Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-13-2004, 11:10 AM   #41 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObieX
BSE = mad cow disease? If so, all you'd need is one messed up cow and every country around will be boycotting your meat. Just ask Canada eh.
Yep, Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis. It's already been found in U.S. stocks and boycotts have already been issued. The beef industry in America is particularly adept (ask Oprah about this) at covering up issues that make them look bad. So if there was a terrorist attack like this we'd likely never hear about it until it was much too late.
Locobot is offline  
Old 12-13-2004, 01:19 PM   #42 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Frigid North
I too question the newsworthyness of this story, but deffinitely not the validity. As an Air Force flightcrew member I have been warned throughout the course of my career about the use of lasers. Do terrorists poses the technology to make these things? No, but the former Soviet Union HAD them and we all know where all of the USSR's Cold War surplus of stuff has gone... Oh wait, no we don't cause they have sold it off to anyone with some cash.
__________________
My heart will be restless until it finds its final rest. Then they can weigh it...
Fred181 is offline  
Old 12-13-2004, 08:33 PM   #43 (permalink)
sob
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
sob, you're completely missing the point.

I'm sure there are tons of articles you can find with google that describe using lasers as potential weapons, just like I'm sure there are tons of articles on how terrorists can use plastic surgery in an attempt to steal an official's identity. Just because you link to something doesn't make it factual or any more realistic.
You still haven't explained why there is a Geneva Convention Protocol on it, if it's as silly as you say.

Quote:
I really could go on and on... understand what I'm trying to say now?
Speaking of understanding, can you accept the concept that if the public is informed of a very feasible means of terrorist attack, that the public might be more likely to report suspicious activities of that nature to the authorities?

Otherwise, Bush/US haters would have a field day claiming that "the government was asleep at the switch/withheld vital information, etc., ad nauseum.
sob is offline  
Old 12-29-2004, 06:59 PM   #44 (permalink)
Adequate
 
cyrnel's Avatar
 
Location: In my angry-dome.
Hrrm... I didn't know Heathkit made a laser-tracking system.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines
---
FBI Probing Laser Directed Into Jet's Cockpit
Wednesday, December 29, 2004


STORIES

Terrorists May Use Lasers to Down Planes
CLEVELAND — Authorities are investigating a mysterious laser beam that was directed into the cockpit of a commercial jet traveling at more than 8,500 feet.

The beam appeared Monday when the plane was about 15 miles from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (search), the FBI said.

"It was in there for several seconds like [the plane] was being tracked," FBI agent Robert Hawk said.

The pilot was able to land the plane, and air traffic controllers used radar to determine the laser came from a residential area in suburban Warrensville Heights.

Hawk said the laser had to have been fairly sophisticated to track a plane traveling at that altitude. Authorities had no other leads, and are investigating whether the incident was a prank or if there was a more sinister motive.

Federal officials have expressed concern about terrorists using laser beams, which can distract or temporarily blind a pilot. ...continued online...
---

How does RADAR track a laser?
cyrnel is offline  
Old 12-29-2004, 11:40 PM   #45 (permalink)
sob
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrnel
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...ation-headlines
Nice link. My local news also reported the two incidents of lasers in cockpits of flights over Colorado.

Time for a review:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
hilarious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
highly improbable
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
not news worthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
It's funny that people actually take this seriously
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
Looks like we can easily pick apart those who fall subject to these stories
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
I really don't think you need statistics, detailed diagrams, or a detailed report from scientists at MIT to understand how absurd and improbable it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
sob, you're completely missing the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompy
Regardless, it remains a very silly thing to report on.
Locobot? Manx? Are these just more Bush/Cheney scare tactics?
sob is offline  
Old 12-30-2004, 07:47 AM   #46 (permalink)
Psycho
 
I have to agree with sob here. Stompy, you are being a little too dismissive.

A few thoughts:

it should be obvious to all that such a laser could be located anywhere within the pilots' visual range from the cockpit. If he can see you, then you can hit his eyes with a laser. Of course, the farther away you are, the harder it will be to aim, so your best shot is going to be on approach.

I voted for Kerry, so please don't accuse me of being an apologist, but I think all this crap about alarmist terror warnings is hypocritical. YOu can question the timing (and I do), but you can't question the release of the information. Put yourself in the administration's position, if you will. You capture an al Qaeda operative or uncover some al Qaeda documents and find out they have been studying a particular attack. What would you do? If you don't release it as a warning to police, etc., and the attack is used, do you think people will say "well, it's ok that they knew this was possible and didn't tell anyone, b/c they knew not to freak everyone out with every possible type of attack"

In fact, knowing that they have no choice but to release the information, if I were a terrorist I would keep documents suggesting I'd studied every kind of attack under the sun just so as to keep people afraid. Keeping people afraid is exactly my goal, and all the better if I can make the administration do my work for me.

finally, this is 20/02 hindsight, of course, but it is now clear that such an attack is entirely plausible, so clearly you were wrong in saying it was highly improbable, etc. Next time, feel free to say you think something improbable, but acknowledge that you could be mistaken.
__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Last edited by balderdash111; 12-30-2004 at 07:50 AM..
balderdash111 is offline  
Old 12-31-2004, 02:30 PM   #47 (permalink)
The Dreaded Pixel Nazi
 
Konichiwaneko's Avatar
 
Location: Inside my camera
There's a post in the general discussion area, and also on fark.com (I know bad source) of rampant laser usuage against airplanes.
__________________
Hesitate. Pull me in.
Breath on breath. Skin on skin.
Loving deep. Falling fast.
All right here. Let this last.
Here with our lips locked tight.
Baby the time is right for us...
to forget about us.
Konichiwaneko is offline  
Old 12-31-2004, 03:21 PM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by balderdash111
I have to agree with sob here. Stompy, you are being a little too dismissive.

A few thoughts:

it should be obvious to all that such a laser could be located anywhere within the pilots' visual range from the cockpit. If he can see you, then you can hit his eyes with a laser. Of course, the farther away you are, the harder it will be to aim, so your best shot is going to be on approach.

I voted for Kerry, so please don't accuse me of being an apologist, but I think all this crap about alarmist terror warnings is hypocritical. YOu can question the timing (and I do), but you can't question the release of the information. Put yourself in the administration's position, if you will. You capture an al Qaeda operative or uncover some al Qaeda documents and find out they have been studying a particular attack. What would you do? If you don't release it as a warning to police, etc., and the attack is used, do you think people will say "well, it's ok that they knew this was possible and didn't tell anyone, b/c they knew not to freak everyone out with every possible type of attack"

In fact, knowing that they have no choice but to release the information, if I were a terrorist I would keep documents suggesting I'd studied every kind of attack under the sun just so as to keep people afraid. Keeping people afraid is exactly my goal, and all the better if I can make the administration do my work for me.

finally, this is 20/02 hindsight, of course, but it is now clear that such an attack is entirely plausible, so clearly you were wrong in saying it was highly improbable, etc. Next time, feel free to say you think something improbable, but acknowledge that you could be mistaken.
balderdash,

actually, what you need to do is differentiate between probability and plausability. Stompy doens't have a problem discerning the two.

Plausibility is whether something can happen. Stompy said he realized that it could happen.

Probability is whether something will happen, or how often it might occur in a given number of instances in a population.

Stompy claims that these incidents are not very likely to occur, not that it is unable to occur, but that we should be worried about threats and incidents that are more likely (far more likely, in fact) than these in terms of our safety.

What is he mistaken about?
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 12-31-2004, 04:09 PM   #49 (permalink)
disconnected
 
anleja's Avatar
 
Location: ignoreland
Whoops, I didn't know this was here, otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread in General Discussion. Honestly, I thought this was a brand new story when I posted it.
anleja is offline  
Old 01-03-2005, 10:55 AM   #50 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
balderdash,

actually, what you need to do is differentiate between probability and plausability. Stompy doens't have a problem discerning the two.

Plausibility is whether something can happen. Stompy said he realized that it could happen.

Probability is whether something will happen, or how often it might occur in a given number of instances in a population.

Stompy claims that these incidents are not very likely to occur, not that it is unable to occur, but that we should be worried about threats and incidents that are more likely (far more likely, in fact) than these in terms of our safety.

What is he mistaken about?
Gosh, I really had no idea what the difference was between probability and plausibility. Thanks for clearing that up.

Are you really so pedantic?

I think you are looking back at Stompy's posts with rose-tinted glasses.

Yes, I happen to have chosen his use of the term "highly improbable" as an example of how Stompy dismissed this as an issue, and yes, I suppose that opened me up to the fairly silly critique you made above.

However...

Stompy was clearly ridiculing anyone who took this seriously. Yes, he/she said it could happen, but he also made it quite clear that he/she thought it had about an equal chance of success as me shooting a 747 pilot in the eye with a BB gun. From the ground. He/She refused to even consider that such an attack was a serious concern.

SOB's post contains a nice set of excerpts. Please read that again to refresh your memory. Even better, read all of Stompy's posts for the full sense of tone.

In case you missed it, my point has very little to do with the difference between plausibility and probability. It has to do with Stompy's dismissive attitude toward something that turned out to be a legitimate concern.

Thanks.

Edit: one more note: Stompy's problem was not whether he/she was right or wrong. It was about tone. I happen to agree with the point that people should focus on attacks that are more likely to occur, but Stompy could have made it in a far less dismissive tone.

Here is how I would have done it:

Yes, I suppose you could blind a pilot with a laser beam from the ground, but it seems to me like that would be far too difficult to pull off. Plus, unless you can treat the windows in some way to block the laser beams, I don't seem much you can do to defend against it. I think we would be better served to focus on attacks that are more easily carried out and that we can do something to prevent.
__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Last edited by balderdash111; 01-03-2005 at 11:01 AM..
balderdash111 is offline  
Old 01-03-2005, 11:36 AM   #51 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I think more people will die this year because of car accidents then they will because of laser beams being shot at planes. Thats just my guess. I think more people will die this year of being struck by lightning than laser beams being shot at planes... I just see it as highly improbable. Especially since most of the landing is controlled by the plane it's self. And this would require blinding 2 piolets. The equipment to do this is highly sophesticated and would be diffuclt to move around without someone noticing. My guess is we have some childern doing pranks and because it got in the media more are doing it now.
Rekna is offline  
Old 01-04-2005, 07:45 PM   #52 (permalink)
sob
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
I think more people will die this year because of car accidents then they will because of laser beams being shot at planes. Thats just my guess. I think more people will die this year of being struck by lightning than laser beams being shot at planes... I just see it as highly improbable. Especially since most of the landing is controlled by the plane it's self.
More people will die in car accidents this year than died in the WTC attack. It doesn't make you feel any better if you're on the plane.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
And this would require blinding 2 piolets. The equipment to do this is highly sophesticated and would be diffuclt to move around without someone noticing. My guess is we have some childern doing pranks and because it got in the media more are doing it now.
Right and wrong. The equipment is available, and at least this instance appears to have been a "prank."

Quote:
Updated: 07:12 PM EST
Man Charged With Aiming Laser at Aircraft
By WAYNE PARRY, AP

NEWARK, N.J. (Jan. 4) - Federal authorities Tuesday used the Patriot Act to charge a man with pointing a laser beam at an airplane overhead and temporarily blinding the pilot and co-pilot.

The FBI acknowledged the incident had no connection to terrorism but called David Banach's actions "foolhardy and negligent.''

Banach, 38, admitted to federal agents that he pointed the light beam at a jet and a helicopter over his home near Teterboro Airport last week, authorities said. Initially, he claimed his daughter aimed the device at the helicopter, they said.

He is the first person arrested after a recent rash of reports around the nation of laser beams hitting airplanes.

Banach was charged only in connection with the jet. He was accused of interfering with the operator of a mass transportation vehicle and making false statements to the FBI, and was released on $100,000 bail. He could get up to 25 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000.

Banach's lawyer, Gina Mendola-Longarzo, said her client was simply using the hand-held device to look at stars with his daughter on the family's deck. She said Banach bought the device on the Internet for $100 for his job testing fiber-optic cable.

"He wasn't trying to harm any person, any aircraft or anything like that,'' she said.

The jet, a chartered Cessna Citation, was coming in for a landing last Wednesday with six people aboard when a green light beam struck the windshield three times at about 3,000 feet, according to court documents. The flash temporarily blinded both the pilot and co-pilot, but they were later able to land the plane safely, authorities said.

"Not only was the safety of the pilot and passengers placed in jeopardy by Banach's actions, so were countless innocent civilians on the ground in this densely populated area,'' said Joseph Billy, agent in charge of the FBI's Newark bureau.

Then, on Friday, a helicopter carrying Port Authority detectives was hit by a laser beam as its crew surveyed the area to try to pinpoint the origin of the original beam.

According to the FBI, the Patriot Act does not describe helicopters as "mass transportation vehicles.'' As for why Banach was not charged with some other offense over the helicopter incident, Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, did not immediately return calls for comment.

A few hours after the helicopter was hit by the laser, FBI agents canvassed Banach's neighborhood, trying to find the source of the beams. Banach told the agents it was his daughter who shined the laser at the helicopter, according to court papers.

Similar incidents have been reported in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Cleveland, Washington, Houston and Medford, Oregon, raising fears that the light beams could temporarily blind cockpit crews and lead to accidents.

Last month, the FBI and the Homeland Security Department sent a memo to law enforcement agencies saying there is evidence that terrorists have explored using lasers as weapons. But federal officials have said there is no evidence any the current incidents represent a terrorist plot.


01/04/05 18:19 EST
sob is offline  
Old 03-24-2005, 06:45 PM   #53 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Taxachusetts, USA
Link

Quote:
A man accused of pointing a green laser beam at a small passenger jet, temporarily blinding the pilot and co-pilot, was indicted in Newark under the USA Patriot Act.

David W. Banach, 38, said he was looking at stars with his daughter.

The FBI said the jet's windshield and cabin were hit three times with a beam as the plane approached Teterboro Airport. It landed safely.

Banach, 38, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of interference with aircraft pilots.
If we didn't have a legal means to arrest this guy before the Patriot Act, it would seem that it's a law whose time has come.
VARIETY is offline  
 

Tags
hear, lasers, latest


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:40 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360