August terror plot denounced as 'fiction'

[Jazzz]

From our good friend Nafeez - so far ignored in the mainstream media

Sources: August terror plot is a 'fiction' underscoring police failures

Nafeez Ahmed
Published: Monday September 18, 2006

British Army expert casts doubt on 'liquid explosives' threat, Al Qaeda network in UK Identified

Lieutenant-Colonel (ret.) Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer, has suggested that the police and government story about the "terror plot" revealed on 10th August was part of a "pattern of lies and deceit."

British and American government officials have described the operation which resulting in the arrest of 24 mostly British Muslim suspects, as a resounding success. Thirteen of the suspects have been charged, and two released without charges.

According to security sources, the terror suspects were planning to board up to ten civilian airliners and detonate highly volatile liquid explosives on the planes in a spectacular terrorist operation. The liquid explosives -- either TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide), DADP (diacetone diperoxide) or the less sensitive HMTD (hexamethylene triperoxide diamine) -- were reportedly to be made on board the planes by mixing sports drinks with a peroxide-based household gel and then be detonated using an MP3 player or mobile phone.

But Lt. Col. Wylde, who was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his command of the Belfast Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit in 1974, described this scenario as a "fiction." Creating liquid explosives is a "highly dangerous and sophisticated task," he states, one that requires not only significant chemical expertise but also appropriate equipment.

Terror plot scenario "untenable"

"The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable," said Lt. Col. Wylde... rest of article

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Repost.

*yawns*

 

[Crispy]

As reported by the reister shortly afterwards.
Of course the whole thing was exagerated - nothing like fear to keep the proles down!

 

[Fullyplumped]

You know what they should do? They should hold a sort of enquiry where the people accused of such things were presented with evidence and a group of citizens specially selected for the task were asked to consider the strength of the evidence. We could call it a "trial".

 

[Loki]

As reported by the register shortly afterwards.

Yeah I read that article too. A pretty convincing demolition that was.

 

[TAE]

You know what they should do? They should hold a sort of enquiry where the people accused of such things were presented with evidence and a group of citizens specially selected for the task were asked to consider the strength of the evidence. We could call it a "trial".

Yes, they should. Makes you wonder why they don't.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Yes, they should. Makes you wonder why they don't.

What's that got to do with anything?

 

[Jazzz]

As reported by the reister shortly afterwards.
Of course the whole thing was exagerated - nothing like fear to keep the proles down!

I guess that was this article Crispy?

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?

Good to see one of our own military experts concurring.

 

[TAE]

What's that got to do with anything?

Well, on the one hand we have the principle of putting all (accused) suspects on trial, on the other hand we have the practice of not putting all (accused) suspects on trial.

 

[brixtonvilla]

I guess that was this article Crispy?

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?

Good to see one of our own military experts concurring.

Once again; believe the "experts" when it suits you.

 

[TAE]

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?

Just because it's impossible, doesn't mean they didn't try.

 

[editor]

Good to see one of our own military experts concurring.

But all the experts are always completely wrong whenever they fail to agree with your endless barking fact-free theories, yes?

 

[shagnasty]

if it was a plot as seems it may have been the government didn't get the result they expected from the public. most people were very wary of their motives

 

[Jazzz]

But all the experts are always completely wrong whenever they fail to agree with your endless barking fact-free theories, yes?

I think I see what you are getting at, if you phrase it unhelpfully. The interesting point is this - experts are usually very good on their field of expertise. You are clearly making a comparison to the WTC demolition. Now there's a difference here - you won't find any experts, or I haven't anyway, saying that the explosives theory is technologically impossible, or incompatible with the observed phenomena. None of them have suggested, for comparison, that the USM is not able to blow up the WTC, of that there is anything about the collapses which did not look like controlled demolition. What they do on the other hand is simply find a way to explain - however tentative - that the collapse is compatible with the hijacker theory.

If you had an expert who found something concrete to rule OUT controlled demolition, like this guy is doing here with this terror plot - based on their field of expertise, instead of simply not considering it as a possibility in the first place, then that would be particularly interesting and I would certainly pay attention to it - however we haven't had any of that.

There is also the distinction that concurring with the official story is easy but going against it means sticking your neck out.

 

[smokedout]

give jazz a break, im gonna look into things some more, but that link seems a reasonable (although a couple of things rang alarm bells) and for now credible demolition of the liquid explosive plot

wheres laptop when you need him

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Now there's a difference here - you won't find any experts, or I haven't anyway, saying that the explosives theory is technologically impossible, or incompatible with the observed phenomena. None of them have suggested, for comparison, that the USM is not able to blow up the WTC, of that there is anything about the collapses which did not look like controlled demolition.

You're beyond help jazzz

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

It's in there.

 

[snadge]

give jazz a break, im gonna look into things some more, but that link seems a reasonable (although a couple of things rang alarm bells) and for now credible demolition of the liquid explosive plot

wheres laptop when you need him

The liquid explosive malarky was a load of bollocks from the out, an exersise designed to hinder normal people, divide and conquer from the out, the suspects in custody are getting charged with non-crimes, ie suspicion of attending a terroist camp and all that sort of impossible to asert shite.

 

[editor]

I think I see what you are getting at, if you phrase it unhelpfully. The interesting point is this - experts are usually very good on their field of expertise. You are clearly making a comparison to the WTC demolition. Now there's a difference here - you won't find any experts, or I haven't anyway, saying that the explosives theory is technologically impossible, or incompatible with the observed phenomena.

This is off the scale desperate.

No credible experts have put forward a theory that the WTC was demolished by mysterious explosives.

Laughably, even those qualification-free fruitloops who insist that the WTC was blown up can't come up with an even vaguely credible explanation about how the required invisible explosives were invisibly installed by invisible operatives - or how come not a single soul involved in the mass murder of their fellow Americans has uttered a peep about the plot since.

No wonder you're reduced to citing sci-fi holographic planes from fantasy books these days.

 

[Loki]

Jazzz, may I respectfully suggest you put your theories about the WTC collapse away for now, or this thread will go completely off the topic?

 

[shagnasty]

we know that the plan was not feasible on this evidence .if there was an attempt to put this plan into action then the arrest and charges are sound .but if the plan was not to be put into action then the arrest and charging of the suspect is very doubtful

 

[TeeJay]

This is the court case that is in progress now isn't it (or hasn't even started)? The one that UK media is not meant to leak details about? This makes it kind of hard to rebutt Jazzz's points.

However, its worth pointing out that the UK police/security services were forced to move in and end long term surveillance operations due to someone being arrested in Pakistan and the risk that this would trigger immediate actions in the UK.

The increased security on flights was in response to the potential and theoretical "liquid bombs" - possible if a team had developed this successfully. The actual trials have to be for concrete offences, which admisable and decent evidence had already been collected in the previous surveillance opetrayion that was ended prematurely.

There is no contradction between valid fears of a greater crime and lesser charges that can be successfully brought to trial. The former prompted actions at the airports, the latter prompted arrests and criminal charges.

Horse for courses innit?

 

[Jazzz]

Just out of interest, did posters read the rest of the article? I am guessing not. Some very interesting stuff in there - including this on 7/7

Lt. Col. Wylde also raised questions about the criminal investigation into the 7th July terrorist attacks in London last year. He noted that police and government sources have maintained "total silence" about the detonation devices used in the bombs on the London Underground and the bus at Tavistock Square. "Whatever the nature of the primary explosive materials, even if it was home-made TATP, the detonator that must be used to trigger an explosion is an extremely dangerous device to make, requiring a high level of expertise that cannot be simply self-taught or picked-up over the internet," Wylde stated.

The government's silence on the detonation device used in the attacks is "disturbing," he said, as the creation of the devices requires the involvement of trained explosives experts. Wylde speculated that such individuals would have to be present either inside the country or outside, perhaps in Eastern Europe, where they would be active participants in an international supply-chain to UK operatives. "In either case, we are talking about something far more dangerous than home-grown radicals here."

 

[TeeJay]

Far from "total silence", Jazzz, I seem to remember all sorts of theories and ideas being discussed by all sorts of people - in fact the initial belief of the authorities was that there was an international connection and some kind of 'technical mastermind'. At various times this has been ruled out or resurrected as an idea, but ultimately unless there is an actual trial the ;police don;t need to divulge all their information and evidence - in fact they shouldn't as if they did eventually connect more people to the case they would have prejudiced the tiral, and also they don't want to alert terroists to the full range of information they do (or don't) have.

It is only way after the event, when it is judged that there is no reasonable chance of any more arrests or trials that the police finally release certain information/evidence - as can be seen recently with footage finally released this year of the IRA Manchester bomb.

I have said exactly this to you many times Jazzz, and it gets really boring having you ignore this point every single time and making the same claims again and again.

 

[laptop]

I think it's safe to point out that what the Register article was debunking was a media fiction - based on a misunderstanding of two words released by the police and on a movie plot.

Can I say that I'd be very, very surprised if any alleged plot to manufacture explosives on board were claimed in the forthcoming trial?

I know it's not safe, on several grounds, to say what plot would in my opinion be consistent with the rashly-released details.

Here's another media fiction debunked:

WHEN big news breaks, especially when it has a technical element, news organisations are naturally keen to get expert comment on what's up. Unfortunately, there aren't always enough experts to go round. In the wake of the arrest on 10 July of suspects in an alleged plot to blow up planes flying from the UK to the US, CNN seems to have tried for the US Department of Homeland Security and got through instead to DESO, the Department for Extrapolation and Speculation Overdrive.

"A senior congressional source," CNN reported, "said [that] it is believed the plotters planned to mix a British sports drink with a gel-like substance to make a potent explosive."

Now it is true that Brits have some pretty strange "sports drinks". But they all share the same basic list of ingredients: water and some sugars plus relatively small amounts of sweetener, flavour, colour, salts, preservatives and so on. Boring old conventional chemistry doesn't suggest any interesting reactions of this concoction with any gels we can think of. There are, of course, dangerous liquids that could be smuggled in a sports drink bottle, which is probably how this story originated. But we are, for obvious reasons, not going to name those.

It is alarming how Chinese whispers work with these things. Newspapers around the world - from The Hindu in Chennai, India, to The Australian in Sydney - simply repeated the quote. We recommend pausing for a nice cup of tea and a think before pasting such things into articles.

New Scientist Feedback

It is typical of conspiraloons to pay no attention to the status of a person making a claim (execept to dismiss those that disagree with them as lizards) so it's hardly surprising that they pay no attention to the source or status of a claim that is being debunked: journalists entirely innocent of chemistry, in both cases.

 

[Loki]

hmm fair dinkum there.

What I'm wondering is why these security controls are still in place in airports, remember mothers being made to drink their babys' milk preparation? It wasn't just journos jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[detective-boy]

Yes, they should. Makes you wonder why they don't.

BUT THEY ARE. That is what happens when people are fucking charged.

And these constant articles referring to mixing lucozade and shampoo and coming up with a high explosive seem to miss a rather important point - as far as I read it wasn't going to be those actual ingredients but other things disguised as those things (i.e. in their bottles). Which is not the same thing at all. (ETA: As Laptop also points out)

 

[detective-boy]

This is the court case that is in progress now isn't it (or hasn't even started)? The one that UK media is not meant to leak details about? This makes it kind of hard to rebutt Jazzz's points.

No. These trials won't be heard for about a year, that is the average sort of timescale for this size of trial now (mostly required by the defence to get their arguments together, check out all unused material, etc (which takes forever).

And you suggest the current trial (it is the fertiliser one) is being held in "secret" for nefarious purposes. It is not (as far as I am aware) in closed court - there are reporters and public gallery present. But there are/may be some reporting restrictions - absolutely common practice in all sorts of cases where there are other connected cases still to be heard so that reporting of this one does not prejudice the rights of the defendants in the next to a fair trial (i.e. the "secrecy" is FOR the protection of Human Rights, not a repression of them).

You regularly get a sudden rush of publicity which has been saved up by the media once the last trial concludes and the restrictions are lifted.

 

[snadge]

BUT THEY ARE. That is what happens when people are fucking charged.

And these constant articles referring to mixing lucozade and shampoo and coming up with a high explosive seem to miss a rather important point - as far as I read it wasn't going to be those actual ingredients but other things disguised as those things (i.e. in their bottles). Which is not the same thing at all.

Have you looked into the science of these liquid bombs?

extremely difficult to produce in ideal laboratory conditions with suitable extraction, ( mixing up the ingredients release noxious fumes) let alone in a airplane's tiny bog...

 

[Jazzz]

Far from "total silence", Jazzz, I seem to remember all sorts of theories and ideas being discussed by all sorts of people - in fact the initial belief of the authorities was that there was an international connection and some kind of 'technical mastermind'. At various times this has been ruled out or resurrected as an idea, but ultimately unless there is an actual trial the ;police don;t need to divulge all their information and evidence - in fact they shouldn't as if they did eventually connect more people to the case they would have prejudiced the tiral, and also they don't want to alert terroists to the full range of information they do (or don't) have.

Well if anything firm has been said about the detonation devices on 7/7, I haven't heard it. Unless I'm mistaken TeeJay, there's also been an official silence as to the main explosive used, let alone how the detonators were made.

It is only way after the event, when it is judged that there is no reasonable chance of any more arrests or trials that the police finally release certain information/evidence - as can be seen recently with footage finally released this year of the IRA Manchester bomb.

Or as seems to be more often the case with Al-Q terror plots, when the police have to come up with it, one finds out that the evidence was never there in the first place. But whose trial is going to be prejudiced by the release of information in the case of 7/7? None of the four alleged bombers, that's for sure.

 

[Jazzz]

BUT THEY ARE. That is what happens when people are fucking charged.

And these constant articles referring to mixing lucozade and shampoo and coming up with a high explosive seem to miss a rather important point - as far as I read it wasn't going to be those actual ingredients but other things disguised as those things (i.e. in their bottles). Which is not the same thing at all. (ETA: As Laptop also points out)

Well, maybe. But I would be careful not to overlook an alternative explanation; the 'heap of shit' one.

This is from Craig Murray, former ambassador under Blair:

The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way....

Craig Murray's blog