Sandy Hook Principal ALIVE, NOT DEAD! Gave statement on Shooting, now removed from site.

page: 19
70
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Philmoski
 


To teach the American public a lesson. The real question, as I keep insisting, is WHO ARE THEY?




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by magickmaster
reply to post by drillerboy
 


Link does not work.


So, can you tell me how Photoshop has been used and back up your claims with a least three sources, all fact checked please.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by magickmaster
 

Could it have been a case of mistaken identity and/or false reporting, has anyone considered that as a possibility since there was a lot of initially false and conflicting reports flying around that day?


Here is the problem though. The paper retracted the story about 7 days later, then claimed it was 3 days, and stated in their retraction that they were told this by someone claiming to be the principal. Well what is wrong with that? WHO would claim to be the principal on the phone with them, right when this was happening or immediately afterwards? WHO? Nobody would do that, unless they are an agent for some organization involved in this false flag or unless this never happened. But why would the paper make this up? Why intentionally lie? Their retarded excuse begs even more questions now.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by LarryLove
 


Why participate if you disagree so much? I just don't understand. You really are doing nothing in this thread but talking about ATS members instead of the topic. Why?


Because there is no truth in what the thread author is saying and would like him or her to provide a least one nugget of fact checked hard evidence to prove even a little of what he claims.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC.

Posting Bans are next.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
So, to get "back on topic", I am going to repost my question, all the way back from page 2, that has been outright ignored and dodged:
I go back to the same question that remains unanswered by the "nobody died" theorists:

How does it possibly make sense that some 'agency' would decide to create this event, and would decide it was a better option to stage the entire thing, that is, have 28 fake dead people, many more family members, and hundreds of responders, all in on it, than it would be to have a merc go in and actually do it, thus creating an ACTUAL event?


IF this is some conspiracy, there is absolutely NO logical argument as to why they would fake it instead of having somebody actually do it. Why leave a trail of people who know it is fake, when you could just send a merc in to do it? ( I dont know what to believe about this tragedy, but i do know FOR A FACT, that there are 27 innocent people that died that day. )

I do feel as though there is something more going on with this event. My gut feeling is that it is something FAR more nefarious than a gun grab, or media creation. I'm just not buying the 'fake event' theory.

I almost get the feeling that the 'fake event' proponents are using a type of deflection because they have a hard time handling the fact that such an abomination, such a horrible, horrible act could happen.

Any takers yet? 3rd time a charm? Why does this question go unanswered?
edit on 22-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 





Vids like this are pushing you to imagine a satanists community or some doomsday cult knowing each other -


There's a lot of stuff out there on YouTube. But the Illuminati is a Satanic cult which infiltrated the Masons in the 1700's and have been doing secret stuff regarding our country since then. George Soros is connected through his relationship with the Rothschilds.
I'm sorry if that bothers you, but we have to look at these things if we are to understand. Some people want to run and hide from the ugly truth of it. It is just too scary for some.
You can still realize the truth and have Christmas, as long as you are not using Christmas to hide in a wonderland of magic. I too love the lights and the festivities, but we have to be realistic. The real Christmas is celebrating Christ in every heart.

Which is why I love this holiday classic



As a side note, the two sisters could easily have had identical dresses in different sizes as many people do, especially for holidays.
edit on 22-12-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 
With the lack of visual evidence in any major incident, naturally, some people will ask questions about what really happened, especially when the amount of errors in reporting was as unprecedented as was the case for days in Sandy Hook. This doesn't make someone a nut, perhaps less gullible and more jaded.

Here, it's the Principle who apparently gave a reporter a statement, but actually didn't because she was dead. A principle with a specific name who the paper was familiar with in the first place. So yes, it was quite the error on their part and as a result we have this thread. Their retraction and apology raised even more questions (who called, if not her, then?), answers to which have yet to be presented.

It may have been a simple mistake on their part, or it may have been something else. The truth is, I don't know what really happened that day outside of what the media has reported, and I certainly will not act like I do.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So, to get "back on topic", I am going to repost my question, all the way back from page 2, that has been outright ignored and dodged:
I go back to the same question that remains unanswered by the "nobody died" theorists:

How does it possibly make sense that some 'agency' would decide to create this event, and would decide it was a better option to stage the entire thing, that is, have 28 fake dead people, many more family members, and hundreds of responders, all in on it, than it would be to have a merc go in and actually do it, thus creating an ACTUAL event?


IF this is some conspiracy, there is absolutely NO logical argument as to why they would fake it instead of having somebody actually do it. Why leave a trail of people who know it is fake, when you could just send a merc in to do it? ( I dont know what to believe about this tragedy, but i do know FOR A FACT, that there are 27 innocent people that died that day. )

I do feel as though there is something more going on with this event. My gut feeling is that it is something FAR more nefarious than a gun grab, or media creation. I'm just not buying the 'fake event' theory.

I almost get the feeling that the 'fake event' proponents are using a type of deflection because they have a hard time handling the fact that such an abomination, such a horrible, horrible act could happen.


Nobody has claimed that nobody died, for the upteenth time. You are just bringing up a nonsense argument that you want rebutted, but it's not applicable to the whole thread or title. This thread is about the Principal being reported as having stated to the media, the events of that day, when it was reported, she was supposed to have been killed.

The thread does not go on about how these people are all still alive. That is not being posited. It is, however, being suggested as a possibility, but you are demanding proof of that, and there is none, so in effect, you are asking IMPOSSIBLE questions, over and over in an antagonizing and bothersome and disrespectful way, so please quite your argument here.
edit on 22-12-2012 by magickmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 
With the lack of visual evidence in any major incident, naturally, some people will ask questions about what really happened, especially when the amount of errors in reporting was as unprecedented as was the case for days in Sandy Hook. This doesn't make someone a nut, perhaps less gullible and more jaded.

Here, it's the Principle who apparently gave a reporter a statement, but actually didn't because she was dead. A principle with a specific name who the paper was familiar with in the first place. So yes, it was quite the error on their part and as a result we have this thread. Their retraction and apology raised even more questions (who called, if not her, then?), answers to which have yet to be presented.

It may have been a simple mistake on their part, or it may have been something else. The truth is, I don't know what really happened that day outside of what the media has reported, and I certainly will not act like I do.


All fair and good, but that doesn't, in any way, answer the question. Why would 'they' FAKE the whole thing? Why would they not actually create the event? Why would they have so many people in on it, when they could more easily just murder those poor people?

And a followup: What about those of us who know people in Newtown? Are all of the citizens of that town lying, too?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The conspiracy theorist in me, coupled with my experience in the occult and magick (particularly the darker venues) can't help but conjure up something that greatly disturbs me. I almost not speak it.

What if this was a mass child sacrifice?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 
With the lack of visual evidence in any major incident, naturally, some people will ask questions about what really happened, especially when the amount of errors in reporting was as unprecedented as was the case for days in Sandy Hook. This doesn't make someone a nut, perhaps less gullible and more jaded.

Here, it's the Principle who apparently gave a reporter a statement, but actually didn't because she was dead. A principle with a specific name who the paper was familiar with in the first place. So yes, it was quite the error on their part and as a result we have this thread. Their retraction and apology raised even more questions (who called, if not her, then?), answers to which have yet to be presented.

It may have been a simple mistake on their part, or it may have been something else. The truth is, I don't know what really happened that day outside of what the media has reported, and I certainly will not act like I do.


All fair and good, but that doesn't, in any way, answer the question. Why would 'they' FAKE the whole thing? Why would they not actually create the event? Why would they have so many people in on it, when they could more easily just murder those poor people?

And a followup: What about those of us who know people in Newtown? Are all of the citizens of that town lying, too?


At this point, I would not be surprised to learn the whole town is a CIA controlled movie set. So, everything is on the table now. IMO. That's what having an open mind is all about. Looking everywhere, and never settling for anything, until you are 100% sure.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by magickmaster

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So, to get "back on topic", I am going to repost my question, all the way back from page 2, that has been outright ignored and dodged:
I go back to the same question that remains unanswered by the "nobody died" theorists:

How does it possibly make sense that some 'agency' would decide to create this event, and would decide it was a better option to stage the entire thing, that is, have 28 fake dead people, many more family members, and hundreds of responders, all in on it, than it would be to have a merc go in and actually do it, thus creating an ACTUAL event?


IF this is some conspiracy, there is absolutely NO logical argument as to why they would fake it instead of having somebody actually do it. Why leave a trail of people who know it is fake, when you could just send a merc in to do it? ( I dont know what to believe about this tragedy, but i do know FOR A FACT, that there are 27 innocent people that died that day. )

I do feel as though there is something more going on with this event. My gut feeling is that it is something FAR more nefarious than a gun grab, or media creation. I'm just not buying the 'fake event' theory.

I almost get the feeling that the 'fake event' proponents are using a type of deflection because they have a hard time handling the fact that such an abomination, such a horrible, horrible act could happen.


Nobody has claimed that nobody died, for the upteenth time. You are just bringing up a nonsense argument that you want rebutted, but it's not applicable to the whole thread or title. This thread is about the Principal being reported as having stated to the media, the events of that day, when it was reported, she was supposed to have been killed.

The thread does not go on about how these people are all still alive. That is not being posited. It is, however, being suggested as a possibility, but you are demanding proof of that, and there is none, so in effect, you are asking IMPOSSIBLE questions, over and over in an antagonizing and bothersome and disrespectful way, so please quite your argument here.
edit on 22-12-2012 by magickmaster because: (no reason given)


Seriously? So this thread isnt about the idea that the principal is alive, not dead? .Nope, its there in plain text. You are claiming people didnt die. Another poor attempt at deflection.

The burden of proof is on those making the claims. You can provide NONE. You cant even answer the most basic of questions. I'm sure it would be easier for you if I just left and let you run rampant with these claims, but I wont.

As for being antagonistic and disrespectful, I forget, who is the one calling names and throwing out the word 'troll' at anyone who challenges their stance?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
The conspiracy theorist in me, coupled with my experience in the occult and magick (particularly the darker venues) can't help but conjure up something that greatly disturbs me. I almost not speak it.

What if this was a mass child sacrifice?


honestly, this falls more in line with what I am seeing than any other theory.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Thread closed.


We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.
edit on Mon Dec 24 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
70
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join