This is a real Hoax and nobody was shot |
 |
1% (1) |
These are just conspiracy nuts and need to shut up |
|
74% (74) |
There is something fishy going on |
|
13% (13) |
I can't be arsed to watch a 20 minute video |
|
12% (12) |
Poll: Sandy Hook Hoax Part 2 [Poll] Pages PREV 1 2 | |
It depends, I watched it because someone had already brought points to my attention regarding the video that I couldn't counter in any definitive way. I can't speak to what I would have done otherwise. The first 10 minutes though only addresses the stuff that people have already debunked, that is why people are only watching a few minutes and throwing it out. I don't mind if people want to stop watching it early, I don't begrudge them that. What I do have a problem with is people who don't watch the entire video and then want to write everything off as wrong. What you are saying is because one third of a story is wrong, the other two thirds are by proxy. That isn't the way things work, there can be partial truths. Since the video brings up between 15 and 30 points of interest, you can't refute them all as being wrong having only seen 5 of them. | |
this guy DEBUMKS THE WHOLE VIDEO, more to come apparently Robbie Parker & Emilie Parker Gene Rosen Fema Drills/Courses/Class Facebook Page Ceated 4 Days Early December 10th 2012 No EMS/Ambulances/No Children United Way Charity Page December 11th 2012 Medical Examiner PLEASE SHARE/POST ANY WHERE | |
No because Fox News works for the same people pulling the strings. No matter who is in the chair. They fool people with that democrat vs repub crap, which is all smoke screens to the fact that both sides work for the same greedy powerful people. | |
but why would the German government or even the USA government be afraid of armed citizens? Nothing armed citizens have can match the tech of the government's weapons. Do the people have tank and jet bombers? Why fear them having guns? This not 1700s anymore.. | |
Has there ever been a inside attack done by a government on its own people to push support for something? I mean ever in history, has a inside attack ever happen before? | |
A good conspiracy requires a good motive. I can see no reasonable motive for the US government, none that justifies the risk attached to this kind of media stunt. Imagine what would happen if there was actual proof this was a hoax? Who would get fired? Could Obama be impeached for faking this? [this gives you an idea of the amount of risk involved, and to who] However I can see a clear motive for casting doubt on the horrific nature of this tragedy (by implying it did not happen); to disrupt the introduction of firearm controls. | |
Abovetopsecret is banning conspiracys on the topic of this shooting being a insider job. Even though its a conspiracy forum where topics about 9/11 being a insider job is ok... People seem too easily blind by issues like this. There were hints and connections between this shooting and the batman shooting. | |
There can't be proof, because its top secret. They know that. To act guilty gives it away. The motive here is the same as all insider false flag attacks. To cause emotional fear, so the people willingly give up their rights so it doesn't look like a dictatorship made them lose their rights. The Patriot Act for example. When the people emotional or scared, they tend to think with emotions and fear. Not logic. | |
First off I am seperated by 2 degrees from one of the victim's parents. Some of my HS friends went to college with the guy. The conspiracy has to be pretty damn good to convince people I know that the funeral they went to was all fake. Then my own parents are friends with one of the Sandy Hook teacher's parents (as are other people I know because they were part of a group that were quite close). Their friends are quite convinced, as is this teacher, that it's all genuine. Those connections might seem a bit loose but these speculations come from even looser connections and, to be honest, are typical of the false-pattern spotting that is seen in conspiracies. To be honest I think the conspiracy theorists get comfort (as wierd as that sounds) from seeing these patterns as it implys that it is part of a grander scheme which, even though it's very sinister, is preferable to it being random and unpredictable. Its a way of dealing with the chaos of reality and is similar to the way most religious adherants conceptualise events in the world (the work of the diety or their devil depending on if it's a good or bad event).
I can't think of any which doesn't mean it hasn't happened of course. From what I have learnt govts simply don't tend to think that way. The ones who are willing to harm their own citizens are more than willing to do it quite openly and have no issues with just creating whatever laws they feel like. What govts have been known to do is blame accidents or "lone-gunman" type attacks on larger problems even if their isn't a link - in other words opportunistically exploiting tragedy to their own gain or to deflect criticism from themselves on onto other groups. But to actually plan some of these things is very difficult to do and puts them at great risk if they are exposed. | |
I'd like for the people propagating this conspiracy nonsense to go up to the grieving Newtown parents and call them all liars. Maybe they could demand to see the children's dead bodies as evidence, if they're so very certain that it's all a hoax. As far as I'm concerned, these people are no worse than Holocaust deniers. The fact that they're manipulating this stuff for the cheap thrill of trying to get a shot in at Obama doesn't exactly help matters. | |
And the fact that if things have gone wrong, it's always in the most obvious ways. Because it makes perfect sense that the massacre itself went off without a hitch, and that all the witnesses and news sources played out perfectly, but they managed to be FIVE DAYS OFF when it came to the webpages? And then they just happened to not notice, and not bother fixing their mistake after it happened? That is just too convenient. Surely they'd be covering their asses like crazy, watching the Internet for any sign of trouble both before and after the incident. I mean fuck, they've got the power to wrangle the news media, but they forgot to fix the dates on their web sites? That's just insulting.
When you're making any sort of presentation that is supposed to be persuasive, the first few minutes should be trying to get the audience's attention, and more importantly proving your credibility. Because that's the first question someone asks when they realize they're trying to be persuaded--can I trust this person's word and knowledge on the subject? And what do we see in the first few minutes? A college professor who we have no reason to trust and could easily be a crackpot[1], and screen grabs and videos from web sites that could have easily been altered. If that sort of shaky stuff is what he's starting out with, one shudders to think what sort of coo-coo stuff is at the end. [1] I mean really, you must not be in college yet if you're willing to lend someone so much credibility just because they've got a PhD. As my intro to college life teacher once said, "A person with a PhD is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until finally they know practically everything about practically nothing." A PhD means nothing except the person is very good at studying and knows what the people in their field are looking for. | |
I don't lend credibility to him just because he has a PhD, in fact if you read my previous statements I don't give credibility to the entire scenario. All I have been asking for is for someone to give me any definitive proof that it didn't happen. As to your insinuations that I am uneducated, I have a B.S. in Bio-Chem and I am working on getting my grants and loans for Post Grad school now. The point of the question I asked is why people are trying to debate a video they haven't completely watched. That is like reading the first chapter in a book and then trying to write a review on the book. It just doesn't work from a logical standpoint. As for your statement about persuasion and not wanting to believe something, you have to be weak willed to be persuaded by something you haven't researched. That is called gullibility. I don't have that issue, my first thought after watching the video was "bullshit". I then thought about the evidence provided and looked into it. All of the "debunking" videos I have watched haven't given any definitive proof on anything other than saying "Oh, well mistakes happen". This isn't proof, this is a maybe. The conspiracy theorists have provided their proof, where is the proof on the other side? Let me counter your credibility attack with this; Why would you continue to believe people who are known for lying so often that there is a whole subset of jokes just based on the subject over someone who hasn't had any credibility hits to date? You must not have been looking into politics for long (hyperbolic insinuation just to show you how your insinuation about my education holds little value). [1] I mean really, you must not be in college yet if you're willing to lend someone so much credibility just because they've got a PhD. As my intro to college life teacher once said, "A person with a PhD is someone who knows more and more about less and less, until finally they know practically everything about practically nothing." A PhD means nothing except the person is very good at studying and knows what the people in their field are looking for. | |
You know even the parents of the children were not allowed to see their bodies. This is a big issue. The reason we have a final viewing is to give the family and friends final closure. I have actually requested for anyone who knows someone who lives in Newtown to confirm things. I am looking for someone to say something of value here. I believe the shooting actually took place, and if you actually watched the video you would see that they do too. We never said the shooting didn't happen, I think it is much more likely that things were purposely misconstrued to create controversy so that people would tune into the news and help their ratings. This is how news works, they tell you about things that happened and sell advertisement for it. The news media is there to make money, not to help you. Nobody has slighted Obama in the least in this thread. Why do Obama supporters keep making this about him, instead of what things are about? The only thing said about a political agenda is how they are using the event to help place gun bans. Nothing about Obama at all. Thank you for bringing Godwin's law into this thread, we all knew it would happen eventually. | |
First off thank you for the confirmation on the newtown families. This has been something I have been looking for. As for the funeral, I don't think anyone is saying that the shooting didn't happen though. Most of the theorists agree that a shooting did happen. What we are questioning is the why of it. I agree that conspiracy theorists are looking for a grand scheme to comfort themselves. This is probably one of the more insightful thoughts in this thread. The thing is, sometimes they are right. So why discount them all as bogus when we have historically seen that they can be correct from time to time. What I am wanting is to get the official reports so that we can separate the media BS from the truth. | |
Funny, because I would call taking the word of some random person who made a video on the Internet that could have easily been doctored "gullible."
Definitive proof? We have definitive proof. Witness accounts, police reports, body counts. You're the one who has yet to prove any of these are false. Also, as I said in my first post in this thread, I looked on Facebook and the only RIP Victoria whatever pages I found were all made on 12/15 or after. If you looked up the webpages in the video and found the timestamps to be accurate, then post those webpages. Give us those links. If you've done all this research and fact-checking, where are the results of your research?
"A history of lying" does not have anything to do with this. You can't charge someone with murder, no longer how long of a history they have, unless you've got hard evidence on that specific case. So again, show me your hard evidence. Enough with the sketchy people and their sketchy videos, show me those Facebook accounts and 100%, guaranteed un-tampered-with timestamps. | |
I have already stated I don't believe what they are spinning. I only said that I couldn't find counter evidence (though i see someone posted a video that is supposed to do just that, and when i get home I will watch it and look into it). Why do you want to continue insinuating what I think and feel? You are only coming off as confrontational and not constructive.
They are provided in the video for you to do your own research. Why am I required to do the research for you? I asked people to counter the video, not me.
You are the one who keeps bringing up credibility. How do you think credibility is checked? It is checked through history. I countered your argument and now you want to change it to history doesn't matter. I also never said to charge anybody with anything, how does this come into play. In fact I even said I didn't believe it, so I never even insinuated that anyone should be charged. I just think it was the Media spreading dis-information to boost ratings. Once again, do your own research. It is not my responsibility to do the leg work for you. If you want to argue something, you should do your own research. Anything I provided to you, you would likely just dismiss. So where is the payoff for me going through the effort for you? | |
They where allowed to see the bodies and made funeral preparations as well, I'd like to know where they where denied the right to their children's bodies once the autopsies where completed, however you might mean why there wasn't an open casket to which I'd point to the coroner's words about the number of rounds and from what distance. Once the autopsies where completed is a big part of that. Why Obama? Because Obama is a democrat and is for gun control and he is the only person with the power to pull this off. Who else could be orchestrated this and to what end if this really is a conspiracy? | |
So? You can get a PhD in homeopathy. Doesn't make any more valid. It's still pseudoscience crap. Captcha: skynet knows | |
Okay, if I am wrong about not being able to see the bodies than I apologize. The only thing I can find on it is that the parents of the children were required to give the authorities photos of the children so the authorities could identify them, nothing about the parents being allowed to see them, other than uninvolved parties making the claim. I can only go off of the information I have been able to find on it, which was to say not much. Everything I did see though said that they were denied the ability to get final confirmation (which is to see the loved one after they have passed). Like I said, I am only asking for people to counter the points that have been made. I never once claimed that the points are 100% accurate, given the source that would be lunacy. As for the Obama thing, I think he took advantage of a tragedy to push his gun control, I have never once said he had anything to do with the conspiracy as it is. Once again (and again and again apparently) I think it is the Media responsible for this theory. I think the Media purposefully misconstrued the facts in order to get better ratings and sell more advertisements. "Her Canadian-born father, Gilles Rousseau, told Radio-Canada that he wanted to see his daughter's body but was informed by authorities that it would not be possible." This was the teacher that was shot though, no info on the children. This was from the huffington post, I don't have the link handy, but you can look it up of you don't believe me. Edit: To clarify more, the cited reason was that they were all apparently shot point blank many times in the face, meanwhile the coroner said they were shot from range with a rifle. This is why I say the media is misconstruing facts to get ratings. | |
"Relatives identified their loved ones not in person but by photos taken of the victims' faces, Carver said. "We did not bring the bodies and families into contact, we took pictures of them, of their facial features," he said. "It's easier on the families when you do that. There is a time and place for up close and personal in the grieving process but to accomplish this we felt it would be best to do it this way."" http://newtown.patch.com/articles/police-no-motive-emerging-in-newtown-school-shooting Who perpetuated this conspiracy then? And I'd like to know where the media has given false information beyond the initial days where the media weren't giving out false information as much as they where getting it wrong and later corrected it to the facts that we now know. As far as the father thing the bodies where torn apart by bullets all victims where shot multiple times many at point blank range, however once bodies are claimed they can be viewed. They are transported to the funeral home and the parents can see the children it's not like armed gaurds stand there and make sure you don't open it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/newtown-funeral-pasqaule-forino-sandy-hook_n_2318913.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/newtown-ct-plans-burials-_n_2314785.html Notice in both of these they say open casket and the mortician prepared the body's. The only time the body's where not allowed to be seen is while they still had bullets holes at the coroner's office. Morticians patch those up, and the only people that should be able to see them are the family but there was apparently a public viewing allowed by the parents for some of the funerals. As far as range is concerned not all where shot at point blank range, according tot he coroner in the newtown patch article I posted above. Many where however, and when they say close range I assume they mean they see burn marks around the bullet holes as if they where shot execution style. I do see in several article where it refers to the gun as a long barrel rifle. I also don't see how range would affect the gun debate, it is however fact that the bushmaster was used at least MOST of the spree, this is confirmed by the coroner and the police. | |
Complete and utter nonsense. You seem to follow the tactic: spout off lies loud enough and often enough, hoping people fall for it. Do you really believe the words that come out of your mouth/keyboard? Oh by the way, UK has more violent crime than the US. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html Ban knives. Ban negative thoughts. What's the matter, are British people just a bunch of uncivilized barbarians? What's with all the non-gun violent crime? | |
The White House couldn't even keep a blow job a secret, why would anyone think they could pull this off without anyone knowing? | |
The Daily Heil? Really? Also, car theft is not violent crime. Read your sources before posting them. Also how does this respond to my post at all? I pointed out the connection between the paranoid gun owners and the violence that they perpetrate. For instance the sovereign citizen terror threat is a good example of this. Those people believe 'teh big guvernment' is coming for them, so they arm themselves, and they end up murdering their neighbours or a police officer if they get pulled over for speeding. | |
That's a load of horse shit. What's comforting about lies and everyone out to get you? We already know that people go crazy and kill people. I have personally seen a dead 6 month old baby, waxy and gray, after her mother shook her to death several hours earlier. I know horror exists in the world. I know there is the evil. I was entirely ready to accept it as fact when I heard someone walked into a school and shot 20 children. It barely surprised me in this sick fucking country. But seeing is believing for me, and I'm having a real hard time swallowing the awful reporting on this story. All I'm asking for is some fucking proof, some crime scene photos, some security video, anything. The real "insight" is that people are afraid of conspiracy theories, of NOT knowing- the UNknown; it's a common theme throughout human history, fear of the unknown. Which translates into fear of questions, and the implications those questions create in people's minds. But people forget questions don't automatically mean inside government spook job, it just means we don't know. Can you deal with that? I can. | |
I'm really not sure what you are getting at. I think conspiracy theorists look for patterns to help them find a deeper meaning, that doesn't mean that I don't believe there are things wrong with this shooting. In fact I have been asking for the same thing you have, definitive proof. This is why I am not sure why you are coming at me so hard here. It sounds like you are trying to convince me, and that isn't what needs to be done. Go back and re-read my other posts please. | |
There is absolutely, positively no evidence that can even suggest that the Sandy Hooks shooting was a hoax, all these "theories" that say that X Y Z SHOW how there's something wrong are just looking for hoax's just to stir the S***, typical truther attitude when it comes to events of this magnitude BTW the only reason people are questioning this event is because it sparked gun control topics, truthers are just paranoid that if something effects their "toys" then that event that sparked it all must have been because of the government, hell they did it with 9/11 to be honest maybe we should just round all these truthers up and send them all to some far off island that has been abandoned, maybe then they will be able to get over their delusional, paranoid and stupidity out of their system | |
Except not everybody is you. I've never seen a dead body, apart from the funeral of someone who died very peacefully. There are lots of people out there who live sheltered lives and never see any of this stuff, and not everybody has a healthy understanding of other human beings. So it's possible for some that it makes them feel safer knowing the cause of such sporadic violence. The thought of a government that's willing to manipulate you by massacring children may not seem reassuring to you, but to some people that is favorable to the thought of stuff like this happening for no reason and us having no way to stop it. If it's the government, we can at least entertain the idea of doing something about it. | |
Pure horseshit. These rednecks and "teh big government" people that you so gleefully stereotype are never responsible for violent crime. The people who are expressing their dissatisfaction with our government in a public forum are also the people following the rules, and fearing the law. Otherwise, they wouldn't care about what happens in government, because they're not invested in it, because they don't fear or obey the law. You really don't know anything about this country, Bla. Nothing. Not a thing. Your stereotypes are hilarious and wrong. | |
That's not what the FBI has found. It's 'the government is coming for my guns!' gun owner types who perpetrate violence and terrorism like that. | |
And who are these "the country is coming for my guns"? A very very small amount of people who are disenfranchised with society. The vast majority of your opponents are law-abiding members of society. We've done nothing wrong and do not want to be made criminals because of the false promises of anti-gun politicians. We're not the problem. Gangs are the problem. Democrat political domination of cities is the problem. The worst cities in this country are ruled by Democrats. | |
Why would they want to be criminalised? They'd hand in their weapons, and if they truly have a need for them, apply for a permit. That's what happens everywhere.
They're not a problem in countries with decent firearms legislation. The average street thug around here is hardly ever armed, and even if they bring a knife it's ussually more like kitchen cutlery than a decent one. And if they use it, they know they're in trouble, because weapons use is among the priorities for the police. Gangs didn't use to be much of a problem in the US either, untill in the 1970's, guns became a lot cheaper, and affordable to the average street thug.
And you can prove a causal link between democrat majority and crime? Laughable.. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 | |
Watched a few minutes of it proved everything in that first 10 minutes to be either false, irrelevant, or taking too many liberties regarding the truth to bother watching the other 20 minutes. Would you continue to listen to something that is basically lieing to you or is ignorant of doing any actual research except what fits their agenda?