Sandy Hook Conspiracy

There doesn't seem to be enough benefits for all the people who would have to corroborate the story?

I can't see the point in this conspiracy.
I don't know how many would have to corroborate the story or who it benefits or why . . . But the details are very, very strange. Again, I don't know what that means . . . But, in my opinion, something's being covered up and there's a whole host of lies . . .
 
Last edited:
I don't know how many would have to corroborate the story or who it benefits or why . . . But the details are very, very strange. Again, I don't know what that means . . . But, in my opinion, something's being covered up and there's a whole host of lies . . .

It wouldn't surprise me if something had been covered up, but I don't think the actual shooting was a hoax.
 
Who would such an op benefit and how?
What would be the logistics involved in coordinating the op and is the who likely to have that ability?

Gun control advocates.

The secret powers running the world from the shadows have the power to stage such a hoax. They would find it easer to oppress and exploit sheeple who are disarmed.

Search: "sandy hook conspiracy debunked"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=sandy hook conspiracy debunked&btnG=Google Search&gbv=1

Your comprehensive answer to every Sandy Hook conspiracy theory
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/your_comprehensive_answer_to_every_sandy_hook_conspiracy_theory/
 
Last edited:
This Sandy Hook-conspiracy theory - can someone give me a compressed version of what, and why, they are covering something up, or staging something? I don't get it really.

Concering why they would cover something up: I don't know. True, some people who are against gun control say that it was staged to enact gun control. I don't think so, though. All I know is that the questions that ought to be answered aren't. And they're simple questions, mainly involving protocol or following normal precedents . . . and the manner in which it all appears seems to me to suggest a considerable cover-up. Did you watch (listent to) the video? Or check out the link to any degree?
 
Gun control advocates.

The secret powers running the world from the shadows have the power to stage such a hoax. They would find it easer to oppress and exploit sheeple who are disarmed.

Search: "sandy hook conspiracy debunked"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=sandy hook conspiracy debunked&btnG=Google Search&gbv=1

Your comprehensive answer to every Sandy Hook conspiracy theory
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/your_comprehensive_answer_to_every_sandy_hook_conspiracy_theory/

None of this addresses any of the issues raised in the interview posted in the OP. Did you even listen to it?

Of course, if you feel the desire to respond to this comment, make sure not to reply directly, but rather just post a vaguely relevant link underneath it somewhere...

Please.
 
Concering why they would cover something up: I don't know. True, some people who are against gun control say that it was staged to enact gun control. I don't think so, though. All I know is that the questions that ought to be answered aren't. And they're simple questions, mainly involving protocol or following normal precedents . . . and the manner in which it all appears seems to me to suggest a considerable cover-up. Did you watch (listent to) the video? Or check out the link to any degree?

Didn't Gabrielle Giffords and her husband visit Newtown afterwards to express sympathies and discuss their desire for tighter gun controls? Was she snowed, or was there anything documented in how they realized it was much ado about nothing? Or, would the suggestion be they were in on it? (disclaimer: scanned the article and did not watch the vid)

So (fwiw) at the time of the (alleged?) tragedy-event, there was a poster on batgap ('Mike' I think?) a regular. He said he lived in Newtown and how the community was totally devastated. I had just assumed it was legit. I tried to find the comment but it looks like batgap has changed the comment structures.

It seems we generally accept crazy-human-shit when someone 'snaps' or if there is sensible motive. Still don't get what the motive would be. The article was very hand-wavy over that. Bilk millions$$ out of sympathy and fear-monger? I dunno.

Anyway. If panties are in a wad about it, why not get over to CT and do a little investigation in-person? It's not like trying to determine if Jesus was a hoax.
 
Do you mean the shooting most likely occurred and was not a hoax- as opposed to-- it did not occur, and thus was a hoax? Could the shooting have been real, but also have been a hoax?

More like there may have been a second shooter or someone who was at the scene really fucked up - like they tried to shoot Lanza but shot one of the kids by accident.

Not saying anything like this happened but I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me. The idea that it was all a stunt to promote gun control makes absolutely no sense to me.
 
More like there may have been a second shooter or someone who was at the scene really fucked up - like they tried to shoot Lanza but shot one of the kids by accident.

Not saying anything like this happened but I'm saying it wouldn't surprise me. The idea that it was all a stunt to promote gun control makes absolutely no sense to me.

I agree. The idea of a grand conspiracy makes little sense to me. First of all, an armed population matters not at all in terms of authoritarian control. Small arms are no match for a modern military. And the bigger picture here is that if you do need that level of control to subdue your population, you've already lost.

A conspiracy theory is only really useful if billions of dollars are at stake because nothing motivates evil behavior quite like the combination of big money and big power. 9/11 falls into that category, but not Sandy Hook.
 
Back
Top