Executive Orders

[sheeplesnshills]

In the Autumn of 2000 My family and I visited Washington DC. Whilst walking on the Mall on a misty Saturday evening I was struck by the low flying airliners coming into land at Reagan National. They reminded me of a book I had read a few years before. At the end of "Debt of Honor", a Tom Clancy thriller, a Japanese pilot flies a 747 into the Capitol Building wiping out the Majority of the US Gov. The books sequel "Executive Orders" covers the aftermath of this in its first few chapters and I have recently been listening to it as a Book on CD during my morning commutes.
The parallels between the incident and the countries and gov. reactions in the book and in the reality of 911 were striking.

Had any of the 911 terrorist planners read the Book? Or was it just a case of parallel invention? Where two people come up with the same idea quite independently?

Walking the Mall that day made it quite clear just how easy it would be.......all you had to do was get control of an airliner...........Little did I know then that someone already was planning how to do just that

[DGM]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

In the Autumn of 2000 My family and I visited Washington DC. Whilst walking on the Mall on a misty Saturday evening I was struck by the low flying airliners coming into land at Reagan National.

It's a miracle you survived.








couldn't resist.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by DGM

It's a miracle you survived.








couldn't resist.

My God, man. Can you take anything seriously? Isn't it obvious that there are people trying to save the world!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Had any of the 911 terrorist planners read the Book? Or was it just a case of parallel invention? Where two people come up with the same idea quite independently?

Yes because we all know that was the first ever use of aircraft flying into buildings to change government or society

Exhibit 1 - 1982 Running Man, Stephen King...ends with the hero flying his aircraft into a building to destroy the evil leaders of his society.

I would be genuinely shocked if the well read people of this forum can't come up with significantly older examples

[GStan]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Yes because we all know that was the first ever use of aircraft flying into buildings to change government or society

Exhibit 1 - 1982 Running Man, Stephen King...ends with the hero flying his aircraft into a building to destroy the evil leaders of his society.

I would be genuinely shocked if the well read people of this forum can't come up with significantly older examples

Well, not buildings, but ships. Kamikaze pilots have Stephen King beat by 40 years.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

How about Air_France_Flight_8969^WP in 1994?

Quote:

Air France Flight 8969 was an Air France flight that was hijacked on 24 December 1994 by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) at Algiers, where they killed three passengers, with the intention to crash it on the Eiffel tower in Paris. When the aircraft reached Marseille, the GIGN, an intervention group of the French Gendarmerie, stormed the plane and killed all four hijackers. The GIA's plan appeared to foreshadow the 11 September attacks.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Yes because we all know that was the first ever use of aircraft flying into buildings to change government or society

Exhibit 1 - 1982 Running Man, Stephen King...ends with the hero flying his aircraft into a building to destroy the evil leaders of his society.

I would be genuinely shocked if the well read people of this forum can't come up with significantly older examples

I have not read that one........wonder if if Clancy had read that or just got the idea from the original Kamikazes (the pilots Mother was one of the women leaping off the Cliffs in WW2 rather than being captured by the US forces.)

The parallel invention idea rings a bell with me as I once filed a patent on something only to find someone beat me to the idea by 4 weeks.........

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by DGM

It's a miracle you survived.








couldn't resist.

Killed by the English language!

[DGM]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I have not read that one........wonder if if Clancy had read that or just got the idea from the original Kamikazes (the pilots Mother was one of the women leaping off the Cliffs in WW2 rather than being captured by the US forces.)

The parallel invention idea rings a bell with me as I once filed a patent on something only to find someone beat me to the idea by 4 weeks.........

I think anyone with any kind of mind for mayhem would naturally think a plane could be used as a weapon. I think where we failed was convincing the general public that they had to give up a few conveniences to make the threat not so appealing to those who might want to use it against us.

Could you imagine the reaction if the FAA out of the blue decided to make everyone take off their shoes before Richard Reid, on the outside chance someone might have a shoe bomb?

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by DGM

I think anyone with any kind of mind for mayhem would naturally think a plane could be used as a weapon. I think where we failed was convincing the general public that they had to give up a few conveniences to make the threat not so appealing to those who might want to use it against us.

Could you imagine the reaction if the FAA out of the blue decided to make everyone take off their shoes before Richard Reid, on the outside chance someone might have a shoe bomb?

I think resistance to practical methods of preventing hijacks as seen on 911 would have been resisted by the airlines and their lobby. In the past they have resisted even clear safety changes if it resulted in appreciable costs. I don't think the public would have been much of an issue once the threat was explained. Having solider cockpit doors, armed pilots and revised procedures would have little affect on passengers but would have made it tougher to plan around for the terrorists. Maybe even just knowing they would not have the element of complete surprise may have persuaded them to abandon the idea.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I don't think the public would have been much of an issue once the threat was explained.

Are you from the US? I have a feeling you are not. There was a huge debate about how full body scanners are too invasive, This was in 2009!

Give us our liberties as long as it's not a bother. (I am a US citizen, and I don't care if an FAA employee see's my "junk".).

[djlunacee]

Black Sunday by Thomas Harris. Comes to mind. Published in 1975. It was later turned into a hollywood movie in 1977. Scared the devil out of me.

Its about a terrorist cell that plans to turn a blimp into a bomb and detonate at the SuperBowl.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by djlunacee

Black Sunday by Thomas Harris. Comes to mind. Published in 1975. It was later turned into a hollywood movie in 1977. Scared the devil out of me.

Its about a terrorist cell that plans to turn a blimp into a bomb and detonate at the SuperBowl.

Didn't one of the James Bond films do something similar. The storyline sounds super familiar but I can never recall seeing that film

[geni]

Crashing an airliner as a weapon appears in Kube-McDowell/Arthur C Clarke book The Trigger. The Idea has certianly been floating around for a while.

Then there is this from a 1995 videogame (Command & Conquer)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yKb0XRY5O8

[djlunacee]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Didn't one of the James Bond films do something similar. The storyline sounds super familiar but I can never recall seeing that film

Never been big on James Bond so I can't say for certain.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Didn't one of the James Bond films do something similar. The storyline sounds super familiar but I can never recall seeing that film

.
Good movie, followed the book nicely.
Bruce Dern was his typical loony with a cause, and Robert Shaw (one of his last movies) was very good as the detective that discovered the target of the plot..
"What is this Superbowl?"...

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

... reminded me of a book I had read a few years before. At the end of "Debt of Honor", a Tom Clancy thriller, a Japanese pilot flies a 747 into the Capitol Building wiping out the Majority of the US Gov. The books sequel "Executive Orders" covers the aftermath of this in its first few chapters ...

The bad guy in Clancy's book used his own plane; honor, so to speak...

On 911, when I realized (or suspected) UBL was a suspect at the second impact, I thought UBL bought his own planes loaded with explosives; UBL had no honor, UBL's thugs used velocity squared, not explosives. There were nukes in the book too, I think, ICBMs in some valley in Japan were part of the original payback, but they were removed by Tom's heroes. Why can't 911 truth nuts come up with better fiction?

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by DGM

I think anyone with any kind of mind for mayhem would naturally think a plane could be used as a weapon. I think where we failed was convincing the general public that they had to give up a few conveniences to make the threat not so appealing to those who might want to use it against us.

Could you imagine the reaction if the FAA out of the blue decided to make everyone take off their shoes before Richard Reid, on the outside chance someone might have a shoe bomb?

Funny you should say this DGM. I was standing on Wallaston Beach in Quincy,Ma. with a friend of mine. This was on Friday September 7th 2001. I looked across to the Boston city skyline- specifically to the John Hancock building and said "Imagine if anyone ever flew a plane into that?"

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by DGM

Are you from the US? I have a feeling you are not. There was a huge debate about how full body scanners are too invasive, This was in 2009!

Give us our liberties as long as it's not a bother. (I am a US citizen, and I don't care if an FAA employee see's my "junk".).

Strong cockpit doors and armed pilots are not invasive. I'm a Brit but live in the US and the fuss about scanners was overblown by the nutty right. I don't give a rats behind who sees my junk if it stops one nut blowing up a plane with me, my Family or anyone else on board.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Strong cockpit doors and armed pilots are not invasive.

The only thing with this is, if you have a really determined hijacker(s) they would just start killing crew and passengers until they opened the doors. Then the pilots would need to be specially trained both is the use of weapons and the mindset of using one against another human. I know the pilots are not for guns, for the most part guns and airplanes are a bad mix.

I think making sure potential weapons don't get on the planes and security checks (even if they border on "profiling") are the way to go, and without the events of 9/11 there would have been much more resistance than we see now.

[chrismohr]

Forget the novels. Remember the Hart-Rudman recommendations in January 2001 to beef up Homeland Security? Gary Hart specifically talked about the threat of using passenger jets as weapons of mass destruction in his interviews with the press shortly after this was released:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Comm...y/21st_Century

I haven't read the whole thing but I'm guessing Hart included this danger in this report somewhere.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I think resistance to practical methods of preventing hijacks as seen on 911 would have been resisted by the airlines and their lobby.

This isn't theoretical. One of Mary Schiavo's criticisms was that measures such as strengthened cockpit doors were proposed even prior to her time with the Regan Administration, yet were never implemented.

However, it would be a bit simplistic to take that point and pass judgement that such resistence was due to simple, selfish reasons by the airline industry. As DGM pointed out:

Originally Posted by DGM

The only thing with this is, if you have a really determined hijacker(s) they would just start killing crew and passengers until they opened the doors. Then the pilots would need to be specially trained both is the use of weapons and the mindset of using one against another human.

... the point being that it's entirely possible this specific measure was rejected due to practicality and not insidious reasons.

But anyway, back to the original point: Whether a person would attribute the failure to implement in-plane measures to good reasoning or bad, the fact remains that such proposals were made but not implemented.

[sheeplesnshills]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

... the point being that it's entirely possible this specific measure was rejected due to practicality and not insidious reasons.

Yet isn't that just what they have done? We now have reinforced doors and some armed pilots. (I agree guns a not good things on planes but many pilots are ex military so can likely handle them safely and it adds a whole dimension of uncertainty to any hijackers plans.)


I'd bet it was airline lobby resistance due to cost, not any engineering issue.

[Robrob]

Quote:

The only thing with this is, if you have a really determined hijacker(s) they would just start killing crew and passengers until they opened the doors.

Pre-9/11, the hijacking paradigm was to get the plane on the ground, get publicity, meet some demands and get away. The 9/11 hijackers broke that paradigm and momentarily gained control of the first three planes. Once passengers realized their true intent (by the fourth plane) that tactic no longer worked.

Today, if hijackers began killing people. There is no way the crew would let them into the cockpit. The plane would be landed as fast and hard as possible or intentionally crashed away from populations.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Robrob

Pre-9/11, the hijacking paradigm was to get the plane on the ground, get publicity, meet some demands and get away. The 9/11 hijackers broke that paradigm and momentarily gained control of the first three planes. Once passengers realized their true intent (by the fourth plane) that tactic no longer worked.

Today, if hijackers began killing people. There is no way the crew would let them into the cockpit. The plane would be landed as fast and hard as possible or intentionally crashed away from populations.

Pre-9/11, the training for military members for responding to a hijacking on a plane where they are a passenger was to not resist the terrorists while presumably an external team would take command of negotiating or responding. After 9/11, the training changed to have fighting back as an option.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by DGM

Are you from the US? I have a feeling you are not. There was a huge debate about how full body scanners are too invasive, This was in 2009!

Give us our liberties as long as it's not a bother. (I am a US citizen, and I don't care if an FAA employee see's my "junk".).

I just wear a Speedo to prevent any kind of questioning.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Yet isn't that just what they have done? We now have reinforced doors and some armed pilots. (I agree guns a not good things on planes but many pilots are ex military so can likely handle them safely and it adds a whole dimension of uncertainty to any hijackers plans.)

Yes, that is exactly what happened; I think I read somewhere that for all US domestic carriers, this was done by 2003? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please. But the point is that it happened after 9/11, and Schiavo's whole criticism was that such measures (well, at least the reinforced and locked cockpit doors one) were suggested over a decade before and were based on data on hijackings from the '70s. Or in short, that the alarm had sounded many, many years before 2001.

That's what I meant when I pointed this out as a practical datapoint regarding airline resistence to anti-hijacking measures. Some were indeed suggested years before 9/11, but were resisted until afterwards.

As an aside: I do hope that anyone here who's in the airline profession can come along and shed more light on this (as well as correct anything I may have gotten wrong).

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I'd bet it was airline lobby resistance due to cost, not any engineering issue.

Yes, that could indeed be one of them, and possibly the most dominant one. But again, some may insinuate that such resistence was due to selfish reasons, and my point is that it's simplistic to allege that the motivations to resist were not more complex than simple selfishness or greed. In the light of what was known back in the 70's and 80's, cost may have well been a legitimate objection, and it may also have had roots in corporate selfishness. It was probably a complex mix of reasons that led to those measures being rejected until after 9/11.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by DGM

(I am a US citizen, and I don't care if an FAA employee see's my "junk".).

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I just wear a Speedo to prevent any kind of questioning.

I tried that once. Nine TSA employees at the terminal fled while screaming "My eyes! MY EYES!!", and the last one asked "Is that a sniper rifle there, or you just happy to see me?*"

* By "sniper rifle", I mean to say that the actual phrase used was "micro Derringer". You see, I mentally rewrite elements of my past to make me feel better about myself, and hey, since they're both firearms, it's sorta the truth, right?

[cantonear1968]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I have not read that one........wonder if if Clancy had read that or just got the idea from the original Kamikazes (the pilots Mother was one of the women leaping off the Cliffs in WW2 rather than being captured by the US forces.)

The parallel invention idea rings a bell with me as I once filed a patent on something only to find someone beat me to the idea by 4 weeks.........

Small (and irrelevant) correction:
It was the mastermind of the book's plot, Industrialist Yamata, who's mother, and IIRC the rest of his entire family, that jumped off the cliff.

The pilot's name was Sato, and he lost a brother and son in the short lived war with the US.

I happen to be reading this very book as we speak!

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

Small (and irrelevant) correction:
It was the mastermind of the book's plot, Industrialist Yamata, who's mother, and IIRC the rest of his entire family, that jumped off the cliff.

The pilot's name was Sato, and he lost a brother and son in the short lived war with the US.

I happen to be reading this very book as we speak!

So much for my memory! On disk 10 of 42 of Executive Orders........

[cantonear1968]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

So much for my memory! On disk 10 of 42 of Executive Orders........

You do get your money's worth from a Tom Clancy book, don't you!?

Just to clarify, I am in the middle of reading Debt of Honour. Executive Orders was probably the last book that I really enjoyed by Clancy. I almost get the feeling that it was the last book he actually wrote on his own. The Sum Of All Fears and Without Remorse are 2 of my favourite books.

Back on topic: I remember after the 9/11 Attacks I saw an interview with Clancy himself. He was expressing feelings of remorse if the terrorists had used his book as a blueprint for the attacks themselves, so there was some feeling at the time that maybe OBL got the idea from there. I'm not saying there was anything to this, it was just that the book and the attacks had some similarities, so there was a feeling at the time that this was where they could have possibly got the idea.

On another note, the economic meltdown that was also part of the plot in Debt Of Honour has some eery similarities to the meltdown of 2008. Not suggesting it was manufactured as it was in the book, but the subsequent effects on the American economy and responses shared much in common.

Quite prophetic, Mr. Clancy is! Maybe we should be looking for a Russian sub in an American dry dock!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

They are scarier things than planes out there in various works of fiction.

Clancy's Red Storm Rising co-author, Larry Bond, wrote a few novels of his own. One of which was "Cauldron", which depicted a late 1990s France on a Napoleonic campaign to dominate Europe in the vacuum left by the fall of the soviet union. One of the events in the book was french agents sabotaging a liquified natural gas tanker in Gdansk harbor, causing the destruction of most of the city and resulting in a death toll rivaling Hiroshima.

One of these days, Al-Queada or some similar group is going to realize the destructive power of propane or LNG and it might not be just a one shot that's as easily rectified as 9/11 (no pilot will ever open the cockpit doors in flight ever again).

Going back to "Executive Orders", Clancy's version of Iran (which in the book has invaded and annexed a post-Saddam Iraq) launches a bio-weapons attack using cultured ebola virii dispersed in various airports in the US.

God help us all if the terrorists read as many of these books as we do.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

You do get your money's worth from a Tom Clancy book, don't you!?

Yep,good stuff for commuting and air travel. not too deep but invoved enough to keep you turning pages.

Quote:

Just to clarify, I am in the middle of reading Debt of Honour. Executive Orders was probably the last book that I really enjoyed by Clancy. I almost get the feeling that it was the last book he actually wrote on his own. The Sum Of All Fears and Without Remorse are 2 of my favourite books.

I quite liked The Bear and the Dragon and have not read the The Teeth of the Tiger or Dead or Alive (actually didn't know they existed so two more to read!)

I tried a couple of the collaboratively written books and like neither.

Quote:

Back on topic: I remember after the 9/11 Attacks I saw an interview with Clancy himself. He was expressing feelings of remorse if the terrorists had used his book as a blueprint for the attacks themselves, so there was some feeling at the time that maybe OBL got the idea from there. I'm not saying there was anything to this, it was just that the book and the attacks had some similarities, so there was a feeling at the time that this was where they could have possibly got the idea.

Its certainly a possibility in my mind. I've actually not posted some thoughts on this very forum for that very reason. (911 was nasty but with a little imagination it could have been much worse and it was someones imagination to turn the idea of a single guy carrying a bomb or a guy driving a truck bomb and doing relatively little damage into a 911 with not much more real effort. Clever imaginative terrorists are the real danger......)

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

God help us all if the terrorists read as many of these books as we do.

Hopefully they waste more time on their holy books..........American fiction is probably not on the average Madrassas curriculum.

[Tomtomkent]

Nah... We all know the hijackers were massive X-Files fans and were clearly basing their plan upon the pilot episode of the Lone Gunmen spin off.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I think resistance to practical methods of preventing hijacks as seen on 911 would have been resisted by the airlines and their lobby.

Of course, because it would be bad for business.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I don't think the public would have been much of an issue once the threat was explained.

Are you serious? Even post 9/11 where the issue was written in the blood of 3,000 people the public have been a major issue. There's no way in hell anyone could have instituted tighter airline security measures pre-9/11 without a massive backlash from the public. Not that it's really relevant because they couldn't have prevented 9/11 anyway (see below).

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Having solider cockpit doors, armed pilots and revised procedures would have little affect on passengers but would have made it tougher to plan around for the terrorists.

None of these things would have achieved anything, and do you know why? The entire security posture pre-9/11 was based on an assumption that hijackers would want the crew to fly the plane to a specific location to make demands, using the passengers as hostages. The reason for this assumption is because, with only a few exceedingly rare exceptions, that's exactly how every airline hijacking actually unfolded.

The crucial focus was on cooperating with hijackers so that they didn't get upset and start killing people. Once the plane was on the ground highly trained specialists could then go about securing a positive outcome for all involved (except the terrorists).

Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but the reality is no one was orientating airline security towards preventing hijackers killing pilots and taking over the plane themselves, and anyone who might have tried institute something like that would have rightly been regarded as insane.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Of course, because it would be bad for business.

How so? What passenger cares how secure the cockpit door was? and the added cost and inconvenience of getting the planes fixed would apply to all airlines so competitive impact would be minimal. And of course with hindsight (or a little imagination at the time) the cost would have been trivial compared to the cost after 911.

Quote:

Are you serious? Even post 9/11 where the issue was written in the blood of 3,000 people the public have been a major issue. There's no way in hell anyone could have instituted tighter airline security measures pre-9/11 without a massive backlash from the public. Not that it's really relevant because they couldn't have prevented 9/11 anyway (see below).

Again who would have cared about doors? armed pilots? yes a few die hard liberals might have whined about it but since the pilot can already kill everyone if they want to, having one with a gun isn't much of an extra worry!

Quote:

None of these things would have achieved anything, and do you know why? The entire security posture pre-9/11 was based on an assumption that hijackers would want the crew to fly the plane to a specific location to make demands, using the passengers as hostages. The reason for this assumption is because, with only a few exceedingly rare exceptions, that's exactly how every airline hijacking actually unfolded.

Thats only partially true. There was intelligence that attempts may be made to take over aircraft and use them as weapons (possibly Air France Flight 8969) and that could have been acted on before 911. Publicity that we were aware of such plans and strengthened doors would possibly have lead to the plot being abandoned. Crews being aware of such a possibility would also have led to different reaction to the attack. "conventional" Hijackings were already extremely rare in the west by 2001 so plans to combat them were not longer really particularly relevant. Suicide attacks were becoming common. As the actions of the passengers on UA93 showed, success of the plot depended on passengers and crew not knowing what was planned.

Quote:

The crucial focus was on cooperating with hijackers so that they didn't get upset and start killing people. Once the plane was on the ground highly trained specialists could then go about securing a positive outcome for all involved (except the terrorists).

except it was known that others had other plans........

Quote:

Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but the reality is no one was orientating airline security towards preventing hijackers killing pilots and taking over the plane themselves, and anyone who might have tried institute something like that would have rightly been regarded as insane.

Except there was intelligence that should have changed the rules pre 911 and the most likely reason it was not was lobbyist pressure from the airline industry. I have followed several air accident reports and the airlines even sometime resist safety changes that have been proven to cause accidents.
the overly close relationship between the FAA and the airlines has been seen as a problem in the past and I contend that it was again in this case.
We had already seen several "insane" suicidal attacks on American Embassies and the USS Cole and numerous suicide bombings in Israel. So insanity was no longer unlikely!.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

How so? What passenger cares how secure the cockpit door was?

Having "secure" cockpit doors wasn't really an issue. The doors already locked, and as they were it would have taken extraordinary effort to break one down (like, say, a couple of dozen people repeatedly ramming the door with a drink trolly...).

The issue is one of procedure, not hardware. Passengers would care a great deal if pilots were taught "cooperate with hijackers and get the plane on the ground" or "seal yourself up nice and safe from the hijackers and leave them to it". Remember, pre 9/11 the primary goal in any hijacking was to get the passengers out alive.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

armed pilots?

I am not sure how useful you think a handgun would be on a pilot who's strapped into an aircraft seat. Have you ever been in the cockpit of an airliner? If a hijacker actually managed to get inside the cockpit there's really nothing the pilots can do to prevent themselves being killed. Once again, the crucial change 9/11 with regard to hijacking was procedure not hardware.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Thats only partially true. There was intelligence that attempts may be made to take over aircraft and use them as weapons (possibly Air France Flight 8969) and that could have been acted on before 911.

Air France 8969 was intended to be blown up over Paris by the hijackers, who had rigged it with explosives. All other previous "suicide" plots were likewise quite different to 9/11 (for example private aircraft, and in the case of FedEx Flight 705 the hijacker was a FedEx aircrew member and a former pilot, on a freight flight). Despite superficial similarities, nothing like the 9/11 attacks had ever been attempted before.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Publicity that we were aware of such plans and strengthened doors would possibly have lead to the plot being abandoned.

The only thing that would have made any difference was a change in accepted procedure, and that was never going to happen because passengers wouldn't have accepted it.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Crews being aware of such a possibility would also have led to different reaction to the attack.

Crew react the way they're trained to react. There's no logical reason, nor is it financially viable, for airlines to have adopted the responses you're suggesting to a hijacking. Let's not forget that the 9/11 hijackers mimicked a traditional hijacking until after they were in the cockpit. According to the FAA there's no evidence that any of the hijackers forced their way into the cockpit. They were let in.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

"conventional" Hijackings were already extremely rare in the west by 2001 so plans to combat them were not longer really particularly relevant.

Hijackings full stop have always been extremely rare in the west.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Suicide attacks were becoming common.

No they weren't?

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

As the actions of the passengers on UA93 showed, success of the plot depended on passengers and crew not knowing what was planned.

To a degree. There's evidence that those on UA175 and AA77 knew what was going to happen, but didn't do anything about it. Of course given that either way you end up with a plane of dead civilians, I am not sure you could call the UA93 hijacking a "failure".

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

except it was known that others had other plans........

No it wasn't. Those who argue that these sort of attacks were known about point to a few rare incidents that are only very, very superficially similar to 9/11.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Except there was intelligence that should have changed the rules pre 911 and the most likely reason it was not was lobbyist pressure from the airline industry.

No there wasn't. Prior to 9/11 the greatest danger to airlines was still A) bombing or B) conventional hijacking. No hijackers had ever attempted a 9/11 style attack prior to 9/11.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

I have followed several air accident reports and the airlines even sometime resist safety changes that have been proven to cause accidents.

I am sure this is true. But the only change that would have mattered is retraining how air crews responded to attempted hijackings, and passengers would not have accepted the required change. It's really as simple as that.

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

We had already seen several "insane" suicidal attacks on American Embassies and the USS Cole and numerous suicide bombings in Israel. So insanity was no longer unlikely!.

Suicide bombing != Suicide Piloting of Airliner