9/11, Treason, and Common Sense

Notwithstanding that alternative 9/11 explanations have captured the interest of large minorities in the US and Europe, arguments against, from both establishment sources and alternative gatekeepers, tend towards the ad hominem while avoiding substance. That only takes the gatekeepers so far, since many 9/11 skeptics are reasonable, accomplished, and very public individuals. Not that the opposite of ad hominem is an indicator of truth either, but it is a common-sense test of whether a proposition deserves attention. To the list of 9/11 skeptics—and this is specially worth noting—we can now add a very senior former CIA officer, Bill Christison, who is well and favorably known in progressive circles for his political essays. While I don't know exactly what happened it does seem to me that, given what we've learned subsequently about the facts, at the very least the burden of proof now decidedly rests on proponents of the standard story and that 'known facts' which are inconsistent with other well-established facts and principles should be hashed out. Skepticism is the only prudent course.