This is where a conclusion is arrived at via false logic or evidence.
Meaning - Doesn't follow.
Cognitive dissonance - The belief in a principle when all evidence is to the contrary.
To my knowledge, the only conclusion that I have drawn is that the official explanation for the 9/11 disaster is nonsense ie. It stinks!
Fact: The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.
Fact: There has been no known collapse of steel framed high rise buildings due to fire damage before or following the WTC debacle. The 3rd building to be destroyed (WTC 7) on that day was not even hit by anything except (possibly) some debris from the twin towers' collapse hours beforehand. It suffered some localised fire damage to a few floors. That these buildings collapsed at free fall velocity on their own footprint is ONLY possible if they had been demolished by controlled explosive demolition charges.
Fact; Silverstein leased the center some 6 months before the event. He had insured it against terrorist attack for $3.2bn. On the afternoon of 9/11 he is on public record as saying,"We decided to pull it". About 30 mins later it collapsed (guess what?), on its own footprint as had towers 1 & 2 earlier that day.
How can a decision signaled by the phrase,"pull it" be followed by its total demolition 30 minutes later if it had not had the means for destruction already installed.
I may not be a genius but if you can't give meaningful answers to these questions please don't label me with pathetic phrases.