Your timeline ignores the actions of the actual people who did 9/11 -- who would have gone forward with their plan if Gore had won in 2000, just as much as they did when Bush won. Clinton didn't prevent 9/11 -- the entire thing was organized on his watch.
The timeline is important to acknowledge, so it's fair for you to bring it up. Yes, the early planning took place in the last months of the Clinton presidency. And that's consistent with what I said about us not being able to be sure about whether the attack would have happened even with a decent president at the helm.
Consider a hypothetical Gore presidency. Would he have ignored Clarke and Tenet when, in early 2001, they presented their plan for putting al Qaeda on the defensive with a series of special operations and targeted strikes? Possibly. He, like Bush, might have preferred to focus on his domestic agenda early on. Or maybe, having been involved in similar strikes in the Clinton years, he'd have given them the green light. If that had happened, would it have stopped the 9/11 attacks? That's impossible to know. Perhaps it would have resulted in documents being uncovered or people being captured and interrogated who'd let the cat out of the bag in time to stop the attacks. Or perhaps not.
Similarly, if Gore had been president, would he have basically stuck that Hart-Rudman report in a drawer and done nothing about it? Possibly. I doubt it, though. I expect he'd have gone to work on implementing the suggestions, including pushing for a centralized homeland security function. If he'd done so, would it have stopped the 9/11 attacks? Again, that's impossible to know. Perhaps he'd have made enough progress on that front that people from until-then-compartmentalized intelligence functions would have brought their knowledge together in a way that uncovered the plot. Remember, we had a lot of the threads of the plot already in our possession, at the time -- it's just that no single person knew about enough of those threads to put it together (e.g., the information about suspicious people in the country, the information about what was happening at the flight schools, etc.). Maybe, in the process of consolidating a central homeland security function, enough of those threads would have come together for someone to follow up and discover the plot in time. Or perhaps not.
Similarly, would Gore have continued the Clinton-era practice of holding weekly "principals meetings" on the terrorist threat, to "shake the trees"? Tough to say for sure, but it's at least pretty unlikely that, like Bush, he wouldn't hold even a single such meeting until September. If he had held a bunch of those meetings, would they have resulted in more of a focus on the threat? Obviously. Would that greater focus have resulted in the plot being found in time? Maybe. Or maybe not.
Similarly, what if, when that infamous PDB came in, we had a president focused on doing his job, rather than retreating to his Texas mansion for yet another long vacation? Would a decent president have responded by asking the tough questions, rather than dismissively saying the experts had covered their butts and then going to clear brush? If a decent president had asked the tough questions, would the scramble for answers have led someone to the plot in time to stop it (or led to simple solutions like having airplanes reinforce cabin doors)? Maybe. It's impossible to say.
We don't know whether, with a decent president, the attacks would have been prevented, the way the Millennium Attacks had been in 2000. It's possible they would have, and possible that even responsible governance wouldn't have made a difference. Since that imbecile was dozing on the job in the critical months, we'll never know.
No one thought those missiles were going to do anything
What makes you imagine that?
I'm not the one who associates with monsters. Vent all you want, but only you can change that.