Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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.

Yesterday’s flight BA223 was also cancelled several hours before it was scheduled to depart after BA received “security advice” from the Government.

On New Year’s 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 Mexico’s 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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 841-855 next last
To: Neets; Dog; Mo1
Pretty scary stuff going on. Please flag me to any threads about this stuff, as I am babysitting today and can't keep an eye on threads.
61 posted on 01/02/2004 10:21:46 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
I heard on Fox earlier they said they have been told the Threat Matrix has never been as high as it is right now....the FBI sent out a warning to LE's across the country...because of it.
62 posted on 01/02/2004 10:22:27 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Dog
I assume the welcome wagons will be there...
63 posted on 01/02/2004 10:23:44 AM PST by debg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Shouldn't we let disable the plane and let the folks board the plane before canceling it so we can aprehend the culprits ?
64 posted on 01/02/2004 10:23:50 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog; longjack
Thanks for the ping, Dog. Thanks for finding the article, longjack.
65 posted on 01/02/2004 10:24:55 AM PST by cyncooper ("The evil is in plain sight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Yes, some of the 9/11 terrorists were flight trained. The normal pilots would not have flown into buildings, even at gunpoint.

No, I wasn't talking about them .. wasn't there a recent report of them actually being pilots working for the BA .. or others airlines ?

66 posted on 01/02/2004 10:25:02 AM PST by Mo1 (House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Dog
I wonder if it will have fighter escort?

My bet is yes and it will be a locked on target..any deviation from it's flight path and they'll launch. If this is as serious as it seems, they're not going to give any of these flights btwn Heathrow and Dulles any room to spare. I pray this flight lands safely.

67 posted on 01/02/2004 10:25:14 AM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: nwctwx
Dulles is only 30 minutes from DC...if they were to take over a plane on take off....... LE's...wouldn't have time to react.

Never underestimate these bastards.

Who would have thought they could have brought down the Twin Towers using commerical jets.

68 posted on 01/02/2004 10:26:30 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Neets; Dog
I don't have a clear memory of that Mo,

Same here .. I haven't had a lot of time to pay attention to the News

Hey Dog .. that last tape from the #2 guy .. didn't he mention something about an attack between now and Feb?

69 posted on 01/02/2004 10:26:55 AM PST by Mo1 (House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
I still don't think it's the passangers or crew, but THE PLANE.

Nelson DeMille wrote "Lion's Game" pre-9/11 about a terrorist who poisoned everyone on a plane, then used the plane's autopilot to land it.

One wonders if a plane's computer software could be compromised and what checks there are that the software is working ok. (Especially with all the overseas out-sourcing going on these days.) Perhaps it's the type of plane and/or avionics that's the point of interest.

70 posted on 01/02/2004 10:26:55 AM PST by bcoffey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dog
See 49.......NAFTA and more?

/sarcasm

71 posted on 01/02/2004 10:30:09 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: bcoffey
UR-70

:-(

72 posted on 01/02/2004 10:31:57 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Here is the transcript Mo from that tape...

Al Zawahiri..

73 posted on 01/02/2004 10:32:19 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: nwctwx; Dog
Crashing a passenger jet into a target is a difficult task in and of itself, doing it with people who know they are going to die and f-16's on your tail sounds nearly impossible.

Here is a stupid question .. God forbid .. but what if an f-16 had to take out a plane over a residential or business district? .. How many buildings on the ground would be destroyed? .. these people are on a suicide mission any way we look at it ..

74 posted on 01/02/2004 10:34:08 AM PST by Mo1 (House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
My bet is yes and it will be a locked on target..any deviation from it's flight path and they'll launch. If this is as serious as it seems, they're not going to give any of these flights btwn Heathrow and Dulles any room to spare. I pray this flight lands safely.

Good God. I understand the necessity, but I would not want to be a passenger on a BA flight to the US right now.

75 posted on 01/02/2004 10:34:32 AM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Coop
That sounds very logical. Thanks, I was having brain-lock.
76 posted on 01/02/2004 10:36:10 AM PST by Trust but Verify (Will work for W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen; All
Guys..think ** SUITCASE NUKE **.

There is plenty of evidence AQ has at least "a couple". Plus, their rhetoric lately is SO hyperbolic, that either they will be exposed for a paper tiger, or proven right.

Where better to deploy one than DC?

I still feel that we are not dealing with the "traditional" hijack-crash scenario here, but pray that I am wrong.
77 posted on 01/02/2004 10:36:41 AM PST by jstolzen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Good God. I understand the necessity, but I would not want to be a passenger on a BA flight to the US right now.

Me either...I was serious about praying that the flight lands safely.

78 posted on 01/02/2004 10:36:53 AM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dog
I was watching CNN this morning and they said "CNN has just learned that Air France 68 had an F16 escort three days ago..." I cracked up.

Freepers rule!
79 posted on 01/02/2004 10:38:34 AM PST by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
Guys..think ** SUITCASE NUKE **.

Makes no sense. Why in the world would a terrorist risk getting caught trying to sneak a suitcase nuke through airline security just to blow it up in the sky where it would do less damage? Why not drive over to important location X and simply detonate the device?

80 posted on 01/02/2004 10:38:44 AM PST by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson