What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

First off, if you study history, America NEVER had the moral high ground. We just pretended that we did. Our government has been exploiting people since it was founded.

Second off, ONE person's opinion means little when the majority of people in the field disagree with him even if he IS an expert. If you found a YEC astronomer who told you that the reason stars can be so far away and a light year is what it is is because light's speed was faster in the past, would you agree with him because he as supposedly an expert in his field even though every other astronomer you are likely to meet will laugh at such a supposition?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You see that video is a prime example of what I am talking about in the edit I made.

So lets say through your own cognitive dissonance (the struggle of America getting hit vs tough guy America) you have created this belief that it must have been a attack on America by that nasty American government you don't like.

You then develop a confirmation bias seeking out information that supports this view point.

And that video is a excellent example, we have Danny Jowenko a apparently independent explosives expert looking at WTC-7 saying it looks like a controlled demotion. Now I cannot deny his expertise or deny what he said.

So you now have shown me one small piece of evidence to support the controlled demotion hypothesis.

But and its a big But.

That is all you have, put that into the big picture, show me evidence of the explosives, show me how they wired up the building, show me the witnesses of them rigging up the building, debunk the whole of NIST (not just a few paragraphs), you need to provide a motivation for them actually wanting to take down WTC-7, you also need explain why the explosive experts who were actually there at ground zero and witnessed the collapse have said on record that they saw no evidence of CD. I could go on and on.

All that video really is, is a video of a guy saying "yeah that looks like a controlled demotion".

But thats all, on the other side of that I have guys who are explosive experts who were at ground zero who saw the collapse at the time in person and say they saw nothing to suggest CD (the sources for this are in my huge thread on WTC-7).

So its not cognitive dissonance that's got me dismissing it, its logic and facts.

There is nothing in that video that actually proves a controlled demotion.

However though your own cognitive dissonance feeding your confirmation bias for you, it becomes irrefutable proof of CD.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MsVen. The first hint of an attack was the second tower being hit, it was 35 or so minutes later that the Pentagon was hit. Not enough time to do anything about it, especially after Flight 77's transponder was shut off for the majority of that time.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. There was plenty of time for there to be more military presence around the Pentagon, even if they couldnt stop the plane from slamming into it. If not, then it was incompentance and someone/s needs to step up already, admit their monumental failures surrounding that day, and take real responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MsVen

"I cant understand how a hijacked airliner was allowed, or able, to get so close to such an important building - the HQ of the Defense Dept of all things - so long after the first hint of attack."

The second plane in NYC hit at 9:03.
The Pentagon was hit 34 minutes later.

Why would you expect the Pentagon would be third?
Why not the Sears tower?
Why not the Empire state building?

You have to remember the confusion of the day.
The alphabet agencies did not talk to each other back then.
The attack was well thought out because they chose a method we did not seriously think could happen.

cardinalfan. samkent. I have my own self-imposed forum rules. My initial response to this thread was not that complex to understand. As such, this will be the last time I repeat myself, okay?

I keep mentioning the first plane because I mean the first plane.

"The alphabet agencies did not talk to each other back then."

hehehe. Oh wait. Seriously? lol. ok, if you say so. Anyway ...

I was watching this live on TV from Australia. Like the US, it was on our screens within mere moments of the FIRST plane hitting. I heard all the conflicting reports about hijacked planes flying about, bomb threats and bomb trucks, suspects being arrested, 'it looked like a missile', and even watched building seven falling etc. etc. all on the same day. Sandra Sully told us we were watching a "repeat" of the first tower being hit (wasnt even broadcast, so she was pretty disorientated) just as live footage of the second tower being hit was broadcast. I'm screaming at the TV, "Not it's not Sandra! This is WW3!" I absolutely remember the confusion of the day. And the shock. Across the world people were experiencing their own personal clinical shock and trauma as they watched.

But that's also part of the reason I still remember what I thought, said, and felt from the very first images broadcast of the North tower burning. Those rather innocent and naive, yet curious thoughts, niggles, and contradictory questions. Yet, I continued to I believed the OS until late 2004. As such, I've found much value in my initial curiosities over the years since - somewhat like a measure or gauge.

No. I did not "expect" the Pentagon to be third. Golly, I did not even expect the second plane.

The Sears Tower and the Empire State are not the HQ of the DOD.

So. Assumed 'accident' or not, my ASSUMPTION was/would be that the HQ of the DOD and the White house would be two places highly militarised within mere moments of that FIRST plane hitting - with military jets and helicopters buzzing about all over. Not because I 'expected' any further attacks, but because it's logical.

This was an extraordinary 'accident' from the outset - which I know I was not alone at the time in thinking might have been a dilberate attack - so it might be a wise idea to take some sort of precautionary security response. I do not recall seeing any such activitiy in any of the Pentagon footage I was watching prior to it being attacked. They broadcast plenty of prior attack Pentagon footage ... so dont tell me there was no f*ing time to rally up some sort of visible military presence on the ground and in the air.

Yes, within 30 minutes, if thats the time-frame you want to use. Unless you want to tell me the Pentagon - the HQ of the DOD - were sitting around twiddling their thumbs while potentially the biggest ever terrorist attack was underway, yet a still somewhat sheeplfied Mum watching at home thousands of miles away knew they should take some precautionary action when an airliner randomly plunges into a skyscraper.

And hey, I'd be just as willing to go with the idea that the OS as it stands is a conspiracy surrounding the coverup of incompetence and weakness of compartmentalised systems ... If there werent so many other oddities and questions surrounding the event - before, during, and after.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Well I was going to post a big huge answer, but what is the point, you answered the OP question,"you didn't"... moving on.

originally posted by: samkent
It's interesting how people say the media is controlled by TPTB and should not be used as a trusted source.
Then the same people cite the media to support their side in 911.

When conspiracies are planned, the people who hatch them take into consideration efforts after the event to expose their deeds. They themselves compose many aspects of the conspiracy theories and introduce patently absurd notions—such as the idea that no planes crashed on 9/11, only giant holograms—which they can then easily show to be false and in this way discredit the entire argument by successfully refuting a part of it. Therefore I knew that any argument would have to rely solely on facts no one could or would dispute.

Since no one could deny that at least three of the airliners were not intercepted on that day, I learned about the standard operating procedures of the FAA and NORAD and discovered that aircraft go off course an average of once every few days and that fighters are scrambled to investigate with an average response time of about 25 minutes (i.e. 25 minutes pass between the time the aircraft is determined to be off course and fighters coming up alongside the aircraft). Knowing that turning off a transponder merely removes altitude and other data about the aircraft from FAA screens; it does not make the aircraft disappear from NORAD’s sights, and taking into consideration that the airspace above Washington DC must be the most heavily guarded airspace in the world, I concluded that the lack of interceptions, admitted to both in the 9/11 Commission Report and by 9/11 truth theorists, was prima facie evidence that at the very least a stand down of US air defenses had been orchestrated at the highest levels. (I am grateful for the excellent work Jared Israel did on his “Emperor’s Clothes” site in the weeks after 9/11). Knowing how conspiracies operate, I suspected that at some point a fallback position related to the lack of interceptions would be rolled out by the conspirators, namely that military exercises planned for that day took aircraft that should have been on call away from air bases near Washington DC. Sure enough, information about military exercises was later leaked to the alternative media. Unfortunately for the conspirators, this has done nothing to dispel truth theorists’ disbelief in the official version of events since the scheduling of so many military exercises on the same day, such that the Eastern seaboard was left totally defenseless for 90 minutes, is also prima facie evidence of a conspiracy. (The collapse of steel buildings at free-fall speed should also have been enough to convince me, but I had not studied physics and would have had a harder time making this point convincingly, even to myself).

I believe the conspirators failed to assess what a powerful tool the internet would become in the hands of a critical mass of free-thinking people all over the world who no longer worked in isolation. the conspirators thought they would be able to set up and knock down straw men, distract people’s attention with other news, scare them into calling for anything that would make them feel safer, and involve the country and the world so deeply in conflicts that people would simply forget about 9/11 long enough for it to become a non-issue in people’s minds (as had happened with Pearl Harbor—even the researcher who revealed that the attacks were permitted to take place by Roosevelt considers that Roosevelt did the right thing since the researcher feels that the US had to enter the war and there was no other way to convince the public of the need to do so). The conspirators knew that, if the foreseen Clash of Civilizations between the Western and Islamic worlds were brought about, even if 9/11 were later proven to have been orchestrated by the government, people would justify the deception by saying to themselves something like: “We know now that conflict was inevitable, but in 2001 people didn’t understand how important it was to strike first before the Islamic world was too strong. We had to be deceived into accepting military intervention in the Islamic world. If they attacks had not been carried out, we would be in a worse mess today as we would not have prepared adequately for the desperate conflict we’re now engaged in.” Fortunately, for whatever reason, the world has managed to avoid for the time being the global conflagration conspirators foresaw and/or wished to bring about.

At the time I came to these conclusions, I was the only person I knew personally who held such a conviction. Should I speak about what I had learned? I didn’t care about my hurting my career: I do only free-lance work and what I do is in high demand. I had stopped being overly concerned about what people thought of me years before. At the time I did not have a family and had long before overcome fear of death so I did not fear for my personal safety. In fact, before I’d come to the conclusion 9/11 was a conspiracy, I’d very serious considered traveling to Afghanistan and asking to be put in a school with children (so I could not be accused of “aiding the war effort of the enemy”) so that the world would know that any attack on Afghanistan would threaten the life of at least one American citizen. The “American Taliban” could have been me.

As heinous a crime as was 9/11, it is still insignificant when compared to the totality of existence of humanity as a whole and even of a single human life. Even if it turns out that I am right, and that the truth deserves to be revealed, I would not want to devote every conscious thought and every waking minute to 9/11, nor would I want anyone else to do so.

The consensus reality that is created by the media pervades every aspect of people’s lives like a matrix. It keeps people in a hypnotic trance. People are not bad and they are not stupid. I have friends and family members who believe the official version of events. Acceptance of 9/11 truth theories is not a condition for me to be friends with someone.

In order to convince someone to accept an alternative view of reality, it is first necessary to wake them from their trance. I began looking for means to do so. I realized it was important to be kind, considerate, understanding, forgiving of faults, and patient—and be willing to allow people to live within the confines of a narrow world view, which in the end is a choice they must be allowed to exercise freely.

I believe it is pointless to hope for a political solution to the deeper problems in the world. I suspect global transformation will come about only after a reevaluation of the basic assumptions on which we basis all important decisions we make, false, misleading assumptions which allow us to be manipulated and kept in mental and emotional slavery to those who have planted and perpetuate the assumptions such as:
- people are basically and irredeemably bad and a society with strict rules is necessary to keep them in line
- only recognized, certified experts can be relied upon to make the important decisions related to our world
- all resources are limited and human wants are unlimited, therefore all must constantly compete in a Darwinian struggle for survival
- those aspects of reality which have not yet been identified and classified by science can only be eventually discovered using the tools of science and the scientific method alone
- etc

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Well I was going to post a big huge answer, but what is the point, you answered the OP question,"you didn't"... moving on.

I think we both honestly know that is a bit of a cop-out on your part.

My point is valid and on topic.

it is totally possible to argue that those who subscribe to the conspiracy theories are just as if not more suffering cognitive dissonance.

Its kind of ironic for this thread that my points have further added to your own cognitive dissonance and as such you chose to ignore my points.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: johnquindell

the official ideology of the Soviet regime was only a small part of a bigger lie.

How can people function in life if they believe that everything is a lie?

They would simply refuse to accept on faith any information they received from outside sources unless it resonated with their deepest inner convictions and intuition. Understanding that the media (and the entire society) is filled with lies does not mean people are any less worthy of love. It makes me want to love them more.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
Idea for the Creation of a 911 Truth and Reconciliation Commission

People would be more willing and less fearful of adopting the views of 911 Truth activists if they felt they were calling for forgiveness rather than retribution and punishment.

The peace movement should call for granting amnesty from prosecution and guarantee of an ample, lifetime pension to anyone who agrees to testify on their roles in the events of 9/11, extending this offer to any members of the US government, foreign governments and/or terrorist groups involved in the planning or execution of the attacks of that day.

Additionally, individuals should step forward and volunteer to spend time working with those who give testimony on crimes they have committed so that they might be reintegrated into society.

Instead of executing Nazi war criminals we should have devoted all the human resources available to us to rehabilitating them, awakening in them awareness of the nature of their actions so that they could have come to understand that they must make amends. If they had remained alive they would have been a living testament to the transformative powers of forgiveness.

Historians and psychologists especially should come out in favor of preserving invaluable study material in the form of the opportunity to converse with the authors of unfortunate historical deeds.

We must find a solution to the existing state of affairs that would be acceptable to both the accusers and the accused. It should solve the problem it sets out to solve without creating additional problems. It should present itself as an ethical means to an ethical end.

In "The Art of War", Sun Tzu said never to surround an enemy. If you do not leave him an out, he will fight to the last man.

For an interesting discussion of these ideas please see (and expand the comments) three posts by “John Stan” here:
www.opednews.com...

My God. Some of you truthers really seem to think that longer posts means more substantive posts. Seriously, you couldn't be more wrong. Yeesh. . .

a reply to: johnquindell
Assumption is normally THE fatal flaw in the beliefs of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists and your post did not disappoint. Your assumptions about our air defenses are a prime example. Our air defenses that day were radar and 14 armed fighter aircraft. It does not matter if there were no exercises that day, those 14 fighters were the only aircraft ready to go......and each one of them were at their respective bases that day. Contrary to a lot of peoples assumptions, the US military did not keep all of its aircraft sitting around armed and on alert. It costs too much. Nor are missiles stocked away ready to go at most Air Force bases. They are kept in their containers in their magazines. Then, the assumption about the 25 minutes on average for an interception. Hell, even post 9/11 it can take up to an hour before an off course airliner finds a fighter jet off its wing. And, the assumption about the heavily defended airspace.....see the earlier sentence about our air defenses being 14 fighter jets....for the entire continent. And the closest ones were at Langley AFB. The sad fact about that day was that the ONLY jet we had a realistic chance of stopping was Flight 93. The 113th Fighter Wing at Andrews had just returned from a short deployment and they scrambled to get fighters in the air, it took them about 35 minutes to go from cold to launch. The only issue was, they were not armed and the pilots were going to ram Flight 93 if it appeared over DC. They had no chance to stop Flight 77.

originally posted by: MsVen
would be two places highly militarised within mere moments of that FIRST plane hitting - with military jets and helicopters buzzing about all over. Not because I 'expected' any further attacks, but because it's logical.

What a stupid idea, it shows you have no clue at all how long it takes for a jet or helicopter to be manned, start up/warm up procedure done then take off and fly to the White house/Pentagon within minutes. You must think there were jets and helicopters running and manned 24/7 all around the USA!

so dont tell me there was no f*ing time to rally up some sort of visible military presence on the ground and in the air.

Please explain where the jets/helicopters were that were manned with engines running 24/7 were stationed.

a reply to: jaffo



Apologies for my contribution there. I'll be the first to admit I can be long winded. Blessing and a curse.

When assumptions and ingenuity are bandied about by both sides of the debate, sometimes its best to be thorough and clear about your stance. 9-11 is a massive topic with many long branches.

I'm actually not a fan of participating in lengthy debate in any topic these days because I get frustrated by misinterpretations, and hate the repetition. When I'm asked to clarify or justify a point, and after doing so, the person still doesn't get it ... I start to question if they are being disingenuous.

9-11 is an old debate. It takes a lot energy and hours. I don't bother trying to change opinions on it anymore. I'm tired, and not getting any younger. By now most are steadfast in their beliefs either way - what I say likely wont change anyone's mind.

But I didn't think my reply to this thread would be all that controversial to warrant doubting. It's the only reason I posted in a 9-11 thread. It was just about what I felt about what I saw that day. I honestly wasnt expecting any need to explain my original post.

a reply to: MsVen

And when you post on here about beliefs which are contrary to reality, people are going to post in response. One example, you would expect for the air over the Pentagon to be buzzing with aircraft within 30 minutes of the Towers being hit, when in reality, there were two VH-60s and a C-130 in the area. The -60s are the "go birds" at Anacosta for Presidential evacuation from the White House if needed and the C-130 whose crew was twiddling their thumbs as they watched Flight 77 hit the Pentagon from the air.

a reply to: hellobruce

This is partly my point. It's the HQ of the DOD. Why werent/arent some helicopters stationed somewhere close by all the time? on the Pentagon grounds, even.

and/or a few jets at what, Regan was it called?

Someone earlier made a good comment about cognitive dissonance in regards to the Hollywood image of America as 'tough' or 'unbeatable' being shattered, and this being a source for conspiracy theories. However, I dont believe the expectations and questions I propose to be all that far-fetched.

30 mins of warning they had. People who worked in the Pentagon died.

How was anyone ever meant to get from the Pentagon to a bunker if America was/is under attack and there is NO DEFENSE at the HQ of the DEFENSE?

So you too wanna tell me the HEADQUARTERS of the Dept of DEFENSE were twiddling their thumbs while numerous plane transponders are turned off and they being hijacked or maybe got bombs on board, then planes are running into buildings, and this time it's really hitting the fan and at the Pentagon there's just tumbleweeds blowin' across the lawn until ANOTHER PLANE UNEXPECTEDLY just ....... ???!?!? okay. Have it your way.

If Hollywood could envisage these scenarios and worse, and also envisage scenarios of how to defend against them .... so can think-tanks of TPTB.

Uh ... what exactly is it that I've said about the Pentagon that people don't understand?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MsVen

And when you post on here about beliefs which are contrary to reality, people are going to post in response. One example, you would expect for the air over the Pentagon to be buzzing with aircraft within 30 minutes of the Towers being hit, when in reality, there were two VH-60s and a C-130 in the area. The -60s are the "go birds" at Anacosta for Presidential evacuation from the White House if needed and the C-130 whose crew was twiddling their thumbs as they watched Flight 77 hit the Pentagon from the air.

Ah thank you. A practical answer for those few getting immediate evac, but not quite enough IMO as I outlined in my previous post. So that's a single C-130, was it?

Yeh its all cool regarding the extended discussion ... twas just unexpected on my part. my bad.

a reply to: jaffo

Not a very informative posting.

I'm Dutch so any cognitive dissonance I felt was surely not felt because my non-existing American superiority complex was shattered. Nor did I find it strange that the American air defense system failed (again). As a keen ufologist I'm aware of the happenings on Edwards AFB in 1965, where objects hovered over Edwards for over six hours. That was right over one of the most guarded AFBs in America in a time when we were smack right in the middle of the Cold War. So much for American air defense. Nor did I find it unbelievable that a handful of attackers could take control of airplanes - pilots aren't heroes, they are supposed to fly the plane and keep the passenger alive. If that requires cooperation with an attacker, so be it.

But what strikes me as odd is that no technical handbooks were revised, no standards were adopted - well, not to the best of my knowledge. The same calculations that were used to build the old WTC's are still taught today, as if nothing happened. If there REALLY was something to the theory that we were given - about kerosine being able to bring down a building in roughly an hour - we would never bother with controlled demolition anymore, but simply fly a plane-like contraption into that type of building.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: jaffo

Not a very informative posting.

I'm Dutch so any cognitive dissonance I felt was surely not felt because my non-existing American superiority complex was shattered. Nor did I find it strange that the American air defense system failed (again). As a keen ufologist I'm aware of the happenings on Edwards AFB in 1965, where objects hovered over Edwards for over six hours. That was right over one of the most guarded AFBs in America in a time when we were smack right in the middle of the Cold War. So much for American air defense. Nor did I find it unbelievable that a handful of attackers could take control of airplanes - pilots aren't heroes, they are supposed to fly the plane and keep the passenger alive. If that requires cooperation with an attacker, so be it.

But what strikes me as odd is that no technical handbooks were revised, no standards were adopted - well, not to the best of my knowledge. The same calculations that were used to build the old WTC's are still taught today, as if nothing happened. If there REALLY was something to the theory that we were given - about kerosine being able to bring down a building in roughly an hour - we would never bother with controlled demolition anymore, but simply fly a plane-like contraption into that type of building.

You couldn't be more wrong. The events of that day changed skyscraper planning and design all over the World. But what would I expect from a truther except insults and ignorance. Uninformative post indeed.

a reply to: MsVen

There was plenty of time for there to be more military presence around the Pentagon, even if they couldnt stop the plane from slamming into it. If not, then it was incompentance and someone/s needs to step up already, admit their monumental failures surrounding that day,

Maybe this will help you grasp one of our points.

Distance between Regan and Pentagon

The drive time alone is only 5 minutes (1.8 miles).
How can any organization protect a building that's only a few thousand feet from the end of a civilian runway?
Maybe they should convert Reagan into a military airport and make DC a no fly zone.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: johnquindell
Assumption is normally THE fatal flaw in the beliefs of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists and your post did not disappoint. Your assumptions about our air defenses are a prime example. Our air defenses that day were radar and 14 armed fighter aircraft. It does not matter if there were no exercises that day, those 14 fighters were the only aircraft ready to go......and each one of them were at their respective bases that day. Contrary to a lot of peoples assumptions, the US military did not keep all of its aircraft sitting around armed and on alert. It costs too much. Nor are missiles stocked away ready to go at most Air Force bases. They are kept in their containers in their magazines. Then, the assumption about the 25 minutes on average for an interception. Hell, even post 9/11 it can take up to an hour before an off course airliner finds a fighter jet off its wing. And, the assumption about the heavily defended airspace.....see the earlier sentence about our air defenses being 14 fighter jets....for the entire continent. And the closest ones were at Langley AFB. The sad fact about that day was that the ONLY jet we had a realistic chance of stopping was Flight 93. The 113th Fighter Wing at Andrews had just returned from a short deployment and they scrambled to get fighters in the air, it took them about 35 minutes to go from cold to launch. The only issue was, they were not armed and the pilots were going to ram Flight 93 if it appeared over DC. They had no chance to stop Flight 77.

In response to your post, I would argue that there is evidence that the government anticipated the possibility of an attack of the kind that took pace on 9/11 and thus should have taken measures which would have enabled timely interception of the airliners on that day. The evidence is to be found in the sources cited below:


- In October 2000, a military exercise had created a scenario of a simulated passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon. The exercise was coordinated by the Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon’s Command Emergency Response Team.
source: www.freerepublic.com...

- US Medicine reported that two health clinics housed within the Pentagon trained for a hijacked airplane to hit the Pentagon in May 2001. “Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May.”
source: www.aldeilis.net...:pentagon-casualty-exercises--planned-for-the-911-hit&catid=114:drills -exercises-and-simulations-related-to-9-11&Itemid=333

- The Department of Transportation in Washington held an exercise on August 31, 2001, which Ellen Engleman, the administrator of the department’s Research and Special Projects Administration, described thus:

“Ironically, fortuitously, take your choice, 12 days prior to the incident on September 11th, we were going though a tabletop exercise. It was actually much more than a tabletop…in preparation for the Olympic…which was a full intermodal exercise… Part of the scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially highjacked plane and someone calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very strange when twelve days later, as you know, we had the actual event.”
source: transweb.sjsu.edu... Symposium 2001.htm

- One such operation involved planes originating from inside the United States. According to USA Today:

“In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating…hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties….[O]ne operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were hijacked.”
source: usatoday30.usatoday.com...

- The operation involving multiple hijacking drills using planes from inside the United States was Amalgam Virgo 2002, planned for 1500 people in July 2001 and scheduled for operation in June 2002.9
source: www.defense.gov...

a reply to: johnquindell

I would argue that there is evidence that the government anticipated the possibility of an attack of the kind that took pace on 9/11 and thus should have taken measures which would have enabled timely interception of the airliners on that day.

Should we worry about Pearl Harbor too?
I mean it did happen before.

You prepare for what is likely to happen.
You cannot afford to prepare for all the wild possibilities.

How about a ship full of ammonia nitrate ?
Do we have plans to prevent a ship from detonating next to a couple of loaded cruise ships in Miami?