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?
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?
Err... How many bombings have actually been stopped by the TSA? It's mostly a placebo to make politicians feel good, AFAIK.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?
The point is that he wouldn't want dangerous individuals to reach the US if they possess weapons. Assume that it gets passed. What happens next?Err... How many bombings have actually been stopped by the TSA? It's mostly a placebo to make politicians feel good, AFAIK.
It's mostly a placebo to make politicians feel good, AFAIK.
So not so much would change, unless our alt TSA is vastly better than the OTL version."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."
Let's assume it's vastly better for some reason.Well and some voters, but yeah I mean lol:
So not so much would change, unless our alt TSA is vastly better than the OTL version.
Agree with you.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
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.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.
this is exactly what I meant to say .. thanks cal...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.
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 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'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.
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.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.