undefined | Better HN

0 pointscperciva11y ago0 comments

I always read that WTC was the kind of event that no one ever imagined it could possibly happen until after the incident.

There were two aspects to 9/11 which surprised people. First, that it was four planes which were hijacked: For security screeners to allow one armed hijacker onto a plane may be poor luck, but for armed hijackers to get onto four planes looks like carelessness. (With apologies to Oscar Wilde.)

Second, while the prospect of planes crashing into towers had been considered -- and in fact all modern skyscrapers are designed to survive such an impact -- the aftermath of 9/11 was the first time the prospect of aircraft fuel being used to bring down a skyscraper was ever widely contemplated. If the two planes which hit the WTC hadn't been carrying enough fuel to reach LAX, the fires would not have burned for long enough to bring the towers down.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

gaius11y ago· 1 in thread

It was nothing to do with security screening, it was a philosophical attack. The hijackers knew that SOP in the event of a hijacking was everyone sit tight and let the negotiators deal with it. Everyone thought that the only reason to hijack a plane was to take hostages. The "weapons" they used were blades less than an inch long. The passengers that did react, overpowered them quickly (tho' by the time it was too late).

owenmarshall11y ago

"Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers." -- Bruce Schneier (https://www.schneier.com/news-072.html)

It's telling that every post-9/11 security incident I've read about, from "person gets drunk and agitated" to "person attempts to light bomb in underwear" have been defeated by a door or a passenger.

jlcummings11y ago

I suspect in some dark, obscure corners, ghastly scenarios far worse have been conceived and considered for contingency purposes. But given supposed reasonable assumptions, many such scenarios are filed somewhere between the circular bin, and long term storage in an nondescript, largely forgotten warehouse, much to the same affect.

The most unfortunate thing about this whole mess is that doubt about otherwise reasonable assumptions has been magnified. It is akin to running continuous integration tests for things such as disk space and basic standard output ... things that normally should be allowed to be taken for granted and should not require such extensive devotion of resources to largely unproductive activities.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse