Website claims Sandy Hook Victim killed twice

Reg'stoy

Discovered this website a while back when they complained that the film Noah was not realistic enough :rolleyes:. Anyway have dropped in on occasion just to see how outrageous they can be.

Mostly they roll out the usual CT's which are mainly laughable but this 'story' is just horrible, particularly when you read the comments.

Rather than allow the usual AH's rhetoric, I thought I'd post here and ask "do people genuinely believe these nonsense theories?"

I couldn't keep my xmas gift to my Wife secret, so how, when considering the amount of people that must be involved in some of these conspiracies i.e. 9-11 do they honestly think they are set up and ran?

Now I don't mean to be insulting, but sometimes what these people believe (which may be shared by contributors here) are so far out of left field as to be well; ridiculous.

degrassinoel

To answer your question, yes some people do believe those theories.

Although, i think sensationalism is what drives a lot of these websites to post what they do, I think 'Freddy Starr ate my hamster' when i see articles like that.

However i also think personally that the photo they've showcased is being taken out of context and that it was intended as sympathetic gesture rather than anything ulterior.

The reason being is that the banner states : "They went to school and never came back" could be something as simple as the families of the students in Pakistan didn't want to make public their son's and daughter's faces or perhaps something even more mundane like them not actually having a recent picture of their child. A hastily made banner in the most sympathetic of intentions.

Torakx

It seems unfair(to be polite lol) to compare Sandy Hook to 9-11.... They were different events completely.

Reg'stoy

Torakx wrote: »

It seems unfair(to be polite lol) to compare Sandy Hook to 9-11.... They were different events completely.

From what Ive read in the comments section on that site, the majority posted by what appear to be anti semitic white supremacists, it seems that all these 'events' have been staged by a Zionist new world order. This NWO according to them to wants to take their guns and cull the population.

Not to label all CT's with the same brush but if your likely to believe that 9-11 was an inside job with explosives packing into the towers, well you're also likely to be duped by other outrageous theories like Sandy Hook, where no children were killed because there was no blood, no choppers landed and videos show parents laughing.

I'll follow the charter by accepting that theories are just that theories, but common sense surely needs to be used with some, where as others have been repeatedly debunked. Just saying something might have happened does not make it so.

degrassinoel

Reg'stoy wrote: »

From what Ive read in the comments section on that site, the majority posted by what appear to be anti semitic white supremacists, it seems that all these 'events' have been staged by a Zionist new world order. This NWO according to them to wants to take their guns and cull the population.

Not to label all CT's with the same brush but if your likely to believe that 9-11 was an inside job with explosives packing into the towers, well you're also likely to be duped by other outrageous theories like Sandy Hook, where no children were killed because there was no blood, no choppers landed and videos show parents laughing.

I'll follow the charter by accepting that theories are just that theories, but common sense surely needs to be used with some, where as others have been repeatedly debunked. Just saying something might have happened does not make it so.

Please don't make sweeping generalisations like that about regular posters or indeed anything here. They are baseless, untrue and cause hassle for me and Penn to mop up.

Theories are theories, nothing more or less.
presenting a theory for discussion doesn't necessarily mean you believe it, nor does taking a side for or against, and tbh.. i honestly doubt if anyone would believe the above theory anyway

Reg'stoy

Apologies, but having read some of the vitriol directed at the parents and in particular the one childs parents, I would like to know the mindset of the person who extols some of these theories.
I should say; that I most definitely don't mean that if you agree that 9-11was an inside job then you therefore believe Sandy Hook was a fabrication.
It just seems, in my opinion, that to some, all of these CT's are part of one giant conspiracy. It appears that when it comes to such theories that superman sized jumps over a tall building conclusions are made, CIA funded certain freedom fighters, freedom fighters evolved into terrorist groups, groups attacked New York; so it was an inside goverment backed attack.
I've worked in aviation for all of my working life and know that any extra weight in the form of chemical tanks would cost airlines much needed revenue. We test aviation fuel every morning and have seen it run home heating systems and be used in cars. Chemtrails are simply water vapour but I've heard that it's chemicals to either dull the population or increase global warming.
Some CT's seem to be more acceptable to the ordinary person, go safe vans for instance being purely for revenue, yet I've never seen one on the M50.
I'm genuinely intrigued as to what leads one to believe certain things when logic and again I don't mean to insult anyone, would say otherwise. Does the belief in one theory make it easier to accept other theories, are some theories even to the most ardent, beyond the pale; like hopefully Sandy Hook.

DamagedTrax

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Apologies, but having read some of the vitriol directed at the parents and in particular the one childs parents, I would like to know the mindset of the person who extols some of these theories.
I should say; that I most definitely don't mean that if you agree that 9-11was an inside job then you therefore believe Sandy Hook was a fabrication.
It just seems, in my opinion, that to some, all of these CT's are part of one giant conspiracy. It appears that when it comes to such theories that superman sized jumps over a tall building conclusions are made, CIA funded certain freedom fighters, freedom fighters evolved into terrorist groups, groups attacked New York; so it was an inside goverment backed attack.
I've worked in aviation for all of my working life and know that any extra weight in the form of chemical tanks would cost airlines much needed revenue. We test aviation fuel every morning and have seen it run home heating systems and be used in cars. Chemtrails are simply water vapour but I've heard that it's chemicals to either dull the population or increase global warming.
Some CT's seem to be more acceptable to the ordinary person, go safe vans for instance being purely for revenue, yet I've never seen one on the M50.
I'm genuinely intrigued as to what leads one to believe certain things when logic and again I don't mean to insult anyone, would say otherwise. Does the belief in one theory make it easier to accept other theories, are some theories even to the most ardent, beyond the pale; like hopefully Sandy Hook.

i would suggest that lack of transparency is usually a key factor.

for instance, the official 9/11 report - too many unanswered qustions!

complete disregard for a building falling that wasnt hit by a plane (building 7), their reason was the report only covered to the moment the towers fell and not a second after!
no mention of the able danger program that was tracking the very 'terrorists' for a year previous.
no mention of the numerous mossad agents arrested and deported immediately after the event.
no mention of the money that was wired to the lead terrorist by a pakistani general, days before the event.
no mention that the same pakistani general was having breakfast in the whitehouse the morning of 9/11.
no mention that the building owner and family all happened to miss work that day (google 'lucky larry' to see him squirm when asked about this).
no mention that cheney relayed orders to ignore the plane incoming on the pentagon, even though pentagon workers have said so in court. again, left out of the official report.

all the above are real, verifiable things that happened in or around 9/11. the official report ignored them. if anybody is to blame for conspiracy theories exisitng, it is the governments that allow biased and hugely underfunded investigations to happen (the official 9/11 report was only allocated 12million dollars).

Kenny Logins

Google image search strikes again.

Reg'stoy

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i would suggest that lack of transparency is usually a key factor.

for instance, the official 9/11 report - too many unanswered qustions!

complete disregard for a building falling that wasnt hit by a plane (building 7), their reason was the report only covered to the moment the towers fell and not a second after!
no mention of the able danger program that was tracking the very 'terrorists' for a year previous.
no mention of the numerous mossad agents arrested and deported immediately after the event.
no mention of the money that was wired to the lead terrorist by a pakistani general, days before the event.
no mention that the same pakistani general was having breakfast in the whitehouse the morning of 9/11.
no mention that the building owner and family all happened to miss work that day (google 'lucky larry' to see him squirm when asked about this).
no mention that cheney relayed orders to ignore the plane incoming on the pentagon, even though pentagon workers have said so in court. again, left out of the official report.

all the above are real, verifiable things that happened in or around 9/11. the official report ignored them. if anybody is to blame for conspiracy theories exisitng, it is the governments that allow biased and hugely underfunded investigations to happen (the official 9/11 report was only allocated 12million dollars).

This is the thing about conspiracy's, the huge amount of supposed variables. Was 9/11 about bringing down building 7, (why not just have a gas explosion), ensuring the US enters into a middle east conflict (why use Saudi's considering they then didn't attack them) or was it just a terrorist attack plain and simple.

Seth Mcfarlane (family guy) missed his flight that morning, are we to assume he too was involved in the attack.

Do you think that the 9/11 attack was state sponsored be it the US or indeed an Israeli one seeing as you mentioned the Mossad.

Why would the Vice President allow and therefore want a direct attack on the Pentagon. Again, what if the plane missed, hit the wrong part of the building. I read some where that he wanted a number of accountants 'got rid of' to prevent the loss of 2 trillion dollars becoming public.

Is the collapse of building 7 so beyond the realms of all possibility as to make it into a conspiracy.

As for the General, well that's a new one for me but why having supposedly financed the attack would you firstly be in the white house and secondly have this meeting be publicly known.

That for me is why there is no conspiracy because you have listed a chain of events that have no real connection. Simply put, people themselves have imagined one. Building seven collapsed, it was hit by debris from the towers, fires burned and firemen were withdrawn; so it collapsed!! I have seen no real credible evidence of the VP's direct action in allowing the plane to hit the Pentagon.

See that's the thing, why should the collapse of building 7 have been covered in the report, were the Mossad agents involved, again why should if indeed they were sent home this be mentioned in the report. Maybe Cheney didn't say what you say he did, if he didn't then naturally it wouldn't be in the report.

Is it that the idea that a bloke in a cave somewhere could plan 9/11 so unbelievable which makes it so necessary that a wide ranging plot needed to have been in place for it to happen.

DamagedTrax

Reg'stoy wrote: »

This is the thing about conspiracy's, the huge amount of supposed variables. Was 9/11 about bringing down building 7, (why not just have a gas explosion), ensuring the US enters into a middle east conflict (why use Saudi's considering they then didn't attack them) or was it just a terrorist attack plain and simple.

building 7 was about destroying the evidence. it had 2 floors of CIA offices as well as multiple city departments.

Seth Mcfarlane (family guy) missed his flight that morning, are we to assume he too was involved in the attack.

seth doesnt own the buildings in question and didnt stand to gain billions from their destruction.

Do you think that the 9/11 attack was state sponsored be it the US or indeed an Israeli one seeing as you mentioned the Mossad.

personally i think it was allowed to happen as a reason to destablise the middle east. look at the countries that have gained since the event. even israel is on public record saying

We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,"

Why would the Vice President allow and therefore want a direct attack on the Pentagon. Again, what if the plane missed, hit the wrong part of the building. I read some where that he wanted a number of accountants 'got rid of' to prevent the loss of 2 trillion dollars becoming public.

that depends on if you believe a plane flew into the pentagon or not BUT lets not ignore the fact that cheney is a proven liar and pentagon workers have STATED that he gave the order for the fighters to hold off on engaging. this is fact, as is his record on telling porkers.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/cheney-admits-that-he-lied-about-911.html

Is the collapse of building 7 so beyond the realms of all possibility as to make it into a conspiracy.

only when taken into context with the events of the day. in normal circumstances no, its just a building collapsing. in the context of the day it was a criminal offence not to fully (and independently in my mind) investigate why it fell.

As for the General, well that's a new one for me but why having supposedly financed the attack would you firstly be in the white house and secondly have this meeting be publicly known.

like a lot of other facts in this mess, if the media ignore them then anyone talking about them can be called a conspiracy nut. it doesnt change the facts.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

That for me is why there is no conspiracy because you have listed a chain of events that have no real connection. Simply put, people themselves have imagined one. Building seven collapsed, it was hit by debris from the towers, fires burned and firemen were withdrawn; so it collapsed!! I have seen no real credible evidence of the VP's direct action in allowing the plane to hit the Pentagon.

you see no connections, i see glaring connections. im not asking anyone to provide proof that they're right. all i want is a proper independent investigation that doesnt have vital evidence witheld.. unfortunately this evidence is mostly destroyed now.

See that's the thing, why should the collapse of building 7 have been covered in the report, were the Mossad agents involved, again why should if indeed they were sent home this be mentioned in the report. Maybe Cheney didn't say what you say he did, if he didn't then naturally it wouldn't be in the report.

read the link above on cheney before deciding what he would or wouldnt do..

Is it that the idea that a bloke in a cave somewhere could plan 9/11 so unbelievable which makes it so necessary that a wide ranging plot needed to have been in place for it to happen.

yes, very unbelievable. as unbelievable as the hijackers performing manouveres that trained pilots said they'd be wary of. these hijackers were trained in a cessna. ive flown a cessna, a passenger jet it is not.

Reg'stoy

Sorry folks but I'm sure the Mods would appreciate us keeping the 9/11chat to the 9/11 thread.

I had made my OP in the hopes of understanding the mindset of someone who would hold to these theories. I mentioned 9/11 as it seems to be the mother of all conspiracies and those behind it according to the contributors on that particular site, seem to be behind all other conspiracies. This so called NWO new world order are behind chemtrails, to dull the population and Sandy Hook, to take their guns as an unarmed population are more controllable and are also behind the financial problems that plagued the world recently.

So, considering my original post on Sandy Hook and the fact that those who push that it never happened, or was a deliberate act by their goverment to take their guns; are equally as vocal on 9/11 amoung other theories. Does this make you question the validity of your own beliefs re CT's.

Is the Sandy Hook conspiracy so far beyond the pale as to be not even worthy of being considered a plausible CT.

degrassinoel

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Sorry folks but I'm sure the Mods would appreciate us keeping the 9/11chat to the 9/11 thread.

I had made my OP in the hopes of understanding the mindset of someone who would hold to these theories. I mentioned 9/11 as it seems to be the mother of all conspiracies and those behind it according to the contributors on that particular site, seem to be behind all other conspiracies. This so called NWO new world order are behind chemtrails, to dull the population and Sandy Hook, to take their guns as an unarmed population are more controllable and are also behind the financial problems that plagued the world recently.

So, considering my original post on Sandy Hook and the fact that those who push that it never happened, or was a deliberate act by their goverment to take their guns; are equally as vocal on 9/11 amoung other theories. Does this make you question the validity of your own beliefs re CT's.

Is the Sandy Hook conspiracy so far beyond the pale as to be not even worthy of being considered a plausible CT.

well, erm, you appear to have derailed your own thread Reg

Feel free to create another CT thread when you're willing to discuss the CT, not the people discussing the CT.