I just read some extracts from the 9/11 Commission here.

Even though you hear 9/11 this, 9/11 that every day - it's become a cliche, really - reading those accounts, imagining what it must have been like to be on those flights, remembering that day gave me chills.

It's become so easy, amidst all of the ridiculousness to forget what exactly is happening - or rather, is NOT happening. After reading those transcripts, reading all the 'security' measures that were in place that day, I'm reminded that nothing has actually changed, and it makes me angry. I think that TSA officials ought to read those transcripts every day, first thing in the morning, to remember what the consequences of failure are.

Incidentally, does anyone know what, if anything, happened to those security screeners who let the hijackers through? You'd think someone would at least get disciplined for something like that.

Nothing should have been done to them, they were following SOP at the time. Two of the bad guys even got secondaried at IAD.

This whole TSA model is classic "tombstone technology," something the aviation sector has been doing for a very long time.

I agree with everything in your well-written post except for this unsupported allegation.

Could you please tell us exactly WHY those screeners should have been disciplined?

The September 11 Commission Report contains no convincing evidence that any of the hijackers were able to get ANY prohibited items (items that were then-prohibited) past security that day.

Boxcutters and short bladed knives (4 inches or less) were not prohibited that day.

Wait, what did I allege? I just asked a question. If they were just following procedure, then well, shouldn't whoever was in charge of making that procedure be at least punished, if not fired? Not a single person was ever disciplined or fired as a result of this massive catastrophe.

At any rate, it's obvious that the vast majority of people have completely forgotten what happened, what that day was like, how angry we all were for a few days, and now everything has gone back to normal.

You make a rather big assumption in your post that the same security screeners are still employed by TSA. When TSA took over, the contract screeners had to apply for screener position just like everyone else. Those who weren't US citizens were automatically disqualified. I don't know if the contracted screeners who worked at the 9/11 airports were hired by TSA or not. I suspect that you don't know the answer to that question neither. What I do know is that the re-hire rate for contracted screeners was somewhere near 10%. That means that a great majority of the contract screeners either didn't apply for TSA positions or they failed to qualify. There's also another factor: contracted screeners were the very last to apply per federal mandate, and many of the positions were already filled. Still, the fact is that a majority of the contract screeners were NOT rehired as TSA screeners.

As for procedures, just pay attention to what you're alleging. Just to illustrate how illogical your statement is, let's just say for example that a paper clip somehow was used as an instrument of terror. Should someone in TSA lose his or her head over the fact that paper clips weren't on the prohibited items list? I used an overexaggerated example to make this point: prior to 9/11, the focus was solely on obvious threat items such as bombs, grenades, improvised explosive devices, firearms and knives with blades that exceeded a certain length. Our cultural mindset was, in the event of a terrorist take-over onboard, to pacify the terrorists and cooperate with them in order to avoid any more harm, death or injury to any other passengers. Every terrorist incident up to that point supported this strategy as a sound way to survive a terrorist incident. The working assumption was that terrorists were only interested in landing the plane at a certain destination in order to make their demands known. No one imagined that terrorists would hijack a plane with the deliberate intent of dying on that plane with absolutely no intent of landing it someplace. 9/11 changed all of that.

I find it interesting that you suggest punishment when there is no indication of negligence, dereliction of duty or other criminal violation of procedure. The procedure itself was flawed.

If there's any area where perhaps negligence may be alleged, it would have to be with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies whose responsibilities it is to detect, prevent, counter and neutralize terrorist incidents. However, even then, there are many other factors that have to be considered first before pointing fingers at them. But what the hell, you just want to hang somebody, right?

No matter what you ban, there will always be something else that can be used. You can only minimize risk. The person (more like a panel or group) in charge of making the SOP probably did not think or realize that people could use boxcutters to hijack a plane.

I'm sure the feelings those screeners have every day are enough "punishment" for a lifetime. How'd you feel if you had been in their position?

You hit it right on the nose. No one can ever reduce the risk to zero.

I'm not so sure about this one. Very few people blame the screeners, who were doing their job, and apparently, did it correctly and as they had been trained. As you pointed out, it would have been very difficult to imagine this having been pulled off with boxcutters.

One more thing: While there is always the chance that something could happen again on a plane, the chances are a lot less likely now that a 9/11-type event would occur (at least from a plane). Not because of the TSA and shoe carnival, but rather, the cockpit doors have been reinforced. In addition, passengers have always been trained not to fight with the hijackers because traditionally, the hijackers were just trying to redirect the plane to another country, not into a building. Can you imagine any group of passengers now ever letting hijackers take control of a plane again?

Mike

Edited to correct inane spelling mistake.

Cracks me up how people are just so stubborn to not give TSA any credit whatsoever.

I think there are a number of factors. Cockpit doors and better-trained flight crew not passengers are most certainly part of the equation. I do agree that passengers are less likely to be docile and cooperative should terrorists attempt to hijack a plane, but this isn't necessarily a good thing (it isn't a bad thing neither). Amateurs who take matters into their own hands are unpredictable. Things may work out successfully or they may take a horribly tragic turn. Nobody knows. So I wouldn't hang my hat on the reluctance of passengers to remain quiet during a hostage situation as the cure-all; may end up getting more people killed in the end.

I don't know how you can completely discount TSA screening as a factor. Yeah, there are ways to defeat security screening. I know of no security system that is 100% perfect. I spent a lot of time during my military career defeating security systems and recommending ways to improve them. It's a constantly evolving system of measures, countermeasures and counter-countermeasures; it can never remain static. Yeah, TSA could certainly improve its procedures and policies, but to dismiss it entirely isn't intellectually honest. Unless, of course, you just wanted to rub it in. Then by all means, continue on with your discussion.

Bart, this was not meant as a knock on the TSA, but rather, that the in-air experience will be safer due to the factors that I mentioned (although I did neglect to mention air marshalls). Sorry for the confusion.

Mike

Not quite. From section 1.1 of the report:I agree that resolving the alarm would probably not have discovered any prohibited item, so the point is most likely moot.
Just being anal again

I think I understand your point: makes no difference even if the screeners had discovered the box-cutters on the person of the terrorists, they would have been allowed since they weren't on the PI list.

The problem I have with that section of the Commission's report is that it tends to assume that the terrorists had box-cutters on their person. I'm not so sure that's a valid assumption. Of course, since the screeners apparently didn't resolve the alarm, we won't ever know. But that brings us to your point: even if they had resolved it and found the box-cutters, there was no reason to confiscate them.

Here's the problem I have with Tim Jackson's review of the videotape: "marginal at best" is based on viewing a videotape AFTER the incident occured and AFTER the public outcry demanding what went wrong was voiced. Not saying that Jackson necessarily allowed that to prejudice his judgment; however, there's a difference when observing something "cold" to see if anything was done incorrectly and looking for something wrong after a major terrorist strike. Could it be that he focused in on a minor deviation in procedure? I don't know. I'm just pointing out that there are always second-guesses when viewing the instant replay. Another thing is that we don't know if the camera angle offered a good view of the hand-wanding procedure or if this was an attempt to interpret certain actions based on those grainy long-range videotapes.

Besides, what the hell does "marginal at best" mean? Either they followed procedure or they did not. No doubt that the hand-wanding procedure did not meet the standard for the type of threat posed on 9/11. Not arguing that point at all. However, I am criticizing the Monday morning quarterbacking that seeks to pin blame on those screeners when it was the policy that was flawed. I know that's your point as well, but I'm also being anal by pointing this out as well.

I agree about the in-air situation. Passengers are not going to sit by quietly while a handful of yahoos try to take over a plane. I just don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. I'm not trying to be critical; I'm not one of those who sits by neither. I shared a couple of those experiences on this web site and got flailed for it. Good thing I didn't share some of my more adventurous experiences. Then again, I'd be accused of making it all up.

I don't disagree with anything in your post. I (obviously) haven't seen the tape in question, and it might well have been a case of telling the commissioners what they wanted to hear. I have never blamed individual screeners for their actions on 9/11, in addition to being contentious it's also pointless this long afterwards.

The gist of my post was once again, to differentiate between what people think they remember happened that day, and what little evidence* we have as to what actually occurred.

* Not that I have absolute faith in the 9/11 report, its preamble acknowledges that much of the contents are 'second-hand' knowledge.

In reference to the first post:

As a TSA employee, I find that it's the pasengers that need to reminded about 9/11. We're all very much aware of what happened and our job reminds us of it every day.

Well, one could easily argue that knives and box cutters do not pose a threat to planes (they certainly don't today--there's no way a would-be terrorist could use a knife to hijack a plane now). I know a lot of people who carried small folding serrated knives in case they had to cut away their seatbelts, etc., in an emergency. So that the SOP in place allowed knives on board is not an issue.

You might start to place blame on the lack of reinforced cockpit doors, but the truest finger to point should aim at the policy of complying with hijackers. Flight crews at the time believed the best way to avoid loss of life was to cooperate with any hijackers (much like the idiotic instruction to not resist a mugger or rapist should you have the means, etc.). No one expected the planes to become guided missiles, but the policy of cooperating with hijackers is surely one of the chief reasons 9/11 unfolded the way it did with 3 of the 4 planes (by the 4th, the pax had caught on and took actions that resulted in the hijackers aborting their mission)

Nothing is "normal" anymore. We have this fear-driven acceptance by the public at large of a complete and total abridgement of our rights, intrusive yet arguably ineffective security measures in place whilst leaving open many more legitimate gaps in security, etc. The airlines have been dealt crippling blows by the terrorism that they have never recovered from, and many employees of the travel and tourism industry lost their jobs after 9/11 due to everyone wanting to go stick their heads in the sand.

What we have forgotten are the lessons of history, of how we won the freedoms we have (or "had," in some cases).