Possible Terrorist Probes on US Airplanes
[Guest post by DRJ
Annie Jacobsen of The Aviation Nation has another example of passengers engaging in what may be dry runs or probes on US airplanes:
“This TSA Suspicious Incident #177, Unclassified but For Official Use Only (U//FOUO), “has many of the elements of pre-operational terrorist planning” according to TSA Office of Intelligence. It was leaked to me earlier today in my ongoing efforts to compile terrorist dry runs and probes on airplanes.
A FFDO (Federal Flight Deck Officer — i.e. armed pilot) flying in non-mission status on October 24, 2007, on a flight from Washington D.C. to Milwaukee, identified himself to flight crew in advance of take-off. When flight crew witnessed suspicious behavior by four passengers, they reported the information to the FFDO. The following unfolded:
(U//FOUO) Suspicious Activity Onboard Flight to Milwaukee
(U//FOUO) On 24 October 2007, crewmembers aboard a Reagan-Washington National to Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport flight reported to a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) flying in non-mission status that they noticed suspicious behavior by four passengers.
One of the subjects entered and exited the rear aircraft lavatory three times and failed to comply with crewmembers’ verbal instructions. The FFDO seated himself near this subject to observe his behavior. Shortly afterward, two more of the subjects moved into the aisles and entered both lavatories. After one of the subjects vacated the rear left lavatory, the FFDO searched it, noting that the mirror above the sink was not properly latched.
He exited the lavatory and a fourth subject was waiting second in line with a passenger in front of him. The FFDO offered the fourth subject access to the right lavatory, but the subject declined, claiming the right lavatory was dirty.The FFDO noted the right lavatory was clean, and the subject reluctantly entered the right lavatory and remained there for an extended period of time. (TSA/SD-10-3849-07)
(U//FOUO) TSA Office of Intelligence Comment: Although there is no information that the aircraft was being specifically targeted for a future terrorist attack, the actions of the four passengers are highly suspicious. FFDO confirmation of possible tampering of the lavatory mirror in one of the lavatories could be indicative of an attempt to locate concealment areas for smuggling criminal contraband or terrorist materials. In this case, it appears the left lavatory was the sole area of interest for the passengers. One subject’s excuse that the right lavatory was dirty when it was confirmed to be clean shows the four passengers had a specific, operational objective. Although unconfirmed at this time, this incident has many of the elements of pre-operational terrorist planning.
Source: TSA Suspicious Incidents Report #177
Before August 2006, the TSA refused to admit publicly that terrorists took dry runs and probes on U.S. aircraft (after the London Planes Plot, the White House stated, “we know they do dry runs” and TSA quietly agreed).”
Annie concludes her article with this very good question: “Unless there have been 177 such incidents in the past fifteen months, one wonders when TSA Suspicious Incident Reports #1-#176 occurred — and what information they contain?”
— DRJ
Probably much of the same.
It does seem like the airlines and the government have a handle on the situation once the planes are actually in the air, at least when it comes to hijacking.
chaos (9c54c6) — 11/19/2007 @ 11:38 amI question the timing. And the accuracy. And why are you bedwetters so scared? And this was no “probe”. They were just feeling things out. A probe is far more serious. This was certainly not a dry run. Quit being so scared.
Leftist (33beff) — 11/19/2007 @ 5:37 pmIt is truly unfortunate that the post by Leftist could have been written by almost any regular to this site. We would have signed it as any one of half-a-dozen of the usual suspects.
Move on now, nothing to see here!
Another Drew (8018ee) — 11/19/2007 @ 6:03 pmHey Leftist, #2,
I’m the guy in the red Altima who dropped a dollar in your cup in the southbound lane of the off-ramp from 290 at Harlem Avenue. I’m sorry to see that you spent it on meth and not on a double cheeseburger from McDonald’s dollar menu.
nk (09a321) — 11/19/2007 @ 7:06 pmNot true I saw the Leftist buying kiddie porn with it. You should be more careful who you give money too.
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:06 pmWhile these accounts were “FOUO” and unclassified there is the possibility the others are classified.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:21 pmEven if they aren’t there is a provision in the classification guides that an collection of unclassified documents can be classified in their totality.
If specific weaknesses in procedures or protective measures were part of the report, they would likely be classified.
VOR makes a good point. It would be ignorant to publish something that pointed out holes in our security…
Unless they fixed those holes, and then allowed the report to leak.
I would wagermore than a few would end up caught trying to exploit an out-dated flaw.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:30 pm*grins in an evil manner*
Foxfier (97deae) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:35 pmI like how you think, Mr. Jacobs!
They won’t publish them and shouldn’t.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:36 pmOh, I’d love to know why they shouldn’t punish them…
You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:43 pmScott,
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 8:52 pmDid you mean write publish or punish?
ah. my mistake
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:20 pmSo it was publish? While your idea sounds like a good one there is probably more of a risk of releasing fixed weaknesses because it might give them ideas about new ones to exploit.
voiceofreason (7ba763) — 11/19/2007 @ 9:23 pm“It was leaked to me earlier today in my ongoing efforts to compile terrorist dry runs and probes on airplanes”
Lets hope he gets the other 176. Becasue this one doesn’t mention whether any of them were republican senators.
whitd (10527e) — 11/20/2007 @ 4:43 amYou’re confusing security and airplanes with the bathrooms…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/20/2007 @ 5:15 amI’d always suspected Al Queda-types of having a wide stance….
Techie (188be2) — 11/20/2007 @ 7:17 amone wonders when TSA Suspicious Incident Reports #1-#176 occurred
I’d just as soon they not become public. Because any of these that actually is a probe or dry run that becomes public exposes a method we’re now alert to that those looking for them will be aware has been burned.
Dodd (440e78) — 11/20/2007 @ 12:12 pmWhere’s phil? Normally he’s out in front with loony comments on airline terror threads.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/20/2007 @ 2:44 pm