Hacker News Reader

Comment by thomassmith65 | Hacker News Reader

It's difficult to take down a skyscraper with a train.

Yes, 'shop terrorism' can be a problem (see: the UK during the Troubles).

I do agree with the implication that society must tolerate a certain amount of terrorism to avoid turning into a police state. That does not mean that airplane terrorism, without strict security, is so rare that we can ignore it.

View on HN

Neither can most planes given the cockpit is sealed and locked. I suppose one could strategically try to take it down over a populated area, but that doesn't really seem reliable. The truth of the matter is that people can smuggle bombs onto aeroplanes relatively easily, and you don't see many blowing up. And it's not even entirely clear that planes can always take out buildings. The twin towers only collapsed because of the slow burn of jet fuel heating and weakening the structure. The impact alone wouldn't have been enough.

Cockpits are sealed and locked today because of regulations the establishment introduced in the aftermath of 9/11.

If airplane hijackings were as easy to pull off today as prior to 9/11 then they presumably would occur with a similar frequency. I don't think I've read news of a recent hijacking in over a decade.

This is probably a massive downvote waiting to happen, but I have more faith in 9/11 being a controlled demo. Not out of evil. Just to prevent New York turning into a giant domino show.

My theory is that terrorists hijacked two airliners full with jet fuel, and crashed them into each WTC tower, causing the structure to weaken from the heat and fail.

That tends to be the official narrative, but unsure if jet fuel burns that evenly. Though OTOH you're correct, it did start pancaking from the top, so there's that. Perhaps they were simply well-engineered skyscrapers? I guess we'll never know. Idk you're probably right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com