Allow me to quote liberally from the article cited above. If it violates Head-fi's protocol on copywritten material, feel free to remove it.
Skipping over the Detroit-L.A. "incident," discussed thoroughly above, and on to the new account of a disturbance on a flight from San Juan to JFK:
A Middle Eastern passenger attempted to videotape out the window as the plane taxied on takeoff and, when told by a flight attendant it was not permitted, "gave her a mean look and stopped taping," said a written report of the San Juan incident by a flight attendant.
A traveller with a camcorder on an airplane is told to turn it off, and does so, but with "a mean look." Would this have any significance if it was an American passenger? If not, its only real relevance to terrorism is that the man is Middle Eastern, and I think it's pretty clear we need a more concentrated approach to terrorist apprehension than removing all Middle Eastern men, 18 to 60, from airplanes. But let's read on.
The group of six men sat near one another, pretended to be strangers, but after careful observation from flight attendants, it was apparent "all six knew each other," the report said.
"They were very careful when we were in their area to seem separate and pretended to be sleeping, but when we were out of the twilight area, they were watching and communicating," the report said.
Why so vague? Shouldn't we be looking for some more convincing evidence of sinister planning than: "sat near one another," "pretended to be strangers," "were watching and communicating." Since there's no comment on what they were saying, we can assume they were speaking Arabic (or something other than English, at any rate). Is it shocking for strangers on an airplane to strike up conversations? Is it surprising that Arabic speakers on an airplane might look to converse with others who speak Arabic? There's just absolutely nothing here (so far) that's not vague to the point of meaninglessness. I'm glad that these flight attendants are observing passengers so closely, so that they'll be ready when something legitimately alarming happens, but (a) I don't see anything yet and (b) I hope they're keeping an eye out for any light-skinned psychos or mass murderers as well.
The men made several trips to the bathroom and congregated in that area, and were told at least twice by a flight attendant to return to their seats. The suspicious behavior was relayed to airline officials in midflight and additional background checks were conducted.
As someone who flies on a semi-regular, if not constant, basis, neither bathroom trips nor groups standing near the bathroom strike me as particularly unusual. I'm still looking for something more specific. Again, I'm glad that the attendants are watching out, and background checks are a good idea -- but why does this article conveniently leave out the results of those background checks?
A second pilot said that, on one of his recent flights, an air marshal forced his way into the lavatory at the front of his plane after a man of Middle Eastern descent locked himself in for a long period.
The marshal found the mirror had been removed and the man was attempting to break through the wall. The cockpit was on the other side.
The second pilot said terrorists are "absolutely" testing security.
Ah, things become more clear. At last, some evidence of legitimate criminal intention. Clearly, an attempt at breaking into the cockpit (!!!!!!) is serious stuff. I'm not being sarcastic or joking in any way, if anything this concrete had appeared earlier my approach to these stories would have been far different. But why, oh why, does the venue change here from 02/15/04, American Airlines Flight 1732, San Juan to JFK (very specific) to . . . "a recent flight." Does it strike anyone as unusual that such detailed information, including a written report, is available about Flight 1732, but nothing about this other flight that, apparently, the pilot mentions only in passing and without any of the detailed information available with a far less tangible threat? Uncanny how as soon as vital information (the sort that could be used to, you know, verify this story) disappears, the terrorist activity becomes far more pronounced.
She said a flight attendant reported that a passenger was using a telephoto lens to take sequential photos of the cockpit door.
The passenger was stopped, and the incident, which happened two months ago, was reported to officials. But when the attendant checked back last week on the outcome, she was told her report had been lost.
We don't have the name of the airline, or the flight number, or its arrival/destination points, or the exact date, or the identity of the flight attendant, or the titles and agencies of the officials she reported this incident to, or any explanation for the lack of such details. And the report is lost. Smoking gun if I ever saw one.
A third pilot reported watching a man of Middle Eastern descent at the same airport using binoculars to get airplane tail numbers and writing the numbers in a notebook to correspond with flight numbers.
"It's a probe. They are probing us," said a second air marshal, who confirmed that Middle Eastern men try to flush out marshals by rushing the cockpit and stopping suddenly.
More of the same. When not pressed for details that could discredit them, these anonymous pilots, attendants, and officials seem far more capable of presenting legitimately dangerous activity.
Look, we need to fight terrorism, and if it takes bringing all airlines to a halt on a daily basis I'd be for it, if officials just went about it in a more rational way. I think we ought to focus first on keeping those terrorist suspects whose names we actually have (for instance, many of the 9/11 hijackers, if I recall correctly) from getting on board. Seems like a more successful plan of action than stirring up fear and mistrust with anonymous reports of vaguely puzzling activity by Middle Eastern men in general.
