Sandy Hook hoax

[morningstar2651]

Those children are dead.

Adam Lanza murdered them.

End of discussion.

 

[Edial]

What are the odds that one human being, in their lifetime, will:

*Be the first one on the scene at two catastrophic drunk-driving accidents, one of which yielded a fatality

*Be on the scene to save their neighbors from a fire

*Be the first one on the scene after a falling tree takes down an electrical ground wire

*Narrowly avoid getting hit by a train

*Become the target of a counter-cult ministry

*Rack up a string of contacts that includes both a prominent religion reporter *and* a prominent super model

*Single-handedly push a car up a hill

*Single-handedly pull a Humvee out of a ditch

*Have a popular webcomic artist take a shot at you in one of their comic strips

*Get a reporter to knuckle under with a single e-mail pointing out how outdated their research is on a topic



The simple truth of the matter is that things happen. Coincidences are far more common than people believe. In this case, it's not that hard to believe that a reporter who was tasked with covering a specific set of topics kept crossing paths with the same person.

OK, let's get the odds right then.
There are about 30,000 airplanes in the world.
There are about 600,000 pilots in the world.
There are about 45,000 reporters and journalists in the U.S.

What are the odds for a specific reporter to personally know a specific pilot and then have that pilot disappear with the airplane and that same reporter cover the case?

1:810,000,000,000

To be struck by lightning ONCE is 1:210,000

Now, we definitely know that CNN staged all types of Desert Storm fake reports claiming to be in Iraq and ducking the bombs while actually filming everything in their studios.

So ... who would you believe, a proven hoaxers like CNN and others or the odds of 1:810 billion?

 

[Edial]

Those children are dead.

Adam Lanza murdered them.

End of discussion.

And that is fine if you choose to believe that.
But it wasn't as it was shown on TV.

Take the beheadings, very emotional topic.
Well, the FOX News admitted that all the beheadings we have supposedly seen on TV were shot in studios.
That includes the first one with Foley.
They admitted because it was a hoax and all the shadows were all wrong.
They said it. I did not say it.
They did. Because people who know started to get really upset ... because not every professional in such industries is a liar. There are decent people who started complaining.
You can google it if you wish or ask me and I can give you a link.

 

[morningstar2651]

But it wasn't as it was shown on TV.

Would you prefer broadcasts with pictures of dead bodies of children displayed for all to see like we had during Columbine? Is it the media's responsibility to show you their corpses? Do you have to see their lifeless husks to finally admit that this child was murdered by Adam Lanza?

This is the sort of behavior this denial promotes: Sandy Hook truther steals memorial sign, tells victim's mother her child never existed. Another truther was arrested for harassing Newtown school staff.

 

[Armoured]

That's quite obviously a piece of red cloth or paper...not supposed to be blood, doesn't look like blood, and not claimed to be blood. YOU (or at least first, the makers of that video) claimed that.

Which makes my point. Conspiracy theorists have an enormous double-standard on how much evidence is needed to affirm an 'official' story, as opposed to how little evidence is needed to conclude, 'Giant conspiracy complete with paid crisis actors'. How about taking that skepticism and applying it evenly to both sides?

I didn't watch the Fox News one yet, but I have no problem with the idea that ISIS would use beheading videos as propaganda for their cause.

So, remember what I pointed out in my now locked thread about conspiracy theories...the biggest indicator of believing in one is believing in others. It's a worldview moreso than it is a reaction to one particular event. Earlier in this thread, we can see a quote that lumps the Boston Bombing, Sandy Hook and Aurora events all in the same category...False Flag. It's merely making every major atrocity fit the narrative, after the fact. Confirmation bias.


Btodd

I've commented elsewhere, too, that to some mentalities, the idea of an all powerful evil conspiracy controlling things is preferable to the idea that random bad stuff just randomly happens.

The kicker is that this preference is completely subconscious, and if you point it out to someone displaying it, their defensiveness kicks in, and the preference just gets further entrenched.

Out of interest, has anyone here ever, or even know of, a committed conspiracy theorist being talked out of his beliefs by rational counter argument?

 

[morningstar2651]

Out of interest, has anyone here ever, or even know of, a committed conspiracy theorist being talked out of his beliefs by rational counter argument?

No.

 

[Edial]

Would you prefer broadcasts with pictures of dead bodies of children displayed for all to see like we had during Columbine? Is it the media's responsibility to show you their corpses? Do you have to see their lifeless husks to finally admit that this child was murdered by Adam Lanza?

This is the sort of behavior this denial promotes: Sandy Hook truther steals memorial sign, tells victim's mother her child never existed. Another truther was arrested for harassing Newtown school staff.

You know exactly what you are doing by posting this. So in a way you are also taking a position of having no rational arguments. The same thing you claim others are lacking.
The facts remain that the Sandy Hook is packed with lies, actors and hoaxers.
No one said no one died, no one said no one did not die.
Prove that what you claim.

 

[Edial]

I've commented elsewhere, too, that to some mentalities, the idea of an all powerful evil conspiracy controlling things is preferable to the idea that random bad stuff just randomly happens.

The kicker is that this preference is completely subconscious, and if you point it out to someone displaying it, their defensiveness kicks in, and the preference just gets further entrenched.

Out of interest, has anyone here ever, or even know of, a committed conspiracy theorist being talked out of his beliefs by rational counter argument?

But there are no rational arguments concerning things we are talking about.
Everything is filled with holes.

Simple question -
Do you believer JFK was killed with one bullet by one shooter?

 

[Armoured]

But there are no rational arguments concerning things we are talking about.
Everything is filled with holes.

I don't see any that can't be explained with wishful thinking and confirmation bias

Simple question -
Do you believer JFK was killed with one bullet by one shooter?

That's what the evidence suggests.

 

[Edial]

I don't see any that can't be explained with wishful thinking and confirmation bias
That's what the evidence suggests.

Yes, but you cannot even answer the question straight yet blame others for being definitely wrong when they show their set of circumstantial evidence.
You are saying "That's what the evidence suggests" about 1 bullet and 1 JFK shooter.

Evidence can "suggest" anything.
Yet you certainly know that everyone else is wrong.

 

[Btodd]

I've commented elsewhere, too, that to some mentalities, the idea of an all powerful evil conspiracy controlling things is preferable to the idea that random bad stuff just randomly happens.

The kicker is that this preference is completely subconscious, and if you point it out to someone displaying it, their defensiveness kicks in, and the preference just gets further entrenched.

Out of interest, has anyone here ever, or even know of, a committed conspiracy theorist being talked out of his beliefs by rational counter argument?

We're in agreement, I previously mentioned in a few of these threads that people who are avid conspiracy theorists have simply adopted it as a worldview...it's not because 'the evidence is so compelling' in any particular theory, it's that they just see conspiracy in everything, and then they practice confirmation bias to get where they want to go.

I have seen a few examples of people changing their mind, particularly on the 9/11 thing, but nobody changes their mind while in the middle of a debate. The best you can do is plant seeds by showing them how uncritical they are about their own conspiracy theories. And at the least, point out their factual inaccuracies...that's most important.

And maybe they will eventually see the errors in their thinking. But it won't happen right in front of you, it's just human nature to dig your heels in when confronted with a counter-argument.


Btodd

 

[LastSeven]

Are you saying that Adam Lanza did not fatally shoot 20 children and 6 staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School?

I know your question wasn't directed at me, but it would be foolish to think that the government never lies to its people, or that the official story is always 100% true, or even that the government cares about the people. It behooves all of us to be skeptical of people with power, especially people with absolute power.

I don't know what happened at Sandy Hook, but it's obvious that a number of things look extremely suspicious. That's all we know at this point.

 

[Armoured]

Yes, but you cannot even answer the question straight yet blame others for being definitely wrong when they show their set of circumstantial evidence.
You are saying "That's what the evidence suggests" about 1 bullet and 1 JFK shooter.

Evidence can "suggest" anything.
Yet you certainly know that everyone else is wrong.

I'm scientifically trained. Hence I tend to talk about "evidence suggesting" because there is no "proof" of anything outside of mathematics. It is possible that microscopic aliens exploded Kennedy's head from a parallel universe. But... the evidence suggests... it was one guy with a rifle. Or at least that he was hit by one guy with a rifle. Were there other shooters? Maybe, but I don't really care, honestly. Show me evidence of something, and let's discuss it. Begging questions and semantic debates about "proof" don't impress me.

 

[Armoured]

We're in agreement, I previously mentioned in a few of these threads that people who are avid conspiracy theorists have simply adopted it as a worldview...it's not because 'the evidence is so compelling' in any particular theory, it's that they just see conspiracy in everything, and then they practice confirmation bias to get where they want to go.

I have seen a few examples of people changing their mind, particularly on the 9/11 thing, but nobody changes their mind while in the middle of a debate. The best you can do is plant seeds by showing them how uncritical they are about their own conspiracy theories. And at the least, point out their factual inaccuracies...that's most important.

And maybe they will eventually see the errors in their thinking. But it won't happen right in front of you, it's just human nature to dig your heels in when confronted with a counter-argument.


Btodd

Sad but true

 

[Armoured]

I know your question wasn't directed at me, but it would be foolish to think that the government never lies to its people, or that the official story is always 100% true, or even that the government cares about the people. It behooves all of us to be skeptical of people with power, especially people with absolute power.

I don't know what happened at Sandy Hook, but it's obvious that a number of things look extremely suspicious. That's all we know at this point.

Sure governments lie. And obfuscate and misdirect, and omit critical information.

But not usually about things like a school shooting. What would they gain?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the "suspicious" aspects of Sandy Hook basically media reporting it before knowing all the facts, and small town emergency services personnel responding haphazardly to a situation they really weren't trained or prepared for?

I spent 10 years in the Army. I'm a trained nurse, AND I've been to war. I've seen a lot. But I don't know how I'd respond dealing with a school shooting, especially with young kids. I really don't find it suspicious that people responded with less than clinically detached objectivity. May just be me.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

There have been extraordinary conspiracy theories which, by their own evidence, MUST be true. And yet, even those are still labeled as conspiracy thereafter.
The most famous one is the Kennedy assassination, in which every single witness to it apparently died and was unable to reveal what they saw. The chance of this happening, mathematically, is so incredibly absurd that it can be pretty much considered impossible.

The best way to keep something under wraps is simply by calling it a 'conspiracy theory'. Point proven above.

And with the Sandy Hook shooting, it wasn't hard to label any other belief as denial or absurdity because of it's sheer shock. People would just say, "Children died and all you can do is labor under conspiracy!!?"

But take these facts into consideration:
-In certain events, especially one where an elementary school faces a mass shooting, the media offers up people called 'crisis actors' to take the place of actual victims who do not want to go on screen.
-Children are not going to be displayed, dead or alive, period.
-The shooter's mother: a middle-upper class white American who believes in the 2nd Amendment. The shooter: a disturbed boy who got his hands on weapons... right at the height of a raging debate over gun control, with such a scenario being one that can be sensationalized over any other.

Of course, people will see this as dubious and troubling, only a fool just takes the media at their word. But does that it is conspiracy? Well, I believe that is best left to the interpreter, because beside the shock and apparent probability there is also extreme convenience in every corner of the event.

 

[HitchSlap]

The Boston bombing was a bit shady, to say the least.

It's a bit long, but the Cowboy Carlos video is priceless.

 

[DaisyDay]

The most famous one is the Kennedy assassination, in which every single witness to it apparently died and was unable to reveal what they saw. The chance of this happening, mathematically, is so incredibly absurd that it can be pretty much considered impossible.

Considering it happened more than half a century ago, the chances of witnesses still being alive are increasingly dim. It did take them a long while to knock off Jackie and John Connolly who were both up close.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The Boston bombing was a bit shady, to say the least.

It's a bit long, but the Cowboy Carlos video is priceless.

That was good, I watched the whole thing,
I like that she is on the ball fast and keeps moving,
how does she do that? LOL
All the way to the end it was good, it took a turn I didnt expect
and as soon as I saw that map also, I was like, wow that is sorta ironic
Im glad I watched it

Thanks

 

[Fireinfolding]

Youtube removed that childs testimony (in the above)

I found a copy on someone elses channel