remember that...
The guys with the briefcase in the skiff and the reports of the red beam going up and how the reports and/or people were hushed up quick.

Oh yeah the descriptions of the leather shoes and the suits too.Lots of details.

I can't believe we are talking about flares and bottle rockets.That is stupid, isn't it?

Sounds more like a SA-7...SA-28 which didn't lock on properly. Or, a very large hobby rocket. Bottle rocket or flare is something I'd say if a passenger reported seeing something out a side window. Pilots don't report things unless they are pretty sure they saw something out of the ordinary.

#132 wanumba:

11/28/2002

#135 FabioC.

Airbus isn't the only plane manufacturer that encountered design problems; Boeing and MD (rememeber Flight 261?) had theirs too. But apparently saying this is not allowed.

Oh, it's allowed alright: even though the DC-10's design flaws (a non-failsafe cargo hatch mechanism, and insufficient ventilation in case of sudden decompression) were fixed, McDonnell Douglas was forced out of the civilian airliner business (because passengers refused to fly on their planes), along with Lockheed (ditto: their L-1011 looked too much like the DC-10), and Boeing is not likely to survive for much longer. Within a decade (or less), the Airbus government-subsidised consortium will be the only airline manufacterer. For better or worse.

Lockheed and Boeing will continue to get military contracts, until, that is, the next Democrat administration slashes the Defense budget.

Would a missile show up on radar?

A bottle rocket isn't going to do that. Whatever idiot came up with that conclusion needs to be fired!

#144 Earth2moonbat

No, not like that. Kerosene doesn't have enough vapor pressure to produce an explosive mixture at that altitude.

Oh yes, just like that. Kerosene supposedly cannot generate enough heat to destroy a steel-and-concrete skyscaper, either.

There is not one shred of evidence of a bomb or a missile strike in the wreckage of Flight 800. You're starting to sound like a moonbat yourself. Quit it.

Earlier this year LGF carried a thread about a possible missile fired at a passenger jet taking off from Kennedy Airport in NYC.

It's interesting that both reports come from major airports in our two biggest cities.

147 Rayra

Why bother? They've got mosques adjacent to the threshholds of all the major airports in Los Angeles.

That may also be in the plans, but these jihadis aren't a very diciplined and well-coordinated bunch; they all want to do their own thing. Somebody may have just got a wild hair. Don't look for any logic in chosing targets or methods.

Oh yeah... a bottle rocket... this is too scary and too crazy.. why not let everyone know... people out in their boats might actually be on the lookout for suspicious behavior...

Why try to hide this?

#156 Spiny Norman

You don't understand what you're talking about. A vapor-air mixture can't explode if the concentration of the fuel is below a certain level. It has nothing to do with the amount of heat generated in a building. Leave the physics to people who understand it.

137 Chris69

I just watched a Modern Marels last night on 'Firing Ranges' and it talked about how we train pilots and SAM crews over the California desert with missiles that they can control

Wire-guided most likely, although I haven't seen the segment you refer to...
But I have trained out there...

#141 Beagle

Do we only hire retards at the FBI?

Shh. They're practicing taqqiya.

If a missile went whizzing past the airplane and didn't hit anything, shouldn't it (or its fragments) have fallen back into Santa Monica Bay, and shouldn't divers be sweeping the ocean bottom with metal detectors as we type?

And if they do find pieces of a missile, are they going to tell us?

BTW, is there any law that forbids the pilots of that flight from going public on a news broacast with what they saw?

Note to #52, Oldjoe: Even if the ROP'ers cut off Nancy Pelosi's head, she wouldn't shut up.

#60 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades 12/2/2005 09:44AM PST

said:
Unless, they were leaving John Wayne Airport. Scariest airport in the world, to make the rich people happy, as soon as the plane gets airborne, (and we were warned, and it was still scary!) the pilot cuts way, way, back on the engines, and points the noise way, way high, and it feels as if the plane is getting ready to stall and crash. I suspect having an engine blown up at the moment it barely hs enough engine power to stay airborne would be a bad thing.
...
Ed, you are correct. I flew out of that airport for the first time a couple years ago and I thought we were going down. We were NOT warned about the power cutback. And I am very plane-savvy.

Any plane hit coming out of that airport most certainly will go down, because the pilots are running too close to stall speed to recover.

The history channel had an interesting story on the TWA flight 800 incident. There were several people convinced that the plane was brought down by a shoulder launched sam. Basically, a boat would have been rented and anchored in the flight path, where the rocket would have been launched. The terrorists then escape by boat, never to be seen. Sounds like the same MO used in this incident.

#161 Earth2moonbat

You don't understand what you're talking about.

I DO know what I'm talking about: there is not one shred of evidence of a bomb or a missile strike in the wreckage of Flight 800. Period. The damage radiated out from the central fuel tank. There is no bomb residue of any kind.

TO: Havoc
RE: Not Me

"So fly out of Burbank or Ontario, Oakland, Sacramento and Philly not JFK/LaGuardia. O'Hare and Detroit will be a problem." -- Havoc

I prefer to drive across and enjoy this gorgeous country God has given us.

Give me a good convertable, e.g., '97 Toyota Celica, good tunes, e.g., an MP3 player with my own collection of tunes on discs I burned, good company, i.e., my main squeeze, good navigation, i.e., the G4 laptop with GPS and an open road and I'm on vacation.

Merry Christmas, compadre...

Chuck(le)

So if it happens again... will the FTSB and the FBI again claim it was an explosion in the fuel tanks...

/yes, they believe we are that gullible

#153 Spiny Norman

Boeing is not likely to survive for much longer.

They just got a huge contract with Cathay Pacific for a fleet of 777s, and an order from Qantas is also pending.

I can only wish the hit is in the center of Berkely to reduce damage to sane Americans

Please no...I've two sons at Berkeley...!

Gawwwd. I think I've wandered into an Indymedia "government conspiracy" thread.

TO: Jehka
RE: TWA 800

"Obviously, if it was taken down by a missile, either shot by terrorists or (politically) worse, our own armed forces, there would be plenty of motivation to cover that up." -- Jehka

My personal opinion is an assassination of the just-resigned-and-apparently-fleeing-the-country VP of ABC News.

He and his entire family were onboard that ill-fated flight.

What he knew, we'll likely never know; this side of the plae.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I have no idea how sensitive ATC radars are, but a man portable missile is, by definition, pretty small, orders of magnitude smaller than even the smallest private plane.

I doubt jihadis would use a mosque as a base of attack like that. It would draw the heat down on them. They might plan it all from the mosque, but they'd probably fire the missiles from somewhere else.

BTW, I just went down to Champs to buy a XXL hooded Burnt Orange sweatshirt so I can handle the brutal -2^oC temperatures as I walk to my car next Thursday, and while it is now winter (that solstice stuff is astronomy, not weather) I couldn't help but think about Hurricane Epsilon.

The sun will be setting soon, so you can also enjoy this false color enhanced IR loop.

167 Spiny Norman

Let me clarify something. I never (search the whole thread) said that a missle took 800 down. I said that the center fuel tank did not explode from an electrical fault. It's physically impossible. Not unlikely, impossible. I never said what did happen, only what didn't happen. The official report is based on a physical impossibility.

Vapor pressure is a function of temperature, not altitude/pressure.

Assuming the fuel tank, being internal to the aircraft, was somewhat insulated from the outside environment, there is no reason the fuel would be anywhere near that cold.

Spiny

Hey Spiny...

So whose administration was in charge when it happened?

Clinton...

Why did the FBI come in right away and usurp the NTSB? How often had the FBI come in and taken away an airliner accident investigation from the NTSB before this incident? Why was the FBI called in the day of the accident?

But in the end it is my opinion versus yours... if it makes me a conspiracy freak, so be it.

Ed and others

How far was the plane from the tower? Do we know the bottom limit of what can be seen on radar at that distance? Do we know which direction the plane was turning? If the object flew past the plane, tail to nose, extrapolating a range for point of origin is possible.

I'll sleep soundly tonight. The intrepid truth-seekers at the LA Times are probably putting their best reporters on this. /

In the PIA 712 incident it is the pilot who first uses the term 'fireworks'. It seems like he's intentionally leaving everyone the option of dismissing the entire event. At one point he starts to say 'rocket' and catches himself and says 'firecracker rocket or something like that'.

As a commercial pilot he has to know a 'firecracker rocket' wouldn't streak by his aircraft 'climbing beyond our altitude' when he's at 16,000 feet.

Just as in the PIA 712 incident, the AA 621 event is on tape. I wonder if the AA pilot used the term 'bottle rocket'?

TO: Rayar
RE: Got Proof?

"They've got mosques adjacent to the threshholds of all the major airports in Los Angeles." -- Rayar

That's an interesting report. Especially if it is correct.

I wonder if there is a pattern of behavior here that someone should be looking at.

It would not be too difficult to confirm this report and correlate it, if accurate, against the report of the pilot, for investigation.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

#147 Rayra:

I've never flown into or out of LAX, so I wasn't in a position to know. Guess it's time to fire up my FlightGear Flight Simulator and check it out.

#173 Spiny Norman:

Is it your opinion that the government never covers anything up? Aside from a (reasoned) discussion of possible government cover-ups in two incidents, what resemblance, in your opinion, does this thread bear to something that might appear at Indymedia?

I don't know enough about departure radar to have the foggiest whether something a couple of meters long and maybe 25 cm wide would be easily detected by radar.

#178 Amalie:

Why was the FBI called in the day of the accident?

Because terrorism was suspected. Which was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

It's quite a different thing to postulate a nine-year-long conspiracy which has effectively kept hundreds of investigators silent. What did they do, threaten these peoples' kids?

Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades

But concentration is vapor pressure over total pressure. As the total pressure rises, the concentration falls.

godfrey

Of course when I fly to Sydney or Thailand I shall be thinking about how those bottle rockets really do fly high these days...

Occasional Reader

If you put it that way... then I am wrong about what happened. I shall go ahead a book my flight to Sydney, it goes out of LAX..

I thought the IndyMedia version was that a Navy guided missile cruiser on exercises off New York shot down the TWA 747.

Of course, I find it hard to believe that 300+ sailors aboard ship would never have mentioned it to anybody, even if so ordered.

Is this thang on?

Waaay out of my area of expertise. Some radar absolutely would pick up a missile. For example, the radar on an F-22 Raptor. That's high-end radar.

Chaff (small pieces of foil) used to fool ordinary, primitive WWII radar. So, just guessing, something larger should appear on radar. The questions (IMO) are for how long and what a missile would look like compared to other, ordinary things.

amalie

I only get to thinking once the plane climbs to 5,280.0000106 feet.

;)

Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades

Assuming the fuel tank, being internal to the aircraft, was somewhat insulated from the outside environment, there is no reason the fuel would be anywhere near that cold.

Even at an assumed temperature of 120 F (which was used), at the altitude at which the plane was when it first exploded, the concentration of the fuel vapor was below the LEL. Again, the barometric pressure is critical, because concentration is vapor pressure (function only of temperature) divided by barometric pressure. The plane would have had to be 3000 ft higher for the mixture to reach the LEL of kerosene at that temperature.

Whoa!
That's a mile high...

godfrey

It's still safer to fly than to drive... the day before Thanksgiving I had to say a prayer and cover the body of a teenager who rolled his car and was thrown out on the pavement. If he had worn his safety belt he would have lived.

So flying is still safer. For now.

#60 Ed & #84 Havoc

Yes indeed, John Wayne is the scariest airport to take off from---but, hey, what's a little fear and danger for those lowly, plebian passengers, if it results in pristine peace and undisturbed quiet for the nature-loving, ecological-minded richies of the O.C.?

:>)

Seriously, the pinheads who live in the O.C. have a real obsession with "those awful noisy planes!" They're also obsessed with the evil of that horrendously evil---and noisy---place, El Toro Marine Base (even though it's now closed.) Exactly why this is, I've never been able to discover.

#111 Wanumba

Yes, I'm sure myself that they're going to keep trying, and trying, for LAX until they either succeed, or are smacked down for good. I'm not sure why this is; I suspect it's the symbolism of this proud, futuristic airport, smack dab in the middle of La-la land, and close to the So.Cal. beaches, where stud muffins and beach bunnies strut their stuff, with no fear of Allah, or sharia'a law.

Also, there might be something about the El Al terminal there that bothers them more than El Al usually does. (LAX has been attacked again---the terrorist who shot up the El Al ticket counter.) And, I remember, right after 9/11, they immediately closed down LAX---and kept it closed, and closed it down AGAIN for a while, shortly after its first re-opening. Something was going on there.

I'm happy to report that, after the 9/11 closing, a wealthy O.C. lady sued the airport, and the city of L.A., or maybe both. You see, when the airport closed, many of the businesses nearby closed too, including the lady's botox "doctor." She missed her appointment with him, which caused her servere emotional distress---maybe her face started melting into the shrimp cocktail at The Crab Cooker, during that intimate little dinner with the cute lifeguard?

I'll bet this lady politics endlessly to keep the planes from making too much noice at John Wayne. She probably hates El Toro, too.

 #193

godfrey  12/2/2005 12:02PM PST

amalie

I only get to thinking once the plane climbs to 5,280.0000106 feet.

Well, since I am at 7,000 ft, you can wave at me when your plane climbs higher.

Most major airports don't use Radio detecting and ranging radars. They use transponder receiver systems that "talk" to the aircraft's radio systems.

There are really very few airtraffic radars that actually see by reflection in the US mainland. Most are looking out to sea on over the north pole.

186- Yes, and as pressure falls, it would increase constant temperature.

Saying "constant temperature" reminds me of my P-Chem professor, Dr. Schechter. He loves these things called "Gibbs Relationships". Nothing to do with the Redskins. It had c_p and c_v and all these partial differentials, like the partial differential of entropy with pressure constant enthalpy or some such crap. Oh, how he loved talking about Gibbs Free Energy, which had something to do with contact angle of oil and water in porous media, although how it all fits together now, I don't know.

1) How do we know that if the fuel tanks are vented to atmosphere, such that their pressure at altitude would be lower than cabin pressure, or 2) if the tank was at altitude, but was insulated somewhat from the outside and not insulated well from the inside, such that the tank stayed warmer than the outside air, than the concentration of jet fuel would actually increase?.

I don't know for certain it wasn't a missile, but I got the impression the TWA plane was well above the operational ceiling of a man portable anti-aircraft missile when it exploded anyway.

#196 Amalie:

It's still safer to fly than to drive

Don't recall where I saw this, but on a per-mile basis, it's safer to fly than to walk, even.

210 OR

Don't recall where I saw this, but on a per-mile basis, it's safer to fly than to walk, even.

It's safer to fly than dance too!

OT

196 amalie

I see why a hot tub might be a business expense. You must be tough.

210 OR

Don't recall where I saw this, but on a per-mile basis, it's safer to fly than to walk, even.

It also depends on how one flies too.

200 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades

How do we know that if the fuel tanks are vented to atmosphere, such that their pressure at altitude would be lower than cabin pressure, or 2) if the tank was at altitude, but was insulated somewhat from the outside and not insulated well from the inside, such that the tank stayed warmer than the outside air, than the concentration of jet fuel would actually increase?.

The assumption for that calculation is 120 F. Cooling it would only make the concentration lower. Pressurizing the tank would do the same thing. Both of what you are suggesting would make the concentration lower, not higher. They used the absolute worst case assumptions possible, and it still didn't come out at or above the LEL.

#204 Amalie

It also depends on how one flies too.

You're probably light enough for an ultra-light.

Here is a homeland security paper on sholder fired sams if your interested

#188 song_and_dance_man

EgyptAir flight 990 Oct. 31, 1999 where it was speculated the co-pilot committed suicide by plane crash?

If it was suicide, it would certainly qualify as terrorism but I don't know what the cause was determined to be.

CNN link

#204 Amalie:

It also depends on how one flies too.

Personally, I tend to favor using the enormous batlike wings that unfold out of my back. You?

206 E2M

You're probably light enough for an ultra-light.

But am I crazy enough? :D

#197 TalkinKamel

It occurred before "quiet" engine technology began to make it's way into the fleet.

It's not the landings at O.C. airport that are noisy, it's the takeoffs and El Toro ... quiet engines isn't a part of military Spec.

If you lived at the end of the Runway here
you'd want some quiet too.

Hey, going weightless in a 727 is fun. They could actually charge more for this experience, but don't.

#210 Rayra:

go see what is next to the locations they've sited their bunkers at.

In my area, the Washington, DC Islamic Center is a dagger pointed at the heart of Rock Creek Park.

209 OR

Personally, I tend to favor using the enormous batlike wings that unfold out of my back. You?

I made a Magic Wish.. now I can fly... just have to take the right pill.

#207 keepandbear

That's kinda grim. The laser-guided ones would be virtually impossible to take measures against.

#215 Amalie

209 OR

Personally, I tend to favor using the enormous batlike wings that unfold out of my back. You?

I made a Magic Wish.. now I can fly... just have to take the right pill.

Well here you go. Just be sure to paint it flat Black and get the "BatGirl" logo on straight.

#216 Rayra:

That's where Chandra Levy's remains were found.

And it's less than a mile (-ish) from the "Good Guys" strip club in upper Georgetown! Goddam suspicious, if you ask me.

daily pundit -

FBI says it was just a contrail

[I hasten to add, "Good Guys" is a club where women strip, not Guys.]

217 Earth2moonbat

yep We're pretty much stuck with a prevention strategy.

And I'm not sure we have one

Air Traffic Control radar is effective in guiding airplanes because most aircraft have operating transponders on board that help illuminate the plane on radar screens by sending out an electroinc reply every time the radar pulse sweeps or "interigates" it.

Airplanes without a transponder (or one that is not operating properly) can be tracked via radar (known as a skin paint), but it is less detectible on the radar screen and takes some training and experience on the operator's part to be able to seperate the skin paint return from other clutter on his/her screen.

The likelihood of an air traffic controller in real-time seeing the skin paint of a small missle inflight is rather remote, IMO. Perhaps when the radar tapes are pulled and re-played something might be detectable.

Also, for those speculating on the speed of the aircraft at the time of the reported incident--private, commerical and even military aircraft (except those operating within the boundries of airspace reserved specifically for military operations) are prohibited by federal aviation regulations from exceeding 250 knots of indicated airspeed when flying below 10,000 feet of altitude.

The report gives 621 as the flight number. American eastbound trips are even-numbered whereas westbounds are odd. Trip 621 does land at Santa Ana but it is an inbound flight from Dallas.

No, lowering pressure but keeping temperature constant would increase concentration of gas.

But, again, the 747 was above the operational ceiling of any known man portable anti-air missile.

Did the Arabs sneak in a ship with a deck mounted missile launcher?

221 OR

Now now, no need to get all defensive.

225 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades

Doing a litlle PV=nRT?

224 Hulegu Khan

I did do some checking. Flight 612 does go from LAX to CHI town. Departs around 12:34 pm

got milk?

12:34 pm. Too much coffee for the pilot, then?

#225 Ed Mahmoud:

Did the Arabs sneak in a ship with a deck mounted missile launcher?

Not that I'm advocating the conpiracy-theory idea, but in all fairness, the terrorism possibility could of course include a bomb secreted on board, not just a missile fired at the plane.

This is one of several interesting websites:
Missile/Rocket Reports

and this...

TWA 800: Wreckage Missing, Cases Pending, Eight Years Later (and more)

and this...

Other Reports of Missiles or Rockets both before and after Flight 800

if there are any other "conspiracy theorists" such as moi out there.

godfrey

Irish Coffee maybe

#221 OR:

Years ago the best (or at least most up-scale) gentleman's club in San Francisco was a place called "Boys Toys." It didn't take them long at all to realize that they had really, really screwed up in picking out the name. I remember talking to one of their managers and him grumbling about it.

#227 godfrey:

Now now, no need to get all defensive.

Hey, I've never set foot in the place. Honestly. Now, "Camelot" on M Street, on the other hand...

225 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades

No, lowering pressure but keeping temperature constant would increase concentration of gas.

That's what I said. The worst case assumption is that the tank is vented to the outside (which IIRC is the case with them). In that case, altitude would affect concentration.

But, again, the 747 was above the operational ceiling of any known man portable anti-air missile.

I'm not saying what did happen, only what didn't.

#234 Jheka:

It didn't take them long at all to realize that they had really, really screwed up in picking out the name. I remember talking to one of their managers and him grumbling about it.

Indeed, having to disappoint a hopeful-looking Andrew Sullivan night after night must have been wearying.

#

217 Earth2moonbat 12/2/2005

#207 keepandbear

That's kinda grim. The laser-guided ones would be virtually impossible to take measures against.

At close range true.

it's the 350,000 to 500,000 in inventory number in the report that's the REALLY bad news.

Until all the perp countries proliferating start losing planes on a regular basis ... to their own MANPAD's, they'll keep it up ... it's cheap economic and psychological warfare for them until then.

This is a sad, sad story:

[Link: www.msnbc.msn.com...]

"A Navy pilot shot down over Iraq in January 1991 may have been captured by Iraqi forces, and members of the former Iraqi government “know the whereabouts” of the officer, the Navy has concluded.

The board also recommended that the Pentagon work with the State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and the Iraqi government to “increase the level of attention and effort inside Iraq” to resolve the question of Speicher’s fate."

Yes, do it but don't forget to read 'em their rights first...

Indeed, having to disappoint a hopeful-looking Andrew Sullivan night after night must have been wearying.

He was angling to be the opening act? "Wait, I do a fabulous living tableau of St. Sebastian!" "I said beat it, mac."

Ahhh... But apparently the story is NOT closed...

[Link: www.upi.com...]

#38 Earth2moonbat

Actually, after the model rocket motor finishes firing, there's a different section that produces smoke, to make tracking it easier. Depending on the motor, the smoke can go on for quite some time.

Having lived, and launched, in the suburbs of Chicago,I never went for altitude. I was more into speed. Flight System Inc was my friend. F-100s could hit mach 1 at about 300 feet, usually accompanied by the airframe's self-destruction. F-32s were more for a good kick at liftoff, with F-7s as sustainers. That *could* have reached 4000 feet, had we ever tried it.

It's possible, but highly unlikely, that it wasn't a missile. Occam's Razor suggests it wasn't a bottle rocket.

241 tfc3rid

The story you linked to is not that much different than the one posted by Charles. That story does not say they spent the WEEKEND investigating it. Since today is Friday, maybe they did close the case by now.

It does seem none of the stories have the right flight number.

#246 song_and_dance_man

Its easier to lay blame to an evil contrail, rather than combing the ocean floor for a spent rocket.

Assume this "missile" was a manpad. That makes the whole missile about 4 feet long and 4" in diameter. And you want to comb the ocean floor for something that size?

I'd rather search for the Loch Ness Monster.

#247 reaganite

I 'spect you have seen a few in the stockpiles that were disposed. More than a "few Thousand" still out there ?

Proilferation ... from the scientists

Proliferation
There are an estimated 500,000 MANPADS in the world today, many thousands of which are thought to be on the black market and therefore accessible to terrorists and other non-state actors.8 MANPADS are attractive to terrorists and insurgents because they are

* lethal - The history of MANPADS usage by guerrillas and terrorists underscores the efficacy of these weapons against both civilian and military targets. Estimates of deaths resulting from MANPADS attacks on civilian aircraft range from 500 to 1000.9 While most of these deaths were from attacks on smaller aircraft, the Congressional Research Service identified 5 cases in which large civilian turbojet aircraft were targeted. In two of the five cases, the outcome was catastrophic - all people on board were killed.10

Insurgent groups seek MANPADS because they are effective against attack helicopters and other aircraft that are used in counter-insurgency operations. During the Soviet occupations of Afghanistan, rebels used U.S.-supplied Stinger missiles to damage or destroy hundreds of aircraft, degrading the threat from Soviet airpower.11

* highly portable and concealable - MANPADS are around 5 feet long and weigh approximately 30 to 40 pounds.12 They fit in a gulf club bag, in the back of a truck, or in the cargo area of a small boat.

* inexpensive - Early model MANPADS can be acquired on the black market for several thousand dollars. In exceptional circumstances, that price can drop to as low as a few hundred dollars; manpads pilfered from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's massive arms stockpiles were later purchased by the Coalition Provisional Authority for a mere $500 apiece. While later generation manpads cost significantly more (>$30,000), they are still within easy reach of well financed terrorist and criminal groups.13

Ease of Use and Vulnerability
With proper training, MANPADS are relatively simple to operate. All the user has to do is visually acquire the target, and activate the automatic target lock and launch system by pulling a trigger. The missile then uses infrared and/or other seeking capabilities to home in on the target.14

#248 Havoc

I 'spect you have seen a few in the stockpiles that were disposed. More than a "few Thousand" still out there ?

I've blown up close to a thousand during my time.

The thing is, most are junk. They're in an unusable condition. You can't hide these things in the basement for a few years and expect them to work. You may get them to launch (maybe) most won't track and even less will actually detonate.

That's why they have "use by" dates.

#249 song_and_dance_man

Dang... forgot the /sarc tag.

Oops! I took your comment wrong. I was skimming the thread and read some amazing hyperbole!

Hey and don't kid about the monster, I hear its for real.

Don't forget about Big Foot!

Some of the conspiracy theorists on this thread really need to up their meds.

#251 reaganite:

Some of the conspiracy theorists on this thread really need to up their meds.

NO WAY. The government puts things in all the pills now so that they can track us by satellite. I read it on the internet.

#252 Occasional Reader

I read it on the internet.

Then it must be true!

#251 reaganite

Don't forget about Big Foot!

You did hear that a few years back, British Columbia was going to list it as an endangered species. The fact that there have never been any verified sitings or any physical remains was claimed as evidence that it was endangered. Funny canukies.

Could very well have been a hobby rocket. One of my weird hobbies is to launch "high-power" model rockets. The club I launch from on a nearly monthly basis has an FAA waiver for 17,000 feet. That means the airspace over our launch site is OURS up to that level on launch day. The current record for an amateur rocket launch, last I heard, was over 99K feet. Estes isn't the only one making this kinda stuff, though you need to jump through a couple hoops before you get to play with the more fun stuff. I have personally seen rockets of 27 feet and over 250 pounds being launched here locally. Big launches have bigger stuff. If you really want to see some of the cooler stuff:
www.publicmissiles.com"...] target="_blank">

the stuff that is flying now is a LOT more sophisticated than most folks know about, but your chances of hitting a plane with it? naaah. No guidance systems are yet available commercially, though I suppose someone could cook something up.

C

doggone it, that link didnt work.

try: [Link: www.publicmissiles.com...]

C

TO: All
RE: Con Jobs

"I just talked with an FBI spokesman from the Los Angeles bureau who told me that the sighting was of “a contrail.”" -- Charles Johnson, citing an 'update'.

A contrail would be about as wide as the aircraft itself. Hard to miss.

However, as with all 'stories', things 'grow' in the telling.

Whatever created this 'contrail' would definitely show up on radar.

I think we have a serious problem with our FBI. And I hope the blogosphere keeps this incident alive, i.e., on the radar, until it is properly resolved.

I suspect resolution will be either (1) someone admits a SAM was fired at the aircraft or (2) some bozos in the FBI are named and fired.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

So keep flying, keep spending, and for cripes sake, don't act like there is a war going on, people!

/

tfk, man - you're the dark voice in the subconscious warning of the monster under the bed. Sadly, we know now that monsters ARE real and lurk in the shadows awaiting their time to strike.

#156

"There is not one shred of evidence of a bomb or a missile strike in the wreckage of Flight 800. You're starting to sound like a moonbat yourself. Quit it."

The FBI found traces of nitro and PETN!

TWA 800 doubters, read these:
[Link: www.peterlance.com...]

It was probably our old friend Ramzi Yousef.

I was thinking this sounds like a homebrew high power rocket. Right after the TWA crash somebody launched one into the flight path of a 727 and had the parachute deploy above the aircraft which was on landing approach.
While I have had some close calls with hobby rockets, I have met only one person who admits to putting one into the fabric. On the other hand when you have a cessna doing figure 8's at 500 ft over a full launch rack of rockets,it takes a bit of self control to keep the finger off the launch button. We got a K motor ready to go one pad one! That'll wake him up!

#259 Bob

Sounds strangely like the 1994 method of Ramzi Youseff, the "Bomb Maker" for World Trade Center I in 1993 when they were "testing" for the Multiple plane takedown from the far east.

They actually blew up a Japanese passenger but not the plane.

Used carryon luggage, glycerin based explosives in shampoo bottles with the signature detonator attached to a Casio watch. Left it up under the seat, got off the plane at the next hub stop, next unlucky (Japanese) passenger to take the seat -- got it.

The seat was right over that plane's center fuel
tank, like TWA 800.

Killed the passenger, substantial damage, but didn't ignite the fuel vapor in the tank.

FBI Foreknowledge

Yousef was convicted on September 8, 1996 of plotting a 48-hour campaign of bombings against American commercial flights over the Pacific Ocean. The campaign would have targeted a total of 12 jetliners and as many as 4,000 passengers. Yousef is also accused of carrying out the December 11, 1994 bombing of a Philippine jetliner that killed a Japanese passenger, as well as plotting to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Yousef met Abouhalima in Afghanistan in 1988, and it was Abouhalima who brought the Afghan terrorist to the United States in September 1992 on behalf of Sheik Omar's network.

Shortly after Yousef's arrival, the FBI subpoenaed two dozen of Sheik Omar's followers and questioned them about the sheik, Nosair, and Abouhalima. However, no arrests were made, no grand jury investigation was launched, and the FBI chose to downgrade its scrutiny of Omar's network --

I listened to the Douglas Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence interview on Coast to Coast AM last night. He said this is an incident that happened in September and was only recently (late Nov.) leaked out, first to a radio station. The American Airlines pilot reported witnessing a missile while at an altitude of 5,000 - 6,000 ft. Hagmann talked to a lot of people on the phone who might know something and said he received a lot "nondenial denials". He's "100 %" sure it was an attempted attack. Also, and this is the most interesting part, he said airport employees are being told to clam up. Also mentioned was the fact that M5 in England very recently broke up an attempted terrorist plot there that would have resulted in the same kind of shoulder-fired missile attack.

Chuck Pelto

we really need good facts.

Flight number wrong. I have read that this happned in the early morning. Well the only flight that has the number close to 621 is 612 (lax to chi) did not leave until 1230 or so.

Maybe someone out there knows someone that was on this flight. Then again maybe one on the flight did not see anything strange.

Havoc

Sounds strangely like the 1994 method of Ramzi Youseff, the "Bomb Maker" for World Trade Center I in 1993 when they were "testing" for the Multiple plane takedown from the far east.

Yup!

The date of the bombing (July 17) should be just as telling as the date of the first WTC bombing, as well.

Sounds like TWA Flight 800? Here's some information I got off the Retired Professional Pilots' website:

[Link: www.twa800.com...]

Further to #266 above:

"...Information uncovered in early 1999 now shows that TWA Flight 800 could have been shot down by one or more shoulder-fired missiles. The FBI was briefed by military missile experts in the Fall of 1996 that Flight 800 was well within the range of a shoulder fired missile. The FBI conducted a covert dredging operation for stinger missile parts between November 1996 and April 1997. CDR. Donaldson brought this new evidence to the House Aviation Subcommittee in testimony on May 6, 1999. Unfortunately, the major media and the Congress are content to swallow the official line without question..."

Killed the passenger, substantial damage, but didn't ignite the fuel vapor in the tank.

Like anyone with any credibility expected that it would?

#266 foreign devil

And this from your link was what I was trying to explain earler. Frankly, it's an insult to the engineers at Boeing and everywhere else to suggest that they would design an airplane where this was possible.

There are a lot of incidents, so-to-speak around Ariports. Perhaps it is time to set up a videotape system of take-offs and landings and just the overall layout. If there is some video of these planes just after take off, then we would know. the Challenger had film/video of the blow-up.
that was 1986-20 yrs ago. Surely there is simpler tech that can cover the entire air space with shots.
/cue X-files music--unless THEY don't want vids of the area...
(adjusting tin-foil hat)

WTF

a contrail?

who you gonna believe?

The pilot that does this everyday of his life or the anal retentive FBI guy whose MBO and college major was CYA 101

_{covwering yur ass}

TO: All
RE: Dollars to Donuts

"I just talked with an FBI spokesman from the Los Angeles bureau who told me that the sighting was of “a contrail.” The spokesman added that “all investigative leads were vetted and the results were negative.” The investigation is now closed." -- Bill Quick, as reported by Charles Johnson

The pilots are not considering this 'case closed'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If there is a repetition, the chief of the FBI and John Ashcroft can kiss their a-- 'good-bye'.

TO: atlasshrugged
RE: Indeed

"who you gonna believe?

The pilot that does this everyday of his life or the anal retentive FBI guy whose MBO and college major was CYA 101" -- atlasshrugged

As I said above, I tend to believe pilots, who are probably more familiar with pop-bottel rockets and contrails than some bozo in the FBI.

If the Democrats REALLY want to latch onto something that will make them 'shine', this sort of thing, if it is a 'cover-up', will do the job.

But then they become 'conflicted'.

If there is not threat, why are we in Iraq? But if there IS a threat, why get out of Iraq?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

#272 Chuck Pelto

Guess what? Ashcroft hasn't been AG for over a year. You mean Gonzales, right?

The scissors/toenail clippers/corkscrews rule was bullshit from day one.

Point in fact, I just flew an international flight from Europe and was handed with my dinner a seven inch long steel knife to eat it with! Guess what would have happened had I tried to carry that identical knife with me onto the plane?

I say let EVERYONE on board carry as many scissors as they want. Hell, issue a pair of scissors to every passenger with the headphones, pillows, and in-flight magazines.

The scissors-carrying passengers will kick the collective asses of any scissors-carrying terrorists that have the stupidity to think they are going to pull off a 9-11 style hijacking EVER again. Frankly, they'd be lucky to survive the attempt at this stage of the game.

OK - A Contrail.

From what?

I'm not familiar with aircraft engines generating contrails below 10K ft altitude - in fact weather conditions being critical, I generally thought that contrails were most common >20K ft altitude.

Missiles leave do leave contrails while the engine is still engaged.

Color me unconvinced by that explanation.

As for the FBI considering the case is closed, well, this is the same office that denied the El Al shooting as being terror related until 8 months later when they could 'quietly' release that information without 'inflaming' people.

Unless something is 'for sure' terrorism, I believe that the SOP of the Government is to deny terrorism links as long as possible.

#255 caliphornian

Far as I know, the engines you used for those launches were delivered on launch day, and required loads of paperwork to ensure they were legitimately used. LDRS launches are pretty tightly controlled.

OK< maybe it's nothing, but I trust US airline pilots judgement completely*. If a pilot thought it "interesting" enough to note, I doubt it was just a contrail from another plane. It could very well be non-terror & non-contrail from another plane & non-bottle rocket contrail. There's a lot of stupid people doing alot of stupid things. Just read news of the weird.

* Which is why I knew 9/11 was terrorism after the first plane. I could not fathom an American pilot crashing into the WTC.

The first man with anthrax got it from fishing.

Here is a video of an Igla (S-16?) and note the contrail Igla video

as for why someone could have missed read this about how it tracks

"...All Infrared [IR] direct threat weapons require line of sight [LOS] to be established prior to launch and the in-flight missile must maintain LOS with the target heat source until impact (or detonation of the proximity fuse). IR missiles require the operator to visually detect the target and energize the seeker before the sensor acquires the target. The operator must track the target with the seeker caged to the LOS until it is determined that the IR sensor is tracking the target and not any background objects (natural or man made objects to include vehicles, the sun, or reflected energy from the sun off clouds, etc.). The IR sensor is also susceptible to atmospheric conditions (haze, humidity), the signature of the aircraft and its background, flares, decoys, and jamming..."

If you don't do it right it doesn't lock on properly. BTW in the same article the DoD is concerned about the threat these things are to transports so it at least they must think these things can bring down a large aircraft at the right time. Wonder how many engines this Flight had - perhaps just two.

Oh and for completeness here is the TOR-M1 that the Russians sold to Iran TOR-M1

Perhaps I should have said "smoke trail" instead of "contrail" but the physics is not the issue. From the previous article more interesting info including:

"On 28 November 2002 an Israeli passenger plane taking off from Mombasa narrowly escaped being hit by two missiles. Few passengers were even aware that two rockets were fired at the Arkia Boeing 727 jet shortly after take-off. The pilot thought that a bird had hit the bottom of the plane. The crew saw "two white stripes, coming up from behind the airplane on the right side and a bit above us, and passing us from behind to the front of the airplane and disappearing after a few seconds." While there was early speculation that the Israeli Arkia Charter Co. airliner may have used protective technology to evade the missiles, this was apparently not the case. Instead, the aging missiles proved inaccurate or that the people who fired them weren't properly trained. But civilian aircraft owned by Israel's flagship carrier, El Al, are equipped with countermeasures against the heat-seeking weapons. Saudi authorities found an empty SA-7 tube in May 2002 near Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. According to some reports, the SA-7s fired in Kenya were from the same production lot. The serial numbers were not sequential but they are close to each other, leading one to believe that they might have come from a similar source.

Vulnerability reduction techniques are needed to insure the survivability of military and civil transport aircraft engaged by MANPADS missile threats. The MANPADS missile is a highly effective weapon proliferated worldwide. Typically containing an IR seeker, the missile offers little opportunity for a warning before impact. Impacts are often lethal. Examples of lethality include 1) the Afghan mujahedeen killing of 269 Soviet aircraft with 340 such missiles, 2) Desert Storm evidence that IR missiles produced 56% of the kills and 79% of the Allied aircraft damaged, and 3) civil aircraft experiencing a 70% probability of kill given a MANPADS hit. Such high kill ratios are unacceptable and require immediate solutions. Recent military engagements, such as Desert Fox, demonstrate curtailment of daytime operations as a result of the MANPADS threat. Civil aircraft remain virtual "sitting ducks" to terrorists. Delaying solutions may prove catastrophic.
"

Nicaraguan SA-7's all secured(?)

and yet one turned up in the Managua black market.

The FBI is now probably harrassing the pilot and scaring him shitless about saying another word of this.

I saw a mideastern women taking picturephone photos afterhours of a police substation near GCT in NYC (the spot she took the photos from would have made sense if she was taking pictures of the GCT or the Chrysler building, but she was turned away from the tourist sites and was taking pictures of the police station). When she saw me watching she hurried along.

I informed the substation of what I witnessed when they opened up. They pretty much blew me off. A coupla NY State Troopers were smirking while I described what I witnessed.

Maybe it's just me, but if terrorists were casing a location for an attack, I would think that having intelligence on law enforcement installations near the attack site would be an important ingredient in planning. The police apparently think otherwise.

All:

If the missile was fired from a boat just offshore, it would be travelling almost straight up. The way most modern radar works (ESPECIALLY at airports) is utilizing something called Moving Target Indicator, or the MTI "gate" or "discriminator". In other words, the "target" has to have a rate of change greater than the setting on the MTI discriminator circuit.

This is to prevent "ground clutter" - you don't want to "see" anything that isn't moving on a radar tracking system, now would you? That mountain/telephone pole/tower/skyscraper is no danger, because it ain't moving. Don't want to display it on the 'scope, because all we are interested in is the MOVING objects!

What does this have to do with the "vapor trail" that the pilot saw and radar didn't? Well, if the "missile" is going STRAIGHT UP, there is no "rate change" on the missile, and the MTI circuits will blank the little return it gets from the "missile". It's been told to ignore things that "aren't moving" (much!) in relation to the radar site! Hey, it's just doing its job.

"Well then, smart guy, why did the missile miss?"

Maybe:
1) The batteries were weak and didn't last out the flight. Happened in a Minuteman launch to us one day...

2) The SA-7 and other MANPAD missiles need a fairly "hot" signature to lock on to. You just about have to be looking into the tailpipe of a commercial aircraft's engine(s) to see enough heat. The older ones don't like to lock onto an engine from the front - or even the side. This weakness has obviously been corrected in later models (like the Stinger and the SA-27)

3) something occluded the heat signature of the engine(s) just long enough to lose lock. Happens in the best of circumstances. Sorry, can't go into details...

4) something maye have broken in the guidance control. A bent fin, etc. ...

5) Have you considered the possibility that "God watches over fools, drunks, and small children!" :) He sure did for 9/11!

---

#277 Jeanette:

Yeah, for some of the "bigger" launches we have to get a waiver from the FAA and the local ATC!

Also, FWIW, it is illegal for anybody in the US of A to fire a rocket with ANY type of guidance package (this includes radio control)! You have to get a waiver from Congress! You can make all of the instrumentation packages you wish, however... And the Military and NASA are exempt from this law...

JAFLW