sandy hook fake?

[Truth Missile]

Yeah wrote:

I think it is curious how "conspiracy theory" has became a term associated with nutty or crazy. It's as if there have never in history been any conspiracies.
History is a chain of multiple and simultaneous, though disjointed, conspiracies.
I'm not saying that I believe in the modern "conspiracy theories", but I think it's odd and interesting how the term is used to stigmatize anyone that questions anything that is considered outside of the mainstream or differs from certain political ideologies.

Because the government wants all conspiracy theorists to look like nuts

[wakeup]

Right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Yeah]

wowed wrote:

<quoted text>
On your avitar it says, "Question, Explore, Discover" but you seem to speak against actually doing that.

I thought the same thing about that poster. The only poster that seems more deeply entrenched in current liberal fanaticism than Yiago is zipyoulip.

Yiago may actually be worse, but he covers his extremism with condescension.

[wowed]

Bombshell: Sandy Hook shooter died day before shootings

"In addition to countless elements of a story not at all matching what the establishment would like everyone to believe, now it has emerged that official (verified) government death records show Adam Lanza, the alleged Sandy Hook school shooter, sold to the public as yet another “lone gunman,” actually passing away Thursday, December 13, 2012, one day prior to the tragic event itself. His mother, on the other hand, is officially showing to have died the day of the shootings, ironically."

http://www.riseearth.com/2013/01/bombshell-sa...

[Yiago]

JumperJuice wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, some of the truther claims are insane, and I've seen them shot down by Ventura. All Jesse does is give the questions a national platform and investigates them. My theory is that Uncle Sam wanted to cover up a link between Saudi Arabia instead of al-Qaida being solely responsible. Obviously, the terrorists were of Saudi descent, but could there have been a deeper connection to Saudi Arabia? Isn't the Saudi royal family an oil ally of the power brokers here in the United States? If there is some dialogue on those black boxes that suggests Saudi involvement (not saying the royal family, but possibly some Saudi nationals or higher ups, or al-Qaida was actually operating under the royal family's nose.), then the American public may have been apt to want to go to war with the Saudis, and the oil barons couldn't have that. The fact is, there are a lot of unanswered questions and holes in the official story, and when you don't answer them or close the holes.....you open yourself up to people questioning and investigating.....whether there's anything to their claims or not. Why the secrecy? What happened to government transparency?
Not all "experts" have shot down all of the theories:
"Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive.
Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:
“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron.
So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.”
....now that's a little hard for me to swallow, but who knows....
What's intriguing is that the article was removed from the Huffington Post not long after it was published. What happened to free speech?

I don't know about the Saudi thing. I really have no information on that and I can't say anything about it.

But regarding any sort of "controlled demolition" this idea has been critiqued and shot down over and over and over again. The only place you hear that is from the nutcases, and I generally don't give them much ear time.

[Yiago]

wowed wrote:

Bombshell: Sandy Hook shooter died day before shootings
"In addition to countless elements of a story not at all matching what the establishment would like everyone to believe, now it has emerged that official (verified) government death records show Adam Lanza, the alleged Sandy Hook school shooter, sold to the public as yet another “lone gunman,” actually passing away Thursday, December 13, 2012, one day prior to the tragic event itself. His mother, on the other hand, is officially showing to have died the day of the shootings, ironically."
http://www.riseearth.com/2013/01/bombshell-sa...

Are you absolutely kidding the sh*t out of me? It isn't enough to make fun of dead kids with this silliness, you have to make up crap like this too??

Red flag: you link to a site that appears to be anti-vaccine as a primary concern. That unto itself puts the source in the conspiracy nut camp.

Red flag: this isn't on any news sites OTHER than the nutter sites.

It's BS.

[Yiago]

BTW, here's the Snopes page on this whole stupid affair:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.a...

Always Snopes it first.

[JumperJuice]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know about the Saudi thing. I really have no information on that and I can't say anything about it.
But regarding any sort of "controlled demolition" this idea has been critiqued and shot down over and over and over again. The only place you hear that is from the nutcases, and I generally don't give them much ear time.

So Dr. Harrit of the university of Copenhagen is a "nutcase"? Interesting .....

[Limbertwig]

JumperJuice wrote:

<quoted text>
So Dr. Harrit of the university of Copenhagen is a "nutcase"? Interesting .....

Dr Neils Harrit is a nut.

[River Tam]

JumperJuice wrote:

<quoted text>
So Dr. Harrit of the university of Copenhagen is a "nutcase"? Interesting .....

Yes he is.....interesting that you don't think so.

[Yiago]

JumperJuice wrote:

<quoted text>
So Dr. Harrit of the university of Copenhagen is a "nutcase"? Interesting .....

I don't know much about him. But it is usually a red flag when a lone voice among experts is arguing for the idea that all the other experts are saying is wrong.

I mean, Iranian President Ahmadinejad agrees with you on this. But I wouldn't call that a good endorsement since he's quite the nutter too.

The thing is you don't need a controlled explosion to do the job. The explanation is sufficient without introducing the conspiracy element. If you introduce the conspiracy element then you have a whole range of questions that have to be answered that are in direct conflict with the observations. One of the biggest being how did they manage to place explosives on all these buildings with thousands of people running around and nobody noticed a thing.

Conspiracy theories create orders of magnitude more complexity to have to explain. Then you put yourself in the realm of having to say "Well this *could* have happened, and then *if* this happened then *it is possible* that this happened..." etc.

The simpler explanation is usually correct. And the more eyeballs on it the more likely it is that the prevailing theory is the right theory.

[Paralegal]

alarms going off wrote:

<quoted text>They want our GUNS out of our hands, so the best way to strike fear is to bring the guns darkest side to your front door, then they can take another freedom from you 'for your own good'. Funny, my husband and i both remarked that there sure have been a lot of 'school shooters' lately. Almost relentlessly.One after another. Oh, and 911 was our own government. They are the terrorists. look for the short lived, on the scene of 911, standers-by video of the explosions going off in the building before EITHER plane hit the sides of towers one and two.Also, show me the plane wreckage of the Pentagon building. There was no plane hit it. The bystanders and employees said they heard a missle. The entry point that was made is ONLY eight feet across.Shop owners near the Pentagon that day had all survellance tapes that could have possible shown what hit were confiscated. Look at the only video online that shows the "plane hitting'. It shows something smaller and longer, but it's NO plane that's for sure.Now that they terrorized us, they put laws in place to storm your home at any time they want with zero proof, no warrant no problem. THey wanted into our homes so now they have cart blanch, all in the name of OUR own safety and well being. Starting just like Hitler's Gestapo. The Patriot Act, our total downfall.
All the major news networks are owned by the SAME corporations. They cannot be trusted!!! You cannot believe anything you read or see anymore. I do not like where this is going.
Google 'Ziegheist' and get it right.
We better WAKE UP PEOPLE.

Yes, you are correct about the leaders in Washington following in Hitler's footsteps. We don't need guns just the godless liberals to take care of us. Hitler sure took good care of Germany, didn't he? Some in Germany viewed Hitler as Christ when he was rising to power. Before the end they found out he was the devil.

[Yiago]

Paralegal wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, you are correct about the leaders in Washington following in Hitler's footsteps. We don't need guns just the godless liberals to take care of us. Hitler sure took good care of Germany, didn't he? Some in Germany viewed Hitler as Christ when he was rising to power. Before the end they found out he was the devil.

Speaking as a godless liberal, this is some wacko stuff. A few problems...

1) Most liberals are religious. Atheists/agnostics are about 15% of the US population.

2) How is anyone following in Hitler's footsteps? What does that even mean? It's dumb.

3) Google Godwin's Law. You just went straight to it.

[JumperJuice]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know much about him. But it is usually a red flag when a lone voice among experts is arguing for the idea that all the other experts are saying is wrong.
I mean, Iranian President Ahmadinejad agrees with you on this. But I wouldn't call that a good endorsement since he's quite the nutter too.
The thing is you don't need a controlled explosion to do the job. The explanation is sufficient without introducing the conspiracy element. If you introduce the conspiracy element then you have a whole range of questions that have to be answered that are in direct conflict with the observations. One of the biggest being how did they manage to place explosives on all these buildings with thousands of people running around and nobody noticed a thing.
Conspiracy theories create orders of magnitude more complexity to have to explain. Then you put yourself in the realm of having to say "Well this *could* have happened, and then *if* this happened then *it is possible* that this happened..." etc.
The simpler explanation is usually correct. And the more eyeballs on it the more likely it is that the prevailing theory is the right theory.

I don't know a whole lot about him either, but there were nine other authors that contributed to the article in the peer reviewed Open Chemistry Physics Journal .....there were also some architects and engineers who questioned the falling of tower 7, the most controversial collapse. Everyone focuses on one and two, but tower 7 has been the focus of these papers from what I've read. I'm not a big believer in controlled demolition, but I do believe they are covering for someone about something that happened around this event. I mean, the government has never lied to us or covered up anything before, have they.....

[wowed]

Yiago wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you absolutely kidding the sh*t out of me? It isn't enough to make fun of dead kids with this silliness, you have to make up crap like this too??
Red flag: you link to a site that appears to be anti-vaccine as a primary concern. That unto itself puts the source in the conspiracy nut camp.
Red flag: this isn't on any news sites OTHER than the nutter sites.
It's BS.

No one is making fun of dead kids moron. Your false claims of making "fun of dead kids" is pathetic and shows your complete ignorance and lack of concern for the families who were affected. I got the link from a topix thread in Newtown Ct. where people from all over the country have came looking for answers out of their concerns for justice. You want me to ignore one website in favor of one you cite, how hypocritical of you. If you completely trust snopes and look no further then you are even more stupid than you come off to be on these forums.

[Yeah]

wowed wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is making fun of dead kids moron. Your false claims of making "fun of dead kids" is pathetic and shows your complete ignorance and lack of concern for the families who were affected. I got the link from a topix thread in Newtown Ct. where people from all over the country have came looking for answers out of their concerns for justice. You want me to ignore one website in favor of one you cite, how hypocritical of you. If you completely trust snopes and look no further then you are even more stupid than you come off to be on these forums.

That is Yiago's MO. Your sources are bad and mine are good.
Yiago, on another thread, stated plainly that he has no problem with homosexual incest. He's a morally bankrupt liberal nutjob that tries to hide behind the facade of a critical thinker. I try to ignore him.

[Yiago]

wowed wrote:

<quoted text>
On your avitar it says, "Question, Explore, Discover" but you seem to speak against actually doing that. I agree with walt that things don't add up and to bury your head in the sand is not the answer concerned Americans are looking for.
I think that most all of America grieves over this tragedy, not just the parents and families of those killed.

Question, explore, discover. Yes. Think critically.

This whole fiasco is a case of anomaly hunting. You WANT to find a conspiracy so you look for any and all anomalies and you think that points to a conspiracy. But you ignore everything that doesn't.

That is the opposite of thinking.

I totally agree that we should accept nothing on faith and that we should question everything. But when you do it with a direct motive - to prove an idea you already think is true - you are not really doing that.

Here's what I'll concede. I wasn't there on that day and I don't have first hand experience with what happened. All I can go by is what I've seen reported, both by the "mainstream media" and the people who were directly involved. And the authorities, naturally. My default position is that a troubled young man killed a bunch of little kids and then killed himself. You, or others, are proposing an alternate reality...you are putting forth the idea that something different happened. I have looked at the "evidence" for this and I find it lacking. And I find it insulting. So I reject it.

I do not believe this is a conspiracy of any kind. And, given the track record of the people who are promoting it as a conspiracy, I am not interested in hearing them out any further.

That's pretty much it.

[Yiago]

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text>
That is Yiago's MO. Your sources are bad and mine are good.
Yiago, on another thread, stated plainly that he has no problem with homosexual incest. He's a morally bankrupt liberal nutjob that tries to hide behind the facade of a critical thinker. I try to ignore him.

You do a poor job of ignoring me.

If I remember, I said I didn't have much of an opinion on "homosexual incest". The fact that it was even part of the conversation is a symptom of your mind, not mine.

Regarding sources we can easily settle that matter. There are standards that rational people use to evaluate claims. If you present a story that is only repeated by sources that primarily talk about UFOs, vaccine scares, and 9/11 Truther junk then as a rational person I have to start with the assumption that it is most likely untrue. You have a burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise.

If you present me with a story that is widely covered across most or all media outlets then I will assume the story itself is genuine. Then I'll evaluate what the story contains, per its own context.

To put it bluntly: When the Weekly World News tells you something, you have good reason to be extremely skeptical. When you put it into Google News and get fifteen hits on page one it is more likely to be genuine. You still have to pay it due diligence, but that's how you get the ball rolling.

I am sorry if this is offensive to you. But that is how reality works. Sources have to build trust.

[wowed]

Yiago,

I didn't start this thread nor did I start any conspiracy theory. I was very devistated by what was repoted to have happened in Sandy Hook. When questions began to arise it reminded me of the things I had questions about in the reports so I looked at all that was being said. I spent days/weeks on the Sandy Hook and Newtown Ct. forums and a lot of what I read caused me to think more about the possibilities, is this the "critical thinking" you boast about? Of course it is but since it doesn't fit with what you conclude then I must be wrong.

Even when we dismiss what can be proven and what can be construed as nut case theories, we still have a lot of unanswered questions. I posted the link saying that Lanza died a day earlier so I could get some input. All I want is the truth and if you truly believe we have it then so much for your "critical thinking".

[Yiago]

wowed wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is making fun of dead kids moron. Your false claims of making "fun of dead kids" is pathetic and shows your complete ignorance and lack of concern for the families who were affected. I got the link from a topix thread in Newtown Ct. where people from all over the country have came looking for answers out of their concerns for justice. You want me to ignore one website in favor of one you cite, how hypocritical of you. If you completely trust snopes and look no further then you are even more stupid than you come off to be on these forums.

I didn't say I "completely trust Snopes and look no further". I said start with Snopes, when it comes to these rumors.

Why would you repost something as obviously stupid as that link without vetting it yourself first? If you found a link stating that Bigfoot broke into Fort Knox would you repost it as being true without at least checking it out first?

And yes, I do find this whole thread to be offensive. I was shocked when I first heard that someone was seriously floating a conspiracy theory within a month of the massacre. The audacity was stunning. Spending two minutes on it was enough for me to see it was all BS.