U.S. Says Terrorists Planned Dry Run

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060810/D8JDP0TG0.html

U.S. Says Terrorists Planned Dry Run
Email this Story

Aug 10, 4:00 PM (ET)

By LARA JAKES JORDAN


WASHINGTON (AP) - The terrorist attack foiled by British authorities on Thursday was aimed at blowing up as many as 10 airplanes on trans-Atlantic flights, and plotters hoped to stage a dry run within two days, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

The actual attack would have followed within days.

One official said the suicide attackers planned to use a peroxide-based solution that could ignite when sparked by a camera flash or another electronic device.

The test run was designed to see whether the plotters would be able to smuggle the needed materials aboard the planes, these officials said. They spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter.



Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, left and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales hold a press briefing, Thursday, Aug. 10, 2006, in Washington about the terror threat uncovered in Britain. The U.S. government issued its highest terrorism alert ever for commercial flights from Britain to the United States in response to a terror plot disrupted Thursday in London and raised the threat level for all domestic and international flights. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

Government Terrorists Planned Dry Run, Officials Admitted n/t

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"Oh, don't mind me--I'm just taking a flash photo of this peroxide-based substance I poured into my lap."

And how would the substance be ignited electronically--by dipping the device into it? No wonder they needed to do a dry run.

Suddenly, that guy who thought that no one would notice him igniting his shoes looks like a genius.

:eyes:
rocknation

:shrug:

Interviewed the flight crew after that incident.

"De Plane...de Plane "

morning, leaning a little to his right to get his face on camera next to speakers at he podium.

That doesn't make sense to me. If they couldn't smuggle the necessary materials aboard the plan would be exposed.

I don't know, I think the story will fall apart and this is a sign. Claiming "a dry run" was in the works implies the need for less actual evidence.

This is the first time that I have heard this one. Exactly how did we come to that conclusion, since none of them lived to tell that tale?

The three Hamburg pilots--Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrah--took the first of their cross-country surveillance flights early in the summer. Shehhi flew from New York to Las Vegas via San Francisco in late May. Jarrah flew from Baltimore to Las Vegas via Los Angeles in early June. Atta flew from Boston to Las Vegas via San Francisco at the end of June. Each traveled in first class, on United Airlines. For the east-west transcontinental leg, each operative flew on the same type of aircraft he would pilot on September 11 (Atta and Shehhi, a Boeing 767; Jarrah, a Boeing 757). Hanjour and Hamzi, as noted below, took similar cross-country surveillance flights in August. (page 242)

Binalshibh claims that during their time in Spain, he and Atta also discussed how the hijackings would be executed. Attah said he, Shehhi, and Jarrah had encountered no problems carrying box cutters on cross-country surveillance flights. (page 245)

Or small Swiss Army knives, that sort of thing. But the environment for terrorist plots is different now (or so we are told), with vigilance being much higher. So, the risk of a dry run would be proportionately higher.

Plus, I don't know how much faith most DUers have in the official 911 account anyway.

with the plan. That is, if the plan has been practiced, they are less likely to be nervous or to make mistakes.

As far as the official 911 account goes, I personally have no trouble believing it. It really is the most parsimonious explanation for what happened that terrible day: a small group of highly determined and intelligent men conceived of a diabolical plot, and managed to execute it almost flawlessly. The plot required $500,000 in cash and several years of planning and training. Only involving 20 persons, they were able to maintain operational security (although there were one or two instances where they came close to being discovered, and came close to cancelling the operation). That's it. No MIHOP/LIHOP, which require one to believe in much more, that there was some kind of conspiracy. No dubious theories that the towers couldn't have free-fallen in the way they did without extra explosive charges, etc. (That requires you to believe that somebody arranged for explosive charges to be placed in the towers in advance, which is a lot more to believe than the official story, if not completely far-fetched.) No unsubstantiated claims of stock market manipulations. No blatantly false claims that Jews were told to not report to work that day. Remember that there were active disinfo campaigns by radical Muslims immediately after the attacks, directed against Israel and the US government. These built upon recycled Soviet era anti-US, anti-Israel propoganda that blames the US/Israel for all the wrong in the world, so this disinfo campaign fell upon fertile ears in some sectors of the Left.

Particularly as regards to the "stand-down" or apparent stand-down. I read "The War on Truth" a while back, and was quite surprised by this. The book is doesn't give a specific theory, but it does point out a lot of anomalous features of the day. It is heavily footnoted, and seems to be quite scholarly (and therefore not a breezy read). The writer may have a bias - I don't know for sure.

As with many things, I haven't really made up my mind on this.

confusion the government had that day. (E.g., people read a lot into Bush's reading to children while the attack was in progress. But apparently, at very first, Bush and his people hadn't yet realized how grave the situation was.) Often apparently fishy coincidences are nothing more than chance: if a lot of odd things happen, there's a good chance two or three of them will line up in a seemingly intentional way. Or put differently, humans are very good at finding patterns, including patterns that don't actually exist (like the face of Jesus in a taco). Again, it's best to choose the explanation with the fewest moving parts (Occam's Razor).

But I'll thumb through the "War on Truth" if I see a copy.

James Woods Interview Regarding August 1st Flight with Four of the 9-11 Hijackers Raises More Questions Regarding White House Blurring of Facts

By Catherine Arnie

According to actor James Woods, he was a passenger on a Boston to Los Angeles flight with four of the September 11th hijackers, in early August of 2001. Woods now contends the flight was a trial run by the terrorists that perpetrated the hijackings of September 11th, 2001.

In a February 2002, television interview with Woods, that was conducted by Bill O'Reilly of Fox TV's "O'Reilly Factor," Woods stated that he was on a first class passenger, on a flight from Boston to Los Angeles before the September 11th attacks and that he sat with four passengers who have all since been identified as September 11th hijackers. Woods claimed that he was so alarmed by the strange behavior of the four men during his flight, that he told a flight attendant and a co-pilot that he feared the men were going to hijack the plane. When O'Reilly asked Woods why he was so alarmed by the actions of the four passengers this was Wood's response:

Woods:I was on a flight, without going into the details of what made me suspicious of these four men, although it would have been blatantly obvious to the most casual observer, I took it upon myself to go to the flight attendant and ask to speak to the pilot of the plane. The first officer came out. I reported to him that I felt that the four men, and I said, "Can you look over my shoulder and see who I'm talking about?" And he said, "Yeah." I said I think they're going to hijack this plane. I mean, everything they're doing, and I explained to him these details, which I've been asked to keep private, until whatever jurisdiction, you know -- whatever trials may take place, their behavior was such that I felt that they were going to hijack the plane.

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7651

that would be used during the real thing, only replace the explosive liquid with water. If no one questioned the random containers and electronics, dry run was successful. If anyone does question it, they just find water.

Dry run would imply all aspects, not just water and key fobs. Everyone knows that water and key fobs (IPODS, whatever) get through. The mystery mixture would be the dry run. I'm guessing it "can" get though.