Did you know that after the shooting, the school was declared too toxic to be reopened and had to be destroyed and rebuilt (with the help of many federal dollars, I might add.) http://newtownbee.com/news/news/201... Did you realize that the mandatory 24 hour background check on the murder victims was not done, because there were too many victims, even though one of the victims also had her car riddled with bullets? That this order to ignore standard procedure did not specify who gave the order and it was unsigned until 6 months later? How did they that quickly determine that this was not a revenge killing or that there was not another motive? And how did they rationalize not doing the background checks by saying that the number of victims was too high when there were hundreds of officers and federal agents at their disposal? And even if that were true, should background checks not have been at least done on the adult victims? http://imgur.com/lkN8jPA

Is it not strange that the crime scene photos showed little evidence of a crime? And only two supposed blood spots were photographed and shown over and over, while all other blood photos were redacted (one of Natalie Hammond’s inside the doorway of conference room 9, and the other of Ben Wheeler’s when he was laid on the concrete outside the front doors.) Why is it okay to focus over and over on these two spots yet not okay to show any other evidence of blood? Why should we believe there is anything at all under those redacted photos?

As Mr. Moorehead said in his comment, do you realize that the Soto family was informed that Vicki was not the heroine as portrayed by the media, but in fact, was probably one of the first victims and had little time to react or to shield her students, and yet the family continues to preach about her heroism and makes no effort to correct the narrative? http://imgur.com/3rUTKMM

Do you realize that nearly every statement in the official report was redacted and then regurgitated in the third party by the interviewer? How are we to know that’s what the witness actually said?

Do you know that even though Sandy Hook Fire Dept. was one of the first responding teams, there is no call to them listed in their history on their website? As a matter of fact, there is nothing in their call history about that day, even though their fire truck was dispatched to the school parking lot and their firemen played a significant role throughout the day. http://sandyhookfire.com/history.ht...

Do you realize that often when an article with legitimate question is published, or a video is made which points out the inconsistencies (by real researchers), it is immediately taken down? This continuous scrubbing of articles and videos and websites, discussing what should be public information, is exactly what has given rise to so many wild theories. A good example is the recent video by a man called Political Hillbilly which focused on the dash cam recordings and which showed that officers who said they ran down the front of the school building never ran down the front of the school building. And the same person proved that the dash cam video recording date and time stamps had been tampered with? His youtube account was immediately terminated.... even though there was nothing that could be construed as violating their terms. The following are photos which prove evidence of tampering. These were obtained by Wolfgang Halbig via an FOIA request, after a long, hard-fought battle, I might add. http://imgur.com/a/t3ods

Did you know that after the shooting, the school was declared too toxic to be reopened and had to be destroyed

[Citation needed - your link 404s]

Did you realize that the mandatory 24 hour background check on the murder victims was not done, because there were too many victims,

[Citation needed]

Is it not strange that the crime scene photos showed little evidence of a crime?

Show me the blood-drenched photos from the scene of other kindergarten mass shootings. West Nickel Mines? Dunblane? This is one of the big logical fallacies used by Hoaxers. That because photos are not publicly available > there are no such photos > it didn't happen. There are no photos publicly available of me eating my breakfast this morning, but I assure you, it took place.

Do you realize that nearly every statement in the official report was redacted

Flat out false.

and then regurgitated in the third party by the interviewer? How are we to know that’s what the witness actually said?

Someone clearly hasn't read many official reports, have you?

Do you know that even though Sandy Hook Fire Dept. was one of the first responding teams, there is no call to them listed in their history on their website?

LOLOLOLOLOL. This is absolutely brilliant! Man, how desperate are Hoaxers getting these days? Would you like another straw to desperately clutch at? Now you're saying because a call isn't listed on a website, its evidence nobody died. This may be a new low, even by the feeble standards of Sandy Hoax.

Do you realize that often when an article with legitimate question is published, or a video is made which points out the inconsistencies (by real researchers), it is immediately taken down?

I'm glad you agree that We Need To Take About Sandy Hook has no legitimate questions and is not by real researchers. Because it has been up continuously since its release in December 2014. So much for "immediately taken down", eh? Yet another false claim by a Hoaxer destroyed.

Any other paranoid claims you want to make?

Man I seem to have really struck a nerve with you as you seem to be maniacally obsessed with me. I wonder why? And why can't you explain why Gene Rosen was corrected by Matt the cameraman, Gene then curses, and corrects a very large and gaping plot point. Why does Matt know what happened to Gene hours earlier, but Gene gets it wrong?

Someone who ever posts only about a single topic calls me "obsessed"! Too funny!

My best man helped me rehearse my wedding speech and corrected me when I screwed up. Guess this "proves" my marriage was a hoax carried out by crisis actors for the purpose of gun control.

Actually, that is STILL more plausible than Sandy Hoax.

It's all in good fun. I'm sure we'd get along over a few beers. Perhaps we include Rick Thorne to help us sort all this out? You'll admit his total disappearance is peculiar, right? Can we agree on that? An eyewitness to the worst school shooting in history never gives a televised interview? Same with Peter and Ryan? Is that the hoaxers fault too? Moving the goalposts?

Peter gave an interview with the New Yorker a few months after the shooting happened. Ryan hasn't been on the best of terms with the national news ever since they publicly, mistakenly accused him of murdering his mother and 26 children and teachers. Go figure.

(Here's his reaction at the time, before he deactivated his Facebook account under an avalanche of false accusations from regular people. And if you doubt this picture's authenticity, I saw that post myself, before he deactivated his account, when I was following the story on Day 1.)

There's no rule that says the victims, witnesses, or perpetrator's families have to show up on camera for your edification. And even if they did, we both know you'd do what you've done with every other on-camera interview and call it fake, because you want it to be.

Because it has been up continuously since its release in December 2014 . So much for "immediately taken down", eh? Yet another false claim by a Hoaxer destroyed.

I remember it was taken down. I remember posting on reddit that it was taken down. I know, because I watched about half of it, went to bed, and the next day I couldn't find it. I actually claimed it was a great marketing strategy on the video maker's part. Point is, you're wrong on that one. Or do you want a citation of my memory?

Just look at Nobody Died At Sandy Hook....banned. Man, the shills are getting testy.

This place is swarming with shills. This place is a controlled blackhole.

This is the most transparent conspiracy ever concocted. It's essentially a litmus test to prove someone's integrity if they believe it to be a hoax or not.

They have limitless resources and a lot that they don't want exposed, hence the gang-stalking of this account.

The link provided says "Published on December 1, 2014". If it had been taken down, it would of necessity, had to be republished. And the date would not be December 1. That it has now been up for 14 months pretty much proves HONRWATCH is, yet, again, telling lies.

You are assuming that that is the original upload. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4245810/ - that says it was published November 30th, 2014. Therefore, you are wrong. I know it must be hard to admit to yourself that you were proven wrong by a "hoaxer". You, should, really, stop, telling, lies.

I just showed it has been up for over 14 months. Must be some new definition of "Proven wrong". But then, Hoaxers have a very strange definition of "proof" to begin with...

So much for "immediately taken down", eh? Yet another false claim by a Hoaxer destroyed.

Yes, I did just prove you wrong.

Did you know that after the shooting, the school was declared too toxic to be reopened

Still waiting for a citation on this. Or do I file it as yet another HONRWATCH lie?

And, given the deafening silence, we must conclude that another HONRWATCH lie it is. I'll put it in the growing file of such things.

[deleted]

Upvoted for that moon walk video. Never seen that before.

Wouldn't reasonably low gravity look like normal gravity if it's sped up??

I don't believe it one way or another. It's just interesting to me. I wouldn't be surprised if the moon in general is different than the way NASA has portrayed it to be.

More provable than a plane being incapable of slicing through a steel building?

huh? You mean the thing that happened twice?

More provable than 1/6th Earth's gravity looking like this?

Oh a doctored video?

More provable than a woman being shot in the head at point blank range and not being able to regain almost all cognitive functioning in less than a year?

Oh you mean like people on a long list of people who have survived all manner of gruesome injuries?

You seriously think that moon walk video shows that the landing was a hoax? That was so obviously sped up that it was completely unralistic. Look at how they are moving, people do not move like that.

Also, do you really think the Russians would have let the US fake a moon landing? If they didn't think it was technologically capable of being done, don't you think they would have jumped at the chance to do so?

[deleted]

You have zero understanding of politics and the history of the cold war if you think the Russians would have let the US get away with that. Why do you think they would have let them fake it? Also, why has no one come out saying that they worked on faking it? Also, have you seen the video where it's clearly shown that the technology of the time would not have allowed for the landing to be faked?

This is a subject that I've looked into pretty extensively. I have yet to find any evidence that shows it was faked. Do you have any that is concrete?

[deleted]

I was a history major in college and I read historical non fiction very often. So I am very well versed in the cold war. There is no reason Russia would have held back. I ask for evidence or a reason and you simply questions where I get my knowledge. I think that's pretty indicative of how much evidence you have. So come on, show me why the Russians would stay mum and show me some evidence that it was faked. If you come back with something like you did up above, I think it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about and are no better than the "uninformed sheep" that you supposedly dislike so much.

[deleted]

So I just read up on the Nuclear Weapons Hoax a little and it is so unbelievably flawed. This still doesn't explain why the Russians wouldn't call out the US for faking the moon landing. So again, what evidence do you have?

[deleted]

Lol, once again, you simply attack and present no evidence. You are not very good at presenting an argument and backing it up.

[deleted]

I've seen a ton of evidence for nuclear weapons. As I said, I've been to Hiroshima and seen the primary documents and sources. I've seen the primary documents that set everything up and ran the Manhattan project. I've seen the primary documents from the Senate that funded the project. I've seen videos, pictures, and numerous other sources that show they existed. That is a preponderance of evidence. I have yet to see a single shred that gives an opposing view. So again, I ask that you show me what convinced you. I'm more than happy to read into it. What I quickly looked at was garbage and I would love to see something that's a bit better and more accurate.

[deleted]

Beyond primary documents or sources, just any sources. As I said, I'm interested in why you believe what you believe and I'm willing to read what you link. From what I saw in ny brief look, the evidence and reasoning was terrible. As an example, the author said that it didn't make sense that the US would drop nuclear bombs to end a war that was all but over. This is so incredibly wrong. The US was looking at 1 million casualties in an invasion of the Japanese homeland. Iwo jima showed us just how tough and fanatical the Japanese would fight for their main islands. This made it absolutely necessary to use a weapon that would be unbelievably destructive. The firebombing wasn't doing the job so it fell to nuclear weapons. Even then, it took two to get them to surrender. The Japanese and Russians both acknowledged the bombs right after they they were dropped.

[deleted]

If it was suicide, all the people publishing vlogs and such about or would be killed. Have any of them been killed that you know of? Or even had their sites taken down? A government that is so powerful as you say would certainly be able to take down all the sites talking about the hoax. Yet a lot of these sites look like the have been up for a while and are updated pretty regularly. So they are allowed to post and keep the sites up yet it would be suicide to publish a book about it? How does that make sense? The truth is there, you just don't want to see it.

One more thing. In my job I have interacted a lot with various government agencies. There is no way any of this stuff could have been hidden for so long and so effectively. It's literally impossible. Something would have leaked and someone would have talked. Yet after all these years no one has said anything and no solid evidence has come out. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Lol. And what is the nuclear weapon hoax? Also, what evidence do you have for this?

[deleted]

Lol. So again, you do what most people in positions such as yours do. You attack, claim your opponent is uneducated, and then say that there's no hope in convincing someone. You present not a single thread of evidence. Every site I just looked at was in the form of a blog. There was no actual historical analysis or cited study. Show me a primary source that backs up even a small piece of what you're trying to say. Other than someone talking on a blog or website there is nothing. There aren't even any books. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of people would have to be in on a nuclear hoax? And not a single one has come out and said something? No one wanted to make millions by writing a tell all book? See, real historians, like myself, need a thing called evidence to believe what we believe. Typically this evidence is in the form of primary sources that lived through and wrote about what is being studied. I've been to Hiroshima and have read the primary sources of those who witnessed the bomb. Are these all faked? Was the incredible damage to people and property faked? Show me what convinced you of the hoax. I can guarantee it's not from a reputable source and is instead from some guy on a blog.

You also haven't said why there would be a hoax and why the Russians wouldn't call out the US.

[deleted]

So you're conceding that you believe something with absolutely zero evidence? When there is a ton of evidence to the contrary? That's literal insanity. You didn't give me an explanation. You were attacking me in that you said that I get my learning and education from traditional sources and that I have been somehow misled. I simply asked for evidence, which you obviously don't have and can't produce, and also just some reasoning behind the theory. The latter should be extremely easy to produce. Why do you think that there would be a conspiracy to fake nuclear weapons? Also, why would the US fake the moon landing and subsequently why would the Russians and Chinese not say something? These last questions should be very easy for you to answer if you actually believe in what you have written.

[deleted]

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. It is a scientific fact that a nuclear explosion is not only possible but has occurred. This is evident in so many different ways. There is radiation present in everything after 1945 which is used to find fake artifacts. It's also completely accepted in the scientific community. I just called my buddy who is a physicist and he confirmed to me that it's a scientific reality that is accepted by every scientist in the field. So do you think that every single one of them is in on the hoax? Why would that be? That just doesn't make sense. What about all the photographic and video evidence of the explosions? Explain those. Also, you never said why we would need this hoax and why so many countries would perpetuate it for so long. What evidence would you require in order to believe they are real?

I'm assuming you're referring to the tsara bomb which was never tested because it was thought to be too powerful. Another question. Why would so many countries spend so much money on different delivery methods for nukes if they didn't exist? Subs, icbms, mobile launchers, they would all be a massive waste of money if nukes were a hoax. Explain that.

[removed]

It just never rang true to me. It was just so obviously a political stunt. I remember watching the parents on 60 minutes like a month after it happened and it was like watching one of those town hall debates on television. The parents did not seem genuinely upset about the terrible tragedy of a small child being shot to death. Instead the discussion was very clinical and was about AR-rifles and magazine sizes. I remember thinking this is very strange and unexpected.

A majority of the "parents" went on high-profile positions with non-profits directly related to gun control, mental health, and school safety. It was very orchestrated and they are a very effective prop to trot out when pushing mental health screenings or gun control. It was treason, terrorism, and propaganda of the highest order. They knew they could get away with it and they did. Those that know the truth are screaming into the abyss, begging people to look for themselves at the obvious hoax. There is a concentrated effort to silence and ruin the skeptics by calling them irrational, pointing to state-sponsored reports, or distracting from presented evidence.

Will they ever care to explain why Gene Rosen was caught rehearsing his lines, getting corrected by the cameraman Matt, and then changing his story to fit the script? I mean come on, people....

A majority of the "parents" went on high-profile positions with non-profits directly related to gun control, mental health, and school safety. It was very orchestrated

LOL. Because people who have had their child murdered at school by a mentally-deranged individual with easy access to lethal weapons, would have no reason for being interested at all in promoting gun control, mental health, and school safety. This claim just proves what an utter disconnect exists between Hoaxers and reality.

This is getting embarrassing. Please be the hero that saves the poor lobbyists from the delusional, paranoid, dangerous skeptics. Release Rambo's autopsy photos.

You are right, it IS getting embarrassing. The way in which Hoaxers keep moving the goalposts. "Release the death Certificates!"

[death certificate released]

"Release the Fairfield Range footage!"

[Gets told the place burned down in 2010]

"Er... Um... Release the... Ah, autopsy photos!"

Now, I've asked HONRWATCH this several times and received absolutely no response. When was the last spree killer whose autopsy photos were released?

I will always believe it was a hoax. Documents and footage can be forged so none of that matters in my view. The people, the faces, the children, the behavior, the words that were used the interviews, all that stuff just does not add up.

I will always believe it was a hoax.

This right here is why conspiracy theorists are laughed at. If you're a true believer, you deserve to be ignored.

Except why do you deserved to be ignored for calling out the most transparent conspiracy the world has ever seen?

Yeah! Robbie Parker sure was convincing...

Ignore me then I could care less. It's an anonymous message board and a free country. I'm laughing at you right now for even replying. People that swallow the official version with no questions asked are clueless sheep. Ignore me you fucking shill.

I think this is the first time I've been called a shill, but definitely the first time I've been called a sheep and a shill at the same time! I'll have to alert my NWO officer (I'm part of the Monsanto-owned branch) that I've been found out and ask for handle reassignment. Although it's unfortunate that you've seen through my clever ruse, I'm glad that there are actual intelligent people out there, willing to use their amazing gifts for spotting disinformation and the associated agents. Later!

I thought you were gonna ignore me. Couldn't pull it off eh?

Remember what Penn Jillette said about that:

"'Nobody can convince me'? Bells should go off in your head when you hear those words. That's his [a particular 9/11 truther's] bullshit idea of skepticism. A real skeptic demands to be convinced with evidence. We should be skeptical of the government, but we shouldn't just make shit up."

The mistake you're making here is to start with a conclusion ("There must have been a conspiracy"), then trying to force all the evidence to fit that conclusion, or find excuses to ignore all the evidence that doesn't ("The evidence must have been faked").

Now, let me ask you this. One of two things happened at Sandy Hook:

1) One guy went on a shooting rampage.

Or:

2) Thousands and thousands of police, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, reporters, teachers, school administrators, clergymen, parents, kids, all of their neighbors, and all of their friends and family from out of town — all of them got together to pretend one guy went on a shooting rampage, going so far as to fabricate days' worth of footage, hundreds of written pages, and thousands of photographs, and all of them, including all of the kids, have kept completely silent about it ever since.

Which of those do you think is more likely?

I understand what your saying but I'm not trying to force my opinion on anybody. I can choose to think Sandy Hook was a hoax and I feel like I have good reasons to. You might think otherwise and that is fine. I don't have to think like you that is the beauty of living in a free country instead of Nazi Germany.

I understand the appeal of believing this shooting was a hoax, or other similar beliefs. It makes you feel like you're in the know, and that you're doing good work by exposing it. It means you don't have to process the emotional impact of twenty dead children and their teachers. And of course, if we live in a society where this kind of shooting can happen to anyone at any time, that's terrifying, even incomprehensible -- but if it's not real, and if all the real problems come from some diabolical schemers up top, that's at least understandable.

And I know that when somebody questions that belief, your belief, the first thing you want to do is push that person away. We'd rather be comfortable in our beliefs, and left alone with them, than face the idea that we might be wrong, that we might have been wrong the whole time.

But here's the thing: The problem with this specific belief, other than being completely improbable (see #2, above) is that it hurts innocent people. Memorials to the children have been vandalized. The families and friends of the Sandy Hook victims have been stalked and harassed relentlessly ever since it happened, accused of being frauds and traitors. Threatened with death. Conspiracy theorists have dug deep to try and justify all that, inventing stories -- lies -- about how the government must have paid them all off. It's nonsense, and it's dangerous nonsense. At this rate, it's a matter of time before some conspiracy theorist actually goes and kills someone.

Now, I know you don't do any of that yourself. But when the people who do those things need reassurance that they're right, they look back into their corner, and they see you.

That's why it's important to speak up. To separate the facts from the rumors and speculation and assumptions. Asking questions is fine, of course, but don't forget to question the questioners too. If you apply the same scrutiny to conspiracists' theories as you do to the "hoaxes" they rail against, you'll find the truth in the end.

I was going to make another post arguing with you but I see no point. Again, I am not about trying to force my opinions on anybody. If Adam Lanza existed, he is dead now and will never be tried in a court of law. That is really the only fact of this case I think we can both agree on.

Well, before you deleted and reworded your post, I wrote this for you. Have a look:

To answer your bullshit call first, what I said was that the stories about the families being paid off were lies. The most commonly told story about that says the government gave them all free houses, and as "evidence" for that, they list housing records from Newtown with a sale price of $0. Here, I'll even show you:

http://gis.vgsi.com/newtownct/Parcel.aspx?pid=6178

Suspicious, right? But the part the people who push that theory don't tell you is that almost every property in Connecticut has a sale price of $0 listed on that site. (Go ahead, use that same site and search just about any property in the state.) Why? Because Connecticut state assessors go out and check all the properties on a regular basis, and they put "$0" there to show the properties aren't being sold, just checked. In fact, James Tracy himself, one of the biggest Sandy Hook conspiracy pushers, has his own house listed with a value of ten bucks, for the same reason: http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/Asps/PropertyDetail/PropertyDetail.aspx?parcel=06434707070010280&

Of course, that's not the only lie about the victims and the people who loved them and helped them. Far from it; you might not know this, but the Sandy Hook conspiracy community is chock full of misinformation, like "the shooting was a drill" (it's not; there was a separate drill, a regular seminar about natural disasters, going on in one classroom miles away) or "crisis actors stage tragedies for the media" (they don't; they act in training simulations for emergency responders) or "you can see the same girl in photos of three different tragedies" (you can't; not every woman with long dark hair is the same person). Some of it comes from honest misunderstandings, but some of it's deliberate -- or, at best, grossly negligent -- and comes from people who boost their egos, or even make their living, off of selling these conspiracies to other people. Anyone can make a YouTube channel, and some people know they can attract enough viewers to pay the rent just by yelling, "FAKE!" at every single tragedy, whether anything they say is true or not.

As for the government, remember: This is the same government that couldn't cover up a simple five-man burglary at Watergate, couldn't cover up Clinton's affair with Lewinsky, and couldn't find (or even plant) WMDs in Iraq. And even if we suppose that this same government -- again, see #2 up there -- somehow organized all these thousands and thousands of ordinary citizens into a vast conspiracy, counting on all of them staying silent forever, all as part of some convoluted plot to...oh, let's say "take away our guns," how did they then forget to follow up on that? Even the mild gun control proposals Obama put out, months after the fact, got voted down. So what, they can micromanage thousands of regular people to put on a show for the rest of their lives, but they can't get a dozen politicians to change their votes?

It doesn't make sense.

And remember, these aren't "agents" we're talking about. These are ordinary people, including hundreds of ordinary kids. People who don't always act like you'd expect them to because they're in a situation none of them expected. People criticize the way they grieved, as if a mourning parent's grief were performance art for the rest of us to review. But grief hits you in waves, unpredictable waves. When my aunt passed away not long ago, we all surrounded her hospital bed, most of us smiling, mostly for each other, and it wasn't until I got back to my car that it hit me. If you'd put a camera in my face at the time, who knows how I would have reacted? But if you'd accused me of faking my grief, I'd have had some words for you.

A lot of Sandy Hook hoaxers don't have a lot of firsthand experience with grief, and mostly go by what they've seen in TV shows and movies -- so they think because the parents don't show grief the way actors do, that can only mean they're bad actors. (What, the government couldn't afford good actors?)

And as for why so many people are suspicious, there are always going to be suspicious people, for every single event. But as anyone who's ever been falsely accused of anything can tell you, just because someone's suspicious doesn't mean their suspicions are true.

Well both my grandparents died a day apart from each other and I cried for about 2 weeks straight. That was how I grieved, I certainly didn't go on any type of crusade against cancer or heart disease but that is besides the point. Your saying the government couldn't pull this off and I agree with you. They didn't pull it off cleanly and that is why people are suspicious.

Remember, this isn't just "the government" we're talking about. We're talking about thousands of regular people, including hundreds of kids. Ben Franklin once wrote, "Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead." Now start multiplying that. And remember: Kids can barely hide cookies, and we're supposing that they've all been trusted with government secrets?

Besides that, Newtown is a real place. You can go there this weekend and ask the people. They'd probably hate you, because they're sick to death of people mocking their grief for the last three years, but you could do it. They're not some nebulous conspiracy floating out in the halls of power; these people are all right there on the map.

So let me ask you again: Do think it's more likely that one guy shot people, or that thousands of regular people are all in on a conspiracy to pretend he did?

What was the guys motive and did he even exist in the first place. That is what would be my response to that question. Why all the misinformation surrounding this case? There have been plenty of other mass shootings, why does this one have so many inconsistencies?

Well, from his writings police recovered, and his online footprint, he was obsessed with mass shootings and wanted to top them, wanted to be the most infamous shooter in history. And yes, of course he existed. His birth and death certificates are publicly available. His mental health problems, from early childhood on, are documented. His room, when the police came to search it, was full of his personal effects, including his old homework assignments, some of which were stories about killing teachers. He's got family photos, of himself, his mother Nancy and his brother Ryan -- a brother who had a Facebook page people analyzed for clues until he panicked from all the accusations and took it down. Remember, early reports incorrectly stated that he, not his brother Adam, was the perpetrator. Adam apparently hated his brother, to the point where, when the police searched Adam's room, they found old schoolbooks with Ryan's name cut repeatedly with a knife, and when he went on his rampage, he carried Ryan's ID with him, apparently as a final "f-you."

(If you're curious, by the way, this was Ryan's reaction, on his Facebook page, when the news first reported that it was him: http://assets.thehollywoodgossip.com/attachments/xlarge_p/ryan-lanza-facebook.jpg)

Like many killers with mental illnesses, Adam Lanza's motive only really made sense to himself. Jeffrey Dahmer ate people. The Brownout Strangler choked women to death because he "wanted to steal their voices." The Aurora shooter thought that taking other people's lives would add value to his own. The Tuscon shooter had a long history of speaking gibberish in public, and was mad at Gabrielle Giffords for not answering one of his nonsense questions. In my town, years ago, David Attias went on a vehicular rampage because, with his own long history of well-known mental illness, he thought he was the angel of death.

Don't get me wrong. When someone commits a horrible act, everyone wants to know why. Everyone wants to believe that when terrible things happen, they happen for a reason. But sometimes there is no good reason. Sometimes people do things for "reasons" even they can't explain, or "reasons" that, again, only make sense to themselves. Sometimes, like Chris Martinez in Isla Vista, you get shot and killed because some guy you've never met is way too angry about not getting laid.

And that's the terrible truth of it. If you're trying to find a logical reason why anyone would murder 20 children, there isn't one. But the lack of a reason didn't stop him, and again, thousands of people can vouch for that.

So one more time, multiple choice: Which is more likely? A) Adam Lanza went on a shooting rampage, or B) A vast conspiracy of ordinary citizens pretended that he did?

As for your other question, about why there are inconsistencies in reporting, first, it's important to know that nearly every big, sudden event will have some inconsistencies in the reporting. Information is constantly streaming into the newsroom, much of it from eyewitnesses -- who, well-intentioned as they are, often perceive or describe details wrong, leading to a game of telephone -- and, in today's 24/7 news media, reporters are under constant pressure to prioritize being first over being accurate.

When 9/11 hit, the press reported on rumors that there was also a car bomb at the White House. During the Boston Bombing, there were reports of another bomb having been planted in the Boston Library. During the Aurora shooting, the press initially mentioned a different James Holmes, before they figured out he was the wrong guy. More recently, during the San Bernardino shooting, the press first relayed reports of three shooters rather than the actual two.

And that's not just for major tragedies, either. Richard Pryor was once injured in a fire, and the press wrongly reported that he was dead. One local station, where I used to live, once reported on a girl who'd been found dead, and accidentally ran a taped interview with the mother of another girl, who was only missing, asking her to come back.

Reporters on the scene of any major incident are constantly hurtling through clouds of information, often relayed through games of telephone, and they make mistakes sometimes, just like anyone does.

But one important caveat: As often as the mainstream press fails to live up to journalistic standards, at least they have standards. Alternative media? Not so much. Again, anyone can say anything on the internet. Rumors, misunderstandings, outright lies, all retold and rewritten again and again -- the internet is full of them, with few if any fact-checkers on watch. So no matter where you get your info, it's important to know how to separate the crap from the verifiable facts. Doubting everything you see is just as thoughtless as believing everything you see.

But believe this: This is what Sandy Hook hoaxers have been doing to the grieving parents of murdered children for the last three years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gViMvqm7wNU&

Watch the video, if you want to evaluate the parents' grief. Then read the comments. The warnings, the accusations, the threats. This is what they've done. This is what they continue to do. In your name, and in the names of those like you.

You can either tolerate that, and let them hurt people in your name, or you can speak up and help put a stop to it.

Hey, one more thing: If you really want to know who Adam Lanza was, here's a 114-page writeup on his health history, family history, behavioral problems, and so on, professionally written and thoroughly sourced by the Office of the Child Advocate in Connecticut.

http://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/sandyhook11212014.pdf

See, the more you try to convince me the more I think it's a cover up. It's all good if that is your job or whatever, I understand. I'm certainly not out to overthrow the government or anything and i'm gonna be honest, I don't spend a whole lot of time investigating Sandy Hook, it is just something I take a passing interest in. I do clearly remember some of the parents and others involved acting strangely and many inconsistencies with the media and law enforcement including what weapons were used and where they were found. That is mostly what I base my opinion on. If you want to pass that off as the parents grieving in their own way and maybe everyone being shook up by the incident than fine. I understand where your coming from. I'll take a look at the links you provided when I have time. I agree with you that vandalizing memorials is silly and childish and disrespectful whether you buy the story or not.

Heh. "My job." No, the reason I speak up -- especially to people like yourself, who seem a bit...let's say "more reasonable" than others -- is because my old hometown, Isla Vista, had its own mass shooting a few years ago -- and its own hoaxers to go with it. People who'd never been there, didn't know anyone who had been there, and had no background in investigation whatsoever decided it had never really happened, usually because some crackpot on the internet told them so.

One of my old teachers was hosting an event in town that night, close enough to hear the screams. People all across campus knew the victims. Many had witnessed the killer's attack, or even been shot at themselves; you can't commit a rampage in the middle of Isla Vista on a Friday night and not be seen. But random people on the internet, who knew nothing at all about the attack, all decided to tell everyone that our grief and shock were fake, just because those people wanted it to be.

Those people are dumb, and they are cruel, and they are wrong.

Incidentally, years prior, when David "Crazy Dave" Attias hit five people with his car and killed four of them, we didn't have hoaxers about it. Nobody called "false flag" on that. Why the difference between the two? Simple. The second killer used a gun. (And a knife, and his car, but also a gun.) And anytime -- ANYtime -- a high-profile shooting occurs, a certain slice of the internet decides it's a trick to take their guns away and starts looking for any excuse to pretend it didn't really happen. You don't have to believe that same thing to go looking for those excuses, but chances are you've heard from those who do believe it.

And it doesn't even matter if the shooting's caught on camera. The Roanoke shooter who killed the reporter filmed the whole thing himself, plain as day, and people still called false flag. The Isla Vista shooter confessed on camera, published a 140-page written confession on top of that, and people still called false flag.

There are people who draw the most logical conclusion from the evidence we have, and there are people who ignore the evidence, constantly demand more and more of it, no matter how much we have, and will call anything fake if it doesn't fit with the story they want to believe.

Which are you?

See, I remember the Isla vista shooting too and I never thought that was a false flag. The kid was screwed up and wanted to let everyone know how upset he was with society. That makes sense to me. Adam Lanza does not make sense. Adam Lanza was so scared to leave his house that nobody even his relatives had seen him for many years, yet on that day he suddenly found the courage to load up all those weapons, kill his mother, drive to a random school and kill a bunch of children? You did mention before that some of Adam Lanza's past has been made public. But I remember for at least a whole year they were basically saying we know nothing more about Adam Lanza. Why did it take so long? They knew about Eliot Rodgers motives almost right away and that makes sense. If you are going to do something like this and take your own life, I would think you would want people to understand why, otherwise what is the point. On top of that, Lanza reportedly weighed like 120 pounds soaking wet and had sensory disorders yet on that day he was like some kind of weapons expert? I think those are some of the reasons people don't entirely buy the story.

Glad we're on the same page about Isla Vista.

But regarding Lanza's attack, it wasn't a random school. Here's what not everyone knows: Lanza had attended Sandy Hook Elementary himself, starting in September of 1998. From a very young age, he had severe social, emotional and communicative problems. His family, and various counselors, tried to help him, but he continued to fall behind in most areas throughout his childhood. He also showed a preoccupation with violence, more than most kids his age. Eventually, his mother veered down a path of trying to make his surroundings more comfortable for him, instead of trying to improve his ability to adapt to them, going so far as to pull him out of school for a while. In the last year of his life, he was a total shut-in, staying in his room, communicating with his mother only via instant messages, and surfing mass murder fan sites on the internet. He planned his attack methodically for a long time, going to various gun forums to pick out the perfect weapons. As for why he chose to attack when he did, his mother had been making plans to move out of the house and take him with her soon, and the anxiety over that might have pushed him over the edge.

Check out the writeup I linked you for more info on all that.

Aside from that, you don't need to be an expert to use a gun against unarmed people, but leaving that aside, he'd been trained. His mother was NRA-certified, and she and his father had taken him target shooting many times. In fact, one of the items police recovered from his house was a card from his estranged father, inviting him to send an email anytime he wanted to go shooting again.

As for why the investigation took so long, Adam Lanza was much more private about his issues than (I hate repeating his name, but for clarity's sake:) Elliot Rodger was. Rodger made multiple videos and wrote a long book about himself and what he was angry about. A few killers over the years have done that, but most don't. In fact, Lanza was so private that before going out on his rampage, he destroyed his own hard drive on his home computer. Investigators tried to piece it back together, but couldn't. Rodger's evidence was out in the open in digital form. Lanza's case was spread across two states (he was born in Exeter, New Hampshire), and his older notes were mostly on paper. Professional investigations, especially the kind that end in 100+ page reports and volumes of photos and video, take a long time to put together. They tracked down his old caseworkers, interviewed them, interviewed his old teachers, sifted through mountains of paperwork, interviewed his old classmates and the classmates' parents -- that's real investigation.

Now, again, with his severe mental issues, particularly in the area of communication (his early childhood records describe him as having "made up his own language"), you can't expect much out of him in the way of a coherent motive. But if you're interested, here's my theory on that.

We know that Lanza shared fantasies of extreme violence, up to and including cannibalism, in elementary school, while he was attending Sandy Hook. I think that maybe he started developing recurring fantasies about committing mass violence while attending Sandy Hook, specifically about attacking his own school, and that he kept repeating those fantasies to himself as he got older, until his mental state deteriorated enough that he decided to carry them out.

Or he could have done it like Crazy Dave did, and killed them because purple monkey frying pan. Hard to say.

See, I got the fact wrong about Lanza attending Sandy Hook cuz the media misreported it several times. That is something that would seem very basic and easy to verify but apparently it was not. That's one of the things that is very frustrating about this case is all the mistakes and is a big part of what feeds the conspiracies I believe. I've never seen the media make so many mistakes about an incident and one could come to the conclusion that it was by design to confuse everybody. That is after all, how many intelligence operations are conducted, a cloud of confusion is created as cover. As for Lanza, wanting to keep his issues private, sure that is possible but again I would feel like it would be against the norm when compared to other mass shootings. Most of the killers want everybody to understand why they went through with their acts.

Oh, they didn't wait two years to report that he went to school there. They found that out within the first week:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2012/12/18/adam-lanza-sandy-hook-student/1777525/

Now, there was a lot of conflicting information flying around at the time, which again, happens when reporters are under pressure to piece together hundreds of snippets of a story before any other reporter does, but that did come out.

As for mass shooters wanting to be remembered, some do and some don't. James Holmes didn't leave any writings. He talked to the court psychologist about his motives under questioning, but of course that's not the same. A lot of the earlier mass shooters didn't leave any record of their motive at all. They were just private people who quietly stockpiled weapons and ammo, then unloaded on seemingly arbitrary targets. In 1979, a woman named Brenda Spencer -- one of the few female shooters in history -- fired into a school, killing two people, and the only motive she gave was "I hate Mondays."

Sometimes terrible people do terrible things for no comprehensible reason.

Well I just don't understand why there would be any confusion on that very basic fact whatsoever. And it wasn't just 1 outlet that screwed up it was practically all of them. They also said his mother was a teacher there then they said she wasn't and they said his brother was the killer then he wasn't. I guess that was because Adam supposedly had his brothers ID on him, why that would be I could only speculate. Now that is a hell of a lot of mistakes to mistake and it is only within the first hour of the shooting. A few hours later you had that doctor with his bizarre press conference and yet more conflicting reports btw the media and law enforcement as to what weapons were used and were they were found. I remember they claimed some sort of rifle was used then they were actually caught on camera pulling the same rifle out of the trunk of the car. Apparently it hadn't been used after all. Just those things right there I feel like is enough to at least question the official narrative and that is without even going into what was caught on film from the air, grown men being chased by police behind the school into the woods. What was up with that? They never gave an explanation from what I remember?

Regarding the rifle, he did use a Bushmaster. The long gun they found in the car was a Saiga shotgun, which he brought as far as the parking lot, but didn't take with him into the school. You can tell that from this video, where you can see one of the cops finding the shotgun in his trunk and ejecting a shell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrxSgkqJQc

Both the two men in the woods were identified, as was reported here:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/14/nation/la-na-1215-newtown-school-shooting-20121215

"Chris Manfredonia, whose 6-year-old daughter attends the school, was heading there Friday morning to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur. He ran around the school trying to reach his daughter and was briefly handcuffed by police. He later found his child, who had been locked in a small room with a teacher."

And here:

http://newtownbee.com/News/News/201...lice+Union+Seeks+Funding+For+Trauma+Treatment

"A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source."

By the way, calling them "the men in the woods" gets less suspicious when you look at aerial photos of the school and see that the whole place is surrounded by woods.

Anyway, gotta go pick up my kids. Take it easy.

Good talking to you. Take care.

This is a special circumstance. The other spree killings weren't obvious hoaxes led by Gene Rosen, Dr. "I hope this thing doesn't come crashing down on our head" Carver, and the Sloppy Sniper who can't hold a rifle, keep his pants up, or find a helmet that fits. What a nightmare....

I remember one interview with Anderson cooper and one of the parents. It was glitchy as hell and looked like a green screen. I remember he asked the woman about her daughter that supposedly died and her answer was basically, "yea she was great, but lets talk about AR-15 gun laws instead." Add that to the press conference where the guy was laughing (forget his name now), the doctors really weird behavior, the behavior of emergency services etc etc. Yes, it is all circumstantial but sorry but that is why people keep bringing this up as a conspiracy. You can try as hard as you like but it is human nature to be able to tell the difference btw real emotions and acting.

LOL. I know it. And that's how every one of the fake parents showed their grief. By stuffing their tears and starting a non-profit.

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but this incident just sticks out like a sore thumb. It was a hoax. Too many things just don't add up about it and the behavior of the people involved is bizarre to say the least.

Just look at the rabid defense of this ridiculous story. I get stalked and brigaded for pointing out that it's suspicious that a cameraman tells Gene Rosen he got his script wrong and he needs to start over. I get called paranoid for pointing out that most of the photos of the families show evidence of photoshop. I get labeled insensitive for saying it is peculiar that not one tear was produced by the 40 parents who children were supposedly blown apart.

link?

Newtown is fundamentally the most provable of all conspiracies

Oh. What was the conspiracy?

Working the late shift?

It's so provable that you can't name a single fact supporting your argument? Well, I must say I am unconvinced, and not at all surprised that your theory has fizzled out :(

Be sure to give Wolfgang money, though! He has a hearing tomorrow that I'm sure will expose the hoax. For real this time. Really! C'mon guys, be my friend! lol

Tell Mr. Wade hi.

Sorry, guys - this post is my fault, since I've been fairly relentless in dismantling every single one of HONRWATCH's claims. Mind you, that's hardly a challenging task, when those include things like demanding surveillance footage from a business that burned down more than two years before the shooting. Guess the embarrassment of that finally got to them, and now they make unsupported, paranoid claims of "infiltration".

And also claim "this hoax is quickly unraveling". LOL. Sure. Just as it did when Wolfgang "GoFundMe" Halbig filed his FOIA request for permission slips. Or when the miserable excuse for "research" which is We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook came out. The truth is, the more time goes by, the more gets added to the mountain of information supporting the official version. I predict, in a few years time, even this sub will join the rest of the world, and think of Sandy Hoaxers, the same way we already look at those proclaiming the world is run by shape-shifting reptilians from another dimension.

Newtown is fundamentally the most provable of all conspiracies

Yet, funny, what they offer instead of any actual "proof" is shitty videos which may or may not show Christmas lights. That they're reduced to this kind of thing shows exactly how feeble a real case they have.

LOL. Please explain the downvote brigade. Please explain Gene Rosen rehearsing his lines and changing his story mid-sentence. Please explain your obsession with Wolfgang Halbig. There are no Christmas lights but you claim they were able to put them on while the bodies cooled?

here are no Christmas lights but you claim they were able to put them on while the bodies cooled?

Are you really that dense? Two days ago you posted here about there being no Christmas lights, then a user points out that there sure as shit were Christmas lights up before the shooting but you refused to acknowledge that post. Here it is again with all the proof:

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/45xr4i/video_analysis_proves_the_newtown_hoax_was_filmed/d01myok

No lights on during the video footage. The video footage was filmed on another day.

Because of course, no one who knows they will be speaking to the world's media ever rehearses beforehand.

Halbig is a prime example of Sandy Hoaxers at their worst: lies, distractions and bluster without substance.

And, yes, so what if the lights were put up, in the wake of a national tragedy, to show sympathy and solidarity with the victims? What else would firemen be doing? Are you now claiming the school was on fire?

Let it be clear that the official position of the Hoax defenders is that they strung the lights while the bodies cooled and that explains the discrepancy.

LOL. Today I learned that "so what if" somehow becomes "the official position of the hoax defenders".

[removed]

Removed, rule 10.

Not even any attempt to discuss the facts.

Right to the personal attacks and the "shill" accusations. Pretty much proves how this conspiracy is running on fumes these days

It's actually gaining steam. People can make their own minds up after reading comment history. There is no need to revert to name calling.

Typical hoax defender tactic: Attack and discredit the messenger as paranoid, insensitive, and delusional. Or say they know the families. Here's what they WON'T do: Work to get Rambo's autopsy photos released.

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/03/02/refuting-a-sandy-hook-truther/

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/03/02/refuting-a-sandy-hook-truther/

Lol. So again, you do what most people in positions such as yours do. You attack, claim your opponent is uneducated, and then say that there's no hope in convincing someone. You present not a single thread of evidence. Every site I just looked at was in the form of a blog. There was no actual historical analysis or cited study. Show me a primary source that backs up even a small piece of what you're trying to say. Other than someone talking on a blog or website there is nothing. There aren't even any books. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of people would have to be in on a nuclear hoax? And not a single one has come out and said something? No one wanted to make millions by writing a tell all book? See, real historians, like myself, need a thing called evidence to believe what we believe. Typically this evidence is in the form of primary sources that lived through and wrote about what is being studied. I've been to Hiroshima and have read the primary sources of those who witnessed the bomb. Are these all faked? Was the incredible damage to people and property faked? Show me what convinced you of the hoax. I can guarantee it's not from a reputable source and is instead from some guy on a blog.

You also haven't said why there would be a hoax and why the Russians wouldn't call out the US.

It's so provable that you can't name a single fact supporting your argument? Well, I must say I am unconvinced, and not at all surprised that your theory has fizzled out :(

Be sure to give Wolfgang money, though! He has a hearing tomorrow that I'm sure will expose the hoax. For real this time. Really! C'mon guys, be my friend! lol