Everything wrong with Sandy Hook compiled in one v

[JOSEPH X]

"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?

 

 

That statement is the falsehood that all conspiracy theorinsts cling to. They are afraid of , and cannot handle the fact that we live in a chaotic world, in which everyone is only looking out for themselves, and whose crazy minds lead them to commit crazy acts which no government (no matter how powerful) has the power to stop.

 

It makes conspiracy theorists sleep easier at night to think that there is a secret bureau managing human disasters. They imagine mic'ed-up bureaucrats watching banks of tv screens controlling events with their people in the field, "OK it's 10:15 time to detonate the south tower"

 

Conspiracy theorists aren't afraid the government are behind these terrible acts - they hope the government are behind these terrible acts. The truth - that some kid can arm himself to the teeth walk into an elementary school and commit mass murder - is too much for their minds to process.

 

 

[Lil ski]

Omfg....what is so hard to believe that there are sick and crazy motherf*ckers out there in this world, who could walk into an elementary school and shoot up the place??! I mean there are African warlords that commit worse crimes than what happened at Sandy Hooks.

And all this talk about the government organizing these conspiracies, man the government couldnt organize a pee-wee soccer team!

 

 

 

People believing all these conspiracies from these websites and YouTube videos cuz someone gave em some mumbo jumbo facts that they couldn't understand so they think it's legit. Can't even use their own common sense to research it. You wanna believe these theorists?? You wanna know what they are like?? These are guys whacked off their meds and have extreme paranoia and schizofrinic, they sit up in their dark basement or trailor in the woods or whatever, spending over 24 hours with no sleep trying to make up some crazy government plan and make it seem legit as possible so y'all could believe them. This is what you are listening to. A crazy bum off the streets.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Lil ski

[Lock n' Stock]

I bet that video is a load of bullsh*t. They remind me of the idiots who try to deny the Holocaust or state that 9/11 was caused by the U.S government.

 

If it really was staged, then wouldn't at least one of the so-called "actors" come out and admit it?

Edited January 17, 2013 by Gst0395

[sivispacem]

 

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/

Watch very carefully, kids, because I'm about to blow this one wide open.

 

There's a programme that's used in penetration testing called EXIFTool, that can be used to extract metadata from document files. You can have a read of the documentation if you want yourself, on the official site here. It's a very useful little tool for things like finding out author information, usernames, computer details, creation information and other fun little things for, say, doing username captures for things like spear phishing attacks, or hacking.

 

One of those pieces of information it produces is a creation date.

 

Now, watch very closely as I prove that article wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's my system, running EXIFTool on the PDF hosted on the website. If you don't believe I've run this, please cross-reference the entirely custom desktop background with the images of it I posted in the "Post Your Desktop" thread in Tech and PC Chat.

 

 

Now, lets zoom in on the command-line output from EXIFTools. Notice the document creation date? It's after the attacks took place. EXIF data is easy to purge, but hard to alter. It's generally good practice for companies to purge their EXIF data from files they upload to the internet but as we can see they haven't done this.

 

 

Lets look a little bit closer at that date, shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

I rest my case.

[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/

Watch very carefully, kids, because I'm about to blow this one wide open.

 

There's a programme that's used in penetration testing called EXIFTool, that can be used to extract metadata from document files. You can have a read of the documentation if you want yourself, on the official site here. It's a very useful little tool for things like finding out author information, usernames, computer details, creation information and other fun little things for, say, doing username captures for things like spear phishing attacks, or hacking.

 

One of those pieces of information it produces is a creation date.

 

Now, watch very closely as I prove that article wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's my system, running EXIFTool on the PDF hosted on the website. If you don't believe I've run this, please cross-reference the entirely custom desktop background with the images of it I posted in the "Post Your Desktop" thread in Tech and PC Chat.

 

 

Now, lets zoom in on the command-line output from EXIFTools. Notice the document creation date? It's after the attacks took place. EXIF data is easy to purge, but hard to alter. It's generally good practice for companies to purge their EXIF data from files they upload to the internet but as we can see they haven't done this.

 

 

Lets look a little bit closer at that date, shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

I rest my case.

I didn't say it was legit, I asked if it could be because today was the first I seen this one? Too many other things that you cannot debunk.

[sivispacem]

I didn't say it was legit, I asked if it could be because today was the first I seen this one? Too many other things that you cannot debunk.

I don't know, your the apparent "expert".

 

To be honest, I don't need to debunk anything else. I've already severely weakened the entire premise with what I have already empirically demonstrated to be untrue, and even if you discount that those who allege that the conspiracy took place have not produced a logical connection from their so-called "evidence" to their conclusions, which aren't supported implicitly or explicitly by said evidence. I, nor any other sceptic, has a case to answer until a supporter of the conspiracy steps up to the plate and explains the connection, and what supports it, between the "evidence" (see above, I use that world loosely) they have used and the claims they have made.

[Creed Bratton]

Don't listen to sivis, guys. He's a government agent. Just think about it. Why would someone on a gaming forum take so much time to debunk a conspiracy theory if there is no conspiracy? Because it's his job. The only other alternative would be that he's obsessed with internet discussions and doesn't know when to quit a fool's errand, but I'M NOT BUYING IT!

There was a second shooter. It was Michael Jackson. 2pac organized the whole thing. I know sivis will try to debunk this, or maybe he won't now when I said that he will, in order to keep his cover. He may even try to say something funny, or to completely ignore this post. Think about it!

[Otter]

This reminds me of those dollar bill folders after 9/11. It's so much more exciting to imagine being victimized by evil overlords than admitting we're all a little f*cked up.

 

Honestly, it's f*cking disrespectful. You want to change things? Go into politics. Quit listening to guys like Alex Jones (who are the real manipulators out there) and start helping things rather than building brick walls of idiocy and cynicism.

 

Jeez.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

To be honest, I don't need to debunk anything else. I've already severely weakened the entire premise with what I have already empirically demonstrated to be untrue, and even if you discount that those who allege that the conspiracy took place have not produced a logical connection from their so-called "evidence" to their conclusions, which aren't supported implicitly or explicitly by said evidence. I, nor any other sceptic, has a case to answer until a supporter of the conspiracy steps up to the plate and explains the connection, and what supports it, between the "evidence" (see above, I use that world loosely) they have used and the claims they have made.

 

 

Out of all of this I think I find the map most interesting should definitely be focused on.

 

 

 

Just why would they even change the location on first map from South Hinkley:

 

 

 

 

To distinctively SANDY HOOK:

 

 

 

 

 

Which not only is renamed to the location of the tradegy, but the map also overlays with the real Sandy Hook map and has the same location where the elementary school is at circled and labeled as Strike Zone #1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out of alot of these I just this one the most confusing. What would be a logical explanation to debunking this even be?

[Rown]

As that is the third or fourth time you've posted the map portion of this sh*t, and proceeding for the moment on the belief you're not trolling, let's try this again:

 

 

Isn't that explained by the fact that all the locations in the firms are based on real places in NYC? I also don't see the resemblance between the film map and the Google Earth image. Plus, if it was set up and part of an organised conspiracy, why in f*cks name would you pre-empt it by including it in possibly the biggest film release in recent memory? Isn't that kind of contradictory for something that's supposed to be a secretive plan?

 

In this post you will note an interesting part where the text color changes and becomes underlined. That is a link. You're supposed to click on them and be redirected to other sites for more information. Since it is apparently outside your abilities to open a link I will bring the link to you.

 

 

According to Batman co-creator Bill Finger, Gotham City is based on New York City:

 

 

«Writer Bill Finger, uncredited co-creator, with Bob Kane, of the DC Comics character Batman, on the naming of (Gotham) city and the reason for changing Batman’s locale from New York City to a fictional city said, “Originally I was going to call Gotham City ‘Civic City.’ Then I tried ‘Capital City,’ then ‘Coast City.’ Then I flipped through the New York City phone book and spotted the name ‘Gotham Jewelers’ and said, ‘That’s it,’ Gotham City. We didn’t call it New York because we wanted anybody in any city to identify with it.”

 

“Gotham” had long been a well-known nickname for New York City even prior to Batman’s 1939 introduction, which explains why “Gotham Jewelers” and many other businesses in New York City have the word “Gotham” in them. The nickname was popularized in the nineteenth century, having been first attached to New York by Washington Irving in the November 11, 1807 edition of his Salmagundi.»[1][2]

 

Look at a map of New York, there are A LOT of places in and around NY called Sandy Hook – most notably Sandy Hook Bay (only a stones throw away in NJ) and the 10-plus locations surrounding Sandy Hook Bay with “Sandy Hook” in the name.

 

 

Gotham City is based on the city of New York. New York is surrounded by many locales with the name Sandy Hook. Why do conspiracists ignore this obvious connection between the map of Gotham and the name Sandy Hook?

 

Conspiracists engage in confirmation bias to maintain their world of delusions.

 

Mason I. Bilderberg

 

Essentially, as has also been stated, it makes no god damn sense for the all powerful manipulators of the world to go around leaving hints of their nefarious plans in the background of a blockbuster movie that would itself be the scene of a mass shooting (/false flag attack?). Or if the film producers were separate and uncovered the plan (I have no idea which version is being peddled) it also makes no god damn sense for them to tell us about in this way.

 

If a leaf falls on my head as I pass under a tree I don't blame the leaf. I don't blame the tree. I don't blame the squirrel two trees over who watched it all happen with those large unnerving black eyes. I blame gravity.

 

 

This reminds me of those dollar bill folders after 9/11. It's so much more exciting to imagine being victimized by evil overlords than admitting we're all a little f*cked up.

 

Honestly, it's f*cking disrespectful. You want to change things? Go into politics. Quit listening to guys like Alex Jones (who are the real manipulators out there) and start helping things rather than building brick walls of idiocy and cynicism.

 

Jeez.

 

And I'm supposed to be on vacation damn it.

 

Rown

[GrandMaster Smith]

Look at all those locations on the map shown above.. it's Sandy Hook Pilots, Staton Island, Sandy Hook fishing adventures ect.. names of companies.

 

 

Now compare the portion of the Batman map that was renamed Sandy Hook with the real life Sandy Hook map and the overlay of the freeway and location of Strike Zone 1/ Sandy Hook Elementary are identical.

 

Now how is this mere coincidence? One single section of the batman map is renamed SANDY HOOK, which resembles a section of the real life Sandy Hook perfectly and the location of the tragedy is marked as a strike zone.

 

Why would they do this? I could not say for sure but I believe it would be more along the lines of rubbing it in our faces. It's like yelling in the masses face "We planned this and there's evidence all over yet you're all too dumb to even acknowledge it." Then they go printing mainstream news articles saying anyone who actually sees what's going on is crazy and a lunatic which would further persuade the conditioned masses that all is just jolly o grand here in the states of America and there's nothing to be suspicious of.

 

 

Two shootings linked to this same movie, both which are said to have used an AR-15 I believe and are both being used to put restrictions on guns. Yet another shooting occurred between these but an armed security officer was able to take the shooter out before anything serious happened yet this was never even touched by the news, because this story was in favor of guns showing how they can be helpful- http://www.kens5.com/news/Shooter-stopped-...-183769891.html

 

Why would the government even want to ban our guns? That obviously leaves guns in the hands of the black market where only criminals can obtain them, basically leaving honest law abiding citizens like squatting ducks unable to defend themselves in cases of needed self defense. Wasn't the right to bear arms for the purpose of the people being able to fight against a tyrannical government in the first place?

[SaintJimmy]

Im all for careful suspicion and skepticism.

But NO

No, no no no, no, no.

It's just a Batman movie

For christs sake

[lil weasel]

Reminds me of a story from the Great War.

An enemy pigeon was found with an empty capsule. The MI officer examined the pigeon and found on close examination that there were 'pin holes' in it's feathers.

He spent many hours trying to figure out the code.

A Vet happened to see him with his magnifier and asked what he was doing. The officer explained, and was told by the Vet that the bird had Lice.

 

Moral:

"If you look hard enough you can find anything you want to find."

[Celticfang]

Same movie?

 

No. One had similarities to the trailer for another movie (which was pulled, the trailer that is)

[sivispacem]

 

Why would they do this? I could not say for sure but I believe it would be more along the lines of rubbing it in our faces. It's like yelling in the masses face "We planned this and there's evidence all over yet you're all too dumb to even acknowledge it."

That's your explanation? "We're going to tempt fate by linking them for no real reason at all"?

 

I seem to recall saying something earlier about "fitting" (read-shoe-horning, crowbarring, manipulating, falling for the confirmation bias fallacy) evidence to a pre-existing hypothesis, instead of developing a hypothesis based on evidence.

 

Also,

 

 

Why would the government even want to ban our guns?

Why indeed? You are, after all, one of the few people who is claiming this as if it's fact. It seems to me, given this statement, that even you're not sure it's true?

[MrNago]

Get back to the real World, people.

The governments are disorganised crap, most people look for just themselves, many make mistakes (human nature), and there are some that go crazy because the world is a bit f*cked up due to the previous statements.

 

Feel free to correct and/or add info to mine, as I'm also human.

That's just my opinion. I advice you guys to watch a guy called stefbot on youtube. He also has a website called FreeDomainRadio. There is where you can find real answers and most importantly, gaining the ability of achieving answers by yourself, by better understanding human behaviour and so on.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Why would they do this? I could not say for sure but I believe it would be more along the lines of rubbing it in our faces. It's like yelling in the masses face "We planned this and there's evidence all over yet you're all too dumb to even acknowledge it."

That's your explanation? "We're going to tempt fate by linking them for no real reason at all"?

 

I seem to recall saying something earlier about "fitting" (read-shoe-horning, crowbarring, manipulating, falling for the confirmation bias fallacy) evidence to a pre-existing hypothesis, instead of developing a hypothesis based on evidence.

 

 

Out of all that, this is what you nitpick at..?

 

I don't know why they would do it, I'm not them.. How about instead of addressing my opinions you address the matter of what's actually being discussed which is the map being shown?

[sivispacem]

 

Why would they do this? I could not say for sure but I believe it would be more along the lines of rubbing it in our faces. It's like yelling in the masses face "We planned this and there's evidence all over yet you're all too dumb to even acknowledge it."

That's your explanation? "We're going to tempt fate by linking them for no real reason at all"?

 

I seem to recall saying something earlier about "fitting" (read-shoe-horning, crowbarring, manipulating, falling for the confirmation bias fallacy) evidence to a pre-existing hypothesis, instead of developing a hypothesis based on evidence.

 

 

Out of all that, this is what you nitpick at..?

 

I don't know why they would do it, I'm not them.. How about instead of addressing my opinions you address the matter of what's actually being discussed which is the map being shown?

It really isn't nit-picking when it undermines the basic tenet of your argument. That is that you haven't actually explained how the questionable evidence you have provided relates to your argument. It's as clear a case as any of trying to fit evidence to a hypothesis. As I said before, and you handily ignored, there's no direct or indirect connection between the evidence you present and the hypothesis you claim it supports. Even if it was true (which given the explanations previously provided by myself and others isn't a realistic assumption) there's no implicit or explicit logical connection between the spurious evidence or any other aspect of the argument.

 

 

 

It isn't implicitly or explicitly evidence of government collusion.

 

It isn't implicitly or explicitly evidence of a false flag attack.

 

It isn't implicitly or explicitly evidence of a plot to disarm the citizenry.

 

It isn't implicitly or explicitly evidence of a continuation of the NWO myth.

 

 

 

 

In the least possible number of words, your conclusions do not match your evidence.

 

 

 

I already addressed the map, as have others. The similarity is vague at best. Also, don't you think it is rather hypocritical to call on me to try and disprove every single individual accusation or allegation when you appear completely unwilling to even demonstrate the links between these so-called pieces of evidence and your own hypothesis? Talk about moving the goal posts- perfectly acceptable for you to present completely unsubstantiated hypotheses with apparent "evidence" that doesn't even support them, but woe betide anyone who doesn't explain each of these largely irrelevant happenstances to your personal satisfaction...

Edited January 18, 2013 by sivispacem

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

The similarity is vague at best.

 

 

 

Explain exactly how this is 'vague'? The freeway and school line up exactly, not to mention the exact location is re-named after it...

 

Quite a coincidence that out of all the locations on the map to rename, and out of all the names they choose that particular town Sandy Hook which the map seems to so closely resemble it's real life counterpart, then out of all the buildings on the whole entire map they decide to circle the same exact location where the elementary school sits at that's marked as 'Target Zone #1'.. which just so happens to be the same location the massacre occurred at.

 

Not to even mention how many holes there are in the story. Reports of multiple shooters, reports saying he used the semi-automatic gun which was actually found in the trunk of his car, not in the school where he was shot dead ect..

 

 

 

 

 

You don't think networks are controlled? Events are foreshadowed all the time.. just listen to this pilot of a Fox X-files spinoff The Lone Gunmen:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2013 by GrandMaster Smith

[sivispacem]

 

Explain exactly how this is 'vague'? The freeway and school line up exactly, not to mention the exact location is re-named after it...

Because it doesn't actually line up. It nearly does. I pointed out the various parts that don't actually line up properly despite the best efforts of the conspiracy theorist earlier, but you handily ignored it.

 

 

Quite a coincidence

Coincidence doesn't imply correlation, and correlation does not imply causality. You are a very long way from demonstrating correlation, let alone causality. How is this so hard to understand that I need to repeat in so many times? Your argument is invalid until you can demonstrate the logical connections between your evidence and your statements without making any illogical leaps if faith. I'm still waiting for you to do this.

 

 

You don't think networks are controlled? 

I do love the way that all conspiracies are reliant on another, larger conspiracy in order that they don't invalidate themselves. It's the logical equivalent of claiming that anything that can't be explained satisfactorily as the responsibility of invisible pink fairies.

[Clem Fandango]

FFS HOW DOES THE MAP MEAN IT WAS PLANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT!?

[sivispacem]

FFS HOW DOES THE MAP MEAN IT WAS PLANNED BY THE GOVERNMENT!?

Which is a summary of what I've been trying to explain, but in terms which might be easier to comprehend.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Because it doesn't actually line up. It nearly does. I pointed out the various parts that don't actually line up properly despite the best efforts of the conspiracy theorist earlier, but you handily ignored it.

 

 

Can you show me any other Sandy Hook locations from that illuminutti site that line up anywhere near this?

 

 

 

Coincidence doesn't imply correlation, and correlation does not imply causality.

 

I know... but this isn't just some random coincidence..

 

 

 

Your argument is invalid until you can demonstrate the logical connections between your evidence and your statements without making any illogical leaps if faith. I'm still waiting for you to do this.

 

My statements are that this event was planned. I've shown maps pre-event that show this location as a target zone, there were facebook pages made days in advance for RIP foundations for the victims that haven't even died yet ffs.. oh but of course multiple sources screenshot the same 'photoshopped page' which was found out about and exposed, only to later be deleted and replaced with a new profile.

 

 

 

I do love the way that all conspiracies are reliant on another, larger conspiracy in order that they don't invalidate themselves. It's the logical equivalent of claiming that anything that can't be explained satisfactorily as the responsibility of invisible pink fairies.

 

 

You don't think media is controlled..?? hahaha get real. Information control is crucial in mainstream news.. you'd have to be a fool to think otherwise.

 

Mainstream media controls fads and fashion, trending music and styles, tells you what family values are normal and what is taboo, it teaches children to act in certain ways in certain situations, it conditions society as a whole as to what is acceptable and what is not. Television impacts our lives so much more than we could ever imagine..

Edited January 18, 2013 by GrandMaster Smith

[Clem Fandango]

Because it doesn't actually line up. It nearly does. I pointed out the various parts that don't actually line up properly despite the best efforts of the conspiracy theorist earlier, but you handily ignored it.

 

 

Can you show me any other Sandy Hook locations from that illuminutti site that line up anywhere near this?

 

 

 

Coincidence doesn't imply correlation, and correlation does not imply causality.

 

I know... but this isn't just some random coincidence..

 

 

 

Your argument is invalid until you can demonstrate the logical connections between your evidence and your statements without making any illogical leaps if faith. I'm still waiting for you to do this.

 

My statements are that this event was planned. I've shown maps pre-event that show this location as a target zone, there were facebook pages made days in advance for RIP foundations for the victims that haven't even died yet ffs.. oh but of course multiple sources screenshot the same 'photoshopped page' which was found out about and exposed, only to later be deleted and replaced with a new profile.

 

 

 

I do love the way that all conspiracies are reliant on another, larger conspiracy in order that they don't invalidate themselves. It's the logical equivalent of claiming that anything that can't be explained satisfactorily as the responsibility of invisible pink fairies.

 

 

You don't think media is controlled..?? hahaha get real. Information control is crucial in mainstream news.. you'd have to be a fool to think otherwise.

 

Mainstream media controls fads and fashion, trending music and styles, tells you what family values are normal and what is taboo, it teaches children to act in certain ways in certain situations, it conditions society as a whole as to what is acceptable and what is not. Television impacts our lives so much more than we could ever imagine..

HOW DOES ANY OF THIS MEAN THE GOVERNMENT WAS INVOLVED!? TELL ME TELL ME RIGHT NOW!

[sivispacem]

 

Can you show me any other Sandy Hook locations from that illuminutti site that line up anywhere near this?

How does this in any comprehensible way relate to your statements. Are you saying that, because it bears the most similarity it must be the same? That appears to be the crux of your argument. Yet again, the implication that similarity is implicitly or explicitly correlation is an absurd fallacy.

 

 

I know... but this isn't just some random coincidence.

A statement you have completely failed to quantify, substantiate or even satisfactorily explain.

 

 

My statements are that this event was planned. I've shown maps pre-event that show this location as a target zone, there were facebook pages made days in advance for RIP foundations for the victims that haven't even died yet ffs.. oh but of course multiple sources screenshot the same 'photoshopped page' which was found out about and exposed, only to later be deleted and replaced with a new profile.

Excluding the fact that most of these have been brought into question, you still don't seem to understand that they do not implicitly or explicitly support your conclusions. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why can't you even link them together? If your assessment is as accurate as you seem to think it is, then why are you struggling to find your way out of a maze of fallacies and false equivocation?

 

 

You don't think media is controlled..??

Nice straw man. Come on, you can do better than this. Its actually embarrassing to see you struggle so. The whole thing is losing allure. It has become almost like kicking a wounded puppy. Perhaps I should hold off for a few hours and let you try to gather the scraps of your futile argument back together.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Wait WHAT?

 

You sit there acting as if you've debunked anything yet all you do is pick out single sentences and repeat, this is just a fallacy so I'm not going to address this... You even said assuming members of a club would attend their own club's meetings is a logical fallacy LOL.

 

 

 

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why can't you even link them together? If your assessment is as accurate as you seem to think it is, then why are you struggling to find your way out of a maze of fallacies and false equivocation?

 

My statement is that this event was planned. There is evidence showing there was foreknowledge of this event through facebook foundations for the deaths of people who hadn't even died yet, or the location being marked as a strike zone.

 

What more evidence would you need? Someone being announced dead and foundations being set up even before the 'random' tragedy even happened to kill that person is fishy.

 

Your 'debating' style REEKS of shill. I've had multiple people PM me saying the exact same thing. Your smoke screen appearance may fool some, but the mountain of evidence is sitting there in plain site... Either that or you're just another spitting image of a well conditioned UK resident who's been brainwashed into things such as CCTV's recording your every step down the street is something to be considered normal and even required for you to feel secure.

[Barguast]

ffs.

 

There's a worrying regularity for this kind of topic popping up on these forums recently. Should I be worried? Or are our resident truthers just relishing in the attention?

[sivispacem]

 

You sit there acting as if you've debunked anything yet all you do is pick out single sentences and repeat, this is just a fallacy so I'm not going to address this... You even said assuming members of a club would attend their own club's meetings is a logical fallacy LOL.

 

My statement is that this event was planned. There is evidence showing there was foreknowledge of this event through facebook foundations for the deaths of people who hadn't even died yet, or the location being marked as a strike zone.

 

What more evidence would you need? Someone being announced dead and foundations being set up even before the 'random' tragedy even happened to kill that person is fishy.

 

Your 'debating' style REEKS of shill. I've had multiple people PM me saying the exact same thing.

I never claimed it was illogical for members of a club to attend its meetings. I claimed it was illogical to assume people were involved in a quasi-religious ceremony because they happen to be a member of the club ay which it took place. Which is rational, but of course you completely alter my statements to make a straw man argument. As usual.

 

The evidence does not actually prove foreknowledge. To say it does is a fallacy. Even if it did, it dies not prove on whose part the foreknowledge existed. Foreknowledge does not imply complicity, nor that there is a wider conspiracy. This is the fundamental issue with your argument. There is no tangible link between the basic premises and the conclusions you reach from the. If there is a link, why can't you explain it?

 

If you are capable of explaining how your evidence actually relates to your hypothesis, then that would be a good start. As it stands you have been completely unable to do so. Other people have pointed out the same issue with your statements, but again you've chosen to ignore it. It is your views being subject to scrutiny here, they would probably be received with a great deal less scepticism if you were actually capable of explaining them.

 

Oh, and the crowning cherry on top? "I'm losing the argument, so I'll accuse my opponent if being a shill without a single fragment of evidence. Then i'll eventually stop responding when the questioning becomes too much". Typical of you.

 

 

Personally, I think you behave like this because you can't deal with the idea that someone else could possibly be more knowledgeable and more eloquent than you on an issue you've spent the majority of your young life furiously masturbating over.

Edited January 18, 2013 by sivispacem

[lil weasel]

 

[...] What more evidence would you need? [...]Your 'debating' style REEKS of shill. I've had multiple people PM me saying the exact same thing.

[...] but of course you completely alter my statements to make a straw man argument. As usual.

 

The evidence does not actually prove foreknowledge. [...]If you are capable of explaining how your evidence actually relates to your hypothesis, then that would be a good start. Oh, and the crowning cherry on top? "I'm losing the argument, so I'll accuse my opponent if being a shill without a single fragment of evidence. Then I’ll eventually stop responding when the questioning becomes too much". Typical of you.

Personally, I think you behave like this because you can't deal with the idea that someone else could possibly be more knowledgeable and more eloquent than you on an issue [...]

Seems someone has an Elitist view of themself.

The Idea that 'we' must prove anything to your satisfaction is unreal. Especially since you don't accept any idea/opinion that you haven't approved.

 

I really dislike all these Quoted quotes and more quotes. Just to try to make a 'point' on a single line of quote.

 

Conspiracy isn't always a cabal in some dark basement. It can also be post incident where the participants just follow the 'line' established by a superior or an ideal.

The Primary Goal ‘Directive’ is "Get the Guns out of the People's warm living hands."

 

 

Edited January 18, 2013 by lil weasel

[Icarus]

You have to admit, A dad who is laughing a day after his daughter is supposedly killed. And a so called "family picture" of a girl who was killed in a massacre that appears on the lap of President Obama the next day.

There's a really simple explanation for that one. It was the girl's sister.

 

For those who don't buy it, use the philosophical concept of Occam's razor. Which conclusion makes the fewest assumptions, the girl in the photo being the one who was supposedly shot at Sandy Hook or is it her sister? The correct answer is the latter, therefore, by Occam's razor, we should conclude the latter is the most likely case.

 

Some of you are really out in left field. Being a scientist, I'm all up for critical analysis of the facts and not taking everything at face value (being skeptical), but some of you also ignore really simple principles of logic and the evidence. You need to approach things from the scientific point of view: from your evidence, draw a conclusion. Many of you already have your conclusion, then look for evidence to support said conclusion (which sivi has already brought up - cherrypicking or shoehorning). Simply put, that's not how it works - you're doing things backwards.