Sandy Hook

[NWO_Spook]

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

It makes perfect sense if one has a background in logic. So you clearly do not understand points of logic. Oh well, I'm not really surprised. Do you know what fallacies are and how they are abused? I don't think so, or you wouldn't employ them as much as you do. I suppose one must be lacking in that area to swallow some of this junk in the first place.

If it was someone else they would have edited the article and named who it really was.

Not if it wasn't discovered in time of course. Come on, think.

They can't not know who it was.

Why not? They said it was someone who identified herself as the Headmistress. Did you miss that? It could have been anyone at the scene claiming thus.

What they did was retract the interview altogether.

Obviously, because she wasn't who she said she was, therefore the testimony was invalid and possibly inaccurate as a result. THINK!

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?

Yeah, I know that crap was debunked years ago on Metabunk. Look it up yourself. Metabunk is a site where professionals devote time and energy to debunking whackjob theories, and they have destroyed all the CT's for SH. If you're too lazy to present a case, I'm too lazy to run around after you.

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

Who are you to demand I do anything when you do nothing but post a video ,made by some moron on BoobToob? Just relate the point and stop being so bloody lazy. This is what I tried to tell Coto, you guys just keep going without doing anything and the debunker does all the work, well F**k that. You CTist's always dump brain dead videos and the debunker has to verify it and sort the s**t from the clay. I'm not here to jump through your hoops, as you have the burden of proof (a position CTist's always avoid), not I. I'm here to debate and not to sort through dumb crap on Boobtoob, so just tell me your hypothesis (well the hypotheses of Boobytoobers) and post documentary evidence and forget the videos, ok? Videos are crap, as any fool can say anything he or she wants and it is difficult to verify.

If you don't start presenting a reasoned case, I may just take the default position of posting links to Metabunk as a response to your lazy videos.

Remember, you have the burden of proof, not me, so get to it, and start to look at the principles of logic while you're at it. Present a case to me with supporting evidence and a valid premise, not more dumb videos.

On a personal note, what is your level of education?

 

[NWO_Spook]

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?

Oh, I forgot, why don't YOU tell me what it means? I know the answer, do you?

 

[sKiTzo]

It makes perfect sense if one has a background in logic. So you clearly do not understand points of logic. Oh well, I'm not really surprised. Do you know what fallacies are and how they are abused? I don't think so, or you wouldn't employ them as much as you do. I suppose one must be lacking in that area to swallow some of this junk in the first place.

So you think when i said you are not making much sense that I was overwhelmed with such brilliant terms that it makes no sense to me? Lol! Clearly, I was referring to your use of the terms "confirmation bias" and "unsupported assertions" to describe hard facts that were conveyed to you, thus showing you didn't watch the less than 5 minute video I posted as per your request along with a detailed explanation of what the video presents as per your request.

Your confused drivel is anything but a point of logic! You said if it was a short video with an explanation that you would respond in true debate form. To do that you'll have to tell us why we should dismiss the 1 day prior to Sandy Hook cache date of an interview providing details of the event that hadn't happened yet.

So, I guarantee you will not use your brilliant points of logic (in true debate form) to try to refute the information, as promised, and I'll go on a limb to say it's very doubtful that you possess the integrity to concede. So, if you are unable to debate OR concede - what the hell are you doing here REALLY?

 

[NWO_Spook]

So you think when i said you are not making much sense that I was overwhelmed with such brilliant terms that it makes no sense to me? Lol! Clearly, I was referring to your use of the terms "confirmation bias" and "unsupported assertions" to describe hard facts that were conveyed to you, thus showing you didn't watch the less than 5 minute video I posted as per your request along with a detailed explanation of what the video presents as per your request.

Wow, you have clearly forgotten the subject of the initial paragraph. You've just altered the subject completely.

Your confused drivel is anything but a point of logic! You said if it was a short video with an explanation that you would respond in true debate form.

But you didn't post it, did you and I looked up the subject elsewhere to provide answer, and then when I give you an answer you demand I do another video. That will keep going indefinitely and there's more to life than jumping through your hoops, while you cannot even provide a cogent hypothesis or even tell me what it's supposed to indicate?

To do that you'll have to tell us why we should dismiss the 1 day prior to Sandy Hook cache date of an interview providing details of the event that hadn't happened yet.

I asked you to tell me what you think it means.

So, I guarantee you will not use your brilliant points of logic (in true debate form) to try to refute the information, as promised, and I'll go on a limb to say it's very doubtful that you possess the integrity to concede. So, if you are unable to debate OR concede - what the hell are you doing here REALLY?

What does the Bing cache date mean to you? Come on, cut the noise if you think it is so important, what does this indicate to you?

 

[sKiTzo]

What does the Bing cache date mean to you? Come on, cut the noise if you think it is so important, what does this indicate to you?

After 7 months of inquiries, Microsoft finally confirmed that the cache date is indeed accurate. At the very least, it indicates prior knowledge of the event and the attempted fabrication of details within the event prior to the event even taking place. Unless you're going to believe the impossibility that only the one reporter knew, the Dec. 13th cache date is evidence of a conspiracy.

 

[Thoreau72]

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.

If one believes the stories told by known liars, one cannot be called an independent thinker. One would then be described as a gullible fool.

 

[sKiTzo]

if one believes the stories told by known liars, one cannot be called an independent thinker. One would then be described as a gullible fool.

ouch!!!

 

[NWO_Spook]

After 7 months of inquiries, Microsoft finally confirmed that the cache date is indeed accurate.

Please supply proof of this assertion outside of a video.

At the very least, it indicates prior knowledge of the event and the attempted fabrication of details within the event prior to the event even taking place.

Does it indicate that? Or is it simply the date taken from the server? LOL. Now, where was the server located? How do you know that timestamps are inerrant? I know for a fact that they are not, so please provide evidence of independent verification, and not just an assertion of authenticity.

Unless you're going to believe the impossibility that only the one reporter knew, the Dec. 13th cache date is evidence of a conspiracy.

Well, that's getting ahead of the evidence. Let's not run off into la-la land just yet.

 

[zyzygy]

ouch!!!

That did hurt you!

 

[NWO_Spook]

After 7 months of inquiries, Microsoft finally confirmed that the cache date is indeed accurate. At the very least, it indicates prior knowledge of the event and the attempted fabrication of details within the event prior to the event even taking place. Unless you're going to believe the impossibility that only the one reporter knew, the Dec. 13th cache date is evidence of a conspiracy.

Hey, are you going to answer the questions in #229, or are you just going to bray about shills in another thread?

 

[zyzygy]

Hey, are you going to answer the questions in #229, or are you just going to bray about shills in another thread?

He has nothing else.

 

[NWO_Spook]

He has nothing else.

He sure complains a lot about shills and all the other CTist's points of dogma, but he doesn't seem to want to answer questions. Again, it's all too familiar.

 

[zyzygy]

He sure complains a lot about shills and all the other CTist's points of dogma, but he doesn't seem to want to answer questions. Again, it's all too familiar.

All ct fans follow the same modus operandi. There have been psychological studies about it.

 

[NWO_Spook]

All ct fans follow the same modus operandi. There have been psychological studies about it.

Yep, I've read a few of them and having an allergy to answering questions is endemic throughout the community.

 

[Quag]

ouch!!!

It is a good self slam

 

[gamolon]

If one believes the stories told by known liars, one cannot be called an independent thinker. One would then be described as a gullible fool.

Known liars like Fetzer and Jones eh? I guess that makes you a gullible fool then?
Sandy Hook shooting: Father of murdered boy wins defamation suit

 

[zyzygy]

Known liars like Fetzer and Jones eh? I guess that makes you a gullible fool then?
Sandy Hook shooting: Father of murdered boy wins defamation suit

HARTFORD, Conn. — The father of a victim of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has won a defamation lawsuit against the authors of a book that claimed the shooting never happened — the latest victory for victims' relatives who have been taking a more aggressive stance against conspiracy theorists.

The book, "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook," has also been pulled to settle claims against its publisher filed by Lenny Pozner, whose 6-year-old son Noah was killed in the shooting.

"My face-to-face interactions with Mr. Pozner have led me to believe that Mr. Pozner is telling the truth about the death of his son," Dave Gahary, the principal officer at publisher Moon Rock Books, said Monday. "I extend my most heartfelt and sincere apology to the Pozner family."

A judge in Wisconsin on Monday issued a summary judgment against authors James Fetzer and Mike Palacek.




More of these despicable CT fans should appear in court.

 

[zyzygy]

The fight against conspiracy theorists
Pozner has been pushing back for years against hoaxers who have harassed him, subjected him to death threats and claimed that he was an actor and his son never existed. He has spent years getting Facebook and others to remove conspiracy videos and set up a website to debunk conspiracy theories.

Lately, the fight has been joined by others who lost relatives in the Dec. 14, 2012, school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. After quietly enduring harassment and ridiculous assertions for years, some have changed their approach, deciding the only way to stop it is to confront it. Their efforts have turned the tables on the hoaxers, including Alex Jones, host of the conspiracy-driven Infowars website.

Robbie Parker, whose 6-year-old daughter Emilie was among 20 first-graders and six educators killed at Sandy Hook, spent years ignoring people who called him a crisis actor. His family moved to the West Coast, but still the harassment didn't stop. He would get letters from people who found his address. He was once stopped in a parking garage by a man who berated him and said the shooting never happened.

"You are taught when you are young that you ignore bullies and eventually they will leave you alone," Parker said. "But as time went on, and my other girls were getting older, I realized they weren't stopping and some of this was getting worse and getting more personal."

Parker, who is now part of a lawsuit against Jones, has testified before Congress and pushed for changes on social media platforms, such as YouTube, which announced this month that it will prohibit videos that deny the Sandy Hook shooting and other "well-documented events."

Intimidation: Alex Jones sent child pornography to Sandy Hook victims' lawyer

Sandy Hook shooting: Father of murdered boy wins defamation suit

 

[jamesrage]

If one believes the stories told by known liars, one cannot be called an independent thinker. One would then be described as a gullible fool.

So you are describing yourself as a gullible fool and not a independent thinker since you believe Sandy Hook is a hoax. Because you believe the stories by Alex Jones and other **** sucking douche bags like him.

 

[sKiTzo]

Please supply proof of this assertion outside of a video.

I have no doubts that the information in the video is indeed accurate and authentic. There's no reason for us to think that the researcher in the video is going to fabricate evidence to prove something that none of us want to be true in the first place.

On the other hand, if I were to say "please supply proof of this assertion outside of the MSM", the MSM's "fake news" well-deserved reputation presents a problem for one seeking to complete such a task.

Does it indicate that? Or is it simply the date taken from the server? LOL. Now, where was the server located? How do you know that timestamps are inerrant? I know for a fact that they are not, so please provide evidence of independent verification, and not just an assertion of authenticity.

The cache date timestamp is from where the page resides locally. If you are suggesting that the cache date from some other time zone was used, then the burden of proof is on you because of the bizarre nature of your claim.

 

[zyzygy]

I have no doubts that the information in the video is indeed accurate and authentic. There's no reason for us to think that the researcher in the video is going to fabricate evidence to prove something that none of us want to be true in the first place.

On the other hand, if I were to say "please supply proof of this assertion outside of the MSM", the MSM's "fake news" well-deserved reputation presents a problem for one seeking to complete such a task.


The cache date timestamp is from where the page resides locally. If you are suggesting that the cache date from some other time zone was used, then the burden of proof is on you because of the bizarre nature of your claim.

Irony meters explode!

 

[NWO_Spook]

I have no doubts that the information in the video is indeed accurate and authentic.

I already knew that, but your belief in no way validates the claim.

There's no reason for us to think that the researcher in the video is going to fabricate evidence to prove something that none of us want to be true in the first place.

LOL So much CT tripe has been fabricated over the years and you simply swallow it on face value?

The cache date timestamp is from where the page resides locally. If you are suggesting that the cache date from some other time zone was used, then the burden of proof is on you because of the bizarre nature of your claim.

Incorrect. You haven't proven that the time stamp is correct or not from another server, and your assertions mean nothing. I know that time stamps can be wrong, so how do we know this is the correct date? How do I know it is from a local server? How do I know it hasn't been faked?

I don't and I simply have to take YOUR word for it and you're taking the word of someone else, and neither has any real validity.

Do note extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - not simply the claims of internet CTist's who believe insane stories, for blind assertions from idiots on boobytooby videos doesn't cut it in the real world.

 

[sKiTzo]

and set up a website to debunk conspiracy theories.

Do you have a link to this website? Hopefully there's something there that we can use to prove Sandy Hook was real.

 

[sKiTzo]

I already knew that, but your belief in no way validates the claim.



LOL So much CT tripe has been fabricated over the years and you simply swallow it on face value?



Incorrect. You haven't proven that the time stamp is correct or not from another server, and your assertions mean nothing. I know that time stamps can be wrong, so how do we know this is the correct date? How do I know it is from a local server? How do I know it hasn't been faked?

I don't and I simply have to take YOUR word for it and you're taking the word of someone else, and neither has any real validity.

Do note extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - not simply the claims of internet CTist's who believe insane stories, for blind assertions from idiots on boobytooby videos doesn't cut it in the real world.

So it looks like a gridlock . You say the cache date is not the one presented in the video but refuse to show us how that is the case. You also claim that information presented in full detail is a "blind assertion", but are unwilling, or more likely unable to post anything but a hate and bias-fueled opinion to counter it. If that's all you've got and you can't post something besides your opinion, you lose.

 

[NWO_Spook]

So it looks like a gridlock . You say the cache date is not the one presented in the video but refuse to show us how that is the case.

No, I didn't. I was asking questions in order to verify the assertion - questions, you do not seem to want to answer, so please stop wasting my time, for these evasions are becoming boring.

You also claim that information presented in full detail is a "blind assertion", but are unwilling, or more likely unable to post anything but a hate and bias-fueled opinion to counter it. If that's all you've got and you can't post something besides your opinion, you lose.

The pronoun before 'assertion' was important. It was YOUR assertion. You stated Microsoft validated the timestamp yet you didn't show that.

Are you up to this?