Everything wrong with Sandy Hook compiled in one v

[jdrandall38]

I'm not saying I believe that the Sandy Hook tragedy didn't happen.  I'm just wondering as to why gears were turned so quickly from mourning the losses of 20 children to Gun control. 

 

 

Because they were killed with guns?

Terrible argument. You hear every single day on local news of someone being shot and killed and Obama doesn't address these incidents.

[sivispacem]

 

The people simply want cannabis completely legal

Do they? I don't think that's an accurate statement. The vast majority of Americans want the status quo because they, frankly, couldn't give a toss. Of course, I'm more than happy for you to demonstrate that most Americans want it legalised.

 

 

This is an overlay showing how they perfectly line up.

Not quite perfectly, in other words. I mean, what's the scale of the Google map in comparison to the film one? Why does the road line on the actual map comprise both river and street on the film one? Why is the "target" circle 20% (at least) larger on the film one? Plus the "strike zone" marker is several blocks away from the circle, and appears to apply elsewhere? I don't mean to pooh-pooh the entire concept, because it's certainly an interesting hypothesis, but I don't think the similarity is anywhere as clear-cut as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe, and even if you ignore that the mere presence of a similarity does not imply connection- especially given the fact I cannot think of any logical reason why, or for that matter how, the Batman film could pre-empt an attack like this. That's what I don't understand about this conspiracy- it either implies that the crew filming Batman knew of the incident (if so, how? Why not tell people clearly? Why was it not covered up by the apparently all-pervasive agents of the US government), or it was planted there by the government (if so, why pre-empt an attack you've planned and quite literally tempt conspiracy?) I think that the linking of the two is actually more harmful than it is beneficial for the conspiracy theories because there's no logical or reasonable rhyme or reason why it was included if the attacks were indeed planned?

[GrandMaster Smith]

You can't tell me that you actually believe facebook had an error in the system when they created Victoria Soto's foundation page 4 days prior to the shootings as well?

 

 

 

 

Here's even a google cache showing another fund raising page made days before the attack: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...-Shootings.aspx

 

 

I mean c'mon.. something is not right here..

[MikeMyth]

That is creepy af. ^^ Someone should DOX the person (or another way of getting their IP)

[The__Phoenix]

You can't tell me that you actually believe facebook had an error in the system when they created Victoria Soto's foundation page 4 days prior to the shootings as well?

 

I love when smart people try to discuss with dumb people who refute the most elementary principles of argumentation, just delusional.

[sivispacem]

 

You can't tell me that you actually believe facebook had an error in the system when they created Victoria Soto's foundation page 4 days prior to the shootings as well?

It's got absolutely nothing to do with a system error. It's far more likely to be the re-purposing of groups and comments and their editing after the fact. The original post time remains, as is the case with any blog or social media source, even if an edit is made days or weeks after the initial post. It's not evidence of a conspiracy.

 

 

Here's even a google cache showing another fund raising page made days before the attack:

Um, you do know how caching works, no? It retrieves the last functional copy of a web page to have been indexed. It isn't an accurate way of seeing into the past as any information that has been edited since the publishing date. In fact, Google Cache is particularly useful because it states the last date at which the page was re-cached. In this case:

 

 

It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 5 Jan 2013 15:16:36 GMT.

This page is date-stamped 10th December- I'm not denying that. But it's no longer indexed, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it was created on that date- such is the nature of software of this kind. The most interesting part of the whole thing is this: the mass shooting happened on the 14th December. The final indexing of this page took place on the 5th January. That's more than three weeks since the attack, and more than two weeks after it's replacement page was made (dated 20th December). Now, don't you think it's slightly odd that, given the apparently all-pervasive nature of the people behind this massacre, they'd let a page like this exist for so long before pulling it?

 

Isn't it far more likely that someone re-purposed an existing blog post and URI in regard to the disaster, and then post-dated it afterwards? That seems far more rational and logical to me. That or the conspirators are totally inept.

 

More food for thought

[Icarus]

So I just looked at the Facebook page you said was created on December 10.

 

 

Notice the date? Glad to see you fell for a good Photoshop.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

So I just looked at the Facebook page you said was created on December 10.

 

 

Notice the date? Glad to see you fell for a good Photoshop.

 

 

If you follow the link shown in the images I posted above you'll realize its been deleted. You couldn't have visited the page I had shown above cause it no longer exists.

 

How did multiple different sources screenshot the same 'photoshopped' webpage?

 

 

[Icarus]

How do you know that link was even real to begin with?

[El Dildo]

YouTube videos are not evidence of anything.

 

conspiracy theories are the result of ignorant, lonely people with way too much time on their hands asking stupid questions.

this topic is no different.

 

wake me up when there is real evidence.

otherwise don't waste my time.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

You can't tell me that you actually believe facebook had an error in the system when they created Victoria Soto's foundation page 4 days prior to the shootings as well?

It's got absolutely nothing to do with a system error. It's far more likely to be the re-purposing of groups and comments and their editing after the fact. The original post time remains, as is the case with any blog or social media source, even if an edit is made days or weeks after the initial post. It's not evidence of a conspiracy.

 

 

Here's even a google cache showing another fund raising page made days before the attack:

Um, you do know how caching works, no? It retrieves the last functional copy of a web page to have been indexed. It isn't an accurate way of seeing into the past as any information that has been edited since the publishing date. In fact, Google Cache is particularly useful because it states the last date at which the page was re-cached. In this case:

 

 

It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 5 Jan 2013 15:16:36 GMT.

This page is date-stamped 10th December- I'm not denying that. But it's no longer indexed, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it was created on that date- such is the nature of software of this kind. The most interesting part of the whole thing is this: the mass shooting happened on the 14th December. The final indexing of this page took place on the 5th January. That's more than three weeks since the attack, and more than two weeks after it's replacement page was made (dated 20th December). Now, don't you think it's slightly odd that, given the apparently all-pervasive nature of the people behind this massacre, they'd let a page like this exist for so long before pulling it?

 

 

 

More food for thought

 

 

You have a mainstream movie showing the Sandy Hook Elementary School circled in red as 'Target #1' in which for that film they even renamed the map thats nearly identical to Sandy Hook, Sandy Hook.....

 

....

 

Then you multiple different sources showing foundations and RIP pages being created for the event days before it happens.

 

 

 

 

You always criticize conspiracies saying 'the government isn't capable of pulling off stuff like that so quietly', yet when there are obvious signs of covering up their tracks you turn around 180 degrees and say 'They wouldn't have left traces behind if this was pre-planned'...

[I<3GTAV]

Does every single shooting and bombing have to be done by the government?

[Clem Fandango]

Not to mention, he couldn't have just walked into the school.

Fort Knox, is it? You're really going to make an argument where the entire foundation of it, is the assumption that it's completely impossible to gain entry to a school without it being facilitated by a large government conspiracy? As for the security cameras, almost all schools have them in the library, in the computer rooms, occasionally in the science labs and perhaps in store rooms if it's a large school and has a lot of valuable equipment, you need to prove that there were security cameras all over the school and that the incident was recorded in its entirety.

 

You people really see nothing wrong with your methodology? Assuming arbitrary, uncertain variables to be absolutes and building an outlandish argument on top?

[Staten]

 

Does every single shooting and bombing have to be done by the government?

Didn't you know? All gun crime in America is a false flag operation by the government to give them an excuse to change the law to stop gun crime.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Staten

[Doublepulse]

I am glad some people are willing to bring up the hard questions and not believe everything they see. You have to be crazy to not question this kind of stuff.

 

Do not let your emotions judge everything, because that is what they want! I do not even need a lot of evidence to prove something is not right here, since some of it is blatantly obvious. This is basically history repeating itself right here. Here are couple of questions to get people started..

 

Would you want to go on the news if your child was killed in a mass shooting? It is common sense to believe not everyone wants the public attention to grief about there lost ones.

 

Don't some of these people seem so out of character of who they are suppose to be? Example is Wayne Carver..He is suppose to be an expert on looking at dead bodies..He does not sound so professional with his comments of "They were wearing kid stuff" "Uhhh I don't know" "They were shot all over". Not very professional, especially his little laugh near the end. His name "Carver" should ring a bell. Not to mention a little google search on this guy, and he is the only Wayne Carver who seems to exist..

 

Why is it AFTER 2 HOURS..There is already a Facebook Page to donate to the families..Also Facebook did not check this?

 

Why does this suddenly seem familiar with what happen in the past? Why is Robbie Parker laughing before he gets ready to cry?

 

Why is there a photo of one of the girls and her family in a photo AFTER the shooting, which that girl was claimed one of the ones killed? Why can't any of the parents see the bodies of their children? Why aren't there videos captured by a phone and uploaded? I understand that capturing it would be the last thing on their mind, but still. ALL OF THE FOOTAGE is only shown on the news. I want to see these parents come forward in a believable way.

 

Reason why I am not posting a news articles or videos is not only because I want others to do the research themselves but because there is a lot. And the OP posted one of the many videos.

 

My point is, you do not have to believe this is a hoax or not to ask these questions! I prefer not to use the word "hoax" because so many make the assumptions that it never happened. Something happened! Regardless whether you believe 20+ kids got shot or not! Something did happen! But we need to figure out what happen instead of letting the news tell us everything.

 

Crisisactors.org has a message on their website "Trained Players and Actors Making It Real". You see these actors on Reality TV, Game shows, why can't it be done for news as well? What about those evacuation drills at school? What makes news any different from other TV?

 

I am currently taking TV Production, Video, Audio, and Broadcasting, so I can only say this from my experience. The intention of the program is to keep you hooked, entertained, anxious, excited about what ever you see, just so they can get more views on their channel for profits. They show you things that they know we will get hyped up about. News is just the same way, they want you to view it, so why not make things a little more interesting by covering the shooting and bringing in some actors.

 

Call me crazy, but from what I looked at and examined, I am convinced UNTIL otherwise that most if not all of this information about the shooting is manipulated. I really do not believe any of those kids were killed. That gets into the argument about what governments are capable of doing, and what they have done in the past.. They do not need to kill 20 children to stir fear into their citizens..But they can create that reality..That should answer the argument about "Aww the government is good, they would not kill 20 children just to take our guns away?" THEY DON'T NEED TO!

 

But they use the same stereotypical Autistic kid with mental problems who plays violent video games and let him do the job? Why does this sound familiar? First off, I thought people with autism will freak out in situations like that.. Based on what they said about his weight being 110 lbs, HOW THE HELL would he be able to hold that many weapons..

 

Alright, I am done for now. There is just so much to question and so many other issues that are being ignored every day..It pisses me off.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Doublepulse

[Capricornus]

@OP

 

Yes, I saw that video in its entirety a few days ago, and all I have to say is that it really makes me think twice about the whole thing. Such a compelling, convincing video.

[El Dildo]

Call me crazy

you're f*cking crazy.

[WHAT!?]

If the people voted and democracy spoke, why is the fed still overruling their choice and raiding them anyways?

Because state legislatures and federal authorities have different areas of jurisdiction, put simply. Come on, GMS, your the learned American with his finger on the pulse of the Constitution, you should know this.

So basically no, it does not matter what the people vote because the federal government can come in an overrule anything they please.

 

 

Yes people, freedom at it's finest! You are free to choose between McDonalds and Burger King, you are free to choose between Prozac and Abilify, you are free to choose between either left or right wing viewpoints, you are free to get your news from Fox or CNN, now go pay your taxes and do as your told or you'll spend the rest of your life behind bars for not freely doing as we tell you. lol

Jeebus.

 

Changing law takes time. If enough states pull the same line as Colorado, California, etc... then the federal government will be forced to examine it's laws and possibly enact change in those laws. There has been a prohibition against the drug since it came into popular culture. Repealing something so ingrained in the culture takes time. For the most part the federal government has worked well with state legislatures and hasn't stepped up to enforce prohibition except under circumstances where there have been questions as to whether or not a medical marijuana business is adhering to the agreed upon state standards in which case the ATF is more then happy to investigate, because you know... that's kinda what they do.

Yeeaahh changing laws take decades...

 

 

Yet a gun ban/restrictions can be put into place a day after a shooting occurs.. lol

 

 

People with cancer are being put into prison for using a plant that naturally grows on this planet and has zero direct links to causing a single death.

 

The people want it legal, BigPharma doesn't..

 

But yeah, keep telling yourself we have a say so in the matter.

Well, you took long enough.

 

So you recognize that the cannabis laws have been introduced and voted on at a state level which has resulted in the conflict of law between the state and federal government? I assume you do since you have stated that there is a conflict. This means people made a choice and are in the process of overturning a near century old ban on marijuana with their state legislatures... Yet at the same time you are going to tell me that the idea of people having choice is an illusion... Right, totally got it. You sir win at consistency.

 

The states that have legalized this drug are still in the minority in terms of the total population of the country, plus the government still has tons of questions as to how you enforce or don't enforce laws pertaining to medical weed, for example when do you consider an individual too intoxicated to drive or what have you? It can vary from person to person based on that person's tolerance of the drug. There are all sorts of little pitfalls and questions to consider when it comes to legalizing a long time illegal drug, doesn't matter if "it's of the earth maaaan". No politician is likely going to want it on their resume, too much liability. Though it is well lobbied it is not that well supported, nor is it anything that is considered an immediate threat.

 

On the other hand... since you want to use guns as an example... There has been a huge public outcry for and against guns since a nationally televised tragedy that if I recall correctly this topic in fact makes reference to. Politicians are in the spotlight and expected to act whether they really need to or not. That is the media machine pushing policy. One thing I will agree with, the news media sucks balls.

 

This is why you get quick gun laws, and why nobody really gives a sh*t if you want to smoke weed legally tomorrow. By the way as sivis said, big pharma would be the last people to try and prevent legalization. Even if half of the market they might try and sell to grows their own, 50% of a business you formally had 0% of is a pretty good opportunity to increase profit from where I sit.

 

On top of this you totally ignore all the valid points sivis brings up on this little argument within and argument we seem to be having. I just... I'm going to have another drink. Good night, and good luck. Go live a little.

[Clem Fandango]

Would you want to go on the news if your child was killed in a mass shooting?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Neither you nor I are in a position to speculate on this, and you are certainly not in a position to draw outlandish conclusions from it.

 

 

Don't some of these people seem so out of character of who they are suppose to be? Example is Wayne Carver..He is suppose to be an expert on looking at dead bodies..He does not sound so professional

It could be that he's nervous being on TV or any number of things. There's a lot we'd have to rule out before assuming he is an actor covering up the facts. It is such a massive leap from questioning the professionalism of someone's demeanour to assuming they have a fake identity that it's not even worth considering without further evidence. Moreover, wouldn't a professional actor be more convincing? Wouldn't he have done a bit of research into his role before assuming it?

 

 

Why is it AFTER 2 HOURS..There is already a Facebook Page to donate to the families..Also Facebook did not check this?

The result of some altruistic peoples' immediate response. I don't know what to say, since there is nothing remotely fishy about this.

 

 

But we need to figure out what happen instead of letting the news tell us everything.

Questioning the official story is one thing; taking wild leaps of faith and building arguments on what you assume to be absolutes is another entirely.

 

 

Crisisactors.org has a message on their website "Trained Players and Actors Making It Real". You see these actors on Reality TV, Game shows, why can't it be done for news as well?

So the very existence of this company is enough to make someone ask questions? Seems dubious to me. It's not even worth discussing if there isn't some substantial evidence linking crisisactors.com to Sandy Hook. If you'd like to produce some, I'm all ears, but claiming that the very fact that they exist adds to the foundation of a conspiracy theory is completely absurd.

 

 

News is just the same way, they want you to view it, so why not make things a little more interesting by covering the shooting and bringing in some actors.

There is no proof of this. There's a difference between something being within the realm of possibility, and being a reasonable conclusion.

 

 

First off, I thought people with autism will freak out in situations like that

You don't understand what autism is. It's the absence of certain psychological functions, nothing that predisposes them to anxiety. Autism doesn't necessarily produce effect like you seem to think it does, it's just the absence of certain emotional mechanisms, they have no social "second nature" it's not like a personality disorder.

 

 

Based on what they said about his weight being 110 lbs, HOW THE HELL would he be able to hold that many weapons..

This is just as flimsy as your other points. Could you empirically demonstrate that, based on the boys weight and the weight of the weapons, that it would be near-impossible for him to wield it?

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

 

 

 

Well, you took long enough.

 

So you recognize that the cannabis laws have been introduced and voted on at a state level which has resulted in the conflict of law between the state and federal government? I assume you do since you have stated that there is a conflict. This means people made a choice and are in the process of overturning a near century old ban on marijuana with their state legislatures... Yet at the same time you are going to tell me that the idea of people having choice is an illusion... Right, totally got it. You sir win at consistency.

 

"This means people made a choice and are in the process of overturning a near century old ban"

 

What is this, a century long process to get a single very beneficial plant legalized for medicinal or even recreational use?

 

It's not just Big pharma, the oils can be used for fuels and plastic, fibers used to for clothing and paper.. there is a very wide variety of things cannabis can be used for which other companies don't take so kindly to.

 

Point being corporations have a bigger say so in our own laws than we do..

 

 

The states that have legalized this drug are still in the minority in terms of the total population of the country, plus the government still has tons of questions as to how you enforce or don't enforce laws pertaining to medical weed, for example when do you consider an individual too intoxicated to drive or what have you? It can vary from person to person based on that person's tolerance of the drug. There are all sorts of little pitfalls and questions to consider when it comes to legalizing a long time illegal drug, doesn't matter if "it's of the earth maaaan". No politician is likely going to want it on their resume, too much liability. Though it is well lobbied it is not that well supported, nor is it anything that is considered an immediate threat.

 

You consider an individual too intoxicated when they're obviously driving wrecklessly. They can do a similar test to alcohol to see if your motor responses are functioning properly, if you pass then you're good to go. Mind you marijuana doesn't exactly impair driving abilities anywhere near what alcohol does.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand... since you want to use guns as an example... There has been a huge public outcry for and against guns since a nationally televised tragedy that if I recall correctly this topic in fact makes reference to. Politicians are in the spotlight and expected to act whether they really need to or not. That is the media machine pushing policy. One thing I will agree with, the news media sucks balls.

This is why you get quick gun laws, and why nobody really gives a sh*t if you want to smoke weed legally tomorrow.

 

Yeah I guess nobody give a sh*t about the hundreds of thousands of people rotting their lives away for making their own medicinal choice that effects noone but themselves.. What a caring society lol

 

 

 

 

By the way as sivis said, big pharma would be the last people to try and prevent legalization. Even if half of the market they might try and sell to grows their own, 50% of a business you formally had 0% of is a pretty good opportunity to increase profit from where I sit.

 

 

Lol no, because legalizing cannabis to anyone who wants to grow it would allow an easy access to free medicine to help multiple issues.

 

Many people would stop using over the counter minor pain relievers and other medicines for headaches, menstrual cramps, nausea, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, digestive issues, sleep disorders ect. when they can easily grow a single plant that can help all the above mentioned issues for FREE no to mention has no physical addiction nor is directly related to a single death.. now lets compare the death rates with marijuana to say prozac..? lool

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Based on what they said about his weight being 110 lbs, HOW THE HELL would he be able to hold that many weapons..

Adrenaline.

[WHAT!?]

 

 

 

 

Well, you took long enough.

 

So you recognize that the cannabis laws have been introduced and voted on at a state level which has resulted in the conflict of law between the state and federal government? I assume you do since you have stated that there is a conflict. This means people made a choice and are in the process of overturning a near century old ban on marijuana with their state legislatures... Yet at the same time you are going to tell me that the idea of people having choice is an illusion... Right, totally got it. You sir win at consistency.

 

"This means people made a choice and are in the process of overturning a near century old ban"

 

What is this, a century long process to get a single very beneficial plant legalized for medicinal or even recreational use?

 

It's not just Big pharma, the oils can be used for fuels and plastic, fibers used to for clothing and paper.. there is a very wide variety of things cannabis can be used for which other companies don't take so kindly to.

 

Point being corporations have a bigger say so in our own laws than we do..

I didn't say its been a century long process to overturn it. It has only recently been seriously supported. I said it has been banned for near a century.

 

As for your other point... who the f*ck is going to use weed to make plastic? Especially Joe who is growing it for free down the street. Pretty sure he is just gonna smoke the sh*t. I doubt my plastics factory is in danger. Even if were talking about a serious industrialized motherf*cker (which we likely are not) ...I'm not saying you can't, just. Well, why the f*ck would you? On top of that if I am an existing company why would I not jump at the chance to employ a cheaper process to create my end product and increase my profit in the process? You over estimate the private sectors want and need to make plastic, cloth, and paper.

 

 

The states that have legalized this drug are still in the minority in terms of the total population of the country, plus the government still has tons of questions as to how you enforce or don't enforce laws pertaining to medical weed, for example when do you consider an individual too intoxicated to drive or what have you? It can vary from person to person based on that person's tolerance of the drug. There are all sorts of little pitfalls and questions to consider when it comes to legalizing a long time illegal drug, doesn't matter if "it's of the earth maaaan". No politician is likely going to want it on their resume, too much liability. Though it is well lobbied it is not that well supported, nor is it anything that is considered an immediate threat.

 

You consider an individual too intoxicated when they're obviously driving wrecklessly. They can do a similar test to alcohol to see if your motor responses are functioning properly, if you pass then you're good to go. Mind you marijuana doesn't exactly impair driving abilities anywhere near what alcohol does.

 

That's all fine and well. That doesn't stop the need to have the discussion and make the decision. Consensus on this is not easily reached whether you think it should be or not.

 

 

On the other hand... since you want to use guns as an example... There has been a huge public outcry for and against guns since a nationally televised tragedy that if I recall correctly this topic in fact makes reference to. Politicians are in the spotlight and expected to act whether they really need to or not. That is the media machine pushing policy. One thing I will agree with, the news media sucks balls.

This is why you get quick gun laws, and why nobody really gives a sh*t if you want to smoke weed legally tomorrow.

 

Yeah I guess nobody give a sh*t about the hundreds of thousands of people rotting their lives away for making their own medicinal choice that effects noone but themselves.. What a caring society lol

 

Yes because everyone in prison for smoking weed did it because they had cancer. Get the f*ck out of here with that sh*t. 99.9% of people who smoke the sh*t do it because they like to get high. Same reason I drink to get drunk. I mean really, they knew the sh*t was illegal and made a choice to do it anyway. Do I think it is right? No I don't. I don't think there should be a ban on much of anything, but unfortunately we don't live in a world where what I think is right is the law.

 

 

By the way as sivis said, big pharma would be the last people to try and prevent legalization. Even if half of the market they might try and sell to grows their own, 50% of a business you formally had 0% of is a pretty good opportunity to increase profit from where I sit.

 

 

Lol no, because legalizing cannabis to anyone who wants to grow it would allow an easy access to free medicine to help multiple issues.

 

Many people would stop using over the counter minor pain relievers and other medicines for headaches, menstrual cramps, nausea, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, digestive issues, sleep disorders ect. when they can easily grow a single plant that can help all the above mentioned issues for FREE no to mention has no physical addiction nor is directly related to a single death.. now lets compare the death rates with marijuana to say prozac..? lool

 

I don't agree with that at all. I'm not saying marijuana is all that dangerous, but its enough of an impairment that I'm not letting you come to work and operate machinery while we have people working around you unprotected. It may aid in making one feel better when it comes to various issues, but like any other drug it has side effects. One of them is you tend to be a little slow and stupid. Some people just level out, but they are by and far the minority. If you smoke, you gotta take time to smoke. I don't know a whole lot of people with that time now days. There will still be plenty of need for the quick pill fix we are all used to.

Edited January 17, 2013 by What!?

[LTA1992]

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being

self-evident."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

 

"A tyrant's best ally has always been an apathetic populace.

Citizens of Germany learned that awful truth in 1939."

-- Doug Thompson

 

"The exact contrary of what is generally believed

is often the truth."

-- Jean de la Bruyère

 

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;

the point is to discover them."

-- Galileo Galilei

 

"...the high office of the President has been used to foment

a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave

office, I must inform the citizens of this plight."

-- John F. Kennedy (November 12, 1963, Columbia U,

10 days before his assassination)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

the day we lose the right to bear arms, America's fall is certain. And it won't be from some outside force, it'll be from within.

 

I saw on the news Monday morning that banks were warned of a coming Financial collapse. Did you know that banks were warned in August of last year? It JUST NOW hit mainstream media.

[The Killa]

The only compelling thing I see here is the Batman map, yet even that is still scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

The problem I have with these conspiracy theorists is that they massively blur the line between a very coincidental piece of "proof" and "ermahgerd inside jerb gubbments taken 'er guns", and what ensues is an illogical presentation of irrelevant pieces of "evidence" and passing off very obscure supposition as fact.

 

Seriously, all I'm interpreting here is 1 + 2 = potato. Maybe a cheeseburger instead. Cheeseburger sounds good now.

Edited January 17, 2013 by The Killa

[LTA1992]

 

The only compelling thing I see here is the Batman map, yet even that is still scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

The problem I have with these conspiracy theorists is that they massively blur the line between a very coincidental piece of "proof" and "ermahgerd inside jerb gubbments taken 'er guns", and what ensues is an illogical presentation of irrelevant pieces of "evidence" and passing off very obscure supposition as fact.

 

Seriously, all I'm interpreting here is 1 + 2 = potato. Maybe a cheeseburger instead. Cheeseburger sounds good now.

When the government wants something done, there is no such thing as coincidence.

 

FDR said it best:

 

"In politics, nothing happens by accident, if it happens,

you can be sure we planned it that way".

[sivispacem]

 

"In politics, nothing happens by accident, if it happens,

you can be sure we planned it that way".

Doesn't that effectively automatically assume, without evidence, that this is a "political" action?

 

Oh, and I like your earlier Gallileo gambit. It's almost as if your working methodically through a list of every logical fallacy known to man.

 

There's a great deal of baseless assumption and illogical conclusions going on here. For instance:

 

 

You have a mainstream movie showing the Sandy Hook Elementary School circled in red as 'Target #1' in which for that film they even renamed the map thats nearly identical to Sandy Hook, Sandy Hook.....

 

Then you multiple different sources showing foundations and RIP pages being created for the event days before it happens.

 

You always criticize conspiracies saying 'the government isn't capable of pulling off stuff like that so quietly', yet when there are obvious signs of covering up their tracks you turn around 180 degrees and say 'They wouldn't have left traces behind if this was pre-planned'...

Again, you fall into the same trap as in earlier posts.

 

I have explained numerous times that correlation does not equal causality, or for that matter connection. Lets assume, for the sake of argument (and it's a very big assumption given all the flaws I've highlighted already) that both these occurrence are signs of foreknowledge. What on earth ties these signs of foreknowledge to the government, or indeed to the idea that it's a false flag? Do you not realise that you've made an argument that doesn't logically follow, and is in effect non sequitur? Allow me to explain.

 

 

 

We have premise A, which in this case is "the Sandy Hook shooting was pre-empted by a major feature film that appears to have shown a target for attack called Sandy Hook".

 

We have premise B, which in this case is "web pages appear to have existed that pre-dated the attacks themselves yet still refer to them".

 

 

 

If we suspend disbelief and take these two as verbatim (even though they're anything but, as I've demonstrated previously and you seem perfectly content to ignore, but that's largely irrelevant as even if they were true it doesn't strengthen your argument in any way, as I am about to demonstrate quite handily), then we draw a conclusion from it of the following:

 

 

 

If A) the shooting was alluded to in a major film, and B) some web pages existed before the attack that refer to it, then it must be a false flag attack conducted by the government.

 

 

 

Now, wait a minute, and roll back to the two premises outlined above. Neither of those explicitly discusses involvement of the government of any kind. Neither involves agents of the government, and therefore could be indicated as having come "from the horses mouth". Neither either explicitly or implicit discusses the idea of a false flag attack. Neither relates to the removal of US citizens' Second Amendment right. None relates to the establishment of Martial Law after a disarming of the population. In effect, you have taken two premises, combined them together and produced an argument from them which has absolutely no logical bearing on either, and isn't even alluded to by them.

 

Basically, you've taken two numbers, added them together and got a furry rodent. Surely you can see that this is completely incomprehensible? The "evidence" you provide to support your hypothesis does not in actual fact support it.

Edited January 17, 2013 by sivispacem

[Doublepulse]

Alright, I like your answers to the questions Melchior, We can keep this on an open mind discussion. Lot of it is questionable on both sides of the argument, but I really only meant to focus on one point and that was that we should always look for the truth and question our reality. I am not gonna lie and say I got my information from all of my research. But it makes it hard researching the answers because it has been already examined and manipulated by both sides of the arguments. It is a shame it has to turn into a debate where everyone just insults each other rather than come together with an open mind and think of all the possibilities. I don't want it turning to a war. I also do not personally think this issue should be at the front of the spotlight.

 

I completely see why some people see it being silly searching for a truth that is difficult to find, but that is the true meaning of shaping your reality and part of life. It is about exploration and giving something meaning. I am not paranoid, but I feel more aware about situations. But enough, let me answer to your responses .

 

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. Neither you nor I are in a position to speculate on this, and you are certainly not in a position to draw outlandish conclusions from it

 

1. You are right, neither of us can really speculate, but I am not trying to make any conclusions about it. Just the way I see it, I do not see how getting these people on the news to grief and share their stories really benefit much. Maybe it helps the family relieve little pain, but you cannot get past it. I guess the "heartless" response would be why does this make the news? People die every day, there are much more worse situations than this.

 

 

It could be that he's nervous being on TV or any number of things. There's a lot we'd have to rule out before assuming he is an actor covering up the facts. It is such a massive leap from questioning the professionalism of someone's demeanour to assuming they have a fake identity that it's not even worth considering without further evidence. Moreover, wouldn't a professional actor be more convincing? Wouldn't he have done a bit of research into his role before assuming it?

 

2. It could be a number of things..and I don't think he is covering the facts, I think he does not really know what he is talking about, and that could be a number of things as well. But the nervousness can definitely make the information a little misleading. Yes, if this was a actor, professional actor could be more convincing, especially if the role was more researched on. But why am I not convinced along with others that this guy is the real deal? Are you convinced he is a real professor?

 

 

The result of some altruistic peoples' immediate response. I don't know what to say, since there is nothing remotely fishy about this.

 

3. Yep, I should not be surprised there is a Facebook donation page. It is pretty common, but still does it make it right? I am actually little disgusted by it, that is only my opinion of course. Regardless if it is someone else trying to help or the family asking for donations. I still question how the money actually helps them and why money is not on the last of their minds.

 

 

 

Questioning the official story is one thing; taking wild leaps of faith and building arguments on what you assume to be absolutes is another entirely.

 

4. Nothing I really want to debate here. I guess in order to question the official story well, you need to know the story and examine every part of it. Not being aware of the story that is being told on the news could be just as bad as believing everything on the news. Few of the videos I watched of people breaking it down and calling it a "hoax", I can just say some of it seems really well thought out, maybe some of them are misleading, but that is why you just take the video with an open mind.

 

 

So the very existence of this company is enough to make someone ask questions? Seems dubious to me. It's not even worth discussing if there isn't some substantial evidence linking crisisactors.com to Sandy Hook. If you'd like to produce some, I'm all ears, but claiming that the very fact that they exist adds to the foundation of a conspiracy theory is completely absurd.

 

5. I don't see how it is dubious, and I was not really linking it to Sandy Hook. Someone else mentioned it in this thread, and that sort of was a response to it. The site obviously existed before Sandy Hook, and I do find silly myself that "Crisis Actors" only seems to come into mind after these 2 mass shootings. Crisis actors happened before that, take a look at reality TV, some of the recent shows use that when they are testing the contestants of some sort. I don't know if they are crisis actors or not, but it does not mean it cannot happen. If there is money that can be made off of it, I am sure it will come up as an idea. It is pretty sick..but it could happen.

 

 

 

There is no proof of this. There's a difference between something being within the realm of possibility, and being a reasonable conclusion

 

6. You are right again, there is no real proof. That statement I said came out wrong, even when I read it. It was my f*ck up. I sort of meant to bring sarcasm or a hypothetical situation into it, but yea it did not work.

 

 

 

You don't understand what autism is. It's the absence of certain psychological functions, nothing that predisposes them to anxiety. Autism doesn't necessarily produce effect like you seem to think it does, it's just the absence of certain emotional mechanisms, they have no social "second nature" it's not like a personality disorder.

 

7. Okay, maybe I don't understand it, thanks for explaining it. But still, why is that the assumption the media comes up with for these "maniacs with guns". The media is perpetuating it by making it seem something worse than what it really it. It is more misleading info.. I think this is where the logical thinking can be used. What causes someone to even think of creating a massacre is a good idea?? This is where we need to look at the past with all the massacres and assassinations and ask yourself, is this really normal?

 

 

 

This is just as flimsy as your other points. Could you empirically demonstrate that, based on the boys weight and the weight of the weapons, that it would be near-impossible for him to wield it?

 

I cannot prove it is impossible or possible at this moment, but I am light-weight myself (120), and I could imagine my entire body falling apart if I decided to carry a few rifles and boxes of ammo. Of course a car was involved, but how much do you think he could carry on foot?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Doublepulse

[SaintJimmy]

OK - so basically, with every major point (the other 'shooter' actually being a parent, the pictures of the child with Obama) being practically debunked, the only last sort of point anyone has referred to here is the facebook/charity pages that were around before the actual tragedy.

 

all I have to ask is - if you truthers believe the government orchestrated this entire tragedy...then what f*cknut associted with the orchestration thought it would be a good idea to make all those pages so early?

[sivispacem]

OK - so basically, with every major point (the other 'shooter' actually being a parent, the pictures of the child with Obama) being practically debunked, the only last sort of point anyone has referred to here is the facebook/charity pages that were around before the actual tragedy.

These have also been debunked quite thoroughly. There's a link on page 2 or 3 showing a Google search page which has conspiracies about the mass-shooting donation pages dated earlier than donation the pages themselves. Plus the Facebook ones could have easily been repurposed, and one appears to be photoshopped, which Icarus demonstrated with a screen grab from the same page showing a different date.

[AtomicPunk]

YouTube videos are not evidence of anything.

 

conspiracy theories are the result of ignorant, lonely people with way too much time on their hands asking stupid questions.

this topic is no different.

 

wake me up when there is real evidence.

otherwise don't waste my time.

What about this? Could this be evidence?

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/201...d-the-massacre/