jump to last post 1-34 of 34 discussions (470 posts)

Sandy Hook truthers: Conspiracy theorists out in full force

  1. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 3 years ago

    Sandy Hook truthers: Conspiracy theorists out in full force
    Sandy Hook truthers have been out in full force over the past couple of weeks. Ever since a professor came forward and made claims about the media covering up what really happened on that tragic day in Newtown, Conn., groups of people have been trying to change the minds of others. On Jan. 15, NBC News reported that "truthers" have even been harassing people about their beliefs about the Sandy Hook tragedy.

    "While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place  at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nations news media have described," Prof. James Tracy wrote in a blog post. He now has "followers" and many are beginning to question what really happened on that terrible December day.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/sandy-h … full-force
    First it was the "birthers" and now the "truthers?" .The outrageous accusations that the whole Sandy Hook attack was an elaborate hoax staged by the anti gun lobbyists and the government to push through gun control laws  are insane! yikes

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      These people are the scum of the earth and insane...It is insulting to those parents who lost children, they have even accused one of being an actor...

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have to admit, the Sandy Hook Relief Page was suspicious when I saw it. Google said the page was created 3 days before the shooting.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is only suspicious if you don't realize the way Google assigns those dates is insanely inaccurate.  Any date assigned is really is plus or minus about a month. They seem to accidentally predate stuff a bunch trying to estimate how long it was up before it was crawled.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Really? Care to provide some examples?

              Google got the date right for this thread. Every other thread I've checked.

              Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Google is so inaccurate?

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Snopes has decent coverage of it, just checked the Sandy Hook entry.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Those kinds of predates happen with pages that already exist and have changing content. For instance, the front page of ABC News will show a date for when it was indexed with different dynamic content.

                  The Sandy Hook page, however, was a new page, no previous existence. Google couldn't have crawled that page earlier and assigned an earlier date to it. I would be surprised if you could find a single instance of that happening elsewhere.

                2. 0
                  Sarra Garrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You can't believe everything you read on the internet to include Snopes.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Meh, I showed why Snope's explanation doesn't work. Dynamic content and recycled URLs are completely different from a brand new, fresh page, with a brand new, fresh URL.

                3. wmhoward4 profile image78
                  wmhoward4posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Snopes is NOT impartial. Look up who runs Snopes.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Tell us, who runs Snopes?

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I bet you don't trust the NY Times, either?

          2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Even if it was a subpage of a larger domain? The date picked up could have more to do with the United Way domain than one page.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, search engines don't cache information about one page and show it for another page.

              www.site.com/one.html is considered completely separate from www.site.com/two.html

      2. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I can't post what comes to mind when I heard about this..  is there a special drink they all share?  It's becoming harder and harder to believe that human beings are this delusional and just bat-#@$# crazy.

      3. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        New evidence that we are not the scum of the earth. I suggest people take a look at a video comparison between Sandy Hook participants and Undercover Boss participants and see what is really going on:

        http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1239137

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Why don't you tell us "what's really going on?"

          1. bgamall profile image86
            bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sure Ralph.I am a liberal. But I support gun rights. Sandy Hook Hoax was an attempt to disarm America. Zionism is a political movement, not a race and not a religion. My natural father was Jewish and I am adopted. But I believe that Zionists caused 9/11 as all neocons are Zionists. Not all Zionists are neocons but all seek a world empire. That was the vision of David Ben-Gurion, a world court in Jerusalem. Even though Ben-Gurion was an atheist, he wanted that world court. As father of Israel, I am sure his vision is maintained. Zionism seeks regime change, with the Ukraine being the most recent application. Zionism can be traced in the Sandy Hook Hoax all the way to Bloomberg, as well as to an advisor of Obama.

            If Americans want to be blind to it, America will be taken over by the Zionists and we are very close. Very close.

            1. bgamall profile image86
              bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Add to this the fact that the Zionist bankers have the same vision of world government, and we can understand this statement from James Paul Warburg:

              On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg confidently declared to the United States Senate: “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”   http://www.spingola.com/new_world_order1.htm

              1. bgamall profile image86
                bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The Warburgs own UBS, the bank where not one manager was prosecuted for recruiting rich Americans for the bank's offshore hidden accounts.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-0 … dging.html

                  Are you sure the "Warburgs own UBS?" No mention of Warburgs owning UBS in the family's Wikipedia entry>
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburgs

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 2 years ago in reply to this
                  2. bgamall profile image86
                    bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You aren't researching this well, Ralph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._G._Warburg_%26_Co.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Anyway, conspiracy theorists chase theories because it gives them endorphin dumps.

      1. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think it's just another form of insanity.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Better to think of it as an addiction than insanity.

      2. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think you're on to something here, and believe it's more than just an endorphin high. I think conspiracy theories are deeply rooted in our psychological need for agency.

        Humans don't like randomness, be it coin flips or tragic events. We look for patterns, look for hidden narratives, look for an unseen hand guiding chaotic events. For the same reasons we create religions and horoscopes and superstitions, we also create conspiracy theories.

        Now, in the age of instant global communication, we no longer keep these thoughts to ourselves. We can share them with the world and reinforce our crazy conspiracy beliefs with other agency-seekers.

        1. janshares profile image87
          jansharesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you, scottcgruber, and find the whole notion fascinating. I would take it further as I also wonder what personality trait or chararacteristic predisposes one to have a tendency toward having a conspiracy theorist mind-set. How then could such a large group of individuals ascribe to the same extreme belief about a particular issue? Fascinating.

      3. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Might have been an existing web page that was reworked.

    3. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I do not agree with the professor that nobody was killed.  I believe innocent children got killed but I also believe some of those children are those of Satanists who willingly sacrificed their own children or because they were mind-controlled.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKWgCRBR … mp;index=2

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHJeOLQT … mp;index=1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0qiCQFm … ZdT72XVDTg

      Conspiracies aside, it is a fact that we are not being told everything by the mainstream media and this is why conspiracy theories are born.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, Claire is here. The thread has jumped the shark...

    4. BruceDPrice profile image88
      BruceDPriceposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Most of the comments on here are a year old. There has been a steady outpouring of videos and articles about Sandy Hook, throughout the year. The number of discrepancies seems to be larger each time I look. (Ditto for the Boston Marathon bombing.) The main thing that happened in the last month concerning Sandy Hook is that Wolfgang Halbig,  a guy who studies school safety for a living, has concluded that Sandy Hook was a fake and that nobody died there.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Halbig is obviously a nut case.

        1. sannyasinman profile image86
          sannyasinmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This man was called as an expert witness after the Columbine incident. He was a state trooper, and a school security expert.  Sorry, to disapoint you but he is not a "nutcase" and is not a conspiracy theorist.
          He is simply asking questions based upon what he knows to be normal procedure based upon his own professional experience ... of course you never listened to his interview did you?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEfW9FvLyAg

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            He is suggesting those children don't exist.  That is enough to make me quite convinced he has parted company with reality.  Anyone with even the slightest connection to that community knows that real children died that day.  Suggesting otherwise is cruel in the extreme. 

            The fact that he is asking for money to further harass grieving families is just... I'm speechless.  No, it is abhorrent. It is insane.

            1. BruceDPrice profile image88
              BruceDPriceposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I can't resist adding one more comment. I followed this story from the beginning. People were discussing all the discrepancies almost from day one. Not just a few of them. But dozens. Quite a number of people started using the phrase "Sandy Hook hoax" within the first few weeks. These discrepancies have never been properly explained. And now Halbig, who has the most credentials of all, is simply doing what his job requires, explaining to people how to prevent another Sandy Hook. And he says, to do that, we have to first be sure exactly what happened at Sandy Hook. So he started sending FOI requests to authorities in Connecticut. They were refused. All that does is add a whole new group of discrepancies.
              Furthermore, I see people trying to figure what happened on 9/11. Is that somehow disrespectful to the people who may have died? Why is trying to find the truth  "abhorrent"? I don't get that. The part I find abhorrent is that the mainstream media does not explain or discuss anything except its own official narrative.

        2. bgamall profile image86
          bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph, get a grip. Sandy Hook was a hoax. Aurora was likely a hoax. 9/11 has more proof for conspiracy than against it. There is a Zionist coup in this nation. Zionism is NOT a race, not a religion. It is a political movement. All neocons are Zionists and adopted the Yinon Zionist plan for world dominance. Regime change started with Iraq and includes Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc. Now it includes the Ukraine. Don't you see that our empire is an evil and murdering empire and that Cheney, the Zionist was evil? Can't you open your eyes, Ralph?

  2. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    Sorry, You all seem to believe whatever the media is spitting out. I feel terrible but,imagine that no one ever questioned anything. The story constantly changed throughout the day. 2 handguns,4 handguns,rifle was in the car, he only used the rifle. I got the local news because I am only 30 miles away..NBC 4 had chopper footage of the police chasing 3 men in the woods behind the school catching one, where is he and what is his name. Where is the suspect that one of the children interviewed saw police walk out of there?What was his name? Was he released? Why were the first responders (Paramedics) not let in the building.This was from local first responder interview. Where is the broken glass at entrance where he ,supposedly shot his way in?The media had a camera shot. Or did the principle let him in? Which one? The car they towed away was not registered to any Lanza's, Lastly,,Where is the survielance footage. No, I do not want to see the children being murdered but there is  ZERO proof this kid did this..They had cameras. Why would it take so long for the parents to see their children when the suspect was deceased  in the school? Why would the police have to threaten anyone questioning the official story with arrest? Why were they looking for a purple van in nearby Danbury in connection with this? They locked down Danbury hospital,what for?  Everything gets labeled a "Conspiracy Theory" and the gulliable jump on the bandwagon. Put emotion aside and look at everything objectively. Was this to go after guns? Who knows but there are more than enough inconsicticies to call Bullsh!t. How much proof do any of you have that the official story is not a conspiracy,? Because the media told you? Learn to think for yourself please.

    1. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It would take a cold-blooded s.o.b. to have innocent, defenseless children killed, just to give himself the leeway to change the 2nd Amendment.  Same with the conspiracies of the WTC.

      Do you believe that our Presidents are this cold-blooded?

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        James Bamford wrote on Northwoods:
        “     Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war

        Lyman Louis Lemnitzer (August 29, 1899 – November 12, 1988) was a United States Army General, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1960 to 1962. He then served as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1963 to 1969

        Lemnitzer approved the plans known as Operation Northwoods in 1962, a proposed plan to discredit the Castro regime and create support for military action against Cuba by staging false flag genuine acts of terrorism and developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And did any of this actually happen?

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Which would be I guess the equivalent of a Leon Panetta.

            It is irrefutable proof that these type of things have been planned and even executed by other countries. The fact that it was rejected does not discount the fact that false flags are not some exorcise in irrationality.

            It was rejected by Jack Kennedy. Of course Barack is no Jack Kennedy.

            1. scottcgruber profile image91
              scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, it isn't. The fact that some people in government and think tanks came up with some crazy ideas in the 1960s doesn't mean that this particular incident was a "false flag" operation.

              Your logic does not follow, and your only evidence is assertion.

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I never claimed that this particular incident was a false flag, So you are in error. I showed history. Nothing more.


                In 1962 if someone said the the US DEPT of Defense was planning this stuff, you'd probably call them crazy and quote " no one would ever be that cold blooded to plan that"

                But that is soundly refuted by historical fact.

                1. scottcgruber profile image91
                  scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I'd want to see the evidence. And if in 2052 declassified papers reveal that this year's mass shootings were deliberately planned and coordinated, I'll accept the new evidence and admit that the crazies were right.

                  Until then, I won't be convinced without evidence. And so far there is none.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Lemnitzer's proposal was vetoed by JFK according to the linked Wikipedia entry. (Omitted from the quote.)

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              How is it possible to veto a "crazy conspiracy theory"?  Oh, yea it was actually being planned by the Dept of Defense and the Joint Chief of Staff. Facts can be cumbersome like that.

              Oh yea it was included although irrelevant



              It was rejected by Jack Kennedy

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/108518? … ost2308978

            2. bgamall profile image86
              bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes it was, but it was the same exact MO as 9/11.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, and according to the article you linked, Kennedy nixed the idea. How come you omitted that point from the material you quoted from Wikipedia?

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The point is clearly being made that our Government has been known - Based on historical FACT to have planned outrageous cold blooded acts against its own people to further an agenda. This is irrefutable.

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Name some!

      2. wmhoward4 profile image78
        wmhoward4posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        YES- that is what he did with Fast and Furious....the Obama/Holder gun running scandal.

    2. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is not up to us to prove that there wasn't a conspiracy. It is up to you conspiracy nutters to prove that there was.

      And you need to do it by providing EVIDENCE. Not anomalies - evidence. Crazy things happen in crisis situations - people make good and bad decisions, police chase false leads, reporters put out conficting bits of information - these only seem strange after the fog of the incident.

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Prove Lanza did it.

        1. scottcgruber profile image91
          scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I can't. But that's what the evidence indicates. The guns were all in his mother's name, he was found carrying them all at the scene, the bullets pulled from the bodies all matched the ballistics of the guns used, and the medical examiner found Lanza to have died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

          Compared with the zero evidence that Lanza didn't carry out the shooting, the overwhelming weight of evidence is that he did.

        2. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Prove Lanza didn't! You have no more information on this matter than the rest of us.

          1. Moderndayslave profile image60
            Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly , look for it.

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Look for what? Half-baked ideas about "what REALLY" happened based on an overly active imagination?

              You lot are ghouls.

              1. 60
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Getting personal again, why?

                1. LiamBean profile image88
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  My opinion about ghoulish behavior by a group of people is hardly personal. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "personal."

                  1. 60
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Your statement was a personal one.

                    "You lot are ghouls"

                    How could you deny that?

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because they were all rushing to get a scoop. News stories always change throughout the day, mistakes are made, mistakes are corrected. I tend to believe what people who were actually there have to say, including the parents.

      I am sure there will be an inquest and all the evidence will come out then.

      People used this as a catalyst because of the shock and the fact they don't want it to happen again; people have had enough...  Any person who was not moved by that is not human. Don't use it to validate your paranoid suspicions about your government.

      Canada has gun control ... no dictatorship
      The UK has gun control ... no dictatorship

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        The UK? No dictatorship? Ever heard of such of a thing as the European Union?

        1. Kangaroo_Jase profile image80
          Kangaroo_Jaseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Explain how the EU is a dictatorship?

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is an effective dictatorship rather than an explicit one. The EU has control of up to 80% of the UK's laws, which would naturally make you assume that we would have a democratic say in the outcome of these laws through the election of MEPs, but not so much. We do elect MEPs, but their powers are strictly limited to putting questions to the Council/Commission, and tabling amendments. The bills are put forward and passed by the Commission, a very small party of unelected bureaucrats. MEPs do not get a vote like MP's do in British Parliament (and even that system isn't ideal).

            In practice, it means a democratically elected President can be usurped by the EU and replaced with one of their own, as in Italy and Greece. It means that anybody threatening, not only to leave, but to simply renegotiate powers, are met with hissing backlash, as has been the case this week. It means the EU will ask countries to conduct referendums a second or third time because they didn't vote the 'right' way the first time. This is not even getting into the swathes of unnecessary legislation and the folly of the single currency.

  3. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Too much name-calling, not enough analysis.

    "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
    Rahm Emanuel

    Whether this event was a false-flag event or not doesn't matter (though it would be completely uncontroversial if it was proven- if we accept the overwhelming evidence that the United States military and secret service are willing to engage in terrorism in the middle-east to blame on Al Qaeda, the idea of a false-flag on home soil doesn't seem so far-fetched). What we need to focus on is who is seeking to benefit from these tragedies? Dianne Fenstein's assault weapon legislation was drawn up before the Sandy Hook incident, following increasing calls for gun control in the media, and what do you know, a particularly horrific school shooting occurs with an assault weapon. The media jumps on specific memes like "Why does anybody NEED an assault rifle?", using the dead children as moral support for their mouth-foaming. Obama and our fine legislators are only too happy to respond, as the statist axiom suggests: it's always better to be seen to be doing something rather than doing nothing. And this of course is typical of governments who have gotten too big for their boots: their number one priority is self-preservation, and will take every opportunity to disarm the populace. Anybody in denial of this, whilst accepting that this was the main purpose of gun control in every communist and fascist dictatorship in the 20th century, is suffering from cognitive dissonance.

    'Conspiracy theory' - The absurd notion that special interests come together and plan things.

    1. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I won't deny this - it is certainly a good legislative strategy. The Shock Doctrine allows a lot of far-reaching legislation to be passed in the wake of a major event - the Patriot Act being a good example.

      It's nice to see it being used by the good guys now and then. The Assault Weapons Ban is long overdue. Gun owners have provewn that they are not responsible enough to own military-style assault weapons, and it's time to take their toys away.

      The only troubling issue is that it took a tragedy like Sandy Hook to get an assault weapons ban on the public agenda. This should have been passed decades ago.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Really? How many murders a year happen with 'military-style assault weapons'? I can tell you right now, more people murder each other with their bare hands.

        So who has shown they aren't responsible enough?

        1. scottcgruber profile image91
          scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          About 3-400, according to FBI statistics. Fewer than knives or blunt objects or bare hands, and far far fewer than the more than 6-7,000 killed by handguns.

          So?

          Assault weapons are low-hanging fruit. Let's ban those first. Unlike knives or blunt instruments, they have no useful purpose other than killing many people quickly.

          We can come back for your handguns later.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            First, those are rifles. All rifles. Not just 'assault rifles'. The number with assault rifles is much lower.

            The point is, you claim that gun owners have proven themselves irresponsible. When in fact, they are MORE responsible with their guns than the average American is with their hands or knives.

            Your argument has no basis.

            And they do have useful purposes.

            Edit: Kind of like how the Texas study showed that gun owners with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit crimes than the average Texan. Those irresponsible jerks!

          2. Mikeg422 profile image84
            Mikeg422posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Scott you do realise "we can come back for your handguns later" statements like that and people like you are going to be the cause of the next civil war. Which really sucks for you being anti-gun and all...what would you fight back with? You probably think you are the civic minded one here, but most Americans will not be disarmed period. So you against 86% of the population? Why 86%? Have you looked at gun and ammo sales since Obama started all his anti-gun talk? Here is a hint gunshop owners and the NRA are calling him the greatest firearms salesman of all time. I guess only right wing screwballs are buying up all the guns right? Guess again pal, sorry I'm being so abrasive but your snarky, holier than thou attitude really rubs me the wrong way. By the way I'm not a gun owner but I proudly support the right of my fellow citizens to be so. If you don't perhaps England would be a better fit for you? They are already disarmed and socialized. Good luck chief have a nice day!

            1. scottcgruber profile image91
              scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'll be on the side with the military, the National Guard, and professional law enforcement. The gun nuts will be committing treason.

              I'm not worried.

              1. Mikeg422 profile image84
                Mikeg422posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah because all of the military personell are going to be sooo gung ho to fight against American citizens. Try using your brain, the military is comprised of American people and you think they are going to follow orders from a corrupt government? Just in case you didn't know gun owners, and supporters of the Constitution far outnumber folks like you.  Our president has committed treason, but I don't hear you calling him out. Your obviously a Democrat super liberal so I guess you wouldn't, he can do no wrong as long as he is "protecting" you and those ike you right? Real American of you.

                1. LiamBean profile image88
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah more wisdom from the authority on all things.

                  Seen the makeup of the military lately? The majority are from classes formerly called minorities. They aren't any more.

                  Who decides what makes the government corrupt? You? You are now the minority.

                  What treason has Obama committed? Please be specific.

                  So you've made at least three unfounded and unsupportable accusations based on your own personal bias.

                  Real American of you.

                  1. Mikeg422 profile image84
                    Mikeg422posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not speaking to you, you are silly, ignorant and an overopinionated ass. Anything said to you is not a debate it is just your overwhelming wisdom teaching all of us dumb masses. I personally don't care for your opinion or anything else you may have to say. I almost hope something like a civil war does happen, and then we will see just how bloodthirsty all you socialist nuts are.

                2. scottcgruber profile image91
                  scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't believe the President has committed treason, but it certainly is an interesting accusation coming from someone calling for armed revolution against the United States.

                  And, yes, I do expect the President to protect me and people like me. That's his job. If that's un-American, than I'm happy to be un-American.

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    This odd idea that the military won't do what the commander-in-chief asks of it is laughable.

              2. Moderndayslave profile image60
                Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this
      2. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You'd be a good politician.
        "Deceptive practices are fine when I agree with the outcome"

        I'm interested in whether you believe the military to be responsible enough to own assault weapons. Let's take your figure of 3-400 deaths domestically. How does it compare to the tens of thousands of civilian deaths per year abroad? What should we be addressing first? It at least shows that 'the average citizen' is in fact more responsible with weapons than the government.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          41 Civilians dead in one drone strike
          http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 … -nor-deny/

          Where is the outrage?

          1. scottcgruber profile image91
            scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm against drone strikes as well, don't worry. The military needs to be more responsible with their toys as well.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So when are you going to take their toys from them?

    2. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good point. I don't think we'd be seeing these conspiracy theories today, had Obama not gone on TV within hours and wiped away fake tears.

      It's sad that folks thrive on trying to disprove the official story, but in this case, the immediate govt. pandering set the stage.

      And for what? Yesterday, the President passed (by fiat) 23 of the lamest EOs in the history of EOs. Basically, he did nothing but pander to hysteria.

      There is nothing of substance in his EOs, and I really did not appreciate his Hitler-esque manner of surrounding himself with children for emotional value.

      Perhaps #12 on the President's list will have a small effect, that of training law enforcement and school staff to deal with shootings, but the President did not do the ONE THING that might actually have saved children's lives...put armed guards in schools and encourage extensive training and CC for teachers and staff.

      Before yesterday I thought of Obama as lame. After his speech yesterday, I changed my mind....he's completely worthless.

      What a disappointment.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh come on, we see conspiracy theories for every single thing Obama has done since he took office and before from the time of his birth.

        I don't believe those were fake tears. You might not want to believe it but he is human, he has children.

        I still don't see what is so bad about background checks for everyone. They just said on the news here that 40% of gun sales have had no background check.

        If you want to live in a county where every single place you go has armed guards you certainly can't call that freedom.

        But this is not about gun control (there are a dozen other threads where you can argue that), this is about some people wanting to argue that no children died and that their grieving parents are actors.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have children, too and I also know that when tears form at the outside corners of eyes, wateriness is visible in other parts of the eye. I didn't say background checks were "so bad," but those are not part of the EOs. Have you read those EOs? There's nothing there of substance save #12 and appointing a head of the ATF.  All the rest are "suggestions" to Congress or to others. Not regulations.

          No, I don't want armed guards on every corner, but I recognize that the safety of our children is more important than appearances.

          I also agree with you that this thread is not about gun control, I was just making an observation that when the specter of gun control loomed - it set the stage for opponents to cling to conspiracies. If there is not an emotional catalyst- a conspiracy will not usually arise.

      2. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So Presidential photo-ops with children are Hitler-esque. Got it. So do you feel this way about all U.S. Presidents, or just the black ones?


        So the President is Hitler for posing for pictures with children, but lame for not violating the 3rd Amendment?

        The workings of the conservative mind never cease to amaze me.

        1. 60
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Better than the mind that sees racism in every statement.

        2. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Scott - why would you immediately think "black ones?" What's up with that? Hitler was white, after all.

          Hitler used children in photo ops to bring an emotional element to his agenda. Obama just did the same thing.

          That has nothing to do with racism. Only agenda.

          1. scottcgruber profile image91
            scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So has every president since the invention of the photo op. Yet you didn't compare Obama to Reagan or Kennedy or Eisenhower or Bush or Clinton or Nixon or Truman. You chose Hitler.

            "Agenda" indeed.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
              Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              These were children from Sandy Hook who had written letters to the president asking him to stop things like this from happening.

              1. 60
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Is the President going to do that or is he just going to cry in front of the camera? The answer is obvious.

            2. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Scott, this topic is about our current event. There's no reason to delve into past Presidents and what they did or didn't do. The real issue here is using children to promote a seemingly-tyrannical agenda. Doing it, ostensibly, "for the children." There's a difference between what Michelle Obama did when she posed with kids in an effort to help all American kids learn to plant and grow gardens. She wasn't pushing an agenda that was counter to some folks interpretation of the Constitution.

              And, yes, I chose Hitler. Because he mastered the technique.

              http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-w … -as-props/

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                First, you really need a lesson in history. Gun control measures in Germany were established five years before Hitler assumed the Chancellery. In 1938 they were actually loosened somewhat by lifting restrictions on ammunition and lowering the age of gun ownership from 21 to 18. Adolf didn't need to control firearms; he already had control of the populace.

                Of course if you were Jewish, a Gypsy, a Homosexual or any of the other sub-humans (by the Reich's definition) you had no rights to anything including jobs, land, or firearms. But this was a small sub-set of the population.

              2. scottcgruber profile image91
                scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Right. So when other and - coincedentally white - presidents posed with children for emotional impact in order to sell a policy to the American people, it was fine and irrelevant to the discussion.

                It's only when Obama poses with children to promote some rather low-impact gun control measures that it's Hitleresque and tyrranical.

                Yes, I see your logic.


                I think the agribusiness industry would disagree - I recall them raising a big stink about it at the time.

                Ahh, now I understand. You were using Hitleresque as a positive attribute. All is clear now.

                The conservative mind truly works in mysterious ways. smile

                1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Scott, what you're missing is that we can/did/should address things other presidents do when they do them. Right now, Obama is our president so it doesn't make a lick of sense to pull Truman (who I think was very much like Hitler as well) into the mix. You're getting off on tangents. We're talking about Obama right now - specifically about Obama and his gun-control agenda.

                  1. scottcgruber profile image91
                    scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    if it doesn't make sense to pull past presidents into the mix, why are you bringing up Hitler?

                  2. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Really? When are we going to call Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to account for starting an illegal war? Every last cent of our current debt can be traced directly back to this administration either in unfunded "mandates" or policies that allowed the banks to run roughshod over the nation.

              3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What do you think is tyrannical about President Obama's actions or proposals?

          2. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hitler was raised Catholic, was a vegetarian, and a dog lover. But I never hear of these three groups demonized because they shared traits with Adolf. Godwin's law always applies.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The RCC and Lutheran Church have a LOT to answer to, even to this day, in their complicity. Dog lovers? Gimme a break. Godwin's law is not applicable when we're discussing traits that lead to political destruction.

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Whatever dude. If you brought Hitler into the argument you deserve to be ignored.

                1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How silly, Liam.

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Kissing babies and posing with children is done by nearly all politicians. Calling it "Hitleresque" is more than a bit over the top.

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Racism Ralph. Pure and simple.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Ignorance. Pure and simple.

                1. LiamBean profile image88
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Racism cloaked in wild-arsed conspiracy theories and "the man can do no right." You don't like his skin color and it's the only thing you can't freely admit. Man up!

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My children are biracial.

                    You really are a piece of work.

                  2. 60
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Prove it

        3. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Boom! There it is. The elephant in the room.




          Exactly. Look guys. The tea-party is your worst nightmare. They'll cost you election after election. It's time to stop pandering to the extremists and become the party of social liberty and fiscal responsibility once again. 2014 is going to be a watershed year. Primarily because the Michelle Bachmann's and Rand Paul's will be out on their ears.

          1. 60
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            BOOM, there it aint.

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just because you lot don't use the "N" word doesn't mean you aren't obvious.

              1. 60
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How exactly am I an obvious racist?

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            +++ The GOP is self-destructing.

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This is a perfect description of today's Grand Old Party.

              http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gen … m-insanity

              A mild form of insanity.

              We are talking about someone full of fear, with a poor sense of self, and a lack of mental dexterity. I always tell my students that tolerance of ambiguity is one especially excellent mark of psychological maturity. It isn’t a black and white world. According to the research, conservatives possess precisely the opposite: an intolerance of ambiguity and an inability to deal with complexity. Maybe that’s one reason why Obama seems so distasteful to them: he is a nuanced, multi-faceted thinker who can see things from several different perspectives simultaneously. And he isn’t preaching fear, either. -- William Todd Schultz

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Obama isn't preaching fear? His role would be completely undermined if fear wasn't the primary motivating factor for the citizenry to consider it legitimate. Fear of the terrorists, fear of the gun-nuts, fear of economic collapse and fear of people dying in the streets if Obamacare doesn't go through. If fear doesn't work, it's down to guilt "do you care more about guns than children?" type-rhetoric. If that doesn't work you can always get some hack to write an article about how everyone who disagrees is a lunatic hill-billy living in some hill-billy shack somewhere.

                Rational, calm analysis of the facts seems to be last item on the menu, from both sides, and I believe this is deliberate.

          3. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Race baiting is the REAL elephant in the room.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I forgot about that. Obama is infallible so any objection to his policies naturally derive from racism. Naturally . . .

              1. 60
                whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Weird ain't it?

                1. Mikeg422 profile image84
                  Mikeg422posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yup, fear is definitely the governing attribute of modern American society, when did we become such socialist cowards? Hmm that seems like a Hub worthy question, I think I might persue that.

                  1. 60
                    whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am talking about how the left uses racism to squelch any dissent, it no longer has any effect.

              2. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I've said a number of things about the president. Infallible isn't one of them.

                And yes, if you want to know, I have some issues with him too.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Dianne Fenstein's assault weapon legislation was drawn up before the Sandy Hook incident, following increasing calls for gun control in the media, and what do you know, a particularly horrific school shooting occurs with an assault weapon."

      There were plenty of previous incidents justifying Feinstein's proposed, long overdue legislation.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Feinstein's proposal will die in committee. It has zero chance of passing.

        The Democrats are using this tragedy to push an unpopular agenda and it's very likely to backfire on them. In fact, moderate Democrats are leery about getting behind the President's draconian proposals for just that reason.

        The 2014 elections could see the democrats who supported these measures out on their tushes.

        Riding on the coffins of children isn't going to remain popular for too long before people start seeing it as the macabre stunt it really is.

        Just my two cents.

        1. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Riding on the coffins of children like this half-baked conspiracy theory?

  4. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    Here lies the problem. What evidence?" It is reported", but there are also a fair amount of inconsistencies  reported. No one noticed any of this? I am not saying this didn't happen either. There are some contradictory video reports out there that deserve to be looked at objectively.There is also rubbish.Has anyone examined any of these or just what Anderson Cooper said happened? I just googled if the arms were actually registered to Mrs. Lanza and got nothing,but reports. This was a national tragedy and there is no paper trail of registration? No exclusive or FOIA on this. There's a saying in the legal world,"If it's not on paper it never happened" Only media stating that they were. That's not credible.   Gannettt news in Westchester NY can print the home location of every registered gun owner in Westchester NY but there is not one sample of a sandy hook arm registered with Lanza. What bothers me more is that people will blindly believe what the media reports . Did you notice that when it was time to move away from the SH incident there was a shooting in upstate NY with another AR. Conveniently with no witnesses,only official stories. "Police say" or " it is reported". If people can prove me wrong with concrete proof I will admit I am wrong,I have an open mind. That's why I take this position.,Some putz news anchor stating "It's reported" isn't going to cut it. Dive in for yourself.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And as I said... wait until the official inquest. Right now it's everyone making assumptions. You can't just believe YouTube videos that can easily be doctored. Sorry, maybe it's different in the US but I actually trust the police to do what is right most of the time.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think you're right. But I think the die is cast. This is always the way conspiracies start. Same thing with the 911 conspiracies. The govt. uses the tragedy as political fodder and the wary opposition sees a one-eyed-monster.  By the time all of the issues are answered, everyone will already have formed an opinion and no one will be paying attention.

    2. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I can only assume that you have conducted your own investigation into the incident. Kindly lay out all the evidence you have found that shows Adam Lanza not to have perpetrated the crime?

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I took the time to read your bio. A anti-conspiracy crusader? Maybe you can shut me down with your fact based approach? . I have already listed my partial list of concerns,please refute them.I actually do research I will not do yours.. I have already done mine and have developed my position. Do you feel I want  this because I have nothing better to do.  I am a "Nutter". My concern is what is becoming of America. What the next generations are going to inherit. Mrs. Cleaver doesn't live here anymore.

        1. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          When you've already determined what you want the results to be it really can't be called research. What you are hawking (like snakeoil) is what you think is validation.

          I despise people who take tragedy and attempt to work some sort of personal advantage out of it.

          1. Moderndayslave profile image60
            Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, please,,,,,,what's my personal gain? I don't feel I'm getting the truth. I have my own children that's what makes the Parker video so disturbing and there would be no way that I would not make a world class disturbance to see my child if they were involved. Think about it

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I suspect you get some sort of thrill out of it.

              1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Very nice,thanks. I brought up points and I get countered by what amount to fact less general attacks. My whole argument is against the official story and that is your position. The problem is your story has holes in it.

                1. LiamBean profile image88
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  My part time hobby is calling fools out for what they are.

                  1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nice, personal attacks now. That's also a guaranteed way to Lose an argument. Just the facts ma'm, just the facts

          2. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well, goodness, Liam, you must despise our current administration then.

            Fascinating.

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not at all because I don't buy into this wild-arsed, half baked "conspiracy crap" based on no facts whatever.

              1. Mikeg422 profile image84
                Mikeg422posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Discussing political parties is quite fruitless, as they are far more alike than different. I would chose neither, but would also have to say democrats are the enemy of liberty and always have been. Who was it who fought tooth and nail to block the 13th Amendment? Hmmm, but somehow Republicans are the racist ones (never could figure that out). Democrats are fighting like hell to turn America into a socialist nation, and all the sheep (I would rather be a ghoul than a sheep), urge them on with resounding applause because the media tells them it is good for them, and we will all be safe.Tsk tsk.

                                   The only hint of evidence that really made me think twice about the Sandy Hook incident is the medical examiner saying all of the victims were killed with a rifle, and had three to eleven hits per person. Yet the rifle was found in the trunk of the car after Lanza was found dead. If you have ever fired a weapon like that (I have in the military) it is extremely difficult to successfully hit your target that many times while on the move unless you are a more than proficient marksman. That made me think the whole thing sounds hokey. As far as the parents acting strangely, well when something tramatically devastating happens all people react differently, and I feel for them. Liam you should really avoid calling names even generalising (I know I said sheep, but it was not aimed at anyone in particular aside from those who just buy what they are told and never question or investigate for themselves if that applies to you or anyone on this thread it is purely coincidental, and unintentional) calling names is never productive one way or the other, as someone who writes on hubpages you should know that.

                1. LiamBean profile image88
                  LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Amazing. You are advising me to not do what you freely admit doing yourself. Your sage wisdom is astounding.

                  What name calling did I do?

                  The gun found in the trunk was a shotgun.

                  As a veteran I can tell you that its quite easy to hit what you are aiming at with an Armalite. A ten to fifteen foot distance to target makes hitting it an near certainty. The AR15/M16 only weights eight pounds. It's not like it's that heavy or difficult to maneuver. And because the recoil system takes so much of the shock of firing it, it is very easy to control. A child <cough> could use it.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, that is what I found out too that it was just a left over shotgun in a car, not used in the case.

                    I don't know much about the case except that his name was Ryan, or Adam I guess that was misinformation provided by the media and that he destroyed his hard drive and only 2 people that were actually hit survived.

                    You seem to know a lot about it.

                    Who was the man in camo pants that was running from the scene and evading capture by the police and was seemingly taken into custody?

                    Two people survived that were hit. What were their names?

                  2. Mikeg422 profile image84
                    Mikeg422posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can tell you were a vet because of how "easy" it is, did you miss the part where I was in the military? So you think it is very easy for an autistic young man with no previous training to accurately hit small moving targets while he himself was moving? Yeah seems like your a veteran bullshitter to me bud. I've been in gunfights before joining the military at ranges very similar, and no it is not that "easy" as you would put it. If you want to discredit what I have to say you will have to do a whole lot better than that. By the way I never said I bought into the conspiracy theory, only that it sounded a little fishy to me. Have a great weekend buddy!

        2. scottcgruber profile image91
          scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have already shut you down with my fact-based approach. I asked you to provide facts. You failed to, because you don't have any.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The problem with these wild conspiracy theories is that most of them would have to have involved more people than would be practical to keep the secret. Not likely.

      1. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Reminds me of all of the wild conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the twin towers.

      2. Mikeg422 profile image84
        Mikeg422posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed but that also does not mean anyone should take what the mainstream media says by rote as the truth. It may be that some of the misinformation is just bad reporting, but everything should be questioned when it comes to news anchors they screw up far too often.

        1. 60
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You mean like how they reported Ryan Lanza as the shooter? or that the Mother was a Teacher at the school or that she was killed at the school. In their rush to get news out they forgot that accuracy thing.

          1. Mikeg422 profile image84
            Mikeg422posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes exactly they are irresponsible, reckless, and most likely the root cause of most conspiracy theories that erupt. I guess ethical reporting is too difficult for today's news anchors.

  5. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    Ok, if you say so. You realize other people read this,right?

  6. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."

    A correlary to this law is once you've brought up Hitler, you've lost the argument.

    1. 60
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because nobody could be like Hitler except Stalin, Pol Pot, Karadžić and Mladić. Oh no, there could never be another Hitler.

    2. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Right, because it's no longer politically correct to remind others of the atrocities that occurred or how and why decent folks let them occur.  It's so funny how one person says something (Godwin) and all the little lemmings jump right in line and repeat it without so much considering its implication.

      ......eye-roll.....

  7. twayneking profile image81
    twaynekingposted 3 years ago

    Ever wonder why the government is so poor at "handling" mental health issues?

    It's not a case of the blind leading the blind or the lunatics running the asylum.  The asylum itself is crazy.

    1. LiamBean profile image88
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Or it might just be the laws. Ever hear of AMA? Not the American Medical Association. No, it stands for Against Medical Advice. It's a great means of walking out of a hospital unless your life is in immediate danger.

  8. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Here's my last word on Hitler since he is a guaranteed way to lose an argument.

    The one thing no one ever brings up about him is this. He was a speed-freak.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Mo … _physician

    Pay particular attention to the fourth paragraph after the quoted text. This is the only thing that really explains Adolf's callous disregard for human life.

    1. 60
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, the only thing.

  9. BruceDPrice profile image88
    BruceDPriceposted 3 years ago

    This story is lot more complicated than many seem to think. About 100 discrepancies. Do your own research. You will find yourself staring into an abyss.

  10. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    And then there's this.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/this_ma … ed_for_it/

    The retired psychologist who found six Sandy Hook first graders at the end of his driveway being threatened and harassed by conspiracy "theorists."

    This isn't just a matter of personal opinion. It's domestic terrorism.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Shameful. Looney tunes! I wonder if any of them are our friends from HubPages?!

      1. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In my humble opinion anyone who irresponsibly promotes the wild-arsed conspiracy "theories" is at least partially responsible.

        It is truly sick that a retiree is attacked simply for trying to help six frightened children. SICK!

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Liam, a few of your posts have some salvageable ideas, but you're so inundated in your belief that no one should question authority, that it undermines your credibility.

          In nearly EVERY incident, something is amiss somewhere. UnivitedWriter takes a much more sound approach by urging folks to wait for the official accounting. You're quick to jump the gun and label folks as racists without logic.

          If you could learn to temper those knee-jerk reactions and realize that you're doing the same thing as the conspiracy theorists by making claims on your 'hunches,' I think we'd see some pearls from you.

          As it is - the pearls are obscured by all the bovine feces.....

          Just a thought dude.

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Really? Hey you want my address? I've got a mortgage payment, car payment, insurance payment, food and utility bills you need to take care of.  I figure you owe me this since you see fit to tell me what I am and am not allowed to express.

            Here's your problem. You seem incapable of determining fantasy from reality. Worse, you've decided to run with the fantasy.

            Let me remind you of a simple concept. Your rights end at the tip of the other person's nose.

            The people who put that video together are already guilty of slander, libel, cyber stalking, cyber terrorism, and domestic terrorism.



            Learn to temper my reactions in the face of baseless accusations based on absolutely no valid evidence whatever? That's amazing.

            Let me tell you what a knee jerk reaction is. Within weeks of the 9/11/2001 attacks people very much like you were talking about building demolition, holographic missiles disguised as aircraft, government conspiracy and coverup and a plethora of even less likely craziness. Those are knee jerk reactions.

            Here's another example of knee-jerk reaction. Coming up with a wild baseless conspiracy theory within weeks of twenty-seven dead. That's pretty knee-jerk. Reactions that you are promoting as fact.

            My views aren't knee jerk. I've seen it all before. So no they aren't just hunches.

            Let me ask you something. What anti-psychotic medication are you on?

            1. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wow Liam.

              Just wow.

              Hope you feel better now that' you've gotten that load off you chest.

              Wow.

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You didn't answer my questions. I need about $100 a day to parrot your beliefs. And that's only for a twenty-four hour period per "C" note.

                By the way, How did you feel about me questioning your sanity by posing an assumptive question based on absolutely no facts or evidence at all?

                Get where I'm coming from now or does a ton of bricks need to fall on you?

                1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Once someone shows that they're not interested in a real discussion, Liam, there's no more reason to answer their questions. I've run into some hothead know-it-all types on these forums, but I don't think I've ever run across someone with so much pent-up hatred before.

                  Your comments are insulting and derogatory and after the race-baiting slurs, I'd be a fool to further engage you.

                  Have a nice day.

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not a hot-head, but if that's what you have to use to dodge the obvious questions more power to you. I am interested in a real discussion. That requires questions and answers. That you refuse to supply answers tells me it is you who is not interested in real discussion.

                    There, that's a challenge.

                    You've mistaken me for a moron. I'm anything but. I can parse your statements immediately and respond to them just as quickly; with far more reason that you seem capable of displaying. I asked you an obviously flawed question for a reason. That you refuse to answer it is far more telling about you than I.

                    So once again I ask; how does it feel to be accused of something you know for a fact to be untrue? When you can answer that question honestly you may have a glimmer of the problems your attitudes cause. First amendment rights or no.

                    Once more, your rights end at the tip of the other guys nose. Now if it takes a lawsuit for you to get that I won't mind at all. In fact I'll be cheering the lawyers opposed to you.

  11. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    Can someone please explain all of this?

    http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8

    1. LiamBean profile image88
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as being potentially offensive or inappropriate. Viewer discretion is advised." -- YouTube

      <sarcasm>Now there's a strong endorsement if I've ever seen one. </sarcasm>

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's what you brought to the table? Nothing about Actual clips from network news that actually discredit the "Official" story. In today's PC society a lot of peoples skin is as thick as a wet piece of single ply toilet paper. I tried to open a debate on "Facts" and no one brought it,not one. I got  ghoul, nutter and other person type attacks.Blind trust in gov't and because children are involved it should be out of the question to have reservations about the Official story. Maybe the people behind this counted on that.

        1. LiamBean profile image88
          LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          When you present actual facts I'll let you know. Clearly you and "facts" are not even on speaking terms.

          I watched the full video and was able to debunk every last point.

          Now, that said you geniuses needs to know something. At the very minimum that video is full of lies. In print that's called libel, by word it's called slander and there are a whole host of other more serious charges that can be made when someone floats an idea that brings about physical retaliation against the accused.

          So that video may have over ten million views, but when the lawyers come out, and they will, the people that posted that won't see a cent, will likely end up owing more than even that, and could face prison time if any physical harm comes to the people mentioned.

          Free speech has limits too; as you are all about to learn.

          1. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Liam - you're wrong on the application of libel. When an entity does something that launches itself/herself/himself into the public eye, it's very difficult to get a libel/slander charge to stick. Physical violence is always against the law.

            I watched the video, and while I think it's junk, it doesn't cross into slander. The guy has a disclaimer at the start and throughout he plays actual footage and then offers his opinion - as opinion.

            You're engaging in a little fear mongering this fine morning. And you obviously have little experience with tort law.

          2. Moderndayslave profile image60
            Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You just de bunked nothing, you once again you put up nothing. Will you be running for office soon?you would fit in nicely

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    How about this conspiracy? The right has been screaming for 4 years about Obama wanting to take guns away. He had done nothing like that, actually lifted some restrictions. He is reelected and still did not talk about gun control. All of a sudden, Sandy Hook happens, the country gets fed up, he brings in tighter restrictions on certain types of guns.  Maybe it was those against gun control who were behind this massacre.

    Of course I don't believe this, but it's as valid as many of the others.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry apples and oranges. People saying something is called a threat. live video footage is considered proof in a court of law. What happened to the suspects in the woods? Where are the arms permits? Simple things thAt would shut people up are not available. That is a. Conspiracy I don't get it is it that hard? Where is the footage of him entering,,, just entering the school. Help me understand. These are simple questions

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You missed one: Where's President Obama's birth certificate?

    2. LiamBean profile image88
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      None of his Executive Actions restrict firearms of any type or any size magazine or clip. He is a constitutional scholar after all. He's asking Congress to the "heavy lifting."

      All twenty-two (not twenty-three as is widely misreported) strengthen existing law. That's it.

      Now Obama has bent over backward to be fair and try to work in the entire nation's interest. But this isn't good enough for some; anything he does is automatically criticized no matter what that is.

      This tells me one thing. This is not about his actions; it's about his race. Because if you remove any other reasons as the pure bull-crap they are, this is all you are left with.

  13. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    As I keep saying, there will be an inquest. I am sure they can't release everything to the media until they fully investigate. These things do not happen overnight.

    1. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

  14. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 3 years ago

    Why are we Americans so obsessed with conspiracy theories? We have:

    9/11 truthers
    birthers
    concentration camps
    alien takeovers
    communist takeovers

    And now Sandy Hook truthers?  How do people find the time to do all this?

    1. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know, I have asked the same questions recently. I think those that so easily fall into these conspiracies think that the 'world' is out to get them, and they don't want to be part of it. It seems to be an 'us against them' mindset.  And let's face it many of them clearly don't like Obama, so it's easier to believe he is against them and to blame everything bad on the government.

    2. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In my opinion, the reason these conspiracies take hold is due in part to secrecy from authorities, combined with initial misreporting by the media.

      But we have to keep in mind that conspiracy theories come in all flavors.

      For instance, we have some here who stomp their feet and declare that anyone who opposes Obama - must be a racist. That's just one more conspiracy theory and those who take part are no different than those who think Israel bombed the twin towers. The one thing all conspiracy theorists have in common is a rush to judgement. And these folks come from all sides of the political spectrum.

      1. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Doubt starts from the "Official" story not seeming plausible. Jack Ruby shot Oswald because he was ,Just so upset that Oswald shot killed Kennedy  he had to do something. Gulf of Tonkin never happened The USS Liberty incident never happened.. WTC 7 falling straight down in a controlled demolition manner ,no plane wreckage at Shanksville and on and on.I get put down on the chemtrail issue also. I work outside almost every day and once you start looking up every day you start to say ,hey that doesn't look natural. But people accept it because they aren't paying attention.Doubt me? If you live in the US look up every time you are outside for 1 month and then get back to me.
        Then people who are really thinking that the Official story is BS start coming to their own assumptions that seem to fit much better. Along with this there never seems to be any Tough questions asked.  Some people spend their free time try to learn about the things that are happening around them. They accept network media as gospel, they would never lie. Operation Mockingbird kinda blows that one out of the water.
        Some spend theirs on American Idol ,survivor,The Yankee's or the Lakers. I have no Agenda. My problem is that America is turn to crap! Are we going to do something or just sit and watch it go down the toilet. It's sad.

        1. scottcgruber profile image91
          scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, you're a chemtrailer, too. Why doesn't that surprise me?

          And, of course, you won't be able to provide any evidence for this conspiracy as well. Just alleged anomalies and appeals to ignorance.

          Of course the contrails you see in our skies aren't natural - they are put there by one of the 87,000 commercial, general, cargo, and military flights that occur over US skies every day. A bit of frozen airline exhaust does not prove that there are mind-control drugs being dropped on the flyover states.

          1. Moderndayslave profile image60
            Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Who said anything about Mind Control Drugs? Nice tactic though

            1. Moderndayslave profile image60
              Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7591539_f248.jpg
              Just vapor from emissions, right?
              They seem to be spreading out not dissipating

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                When it dissapates, it spreads out and thins; that is basic science. Are people actually worried about jet trails? I guess they have to have something to be afraid of. Yep, definitely agree with what Obama says about making access to mental health care easier...

                1. scottcgruber profile image91
                  scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, yes they are. Look up "chemtrail conspiracy" on Google for a hilarious assortment of tinfoil hattery.

                  The chemtrailers are absolutely convinced that some nefarious secret agency is spraying something into the upper atmosphere for some nefarious purpose. They do not know or agree on who is doing it or why or even what they are spraying, but they are convinced that something is being sprayed.

                  And, of course, there isn't a shred of evidence - which is proof that it's being covered up.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe the chem-trail conspiracy theorists are victims of MKUltra.

                  2. Moderndayslave profile image60
                    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this
              2. scottcgruber profile image91
                scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, that's normal behavior for airplane exhaust at high altitude, depending on atmospheric conditions.

                Mind control drugs are one of the "theories" I've seen from the chemtrail looney bin. Or weather-altering chemicals, or fertility-reduction drugs, or particulates for climate mitigation.

                Not that it matters, as there's no evidence for any of it. Just like all other conspiracy theories.

                1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                  Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I put up at least some proof and you give your opinion. You got your degree in Atmospheric studies from what school Mr Hawking?

                  1. scottcgruber profile image91
                    scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You put up a picture of some contrails. I explained what they were.

                    No degree in atmospheric studies needed - just five minutes of looking it up in Wikipedia.

                    Water vapor from airplane exhaust at high altitude crystallizes and forms artificial cirrus clouds. That's what your picture shows. It does not prove that anything other than airplane exhaust is being emitted.

      2. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, I totally agree that they come from both sides.

      3. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        When the knee-jerk reaction to the President having a photo-op with children - something every other US President has done since the camera was invented - is to describe Obama as Hitleresque, "racism" is the most applicable description.

        1. movingout profile image60
          movingoutposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Racism definately! Affirmative action brought fear, and the fear seems to have esculated with our first Black President. To those people I say, "Get over it, this country is a melting pot of all walks of like and color." Lose the hate and learn to get along with everyone!

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There's this to consider too. White men, older white men in particular, are now in the clear minority. It might be time to embrace your fellow Americans, regardless of ethnicity, and just be happy to be here.

            And to those who insist that the Republican party is the only party for equality, since it is the party that freed the slaves, please explain all of the voter suppression activities promoted by Republicans.

  15. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 3 years ago

    the anonymous nature of the internet presents the perfect stage where radical and immoral individuals can play the deceit game.
    honorable moral individuals of our society should recognize this and not join the banter.
    however, the immoral individuals sometimes argue and discuss with each other to perpetuate the untruth.
    the immoral individuals of society do not care about others feelings or who they may hurt.
    they only want to expand the demonic drain on society.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We can agree on that Mr. Burkett.

  16. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    Sandy Hook Conspiracy points debunked one by one.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/your_co … newsletter

  17. EmpressFelicity profile image83
    EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago

    So, let me see if I've got this correct - these people are saying that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax posed by actors? That's stretching credulity to the absolute limits - think of the number of people who'd have to be in on the hoax, for a start. And harassing bereaved families is totally beyond the pale.

    I've finally worked out what bothers me about this. It's the possibility that in the attempt to distance themselves from bizarre theories like this one (and their originators), previously undecided people will rally behind whatever reduction of freedoms it is that the government of the day is trying to promote.

    ETA: I couldn't care less what political party said government is - I would have said the same thing regardless of whether it was Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Labour... whatever.

  18. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    We all do still remember that this thread is about conspiracy "theories" around the Sandy Hook shooting right?

    1. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know much about the case except that his name was Ryan, or Adam I guess that was misinformation provided by the media and that he destroyed his hard drive and only 2 people that were actually hit survived.

      You seem to know a lot about it.

      Who was the man in camo pants that was running from the scene and evading capture by the police and was seemingly taken into custody?

      Two people survived that were hit. What were their names?

      1. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Adam had his brother's ID on him according to the police (notice how I put that). I've only heard of one gunshot wound survivor. I could be wrong of course. I don't know the name(s).

        Interesting how you used the word "hit." So now the mob was involved?

        From the link I already posted above the camo clad woodsman was actually with the sheriff's department and was moving toward the sound of gunfire. I don't think he was evading capture either.

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well from my research before some of it got "scrubbed" from the internet was there was two survivors that were "injured" . The only reason I used the word "hit" was to differentiate between people that were not injured and survived and people that were in fact injured and survived.  One was unnamed and one was a principal I think. Respecting the unnamed persons privacy, I would still want to know if they were an employee of the school or not, extent of injuries, whether in a coma currently, or why they were on school property if they weren't an employee.

          I do not think you are correct about the "sheriff dept camo clad woodsman"  running from police. The video I saw shows a person running and eyewitnesses saying he was later handcuffed and claiming he "didnt do it" which of course would be an odd thing to say if working for the Sheriff Dept. But it is understandable because of the lack of accurate information available and conflicting reports from everyone.

          I have been looking further into it. The latest story I found was that in fact he was not with the Sheriff Dept at all. They supposedly even have his name. That story is that he was going to show up and make gingerbread houses in his camouflage pants with his daughter, when he heard shots and smelled sulfur, but as he rounded the corner of the school he was handcuffed by police who would not be responding to the scene for at least a few minutes anyway, so that story does not make sense either, plus he was running through the woods on video.

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yah. I can't find anything about that.

            There was so much confusion right after, something I expect since news sources are all rushing to scoop each other, that a lot of what came out was questionable at best. Heck I found Ryan Lanza myself on Facebook and saw his posts saying "It's not me." It couldn't have been Ryan; the suspected shooter was reported dead. So I already knew the shooter wasn't named Ryan. This Ryan, by the way, lived a few miles from his Nancy Lanza's house. That convinced me he was from the same family.

            I was really frosted to learn the principal was one of the first killed and that Nancy Lanza had no direct connection to the school. Makes me wonder where they get this so called information. This is just so specific and as it turns out false.

            I see this over and over again. I remember when the Heaven's Gate bunch committed suicide and the media initially insisted that web designers in general were therefore weird and suicidal because that's how the Heaven's Gate branch made money.

            I also remember all the misinformation about the Aurora shooting in the first few days.  It's irresponsible, but I understand the dynamic. Everyone is trying to get news out there and in that rush valid research takes a back seat.



            You are right. "It was Chris Manfredonia, the father of a 6-year-old who attends the school. He was on his way to the school to make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard gunfire and smelled sulfur, so he ran."

            I like (my sarcasm) that they don't say whether he was running toward or away from the gunfire.

            I am bugged that information flow seems to have slowed to a trickle on this. I'd like to know 1) how the accused got the firearms and 2) the exact sequence of events. I'd also like to see Nancy Lanza listed among the victims. Considering what most Americans can do about mental illness in family members these days that would only be fair.

            This is just going to take time. I still think it's too complicated to be a conspiracy. Too many people would have to be involved and someone would "spill the beans" so to speak.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What strikes me is odd is what you wrote-

              Adam had his brother's ID on him according to the police.


              Later Connecticut Law Enforcement threatened prosecution for anyone that provided misinformation on social sites.

              Where would they obtain information on what ID Adam had on him at the time?

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                This was over a month ago, but as I remember they were calling him Ryan for about three or four hours. During that time people on social media sites were finding Ryan Lanza's picture, copying it, and posting that picture and saying "this is the shooter."

                Meanwhile the guy's facebook pages has all these posts saying "It's not me. I didn't do it." I think Ryan eventually got hold of authorities and explained who he was.

                Interesting times.

                1. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The only way anyone would know adam had ryans ID, to misidentify him would have been the police to have leaked the misinformation. Police or whoever had contact with the crime scene.

  19. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Racism has nothing to do with it in light of the fact that dots are being connected which are convenient to the agenda being pushed.  Using children as a backdrop form of drama to suggest that we cast aside our rights under the Constitution to me borders on a transformation which once started cannot be stopped as each justification comes on the heels of connecting dots to deceive.  What happened at Sandy Hook was a function of mental instability and a lack of security measures.  The fact that a gun was used is secondary to the fact that a baseball bat or a pry bar could have been just as effective when attacking women and children who have no way of protecting themselves.  The message then becomes, "get rid of the guns and this will no longer happen".  That is nothing more than lies rolling off the lips of politicians who are more interested in trading security in exchange for our rights as citizens.  Conspiracies aside, let's put the focus where it belongs....mental health. ~WB

    1. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I just tried searching for all mass killing incidents in which 26 people were killed with a pry bar. Couldn't find any.

      You were saying?

    2. LiamBean profile image88
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Completely ignoring all of the instances were George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan used children to promote their agenda.



      You know, when you hit someone with a hammer or crowbar you are very likely to be drenched in the victim's blood. You also have to have some level of stamina. I'm pretty sure bludgeoning twenty children and seven adults to death would become physically taxing after a while, ignoring the whole bloody mess.

      Since it's such a weak argument why make it?

      You have a right to your firearms and if you are responsible citizen with no criminal record you should be able to own them including automatic weapons if that's what you desire. That's really all that needs be said.

      And yes, more help for those with mental health problems is definitely needed for everyone's sake.  I think it's pretty obvious from most of the serious mass shootings in the last year, that mental health problems are a major factor in the carnage.

    3. movingout profile image60
      movingoutposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @WayneBrown...where is anyone talking about taking all guns? I musthave missed something? Chasing kids with a crowbar would wear me out! Now using the clips used in the Sandy Hook killings took no effort. Now if he was only able to get a clip, with say 10 shots, I believe the death toll would have been less. Of course I'm looking at that thru a common sense approach.

  20. wmhoward4 profile image78
    wmhoward4posted 3 years ago

    Here is a pretty balanced update of the situation. I am not ready to make any conclusions. However, the inconsistent coverage of the situation has certainly caused different degrees of speculation.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/sandy-h … ling-apart

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That was more generalized tripe. As time goes by the chances of any distinctive explanation goes out the window. Photoshop and doctored are brought out immediately if someone doesn't the information. The hard questions need to be asked immediately. The chances of that are nil.Mainstream  reporting has turned into joke. TMZ works harder than the major networks.

      1. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Uh huh.

        War is Peace

        Ignorance is Knowledge

        Up is Down

        Brilliant, just brilliant.

        1. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Let me ask politely. You are given the authority to judge other people by who?

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The same standards of free speech you seem to apply to your wild-arsed conspiracy theories.  I know I irritate you, but you just ask for it.

            I'll give you this. If you wanted a career writing professionally for sites like that, you would probably make a decent living at it.

            1. Moderndayslave profile image60
              Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks but I am happy with my current career. While I believe there may be an alternative to the accepted answer that comes from having an open mind and thinking outside the box. Keep following the herd,it suits you well.every thing is fine and there is no possible way that something you are not aware of is going on.

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Herd, sheeple, I've heard it all before. I do think outside the box though.

                My chief objection to all of this "conspiracy crap" is that you folks have no proof that a conspiracy actually took place, but are running with it anyway. But this is what you and your pals always do. You much more fascinated by what might have been than common sense explanations.

                At the very top of my objection list, beside twenty dead children, is the people who've been highlighted in these so called theories are now being called "paid characters" and worse by the least savory of your crowd.

                No good deed goes unpunished, at least not by the crazy element of the conspiracy crowd. You do know that some of these people are getting death-threats now don't you?

                Please, try to bear in mind that a conspiracy, by its very nature, involves more than one person. Sandy Hook, if it is a conspiracy, involves hundreds if not thousands. There's no way for it to remain a conspiracy for very long the more people who are party to it.

                And you know, more often than not Occam's razor really does apply.

                1. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Operation Snow White had 5000 covert agents. Infiltrated 136 government agencies, involved 30 countries.

                  1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nothing in my world goes on like that or the media would report it.

                  2. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So now you are comparing the U. S. government, after only four years and one month, to a cult that has existed for sixty years?

  21. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    Hard to believe "SOME" people actually buy into tis! LMAO

  22. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 3 years ago
    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That puts it to rest.

      1. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It should but it won't. Not until the next conspiracy free-for-all anyway.

    2. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Here's call out for your author of the salon article to put up or shut up.
      I'm sure this isn't the end of this.
      http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/ … y-weidner/

      1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
        The Suburban Poetposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So you think it didn't happen?

        1. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not the way they say it did.

      2. LiamBean profile image88
        LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Considering the Salon article is characterized as a "hit piece" and no names are actually mentioned in that Salon article, I'd say the author of this retort is suffering from a severe case of defensive hyperbole.

        1. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The salon piece is vague, again. The authors opinion. No interviews with people "On the record"  Just like what I got here. Go back and read what I put up.Rense will definately dig into him and this What's your skin in the game anyway?

      3. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How is it that in the wake of a high-profile tragedy, the conspiracy theorists all become instant experts in forensics, police procedures, ballistics, security protocols, journalistic standards, and psychology?

        I mean, just sitting at home in their mothers' basements, the conspiracists know more about how to grieve over the loss of a child than an actual parent who has actually lost a child!

        Amazing, isn't it?

        Maybe instead of spending years studying and practicing forensics and medicine and grief psychology, those so-called "experts" should have just watched a few YouTube videos, like the conspiracists.

        Better yet, maybe the conspiracists should learn to tie a necktie by themselves and get jobs as medical examiners and television journalists and FBI agents and put into practice all that they've learned from blogging in their underwear!

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What are the salons credentials? They definitely have no credibility as a news source- they cant even keep their story straight- Yet they can publish all sorts of wild, nonsensical, dishonestly crafted, rebuttals about conspiracies and assorted strawmen arguments.

          If I was a law officer I would not leak misinformation that damaged a man's reputation for life.

          If I was TV journalist I would not repeat that misinformation or show staged bogus footage of the scene and insinuate it is real and factual.

          If I was FBI, I would want to know why an armed man is hanging out in the woods.

          People naturally want to know what happened.  No matter how many ad homs you throw in there of "mothers basements" and in your underwear" which indicates you are emotionally outside your comfort zone of "having blind faith" in the ever changing stories.

          1. LiamBean profile image88
            LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What are your credentials? What are Jon Rappoport's credentials? What are Jeff Rense and Jay Weidner credentials?

            Salon may have no credibility with you, but that really doesn't mean all that much since you have zero credibility yourself. Funny how that works isn't it?

            And to this claim of yours that "they can publish all sorts of wild, nonsensical, dishonestly crafted, rebuttals about conspiracies and assorted strawmen arguments" that's what you are doing. And once again, didn't you say you were just asking questions? Because those claims of nonsense and dishonesty are accusations, not questions.



            Law enforcement personnel have to be objective, calm, and not easily rattled. You are none of those things.



            You aren't objective enough to be any type of reporter.



            Actually considering all the unfounded pie-in-the-sky silliness you've posted I'm pretty sure the FBI is monitoring you right now...and not because they want you to work for them.



            I sure didn't say anything about you being a pimply masturbatory fourteen year old boy sitting around in his filthy underwear posting wild-arsed conspiracy stupidity because he's convinced himself that he has something meaningful to say.

            So I'm not sure where you got that.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              1 If Salon was a reputable news source they would not be publishing conspiracy theory rebuttals at all much less rebuttals of that low of degree.

              2 All the rest of your post is a personal attack.

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Who are you to decide how reliable Salon is? Who are you to decide what a new source publishes. Who are you to decide what qualifies as "low degree?"

                Low is all you post. And that's not a personal attack; it's an observation.



                You don't know what a personal attack is.

                You are unqualified to be a reporter, a police officer, or an agent with the FBI. That's not an attack; it's an observation based on your rather shrill and paranoid sounding posts.

                And I STILL never called you a pimply masturbatory fourteen year old boy sitting around in his filthy underwear.

                1. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well if you are not intelligent enough to understand why a reputable news source would never publish various,  assorted and opinionated rebuttals to various,  assorted and opinionated conspiracy theories across the net, then what more can I say?

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    See when you imply that I'm not intelligent enough to understand something that is a personal attack.

                    Since you didn't know that, obviously, I thought I'd let you know.

                    You see the reason news sources don't published unfounded, unverified accusations based on no factual information whatever, they would be sued for libel.

                    And if we are all lucky that's something I hope you get to face in the very near future. A nice expensive libel suit.

                    Actually if you stopped saying anything at all about this your credibility would improve almost overnight.

            2. scottcgruber profile image91
              scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Paragraphs like this should come with a warning label for readers who happen to be drinking a beverage while reading. smile

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I honestly don't know what he's talking about. I've never described him at all much less as a basement denizen.

          2. scottcgruber profile image91
            scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But you aren't.

            You don't do any of these jobs. Yet you think you know better than the people who do.

            You weren't at the school on the day of the shooting.
            You weren't one of the first responders on the scene.
            You weren't covering the story as a journalist.
            You weren't examining the dead bodies of six-year old children.
            You weren't helping reunite traumatized children with their parents.
            You weren't giving a press conference while mourning the loss of your first-grader.

            Yet you can sit back and criticize the people who were there and did respond and did lose their children, like an armchair quarterback watching a football game.

            Only this isn't something as meaningless and trivial as a football game. You are armchair quarterbacking people's lives during moments of unthinkable trauma and claiming - from the comfort of your living room and the hindsight of Youtube - that you somehow would've done better.

            If that's not the epitome of arrogance, I don't know what is.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have a friend that is on the opposite end of the political spectrum than me. Like me, he never even gave much thought to the official stories and news casts. But now, and I agree, we will never vote and never watch MSM TV again because of what has transpired.

              Furthermore, that has been a constant tactic, to shame or belittle people constantly if they merely want the truth.

              Of course it was a tragedy. But its a strawman and an abusive ad hominem attack and poor tactic to assume that people that want answers and question some of the story are insensitive in any way.

              Because YOU buy anything and everything that you are told (even though some have changed their belief in this very thread ) DOES  not mean by default  YOU ACTUALLY CARE. Does it.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
          oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So many subtle and not so subtle put downs and assumptions, favoring one side, and trying to put into question people working through the facts of something that is worth going over.

          To be sure, if there was a good argument here to be given, that would have given instead of the above.  Will hope for an argument and facts or good reasoning to add to genuine discussion next time.

          I don't know you, or know if you are pro big government.  I applaud people that don't believe blindly, things that ought to be questioned because the stakes are high, innocent people are dead, and something is awry at least to some degree.  Personally, I don't respect people that support big government that takes advantage daily of people that don't think, and don't ask the tough questions and demand answers.  Of course big government and their supporters will get annoyed at these types, and put them down, just as we see here.  Amazing, they are all live at home adult crazy people, blogging in their underwear, or nutjobs in the woods, as another brilliant person put it, etc.  A very transparent post....sorry.  No one can know anything, if they aren't pro big government.... that is funny and incredibly ironic to suggest, to be honest.

        3. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Like maybe how the experts used a Youtube video as a lie to leave 4 Americans to die in Benghazi?

          You still believe it was a Youtube video? Thats what they told you.

        4. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Scott, according to you in another exchange. 5 minutes in Wikipedia is enough experience. smile

  23. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 3 years ago

    So let's get caught up: what is the point of this conspiracy theory? That the tragedy didn't occur? Is that it?

  24. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago

    http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/ … -truthers/

    Ah, truthers, I wonder if they'd be as nasty if they faced the same unrelenting harassment for being mentioned by the press? Hey there's an idea. Find out who the truthers are and release their names, phone numbers, addresses and so on.

    That would be great!

    1. scottcgruber profile image91
      scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Name, telephone, and address information on the registrant of SandyHookHoax.com can easily be found through a Whois lookup.

      There's one.

  25. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    These people aren't highly paid professionals entrusted  by us to deliver the truth?. Now doesn't the anchor state "Federal officials reported (past tense) there were 4 guns in the school and a rifle in the car"  This was the next day
    http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=2E107 … 1A6778F3AB

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Denial is not a river in Egypt

      1. scottcgruber profile image91
        scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Federal officials from NOAA told me we were getting four inches of snow on Thursday. We got nothing.

        Federal officials make mistakes sometimes.

        1. Moderndayslave profile image60
          Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So what you are poorly trying to convey is that state and federal officials (investigators) cant tell the difference between 4 hand guns and a rifle locked in a car and 2 small arms and a rifle that wasn't in the car and did everything?
          Do you think at some point you will run out of lame excuses ?

          1. scottcgruber profile image91
            scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No. I'm sure the FBI investigators and local police know how to tell the difference between types of guns.

            What I am saying is that in all the chaos of the day of the event, somewhere in the chain of information between the investigators and public affairs staff and assignment desk editors and reporters and on-camera anchors, the information got a little garbled and it was mistakenly reported that the assault rifle was in the trunk. This incorrect information was corrected later by the medical examiner's on-the-record statement that the assault rifle was the main one used in the shooting, and by follow-up media reports that the gun found in the trunk was not an assault rifle but a shotgun.

            That is not evidence of a conspiracy. It is evidence that the frantic rush for information in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile incident often leads to erroneous information being made public, and that media reports in the early stages of an active investigation are not very reliable.

            1. Moderndayslave profile image60
              Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So you are implying that the media got it wrong? How many times has this happened before? This whole situation should be a wake up call to people. There seems to be
              little hard evidence this kid did this. No one is interested in putting any up either. Conn has very strict gun laws,but there is no record of her owning any. The Honda wasn't her's either.Two people went to Danbury Hospital and they locked it down? What for? To stop them from answering questions? Who are they and where are they now? Signing book deals? Newtown is a well off area, they couldn't afford cameras at least at the doors? What is to hide? All that's available is "It is reported" or"Govt sources say" The medical examiner is / was known as one of the best in the country. All of a sudden he's babbling idiot?  When we start accepting these general blanket sources as proof where is the credibility? Let's just hand the keys to the hen house over to the fox. No one has the courage to say BS, except us tin foil hat ,conspiracy theorist, nutter, ghouls that will do the thinking for themselves.  Just remember 1 thing,
              The truth never changes,

              1. LiamBean profile image88
                LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                When you and truth actually share the same planet that might actually mean something.

                1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                  Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you following me? Please come back when you have something intelligent to offer

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I get an email notification anytime someone posts to this thread.

                    A conspiracy nut masquerading and a well reasoned writer telling ME to come back when I have something intelligent to say?

                    That's the best laugh I've had all day.

              2. scottcgruber profile image91
                scottcgruberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's right. Because the matter is still under investigation. You are not entitled to the hard evidence until the official police report is issued in March. So you'll just have to wait.

                1. Moderndayslave profile image60
                  Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What's to investigate? The perp is dead, he used a bushmaster. This is how they are saying it went down,officially. Time will just muddy the water.The court of public opinion has already ruled. Slam dunk. I see you must also be a part time lawyer  too? Please stop with the "General Statements" I can watch network news for that.

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You are expecting news here?

                    Here's some news.

                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 … 16424.html

                    Dang. Obama's at it again.

  26. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    So, by your logic if you don't witness something it didn't happen the way they said it did and you are free to make up your own interpretation of it.

    Like has been said, the investigation will be over in March. Maybe all your questions will be answered, but I somehow doubt it, you have already made up your mind.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image60
      Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why are the answers I am getting not direct to the statement I put up? I don't get it

    2. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      CNN and Anderson Cooper were showing bogus footage of the scene. So witnessing anything really woudn't help since the MSM media outlets were broadcasting "fiction".

      Everyone also witnessed a man fleeing into the woods. Allegedly an armed, off duty officer, hanging around the school and then fleeing police.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That has actually been addressed, I think in the link to the Salon article in this thread.

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Which part was addressed? The armed off duty officer seen fleeing from the scene? Or the CNN Anderson Cooper fictional footage?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Read it for yourself. It was talking about the people in the woods.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And what was there conclusion about an armed man fleeing the scene? What was his name? Why was he fleeing the scene? Why was he near the school?

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As I said, read it yourself. And the odds are this will be addressed when the final verdict is in and the inquest is over.

                1. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You said they addressed it?

                  So I looked.

                  LA Times

                  Chris Manfredonia, whose 6-year-old daughter attends the school, was heading there Friday morning to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur.

                  He ran around the school trying to reach his daughter and was briefly handcuffed by police. He later found his child, who had been locked in a small room with a teacher.

                  Salon Tabloid

                  What about the man in the woods? Central to proving any conspiracy theory is finding co-conspirators, which in this case means multiple shooters. Theorists have seized on helicopter footage of a man getting chased by police through the woods behind the school as evidence there was more than one shooter. Who is this man?

                      Answer:  It was Chris Manfredonia, the father of a 6-year-old who attends the school. He was on his way to the school to make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard gunfire and smelled sulfur, so he ran.


                  But there was another man in the woods (maybe): Eyewitnesses saw a second man in the woods wearing camouflage pants and a dark jacket, and said that he may have been armed. Must be a second shooter.

                      Answer: Actually, he was, according to the Newtown Bee, “an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town” who heard the gunfire.



                  You said it was addressed? How so? Why is an an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town” who heard the gunfire, fleeing the police in the woods?

                  1. LiamBean profile image88
                    LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How do you know he was fleeing?

                  2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    As I said, wait for the report to be completed in March. How would I know the answers to any of that? How would anyone not directly involved know that?

            2. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sandy+Hoo … h&z=16

              If you look closely you'll notice the school is surrounded by wooded areas. Rosen said he thought hunters were being irresponsible in there, before he determined there'd been a shooting. One of the surviving children said she thought the shots she heard were coming from hunters in the woods.

          2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And, by the way, what was the "fake footage"?

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Funny how these guys keep insisting that they are just asking questions, but routinely use words like "the truth" and "faked."

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Here is video of Anderson Cooper whining about conspiracy theories and how people believe that it was staged, specifically. Meanwhile CNN is airing bogus footage. That is not police running into Sandy Hook School. That is police conducting a staged or simulated drill from a nearby school. Did they think that it looked better, than using the actual real footage they had,  so they just said what the heck lets use it? Now have the gall to wonder why people feel some things are not adding up?

                It is quite possible that some family that was viewing that bogus footage, could have recognized that school and thought their child had been lost, at that school. What CNN was irresponsibly portraying on TV was fiction.



                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gYc38e8a_c

            2. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              CNN and or Anderson Cooper were reporting on the event, and they were showing bogus footage of the school, portraying it as the school when in fact it was not Sandy Hook, but St Rose school.

  27. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

    Out of here, this is starting to remind me of the threads with repairguy when everyone just kept going around in circles and not getting any further.

  28. HarperDavis profile image75
    HarperDavisposted 3 years ago

    Hello all!

    I work in news, and just wanted to pass along a bit about how go about getting info and such.

    As for if Sandy Hook ever happened, I can at least say there are indeed dead or injured children, staff and the shooter's mom. I had to make some calls to confirm information, and it's really not something you can make up. I'm still sick to my stomach over it, as well as the deaths of children in general.

    The primary reason information kept changing, or we reported incorrectly is because of jitters and unconfirmed source information. Most of the information we initially receive from police for any situation, from a car accident, to a fire, to a shooting is usually given in the form of a press conference or press release. Because of the magnitude of what happened, we had people clawing to get information, authorities included, and in the mix we also received opinion and other personal thoughts. The result is the ugly mish mash you probably saw on tv.

    It a rush to get information and the situation involving so many kids, it's likely some of the info we received may have come from kids. I personally dislike having kids talk about anything in general for sound bites, let alone a shooting.

    Also, the media isn't as intricate as some make it seem. We're just big, lol. On a local level, we're very similar. It's network where things get iffy: you have personality based shows (i.e. Erin Burnett), shows where information comes from a wire and a producer looking for content (i.e. anything not a personality based show) you name it. Anything with a particular agenda is primarily weaved into personality based shows, and through malleable producers. Unfortunately, journalists are only trained to *report* what's happening, and may only know a lot about certain topics. I, for example, know a lot about nutrition and health. When collecting info about other things, because of the sheer volume content, we may not always know, or can get down to the nitty gritty of it. A lot of mistakes are just that--mistakes. I want nothing more than to give accurate information, and for the most part we're just citizens trying to get info.

    As a journalist, I do with we could go back to our investigative heyday. The primary reason for surface reporting is we don't have the manpower to do so. Whatever authorities tell us, we have to take at face value because we simply don't have enough people to look into it. It sucks, believe me. You're left questioning everything, and feeling as though you're spoon feeding the populace what you're told--and essentially we are sometimes, but can't prove it.

    Okay, I'll stop here before I write an entire book, lol.

  29. 60
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    This was an answer to question six about the man in the woods.

    Answer:  It was Chris Manfredonia, the father of a 6-year-old who attends the school. He was on his way to the school to make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard gunfire and smelled sulfur, so he ran.

    He ran? He ran away from the school with his child inside the school? What kind of Father would do that?

    1. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If this is from the salon, a tabloid of bottom of a bird cage caliber or usefulness, they can't get their story straight on the man in the woods. Chris Manfredonia was never thought to be the man in the woods. The tabloid clips the article to suggest that Chris Manfredonia "ran" period. The original source says he ran - around the building and was taken into custody immediately by officers, allegedly.

      The "most consistent" story is that the armed man in the woods, or the woodsman in camo, or the woodcutter, or the armed off duty tactical officer from another county, running into the woods, lurking in the woods, just hanging out in the woods, has consistently been the man in the woods, despite the tabloids desire to place Chris Manfredonia in the woods.

      1. 60
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I really don't care who was in the woods I was just amazed that a parent ran from his child who was in danger. I guess I'm glad to hear it didn't happen.

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I hear ya. For me the man in the woods has been the original question for me, that is still unanswered as far as I am concerned. Why is there an armed man in camo hanging out in the woods, near a school, during a tragedy like this, with so many funky stories and explanations surrounding him.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There are gun nutjobs in camo hanging out in the woods every weekend all over the country.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just so happened to be a camo clad, armed guy, hanging out in the woods at Sandy Hook School On December 14, 2012.

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Also, the -official- unofficial -official leak- claims he was an off duty tactical police officer of some sorts from another county. Do you usually characterize off duty police officers as "gun nutjobs" or are you just gratuitously throwing that term in there a lot?

      2. Moderndayslave profile image60
        Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The article is useless. The author dragged two other bloggers into his article and that was a big mistake.

  30. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 3 years ago

    I'm sure all of these op's stopped immediately, like telling a heroin addict ."You'll stop right now"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxnpDhYw … r_embedded

  31. LucidDreams profile image81
    LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago

    Agreed!

  32. oceansnsunsets profile image89
    oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago

    One thing seems likely, they did not let a tragedy go to waste.... perhaps as if salivating, waiting for something to happen to push through legislation what they have been wanting to for a long time.  THESE kinds of people are the ones that actually are putting down the families of the lost children, not the others...  The legislation would not even help protect the kids in the same scenario, and that is proof if nothing else is, that this isn't about dead children and preventing more.

    Since logic and reason are not on the side of people that want big government, dressed up as "lets protect the little children", they have to use all kinds of tactics, and knee jerk reactions are happening left and right that are raising red flags where they don't really want it.

    We all know what would protect children, and disarming innocent American's isn't one of them, as has been proven both in reality (see dozens of real life scenarios not making the same air time, surprise), and also as proven with general reason and easy to understand arguments.

    So, from people at home in their underwear, to those in hard working jobs, living on their own, that wear suits and ties everyday , can all smell something rotten when there is something rotten to "smell."  Good for them for demanding answers that don't seem to be forthcoming.  From those that ARE the experts, that are so incredibly stumped. Sure there are some genuine nutjobs that scream conspiracy from the rooftops about all kinds of things, but to paint all as the same is not only not accurate or reasonable to suggest to any that do, it isn't right to do, and suggests more.

    1. LucidDreams profile image81
      LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So if I read you right, you are saying that more guns is the answer? That the left used these incidents that happen pretty much daily as a way to push an agenda?

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
        oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, I did not suggest, nor do I think more guns is the "answer." 

        We already have proof more gun legislation doesn't help a society in the pockets we see it in, see the factual data for Chicago, for instance.  Kids are still dying there, and criminals don't obey the laws, just like they always haven't.  See the statistics, as I don't want anyone taking my or other's word for it.

        This kind of thinking is very liberal, and I am saying I side with those that go with what works, and is keeping with our Constitutional rights over ideas that have been proven wrong.

        It is hard to push such legislation when it is so wrong, and obviously so when lined up with the facts and the Constitution.  It makes sense that at a very emotional time, people are being taken advantage of when feelings are running high, because they are less likely to think something through fully.  There are bad suggestions being put out there, as good ideas.  I am not for that kind of thinking, nor the taking advantage of an American public and tragedies, (IF and when that is being done) for pushing bad ideas, proven bad ideas through legislation.  I think this hurts Americans, and doesn't help less kids die.

        1. LucidDreams profile image81
          LucidDreamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah emotions are high but after awhile, people will settle down. Then another huge mass murder incident using gunswill happen and start things all over again.

          This is not an isolated tradegy.

          Gub reform worked in Britain as well as Australia. Of course there are always those who say "it did not" and will point to other ways of killing people in order to keep their guns.

          I don't have an exact ansewr myself. One thing is for sure, doing nothing will result in the same old thing happening over and over.

    2. LiamBean profile image88
      LiamBeanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How do you know the experts are "stumped?"

      It has been said time and time again that a full report will be available sometime in March.

      You folks have no patience whatever.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
        oceansnsunsetsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Of all my points I have made, that was probably my least....

        I am not one that is out to criticize hard working detectives and good journalists,trying to get the truth out to people, nor reputable news sources that do the same. 

        It is a tad ironic also, the urgency to try and push legislation through right away, while the feelings are all still high.  This administration has used public opinion, and their ability to manipulate the public on their feelings for gain, for a while now.  It is working like a charm, despite all the facts that many of us wouldn't even disagree on.

        I just observe how one side is supposed to be patient (in regards to the truth coming out), the other side has a great urgency.  That much seems very clear. 

        We know how good the government (and media, both in conjunction) are at putting off the facts of matters very important to us at times, when they want to. Turns out we never get to find out about some things...and all kinds of interesting things begin to happen.  My point in that is, please don't be surprised at skepticism or demonize people , when our government has been key in creating it for themselves.  I won't assume we won't get facts on this, but that is quite a bit of time on a story that is near and dear to almost every American's heart... Especially the parents and families.

  33. sannyasinman profile image86
    sannyasinmanposted 2 years ago

    If you haven’t heard it yet, listen to this interview with school security expert Wolfgang Halbig here:
    This guy was at Columbine and has also served as a govt expert witness, so is ideally placed to see the discrepencies and inconsistencies at Sandy Hook. And he is NO conspiracy theorist. He just wants answers to his legitimate questions. . 

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/21/s … presented/

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      He is clearly a conspiracy theorist.  Acting as if these kids did not actually exist is a horrible insult to their greiving families. It boggles the mind.  And any so called security expert who does not understand why police part a few hundred meters from the epicenter of the event... well, his expertise is questionable. I see he is now trying to raise money for his campaign.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yep.

      2. sannyasinman profile image86
        sannyasinmanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It is so convenient to dismiss anyone who challenges the official story and actually asks questions as a "nutcase" . It avoids you actually having to look at anything he says . .shoot the messenger before you see the message. Listen to what he says, he has simply asked questions, but has been threatened and met with a wall of silence. Why? What is there to hide? 

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEfW9FvLyAg

        Some of his obervations . .
        - no trauma helicopters were ordered. This is unheard of for an actual emergency.
        - no paramedics were allowed in the school. This is unheard of.
        - officials refuse to say who declared all 26 people dead. By law, this must come from a doctor. This refusal of so much basic information indicates lies and cover-ups.
        - official narrative claims emergency personnel didn’t find the school secretary and nurse after 4 hours of searching.
          - this “event” included a traffic sign lit with the message, “everyone must sign in.” Officials refuse any comment on this element that would be present for a staged event/drill.
          - porta potties were on site; again with no comment by officials and consistent with holding a staged event.
        - no names were listed for the 26 children and chorus director at the 2013 Super Bowl event in honor of Sandy Hook. The children resemble the alleged shooting victims. It’s unimaginable to not list these names for such a huge deal.
        - no lawsuits filed by parents for negligence against school district. This is unheard of.
        - a shooter with Aspergers would have poor motor skills and muscle tone – how did he carry all the gear and shoot with such precision? This combination is impossible to imagine.
        - 2 homicide investigators threatened Mr. Halbig for making inquiries consistent with his professional duties to learn about this event for future school safety.
        - Newtown Public Schools won’t return any calls. Mr. Halbig says this non-cooperation to contribute information for other schools’ safety is unheard of.
            the FBI classified the report on Sandy Hook. This has never been done before, and indicates a cover-up of all the evidence that this was a staged event.
          - radio transmissions are consistent in tone and content for a drill, not an actual emergency.
          - multiple weapons reported at a limited crime scene were never found. This is not credible.
        - law enforcement sent a kindergarten girl from the hall to stay at the crime scene of room 8 to be alone with dead bodies. This is a ridiculous claim that demands investigation and answers.
        -  no parents viewed the bodies of their children. This is also unheard of.
        - no documents are being released via Freedom of Information Act requests. This is unheard of.
        -  trauma services were never requested. This would never occur.
        - tearing down the school is consistent with destruction of evidence, given the HUGE gaps between official accounts and the evidence.
          - there’s zero evidence that a bio-hazard company was contacted to clean blood, bodily fluids, and officials refuse comment. This is impossible.
        - Mr. Halbig’s inquiries of who installed the school security system has been met with silence. This is unheard of to not get this information to improve other schools.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Baloney. Crapola.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You DO understand that questions are not proof, or even circumstantial evidence, of anything at all, right?  Not a dozen question, not a thousand and not a million. 

          Proof consists of facts, not questions, and so does evidence.

          1. bgamall profile image86
            bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Fact: no tears shed at Sandy Hook by parents, with one of them asking if there was a card for him to read.
            Fact: CNN coverage of police raiding the school shows the wrong school.
            Fact: There is no crime scene. The government cannot prove there is a crime scene.
            Fact: children interviewed did not hear shots. They said they heard other things, but not shots. The police report says 140 shots from an assault rifle were fired. The kids didn't hear it.
            Fact: The parents were known actors and or entertainers.
            Fact: The nurse lied when she said the mother of the shooter was a teacher at the school. That was false.
            Fact: The governor of Connecticut said he was spoken to regarding an event like Sandy Hook happening.
            Fact: I have just scratched the surface.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Fact: no tears shed in front of a TV camera is not evidence of a conspiracy.
              If CNN coverage shows wrong school, then police raided a different school.  No conspiracy.
              There is a crime scene; it is the school.  No conspiracy.
              What children say does not indicate a conspiracy.
              Some parents are indeed actors, it happens that way.  No conspiracy.
              The nurse lying, if true, is not evidence there is a govt. conspiracy.
              That someone discussed such a possibility with the governor does not indicate a conspiracy.
              That you have scratched your imagination does not indicate a conspiracy, either.

  34. sannyasinman profile image86
    sannyasinmanposted 2 years ago

    http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/get-attachment.jpg

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      To keep it from being sold as souvenirs?

      Or is your question supposed by evidence of a government conspiracy?  Because questions never are - they are just questions.

      1. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wilderness, for being a writer you miss a lot. The people who tear it down sign confidentiality agreements. Why? Because there is no crime scene and no one died. If no other site of supposed violence were destroyed, why would you tear down a school to prevent souvenirs. That is an unacceptable excuse, however was used by on Sandy Hook city council woman.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Can you show one?  What does it say?  What is the wording?  Who signed them (names, not "demolition crews")?

          You prevent souvenirs because there are some really sick people out there.  They even took souvenirs from the twin towers, the berlin wall and the holocaust concentration camps.

          Really?  Someone else said souvenirs?  Because I only presented it as a possibility - perhaps it really was one reason.

        2. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Because sick people might use the material to torture grieving families. Just look at what people are will to do in following these delusions: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … honor.html

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That should convince the wackos.

            1. bgamall profile image86
              bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ralph, if there was one known actor, and Robbie Parker is a proven actor beyond the shadow of a doubt, the entire house of cards is undermined.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, you lost me on Robbie Parker.

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 … 59913.html

      2. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "To keep it from being sold as souvenirs?" Think about what you are saying and then think about the real world.

        We have police on CNN raiding the wrong school. We have the entire crime scene redacted. We have parents who failed to shed one real tear. Do they pay you Wilderness or do you just debunk reality for free?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I debunk nonsense and conspiracy theories for free.

          Do you make them up for free?  We could really have a thing going here.  You make up the stories and "facts" that have no connection, I'll debunk them.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You would have a blast at Abovetopsecret. You could debunk aliens and government mind control and the Queen of England is a reptilian, all day long.

            Wait, never mind. I don't recommend ever going to that site:)

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ooohh!  The queen is a reptile?  Venus, or Mars or something, no doubt? 

              Fascinating what some will believe, isn't it?

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                My own stuff is weird enough for me. If I ever start talking about reptilians, It's time for me to take a break from the Internet for a while:)

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree, except for geckos.  They're cute, and their insurance is reasonably priced.

 
working