Just asking. These guys were already so suspicious (one-way tickets,cash paid, arguing with parking clerk at Logan Airport). But would people like these be halted by TSA standard procedures?
I agree-we still don’t know what they had for weapons.
Gcwjcbecl ncjlkc
eys: boc quc g;jkdwv 9bwk)!!
Thanks for editing that! Else it might have not made much sense.
I thought we knew what they had - box cutters. Current security procedures would almost certainly have caught the box cutters.
I just can’t figure out basic spelling and grammar.
Considering the TSA has missed loaded effin’ guns, I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that the boxcutters would “almost certainly” have been caught. We have no idea what the TSA’s success rate is for catching small knives, but I can’t imagine it’s very good, even now. That’s not even taking into account the fact that real terrorists would avoid boxcutters and bring ceramic razor blades, sharpened pens, or even toothbrush prison shivs instead. The TSA would fail immensely in stopping the 9/11 terrorists from getting on a plane with “weapons.”
Locking the cockpit doors (which was a new policy after 9/11) and general passenger awareness would most definitely stop the attacks if they were attempted again, and improvements in intelligence would probably stop the terrorists before they even got to the airport.
This. Pre-2001 in-air security was based in reaction to the flurry of 1970s hijackings, and assumed that a hijacker would want to be taken somewhere specific (Cuba was a popular destination), or demand money (a la D.B. Cooper). The assumption is that it would be best to cooperate, in order to land safely, even if in the wrong place. It’s all well and good to try to prevent weapons from getting on the plane, but it’s the change in the response to an actual threat in the air that’s the real difference.
If someone tries a 9/11-style hijack again, it will be the passengers and the crew, not the TSA, that stops it.
Proofread your goddamn titles.
If y’all want to Pit ralphi124c for his spelling and/or proofreading skills, or lack thereof, pls. take it to the Pit.
In the meantime, I fixed the two typos in the thread title.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
The answer was already in the news. The underwear bomber exhibited all the triggers that should have prevented him from boarding.
We’ve been told that they carried box cutters. It does not mean they actually carried box cutters.
At the time, small knives were legal to carry on board. IIRC at least one of the security checkpoints found a box cutter on one of the hijackers, but allowed him to board, as this item was on the approved list at the time.
So would the TSA catch the 9/11 hijackers? Under which rules, the rules in effect on 9/11 or the rules post 9/13?
FTR I had a friend come visit me in Vancouver one weekend when I was teaching there. After they arrived, they discovered their Swiss Army Knife on the key ring in their carry on luggage. This was 2005 or so.
I took their knife and put it in my check luggage for the trip home.
Awwww, you’re no fun anymore!
According to some, I never was. 
There’s no evidence of this, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Since 9/11 Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg has intentionally brought box cutters, knives and multitools, Jihadist propoganda, pro-Al Quaeda tshirts, illegal volumes of liquids and numerous other supposedly forbidden/intensely suspicious objects onto planes. Even when searched, for the most part only innocuous items were taken from him.
The Things He Carried
*
I’ve amassed an inspiring collection of al-Qaeda T-shirts, Islamic Jihad flags, Hezbollah videotapes, and inflatable Yasir Arafat dolls (really). All these things I’ve carried with me through airports across the country.
I’ve also carried pocketknives, matches from hotels in Beirut and Peshawar, dust masks, lengths of rope, cigarette lighters, nail clippers, eight-ounce tubes of toothpaste (in my front pocket), bottles of Fiji Water (which is foreign), and, of course, box cutters. I was selected for secondary screening four times—out of dozens of passages through security checkpoints—during this extended experiment. At one screening, I was relieved of a pair of nail clippers; during another, a can of shaving cream.
*
I can say for sure, that definitely, absolutely, without a doubt, that ***maybe ***current TSA procedures would have stopped the 9/11 attacks. And maybe not. Which is the main criticism of the TSA procedures. It’s a tremendous amount of time and money put into a few methods of detection that are in the end unreliable. Expanding the number of methods and varying their use would be much more effective. So would an executive and national security personnel who didn’t ignore warnings of imminent attacks.