“There have been several cases recently throughout the airline industry of what appear to be probes, or dry-runs”

Only a matter of time. “Pilot Memo Warns of Terrorist Dry Run on DC to Orlando Flight,” by Mike Deeson for WTSP-TV, October 10 (thanks to Kenneth):

Orlando, Florida (WTSP) — It was a flight bound for Florida, and some airline pilots believe it also may have been a dry-run for terrorists.

The WTSP News Investigators have obtained an internal memo that details a frightening incident that brings back memories of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Since then, federal efforts have gone in place to prevent a similar attack, leading many to believe another attack what happened on 9/11 could never happen again.

Wolf Koch, who flies Boeing 767s for Delta Airlines and is the Aviation Security Committee Chairman for the Air Line Pilots Association International, says that belief “is very foolish.”

Koch describes the events of 9/11 as “an incredible attack on us. It was very well orchestrated and they’re going to try it again… 100 percent, no question in my mind. They’re going to try it again.”

According to Koch, many other flight crews are concerned the planning may already be underway.

A memo obtained by the WTSP investigators from the union that represents pilots for US Airways says that “there have been several cases recently throughout the (airline) industry of what appear to be probes, or dry-runs, to test our procedures and reaction to an in flight threat.”

Koch says, “What most security experts will tell you that if a dry-run is occurring, the attack will shortly follow.”

The pilots say the most recent dry-run occurred on Flight 1880 on September 2. The flight left Reagan National Airport in Washington D.C. and headed to Orlando International.

Crew members say that shortly after takeoff, a group of four “Middle Eastern” men caused a commotion.

The witnesses claim one of the men ran from his seat in coach, toward the flight deck door. He made a hard left and entered the forward bathroom “for a considerable length of time.”

While he was in there, the other three men proceeded to move about the cabin, changing seats, opening overhead bins, and “generally making a scene.” They appeared to be trying to occupy and distract the flight attendants.

The WTSP Investigators contacted both US Airways and the Transportation Security Administration both confirmed the incident. US Airways says it won’t discuss the details of security measures, but that it works closely with authorities.

The TSA told us it takes all reports of suspicious activity aboard aircraft seriously, and the matter requires no further investigation at this time.

However, a current Federal Air Marshal who works flights every week says of the TSA, “They’re liars. They’re flat out liars.”

The Air Marshal, whose identity we are not revealing because agency rules prohibit him from talking to the media, says the TSA doesn’t want the flying public to be aware of the problems with terrorist probes.

The Air Marshal and others we have spoken to say several flights they have worked were targets of dry-runs and that most of his colleagues believe no matter what the TSA says, the incident aboard Flight 1880 is serious.

Until now, there has been absolutely no publicity about the US Airways flight from D.C. to Orlando International Airport, but security experts say incidents like this should not and cannot be ignored.

As the Federal Air Marshal and industry insiders tell us, “We’re waiting for the next 9/11 to happen, because it’s not a question of if. It’s a question of when.”

Five Muslims found on flight to Toronto with fake tickets
Muslim charged with making mass murder threat on Toronto-to-Istanbul flight
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    These dry-runs, if that is what they are, are greatly assisted by the public and the official fear or saying or doing anything that may be deemed ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’.

    That state of affairs has a multiplier effect on the resulting apprehension and uncertainty, the perfect Petri dish for terror and dhimmitude.

    “Give them what they want, do as they say”.

    Germany 1933 —->

  2. says

    “There have been several cases recently throughout the airline industry of what appear to be probes, or dry-runs”
    ……………………………

    Yes. I believe that these dry runs are not only to test the waters and see what they can get away with, but are also intended to “soften up” airline staff and the flying public.

    The “Flying Imams” was one of the first such of those cases.

    Clearly, it has hardly been the last.

  3. says

    Now if he were sober enough, Bishop McManus on his Winter vacation to the South (taking a break from all his heavy-leifting “evangelical” (cough) work), might meet up with these Muslims and practice a little interfaith dialogue.

    Well, Bishop?

  4. says

    Really want to make the skies more safe? Then profile Muslims. After all, how much terrorism is committed throughout the world when you minus Muslims acting in the name of their religion from any terrorism list?

    But no, we can’t have that now can we, since being sensitive and politically correct where Muslims are concerned is far more important than a common sense approach to preventing death and mayhem in the skies and elsewhere. Ah, the burden which is Islam continues to plague all the world, abetted by timid or clueless dhimmis.

  5. says

    Probes are different than dry-runs. A probe is usually done by support personnel who have minimal training, not a member of the actual attack team, because the object of the probe is to see what the response time/action will be and the bad-guys don’t want to lose members of the actual attack team, who are the highly-trained terrorists.

    A dry-run involves the actual players and is indeed done shortly before the actual attack, usually at the same time and day the real attack will come, which is to say a dry run on Thursday afternoon at 1530 means the attack will come about 1530 on a Thursday afternoon.

    Moreover, attack teams will probably be more than 4 or 5 in number but as many as 15. This is so that any resistance to the attack can be discouraged or overcome by sheer size of the attacking force… as my links depict.

  6. says

    None of this applies to me because I don’t fly. My feet never leave the ground. Even in a car I keep one on the ground. Did you ever notice no one checks you out in the airport when you first walk in the door? Someone with ill intent can have easy access to a crowded terminal. And what is the TSA agent going to do when smoke starts coming out of someones shorts?

  7. says

    A former airline pilot who has been in the position of having to restrain and isolate dangerous and threatening passengers sent me the following:

    “Events such as described are a cheap and effective method of terrorizing the travelling public, with minimal downside effects on the terrorists. It achieves an outcome that causes real terror in Joe Public, but is deniable if challenged by the State, and has the double effect of both challenging and mocking Western Liberal Justice systems. By knowing the edges of Western Justice systems and playing hard up against these boundaries, terrorists achieve their goals, at little or no cost to themselves.

    “So called ‘dry runs’ and probes are a tactic in themselves as well as potential practice runs for real deadly attacks. Actually these constant pinprick virtual acts of terror, that remain just inside the legal limits of Justice are effective in wearing down Western populations at no cost to the terrorists and with little or no sanctions against them. They are cunning and effective.

    “The answer is to enforce the ‘captain’s prerogative’ in the air and physically restrain these individuals because they cause upset and are a potential threat to the travelling public. Aircraft safety considerations give aircraft captains very wide powers of control and restraint over all passengers. All that it will take is for civil authorities and airlines to back up aircraft commanders who use the current laws that are now in place and support captains’ decisions.”

  8. says

    Islamists also “probe”
    While claiming complete innoncent intentions:
    The MSM, ChistIsam coexist pastors like Rick Warren, Ground Zero mosque sleaze, Why Islam billboards overlooking lower Manhattan, and a 911 march that was to be redefined as “Islamophobia towards peaceful Muslims” etc.

  9. says

    Death and taxes are NOT the only two certainties in life. There happens to be a third. Islamic jihad warfare.

    We ex-Muslims living with Islam`s formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know that Islam is NOT a religion of peace.

    Islam`s canonical texts (the Quran, hadith and Mohammed`s sira) demand that Muslims wage violent jihad and do their best to imitate the example of Muhammad the murderous mad prophet of Islam in every detail.

    The jihad will undoubtedly continue and planes will undoubtedly continue to be flown into non-Islamic buildings until the Muslims acknowledge that Islam is a complete fraud and abandon it entirely.

    The 164 jihad verses found in the supposedly perfect Quran make jihad a central tenet of the Islamic creed.

    At least 75% of the Sira (biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him) is about jihad.

    The largest part of the Islamic texts (the Qur’an, hadith and sira) relate to the treatment of unbelievers, kafirs. Approximately 67% of the Qur’an written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Qur’an of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers.

    Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.

    What is the real jihad? The jihad of inner spiritual struggle, or the jihad of war?

    Statistical analysis of the Bukhari hadith (considered by Muslims to be the most authentic of the hadith collections) show that Muhammad repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari, 97% of the jihad references are about war, and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle.

    There are 146 references to Hell in the Qur’an. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings ” murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime.

    Islam is no “religion of peace”. Islam is primarily a religion of “injustice, intolerance, hatred, and violence.” The fact is, if we non-Muslims were to say about Muslims what the Qur’an says about us, we would be arrested for hate speech. The Qur’an largely preaches discrimination, death, and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Certainly some Muslims will be offended by such statements, but frankly, so what? Judaism and Christianity, the world’s two other major monotheistic religions, have had to face the harshest of scrutiny and criticism for several hundred years which continues to this day. Islam must not be granted any special privileges or be exempt from such treatment – the implications are of tremendous importance.

    We ex-Muslims living with Islam’s formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know that the cruel, über violent cult of Mohammedanism is a despicable fraud.

    Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:

    “One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…

    The statement continues,

    Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/

  10. says

    Undaunted said:

    “A dry-run involves the actual players and is indeed done shortly before the actual attack, usually at the same time and (sic) day the real attack will come, which is to say a dry run on Thursday afternoon at 1530 means the attack will come about 1530 on a Thursday afternoon.”

    Well, everybody seems to be congratulating Undaunted, as if the “wisdom” posted is invaluable.

    I find it extremely dangerous to assume such things, as above. Some of the reasons are as follows:

    1.) The analysis assumes that we are thinking as they do. It precludes the possibility of a dry run for the dry run, which would have a devastating effect, if we were to follow Undaunted’s logic.

    2.) Dry-runs are easily mistaken for simple confusion for people who have never been on a plane. I have seen this sort of thing, myself, on numerous trips back and forth to the Middle east and Europe. Confused passengers begin to fumble with overhead compartments, and begin to “ululate” in their native Arabic. Other “Arab – looking passengers” try to help them. Everyone is whisked away upon arrival, and it all comes to nothing.

    The end result? No dry run – no dry dry run but resources were expended. Sum total? No protection.

  11. says

    I’d be looking for a nuke plant anywhere between DC and Florida. I think that would be the most likely target. If they succeed at that we should immediately hit Mecca with a nuke our selves, vaporize the kabba, no more pilgrimages. I am so sick of these savages, we really need to plan for all out war with these people. I hope they reestablish the caliphate so we can hold them all collectively responsible. Rather then fighting each country, we can just take em all out at once.

  12. says

    oh that does it!

    from the peanut section here, if i ever travel on a plane again, i’ll buy a pet pot-belly pig, train him in excellent manners, take him to the pet wash, put a big bright red bow on him, buy him a big-people TICKET and up the plane ramp we go.

    when we get to the top of the ramp, i’ll slap a magnet PIG ON BOARD sign to warn others.

    if they think they are to good to travel with POT-BELLY, so be it.

    POT-BELLY will get the aisle seat, and i get the window. the women might stop and coo “isn’t he cute?” and tickle under his chins. the men might look at me like i’m a loon, but live and let live.

    up up and away we go!

  13. says

    My blog? Blocked? Here? “Here” must mean where you’re online because it works fine at the links above.

    And, um, how far down below do I need to look to find your “clearly” elucidated corrections?

    You’re a frequent-flying expert at putting your tray table into its upright position and that’s all. Please stop shaming yourself. It’s boring.

  14. says

    A diversionary tactic would be something done away ~ like across town ~ from the actual attack but just before it ~ like minutes before ~ not days or weeks as would be done in a probe or dry run. The purpose of a diversion would be to draw police resources away from the attack.

    PJ; please stop.

    A dry run is done by the actual attack team and probably only once because the actions taken by them on that dry-run will mimic what they will be doing when they are on attack. With those overt acts the probability of them being detected and the attack being thwarted goes way up. So there would be no logical reason for them to do multiple dry-runs especially if they were doing them, as your faux sagacity requires, to create a diversion.

    Just sit there, PJ, wherever you are, and back off. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    And, about my “diatribes”…

    I was attacked here by four people who felt it their right and duty to spread shitty false rumors about me, to tear me and what I do down over the fact that I sometimes have used a little profanity ~ or a lot ~ to season a point. My “diatribes” were self-defense measures which I will always undertake when people like you raise up on their stubby, know-nothing hind legs and try to play like they know about me, in particular, and war in general. Only one of the four has had the grace to apologize for what she said about me and I gladly accepted that apology and count her as a JW friend now. You? Frankly, I’m losing interest in you, bozo.

  15. says

    Let me make it real simple for you, and maybe you’ll see the obvious problem with your statement, though I’ve already done this, above.

    Then I’m out, because it seems to be the case that you are impervious to plain reasoning. You said:

    “A dry-run involves the actual players and is indeed done shortly before the actual attack, usually at the same time and (sic) day the real attack will come…”

    The article states that “several dry-runs” have occurred. According to your statement above, there should have been several attacks.

    Those attacks did not occur. That’s plain and simple. There is no refuting it, so stop trying to do so. It’s useless. Your logic fails for the very simple reason that NO ATTACKS OCCURRED immediately after the supposed dry runs.

    Get it? It’s really very simple, but again – I predict you won’t address this fatal flaw in your reasoning because like so many who think the sky is pink even though it is obviously blue, they choose to ignore their previous words and the illogic therein.

  16. says

    The activity on the flight was a probe. They wanted to find out what the crew would do when they acted suspiciously.

    I guarantee you the people misbehaving on the flight in question were not the actual operators who may or may not now ~ based on the information THEY gathered and THEY process ~ carry out a dry-run and then an attack.

    Just because a reporter speaks or writes it, doesn’t mean he or she knows which way is actually up.

  17. says

    PJ wrote: “Example #1 : The Underwear Bomber. Christmas. Detroit. Remember? It was and remains a verifiable attack. The attack simply failed because of poor detonators, we believe. It was not a probe, and there was NO DRY RUN THAT IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDED IT AND THAT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE SAME PERPETRATOR, as you stated must be the case, in your original assertion. Therefore, the assertion is false. You keep claiming that it isn’t. I’ve just shown you an example, to prove that it is.

    Example #2: Richard Reid, the “Shoe Bomber”. Another failed, but verified attack. Not a probe. Not a dry run. Just an attack, with no dry run preceding it. So, again – your original claim – that all dry runs precede the attack and are carried out by the same person who perpetrates the attack IS FALSE.”

    Really. No dry run, huh? How would you know? Dry-runs don’t always happen ~ as our limited knowledge demands ~ in the very same plane and on the very same flight as the one intended for the attack. In fact, sometimes the dry-runs are conducted in an airplane fuselage out in the desert as was the case in Iraq at Salman Pak.

    I used the qualifiers “usually” and “probably” in my original comment above, I never meant to imply “all” as you have accused. The statement you call false is merely incomplete. Pity you couldn’t have completed it yourself and added it here politely.

    SF operators do dry-runs all the time before an attack. They rehearse as much as possible in structures as close in design and layout as their target but they might never have the exact floor-plan. But that doesn’t stop them from rehearsing. Practicing. The Russian operators who went after the Beslan terrorists in School #1 practiced at a building a few miles away that was sort of like the school building because that’s all that was immediately available.

    You’re right about the bad detonators, but that’s all. You read that in the media, I’m sure… the same media that has misinformed you about the difference between a probe and a dry-run.

    Back off, jack.

    Gravenimage… good call.

  18. says

    Not than anyone asked, but here is my view on dealing with the wide variety of styles and personalities in the Counter Jihad.

    First”because I’m nothing if not discursive”an anecdote:

    I’m very much a student of history. I remember as a high school kid eagerly reading about the Abolitionist Movement. I had expected to find a group of high-minded, intelligent people working in perfect harmony to end a great historic injustice.

    At times that was exactly what I did find. And at times”it wasn’t.

    Some Abolitionists didn’t see eye-to-eye for religious reasons”Quakers, Unitarians, odd-ball small sect “dissenters” of all sorts and high-church Episcopalians often disagreed. Then Abolitionists often had strikingly different political points of view on issues other than the ending of slavery.

    Probably the most unexpected thing I ran across was while most people working to end slavery were egalitarians, that some others had either very conventional or even very negative views regarding race. I found this quite shocking.

    And then, I found that as much as I admired the work they were doing, that quite a few of the Abolitionists”especially early on, when being anti-slavery at all was very much a minority opinion”were prickly, difficult, quirky, and sometimes profoundly eccentric individuals.

    Later, I found similar circumstances with early anti-Fascists and anti-Communists.

    I decided that had I been around during those times, that I would have worked with anyone opposing these great evils”excepting only those very few who were espousing something equally vile.

    As soon as a I began to seriously realize the scope of the Jihad threat”like a lot of Infidels, I had been getting increasingly leery about Islam, but it took 9/11 to really wake me up”I began to seek out those who stood against “Islamic extremism” (or, as I came to understand it, Jihad and Shari’ah).

    I realized when I started that some of those people might be prickly, difficult, quirky, and sometimes profoundly eccentric”and that even when they are not, that they would likely come from a wide variety of national, ethnic, religious, and political points of view.

    And so it has been.

    There are a *very* few I *won’t* stand with, because their beliefs are truly abhorrent”poster “White Homeland” comes to mind (assuming, of course, that he isn’t just a sh*t-disturbing troll wandered in from Loonwatch).

    For the rest, if you have anything to contribute to the Counter Jihad”or are even just learning”then I stand with you all, and try to let the inevitable spats and misunderstandings and disagreements roll off my back, unless they prove actually substantive to fighting the Jihad itself.

    And I come by this point of view honestly”I realize I can be pretty eccentric myself at times.

    God bless you all.

  19. says

    Just one important thing I’d like to add: overall, I have actually been very impressed with the intelligence, understanding, accomplishments, skills, and character of so many in the Counter Jihad.

    It’s not just I will stand with you, it’s that I am proud to do so.

  20. says

    Just wanted to thank you again, undaunted, for all the valuable information you provide here at JW, for instance the difference between dry-runs and probes or the importance for Islamic terrorists to have unassembled explosive components rather than assembled ones when making entrance on a plane in order to “achieve” another 9/11.

    No other regular commenter at JW I know of has the specific, technical knowledge and experience you do. I have no doubt that many are grateful for the kind of expertise you have provided for years now at this site. Hope you and those you hold most dear are doing well.

  21. says

    I have far different memories of Viet Nam, Relic.

    But THE WORST among us from that time, the ones that made it a comedy of lies, the ones that hated America and still hate it, the ones that ensured our defeat – yeah they are the ones that our fellow countrymen have now put in power over us.

    May God help us overcome the foolish and dangerous thing that we have done.

  22. says

    Absolutely. It is of no cost to them. In fact, if action IS taken against them, they will find some scumbag muslim lawyer – not to mention CAIR and the other alphabet soup muslim organizations – to scream and cry that these “poor innocent men” had their rights violated, and they deserve recompense. (Think the “flying imams” fiasco.) “Terror” does not necessarily mean actually blowing up a plane; but putting that fear in the minds of the passengers, all while they are laughing to themselves about the stupid “kuffar”.

    And from what I can recall, you can thank George Bush and crybaby Norman Mineta for seeing to it that pilots, many of whom are ex-military, are not allowed to carry firearms. That in itself would be somewhat of a deterrent.

    I also agree with Wellington about profiling; but as undaunted has also mentioned on his site, it isn’t just about someone’s ethnicity. The goons are getting smarter; and are heavily recruiting those who do not fit the muslim “profile”: young, scroungy-looking, middle eastern men. There are various things to look for that should raise red flags in peoples’ minds. And a large combination of those red-flag items should put you on full alert.

    Thank you, undaunted, for the info. on your site. And thank you, Wellington and MBR, for your points above.

  23. says

    And I’ll raise you again, dumbass, by asking the same question you never answered months ago…how the hell are you going to know the Muslim in the suit from the Muslim in the thobe?

    What if he/she denies being Muslim? Are you going to shoot them?

    You live in a bizarre world that foregoes pragmatism in favor of demagoguery.

  24. says

    Amazing. Your “wisdom” gained by merely sitting on your butt in airplanes trumps what I wrote just because you say so?

    A “dry run for a dry run”? Really? Your inane comment suggests that terrorists have unlimited funding, personnel, time and targets to recon so they can waste all the above just to kill time. And, a dry run does not look like confusion just because you say so. Someone having trouble getting a handbag from the overhead compartment looks different than scenarios I described in my posts.

    You don’t have the credentials to offer advice in this field so pipe down.

  25. says

    “You don’t have the credentials to offer advice in this field so pipe down.”

    That’s a laugh. And no, I won’t pipe down.

    One doesn’t need “credentials” to be a good observer, and further I would bet you have NEVER been on flights back and forth to the ME – and as to your childish little retort about “sitting on my butt” in an airplane – I’ll remind you that EVERYONE has to do that. It’s called jet-travel, Mr. Expert.

    Finally, your assertion that terrorists don’t have unlimited funding to prosecute any number and manner of dry runs – up to and including a dry run for a dry run proves my point exactly.

    You’re assuming things that you don’t know, and blithely claim to think as they do – which is dangerous.

    So calm down, smart-ass, or you’ll go off again on another one of your nasty little diatribes, such as you did in your little blog – and here the other day.

  26. says

    So, what are your credentials, other than what you’ve said, sitting on your ass in a plane in the ME? I mean, really, that’s it? That’s why I’m wrong?

    I’m not assuming anything. Nor do I claim to think like terrorists do but I can make certain likely deductions based on statistical probabilities and that’s what I’ve done based on my training and experience and research. And your snotty remarks are, again, based on exactly… what, other than collecting flying miles on the other side of the world?

    I’m really, really calm. Thanks for your concern.

  27. says

    “Finally, your assertion that terrorists don’t have unlimited funding to prosecute any number and manner of dry runs – up to and including a dry run for a dry run proves my point exactly.”

    **********

    Something in the water over there Philip?

    I have read your posts several times and have failed to “find your point” exactly.

    What is it that you object to in undaunted’s posts and more to the point, what alternative tactics would you suggest?

  28. says

    Thanks, DGB.

    Hey, PJ; if you want to correct me, then bounce over to my blog and leave a comment. I don’t mind being corrected as long as you’re right. To determine if you’re right or just have a smelly chip on your shoulder, I’ll have to know what your background is; your training and experience in any police, military, counterterrorism discipline. Go ahead, keep making my day.

  29. says

    Real simple, Davey – and I think I made my point abundantly clear, but just to satisfy your query…again, the point is that Undaunted claims that all dry runs are immediately to precede an actual attack. I find, firstly that the logic is flawed, since from reading the article, we are informed that”many dry runs have occurred”. According to Undaunted’s logic, there should have been, therefore, many, actual attacks that followed those dry runs. There haven’t been, which is irrefutable. This notion is further confounded by the illogic of his assertion that “terrorists don’t have unlimited resources” to conduct false dry runs. If they have the resources to plan and execute the actual attack, which is supposedly and immediately preceded by the dry run, well then, they have those same resources to conduct false dry runs, as a way of distraction.

    All of this led me to assert that he assumes that the terrorists think as we do. I think that’s dangerous, and that is part of my overall point. We need to think ahead of them – not as we assume they do.

    In short, I find it odd that you fail to see my point, since I regard you as being a bright guy. My point is crystal clear, and I see no reason to assume that terrorists who have the finances to conduct attacks that are supposedly immediately preceded by dry runs, would not use those same funds to conduct multiple dry runs as diversionary tactics for the real deal.

    And to answer your somewhat inane question – I don’t know if there’s “anything in the water” here. I don’t drink it.

  30. says

    Your blog is blocked here. You can read my reply below, which sufficiently eviscerates your childish objections, and clearly points out the flaws in your supposed logic.

  31. says

    “Here” must mean where you’re online because it works fine at the links above.”

    Uhhh…yeah. Amazing bit of deduction there, Sherlock. It’s called the Internet, and uhhh…yeah. We’re online.

    Well, this just illustrates my point to a greater degree. You assume your blog is not blocked in China. It is.

    And the rest of what follows in the bizarre duality that you “describe” above leads me to believe that you are stuck in one-dimensional thinking. But hey, that’s fine by me.

    And the diatribe? Don’t weasel out of it. it was far beyond self-defense, Mr.

    I just love it the way some personages on this site try to erase words that cannot be, and are impervious to logic.

    But again, that’s fine by me. I don’t really give a rat’s ass. I just find it interesting that those whose logic is so flawed are usually the ones trying to defend it the most rigorously when it comes under attack.

    Se la vie. Bozo.

  32. says

    Let me make it real simple for you: the writer of the article, like oh so many people in the world including yourself, don’t know the difference between a dry-run and a probe, mistakenly thought to be one and the same.

    The attacks did not occur after the “supposed dry runs” because the dry-runs were probes. They are two different animals.

    Now do you get it? The writer of the article knows just as much about dry-runs and probes as you do… that’s the problem here.

    Take a breath, JP.

  33. says

    It’s pretty clear for all to see that you really, really don’t like undaunted. And I think that enmity is the real reason for your argument.

    Following the rather esoteric discussion of “probes” vs. “dry runs” you seize on the fact that the article mentions numerous “dry runs”. You highlight the fact that undaunted says that attacks will occur soon after “dry runs” and since there have been no attacks, undaunted’s logic is therefore “fatally flawed”.

    I find nothing of the kind.

    Dry runs by definition are a full rehearsal of the action (attack) to be performed. Simple logic would tell you that they are performed before the attack – soon before. A “probe” may look like a “dry run” except as undaunted points out, it will be performed by the second or third string and perhaps be not as complex. I dunno, maybe our intrepid pilots in the article above were witnessing “probes” not “dry runs” or perhaps they are confusing the terms. From the article:

    “The Air Marshal, whose identity we are not revealing because agency rules prohibit him from talking to the media, says the TSA doesn’t want the flying public to be aware of the problems with terrorist probes.”

    But whatever the case, undaunted is on solid ground in his assertion that attacks follow “dry runs”. As a quote from the article plainly states:

    “Koch says, “What most security experts will tell you that if a dry-run is occurring, the attack will shortly follow.””

    MOST security experts say “if a dry-run is occurring, the attack will shortly follow”. So, you may fault undaunted for lack of originality, but it appears his “logic” comports with “most security experts”.

    Finally, simple logic will also lead you to the conclusion that an attack might NOT occur after a “dry run”. Possibly because the “dry run” did not go as expected, or perhaps the plan was compromised during the “dry run”.

    Undaunted’s style can be quite abrasive, but he offers quite useful and practical knowledge for those on “the pointy end of the spear”. And in this War, that could be any of us at any time.

    So, if someone is offering advice and knowledge that just might save my life, I will take it – even if he is an assh*le.

    Hope things are going well for you in China Philip – Illegitimi non carborundum.

  34. says

    “Let me make it real simple for you: the writer of the article, like oh so many people in the world including yourself, don’t know the difference between a dry-run and a probe, mistakenly thought to be one and the same.”

    Oh, crap. Just like I said. You’re trying to walk your own words back. I know exactly the differenece, smart-ass. It doesn’t take a fucking genius to understand.

    I choose to believe the airline pilot, doofus. Not you. If he says they’re dry runs, they’re dry runs, in the classic sense, not the illogical sense that I have so clearly laid out, which was the product of your own words.

  35. says

    “It’s pretty clear for all to see that you really, really don’t like undaunted. And I think that enmity is the real reason for your argument. ”

    Huh? Gimmee a break. This a fucking chat forum. I don’t know the dude, or even if he IS a dude. I don’t take anything personally here, and I have no interest in “liking” some entity or disliking them.

    What I dislike is persons who claim to be experts, but whose logic does not, in fact comport to their own words.

    Either there have been dry runs, probes, or not. If, we are to believe the actual pilots, that there indeed have been dry runs –WHERE ARE THE ATTACKS? If the attacks didn’t follow, well, yes, it could be that the runs were aborted for some reason, but it still doesn’t follow the inherent reasoning and its flaws found in Undaunted’s words.

  36. says

    Item last; I have never here nor anywhere else claimed to be an expert. I have a body of training and experience that most don’t have and I choose to share some of that with readers here and at my blog.

    If you want to play word games and accuse me of backtracking on what I’ve written here or anywhere else, then keep on making yourself look like a fool. Over the years I’ve made errors here in terms of saying things I shouldn’t have said and sometimes in ways I need not have and I believe, when warranted, I have always apologized for being a bit to acerbic. But I haven’t said anything wrong here, just in a way, evidently, that vexes you and pulls your shorts way up into your crotch too tight. So, deal with it. I know more about this subject than you do, and more about this subject than any airline pilot… and I know lots of airline pilots.

    To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Time to put down the hammer, P.

  37. says

    You’re the one who said “Your blog is blocked here.” I thought that meant that you were at work and company filters had limited your access to sites like mine. Happens all the time.

    And I’m not the one being childish. You and others misinterpret “dry-run” and “probe”, it’s a common error. Deal with the fact that you’re wrong on this one and grow up.

  38. says

    “So, deal with it. I know more about this subject than you do, and more about this subject than any airline pilot… and I know lots of airline pilots.”
    _______________________

    Never claimed I knew more. Simply objected to the illogic inherent in your original statement.

    Let me walk you through it, in reverse – to show you, one more time, how your original words do not comport to logic. I’ll use two examples, then I’m out, because I’m too busy, and too sick of doing the reasoning for you. This goes for you too, Davey.

    Example #1 : The Underwear Bomber. Christmas. Detroit. Remember? It was and remains a verifiable attack. The attack simply failed because of poor detonators, we believe. It was not a probe, and there was NO DRY RUN THAT IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDED IT AND THAT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE SAME PERPETRATOR, as you stated must be the case, in your original assertion. Therefore, the assertion is false. You keep claiming that it isn’t. I’ve just shown you an example, to prove that it is.

    Example #2: Richard Reid, the “Shoe Bomber”. Another failed, but verified attack. Not a probe. Not a dry run. Just an attack, with no dry run preceding it. So, again – your original claim – that all dry runs precede the attack and are carried out by the same person who perpetrates the attack IS FALSE.

    So, the only remaining possibility is for you to claim that, for instance, the Christmas Bomber lit one of his testicles on fire, as a dry run, or that Richard Reid lit one of his shoes on fire, as a dry run. Neither occurred and both are absurd, as is plain to see. Neither were probes, as is plain to see. They were attacks. They simply failed, out of incompetence. Therefore, the assertion is false. You keep claiming that it isn’t. I’ve just shown you another example, to prove that it is.

    So. No dry runs, but certainly attacks. Original words fail logical test. End of lesson.

    I’m out. I’ve thought enough for you.

    And Davey? I don’t need rest. I need relief from people who can’t think things through by doing simple logic tests.

    Adieu!

  39. says

    Hi Philip,

    I don’t believe there was an intended implication that *every* Jihad terror attack is proceeded by a dry run”clearly, many are not.

    Also, the most effective dry runs are those where security and the general public fail to notice that it *was* a dry run”where everything goes off without a hitch. I would hazard that there are probably more of these than we would feel comfortable knowing about.

    And I wouldn’t imagine that every dry run is followed immediately by a Jihad attack’sometimes, indeed, because the dry run reveals weaknesses to the plan.

    All very disturbing”and all stuff we need to keep an eye out for.

    Hope you are well.

    Gravenski

  40. says

    Good to see you here staying focused and put’n out some damn fine information, undaunted.

    I would comment that Philip is a Word Smith. We need people like him to connect with the intellectual world and spread the truth about Islam there. The intellectual world is a strange land where “common sense” isn’t common and theater is frequently mistaken for fact.

    Neither you nor I have the knowledge and skill gained by years of experience living in that world, to be really effective at communicating with people who dwell there. Though I can fake it occasionally, but I have to be very careful.

    LemonLime and PhilipJihadski live in that intellectual world; call it their “battlespace”, where they must try to “get through” to all the “intellectual” ignoramuses around them. We have no real bussines in that arena unless coming to the assistance of one of our embattled Knights, as best we can, in our own crude and unlettered, but common sense sort of way. But they understand Islam – and they are on our team. Both of them being a pain in the ass now and then, not withstanding.

    So as it relates to what you do, an agitated and upset Word Smith is, as you so aptly put it, quite “irrelevant”.

    Glad to have you aboard buddy, and doing what you do best.

  41. says

    Well, I’ve been a jerk here at times so I guess it all evens out. Appreciate you taking the time to give me your perspective on two people I’m having a hard time liking right now.

  42. says

    Thanks so much, DDA. 

    And I agree that this is actually quite hopeful”and a good thing to keep in mind at times when it seems that tempers here are all too prone to fray.