Sandy hook ref in batman movie + father caught 'acting'

Torakx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdCTqY8TYIo

Maybe this isnt clear.
The fathers of both the Sandy Hook shooter and the aurora shooter were both involved in some way with the Libor banking scandal.
I would say a couple of hundred trillion dollars is enough motive to have them silenced.
There is no evidence that I know of yet to say they were to testify.
But It seems like too much of a coincedance and considering the suspect way these shootings went down and were investigated, I am starting to think I have stumbled across the motive.

Sorry, this seems important enough to stall the grief discussion for a bit.
I should have posted this properly in the first place with more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor

Daithi 1

gibraltar wrote: »

If this was all a hoax to get rid of peples guns why is it that gun sales have surged? and why is it that they surge after every mass shooting but never decrease?

The people behind this hoax are doing a really bad job... unless maybe the NRA are the ones who are behind it.

Think about this. after every shooting gun sales increase and gun owners are told that soon all your guns will be gone, so people stock up. Leads to higher profits for the gun dealers and manufacturers who the NRA represent.

Alll they have to do is plant a story among some "truthers" and sit back and count the money.

But thats not as much fun to talk about as the elites and the NWO or the severe lack of mental health assistance available in America, so carry on.

What ?

I didn't say it was a hoax...

How did you manage to quote me and reply without reading what I wrote ? :rolleyes:

asherbassad

humanji wrote: »

And you've huge experience with parents who've had their kids gunned down?

I have. My best friend was shot by Colin Ferguson....twice.
He survived.....but still carries the bullet in a badly damaged kidney.

I also witnessed the murder of a colleague at work by an unhinged other colleague. I came across the body in a pool of blood after a girl from his department came screaming into my department. I knew him and afterwards only met his parents.

Does that answer your question. If you want names then PM me.

Hourglass Shrugged

If the US government planned the Sandy Hook shooting, why would they purposely place a reference to “Sandy Hook” in the Batman film “The Dark Knight Rises”? Why would they want to make the conspiracy so obvious – surely that would blow their cover.

You see, this is exactly where conspiracy theorists fail; why on Earth would you create a subliminal reference to a future attack if you wanted to keep it secret? The reality is you wouldn’t.

I think there are more reasonable explanations to the connection between Sandy Hook and the Batman film:

(a) It may be a mere coincidence.

(b) Adam Lanza may have been a deluded copy-cat killer:
It is known that Lanza suffered from Autism/Asperger Syndrome. James Holmes, the Aurora shooter, is suspected to suffer from a similar condition. We will never truly know why Lanza did what he did, but he may have followed the Aurora shooting and its aftermath. He may have tried to link the significance of the Batman film with the Aurora shooting. He may have come across the references to “Sandy Hook” in “The Dark Knight Rises” viral campaign. In his own deluded vision of the world, he may have viewed this as a significant reference to his own hometown, perhaps even a “calling” for him to carry out a similar attack in Sandy Hook as the one in Aurora. This is just a theory, but certainly more believable than suggesting that there’s some government conspiracy involved in the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, and the purposeful referencing of shootings in popular film before they occur.

SoulandForm

Hourglass Shrugged wrote: »

If the US government planned the Sandy Hook shooting, why would they purposely place a reference to “Sandy Hook” in the Batman film “The Dark Knight Rises”? Why would they want to make the conspiracy so obvious – surely that would blow their cover.

You see, this is exactly where conspiracy theorists fail; why on Earth would you create a subliminal reference to a future attack if you wanted to keep it secret? The reality is you wouldn’t.

I think there are more reasonable explanations to the connection between Sandy Hook and the Batman film:

Because they dont?

The revelation of the method- the making manifest of all that is secret- is an important part of the cryptocracy's game plan.

Hourglass Shrugged

SoulandForm wrote: »

Because they dont?

The revelation of the method- the making manifest of all that is secret- is an important part of the cryptocracy's game plan.

That's about a silly as saying that Nixon would've wanted to give the public clues of his involvement in the Watergate scandal.

Utter. Nonsense.

SoulandForm

Hourglass Shrugged wrote: »

That's about a silly as saying that Nixon would've wanted to give the public clues of his involvement in the Watergate scandal.

Utter. Nonsense.

Actually its a very powerful method of psychological when the majority of the population reacts to semi-obvious frauds like 9/11 and Sandy Hook with cognitive dissoance because they dont want to be seen as cranks, etc.

Boombastic

Here's a theory I have been considering about the inclusion of Sandy Hook in the Batman films:


People under the MKultra programme have triggers. If Adam Lanza was under the influence of this mind control programme, maybe seeing it in the film was a trigger of some sort for him to act. Does anyone know if he has seen the film?

Corkfeen

asherbassad wrote: »

I have. My best friend was shot by Colin Ferguson....twice.
He survived.....but still carries the bullet in a badly damaged kidney.

I also witnessed the murder of a colleague at work by an unhinged other colleague. I came across the body in a pool of blood after a girl from his department came screaming into my department. I knew him and afterwards only met his parents.

Does that answer your question. If you want names then PM me.

While it's awful that you'd gone through the above. It still doesn't make you an expert on grief. There is not a predefined manifestation of it especially for such horrible events. Assuming that there is and that they're acting is devaluing their loss on some rather implausible grounds.

Torakx

Im confused.
Is the Libor scandal not a realistic theory to everyone here?
If so why?
It looks to me to be a case closer nearly, Ct wise.
Surely hundreds of trillions of dollars is worth hiring an acting company or two.
1000 people is not alot, if you consider they used that many to stage an anti terrorist "training" routine in London on the day of 7/7 bombings(to combat the bombings that were happening,sorry its just so ridiculous).

What are the chances that two guys involved in the LIBOR scandal would have their sons doing a shooting not far apart from each other.
Consider the Aurora shooters home was rigged with very complicated explosives too.
Yet Adam Lanzas supposed car spent the whole day outside the school before it was checked...
It could have been a bomb for all they knew.
Neverind I would fill a page with the inaccuracies of the latest shooting.

I would guess that there might not even have been 1000 people needed to pull off the Sandy Hook shooting incident for the media.
Even less if it was actually done by a shooter, who actually killed people as well as Adam Lanza and his mother.

I dont believe Adam Lanza was conditioned to do this,yet.Its possible.

Right now im focussed on the fathers of the two "shooters". As they are connected more than the two sons.
So an obvious line of inquiry I would have thought.

Oh some random facts.
Apparently a neighbour stated Adams mother was a gun nut and boasted about them alot."she loved her guns"
However she had not a single gun licience AFAIK.....

I put to you that Adam Lanza and his mother may have been killed over the Libor scandal.
The real shooter may have been taken handcuffed and put in the front of a police car, to be releasd later.
When his story checked out to police as some kind of special forces/CIA spook.

By the way.Why is there no statement from Adam Lanzas father?
Or can anyone find one for me?
What does he think about all this?

I read over on a different site, that the Kids of Sandy Hook are to sing at the Superbowl.

I would have thought those kids would be in therapy. Would a huge noisy crowd situation be good for their nerves?

Torakx

Jake1 wrote: »

I read over on a different site, that the Kids of Sandy Hook are to sing at the Superbowl.

I would have thought those kids would be in therapy. Would a huge noisy crowd situation be good for their nerves?

Maybe not, or maybe a good distraction for them.
I see the whole thing as a distraction all the same.

*cough*LIBOR*cough*

asherbassad

Hourglass Shrugged wrote: »

That's about a silly as saying that Nixon would've wanted to give the public clues of his involvement in the Watergate scandal.

Utter. Nonsense.

You obviously don't understand sociopathic behaviour very well.

Take a look at the Iraq war, ok? Now this was a conspiracy of galactic proportions. It was planned since the early 90's. In fact it was planned as far back as 1988. The entire cabal who were in on the act, Whitehall/Downing Street, Washington, Pentagon and Banks/Corporations knew that they were going to attack and plunder Iraq, it was just a matter of timing and pretext. Iraq was pummelled into a husk of a state for over a decade what with sanctions that left the civilian population prostrate, demoralised and certainly on the brink of malnourishment. Couple that with a decade of airstrikes to destroy any manner of critical infrastructure (water works, schools, highways, bridges, etc) under the guise of enforcing a no-fly zone. Then after 9/11 the (western) population were constantly bombarded with mind-numbing propaganda about Hussein's involvement in 9/11, his links and funding of Al-Qaeda, his slaughter of the Marsh Arabs, his involvement in Halabja, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. Eventually the whole WMD fairytale was used to scare the bejaysus out of those not bellicose enough to bomb him and his people just because he was a "bad man". That worked.
Nevermind that everyone involved knew that all of the above reasons to invade and destroy Iraq were false. When you're a sociopath, lying is a virtue, a skill, a badge of honour, something to be embraced and to be proud of. You know that if and when the lies are exposed as glaringly obvious most people won't want to believe they are lies. Most people will want to just bury their heads in the sand or instead of believing that they were lied to will comfort themselves with the alternative "oh, the guys in charge didn't really lie to me...they made mistakes....yeah, that feels better." Others who can't help but face up to the fact that they were lied to will opt for the "well, it's all in the past now. Best move on." cop-out.

The sociopath knows this is how people react. Like a battered wife who refuses to believe that her tormenter will do it again when he says he's sorry.

So to get back to how sociopaths and their co-conspirators think and operate regarding hiding in plain sight.....take Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz in his interview with Vanity Fair regarding the reasons (excuses) for invading Iraq:

"we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason"

Wolfowitz didn't care that he was exposing the War as a conspiratorial crime. He makes it obvious that a reason was fabricated.
If OJ Simpson came out and said......"yeah we had those gloves soaked in vinegar to shrink them. They were never going to fit on my paws in court, chuckle chuckle" the people would be up in arms about his tacit admission of guilt. But when it comes to criminals higher up the food chain the public suddenly have this dreadful mental block like a dimwitted mother flatly refusing to believe that her father could be molesting her daughter.

If people are afraid to believe you've done something terrible, it doesn't really matter whether it's obvious or not that you have transgressed and that you don't care, you can do what you like and it doesn't matter what they think.

asherbassad

Corkfeen wrote: »

While it's awful that you'd gone through the above. It still doesn't make you an expert on grief. There is not a predefined manifestation of it especially for such horrible events. Assuming that there is and that they're acting is devaluing their loss on some rather implausible grounds.

I never claimed to be an expert on grief.....even though I was accused of such by humanji. What I merely pointed out was that I have witnessed people's demeanour in the aftermath of the death of someone.

Peoples' demeanour is MUCH different with regard to the manner or timing of the death. I've been to funerals and have witnessed this first hand. When someone dies of old age, generally there is sadness but acceptance and nostalgia amongst the family/attendees. The surviving sons/daughters/friends etc will chat, banter, share a cigarette after the service and have a drink and a toast after in the pub. There'll be a certain degree of joviality.

This is rarely the case if the deceased was taken "before their time" such as in a road accident or house fire. Some peers of the victim might handle it with a little casual disconnect, but not the parents. And it's NEVER the case if the deceased was murdered.

Corkfeen

Asher,initial shock can actually bring about highly unusual behaviour which includes disbelief and a sense that the event couldn't be real. You are using anecdotal evidence. Can you produce studies that backs up your claims on grief? It's also worth noting that your evidence is based on random clips of the victim's parents that is a minute glimpse at their experience.

Daithi 1

Torakx wrote: »

Maybe not, or maybe a good distraction for them.
I see the whole thing as a distraction all the same.

*cough*LIBOR*cough*

Im pretty sure the Libor conbection is a sorcha faal hoax. There is no connection between the two other than the both used libor rates. Which is meaningless in itself.
Both men were not set to testify at any hearing and no hearing was schelueled afaik.

Danpad

Having read this thread I'd like to say this: In my experience in (now, not practising) counselling all ages on all things, I encountered lots of tragedy, lots of death by murder, suicide, accidents and ODs. I never, ever, dealt with anyone that laughed whilst trying to come to terms with such a situation...never.
Numbness, complete and utter inability to communicate and/or accept what's happened, apparent inconsolable grief, an absolute lack of prediction in how they might ever escape the tortuous emotions...Yes, all of those. Laughing? Never.
Having said that-the video of this guy's behaviour is the only one I've seen. Maybe he's unique in terms of how one grieves. I once had a client who was due to go to prison, one of his techniques was to (nervously) make light of the situation to the point where he'd try and get others to laugh about it. It was his way of cementing the fact in his head that what he was about to go through was not as bad as it seemed.

asherbassad

Corkfeen wrote: »

Asher,initial shock can actually bring about highly unusual behaviour which includes disbelief and a sense that the event couldn't be real. You are using anecdotal evidence. Can you produce studies that backs up your claims on grief? It's also worth noting that your evidence is based on random clips of the victim's parents that is a minute glimpse at their experience.

You know, Corkfeen, I don't know how to say this without seeming condescending or dismissive but you are really reaching here. I see a guy laughing and mugging it up then "getting into the meloncholy zone" for his camera appearance. There is one of two possibilities to explain this:

1. This is some kind of extremely rare but understandable reaction to grief that you find not common, but, well, it happens.

2. He's acting.


Option 2 is by magnitudes the more likely. By orders of magnitude. I can't understand how you would flatly refuse to even contemplate it.

People looked at a naked man passing by and opted for the utterly implausible fact that he was wearing beautiful but invisible robes whilst a child opted for option 2 which was by orders of magnitude more likely, i.e. that the guy was in fact stark bollock naked.

King Mob

asherbassad wrote: »

Option 2 is by magnitudes the more likely. By orders of magnitude. I can't understand how you would flatly refuse to even contemplate it.

It's not likely at all as it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Why if he was an actor was he laughing? I would have thought that if you were an actor hired by a global conspiracy you wouldn't do that at all anywhere near the public or cameras. Or if you were part of the global conspiracy you'd hire someone who wasn't incompetent.

None of that makes sense in the conspiracy, but you have problems with the idea of someone just having a weird reaction to weird circumstances.

asherbassad

King Mob wrote: »

It's not likely at all as it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Why if he was an actor was he laughing? I would have thought that if you were an actor hired by a global conspiracy you wouldn't do that at all anywhere near the public or cameras. Or if you were part of the global conspiracy you'd hire someone who wasn't incompetent.

None of that makes sense in the conspiracy, but you have problems with the idea of someone just having a weird reaction to weird circumstances.

What?

Why wouldn't he laugh if he was an actor? He wasn't acting when he was laughing, he was just being his normal self, you know, before he composed himself for his "performance". Ever see footage of an actor wise-cracking or horsing around before composing himself and launching into a Shakespearean soliloquy?

Ever see Madonna graciously accept flowers from a fan and then under her breath express her disgust for them, not knowing that the microphone was still on? First part, Madonna acting. Feigning it. Second part, her true self.

Likewise with this guy. First part, his true self (most likely knowing that the cameras were rolling but that only his act would be televised). Second part, his act. Feigning it.

seannash

Torakx wrote: »

Im confused.
Is the Libor scandal not a realistic theory to everyone here?
If so why?
It looks to me to be a case closer nearly, Ct wise.
Surely hundreds of trillions of dollars is worth hiring an acting company or two.
1000 people is not alot, if you consider they used that many to stage an anti terrorist "training" routine in London on the day of 7/7 bombings(to combat the bombings that were happening,sorry its just so ridiculous).

What are the chances that two guys involved in the LIBOR scandal would have their sons doing a shooting not far apart from each other.
Consider the Aurora shooters home was rigged with very complicated explosives too.
Yet Adam Lanzas supposed car spent the whole day outside the school before it was checked...
It could have been a bomb for all they knew.
Neverind I would fill a page with the inaccuracies of the latest shooting.

I would guess that there might not even have been 1000 people needed to pull off the Sandy Hook shooting incident for the media.
Even less if it was actually done by a shooter, who actually killed people as well as Adam Lanza and his mother.

I dont believe Adam Lanza was conditioned to do this,yet.Its possible.

Right now im focussed on the fathers of the two "shooters". As they are connected more than the two sons.
So an obvious line of inquiry I would have thought.

Oh some random facts.
Apparently a neighbour stated Adams mother was a gun nut and boasted about them alot."she loved her guns"
However she had not a single gun licience AFAIK.....

I put to you that Adam Lanza and his mother may have been killed over the Libor scandal.
The real shooter may have been taken handcuffed and put in the front of a police car, to be releasd later.
When his story checked out to police as some kind of special forces/CIA spook.

By the way.Why is there no statement from Adam Lanzas father?
Or can anyone find one for me?
What does he think about all this?

You do know the video you posted(the full disclosure one) says they can find no evidence there testifying in the libor case

gibraltar

Daithi 1 wrote: »

What ?

I didn't say it was a hoax...

How did you manage to quote me and reply without reading what I wrote ? :rolleyes:

You should have read what I posted, see the question marks?

I was asking a question of you to find out your opinion, it seems you are very reticent to give an opinion other than something is going on, but its not important, I cant be bothered going over it again.

Corkfeen

asherbassad wrote: »

You know, Corkfeen, I don't know how to say this without seeming condescending or dismissive but you are really reaching here. I see a guy laughing and mugging it up then "getting into the meloncholy zone" for his camera appearance. There is one of two possibilities to explain this:

1. This is some kind of extremely rare but understandable reaction to grief that you find not common, but, well, it happens.

2. He's acting.


Option 2 is by magnitudes the more likely. By orders of magnitude. I can't understand how you would flatly refuse to even contemplate it.

People looked at a naked man passing by and opted for the utterly implausible fact that he was wearing beautiful but invisible robes whilst a child opted for option 2 which was by orders of magnitude more likely, i.e. that the guy was in fact stark bollock naked.

That attempt at condescension failed miserably. :rolleyes: You create an extremely complex scenario by labeling parents as actors. Everyone involved in the event would be required to have a certain degree of knowledge that the event had never occurred. This results in a large web of lies where at least one person would reveal the truth. What exactly do these actors do after pretending to be the parents of massacred children btw? How exactly is this more plausible than human behaviour being erratic after an extremely shocking and horrible experience?

Accusing people of being actors and the likes is not new to conspiracies. I was only reading about a 7/7 victim, Rachel North who was treated in an equally horrible way by the conspiracy community. Her entire past was warped by the conspiracy community and called into question.(This included her not being on the train and a claim that she had never been raped, even that she wasn't real) It was groundless however this added even more layers to her PTSD. How exactly is this fair on the parents of Sandy Hook victims who are victims in their own right?

Claiming that these are hard hitting questions is absolute rubbish. Jones and his ilk, look for milliseconds of video that they can attribute as evidence of an evil government conspiracy. A conspiracy can be found in everything if you follow this methodology and it appears to be applied to every event of significance. The government does not need to host shootings, they happen of their own accord on a fairly regular basis. Guns aren't going to be banned, semi-automatic assault rifles will be limited in all likelihood but these bans existed prior to Obama. There simply wasn't an inclination by politicians to reinstitute it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Brown Bomber

Has there been anything further on the off-duty swat team guy carrying a gun who was arrested at the scene?

Run_to_da_hills

Crisis actors walking in circles around Sandy Hook firehouse trying to create the illusion that there is more people than there actually is.

Study closely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrXPHwl11io

Boombastic

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Crisis actors walking in circles around Sandy Hook firehouse trying to create the illusion that there is more people than there actually is.

Study closely.

You're late with that one, was posted earlier, but it's a strange one alright:)

Run_to_da_hills

Boombastic wrote: »

You're late with that one, was posted earlier, but it's a strange one alright:)

It will take a few days for me to get my feet back on the ground and catch up on things again.

humanji

asherbassad wrote: »

I never claimed to be an expert on grief.....even though I was accused of such by humanji. What I merely pointed out was that I have witnessed people's demeanour in the aftermath of the death of someone.

I didn't accuse you of anything. Strange how you're so defensive. I simply was pointing our that you've experience with a tiny fraction of people suffering from grief and as such aren't qualified to give anything other than anecdotal evidence and then claim that this must be proof that all people can't possibly react differently to different situations. OR did you mean somethign else when you said:

As for using laughter to combat sadness.....I don't know a single person who laughs when their kid has been gunned down. But you go ahead a barf out some rubbish like "we all grieve differently" if that's your cloak to avoid hard truths.

Such rubbish.

??

King Mob

asherbassad wrote: »

What?

Why wouldn't he laugh if he was an actor?

Because it gives away the entire elaborate conspiracy?
Why would he risk "acting like himself" in public when doing so would out him as an actor and totally negate his purpose?
Why couldn't the evil overlords not just hire a professional with a bit of cop on who could do the above?

Torakx

I dont accept the LIBOR debunk yet.
I need more information.
Just because evidence might not be readily available or even available at all, does not mean its automatically not a factor.

And 350 odd trillion of a scam is a big number.
Enough that a whole country would go to war over that.
I dont know enough about this LIBOR scandal, strangely I didnt hear about it here
But you can be sure I will be making it known when I find out more.
Maybe this was covered and I just forgot or missed it, but I dont remember that.

Anyways its big enough that it merits my own research and not just accepting its debunked because some people say it is, no matter who.
I need to see why it is and how it cant possibly be connected.
Otherwise its quite possible.Then I will move onto whether it was likely.

If both fathers were airport pilots I would be straight away researching airports etc to make sure that connection is not a factor.

Also there was mention that Holmes the Aurora shooter was not really James Holmes but a double.
I cant remember if that was debunked but I now need to see, because an abduction would fit right into this CT relating to LIBOR.

Also if Alex Jones is claiming this is about the 4th amendment(which he is), im going to straight away ask myself what is he avoiding for his masters sake.
And as yet have heard no mention of him speaking about the LIBOR scandal in connection with these shootings.
Or even discrediting that theory.
If he is not even acknowledging that topic I want to be all over that sh1t lol

Id be thankfull if anyone can post me a video of Alex Jones talking about the LIBOR scandal, even by itself.But preferably the Ct relating to the shootings.
He must have im sure, its a big CT.
I just havent found it yet.

I think if its something he avoids talking about fullstop, then im either onto something or this LIBOR scandal does not exist.