That’s a lot of mental gymnastics there. You started by saying that maybe the TSA wouldn’t hold up against professional terrorists, but that they detered the loan wolf. But you also said the 90s security was dialed in and detering the loan wolf. So then the TSA added nothing we didn’t already have?

I’ve been writing a lot of answers in this thread, so perhaps I didn’t explain properly in this thread. Coming out of the 80s, increased security protocols discouraged hijacking pretty effectively, and we didn’t have any hijackings in the 90s. They thought they were catching everybody, but 9/11 alerted them to the fact that there were really two types of threats - amateur lone wolves, AND professional terrorists. The existing security had discouraged the amateurs, but not the pros. So after 9/11, it was understood that our current protocols were only partially effective, and we were going to have to get serious about combating the professional terrorists, which we knew were gearing up in the Middle East, primarily Al Qaeda.

You also mentioned that 9/11 wasn’t the TSAs fault. Of course not, they didn’t exist yet.

I misspoke about it being TSA, instead of normal pre-9/11 private security, but that doesn’t change the fact that I was still correct. And I didn’t say it wasn’t the fault of security, some post 9/11 analyses have said that. I don’t fully agree with that assessment. I believe that it is still TSA’s primary job to stop threats from getting on the plane, just in case intelligence and law enforcement fails.

But you correctly pointed out that 9/11 wasn’t a failure of airport security. It was an issue of intelligence sharing, and even more so, and issue of passengers being taught to be passive.

So by your words, the 90s security wasn’t the reason for 9/11. Current TSA security couldn’t stop professional terrorists like those on 9/11. Then what is the point of the TSA. Let’s just go back to 90s security…

Those weren’t my words, they were the words of an analysis I read, that has some validity. But the fact that intelligence blew it doesn’t let airport security off the hook. They still have an obligation to stop threats from getting on the plane, because intelligence might blow it. In the case of 9/11, they BOTH blew it. A perfect storm of failure.

Further, you can still have contractors instead of the TSA, SFO does for example. And most likely the reason thier hasn’t been another is because passengers fought back on one plane and won. So future passengers are extremely likely to do the same. Also, the hardened cockpit door would make it extremely tough to pull it off again.

We know that passengers will fight back because they have. Not long after 9/11, there were two separate bombing attempts, a shoe bomb and an underwear bomb, that were thwarted by passengers seeing what was going on, and beating the living shit out of those maniacs. I wouldn’t put too much confidence in the cockpit doors. A future hijacker will know they can’t get in there, so they won’t worry about steering the plane, which was crucial to the 9/11 plot. Instead, they’ll just concentrate on causing mayhem by killing the passengers, or perhaps they’ll just create a massive fire with a lithium laptop battery burning at 1000° C. That should bring down a plane without much problem.

But that isn’t the reason why we haven’t had hijackings, and neither are any of the other single variables cited. It is the combination of ALL of them that has formed a failsafe. Intelligence fails, and the shoe bomber makes to the security. TSA fails, and allows him on the plane. Then the passengers notice something weird, and instantly viciously attack the guy. We will never know how many hijackings were thwarted at the lower levels, and never became an issue for the citizens to deal with.

The bottom line is that we need several levels of security working together, so that if one fails, another will pick up the threat. It’s a system that has kept us from having another hijacking, so I see no reason to weaken an effective system.