He also wore a mask, like the Clackamas shooter and the Aurora/Batman shooter. Strange, because history tells us that other suicide/rampage killers have not been particularly worried about revealing their identities.

Could it be that these masked shooters have both an exit strategy and a decoy culprit (masked and drugged, or masked and dead) ready prepared?

Yes, the initial report was that the principal buzzed the shooter in, and then he shot her. Now they are saying "he forced his way in". Not sure if the part of the story where the principal "heroically lunged" at the shooter is still part of the script, or not.

The second person has disappeared - both physically, and from the media narrative of the shooting. Perhaps the police on the ground got instructions from on high to let him go.

this just in: the media is not omniscient and may not know the facts immediately

Well blow me down with a feather.

Forgive me, but I am more worried about the media when they make up stories in the absence of known facts, report items of dubious and unreliable provenance as "fact", and especially when they withhold and/or manipulate the known facts to promote a specific agenda.

Forgive me, but I am more worried about the media when they make up stories in the absence of known facts, report items of dubious and unreliable provenance as "fact", and especially when they withhold and/or manipulate the known facts to promote a specific agenda.

But how can you tell the one from the other? Is it not your own personal biases and beliefs that turns the media from suddenly incapable to 'in' on the conspiracy?

It is difficult, particularly if one's default position is a lack of trust that the authorities and the media will tell the (whole) truth.

One must look for inconsistencies and gaps in the official narrative. For instance, I have seen three credible eyewitness/real time sources which appear to contradict the "lone shooter" narrative, and yet this is not even mentioned in any of the mainstream media reports. This is an inconsistency which makes me doubt the integrity of the MSM.

Why are your eyewitness reports credible? How did you determine that to be the case?

I'm under the impression the media started with the 2 shooter narrative but changed as the evidence came out?

This is an inconsistency which makes me doubt the integrity of the MSM.

Right - they don't have integrity. It's just that you switch them from being omnipotent to incompetent at the whim of your will.

An intelligent and conscientious person can use their judgment to assess the validity of a source.

Have a look at this interview with a man who says he witnessed the police "walking a guy out of the woods in handcuffs". What he says has not been mentioned by the mainstream media. He is either telling the truth, or he is lying, or he is delusional. My judgment is that the first option is the more likely.

Or listen to this real time police radio recording made during the shooting. My assessment is that this source is genuine and the police officer is likely to be a reliable witness.

There are other sources too, but my decision is that on the balance of probabilities, there was more than one person involved in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Have a look at this interview with a man who says he witnessed the police "walking a guy out of the woods in handcuffs". What he says has not been mentioned by the mainstream media. He is either telling the truth, or he is lying, or he is delusional. My judgment is that the first option is the more likely.

And apparently the police are lying too. Or he could mistaken? Or the police could have been mistaken and let the guy go? Those are scenarios both more plausible than the few you say are the only options. So what is it? Are you actually unable to use your own judgement to assess the validity of a source? Seems like it.

Or listen to this real time police radio recording made during the shooting. My assessment is that this source is genuine and the police officer is likely to be a reliable witness.

Are you saying that it's impossible for the police officer to have been mistaken? That as the events were literally unfolding it's impossible to have believed a 2nd shooter was there? Only to find out later that it wasn't the case?

Why is it that the scenarios I've illustrated are impossible and no more likely than the ones you've concocted?

Why is it that the scenarios I've illustrated are impossible..

You are attributing to words to me that I clearly never said in order to create a strawman. Lame.

What I said is that my assessment of several real and credible sources pointing to an accomplice have been airbrushed from the media narrative without any explanation. It may be these sources ultimately turn out to be red herrings, but no rebuttal has been provided for any of them.

You are attributing to words to me that I clearly never said in order to create a strawman. Lame.

Ok - pick your own word. Why are they less likely than the scenarios you've concocted??? Quit being so lame and get to your point. But I'm not being unfair - the fashion you are arguing in implies that the other scenarios are incorrect and don't apply. I don't think I misrepresented your point at all considering you are jumping to the least likely conclusions in the face of simpler explanations.

It may be these sources ultimately turn out to be red herrings, but no rebuttal has been provided for any of them.

What rebuttal would be necessary? Do they provide amounts of evidence that would somehow discount the scenario provided by the police or do they reflect two cases of people being mistaken during a violent tragedy?

You didn't bother to actually check the sources I linked, did you?

I listened to the video you linked

You didn't bother to actually try and understand anything I wrote, did you?

You are the one who is blinkered to alternative viewpoints. You are presented with evidence which you reject without reason because it conflicts with your already-made-up opinion.

Why someone as inflexible and uncritical of mainstream media as you apparently are, bothers to read or post on r/conspiracy is a bit of a conundrum, frankly.

You are the one who is blinkered to alternative viewpoints. You are presented with evidence which you reject without reason because it conflicts with your already-made-up opinion.

How's that? I'm not rejecting evidence - from my own experience in life I quickly realized that people make mistakes in such scenarios. You act as if this was some sort of calm and collected scenario not stricken by panic and violence.

Why someone as inflexible and uncritical of mainstream media as you apparently are, bothers to read or post on r/conspiracy is a bit of a conundrum, frankly.

You are pretty dense huh? When did I say I trust the media? I'm only calling you out for being inconsistent as apparently the media tells the truth only until it decides not to. You also haven't read my post history if you'd think something so foolish - but whatever, I don't expect you to actually try and support your stupid fucking claims at this point.

It's as if you are getting the whole directionality of this thing wrong. I'm not defending the media nor accusing them, I'm accusing you of applying faulty logic to the situation at hand. Get a fucking grip already

From what I read until about 930 anyone could freely come into the building to drop kids off.

Do you have a source that says he wore a mask?

i think the shooters intentions arent to just commit suicide, but to take out as many people as possible. If he gets shot at, he can still have a chance to survive and off himself before taking anymore fire from police.

i agree with you, but at the same time I feel like its a recent trend that shooters have been doing, and thats always been portrayed in movies thats way as well.

No explanation that doesn't say "Conspiracy" will. Thats your problem.

Why's that? I think it adds up perfectly fine

Maybe it's for the same reason people where condoms when trying to get pregnant?!

[deleted]

[deleted]

ah, no, that thing you're referencing is not written by nancy lanza, but by Liza Long, and it was 'identifying with her difficulties.'

Could be an ego thing. AR-15 is a useless gun IMO, but it looks like something you would see in a movie, along with a bullet proof vest. Wouldn't be surprised if they found one of those fantasy knives on him as well.

Forgive me, but I am more worried about the media when they make up stories in the absence of known facts, report items of dubious and unreliable provenance as "fact", and especially when they withhold and/or manipulate the known facts to promote a specific agenda.

But how can you tell the one from the other? Is it not your own personal biases and beliefs that turns the media from suddenly incapable to 'in' on the conspiracy?

Why are your eyewitness reports credible? How did you determine that to be the case?

I'm under the impression the media started with the 2 shooter narrative but changed as the evidence came out?

This is an inconsistency which makes me doubt the integrity of the MSM.

Right - they don't have integrity. It's just that you switch them from being omnipotent to incompetent at the whim of your will.