Thread: Was Sandy Hook a Hoax?

Originally Posted by Chimpertainment

The reason I say I worry for the mental and emotional health of someone who would believe Sandy Hook is a hoax is as follows. There are plenty of ways to debunk the myths of government conspiracy, and that is obvious to see. What is not as clear, are the motivations behind those who claim these conspiracies to be real.

Fact is not on their side; knowledge is missing. So what motivates someone to claim this as real if they have no reasonable explanation?

These are simple diversions; the construction of an alternative reality, replacing the unbearable truth. What is easier, remove and dissociate yourself from truth through elaborate illogical smoke screens, or face the reality that someone can walk into any school in any town to kill anybody's children? Which outcome causes more fear, and which cause of the event demands more control? If the event demands more control, its easier to swallow because then there is something clear to blame. What can we blame when teenagers walk into their own school and blow away their classmates?

Whats the cause and effect when emotion overpowers every other mental faculty. Those other mental pieces begin following the emotion.

This paranoia will probably always exist and its a good reminder to keep level headed. Otherwise you may end up turning dead bodies into talking points.

Also...Lets look at the real genocides in the world. The unrest in Africa precipitated by colonialism, endless wars against invisible "terrorist" enemies, the decimation of natural resources and essential creatures of the environment, the Native population of the Americas, the mass slaughters of people all over the world by inflated despots and tyrants. Address the real problems of humanity and society, instead of wasting time creating elaborate smoke screens.

The real issue with conspiratards is that they often WANT their hoax theories to be true. It fits their worldview that there is a super secret group of powerful men running the world committing atrocities and subsequently covering them up. Of course that makes no sense, because if such a group were powerful enough to pull off said atrocities with ease, they're awful as covering themselves up. So awful that bored teenagers can make YouTube videos detailing their discovery of the alleged slip-ups.

If you watch a conspiracy video with the aim to prove that those who make it or question it or simply idiots - then youre being biased. Don't make the need to prove or disprove a conspiracy about you. This has nothing to do with whatever belief you do or don't have about the world.

Unless you're ready to question everything then you aren't ready to question at all.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The real issue with conspiratards is that they often WANT their hoax theories to be true. It fits their worldview that there is a super secret group of powerful men running the world committing atrocities and subsequently covering them up. Of course that makes no sense, because if such a group were powerful enough to pull off said atrocities with ease, they're awful as covering themselves up. So awful that bored teenagers can make YouTube videos detailing their discovery of the alleged slip-ups.

I could just as easily say that you are in complete denial and being intellectually dishonest, which I think you are. Your characterization of conspiracy theorists involves the hasty generalization fallacy. I have never once said I believe in the shadow government/Illuminati (except years ago when I was playing games with Mystic7) or world control by elites. I don't rule it out, but what I know is that the U.S. government has gotten way too powerful and that big government is inherently corrupt. It is very capable of pulling large scale conspiracies for corrupt purposes. Guess what else. It has happened... a lot! Since you claim to be an anarchist, I am surprised at your denial of how insanely corrupt government can be. You have a bizarre trust of government and media for somebody who says he thinks government is so rotten that we shouldn't even have one. I don't expect you to be convinced that there was a Sandy Hook conspiracy, but you have not expressed even the slightest hint at surprise over any of the stuff I have posted that is at least sort of weird. You haven't suggested that it is even possible that the government might have at least coached a few family members of victims into speaking for gun control since the Second Amendment is obviously under major attack by the Obama Administration, which I am sure you would admit.

I posted this for Chimpertainment earlier, and I'm not sure if you saw it. Look at this list of conspiracies and tell me in seriousness that none of them ever actually happened. Will you do that?

CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE: List of Proven Conspiracies - from Wikipedia

Now, if you do admit that at least one of those really did happen, does that make you a "conspiratard" who wants it to be true and who believes in the Illuminati? Tell me.

The government is often corrupt, and they do a lot of stupid things at times. I wouldn't really be surprised by anything they did. That said all the evidence seems to support the official story in the incident of the sandy hook shooting, and the government was not involved. Honestly I don't think any of the stuff you posted even remotely hints at anything unusual happening. Most of it you claim is odd behavior but I honestly find it all normal and I have seen it before, so I don't count that as evidence of anything nor do I find it at all suspicious.

Do false news reports, contradictory accounts, impossible document information, impossible web page dates, and complete absences of information and evidence count as "odd behavior?"

There is only a few contradictory accounts and reports and they are from people gossiping, and from chaotic situations often being chaotic at the start. After a little time went by everyone was on the same page as all the facts came out. It is normal for there to be some chaos though. As explained several times the web dates are easily explains.

The truth is usually somewhere between the extremes - in this case the extremes of totally believing conspiracy theorist videos or totally believing the mass media official story.

And as for making dead bodies into talking points, that was done immediately by media and politicians. This is another incident that was instantly politicized.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I could just as easily say that you are in complete denial and being intellectually dishonest, which I think you are. Your characterization of conspiracy theorists involves the hasty generalization fallacy. I have never once said I believe in the shadow government/Illuminati (except years ago when I was playing games with Mystic7) or world control by elites. I don't rule it out, but what I know is that the U.S. government has gotten way too powerful and that big government is inherently corrupt. It is very capable of pulling large scale conspiracies for corrupt purposes. Guess what else. It has happened... a lot! Since you claim to be an anarchist, I am surprised at your denial of how insanely corrupt government can be. You have a bizarre trust of government and media for somebody who says he thinks government is so rotten that we shouldn't even have one. I don't expect you to be convinced that there was a Sandy Hook conspiracy, but you have not expressed even the slightest hint at surprise over any of the stuff I have posted that is at least sort of weird. You haven't suggested that it is even possible that the government might have at least coached a few family members of victims into speaking for gun control since the Second Amendment is obviously under major attack by the Obama Administration, which I am sure you would admit.

I posted this for Chimpertainment earlier, and I'm not sure if you saw it. Look at this list of conspiracies and tell me in seriousness that none of them ever actually happened. Will you do that?

CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE: List of Proven Conspiracies - from Wikipedia

Now, if you do admit that at least one of those really did happen, does that make you a "conspiratard" who wants it to be true and who believes in the Illuminati? Tell me.

You missed this post earlier in the thread:

I'd like to point out the difference between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory." Conspiracies happen in the real world, and often we find out about them. No one can deny that.

Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, never come to fruition and are never rigorously verified. What few factoids are involved, they are diluted by sloppy logic, confirmation bias, poor research, and paranoia. Conspiracy theories are homeopathic.

Since you claim to be an anarchist, I am surprised at your denial of how insanely corrupt government can be. You have a bizarre trust of government and media for somebody who says he thinks government is so rotten that we shouldn't even have one. I don't expect you to be convinced that there was a Sandy Hook conspiracy, but you have not expressed even the slightest hint at surprise over any of the stuff I have posted that is at least sort of weird.

Because they all have reasonable explanations that don't require assuming they were coached, or that the whole thing was faked to push an agenda. Has it been used to push an agenda? Undoubtedly. But was it faked? No. It happened. Children and faculty died because of a deranged young man. Often times I think conspiracy theorists just don't want to recognize that there are fucked up people out there doing fucked up things by their own will. So they invent esoteric cabals to explain away their frustrations.

There is a massive difference between maintaining a certain level of distrust for the government and thinking they're behind every tragic event. Libertarians often get a bad rap for either associating with or actually being conspiracy theorists. A good percentage of the rabid Ron Paul followers are also disciples of Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones. I'm not going to be one of them. I'm introducing skepticism into these matters to get to the truth. If it leads me to think that the government wasn't actually behind it, so what? Does that mean I have a bizarre trust of government and the media? Not in the slightest.

It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are the statists. Through their theories, they tacitly presume that a government that did everything openly and democratically would be A-OK. But philosophical libertarians understand (yes, understand) that the most evil things that governments do are out in the open: taxation, war, fiat currency, fiat laws, etc. Presumably, conspiracy theorists would have no problem with any of these things.

Furthermore, they seem to be implying a level of competence that libertarians don't believe the government has. The government is a giant, bumbling collection of idiots, not a secret cabal of master spies. The scary truth that conspiracy theorists can't bear to face: The president really is in charge of the government. People really do just go along with him and his lackeys. It's that simple, and that scary.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You missed this post earlier in the thread:

I'd like to point out the difference between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory." Conspiracies happen in the real world, and often we find out about them. No one can deny that.

Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, never come to fruition and are never rigorously verified. What few factoids are involved, they are diluted by sloppy logic, confirmation bias, poor research, and paranoia. Conspiracy theories are homeopathic.

So you admit that government conspiracies have existed. Well, when they did and, in some cases, after they did, some people believed in their existence while the masses didn't. The people who had those beliefs then were conspiracy theorists, and they were correct. Right?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Because they all have reasonable explanations that don't require assuming they were coached, or that the whole thing was faked to push an agenda. Has it been used to push an agenda? Undoubtedly. But was it faked? No. It happened. Children and faculty died because of a deranged young man. Often times I think conspiracy theorists just don't want to recognize that there are fucked up people out there doing fucked up things by their own will. So they invent esoteric cabals to explain away their frustrations.

Perhaps so, but there are many issues that have not been resolved. I have beaten those dead horses a lot in this thread. Everything you have said when you addressed those issues directly has been to the effect of, "Well, this possible scenario I thought of might have been the case. This other thing might possibly have happend." You need to take a few steps back from it and think about the big picture that has been formed. It is outrageously far fetched. Far fetched is not the same as impossible, but it's fucking crazy. Would you at least acknowledge that? I don't think the hoax claim has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but I do think it has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. That means it has a greater than 50% chance of being true. And I am absolutely baffled by people who won't admit that there is something at least a little weird about the official story.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

There is a massive difference between maintaining a certain level of distrust for the government and thinking they're behind every tragic event. Libertarians often get a bad rap for either associating with or actually being conspiracy theorists. A good percentage of the rabid Ron Paul followers are also disciples of Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones. I'm not going to be one of them. I'm introducing skepticism into these matters to get to the truth. If it leads me to think that the government wasn't actually behind it, so what? Does that mean I have a bizarre trust of government and the media? Not in the slightest.

I think you have been coming here long enough to know that I don't think the government has been behind every tragic event. Skepticism is great, but yours goes only in one direction, and it's pro-government, surprisingly. For example (one among many), you accept the claim that Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter like gospel, but you don't acknowledge the mysteriousness surrounding that claim. The mainstream media says it, you believe it, and that's the end of it. Don't you think it's maybe just a tiny bit bizarre that the school had a very high tech security system with cameras, bullet proof glass, and the need to ring a doorbell to get into the building, yet Lanza got into the school while class was in session and no picture of him at the school has ever been shown to the public or even said to exist by officials? There are no bullet holes in the BULLET PROOF glass. The media reported that he shot a window out, but other media reported that police said there was no broken glass. People in the town said he was completely off the radar for the past three years. That all together is fucked up. Do you see where I am coming from on that? At least I have admitted that your idea of what happened is plausible but not probable.

As for Alex Jones, he is a great entertainer who does make a lot of good points, and I love that he is bringing so much attention to how fucked up things have gotten, but he is a sensationalist who exaggerates. He said on Howard Stern that the build up of Prozac in the ocean is causing shrimp to commit suicide and that the placing of estrogen releasing chemicals in the plastic containers of certain juices turns kids gay and gets in the waters and results in bisexual fish. I am nowhere near that page. However, our government has gotten way too big, intrusive, and untrustworthy. I am skeptical about everything they say. Are you?

Originally Posted by cmind

It seems to me that conspiracy theorists are the statists. Through their theories, they tacitly presume that a government that did everything openly and democratically would be A-OK. But philosophical libertarians understand (yes, understand) that the most evil things that governments do are out in the open: taxation, war, fiat currency, fiat laws, etc. Presumably, conspiracy theorists would have no problem with any of these things.

Government is more corrupt than incompetent, but they are horribly incompetent at doing their jobs while maintaining their corruption. Do you know what I mean? They crave power and control, and in having that, they can't keep the economy stable because extreme government control cannot achieve a stable economy. It harms it majorly. They can't control drugs without having a police state, which we don't quite have yet although many of the chess pieces have been positioned. Etc. It doesn't mean nobody in the government is highly intelligent. Tons of geniuses are in the government. They can pay off some people and pull off a media hoax. It's not rocket science, though that is something our government is majorly bad ass at. It's just a matter of being really corrupt and dishonest.

I live in a city where the local government is so corrupt that it might hold the national record for city corruption, though nearby New Orleans is pretty major competition. Our new mayor-elect, who will be inaugurated on Monday, is a racial separatist who hates white people and wants to move all of the black people into their own nation called The Republik of New Africa. One of our recent mayors owned the local NBC affiliate and was the head of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics (MBN). He became mayor by getting on the news on a regular basis (because he owned WLBT) and talking in a very convincing way about his attitude about being really tough on crime. As it turned out, he was also a drug kingpin. He became head of the MBN so he could take down his competition. He was having them arrested left and right. He handled one of his rivals by sending cops to demolish the rival's house. It is things like that which have made me very mistrusting of government.

Simple question: How did Adam Lanza get into the school building?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Government is more corrupt than incompetent, but they are horribly incompetent at doing their jobs while maintaining their corruption. Do you know what I mean?

I'm not sure what you mean by "corrupt". This is a word that has been so abused over the years that it has lost an objective meaning. Let me just ask you a question: is it possible for a hypothetical government to be "non-corrupt", and would you be happy to give 40% of your income to them?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Simple question: How did Adam Lanza get into the school building?

He shot the door open and broke in. As mentioned before there is always some confusion right after big events like this, and some did think he was let in by someone in the building at first but it has long been confirmed that he did in fact shoot his way in.

Originally Posted by Alric

He shot the door open and broke in. As mentioned before there is always some confusion right after big events like this, and some did think he was let in by someone in the building at first but it has long been confirmed that he did in fact shoot his way in.

He shot his way through the door? What was the door made of? If you watch the very end of the video I posted, you will hear the Fox News reporter saying in regard to the claim that Lanza shot out glass, "That is not the case, based on what police are telling us here in Newtown."

Originally Posted by cmind

I'm not sure what you mean by "corrupt". This is a word that has been so abused over the years that it has lost an objective meaning. Let me just ask you a question: is it possible for a hypothetical government to be "non-corrupt", and would you be happy to give 40% of your income to them?

You don't know what "corrupt" means?

cor·rupt
/kəˈrəpt/
Adjective
Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

I don't think it is realistically possible for a government to be completely without corruption, but I also think that there is a major correlation between a government's level of corruption and its level of power.

All governments have some level of corruption, as all populations do, but there is a major correlation between a government's level of corruption and its level of power. I pay taxes because it's the law and there's not really any way around it for people who are in touch with reality, but I would not be "happy" about giving 40% of my income to a government. It's not a producer of positive emotions. How is this relevant?

It was a glass door. So he did shoot out the glass. That part is correct.

The news report said the police reported to them that the glass was not shot out. It's at the very end of the last video I posted.

And it is wrong, it was shot out.

Originally Posted by Alric

And it is wrong, it was shot out.

So many wrong news stories. It's just one after another. Path of very simple information: Police/feds --> reporters --> public... FAIL time and time again for the world's biggest news story (months ago) which has an extremely long list of Twilight Zone elements. There's something funny going on around here, folks.

It actually isn't all that surprising at all. In big breaking events they rush to get information as quick as possible and so don't check sources as well as they should, in favor of getting a scoop. Which causes errors. There isn't anything unusual about it at all, and pretty much all of it was clarified shortly after.

Originally Posted by Alric

It actually isn't all that surprising at all. In big breaking events they rush to get information as quick as possible and so don't check sources as well as they should, in favor of getting a scoop. Which causes errors. There isn't anything unusual about it at all, and pretty much all of it was clarified shortly after.

That doesn't explain how a simple statement of fact coming directly from the police, federal officials, or a school nurse gets botched. Being in a hurry to tell a story isn't going to make you say, "The coach of the Saints told me the Saints won the Super Bowl," when really he said they lost, or he didn't tell you anything about the Super Bowl and instead told you he went fishing on Lake Ponchartrain. I don't see how being in a hurry throws that off, especially when your credibility on the world stage and therefore your job standing will be affected by what you say.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How is this relevant?

Go back and understand my original point. Conspiracy theorists decry the "corruption" of the government, which implies that a "non-corrupt" government would be totally fine. I'm saying that the primary atrocities committed by government are not due to corruption. Taxation, for example, is not due to corruption as most people would define it. Yet threatening to put someone in a cage for years (or kill them if they resist) if they don't hand over their money is about as evil as evil gets.

Your argument simply makes no sense.

YOU are the one defining what a non-corrupt government means but you're being tricksy - because it turns out your definition is false and it is still a corrupt. You then falsely assume that all conspiracy-theorists apply to this definition and are therefore magically wrong for applying to your made up false definition of a non-corrupt government (which according to you is still technically corrupt)

You said "primary atrocities committed by government are not due to corruption". If its an atrocity, then its corruption.

The problem is youre confusing corruption with conspiracy. Corruption simply means a bunch of greedy men taking advantage of loopholes, therefore corruption can be entirely legal yet entirely morally wrong.

Conspiracy on the other hand is a deliberate covert action involving two or more parties. When corruption adds up and is connected in ways it shouldn't be, then you have a conspiracy.

Let's just hold up a second.

Yes, there are inconsistencies with news reports and eyewitness accounts, and yes, some of the children's families seem to be not as sad as one might expect, but what could anyone gain from this?

I would say that it's a given that children and adults were murdered, but what would drive someone to do that, and then frame Lanza? There is no motive here for anyone but Lanza. He seemed mentally unstable and he was apparently suicidal, so he decided to take some people with him. If say, it was a government job and they framed Lanza, what would've they accomplished?

In most murder cases, they start asking questions about people who would have had a motive to kill the victim. This is why ex-partners or close family are always investigated first. Lanza's motives here look pretty clear, if not horrifically unneeded. If anyone can think of someone else who would gain from this, please explain your theories. And lets not have the "the Government is trying to terrorize the US into submission" argument, unless you have very good reasons for it.