The question truthers are afraid (apparently) to face:

[negativ]

The question is this:

What could convince you that 9/11 was not in fact an "inside job", but in fact happened pretty much as described by the 9/11 Commission report?

What would cause you to change your mind and realize you were wrong all along?

[ref]

There is no such thing. They convert everything into conspiracy.

[Unfit4Command]

It's not that they're afraid of the question, it's just a hard one to answer. Most members of the "Truth Movement" are very strong in their beliefs and no matter how much counter evidence is available they'll still believe the conspiracy side. It works both ways though.

[Horatius]

It's not that they're afraid of the question, it's just a hard one to answer. Most members of the "Truth Movement" are very strong in their beliefs and no matter how much counter evidence is available they'll still believe the conspiracy side. It works both ways though.



It doesn't really work both ways though. We've had several twoofers challenge us to list potential evidence that could convince us of an inside job, and several of us have provided such lists. The reason we are strong in our posistions is, such evidence is not forthcoming, likely because it doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist despite the fact that it should exist, i.e., clear explosive sounds in any of the collapse videos we've seen, if the inside job hypothesis was correct.

This is completely unlike the twoofers, who have on several occaisions stated that no evidence could convince them, because they "know 100%" that X was Y was Z, or whatever.

[westprog]

It doesn't really work both ways though. We've had several twoofers challenge us to list potential evidence that could convince us of an inside job, and several of us have provided such lists. The reason we are strong in our posistions is, such evidence is not forthcoming, likely because it doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist despite the fact that it should exist, i.e., clear explosive sounds in any of the collapse videos we've seen, if the inside job hypothesis was correct.

I'd certainly start to change my mind if, for example, a number of structural engineers were to come forward and say that the WTC should not have collapsed as it did.

[Dave Rogers]

I'd certainly start to change my mind if, for example, a number of structural engineers were to come forward and say that the WTC should not have collapsed as it did.

I think something like that would do it for me. Specifically, a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal saying there was something wrong with the collapse, and I'd support calls for a new major enquiry.

Dave

[einsteen]

If Bob Dobbs tells me there is no one then I'm cured :)

[PerryLogan]

You are spot on. Our conspiratorial brothers could never answer the question, because they are stuck in their "nothing is what it seems" core belief.

Nothing is what it seems, baby. Everyone else falls for the trick, but the CT's can see through the illusions. I'll bet it's some form of megalomania common to low-IQ white guys.

[Pardalis]

I'll bet it's some form of megalomania common to low-IQ white guys.

Truthers come from all races. I think Merc is African American.

[HeyLeroy]

You are spot on. Our conspiratorial brothers could never answer the question, because they are stuck in their "nothing is what it seems" core belief.

Nothing is what it seems, baby. Everyone else falls for the trick, but the CT's can see through the illusions. I'll bet it's some form of megalomania common to low-IQ white guys.

I see right through your lies, mister! :p

[MG1962]

I think something like that would do it for me. Specifically, a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal saying there was something wrong with the collapse, and I'd support calls for a new major enquiry.



I agree with Dave. Something that can be looked at that gives it's reasoning through data. That way we can look at the information. See where it differs from the NIST report, then know if we are smelling a rat or an engineer with a flat battery in his calculator

[CHF]

Dylan Avery and Jason Burmes already answered this question.

"NOTHING" will falsify their beliefs.

[TruthSeeker1234]

What could convince you that 9/11 was not in fact an "inside job", but in fact happened pretty much as described by the 9/11 Commission report?

What would cause you to change your mind and realize you were wrong all along?

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked; that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos), that no mushroom cloud formed, that there was no afterglow, that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that all of the perimeter columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that the steel did not appear to disintegrate, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling), that the south wing of WTC 4 appeared as though rubble hit it (instead of disappearing), that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

AND

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

AND

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

AND

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

AND

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

AND

. . .well, you get the idea.


In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.

[pomeroo]

[=negativ;2418133]The question is this:

What could convince you that 9/11 was not in fact an "inside job", but in fact happened pretty much as described by the 9/11 Commission report?

What would cause you to change your mind and realize you were wrong all along?



I like that question.

[Pardalis]

(woo woo)


I thought as much. :rolleyes:

[TruthSeeker1234]

What could convince you that 9/11 was not in fact an "inside job", but in fact happened pretty much as described by the 9/11 Commission report?

What would cause you to change your mind and realize you were wrong all along?

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked; that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos), that no mushroom cloud formed, that there was no afterglow, that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that all of the perimeter columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that the steel did not appear to disintegrate, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling), that the south wing of WTC 4 appeared as though rubble hit it (instead of disappearing), that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

AND

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

AND

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

AND

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

AND

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

AND

. . .well, you get the idea.


In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.

[Pardalis]

(same woo woo)


Yep, not surprised. :rolleyes:

[pomeroo]

[=TruthSeeker1234;2420002]I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked; that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos), that no mushroom cloud formed, that there was no afterglow, that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that all of the perimeter columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that the steel did not appear to disintegrate, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling), that the south wing of WTC 4 appeared as though rubble hit it (instead of disappearing), that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

AND

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

AND

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

AND

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

AND

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

AND

. . .well, you get the idea.


In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.



You're a wonder, Ace. Few other fantasists have your refined gift for standing reality on its head.

[Totovader]

I should point out that I have presented this question to conspiracists for a very long time- and I've never been able to get them to answer it completely.

idgjL-tBGNg

This is the core of the conspiracism failure. When they try, they quickly realize the stupidity of their mistake. I've had at least 3 people remove their responses (one of them I was able to re-post). The rest of them simply ignore their failed logic and cup their ears and scream.

[Horatius]

You're a wonder, Ace. Few other fantasists have your refined gift for standing reality on its head.



For BS1234, we need a separate, special question: What would it take to convince you that all your perceptions of all the evidence are completely and totally whacked?

[A W Smith]

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked; that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos), that no mushroom cloud formed, that there was no afterglow, that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that all of the perimeter columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that the steel did not appear to disintegrate, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling), that the south wing of WTC 4 appeared as though rubble hit it (instead of disappearing), that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

AND

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

AND

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

AND

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

AND

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

AND

. . .well, you get the idea.


In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.

Argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). You lose ace.

[Unfit4Command]

It doesn't really work both ways though. We've had several twoofers challenge us to list potential evidence that could convince us of an inside job, and several of us have provided such lists. The reason we are strong in our posistions is, such evidence is not forthcoming, likely because it doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist despite the fact that it should exist, i.e., clear explosive sounds in any of the collapse videos we've seen, if the inside job hypothesis was correct.

This is completely unlike the twoofers, who have on several occaisions stated that no evidence could convince them, because they "know 100%" that X was Y was Z, or whatever.

I'm not saying no one will change their mind. But you have to admit that it works both ways in SOME cases. It is certainly worse on the conspiracy side than the official story side I would say, but there are some that I can never see changing their minds no matter what comes out. I would if more and more structural engineers came out saying it was a CD, and someone came out admitting that he/she helped plant explosives in the Towers.

meh...I can't see that ever happening though.

[JimBenArm]

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked; that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos), that no mushroom cloud formed, that there was no afterglow, that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that all of the perimeter columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that the steel did not appear to disintegrate, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling), that the south wing of WTC 4 appeared as though rubble hit it (instead of disappearing), that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

AND

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

AND

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

AND

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

AND

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

AND

. . .well, you get the idea.


In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.
It's the holy grail of woo, right here! The trifecta! Home run!
No planes anywhere, apparently he believes a nuke was set off in each tower, and beam weapons from space boring holes!
Yeee-Haaa!

[Unfit4Command]

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked; that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos), that no mushroom cloud formed, that there was no afterglow, that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that all of the perimeter columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that the steel did not appear to disintegrate, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling), that the south wing of WTC 4 appeared as though rubble hit it (instead of disappearing), that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

AND

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

AND

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

AND

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

AND

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

AND

. . .well, you get the idea.


In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.

You and your laser beam, and no plane theories...

Are you suggesting that BBC is in on the conspiracy? Seems like a strange group to bring in on it since they have pretty much nothing to offer, it would also be hard to keep a massive conspiracy like 9/11 secret if the government lets a British news organization in on it for no particular reason.

[hellaeon]

TS what would it take to convince you that making fun of 911 does not win you worthwhile friends?

I dont think you believe these retarded theories at all. Its hard for me to fathom such a way of thought. I would suggest that instead of this kind of trolling, try razzing up something on an art forum or music forum, as its opinion based. Music career bad? try embracing styles you dont normally acknowledge?

Since your personal life is obviously in a lot of turmoil and this is your frustration outlet, I would advise you to admit there is a problem with something and get some help accordingly.


Cheers mate.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You're a wonder, Ace. Few other fantasists have your refined gift for standing reality on its head.

So this isn't a mushroom cloud? Sure looks and (more importantly) behaves like one. What is it? Can't wait for the big debate with Greening on your show.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BlownToKC2/images/MushroomCloudsmall.jpg

[Hokulele]

That does not look like a mushroom cloud to me. I do not see any signs of rotation leading to the classic toroid shape. It looks like a straight plume.

[A W Smith]

In a classic atomic mushroom cloud because of the intense heat the crown of the mushroom travels upward into the atmosphere. That is clearly absent in the WTC collapse. I can duplicate the WTC debris cloud effect simply by dumping flour onto a square wooden stake pounded into the ground. If I cared to. But that would be a waste of flour.

[TruthSeeker1234]

That does not look like a mushroom cloud to me. I do not see any signs of rotation leading to the classic toroid shape. It looks like a straight plume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2GKScQR-I

You can see the rotation here, and also the disintegration of steel into dust.

[T.A.M.]

You are kidding right TS? You can't see anything but grainy, pixelated video. You can barely make anything out but the steel columns that remain standing, and then FALL INTO THE DEBRIS AND SMOKE/DUST.

Who do you really think your going to convince with that video...OMG.

TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2GKScQR-I

You can see the rotation here, and also the disintegration of steel into dust.
:dl:
Stop, you're killing me!
Steel into dust! Oh man, oh man, oh man!

[R.Mackey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2GKScQR-I

You can see the rotation here, and also the disintegration of steel into dust.


"Clockwise?" (from his post title)

Not that kind of rotation, Ace. Hokulele is referring to roll-up of the plume, i.e. from inside upward and out.

Atomic explosions don't rotate clockwise or anticlockwise, not compared to the gross order convection, anyway.

I've already explained this, in grim detail, to you before. I'm linking (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1923575#post1923575) it again in case there's anyone new who wants to see it.

[Pardalis]

Alright, enough of this nonsense. Back to the topic.

I'd be interested to know what the answer of the rational CTists (like Russell, Childlike Empress and Hierosis) to this question would be?

[Totovader]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2GKScQR-I

You can see the rotation here, and also the disintegration of steel into dust.

Um, no- you see no such thing. And- in fact- you do not see steel turning to dust, as you see from this angle:

WIBER4cx6KY

It's steel falling, if it was being blasted by a death ray or a nuke, it wouldn't be tipping and swaying as it was "turning to dust".

[Hokulele]

You can see the rotation here, and also the disintegration of steel into dust.

No, this video does not show the top of the plume, where any internal rotation would be seen. This shows the bottom of a standard debris plume. Steel into dust? Umm, what? Are you serious?

[TruthSeeker1234]

"Clockwise?" (from his post title)

Not that kind of rotation, Ace. Hokulele is referring to roll-up of the plume, i.e. from inside upward and out.

Atomic explosions don't rotate clockwise or anticlockwise, not compared to the gross order convection, anyway.

I've already explained this, in grim detail, to you before. I'm linking (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1923575#post1923575) it again in case there's anyone new who wants to see it.

Notice how the dark at the top expands and goes upwards, mushrooming.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BlownToKC2/images/OfficeFIres-.gif

By the way, for anyone new, RMackey claims to be a NASA scientist, yet has demonstrated, among other things, that he does not understand that the rapid fall of the dust clouds indicates that they are more dense than air, and that when they expand and form cauliflower shapes, that this is proof of a temperature/pressure differential from the surrounding air.

As "proof", RMackey submitted a still picture of two polymers of equal density that swirl around each other between two pieces of glass.

Also for anyone new, RMackey thinks that the cores of the twin towers were only cross-braced by the main flooring system, and not by the horizontal beams, the diagonal beams, and the independent flooring system of the cores.

Also for anyone new, RMackey is afraid to debate me on video. At least Frank Greening has the courage to.

[Pardalis]

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Start your own inane thread, Ace.

[AZCat]

By the way, for anyone new, RMackey claims to be a NASA scientist, yet has demonstrated, among other things, that he does not understand that the rapid fall of the dust clouds indicates that they are more dense than air, and that when they expand and form cauliflower shapes, that this is proof of a temperature/pressure differential from the surrounding air.

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between an aerosol and a gas. Perhaps some study on this will help you realize where you have gone wrong in the above.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between an aerosol and a gas. Perhaps some study on this will help you realize where you have gone wrong in the above.

OK AZcat, I'll challenge you the same way I did RMackey.

Give me an example of a something which expands and forms a cauliflower shape, but is the same temperature/pressure as the surrounding air.

Give me an example of something which falls rapidly through air to the ground, but is the same density as air.

I'll wait.

[Totovader]

OK AZcat, I'll challenge you the same way I did RMackey.

Give me an example of a something which expands and forms a cauliflower shape, but is the same temperature/pressure as the surrounding air.

Give me an example of something which falls rapidly through air to the ground, but is the same density as air.

I'll wait.

Give us an example of how this relates to the topic, or how you can reword this so it fits the OP.

[pomeroo]

[=TruthSeeker1234;2420154]So this isn't a mushroom cloud? Sure looks and (more importantly) behaves like one. What is it? Can't wait for the big debate with Greening on your show.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BlownToKC2/images/MushroomCloudsmall.jpg


I'd love to showcase Greening's brilliance, but your madness is so extreme that the show will suffer from the association. I ain't Jerry springer.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Give us an example of how this relates to the topic, or how you can reword this so it fits the OP.

I answered the question in the OP, my answer contained mention of the mushroom cloud, Ron Wieck called me names, others denied the existence of the mushroom cloud, I provided evidence to support my claims, and answer questions raised about mushroom cloud behavior, RMackey chimed in with some assertions, I proivided some relevant background information on RMackey for readers to consider his credibility. See, it's all about the OP.

[TOHMS]

If some actual experts who do a legitamate study come forward with actual evidence, not a bunch of philosophers, I would probably be much more on the fence.

My friends dad is a physicist, he read the NIST reports, and though he is not qualified as a structural engineer, he did say that most of what they said was pretty much spot on...even though he THINKS the towers fell in a strange manner, he still believes that the NIST report is generally correct, based on SCIENCE

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'd love to showcase Greening's brilliance, but your madness is so extreme that the show will suffer from the association. I ain't Jerry springer.

You've already agreed to host a debate between me and Frank Greening. Greening has also agreed, and we've agreed that I can show photos and videos, and we've agreed that I'm not allowed to talk about the "planes". Which is fine, we will just stipulate that something severed perimeter columns and started fires.

[Hokulele]

Notice how the dark at the top expands and goes upwards, mushrooming.

1) It is not mushrooming. There is no internal rotation, and no "stem" formation. Besides, nothing seems to be moving fast enough, one criteria for mushroom cloud formation.

2) Someone put an annoying text box in the way of the top of the plume, making it very hard to see.

A normal column will show some amount of expansion and vortex formation, but that is nothing like the formation of a mushroom cloud.

Most people falsely equate mushroom clouds with nuclear explosions. Many naturally occuring mushroom clouds are associated with volcanic eruptions.

[Totovader]

I answered the question in the OP, my answer contained mention of the mushroom cloud, Ron Wieck called me names, others denied the existence of the mushroom cloud, I provided evidence to support my claims, and answer questions raised about mushroom cloud behavior, RMackey chimed in with some assertions, I proivided some relevant background information on RMackey for readers to consider his credibility. See, it's all about the OP.

A reasonable response to the OP would be "I would need to see evidence that this is not a mushroom cloud", then the subsequent evidence provided by others would have satisfied that requirement- and if you were a rational and critically thinking individual you would have abandoned that position due to the overwhelming evidence that it's ridiculous, and you wouldn't be demanding that others prove you wrong on the basis of serious misunderstandings and even more complex question fallacies.

Do you not get it? You should be done by now. Go home. There's no more to discuss. It's an easy question- you attempted to answer it, it was debunked- and now you're simply ignoring the rebuttal and trying to skip over it to your next claim.

It doesn't work like that. Logic doesn't simply stop and start on your whim.

[Pardalis]

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76857) Truthseeker, knock yourself out.

[Totovader]

If some actual experts who do a legitamate study come forward with actual evidence, not a bunch of philosophers, I would probably be much more on the fence.

My friends dad is a physicist, he read the NIST reports, and though he is not qualified as a structural engineer, he did say that most of what they said was pretty much spot on...even though he THINKS the towers fell in a strange manner, he still believes that the NIST report is generally correct, based on SCIENCE

You do a great disservice to the philosophy community by associating irrational, backwards, ignorant conspiracists with philosophers.

The problem is- they have no philosophy- not that they are too much of it.

:talk038:

[TruthSeeker1234]

1) It is not mushrooming. There is no internal rotation, and no "stem" formation. Besides, nothing seems to be moving fast enough, one criteria for mushroom cloud formation.

2) Someone put an annoying text box in the way of the top of the plume, making it very hard to see.

A normal column will show some amount of expansion and vortex formation, but that is nothing like the formation of a mushroom cloud.

Most people falsely equate mushroom clouds with nuclear explosions. Many naturally occuring mushroom clouds are associated with volcanic eruptions.

I don't think this was a nuke. But we don't know. Your mention of a volcano is right. The twin towers did look like volcanoes. Rapidly shortening volcanoes. Why does a volcano make a mushroom cloud? Answer: Because it produces smoke and a lot of heat. Heat travels upwards, and expands the cloud. Excellent Hokulele, yes, there is hope for you. Next you should look at another feature of some volcanoes, that is pyroclastic flows.

I did not cut off any of the picture from "Office fires can't do this" gif. I stablized it. It's to go along with somebody's dumb 9/11 rock song that's supposed to be coming out eventually.

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76857

[beachnut]

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked; that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos), that no mushroom cloud formed, that there was no afterglow, that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that all of the perimeter columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that the steel did not appear to disintegrate, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling), that the south wing of WTC 4 appeared as though rubble hit it (instead of disappearing), that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

AND

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

AND

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

AND

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

AND

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

AND

. . .well, you get the idea.


In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.
Go get some more experience and education; in about 5 years you will be able to figure out 9/11. See you later.

[boloboffin]

I'm sorry - is there anywhere else a mushroom cloud that goes DOWN and not UP?

[Hokulele]

I don't think this was a nuke. But we don't know. Your mention of a volcano is right. The twin towers did look like volcanoes. Rapidly shortening volcanoes. Why does a volcano make a mushroom cloud? Answer: Because it produces smoke and a lot of heat. Heat travels upwards, and expands the cloud. Excellent Hokulele, yes, there is hope for you. Next you should look at another feature of some volcanoes, that is pyroclastic flows.

I did not cut off any of the picture from "Office fires can't do this" gif. I stablized it. It's to go along with somebody's dumb 9/11 rock song that's supposed to be coming out eventually.

No, these plumes do not look anything like either a volcano, a pyroclastic flow, or a mushroom cloud. To form a mushroom cloud volcanically, you need to create a Rayleigh-Taylor instability, for which you would need gas that is much less dense than that present here. Pyroclastic flows are super-heated gas and head downhill for many miles from the source due to gravity, the slope of the terrain, and the size of the flow. If any of the above had been present, you can bet the vulcanologists would have been all over the site.

Yes, you did cut off the top of the plume with the text. It can be seen briefly at the beginning of the loop, then is cut off by the text, obscuring any motion that may have been present.

[Totovader]

I'm sorry - is there anywhere else a mushroom cloud that goes DOWN and not UP?

Yes, actually there was the case of- oh, no wait, that was just a weird dream.

So, in reality, no. We are only concerned with reality, correct?

TS seems to be neglecting the fact that there was a building there... he's somehow just looking at the end result as a snapshot and assuming that it's dust and debris going the other way. It's that sort of laughable context dropping you can only find in conspiracism.

[my_wan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2GKScQR-I

You can see the rotation here, and also the disintegration of steel into dust.

Mushroom cloud? It appeared to be perfectly clear to me, no graininess. It would be more convincing if you run the film backwards. You can actually see the so called "mushroom cloud" falling toward the ground at a leisurely pace! Exactly what you would expect of low energy (no explosion) smoke being sucked into the vacuum created by a falling building. Then as it approaches the ground spreads out. Not only does it not look like a mushroom cloud its motion is way too slow and the evolution is backwards. The disintegrating steel? Have you ever used a camera . I have an unretouched photo of myself were yo can see through me like a ghost and it's not even double exposed. Bet you can't explain it. I'll try to upload but it's over 2 meg from the digital camera. It says not a picture. Reducing to 640X480 at 80%. Did your steel post become ghost too?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1539345f627f1e4afd.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4544)

[hellaeon]

I answered the question in the OP, my answer contained mention of the mushroom cloud, Ron Wieck called me names, others denied the existence of the mushroom cloud, I provided evidence to support my claims, and answer questions raised about mushroom cloud behavior, RMackey chimed in with some assertions, I provided some relevant background information on RMackey for readers to consider his credibility. See, it's all about the OP.

You know I'm pretty good with intuitive kinda things. Your the only one here who says its a mushroom cloud and no one else agrees. Providing what you think is evidence is not actually providing evidence, its like me saying 1+1=3 and showing this

1 + 1 = 3

as my evidence and then getting fluffed cause no one gets it.

Thus I propose another theory.

Here is my official paper, done in a way that you believe is 'scientific'

*[penn jillette voice/sarcasm] puts on white lab coat, you know...like a scientist... [/penn jillette voice/sarcasm]*

Theory: I think cows farting in a paddock produce a mushroom cloud of methane.

Evidence:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/HulkamaniacUM/More%20Pictures%201/mooooo.jpg

Notes: Can you see it? clear as day to me. Do you see the pulverized pieces of poo heavier then air that expunge from the cows a*ss? Look at that dark cloud of thick poo air just above the second cows ear obviously coming from the cows a*ss on the left of the picture.

Conclusion: Prove to me that a cows fart is does not ascend in a mushroom cloud. Im right. No one can tell me different since I cant hear you over the la la la I yell to drown out the real world. I have presented my 'evidence'. I can see it, thus I am correct.

Thanking you

Hellaeons methane theory
RTARD 101
School of Applications of Cooking recipes to Building design.

[R.Mackey]

By the way, for anyone new, RMackey claims to be a NASA scientist, yet has demonstrated, among other things, that he does not understand that the rapid fall of the dust clouds indicates that they are more dense than air, and that when they expand and form cauliflower shapes, that this is proof of a temperature/pressure differential from the surrounding air.

As "proof", RMackey submitted a still picture of two polymers of equal density that swirl around each other between two pieces of glass.

Also for anyone new, RMackey thinks that the cores of the twin towers were only cross-braced by the main flooring system, and not by the horizontal beams, the diagonal beams, and the independent flooring system of the cores.

Also for anyone new, RMackey is afraid to debate me on video. At least Frank Greening has the courage to.
:D

Ace, if you're so secure in your beliefs, why do you fly off the handle every time I try to help you?

Just a few points of rebuttal:


I am a NASA scientist. If anyone doubts this (except you, Ace) drop me a PM. Many of my papers appear on the NASA Technical Report servers and in societies such as the IEEE. I'm confident I can verify my claim to your satisfaction in minutes.
Your "cauliflower shapes" debacle appears in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2270481#post2270481). Suffice to say that you don't know what you're talking about.
Your attempt to call me a liar over cross-bracing is documented here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2273912#post2273912). Denial is an ugly thing to behold.
Your posturing about "televised debates" is the stupidest feint of them all. I actually won a bet (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1947085#post1947085) from poster Horatius, because I bet that you'd welch on every deal that you made.

Back to mushroom clouds. They don't rotate.

Here's a mushroom cloud, Crossroads Baker to be precise. Features in the crown and in the stem are clearly visible. So, I ask you, which way is it rotating?

-l6Q8Q1smwg

Ta ta for now, Ace. And try to learn something, I beg you. Just swallow your pride, and let the learning happen.

[Unfit4Command]

:D

-l6Q8Q1smwg

Ta ta for now, Ace. And try to learn something, I beg you. Just swallow your pride, and let the learning happen.

Looks just like the collapse of the Twin Towers to me.

[boloboffin]

Man, what must the whales have thought that day?

[Trigood]

Nothing is what it seems, baby. Everyone else falls for the trick, but the CT's can see through the illusions. I'll bet it's some form of megalomania common to low-IQ white guys.

It's probably too much high-fructose corn syrup. Either that, or too many stoooopid movies...

:popcorn1

[beachnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn2GKScQR-I

You can see the rotation here, and also the disintegration of steel into dust.
Steel in to dust!?

This proves one thing and one thing only. You are nuts. As in very challenged with video, reality and most topics having anything to do with 9/11.

OOOOHHHHHH<<<< lol

[AZCat]

OK AZcat, I'll challenge you the same way I did RMackey.

Give me an example of a something which expands and forms a cauliflower shape, but is the same temperature/pressure as the surrounding air.

Give me an example of something which falls rapidly through air to the ground, but is the same density as air.

I'll wait.

You don't get it. You aren't dealing with two fluids here so all your questions about fluid boundary behavior are moot.

[Ysidro]

Can't mushroom clouds be caused by any significantly large explosion? The only reason we associate them with nukes is because a nuke is a really significant explosion.

Unless I'm wrong. Which I could be. My explosives expertise stops at bottle rockets.

But if true, then even a mushroom cloud alone wouldn't prove a nuke. Of course, nothing will prove a nuke because there wasn't a freakin' nuke used in each tower!

How hard is it to get a geiger counter? Walk around ground zero for awhile and watch as you get normal background radiation! Oooooooh, scary!

[Gravy]

Can't mushroom clouds be caused by any significantly large explosion? The only reason we associate them with nukes is because a nuke is a really significant explosion.

Unless I'm wrong. Which I could be. My explosives expertise stops at bottle rockets.

But if true, then even a mushroom cloud alone wouldn't prove a nuke. Of course, nothing will prove a nuke because there wasn't a freakin' nuke used in each tower!

How hard is it to get a geiger counter? Walk around ground zero for awhile and watch as you get normal background radiation! Oooooooh, scary!Ground Zero was tested for ionizing radiation in October, 2001.
A survey of the rubble pile was conducted on 10/22-10/23 to check for latent radiation with particular attention to alpha radiation. Results show no elevated levels of concern from either known building latent radiation sources or any terrorist origin source materials. Source (http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/summary.html)

[Gravy]

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if: [same old pathetic lunacy mercifully snipped]

. . .well, you get the idea.Yes, Krackpotoa has erupted again. Expect a cool summer!

[sackett]

The conspiracy loons are not likely ever to change their minds, because that would require them learning something -- and that would be, I think, physically impossible. Simply put, their brains are full.

[busherie]

What would convince me the official version is true:

- Capture Bin Laden (I mean make an effort, at least, and shoot when he's in sight)

- Gimme a thorough explanation for WTC7

- Get Mineta and seriously debrief him

- Explain me how they could not prevent, or at least DO something to prevent the attacks, wether before or during them.


The important questions,and goals, were not me by the Commission and the US governement.

Busherie

[Hamradioguy]

I don't think this was a nuke. But we don't know.

Yes we DO know- See other posts here. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a nuke of any kind. Not a "mini-nuke" (whatever that is), not a neutron bomb, not anything involving a nuclear chain reaction. So let's put that one to rest, eh?

[busherie]

The conspiracy loons are not likely ever to change their minds, because that would require them learning something -- and that would be, I think, physically impossible. Simply put, their brains are full.
Or, yeah, and stop thinking every thruther is either terrorist friendly and a stupid person, that would help as well.

[sackett]

Or, yeah, and stop thinking every thruther is either terrorist friendly and a stupid person, that would help as well.

Okay. Can you show me some evidence that the trootheroids are not stupid?

Just axin' questions.

[Pardalis]

- Capture Bin Laden (I mean make an effort, at least, and shoot when he's in sight)

How is killing him going to convince you? Won't you accuse the US of silencing him if they shoot him down?

They already have KSM, what about him?

- Gimme a thorough explanation for WTC7The final report is coming.

- Get Mineta and seriously debrief himHow is he going to remember better 6 years later?

- Explain me how they could not prevent, or at least DO something to prevent the attacks, wether before or during them.
This has been explained in the Commission Report, but granted that this is still cause for concern, but definately not a reason enough to believe in a conspiracy.

[Cuddles]

So this isn't a mushroom cloud? Sure looks and (more importantly) behaves like one. What is it? Can't wait for the big debate with Greening on your show.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/BlownToKC2/images/MushroomCloudsmall.jpg

Aren't mushroom clouds traditionally, you know, mushroom shaped?

[sackett]

This is from the U.S. Civil War.

The Battle of the Crater opened with the explosion of a huge mine under the Confederate lines. Witnesses saw the smoke cloud assume a mushroom shape.

Yeah, sure, like old dumb black powder would do that.

Don't you admire the fiendish simplicity of it? Those Jews in the NWO travelled back in time to test their nucular device on God-fearing white southerners who were only defending their freedom to own slaves!

Don't listen to them, TS3421. You & me, WE know the troothe.

[The Demon's Head]

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked; that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos), that no mushroom cloud formed, that there was no afterglow, that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that all of the perimeter columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them), that the steel did not appear to disintegrate, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling), that the south wing of WTC 4 appeared as though rubble hit it (instead of disappearing), that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

AND

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

AND

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

AND

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

AND

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

AND

. . .well, you get the idea.


In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.

Hey Truthseeker1234, you are wrong and will always be wrong. Why don't you just admit you are a terrible liar?

So, the truth movement wants a new investigation to investigate the truth movemen'ts lies? Why? To be shown once again the kind of liars the troof members really are?

And please understand that if there was incriminating evidence of USG involvement in the 9/11 attacks, a dirty politician would have exposed those involved and that politician would be considered a hero.

And stop lying, Truthseeker1234, when you know that the troofers have no evidence of inside job. All the troofers have is their lies that they made up.

[Redtail]

Man, what must the whales have thought that day?

WHO FARTED!?!?!?!:mad:

[Yurebiz]

Hm.. for me.. I'd say I'd let go of MIHOP if the NIST releases a sound and likely explanation to why WTC7 fell. If they don't model the collapse out, same as they did with the twin towers, and they probably won't, I would probably still believe deep in my heart that it was demolished, but I'd let go of it. It's gotta be a LIKELY scenario thought, not a "zomg trusses #1 and #2 bending 30 feet downwards pulling the whole thing down with no evident fires nor damage nowhere them!". Someday I'm gonna get those damn trusses and teach 'em a lesson, I swear.

But thats just for MIHOP. For me to abandon LIHOP as well then I'd need the FAA and NORAD admitting their errors, firing several officers and having congress to criminally prosecute them. In fact, admitting LIHOI.

For me to let go of LIHOI... er, I dunno? Evidence of Al Qaeda infiltration on FAA and NORAD? But thats virtually impossible.

[PhantomWolf]

For me to abandon LIHOP as well then I'd need the FAA and NORAD admitting their errors, firing several officers and having congress to criminally prosecute them.

Have you read the NEADS transcripts?

[busherie]

How is killing him going to convince you? Won't you accuse the US of silencing him if they shoot him down?

They already have KSM, what about him?


Well at this point, after letting Bin Laden escape so many times, after preventing the French "C.O.S" from shooting OBL at least twice, I think actually killing him would be ok.

He's of no use for the US government.

Only problem, killing him would probably give raise to such a big uprising in Pakistan that it would do no good.

If the US government thinks this way, then I understand them...

Busherie

[pagan]

The question is this:

What could convince you that 9/11 was not in fact an "inside job", but in fact happened pretty much as described by the 9/11 Commission report?

What would cause you to change your mind and realize you were wrong all along?


The 9/11 Commission report is in itself evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

[PerryLogan]

The 9/11 Commission report is in itself evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.No way! It would have been much more thorough, leaving no questions unanswered. That's what whitewashes do, and the 9/11 Report just doesn't fill the bill as a whitewash.

This is a problem with the whole Truther paradigm, not that I can get the point across to the lads. If you understand the point I just made, you're not a Truther.

[pagan]

No way! It would have been much more thorough, leaving no questions unanswered. That's what whitewashes do, and the 9/11 Report just doesn't fill the bill as a whitewash.

This is a problem with the whole Truther paradigm, not that I can get the point across to the lads. If you understand the point I just made, you're not a Truther.

So your argument is that the report was very bad, therefore it was not a cover-up? And had it been a real cover-up, they would've done a much better job?

Well, your argument is different. I'll give you that.

[David Wong]

How would you know? You haven't read it.

[PhantomWolf]

How would you know? You haven't read it.

But he's read all the 9/11 CT sites that say so....... :rolleyes:

[scooby]

The question is this:

What could convince you that 9/11 was not in fact an "inside job", but in fact happened pretty much as described by the 9/11 Commission report?

What would cause you to change your mind and realize you were wrong all along?

If it was the case that it was not an inside job, and this was demonstrated adequately, then of course people wouldn't be skeptical. It's a bit of a no-brainer.

[JimBenArm]

If it was the case that it was not an inside job, and this was demonstrated adequately, then of course people wouldn't be skeptical. It's a bit of a no-brainer.
I think it's a matter of how you define "adequately". For us, obviously, we think it has been proven. There are others that for various reasons would never be satisfied no matter what evidence is shown. So it's not quite a no-brainer.

[PhantomWolf]

If it was the case that it was not an inside job, and this was demonstrated adequately, then of course people wouldn't be skeptical. It's a bit of a no-brainer.

How do you demonstrate something "adequately" to a person who's main response to anything that would show his ideas to be wrong is "They could have just planted it" or "They could be lying"?

[The Demon's Head]

The 9/11 Commission report is in itself evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Please provide the incriminating evidence of why the 9/11 Commission Report proves inside job.

Or, do you have some evidence that could shed some light on the inside job theory? CTer's must have some sort of evidence or their either lying. So, which is it?

[Totovader]

How do you demonstrate something "adequately" to a person who's main response to anything that would show his ideas to be wrong is "They could have just planted it" or "They could be lying"?

You must first get them to agree that logic and reason are the basis for understanding. They have to agree to reality and its rules, first- otherwise they can move the goal post at their whim- and often do.

[scooby]

How do you demonstrate something "adequately" to a person who's main response to anything that would show his ideas to be wrong is "They could have just planted it" or "They could be lying"?

The problem can be stated simpler than that.

How do you demonstrate something false "adequately" to a skeptical person who knows it is false?

[PhantomWolf]

How do you demonstrate something false "adequately" to a skeptical person who knows it is false?

Well when their enitire argument is "because it's obvious" then reason and logic doesn't feature.

Oh, by the way, when are you going to produce a video with all those nice explosive sounds going off? Oh, let's guess, because it's "obvious" that they were there and you "know" the Offical story is "false", you don't have to actually find anything to actually prove it.

[westprog]

The problem can be stated simpler than that.

How do you demonstrate something false "adequately" to a skeptical person who knows it is false?

How about if the proceeds from Loose Change were used to hire a group of Iranian, Chinese and Syrian structural engineers, who did a detailed analysis of the collapse of the WTC? That's a perfectly feasible thing to undertake. Naturally they wouldn't have access to all the physical evidence, but they'd be able to investigate all the anomalies.

If they ended up basically agreeing with NIST, would that change anyone's mind? Certainly if they produced a report saying that NIST was wrong, and they explained why, it would create doubts.

[negativ]

How about if the proceeds from Loose Change were used to hire a group of Iranian, Chinese and Syrian structural engineers, who did a detailed analysis of the collapse of the WTC? That's a perfectly feasible thing to undertake. Naturally they wouldn't have access to all the physical evidence, but they'd be able to investigate all the anomalies.

If they ended up basically agreeing with NIST, would that change anyone's mind? Certainly if they produced a report saying that NIST was wrong, and they explained why, it would create doubts.

No. You apparently don't understand the truther mindset (and that's no character flaw, I assure you). In CT Land, the Iranians (who are not Arabs) are puppets of the US Government who only pretend to be Islamic fascists because the US wants to steal Arab oil. China is the Little Nation That Could, but they're under The Thumb of the New World Order neocon Jews. They are powerless in the face of their oppression. Syria is a happy place, with flowery meadows and rainbow skies and rivers made of chocolate where the children dance and laugh and play, with gumdrop smiles. This causes the Syrian government, just like Iraq's, to fall like a house of cards in the face of the unprecidented murderous malevolence of US foreign policy unless they TOE THE LINE.

[Belz...]

I will change my mind and realize I was wrong if:

It can be proven to me that all of the photographic and videographic evidence of the twin towers was faked;

It wasn't. That's why we can tell it was a collapse.

that in reality the towers actually collapsed (instead of systematically turning into power as apppears on the videos),

I assume you meant "powder".

So, you didn't spot any actual large chunks of stuff within the debris piles ?

that no mushroom cloud formed,

Got that right. None formed.

that there was no afterglow,

What would this have to do with anything ?

that all of the core columns appeared in the photos (instead of 10-20% of them),

Because we know that explosives desintegrate steel.

that the steel did not appear to disintegrate

Because we know that explosives desintegrate steel.

, that the spire stood up (instead of turning to dust and falling)

ALCHEMY BOMBS!!

that there were no round vertical holes bored through WTC5

There you go. There weren't.

, that WTC6 appeared to have rubble on it (instead of the hollow void), that there were no firetrucks with disappeared engines and melted frames.

Disappeared. Chuckles.

That real videos of the WTC2 jet crash were discovered, and they show and aluminum aircraft behaving as we would expect

As YOU would expect ?

You're a no-planer, right ?

, that is crumpling and exploding, with parts of it bouncing off the steel perimeter columns and falling to the street (instead of the obviously fake plane videos we were shown which depict impossible physics).

I feel sorry for you if you don't understand physics.

The real photos of Shanksville were discovered and they showed airplane wreckage

You're assuming your conclusion, here.

The videos of WTC7 being demolished turned out to be fakes, that actually WTC7 was slowly dismantled in the weeks after 9/11.

Of course, the fact that they HAD been faked would simply be MORE evidence of a conspiracy. Way to go, defining your own standard of evidence.

THe video of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC7 before it happened turned out to be a fake

That's a new one for me.

. . .well, you get the idea.

Yes. I do. You have no critical thinking ability whatsoever.

In short, changing my mind would require convincing me that all the evidence was fabricated to convince us that 9/11 was an inside job, and that all of the correct evidence implicating Osama and the 19 hijackers was hidden from us.

In other words, yours is an exercice in A) circular reasoning and B) argument from ignorance.

[Belz...]

Notice how the dark at the top expands and goes upwards, mushrooming.

And where's the mushroom's head, exactly ?

By the way, for anyone new, RMackey claims to be a NASA scientist, yet has demonstrated, among other things, that he does not understand that the rapid fall of the dust clouds indicates that they are more dense than air, and that when they expand and form cauliflower shapes, that this is proof of a temperature/pressure differential from the surrounding air.

:eye-poppi

Also for anyone new, RMackey is afraid to debate me on video. At least Frank Greening has the courage to.

Are we going to see any evidence, any time soon ? Instead of insults ?

[Belz...]

Capture Bin Laden (I mean make an effort, at least, and shoot when he's in sight)

How is capturing him going to help you ?

- Gimme a thorough explanation for WTC7

Done.

- Get Mineta and seriously debrief him

Why ? Is he going to change his testimony ?

- Explain me how they could not prevent, or at least DO something to prevent the attacks, wether before or during them.

Please stop thinking that the US is invincible.

[Belz...]

The 9/11 Commission report is in itself evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Typical CTer thinking. EVERYTHING in the universe, no matter what it is, and INCLUDING the platypus, can be fitted in a conspiracy theory.

[Ysidro]

Ground Zero was tested for ionizing radiation in October, 2001.

Oh sure, how can you really believe the Official report? *tongue firmly planted in cheek*

Besides, all the evidence points to the towers being downed by an artificially created miniature black hole! Faster than freefall, baby! :D

[Horatius]

Besides, all the evidence points to the towers being downed by an artificially created miniature black hole! Faster than freefall, baby! :D



You do realize your theory really sucks, right?




:D

I'm here all week, folks!