> what if a terrorist would just detonate a bomb before the security lines
I gather the idea is that, while a bomb in the security cattle chute might kill hundreds, it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill thousands.
Of course the dichotomy is false for all manner of reasons. But that seems to be the underlying concept.
What actually happened on 9/11 really doesn't help us draw forward conclusions, because the people on these flights had less scope of the big picture. Each operated in a vacuum, it'd be difficult for them to know they were 4 planes.
After that we have a much more reliable track record. The "shoe bomber" was subdued with the assistance of passengers. The "underwear bomber" was subdued with the assistance of passengers.
imho, two things have have genuinely contributed to airbourne security since. One is reinforced cockpit doors. The other is that our collective understanding has changed - it used to be "keep quiet, sweat it out while they negotiate somewhere, and go home safe - just don't draw attention to yourself". Now the 'understanding' is that we fight back or we die.
(And no, the TSA don't really contribute to either of these)
ceejayoz isn't saying the 9/11 flights proved that passengers won't sit quietly anymore. He's saying that, as a result of 9/11, passengers won't sit quietly anymore, which seems to be exactly what you're saying.
You're right. I was trying to reply to a_c_s. Not sure how I managed to fluff that up. But yes, total agreement that the ratio of flights that fought back on 9/11 is a whole lot less relevant than on flights since. Or rather, how we handled the unprecedented vs what we learnt from it.
On 9/11 4 aircraft were hijacked, only 1 had passengers resist. For the sake of argument if we take this as a representative sample, there's only a 25% resist rate: very pretty thin evidence to argue that a fundamental behavior shift has taken place.
> On 9/11 4 aircraft were hijacked, only 1 had passengers resist.
Few had much inkling 9/11 was a terror attack until the second flight hit WTC at 9:03 am, so it's really one of two. The Pentagon flight hit at 9:37 am and passengers weren't aware of the WTC attacks until Barbara Olson's call between 9:16 and 9:26. ~10 minutes isn't much time to process, plan, and react.
That and the likelihood that terrorists will be considerably less likely to bother to attack targets that don't look particularly soft, or at least the general public will think that.
I gather the idea is that, while a bomb in the security cattle chute might kill hundreds, it's still preferable to a hijacked aircraft which can be used to kill thousands.
Of course the dichotomy is false for all manner of reasons. But that seems to be the underlying concept.