What REALLY Happened at Sandy Hook

a reply to: DAVID64

Lookup the term Hegelian dialectic it's fascinating, and commonly used

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

I don't think it serves the victims or their survivors well to posit absurd conspiracy theories as explanations for what happened.

I know some people think it is "fun" and "exciting" to pseudo-theorize and whip up the forum into a frenzy, but it is very destructive.

Please let's exercise some common sense.

a reply to: HoldMyBeer

Wasn't Obama wiping away tears while speaking about Sandy Hook during the announcement of his executive orders on guns this week?

a reply to: BiffWellington

Brilliant post. I've seen lots of piecemeal speculation on the case here, but never an entire theory end to end like this. Moreover, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that you're mostly correct.

Most of us know how ATS handles the topic of Sandy Hook. Their "no conspiracies allowed" policy, to me, seems all the more suspicious in light of the fact that it's a conspiracy site.

Cheers for having the insight and the yarbles to lay it out on the table here like this.

originally posted by: 123143
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

I don't think it serves the victims or their survivors well to posit absurd conspiracy theories as explanations for what happened.

I know some people think it is "fun" and "exciting" to pseudo-theorize and whip up the forum into a frenzy, but it is very destructive.

Please let's exercise some common sense.

You have to be as middle of the road as you can on these things.

This isn't about fun. It's about truth.

This isn't 9/11, controlled demo - hologram -nonsense.

The whole situation stinks, and it's your right as it is mine to debate whether it is destructive to believe the official report, or not.

Until the site owner says explicitly otherwise.

a reply to: 123143

A: This is a conspiracy theory forum.

B: The available information on this event is so astoundingly suppressed that "Laws" have been written to stifle the research of the awakened masses into this subject.

C: I find nothing "fun" or "exciting" about any of it. The only "frenzied" folks are shills who don't want this subject discussed in depth.

D: If your idea of "exercising common sense" means swallowing a spoon full of BS that the media insists is baby food, I'll have none of that. You eat it.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
Most of us know how ATS handles the topic of Sandy Hook. Their "no conspiracies allowed" policy, to me, seems all the more suspicious in light of the fact that it's a conspiracy site.

Suspicious only to unreasonable people.

It was necessary to restrict the subject because it invariably degraded into the absurd lunacy of accusing victims of being complicit in the atrocity, and posting their personal and private details online. No matter the event, we will never support such outrageous digital dementia.

a reply to: Psychonautics

I'm not censoring anyone. All I'm saying is that we should respect the families.

This was a horrible crime, but fairly straightforward.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: twitchy

Because: rabbit hole.

We did our best to support the subject matter. However, once people started posting personal information about private individuals... bad happened.

For the record... I used to live not far from there... I know people whose hearts have been rendered into smithereens...

Wait a second...

Now you're saying YOU personally knew victims?

Am I the only one having not previously heard this claim? Been on a lot of SH threads and this is news to me.

And no I don't believe that.

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

What do you believe you could learn by "studying this in depth?" Does your idle curiosity trump the victims' right to privacy?

Decent theory but don’t have enough raw information to judge it completely.

Though I will make a comment on the idea of a false flag in these kinds of killings.

The very notion of a false flag is incredible and needs to be examined more.

I would bet anything that 911 was a false flag. And there is ample reasonable motivation for the US secret ops to do that

These smaller killings may be such as well but there’s little legitimate or credible reasoning postulated behind the motivations for them.

The idea of all these murders are just for gun control is pretty silly to me.

If they wanted to do gun control all they have to do is to get to the NRA boss and the congress

Now the idea of frightening or conditioning the US population through these mass murders in order to use as an excuse to sick the NSA on all of us in order to stop murders before they happen is a better motivation...maybe.

originally posted by: 123143
a reply to: Psychonautics

I'm not censoring anyone. All I'm saying is that we should respect the families.

This was a horrible crime, but fairly straightforward.

Well sir, I respectfully disagree that it was straightforward, the ultimate reason being my father.

He is by all accounts a patriot. A Cold War, fast attack nuclear sub dwelling veteran. A police officer of 20 years. He works now for the DoD. He really doesn't believe in conspiracies. He is a very black and white, logical person. Talking with him and touching on these subjects usually gets you a shallow response or a laugh.

Discussing with him the police protocol inconsistencies in regards to Sandy Hook, he was very curious to hear what I had to say, for a change.

He ended the conversation with something like;

"Every time something like this happens, mass casualty event, etc. We (Law Enforcement, DoD) get a laundry list of information. What went wrong, what went right, what can be learned-applied-changed etc. From this? Nothing. Silence."

It struck a chord within me and I truly do not believe the official report.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

The government killed a bunch of little kids right before Christmas so they could take away our guns?

And I thought I was crazy.

a reply to: 123143

I think that's ridiculous also but many conspiracy guys think that is the reason for the false flag.

That is the notion that needs to be examined.

WHY

You see if this is a false flag the sensitivity meter would be high because no body wants to get caught killing kids.


This is also the reason that 911 isn’t dealt with in the msm.


The perpetrators can’t get caught here.


Of course they won’t get caught anyway for all kinds of reasons but they’ll be extra cautious on these operations.

When the roundup begins, I believe one of the first to be marshaled away is going to be that coroner followed by that police chief who took center stage telling us a story that day.

I was slow to look into Sandy Hook because it seemed too preposterous. When I finally did, I was horrified at the information I found. Just the astounding amount of coincidences sent chills down me and made me fear this was something much deeper than anyone has discussed. I had to just walk away for a while in order to give myself time to allow my body's response to adjust (numb) to the potentials behind it.

I watched The Life of Adam and am now reading 'Nobody Died at Sandy Hook'. There is some enlightening information I hadn't seen it before, including a cooperative agreement between Sandy Hook and the Fed's regarding gun control just two weeks prior to the incident.

At the same time their are a few minor points made where they either contradict previous comments or fail to follow up with explanatory information. Mind you I am only a third into it.

None the less, looking at both sides, I have difficulty seeing how anyone can come away without serious questions about the official story.

a reply to: DJW001

Yes, you are absolutely right that it does.

There are numerous cases of happenstance that captivates the country, sometimes even the world. Privacy is lost in such events. It is horrific for those people, of that I am sure. However, in all of the times that I have seen this happen, the innocent fade into obscurity.

Sure, their lives are disrupted for a period of time as the officials scour the scene and witnesses for the facts, but when the officials fail in their duties, those who pay attention continue. The outcomes in regard to official "justice" is of little importance in a time when outcomes can be determined by monetary contribution.

It does not matter if these people chose to be a part of this or not. What does matter is if they gained monetarily by perpetuating a false narrative over the loss of their loved one.

If that is the case, they are lower than low.

They lost their privacy the moment that happenstance thrust them into the spotlight. It can happen to any of us. Privacy is entirely subjective. I do believe it is a right, but it is not guaranteed.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

What do you believe you could learn by "studying this in depth?" Does your idle curiosity trump the victims' right to privacy?

It's not always just about idle curiosity. Honestly, every American who has children in elementary school in this country was a victim of this incident on some level and I firmly believe that every responsible parent and American has the right to question the "why" and "how" if for no other reason than to learn how to prevent something similar.

When one does question the "why" and the "how" and applies critical thinking in the face of glaring inconsistencies in what officials and media have presented us, human nature is to continue to ask more questions and when confronted with deliberate obfuscation and destruction of evidence the questions unfortunately escalate to an uncomfortable level.

There are plenty of questions that can be posed concerning Sandy Hook that don't involve the direct victims and all of them are questions worth asking and worthy of answers, the answers however, are not always forthcoming.

I don't believe the US Government would kill children in an attempt to negate the Second Amendment.

That is ludicrous in the extreme.

LOL for certain.