As proof; imagine they showed us video tape of buildings collapsing at near free-fall speed. Analysts point out explosive squibs 20 stories
beneath the collapse point. They address hard physical evidence like molten metal and completely pulverized concrete. We hear hundreds of first hand accounts from firemen, police, journalists and regular citizens explaining the terrible sounds (and shockwaves) as bombs went off all around them.
Now imagine a "movement" begins that aims to challenge the government's official account. Ignoring all of known history (and all of the available evidence) this movement declares it was "FIRE" not bombs that brought down the buildings.
"It wasn't a controlled demolition" they say, "it was fire!!! The government doesn't want you to know our buildings are vulnerable to fire. They don't want to upgrade our skyscrapers to deal with the risk!!"
Which side of the argument do you think you'd be on? Is it possible those of you who're currently ridiculing the "controlled demolition" evidence would instead be using that same evidence to prove the "fire theory" wrong? How difficult would it be to deal with those ignoring mountains of video, audio, physical and eyewitness evidence in favor of propping up the less plausible explanation? Imagine THAT for a moment. Would you have a hard time understanding how anyone could ignore THIS?
My guess is "yes," you'd have a very hard time understanding how anyone could NOT SEE something so obvious. Something clear to anyone with eyes, ears, common sense...and (as the facts currently stand) a little courage.