• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook

Checkerboard Strangler said:
No, I didn't work for the CIA, it was just a corporate property (Lockheed Air Force Plant #4, Fort Worth, TX) and they didn't want anybody talking about what's inside their building, nothing more. I wound up returning there for two years working for Tek Systems in IT systems installation shortly after, and once again, another NDA.
It would seem that Lockheed just had a standing policy that people who traipse around at AF #4 have to keep their yapper shut.

Yeah, you've hired a few times. So have others. Your needs aren't the same as other people's needs.
You have a somewhat whacko outlook on what a non-disclosure agreement is about.

And by the way, did you post any links that back up that NDA claim?
Or did Alex Jones just say that they were required to sign an NDA.
I realize it's asking a lot considering that Alex Jones has always been one hundred percent truthful on everything he's talked about (ERRR...COUGH COUGH!!!!) is a giant lying asshole who makes crap up as easily as normal people breathe. And the suckers who listen to him are gullible fools. Nothing personal, just an observation from someone (myself) who tuned in to his show for about a year or so when I first moved to Dallas, TX.

For the record, I'm probably going to sign another NDA in the next couple of weeks.
I am contributing film footage to a documentary and the producers probably want to keep the details quiet for a little while until they have a rough cut.
So as much as I want to toot my own horn about this landmark film and my role in it, I'm probably going to have to put a sock in it for a few months until they're ready to do some of their own public relations.

I know, it's only rock and roll, but I like it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the honest clarification. I wasn't too far off--not CIA, but Lockheed.

So what is the compelling need for secrecy by the Newtown authorities to demand NDA from men demolishing a no-longer used school house?

Easy answer--they had something to hide, something they did not want disclosed to the public. Hmm....
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thanks for the honest clarification. I wasn't too far off--not CIA, but Lockheed.

So what is the compelling need for secrecy by the Newtown authorities to demand NDA from men demolishing a no-longer used school house?

Easy answer--they had something to hide, something they did not want disclosed to the public. Hmm....
Click to expand...

Heh heh heh, you really are a piece of work.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Heh heh heh, you really are a piece of work.
Click to expand...

So are you sir! Do we have a Mutual Admiration Society yet?

That you choose not to provide any theories regarding why the Newtown authorities would require NDA from demolition workers quickly shows how bankrupt the official story is.
 
Thoreau72 said:
So are you sir! Do we have a Mutual Admiration Society yet?

That you choose not to provide any theories regarding why the Newtown authorities would require NDA from demolition workers quickly shows how bankrupt the official story is.
Click to expand...

- To protect the privacy of the families who lost loved ones.
- To keep people like Alex Jones from gaining any profit from the tragedy.

Your turn. Why should they not have issued a nda for Sandy Hook?
 
mike2810 said:
- To protect the privacy of the families who lost loved ones.
- To keep people like Alex Jones from gaining any profit from the tragedy.

Your turn. Why should they not have issued a nda for Sandy Hook?
Click to expand...

Perhaps there would be inconsistencies at the crime scene that would provide further evidence of the hoax They wouldn't want people to divulge that.
 
Thoreau72 said:
So what is the compelling need for secrecy by the Newtown authorities to demand NDA from men demolishing a no-longer used school house?

Easy answer--they had something to hide, something they did not want disclosed to the public. Hmm....
Click to expand...

You honestly think that the threat of "legal action" in a Non Disclosure Agreement would deter someone from disclosing evidence found at the scene that proves it was hoax/crime?

You're kidding right?
 
Thoreau72 said:
That you choose not to provide any theories regarding why the Newtown authorities would require NDA from demolition workers
Click to expand...

Is this a good enough reason for you?

Non-disclosure required for Sandy Hook School crew - NewsTimes
About the agreement
The non-disclosure agreement requires:
No unauthorized disclosure or removal of confidential information from the school, including any oral, written, graphic, software, technology, or virtually any items that belong to the school.
All measures be taken to protect the secrecy and avoid disclosure of confidential information into the public domain; notification to the town of any disclosure of confidential information that may come to the company's attention.
No publication or posting of any information related to the project, and no photographs, drawings or other images of the school; no removal of any items from the school from dirt and bricks to doorknobs and window glass; any town documents be returned to the town; these commitments survive beyond the conclusion of an individual's employment.
Penalties include legal action.
Click to expand...
 
sKiTzo said:
Perhaps there would be inconsistencies at the crime scene that would provide further evidence of the hoax They wouldn't want people to divulge that.
Click to expand...

Only it waswnt hoax, so much for that lame brained theory
 
sKiTzo said:
Perhaps there would be inconsistencies at the crime scene that would provide further evidence of the hoax They wouldn't want people to divulge that.
Click to expand...

I will bet you never have done an accident or crime investigation.
 
Quag said:
Only it waswnt hoax, so much for that lame brained theory
Click to expand...

If it wasn't a hoax then why would they hire actors to do fake interviews? How about the "parent" at the press conference who didn't know the camera was rolling yet and was laughing and it even shows him settling into his role after that trying to suddenly look solemn. He's a horrible actor/ It doesn't matter to you how obvious it is because you still believe the official 911 story and all of its blunders. You are unable to think independently and the only way you'll believe anything is if the government or the mainstream news tells you what to believe.
 
sKiTzo said:
If it wasn't a hoax then why would they hire actors to do fake interviews? How about the "parent" at the press conference who didn't know the camera was rolling yet and was laughing and it even shows him settling into his role after that trying to suddenly look solemn. He's a horrible actor/ It doesn't matter to you how obvious it is because you still believe the official 911 story and all of its blunders. You are unable to think independently and the only way you'll believe anything is if the government or the mainstream news tells you what to believe.
Click to expand...

- Provide evidence that "actors" were hired.
- Your statement about the "parent" is unsupported. How do you know what the parent was reacting too or what the "parent" was feeling at that moment.

Same old mantra about a poster was unable the "think independently…". Interesting how you do not provide links to your sources. Why is that?
 
mike2810 said:
- Provide evidence that "actors" were hired.
- Your statement about the "parent" is unsupported. How do you know what the parent was reacting too or what the "parent" was feeling at that moment.
Click to expand...
The callousness of truthers is one of the sickest aspects of the "Truth Movement". Possibly the worst current example is the manipulation of Mr McIlvaine who still has not achieved closure of his grief over the loss of his son. And is being lied to - being given false hopes by AE911 and the Lawyers. In the case of AE911 purely in pursuit of Gage's income security and his ego tripping. I cannot guess what motivates the Lawyers trying to make legal mileage out of a plethora of long debunked and rebutted nonsense claims.

The sadder part is that they could play the same games WITHOUT playing with Mr McIlvaine's grief. Gages income will continue. The Lawyers can continue the sham keeping up the appearance of "doing something". And they will still distract attention from the Hulsey scam which has served as the red herring for several years and is now being allowed to drift off into the sunset.
 
mike2810 said:
- Provide evidence that "actors" were hired.
- Your statement about the "parent" is unsupported. How do you know what the parent was reacting too or what the "parent" was feeling at that moment.

Same old mantra about a poster was unable the "think independently…". Interesting how you do not provide links to your sources. Why is that?
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. I don't know what I was thinking. The parent just forgot where he was for a minute - it happens. If I have to provide the link to that press conference one more time I think I'll puke. There is no way in hell you haven't seen that clip with nearly 10,000 of your 17,000 posts being in conspiracy theories.
 
sKiTzo said:
You're absolutely right. I don't know what I was thinking. The parent just forgot where he was for a minute - it happens. If I have to provide the link to that press conference one more time I think I'll puke. There is no way in hell you haven't seen that clip with nearly 10,000 of your 17,000 posts being in conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

You were asked for evidence.
 
sKiTzo said:
If it wasn't a hoax then why would they hire actors to do fake interviews? How about the "parent" at the press conference who didn't know the camera was rolling yet and was laughing and it even shows him settling into his role after that trying to suddenly look solemn. He's a horrible actor/ It doesn't matter to you how obvious it is because you still believe the official 911 story and all of its blunders. You are unable to think independently and the only way you'll believe anything is if the government or the mainstream news tells you what to believe.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with a parent laughing? Have you never been to a funeral?
You have no evidence or even logical reason to claim hoax this nonsense comes from listening to Alex Jones who admits he makes up BS CT claims including Sandy Hook
Alex Jones psychosis: Infowars star blames distrust on Sandy Hook talk
 
mike2810 said:
- To protect the privacy of the families who lost loved ones.
- To keep people like Alex Jones from gaining any profit from the tragedy.

Your turn. Why should they not have issued a nda for Sandy Hook?
Click to expand...

The proper legal term is "demanded". Whoever let the contract for Newtown demanded the NDA.

This is how desperate you are Mike: you must invoke an appeal to emotion, claiming that the families privacy is dependent upon the demolition company not being able to say what it saw, a school abandoned. No sign of recent activity.

The same families who were all over the media, alternating between joking and crying, being flown around on AF1, being displayed to the public at the Daytona 500 and elsewhere, now suddenly need privacy, eh?

You are in denial sir, but at least you are consistently in denial. :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
The proper legal term is "demanded". Whoever let the contract for Newtown demanded the NDA.

This is how desperate you are Mike: you must invoke an appeal to emotion, claiming that the families privacy is dependent upon the demolition company not being able to say what it saw, a school abandoned. No sign of recent activity.

The same families who were all over the media, alternating between joking and crying, being flown around on AF1, being displayed to the public at the Daytona 500 and elsewhere, now suddenly need privacy, eh?

You are in denial sir, but at least you are consistently in denial. :lol:
Click to expand...

Still no evidence to support your claim that has already been cast off by the guy who told you it was a hoax

Try actually thinking instead of just accepting CT stuff you read on the internet.
 
whatisanopinion said:
Ive always had a hard time siding with anything, it seems to black and white for me.. so when it comes to conspiracy theories, ive never even entertained them. Thats being said, i had a friend who made me watch some youtube short film about the sandy hook school shooting as a giant ploy to advance the political agenda of gun laws. I have to say, at face value, that **** is captivating. Has anyone seen it? Im well aware that you can edit everything to make it look like anything, but damn they did a good job. And when so many people dont even understand modern technology and editing, i see how things like this take off. Anyone have any thoughts? Im still wondering about certain scenes and factoids from the clip!
Click to expand...

watch the youtube clips of the the children's funerals and interviews of the families agony, it will bring you back to reality.
 
yankintx said:
watch the youtube clips of the the children's funerals and interviews of the families agony, it will bring you back to reality.
Click to expand...

Yes, appeals to emotion always "bring one back to reality".

More emotion, less analysis.
 
Having perused the thread thus far and winnowing out the chaff, the debate seems to be:

Be it resolved: Is it possible, within reason, that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a staged 'false flag' event?

PRO: @whatisanopinion, @Thoreau72, @sKiTzo.

CON: pretty much everyone else

There's been little in the way of evidence (or even meaningful conjecture) presented thus far on either side, but doing my best to summarize the PRO points of contention:

  • a video clip exists somewhere containing a summary case for 'false flag' (@whatisanopinion, OP)
  • the proof that the shooter killed any children is limited to "the statements of government employees" (@Thoreau72, #37)
  • "internet records [show] the school had not been up and running for years" (@Thoreau72, #39)
  • "the parking lot painting did not comply with laws" (@Thoreau72, #39)
  • "pictures offered as evidence show shadows and other facts that undermine the narrative" (@Thoreau72, #39)
  • "there was no formal trial and its required discovery process" (@Thoreau72, #63)
  • "When you see the aerial view video of the aftermath and dissect it paying very close attention to the movements of the people in the video, it becomes quite clear that it is a 'production' of people pretending to look busy at a crime scene." (@sKiTzo, #91)
  • "There are no victims at any point, ambulances are just sitting there, and then you see the people are all actually going literally in circles - coming out of the front of a building and walking around to the back and re-entering over and over again." (@sKiTzo, #91)
  • "Why would the school authorities need the demolition workers to sign [an] NDA over demolishing a school that had not been open in years?" (@Thoreau, #94)
  • "What is the compelling need for secrecy by the Newtown authorities to demand NDA from men demolishing a no-longer used school house?" (@Thoreau, #101)
  • the setup involves "actors [doing] fake interviews" (@sKiTzo, #110)
  • "a 'parent' at the press conference [...] didn't know the camera was rolling yet and was laughing", "it even shows him settling into his role after that trying to suddenly look solemn" (@sKiTzo, #110)

Specific CON rebuttals and points of contention:

  • "the school was probably old enough that its lot painting probably predated the laws or that they got an exception" (@jamesrage, #53)
  • evidence is generally unreliable if it comes from "conspiracy kooks" (@jamesrage, #53)
  • "when the only suspect dies, why would there be a trial?" (@TurtleDude, #90)
  • How do we know what the movement of investigators is supposed to look like? What point of reference do we have? How do we know anything is unusual? (@mike2810, #92)
  • NDAs are common for construction crews; I've been subject to several while working on corporate properties (@CheckerboardStrangler, #99)
  • NDAs would "protect the privacy of the families who lost loved ones" and "keep people like Alex Jones from gaining any profit from the tragedy" (@mike2810, #104)
  • the threat of legal action in an NDA likely wouldn't "deter someone from disclosing evidence found at the scene that proves it was hoax/crime" (@gomolon, #106)
  • PRO hasn't produced any evidence that actors were hired (@mike2810, #111)
  • "How do [we] know what the parent [allegedly laughing on camera] was reacting too [sic] or what the 'parent' was feeling at that moment?" (@mike2810, #111)

I'm going to start with the basics:

Firstly, is there any place we can still watch the video mentioned in the OP so we have some idea of PRO's prima facie case for conspiracy?

Secondly, can anyone PRO provide a brief answer to the following questions:

  • What is the alleged scope of the conspiracy? How many people does it involve?
  • If the victims and their families are alleged to be fictitious, how was this fraud perpetrated? For example, does PRO contend that if the neighbourhoods surrounding Sandy Hook were canvassed, few or no persons living there would report having seen recent activity at the school, or would claim to have met any of the decedents?
  • Why construct an elaborate and far-reaching hoax when a far simpler one would suffice. For example, kidnapping and murdering a student, and sending a masked assailant of equivalent size and build into a school to perpetrate a massacre?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, appeals to emotion always "bring one back to reality".

More emotion, less analysis.
Click to expand...

Only a moron would believe Sandy Hook was a ruse.
 
yankintx said:
Only a moron would believe Sandy Hook was a ruse.
Click to expand...
This question goes out to you and a dozen other commenters who've made similar statements:

Suppose I make the statement, "Only a moron would post more than 2,000 times on DP."

Obviously, there are some people here who've posted more than 2,000 times on DP. Just as obviously, they don't think of themselves as morons.

Hence (and here's my question) do you not think that my explaining why 2,000+ posters on DP are "morons", or taking the Socratic approach of asking critical but non-hostile questions, leading "morons" to contradictions in their thinking, might be a more fruitful approach than simply declaring them to be morons? If only on a debate forum?

Just a thought from a relative newcomer.
 
COTO said:
This question goes out to you and a dozen other commenters who've made similar statements:

Suppose I make the statement, "Only a moron would post more than 2,000 times on DP."

Obviously, there are some people here who've posted more than 2,000 times on DP. Just as obviously, they don't think of themselves as morons.

Hence (and here's my question) do you not think that my explaining why 2,000+ posters on DP are "morons", or taking the Socratic approach of asking critical but non-hostile questions, leading "morons" to contradictions in their thinking, might be a more fruitful approach than simply declaring them to be morons? If only on a debate forum?

Just a thought from a relative newcomer.
Click to expand...

WTF does that mean? Only a moron like Jones and his moronic conspiracy theory fruit loops believe that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy.
 
yankintx said:
WTF does that mean? Only a moron like Jones and his moronic conspiracy theory fruit loops believe that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Jones doesnt beleive it was a hoax, he did propogate the myth for personal gain though (he is a thoroughly disgusting human being)
 
Quag said:
Jones doesnt beleive it was a hoax, he did propogate the myth for personal gain though (he is a thoroughly disgusting human being)
Click to expand...

BS

He has been peddling that BS for years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom