Where is the Sandy Hook surveillance video?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynxpilot
People are entitled to their opinion. I guess I'm just surprised that there are people who think that because a government passes a law, it's automatically legal. That's naïve beyond compare, or calculated, one or the other. Also, the idea that there needs to be secrecy in government. That idea has been flogged into the public mind for ages, but is unnecessary and dangerous. And, back to the point, hiding the surveillance video at Sandy Hook is nothing short of criminal when the result is institution of laws which contradict the Bill of Rights. If it were originally private, or security was necessary, then there couldn't have possibly been grounds to start imposing new laws, much less laws that contradict the Constitution. If the response of the government was justified (which it couldn't be), then why wouldn't they back it with facts?


Passing a law cannot be illegal. It may later be determined to be unconstitutional but no law is automatically illegal. Who would decide that in the first place?

You or me?

And yes there has to be some secrecy in government or people would be too afraid to think outside of the box for fear of being held accountable, even if their actions have positive results.

Do you really believe you should get to see the transcripts of every meeting the President holds? There were no laws passed as a result of Sandy Hook alone.

Any of those laws could have been passed regardless if Sandy Hook had happened or not. It just happened to make the political atmosphere more friendly towards getting it done. This is often how we pass legislation, it moves when it becomes an issue to the people.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
I have never been anything but respectful and always back up my arguments with facts.


You may be respectful but there is nothing but speculative opinion based on your own bias thoughts in your first response here. That is a fact.

You have no factual evidence as to why anything is not made available to the public. And that's a fact.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by lynxpilot
 





Because skeptics like you will never be satisfied. Once they show you a video you will simply say its doctored or whatever in order to keep your conspiracies alive.


What about skeptics like me? What about everyone else? Your argument may hold merit but not until you can explain to me why some mass shooting footage is released either right away or in some cases such as Sandy Hook and Aurora, not at all. Can you explain that?

You see, the problem is that Sandy Hook has been shown to have a state of the art security system in place during the time of the shooting and people like to say that others want to see the televised murder of children but that is just ridiculous and is a deflection to the real argument.

People want to see snippets of the footage because of the large amount of inconsistencies, mis reporting of facts, most of which mind you cited local and federal law enforcement as sources and odd circumstance of parents parading there children around weeks after this incident on the public stage while funerals were being held for the less fortunate families, that is not to say that those families, despite needing money or not were receiving large amounts of donations for non descript reasons.

People don't like being lied too, especially by their government and in a day and time such as this, it's not acceptable after the admitted false flag events and propaganda to secure public approval for military action in Iraq falsely stating weapons of mass destruction as the cause. Operations, outside of the scope of law such as Fast and Furious where Americans die in clandestine ventures aimed at taking rights away from Americans by those in power for political gain and to appease U.N. law makers via the small arms treaty.

You see, the government lies, a lot. I think most expect it these days but it doesn't make it any easier to swallow and when the don't get what they want much like spoiled children they spill the milk on purpose and blame in on there brother. This just won't do anymore. When our government starts lying about Americans dying because of their actions, their agenda, it is time to demand evidence or face the music and who will be left without a chair remains to be seen.

They have the footage, its there, it exists, the only reason to not put it out there is because it does not show the picture that has been painted. Kids died, it's very tragic and sick but you will never see Adam Lanza shooting his way through the entrance of that school alone because very simply, that's not what happened.




Its better to simply ignore this group and operate within the confines of the law. Throw a conspiracy theorist a bone and they will demand a steak.


What law is that exactly? The law that says you can't show video footage of a crime? I will be interested to know since I can point you to many examples of video footage released by "authorities" to the MSM. I can also point you to a video of Saddam Hussein's execution that was made available. Please explain again why we can't be shown anything from Sandy Hook.

Then also validate your claim and inference that everyone who has a problem with the blatant holes, inconsistencies and lies of Sandy Hook is somehow a crack pot conspiracy theorist. your malformed outspokenness has moved a little faster than your ability to prove your position is anything other than one persons extreme bias based on their own feelings. Millions, literally millions of Americans believe Sandy Hook is in some fashion a complete lie. Your opinion isn't going to change that.




They tried this with 9/11 by having multiple experts interviewed but it did nothing to quiet the skeptics, its simply added fuel to the fire.


If you haven't heard or seen enough evidence from 9/11 to know that something is wrong Hopechest then you need to just go on and live your life drinking the government and MSM koolaid, your not going to find many people here that care about your labeling as fringe, crackpot or nuts. This is because almost everyone you labeled more than likely thinks your a naive casual who likes to pick fights here and there without arming themselves with the proper knowledge, research or critical thinking to make an argument even worth it.

Take your faith in the government and their truth and a 1.25 and you can get a coffee at the gas station tomorrow but please, rethink your stance before you comment on the biggest American tragedy since 9/11 and start labeling people as conspiracy theorists when there is more evidence to prove it didn't happen the way that was said as opposed to the official story.




edit on 23-4-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by lynxpilot
People are entitled to their opinion. I guess I'm just surprised that there are people who think that because a government passes a law, it's automatically legal. That's naïve beyond compare, or calculated, one or the other. Also, the idea that there needs to be secrecy in government. That idea has been flogged into the public mind for ages, but is unnecessary and dangerous. And, back to the point, hiding the surveillance video at Sandy Hook is nothing short of criminal when the result is institution of laws which contradict the Bill of Rights. If it were originally private, or security was necessary, then there couldn't have possibly been grounds to start imposing new laws, much less laws that contradict the Constitution. If the response of the government was justified (which it couldn't be), then why wouldn't they back it with facts?


Passing a law cannot be illegal. It may later be determined to be unconstitutional but no law is automatically illegal. Who would decide that in the first place?

You or me?

And yes there has to be some secrecy in government or people would be too afraid to think outside of the box for fear of being held accountable, even if their actions have positive results.

Do you really believe you should get to see the transcripts of every meeting the President holds? There were no laws passed as a result of Sandy Hook alone.

Any of those laws could have been passed regardless if Sandy Hook had happened or not. It just happened to make the political atmosphere more friendly towards getting it done. This is often how we pass legislation, it moves when it becomes an issue to the people.


As usual. If the government does it, it's legal. Again, back to the point, surveillance video in a STATE matter was turned over to the federal government and is not released to the public. And NO, secrecy is NOT NECESSARY in government. That's a myth. The video needs to be released as do all of the details of the event because, contrary to what you said, unconstitutional laws and executive orders are in action as a direct result of the incident. It makes the incident everybody's business.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 





Do you really believe you should get to see the transcripts of every meeting the President holds? There were no laws passed as a result of Sandy Hook alone.


I'm going to explain something to you that is very simple. If what has been reported, if what has been adopted as the official story was correct and true then we would have had that video footage played over and over and over again on the 6pm and the 10pm news every day for weeks.

The pictures of a lone Adam Lanza holding a scary AR-15 wearing a bullet proof vest and mask, busting into the school and making his way through hallways would be now etched into the minds of millions of Americans because it would have been plastered on every newspaper, magazine and television program you could imagine and what better to make the agenda all that much sweeter?

The fact that you haven't seen one still, one picture, anything else at all should tell you based on nothing else but the bare minimum common sense that it's just not what happened. What is your argument against that?
edit on 23-4-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


I personally do not wish to see the sandy hook video and it should not be released...you may think you are entitled to see it but not everyone cares about what conspiracy people deem important...sometimes folks on here think they are entitled to everything just because they think things are not the way it's presented...newsflash you or I are not entitled to everything that goes on in the United States....and if that gives you more reason to question things so be it....



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


I personally do not wish to see the sandy hook video and it should not be released...you may think you are entitled to see it but not everyone cares about what conspiracy people deem important...sometimes folks on here think they are entitled to everything just because they think things are not the way it's presented...newsflash you or I are not entitled to everything that goes on in the United States....and if that gives you more reason to question things so be it....


You're telling us that you believe the entire story of this incident? All we have is a story. No video of anything. No pictures of anything. Nothing. Not even the children leaving the school. All we have is a story with tons of inconsistencies. And you believe it. Not to mention a drill going on up the road on dealing with a crisis identical to this. Just like on 9-11. Just like on 7-7. Just like a non reported, non admitted, but obvious Boston Marathon bombing. Not fishy at all? No questions?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


I personally do not wish to see the sandy hook video and it should not be released...you may think you are entitled to see it but not everyone cares about what conspiracy people deem important...sometimes folks on here think they are entitled to everything just because they think things are not the way it's presented...newsflash you or I are not entitled to everything that goes on in the United States....and if that gives you more reason to question things so be it....


I know it seems crazy to people happy on their knees but some people think they are entitled to the truth from a government who has not only been shown to have lied about major wars and implementations of laws but have admitted as much publicly. Need I remind you about Robert Gibbs and his statements about the drone program? Let me guess, you didn't hear about it..... It's a conspiracy theory right?

The American public, the citizens of this country are entitled to the truth, they are entitled to know why a direct assault is being made upon their constitutional rights and after so many lies, some of which have been discovered and some of which have been admitted, they are entitled to ask for proof, because fool me once..... fool me twice and all that.

Those that don't question are in my honest estimation not fulfilling their dutiful rights as American citizens. Without people asking questions and holding feet to flames for truth, you and those like you would already be living underneath a Stalinist regime, you should thank them for buying you a little more time.
edit on 23-4-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by LogicGrind
 


Lol, the more we keep thinking like you, the more we keep thinking ourselves down. I'm important. You're important. You're understanding of national events is important. If we the people have a question, it needs to be answered. Expecting anything less is idiotic and lazy.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
The video? LOL We don't even have the NARRATIVE of what happened. One of the huge inconvenient facts being omitted, how long did LE sit outside the school after arriving? And, how did this guy get in the school?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


why do YOU need the sandy hook video ?

to people for whom other evidence of sandy hook is considered inadequate - i do not believe that the video will make one iota of difference

as an example i give to the 9/11 evidence - the videographic evidence of 2 passanger jets impacting WTC 1 & 2 was irrefutable - but that did not stop - the " no planes " idiocy

the call for sandy hook video is just a pathetic exercise in goal post moving



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frackityfrack
reply to post by LogicGrind
 


Lol, the more we keep thinking like you, the more we keep thinking ourselves down. I'm important. You're important. You're understanding of national events is important. If we the people have a question, it needs to be answered. Expecting anything less is idiotic and lazy.


No, you aren't important in this matter. Unless you were directly involved, had a child or loved one killed, you are not important in this matter.

Expecting that you should be catered to just because you "want" to see it is egotistic and having feelings of entitlement.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by lynxpilot





why do YOU need the sandy hook video ?


I don't WANT to see it, I NEED to see it because too much information has been suppressed, too many facts have been twisted and the American people deserve the truth about who committed this act and why. This event was made our business when Congress and the President cited this incident as the major factor for pushing new firearm legislation. Now that it's our business, it needs to be seen through, answers need to be provided.




to people for whom other evidence of sandy hook is considered inadequate - i do not believe that the video will make one iota of difference


Pointless conjecture and not a valid reason for the video not being released. While we are on the subject, what evidence do you speak of? I have seen next to nothing in the way of evidence that supports the official story, have you?




as an example i give to the 9/11 evidence - the videographic evidence of 2 passanger jets impacting WTC 1 & 2 was irrefutable - but that did not stop - the " no planes " idiocy


Because the millions of Americans that see problems with the official story of 9/11 all believe there were no planes right? Oh... They don't? Well excuse me then for chastising your credibility and the poor example you gave as you seem content to lump millions of people with different viewpoints into one pile and label them all crackpots. The simple and enormous flaw in your logic on this point is revealing to say the least.




the call for sandy hook video is just a pathetic exercise in goal post moving


What is truly pathetic is that after our government deliberately lied about weapons of mass destruction to gain support for a decade long war that has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and admitted they did it, after operation Fast and Furious has been exposed and been confirmed legitimate, after former press secretary Gibbs admitted he was directly told to lie about the drone program. After all of the false flags both planned and carried out in American history and later admitted too........

After all this, what is pathetic are the people who can not or will not apply critical thinking to events that take place that drive political agenda because they can't come to grips with reality or be willing to believe that their government would ever do such a thing. Despite it happening repeatedly even very recently in the short history of this country.

Goal post moving is nice catch phrase but it doesn't accurately describe the call for video footage, that has been made from day one and the posts were never moved, factual information for inconsistencies have been asked for since day one and never received, expanded upon and they all continue to this day to be covered up and swept under the rug. How is anyone "moving the goal posts" again?
edit on 24-4-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
It is in the same vault as the 9-11 surveillance tapes.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest


Because skeptics like you will never be satisfied. Once they show you a video you will simply say its doctored or whatever in order to keep your conspiracies alive.


How do you know how many people would be satisfied? Surely if a video at least persuaded a few people, that's a few less "skeptics" for you to moan about.


Its better to simply ignore this group and operate within the confines of the law. Throw a conspiracy theorist a bone and they will demand a steak.


Promoting ignorance? You seem strangely disturbed about people asking questions? What concern is it of yours? If you are satisfied with the official story, good for you. Thankfully, everyone isn't like you.



Showing this group a video will in absolutely no way end their skepticism since video's are too easily doctored.


Again, quite the generalization. Yes, videos are easily doctored, and with proper scrutiny this can usually be established. But then you don't like scrutiny.


If a skeptic was shown this video he might say, "yea I see what's going on but how do I know those aren't actors?"


And? No law against asking questions. Though it seems you'd change that if you could.

edit on 24-4-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Hope's response may have been a bit gruff for some to take, but I think she nailed it. it doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do, it will never be right for most conspiracy folks. There will always be something they cling to. People want pictures, then say they're photoshopped. People want audio, then say that because one word or phrase was used, the entire thing is a lie. Or that it was voice actors. People want video, then say the video has been doctored. People want documents released, then say they're altered.

I posted on another thread about something similar. The government released a statement about upcoming security drills, and people immediately latched on to it as a plan for something more nefarious. I don't get it. When something happens and the government isn't out ahead of it, its a false flag attack. When the government says 'hey, we're getting ready to do this' people say its really a plan for something else. It really doesn't matter what the government does, it'll never be right enough or good enough for people.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamrock6
Hope's response may have been a bit gruff for some to take, but I think she nailed it. it doesn't matter what the government does or doesn't do, it will never be right for most conspiracy folks. There will always be something they cling to. People want pictures, then say they're photoshopped. People want audio, then say that because one word or phrase was used, the entire thing is a lie. Or that it was voice actors. People want video, then say the video has been doctored. People want documents released, then say they're altered.

I posted on another thread about something similar. The government released a statement about upcoming security drills, and people immediately latched on to it as a plan for something more nefarious. I don't get it. When something happens and the government isn't out ahead of it, its a false flag attack. When the government says 'hey, we're getting ready to do this' people say its really a plan for something else. It really doesn't matter what the government does, it'll never be right enough or good enough for people.


The problem with your statements is that they require a person to subscribe to the notion that broad sweeping generalizations such as the word "people" can be applied in your logic. I do not subscribe to that notion.

I believe many things the government has said in the past about a great many events. I believe what I do because I found in research that the facts that are present agree with the statements that are being made. I and many others don't question the government simply to question.

The problems start to arise when information is withheld without cause. When agenda is being pushed during or immediately after an event. When facts are mis reported, mis represented and disinformation is purposefully injected into play. When facts don't agree with statements or narrative or when there is a complete lack of suitable facts to back up a story in the first place. This is when I start to ask questions, mostly because, I as all Americans, deserve the truth, especially if an event will be used to wage war against my constitutional rights.

Who are "people"? Who is a conspiracy theorist and who is an informed concerned citizen? How do you define or identify who is who and why?

You can say...... People who believe there were no planes. You can say........... People who believe crisis actors were used. Both of those statements accurately reflect the base of people you are addressing. To just say, people or conspiracy theorist is too broad a brush and leaves you with the only option being to blindly trust and obey everything the government tells you and I'm not ready to concede that just yet...



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


"People" is a lot shorter to say than "those entities that are never satisfied with any amount of evidence they are presented with because they refuse to believe anything they don't personally witness." Sorry for choosing brevity. I assumed, mistakenly it seems, that people (there I go again) would understand who I was referring to.

To your point, who is it that determines what you, and the rest of us, have a right to know? Nobody has the right, or need, to know every last detail of everything the government does. And even if we did, there's absolutely no way the individual could possibly keep up with the massive amounts of data and information that would entail.

Choosing to worry about how one defines "people" in my post misses the entire point. You can choose to focus on that aspect of it all you like. Doesn't change it one bit.






top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join