Here's a thought: All these high level pedos start getting exposed, and then we have a shooting where a bunch of kids are disappeared.

5  2013-01-25 by ronintetsuro

Just saying.

A lot of these Sandy Hook parents say they didn't want to/get to see their kids after the alleged event. One said they saw their kid but her entire face was blown off. Can't really ID the body then.

I just feel like with all the increased visibility from the Jimmy Saville story, these sickos might not be able to go through their (ugh) normal channels to get their fix of children for... whatever it is they do. And the prevailing ideology is to never let a good tragedy go to waste.

So why not cover a few bases at once?

EDIT: The thread and comments are getting hit hard with downvotes. Must mean there's a shot at an actual discussion here.

53 comments

5  [deleted] 2013-01-25

So... what exactly are you saying? There's a bunch of paedonecrophiles out there who got their hands on the bodies of the dead from Sandy Hook?

2  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

I'm saying the kids don't have to be dead to disappear.

And that the world has a more active and pervasive slave trade now than in the entirety of human history.

I don't have any evidence to back this up. I'm just discussing trends. I was remembering the strange victim phone calls from the hijacked planes of 9/11 and how it sounded like there were handlers in the background coaching them.

If those people were off the plane and being stage managed at a base somewhere, then what? Well, the world is a Capitalist's playground, and Capitalism considers humanity to be a fungible resource. So why would you waste perfectly capable resources by killing them off and then having to figure out what to do with the meat? Sell or trade them, get some ROI for your trouble, and wash your hands of the whole thing.

Barring that, throw them in a black site and let them rot with no oversight. It's dark, but I'm approaching it like a psychopath; from a purely logical standpoint.

3  [deleted] 2013-01-25

So... your idea is that the kids weren't killed at all, that their deaths was a hoax, and that they're still alive and in the hands of paedophiles?

0  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

I'm saying it's possible they weren't killed, yes. All of it is speculation.

4  [deleted] 2013-01-25

check out the connection between pedophilia and the Dunblane Massacre.

0  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

!!!!

On 13 March 1996, Hamilton, armed with four hand-guns, opened fire on a junior school class, killing 16 children and one teacher before turning the gun on himself, shattering forever the idyllic 13th century Scottish town of Dunblane.

Intriguing. There's more:

Some commentators, mindful that one of Tony Blair's closest confidante's is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair's repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption. The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.

The latest allegations came to light following a campaign to lift the secrecy on the Dunblane massacre. Large sections of the police report were banned from the public domain under a 100-year secrecy order. Lord Cullen, an establishment insider, also omitted and censored references to the documents in his final report. Parents and teachers were advised to concentrate their efforts on a campaign to outlaw handguns instead of focusing on how the mentally unstable Freemason, already known by the police to be a paedophile, had obtained a firearms licence for six handguns. Hamilton allegedly enjoyed good relations with both local Labour luminary George Robertson and Michael Forsyth, the then Scottish Secretary of State and MP for Stirling. Forsyth congratulated and encouraged Hamilton for running a boy's club. Hamilton was also found to have exchanged letters with the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth.

Source

3  [deleted] 2013-01-25

Well, logically, a much better less riskier way of getting one's hands on child victims for a paedophile ring would be to abduct them from pretty much anywhere but Sandy Hook. Those children have probably become the most media-focused children in the world since the shooting. Why choose the centre of a media circus and police investigation to abduct children from?

-1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

sigh

Did you actually see any kids during all of the Sandy Hook footage, outside of interviews? Or were you repeatedly shown a singular file photo with a handful of kids just like everyone else?

3  [deleted] 2013-01-25

And based on that fact alone, you're speculating that they were abducted by a ring of paedophiles and replaced with bodies? The leaps in logic you're making here are astounding.

3  SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-25

Why couldn't they just grab some kids from Cambodia or Belarus or somewhere where no one will miss them?

1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

LOL. There's a premium on healthy white children, that's why.

4  SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-25

Plenty of healthy white children in Eastern Europe. Russians are ethnically identical to Swedes.

-1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

Sure. But it's hard to trick Americans into "gun control" with a shooting that happened in Russia.

1  SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-25

So why not actually shoot the kids then? That way you don't have to worry about witnesses coming forward and revealing that no one was actually shot.

0  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

One might argue that if you actually have dead kids, the managed production could spin out of control. And that in our society, just the concept of dead kids are enough. You don't have to actually SHOW dead kids.

Kind of like the whole bin Laden/Seal Team Six thing. Just SAY it happened and let the country ride the emotional wave of the concept. You don't have to show your work, they'll beg you for the Hegelian Solution you have ready for them.

2  SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-25

One might argue that if you actually have dead kids, the managed production could spin out of control.

Why?

0  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

Because then you've actually killed a bunch of kids. Again, you'd have to do it in a way that's untraceable and doesn't provoke a lot of questions.

3  SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-25

you'd have to do it in a way that's untraceable

You'd have to do that even if you didn't kill any kids though. Whatever you do with the kids, you have to do it in a way that's untraceable. Plus if you don't kill them you always have to worry about some hospital janitor or someone telling people there weren't any dead bodies there.

Seems like it makes much more sense to just shoot the kids and claim Adam Lanza shot them. That way you leave far fewer loose ends.

and doesn't provoke a lot of questions.

How does shooting the kids "provoke" more questions than not shooting the kids but then claiming they were shot? Wouldn't people ask the exact same questions even if you didn't actually shoot any kids?

0  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

How does shooting the kids "provoke" more questions than not shooting the kids but then claiming they were shot? Wouldn't people ask the exact same questions even if you didn't actually shoot any kids?

Does this imply that you also believe the coroner is "in on it"? Because if he's not, then the forensic evidence not matching up with the story would provoke more questions.

2  SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-25

Does this imply that you also believe the coroner is "in on it"?

No it means exactly what I said: killing the kids would not raise more questions than NOT killing the kids.

-1  [deleted] 2013-01-25

[deleted]

1  SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-25

do you think that all those kids from schools missing are going to get back to society

I'm talking about the hundreds of other people who were either in the school at the time or were involved as cops, EMTs, nurses, hospital administrators, funeral home directors etc. If one of those people opens up and admits that no children were shot then the whole story falls apart.

0  [deleted] 2013-01-25

[deleted]

2  SargonOfAkkad 2013-01-25

You sound like a thoughtful and rational individual who's only interested in the truth.

2  bamshoulddie 2013-01-25

I don't have any evidence to back this up.

Obviously. And you never will because your theory is so implausible it defies belief.

There is a thriving black market for children, kids disappear and are never found, there are millions of poor kids scattered all around that can disappear without anyone noticing, so naturally the logical plan is to stage an absurdly high-profile event that will come under intense scrutiny and receive thousands of hours of news coverage, focusing international attention right at the epicenter of your mass kidnapping and drawing a host of investigators, journalists, concerned people and conspiracy theorists. This, for them, seems like a good plan.

And this is ignoring the idea that they'd still have to get some other dead kids to stand in for those who were kidnapped (why they wouldn't just rape those kids is unclear), blow off their faces, and hope that the parents don't notice that the corpse isn't really their kid.

Honest question: Do you even think these things through when you dream them up?

1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

Well, you're right. Staging an event of this caliber just to yank some kids would be inadvisable.

But if you were staging an event of this caliber to push for gun control, and you needed to figure out how to dispose of the kids anyway, this would be one way of doing it.

Again, this sub is about discussion. That's all we're doing here, discussing.

3  bamshoulddie 2013-01-25

You understand that floating theories like this and discussing them as if they're even remotely plausible is the kind of discussion that makes people think you and others have some degree of psychosis, right?

There are REAL conspiracies out there, REAL corruption, REAL issues of major concern ...

And you're speculating that a mass school shooting was staged so that kids could be kidnapped for the delight of the unseen elite.

Stuff like this is what makes people laugh at this sub. It detracts from the REAL issues and the REAL conspiracies. You might as well have a discussion about the invisible pink elephant crisis. When people tell you it's crazy and illogical, you can say, hey, all we're doing here is having a discussion.

There comes a point where speculation sprints past logical skepticism and suspicion and winds up in CrazyLand.

This theory is a few hundred yards past that point.

1  Sabremesh 2013-01-25

Why are you wasting your time here? Serious question.

There are plenty of conspiracies that I think are nuts, but the one thing I don't do, is hang around threads discussing those "nutty" conspiracies telling people how crazy they are. I don't even bother to read the threads.

So I ask again, what the fuck are you doing here?

2  andrewmccarthyism 2013-01-25

bamshoulddie is a an idiot. he trolls around the conspiracy thread trying to debunk conspiracies and the like because it makes him feel like he doesn't have the TINIEST penis in the world.

But he does.

His mom told me.

0  bamshoulddie 2013-01-25

Have you ever seen a train crash?

It's fascinating to watch, isn't it?

No need to be angry about it. I'm not the one driving the train.

1  Sabremesh 2013-01-25

You're not just watching the train crash though, are you. You are going round trying to shoot the survivors.

1  bamshoulddie 2013-01-25

I don't get paid to just read posts. I have to respond to them, too.

-2  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

So when the train you're interested in doesn't seem to be crashing, what's your immediate response?

1  bamshoulddie 2013-01-25

You seem to be misunderstanding. I am not trying to derail your thread. That's not the train crash.

You, your theory that a massive school shooting may have been staged so rich people could steal away a bunch of children, the way your mind works to connect all these disparate dots into an omnipresent global child-stealing spider - that is the train crash.

-4  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

Well, it's not like I'm pulling it out of thin air. There's a very large investigation going on in the UK that appears to involve very high level officials in the UK regarding systemic pedophilia.

And the Pentagon was found to have 5200 employees purchasing child pornography not too long ago. The subsequent investigation was stopped cold by high level entities left unnamed.

Why Sandy Hook? There... there appear to be rituals practiced in this country that many of us do not understand. And it doesn't matter if people like you and I understand or believe in them. Logic dictates that it only matters if there are (powerful) people that do believe in and practice these rituals.

This thread is meant to be an open discussion about those things. Not about me. I've made that clear. But you persist. I think you've made yourselves very clear on your intent here.

0  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

I'm not concerned with what people reading this think of me personally.

Furthermore, I will reiterate that I don't believe Sandy Hook was staged specifically to steal kids.

I'm attempting to have a discussion. A discussion that ties together a few theories that have been floating around this sub. Mainly mind control (documented to be initiated by abuse of the young and impressionable), false flags in America, and the high instance of pedophilia in the upper echelons of the power structure. The same power structure that swung into action very quickly and efficiently when this incident happened to bring about all kinds of gun control legislation.

Meanwhile, I don't feel that what the public has been shown about Sandy Hook adds up completely. There's a bigger story there. And when you have a guy with fresh toys in his den talking about how a school bus of traumatized kids were just dropped of on his lawn and left there, well... it struck a chord with me. And I thought I'd pose a what if to get a reaction.

I'm getting about the reaction I expected. Interesting responses all around. Thanks for participating.

2  bamshoulddie 2013-01-25

I'm not concerned with what people reading this think of me personally.

Do you care that this sort of grasping at ghost straws detracts from any real, legitimate concerns/theories you might have?

-1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

It would only detract from any "real, legitimate concerns" I have in the eyes of people who are only interested in prejudging the messenger, instead of being burdened with digesting the message.

As I've already stated, I'm not interested in what those people think of me personally.

0  Sabremesh 2013-01-25

To extrapolate from your thesis, I think you should consider that the children who were allegedly "dropped off" at creepy Gene Rosen's house, could be victims of that conspiracy.

These unnamed children were taken to his "safe house" just after the shooting, to get them out of public view. They were then secreted out of the area by a satanic/paedophile network.

The unfortunate "Rosen children" were then conveniently listed amongst the 20 child victims of Sandy Hook. Of course, they were later murdered, but they were ritualistically killed by paedophiles, not a crazed gunman, and they didn't die inside the school building at Sandy Hook.

Edit: We need to find out the identities of the children who Gene Rosen locked in his house without bothering to tell anyone who might be looking for them (the parents, the police, the school etc). If those children are amongst the listed survivors of Sandy Hook, then my little hypothesis collapses.

1  ThirstyBeaver44 2013-01-25

Topic of this post notwithstanding: Sadly, I can honestly say the first time I saw Gene Rosen and heard his story, pedophile was the first thing that crossed my mind...

3  thepaedotrial 2013-01-25

If you’re interested in the paedophile scandal, check out http://www.thepaedotrial.com being launched on February 1st. Reveals incriminating evidence about several london bankers and police officers!

2  [deleted] 2013-01-25

[deleted]

6  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

The one thing the Bush Administration taught me was that if you can follow the money back to the government, there's no such thing as coincidence.

2  liquidive 2013-01-25

Thats why Dubya is the best president ever... He single handedly exposed the hypocrisy of ALL of it to millions of people with his careless attitude towards everything.

-1  [deleted] 2013-01-25

[deleted]

3  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

Explain what you find about open discussion to be mentally defective? I'm genuinely curious about how people like you operate.

-1  [deleted] 2013-01-25

[deleted]

-1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

You're just concerned about my mental well being. Because I'm having a discussion on the internet.

-2  RawbHaze 2013-01-25

I am not concerned about the act of discussion. I am concerned about what you have expressed within it.

-1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

Would you care to extrapolate on what concerns you, or is this a guessing game on purpose?

2  RawbHaze 2013-01-25

That you find this scenario that you came up with to be plausible is of concern.

-2  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

I'm having a discussion about a theory. That doesn't mean I accept to my core that the theory is true.

That you keep trying to make this about me when you don't know anything about me, and I've made it clear that personal opinions of me are inconsequential to the purpose of this thread is very intriguing.

3  RawbHaze 2013-01-25

I'm having a discussion about a theory. That doesn't mean I accept to my core that the theory is true.

That you keep trying to make this about me when you don't know anything about me, and I've made it clear that personal opinions of me are inconsequential to the purpose of this thread is very intriguing.

It is about you because these our your thoughts. All that I know of you is what you have presented in this post and replies. I have not expressed any personal opinions about you as a person. I am pointing out that your thoughts in regards to this post are not rational to the degree of concern. I care because I don't want my fellow man to struggle when help is readily available. Mental health is near impossible to self diagnose. That is why I spoke out.

0  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

The mental health apparatus is also largely a scam, used to silence and dose non-orthodox segments of the population into compliance and chemical slavery.

Here's an off-topic challenge: I dare you to make it cover to cover in the DSM without discovering you are mentally ill. Go ahead, try it.

-3  RawbHaze 2013-01-25

Open discussion is normal. The thoughts that you are bringing to this particular discussion are not.

2  ronintetsuro 2013-01-25

The thoughts I'm bringing to the table stem from extensive research into mind control, modern slavery, false flags, and the ongoing investigation of pedophiles at the highest levels of society. I'm not pulling these things from my head willy nilly, nor do I relish the thought that this might be the case. I hope I am wrong, in fact. Because if I'm not, then the people that we're up against are so much worse that most of us understand.