Basking in the Glow of Terror
(Some commentary on various silliness to hit the list in the wake of the terrorists attacks on the 11th). Assertion: "If only all airline passengers could be armed this never would have happened." This is bunk. All it takes is an AD to kill 300+ people on a airplane at 35,000 feet. I've been to several concealed permit classes. Based on the people I have encountered passing those courses, I think I'll pass on that idea. However, the Sky Marshall program was canceled long ago and the events of September 11th make me wonder why. I suspect that would have been far more effective, and far less dangerous, than permitting all airline passengers to carry loaded firearms aboard commercial airline flights. Americans are simply not responsible enough to carry firearms on Commercial flights. Hell, I don't think any Swiss or Germans are either now that I consider it. That's just folly and I am somewhat surprised to hear usually sage list members make this case and even blame anti-gun legislators of note for the incident. Even if 90% of people are totally responsible that puts 30 irresponsible people on a full flight. If 10% of those people carry, (3 people or 1% of the total) that's too much. More than that, it's crazy. Any discharge in a plane is a big deal. Sky Marshalls used special low penetration low velocity ammo and are otherwise trained to minimize collateral damage if they discharge firearms in an aircraft. That's far too much to expect from most American gun owners. Face fact. Assertion: "This wasn't the product of a expensive, long term coordinated effort." "This attack could have been pulled off by a small group of perhaps 15 people for almost no money." "It could have been a tiny cadre of eight or twelve people with no more money than to buy some plane tickets. There is no reason a group could not organize such a project with a week's notice once you know airport security is going to let you pass with pocket knifes and cardboard box cutters." "We will find these terrorists were mostly lucky, not skilled." Nonsense. It almost certain that there were 8 direct field operatives and 12 indirect field operatives involved in the attack (at least two for each plane: one to fly and one to hold the passengers at bay) plus support personnel. It's possible that only 4 of these were prepared to die (and that the non-pilot hijacker didn't know that the hijacking would end up as a suicide attack). Given that CNN is reporting a fragment rumor that the passengers might have overheard the terrorist's conversation which included a discussion of the Capital as a target it sounds like both terrorists (assuming they didn't also have a sleeper or two among the passangers just watching, which is a typical hijacking strategy) on that flight were prepared to die. The chances of finding 8 (or even 4) multi-engine licensed (or at least competent) Muslim (as seems to be the case) or other religious zealots willing to commit suicide for a cause- and maintaining that intention for many many months (more on this below)- is probably _vanishingly_ small. These people must have a better than even chance of living in the United States for a long period and blending in for a long period. Such persons would have to be _created_, rather than found and recruited. In fact, it seems that this is the case since the FBI has (as of this writing) taken the records of individuals who attended months of flight school in Florida (At "Flight Safety International"). That's about $20,000 in flight training over the course of several months. Two of the current suspects already had single engine licenses and were paying $1400.00 a month since June 10th, 2000 for rent in Florida. $20,000 in lease payments per house for two houses over 15 months. Apparently initial multi-engine training was followed up with jet training elsewhere- more costs there, perhaps another $20,000 for that pair. That means you have to house these people and their families (since apparently families were present) under a reliable and passable cover in the United States during that period. You have to feed them, give them whatever other supplies required to get them to blend in. This is small town Florida. People there are nosey and spend a lot of time in their neighbor's busines. They watch each other's houses. They have nothing better to do. Therefore you have to provide for their security, their camouflage. They have to blend in well. Appear to be middle class. Harmless. Have a dog. Furniture. Kids in school. They have to be able to withstand any check from a moving vehicle violation, pass flight certification, medical checks, insurance payments, credit checks by banks, realtors, credit card companies, avoid any kind of altercation that might attract police scrutiny and have some kind of plausible visa in the United States. That's not cheap. Not at all. I've outlined at least $100,000 (which is majorly conservative I believe- most field operatives cost more in terms of support) in just the one pair who appears to have hijacked one of the Boston flights. No one who hasn't run a field operation should be commenting on how much one costs with any guise of authority. Period. Consider the planning required: These flights were hijacked within 30-50 minutes of each other. Cross country- but not international- flights were selected and therefore gave the terrorists the best mix of full fuel tanks, large plane size and lowest security scrutiny. The plane type had a major impact on the type of flight skills required and hence means that equipment would have been considered as a factor- and these equipment selections would have to be researched over time for a given flight. This was true of all four flights. That's not an accident. Just the process of flight selection, which doubtlessly required research into everything from on- time departure history to flight time to flight path to air traffic control procedure, is a complex one. It's no accident that flights for "American" and "United" were selected- both for political reasons (what carriers aside from perhaps "US Air" could be more a symbol of America?) and for scheduling and equipment selection. None of the four hijacked pilots started squawking 7600 on transponders- which is generally triggered with a panic switch- indicating that the terrorists probably had specific knowledge of where this switch was in the given aircraft type and prevented the pilot from triggering it. Weather at the target sites is a major factor- fog, rain or even heavy smog could easily have foiled the attack. That had to be factored in timing. Weather anywhere on the Easy coast or Midwest even the West might have impact flight path, or flight cancellation. One wonders if some of the weather delays last month and last week might not have altered the timing of the attack- these kinds of operations rarely go off without a hitch on the first try. This theory is supported by the fact that two of the suspects extended their lease for two extra weeks right before the hijackings. Since four attacks were coordiated on the same day there must have been some provision for last minute cancellation, to prevent one cell or another from launching solo. Photo intelligence had to have been collected. It seems also clear that the targets were scheduled to coincide with rush-hour or just post rush-hour impacts for maximum effect. The coordination of "arrival" times of the planes was amazingly accomplished. It seems clear that primary and secondary targets were selected- in the case of the Pentagon attack it seems that the Pentagon was a secondary target. Still impressive because the Pentagon is Class B airspace- as restricted as it gets. Two planes were sent after each macro target. "Two is one and one is none." The World Trade Center was doubtlessly selected partially because it didn't come down after the first attack, and perhaps partially because of the particular construction of the WTC that might make it more vulnerable to the attack. Anyone who knows anything about flying multiengine planes will recognize that at least the second strike on the WTC was an impressive bit of flying. It was not an unskilled, inexperienced pilot who accomplished that. There is little doubt that "trial runs" were done, that the terrorists took the targeted flights as normal passengers themselves before actually executing the operation. Almost all the flights were taken within 20-40 minutes of takeoff. Clearly, this was planned based on the patterns of operation of the flights. The result: 100% of the executed hijacking attempts were successful- any aborts were done so far without detection which is equally remarkable either because there were no aborted attempts or the aborts were done so stealthily. 75% of the planes hit a primary or secondary target. This was not luck. Period. Too much went too perfectly in four entirely separate field operations. That is a remarkable. Very remarkable. Anyone who has actually conducted any type of hostile territory field operation will realize that it was meticulous skill and the result of substantial planning- not luck. Period. "Air Force One was a target." These terrorists were far too sophisticated to really believe they could hit Air Force One. It may have been a target of opportunity but I tend to doubt this. Too much research went into that attack to try and hit a entirely unpredictable and very highly mobile target with the level of protection that Air Force One enjoys. These terrorists were NOT stupid. Predicting the flight path and schedule of the plane without radar or other real-time intelligence is effectively impossible. Soft, stationary targets were picked and target selection was reconsidered in real-time at least in the case of the Pentagon strike. That's not accident. That's careful planning. Assertion: "The overt sophistication of this attack was such that I have a hard time believing the perps would leave so many obvious clues behind without intending to." These are suicide attacks. Why do they care what clues they leave? I have no doubt that the neophytes and the wanna-be's who have seen the movie "Air Force One" or read "Debt of Honor" 6 times, perhaps even some politicos with agendas, will continue to muddy the water with dense speculation cast as fact. Try to think for yourself, people. Don't get caught in funeral hype. Duh.
On 12 Sep 2001, at 23:30, Frog2 wrote:
Assertion: "The overt sophistication of this attack was such that I have a hard time believing the perps would leave so many obvious clues behind without intending to."
These are suicide attacks. Why do they care what clues they leave?
Interesting that a friend at work asked the very same question when I made that assertion. My answer: They don't, but their handlers certainly do. Your piece eloquently supports my opinion that this was a large- scale, well-planned operation. It was not planned solely by the perps who carried out the missions. Their handlers will not want to be easily identified, lest they draw nuclear fire. Therefore, all the easily discovered clues will doubtless be diversionary. -- Roy M. Silvernail Proprietor, scytale.com roy@scytale.com
participants (2)
-
Frog2
-
Roy M. Silvernail