Actors in Sandy Hook

[IamRAMBO24]

Watching the interviews, it was pretty clear to me the people were reciting script lines and really showed no emotions about the events and usually contradicted their stories. I had a strong hunch they were actors, and I said it many times in this forum, but only got negged for it, but now there is evidence:

This is Laura Phelps. She is the mother of 2 children that attended Sandy Hook.

http://www.insanemedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jennifer-greenberg-sexton-phelps-sandy-hook.jpg

Her real name is: Jennifer Greenberg Sexton

She is an actor listed under "Star Colors." (Which has since been deleted).

http://www.insanemedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jennifer-greenberg-sexton-actress-profile-star-color.jpg

Here she is in her Picasa page:

http://www.insanemedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jennifer-greenberg-sexton-mrs-phelps-sandy-hook.jpg

Here is her audition tape on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhFL5sNwgM0

I was right again. Thank you.

[nathanjizzle]

so your saying out of the 800 parents of sandy hook elementary, 1 couldnt have been an aspiring actor? :facepalm

[nathanjizzle]

also, if there were actors used for interviews, how does that constitute a conspiracy, rather than the media just trying to sell a story?:facepalm

[IamRAMBO24]

so your saying out of the 800 parents of sandy hook elementary, 1 couldnt have been an aspiring actor? :facepalm

No.

What I am saying is Nancy Phelps is not her real name. Her real name is Jennifer Sexton. She is an actor.

This is proof that they are using actors. I've already got a hunch since none of the actors can display true emotions and called it a long time ago.

This is just the evidence.

[nathanjizzle]

No.

What I am saying is Nancy Phelps is not her real name. Her real name is Jennifer Sexton. She is an actor.

This is proof that they are using actors. I've already got a hunch since none of the actors can display true emotions and called it a long time ago.

This is just the evidence.

and how do you know nancy phelps is really jennifer sexton? do you have dna proof?

and like i said, how do you know its the media outlets hiring an actor to sell a story, but a faux event.

[IamRAMBO24]

also, if there were actors used for interviews, how does that constitute a conspiracy, rather than the media just trying to sell a story?:facepalm

So using fake actors to play the role of victims is not a conspiracy in and of itself?

[niko]

and how do you know nancy phelps is really jennifer sexton? do you have dna proof?

and like i said, how do you know its the media outlets hiring an actor to sell a story, but and faux event.

He doesn't. He's just trying to elicit a reaction, plus he'll get the conspiracy sheep to agree with him (because fact checking should never stand in the way of a good conspiracy.

Don't play with the moron, let him be.

[nathanjizzle]

So using fake actors to play the role of victims is not a conspiracy in and of itself?

yes, the media can lie to the public. i think we all know that. they make up false headlines to sell there stories. but what your saying is sandy hook as an event is a conspiracy.

if you sat there and gave me 100 percent proof that there was an actor in and interview acting to be a parent of a sandy hook student, i would conclude at most that the news outlet hired that person to sell there story, not that what actually transpired at sandy hook was staged.

[RaininThrees]

Did you now Emelio Estevez's real name ISN'T Emlio Estevez???
WHAT'S HIS ROLE IN THIS??

WHAT'S HE HIDING

[RaininThrees]

OMG.

Vin Diesel ISN'T VIN DIESEL'S REAL NAME.

HOW FAR DOWN DOES THIS RABBIT HOLE GO

[Scoooter]

They tell contradictory stories and show no emotion. Why hire bad actors? Surely the US Government can afford some verisimilitude.

[daily]

Did you now Emelio Estevez's real name ISN'T Emlio Estevez???
WHAT'S HIS ROLE IN THIS??

WHAT'S HE HIDING :lol

*IamRambo stick fingers in ears and sings* nah nah nah nah i can't hear you i'm not listening

[niko]

Almost all actors have different names they use while acting. The acting name is not the real name. BUt again, facts and fact checking are not the important thing here, the important thing is the mysterious conspiracy. Don't fight it.

[daily]

Almost all actors have different names they use while acting. The acting name is not the real name. BUt again, facts and fact checking are not the important thing here, the important thing is the mysterious conspiracy. Don't fight it.:eek:

So you're trying to tell me that Flavor Flav isn't his real name? You're killing me

[IamRAMBO24]

Almost all actors have different names they use while acting. The acting name is not the real name. BUt again, facts and fact checking are not the important thing here, the important thing is the mysterious conspiracy. Don't fight it.

Trust me, I'm like you (well except for the old part), and I don't believe in 95% of the conspiracies out there. I think it is odd at the beginning the lack of emotions in the children, the contradiction in their stories, Robbie Parker being caught on camera faking a tear, and even some of the parents who have lost their children. I know what acting is; I've done theater. And trust me, when you try to memorize a script, your speech is very rigid and robotic unless if you have been doing it for a long time.

Along with her, who happens to be an aspiring actress, we also have the bus driver who happens to be a professional actor as well. You might not think it is a big deal, but base on my opinion (which is already suspicious as it is), I think it is a big deal she also happens to be an aspiring actress with a fake name.

[KevinNYC]

They tell contradictory stories and show no emotion. Why hire bad actors? Surely the US Government can afford some verisimilitude.

My favorite part of "these people are actors idiocy" was the example they use of the father laughing about something else before he begins to talk about his daughter and gets choke up is 100% exactly what an actor would NOT do.

Anybody who has ever come within a whiff of dramatic training would know this. It's ludicrous to think that an actor would be unaware of when they were making an entrance "on stage." REAL actors would be highly, highly self-conscious of that fact, unlike this poor father who clearly has had no media-training whatsoever.

Perhaps the government could only hire actors from the days of radio dramas who only know how to act in front of a microphone.

[TAZORAC]

http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_notches/-Paducahcropped.jpg

[jbot]

Did you now Emelio Estevez's real name ISN'T Emlio Estevez???
WHAT'S HIS ROLE IN THIS??

WHAT'S HE HIDING
maybe u meant charlie and martin sheen, AKA ramon and carlos estevez.

[IamRAMBO24]

My favorite part of "these people are actors idiocy" was the example they use of the father laughing about something else before he begins to talk about his daughter and gets choke up is 100% exactly what an actor would NOT do.

Anybody who has ever come within a whiff of dramatic training would know this. It's ludicrous to think that an actor would be unaware of when they were making an entrance "on stage." REAL actors would be highly, highly self-conscious of that fact, unlike this poor father who clearly has had no media-training whatsoever.

Perhaps the government could only hire actors from the days of radio dramas who only know how to act in front of a microphone.

He got caught faking a cry. Period.

[jbot]

someone needs to get one of those body language experts to sit and watch all this stuff.

[-p.tiddy-]

clips on some rifles are smaller...that's it

all those funerals are staged for that?

http://www.nationalturk.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/sandy-hook-victims-funeral.jpg

^^^ all of these are were staged for us?

and the caskets really empty?


what about the school kids that lived and knew the ones that died? those little kids are actors? and they are in it for life?

What about the siblings that survived?

all the teachers are in on it?

all the police?...and emergency crew?...and media?...and fire department?...all actors?

what about the morticians and doctors that have to create fake death certificates?


do you conspiracy guys ever stop to think about just how retardedly massive this would have to be in order to be a set up?...and all because someone looked strange to you after their kid died...:facepalm

and for what?...smaller gun clips?...only on some rifles...and only in some states?

This doesn't require much thought...it doesn't...common sense should come into play here

[KevinNYC]

He got caught faking a cry. Period.

:lol

precisely my point.

[bagelred]

My god this is so stupid. Clearly 2 different people who happen to look alike.

The whole "these are all actors" is ridiculous. Real people died. Real people are grieving.


HOWEVER!!!!!.......evidence does show that it was probably not just Adam Lanza...it was multiple people and most likely, Adam didn't do anything at all, he was framed.

But threads like this that show bad evidence just hurts the videos that actually present better evidence.





.

[IamRAMBO24]

My god this is so stupid. Clearly 2 different people who happen to look alike.

The whole "these are all actors" is ridiculous. Real people died. Real people are grieving.


HOWEVER!!!!!.......evidence does show that it was probably not just Adam Lanza...it was multiple people and most likely, Adam didn't do anything at all, he was framed.

But threads like this that show bad evidence just hurts the videos that actually present better evidence.





.

It is the same people.

[IamRAMBO24]

clips on some rifles are smaller...that's it

all those funerals are staged for that?

http://www.nationalturk.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/sandy-hook-victims-funeral.jpg

^^^ all of these are were staged for us?

and the caskets really empty?


what about the school kids that lived and knew the ones that died? those little kids are actors? and they are in it for life?

What about the siblings that survived?

all the teachers are in on it?

all the police?...and emergency crew?...and media?...and fire department?...all actors?

what about the morticians and doctors that have to create fake death certificates?


do you conspiracy guys ever stop to think about just how retardedly massive this would have to be in order to be a set up?...and all because someone looked strange to you after their kid died...:facepalm

and for what?...smaller gun clips?...only on some rifles...and only in some states?

This doesn't require much thought...it doesn't...common sense should come into play here

Whoa hold your horses with these hypotheticals. I didn't say all that. All I am pointing out is Nancy Phelps is really Jennifer Green who has done stage acting and she changed it to Nancy Phelps AFTER the Sandy Hook incident.

Like I said, I don't really believe in conspiracies, but that is a bit odd.

[shlver]

Whoa hold your horses with these hypotheticals. I didn't say all that. All I am pointing out is Nancy Phelps is really Jennifer Green who has done stage acting and she changed it to Nancy Phelps AFTER the Sandy Hook incident.

Like I said, I don't really believe in conspiracies, but that is a bit odd.
No it's not odd at all. What is odd is the confirmation bias in your train of thought.

[miller-time]

But threads like this that show bad evidence just hurts the videos that actually present better evidence.

That is the biggest problem with these uncontrolled internet conspiracy theories. Any decent evidence or theories get weighed down by bad evidence and unwarranted theories.

[d.bball.guy]

Whoa hold your horses with these hypotheticals. I didn't say all that. All I am pointing out is Nancy Phelps is really Jennifer Green who has done stage acting and she changed it to Nancy Phelps AFTER the Sandy Hook incident.

Like I said, I don't really believe in conspiracies, but that is a bit odd.
I'm a bit confused but actors have screen names. I think they use it as their legal name.

[daily]

Whoa hold your horses with these hypotheticals. I didn't say all that. All I am pointing out is Nancy Phelps is really Jennifer Green who has done stage acting and she changed it to Nancy Phelps AFTER the Sandy Hook incident.

Like I said, I don't really believe in conspiracies, but that is a bit odd.

Proof? Got Proof?

[andgar923]

My favorite part of "these people are actors idiocy" was the example they use of the father laughing about something else before he begins to talk about his daughter and gets choke up is 100% exactly what an actor would NOT do.

Anybody who has ever come within a whiff of dramatic training would know this. It's ludicrous to think that an actor would be unaware of when they were making an entrance "on stage." REAL actors would be highly, highly self-conscious of that fact, unlike this poor father who clearly has had no media-training whatsoever.

Perhaps the government could only hire actors from the days of radio dramas who only know how to act in front of a microphone.

Not that I agree with the OP (although the gov has used actors in the past), but he wasn't on stage, and this was a behind the scenes clip before he went live on air.

[IamRAMBO24]

That is the biggest problem with these uncontrolled internet conspiracy theories. Any decent evidence or theories get weighed down by bad evidence and unwarranted theories.

Agreed. I don't believe in 95% of conspiracies myself but some are extremely questionable, like the cover up of ufos, and since I do have a valid background in acting, I already had questions regarding the interviews of the kids, Robbie Parker, and the parents in videos. It is easy to fake an emotional response in a picture; anybody can do this, but to really actually reveal true emotions is something hard to do, and I have yet to see a video that displays these kind of emotions. It's not like columbine, 9/11 or anything, these interviews of Sandy Hook victims look like drones reading off script lines.

And that is far as I will go. I'm not saying it didn't happen nor is everybody faking it, I'm just saying they seem like actors, and this lady (along with the bus driver) who did it as a profession is only strengthening my observation.

Trust me, if it's anything, I truly do want to believe everything being reported, but as is, the court putting a gag order on the investigation of multiple suspects along with this only makes people question things more.

The conspiracy I believe is being created by bad news reporting and a lack of transparency. I don't think the theorists are delusional or anything, I think they are only questioning because there are too many potholes in the overall scheme of things.

[MMM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

[KevinNYC]

Not that I agree with the OP (although the gov has used actors in the past), but he wasn't on stage, and this was a behind the scenes clip before he went live on air.

An actor playing the part of a fake grieving father as part of a hoax to cover up a government conspiracy would know exactly what his "stage" was. He would be "on stage" for a very long time before he even stepped up to the microphone.

There would be no "behind the scenes" for him within two miles of that press conference.

[bagelred]

Although I don't see any evidence of "these are all actors part", I got to say....that interview with the father (Robbie Parker) is EXTREMELY suspicious. Not necessarily because he's chuckling before the interview (even in horrible circumstances, you can have a moment of levity) but it's the way he.....well.....for lack of a better term...."got into character". He went from a relaxed smile and smirk, levelheaded and relaxed....to completely hyperventilating, distraught, and devastated in a blink of an eye.

Now, what does that mean? I don't know....but it's clear AT THAT MOMENT he is acting...no doubt about it....for what purpose, who knows.....

If you haven't seen it, check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKWgCRBR5qE

There's nothing to say here....he's clearly acting.....that doesn't mean he didn't actually lose his daughter. But in this interview, and this moment, that was fake. Suspicious.

[RaininThrees]

It's not like columbine, 9/11 or anything, these interviews of Sandy Hook victims look like drones reading off


Agreed! It's almost like they're in a state of shock or something!

[n00bie]

Agreed! It's almost like they're in a state of shock or something!

and the parents from the shooting at columbine weren't?

[n00bie]

Although I don't see any evidence of "these are all actors part", I got to say....that interview with the father (Robbie Parker) is EXTREMELY suspicious. Not necessarily because he's chuckling before the interview (even in horrible circumstances, you can have a moment of levity) but it's the way he.....well.....for lack of a better term...."got into character". He went from a relaxed smile and smirk, levelheaded and relaxed....to completely hyperventilating, distraught, and devastated in a blink of an eye.

Now, what does that mean? I don't know....but it's clear AT THAT MOMENT he is acting...no doubt about it....for what purpose, who knows.....

If you haven't seen it, check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKWgCRBR5qE

There's nothing to say here....he's clearly acting.....that doesn't mean he didn't actually lose his daughter. But in this interview, and this moment, that was fake. Suspicious.

I believe the event really happened, but it's the media that fueled all these conspiracies. It's a competition of who can get the news out there first, not who can get the correct information first.

CNN first reported there were 2 shooters, than they spent an hour chasing nothing in the woods, and then CNN says they actually arrested a 2nd person.

CNN also reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school... and then they said she was the school nurse... and now they're saying she wasn't connected to the school at all.

Then they said Ryan was the shooter, but then it turned out to be Adam.

All this false info released to the public gives the impression of "covering up" something. They should just get the facts straight before reporting it.

Have to admit though, this Gene Rosen guy is creepy as hell.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/50f5922eeab8eaf967000001-534-401-300/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-1.jpg

[Jackass18]

Why are you bringing up old shit and acting like it's new?

Taken from Snopes.com: "The notion that Homeland Security is employing "crisis actors" to portray grieving parents and others connected with the Sandy Hook shooting (such as Laura and Nick Phelps) is based on nothing more than some superficial physical similarities between persons connected to the Sandy Hooks shootings and completely unrelated persons. It appears to have originated with material gleaned from WellAware1, a web site whose stock in trade is claiming that politicians, government officials, celebrities, and other people featured in media-covered events are actually imposters portrayed by actors, many of whom are supposedly members of the Greenberg/Sexton family. (Among other articles, the site maintains that Adolph Hitler and Walt Disney were both pseudo-persons portrayed by Kermit Roosevelt, son of U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt.)"

No emotions? There's plenty of places where you can see emotion. Contradictions in stories? You act like that isn't common. Do you know anything about memory?


we also have the bus driver who happens to be a professional actor as well.

More BS that has already been debunked...

[bagelred]

I believe the event really happened, but it's the media that fueled all these conspiracies. It's a competition of who can get the news out there first, not who can get the correct information first.

CNN first reported there were 2 shooters, than they spent an hour chasing nothing in the woods, and then CNN says they actually arrested a 2nd person.

CNN also reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school... and then they said she was the school nurse... and now they're saying she wasn't connected to the school at all.

Then they said Ryan was the shooter, but then it turned out to be Adam.

All this false info released to the public gives the impression of "covering up" something. They should just get the facts straight before reporting it.



I know it's hard to believe but it's usually the OPPOSITE. What happens is the "truth" of what happens, or the real evidence, you get when it first happens. It's when the Feds and the officials take over the scene, do they "release" the official story that they want told, and then all that initial evidence of something being different is ignored.

If you want "truth", you get it immediately, as the event is happening....later, it will be scrubbed away.

[Jackass18]

All this false info released to the public gives the impression of "covering up" something. They should just get the facts straight before reporting it.

It gives the impression that they rush to get information out without checking facts beforehand. It's the media's fault for reporting misinformation, but it's not really their fault when people take things out of context to fuel some conspiracy theory. How does the "covering up" something line of thinking work anyways? The media is "covering up" something? Why would they report something just to cover it up later? The gov't? Why wouldn't they just tell them beforehand what to report, and not wait 'til they reported something they didn't want and then tell them to 'cover it up'?

[Jackass18]

I know it's hard to believe but it's usually the OPPOSITE. What happens is the "truth" of what happens, or the real evidence, you get when it first happens. It's when the Feds and the officials take over the scene, do they "release" the official story that they want told, and then all that initial evidence of something being different is ignored.

If you want "truth", you get it immediately, as the event is happening....later, it will be scrubbed away.

Again, why wouldn't the "Feds and the officials" go about setting it up beforehand? Why would they wait until info they didn't want to get out got out to step in? Also, if you think the media doesn't rush and gets things wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.

[bagelred]

Again, why wouldn't the "Feds and the officials" go about setting it up beforehand? Why would they wait until info they didn't want to get out got out to step in? Also, if you think the media doesn't rush and gets things wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.

I mean, I'm not an expert at this, but it's because real people are involved. Real reporters trying to get answers. Eyewitnesses giving real information. Real local cops trying to do their job. It must be very hard to control a scene 100%.

I'm not saying media doesn't rush and get things wrong. I'm just saying don't ASSUME it's that. Look at what is initially reported, especially from eyewitness accounts and things that first happen...and then suddenly no one ever discusses it again or the story changes.

There were multiple people running away from Sandy Hook caught on helicopter. Caught by police. No one really talks about it.

The story of which guns were used at Sandy Hook completely changed from what first reported.

Most early reporters had multiple shooters, then strangely....later it was just one, Lanza.

And how did Lanza kill himself? When? What gun? Did anyone see it? Never reported.....

Anyway, there are dozens of strange things going on here.....most of it gets ignored.

[KevinNYC]

I mean, I'm not an expert at this, but it's because real people are involved. Real reporters trying to get answers. Eyewitnesses giving real information. Real local cops trying to do their job. It must be very hard to control a scene 100%.

I'm not saying media doesn't rush and get things wrong. I'm just saying don't ASSUME it's that. Look at what is initially reported, especially from eyewitness accounts and things that first happen...and then suddenly no one ever discusses it again or the story changes.

There were multiple people running away from Sandy Hook caught on helicopter. Caught by police. No one really talks about it.

The story of which guns were used at Sandy Hook completely changed from what first reported.

Most early reporters had multiple shooters, then strangely....later it was just one, Lanza.

And how did Lanza kill himself? When? What gun? Did anyone see it? Never reported.....

Anyway, there are dozens of strange things going on here.....most of it gets ignored.

You act like any of this is unusual on a big breaking story. Or that eyewitness reports can't be fragmentary or contradictory. Look up the most recent evidence on eyewitness testimony....they have done a lot experiments on this recently.....your brain doesn't record every detail like a camera, it fills in gaps with its' own narrative and it's quite easy to "change" a memory of even very recent events.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

They did report that Lanza killed himself and they did say what gun he used.

Did anyone see it? dunno. Why would that be unusual? Every person in the school was trying to hide from him. They did report he killed himself before police entered the school.

[niko]

It chaotic news situations there is tons of reporting that turns out to be wrong. Also, a lot is reported as WE THINK THIS IS HAPPENING, THIS MAY BE WHAT IT IS. Afterwards these conspiratorial analysis takes that all as "THIS IS WHAT WAS HAPPENING" and there the media lied.

On 9-11 i bought a little radio (and some water) for my walk home after i realized what was happening and had to escape Manhattan. Very little of what was reported was correct. Big absolutely wrong factual things, Ten planes, a plane hit the Sears Tower in Chicago, explosions uptown in NY to small things, which subways were working, where to walk and not walk, etc. And this was all over no matter what you listened to.

It's like twitter, everyone wants to be first. Correct and first is not as important as first, and when it's wrong and first, no one goes back and says OOPS I WAS WRONG.

[RaininThrees]

and the parents from the shooting at columbine weren't?

Gah! You're TOTALLY right!!!! How could I be so blind?

Everyone grieves in the exact same way!

All the time!

[bagelred]

You act like any of this is unusual on a big breaking story. Or that eyewitness reports can't be fragmentary or contradictory. Look up the most recent evidence on eyewitness testimony....they have done a lot experiments on this recently.....your brain doesn't record every detail like a camera, it fills in gaps with its' own narrative and it's quite easy to "change" a memory of even very recent events.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

They did report that Lanza killed himself and they did say what gun he used.

Did anyone see it? dunno. Why would that be unusual? Every person in the school was trying to hide from him. They did report he killed himself before police entered the school.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. Sometimes initial reports are wrong. What I'm saying is....in many instances, if you want to get the truth about an event....you find that the real truth is from initial reports, first eyewitnesses, early reporting....this is before an official narrative is put together to the public.

I'll give you an example. During 9/11, you know what all the eyewitnesses were talking about at the WTC? EXPLOSIONS!!! Lots and lots of explosions. This was the big story early. Go to YouTube and see for yourself. When everything calmed down and official story started coming together, did we hear of these explosions? Nope. Never mentioned again.

Stuff like that. All I'm saying is you're assuming early reports are errors....if anything, assume the opposite. Typically, early reports can get at truth before an official narrative is put together, and the early reports are either ignored, or explained away with meager explanations......you can't just say "mistakes are made" and be done with it.

[-p.tiddy-]

Eye witnesses are the worst during tramatic events...eye witnesses from the pentagon saw about 50 different things...no 2 people have the same story

Same with the towers...

The OKC bombing had an array of stories

Same with the Colorado shooting...some saw two shooters, some saw one



Fact is, when chaos goes down it scrambles many peoples heads up...they don't know what they just witnessed

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Gah! You're TOTALLY right!!!! How could I be so blind?

Everyone grieves in the exact same way!

All the time!

Your sarcasm flew over his head. :oldlol:

[andgar923]

An actor playing the part of a fake grieving father as part of a hoax to cover up a government conspiracy would know exactly what his "stage" was. He would be "on stage" for a very long time before he even stepped up to the microphone.

There would be no "behind the scenes" for him within two miles of that press conference.

Again, not that I believe the OP and the entire theory, but you would know this how?

There's actors that believe they can turn it on and off in an instant and take pride in the fact. YES some actors are method actors and need time to prepare, but there's others that don't and will literally get into character an instant before action is called or they step on stage.

[RaininThrees]

In all seriousness, I cannot believe this is still a "thing". In a race in "what's more ridiculous", "still believing in actors at Sandy Hook" is just slightly beating "actors at Sandy Hook".

[KevinNYC]

All I'm saying is you're assuming early reports are errors....if anything, assume the opposite. Typically, early reports can get at truth before an official narrative is put together, and the early reports are either ignored, or explained away with meager explanations......you can't just say "mistakes are made" and be done with it.

And you're making your own assumptions.

A. That there is "an official narrative." Narrative heavily implies fiction
B. That this "official narrative" is different from the truth.
B. That competing news organizations work together to help create this official narrative, rather, than you know competing.

Who is in charge of the official narrative? Is there a single project manager or editor at the top?

Why would thousands of journalists working at hundreds of competing organizations all agree to this "official narrative?"

When you consider how important it is in journalism to "scoop" the competition and how much attention and value that gets you, why hasn't a journalist tried to scoop his competition on this story? You can only get the "scoop" when you get the story no one else has, so what would motivate journalists to turn down fame and possible fortune?

This "official narrative" mindset just takes you one step closer to "the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie."

[KevinNYC]

Again, not that I believe the OP and the entire theory, but you would know this how?

There's actors that believe they can turn it on and off in an instant and take pride in the fact. YES some actors are method actors and need time to prepare, but there's others that don't and will literally get into character an instant before action is called or they step on stage.

My whole point is that if you are an actor who is being paid to particpate in a hoax you would know what "your stage" was.

[Riddler]

I'm so happy I stayed out of this conversation.

[timlush]

I'll give you an example. During 9/11, you know what all the eyewitnesses were talking about at the WTC? EXPLOSIONS!!! Lots and lots of explosions.

:facepalm

Let's have you stand near a building and fly a plane into it and see how you describe the aftermath...

"Ah yes, there was one loud noise when the plane entered the building and then it became quiet with no subsequent noises"

[bagelred]

:facepalm

Let's have you stand near a building and fly a plane into it and see how you describe the aftermath...

"Ah yes, there was one loud noise when the plane entered the building and then it became quiet with no subsequent noises"

Wow.

[-p.tiddy-]

I saw someone put together a 911 vid showing how people edt what the witness says to make it look bad...

crying witness:

"and then the plane hit the building and it was so intense it felt like bombs went off!"

what the video showed the witness saying:

"bombs went off!"

they chopped off the beginning...making it look as though someone is claiming they saw bombs going off

[Jackass18]

I mean, I'm not an expert at this, but it's because real people are involved. Real reporters trying to get answers. Eyewitnesses giving real information. Real local cops trying to do their job. It must be very hard to control a scene 100%.

I'm not saying media doesn't rush and get things wrong. I'm just saying don't ASSUME it's that. Look at what is initially reported, especially from eyewitness accounts and things that first happen...and then suddenly no one ever discusses it again or the story changes.

There were multiple people running away from Sandy Hook caught on helicopter. Caught by police. No one really talks about it.

The story of which guns were used at Sandy Hook completely changed from what first reported.

Most early reporters had multiple shooters, then strangely....later it was just one, Lanza.

And how did Lanza kill himself? When? What gun? Did anyone see it? Never reported.....

Anyway, there are dozens of strange things going on here.....most of it gets ignored.

That stuff was reported, but it kind of got buried. Sometimes you have to dig for it, but it's there. Eyewitness testimony scares me at times. Read this:

"Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson appeared on a live TV discussion about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. He was later arrested, placed in a lineup and identified by a victim as the man who had raped her. The police charged Thomson although the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV. They dismissed his alibi that he was in plain view of a TV audience and in the company of the other discussants, including an assistant commissioner of police. The policeman taking his statement sneered, "Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and the Queen of England, too." Eventually, the investigators discovered that the rapist had attacked the woman as she was watching TV - the very program on which Thompson had appeared. Authorities eventually cleared Thomson. The woman had confused the rapist's face with the face that she had seen on TV. (Baddeley, 2004)."

It's from a good article about memory. From the same article: "In some cases, however, an eyewitness accuracy is lower when questioned immediately after a traumatic event."

[bagelred]

Actually, in this particular case, it's the opposite. There are no eyewitnesses. That's the problem. No one actually saw Adam Lanza do it. Mask over face (as usual...lol). No video camera evidence as usual.

But there's plenty of OTHER evidence and suspicious circumstances surrounding this that put official story in doubt......

[RaininThrees]

If you want "truth", you get it immediately, as the event is happening....later, it will be scrubbed away.


You can't actually believe this statement.... can you?

[RaininThrees]

There were multiple people running away from Sandy Hook caught on helicopter. Caught by police. No one really talks about it.

This isn't suspicious at all. Here's what happens in a situation like this:

The police take down anyone in the area. They don't care if you haven't done anything, they take you down to eliminate possible threats. Thus, you get police chasing down people who are just randomly on the side walk in the area and "arresting" them. Some people's reaction when chased by police might be to run away. Usually, these people have nothing to do with the situation and are victims of circumstance.

IIRC, there were several people taken into custody but all were cleared.

One such instance of this at Sandy Hook:

[QUOTE]On Friday morning, her husband, Chris, went to help make gingerbread houses in the first-grade class of the couple

[n00bie]

This isn't suspicious at all. Here's what happens in a situation like this:

The police take down anyone in the area. They don't care if you haven't done anything, they take you down to eliminate possible threats. Thus, you get police chasing down people who are just randomly on the side walk in the area and "arresting" them. Some people's reaction when chased by police might be to run away. Usually, these people have nothing to do with the situation and are victims of circumstance.

IIRC, there were several people taken into custody but all were cleared.

One such instance of this at Sandy Hook:

I don't know about you, but most people wouldn't run away from the police if they didn't do anything wrong.

[-p.tiddy-]

the laws that resulted from this shooting...or "law"...didn't require an elebrate set up of some sort.

some clips, on some rifles, in some states, are now just a little bit smaller...BIG FCKIN DEAL


If the Gov was really pressed to do this they could have just done it without Sandy Hook

all you conspiracy guys think the public needs something...no we don't




guess what?...George Sr. invaded Iraq WITHOUT 911!!!

the Gov doesn't need our approval...they do what they want

[RaininThrees]

I don't know about you, but most people wouldn't run away from the police if they didn't do anything wrong.

"Most people".

Some do.

People do really weird things when presented with situations like that.

[andgar923]

I don't know about you, but most people wouldn't run away from the police if they didn't do anything wrong.
I've seen plenty of people run from cops even if they didn't do anything wrong. :confusedshrug:

[rezznor]

Do you people realize how hard it would be to keep a conspiracy of this magnitude a secret? Same goes for 911. Smh:facepalm

[-p.tiddy-]

Do you people realize how hard it would be to keep a conspiracy of this magnitude a secret? Same goes for 911. Smh:facepalm
I think it's literally impossible for a group of large size to keep a secret...hell even just a small group

especially if the secret is something that makes people feel morally wrong or evil for knowing....eventualy humans crack


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Corporal_Patrick_Tillman.jpg/220px-Corporal_Patrick_Tillman.jpg

^^^ his death had started out as a conspiracy

it was quickly exposed though due to the fact PEOPLE CAN'T KEEP SECRETS...and I don't even think there were many in on that one.

[KevinNYC]

Actually, in this particular case, it's the opposite. There are no eyewitnesses. That's the problem. No one actually saw Adam Lanza do it. Mask over face (as usual...lol). No video camera evidence as usual.

But there's plenty of OTHER evidence and suspicious circumstances surrounding this that put official story in doubt......

Let's engage on this. There are plenty of witnesses to this shooting, but you might be right that there are no eyewitness. I actually don't think that's true, but it might be the witnesses who did see him were very young children or didn't see all of them. Obviously there were plenty of people who heard the shooting.

Let's talk about witness.
There's a six year old girl who survived by playing dead. She described the shooter as "very angry."

One group of children tried to escape as the shooter killed their teacher. The gunmen then fired on them, at least one child escaped.

The school nurse saw the shooter from beneath her desk and could describe the pants and boots he was wearing.

A music teach had barricaded a door and heard the shooter screaming through the door.

The police arrive on the scene as the incident is in progress and they see the shooter (singular) from a distance of several hundred feet. The shooter flees. The cop is joined by his partner as they close in on the shooter. There here another volley of shots and then the shooter stops.

The find a dead Adam Lanza dressed just like the figure they saw in the distance. He is dressed in black and wearing a utility vest with hundreds of rounds of ammo and with his guns. He is dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
The guns turn out to belong to his mother and her car is in the school parking lot. Police later discovered she was shot that morning with one of those same guns.

What we don't have: any teacher or students reporting they heard multiple footsteps or voices or gunfire happening at two places at once (a la Columbine) or any of that shit.

We also don't have Lanza's surviving family members saying it couldn't have been him. In fact, it emerges, that Lanza was known to have mental issues and was growing increasingly violent.

So what exactly puts anything in doubt? What is the single piece of evidence you have that leads us anywhere but Lanza?

[-p.tiddy-]

if our Gov was so damn savy at conspiracies then you can bet your ass they would have planted WMDs all over Iraq

[KevinNYC]

guess what?...George Sr. invaded Iraq WITHOUT 911!!!

the Gov doesn't need our approval...they do what they want

This might be a comparable example if Iraq's invasion of Kuwait didn't happen and consequently the UN Security Council pass several resolutions demanding that Iraq leave immediately and the US Congress didn't pass a joint resolution to enforce the Security Council's resolution.

[KevinNYC]

Pat Tillman's death was an accident. The explanation of how he died was a cover-up, which as you point out, unravelled. That, of course, would be easier conspiracy to pull off than a plan that involved hundreds of people who would go along with the murder of 20 children. When does one hire actors willing to lie about the murder of 20 children? Is there a special section on backstage (http://www.backstage.com/) for that?

[-p.tiddy-]

This might be a comparable example if Iraq's invasion of Kuwait didn't happen and consequently the UN Security Council pass several resolutions demanding that Iraq leave immediately and the US Congress didn't pass a joint resolution to enforce the Security Council's resolution.
you really think Jr. needed 911?...Saddam refused UN inspection...the entire globe minus France gave us the go ahead, even helped...and no one cited 911 as a reason.

Sr. didn't need a terrorist act and neither did Jr...it would have happened with or without 911

Afghanistan is another story though

[War Machine]

if our Gov was so damn savy at conspiracies then you can bet your ass they would have planted WMDs all over Iraq

The way the whole Iraq/Saddam/WMD ordeal played out, was purposeful and deliberate. The Illuminati's flagship vice is mind-****ing the population. If they have mentally molested the majority of the global populace (with or without said populace having knowledge of their existence), then mission accomplished.

It's the "real" decision makers laughing and putting up their middle finger on some "Bush is obviously a mere puppet, duh! dumbasses, there were never any WMDs, and even in the midst of all the bullshit that is the Bush Administration, we still got our puppet reelected (oh, and BTW, even if the other puppet Kerry somehow pulled a last-minute castle in the game of chess that is playing the American/world population for a bunch of ****ing morons and wins, then all is still good because he's "one of us" anyway).

That's just how these ****ers operate, and they do it with absolutely zero intentions of doing it in a respectful manner. They want people to mind-rape themselves in the process of their evil deeds. Now, was Sandy Hook one of their mental-molesting excursions? What about Aurora? Honestly, I don't even know. God, I hope not. What I do know however, is that the gov. is capable of such. If they can mastermind and pull off 9/11, then realistically, what can they not pull off?

I think PT makes a good point though. How can those involved keep something a watertight secret for so long? He's also correct in saying humans crack. We certainly do. It's just a matter of when, and why. I think in the end, before it's all said and done, the truth will come to light; whether we're talking Sandy Hook, 9/11 or whatever... in the end, the truth will surface. It always does.

[KevinNYC]

you really think Jr. needed 911?...Saddam refused UN inspection...the entire globe minus France gave us the go ahead, even helped...and no one cited 911 as a reason.

Sr. didn't need a terrorist act and neither did Jr...it would have happened with or without 911

Afghanistan is another story though

Iraq would have been a thousand times harder to sell without 9/11. There's not a second of the Iraq debate that wasn't coloured by 9/11.

[KevinNYC]

The way the whole Iraq/Saddam/WMD ordeal played out, was purposeful and deliberate. The Illuminati's flagship vice is mind-****ing the population. If they have mentally molested the majority of the global populace (with or without said populace having knowledge of their existence), then mission accomplished.

It's the "real" decision makers laughing and putting up their middle finger on some "Bush is obviously a mere puppet, duh! dumbasses, there were never any WMDs, and even in the midst of all the bullshit that is the Bush Administration, we still got our puppet reelected (oh, and BTW, even if the other puppet Kerry somehow pulled a last-minute castle in the game of chess that is playing the American/world population for a bunch of ****ing morons and wins, then all is still good because he's "one of us" anyway).

That's just how these ****ers operate, and they do it with absolutely zero intentions of doing it in a respectful manner. They want people to mind-rape themselves in the process of their evil deeds. Now, was Sandy Hook one of their mental-molesting excursions? What about Aurora? Honestly, I don't even know. God, I hope not. What I do know however, is that the gov. is capable of such. If they can mastermind and pull off 9/11, then realistically, what can they not pull off?

I think PT makes a good point though. How can those involved keep something a watertight secret for so long? He's also correct in saying humans crack. We certainly do. It's just a matter of when, and why. I think in the end, before it's all said and done, the truth will come to light; whether we're talking Sandy Hook, 9/11 or whatever... in the end, the truth will surface. It always does.
When the truth surfaces do you think you'll see it?

[War Machine]

When the truth surfaces do you think you'll see it?

I might see it. I might not. I know this though: Slick Rick only has a 50% chance.

[-p.tiddy-]

Iraq would have been a thousand times harder to sell without 9/11. There's not a second of the Iraq debate that wasn't coloured by 9/11.
I disagree...Iraq was all about WMDs, not 911

[-p.tiddy-]

I might see it. I might not. I know this though: Slick Rick only has a 50% chance.
You didn't see it.

The truth already surfaced, Bin Laden attacked the towers AGAIN and we killed him...

[Riddler]

It feels so good to finally not give a f*ck.


(changes subject)

-p.tiddy-.... check out this dubstep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeaIvjoH1FY

you might not like it... but my new lady friend played it for me earlier today, and I'm feelin' it.

I forget what kind of speakers you got connected to your computer...


and oh yea... did you see FLIGHT yet?

[War Machine]

You didn't see it.

The truth already surfaced, Bin Laden attacked the towers AGAIN and we killed him...

:roll:

Some people are still in total and complete denial about 9/11. Just, wow.

[Riddler]

:roll:

Some people are still in total and complete denial about 9/11. Just, wow.

you didn't know this?

did you see the amount of people celebrating when we announced his death?

[Jackass18]

Pat Tillman's death was an accident. The explanation of how he died was a cover-up, which as you point out, unravelled. That, of course, would be easier conspiracy to pull off than a plan that involved hundreds of people who would go along with the murder of 20 children. When does one hire actors willing to lie about the murder of 20 children? Is there a special section on backstage (http://www.backstage.com/) for that?

They allege that they use crisis actors.

[bagelred]

:roll:

Some people are still in total and complete denial about 9/11. Just, wow.

Not some.....most. It's not denial though. Denial would mean they know the truth, but just won't accept it. Most people just don't know, and wouldn't want to know anyway.

[RaininThrees]

Iraq would have been a thousand times harder to sell without 9/11. There's not a second of the Iraq debate that wasn't coloured by 9/11.

Also:

The idea that Bush et al. used 9/11 as a reason to invade Iraq and that Bush et al. were behind 9/11 to create a reason to go into Iraq are two completely separate things.

One idea is plausible, the other is completely farcical.

[RaininThrees]

Also, when Glenn Beck thinks that you're crazy, it's probably time to re-think your conspiracy theory.

http://www.inquisitr.com/491696/glenn-beck-tackles-crisis-actors-and-an-expert-explains-the-mechanics-of-grief/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqViv49UgXs

"To believe these things, you have to believe in magic" - Glenn Beck, who once claimed Obama's policies were "leading the US into a society of gas chambers".

[KevinNYC]

I disagree...Iraq was all about WMDs, not 911

1. Iraq having WMD only presented a threat to the US, if he would use them in a sneak attack. A sneak attack that would almost surely lead to the destruction of him and his country.

2. Saddam had been effectively contained and showed no-such suicidal impulses like planning a sneak attack on the US

3. Thus Saddam had to be connected to the group that did attack America with such tactics.

4. That was the entire context the Iraq Debate occurred within. It can't be ignored. The US public would not have gone along for plans with war in Iraq n August 2001.

5. It is only in the context of 9/11 does the idea of going to war against a threat that does not currently exist make sense. The doctrine of "preventive war" couldn't not have been sold to the US with the attack on the American soil.

6. The administration explicitly made this connection more than once. The state of the Union speech being the most obvious time.

December 01
Cheney on Meet the Press: "Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists." Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he'll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.

January 2002
The State of the Union speech is all about pivoting the War on Terror to "terror states." To serve this pupose and imaginary "Axis of Evil" is created involving two states that hate each other and consider the other to be their biggest enemy. The phrase Axis of Evil is the result of the speechwriter being this specific question:
Can you sum up in a sentence or two our best case for going after Iraq?

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction....

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stopped now, leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked, our sense of security would be false and temporary

March 02
British memos after meeting with Washington
1: US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq


2: There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with Al Qaida…

August 02
Rumsfeld:There are Al Qaeda in Iraq…There are.

September 02
Bush: You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

Rice: High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.

Rumsfeld: Link between Iraq and Al Qaeda "accurate and not debatable."

October 02
Congress approves Iraq Resolution.

Once this is OKed, you don't need to pound the Al Qaeda connection any more.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeah, I can some it up in four words..."WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"

That is how it was sold to the UN...the whole "they might be harboring terrorists" was a side note to WMDs




Bush JR. was going to finish his fathers work with or without 911...that is what he saw as his destiny...perhaps 911 helped his cause, but he didn't need it.

[-p.tiddy-]

:roll:

Some people are still in total and complete denial about 9/11. Just, wow.
The truth of 911 has already shown itself...if you're waiting for some other truth to surface? You're going to be waiting a long long long fckin time lol

[IamRAMBO24]

It chaotic news situations there is tons of reporting that turns out to be wrong. Also, a lot is reported as WE THINK THIS IS HAPPENING, THIS MAY BE WHAT IT IS. Afterwards these conspiratorial analysis takes that all as "THIS IS WHAT WAS HAPPENING" and there the media lied.

On 9-11 i bought a little radio (and some water) for my walk home after i realized what was happening and had to escape Manhattan. Very little of what was reported was correct. Big absolutely wrong factual things, Ten planes, a plane hit the Sears Tower in Chicago, explosions uptown in NY to small things, which subways were working, where to walk and not walk, etc. And this was all over no matter what you listened to.

It's like twitter, everyone wants to be first. Correct and first is not as important as first, and when it's wrong and first, no one goes back and says OOPS I WAS WRONG.

I think bagel made a good point in questioning the manner things were being reported with Sandy Hook.

Take the Dorner case for example, sure there were a few mis-reporting, but for the most part, the coverage was accurate. This was very different from Sandy Hook, where the statement from officials and government seem calculated and misleading, it's almost like they were releasing contradictory information to the media to distort the true facts. Even in one article, a newspaper quoted the principle who was actually killed that day.

I would say this type of reporting is indeed an anamoly; sure the media can get it wrong sometimes, but to f*ck it up this badly is something that is worth looking into.

[KevinNYC]

Yeah, I can some it up in four words..."WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"

That is how it was sold to the UN...the whole "they might be harboring terrorists" was a side note to WMDs


Bush JR. was going to finish his fathers work with or without 911...that is what he saw as his destiny...perhaps 911 helped his cause, but he didn't need it.

You're talking about Bush's motivation. However to persuade the American public he had to link Saddam to Al Qaeda and argue that Iraq possessing WMD would lead to a second 9/11.

[RaininThrees]

I think bagel made a good point in questioning the manner things were being reported with Sandy Hook.

Take the Dorner case for example, sure there were a few mis-reporting, but for the most part, the coverage was accurate. This was very different from Sandy Hook, where the statement from officials and government seem calculated and misleading, it's almost like they were releasing contradictory information to the media to distort the true facts. Even in one article, a newspaper quoted the principle who was actually killed that day.

I would say this type of reporting is indeed an anamoly; sure the media can get it wrong sometimes, but to f*ck it up this badly is something that is worth looking into.

No, it's not.

The Dorner situation and the Sandy Hook situation are completely different. Dorner played out over a long time. Sandy hook played out very quickly.

Heck, the media also screwed up a lot during Dorner's "final show down"; one local radio reported that the police were chasing Dorner back down the mountain at one point. This obviously was very, very wrong.

You're simply being willfully ignorant at this point.

[Jackass18]

You're simply being willfully ignorant at this point.

His problem is confirmation bias.