Possible terrorist attempt Stockholm
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hijack
How come no matter how serious the topic there's always some dimwit or two who posts some childish and stupid comment. You people need to look at yourselves in the mirror and think about what kind of person you are.
Caractus you are one of those people, your implication that Swedish/Irish security is not as good as British is idiotic considering that Swedish security caught the man.
That aside, it seems that Chatty, is trying to distance himself from the idea of it being an attempted hijack. News footage shows he's shaved off his beard and no doubt his 'explanation' for having the gun will be so very plausible.
But there can be little doubt he intended to hijack the aeroplane. The question in my mind is whether he had any comrades among the other passengers. Certainly not all the other 20 Moslems on board would have been involved. One or two perhaps, being unarmed they would have passed through without difficulty.
But his attempt was always doomed to failure. Even if the hijack succeeded. Even if the passengers and crew sat like sheep knowing that they were about to die. Would you??? Even if he somehow took conrol of the aircraft he could not avoid the fighters sent to intercept. Where would he have gone? The suggestion that he intended to crash into a US embassy is ridiculous. As any pilot knows pinpointing a building in a city is difficult let alone hitting it.
He could have crashed it more or less randomly, but all that would have achieved would be to kill at least 20 Muslims, and an assortment of Swedes, Irish and British.
All of this leads me to the conclusion that he was a lone nutter trying to prove a point. Like the shoe bomber he's a loser who found religion. He's also a failed pilot. There is none so bitter as a failed pilot who's found religion. Now he could go out in a blaze of glory as seen by certain elements. Luckily being a complete loser like the shoe bomber he failed in that too.
He may of had help but any intelligent peson would have told him the odds of getting a gun through security these days is slim. I daresay he had the blessing of some people but little practical help. He only had three rounds of ammunition, no doubt the might of Al Qaeda might run to a full magazine.
No he was a loser with a mission. There are parallels, in western culture, gunmen as in Columbine or Dunblane go out in what are effectively suicide missions. They kill as many as they can before being killed themselves. They pretty much fit the profile too. Losers with something to prove.
What all this does highlight is that security must remain high, with profiling. We are always going to be prey to the lone fundamentalist with something to prove. We can expect more attempts in the future. The nightmare is that one succeeds and an aircraft is either destroyed by fighters or crashes as a result of the crew being incapacitated. This can happen anywhere in the world at any time.
I would be surprised if there wasn't another attempt this year. I would bet money that it won't happen in America either. We all need to stay vigilant.
Caractus you are one of those people, your implication that Swedish/Irish security is not as good as British is idiotic considering that Swedish security caught the man.
That aside, it seems that Chatty, is trying to distance himself from the idea of it being an attempted hijack. News footage shows he's shaved off his beard and no doubt his 'explanation' for having the gun will be so very plausible.
But there can be little doubt he intended to hijack the aeroplane. The question in my mind is whether he had any comrades among the other passengers. Certainly not all the other 20 Moslems on board would have been involved. One or two perhaps, being unarmed they would have passed through without difficulty.
But his attempt was always doomed to failure. Even if the hijack succeeded. Even if the passengers and crew sat like sheep knowing that they were about to die. Would you??? Even if he somehow took conrol of the aircraft he could not avoid the fighters sent to intercept. Where would he have gone? The suggestion that he intended to crash into a US embassy is ridiculous. As any pilot knows pinpointing a building in a city is difficult let alone hitting it.
He could have crashed it more or less randomly, but all that would have achieved would be to kill at least 20 Muslims, and an assortment of Swedes, Irish and British.
All of this leads me to the conclusion that he was a lone nutter trying to prove a point. Like the shoe bomber he's a loser who found religion. He's also a failed pilot. There is none so bitter as a failed pilot who's found religion. Now he could go out in a blaze of glory as seen by certain elements. Luckily being a complete loser like the shoe bomber he failed in that too.
He may of had help but any intelligent peson would have told him the odds of getting a gun through security these days is slim. I daresay he had the blessing of some people but little practical help. He only had three rounds of ammunition, no doubt the might of Al Qaeda might run to a full magazine.
No he was a loser with a mission. There are parallels, in western culture, gunmen as in Columbine or Dunblane go out in what are effectively suicide missions. They kill as many as they can before being killed themselves. They pretty much fit the profile too. Losers with something to prove.
What all this does highlight is that security must remain high, with profiling. We are always going to be prey to the lone fundamentalist with something to prove. We can expect more attempts in the future. The nightmare is that one succeeds and an aircraft is either destroyed by fighters or crashes as a result of the crew being incapacitated. This can happen anywhere in the world at any time.
I would be surprised if there wasn't another attempt this year. I would bet money that it won't happen in America either. We all need to stay vigilant.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Identifying a building or landmark from the air is not that difficult. It requires a little research and planning. Aerial photos will help, as does hiring a C-172 and flying it over a target location for practice.
And hitting a building? Well, some terrorists found the WTC and the Pentagon without getting lost!!
And hitting a building? Well, some terrorists found the WTC and the Pentagon without getting lost!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hijack
Kaos I refer you to my first paragraph, it applies to you. Find a mirror now.
Check six, well you should know better than that. Why do you think they chose those particular targets? Chatty would be lucky to find a city let alone a building. Canary wharf might be the most obvious target. Do you really think a failed PPL would get close enough even to that landmark.
On another point for those of you who like to say 'I'm not anti American but.......' If he had hit London or Stockholm or wherever. Would you glibly say 'The Brits/Swedes had it coming' or any of the other stupid comments people have come out with in the last year?
Check six, well you should know better than that. Why do you think they chose those particular targets? Chatty would be lucky to find a city let alone a building. Canary wharf might be the most obvious target. Do you really think a failed PPL would get close enough even to that landmark.
On another point for those of you who like to say 'I'm not anti American but.......' If he had hit London or Stockholm or wherever. Would you glibly say 'The Brits/Swedes had it coming' or any of the other stupid comments people have come out with in the last year?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steepclimb, I beg to differ with you.
The low lifes who flew the airlines on 11/9 did not have pilot's licenses!! So a PPL is not capable of committing a similar mass murder??
If you do not believe the targets on 11/9 were the WTC and the Pentagon, you need to get outside more.
If you believe that a PPL could not find an American Embassy in Europe by air, you need to get outside more.
Finding locations/landmarks/prominent buildings by air is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. This is not speculation on my part. I flew surveillance aircraft for twenty-one years.
The low lifes who flew the airlines on 11/9 did not have pilot's licenses!! So a PPL is not capable of committing a similar mass murder??
If you do not believe the targets on 11/9 were the WTC and the Pentagon, you need to get outside more.
If you believe that a PPL could not find an American Embassy in Europe by air, you need to get outside more.
Finding locations/landmarks/prominent buildings by air is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. This is not speculation on my part. I flew surveillance aircraft for twenty-one years.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously doubt (ie. don't believe) that a PPL could single-handedly commandeer a 737, find a comparatively small and undistinguished building in a European capital and hit it dead on. Even if he was allowed to attempt to do so unchallenged.
wrt Sept 11, the WTC was an unmistakeable target, identifiable for miles. Even then, the second 767 had to be put into a desperate last-second bank to avoid sailing right by. The 757 hit the parking lot and bounced into the Pentagon, not what I would call a direct hit. If you've seen the Pentagon from the air, you'll appreciate that it was a p*ss-poor shot.
It is understandable that news reports were initially rife with speculation and conjecture. Personally, unattributable quotes and anonymous sources who 'claim' this or 'believe' that don't carry much weight. The two people who did put their names to their words were the Swedish Police Chief, who essentially said 'bollox' to the early reports, and the Judge who decided there was no evidence (as yet) of anything other than CCW.
The media now seems to have toned down the hyperbole and rhetoric as more information (actually no more information) becomes available. Suggest we do the same until something a bit more tangible emerges one way or the other.
wrt Sept 11, the WTC was an unmistakeable target, identifiable for miles. Even then, the second 767 had to be put into a desperate last-second bank to avoid sailing right by. The 757 hit the parking lot and bounced into the Pentagon, not what I would call a direct hit. If you've seen the Pentagon from the air, you'll appreciate that it was a p*ss-poor shot.
It is understandable that news reports were initially rife with speculation and conjecture. Personally, unattributable quotes and anonymous sources who 'claim' this or 'believe' that don't carry much weight. The two people who did put their names to their words were the Swedish Police Chief, who essentially said 'bollox' to the early reports, and the Judge who decided there was no evidence (as yet) of anything other than CCW.
The media now seems to have toned down the hyperbole and rhetoric as more information (actually no more information) becomes available. Suggest we do the same until something a bit more tangible emerges one way or the other.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check six your answer puzzles me so. This is the lazy way but:
The low lifes who flew the airlines on 11/9 did not have pilot's licenses!! So a PPL is not capable of committing a similar mass murder??
Don't quite get your point but the licence is irrelevant. Training and preparation is. I think you might understand that given your profession. Nothing has come forward about further flying by him since '96 or '97. I don't think he would be capable of finding his way anywhere on his own in a glass cockpit airliner somewhere over Europe at 300 kts or more. FS2002 practice or not.
If you do not believe the targets on 11/9 were the WTC and the Pentagon, you need to get outside more.
Again I don't get your point. I do believe the targets were the WTC and the Pentagon with, again my opinion, flight 93 being intended for the White House. Precisely because they are very prominent buildings and obvious from the air once in the vicinity. What on earth brought you to the conclusion that I believed they weren't the targets? Maybe I should get out more but you should learn to read read better.
If you believe that a PPL could not find an American Embassy in Europe by air, you need to get outside more.
I do believe a PPL could find an American embassy eventually in a light aircraft. But flying a 737 for the first time? Just how big and obvious do you think US embassies are? The hijackers on flight 93 seem to have been lost at least for some of the time despite all their preparation.
Finding locations/landmarks/prominent buildings by air is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. This is not speculation on my part. I flew surveillance aircraft for twenty-one years.
Not for you and me perhaps, I've been flying for twenty years but in the early days I was dam glad to find the town where the airport was situated. I remember flying over my house for the first time. It was hard to get orientated even though there was a huge and distinctive church right beside it.
This guy was a failed pilot and a failure in any number of other ways even when it came to getting on an aeroplane with a gun. He had no hope of success whatsoever.
The low lifes who flew the airlines on 11/9 did not have pilot's licenses!! So a PPL is not capable of committing a similar mass murder??
Don't quite get your point but the licence is irrelevant. Training and preparation is. I think you might understand that given your profession. Nothing has come forward about further flying by him since '96 or '97. I don't think he would be capable of finding his way anywhere on his own in a glass cockpit airliner somewhere over Europe at 300 kts or more. FS2002 practice or not.
If you do not believe the targets on 11/9 were the WTC and the Pentagon, you need to get outside more.
Again I don't get your point. I do believe the targets were the WTC and the Pentagon with, again my opinion, flight 93 being intended for the White House. Precisely because they are very prominent buildings and obvious from the air once in the vicinity. What on earth brought you to the conclusion that I believed they weren't the targets? Maybe I should get out more but you should learn to read read better.
If you believe that a PPL could not find an American Embassy in Europe by air, you need to get outside more.
I do believe a PPL could find an American embassy eventually in a light aircraft. But flying a 737 for the first time? Just how big and obvious do you think US embassies are? The hijackers on flight 93 seem to have been lost at least for some of the time despite all their preparation.
Finding locations/landmarks/prominent buildings by air is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. This is not speculation on my part. I flew surveillance aircraft for twenty-one years.
Not for you and me perhaps, I've been flying for twenty years but in the early days I was dam glad to find the town where the airport was situated. I remember flying over my house for the first time. It was hard to get orientated even though there was a huge and distinctive church right beside it.
This guy was a failed pilot and a failure in any number of other ways even when it came to getting on an aeroplane with a gun. He had no hope of success whatsoever.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well sleepclimb, I’m sorry I’ve abused your delicate (licensed) eyes. You might elaborated a bit more on my as you call, stupid comments, instead of salivate pitty brain farts?
For instance, it’s a known fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were only interested in steering the planes and not at all in any other stuff, like landings et all.
The problem is that, most Western people grossly underestimate these terrorists. Who ever thought 9/11 could ever happen for real? According the flight pattern the White House was the first target but the Pentagon got hit, for whatever reason. Actually it doesn’t really matter. It’s about lifes of innocent people aboard and on the ground whatever target is hit.
It’s my firm believe that it WAS a hijack and possibly a ground target WAS the mission, THAT’s what worries me. The main remaining question now is: was it a copycat or was it a organised action with multiple people.
CAPT. kaos
PS When I look in the mirror I see a handsome man. Not so sure about you, if you’re ugly as you sound.
For instance, it’s a known fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were only interested in steering the planes and not at all in any other stuff, like landings et all.
The problem is that, most Western people grossly underestimate these terrorists. Who ever thought 9/11 could ever happen for real? According the flight pattern the White House was the first target but the Pentagon got hit, for whatever reason. Actually it doesn’t really matter. It’s about lifes of innocent people aboard and on the ground whatever target is hit.
It’s my firm believe that it WAS a hijack and possibly a ground target WAS the mission, THAT’s what worries me. The main remaining question now is: was it a copycat or was it a organised action with multiple people.
CAPT. kaos
PS When I look in the mirror I see a handsome man. Not so sure about you, if you’re ugly as you sound.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: worldwide
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim
quote "Maybe you'd be a little more understanding of just what the US has suffered this last year(or decade for those with short memories) and not so quick to criticize what has to be done in this war of survival.Its either them or us.You choose.But dont whinge or utter platitudes whilst you're sitting on the fence making up your mind. "
So you never donated to NORAID then ? & if u didn't who did !!
quote "Maybe you'd be a little more understanding of just what the US has suffered this last year(or decade for those with short memories) and not so quick to criticize what has to be done in this war of survival.Its either them or us.You choose.But dont whinge or utter platitudes whilst you're sitting on the fence making up your mind. "
So you never donated to NORAID then ? & if u didn't who did !!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USofA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt KAOS, sorry to take issue with you (particularly in view of Steepclimb's previous er, postings, ahem) but this voodoo about 9/11 hijackers as students not wanting to take off and land aircraft really needs to be debunked.
The US media somehow attached this as a footnote to the Moussaoui story (not the other 'jackers). And it's absolutely untrue. If you were one of these cunning sobs, would you walk into a flight traing school and say what Moussaoui is supposed to have? It'd be red flag central. Of course that didn't happen.
Moussaoui was actually the subject of an FBI tip-off because of his aberrant behavior in the school. Aberrant behavior which, of course, continues to this day and would seem to indicate that he's not flying on full tanks IMHO. ("I'm not pleading," Alahu Akbar "I'm guilty" Alahu Akbar "I'm innocent" Alahu Akbar "I want to address Congress" etc etc.).
I have no idea whether or not this bloke was supposed to be the twentieth hijacker... he has cheerfully admitted to taking a little training and an oath of alliegance to UBL but - were I mohamed atta, I wouldn't want a lose cannon like that in the team.
Incidentally, the Senate's Commerce & Transportation Commitee quizzed the Transport Secretary about this on May 21 this year and he confirmed that Moussaoui did want to learn how to take off and land. This wasn't well publicized (who wants to let the facts..., etc) but you will find it accurately reported in the nytimes of May 22 under a headline titled 'Transport boss doesn't want guns in the cockpit."
Again, sorry Cap'n. No disrecpect intended.
By the way, Steepclimb's a bit of a winker, innhe?
The US media somehow attached this as a footnote to the Moussaoui story (not the other 'jackers). And it's absolutely untrue. If you were one of these cunning sobs, would you walk into a flight traing school and say what Moussaoui is supposed to have? It'd be red flag central. Of course that didn't happen.
Moussaoui was actually the subject of an FBI tip-off because of his aberrant behavior in the school. Aberrant behavior which, of course, continues to this day and would seem to indicate that he's not flying on full tanks IMHO. ("I'm not pleading," Alahu Akbar "I'm guilty" Alahu Akbar "I'm innocent" Alahu Akbar "I want to address Congress" etc etc.).
I have no idea whether or not this bloke was supposed to be the twentieth hijacker... he has cheerfully admitted to taking a little training and an oath of alliegance to UBL but - were I mohamed atta, I wouldn't want a lose cannon like that in the team.
Incidentally, the Senate's Commerce & Transportation Commitee quizzed the Transport Secretary about this on May 21 this year and he confirmed that Moussaoui did want to learn how to take off and land. This wasn't well publicized (who wants to let the facts..., etc) but you will find it accurately reported in the nytimes of May 22 under a headline titled 'Transport boss doesn't want guns in the cockpit."
Again, sorry Cap'n. No disrecpect intended.
By the way, Steepclimb's a bit of a winker, innhe?
Guest
Posts: n/a
pbsmm: appreciate your input, sir. actually I remembered an interview with the dutch owner of the Venice flightschool here on the local network, in which he was talking about most of the terrorist being mediocre at best.
guess we'll know more in a week or 2.
re your last conclusion about steeplimb, couldn't agree with you more, I pitty his dog.
peace
Capt.KAOS
guess we'll know more in a week or 2.
re your last conclusion about steeplimb, couldn't agree with you more, I pitty his dog.
peace
Capt.KAOS
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this item, not illustrate the potential difference between screening at a large airport such as Heathrow compared to success at Vasteras:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2238338.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2238338.stm
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
All that article shows is that there is a difference between a person with no murderous intent carrying an offensive pair of scissors or nail clippers and an person with murderous intent carrying the same items. Precisely why profiling is so much more important. The X-ray machine should be the 'last resort' not the 'only' resort.
It's not the scissors that do the damage, it's the person using them. According to the DoT and the CAA, even our parents, kids, brothers or sisters are not to be trusted. As usual, those who make the rules often have very little practical experience to apply to their most often flawed decisions. More likely a desire to 'please' their minister in charge with a cheap soundbite opportunity.
It's not the scissors that do the damage, it's the person using them. According to the DoT and the CAA, even our parents, kids, brothers or sisters are not to be trusted. As usual, those who make the rules often have very little practical experience to apply to their most often flawed decisions. More likely a desire to 'please' their minister in charge with a cheap soundbite opportunity.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are running around like headless chickens intent upon locking the stable door when the horse has bolted. All we are doing is making life difficult for ourselves and passengers and thus damaging the industry. Absolute security is impossible at an airport, plastic items will always get through x ray machines including replica guns. It is almost certain that methods of 9/11 will not be repeated, to difficult, so other means will be researched, perhaps we should be looking into those. Meanwhile, reporters who want to emulate terrorists should be prosecuted.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with the last three posts. The same method of attack is unlikely to be repeated by an oganised group. The embittered loner might try it though and that has to guarded against.
On another point, I'm sorry to say my point about stupid and childish posts in the most serious of subjects has been proved again. I enjoy all the name calling and I can give as good as I get, in JETBLAST. That's the place for it.
On another point, I'm sorry to say my point about stupid and childish posts in the most serious of subjects has been proved again. I enjoy all the name calling and I can give as good as I get, in JETBLAST. That's the place for it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coincidences
Capt K et al. Do you really think there is NO possibility of coincidences? Try this:
"Took flying lessons" - I am learning Navigation, I have no flying qualifications.
I am also trying to obtain my Radio Amateurs Licence
"Got to know fundamentalist Muslims" - so do I.
"Lived not far from Atta's place"- I live about a mile from what was the Yorkshire Ripper's home
"Attended a religious school" so did I.
Now the answers: I am learning Navigation because I will be taking part in the Outback Air Race next year and want to be of some help. Amateur Radio is something in which I have been interested since I was little and have only just had the chance to explore further. I was as shocked as anyone to find that Peter Sutcliffe lived so near - particularly in light of his statement that his next intended victim was to be a nurse. I work in a hospital with a large number of Muslim staff and patients so I come into contact with them on a daily basis. The hospital is even neare to Sutcliffe's former home. I even knew one of the people involved in the Bradford riots. I attended a religious school - all through my schooldays in fact. So what does that make me? A religious lunatic intent on murdering Australians during the Ouback Air Race? Certainly not, I'm taking part for the fun of it.
"Took flying lessons" - I am learning Navigation, I have no flying qualifications.
I am also trying to obtain my Radio Amateurs Licence
"Got to know fundamentalist Muslims" - so do I.
"Lived not far from Atta's place"- I live about a mile from what was the Yorkshire Ripper's home
"Attended a religious school" so did I.
Now the answers: I am learning Navigation because I will be taking part in the Outback Air Race next year and want to be of some help. Amateur Radio is something in which I have been interested since I was little and have only just had the chance to explore further. I was as shocked as anyone to find that Peter Sutcliffe lived so near - particularly in light of his statement that his next intended victim was to be a nurse. I work in a hospital with a large number of Muslim staff and patients so I come into contact with them on a daily basis. The hospital is even neare to Sutcliffe's former home. I even knew one of the people involved in the Bradford riots. I attended a religious school - all through my schooldays in fact. So what does that make me? A religious lunatic intent on murdering Australians during the Ouback Air Race? Certainly not, I'm taking part for the fun of it.