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.


...

[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

[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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[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.

[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

[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.

[backafter20]

I'd like to put in a plug for Michael Crighton's book, State of Fear. It's 600 pages, but you can't put it down, and it reads very quickly. It's a work of fiction based on extensively researched scientific data, all on the whole global warming issue, and gives what is probably an accurate assessment of what is really going on. Factual graphics and data at the end are extremely compelling. A good read for those who are so inclined...

[BigGuy]

My response to a email being sent around:

I'm not sure I would pass this on as fact as a quick Internet search shows this information is Very questionable.

When this email says"He points out that of the 500+
scientific studies done on global warming, the percentage that do not
support these conclusions is 0%."

And in less than a Minute I came up with information to the contrary, like this "More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration stating that costly actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions are not justified by the available scientific evidence."

The information following was the shortest to cut and paste, there are many other articles and educational papers to review. I think this email information does American citizens a disservice, much of the information seems to be pushed by countries with a vested interest in hobbling this country. But then again, because it comes from Al "I invented the Internet" Gore it must be true?!
Take care, Jon

the following is from a quick Google I did of the Internet on Global Warming (there were hundreds of articles and papers that do NOT back Gores assertions:

January 22, 1998
No Evidence for Global Warming
by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
Welcome to the bizarre world of "global warming."

Late last year, the Clinton administration sent negotiators to Kyoto, Japan, with no scientific proof of "global warming" or that human activity is causing it. The negotiators submitted proposals for curbing U.S. "greenhouse gas" emissions that, according to a study by WEFA Inc., a widely respected economic forecaster, would result in energy price increases of between 50 percent and 200 percent over the next 25 years. Electricity prices could rise from 40 percent to 50 percent, according to the WEFA forecast, and the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon. That translates to an increase in the average family's annual electric bill of more than $250, and in the annual cost of gasoline of $200.

But that was just the beginning.

U.S. negotiators then backed down from this preposterous negotiating position, and agreed to even greater emissions reductions than they sought when the talks began—from a reduction in greenhouse gases to 1990 levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels. Add that 7 percent to the 27 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions that will occur over the next few decades without the treaty, and it turns out U.S. negotiators actually called for a reduction of about 34 percent in the level of U.S. emissions.

All this to combat a "global warming" crisis that can't be verified by the scientific community. Extensive polling has revealed nothing like the kind of consensus the administration is claiming for the idea that the world is facing a global-warming catastrophe or that human activity is responsible. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration stating that costly actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions are not justified by the available scientific evidence.

Even the scientist who first warned Vice President Al Gore about global warming, Roger Revelle, wrote shortly before his death: "The scientific basis for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Responsible environmentalism is one thing—but don't you think we ought to be sure this thing is happening before we make a huge economic sacrifice for it?

Few Americans understand what's really going on. Hint: The conservative revolution has robbed liberals of a vehicle for expanding the size and power of government. But a long-term environmental crisis, even one manufactured by alarmists, could change that.

The global-warming scenario provides advocates of big government with an excuse for tapping into the lifeline of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future. Better yet, the current president will be long gone before most of the belt-tightening begins to pinch.

The U.S. Senate should shut this one down before it goes any further.



THIS is the original email I received Advertising AL Gore movie that I took issue with:

In a message dated 3/20/2007 4:04:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cibrz2000@yahoo.com writes:
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________


“An Inconvenient Truth”

Al Gore is traveling the world with the courage of his convictions and
with conviction in his heart to show everyone what is happening to our
beloved home, earth.

His film is excellent and I am committed to help spread the word about
global warming in honor of the effect of this film on me. If you have
not watched it yet, please do, and if you have invite folks over and
watch it again, enjoy an evening of deep, invigorating, and enlivening
discussion, and then make a commitment yourself

Some have called it apocalyptic, but the real possibilities are backed
by years of scientific investigation. He points out that of the 500+
scientific studies done on global warming, the percentage that do not
support these conclusions is 0%.

He is testifying before congress tomorrow and taking postcards from
everyone who signs in support of attending to the global warming issue.
Please take a moment to lend your support.

I thank you.

Holly

“Thank you for helping me take this crucial message to Congress.

On March 21st, I'm going to hand-deliver your messages on television
when I testify at Congressional hearings on global warming.

This is an incredible opportunity to show Congress the energy behind
this issue. I need your help to really make it count. Can you commit to
getting 10 of your friends to sign a message to Congress before March
21st?

To get your friends involved in our effort, please forward them this
note or direct them to:

http://www.algore.com/cards.html

Thank you,
-Al Gore

[427 S/O]

Jon, I was about to answer 'backafter' with 'don't believe everything you read'.

Thank you........

[Red08Shelby]

He is the consumate BSer. HE reminds me of the kid with the Honda, telling everyone he has 400 rwhp, naturally aspirated, and it does 8 second quarters!

PURE BS! MY kid had to watch at school and write a paper. Of course I helped with the "truth" making sure to site the Judge's ruling in Britain on the major 8 lies told, not to mention dozens of half truths.

Boy was that teacher upset! AND, dozens of other parents came to the school to protest to the principal. Kids don't need more of the typical NEA bias! They need to learn about real history, learn math and the basics!

My wife is a teacher in High School. THIS YEAR, 67% could not read at their grade level. 55% could not read at an 8th grade level!!!

And people ask why are jobs going overseas? We are under-educated, over paid, and starting to loose our lead as the worlds leading nation. SOON, very soon, the US curency will be in the toilet even worse then it is. And, we will all be speaking every language but English!

No, don't even try to debate me, my IQ is far higher then yours!

I hate tree hugging liberals!

JC