What would change my mind is a piece of explosive, a cutting charge scorch on some steel, some unfired detcord/shockcord...
I can see what you're imagining but there are a few problems with it given the evidence that was found as well as that which was not found.
For instance... as I recall, they couldn't find the black boxes but they could find a relatively well preserved passport.
They couldn't test the debris for explosives or search for evidence of that sort but they could simulate what would seem to be an unprecedented event. And at this point, aren't you convinced by the best simulations that money could buy that no actual investigation along the lines you're suggesting is necessary?
I'm also not sure how you're imagining the imaginary scenario or evidence that would convince you being reported so that you'd find out about it and so forth. Imagine this: "CNN reports, explosives were tested for and found on the scene!!!! Everything we previously reported, was wrong!!! Also, the global political order has just been overturned because it wasn't Muslims with Korans, it was Jews with Talmuds... another one of their false flags... just like we've been reporting all along!!! Now reporting from... wait, we just lost our satellite feed." Etc. etc.?
Right.
Imagine that.
...failed detonator, a chemical trace of explosive...
Ironically, Ry Dawson reported in one of his Youtube videos that Israelis were actually found with detonators. I'm just going by memory and I haven't thoroughly vetted that (Maybe it's bunk?) or read all the police reports for myself yet but that's what I remember him claiming. So if that were true, would it be the sort of evidence that would convince you or would you be able to invent a different imaginary scenario... sort of like Chomsky's "sheer logic" in the Youtube video being discussed here? Because then that evidence still wouldn't matter because it would be falsified by the lack of a lot of imaginary whistle blowers and so forth anyway. (By the time Chomsky is done with "sheer logic," almost all the evidence that he's wound up pointing to in reality would seem to be
imaginary... which is the way things often are with intellectuals and philosophers. Just saying. But at least it's better than running a simulation and claiming that it's the epistemic equivalent of an investigation... mainly because Chomsky never claimed to be running an actual investigation. A satire: "I'd imagine that there would be whistle blowers. QED!" Side note, I think he's smarter than this.)
or some witnesses that come forward with testimoney saying they saw some dudes coming into the building in the middle of the night
For the sake of argument, let's say that's already happened. Are you sure that's really the evidence that would change your mind, in the imaginary scenario in which your mind would be changed?
I have my doubts.
It seems to me that the main thing that changes people's minds is still the corporate media. In other words, "CNN reports!!!"
So if that was, "CIA reports!!! For the sake of your national $ecurity!!" That would be an interesting way of controlling almost everyone with respect to anything of any significance. Control by a "top secret" type of society and so forth might even be fine for a while, so that everyone could enjoy their all American sports played on the field defined by the compass and square and so forth. But power corrupts and so forth... actually, I'd put that differently. Power draws psychopaths like flies to a corpse, so any "central intelligence" or power structure left sitting around and not split apart based on checks and balances and a balance of power so that cerebral psychopaths have to fight each other and so forth might leave "the base" and the part of the body politic that mass movements sometimes emerge from worse off than it otherwise could have been.
Out of the thousands of people that evacuated those buildings that day you have TWO that say they heard some noise.
That's incorrect:
...implicit in its 2005 report on the Twin Towers, that the FDNY did not report any testimonies about explosions in the towers. NIST’s revised claim seemed to be that, although there were some testimonies about such explosions, there were not enough “to support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.” This was a significant modification of NIST’s stance, which should have been published as a correction on its website and stated in a press release, not simply put in a letter to a few scholars.
In any case, what exactly NIST meant by this statement is not clear. Did it mean that the oral histories did not provide evidence worth mentioning unless all of the oral histories, or at least a majority of them, mentioned explosions? If so, that would be an incredible response. Almost 25 percent of the members of the FDNY provided testimony suggestive of explosions. This was a very high proportion, especially given the fact that these men and women had not been asked whether explosions had been going off—they had simply volunteered this information.* With regard to NIST’s limited denial—that none of the FDNY testimonials spoke of explosions “in the region below the impact and fire floors”—NIST’s “taken as a whole” statement in this letter seemed to admit that there were some testimonies of this type while claiming, in an attempt to justify its silence about them, that there were not enough of them to be worth mentioning.
NIST, however, had not simply failed to mention them. It had specifically stated that the FDNY collected “no evidence… of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors.” No evidence would mean no testimonies of this sort whatsoever. Accordingly, insofar as NIST admitted that the FDNY oral histories did include some testimonies of this sort, it admitted that its limited denial had been false. And yet NIST has never publicly retracted it, so we have here another example of scientific fraud. By admitting, in effect, that there were some testimonies about explosions, including several specifically referring to the region below the fire and impact floors, while claiming that these testimonies “taken as a whole” did not provide evidence that explosives played a role in the collapse of the Twin Towers, NIST demonstrated that it had been determined—whatever the effect on its credibility as a scientific agency—to avoid mentioning evidence for explosives in its report.
(The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin, (2012-12-30))
(I'd imagine that Griffin's name resonates well with a phoenix rising from the ashes. How do they put it in the Cremation of Care ceremony? Oh, that's right... that's all bunk and pseudo-science sort of like alchemy and the Kabbalah of the ancient cabals, I'd imagine. Curious that modern people would be entertaining themselves with ancient forms of bunk, though.)
*This is interesting too because investigators could have planted the idea of explosives in the minds of witnesses and "the base" if the herd of investigators was interested in doing so. And that sometimes leads to people reporting it even when they can't quite remember it... i.e. it might get other parts of the herd moving. So if the investigative part of the herd were interested in "making a case" or heading other parts of the herd in that direction, it's likely that they could have.
And overall... who knows what they would have found if they were running an actual investigation instead of an imaginary simulation or generally looking for evidence and investigating instead of running a PR campaign, etc. (I'm reminded of the pathetic state of "investigative reporting" in the corporate media. NIST's simulations of the official story may as well have been the scripts on their teleprompters, I'd imagine.)
...what would convince me if someone in the conspiracy came forward and explains how he was involved in it.
Seems unlikely, even if there actually were higher conspirators than Al Qaeda/"the base."
And even if they did decide that they had done something wrong instead of being a true believer in the way that they were moving the chess pieces and using their rooks to blow buildings and pawns up and so forth... who would they report their change of heart to and by what imaginary scenario would it be able to turn into: "CNN/CIA reports!!!!"
Again, seems unlikely... so perhaps in the end you can't change your mind the way that you're imagining that you can. I mean... as of right now, I can't really imagine a likely scenario in which you would even if there really was a 30 year conspiracy going on at a higher level due to moves being made on the
Grand Chess Board and so forth. (I.e. if 911 actually was another joint operation involving "top secret" Israelis and Americans similar to Iran Contra and so forth it's hard to imagine how and by what evidence someone with the perspective of a rook on the chess board would be able to come to that conclusion. But most pawns look up to rooks, I suppose... so at least there's that.)