5 ms·

This shows that anyone with the slightest motivation to do harm would have zero difficulty replaying 911. The reason there aren't more terrorist attacks isn't

by bambax 2y ago

This shows that anyone with the slightest motivation to do harm would have zero difficulty replaying 911. The reason there aren't more terrorist attacks isn't because various security agencies around the world protect us from them. It's because there are extremely few terrorists.

dawnerd 2y ago
It’s also just one of those hard things to prove: is TSA actually stopping attacks like 9/11? The simple presence of them might be enough of a deterrent or we might just be extremely lucky. Seems these days the real threat is drunk passengers attacking flight attendants.
- macNchz 2y ago
  > The simple presence of them might be enough of a deterrent The planning for 9/11 took several years, $500k in financing, and had a lot of moving parts between recruiting, research, travel/visas, flight training etc. It's hard to believe that people motivated at that level would truly be deterred by what you see happening at the typical American airport these days.
- digging 2y ago
  Well, the TSA has been tested for their ability to detect weapons being brought through security screenings, and they were absolutely horrible at it. Can't grab a link at the moment, but if you search for it, you'll easily find the report published... by the TSA. So are they stopping anything serious? It's a safe bet they're not.
- booleandilemma 2y ago
  Have they caught and arrested any would-be bad guys? Should be pretty easy to verify.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    Well Guantanamo Bay still exists. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_cam...: > As of August 2024, at least 780 persons from 48 countries have been detained at the camp since its creation, of whom 740 had been transferred elsewhere, 9 died in custody, and 30 remain; only 16 detainees have ever been charged by the U.S. with criminal offenses. Given what we do know about the secretive and illegal activities of the federal government during the War on Terror I don’t think it’s a reasonable assumption that everyone accused of terrorist activity got their day in court.
    - eskodhi 2y ago
      780 persons - 740 persons transferred - 9 persons dead = 31 persons that should remain. Oh wiki.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - arrowsmith 2y ago
    They foiled these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfiMoJUDVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfiMoJUDVQ
  - dawnerd 2y ago
    But how many were caught by TSA?
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Thing is, terrorism makes people afraid, even if no attack actually happened; one theory I have is that foiled plots are not reported on. Maybe in 20-50 years some of the records will be unsealed and we'll hear about loads of foiled plots. But the counterpoint to that is that a gunman almost succeeded in killing Trump despite showing the behaviours online and offline of your stereotypical amateur assassin.
cg5280 2y ago
Maybe I am a naive idiot, but I would assume that other agencies like the FBI provide some protection even if TSA is not great. I occasionally see notable examples, like the CIA being responsible for discovering planned attacks on the recent Taylor Swift concert in Vienna that was then canceled.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Not to mention international cooperation, like the Dutch secret service having agents or contacts in Ukraine after MH17 that tipped off the CIA about a possible attack on the Nord Stream pipelines.
soneil 2y ago
I believe the biggest increase in security since 9/11, is that passengers are no longer expected to sit down and behave. Pre-9/11, the expectation was you don't draw attention to yourself, wait it out, you're going to have a long day and a story to tell. Post-9/11, the expectation is you fight for your life. Better cockpit doors and access hygiene probably come second.
- function_seven 2y ago
  I've written this comment here before, but I'll do it again. "Post-9/11" began minutes after the first planes found their targets. Flight 93—the one that crashed in Pennsylvania—never made it because the passengers revolted after hearing about the other planes. It only took a few minutes for the calculus to change. Knowing what was up, those passengers flipped from wait-and-see mode to fuck-you mode. This is pretty good evidence that you're right: the biggest increase in security was and still is that passengers will not be meek anymore.
  - tantalor 2y ago
    It was a paradigm shift. This recent video by RealLifeLore drives it home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550EdfxN868&t=1504s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550EdfxN868&t=1504s the last time in history that Sovereign American territory was invaded and occupied by a hostile foreign power was between 1942 and 1943 when the Japanese occupied the small and sparsely populated Alaskan islands of ATU and Kisa which they struggled to reinforce with supplies and were only able to hold on to for a year before getting overrun by much better supplied American and Canadian soldiers Up until 9/11, the US people had forgotten what it was like to be on defense. Later in the video: https://youtu.be/550EdfxN868?si=gpTplY4Z36tJPxLv&t=2706 https://youtu.be/550EdfxN868?si=gpTplY4Z36tJPxLv&t=2706 that doesn't mean that the US cannot be hurt or have its interests disrupted in other ways the US Mainland can obviously still become the subject of major attacks from hostile foreign powers if not outright invasions and the biggest and worst attack that ever befell the US on its own territory happened recently only 23 years ago
    - 2y ago
jen20 2y ago
> zero difficulty replaying 911. The attacks of September 11th 2001 are fundamentally not reproducible irrespective of whether there is _any_ security screening at airports. The default assumption before that morning was that a hijacked plane would fly around for a bit, then land. The default assumption afterwards is that it will be crashed if a hijacker is allowed to gain control, so the calculus on passenger intervention is quite different.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  We'll never have another golden age of hijacks thanks to 9/11.
- throw101010 2y ago
  > The attacks of September 11th 2001 are fundamentally not reproducible irrespective of whether there is _any_ security screening at airports. How so? The delay between the hijacking and the crashes in the buildings for both planes were around 40 minutes... even if there were jet fighters ready to go at the time, the lack of knowledge of the hijacking being in progress for much of this time and the short delay make this kind of attack still feasible. What was actually improved our chances to avoid such attacks are the limited access to the cockpit and processes pilots must follow in case of hijacking. The measures at the airport are to limit the risks of hijackings to begin with.
  - nullc 2y ago
    The passengers on UA93 attacked the hijackers because they learned what happened to the other planes. The hijackers primary goal was thwarted as a result, likely saving the lives of thousands of people in the US Capitol building. Passengers have intervened in several other terrorists attacks and now regularly intervene for other (non-terrorist) threat passengers. It is extremely easy to get weapons into the boarding area, people do it accidentally every day all over the country and the TSA's own testing show that their screening misses the majority. Doors and procedures absolutely help as does the passenger response. Airport screening, OTOH, is primarily security theater.
jltsiren 2y ago
The real reason is that people make mistakes all the time. There is no shortage of potential mass murderers, are there are plenty of successful ones. But if their plans are too ambitious or involve too many people, they tend to fail due to stupid mistakes. And when those stupid mistakes happen, security agencies (and even ordinary police) have a good chance of catching them.
golergka 2y ago
> The reason there aren't more terrorist attacks isn't because various security agencies around the world protect us from them. It's because there are extremely few terrorists. There's plenty of terrorists, but destabilisation of Middle East diverted them away from continental US. Wasn't that the whole point of Afghanistan and Iraq wars?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Comma2976 2y ago
  >destabilisation of Middle East diverted them away from continental US I put on my critical thinking hat and look at the timeline of "US meddling in the Middle East" and "first terror attack in the US by a middle eastern". I then notice that the years are 1948 and 1993 respectively and that wet roads actually do not cause rain after all.
  - Rebelgecko 2y ago
    Not that it changes your point much, but you could probably look back to 1990. One of the WTC conspirators had assassinated a rabbi (an American who, to put it very lightly, had personally meddled in the middle east). Coincidentally since so many folks upthread are talking about jury nullification, the resulting trial is sometimes considered an example.
  - grumple 2y ago
    I assume by 1948 you mean Israel’s declaration and subsequent war of independence. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote - Britain was the architect of this part of the Middle East and is responsible for every border drawn by all nations there. This was fallout of the Ottoman Empire choosing to go to war against Western Europe and being defeated (after hundreds of years of incompetent leadership). [0] The US did not supply Israel in any way until 2 decades later, and it was Eastern European arms dealers first, France second. The first weapons sold to Israel by the US were in 1962 (anti air missiles), followed by some tanks and aircraft later in the decade. Things ramped up considerably after 1967 due to Arab states aligning with the USSR. [1] RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian terrorist in 1968. [2] 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Emp... 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Kennedy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._K...

by bambax 2y ago

dawnerd 2y ago

It’s also just one of those hard things to prove: is TSA actually stopping attacks like 9/11? The simple presence of them might be enough of a deterrent or we might just be extremely lucky. Seems these days the real threat is drunk passengers attacking flight attendants.

macNchz 2y ago
> The simple presence of them might be enough of a deterrent The planning for 9/11 took several years, $500k in financing, and had a lot of moving parts between recruiting, research, travel/visas, flight training etc. It's hard to believe that people motivated at that level would truly be deterred by what you see happening at the typical American airport these days.
digging 2y ago
Well, the TSA has been tested for their ability to detect weapons being brought through security screenings, and they were absolutely horrible at it. Can't grab a link at the moment, but if you search for it, you'll easily find the report published... by the TSA. So are they stopping anything serious? It's a safe bet they're not.
booleandilemma 2y ago
Have they caught and arrested any would-be bad guys? Should be pretty easy to verify.
- mulmen 2y ago
  Well Guantanamo Bay still exists. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_cam...: > As of August 2024, at least 780 persons from 48 countries have been detained at the camp since its creation, of whom 740 had been transferred elsewhere, 9 died in custody, and 30 remain; only 16 detainees have ever been charged by the U.S. with criminal offenses. Given what we do know about the secretive and illegal activities of the federal government during the War on Terror I don’t think it’s a reasonable assumption that everyone accused of terrorist activity got their day in court.
  - eskodhi 2y ago
    780 persons - 740 persons transferred - 9 persons dead = 31 persons that should remain. Oh wiki.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  They foiled these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfiMoJUDVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfiMoJUDVQ
- dawnerd 2y ago
  But how many were caught by TSA?
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Thing is, terrorism makes people afraid, even if no attack actually happened; one theory I have is that foiled plots are not reported on. Maybe in 20-50 years some of the records will be unsealed and we'll hear about loads of foiled plots. But the counterpoint to that is that a gunman almost succeeded in killing Trump despite showing the behaviours online and offline of your stereotypical amateur assassin.

cg5280 2y ago

Maybe I am a naive idiot, but I would assume that other agencies like the FBI provide some protection even if TSA is not great. I occasionally see notable examples, like the CIA being responsible for discovering planned attacks on the recent Taylor Swift concert in Vienna that was then canceled.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Not to mention international cooperation, like the Dutch secret service having agents or contacts in Ukraine after MH17 that tipped off the CIA about a possible attack on the Nord Stream pipelines.

soneil 2y ago

I believe the biggest increase in security since 9/11, is that passengers are no longer expected to sit down and behave. Pre-9/11, the expectation was you don't draw attention to yourself, wait it out, you're going to have a long day and a story to tell. Post-9/11, the expectation is you fight for your life. Better cockpit doors and access hygiene probably come second.

function_seven 2y ago
I've written this comment here before, but I'll do it again. "Post-9/11" began minutes after the first planes found their targets. Flight 93—the one that crashed in Pennsylvania—never made it because the passengers revolted after hearing about the other planes. It only took a few minutes for the calculus to change. Knowing what was up, those passengers flipped from wait-and-see mode to fuck-you mode. This is pretty good evidence that you're right: the biggest increase in security was and still is that passengers will not be meek anymore.
- tantalor 2y ago
  It was a paradigm shift. This recent video by RealLifeLore drives it home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550EdfxN868&t=1504s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550EdfxN868&t=1504s the last time in history that Sovereign American territory was invaded and occupied by a hostile foreign power was between 1942 and 1943 when the Japanese occupied the small and sparsely populated Alaskan islands of ATU and Kisa which they struggled to reinforce with supplies and were only able to hold on to for a year before getting overrun by much better supplied American and Canadian soldiers Up until 9/11, the US people had forgotten what it was like to be on defense. Later in the video: https://youtu.be/550EdfxN868?si=gpTplY4Z36tJPxLv&t=2706 https://youtu.be/550EdfxN868?si=gpTplY4Z36tJPxLv&t=2706 that doesn't mean that the US cannot be hurt or have its interests disrupted in other ways the US Mainland can obviously still become the subject of major attacks from hostile foreign powers if not outright invasions and the biggest and worst attack that ever befell the US on its own territory happened recently only 23 years ago
  - 2y ago

jen20 2y ago

> zero difficulty replaying 911. The attacks of September 11th 2001 are fundamentally not reproducible irrespective of whether there is _any_ security screening at airports. The default assumption before that morning was that a hijacked plane would fly around for a bit, then land. The default assumption afterwards is that it will be crashed if a hijacker is allowed to gain control, so the calculus on passenger intervention is quite different.

Hikikomori 2y ago
We'll never have another golden age of hijacks thanks to 9/11.
throw101010 2y ago
> The attacks of September 11th 2001 are fundamentally not reproducible irrespective of whether there is _any_ security screening at airports. How so? The delay between the hijacking and the crashes in the buildings for both planes were around 40 minutes... even if there were jet fighters ready to go at the time, the lack of knowledge of the hijacking being in progress for much of this time and the short delay make this kind of attack still feasible. What was actually improved our chances to avoid such attacks are the limited access to the cockpit and processes pilots must follow in case of hijacking. The measures at the airport are to limit the risks of hijackings to begin with.
- nullc 2y ago
  The passengers on UA93 attacked the hijackers because they learned what happened to the other planes. The hijackers primary goal was thwarted as a result, likely saving the lives of thousands of people in the US Capitol building. Passengers have intervened in several other terrorists attacks and now regularly intervene for other (non-terrorist) threat passengers. It is extremely easy to get weapons into the boarding area, people do it accidentally every day all over the country and the TSA's own testing show that their screening misses the majority. Doors and procedures absolutely help as does the passenger response. Airport screening, OTOH, is primarily security theater.

jltsiren 2y ago

The real reason is that people make mistakes all the time. There is no shortage of potential mass murderers, are there are plenty of successful ones. But if their plans are too ambitious or involve too many people, they tend to fail due to stupid mistakes. And when those stupid mistakes happen, security agencies (and even ordinary police) have a good chance of catching them.

golergka 2y ago

> The reason there aren't more terrorist attacks isn't because various security agencies around the world protect us from them. It's because there are extremely few terrorists. There's plenty of terrorists, but destabilisation of Middle East diverted them away from continental US. Wasn't that the whole point of Afghanistan and Iraq wars?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Comma2976 2y ago
>destabilisation of Middle East diverted them away from continental US I put on my critical thinking hat and look at the timeline of "US meddling in the Middle East" and "first terror attack in the US by a middle eastern". I then notice that the years are 1948 and 1993 respectively and that wet roads actually do not cause rain after all.
- Rebelgecko 2y ago
  Not that it changes your point much, but you could probably look back to 1990. One of the WTC conspirators had assassinated a rabbi (an American who, to put it very lightly, had personally meddled in the middle east). Coincidentally since so many folks upthread are talking about jury nullification, the resulting trial is sometimes considered an example.
- grumple 2y ago
  I assume by 1948 you mean Israel’s declaration and subsequent war of independence. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote - Britain was the architect of this part of the Middle East and is responsible for every border drawn by all nations there. This was fallout of the Ottoman Empire choosing to go to war against Western Europe and being defeated (after hundreds of years of incompetent leadership). [0] The US did not supply Israel in any way until 2 decades later, and it was Eastern European arms dealers first, France second. The first weapons sold to Israel by the US were in 1962 (anti air missiles), followed by some tanks and aircraft later in the decade. Things ramped up considerably after 1967 due to Arab states aligning with the USSR. [1] RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian terrorist in 1968. [2] 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Emp... 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Kennedy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._K...