Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…457910…24

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Assuming that this massacre was a military/intelligence service operation with every fine detail planned for then it makes sense that the perpetrators would have planned for the release of disinformation after the fact to poison the well. This would help marginalise genuine attempts at analysing the available facts which could potentially lead to the true perpetrators.

    Do you agree with above or disagree?
    It would not make sense as firstly this "disinformation" is being used to prove there is a conspiracy and is convincing some people. And then there's folks like yourself who think that it is reasonable to think that this disinformation must be from the government and therefore indicate a conspiracy.

    Why would they bother handing you evidence at all?

    Secondly it does not make sense that they would bother with such a double bluff when they then do the stuff that Rtdhs et al are claiming which is plain incompetent or stupid, like neglecting to fake photos or video, hiring bad actors, faking Facebook pages too early, hiring the same actor to play a dead school child, then have than same actor take a picture with the president days later.

    If they were dumb enough to let this stuff slip, why would they have thought about a sneaky double bluff? And if they were smart enough to come up with a double bluff why did they let that stuff slip out?

    Why if they believed that if something was thought to be ridiculous it would be dismissed off hand would they need to invent ridiculous stuff to cover the stuff that slipped out when the stuff that did supposedly slip out was ridiculous enough anyway?

    Isn't it possible that the shooting was just the act of a random killer with access to guns and that the conspiracy theories are the result of people with over active imaginations looking for clues for a pre-determined conclusion?
    Which explanation is the more likely?


  • Options
    #183
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    http://www.facebook.com/victoriasotorip

    I could change that page to say anything using just Notepad.


  • Options
    #184
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    The second shooter was very much the exact same.
    I believe you are very much mistaken.

    There is film footage of the "second shooter" being apprehended and also Police Radio transmissions.
    Corkfeen wrote: »
    No zionist agenda involved in either .
    I'm afraid that there clearly is. Breivik was an extremist, militant Zionist. Yet he is repeatedly labelled any or a combination of the following. Racist/Neo-Nazi/ White Supremacist/Christian/Fundamentalist He wasn't a racist, wasn't a racialist, wasn't a Nazi, he didn't believe in God yet was repeatedly labelled a Conservative Christian. He was an anti-Islamic Zionist. Yet you will NEVER heat him described as such in the established, english speaking media, other than Israeli sources.
    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Also the logistics involved for this shooting to be a government conspiracy is incredible..
    I fail to see how the logistics involved in opening fire in a school and then covering it up could be described as "incredible" when whole divisions exist for carrying out black ops.
    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Speculation in these scenarios is always bad but this topic is assuming that everyone is actors which is far worse for the families involved.Also labelling every spree shooting as a false flag is more a sign of ignoring the truth than being enlightened to the truth.
    I absolutely agree here, but the other cheek of the same arse are people who blindly accept as fact everything their media and officials tell them.


  • Options
    #185
    The barber of chewbacca
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭The barber of chewbacca


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    http://www.facebook.com/victoriasotorip

    I could change that page to say anything using just Notepad.

    Date says December 15th.

    So did someone use notepad to change the date to November 12th and then post a pic of it as part of a conspiracy?

    Hmmm... surely no conspiracy theorist would ever consider such a thing.

    @ partyatmygaff: So am I right in saying that you, like me, don't believe a NWO conspiracy is at work here?


  • Options
    #186
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    It would not make sense as firstly this "disinformation" is being used to prove there is a conspiracy and is convincing some people.
    Error 1
    It obviously doesn't prove anything.
    King Mob wrote: »
    IAnd then there's folks like yourself who think that it is reasonable to think that this disinformation must be from the government and therefore indicate a conspiracy.
    Error 2
    I quite clearly never said such a thing.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why would they bother handing you evidence at all?
    "Sandy Hook" for example, being referenced in a Batman film is obviously not "evidence" of anything"
    King Mob wrote: »
    Secondly it does not make sense that they would bother with such a double bluff when they then do the stuff that Rtdhs et al are claiming which is plain incompetent or stupid, like neglecting to fake photos or video, hiring bad actors, faking Facebook pages too early, hiring the same actor to play a dead school child, then have than same actor take a picture with the president days later.

    If they were dumb enough to let this stuff slip, why would they have thought about a sneaky double bluff? And if they were smart enough to come up with a double bluff why did they let that stuff slip out?

    Why if they believed that if something was thought to be ridiculous it would be dismissed off hand would they need to invent ridiculous stuff to cover the stuff that slipped out when the stuff that did supposedly slip out was ridiculous enough anyway?
    That was really my point. An investigation by internet was inevitable. It is logical that IF the government was behind the attack that they would want to influence this as heavily as possible.

    An impartial concerned individual who has a healthy scepticism of both corporate media and authority who is on a journey to find the facts of the situation would be bombarded by the kinds of nonsensical"evidence" you described above and therefore couldn't see the wood for the trees.
    King Mob wrote: »
    IIsn't it possible that the shooting was just the act of a random killer with access to guns and that the conspiracy theories are the result of people with over active imaginations looking for clues for a pre-determined conclusion?
    Which explanation is the more likely?
    I've already expressed my opinion on this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    The barber of chewbacca wrote: »
    Date says December 15th.

    So did someone use notepad to change the date to November 12th and then post a pic of it as part of a conspiracy?

    Hmmm... surely no conspiracy theorist would ever consider such a thing.

    @ partyatmygaff: So am I right in saying that you, like me, don't believe a NWO conspiracy is at work here?
    I didn't want to comment on this. The image has no source. It appears to me that this is a tactless prank. "Conspiracese" is not an actual language.

    This is where it was hosted
    http://omg.wthax.org/NWO.png


  • Options
    #188
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    The barber of chewbacca wrote: »
    Date says December 15th.

    So did someone use notepad to change the date to November 12th and then post a pic of it as part of a conspiracy?

    Hmmm... surely no conspiracy theorist would ever consider such a thing.

    @ partyatmygaff: So am I right in saying that you, like me, don't believe a NWO conspiracy is at work here?
    Yes.

    As for that November 12 post, I forged that just to demonstrate how easy it is create "evidence" to suit whatever spin you want to put on a story (Even check out the language of the page... "conspiracese")


  • Options
    #189
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Yes.

    As for that November 12 post, I forged that just to demonstrate how easy it is create "evidence" to suit whatever spin you want to put on a story (Even check out the language of the page... "conspiracese")
    ... you sure fooled me :D


  • Options
    #190
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Error 1
    It obviously doesn't prove anything.
    No it doesn't to most reasonable people.
    However as evidenced by the posts on this thread, it does for some people.
    If this is not the case, why are folks like Rydhs and the people in the videos and links presenting it as if it did prove a conspiracy?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Error 2
    I quite clearly never said such a thing.
    You bolded the wrong part of that:
    And then there's folks like yourself who think that it is reasonable to think that this disinformation must be from the government and therefore indicate a conspiracy.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    "Sandy Hook" for example, being referenced in a Batman film is obviously not "evidence" of anything"
    Yet it has convinced people that there is a conspiracy, the exact opposite effect they wanted.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That was really my point. An investigation by internet was inevitable. It is logical that IF the government was behind the attack that they would want to influence this as heavily as possible.
    But again, this position does not make sense. It is not reasonable for the government to do what you think they might be doing since it makes no sense as outlined in the pointed you just glossed over.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    An impartial concerned individual who has a healthy scepticism of both corporate media and authority who is on a journey to find the facts of the situation would be bombarded by the kinds of nonsensical"evidence" you described above and therefore couldn't see the wood for the trees.
    And it seems that this kind of nonsensical evidence is all there is...
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've already expressed my opinion on this.
    Please point out where as I cannot find it.


  • Options
    #191
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... you sure fooled me :D
    If I wanted to do it properly, it's not even that difficult.

    A few fake posts, fake dates, even a fake cached web page that I can then distribute around the internet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    The barber of chewbacca
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭The barber of chewbacca


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Yes.

    As for that November 12 post, I forged that just to demonstrate how easy it is create "evidence" to suit whatever spin you want to put on a story (Even check out the language of the page... "conspiracese")

    Didin't notice the "conspiracese" bit. When you told me to look at language in an earlier post, I thought you were having a go at me for posting a reply and not understanding the FB page:o

    Well done... it sure highlights what someone could do to create evidence to back up their various theory.


  • Options
    #193
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    If I wanted to do it properly, it's not even that difficult.

    A few fake posts, fake dates, even a fake cached web page that I can then distribute around the internet.
    Right, and if for example somebody was publishing incriminating evidence against you relating to a crime you had committed you could use your skills/knowledge to discredit the true information by releasing the fabricated evidence to them anonymously or under a false identity?............And then debunk the falsified documents?


  • Options
    #194
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    No it doesn't to most reasonable people.
    However as evidenced by the posts on this thread, it does for some people.
    If this is not the case, why are folks like Rydhs and the people in the videos and links presenting it as if it did prove a conspiracy?...Yet it has convinced people that there is a conspiracy, the exact opposite effect they wanted.
    Please make up your mind. You are shamelessly contradicting yourself in the space of a few posts.

    This is what you said earlier today when you attacked RTDH.
    Nonsense, you and the cranks you listen to were dreaming up conspiracies from the moment the news broke.
    Just like you did with every other tragedy since you can't actually name a single real one.

    You start with your preferred conclusion, post any random crap you can find that you think confirms that conclusion and ignore the points debunking the **** you swallow.
    And then whine about people pointing out how ghoulish and opportunistic you are...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82337160&postcount=166

    Please make up your mind. Was RTDH's opinions formed due to "evidence" or not?

    If you have now come to the conclusion that your earlier attack against him was baseless you clearly owe him an apology.

    [QUOTE=King Mob;82344689Please point out where as I cannot find it.[/QUOTE]
    Post 175


  • Options
    #195
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Please make up your mind. You are shamelessly contradicting yourself in the space of a few posts.

    This is what you said earlier today when you attacked RTDH.

    Please make up your mind. Was RTDH's opinions formed due to "evidence" or not?
    I said some people where convinced by such evidence.
    Rtdh however, given that he jumps on these tradegies with a conspiracy so immediately most likely assumes a conspiracy first then moulds the evidence he prefers.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If you have now come to the conclusion that your earlier attack against him was baseless you clearly owe him an apology.
    It's not baseless, and I'm not the only one who's realised this about him. You no doubt have realised the same thing, but won't admit it as it would require disagreeing with a conspiracy theorist and agreeing with mean old skeptics.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Post 175
    That's not really an answer I'm afraid.
    You simply state that the scenario presented by Rtdhs et al is less likely than a black ops team just shooting people, not that it is less likely than conspiracy theorist just jumping to conclusions.


  • Options
    #196
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    I said some people where convinced by such evidence.
    And you specifically made reference to RTDH when speaking of "some people". Dig up! :D
    King Mob wrote: »
    Rtdh however, given that he jumps on these tradegies with a conspiracy so immediately most likely assumes a conspiracy first then moulds the evidence he prefers.
    Right. Which is my point. That this so-called "evidence", which in reality is evidence of nothing. It convinces nobody. It supports the pre-conceptions of a minority but turns away a majority.

    What I've been saying is that if I was responsible for carrying out this attack then it would be in my interests to release this absurd disinformation/non-evidence to keep people who aren't hardcore conspiracy theorists but simply fed up with government lies and propaganda dissuaded from exploring alternative narratives which may point the finger of blame in the right direction, i.e. towards me.

    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not baseless, and I'm not the only one who's realised this about him. You no doubt have realised the same thing, but won't admit it as it would require disagreeing with a conspiracy theorist and agreeing with mean old skeptics.
    That is total bull**** I'm afraid. I have in no uncertain terms being "disagreeing with a conspiracy theorist" on this thread.
    King Mob wrote: »
    That's not really an answer I'm afraid.
    You simply state that the scenario presented by Rtdhs et al is less likely than a black ops team just shooting people, not that it is less likely than conspiracy theorist just jumping to conclusions.

    This was your question:
    Originally Posted by King Mob viewpost.gif
    IIsn't it possible that the shooting was just the act of a random killer with access to guns and that the conspiracy theories are the result of people with over active imaginations looking for clues for a pre-determined conclusion?
    Which explanation is the more likely?

    This was my answer:
    Without being overly-familiar with the facts this appears to me to be a case of unhinged youth goes on killing-spree.
    Your question was clearly answered.


  • Options
    #197
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And you specifically made reference to RTDH when speaking of "some people". Dig up! :D
    No I didn't. I was refering to the other people who have pointed to "evidence" that they believe makes the official story suspect.
    Rdths behaviour marks him as a fellow who jumps to conclusions before facts.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Right. Which is my point. That this so-called "evidence", which in reality is evidence of nothing. It convinces nobody. It supports the pre-conceptions of a minority but turns away a majority.
    So then all of the conspiracy theorists on this thread who have said otherwise are lying?
    And what about those who believe they have seen through the double bluff and are using the fact there is a double bluff as evidence?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What I've been saying is that if I was responsible for carrying out this attack then it would be in my interests to release this absurd disinformation/non-evidence to keep people who aren't hardcore conspiracy theorists but simply fed up with government lies and propaganda dissuaded from exploring alternative narratives which may point the finger of blame in the right direction, i.e. towards me.
    And I've detailed why this does not make sense in the slightest. It is not a reasonable supposition.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That is total bull**** I'm afraid. I have in no uncertain terms being "disagreeing with a conspiracy theorist" on this thread.
    So why are you avoiding stating clearly that you believe as most of us mean old skeptics here do in that Rdths is yet again, leaping to conclusions without evidence?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This was your question:

    This was my answer:

    Your question was clearly answered.
    Then we are in argeement that this is a case of conspiracy theorists jumping the gun and making wild conclusions based on non-existent evidence with no influence from the government at all?


  • Options
    #198
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »

    And I've detailed why this does not make sense in the slightest. It is not a reasonable supposition.
    Could you repeat this again. I haven't seen such an explanation. We can put everything else to the side.


  • Options
    #199
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Could you repeat this again. I haven't seen such an explanation. We can put everything else to the side.
    Again, these points here:
    King Mob wrote: »
    It would not make sense as firstly this "disinformation" is being used to prove there is a conspiracy and is convincing some people. And then there's folks like yourself who think that it is reasonable to think that this disinformation must be from the government and therefore indicate a conspiracy.

    Why would they bother handing you evidence at all?

    Secondly it does not make sense that they would bother with such a double bluff when they then do the stuff that Rtdhs et al are claiming which is plain incompetent or stupid, like neglecting to fake photos or video, hiring bad actors, faking Facebook pages too early, hiring the same actor to play a dead school child, then have than same actor take a picture with the president days later.

    If they were dumb enough to let this stuff slip, why would they have thought about a sneaky double bluff? And if they were smart enough to come up with a double bluff why did they let that stuff slip out?

    Why if they believed that if something was thought to be ridiculous it would be dismissed off hand would they need to invent ridiculous stuff to cover the stuff that slipped out when the stuff that did supposedly slip out was ridiculous enough anyway?


  • Options
    #200
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    I thought the last 13 seconds were very telling..

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


  • Options
    #201
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    yammycat wrote: »
    invent a fantasy about wmds and kill tens of thousands of children so we can rape iraq , fact

    invent a fantasy about 20 kids killed to disarm the populace , omg tinfoil hat lol, fantasy fantasy that could never happen

    The problem with this comparison (ignoring the gross over simplification of the first part) is that it's all predicated on a very basic fallacy, the non sequitur.

    You're arguing that A is true, B is like A, therefore B is true.
    Ignoring that B is not like A at all and that A is of questionable truth to begin with.

    Considering four people thought this terrible post was worth thanking, it's not surprising that the thread headed down the shitty path it did.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJpTe3JUozs


  • Options
    #203
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, these points here:

    It would not make sense as firstly this "disinformation" is being used to prove there is a conspiracy and is convincing some people.
    I thought we had both agreed that this level of evidence convinces nobody.

    And then there's folks like yourself who think that it is reasonable to think that this disinformation must be from the government and therefore indicate a conspiracy
    ... We have also established that nobody is saying this.

    Why would they bother handing you evidence at all?
    ...We have also established that no actual evidence of anything has been handed over


    Secondly it does not make sense that they would bother with such a double bluff
    It absolutely does,

    when they then do the stuff that Rtdhs et al are claiming which is plain incompetent or stupid,
    To clarify: The so-called evidence which you call like "plain incompotent or stupid" is also "convincing" and "being used to prove" confused.png

    If you'd payed closer attention to what I'd being saying you'd have realised that my point was that this disinformation would be intentionally incompotent or misleading so as to undermine the message/messenger.

         neglecting to fake photos or video, hiring bad actors, faking Facebook pages too early, hiring the same actor to play a dead school child, then have than same actor take a picture with the president days later.

    If they were dumb enough to let this stuff slip,
    I think it goes without saying that a highly trained government assasination squad would not "let this stuff slip"

    why would they have thought about a sneaky double bluff?
    To poison the well of information relating to the attack. Lead the hardcore down blind alleys and have the alternative theories sufficently ridiculous enough and in bad taste to turn off another with an open mind on the subject.

    And if they were smart enough to come up with a double bluff why did they let that stuff slip out?
    I've just explained. And it's nothing to do with being "smart enough" there is nothing new in this, The covert agencies have been all over the media for decades. Lookup Operation Mockingbird for a good example. They have also heavily infiltrated every subversive & dissident group in the US - Black Panthers militias, Neo-Nazis etc and during the Cold War if every Communist Party member who was an secret informant the Party stopped paying their dues the party couldn't have paid it's electricity bill.

    Former Obama's advisor Cass Sunstein even wrote a paper on the "Cognitive infiltration" of conspiracy theory groups.

    It would be the easiest thing in the world for them to dream up ridiculous theories and have them disseminated by the difference agencies informants or plants on CT sites and see them disseminated from there.


    Why if they believed that if something was thought to be ridiculous it would be dismissed off hand would they need to invent ridiculous stuff to cover the stuff that slipped out when the stuff that did supposedly slip out was ridiculous enough anyway?
    This never happened. The more convulated bull**** that makes it's way to the public the better. The more noise that is caused by it the greater the buffer between people examining it and the truth.


  • Options
    #204
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    hooradiation wrote: »
    The problem with this comparison (ignoring the gross over simplification of the first part) is that it's all predicated on a very basic fallacy, the non sequitur.

    You're arguing that A is true, B is like A, therefore B is true.
    Ignoring that B is not like A at all and that A is of questionable truth to begin with.

    Considering four people thought this terrible post was worth thanking, it's not surprising that the thread headed down the shitty path it did.

    He's actually not saying that. He is saying the the US government are lying scum who show disdain for human life and are quite comfortable sacrificing innocent human lives by the mountainload to achieve their goals. Therefore, a rejection that the US government could ever be behind such a tragic event and then lie about it and cover it up is highly misplaced.


  • Options
    #205
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    He's actually not saying that. He is saying the the US government are lying scum who show disdain for human life and are quite comfortable sacrificing innocent human lives by the mountainload to achieve their goals. Therefore, a rejection that the US government could ever be behind such a tragic event and then lie about it and cover it up is highly misplaced.

    I like how you claim that he's not committing that logical fallacy, then make another non sequitur, to prove how he wasn't doing that in the first place.

    Nice work, I couldn't have asked for a better example of the woolly thinking being used originally, and for your Regan-esque adherence to the 11th commandment of the republican party.


  • Options
    #206
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJpTe3JUozs

    The same website she quotes also has an obituary for the principle. They have also clearly stated that the original article was based on a women ringing them and claiming to be the principle.


  • Options
    #207
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I thought we had both agreed that this level of evidence convinces nobody.
    No we had not. I never said anything of the sort. There are several people on this thread who have pointed to such ridiculous evidence and said that they found it suspicious, thus making them suspicious of the official story.
    I'm giving these people the benefit of the doubt because they have not engaged in the scaremongering and shameless agenda pushing Rtdhs has.

    Do you believe that these people are in fact lying? And that they leap to a predetermined conclusion?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ... We have also established that nobody is saying this.
    But you are. You are right now saying that you think it is reasonable and logical to think that this complex double bluff could be possible.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ...We have also established that no actual evidence of anything has been handed over
    Yesm I think we argee on this, yet some conspiracy theorists think otherwise.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    To clarify: The so-called evidence which you call like "plain incompotent or stupid" is also "convincing" and "being used to prove"
    Yes, the evidence supposedly results from the incompetence or stupidity of the folks behind the plot. This evidence is then convincing people something fishy is going on.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If you'd payed closer attention to what I'd being saying you'd have realised that my point was that this disinformation would be intentionally incompotent or misleading so as to undermine the message/messenger.
    So they they could be purposefully incompetent to convince people there's a plot?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I think it goes without saying that a highly trained government assasination squad would not "let this stuff slip".
    Then if they weren't going to leave evidence, why not just do that and allow the wacky hardcore guys dream up the ridiculous pieces of evidence all by themselves?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    To poison the well of information relating to the attack. Lead the hardcore down blind alleys and have the alternative theories sufficently ridiculous enough and in bad taste to turn off another with an open mind on the subject.
    Again, these guys are more than capable of doing this to themselves. The government doesn't need to plant silly evidence for them to find some silly evidence to discredit themselves. They'll find some regardless of what the government do.
    So why take the additional risk and cost to plant it?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This never happened. The more convulated bull**** that makes it's way to the public the better. The more noise that is caused by it the greater the buffer between people examining it and the truth.
    But in this case and every similar case, it seems like it's all convoluted bull****, just as it would be if there was no conspiracy...


  • Options
    #208
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Without getting into an endless back and forth would it be fair to summarise your position as:

    IF the government carried out the attack they would let the cards fall where the may with regards to internet citizen investigations? They would not make any attempts to interfere in or misdirect these investigations?

    If they did disseminate red herrings and disinfo online that it would somehow convince lots of people that they did in fact carry out the shooting?


  • Options
    #209
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    This does actually strike me as odd. Apparently Adam Lanza's car, the one the police took the rifle/shotgun from isn't his mothers car as has been claimed but a local criminal.

    Sandy Hook Shooting:Suspect Car Linked to Christopher A Rodia and Drug Family of Norwalk


  • Options
    #210
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Without getting into an endless back and forth would it be fair to summarise your position as:

    IF the government carried out the attack they would let the cards fall where the may with regards to internet citizen investigations? They would not make any attempts to interfere in or misdirect these investigations?
    Yes, though I would consider what conspiracy theorists do as an investigation.
    For people looking for evidence on the internet, they would do nothing.

    People doing actual investigation would be quietly and efficiently silenced or turned away.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If they did disseminate red herrings and disinfo online that it would somehow convince lots of people that they did in fact carry out the shooting?
    Not lots, some, and that some would be more than they would want to convince.
    This makes the plot you outline unnecessary as it provides no benefit and makes more people believe in the conspiracy than doing nothing.

    So do you think it's possible/probable that conspiracy theorists would create this silly sounding evidence all by themselves without interference from the government?
    If so, why do they need to intervene?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Sandy Hook seems unbelievable, because it is. :p

    The official story of Sandy Hook is riddled with holes, Just like its non existent victims, sorry I mean actors.

    (Note some of the UTube clips have already been removed)

    WWW.Sandyhookhoax.com


Advertisement