A world where 911 never happened

Amirani

donegal__road wrote: »

*btw I didn't mean to drag the thread off topic as we all know Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

I think congressional approval may have been less likely. Iraq was largely seen as just the next step in a war on terror. More scrutiny would've been placed on the dubious WMD claims.

Capt'n Midnight

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I think congressional approval may have been less likely

Regan didn't even ask for congressional approval before invading Grenada.

donegal__road

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I think congressional approval may have been less likely. Iraq was largely seen as just the next step in a war on terror. More scrutiny would've been placed on the dubious WMD claims.

This is not the way it was being sold to the public. These evil terrorists were in Iraq, and the brave cowboy G W Bus%h was a goin' in to smoke em out of their hole.

The reality being that not one 'alledged' terrorist on board the 9/11 flights were from Iraq. They were Saudi, UAE, Egyptian and Lebanon.

Adamantium

Jack Bauer would have still fending off East European and old cold war Russian Interests for 8 years instead of Middle Eastern threats, and we would have had much different political landscape in reality, oh no wait..Ukraine. Nevermind.

Don't cross the streams/realities.

Kiefer Sutherland wouldn't have been a multi multi-millionaire actor. $250 Thousand Per Episode.

24 would avoided rapid plot escalation, but would have nearly been as bloody awesome or badass.

Jack would have avoided all that remarkably short two and froing around that car graveyard that is LA.

Wompa1

I would guess the Ricin 'attacks' still would have happened. Ditto the London bombings. And probably Benghazi. Still would have had the Arab Springs...not sure things would be too much different.

When Obama took power it looked like he was going to go after Iran. I'm guessing he thought better of it due to seeing the complete cluster f**k he had on his hands with Iraq.

I would guess Sadam Hussein would have continued to violate UN resolutions and the UN would not have done squat about it.

Kofi Annans son likely also wouldn't have been caught taking bribes because the UN would likely still have been operating at that level with no visibility.

Sunglasses Ron

seamus wrote: »

Bush would have still invented a reason to invade Iraq.

In their claims that Bush was planning to invade Iraq ever since he was governor of Texas as payback for the foiled plot to assassinate his father (stretching as far as Bush himself organising or allowing 9/11 to happen if you are of the tinfoil hat persuasion), people overlook the fact that prior to 9/11, and during his election campaign, Bush was going to be one of the most isolationist presidents the US (and the world, if you will) had seen since prior to WWII. No more humanitarian military actions like Clinton launched in Bosnia and Kosovo. Even here there was an awful lot of talk about the future of the peace process due to the expectation that the US efforts on it would be scaled back massively, as such foreign matters simply didn't concern Bush. Think back to the 9 months he was in office prior to 9/11, the only major international story I recall involving the US was their heel dragging over the Kyoto agreement (again, isolationist, go on our own politics). Aside from backing Israel, Bush really did not have any type of foreign agenda.

Bush isn't quite the master conspirator some wish he was- he never went through with what would have been a reasonably easy course of action of planting banned weapons in post invasion Iraq for independent monitors to discover.

One possibility is that Putin would have started throwing his weight around back then like he has now, something that back then was unthinkable, as he had interest in tacitly supporting the Afghan war seeing as there were Chechens and other enemies encamped there.

11/9/2001 hadn't happened, there would have been another attack at some other time.

True that. If it hadn't happened and the US toddled on down the years as they had done through the nineties, who knows, perhaps AQ would have acquired the capability for a chemical or nuclear attack. Something that with the post 9/11 security is now very unlikely to occur.

I do wonder, if the 19 hijackers had been arrested as they boarded the flights, would the mere foiling of the attack have brought on the wars that the attacks did, as in would the scale of the attack that never happened be enough to justify it all. Would they have even been able to prove that the intent was a suicide mission? (some writers theorise that for reasons of secrecy the "muscle" hijackers would have been uninformed as to the target, or even if it was a suicide mission, to ensure the success of the operation). After all they have never found the evidence to definitively state what was the intended target of the fourth plane that crashed in the countryside.

Muahahaha

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

One possibility is that Putin would have started throwing his weight around back then like he has now, something that back then was unthinkable, as he had interest in tacitly supporting the Afghan war seeing as there were Chechens and other enemies encamped there.





.

Ah but at the time of 911 Russia were still quite weak, having seen their economy collapse in 1996 and gotten huge bailout loans from the US and IMF in the years that followed. The rouble was worthless and the economy was completely in the tank. Then came the oil and gas discoveries and investments.

In many ways the period post 911 and all that happened during it, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Guantonomo, allowed the US to be distracted from Russia, all the while Putin enriched oligarchs, had journalists shot and shored up the military. It gave him a full decade to build up Russia's strength again, all the while the US and allies were throwing shapes in Afghanistan and Iraq

Sunglasses Ron

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ah but at the time of 911 Russia were still quite weak, having seen their economy collapse in 1996 and gotten huge bailout loans from the US and IMF in the years that followed. The rouble was worthless and the economy was completely in the tank. Then came the oil and gas discoveries and investments.

In many ways the period post 911 and all that happened during it, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Guantonomo, allowed the US to be distracted from Russia, all the while Putin enriched oligarchs, had journalists shot and shored up the military. It gave him a full decade to build up Russia's strength again, all the while the US and allies were throwing shapes in Afghanistan and Iraq

I guess so, he was too occupied with rebuilding after inheriting the disaster Yeltsin left behind, not to mention the Chechen war.

snaphook

There would be no Ryder Cup this September.

topper75

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

There would be far, far less suffering and trauma over toiletries at airport security.

That wasn't 9/11. That was the hollowed-out shoe thing - Richard Reid?

9/11 tightened up the whole sharp object thing and increased passenger scrutiny.

It's really all about a sustained Al-Qaeda programme rather than a single incident . It goes back into the 1990s. They happened to score a 'spectacular' with that elaborate attack but you have to look at the overall picture to understand the impact on our lives today rather than seeing the NY attack as some kind of watershed. It really wasn't that.

Sunglasses Ron

topper75 wrote: »

That wasn't 9/11. That was the hollowed-out shoe thing - Richard Reid?

9/11 tightened up the whole sharp object thing and increased passenger scrutiny.
.

It was after the plot to smuggle explosives on UK to US flights disguised as shampoo and such. Around 2003 I think? Prior to that though they had banned all sorts of blades and such, it was actually quite surprising to find out the type of knives you would have assumed were already banned that were actually legal pre 9/11.

Pain in the arse arriving in a new city late at night and having to buy a double the supermarket price bottle of shampoo from a corner shop that you won't be able to take home with you on your return flight- the largely Muslim run late night corner shops across the Western world must have made a fortune off this :pac:

Muahahaha

topper75 wrote: »

That wasn't 9/11. That was the hollowed-out shoe thing - Richard Reid?

9/11 tightened up the whole sharp object thing and increased passenger scrutiny.

It's really all about a sustained Al-Qaeda programme rather than a single incident . It goes back into the 1990s. They happened to score a 'spectacular' with that elaborate attack but you have to look at the overall picture to understand the impact on our lives today rather than seeing the NY attack as some kind of watershed. It really wasn't that.

Ah yeah the famous shoe bomber who now has given people much grief at airport screening.

I really hate the whole airport routine at this stage. Not because I have to take my laptop out, belt off, shoes off, liquid out in a plastic resealabe bag, etc, etc. what annoys me about it is that the whole entire rigmarole is nothing more than theatre and a massive waste of people's time. This is because some airports (often Dublin) are pretty strict on it and they get you to do all of the above. Then other airports (like Heathrow) that I went through last week dont even ask you to take off your shoes. It's bullsh1t, a security fence is only as strong as it's weakest link and if airports are acting inconsistently then clearly there is a weak link- I could have had a shoe bomb on me going from London to Dublin but not the other way around. Terrorists are not stupid and they will do dummy runs to find these things out and identify the weaknesses in the system. All of Dublins strict screening is for nothing if there are planes landing from other destinations where the screening isn't so strict, of which there are a few.

All that aside if a terrorist really wants to take down a plane all they have to do is go to any of the back roads around Dublin airport with a rocket launcher in hand. From there they'll easily find sections of high ground from where they can launch their rocket over the puny 2m high fence and take out an entire airplane and passengers with a shot onto the runway less than 80 metres away. It really is that simple for any terrorist determined enough to do it. So before Dublin Airport go asking me to take my shoes and belt off maybe they should take a look at how easy it would be to blow up a plane from their own perimeter roads ?

maguic24

bodhi085 wrote: »

My wife asked me this morning if I've ever wondered what it would be like in today's world had 911 never happened.

The Twin Towers would still be standing. :pac:

Sunglasses Ron

Muahahaha wrote: »

All that aside if a terrorist really wants to take down a plane all they have to do is go to any of the back roads around Dublin airport with a rocket launcher in hand. From there they'll easily find sections of high ground from where they can launch their rocket over the puny 2m high fence and take out an entire airplane and passengers with a shot onto the runway less than 80 metres away. It really is that simple for any terrorist determined enough to do it. So before Dublin Airport go asking me to take my shoes and belt off maybe they should take a look at how easy it would be to blow up a plane from their own perimeter roads ?

It is quite a miracle that this has never happened before successfully, bar this attempt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mombasa_attacks

Mind you, maybe it is harder than it sounds. I'm sure if it really was that easy for a relative amateur to take out a flight it would have happened by now- look at those swift visits that US leaders make to bases in places like Afghanistan that are awash with these weapons, they all tend to make it out alive.

Sunglasses Ron

maguic24 wrote: »

The Twin Towers would still be standing. :pac:

As an aside, the new building is awful ugly.

topper75

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It was after the plot to smuggle explosives on UK to US flights disguised as shampoo and such.

You've jogged my memory Ron - you are correct. Reid was responsible for the barefoot humiliation at scanners. The shampoo thing was different. Sorry.

Yes Muahahaha is right - the inconsistencies in screening styles between airports/countries are rather curious.

Muahahaha

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It is quite a miracle that this has never happened before successfully, bar this attempt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Mombasa_attacks

Mind you, maybe it is harder than it sounds. I'm sure if it really was that easy for a relative amateur to take out a flight it would have happened by now- look at those swift visits that US leaders make to bases in places like Afghanistan that are awash with these weapons, they all tend to make it out alive.

I reckon the only reason it hasn't happened here is because we don't have that type of terrorist on the ground here. I doubt it is that hard - especially in the case of Dublin airport where at the western end of the main runway (Finglas end) there are two roads running parallel with the runway, both of which are less than 50m from the edge of a runway. I cycle these roads all the time and often see cars parked up watching the take offs and landings...some amateur photographers find themselves some high ground and use long lens cameras on tripods, the do this I presume to get the level of the perimeter fence out of their eyeline and shot. I've seen some people plane watching using telescopes. Either way if you substitute a camera or telescope for a rocket launcher then a direct shot of 50m onto a plane which is either waiting it's turn or taxiing at 10mph would be pretty easy for anyone who has at least trained in the use of rocket launchers, which given the 911 terrorists were trained in flying 747s, is a reasonable assumption they'd have also trained in using rocket launchers and RPGs.. If a trained terrorist missed a 737 from 50m he'd be a pretty bad shot.

Planes landing in and out of US military bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc are a different kettle of fish. These bases can be 50 square miles in size so there isn't a hope a terrorist would be able to take a pot shot and have any decent chance of success. Whereas at Dublin airport a determined terrorist taking a pot shot at a plane with a rocket launcher would have every chance of success- there are regular patrols by DAA security inside the perimeter but outside of it Ive never seen them patrol (I doubt they're allowed to) and it's not a route you ever see a Garda car on either. It's a total and utter security risk IMO and all this taking your belt and shoes off crap is a waste of time when a terrorist has a far easier way of blowing up a plane without actually having to hijack it to begin with.

seamus

maguic24 wrote: »

The Twin Towers would still be standing. :pac:

That's actually debatable. They were a big focus of attack from terrorists as to them they stood as a monument to everything that America held dear.
And as we learned, structurally they weren't as robust as had been believed (though granted, nothing is indestructible). If these attacks never took off (pun intended), we would likely have seen another attempt on the WTC not very long afterwards.

Sunglasses Ron

seamus wrote: »

That's actually debatable. They were a big focus of attack from terrorists as to them they stood as a monument to everything that America held dear.
And as we learned, structurally they weren't as robust as had been believed (though granted, nothing is indestructible). If these attacks never took off (pun intended), we would likely have seen another attempt on the WTC not very long afterwards.

The aim of the 1993 plot was to collapse one tower into the other to kill a six figure amount. I would imagine that after this attack the security was so stringent that it would have been impossible to lauch any type of ground attack, hence why they went for the method that was so unexpected.

The timing was nearly surprising- if they had struck after, say, 10am, rather than before 9am, surely they would have killed far more people?

RobertKK

My holiday in New York would have been far better in September 2001 if it hadn't happened, most of the tourists locations were shut for a long time.

gucci

Muahahaha wrote: »

This is because some airports (often Dublin) are pretty strict on it and they get you to do all of the above. Then other airports (like Heathrow) that I went through last week dont even ask you to take off your shoes. It's bullsh1t, a security fence is only as strong as it's weakest link and if airports are acting inconsistently then clearly there is a weak link- I could have had a shoe bomb on me going from London to Dublin but not the other way around. Terrorists are not stupid and they will do dummy runs to find these things out and identify the weaknesses in the system. All of Dublins strict screening is for nothing if there are planes landing from other destinations where the screening isn't so strict, of which there are a few.
?

i regularly go through Dublin Airport (twice last week) and cannot remember the last time I was asked to take off my shoes? i normally have something like converse on, but I cannot remember the last time I was asked to take off my shoes.

Yer Aul One

Muahahaha wrote: »

I could have had a shoe bomb on me going from London to Dublin but not the other way around

Stop carrying shoe bombs pal

Sunglasses Ron

RobertKK wrote: »

My holiday in New York would have been far better in September 2001 if it hadn't happened, most of the tourists locations were shut for a long time.

Poor you :rolleyes:

RobertKK

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Poor you :rolleyes:

Not looking for sympathy, it is how it would have been in a world where 911 never happened.
I got to see the aftermath of the attack, smell the burning steel and concrete knowing thousands had died, dust was still in the air, the firefighters like midgets with their water hoses dowsing the rubble which was several stories high.
It was not nice and it was the biggest tourist attraction in the city.
Wouldn't it have been far far nicer to have the real tourist attractions open and for 911 to have never happened?

Tarzana

Birneybau wrote: »

Would 5ive still have existed? Or Blue?

That's a world I wouldn't want to live in! :pac:

donegal__road

If 9/11 had never happened then Larry Silverstein would never had won his billions.....


Owner of WTC, Larry Silverstein had insured the WTC against terrorist strikes months before 9/11, then sues for double the amount because there were 2 terrorist strikes. (and wins)


Not happy with his $4.5 billion windfall, he attempted to pursue United Airlines for $12.3 billion in damages because they had failed to stop terrorists from destroying the buildings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?_r=0

His case was thrown out because he already had won 4.5 billion and you can't be compensated twice for the same loss under New York state law.

Specialun

it would be a lot more popular to grow long beards

end of the road

donegal__road wrote: »

we all know Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

yet bush i'm nearly sure tried to make out they were?

end of the road

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Regan didn't even ask for congressional approval before invading Grenada.

he was cracked though in fairness

2Mad2BeMad

My birthday is on the 11th september
I have family over their and all them refuse to say happy birthday to me on that day, its always the day after, it used to be the week after or not at all and I'd consider us quite close
I was quite young when the attack happened I was only 8 so I don't remember anything on the tv
but ya maybe I would be getting my normal happy birthdays :L god knows im the jinx in the family haha
still I understand why, its a tragic day that should of never had happened