4 ms·
The idea of terrorists flying planes into buildings was a not entirely uncommon threat scenario and the WTC was a prominent building that had been targeted by b
by hnbad 3y ago
The idea of terrorists flying planes into buildings was a not entirely uncommon threat scenario and the WTC was a prominent building that had been targeted by bombings before.
The difference on 9/11 was that A) they actually did that, B) they used fully loaded very large airplanes (767s), C) they used two planes for the same attack (four in total but the two hitting the towers were noteworthy by themselves) and D) the buildings actually collapsed.
Remember that at the time airplane hijackings were usually about ransom (either money or releasing political prisoners) and the usual threat scenario were attacks against the airplane itself. Also following 9/11 there was a huge hysteria around the use of "dirty bombs" (conventional bombings using radioactive material to contaminate a civilian population center) which despite its many depictions in TV shows never actually ended up happening (mostly because radioactive material is difficult to acquire and transport in the amounts necessary to perform such an attack whereas the hijackers just needed sharp objects and enough flight training to hit a large building while avoiding hitting anything else).
It'd be an overstatement that this was due to happen but in abstract the scenario wasn't unexpected. The truthers are right about one thing: the scenario was a known possibility. That doesn't mean how it played out is how it was anticipated or that anyone in a position to intervene knew exactly how it would play out once it started.
- toss1 3y ago>>Remember that at the time airplane hijackings were usually about ransom This standard assumption is a critical point for understanding 9/11. The well-established procedure was to keep talking with the hijackers, get the plane on the ground at an airport, and negotiate to get the hostages out, etc. Airplane hijacking was also remarkably common, and despite this, there were no real efforts to take measures like reinforcing aircraft cockpit doors. That set of assumptions is completely incompatible with assuming that hijackers are on a suicide mission. So the suicide mission succeeded in the first three airplanes, but withing an hour or so, when passengers on the 4th hijacked plane had heard about the other planes being crashed into buildings, they realized that they were all already dead, so attacked the hijackers, and the plane crashed into a field in PA. Fighter jets were also scrambled so quickly that they had no time to load ammunition/armaments, and the mission was to take down the plane (but it went down first); this would also have been almost surely suicidal for the unarmed fighters, having to make contact in midair. So, as a side-effect, in a single morning, the entire set of assumptions underlying hijacking was eliminated, and hijacking was also essentially eliminated. Any potential hijacker would be treated with the assumption that they were on a suicide mission, and had essentially zero chance of survival, let alone achieving their goal (money or release of prisoners). I don't recall hearing of a single hijacking since then (although a few instances of pilot suicide taking the passengers with them).
- keepamovin 3y agoThis is a very interesting take, thanks for raising it! And also super interesting detail about the fighters not having time for weapons loadout. I did not know either of those things...A lot of good people died that day. How would the unarmed fighters even have taken down the airliner?
- Vecr 3y agoI'm not sure what part of the passenger jet they'd crash into, but ramming head on into the cockpit might give you the the best success rate if you have enough time to get into position.
- jshier 3y agoThere were interviews with or voice recordings of the two fighter pilots discussing who would hit the cockpit and who would hit the tail, should it have come to that.
- keepamovin 3y agoNo, I agree: there was definite precedent, but to land those 4 specifics: time, type, place, and even consequence/motive is insane. People sometimes say "The Simpson's" predicted X (erm, not the social network can't believe have to say that now, heh), but the time's I've looked into it it's been a bit of a stretch (they may have some hits tho). But this just nails it. And the weird things is: it's a conspiracy-focused spin-off of a conspiracy focused show. It's just so weird. What are the odds, man? So fucking low. Anyway... I do remember that flap about dirty bombs. It was pretty scary for a while. Thankfully it never eventuated. It's weird how Byzantine the "successful" attack scenario ended up being, versus the techno-sophistication of our imagined ones. Sad and a tragedy nonetheless. Maybe there was an attempt but it was thwarted in one of those stories that will never make the news because it's all classified.