After several years of studying the reactions of friends and acquintences when shown the evidence of 9/11 truth, I have come to some conclusions about why they reject it.

I think the average American just simply won't believe something this big that the media will not also show them. They get their information from the media. They are used to getting their news and analysis, and having the media do all the work for them. And although they complain about media bias, on the biggest issue, they believe the press.

During the WMD push for war in Iraq, the msm and some of the alternative media followed the ridiculous line that Saddam had massive power and could destroy us. Many experts refuted this, but they were kept off the msm shows. The whole "debate" was framed so that really liberal, extremist people were somewhat unsure that Saddam had WMD, while moderates KNEW he did. The msm manufactured all of that, the information, the framing. They got their data from the Pentagon, but they presented it in ways that the average American could digest. I remember my friends completely unable to accept that I might be right when I said that most evidence shows that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Facts didn't matter. They KNEW, because the media told them. Even though it actually made little sense, and sometimes the propaganda was almost laughingly amateurish and almost childish, because it came from their most respected sources of news, they could believe nothing else.

The same is going on with 9/11 truth. The vast majority of Americans simply hear nothing about the reality of 9/11, and constantly have heard the official story. When you tell them that this is all lies, they laugh. They laugh because they "KNOW" that if there were a big story here, with all of the political antagonism and competition, there CERTAINLY would be some journalist ready to take it all on, bring the facts to light, and make a great name for himself. Just think of it.............the newspaper who would present this, one of the biggest stories of all time, certainly would do it if it really was a story that could hold up to scrutiny.
Because no venue will do it, they "know" 9/11 truth has to be bogus. The media, they think, with all of its competing companies, could not possibly all work together to shut down a HUGE pile of facts. And so they just won't put their precious time into studying any of it. They listen a bit, and then something in their brain tells them, "no, all of the media could not lie about this".

9/11 truth immediately is placed in a folder in their brain: whacko stuff. It is filed with moon landing deniers, pyramid power, holocaust deniers, UFO's. And they just don't have the time and energy to put into it. And so their reaction may be to laugh, or to ignore it, or politely say a few words and then ignore it.

My conclusion: we will get nowhere until the media, maybe first the alternative media sites, begin to regularly present the very most basic facts and truths of that day of horror, the contradictions, the PROOFS. I think, personally, that the official theory collapse of the WTC is the mostly easily proven to be a false story. The nanothermite, the free fall speed, the molten metal, etc, is impossible to logically refute. If this were presented in several media venues, over time, I think it would get the ball rolling.
But the alternative media have refused to do their part. They do not do the honest and responsible thing. I'm sure a lot of the journalists and editors realize there are really obvious lies in the official story, but they just won't go there. I don't know if it is pressure, threats, big money bribes from foundations, whatever..............but the only stories our once treasured alternative press will give to 9/11 truth are stories that insult the 9/11 truth movement. Alternet, Counterpunch, CommonDreams, DemocracyNow, the Nation, Mother Jones, antiwar.com, and so many other sites have all treated the facts and evidence of 9/11 the same.............ignoring it, sometimes insulting the movement. And of course the msm won't touch it.
To me this is criminal. It is conspiratorial. It approaches real treason. And, of course, unethical journalistically.

I don't know how to change the status quo on this. Time is passing by. Maybe we should demonstrate not against big federal agencies or big corporations, but in front of Democracy Now and Rolling Stone and the Nation and MotherJones publishers. I go onto Alternet everyday and present 9/11 information in the comment sections, and imploring the writers to break the censorship and present the obvious and overwhelming evidence of 9/11 truth. The trolls come in and attack me viciously, and Justin Holland, a senior editor and writer, insults me and the movement. Too bad.......it is a good venue and should be on the side of 9/11 truth. But the same is going on with all of the other well read alternative sites and outlets.

I think that 9/11 truthers who are in a position to know some journalists and publishers should try to find out just why these people have locked out the truth. I don't think they are ignorant of it all. I think there is fear..........fear of losing a career path, fear of losing readership, fear of reprisals from those who would suffer from the truth, fear of losing foundational support, and even fear of physical or bodily harm. But I just don't know. I wish I did. I wish I had some indication of just why our news, all of it, has censored the truth.

I really believe that until my friends and family and associates read 9/11 truth in their newspapers and magazines, or watch it on tv, they will continue to laugh at us, or ignore us, when we present them with 9/11 truth.
The time is passing by.
Something has to change.

this is very important research.