A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 39
54
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Has it been discussed why Dennis Stratford a happenstance school maintenance person would have been allowed to wander around viewing the crime scene? He was allegedly there making a delivery.

He claims that he saw dead children. I assume this was after the shooter was down. When LE was already on scene. Why such carelessness about crime scene integrity, second shooter checks and clearing a building?
edit on 27-12-2012 by PaperbackWriter because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by captaintyinknotsAnd again, why do you continue to push those who arent buying the theories away from discussing this?

Fine...since no one wants to discuss issues...

Are you completely insane?????

Why am I...I...pushing people away from discussing this????

Seriously??

How many threads that you disagree with have been closed ?

How many mass mailings have been sent out to members buying the version of events as provided to this point?

Are you so seriously obtuse/deluded that you would accuse the only one of us wanting to discuss available details...of trying to smother discussion?

Seriously???

Hasn't your pass for Christmas expired yet?
edit on 27-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


I havent heard any quotes but him, but he had to exit the building somehow. By all accounts the carnage took place directly next to the entrance to the school. I would surmise (and it is just my opinion) that he likely would have seen them while exiting the building.

I have heard absolutely nothing claiming he was allowed to 'wander' the crime scene.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by swansong19
 
The amount of people out there who are questioning whether this even happened as told (or remotely close) is staggering.

Even 9/11 had to have most everyone on the same page for the first couple weeks, but this is different if you've taken a look around.

No libel from me, no personal information or contacts, no slander, no accusations or desire to offend anyone with the following...

This entire "tragedy", from my perspective, remains an unproven theory.
I'd love to stay and discuss it, but there has been no evidence of a shooting to discuss.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MisterMaster
Who is liable for that besides the person committing the crime.....the journalistic entity who printed the lie in the first place is. Maybe not criminally responsible, but for sure civilly responsible.

While I agree ignorance is bliss, ignorance of how the real world reality operates compared to the television reality we are fed is inexcusable really.

To further my point, all one needs to do is read journalistic by-laws and seek news stories related to libelous suits granted to people because of non-retractions of lies.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The first sentence of your post is inaccurate, and therefore, I didn't bother reading the rest. The 'straw' comment came from someone named Pilot, not me. I'm done beating my head against a brick wall.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by swansong19
 


Yes, why are YOU trying to push people away from discussing? You specifically said that those of us who dont agree with the theories should walk away from the discussion. Why does an opposing view scare you?

As for your topic, I already responded to it. You have blatantly ignored my response. Why would I continue to respond, when you wont acknowledge it anyway?

Threads that I personally disagree with that were closed? Lots. Are you insinuating that I somehow had something to do with their closure? hate to break it to you-the site owners are the ones who took issue with the threads and closed them. Had nothing to do with me.

Ill ignore your last little ad hom there...expect to point out that, considering you are accusing those of us refuting theories as taking things personally, it isnt ME who is laying out the silly personal attacks, its you.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


The author of this thread ONLY wants us to discuss the theories that were "debunked" in his first post. Don't dare question anything else. Wait for the report.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The first sentence of your post is inaccurate, and therefore, I didn't bother reading the rest. The 'straw' comment came from someone named Pilot, not me. I'm done beating my head against a brick wall.




Tell me whats inaccurate. Youve said it multiple times-so tell me how. Same type of baseless accusations as these 'theories'.

Why, may I ask, are you posting in the thread, if you didnt even bother to read the topic?



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots You specifically said that those of us who dont agree with the theories should walk away from the discussion.


And you, Sir...are a liar.

Find the post where I SPECIFICALLY claim what you stated. SPECIFICALLY. Or apologize and leave me alone.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


The author of this thread ONLY wants us to discuss the theories that were "debunked" in his first post. Don't dare question anything else. Wait for the report.


Ive actually indulged MANY off topic theories in this thread, specifically do avoid mindless posts like this one. Asking why you are bringing off topic theories into the thread is not the same as not discussing them. Nice try though


But hey, when you cant refute the topics, why not make stuff up, right?



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by captaintyinknots You specifically said that those of us who dont agree with the theories should walk away from the discussion.


And you, Sir...are a liar.

Find the post where I SPECIFICALLY claim what you stated. SPECIFICALLY. Or apologize and leave me alone.


From the previous page:



Maybe it's you folks who need to take a break from this and allow the rest of us to discuss it.


Oops



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There is no reason for him to be in those classrooms. Maintenance people don't enter to deliver in the middle of teaching, so for him to see children's bodies, implies he was in the rooms sometime after the events.

I was wondering who let him open doors to those rooms?



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Not one person has been able to disprove the OP they have not offered any evidence that disputes his claims yet people still insist he is wrong. These so called investigators do not seem to know the first thing about how to investigate. There is a term for what they are doing it is called spit balling.

Honestly I would like to know where these so called internet investigators received their training I am willing to bet their only experience has been gained from watching CSI Miami or CSI Las Vegas but in some cases it is more likely that it came from something on the Sic Fi network.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknotsBut hey, when you cant refute the topics, why not make stuff up, right?


Fine...

Refute the fact that there are 15 kids in Soto's class. Refute the reports of 6 being killed...7 being found in a closet...and 6 escaping.

Refute it without making anything up...or providing opinion.

Refute it with facts that there were more kids in the class...or that some were missing on picture day. Refute the claims that 6 made it to Rosen's.

Refute anything claimed in this post.
edit on 27-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


There is no reason for him to be in those classrooms. Maintenance people don't enter to deliver in the middle of teaching, so for him to see children's bodies, implies he was in the rooms sometime after the events.

I was wondering who let him open doors to those rooms?



That he saw bodies does not mean he was in the classrooms. Perhaps a door was open? We do know that at least a couple of people were killed in the halls. Maybe those were the bodies he saw?

I cant say that definitively, but it is certainly plausible. I also have to ask, again, where it was said that he was allowed to 'wander' (your words) the crime scene.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknotsMaybe it's you folks who need to take a break from this and allow the rest of us to discuss it.


Oops


No oops. I suggested abandoning the thread since you seem to be overly emotional.

You claimed I suggested that you abandon the thread if you don't agree with me.

You...are...a...liar.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by captaintyinknotsBut hey, when you cant refute the topics, why not make stuff up, right?


Fine...

Refute the fact that there are 15 kids in Soto's class. Refute the reports of 6 being killed...7 being found in a closet...and 6 escaping.

Refute it without making anything up...or providing opinion.

Refute it with facts that there were more kids were in the class...or that some were missing on picture day. Refute the claims that 6 made it to Rosen's.

Refute anything claim in this post.


Ahhh, and back to the things not posted in the OP, but that you somehow think prove me wrong-

Ok, as I asked before: Do you have a class list? Or even an official class count? Do you know if any kids were absent on picture day? Were any more kids added to the class after picture day? You are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. So can you prove that this picture includes the entirety of the class?

I cant refute those claims, as I dont have that info. Ive said all along, there are questions that need to be answered here. But you cannot prove otherwise, either. So what we have are questions. Does that somehow prove a conspiracy to you?

but I ask again-what does asking about these things-things that I do not claim to have debunked-prove to you? Does it somehow make you think that this non-related question negates my OP?



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by captaintyinknotsMaybe it's you folks who need to take a break from this and allow the rest of us to discuss it.


Oops


No oops. I suggested abandoning the thread since you seem to be overly emotional.

You claimed I suggested that you abandon the thread if you don't agree with me.

You...are...a...liar.

Its there in plain english for all to see. You said those of us refuting the theories should walk away and let you do the discussing. You are asking dissenting views to walk away from the thread, so that YOU can be the one to discuss it. You used the word emotion to qualify it. Doesnt change the fact. And, I might add, it is not me, who is throwing little ad homs like 'christmas pass' out there. But hey, keep telling yourself that its not you who is emotional.

Yeah, you can throw it at me all you want-however, YOU are the one lying. And its there for everyone to see.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


What exactly do you want me to refute considering I've never offered up even one of the "theories" mentioned in your original post? I read through topics to possibly find new information, not debunk some poster who thinks he's the superior holder of all knowledge on a topic. Unlike you, I don't claim to have all of the answers, and sometimes other posters offer up information I've never come across before.





top topics
 
54
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join