A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 41
54
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by swansong19

Originally posted by captaintyinknotsNow we are getting somewhere? It took you this many posts to get 'somewhere', when this is what I have said all along?


I'll ask you again. Is this glaring inconsistency worthy of further investigation?


Lets see...I posed investigative questions on the subject, and I have said these questions HAVE to be answered to show that there are actually inconsistencies.

What do you think? Not rocket science.

I ask again, what is it that you think you are proving here?
edit on 27-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Lets see...I posed investigative questions on the subject, and I have said these questions HAVE to be answered to show that there are actually inconsistencies.

That's awesome. So will you join me and others in asking the Mods to allow a thread on that subject?
edit on 27-12-2012 by swansong19 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by swansong19


That's awesome. So will you join me and others in asking the Mods to allow a thread on that subject?


I would support that, though I am not sure why you think my support will matter whatsoever. I have had two of my own threads on the subject removed-its not like I get special favor from the mods or site admin.

I highly doubt that they will allow it, as the bridge has been more or less burned by the demeanor of a lot of people on this site. I also am quite reluctant to put too much of my faith behind it, after seeing the way you have acted in this thread.

Has all of this really been about getting backing for a thread?
eta: I would say, if you do start the thread, tread lightly. It is a thread that could quickly deteriorate into the posting of personal info and the identities of minors, and I can guarantee you that such things would not be tolerated.

edit on 27-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Let's start with your first claim. I do not believe this ENTIRE thing was staged. I am open, however, to the possibility that all we are seeing is not legitimate. Do I have proof of this? No. I'm just saying that I can't say with 100% certainty that no aspect of this was staged. So what is that has convinced you 100% that nothing has been staged in this, that every single person we've seen in interviews is legitmate? The questions you asked? Is that your proof?

The other claim about everyone being actors. Again, I don't believe that everyone in that town is an actor all "in" on some conspiracy. Is it a possibility? In my mind, it seems extremely far-fetched, and I have no idea how it would even be possible to coordinate such a thing. The people making the rounds on television COULD be actors, in my OPINION. I am not stating this as fact, but my mind is open to believing that it could be a possibility. That is NOT to say that I don't think there are grieving families. Do I think the ones I've seen in interviews are? No. And again, it does not mean that I don't believe there are real families out there grieving, or that the ones on television could be. Something about them just does not sit well with me, and for the most part, I don't feel their presence in interviews is genuine. That is my opinion, I'm not claiming it to be fact.

As for the rest of your claims, I never paid much attention to them. Something about a Fb page? Hasn't come across on my radar so completely irrelevant to me. Same with the Libor scandal. It was a hoax as far as I know in the James Holmes case, so I assumed the same for this.

I've never really seen much in the way of anything other than people saying they know people there. If I was in a court of law, and someone was trying to convince me that they knew someone...if they said, "I know that person" and that was it, would I just take their word for it with absolutely nothing to support it? No. That's not to say they don't actually know the person, I just couldn't conclude for certain that they really did without something to back it up. I am not here to debate whether or not people know people there though. I wouldn't expect anyone on here to prove to me that they do know people there. It's not my business. My point is that I don't believe something just because someone says it's so. That goes for many things.

As I said, it's not a matter of proving you "wrong." I've said it several times, you offered no actual proof to support what you claim to be fact. You just offered questions, and that is not "proof" to me. Maybe it is to you, and that's fine, it's just not to me.
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Have you not seen photos of the hallways and classrooms before the alleged incident?
The wings are separated by double doors leading to hallways with carpeted floor and classroom doors
left and right.

He had no business, nor would have been allowed in that corridor.
I am a bit amazed by this new account including an outside eyewitness at this late date.

The only thing that would account for his story is the 18 victims found in the lunchroom area. I could see him being over there. However, it is my theory that the radio transcripts are not genuine.
I think they were played and scripted for the drill in Putnam County adjacent that morning.

In the event this incident HAD actually occured, I would have fully expected that radios would have been encrypted for obvious reasons.
People heard this, because they were meant to hear this.
edit on 27-12-2012 by PaperbackWriter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


I found this part interesting:
"He saw the remains of dead children on those who survived. He waited agonizing minutes for his own child to emerge unharmed from the school."

Read more: www.timesunion.com...

So he was INside of the building, saw dead bodies, did not see his own child, and left the building without his child? What parent would do that? Did both classrooms have children who survived? I thought it was just the one.


Police, at that point, were securing the building, meaning they would not have allowed anyone to linger inside. It wouldnt have been an option for him to wait inside for his child. That is standard procedure when a building is being cleared-you wait in the designated meeting place, not in the crime scene.

As I have read it, one child survived in one room by playing dead, and a few in the other room survived while hiding in a closet. But details are sketchy, so its hard to say.


Well he obviously "lingered" long enough to see dead children piled on top of those who were not. Which, if we apply what you just wrote, how would that even be possible? In one classroom, they were in a closet, so obviously it would not have been that room in which he saw the kids. I also don't buy that a 6 year old is going to have the mind to "play dead."
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 


1)Did I ever state that NONE of this was staged? No. It is IMPOSSIBLE that the entire thing was staged. That is what I said. And it is true.

2)The ONLY way that ANY of these people could be actors are the two scenarios that I posed before (and again, I stress, YOU are bringing this up). Either a)they were planted in the community to make friends long before this tragedy, or b)The whole town is in on it. It cant work any other way. Too many people know these folks. Its understandable that you dont want to believe that I, or others on this site have family in the area, and I have contacted Skeptic Overlord in an attempt to get this vetted so it is no longer questioned, but I get why you would be skeptical. The FACT is, though, that MANY people know these people, so either they are in on it, or the actors were planted long enough in advance to become ingrained in the community.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


You've got some great questions there. I encourage you to keep digging.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Good lord. I brought it up because you asked me to refute what you posted in your OP. I give up. You ask me to go through your claims, and then I do, and then you throw "you brought it up" in my face. Yet again. Done going in circles on this. I made my thoughts on what you posted in your OP as clear as I can. There was nothing else to "get" from your response, as I had already responded to what you repeated from your OP in my other post.
edit on 27-12-2012 by CinnamonHearts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Good lord. I brought it up because you asked me to refute what you posted in your OP. I give up. You ask me to go through your claims, and then I do, and then you throw "you brought it up" in my face. Yet again. Done with this thread.


Im not sure what you are getting so frustrated about, but hey, if you want to give up, I cant stop you. I only point out that you brought it up as it has been accused (not by you-you made that clear) that I am clinging to that one. So there is a point to bringing that to attention, so as to avoid being accused of such things again.

If that one sentence is all you got out of that entire post, well....good luck, I guess. Seems like an attempt to dodge the rest of the post to me....
edit on 27-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 


I mean really. At what point would have an adult pulled them out from under such a gruesome situation.
Just leave them there for a passerby to see them apparently moving around under a heap of dead classmates.
Methinks Mr.Stratford got his wires crossed.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


Exactly, there's no common sense in that at all. And I realize people react differently under horrific circumstances, but his claim makes no sense at all.

I noticed you posted about seeing pictures of the inside of the school. Was that found on the school's website? Or somewhere else?



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Thanks.
I'm all for denying ignorance and seeing through lies, but I can't believe some people seriously think this whole thing is a hoax.

WHAT?!


True enough, but *theoretically* one could entertain that it might have been a *drill*, not saying it was at all, (when I watched that drill footage though...hmmm) but anyway just saying let's remember wer're in the post 9-11 age, smoke and mirrors is the NORM Imo now, could a cast and crew that had signed confidentially forms and say were in a way :actors plus 'uninformed participants) have pullled this off with enough money and coordination? Sure, I have little doubt. But was it? I wasn't there but I'm going to *assume* (for now) from what I've read and heard, people died there. And it really sounds like a tragedy. But I can't believe people are claiming they are 'debunking' anything at this point, lol, so much more IMo is UNKNOWN rather than known. I haven't read the last few pages where maybe an 'official report' has been issued but at this time I haven't seen one.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 


I knew somebody was going to ask me this. I think it was at ABC, maybe. It was a computer generated schematic of the school with actual photos of the interior.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I am through digging. After I saw the video posted on the original incident thread, I felt like that captured the gist of it.
All that remains is "debunking" the new stories that get tucked into news releases.

You did notice that his account was near the bottom of the article, as if it were of no consequence that a startling first hand account has surfaced outside the realm of officialdom, purportedly.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
I can see no reason...



Any post that includes"I can see no reason..." means YOU can't connect the dots to see reality as it is. Because you can't figure out reasons things happen the way they did does not mean they're not explainable. It means you don't understand them or can't explain them.

This is an interesting phenomenon. Lack of understanding, I.e., ignorance, must mean there was a conspiracy.

Fascinating.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PaperbackWriter
 


Thank you, I'll hunt around for it. I just wanted to know the layout of the two classrooms in relation to the office to get an idea of how this man could have seen anything in the classrooms while making a delivery to the office.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 


abcnews.go.com...


Link graciously provided by fellow member.
edit on 27-12-2012 by PaperbackWriter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by CinnamonHearts
 


abcnews.go.com...


Link graciously provided by fellow member.
edit on 27-12-2012 by PaperbackWriter because: (no reason given)


They forgot one small detail.

Where's any PROOF?
edit on 27-12-2012 by Tecumte because: sp.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


Like I said, the mods should be alert and delete any post that violates T & C. What part of that do you not understand?





top topics
 
54
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join