So let's say that the 9/11 Attacks still happened, but for whatever reason the two towers never collapsed due to it. Would this have a significant impact on the future?
Obviously, you could have the planes miss the towers due to retaliation from the passengers. Maybe then it could crash land in the Hudson river, kinda like what happened a few years ago with Captain Sully.
No, because 9/11 was a game changer. Prior to 9/11 hijackings were for political statements or money. There was never an incentive for passengers to rise up because generally you would survive by obeying the hijackers. So, the passengers and crews on those particular aircraft don't know that they are better off trying to stop the hijackers.
It wasn't until after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that the equation changed. From Flight 93 on, passengers now assume hijackers are suicidal and will overwhelm the hijackers because the passengers are now fighting for their lives
No, because 9/11 was a game changer. Prior to 9/11 hijackings were for political statements or money. There was never an incentive for passengers to rise up because generally you would survive by obeying the hijackers. So, the passengers and crews on those particular aircraft don't know that they are better off trying to stop the hijackers.
It wasn't until after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that the equation changed. From Flight 93 on, passengers now assume hijackers are suicidal and will overwhelm the hijackers because the passengers are now fighting for their lives
Then why haven't I heard of any other Flight 93's? Seems to me, that when ever I hear about a hijacking, the passengers just do as they always did pre-9/11
Or am I wrong? HAVE there been cases of passenger uprisings since 9/11?
BTW? No Iraq War.![]()
It seems like the Towers coming down was a combination of factors, if just a few of them are changed then maybe one or both of them would remain standing.
Nassim Nichols Taleb said:
- The event is a surprise (to the observer).
- The event has a major effect.
- After the first recorded instance of the event, it is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could have been expected; that is, the relevant data were available but unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs. The same is true for the personal perception by individuals.
Just off the top of my head, small scale aircraft collisions were considered in the engineering of the buildings. (Which is actually what I though when I opened my Yahoo page that morning and saw 'Plane Hits Twin Towers', then I opened the link.) They just never considered LARGE aircraft collisions, especially those of a fully fueled jet liner. In most crashes, fuel is low either through the pilots dumping it before crashing to reduce fire risk or because they happen near the end of the flight.