A professional politician never lets a good tragedy go to waste.

Rahm Emanuel?

Yeah, but Churchill said it first.

Speaking of Ole Rahm...

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-172-meet-rahm-emanuel/

Some VERY interesting stuff in that.

Thanks for the link. Giving it a listen.

Rahm fits right in, corrupt mayor in a corrupt city.

Where's batman when you need him.

Chicagoan here, fuck Rahm mostly.

I think the original quote was crisis, not tragedy.

You're right.

Nice, pro politician

Dan Carlins hardcore history podcast talks about this concept in the lead up to the Spanish American civil war

The entire global warming scam is a false flag.

For what?

Big Environmentalism, presumably ;)

Damn billionaire hippies with their armpit hairs growing!

There was a post a few days ago about climate change being a $1.5 trillion industry.

Yet $1.5 trillion is less than the annual revenues of the top ten 5 oil companies in the world.

Still a very large amount of money.

One world government, methinks.

If big oil didn't do it, how will this?

Global carbon tax enforced by a global government. Also, oil is not finite ;)

...So what do we use after oil?

What do you mean, the opposite of finite, is infinite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Let me give you a theoretical:

What would you do if it turns out global warming was real? As in we start seeing real ramification within the next decade?

Prepare for what mother nature has in store for us? Not a whole lot you could do, imo. If mother Earth wants to shake us off like fleas, that's her prerogative and no amount of pleading will stop her from doing so.

So would you agree that it would be better to prepare as if it were happening as to minimize the damage?

Preparing as in pushing environmental sanctions and laws?

Preparing as in pushing environmental sanctions and laws?

No, because that will do nothing, but give the elites more power, control, and money... and we still die. It also opens the door to the chances of making things worse, because of human arrogance.

If governments actually cared about the Earth they would not be doing the shit they are doing, same with Corporations. Getting rid of Globalism and Consumerism (as it stands) will have a more of an effect than the ponzi scheme that is "carbon credits".

Ultimately, like I said, if the Mother Earth wants to do something... she will do it. Also, that doesn't even factor the Sun, because that alone is the biggest controller of the Climate here.

....

If they really are the elites, they have all the power they need right now.

I mean, it's not like they need us to vote to make these decisions.

Besides, how would they get more money?

Isn't there more money by keeping global warming hush hush?

I believe that the elites have managed to milk us from both ends of the spectrum by rolling out the global warming crisis. They get money like they always have with things we're already dependent on (such as oil) and on top of that they're planning on hitting us with all these carbon taxes and shit. Pretty fucking brilliant, considering how much the masses believe it's a real thing.

I believe we shouldn't pollute the planet as much as possible, but whether global warming is caused by us or if we humans even have the power to reverse any of it remains to be seen. Like the cat lovin' Putin guy said, mother earth is gonna do whatever the fuck she wants and I honestly don't think we have a say in any of it.

So you believe?

Do you have any actual proof?

Why do you think they're pushing this agenda from this specific angle? Why not another one.

I don't have any proof personally, but there have been things that Al Gore stated would happen and didn't. I just think that if it was such an imminent threat, they sure are taking their sweet time dealing with it.

The world obviously has weather cycles, like the last ice age. To think that humankind has the power to stop something like that is pretty optimistic at best.

CO2 is plant food. More of it means more plants = more O2. Simple. Global warming due to "carbon" is a hoax.

I mean that would be great if we weren't cutting down all the plants....

How does this make oil infinite? Raw materials would still be needed even if an abiogenic method of producing petroleum was found, and there's still the question of how much energy would it take to produce it?

Could just be a bio-product of Earth. We don't know, because people condemn the theory and laugh at it. Science FTW, amirite?

It was entertained until it proved to be far too inaccurate.

How so? It's common knowledge in the East..

Perhaps you should go read the wiki link you provided.

Global control through agenda 21 originally proposed by Maurice Strong. Would have figured that r/conspiracy was the one place that didn't take the political agenda paying for favorable research as an indication of altruism.

Hoax or false flag?

Both

A false hoax?

Quite a few events called 'false flag' on this sub are talked about as if they never really happened though; Sandy Hook comes to mind, as well as the Nice attack which got quite a few 'fake blood and crisis actors' posts. It's not hard to see where the confusion comes from.

Sandy Hook is probably the one event with the most fuckery about. Dive deep enough and the entire world seems to flip upside down. I like to keep it simple. Point out about 5 solid, undeniable, totally admitted facts that make no sense in context, and ask "what the fuck do YOU think happened?".

There's a risk in that method, though - if you look long enough, you can find weird or unusual things related to any event, especially if they're large and have a lot of coverage. For example, you will find reports of second shooters in many single shooter incidents, which usually aren't real.

For me it was the admitted state of the art surveillance system installed and fully working months before the attack. You don't have to show kids getting mowed down, but where the fuck is the imagery of Adam Lanza walking up to the school grounds with guns? Why the fuck did they demolish the school so soon after? Especially since they showed us the actual murder of kids from Columbine and the school is still open.

What was the nature of this 'state of the art surveillance system'? Because the Sandy Hook school i saw on the news looked decidedly run down and old, if anything...

They had recently renovated using $300,000 that included new security cameras. Tons of old articles about it have been taken down since then. Archive.org might be of some help, but I'll have to dig.

Please dig. I am sure many people would appreciate proof of removed articles relating to a security system installed.

Think more sinister. The school looked run down. Maybe someone took off with the 300k and didn't renovate shit.

See now this is a conspiracy that makes sense. I'd bury the fuck out of that story if 300k was stolen on my watch. Jesus, people would literally fucking murder whoever let that happen.

It's likely it was $300,000 for renovations to the entire school. $200 of which they devoted to new cameras/

Yeah, I can't imagine any school that would blow 300 grand on anything you can't play ball on.

But if you're planning a giant cover up, why use a school that has cameras? Tons of schools don't have cameras, I'm a teacher and I work in a number of schools and often times schools don't have any cameras, while others will have lots of security.

Why target a school with cameras and have to destroy the evidence? Why not target a school that just doesn't have cameras to need to destroy and make the cover up more difficult?

It is the same 'state of the art' surveillance used at the Pentagon.

And the name/specs?

M.S.T.3000

Haha I got this joke.

Punchline: No tapes!

Video released of the Columbine shooting has nothing to do with S H and neither does what they did with the school either.

Maybe they didn't want to risk glorifying a mass murderer just to placate a bunch of Internet people. There are already people who deify the two Columbine shooters, and have printed out pictures of the two of them walking through the halls.

If they didn't want to glorify a mass murderer they only had to do 1 thing; not give out his fucking name. Yet the names and pictures of these people are always realesed for some reason.

Makes zero fucking sense to release a mass murderers name to the public. That's what these pathetic, loser murderers want, for people to remember their shitty name.

That picture of Adam is burned in my brain. He was one of the most glorified faces of terror. The entire event impacted people in such a way being children and being such a lunatic of a young man and back story, that people were shell shocked from the get go. You won't shake the oak that is the official story on this one, sand you'll very unlikely sway the minds of those who accept it. Especially in this instance.

Exactly. Sandy Hook had a psychological component. In a decade or two when you have school age children, you'll be much more maleable for disarming.

People want to know who could do such a terrible act. Asking them not to release pictures of mass killers is unrealistic for a number of reasons. Also, how could you justify the police withholding the name of a mass shooter? If they survive, and are aprehended, then their identity will be revealed through the justice system. If they escape the need to identify them becomes all the more unavoidable.

No one who shoots up a children's school in a nice area, that happens to have state of the art surveillance is getting away. .

In some cases yes, I understand that argument.

But in the case of some piece of shit killing a bunch of children, no need to glorify his name and face by plastering it everywhere. There's no legitimate argument for that apart from the news stations wanting to get more views and more money, which is fucking disgusting.

I agree that glorifying sickos is cause for concern, but you simply can't expect the police to withhold a killer's identity. That would be far worse.

The only solution is something that almost all people are terrible at.

Nuance

Why would that be worse? If he's apprehended or dead it shouldn't fucking matter what his name is. Fuck his name, let it rot and go unknown like the shit life they lived.

If the police didn't identify dead criminals they could accuse anyone of any crime and kill the person, then simply say an unnamed criminal was responsible. The justice system demands that criminals are publicly identified.

Well, I suppose that's how things are. I just don't think it makes any sense. If the suspect is already apprehended, and the community can't trust the police to be honest about having a mass murderer apprehended and have to release a picture/name to "prove" they got someone I think the system is fucked.

The fact that most of us can name tons of mass murderers off the top of our head should be an indication something is wrong. We shouldn't be remembering these people. These are the worst of our society whose names should be wholly forgotten. Not plastered every where "because the justice system demands it" I think that's moronic.

I feel like that's a bit of an odd viewpoint(that mass murders & whatnot are usually committed out of the desire for becoming well-known ... certainly some act out based on this but I have a difficult time believing that this is anything but extremely rare) and so I'm sorry but I just have to ask... are you rather young? (I don't mean to sound rude, just thinking about how obsessed so many young people seem to get with social media and "being seen" and even with fame, seemingly more so than ever and you've got me curious).

Uhh no idea where you got the idea I was arguing mass murderers commit it for the desire to be well known. Seems like a strawman argument.

I just don't believe murderers names/faces should be released to the public if the perpetrator is apprehended or dead.

No, I'm not young. I don't give two shits about social media.

No idea what you're on about bud.

When has a mass shooter ever escaped? All I can come up with is Dylann Roof. That's one in like the history of mass shooting events.

One of the worst school shootings ever and you think they should have... not named the shooter? What?

Seriously, there's been a TON of studies on this. They're not saying make his name redacted for all time. The focus and attention being on the shooter leads to more shooters. The shooter can be named and then take all the shit they ever touched and shoot it into the sun.

The people who are the type to see this type of thing as "cool" and latch onto such stuff would just find something else equally messed up to latch onto, if they were so inclined to do so... history has no shortage of violence and atrocities to get lost in. Should we censor that, too?

So you're refuting evidence because you feel it would happen anyway? Lots of people want to kill themselves, if you make it harder a whole lot won't. Same thing applies here.

What possible benefits are there for naming the shooter? Will the friends and families of the victims get more peace from knowing the name/face that ruined their lives? Or is it just because whichever station names them gets more viewers?

You seem so surprised, what's your take?

If someone killed your family member, you wouldn't want to know who it was? That thought is extremely surprising to me.

Buddy there's a big fucking difference between notifying the loved ones of murder victims, versus plastering the murderers face and name all over 24/7 news channels.

To answer your shitty question, I probably would.

Any loved ones who ask should get to know. I don't think everyone else should automatically have access to that information.

A 20 year old EDP murdered 20 six year olds and his mother. Of course its going to be national news and the only thing people talk about. Despite there being over 11,000 homicides by guns each year in this country, it is still extremely unusual for a 20 year old to shoot up an elementary school. That is why it was "plastered" all over the 24/7 news.

And yeah, fuck the free press for reporting on the dominant event of that time.

Yeah. no shit buddy. I'm not confused as to why it was a huge news story. But thanks for spelling it out for me champ.

My entire point was that you can report a huge disgusting story like this without plastering his face and name everywhere. Do you think the families of the victims want to see his face and name everywhere for days/weeks after the incident?

What's your point here?

My point is that the perp of a huge news story is naturally going to have his name and face plastered everywhere.

Yeah no shit I never argued it wouldn't, I argued it shouldn't. What a waste of fucking time lmao

for some reason.

$$$

If one website has the name and picture of the shooter but another doesn't, which do you think is going to get more traffic?

Should have put the some reason in quotations but yeah, clearly.

Should have put the some reason in quotations but yeah, clearly.

Isn't that what the blue line means?

No, he's saying he should've put "for some reason" in quotes in the original comment, because he was being sarcastic. He knew very well that it was the $$$, as the guy who quoted with "the blue lines" pointed out :)

Right. I get it. Thx

I think he meant in his own post.

Oh yeah that makes sense... derp

If they didn't give out his name, this sub and every other one like it would be screaming from the rafters that he didn't actually exist or was an operative, because "why not give out their name??"

Uhhhh, people still glorify Columbine by its own name: "...touch my gang we gone turn this shit to Columbine" "I take seven kids from Columbine stand em all in a line..."

Were you around for when that all went down? It was HUUUGE, unlike any previous school shootings(and to this day it seems to have had some of the most coverage, too unlike so many others which many people have not even heard of).

It is a matter of public record. Ev n if it weren't, someone would leak it. People know the person who did it; it will never be a secret.

The media loves to glorify mass shooters. I'm not sure about local police though. Oct 2015-Sheriff asks media not to report Oregon shooter's name. CNN not only ignores the request, they glorified the killer.

lol I bet you would be just as upset if we never learned the guys name. "It never happened because they never even released the shooters information!! Cover up!!!"

Not at all. Why would you think that?

Are you just an idiot or what?

Aren't you the guy implying sandy hook was a hoax? Fuck yourself

Lol no absolutely not. Learn to read you fucking mongoloid.

If they don't give out his name, this sub will start saying, "Was there a shooter? Why won't they tell us who he is? Why is the shooter being kept in secret detention? Was he a patsy who was killed and left on the scene after SWAT killed the witnesses?"

Any inkling of something done wrong will result in this sub blowing it up to epic proportions to create a conspiracy.

Yes, I'm sure there'd be zero mass murders if only the darn media would stop showing their names on TV, dangit! Clearly the desire for infamy is literally the only reason people choose to murder people. That's not unreasonable at all.

Yeah but 99% of the time they do regardless? I don't know how I feel about this or that but all I know is the media coverage was odd especially in contrast with other similar school shootings.

Because the victims were children.

And other school including high school shootings weren't? Unless they were 12th grade and above they were under 18. I mean if it were the only reason I would be thrilled, I don't support showing the victims whether they be kids / adults / etc.

Please point out another time the dead bodies of elementary school children were broadcast on the news. Or any children. There was nothing unusual about how Sandy Hook was covered.

You're using "they" as if the people with access to the security footage and the media in general are one in the same.

Leaking a name is much easier than leaking cctv footage of literal child slaughter

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

this is a interesting article making a connection between riot mentality and unstable kids conducting school shootings since Columbine.

it makes interesting connections to make you think about the weirdness and influx of school shootings after the very first one at Columbine.

Because someone wanted to demolish and got the right people in board would be the simplest answer. Do you think there were zero people who wanted to demolish Columbine?

Still though, can't release a single shot of anything? Kids being evacuated, Lanza pulling up in the parking lot, police entering the school, NOTHING??? (Do you want a lot of conspiracy theories? Because that's how you get a lot of conspiracy theories.)

Please name me one other mass shooting where they undoubtedly had surveillance video, yet not a single frame was released to the public (actually asking, because now I'm curious if there is a precedent for this).

Please tell me of a different event where dozens of people were murdered, in front of hundreds of witnesses, affecting thousands of people was a cover up. How the fuck do you keep everyone from this town quiet about this because someone down the line would have came out about it if it was a false flag.

Hundreds of witnesses? Where are you getting that idea from? Just because hundreds of people were on the scene after the event occurred doesn't mean they witnessed anything. Not even EMT's were allowed inside the building to physically witness the victims. All but 2 children were pronounced dead before even leaving the school. There is so much about this event that does not make sense, that I can't even begin to explain how they would keep it quiet without a lot of background (which if you are legitimately interested in, PM me).

But to answer your question, Pearl Harbor seems to be pretty well covered up still...

Pearl Harbor

Say what?

I know there's evidence that FDR was well aware of the impending attack, but I've never heard of it being a staged event?

You know there were funerals right? Attended by hundreds of people. Were they all paid actors?

No, they were all very sad funeral goers, supporting a families loss. The amount of people that would need to be in on it is much smaller than most people realize. Many of the people even directly involved would have been fed the exact same information as the public got.

So where did the kids go?

I'm thinking they keep the footage under lock down so psychopaths don't glorify it the same way that Columbine inspired people. Mass coverage of events like this tend to inspire more shooters, especially when footage or photos of the killer proliferate. It's why it's suggested to not even use the killer's name in news reports. Observable spikes in suicide have also been observed when the news covers suicides heavily.

Which would make sense if this held true to essentially every other mass-murder or terrorist attack. And while I agree they shouldn't show it on the news and "glorify" it, that's not an excuse to withhold it in any form whatsoever.

Also, if they wanted the conspiracy theorists to go away, all they would have to do is release SOMETHING that they've already deemed classified, and many would disappear. Although now, so much time has passed that if they did release something, everyone would then question the validity of it because they waited so long.

The point is, the police and the town are responsible for these conspiracy theories being created in the first place because of how much evidence they hid (even things like public records).

Let's be real here, they could release high definition footage from a hundred angles and conspiracy theorists would still be picking it apart. There's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent conspiracy theorists from running away with nutty ideas. Releasing footage to try placating a few wackos wouldn't do anything but feed it further. "Don't feed the trolls" is the advice they seem to be following.

And as for some mass murders being treated differently than others, well thus might shock you but the tens of thousands of police departments across the nation all operate independently of each other and follow different guidelines.

I'm not sure I could pull off this google-fu. We'll have to just pay attention moving forward and see.

Your first point I agree with. A small clip or stills that shows him entering. Like images of Dylan Roof. That would quash so much of the speculation.

This coming from somebody who has seen one maybe two videos.

They showed people getting murdered at columbine?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfb8K4gjWvw

I'm gonna share this, thanks for the link. Really unbiased look at the facts around this incident.

There's another video on his channel that goes into more detail about Adam's possible motive including some forum posts he'd made. I never really understood why these details weren't discussed on the news. It's clear that Lanza was a typical spree shooter. Maybe the whole pedophilia thing was too much? Maybe they thought discussing him in depth would fuel copycats? Maybe to avoid excessive blame of Nancy? Probably a mix of all of these. It's too bad because I think that would've helped prevent the situation we have now.

Do you have any evidence that a "state of the art" system was installed?

I have found the foia requests to a security system that was about $4k installed, and consisted of a single camera to a door, without recording functionality.

For me it was the admitted state of the art surveillance system installed and fully working months before the attack. You don't have to show kids getting mowed down, but where the fuck is the imagery of Adam Lanza walking up to the school grounds with guns?

Where have they ever said they do not have said imagery? This is typical of the kind of non-thinking people like you do. Merely because you haven't seen something you assume it doesn't exist.

Why the fuck did they demolish the school so soon after? Especially since they showed us the actual murder of kids from Columbine and the school is still open.

It's almost as if school construction and use is entirely governed by local school boards, and a school board in CT is made up of different people than a school board separated by 2500 miles and 20 years.

For me it was the admitted state of the art surveillance system installed and fully working months before the attack.

There was a camera at the front door so that people in the office could see who they were buzzing in. It had no recorder attached to it.

This should also make you go, "Hmmm".

You are simultaneously having to believe that:

1. A group of truly evil people created a complete fake news story with everything made up and staged, ran multiple funerals with tens of thousands of people, and getting 26 children to disappear.

and

1. The group that did this wasn't smart enough to figure out what school to use to make sure that there wouldn't be recordings, so instead they had to make sure all the imagery of the event disappeared afterwards. Picking a different school in any number of different towns apparently wasn't possible for this group?

Can you please describe the warm-up you do in the morning to be able to accomplish these mental gymnastics?

Nice try. I never claimed any such thing. But feel free to quote me where you think I said any of that.

For me it was the admitted state of the art surveillance system installed and fully working months before the attack.

That's what I was basing this on. I'm assuming you don't believe the attacks happened -- what events do you think transpired?

I don't believe it didn't happen. I believe most of the official story is bullshit though. Too many questions left unanswered that should have been simple and straightforward. Too many wild inconsistancies. Too much straight up fuckery (like when Lanza's dad was recorded laughing then immediately switching to "crying mode" in an instant)

Fine -- what story do you believe?

What parts of the official story are bullshit?

And, people that have had deep family trauma like the loss of a child react in ways that people that have only seen reactions written by Hollywood consider strange.

It's been far too long to go back and pick out every detail I originally spent months researching, and if you watch the clip of the father speaking at an interview you'll know that wasn't "strange, but normal given the circumstances". It's flat out bullshit to be casually laughing, then trying to force yourself to "tear up" for the camera.

You have never known tragedy.

A friend of mine in college was murdered. Specifically, he and his sister were camping, two ex-cons grabbed them. He was beaten to death on the trail out of sight of his sister. The girl was taken back to the campsite and raped for two days, being told she had to stay quiet or they would kill her brother.

They then left, telling her to stay quiet. An hour later she was found by other campers.

The two ex-cons were found, confessed to everything, and one was put on death row.

This is that story: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/23/us/killing-and-rape-in-a-florida-national-forest.html

There were no doubts of the facts in the case. None.

We had a memorial service for her brother on our campus. She came to it. At the service, she came in smiling and bubbly, nearly manic. However, we all read that as "she has lost it." and not "obviously she isn't really grieving."

When someone this close to you dies, your mind can easily go through a series of whiplashing emotions. Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, Mission Impossible, and other shows don't show the manic episodes. They don't show the laughing hollowed-eye feel of someone in pain. They just show weeping, since that is a better attachment for people.

You are watching this, saying to yourself, "The appropriate reaction is ____ and that's not it." What do you base your "that is not an appropriate reaction" statement on? What life experience do you have that tells you this is "wrong"?

Or are you basing this on fictionalized accounts of grief that you've seen?

You have never known tragedy.

And I stopped reading right there. That statement alone is so full of shit on so many levels it makes my head spin.

Okay, so a simple question -- I'll write slowly so you can follow along: on what do you base your understanding of the emotional state of someone that has lost a child?

Is there an appropriate reaction?

And, let's play this out -- what are you saying about the father there? Is he not the father? Was his child not killed? Was he happy his child was killed?

Don't give me any bullshit about, "I'm just trying to keep an open mind." Tell me what exactly you think is going on in this clip you find so amazing.

You have never known tragedy.

Gonna requote this. Because I stopped reading, any of your shit, period. You obviously are completely full of shit and make assumptions about people to try to make yourself sound superior. Good luck in whatever echo chamber you stay in for the rest of your life.

You dont find as many as you do w Sandy hook

Think of the most stressful situation you have ever been in. Were you able to think clearly? Now think of that stress and put yourself in a situation where people around you are actively being killed. When someone asks you who or what you saw then go and ask another person what the saw you're both going to say 2 completely different things. So when the police get a report of a 5'2"gun man wearing a red shirt and blue pants on the second floor killing people in a school from one witness. And a report of a 6'5" gun man with a green shirt and orange pants killing people on the first floor, theyre going to assume theyre looking for 2 guys even though the witnesses really saw the same person but are in such a state of shock that they dont really know what they saw. Chances are you have never been that stressed and I hope you never are, but you cant say something is a hoax because of a preliminary report.

Also most of the reports you get from the news are actually from police radio and the same thing happens you have multiple officers giving reports of the same event but theyre all a bit different and the media, rather than waiting for the facts to be given goes off of what they hear on these radios and 99% of people take what is said by the media as 100% fact.

Meanwhile on the front page, there's an article labeling the Alex Jones interview "disgusting" because he dared to question the official Sandy Hook story. It has 14.7k upvotes.

I know he might be a shill as well, but -they- sure are quick to tell us what to think on the issue, aren't they?

1000 more upvotes in less than 10 minutes.

I know. The only disgusting thing is trying to ridicule and silence people on this sub, who are theorizing about a possible conspiracy. I have no knowledge of sandy hook whatsoever btw.

Look at the evidence you've been given, without going into it thinking a massacre happened, what does the evidence show in comparison to other real massacres. What would you say happened? Nothing happened.

Get a fucking grip.

20 kids died in a small town. Maybe the townspeople and government don't want to reminders knocking about all over the internet and on news channels every year.

If my little girl was a victim in this tragedy I sure as shit wouldn't wanna see a video of the shooter walking into the school with an armful of fucking weapons.

Yeah everyone else would wanna see it, I'm afraid.

Sorry for your little girl. Wouldn't you wanna see that? "My little girl was a victim but I don't wanna see proof of what I was told happened, happened?"

Is it possible that something else happened? or were you as a parent shown undeniable evidence Adam Lanza murdered your child?

Forgive me for sounding insincere but I read you received a picture as evidence? that's incorrect, right?

You've misread my comment, my daughter had nothing to do with it, she wasn't even born when it happened. I don't even live in America. I said if she was a victim.

Do you always get the wrong info from what you read? Would explain a lot.

And no I wouldn't want to see a photo of her shot, I'd rather see her myself when I would be saying my last goodbye.

Also what the fuck man

Yeah everyone else would wanna see it, I'm afraid.

I'm not involved at all and I'm not interested in seeing school kids getting shot.

Quick rundown of Sandy Hook. Officially: Gunman went into the building and started shooting, he killed 26 people (20 kindergartners and 6 adults) and it was recorded on the school's surveillance system.

The conspiracy theory that has gained prominence thanks to Alex Jones is that the entire thing was fake: The children were actors, no one died, etc.

The goal of course being to take away guns.

The goal of course being to take away guns.

The goal was far much more than just gun control. Ask any teacher, or parent of a young child right now, how much "security" measures their school takes in the name of SH. It's all about creating fear in order to gain more control.

Yeah, those poor people who lost their karma, they're the real victims of sandy hook...:

Completely missing the point. You realize this is a conspiracy sub? What is the no1 technique to silence unwanted discussion? Ridicule and (fake) anger etc.

And from a logical standpoint: Those people are saying there were no victims in Sandy Hook. So you sarcastically saying, the once loosing karma are the real victims, makes no sense. I am not taking sides on the topic itself, since I have no information other then what I have read in mass media.

Not missing the point. Are you saying I shouldn't approach a conspiracy critically? Should I just take it at face value because it's a conspiracy sub?

And to be clear, I understand that some of those people think there are no victims. I just think those people are idiots at best, and useful idiots of a corrupt propaganda machine at worst.

If they are so fragile they can't take criticism of their ideas or thought process, they are welcome to move to a safe space.

I'm not saying that at all. I am saying it's disgusting when people are using MSM tactics of ridicule and anger to silence a theory instead of a) just ignoring/allowing a discussion b) reply to given arguments.

Also I was just replying to your comment implying I was angry at downvotes or something like that. I was angry at people not being allowed (in a way) to express their views.

Not all conspiracies are created equal.

How are people not allowed to express their ideas? Challenging someone because their information is incorrect or baseless doesn't silence their belief.

Is disagreeing with someone and arguing the opposite point now a "msm" tactic? Looks like the only one calling to stop specific types of posts and demonize these posters is you.

You keep referring to things I have no problem with whatsoever. Or rather I want them myself. "Challenging someone" "Approach critically". Please stop laying words in my mouth and trying to make out, I don't want discourse.

What I (and this thread) am referring to is the thread that made it to r/all and basically 90% of the comments were "If you think Sandy Hook was a conspiracy you are a piece of shit" (3rd highest), or inviting people to complain to NBC about giving him the opportunity to speak/"spew lies" (4th highest) and just lots of (again) ridicule and insults and basically zero debunking or arguments (other then the top post which was anecdotal but a fair point to the thread imo) Please for a second understand what I am trying to say before replying with the same message again.

I believe I understand what you are saying, but none of those posts you list is an invalid opinion. The article was about Alex Jones doubling down on a dumb conspiracy theory. He was raked over the coals for it. It was in the /news sub. I don't see how any of this is really damaging to legitimate conspiracy theorists.

Let me know if this is just me talking in circles but I don't believe I am making the same point. I

Ok yeah it was the news sub. Basically what I'm saying is, I wouldn't want the same style of responses for this sub. I personally feel it (when used by establishment and news talk shows) is a way to discourage opinions that differ from the official story. You feel like I either join the choir - or I have a really high chance of being ridiculed and ostracised in the media landscape.

When I see similar stuff here, I just feel it legitimizes what's happening in the MSM.

For example in my country talking about conspiracy theories on TV would basically make you a persona non grata in media with no chance of rehabilitation.

Free discussion is fully encouraged. Showing up in a conspiracy sub specifically to shoot down conspiracies is strange at best though.

I would think someone engaging with a conspiracy sub and pushing critical thinking as well as learning about conspiracies is a win-win for all sides?

engaging and pushing critical thinking. Showing up just to shoot down things is neither of those.

Got examples of this!

Sandy Hook is an open-and-shut case. You won't find any evidence that any children died that day, because they didn't. You will eventually learn that the 'news media' do not exist to tell the truth. Their lies are not aberrations. George Orwell was not joking.

One of my friends I have known for 15 years responded as a paramedic to Sandy Hook. He had told me once what he saw. There were many dead children, the medics tried CPR, if you listen to the dispatch tapes you can hear the officers screaming for needing medics, there are ER nurses and doctors that pronounced them dead. Do you not see the crime scene photos? You're Absolute refusal to think that maybe it happened is just as bad to be as you thinking that I'm clearly a sheep with the wool pulled over my eyes. My friend has since left being a medic, nearly killed himself twice, began drinking heavily. This is what happens when you get PTSD. But you care nothing for the suffering of others, only that your own agenda is met. That's so incredibly selfish. I hope one day you find the truth you do desperately say you seek, yet completely refuse to see any side but your own. Your not objective you're not looking for facts you're only trying to prove your smarter than everyone else and that your agenda is the truth. I feel sorry for you. How is it more likely that 500+ people can all perfectly keep a secret this damning this horrid, than it is that one asshole piece of shit killed a bunch of innocent children?

How is it that so many people 'know somebody' who 'saw dead people' at Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombings?

I work in EMS. I know a lot of paramedics. We're a rather small community. There are interviews out there with the first responders if the shooting but I guess you'll never believe and would rather think 500+ people could keep a secret of this magnitude. You're delusional if that's really what you think.

How many people do you think were involved in the Nayirah Testimony lie? Or were you oblivious about this one?

Are we talking about that? No. We're talking about Sandy Hook stop deflecting.

You brought up the 'people can't keep a secret' fallacy, and I provided you a simple example of how your argument is fallacious. Can you share with us evidence to verify your claims of knowing people who saw dead kids at Sandy Hook?

Nah I'm done, you guys refuse to see any fact of any sort. You're just as delusional as you claim everyone else to be. Some things are a conspiracy, this isn't one of those things.

Are you done or ** #done**? There's a difference

Because a girl gave false testimony? How is that even close to comparable?? You're crazy

You don't know about the Nayirah Testiony, do you? It involved more than one girl. She was the daughter of the ambassador. Her lies were repeated by the president as a pretext for war.

It involved one girl and her father, and maybe a few other officials. Very few people knew.

Can you share EVIDENCE to verify your claims that no one died that day? Or more like no children died that day?

I repeat:

EVIDENCE, not thoughts or theories out of the blue.

Probably less than a dozen career government people.

Actually Nayirah was the daughter of the ambassador, and the PR company behind the lie was Hills and Knowlton, and the congressman involved remained in office, and the lie was repeated by GHW Bush. So you are clearly wrong, and clearly do not know about the Nayirah Testimony. Please look into it before embarrassing yourself further.

?

How the fuck does any of that mean more people knew it was a lie?

Less than a dozen. Probably about 5. Everyone else didn't know.

Why don't you have your friend come on here and post what he saw as a first hand witness himself?

Let's be real here, if the guy came on Reddit and did an interview, it's not like that would be impossible to fake or anything. If you already believe that the media fabricated something, there's nothing some random guy on Reddit can do that would prove otherwise.

Because people tend to know multiple people?

Yeh this is exactly it. And this is surprising to someone who lacks critical thinking skills cos they tend to not. Hence they live in an echo chamber of their own thoughts and the info they choose to seek.

There are a hell of a lot of humans on the planet, and each one tends to know dozens of others (using a relatively strict definition of "know"). Intersect this web and reddit and you quickly figure out that it's exactly like the birthday problem, sure it seems unlikely at first glance, but the math tells a very different story.

Except "the birthday problem" only has 365 possible values.

You could get 5 billion people together without one of them knowing a paramedic/cop/fireman that responded to Sandy Hook.

And yet the odds of that from a random sample are very very low.

According to the Reddit, it's easier to play "5 degrees of Sandy Hook" than make a legitimate overnight chili

It is. Good chili is really hard.

No love for February 29th.

How is it that you are being heavily downvoted about a widely known hoax ---- in a conspiracy forum?

Because shills and paid off people.

Yeah it's so fucking obvious, i love how there's a guy who knows a guy who knows people died in X mass shooting in every thread and none can ever provide any form of verification for their claims.

I hope your family dies in a mass shooting so you can say "I knew someone in that" and then have everyone call you a liar and you can see how that feels :)

TPTB LITERALLY PAID OFF EVERYONE ON THE INTERNET WHO DISAGREES WITH ME. THAT'S MORE LOGICAL TO ME THAN SOMEONE NOT SEEING MY OBJECTIVELY CORRECT POINT OF VIEW.

Excellent question.

How is it that you are being heavily downvoted about a widely known hoax ---- in a conspiracy forum?

Because it hit the front-page of /r/all and is a very sensitive/emotional topic.

Well here's a message to /r/all users:

If your head weren't so far up your ass you might not be browsing /r/all in the first place, let alone still believe in Sandy Hoax.

Hit r/all and it's a very unpleasant conspiracy theory. I mean there were so many other choices. Why choose the one that hurt the families the most?

If anyone can find a family or individual from Sandy Hook or any mass shooting that shows a modicum of authentic grief or tears, be my guest.

I see, so now you're an authority on grief being "authentic".

There's a few dozen avenues one can go down to expose Sandy Hook as the elaborate hoax it is; the complete absence of grief by any actors involved is merely one of them. Of course I'm not the authority which is why I encourage anyone to see for themselves.

Dear Step2TheJep

I'm visiting from /all and i just want you to know i need to step away from the screen because your level of stupidity is hurting my brain

How is it that so many people 'know somebody' who 'saw dead people' at Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombings?

Have you never played 6 degrees of kevin bacon?

Because there are a lot of humans on the planet.

Hold on- you think Boston did not happen as well?

"My friends moms roommate"

Is not what he said. The problem with 6 degrees of separation is the game of telephone that takes place.

When there is only one link that game doesn't happen.

Your friend was a paramedic to Sandy Hook? You expect us to believe you? A guy who knew a paramedic in Sandy hook is randomly in a thread that's not even about sandy hook. What are the chances of that?

What are the chances of you: an insane person, being in a thread that's not even about sandy hook? Exactly the same as the chances of him being here. Learn some statistics...

Eh, if you're gonna throw around statistics as some standard of basic decency, you should be careful because stastically there are way more people interested in conspiracy theories (or in your terms insane people) than there are from the general Newtown area. You might just make yourself look like an ass.

Ever heard of 6 degrees of separation? I think from the thousands of people reading this thread - most of them from the US, it's almost guaranteed that at least one person would know someone relevant. But not only that, people who know people who might have some connection to these dumb conspiracies. Such as someone who knows a paramedic from sandy hook, might be more drawn to threads like this without necessarily expecting it to be about sandy hook! I didn't say people who are interested in conspiracy theories, I said insane people, such as the guy above. I don't think conspiracy theorists are necessarily insane at all.

It's a large-scale birthday problem. Human intuition has some serious flaws, and statistics is one area is just kinda falls apart in without training.

Besides, unlikely events happen all the time. Turns out with so many people on the planet it isn't unexpected at all.

I lived in CT for 11 years and about 45 minutes from Newtown. I've never known anybody from Newtown and only knew it as a point on my maps. Many of my friends from CT are firefighters and EMTs/paramedics, including a family member, and the only ones who openly will talk about Sandy Hook seriously doubt the official story. Of those that don't openly talk about it, they'll almost all admit to not having any links to any first responders from Newtown, but that's as far as they discuss the topic with anybody. Many of these people are still my friends with whom I keep in touch, some are friends of family.

Aside from firefighters and EMTs/paramedics, I knew the Hartford SWAT commander personally and knew a number of State Troopers. I also had a friendly relationship with the state Medical Examinder, Dr. Carver, for no reason other than my seeing him testify during jury duty multiple times and I shopped around the same town as him, so I saw and chatted with him regularly. I grew up in a military and law enforcement family and while I myself never served I've always had the inclination to think all these professionals I personally knew were repeating scripts when they talked, and not sharing their experiences. In the same way that there are things servicemembers and PDs can't talk about, maybe due to a mission or an investigation, these people all changed and clammed up on the subject. I wasn't the only person to notice this. Dr. Carver I saw a few times after SH. I had always known a confident and capable man who was sure of himself and believed in the thoroughness of his work. The man I saw after SH was fearful. Not like PTSD, which I'm familiar with no thank you to the friends who returned from Iraq but never quite came home, but like he was simply scared.

I also think it is relatively interesting that, outside of the internet, the greatest concentration of "SH Official Story" deniers/doubters I know is in Connecticut and not just centralized to my former hometown. Many people throughout the state have seemed to doubt the story.

I think you are entirely confused about what people feel is the problem with Alex Jones. It isn't because he questioned the story. It's the story he decided was true instead.

There are a lot of way you can spin Sandy Hook into some kind of conspiracy. The "it was all fake" of Alex Jones is the nastiest and worst for the families involved.

Alex Jones made a final statement on sandy hook and thinks kids really did die. He just thinks that some of it was staged but kids really died

It was far, far, far too late for him to redeem himself on that.

It's very easier in mainstream to discredit a conspiracy theorist by calling them Alex Jones, specifically what he said about Sandy Hook.

What? That sentence does not make sense.

At all lol

It looks like it was dragged through Google translate. Something​ along the lines of "it's very easy to discredit people like Alex Jones by labeling him as a conspiracy theorist, especially after what he said about Sandy Hook."

I understood it more like "it's very easy to discredit conspiracy theorists by labeling them as "Alex Joneses", especially with what he said about Sandy Hook".

Just look at the vote totals in this thread! It's very clear that a consorted effort is put into swaying public opinion by creating the idea that even conspiracy theorists thinks the idea is "crazy". It's the one topic that you can see this happen every time, without fail.

Follow some of the comment threads in this post. The logical people questioning it get like -4, while the one who is just arguing like a child while giving no rebuttals and trying to attack the other person gets like +9 or 10, even though it's after the "Continue reading" button. This rarely ever happens for any other topic.

All you have to do is get enough people to make others think there is a hard consensus on the matter. That way, it doesn't matter how reasonable or logically you argue against it, the majority will just dismiss you as one the "crazy" ones.

so what are those five "facts"?

There are no facts. Those people are insane and cruel in ways rarely seen in modern society.

Those people are insane and cruel

You cannot possibly lump together an entire group of people based on the actions of a very small few of the "insane and cruel".

Is harassing the families cool? Fuck no. Is the theory that it didn't happen insane, and therefore everyone who believes it insane as well? Fuck no.

If the town, state, or even private businesses ins some cases would just release some BASIC evidence that most of the time should be public info anyway, then many (if not all) of these theories would go away. The problem is, they just hide behind the victims and say it's too painful for them to release that information, so we're not going to. Then the family is subjected to some "insane and cruel" treatment by people that want more evidence, which could have totally been avoided if they had just allowed public records to be seen by the public!

That event is one of the sketchiest conspiracy theories I've ever seen. It has the most inconsistencies, blatant examples of censorship and concealing evidence, and glaring irregularities that have led so many people to question it. To dismiss all of that and all people who entertain the idea just because you don't agree with it is "insane".

I know I'll probably get downvoted like crazy for this, but I cannot stand seeing how unfairly this topic is treated even in a GOD DAMN CONSPIRACY SUB. People calling the idea crazy get hundreds of upvotes, and anyone saying it has some merit gets downvoted to the negatives.

You're absolutely right. Typically, I have no time for the "everything is a hoax!!!11" crowd, but with Sandy Hook, after investigating the empirical evidence, I believe it would require an ENORMOUS leap of faith to conclude a mass shooting ever occurred there.

Jesus christ. I'll put up with conspiracy theories for so long, but this thought in particular is disgusting. You are a foul human being.

You are having a Pavlovian reaction. Perhaps forget the meds this morning?

How is it disgusting? Because it's cruel to do to the families? What if this argument is exactly what they knew they would be able and planned to hide behind? Is it still cruel if the families were complicit in deceiving the entire world?

While I am strongly against going after any of the families personally, we shouldn't be forced to not ask any questions because it might hurt their feelings. But with the incredible lack of evidence that this event occurred as we were told, there's no doubt that people are going to come up with their own theories about what happened. If that's painful for the families, that's fine, just don't read them. Don't pay any attention to them. Don't try to argue with them unless you plan on providing evidence that has not been released before and would actually answer some of their questions.

Instead, we have the entire MSM (and even the entire conspiracy community apparently) saying that even asking questions is cruel or "disgusting".

No one who questions this event is a "foul human being" like you've stated. Maybe the people that go to the families in their personal lives and shout insults at them and call them liars are foul human beings, but people simply ASKING QUESTIONS does not in any way make them a foul human being.

Okay genius. Imagine that your child or family member was killed in a vicious attack. Then imagine that a bunch of nutcases want to call into question that it ever happened, because they read some bs on the internet. You don't think that would be painful?

My cousin, aunt, and uncle lived in Newtown. That shit was absolutely, 100% real. And you motherfuckers want to tell them they imagined the whole thing because someone made a bs video and posted it online?

That is pretty damned low. Even as far as conspiracies go, Newtown is a joke, because there are too many people who corroborate it. At this point, by saying there are legitimate questions, you are just being an asshole.

woosh

Only warning rule 10.

I think sandy hook is an excellent example of the red flag made to look like hoax. Designed to turn places like this sub against each other

Is harassing the families cool? Fuck no. Is the theory that it didn't happen insane, and therefore everyone who believes it insane as well? Fuck no.

Yes, it is insane. You're completely off your rocker.

Great addition to the conversation! Your contribution is greatly appreciated. /s

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about, what purpose does your response serve besides to try and create the idea that anyone who believes this is "off their rocker"? Absolutely nothing. You didn't offer any counter arguments, or reference anything I addressed, or ask a single question to try and at least see where I'm coming from.

Nope, just call me crazy and move on. That's the right way to have a discussion.

Because you're engaging in false equivalency. Trying to debate you on the merits of evidence would lend false credibility to your argument, when in reality, you are pushing a completely unfounded conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence, and you deserve nothing but ridicule in return. No amount of facts or evidence will ever persuade you, because you have decided to ignore them outright. So rather than feed into a mockery of debate and humor your awful ideas, the best way to dissuade others from buying in is to rightfully make sure they know you are the town lunatic and that everything coming from your mouth is pure filth.

when in reality, you are pushing a completely unfounded conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence

In reality, there is plenty of evidence for this theory which means it's not unfounded.

No amount of facts or evidence will ever persuade you, because you have decided to ignore them outright.

First of all, you don't know me, nor do you know how or what I think. Secondly, yes, this is a conspiracy based sub, meaning often times the "facts and evidence" that come directly from the establishment that you're refering to is EXACTLY the kinds of things conspiracy theorists do. You say I'm ignoring them outright? What am I ignoring exactly?? The "fact" that the police and the NYT said that this is what happened? Then sure, guilty.

All I'm saying is that asking for REAL evidence, mainly in the form of information that should be publicly accessible in the first place, does not make anyone a lunatic, a nut job, or any of the other insults you seem to enjoy using.

There's plenty of nut jobs in town here. One of them likes to walk around screaming at the top of his lungs in imaginary arguments to nobody in particular. I don't try to debate against him either, I just let people know to stay away from him.

Way to compare someone asking legitimate questions about the sketchy details about an event (which has been used to erode more of American's freedoms) to a mentally disabled schizophrenic screaming with imaginary people. That'll show me!

Oh my, the irony!

Glad at least one other person was able to appreciate that sweet sweet irony before they deleted their post haha

Thank-you for proving his point perfectly there, you! Point made! =)

provide examples of ...

blatant examples of censorship and concealing evidence, and glaring irregularities

please. I ask this sincerely, because I want to understand this conspiracy. As it is, it sounds like a bunch of gun lovers who think the government hired actors and faked 20 dead kids. The last "sandy hook is a false flag" thread on here I read was bad shit insane, suggesting that there was some sort of "dead kid" database that Pakistan and the US share.

but I cannot stand seeing how unfairly this topic is treated even in a GOD DAMN CONSPIRACY SUB

It wasn't like this even a year ago, there's was a swift and effective shift in this sub that occurred towards the end of the election. It's possible this sub became inundated with more casual reddit users (r/politics types) due to the increase in MSM coverage of conspiracies. My personal belief is that this was a coordinated attack/takeover. They underestimated the impact a sub like this would have on something like the election, but once Trump began appealing to the conspiratorial crowd that all changed.

This is my suspicion exactly. Couldn't agree more.

Most of them boil down to "coincidences never happen", "people aren't reacting the way soap operas tell me they should", and "news media and eyewitnesses never get facts wrong when they talk about an ongoing chaotic event".

lol, no, absolutely not. You've clearly not done any research on the subject if this is what you believe(assuming you're referring to Sandy Hook, as mentioned above). No, watching a 6 minute Youtube video made by some random weirdo is not research. Perhaps this is where this massive divide is coming from; an earlier comment has even already mentioned this.

It's sad to me that you are receiving so many upvotes when others - who clearly are well-informed, and nowhere near "extreme" in their questioning of these happenings(making sure to clarify their position against contacting and/or harassing families, etc.) - are being downvoted to oblivion. We cannot even discuss the possibility, because the thought of upsetting parents upsets you, so must believe the mainstream narrative ... and you're on a conspiracy forum, yet you see zero issue in this? Interesting.

"Nothing in politics happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I'd say he's not exaggerating much.

"facts"

You seem like a totally open-minded person that is actually looking for information that may change your view on an issue, and isn't at all condescending. /s

So do you believe anyone died in the Sandy Hook attack?

Spot on!

What are these undeniable facts?

Point out about 5 solid, undeniable, totally admitted facts

Please do that about Sandy Hook and I'll listen.

Can you point those 5 out to me?

Sandy hook was a straight up Hoax.

It's not hard to see where the confusion comes from.

which i think is the point of this post feel me

Talked about in that manner by SOME.

Enough to get multiple topics upvoted to the top of the subreddit - in the case of Sandy Hook, to this day...

Sure would save on hiring all those crisis actors off of Craigslist. Plus, you're not relying on their being good actors and playing along with the deception over the long term.

I think that you're on the right track.

From where you are it's only a small leap of logic to say that PEOPLE ARE F'N CRAZY AND DO STUPID THINGS. No agenda needed...

Crisiscast.com

Yeah, I can see a organization that helps train law enforcement and emergency personnel for handling such situations.

Being able to do the job takes more than a book can teach.

What? You think that they're using these people for actual totally fake highly publicized population manipulating events?

Yeah, they'd definitely have a website... /s

You're describing the difference between a hoax and a false flag. A false flag is an event that happens under false pretenses, or the narrative is shaped by the media to fit an agenda. A hoax is essentially the same thing, but with an event being staged rather than actually happening. Two biggest theories for hoaxes are Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon (which if legitimately looked into, using he right sources, both are extremely interesting cases).

People think sandy hook was a false flag. You're confusing your examples. An example of a hoax would be the moon landing

You are very mistaken sir, the leading conspiracy theory behind SH is a hoax, as in no one died, except maybe Adam Lanza (if such a person ever really existed at the time).

Plenty of evidence out there to support the idea, too. The really good stuff just gets harder and harder to find each year.

What evidence is there that it was a complete hoax?

Link me

I can send you some links when I get to a computer, but in the meantime just go watch We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook on YouTube. Some of it has bull shit arguments that had been legitimately debunked, and some of it raises serious questions that are routinely ignored and dismissed, and anyone asking gets lumped in with the "crazy conspiracy theorists".

Generally when your primary source includes known bullshit the entire thing is probably just as much bullshit.

So when a gigantic textbook has a few errors that are corrected in the next edition, the whole textbook is bullshit?

Errors and "Complete horseshit" are two different things.

Yes, but I'd call objectively presenting a series of theories or arguments, some of which are later debunked, an error, not bullshit. I've never even seen the thing, just pointing out ad hominem.

just pointing out ad hominem.

Appreciate it, as that's exactly what it was. It's ridiculous how many downvotes you get whenever your start raising questions about Sandy Hook, yet no one will ever try to rationally argue why they don't believe it was a conspiracy. Instead, you just get lame ass ad hominem attacks and MSM talking points, which then get 10+ upvotes even if it's deep in a thread. Without fail.

Very strange.

I have to disagree with you here. Some of the arguments presented seemed reasonable at the time, but further investigation proved that they were incorrect. Nothing in the video is intentionally fed as bullshit, hence why I felt the need to give the watcher a warning that not all presented arguments still hold water. Others still do.

Do you dismiss CNN and NBC and New York Times and Washington Post completely because they have gotten things wrong in the past, aka spread bull shit?

No people also think Sandy Hook was a hoax, as in "Sandy Hook never happened". There's also people who say Sandy Hook was a false flag, as in "Sandy Hook was an inside job".

Which is somewhat ironic since that one is actually more believable.

You think MOST people in general think Sandy Hook never happened? Or most people in this subreddit?

Most people who believe Sandy Hook was a conspiracy believe that it was a hoax conspiracy, not a false flag conspiracy.

Negative. It's even referred to as Sandy Hoax as shorthand.

What's the prevailing theory behind the Boston Bombing being a hoax?

Look into the mexican cowboy and the dude with no legs. They are straight up bad actors.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world she didnt exist.

The Boston Bombing was a hoax and a false flag.

I think the "how" is key and the answer is often mind control. The technology is there, there's no risk of involving "crisis actors" who could blow the lid off things, they don't give a fuck about human lives anyways.

/r/psychotronics

I'm pretty sure you wouldnt need technology though. You can find people already leaning off the edge and then kick them over the edge, hard, with a weapon in hand.

the deeper complexity comes into the fact that REGARDLESS of the truth of the matter regarding the false flag, ---ALL EVENTS---will be exploited by media and public relations firms for various ends, all of them attempting to spin the narrative to suit their ends.

by default , the main stream commercial televised media will at the very least exploit a narrative to sell commercial advertising to advertisers.

that's the default regarding what you can say about how commercially advertising driven media will exploit a narrative. it's so default it's not even considered noteworthy at this point but it should be.

it doesn't have to be this way. existence and comprehension are frought with values. if we percieve through a lense which is always selling consumer advertising, that should be taken into consideration.

All too often we see users come to this sub and assume that a false flag event means that it never happened and no one got hurt or killed... or something along those lines... This needs to be properly explained that a false flag event usually happens as described but the details of who, why, how, etc. are all manipulated and spun to fit within the agenda of whomever created and executed the event.

Every time I read a nutty non-engineering based discussion of what happened on 9/11 this is what pops into my mind. Somebody flew planes into the buildings and those planes caused buildings to collapse. I'm willing to allow conspiracy theory on who "somebody" was - though honestly you'd think some evidence would have emerged but lets pretend it wouldn't have - but the whole alternate facts narrative about explosives in tower 1/2 makes me crazy.

Exactly. I was 21 on 9/11 and just happened to be watching the news when the first plane hit. Was glued to the tv for 3 solid days afterwards absorbing everything and even keeping a makeshift journal/timeline of events.

Building 7 was going to fall. We knew from the moment the first tower fell. All the various news sites were reporting that it could/would collapse at any minute from the impact of tower debris and weakened floors from fires. The narrative on how that transpired has been so warped over the years with cherry picked videos that it's disheartening for those seeking the real truth. At this point it's a pretty obvious smokescreen to distract from taking the topic seriously.

Likewise with BS theories about holographic missiles being used. Like they wouldn't just use actual planes and be done with it! All that 'really out there' absurdity is just designed to make those mildly curious types stop in their tracks and laugh instead of getting invested.

Crisis actors are used to visually sell the narrative and provide specific soundbites as the actual victims can't be relied on to say what is 'needed'. That does not automatically mean the entire thing was staged. It simply means whoever was creating the FF had assets in place to help sell it, wag the dog style, to the masses. The event still transpired as shown.

I think the conflation of these terms is intentional.

When 9/11 happened, many people posited and gave some good reasons why it was a false flag, that is, carried out or allowed to happen by people other than OBL and the 19 hijackers. So the public, broadly speaking, was confronted with two alternatives—al Qaeda or some neocon/CIA/Mossad combination—and to this day, many find the al Qaeda, official narrative implausible.

Fast forward to today, if you're trying to pull off a false flag, you know that there are going to be skeptics poking around. They're going to find some of your mistakes, so what better than to give them an third alternative to cling onto: the hoax. Even better if you plant a few clues that suggest it was a hoax. This has a number of benefits:

1. Those looking for evidence of a hoax will find it, but it will be a red herring, distracting them from the evidence that would suggest false flag.
2. The hoax-believers will say horrible things about real victims, and in the process piss off "normal" people and turn them off any investigation.
3. The hoax and false-flag theories become conflated. The conspiracy theorists get baited into propping up a strawman the perpetrators created, and both theories get discredited.

I'm not saying there are no hoaxes of this type, but this "false flag made to look like a hoax" is a lot easier to pull off operationally, and strikes me as more plausible for most of what gets labelled a hoax around here.

/u/JamesColesPardon - how well would you think the general outline above applies to No Planes?

I think it fits perfectly, although the cult of No Planes is incredibly small and we choose to sit on the sidelines and listen to the music of the spheres and enjoy the panem et circenses for what they are.

I'll tell you one thing - live a week in a No Planers shoes and you'll appreciate it. If you can channel Dennis & Mac from IASIP talking about implications you get the idea.

But, if you can move past that and continue on your journey with relatively few scars, you realize the game has just begun.

I'm confused, are you saying the No Planes theory has some merit? I've only barely looked into it, and was admittedly pretty dismissive of it right away.

I'm 100% all in with it TNT. But I know it's not popular here so I rarely bring it up (and usually am summoned to a thread like a special-guest like /u/CelineHagbard did here) and don't want to push an agenda on the sub (mods have been ousted for less).

Plus - how else are you gonna be a mod around here if you're not at least as out there on an issue or two IMHO.

There's like 4 different things in this response that I wish I could upvote. I will definitely have to give the theory another shot, thanks for the honesty.

The day the oust you as a mod here is the day I officially leave this place and go to voat. We all owe you for your service here.

I appreciate the kind words and wish you long days & pleasant nights.

I don't plan on going anywhere just yet, but that doesn't mean I'm planning on staying here forever, either.

Yes!! There is a video where the plane's wing disappears in the footage. I'll have to find it.

If you watch all.networks of their live coverage, they actually show different things.

It's wild.

This video wasn't live coverage. It was "amateur" coverage that I am speculating was odd due to normal human nature with cameras. If I or most other people were holding the camera the burning building would be the focus. If you watch the video and know a second hit is coming the framing doesn't seem odd. But if you put yourself in the camera operators shoes and you have no foreknowledge of a second hit incoming than the framing is problematic in my opinion.

Oh. Have you watched the live coverage since?

I have. Are you referring to the one of two clips they showed live. There was one clip that September Clues showed that was used on all the networks. Now that's fine. Media do that all the time. What they don't do is alter the colors on the same clip for each network to make it seem like it was different shots. They called it the used and abused "matrix" shot. NBC even completely changed the only other live clip to be completely different for their nightly program. It was the same tower shot but they blued out the city background and added a different "plane".

Yep. It was a big fuckin' Psyop all right.

If you want to lose your shit properly you should set aside a weekend and watch the archives of the whole thing on at least a network or two.

So much... fake.. news.

Exactly. Anyone who properly investigates will be left with only one conclusion. Its crazy to me that anyone legitimately thinks it happened how the government says.

And I misunderstood your original comment to be a sarcastic. I got what you are saying now. I thought you meant it was "wild" that different networks showed different angles or clips. My bad.

Dude no worries. I have been subjected to far worse whenever No Planes bubbles up.

The hoax and false-flag theories become conflated. The conspiracy theorists get baited into propping up a strawman the perpetrators created, and both theories get discredited.

What's even scarier, is when you think of the possibility that this is regularly used as a tool in shifting discussions online. I believe this happens in conspiracy and political forums. The group with something to hide merely has to construct conspiracy theories that are outlandish, and hope that enough people latch onto the notion and start to spread it around. Which has the effect of discrediting some people by making them silly, and shifting the discussion away from the real issues.

For sure, and it's very effective. This is my best guess on the flat earth thing, and likely the origin of a few of the 9/11 theories (but honestly I couldn't tell you which ones.)

I think it has something to do with the psychology of a lot of conspiracy theorists. It's a pretty diverse group to be sure, but I think we have a tendency to want to believe the worst possible take on something. It's natural; we want to be vindicated, and the worse the real story is, the more "right" we are and the more "wrong" the official narrative is. There's also a peer pressure of sorts to believing in more "out-there" or "anti-mainstream" views, a sort of street cred that one "has swallowed more red pills" or isn't afraid to dig deeper.

I think these are somewhat natural tendencies, but we have to combat them—both in ourselves and our "community." Fearlessly pursuing the truth is a good thing, but when we choose to believe an idea simply because it is more counter-narrative, we open ourselves up to preyed upon by disinfo peddlers, whether trolls, shills, or operatives.

This sounds like what the powers that be would want us to think so that we become afraid of being "too" red pilled.

The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.

The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.

That'd be my guess.

Yeah, maybe. I'm not telling you not to dig deep (I'm not telling you what to do at all, really), but at some point it seems like a pissing match of sorts. That's what FE is to some extent: "Yeah, sure, you understand all about CIA, BIS, and NWO, but the real secret is that the earth is flat! If you don't believe me, you're either paid by them or such a sheeple that you actually believe the world is round."

This was my first thought the second I saw that theory gain traction.

(However, if we live in a simulation, then the flat earth theory makes perfect sense, so I still don't rule it out completely. Just like 99.2%)

I'm probably going to get downvoted for this but it's only what I have discovered thus far in my research: we will later discover that we do, in fact, live on a flat plane. What kind of flat plane? Excellent question. Unlike FEers, I don't jump to conclude that we are under a 'sky dome' or surrounded by 'ice walls', because I don't believe there exists enough evidence supporting such claims; however, the globe is crushed miserably under its own nonsense, if one takes the time to look at the physics and math involved with critical thinking skills.

My feeling is: you don't necessarily need to believe in FE to let go of Heliocentrism. The globe is simply false reality, if you research experiment on your own.

Read Gerrard Hickson's "Kings Dethroned" and other similar literature to see why we came to such false conclusions about 'outer space'. It's not necessarily a 'conspiracy,' rather a Scientific blunder, to describe it accurately.

FE might have turned into a 'conspiracy' AFTER government rockets were able to fly above 40,000 feet. "Oh, shit... we were wrong." Would they tell us?

But if you did any experimentation then you'd quickly realize that the earth is round....

If you really look at the math and physics, then you wouldn't be able to deny that the earth is a globe.

If you really look at the math and physics, then you wouldn't be able to deny that the earth is a globe.

I agree, but disagree at the same time. Why? First of all, you're right, the math and physics are meant to workout appropriately given the ASSUMED constants and invented formulas; however, if you use critical thinking while resolving the math and physics, you'll realize that it isn't practical; does not reflect real life...it only works out on paper (garbage in garbage out). So what if it works out on paper? Is that necessarily real life? Not at all.

This is why I recommend reading Kings Dethroned by Gerrard Hickson. Read it for yourself and see what I'm talking about. Just because they invented math to fit their model does not imply their model is reality. In fact, modern astronomy is false reality, and they are using it to take 18 Billion dollars a year from us, the tax payers, in return for fake moon landings and CGI space movies of. It's sickening, in my humble opinion.

Here's a question for those who think the globe is reality: can you find me a picture, without the sickening fisheye lens, that contradicts "SEA LEVEL"? Why do we call it "SEA LEVEL", if, in fact, the oceans CURVE around a globe? We call it Sea Level because we literally see a level horizon...it's level from left to right of our viewing angel, so why assume that it curves from where we stand to the horizon itself, which is less in distance (~3 miles)?

What do we know about water? It finds its level all the time. This reality implies Earth is NOT a globe.

“You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot...” - Bruce Lee

Inspect the characteristics of water carefully and try to apply them to the globe reality. What you should realize: curving oceans is not just an absurd idea, it is also not Scientific.

Also, where can we find 'CURVE' in the definition of 'HORIZONtal'? At which part of HORIZONtal does the curve begin to appear? There is no CURVE in HORIZON?

If big G-Gravity is the best you can come up with to explain curving oceans, flying balls in space, and other absurdities of astronomical proportions, then you are in serious trouble.

They got us by the BALLS, mate!

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire.

Its in the nature of a free thinker to want to continue digging for truth after the realization that a lot of it has been hidden. Sometimes digging a little too far for something that may not be there, but not always. Dig on my friends... just know when you find fool's gold and when you find the real deal.

False flags are also very effective at highlighting people or groups who don't trust tptb.

A perfect example of this tactic is the 'chemtrails to poison the population' theory, which IMO is outlandish, but serves to discredit the legitimate 'chemtrails as geoengineering intended to combat global warming' theory.

See, I feel like all mods should constantly be capable of posting good content like this.

A lot of time has been invested in the psyop of 'no planes'. Just look at September Clues forums. As long as they're convincing with one main part of their 'investigation', it's easy to draw suckers in to the rest. People tend to get hooked after being told what to see in the videos.

/u/JamesColesPardon - how well would you think the general outline above applies to No Planes?

Why is two mods circlejerking a top comment? There's no CCTV evidence a plane hitting the pentagon. The whole in the pentagon was too small for a plane. The reporters on the scene said there was no plane wreckage. It would have been an impossible maneuver because of how low the pentagon is and many obstacles in the way. No planes at the pentagon seems very likely. And considering that, it would be dumb to rule out no planes at the towers.

Why is two mods circlejerking a top comment? You should try to moderate discussion, not lead it.

I'm not even sure what this means. I offered my commentary on the OP, and it became a top comment because the community upvoted it. I have more people that downvote my stuff here based on my name that upvote because of it. And I'm not "leading" discussion, I'm participating in it. I've been a user here far longer than I've been a mod, and I think it's good for mods to participate so we understand the community better.

No planes at the pentagon seems very likely. And considering that, it would be dumb to rule out no planes at the towers.

I think you might be reading too much into my note to JCP. I haven't ruled out anything about 9/11 other than the official story being true. I've had conversations about No Planes with Jim for over a year now. He's generally a proponent, and I play the skeptic. My reason for asking him what I did is to gauge his opinion on an alternative hypothesis for the No Planes evidence (of which I do find some compelling). That's how discussion goes, we challenge each other's ideas and arguments and see what stands up to scrutiny.

I've had conversations about No Planes with Jim for over a year now. He's generally a proponent, and I play the skeptic.

Looking at his reply, he's obviously not a proponent:

I think it fits perfectly, although the cult of No Planes is incredibly small and we choose to sit on the sidelines and listen to the music of the spheres and enjoy the panem et circenses for what they are.

Ask him about it.

Xe either can not or will not. I'd move on to more productive things.

Already have.

I'm 100% all in with [the No Plane Theory] TBH. But I know it's not popular here so I rarely bring it up

• JamesColesPardon, in this very thread

/u/JamesColesPardon - how well would you think the general outline above applies to No Planes?

Why is two mods circlejerking a top comment? You should try to moderate discussion, not lead it.

I am a user of this forum as well, am I not? When interacting with the community officially I will flair up but if I do not do so I'm just another user. Contrary to belief, sometimes I don't want to mod this place and just want to consume it naturally once in awhile.

There's no CCTV evidence a plane hitting the pentagon. The whole in the pentagon was too small for a plane. The reporters on the scene said there was no plane wreckage. It would have been an impossible maneuver because of how low the pentagon is and many obstacles in the way. No planes at the pentagon seems very likely. And considering that, it would be dumb to rule out no planes at the towers.

Exactly.

Well there's plenty footage of planes going into the towers, so it would not be dumb to rule out "no planes" at the towers. Why am I even writing this? smh

There's plenty of footage of the Millennium Falcon going into hyperdrive.

Are you serious?

I'd like to see it too.

Damn man, relax a bit. They're having a good conversation and he brought up an interesting idea about false flags. This is the type of conversation I like seeing in this sub. This sub, at its best, is all about this type of dialogue.

The greatest place to hide a conspiracy is within another conspiracy

why do you have an apple next to your name?

Mod flair.

sooo you're a mod or a mod gave it to you?

Just curious as to what a k in an apple means.

I am a mod.

The k is actually a kappa, Hail Eris!

kewl. gotta read those books sometime...

Fnord

So, anything governmental.

It's too hard to tell with false flag events. Like when Scalia died. There's so much shit on both sides and no proof.

A "false flag" event is an event orchestrated by one group (such as a country), in such a way that it is attributed to another (the aforementioned country's enemies, for instance); hence the "flag;" this is especially true of military attacks blamed on another country or group.....we've had two or three in the last 30-years or so, each of which has resulted in huge increases in the budgets of the major defense contractors.

MIHOP, LIHOP, Hoax, Real. Those are the categories

MIHOP, LIHOP

Which obviously stand for both Medium and Large International House Of Pancakes, right?

A bunch of children on the front page are crying about Alex Jones' recent comments on Sandy Hook. They're all under the impression that the conspiracy is that it was faked. I'm no expert on this one but isn't the conspiracy that it was a false flag?

"But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake." - Alex Jones

That doesn't necessarily mean he thinks it didn't happen.

Professional wrestling is fake. Sitcoms are fake.

Things can be fake and still happen. You're exhibiting confirming bias.

"Yeah, so, Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors" - Alex Jones

With actors = they acted it out = the event took place albeit under false pretenses

"But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake. I mean, I couldn’t believe it. I knew they jumped on it, used the crisis, hyped it up. But then I did deep research--and my gosh, it just pretty much didn’t happen." - Alex Jones

You're exhibiting confirming bias.

Thank you for making this point. There are hundreds of law enforcement officers, firefighters and first responders names, carved into granite, 9/11 memorials, here in NY. In addition to bricks memorializing thousands of employees who where murdered, or jumped to their deaths from one-hundred stories. In the most twisted, f__ed up, way imaginable, these people too gave their lives (most unwittingly) in 'service' of (the psychopaths running) this country.

Thats a bingo.

Were people really confused over this matter? Because last I checked, no one ever questioned whether or not 9-11 took place (although some imbeciles think planes never existed though but I'm digressing)

But of course these false flag events took place. Not sure why a need to add that.

How did this get 656 up votes?

I don't believe that 9/11 sandy hook or any other mass shooting were false flags, but I just don't get the anger against those who do. Whatever happened, people got killed. Who the killer was doesn't change that, and I don't think questioning the conclusions of the police is in any way disrespectful to the people that were killed. In high profile murders, there are always people who think that the accused killer is wrongfully accused, but we don't see the same kind of backlash against them.

Killed like the sandy hook kids that sang at the superbowl? Or more like adam lanza/ marcus grimmie?

This. Where's the link to those side by side photos?

but I just don't get the anger against those who do.

Because they keep harassing the parents

http://nypost.com/2017/03/08/sandy-hook-truther-to-plead-guilty-to-harassing-victims-dad/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories%23Harassment_by_conspiracy_theorists

Not a conspiracy theorist by any means.

But didn't you just take a pretty massive leap of logic? Never everybody in those groups is doing those things.

Never everybody in those groups is doing those things.

And yet the parents are being harassed because of silly conspiracy theories.

Black people commit a disproportionate amount of crimes.

Therefore we should hate all black people.

Using your logic this follows perfectly.

Did you just unironically compare racism to holding delusional beliefs?

Wew lad 😂

No i used your fallacy and gave a ridiculous counterexample following the same thought pattern.

Youre condemning a group of people for a few bad apples right?

Youre condemning a group of people for a few bad apples right?

I'm condemning people who push delusional beliefs that end up hurting people, yes.

Sort of like not all racists want to lynch black people, yet I still think that all racists are bad.

Maybe you should reread your initial point.

You generalized.

"I dont understand why people hate black people"

"" Because they cause a disproportionate amount of crime

Link: FBI stats Link: Washington Post""

You keep unironically using an example that doesn't have anything to do with my statement.

Better example would be:

"Why do people hate nazis even though majority of them only hold delusional beliefs without acting on them?"

"Because those delusional beliefs end up hurting groups of people"

So youre comparing the blacks to nazis?

You really are a racist prick..

Whew, from defending bullshit peddlers by using wrong analogues to straight being a concern troll. Impressive.

Should improve your reading skills though.

Enjoy your day, sir.

Youre honestly not very bright. Maybe one day

🤔

You're. There's an apostrophe. At least try before insulting someone's intelligence.

A better comparison is racists. Racists hold horrible beliefs and spread those beliefs. Not all racists actually go around attacking and harrassing people though, but it's still normal to dislike all racists. People who believe Sandy Hook was a hoax hold horrible beliefs and spread those beliefs. Not all of them harass the parents of victims, but it's still understandable to hate the entire group.

The difference is the scale IMO. In a typical murder case, there usually aren't lots of witnesses. You might get one or two people but there's more room for speculation. When a spree shooting or terrorist attack occurs, you've got crowds of people who are witnesses in addition to first responders. There isn't as much room for speculation. In the case of Sandy Hook or other incidents where children are involved, people get emotional. They imagine what it'd be like to lose their young child, sibling, neighbor, etc in such a violent way. When they see people claim that the victims were never murdered and/or existed, that their parents were in on it, or similar hoax theories in spite of the large amount of witnesses/victims, they assume the people making these claims are trolling or mentally unstable. This causes them to express anger at the former and extreme anger at people like Alex Jones who they believe may be exploiting the death of children for publicity. You also have the issue of harassment which supports the latter belief.

Now, I personally do think Alex Jones and others were exploiting the incident for publicity. There's legitimate anger there. Do I think everyone who believes the hoax theory is exploiting the situation? No. I just think they're uninformed/misguided and might not be considering all of the potential consequences of treating that theory as fact. I'm sure if you talked to most people on an individual level, they'd agree with this. However, when people get into groups and discuss the subject on places like Reddit, you'll observe the effects of group think which can sometimes motivate people to do some interesting things. Groups of people who believe the hoax theories are also affected by group think and I believe that plays a role in inspiring some hoaxers to do extreme things like harass people.

Any event could be called a #false flag# However, unless you have some form of evidence, its nothing more than #fake news!#

Like the upcoming terror attack that Trump will use to stay in office?

a lot of us expected that with obama who knows tho I think the govs scared of an armed revolution so you'll be fine until they get your guns.

a lot of us expected that with obama who knows tho I think the govs scared of an armed revolution so you'll be fine until they get your guns.

I defy anyone to watch that meeting with Trump's cabinet and take any kind of crazy shit off the table. We're living in some scary as shit times right now.

So now anything can happen and you will think you can tell the future...

A complete hoax is still a false flag though. At least in my opinion. Most false flag events we see now involve no real deaths.

No, that's not true at all. Just think about it. Would the sociopathic elite create an almost infinite tapestry of loose ends by trying to fully stage something, or would them simply murder X number of people and then frame someone else for it to push a given agenda? When thought of in these terms, I struggle to understand how any critically thinking person could come to the conclusion that these false flags are fully staged.

It's hilarious to me how some think killing people is easier than not killing people.

Either way, the way you decide this is not "think about it dude." You look at evidence and there's no evidence of anyone dying at any recent mass shooting or terror event other than Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

You think it would be easier for a sociopath to get a whole bunch of people together to pretend to be blown up in front of the whole world, for the rest of their lives, than it would be to just blow up a bomb or get one patsy to go on a shooting spree? Seriously? You might be able to make other arguments, but from the feasibility standpoint, a genuine killing spree is ALWAYS going to be much more simple(and secure!!) to pull off.

Really, thinking about it is all that is required.

Well if you're just going to try to divine all the answers without looking at evidence, that's not the kind of reasoning I use. But anyway, you're not thinking about these things:

It's easier to get people, crisis actors or any facilitator, to participate in a hoax than in the wanton mass murder of innocent people.

It is easier to control the outcome of something that is fake, just as the number of victims and timelines is all scripted. You don't worry about all your plans falling through when your hitman patsy gets taken out by security or a Good Samaritan and rats you out as the mastermind.

Obviously, anyone would rather be guilty if found out of planning a hoax than committing actual mass murder. So much less risk in not killing people.

Finally, something people who make your argument never consider, if they were killing people they wouldn't let so much evidence go to waste. There would be evidence that people died.

It's easier to get people, crisis actors or any facilitator, to participate in a hoax than in the wanton mass murder of innocent people.

No. Because you only have to get one person, not a great many. The sociopathic elite do not lack for people that will kill for them, either because of blackmail, drinking the kool aid, or Monarch. One potential security hole is better than a great many, period.

It is easier to control the outcome of something that is fake

When what you are after is carnage and chaos, fine tuning isn't that necessary. And they have access to all the information needed to pick targets and plan accordingly.

Obviously, anyone would rather be guilty if found out of planning a hoax than committing actual mass murder. So much less risk in not killing people.

Again, not even close. Worst case, they pass it off as the actions of some rogue element or agency. This becomes much MUCH harder to do with the level of complicity required in a full-fledged hoax. Either way, if they were caught red handed at either thing, you'd have people in the street in a big way so it's a moot point. They do not plan to be caught.

Really, just think about it.

Wrong. You have to get many people to participate as actors who will naturally be less willing if they know the scam involves murdering innocents.

Wrong again. The numbers of dead and wounded are carefully controlled and if you use a real hitman he could be stopped or have second thoughts before carrying it out, meaning you spent lot of money of a scam that didn't even get off the ground.

Wrong a third time. I actually don't know what you're talking about because yes, they obviously would be guilty of conspiring to murder rather than just a hoax in that case.

And of course you can't even address why none of these cases have any shred of evidence of real death or grief, but that's because I'm familiar with these cases and you are not.

You're completely incoherent, and not even following the thread of the argument.

If the attack isn't staged, no actors are needed, only ONE patsy. If you don't understand that, you've not even been following along this whole time.

TPTB have absolutely no deficit of people to kill for them. Reliably. This is what they do. This is not a problem for them. Their system is built on blackmail, mind control, and true belief.

I'm sorry but you really aren't representing your side of this argument very well at all, I can't see much reason to continue.

Ok if you hire one guy to go on a killing spree, yes that's just one guy. Now what about the crisis actors who pretend to be grieving families? Think that struggling actors would be more likely to participate in a fake scam or a real mass murder?

Yeah that's what i thought. You can't refute that and should stop trying. You don't know what you're talking about and this thread is fucked anyway.

HOLY SHIT IF SOMEONE GOES AND SHOOTS A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THEN THERE WILL BE REAL GRIEVING FAMILIES THERE IS NO NEED TO HIRE ANYONE DO YOU UNDERSTAND

Which is why you're not familiar with the world of hoax shootings and fabricated terror we live in, because there are no real grieving families.

In fact the last person I talked to who believed they actually are using mind-controlled assassins or whatever even admitted this, and part of his theory was that they hide the real families and put fake crisis actors on tv to control the narrative.

This is part of what I was talking about when I said "there's no evidence of real deaths."

Nope, you're just trying to shift the goalposts in an incredibly slimy way.

Not faking the false flag in infinitely less complex and more secure. One patsy who commits real murders, zero actors or loose ends.

The idea that killing people is "infinitely less complex and more secure" than not killing people is so stupid on its face. It's funny.

If you can ever point to a real life case where people are being killed, go ahead. But you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about.

The idea that killing people is "infinitely less complex and more secure" than not killing people is so stupid on its face. It's funny.

This is not an argument.

Not faking the false flag is far less complex and dangerous from an operational security perspective because you only have one exposed asset, who creates genuine grieving families so no need for actors. And the script nearly always has the asset suicide by cop, no loose ends.

Examples of false flags: -Syrian "gas attack" -Gulf of Tonkin - USS Liberty - possibly Pearl Harbor

9/11 is the biggest tho hitler's burning of parliament is a close second.

Pearl harbor -wat

Story goes that it was known that the Japanese were observing ship movements due to some code breaking and the leadership at the harbor was not told about it, and the necessary equipment wasn't given to them especially for being so far out in the Pacific Ocean and especially given that the Japanese were becoming desperate with the oil embargo.

Maybe false flag isn't the right word but some say it was done to goad The Japanese into attacking to justify entry into ww2

Translation: revolving clickbait/exaggeration

Click on "false flag," and get "it didn't happen exactly like the official story. There were a couple of minor differences from the official story, like they demo'd WTC7 after all the people left, and then didn't tell the public. Fire Departments typically have the power to demolish any building they want after getting certain levels of consent, including the building owner. The reason stems from the experience of unsuccessfully fighting the great historical city fires including London, Chicago, and San Francisco.

Alternative:

Massive exaggeration, such as the planes weren't planes, they were missiles, or something else. Huge promise, little or no payoff.

Reality: 9/11 happened exactly like the official story except some Saudi private citizens and others were more involved than the official story told, WTC 7 may have been demo'd after all the people were evacuated, and the attackers were aided with a massive intelligence breach (espionage) tipping off Al Qaeda to attack on a day when US forces were engaged in distracting exercises, and the only fighter aircraft ready to be scrambled on the eastern seaboard were not loaded with anti-air missiles.

I would strongly support additional investigations into 9/11. I think they had over 10 investigations into Pearl Harbor. Go big.

One of the fallacies I see committed by conspiracy theorists over and over relates to experience. OK, the building falling doesn't seem right to you. Are you experienced in building demolition? In fighting fires? OK, if you are, have you ever built two 110 story buildings (glass on the outside, different architecture than the Empire State Building) as test models next to each other and then slammed large aircraft (test models) into them at high speed loaded with fuel, and tested what happened?

No, because what happened on 9/11 was a completely unique situation. Let's hope it remains that way.

And by the way, you don't need to melt steel to reduce its load strength.

You've got to be kidding me. You think Building 7 was legitimately rigged for demolition, in one afternoon, while it was still on fire? Really?

Look, bub, I know for a fact from my own personal experience that US Army Intelligence not only had foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, weeks ahead of time, but acted to maximize their benefits once the attacks occurred. That's at a bare minimum. And it's been confirmed.

Recognizing that tiny fact, at the time, has helped me to travel down the most ridiculous rabbit hole of nonsense over the past fifteen years. It's the same rabbit hole that people like Alex Jones have been in. Because it's just reality. And there are dozens of such conspiracies and events that are all connected, and all equally contrived and exploited for similarly nefarious purposes, in reality.

Not everyone here is just some random anon picking apart news reports and making Youtube videos. Attempting to lecture and gaslight those of us who are more directly involved, who therefore see a much larger picture, just makes you look desperate and ill-informed.

Sounds good. I would appreciate a good resource on WTC7 and why we know it wasn't demo'd.

Does not NECESSARILY mean it did or didn't happen. The Gulf of tonkin false flag is example of a false flag that was entirely fictitious

What really happened in your estimation?

In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 2 USS Maddox attack happened with no Defense Department response, but the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 79346}

The definition of fascism, the definition of shill, the definition of false flag, the definition of fucking definition: Language is being actively subverted these days, as it always has, but it is targeted, and it comes so fast.

You need to grow accustomed to searching out "etymology of (whatever)" instead of "definition of". It's a very useful skill to have in such.. trying times.

Be a beacon of certainty in a sea of imposed doubt! So far we've stopped them every single time, but it could never hurt to have more on the side of good! :D

Excellent point. I started doing that way back in high school.

Many people think that the true definition of anarchy is chaos. It's rather, a decentralized form of government. It doesn't mean lawless. Such as, Monarchy is a government with a king. Theocracy is a government headed by God. Or the clergy actually. In ancient Israel we have a perfect example of a theocracy until the advent of Saul who became the first king. After that it was more properly defined as a Monarchy. Today, people tend to imagine an anarchy as lawless because society is brainwashed to believe we must have a strong central government rather than a republic based on rule of law.

You're right; that is a fine example and I will incorporate it into my "etymology is great!" talks. lol

A good friend of mine recently told me about an essay of Orwell's in which he equates liberty with anarchy, due to etymology.

Quite right. A decentralized government can't have an agenda because it has limited power. Power over one man, perhaps that falls afoul of local people. Then move. That's why I am much more concerned with national laws than local laws. National standards are great. But a powerful national government is dangerous. If power hungry people get in charge, they can have large effects you can't escape from. A large agenda that envelopes everyone. That's not liberty. It's tyranny. These Alphabet agencies of the CIA, FBI, NSA, EPA are a fire which can get out of control and instead of serving and protecting the people, can do them great harm. We see that now. IRS targeting conservative groups is a prime example of this. National health care is another one.

I feel like the grapes are just filler, could we get fois gras instead?

This is an important piece of information to make clear.

Important distinction. I believe that false flags are rare, but they are clearly out there. In addition, they are even more tragic than the senseless violence events that actually do take place.

This sub is trash

@realAlexJones

It's more like these events are allowed to happen and then taken advantage of. Many times, since there was government foreknowledge, there is already a plan in place. I would go so far as to say that there are plans created years in advance and TPTB kindly steer people in that direction by priming them.

ITT: Users that never post here are suddenly experts on conspiracy.

Point that out and you get down voted.

The Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened and no proof.

Earth is Flat..... conspiracy.....duh

Like, if you want to be a jerk, say that Adam Lanza was fluffed by anti gun liberals instead of fucking denying the undeniable.

Amen to this, frustrating terminology that we constantly have to deal with ... "DO YOU THINK IT WAS A FALSE FLAGGG/HOAX???"

Real people die in False Flags. All the time. The only one that I might consider to have been a fake incident would be Sandy Hook, but even then who knows.

Too many detached armchair scientiests these days like to assume every incident is 100% faked, fake victims, etc. "I haven't seen ANY pictures of video of bodies or blood!!" ... show them some graphic images and video from the incident, they quickly pivot to "LOOKS FAKE TO ME!! BLOOD ISN'T THAT RED."

Here's an annoying example someone recently said on twitter:

"If Seth Rich murder is a false flag & he's alive & well in Israel or something, searching for his "murderers" will still yield us the enemy" tweet

What they mean is if Seth Rich's murder was hoaxed or a HOAX - then blah blah etc. His murder doesnt fit the definition for a false flag, whether it was hoaxed or real...

I think his murder was actually two events. One, a failed assassination or execution on the street and then a successful execution at the hospital. Does anyone know anything about the autopsy?

No autopsy report yet but did you see the neighbor talking at a vigil for him and said that Seth Rich was "Walked past him" and that Seth did not know that he himself had been shot?

I didn't see the video and haven't located it. If you have it I would like to have the link. Thanks. I've only read about this.

Sure thing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMpK7UhbusU You can skip past the presenters jibber jab and see the clip from the vigil.

Thanks so much. Highly interesting and goes to support the doctor's statement on 4chan. When you see this, and then read the doctor's report, of course it seems much more plausible that he did not have fatal wounds. People don't realize that without medical treatment, if there's no serious internal bleeding, a person can live quite a while with a gut shot. Long enough to die later of infection. And what of the autopsy report? Why has this not been made public or at least reported on? Another thing, did you see the video of Seth's parents and his brother talking about it? Their reactions are very strange. Is Seth actually dead? They certainly don't act like it. His brother can barely contain his glee and giggles. That behavior is shocking. I detest my brother. I wouldn't even be particularly grieved if he was killed. I would be saddened to a point because even my asshole brother doesn't deserve to be murdered. And if he was I would be sad and disturbed. No way would I be stifling a giggle or smirking. What's up there? Was Seth even killed? Or did his brother have something to do with it. The family seems dysfunctional in a way I can't put my finger on.

One thing I think EVERYBODY can agree on - conspiracy theorists and normies alike - is the DC police department "Dropped the ball" early on in the investigation (that's being nice about it, in reality they stonewalled the investigation and quickly gave up without continuing to help Seth's parents in any way.)

I've been able to glean more info out of his neighbors just by surfing the internet, than the cops ever bothered to do! It's sad.

As for his family. I have a few different trains of though I'm entertaining with that....

His bro looked goofy like maybe that's just how he looks when he's trying not to cry. It seems likely to me that he and his mother are both on some type of pills - no offense to her but she strikes me as the self-medicating type (rx meds +alcohol) -- with a doctor who has a loose wrist when it comes to writing scripts. She reminds me of my mom's ex-girlfriend's mom... Pill poppin', well-meaning tho oft-drunk lady who kept a very nice double wide manufactured home. With an industrial sized ziploc bag full of every type of benzo and muscle relaxer known to man, and she and her daughter were both like this and the family doctor was largely to blame for allowing it. She reminds me a LOT of her. This might be the dysfunction you're sensing.

So just maybe, he took some of mom's pills to be relaxed before the interview, who knows. We don't know these people. Some people are just weird. Another thing is, I think Seth's family might be one of those families that America never sees. Nebraskans. Like wtf is Nebraska, forgot that place existed. If you watch it his brother never actually cracks up he's just doing weird things with his mouth and looks pilled out.

Also, supposing we aren't just mistaking his expressions and he really was on the verge of snickering, I revert back to the theory that perhaps he was on pills. And/or Perhaps he was nervous, and to not cry on camera he thought of something funny between him and Seth just before the interview to keep him from crying? They mention something about Seth wanting people to smile and be happy. In short: hicks. Whatdya expect?

I think he was killed, maybe en route to hospital or at hostpital. Only fact is MPD is actively hindering the investigation.

Not to mention the Police Chief's resignation to go work for the NFL (After years of DC police service!) just 1 month after Seth's death, is not a coincidence. Mayor was out of town the day he was killed too, for whatever that's worth.

https://youtu.be/9mEu22KJjtU Here's the body language report by Bombard. She goes over what she is seeing.

Notice. Seth's brother is RESPONDING to what his mother is saying. It's a genuine response. It's not something he is doing internally to distract himself. He IS stifling a giggle when his mom describes the injuries. At no point does anyone address Seth Rich as being dead or express any sorrow. None of them do.

By the way, Nebraskans are not hicks. Some of the most intelligent people are farmers. It's amazingly complex to be a farmer. You must be a business person for one. Documents and papers. Records and taxes. To be a farmer requires an education. You are not looking at farmer hicks here. These people don't work for a living.

I grew up in Nebraska. Most of my child hood was spent in the country. No way would a "country hick" act like these people. And look at the wall behind them. They are OBSESSED with make believe world. Yes, there is something wrong with these people. But it's not because they live in Nebraska. More like they live in denial. The father can't even bring himself to a conclusion that his son died. neither can the mother and from her statements it's possible she saw the body. So why is the brother stifling a giggle as his mother describes the injuries on his brother's body? At no point does he speak or show any sorrow. Pure dry eyes. After the death of my daughter I couldn't talk about her without choking up. Even now I get angry at the way she was treated by her mother and step father. So what's going on here. The mother and father seem oblivious to the loss of their son. Like it's someone else's child they are discussing. The brother seems to be suppressing glee.

She should know herself one cant be so sure having never seen the man's face and mannerisms before and only this once.

She should know herself one cant be so sure having never seen the man's face and mannerisms before and only this once

She does mention something like this. So that's a given.

I didn't know about ABC studio being owned by Disney or that's where they were. Bombard also mentions this. Kind of odd for the studio to do an interview with that background for such a somber piece.

Stifling a giggle could be stifling a cry? I don't know, I've never seen him before. It's unusual, yes, but not so hard to believe coming from a potentially pilled out kid and his pilled out mom..

Maybe. His reaction was in timing with his mother's description of the injuries on Seth's body. I find that interesting. But his other body language during the stifled response was one of mirth. Stifling a sob, well you have to have a sob response. He shows NONE of that. Sobbing is not particular to one person or another. It's universal. There are universal constants to body language. Mirth, anger, sorrow, all these are basic emotions with built in mechanisms. That's why they are easy to spot. Deception is not built in. That's why it's harder to spot and you need to look for "tells". BTW, there's no deception in any of that family that either I or Bombard can see. It's just not there. Now that I see another video of the mother and father speaking I get a better sense of their baseline responses. Yes, the mother is very adept at covering her grief. She lets it out here but recovers quickly. The father, shows almost no grief. I would have loved to see him in a happier time before the death of his son. I really think they are a bit naive. I certainly think poor Seth was naive. If indeed he was the "leaker" then he must have been monumentally naive to think that he would not be found out and dealt with in a rough fashion.

I look at all the facts in the case and refuse to discount any information.

I've not heard of an autopsy report. That's troubling. Cause of death is the most important item there. It's missing.

The eyewitness to the police is highly important. He was walking. Talking. He didn't know he was shot. This is quite in line with what I know about being shot. You don't at first always feel the pain. It takes about half an hour or so. And sometimes longer or not at all. A bullet wound can be painless. Mine certainly was as I didn't even know I had been shot with a .44, magnum hollow point out of a Black Hawk Ruger. Just left a huge vacated hollow in the fat under my skin and tore out a fist sized hunk of hamburger meat. You could have made a decent burger from what was ejected.

The caliber of the weapon has never been discussed. That's troubling but then police might want to not publish that data.

No CCTV camera footage is released from the area of the murder.

Time of death? I've not heard the actual time.

So he was shot around 4 am. Taken to hospital where he was operated on and stabilized in preparation for further procedures.

Only the one doctor's report on 4chan. Some discount that because of where it was posted. I refuse to outright dismiss that report.

Also, the report is chock full of doctor speak and the treatment is quite perfect for the described injuries. So with that in mind, the report is quite credible. It also makes sense in light of the eyewitness report that he was ambulatory when police arrived.

It wasn't a robbery gone wrong. Nothing was taken. I believe he was beaten down as a message.

Donna Brazile shows up? He worked for Donna? Amazing. She is a known liar and has done so on camera. I'd trust 4Chan way sooner than I would trust anything she had to say on any topic.

The Republican who spoke for the family, he didn't outright lie. He didn't need to. He was acting. His body language is all wrong for what he is saying. But he wasn't outright lying. He was hiding something. What that I can't know. That's all I have.

False flag in my opinion is not just about framing a country. It starts by people who have knowledge of impending attack stopping their fellow countrymen from defending or stopping attack upon their country.

Example.

If the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was known beforehand as people claim, it wasn't that U.S., the illuminati, Walk Street, or other power behind the throne in the United States ordered the Japanese command to attack. Rather the Roosevelt administration stopped others distributing knowledge about the Japanese attack and therefore stopped them from defending Pearl Harbour and the U.S..

This definition is the perfect definition for r/conspiracy. It gives certain users the right to define anything and everything as a false flag, which gives them the same power as their government - to define the narrative in whatever way they so choose. My belief is that to live a normal life while having an open-mind toward conspiracy theories, one needs to be able to disconnect each theory from another instead of being the kind of conspiracy theorist who wants a binding model that all of the larger conspiracies fit into, otherwise they became mad with the anti-power of the conspiracy and start spinning anything and everything as just another conspiracy. It's like I was saying the other day, r/conspiracy always wants more proof, just as long as the amount of evidence they need to offer for their counter-arguments is in the region of zero.

You can see it in the way r/conspiracy has been quietly taken over in the last year. Suddenly, everything is being dragged down into the realms of conspiracy. It's the perfect tactic to discredit all the true conspiracies, by ensuring that every little thing is treated as a conspiracy. It simultaneously discredits AND misdirects.

And 'Conspiracy Theory' does NOT mean 'untrue'. It means a theory as to how a conspiracy transpired, the constituents, etc...

It is funny how almost the whole of math and science is based on theory, but apply that to geopolitics, history, and global affairs, and magically tptb try to falsely make the words theory and theorist mean false and kookoo.

Definition of conspiracy: plural conspiracies 1 : the act of conspiring together They were accused of conspiracy to commit murder. 2 a : an agreement among conspirators uncovered a conspiracy against the government b : a group of conspirators a conspiracy made up of disgruntled aristocrats

Definition of theory plural theories 1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light 2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all 3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations 4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory 5 : abstract thought : speculation 6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

While yes, it CAN mean an unproved assumption or speculation, the most common definition of a theory is ": a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena "

So the net time you hear someone say or read it written, "this is real, not conspiracy theory" correct the person.

False flags you mean like Psyops?

To think that we have a searchable database with all this kind of information on it, all at the touch of a few buttons, what is that again, oh yeah! The Internet!

All False Flags fall under a continuum, but all employ deception at some level, and all disguise who the true perpetrators are. If you want to learn more I wrote an article about it that goes into detail, which was well received in the Alt-Media.

https://truthshock.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/anatomy-of-false-flag-events/

No shit, Sherlock.

Thanks for posting this OP, it is an important thing for us all to read and reflect upon. Some of the most important examples of this only change a single variable, small lies are easy to keep track of.

An example is Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attacked the military base in retaliation for an oil embargo they saw as unfair and the attack caught the forces stationed at the base completely by surprise. All of these elements are true but recent study into the topic has led many historians to believe that the Roosevelt administration had foreknowledge of this attack as they had cracked Japanese codes the previous year and had used them to make various decisions but, seeking entry into world war 2 in a nation still weary from the first, allowed the strike to happen unimpeded choosing only to remove the truly essential assets from the area. It worked like a charm and the US joined the war.

Though not exactly a false flag it shows why we should be skeptical of any narrative justifying military, extreme diplomatic, or oppressive economic consequences.

Your definition needs tweaking. Even if something doesn't happen under false pretenses the truth is always manipulated to fit some kind of agenda. Everything can be used.

Thos was always what bothered me about the Sandy Hook false flag theories. I'll admit that there was something fishy about the incident, but why is it not possible that some children were actually killed? That seems more feasible than enlisting an entire town in covering up a pretend shooting where the only victims were completely fabricated.

In particular, it's made to appear caused by someone other than the real responsible party.

Also declaring something a false flag is also an agenda

false flag attack/event is when someone does something, while pretending to be someone else. For example, Bush tells some employees to take over a few planes and crash them into a few big buildings. Then Bush goes public and blames some cavemen from another part of the world as perpetrators. That's a false flag attack.

Thank you for this post. There definitely is a distinction between the two.

Do you think is going to fall.

There are two types: Either the event is staged and nobody was killed, or government mercenaries are killing innocent people.

yeah...we know

take a look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK-_t0_8qfA

Yes! Thank you, OP.

Great stuff 👍

Umm...

A false flag is when a group attacks something while pretending to be another group.

IE a British war ship attacks a Portugeuse Warship while flying a French flag to discredit the French.

So it's actually neither of the things you described.

So...

Top... Minds...

If big oil didn't do it, how will this?

I'm pretty sure you wouldnt need technology though. You can find people already leaning off the edge and then kick them over the edge, hard, with a weapon in hand.

Should have put the some reason in quotations but yeah, clearly.

No, he's saying he should've put "for some reason" in quotes in the original comment, because he was being sarcastic. He knew very well that it was the $$$, as the guy who quoted with "the blue lines" pointed out :)

I think he meant in his own post.

For sure, and it's very effective. This is my best guess on the flat earth thing, and likely the origin of a few of the 9/11 theories (but honestly I couldn't tell you which ones.)

I think it has something to do with the psychology of a lot of conspiracy theorists. It's a pretty diverse group to be sure, but I think we have a tendency to want to believe the worst possible take on something. It's natural; we want to be vindicated, and the worse the real story is, the more "right" we are and the more "wrong" the official narrative is. There's also a peer pressure of sorts to believing in more "out-there" or "anti-mainstream" views, a sort of street cred that one "has swallowed more red pills" or isn't afraid to dig deeper.

I think these are somewhat natural tendencies, but we have to combat them—both in ourselves and our "community." Fearlessly pursuing the truth is a good thing, but when we choose to believe an idea simply because it is more counter-narrative, we open ourselves up to preyed upon by disinfo peddlers, whether trolls, shills, or operatives.

So youre comparing the blacks to nazis?

You really are a racist prick..

At all lol

False flags are also very effective at highlighting people or groups who don't trust tptb.

You've got to be kidding me. You think Building 7 was legitimately rigged for demolition, in one afternoon, while it was still on fire? Really?

Look, bub, I know for a fact from my own personal experience that US Army Intelligence not only had foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, weeks ahead of time, but acted to maximize their benefits once the attacks occurred. That's at a bare minimum. And it's been confirmed.

Recognizing that tiny fact, at the time, has helped me to travel down the most ridiculous rabbit hole of nonsense over the past fifteen years. It's the same rabbit hole that people like Alex Jones have been in. Because it's just reality. And there are dozens of such conspiracies and events that are all connected, and all equally contrived and exploited for similarly nefarious purposes, in reality.

Not everyone here is just some random anon picking apart news reports and making Youtube videos. Attempting to lecture and gaslight those of us who are more directly involved, who therefore see a much larger picture, just makes you look desperate and ill-informed.

It looks like it was dragged through Google translate. Something​ along the lines of "it's very easy to discredit people like Alex Jones by labeling him as a conspiracy theorist, especially after what he said about Sandy Hook."

If anyone can find a family or individual from Sandy Hook or any mass shooting that shows a modicum of authentic grief or tears, be my guest.

Yeah, I can't imagine any school that would blow 300 grand on anything you can't play ball on.

The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.

The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Yeah, maybe. I'm not telling you not to dig deep (I'm not telling you what to do at all, really), but at some point it seems like a pissing match of sorts. That's what FE is to some extent: "Yeah, sure, you understand all about CIA, BIS, and NWO, but the real secret is that the earth is flat! If you don't believe me, you're either paid by them or such a sheeple that you actually believe the world is round."

just pointing out ad hominem.

Appreciate it, as that's exactly what it was. It's ridiculous how many downvotes you get whenever your start raising questions about Sandy Hook, yet no one will ever try to rationally argue why they don't believe it was a conspiracy. Instead, you just get lame ass ad hominem attacks and MSM talking points, which then get 10+ upvotes even if it's deep in a thread. Without fail.

Very strange.

A perfect example of this tactic is the 'chemtrails to poison the population' theory, which IMO is outlandish, but serves to discredit the legitimate 'chemtrails as geoengineering intended to combat global warming' theory.

You're right; that is a fine example and I will incorporate it into my "etymology is great!" talks. lol

A good friend of mine recently told me about an essay of Orwell's in which he equates liberty with anarchy, due to etymology.

You've misread my comment, my daughter had nothing to do with it, she wasn't even born when it happened. I don't even live in America. I said if she was a victim.

Do you always get the wrong info from what you read? Would explain a lot.

And no I wouldn't want to see a photo of her shot, I'd rather see her myself when I would be saying my last goodbye.

Also what the fuck man

Yeah everyone else would wanna see it, I'm afraid.

I'm not involved at all and I'm not interested in seeing school kids getting shot.

"But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake. I mean, I couldn’t believe it. I knew they jumped on it, used the crisis, hyped it up. But then I did deep research--and my gosh, it just pretty much didn’t happen." - Alex Jones

You're exhibiting confirming bias.

Exactly. Anyone who properly investigates will be left with only one conclusion. Its crazy to me that anyone legitimately thinks it happened how the government says.