A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by CinnamonHearts

 

I went back and listened again. It was all "according to (unnamed) friends and neighbors" and "according to my sources". No one seems to have checked the register at the hotel she was allegedly staying at. The rest of this report was just "oh, look how this terrible woman left her twenty year old son "HOME ALONE", along with more of the "Adam was sick and Adam did it" assurances.

Nowadays everything reported is basically from unknown sources, unfortunately. I think the reporter was making it seem like it's something Nancy did quite often, take mini vacations. To me, that made me think that Adam wasn't nearly as far gone as MSM has tried to lead us to believe. On the other hand, the reporter's comment about Nancy preparing food for Adam because she didn't want him cooking when she wasn't home, implies that maybe his mom was a bit worried about him not remembering to turn the stove off? Not exactly sure. I didn't really take anything from that. I just figured it was because he didn't know how to cook. For all we know, the "source" was just speculating anyway.

She checked in at 12:10 am. Did she work? I don't remember reading anything other than the initial reports of her working at the school which proved to be false.

reply to post by sconner755


Yes, I thought about the connection as soon as I read it. I thought wow, how very cliche.
It was almost as bad as if they'd said she just got back from spending a lovely weekend at
the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbek, NE. But, what are you gonna do?

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by CinnamonHearts

 

I went back and listened again. It was all "according to (unnamed) friends and neighbors" and "according to my sources". No one seems to have checked the register at the hotel she was allegedly staying at. The rest of this report was just "oh, look how this terrible woman left her twenty year old son "HOME ALONE", along with more of the "Adam was sick and Adam did it" assurances.

Nowadays everything reported is basically from unknown sources, unfortunately.

That's what has turned so many people off MSM. And with good reason.

I think the reporter was making it seem like it's something Nancy did quite often, take mini vacations. To me, that made me think that Adam wasn't nearly as far gone as MSM has tried to lead us to believe. On the other hand, the reporter's comment about Nancy preparing food for Adam because she didn't want him cooking when she wasn't home, implies that maybe his mom was a bit worried about him not remembering to turn the stove off? Not exactly sure. I didn't really take anything from that. I just figured it was because he didn't know how to cook. For all we know, the "source" was just speculating anyway.

There you go again, making the point > "making it seem like". 90% of the news is fiction. Okay, more.

She checked in at 12:10 am. Did she work? I don't remember reading anything other than the initial reports of her working at the school which proved to be false.

edit on 28-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)

I don't know what she did, but if the reports of her alimony are true, she probably didn't need to.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I think it is a very GOOD thing to place some controls on those discussions. That said, would it be possible to be more specific, as to what sorts of things we should not stray into, regarding that topic? Clearly, posting personal data would be very wrong (and I guess I missed that....glad I did, too!). Are there other areas that you would prefer we avoid? I believe all here want to respect what those families are facing, and I certainly don't want to post anything to add to their grief. So, other than that personal data business, what should we avoid?

If I have personally posted anything offensive, my apologies, because that was never my intent.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by sconner755

 

Yes, I thought about the connection as soon as I read it. I thought wow, how very cliche.
It was almost as bad as if they'd said she just got back from spending a lovely weekend at
the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbek, NE. But, what are you gonna do?

Yes, exactly. Or that she spent the week at the Bohemian Grove.

Ok, exploring the possibilities, I'm not sure how the police could have possibly known with certainty Adam Lanza killed his mother the day of the shootings. Or that she went there alone.

Put it this way -if it turns out there is a conspiracy how could Bretton Woods not be part of the story? It would be like having UFO disclosure happen coincidentally at Roswell.

reply to post by sconner755


The thing is, I don't think I have ever heard or read anything about Bretton Woods outside of the connotation of
monetary reform. A topic much discussed of late.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not that it's not a four star resort. Not that Oosterbeek, isn't also. It's just the unexpectedness of seeing it mentioned in this context, that I am reminded of lines from Casablanca. Of all the joints to go just before your untimely demise, Mrs.Lanza, you wound up here.


More so in that both Mr. and the former Mrs. Lanza are linked to some of the largest financial institutions in America.

Ok up until this point, with the radio recording asking for the tag beginning with '8' and then reading off R's name, I have leaned towards that picture of the Honda as belonging to R's. Not with 100% certainty, but leaning nonetheless.

With some research and by playing it safe according to law ("For use in research activities, and for use in producing statistical reports, solong as the personal information is not published, redisclosed, or used to contactindividuals.") here are some pics showing the Honda being registered in Sandy Hook, not near where R lives (about 35 miles away), but close to where L lives.

NOTE: ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION LEFT OUT (I don't think I really need to say R and L and plate 8 or plate 7 lol but playing it safe for legal and for forum rules. If forum mods state ok to use names and plates, I can edit this if requested by THEM, otherwise folks that have followed along with this issue will understand). I have blacked out more than enough to keep personal information out of the picture (again maybe too much but erring on the safe side):



This makes me lean the other way now somewhat (ie the Honda belongs to the Ls). It is not conclusive without a title search but I am not doing that. I do have reservations about drawing conclusions either way and will list them at the end.

Now the issue is that other plate that started with a '7' that was stated over the radio is a Porche registered in New Canaan, CT, which is also away from where R lives, so if we are going by registration locations then this leans to not being his either.




So why did they list R's name over the radio???!!!

Now this is loosely assuming that each person registered a car near where they lived, whereas I am sure they can do this anywhere in the state (or maybe it is a county thing there but I could not find that - it looks like you can register anywhere in the state). If you find any information in regards to this, please let us know.

Now this is NOT confirmation one way or the other, but it makes me lean a little away from R and towards L for the car ownership - just from proximity of registration, with still some doubt though with them blurting R's name out over the air.

SUMMARY & RESERVATIONS ABOUT CONCLUSIONS
To summarize the above and to state reservations about drawing any conclusions:
-The plate beginning with 8 is a Honda registered in Sandy Hook
-The plate beginning with 7 is a Porche registered in New Canaan
-We cannot conclude that the place of registration is also the place where the person lives, but from personal experience it seems we usually register close to home
-If the Honda or the Porche did not belong to R, then WHY DID THEY SAY HIS NAME OVER THE RADIO???

Really, to confirm more, a title search needs to be done (not doing it) or we have to wait for authorities to release this detail, which obviously is not going to happen soon it appears.

Also, single channel recordings of the police recordings would help clarify things (instead of interpreting through all of the walkovers).

So after reading this over, this really does not help lol. Maybe one more piece in the puzzle though. Blimey.





EDIT TO ADD: After reading over a couple times, I am actually not leaning one way or the other now - stuck in the middle. On the one hand we have the plate registered closer to L and on the other hand we have the Radio responding with R's name. Without more detailed searches, this really still leaves things open. Was trying to help tie up loose ends but seems moot now.

The ultimate problem with this incident is that no one really knows what happened or how.

Even watching the police response on tv didnt make me feel like a mass murder had just been committed inside of a school. Actually it looked about as fake as most modern war footage. People just walking around, looking around, not in any kind of a hurry or with and real fear that someone who just shot hundreds of rifle rounds may still be a threat.

It's hard for me to feel like cops even in BFE Connecticut are really that dumb.

And now there is this anti gun agenda tied to it, and of course the shooter had a bushmaster, because of the hundreds of brands of ar15's all physcos use just that one... In really it was probably some off brand no one has ever heard of and it's model designation was something no one could relate to like colts 6190.

But then again my neighbor is an NRA member with an autistic son and he says there's no way it went down like its being portrayed.

All I know is that people apparently share no responsibility with guns for murder anymore and that's pretty sad.


##SNIPPED##

I wonder if the shooter was part of that program.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

With his uncle Robert being the worlds most reknown top scientist in embryonic stem cells science, i am seeing some kind of a possibility, particularly because the shooter was not seen in Newtown during the past 3 years.

Other than that, there were about 30 killed stem cells scientists during the past 2 years that are confirmed. Sometimes the scientists were let alive and their children or families were killed. I do not submit names for not violating privacy since with names released it takes only a few seconds for receiving an address from the www.

This is a future multi billion dollar business (forever young, cure any illness, dont die).
The russian mafia is deeply involved in trading embryons and neonatals for labs.

Due to ethic reasons, that science is legally restricted but in some countries it is allowed. Most advanced in that science are Iran, Israel (both due to the most liberal laws), California and Connecticut.

Religions oppose embryon stem cells science (except for LDS).

In the future, this business will make more money than illegal drugs. Unfortunately due to legal restrictions, the mafia and criminal gangs take over the neonatals and embryon production and trade for industrial stem cells production.

Those are facts. Whether or not the shooter was part of a program is theory and conspiracy because we dont know. Side effects are unknown since that science is just being tested on humans rihht now.

However, the list of killed stem cell researchers (or else their families being killed) is long and throughout the globe existing and can get approved.

You know, I will agree, there have been some awful posts from people, but there have also been some respectful ones as well, in an attempt to understand WHY this tragedy happened.

Heff, I see your point of view and in the future will do my best to always remain respectful with my speech on ATS.

However,

I will not stop discussing what I think is truth.

I stood by in horror on 9/11, believing every bit of the official story only to open my eyes years later to the fact that... the story was not right, and it never has been. The fact that people were used for someone's agenda is horrifying to me and for the next decade I have spent trying to seek what is truth.

I won't stand by official stories when they don't seem right to me. I just can't do that. I was taught not to lie, and I won't hold back what I think is true.

The problem on ATS is, regardless of our differences of opinions, people MUST learn to discuss them in a respectful way again and address one another in a respectful manner. I have seen some horrible behavior from men toward women even. I agree Heff, we need to take a step back and check ourselves again and figure out how we can discuss our ideas, theories, and so on, in a much better manner. The integrity of this forum is sinking not necessarily because of what is being discussed, but HOW we discuss it and how we treat each other.

With all of this said, if ATS ever comes to a point where I cannot discuss something freely in a respectful manner, aside from the rules on what we cannot talk about (drugs), then I will leave ATS behind and seek a forum where I can discuss things. There are other smaller ones out there where people do act like adults and have respectful conversations. So, if ATS decides to start shutting down topics or people who are respectful... then I'm out of here. I don't care for censorship.

Originally posted by restless genius
reply to post by vkey08

 

Nicely put.

I got really angry and upset when I saw those silly threads saying nobody died, it was all faked etc...

I have read many many 9/11 threads where people asserted the same thing about the victims there and no one said a word about that.

You know, and, I don't necessarily agree with that theory and do not appreciate it, yet at the same time I don't have an issue with someone raising speculation.

We have a mish mash of folks posting here with all different backgrounds, cultures, countries, etc etc. whom have different beliefs and ideas. Not everyone is going to think the same, believe the same, or support the same theories or mourn the same thing.

I will say, it is wrong, very wrong to post people's personal phone numbers, addresses, etc on a forum. I've moderated a forum in the past and, I honestly thought that was just common knowledge that you don't do that. So, to delete that is understandable, including some terrible troll postings. But when we venture over into the idea that "we can't say this.... "or "We can't say that"..... then this board is going to have to get a total work over and thousands of posts will need to be deleted and important information may need to just be trashed a long with it.

As another person pointed out, there is a lot of hypocrisy taking place when it comes to subject manner.

As I have said, I won't stick around if or when things start to get heavily censored.

Go to youtube, facebook, MSM comment sections, and you will see all over the net, people questioning the OS on this tragedy. It's not just on ATS, it is EVERY WHERE. And people are speaking out.

If you stop a people from being able to speak their mind, they'll just go elsewhere.

With that idea hanging there...... let's just say there are some people I would not miss at all, if ATS could start to enforce a more respectful discussion without all of the trolls and fighting.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I think it is a very GOOD thing to place some controls on those discussions. That said, would it be possible to be more specific, as to what sorts of things we should not stray into, regarding that topic? Clearly, posting personal data would be very wrong (and I guess I missed that....glad I did, too!). Are there other areas that you would prefer we avoid? I believe all here want to respect what those families are facing, and I certainly don't want to post anything to add to their grief. So, other than that personal data business, what should we avoid?

If I have personally posted anything offensive, my apologies, because that was never my intent.

I think that the entirely disrespectful, "grieving parents are actors" and the comparison of real people who had children at the school (fortunately unharmed) with pictures of other actors just because they happened to give an interview, along with some of the darker speculation about one dead girl and her siblings (the oh look she's wearing her sister's dress...duh) is the type of unfounded, extremely hurtful and possible litigious remarks that SO and the mods want to be left alone...and I agree entirely

reply to post by circuitsports


BFE Connecticut? What in the name of anything does that mean? Are you trying to insult the people who live here? Wow..... talk about stereotyping.. Newtown is in Fairfield County.. ie the same county that houses Stamford, Greenwich, Cos Cob, et al... It's far from the middle of nowhere...

reply to post by Starchildren


Yes, but the fact that all of this started before any of these kids had been buried, and of course prior to any official report is certainly a thorn in my side. Added to which, many of the conspiracy theorists are in fact getting their information from the MSM and then claiming that because it has had inaccuracies that it must be a coverup?? Ehh what? Since when did anyone here believe anything the MSM had to say in the first place. And I think it is wise to remember that a terrible tragedy occurred and people were running around getting information (or not for that matter) from anywhere they could, so there are bound to be inconsistencies.

Also the 9/11 forum is one of the most heavily moderated forums on this site and you still can't go in there and just spout off anything you want, you need to have proof to back up your claims and remain civil at all times, which very often it does not and as soon as it descends into bickering the mods step it...a good idea if you ask me.

And you cannot dictate what the owners do with this site, if you don't like what they do, don't post here. I was so disgusted by some of the threads on Sandy Hook I made a complaint and decided if it wasn't addressed that I would not be back, it was addressed, thankfully and I'm still here, but you do have a choice at any time to just not log on again. That is different though to the people supporting the Sandy Hook conspiracy telling those of us who disagree that we shouldn't be here because it is a conspiracy site, we have every right to counter their theories with our own beliefs, that's why it''s known as a discussion board

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Starchildren
And you cannot dictate what the owners do with this site, if you don't like what they do, don't post here. I was so disgusted by some of the threads on Sandy Hook I made a complaint and decided if it wasn't addressed that I would not be back, it was addressed, thankfully and I'm still here, but you do have a choice at any time to just not log on again. That is different though to the people supporting the Sandy Hook conspiracy telling those of us who disagree that we shouldn't be here because it is a conspiracy site, we have every right to counter their theories with our own beliefs, that's why it''s known as a discussion board

Actually Starchildren, if you don't like their decisions, please DO still post here at this site. Maybe you won't sway their decision, but no need to deny yours either! Just as you have the decision to post or not, others have the decision whether to read or participate in a thread that truly offends them or not. And if others keep reading or participating in threads that offend them so deeply to the point they need to tell others to just leave the site, then they are part of their own problem at hand.

It is never too soon to discuss an event. If it is too soon for you, the reader, to discuss then come back later when enough time has past for YOU. Don't expect others' emotional timelines to coincide with yours though. If posts are libeling someone without basis then sure they should be removed; but research into other matters should not just because enough time has not past or it insults your inner core. And all sides should be heard, otherwise what is the point.

I have seen threads that revolt me; so I don't continue to read them but I don't jump in expecting them to close based on how I feel. Common sense.

So Starchildren, please DO post...though you don't have to if you don't want

reply to post by ratboy


The only stuff I have a problem with IS the litigious material, no one died, using actors etc and yes, I do think that it can be too soon to discuss certain aspects, as I have said before, freedom of speech is one thing, but when your right to speak infringes someone's else's freedom that's when it becomes a problem e.g. the father of a murdered child couldn't even give a video interview without some of the most crass, insensitive and blatantly untrue things being said about him, and as for what was being said about his dead daughter and her siblings...wow...just wow

And I think you'll find that it is mostly those who believe there is a conspiracy at Sandy Hook who are the most vocal in telling the rest of us that we shouldn't be posting if we don't like what they're saying...so I am to be denied my freedom of speech because I disagree with what they're saying? That's just hypocrisy at its worst.

reply to post by destination now


No freedom of speech should be denied, theirs or yours. All sides of a conspiracy should be heard, theirs and yours. If libel arises then mods should definitely kick it to the side. I think we agree there.

The 'too soon' argument is moot in my mind. Talking about events 'too soon' does not negate anyone who has experienced a loss from personal grieving time. People discussing things on here will not aid or deny that. I assume those grieving will not be jumping right away to ATS to check out the latest conspiracies. If they choose to then they choose to. I don't deny personal decency, but it is very relative and a conspiracy theory is not going to halt until the right amount of time passes, as that is also highly relative.

Again just as someone does not have to post if they don't like policies, someone does not have to read or participate if they are offended, but they can if they so choose. If they are countering a theory then that is great and should help build up to possible conclusions. But just stating it is too soon does not add much, even if its empathic message is fully understood mind you

Originally posted by ratboy
reply to post by destination now

 

No freedom of speech should be denied, theirs or yours. All sides of a conspiracy should be heard, theirs and yours. If libel arises then mods should definitely kick it to the side. I think we agree there.

The 'too soon' argument is moot in my mind. Talking about events 'too soon' does not negate anyone who has experienced a loss from personal grieving time. People discussing things on here will not aid or deny that. I assume those grieving will not be jumping right away to ATS to check out the latest conspiracies. If they choose to then they choose to. I don't deny personal decency, but it is very relative and a conspiracy theory is not going to halt until the right amount of time passes, as that is also highly relative.

Again just as someone does not have to post if they don't like policies, someone does not have to read or participate if they are offended, but they can if they so choose. If they are countering a theory then that is great and should help build up to possible conclusions. But just stating it is too soon does not add much, even if its empathic message is fully understood mind you

edit on 29-12-2012 by ratboy because: spelling

So you are of the opinion that it's ok to have people running rampant on a site calling families things like FamiLIES, and VicSims, and claiming it was all a psyop and noone died? These people have the internet, they can google like the rest of us, put yourself in their shoes for just one moment...

Originally posted by klebics

~Soto~
10) Killer enters room of Soto, where children were hidden
11) 6 children tried to run for it, but were killed.
12) Anne Marie Murphy (teacher's aide) tried to shield 6-year-old Dylan Hockley. But who could have seen this? Also, all 6 children were running, how did she try shielding him?
13) there is a discrepancy between 6 or 7 children who survived by hiding. Gene Rosin, retired psychologist, testifies this on the children's behalf

~Killer dies~
14) the 6 or 7 surviving, hiding children either did not see the killer die or Rosin did not mention this.

Originally posted by MRuss
I still don't understand how the kids ran past Lanza in Soto's class. Anyone ever figure this out? I'm not saying they didn't, just wondering how they did. They ended up at the end of that guys driveway in a house across the street and he took them in and called their parents. The kids said they saw their teacher dead on their way out. Not sure if it was Soto's class or someone elses.

Originally posted by ikonoklast
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

One would expect the two first grade classes would be divided pretty equally. It seems unlikely one class would be 50% larger than the other. It also seems unlikely that there would have been 2 groups of 6 students who tried to escape from Victoria Soto's class and that one group succeeded but one group was killed.
So who were the 6 kids from Miss Soto's class who supposedly were sitting in Gene Rosen's house and were then invited by him into his home and later picked up by their parents?

These numbers that they finally settled on pertaining to Victoria Soto's class, together, don't add up. Was the situation so chaotic that everyone simply lost the ability to count?
1. Police - finding "7 kids safe in the closet."
www.usatoday.com...
www.courant.com...
www.courant.com...
2. 6 kids (4 girls 2 boys) at Gene Rosen's house. "Mrs. Soto is dead."
www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.nbcconnecticut.com...
abcnews.go.com...
3. Aidan Licata and 2 boys ran away. A woman picked them up and took them to police station.
www.kvia.com...
transcripts.cnn.com...
16 students survived from Soto's class.
Soto's class picture shows 15 kids.
Yet they finally said 4 students perished?
14 kids (from the other class) total.
Even still, 14 + their 4 they are still saying from Ms. Soto's class = 18 students perished, not 20? Also, it's even harder to make sense when you don't know which ones survived.

What can you make of this?
Teachers on Facebook: "He killed her and not one of her children were harmed."
Friend on Tumblr: "Not one of her students were harmed."
www.newcanaannewsonline.com...
www.chron.com...
www.dailyheraldtribune.com...
www.sfgate.com...