Some is probably true. Some definitely not. All of it is ripped off from other people's books/articles from many years ago (most pre-9/11). It is a sloppy cut-and-paste job of the most sensationalistic threats that have made the rounds. The off-the-chart idiocy of "smuggling sleepers" is the most glaring. Not sure if it is Farrah or Williams to blame as nothing is sourced (like they figured all this out themselves).
You cannot "smuggle" sleepers. Sleepers spend years, sometimes decades building legitimate lives for themselves here and stay out of contact from their network until they are activated. (They stay dormant for a decade or more before acting. That is why they are called "sleepers", because they "sleep" until they are "awakened".)
This is probably why the Brits are having problems rounding up suspects - - they may be "sleepers". These guys have been off the grid for years probably - - deliberately not going to suspect mosques, hanging out with jihadis, or doing anything else to bring attention to themselves, especially flying into London recently from Afghanistan or something like that.
Yosef Bodansky wrote on the Chechens and the Zawahiri nuclear connection in the mid-1990s. Vasili Mitrokhin wrote in the late 1990s on the possibility Spetznaz prepositioned nukes in the US. Hamid Mir interviewed UBL and was the source for the 2001 suitcase nuke story. Neither Farrah or Williams sourced any of these stories. Shameless.
Sometimes a poor messenger can discredit an important message.
Another site spread the word a year or so ago that there were 35-40 nukes here. Things like that are so over-the-top ludicrous that folks then throw the baby out with the bathwater (as they seem to do on the other thread).
The idea of smuggling 40 nukes betrays such blithering ignorance of how the world works that it isn't worth discussing. But 3-4 is within the realm of reason . . .
2001 NYC/DC/PA = 4 attacks
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
2003 Riyadh = 4 attacks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,954825,00.html
2003 Casablanca = 4 attacks
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-05-16-morocco-blasts_x.htm
2004 Madrid = 4 attacks
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040311/323/eo9ct.html
2005 London = 4 attacks (3 underground; 1 bus bomber who did not make it to the target)
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/world/12095833.htm
The 4! Remember all the "4" jihadi messages back in 2003?
4 by sea, 4 in the air, etc. Some of these "4" posts added on a reference to continuing on to the "trained Manhattan" which was even before Madrid.
Spooky, with all those 4s..you post on #4144.
Remember this from May 2003?
This is another tip off...to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~These guys are about 70 years old now and went down in the cold war. Russia's army is in very bad shape.
Spetznaz
At the turn of the 21st century, much of what would be generally considered as nonsense for military junkies was written about Spetsnaz, GRU, KGB, and similar "top secret" and "exciting" topics. The word "Spetsnaz" was sometimes frivolously used to refer to anything the speaker deemed somehow special or "cool". For example, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a well-known populist and nationalist politician of very ill repute, once referred to his and his political party comrades' going for a swim at a party-organized festival as a "Spetsnaz on the water", while speaking on camera. This somewhat intentionally extreme incident should give some sense of the extent the term has been debased for many less literate users.
http://www.answers.com/topic/spetsnaz