I invite everyone to read Larisa Alexandrovna Horton excellent write up on the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that were finally declassified last week. This ought to be required reading in America. It demonstrates that the Saudi's were very much involved in the plotting and execution of 9/11. Larisa writes in her conclusion “there is concrete proof of Saudi government funding to the handlers of 9/11 hijackers – handlers who also happen to be Saudi intelligence officers. “.

There are two outstanding interviews with the author by Tom Woods and by Scott Horton. In both the article Larisa struggles with the conclusion, when she writes “US Coverup and Protection of the Saudi Government – Why? “ In both the interviews we hear “I can't give you a reason, I am just throwing out possibilities”. And “Why is Saudi Arabia our ally” . Larisa speculated how the Empire would have reacted if Iraqi's rather than Saudi's financed 9/11 “we would be nuking everybody”. At one point in the interview, Larisa states that the truth of the matter is “mind boggling”. Indeed.

My conclusion to Larisa's must read article would be a bit different, as I will explain. But first, a brief discussion of the principle Occam's Razor, mentioned in the interview with Scott Horton. The principle of Occam's Razor was originally stated to help guide scientists in the development of theoretical models. . It is highly debated today even within the scientific community, for which it was intended. In it's simplest form, Occam's Razor states that the correct answer tends to be (but is not always) the simplest one.

Taking that concept, Occam's principle was not intended to offer a way to think of complex man-made events that were intended to deceive. It will almost certainly lead to the wrong answer if used to explain complex conspiratorial behavior. But within the controversy over the principle, some authors have pointed out that Occam's does not lead to the simplest answer, but instead the simplest answer that explains all the data. I am shouting now: EXPLAINS ALL THE DATA.

Let me provide an example. My point of view with respect to Occam's is that the simplest explanation for the Kennedy Assassination that EXPLAINS ALL THE DATA is that it was a complex conspiracy, poorly executed, that was orchestrated at the highest levels of power. Very briefly and without going into any detail at all, in the eyes of his enemies within government, Kennedy's refusal to support the Bay of Pigs invasion, the capitulation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, his refusal to launch a nuclear first strike against Russia, his rejection of Operation Northwoods, his refusal to fight a war in Vietnam and finally his American University “Peace” speech told the Neoconservatives of that day that Kennedy was weak on Communism and needed to be killed. Without getting into the evidence or lack thereof for the simple (or simpleton’s) idea that Oswald did it, Occam's principle does not work when interpreted as the simplest answer. The Oswald-did-it scenario does not explain the facts. To apply Occam's principle to the Kennedy assassination, the simplest explanation that fits all the data is that it was a political assassination orchestrated at the highest levels of power.

In Scott Horton's interview with Larisa, he touches upon the problem when he says “that takes you into Truther territory.” My response is that, indeed it does. To summarize again all too briefly, the common Truther view is that the Neoconservatives (supported by Neoliberals) at the highest levels (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and on and on) either orchestrated the 9/11 attacks or at a minimum allowed them to happen. If the essential question is, why did Saudi Arabia not feel the wrath of the United States Government after 9/11, one can struggle with different theories such as those floated by Larisa. She speculated reasons such as our currency is tied to Saudi Oil, or the personal and business relationships between George Bush and Bandar bin Sultan . Recall that the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) stated that it would require a “New Pearl Harbor” in order for America to achieve military dominance in this part of the world. But if we are looking for the simplest explanation for the data available, the fact that Saudi Arabia financed 9/11 fits rather nicely into the Truther scenario, that American Neoconservatives planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. I should add, financed the 9/11 attacks without suffering any penalty. It explains why the terrorist cells were allowed to operate unmolested within our borders. It explains what the world witnessed in response to 9/11: a rapid expansion of the American Empire into the Middle East and perpetual war.

As Lance DeHaven-Smith writes in his book “Conspiracy Theory in America” the criticism by conspiracy deniers “is based on sentimentality about American political leaders and institutions rather than unbiased reasoning and objective observation,” and that conspiracy deniers “find the ideas offensive.” The term Conspiracy Theorist was created by the CIA in 1964 to marginalize those who study these events and come to different conclusions. It has been an effective tactic. My view is that the lesson of the 28 pages is not that it is “mind boggling," but instead that it further confirms the Conspiracy Reality of the Truthers.