Posted on 10/19/2004 11:58:32 AM PDT by stinkerpot65
... Then, just minutes before the aircraft doors were set to close, ground agents hurried down the jet way with a group of late arrivals. advertisement
According to the ground agents, the nine men had arrived independently on separate itineraries from various Middle Eastern countries. The flight crew was told that one man came from Lahore, Pakistan, another from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, another from Afghanistan. Several of the men had no carry-ons, which one of the flight attendants found unusual. Most passengers embarking on a long, international flight carry at least something with them. The flight attendant took the ground agent aside and said, "something's not right."
The ground agent told the flight attendant she was being paranoid. The men, purportedly all Pakistani nationals, had been through secondary screening and had been swabbed for explosives. A heated discussion between the United Airlines ground agent and the flight attendant took place. The flight attendant inquired about what, if any, additional security measures could be taken; the ground agent pressed for an on-time departure. No additional security checks were made and the flight left on time.
(Excerpt) Read more at womenswallstreet.com ...
Turned out, they were a band. But don't take it for granted in the future.
No, I think this is a different flight. The band flight landed in Las Vegas and was investigated by the FBI.
This flight landed with two "No fly" passengers. Incredibly,tThere was NO response from law enforcement.
Read the article.
Correction: The "band" flight was Northwest Airlines flight #327 from Detroit to Los Angeles.
This is about about United Airlines 925 London to Washington.
Read the article."
The article says that United NEVER notified law enforcement about anything. It was a United FUBAR.
Where did it say that?
I saw no such statement in the article!
this Jacobson woman is going to make a career of this.I wonder why the MSM doesn't make a hero of her like so
many other "whistleblowers"?
He's talking about a different, but similar flight.
this is about a flight that happened on June 13, 2004. So I think it is the one we've heard about before.
United SNAFU.
THAT'S IT. After reading this story and clicking on more of the "Terror in the Skies" stories, I AM NEVER FLYING AGAIN. It's obvious that the DHS does not have its S**T together. These articles have scared me to death. This should not be happening post 9/11.
Political Correctness is the undoing of our society.
Unbelievable.
I wonder if the United computer in London has been hacked by Islamofacists. This is twice that lists didn't match up.
It will only take one more hi-jacking, or bombing of a commercial aircraft, by "politically correct" passengers of Middle Eastern descent, to bring the airlines to their knees. The public won't fly if there is no "reasonable expectation of safety". Until the airlines profile and provide "cleared" Middle Eastern passengers with their own segregated aircraft, pilots and fighter escort, people will find other means of travel and the planes will sit.
This is about about United Airlines 925 London to Washington on June 13
Rest of story:
The ground agent told the flight attendant she was being paranoid. The men, purportedly all Pakistani nationals, had been through secondary screening and had been swabbed for explosives. A heated discussion between the United Airlines ground agent and the flight attendant took place. The flight attendant inquired about what, if any, additional security measures could be taken; the ground agent pressed for an on-time departure. No additional security checks were made and the flight left on time.
Once the flight was in the air, a flight attendant in the coach class cabin noticed a bag in the aisle. She asked that the owner of the bag identify him or herself at once. No one came forward to claim the bag. One of the late-arriving Middle Eastern men was seated nearby. The flight attendant asked the man pointedly if the bag was his. He replied "no" in English. Later, this same man approached the flight attendant and said that the bag in the aisle was his bag and that he wanted it back.
The flight attendants now began closely monitoring what the men were doing. One of the men carried a hand-held mirror as he walked around the plane. According to one flight attendant, the man "was holding [the mirror] and moving it around so he could see what was going on behind him. What he was doing was very suspicious."
Another flight attendant noted that the men had electronic gadgets with them. "They were not Game Boys or computers," said the veteran crew member, "but small electronic devices. I didn't recognize what they were." Other flight attendants took notice of the electronic equipment as well -- some of which was being passed among the men. "They started passing this one electronic device back and forth," said another flight attendant. "It looked like a transistor radio, only it wasn't." advertisement
The crew took turns walking the aisles and monitoring the suspicious activity. "Every time one of the flight attendants walked by, they [the Middle Eastern men] watched us. We were watching what they did and they watched everything we did. I noticed they constantly had their eyes on a crewmember," one of the flight attendants noted.
Meanwhile, the Captain radioed in to Heathrow airport, asking that the men's names be re-checked against the terrorist "no-fly" list. Word came back from the Captain to the crew that two of the nine men were on the "no-fly" list.
"We were horrified," one flight attendant told me. "I heard the Captain wanted to divert -- I don't know why we didn't. We made sure the passengers didn't notice but we were all horrified."
According to members of the crew, the Air Marshals were keenly aware of the situation. "The Air Marshals were ready and prepared," said one flight attendant. "Apparently, they had their guns out under their blankets."
The Captain requested that FBI meet the plane in Washington. But when the plane landed at the nation's capital, not a single law enforcement officer met the aircraft. No FBI, no Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), no airport police. Instead, there was one United Airlines supervisor with a clipboard.
According to the flight crew, the Captain was furious. "The pilot went ballistic," said a flight attendant. "The Air Marshals went ballistic. The Captain had requested law enforcement -- two of those guys were on the "no-fly" list and they [United Airlines] disobeyed Captain's orders!"
Without a single law enforcement officer to question the men, all nine suspects -- two of whom were possibly a threat to national security -- walked off the plane and disappeared into the crowds.
Flight Crew Threatens To Sue
When the flight crew of United Airlines flight 925 landed safely in the nation's capital, they kissed the ground. Then they got angry. One flight attendant explained:
"When we landed at Dulles, we expected a whole fleet of people [FBI] to meet the plane. Instead, this regular United [Airlines] supervisor turns up. He stands there with a clipboard and says, 'I'm sorry guys.' He was pathetic. After what we went through! And the fact that we all had to fly the next day -- that didn't matter to him. He says, 'world headquarters says, we're sorry.' Sorry? They say safety and security is their priority. Well, it's not."
The crew decided to take action. They got together and compiled a detailed account of the entire series of events -- from the pre-flight conversations with ground agents at Heathrow, to the minute details of the in-flight suspicious activity. "We asked, why wasn't the FBI there? Why couldn't the pilot divert?' We wanted real answers."
"You know what they told us? They [United Airlines] said, 'Forget about suing. Those guys were FBI plants.' They [United Airlines] put it in an email. It was ridiculous. But what can you do," the flight attendant said.
1. Re the "level one threat" -- this determination would have been made by United *based on* the Captain's characterization of what was going on in the cabin, not in contradiction to it. I would agree that law enforcement should definitely have met this flight. That said, the description in the article seems to meet the definition of a "level one threat" (as I understand the term), which indeed does not *require* law enforcement response.
2. Re the Cat Stevens situation; it seems that the problem in that case was the TSA misspelled his name on its list. His name was entered in the United reservation system as it was spelled on his passport, but a computer match was not generated due to a difference in spelling, due to TSA/FBI error. It is possible something similar happened here; it is also possible that the two passengers were "name only" matches, meaning someone else with the same name but not the same person (ie different nationality, date of birth, etc.) was on the list. Happens far more often than an actual match.
I will say that some here seem to have the perception that the major airlines do not take threats seriously, or that they almost want to give terrorists a chance to strike again. There are also perceptions around (driven by *false* testimony at the 9/11 commission hearings) that, beyond requiring "race-blindness", the DHS/TSA is requiring airlines to essentially exempt middle-eastern men from screening and scrutiny. These perceptions are categorically false. All that said, I think United's response (as described) was rather pathetic, and FBI questioning and investigation of the passengers involved would have been in order.
This is NOT the Syrian band flight. This is a totally separate incident, different airline, etc. They continue to probe and test.
I fly on United 923 and 924 (the same route) all the time. This is not very comforting.
I would have removed myself and any family memebers from a flight where a group of ME arrive as the last passengers wanting to get on the plane.
Better safe than sorry!
I heard that the FBI questioned them and found all to be involved in a legitimate band....and let them proceed without any getting further details.
This after they had all engaged in highly suspicious and threatening behavior on the flight.
With these two incredible incidents, it is obvious that DHS/FBI/TSA all have a long long way to go to making the skies safe. Obviously they are not on the same page procedurally. Chinese fire drill is more like it!!
Then why believe it?
Russian airliners exploded from toilets
On the Northwest flight, the Muslims gathered around and spent lots of time in the restrooms. Passengers on the Northwest flight reported that one of the passengers reeked of restroom chemicals when he returned to his seat.
You think the story is made up?
ping
Makes me wonder if terrorists don't have hijackings planned between now and the election.
You are the one that called it "unbelievable".
That's a cop out answer.
Unbelievable for me is "How can our security be so inocompetent.".
Unbelievable for you is "I believe someone made this up."
Stick to your guns. If you don't believe it, tell us why.
Article on problems with air marshalls and the incompetents who run the program
Bookmark ...
How do you know that?
Really, TankerKC, you need to get a hobby. You're making me sleepy. Now I have to go get some coffee.
However, in looking at your profile, I do honor your military service.
>Makes me wonder if terrorists don't have hijackings planned between now and the election.<
Probably not. They know it would help Bush.
Air Marshall's would not identify themselves unless their was a direct threat.If these guys were doing recon. they were trying to identify the marshall's.
Well, the article does raise some questions in my mind.
First, what is the reliability/effectiveness of the explosives "swabbing" process that the "probers" went through?
If the process is actually reliable (an important question and assumption), then there wasn't a likelihood that the probers could have brought down the airline through explosives detonation.
Second, what is the likelihood that the probers could have brought aboard weaponry that would have allowed them to overpower the Air Marshalls, the flight crew and the passengers and either bring down the airliner, or gain access to the cockpit in an attempt to seize control?
Finally, assuming that the probers were really just "probing" and didn't bring aboard the means necessary to initiate a successful attack (defined as destroying the airliner or taking control of it), and the government/United Airlines knew this (again, this is just a hypothetical assumption), wouldn't it make more sense for the government to allow them to fly and then "escape" ... if doing so allowed the FBI to covertly tail the probers as they left the airport unchallenged?
True, could be that FBI has it under control but they don't want to reveal their methods. Also, there is no real proof that "probing" actually occurred, just very suspicious behavior.
But it sure doesn't look like it. I think the FBI and CIA have so many Clinton cronies left over that they are unable to act due to political correctness and a desire to undermine Bush policies.
Isn't that what "probing" is designed to be? If one is caught, one can always claim some innocent behavior that, in isolation seems plausible, but is very suspicious when viewed in totality?
I still believe that the Syrian band was a cover for deep agents. If we were going to plant a spy over there, wouldn't we first plant the spy somewhere to build a cover story and then transfer the spy elsewhere under that cover? If the terrorists can learn to build component bombs, and if they can learn to fly a jet, they can certainly learn to play a musical instrument. It is the perfect cover, since it gives them a plausible reason to travel to many places, especially by air.
-PJ
It's amazing how these suspicious characters get through security, while a solid citizen like Cal Thomas is on the "Watchlist". Cal gets searched, probed, and harassed every time he flies. They even do the swabbing for explosives on his laptop every time.
What's wrong with this picture?
Bttt.
NEW LINK:
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/columns/column.aspx?aid=713
“Word came back from the Captain to the crew that two of the nine men were on the “no-fly” list.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.