In an recent post I invoked the principle of Occam's razor -- that when confronted with two competing explanations, we should choose that which embodies fewer apriori assumptions. My focus was on the difficulty of reconciling three factors: i) the easily observed characteristics the three catastrophic building collapses of 9-11, ii) the official explanations of same, and iii) the known laws of physics. My conclusions -- were that the official explanations were untenable, and that the collapses could be explained only by the use of explosives, strategically placed and detonated.
Following Occam, however, I explicitly rejected any discussion of conspiracy theories. Nonetheless, a report in the New York Times now raises again the conspiracy question. A pair of credible individuals, both former United States Senators, one of whom served on the 9-11 Commission, both with access to secret information, have publicly stated their belief that the Saudi government was linked the attacks of 9-11.
I refer the reader to the Times article; I will not pursue the discussion other than to note that most so-called progressive or left-wing commentators have refused to touch the 9-11 question as regards the credibility of the official narrative. Hopefully, this will begin to change.