Tenured prof at FAU claims Sandy Hook shooting may not have happened

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Methinks thou doth protest too much. If my questions are so pointless and meaningless, why do you spend so much time and energy throwing up static against them? Besides, it's never worked for you before. Why do you think it will work now?

Go easy on the government worship, man. It's driving you batty.

Oh, I've long since reached the conclusion that you add "nothing to the forum" and that you're too hopeless to actually respond substantively to serious topics. But that doesn't mean you aren't entertaining in a childish sort of way. Kids really do say the darnedest things!

Thanks for proving me right on the other thing too by the way. Either you don't reach past 3 paragraphs or you don't wash your clothes. Pretty amusing, either way.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Oh, I've long since reached the conclusion that you add "nothing to the forum" and that you're too hopeless to actually respond substantively to serious topics.

LOL, says the guy who's trolling the thread. I'm actually focusing on the topic of the thread, while you're focusing on me. Remember, address the argument, not the poster.

Have some dignity, man. You're behaving like an owned man in this thread.

[gatorplank]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

I'm not following. Can you explain this viewpoint to me? Why would you be offended by my thinking outside the box and questioning the official story?

It's not like I am calling your mother names or something.

Well you are not calling his mother names, but you did kind of spit on his golden calf, the mother state, by insinuating that the mother state might just be corrupt down to the very rotten core.

You'd probably get a similar result if you started picking on Mary in front of a Catholic or picking on Mohammed in front of a Muslim.

[outbackjack]

Who knows? But IF the words Sandy Hook and Aurora are noticeably seen in Batman Dark Knight Rises...........which many claim that they are and point to the exact moment, well that's awfully perplexing.

[Emmitto]

Originally Posted by outbackjack

Who knows? But IF the words Sandy Hook and Aurora are noticeably seen in Batman Dark Knight Rises...........which many claim that they are and point to the exact moment, well that's awfully perplexing.

It's noted that you used a big IF there, appropriately. If they don't both appear in TDKR, but let's say there's a different movie with one of them in it, would it be more, less, or equally perplexing?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by gatorplank

Well you are not calling his mother names, but you did kind of spit on his golden calf, the mother state, by insinuating that the mother state might just be corrupt down to the very rotten core.

You'd probably get a similar result if you started picking on Mary in front of a Catholic or picking on Mohammed in front of a Muslim.

Where does this ridiculous argument come from, honestly?

I don't worship "the state"--I'm a practicing Catholic and blast the government all the time on these boards (along with most others). The government frequently is dishonest and/or misleading and I've no doubt MANY individuals at all levels of government (everyone from politicians to regular civil service workers) have engaged in *some* level of corruption at one point or another (even if it's something as minor or basic as gaming the system for extra benefits or hooking up friends/buddies with jobs/contracts).

Everything stated above is a fact/reality and there's ample evidence to prove that.

What there is NO evidence of is that there was corruption and/or lying going on in regards to the shooting at Sandy Hook. The evidence is pretty clear from the survivors of the tragedy (keep in mind, there were dozens of survivors and witnesses on the scene) that there *was* only one shooter, all the guns were recovered and matched the guns his mother owned, all the bullets were ones either he purchased or his mother did, and it's pretty clear by people who knew him (including his own family, relatives, and acquaintances) that he was an awkward loner.

If you can't come up with a SINGLE piece of evidence to contradict that, then it's probably a better idea to STFU. Not to stifle any free thought--to prevent yourself from looking like a complete and utter jackass. Idle speculation by nonsensical and inane "questions" with no supporting facts is wasted energy for everyone involved.

Being deliberately offensive for no other purpose than to gain attention is just plain childish and I have absolutely no problems calling a spade a spade on that one. If you started a thread asking for prayers for your mom because she was in a car accident and some a-hole comes in there wanting to "ask questions" about how many sexual partners she had in college to proffer a ridiculous theory about a jilted ex-bf coming back to deliberately cause the crash, I'm sure you'd react pretty negatively.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

LOL, says the guy who's trolling the thread. I'm actually focusing on the topic of the thread, while you're focusing on me. Remember, address the argument, not the poster.

That's funny, you'd almost think that you'd forgotten your ban for trolling.

I have addressed the argument. YOU have failed to provide a single piece of evidence or proof to support your claims--saying that's my job.

To which I've responded by asking you a bunch of nonsensical questions demanding you "prove me wrong, that's your job, I'm just an observer"--exactly what you've done in this thread and in others. I noticed you were ignoring most of them--which is precisely the reaction most people have when you allege something without proof or evidence and are trying to deliberately troll.

So if you don't like your own arguments/tactics used against you, I'd suggest being more honest when posting or reconsidering your posting style of "questions" without "facts"

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

That's funny, you'd almost think that you'd forgotten your ban for trolling.

LOL, that was just the cover story you were given.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

What there is NO evidence of is that there was corruption and/or lying going on in regards to the shooting at Sandy Hook.

LOL, of course there's no evidence. Government agencies controlled the investigation. If it was a false flag PSYOP, they're not going to allow the public to know about it. They would only release evidence supporting their cover story.

The evidence is pretty clear from the survivors of the tragedy (keep in mind, there were dozens of survivors and witnesses on the scene) that there *was* only one shooter, all the guns were recovered and matched the guns his mother owned, all the bullets were ones either he purchased or his mother did, and it's pretty clear by people who knew him (including his own family, relatives, and acquaintances) that he was an awkward loner.

I recall that you used to claim in the old 9/11 threads that the eyewitnesses at the World Trade Center who claimed to hear and witness explosions coming from underneath the lobby of the World Trade Center were mistaken. You used to say that they weren't credible and couldn't possibly know how to accurately identify what they witnessed as explosions. You even said this about the firemen who were there.

Well, I guess the same would apply here, wouldn't it? The witnesses and survivors at Sandy Hook were badly traumatized that day. Many of them were running for their lives, hiding in closets, covering their faces, and crying. As such, I don't think they are credible witnesses. They certainly wouldn't have been able to identify if the shooter had been programmed using MK-ULTRA techniques by government jackals. After all, an MK-ULTRA mind controlled assassin would look just like any crazy person on a lot of drugs. How would they know the difference? They wouldn't.

Point rejected.

If you can't come up with a SINGLE piece of evidence to contradict that, then it's probably a better idea to STFU.

LOL, there's nothing to contradict. You have no evidence. Your official story is entirely dependent on, "because the government said so", and that's not going to work here.

The word of your Government Gods does NOT constitute evidence.

Not to stifle any free thought--to prevent yourself from looking like a complete and utter jackass. Idle speculation by nonsensical and inane "questions" with no supporting facts is wasted energy for everyone involved.

You should know. After all, you're idly speculating that the government told the truth about what happened and carried out a thorough and credible investigation. The reality is, you don't know if that actually happened. You think you do, but you really don't.

Being deliberately offensive for no other purpose than to gain attention is just plain childish and I have absolutely no problems calling a spade a spade on that one. If you started a thread asking for prayers for your mom because she was in a car accident and some a-hole comes in there wanting to "ask questions" about how many sexual partners she had in college to proffer a ridiculous theory about a jilted ex-bf coming back to deliberately cause the crash, I'm sure you'd react pretty negatively.

That's great and all, but nobody in this thread is affiliated with Sandy Hook. Nobody in this thread is a family member of any of the victims. As such, your playing of the "insensitive to the victims" card is just pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Admit it, you're trying to stifle discussion. There's no other possible explanation for your behavior here. Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

[rivergator]

There's really no sense in arguing with people who claim that everything, no matter how witnessed or documented, is misinformation created by the govt/media conspiracy. Their argument requires no evidence, no analysis, just a constant repetition of their base belief.
Of course, it's hard to say if it is really a belief, or just something to say to get a reaction on a message board.

[DowntownGator]

http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/01...on-of-tragedy/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12...ti-gun-psy-op/

Say what you want, but this guy lying about his daughter being killed at Sandy Hook and then getting congratulated by Obama for it is outrageous (also, why are they all laughing and joking and all smiles in the midst of this a tragedy where so many innocents were killed):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...v=eHv_RhVgfUQ#!

[rivergator]

nm

[PSGator66]

He should be fired immediately and lose his teachin certificate!

[llm85]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

If Beck or Limbaugh proposed the same thing, the righties here would believe it without question.

Someone has finally jumped the shark.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by rivergator

There's really no sense in arguing with people who claim that everything, no matter how witnessed or documented, is misinformation created by the govt/media conspiracy. Their argument requires no evidence, no analysis, just a constant repetition of their base belief.
Of course, it's hard to say if it is really a belief, or just something to say to get a reaction on a message board.

Ironically enough, in a lot of these instances, the people who do shoot up schools and other public areas spend a lot of time reading conspiracy theory websites and getting themselves worked up in a frenzy against "society" and how "people won't listen/understand." It gives themselves comfort for their loneliness and, in some instances, gives them a purpose too: to get revenge and "make" society understand them and their views.

I'm sure the vast majority of internet conspiracy theorists are really just attention-seeking narcissists--but hard to deny that many of them get their minds warped in utter nonsense and lose track of reality, enabling them to do such horrific acts.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by DowntownGator

http://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/01...on-of-tragedy/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12...ti-gun-psy-op/

Say what you want, but this guy lying about his daughter being killed at Sandy Hook and then getting congratulated by Obama for it is outrageous (also, why are they all laughing and joking and all smiles in the midst of this a tragedy where so many innocents were killed):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...v=eHv_RhVgfUQ#!

People are really claiming that one of the little girls who was killed really wasn't?

[92gator]

As wacked out as this prof's theory is....it actually makes more sense than what actually happened.

...or what was reported to have happened, anyway.

As Mark Twain famously quipped: "Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction...because fiction has to make sense.

[92gator]

@ charts:

We're the child witnesses in on the conspiracy?

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

I suspect that'll be his defense later on--but it's likely a dishonest one. Remember, FAU is pointing out to everyone he made these comments on his own website--a blog he uses to peddle his conspiracy nonsense--NOT in an academic forum.

I don't think one can reasonably assume that they are indisputably separate. It's not like a professor assumes two mutually exclusive roles that cannot be tied together (in-character as a professor, out-of-character off the clock). If you post something that your students have access to, then it is reasonable assume that that is potentially relevant to your role as an instructor. We've seen in the past teachers get penalized for posting derogatory comments (even generically) about their students and get penalized for it. So we know there is at least some expectation of carry-over between the two roles.

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Critical thinking is an excellent gift and should be encouraged...but, like anything, it can be abused. This is an excellent example.

The term "abuse" implies damage. There is no damage here.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

I don't think one can reasonably assume that they are indisputably separate. It's not like a professor assumes two mutually exclusive roles that cannot be tied together (in-character as a professor, out-of-character off the clock). If you post something that your students have access to, then it is reasonable assume that that is potentially relevant to your role as an instructor. We've seen in the past teachers get penalized for posting derogatory comments (even generically) about their students and get penalized for it. So we know there is at least some expectation of carry-over between the two roles.

Fair enough--there will always be some carry-over between the roles of university professor and private blogger...but I think you can recognize that the guy did it in a non-academic forum for a reason.

The term "abuse" implies damage. There is no damage here.

Not to you or I personally--but don't you think it's damaging to the victims of this tragedy and their families?

Don't we as a society have a duty to give an accurate accounting of events for future generations? And that clouding the truth with fantastical and completely unproven allegations could potentially be damaging to history later on?

I posted a hypothetical on here earlier--and one that, as a mod, would be partly your decision to adjudicate by the rules of the site: say a person comes on here asking for prayers for their mother who was in a car accident. Another poster wanders into the thread asking the OP about the mother's sexual history--telling the OP not to "believe the crash report--it was written by a police officer and the government ALWAYS lies. This is probably done by an ex-lover of hers." What would you do: let the guy continue to ask question after question about the mother's sexual history--or delete the posts and/or ban the "questioning" poster?