Father Robert E. Weiss knew 10 of the CT shooting victims

No, I doubt he was an actor.

Was he witness to the events at the school?

This student, for example. Actor or not, listen to her account where she claims nothing even really happened. Kids weren't really screaming, maybe kinda crying. Lockdowns are scary for kids.

She mentions nothing about a shooting.
Must have been a big, soundproof school to not hear the hundred plus rounds of gunfire, right?

This was the first interview I happened to see that day. It set the tone for me. a murky, stinky tone.

Nothing has added up since, except that this had been one heck of an event with a very clean casualty collection point outside the school.

By the way, that student who didn't hear any shooting... Let's try again to see if she saw or heard anything in a different, earlier interview when specifically asked if she heard gunshots about 40 seconds in.
Did she deflect from the question?! I think she did! She must be an ATS member.

Sorry for the bad quality of that last one, YouTube has since removed the good quality versions from users along with Facebook in their actual, not a conspiracy, censorship campaign.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
These outright lies and attention seeking antics are disrespectful to those that died and to those that are mourning.

That's original and new.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I hate that I had to do this thread, but feel it's necessary.

I'd like to hear what the "actors" crowd have to say now?

Half of them were actors?

I think that you will find, and I hope that this is the case, that very few here actually believed that there were paid actors at Sandy Hook. It took me some time to actually believe that Tony Hawk was said to be playing the part of Robbie Parker. The men look nothing alike - and neither do the wives, for that matter. And do not get me started on John Goodman. What I really want to know is who played the part of Barack Obama?

I know where you are coming from. I get the same reaction when numerology sprouts up like a weed in the soil of a fertile discussion. It is not a matter of relevance, but placement.

reply to post by Chadwickus


I believe so many people question this because they are what I like to call searchers. A searcher to me never really plants any roots in anything from religion to relationships. There minds search for truth and answers but never really find any.



Facts don't really even factor into it very much when your mind wants to tear everything apart. Conspiracy sights and religious sights is were they tend to flock to. In the ever widening search for answers they will cast aside.



I have personally known a couple and they bounce from religion to religion and relationship to relationship.

Weiss is a Jewish name!

ETA: I remember that this idiot Wolf Blitzer kept talking to a rabbi there. I don't know why he talked to him so
many times

Originally posted by Hellas
Weiss is a Jewish name!

What's your point?

That it is a Jewish name

reply to post by Hellas


It's actually a German name that many Jews have, but there are just as many Christians with that last name...so I still fail to see your point

What does a German name that people of various religions share have to do with the content of the OP?

reply to post by SubTruth
That's an interesting theory, about the searching bit. Some of us seek what we call "Evidence". It's required in order to claim a "Fact". Facts, contrary to propagandiated belief, differs from a "Report".

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


So is "Gene Rosen", an Ashkenazic Jewish name meaning, "of the rose", as in "Rosicrucianism":

For what we do presage is not in grosse,
For we are brethren of the Rosie Crosse;
We have the Mason Word and second sight,
Things for to come we can foretell aright.

— Henry Adamson, The Muses' Threnodie (Perth, 1638).

reply to post by Chadwickus


Hate to do this to you Chad, but I pulled up the .pdf church bulletins for the week of Dec. 9th, Dec. 16th, and Dec. 23rd. CHURCH WEBSITE!

The 9th's bulletin had nothing. Of course, the shooting was on the 14th. The 16th's bulletin had nothing in it either, related to the shootings. The 23rd's Church Bulletin?

A photog cover, nicely done.

A vague reference to the tragedy:


and a Brief mention of the school:


To me, this doesn't sound like a parish that lost 8 of their kids and 2 of their adults.

I don't know, should be a bigger write up on the lost members of their parish. Read the .pdfs yourselves. They are not very descriptive or informative, just bland church related functions. Above all, they should be acknowledging the loss of their parishioners, but no mention of them in the 23'rds Bulletin. I find that to be very odd.

reply to post by Druid42


This is as tenuous as all those "experts" claiming to know how a parent will react when their child is murdered...

Seriously, because the church notice board doesn't cover the event enough, this, in your opinion proves that the victims didn't go to church? That Father Bob is fake?

Really??

reply to post by Chadwickus


I have no idea if you are religious or not, but when a "church" loses a member, it's posted in the weekly bulletin. When a church loses ten members in one tragedy, there should be an obvious indication of that.

At LEAST a page write up, commemorating those lost. Don't the poor kids that belonged to that parish deserve at least that?

From what I've presented, this parish was lax. I'll withhold further speculation in respect of those lost.

reply to post by Druid42


Perhaps the church has been too busy consoling the families to spend enough time on the paper?

Who knows but I'm not going to speculate how or why a church paper isn't as comprehensive on a topic as it should be. And I'm certainly not going to use it as a reason to justify a conspiracy theory!

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by kudegras
I think common sense needs to prevail, I know this is a conspiracy site but enough is a enough.
28 lives were lost, mourn their loss but dont devalue their loss by constantly seeking a conspiracy, these kids and teachers had family and friends who I am sure do not want to read that they dies in some Government setup.
This is the last Sandy Hook post I will read, and it is one that is asking you to stop.

Just so I understand.

You believe accepting the OS that a crazy kid acted alone because he was crazy somehow values the lives of those dead more than being skeptical?

What I believe is those who are so offended by the skepticism for one reason or another find comfort believing in authority figures.

I think it dishonors the victims more when the government demands that we accept their "official" version of facts as truth or else face a prosecution at the point of their guns.

You are so out of line. Do you think we're morons, because we don't see this the way you do, is that it?

Do you not realize how many of us are Truthers and took part in the 911 Movement? Do you not think we don't question authority? Do you think we're choosing this because it's too hard to fight it? Is that it? So if we don't see a conspiracy we're by default, pushovers or shills, is that it too?

Like I suggested to someone on another thread, you think you got this down? You think you figured this out? Then do a service to this country and tell someone instead of anonymously tapping behind your keyboard on a forum.

And by the way, what is the official story? When did it come out because I would like to read the report. Please make a thread, okay?

To the others: I truly think this is an age thing. The younger they are the more they're convinced they're right.


I hope Springer closes these threads and ban some of the members.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Like I originally said, I hated to bring it into your thread. It stands as speculation only. I have too much respect for you as another member to continue this further, but I just had to interject what was, IMHO, an anomaly.

I'm good to let it rest here, till the OS is released.

Originally posted by Druid42I have no idea if you are religious or not, but when a "church" loses a member, it's posted in the weekly bulletin. When a church loses ten members in one tragedy, there should be an obvious indication of that.

Where I live...and in towns that I am aware of, of slightly smaller size than Newtown...they still post notices in the local-weekly about people's out of town relatives coming for visits...or any elderly in hospital, etc...

So ya...it seems weird that a church in such a small community would be making no mention of those lost.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Is it possible for you to find another photo that does not show every single member of the clergy's back?
I don't live there and even if I did, I have no way of knowing what event I am seeing or who the people are
depicted.
It is strange to me that a member of the media was even allowed to photo this scene and makes it a hair
suspect that you can't see their faces, at all.

So how many lawsuits can we expect after this shooting? Zero? Like 911?