Skip to comments.
'Real and Definite Threat' Caused BA Flight Cancellation
The Scotsman ^
| Jan 02 2004
| By Caroline Gammell, PA News
Posted on 01/02/2004 9:44:19 AM PST by Dog
'Real and Definite Threat' Caused BA Flight Cancellation
By Caroline Gammell, PA News
The cancellation of British Airways flight BA223 from Heathrow to Washington was caused by a real and definite threat, a defence expert warned today.
The plane had already started checking in passengers and was due to leave at 3.05pm.
But BA announced it had been cancelled at 1.15pm less than two hours before take off for security reasons.
Paul Beaver, a defence analyst, said: This is certainly unusual. The intelligence is very, very precise which is why this one flight has been cancelled.
We have got intelligence, I am told, that there was a plan to take the aircraft and destroy it over Washington or fly it into something.
Washington is the definite target.
Mr Beaver said the information passed on to BA via the Government was likely to have come from American intelligence.
All I know is there is a real and definite threat.
He went on: There is good and precise intelligence that there is more than one al Qaida or al Qaida-like group operating against the US.
One is based in central America and the other is based in Europe in London or Paris.
Mr Beaver said it was not known whether operatives in these potential terror cells are carrying legal British passports.
Yesterdays flight BA223 was also cancelled several hours before it was scheduled to depart after BA received security advice from the Government.
On New Years Eve, the same flight had been kept on the runway for three hours after landing at Washington Dulles International Airport to allow security officials to board the plane and question passengers.
The Boeing 747 was escorted into Dulles by two F-16 fighter jets.
An Aeromexico flight from Mexico City to Los Angeles was also cancelled after US authorities refused to allow it to land.
Flight 490 was cancelled after Homeland Security officials said they were concerned it might be a safety risk, said a spokesman for Mexicos President Vicente Fox.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; aq; ba; ba223; iad; lhr; orangealert4
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 841-855 next last
To: Seeking the truth
Latin America....more likely from the tri-border region...a real hotbed for the jihadists there.
21
posted on
01/02/2004 9:59:45 AM PST
by
Dog
To: Dog
He went on: There is good and precise intelligence that there is more than one al Qaida or al Qaida-like group operating against the US. No s**t, sherlock? Really? Wow!
One is based in central America...
MECHA?
...and the other is based in Europe in London or Paris.
France?
;0)
22
posted on
01/02/2004 10:00:41 AM PST
by
Chad Fairbanks
(What am I rebelling against? Well, what do ya got?)
To: Dog
Paul Beaver works for (or at least used to) Janes' and is very reliable and has great contants. Sounds serious indeed.
To: Dog
If there was a passenger who they considered to be a threat, I would think they'd load the entire plane and not announce a cancelation until they'd nabbed the perp.
So the thought on the specific flight number makes sense.
To: Dog
If they will not allow this Flight 223 to depart.....than .......the cell is here. Maybe, maybe not. On 9/11 the Dulles hijackers came out of VA, IIRC, but the NJ ones boarded in Boston. Could be a connecting flight or simply be precautions on both sides of the Pond.
25
posted on
01/02/2004 10:01:58 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Seeking the truth
26
posted on
01/02/2004 10:02:53 AM PST
by
Dog
To: Dog
What would stop the terrorists from just changing planes?
27
posted on
01/02/2004 10:03:57 AM PST
by
abner
(In search of a witty tag line... found it! http://www.intelmemo.com < go there or be square!)
To: Dog
MY guess is an Al Quada ( or OBL ) tape bragging that they downed this exact flight was intercepted before it happened. The terrorists jumped the gun.
28
posted on
01/02/2004 10:04:36 AM PST
by
Hillarys Gate Cult
(Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
To: Dog
29
posted on
01/02/2004 10:04:58 AM PST
by
longjack
To: longjack
Thanks longjack.
30
posted on
01/02/2004 10:05:51 AM PST
by
Dog
To: Dog
I wonder if the focus of 223 flight number could have been 223 as in Feb 23 ?
31
posted on
01/02/2004 10:06:05 AM PST
by
Neets
To: Coop
Okay. I could buy AQ destroying this flight over D.C. airspace, but them attempting to hijack the flight - just honestly can't see it happening.I don't see it either, unless they've got a sympathetic crew member...that's a nightmare. Not all islamic crazies have arabic sounding names...re: Richard Reid.
32
posted on
01/02/2004 10:06:57 AM PST
by
pgkdan
To: Neets
That's what I've beening thinking, myself.
33
posted on
01/02/2004 10:07:47 AM PST
by
nicmarlo
To: abner
What would stop them from making it up completely? I think we have fixated on the passenger plane issue a little too much.
34
posted on
01/02/2004 10:07:50 AM PST
by
nwctwx
To: Dog
You would think that the smarter plan would have been to wait until the plane was fully boarded and then you would be able to catch the perps. As it was, all they had to do was show up and see that the flight was cancelled and turn around and leave.
35
posted on
01/02/2004 10:08:07 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Neets
or could be 22nd of March
36
posted on
01/02/2004 10:08:08 AM PST
by
nicmarlo
To: Dog
Something is clearly up. The problem is, I don't see a scenario involving a takeover of the cockpit unless a bunch would-be terrorists start killing passengers wholesale (esp. children, perish the thought) and provoke the crew to leave the cockpit (still unlikely, even in the most horrific scenarios).
So where does that leave us? Time bomb? Remote controlled bomb that can be triggered on approach by someone on the ground near Dulles? SAMs? Shoe bomb? None of these jive with the fear of a plane crashing into a monument or government building. This solely implies a pilot at the controls knowingly targeting something on the ground. For the reasons above, I don't see how it could happen. Even if an "al qaeda" pilot would be legitimately at the controls, I would have to bet that the FBI is scouring BA's flight crew rosters for any possible ringers.
All this adds up to confusion, but one thing is for sure -- something has the feds seriously spooked. I would have to imagine that the volume of threats being picked up from "credible" sources is coming together to form a picture of patience, calculation and thoroughness.
To: nicmarlo
Yes, I have been thinking this since yesterday...they do have something about those double digits it seems.
38
posted on
01/02/2004 10:09:50 AM PST
by
Neets
To: pgkdan
I don't see it either, unless they've got a sympathetic crew member...that's a nightmare. Not all islamic crazies have arabic sounding names...re: Richard Reid. Yeah, that's a definite worry, although I wouldn't define that as a hijacking. But the results would be just as deadly.
39
posted on
01/02/2004 10:10:01 AM PST
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Rutles4Ever; Dog
Remote controlled That's what I'm thinking.....why else would the spiegel article say the problem wasn't with the passengers, but, rather, the PLANE.
40
posted on
01/02/2004 10:10:07 AM PST
by
nicmarlo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 841-855 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson