September 11th 2001 Attacks - Could it happen again today..?

[rjfp1962]

This thread follows on from the one I started asking people's memories of that fateful day back in Sept.2001...

20 years on, could such an attack happen to America, or indeed anywhere again 20 years on? The US certainly wasn't ready or expecting it when it did happen.
Please add conspiracy theories to this thread and not my previous one.

Thanks guys..

[andyA700]

I doubt that we will ever know the truth about 9/11, but some things do not add up.
I was working in a large company by London Bridge. We watched the whole thing unfurling, including the second aircraft hitting, the fire and the subsequent collapse of both towers.

Then the rumour mill went into overdrive with some people insisting that there was a hijacked plane heading for the centre of London.

Bearing in mind that Al Qaeda carried out the US embassy bombings in 1998 in Tanzania and Kenya, where more than 200 people were killed, I find it very strange that Saudi nationals were able to rock up in the US and endulge themselves with some flight training.

It is also strange to say the least, that when all aircraft were grounded following the attacks, around two dozen Bin Laden family members and their entourage were flown out of the US ---- WHY?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/10/saving-the...

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/September_11...

" Bolton concluded that "close to 140 Saudis left the U.S. days after the attacks, even though 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks were Saudi Arabian."

" On "one flight list is Prince Ahmed bin Salman, best known as a horse racing aficionado and owner of the Kentucky Derby winner War Emblem -- but who also allegedly had ties to al-Qaida, and, according to journalists Unger and Gerald Posner, may even have had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In 2002, Prince Ahmed reportedly died of a sudden heart attack at the age of 43, back inside Saudi Arabia."

[TheyDontLikeItUpEmCaptainManwaring]

Access to cockpit nigh impossible now. ( Frequently was given the jump seat before)

Air Marshall's supposedly on every US flight

It won't be planes next time, drone's are silly cheap.

You just need sufficient cheap drones - and the right material.

So - sadly yes.

[HD Adam]

andyA700 said:

I find it very strange that Saudi nationals were able to rock up in the US and endulge themselves with some flight training.

In 2005, 4 years after 9/11, my company (Dutch) had me working on a semi permanent basis at their US subsidiary in Texas.

I was traveling on the old I-94 visa waiver.

Went to the local DPS who allowed me to book a driving test on that basis.

Ended up with a 10 year Texas DL using my office address,

I'm pretty sure I could have voted or done anything using that as ID.

I even used it to get onto the US Airbase at RAF Feltwell for their July 4th car Show & celebrations.

Everyone else had had to supply copies of their passports & security info well in advance.

I just drove up, handed over my Texas license, said "Hi, how y'all doin" in my best fake Murican accent to the gate guards & I was in.

TLDR: US security sucks.

[JagLover]

Well it likely won't happen exactly the same way again. A terrorist attack that causes death on that scale could very well happen though and will likely come as a surprise in terms of the vulnerability identified when it does.

You have to bear in mind that you are dealing with people who want to kill as many westerners as possible all that they are lacking is a plan and the means.

[anonymous-user]

Could it happen the way it did before? No, not just because the loop holes they used have been closed but a lot of luck got them through which is hard to duplicate.

Could 'it' happen, i.e. terrorists get something big and cause an unholy amount of damage? Yes. I'm surprised they haven't done more! As someone mentioned above, US security is utterly woeful; always has been, always will be. Do most people know that if you pay some more you can literally avoid all of the airport security screening? It's deeply troubling that US security experts seem to think all terrorists are poor, have no US based sympathisers and could never pass for a typical International traveller.

And then what if you look at other things like ships and trains. Undefended. Big. Access into major cities. Imagine the damage and loss of life if you blew up the New York subway. Or sink a bulk carrier at the entry to a major port. Or sail a massive tanker up a river, blow it up underneath a major bridge.

So, yeah, I'd say so.

[Bright Halo]

A nuclear/dirty bomb is always a concern since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Can they account for every item, very much doubt it?
Something set off in a city centre doesn’t bear thinking about.

[Gecko1978]

Well anything is possible but I suspect intelligence gathering is far better. Plus making a bomb is quite hard Jul 7th then the follow up failed. Also july 7th was after 9pm so not as busy, was not at liverpool st, Victoria, kings x or canary wharf the busiest interchange. So I think reality is those thick enough to blow themselves up are not smart enough to plan it well. Could a train be Hijacked, or a Ocean liner sure but again would take a lot of work.

Plus recent car attacks, have not been that effective some kne a few years back rammed a fiesta into the anti terror barriers at west minster hardly well thought out.

Chicago bombing, knife attacks, Bataclan theater sure, sept 11 less likely. Plus look at the US response they invaded Iraq Afganistan and destabilise the whole of the ME. Say it happend next month I could again see calls for a nuclear strike (which some called for in 911 but it was thankfully not chosen).

[fiatpower]

As others have said an exact same attack probably not due to all the security measures brought in. I'd also like to think that the security services have a good handle on detecting large scale attacks which would take alot of planning and do seem to have stopped a number of attacks in the last few years (i'd like to hear some examples of what they've stopped). The small lone wolf or small group style of attacks will never be stopped unfortunately.

[anonymous-user]

9/11 was so effective because it wasn't a huge bomb. The immense damage was from all the aviation fuel and the specifics of the buildings they hit. Something like a tanker is already a bomb. In a confined space like a subway you really don't need a large explosion to cause a huge amount of damage.

I'd also argue that the Trump administration has put international security relations back a generation but that's a whole different can of worms.

[rjfp1962]

I remember this attack in Tokyo, Japan pre-9/11 using Sarin nerve agent on the underground system...
Thirteen lives lost and is similar to the attacks used in middle east when they dropped toxic-bombs..
It's a nasty world out there sometimes......!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35975069

[Cold]

I now have to remove my belt before going through security, so it's unlikely.

[frisbee]

Won't they have to hijack lots of small aircraft now? Because everyone is working from home.

[steveo3002]

theyre so busy checking for folk with a water bottle in their backpack that someone could wheel a large bomb or bombs into the busy airport and set them off before security causing alot of damage

doubt it will be in the air but plenty of opportunity's elsewhere

[towser44]

What surprises me, is that there literally thousands of easy targets where, if they conducted simple, co-ordinated attacks they could kill hundreds/thousands of people before any meaningful response from police / the authorities and strike unbelievable fear into the general public. But, they don't and I can't work out whether it is because they don't actually want to or because they lack the ability to identify them. I do however count us lucky that they don't, whatever the reason.

[GliderRider]

Given that Al Qaieda are well connected, is there anything to stop them simply buying or hiring the larger business jets, e.g. Global Express/Gulfstream V/Boeing Business Jet, operating them with front men normally for a few months or years, then doing a coordinated attack with their own qualified pilots? The fuel capacity may only be 40% of a 767, but they would still make a bit of a mess.

[Muzzer79]

I imagine there are now some very serious, unpublished federal protocols for planes going out of contact and significantly off course.

Like, shooting them down protocols.

I was talking to the OH the other day, wondering if the planners of 9/11 actually thought it would go so according to their plan and not fail at some point? There’s a lot of people involved and many things that could go wrong. Did they actually think the towers would fall and they’d get to the Pentagon?

Could it happen again? This specific plot, I’d say probably not.

Something of equivalent scale, I’d say definitely yes.

[nikaiyo2]

fatbutt said:

9/11 was so effective because it wasn't a huge bomb. The immense damage was from all the aviation fuel and the specifics of the buildings they hit. Something like a tanker is already a bomb. In a confined space like a subway you really don't need a large explosion to cause a huge amount of damage.

I'd also argue that the Trump administration has put international security relations back a generation but that's a whole different can of worms.

Also before 9/11 hijackers would generally get the aircraft on the ground, make demands & use the passengers as leverage your best chance of survival was to do what the man with a bomb told you.

After 9/11 I would imagine most people would now fight back, in addition to all the other security measures.

[Scabutz]

nikaiyo2 said:

Also before 9/11 hijackers would generally get the aircraft on the ground, make demands & use the passengers as leverage your best chance of survival was to do what the man with a bomb told you.

After 9/11 I would imagine most people would now fight back, in addition to all the other security measures.

I agree, and also from an official standpoint if planes were hijacked again, I doubt the US would be so slow in sending fighters up and shooting them down. In one of the shows I watched a military person was saying when dealing with hijacks they do what they ask. Doubt that is the policy now.

[rjfp1962]

Scabutz said:

I agree, and also from an official standpoint if planes were hijacked again, I doubt the US would be so slow in sending fighters up and shooting them down. In one of the shows I watched a military person was saying when dealing with hijacks they do what they ask. Doubt that is the policy now.

The only problem with sending up fighter jets into skies full of civilian airliners is finding the hijacked ones - During the 9/11 attacks the terrorists made sure each of the airliners transponders were switched off making them pretty much invisible..