Replies

No problem. I don't follow Mir all that closely, so I'm not sure how exactly he laid that out, and if so, the sequence (before or after an attack) and specificity (audio, video, or live statement).

I typed out that part of the Fox interview yesterday because the case he made sounded "legit". And there have been quite a few tapes the past several weeks and he didn't start saying "signal" about any of them until yesterday (at least in the stories posted on here). I'm sure that in one of his other recent interviews he would have mentioned it had he thought it the case. So it surprised me. Then digging around, I began to see what he might have meant.

I know there have been stories on here, especially in the spring and summer of 2004, that a UBL statement might be associated with the next major attack that would exceed 9/11. But not sure what Mir has said in regard to that.

Did you pull the verses themselves from the Gadahn transcript? Or just the numbers?

It is not without basis so say that al Qaeda places significance on specific dates. The 9/11 Commission Report said the UBL originally slated the NYC/DC attacks for the seventh month anniversary (5/12/01) of the Cole attacks (10/12/00 = "12") but they weren't ready.

My guess is that above all, they aim for dates that offer the highest probability of success (weather conditions in target areas, traffic/population density patterns, dates of particular security vulnerability, etc), and if they can also target a date of religious or political significance, that is all the better as far as they are concerned.

But their first priority is to carry off the attack successfully, and when it happens is secondary (but very much related). For example, they waited through August 2001 for Congress to come back into session to do 9/11.