RP. it's hard to be polite in response to such rude, flippant, disrespectful, and ill-argued writings of a purported journalist, citing purported academics making specious arguments. But thanks for the suggestion, a good one. To the Hatrford Advocate's credit, they don't moderate comments. Sorry for the bad formatting - that's how I posted it.

--------------------------
A Moose said: "Why classify as a conspiracy that which is easily explained by general incompetence?" The question is rather: "Why do so many accept the explanation of general incompetence for that which cannot be explained by incompetence?" Ms. Abel attempts to use Occam's Razor, without understanding that this only means that the simpler of explanations that explains all phenomenon is preferred.

Ms. Abel, your article was rude, flippant, and very poorly argued. Show some respect for very serious issues raised by good, smart people. This includes 9/11 family members that spoke at the event, as you failed to even mention. Here are the words of one of those you tried to mock:

http://mujca.com/911familymember.htm

Your writing strikes me as an example of what English professor Eric Larsen writes about in his book A Nation Gone Blind: America in an Age of Simplification and Deceit (2006).

http://www.ericlarsen.net/books.html

Here's his latest essay on this phenomenon:

http://www.ericlarsen.net/foodforthought1.1.1.2008.html

With your absurd analogy to ostracism of drunks, you've taken serious issues of science, forensics, law, and politics, and turned them into juvenile mockery, not worthy of even high school student.

What's sad is that you got a psychology professor and history professor to use their credentials in support of the same
specious speculations about the motives and views of people at the conference.

Remarkably, Stuart Vyse's website contains this quote:

"My most important advice for students: Ask questions. There are few certainties in life, and the only way to separate
information from misinformation is to probe the logic and evidence behind the things you hear."
- Stuart Vyse

Good advice. Before misstating and misapplying Occam's Razor, did he first probe the logic and evidence behind what
the government and corporate media say about 9/11, then probe the logic and evidence of speakers at this conference? After all, it is the government with control over the evidence that has the burden and duty of explaining crimes on U.S. soil. Professor Vyse begs the question by asking us to believe that "9/11 conspiracy theories" are related to the "psychology of irrational behavior, superstition and belief in the paranormal."

Just looking at the impossible physics of the so-called "collapses," it is obvious that it is he that believes in the paranormal. Or more likely, he just hasn't bothered to look at the evidence, and takes the authoritarian and most un-American view that questioning the government is inherently wrong.

In trying to mock, you and the professors made mockeries of yourselves and your chosen professions.