• 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

I think the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories were started by the NRA in order to discredit the anti-gun lobby.

If I take the CTist route of reversing the burden of proof, I can then state 'prove me wrong'.

Furthermore, I can then employ the HD tactic of accusing all those who disagree of being NRA muppets (or somesuch).

The script is all too easy to ape and reverse. :lol:

that's really silly. There is no evidence of that claim whatsoever, though most of the anti gun nonsense is NOT based on a real desire to stop crime with intelligently crafted laws, but rather to harass the NRA for political reasons. Sandyhook-the factual version, actually helps the position of the NRA. The gun used by Lanza was legally purchased, registered and the buyer passed a background check. And only a moron would argue that killing one's own mother to obtain a firearm, was something other than a premeditated homicidal act-an act that was not subject to deterrence no matter what the laws and penalties were for such an act.
 
that's really silly. There is no evidence of that claim whatsoever, though most of the anti gun nonsense is NOT based on a real desire to stop crime with intelligently crafted laws, but rather to harass the NRA for political reasons. Sandyhook-the factual version, actually helps the position of the NRA. The gun used by Lanza was legally purchased, registered and the buyer passed a background check. And only a moron would argue that killing one's own mother to obtain a firearm, was something other than a premeditated homicidal act-an act that was not subject to deterrence no matter what the laws and penalties were for such an act.


You completely missed the satirical nature of the post, for it was a commentary on CT logic (well, lack thereof). I thought the emoji would have given it away.

1. Start with an asinine claim.

2. Refuse to back it up.

3. Then employ ad hominem as a response to sceptics.

It's a common pattern that is tedious owing to its repetition in dealing with 9/11 Truth, Apollo Hoaxers, Sandy Hook Hoaxers, Chemtrailers, Anti Vaxxers, and an assortment of other loons for over 10 years.
 
Last edited:
I can agree with you there - there should be more interviews. As far as it becoming common knowledge - yes, it should, but we know that would be something the MSM will not report, so we don't really know that it hasn't become common knowledge, and then it goes back to if there were a slew of interviews we would then know. So that's on the back burner pending an interview of most of the neighborhood.
If independent journalists didn't do this in 2014 or earlier, I daresay their window of opportunity is now shut. The event is 7 years passed. Neighbourhoods change. Memories fade. The whole issue is now steeped in controversy and animosity.

What needed to be done by proponents of the conspiracy is citizens putting in the leg work ASAP, getting boots on the ground in CT going door-to-door to survey the neighbourhood, being very transparent about it.

"Hi. I'm a journalist with XYZ Independent Media. We're looking for evidence that will either support or debunk the controversial claim that the 2012 shooting was a hoax. You lived here in 2012, right? Ah, good. Did you have a child attending SHES in 2012? Here's a list of the parents with deceased children. Did you personally know any of these parents? Did you personally know any of these children? Do you have any observations to add that you believe may be relevant to determining the truth of the issue? Thank you very much for your time."

These interviews would cover whatever swath of the town had SHES as the proximate elementary school (which may be the entire town for all I know). It would no doubt require many hundreds, possibly even thousands of interviews, but a modest team of individuals could do it in a week or two. They could stop prematurely if they found they were running into many affirmative answers to the survey questions.

Then they set up two statistical hypothesis: 1) the ratio of negative to affirmative responses is low enough to conclude with confidence x that the shooting could not be a hoax unless the entire neighbourhood was "in on it"; and 2) the ratio of negative to affirmative responses is high enough to conclude that the school could not have been operational in 2012, and that the parents and slain children could not have lived anywhere where it was logical for them to attend the school.

The journalists lay out their assumptions, conduct the tests, and either confirm (i.e. fail to reject) one of the two hypotheses or else reject both of them in the unlikely event the data are ambiguous.

As I say: this is the only way the journalists overcome my initial skepticism, because it's by far the most incredible aspect of the story. If they fail to clear this hurdle by the end of the documentary, I have to assume it's because they can't, and there's really nothing they can pack into the film to make up for this shortcoming. It's not an unreasonable requirement.

In any case, I'll continue watching it segment by segment as time permits.
 
Yeah the horrific scene of a mass shooting where children ****ing died.

How sad that political correctness disarmed the teachers who could have stopped the massacre if not for being disarmed by well meaning but seriously misguided leftists.
 
Yeah the horrific scene of a mass shooting where children ****ing died.

Or the opposite.

The public had already been told, endless times in endless news stories, about that "horrific scene". What's to hide? Parts of the public love gore and blood as they pay to see in the theater for movies like Nightmare on Elm Street and such. The public had already seen gore and blood in "Collateral Murder".

No, what they were trying to keep secret (they failed) is that the demolition crew would see solid evidence that the story was false, that the school was very much NOT the scene of a mass murder. The cat would have been out of the proverbial bag.

THAT was the purpose of the secrecy.
 
Or the opposite.

The public had already been told, endless times in endless news stories, about that "horrific scene". What's to hide? Parts of the public love gore and blood as they pay to see in the theater for movies like Nightmare on Elm Street and such. The public had already seen gore and blood in "Collateral Murder".

No, what they were trying to keep secret (they failed) is that the demolition crew would see solid evidence that the story was false, that the school was very much NOT the scene of a mass murder. The cat would have been out of the proverbial bag.

THAT was the purpose of the secrecy.

Being told a child was shot is not the same as a parent having graphic details spread all over. There may also be personal private information on the students and staff in the school
Now do you have any actual evidence to support your claim other than the fact you heard it on from Alex Jones who now admits it wasn't a hoax?
I mean really, the straws you graso at to try and make the world fit into your alternate reality is rather sad
 
Being told a child was shot is not the same as a parent having graphic details spread all over. There may also be personal private information on the students and staff in the school
Now do you have any actual evidence to support your claim other than the fact you heard it on from Alex Jones who now admits it wasn't a hoax?
I mean really, the straws you graso at to try and make the world fit into your alternate reality is rather sad
This is the fourth or fifth time it's been mentioned that Alex Jones "admits [the shooting] wasn't a hoax", as though his opinion carries considerable weight.

If his opinion indeed carries weight, it's worth pointing out that he was coerced into the admission by multi-multimillion dollar lawsuits threatening to tear down his entire media empire. Not even his critics believe he's actually changed his opinion.
 
Ever wonder why someone, or some group of people would go through all of the trouble to pretend murder a bunch of kids and then several years later, have nothing to show for it in the realm of "gun laws"?
Yeah, me either.

They have nothing to show for it because Americans pushed back hard. Many have caught on to what the agenda is really all about due to the fact that when these things backfire (as they usually do), the effects are exponential.

I believe the attention Alex Jones received when his show got banned from youtube was favorable for Alex Jones and the conspiracy movement because the people look at it as an act of censorship. It gave Jones credibility because after all, you don't need to silence a looney unless the looney is on the right track. So they do go through the trouble quite vigorously, then when they fail they simply double down with more fake shootings that fail - and they just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper.
 
Nonsense. Stop this. Have some human feelings for the grieving parents and stop feeding your ego.

Wow, your post shows that you didn't even read my post before replying to it.
 
They have nothing to show for it because Americans pushed back hard. Many have caught on to what the agenda is really all about due to the fact that when these things backfire (as they usually do), the effects are exponential.

So you believe, however, that doesn't make it true, and the premise is specious owing to a lack of evidence, for it is nothing more than a belief system driven by confirmation bias and irrational suspicions based thereupon. The CT crowd have been saying this regarding every mass shooting for some time and the so called hypothesis lacks evidence, and is somewhat incredible owing to the magnitude of the conspiracy and the fact that not a single individual has come forward as a whistle blower, not to mention a complete lack of evidence.

I believe the attention Alex Jones received when his show got banned from youtube was favorable for Alex Jones and the conspiracy movement because the people look at it as an act of censorship.

Yes, I have seen evidence where people believe he is being silenced, however, it is not for the reasons they cite.

It gave Jones credibility because after all, you don't need to silence a looney unless the looney is on the right track.

That is a specious conclusion and fails to acknowledge the efforts of HONR in preventing further emotional harm to the families of the victims. This group has been lobbying hard to address the damage inflicted by the CTists. Do you seriously think that the case against Jones will be the end all attempts to redress the claims of the survivors and families of the victims? HONR will not give up on addressing the claims, and they will go after the outlets that distribute the CT material next.

So they do go through the trouble quite vigorously, then when they fail they simply double down with more fake shootings that fail - and they just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper.

Again, that is merely a conclusion reached without evidence and based upon nothing more than confirmation bias. Every tragedy is a false flag for some asinine attempt by the government to limit one's rights or start some war: 9/11, the Boston Bombing, Aurora, Vegas et cetera ad punctum absurditatis. Furthermore, it is always internet dwellers who possess poor skills in logic and lack the ability to process evidence who make these claims, and never qualified investigative journalists and LE professionals.
 
Last edited:
This is the fourth or fifth time it's been mentioned that Alex Jones "admits [the shooting] wasn't a hoax", as though his opinion carries considerable weight.

If his opinion indeed carries weight, it's worth pointing out that he was coerced into the admission by multi-multimillion dollar lawsuits threatening to tear down his entire media empire. Not even his critics believe he's actually changed his opinion.

Not one thing in there actually dealt withy explaining to HD some possible reasons for an NDA. Not that we even need to give any he needs evidence he has none he never will he doesngt live in the real world or even try to think for himself. That is too hard better to let CT sites explain to him why his life is such a failure and why its all the ebil Govts fault.
As to Jones since HD gets most of his news from Alex Jones it is very relavent.
As to him being coerced yeah that just crazy Cters trying desperately to hold onto their fantasy world view


Still waiting for some actual evidence from any Cter that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
 
Wow, your post shows that you didn't even read my post before replying to it.

I have read your despicable posts. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
 
Still waiting for some actual evidence from any Cter that Sandy Hook was a hoax.
@sKiTzo provided the nearly-3-hour-long video documentary in post #152, which I'm working through incrementally.

Re the NDA: if it isn't standard practice in the industry or an absurd excess of caution (both of which seem plausible enough), I agree with @sKiTzo to the degree that it's totally unnecessary. Maybe the authorities were worried about demolition men posting snapshots of the deserted classrooms online and kids' ghosts showing up in them. That's all I got.

Probably a city official scared to death of litigation and figuring 'better safe than sorry' since an NDA is no skin off his nose. In any case, as a point of evidence it's at best consistent with the hoax theory.
 
I think the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories were started by the NRA in order to discredit the anti-gun lobby.

If I take the CTist route of reversing the burden of proof, I can then state 'prove me wrong'.

Furthermore, I can then employ the HD tactic of accusing all those who disagree of being NRA muppets (or somesuch).

The script is all too easy to ape and reverse. :lol:

Much of it was started by the MSM when they would get busted staging rallies and fake activists and rebels and such. Or pretending they are in Iraq. The many blunders made people wonder why? ...and begin to ask questions like: "why the phony manipulation?" and then ""it can't stop there - what else are they manipulating on a larger scale?". The rest is history as the foolish MSM dug their grave greatly underestimating and insulting the intelligence of the american people ultimately betraying their trust. That's what did it. The reason they got away with it for so long is because the people trusted the MSM. It took a long time for people to finally see what was going on.
 
If independent journalists didn't do this in 2014 or earlier, I daresay their window of opportunity is now shut. The event is 7 years passed. Neighbourhoods change. Memories fade. The whole issue is now steeped in controversy and animosity.

What needed to be done by proponents of the conspiracy is citizens putting in the leg work ASAP, getting boots on the ground in CT going door-to-door to survey the neighbourhood, being very transparent about it.

"Hi. I'm a journalist with XYZ Independent Media. We're looking for evidence that will either support or debunk the controversial claim that the 2012 shooting was a hoax. You lived here in 2012, right? Ah, good. Did you have a child attending SHES in 2012? Here's a list of the parents with deceased children. Did you personally know any of these parents? Did you personally know any of these children? Do you have any observations to add that you believe may be relevant to determining the truth of the issue? Thank you very much for your time."

These interviews would cover whatever swath of the town had SHES as the proximate elementary school (which may be the entire town for all I know). It would no doubt require many hundreds, possibly even thousands of interviews, but a modest team of individuals could do it in a week or two. They could stop prematurely if they found they were running into many affirmative answers to the survey questions.

Then they set up two statistical hypothesis: 1) the ratio of negative to affirmative responses is low enough to conclude with confidence x that the shooting could not be a hoax unless the entire neighbourhood was "in on it"; and 2) the ratio of negative to affirmative responses is high enough to conclude that the school could not have been operational in 2012, and that the parents and slain children could not have lived anywhere where it was logical for them to attend the school.

The journalists lay out their assumptions, conduct the tests, and either confirm (i.e. fail to reject) one of the two hypotheses or else reject both of them in the unlikely event the data are ambiguous.

As I say: this is the only way the journalists overcome my initial skepticism, because it's by far the most incredible aspect of the story. If they fail to clear this hurdle by the end of the documentary, I have to assume it's because they can't, and there's really nothing they can pack into the film to make up for this shortcoming. It's not an unreasonable requirement.

In any case, I'll continue watching it segment by segment as time permits.

Keep watching - it gets better. It has to because we've dismissed the first 3 segments, right?
 
@sKiTzo provided the nearly-3-hour-long video documentary in post #152, which I'm working through incrementally.
I am not sitting thorugh 3 hours of video, If there is any actual evidence he can tell us what it is. But of course that wont happen.

Re the NDA: if it isn't standard practice in the industry or an absurd excess of caution (both of which seem plausible enough), I agree with @sKiTzo to the degree that it's totally unnecessary. Maybe the authorities were worried about demolition men posting snapshots of the deserted classrooms online and kids' ghosts showing up in them. That's all I got.
Could be the last bit could be personal records, photo etc. or it could be just to keep people from pocketing stuff to sell online.

Probably a city official scared to death of litigation and figuring 'better safe than sorry' since an NDA is no skin off his nose. In any case, as a point of evidence it's at best consistent with the hoax theory.
Not at all. It is only consistent if there is no plausible reason other than to cover up the "hoax". As there are many plausible reasons and I doubt an NDA would be enforceable if it was to cover up a crime of this magnitude it isn't consistent with any of his gibberish
 
I am not sitting thorugh 3 hours of video, If there is any actual evidence he can tell us what it is. But of course that wont happen.
O ye of little patience, you can hang around as I make my way through it and ask questions.

Could be the last bit could be personal records, photo etc. [1] or it could be just to keep people from pocketing stuff to sell online [2].
[1] Possibly. It does seem likely that pro forma NDAs will show up whenever a crew is asked to demo a building where personal records were stored, such as a school.

[2] This theory makes no sense outside of the degree to which it pertains to [1]. Either the materials inside aren't considered abandoned and are subject to theft laws, or are considered abandoned and the state doesn't give a toot whether people acquire it or sell it. If they can salvage trash and sell it, more power to them.

Not at all. It is only consistent if there is no plausible reason other than to cover up the "hoax".
"Consistent" simply means it doesn't contradict the theory.

I doubt an NDA would be enforceable if it was to cover up a crime of this magnitude
This latter point does speak to consistency, but it depends entirely on what the theory supposes the crews would find. As far I know, they're supposing the crews would be able to testify that the school appeared long-abandoned. It wouldn't be hard to tell, because "strippers" literally rip the guts out of derelict buildings within weeks, looking for saleable metals.

I tend to side with you on this one--that an NDA probably wouldn't stop this kind of information from leaking out--but there's nothing saying the NDA couldn't be part of a larger containment strategy.

Again, all we can say is that it's consistent with the theory, which isn't saying much at all.
 
O ye of little patience, you can hang around as I make my way through it and ask questions.
I dont watch DP videos unless the poster can tell me what specifically they think is the points made. But since you have been watching it is there any actual evidence so far or just typical CT nonsense?


[1] Possibly. It does seem likely that pro forma NDAs will show up whenever a crew is asked to demo a building where personal records were stored, such as a school.

[2] This theory makes no sense outside of the degree to which it pertains to [1]. Either the materials inside aren't considered abandoned and are subject to theft laws, or are considered abandoned and the state doesn't give a toot whether people acquire it or sell it. If they can salvage trash and sell it, more power to them.
Pocketing personal belongings of child victims for profit is rather heinous and I can see why it would be under an NDA


"Consistent" simply means it doesn't contradict the theory.



This latter point does speak to consistency, but it depends entirely on what the theory supposes the crews would find. As far I know, they're supposing the crews would be able to testify that the school appeared long-abandoned. It wouldn't be hard to tell, because "strippers" literally rip the guts out of derelict buildings within weeks, looking for saleable metals.

I tend to side with you on this one--that an NDA probably wouldn't stop this kind of information from leaking out--but there's nothing saying the NDA couldn't be part of a larger containment strategy.

Again, all we can say is that it's consistent with the theory, which isn't saying much at all.

It isn't consistent with a hoax because it would require the cleaners to obey the NDA, something a conspiracy would never consider as certain or even likely unless they wanted to get caught. The only sure way is to have those involved be part of the conspiracy then an NDA wouldn't be necessary

Still waiting for some actual evidence it was a hoax I am willing to bet it will never ever appear.
 
Much of it was started by the MSM when they would get busted staging rallies and fake activists and rebels and such. Or pretending they are in Iraq. The many blunders made people wonder why? ...and begin to ask questions like: "why the phony manipulation?" and then ""it can't stop there - what else are they manipulating on a larger scale?". The rest is history as the foolish MSM dug their grave greatly underestimating and insulting the intelligence of the american people ultimately betraying their trust. That's what did it. The reason they got away with it for so long is because the people trusted the MSM. It took a long time for people to finally see what was going on.

What the Hell does that rant have to do with Sandy Hook or my post?
 
The scope of the conspiracy is to successfully complete a federal and probably state too, training exercise. Involving initially just a few, but once it begins many are simply playing a game, knowing it's a training exercise. I can remember similar things from my time in the Army.

People love to be actors. I don't, but some people do. They play to the camera, as it were, and love it. Especially if they are getting paid for it. As many as it takes I suppose. Clearly the one fellow was caught red faced as it were, going from joking to crying for the camera in a few long seconds.

IMO the reason for such a hoax is because that is how they are planned. It's like a play, and people love to act. Under cover of such training exercises, many "major events" have been accomplished, from London to New York and all around the globe, big picture.

Thanks for the cold analysis and order. :)

I too want to watch the 2 hour video.
 
The scope of the conspiracy is to successfully complete a federal and probably state too, training exercise. Involving initially just a few, but once it begins many are simply playing a game, knowing it's a training exercise. I can remember similar things from my time in the Army.

People love to be actors. I don't, but some people do. They play to the camera, as it were, and love it. Especially if they are getting paid for it. As many as it takes I suppose. Clearly the one fellow was caught red faced as it were, going from joking to crying for the camera in a few long seconds.

IMO the reason for such a hoax is because that is how they are planned. It's like a play, and people love to act. Under cover of such training exercises, many "major events" have been accomplished, from London to New York and all around the globe, big picture.

Thanks for the cold analysis and order. :)

I too want to watch the 2 hour video.

Dumbest explanation for a Ct ever!
 
The scope of the conspiracy is to successfully complete a federal and probably state too, training exercise. Involving initially just a few, but once it begins many are simply playing a game, knowing it's a training exercise. I can remember similar things from my time in the Army.

So, you're guessing this is what happened at Sandy Hook for what reason?

People love to be actors. I don't, but some people do. They play to the camera, as it were, and love it. Especially if they are getting paid for it. As many as it takes I suppose.

Even if true, this doesn't mean a thing.

Clearly the one fellow was caught red faced as it were, going from joking to crying for the camera in a few long seconds.

So you believe and distort.

IMO the reason for such a hoax is because that is how they are planned. It's like a play, and people love to act. Under cover of such training exercises, many "major events" have been accomplished, from London to New York and all around the globe, big picture.

So you have no real justification for your belief system other than a few nebulous assumptions. You must surely possess the intelligence to realise this? If so, why do you push such a weak tale so vehemently if you no evidence?
 
Back
Top Bottom