Sandy Hook red pill
0 2017-12-27 by danman60
I've searched, but still can't find a thorough, sourced, red pill list on Sandy Hook. I'm convinced, I've watched the docs but was kicked out of family Christmas for suggesting kids didn't die.
Working with impatient CNN minds so an infographic, article, sourced comment is better than a long video.
Thanks!
504 comments
1 hyon420 2017-12-27
I second this!! I was making some comment on Xmas about draining the swamp or something, and my mom did the "you don't even believe anyone died at that school." Needless to say, I went Gene Rosen on her ass... But seriously, I too could use a brief video or infographic to help with the red pill process.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
There is something really wrong with people that think Sandy Hook was a fucking conspiracy. Jesus Christ people.
1 Lyra_Fairview 2017-12-27
Not really. The entire incident was sketchy. Fishy even. Combined with the fact that there was a FEMA drill for children I disasters. Let me guess, you've literally done 0 research into this? Did you get this viewpoint when the media told you how horrible Alex Jones is? "Think of the children!!1!1" Seems like this likely psyop worked on you as intended.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Nothing about it was sketchy or fishy.
I've read everything that is out there on this issue. It's fucking stupid. Alex Jones is a fucking fruitcake, and nothing he says makes any sense.
There was no psyop and there is no evidence of a psyop. None. Not a single piece of evidence. That's why I don't believe it.
1 Lyra_Fairview 2017-12-27
Your opinion on the FEMA drill.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
What about it? The state did a FEMA drill? So what? That's not evidence of anything...
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
yeah, it happens all the time
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/668qlr/marathons_a_tale_of_two_cities_and_the_running_of/
1 SJWOPFOR 2017-12-27
Bill Clinton is a rapist Infowars.com
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Bill Clinton is a rapist, but that has nothing to do with infowars.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Bullshit.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Prove me wrong. Show me a single piece of evidence that indicates (not proves--indicates) that this was a conspiracy.
Hint: there is none.
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
How about the 911 tape? You've heard the 911 tape, so you remember when the dispatcher said the incident is fake and a drill and then was immediately cut off of the line
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Link me a specific tape, and I'll comment on it. There are a lot of them. I've heard none that were suspicious, and I've heard them all as far as I know.
1 [deleted] 2017-12-27
[removed]
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I've heard that one. I don't see what the problem is? Are you talking about the woman in the background trying to verify it's not a fake-call?
1 danwojciechowski 2017-12-27
Since you have been so insistent, I listened to the audio you linked. I heard nothing suspicious. The dispatcher clearly does not say that the incident was fake. As others have said, someone clearly says that there "is a rumor" that the incident is fake, but that is all.
1 Lyra_Fairview 2017-12-27
Woah sauce??
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Is this not the full transcript?:http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Full-transcript-of-the-Sandy-Hook-911-calls-5036086.php
I just looked through it all and the words "fake" or "drill" were never said. I guess you can just claim its fake news. So please provide a source.
1 [deleted] 2017-12-27
[removed]
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Man. One operator say this to the other operator:
Where does she say it is fake? Where does the operator say its a drill? They're literally on the phone with the head custodian (that's Rick) who called from inside the school.
You can follow the audio you provided with a transcript here: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Full-transcript-of-the-Sandy-Hook-911-calls-5036086.php
Keep trying.
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
Got it, you continue to only read the transcript instead of listen to the audio yourself. Right. You have access to the audio but you continue to believe what others tell you instead of investigate for yourself. I have heard the audio. I heard her say fake. 1m53s
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Someone in the background says "There is a rumor that it is fake." How the fuck does that lead you to believe the whole think isn't real? Lol. God, you choose this and the car as your hills to die on? There are so many other weird things surrounding that event, yet you choose two of the most easily debunk-able things. Lazy.
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
It's more about the fact she says it's fake and then immediately is berated loudly on a professional radio system. If it's so obviously not important and is no big deal that she said it's fake when they are discussing the Sandy Hook incident, why don't you go ahead and tell us what she meant by that. It's really easy right?
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
First, if you think its a big cover up then why would they leave that fucking audio in there?
Second, who berated her? The person that said "Hang up, get off that phone"? How do you know that the person that said "there's a rumor its fake" and the person being told to get off the phone is a different person? You don't.
Third, I think its perfectly rational to understand that Jen, if she was the person who said it might be fake, was probably on a phone call that was inconsequential during a time when the station was being bombarded with calls. Therefore, her services were needed elsewhere. Like answering the flood of phone calls that the station was getting.
Fourth:
Its just a saying, man. It means to hold a position. Stop derailing.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
this is not proof either. none of it is. You guys just latch onto anything that sounds or looks like evidence. You guys are essentially making evidence up.
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
Or the car that was supposedly driven by the shooter but was registered to a completely different person. Or the fact that he went to the front door with a camera system installed yet there has never been any photo or videos released of him approaching the front door. And I'm not asking for pictures of dead bodies or anything like that, just a picture of the person who supposedly did the shooting entering the school.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
That is not suspicious.
Do we have any proof that the camera was working? Also...not suspicious. Footage from a crime is not going to be released unless there is a reason to.
Why? The fact that there is a camera system but no picture or video is not suspicious. I wish I had a $100 for every case I've ever prosecuted where there was a camera in the building that was turned off or not working.
So--none of that indicates conspiracy. That indicates someone borrowed or stole someone else's car and that a camera system or single camera wasn't working or the police just never released the footage, which is normal.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i seriously doubt you have ever prosecuted any cases. you sound like a LARP'er living in his moms basement
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66um2b/police_response_training_planned_but_bombs_hit/
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
There is nothing suspicious about that article.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
Boston Urban Shield 2011
amputee plays the role of victim
https://i.redd.it/h8l52kpwga501.jpg
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I see no evidence that that is an actor. Please provide some.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://i.redd.it/a52zwjaevc501.jpg
https://i.redd.it/vsi4aqv3fc401.png
https://i.redd.it/3hlah3y1dc401.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
1) https://i.redd.it/a52zwjaevc501.jpg
So what? Explain why it matters.
2) https://i.redd.it/vsi4aqv3fc401.png
So what? Explain why it matters.
3) https://i.redd.it/3hlah3y1dc401.png
So what? Explain why it matters?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
1 https://i.redd.it/a52zwjaevc501.jpg
this is a Cytel display, likely at some sort of trade show, showing posters for "Urban Shield Boston" in the background
Urban Shield is the DHS program where they do mass casualty drills such as the Boston Marathon Bombing
as mentioned in Richard Serino's FEMA profile page
https://i.redd.it/bvjmzl5c2q401.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Yeah, I get all that. But so what? That doesn't seem relevant or important to me?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
you don't think that its relevant that the Boston Marathon had been used for several years as part of Urban Shield training exercises, and that the scenario that happened in 2013 just happened to have been the scenario that was planned for 2013?
I'm having a hard time believing that you are actually this stupid. ill have to convince myself that you are just pretending to be stupid, perhaps because addressing the evidence will not end well for the official story
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
No, I don't. I don't see why anyone would.
I'm not stupid. There fact that someone would commit a terror attack in a manner predicted by terror attack experts doesn't strike me as surprising...it strikes me as...to be expected.
I am addressing what you're showing me. It's not "evidence" of anything. You need to explain why it is if you're going to keep calling people stupid.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
really? then why are you having such a hard time putting the evidence together into a coherent narrative?
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mqgeu/boston_marathon_bombing_red_pill/
your narrative actually supports my position that there was most likely a mass casualty incident going on at the boston marathon, because thats when and where mass casualty drills normally take place
do you have any actual evidence that would convince a reasonable that the Tsarnaev's were guilty of any of the crimes they have been accused of?
no, you are playing stupid, trying to ride a fine line between making mass casualty drills seem completely normal and expected at the boston marathon, but also trying to convince us that there wasn't one happening at this particular Boston Maraton, in spite of the incident being planned, and the plans even including the use of backpacks with explosives.
its evidence that there was a mass casualty drill going on at the exact same time as the fake bombs were set off at the boston marathon
even the american pyrotechnics association called bullshit on this fake bomb
http://www.ireachcontent.com/news-releases/american-pyrotechnics-association-offers-information-regarding-fireworks-devices-implicated-in-boston-bombing-investigation-204782871.html?c=y
explaining the evidence doesn't seem to help,
and asking you for evidence is a fools errand
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/dru28s8/?context=3&st=jbqy8ot1&sh=82525548
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
No, it doesn't support you.
The prosecution did. It was all presented at trial. The transcripts are I believe public record. Go read them.
I'm not playing stupid. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It might make sense to you, but it makes no sense to me or most intelligent people. So if you want to argue it, fine, but you need to actually make a fucking argument and not throw a bunch of links on the page and tell people to put it together. That is your way of avoiding making claims, and therefore avoiding accountability. Your entire method of argument is designed to escape scrutiny, and I'm afraid you picked the wrong target for that nonsense.
There is precisely nothing suspicious about Serino--a Boston native--being present at the race. If you want to argue it is suspicious, then you need to explain why.
Because you're incapable of creating an organized argument, we're just doing this one thing at a time.
Explain why Serino being at that finish line was suspicious.
And I will cut off a few threads immediately.
His job is irrelevant, and does not make him being there suspicious.
Go.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
2 https://i.redd.it/vsi4aqv3fc401.png
this is a screen cap of Lincoln Laboratories software that is used to coordinate emergency response across various public and private agencies
the date is 2012, they talk about a fake bank robbery, and mention all of the agencies involved
fake bank robbery mentioned at end of this Boston Globe article
https://i.redd.it/rm5i7yi3pn401.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I've seen all that. I don't see how that is important.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
its all supporting the theory that the Boston Marathon Bombing was in fact a pre-planned mass casualty exercise, and Richard Serino was the incident commander.
but more importantly, the evidence debunks your absurd conspiracy theory about CIA station chief Graham Fuller's ex-son-in-law's Muslim nephews actually maiming and killing people because of some vague, implausible motive
https://www.corbettreport.com/who-is-graham-fuller/
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Not a bit of it supports that. If you want to make that claim, fine. Demonstrate it.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
3 https://i.redd.it/3hlah3y1dc401.png
this is another Lincoln Laboratories screen shot
notice the date is 2013 and the event is the Boston Marathon Bombing
notice that the use of language implies that these agencies were in place before the bombing occurred,
"prior to the bombings"
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Again...so what?
That doesn't seem suspicious to me, nor indicative of anything. It could have just been a training exercise or routine disaster readiness.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
do you have any actual evidence to support that absurd conspiracy theory, or do you expect your baseless speculations to suffice?
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
It's funny watching you continually dodge every question and continually fail to make any substantive point.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/dru1djd/
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/dru1jgw/
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/dru1na4/
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Ah yes, three posts where you dodged the question and failed at making a substantive point. Thanks
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
perhaps you should read it again. you seemed to have missed something the first time thru
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/dru0kgp/?st=jbqxsufd&sh=27dc1453
if you have specific questions that show you actually considered the evidence, id be happy to answer them
playing stupid won't convince the lurkers
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Yup, dodged the question.
More dodging the question and failing to make a point.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i answered all of his questions, and cited sources
do you have any questions that could demonstrate that you have considered the evidence? or are you going to continue to play stupid and hope the lurkers don't notice?
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/dru28s8/?context=3&st=jbqy8ot1&sh=82525548
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
No you didn't. You continued on your same line of spamming links and avoiding the question.
why are you unable to actually respond to people? is your platform that flimsy?
asked to explain
dodges question.
lmao, keep up the good work Sherlock.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
please reiterate the question that you think is being ignored.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
You were asked to explain and make an actual point. You did neither.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
please reiterate the question that you think is being ignored.
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mqgeu/boston_marathon_bombing_red_pill/
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
You were asked to explain and make an actual point. You did neither.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/drvl1o8/
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
You were asked to explain, multiple times and make an actual point. You did neither. Hint, an image is neither an explanation nor a point ;) Why is actually using words and assembling logical conclusions so hard for you?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i suppose the point is that FEMA deputy administrator Richard Serino was the incident commander of the Boston Marathon bombing mass casualty drill, which was subsequently put on TV as "fake news"
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Okay, that's not a substantial point. What's your point?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
What was? Richard Serino being affiliated with FEMA?
Jesus getting any kind of sensible point out of you is like pulling teeth.
Are you this disorganized in real life? Does schizophrenia or advanced hyperactivity run in your family?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
the Boston Marathon Bombing mass casualty drill was subsequently put on TV as fake news, even though it was just another case of "Drills Gone Wild"
having trouble with reading comprehension? you can't seem to follow simple plot lines and organize facts into a coherent narrative
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mqgeu/boston_marathon_bombing_red_pill/drwbg30/?context=3
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
huh?
Now your ability to even write a sentence is falling apart.
Reading what? nonsense sentences? "arguments" that don't actually state anything?
Please, assemble your thoughts and resubmit.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
fake news on your TV
a mass casualty drill, being presented to you as if it was "real news" when in fact it was just another mass casualty drill
the reason is seems to be nonsense is you. the evidence is all very clear, and it points to the boston marathon bombing being a mass casualty drill
Boston Maraton Bombing was a false flag hoax
is that better?
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
what is?
Oh, you mean the thing you've been completely unable to provide even a single point in favour of. Lol, great job.
Queue jumping ahead to the next talking point.
Providing a well thought out argument with actual reasonable logical conclusions is on you.
Actually no it doesn't.
It might be perhaps if you had the attention span of anything greater than a bullfrog.
I see, and nothing of substance provided.
Nope, please take some time to properly assemble your arguments and resubmit.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
fake news on your TV
the boston marathon bombing mass casualty drill
https://i.redd.it/3hlah3y1dc401.png
yes, thats why i put so much work into the OP
would you care to address the evidence like an adult, or do you think you will fool /r/conspiracy into following your lead as you play stupid?
the evidence is all very clear, and it points to the boston marathon bombing being a mass casualty drill
after a while I'm going to start asking for evidence to support the official story
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
This was covered as Fake News on TV?
And? Do you know how to actually make an argument? Hint, an image is neither an explanation nor a point ;) Why is actually using words and assembling logical conclusions so hard for you?
Ah, just more dodging the question I see. Care to actually make a point or put forward an actual argument?
Care to actually make a point or put forward an actual argument?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
yes, except they want you to think its real news
https://i.redd.it/6v4dskbxansy.jpg
https://i.redd.it/3hlah3y1dc401.png
why were resources "leveraged... prior to the bombings" if there wasn't a drill going on?
your questions seem to amount to "and?" and "can you make a point"?
care to ask an intelligent question that shows you understand the material being discussed?
there have been plenty of points made in the OP, and your rebuttal to them was
"and"
why should anyone keep trying to explain when its clear you do not want to understand
"willful ignorance" is a thing you know
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Oh, you mean the thing you've been completely unable to show otherwise. Lol.
I guess you misread my statement. Hint, an image is neither an explanation nor a point ;) Why is actually using words and assembling logical conclusions so hard for you?
Please make a relevant point and resubmit.
Why would there be security measures taken before a large public event? You have trouble understanding why? Have you ever left your basement and attended an event with more than ~10 people present?
That's right, and you continually fail to answer.
I did. I asked you to make a point. You failed continually to do so.
Hint, an image is neither an explanation nor a point ;) Why is actually using words and assembling logical conclusions so hard for you?
there's nothing to rebut to. No point was raised. I'm waiting for you to actually establish an argument or some kind of point.
You haven't explained anything. Remember an image is neither an explanation nor a point.
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
So, I'll only comment on one thing. The car part isn't suspicious at all. Who was it registered to? A parent?
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
Oh are your feelings hurt because you believe that I'm following you around and down voting you? Well you can believe whatever you want, I've been looking for sources. But don't worry, I just down voted you.
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Following me? No. I was replying to you, so there wouldn't be any need to follow me. Do you know how reddit works?
Anyway, I already told you. The car was registered to a relative. That isn't weird. My first car was a shtity '97 Ford Taurus that was registered to be grandparents.
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
Christopher Rodia
Didn't know Lanza and Rodia are related! Proof?
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Ugh. This old bullshit. You pull that from a blog?
Rodia's car was pulled over during the shooting in another part of the town. He was getting a ticket for parking illegally. His name and license plate were announced during the calls because... get this... he was pulled over and getting a ticket.
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
Fair enough, I have not seen information debunking this. But instead of having to look it up myself you could have easily linked to information debunking my assertion, instead of spending your time typing insults. As usual, I did the work and I was wrong, the license plate ending in Yeo does appear to belong to Lanza's mother. Doesn't explain a lot of other things, but at least that part is cleared up.
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
I've done this elsewhere and you've still chosen to be ignorant. You're a lost cause.
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
So you really do believe I've been following you around. Otherwise why would you think I would have seen every post you've ever written?
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Dude, we were having two separate discussions here. One about the car, and one about the police call. Both of my original comments to you about those topics were immediately downvoted to zero by you. I don't know why you made the assumption that I think you're following me around, as I already acknowledged that I know you aren't. Because I replied to you. Which would ping you. Which wouldn't require you to do any following.
Have you had your morning coffee?
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
I'm sorry, are you not the cry-baby that wrote this:
while I was looking for the 9 1 1 recording?
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
Yes. That was me. I will not explain this shit to you again. Re-read my comment. I didn't say you were following me. I asked why both of my replies to you in this thread were immediately downvoted to 0. I truly don't understand your deal.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
do you let your retarded relatives borrow your vehicles? what does your insurance think of that?
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
The car was registered to his mom, was it not?
He wasn't retarded.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://www.ixquick.com/do/search?query=nancy%20lanza%20anne%20hadad
https://www.ixquick.com/do/search?query=lanza%20libor
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Can you link me to an actual page that you'd like me too look at? I don't understand what you sent me.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Why would I waste my time? A quick glance at your history makes me interested in that flight turning around.
https://youtu.be/m2-gDQDYcTA?t=4
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
It's not a waste of your time if you can prove it. The problem is you can't.
At the end of the day, you're the one that's hostile to skepticism and you're the one destroying your mind with anti-scientific thinking. It's not really my problem.
The question you should be asking is why you've chosen to live in a make believe world. What is so bad about this one that you can't handle it?
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Did you not see the my youtube link? I think you are full of shit and a sad joke on humanity. I know your opinion of me and you know mine of yours. Let's leave it at that mkay.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
That is a thought terminating cliche. It's funny that someone who should supposedly care about truth is resorting to thought terminating cliches. Rofl.
But you don't care about truth, as I stated. And no, I didn't look at your video. My link previewer shows a kid's show, and I'm not a child.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Textbook. https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
You keep going on and providing zero proof. Funny that?
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Why do you keep acting like I presented you evidence? I clearly said I was not interested. I am continuing to engage you because you are making me laugh and if you are wasting your time on me I am sparing some other poor soul.
I think people who claim to be this or that on the internet to prove their points are delusional ego driven meatpuppets. Dox yourself then I may take your claims of being BAR certified as a possibility.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I'm not. I'm commenting on the fact that your inability to do so is telling.
No, you're continuing to engage me because you can't handle being called out on your nonsense.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. As we've established, your beliefs are more akin to fantasy than fact.
And why would I dox myself?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://i.redd.it/rm5i7yi3pn401.png
https://i.redd.it/bvjmzl5c2q401.png
https://i.redd.it/udtcor0ust401.png
https://i.redd.it/157zlhrqzm401.png
https://i.redd.it/yq7o828w0q401.jpg
https://i.redd.it/h8l52kpwga501.jpg
https://i.redd.it/uu8qmrqkga501.jpg
https://i.redd.it/3v6xed1ufn401.png
https://i.redd.it/vsi4aqv3fc401.png
https://i.redd.it/3hlah3y1dc401.png
https://i.redd.it/kwu6243735401.jpg
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Not evidence. Not suspicious.
Nothing interesting or suspicious there. If there is, explain it.
I don't even know what this is supposed to be showing.
There is no evidence in that photo that supports its claim.
Explain what I'm supposed to be seeing here.
There is no evidence in the photo to support the text's claim.
Ok? The guy decided to lay down. So what?
Explain what is supposedly wrong here. There is nothing suspicious in the text.
Again, so what.
Annnnd so what?
And so what?
Nothing in those photos is suspicious. If you think there is something wrong, you need to explain it.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
let go over it bit by bit so the lurkers can follow along
https://i.redd.it/rm5i7yi3pn401.png
this pic is of a Boston Globe article that describes a mass casualty drill that was planned that included using backpacks filled with explosives
you say "not evidence, not suspicious"
if this was not newsworthy, then why did the Boston Globe cover it?
https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/proxy
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Thank you.
The point of this article is to discuss disaster readiness. The article is trying to show the police in a good light--showing that they are preparing for these sorts of things. It's meant to be reassuring and calming.
This is a typical sort of news item you see after disasters like this. It's supposed to make people feel good (which sells--it's infotainment).
I see nothing suspicious in this article. It seems like a typical feel-good piece that you see written all the time after a major attack like this.
Like this
http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-sb-police-lessons-20160203-story.html
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://i.redd.it/bvjmzl5c2q401.png
in the 2nd pic we have a screen shot of the FEMA profile page for Deputy Director Richard Serino, where they talk about him doing 35 mass casualty drills, including drills at the Boston Marathon
his FEMA page was quickly scrubbed after Boston Marathon bombing but fortunately it was archived before it disappeared
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I don't see why it matters at all? Ok. He did 35 mass cass. drills and one at the Boston Marathon. So what?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
According to USATODAY, FEMA Deputy Administrator Richard Serino was in Boston "celebrating" Patriot's Day when the bombs exploded
https://i.redd.it/s9wkt9x0fusy.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
So what?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
so according to Boston Globe, FEMA deputy Administrator Richard Serino was at the Boston Marathon finish line before and after the bombs went off
https://i.redd.it/w7zf6r3x8rsy.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
So. What?
That is not evidence of anything.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
Richard Serino is close to the President
https://i.redd.it/chpn4fsz4j601.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Again. So what?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
so Richard Serino received an unsolicited job offer from the White House
https://i.redd.it/kkm7z4e86j601.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Again. So what?
None of this is suspicious, nor is it evidence of anything.
Explain why you think this all matters.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
lets see:
Richard Serino has long history of being incident commander at mass casualty incidents, and specifically at the Boston Marathon
https://i.redd.it/bvjmzl5c2q401.png
Richard Serino was placed at the Boston Marathon finish line before and after the bombs went off
https://i.redd.it/w7zf6r3x8rsy.png
they had already planned a mass casualty drill which include the use of backpacks filled with explosives
https://i.redd.it/rm5i7yi3pn401.png
we know resources were deployed to the Boston Marathon prior to the bombing
https://i.redd.it/3hlah3y1dc401.png
so my question for you is
what was Richard Serino doing at the Boston Marathon finish line April 15, 2013 if not a mass casualty drill?
https://i.redd.it/62f9wj1zogsy.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
...anything.
None of that adds up to anything. It's not even indicative of anything suspicious or pre-planned.
Is this really all people have to offer on the conspiracy?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
would you mind being more specific than just saying "anything" for your explanation for what Deputy Administrator for FEMA was doing at the Boston Marathon finish line before and after the fake bombs went off?
also, please provide supporting evidence for whatever it is that you think he was doing. thanks
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
crickets? /u/nologicjustpathos
do you play chess?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Some. I find it boring.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
this attractive lady explains why gaming is an important social interaction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I play games. Dungeons and dragons as often as I can get away with.
I also like cards against humanity.
I just don't like board games. They're boring.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
it is my belief and hope that 2 things will help with peace and diplomacy
chess
soccer/football
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Soccer and football will not bring piece. They stoke our tribal instinct, bringing out the worst of humanity.
Sports are a waste of time and human potential.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
so, as a professional evidence analyst
what do you suppose FEMA deputy administrator Richard Serino was actually doing at the Boston Marathon finish line, at the same time as other agencies resources were also deployed to the Boston Marathon area?
was Richard Serino innocently having a beer, celebrating a non-Federal holiday, watching also-rans finish the Boston Marathon,
and also inexplicably NOT doing a planned mass casualty event, as he had in previous years?
or was Richard Serino actually on-the-job, as a Federal employee, doing his job as incident commander for a mass casualty drill, as he had in previous years?
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/dru28s8/?context=3&st=jbqy8ot1&sh=82525548
/u/rougekhmero
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
check /u/nologicjustpathos
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mqgeu/boston_marathon_bombing_red_pill/
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
My god--that long list is going to have to wait. I gave you an essay-length response tonight already. Can we at least agree I'm doing my part xD
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope-a-dope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSFQrPzSAnE
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I just wrecked you, and you're trying to claim a victory? Good luck with that.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
So, having discussed this with you and learned what the key points seem to be for you...
Why don't you do an FOIA request for 1) the Lietenant's logbook for that precinct and 2) any email with the word "drill" for the 2 weeks leading up to the marathon?
It is standard procedure to inform the police if you are running a drill. Also, it is standard procedure for the supervisor (a Lt.) to mark in their logbook that a drill took place, who ran the drill, what time it started, what time it ended, and what time a verifying officer gave the all clear.
I have no idea how much those will cost. The logbook for the day will be cheap relatively. The emails may cost more.
But if you really want to prove there is a drill, just do an FOIA request for those items.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
you can do that if it would satisfy your curiosity
but i'm sufficiently convinced by the evidence already provided
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mqgeu/boston_marathon_bombing_red_pill/drwgye2/?context=3&st=jbro2ssz&sh=d4bd280d
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
It requires no explanation. It's neither strange nor suspicious.
He was watching the race. Evidence: there are pictures of him there enjoying the race.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Because until then everything you type, like your assumptions of me a not worth a damn. All I did was call bullshit on your grand claims of being all knowledgeable and you have gone into this incredible diatribe including calling me anti scientific. Which I will hand it to you, that one was especially amusing. Boy I sure wish I could see how pathetic you are irl as well as here.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I never made that claim.
Because you are.
But you never will.
You know, this is a great example of why you should learn to rely on evidence. If you had some, you could actually stand a chance here. But you have none, and so you have to hide behind a thin excuse of "I have it, but I'm just not going to tell you."
That stopped working on the playground. If you have evidence, supply it.
So far, I've done nothing but express skepticism. That's hardly a claim to be all knowing.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Evidence? There you go with that big word again. Evidence of what? I am really confused what kind of evidence you want? Not like I claimed anything. Wouldn't I need to bring evidence to back up a claim? Are you a bot? Jesus am I talking to a bot?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Evidence that Sandy Hook was a hoax. I'm not sure why you're confused, as I was very, very clear about what I meant.
The only thing you contributed to this conversation was saying you don't believe I've researched it. Fine. I challenged you, based on that, to find something I didn't know about that proved this was a hoax. Thus far, you've failed miserably. That's why you're being downvoted into oblivion.
I'm quite human. Beep boop.
And I'm still waiting for evidence that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Cough it up, or go back to the kids table.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Again I never made the claim it was a hoax. Like me demanding you show me evidence of why you think the moon is made of blue cheese.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I never said you made that claim. But for anything you said to matter, you must make and defend it. If you're not going to make that claim, then everything else you've said falls apart.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Everything else I said? All I said was bullshit you haven't read every single document and article pertaining to the Sandy Hook school shooting because you claimed you did. There is something really wrong with you.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I've yet to be presented with one I haven't seen before. Prove me wrong. Otherwise, you've got nothing and it's off to the kiddie table.
Which is it going to be? Either put up, or you can shut up.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
OK why did Alyssa Parker photoshop images of her dead kid into more than three images she released to the media?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Link the images. I will examine any evidence you like but you must present it.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
So you don't know everything. Go away troll, it's in the public domain. Fucking amateur.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
No. That's not how it works. Burden of presenting evidence is yours. The amount of bullshit on this topic is astronomical, and I'm not going to wade through shit.
You want me to explain something, then present it in a link. If you aren't going to cite your sources, then don't make claims.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
https://theparkerfive.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/did-a-conspiracy-theorist-just-made-me-laugh/
I'll give you a clue because I feel bad about the dunning kruger you got going on. Go find the other images and the rest of the story on your own or get help. Please leave me alone now.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Conclusion: you're full of shit and running away.
That's fine. Run away. Far far away. Remember this the next time you want to spout bullshit my direction.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Nope I am playing connect four with a three year old and defrosting chicken. There you go again with the assumptions. Really why I said you were a waste of time to begin with...I am sure you don't even care enough to learn the story.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Negative. You haven't demonstrated that you are capable of explaining this. You don't get to say "I'm not bothering to explain it" until you demonstrate that you can.
You're just a blowhard pretending to know shit.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
http://meat.org
1 Riceandtits 2017-12-27
here is something many people find interesting and questionable about the case. It is an interesting indicator that something may be off.
I did not make the video, I did not make these claims. I do agree though that he does not know how to handle a weapon.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Saved. I am in a lot of convos atm. I will watch and respond in a day or two.
Thanks for the video. I looked at the first 15 seconds, and it is one I have not seen before.
1 Riceandtits 2017-12-27
Right on, an thank you for your willingness to at least observe something with a direct dismissal.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
nothing about it was sketchy or fishy
not even the official story?
you don't think its unusual for an autistic kid to kill 20+ people for no particular reason other than his autism?
nothing unusual there, that stuff happens all the time... don't you watch CNN for crying out loud...
please tell us what Alex Jones said about Sandy Hook, because i'm not aware of any statements by him on this. i suspect that you may do like a lot of people and simply imagine what AJ might say, and then proceed as if that assumption is valid
"no evidence"
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6b1cjp/explain/dhj8tmg/?context=3
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
No, I don't. People kill people all the time.
He believes that the parents and children, etc., were all actors...
I saw that comment when it was originally posted. It's nonsense. Like raging bullshit levels of nonsense.
If you want to defend any particular item, go for it. I'm happy to explain on a case basis what is wrong with the claim. I'm not going to write a book refuting 50 pictures.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
Obviously staged photo op of supposed Sandy Hook victim parents
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracyhub/comments/7mgu7d/obviously_staged_photo_op_of_supposed_sandy_hook/
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
There is nothing "obviously staged" about that photo.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
really? you don't think the people in the photo know that they are being photographed, in spite of a cameraman being crouched in front of them pointing a camera at them? do people usually stand around looking off into space while photographers invade their personal space?
https://i.redd.it/yx1wjvoqei601.png
lets pretend you are the photographer
you can't exactly say "cheese" for a photo of this gravity
so what did the photographer say to them?
ok mom, here, hold this photograph and look off into space and pretend like you don't see me or that you are aware that your picture is being taken
and dad, you look off into space in another direction, so that its obvious that there is nothing interesting enough for both of you to be looking at, while you pretend to be ignoring me
oh and heres some green ribbons that seem totally organic and not preconceived at all
hey man quit laughing, and try to look serious. just a few pics and we will be done
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I could grant you all of those things as true, and it doesn't make it staged...have you ever been around photographers? They are taking pictures constantly.
Probably nothing at all. Photographers are usually snapping pictures in rapid, silent shutter mode with telescopic lenses. They usually are sitting in a group, so they are out of the way but so they can get their pictures. This looks like they were getting ready for a broadcast of some sort. Maybe an interview with the media.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?429381-1/fbi-director-comey-testifies-dismissal
Skip to the 1 minute mark. That's what photographers are normally doing. This looks like a candid shot taken by a kneeling photographer with a telescopic lens (you can tell that by the flatness of the picture).
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
do you suppose its possible that your brain dictates to your eye what your eye will see, regardless of reality?
and that this phenomenon happens even to so-called professional evidence analysts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Qwp2GdB1M
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Yes, I've considered it. It's irrelevant. Whether that is happening or not, evidence analysis and the law of parsimony remain the only valid method of researching claims even if that is true. In fact, they remain such because it is true.
So, again, there is nothing in that photo that is suspicious. If there was evidence that it was suspicious, we wouldn't be having a discussion about void spaces.
Put simply: if it is true that I am projecting my own assumptions into a void space, that means that there is a void space, and if there is a void space, that means there is no evidence.
So, please explain what is suspicious about that photo in 50 words or less real fast. What about it seems off to you?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://i.redd.it/ol74fqyfri601.png
https://i.redd.it/zuov5l5qri601.jpg
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Those are very, very obviously not the same child.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
do these two flags look the same, or different to you?
https://i.redd.it/qknfo3qgr1401.jpg
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Never underestimate the ability of ones ego and belief system to blind them.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
Alex Jones and youtube videos are not "research".
1 BeLucky 2017-12-27
Let me guess, 9/11 was carried out by those "God darn Muslims" too? Open your mind, your government uses you as a puppet and you happily sit there and let them dictate what you believe / don't believe.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
My mind is open. I study evidence for a living. There is no evidence that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy, or 9/11 for that matter.
1 Sabremesh 2017-12-27
...and your brain fell out?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I'm not the one running around saying everyone that doesn't believe a bunch of bullshit has no brains.
I'm a skeptic. Right now, neither conspiracy can sport anything that is even suspicious, much less damning.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1634&bih=1111&ei=2d9DWrT8EMmkjwTIhLPoBw&q=9%2F11+wtc+pot+hole&oq=9%2F11+&gs_l=img
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
A guy who retired in 1984 and was not a witness is not a credible source.
If you want to make a point with your second link, you need to talk about it.
People on this subreddit need to understand that cold-linking to things is not evidence.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
can you think of anymore more credible than Albert Stubblebine to examine the 9/11 evidence at the pentagon?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=albert+stubblebine+9%2F11
the second link is about the 9/11 WTC Pot Hole
this is the evidence that i used to destroy the AMA of Richard Gage of AE911Truth,
so much so that Richard Gage backed away from the AMA and claimed it wasn't him, that it was an impostor.
This is the WTC 9/11 Pot Hole. Note the hose, ladders, people, equipment. Jet Fuel Can't Melt Bed Rock
https://i.redd.it/nvddn9l5fwbz.jpg
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracyhub/comments/2qwmax/looks_like_r911truth_was_trolled_with_a_fake/?st=jbpesu8z&sh=551cf726
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Any of the thousands of witnesses who saw the plane hit, and the plane debris being pulled out.
That hole is a natural formation. It wasn't caused by anything--it predated the attack.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
as far as i know, this is the most comprehensive collection of pentagon wreckage pics available
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
and yet i am not convinced that at Boeing 757 hit the pentagon
This is the WTC 9/11 Pot Hole. Note the hose, ladders, people, equipment. Jet Fuel Can't Melt Bed Rock
https://i.redd.it/nvddn9l5fwbz.jpg
if it was a natural formation, then why wasn't it prepared for construction by either excavation or by fill?
we can clearly see that there was a building right where the hole is, and yet we can't see any evidence of footings of the skyscraper that was just there?
this is the part where Richard Gage knew he was fucked, and deserted his AMA. he even had a small army of engineers backing him up but they all gave up and went home, defeated.
i didn't intend to expose Richard Gage as a shill. i was just asking some questions and then i strung him along far enough where he couldn't back out, so he abandoned ship and exposed himself and his AE911truth as shill
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Why would it be? It was covered, and apparently structurally sound because it never caved it.
And? We have no idea what has happened or what has been removed.
Yeah, not buying that happened. So far, his "side" seemed more convincing than yours. BUT, you are here and he is not, which means you are going to have that home field advantage.
Thus far, that formation appears natural to me, and it appears natural to experts who have talked about it. And holes like this aren't always filled. Filling costs money. You only fill if you need to. the fact that it was empty and the fact that the towers stood just fine seems to indicate that it didn't need to be filled.
So please, convince me. I'm open to hearing you. But so far, I see nothing that would indicate that that is not natural.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
if you are going to be building a heavy structure, typically you will dig down to at least below the frost line, to prevent heaving
also, typically the bigger and heavier a building is, the more they will excavate, so while a house may have a one story basement, a skyscraper may have a 10 story basement
also, typically if you are going to be building a big, heavy building, you will excavate down to the bedrock if possible, to start from a nice solid base
you may remember the parable about the man who built his house upon the sand?
so as they excavate for a skyscraper, they would have discovered this so-called pot-hole, and they would have had to prepare it for construction
since we don't see any evidence of footing or foundation construction,
we must entertain the possibility that this bed rock was recently molten,
just like the steel that was molten, "like in a foundry" as described by FDNY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBNkw2Vvi28
we know that the ground under the buildings was inexplicably hot for months after 9/11
im leaning toward small nukes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
There is no "typically" in the construction of skyscrapers. They are all idiosyncratic. If you want to make a claim this is typical, please provide evidence.
No. That does not logically follow. You're skipping steps.
Premise 1: Skyscrapers usually excavate down to bedrock. Premise 2: The pothole was in a structurally significant position. Premise 3: The pothole was not filled in. Premise 4: Potholes like this would normally be filled in. Premise 5: Small nukes would make the ground hot for months.
That's what you're working with.
Premise 1-4 are all unverified. They must be verified before going further.
Premise 5 is simply wrong. Nukes of any size would not make the ground warm for months. That is simply not true.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_line
we must entertain the possibility that this bed rock was recently molten,
you are the one who claimed, without any evidence whatsoever, that the molten rock was old and natural.
i dont think there is any doubt that the bed rock was molten. the question is why they would build a skyscraper in an uneven pothole instead of starting with a nice level base like they usually do when building most buildings?
are you actually arguing against the fact that skyscrapers have solid bases that are below the frost line?
the pot hole is so significant that Richard Gage actually abandoned his AMA and claimed it was an imposter
clearly he understands the engineering of skyscrapers better than you
which is why he quit while he was still ahead, or actually before he got even more deep. he knew he was toast
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Wrong. That rock does not appear molten. I claimed that it appears natural. I don't need evidence to make that claim: rock being natural is the default unless shown otherwise.
There is doubt. That doesn't look molten to me. It looks like ice-weathered rock, which is what all the experts I've read have said. And as for why they would not fill in the pot hole, I've answered that already. Filling it costs money. That means that unless there was a reason to do so, they wouldn't do it. That means that the empty pothole is the default assumption sans other evidence.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm taking the skeptical position.
That is not how that appeared to me. I'm sure you see it that way. I didn't see it that way.
That's fine. Provide citations to relevant points.
That is not how it appeared to me, again. He seemed like he was brushing off what to him seemed nonsense questions. That's how he seemed to respond to it, and I personally did not find anything you said convincing. You're not going to be able to use that conversation as evidence at any stage of this conversation. But that's ok, we're talking now and you can just cite direct evidence.
1) Skyscrapers usually excavate down to bedrock. 2) The pothole was in a structurally significant position 3) The pothole was not filled in 4) Potholes like this would normally be filled in 5) Small nukes would make the ground hot for months. 6) The ground being warm for months is relevant in the first place. 7) The ground was actually warmer than normal for months.
Those are what we're dealing with. Let's take them one at a time. I added #7, and we know that #5 is false to begin with. That is fine, it's not critical to your argument, so your argument endures regardless of that point.
Let's take this one at a time. Let's start with 1. That one I don't find unlikely, and indeed a quick search supports it.
http://observer.com/2012/01/uncanny-valley-the-real-reason-there-are-no-skyscrapers-in-the-middle-of-manhattan/
So, premise 1 is verified. We can move one.
I can find no evidence for premise 2. Perhaps you can show me evidence that indicates that this pot hole was in a critical location.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
Where is he going with that airplane wreckage? Why is her hand empty? Where is she going? Why is that wreckage up against the wall in the background being left alone, but the wreckage in his hand is not?
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracyhub/comments/7mgl2v/where_is_he_going_with_that_airplane_wreckage_why/
1 NoNameMonkey 2017-12-27
Exactly - it's shocking what gets accepted as "evidence" here. People severely underappreciate the skills, processes and science that professional investigators learn and use. My brother in law works in the police investigating syndicates and the way they work is far more complex than people give them credit for.
1 HRC_Eats_Babies 2017-12-27
LMAO you're ignorant as fuck if you believe the official 9/11 narrative. I don't give a fuck if you "study evidence" for a living or build rocket ships, 9/11 was an inside and (((outside))) job.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
No. It wasn't. You have to be ignorant to believe it was.
1 HRC_Eats_Babies 2017-12-27
Wow, you are the most blatant sh___ Ive ever seen. Just keep covering your ears saying "lalala no it wasn't." Seems to be working well for you 16 years later... Even some official NIST employees disagree with you.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Provide me one piece of evidence that indicates (it doesn't have to prove, just indicate) that 9/11 was an inside job.
Present that evidence in 50 words or less (links don't count). Present what the evidence is first, and then explain precise why it indicates an inside job.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
I agree with you although I don't mind looking into it and having an open mind. It becomes a problem when everyone is so damn convinced becuase of some half assed "evidence" of parents smiling, or porta pottys. They won't look at things like that parent who used to be a conspiracy theorist until he saw what happens when people start creating these theories and now people are accusing him of being an actor. It's quite sad really that these same people who are all for "open mindedness" are never open to the idea that this might have actually happened.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Bingo.
1 ShitHitsTheMan 2017-12-27
Which parent would this be?
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
There is something really wrong with people that think Sandy Hook was not a fucking conspiracy. Jesus Christ people.
ftfy
I bet you are the type of person who goes full on attack mode when someone says to show them the pictures of the dead kids, Adam Lanza, and his mother aren't you?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
How about you have a conversation with me rather than trying to turn me into a caricature that you've invented.
There is zero evidence that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Prove me wrong.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
How about no.
There is in fact. This comment alone is enough for me to assume you to be the caricature you insist you are not. It's foolish, arrogant, and dismissive. I would give you a video to watch, but like everyone else who says this, they never watch it. I would also offer all the inconsistencies as well, but as many who make your claim will refute each and every one as coincidence. I would point out Gene's prep video, the dad smiling at a press conference, the overhead chopper footage, so on and so on goes all the nonsense involved in trying to tell the story and stick to a narrative that has been picked clean apart. So for you to so arrogantly sit there and write that there is ZERO evidence shows me that you have done ZERO research in to the subject and are simply trying to sandbag this entire conversation regarding the subject.
There is zero evidence to show that it happened. Show me the dead kids, adam lanza, and his mother and we'll begin talking further.
tl;dr: do your homework, don't be a douche
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I will watch any video you post, and I will debunk it point for point.
So put up or shut up. Thus far, you're the only one that's been a douche.
I've done the research. And I've absolutely demolished everyone that's tried to present evidence in this thread so far.
There is zero evidence. Prove me wrong.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
Okay, since you have absolutely demolished everyone, start with this list and give us the answers.
https://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/33-unanswered-questions-on-sandy-hooks-3rd-anniversary.html
Next up, the video.
https://youtu.be/fUeSpS2lCgQ
However I feel like you are going to play a game of word association, because you want EVIDENCE that it is a hoax. That's what you will rest on, I know it's coming, so i will save you from that by saying EXPLAIN the inconsistencies.
Also by using your game of word association, you show me EVIDENCE that it happened, start with by showing me the pictures of the dead bodies...
Good luck! I can't wait for your response, this has got to be good...
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Negative. I don't have to explain anything. The burden of proof is not might. That's not how this works.
Evidence is evidence if and only if it indicates something conclusively.
Again, that is not a burden I have to meet. I don't have to prove it was real. You have to prove it was a hoax.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The fact that this was a real disaster is the default position. It is true until you prove otherwise. I don't have to prove it really happened. You have to prove it didn't. It's a one way street.
I'm heading to bed. I will save this post and head through it in the morning. It should be short work. A short look at it shows that most of what you posted has already been debunked (e.g., the facebook page listed as #1 never happened--it was fake).
So, tomorrow morning.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
It is in fact your burden. You challenged what I claimed by saying there is ZERO evidence even though there is a plethora of it. It's up to you to disprove the inconsistencies.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
No, you made the positive claim. I made a negative claim.
Negative claimants bear no burden of proof. Positive claimants do.
That's you.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
Nice play of words, there is no such thing as a negative claim or a positive claim, there is only claims. Therefore I provided my proof, you have yet to provide anything but a "NU UH!"
Debates don't work the way you'd like them too, maybe if you spent some time with intelligent people in school and attended a few debates, you would know this.
Why are you even in this sub other than to blast people who have legit questions against the official narrative?
Have a nice day, I'm not playing your game of verbal gymnastics.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
Weakness in debate is when someone refutes a claim with a claim and then cries for burden of proof without showing their own burden of proof.
Again, I'm not playing a game of verbal gymnastics. You have nothing to stand on regarding your claim other than to cry "NU UH!"
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I never made a claim. I denied your claim. That is not a claim.
When you say "God is real." And I say "I don't believe you, show me proof," I have not made a claim. You did.
So. You made a claim. Burden is yours. I've made no claim at all.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
You denied my claim, neat. I proved my claim by giving you 33 questions to be answered plus a video to watch, where are you at on that? I provided you the evidence that creates the conspiracy and you could only respond by saying that all the discrepancies are explainable. I am still waiting for your detailed report as to how each and every point presented is not proof. No one else can explain it, you claimed you can, so deliver or quit your nonsense.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I debunked the first question. I haven't gotten to the rest. Don't worry. I will when i have the time. I'm probably going to do one section a day, to drag your humiliation out over time.
So, number 2 on that list:
It was a standard, normal, typical, happens every day, inaccurate google time stamp caused (most likely) by incorrect metadata.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/united-way-sandy-hook_n_2442450.html
The same applies to #3 on the list--it's just another google timestamp error.
4 is easy. He just fucking started the fund. I recently had a friend who died. I started the fund for his wife and kids within 30 minutes of receiving the phone call. Not hard.
5 is easy. People move into new areas all the time. There is nothing suspicious about people moving into a neighborhood.
6, the script
The script has been debunked.
http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/debunked-wolfgang-w-habligs-script.html
This is one of countless such pages.
So, there. Section 1 is entirely debunked. I'll hit the second section tomorrow. In the mean time, squirm.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
LOL you linked huff post. Get the fuck out of here.
You did not debunk the first question.
That is not a fact, you are speculating.
Again, not a fact, you are speculating. A billion dollar corporation have bad meta data and a time stamp when it's 99.9% in fallible?
Same with your answer for #3, you don't provide a fact to a bad timestamp, only speculation.
As for #4, I came to the same conclusion, it's still very shady for a bank manager to be the first one on it. This is probably one of my least concerns on the list, congrats, you found one you could "debunk" with a logical explanation.
You are speculating again on number 5.
You page debunking number six omits a lot of detail. Also the person who wrote it up debunking it does not explain how the written time stamp reports don't match the video timestamps. I guess in your case you just don't think timestamps are accurate do you? Your dunking page is a load of bullshit, they were picking and choosing what help drives the narrative. Did you find that page from a google search? You probably did.
So far you did not debunk anything, I am not squirming, because you have offered no facts, only speculation.
The proof of you not doing any research over this and not reading any official documents if glaring at this point.
Oh how I eagerly await you next round of speculation.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
That google timemarks are not valid is a fact. It is speculating to say it was accurate here.
1-3 are debunked.
There is nothing shady about a man who manages money using his skills to aid victims. That is like saying its shady for a doctor to render aid to victims,
4 is debunked.
It is not speculation to say that people move into neighborhoods all the time. That is a fact. It is speculation on the part of this list to say that it is suspicious.
5 is debunked.
Regarding 6
No, time stamps are not evidence, because they are essentially never accurate, as was shown regarding 1-3.
The page I gave is not bullshit. They didn't pick and choose. They proved, point for point, that the scrip is full of inaccuracies. That debunks it.
Wrong. The list you gave me is speculation. I gave not only reasonable, but most probable, explanations for all of the issues to show that none of them are suspicious, and have very simple, common explanations.
1-6 are debunked. If you are going to claim otherwise at this point, the burden of proof is over to you. I showed that they are debunked and gave evidence for each one of them. None of them is speculation. They are all verified facts. Google timestamps are not accuarte. That is a fact. I proved it. The man handling the aid is normal and not suspicious. That is a fact. I proved it. People moving into a neighborhood is normal and not suspicious. That is a fact. I proved it. The script is bullshit. It is continuously wrong from point to point. And further, there is no evidence to prove that it existed prior to the event. There is no evidence it is a real document. As it stands, it is a document that did not appear until after the fact and it is full of errors, which I've proven. In terms of probabilistic explanation based on current evidence, it is orders of magnitude more likely that the script was a forgery by Halbig, and a poor forgery at that. The script is bullshit. That is a fact. I proved it.
1-6 are debunked.
If you wish to dispute it, then do so in a numbered list.
And I want to keep this on point an brief. Please organize your responses in an organized fashion. Discuss each point separately, and no more than 50 words per point. Quotes and links, etc., obviously do not count.
I will respond to your points. When you are done.
((Debate is adversarial by nature. I would like to step out of the adversarial position for a moment to thank you for having the discussion in the first place)).
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
LOL, you can't claim something being debunked on speculation and call it evidence.
Questions without answers is not speculation.
I can't take you seriously, especially when you claim failing timestamps with no proof, then call it proof and fact. If you can get google and facebook to admit to it being a failed timestamp, then you can counter the claim, until then, they were made when the timestamps said they were made.
You probably got a really good speculation for Gene Rosen's leaked video, and probably even better one for the police reports that mention children evacuating the building, yet on camera it never happens, but it must be another timestamp error right?
You are fighting a losing battle. You want to believe the narrative, that's fine, don't try to unload your bullshit on to people who have deeply researched the event when you haven't.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I did not speculate anything. Timestamps on google are not reliable. That is a fact. That is not speculation.
Yes, they are. A question makes a claim when it is asked.
"Is the cheese on the moon green or blue?"
That question makes the claim that there is cheese on the moon. Questions make claims, make arguments, make implications, and make thesis statements. In fact, a question is called a thesis. A thesis statement is the answer to a thesis (aka, question).
That is the first question. That question makes the claim that that page was created before the event happened. It is speculating that that is true.
However, there is not evidence that it is true. The only evidence is a FB timestamp, and I have proven that a facebook timestamp does not prove when a named group is created.
This question makes two claims.
Based on these premises, the following conclusion is reached.
I proved, beyond any dispute, that that time stamp does not mean anything. That means that means that premise 1 above is not true, and that means that there is no evidence to support the conclusion.
Thus, 1 is debunked.
Nothing above is speculated. It is all verified fact.
The only speculation that exists is "despite time stamps not being an indicator of when a named group is created, I believe that in this case the time stamp is correct."
That is your speculation.
So, 1 remains debunked until you come up with a new argument.
I proved with evidence that timestamps are not accurate. And because they are not accurate, they cannot be used as evidence. That is proven. I used evidence. If you wan to argue against that claim, then you need to do so. You don't get to just keep claiming that time stamps are valid when I've proven with evidence that you can check yourself that they are not accurate.
We're not to that yet. You still haven't gotten past 1-6. So far they all stand debunked. You disagree. You need to prove it.
The hangup at the moment is 1-3. I've proven that the timestamps are meaningless. Either you give up 1-3 and we move on (after all, you have 30 left), or you need to prove that the timestamps should be considered reliable.
I've proven that 4 is nothing. You've agreed. So we're down to 32.
You haven't gotten to 5 yet, but that is not one you will win.
6 will be a long argument I think. We'll take it when we get to it though.
Right now, let's focus on 1-5. You've conceded 4, so really, 1-3 and 5. Before we can proceed, you must defend the following arguments.
1) Despite /u/nologicjustpathos having proven that the timestamps on FB and google are notoriously unreliable, the timestamps in this case should be trusted because of X
Of course, you have to provide X
2) It is unusual for families to move into a neighborhood OR into neighborhood Y in manner Z.
You of course choose Y and Z.
If you cannot defend those arguments, then you cannot sustain 1-3 or 5.
Please again, no more than 50 words for argument 1 or 2 (excluding links, etc.).
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
No, they aren't. I work in the IT sector, been doing it for 30 years, and no they are not notoriously unreliable. You have to go WAAAAY out of you way to fake a timestamp, and for a timestamp to fail, you are talking about a serious hardware failure or a failing code, which would create a huge slew of failed timestamps. It cannot be correlated to that day they were claimed to be created. There are no other existing timestamp errors from that day on google or facebook.
But I guess since a redditor told you that makes it a fact. If you don't have experience in what I am talking about, you have no experience, and someone claiming unreliability is lying. Bottom line, there's no debating it away, they are lying. Errors occur, this is given with technology, however the percentage of failure is incredibly low.
At this point you are just rehashing your insistence that you are not speculating to garner favor to your points. You have not disproved anything so far, you have a long way to go down the list and if you are going to just circlejerk over your claims without going through the rest of the list, and also watch the video, then I can see where this entire thing is headed and I am just not interested in your opinion. I am only interested in fact, and you have yet to provide a single that that as you claim, destroys everyone on this subject.
You can claim how much your facts are verified, this doesn't make it a fact.
I can see how desperately you want to be right, it's quite sad. You are desperately are trying to push the official narrative, and it's sad. You want to desperately deny any and all inconsistencies, and that too is very sad.
I wonder, how long did it take you before you believed that 9/11 was not an actual terrorist attack and was a controlled demo?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Thus, your 30 years of experience are reduced to dust.
As for the rest of what you said, your personal experience is not evidence. I am not taking your word for that. You wouldn't take mine.
I have proven my facts with evidence and you have yet to provide any argument or counter evidence indicating they are wrong. Until you do, they stand. You don't get to just say they're wrong.
We'll have that discussion once we're done with this one.
Right now, you are still here:
1) Despite /u/nologicjustpathos having proven that the timestamps on FB and google are notoriously unreliable, the timestamps in this case should be trusted because of X
2) It is unusual for families to move into a neighborhood OR into neighborhood Y in manner Z.
You have given no X, Y, or Z.
So, back to you.
1 MichelleObamasPenis 2017-12-27
There is something really wrong with people who have been so easily fooled, yet again, by the Sandy Hook conspiracy. Can't Top Minds redditors even think?
1 RedPillFiend 2017-12-27
Here's a list of discrepancies and unanswered questions.
https://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/33-unanswered-questions-on-sandy-hooks-3rd-anniversary.html
1 Cratonis 2017-12-27
So much of this utter malarkey and obvious it boggles the mind how anyone can find this reputable. If you really want to convince people I would work a lot harder to drop all the crap and stick with only good solid evidence and facts.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Those aren't unanswered.
If you're lazy enough to never bother to investigate, that still doesn't make them unanswered.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Focus on Boston Bombing it is way easier to see/show. Sandy hook research is a dead end imo. I am not so sure anymore what happened there. It was a cover up but of what I don't know. It is interesting for people who like to go down rabbit holes but hard to convince people something was covered up. I trust Fetzer about as far as I can throw him. His pdf got a lot of stuff wrong, his claims of Carver being at the school prior to the shooting are easily debunked if you have watched all the shadow analyses videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8UacCHI7kE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz0vKfBHsZY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beU1lmZQp4c
http://truthstreammedia.com/2013/06/11/homeland-security-admits-boston-drill-eerily-similar-to-marathon-bombing/
http://truthstreammedia.com/mass-casualty-exercise-at-boston-marathon-coincided-with-explosions/
Some stuff to look into with SH. Purple van with priests and nun(costume) BOLO, poorly photoshopped images of many of the children like Ben Wheeler and well the entire Parker family as well as Viki Soto, Green screen at firehouse, pedophile and meth head priests at st rose of lima, Gene Rosin or his doppleganger photographed at a fema event, Google and Bing cache of united way charity page, Dawn Hochsprung writing a Newtown Bee article from the grave and Newtown police dept selling coke, steroids and weapons.
Youtube channel Aryan Empires's Reich watch videos. That guy has read and done videos on an impressive amount of documents in relation to SH. His research makes me question some of the more mainstream SH theories.
Miles Mathis has one or two good articles worth reading.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Top Minds are here with us
https://np.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/7mfzxw/im_convinced_that_parents_have_pretended_that/
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
looks like I've been banned from there
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracyhub/comments/7mgf8a/i_really_cant_wrap_my_head_around_this_are_there/
1 DigitalJealousy 2017-12-27
the thing that always got me was that they showed a news clip of a bunch of cops charging into the school... and it was the wrong school a few miles away. Oh and the guy in camo they found running through the woods whom they captured that never even got mentioned again
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
that was saint rose of lima school. Look into John Castaldo, he was at st rose at the same time as Lanza.
https://exposedmagus.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/unpublished-sandy-hook-files-rev-john-castaldos-tenure-at-the-bridgeport-diocese/
1 perfect_pickles 2017-12-27
look again at the video of the woods, the two exercise observers on the left watching the action.
the Newtown cops (first responders not CT state troopers) also chased past that opened shed that morning, the day before (12/13/12 afternoon) the CT state troopers had opened that shed for the aerial footage.
ditto the pizza being photographed being delivered to the fire people on the 13th.
so either a time machine or an exercise.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i like the part where the Newtown Bee deleted all of the obituaries for the fake victims of Sandy Hook... because deleting obituaries is something that newspapers would routinely do
i also like how all of the obituaries were written by the Associated Press instead of by a family member or local funeral home or whatever
1 RMFN 2017-12-27
St Rose of Lima
1 _TyrellWellick 2017-12-27
Any possible link to the Capstone Drill & SHES is likely long dead and buried, along with the fact that the entire building was leveled, so any physical evidence from the crime scene is long gone.
The other mass shootings that took place during Obama's second-term are what you want to focus on. And then...they suddenly pretty much stopped in 2017, outside of the major one in Vegas, which is clearly not what we're being told.
1 perfect_pickles 2017-12-27
Orlando with its very very odd gay theme, Angle Colon, Dr.Lube, Dr. Cheatham (Chartham)
so fake its pathetic.
1 Roulette17 2017-12-27
the kids singing at the super bowl was the closer for me
1 _TyrellWellick 2017-12-27
This was absurdly strange.
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
You want there to be a public record of an elementary/middle school choir?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
everything else is online. how are choir boosters supposed to know when to boost?
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
I can personally vouch that not all school things are online, as I work in a school. This can be due to many reasons.
1) Laziness on the part whoever runs the school website (or being busy, cause if you have a kid you know how much unplanned shit can happen)
2) Privacy for the kids
3) No need to be advertised/shown. We don't have choir boosters at our school.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
im leaning more toward the idea that the choir never actually existed except for the strange appearance at the Super Bowl
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/drtrzjw/?context=3
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Wow. So you think that, not only are the police, parents, doctors, school officials, neighbors, dentists, family friends, relatives, etc. complicit in faking this event, but the children are as well? That’s a pretty big stretch.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
its not unprecedented
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U&t=35s
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
ok please go find elementary school choirs online. Also, tell me how many schools don't have that info.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
hahahaha
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
lol
1 ElsaHate 2017-12-27
Can you be more specific? I have no idea what happened at the superbowl. Kids singing?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
after the Sandy Hook fake shooting happened, a bunch of kids showed up to sing in a choir at the Super Bowl, in front of the whole world, perhaps as a proof-of-life idk
but the kids at the Super Bowl were aged a few years older than the kids who were allegedly killed at Sandy Hook, leading people to believe that the supposed victims were prepared well in advance, their pictures taken, and the kids allowed to age a few years, to later help hide them in plain sight, in places like the Super Bowl.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1634&bih=1111&ei=quRDWuuZGePRjwSoraWoBg&q=Sandy+Hook+Super+Bowl&oq=Sandy+Hook+Super+Bowl&gs_l=img
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Also Newtown school officials had no idea who was driving these kids around to talk shows or the bowl.
1 ElsaHate 2017-12-27
They look nothing alike...
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
they are a few years older
1 ElsaHate 2017-12-27
I realize that, but they look like completely different people even after taking age into account.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
so who do you think the kids at the Super Bowl are?
1 ElsaHate 2017-12-27
I dont know. Debunking obvious bullshit doesnt require me to give you that answer though. They could literally be anybody of little to no significant importance.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
why were they there?
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1634&bih=1111&ei=MntEWsW7NYvVjwSxuoKQCQ&q=sandy+hook+super+bowl&oq=sandy+hook+super+bowl&gs_l=img
1 Roulette17 2017-12-27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNhpOLIqG1Y
1 perfect_pickles 2017-12-27
Jill Greenberg 'End TImes'
nasty people live in CT.
1 bravetarget 2017-12-27
Easy, there isn’t a single photo of a single drop of blood. Nobody got shot that day
1 IAMAExpertInBirdLaw 2017-12-27
Right because they're going to release photos of dead children. What a dumb statement
1 NighthawkNFLD 2017-12-27
You clearly are unaware that Yes, dead children have been shown in the media's coverage of shootings before.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
lets put this another way
what evidence have you seen that would convince you to convict adam lanza if he was on trial and you were on his jury
the burden of proof is on those making the allegations, not on the defendant who didn't even get his day in court
1 TheRadChad 2017-12-27
No crime scene pics at all of sandyhook?
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
There are tons of photos of blood. Maybe spend 1 minute of research instead of spouting nonsense? Funny how little hoaxers research - because any amount of it quickly proves how much BS they were fed
1 bravetarget 2017-12-27
Link?
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2015/12/30/fact-checking-nobody-died-at-sandy-hook-chapter-one/
1 bravetarget 2017-12-27
5th deadliest mass shooting in US history and out of all the scene photos linked there is only one small spot you actually see blood. what? all the 'splatter' references in the article you linked is clearly just small nicks in the ceiling, that is not blood. i see why people are concerned or skeptical with the evidence presented on top of all the weirdness regarding the parents, newtown, shoddy timeline, aggressive gun control remarks, etc.
ask yourself what you've actually seen, not what story they want you to build in your head. it definitely does not look like a small boy killed 27 people in 8 minutes in those photos
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
Uhh I've looked at just a few of the photos and seen lots of blood. The denial is strong in this one.
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
Uh, try looking more carefully. Thats not the blood. If you had even looked at the few specified photos, you'd know the blood is on the orange/red-bordered paper taped to the wall.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Wow, shift the goalposts some more bud
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Lol ok bud
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
Look. Do you really think your family is going to be convinced by an "infographic" that contains a bunch of pictures and words thrown together with innuendo? Assuming your family doesn't believe that no one died--which is reasonable . . . --and you want to convince them otherwise, you need to show them actual proof, and somehow convince them that every single person who claims to have had a family member die, or know someone that died, is lying.
1 IAMAExpertInBirdLaw 2017-12-27
The sub can't even convince people that are open to conspiracy theories it was a hoax no one died at I doubt they can pull together the info needed to make people that dont believe in conspiracy theories to believe it.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
so how did everyone here get convince sandy hook was a hoax?
or are you implying that nobody here believes sandy hook was a hoax?
1 flyPeterfly 2017-12-27
The only thing I gleaned from that jumbled mess is that birdlawexpert doesn't consider himherself to be a part of this sub.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Top Minds have linked to us, hence the strange voting patterns and anti-conspiracy comments
https://np.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/7mfzxw/im_convinced_that_parents_have_pretended_that/
1 flyPeterfly 2017-12-27
Man, they're so cool!
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
Im not convinced it was a hoax. Not even slightly.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
More research required, start with some documentaries
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
All I need is http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/ to know everything the hoaxers say is an easily debunked lie.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
yeah http://crisisactors.org denies involvement too
but whats most interesting about these crisis actor troupes denying involvement is the existence of these crisis actor troupes in the first place
like when did crisis actors get normalized?
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
Uhhhh, crisisactorsguild is a mockery of the conspiracy term "crisis actors"
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
He may be thinking of crisis cast.
http://crisiscast.com/
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
What a dumb comment. How do you think FEMA and the National Guard and others get real world training if not for crisis actors. Are you taking the piss on purpose or are you really that thick?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
explain...
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6b1cjp/explain/dhj8tmg/?context=3
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
So I just got a link with a ton of links that seem to be about the boston bombing.
How about you actually state something?
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Here's a good starting place for you, a documentary that will leave you in now doubt that the whole event was a hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7V6Tm4KuXI
1 Califia1 2017-12-27
Alex Jones.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
who is Alex Jones?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Bingo. I'm a skeptic to lurks here because--let's face it....loony as they are, sometimes the conspiracy nuts are right. MK Ultra was real. Area 51 was real, and it had some really crazy shit (although not aliens).
But this conspiracy is bonkers.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
what if I told you that kids did die, but the fbi threw in extra fake kids to boost the number and lied about what guns did the killing to further push their anti-gun agenda? Would you have an easier time believing that? I'm seriously asking, not trying to be an ass
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I will entertain any idea as long as there is evidence.
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
Don't tell me. Show me evidence.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
ok
no deaths reported that year no autopsy reports no 911 recordings no photos of the scene
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
For anyone who's new to the topic, this documentary will leave you in no doubt that the whole thing was a hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7V6Tm4KuXI
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
What the fuck? You can't just throw fake deaths in with real ones. It's a small town and a small school where everyone knew each other, there is no fucking way a parent of a child who was actually murdered would be okay with "some fake child murders being added in"
Why can't people just accept that there are some evil fucking creatures out there that like to do sick things. There's over 7 billion people in the world, not every fucking shooting is a hoax. Fucking USA is filled with nutter butters
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
its actually really easy to do that, especially when you bar anyone from looking into it
they wouldn't know the numbers are being inflated, and regardless of how small the town was there is no way to know every student and parent of that student in your kids class.
thats not whats going on though
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
You sir are not very well thought out. No one is "barred" from examining Sandy Hill, isn't that exactly what we are doing now? Do you expect the FBI to release all their info to you so you can become a detective and bother the families of dead children.
How could they not know the numbers are inflated? You have no idea who knew who so stop assuming. I went to a school that had 300 people from K to 12 and I know every single one of them still. My grad class had 25 people. You are talking out of your ass about a place you don't know. You don't think that if they threw actors in the real parents would wonder who the fuck these new people are?
And yes that is exactly what is going on, NOT every mass shooting is a false flag or a hoax, believe it or not some people just do bad shit.
Don't bother replying because you are a complete waste of time
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
Wow, you don't even know the name of the place we're talking about and you expect me to take what you're saying seriously? Anyway, the public has been barred from finding more information. The records are closed. The only thing we are allowed to get is what they give us.
I know just a little bit more than you do on the subject of "Sandy Hill"
i live in CT, have seen Adam Lanza in person, am from around the area, and know the cops that where first on scene.
Duh
too bad, replied anyway, now you get to either stay quiet or make yourself look even more stupid. the choice is yours
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
Hahaha it's always the people with absolutely 0 real argument that go after punctuation and spelling mistakes. The absolute lamest argument on the Internet and I'm actually a little shocked that's what you chose to use. But of course you are from there and knew Adam Lanza, there's always someone in this small ass sub from one of those hick ass towns that claim they knew someone who was affected. So in the whole area of 11,000 people, you saw Adam Lanza, remember seeing him for some reason, and still think the parents of school children wouldn't know the other parents in the school? Can you reach anymore? And you know the cops who were first on scene? Oh well of course you do. My uncle works at Sony and just sent me a PS5.
So if you are so friendly with all of these first on the scene police, why don't you have any extra info? Not many people make the huge claim that they know the first cops on the scene. I'm pretty sure they would ALL know an exact body count, and being small town cops and knowing the families why would every single one go along with a fake story about child deaths in their town?
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
trust me, i'm not one that goes after punctuation or spelling mistakes...i make a ton of my own. You got the name of the subject wrong...you didnt spell it wrong, you got the name wrong. That would be like you trying to school me on "coke" being better than pepsi and calling it sprite. How does someone that knows what they are talking about get that mixed up? They dont...
anyway, my story has been the same on here. I dont care if you believe it or not that wasn't my intention. The point was that you dont know what you're talking about but are pretending that you do. You clearly dont though.
So, back to the topic. The records are sealed. We get what they tell us regardless of if its true or not. We never got to see photos of the classroom, the guns, lanza, the kids, autopsy reports, police recordings..nothing. That is enough to know something is afoot. My own personal stuff doesnt matter. What I just said is enough.
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
Yes my phone auto corrected Sandy Hook to Sandy Hill because there is a town near me that I've typed alot more than Sandy Hook and my account is only a month old. Must mean I'm a shill or a bot or a Trump supporter or something else you can conjure up from literally 0 facts.
Can you please show me a mass shooting where the police have given out all of their investigations, crime photos, statements and whatever else to the public? I'll wait patiently but I already know there is no precedent for that so it's such a ridiculous argument to use.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
even the LV shooting has released body cam footage and audio recordings to the public and there is a ton of funky stuff going on with that one.
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
So I'm correct that you cannot show another mass murder where all the things you are saying were released essentially making your entire argument based on something you can't prove or defend ad there is no precedent where it has happened before.
GG kiddo
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
Nothing else? Sad that your argument folded so quickly when only asked for proof what you were asking for had happened before. Oh to be 14 again.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
you're still talking? I proved you wrong with the most recent mass shooting in vegas releasing tapes and audio
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
You have been asking for crime scene photos and autopsy reports and pictures of children's dead bodies. You didn't even come CLOSE to proving me wrong, the only thing you proved is that you can't stay on point with an argument. You've been all over the place and can't answer my one question, which other mass murder in history has released all the info you are asking for to the public. Absolutely none. You are arguing in circles and I feel you're not nearly as intelligent as you try to front.
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
Instead of showing all this evidence that doesn't exist from other mass shootings you just down vote me like a little school girl 🤣🤣
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Not at all, it's basic Problem > Reaction > Solution at work
They want to ban guns, they start with faking school shootings, it's the best way to change laws and public opinion.
Look into this more and you'll soon discover it's another hoax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI6zOKnRZ7I
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
There is no conspiracy to ban guns. This is the largest crock of horse shit I've heard among the conspiracy gurus.
1 ShitHitsTheMan 2017-12-27
So is your claim that restrictive gun legislation was NOT passed as a result of Sandy Hook or is your claim that the laws that were passed had nothing to do with Sandy Hook?
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Most of the ban guns stuff is out in the open, it is just the fake shootings which are the conspiracy part
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
What bill had tried to ban guns?
1 rougekhmero 2017-12-27
This line of thinking always leads me to the question...WHY?
Would it not be far easier to have someone (in one way or another or another) carry out such a heinous act and use it to further whatever agenda it ends up getting hitched to, rather than totally fabricate/hoax/fake whatever is being hypothesized, and have to rely on dozens (or even hundreds) of people to keep quiet, and comply with the fakery?
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Looks like this is where it's all gone wrong with the Sandy Hook hoax, that's why it's gone wrong so badly. Next time expect them to go with the real thing
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
thats not necessary. all you have to do is show one discrepancy, per boolean algebra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra
1 perfect_pickles 2017-12-27
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
aka
false in one, false in all
1 TerribleTherapist 2017-12-27
So then in reverse, a single discrepancy in any theory or story proves it's all false?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
the burden of proof is on those making the allegations, not on those questioning the allegations
you can accuse adam lanza of a heinous crime, without evidence, and the turn around and say its my responsibility to prove that adam lanza didn't do it?
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
No, there is an absurd amount of evidence.
You just ignore it all because... well, who knows this time?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
please describe the evidence that convinced you that adam lanza killed anyone
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
I don't really care to find it - i'm not a prosecutor.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i hope you never have the opportunity to serve on a jury
the people deserve better than you
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
Yeah, you keep pretending you're smart.
It's like asking me why the serial killer in Florida killed a bunch of random people. Fuck if I know? it doesnt matter to me. He still did it. Do I have the evidence the prosecutors and police have? Nope. Am I such a dimwit that I think anything I can't directly see is fake? Nope!
Let's be realistic here: You're a schizo. You need serious, serious help - along with all other SHoaxers
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
well, you still believe that men walked on the moon,
so by comparison i guess maybe i am
It's like asking me why the serial killer in Florida killed a bunch of random people.
why would you believe that a serial killer in Florida killed a bunch of random people?
simply because CNN said so? simply because a government official said so?
why don't we just close down the courts and let prosecutors incarcerate people on his opinion alone?
why would you believe that someone did something in spite of there being no evidence? has it ever occurred to you that supposedly "guilty" people are acquitted or exonerated every week in the USA?
so, you readily admit that you aren't privy to any evidence, but that you are 100% adam lanza is guilty?
how do you reconcile that with the right to a fair trial and due process?
if i accused you of a heinous crime, wouldn't you expect for someone to have to prove it in an open, fair trial?
but you are such a dimwit that you believe everything you see on CNN
to illustrate my point, all i have to do is ask for an example of something you saw on CNN that you were skeptical about. you will never produce an answer, because you have never been skeptical, in spite of being lied to by the media about men walking on the moon
lets be realistic here. you aren't qualified to diagnose mental illnesses, and your experience with mental illness probably comes from your failed treatments
saw your dumb ass coming 6 months ago
https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccine/comments/6j38rz/polyslaws_on_understanding/?st=jbq1egsv&sh=dca66bd4
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
No, you're just dumb.
You know I left out the whole jury thing because even a child could connect the dots here.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
says the guy who assumes he is smart
well maybe you should include the jury next time instead of assuming everyone knows what you are talking about
has it ever occurred to you that supposedly "guilty" people are acquitted or exonerated every week in the USA?
OJ Simpson? George Zimmerman?
(both fake news stories, btw, but since you don't know that they will suffice as examples)
no you don't. you assume Sandy Hook happened, merely because someone told you so, but without providing any actual evidence.
that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
i don't think its unreasonable to have to prove they have the right suspect.
what if the real perp(s) were still at large, like what happened with the botched Anthrax investigation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
so you know that 9/11 is a false flag hoax, and that Mossad and CIA are behind it?
20 years ago i was getting paid to tutor calculus to college kids.
something tells me you don't even know what a limit is
1 travel-bound 2017-12-27
You're literally doing the thing people are talking about. You're shifting the burden of proof instead of providing proof for an outrageous claim. I don't care what anyone believes, the burden of proof in this case is clearly on the side of people who think it was all a hoax. I'd love to see some proof, but this kind of proof shifting or "look for yourself" is all I ever hear. Which it's why it's easy for most people to instantly dismiss any claim that it's a hoax. Because their desire to believe it's a hoax seems to be far greater than the ability to provide evidence.
1 Lsdnyc 2017-12-27
can you tell me what happened to all of the dead people?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
can you prove that anyone died? i haven't seen any proof that adam lanza ever died, or that he ever lived, for that matter
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
What would convince you? Someone saying they know someone who died doesn't convince you. A parent on TV saying their child died doesn't convince you. Would a death certificate convince you? I doubt it--you'd just say it was a fraud. So tell us what your burden of proof is.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
why don't you simply describe the evidence that convinced you, instead of asking about the evidence that convinced me.
you are the one who thinks adam lanza is this monster who killed a bunch of kids. why don't you just prove it instead of making unsubstantiated allegations?
1 rougekhmero 2017-12-27
You're doing it again. The common belief/story (regardless of what you believe) is out there. You are simply being asked a question, not even a hostile one. I'll even rephrase it:
What, specifically, has led you to conclude that this didn't happen/was a hoax/no one died? That's it.
What is your reason for believing this, as opposed to the reported/commonly held story?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
please "show me" an obituary that was NOT written by the Associated Press
1 rougekhmero 2017-12-27
That isn't an answer to my question. I want to have my mind changed. I want you to show me the light, oh sanctimonious internet teenager.
What, specifically, has led you to conclude that this didn't happen/was a hoax/no one died?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
NON AP obituaries or GTFO
this isn't unreasonable
you say kids died
I'm asking for obituaries
how hard can it be?
you google right?
https://www.ixquick.com/do/search?query=sandy%20hook%20shooting%20obituaries
1 rougekhmero 2017-12-27
I didn't say kids died. In fact, i deliberately avoided trying to provide any inkling of what i may or may not think happened. I simply asked you to elaborate on your claims.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
how about you find an obituary that was NOT written by the AP, to convince yourself that kids actually died?
better yet, why not find obituaries at the Newtown Bee?
oh thats right, you can't find those obituaries anymore because the Newtown Bee inexplicably deleted them
hmm
i wonder why the AP would copyright someone's obituary, instead of the family just doing their own and including basic info like most other obituaries, like grandparents, parents, siblings, preceded in death by, survived by etc
http://www.legacy.com/ns/avielle-richman-obituary/161726376
1 rougekhmero 2017-12-27
O....K...
Interesting, i suppose? I'm not sure why standard issue newspaper copyright and/or why it would be strange or proof of hoax that the newspaper wrote the obituaries.
You may be right about it, but can you explain to me why this specifically leads you personally to believe that no one died at Sandy Hook?
I just want YOU to tell ME the points that make YOU believe this specific hypothesis.
A
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
Interesting, i suppose? I'm not sure why standard issue newspaper copyright and/or why it would be strange or proof of hoax that the newspaper wrote the obituaries.
two things are fishy to me
every obituary is attributed to the AP
and the Newtown Bee deleted all of their Sandy Hook obituaries
well this particular detail about the obituaries is a bit obscure, and you will probably not hear anyone mention it outside of this thread, which is why you were probably taken aback by the argument
i actually used to believe that the sandy hook shooting was real, and didn't question it too much
but then the boston marathon bombing happened and that was obviously fake
and the some of the same crisis actors started showing up at different events
one "false witness" showed up in 3 different places, and her acting skills are very bad
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=adriana+victoria+munoz
that is not the entirely of the body of evidence, but its a good place to start
1 rougekhmero 2017-12-27
Ok. So here's the thing, purely in the interest of clarity.
When you say 'fake', you are referring to the fact that at Sandy Hook (and other such far-to-common false flag violent events), people weren't killed, and it was purely a fabrication, acted out like an avant-garde theatre piece, packaged with a bow, and delivered up by Anderson Cooper, yeah?
If so, i disagree with you there, and i'll come back to that, but i don't contest your right to believe it (of course).
Here's where i think we can agree;
You referenced other events, and generally believe in a massive shadowy corporo-military-industrial-mass-media-complex that behind the scenes is controlling/exploiting/doing/faking (as a single example of many and more) these ever-frequent displays of grandiose violence.
Of course, this is a tiny shred of the explanation of all the global connections of something we might as well refer to as the 'New World Order,' only because many in the moderately-recent past have accurately foretold what was to come and they oft referred to it as such. We are seeing it manifest now more than ever. They are getting sloppier and less shadowed by the day, and are throwing our world into chaos with a specific purpose -- to have dominion over our hearts and minds.
I certainly believe that there are some startling similarities in many of these cases (the aforementioned Boston event, the Colorado Theatre Shooting, etc) in the way that they are presented, packaged, swiftly swept under the rug of our collective saturated media feedback-loops. I could go on forever. That's why were here, in the conspiracy sub.
Make no mistake, we see the same enemy. However, one of the tactics i've seen used over and over again, and far more frequently as our world has evolved into this hyper-connected, post-modern social hellscape is on display here, coming from you.
Now, i won't claim to know if you are directly and deliberately steering these conversations down these obscure and twisted rabbit-holes with the specific intention of pulling the wool over others' eyes distracting them from the ever-reaching scale of the current political/socioeconomic/etc landscape.
Nor will i say with confidence that your nitpicking and misdirected focus on small details of specific events is more of a compulsion, because the powers that be have deliberately led you (and others) there, with the same intentions and result of distracting the rest of us and keeping our focus within a severely limited spectrum, while they are gallivanting around scorching the earth, hoarding the wealth, and pillaging resources to prepare for the coming collapse.
The point is, whether you personally believe that people died or not shouldn't logically be the topic of discussion. It's this alone that leaves me suspect to your intentions. I've believed for years (i've been here quite a long time, on sequential accounts) that the cry of 'SHILL!' is far too common (now more than ever) on this board, and often comes with no explanation other than a disagreement, more often than not on small details of specific events that, in the grand scheme, are irrelevant. However, it's hard for me to feel like i couldn't make a good argument for that very declaration.
The true, critical argument lies on an entire dimension higher than the 2D eternity of these disputes. We need to be exploring our common held beliefs, and i posit that they exist in a 3 dimensional universe. The shadowy, 'NWO', 'illuminati' (whatever you want to call it) exists. They are fighting harder than ever in a war for our minds, attention, vulnerabilities, souls.
We must stop this descent into madness. The absolute best weapon TPTB have in this war is their ability to keep us squabbling over crudely drawn lines. So long we remain under their boot shaking fists at each other, we will never see who really weighs heaviest on the scales of modern society.
Our numbers will never be realized. Our common goal of exposing, stopping, spreading awareness, WHATEVER of those that would exploit, control, deceive, MURDER us to further their goals of absolute totalitarian rule, maintain the integrity of their hierarchy of absolute violence, and distract us from the fact that none of us are getting tickets to the Denver Airport doomsday bunker when they decide to start firing nukes at each other.
Is Sandy Hook another in a long list of suspicious PSYchological OPerationS of the powers that be? Absolutely. We could go deep into every event, and find a million little connections, deliberately false COunterINTELligence PROgramming, etc. But what is common about them, who is ultimately perpetrating these operations, who is benefiting, how, and why? These are the questions we need to be exploring.
So you may believe in your heart that Sandy Hook (and possibly others) was merely an act of theatre, with no victims. I would suggest that you don't scream that at people who believe that kids died. I know this could be spun out of context to sound almost preposterous, but honestly the event, 'real' victims or not, is used in THE EXACT SAME MANNER, regardless of the truth.
So, you can see how, for those people who believe real bullets tore through the real flesh of real children that day, might mistake this barrage of an ultimately irrelevant argument as a deliberate method of keeping the conversation on specifically mega-obscure singular points of contention. To further the agenda of, AT ALL COSTS, impeding the ability of the common, working class, ninety-nine percent of us uniting against them in any way.
So it's actually up to you, what other people believe in the end. Are you working for them, and is this on purpose (kids died)? Or have you been led down this path following the dangling carrot of sanctimony (there weren't victims)? It doesn't matter either way, you are a shill, or you have been misled deliberately by those that would have you distracted. It's up to you, really.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
perhaps Karl Rove explained it best
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you 're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.
you suspect my intentions because I'm telling you that most of the "news" you see on TV is not in-fact "news" but is actually scripted and planned well in advance?
you whine about me getting hung up on small details
the same "small" details that are used to convict criminals in court every week?
if anything is suspicious, it is the ignoring of inconvenient facts that can't be explained away without contradicting the official story
i suspect the reason people get called shills is because they behave like shills
we have all read the Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies. we all know how COINTELPRO works
https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
now if you want to be technically correct, its hard to distinguish an actual shill from a useful idiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
of course this creates a conflict because i prefer not to assume people are stupid, but the alternative is that they are a shill.
but then again, its hard to believe that some people can be so stupid as to how they process facts, data, evidence, etc that you almost have to assume they are just pretending to be stupid. again, the alternative is shill
did you just make this up, or did you plagiarize it from some other idiot?
agreed
i dont scream
people need to hear controversy, whether it makes them uncomfortable or not
theres really nothing obscure about my presentation. everything is properly cited
i give a short description and a link to relevant source or screen cap documentation for material that is no longer available
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/dru28s8/
um, pretty much everyone on this sub knows that Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon Bombing were hoaxes.
if anyone is preventing the people from coming together, its you, the odd man out, who refuses to join us in the reality based community
im a shill, for poking holes in the official story?
you have a very vivid imagination, but unfortunately your arguments do not add up
here is a list of "small details" that i will be presenting to the sub here shortly
you can get a headstart on your talking points, its gonna be a long night
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6b1cjp/explain/dhj8tmg/?context=3
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
This one doesn't appear to be copyrighted by anyone.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/newstimes/obituary.aspx?pid=161771440
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
hmm thats odd
i wonder who the original author is, because this obituary is being plagiarized and edited without attribution to the original content creator
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/102204942
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
Obituaries routinely have small changes from site to site. It seems like I found an example of something that goes against your narrative, so now you have to switch your narrative. You said, "find me an obit that isn't written or copyrighted by the AP" and I did.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
your source seems to circle back to AP and Reuters
http://graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-connecticut-school-shooting/
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
No it doesn't. That "obit" is clearly different and actually quotes the original obit written by the family.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
tineye.com the photo and you can see who all plagiarized it without attribution
https://tineye.com/search/fd840abf17796ccdf3264998f446db0dcbb772c0/?page=2&sort=crawl_date&order=desc
1 mentionbeinglawyer 2017-12-27
I don't see your point about "plagiarizing." It's an obituary.
As far as the original, what do you mean? The obit would have been printed in dozens of newspapers over the course of several days, with various changes added by the different newspapers.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
hmm. so i can take that photograph, host it on my blog, and write something about it that may or may not be copy-paste from other sources, and i don't have to give a photo credit?
1 idoitforthekeks 2017-12-27
Can we be friends irl?
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
These people have no standards.
You could provide them with multiple 1080p video angles and a ticket to the morgue to view the corpses and they would still find a way to weasel out of making a point.
1 Fighter9595 2017-12-27
Nobody died at Sandy Hook by James H. Fetzer. Was banned from Amazon but I found a PDF online
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
that dude is sketchy af, kinda like wolfgang halbig
i suspect they are judas goats
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Not selling his garbage =/= banned
1 TryhardPantiesON 2017-12-27
Here is the book Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
1 c2media 2017-12-27
By two independent investigative journalists. It's a good one. Print it out, bind it, and pass it around.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
The Robbie Parker laughing video is always a good one to open minds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAwUU2UqOYE
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
insert scripted comment about how you wouldn't know how a dad would react to having his kid murdered and that laughing and getting into character to go on TV are perfectly normal parts of the grieving process
1 naturalproducer 2017-12-27
Yep, everyone grieves differently. Except, of course, if you're family of a Sandy Hook victim where everyone smiles and laughs through the grieving process.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
last thing said in video
"doesn't even seem real"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiG8ushJzTM
they insert these little clues to mock the masses,
and perhaps as some sort of psychological trick where people think the opposite of what you say, for example heres some things that fake witnesses will say
"it seemed like a movie, and..."
"this sounds crazy, but..."
"it was all just so surreal..."
and of course my personal favorite template for scripted false witness accounts:
"we were doing __, and thats when _!"
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
Not unheard of as coping mechanism. There are quite some studies about it and if you have some life experience you would know that people behave a lot really awkward when processing something horrible.
I mean if he was an actor I somehow doubt that he would fail to do his job right then when it counts, even though he knows exactly that cameras are there.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
can you show me any real tears?
i can understand one dad maybe coping with his grief thru humor, but everybody?
even Obama wiped away obviously fake tears from his eyes
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1634&bih=1111&ei=F_hDWtnRDMLRjwTx6aDgDA&q=Obama+Sandy+Hook+fake+tears&oq=Obama+Sandy+Hook+fake+tears&gs_l=img
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
I cant because I dint care enough about the topic to make research.
However if the conspiracy theory is that someone did this to cover up something then they would hire some actors, right? However that goes rightly against what we just saw: someone behaving seemingly totally irrational in probably the most extreme situation of his life. An actor would stay in persona. Even a mediocre actor would be able to do that.
We laugh in a lot of situations. Some are awkward laughs in totally unfitting situations. Humans are weird.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
how stereotypically American of you!
no, the conspiracy theory is that they were crisis actors from the get go, not people brought in after the fact to hide something.
Good actors go to Hollywood. Mediocre actors become crisis actors. if these crisis actors had any real acting talent, they would be on Broadway or Hollywood, not pretending to be grieving parents at a fake shooting
you still haven't provided me with a single genuine tear that was shed because of Sandy Hook
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
You dont need to be a talented actor to be a what you call a "crisis actor". As I said even a mediocre actor can do that. Its the fundamental of his job. Furthermore the assumption that all good actors end up in broadway or hollywood is ridiculous. There are a shit ton of actors.
It just makes no sense that this conspiracy theory revolves around some huge cover-up that if real, needed several hundreads of thousands if not million bucks. But then of course they are gonna pick the one actor that cannot stop smiling.
If you think its a huge cover up you need to give them some credit. Otherwise you are just cherrypicking in order to believe a fantasy.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i dont use the phrase "cover up" to describe sandy hook
i use the more appropriate word "hoax" to describe sandy hook
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
and with what goal?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
well, to be blunt, the goal seems to be the dumbing down of america
and if you are any indication, their plan seems to be working well
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
A tragedy dumbs america down? And I am an indication for it because I know that even mediocre actors can atleast stay in role?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
fake news dumbs down america
exhibit A
https://i.redd.it/88x6kh681b301.png
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
What do you think, how much money would they need for this hoax?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
probably a lot less than it would take to actually go to the moon, which is still technologically impossible for everyone except NASA
http://whale.to/c/how_stanley_kubrick_faked.html
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
so still a shit ton? And with all that money you think its plausible that they find that one actor that doesnt even understand the fundamental of his job? t makes no sense to me how one can think that this is a super organised conspiracy but then somehow fail massively on the simplest part of the job.
Its odd, not to say implausible isnt it?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
not even the highest paid NBA player can make 100% of his free throws.
your argument about them having too much money to make mistakes is not very convincing to me
i actually wrote this piece about the math and science of the moon landings. you can find my name in top right corner
https://i.redd.it/88x6kh681b301.png
doesn't matter how much money you print, you still can't defy the laws of physics for long
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
Its not about having too much money. Its about either believing this is a full-scale conspiracy but then you also got to give them some credit. It just makes no sense to believe they undergo this huge operation but then fail at the easy step. After all this isnt just failing at his job. This would ne straightout not doing his job. Not doing the preparation in any kind. Furthermore also this press conference would be organized. Dont you think there would be an organizer to tell him: htey get in persona?
Again you just give nobody else credit, but somehow think you are more educated on this stuff. Thousands of people have come into contact with this subject. Thousands of educated people who really know about this stuff and are obsessed with it. Yet you, who for sure has no educational background in this, are the one that uncovers this with some of the most basic law of physics.
You cant think people are supermind, orchestrating conspiracies in plain field but then fail at the basics.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
those are your words, not mine.
you cling the word "conspiracy" because it gives you the warm fuzzy feeling of being harmless fiction rather than cold facts
like that time you spent months and years preparing to get your drivers license and practicing being a good driver, but then you went and got a ticket anyway?
it could be argued that he did his job very well, since he seems to have utterly fooled you with his acting skills
why is that an argument? can't you see him getting into his persona before its time to deliver his scripted lines?
and your argument is that you didn't see anyone coach him, so it didn't happen, in spite of it being on camera for the world to see?
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
You said its a hoax with the goal to make americans dumber. I still dont realize how that would work, but thats quite the definition of a conspiracy. But its right: as of now its just a conspiracy theory at best. I mean taking irrational human behaviour in an extreme situation as facts... come on.
whataboutism at its best. I dont say actors are unfailable. However if you assume this is a thoroughly planned show there obviously went a lot of ressources into it. And if thats the case then mistakes are quite rare - they can happen, very rare though. On the other hand you have studies or life experiences of people in unfamiliar or extreme situations acting irrationally. I think we both know which case is more likely. So taking this as an evidence for smth is absurd.
Which one is it now? He wasnt in character or he did it intentionally?
In any case obviously if he put a whole crying show or whatever on then also the one that doubts him wouldnt doubt him. Therefor as an actor its not a good job.
Do you think they didnt know that there were cameras right there in his face? See thats the problem. On one hand you think its a big hoax, that obviously needed carefully planning, but on the other hand you act like they are stupid dorks. Choose.
No I said that one would have told him to fucking get in persona and he would stay in persona from then on. He wouldnt break out just right before delivering his lines.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
yes, this is a well known phenomenon thats been going on for generations
pay attention here this next part is important:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)
those members of the audience who are mentally retarded...
he's talking about you,
and your parents, and your grandparents, and everyone else you know
but of course, since you are stupid, you will immediately translate this uncomfortable revelation into:
"those members of the audience who are mentally retarded...everyone except me... because I'm smarter than the other audience members..."
you don't realize how it works, because you are dumb, and you are dumb by design. your education is designed to turn you into a complete idiot
and belief in men walking on the moon is all the proof you ever need to know that your education is working just as it was designed to work.
so, because a crime matches the description of a conspiracy, it must therefore not actually be a crime, because every conspiracy is just a theory, and every theory is baseless and wrong?
the mental gymnastics you must go thru to keep this all straight in your mind must be olympics worthy
lets see:
Nazi's doing a Holocaust sounds like it matches the description of a conspiracy, so therefore the Holocaust must be a conspiracy theory, which means the Holocaust is baseless and never happened.
help me out please
help me understand why the holocaust is NOT a conspiracy.
your myths are so absurd that they should not even be dignified with a response
to illustrate where you are in life
you: Santa Claus is coming!
everyone else: Santa is a myth
you: Conspiracy?
everyone else: no, just a stupid myth that little kids believe
you: my mom and dad are in on it? surely you jest!
everyone else: yes, your mom and dad are assholes who lie to little kids
you: Conspiracy Theory!
everyone else: call it what you want, but Santa Claus is a myth, and he's not coming to your house to eat milk and cookies
you: but if Santa Claus is a conspiracy theory, then that must mean Santa Claus is real and he's coming!
everyone else: pats you on the head, and agrees that
Yes Virginia, Santa Claus is real
there is an entire subculture dedicated to finding plot holes etc in movies. if Hollywood can't even make a movie without an error in it, why would you expect B grade crisis actors to do any better?
you really don't have any basis for saying these mistakes are "rare" do you? its just an opinion presented as a fact?
here is a list of several examples of the media making mistakes, and 50 up-votes by skeptics and critics lend credibility to the list
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6b1cjp/explain/dhj8tmg/?context=3
it doesn't really matter what you think of the evidence i am focused on
what matters is that the official story has failed to convince me that adam lanza killed anyone
the story is not mine either way. its your story. and the "evidence" for your story is extremely lacking
if i was on adam lanza jury, i would not vote guilty
and if you were on adam lanza jury, you'd have no basis to vote guilty either
i seriously doubt "Robbie Parker" is even a real person. his name sounds as fake as the names on the 9/11 death list
In any case obviously if he put a whole crying show or whatever on then also the one that doubts him wouldnt doubt him. Therefor as an actor its not a good job.
yeah, fake tears are hard to do. he's just a man, can't expect alligator tears on demand
ill go with "stupid dorks" for $200 Alex
https://i.redd.it/yx1wjvoqei601.png
see, one of the reasons that your owners keep fooling you, is because you keep allowing yourself to be fooled
for example, you probably got a flu shot in spite of the flu shot only being 10% effective this year.
and what do you base this opinion on? your personal experience in fake crying on camera?
have you ever noticed that "normies" tend to imagine something and then blurt out out as fact?
for example, a normie might hear about a human trafficking sting on his TV news, but then he immediately thinks to himself,
"its too big of a conspiracy! someone would talk!"
and then presents to the world his un-supported opinion as if it was fact, and expects everyone else to follow along and agree that its too big of a conspiracy and that someone would talk, and so therefore the human trafficking sting must just be another wild-eyed conspiracy theory, and why is this nonsense on my TV?
you see? you "imagine" that someone would tell "Robbie Parker" to get into persona, but you don't actually have any evidence to support that opinion
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
damn now comes the full pot of crazy.
Doesnt that just perfectly describe you who thinks that you figured out the moon landing was fake? However a shit ton of people who are more educated than you, having access to the same ressources and even more than you did not figure it out? Somehow you are the one that solved that mystery by just applying basic law of physics. Because... everyone else is retarded? All except you?
What are you talking about? The holocaust was carried out in secret, or atleast there were some attempts to keep what exactly was going on in the concentration camps secret. A conspiracy of the nazis against jews and other persons they didnt like.
Conspiracy and conspiracy theory arent the same. And just cause there are a lot of conspiratards around who smell conspiracies at about everything even though it doesnt make sense or there is no evidence or indication, it doesnt mean that all conspiracies are just by definition fake.
There are people who got into jail for stuff like that.
You are projecting a lot man. Maybe try to approach the world with a less biased view.
I have absolutely no fucking clue what you tried to said there. Maybe you should try to come up with arguments rather than "whataboutisms". Thats the lowest form of arguing - if it can be described as arguing.
This is not a plothole. This would be a blooper. How many blooper are there in hollywood films?
Are... are you disputing the fact that TV shows, lets take late night shows, with more ressources have very rarely mistakes in them? Like a wrong camera, someone walking to stage too early, someone breaking out of character... I mean... where do you think the ressources go to? I am so confused. Are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing?
It is evidence. Evidence that a man just laughed on camera. its not evidence for either theory, but there is one theory that is more likely. IF you want to choose the other theory thats fine. But its ridiculous to call it evidence.
Its not my story. I dont really know the case. Some psycho went amok and killed some people at a school. Crazy stuff, but not unheard off that it happens. I dont know the evidence they had, I just commented on the video that you presented as your evidence, which certainly isnt that.
IS there a conspiracy theory you dont believe?
no need for tears, just not laugh then you wouldnt have reason to post the video. However the question was whether he is a good or bad actor. First you called him a good actor then a bad one. You twist a lot of things.
So they are stupid dorks, yet got to enough power and money to orchestrate such things. Does that seem plausible to you?
However to put it with your words: those members of the audience who are mentally retarded...everyone except me... because I'm smarter than the other audience members...
Nah people who had a really tough diagnosis but were laughing hysterically minutes later. People who put on a smile at a funeral despite obviously not being happy. Myself having awkward laughs in stressfull situations that certainly wouldnt warrant it.
I dont want to play the hypocrisy game but come on... really? You just imagined that this is an actor and are defending this like it is an obvious fact. If he is an actor, why dont you go around and find where he went to school? or where he performed before of that? Or did they just convince a bunch of randoms in the same area to do that?
Where did I say I have? You keep accusing me of imagining things, yet you either twist my words or imagine that I say things. Alike what you do when you imagine this video is evidence.
Take it for what it is.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
nobody is born believing that men walked on the moon
people have to be fooled into believing it
you seem to have this persistent delusion that you are in a majority of people who believe that men have walked on the moon, but i assure you, you are in a rapidly shrinking minority. the kids today have smart phones, and they can watch a youtube video like this one, which has been seen 1 million times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4
the kids can watch the lunar lander launch on youtube and discuss how un-convincing the special effects are
https://youtu.be/BMBcLg0DkLA?t=21s
im not making this up, this actually happened to me at school
7th grade, Mr Brown's class. we are studying science? social studies? or whatever
and we are learning about the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, a tribe of ancient hunter gathers who exist to this very day, by living like savages and eating ostrich eggs as snacks.
the tone of the lesson seems to have been that white people were advanced and civilized, and black people were ignorant, illiterate savages who live in mud huts and wear loin cloths to work ...
and then later the moon landing myth comes up ...
and Mr Brown told us, and i quote "some ignorant African's think that the moon landing is a hoax"
what would you say to Mr Brown if he told your kids that?
so, just to summarize thus far
you are NOT in a majority of people who believe that men have walked on the moon. the vast majority of people have never believed this absurd myth. it is only a small handful of people who have been fooled into believing this myth in the last 50 years.
compare this to the Jesus myth which has been believed by Billions of people over thousands of years
are you the genius for figuring out that Jesus is a myth? I'm sure you tell yourself that
you just outed yourself as a /r/conspiratard
definition of conspiratard: someone who is so stupid that they can't even understand a conspiracy after its been explained to them repeatedly
http://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia/
enough that they have a word for it?
your argument that actors are perfect because they are paid well is contradicted by this study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
why isn't is "ridiculous to call it evidence" when you cite this exact same video as "evidence" that a man's child died at Sandy Hook?
seems "evidence" is what ever provides confirmation bias, huh?
well i do know the case. and I'm here to tell you that nobody died at the sandy hook shooting
maybe you should re-consider your strategy of arguing on a topic that you know nothing about, with someone who has spent the last several years researching it?
i used to believe then what you believe now, because all i knew then is all you know now.
but when i actually looked at the evidence, i had to admit i was wrong, and admit i had been fooled, and admit that my media and government has been behaving badly, using staged, scripted, fake news, propaganda to push an agenda of shifting public opinion on certain topics like gun control or foreign policy
why has this been normalized to you? you pretend that its an every day occurrence that someone walks into a school and kills 20 kids, but its actually unprecedented
what has happened is that you have spent a lifetime of watching TV and have been brainwashed to assume that mass shootings are commonplace, because they stage mass shootings so frequently, and hype them in the news like a boogie man to scare the people into complacence with things like the PATRIOT act
I dont know the evidence they had, I just commented on the video that you presented as your evidence, which certainly isnt that.
i don't believe that 19 radical muslim hijackers lead by Osama bin Laden successfully attacked the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11
thats one of the most absurd conspiracy theories I've ever heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
show me the real tears shed for sandy hook
stupid is as stupid does
these people may have a high IQ, but they do stupid things like fake the news.
they may have seemed clever when they were actually getting away with it years ago
but they are not so clever in todays age of instant communication.
actually, it was the other way around. i began by "imagining" that this man was a grieving father who lost his child in a mass shooting, mostly because thats what the media wanted me to imagine.
but then later it become obvious that this was just another active shooter drill, like those that happen every week in schools across America
so when you figure out that nobody died at sandy hook,
that the supposed "kids" who were killed were actually just photographed years prior to the event and allowed to grow into a different looking kid, usually presented to the public as an older sibling, such as those who were presented at the Super Bowl
yes, an inexplicably high number of these "families" moved to the area in the years preceding the incident, and many have left the area since then. many of them had closing on their house on the same day. the people were brought in to do the job
the thing that you really need to understand is that you will never figure out Sandy Hook, because its so far in the past and too much of the evidence has disappeared
but the good news is, that the next time they stage a mass shooting, you will automatically know its a fake news event, and proceed to scrutinize the evidence much more closely than you ever have before
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
That an opinion that you turn into a fact? what you accused of me?
Why do you think the comments and the likes are turned off on the video? because all of the 1.5 M liked the video or agree with it?
opinion turned into fact, purely by the force of your mind.
Compare religion to an actual occurence? Also thousands of years is a strange way to put it for a figure that lived 2000 years ago.
However you dispute the simply fact that people actually can get to the moon. You do so by using basic physics. So why do you get it, yet thousands (more than 2000) of people who study that shit dont come to the same conclusion? Are they all retards and you the golden exception?
Or are they just more knowledgable and you talk out of your ass?
I asked you how many of them you see IN a movie.
I didnt say they are perfect. Why do you say so mindless things? I say staying in character is one of the basics. More so if it is "live".
when did I cite that as evidence? Why do you have a hard-on for putting words in my mouth? Cant you just attack my arguments without either a) talk about some other random bullshit; b) make up stuff that I never said.
Then why dont you take said evidence and go ahead to sue people? or are all courts of the US in on this?
Its not an everyday occurence, but its certainly not the first time that some psycho runs wild. Also not in a school. No clue about the exact death number, maybe thats really unprecedented. Its a rare occurrence for sure, but to say it again so you dont put words in my mouth its not unheard of.
Why do you act now like that is the conspiracy theory? You know exactly what my question is aimed at. Is there any conspiracy theory that stayed a theory for years and years, only supported by some crazyheads that you do not believe? Or are all of them true?
Are they clever now or are they not? And how does instant communication plays into this?
So they cut all their ties? I mean their families must have saw them. Or friends or whatever.
So this clever, stupid dorks (sorry I am getting confused signals if they are smart now or not) hired a shit ton of people, whom they all had to pay. All huge liabilities, since any of them could speak up. Or any of their families. But they go along with the plan, paying each and everyone of them lets say... 100k bucks. Not only them: also police officers, the ones who would need to fake documents and what not. Several millions.
The motive is still unclear. Just making people dumber. Not sure how but lets ignore that for a moment. You see: a whole lot of effort that takes a shitload of money, risks and persons.
Why not pay one single crazy man to really do it? To go around a school and shoot up some kids and teachers? Then let him escape and accuse the guy that they accused anyway and is innocent according to you.
Were all mass shootings fake news?
1 petepanda125 2017-12-27
you really can't know how people react to grief. This is a weird ass reaction, I agree, but it's not proof something happened.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
I agree it's not proof something happened.
1 TheRadChad 2017-12-27
Looks like he's prepping for a scene
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
he is. he's getting into character for the camera
1 naturalproducer 2017-12-27
Robbie Parker the grieving father.
LMFAO
1 perfect_pickles 2017-12-27
why is there a hint of the aged Hawkins smile in that picture.
very odd.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I don't get it...there is nothing strange in that video. He's a nervous man with a forced smile. How is that a problem?
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
you dont seriously believe that do you?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Yeah...I do. So do most people who have seen it. There is nothing suspicious or weird in that video. He looks like a grieving man who is nervous because he's about to talk in front of a bunch of people.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
Actually, everything is suspicious and weird in that video. He looks like a man getting into character because he's about to act in front of a bunch of people.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Nothing is suspicious in that video. No, he doesn't look like a man getting into character. Seriously. How do people come up with this nonsense.
It's right there on video. There is nothing abnormal about that. I feel like 90% of the problems in this group originate from them not being able to recognize perfectly normal human behavior.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
Everything is suspicious in that video. Its completely obvious that hes getting into character. Seriously. How do people not recognize something so blatant
It's right there on video. There is nothing normal about that. I feel like 90% of the problems in this group originate from them not being able to recognize perfectly abnormal human behavior.
1 BeLucky 2017-12-27
Why did they bulldoze the school after it all happened?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
to hide the evidence?
https://www.ixquick.com/do/search?query=gary%20caradori
1 perfect_pickles 2017-12-27
to hide the fact that 'SHES' never was a school for children, its was something to do with Fairfield, the round hospital windows in the interior doors proved that, the armored windowed reception office too.
not a school
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i like the part where they walk around in circles and try to look busy for the cameras
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sandy+hook+walking+in+circles
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Image. This isn't uncommon. Murder houses are bulldozed all the time because they have the memory attached to them.
It also may have been cheaper to rebuild from scratch than to refurbish, and so insurance demod it.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
dont forget the ones involved in tearing it down also had to sign NDAs
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
So? That's normal. They were doing deconstruction on an emotionally charged crime-scene, where discoveries could have led to civil liabilities.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
its not normal
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Really. What are you basing that claim on?
1 snappyM 2017-12-27
So what's the conspiracy? Nothing has changed since these attacks. I see no gun restrictions or anything for that matter.
1 Warlord2_2 2017-12-27
A few states implemented tighter gun measures following Sandy Hook. I live in MD and remember the gun ban announcement after SH happened. The line for guns was huge and the wait list was the longest the state has ever seen. Not saying that was a conspiracy or anything to effect of a national wide thing... but it did impact some states.
1 snappyM 2017-12-27
Thanks.
1 Drbarke 2017-12-27
Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a sec there big guys. You need to disagree and continue arguing. This thread should continue on and on for at least 15 paragraphs. We can't have this kind of civil discourse happening around here.
1 voluntaryisolation 2017-12-27
The New York SAFE Act was another reaction to the event.
1 NoNameMonkey 2017-12-27
By that logic it makes more sense that gun manufacturers commit mass shootings to sell guns. The mas shootings never get your guns taken - they improve gun sales. (I don't believe that but there is more evidence for that than any mass program of false flag attacks that don't achieve any gun restrictions)
1 Warlord2_2 2017-12-27
Agreed, proof is every time a 'mass' shooting or other event happens - certain people across numerous spectrums state there will be a gun grab. I'm sure those yelling about a grab are deeply invested somewhere.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
Connecticut passed more gun control laws
location of NSSF is a huge "coincidence"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shooting_Sports_Foundation
1 perfect_pickles 2017-12-27
did they legalize the illegal (in CT) assault rifle 'Nancy Lanza' possessed in CT.
they never did explain how she had an illegal assault rifle in CT and trained 'Adam' in using it at shooting ranges.
a big puzzle.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
i will never understand why people who post verifiable truth get downvoted
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
confirmation bias i suspect
or maybe someone really is off on the wrong track
always be mentally prepared to be wrong
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
What is the minimum level of proof you would need to believe that Sandy Hook actually happened and children were gunned down?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
what convinced you that adam lanza was the person responsible for Sandy Hook shooting? the say-so of some government official?
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
Answer my question. Then I'll answer yours. Sound fair?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
you would need to provide me evidence that would show adam lanza is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
just like any other defendant would be entitled to be shown the evidence against him, and to defend himself in court if he chooses to
now, what actual evidence convinced you that adam lanza lived, died, and/or killed anyone
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
crickets? /u/_Sinnik_
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
Sometimes people have lives, bruv
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mfkaw/sandy_hook_red_pill/drumxac/
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
This response doesn't mean anything. I took an hour to respond and so you commented with "crickets" implying that I had dodged my duty to respond. I'm informing you that not everyone is on reddit 24 hrs a day available to respond at a moment's notice.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
you were still on reddit, hoping id forget to hold you to your end of t the deal. I'm still waiting btw
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
No I wasn't. Lol what the fuck. I was eating dinner. Anyway, I already responded to you. I don't care about Adam Lanza and I don't have any particular proof that he committed those crimes, although I'm sure there is tons out there. What I'm concerned with is whether or not the massacre actually took place. I think it did and if you agree, cool, we move on. If you disagree, say so, and I will provide evidence. I'm going to bed now however so I will get back to you tomorrow
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
let me rephrase your ideas into so that you might see the error of your ways
and just like that, you are guilty of murdering kids, simply because i assume the evidence exists but I'm just too lazy to find it.
ill accept evidence in the form of an obituary that was NOT written by the Associated Press
failure to provide the specified evidence will be interpreted as evidence that no such obituaries exist, which will prompt a new post about Sandy Hook obituaries
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
Interesting. So I am the Judge of this case? And my opinion decides his fate? Never knew I had such power. Either which way, I never said I think Adam Lanza is guilty. Like I actually said, I just don't give a fuck. I don't exactly go around telling people he's a child murderer and I don't really think about it.
Also that whole example was a clear false equivalency. I do see the point you're making, and it's valid, but let's not pretend these two situations are equivalent. Adam Lanza's presumed guilt has an FBI investigation behind it.
"Hey random internet stranger, prove that the Sun exists. Failure to provide evidence will be interpreted as evidence that the Sun does not exist."
And I'm not hyper concerner about whatever posts you wish to make.
1 rougekhmero 2017-12-27
How do you not see the inherent fallacy and farcical nature of your supposed attempt at an argument here?
Here's me, doing what you are doing:
I think you did it. I think you went into Sandy Hook, and shot up a bunch of kids. That's what i believe. It doesn't matter why i believe it, and i don't need to provide you a single shred of reasoning or evidence. So how, and with what evidence, can you change my belief that you alone are responsible? I bet you'll just tell me you were somewhere else that day. And i'm supposed to believe that? From some post on reddit? Pffff please you're so dumb (ad hominem argument X1000 etc etc).
I don't need to provide any reasons or evidence as to why i know for certain that you did it, and since I choose not to believe any other explanation, then case closed. You did it.
Honestly, you are the absolute shining example of what is wrong with this community and it's severe lack of analytical and critical thinking. I guess you never took a debate class in school.
We are here. We are open minded. You are telling us/others something that doesn't align with what we believe. It's up to you to provide a compelling argument and evidence to change our minds. Yet you refuse. This is a red flag. You can't argue against the official story simply by saying 'how dare you believe the official story'.
Frankly, and i'm no longer being cheeky or sardonic here, i honestly believe that this is a specific tactic to discredit this entire community. By posting extraordinary claims/hypothesis' and refusing to provide the tiniest amount of reasons for doing so. So often the simplest explanation is the correct one, and it seems to me that the simplest explanation for this is to come on here, post nonsense, and then continue on refusing to argue your supposed theory/hypothesis with anything other than ad hominem bullshit.
Then, when others come around and see how fucking insane this is, they just assume that everyone here is equally batshit. Thus, in one fell swoop, discrediting every single argument/theory/hypothesis anyone proposes here.
Now all 'conspiracy posters' are just loons.
It's because of cointelpro ops like this that the majority of people presented with questions about the legitimacy of things like the official story of 9/11 not necessarily adding up immediately reject it, and assume that someone asking questions about 9/11 also believes the earth is flat, the queen is a lizard, and Alex Jones is Bill Hicks.
So either you're cointelpro, and this is a deliberate op to discredit (which is an extremely common tactic and has been for quite some time) or you're just a complete fucking moron.
Either way though, it doesn't matter because YOU DID SANDY HOOK.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
why can't you produce one iota of evidence against adam lanza?
why can't you produce a single obituary that was NOT written by the AP?
there is no reason to believe that adam lanza committed any crime
and there is no reason to believe the media which has repeatedly been caught changing the facts
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6b1cjp/explain/dhj8tmg/?context=3
1 rougekhmero 2017-12-27
I'm not contesting any of that, nor am I trying to convince you of anything about that day. Your focus is misdirected, my friend. Is it deliberate, to keep us distracted, or have you yourself been led down this ultimately fruitless path of perpetuating these divisions that keep 'them' in control?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
to keep you distracted from what? the other fake news like 9/11 or the Bostn Marathon Bombing?
its not too hard to figure out what propaganda is
Noam Chomsky did a documentary on the propaganda that is brainwashing you
you can watch it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE
the North Koreans also did a documentary on the propaganda that is brainwashing you
you can watch that here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuaKHhNBTNA
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2017-12-27
Rule 10, removed. You could easily have made this same point without insulting the entire subreddit or calling the other guy "either cointelpro" or "a complete fucking moron". Consider this your warning.
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
So you answer my question of "What is the minimum level of evidence would you need to believe these claims?" with:
"Well I'd need a minimum level of evidence to prove those claims. Does that answer your question?"
I'm talking specifics, friend.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
thats a hypothetical
i don't know what evidence it would take to convince me, because i have not seen any evidence.
just like 99.9999% of the other crimes that happen in America everyday.
how about you actually produce the evidence that convinced you, so that we can evaluate it together?
is it too much to as to show that adam lanza was responsible for the crimes you accuse him of?
why are other suspects entitled to a fair trial and to confront their accusers but adam lanza is not?
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
I don't really care about Adam Lanza. The main thing I take issue with is people denying that Sandy Hook ever occurred. Do you deny it occurred and do you deny that children were shot to death in that school? That is the conversation I'd care to have.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i dont care that you don't care about adam lanza
until you can produce one shred of evidence that adam lanza killed anyone, I'm going to have to proceed under the presumption of his innocence
why would that bother you? have you seen any evidence to say it happened?
imagining the logistical nightmare of pulling off a false flag is not exactly evidence
I've not seen any credible evidence that anyone died at Sandy Hook school
maybe you could provide me with an obituary that was NOT written by the Associated Press.
how about that. you can prove Sandy Hook victims are real by producing an actual obituary that was NOT written by the AP.
How hard can that be?
1 _Sinnik_ 2017-12-27
Go ahead. This is exactly why I said I don't care.
It would bother be greatly because I'm appalled by the spread of falsities. And it bothers me because denying the massacre occurred is denying the legitimacy of the victims' suffering. I take issue you with that. Like I said, I need sleep. Tomorrow I will provide you with a decent writeup w/ evidence for you to blindly deny.
Define "evidence." Because it is certainly worth nothing. The complicated/implausible logistics of pulling something like this off certainly does cast doubt on your claims of a hoax. You can't just whisk it a way with a flick of your magic denial wand.
I don't see how that would be proof. I really don't. What does this suggest? Does it suggest that the children didn't actually die and they're still completely alive and well? So why haven't any of the many hundreds of relatives/acquaintances come out and said the kids are still alive? And even if I produced one, how does that prove anything at all? Writing fake obituaries would be one of the easier portions of this so-called "hoax."
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
one day you will grow up and realize that you are being manipulated by atrocity propaganda. i hope that day comes sooner than later
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda
good. then you should be aware that nobody died at sandy hook, and that the whole thing was fake news, just like Boston Marathon bombing and many other fake news atrocity propaganda pieces.
they were fake victims. there is no legitimacy to their suffering. the real victims are the fools who believe whatever the corporate media and government tell them
what you should take issue with is Anderson Cooper using a green screen to fake being at a fake funeral for a fake sandy hook victim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_FkKpTxZ8&t=24s
i "deny" the evidence that you refuse to produce, but are 100% sure exists?
1 therealsquirrel95 2017-12-27
waiting on that write-up bruh
1 PM_ME_UR_GLIPGLOPS 2017-12-27
There is a topminds post about this thread. Explains everything.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
yea but they make it very clear that youre not allowed to vote in linked threads nudge nudge
1 PM_ME_UR_GLIPGLOPS 2017-12-27
Oh yeah I forgot
1 SoCo_cpp 2017-12-27
People's minds changed. People rely on the government for protection out of fear more, quicker to relinquish their freedoms. Many copy-cats have happened since. Schools have massively changed their policies and become locked down security theater. Some have dumped lots of money on security industry products, training, and other services. Schools are head over heals to directly partner with and be direct by police now, even in the face of reason. Teachers and principals are more often armed now. Everyone is uptight and afraid and willing to give up all freedom.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
And there is the brigaded comment you will see in every single SH thread.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
Like clock work.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Especially with Top Minds linking in
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
One of them sets the strawman up, another one burns it to the ground then they brigade the comment to the top so everyone can see. Text book tactics.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Spot on! And all this in a submit which was well out of site of the masses, but now has 187 comments. These people had nothing better to do than sit in our /new queue
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
It's marvelous really. I haven't seen a thread this good in a while. Fortunate to be a part of it from the beggining.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
And the vote score at the top keeps going down, as if they are deploying in more troops as Sandy Hook is high priority for covering up, 242 comments now in a out of sight submit, just because it had Sandy Hook keywords in
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
Wow, that sub is a dumpster fire.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
They were hoping for more change, there was a UN vote coming up, all timed perfectly, fortunately Sandy Hook wasn't as effective a catalyst as they'd hoped. There have been many more fake shootings since then to keep chipping away.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
This.
They started by inducing fear at the movies...a shooter at the dark knight midnight showing? my kids went to see that!
that didnt work.
so they tried to get the lgbt community on board by shooting up a gay club.
that didnt work.
so they pulled the big guns and went after actual children.
that didnt even work.
we havent had a large scale mass shooting since....we did have vegas but until more info comes out I will not count it. Especially since that looks to be an arms deal gone wrong rather than a planned attack on gun rights
1 daddie_o 2017-12-27
They didn't do it to get rid of guns they did it to sell more
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
failing at their mission wouldnt make it any less of a conspiracy.
1 ShitHitsTheMan 2017-12-27
You didn't look very hard, amigo. I'm not going to do your research for you but it is there if you decide to put down the cheetos and look for yourself before you spew things that are obviously incorrect.
1 mtnrddt 2017-12-27
I got kicked out of a friend's house when I admitted I didn't believe Sandy Hook as we're told it. I was out of town and a guest at their house, and they did let me back in, but it was kind of scary, the guy was shaking and really agitated and looked like he might want to hurt me.
I ended up showing him the Super Bowl video and taking it face by face and comparing it to the photos of the dead children. That made him even more angry but he started asking questions, going "WHY WOULD SOMEONE SET THIS UP?" and I just said I didn't know why, and I told him that I had believed it and was also extremely upset and scared when I started to realize it wasn't real.
So then I showed him Gene Rosen, Robby Parker, the McDonnell's interview with Anderson Cooper, and teacher Kaitlyn Roig's interview--specifically pointing out that no actual tears are cried.
He was pissed off but I think he actually believed me.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
high 5
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
Your friend was way too kind letting you waste his time on that nonsense.
Seriously. The superbowl photos of the kids. Wow, the lowest level of "evidence".
http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2016/11/01/an-actual-expert-weighs-in-on-the-sandy-hook-super-bowl-choir-conspiracy-theory/
1 mtnrddt 2017-12-27
Have you ever actually looked at the comparisons or just read Shill Murray's article?
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
This isnt his only post on that topic.
I don't care if two people look similar. That's all it is.
1 mtnrddt 2017-12-27
Right, I generally dismiss that sort of thing myself. A lot of people look like a lot of people in the world. But there's at least 7 people involved in Sandy Hook who are supposed to be dead yet look eerily similar to the children at the Super Bowl choir, and the fact that the Soto and Phelp's families have such striking resemblance to the Greenberg/Sexton family photo album.
It's isn't just two people who look similar. It a dozen people.
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
Here's another
http://www.crisisactorsguild.com/2016/10/28/debunking-claims-made-about-the-child-victims-of-sandy-hook/
1 naturalproducer 2017-12-27
I don't think the kids were too keen on participating in the charade.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
I've never seen that one before, damn it's creepy as fuck.
1 ScooterMcPoots 2017-12-27
If Sandy Hook was a false flag, why is the assumption that nobody died in that conspiracy?
For TPTB to encompass all the occulted practices and string pulling assumed of them, but they stop short of mass murdering children and create an elaborate hoax instead, feels like mental gymnastics to allow the TPTB to be corrupt enough to fake killing children, but never actually do it (in the public eye at least). It feels like this line of logic let’s the conspiracy theorist follow the narrative without having to confront actual dead children.
Historical false flags have let civilians die repeatedly, why would this be any different?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
these stories are scripted well in advance
if the script calls for 20 dead kindergartners, well then you need to find 20 kindergartners and their parents, etc and get things set up well in advance.
can't have something like your patsy getting cold feet or being a bad shot or a victims dad not running a marathon change the pre scripted "facts"
https://i.redd.it/3v6xed1ufn401.png
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
HAHAHA kicked out of family Christmas. Why don't you ask the kids parents how their "alive" daughters and sons are doing?
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
do you really think these people are going to start telling the truth all of the sudden?
that stupid look on his face is what we call a smirk
https://i.redd.it/yx1wjvoqei601.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
That is not a smirk. That's a neutral face staring into the distance...
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
its its neutral, why are his cheeks puckers by the corners of his lips. try to make your cheeks pucker like that without smirking or otherwise being neutral
https://i.redd.it/yx1wjvoqei601.png
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
When I replicate that face, it is the face that I make when I'm upset. That is my "I'm about to vomit" face.
That is not a smirk.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
That look on his face is what you want to be a smirk. It is not a smirk to me.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
These people have been paid a fortune, as if they are suddenly blow the whistle and suddenly get themselves killed
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
But what if you're wrong? or do you really think that you are sooo right, like 100% right? Because Christians also think they are 100% sure that Jesus walked on water and that he will return.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
why do people on this sub love listening to unfuckable white dudes on youtube and their conspiracy theories?
1 olvie_999 2017-12-27
So you prefer to listen to fuckable white dudes? What's your point?
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
My point is these people need some kind of reason to live and they think the world is conspiring against them in some form and then they make these crazy videos and people like you buy into what they are saying without knowing anything about them other than the fact they are unfuckable.
1 olvie_999 2017-12-27
You sure do presume to know a lot about people's psychological needs without knowing anything about them other than the fact that you wouldn't fuck them.
Unlike you some of us can evaluate someone's argument based on the quality of their evidence and soundness of reasoning, not on how attractive they are.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
well then good luck to you faggot
1 Odz2427 2017-12-27
TIL:
Only white dudes produce conspiracy theories.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
*Unfuckable white dudes
1 Odz2427 2017-12-27
Have to be white though. It’s important to include that.
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
Posts like this are when this sub goes full retard...never go full retard.
1 whenipeeithurts 2017-12-27
I honestly don't think anyone can be convinced of this if they aren't seeking truth for themselves. If you are dealing with people who read mainstream magazines and watch CNN they have been programmed to not be capable of entertaining a thought like this. All you will get is an extreme emotional (usually anger) response.
1 Raidicus 2017-12-27
If the "how I would do it" for something is too far from the conspiracy theory, you know it's total bullshit.
If I were to commit a false flag at Sandy Hook, I'd actually kill kids. Why not kill them? You're risking the whole operation by hving actors and photoshopping stuff and blah blah blah.
That's why Sandy Hook false flag people seem so insane. If some secretive shadow government wanted a false flag to take people's guns...they'd just go kill the kids.
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
Get out of here with your logic.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Radidicus hasn't through this one through very well
If you kill them you get in bigger trouble if you get found out, also it is harder to find actors and actresses willing to play along
1 heavymetalsculpture 2017-12-27
Video has been removed.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
Thanks, here you go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7V6Tm4KuXI
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
This is consistently the most empty strawman argument people bring up. It's like simply shitting on all the discrepancies and oddities as to what occurred just because you can't seem to understand why they wouldn't kill kids.
WHELP they didn't kill kids, so it must be real! Even though the list of inconsistencies is a mile long.
Sandy Hook was such a horrible production that they couldn't even deliver us a picture of a dead Adam Lanza and his mother.
The whole thing was one big production to push through gun control and to push through legislation to hide information from the public, one passed, the other didn't.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
of course you've been downvoted for refuting the "logical claim" in this thread with even better logic. of course you were.
1 workwork_workwork 2017-12-27
So, the all powerful TPTB can plan a mass shooting but couldn't plan a picture of the perpetrator dead? And that is enough for you to think that no one died? If it was planned, why wouldn't they plan every aspect to keep you off the trail?
And what rights do you have to these pictures? Are they owed to you? By whom? Why? I think the police have these pictures, but there is no reason to release them just because you want them. The government doesn't bend over to your twisted whims of wanting pics of dead people.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
That's a good question, we all have that question. Why won't they show Adam dead, or his autopsy? Because it didn't happen, and Adam was not a real person.
I knew that one was coming. I hear that trite response every fucking time, it's annoying and empty. People should have right to crime scene photos, and in most places, they do. It's freedom of information. You don't like it, so what. What right do you have to judge how a person learns or comes to accept something that happened and prevent them from it?
THERE IT IS! Like clock work, the insult because I want the government to be held accountable to me and I want all the details of crimes committed. Crime does not have a right to be hidden from the public. BUT now all of a sudden I'm "twisted" because I want to see the dead bodies. I've heard it all; sick, fucked up, disgusting, deranged, and on and on just because I have a morbid curiosity. What right do you have to judge a person's morbid curiosity? You don't. What right does the government have to not bend to my whims? They don't, but our society has exalted them to make people like yourself think that we are servants to them, when in fact they are servants to us.
1 workwork_workwork 2017-12-27
Why though? If it was your family member, would you want these pictures posted everywhere online so you can relive the pain every day? What does society gain by giving you access to these pictures?
Yes, yes you do. Why do the families have to suffer because you want to see these pictures? Did you take them with your camera? If not, you don't own the pictures. Also, I'm free to judge you all I want, just as you've judged others as well. I can't induce any punishments because that would be wrong, but I can personally judge you all I want. What we think of each other plays no bearing on the events.
1 the_irvingtonian 2017-12-27
Arrest records and indictments are public records, forever, whether guilt or innocence is determined. Clearly the public ethos feels knowing that a mere possibility of a crime occurring is more important than the accused’s reputation. Why should the evidence of actual crimes be relatively devalued? What possibly damage can the victim of a crime sustain by showing the public irrefutable proof of her victimhood?
His assent to the veracity of the crime, which entails his approbation of the rule of law. That answer is obvious. A compliant, faithful citizen is more valuable than a dissenter. And I’m not even a conspiracy theorist.
1 workwork_workwork 2017-12-27
Arrest records don't contain pics of dead people. Different entirely.
Who is devaluing any evidence? It exists, they just didn't show it to you. And you seem salty about that.
No the victims aren't hurt, the families are. Victim rights laws apply to them also. Not sure if they do in Connecticut but they do where I am.
Lambert didn't have a trial so the last part makes no sense. No need, he was dead already
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Who was arrested?
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
Your point of debate is shallow and trite.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
There are none.
These are invented strawmen, used and repeated by lazy people who haven't bothered to do a minute of reading.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
The inconsistencies are not invented, they exist and are glaring. So as for you say about those who haven't bothered to do any reading, I say that about you. I read the official released crime report over the incident, all 3,000+ pages worth. Have you?
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
They are. They're repeated by people who haven't done a second of reading, like you.
Well as you claim there are "oddities and inconsistencies", then you obviously have done no such thing.
Fail.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
You can cross your arms all you like and scream "NU UH", but it doesn't make you right, nor detract from my comments, it just makes you look stupid and uninformed.
But since you claim there are no inconsistencies, there is one you cannot deny, the police report stating the time the children were evacuated, and the video that doesn't show them evacuating at the time recorded. Matter of fact, there is no video of children evacuating.
I guess to you that doesn't work as an inconsistency. I would give you more, but it's not worth my time to talk about this with a person who flat out denies that there was nothing out of the ordinary.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Well as my platform is correct, it does make me right
This is going to be fun.
The police report states evacuations occurred shortly after 10:00am and took around 15 minutes.
The police recorded the time when the groups of people passed by them, which was a few minutes later, as they were located down the road.
No inconsistency. Just pure ignorance on your part.
Because it's not. It's an invention.
Because you'll get absolutely rekt, as you have here.
1 FootballJedi 2017-12-27
That is the single biggest problem with it despite all of the evidence. Why not just actually do it? It would be wayy easier and we wouldnt have all of these loose ends.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
kids did die, just not the amount stated and not via the weapons we have been told. the false flag portion of this event is how the fbi stepped in and twisted the situation to suit their agenda
1 FootballJedi 2017-12-27
yeah I feel like something along those lines must be more likely. So it wasn't a "hoax" it was a false flag with some hoax elements.
1 megalynn44 2017-12-27
Thank you. That is precisely my issue with the 9/11 missile theory.
1 liverpoolwin 2017-12-27
If you kill them you get in bigger trouble if you get found out, also it is harder to find actors and actresses willing to play along
1 432_Hz 2017-12-27
There was a well-written documentary on Sandy Hook done by active Youtube researchers. It was deleted quickly, but I think you can still find it on the web. Titled 'Let' s talk about Sandy Hook' as far as I remember.
1 redwormcharlie 2017-12-27
You really can't convince people, they have to accept it for themselves, there's no two ways about it.
Most people who think there is fuckery afoot will listen, and read, and watch videos.
Anyone else who doesn't believe it give these answers ALL the time:
The problem is, I think there are fewer people who actually really believe it happened and get incensed over someone questioning the narrative. What i think is that the people rummaging around /r/conspiracy refuting the narrative through personal attacks are in some way shilling for the shadow government that put it all together, they are on the take. Just notice the pattern of those who refute it, they always call people names, every time. It's like if they go about it in such a dissonant way they eventually turn the whole thing in to a joke.
1 bignuke87 2017-12-27
the 20 minute uninterrupted video of sloppy sniper hiding from the abc news camera, csrrying his rifle wrong, wearing his body armor incorrectly, and constantly reshuffling to the back of the line is the best thing ive seen.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
You're an expert in police tactics now?
1 bignuke87 2017-12-27
matter of fact I am. worked state corrections 5 years and am ex military worked on the state prisons CERT team.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
Oh boy tough guy, great to see none of this is relevant.
Wanna try a better argument better then hurrr durr this done look different
1 bignuke87 2017-12-27
my experience on a tactical swat team isnt relevant to your assertion that im not an expert in police tactics?
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
You were never on the SWAT team. You can't even try to make an argument without lying.
1 bignuke87 2017-12-27
go away CTR. i served my country, and did my time. so that you could accuse me of stolen valor. youre a lowlife.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
You lied about your credentials. That's on you, not me.
1 bignuke87 2017-12-27
stop forum sliding. and no I didnt. believe what you want short stack.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
You claimed to be a member of a CERT.
Then you claimed to be a member of SWAT.
Neither of which entitle you to expertly examine someone based on a photograph.
1 bignuke87 2017-12-27
cert is a swat team. you do realize not every swat team is literally called swat right? lmao whens your shift end kid. and its not a photo but a 20 min video not that you care because youre paid to be here and forum slide.
1 shmusko01 2017-12-27
They may be similar but there aren't the same. Accuracy is important.
Great. 20 full minutes of video. And in it you'll see an officer being an officer, which means not every officer does their job exactly perfectly every single waking minute.
But I imagine only statists perceive the armed wing of the state to be infallible.
1 werthtrillions 2017-12-27
I never try to red pill anyone. I just always try to plant the seed of doubt. Like if someone is talking about 9/11, I'll say isn't it crazy that just the day before it happened Donald Rumsfield announced that 2 trillion dollars is missing? You follow this question up with more "coincidental" things and voila...doubt has been planted.
1 MarioChalmersChain 2017-12-27
dawg just tell them that 311 never happened
1 MichelleObamasPenis 2017-12-27
The Top Minds loosers being directed here show that the fake Sandy Hook is something those idiots don't want talked about.
"You get flak when over the target'
1 IAmHebrewHammer 2017-12-27
You're a certifiable idiot.
1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-27
Removed. Rule 4. 1st warning.
1 Ayn-Randy_Savage 2017-12-27
Hmmm, 10 year old account, barely any karma, 'kicked out at xmas for a conspiracy theory literally no one cares about.
Yeah, +blocked.
1 LordMandrake_ 2017-12-27
Why tf would you be talking about Sandy hook at Christmas dinner? Moreover, why would you say that kids didn't die at Sandy hook?
You gotta learn to control your power level, bro.
1 YonicSouth123 2017-12-27
I've watched the docs but was kicked out of family Christmas for suggesting kids didn't die.
That the most reasonable sentence i read here.
Sorry dudes, but most of the stuff i read here reminds me of the stories a good friend, who works as a psychiatrist in a mental hospital, tells me sometimes. The obsession and persistance is remarkable.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
what you think, you become
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Link me a specific tape, and I'll comment on it. There are a lot of them. I've heard none that were suspicious, and I've heard them all as far as I know.
1 Lyra_Fairview 2017-12-27
Woah sauce??
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Is this not the full transcript?:http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Full-transcript-of-the-Sandy-Hook-911-calls-5036086.php
I just looked through it all and the words "fake" or "drill" were never said. I guess you can just claim its fake news. So please provide a source.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
i seriously doubt you have ever prosecuted any cases. you sound like a LARP'er living in his moms basement
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66um2b/police_response_training_planned_but_bombs_hit/
1 naturalproducer 2017-12-27
Yep, everyone grieves differently. Except, of course, if you're family of a Sandy Hook victim where everyone smiles and laughs through the grieving process.
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
Not unheard of as coping mechanism. There are quite some studies about it and if you have some life experience you would know that people behave a lot really awkward when processing something horrible.
I mean if he was an actor I somehow doubt that he would fail to do his job right then when it counts, even though he knows exactly that cameras are there.
1 elj0h0 2017-12-27
Got it, you continue to only read the transcript instead of listen to the audio yourself. Right. You have access to the audio but you continue to believe what others tell you instead of investigate for yourself. I have heard the audio. I heard her say fake. 1m53s
1 I_Am_Teach 2017-12-27
Dude, we were having two separate discussions here. One about the car, and one about the police call. Both of my original comments to you about those topics were immediately downvoted to zero by you. I don't know why you made the assumption that I think you're following me around, as I already acknowledged that I know you aren't. Because I replied to you. Which would ping you. Which wouldn't require you to do any following.
Have you had your morning coffee?
1 StefanYellowCurry 2017-12-27
this is not proof either. none of it is. You guys just latch onto anything that sounds or looks like evidence. You guys are essentially making evidence up.
1 perfect_pickles 2017-12-27
did they legalize the illegal (in CT) assault rifle 'Nancy Lanza' possessed in CT.
they never did explain how she had an illegal assault rifle in CT and trained 'Adam' in using it at shooting ranges.
a big puzzle.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
can you show me any real tears?
i can understand one dad maybe coping with his grief thru humor, but everybody?
even Obama wiped away obviously fake tears from his eyes
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1634&bih=1111&ei=F_hDWtnRDMLRjwTx6aDgDA&q=Obama+Sandy+Hook+fake+tears&oq=Obama+Sandy+Hook+fake+tears&gs_l=img
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
i will never understand why people who post verifiable truth get downvoted
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
This.
They started by inducing fear at the movies...a shooter at the dark knight midnight showing? my kids went to see that!
that didnt work.
so they tried to get the lgbt community on board by shooting up a gay club.
that didnt work.
so they pulled the big guns and went after actual children.
that didnt even work.
we havent had a large scale mass shooting since....we did have vegas but until more info comes out I will not count it. Especially since that looks to be an arms deal gone wrong rather than a planned attack on gun rights
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
Nope I am playing connect four with a three year old and defrosting chicken. There you go again with the assumptions. Really why I said you were a waste of time to begin with...I am sure you don't even care enough to learn the story.
1 monkey-see-doggy-do 2017-12-27
It's marvelous really. I haven't seen a thread this good in a while. Fortunate to be a part of it from the beggining.
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
No, there is an absurd amount of evidence.
You just ignore it all because... well, who knows this time?
1 mtnrddt 2017-12-27
Right, I generally dismiss that sort of thing myself. A lot of people look like a lot of people in the world. But there's at least 7 people involved in Sandy Hook who are supposed to be dead yet look eerily similar to the children at the Super Bowl choir, and the fact that the Soto and Phelp's families have such striking resemblance to the Greenberg/Sexton family photo album.
It's isn't just two people who look similar. It a dozen people.
1 seeking101 2017-12-27
Actually, everything is suspicious and weird in that video. He looks like a man getting into character because he's about to act in front of a bunch of people.
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
Nothing is suspicious in that video. No, he doesn't look like a man getting into character. Seriously. How do people come up with this nonsense.
It's right there on video. There is nothing abnormal about that. I feel like 90% of the problems in this group originate from them not being able to recognize perfectly normal human behavior.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
how stereotypically American of you!
no, the conspiracy theory is that they were crisis actors from the get go, not people brought in after the fact to hide something.
Good actors go to Hollywood. Mediocre actors become crisis actors. if these crisis actors had any real acting talent, they would be on Broadway or Hollywood, not pretending to be grieving parents at a fake shooting
you still haven't provided me with a single genuine tear that was shed because of Sandy Hook
1 petepanda125 2017-12-27
you really can't know how people react to grief. This is a weird ass reaction, I agree, but it's not proof something happened.
1 DrDerpinheimer 2017-12-27
No, you're just dumb.
You know I left out the whole jury thing because even a child could connect the dots here.
1 MashCojones 2017-12-27
so still a shit ton? And with all that money you think its plausible that they find that one actor that doesnt even understand the fundamental of his job? t makes no sense to me how one can think that this is a super organised conspiracy but then somehow fail massively on the simplest part of the job.
Its odd, not to say implausible isnt it?
1 nologicjustpathos 2017-12-27
I play games. Dungeons and dragons as often as I can get away with.
I also like cards against humanity.
I just don't like board games. They're boring.
1 IAmHebrewHammer 2017-12-27
You're a certifiable idiot.
1 EnoughNoLibsSpam 2017-12-27
the Boston Marathon Bombing mass casualty drill was subsequently put on TV as fake news, even though it was just another case of "Drills Gone Wild"
having trouble with reading comprehension? you can't seem to follow simple plot lines and organize facts into a coherent narrative
https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mqgeu/boston_marathon_bombing_red_pill/drwbg30/?context=3