Thread: Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theorists cyber stalking victims' and survivors' families

I didn't want to read every post here but, did anyone know that Sandy Hook school is demolished now? Ironic isn't it so? Pretty much it made everything about the massacre valid for hoax. The one lame excuse why they did it.....because they didn't want the place haunted with ghosts or make the school haunt the children/parents....really?? Why didn't they demolish virginia tech, colombine and the movie theatre? So that memories don't resurface? LOL ya BIG stank!

I drive by Pearl High School all the time, and it's still in operation. As far as I know, all of the schools where there have been shootings are still in operation, but not Sandy Hook. It doesn't even exist any more.

Originally Posted by TwoCrystalCups

I didn't want to read every post here but, did anyone know that Sandy Hook school is demolished now? Ironic isn't it so? Pretty much it made everything about the massacre valid for hoax. The one lame excuse why they did it.....because they didn't want the place haunted with ghosts or make the school haunt the children/parents....really?? Why didn't they demolish virginia tech, colombine and the movie theatre? So that memories don't resurface? LOL ya BIG stank!

I'll tell you this- kids schools tend to be small. Columbine and vtech are not small at all. Pretty expensive buildings, and Columbine I believe has several separate buildings. Why do you think they would tear down a movie theater? Like seriously, why would you even ask that?

I've seen people with cancer being accused of weird shit as well as faking cancer because apparently they looked like professional actors- when the resemblance to the actor they're supposed to be is sketchy at best. We're talking facial bone structure being completely different.

Conspiracy theorists like this seem to have a weird, malicious combination of autism and some kind of schizo-whatever. There are people out there who dig up stuff that can be indicative of conspiracies but they generally don't jump to conclusions. And there are whistle-blowers who expose legit conspiracies. But conspiracy theorists are not productive people like that.

All of this is just fucking sad, but I guess cheap meth and poor mental health systems will mean that people like this are allowed on the streets without getting treatment. I believe some could be productive and actually normal, positive parts of society if they got help.

Originally Posted by invalid

Why do you think they would tear down a movie theater? Like seriously, why would you even ask that?

Why would they tear down an elementary school?

Gaaah - I don't want to get into this again - buut - makes sense to rather demolish a small elementary school, first because it's possible - it's small, maybe wasn't up to date anyway, building-wise. And - elementary school children are more likely to not get over the trauma, which they'll come to associate with the building. Maybe even right-out refusing to enter such a place ever again. With older students - you can appeal to their rationality, and they will understand this was a criminal/mentally ill person who did it - it's not connected with the place. The younger the children - the more irrational are also the parents, usually, when it comes to said children: "What?! I shall bring my precious child back to this place of terror!? WTF?!! Go spend money, filthy state!!" ...
And lets be honest - would such a reaction actually be irrational or rather considerate for the child and righteous in it's asking?

I'm not saying I know any of these things, no more than any other joker behind a keyboard does - but it's not exactly not making sense to rip that building down. Depends also on the damage inside - if it is financially sound to repair all that including other, older damage, instead of putting up a new thing.

You know how people are - there's symbolism involved as well - new beginning - the state, or rather some local politician who wants to capitalize from it in terms of publicity spends money for the surviving children, "does something", builds a new school, which is doable, financially, because of the much smaller size than the other places. It even enlivens the economy, the state building things - you see, where this is going, don't you?

Whatever you want to use as arguments, this one is not valid - yeah - it makes it hard for those who believe, they could dig up evidence which contradicts the official version. But this fact does in no way necessitate the assumption, that it was done to cover up. There are a bunch of fully sufficient other reasons easily imaginable. That seems to be problematic for some people, to just for some moments honestly take the official version as your basis, and then see, what would make sense, actually, and what not. Problematic why? Because it involves being open to the possibility of having been wrong, and finding out yourself, maybe even feeling the need to step down on publicly made claims. Naa - too dangerous for the ego...
Plus - to many people, sadly, a real tragedy is boring compared to a potential governmental conspiracy, esp. if you can shout "gun-grab", isn't it?

Yeah - it would make sense in your version, granted - makes just as perfect sense from the other base of reasoning, though!
You don't believe the story? Well - of course you won't like the fact - but it's not an argument in itself.

Just an after-thought - what about the conspiracy theorists potentially climbing all over the place, if it was still there, scaring the children?
Besides - the real coup here, if it was a hoax, which of course I don't believe, would have been coordinating and keeping silent (for life) hundreds of civilians, if not thousands - not to prep up a crime-scene, so that it looks realistic - that would have been the easiest part of it all...

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Why would they tear down an elementary school?

For one thing- do you think parents will want their kids going there and having to try to grasp that kids their age died being shot to death there? That's probably why- it's unattractive and unprofitable. There may be taxes involved- I don't know what people pay tax for over there, especially not something as specific as what the owner of a school would pay. Tearing it down would mean no taxes to be payed so that the operation doesn't bleed money like it would otherwise.

Contrast Columbine, a school where people were and are working, consuming alcohol, maybe even getting eachother knocked up. They have the mental capacity to deal with "oh, people my age die", and why things happened.

Should they tear down neighborhoods where elementary school kids were murdered? What about schools where kids died of diseases? What about parks where kids were murdered? What about malls where kids died of asthma attacks? Should children's cancer wards of hospitals be destroyed after some number of the kids die? What about entire hospitals?

This is Nancy Lanza's obituary. Who can tell me what is very strangely not mentioned in it?

Nancy J. Lanza Obituary: View Nancy Lanza's Obituary by Union Leader

Originally Posted by StephL

Gaaah - I don't want to get into this again - buut - makes sense to rather demolish a small elementary school, first because it's possible - it's small, maybe wasn't up to date anyway, building-wise. And - elementary school children are more likely to not get over the trauma, which they'll come to associate with the building. Maybe even right-out refusing to enter such a place ever again. With older students - you can appeal to their rationality, and they will understand this was a criminal/mentally ill person who did it - it's not connected with the place. The younger the children - the more irrational are also the parents, usually, when it comes to said children: "What?! I shall bring my precious child back to this place of terror!? WTF?!! Go spend money, filthy state!!" ...
And lets be honest - would such a reaction actually be irrational or rather considerate for the child and righteous in it's asking?

I'm not saying I know any of these things, no more than any other joker behind a keyboard does - but it's not exactly not making sense to rip that building down. Depends also on the damage inside - if it is financially sound to repair all that including other, older damage, instead of putting up a new thing.

You know how people are - there's symbolism involved as well - new beginning - the state, or rather some local politician who wants to capitalize from it in terms of publicity spends money for the surviving children, "does something", builds a new school, which is doable, financially, because of the much smaller size than the other places. It even enlivens the economy, the state building things - you see, where this is going, don't you?

Whatever you want to use as arguments, this one is not valid - yeah - it makes it hard for those who believe, they could dig up evidence which contradicts the official version. But this fact does in no way necessitate the assumption, that it was done to cover up. There are a bunch of fully sufficient other reasons easily imaginable. That seems to be problematic for some people, to just for some moments honestly take the official version as your basis, and then see, what would make sense, actually, and what not. Problematic why? Because it involves being open to the possibility of having been wrong, and finding out yourself, maybe even feeling the need to step down on publicly made claims. Naa - too dangerous for the ego...
Plus - to many people, sadly, a real tragedy is boring compared to a potential governmental conspiracy, esp. if you can shout "gun-grab", isn't it?

Yeah - it would make sense in your version, granted - makes just as perfect sense from the other base of reasoning, though!
You don't believe the story? Well - of course you won't like the fact - but it's not an argument in itself.

Just an after-thought - what about the conspiracy theorists potentially climbing all over the place, if it was still there, scaring the children?
Besides - the real coup here, if it was a hoax, which of course I don't believe, would have been coordinating and keeping silent (for life) hundreds of civilians, if not thousands - not to prep up a crime-scene, so that it looks realistic - that would have been the easiest part of it all...

Fair enough. .-.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Should they tear down neighborhoods where elementary school kids were murdered? What about schools where kids died of diseases? What about parks where kids were murdered? What about malls where kids died of asthma attacks? Should children's cancer wards of hospitals be destroyed after some number of the kids die? What about entire hospitals?

This is Nancy Lanza's obituary. Who can tell me what is very strangely not mentioned in it?

Nancy J. Lanza Obituary: View Nancy Lanza's Obituary by Union Leader

How are any of those equivalent? Deconstruct the concept of tearing down an elementary school that has been shot up. There is help in the posts above yours. Then deconstruct the ideas that you have. Mind you- you're asking should, not would. Completely different things and is a irrelevant enough tangent to not merit discussion. You're trying to (or at least seem to be trying to) figure out if this is an anomalous chain of events- not judge the morality of the tearing down of buildings. Additionally, arguing from incredulity is fallacious. Sort your shit, man.

No, I did not commit the argument from incredulity fallacy. I did not merely challenge people to imagine it. I used an analogy that illustrates a parallel involving things that in fact do not happen, ever. The rest of your post is pure sophistry. Explain in logical terms why the things I listed are not torn down. You didn't do that. Once you do, if you ever do, apply that reasoning to Sandy Hook Elementary.

Did you see where I posted Nancy Lanza's obituary? What is strangely not mentioned in it? Why might that be? Here it is again.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/uni...?pid=161892063

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I used an analogy that illustrates a parallel

No.

You used several comparisons that were flawed and not equivalent. Here, have one deconstructed. God forbid reflecting on what you post either before or after you've posted it. Especially not when encouraged to do so!

"What about malls where kids died of asthma attacks"
Asthma attacks are not violent crimes perpetrated by the mentally ill. While they both have the element of death, they are still apples and oranges. One lacks the element of violent crime.
Malls are not places where kids are expected to go every weekday for most of their childhood. They are apples and oranges.

I am not going to argue about the morality of tearing down buildings. I'm certainly not going to argue against fallacious arguments about, again, the silly supposed morality of tearing down a building.

But now you seem to have changed your question. You seem to be asking why one would (compare should) tear down this school. This has been adequately explained. Care to explain why one would not tear down this school? Or were you arguing from incredulity?

Fort hoot building where a shooting happened tore down. Fort Hood Announces Shooting Massacre Site To Be Demolished - KXXV-TV News Channel 25 - Central Texas News and Weather for Waco, Temple, Killeen |

This article explains the library where 10 people died in the Columbine shooting was torn down. A schoolhouse in PA where there was a shooting was torn down. And how after the Virginia Tech and Columbine shooting they spend millions renovating and remolding areas. Many Mass-Shooting Sites Have Been Renovated Or Torn Down « CBS New York

Took me like 5 seconds of googling to find multiple places that got torn down after shootings occurred. So we can just ignore your idea that you think there is no reason to tear down the building because we can easily prove that it happens all the time and is common.

Originally Posted by invalid

No.

You used several comparisons that were flawed and not equivalent. Here, have one deconstructed. God forbid reflecting on what you post either before or after you've posted it. Especially not when encouraged to do so!

"What about malls where kids died of asthma attacks"
Asthma attacks are not violent crimes perpetrated by the mentally ill. While they both have the element of death, they are still apples and oranges. One lacks the element of violent crime.
Malls are not places where kids are expected to go every weekday for most of their childhood. They are apples and oranges.

I am not going to argue about the morality of tearing down buildings. I'm certainly not going to argue against fallacious arguments about, again, the silly supposed morality of tearing down a building.

But now you seem to have changed your question. You seem to be asking why one would (compare should) tear down this school. This has been adequately explained. Care to explain why one would not tear down this school? Or were you arguing from incredulity?

How is violent crime a factor that alters the parallel? The things I listed are terrible things. It is the terrible nature of the situations that would make people not want to go to the sites of the terrible things. What makes violent crime so special? Mass cancer deaths just aren't bad enough?

Why not tear down a school? Uh, because it costs a fortune to build another one and it has tremendous nostalgic value to thousands of people.

My question was why they would tear down a school but not the other places I mentioned. You have yet to give an intelligent answer. You are having trouble with relevant parallels. Perhaps you skipped logic class a few times when they were being explained? I am not asking people to rely solely on imagination. I am illustrating a relevant parallel. Study up.

Originally Posted by Alric

Fort hoot building where a shooting happened tore down. Fort Hood Announces Shooting Massacre Site To Be Demolished - KXXV-TV News Channel 25 - Central Texas News and Weather for Waco, Temple, Killeen |

This article explains the library where 10 people died in the Columbine shooting was torn down. A schoolhouse in PA where there was a shooting was torn down. And how after the Virginia Tech and Columbine shooting they spend millions renovating and remolding areas. Many Mass-Shooting Sites Have Been Renovated Or Torn Down « CBS New York

Took me like 5 seconds of googling to find multiple places that got torn down after shootings occurred. So we can just ignore your idea that you think there is no reason to tear down the building because we can easily prove that it happens all the time and is common.

Oh, they changed some rooms. Wow. That is not the same as wiping out the entire campus. What an absurd thing to do, unless there is something to cover up.

I am going to ask this again because it keeps getting dodged. Why is Adam Lanza not mentioned in Nancy Lanza's obituary although Ryan Lanza is?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How is violent crime a factor that alters the parallel? The things I listed are terrible things. It is the terrible nature of the situations that would make people not want to go to the sites of the terrible things. What makes violent crime so special? Mass cancer deaths just aren't bad enough?

Perhaps you don't understand how a child would react differently to disease and illnesses in their neighborhood, and a shooting at their school. Perhaps you really believe that the two are equivalent and not incompatible.

But then why did they let the Alamo stand? Why did they not tear down Auschwitz? Or a burn ward? Terrible things have happened in those place, lots of people died. Exactly the same thing. Why on earth would people be so inconsistent when they're all equivalent? I mean it's the exact same thing!

I'm sorry, but I don't intend to reason with someone who does not understand reasoning. I don't know if you have an illness of some sort, but your conviction that there is something atypical with the case and your rejection of evidence of its typicality reminds me of an episode of Dr. Phil. I don't mean to insult you by saying this, not that you will believe me.

What about tornados and Earth quakes? If schools survive those but kids die in them, would tearing them down completely make sense? I love how you have picked this one issue to troll about while you ignore the vast sea of other holes on the story. That is trolling 101. I'm way past that level of knowledge. You are going to have to do better than this.

Also... Why is Adam Lanza not mentioned in Nancy Lanza's obituary although Ryan Lanza is?

After we cover that, I have about 100 more questions of equal magnitude you can bullshit about.

I do not argue with people who do not understand how to argue. It's a wasted effort. You were presented with reasons why one would (not what you were asking for in the first place) tear down a building like the one in question. You were presented more examples of similar events occurring. You then said that you do not accept those reasons and that the Sandy Hook shooting is anomalous. You did not show that the cases presented were anomalous (actually, you argue that because they tore something down, the case must be anomalous: "Oh, they changed some rooms. Wow. [...] What an absurd thing to do, unless there is something to cover up." This strays from mere fallacies to complete irrationality.). You also failed to prove any of the examples wrong. Thus, you have indeed committed the fallacy of arguing from incredulity. If you would owe up to this I'd be happy to reason with you. But for now, I'll settle for seeing if I can get you to recognize how you're not making much sense. At all. But I digress.

I admit that the section where I compare the "equivalent" places and events, it might be a tiny little bit muddy. I am aware sarcasm doesn't carry over very well to the internet, but arguing a burn ward and Auschwitz are the same... come on. You need to reflect over what you read. Just a little. This is why I think you might have a problem with reading comprehension. In case you can't reflect, here's a translation into plain text: Auschwitz, an unnamed burn ward, and the Alamo are not comparable. A/any burn ward is not necessarily a historical monument, nor related to war. People died for completely different reasons and in different ways in the Alamo compared to Auschwitz. They've torn down burn wards for reasons unrelated to the things that happened inside. They left Auschwitz standing because of the things that happened inside. So, to repeat myself- they're not the same. They are different.

And this is something you might have trouble coming to grips with, but... Places where terrible things happened get torn down or memorialized inconsistently and sometimes for the same reasons. Example? A building that partially collapsed because of unsound construction. Auschwitz. The prior torn down, the latter memorialized. One of the reasons in both cases? That "we don't want what happened here to happen again". Thus, it is not anomalous because it is being torn down. Hardly something that should take explaining in ordinary conversation, but you're an extraordinary case.

And buddy, if I were trolling you, you'd be shitting your pants with anger seeing how you're reacting right now. Trolling would something more akin to committing the same fallacy consistently and failing to recognize it (the old "I'm going to pretend I'm an idiot on the internet"). I'm poking fun at how you can't seem to grasp that you're not arguing logically, even when you get it explained to you. You, in spite of this fact, still seem humorously entitled to be taken seriously. This is the main reason I'm still here.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, they changed some rooms. Wow. That is not the same as wiping out the entire campus. What an absurd thing to do, unless there is something to cover up.

Umm yes it is, it is exactly the same thing. Those links I gave specifically gave examples of tearing down entire building, and large areas and specifically mention has it costs millions and millions of dollars. Don't say they wiped out the entire 'campus' as if it was some big deal. Sandy Hook is an elementary school for 450 children. Virginia tech has 31,000 students, Fort Hood has 54,000 soldiers/employees. In the case of Virginia tech and Fort hood they can't just demolish everything, so they demolish an entire building. However those buildings are as big as the elementary school's entire 'campus'.

These things are rare enough that your never going to find perfect examples of the exact same situation happening else where, however it appears that most mass shootings like this result in extensive renovations and many also involve tearing down the building. Seems like a pretty clear trend to me, so Sandy hook follows the trend. It isn't strange at all.

A mere building on a campus is not inherently the entire campus. 100% of the Sandy Hook campus was shut down and 100% of the large and complex building on it was torn down after it was shut down. That is absolutely absurd. They could have just torn down the classrooms, if that would even be necessary. How many of these places were completely torn down?

Category:School massacres in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Ele...School_bombing

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...ckton&safe=off

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...sboro&safe=off

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Now address my other issues.

Invalid, you are a sophistry oriented troll. If you want the fun to continue, you have to do three things. First, answer my question about Nancy Lanza's obituary. Then, make a list of what distinguishes Sandy Hook from all of the places where children were murdered but buildings are still standing. I mean get right to the point about the specifics of what makes it stand apart from all of the other places. Can you do that? Don't give me some long ass politician speech that is saying very little. Get to the point and stop playing hot air games. Make sure you see the list I gave Alric. Lastly, address at least two other issues I have raised in this thread, and get to the point on those too. If you aren't going to do that, you will need to play your dork troll games with somebody else.

Is anybody going to even attempt to answer my question about why Adam Lanza is not mentioned in Nancy Lanza's obituary but Ryan Lanza is? Do you admit that the situation is really fucked up? I say it is. If you keep dodging, it will further show that you agree with me. I'm not going to let you make this entire thread about why the school was torn down although Auschwitz, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Pearl, LAX, Bourbon Street, Poe Elementary School, Cleveland Elementary School, Bath Elementary School, and other such places remained standing and in operation. It is obvious that you are trying to dodge other issues and the big picture itself.

Check this out:

I already pointed out that it is a small school compared to those other places, and gave another example of how a small school was knocked down. As for your questions that is entirely irreverent to the topic at hand, there is a simple answer. You didn't read the obituary did you? It listed living relatives, and Adam isn't a living relative. Seems pretty simple right? It lists living relatives and he isn't living. OMFG, why isn't he listed with living relatives? What a conspiracy. Do I even need to explain the difference between someone being dead and being alive to you? People who are dead are not living, thus wouldn't be listed in a list of living relatives. Use some common sense for once in your life.

The truth is you went off the deep end and refuse to use anything even remotely resembling logic for any of your arguments. I already gave you a list of specific examples where building were torn down. Stop pretending they don't exist. No one ever made the claim that 100% of all buildings get torn down if a murder occurs in them, yet here you are claiming that since 100% of all buildings don't get torn down if even one of them gets torn down then it must be a conspiracy. There is absolutely no logic in your line of thinking once so ever. If you were thinking logically you would realize that some times buildings get torn down like in the example I gave, and some times they don't, like the examples you gave. Which means a building getting torn down isn't evidence of anything, since it is known to happen.

You nitpicking over part of a building or 100% of a building getting torn down is absurd and silly. If you had half a brain you would realize that it is determined on a case by case bases by the specific events and the amount of damage. And stop pretending an elementary school of 400 has a campus. You can maybe technically called it a campus but it obviously isn't a campus in the sense of what most people think of when they think of large schools and universities. You are comparing a small school to much larger areas. Of course you wouldn't tear down the entire campus for a 40,000 people school as easily as you would with tearing down a school for 400 people. It is 100 times larger. Use some common sense.

Originally Posted by Alric

The truth is you went off the deep end and refuse to use anything even remotely resembling logic for any of your arguments. I already gave you a list of specific examples where building were torn down. Stop pretending they don't exist. No one ever made the claim that 100% of all buildings get torn down if a murder occurs in them, yet here you are claiming that since 100% of all buildings don't get torn down if even one of them gets torn down then it must be a conspiracy.

Exactly what I said. But that's sophistery, you see. Either that or he didn't read it. Or understand it. So now shut up and take him seriously! Answer his questions! The colored text commands you!

Jesus, it's like he's trying to corrupt the rest of the internet with his web 1.0 time cube themed obnoxious formatting. OH GOD IT'S HAPPENING

Really? You have done the research and determined that Sandy Hook was so much smaller than the other elementary schools that it stood out as a special case? No matter how you try to spin this, throwing away entire institutions over kids' being murdered is a very rare thing. I said nothing about 100% of anything or that one exception to a principle proves the nonexistence of the principle. You are lying again. That's right, Alric. It's called lying. I am going to stress this again. Throwing away entire institutions over kids' being murdered is a very rare thing. This alone does not prove that Sandy Hook was a hoax, but it is what I keep saying about the zillions of other weird ass things about the hoax. It is another brick in the wall of the Twilight Zone. Do you recall my using that phrase? Did you understand what it meant the many times I did? If so, stop claiming that I am saying any of these pieces are smoking guns. I have not claimed that, aside from the piss poor acting that you just don't have the ability to notice no matter how obvious it is to others.

It's like a friend who lies all the time. You can't necessarily slam any one of his lies completely, but when you've heard more than 100 far fetched claims from him in one week, you know he's a fucking liar. Sandy Hoax works the same way. It's not about any one thing, though the laughable acting says it all by itself. It's about the conglomeration of the many, many WTF's. Do you finally get that? You've been extremely slow on that simple point. You have to understand that to understand the hoax theory. You have shown no sign that you do.

The obituary situation does not prove a conspiracy by itself either, and I have never said that it does. It's another WTF in a mountain of them. Obituaries tend to mention "pre-deceased" family members. Adam Lanza was a step above that. He DID survive Nancy, in the fiction story. He supposedly died a little while after she did. That is the kind of person an obituary mentions. It's another brick in the wall of the Twilight Zone. Are you starting to get the big picture a little bit yet? I will keep teaching the principle to you if you need me to. It doesn't seem hard to understand.

None of the stuff you mentioned even remotely points to the conclusions you are jumping to. Your nitpicking of silly, trivial things, all of which are easily explained. There isn't conglomeration of anything. You are looking for tiny things you think are incorrect and try to twist and bend them to create some sliver of down in people's minds in order to prove the conclusion you have already come to in your own mind without ever thinking about any of the issues objectively. All of the stuff you gave examples of, all of it, can easily be explained and are normal every day things. Lets go over all your 'evidence' shall we?

The obituaries happened to list surviving family members, Adan was dead so he wasn't listed. Simple answer. Your idea that he should of been listed as a surviving family member because he died a few hours after she did is pretty silly. He wasn't alive at the time it was written, so there was no reason to list him. Besides he is a crazy murderer. Even if it listed all his family members, dead and alive, which it doesn't, they might just leave him off because they don't want to be associated with him. Why do you jump to the most complex and convoluted reasons for things? The simple answers are the easiest.

I gave a link showing evidence that buildings get destroyed all the time when mass murder happens at them. You can cry and complain all you want, it happens, deal with it. You are simply denying reality here. I proved it happens and if it often happens then there is nothing fishy about it happening in this case.

You gave a ton of video 'evidence' that had minor glitchy image problems because when you download a video compress in a poor way and then upload it to youtube video degrades slightly so minor video glitches are common. None of this tiny glitches amount to a single damn thing. You are simply seeing what you want to see when there is nothing there.

You say the people don't cry in the videos because you can't see tears clearly in the videos. Yet they weep, sob, make crying sounds, sniff, have red faces, and their shoulders shake, their voices crack and they wipe their eyes. Simple answer here is that they are clearly crying but the tears simply don't show up well on video. I know you reject the idea of not being able to see transparent droplets of water on a person face from a distance in often poor quality videos, but your an idiot. They are clearly crying and of course it can be difficult to see actual individual tears on a video.

You said there was a lot of actors among the parents and I pointed out that, that simply wasn't true. You think singers and musicians are actors, but they are not, they are a separate skill set. If you include everyone who has ever sung, dance, played in a band, or been on stage in any manner what so ever as an actor, then of course you will find a lot of 'actors'. You have defined actors in such a huge board category that you can find a ton of actors no matter where you go. You made the definition so board you made your own argument pointless since statistically any school in the US will have a ton of actors for parents if you use that definition.

You said some people acted weird, but none of the people you said are weird are weird in a suspicious or conspiratorial manner. At worse they just had weird personality traits which is entirely irrelevant to the topic at had. Though most of those people are really not all that weird, and most of it is easily explained away by video editing to make people appear weird, or people just being nervous to be on camera.

You said a bunch of people wandered around a building all day to fool helicopters flying over the building taking video of the scene into thinking the people were actually there. This argument doesn't even make fucking sense. If you have a large group of people gathered to appear to look like a large group, then you don't need to make them walk around in circles. You don't have to do anything at all. They are a large group of people, by the very fact you have them all in one location they are going to look like a large group of people. As I explained the video was cut, edited and looped to make it appear they were going in circles but they weren't.

At some point I think you said there was no photos or something but there was photos of the smashed in front door and bullet holes in the walls and furniture inside the building. So that argument doesn't really hold up.

There was some lame argument about CNN or some big media group making a mistake and misreporting things. That happens all the time. The fact that some media group misreported something shouldn't be a shock to anyone. A bigger shock would be if the reported everything accurately the first time.

There was the things with the websites about the shooting having created dates prior to the shooting but that was easily explained. People just created the websites for other purposes, and then just deleted the page and changed it to being about the shooting.

There was that stuff with the photos but you just suck at picking people out in photos. I posted side by side photos in which the people you claim are identical don't look anything alike. You basically seem to think everyone of the same age range with the same color hair look alike. That can't be helped that you can't tell people apart, but you are simply wrong on this and it is obvious to people looking at the photos.

There was some silly thing about how children described gun shots as if there is some major difference between someone saying it sounds like pots falling or someone saying it was a loud bang like something fell. It pretty much came down to the sounds of a semi automatic rifle going off inside of a building and how well specific individuals could differentiate one shot from the other and recognizing it as gun fire. It would actually be far more suspicious if they described the gun shots exactly the same way, as that would hint that they were coached into giving a fake answer. However multiple accounts of hearing the same thing is slightly different ways is normal. It would be like if you had 3 witnesses and 1 said there was one shot, 1 said there was two shots close together and a third said he heard a car backfire. They are all describing the same situation but each have their own perspective and knowledge. Given it was children, that seems normal to me.

So there you have it. All that is easily explained. There isn't a million of weird things, there isn't even one or two hard to explain things, it is all easily explained. Some times the most simple and logical answer easily explains things and it only seems weird because your are coming with extremely convoluted ideas. The obituaries is the perfect example. My answer: It lists living relatives, Adam isn't living and so wasn't listed. Simple, easy, plausible, reasonable. What is your theory? Adam never existed so a person wrote the obituary forgot his name? Yet that person knew he didn't exist yet didn't tell the police or the media? So is the person who wrote it in on the conspiracy now? And if he was how could he forget Adam when he was making a fake obituary solely to cover up his existence? None of that makes any senses and is way overly complicated.

Oh boy. This guy. You're ~lying~ Alric! Unlike him using logical fallacies to try to twist the logic that reality adheres to in order to claim that tearing down the school makes it a hoax.

Oh and the zillion pieces of evidence pointing in his favor! The video compression artifact! People not crying! The guys who wrote the obituary did it with class and not in the autismal way I think it HAS to be!

Lets get back to this: Autism. Because for real, this guy is living in a world of his own, unwavered by facts. He says people aren't crying. Autism much? Judging the sincerity of someones reaction is just one of many social skills that people with autism have problems with. He's anal about how they SHOULD have done things, and cannot fathom that people would do it any other way. He can't grasp that it's natural to act "weird" in a situation like this. Has he never dealt with grief or something? Is he sheltered or is it just what seems to be autism spooking again, making him unable to apply his own experiences to others? But it's strange. And he certainly doesn't understand how childrens minds work either.

But then again, it could just be a case of paranoia and trying to reason backwards. As in "I believe this has happened, what evidence can I find for it?". Just like a creationist. Instead of looking at evidence of what has happened, "evidence" is fitted into what they believe has happened. But you're the only liar here, Alric. :^)

Universal I want you to do something for me. Please try this little exercise, I think it will greatly help our discussion. You made a huge deal about the obituary so clearly you thought about it. I want you to make a list of all the possible reasons you can think of, for why Adam wasn't mentioned in it. Write down everything you can think of, even absurd and silly ideas. Any possible reason you can think of at all, it doesn't matter what it is. Think of at least ten reasons. Then I want you two add two of them. 1. That Adam is a murderer and so the family wanted to distance them self from him. 2. It lists living relatives and Adam was dead at the time it was written. Add those to your list.

Now I want you to list the reasons you came up with in order, from the most likely and plausible reasons to the least likely or silly reasons. Then post what you came up with.