Sandy Hook A Hoax?...

[paulitician]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 911 audio - latimes.com

Among dozens of others...

But there is nothing there to prove or disprove any conspiracy theories, Only enough to hurt the families of those who were killed that day....

You fools need to let them heal....

Pay close attention, Ollie, because I'm not going to further belabor the point. The LA Times website is NOT the "Newtown website" on which the audio of the 911 calls routed to the Newtown PD were reportedly posted. In this thread alone we've had access to differently-edited audio renderings from 3 separate AP sources (The Hartford Courant, The Chicago Tribune, and The LA Times), and I suspect you're right that there are dozens more nationwide, but none that I've seen thus far have provided a link to the court-ordered initial source.

Is that "Newtown website" only accessible to certain representatives from the AP?

Regarding the compatibility of the 911 tapes with the official narrative, any assessment rendered prior to a thorough examination of all of the relevant facts (yes, including the calls that were routed to the State Police, as well as the full evidence file) ...would be premature.

Having said that, I think a few cracks in Sedensky's leaky vessel have become apparent ...just in light of the few little tidbits of the audio recordings we have to examine.

The whole thing is being done in secret. Big Brother is busy editing and only allowing the release of information he thinks the Sheeple should be allowed to see. But why? Why so much secrecy? The perpetrator of the crime is dead and gone. There won't be any trials. Why all the careful editing and release of info? Answer is, secrecy & lies is just what our Government does. It is what it is.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I'm not sure what he was talking about. I admit that.

AHh gotcha it all makes sense now.

Whenever I see someone and I'm not sure what they are talking about I just file is as evidence there is some big conspiracy and bring it up in threads as proof. Glad to see I'm not the only one.

No one has answered anything about either one. Who were those men with large backpacks at the Boston Marathon?

It was answered already, there were a natl guard team.

You've not answered why you lied about them no longer having backpacks after the explosion. What was your motivation for purposely attempting to mislead everyone?

 

[G.T.]

I'm not sure what he was talking about. I admit that.

AHh gotcha it all makes sense now.

Whenever I see someone and I'm not sure what they are talking about I just file is as evidence there is some big conspiracy and bring it up in threads as proof. Glad to see I'm not the only one.

No one has answered anything about either one. Who were those men with large backpacks at the Boston Marathon?

It was answered already, there were a natl guard team.

You've not answered why you lied about them no longer having backpacks after the explosion. What was your motivation for purposely attempting to mislead everyone?

and now he lied about them not being answered.

hes a kook dude

 

[daws101]

If you want to hear the tapes that were released....

Newtown 911 calls released - chicagotribune.com

No, that's a recording of the first call and a splicing together of calls 3, 6, and 7, which, intentionally or not, promotes a false impression as to when police arrived on the scene in relation to ongoing shots being fired.

The Courant's website has a more complete rendering, though it too has edited the 7th call and failed entirely to play calls 3 and 6, promoting a similar illusion as the splice-job from the Chicago Tribune.

Like I said, good luck finding "the Newtown website" on which the audio was reportedly posted. None of the articles I've seen thus far have linked to it.

you have no evidence of editing of any kind..
do you have any background in the audio or video field or is it a psychic ability?

 

[daws101]

What do you think he was talking about?...


SANDY HOOK: It's going to crash on their Head - H Wayne Carver - YouTube

not what you wish he was talking about.

I'm not sure what he was talking about. I admit that. What do you think he was talking about? You're not even the least bit curious?

he was taking about the murder of all those kid might effect the people of new town the parents most of all....
I understand that's a tough concept for you, living in the fantasy zone.
one more thing shithead, that statement is taken out of context....making it meaningless.

 

[Capstone]

you have no evidence of editing of any kind..
do you have any background in the audio or video field or is it a psychic ability?

Compare and contrast the audio renderings from the links in Ollie's two most recent posts in this thread. It doesn't take an audio expert to hear the differences, since the Chicago Tribune's clip has edited out significant portions of the custodian's call, at least some of which are present in the LA Times clip. The absence of a direct link to their presumed common source (that mysterious "Newtown website") ...only exacerbates the appearance of impropriety in the AP's handling of the coverage.

There's no need to theorize where the facts are evident.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 911 audio - latimes.com

Among dozens of others...

But there is nothing there to prove or disprove any conspiracy theories, Only enough to hurt the families of those who were killed that day....

You fools need to let them heal....

Getting to the truth about Sandy Hook would be good for the families. People like you need to stop using the families and their grieving to protect your beloved Big Brother. The guilt-trip shaming thing isn't working as much anymore. People are demanding answers despite that dirty tactic. Getting truth is not in any way harming victims and their families. That's just Big Brother Bullshit used to stop people from asking questions. Times are changing though. You loyal Bootlickers can't stop people from demanding truth anymore. You guys are just gonna have to learn to deal with that.

You forget one thing.....We already have the truth.........

 

[daws101]

you have no evidence of editing of any kind..
do you have any background in the audio or video field or is it a psychic ability?

Compare and contrast the audio renderings from the links in Ollie's two most recent posts in this thread. It doesn't take an audio expert to hear the differences, since the Chicago Tribune's clip has edited out significant portions of the custodian's call, at least some of which are present in the LA Times clip. The absence of a direct link to their presumed common source (that mysterious "Newtown website") ...only exacerbates the appearance of impropriety in the AP's handling of the coverage.

There's no need to theorize where the facts are evident.

a difference in audio clarity or quality is not evidence of editing, all recording devices especially tape recorders (my guess is that what the 911 operators were using) produce a wide range of differences due to the manufacturer, wear on the tape heads what quality of tape used and most importantly how many time the tapes has been taped over.( a common practice to save money)
so you'er guessing

 

[Capstone]

you have no evidence of editing of any kind..
do you have any background in the audio or video field or is it a psychic ability?

Compare and contrast the audio renderings from the links in Ollie's two most recent posts in this thread. It doesn't take an audio expert to hear the differences, since the Chicago Tribune's clip has edited out significant portions of the custodian's call, at least some of which are present in the LA Times clip. The absence of a direct link to their presumed common source (that mysterious "Newtown website") ...only exacerbates the appearance of impropriety in the AP's handling of the coverage.

There's no need to theorize where the facts are evident.

a difference in audio clarity or quality is not evidence of editing, all recording devices especially tape recorders (my guess is that what the 911 operators were using) produce a wide range of differences due to the manufacturer, wear on the tape heads what quality of tape used and most importantly how many time the tapes has been taped over.( a common practice to save money)
so you'er guessing

I'm not talking about differences in audio clarity or quality, Daws; I'm talking about massive differences in the conversational content presented by various sources.

 

[daws101]

Compare and contrast the audio renderings from the links in Ollie's two most recent posts in this thread. It doesn't take an audio expert to hear the differences, since the Chicago Tribune's clip has edited out significant portions of the custodian's call, at least some of which are present in the LA Times clip. The absence of a direct link to their presumed common source (that mysterious "Newtown website") ...only exacerbates the appearance of impropriety in the AP's handling of the coverage.

There's no need to theorize where the facts are evident.

a difference in audio clarity or quality is not evidence of editing, all recording devices especially tape recorders (my guess is that what the 911 operators were using) produce a wide range of differences due to the manufacturer, wear on the tape heads what quality of tape used and most importantly how many time the tapes has been taped over.( a common practice to save money)
so you'er guessing

I'm not talking about differences in audio clarity or quality, Daws; I'm talking about massive differences in the conversational content presented by various sources.

that's called editorial privilege, what one news paper thinks in appropriate another may not.
you have to prove intent..you have not.

 

[Capstone]

that called editorial privilege, what one news paper thinks in appropriate another may not. [emphasis Capstone's]...

It's also called evidence of editing.

Remember?

you have no evidence of editing of any kind..

[...] you have to prove intent..you have not.

I don't have to prove anything. My statements regarding the differences between the clips presented by various AP sources ...are factual, not theoretical.

 

[daws101]

that called editorial privilege, what one news paper thinks in appropriate another may not. [emphasis Capstone's]...

It's also called evidence of editing.

Remember?

you have no evidence of editing of any kind..

[...] you have to prove intent..you have not.

I don't have to prove anything. My statements regarding the differences between the clips presented by various AP sources ...are factual, not theoretical.

that's true but it's not evidence of a conspiracy...thanks for playing.

 

[Rockland]

I don't have to prove anything.

Ah, falling back on the standard reply of most of the CTs on this forum. How disappointing, yet expected.

 

[SFC Ollie]

that called editorial privilege, what one news paper thinks in appropriate another may not. [emphasis Capstone's]...

It's also called evidence of editing.

Remember?

you have no evidence of editing of any kind..

[...] you have to prove intent..you have not.

I don't have to prove anything. My statements regarding the differences between the clips presented by various AP sources ...are factual, not theoretical.

And they don't mean a damned thing........

 

[SteadyMercury]

I don't have to prove anything.

Ah, falling back on the standard reply of most of the CTs on this forum. How disappointing, yet expected.

We'll call it a koko-light.

Pocket-koko?

 

[Rockland]

I don't have to prove anything.

Ah, falling back on the standard reply of most of the CTs on this forum. How disappointing, yet expected.

We'll call it a koko-light.

Pocket-koko?

How about Koko Puff?

 

[Capstone]

And they [the different edit jobs of various AP sources] don't mean a damned thing........

Say what you will about editorial privilege, but it's easy to see how, intentionally or not, the Chicago Tribune's audio clip in particular promotes a false impression as to the time of arrival of law enforcement on the day of the tragedy.

Speaking in terms of that website's potential to sway public opinion, that does mean a damned thing.

From the audio clip here, the following is a transcript of pieced-together portions from 2 separate calls made by the custodian (specifically from his 1rst and 3rd calls).

Dispatcher: What’s going on down there?
Caller: There’s … I believe there’s shooting at the front – at the front glass. Something’s going on.
D: OK, all right I got I want you to stay on the line with me. Where are you in the school?
C: I’m down the corridor – I’m
D: All right I want you to take cover. Jen – get the sergeant – all right get everybody you can going down there. All right. Let me – let me get some information here. What makes you think that.
C: The front glass is all shot out, it kept, it kept going on.
D: OK –[...snip...]
All right. Do you hear any police officers at this time, Rick?
C: I’m hearing talking. I’m not seeing anybody and I’m hearing talking.
D: OK
C: Like I said, I’m standing in the middle of this corridor. -- CUSTODIAN! CUSTODIAN! – (Background, unknown speaker: Who are you?) CUSTODIAN!
D: All right, tell them you’re on the phone with me.
C: I’m on the phone with dispatch! (background speaker, inaudible) – Victims in the buildings!
D: How many?
C: How many? (background: Two down!) Two down!

Now here's a transcript of the custodian's first call from the clip on the LA Times website (I've highlighted the portion removed from the Chicago Tribune's clip):

Dispatcher: 911. What's the location of your emergency?
Caller: Sandy Hook Elementary School, 12 Dickinson Drive
D: Yeah, I’ve got that. What’s going on down there?
C: There’s … I believe there’s shooting at the front – at the front glass. Something’s going on.
D: OK, all right I got I want you to stay on the line with me. Where are you in the school?
C: I’m down the corridor – I’m
D: All right I want you to take cover. Jen – get the sergeant – all right get everybody you can going down there. All right. Let me – let me get some information here. What makes you think that.
C: The front glass is all shot out, it kept, it kept going on.
D: OK –
C: It’s still happening!
D: All right, what about the students in the front of the building?
C: They’re – they’re everything’s locked up as far as I know, I’m not in the front
D: All right – you’re in lockdown?
C: They’re in lockdown
D: Did you see anything out the window?
C: No, it’s still going on! I can’t get over there
D: OK, I don’t want you to go over there. I want to know what’s happening with the students, though, along the front corridor – this is in the front parking lot?
C: Yes. I’m not – I’m not in the front, I’m actually down the other part, but I’m close.
D: OK. Do you see anything or hear anything more?
C: I keep hearing shooting – I keep hearing popping.
(dispatch chatter)
D: All right. Now who am I talking with right now?
C: You’re talking with Rick
D: Pardon me? What’s your name?
C: Rich Thorne
D: Rich Storm? All right. Rick, what’s your position with the school?
C: I’m – I’m acting head custodian.
D: All right.
Other dispatcher: What’s the address of the school?
C&D: 12 Dickinson Drive
Other dispatcher: OK
C: Something’s happening
D: OK – (to dispatcher in background) Jen, hang up, I need you to get off that phone
D: All right, Rick? Rick?
C: Yeah
D: All right, what are you hearing now
C: It’s - Now it’s silent
D: OK. All right. Now when you say the school is in lockdown –
C: All doors are locked, kids are in classrooms.
D: OK. So at this time you’re defending in place.
C: Excuse me?
D: OK. At this time, all the rooms are locked.
C: Yes.
D: K. Did you see anything out front before this started?
C: No. And I was out all morning.
D: Where are you in the –
C: OK, the gym teacher told me they saw shadows going past the gym.
D: Just now?
C: Yes.
D: All right. Now are they running on the outside or the inside?
C: I would say that was the outside? – There’s still shooting going on! Please!
D: All right – what about injuries at this time?
C: Excuse me?
D: What about injuries at this time?
C: I don’t know of any injuries right now.
D: OK
(inaudible background)
D: Jen I need you to call the state police
C: There’s still – It’s still going on!

On the Courant's website, we find the other part of the Chicago Tribune's splice job in the transcript of the 3rd call (listed as call 7), and I've highlighted the portion that was used:

Call 6

Dispatcher: 'K, I have that, we have officers on scene.
Caller: Thank you.
D: What’s your name?
C: Rick Thorne.
D: OK
C: I’m in the building
D: All right, Rick, I gotcha, I’m on the other line. All right. We have officers there.
(background noise, dispatch noise – Newtown 911, what’s the location of your emergency, repeating)
C: Are you talking to me?
D: I am talking to you. Is this Rick?
C: 12 Dickinson Drive, Sandy Hook.
D: All right, Rick, is this you?
C: Yes
D: OK. We’re going back on the line together. Is that by – is that by PD?
C: The firehouse. It’s by the firehouse.
D: Yeah we got, we got, I’m sorry … (background noise, discussions with dispatchers) Well I’m not let - sending them in there yet. Where is she in the school? Don’t worry about where room 1 is. Where is she in the school? - Yes ma’am. At this time it’s unknown to me. We believe there is a shooting going on at that school. It is in lockdown. I don’t have any other information but unfortunately I’m going to have to put you on hold for a moment because I have multiple calls going. All right?
Newtown 911. Rick?
C: Yes
D: OK. Stay on the phone with me.
C: OK.
D: 10-4, it’s dispatcher (?) – yes ma’am, I just spoke with Janet Robinson, I do believe there has been a shooting at the school, we’re in the middle of multiple calls. Yes ma’am.
D: Hi, Rick, are you still with me?
C: Yes.
D: All right. What do you see now?
C: I’m standing in the corridor, just watching the corridor.
D: All right, you’re watching your corridor.
C: Yes.
D: OK. Um -

Call 7

Dispather: We got a shooting at Sandy Hook School. You’re going to have to talk to the first selectman. I’ve already talked to Janet Robinson and -- Newtown police, dispatcher Newton. Yeah. Very. Uh at this point I would maintain your post in your school. All right? Thank you. – All right. Do you hear any police officers at this time, Rick?
Caller: I’m hearing talking. I’m not seeing anybody and I’m hearing talking.
D: OK
C: Like I said, I’m standing in the middle of this corridor. -- CUSTODIAN! CUSTODIAN! – (Background, unknown speaker: Who are you?) CUSTODIAN!
D: All right, tell them you’re on the phone with me.
C: I’m on the phone with dispatch! (background speaker, inaudible) – Victims in the buildings!
D: How many?
C: How many? (background: Two down!) Two down!
D: Got it. Is it safe?
(background: Did you see anybody firing a gun?)
C: I saw nobody!

Again, and I can't stress this enough, especially in light of the realized potential to mislead the public (as the clip exposed above clearly does), the absence of a direct link to the AP's common source only adds to the appearance of impropriety in the AP's coverage.

 

[paulitician]

If everything's so simple and cut & dry, why not just release all of the information? Why edit and only release selected information? There shouldn't be any secrecy. The perpetrator of the crime is dead and gone. There won't be a trial of any sort. Why is the Government resisting those who just want the information? People shouldn't have to beg and file for information using the FOIA. If there's truly nothing to hide, they should simply release all of the information. All the editing and careful selection of info being released, just contributes more to people thinking something's not right with this. Once again our Government is being secretive and dishonest. But go figure, right?

 

[paulitician]

I'm not sure what he was talking about. I admit that.

AHh gotcha it all makes sense now.

Whenever I see someone and I'm not sure what they are talking about I just file is as evidence there is some big conspiracy and bring it up in threads as proof. Glad to see I'm not the only one.

No one has answered anything about either one. Who were those men with large backpacks at the Boston Marathon?

It was answered already, there were a natl guard team.

You've not answered why you lied about them no longer having backpacks after the explosion. What was your motivation for purposely attempting to mislead everyone?

Can you please provide the link showing who those men were. I haven't seen any reports stating who they were. And i find it pretty shocking and disappointing that you're not even the least bit curious about what the loony Coroner meant, or who all those guys wearing large backpacks were. You need to start being more curious. Always question your Government. Because it lies to you on a daily basis.

 

[paulitician]

not what you wish he was talking about.

I'm not sure what he was talking about. I admit that. What do you think he was talking about? You're not even the least bit curious?

he was taking about the murder of all those kid might effect the people of new town the parents most of all....
I understand that's a tough concept for you, living in the fantasy zone.
one more thing shithead, that statement is taken out of context....making it meaningless.

Well, at least you're beginning to think. I gotta give ya credit for that. It's progress. I can't really agree with your assessment of his statement though. However, i do admit i'm not sure what he meant.