Sandy Hook shooting a managed event?

[sigp220.45]

A conspiracy necessarily involves more than one person, but not necessarily 40. Two can make a conspiracy. Airplane accident investigations usually take at least a year to complete. And yet the Sandy Hook probe is wrapped up in three weeks?

That depends on the conspiracy. If the contention is this cretin used two pistols, and there is a conspiracy to put an uninvolved Bushmaster into play, then the conspiracy would involve probably more than 40 people.

Every cop who went into the room, every first responder who helped sort out the dead kids, every fireman - all would have to agree the place was strewn with .223 empties when it wasn't. The living witnesses would have to say a man who fired two pistols really was using a rifle. Everyone at the ME's office who helped out with 20 autopsies would have to go along with the plan that the pistol wounds were really high velocity rifle wounds. All the evidence techs would have be in on the planting of empties and spent projectiles. Everybody at the lab would have to agree the Bushmaster fired the recovered rounds that were somehow planted at the scene.

And why?

I agree the aftermath is being manipulated - both by the anti-gun side and ours as well. But the contention that the Bushmaster wasn't used just makes us sound crazy.

The case isn't done and won't be for months. There will be a report. People will doubt it, and it will be picked apart by both sides. Such is the state of affairs in our country these days.

 

[Beemerguy53]

So, you believe everything the Government says is 100% truthful and has no agenda? Okey Dokey, next in line.....

I don't think that's what he said, and I don't think this is an either-or scenario.

Clearly this tragedy is being manipulated for maximum political benefit, but I've heard nothing credible thus far to suggest that what happened was anything more than what it seemed: An evil, sick monster shot his way into a school and killed 26 people.

 

[Beemerguy53]

I have posted this before; here is the link again.

Strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson

Be safe.

Thanks for posting this.

Many alleged "quotations" from the Founding Fathers don't ring true to those who've actually read their writings. The writing style was far different back then.

For a good example of this, look up Patrick Henry's 'give me liberty or give me death' speech...

 

[Beemerguy53]

The OP posted initially and further down stated that the post was intended to promote people's taking a look at all of the various articles, writings, contradictions etc and deciding for themselves what made sense to them and the appropriate response. No one was or is trying to force anyone to any particular conclusion.

I'd suggest you try reading the "OP's" posts again or better yet, save your Pseudo Intellectual attempts at Psychology and Mind Reading for someone or something else. The funniest part of your post is the fact you miss the irony that you are trying to introduce motive/facts to my post in order to prove your hypothesis on my intentions. Now go think on that for a while............

I read his post and didn't find it to be Pseudo Intellectual or Mind Reading at all. He was merely pointing out the logical fallacy in many conspiracy theories.

Why would you refer people to other sources of information, and urge them to decide for themselves what makes sense, if you yourself didn't doubt the official story, or if you weren't trying to lead people to a particular conclusion?

With all due respect, you posted something rather controversial, something guaranteed to provoke responses of all kinds; you shouldn't take offense when someone disagrees with you.

 

[Beemerguy53]

...It seems to me the media dropped the ball on this one by accepting every statement made at a news conference or in a press release as gospel.

Having been involved in issues of importance to me (guns, motorcycling, motoring) on a state political level for the past 30 years, I can tell you the press will generally accept at face value "official" statements that conform to what they already believe.

 

[LVSteve]

Having been involved in issues of importance to me (guns, motorcycling, motoring) on a state political level for the past 30 years, I can tell you the press will ONLY accept at face value "official" statements that conform to what they already believe.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Beemerguy53]

Fixed it for you.

Fixed what? There was nothing "wrong" with the way I worded my statement. Sorry, I don't get it.

 

[rwsmith]

The gun in the trunk

I keep hearing something about the Bushmaster or was there really one used?? Found in the trunk of the car or some other who knows what??

I looked into that and from what I found was that the gun in the trunk was a shotgun. He carried the rifle and the two pistols. There has been a lot of confusion about this story.

 

[rwsmith]

There is so much confusion about this

Anything anybody said on the spot to me is suspect. That goes for the police, the news people and the medical examiner. I would like to see an official report with a time line that is not based on conjecture, opinions, news clips and verbiage, especially from excited and confused people either saying more than they really know or news people making a story.

 

[rebel0994]

Managed event?

just because I'm paranoid , it doesn't I'm not being followed!

 

[LVSteve]

Fixed what? There was nothing "wrong" with the way I worded my statement. Sorry, I don't get it.

You said "... the press generally accept at face value official statements that conform to what they already believe." I say only because these days simply don't print any statements they disagree with when it comes to "hot button" topics. Consider this example.

In 2006 a guy here comes out of his house to find his tyres slashed. An altercation starts up between him, his brother and a bunch of high school kids who had been having yet another unsupervised and noisy party next door. At some point the night before the cops had come by and shut down the party due to complaints. They guy reckoned the kids has slashed his tyres in retaliation for calling the cops (never confirmed or denied) and accuses them of same. That's when the fight started. The guy decides he does not like the way the fight is going, goes back in the house, retrieves a firearm and kills one of the high school kids.

Most of the media here went gangbusters for it with pictures, tearful classmates, the whole nine yards. Only one managed to get an interview with the party house kid and despite his efforts, it was pretty clear he actually needed shooting or his facilitating parents who avoided the media at all times. Most folk missed this because the real row started when it was discovered that the shooter was an ex-felon and could not have a gun and all that jazz. Now the media sensed blood in the water. By chance, I happened to meet a reporter from the local Fox station and mentioned to him that the party house had a grim rep in the neighbourhood and five minutes on LVMPD's website would show him the repeated noise, fight and drug arrests that had taken place there. So, maybe he should know that the kid that got killed was running with the wrong crowd and that the murder was not just a single flashpoint but part of a general neighbourhood harassment.

He got incredibly uncomfortable, and mumbled something about "that's not the story we wish to present". Ex-squeeze me? My reply ran something like, "So your just going to keep trotting the same old 'poor high school angel' BS because that sells airtime and anything that contradicts that view is not welcome?" As you might guess, our meeting came to an abrupt end.

A couple of days later when I related this to a buddy he laughed, "Of course he looked uncomfortable. What are the chances you were telling him something he did not already know? Metro would have coughed that to them in a heartbeat." I had a duh? moment and realised he was likely right. The final clue was the charge went to murder 2 and a sentence of 12-30 after two trials (judge screwed up the first one) but the media coverage was near non-existent. The only folk who reported the whole history was the local paper in a small blip inside when the sentencing became final in 2012.

Now do you get my use of the word "only"? Contradictory information is not welcome in media circles.

 

[JenniferG]

What this whole discussion boils down to is trust of our government. Are they telling us the truth? Over my life I have seen the Kennedy assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin, Kent State,I'm not a crook,I don't believe we traded arms for hostages, I never had sex with that woman, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and recently a crowd of protesters murdered out Ambassador because of video on You Tube.

After all of that it is quite the stretch to be able to trust what our leading government officials have to say. To be able to say the government at the Presidential level is to believed goes against all reason and all odds. The men and women that investigate the scene I know are full of due diligence and report what they found with all their best of their abilities just like our FBI gentleman suggested. It's what happens to that evidence after it leaves the hands of those conscientious people that sift through the horrific scenes like Sandy Hook and Aurora etc... that concerns me. It's when politics and agendas are formulated driven by such events that make people question the validity of the claims made by our government leaders.

Our government has given the people good reason to distrust them, they can't push that back on us and call us kooks and conspiracy tin hats after all that we've seen from our government in just in my lifetime. Hell, my Father's generation believed Roosevelt and Churchill conspired to drag us into the war by letting the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

Do I believe the shooting was a set up with actors? No. Do I believe that all the investigators would go along with a mass conspiracy to plant evidence? No. Do I believe once the evidence is obtained by the current day media and upper echelon politicians that it is juiced up, sensationalized, manipulated? A resounding Yes, you have to be a complete blind idiot not to believe that.

Does it matter? No, the damage has been done. Those children are dead. A mentally unstable young man was able to put his hands on and know how to operate a semi automatic rifle with enough precision to kill 20 children and 6 adults with no mercy or compassion. That is what we have to deal with, that is the hand we must play. We're going get hurt. Don't teach your mentally unstable or incapable offspring to shoot such a weapon!

 

[BigBill]

The Media reported anything no matter what they were guessing. First no rifle was used just handguns then the CSI guy says it was a bushmaster rifle. That was reported later. I don't know i'm confused. Still baffled by the event.

I only shoot paper targets my guns never assaulted anyone nor will they ever.

 

[wheelgun28]

I am saddened and pleased at this thread.

Its sad that we can no longer believe the government or the media.

I am pleased that I am not alone in this...


My feeling on the school shooting is that like every other story they force it to fit into the frame work of their agenda. I am surprised that they arent calling the murderer right wing extremist and Tea Party supporter, soon maybe?

I dont believe in big conspiracy theories because its proven time after time people cannot keep secrets very long. They can discredit a few as crazies but after a while more and more break down.

Its so easy to be down these days...

 

[StatesRightist]

I read his post and didn't find it to be Pseudo Intellectual or Mind Reading at all. He was merely pointing out the logical fallacy in many conspiracy theories.

Why would you refer people to other sources of information, and urge them to decide for themselves what makes sense, if you yourself didn't doubt the official story, or if you weren't trying to lead people to a particular conclusion?

With all due respect, you posted something rather controversial, something guaranteed to provoke responses of all kinds; you shouldn't take offense when someone disagrees with you.

I'm fine with disagreement, see my response to Feral Merrill. I'm OK if people believe whatever makes them happy. I do have severe doubt about the story and did post it to get others to think about it. I've read far too many people on here who took it at face value. What pushed my button was the insinuation that I was pushing for any one particular conclusion or trying to lump me in with the tin foil crowd that sees a conspiracy behind every tree.

He apologized, I apologized, it's over from my end.

 

[Damocles]

The Media reported anything no matter what they were guessing. First no rifle was used just handguns then the CSI guy says it was a bushmaster rifle. That was reported later. I don't know i'm confused. Still baffled by the event.

I only shoot paper targets my guns never assaulted anyone nor will they ever.

I agree. The entire event has been handled poorly by the media, that is for sure. Also when the administration gets involved, I cannot believe a word of what they say. With Holder, anything goes I guess. Remarking that people need to be brainwashed into giving up their guns, Fast & Furious, etc.....

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Our government has given the people good reason to distrust them, they can't push that back on us and call us kooks and conspiracy tin hats after all that we've seen from our government....

Oh yes 'they' can, and yes 'they' will.... and 'they' are.

This guy (below vid) wasn't invited on the show by mistake. While he did have some facts that were on his side, they were completely lost somewhere between 911 conspiracy and mass suicide pills.

The gun control crowd is busy defining pro 2A gun owners as zealots and kooks. Our friends in Congress and the NRA need to start providing leadership for gun owners to focus or what we'll be left with is bickering over sightings of Bigfoot and Bushmaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gWQPZ-taYBs

 

[charlie sherrill]

As Moosedog said, the biggest enemy of the people of this country is the liars of the main stream media. They have been trained for decades by the liberal schools to lie and decieve anytime it suits the agenda. True journalism has been in it's death throes for several decades. It died in 2008. Now they are wide open and proud with their bias. The one network that has most of the viewers is the one that is the most truthful and even that network has some problems. Occassionally I'll flip over to one of the "enemy" networks to see what they are doing. When I spot an obvious lie I then email their advertisers and tell them specifically why I am no longer buying their product. This is the only way I know that we can protest what they are doing to this country. More people need to do this.

There will come a point where all the media will be state controled. We may be there now. History shows that anytime a country has had a revolution the people that led it were usually the first to be destroyed. They must not teach that in journalism schools.

 

[M3Stuart]

Case in point. Here's a local shooting I read recently. Truly, my heart goes out for these fellows that shot each other.

Note the reference to the "9mm handgun revolver" and then the ".22 revolver". A 9mm revolver...hmmmm...could be one of those Taurus 905's or a S&W 940 (is it?). But I doubt it given that, in the previous sentence somebody had turned over "the loaded magazine".

Summary = guy with 9mm and guy with .22 shoot each other. Guy who gets hit by 9mm dies, guy who gets hit with .22 is critical.

Point is: Reporters get facts related to guns wrong.

Phony drug deal near Park and Greenville turns fatal as 18-year-old is shot to death, suspect in critical condition | Dallas-Fort Worth Crime News - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

 

[Beemerguy53]

...Now do you get my use of the word "only"? Contradictory information is not welcome in media circles.

Your "fix" was grammatically inconsistent, and didn't change my sentence to convey the point you were trying to make, hence my confusion. Thanks for clearing it up.