Sandy Hook conspiracy theory

[Ron Ecker]

Professor says the Sandy Hook massacre didn’t happen as reported:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259104/Newtown-shooting-Conspiracy-theory-professor-says-Sandy-Hook-shooting-happened.html

A web search brought up several links regarding the fact (which I just heard about) that the words “Sandy Hook” (as a “Strike Zone” on a map) and “Aurora” (in lights on top of a building) both appear in the Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises (which was showing when the Aurora, Colorado theater massacre occurred). Example:

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/18/sandy_hook_labeled_strike_zone_in_d.php

[Len Colby]

Oh my someone even loonier than Alex Jones managed to get tenure as a professor of communications (not history) albeit at a lowly ranked university [1]. Odd that someone who is supposedly an expert in communications doesn't realize that it is common for the media to make mistakes when reporting breaking news, perhaps he thinks Dewey really did win the 1948 election and that James Brady died during the attempt on Reagan and was replaced by a “borg”. Other points he made were that the coroner, principle etc. did act as he expected they should have and his disbelief Lanza could have fired an average of a shot a second using gun capable of 6 [2] and it turns out his math was based on assuming all shots were fired in 5- 7 minutes when fact they seem to have occurred over at least 10 [3].

Or perhaps he is nothing but a cynical subscriber to Barum's dictum about publicity

1] http://www.forbes.com/colleges/florida-atlantic-university/

2] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hunt-motive-sandy-hook-elementary-shooting-article-1.1220914

3] http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/12/14/news/doc50cc0897adc1a203744261.txt?viewmode=fullstory

[Mark Wengler]

The people who think that there was a conspiriacy in that are a bunch of whacked out nut cases

[Ron Ecker]

I've been told that the word "Aurora" does not appear in the Batman movie. It's in the James Bond movie Skyfall.

Interestingly, Scott Getzinger, the prop master on the Batman movie (who is thus probably the person who put "Sandy Hook" on the map in the movie), was from Newtown, CT. He was killed last April in an auto accident in Stamford, CT.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Newtown-man-dies-in-Stamford-accident-3465225.php#ixzz2HSzTILYW

[Steve Knight]

The real conspiracy here is how the NRA buys the US government to stop them legislating against guns.

I've just about had my fill of American mass shootings on the BBC. Every. Frikking. Time. Well, when the death count is above 5, anyway.

How many people have died to weapons in the (less than) one month since Sandy Hook? ~700. Seven. HUNDRED. And that's not including suicides.

What's done about it? Sod. Frikking. All.

Business as usual to the gun merchants. SELL MOAR GUNS! WE NEED MOAR GUNS! DODGE CITY WAS WRONG TO REQUIRE SURRENDERING GUNS AT CITY LIMITS! ARM THE KIDS!

Go ahead. Kill yourselves off out of sheer bloody-mindedness and idiocy. Just keep it to yourselves, and stop polluting the frikking world with your dead kids!

Give your kids firearms. Let them think it's still 1850 and the OK Corral is the best way to sort out problems.

PLEASE! Only 360 million more to go. We're counting!

[Ron Ecker]

Steve,

Are you Piers Morgan posting in disguise? (There's a petition in the U.S. to get Piers deported back to the mother country for his diatribes against America's gun culture.)

The second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. It is evident that arms are not properly regulated (thorough background checks etc.). But there is a sound argument (which Piers and others choose to ignore because it's politically incorrect) that the right to bear arms was granted as protection against tyrannical government. That is just what America is headed for, with the economic collapse and civil disorder in its future: a true police state, or else civil war. When those dark days come, and the feds, looters, or anyone else launch an attack against my home because of my internet postings or just looking for food, I would rather try to fight them off with an AK-47 (legally bought, although I don't own one) rather than a pistol or slingshot. But looking on the bright side, I'm 70 and hopefully won't be around for this apocalypse.

[Steve Knight]

No. I'm not Piers Morgan. The guy's a whole other class of xxxxwit all on his own.

But like him, I wasn't educated in a country that spends $9trillion on Defence and guns per year, but only $130billion on education.

You hunt deer with an assault weapon? What do you use for fishing, dynamite? Oh. Wait. You do...

http://www.iimmgg.com/image/8859261aed44f0840ebe1c6e53b9295f

Funny thing all the xxxxwits forget to mention about the second amendment right to own guns : Wasn't there something about belonging to a "well-regulated militia" as a pre-condition? I can't quite remember....

What's the National Guard for, and the professional military? Don't they kinda sorta totally invalidate the need for a part-time militia force?

America's "checks" on suitability of ownership are a farce, even IF they're enforced. Which in most cases, they're not. And totally invalidated by allowing people to stockpile SIX THOUSAND or more rounds of ammunition. Per weapon. WTF is this xxxx?!

You know who a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed. That's what will happen when you arm teachers and kids in the vain hope that history will not repeat itself and they'll shoot down the next xxxxwit with a grudge and an arsenal at his fingertips.

What do you call an unarmed man talking a shooter into surrendering? And, coincidentally, proving the NRA/Gun-nut xxxxwit blather as the mere lie it is...

Ryan Heber. Taft Union High School. San Joaqin Valley, California.

This man deserves a presidential citation, at the very least. Instead, the Republitards are trying to cut teacher wages, and arm them in some sort of homage to the Wild West of the 1800s. The world's moved on a LONG way since then. WHY is America so determined to remain in the past?

HALF of the mass killings in America since the Assault Weapon ban expired in 2005. HALF. In ALL of the years since 1776. Makes you proud to be an American, eh? Right there, in the heart, tugging those patriotic strings right up!

So American are guns, they give them away when you open a frikking BANK ACCOUNT! Do you NOT see the irony, there?

From 1982-1994, the average number of people killed in mass-shootings was 25.5.

During the Assault Weapon Ban in 1995, to 2004, the average number killed was 20.9.

After it expired, until 2012, the average number of people killed in mass-shootings went for a joyride around your schoolyards and shopping centres to a whopping 54.8!

How's those "WE NEED MOAR GUNS!!!1" working out for you, eh?

Kinda like Ronnie RayGun's "trickle down voodoonomics", wot?

Are you all so insecure in your penis size that only fondling 400 rifles, assault weapons and high-capacity pistols gets you off?

WTF is it? Come on! Enlighten us! PLEASE!

And speaking of small penises, what the hell is all that circumcision malarkey about? Have a frikking shower!

Did you know the NRA receives a slice of every gun sold? And then they use that to buy lawmakers and tell them "no gun control or we withdraw your funds!"

They don't care that people are dying, only that more and more guns are sold...think about what that means.

I know thinking is kind of a hard thing for an American to do, but do try! The more you do it, the less painful it gets

Good luck fighting off the stealth bombers and cruise missiles, and UAV drones. You're gonna need a xxxx-TON of it.

Still, only 12 days until the next mass-shooting.

Making book on state and town it occurs.

Separate book in number of dead...

[Ron Ecker]

You hunt deer with an assault weapon?

I don't hunt.

Funny thing all the xxxxwits forget to mention about the second amendment right to own guns : Wasn't there something about belonging to a "well-regulated militia" as a pre-condition? I can't quite remember....

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

Are you all so insecure in your penis size that only fondling 400 rifles, assault weapons and high-capacity pistols gets you off?

The size of my penis is none of your business, but I appreciate your interest.

[Greg Burnham]

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. The second amendment is only peripherally about personal protection/defense against criminals.

The Second Amendment is about citizens being capable of defending themselves against an abusive government. That was the entire spirit of

this "God given right" according to the founding fathers. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) is the only portion of

the Constitution that cannot be amended--such was their import in the minds of those who had escaped the tyranny of King George III in...wait

for it...England.

Given the grave concerns of the founding fathers which are undisputed, it is quite clear that their intent was to arm citizens similarly to that of their

own government. Today, there must be some rationale for limiting the type of weapons that non-military personnel can possess, such as, tanks. Of

course, most folks can't afford one and secondly without proper training they should not be allowed to own or operate such things. Even our basic

State run Departments of Motor Vehicles rightly would prohibit such "vehicles" from operating, as well a plethora of other existing laws would

automatically prohibit their use.

However, citizens are quite capable of being trained adequately to properly and safely operate so-called "assault weapons" if they so desire. In my

opinion, those weapons are, in fact, protected under the Second Amendment--whether some groups like it or not. The problem has more to do with

disallowing criminals and mentally deranged individuals from possessing those weapons. Even if a law is passed (against the Constitution) that requires

all assault weapons to be surrendered, what makes anyone here think that CRIMINALS are suddenly going to become law abiding citizens and turn in

their weapons? The answer, of course, is that they will not.

The old adage is apropos: When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

As for the claim that the government's military has overwhelming superiority, I say this: Although that is true, keep in mind that wherever we have

waged war--from Germany during WWII to Iraq and Afghanistan today--our personnel end up going Door-to-Door after all of the major weapons'

utility has been expended. Big weapons have a place, but they don't end the conflict. Not even close. So, there remains a place for personal arms

in citizens' homes--even the objectionable types--in order to resist a tyrannical government. This is in the spirit of the US Constitution and should not

be viewed any other way.

-

Edited January 12, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[Len Colby]

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. The second amendment is only peripherally about personal protection/defense against criminals.

The Second Amendment is about citizens being capable of defending themselves against an abusive government. That was the entire spirit of this "God given right" according to the founding fathers.

Actually there were two main reason for it was that that though standing armies were a threat to liberty, but that ship has sailed. and they thought militias were a good defence against potential tyranny and the amendment speaks of “a well regulated militia”.

http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-4/vanhorn_christina.pdf

The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) is the only portion of

the Constitution that cannot be amended

Nonsense

--such was their import in the minds of those who had escaped the tyranny of King George III in...wait for it...England.

Why is that especially relevant?

Given the grave concerns of the founding fathers which is undisputed, it is quite clear that their intent was to arm citizens similarly to that of their government.

Ok then you should have no trouble providing citations they wanted this independent of militia membership.

Today, there must be some rationale for limiting the type of weapons that non-military personnel can possess, such as, tanks. Of course, most folks can't afford one and secondly without proper training they should not be allowed to own or operate such things.

However, citizens are quite capable of being trained adequately to properly and safely operate so-called "assault weapons" if they so desire.

Why draw the lines at tanks but not assault rifles? Many people can afford them and militia groups could band together, obviously there are a good number of vets who know how to use them and others could be trained to use them. And if a rich guy wanted to buy a fighter or bomber why not? What about anti-aircraft guns? Mortars? Where does it stop? What is the legal basis for this distinction?

In my opinion, those weapons are, in fact, protected under the Second Amendment whether some groups like it or not. The problem has more to do with disallowing criminals and mentally deranged individuals from possessing those weapons.

Nothing in the Second Amendment about “ disallowing criminals and mentally deranged individuals”

Even if a law is passed (against the Constitution) that requires all assault weapons to be surrendered, what makes anyone here think that CRIMINALS are suddenly going to become law abiding citizens and turn in their weapons? The answer, of course, is that they will not.

But it would mean automatic confiscation of the guns and jail time if they were caught and would permit outlawing of bullets, clips and other accessories for such weapons.

The old adage is apropos: When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

Not really the vast majority of illegal guns were originally acquired legally in states with less restrictive, stolen from legal buyers or bought exploiting loopholes in overly lax laws.

As for the claim that the government's military has overwhelming superiority, I say this: Although that is true, keep in mind that wherever we have waged war--from Germany during WWII to Iraq and Afghanistan today--our personnel end up going Door-to-Door after all of the major weapons' utility has been expended. Big weapons have a place, but they don't end the conflict. Not even close. So, there remains a place for personal arms in citizens' homes--even the objectionable types--in order to resist a tyrannical government. This is in the spirit of the US Constitution and should not be viewed any other way.

Huhh?

As for the idea citizens armed firearms could overthrow a hypothetical tyrannical government, can't you point to any cases of this happening? I can only think of a few cases even fewer of which led to positive results and are applicable to the US.

On a separate note I'm surprised a former LEO would take such a stand. Would you like to still be a CHIP today knowing there was a good possibility people you came into contact with would be armed with assault rifles or automatic pistols capable of firing numerous armour piercing or dumb-dumb rounds per second?

[Don Jeffries]

There are a number of troubling questions about the Sandy Hook incident. The official narrative has changed numerous times, and thereby makes little sense to those of us who try to think critically.

Initial reports were that Ryan Lanza, Adam's older brother, was the shooter. When this "mistake" was subsequently cleared up, it was attributed to a case of mistaken identity, since Adam had been carrying his brother's ID on him. The trouble with this is that Ryan Lanza had not seen or spoken to Adam since 2010. How, then did Adam get his ID? We were told at first that the gunman broke into his mother's classroom, and she was shot there along with her students. Early interviews, including with the school nurse, reported details about "how nice" the mother was, and clearly identified her as a teacher at the school. Then she was said to be a substitute, and finally a volunteer. Her body was actually found in her home, where she was shot by her son.

So with his mother eventually being admitted to having had no connection at all to Sandy Hook Elementary School, why did Adam choose to go there and open fire? Belatedly, we were told he was once a Sandy Hook student. Such an integral fact should have been reported early on. There was a brief, one day report about an "altercation" Adam had been in at the school shortly before the shooting. No details, and no rational explanation for something like that. This story has been seemingly dropped from the narrative.

How did Adam get into the school, which had installed a new security system earlier in the year, that required anyone visiting to be buzzed in by staff? Originally, we were told that Adam was buzzed in by the principal, who supposedly recognized him since his mother worked at the school. Uh, no, since his mother had no connection to the school. The witness who reported seeing the principal buzz him in was never questioned as to why she told this totally inaccurate story, since the official narrative was changed to one where Adam shot his way into the school. Since then, it appears things have changed again, with the police now claiming they shot the glass out around the door to open it. So...again, how did he get into the school?

Early reports of more than one shooter are buttressed by video from a helicopter showing police chasing and apprehending someone in the woods next to the school. Eyewitness reports, readily available on video, describe this suspect passing the parents and assuring them, "I didn't do it," as he was led to a police squad car. We still don't know who this person was, and the claim he was a parent is ludicrous (what parent would flee from the poice in such a situation?)

Why did all the early reports say Adam had killed his father, and quote New Jersey police as having found a body in his home? If this wasn't his father, what body did they find? How could they possibly mistakenly report finding a body, if there was none there? What about other reports that either Adam or Ryan's girlfirend was missing? Where did that come from? Why was the car Adam supposedly drove to school registered to someone unconnected to him, who had an extensive criminal recorrd, when we were told repeatedly it was his mother's car? What about the bullet holes photographed in a substitute teacher's car? One of them shows distincitly that it was fired from within the car.

If news accounts are to be believed, the parents were denied the right to view their childrens' bodies. I don't think that is legal, anywhere. Are we to accept that they all just buried caskets, without even verifying if their loved ones were in them? And the official narrative also holds that no first responders ever entered the school after the shooting? Huh? This is incomprehensible- how could emergency personnel be kept from such a scene? Are we to believe that there were no injured there? No one who wasn't dead yet, and might very well have been saved? Don't we at least try in every one of these situations?

What guns were used? Was it the rifle, the one Piers Morgan is still mistakenly claiming was used? Or was it the four handguns police would eventually officially claim were the only weapons found there, and thus the only ones that could have been used? What about the rifle found in the trunk of the car Adam drove, videotaped during an inexplicably late night search?

There are countless odds and ends that should cause real journalists to ask the questions they just refuse to ask in any of these cases. Why did an early report have the principal, in some detail, describe the shooting, and quote her directly, when it would later be acknowledged she was among the first to die? Why was a Facebook memorial page set up for teacher Victoria Soto on December 10, four days before the shooting? What about the early report, in the Examiner, about a local Monsignor inappropriately laughing several times during an interview the day of the shooting? Predictably, this story has been scrapped from the web, but enterprising souls on the internet took screen shots of it before it was erased.

Then there are the witnesses. I urge everyone to watch the myriad of interviews one Gene Rosen has given to all the usual suspects in the msm. He has to be seen to be believed. His story goes that a school bus driver (variously identified as both male and female in his consistently inconsistent accounts) dropped off a group of six kids in his driveway, who had apparently escaped from the school during the shooting. Anyone who has had children understands how ridiculous the concept of a bus driver dropping off six kids at the home of a stranger is. The firehouse is right next door to Rosen's home, and obviously would have been a more sensible dropoff point. How did this unidentified bus driver get into the school to pick up just these six kids? Rosen took the kids inside and they played with stuffed animals and he gave them juice. None of the "journalists" who interviewed Rosen ever asked the obvious questions they should have, and in fact portrayed him inexplicably as some kind of hero.

Then there is H. Wayne Carver, chief medical examiner. Again, look at the video of his press conference. I really can't describe how odd this fellow is, or how inappropriate nearly everything he says appears to be. There is a great deal of speculation online about the parents, and how unaffected they all appear to be. I won't comment on that, but again look at their interviews. Lots of smiles, and surprisingly strong personas from those most people would expect to be unable to speak publicly.

This is the third straight nationally reported tragedy- the Arizona shooting with Gabby Giffords, the Batman shooting in Aurora, and now Sandy Hook, where we have seen no video or photos of the crime scenes. This is unprecedented- in the past, journalists found each other to get the most dramatic photos possible of the crime scenes.

The mainstream media is growing more confrontational with alternative voices on the internet now. Last night, Anderson Cooper basically urged the college to fire the professor who has publicly questioned the official story of what happened at Sandy Hook. He didn't have him on the show, he dropped any guise of impariality completely, and just ranted and raved against this fellow and all other "conspiracy theorists."

There is so much more, but if you just look at the inconsistentices and questions surrounding this incident, you can't honestly dismiss it as "wacko" or the ravings of "conspiracy theorists." At the very least, the media and politicians are using the incident to further an agenda of gun confiscation and more state control over the lives of all citizens.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Don Jeffries

[Mark Wengler]

I am for the 2ND amendment but why could a civilian need a military style weapon? Not to hunt with.

Or do you think a hunter needs a military style weapon to hunt if so that person needs to stop right now.

The couple of times i deer hunted i took a old bolt action rifle with me. Because that is all i needed.

[Ron Ecker]

I am for the 2ND amendment but why could a civilian need a military style weapon?

FOR PROTECTION AGAINST TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

You know, like in case there's a revolution? It happened once before in this country, as I recall.

[Len Colby]

I am for the 2ND amendment but why could a civilian need a military style weapon?

According to the guns nuts it's to prevent the US from becoming a dictatorship.

[Len Colby]

Don,

Perhaps you haven't noticed this before but errors, and thus inconsistencies, are common during breaking news stories thus has become more common in the age of 24hr news channels and more recently constantly updated news sites. You seem to suspect a massive conspiracy involving numerous seemingly normal citizens (parents and teachers) as was officials in at least two states. In your version it seems the plotters had no plan but made things up as they went along. A more logical explanation is bad reporting instead of a Byzantine Rube Goldberg meets Inspector Clouseau plot. I mean do you really believe they could have been so stupid as to start a memorial page for Soto BEFORE the shooting? Do you think she's really alive?

It would be helpful if you could provide links to the reports you cited in your previous post. Some of your claims are incorrect, for example though initial reports said he'd left the Bushmaster in the car, all later ones said he had it with him and used it in the shooting.

Len