[OT] What is this going to do to our freedom?
Kellic J. Tiger
board but I need to talk with someone or in this case somefur. These events
and what I've been reading on MSNBC and CNN scare the living crap out of me.
Not from terrorists. But from the reaction of the US citizens and the US
government. There is going to be an outcry by US citizens for solutions to
this problem.
How is the government going to act?
Is everyone prepaired to give up some of their freedom for being a bit more
secure?
What changes are going to occure?
Its this going to turn our country into a more militaristic state?
What about personal freedoms?
Too many questions and too damn few answers at this point. Maybe I've seen
to many movies and television shows but this event seems all to similar to
Bruce Willis's and Denzel Washington's "The Siege". Anyfur have any
thoughts on this.
--
-Kellic J. Tiger
ICQ#: 122371762
-"Ambiguity succeeds where honesty dares not venture"-Dogbert
-Fur Code: FFT2s A- C* D# H- M? P+ R- T++ W- Z? Sm# RLCT a24 cdln++++$ d++
e+ f-- h* i++ j+ p- sm-
***TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL REMOVE NULL FROM MY ADDRESS***
Rust
> How is the government going to act?
> Too many questions and too damn few answers at this point. Maybe I've seen
> to many movies and television shows but this event seems all to similar to
> Anyfur have any thoughts on this.
Yup. Don't borrow troubles. Be aware of things as they happen, be
aware of your own beliefs, but there's too many futures out there to be
worrying about them all. Tomorrow, President Bush might propose a
system of SAM sites around every major center, for all we know.
If you have a preferred course of action, maybe you could do something
to help promote it.
-Rust
--
We are the instruments of creation - what we dream, is.
Remove ".netspam" from my address to reply
Christopher Hortin
[snip]
>How is the government going to act?
What I would like to see: The US government will make a swift but
thorough investigation into who did this, paying close attention to
facts and not rumors. If it is indeed the work of whatshisname in
Afghanistan, then we should ask Afghanistan for their support and
aid in capturing him. If they refuse to help...
<sigh> I don't want to type the words "we should go to war",
regardless of the fact that this is my core opinion. It's so easy to
say, but difficult for me to support in action.
What will actually happen: who knows? But something *will* happen,
and the ideas of what it will be terrifies me.
>Is everyone prepaired to give up some of their freedom for being a
>bit more secure?
It depends on which "freedoms" your talking about. My basic plan is
to try as hard as I can never to take an airplane anywhere, but even
then, I'm not safe.
>What changes are going to occure?
Hard tellin'.
>Its this going to turn our country into a more militaristic state?
Not necessarily the whole country, although I do think we'll see
dramatic and long overdue changes in our airports.
>Anyfur have any thoughts on this.
I'm scared.
~Chris, the Icicle Child~
--
[ E-mail - icicl...@earthlink.net ]
[ ICQ# - 119645068 - iciclechild ]
[ "The undead do not make good lovers." ]
[ -Christopher Hortin, alt.fan.harry-potter ]
Sparkles
the 'air marshals'program. Israel does that, and they've NEVER had a
plane hijacked that I or any of my friends know of. I know I'd think
twice about trying to take over a plane when I knew there was a highly
trained killer on board with a gun and I didn't know who it was. Even
suicidals wouldn't be so willing to die for almost nothing, and almost
nothing's what they'd achieve. from what I hear, the planes were
hijacked with knives. KNIVES?!?!? 3 or 4 guys with knives are no match
against 30 unarmed passengers, no matter what! even guns! 3 guys with
guns are still no match for 30 unarmed, just the passenger death toll is
likely to be higher. if the passengers'd fought back, they could've
re-captured the planes, like the one that crashed in PA. of course,
some passengers will die, but hell, they ALL died this time, and took
more innocents with them. Maybe make planes sorta like the prisoner
flights by locking off the way to the pilots cockpit. maybe have one
under cover marshal and one visible on every commercial flight for a
little while. those are my thoughts anyway.
"Kellic J. Tiger" wrote:
>
> How is the government going to act?
> Is everyone prepaired to give up some of their freedom for being a bit more
> secure?
> What changes are going to occure?
> Its this going to turn our country into a more militaristic state?
> What about personal freedoms?
--
Sparki
FFD[Housecat Dragon]msw3adr A- C- D H M P+ R++ T++++ W-- Z Sf RLMH a23
c++ d-- e++ f++++ h* iwf j+ p++ sm
ICQ #116180869
pagan_sparkles at hotmail.com
www.furnation.com/Sparkles/
Skytech
> Too many questions and too damn few answers at this point. Maybe I've
seen
> to many movies and television shows but this event seems all to
similar to
> Bruce Willis's and Denzel Washington's "The Siege". Anyfur have any
> thoughts on this.
>
I remember the hijackings a few decades back. That's when this country
instituted all those security solutions most furs have come to live with
and never knew otherwise. I'm sure WWII created social changes that are
part of the american way of life and the WTC and Oklahoma bombings did
the same in recent years. We won't see armed military patrols on every
street corner or tv ads urging us to be alert for 'suspicious persons'
and where to turn them in. Security should be increased awareness by the
public and a faith that their government will institute transparent
means to serve and protect.
--
La gvatanta vulpo (The vigilant fox)
Skytech
^^
<@@>
./
Relee
>How is the government going to act?
>Is everyone prepaired to give up some of their freedom for being a bit more
>secure?
>What changes are going to occure?
>Its this going to turn our country into a more militaristic state?
>What about personal freedoms?
Don't worry, the U.S. is just going to enact martial law and become a
police state...
--
Relee is concerned the U.S. will move into martial law soon
Homepage - www.geocities.com/fizbanus
ICQ - 26927574
Grizzly Den - www.grizzlyden.org
Skipai Da Otter
Hash: SHA1
"Sparkles" <pagan_s...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B9FC97E...@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
> I think about the best way to deal with this possibility is to
> reinstate the 'air marshals'program. Israel does that, and they've
> NEVER had a plane hijacked that I or any of my friends know of. I
> know I'd think twice about trying to take over a plane when I knew
> there was a highly trained killer on board with a gun and I didn't
> know who it was. Even suicidals wouldn't be so willing to die for
> almost nothing, and almost nothing's what they'd achieve. from
> what I hear, the planes were
> hijacked with knives. KNIVES?!?!? 3 or 4 guys with knives are no
> match
I've been thinking on this and have come to some more security
increases that should be seriously thought of:
1. Redesign the planes. Making the cockpit unaccessible to the
general passengers. Thereby, stopping anyone from getting in there.
Then it doesn't matter how many stewards/ess they torture. They're
be no point if they have no access point to get in there.
2. Have another option of dropping air pressure in the cabin making
passengers and the highjackers pass out. Maybe with a mixture of
some knockout gas. Land at a nearby airport that you can get to with
a code red emergency and let ground law enforcers go in and deal with
the situation.
3. About time for no knives whatsoever in the main cockpit.
Although this should've been common sense. :op
4. Making the transponder harder to reach to switch off. Again,
redesigning the planes when a new model comes out.
I think that's about it for now.....
- --
Skipai Da Otter
Take out mudslide to reply to me
FZp4m A+ C- D++++ H+++ M++ P+ R+ T++++ W- Z Sp+ RLU a26 cadlnw++++ d+
e+++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO5/b75xl8H7mp9nsEQIcOACgwIV1NIcdEtxOPrgbuuC/P/8iatcAniQx
AjL8dU92E9k+yYHwvkqPdoyg
=0uDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rust
> I've been thinking on this and have come to some more security
> increases that should be seriously thought of:
<snip>
I have an idea or two of my own:
A mixture of computerized navigation and biometrics. The airplane will
follow a pre-programmed course, and will only obey course corrections
made by authorized personnel. We now have the technology to keep a
pistol from firing in unauthorized hands - surely we could equip a yoke
similarly?
Mandatory self-defence training for all flight crew and attendants, with
regular refresher courses.
Secondary emergency transponder, activated by unauthorized deactivation
of primary transponder.
Computerized navigation override, preventing unsafe descent in urban
areas outside of flight cooridors. Expert system set to determine if
override is inappropriate (ie: low fuel emergency landing, etc)
There's got to be tons more, but I'm out for the moment.
Rust
>
> "Kellic J. Tiger" <kellicj...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >How is the government going to act?
> >Is everyone prepaired to give up some of their freedom for being a bit more
> >secure?
> >What changes are going to occure?
> >Its this going to turn our country into a more militaristic state?
> >What about personal freedoms?
>
> Don't worry, the U.S. is just going to enact martial law and become a
> police state...
FUD
Anubis
>
> Sparkles <pagan_s...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > more innocents with them. Maybe make planes sorta like the prisoner
> > flights by locking off the way to the pilots cockpit. maybe have one
>
> coaxed out by the sounds of the crew being tortured and murdered.
>
> > under cover marshal and one visible on every commercial flight for a
> > little while. those are my thoughts anyway.
>
>
Money.The airlines wanted to save a buck or three :o) Do you know what
the going wage for airport security is?
> --
> Baloo
David Fox
news:3B9FC97E...@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
> the 'air marshals'program.
Very much agreed. I think a reinstatement of the air marshals program along
with a cabin video system and security officer in the cockpit to monitor
problems is in order. One visible sign of control of such a situation and
one or two hidden engines of it onboard. I think that the air marshal system
would have prevented this tragedy fairly efficiently. Additionally, after
this I am fairly certain that all pilots in a hijack situation will be
locking the cockpits down, sending a mayday, and landing the plane. Though
that may require a steel nerve to not try to do anything, that would not be
their job with the sky marshals in place. They are in place on international
flights, which is likely the reason they were not targeted through they
generally carry more fuel than the nationals.
> from what I hear, the planes were
> hijacked with knives. KNIVES?!?!? 3 or 4 guys with knives are no match
> against 30 unarmed passengers, no matter what! even guns! 3 guys with
> guns are still no match for 30 unarmed, just the passenger death toll is
> likely to be higher. if the passengers'd fought back, they could've
> re-captured the planes, like the one that crashed in PA. of course,
> some passengers will die, but hell, they ALL died this time, and took
> more innocents with them.
Nah, I can see how this would happen, I'm also fairly certain that if a
couple people on this group that were part of special forces units thought
about it, they would see how this works as well. I can easily see 25 guys in
the desert for a year or more slowly making a martial art out of using box
knives. Combined with a knowledge of how to paralyze the passengers with
fear so no one would try to stop them. Another good argument for sky
marshals. Cockpit security is there solely to defend the cockpit if it were
breached as it is unlikely the pilots were still alive.
>Maybe make planes sorta like the prisoner
> flights by locking off the way to the pilots cockpit. maybe have one
> under cover marshal and one visible on every commercial flight for a
> little while. those are my thoughts anyway.
We in the United States have been reluctant to do what we see in many
countries under threat from revolutionaries and terrorists and complete a
"militarization" of our air system. But at this point, I think that
reinstating the sky marchals and a few other security measures are in order.
As I have often noted, the most protected things on a commercial flight
appear to be the smoke detectors in the bathroom.
David Fox
Nox Corax
Skipai Da Otter wrote:
>
>
> I've been thinking on this and have come to some more security
> increases that should be seriously thought of:
>
> 1. Redesign the planes. Making the cockpit unaccessible to the
> general passengers. Thereby, stopping anyone from getting in there.
> Then it doesn't matter how many stewards/ess they torture. They're
> be no point if they have no access point to get in there.
That would be extremely dangerous. There are circumstances where the
pilot/flight attendants must be able to have access to both the
passenger sections and the cockpit.
> 2. Have another option of dropping air pressure in the cabin making
> passengers and the highjackers pass out. Maybe with a mixture of
> some knockout gas. Land at a nearby airport that you can get to with
> a code red emergency and let ground law enforcers go in and deal with
> the situation.
They already have the option to decrease the cabin pressure by
manual. Unfortantely it dosen't work unless you're in high altitude.
The knockout gas is a good idea but there may be medical complications
for some people and it would take time to take effect. That would
endanger lives. Landing at an airport while a terrorist is holding a
gun or a knife at a passenger's throat is the fastest way to start up
a body count.
> 3. About time for no knives whatsoever in the main cockpit.
> Although this should've been common sense. :op
Damn straight. I had a knife in my backpack the last time I walked
through an airport. The metal detector went off and the guard just
handed it to me. Unfortenatly sense is anything but common. It is
something that must be learned and relearned in every generation.
> 4. Making the transponder harder to reach to switch off. Again,
> redesigning the planes when a new model comes out.
Now this is a good notion. Unfortanetly it is also very difficult to
implement.
> I think that's about it for now.....
I only wish there was something more positive I could add to this.
Keep on thinking, cause this war is going to be won with our brains.
--
Nox Corax
AIM: LonanNeamhain
ICQ# 131152958
Furry Code
FARs6arsw/CXh6afmrsw/Ct[Sperm Whale]6s A- C>++ D-- H- M>+ P- R++ T++++
W-> Z Sm-/m-/f- RLCT a24 cdlmnw++ d++ e* f h-- i++>+++$ j+ p sm-
David Fox
"Rust" <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote in message
news:3B9FE1...@bmts.com.netspam...
> I have an idea or two of my own:
>
> A mixture of computerized navigation and biometrics. The airplane will
> follow a pre-programmed course, and will only obey course corrections
> made by authorized personnel. We now have the technology to keep a
> pistol from firing in unauthorized hands - surely we could equip a yoke
> similarly?
Bad idea, in emergencies (I speak from experience with systems in place at
the Philips Information Processing Center) they can fail and a number of
things can get in the way. They also provide an obscene cost for the amount
of security they are actually capable of and provide mostly a secure system
against people who lose their keys not being able to gain entry.
> Mandatory self-defence training for all flight crew and attendants, with
> regular refresher courses.
This is a decent idea, but probably equipping them with a can of mace is
going to be enough if trained sky marshals are reinstated.
> Secondary emergency transponder, activated by unauthorized deactivation
> of primary transponder.
>
> Computerized navigation override, preventing unsafe descent in urban
> areas outside of flight cooridors. Expert system set to determine if
> override is inappropriate (ie: low fuel emergency landing, etc)
Not good. A lot of these things don't exist because of the more likely event
of an emergency of a mechanical or meteorlogical nature while in the air.
David Fox
David Fox
> Don't worry, the U.S. is just going to enact martial law and become a
> police state...
As much as this is a national tragedy, it is was never a martial law level
national emergency. Martial law is final resort of national and state
politics. If martial law is declared you are looking at (a) Mississippi
floods making all normal government channels wholly inoperable, (b) a
California earthquake doing the same, (c) an invasion, (d) an armed
revolution on the order of the American Civil War, or (e) nuclear war. All
of these are either unlikely or localized. There is the possibility of it in
states during rioting when the state does not have sufficient police forces,
but other than that, martial law is not a threat.
While this may be a disaster and a tragedy, Bush was on the money when he
stated that this did not and will not "dent the steel of American resolve."
And we as a nation resolve to keep our rights so horrendously mocked and
attacked.
David Fox
Cerulean
really get done: We need airPLANE security, not airPORT security. For
decades this country has been more afraid of air terror than any other
kind of danger, and we've been adding more and more pointless
inconveniences to our airports in a hollow attempt to make people feel
safe. And none of these indignities were even remotely effective in
preventing what happened yesterday.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( u!J3-,,u!ds pue Ja6u!j xa+e7 s!y uo +!s o6 ue) epoh,,
Arcturax
<foxd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As much as this is a national tragedy, it is was never a martial law level
> national emergency. Martial law is final resort of national and state
> politics. If martial law is declared you are looking at (a) Mississippi
> floods making all normal government channels wholly inoperable, (b) a
> California earthquake doing the same, (c) an invasion
As far as I'm concerned, this was an invasion... Martial law is for all
intents and purposes in effect in the areas effected, but not everywhere
else.
--
Arcturax the Egyptian Fruitbat
To email me, replace seemysig with the word "mac"
FChFp3 A-- C* D H- M+++ P- R+ T++++ W Z? Sm+ RLCT a cblm++++$ d++ e++ f hiwf++
j p sm
That's funny, I don't feel tardy.
Relee
I encourage people not to read this post, unless you're as painfully
logical about all this as I am.
>Relee wrote in:
>> Don't worry, the U.S. is just going to enact martial law and become a
>> police state...
>
>As much as this is a national tragedy, it is was never a martial law level
>national emergency.
Not yet of course... If it was enough to warrant martial law now they
might have done it by now.
If these terrorists keep doing things the way I expect (and they have
been so far) within two weeks a number of smaller bombings will
happen. The first few were to show that they could hit large targets
and prove that the U.S. can be hit. Next they'll bomb seemingly at
random to show that they can strike anywhere. Maybe at your work?
Maybe at your children's school?
And they'll keep it up untill the U.S. only has one possible security
measure, lock-down the whole country. Martial Law. *shudder*
--
Relee
Relee
>Relee wrote:
>>
>> "Kellic J. Tiger" <kellicj...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> Don't worry, the U.S. is just going to enact martial law and become a
>> police state...
>
>FUD
I'm hoping that's annother way of saying Bull or No-way or something.
I'm hoping it doesn't happen too, it would take a lot more for it to
happen than this...
--
Relee
no one in particular
"Baloo Ursidae" <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:q9qon9...@ursine.dyndns.org...
> Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>
> > FUD
>
> I consider it a real possibility considering the current
> Commander-in-Thief.
>
> --
> Baloo
You and your fellow travellers said that about Reagn in 80. Yet now I
can watch hardcore porno on digital cable and the works of Maplethorpe and
Madonna are commonly availible. Do you really believe this horse-hockey or
do you just fervently wish the impossible would occur to validate your
insane musings?
BTW all, despite predictions after Confurence Eight, furry is still
alive and doing well. You may stop listening to the chicken littles. If
you're a fox, by all means eat the chicken little.
-Wayd Wolf, who actually bothers to listen to CNN where everyone in
government's already on on record as keeping liberty alive and unchanged
including President Bush...
SVD
Hash: SHA1
> >Maybe make planes sorta like the prisoner
> > flights by locking off the way to the pilots cockpit. maybe have one
> > under cover marshal and one visible on every commercial flight for a
> > little while. those are my thoughts anyway.
>
> We in the United States have been reluctant to do what we see in many
> countries under threat from revolutionaries and terrorists and complete a
> "militarization" of our air system. But at this point, I think that
> reinstating the sky marchals and a few other security measures are in order.
> As I have often noted, the most protected things on a commercial flight
> appear to be the smoke detectors in the bathroom.
>
> David Fox
If I recall, by federal regulation, the cockpit door is to be locked during
flight from the inside.
Also, doesn't the CVR/FDR/FCR or simlar unit include an EPIRB pinger already?
- -Dolphin
- --
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
-- Joseph Stalin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBO6BCBdPfSF1Ze8LGEQJD5wCfTS4T9KEmuXwuu2Z+8/Ojp9uFF5IAoKvY
LJRzTHHLJ71D87c4/V/aufGj
=JXZc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nox Corax
>
> [1] A .22 can kill you, so don't try this at home, or anywhere else. Yes,
> people do live and remain conscious after .22 shots to the head, but the
> odds are against you, especially at point blank. In an emergency
> situation where you have a raging asshole coming after you (thus moving
> target and nervous shooter), chances are you're not going to hit exactly
> where you want it to.
And what would somebody be doing with a .22 caliber? As a rifle it's
not much better than a squirrel gun. As a pistol? Puhlease. If
you're going to go to the trouble to buy a handgun get something
that's going to do a decent job of killing/maiming/seriously wounding
your target.
Evangelical Cat
>How is the government going to act?
>Is everyone prepaired to give up some of their freedom for being a bit more
>secure?
>What changes are going to occure?
>Its this going to turn our country into a more militaristic state?
>What about personal freedoms?
Don't worry, the U.S. is just going to enact martial law and become a
police state...
--
Relee is concerned the U.S. will move into martial law soon
Groan...So is the underground panther..beware the fema...
The power mongers have been pushing euginics programs for the population for
quite a long time in various guises.I have seen it firsthand..(another
story)In africa they don't use birth control so they get aids.If the fanatic
muslims do come over here to kill the"great Satan"as a land army and see us
pagan infidels all that repression clashing with all this hedonism,..too
me..looks like the "elites"got thier culling done and thier rocks off for
another 40 or so years...as they go bomb afganistan and cull them.
All Sociopathic elitist leaders of the entire world suck.
Rust
>
> Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>
> >Relee wrote:
> >>
> >> "Kellic J. Tiger" <kellicj...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't worry, the U.S. is just going to enact martial law and become a
> >> police state...
> >
> >FUD
>
> I'm hoping that's annother way of saying Bull or No-way or something.
>
> I'm hoping it doesn't happen too, it would take a lot more for it to
> happen than this...
I think it's something like "Fear Uncertainty Doubt". Usually it's
spread intentionally, as a psychological weapon - the stronger part of
terrorism, in fact. Also used in cut-throat marketing campaigns, to
make consumers shy away from the competition. In this case, it's more
of a lapse of good judgement.
Be assured that the American people will view a police state as an
enemy, and the notion that they may face an enemy within is not
healthy. Nor is it really likely.
Mt meaning is that this is not a conjecture which should be pursued at
this time.
Rust
I emphasize, for your safety, there is no Illuminati.
Rust
> Sounds like small caliber (.22 or .357) with extra large/no trigger ring.
<snip>
Wow, did this hit a major tangent or what?
To the best of my knowledge, the weapons so equipped at this time are
9mm automatic pistols, in trial use by a few police departments.
Rust
>
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:29:57 -0400, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> (Rust)
> left the following spoor in alt.lifestyle.furry:
>
> > made by authorized personnel. We now have the technology to keep a
> > pistol from firing in unauthorized hands - surely we could equip a yoke
> > similarly?
> >
> your pistol for example) will /always/ fire when in authorized hands (this
> means used left-handed by a right-hander, used with a non-standard grip,
> used with gloves or bandages on fingers, etc.).
I wrestled with this one for a few minutes before posting. I decided
that we can probably trust this technology as much as we can trust other
control electronics aboard a commercial jet liner. I'd say there should
be an emergency disengage, but that would defeat the purpose, I'm
afraid. That's why I believe it should be coupled with an advanced
navigation system. Such systems already exist, and effectively make the
pilot more of a supervisor than an active participant when flying an
equipped plane.
Skipai Da Otter
Hash: SHA1
"Cerulean" <ma...@cerulean.st> wrote in message
news:3ba00f88...@velox.critter.net...
> It's good to see that it's so obvious to everyone now, maybe it
> will really get done: We need airPLANE security, not airPORT
> security.
Actually you need /BOTH/. Sorry for the caps. All countries
internal flights have to be changed. Even the UK;s as that's
shocking as it is.
Okay, so you lose a bit of freedom and you lose the nice quick way on
getting onto a plane but that's something that everyone will adjust
to, knowing that you are going to be a lot safer than you were last
week.
I would also make internal flights the same security checks as
international and get all US citizens to show a passport though. So
it stops the illegal people from flying in the US or other country
but, it adds a bit more security wise. *shrugs*
- --
Skipai Da Otter
Take out mudslide to reply to me
FZp4m A+ C- D++++ H+++ M++ P+ R+ T++++ W- Z Sp+ RLU a26 cadlnw++++ d+
e+++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBO6DWtpxl8H7mp9nsEQL7zgCg1q39/3mEuIHQyUKF2yOYUFDz0ssAniPZ
CwGg6N58yjN/YoycTtzS4Oyw
=Q+LE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
KatmanDu
<foxd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This is a decent idea, but probably equipping them with a can of mace is
>going to be enough if trained sky marshals are reinstated.
Mace, CS, OC, what have you is going to be debilitating to a lot of
people in an enclosed space like an aircraft cabin.
katm...@home.com - members.home.net/katmandu1 - katm...@arches.uga.edu
"The rising moon faces the sickening sun as the lights in the tower blocks
go on one by one. A big shot, overlooking this black iron skyline-
surrounded by his symbols of prosperity- sits back in his new leather
chair- ripped off the back of some unfortunate beast. I'm smiling
through my teeth. Anybody can be a millionaire so everybody's gotta try;
but by the laws of this human jungle, only the heartless will survive."
-The The, "Twilight of a Champion"
Anubis
>
> Dennis Lee Bieber <wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't trust either... Unless you can guarantee that (using
> > your pistol for example) will /always/ fire when in authorized hands (this
> > means used left-handed by a right-hander, used with a non-standard grip,
> > used with gloves or bandages on fingers, etc.).
>
> if you research it of people remaining conscious, alert and very alive
> after being shot in the head by a .22. Marked personality changes over
> short period of time, though, and a little memory loss, possibly loss of
> coordination, speech, or a sense depending on where exactly it goes but
> you pretty much have to hit the base of the brain with a .22 for it to
> kill someone.[1]
>
Interesting points.But AFAIK, its still the weapon of choice for the
professional mafia hit man.With a nice silencer of course :o)
.22 is also available in .22 Magnum.
> --
> Baloo
Arcturax
<kellicj...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> OK. I know the events of yesterday don't belong here on this
> discussion
> board but I need to talk with someone or in this case somefur. These
> events
> and what I've been reading on MSNBC and CNN scare the living crap out of
> me.
> Not from terrorists. But from the reaction of the US citizens and the US
> government. There is going to be an outcry by US citizens for solutions
> to
> this problem.
> How is the government going to act?
> Is everyone prepaired to give up some of their freedom for being a bit
> more
> secure?
> What changes are going to occure?
> Its this going to turn our country into a more militaristic state?
> What about personal freedoms?
> Too many questions and too damn few answers at this point. Maybe I've
> seen
> to many movies and television shows but this event seems all to similar
> to
> Bruce Willis's and Denzel Washington's "The Siege". Anyfur have any
> thoughts on this.
Well we will only lose what we allow ourselves to lose. However we need
not lose any at all. The media needs to stop referring to more security
at the airports and such as a loss of freedom. Air travel is a
PRIVILIGE not a right. If you want to fly, you will have to follow the
procedures as they are not only for your protection, but for the
protection of maybe thousands of others.
Prowl-Ar
> Baloo Ursidae wrote:
> >
> > Dennis Lee Bieber <wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I wouldn't trust either... Unless you can guarantee that (using
> > > your pistol for example) will /always/ fire when in authorized hands (this
> > > means used left-handed by a right-hander, used with a non-standard grip,
> > > used with gloves or bandages on fingers, etc.).
> >
> > Sounds like small caliber (.22 or .357) with extra large/no trigger ring.
> > Picking between the two, I'd say .357, since it's somewhat well documented
> > if you research it of people remaining conscious, alert and very alive
> > after being shot in the head by a .22. Marked personality changes over
> > short period of time, though, and a little memory loss, possibly loss of
> > coordination, speech, or a sense depending on where exactly it goes but
> > you pretty much have to hit the base of the brain with a .22 for it to
> > kill someone.[1]
> >
> Interesting points.But AFAIK, its still the weapon of choice for the
> professional mafia hit man.With a nice silencer of course :o)
> .22 is also available in .22 Magnum.
I have to agree with Anubis. The reason being that a .22 shell has a tendency to
ricochet off bone thereby creating more internal damage.
Prowl-Ar Nightiger
Camstone Fox
> system of SAM sites around every major center, for all we know.
That isn't going to happen... although I'm sure it's being proposed by every
defense contractor on the hill who sells one to the third world countries.
Camstone Fox
> against 30 unarmed passengers, no matter what! even guns! 3 guys with
> guns are still no match for 30 unarmed, just the passenger death toll is
> likely to be higher. if the passengers'd fought back, they could've
Okie, next thing to start thinking about... how does the other side react to
what you've just proposed? Also, not everyone is going to be willing to jump
up and grab a terrorist - since he's got Grandma with a knife at her throat.
The only plausable reason I have heard, regarding that the flight that
crashed in PA's passengers did anything, is because they knew, by info from
someone's cell phone... that there were more lives at stake.
Skymarshalls are good, if they are trained properly.
Doors though have keys, (held by stweardesses) or ways to get around any
lock in them. And let's be honest... there have been times when you *want*
to be able to get into the cockpit, like when the crew need help. (Yeah, few
and far between... about as few and far between as hijackers)
Casmtone
Camstone Fox
> especially in trained hands. The .22 is still the caliber of choice
> for professional assassins. Even more effective in close quarters is
> the .25 (normally the LEAST damaging of calibers) equipped with the
> "Sheri3" rounds.These rounds are extremely damaging and were designed
> for close quarters situations and can be very effective as they do not
> penetrate hard surfaces (like the plane's skin) and hive virtually no
> ricochet.
Any projectile, even one made of silly putty... if made to penetrate flesh
(and bone)... will also penetrate the skin of an aircraft... possibly
leading to rapid depressurization or structural failure.
The question is, does the benefit outway the risk?
Anubis
I think its the psychological deterrent effect that we're looking for.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Skipai Da Otter wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking on this and have come to some more security
>> increases that should be seriously thought of:
>
> I have an idea or two of my own:
>
> A mixture of computerized navigation and biometrics.
Small charges underneath each of the fule tanks. If a terresti
threatons the plain the pilot blows it up.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Relee
>On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:29:57 -0400, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>> Skipai Da Otter wrote:
>> A mixture of computerized navigation and biometrics.
>
>Small charges underneath each of the fule tanks. If a terresti
>threatons the plain the pilot blows it up.
It takes less than a second for a trained pilot to make an airplane
dive into an unrecoverable crash, and that way you don't have shrapnel
raining down.
--
Relee has buck teeth "I amth the blackth thquirrel of deth. Thurly thy demithe ith nigh."
(A good laugh is worth a lot)
Rust
>
> dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:29:57 -0400, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
> >> Skipai Da Otter wrote:
>
> >> A mixture of computerized navigation and biometrics.
> >
> >Small charges underneath each of the fule tanks. If a terresti
> >threatons the plain the pilot blows it up.
>
> It takes less than a second for a trained pilot to make an airplane
> dive into an unrecoverable crash, and that way you don't have shrapnel
> raining down.
D'you know, I'm not sure that 'self-destruct' will be viewed as a valid
option by many air lines. I know for a fact that armed secret air
marshalls make me nervous... a self-destruct button or crash orders
aboard an aircraft? Mayhaps I'll take the train.
-Rust
--
Ulciscor paxu ad veneratio occisi
Rust
>
> Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>
> > D'you know, I'm not sure that 'self-destruct' will be viewed as a valid
> > option by many air lines. I know for a fact that armed secret air
> > marshalls make me nervous... a self-destruct button or crash orders
> > aboard an aircraft? Mayhaps I'll take the train.
>
> seeing the world and playing tourist, even if it's at 30,000 feet. The
> rest of the time you're putting a well deserved smackdown on drunks and
> terrorists.
Okay, maybe you could clarify something for me. Is an air marshall a
uniformed individual, or a gun-carrying person who looks just like every
other traveller? As a paranoid Canadian citizen, I have a -really-
strong aversion to the notion that the guy sitting behind me might or
might not be secretly carrying a handgun and waiting for me to make a
jerky movement.
As a side note, I found this last night; it would make me a lot less
leery of air marshalls (and I don't care -how- well trained they are, I
-don't- like people carrying hidden guns around me):
cat
purred:
>Okay, maybe you could clarify something for me. Is an air marshall a
>uniformed individual, or a gun-carrying person who looks just like every
>other traveller? As a paranoid Canadian citizen, I have a -really-
>strong aversion to the notion that the guy sitting behind me might or
>might not be secretly carrying a handgun and waiting for me to make a
>jerky movement.
They are civilian dressed (plainclothes in police terms)
professionally trained experts who do NOT react to accidental innocent
gestures. They do NOT draw their weapons unless there is an IMMINENT
threat to life. In all likelihood you have been right close to a
plainclothes cop more than once and you are still alive. the only
danger a gun poses is in the hands of a untrained person.
>
>As a side note, I found this last night; it would make me a lot less
>leery of air marshalls (and I don't care -how- well trained they are, I
>-don't- like people carrying hidden guns around me):
I would rather have some armed trained person near me if
trouble erupted than an unarmed one,
cat
cat
>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:29:57 -0400, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>>> Skipai Da Otter wrote:
>
>>> A mixture of computerized navigation and biometrics.
>>
>>Small charges underneath each of the fule tanks. If a terresti
>>threatons the plain the pilot blows it up.
>
>It takes less than a second for a trained pilot to make an airplane
>dive into an unrecoverable crash, and that way you don't have shrapnel
>raining down.
I've flown for years and some of my hours have been on some
very unstable birds and none of them could I have put into an
unrecoverable dive in that short of a time. Airliners are VERY stable,
to the point they almost fly themselves. Dive recovery is easy and
near automatic on a modern airliner. An average pilot could bring one
of them out of almost any dive imaginable. Now if they were fighter
jets there are a lot of unrecoverable profiles which one can get into.
An air blast would be preferable as the fuel would be burned
away before the components grounded. This would avoid a fire on the
ground. Parts falling from the sky would do less damage than a forest
fire or a fireball hitting a residential area.
cat
cat
purred:
>Relee wrote:
>>
>> dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:29:57 -0400, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>> >> Skipai Da Otter wrote:
>>
>> >> A mixture of computerized navigation and biometrics.
>> >
>> >Small charges underneath each of the fule tanks. If a terresti
>> >threatons the plain the pilot blows it up.
>>
>> It takes less than a second for a trained pilot to make an airplane
>> dive into an unrecoverable crash, and that way you don't have shrapnel
>> raining down.
>
>D'you know, I'm not sure that 'self-destruct' will be viewed as a valid
>option by many air lines. I know for a fact that armed secret air
>marshalls make me nervous... a self-destruct button or crash orders
>aboard an aircraft? Mayhaps I'll take the train.
I simply LIKE the train and take them whenever I can. In the
air I figure an Air Marshall is a good safety to have. As an odd aside
did you know the Air Marshall idea was first suggested (by Juan
Trippe, the founder of Pan Am) in the 1930's? It appeared in the
1950's again,
cat
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
[...]
>>Small charges underneath each of the fule tanks. If a terresti
>>threatons the plain the pilot blows it up.
>
> It takes less than a second for a trained pilot to make an airplane
> dive into an unrecoverable crash, and that way you don't have shrapnel
> raining down.
No you just have a massive plane falling down. This way the fule is
used up and only small parts that are less likely to dammige
infestruture fall to the ground.
Rust
And I'd rather see the gun. Bear in mind, we're talking different
mentalities here. In the US it may be that every second Joe walking
down the street is packing heat in a concealed holster. In Canada (and
especially rural Canada), you can feel secure that you are -not-
surrounded by people carrying hidden instant lethal projected force.
Logic does not come into this, for me. I can see a police officer come
walking down the street, with a hair-trigger Glock in plain view at
their side, and feel safe. Put the same officer into plain clothes and
hide the gun, and I'll go into a paranoid panic.
I want to -see- the weapon and know where it is, right?
In any case, I now seriously doubt that I'll ever fly. That's just too
creepy for me, makes my skin crawl.
Rust
Eugh. I can't believe people are thinking this way.
Bob
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:11:27 -0400, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam>
>purred:
>
>
>gestures. They do NOT draw their weapons unless there is an IMMINENT
>threat to life. In all likelihood you have been right close to a
>plainclothes cop more than once and you are still alive. the only
>danger a gun poses is in the hands of a untrained person.
Right on, Cat. This last summer my mother and I flew down to Houston,
by way of St. Louis. Both flights down, we sat next to a bounty
hunter, who had a Glock 22 on him(although, of course, he didn't draw
it). Rather cool guy, actualy. Starting to go a little bald, on his
way from Lincoln to pick up a guy that had jumped bail, somthing like
child support, and then got arrested in Houston. Actualy felt pretty
safe knowing I was sitting near a trained professional.
> I would rather have some armed trained person near me if
>trouble erupted than an unarmed one,
Aye, same here.
B 'new and improved .sig' ob
AIM: LordBobIAGNB
"I ment," said Ipslore, bitterly, "what is there in
this world that makes living worthwhile?"
Death thought about it.
CATS, he said eventualy, CATS ARE NICE.
-Sourcery, by Terry Prachet, and the proof
you need that cats rock ;)
FFJ3 A- C- D H+ M++ P++ R T+++ W Z- Sm- RLCT/AT a18
cdn++ d-- e+$ f- h+ iw+ j p* sm-
Relee
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 02:18:17 GMT, rel...@hotmail.com (Relee) purred:
>
>>dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>>
>>It takes less than a second for a trained pilot to make an airplane
>>dive into an unrecoverable crash, and that way you don't have shrapnel
>>raining down.
>
> I've flown for years and some of my hours have been on some
>very unstable birds and none of them could I have put into an
>unrecoverable dive in that short of a time.
Aw, you just need to practice more. *gives you a parachute*
>Airliners are VERY stable,
>to the point they almost fly themselves. Dive recovery is easy and
>near automatic on a modern airliner. An average pilot could bring one
>of them out of almost any dive imaginable. Now if they were fighter
>jets there are a lot of unrecoverable profiles which one can get into.
That would explain it, I was only trained to fly military planes...
Relee
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:11:27 -0400, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> (Rust)
>left the following spoor in alt.lifestyle.furry:
> Then you really don't want to hear the rumor (I was half asleep at
>the time) on the morning news...
>
> The airline pilots union is pushing to let the PILOTS carry guns...
>
> Talk about untrained?
I don't know, it would work as a good deterrant.
"If you try to hijack this plane, be warned that there are untrained
people on this flight with guns, and this plane will be destroyed."
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> Right on, Cat. This last summer my mother and I flew down to Houston,
> by way of St. Louis. Both flights down, we sat next to a bounty
> hunter, who had a Glock 22 on him(although, of course, he didn't draw
> it).
Why did he have a gun on the plain? I mean I don't care who he is I
don't think anyone apart from staff employed by the plain/LEO should
be permitted to carry guns on plains.
Bob
(aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:19:46 GMT, Bob <lor...@notdead.org> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Right on, Cat. This last summer my mother and I flew down to Houston,
>> by way of St. Louis. Both flights down, we sat next to a bounty
>> hunter, who had a Glock 22 on him(although, of course, he didn't draw
>> it).
>
>Why did he have a gun on the plain? I mean I don't care who he is I
>don't think anyone apart from staff employed by the plain/LEO should
>be permitted to carry guns on plains.
Licsensed, authorized, etc, etc. And he probably didn't want to put
it in his suitcase in the cargo hold; wouldn't do any good there if it
was needed. Although NW did have a silly regulation forcing all
people carrying to sit in the front of the plane.
Bob
Nox Corax
>
> Licsensed, authorized, etc, etc. And he probably didn't want to put
> it in his suitcase in the cargo hold; wouldn't do any good there if it
> was needed. Although NW did have a silly regulation forcing all
> people carrying to sit in the front of the plane.
>
*Snorts* oh that's good. "Attention everybody, will anyone currently
carrying firearms please advance towards cockpit control. Thank you"
--
*Flying around in a mad dash*
Nox Corax
AIM: LonanNeamhain
ICQ# 131152958
Furry Code
FARs6arsw/CXh6afmrsw/Ct[Sperm Whale]6s A- C>++ D-- H- M>+ P- R++ T++++
W-> Z Sm-/m-/f- RLCT a24 cdlmnw++ d++ e* f h-- i++>+++$ j+ p sm-
Rust
>
> Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>
> > Okay, maybe you could clarify something for me. Is an air marshall a
> > uniformed individual, or a gun-carrying person who looks just like every
> > other traveller? As a paranoid Canadian citizen, I have a -really-
> > strong aversion to the notion that the guy sitting behind me might or
> > might not be secretly carrying a handgun and waiting for me to make a
> > jerky movement.
>
> authority and no uniform.
I see. I still think I'll stay on the ground, or possibly avoid America
entirely. Concealed carry is something I simply can't handle without a
constant feeling of paranoia.
cat
purred:
>
>
>And I'd rather see the gun. Bear in mind, we're talking different
>mentalities here.
But the problem is, if the sky Marshall is obvious they will
be targeted and terminated then the hijacking will proceed since the
only protection will have been neutralized. If no one (not even the
airline personnel) know who is the Marshall, neither will the
terrorists. They will not know who to watch or where to face. this
means their plans fail as they have no way to know who to defend
against and few will attempt a n attack with a knife when they know
there is someone there with a superior weapon. Hidden force deters the
attack by making it too risky to start.
BTW, there are quite a few plaincl;othes, undercover, and
other officials who carry concealed in Canada. the proportion is quite
similar to the US in that regard. Now most honest citizens will be
unarmed, but that is the norm here as well (for the purposes of this
discussion I do not include people with illegal weapons hidden on them
as no one is sure how many there are anywhere)
cat
cat
purred:
>Eugh. I can't believe people are thinking this way.
There is evidence that, for a number of years, the old Soviet
Union had such a system on their airliners to "prevent" mass
defections.
cat
cat
<wulf...@dm.net> purred:
> Military fighters/attack jets are almost built to be unstable. The
>newer ones require computers to make sure the pilot's pulse doesn't make
>the jet twitch. Heck, there was one development model (with forward swept
>wings) a decade or so back where the computers had to adjust for the
>inherent flickering in the wing-tips.
That would be the Grumman Y 29 (yes they used the pre "X"
designation) project for the Navy. My Friend Mik's mother was on that
project. That bird once took off the back of a transporter that was
moving it. It was SO aggressive it was able to rotate with a 30 mph
wind over the wings. The truck hit 35 and up she went. Too bad the
project died when Grumman was bought by another, inferior aircraft
maker When asked where the idea for swept forward wings came from she
embarrassedly said several of the team had been Fans of the old TV
show Thunderbirds and Thunderbird 2 had those wings. Just for fun they
made a wind tunnel model to see how bad the design would be and, to
their amazement, the idea was viable. The Navy assisted in funding
because a craft which could lift without a catapult would be a nice
addition to the fleet.
cat
Rust
I've said it before, I'll say it again; I'm not well suited to being
human. I'd almost forgotten that. *sigh*
Bruce L. Bergman
<wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:11:27 -0400, Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> (Rust)
>left the following spoor in alt.lifestyle.furry:
>
>> Okay, maybe you could clarify something for me. Is an air marshall a
>> uniformed individual, or a gun-carrying person who looks just like every
>> other traveller? As a paranoid Canadian citizen, I have a -really-
>> strong aversion to the notion that the guy sitting behind me might or
>> might not be secretly carrying a handgun and waiting for me to make a
>> jerky movement.
>>
> Then you really don't want to hear the rumor (I was half asleep at
>the time) on the morning news...
>
> The airline pilots union is pushing to let the PILOTS carry guns...
>
> Talk about untrained?
No, talk about VERY trained. Many airline pilots are ex-military
pilots, some are still in the reserves. Fly a 767 during the week,
and hop into a B-52, F-16 or a C-47 (to pick a few numbers out of a
hat) for a spin on their duty weekends...
And the head of the pilot's union President was VERY clear that
they'd have the pilots go through the exact same training courses as
the Air Marshalls. Hand-to-hand combat techniques, marksmanship,
legal rules, a raft of different skills... And the Air Marshalls are
undercover, if nothing goes wrong you'll never know who they were -
and that's much better, because a potential hijacker won't be able to
spot them easily either.
That would actually be the best possible situation - an Air Marshall
to ride herd over trouble the passenger cabin, and the pilots safely
secured in the cockpit (with reinforced door and bulkhead) and one or
more of the pilots armed and trained, to deal with the problem if
anyone tries to force their way onto the flight deck.
We used to figure "No Problem - If we take the hijacker where they
want to go, we land there, they'll leave, nobody gets hurt, we fly to
our destination, and that's the end of it." Not Anymore... :-(
--<< Bruce >>--
--
bber...@127.0.0.1.earthlink.net ( ANTI-SPAM - remove the numbers or your message
goes to root@localhost. [your postmaster.] Or at least it's *supposed* to...)
Temporary .sig for Fysh posts:
There's a fursonna struggling to get out. It's... It's... (It's shy. Give it time.)
WARNING: NO UCE Spam accepted! Violators will be eaten. Survivors will be reported.
Bob
wrote:
>Bob wrote:
>>
>> Licsensed, authorized, etc, etc. And he probably didn't want to put
>> it in his suitcase in the cargo hold; wouldn't do any good there if it
>> was needed. Although NW did have a silly regulation forcing all
>> people carrying to sit in the front of the plane.
>>
>-snipped-
>
>*Snorts* oh that's good. "Attention everybody, will anyone currently
>carrying firearms please advance towards cockpit control. Thank you"
>
Heh. They didn't announce it(of course), but yea, he didn't like it
either.
Brian Sutton
>embarrassedly said several of the team had been Fans of the old TV
>show Thunderbirds
>cat
Forward swept wings go back much farther than that, the Nazis were working
with them in the mid 40's. Much like their hypersonic rocket designs the
forward swept wing was stopped by materials limation of the day.
Brian Sutton
"The truth has nothing to do with this. This is about winning an argument"
--Shon Howell
Visit my website @ http://members.xoom.com/HJGpage/
for deals on Furry art & comics
cat
purred:
>Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>>
>> Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>>
>> > Okay, maybe you could clarify something for me. Is an air marshall a
>> > uniformed individual, or a gun-carrying person who looks just like every
>> > other traveller? As a paranoid Canadian citizen, I have a -really-
>> > strong aversion to the notion that the guy sitting behind me might or
>> > might not be secretly carrying a handgun and waiting for me to make a
>> > jerky movement.
>>
>> Plain-clothes US Marshall. Think of an RCMP officer but with less
>> authority and no uniform.
>
>I see. I still think I'll stay on the ground, or possibly avoid America
>entirely. Concealed carry is something I simply can't handle without a
>constant feeling of paranoia.
Then best avoid all flights anywhere in the world. already a
number of national airlines have armed personnel on board and have for
years. Before long most if not all flights may have some form of armed
security on their flights. There has been talk of forming a new group
that would be international to provide that security . Interpol has
been suggested as the organization to administer it. Face it,
terrorists have won that one and there will be armed security on
aircraft from now on.
cat
cat
>>When asked where the idea for swept forward wings came from she
>>embarrassedly said several of the team had been Fans of the old TV
>>show Thunderbirds
>
>>cat
>
> Forward swept wings go back much farther than that, the Nazis were working
>with them in the mid 40's. Much like their hypersonic rocket designs the
>forward swept wing was stopped by materials limation of the day.
Von Braun did a few tests of forward swept wings on some of
his early designs, when he was a kid building model rockets well
before the war. some of those designs showed up in old German SF
magazines and even several movies. Quite an amazing designer, even as
a kid. no doubt about it, he and Willy Ley got us to the moon.
I know a woman who's Father worked with Von Braun and was a
frequent visitor in their home. it is interesting to hear how the man
was in RL.
cat
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> cat wrote:
[...]
>> An air blast would be preferable as the fuel would be burned
>> away before the components grounded. This would avoid a fire on the
>> ground. Parts falling from the sky would do less damage than a forest
>> fire or a fireball hitting a residential area.
>
> Eugh. I can't believe people are thinking this way.
Its mostly me who is talking like this. It is one of Her ideas. She
tends to have ideas that are effective. But She is a cold hearted
preditor and quite prepaired to let a few people die if it means
saving meany in the long term.
I'm not supprised that you feel that way, I've lived with Her for a
very long time and She still can send shivers down my spine.
Relee
>Baloo Ursidae wrote:
>>
>> Rust <othr...@bmts.com.netspam> wrote:
>I see. I still think I'll stay on the ground, or possibly avoid America
>entirely. Concealed carry is something I simply can't handle without a
>constant feeling of paranoia.
You think that's creepy? In the newspaper they said the weapons being
made for the Air Marshals are being manufactured somewhere in MY
NEIGHBORHOOD... *shakes her head*
I think it's a hoax and I'm keeping an eye out to make sure, but it's
surprising they'd put a hoax in the newspaper...
Also I've never heard of firearms that can't pierce an airplane's hull
before...
Rust
> Also I've never heard of firearms that can't pierce an airplane's hull
> before...
Firearms, no (with some possible exceptions). Ammunition, yes. Glazer
rounds have low penetration, but hit much like a concentrated shotgun
blast. I think I might advocate the use of sandbags or rubber bullets,
myself - low penetration, and -very- low lethality.
Nox Corax
>
-snip-
>
> From what I saw in my paper, they're working on a variant of the
> Glaser Safety Slug.
>
> A thin capsule (looked like plastic in the drawing, the Glaser was
> a copper skin with plastic plug) surrounding lots of small pellets (Glaser
> buffered with some sort of silicone fluid).
>
> On impact, the capsule basically shatters leaving a lot of very
> small pellets. Small pellets don't have the momentum to penetrate very
> deeply, especially against hard stuff (the Glaser was meant to break apart
> on contact with walls and floors instead of ricocheting -- anyone nearby
> might get hit with some pellets but they'd be too spread and weak to be
> deadly... But a direct body hit with a Glaser acted like a solid bullet,
> maybe breaking open on bone -- at which point the pellets start spreading
> inside the body).
>
> Think of the difference between a 1lb water balloon and a 1lb rock,
> when hitting the side of car (or metal trash can if you want to practice).
>
-snipped sig-
I think they're also called shredders. I've seen what they can do to
people first hand. It's like watching flesh go through a woodchipper.
Redtaur
(in message <3BB553...@bmts.com.netspam>):
> Relee wrote:
>
>> Also I've never heard of firearms that can't pierce an airplane's hull
>> before...
>
> Firearms, no (with some possible exceptions). Ammunition, yes. Glazer
> rounds have low penetration, but hit much like a concentrated shotgun
> blast. I think I might advocate the use of sandbags or rubber bullets,
> myself - low penetration, and -very- low lethality.
>
> -Rust
>
Rubber bullets maybe, but then, you have the same problem riot police run
into, pain can be ignored, large amounts if you're determined, just consider
the hijackers, they were on a suicide mission, even a few broken bones
wouldn't have stopped them, unless it was all four limbs. As to sandbags, the
last weapons I saw using these weren't exactly concealable, one being a
modified grenade launcher gun.
--
Scritches,
-=Red=- B&W foxtaur at large
ICQ 106685215
YIM redtaur
"I'm so sane, its driving me crazy."-- BNL 'Falling for the First Time'
FFHt3am A- C D-- H+ M++ P++ R+ T- W Z- Sm+ RLRB a29 cm d? e f-- h- i+ j* p+
sm+
Warren Forest
news:rqhart4ud51hftj0q...@4ax.com...
> From what I saw in my paper, they're working on a variant of the
> Glaser Safety Slug.
{>Shaking his head<} Sometimes I love how weaponry can be so paradoxically
named. The Glaser 'Safety' Slug? See, my initial reaction to seeing the
word 'Safety' implies a low-lethality ammunition. But don't Glaser rounds
have, like, a 90% kill ratio from a single hit or something?
("Set phasers to 'Safety'! Fire!" {>The nameless redshirt adjust his
phaser and fires. There is a shriek of blinding crimson light, followed by
a massive explosion of gooey body chunks being shredded and blasted apart.<}
"Well," replies the redshirt, wiping an unidentified internal organ off his
face, "I'm 'Safe', how about you?")
--
If you want to e-mail me, you'll need to change "Cold" to "Hot", and
you'll also need to include "Fur" in your subject line. - Warren
Rust
> ("Set phasers to 'Safety'! Fire!" {>The nameless redshirt adjust his
> phaser and fires. There is a shriek of blinding crimson light, followed by
> a massive explosion of gooey body chunks being shredded and blasted apart.<}
> "Well," replies the redshirt, wiping an unidentified internal organ off his
> face, "I'm 'Safe', how about you?")
"We come in peace - shoot to kill! Shoot to kill! Shoot to kill! We
come in peace - shoot to kill! Shoot to kill, men!" - Star Trekkin
cat
purred:
>Relee wrote:
>
>> Also I've never heard of firearms that can't pierce an airplane's hull
>> before...
>
>Firearms, no (with some possible exceptions). Ammunition, yes. Glazer
>rounds have low penetration, but hit much like a concentrated shotgun
>blast. I think I might advocate the use of sandbags or rubber bullets,
>myself - low penetration, and -very- low lethality.
Ah, yes, the Stun Gun. It fires a "beanbag" which has
tremendous impact and knockdown but is absolutely non lethal. (you can
see one in use, for real, in the Steve McQueen film "The Hunter") The
hit knocks you down and takes the wind right out of you (I was fool
enough to volunteer to see just how hard they hit. I figured I was a
tough guy and could take a little beanbag. HAH! I ended up on my butt
gasping for breath and in a lot of pain. The only lasting effect was a
small bruise but for almost 2 minutes I was not able to control myself
enough to put up an effective resistance). The only problems they have
are big ones.Their knockdown power beyond 20 feet is drastically
curtailed and they are horribly inaccurate. For a Sky Marshall the
size would be a problem as they require a device about the size of a
police nightstick and about 1 1/2 - 2" in diameter. They are perfect
for security guards, campus police and other security and protection
in crowded places as even if you hit someone by accident the damage is
not permanent like a bullet is. However the Sky Marshalls need a more
accurate and longer range weapon as them may have to hit a target
precisely from a fair distance away.
cat
cat
>You think that's creepy? In the newspaper they said the weapons being
>made for the Air Marshals are being manufactured somewhere in MY
>NEIGHBORHOOD... *shakes her head*
Strange. Most Air Marshalls carry S&W, Colt (Both US made),
Glock (Austrian) or Sig (Swiss). Offhand I can't think of a handgun
maker in Canada
>I think it's a hoax and I'm keeping an eye out to make sure, but it's
>surprising they'd put a hoax in the newspaper...
Some of the supposedly real news sometimes seems more like a
hoax than truth. Besides when was the last time a the media got
things straight?
>
>
>Also I've never heard of firearms that can't pierce an airplane's hull
>before...
Its not the firearm but the special ammunition which is made
to avoid damage to the fuselage.
cat
Nox Corax
>
-snip-
>
> that the person you want to hit stops immediately when hit.
>
>
But at the same time isn't a police officer trained to wound without
killing whenever possible? I'm good friends with a retired detective
on the Portland PD. What he told me was that "the firearm was always
a last resort". Much like a Japanese Murasama you don't draw one
without the direct intention of shedding blood. But that dosen't mean
necessarily that the damage inflicted is intended to be lethal. The
intent with the glazer round was to make a bullet that would do
extreme amounts of damage to one unprotected target at short range,
effectively killing that target. In practical terms this would be an
extremely effective ammunition if the intent is to kill a terrorist
that is attempting to hijack a plane. The question it seems to me now
is, are we willing to take that step. This is one choice I'm glad I
don't have to make.
Warren Forest
news:3BB6B63A...@qwest.net...
> > And... If you were an officer using them, "safety" would also
imply
> > that the person you want to hit stops immediately when hit.
>
> But at the same time isn't a police officer trained to wound without
> killing whenever possible? I'm good friends with a retired detective
> on the Portland PD. What he told me was that "the firearm was always
> a last resort".
Wound without killing? Doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard from any
RCMP officers I've known. They're trained to aim for the chest because it's
the most effective way of stopping a target. The reasoning is that if they
are forced to resort to using their gun, then their primary concern is with
stopping the target as quickly as possible. If the target dies as a result
of the wound, that's not something to be considered at the time.
I'd have to agree that if the safety of the target isn't a concern, then
Glaser rounds are logically the safer choice of ammunition. However, the
lack of penetration would probably make them unsuitable for general use.
For example, a while back an RCMP officer was forced to draw his gun and
fire at a car thief who was trying to run him down. If he'd had Glaser
rounds, they may not have penetrated the vehicle.
The thief (just a stupid teen out for a 'joyride') died from his wounds, and
there was the usual whining about how the mean old police man killed a poor
little misguided youth. Sorry, but even as a pacifist and a person who
worked with exactly the type of dumb teen who'd pull this kind of stuff, I'd
still have to totally side with the cop. Even if it was a friend of mine in
the car, I'd want the officer to use the best possible weapon that he/she
had.
Nox Corax
>
>
>
> Wound without killing? Doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard from any
> RCMP officers I've known. They're trained to aim for the chest because it's
> the most effective way of stopping a target. The reasoning is that if they
> are forced to resort to using their gun, then their primary concern is with
> stopping the target as quickly as possible. If the target dies as a result
> of the wound, that's not something to be considered at the time.
No argument there, safety has to come first. But it's always a hard
thing to justify to yourself afterward.
> I'd have to agree that if the safety of the target isn't a concern, then
> Glaser rounds are logically the safer choice of ammunition. However, the
> lack of penetration would probably make them unsuitable for general use.
> For example, a while back an RCMP officer was forced to draw his gun and
> fire at a car thief who was trying to run him down. If he'd had Glaser
> rounds, they may not have penetrated the vehicle.
That's why they would be an ideal ammunition inside an airplane.
Glazer rounds have less chance of rupturing the hull. As for
standardizing it in law enforcement, I don't think we have to worry
about that. Standard ammuntioin is more effective as a general course
and tends to have a better chance at not killing the target.
> The thief (just a stupid teen out for a 'joyride') died from his wounds, and
> there was the usual whining about how the mean old police man killed a poor
> little misguided youth. Sorry, but even as a pacifist and a person who
> worked with exactly the type of dumb teen who'd pull this kind of stuff, I'd
> still have to totally side with the cop. Even if it was a friend of mine in
> the car, I'd want the officer to use the best possible weapon that he/she
> had.
*sigh* kids. In 24 years of life I've seen some of the most violent
stupidity Portland has to offer. Most of it was sensless, none of it
worked out for the better. I'd have to agree with the cop myself on
that one, there's no telling who that kid might have killed riding
around in that car.
cat
<Warren...@ColdMail.com> purred:
>Nox Corax <cdav...@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:3BB6B63A...@qwest.net...
>> > And... If you were an officer using them, "safety" would also
>imply
>> > that the person you want to hit stops immediately when hit.
>>
>> But at the same time isn't a police officer trained to wound without
>> killing whenever possible? I'm good friends with a retired detective
>> on the Portland PD. What he told me was that "the firearm was always
>> a last resort".
>
>Wound without killing? Doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard from any
>RCMP officers I've known. They're trained to aim for the chest because it's
>the most effective way of stopping a target. The reasoning is that if they
>are forced to resort to using their gun, then their primary concern is with
>stopping the target as quickly as possible. If the target dies as a result
>of the wound, that's not something to be considered at the time.
>
Exactly what the "Protect" in "Protect and Serve" (the slogan
on many Police cars) means. The Police are there to protect the public
from the rampages of those who would endanger them. While they do not
try to kill the criminal they must stop them before they can harm
people. sometimes that requires lethal action. It is a sad fact of
life that many beings bent on doing harm will not listen to reason or
even threat of force but must be dealt with in the strongest method
available and quickly. That is why shooting for the center of the
cheat is taught. Any other area (either "lower lethality" like arms or
legs or "High lethality" namely the head) is harder to hit and
increases the chance that a miss will harm a bystander. also the
center chest hit will usually knock the miscreant down, rendering them
ineffective as a threat. Usually they will survive the hit from a
Police weapon since those are designed for lower lethality than a
truly efficient sidearm.
>I'd have to agree that if the safety of the target isn't a concern, then
>Glaser rounds are logically the safer choice of ammunition. However, the
>lack of penetration would probably make them unsuitable for general use.
>For example, a while back an RCMP officer was forced to draw his gun and
>fire at a car thief who was trying to run him down. If he'd had Glaser
>rounds, they may not have penetrated the vehicle.
No question they would have not gotten through the glass. As
it is most Police ammo has low penetration and often does not go
through the windshield of a car.
>
>The thief (just a stupid teen out for a 'joyride') died from his wounds, and
>there was the usual whining about how the mean old police man killed a poor
>little misguided youth. Sorry, but even as a pacifist and a person who
>worked with exactly the type of dumb teen who'd pull this kind of stuff, I'd
>still have to totally side with the cop. Even if it was a friend of mine in
>the car, I'd want the officer to use the best possible weapon that he/she
>had.
The Police use the best compromise weapon available. they
compromise between the ability to stop and the ability to stop without
fatality. Better weapons are much more fatal but that is not what Law
Enforcement Officers want. (see, it is a furry post. look, L.E.O.s got
mentioned, didn't they?)
cat
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> Exactly what the "Protect" in "Protect and Serve" (the slogan
> on many Police cars) means. The Police are there to protect the public
> from the rampages of those who would endanger them. While they do not
> try to kill the criminal they must stop them before they can harm
> people.
I think sometimes the poplice forget that the aleged criminal is a part of
the public as well, or this may be just a feeling I get from the quite
corrupt police force that operates locally.
Bruce L. Bergman
<wulf...@dm.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:02:10 -0700, Bruce L. Bergman
><blbe...@127.0.0.1.earthlink.net> (Bruce L. Bergman) left the following
>spoor in alt.lifestyle.furry:
>
>
>> No, talk about VERY trained. Many airline pilots are ex-military
>
> I /did/ say I was half asleep, didn't I? <G>
Well, that would explain a lot. ;-)
Rorschach
>
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:39:05 GMT, cat <c...@consultant.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Exactly what the "Protect" in "Protect and Serve" (the slogan
> > on many Police cars) means. The Police are there to protect the public
> > from the rampages of those who would endanger them. While they do not
> > try to kill the criminal they must stop them before they can harm
> > people.
>
> I think sometimes the poplice forget that the aleged criminal is a part of
> the public as well, or this may be just a feeling I get from the quite
> corrupt police force that operates locally.
Almost all police will only draw and fire when there is an immediate
imminent danger to themselves or others. (There are cases that they
fired on someone unarmed, but these are almost all either real mistakes
in the dark or the end of a career and sometimes jail time).
A police officer would like to do anything BUT shoot their weapon at
someone. A police shooting investigation is one of the most stressful
things that can happen to an officer and this is added to the moral
stress of maybe taking another person's life or mobility away, the
financial stress of being sued by the person and relatives, and the
amount of paperwork involved.
--
. . Rors (Rorschach)
| \ / |
|/ """ \? A simple pattern of Black and White?
//,\ /,\\ Within you can find images, reflections, maybe balance.
\ |_| / We walk a risky path: alone, yet not: whole, yet fractured.
`=' "Sometimes the wolves are silent and the moon is howling"
Kamau
news:3bb53936...@news.pacbell.net...
> They are civilian dressed (plainclothes in police terms)
> professionally trained experts who do NOT react to accidental innocent
> gestures.
>
Very highly trained and extensive screening process. These are not the old
west shot first marshals but professionals who have lots of experience and
training in dealing with these situations.
> In all likelihood you have been right close to a
> plainclothes cop more than once and you are still alive. the only
> danger a gun poses is in the hands of a untrained person.
>
And probably a few who were not cops. It's surprising just how many 'carry'
permits our out there let alone those who carry without them.
Untrained and low practice people with handguns are often a greater threat
then a criminal. One thing I think we'll see with the new air marshals is
the types of guns that can not be fired by someone other then the officer
themselves. Thumbprint or other device to lock the pin if anyone else tries
to use it.
> I would rather have some armed trained person near me if
> trouble erupted than an unarmed one,
>
I'll second that.
--
Kamau (Hug your loved ones & friends while you can.)
}{For a Lion Pride is a strength not a weakness}{
http://www.chameleon.net/kamau/index.htm
FFL6ac A- C+ Dm++ H+ M P++ R+ T+++ W Z Sm# RLCT/GP a++ cn++ d e+++ f++h-i+j-
p* sm#
Kamau
> I simply LIKE the train and take them whenever I can.
>
One of the good things I'm hoping for to come out of this is an increased
awareness of the importance of our rail system. In short haul, say 500 to
1000 miles, rail is as fast as air because it gets you to city center and
does not require long wait and travel time at each end. If we were to get
our rail up to the same level as European or Japanese rail it would be far
better time and convenience wise to take the train on anything other then
coast to coast or deep into mid country trips.
Kamau
> Airliners are VERY stable,
> to the point they almost fly themselves. Dive recovery is easy and
> near automatic on a modern airliner. An average pilot could bring one
> of them out of almost any dive imaginable.
>
Distance and time is the only factor in recovery. An airliner that is not
having mechanical problems can recover very quickly and as cat said are
designed to do so.
> An air blast would be preferable as the fuel would be burned
> away before the components grounded. This would avoid a fire on the
> ground. Parts falling from the sky would do less damage than a forest
> fire or a fireball hitting a residential area.
>
I think we are forgetting one thing here. We don't need to destroy the
aircraft out right. Just reduce it to lowest possible death profile. Blow
out the fuel tanks so there's no fuel on board. The impact of the plane
into a building will do relatively little damage without fuel as compared
with a full fuel load. Remember the towers took the impact it was the heat
of the burning fuel that caused the structure to weaken and fail. After the
engines cut out for lack of fuel the only targets are those it can glide to
and if the crew is able to recover control there is still a chance of some
people walking away from it.
Just a side note. I'm glad I'm not flying air cover over the US right now.
Can you imagine what it's like knowing you might have to pull the trigger on
one of your own? Still, reflecting on my service, if those were my orders
I'd do it. Not sure what I'd be like after but I'd do it to save thousands
of others.
cat
purred:
>I think we are forgetting one thing here. We don't need to destroy the
>aircraft out right. Just reduce it to lowest possible death profile. Blow
>out the fuel tanks so there's no fuel on board. The impact of the plane
>into a building will do relatively little damage without fuel as compared
>with a full fuel load. Remember the towers took the impact it was the heat
>of the burning fuel that caused the structure to weaken and fail.
At least that is what the designers and builders (who would be
liable if it turned out the design was faulty) want people to think.
Back around WWII a fully loaded bomber lost control and flew
into the Empire State Building. The fire raged for hours, lasting far
longer than the WTC one. The plane remained stuck in the side of the
building and was cut up to be removed. This removal annoyed the people
who were working the next day on the floors above and below the plane.
Now that is how a well built building reacts to a plane wreck, Of
course very few buildings are that well built
>After the
>engines cut out for lack of fuel the only targets are those it can glide to
>and if the crew is able to recover control there is still a chance of some
>people walking away from it.
A modern jet, be it a passenger plane of military bird, has
the approximate glide ratio of a brick. no engines = no glide = few
survivors (including those on the ground hit by the plane)
cat
Redtaur
(in message <3bbaa8d1...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>):
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:00:15 -0500, "Kamau" <jc2b...@tacionic.net>
> purred:
>
>
>> I think we are forgetting one thing here. We don't need to destroy the
>> aircraft out right. Just reduce it to lowest possible death profile. Blow
>> out the fuel tanks so there's no fuel on board. The impact of the plane
>> into a building will do relatively little damage without fuel as compared
>> with a full fuel load. Remember the towers took the impact it was the heat
>> of the burning fuel that caused the structure to weaken and fail.
>
> At least that is what the designers and builders (who would be
> liable if it turned out the design was faulty) want people to think.
> Back around WWII a fully loaded bomber lost control and flew
> into the Empire State Building. The fire raged for hours, lasting far
> longer than the WTC one. The plane remained stuck in the side of the
> building and was cut up to be removed. This removal annoyed the people
> who were working the next day on the floors above and below the plane.
> Now that is how a well built building reacts to a plane wreck, Of
> course very few buildings are that well built
>
This is true, but its not so much a matter of design, as the Empire State
Building is much older and was likely built extra heavy due to a lack of
experience in building on this scale. On the other hand, the World Trade
Center buildings were built with specific survival goals, which didn't
include a fully loaded jumbo jet slamming into. I highly don't there's any
one reason when you consider what this disaster did to the building, a high
intensity fire, quite a bit of extra weight added to the building, and the
impact combined probably exceeded anything the builders thought of, even if
they'd taken one or more into consideration.
> cat
--
-=scritches=-
Red
grey scale foxtaur and hack writer
ICQ #106685215;Yahoo Messenger redtaur
ta...@furworld.org
"I'll carry your books, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry
forward, Cary Grant, cash & carry, Carry Me Back To Old Virginia, I'll even
Hari Kari if you show me how, but I will *not* carry a gun." -- Hawkeye,
M*A*S*H
FCFt3a A-- C++ D H M++ P+ R++ T W Z+ Sm++ RLRB/AT a cm++ d? e f h- iwf+ j p+
sm+
Manny Festo
Kamau <jc2b...@tacionic.net> wrote in message
news:9pddfs$1llp$1...@velox.critter.net...
: how about a system that would allow the passenger compartment to be
depressureized? If it left the cockpit pressureized then the plane could be
safely landed while a member of the crew cuffed & disarmed the hijackers
before they revived,yes?
cat
<wulf...@dm.net> purred:
>On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:59:37 -0500, "Kamau" <jc2b...@tacionic.net> (Kamau)
>left the following spoor in alt.lifestyle.furry:
>
>>
>> Untrained and low practice people with handguns are often a greater threat
>> then a criminal. One thing I think we'll see with the new air marshals is
>> the types of guns that can not be fired by someone other then the officer
>> themselves. Thumbprint or other device to lock the pin if anyone else tries
>> to use it.
>>
> Feasible for electronically triggered olympic free pistols, but a
>liability to law-enforcement officers UNLESS you can ensure it will always
>function for the officer regardless of situation: firing one or two handed,
>firing in the "off" hand, firing with gloves, firing using non-standard
>fingers... It must work in all those cases or you endanger the officer.
>
> Companies have offered magnetic safeties for years, owner has to
>wear a magnetic ring, which has to align over the right spot to release the
>safety... How many duty officers have you found paying for that feature?
>
> S&W, for many decades, had/have a magazine disconnect safety -- if
>in a tussle for possession, the owner could hit the magazine release and
>let it drop out; the pistol will not fire without a magazine. Some
>departments however have those safeties disabled, because it also means you
>can't fire a chambered round while in the middle of changing magazines.
The ring gadget failed because it simply didn't work reliably
enough for police work. With a 30% error rate it was fine for target
shooting where you can always try again but when applied to Police
uses it would have been a disaster.
Colt, too, as well as other manufacturers use a magazine
disconnect as well as a grip disconnect. With the grip disconnect you
actually have to be holding the weapon firmly to fire it. this is to
avoid accidental discharges. Some have used heavy springs in the grip
disconnect as a "child safe" feature.
The problem with magazine disconnects is, for it to be an
effective anti snatch system you must leave the weapon fully unloaded
until it is needed. At that point the time to draw, insert a magazine
(a 2 handed job), cycle the action, acquire the target and fire is
somewhat longer than you have to live.
The best "safety" is letting the professional keep control of
their weapon. It is not easy to wrest a weapon from a trained user, so
it is most doubtful someone else would end up with the professional's
weapon during an encounter, especially since such encounters happen
very fast and are exceedingly brief.
cat
cat
>This is true, but its not so much a matter of design, as the Empire State
>Building is much older and was likely built extra heavy due to a lack of
>experience in building on this scale. On the other hand, the World Trade
>Center buildings were built with specific survival goals, which didn't
>include a fully loaded jumbo jet slamming into. I highly don't there's any
>one reason when you consider what this disaster did to the building, a high
>intensity fire, quite a bit of extra weight added to the building, and the
>impact combined probably exceeded anything the builders thought of, even if
>they'd taken one or more into consideration.
True, by many standards of today the ESB IS overbuilt. however
the WTC design was criticized BEFORe construction as being unable to
withstand a possible quake (NY has a nasty fault under it) or an
aircraft hitting it. (yes, even back then they were aware that things
like that happened). The engineers report dismissed fears of "aircraft
contact" by stating that flight patterns would not allow a plane close
enough to become a significant risk, after more objections were raised
they revised the design very slightly to withstand the impact of a
private plane impact as it was felt all other p[lanes would be under
the control of ATC and only a small craft might be overlooked. As
usual, money talked and the WTC was not made strong enough. While i
doubt if any of the detractors ever envisioned a purposeful crash of
an aircraft into the WTC, they still were aware of the danger but
their objections were overlooked.
After the WTC disaster one of the news program,s brought up
the ESB crash and had an extrapolation run using the Boeing 737
instead of the B 25. The projection stated the ESB would NOT have
collapsed though it would have suffered major damage . Again,
sometimes the old designs are better. Nowdays the bottom line rules
and, while it can lead to spectacular designs, it can also lead to
even more spectacular disasters.
cat
(remembering a series of disasters with modern designs where the
designers overlooked an "insignificant" factor)
cat
> B-25 -> 320_175_000 (using 150 speed)
From what I remember the B 25 was at normal flight power so it
would have been doing between 225 and 250 mph. That change in V makes
for a different set of figures.
cat
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
[...]
>> I think sometimes the poplice forget that the aleged criminal is a part of
>> the public as well, or this may be just a feeling I get from the quite
>> corrupt police force that operates locally.
>
> Almost all police will only draw and fire when there is an immediate
> imminent danger to themselves or others. (There are cases that they
> fired on someone unarmed, but these are almost all either real mistakes
> in the dark or the end of a career and sometimes jail time).
There have been cases at least locally where a man who was mutilating
himself with a knife was shot.