A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

reply to post by CinnamonHearts


First of all I did not attack anyone, I simply gave answers and asked the question why would you want to know this as this does not make sense to me. I understand that it doesn't make sense to react at all in this thread as most of you have made up their minds and rather go with the conspiracy which is of course more interesting and close your eyes to the information that is already there. It is sad to see some of you have such little trust in your own government. You should never take anything for what it is but then again, put in your common sense, that's all I'm saying. I am out of this thread because I am getting a bit disgusted. Please have some respect for the people that died, the victims and everyone else involved and use your common sense. Good luck!

reply to post by swansong19


Semantics, again. The fact that they say they learned the information, from the kids, proves that they have spoken to the kids. It definitely doesnt support the claim that you made when you posted the quote-that is, that they havent spoken to the kids.

Now, back to your other question-I have no answer for the picture, until I see an official report. Could be many things. Proves nothing.

I'm still not sure, though, why you think posting something that has nothing to do with the OP somehow has any bearing on what was stated.

Again, the pattern is being followed.

ETA: Do you have a class list of any sort? Are you certain that the entire class is pictured there? Do you know if any students missed picture day, or if any were added to the class after picture day? Very important questions to answer.

Originally posted by MisterMaster

The biggest problem people seem to be having is the dis-belief of the parents...and I agree that they are faking...its obvious.

No ifs, ands or buts---this is defamatory. Specifically it's libel. You're talking about 40 parents who are not public figures and whose children have been murdered. You are clearly guilty of libel and it's possible that this site and others like it are also responsible for comments like this. At least that would be my position if I were one of these parents and saw this crap online.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19

 

Semantics, again. The fact that they say they learned the information, from the kids, proves that they have spoken to the kids. It definitely doesnt support the claim that you made when you posted the quote-that is, that they havent spoken to the kids.

Now, back to your other question-I have no answer for the picture, until I see an official report. Could be many things. Proves nothing.

I'm still not sure, though, why you think posting something that has nothing to do with the OP somehow has any bearing on what was stated.

Again, the pattern is being followed.

They don't say they got the info from the kids.

They say...they learned generally from the kids that got away. That info, from the kids that got away, could have come from Rosen...or the parents. Your assertion that it proves anything is patently false.

For someone who has taken it upon himself to be the arbitor of what is bunk...or not...you don't seem to have a terribly curious mind about such a large discrepency.

Perhaps the debunking should be left to those willing to investigate.

Originally posted by swansong19

Now...getting back to the question I posed earlier.

6 kids escape...6 die...6-7 in a closet...in a class of 15.

So maybe 3 or 4 students were out sick the day they took the photo. Or any of a number of other logical explanations.

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19

 

Semantics, again. The fact that they say they learned the information, from the kids, proves that they have spoken to the kids. It definitely doesnt support the claim that you made when you posted the quote-that is, that they havent spoken to the kids.

Now, back to your other question-I have no answer for the picture, until I see an official report. Could be many things. Proves nothing.

I'm still not sure, though, why you think posting something that has nothing to do with the OP somehow has any bearing on what was stated.

Again, the pattern is being followed.

They don't say they got the info from the kids.

They say...they learned generally from the kids that got away. That info, from the kids that got away, could have come from Rosen...or the parents. Your assertion that it proves anything is patently false.

For someone who has taken it upon himself to be the arbitor of what is bunk...or not...you don't seem to have a terribly curious mind about such a large discrepency.

Perhaps the debunking should be left to those willing to investigate.

In your mind, "learned, generally from the kids" means they got the info from parents or rosen? Again, you are clinging to semantics. Wouldnt logic dictate that if they got all of their info from rosen and the parents they would cite it as "learned, from the parents and neighbors"? Clinging to semantics like this is pretty desperate, and is generally a sign of one who knows their argument has failed.

Ill keep on debunking that which is garbage. And ill do it proudly. Leaving it up to those of 'you' who consider large leaps of faith, clinging to semantics, and baseless conclusions "investigating" is what has lead us so far down this path of sheer nonsense.

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19

 

Semantics, again. The fact that they say they learned the information, from the kids, proves that they have spoken to the kids. It definitely doesnt support the claim that you made when you posted the quote-that is, that they havent spoken to the kids.

Now, back to your other question-I have no answer for the picture, until I see an official report. Could be many things. Proves nothing.

I'm still not sure, though, why you think posting something that has nothing to do with the OP somehow has any bearing on what was stated.

Again, the pattern is being followed.

They don't say they got the info from the kids.

They say...they learned generally from the kids that got away. That info, from the kids that got away, could have come from Rosen...or the parents. Your assertion that it proves anything is patently false.

For someone who has taken it upon himself to be the arbitor of what is bunk...or not...you don't seem to have a terribly curious mind about such a large discrepency.

Perhaps the debunking should be left to those willing to investigate.

Those making baseless claims should think before posting like stating the kids were not interviewed which is what you stated with 0 supporting evidence on your part.

You essentially just through that accusation out and hoped it would stick. I hope you do not consider that as investigating because it is most certainly not.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by swansong19

Now...getting back to the question I posed earlier.

6 kids escape...6 die...6-7 in a closet...in a class of 15.

So maybe 3 or 4 students were out sick the day they took the photo. Or any of a number of other logical explanations.

Or maybe they don't exist.

How is it folks like you can groundlessly speculate but when other do it it is verboten?

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19

 

Semantics, again. The fact that they say they learned the information, from the kids, proves that they have spoken to the kids. It definitely doesnt support the claim that you made when you posted the quote-that is, that they havent spoken to the kids.

Now, back to your other question-I have no answer for the picture, until I see an official report. Could be many things. Proves nothing.

I'm still not sure, though, why you think posting something that has nothing to do with the OP somehow has any bearing on what was stated.

Again, the pattern is being followed.

They don't say they got the info from the kids.

They say...they learned generally from the kids that got away. That info, from the kids that got away, could have come from Rosen...or the parents. Your assertion that it proves anything is patently false.

For someone who has taken it upon himself to be the arbitor of what is bunk...or not...you don't seem to have a terribly curious mind about such a large discrepency.

Perhaps the debunking should be left to those willing to investigate.

Those making baseless claims should think before posting like stating the kids were not interviewed which is what you stated with 0 supporting evidence on your part.

You essentially just through that accusation out and hoped it would stick. I hope you do not consider that as investigating because it is most certainly not.

You may continue to reply to my posts if you wish...but I have determined that you either aren't paying attention,...or don't care enough to investigate. For that reason I will no longer be responding to you.

reply to post by swansong19

Since when do you think you are investigating? You are making unsubstantiated claims and that is all.

You stated as fact. And I quote.

I notice you didn't comment on the lack of any interviews with these children. Is that standard as well? To not question material witnesses to a capital crime?

Even young children who have been molested get interviewed...but not one of these kids will be? Seems odd for an ongoing investigation where so much is, apparently, up in the air.

So where is your proof? You showed none.

You are no more investigating than a trash tabloid writer even less. At least they try to base things in reality you do not.

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by swansong19

Now...getting back to the question I posed earlier.

6 kids escape...6 die...6-7 in a closet...in a class of 15.

So maybe 3 or 4 students were out sick the day they took the photo. Or any of a number of other logical explanations.

Or maybe they don't exist.

How is it folks like you can groundlessly speculate but when other do it it is verboten?

Exactly. It's ALL groundless speculation so my explanation has as much validity as the rest of the libelous crap being spewed about this. Of course, my suggested explanation falls withing the realm of plausibility.

Have to say, I still find it odd that every single person who has accused me of being wrong in this thread has shied away from challenging ANY of the assertions of debunking that I have made.

Says a lot.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by CinnamonHearts

 

Fair enough, I'd like to point out, though, that you are the one who brought it up. So what else on my list do you dispute? That list, afterall, is the topic of this thread, or did you miss that?

It seems pretty standard, at this point in the thread, that the members that disagree with me follow a standard pattern.
1)Call me out for not providing more evidence in the debunking of the theories.
2)back away from challenging any of the things that I have listed.
3)Bring a totally serparate unanswered question into the mix, and use it as an attempt to somehow show that I cant debunk EVERY question in this thread, even though I have admitted that from the start.

Pretty amazing how many posters in this thread have followed that EXACT pattern.

Anyway-
Every question you asked about the responders are questions that we have to wait for the full report to come out to know. As far as I know, none of that info has been released yet. While the lack of info is frustrating this far into it, it does not prove anything. And honestly, I expect the Official Report to raise even more questions, but dwelling on the things that havent been released yet doesnt prove a conspiracy.

As far as the lack of wounded, these were mostly children. It makes my heart sink even thinking about this, but can you imagine what 3 bullets does to a 6 year old? They were likely dead by the second or third shot, if not the first.

I brought it up as an example that YOU brought up in your original post. I'm trying to understand the point of your entire thread. If you thought these theories were already "debunked," and pretty much ludicrous, why would you waste your time bringing attention to them? It's a rhetorical question.

Who says I'm trying to "prove a conspiracy"? I asked a legitimate question that came to me when reading that article. Why waste time talking about "actors" when you could be looking at legitimate questions? I noticed you overlooked my question regarding who responded to the victims if the local first responders didn't. Who pronounced them dead? Who tried to revive them? Oh right, wait for the report. We already know one thing, local first responders were not allowed near the school, I don't have to wait for a report for this information. And in my opinion, it makes no sense.

For those that may have missed it.

Investigators have decided not to formally interview the children, based on advice from Yale child psychologists.

www.courant.com...

The fact that not one of you finds the TOTAL lack of information on these children, the bus driver or the "man" that was there, odd...troubling...confusing...worthy of investigation...worthy of anything other than scorn and derision is so completey astounding to me that I can't believe I am on a conspiracy website.

Seriously...what are you people doing here? Protecting the families? From what exactly? Are they wiling away their days on here being offended by insinuations?

The memories of dead children...?...whatever that means. Some kids have died from malnutrition since I've been typing this.

Those being derisive towards me and others seem to be taking this awful personally. That's usually not a positive indicator of competent analysis.

Maybe it's you folks who need to take a break from this and allow the rest of us to discuss it.

reply to post by CinnamonHearts


Yes, YOU BROUGHT IT UP, then accused me of clinging to it as my straw, when I refuted it. Doesnt really work both ways.

First of all, why do you have to understand the point of the thread? If it is really that confusing for you, perhaps you should leave it be...you have called it a waste of time, yet you keep posting in it..

Perhaps you missed the lead up to the creation of this thread. Thats understandable. But when I created it, these theories were being used as a basis for countless, empty, branching conspiracies. If the trunk of the tree is dead, the branches cant live. Get it?

Again, YOU brought up the 'actors' (not that you were the only one, just the most recent). Should I not refute it? Should I let a blatant lie continue?

I cant help but notice that you are here to say my thread is false, yet you, like most the others who have followed the pattern, refuse to challenge ANY of the things I have listed. If my thread is wrong, why do you avoid showing HOW it is wrong? Why do you focus, instead, on my motivation for making the thread?

As for the first responders, perhaps you should call you local police and inquire about protocol in that type of situation? Why dont you get the confirmation that state and federal agencies take point in ANY major crime that they become involved in? Shouldnt be too hard-you dont want to take my word for it, so why dont you go to those that can give you an official answer? On top of that, why do you continue to dwell on something that has NOTHING to do with this thread, as though it will somehow prove me wrong and you correct?

reply to post by swansong19


Considering that you ignore any answer that you dont like, and cling to something like "they learned, generally from the children" as meaning they had no contact with the children, Im not sure what you are hoping to get as an answer here.
Heck, you keep posting a quote that gives you your answer, and somehow try to say it doesnt. They based the decision off of the advice of a leading child psychologist. Plain and simple.


And again, why do you continue to push those who arent buying the theories away from discussing this?

Originally posted by swansong19
For those that may have missed it.

Investigators have decided not to formally interview the children, based on advice from Yale child psychologists.

www.courant.com...

Well, if we're accepting your linked article as a accurate source of information it puts to rest a number of the points being made in favor of some kind of conspiracy.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by MisterMaster

The biggest problem people seem to be having is the dis-belief of the parents...and I agree that they are faking...its obvious.

No ifs, ands or buts---this is defamatory. Specifically it's libel. You're talking about 40 parents who are not public figures and whose children have been murdered. You are clearly guilty of libel and it's possible that this site and others like it are also responsible for comments like this. At least that would be my position if I were one of these parents and saw this crap online.

Since you are obviously clueless on the laws here in the real world...let me clue you in on how the internet and forums operate, k?

Perhaps before you declare something libelous you should read the laws regarding it huh? No need though, because I did it for you.

Bring in the Federal Communications Decency Act of 2011.

This has already been ruled on by many circuit court judges, and they have ruled against holding forums and ALL owners responsible for slander, libel, or any other nonsense you come up with.

"Being that an online forum does not "publish" the material as a magazine or newspaper, the same laws of libel DO NOT APPLY."----Directly from the Act itself.

From the third Federal circuit of appeals:
"Site owners/operaters are not responsible for the content provided by its members, therefore, they cannot be held accountable for what anonymous posters write. No matter how vile the words, the site is exempt from personal or tort lawsuits regarding slander."


Lets move on to anyone suing anyone else personally on a forum. It is not possible either. Just hecause you live in the US does not mean YOUR laws apply to ME if I live in the Ukraine. In fact, they do not apply anywhere BUT your country so libel or slander charges are a joke.

While I can admit I was a bit brash in my earlier post, the site owners intent had zero to do with fears of being sued. It was of a personal nature, and that is just....wrong.

Im over it, but dont ever assume I dont know what I'm talking about on a subject. If I post, it is FACT as I am not in the habit of making myself look stupid. May I advise that the next time you are "confident" of something, re-check it before you type it.

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by swansong19

 

Semantics, again. The fact that they say they learned the information, from the kids, proves that they have spoken to the kids. It definitely doesnt support the claim that you made when you posted the quote-that is, that they havent spoken to the kids.

Now, back to your other question-I have no answer for the picture, until I see an official report. Could be many things. Proves nothing.

I'm still not sure, though, why you think posting something that has nothing to do with the OP somehow has any bearing on what was stated.

Again, the pattern is being followed.

They don't say they got the info from the kids.

They say...they learned generally from the kids that got away. That info, from the kids that got away, could have come from Rosen...or the parents. Your assertion that it proves anything is patently false.

For someone who has taken it upon himself to be the arbitor of what is bunk...or not...you don't seem to have a terribly curious mind about such a large discrepency.

Perhaps the debunking should be left to those willing to investigate.

what do you consider "investigating"..looking at bull# links or sources from the net

reply to post by swansong19


How do you know the police didn’t question the children on the scene that day can you prove they didn’t?
-------------------------------------------------

It is called burden of proof or supporting evidence neither of which do these half-baked conspiracies contain. That is why they are nothing but trash accusations that are not based in anything except someone’s insensitive imagination.

None of the theories that have been dismissed by the OP meet the criteria as even being in the realm of possibility. None of them offer supporting evidence or meet the lowest limit of burden of proof.

They were probably offered up by people who fancy themselves as theorists but do not know the first thing about investigating and haven’t done anything except make libelous claims. Not one iota of proof has been offered to back them up by those people. They give conspiracy theorists a bad name.