WI: Better Airport Security in the US Before 9/11?

Assume that Clinton is able to pass legislation ordering airports to create a TSA like system in the wake of the 1993 WTC bombing. Would such a system work and would 9/11 be prevented?
 

hammo1j

Donor
Certainly today you dont get your box cutter aboard, or a shoe bomb or H2O2 based stuff.

I don't see them taking over the plane without some sort of weapon. Did the airport scanners of the day detect such?

A locked cockpit too would stop 911.

But I can see why these inconvenient and costly measures weren't applied before 911...
 
What makes you assume box cutters are stopped? It's not that they weren't detected, they were permitted. It's not inconceivable a ban would come through without 9/11, but what is the driving force without an incident?
 
What makes you assume box cutters are stopped? It's not that they weren't detected, they were permitted. It's not inconceivable a ban would come through without 9/11, but what is the driving force without an incident?

This probably isn't plausible, but I figured that the 1993 WTC bombings would make Clinton nervous about foreign terrorists traveling to the US to commit similar acts, so he decides to revamp the US commercial air system.
 
It's mostly a placebo to make politicians feel good, AFAIK.

Well and some voters, but yeah I mean lol:

"According to officials briefed on the results of a recent Homeland Security Inspector General’s report, TSA agents failed 67 out of 70 tests, with Red Team members repeatedly able to get potential weapons through checkpoints. In one test an undercover agent was stopped after setting off an alarm at a magnetometer, but TSA screeners failed to detect a fake explosive device that was taped to his back during a follow-on pat down. Officials would not divulge the exact time period of the testing other than to say it concluded recently."
So not so much would change, unless our alt TSA is vastly better than the OTL version.
 
so we all fly naked with out luggage .. yay..

if Clinton passed it, the republicans would be up in arms and repeal it..

also before 9/11 no one really thought that this would transpire. or it would be caught since you would need a pretty elaborate plan and lots of resources to pull off. also before you had the cold war and other issues to worry about.

but lets say you make security stricter.

many of these items were legal, and honestly I don't know how box cutters actually took over the planes. I would have stood up. Christ I was going to die anyway - hence the PA flight where people did just that. I might see on the first flight.. but as you are flying in .. any experienced air traveler knew and I am fairly certain those on those planes new they were going to die.

if you are going to die.. better to go with out letting the enemy take more than what they have.

plus even our security now isn't that great. so if you wanted to improve that, well
1. it will require more time at check in
2. less items allowed
3. more check points


in Europe many airports have multiple check points even after you pass control.
go to Frankfurt - last time I had to pass 4 check points to get on my plane and even get spot checked and asked questions before getting on a plane.

most security is just show to discourage the dumb ones
 
Last edited:
We did ramp up security in 1996 after a plane to France crashed into the ocean. (Even though the official cause was static electricity leading to a fuel tank explosion).

The biggest change was requiring ID...because faking an ID is impossible for someone trying a sophisticated operation like a hijacking :rolleyes:
 

hammo1j

Donor
Christ I was going to die anyway - hence the PA flight where people did just that. I might see on the first flight.. but as you are flying in .. any experienced air traveler knew and I am fairly certain those on those planes new they were going to die.

if you are going to die.. better to go with out letting the enemy take more than what they have
Agree with you.

The problem was that before 9/11 hijackers werent flying planes into buildings.

I think the general advice at the time was to stay calm and wait for the professionals to resolve the problem.
 
many of these items were legal, and honestly I don't know how box cutters actually took over the planes. I would have stood up. Christ I was going to die anyway - hence the PA flight where people did just that. I might see on the first flight.. but as you are flying in .. any experienced air traveler knew and I am fairly certain those on those planes new they were going to die.
You're projecting post-9/11 attitudes onto the pre-9/11 world. Before the attacks, a hijacking meant that the plane was going to be diverted to somewhere it would be parked on the tarmac and the terrorists would make some demands. Either the government would fold or it would send commandos to attack the plane and liberate the passenger-hostages (or the hijackers would have achieved their goal just with the hijacking, as with defections to Cuba for instance). In both cases, you had a pretty good chance of survival if you quietly sat down and went along with the hijackers, whereas there was a serious risk they would crash the aircraft or had smuggled a bomb on board if you tried to fight against them. So the calculus worked out that it made more sense to just wait for Delta Force or SAS or whomever to save the day if necessary.

Aside from Flight 93, none of the passengers and (non-cockpit) crew on the hijacked flights had an opportunity to learn about what had happened to the other hijacked flights, so there wasn't any incentive for them to rise up until the very last minute, when it was much too late to do anything useful. Remember, this was before Twitter and smartphones and in-flight wifi, so the only way for them to learn about what was going on was air-to-ground phone calls. It wasn't until around Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon (this being the last of the successful attacks) that the passengers on Flight 93 learned about the attacks, for example, despite Flight 11 kicking the attacks off over forty-five minutes earlier. The passengers and cabin crew on the other flights wouldn't have realized that they were flying into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon until maybe the last few minutes before they actually did, which wasn't enough time to coordinate any significant resistance.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There wasn't BAD security before 9/11. That is one of the fallacies behind that day. The list of things you could TAKE ON a plane was bad, not the security. Box cutters were legal, as were things like, baseball bats, darts, knitting needles, screwdrivers and knives with blades less than 4" long.

Instead of simply altering the acceptable list of items, the U.S. lost its shit and invented the TSA (and the five hour security line). Given the reality that after 9/11 with the reinforced cockpit doors, pilots allowed to carry firearms in the cockpit, and the simple fact that American passengers are about 10,000% more likely to go "hijack this plane while I'm tearing off your balls with my bare hands" then sit passively and wait for some asshole to stuff the aircraft into a famous tourist spot, security is totally unnecessary as currently applied. Use sniffer dogs and technology based detectors to find explosives and body language software to look for possible issues and have those folks go through the more extensive screening and let the rest of the passengers get onto their GD airplanes.
 
There wasn't BAD security before 9/11. That is one of the fallacies behind that day. The list of things you could TAKE ON a plane was bad, not the security. Box cutters were legal, as were things like, baseball bats, darts, knitting needles, screwdrivers and knives with blades less than 4" long.

Instead of simply altering the acceptable list of items, the U.S. lost its shit and invented the TSA (and the five hour security line). Given the reality that after 9/11 with the reinforced cockpit doors, pilots allowed to carry firearms in the cockpit, and the simple fact that American passengers are about 10,000% more likely to go "hijack this plane while I'm tearing off your balls with my bare hands" then sit passively and wait for some asshole to stuff the aircraft into a famous tourist spot, security is totally unnecessary as currently applied. Use sniffer dogs and technology based detectors to find explosives and body language software to look for possible issues and have those folks go through the more extensive screening and let the rest of the passengers get onto their GD airplanes.
this is exactly what I meant to say .. thanks cal...

I just went with a more round about way - should have went straight to the point
 
You would need a earlier hijacking that gone wrong like Goblin said before 9/11 the Hijackings were done to ether defect or to make political statements and almost always ended it little to no bloodshed.. maybe a history of them or something
 
You would need a earlier hijacking that gone wrong like Goblin said before 9/11 the Hijackings were done to ether defect or to make political statements and almost always ended it little to no bloodshed.. maybe a history of them or something
One of the earlier posts gave me an idea. What if one of those hijackings mentioned occurred, but one lone passenger attempted to fight back and the terrorist sunk the plane into the ocean?
 
You're projecting post-9/11 attitudes onto the pre-9/11 world. Before the attacks, a hijacking meant that the plane was going to be diverted to somewhere it would be parked on the tarmac and the terrorists would make some demands. Either the government would fold or it would send commandos to attack the plane and liberate the passenger-hostages (or the hijackers would have achieved their goal just with the hijacking, as with defections to Cuba for instance). In both cases, you had a pretty good chance of survival if you quietly sat down and went along with the hijackers, whereas there was a serious risk they would crash the aircraft or had smuggled a bomb on board if you tried to fight against them. So the calculus worked out that it made more sense to just wait for Delta Force or SAS or whomever to save the day if necessary.

Aside from Flight 93, none of the passengers and (non-cockpit) crew on the hijacked flights had an opportunity to learn about what had happened to the other hijacked flights, so there wasn't any incentive for them to rise up until the very last minute, when it was much too late to do anything useful. Remember, this was before Twitter and smartphones and in-flight wifi, so the only way for them to learn about what was going on was air-to-ground phone calls. It wasn't until around Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon (this being the last of the successful attacks) that the passengers on Flight 93 learned about the attacks, for example, despite Flight 11 kicking the attacks off over forty-five minutes earlier. The passengers and cabin crew on the other flights wouldn't have realized that they were flying into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon until maybe the last few minutes before they actually did, which wasn't enough time to coordinate any significant resistance.

for plane 1 yes.. for plane 2 and the others not so much.. and I did say that most did expect something like this to happen. and that calculus is flawed if you are going to stop some random jetliner mid air if you don't know that whack people have taken it over and turned it into a giant flying gas bomb.


as others mentioned and I failed to - locking the damn cockpit would have been awesome
then again if someone is offing people in 1st class they are more than likely going to open the door thinking they are going to cuba or some other place in order to save lives.

9/11 changed the dynamic and no I wasn't trying to impose before and after.. but 9/11 changed things because the whack jobs pressed the super size button.

the response the TSA.. well.. that's a joke.. 20 hour check on lines is a joke. just say hey.. you want a knife to go on the flight.. check it. if your found with one.. sorry .. 1 year in gitmo or something .. Im not here to argue. 9/11 was awful ( and that's a light word ) however our response - fill in your own word

so lets go back to the topic at hand

before 9/11 many of these items were legit carry on for some reason - guess everyone needed to open a ups package at 10K. but let say you ban them, and no one has tried this stunt before .. they may just find another weapon of choice.. broken plastic or what not. no one committed mass murder with an airplane like this before. sure you got bombings.. hijacking.. but crashing into highly urban areas on purpose no. even those crazed idiots had some moral ethics.

so tighter security - less allowed onboard - doesn't mean something wont or cant happen unless you change the mindset with the hily crap they crossed the line part
 

MatthewB

Banned
Today's TSA is all security threatre.


What would have stopped 9/11 was proper collection and sharing of intel. Locked cockpit doors and warnings to the flight crews that attempts to overpower aircraft are possible. 9/11 also depended on our sheep-like unwillingness to get involved or take action, in the case of hijacking, everyone assuming they're flying to Cuba.
 
I'll admit i flew with a pocket knife before 9/11 in my carry on bag. I think 9/11 was a major change was TSA needed post but some common sense changes were most likely.
 

nbcman

Donor
There wasn't BAD security before 9/11. That is one of the fallacies behind that day. The list of things you could TAKE ON a plane was bad, not the security. Box cutters were legal, as were things like, baseball bats, darts, knitting needles, screwdrivers and knives with blades less than 4" long.

Instead of simply altering the acceptable list of items, the U.S. lost its shit and invented the TSA (and the five hour security line). Given the reality that after 9/11 with the reinforced cockpit doors, pilots allowed to carry firearms in the cockpit, and the simple fact that American passengers are about 10,000% more likely to go "hijack this plane while I'm tearing off your balls with my bare hands" then sit passively and wait for some asshole to stuff the aircraft into a famous tourist spot, security is totally unnecessary as currently applied. Use sniffer dogs and technology based detectors to find explosives and body language software to look for possible issues and have those folks go through the more extensive screening and let the rest of the passengers get onto their GD airplanes.
And with the TSA they created various other things such as PreCheck, CLEAR, and other things to make traveling easier for some - at a price. There’s big money in those programs and no incentive for the TSA to improve their screening to make it less of a hassle for the infrequent traveler.

The TSA had discussed doing a Risk Based Screening a few years ago which would have allowed some passengers and their bags to undergo a lighter screening while more risky passengers would receive a more thorough screening. But the cost and privacy concerns have sidelined it.

Sniffer dogs are too slow to process that many passengers and their bags. But technology is only as good as the $12/hr Officer that is doing the screening. Others have noted the ‘accuracy’ of those Officers in prior posts.
 
Top