Sandy Hook Principal ALIVE, NOT DEAD! Gave statement on Shooting, now removed from site.

Originally posted by violet
I'm on the fence with this tragic event.
I could find it possible Adam Lanza was somehow programmed, hypnotized, influenced, drugged, forced, used or even hired to carry out this attack. Then he's killed.

Or it wasnt him at all because the attacker wore some black body armor.

I don't think actors are involved. Innocent children really died.
All the facts haven't yet been revealed. There's bad reporting going on, making the story suspect.

It does appear the incident is going to make it harder to arm yourselves, they don't want to arm what will become the resistance one day. They want an excuse to have armed bodyguards in schools. What's next? At supermarkets or all public transportation. Policing everywhere you go. More of them, less of you, with guns. School kids being made to get accustomed to being 'protected'.

I agree. I believe that real children were killed. But the rest of the story has way too many inconsistencies and oddities to ignore. And the behavior of Emilie's father at the press conference, fresh off of his daughter's murder, is extremely beyond the norm to me. Every single person I know that is a father, including my husband has watched that video of him smiling and laughing, and they are just as astounded as I am.

Another thought:

Where is the rage? Why are all of these parents and people involved with this, so calm, so complacent, so submissive and just willing to accept everything right away, even right down to forgiving the shooter?

These are emotions that normally do not come until much much later. Where is the anger? Where is the rage that this happened to their babies? I am sorry, but these people act like they have been hypnotized.

As my husband, uncle, brother, cousin put it to me, nothing could hold them back from unleashing a fury of anger and rage that someone murdered their child and they would be extremely angry and wanting answers. They all agree as fathers of small children that the behavior of the parents is way out of the norm.

reply to post by magickmaster


What people on here seem to forget is that media in general is a competition to get that scoop to get one up on all the other newspapers or tv stations.

Two newspapers can report on the exact same story both versions will not be identical, does that mean there is some kind of conspiracy of the event that happened NO it doesn't mean that, what it means is you can't assume reports mins after an event will be 100% accurate.

I mean newspapers will often print pictures in reverse (if there are no obvious giveaway's) so their picture is different from others most often seen with pictures of celeb's etc.

On here when any event happens people look for a conspiracy with seconds of it happening I think it's a pretty sad situation if people are really that paranoid

I know how the media works. They are like sharks in a pool of blood fighting for the breaking story.

but....!! To go forward and so much as make up a story that they spoke to the principal who was supposedly already dead that morning..... is just way off. This paper even had a story to go with it.

So basically, it comes down to two things:

1. they were making it up to get their story out first

2. they didn't make it up and was told to scrub that story fast

As I said already, it is very strange for a family owned paper that has been in the business of news since 1881, to perpetrate that sort of yellow journalism.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Exactly.

A mistake does not a conspiracy make.

Some ancient wise person once said...

If you search for a conspiracy everywhere you look; you will find one every time.

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by magickmaster
this is the ORIGINAL link, if anyone can do anything with it.
newtownbee.com...

Got it Thanks

Here ya go guys:

Cached Story

Sandy Hook School Principal Dawn Hochsprung told The Bee that a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shows – more than she could count – that went "on and on."

Shannon hicks took the pictures from the article. I wonder if she knows anything?

One of the posters here knows the principle.. But I'll have to go find out, its in the thread from the day it happened.. They should know the truth, if they are still posting here. Was it smylygirl?

edit on 12/21/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

THIS is what I've been looking for! I KNEW I heard this! I KNEW IT! I've made reference to it in a few threads and there WAS a voice conversation on video also.

Wow. Just wow.

peace

Originally posted by Aisling
Why would a news paper that has been in business, with the same family, since 1881, make such a grievous error and print that they had spoken with the principal that day, and even had a story to back this up?

That's what I'd like to to know.

We're talking about a paper that has been in business for many decades.

So they made that story up? They said they actually SPOKE with the principal.

My sensors are going off on this one.

Well off that same notion, that exact same paper is part of the media that is now helping the government cover this all up??

Originally posted by bknapple32
Some ancient wise person once said...

If you search for a conspiracy everywhere you look; you will find one every time.

Not really.

Originally posted by Aisling
I know how the media works. They are like sharks in a pool of blood fighting for the breaking story.

but....!! To go forward and so much as make up a story that they spoke to the principal who was supposedly already dead that morning..... is just way off. This paper even had a story to go with it.

So basically, it comes down to two things:

1. they were making it up to get their story out first

2. they didn't make it up and was told to scrub that story fast

As I said already, it is very strange for a family owned paper that has been in the business of news since 1881, to perpetrate that sort of yellow journalism.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 and they brought us Jayson Blair.

Originally posted by otherpotato

Originally posted by Aisling
I know how the media works. They are like sharks in a pool of blood fighting for the breaking story.

but....!! To go forward and so much as make up a story that they spoke to the principal who was supposedly already dead that morning..... is just way off. This paper even had a story to go with it.

So basically, it comes down to two things:

1. they were making it up to get their story out first

2. they didn't make it up and was told to scrub that story fast

As I said already, it is very strange for a family owned paper that has been in the business of news since 1881, to perpetrate that sort of yellow journalism.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 and they brought us Jayson Blair.

Did Jayson Blair actually claim to have spoken to a dead person, with an entire back story?

Originally posted by Aisling

Originally posted by bknapple32
Some ancient wise person once said...

If you search for a conspiracy everywhere you look; you will find one every time.

Not really.

no, not really, but you get my point.

Originally posted by Aisling
I know how the media works. They are like sharks in a pool of blood fighting for the breaking story.

but....!! To go forward and so much as make up a story that they spoke to the principal who was supposedly already dead that morning..... is just way off. This paper even had a story to go with it.

So basically, it comes down to two things:

1. they were making it up to get their story out first

2. they didn't make it up and was told to scrub that story fast

As I said already, it is very strange for a family owned paper that has been in the business of news since 1881, to perpetrate that sort of yellow journalism.

Did they speak face to face could that have been a phone call just a suggestion

Great post S & F'd . Sorry I had no time to participate as I was busy hunting license plates in the other thread. Tons of very good information in here. We should merge these threads and come up with a list of all the discoveries in 3 days here on ATS.

Way to go!

Originally posted by EdwynaGolden
reply to post by magickmaster

 

With all due respect and not denying that you could possibly , maybe , perhaps , might, just a chance...just maybe.. Could possibly, sorta, maybe, potentially, have something that appears that you could possibly be right about your theory that these people did not die in a terrible, inhumane way... I don't believe it for a second.

When news of this sort, or really any sort, breaks... There will inevitably be some mistakes in the reporting. Someone surely said they were in a meeting and heard shots and then went out to investigate...but it wasn't the principal. Image yourself writing for a newspaper in such a chaotic event as this. Could you get your facts straight from the very beginning with precise consistency throughout the episode? Can you even imagine the chaos and confusion?

Believe it or not, some people aren't perfect. I find your post to be silly and disgusting. Full of hype with no common sense... Along with all the other posts like this one. Its shameful and full of ignorance. Grow some common sense instead of stars and flags... Sickening.

I agree there are some unanswered questions and some of the reports are inconsistent, but this thread is just sad. The OP has little class, but mostly the classless person in the first video who seems to have a difficult time even reading much less figuring out WTH is going on in Sandy Hook!

I'm sure we would all like to believe that these poor souls are still alive somewhere, but if they are, where the hell would they be??? And would they be in a better place?

Sorry. . .Not buying into this BS.

edit on 21-12-2012 by EdwynaGolden because: Spelling...

How arrogant of people to word-vomit the mantra,"it was confusing for those poor journalists, give them a break!"

This is the real world out here. Journalists are hired because as a journalist, who spent 6 years in college, or any time in college, they have it beaten into their heads as students how important it is to not report statements by other people as fact if there is any question to the contrary. Ever.
To do so underminds the integrity of the profession as well as the outlet you are reporting for.

The fact the original reporter has not been fired, and that there was no printed retraction, lends credence to something being amiss.

Think LIBEL. Without a retraction in print, the family of the principal has grounds to sue the paper, and they'd win hands down. No journalistic entity would risk such a thing. Remember...when Brokaw did it, his ass got canned the same day.

This is in no way a momentary lapse of judgement of the paper or the journalist. Thats impossible due to the contract this journalist signed when hired at the paper. ALL journalists sign such contracts which mention time and again that they will be fired for writing stories that are untrue or not properly vetted.

Granted, its up to the bosses of this journalist as to what punishment will be, but since no punishment has been doled out, this reeks of coverup.....to me anyway.

As to the 5 W's of the case...I just dont know, and neither will anyone else.

reply to post by Aisling


You claimed that it was inconceivable that a reporter from a newspaper that was around for so long could have been mistaken in reporting who they had spoken with in an article. I am simply pointing out that it is entirely conceivable that news can be misreported by any newspaper, no matter how long they've been around.

I would also add "scrubbing" the article is an entirely reasonable response to discovering a gross error. Reporting you spoke to someone you clearly could not have, especially when that person was killed in a horrible manner, is certainly not something you want people to find out. Would a retraction have been better? Sure if you want to call attention to your shoddy reporting. Of course attention was called to it anyway so now they're doubly embarrassed.

No different than people who delete asinine posts rather than owning up to them. Is it the right response? Depends on your perspective. But it doesn't make it proof of anything other than ineptitude.

reply to post by wmd_2008


That's a good idea. Maybe it was a phone call to police at the beginning, before she was shot.

reply to post by Aisling


I think you're trying way too hard.

But just for fun, I'd love to hear what you think really happened.

Originally posted by Ladyk74
Great post S & F'd . Sorry I had no time to participate as I was busy hunting license plates in the other thread. Tons of very good information in here. We should merge these threads and come up with a list of all the discoveries in 3 days here on ATS.

Way to go!

It would be tough to merge this one as its in the highly speculative forum. But maybe you could start a massive thread containing all the theories so far and how they connect with each other. So people have one place to go for the topic.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom

Stop asking questions, let them take your guns and your freedom. Let them start their Martial Law and armed guards on every street corner. You need to be safe. Remember if you SEE something SAY something.

I keep telling "authorities" that I see kidnapping, torture, murder, secret prisons, massive theft, massive fraud, smuggling (drugs, nuclear, weapons), state-sponsored-terrorism, state-sponsored-molestation, forged documentation, illegal aggressive wars, using WMD on civilians (DU) and too many false flags to count. I guess reporting illegal conduct to the perps is not real effective, eh?

BTW, armed troops have already been on our streets at least three times that I know of. Are we feeling "safe" yet? How "safe" will you feel when the Chinese start taking over swaths of land?

I'd group the people who are pushing this "no one died at all" theory as disinformation agents. Same as the people who say no planes hit the WTC. Disinfo, some are just crazy sure.

But really all it does is make the people who have serious questions about certain innacuracies reported like # of gunmen look crazy, as all conspiracy theorists tend to get lumped into one big group.

Case in point the 9/11 "truther". when in fact there are dozens of different theories about the 9/11 conspiracy. Many have solid, factual backing, some are just way out there.

I believe stuff like this is caculated disinfo, or just people who are so open minded there brains have fallen out.