Most of us can remember where we were and what we were doing on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Me? I was sunbathing on a beach in Ibiza and listening to Coldplay’s debut album by way of a silver Sony Walkman — very sophisticated gadgetry at that time, don’t you know — while surrounded by a group of my closest friends.
Initial reports filtered through suggesting to us all it might have been a small, light aircraft that initially struck one of the Twin Towers.
The enormity of how wrong that rumour had been was there for all to see when we arrived back to our hotel and stared in disbelief at the CNN channel. We stared in disbelief and utter silence, in fact, for well over an hour. An unforgettable experience.
Come the early afternoon, my mobile phone was ringing on a constant basis with colleagues and contacts offering news and stories around the unfolding tragedies in Manhattan and Washington.
It was difficult for me to think straight, much less focus on how to approach reporting on such an incident, the like of which we’d never even comprehended, never mind witnessed.
Commercial aircraft being used as missiles? Unthinkable, but now it was a real-time scenario.
In the intervening decade and more, the horror of 9/11 has never dissipated. If anything, it has been magnified.
Rick Rescorla
Across the two-week period leading up to the next anniversary, each year myriad documentaries can be seen on satellite TV recounting elements of the tragedy. I’ve watched them all, over and over again. The one about recordings of the last telephone calls made by people inside the Twin Towers. The one about the two young film-makers who happened to be stationed with New York’s Fire Department that week to make a documentary.
And the one about Rick Rescorla, the head of security at Morgan Stanley, whose expert security management regime meant that 2,700 employees of that company working in the South Tower made it to safety.
Rick died (along with six other colleagues) because he went back into the building to help save others.
Twelve years on from 9/11 and eight years after 7/7, the main question to be addressed is still as salient and important today as it ever was: “Have the security lessons been learned?”
On the micro level, we still travel on the London Underground and witness bags left unattended by the train doors or on seats in the stations. It remains the case that too many people just accept it, question nothing, and move on. It’s almost as if our society is afraid to highlight anything that doesn’t fit in with the accepted daily norm.
So many people still moan in airport queues because they have to pass through x-ray machines. This necessarily means the removal of belts and shoes from the person as well as laptops from their cases. How inconvenient and time-consuming it must be for these misguided souls.
On the macro level, despite what happened in New York, there’s still a propensity for architects to “design high” in major world conurbations. We all know that inner city space is at a premium and costs wild amounts of money, but where does safety come into the equation?
In the boardrooms, for the most part, security remains a grudge purchase. It’s viewed as a drain on the bottom line. A necessary expense paid to satisfy insurers but one that isn’t really welcomed.
Unbelievable, isn’t it? How could anyone watch those documentaries about 9/11 and continue to hold such views? It’s beyond my comprehension.
Like I said, no one ever thought commercial aircraft could be turned into weapons of terrorism and mass destruction. After 9/11, though, anything is possible and any potential risk or threat — as much as it is practicable to do so — has to be planned for and considered.
What we must never become is complacent around our security — be it individual or collective.
Don’t be afraid to question what you see. Don’t be afraid to do what Rick Rescorla did and constantly bang the drum for security in front of those who hold the budgets.
Rick saved so many lives because of his unstinting belief in the doctrines of professional security and safety management.
Let’s resolve here and now, to honour, remember, and put into practice that belief every day of the year.
Listen to the IFSEC Insider podcast!
Each month, the IFSEC Insider (formerly IFSEC Global) Security in Focus podcast brings you conversations with leading figures in the physical security industry. Covering everything from risk management principles and building a security culture, to the key trends ahead in tech and initiatives on diversity and inclusivity, the podcast keeps security professionals up to date with the latest hot topics in the sector.
Available online, and on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts, tune in for an easy way to remain up to date on the issues affecting your role.
Good article Brian, I think the problem that starts to occur is that as people are spread across geographic locations that the population can begin to get that feeling that we aren’t a target, why would some one do something like that here. That false sense of security that I am safely inside my country and we are safe. 9/11 showed us something different, it showed us that terrorism can happen on American soil. I was at college when word of the attacks first broke out, and was one of those people that contacted my family to let them know… Read more »
Absolutely spot on, Jonathan. It’s the NIMBY-style attitude that must be eradicated.
The key element in all of this from my own point of view is that we need to promulgate a situation wherein security is, for the most part anyway, proactive rather than reactive. We’ve seen far too much of the latter in recent years, with knee-jerk responses to situations.
Do you have any ideas in mind of ways in which we could render proactivity the norm rather than the exception?
Time heals all, and time distances the feeling of fear as well. I’d say from my perspective less fear is a good thing. The hysterical fear that was inflicted on us of terror in the wake of 9/11 was almost unbearable. A sensible and sustainable level is healthy. After all, if fear cripples us into being unable to live our lives then terror has won.
I agree with you, Jonathan. Unfortunately, that type of mindset is what gets a lot of people in trouble. Not only that, but this closeminded attitude endangers so many other people who may or may not agree with their decisions. You don’t have to be a target to be conscious about safety.
Good point, Rob. Panic does not help. Going about everything sensibly, though, that’s how people should be. People shouldn’t forget 9/11 and the lessons learned after the horror.
My frustration is that in times like 9/11 and 7/7 how we are given blank cheques: knee jerk reactions from the top people demanding kit that will make them feel better but won’t do much to protect from these kinds of attacks. I also remember walking round some embassy areas in London not long after, looking at the car bomb protection barriers and thinking that nothing will stop these new terrorists and that we need to start to move away from the measures that we’ve done before, as they are now obsolete!
It’s a good point, and London is a great example with its history of IRA terrorism. Try and find a bin in London (actually quite hard to do full stop) that doesn’t have a camera nearby keeping an eye on it. The ugly physical security barriers are a good example of reactionary security, when as you say the terrorists have moved on to new tactics by the time the reaction is made.
Wouldn’t you also say that everyone’s a target, really?
Though, not being able to rest on our laurels and having to find new solutions is what makes our jobs as interesting as they are (or exist at all!).
Hi All,
the memories of 9/11 are still fresh in the mind. As a journalist I travelled there a week after the attacks and the shock being felt by the New York community was palpable. As well as the continued clean-up operation.
without wanting to tempt fate in any way it appears that the threat of internal attack seems more prevalent this decade, as events in Washington yesterday proved. I suppose this provides as big a challenge for the security community as external threats from foreign terrorists.
Thanks
Phil
Too true holmesd; although sometimes I feel like its been a while since I’ve seen a genuinely new idea. They’re increasingly sparse
I know, not many new ideas, IFSEC used to be full of innovation etc, not so much now- that said, there’s not as much money being spent, so why waste money on costly R&D for a product that in this economy, will struggle to take off.
YOu’re probably right, but I would think that investing in your business’ R&D would make sense. Just because there’s less money around doesn’t mean you can’t eat into others’ margins
@Dawn Holmes I agree with you. I feel few who matters at the helm have taken it as an opportunity to make few bucks by selling the safety to others. I am very much convince that if there is any one who is not afraid of death and is with bad intention he will eventually go for it what matter happens. The security will make it a bit difficult but it eventually he will reach the target. If we need to eliminate the terror we need to culminate the root causes for this and only then we will feel secure.
@Robert Brown you are quite to the point. I think its kind of hide and seek game between the security and terrorists. I have gone through number of investigations carried out onto the terrorists activities and I was surprised to see that the planning was actually started well in advance. Reconnisance and intelligence gathering are the main subjects. You are very right that terrorists always one step ahead of security forces as what we do in security is after taking a lead from what had happened previously and not what might happen in the future.
@Philclark so true. The war against any terror is two pronged. I mean that if its external there must be some internal links as well as I believe that no one can attack a foreign state without in state actors support. We need to keep our internal security strong to avoid any external threat. What is your opinion?
you’re right, there’s almost a complete blurring between internal and external security here. The London bombings in 2005 and the Boston terror attacks this year offer further proof of this. there are clearly no easy answers here as it’s wrapped up with mvoing populations and internation insecurity but ongoing vigilance across relevant organisations is clearly essential.
@Philclark there is no question about the enhancement of security. I feel that whatever is happening people are not made aware of the proceedings. Only aspect that comes out that we suspect “some foreign state” or “non state actors” are responsible. I feel that this might be enough for the masses to stop intruding about the people actual responsible for the act. And thats what the governements are basically looking for.
Are you saying that the more we’re kept out of the loop, the less we want to know about who is resposible for a terror incident? Or have I misunderstood?
Think I’m au fait with this: I agree but would go further to say that international collaboration is also very important.
@Robert Brown correct. International collaboration is a must. One thing I know is that terrorist have no cast, creed , religion. There is one thing on their mind is that they want to finish any thing which they do not feel right and they can go any length to achieve that whether its civilian casualities or infrastructire damage. Whether its a holy place or a recreational surrounding. I think if terrorists are united in a cause of destruction the whole world should be united in eliminating this terror.
@Robert Brown as we know time is the best healer here the game is playing with the masses on same pattern. The masses are not being told about the true picture and are being replied with openend answers. After some time the dust of angers settled and requirement of pressure of justice subsides as time goes on. I have seen many a time this trick being played in our part at least and they are pretty successful uptil now.
I admit that’s been the case with me as well getting weary of removing everything off me and my bag for scanning. It is really not comprehensible that we want stringent security measures and at the same time become weary of little trouble we have to pass through in the name of security measures. We will have to decide positively in favor of our security.
@ Rob Ratcliff, terrorists may move on to new tactics when the reaction is made, but it is our reaction that forces them to resort to something new which gives us some respite. Ugly physical barriers or other old fashioned security measures may not be matching the terrorists’ capabilities, yet at least they make their dirty job difficult by blocking the easy ways.