Australian News On Drone Danger

bushie · Aug 9, 2018

I agree 100% with Phill that you need to be wary of everything the ABC reports (for our USA cousins the ABC is similar to the BBC in the UK, a government funded broadcaster) All their on air presenters tend to follow a leftist line of reporting and push the barrow for Labor, and therefore cannot be relied on to publish impartial reports.

sar104 · Aug 9, 2018

bushie said:
I agree 100% with Phill that you need to be wary of everything the ABC reports (for our USA cousins the ABC is similar to the BBC in the UK, a government funded broadcaster) All their on air presenters tend to follow a leftist line of reporting and push the barrow for Labor, and therefore cannot be relied on to publish impartial reports.

That's pretty funny, since the BBC is definitely one of the most objective news sources out there. And you may be misunderstanding the charter of the BBC - it is publicly funded but independently run - it is not a government news agency. I can't speak for ABC except to note that the subject of this discussion is a perfectly reasonable news article.

Ren57 · Aug 9, 2018

Pietros said:
Our local ABC News is adding to the hysteria about drone dangers:

Cheap and deadly: how off-the-shelf drones become weapons

Now we are all latent terrorists!

Yeah, right. Here in the UK and Europe, terrorists have been using motor vehicles to kill people for the past 2 or 3 years. No media coverage about how dangerous motor vehicles are and apparently, any terrorist can just walk into any vehicle hire centre and just drive away and kill people. As for this particular incident, 2 army officers were interviewed but wouldn't appear on camera. They both said the explosion was caused by a Gerry-can full of petrol being ignited in a above apartment. Again fake news blaming drones for all the bad things in the world.....

JDawg · Aug 9, 2018

Ren57 said:
Yeah, right. Here in the UK and Europe, terrorists have been using motor vehicles to kill people for the past 2 or 3 years. No media coverage about how dangerous motor vehicles are and apparently, any terrorist can just walk into any vehicle hire centre and just drive away and kill people. As for this particular incident, 2 army officers were interviewed but wouldn't appear on camera. They both said the explosion was caused by a Gerry-can full of petrol being ignited in a above apartment. Again fake news blaming drones for all the bad things in the world.....

fAke NiWs! Alternitiv truth Rools

sar104 · Aug 9, 2018

Ren57 said:
Yeah, right. Here in the UK and Europe, terrorists have been using motor vehicles to kill people for the past 2 or 3 years. No media coverage about how dangerous motor vehicles are and apparently, any terrorist can just walk into any vehicle hire centre and just drive away and kill people. As for this particular incident, 2 army officers were interviewed but wouldn't appear on camera. They both said the explosion was caused by a Gerry-can full of petrol being ignited in a above apartment. Again fake news blaming drones for all the bad things in the world.....

You may have seen the video of this event and noticed that there was clearly a significant explosion with a noticeable blast. And just to clarify, despite what you see in movies, petrol does not explode like that, it just burns, unless it is first dispersed into the air by a prior explosion. So the anonymous officers (other sources cited them as firefighters) were wrong.

But I had no idea that car bombings no longer attract media coverage. That is strange.

Ren57 · Aug 9, 2018

sar104 said:
You may have seen the video of this event and noticed that there was clearly a significant explosion with a noticeable blast. And just to clarify, despite what you see in movies, petrol does not explode like that, it just burns, unless it is first dispersed into the air by a prior explosion. So the anonymous officers (other sources cited them as firefighters) were wrong.

But I had no idea that car bombings no longer attract media coverage. That is strange.

Not car bombings, using a motor vehicle to run into people to kill them. 84 people were killed in Nice, south of France in 2016 when a terrorist hi-jacked a truck. Various other vehicles have been used in the UK, same method. Aim, to kill and injure people And as for petrol in a Gerry-can. If you fill a 20 litre Gerry-can about half full of petrol and leave it open in an enclosed space, so that the volatile vapour can fill the enclosed space, introduce an ignition (fuse or whatever) and see what happens. Try it in your garage at home, I dare you!

sar104 · Aug 9, 2018

Ren57 said:
Not car bombings, using a motor vehicle to run into people to kill them. 84 people were killed in Nice, south of France in 2016 when a terrorist hi-jacked a truck. Various other vehicles have been used in the UK, same method. Aim, to kill and injure people And as for petrol in a Gerry-can. If you fill a 20 litre Gerry-can about half full of petrol and leave it open in an enclosed space, so that the volatile vapour can fill the enclosed space, introduce an ignition (fuse or whatever) and see what happens. Try it in your garage at home, I dare you!

OK - then I didn't realize that the media were not covering vehicular terrorism. Petrol vapor ignition can occur within the flammability limits (~ 2 - 7 %) so that scenario could result in explosion, but would not produce the sharp air shock heard in that video. That was characteristic of a small, solid explosive charge.

Ren57 · Aug 9, 2018

The media do cover events like this. What I am trying to get across is, that all vehicles are not being demonized because of it! The way that drones are being demonized because a drone was allegedly used to carry an explosive device. Which there is still no definitive proof of by the way! But fire officers/army officers (whichever version of the report you choose to read) have said that it was a petrol can in an apartment. But you believe what you like, it looks like you've already made up your mind.

sar104 · Aug 9, 2018

Ren57 said:
The media do cover events like this. What I am trying to get across is, that all vehicles are not being demonized because of it! The way that drones are being demonized because a drone was allegedly used to carry an explosive device. Which there is still no definitive proof of by the way! But fire officers/army officers (whichever version of the report you choose to read) have said that it was a petrol can in an apartment. But you believe what you like, it looks like you've already made up your mind.

I don't think that drones are being demonized but, as a relatively new phenomenon, it's neither surprising nor disturbing that the use of them for this kind of event is getting coverage. The article wasn't recommending banning drones any more than equivalent articles recommended banning vehicles.

In terms of concluding what happened, I agree there is no proof. I'm not in the business of "believing" anything but, based on my experience with explosives and the level of detail coming out about the delivery method, I would definitely lean towards a small outdoor C4 or similar charge on a UAV rather than a petrol vapor explosion in an apartment. What is your reason for preferring the petrol vapor explanation - presumably it's more than the reported unsubstantiated anonymous accounts of one or two unknown alleged witnesses?

Ren57 · Aug 9, 2018

sar104 said:
I don't think that drones are being demonized but, as a relatively new phenomenon, it's neither surprising nor disturbing that the use of them for this kind of event is getting coverage. The article wasn't recommending banning drones any more than equivalent articles recommended banning vehicles.

In terms of concluding what happened, I agree there is no proof. I'm not in the business of "believing" anything but, based on my experience with explosives and the level of detail coming out about the delivery method, I would definitely lean towards a small outdoor C4 or similar charge on a UAV rather than a petrol vapor explosion in an apartment. What is your reason for preferring the petrol vapor explanation - presumably it's more than the reported unsubstantiated anonymous accounts of one or two unknown alleged witnesses?

Or the reported unsubstantiated account that it was a drone. I can see that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I feel I have to apply the rule of diminishing returns as far as this part of the thread is going........Yawn!

RayOZ · Aug 9, 2018

sar104 said:
If the biggest problem with the article is some slight inconsistencies in pricing then that's a rather contrived reason to criticize it. As for the fact that drones are not the only way to attempt this kind of thing, why is that relevant? On that basis one could dismiss every news report on terrorist events because there were other ways they could have done it. And as for accusations that the event was made up - what's the answer - not report anything until there is incontrovertible proof that it happened?

This has caused a significant diplomatic incident, with Venezuela accusing other countries, including the US, of being involved in an assassination attempt, with the added interest of a relatively new and evolving technique to conduct the operation. It would simply be negligent of serious news outlets not to report on it.

Slight inconsistencies is one thing. But you can start with a fact, slowly change and add stuff to fit a certain narrative, and it can turn into a lie and the uninformed thinks it's still fact. Some of the reporting is true. Just have to be smart enough to detect the fear-mongering. I don't really watch the ABC. They claim to be impartial, but content-wise, it's a bit leftist to me.

Phill · Aug 9, 2018

RayOZ said:
Slight inconsistencies is one thing. But you can start with a fact, slowly change and add stuff to fit a certain narrative, and it can turn into a lie and the uninformed thinks it's still fact. Some of the reporting is true. Just have to be smart enough to detect the fear-mongering. I don't really watch the ABC. They claim to be impartial, but content-wise, it's a bit leftist to me.

Let's face it guys most headlines are just click bait to keep the advertisers happy.
A bit less sensationalism and more fact would go a long way.
Even the video of the drone exploding doesn't show where it is or whether it was shot at, detonated or the lipo just exploded.
It could be "file footage" as they like to call it.
Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true though some would like to believe it does.

sar104 · Aug 9, 2018

Some interesting analysis and a link to the videos. I can tell you for certain that it's not a LIPO exploding or the result of any kind of round striking the aircraft. That's a detonation. Assuming that's an S1000, the fireball diameter is around 4 m, which makes it more than 2 lbs of C4 - I'd estimate around 10 lbs which would be around the load capacity of that aircraft. And yes - the video could be fake too - but it's getting to be a bit of a stretch to argue that this didn't happen.

Analysis backs claim drones were used to attack Venezuela’s president

Phill · Aug 9, 2018

If it's on the net it must be true.

JDawg · Aug 9, 2018

Phill said:
If it's on the net it must be true.

Not until the truthteller SCPOTUS says

ac0j · Aug 9, 2018

RayOZ said:
Slight inconsistencies is one thing. But you can start with a fact, slowly change and add stuff to fit a certain narrative, and it can turn into a lie and the uninformed thinks it's still fact. Some of the reporting is true. Just have to be smart enough to detect the fear-mongering. I don't really watch the ABC. They claim to be impartial, but content-wise, it's a bit leftist to me.

LOL!
It seems people are either ABC and the like or Fox for their news. Leftist is one of my friends favorite words. He watches a lot of FOX news. "Fair and balanced" LOL!

sar104 · Aug 9, 2018

Here's another article discussing the issues surrounding weaponization. For the more sensitive members on the forum, rest assured that this one doesn't demonize UAVs either.

Venezuela and the Problem of Exploding Drones - The Atlantic

Phill · Aug 10, 2018

On the one hand we have fire fighters that obviously don't know their jobs saying it was a gas explosion and on the other a politician saying it's a conspiracy to kill him.
While considering which is the most believable check this out

Ren57 · Aug 10, 2018

sar104 said:
Here's another article discussing the issues surrounding weaponization. For the more sensitive members on the forum, rest assured that this one doesn't demonize UAVs either.

Venezuela and the Problem of Exploding Drones - The Atlantic

Putting aside my oh so sensitive nature for a moment. Alright, I'll concede. I've seen enough now to convince even my sensitive self that it was probably a drone used in this instance. I was really hoping that it wouldn't be though. Because although you say that the article doesn't demonize drones, it sort of does.

Look, I like flying the drones that I own. I would like to continue to do so, as unhindered by (even more) regulation, far into the future as possible. Let's not call it demonizing, let's say putting drones in a 'negative light'. The article goes on about discussions with DJI and counter drone technology and the fact that any Tom, **** or Harry can buy one of these things over the counter, implied that they could be used to blow people up. I couldn't see much positive stuff in the article about drones. I got the whiff of even more regulation coming down the line because of this. Either that or an outright ban on prosumer drones. Which would be ridiculous because the technology is out there for anyone to build their own drone if they really wanted to. Because of stuff like this, you or I could be out somewhere innocently flying our drones. Then some dimwit who has read this sort of stuff, is suddenly coming at you, perhaps with a weapon because they think you are about to blow something up. Do you think that couldn't happen?

And my analogy between motor vehicles and drones is a valid one. Motor vehicles have been used as a terror weapon quite successfully in the past few years. No talk of any more regulation on any type of motor vehicle because of this fact though, no talk of banning them. But a few more instances like this using a drone, especially if persons are killed or injured, then it'll be the end for prosumer drones. They'll ban them faster than you can say, err "Ban them".

Yeah, looks like there's going to be battlefield drones coming along soon! That Russian guy looked a bit close to that car when he blew it up! And he never even flinched!