National School Safety Expert: Sandy Hook shooting was a fraud

reply to post by vkey08


I find it curious that you'd assume that I do not understand the "backwards" nature of Connecticut.
Believe me, I understand what you are saying.

New England as a whole, and the individual NE states themselves, each have a very different character and mentality than the rest of the country, that is 100% accurate.

I wanted to briefly address your comment about children.
When something tragic occurs involving children, of course that is the hardest information to process.
—Especially if you are a parent.
However, the rationality of discussion must be maintained and we must not be bamboozled or misdirected by emotionalized legislative action or the appeals to emotionalism in discourse; not when the topic has had consequences for states other than Connecticut

It has been a long-standing protocol across every state in this country that minors are afforded greater privacy protections. The privacy rights of minors are not under debate here. The issue here is death records and the information contained therein.

vkey08 – you will of no doubt find it ironic that as far as states go, up until exactly one year ago, your state is was, in fact, one of the least backwards of the 50 states, at least in terms of the bureaucratic mechanisms in place for the public to access abbreviated death records.
This was because any member of the general public could access the death records of any other member of the public, merely upon request.
There are many reasons why the public needs to have access to these records, to ensure the checks and balances of our country operate properly. When these checks & balances are ignored, transparency in government is slowly eroded. We see it happen daily. Did/Do you fight for this country?
Tyranny is around the corner once the government spends most of its time (and our $$$) passing statutory rules to hide things from us.

Here are some absolutely legitimate reasons for access to these records, which you perhaps may not have considered:

Opposition to HB-5733, entitled:
AN ACT CONCERNING ACCESS TO DEATH CERTIFICATES
by Colleen M. Murphy and Mary Schwind
(Executive/Managing Directors of and General Counsels for the Freedom of Information Commission)

The FOIC is sympathetic to the desire to protect families of deceased minors. However, the Commission notes that the most sensitive information surrounding a minor's death, or any death, is already exempt from mandatory disclosure. For example, the most explicit and/or graphic medical information surrounding a death is located not in death certificates, but in autopsy reports. Autopsy reports are by and large unavailable to the general public. The legislature has already provided that information on death certificates not be available to the general public, pursuant to CGS Sec. 7-51a(c) for all deaths occurring after July 1, 1997.

Beyond these general comments, the FOIC is concerned about the subject nature of the proposed statutory language. It would undoubtedly lead to differing results depending on which public official is charged with making the determination. The discretionary aspect of the proposed bill could lead to abuse of that discretion in the future.

The FOIC notes that even in situations where the death of a child occurs while the victim is in state custody and under the protective mantle of the state – a governmental failure of the most fundamental kind –there would be no access to the basic information described above for all time under the proposed language. The minimal information currently available on death certificates should remain open to the public.

Similarly:

by Claude Albert
(Legislative Chair of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information)

While we certainly sympathize with the sentiment expressed in this proposal, we would urge the legislature to be reluctant to seal death certificates. These most fundamental of official records have always been available to the public. Death certificates specify the time, place and cause of death. They do not, however, include detailed or graphic medical information. We believe the limited information now available on death certificates should remain public.

The bill creates a vague standard for when a death certificate may be withheld, and makes a myriad of public officials responsible for individually determining when that standard has been met. It gives no time frame for expiration of the restriction on access, and it makes no provision for the cases of children who die in state custody, which must be subject to close public scrutiny. The proposal fails to consider whether different family members might have different privacy interest in some cases.

link

ta d’alla, seautou epimelou hin ei errosai,

~E.C.

therealguyfawkes
Also don't forget:

One of the "parents" at Sandy Hoax also happens to be the exact same woman that's supposed to be James Holmes' "lawyer."

See the truth for yourself

OOO OOO the Jennifer Sexton BS that keeps popping up as Made popular by one Wellaware1 who is a total moronic nutcase himself....(yes i know the page in question also says it, but it's hard to say he wasn't involved in all this)

reply to post by vkey08


The modus operandi behind the conveniently available Picassa photo album of the "Sexton/Greenberg" clan is a transparently textbookesque example of disinformation.

It apparently works.

What is more interesting to me is the progenitor of the USIA style misinformation.
Sources of disinformation are typically commerce or government.

Since no commercial interests can be deduced, then that leaves us with … ‘government’ (intelligence agencies, law enforcement, military, or State Department).

But in such an ‘open an shut case’ such as what occurred at the alleged massacre at Sandy Hook's alleged elementary school, what need is there for DISINFORMATION? …

Study the album and the circumstances of its discovery, if you have any "experience" with such matters, it's an unmistakably textbook usage of signal-to-noise ratio-reduction tactics.

3mperorConstantinE
reply to post by vkey08

 

The modus operandi behind the conveniently available Picassa photo album of the "Sexton/Greenberg" clan is a transparently textbookesque example of disinformation.

It apparently works.

What is more interesting to me is the progenitor of the USIA style misinformation.
Sources of disinformation are typically commerce or government.

Since no commercial interests can be deduced, then that leaves us with … ‘government’ (intelligence agencies, law enforcement, military, or State Department).

But in such an ‘open an shut case’ such as what occurred at the alleged massacre at Sandy Hook's alleged elementary school, what need is there for DISINFORMATION? …

Study the album and the circumstances of its discovery, if you have any "experience" with such matters, it's an unmistakably textbook usage of signal-to-noise ratio-reduction tactics.

uhm, without going into any personal details because I refuse to on this site, i take offense to the terms alleged massacre and alleged school. The school existed and unfortunately I'm still suffering PTSD from the massacre scene, not to go to far into it, but while I find that what they put out in the report was sloppy at best, completely in need of more information at worst, and the stuff about Lanza himself just totally off the wall, after being inundated with it for a few years now ( I am waiting for them to claim Lanza was behind Hurricane Irene, Nor'Easter Alfred and Superstorm Sandy as well) there is no doubt (at least in my mind, as well... n/m) that a bunch of little kids were gunned down that day, by whom? That is still a good question.

Why? Who really knows, i brought up in another thread that the FBI could have recovered data off a hard drive platter that was approx 20% intact without much problem, so this smashed hard drive sends up red flags.

Every single picture of Adam Lanza is the SAME picture of Adam Lanza, even though I hate to have my face photographed, there are still at least 30 or 40 shots of me around the house from the past 10 years.. and I don't think I could pull off looking identical in any one of them, much less all of them.

Do I think this was about gun control? No.. if that were the case laws would have been changed and Obama would have executive orderedthe 2nd amendment away overnight. Do I think it's related to locking down the schools so they can implement Common Core without parents having the luxury of looking in? Absolutely..I do, I can't give facts or statistics, or even anyone suggesting this, it's just a thought I have had since the thing happened and they started restricting access to the schools.

Remember up until Sandy Hook Elementary not one of the school shooting incidents happened in a school full of children 8 and under. It was easy to chalk up the deaths and the incidents because of unstable teenagers taking it out on thir peers that they felt bullied or otherwise rejected by.

This was a different scenario. These were for all intensive purposes, the kids you put on your Christmas card, or write updates on Facebook about, the best years of the childs lives, as they are just starting to learn new things and the world is full of wonder, my kids at 10 are STILL like that, and I admit, I prattle on about them a lot. This was a shooter (I won't say Lanza because honestly I'm not sure 100%) gaining access to an Elementary School, full of little kids that have absolutely NO way of defending themselves and no way of understanding what to do in this situation, being mowed down by whomever did this.

The ones I feel sorry for are those kids, why? Because they were pawns in a bigger game, but no-one will ever hear me denying they died.. Nor will I ever say that the parents didn't suffer greatly..

Lose a child, tell me how it feels, and how you react for every minute of every day for the first few months afterwards, then you will understand there are moments you can smile, there are moments you can cry, there are moments you can even look like you are a normal human being.. But there are moments..

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


Did I or do I fight for this country I have to laugh at that..

No, I fight every day for the rights of the people IN the country, nothing more and nothing less. I have arrested TSA officers for not following the rules in the same day, a regular person that took a prank to far..

SO Yes I understand the NEED for access, however.. as a parent who has lost a child, and then had that information, without MY knowledge posted everywhere, I also see the need for restrictions when it comes to minor children, that's not Tyranny, that's parental need, we need closure and answers before you need that death certificate..

Sorry it's my feeling on the subject, nothing more, nothing less.

Just imagine....say like Robbie Parker had been standing there, in front of the press and lets say his wife had been the victim of a murder and he done a repeat performance of what we all saw that night.
I think most of us would be thinking " he did it ".

Something`s not right about the way he prepped himself up to look heartbroken.

vkey08

therealguyfawkes
Also don't forget:

One of the "parents" at Sandy Hoax also happens to be the exact same woman that's supposed to be James Holmes' "lawyer."

See the truth for yourself

OOO OOO the Jennifer Sexton BS that keeps popping up as Made popular by one Wellaware1 who is a total moronic nutcase himself....(yes i know the page in question also says it, but it's hard to say he wasn't involved in all this)

have to agree with you.
That`s not the same woman

reply to post by captaintyinknots


That's the definition of hearsay.

lambros56
Just imagine....say like Robbie Parker had been standing there, in front of the press and lets say his wife had been the victim of a murder and he done a repeat performance of what we all saw that night.
I think most of us would be thinking " he did it ".

Something`s not right about the way he prepped himself up to look heartbroken.

That's a perfect analogy. Well said.

We'd be able to talk about it too without being labeled "fetishists."

reply to post by captaintyinknots


It seems ignorant to say all we have is baseless conjecture when we are basing our conjecture off a lot of things.

Unless you saw the shooting yourself or the bodies or the crime scene, everything you say other people said is hearsay. Have you personally spoke to victims or family of victims? Is any information more than he said she said? How can you say that is any more reliable than what we are pointing to as indicators of uncertainty? Perhaps they are nothing more than oddities, but they are worth vetting.

You started all this by fretting about how close minded us SH skeptics are, but you've expressed the most close minded positioning of anyone.

lambros56
Just imagine....say like Robbie Parker had been standing there, in front of the press and lets say his wife had been the victim of a murder and he done a repeat performance of what we all saw that night.
I think most of us would be thinking " he did it ".

Something`s not right about the way he prepped himself up to look heartbroken.

I tried to explain this, in a kind and simple way, having lost a child myself (although mine was due to hospital negligence) you have moments a lot of them actually where something makes you smile, and you laugh, it's totally out of context to how you're feeling and it's almost instinctual but it happens... Especially in the first few months after. it's nothing ominous or bad, it was probably something said to him that was lighthearted and reminded him of something good, which is what people SHOULD be doing at a time like that.

People HAD to take it to mean something bad though, instead of asking themselves what would happen to them in their place.

That's the whole problem with that line of thinking, you aren't him, you have ZERO way of knowing what was said to him just prior to that clip, you have no way to know what he was thinking.. (and honestly I never asked anyone that was there what was said to him because it's none of my damn business)

reply to post by vkey08


I agree. But why the breathing exercise to make himself look sad? I don't care about the laughing, I care about the preparing to look sad.

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by vkey08

 

I agree. But why the breathing exercise to make himself look sad? I don't care about the laughing, I care about the preparing to look sad.

That's typical news media prep, they most likely told him to do that because laughing wouldn't be appropriate.. Considering some of the morons from Fox61 were there doing the setup, that would not surprise me..

reply to post by vkey08


I don't disagree that there are explanations that don't equal hoax, but you have to admit, as a logical corollary, it could also be evidence of a hoax, as it is out of the ordinary? Viewing it in the context of the other oddities and out of the ordinary occurrences increases the probability of hoax as a statistical matter, wouldn't you say? It just seems amiss that so much doesn't add up or make sense for one event, one that occurs frequently (school shootings), and no other time has it been so unclear and the truth so protected.

Such an interesting case.

Seemingly an open and shut case of a lone nut perpetrating a mass crime. But every detail is a big secret. Information redacted. Stories all mixed up (media confusion, I know).

Zero video evidence. Even Columbine had video nearly 2 decades ago. I know, I know. Newtown, CT is such a backward place. Nobody who doesn't live there could possibly understand. Never mind that we were told early on that Sandy Hook was a special place, and people moved their just for the schools. Camera shy people, apparently.

No reporters seem to care about the inconsistencies.

Citizen journalists who try to get to the bottom of things are stone walled.

Even though nobody comes forward to talk without pimping a new charity, message boards are littered with anonymous posters who were there, knew someone there, attended funerals - whatever.

These anonymous posters never provide any info that could help verify anything about this event. They never help us get any closer to the bottom of things. But they are quick to tell us what is none of our business.

Quite a phenomenal set of circumstances, if you ask me.

Out of curiosity, does this post contain any ludicrous online lies?

vkey08

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by vkey08

 

I agree. But why the breathing exercise to make himself look sad? I don't care about the laughing, I care about the preparing to look sad.

That's typical news media prep, they most likely told him to do that because laughing wouldn't be appropriate.. Considering some of the morons from Fox61 were there doing the setup, that would not surprise me..

Huh didn't know media was allowed to dictate how one speaks about their own daughter.
Could it have been more appropriate to let him either express his emotion with out explanation, cause he does not need to give one since it seems to be common knowledge that every one expresses it differently
Or have him lead with said explanation and let him continue to express his emotion the way he wants
As you stated laughter is not bad in the grieving process, I fully agree with that.

The way his laughs is strange to me though, definitely not as strange as the actions followed. The blatant switch of emotion is what gets me. The laughter didn't turn into sadness naturally IMO, it was those deep breaths that seemed to bring it out.
I see it as strange behavior for some one that just lost a loved one

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by vkey08

 

I don't disagree that there are explanations that don't equal hoax, but you have to admit, as a logical corollary, it could also be evidence of a hoax, as it is out of the ordinary? Viewing it in the context of the other oddities and out of the ordinary occurrences increases the probability of hoax as a statistical matter, wouldn't you say? It just seems amiss that so much doesn't add up or make sense for one event, one that occurs frequently (school shootings), and no other time has it been so unclear and the truth so protected.

If you see my longer post, I actually have questioned the Adam Lanza, acting alone story. I do not question the parents and the loss of children, I think they were unwitting pawns in whatever this was.

However, some of the conclusions that are being drawn all focus on what the reader, with hindsight, would do at a particular moment, having been involved in major shooting scenes, and also with both sides of the equation, there is only one portion of this whole thing that is and should rightly be questioned, and that is Adam Lanza.

At first, the news here claimed he was autistic and that's why he snapped, That caused a huge backlash against autistic children here (i have two it hit home). Then, it was some sort of other mental illness, then it was drugs, then they retracted that, but through it all the SAME one picture, put in different contexts was used, the same one on that ID card, and the same one from his yearbook picture.

There has been little to no discussion of why's, just speculation. However, when you look at the whole situation, and see the aftermath, and what a typical school is like now, gun control look less and less like the end result. Up until Sandy Hook, elementary school parents had the right, especially parents of special needs children, to go in and visit the school unannounced and see how your child was doing. It was kind of a check and balance built into the laws. Now, you have to announce yourself and pass a security check, as well as not freely walk around... if they know you are there, teachers can change how they are doing something so that you never truly have an idea. With Common Core being rammed down our throats, locking out parents that could step in, seems like a logical step to control the children.

I do not think this was a hoax, in fact I know the killing portion wasn't a hoax. I think that the CT State Police did their best with a very bad situation, and one they were not prepared to deal with. I think that Carver, for all his flaws, handled his job as well as he ever had in any other instance, he's not a camera friendly person, and normally would have sent an underling out to speak, but all of this call of Hoax Hoax noone died, forced him on camera, and it of course was not his preferred place to be, he's no Henry Lee. Lt Vance, people still don't' understand, is a spokesman, not the person giving the orders, that would be Dan Stebbins.

Col Stebbins would issue what needs to be said, Vance would just repeat it, rinse repeat....

The fact that the State Legislature here was just as desperate for answers, just shows how unprepared we were, they couldn't get out of their own ways fast enough, and not one of them really *wanted* to enact any new legislation, the harshest of the new laws of course were the school lockdowns, not the gun laws people keep harping on, those are symbolic, the State has even said publicly they don't plan on prosecuting anyone under the new laws, unless the weapon in question is used in the commission of a crime. Doesn't sound very harsh to me...

NO the part that doesn't make sense is the military precision that this was done with, and the fact that one crazy 96 pound kid was able to pull it off alone. Not that people died, they did. Not that kids died, they certainly did. But how one little weak kid could muster all that strength to overpower the whole school and do that much damage.

vkey08

ExNihiloRed
reply to post by vkey08

 

I don't disagree that there are explanations that don't equal hoax, but you have to admit, as a logical corollary, it could also be evidence of a hoax, as it is out of the ordinary? Viewing it in the context of the other oddities and out of the ordinary occurrences increases the probability of hoax as a statistical matter, wouldn't you say? It just seems amiss that so much doesn't add up or make sense for one event, one that occurs frequently (school shootings), and no other time has it been so unclear and the truth so protected.

If you see my longer post, I actually have questioned the Adam Lanza, acting alone story. I do not question the parents and the loss of children, I think they were unwitting pawns in whatever this was.

However, some of the conclusions that are being drawn all focus on what the reader, with hindsight, would do at a particular moment, having been involved in major shooting scenes, and also with both sides of the equation, there is only one portion of this whole thing that is and should rightly be questioned, and that is Adam Lanza.

So it's OK for you to question a huge part of the official story but no one else has the right to question any other part? How is that logical? You are agreeing that the official story could very well be a lie, but saying they would only lie about certain aspects. Perhaps you should give other observers the benefit of the doubt as they examine all aspects of this case.

vkey08There has been little to no discussion of why's, just speculation. However, when you look at the whole situation, and see the aftermath, and what a typical school is like now, gun control look less and less like the end result. Up until Sandy Hook, elementary school parents had the right, especially parents of special needs children, to go in and visit the school unannounced and see how your child was doing. It was kind of a check and balance built into the laws. Now, you have to announce yourself and pass a security check, as well as not freely walk around... if they know you are there, teachers can change how they are doing something so that you never truly have an idea. With Common Core being rammed down our throats, locking out parents that could step in, seems like a logical step to control the children.

I don't dispute that garnering more control over schools is part of this.

vkey08I do not think this was a hoax, in fact I know the killing portion wasn't a hoax. I think that the CT State Police did their best with a very bad situation, and one they were not prepared to deal with. I think that Carver, for all his flaws, handled his job as well as he ever had in any other instance, he's not a camera friendly person, and normally would have sent an underling out to speak, but all of this call of Hoax Hoax noone died, forced him on camera, and it of course was not his preferred place to be, he's no Henry Lee. Lt Vance, people still don't' understand, is a spokesman, not the person giving the orders, that would be Dan Stebbins.

Carver was on camera the next day. Nobody was screaming hoax then. In fact, it was the way Carver acted and what he said that started some people scratching their heads.

vkey08The fact that the State Legislature here was just as desperate for answers, just shows how unprepared we were, they couldn't get out of their own ways fast enough, and not one of them really *wanted* to enact any new legislation, the harshest of the new laws of course were the school lockdowns, not the gun laws people keep harping on, those are symbolic, the State has even said publicly they don't plan on prosecuting anyone under the new laws, unless the weapon in question is used in the commission of a crime. Doesn't sound very harsh to me...

Government passing laws they don't intend to use? Actually sounds quite harsh to me. The more laws on the books, the more they can target people for prosecution. Write enough laws and everybody is guilty of something. Just depends on when the government wishes to pull out their trump card.

vkey08NO the part that doesn't make sense is the military precision that this was done with, and the fact that one crazy 96 pound kid was able to pull it off alone. Not that people died, they did. Not that kids died, they certainly did. But how one little weak kid could muster all that strength to overpower the whole school and do that much damage.

Much of it doesn't make sense. Try as you might, you've failed to make a very compelling case, in my opinion. People certainly could have died that day, but to this point there has been no evidence presented to support this. The burden of proof that a crime has been committed falls on the State. Not on media accounts. Not in redacted reports. We should all demand hard evidence. Otherwise, any of us could find ourselves at the whim of the government - a government armed with scores of laws that they allegedly don't intend to use.

"They" are trying their best to convince us that evidence does not matter. You must believe what the news tells you. You must take the government's word for it. It's none of your business what's in those reports anyway. "Truther" has become a pejorative term. Think about that. Those who seek the truth are now openly derided and mocked.

What did the President say recently? Something like, "If you don't trust me, we have a problem." Well, yeah.

reply to post by notquitesure


without quoting your whole thing, what I am saying is actually simple, it's the fact that you are reading more into certain things that is disquieting.

Carver was only on camera because of one website that shall remain nameless calling hoax only hours after this incident. That's not in the police report, nor should it be, it was an executive decision made by the Governor's Office in order to try and calm the masses, it backfired as Carver is NOT a good public speaker, nothing more nothing less.

And where did I say that they lied in the report, I never once used that word. I think that things that they were thinking about should have been included for sure, i think that the investigation was terminated too soon, and there was another person or persons involved, yes, does it mean lanza DID NOT pull a trigger that day? no. That part I am sure of, his dead body was at the scene and he had numerous weapons on him, however looking at his stature and his mental state (whatever that truly is, only visible state I am talking of) he could not have pulled this off without some sort of help, and they didn't investigate that angle after the body of Lanza was found. They also did not send the damaged hard drives off to the FBI lab for analysis, hell I had a drive on my computer I use to do graphics fail miserably into a heap of non working crap, the lab was able to pull most of my data off, and it was in worse shape.

Did the CT State Police do what they could? Yes and No. They acted in what they thought was the best interests of the families which they should do, but they also forgot the first rule of Investigation, it's not over til it's over. I know a lot of the guys who worked on this, and also a lot of the higher ups that worked on this and they were not actively hiding anything, they were and still are in shock, so do i think anyone lied, not outright, I think more could have been investigated, and we may have, in my opinion garnered through years of investigative work, found at least one accomplice, but I could be wrong, it's just nagging at me, and I have the feeling it's not something they thought through well enough, does NOT make me think they are lying.

As for Mr Parker, he's a nice guy, very soft spoken and very very much still trying to cope with this. Can't say as I got a vibe from him either that day or the next that suggested anything other than shock.

Questioning the official story is fine, as long as you don't start to automatically assume that because ONE thing is off, everything is off, and that is a very bad trait a lot of commentators and website patrons have. I have done it in the past as well, yes I'm guilty of letting my mind run away and think, hmmm well a led to c where's b, and then when I really start to rethink it, B was always there, but not as important as D. Same in this case, Colorado's theater shooting, etc. We WANT BADLY to think this was some set up conspiracy, we WANT to be able to say they lie they lie so as to justify the continued harassment of these families for years, but in the end, the FBI, the ATF and every federal agency were kept out of the loop after the initial rescue operation. (I can also tell you the OP's source never called Hartford Hospital, as he would have found both Lifestar Helicopters were out on runs at the time of the incident, not just sitting around waiting to be used) the closest chopper at the time would have been Westchester County Medical Center, and they were if I recall correctly also in use at the time. One lifestar was up on a run to Baystate in Springfield MA and the other headed to Yale New Haven)

I have no doubt in my mind (as it's seared into my mind) that a bunch of little children died that day. I have no doubt that Adam Lanza died that day, i only doubt that he acted alone and that they did everything in their power to find that out, they didn't, that's not a lie, that's just a decision they made, or information we don't have.

Which is part two of all of this.

We don't have all the info from the investigation. We never will. Everyone screams that we should be allowed to see everything, but if they are secretly searching still for someone else, then they would not wish to make that public. I have no idea if they are or not, just speculating, does it explain away the fact that they botched this whole thing? Nah, they're human beings, and we make mistakes, not to be second guessed by armchair investigators that sit at home watching youtube videos with commentary that everything is a hoax and everything is CG, or that Emilie Parker was also in Colorado and in the man in the Moon because she's some phantom child.. Or that Robbie wasn't really grieving a lost child because he didn't act the way you wanted him to, and someone commentator took it out of context..

A personal aside, if you were one of these families would YOU like people coming and harassing you all the time because someone keeps claiming hoax?

vkey08
reply to post by notquitesure

 

Carver was only on camera because of one website that shall remain nameless calling hoax only hours after this incident. That's not in the police report, nor should it be, it was an executive decision made by the Governor's Office in order to try and calm the masses, it backfired as Carver is NOT a good public speaker, nothing more nothing less.

Why are you privy to un-sourced, executive decisions made in the Governor's office? And if this is true, why are you comfortable sharing the information on the internet, if they didn't want it shared in the report? If you have so much inside knowledge, they know who you are, right?

And just to get this straight, you are saying that in the immediate aftermath of this incident the Governor's Office felt they needed to "calm the masses" by dispelling a hoax rumor? Frankly, I don't recall the masses needing calming. Further, wouldn't that be a rather bizarre reaction to a real event that left 26 people dead? To feel that you needed to dispel hoax rumors (that virtually no one had even heard)?

vkey08
And where did I say that they lied in the report, I never once used that word. I think that things that they were thinking about should have been included for sure, i think that the investigation was terminated too soon, and there was another person or persons involved, yes, does it mean lanza DID NOT pull a trigger that day? no. That part I am sure of, his dead body was at the scene and he had numerous weapons on him, however looking at his stature and his mental state (whatever that truly is, only visible state I am talking of) he could not have pulled this off without some sort of help, and they didn't investigate that angle after the body of Lanza was found.

No need to quibble over semantics. If you don't believe that Lanza acted alone, then you don't believe the official report. It doesn't really matter to me whether you want to call that a lie or not.

You seem to be indicating that you were at the scene that day in Sandy Hook. Is this true? Otherwise, you were once again privy to deep insider information, since no one else has seen his dead body with numerous weapons on him. I will reiterate that if you were both at the scene as well as possessing inside knowledge of decisions made by the governor, surely they know who you are. Are they comfortable with you revealing this information online? Are they comfortable with you questioning the official story?

Again, just to get your opinion straight...you simply believe that it wasn't investigated thoroughly enough? That the state police were happy with their patsy and saw no need to pursue the real killer? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

vkey08
Questioning the official story is fine, as long as you don't start to automatically assume that because ONE thing is off, everything is off, and that is a very bad trait a lot of commentators and website patrons have. I have done it in the past as well, yes I'm guilty of letting my mind run away and think, hmmm well a led to c where's b, and then when I really start to rethink it, B was always there, but not as important as D. Same in this case, Colorado's theater shooting, etc. We WANT BADLY to think this was some set up conspiracy, we WANT to be able to say they lie they lie so as to justify the continued harassment of these families for years, but in the end, the FBI, the ATF and every federal agency were kept out of the loop after the initial rescue operation. (I can also tell you the OP's source never called Hartford Hospital, as he would have found both Lifestar Helicopters were out on runs at the time of the incident, not just sitting around waiting to be used) the closest chopper at the time would have been Westchester County Medical Center, and they were if I recall correctly also in use at the time. One lifestar was up on a run to Baystate in Springfield MA and the other headed to Yale New Haven)

I'm just going to say it's comical to state that every Federal agency was kept out of the loop. Also, thank you for your primer on logical reasoning.

vkey08
We don't have all the info from the investigation. We never will. Everyone screams that we should be allowed to see everything, but if they are secretly searching still for someone else, then they would not wish to make that public.

So the state can keep whatever secret they want, and we should just accept that they have a good reason? They have our best interests at heart? Kind of like passing laws that we don't have to worry about since they don't intend to prosecute. Or perpetually being in a state of war, because terror is everywhere.

vkey08
A personal aside, if you were one of these families would YOU like people coming and harassing you all the time because someone keeps claiming hoax?

If my family were anywhere in the vicinity of that community I would want a lot more answers.