Reply #10: Answering William Seger

[Bryan Sacks]

You wrote:

Why does Hicks direct his scorn at the critics who "focus on the wacky theories" instead of on the people who invent and promote them? Wouldn't it be easier to take the argument where he wants it to go if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement" to most people? Why does he blame the critics for that -- for "fram{ing} the debate" by simply responding to the nonsense the wackos spread far and wide? So, how does Hicks propose that the wacky theories should be dealt with -- just ignore them? The dubious assumption seems to be that just ignoring the wacky theories and those who promote them will somehow allow him to "steer the argument" toward the theories that he thinks aren't wacky, which makes no sense to me. The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories.

1. Why does Hicks direct his scorn at the critics who "focus on the wacky theories" instead of on the people who invent and promote them?

Hicks has directed scorn at the inventors and promoters. There's no contradition in direct scorn both ways, as both groups of people deserve it.

2. Wouldn't it be easier to take the argument where he wants it to go if it weren't for the fact that those wacky theories have become the very meaning of the "truth movement" to most people?

If you are right, that is ultimately a failing of 'most people', who themselves fail to confront the media realities of the day.

3. Why does he blame the critics for that -- for "fram{ing} the debate" by simply responding to the nonsense the wackos spread far and wide?

Who should he blame, Mother Theresa? You seem to take it as a given that the stupidest theories have to be the ones reported on by the media. Imagine if news programs covered science that way. Unless a theory has merit sufficient to bring it's content to a wider audience, OF COURSE it should be ignored. I understand that in the current media dynamic, the spectacular theory will draw attention away from the more studied and careful one, but that can hardly be blamed on the careful and studious.

4. The dubious assumption seems to be that just ignoring the wacky theories and those who promote them will somehow allow him to "steer the argument" toward the theories that he thinks aren't wacky, which makes no sense to me. The far greater part of the "truth movement" itself would have no use for Hicks' attempts to steer the argument away from their beloved wacky theories

Talk about dubious assumptions! Here your prejudice comes shining through, try though you do to hide it. To the first part of this statement, I'll ask: why is it MY duty to confront baseless theories, simply because as a 9/11 skpetic I have been put in a category by the mainstream press with people who clearly have their own agendas unrelated to 9/11? I have nothing to do with them. I'm only associated with them in the first place because of a lazy media and outmoded types of thinking. Not my problem.

Second, the 'far greater part' of 9/11 skeptics are happy to, and do, take a more cautious approach. You obviously have some unnatural fear of association with these "wackos", but that's your issue. They're people who believe strange things that aren't true - you know, like Christians who believe in the Resurrection, for instance. But so what? The bottom line is: if governments are willing to attack their own citizens when it serves them - and we got a reminder from Zbig Brzezinski this week that false flag attacks are perfectly well in play - then people will be unnerved by this. If that upset comes out in bizarre, ridiculous theories, isn't that undertstandable to a degree?