Which guns did Adam Lanza use in the Sandy Hook shooting?

[QUOTE=Jackass18]I even switched to 'They'. So, you haven't said anything about the government and media lying? You don't act like the media is against us? You're not on here pushing an agenda? You want to play some stupid semantics game to make it seem like you're merely being skeptical? You haven't said the people were actors? You say you're merely asking questions and yet you basically ignore any answer that doesn't fit with what you want.

Don't give me that bullshit when people are stating that the government set it all up, the media is lying and covering up the truth and a bunch of assholes are harassing the people of Newtown. Don't act like people aren't pushing an agenda. But whatever, keep on playing your little games.[/QUOTE]

Just asking questions. The world would be a lot better place if people will seek out anomalies and ask questions instead of acting like a tool and destroying those who even dares to question.

1. A page was created by Victoria Soto 4 days prior to her death.

2. What was the possible explanation.

No agenda; no motive; no deception; you can call it a "conspiracy" but I would like to refer to it as simply being skeptical - a by product of a curious mind.

[B]Sheeps hate it when people ask questions; they are perfectly content with the idea of "objectivity" which they have associated with those in authority. Fact.[/B]

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]You anti-conspiracy nuts will believe anything.[/QUOTE]

Oh the ironing...

[QUOTE=timlush]Oh the ironing...[/QUOTE]


[img]http://www.betterlifestyleproducts.com.au/lifestyleironingcentre/ironingCompact6.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]
1. A page was created by Victoria Soto 4 days prior to her death.

2. What was the possible explanation.

[/QUOTE]


[url]http://www.firstpost.com/topic/organization/facebook-the-sandy-hook-conspiracies-debunked-the-victoria-soto-faceb-video-TnT7UmDf0a0-37423-32.html[/url]

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Just asking questions.[/quote]

I've read multiple posts by you where you stated they were actors.

[quote]The world would be a lot better place if people will seek out anomalies[/quote]

There's a difference between seeking them out and refusing to believe any explanation that doesn't say what you want it to say.

[quote]and ask questions instead of acting like a tool and destroying those who even dares to question.[/quote]

That's what you want to think. People aren't out to destroy those who dare to question. Stop trying to play the victim card. Some people want compelling evidence before they'll start jumping on board. I don't see compelling evidence. I see people trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you want people to see your side then provide compelling evidence. There's just too many things against the conspiracy theory to jump on board. I don't see you questioning the conspiracy theory side. I only see you defending it.

[quote]1. A page was created by Victoria Soto 4 days prior to her death.[/quote]

That has been explained to death. There are other pages. One is from November 4th.

[quote]2. What was the possible explanation.[/quote]

Here's some questions: What is the explanation for why someone would put it up 4 days too early? Where is any evidence to support it?

[quote][B]Sheeps hate it when people ask questions; they are perfectly content with the idea of "objectivity" which they have associated with those in authority. Fact.[/B][/QUOTE]

Who are you referring to? Who in here is afraid of people asking questions?

[QUOTE=daily][url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp[/url][/QUOTE]

I re- read it and while they make some logical explanations, it doesn't fully debunk the vid. It also doesn't address some key claims made in the vid. It gives half assed excuses for others that are just as much of a reach like the ones theorists make.

I think the article will only raise more questions. I can already see theorists focusing their attention on making their claims even stronger.

[QUOTE=andgar923]I re- read it and while they make some logical explanations, it doesn't fully debunk the vid. It also doesn't address some key claims made in the vid. It gives half assed excuses for others that are just as much of a reach like the ones theorists make.

I think the article will only raise more questions. I can already see theorists focusing their attention on making their claims even stronger.[/QUOTE]Instead of speaking in generalizations why don't you address the points you find half "assed"?

I think you'll find if you look into things deeper you'll find half assed conspiracy theories get half assed responses.

Most of those claims made by conspiracists surrounding Newtown are so far off based that there's really no way to respond to them other than with a quick dismissal

[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Horrible line of rebuttals. I can't believe you will just accept any explanation without any skeptical thought put into it at all.

His explanation for the facebook pages: by using date restricted pages on Google, one can find erroneous dates on articles for the Sandy Hook shootings.

Still bullsh*t. The evidence wasn't based on some stupid search but an actual facebook page created and then deleted when people began questioning.

You anti-conspiracy nuts will believe anything.[/QUOTE]

The facebook page has been explained about 10 times to you.

If you're too dense to figure it out, it's no wonder that you believe all of this garbage.

[QUOTE=daily]Instead of speaking in generalizations why don't you address the points you find half "assed"?

I think you'll find if you look into things deeper you'll find half assed conspiracy theories get half assed responses.

Most of those claims made by conspiracists surrounding Newtown are so far off based that there's really no way to respond to them other than with a quick dismissal[/QUOTE]

For starters, they give a half assed excuse when it comes to the guy that discovered the kids. I accept that people are usually confused and their reports vary a bit. But this guy's story was completely different almost every time he gave an interview. I understand some sort of confusion, but he was so sure of himself and what happened, yet his testimony was very different.

The article didn't cover why the roads to the school blocked all aid, it didn't cover why there was that one picture taken but yet there wasn't ambulances, and other response teams all over, why there's only that one picture with no other footage of any sorts. Not saying that this is the end to the argument and that it proves without a shadow of a doubt that it was all a hoax, but what the article doesn't do is debunk the theorists.

Theres other shit that simply asked the reader to dismiss anything and everything without making a concrete argument as to why.

In regards to the actors, I don't know if the information regarding the Actor's Guild is true or not. But the government has used actors in other instances. Two examples that stand out at the top of my head are the daughter of a Kuwait oil baron used as a testimony to invade Iraq (the 1st time), another was eye witness related to drug war in the late 80s (or was it early 90s?). Whether they are from an actor's guild/group who knows, but they were exposed as following a script and were associated with a government in some fashion.

Another recent example that comes to mind is the 9/11 Pentagon cab driver. Extremely suspicious behavior and completely different testimonies that were impossible. Yet his testimony was used endlessly, he was used as a key witness for the official story. There's been other interviews given by groups with ties to the government (think tank groups, donors, etc.) or people used as key witnesses that had ties, some of them were promoted as non-partisan or just average folk, yet had ties to conservative think tanks and so fort.

These aren't conspiracies either, these aren't stretches or assumptions, these are FACTS.

So it doesn't surprise me if allegations are made of "actors" or manipulated (scripted) interviews. The government (or government related groups) have had a rich history of orchestrating, covering up and manipulating events for their gain.

Again, not to say that THIS event is a hoax. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't, because the Snopes article sure as hell doesn't debunk most of what was presented in the vid. I don't fully believe everything stated in the vid, some of the things can be easily explained once one takes a closer look. But it still raises some legit questions that have yet to be answered with a legit response.

What I do find somewhat ironic is how sides have been turned.

Some of the same people defending Bush and laughing at the theorists, have now switched sides and are attacking Obama, with idiot liberals crying wolf.

At the end of the day, most people will side with their political identity. They'll believe/disbelief with what their party allegiance lies.

[QUOTE=andgar923]What I do find somewhat ironic is how sides have been turned.

Some of the same people defending Bush and laughing at the theorists, have now switched sides and are attacking Obama, with idiot liberals crying wolf.

At the end of the day, most people will side with their political identity. They'll believe/disbelief with what their party allegiance lies.[/QUOTE]

There's actually no personality type or ideology that explains conspiracy theorists, it's basically a mental trap that is part of the human condition. We can all be paranoid to one degree or another. Also, our brains are literally wired to spot patterns, it's something that has helped us survive. Our brain actually produces dopamine when we spot a pattern....ever wonder why Bejewled or Tetris could occupy people for hours and hours?

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]There's actually no personality type or ideology that explains conspiracy theorists, it's basically a mental trap that is part of the human condition. We can all be paranoid to one degree or another. Also, our brains are literally wired to spot patterns, it's something that has helped us survive. Our brain actually produces dopamine when we spot a pattern....ever wonder why Bejewled or Tetris could occupy people for hours and hours?[/QUOTE]
Not that I disagree, just stating what I've seen during the years. After 9/11 the theory sites were filled with anti bush people, while those adamantly opposing theorists were almost exclusively GOP supporters. Now that Obama is in office I see almost the opposit. A perfect example is FOX news and their attacks on theorists, now that Obama is in office (actually when he was running) THEY become the theorists.

I also find the Tea Party as somewhat of an example. Pre-Obama some of the ideals that the tea baggers appear to represent would've been aligned with leftists with conservatives attacking them. Now it's almost the other way around.

Also find it very telling that Snopes was accused of being pro Bush when he was in office, now conservatives are stating that it has a pro Obama agenda, and that Soros is behind the site, while Liberals defend it.

[QUOTE=andgar923]I re- read it and while they make some logical explanations, it doesn't fully debunk the vid. It also doesn't address some key claims made in the vid. It gives half assed excuses for others that are just as much of a reach like the ones theorists make.[/quote]

Those videos suck. They try to manipulate you into buying into their bullshit, and it comes off quite hypocritical at times. He wants to call out the media for manipulating people? He's doing the same damn thing. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the people who made the videos made them to troll people.

[quote]For starters, they give a half assed excuse when it comes to the guy that discovered the kids. I accept that people are usually confused and their reports vary a bit. But this guy's story was completely different almost every time he gave an interview. I understand some sort of confusion, but he was so sure of himself and what happened, yet his testimony was very different.[/quote]

The funny thing is the guy has been accused of both sides of the coin in that some have said his stories have been suspiciously too consistent while others have said he has been suspiciously inconsistent. To me, it looks like people are really reaching here. People get parts of a story wrong or parts of a story change all the damn time when people are telling them (and that's stories that aren't about rather chaotic events like that one).

[quote]The article didn't cover why the roads to the school blocked all aid, it didn't cover why there was that one picture taken but yet there wasn't ambulances, and other response teams all over, why there's only that one picture with no other footage of any sorts. Not saying that this is the end to the argument and that it proves without a shadow of a doubt that it was all a hoax, but what the article doesn't do is debunk the theorists.[/quote]

There are pictures. The video tried to manipulate you to believe otherwise. There's pictures of various ambulances and such. Part of the video they showed was taken out of context (showing footage well after the event took place).

[quote]Again, not to say that THIS event is a hoax. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't, because the Snopes article sure as hell doesn't debunk most of what was presented in the vid. I don't fully believe everything stated in the vid, some of the things can be easily explained once one takes a closer look. But it still raises some legit questions that have yet to be answered with a legit response.[/QUOTE]

If you think Snopes half-assed it, then you can scroll down and look through the many sources they give, or you could watch this video: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snViuRNT5Jk[/url]

[QUOTE=Jackass18]If you think Snopes half-assed it, then you can scroll down and look through the many sources they give, or you could watch this video: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snViuRNT5Jk[/url][/QUOTE]

Man, I so drunk that night. I don't even remember making that video.

[QUOTE=Jackass18]Those videos suck. They try to manipulate you into buying into their bullshit, and it comes off quite hypocritical at times. He wants to call out the media for manipulating people? He's doing the same damn thing. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the people who made the videos made them to troll people.



The funny thing is the guy has been accused of both sides of the coin in that some have said his stories have been suspiciously too consistent while others have said he has been suspiciously inconsistent. To me, it looks like people are really reaching here. People get parts of a story wrong or parts of a story change all the damn time when people are telling them (and that's stories that aren't about rather chaotic events like that one).



There are pictures. The video tried to manipulate you to believe otherwise. There's pictures of various ambulances and such. Part of the video they showed was taken out of context (showing footage well after the event took place).



If you think Snopes half-assed it, then you can scroll down and look through the many sources they give, or you could watch this video: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snViuRNT5Jk[/url][/QUOTE]

I actually like that dude, have seen other of his vids. I agree that the hoax author does have an agenda (just like everybody does) and he jumped the gun made a video without doing thorough research in some instances and threw some wild assptions in others.

But this vid keeps citing a poster on reddit, asking us to believe him instead. While I can certainly see the points made, it still doesn't debunk the hoax video completely. It does cause a shadow of doubt on the hoax vid, but doesn't utterly debunk it.

This vid (along with the reddit poster he keeps citing) is also making as many assumptions as the hoax video. They both have their own agenda.

I believe some information on both sides. The debunker asks us to dig deeper and use more logic and don't jump in and fully commit to the hoax vid which I agree 100%.


But based on government history, I know that they've orchestrated and manipulated events to create a bias. They've been exposed for staging events repeatedly to simply and completely ignore.


Im sure there's people smarter and with more time on their hands already working on both sides of the hoax coming up with legit counters to everything along with new info. This story isn't 100% dead yet IMO.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]There's actually no personality type or ideology that explains conspiracy theorists, it's basically a mental trap that is part of the human condition. We can all be paranoid to one degree or another. Also, our brains are literally wired to spot patterns, it's something that has helped us survive. [B]Our brain actually produces dopamine when we spot a pattern....ever wonder why Bejewled or Tetris could occupy people for hours and hours?[/B][/QUOTE]

This. I was reading an article the other day about why Tetris is so popular, and apparently it is because you are continually making order out of chaos. It is quite similar to the conspiracy theory process when you think about it.

[QUOTE=miller-time]This. I was reading an article the other day about why Tetris is so popular, and apparently it is because you are continually making order out of chaos. It is quite similar to the conspiracy theory process when you think about it.[/QUOTE]


you think people want to believe this?

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4voo-nD1VY[/url]

[SIZE="7"]6:35 - 6:50[/SIZE]




I like this guy.

[QUOTE=Riddler]you think people want to believe this?

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4voo-nD1VY[/url]

[SIZE="7"]6:35 - 6:50[/SIZE]




I like this guy.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say they want the stories to be true, the point is they get positive feedback from finding patterns and then arranging those patterns to fit a narrative (good or bad). The problem is that tragedy lends itself to this process.

[QUOTE=miller-time]This. I was reading an article the other day about why Tetris is so popular, and apparently it is [B]because you are continually making order out of chaos.[/B] It is quite similar to the conspiracy theory process when you think about it.[/QUOTE]

Actually... now that I think about it...

[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1264091/[/url]

maybe you are the one continually making order out of chaos.

[QUOTE=Riddler]Actually... now that I think about it...

[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1264091/[/url]

maybe you are the one continually making order out of chaos.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you are getting at?

I couldn't see much about the film on there, but this comment in the forum made me chuckle

[quote]Yes, I have. Bill Cooper was tremendous. I think I've heard this movie might have shapeshifting reptilians in it too. Now that's more like it if so.[/quote]

[QUOTE=miller-time]I'm not sure what you are getting at?

I couldn't see much about the film on there, but this comment in the forum made me chuckle[/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

I started reading the forum too...


All I'm saying is that there is a basic psychology that both you and me agree on... People want to make Order out of Chaos.

You say this is why the conspiracy theory process takes place,...

I lean more towards the [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkW-u07C2rY"]PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION[/URL] psychology.

What are [SIZE="7"]THEY[/SIZE] gonna do about it!!!????

[QUOTE=Riddler]:oldlol:

I started reading the forum too...


All I'm saying is that there is a basic psychology that both you and me agree on... People want to make Order out of Chaos.

You say this is why the conspiracy theory process takes place,...

I lean more towards the [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkW-u07C2rY"]PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION[/URL] psychology.

What are [SIZE="7"]THEY[/SIZE] gonna do about it!!!????[/QUOTE]

Well I think the difference between general conspiracy theorists and say skeptics or scientists is that conspiracy theories provide you with an instant feedback because they develop within a very short time. The Sandy Hook conspiracy began within a day of it occurring. Your average psychology study takes months or even years between beginning and publishing - then it takes even longer for peer-review to take place (where the study is either replicated or modified). Both are explaining something about the world, but the process is fundamentally different. In science you don't start writing about single data points as they happen because it creates confusion. Data may be measured at too low a resolution and needs refinement, it may be unexplainable until another piece of data is found, or it may even be measured inaccurately. It is and should be a long and careful process.

If every time a scientist found a piece of data and they made an ominous sounding video about it speculating what it might be, people would have all sorts of crazy beliefs about what is going on in the world because it is incomplete and likely inaccurate work.

Youv'e missed my whole point on the thread , there is a certain lack of tact and insensitivity that would lead a person to analyze this situation and demand people look at it as a conspiracy. Kids died. Recently. But that's not interesting to OP, what is interesting to OP is that he might be able to convince strangers on a message board something strange happened. Because little kids getting murdered because the world sucks is not interesting or even registers with him as a problem.

You get off on this conspiracy stuff, i get it. There probably are legitimate strange shit going on in the world. But posting "WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF THE DEAD KIDS?" is just behavior that strikes me as immature or just loutish and embarrasing.

[QUOTE=miller-time]conspiracy theories provide you with an instant feedback because they develop within a very short time.[/QUOTE]

Wait a second... This is the first time in history that a conspiracy theory has developed immediately.

I can't recall a Conspiracy Theory ever developing so quickly.


You do realize it wasn't until [I]Hunt the Boeing[/I] hit the internet that I questioned the official story regarding 9/11... and most people didn't become "truthers" until 2007.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-GzvY5anNo[/url]
[B][SIZE="5"]Uploaded on Dec 12, 2006[/SIZE][/B]


I can remember showing a video similar to this to -primetime- and we both agreed that it was a ridiculous theory...

Then I watched Loose Change.... :facepalm

Big mistake....

[img]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/25344257.jpg[/img]

I haven't been the same ever since I watched Loose Change.

Til this day... I still don't understand how anybody can watch that film and be perfectly fine with the official story.

The same way people do research on the psychology of Conspiracy Theorists... I look into the psychology of why people dispute them immediately.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYE-IYM9v4I[/url]
[B]Psychologists Explain 9/11 Denial - Part 1 of 2[/B]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIHWyJm_9r4[/url]
[B]The Arrivals part 24 (Freedom Unplugged)[/B]

The arrivals part 24 is very good... Because I made the same mistake the Narrator made.

[QUOTE=niko]Youv'e missed my whole point on the thread , there is a certain lack of tact and insensitivity that would lead a person to analyze this situation and demand people look at it as a conspiracy. Kids died. Recently. But that's not interesting to OP, what is interesting to OP is that he might be able to convince strangers on a message board something strange happened. Because little kids getting murdered because the world sucks is not interesting or even registers with him as a problem.

You get off on this conspiracy stuff, i get it. There probably are legitimate strange shit going on in the world. But posting "WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF THE DEAD KIDS?" is just behavior that strikes me as immature or just loutish and embarrasing.[/QUOTE]


Niko, you've said this several times already...

I'm gonna ignore you every time you say this.

It's not because I dislike you, it's because it isn't true.

[QUOTE=Riddler]Wait a second... This is the first time in history that a conspiracy theory has developed immediately.

I can't recall a Conspiracy Theory ever developing so quickly.[/QUOTE]

Well besides the Aurora conspiracy, but I guess you could say they are loosely connected.

Actually the 9/11 conspiracy took off fairly quickly too, but probably didn't gain a lot of mainstream acknowledgement until things like YouTube and Facebook started making ways. The funny thing is that when 9/11 happened the conspiracy movement was actually the first time I had ever even really considered that the media and the government may be deceitful (I was about 16 at the time). I would even say I was among the early truther ranks (I am not exaggerating for effect, I seriously accepted the claims). Over time however I started to drift away as more and more absurd and fringe elements came up. In a way I am thankful for the conspiracy movement in its role of beginning my intellectual curiosity.

[QUOTE=miller-time]Well besides the Aurora conspiracy, but I guess you could say they are loosely connected.

Actually the 9/11 conspiracy took off fairly quickly too, but probably didn't gain a lot of mainstream acknowledgement until things like YouTube and Facebook started making ways. The funny thing is that when 9/11 happened the conspiracy movement was actually the first time I had ever even really considered that the media and the government may be deceitful (I was about 16 at the time). I would even say I was among the early truther ranks (I am not exaggerating for effect, I seriously accepted the claims). Over time however I started to drift away as more and more absurd and fringe elements came up. In a way I am thankful for the conspiracy movement in its role of beginning my intellectual curiosity.[/QUOTE]


So what year did you first hear about a 9/11 conspiracy?

Because it wasn't until late 2006 until I had heard about it...

and again,... let me post the same video...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYE-IYM9v4I[/url]

please watch from 6:35 - 7:50

I literally had almost the same reaction... except I fell to the ground and cried like a little b*tch... I didn't go for a walk... I just fell to the ground and cried.

The truth hurts.




As far as the Aurora shooting goes...

This video doesn't help...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXxYQBwo7aU[/url]

[QUOTE=Riddler]So what year did you first hear about a 9/11 conspiracy?[/QUOTE]

I'd be guessing, but I'd say early to mid 2002. Although I remember in 2001 people talking about the melting steel problem, but I'm not sure how developed the entire theory was.

[QUOTE=niko]Youv'e missed my whole point on the thread , there is a certain lack of tact and insensitivity that would lead a person to analyze this situation and demand people look at it as a conspiracy. Kids died. Recently. But that's not interesting to OP, what is interesting to OP is that he might be able to convince strangers on a message board something strange happened. Because little kids getting murdered because the world sucks is not interesting or even registers with him as a problem.

You get off on this conspiracy stuff, i get it. There probably are legitimate strange shit going on in the world. But posting "WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF THE DEAD KIDS?" is just behavior that strikes me as immature or just loutish and embarrasing.[/QUOTE]

Basically, it's because there's a certain level of alienation already going on in the people. In a media-saturated age, you see so much that you have no control over, that you can start seeing other people as abstract, as concepts to ponder, especially the further distance you have from the event. Remember jokes about famine in Africa?
[I]How many Ethiopians can you fit in one bath tube? NO one knows they keep slipping down the drain!!![/I]
Most people didn't know any starving Ethiopians so they are not real to you, not flesh and blood.

I think there's a similar phenomenon going on here. Hence the Matrix imagery, where the entire world is just a simulation. If you have kids, it's probably harder to view Newton through a conceptual lens. Or just as if someone in your family is a cop or works at the local news station, the idea of conspiracy like this would be particularly ludicrous.

Because what these conspiracy websites are saying is that these are not separate conspiracies--like Timonthy McVeigh and Terry Nichols conspired to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma was a discreet event. Newton is just another manifestation of the ongoing government conspiracy. Even when the people in the government changes, even when different parties take over, they are all still in on it. That's why the Newton theories can pop up so quickly, because everything's already in place, so they start looking for anything they feel is not real.

When you are alienated, you have a poor sense of empathy so you can start believing the worst of others including hundreds and hundreds of unconnected people, like everyone at Newton who must have collaborated on this coverup.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Basically, it's because there's a certain level of alienation already going on in the people. In a media-saturated age, you see so much that you have no control over, that you can start seeing other people as abstract, as concepts to ponder, especially the further distance you have from the event. Remember jokes about famine in Africa?
[I]How many Ethiopians can you fit in one bath tube? NO one knows they keep slipping down the drain!!![/I]
Most people didn't know any starving Ethiopians so they are not real to you, not flesh and blood.

I think there's a similar phenomenon going on here. Hence the Matrix imagery, where the entire world is just a simulation. [B] If you have kids, it's probably harder to view Newton through a conceptual lens. [/B] Or just as if someone in your family is a cop or works at the local news station, the idea of conspiracy like this would be particularly ludicrous.

Because what these conspiracy websites are saying is that these are not separate conspiracies--like Timonthy McVeigh and Terry Nichols conspired to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma was a discreet event. Newton is just another manifestation of the ongoing government conspiracy. Even when the people in the government changes, even when different parties take over, they are all still in on it. That's why the Newton theories can pop up so quickly, because everything's already in place, so they start looking for anything they feel is not real.

When you are alienated, you have a poor sense of empathy so you can start believing the worst of others including hundreds and hundreds of unconnected people, like everyone at Newton who must have collaborated on this coverup.[/QUOTE]

I think you mean Newtown. I had to reread that sentence like 10 times before I figured it out. I thought you were talking about Issac Newton and I was all like :biggums:

[QUOTE=miller-time]I think you mean Newtown. I had to reread that sentence like 10 times before I figured it out. I thought you were talking about Issac Newton and I was all like :biggums:[/QUOTE]

I just read it as Newtown, didn't even realize the spelling

[QUOTE=MMM]I just read it as Newtown, didn't even realize the spelling[/QUOTE]

I think what got me was that the in the sentence before it he was talking about the matrix, so I thought he was using some sort of naturalist or physics analogy. I just woke up from a nap too :oldlol:

Well, as usual, one of the most basic problems is lack of video, pictures, and....well, most anything that actually proves (1) Lanza actually committed the murders in the school and (2) whether he did or did not do it, whether there were other people involved. Isn't that the most basic thing in the investigation? Make sure he wasn't framed and make sure there weren't other people involved?

Apparently not. No videos, no pictures, no nothing.....no eyewitnesses that can confirm it was Lanza doing the shooting...as usual.

Do you really need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to ask questions?

Early reports said there were multiple shooters. Then just one. Early reports said use of handguns. Then it wasn't.

OK, we'll turn our brains off now......

[QUOTE=bagelred]Well, as usual, one of the most basic problems is lack of video, pictures, and....well, most anything that actually proves (1) Lanza actually committed the murders in the school and (2) whether he did or did not do it, whether there were other people involved. Isn't that the most basic thing in the investigation? Make sure he wasn't framed and make sure there weren't other people involved?

Apparently not. No videos, no pictures, no nothing.....no eyewitnesses that can confirm it was Lanza doing the shooting...as usual.

Do you really need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to ask questions?

Early reports said there were multiple shooters. Then just one. Early reports said use of handguns. Then it wasn't.

OK, we'll turn our brains off now......[/QUOTE]





I love the new avatar bagelred.... :applause:

[QUOTE=Riddler]I love the new avatar bagelred.... :applause:[/QUOTE]

:crazysam:






:lol

[QUOTE=bagelred]Well, as usual, one of the most basic problems is lack of video, pictures, and....well, most anything that actually proves (1) Lanza actually committed the murders in the school and (2) whether he did or did not do it, whether there were other people involved. Isn't that the most basic thing in the investigation? Make sure he wasn't framed and make sure there weren't other people involved?

Apparently not. No videos, no pictures, no nothing.....no eyewitnesses that can confirm it was Lanza doing the shooting...as usual.

Do you really need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to ask questions?

Early reports said there were multiple shooters. Then just one. Early reports said use of handguns. Then it wasn't.

OK, we'll turn our brains off now......[/QUOTE]

The general public is not going to get access to what you asking for in most situations, why would this be any different???

[QUOTE=MMM]The general public is not going to get access to what you asking for in most situations, why would this be any different???[/QUOTE]

That's been the problem since JFK got his head blown off in my city....

The public gets nothing.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BckPa2_A8gI[/url]

Oh and BTW.... bagelred.... Let's not forget who Tommy Lee Jones played in JFK.

maybe that's why he was unable to smile... because he knows the truth.

[QUOTE=Riddler]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BckPa2_A8gI[/url]
[/QUOTE]


"Nothing as long you live will ever be more important"

[QUOTE=Riddler]The public gets nothing.[/QUOTE]

It is a catch 22 though. Honestly I don't think you could really want to see the victims of the SH shooting, and releasing the photo of Lanza may only contribute to his posterity.

I'm not talking about all events, but in these types cases I don't see any point in releasing photos. I guess the difference between you and I is that I'm not presupposing there is a conspiracy.

[QUOTE=bagelred]Well, as usual, one of the most basic problems is lack of video, pictures, and....well, most anything that actually proves (1) Lanza actually committed the murders in the school and (2) whether he did or did not do it, whether there were other people involved. Isn't that the most basic thing in the investigation? Make sure he wasn't framed and make sure there weren't other people involved?

Apparently not. No videos, no pictures, no nothing.....no eyewitnesses that can confirm it was Lanza doing the shooting...as usual.

Do you really need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to ask questions?

Early reports said there were multiple shooters. Then just one. Early reports said use of handguns. Then it wasn't.

OK, we'll turn our brains off now......[/QUOTE]

But don't you agree that some initial reports can be wrong?

Agencies rush information and in the process get shit wrong, initial shock can confuse some eye witnesses as well.

Not that I disagree with your overall sentiments, just thought some things could be explained rationally.