3 ms·

When reading comments like these, I can't help but wonder what the public response would have been if the government had taken action against a vague hijacking

When reading comments like these, I can't help but wonder what the public response would have been if the government had taken action against a vague hijacking threat in Aug-Nov of 2001.

stymaar 10y ago
Fair point, but most likely it would have been ineffective. sept 11 was led by highly trained and organized people belonging to a large group. Had the american government taken actions against hijacking with knifes, and they would probably switched to a back-up plan (say, putting bombs in laptops for instance ;). And that's exactly what the gp is talking about.
- TheGirondin 10y ago
  >they would probably switched to a back-up plan (say, putting bombs in laptops for instance ;) I actually used to think the same way, until I mentioned how silly some of these security theatre steps seem within earshot of someone who did some kind of Federal security work. He went through a long winded explain of all the steps that it would to make a switch to circumvent one restriction, how much time it would take, and how it would only take one suspicious interaction by one of the group members for something to be reported. Basically, while you can't protect against everything, by making attacks an order of magnitude harder (going from blades to bombs), you greatly increase their chances of being discovered.
- finid 10y ago
  sept 11 was led by highly trained and organized people You wrote that as fact, but is it? Those "highly trained" guys could barely fly a small plane, but where able to fly huge airlines at top speed.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    They didn't even train to land the planes - they weren't going to have to know that. They knew precisely enough to cause damage and no more. So trained, but not 'highly'. More like, went through the tutorial until they could take off and steer a little.
    - stymaar 10y ago
      Yes, and for terrorists that's what I call «highly trained». Remember, last year a terror attack failed in France because the guy just accidentally shot himself in the leg ! Most terror attack in western countries where commited by lone wolves or tiny groups. 9/11 was incredibly well-thougth in comparison.
      - finid 10y ago
        One interesting aspect of 9/11 is we never did get to see a shot or video of the hijackers as they boarded the flights. Or were cameras not installed at the gates back then?
MrZongle2 10y ago
I think it would have made headlines for a couple of days, and the public would move on. It likely would have been seen as a somewhat alarming but necessary security move. America was largely still in its fat, dumb & happy phase from the '90s. America prior to 9/11 really seems like a different world. Social media was in its infancy, and 24/7 news channels hadn't kicked into overdrive (I don't even think scrolling tickers was a thing yet, outside of financial channels). By spring 2001 there was obviously political angst about the election and Florida's role in it, but both sides of the political spectrum weren't fueled by the constant outrage machines they are today.
- eganist 10y ago
  9/11/2001 was, in fact, the installation date of the first permanent news ticker in US general media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_ticker#Fox_News_Channel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_ticker#Fox_News_Channel
ceejayoz 10y ago
I'm of the opinion that nothing could've permanently prevented 9/11 except 9/11 itself. Pre-9/11, hijackings meant you sit tight, land somewhere, and most of the folks probably walk away OK. Even an unarmed person could hijack a plane with the claim of concealed explosives or weapons. Post-9/11, we have reinforced cockpit doors (the effectiveness of which were sadly demonstrated by Germanwings flight 9525) and passengers who know a successful hijacking probably means dying. Even on 9/11 itself we saw the impact of this - flight 93 wound up crashing in a field because the passengers knew there was nothing to lose by rising up.

When reading comments like these, I can't help but wonder what the public response would have been if the government had taken action against a vague hijacking threat in Aug-Nov of 2001.

stymaar 10y ago

Fair point, but most likely it would have been ineffective. sept 11 was led by highly trained and organized people belonging to a large group. Had the american government taken actions against hijacking with knifes, and they would probably switched to a back-up plan (say, putting bombs in laptops for instance ;). And that's exactly what the gp is talking about.

TheGirondin 10y ago
>they would probably switched to a back-up plan (say, putting bombs in laptops for instance ;) I actually used to think the same way, until I mentioned how silly some of these security theatre steps seem within earshot of someone who did some kind of Federal security work. He went through a long winded explain of all the steps that it would to make a switch to circumvent one restriction, how much time it would take, and how it would only take one suspicious interaction by one of the group members for something to be reported. Basically, while you can't protect against everything, by making attacks an order of magnitude harder (going from blades to bombs), you greatly increase their chances of being discovered.
finid 10y ago
sept 11 was led by highly trained and organized people You wrote that as fact, but is it? Those "highly trained" guys could barely fly a small plane, but where able to fly huge airlines at top speed.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  They didn't even train to land the planes - they weren't going to have to know that. They knew precisely enough to cause damage and no more. So trained, but not 'highly'. More like, went through the tutorial until they could take off and steer a little.
  - stymaar 10y ago
    Yes, and for terrorists that's what I call «highly trained». Remember, last year a terror attack failed in France because the guy just accidentally shot himself in the leg ! Most terror attack in western countries where commited by lone wolves or tiny groups. 9/11 was incredibly well-thougth in comparison.
    - finid 10y ago
      One interesting aspect of 9/11 is we never did get to see a shot or video of the hijackers as they boarded the flights. Or were cameras not installed at the gates back then?

MrZongle2 10y ago

I think it would have made headlines for a couple of days, and the public would move on. It likely would have been seen as a somewhat alarming but necessary security move. America was largely still in its fat, dumb & happy phase from the '90s. America prior to 9/11 really seems like a different world. Social media was in its infancy, and 24/7 news channels hadn't kicked into overdrive (I don't even think scrolling tickers was a thing yet, outside of financial channels). By spring 2001 there was obviously political angst about the election and Florida's role in it, but both sides of the political spectrum weren't fueled by the constant outrage machines they are today.

eganist 10y ago
9/11/2001 was, in fact, the installation date of the first permanent news ticker in US general media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_ticker#Fox_News_Channel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_ticker#Fox_News_Channel

ceejayoz 10y ago

I'm of the opinion that nothing could've permanently prevented 9/11 except 9/11 itself. Pre-9/11, hijackings meant you sit tight, land somewhere, and most of the folks probably walk away OK. Even an unarmed person could hijack a plane with the claim of concealed explosives or weapons. Post-9/11, we have reinforced cockpit doors (the effectiveness of which were sadly demonstrated by Germanwings flight 9525) and passengers who know a successful hijacking probably means dying. Even on 9/11 itself we saw the impact of this - flight 93 wound up crashing in a field because the passengers knew there was nothing to lose by rising up.