It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Releases Heavily Blacked Out Sandy Hook Records

page: 9
55
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on May, 4 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BillN
We VOTED to have the school razed. The parents are real and the trauma is real.

Let me get this straight, you logged into an account which has not been used in literally over a decade, to tell us ^this?

How impressively strange…

 

Well, to whoever you are—despite your proximity to Newtown—you did not ‘vote’ to have the school razed.

And if you were from Newtown, I would have to conclude that you did not read your referendum ballot because:
There was never a vote on whether or not to have the Sandy Hook Elementary School razed.

The October 5th referendum was on whether or not to accept a no-strings-attached grant of $50,000,000 from the State of Corrupticut for the purposes of building a brand-new, high-tech school to replace the one which the town didn't need.

The choice to demolish the school was made by the town's bigwigs—without youa full 5 months prior to your “vote”.*


We in fact, had an SH fund raiser today at the Governors Horse Guard.

What a surprise.

Who were we raising money for today?

The “parents”, for their part, have already pretty much scattered.
Well, save for Ms. “Nurturing Healing Love” (when not on book tour).

And, forgive my bluntness, but why exactly does Fairfield County, Connecticut (of all places) need more ... $$$
?
 

() FACT: Voting ‘NO’ on the referendum meant not accepting the free cash. It did not indicate a vote to reconsider the demolition, which conveniently was already contracted out before the ‘formality’ of the referendum ever took place.

() Prior to 12/14/12, the Board of Ed. was planning to close one of its elementary schools due to declining enrollment.

(*) link to more info
edit on 4-5-2014 by 3mperorConstantinE because: added links to SHE Task Force Q&A doc + enrollment projection study




posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Well, I have read a little less than half the responses, but wanted to add my own now. This is more than a bit bizarre. Releasing documents, I can see, because of all the FOIA requests they have surely had. Releasing what they did, though, makes no sense. The samples seen in the thread are so redacted that it's not even possible to follow the sentences. That's a lot more than simply blocking out names and addresses, which is, or course, expected. They tool out so much that they would have to expect people to be suspicious. There is simply no logical reason for this. Names, sure. Addresses, sure. We don't need those. For the rest, though, this should be a closed case. The named suspect is dead. His mother is also dead. No other suspects were named, and the authorities told us he worked alone. Thus, redacting so much information is bizarre. With no logical reason for it, the action makes people speculate more, when logic would dictate they would want less speculation, and more acceptance of the official story. Why they would want people more suspicious, I don't know, but that's the only thing I can think of that makes sense.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: 3mperorConstantinE

Good catch, Emperor! that was awesome!
xox



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
AGAIN?????? Why?

All I want to do is offer my opinion. And my opinion is simple. The document looks suspicious! Simply because it is heavily censored. The anonymity of the people that might be involved is one thing but to censor it so much that it makes no sense at all makes it look like there is something to hide!

This is MY opinion!
edit on 5/0520145/1414 by Dorrell because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: 3mperorConstantinE

Your post sir, it's full of pure win.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

And what of the shooting by Anthony Barbaro in 1974? Barbaro was a Nation Honor Society and a Regents Scholarship recipient when he opened fire, killing three including a woman who was 6 months pregnant. There was no "gun control" legislation following his attack.

Gun control legislation timeline: usgovinfo.about.com...

US School Shootings timeline: en.wikipedia.org...

The 70's were the second most violent decade for school shootings. Many of those shootings took place in the mid to late 1970s while the ATF (the key gun control legislation of the period) was formed in 1972. In fact, if you compare the frequencies of school shootings in relation to gun control legislation, many of them occurred after major changes to gun legislation--not before. The 90's was the most severe decade for violence within the schools and by the late 90's, you do see a variety of gun legislation changes. If the shootings had only occurred in the late 90's, then I could see your point. As it is, the 70's is yet another period where students appeared to indiscriminately target individuals within the schools, like Anthony Barbaro (have to look through the shootings as they include all shootings and not simply student enacted ones).

I will agree that the shooters were all extraordinarily isolated; however, I do not necessarily agree that their fathers were necessarily to blame for that sense of isolation. If it were simply a fact of bad dads, then we would've seen similar events throughout the US since the beginning of time that was the era of "children being seeing but not heard". Instead, when we actually look at the shootings that did occur, the majority were adults shooting adults or one child getting in a disagreement with another. It's not til the 70's that that dynamic appears to change.

Not every kid who shot up a school's dad was a big wig. Scott Pennington's family was near the poverty level. Kip Kinkel's father was a Spanish teacher. Eric Harris' father was a USAF transport pilot. Dylan Klebold's father owned a real estate management company that did "fairly well". I can go on but as you can see, the shooter's fathers were not all big wigs.

I agree that looking at these events is important because the events were terrible. However, looking at the issue through confirmation bias isn't going to point one in the right direction and do that. This phenomena started kicking up in the 70's. What changed? The worlds of these boys were twofold--one part school and one part home. Are there any common denominators for these boys in either situation that the Secret Service did NOT examine or list? There is.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

A quick response . . .

1. Yes, I can be somewhat vulnerable to confirmation bias.

2. I do NOT KNOW WHEN the oligarchy decided to use young adult men as shooters.

3. I goofed and was wrong in saying that all shooters were sons of oligarchy bigwigs. IIRC, 3-4 were somewhat in that pattern.

4. I don't know that the sequencing of legislation and shooting incidents is all that telling. The Oligarchy seems quite comfortable enough to move many thousands of puzzle pieces forward toward their END GAME goals. God only knows when critical mass will be achieved.

Otherwise, I'll have to ponder your post long to reply more meaningfully. Thanks for the bother.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Thank you for the consideration, Bo Xian. It's much appreciated.

Anthony Barbaros and Charles Whitman would be two interesting places to start.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

Thanks for your kind reply.

I'm willing to bet [nothing of value LOL] that each of the blokes you mentioned also had SIGNIFICANT ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

Folks without significant attachment disorder simply do not do horrendous deeds unless there's some sort of brain stroke, or other brain abnormality due to an accident or genetic defect.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Brenda Spencer would fall under the brain injury category. I believe she was found to have suffered an injury to her temporal lobe from a bicycle accident as a child and it was only detected until after her attack on a school.

As far as the others go, I've not seen anything on any sort of overt brain injury or stroke history. One of the thoughts that I've had is that the bulk of rampage shooters tend to be in their teen years, particularly middle school age. My thought is that perhaps it is a hormonal imbalance at work that induces a temporary psychosis. That's one theory though.

** though that wouldn't explain the older ones like Holmes or Whitman.
edit on 5/5/14 by WhiteAlice because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

imho, clearly hormonal 'imbalances' would exacerbate other problems.

But then . . . what caused the imbalance in the first place.

Stinkin' thinkin' as well as relationship junk e.g. RAD can contribute to hormonal imbalances.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

The problem with the RAD theory, however, is that, at least based on the journals that I've perused, many of these kids seemed to feel love. I totally agree that a hormonal imbalance can worsen a pre-existing condition. A lot of these boys had what would appear to be a psychotic break. In my sample of 14, half of them reported hearing voices in the months preceding their attacks. Hearing voices, martyrdom drives, paranoid delusions, hatred or even sometimes love. It's a wild mix. It's like they are struggling with a beast hiding within. Many of them were also socially active. They had friends and were involved with groups. Even the purported loners were not totally loners.

I have a friend with RAD who basically endured a childhood featuring abusive, neglecting drug addicted parents and then being tossed into the foster system where he was subjected to more abuse. His childhood was extreme. It was like one of those stories that you can read in the news sometime about children being found, abused and neglected, in a home that is littered with garbage and human feces. RAD, through knowing him, is like a mental illness that basically makes it nearly impossible for a person to take risks and trust because life has given them such a brutal hand. In a case like Scott Pennington, where his home was purportedly extremely abusive and rampant with neglect, RAD is a distinct possibility. However, that doesn't quite match with many others like Michael Carneal or Barry Loukaitis.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

If you have links to the two case studies you mentioned that you were skeptical had RAD, I'd be happy to review them.

I was talking with a colleague at the Univ about what percentage of the general population he thought had RAD. He said the typical standard mentioned in the literature: 20%.

I said that I felt it was 80-95%.

We compared definitions. My definition was sufficient detatchment from particularly a father figure such that the child's relationships were troubled the rest of their life unless and until such was worked through--usually with years of counseling etc.

With that definition, he agreed that 80% was likely.

I said 80-95% because in the last 30+ years of teaching Univ students in class sizes from 35-75--I rarely had a class where more than 1 or 2 students did NOT evidence significant RAD. IF it was more than 1 or 2 students without SIGNIFICANT RAD--IT WAS NEVER MORE THAN 3 OR 4. Actually I can't remember even a class with more than 3. And I'm skeptical about the 3--I just include it for a safe margin in the discussion. Often all my classes in a semester contained NO students who did NOT evidence significant RAD.

Again, it is common for kids to talk about 'feeling loved,' 'being loved' . . . even by incredibly emotionally distant and abusive parents. There's lots of reasons for that. However, to what GENUINE DEGREE DID THEY TRULY FEEL loved?

I've often had colleagues, pastors, professors etc. tell me that "Oh, you can just never tell. He had parents who were ideal. Great Christian mother and father who truly loved him and walked the talk. He just twisted off. His parents didn't have anything to do with it.

Let's say out of 24-48 cases mentioned by such folks, . . . In 100% of them, it only took me 3-5 questions before I was able to find the source of the rot in the relationship with the kids.

I've NEVER found a single case in 67 years of watching families and fathering closely--I've NEVER found a single case where the parents did things even 90% right and the kids twisted off. I've NEVER seen it. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I would also note . . . that "beast within" phenomena . . .

it's not per se by a long shot . . . always mental halucinations.

Demonic forces are often involved--particularly with Oligarchy folks literally engaged in satanic rituals and worship.

Certainly such forces complicate things considerably. And, such forces sometimes follow families down through the generations.

Guy Malone and many others have documented such.

alienresistance.org...

www.ancientofdays.net...



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
nothing to hide, nothing to fear. this laughably redacted document shows that some involved in the sandy hook incident have something to both hide and fear.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Case study? I have a friend with RAD and it's a subject he and I have talked about at length. We're two sides of the abused as children coin--I'm dissociative. He has RAD. I could try to write up a case study, I suppose, but I think that would get awkward. I'm not saying either that these kids had an ideal home life. In fact, my family looked like the perfect family from the outside but it was totally SNAFU behind closed doors. Again though, I'm not saying that these kids had ideal home lives. In fact, I mentioned Scott Pennington and the abuse he endured at home as being a possible case of RAD. Please don't misrepresent my statements.

Simply looking at home for causation is, however, looking only at half the picture. Kids, especially when they reach school age, tend to spend most of their day at school. Can't rule that out, especially when looking at the issue historically. Historically, kids have suffered from a variety of abuses since the dawn of time. Historically, kids shooting each other in schools were one kid shooting another kid because of a disagreement. That changed in the 70's to produce rampage killers. Why?

If abuse in the home has been ever present within society, then something else had to change. It's not medicines either because the first few weren't on medications at all.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: BO XIAN

Case study? I have a friend with RAD and it's a subject he and I have talked about at length. We're two sides of the abused as children coin--I'm dissociative. He has RAD. I could try to write up a case study, I suppose, but I think that would get awkward.


No need of that. I thought you were asserting that some of the shooters did not have RAD. I was asking for links to their case studies. I'm very skeptical that ANY of the shooters were free of significant RAD.



I'm not saying either that these kids had an ideal home life. In fact, my family looked like the perfect family from the outside but it was totally SNAFU behind closed doors. Again though, I'm not saying that these kids had ideal home lives. In fact, I mentioned Scott Pennington and the abuse he endured at home as being a possible case of RAD. Please don't misrepresent my statements.


Certainly didn't mean to misrepresent or misinterpret your statements. Thanks for that clarification.



Simply looking at home for causation is, however, looking only at half the picture. Kids, especially when they reach school age, tend to spend most of their day at school. Can't rule that out, especially when looking at the issue historically. Historically, kids have suffered from a variety of abuses since the dawn of time. Historically, kids shooting each other in schools were one kid shooting another kid because of a disagreement. That changed in the 70's to produce rampage killers. Why?


Excellent point and question. I'm skeptical that a conclusive answer will be available until the close of this era. There are some hints and hypotheses.

Tentatively:

1. Lawlessness increased dramatically. Some say when we went into Iraq--that a hoard of very dark evil forces were loosed on the planet from that region.

2. The Oligarchy has been winding things up incrementally for at least 60 years. I think the 70's crossed a line of escalation that bore more overt fruit in more dramatic ways. They REALLY ARE 'into' mayhem, violence, murder, mass murder, fear mongering, chaos etc. . . . as a tool, as a hobby, as a passion, as a goal--an intermediate goal--a means to their tyrannical ends.

3. Anger and violence were escalated in a list of ways:

(A) movies & TV
(B) video games
(C) books
(D) news focus [witness the Charles Manson/Sharon Tate murders etc]
(E) social commentary
(F) clothing
(G) arts [particularly music but also plays, TV, movies]
(H) memes, symbols, themes, etc. all GLORIFIED VIOLENCE, DEATH, MAYHEM, MURDER, TORTURE, SNUFF FILMS . . .

It is as though 'someone' flipped a series of major switches and THE WHOLE CULTURE WAS SHOVED WHOLESALE MULTIDIMENSIONALLLY INTO THE DEATH STAR GARBAGE CHUTE OF THE LORD OF THE FLIES.



If abuse in the home has been ever present within society, then something else had to change. It's not medicines either because the first few weren't on medications at all.


That's an interesting issue. I think the abuse in the home took on a qualitative change somehow. Oh, I don't know that individual cases per se were always greatly different from earlier eras . . . I think the percentages changed.

I think the percentages changed in
(A) the amount per capita and
(B) the seriousness of the abuse WITHOUT compensating evidence of parental caring

And I think THOSE changes AGAINST THE BACKDROP of the "flipped switches" etc. mentioned above made a huge difference.

Thanks for the interesting dialogue.

In terms of the meds issue . . . here's an interesting ATS thread on that topic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 7/5/2014 by BO XIAN because: added



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

RE THE ISSUE OF HOME VS TEEN PEERS ETC. . . .

1. In my experiences from 30+ years of counseling and teaching with a PhD in Clinical psych . . . the first 0-8 years of life are THE DECIDING FACTOR of a huge list of issues re self-worth, healthy relationships or not; acting out, or not; success as an adult, or not; anger, trust, violence, confidence, emotional bonding, etc. issues . . . all are DECIDED ESSENTIALLY the first 8 years of life.

2. Yeah, the teen peers can INFLUENCE THE MANNER, STYLE, TONE, perhaps sometimes the degree of one's acting out. They cannot fix the serious levels of RAD problems . . . they CAN influence the RAD problems toward a MUCH MORE EXTREME EXPRESSION . . .

3. However, I believe the extreme expressions would eventually likely come out more or less regardless of the teen peers . . . depending on the degree of RAD and the features of the early home life's specifics.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

You're thinking of their fellow students solely and that would be a mistake. Schools are comprised of students, teachers, a variety programs, child psychologists, and who knows what else. I'm not denying that these kids were most likely born to have a potential predisposition but in that sort of case, one can either assist it or stop it. You're really hooked on the RAD. RAD doesn't make kids hear voices. Schizophrenia and psychotic breaks does. I've yet to see a single one of them be diagnosed with RAD. However, I have seen schizophrenia, paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis, and bipolar disorder diagnoses.




top topics



 
55
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join