It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 32
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by RedBird

Just had to say, that was a fantastic post. Thank you for you input in this thread.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:31 AM
I have a timeline of the events, but according to the site's rules I cannot post it...

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by RedBirdFair enough. And goodnight -- Merry Christmas!

It's an awful topic...but I've enjoyed the discussion.

Merry Christmas to you, as well.


posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by swansong19
These kids made it out, remember?

But that's just it. We don't know. We have no names...I have absolutely no proof (verifiable or otherwise) if these kids even exist.

We have a few scraps of interviews with the children... several interviews with Rosen. The rest is being kept quiet until the investigation is complete. Seems reasonable to me.

The only part that makes no sense is the "bus-driver".

By the by...I have not seen a report where the bus driver was described as a man. I have seen an interview with Rosen where he mentions a man speaking harshly at the children...but he was in addition to the female bus driver.
edit on 26-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)

You're right, I just checked -- Rosen gives somewhat contradictory accounts in his several interviews. I still think it's possible that the "man" Rosen saw followed the children from the school (or the road) into the woods, caught up to them at Rosen's house, gave Rosen the bus company phone number, and then went back through the woods where he was apprehended by police as the individual with a dark jacket and camo pants telling parents "I didn't do it!" (Didn't do what, exactly? Didn't do exactly what he'd heard the kids just describe to him at Rosen's house!)

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:53 AM

Originally posted by RedBird
Let's try not to slip back into a debate about what should and should not be talked about. We just NARROWLY avoided having this topic declared taboo by incredibly frustrated mods, now is NOT the time to turn around and start accusing ATS and the Mods of trying to suppress questions.

I will seriously lose my mind if after all THAT (references the last 14 pages with a wave) we end up having this thread deleted because people started accusing the Mods of taking orders from TBTP to shut up people talking about Sandy Hook.

The very fact that we're here, in this thread, talking about it, means that we won!

So, let's stop with the self-victimization, and talk about the anomalies, shall we?

I've liked your posts and we are friends and usually can find common ground. But let's be clear, 26 dead. Mostly 6 & 7 year Olds. A gunman who killed children, his mom and himself. People have been accused of being child molesters, fathers accused of faking the grief of losing a child, and children accused of actually being alive. And we're"able" to still discuss... No one has won.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 02:09 AM

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Lulzaroonie
Thank god someone said something. After arguing that we know next to nothing about any of it, I've actively avoided the threads.
There's no arguing with people who wantt to jump at shadows.
The sad fact of the matter is, people are more worried about digging up the dirt in any manner possible than actually finding and validating facts.
This one topic (as well as the 2012 threads) are the main thing keeping me away right now.

This is the thing that is getting me, I've made but a few posts about the shootings, but there is the same feeling as you, jumping at shadows. The gun lobby was straight in, with various rationale, with Obama in his political frame, yet the gun lobby is in fact political in itself and far from apolitical as you might expect in a debating forum.

Quite frankly, WTF would anyone expect a country's leader to do under the circumstances, NOTHING?

What you do have is a situation where someone can cause all this tragedy and others, because of easy access to deadly weapons, while being, out of his/her mind, or on drugs, or senile, or didn't like his lawyer, or that his wife told him to get out his gun, or that someone had a funny walk, yes a mixture of cases, all documented. It is insane.
edit on 25-12-2012 by smurfy because: Text.

To be honest, I'm surprised the gun lobby hasn't happened sooner.
Every couple of years or so a large killing spree occurs; sometimes in a school, sometimes not. I just felt like this was one time too many, and a good example to use as an example why gun laws should be rethought.
I'm not saying guns should be completely hauled away from gun owners.
There are enough examples throughout the world, particularly in countries where guns are illegal for civilian ownership (UK, Norwary as the most obvious in my mind) where people are still able to get hold of powerful guns and go on a shooting spree.
In America, there are apparently 88 guns for every 100 people. It would be impossible to remove all the guns from private ownership. Most states have checks in place to limit who can and can't get a gun, but being that there are so many guns around, it wouldn't be hard to get hold of one.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 02:31 AM
reply to post by davjan4

Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

People react to grief much differently. Chances are, the folks who didn't react with grief at an incident found out and were simply unprepared to deal with the implications of such an incident.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:19 AM
reply to post by detachedindividual

right, and it as on going investigation, so maybe we should wait and see as i have already said.
most of them yes, but so far certain aspects are not adding up, but i am waiting for an official story before i decide if there is anything to go on as far as conspiracy goes.

if there is no official story, how can anybody debunk anything right now? and the op made ZERO EFFORT to back his claims. that is the point i am making

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:33 AM
I honestly think the best course of action is to wait for the official report. I know thats treating this differently than 9/11. So be it. Agree, how can one debate this when the details of the story arent even known.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 05:00 AM

Originally posted by bknapple32
I honestly think the best course of action is to wait for the official report. I know thats treating this differently than 9/11. So be it. Agree, how can one debate this when the details of the story arent even known.

This line of reasoning, for me, is becoming the most disingenuous part of these discussions.

To say there's no "official story" is to imply that there haven't been any official statements...and there have...lots of them. From police, both state and local...the m.e...State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection...parents...Rosen. make no mistake about it, Mr. Rosen has made many statements and each of them have to be examined on their face. He has, of his own free will, placed himself in the media spotlight and offered up his ever changing version of events.

And as I've said before...and will continue to say...when this line of reasoning is proffered...there is a story...and it's as official as it gets in the sense that it is known by every person with an electronic device...that isn't a member of ATS. A sad, lonely kid...on meds, got into his wacky mom's gun stash and murdered her and lit up a school full of beautiful children.

And even people just stumbling on this thread...this event...and this post...know what that kid's name was. But I don't know the name of the hero bus driver that saved a 1/2 dozen kids. Because, you know, the media hates a shmaltzy American hero story.
edit on 26-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by swansong19

This is why there is no official final story yet.. The State Police aren't releasing any more info until they are done, period.. Vance got upset that things he said were being used as absolute fact when he prefaced with things like we believe, and this info is subject to change as the investigation progresses. So to keep the confusion to a minimum they did what they always do, hold the info until they are done.

So it really doesn't matter what various people have said, the State Police have not reached any final conclusions as of yet. Why is this so hard to understand?

And since i Have to preface my own comments nowadays, I remind everyone, that families are starting to catch wind of this site, as are people in Connecticut, there's a lot of anger twords all of these wild conspiracy theories and the mere suggestion that noone is suffering... please keep that in mind before you go off the deep end, like I said to Unity99 in my reply to her, If you aren't willing to go door to door and tell these family members that they are actors or that their children didn't really die, then it's not cool to say it here..

There is no further information to be released by the Connecticut State Police at this time. The incident remains under investigation as State Police, assisted by Newtown Police and other Law Enforcement, continue to work with the victims and their families. It is anticipated that the final Connecticut State Police report is several months away.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 08:32 AM
I was not surprised at all to get the U2U.

This is one thread I stayed clear from simply because deep in my heart I believe we should let these kids rest in peace.

We are not investigators who know every single detail about this tragedy and while it's easy to throw around speculation there has to be a line drawn.

Too many children were shot to death that day and we have to keep in mind had they been one of our children what would we think about some of these threads.

At least when discussing this type of tragedy keep respect front and center for the families.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Has anyone thought that this is exactly what they want? A very clever maneuver resulting in the oppression of all discussion concerning Sandy Hook. It makes me wonder - when does protection become oppression in our eyes, or vice versa?

Just a thought.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:24 AM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Couldn't agree more, seen some horrible things going around the past couple of weeks.
Glad the mods here do such a great job keeping everything under control

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by AfterInfinity

I thought that too, then I thought about some of the ridiculous "holes" in the story that everyone tries to point out and just thought, no.
The media was reporting before the tragedy was even over, of course each outlets different story is going to differ massively. If they were all the same stories we'd have less news channels.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:17 PM
We really underestimate the power of Hollywood and the stupidity of people. It's my understanding that TPTB have to "inform" us of their plan; ever so slightly. They can't just "destroy" us...according to their belief. We have to be "foretold". Well, something like that.

Anyhoot, this was a cool movie.

I, especially, loved this one

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:23 PM

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by 1nf1del

That, along with the fact that it is proven that it is easily done.

Or is that how we do it now? Claim that they are "an agent" to call into question any statement made by anyone, ever? That way we can ignore the facts we want, because "they may be an agent".

Come on man, is right.

claim: The nurse has told different versions of the story:
Answer: No, she hasnt. THE NURSE NEVER SAYS SHE LOCKED EYES WITH THE SHOOTER. She never says he saw her and then moved on. The reporter is doing what reporters do-sensationalizing. Look at it like this: The reporter talked to the nurse. The nurse simply says "i saw him, and he turned, and left". The reporter, then, trying to make it sound juicier, reports it as "They locked eyes". Then a bunch of people desperate to find a conspiracy angle latch on and wont let go.

And the nurses claim Nancy Lanza was a fine kindergarten teacher?

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:05 PM

Source? Never heard that one.

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by forgetmenot

I never said you were arguing "if you'll notice."

posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by 1nf1del

So, after a little digging, the only source that I could find saying the nurse said what you claim about nancy lanza is the exact same reporter that claims the nurse locked eyes with adam.

In other words, there is ZERO corroborating evidence. We have never once heard the nurse say such things.

To me, this one falls into the same category of "they locked eyes"-that is, there is not one shred of proof to back it up.

top topics

<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in