Al Gore Illogically Blasts the 9/11 Truth Movement


Al Gore Illogically Blasts the 9/11 Truth Movement
Richard L. Franklin

I was finally stirred to briefly come out of retirement after listening to a one hour interview with Al Gore discussing his latest book, 'The Assault on Reason'. As a one who has dedicated himself to the encouragement and preservation of clear thinking, arguably the greatest gift entrusted to us by the Enlightenment, I was naturally curious about the apparent subject of his book. I've certainly had never thought of Gore as a rationalist, although he certainly can be quite rational about climate change. I've always viewed him as an aristocratic member of the Washington establishment. His deep interest in climate change was actually anomalous for one of his background and class ethos, but that hardly detracts from the great value of his missionary work in that area. Nonetheless, a leopard does not normally change his spots overnight. If it is a politician who is claiming to work toward X, his or her promise usually lacks credibility. True pols seldom fully change their spots.

I want to focus on one brief exchange in the Gore interview because it says a lot. The interviewer focused on Gore's claim that the invasion of Iraq was the 'single greatest mistake in the history of the United States'. With some prodding, Gore expanded. By 'mistake' he meant the acceptance of a panoply of lies by Bush and his associates that deceived the people into believing Saddam had played a role in 9/11. My ears perked up. Could it be possible Gore was inching toward a hint that something hugely nefarious had taken place behind the scenes? His claim that the American people had committed a monstrous 'mistake' in supporting the war and in allowing themselves to be foolishly deceived by Bush and his accomplices just might open the door for a rational discussion of 9/11. False flag ops are old hat in American history, and Gore knows it. I was on pins and needles.

The interviewer smiled. Did he also hope that Gore might be headed down the right path? The interviewer wasted no time in encouraging such a journey. He noted that grand deceptions were hardly new in American history when it came to preparing the people for the launching of a war. The Spanish-American war was triggered by a false flag operation, namely the blowing up of the Maine. Gore quickly agreed. The interviewer smiled. He then added that the Vietnam War was launched with the Tonkin Bay false flag op. Gore once again was quick to agree. The interviewer's eyes gleamed. They were truly getting somewhere.

At this point in the interview it's possible the interviewer was about to mention the sinking of the Lusitania, which was cleverly triggered by Wilson and the Brits so as to drag the US into WWI. He also may have wanted to add Pearl Harbor, a plot which followed the modus operandi of Wilson in managing to finagle an attack on US ships. In both cases, Germany and then Japan were forced to attack as a matter of national survival. Germany faced losing the war in Europe if the US continued with its generous shipments of war supplies, and the Empire of Japan would surely come to a crashing end if their oil supply lines were cut off as threatened by FDR. In both cases, the American people were led to believe the US had been attacked by evil enemies for evil purposes. 'Evil' is so damned handy as a cause for such events. As always, the existence of 'evil' enemies who had committed 'evil' deeds became key factors in US propaganda that cloaked the true complex mechanisms behind those two shocking events.

At this point in the course of the conversation, a light bulb seemed to go off in Gore's head. He sat up straight with a wary look. I suspect that at this moment he realized he was in danger of being sucked into the question of whether or not 9/11 had been yet another false flag operation in American history.

He quickly said, 'I think I see where you might be heading.' Not wishing to even say the words 'nine eleven' or the words 'false flag', he deftly trashed the ongoing 9/11 truth movement with these few words: 'All that other stuff is outside the range of possibility'.

Gore has named his book 'The Assault on Reason', and yet here he is claiming that the 9/11 truth movement is making claims 'outside the range of possibility'. With that one statement he has stunningly sabotaged his supposed defense of reason in his new book.

Phrases such as 'outside the range of possibility' often come close to being just plain nuts. Here's why. The one place where the concept of impossibility is carefully examined is logic. Please forgive me for using a tired old example, but we logically know there are no square circles anywhere among the furniture of this universe or in any other universe. The nice thing is that we can conclude this simply by looking at the claim itself. The mere locution 'square circle' is illogical. What rules here is the fact that if something is not logically true, it cannot be empirically true. When I was a young lad and this was pointed out to me by a teacher, I was absolutely delighted. It meant one could completely forsake the labor of an empirical investigation to determine the truth of certain claims.

This is hardly a stunning new maxim. When Christian missionaries first flooded Africa and then the Pacific islands to convert the natives, the biggest single block they ran into in converting the natives to Christianity was teaching them about the greater glory of the Holy Trinity. Much to the exasperation and anger of the missionaries, the natives kept rejecting the notion of a god who was simultaneously three discrete beings who occasionally melted into one seamless being. More than one native of the Americas were brutally murdered as a result of their 'stubborn' heathen inability to grasp this concept. One can scarcely find a more ironic and sad moment in the history of the Conquista.

I felt sad when Gore's interviewer allowed him to get away with a totally preposterous, ignoble statement. What was actually 'outside the range of possibility' was any sense to what Gore was so arrogantly claiming. One cannot quite so easily squeeze a false flag operation by our government into the same category as square circles. Trying to do so is the mark of a charlatan.

Undaunted, Gore kept harping on how we Americans had let the gang in the White House get away with all sorts of weak and even preposterous claims; yet Gore had just made himself a partner in the White House cabal's biggest fraud of all, not to mention making his own book title a depressing irony.


May 29, 2007 Mr. Franklin is the author of "The Mythology of Self-Worth

global warming is SUCH fun to debate

Hi Ken,
Thanks for your blog. I too would like to believe in Al Gore, but two things hold me back. First, he didn't fight to keep his presidency. Second, the global warming issue, as presented by Gore, is illogical.

This issue gets me somewhat flummoxed, because I dislike illogic and unreason, too. It makes my blood boil that the powers that be, including left gatekeepers, appear to be trying to fool us on this issue.

The earth, like other planets in our solar system, is warming up. Is the warming due to CO2? Not likely, as ice-core data show that temperatures rise, then about 800 years later, CO2 rises. There is a correlation between the two, but the time-line is backwards in order for CO2 to cause temperature increases. (Also, CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere; furthermore, man-made CO2 is dwarfed by that produced by nature.) The warming looks like it's due to sun-spot activity. Moreover, we're not as warm as we have been in the past (medieval warming period).

I used to believe that fossil-fuel use causes global warming, too, until I came across this video ('the great global warming swindle') and several articles on the topic. Looks like Gore profits personally from everyone adopting the "anti-global warming" technology, too. What a crock - there is nothing humans can do to offset global warming. Here is a recent article that explains everything much better than I could:

There is something to be gained by globalists for proclaiming anthropogenic global warming.The idea of creating a new carbon tax is risible. Oh, and yes, global warming knows no national boundaries, so we must institute international (globalist) solutions. It's perfect. Listen carefully about who is really supposed to toe the line in terms of global warming solutions -- upcoming India, China, and Africa. We've got to keep them in their place -- global warming! Global warming! Racist scam.

That said, I think it's good to limit toxins and pollution and save ecosystems. And no, I do NOT work for oil companies. I am in debt to my eyeballs with a mortgage, credit-card debt, etc.


I agree

MAN MADE global warming is a way to push the globalist agenda !
The science makes no sense at all !

Of course we have to reduce pollution but that's a total other question.
People tend to mix up these totally different issues, confusion by design probably to get support from environmental activists for the globalist cause, very smart !

Hurray for E Vero

here people, learn the science and you learn the truth

The Great Global Warming Swindle

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Hey Cattlerustler, thanks

Hey Cattlerustler, thanks for the two videos. I had already seen the first one, but just finished watching the second. Now I am pretty sure that there is no evidence that CO2 is piling up in our atmosphere, or that the atmosphere is warming much at all.

What a load of crap this issue is.

Thanks again,

even better

This issue should be a uniter, not a divider.

We're doing "chicken or egg" arguing over technicalities. I think we can all agree that getting off fossil fuels has MANY benefits, and if it takes a global warming scare to break our addiction, I would say so be it. I am suspicious of people who argue against man-made global warming, because I wonder WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PRESUME TO ACCOMPLISH?? Sounds to me like an argument to sit on our fucking hands and keep chuggin' glorious OIL. No, I absolutely do not support any global tax ON INDIVIDUALS, but we all MUST start taking better care of the environment. With the population exploding as it is, polution will only get worse. We can responsibly clean up our act, or... depopulate?? Wouldn't you rather have a hydrogen fuel cell car that you could fuel by gathering rain water? Wouldn't you rather have solar pannels on your home and get some of your energy from the local wind farm? We need to get off the grid and cut off funding to the oil barrons PERIOD! We need alternative/clean energy NO MATTER WHAT IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.

I"Is the warming due to CO2? Not likely, as ice-core data show that temperatures rise, then about 800 years later, CO2 rises. There is a correlation between the two, but the time-line is backwards in order for CO2 to cause temperature increases. (Also, CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere; furthermore, man-made CO2 is dwarfed by that produced by nature.) "

I have yet to research this topic in depth, but I do see some ambiguity here, and POSSIBLE space for debate. (I DON'T see any space for debating whether or not to go to clean-energy-independence though.) Now, if CO2 levels go up, we obviously need a cause for this effect. Increased animal life/activity? Do we believe that as human activity / pollution / habitat destruction has increased, this has somehow resulted in MORE biological CO2 output? I shouldn't have to argue that point, now should I?

Now, what about some other source for the warming, such as solar activity? Well, this is a possibility. We must also ask, are we talking direct warming ONLY from the sun's energy or are we also talking about indirect warming from something like increased animal activity, which in turn leads to "greenhouse gas" produciton and insulation of the atmosphere? Increased animal activity/biological production is pretty much out in our case, as we know that we are destroying all life on this planet. So if there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, it is almost certainly coming from US. This is VERY hard to refute, since we KNOW that we spew millions or billions of tons of material into the air every year. What is changing the earth's atmosphere? US!!

What is causing the warming? ...Is the "greenhouse effect" an accurate description of a real phenomenon? Or is the sun simply acting up? Or is there some as yet unidentified cause? This is the small window for debate that I see. As for this "correlation not causation" argument... I'm sorry to tell you this, but I've heard this same line from 9/11 bedunkers regarding some of the science issues of the disaster. I know that correlation does not always indicate causation, but this is a highly politicized argument right now, and it is being used in a highly nefarious way in relation to one topic... I see a correlation. (Pun intended.) Now another problem I see is that this quesiton of what came first, the temp increase or the carbon increase, is being exploited in the same way as the false left/right paradigm and all the other he said/she said bickering that we are being force-fed. This is another attempt to make hard science into a simple matter of OPINION, just like "creationism/intelligent design", which is pure intellectual sabotage. It is NOT "our experts say this, your expets say that, we'll agree to disagree". There is in fact a CORRECT answer here, and science is VERY GOOD at figuring these things out. I am fully confident that if we can split the atom, program nano-machines, and manage the internet, we can figure out why the planet is warming up.

Think about who originally tried to muddy the waters in this debate... THE FUCKING OIL COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think about who benefits from mankind stuttering on the issue of changing the energy infrastructure... THE FUCKING OIL COMPANIES!!!!!!!!! Are the globalists trying to capitalize on this issue and foist a tax upon us? Sure. WE STILL NEED TO GET OFF HYDROCARBONS AND STOP POLLUTING. Fight the oil companies, fight the polluters, fight the taxers. Don't get suckered into supporting the oil barrons and polluters to avoid getting taxed.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

Actually, it should not be an issue here at all, IMHO

Al Gore's views on global warming are not the issue here. His views on 9/11 are. I cannot see the purpose of this discussion. For many people who are convinced about global warming, it can only serve to make 9/11 inquirers appear unscientific and conspiratorial.

I happen to be convinced that human-induced climate change is a huge problem. I also agree that pipelines and geopolitics were an important part of the bombing of Serbia, and that the "humanitarian intervention" was a lie on the scale of "weapons of mass destruction."

However, these are not the issues here, though the Serbia issue is much more relevant given the cooperation with Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Kosovo. The issue is Al Gore saying that 'All that other stuff is outside the range of possibility'.


China and India aren't supposed to "toe the line" for some underlying racist motive. China and India are rapidly industrializing, and they contain HALF THE WORLD'S POPULATION. C'mon E V, don't get silly here. Do you have any idea how devastating it would be to the environment for China and India to develop unchecked?

Remember... Bush took office, corporate propaganda choked out all authentic information, the oil barrons began to rake in record profits, THEN "doubt" was cast on the global warming debate. They're trying to exploit the mindset of "conspiracy theorists". EVERYTHING IS A HOAX!! They know 9/11 Truth will eventually break through, and they want to attach their pollution parasite meme. Think about the desired goals. WE want clean energy, decentralized production/distribution, WE want to empty the vaults of the oil barrons, WE want to end dependence on the Middle East... ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE ON ALL FRONTS. Wise up. Can we argue against "carbon tax"? Sure.

"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

reply to Consciousness

Hi Consciousness,
Thanks for writing in response to my posts.

I agree that pollution is a problem and that we ought to all be off the grid, if possible, as soon as possible. I love alternative forms of energy. I hate the oil companies. I do think it's a good idea to clean up the environment, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels whereever possible, and use more energy-efficient appliances, etc. But I would hate to launch into such a program based on a lie. And we can do these things whether or not we use the GW story.

And why should Africa, China, and India not be allowed to use their own coal and oil resources when we get to use ours? America and the rest of the first-world countries are trying to pull the ladder away after they've made it to the top. They deserve to industrialize as much as we do. It's racist to say otherwise. The real, underlying desiderata may be population-reduction (due to peak-food) . . . and no one wants to talk about that!

You yourself pointed me to examining the role of foundations in this country. I watched Norman Dodd interviewed by G. Edward Griffin. I nosed around some more and found the following chart that i want to show you:

Lots of leftwing gatekeepers (e.g., Democracy Now) appear to be funded through foundations, which in turn appear to be funded by the CIA among other entities. He who pays the piper calls the tune. These lefties don't talk about much that is really at issue. As you know, they ignore 9/11. They ignore economically core issues such as how money is created and controlled. They ignore potential presidential candidates, such as Ron Paul, who appear to want to discuss many of these issues candidly. They ignore the real reasons for entering Iraq -- as well as who appears to be benefitting from the Iraq "war" (more properly called a 'massacre'). They ignore, for example, attorney general Gonzales's role in authorizing torture in favor of discussing US attorney firings. They are critical of only superficial issues. If they are left-wing, why oh why didn't they go after the voter-fraud story? Global warming is a safe distraction. If you listen carefully, the global warming scaremongers are not talking about common-sense solutions that you mention - like developing hydrogen power. They are not questionning the rapacious profits made by oil companies as a result of international 'interventions" by the US gov't. They are talking about surrending national sovereignity, instituting special taxes, etc. And they are careful to make people think that even questioning the science is somehow immoral.

I am a scientist and I resent the apparently increasing notion that scientific truth ought to somehow proceed according to majority rule. Peer pressure is not going to work with me. (I could also regale you with the preposterous story of HIV-AIDS, if you are so inclined.) Let's instead agree to examine the facts and then discuss them civilly.


p.s. the best book I've seen on the HIV-AIDS issue is "Inventing the AIDS Virus" (; nearly 2,500 scientists have signed the petition to re-examine the empircally unsupported and unsound hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS (

Oil Companies SUPPORT Global Warming Hype.....

Sorry, but here is a story about how and why a CHAIRMAN OF BRITISH PETROLEUM is pushing the global warming hype. This is about artificial scarcity. Just like peak-oil, fear tactics of coming disasters are simply a way to jack up prices. Who really gets hurt by Global Taxes and higher prices....the middle class! Below are also a number of articles which have very credible and active environmentalists and climatology experts who completely expose the Fraud behind this massive global warming campaign. Al Gore pushed to bomb Serbia which was a move that directly helped BP solidify a Trans-Afghan pipeline in the area!!! Hello!! There are more important environmental issues that are CONFIRMED like genetic modification being IGNORED by Gore and his pals. Time to read about the sham IPCC paper. These people are hijacking the growing resistance to Government based criminality by playing on real environmentalists pities and in some cases the need for FUNDING. Time to wise up to this reality 9/11 Truth. The guys with the mansions and 5 cars don't care about YOU or YOUR ENVIRONMENT.


"The Criminals are still in charge, thus we live surrounded by illegality."

Hi Kdub, thanks for the

Hi Kdub, thanks for the links. Do you have a link/reference for criticizing the ICCP report? And what about how Gore pushed for bombing the Balkins, which resulted in BP's installation of a gas pipeline?

I find the latter bit very interesting in light of the following video posted by "Mssr Jouet":

See also:

Tke care,