• 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

Quag said:
Pocketing personal belongings of child victims for profit is rather heinous and I can see why it would be under an NDA
Click to expand...
:lol:

FOR SALE ON EBAY! Pencil and eraser likely belonging to one of the children shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School! ONLY $13.99 + S/H! Comes with certificate of authenticity! DON'T MISS OUT!

You might be able to find somebody willing to buy major elements of the crime, like the weapon used in the shooting (hypothetically of course) or the killer's last written manifesto. But abandoned school supplies--at a cost high enough to turn a meaningful profit? Not a chance.

If and when society ever does sink to the point where there's a market for random crap associated with mass shootings, the opportunism will start with people picking through the victims' families' garbage. Any one of hundreds of millions of people can do this, not just a handful of demolition workers.

Quag said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it were my conspiracy, I'd get my co-conspiring demolition staff to sign an NDA regardless. Not because it would necessarily add weight to any agreements/threats I'd made in private but because if one of the workers did renege and I had to start making his life hell, the NDA would make it much easier to do. More importantly, I could justify any persecution as "enforcing the laws in place to prevent opportunism and protect victims' families". It'd be far easier to make him look like a greedy criminal and prosecutors look like law-preserving champions of the children.

...If it were up to me.

I almost hesitate to argue this point because I otherwise agree with you there are several plausible reasons (besides a grand conspiracy) that an NDA would be used. This makes the NDA worthless as potential evidence. Point concluded.
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
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.]
Click to expand...

It never does, and the lengthy videos are universally inconclusive and nothing more than assumptions built upon possibilities based upon predetermined suspicions. You know the CT methodology as well as I, and that is, reach a conclusion based upon nothing more than irrational confirmation bias, and then look for anything that could be used as evidence to support said conclusion.


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.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the outrage when people placed looted articles from the WTC on ebay? Items were being listed within 24 hours of the attack.


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
Click to expand...

Now, now, don't let reason interfere with a good tale.
 
NWO_Spook said:
It never does, and the lengthy videos are universally inconclusive and nothing more than assumptions built upon possibilities based upon predetermined suspicions. You know the CT methodology as well as I, and that is, reach a conclusion based upon nothing more than irrational confirmation bias, and then look for anything that could be used as evidence to support said conclusion. ...
Click to expand...
You know, you could spend the time you devote to dumping generalizations into these threads actually watching the videos. :roll:

Just think, you'd get to say, "This conspiracy is bogus because at 15:23 he says...", make an actual argument, and eat some rocky road or licorice twist for once. Not just the "This conspiracy is bogus because conspiracy theorists is dumb and dey just has dumb arguments." 20-liter tub of cheap vanilla you can buy for $3.00 at every supermarket and YouTube comment section in the nation.

Your time is yours to waste, though. :coffeepap
 
COTO said:
You know, you could spend the time you devote to dumping generalizations into these threads actually watching the videos. :roll:
Click to expand...

I could, but I choose to examine the reasoning processes. Is that ok with you? As for the so called generalisations, they are correct and based upon observation. Why do you assume I've haven't examined the arguments before?

ust think, you'd get to say, "This conspiracy is bogus because at 15:23 he says...", make an actual argument, and eat some rocky road or licorice twist for once.
Click to expand...

Why bother chasing rabbits based upon flawed reasoning? As I told you previously, have at it, for winning arguments based upon poorly constructed hypotheses motivated by confirmation bias is a futile gesture and is hardly a triumph in my opinion.

Not just the "This conspiracy is bogus because conspiracy theorists is dumb and dey just has dumb arguments."
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. Why are you misrepresenting my posts?

20-liter tub of cheap vanilla you can buy for $3.00 at every supermarket and YouTube comment section in the nation.
Click to expand...

And? Does this pass as some form of profound wisdom?

Your time is yours to waste, though. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

As is yours. :roll:
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

I believe the powers that be have been using problem-reaction-solution for the better part of a century in order to get what they want. This grand scale of manipulation has worked for them successfully to the turn of the century at which time people began to wake up and smell a rat. Their big mistake was their overuse of this tactic after 911, beating the dead horse over and over again with mass shooting + immediate anti-gun lobbying over and over and over.

They apparently didn't realize people were catching on and so it wasn't business as usual with the dumb public ready to be manipulated. Yet, they continued the program botching up the Boston bombing, Newtown, etc. and just further exposing themselves more and more until where we're at now, which is basically we don't believe your mass shootings because you make too many blunders for us to be able to believe it - and its always the anti-gun agenda rearing its ugly head not even an hour after the supposed shooting.
 
sKiTzo said:
I believe the powers that be have been using problem-reaction-solution for the better part of a century in order to get what they want. This grand scale of manipulation has worked for them successfully to the turn of the century at which time people began to wake up and smell a rat. Their big mistake was their overuse of this tactic after 911, beating the dead horse over and over again with mass shooting + immediate anti-gun lobbying over and over and over.

They apparently didn't realize people were catching on and so it wasn't business as usual with the dumb public ready to be manipulated. Yet, they continued the program botching up the Boston bombing, Newtown, etc. and just further exposing themselves more and more until where we're at now, which is basically we don't believe your mass shootings because you make too many blunders for us to be able to believe it - and its always the anti-gun agenda rearing its ugly head not even an hour after the supposed shooting.
Click to expand...

And to prove my point...
 
COTO said:
You know, you could spend the time you devote to dumping generalizations into these threads actually watching the videos. :roll:

Just think, you'd get to say, "This conspiracy is bogus because at 15:23 he says...", make an actual argument, and eat some rocky road or licorice twist for once. Not just the "This conspiracy is bogus because conspiracy theorists is dumb and dey just has dumb arguments." 20-liter tub of cheap vanilla you can buy for $3.00 at every supermarket and YouTube comment section in the nation.

Your time is yours to waste, though. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

It wastes our time too though. It also doesn't follow debate protocol. I can see that you understand the importance of debate protocol so that a debate moves forward. With these geniuses you can't expect a productive and successful debate because their shill handbook doesn't allow for them to concede. All you can do is post the evidence that they refute only by saying so. It's too bad there aren't neutral moderators on DP that could enforce the posting of actual evidence that refutes something, and requires the next poster to do the same or be kicked off the thread. That would be the end of the shills! lol
 
sKiTzo said:
It wastes our time too though. It also doesn't follow debate protocol.
Click to expand...

Debate protocol dictates that you have the burden of proof and a two hour video is not worthy material for debate, for it is up to you to present the material and relate how it supports your hypothesis. The responder has to first check the authenticity of the video's claims and then refute them, and in a video of that length, that is no mean feat. So, it is up to you to learn to construct a well developed argument with a sound premise that is not merely founded upon irrational suspicion and false generalisations.

I can see that you understand the importance of debate protocol so that a debate moves forward.
Click to expand...

Then fulfil your burden of proof and construct a reasoned argument based upon sound evidence and a valid premise. Don't just dump a gish gallop lasting two hours. Furthermore, 'x' amount of fallacious noise based upon confirmation bias and loose associations does not allow a debate to progress either.

With these geniuses you can't expect a productive and successful debate because their shill handbook doesn't allow for them to concede.
Click to expand...

There's the usual Ad Hominem I spoke of earlier. You are following the script well.

All you can do is post the evidence that they refute only by saying so.
Click to expand...

If you're too lazy to develop a reasoned argument and merely dump a lengthy video, then why should one take the time to examine it and respond? Coto has already wasted time on that and your response was pathetically weak ~ it is always the same.

It's too bad there aren't neutral moderators on DP that could enforce the posting of actual evidence that refutes something, and requires the next poster to do the same or be kicked off the thread.
Click to expand...

I would add to that, in that if one is too lazy to post a well developed hypothesis, and merely dump a gish gallop video without adequate explanation, then that individual should be disqualified from posting in the thread, for it is simply bad manners. What say you?

That would be the end of the shills! lol
Click to expand...

Shills? There's that script again ~ please exercise some original thought.
 
Last edited:
sKiTzo said:
I believe the powers that be have been using problem-reaction-solution for the better part of a century in order to get what they want. This grand scale of manipulation has worked for them successfully to the turn of the century at which time people began to wake up and smell a rat. Their big mistake was their overuse of this tactic after 911, beating the dead horse over and over again with mass shooting + immediate anti-gun lobbying over and over and over.

They apparently didn't realize people were catching on and so it wasn't business as usual with the dumb public ready to be manipulated. Yet, they continued the program botching up the Boston bombing, Newtown, etc. and just further exposing themselves more and more until where we're at now, which is basically we don't believe your mass shootings because you make too many blunders for us to be able to believe it - and its always the anti-gun agenda rearing its ugly head not even an hour after the supposed shooting.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
sKiTzo said:
It wastes our time too though. It also doesn't follow debate protocol. I can see that you understand the importance of debate protocol so that a debate moves forward. With these geniuses you can't expect a productive and successful debate because their shill handbook doesn't allow for them to concede. All you can do is post the evidence that they refute only by saying so. It's too bad there aren't neutral moderators on DP that could enforce the posting of actual evidence that refutes something, and requires the next poster to do the same or be kicked off the thread. That would be the end of the shills! lol
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
COTO said:
:lol:

FOR SALE ON EBAY! Pencil and eraser likely belonging to one of the children shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School! ONLY $13.99 + S/H! Comes with certificate of authenticity! DON'T MISS OUT!

You might be able to find somebody willing to buy major elements of the crime, like the weapon used in the shooting (hypothetically of course) or the killer's last written manifesto. But abandoned school supplies--at a cost high enough to turn a meaningful profit? Not a chance.

If and when society ever does sink to the point where there's a market for random crap associated with mass shootings, the opportunism will start with people picking through the victims' families' garbage. Any one of hundreds of millions of people can do this, not just a handful of demolition workers.
Click to expand...
I Went To A Nazi Memorabilia Auction. Here'''s What I Saw | Cognoscenti
eBay at 20: 20 of the weirdest things ever sold | The Independent
Your faith in humaity is misplaced here


If it were my conspiracy, I'd get my co-conspiring demolition staff to sign an NDA regardless. Not because it would necessarily add weight to any agreements/threats I'd made in private but because if one of the workers did renege and I had to start making his life hell, the NDA would make it much easier to do. More importantly, I could justify any persecution as "enforcing the laws in place to prevent opportunism and protect victims' families". It'd be far easier to make him look like a greedy criminal and prosecutors look like law-preserving c

hampions of the children.

...If it were up to me.
Click to expand...
Yeah if you are going to do a conspiracy like this, you need to have true beleivers and there would be no need for an NDA. However your reasoning here is flawed as your life will also be destroyed by the revelations and in this instance the whistleblower will actually be acclaimed as a hero (as opposeed to the usual fate reserved for them)

I almost hesitate to argue this point because I otherwise agree with you there are several plausible reasons (besides a grand conspiracy) that an NDA would be used. This makes the NDA worthless as potential evidence. Point concluded.
Click to expand...
Good
 
COTO said:
You know, you could spend the time you devote to dumping generalizations into these threads actually watching the videos. :roll:

Just think, you'd get to say, "This conspiracy is bogus because at 15:23 he says...", make an actual argument, and eat some rocky road or licorice twist for once. Not just the "This conspiracy is bogus because conspiracy theorists is dumb and dey just has dumb arguments." 20-liter tub of cheap vanilla you can buy for $3.00 at every supermarket and YouTube comment section in the nation.

Your time is yours to waste, though. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Argument via You Tube is never an acceptable strategy. If you cannot state explicitly what the evidence is in the video then either you havent watched it, or there is none. The problem with them is they are usually an attempt to bump up viewrship and thus income of those making the invariably dishonest videos.
 
Quag said:
Argument via You Tube is never an acceptable strategy. If you cannot state explicitly what the evidence is in the video then either you havent watched it, or there is none. The problem with them is they are usually an attempt to bump up viewrship and thus income of those making the invariably dishonest videos.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the massive gish gallop contained therein, and a member had the temerity to call me lazy. The first five minutes were enough owing to the loaded nature of the language employed...investigative journalists my a**. The video makers were just CTists JAQing off.
 
Last edited:
COTO said:
You know, you could spend the time you devote to dumping generalizations into these threads actually watching the videos. :roll:

Just think, you'd get to say, "This conspiracy is bogus because at 15:23 he says...", make an actual argument, and eat some rocky road or licorice twist for once. Not just the "This conspiracy is bogus because conspiracy theorists is dumb and dey just has dumb arguments." 20-liter tub of cheap vanilla you can buy for $3.00 at every supermarket and YouTube comment section in the nation.

Your time is yours to waste, though. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Yesterday I watched an hour or more of the video, and it's way worse than I had previously thought. Not only is the town council, city commission, whatever, in on the hoax, apparently the Connecticut state government is also in on it, having passed in the previous year legislation to prevent public examination or scrutiny of public records.

Wow. Anyway, it's an excellent video, and sooner or later I will finish it.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yesterday I watched an hour or more of the video, and it's way worse than I had previously thought. Not only is the town council, city commission, whatever, in on the hoax, apparently the Connecticut state government is also in on it, having passed in the previous year legislation to prevent public examination or scrutiny of public records.

Wow. Anyway, it's an excellent video, and sooner or later I will finish it.
Click to expand...
If you think that it is just confirmation there is nothing at all in the video
 
sKiTzo said:
I believe the powers that be have been using problem-reaction-solution for the better part of a century in order to get what they want. This grand scale of manipulation has worked for them successfully to the turn of the century at which time people began to wake up and smell a rat. Their big mistake was their overuse of this tactic after 911, beating the dead horse over and over again with mass shooting + immediate anti-gun lobbying over and over and over.

They apparently didn't realize people were catching on and so it wasn't business as usual with the dumb public ready to be manipulated. Yet, they continued the program botching up the Boston bombing, Newtown, etc. and just further exposing themselves more and more until where we're at now, which is basically we don't believe your mass shootings because you make too many blunders for us to be able to believe it - and its always the anti-gun agenda rearing its ugly head not even an hour after the supposed shooting.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link to that video. It is very well done and superbly named: We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook.

The last thing on earth the mainstream media wants to do is talk about Sandy Hook. Silence and suppression is the order of the day for MSM and its government hacks.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You missed my point James--you have not a clue as to how independent thinkers can and do work.

Your low class understanding and description of independent thinking and analysis is very much your style here. Have you ever read a book in your entire life?
Click to expand...

Believing in idiotic conspiracies does not make you a independent thinker. It just makes you a ****en retard for believing Sandy Hook was a hoax. Not believing in conspiracy theories does not make you unintelligent.
 
Quag said:
If you think that it is just confirmation there is nothing at all in the video
Click to expand...

Just let him rave, as it exposes the tendentious nature of his reasoning. I did smile owing to the fact that he believes that all tiers of the state government are in on it. We can add them to the Federal govt. that they vehemently claim is responsible.

What about all governments in the western world? They just want to disarm 'Murica in order to allow the Jewish Aliens to invade with Motherships armed with Judy Woods' Space Beams and Prager's mini-nukes.

It all makes sense now.
 
NWO_Spook said:
If you're too lazy to develop a reasoned argument and merely dump a lengthy video, then why should one take the time to examine it and respond? Coto has already wasted time on that and your response was pathetically weak ~ it is always the same.
Click to expand...

It appears you are too lazy to even read the posts before responding to them. My "pathetically weak" and "always the same" response to Coto was agreeing that the first 3 segments of the video was NOT valid evidence to prove sandy hook was a hoax. Either you think it WAS enough evidence to prove a hoax, or you didn't read the post. SWo now we know what kind of poster we're dealing with - exactly the kind I spoke of in my previous post that you objected to. lol


NWO_Spook said:
I would add to that, in that if one is too lazy to post a well developed hypothesis, and merely dump a gish gallop video without adequate explanation, then that individual should be disqualified from posting in the thread, for it is simply bad manners. What say you?
Click to expand...
Ok then, this video is only 4 min. and 42 seconds long and with me providing an adequate explanation that you so requested. The video subject matter is that of an article put out by the Newtown Bee that quoted the principal of Sandy Hook in an interview as saying "a masked man entered the building and fired more shots than I could count".

The article was retracted 2 days later when they realized the principal was supposed to have died in the event. Someone studying the article noticed a cache date of Dec. 13th. The date of the event was Dec. 14th. It goes on to show the correspondence with Microsoft confirming more than once that the date is correct. That's a checkmate.

EDIT: DP doesn't give the option anymore to upload a video from your computer and I'm too lazy to upload it to youtube so you'll have to refer to the video I posted but only view it from 25:45 to about 30:30. That's less than 5 minutes.
 
Last edited:
sKiTzo said:
It appears you are too lazy to even read the posts before responding to them. My "pathetically weak" and "always the same" response to Coto was agreeing that the first 3 segments of the video was NOT valid evidence to prove sandy hook was a hoax. Either you think it WAS enough evidence to prove a hoax, or you didn't read the post. SWo now we know what kind of poster we're dealing with - exactly the kind I spoke of in my previous post that you objected to. lol
Click to expand...

But you still maintained your unsupported assertions based upon confirmation bias within the response, did you not? Hence my point, and your erroneous accusations within the above are a construct of your imagination, for I did not reach any conclusion on the subject within that response as you suggest. it was simply a comment on the fact that after he wrote an essay, your response was indeed, pathetically weak, as is usual when one addresses CTists. It is indeed, always the same.


Ok then, this video is only 4 min. and 42 seconds long and with me providing an adequate explanation that you so requested. The video subject matter is that of an article put out by the Newtown Bee that quoted the principal of Sandy Hook in an interview as saying "a masked man entered the building and fired more shots than I could count".

The article was retracted 2 days later when they realized the principal was supposed to have died in the event. Someone studying the article noticed a cache date of Dec. 13th. The date of the event was Dec. 14th. It goes on to show the correspondence with Microsoft confirming more than once that the date is correct. That's a checkmate.
Click to expand...

What video? And did it ever occur to you that the paper got it wrong and it may have been someone else? I mean, it's not hard to think this through without jumping to the usual irrational conclusions.

What's a checkmate? More of your assertions without evidence, and why do you assume that there is only one possibility for such an error? Did you ever think it just may have been someone else?

Anyway, post this evidence and let me examine it.

E.T.A: your edit after my post:

EDIT: DP doesn't give the option anymore to upload a video from your computer and I'm too lazy to upload it to youtube so you'll have to refer to the video I posted but only view it from 25:45 to about 30:30. That's less than 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

I'll look up your claim on Metabunk.
 
Last edited:
sKiTzo said:
It appears you are too lazy to even read the posts before responding to them. My "pathetically weak" and "always the same" response to Coto was agreeing that the first 3 segments of the video was NOT valid evidence to prove sandy hook was a hoax. Either you think it WAS enough evidence to prove a hoax, or you didn't read the post. SWo now we know what kind of poster we're dealing with - exactly the kind I spoke of in my previous post that you objected to. lol



Ok then, this video is only 4 min. and 42 seconds long and with me providing an adequate explanation that you so requested. The video subject matter is that of an article put out by the Newtown Bee that quoted the principal of Sandy Hook in an interview as saying "a masked man entered the building and fired more shots than I could count".

The article was retracted 2 days later when they realized the principal was supposed to have died in the event. Someone studying the article noticed a cache date of Dec. 13th. The date of the event was Dec. 14th. It goes on to show the correspondence with Microsoft confirming more than once that the date is correct. That's a checkmate.

EDIT: DP doesn't give the option anymore to upload a video from your computer and I'm too lazy to upload it to youtube so you'll have to refer to the video I posted but only view it from 25:45 to about 30:30. That's less than 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

"“An early online report from the scene at the December 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School quoted a woman who identified herself to our reporter as the principal of the school. The woman was not the school's principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the Friday morning attack.” Things are confusing in the aftermath."

Your comprehensive answer to every Sandy Hook conspiracy theory | Salon.com

That took less than two minutes to find. This is a far more reasonable scenario.

Your move, which will be an endless parade of rabbit holes and hoops I will have to jump through which will not influence your conclusions in any form. And it will go on and on and on, while you actually do nothing but post videos and/or the irrational conclusions of others who lack skills in basic logic and textual criticism.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
But you still maintained your unsupported assertions based upon confirmation bias within the response, did you not? Hence my point, and your erroneous accusations within the above are a construct of your imagination, for I did not reach any conclusion on the subject within that response as you suggest. it was simply a comment on the fact that after he wrote an essay, your response was indeed, pathetically weak, as is usual when one addresses CTists. It is indeed, always the same.
Click to expand...

Not making or showing a whole lotta sense there, are ya.



NWO_Spook said:
What video? And did it ever occur to you that the paper got it wrong and it may have been someone else? I mean, it's not hard to think this through without jumping to the usual irrational conclusions.

What's a checkmate? More of your assertions without evidence, and why do you assume that there is only one possibility for such an error? Did you ever think it just may have been someone else?
Click to expand...

If it was someone else they would have edited the article and named who it really was. They can't not know who it was. What they did was retract the interview altogether. The point you missed was that the Bing cache date of the interview was noted by a sharp observer and it was Dec. 13th which was 1 day PRIOR to Sandy Hook. Do you know what that means?

NWO_Spook said:
Anyway, post this evidence and let me examine it.
Click to expand...

Ok, here's your big chance to step up to the plate!

YouTube
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom