I'm currently reading the book "Dark Age Ahead" by Jane Jacobs, and this passage came up.
Most people do not enjoy having their entire worldview discredited; it sets them uncomfortably adrift. Scientists are no exception. A paradigm tends to be so greatly cherished that, as new knowledge or evidence turns up that contradicts it or calls it into question, the paradigm is embroidered with qualifications and exceptions, along with labored pseudo-explanations--anything, no matter how intellectually disreputable or craven, to avoid losing the paradigm. If a paradigm is truly obsolete, it must finally give way, discredited by the testing of the real world. But outworn paradigms ordinarily stand staunchly until somebody within the field makes a leap of insight, imagination, and courage sufficient to dislodge the obsolete paradigm and replace it.
I've always found strange the lack of a smoking gun in the crime of 9/11. Interesting as well, trying to promote a particular fact or instance of 9/11 as a smoking gun tends to drive people mad. The real disinfo is the general public's knee-jerk discrediting every contentious 9/11 fact. Say a fact, and watch the magic of logic-free dismissiveness. Maybe the general public's response would be "uninfo"? My bet is that "uninfo" is far stronger and more tenacious than "disinfo" could ever try to be.