A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by CinnamonHearts
reply to post by frazzle

 

I saw that and my question is why now? Why his DNA? Why not the countless mass murderers before him? Doesn't add up.

No, it doesn't add up at all. First off, as you asked, why him, and not all the previous ones? Second, since they have never done any such testing before, or even shown that some "evil gene" exists, then how, exactly, are they going to claim the know ANYTHING from such a test? How would they show some gene to BE an "evil gene"?

it's pretty clear where that is leading. Just watch. They will find their "evil gene" (which, of course, isn't real). Then they will start demanding DNA testing of people to determine "ahead of time" who might do something bad in the future.

Actually it's not as sinister as all that..

Connecticut is in the middle of a budget crisis and cut off a lot of money to UConn, in order to get funding for things they needed a new gimmick.. (Their basketball team is banned from the NCAA tourney this year so that money is gone too) this is as good a one as any..

Hell even UConn isn't taking the study that seriously, they just want the $$$$

Well, money is always a factor in any such thing! That could be an explanation for why they decided to do a study, bu that doesn't discount the possibilities of said study being used in some sinister fashion later on. There are already studies that law enforcement claim can "predict" criminal behavior.

reply to post by Tecumte


Did the security at the school not automatically send some type of a signal to emergency services/security company if there was an emergency, I wonder. What good is a security system if nothing goes off /sends some type of emergency signal to the police when shots are fired through glass/ shots are fired inside the building? I recall seeing a commercial on television for some security company, and in it a window is broken in a house, that triggered the alarm, and right away someone from the company called the house.

reply to post by Tecumte

I am sure they are and hopefully there are cameras on site. We still have not seen any parking lot cameras from the CO shooting so if there are cameras for the parking lot at the school I am sure we will never know

reply to post by CinnamonHearts


I know my kids schools were locked down like that. There was only one way in or out and that was through the office. You didn't have to buzz in though. I imagine it was just an electric door that had to be opened from the inside and not an actual alarm system???

Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by CinnamonHearts

 

I know my kids schools were locked down like that. There was only one way in or out and that was through the office. You didn't have to buzz in though. I imagine it was just an electric door that had to be opened from the inside and not an actual alarm system???

You're probably right. It seems a bit strange to me (and I'm not drawing any conclusions from this, it's JUST an observation), that security didn't kick in until 9:30 when arrival was 8:55 and "Bell Schedule" was 9:05-3:37.

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by ratboy

 

I have to wonder how could there not be lots of cameras onsight with a reported new security system.

My guess is that this investigation must be ongoing and possibly looking for other participants, doesn't make sense they would string this along unless either a coverup (lock up all the info), or else they are pursuing other leads besides A.L.

What is your reference for what makes sense and what doesn't make sense?

There are 28 individual dead bodies from this incident. It's been 14 days.

14 DAYS!

And you call this stringing it along? It takes longer to get one app approved in the iTunes Store.

So because they haven't released a final report in 14 days on 27 murders and one suicide they must be hiding something or searching for other shooters?

Good grief....

How about, if the investigation is no longer on going (or even if it is and this doesn't involve derailing any security concerns), having an actual press conference where REAL questions are asked (not the fake softball type) about many of the concerns being raised around the country (world?). How hard can it be to give the public some answers to what is simply known by those in charge themselves, and to answer any concerns the public has regarding this huge tragedy IN PERSON. What's to hide if it's so cut and dried? A more 'final' report can always be issued later.Where's the transparency?

reply to post by CinnamonHearts


Has anyone tried to research the security company that was reported to have just installed a new system (hmmm, that sounds familiar doesn't it ) I would imagine it would have had to have been in the local paper, I'm sure the town must have been aware of it.

reply to post by Tecumte


Because that's not how Connecticut operates. The State Police wait until they have all the facts before they issue statements, they've been burned by the media before (see: Cheshire Home Invasions) and don't wish to take that risk again, it's really that simple.

Funny how the people most affected don't seem to mind waiting for the answers, but everyone else has a problem?

reply to post by vkey08


Oh, there you are. I asked a few pages back in what capacity you were able to meet the families once they were
assigned deputies to assure their privacy.

I don't recall reading your answer.

reply to post by vkey08


The problem stems from the possibility that IF this event was in any way aided/manipulated/controlled etc. by anyone(s) with terrorist motives for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, the entire PUBLIC may be in immediate danger, not only in a political sense but maybe again in a physical sense. I think getting information out too SLOWLY in this case may allow for even greater hazards. Having a press conference and admitting this is what is NOW known (subject to new info) and fielding questions should not be a problem if there's really 'nothing to hide'.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Gun owners outed like sex offenders.

www.infowars.com...


A timely coincidence?

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by vkey08

 

The problem stems from the possibility that IF this event was in any way aided/manipulated/controlled etc. by anyone(s) with terrorist motives for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, the entire PUBLIC may be in immediate danger, not only in a political sense but maybe again in a physical sense. I think getting information out too SLOWLY in this case may allow for even greater hazards. Having a press conference and admitting this is what is NOW known (subject to new info) and fielding questions should not be a problem if there's really 'nothing to hide'.

What is the immediate danger you speak of? I don't see any evidence for a greater threat. Are you not perhaps getting yourself a bit worked up and stressed over nothing? I feel great sympathy for the CT'ers who are so paranoid they think we're on the precipice of immediate catastrophe. It must be a rather stressful world to live in.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by vkey08

 

Oh, there you are. I asked a few pages back in what capacity you were able to meet the families once they were
assigned deputies to assure their privacy.

I don't recall reading your answer.

I answered, I was on site that day volunteering.. Worked for various govt agencies over time and am still a licensed social worker so it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.. I've never shied away from assisting if I could in a major catastrophe in the state I'm living..

Originally posted by CosmicBob

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by vkey08

 

The problem stems from the possibility that IF this event was in any way aided/manipulated/controlled etc. by anyone(s) with terrorist motives for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, the entire PUBLIC may be in immediate danger, not only in a political sense but maybe again in a physical sense. I think getting information out too SLOWLY in this case may allow for even greater hazards. Having a press conference and admitting this is what is NOW known (subject to new info) and fielding questions should not be a problem if there's really 'nothing to hide'.

What is the immediate danger you speak of? I don't see any evidence for a greater threat. Are you not perhaps getting yourself a bit worked up and stressed over nothing? I feel great sympathy for the CT'ers who are so paranoid they think we're on the precipice of immediate catastrophe. It must be a rather stressful world to live in.

The immediate danger I would think should be obvious. Is there enough political mileage from this event to bring in the sweeping disarmament of U.S. citizens being talked about now in 'high places'? And too if not, and this event was of a 'synthetic' nature, like we have *possibly* been witnessing around the world, again and again to disarm the world's citizens, then I would say that constitutes quite a clear and presnt danger at least politcially, wouldn't you? And if the mileage can't be achieved by this latest tragedy then might we expect another? I think the danger of that is quite high. But I don't necessarily overly stress out over it. And I really don't believe it's being 'paranoid'. I think it's just being reasonably observant..I just keep an eye on it.

Originally posted by pinkbirdatabase
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Gun owners outed like sex offenders.

www.infowars.com...


A timely coincidence?

It's not a coincidence at all, especially not in any sinister sense. It's a newspaper doing what they think is investigative reporting on a subject that's had a lot of publicity.

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by vkey08

 

Oh, there you are. I asked a few pages back in what capacity you were able to meet the families once they were
assigned deputies to assure their privacy.

I don't recall reading your answer.

I answered, I was on site that day volunteering.. Worked for various govt agencies over time and am still a licensed social worker so it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.. I've never shied away from assisting if I could in a major catastrophe in the state I'm living..

On site where that day? Could you link the previous post you answered this also?

Are you saying you volunteered at the Fire Department?
What time did the phone text alert go out to parents?
What was the time during which the 600 children were evacuated?

Where was the psych on duty set up in what must have been a bit chaotic?

Originally posted by Tecumte
reply to post by CinnamonHearts

 

Has anyone tried to research the security company that was reported to have just installed a new system (hmmm, that sounds familiar doesn't it

) I would imagine it would have had to have been in the local paper, I'm sure the town must have been aware of it.

If you go onto the Sandy Hook school website, and go to the FAQ, you can download a copy of the letter sent out to parents regarding the new system. In it, there is nothing mentioned about a name of a company, just the procedure parents would need to go through in order to gain access to the building.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter


I can't believe that during such a horrific event, the surrounding area was not secured; any person could go there and offer their services, yet, local first responders couldn't even do so.

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Funny how the people most affected don't seem to mind waiting for the answers, but everyone else has a problem?

That's very funny (odd). It makes me question who those involved really are, because they certainly don't act or respond like any 'stable' honest person that I've ever known

reply to post by Tecumte


You're assuming that the government has some kind of nefarious scheme in place to disarm everyone, as if this is some big end game they're playing at. That is quite an extraordinary assumption to make and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Having this basis of thought makes it understandable why a lot of CT yell that the sky is falling when large media events like this occur. I don't see any extraordinary evidence to support this claim. Only weak allegory and anecdotal evidence which I do not consider extraordinary. Furthermore, if your suspicions are in fact accurate, what exactly would you do about it? Take your answer to that question and apply it to those who are not as reserved about the information (as you may be) and might get a bit too overzealous with the information coming out of the CT area when the CT turns out to be nothing but fluff.

Besides, what is so bad about a more stringent control policy on weapons? I've experienced countries where there is a high level of gun control (moderation and enforcement in place for gun licenses, strict punishment for illegal ownership and trade) and it makes for a relatively more peaceful society (no shooting up of schools at the very least) than places with overly liberal views on gun control. Times have moved on from the days of the 2nd Amendment and this is not the Wild West anymore. If we hope to move to a more civilised society with less barbarism and violence, do you not think that guns would be less needed? But I digress, to each their own when it comes to the whole gun control debate.

My point is, what I have inferred from reading a lot of these conspiracy theory posts and comments is that people are terrified the government (or insert nefarious secret society name here) is constantly out to get them. Furthermore, I infer that this phenomenon might be caused from watching a few too many Hollywood movies. Conspiracy theorists love to flock together because it feeds their confirmation bias when someone else can say, "Yes, this does seem weird, therefore it must be conspiracy".

This is why in an earlier post, I suggested that people rather approach conspiracy theories by emulating what scientists do. Sure, go ahead and posit your hypothesis, but then try to disprove it yourself and get your peers to try and disprove it. You win points for disproving your own theory and gain integrity and a happy feeling of getting to the truth by blowing away all the fog. Reserve your judgement on the result until all the facts are in. "First, do no harm" as is a common mantra. That is the best way I know of to get to any kind of truth. Admittedly, what I've witnessed on this thread is, fortunately, a lot closer to that ideal than what I have read on many other forums.

As for the official reports not being released on your time, understand that is not how the system works. In order to avoid dilution and further disinformation, the case should be dealt with on a need to know basis until they have all the facts. This takes time.