The reason why they won't investigate and it issued a 90 day gag order:
"Connecticut State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky has argued that unsealing warrants in the Sandy Hook case might “seriously jeopardize” the investigation by disclosing information known only to other “potential suspects.”
This means 2 things:
1. There is an impending investigation going on involving multiple shooters, hence a gag order must be in place because information leading to the arrest of multiple suspects is only known to the people involve and the gag order is there to protect the witnesses.
2. A gag order is in place to keep the public in the dark.
If numero uno is correct and there are multiple shooters on scene, then it is a conspiracy.
If numero two is correct and the gag order persists after the extension and such investigation will never lead to public disclosure, then that in and of itself is a conspiracy.
Either way, it is now officially a conspiracy (or at least fits in that definition). I was right. You guys were wrong. Period.
Last edited by IamRAMBO24 : 02-17-2013 at 05:09 PM.
The reason why they won't investigate and it issued a 90 day gag order:
"Connecticut State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky has argued that unsealing warrants in the Sandy Hook case might “seriously jeopardize” the investigation by disclosing information known only to other “potential suspects.”
This means 2 things:
1. There is an impending investigation going on involving multiple shooters, hence a gag order must be in place because information leading to the arrest of multiple suspects is only known to the people involve and the gag order is there to protect the witnesses.
2. A gag order is in place to keep the public in the dark.
If numero uno is correct and there are multiple shooters on scene, then it is a conspiracy.
If numero two is correct and the gag order persists after the extension and such investigation will never lead to public disclosure, then that in and of itself is a conspiracy.
Either way, it is now officially a conspiracy (or at least fits in that definition). I was right. You guys were wrong. Period.
Here he goes again. Taking things out of context and screaming the sky is falling.
Re: Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
I've watched some of the videos online. There is certainly enough doubt to cause suspicion on whether Lanza was either framed or he was part of it and there were multiple shooters.
Want to see an interesting piece? This doesn't prove anything per se, but it does raise suspicion. Watch this about CNN's use of Sandy Hook footage:
Re: Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagelred
I've watched some of the videos online. There is certainly enough doubt to cause suspicion on whether Lanza was either framed or he was part of it and there were multiple shooters.
Want to see an interesting piece? This doesn't prove anything per se, but it does raise suspicion. Watch this about CNN's use of Sandy Hook footage:
This really happened. CNN used OTHER footage and not Sandy Hook footage. This raises a bunch of questions......
As do the questions raised by some one why there were some Newtown victim foundations established before the day of the murders, or why there were some websites about "How to talk to your kids about Sandy Hook" written before Sandy Hook
Re: Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Math2
As do the questions raised by some one why there were some Newtown victim foundations established before the day of the murders, or why there were some websites about "How to talk to your kids about Sandy Hook" written before Sandy Hook
You should do a search on this forum and you can find that was already discussed and shot down here many times. Look at KentATM's comments in this thread . The timestamps reflect the day the page was created NOT the day the Page was re-titled to be about Sandy Hook. Very easy to do on Facebook.
In 2012, following the reelection of President Barack Obama, Dollard began using his Twitter feed to call for open violent rebellion against the government, and for violence against the news media
Re: Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
You actually have to follow several link to get a firsthand news source on this story. The quote on Dollard's page is not firsthand.
The state's attorney's comments come as a result of the Danbury News Times and several other news organizations challenging the gag order. Here's the New Times article on what the state's attorney said.
You can go read it for yourself. It does not mention any other shooters and he expects there will be no arrests in the case.
Re: Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
So this is based on nothing.
However, I do wish to point out that to go from "multiple suspects" to "multiple shooters" is the type of idiocy we have come to expect from Mr. Rambo.
Re: Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinNYC
You actually have to follow several link to get a firsthand news source on this story. The quote on Dollard's page is not firsthand.
The state's attorney's comments come as a result of the Danbury News Times and several other news organizations challenging the gag order. Here's the New Times article on what the state's attorney said.
You can go read it for yourself. It does not mention any other shooters and he expects there will be no arrests in the case.
It's also two months old. shortly after the shooting. And the warrants being discussed are for Lanza's mother's home and two vehicles belonging to her and we know how long ago those were searched
Re: Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Math2
As do the questions raised by some one why there were some Newtown victim foundations established before the day of the murders, or why there were some websites about "How to talk to your kids about Sandy Hook" written before Sandy Hook
See? THIS is the problem with why it's so difficult to establish the doubt around official stories.
I raise a very legitimate and identifiable problem that cannot be (or almost impossible to) debunk, with that CNN footage. But YOU raise a point which is a point that IS easily debunked, the dates on facebook pages. It's already been established you can change websites or facebook pages that were created before the Sandy Hook date.
But now everyone is focusing on YOUR point, and not the legitimate point I raised. This is why its very hard for the alternative theories to get believed, when bad evidence gets mixed with good. Taints the real evidence.
Re: Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagelred
See? THIS is the problem with why it's so difficult to establish the doubt around official stories.
I raise a very legitimate and identifiable problem that cannot be (or almost impossible to) debunk, with that CNN footage. But YOU raise a point which is a point that IS easily debunked, the dates on facebook pages. It's already been established you can change websites or facebook pages that were created before the Sandy Hook date.
But now everyone is focusing on YOUR point, and not the legitimate point I raised. This is why its very hard for the alternative theories to get believed, when bad evidence gets mixed with good. Taints the real evidence.
Nobodies responding because of all the conspiracy theories out about Sandy Hook there that is one of the dumber more blatantly whacked ones out there.
It's already been debunked by multiple sources.
The footage is from two days later St. Rose of Lima School when the bomb threat was called in and they had to evacuate the church and the school during services. The conspiracy nuts just did some of their usual editing by leaving out the rest of the news broadcast that would explain exactly what you're looking at.
Court to re-open investigation into mulitple gunmen in Sandy
