Thursday, September 10, 2009

October?

Ruh-Roh
"Eight years from 1993 to 2001, eight years from that 9/11 to this 9/11," he said. "Symbolism. They're big on symbolism."
New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.



The man who predicted 9/11 is worried that its sequel is imminent.

"Muslims that I talk to say things like, 'America thinks they're safe now. They've forgotten about 9/11. But watch, Daniel. Stay near your TV. It's going to be bigger than 9/11,' " he said.

Hill said the next terrorist attack will involve suitcase nuclear bombs that will be detonated in small, low-flying two-seater private airplanes manned by men hanging onto the belief that, like the 9/11 hijackers, they are about to die as martyrs and enter paradise.

He is not alone in suggesting such a scenario. A 2007 book, "The Day of Islam," spells out the details, as do any number of Internet sites about a plot called "American Hiroshima."

The nukes, he said, will be detonated over New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

I asked Hill, "Why now?"

"Eight years from 1993 to 2001, eight years from that 9/11 to this 9/11," he said. "Symbolism. They're big on symbolism."

"Ramadan started two weeks ago Saturday," he said, referring to the Muslim holy month of fasting. "It always hits around Ramadan."

Eight years ago, Hill predicted the attack would come on Oct. 16 — almost in the middle of that year's Ramadan (the timing of Ramadan varies from year to year). He was about a month off. [Full]
Not to worry.  The Obama Administration tactic of tickling captive al-Qaeda operatives with a feather will certainly yield results, and intercept the threat. .
Princess SoGGY

23 comments:

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

The wife works in Midtown. Wonder if I should have her stay home tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Would that act as an EMP? If so, we're farked!

Anonymous said...

Working tomorrow at the Capitol Heating Plant , can't get any closer to ground zero than that ! To hell with them ! Should the unthinkable happen , keep up the good work : ) smibsid

Anonymous said...

Well, there is EMP, but it only extends to the visible horizon from the point of detonation. So, if you want to pulse a large area, you have to be at a high altitude. If you want to pulse a continent, your altitude has to be 100-200 miles.

Casca

TimO said...

I would certainly hate to have to be flying on business on 9/11... the TSA is certainly going to be antsy.

I wonder how much the air traffic goes down on that date?

Anonymous said...

All of which reinforces my solution to the Middle-East "problem".

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, "suitcase nukes" are a myth. Think footlocker-sized or larger. And heavy as hell.

Chris in NC said...

"New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas and Los Angeles."

Huh, just saying, the nuking of those cities would almost be a favor...

Hmm, toss in Atlanta, Charlotte, Detroit, Berkley and San Fran and I just might help.

LindaSoG said...

Sigh. I will never understand why people continue to be so freakin' narrow minded when it comes to insanity of islamic terror attacks.

The first planned terrorist attack on the WTC was supposed to bring the towers down, it failed because it was a ridiculous plan, laughable even, but hey, they tried. They failed, but they tried.

Sure, we had warnings about the hijacking of planes to be used to fly into the towers to bring them down but those plans were mocked, laughed at.

They were successful because we did not take the threat seriously.

We saw the same foolishness again a couple of years ago when the JTTF caught the islamists who planned to blow up the tunnels in NY. They were caught before they got to try that one out, but world at large found the very idea laughable. The papers had a field day, quoting scientists proving that plan would never work! Everyone laughed, remember?

So, suitcase nukes are a myth? Forgive me but, what the hell does that mean? wait, lemme guess, suitcase nukes are too small to do any damage and therefore, we shouldn't worry about them. In order to be a danger, they would be too big and too heavy and therefore there is nothing to worry about.

I'm sorry, but what do you know about what they have? It's more than likely that there are islamic terrorists out there somewhere with some kind of nukes in a suitcase that they think will do the job. Maybe some scientists out there would laugh at what they got. So what. Do you think that's going to stop them from trying?

And maybe what they have won't kill the millions or the thousands they're hoping it will kill.

Maybe what they have will only kill one thousand people. Or maybe it will only kill a few hundred.

Does that mean we shouldn't worry about it? Does that mean it's too small to worry about? Too small to bother with? Small enough to laugh at?

Islamic terrorists have not stopped trying to kill Americans right here on American soil since 9/11 and they'll try anything and everything. If it doesn't work, they'll try something else.

They've gotten a few of us here and there, picked us off one or two at a time.

Islamic terrorist are happy to kill one person at a time. or two. They'll happily give their life to just kill one or two. If we'ver learned nothing from 60 years of islamic terror in Israel, we should have learned that one lesson.

So, they planned and they got lucky and on September 11, 2001 they killed 2,996. But they don't expect to hit that big every time. They'd like to, but they don't expect to. A few hundred will do. Ten will do. One will do, if that's all they can get.

They've had plenty of time to plan, an open border and enough money to move mountains.

Sooner or later, they'll get lucky again.

Anonymous said...

I have a friend, an acquaintance actually, who happens to be a Muslim. We talk about this from time to time. He used to deny that "mainlin Muslims" agreed with Bin Laden and his ilk, but lately he's beginning to be nervous about talking about it. He says each time the news features an American Soldier killed by Islamists some of his friends mutter "allahu akbar" and "Death to America". His Imam at his Mosque preaches that America must be taught a lesson.

I told him that short of destroying the US utterly, another attack on this continent will mean the end of Islam as a major religion. The US is the only entity in history with the capability of anihilating that many people and it will begin with the nuclear obliteration of major Islamic population centers. It will begin with Mecca and Medina, then the capitals and major cities of Islamic States such as Iran, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Then the systematic door to door ethnic cleansing of as many muslims as possible. This will occur in the US, then spread to include treasonous groups like the Democrat party and Community Activists operating under their banner.
I told him if some jihadist bunch has plans in the works and if only one or two nukes go off, he'd best have his affairs in order. It's going to get bloody very quickly and it won't stop soon.

I'm thinking it just may be the hit on the "reset button" some have been talking about. Might as well clean up this whole mess as long as we have the mops and buckets out.

Gerry N.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

That's what we need Linda - more cowbell!

Anonymous said...

When I said "suitcase nukes are a myth," I meant no one makes them that small, not us, not the Soviets at their peak. The necessary physics package is too large to fit in a suitcase, or its other mythical brother, the backpack.

The phrase "suitcase nuke" came about as a result of a mistranslation with a Soviet defector. The Soviet was trying to describe the most portable nuke they had. He actually described it as footlocker-sized, but his translator had some trouble with the various English words for the several types of luggage we have in our language, so he said "suitcase." A later review of the transcript by a different translator noted the discussion among the two, and picked up on what the Soviet actually meant. But the phrase "suitcase nuke" stuck. But it's a myth.

And any nuke is very heavy. Too heavy for one man to carry.

I am NOT saying any nuke is too small to worry about.

Anonymous said...

And if we can't make them that small, what makes you think the Muslim amateurs in caves can solve the puzzle?

Kristophr said...

Doesn't have to fit in a suitcase.

It only has to fit in a shipping container.

Why do you think the Coast Guard and Customs use Geiger counters now?

chris said...

Sorry but I would bet good money that if Al Queada ever does get nukes into the US, they will use them immediately. There is WAY too much risk of being caught before being able to trigger them if they wait to plan something.

No way would they screw around for weeks or months planning a super organized attack.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, we're safe, because it's completely unfeasible to get a footlocker onto a small aircraft. Freakin Google ninjas...

LindaSoG said...

OMG! Anon, you're absolutely right! we should just forget about those moslem amateurs in caves, planning to hijack a plane with boxcutters! the very idea, it's ludicrous! It would never work!

And, Chris, I guess it's a good thing we have all those friends in nearby latin american. Goodness knows they'd never hide a footlocker with a nuke in it for any islamic terrorist, or help them sneak it over the border or load it on to a plane or nothing like that. Yeah. We got nothing to worry about.

Topeka Troll said...

IN the 1980s I was trained for Operation Safehaven, the purpose being to protect nukes in transport in the event of a mechanical or other emergency. At that time there were trucks transporting nukes criscrossing the country. part of that breifing covered manpack or suitcase nukes. The devices were about 51 lbs, and 60 or so with their container.
An article at Military.com refers to them as Atomic Demolition Devices or ADMs. ADM actually stood for Area Denial Munition, and their purpose was to render a region useless via nuclear contamination. At that time we had the nutron bomb with a low blast yield that would kill, disipate, and spare structures and equipment. the ruskies went ape. Next was the Blast bomb with high damage yield.
The ADM was intended to contaminate more then destroy. the idea was an area so hot tha anyone who passed through was dead. the original dirty bomb.
Anon joked about the ragheads in caves making them. Iran has nuclear capability. Syria had stuff from the Norks tha Israel bombed, and the former USSR has unaccounted for stuff. some of the USSR was islamic territory.
There is no way to be sure, so don't discount any thing off hand.
And always remember, there is no god named Alah, and Mohamed was a pedophile.

MitchM said...

I'm in Vegas. I'm carrying a couple extra mags today at work and of course my Mossberg is loaded at home and when I get there I think I'll go ahead and load the AK also. Never hurts to be paranoid. Or prepared.

WV+latedyne. That's gotta mean something.

tom said...

What about "Atomic Annie" the cannon shooting nuclear artillery shells? That has to be sorta portable, no?
Either way, the control of fissionable material is abysmal. There IS stuff out there and it can be purchased [or stolen] by people who *really* want to use it. To deny such circumstance is to assume the ostrich position.
tomw

Anonymous said...

All I know for sure is that if they do nuke those cities, America becomes one big red state, and our immigration problem becomes controllable over night.

Casca

Anonymous said...

I nominate "Gerry N" as Supreme Commander. I like the way he thinks!

Anonymous said...

SGM Joe Garner in his autobiography "Code Name: Copperhead" (chapter 23) talks about training with the US man-portable nukes. They were about 2 feet long and weighed about 45 pounds. They had a yield of from .01KT to .1KT (according to his book).

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.