Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Hook conspiracy theory


Ron Ecker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ron,

You raise a good point- I just mentioned some of the most obvious flaws in the official narrative. What about the school nurse, who said in one interview that she looked Lanza in the eye, and in another was hiding under a desk and only saw his legs? This is the same woman who early on called Adam's mother a "nice person" and a "great kindergarten teacher." So how then, are we to accept the explanation that Adam's mother was not, in fact, connected to the school?

You account of Anderson Cooper's show was totally inaccurate, please provide links to these supposedly contradictory accounts from the nurse and the other supposed contradictions you've alleged in your earlier posts.

Now Gene Rosen-and again I urge everyone to just watch a sampling of his interviews online-is claiming that he's been "harrassed" by all those terrible "conspiracy theorists."

Considering the frothing of the ,mouth of the nuts on YouTube and at forum's like Infowars, Let's Roll and ATS I would be surprised if he weren't being harassed. Do you have any reasons to doubt this? When a poster at the Loose Change forum said he wanted to kill (or blind) 'debunker' Mark Roberts, most posters approved, Dylan Avery told him where Roberts worked, the only objections were that such posts were 'bad for the movement'.

Post links to interviews in which he made contradictory comments.

What's amazing is that Rosen hasn't been "harrassed" by Social Services or some other agency, who normally would find it extremely suspicious when an old man invites six children who are all unknown to him inside his home, giving them juice and playing with stuffed animals together.

Huh? These were hardly normal circumstances, there is no evidence he mistreated the kids in any way, there is no law against taking kids into your home during a crisis. Hugely ironic that you seem so preoccupied about government encroachments but want this guy investigated.

Where is the unidentified school bus driver who inexpicably (and with great negligence) left those kids with a total stranger?

Considering the harassment Rosen and others have received I'm not surprised the driver prefers to remain anonymous. Sandy Hook is a small about 11,000 people it's quite possible the driver knew Rosen even if he didn't people in such towns tend to be more trusting especially of their neighbours.

Why didn't the bus driver, or Rosen himself, simply march the kids over to the firehouse, which is right next to his home?

It could reasonably assumed that in the face of such a crisis, the fire fighters had better things to do then babysit some uninjured kids.

People online are asking all these questions because real "journalists" aren't.

Not only isn't the press asking such questions but as AFAICT no one in Newtown is either especially not the parents or teachers. I imagine if you contacted the parents of these kids to express your 'concerns' they would hang up on you or tell to do something biologically impossible. But let's say you're right and the shooting did happen as we've been told, how would Rosen fit in?

That was the problem with the JFK assassination, 9/11, and every other big event of the past 50 years- the mainstream media simply doesn't cover these stories the way they are supposed to.

I agree with you about the assassination though not 9/11, I can't think of anything that could do greater damage to the push for truth about the former than it becoming associated with the nonsense Sandy Hook 'theories'.

Len and other believers in official orthodoxy would have us offer explanations; i.e., why would anyone lie about this shooting? We can't know that, and are accused of recklessness when we speculate. All we can do is be educated observers. As such, what we've been told about what happened at Sandy Hook makes little sense.

What “ makes little sense” are theories Ron and you are toying with; can you even spell out a resonantly coherent and plausible alternate explanation, not all the details just a rough outline?

Here's a conspiracy 'theory' for you, gun manufactures (large corporations) are selling their products in numbers they know are beyond legitimate demand and using their profits to thwart laws approved by most Americans by funding the opponents of any politician who dares vote against their interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ron our government is not the best in the world. But it would never descend to that level. There are to many check and balances in place. No one faction of the government can take over the country.

That sounds like you are talking about the NWO or the Illuminati or even the Freemasons Only the whacked out nuts like Alex Jones Pushes stuff like that

I'm not interested in the NWO or the Illuminati or the Masons. What will bring about a police state in America, if it comes, is U.S. economic collapse and the chaos that will result. Our present "leaders" seem to actually want this country to go under. War with Iran could make it happen. The warmongers will finally have done it. And if Sandy Hook was indeed some kind of government black-op designed to get an arms ban (and I'm far from saying that it was), such an egregious desperate act would indicate that the government believes the collapse is coming far sooner than the sheeple are aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron our government is not the best in the world. But it would never descend to that level. There are to many check and balances in place. No one faction of the government can take over the country.

That sounds like you are talking about the NWO or the Illuminati or even the Freemasons Only the whacked out nuts like Alex Jones Pushes stuff like that

I'm not interested in the NWO or the Illuminati or the Masons. What will bring about a police state in America, if it comes, is U.S. economic collapse and the chaos that will result. Our present "leaders" seem to actually want this country to go under. War with Iran could make it happen. The warmongers will finally have done it. And if Sandy Hook was indeed some kind of government black-op designed to get an arms ban (and I'm far from saying that it was), such an egregious desperate act would indicate that the government believes the collapse is coming far sooner than the sheeple are aware.

Ron our government is not the best in the world. But it would never descend to that level. There are to many check and balances in place. No one faction of the government can take over the country.

That sounds like you are talking about the NWO or the Illuminati or even the Freemasons Only the whacked out nuts like Alex Jones Pushes stuff like that

I'm not interested in the NWO or the Illuminati or the Masons. What will bring about a police state in America, if it comes, is U.S. economic collapse and the chaos that will result. Our present "leaders" seem to actually want this country to go under. War with Iran could make it happen. The warmongers will finally have done it. And if Sandy Hook was indeed some kind of government black-op designed to get an arms ban (and I'm far from saying that it was), such an egregious desperate act would indicate that the government believes the collapse is coming far sooner than the sheeple are aware.

So you think a government run by right-wing militia nuts would be a preferable alternative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Sandy Hook Massacre Spawned Conspiracy Theories

By Benjamin Radford, LiveScience Bad Science Columnist | LiveScience.com – Wed, Jan 16, 2013

One month after the Sandy Hook school shootings, the list of victims continues to grow. One man, Gene Rosen — who found six children and a bus driver in his driveway, brought them into his home, fed them and called parents to assure them that their children were safe — has been harassed by telephone, email and online by those who think he is lying about his actions, and is part of a conspiracy.

[...]

http://news.yahoo.co...-184323398.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think a government run by right-wing militia nuts would be a preferable alternative?

I thought that armed resistance movements against tyrannical government have historically been considered heroic. Call them what you like. Perhaps it takes "nuts" to take part in such movements. I don't know, since I've never participated. And I'm sure it's historically true that once such movements succeed and take over, they can sometimes be worse than what preceded them. Who's worse, Batista or Castro? Things are what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think a government run by right-wing militia nuts would be a preferable alternative?

I thought that armed resistance movements against tyrannical government have historically been considered heroic. Call them what you like. Perhaps it takes "nuts" to take part in such movements. I don't know, since I've never participated. And I'm sure it's historically true that once such movements succeed and take over, they can sometimes be worse than what preceded them. Who's worse, Batista or Castro? Things are what they are.

So you think a government run by right-wing militia nuts would be a preferable alternative?

I thought that armed resistance movements against tyrannical government have historically been considered heroic. Call them what you like. Perhaps it takes "nuts" to take part in such movements. I don't know, since I've never participated. And I'm sure it's historically true that once such movements succeed and take over, they can sometimes be worse than what preceded them. Who's worse, Batista or Castro? Things are what they are.

Com'on Ron you know as well as I that the majority of seriously armed people are right-wingers and the most heavily armed/trained among them are far-right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Com'on Ron you know as well as I that the majority of seriously armed people are right-wingers and the most heavily armed/trained among them are far-right.

So let's say they are all right-wingers. Do you therefore believe they should not have the right to arm themselves? Is it okay if liberals arm themselves? The second amendment makes no distinction between right and left. I think I have made two basic points in this thread, which I will try to clarify. There are people who feel the need to be well-armed, which is their constitutional right, for protection against tyrannical government, and there are people who feel the need to be well-armed for protection against things like armed criminal thugs. There are also people, probably almost all of the above, who feel both needs, since tyrannical government and roving street thugs will both be likely outcomes of social breakdown following economic collapse in America. Now if I were well-armed, which I'm not, I would be well-armed to defend myself and my family against things like roving street thugs paying my home a visit. I would not be well-armed to help fight a war against the government. I'll take a deferment on that. But I respect the constitutional right of anyone to be well-armed, regardless of their political persuasion, though I don't choose to exercise that right. I'm not interested in any war, and my family and I would probably not survive a shootout with street thugs anyway. I'm 70 and hopefully won't be around when the crap hits the fan in this country.

I also believe in effective gun control such as background checks and enforcing laws that are in effect, not passing new laws or bans because of mass shootings in which the government may or may not be complicit. Assassination researchers are very familiar with horrendous shootings in which government at some level was complicit, so it's not exactly like it couldn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mossad death squads slaughtered American children at Sandy Hook

By Dr. James H. Fetzer

[...]

The Sandy Hook massacre appears to have been a psy op intended to strike fear in the hearts of Americans by the sheer brutality of the massacre, where the killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel.

[...]

Mike Harris of Veterans Today has exposed the pattern relating what happened there to earlier assaults: “This is exactly what Israel did in Norway; the political party that voted sanctions against Israel was retaliated against by a ‘lone gunman’ who killed 77 children. This is what Israel always does, they go after the children.

“It is what they do in Gaza every day. It is what was done in Norway. It is what happened at Sandy Hook. Nobody buys the ‘one gunman’ story anymore, not with the Gabby Giffords’ shooting, not with the Aurora “Batman” shooting, certainly not with Breveik, and certainly not in Connecticut.”

The most likely scenario, given what we know now, is that Adam Lanza and his mother killed the day before. Adam's body picked up by local police. He was attired in a SWAT outfit, including body armor, and stored in the school.

A three-man team entered the school, one was arrested in the school--cuffed and put on the lawn--two went out the back door, one was arrested, the third appears to have escaped. You can find this on helicopter videos.

[...]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/20/279183/israeli-death-squad-massacred-us-children/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most likely scenario, given what we know now, is that Adam Lanza and his mother were killed the day before.

According to the Social Security Death Index, Adam Lanza died the day before.

http://www.genealogy...43EB37C71A1FA78

The same website lists his mother Nancy Lanza as dying the day of the shooting.

http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/doc/ssdi/v1:143A177167B62EF8

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most likely scenario, given what we know now, is that Adam Lanza and his mother were killed the day before.

According to the Social Security Death Index, Adam Lanza died the day before.

http://www.genealogy...43EB37C71A1FA78

The same website lists his mother Nancy Lanza as dying the day of the shooting.

http://www.genealogy...43A177167B62EF8

The most likely scenario, given what we know now, is that Adam Lanza and his mother were killed the day before.

According to the Social Security Death Index, Adam Lanza died the day before.

http://www.genealogy...43EB37C71A1FA78

The same website lists his mother Nancy Lanza as dying the day of the shooting.

http://www.genealogy...43A177167B62EF8

Obviously a typo or for some bizarre reason the NWO can carry out this elaborate and deadly plot but not give the SSA a wrong date for Lanza's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Com'on Ron you know as well as I that the majority of seriously armed people are right-wingers and the most heavily armed/trained among them are far-right.

So let's say they are all right-wingers. Do you therefore believe they should not have the right to arm themselves? Is it okay if liberals arm themselves? The second amendment makes no distinction between right and left. I think I have made two basic points in this thread, which I will try to clarify. There are people who feel the need to be well-armed, which is their constitutional right, for protection against tyrannical government, and there are people who feel the need to be well-armed for protection against things like armed criminal thugs. There are also people, probably almost all of the above, who feel both needs, since tyrannical government and roving street thugs will both be likely outcomes of social breakdown following economic collapse in America. Now if I were well-armed, which I'm not, I would be well-armed to defend myself and my family against things like roving street thugs paying my home a visit. I would not be well-armed to help fight a war against the government. I'll take a deferment on that. But I respect the constitutional right of anyone to be well-armed, regardless of their political persuasion, though I don't choose to exercise that right. I'm not interested in any war, and my family and I would probably not survive a shootout with street thugs anyway. I'm 70 and hopefully won't be around when the crap hits the fan in this country.

I also believe in effective gun control such as background checks and enforcing laws that are in effect, not passing new laws or bans because of mass shootings in which the government may or may not be complicit. Assassination researchers are very familiar with horrendous shootings in which government at some level was complicit, so it's not exactly like it couldn't happen.

Com'on Ron you know as well as I that the majority of seriously armed people are right-wingers and the most heavily armed/trained among them are far-right.

So let's say they are all right-wingers. Do you therefore believe they should not have the right to arm themselves? Is it okay if liberals arm themselves? The second amendment makes no distinction between right and left. I think I have made two basic points in this thread, which I will try to clarify. There are people who feel the need to be well-armed, which is their constitutional right, for protection against tyrannical government, and there are people who feel the need to be well-armed for protection against things like armed criminal thugs. There are also people, probably almost all of the above, who feel both needs, since tyrannical government and roving street thugs will both be likely outcomes of social breakdown following economic collapse in America. Now if I were well-armed, which I'm not, I would be well-armed to defend myself and my family against things like roving street thugs paying my home a visit. I would not be well-armed to help fight a war against the government. I'll take a deferment on that. But I respect the constitutional right of anyone to be well-armed, regardless of their political persuasion, though I don't choose to exercise that right. I'm not interested in any war, and my family and I would probably not survive a shootout with street thugs anyway. I'm 70 and hopefully won't be around when the crap hits the fan in this country.

I also believe in effective gun control such as background checks and enforcing laws that are in effect, not passing new laws or bans because of mass shootings in which the government may or may not be complicit. Assassination researchers are very familiar with horrendous shootings in which government at some level was complicit, so it's not exactly like it couldn't happen.

Ron,

You're taking my comments out of context. Obviously the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution applies equally to all Americans irregardless of their politics, race, religion etc. But one of the arguments you made in favor of allowing people to arm themselves would be to resist a hypothetical tyrannical government. My point was that if it came to that a government run by 'militia' groups is unlikely to be a better alternative.

The extent to which the 2nd guarantees an individual’s right to own what ever they want is debatable. For most of the nation's history the Supreme Court ruled this was a collective right as part of “a well regulated militia”, that changed recently notably in the Heller v. DC case. But even in the Heller case the SCOTUS recognized that the 2nd allows "reasonable regulation." of the individual right. I disagree with that decision the Supremes have made even bigger errors in the past (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. US) I think it is reasonable to ban private ownership of silencers, armor piercing bullets, high capacity magazines and semi or fully automatic guns and eliminate the gun show exception and other loophole that allow the purchase of guns without background checks. I also believe that one need higher categories of driver's and pilot's licenses only people with special permits should be allowed to use certain types of guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously a typo or for some bizarre reason the NWO can carry out this elaborate and deadly plot but not give the SSA a wrong date for Lanza's death.

I figured that would be best you can do. Yes, it could be just a typo. And what a coincidence (God, I hate coincidences) that such a mistake was made on this particular, now world-infamous individual. Such typos must be really common in the index, the department responsible must be flooded with incompetence.

Do you think the Sandy Hook plotters (if there were such people) gave the wrong date to the SSA? Couldn't it have been whoever initially found the body and who had nothing to do with the plot? I don't know whose job it is to report to the SSA, but I recall that one of the points made in Allen Dulles's book The Craft of Intelligence is that something always goes wrong in a covert operation, but the operation still succeeds. Don't you think it's possible that whoever killed Lanza the day before and later planted his body at the school (if that's what happened) had enough to think about without saying, "Hey, wait a minute, what about the Social Security Death Index?"

Anyway, I think we can all rest assure that this typo is going to be corrected real soon.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured that would be best you can do. Yes, it could be just a typo.

It's not only a perfectly reasonable explanation it is the most likely one. Makes more sense than believing that the MIBH were unable to or forgot to lie to the SSA

And what a coincidence (God, I hate coincidences)

Adams and Jefferson died on July 4th 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I guess that must have been the Illuminati.

that such a mistake was made on this particular, now world-infamous individual. Such typos must be really common in the index, the department responsible must be flooded with incompetence.

Do you know of any other such errors? They are unlikely to be widely noticed for 'normal' individuals but not uncommon:

If you are unable to find someone you are looking for, here are some things to try:

  • Change dates around (e.g. instead of searching for 5 Oct 1954 [10/5/54], search for 10 May 1954 [5/10/54])


  • Change years around (e.g. 1984 becomes 1948)


  • Use all other possible spellings of the name (and perhaps some that aren't so likely)


  • Switch last name and first name around


  • Try searching for a middle name as a first name


  • Even if you know a piece of information, try omitting it (e.g. if you know first and last name and death date, try leaving off the first name).

http://search.ancest....aspx?dbid=3693

See also: http://search.ancest....aspx?dbid=3693

Do you think the Sandy Hook plotters (if there were such people) gave the wrong date to the SSA? Couldn't it have been whoever initially found the body and who had nothing to do with the plot?

As per Fetzer's plot the body was planted in the school, ME said he died on the 14th with the others of self-inflected wounds, was he (the ME) 'in on it' too?

I don't know whose job it is to report to the SSA,

The Death Master File (DMF) from the Social Security Administration (SSA) currently contains over 89 million records and is updated weekly. The file is created from internal SSA records of deceased persons possessing social security numbers and whose deaths were reported to the SSA. Often this was done in connection with filing for death benefits by a family member, an attorney, a mortuary, etc.”

http://search.ancest....aspx?dbid=3693

but I recall that one of the points made in Allen Dulles's book The Craft of Intelligence is that something always goes wrong in a covert operation, but the operation still succeeds. Don't you think it's possible that whoever killed Lanza the day before and later planted his body at the school (if that's what happened) had enough to think about without saying, "Hey, wait a minute, what about the Social Security Death Index?"

Not relevant per the links above, especially if the ME was 'in on it', why kill him the day before if he wasn't?

Anyway, I think we can all rest assure that this typo is going to be corrected real soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...