National School Safety Expert: Sandy Hook shooting was a fraud

reply to post by captaintyinknots


To be fair those videos I showed you and the things pointed out in this thread are circumstantial evidence. Now, is there anything to corroborate? I don't know.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Oh, and the interesting thing is, most of the circumstantial conspiracy evidence would be admissible in a court of law, while your evidence, hearsay, would be inadmissible.


That's something to think about.

reply to post by ExNihiloRed


I have no problem with further investigation. I have done much myself.

Disregarding all sources that don't fit into a narrative, though, is not investigation.

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Oh, and the interesting thing is, most of the circumstantial conspiracy evidence would be admissible in a court of law, while your evidence, hearsay, would be inadmissible.


That's something to think about.

Wrong. My evidence is not hearsay. My evidence is the testimony of eyewitnesses, as well as the physical and recorded evidence that has been made available.

I have never said I have first hand knowledge. I have said that many people do, and they have been questioned thoroughly. But again, when people disregard any and all sources that don't scream "conspiracy", this conversation becomes a bit moot.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


My theory is there is a massive cover up going on in regards to the events that took place on that morning
My evidence is all the hush hush and sealing of public records.
My evidence is that story does not match the photos and video and information that has surfaced
My evidence is the clear conspiracy to hide the evidence
Case and point the doctor illegally destroying adams record in the middle of a federal investigation
If there is a conspiracy to hide the evidence then there is a conspiracy in the actual event

If this is so exhausting for you then stop replying. Not hard

captaintyinknots

Wrong. My evidence is not hearsay. My evidence is the testimony of eyewitnesses, as well as the physical and recorded evidence that has been made available.

I have never said I have first hand knowledge. I have said that many people do, and they have been questioned thoroughly. But again, when people disregard any and all sources that don't scream "conspiracy", this conversation becomes a bit moot.

So does it count as recorded evidence when the 911 operator said she heard a rumor that it was fake, and the other operator quickly shuts her down?

reply to post by Sremmos80

My theory is there is a massive cover up going on in regards to the events that took place on that morning

To cover up what?

My evidence is all the hush hush and sealing of public records.
My evidence is that story does not match the photos and video and information that has surfaced
My evidence is the clear conspiracy to hide the evidence

These are pretty general. Care to provide ANY specifics? Blanket statements hardly hold up as "evidence"

If there is a conspiracy to hide the evidence then there is a conspiracy in the actual event

Can you provide actual evidence of either one?

Its funny how its gone from "drill gone live" to "negligence" to "coverup", yet you cant provide any evidence of any of them (well, maybe some pretty weak "evidence" of negligence)

jaws1975

captaintyinknots

Wrong. My evidence is not hearsay. My evidence is the testimony of eyewitnesses, as well as the physical and recorded evidence that has been made available.

I have never said I have first hand knowledge. I have said that many people do, and they have been questioned thoroughly. But again, when people disregard any and all sources that don't scream "conspiracy", this conversation becomes a bit moot.

So does it count as recorded evidence when the 911 operator said she heard there was a drill at the school that day, and the other operator quickly shuts her down?

Id love to hear that.

Either way, though, why does the word of one person who heard something hold water with you, while anyone who heard something that doesn't jive with your story doesn't?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I edited my post to include exactly what she said, at the 2 minute marker. link

captaintyinknots

Either way, though, why does the word of one person who heard something hold water with you, while anyone who heard something that doesn't jive with your story doesn't?

Because it's evidence, you can't have it both ways. Move the goalposts back much?

jaws1975

captaintyinknots

Either way, though, why does the word of one person who heard something hold water with you, while anyone who heard something that doesn't jive with your story doesn't?

Because it's evidence, you can't have it both ways. Move the goalposts back much?

not moving the goalpost at all. I'm just wondering where the line comes in as to what you all disregard and what has merit. Why is this lady more reliable than the eyewitnesses?

reply to post by captaintyinknots

To cover up what?

Did you forget what we are talking about?
We have shown you the new laws to keep public record closed
We have went over the inconsistences, first thing that comes to mind is the weapons that were/were not used and where or where not they were found
Clearly adam's medical records were destroyed illegally and the police were told that during a federal investigation but yet no reprimand for the ex doctor?
At that point his mistake is hindering a federal investigation.
Good thing he had the iron clad vague recollection and that was enough.

There was a government agency drill going on in the immediate area, there is a cover up, there was negligence. It has not gone from one to another as they are all separate elements to the entire event as a whole.

Also, you your self said you don't think it went down exactly as told, even giving merit to a second shooter.
What is your theory with your evidence backing it?

captaintyinknots
reply to post by ExNihiloRed

 

As for the "circle pattern", it is my understanding that the firehouse was far to small to handle all the people at once, so they filtered them in lines around the building, as to keep thingsmoving.

…and that causes no cognitive dissonance in your mind whatsoever, do I have that right?

As far as what evidence do I have of a conspiracy?
Well—I mean this quite literally—How about the
FACT THAT EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY MEANS OF INDEPENDENTLY AND FACTUALLY VERIFYING THE CLAIMS THAT 27 PEOPLE DIED IN SANDY HOOK CONNECTICUT ON DECEMBER 14, 2012 HAVE BEEN CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND SEALED, CLASSIFIED, AND REDACTED.

Think about that for a hot minute, chief.

I cannot speak for you, but I personally was NOT born yesterday.

reply to post by Sremmos80

Did you forget what we are talking about?

Nope. We are talking about your "theory", which is so vague it hardly counts as such. Make a definitve statement, would ya? What do you think is being covered up?

We have shown you the new laws to keep public record closed

No, you have spoken of one law in another state and provided NOTHING that links it to SH.

We have went over the inconsistences, first thing that comes to mind is the weapons that were/were not used and where or where not they were found

You mean media inconsistencies?

Clearly adam's medical records were destroyed illegally and the police were told that during a federal investigation but yet no reprimand for the ex doctor?

Clearly? Says who? You?

Fpr the record, that man willingly gave up his license, so he couldn't be reprimanded anymore. Funny how you keep focusing on him, and not the other doctor quoted.

There was a government agency drill going on in the immediate area

50 miles away is not the immediate area.

there is a cover up

of what? what do you claim is covered up?

there was negligence

which you have already admitted was not realistic, and which would prove nothing e=of a conspiracy even IF (big if) you somehow proved negligence.

Also, you your self said you don't think it went down exactly as told, even giving merit to a second shooter.

I said I was open to the idea, and it could have merit. Those are not statements making a claim that it happened, therefore do not require evidence. If you recall, I ALSO said that no evidence of a second shooter was found.

Point being, I am open to theories. Its too bad all you guys have is baseless conjecture.

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


You mean its impossible for you to visit the graves? Its impossible to visit the town, to talk to the people involved?

captaintyinknots
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE

 

You mean its impossible for you to visit the graves? Its impossible to visit the town, to talk to the people involved?

Talk to people like your second cousin who played "Bunko" with Lanza's mom?
Sure, PM me her address and phone number and I'll check it out.

Also be sure to shoot an email over to Lt. J. Paul Vance, since according to the bastardized and redacted investigatory BS report, the peoples in the neighborhood didn't know anything about the Lanzas.

The grave locations are on the death certificates … which are sealed.

Try again.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Wow, you nit picked that one to all hell.
I answered your question and provided you with what I have that is all I can do
Think what you want to think, say what you need to say about me, give your self the pat on the back because this will be my last reply to you.
Thanks for keeping the door open for me, you sure had your chance to get out of this exhausting conversation

3mperorConstantinE

captaintyinknots
reply to post by ExNihiloRed

 

As for the "circle pattern", it is my understanding that the firehouse was far to small to handle all the people at once, so they filtered them in lines around the building, as to keep thingsmoving.

…and that causes no cognitive dissonance in your mind whatsoever, do I have that right?

As far as what evidence do I have of a conspiracy?
Well—I mean this quite literally—How about the
FACT THAT EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY MEANS OF INDEPENDENTLY AND FACTUALLY VERIFYING THE CLAIMS THAT 27 PEOPLE DIED IN SANDY HOOK CONNECTICUT ON DECEMBER 14, 2012 HAVE BEEN CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AND SEALED, CLASSIFIED, AND REDACTED.

Think about that for a hot minute, chief.

I cannot speak for you, but I personally was NOT born yesterday.

No But you don't understand the absolute backwards and screwed up way Connecticut is.

However, I happen to agree on this decision, as I always do when minors are involved, I even think the 911 tapes should have been suppressed as they involve descriptions of children, sorry, even in my line of work I draw the line at kids, i have ZERO tolerance for any incidence of violence, abuse, misuse, mistreatment et al of any child, and firmly believe that any incident involving minor children should be immediately suppressed and sealed.

But that's also a very very long time New Englander and her own feelings on the matter, the law, in this state, happens to agree with me on some of what's sealed..