Al Qaeda's D.C. Death Jet Plot

[acmavm]

http://omaha.cox.net/cci/portal/_pagr/121/_pa.121/519?pcor_action=detailView&articleID=20040103/PIC20040103AlQaedasDCDeathJetPlot.xml&thisCategory=US%20NEWS&datetime=January%2003%202004%2004:34:49%20AM%20EST&toState=Maximized&windowState=Normal


<snip>

Washington-bound British Airways Flight 223 and crash it into the nation's capital, officials said yesterday.

The frightening - and specific - intelligence is one factor behind the recent rash of airline cancellations, including Flight 223 again yesterday.

<snip>

Terrorism officials say they don't know if they've averted an attack, and they're not sure how good the intelligence was.

"This was coming from credible sources, but it's still uncorroborated. They want to use airliners and they want another spectacular attack," an FBI official said.

-MORE-
*********************************************************************
They don't know who's behind the attacks, they don't know how good the intelligence is, but they foiled a jet attack on Washington D.C.?

[alcuno]

1. Makes no sense to fly it from London.

All the fuel would be just about gone.

[blackcat77]

2. Look what they did before it finally flew today

Saturday's British Airways flight 223 to Washington DC - cancelled two days running amid security fears - has finally arrived in the US capital.

The scheduled 1505 GMT departure on Saturday was delayed while all 225 passengers were searched, checked and escorted onto the plane one at a time.

It took off more than three hours late and landed at Dulles Airport shortly after 0210 GMT on Sunday.

It had been feared terrorists posed a "specific threat" against the flight.

-----

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3366307.stm

-----

I think the administration is desperately seeking credibility for the latest terror alert. The whole thing is stupid. Even if terrorists HAD targetted this flight, they wouldn't continue to do so day after day after day.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. At least that makes more sense than searching it AFTER landing

which is what they did on New Year's Eve. But the amount of BS getting thrown about is amazing:

"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the Washington flights on Thursday and Friday had been grounded because a terrorist suspect known to US authorities was believed to be trying to board it on both days, according to a source.

The suspect was thought to be attempting to hijack the aircraft and crash it into a target in Washington, but he did not turn up at the airport, said the source.

In a separate development, a source told the US network ABC that someone outside the US had supplied information to American authorities about a plan to hijack flight 223."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3364461.stm

So if the suspect was known, and he didn't turn up, then why the zarking fardwarks didn't they let the plane fly?

[Desertrose]

3. just stirring the "fear pot" again...on a daily basis?

So they can keep us afraid so we will obey when we finally go to red alert! red alert!!


Peace
DR

Yeah...not much fuel left on a flight across the big pond....

edit for typo & clarity

[JNelson6563]

4. yes, that is the plan

Terra! Terra!! Terra!!

"It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot have both"--Machiavelli

"It is better to keep people in contant fear so they don't ask questions"--the Mayberry Machiavellis

:-)

Julie

[neverforget]

5. Did they arrest anybody? No. So who was going to fly the damn

plane into the capital? :shrug: Inquiring minds want to know.....

[Powerlock]

6. Why jets again?

It makes no sense. Granted it's a British craft, but it's not like the British are ignorant. If they were hijacked on a flight they would like fight to the death just like most others would knowing the probable outcome. So unless Al Qaeda sent a platoon full of terrorists I don't see how they could expect to pull it off.

[Columbia]

10. Guess they have a plane fixation

Don't mess with success right?

Anyway, yeah it doesn't seem like it'd be too viable with passengers unwilling to go down without a fight anymore.

As for why the British flight, their security procedures may not be as stringent as ours and it'd be easier for a terrorist to get to Britain to hijack a flight than do it within the US again.

[are_we_united_yet]

7. *Cough bullshit Cough*

[pinniped]

9. All Tom Ridiot has to do is ban all incoming flights on New Year's eve.

Duh.:crazy:

[54anickel]

11. "The threat that we now face is likely to endure for many years," he added

There you have it, many years of terra, terra, terra!
They'd better get better intelligence if they plan on dragging this on and on and on and on and on.....:eyes:

Quote is by British Transport Secretary Alistair Darling from this article:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8324076%255E401,00.html

[underpants]

12. FOX is spinning this as being about Brit pilots not wanting guns on board

They are all in a lather about how British pilots could NOT want to have armed guards on board. How ever could they not want to have more guns around especially in pressurized travel tubes???!?!??!?

I think it is a clash of cultures. The Brits may not share our (as a nation) love affair with the ever so protected firearm.

[mobuto]

14. I don't know what the disagreement is about

but I'll take rapid depressurization, which is unpleasant but rarely life-threatening, over being blown to little bits any day.

I think the presence of air marshalls provides a deterrent to would-be terrorists and may actually have a law enforcement value. Remember the Richard Reid business? That crazy shoe-bomber had to be restrained by flight attendants and passengers. None of them were presumably trained in law enforcement. I don't think its fair to flight attendants and to us, the air-traveling public, to put so heavy a burden of responsibility on us. You want a 105-lb female flight attendant and a retired bookkeeper being all that protect the United States from terrorist attack?

Now I don't think pilots should be armed. But air marshalls? Definitely.

[mobuto]

13. This makes no sense at all

Now I've just been a little more concerned than usual about this recent terrorism business because I just flew from Heathrow to Dulles on Wednesday and much of my family is flying the same route tomorrow. But this is simply silly.

1. If you blow up a flight from Heathrow to Dulles it will not crash into DC. The flight goes way to the west of DC. If you wanted to hit DC you'd have to hijack the plane, and that doesn't seem bloody likely in this post-September 11 world. You couldn't easily blow up this plane over any major population centers.

2. As previously mentioned, why blow up a plane that has depleted almost its entire fuel tank? The twisted genius of 9/11 was in using the planes as bombs. 8-12 oz of explosives can blow up a plane, but they'll do damned-little on the ground.

This isn't to say that Al Qaeda wouldn't do this, but if they do, then they're making clear that they're more desperate for targets of any kind than in wreaking more serious destruction.

[GRClarkesq]

15. All the Al Qaeda "chatter"

seems to be all red herrings. Perhaps the real attack will not be televised?

Of course, if Al Qaueda has "sleeper" cells in the US they seem to be sleeping very soundly.