Not that I'm paranoid or anything but uh.......

[h.uriahr]

I cant copy and paste the entire page for some reason

 

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/sandy-hook-ripdonation-webpages-created-before-the-massacre/

 

Anyone drinkin this koolaid

[Aetherous]

Good link.

 

They claim that the pages were created with another purpose and name, and that when it happened they changed it after the fact. This is possible...although strange for it happening with so many different pages...

 

The Victoria Soto facebook page is a new one altogether; the date wasn't changed...the old page was simply deleted due to so many people commenting on it about the date.

 

I think it's good that people point everything out. It will greatly help anyone doing an actual investigation.

[Flolfolil]

i think it is slightly amusing all of the "it happened!" and "it didn't happen at all!" stuff going around. i have no proof of either. i never actually met anyone directly affected by 9-11 either and it is hella after the fact

[MERCELESS ONE]

wow.....i dont drink koolaid. and i already knew it was staged to push gun control laws. as it was happening i told some of my co-workers that was why it happened and about 10min later they start talking about gun control laws. and what was really messed up is the anchor had a smirk on his face like he knew what was going on. its why all of these similar situations happened.

[Vmarco]

I cant copy and paste the entire page for some reason

 

http://fellowshipofm...e-the-massacre/

 

Anyone drinkin this koolaid

 

Conservatives who love America? That is clearly an oxymoron.

 

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/Conservatives_Deconstruct.html

[NeiChuan]

I live 20 minutes away and my brother knew victoria soto in highschool. I strongly doubt it is "made up".

[thelerner]

I don't drink koolaid, it rots the teeth and mind. The more biased you are the more slant you see. Those with absolute bias's see conspiracy absolutely everywhere. Usually taking the form an all powerful perfectly performed act, yet the people who plan it are psychotically wrong about what it will accomplish.

 

So the fabulous master minds risks everything to kill a few dozen children, is there the guarantee it'll lead to banning guns in the U.S? No, the odds of it happening are ZEEEEERRRRrrrroooo. DUhhhhh. <maybe large clips will be banned, so you'll have to buy the millions available on the black market>

 

This is mass murder # 12. It happens 2 or 3 times a year in the States and it results in nothing. You can pretty much blow the head off a senator and nothing happens (or should I say happened).

 

If you're murderously ruthless and half way intelligent you know there are 100's of millions of guns out there (+300). You know these acts will spur huge new guns sales. You know the odds of an actual ban are damn near zero, and odds someone along the way will spill the beans because killing children is frowned on, is great.

 

Seems to me its stupid 5 ways and I only mentioned 2. The only truly stupid people I see aren't murderously dumb, they're foolishly biased and willing to buy the latest smelly load peddled by paranoid hate mongers.

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

- Aristotle

True, but there's an element of vile slander to this that makes me spit it out quickly. Hopefully I'd feel the same way if either side claimed the other was killing to children to make there point.

Edited January 11, 2013 by thelerner

[Aetherous]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

- Aristotle

[Flolfolil]

I live 20 minutes away and my brother knew victoria soto in highschool. I strongly doubt it is "made up".

 

i mean no offense by my posts at all, but you realize that i have never met you so there is still reasonable doubt to me, right? i just wont get all excited by things i hear 3rd person. i would doubt something coming from people i know (though a lot less than from someone i have never met)

 

though if it did happen, my heart goes out to them

[joeblast]

Conservatives who love America? That is clearly an oxymoron.

 

http://www.thirdworl...econstruct.html

I'm pretty sure it is within the realm of possibility to "love one's country" and also be a black-hearted SOB that would be willing to cast "insignificants" aside for their goal. Neocons, Progressives fall under this category. It doesnt help to give angular momentum to the L-R dichotomy. The extreme fundamentalists of most of these factions are despicable.

 

 

I live 20 minutes away and my brother knew victoria soto in highschool. I strongly doubt it is "made up".

The question is not whether Victoria Soto ever existed, so your brother knowing her in high school is a moot point. Unless the families have been able to view the bodies, they could all be in a cattle car partaking in guinea pig testing for all we know.

 

 

I don't drink koolaid, it rots the teeth and mind. The more biased you are the more slant you see. Those with absolute bias's see conspiracy absolutely everywhere. Usually taking the form an all powerful perfectly performed act, yet the people who plan it are psychotically wrong about what it will accomplish.

 

So the fabulous master minds risks everything to kill a few dozen children, is there the guarantee it'll lead to banning guns in the U.S? No, the odds of it happening are ZEEEEERRRRrrrroooo. DUhhhhh. <maybe large clips will be banned, so you'll have to buy the millions available on the black market>

 

This is mass murder # 12. It happens 2 or 3 times a year in the States and it results in nothing. You can pretty much blow the head off a senator and nothing happens (or should I say happened).

 

If you're murderously ruthless and half way intelligent you know there are 100's of millions of guns out there (+300). You know these acts will spur huge new guns sales. You know the odds of an actual ban are damn near zero, and odds someone along the way will spill the beans because killing children is frowned on, is great.

 

Seems to me its stupid 5 ways and I only mentioned 2. The only truly stupid people I see aren't murderously dumb, they're foolishly biased and willing to buy the latest smelly load peddled by paranoid hate mongers.

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

- Aristotle

True, but there's an element of vile slander to this that makes me spit it out quickly. Hopefully I'd feel the same way if either side claimed the other was killing to children to make there point.

A good quote - and were we in the pre-information age, this sort of thing would be safely in the realm of quackery, because it IS *that* preposterous - but it is getting tougher and tougher, damn near impossible to pull things like this off in the Information Age where all of this information propagates too quickly for all of it to be kept under lock and key. I look at our government doing things like fast & furious (beyond the realm of believability that Holder and Obama did not knowingly promulgate this) and sending arms all over (Libya, Syria, look at other african countries) continuing drone strikes - basically everything these guys railed against when they were not in office. Gun grabbers everywhere are always looking for excuses to disarm people - but for who's safety? Its always put out its all for our own safety, but if one is responsible for keeping himself and his own safe, one certainly cant rely on the 10-40 minute 911 response time.

 

IMHO we are all far better off being trained to think for ourselves, protect ourselves. But with the government spending with reckless abandon, trampling civil liberties, basically urinating on its Contract With The People - it basically has incentive to control. Hollowpoints are pretty expensive for target practice, 1.4 Billion of them.

[Apech]

I realise I'm treading on eggshells with this subject of Sandy Hook and gun control but is it really being suggested that those people (kids) were not shot? And is everybody of the mind that the way to stop violent gun crime si to arm everybody?

 

Just checking.

[Birch]

A few suggestions about what is being suggested:

 

- Whole shooting staged, no-one shot.

- Shooting not staged, kids shot by lone nutso killer

- Shooting not staged, kids shot by patsy

- Shooting not staged, kids shot by two gunmen,

 

Can't say what everybody is of a mind to do, but given the relatively persistent pressure on constitutional laws, folks likely see this one (2nd ammdt) as a last straw of sorts.

[runner11]

I can't say whether the shooting did or did not happen the way it is being reported, mainly because not much is being reported. We don't know many details of the day, and the inconsistencies are too many to list. The link from the OP is just scratching the surface. I won't guess what really happened, because it would be just that; a guess. Jumping to wild conclusions is irrational, but at the same time, you have to be able to admit to yourself when something just isn't right. I couldn't even give my theory on what happened if I wanted to, because I don't have one. All I know is things aren't adding up.

[Aaron]

This is one f*&*ed up thread. Children died, parent's are mourning, and you're making up conspiracy theories. Anyone with a tenth of a working brain can see that none of this conspiracy crap is even worth considering, unless you're already predisposed towards hating the government and creating said conspiracy.

 

Nothing is more cruel and calous than trivializing the deaths of these innocent children. Grow up. Get out of the f-ing house and stop believing that everything is a conspiracy.

 

Aaron

 

edited for grammar

Edited January 12, 2013 by Aaron

[Vmarco]

I'm pretty sure it is within the realm of possibility to "love one's country" and also be a black-hearted SOB that would be willing to cast "insignificants" aside for their goal. Neocons, Progressives fall under this category. It doesnt help to give angular momentum to the L-R dichotomy. The extreme fundamentalists of most of these factions are despicable.

 

 

I don't see the problem of fundamentalist Christians as a problem of fundamentalist Christians, but a problem exasperated by Moderates who enable their agenda

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-moderate-christians-enable.html

 

If you read that article,....use the underlying message, relook at most groupthink,...even the bullying on TTB.

 

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion." That declaration was drafted in 1796 under George Washington, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. And even though that document, less than two pages long, was read aloud in Congress without dissension and well-publicized at the time, there were no complaints, and there was no public outcry, as would be media-ted today. Before the testimonium clause is this paragraph of ratification and proclamation, published in several national newspapers of the time:

 

"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof"

 

The people of that era knew well that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution said: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law the Land." The people of that time wrote Article VI of the Constitution. Despite that indisputable event, Christian revisionists continue to media-te their faithful towards the reactionary side or the far right of even an appearance of religious neutrality. The past sixty years have shown that they have been quite successful in forcing their theo-beliefs on the common citizenry. They cleverly removed the original national motto, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," which was coined by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, from U.S. currency and public places. They successfully proselytize that the U.S. was founded as "One Nation under [their] God" and one nation under their religion. However, the historic truth is, according to people such Herman C. Weber, DD, an expert in religious censuses and statistics, that few early Americans were members of a Christian church. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, for instance, it says that just 6.9% of U.S. citizens belonged to a church in 1800. By 1850, religious membership had risen to 15.5%. By 1900, Christians had doubled their percentage to 37%. However, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50% of the U.S. population.

 

The United States was established through common law. On February 10, 1814, Thomas Jefferson wrote that common law "is that system of law, which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England . . . about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. . . We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

 

Christian values are not American values. Christian values are not nature’s values. Christian values can never lead the world towards an era of peace."

VMarco

[Apech]

I don't think there is any serious evidence to suggest that there was not a shooting. The most troubling questions I have seen related to the incident so far are that the government may have been involved in the shooting itself.

 

With regard to arming people, I would suggest that it is not a matter of just putting guns in everyone's hands and calling it a day. I do think that a program where people must prove they are able to be responsible with firearms at a more stringent level than what is required to get a driver's license before buying firearms makes sense. That being said, there are so many guns in circulation in North America at this point that I can't imagine any practical way to eliminate them. Restricting citizens from any possibility of owning a firearm simply emboldens criminals, who will have no trouble getting weapons through the black market or building them themself.

 

...

 

Is there any actual evidence of government involvement? I mean evidence not just speculation.

 

On second bolded point ... when I last looked at this it was obvious to me that the 2nd amendment is about a 'well regulated militia' and I can't see any objection to that ... but well regulated means I think responsible people trained and keeping guns to protect the local community organised a sa miltiia... not just anybody ... and not everybody.

[Dainin]

A professor at the university that I work at raised this question on his personal blog, and this has now gone viral and people from around the country are clamoring for him to be fired. I do think that media accounts should always be questioned, as it is well known that the US government has paid large sums to news organizations to shape public perception, such as during "Operation Iraqi Freedom." There is little traditional investigative journalism left, and most reporting is rehashing coroporate and government press releases. Hopefully academic freedom will win out and he will keep his job.

[joeblast]

What else is one to do when he's presented with a story, presented as truth, and as one investigates the happenings and finds a whole ton of inconsistencies? One must investigate and assemble for himself as be he can, which so long as one has an open mind it is relatively easy to inform oneself in this day and age.

 

All I *KNOW* is that were were presented with a doctored story that does not match up with a lot of the facts on the ground, and now we're seeing our government come after our guns because of it. What conclusions may we draw from such a scenario, knowing the anti-armed-citizenry-lust coming from certain elements of the government? Knowing they have lied time and again or misrepresented things so garner a certain opinion amongst the populace?

 

I'm sorry, but like I've said before, I dont trust them as far as I can shot put the first lady's fat ass and I wouldnt put anything past those for whom the ends justify any means.

[Birch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[i am]

We should be able to question everything without being fired or ridiculed. I love a good consipiracy theory as much as the next guy (or so I thought until I was on this site long enough...), but a lot of this does have the flavour of people who sit around in their basement on the computer, believing all sorts of silly things because they could be true, and never getting out into the real world and seeing how things actually work and at what level people would need to be operating at to pull off such a huge scam with no one involved ever coming forward to say how it was a lie (like the moon landings).

 

I realize that's a gross over generalization and assumption, but really. I believe the government, as well as tons of other people, do some shady stuff and put spin on it. But some of this just really feels like the only people who could believe it are sheltered people who don't have experience out in the world seeing how things work in real life. They see movies and read conspiracy theories and get so caught up in a fantasy world that they believe it to be the real world.

 

On the other hand, someday you guys may actually hit on something true, and it will blow all our minds. I'm open to that possibility. It's hard to be wrong all the time. And if enough of the wrong people get in enough positions of power, really messed up stuff can really happen. Right now, there are too many honest-enough people for this crap.

 

What's happened are some serious tragedies. In general, the city-dwelling liberal population is for gun control. It's been a dead end for them lately. You better believe they're going to jump on this as a tide they can ride to stricter gun control. Just as anyone would do, with any event, to try to push their beliefs forward. "You see what happened?? I told you. Now let's pass those laws I've been talking about". There's nothing sinister about it. You can find examples of people pushing laws forward in the wake of any major event, on any issue. They always held those beliefs, but knew the political and public will to support them wasn't there. They're opportunistic, and should be.

[i am]

The day the goverment "comes after our guns" will be a crazy day. They're trying to regulate the sale. Any politician who even hints at coming to your house and taking away what you have is quickly ridiculed.

 

Stricter gun control is a completely reasonable response to mass murder. Is the right response? Possibly not. But it's a completely reasonable, if a little knee-jerk, response. It probably won't solve the problem. But it's not conspiracy worthy. So many stories have inconsistencies and changing facts.

 

I'll tell you, when news stories and government statements get to the point where we hear one story and one story only, no inconsistencies, just a nice tidy "here's how it happened"....that's the day we know everyone in the government and news is trying to fool us and are all in-cahoots.

 

Life is full of inconsistencies and conflicting stories.

[Apech]

Obviously this has nothing to do with me in the sense that I am not American. But it does interest me, particularly as there are very real cultural differences between US and Europe on this kind of thing. I think I understand and agree that the government should not rush to make new legislation (especially anything that amends the constitution as a knee jerk reaction to a tragic event. That they were willing to try to do so does suggest that they were waiting on the best moment to move on this.

 

I would have thought inconsistencies in reporting of the event are almost inevitable as people are more likely to be running around to care for injured people and comfort the families etc. than write up detailed accounts. Presumably there will be some kind of inquiry which will allow the collection of eye witness accounts and so on.

 

I don't buy the argument that a well regulated militia = everyone bearing arms ... it what sense is 'everyone' a militia (and I do know what a militia is). I am not suggesting this means the armed forces only ... it means an organised group of ordinary citizens surely. Anyway I am trying to understand why this means so much to soe americans ... but I have to say it comes across as a bit hysterical on both sides of the argument.

[i am]

Unless we have stealth bombers and drones and missiles, our little automatic weapons aren't going to help us against our own government...

 

I'm all for gun ownership and I own guns. But the idea of the citizens overthrowing a tyrannical government is a bit outdated in this country.

[Birch]

"I do think that media accounts should always be questioned"

And I also agree that 'we should be able to question everything without being fired or ridiculed' or, I would add, 'basement-dwelling, sheltered conspiracy, no-experience of the 'real world' losers.

 

Unfortunately, as several people have demonstrated on this thread, it's pretty hard to do.

 

Whatever is true about these sad events ought to be able to be brought to light.

[i am]

Yeah. I agree that knowing you can at least stand a chance defending yourself, should some crazy apocalyptic scenario happen. I'm all for peace, but I'm not for letting people kill those I know and/or love (all good human beings). I don't like the thought of being "defensless" against an armed foe.

 

And honestly, these conversations are kind of exhausting to me...and I get a little opinionated, and should really just stay out of them. The amount of research I would need to do to entertain that there's even something to be suspicious about is exhausting to think about. Being show images on the internet as proof, when that stuff can SO easily be doctored, is just not worth it. Unless I had personally seen that facebook page or the aid site on the date before the event happened, I just can't know one way or the other.

 

As you were...