The Sandy Hook "conspiracy" and what they base it on

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

LOL, why, is there some reason it couldn't have been?

There is certainly a reason it wasn't.

What is truly LOL about your post is the amount of shit I've given you guys about "living in the land of possibility vs probability." Your post exemplifies it perfectly: "Well it COULD have happened!"

Yes, a conspiracy could have happened. But it didn't, and there's been ample evidence from the second it happened that a lone gunman shot a bunch of people because he was pissed off or a bad person or whatever, and the government had nothing to do with it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Yes, a conspiracy could have happened. But it didn't, and there's been ample evidence from the second it happened that a lone gunman shot a bunch of people because he was pissed off or a bad person or whatever, and the government had nothing to do with it.

What evidence? You mean the lack of video or audio evidence from inside the school? You mean all the conflicting news reports? You mean the armed tactical police officer hiding in the woods wearing camouflage who was already on the scene when the first responders arrived? You mean the oddly behaving "parents" who are all smiles in their interviews and statements? You mean the vague eyewitness accounts from scared children who don't quite seem to know what they saw and heard that day?

LOL, you don't have evidence, you have a phony narrative with more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. You claim the government wasn't involved, but you have no way of knowing or verifying that. It's True Believer talk, that's all.

Sorry, looks like false flag PSYOP to me, Operation Gladio-style.

[chompalot]

ChartsandGraft, you're about as funny as a Manti Te's collaborator(s).

[ChartsandGrafs]

Ah, the smell of butt-hurt government nutters in the morning!

[92gator]

Originally Posted by chompalot

ChartsandGraft, you're about as funny as a Manti Te's collaborator(s).

Invoking the Manti T'eo hoax to mock the conspiracy crowd?

That doens't really work. How many ppl. bought that story hook, line and sinker? (i.e.--virtually everyone). No one bothered to ask or inquire, dig or vet.... EVERYONE just took the story as it was served up....

...and the story has been proven to be complete BS (regardless of where you come out on whether Manti was complicit or not)--no G/F.

Even referencing the T'eo, serves to show that it isn't stupid to question and doubt the canned version of events served up in this case...

Especially not when the Pol'y Left gathers in lynch mob fashion, to attack the 2nd Amendment.

...(and doubly so, in wake of Fast & Furious debacle/cover-up).

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

Why would I deny it? It's been on the news, hasn't it? Assuming that the news reports are accurate, why the hell do you think I would deny it? Because I'm one of "them"?

You've exhibited confirmation bias on most everything else the media reports--figured to ask you directly.

Though now it brings up a second question of why you believe the media when they report the harassment of Sandy Hook victims and persons who've been interviewed by the media...and not their other reports on the matter.

I have explained as simply as I know how my position on the missing second adult survivor, specifically why I think a desire for privacy is not the answer. You did not respond to my reasoning, no one did, and now you pretend I've given no reason at all. If you want to pretend you can't read, that's your business.

That wasn't the question. If a person wishes to remain anonymous or private, then YOU have no right to demand they come forward.

Moreover, how do YOU know the media doesn't know the name of the individual already and is honoring their wishes by keeping silent?

--how do You know their lack of comment about this is "proof" of a conspiracy?

This is my last response to you, because your characterizations of me are false and insulting, and because I find you unpleasant as a poster, though you may in turn find that characterization of you to be false and insulting. You're welcome.

Hey, I'm just "asking questions" pal. I'd love to know which specific part of my post you found false or insulting so I can address it directly to confirm that I wasn't behaving as such--merely repeating the same words you have so often used on this board (and have plenty of links/posts to prove that as well).

But therein lies the problem with conspiracy thinkers. They demand and demand answers be provided to them. They demand that the official narrative stand up to exhaustive questioning.

When their narrative is questioned, they more often than not run away--like the cowardly FAU professor--who's been asked by many media outlets to give a public interview, but who has refused. You'd think that a person "interested in the truth" would want a public forum...but his continued refusals tells me he doesn't want to have to take hard positions on the inevitable questions that would be asked of him and his theories. Because such a narrative doesn't have supporting facts or evidence--just conjectures and endless "questions." Which is a fun game that can be played both ways, if one so desires.

Like my substituting "government" for "Disney" in many posts. If it's plausible that the government is a vast, evil conspiracy with hundreds (if not thousands) of dedicated sociopaths hell-bent on total power/control...well, it's also plausible for a corporation that already controls large swaths of the entertainment, media, and sports media markets to also be after total power/control. You (nor anyone else) couldn't sit here and say it was *impossible* to happen since you'd have no more proof than I do.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by 108

ugh, if only 9/11 happened on a Democrats watch

Yeah because then people on the Right would've come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories about it, right? Of course people on the Left are much more sensible and would never do anything like that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

You've exhibited confirmation bias on most everything else the media reports--figured to ask you directly.

Though now it brings up a second question of why you believe the media when they report the harassment of Sandy Hook victims and persons who've been interviewed by the media...and not their other reports on the matter.



That wasn't the question. If a person wishes to remain anonymous or private, then YOU have no right to demand they come forward.

Moreover, how do YOU know the media doesn't know the name of the individual already and is honoring their wishes by keeping silent?

--how do You know their lack of comment about this is "proof" of a conspiracy?



Hey, I'm just "asking questions" pal. I'd love to know which specific part of my post you found false or insulting so I can address it directly to confirm that I wasn't behaving as such--merely repeating the same words you have so often used on this board (and have plenty of links/posts to prove that as well).

But therein lies the problem with conspiracy thinkers. They demand and demand answers be provided to them. They demand that the official narrative stand up to exhaustive questioning.

When their narrative is questioned, they more often than not run away--like the cowardly FAU professor--who's been asked by many media outlets to give a public interview, but who has refused. You'd think that a person "interested in the truth" would want a public forum...but his continued refusals tells me he doesn't want to have to take hard positions on the inevitable questions that would be asked of him and his theories. Because such a narrative doesn't have supporting facts or evidence--just conjectures and endless "questions." Which is a fun game that can be played both ways, if one so desires.

Like my substituting "government" for "Disney" in many posts. If it's plausible that the government is a vast, evil conspiracy with hundreds (if not thousands) of dedicated sociopaths hell-bent on total power/control...well, it's also plausible for a corporation that already controls large swaths of the entertainment, media, and sports media markets to also be after total power/control. You (nor anyone else) couldn't sit here and say it was *impossible* to happen since you'd have no more proof than I do.

LOL, tl;dr!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by 92gator

Invoking the Manti T'eo hoax to mock the conspiracy crowd?

That doens't really work. How many ppl. bought that story hook, line and sinker? (i.e.--virtually everyone). No one bothered to ask or inquire, dig or vet.... EVERYONE just took the story as it was served up....

...and the story has been proven to be complete BS (regardless of where you come out on whether Manti was complicit or not)--no G/F.

Even referencing the T'eo, serves to show that it isn't stupid to question and doubt the canned version of events served up in this case...

Especially not when the Pol'y Left gathers in lynch mob fashion, to attack the 2nd Amendment.

...(and doubly so, in wake of Fast & Furious debacle/cover-up).

"But, but, but... that's different! The government wouldn't lie about something like Sandy Hook! They just wouldn't! They said so! Fast and Furious was a, uh, operation to, uh, you know, track guns! The government said so! You must repent!"

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

"But, but, but... that's different! The government wouldn't lie about something like Sandy Hook! They just wouldn't! They said so! Fast and Furious was a, uh, operation to, uh, you know, track guns! The government said so! You must repent!"

Would ten hail obama's suffice?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

LOL, tl;dr!

I get it...years upon years of obsessively listening to the Jonas brothers does immense damage to one's cognitive abilities. You've already mentioned your inability to read beyond 3-4 paragraphs and I've already factored it into my responses to you.

If you notice very carefully though, that response was to a different poster--so I was already figuring that it'd be "too much" for you to process, given your own admission that you don't read past 3-4 paragraphs.

Try classical music to improve memory and reading comprehension. Just a helpful tip.

[Spurffelbow833]

I have a question concerning reading comprehension and conspiracy debates. To wit, whose side of the 9/11 story got printed in comic book form? Does David Ray Griffin expect me to visualize everything he writes as I read it? How insensitive!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

I get it...years upon years of obsessively listening to the Jonas brothers does immense damage to one's cognitive abilities. You've already mentioned your inability to read beyond 3-4 paragraphs and I've already factored it into my responses to you.

If you notice very carefully though, that response was to a different poster--so I was already figuring that it'd be "too much" for you to process, given your own admission that you don't read past 3-4 paragraphs.

Try classical music to improve memory and reading comprehension. Just a helpful tip.

Oh dear, the stupid, it's face melting!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Spurffelbow833

I have a question concerning reading comprehension and conspiracy debates. To wit, whose side of the 9/11 story got printed in comic book form? Does David Ray Griffin expect me to visualize everything he writes as I read it? How insensitive!

That would be the government nutter side.

[bluelang]

this thread has proven that charts is still the indisputable Last Troll Standing title holder.

[ChartsandGrafs]

LOL, unless you believe whatever the government spoon-feeds you, you are a "troll".

If that's the standard, sign me up!