Gore's Inconvenient 9/11 Truth

[392cobra]

Gore's Inconvenient 9/11 Truth
By Denis Keohane

Nobel laureate Al Gore, we are to believe, has the technical acumen to analyze complex data, assess risks, and identify the right countermeasures. He must be able to critically sift through mountains of data, distinguish between reliable and unreliable climate models, and astutely analyze volumes of esoteric scientific reports and studies to determine with something like crystal clarity what will most assuredly happen in the future. On an ongoing basis, as new data comes in.


He can also supposedly identify what specific variables we can and should manipulate now, so as to favorably change the outcome of countless diverse interactions of innumerable variables for an assured and beneficial outcome. He can recognize cumulative risks, threats emerging from the interplay of known risks. He can do this so well that he can simply brush aside any criticism of any of his conclusions as being unscientific or tainted by corruption.


How else could the world rely on his assessment of the dangers we face and the actions we must take?


His track record when asked to evaluate emerging threats from the interplay of known perils is not encouraging.


In August 1996, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13015, which established the "White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security", often called the Gore Commission in recognition that Gore was the chairman. That commission operated for six months, from August 1996 until February of 1997, when it issued its final report. Gore's commission were mandated to provide to the President "a strategy designed to improve aviation safety and security". As was expected, the Gore Commission addressed the issue of terrorism and commercial aviation.


Hindsight is everyone's best sight. Terrorists had been hijacking airplanes, destroying or plotting to destroy airliners, committing numerous acts of terror suicide, and using vehicles to deliver both the terrorist and the explosives to lethal proximity of their targets for years. Heavily fueled commercial airliners as devices of suicide attack seemed an obviously predictable development. In retrospect. Foresight failed us because we gave insufficient thought to how terrorists might attack.


When sufficient attention is paid, it is quite possible to engineer-in safety. Engineers and scientists routinely design safety into systems, equipment, machines and procedures by precisely understanding the potential interaction of variables that have known properties or characteristics. Underwriters Laboratories, with whom I've worked, does this exceedingly well. While they will physically test devices to determine potential safety hazards, quite often their engineers will recommend a redesign of something based simply on recognizing a potentially dangerous interaction of variables with such known characteristics.


Considering such possibilities follows the act of deciding to think about such issues and then constructing possibilities. That is precisely what Al Gore and his Commission were tasked to do regarding commercial aviation. They were given the time and resources to do so by that Executive Order. According to the 911 Commission Report (page 344):


"The Gore Commission's Report, having thoroughly canvassed available expertise in and outside of government, did not mention suicide hijackings or the use of aircraft as weapons." [emphasis added]
Yet reading the final report of Gore's Commission, most of the variables were explicitly recognized but not plugged into a potential safety-engineering process. From Chapter 3 of the report:

"[Terrorism] is no longer just an overseas threat.... People and places in the United States have joined the list of targets.... The bombings of the World Trade Center in New York and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City are clear examples of the shift, as is the conviction of Ramzi Yousef for attempting to bomb twelve American airliners out of the sky... some [terrorists] are not afraid to die in carrying out their designs... they know that airlines are often seen as national symbols. When terrorists attack an American airliner, they are attacking the United States."
Note that the report explicitly identifies targeting the U.S. homeland and American aviation, willingness to commit suicide in a terror attack, and attacks on national symbols.


The 911 Commission Report (page 392) states that more than half of the 911 hijackers were identified by CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Presecreening System) as potential security risks to be subjected to a higher level of screening. The CAPPS system was mandated by the FAA in 1998 as a direct result of the Gore Commission finding that the most significant threat to commercial aviation was from bombs smuggled on the aircraft. The only effect the CAPPS identification had was that the 911 hijackers identified for further security screening were kept off the plane until their checked baggage was loaded on the aircraft. The thinking behind this was that terrorists would use the ticketing and check-in procedures, even going through security checkpoints, to assure that their checked baggage carrying a bomb went on the plane, but that they would not get on the plane. If the passenger held back from boarding until his baggage was on board then boarded the plane, the assumption was that the flight was safe from bombing. After all, if that passenger had smuggled a bomb aboard in his luggage that would go off in flight with him on the plane, that would be suicide, and therefore he wouldn't board!


From page 84 of the 911 Commission Report:


"Primarily because of concern regarding potential discrimination and the impact on passenger throughput, "selectees"[by CAPPS] were no longer required to undergo extraordinary screening of their carry-on baggage.... This policy reflected the perception that non-suicidal sabotage was the primary threat to civil aviation" [emphasis added]
Page 83 of the 911 CR states that the Gore Commission:

"...reinforced the prevailing concern about sabotage and explosives on aircraft.... Its 1997 final report did not discuss the possibility of suicide hijackings." [emphasis added]
Also see pages 1-4.


At page 392 of the 911 CR:

"More than half [of the 911 hijackers] were identified for further inspection, which applied only to their checked luggage." [emphasis added]
Carry-on bags were not checked. If as is suspected, the hijackers had materials to make fake bombs (911 CR, page 13) to scare the passengers into submission, search of carry on bags may have revealed those items and heightened suspicion and scrutiny. In calling for the establishment of a passenger screening system which became CAPPS, the Gore Commission reported:

"Factors to be considered for elements of the profile should be based on measurable, verifiable data indicating that the factors chosen are reasonable predictors of risk, not stereotypes or generalizations. Efforts should be made to avoid using characteristics that impose a disproportionate burden of inconvenience, embarrassment, or invasion of privacy of members of minority racial, religious or ethnic groups." [emphasis added]
On August 7, 1998, the year after the Gore Commission Report was released, Al Qaeda suicide bombers, driving vehicles to get to their targets, bombed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 264 people were killed. Four months later, according to the 911 CR (page 128), President Clinton received a Presidential Daily Briefing:

"...warning of information received about Al Qaeda plans to attack the U.S. and hijack airliners."
VP Gore was an executive with executive responsibilities. He was, or should have been aware of the policies and procedures that had come into effect as a result of his commission's report. By the end of 1998, it was abundantly clear that we were under attack by Al Qaeda, and that they were using suicide attackers. He knew they had previously targeted aviation (Bojinka).


If Gore was the close advisor and involved VP to President Clinton that he has claimed, he must have been advised of the Al Qaeda threat to attack the homeland and American aviation. He had the responsibility to revisit the policies and procedures he himself had set in place through his commission, knowing that federal agencies would take their guidance from such, in the light of variables that had become or should have become more prominent. There is no record that he ever did so.


The Gore Commission's report stated:

"After many months of deliberations we have agreed on a set of recommendations which we believe will serve to enhance and ensure the continued safety and security of our air transportation system."
Al Gore wants us to believe that he is analytically precise, will identify and weigh all relevant factors, can determine future consequences either good or ill by the study and understanding of complex data and innumerable variables.


He had an opportunity and responsibility once, on a matter far less complex than global climate change but with more immediate threat of danger. His performance was less than stellar. He has not spoken much at all about the 911 attacks other than to spread defamatory lies, about America while in Saudi Arabia.


Gore has now been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which has been given twice this decade as a sort of consolation prize to incompetent Democrats mired in grand delusions of their own greatness.

[rollinggeorge]

YEH..........I'd like to respond.

I didn't read your post but will respond anyway.

Gore is full of SH!!........If anyone agrees please join in.

AND MAY YOU STAY FOREVER YOUNG!!!!!!!

[Tday]

Hahaha...you've got to be kidding. Time will tell the tale, but I think he's on to something. Thankfully, I'm not the only one.

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by Tday

Hahaha...you've got to be kidding. Time will tell the tale, but I think he's on to something. Thankfully, I'm not the only one.

You're not the only one to think he's "on to something". About 90 percent of the worlds mainstream rational scientists recognize that the climate is not only seriously changing, but that humans still are (or have been) encouraging it to happen. Even G.W. has changed his tune short of just coming out and saying, "My God, they were right!"

There is no doubt Gore is extraordinarily bright, albeit a bit nerdy. But I think he is basically just an enthusiastic celebrity that's using his power of influence to redirect our human capacity to correct a bad direction. He's no scientist nor does he claim to be.

I used to think of Gore as book-smart and street-dumb ...and Bush just the opposite. But lately, I think Rove had most of the street smarts.

I think most of his detractors here don't have any specific item that they can hold against Gore, other than he's a bleeding liberal. They just follow a widespread dislike of his uppity general attitude, probably fostered a bit by the fossil-funded crowd and fringe talk shows.

I could be wrong, of course.


...

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

You're not the only one to think he's "on to something". About 90 percent of the worlds mainstream rational scientists recognize that the climate is not only seriously changing, but that humans still are (or have been) encouraging it to happen.
...

Wes, post your source.

Mike

[Wes Tausend]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Tausend
You're not the only one to think he's "on to something". About 90 percent of the worlds mainstream rational scientists recognize that the climate is not only seriously changing, but that humans still are (or have been) encouraging it to happen.
...

Originally Posted by bomelia

Wes, post your source.

Mike

Mike,

Sorry for the delay but I just got back from hauling another 32,376,000 pounds of soot ...er ...I mean coal, eastward towards powerplants. ....Hope it doesn't quit before I'm retired.

This is a bit embarrassing but I can't find my exact source. I believe I did hear or read it because the 90% figure stuck with me. I thought it was in a documentary called " Global Warming: What you need to know ", that was produced by NBC for the Discovery Channel in 2006. It was narrated by Tom Brokaw. One of my DVD recorders recently copied the re-aired 90 minute segment from the Science Channel. A quick disc scan didn't find it and, where I thought it was, Brokaw merely stated "...the vast majority of scientists...", unless I missed it in my hurry.

Wherever I think I saw or heard, the 90% figure may be from a similar source such as this:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change )
...which says in part, "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2] ". Not quite the same.

I don't personally think the 90% figure I stated is too far off ...and I did hedge it by including the biased words "rational scientists" ...but 90% is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt without an extensive poll of scientists that everyone agrees is accurate. That isn't going to happen soon!

My full original paragraph that you quoted above reads:
'You're not the only one to think he's "on to something". About 90 percent of the worlds mainstream rational scientists recognize that the climate is not only seriously changing, but that humans still are (or have been) encouraging it to happen. Even G.W. has changed his tune short of just coming out and saying, "My God, they were right!" '

On the last sentence, a more trusted brief reference for this particular forum might be G.W. himself:
...From the White house Office of the Press Secretary June 11, 2001, it reads, in part,:
"My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change." Entire press release brief page at the link:
( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010611-2.html )

Nothing, as G.W. says, including Global Warming, is certain. But there is very strong accumulated circumstancial evidence that "global climate change" (better nomenclature, my opinion) is occurring and it's not something we would want to be wrong about ...if we can reasonably modify results to our favor. We need to hedge our bet(s). In reference to the coal I hauled, the Brokaw documentary also stated that China is building one coal-fired powerplant a week for the next seven years. This was in 2006 and China was the second largest CO2 emitter in the world at the time. We're number one.

One peculiarity of this whole thing about energy and sustainable energy.
All the carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere, one might assume. Sustainable energy fuels such as ethanol take CO2 from the air and it is released back when burnt. So it breaks even. Sustainability.

So what about the fossil carbon in the ground? It seems unlikely that all of it was present in the atmosphere at once. Then again, it had to be in the beginning, not? Releasing it now a problem? I don't know. Maybe. Plant matter must have grown like crazy. Like grain for ethanol. And, "It's whats for dinner ...beef" ...tasty critters that ate plant matter. Mmmm ...beef.

I wonder if the guys that work at ethanol plants get to take a jug home once in a while. I could probably take a bucket of coal home ...but who would want to?


...

[BigGuy]

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years


The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that this warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings. It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change – ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea creatures. Shorter-term proxies include cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.

So, is the Earth currently experiencing a warming trend? Yes. Are human activities, including the burning of fossil fuel and forest conversion, the primary – or even significant – drivers of this current temperature trend? The scientifically appropriate answer – cautious and conforming to the known facts – is: probably not.

S. Fred Singer, an Adjunct Scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, and President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He was the first Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and served five years as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He received the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society and won a NASA commendation in 1997 for his research on particle clouds.

[fsstnotch]

I have to say... if it weren't for Al Gore.. I wouldn't be reading this in the INTERNET!!!! Al Gore is my hero.... Or was it superman..... anyways....

It is nice to see his family lives off the land. Hybrid cars, solar power, Marijuana.... yep.. living off the land!

[Ron61]

I have to agree that Gore is outstanding in his field. In fact I think that is where they found him. Standing out in a field of sheep!!! He has had some good ideas but I still don't like him and never will. I am not sure about the house he is supposed to have somewhere in Arizona, but if what I have heard, more rumor than fact, is true, he sure doesn't mind using all the energy he wants for himself.

Ron

[Tday]

Yes, he is tough to like...but he's been the one to bring this out and deserves that credit.

And we can be green while loving our cobras and going to the track...we just need to find other ways to do that. Kind of like the rap on Gore for using a lot of electricity and not being responsible. He's doing his part. I'll do mine...but I'm keeping this car.

Tom

[Ron61]

Tom,

I have nothing at all about trying to undo the mess we have made of the world, but I really feel it has gone past the point of being able to get things back to what it used to be. Since I have no Cobra, that part I can't comment on. Gore has done some good things, but he also took credit for some of them when they weren't his ideas, he just pushed through and brought to every one's attention what the scientists were telling him. I am not trying to belittle what few good things he has done, I just don't like him personally. And I am a registered Democrat so no one can use the You are a Republican so you hate all Democrats line. I don't care which party a person belongs to, if they have a good idea then I think it should be researched and used if it is good for the country and people and quit this crap of it was a Republican who thought of it so it is no good, and the reverse of when a Democrat comes up with something worth while. Party politics are going to be the down fall of this country and I fear it won't be that far in the future.

Ron

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Tday

Yes, he is tough to like...but he's been the one to bring this out and deserves that credit.

And we can be green while loving our cobras and going to the track...we just need to find other ways to do that. Kind of like the rap on Gore for using a lot of electricity and not being responsible. He's doing his part. I'll do mine...but I'm keeping this car.

Tom

Bring WHAT out, that the planet is cycling through a climate change? This has been happening ever since the Earth was the Earth. What Gore is all about is pinning it on humans. This is absolute folly. And the Ignobel peace prize is BS. Its a political tool. Arafat???? Carter???!!!! Now Gore????!!!

I will tell you deserves a peace prize. Ronald Reagan.

Yeah, like that would have ever happened. Go ahead, support this stupid idea. And kiss your non-catalytic, gas guzzling Cobra goodbye.

Sorry, your post count indicates you are new here. So I will refrain from calling you an fool.

Mike

PS: IS it me or what?? Why is it as we get close to elections we start seeing this liberal crap in here? (low count, liberal posting bs)

[Roscoe]

Just because someone has done some good things does not make him a good person. I mean despots do some good things from time to time. Hudson County, NJ politicians would build a hospital but steal 4 million.

It's like leftist PBS radio/TV They have a few good programs and the rest is leftist propaganda.

This man made global warming theory is just Bullsh1t. The warming and cooling of the earth is a cyclical thing and influenced by the sun, not man.

And do you want to talk about hydrocarbons? What will the lefties say now that a few illegals appear responsible for setting the fires out in SoCal?

I need more coffee,
Roscoe

[427 S/O]

Gore!!, he will not debate! and, he's never had a job...a real job...

[imagine2frolic]

ILLEGALS.....

http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pag...Y&pageId=3.3.1

Well they shot, and killed one of the suspects, but I can't believe they would grant bail at $75k for an illegal who will just run back to his country. He needs to be shot also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rollinggeorge]

OK..........Back in 1965 when our group proclaimed that global warming was a problem we were classified as extremist dope addicts.........

Now Al is cashing in
Do you remember his TV ads playing touch football with his kids when he was campaigning for President?
I remember the Kennedy Klan did that first.....

Seems he hasn't had an original idea of his own....excepting of course for the internet:

He's better off wearing a tux in the company of liberal movie stars who haven't a grasp of reality.

My only concern is that given time the idiots may successfully outlaw the good life......specifically the COBRA will be banned from the streets as they leave a carbon imprint as large as a fire breathing dragon

We are like fleas on a dogs back.....the earth will shake us off whenever she wishes

As for myself I'm just trying to stay FOREVER YOUNG

[Tday]

I guess this really isn't the place for this sort of discussion anyway---a lot of shouting. In the real world, anyway, there is or should be room for debate...and there does appear to be broad consensus on global warming AND cycles both---seems they can and do coexist. And arsonists or not, mexican or not...I still think Gore's on to something and applaud, like the esteemed Nobel prize committee, his work in this area.

[Roscoe]

Back in 1970 it was Global COOLING that was hawked by the left. We were all going to freeze by 1980.

[Roscoe]

A Cloudy Mystery

August 2007

By Alan Caruba

There’s a reason why one should be extremely wary of the computer models that are cited by the endless doomsday predictions of Al Gore, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, and all the other advocates of "global warming."

The reason is clouds. Computer models simply cannot provide for the constant variability of clouds, so they ignore them.

In a July issue of The Economist there was an article, "Grey-Sky thinking" subtitled, "Without understanding clouds, understanding the climate is hard. And clouds are the least understood part of the atmosphere." Since the increasingly rabid claims of Earth’s destruction from rising temperatures depend on computer modeling, how can they be regarded as accurate if they must largely exempt or deliberately manipulate the impact of clouds?

How can you make predictions, whether it’s a week or a decade from now, if you haven’t a clue why clouds do what they do?

Tim Garrett, a research meteorologist at the University of Utah, with refreshing candor has said, "We really do not know what’s going on. There are so many basic unanswered questions on how they (clouds) work." And that is never mentioned in the great "global warming" debate, one we are continuously told is "decided" and upon which there is a vast scientific "consensus."

This is particularly significant because clouds act to both cool and warm the Earth. It is widely believed that high clouds can reflect solar radiation away from the planet, but they can also serve to trap heat in the atmosphere. New studies, however, have given some cause to reconsider this. Moreover, cloud droplets can last for less than a second while whole clouds can live out their lives in minutes or days. There is no way to integrate such massive, constant change into a computer model that divides the world into boxes up to sixty miles on a side, so they mostly do not.

Finish your assignment: http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

[RAZOR]

The only thing that Gore is onto is wanting to make big goverment bigger. The solution to the all his enviromental probems, is goverment. I wonder what he would say was the cause the cause of earth warming in the middle ages, 8th thru 12th century when there were vineyards in England?.
Read some of articles of Richard Lindzen.who is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, he certainly doesn't agree with Gore, on his chicken little view of global warming. Also as Professor Lindzen points out their is a unified effort to shut down anyone that has an opposing opinion to Gore and his cronies.