Skip to comments.Sandy Hook and Christopher Rodia – Most ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Can’t Think
Posted on 01/16/2013 5:55:19 AM PST by Uncle Chip
Apparently many alternative news pundits and Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are still fixated on the idea that a man named Christopher Rodia was the REAL owner of the black Honda Civic that has been identified as the car of Adam Lanzas mother and which was found outside the Sandy Hook elementary school.
The basis for this erroneous belief is police scanner audio that was picked up from the morning of Dec. 14th and details Connecticut State Police response to the massacre.
I obtained the original audio files from Radioreference.com. I had to pay a small sum for the full files. I have listened to them, and it is pretty clear that it is rather unlikely that the aforementioned Christopher Rodia had anything to do with the Sandy Hook massacre, even if his name and DOB is mentioned in the audio. This doesnt seem to dissuade the conspiracy nuts though. In fact, it just makes them even nuttier.
What so many of these nutty people have apparently missed is the fact that the audio files clearly contain police communications about MORE than just the Sandy Hook event.
In the audio streams there are several communications from Connecticut State police who are clearly not involved in the response to Sandy Hook and are just out there doing their normal jobs of stopping people for no reason and catching speeding drivers.
The Connecticut State police scanner audio from the morning of Dec. 14th 2012, as provided by Radioreference.com, begins at 9.34am and lasts for one hour until 10.34am i.e. it begins at about the time Lanza is said to have entered the school and lasts for one hour.
(Excerpt) Read more at joequinn.net ...
Good grief. Am I losing my mind? Where are Madelines and Samanthas legs?
And isnt little Samanthas left hand making a devils horn sign, and little Madelines right hand also making a devils horn?
Hmmmm, where did we hear that on this thread?
Oh yeah, it was you in post #6.
I'm skeptical of my government, and any media story. But I'm also skeptical of folks who'll go out and find asinine conspiracy theories and re-post them verbatim.
“Bears repeating: Not EVERYTHING that is odd is also relevant. “
However, if you are investigating a crime or putting together a case to prosecute or defend a criminal, or any investigating other kinds cases that involve looking at clues then you better damn well be looking at things that are “odd”.
For instance, a forensic accountant had better be looking for “odd” things. They may be relevant. They may not be relevant. But he had better not just brush them aside and certainly should not forget the oddities exist. The clue might come later to put the puzzle together.
There was footage....guy in the woods....car search....people on the roof. Footage exists of many things we are not seeing. Perhaps of inside the school or of entry into it.
This did not happen as claimed. People are dead.
O. How many unused schools do you know that can be readied and refurbished in three weeks or less? Construction workers must have swarmed the area. P aid for by.....? Are construction people, security, network, electrical...that good at their jobs? Did the school have asbestos to be cleaned? Code inspections?
We're seeing an entire Sandy Hook Truther cottage industry being built right before our eyes. It's all over Facebook, YouTube, and the news comments. The conspiracy theorists are even starting to harass survivors and witnesses accusing them of being in on it.
Post them verbatim???? Did you see me post about two girl’s legs? I don’t think so.
I am not in EITHER category. There are more than two categories.
Btw, Satanism is a REAL thing practiced by REAL people taught to REAL children.
So is witchcraft.
So is teaching children to martyr themselves to kill the white devil
So is Nazism.
It's been a month. How long will you ask the same questions and not seek answers to them -- just ask and ask and ask with no intention of getting an answer.
I dare to post a police timeline dispatch as evidence and that's not enough. Then an interview with a credible witness and that is not enough.
You ask a question and get an answer and then object to the answer as if I had the audacity to answer it.
If you don't want it answered then don't ask it.
CNN says 20 minutes
“Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls.”
“What are they investigating?”
A mass murder.
“If everything that we have been told is true then what is the use of withholding evidence? Video, witnesses, autopsies, etc. etc.?”
Nobody is withholding any evidence, as far as I know. Withholding evidence means that you have evidence which you are keeping from the proper authorities. You are not the proper authority, so just because they haven’t shown you the videos or autopsy reports doesn’t mean that anyone is withholding evidence.
“As I remember after 9/11 if anything was found out during the investigation then the press was all over it. With this there is no reporting, basically none, about anything being investigated.”
Different investigations are handled differently. Sometimes, a lot of information is released to the press during the course of the investigation, and sometimes, hardly anything at all. It’s all up to the discretion of the investigating body, whether that be the police, the District Attorney, or some special commission. If they choose not to release all the evidence within the first few weeks of an investigation, it does NOT constitute any evidence for a conspiracy, since it is not unusual at all.
“According to the govt. narrative the lone shooter is dead. What are they gonna do? Try him for murder? There is no reason to investigate if the authorities have been upfront so far.”
All the 9/11 terrorists died in the attack, and yet we still had to do an investigation. There is always an investigation for any homicide, even if the suspected murderer dies while committing their crimes. Conspiracy theorists are pushing the idea that there are multiple shooters, but for all you know that is one of the things that they are investigating at this very moment! You have no way of knowing that, or the results of any such investigation, because you are too impatient to wait for the investigation to conclude before spouting your half-cocked theories.
A distinction without a difference. Everyone here can see that you're copying "where's the girls legs" and "the girls are making satanic hand symbols" questions from other sources.
Accusing a dead girl's family of practicing satanism because you read it on a conspiracy website is really disgusting.
You are a certified kook, and a sick one at that.
It’s all about context, and it’s the context that allows you to determine what is simply odd to you and what is relevant. You can’t allow your focus to be distracted by completely irrelevant data.
For instance, the “devil’s horn sign” is an utterly laughable issue to bring up or even consider. You see devil’s horns, I see children. My own daughter does that very thing where she sucks her middle two fingers with her palm outwards. A photo of her with this is totally and completely irrelevant to a mass school shooting. Further, those of us with children know that humans are not born knowing what are considered rude or controversial gestures. I have seen family photos wherein it appears children are flipping the bird at the camera...they don’t know it’s rude. And what’s the implied cause of such signage? That the kids are satanic?
Any investigation must separate the noise from the signal. Do you risk filtering out some signal when you do that? Sure...but there’s nothing in other evidence to indicate that these particular issues are anything other than a typical American family being a typical American family.
But the police dispatch that was publicly recorded and documented says 3 minutes to 5 minutes.
Who do you believe: CNN or the police dispatch???
3-5 minutes wouldn’t have been enough time to kill 25 people, with an average of 6 wounds per victim, in multiple locations, plus himself. That is 150 shots he would have gotten off, not including misses and survivors that were hit. Logic tells me to go with CNN on this one. Then again, who knows how long it was going on before police were notified, but that would also give enough time for a second shooter.
There are more than two categories. You are indicating that I have done
MORE THAN ONE thing that I have not done.
I didn’t accuse her family of being Satanists.
I asked why was the girl giving that sign. She does it in multiple pictures.
Maybe her Dad is a heavy metal rocker. He doesn’t look like it. But he could be. Just like he could be a Satanist.
You don’t know.
I don’t have a problem with that site questioning time stamps. You should.
I don’t have a problem with people combing through evidence.
I think it should be done.
I wish I was an expert in photoshopping to determine if that photo had been photoshopped.
Of course, it really wouldn’t tell me anything at this point because the photographer could have photoshopped.
I do subscribe to the theory that disinformation may be in play.
But then again, I scrutinize
You probably accept that Ted Kaczynski was just some nut job.
I know that MK Ultra succeeded in programming people to kill on command without remembering it. I know that Kacynski was experimented on without his approval by someone who had been associated with the CIA.
Now whether he short circuited because he was experimented on or whether they turned him into a killer that went awry , or they trained him to kill for some reason that we don’t know, or whether he was always truly a nut job.. - I don’t know the answer.
I do know there is sufficient cause to wonder.
I don’t care who calls me a kook.
I like to look at hard evidence.
Do you still not realize that one of the primary points "the nutters" are trying to get across is that the government (police) and the media (CNN) are not consistent in their story-telling? It's been a month. I do not think that a clear picture has emerged. You yourself have to ask "Who do you believe: CNN or the police dispatch???"
This is indicative that the story of Sandy Hook is a bit muddled. Yes, people have to ask questions. You're the one who seems uncomfortable with people asking questions. You give no real answers, but respond to questions with your own questions -- when I pointed this out to you, you said (Post #106) "You ask a question and get an answer and then object to the answer as if I had the audacity to answer it." No. You didn't post an answer. You posted a question in response to a question. But you want people to believe you have answers.
To quote you again: Who do you believe: CNN or the police dispatch???
Reasonable people ask the question and realize that someone, somewhere, is not telling an accurate story -- and that begs the question: Is it on purpose? Are people being lied to, in order to push a political agenda, or are people (police/CNN, etc.) simply making mistakes?
“Conspiracy theorists are pushing the idea that there are multiple shooters, but for all you know that is one of the things that they are investigating at this very moment! “
So then why is it a “conspiracy” theory if there is evidence to suggest that it is a possibility. It doesn’t mean there were multiple shooters. It means was there evidence to suggest that there might have been.
Wow. So you believe CNN over the local police??? Careful -- your true colors might be showing through.
Did you miss the timeline at #13??? I know CNN did.
Shooting started at about 9:35 and he shot himself at about 9:46. That's 11 minutes.
At 45 rounds a minute he had plenty of time to fire off 150 rounds.
Do you believe the building was cleared 7 minutes after the initial report?
“Sure...but theres nothing in other evidence to indicate that these particular issues are anything other than a typical American family being a typical American family.”
He did act weird in his interview but that could be grief.
It’s okay to give him the benefit of the doubt.
And it is also okay for me to wonder why the girl has multiple photos with Satan’s symbol.
Bet you would have never guess this guy was a child molestor.
You never know what is behind the facade of the typical American Family.
But I am a cynic.
The problem is that your search for more and more “hard evidence” becomes unreasonable and an insult to people who have been devastated. These questions have simple, benign answers that have been given over and over again.
I’m beginning to think it’s true that some don’t want their questions answered.
Here is a purely philosophical rhetorical question for people to think about.
If you believe Obama is truly evil - If you believe he is mentally unstable - If you believe that he would help the Muslim Brotherhood or any like cause to hurt America -
Then, is he capable of approving and facilitating a 9/11/2011 event in order to establish his New World Order or whatever he is trying to do. IMO, he wants to bring down America.
I believe Obama is capable of it.
So , if you believe Obama is capable of those things - then who is to say that those on the other side are nutters for thinking Bush would do it.
I don’t think Bush would. I don’t think he was behind 9/11 but who is to say I am right and they are wrong.
Just a philosophical question.
I’ve taught at schools so know a 5 minute evacuation is possible... in a planned fire alarm situation. In that situation, each teacher leads their class outside to a designated spot in the parking lot. Everyone is leaving the building at the exact same time. The teachers know the routine. The kids know the routine. There’s no distractions, dead bodies to step over, kids crying and certainly no chaos.
So, 7 minutes to get to the school, get vests on, get SWAT set up, get into the school, interview teachers about shadow people, find one or more gunmen, assess the situtation fully, declare it safe... and go in with enough personnel to round up all the students in each classroom (and closet), make them line up in an orderly form (ha, like that’s easy in normal circumstances) and lead one room out at a time while reminding them to keep their eyes closed without anyone stumbling over their own feet or falling on their backsides slipping in blood pools.
I do not rock. I don't play a guitar (or at least I haven't since the 5th grade). I play no instruments, however I am reasonably good at karaoke. Generally, I like to do classic rock, but also Kenny Rogers, Lionel Ritchie, and even Elton John. None of these guys have been known to flash any sort of symbol that could be construed as "satanic," and I most certainly do not either. I am a born-again, Bible-believing worshiper of Jesus Christ. However, I confess that my youngest daughter is guilty of making this same symbol while she sucks her middle two fingers. My oldest used to do it in reverse, palm inward - she still does from time to time when she's really tired and doesn't think anyone can see her. I have pictures of both of them doing this....at the same time, even. I can tell you that if someone were to show these pictures to the public and bring up these signs as needing investigation after - God in heaven forbid - one of my precious children had been a victim of this stupid monster, my rage would be incalculably white-hot. Leave the family alone. Pray for their peace instead of barking up weird trees.
“Amazing how the timeline changes.”
Whose timeline changed? Are you saying that the police radio log has changed? Or do you really mean that the timeline reported by some media outlet in the confusion of the first day’s reporting does not match up with the police radio log?
“Three minutes from the initial call to interviewing teachers? Either theres a donut shop in the school parking lot or they travelled at supersonic speed.”
The log doesn’t say they were “interviewing teachers”, it says there are reports that the teachers saw this. I would assume that means the teachers called 911 and reported that.
“Then from the time of the inital report, the building had been cleared in ***SEVEN MINUTES***!!! All the nearly 500 students, teachers, aids, custodians, lunchroom ladies, etc. were cleared in a blink of the eye. Desks were looked under, restroom stalls checked and closets were all cleared.”
First of all, I see the log saying “The building has now been cleared.” at 9:53, which is 18 minutes after the initial call. Besides, the log doesn’t say that “building has now been cleared” means any of the things that you are claiming, you are simply assuming that it means some top to bottom search of every nook and cranny.
Some people claim that they don't trust the media, but they are basing their conspiracies on bits of information they heard from the media.
If they don't trust the media, why do they so sure that the rifle was in the car or that a Lanza double was found hiding in the trees?
They want to ask questions and they want to examine and weigh the evidence. They say things like "Where is the film? Can I look at it?" so that they can decide for themselves.
Maybe there isn't always film of everything. For instance a high school like Columbine is much more likely than an elementary school to have video everywhere because there are much more serious behavior issues with teenagers than elementary school children.
Likewise, there are obviously very legitimate reasons for not making every bit of evidence public property right away.
Even if they release pictures and video, there will always be those who say it is made up. There's nothing wrong with skepticism but some people are a little too paranoid and no amount of evidence will ever convince them that there isn't some dark conspiracy that is still hidden.
2) Some folks deny that anything funny could ever take place,
Sensible people are somewhere in the middle. They look at the preponderance of the evidence from multiple sources and decide what makes the most sense. They don't believe everything they hear, but they take into account that fact that giant conspiracies are hard to pull off and impossible to maintain permanently.
If by government you mean the Feds, they were the ones feeding misinformation to ABCNNBCBS. Pete Williams said as much on the aire.
There were entities telling the truth -- the locals with no reason to lie, the school district with no record of Mrs Lanza, and the police who were saying nothing but just doing their job.
Why are Sandy Hook Trufers attacking those local entities who have never been shown to have lied here???
[Ohhhh -- forgive me I asked a question but I will let it stand]
They are lumping all the people in this together as if they all got together and lied and are still doing so when in truth we know that only the Feds did and the big driveby media because it was exposed so by the locals who didn't.
But look who the Sandy Hook Trufers are attacking as liars -- the locals all of whom paid the price for what happened that day.
I posted the police dispatch of that morning. Show me where that is a lie. [That's not a question]
“However, I don’t see many pure nutters on Free Republic. I see a lot of level headed people who have reasonable questions.”
Well, then I don’t think you have been paying much attention. I’ve seen quite a few of that type on the threads over the last week or so.
“And I see a lot of people with their fingers in their ears just denying and denying and denying that anything could possibly be amiss. I call them “the other nutters””
I don’t think anyone is denying the possibility, but just pointing out that the supposed evidence for something being amiss doesn’t add up to anything. Just because there is a possibility, doesn’t mean we should give it any credence, when there is an absence of evidence pointing to that possibility.
Your simple answer doesn’t mean it is true.
456 children and hundreds of parents cannot be evacuated and huddled together with the media present in a small location without pictures being taken
Where are they?
One plausible answer is they are being shopped around for money.
But by now some would have surely been sold.
Another answer is that someone clamped down on them for some reason.
I am sure there are other reasons.
What are they investigating?
“A mass murder”
If the story that the authorities are pushing is true then why investigate? Lone shooter, he’s dead.
“Conspiracy theorists are pushing the idea that there are multiple shooters, but for all you know that is one of the things that they are investigating at this very moment!”
So, first you say that if anybody says there was more than one shooter then they are Conspiracy theorists. Then you say “that may be one of the things they are investigating.”
I mean, which is it? Are you a conspiracy theorist? How can you say you’re a nutter for suggesting that there maybe more than one shooter and then say that maybe the reason they are not releasing much, if any info may be because they are investigating more than one shooter?
Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense.
“Someone is lying.”
Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but not usually because “someone is lying”. There are number of reasons for it, like faulty perceptions, faulty memories, mistaking inferences for observations, or simply miscommunication in relating their testimony. So, I would suggest that you at least consider those well known factors in your analysis.
Did you miss the timeline at post #13 —
It wasn’t 7 minutes after arrival but about 20 minutes after arrival per the dispatch.
First, you have to remember that for some, if they didn’t get to go into the school themselves, and see and touch the AR-15 and the casings, they can still argue that the people who SAY the saw it were lying.
I’m sure there are pictures of the inside of the school, but being police evidence, they probably aren’t being released, although if I were the police I would find a couple pictures that show only the gun and casings and put that out — except the police clearly don’t see their job as stopping every idiot who has a theory from spouting off about it.
And if they did release such a picture, the conspiracists would just claim they were staged or photoshopped.
On the other hand, I don’t think they were “shells”, and I don’t think the bodies were “blown apart”.
When the question was about whether there might have been another shooter, I thought that was a reasonable question. I can see how a second shooter could sneak out of the school in the confusion.
When it became questions about whether the school had any kids in it at all, or whether the parents were actually actors, or whether John Goodman was hired to play a police officer, that’s when it became clear the lunatics had taken over the asylum.
“At 9:36:15, who is the male who is calling? The only male at the school was the custodian.”
Could a male who was outside the school have not heard the shots and called 911? After all, we know that at least one male parent was at the scene quite early on.
This is the kind of completely rational explanation that your brain can skip over if you are looking for evidence of a conspiracy, instead of looking at the evidence objectively to see what the most reasonable explanation is.
“Because I’m familiar with just about every Truther claim there is, even the one that claims the planes were holograms. And they’re all much more convincing than any of the Sandy Hook Truther arguments.”
Maybe it is because the 9/11 truthers at least waited to see what the official “cover story” was before they attacked it. These “Hookers” (sorry I couldn’t help it) can’t wait for the report, so they don’t even know what cover-up they are trying to question. I guess they’ve decided to adopt the shotgun approach and throw out every crazy idea they can think of, hoping that something sticks.
I was making fun of this last night on another thread -- I didn't think even the most conspiracy-minded Freepers would ever push this one.
Hey, do you also believe Actor John Goodman was hired to play the part of a police officer at Sandy Hook? Because that is about the only thing more bizarre than the attacks on this grieving family.
The manufacturer owners manual says the sustained rate of fire is 12-15 rounds per minute. At 15 rounds/min that is 10 minutes for 150 rounds.
There are of course many you tubes videos demonstrating a much higher rate of fire.
“When it became questions about whether the school had any kids in it at all, or whether the parents were actually actors, or whether John Goodman was hired to play a police officer, thats when it became clear the lunatics had taken over the asylum.”
Let’s assume that the event took place. It’s the most likely assumption with the highest degree of probability.
Let’s also assume that there had to be over 400 kids and personnel in that facility at the time of the shooting. Some end up dead and injured. That still leaves over 400 walking bodies.
I don’t care how well trained those young kids are - there are many that are not going to remain calm. Even adults freak out when they are being shot at.
It would be chaos. After you get the kids out they are going to be traumatized. They will need medical attention. They need their parents. Many will still probably be wondering if they are even safe from the shooting.
There should be been a lot of ambulances. A lot of children.
A lot of freaked out parents. A lot of media. A lot of photographs. A lot of video footage. A lot of evidence of pandemonium.
I am not seeing a scene that corresponds with these details.
Why is that? It is a reasonable question.
Is it being sanitized???
If you have the pictures or the footage that corresponds with what that scene should have looked like I would like to see it.
Very insightful post.
“CNN says 20 minutes”
If CNN says 20 minutes and the police radio logs say 3 minutes, which is more likely to be correct, do you think? The media, or the first-hand source?
My apologies. Seventeen and a half minutes from Dispatch sending out the call to building being cleared. But even you have to admit that is impossible. They got the call, drove to the school, got their vests on, got SWAT organized, chased a couple shadow guys, entered the school, went through the entire school to make sure there were no other gunmen hiding in classrooms, behind desks, in cabinets, in closets, in all however many bathroom stalls, in the broom closet, in the lunchroom pantry, behind the dozen library bookcases and got everyone out of the building and had everything in order to declare the building cleared. Oh, wait, they still had the roof to search and the nurse was supposedly in her closet four hours later in the front area which should have been search first. Nope, the building hadn’t been cleared but that’s what we’re told we’re supposed to believe.
Something else no one has questioned is why were kids being escorted outside when the cops were chasing several supposed bad guys around the school grounds? They hadn’t searched the roof with who knows how many bad guys up there with perfect sights on anyone in the parking lot. Could there have been any bad guys hiding in the trees along the route the kids took to the fire department or maybe under and behind cars in the parking lot? Sure, just walk the kids out in the wide open.
“3-5 minutes wouldnt have been enough time to kill 25 people, with an average of 6 wounds per victim, in multiple locations, plus himself.”
What is your expertise that qualifies you to make that assessment? Have you ever tried to kill 25 people in a confined space with a semiautomatic rifle to see how quickly it could be done? Are there other similar cases that you know of that show how this wouldn’t be possible? Have you attempted to construct a reenactment to see if the timing is feasible?
Only someone who has never fired an AR-15 rifle in a tactical situation can believe this guy got off 45 accurate shots per minute, on the move, with little or no training, while changing mags.
It’s simply ludicrous. I am a very experienced rifleman who has taken mutliple tactical training courses, and I very much doubt I could do it. But because you are ignorant and have no experience with weapons, you believe it.
Oh, yes, the dreaded “photoshop”.
I remember the most recent, where some idiot “right winger” claimed that Obama photo-shopped a picture of him and his wife on an airplane stairway.
That got big media play, people even posted it here. Then, when the damage was done, we got to see an entire STRING of pictures from the same shoot, and it was clear that what was seen as “photoshop” was just an unfortunate juxtaposition of body parts. The “fake hand” was actually another person’s hand.
Anyway, I’ll also tell you, whether it matters or not, that digital camera photography, especially consumer cameras, are not actually taking pictures, they are capturing light levels on a CCD, and then they have extensive processing software which attempts to build those pixels into a realistic photograph.
Sometimes, they mess up. I have a lovely picture of a woman with her leg morphing into a ladder, because the software couldn’t distinguish between the two.
In this particular case of the kids with legs, you can see their legs.
But I have to ask, because it’s not enough just to say “look there is an inconsistency” — what is the POINT of the inconsistency? For it to be a sign of a conspiracy, there needs to be a point.
So, what is the point? Are you saying this family doesn’t actually have that many kids, so they had to photo-shop strangers into their picture? If so, why do we see all but the dead kid in post-shooting pictures?
Are you saying the dead kid wasn’t part of the family? Then why have so many people mistakenly said that her sister was her, because of the family resemblance?
Suppose they simply photo-shopped three pictures together for their family christmas photo, like they do in that commercial about how the new cool cameras can take several pictures and build a composite?
I would guess such a picture might have some anomalies, but what would that prove as far as a conspiracy goes?
What is the point of arguing the kids don’t have legs, unless you are actually telling us they are cripples? What is the point of saying the kids are making “devil signs”, if you aren’t arguing that the family is in a devil worshipping cult?
What is there about that picture that in any way matters to the supposed “conspiracy”, whatever that conspiracy is. Heck, what exactly IS YOUR CONSPIRACY, because there are so many.
Are you saying Adam didn’t do the shooting? What does that have to do with this picture or the family? Are you saying he did the shooting, but used a handgun? What does that have to do with this picture?
Are you saying the shooting was a hoax? Why the argument about not seeing the evacuation — do you think the kids were NOT in the school?
Let’s start with a simple question: Do you believe 20 kids were murdered at the school?
You are also assuming the single shooter had 100% accuracy. No misses, which is pretty impressive in hitting small targets in multiple locations at the weapon’s capacity rate of fire. The official account is simply unbelievable.
They want to believe in the conspiracy because the conspiracy fits their world view better. Any answers you provide just cause them to make increasingly bizarre assertions in order to explain away or incorporate said answers into the conspiracy.
We conservatives are going to have to deal with a lot of this stuff on our side for a few years - and we need to be ready to call it out and make sure kook conspiracies are not associated with conservatism by the general public. Our side has suffered some bad election cycles of late and public opinion seems to be shifting left on many issues. A lot of otherwise well meaning folks will look to conspiracies to make sense of it. It's just easier than accepting that we aren't winning at the moment.
“So then why is it a conspiracy theory if there is evidence to suggest that it is a possibility.”
I didn’t say there was evidence to suggest it. I said that they could be investigating that possibility, because I think it’s reasonable to assume they would investigate, if only to rule it out. What makes it a “conspiracy theory” is when you suggest that there must have been multiple shooters on the basis of flimsy, misinterpreted or just non-existent evidence.
My point was, people are saying “there were multiple shooters”, “they’re covering it up”, etc. However, you can’t say they are covering something up before the “cover story” has even been released. How do you know the investigation won’t declare there were multiple shooters? Or conversely, how do you know they won’t debunk the idea of multiple shooters to everyone’s satisfaction? There is no possible way to know that at this point, but that will not stop the nuts from spinning their conspiracy yarns.
Once again, I said the most likely story with the highest degree of probability is that the incident occurred. I have no idea if 100 children were killed or 10.
What I do know is that the Firehouse Chief said they were set up for triage and only got a couple of adults. Don’t remember how many. No children. So I guess everyone else was dead or not injured. I did see helicopter footage that the entry to the school has been blocked off . Ambulances wouldn’t have even been able to get in.
You also scream NUTTER because someone questions oddities.
Oddities should be questioned. They can have “typical” resolution or they can be filed away as an atypical resolution awaiting more clues.
It is entirely possible in your Obama story that it was disinformation ploy.
I think many of you on this site have no idea how prevalent disinformation is from various factions.
There is nothing “NUTTER” about the idea that a photo can be photoshopped to intentionally create a disinformation campaign.
Disinformation campaigns are actually quite effective.
So I guess I will await your posting of the footage or photo that shows a huge group of children .
456 children are going to require hundreds of parents, and hundreds of cars, too.
If you can’t provide that footage then you should be asking why.
Not because the incident didn’t happen. Assume it did.
Why aren’t we seeing what we would typically see -Especially when Obama’s central theme to get rid of guns is based on Sandy Hook.
You should be looking for what should be there but isn’t.
Instead of screaming “nutter”
Using the weapon that is popular with target sports BECAUSE of its ease of accuracy because of it’s low recoil and shooting into a non moving huddle of children in the first classroom (one survivor at the bottom of the huddle) and in the 2nd classroom of moving targets only 4 of the 10 children who bolted from their hiding places were killed, all of which was well within the AR-15’s recommended capacity which is not anywhere near its demonstrated maximum capacity.
What was your point again?
If I was a member of the liberal agenda driven MSM, I most certainly would not publish the pictures and videos that the SH truthers are demanding.
Denying them answers to their questions feeds their frenzy and makes them look even dumber and crazier.
Which serves MSM agenda.
Jump off this bandwagon, it’s being driven by the MSM.
I already answered that question in the post you are quoting from, didn't I? Maybe if I answer it bold print people will read the answer:
Every homicide is investigated, even if the suspected murderer is already dead.
"So, first you say that if anybody says there was more than one shooter then they are Conspiracy theorists."
Where did I say that?
"Then you say that may be one of the things they are investigating.
I mean, which is it? Are you a conspiracy theorist?"
No, I'm not, and I never said that anyone who investigates the possibility of multiple shooters is a conspiracy theorist. So I don't see any conflict there. The police would routinely investigate if there were more than one perpetrator for a crime like this, if only to rule out the possibility.
"How can you say youre a nutter for suggesting that there maybe more than one shooter"
Again, where did I say that?
"and then say that maybe the reason they are not releasing much, if any info may be because they are investigating more than one shooter?"
I didn't say that a investigation of multiple shooters was the reason why they are not releasing info. I explained that, in any investigation, the investigating body decides how much info it will release, and it is not abnormal for them to decide not to release much info at all.
My reference to the possibility of them investigating multiple shooters was to illustrate a completely separate point: you can't claim that multiple shooters are being "covered up" if you do not wait to find out what the official verdict of the investigation is. For all you know, they might find that there were multiple shooters, in which case, you would have been accusing them of a cover-up falsely, or at lease prematurely.