Sandy Hook, Line , And Sinker

[Capstone]

Men like Wolfgang Halbig and Jim Fetzer have blasted some serious holes of late in the poorly constructed and already crumbling facade that is the Sandy Hook official narrative.

This thread, however, isn't intended for discussion on their research or findings, nor is it a proclamation of the accuracy/air-tightness of the case they've made for conspiracy. Instead I'd like to focus on maybe the biggest unanswered question of all: ...IF the Sandy Hook incident was indeed a reichstag-like event,...to what end?

To me, the quest to disarm the American public rings hollow, in that the question as to who benefits (monetarily) from widespread disarmament remains open; and I wonder whether there might be a deeper agenda in play, in which some potential answers to that question would be more obvious.

Could it be that The Powers that Shouldn't Be (the profiteers of the Military Industrial Complex) are laying the pretext for all-out civil war in the United States?

The whole Sandy Hook Hoax thing just seems a little too hokey, with revelation after revelation that all reek of intentional error. Maybe the true goal is to light a fire under the vets of Veterans Today, so they'll vocally entertain the prospect of rising up in armed opposition against the government? Just think of the money that could be made!

Seriously, I hope and pray that's not the case, because the track record of those for whom perpetual warfare is highly profitable suggests that they'll eventually get their way, by hook or by crook.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I believe what you are probably right, Capstone. It looks as if it could be a plan. It appears they are working towards something that would bring about a rebellion / a civil war even. It seems they are desiring to bring that to fruition in the future. There are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Sandy Hook and I do not believe the American people were told the truth about it.

 

[Capstone]

...It appears they are working towards something that would bring about a rebellion / a civil war even. It seems they are desiring to bring that to fruition in the future. ...

Well, if things are as they appear to a couple of message board jockeys like us, let's just hope there are enough others out there with the discernment not to take the bait. The LAST thing this country needs is a bloodbath between the people and the puppets, as the puppet masters watch from afar like the vultures they are. Armed conflict would do nothing but play right into the filthy talons of the world's true power brokers.

Non-violence is the only way to battle the bastards behind the curtain.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I believe what you are probably right, Capstone. It looks as if it could be a plan. It appears they are working towards something that would bring about a rebellion / a civil war even. It seems they are desiring to bring that to fruition in the future. There are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Sandy Hook and I do not believe the American people were told the truth about it.

a civil war by the american people is what is needed to take our country back from all these murderous criminals and bankers running our country but i have no faith in the sheople getting off their asses to fight to take it back from them.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

...It appears they are working towards something that would bring about a rebellion / a civil war even. It seems they are desiring to bring that to fruition in the future. ...

Well, if things are as they appear to a couple of message board jockeys like us, let's just hope there are enough others out there with the discernment not to take the bait. The LAST thing this country needs is a bloodbath between the people and the puppets, as the puppet masters watch from afar like the vultures they are. Armed conflict would do nothing but play right into the filthy talons of the world's true power brokers.

Non-violence is the only way to battle the bastards behind the curtain.

hows that? it has done not one bit of good at all so far the peaceful way.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I can't bring myself to read all of the Sandy Hook hoax thread but I've read enough to know that there are some really and truly SICK people posting on this board.

Its bad enough to lose their children to a crazy ass shooter but can't you vile nasty people leave them alone now?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

as always,you have your head in your ass and are in denial.

 

[Capstone]

hows that? it has done not one bit of good at all so far the peaceful way.

And how well have the various violent revolutions over the past several centuries worked out for people outside the loop of the financiers and secret progenitors of those conflicts?

Don't allow the illusion of your comfortable, television-based lifestyle to blind you to the fact that you're a slave to the almighty dollar today, just as you'll be to whatever monetary system replaces it in the aftermath of yet another bloody revolution, that is, of course, if you manage to survive. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the new money will be brought to you by many of the same players who controlled the old system.

Read some history, and take it to heart.

The only way to deal with the devious bigots behind the scenes is to not let ourselves be manipulated by the same tired ploys of yesteryear, but instead to seek out ways to engage the hidden power-structure for the sake of some sort of mutually beneficial outcome. I, for one, am ready to acknowledge my weaknesses and accept a subordinate role to those I could never hope to best either physically or intellectually.

 

[Capstone]

If the 'end game' is a One World Government, so be it; but for God's sake, I wish the leaders in that effort would just come out from the shadows and say so!

 

[Skylar]

I believe what you are probably right, Capstone. It looks as if it could be a plan. It appears they are working towards something that would bring about a rebellion / a civil war even. It seems they are desiring to bring that to fruition in the future. There are a lot of unanswered questions concerning Sandy Hook and I do not believe the American people were told the truth about it.

Who the fuck are 'they'?

 

[Capstone]

Who the fuck are 'they'?

Follow the yellow brick road...

 

[Skylar]

So you don't know either, huh?

Makes discerning 'their' motivations a bit more difficult when you don't even know who 'they' are, doesn't it? Yet you attribute elaborate plans, motivations and plots....with remarkable specificity, to folks you can neither name nor credibly describe.

What then would be the functional difference between this elaborate plot of 'they'.......and your imagination?

 

[Capstone]

So you don't know either, huh? ...

Well, I imagine it could be tough to discover the identities of individuals who've been smart enough (or maybe educated enough) to operate indirectly as a general rule, but the money trail (or golden road) invariably leads at least to the marionettes who dance at the behest of those string-pullers.

...Makes discerning 'their' motivations a bit more difficult when you don't even know who 'they' are, doesn't it? ...

Difficult, as certain manufactured events are transpiring, yes, but the prospective motives are often clarified in hindsight during the 'solution' phase of the now almost passé dialectic M.O. of the hidden power structure. This is one of the ways we can try to oppose "them", by identifying some plausible motives in order to temper our 'reactions' so that they're counterproductive to the desired outcomes of those who actually created the 'problems'.

If, for instance, gun control is deemed a likely motive behind a number of apparently contrived events, we should do our damnedest to oppose such measures on every front, ...BUT (and it's a big one) always with enough discretion to avoid unwittingly serving perhaps a deeper motive (such as shoring up the pretext for civil war, ETC.).

...Yet you attribute elaborate plans, motivations and plots....with remarkable specificity, to folks you can neither name nor credibly describe.

I'm a student of history, Skylar; and I'm not just talking about the propagandist bull-crap of mainstream western academia.

I also try to keep abreast of current events; and the facts on the ground today, both in the US and around the world, suggest that events are unfolding almost everywhere as the result of indirect manipulation by various monied and/or globalist interests. Although a number of the 'public faces' of those interests could be (and have been) named, the question as to who's really in charge of 'the strings' may never be answered and might not be answerable, at least not in terms the average human could grasp.

What then would be the functional difference between this elaborate plot of 'they'.......and your imagination?

Functionally speaking, the notion that a relatively small group of privileged individuals have been engaged in a concerted effort toward world domination (read: a 'One World Government' of their own making) would be the product, while the "imagination" would be among the thought producers of 'the mind', along with intuition, logic, and reason.

 

[Skylar]

Well, I imagine it could be tough to discover the identities of individuals who've been smart enough (or maybe educated enough) to operate indirectly as a general rule, but the money trail (or golden road) invariably leads at least to the marionettes who dance at the behest of those string-pullers.

Then how could you possibly attribute motivation to a group you can't name or credibly describe? So far, you've offered us characters of your imagination with no more connection to reality than Voldemort or the Easter Bunny. And yet you get remarkably specific on what 'they' plot and what motivates 'them'.

You never actually cite 'them' of course. You cite yourself AS 'them'. With you providing every line of dialogue, every plot twist, every chapter outline, every nefarious plan, every twirling of a well oiled mustache.

And what 'money trail'? To whom? Is this too something that we'll just 'have to take your word on', like all the motivations and plans of your nebulous 'they'?

Difficult, as certain manufactured events are transpiring, yes, but the prospective motives are often clarified in hindsight during the 'solution' phase of the now almost passé dialectic M.O. of the hidden power structure.

"Passé dialectic M.O.s", huh? That's so....alliterative! But who, pray tell, is providing the dialogue, the motivations, the 'Passé dialectic M.O.s'?

That would be you citing.....yourself. On pretty much everything.

Do you have any line of reasoning that *doesn't* involve you quoting imaginary people that no one else can see or hear?

 

[Capstone]

...So far, you've offered us characters of your imagination with no more connection to reality than Voldemort or the Easter Bunny. ...

You left out some other creations of the imagination, such as the imagination itself (the existence of which you don't seem to doubt), love (and the entire spectrum of human emotions), ...also gravity (as a physically 'concrete' example), none of which are directly observable. How do we know they're there? To put it simply, we don't. We believe they exist by way of inferences drawn from their effects.

...how could you possibly attribute motivation to a group you can't name or credibly describe? ...

Not to concede the implication that a theoretical something or someone has to be directly observable in order for anyone to "credibly describe" them, but I attribute "plausible motives" to my hypothetical 'they' in very much the same way that I attribute principles, properties, and modes of operation to my own mind, feelings, and many of the inferred constructs of the phenomenal world outside of my mind.

...You never actually cite 'them' of course. You cite yourself AS 'them'. With you providing every line of dialogue, every plot twist, every chapter outline, every nefarious plan, every twirling of a well oiled mustache. ...

How could I possibly cite 'them', when no evidence exists (or has ever existed) that powerful globalist conspirators have infiltrated the US government to set in motion the destruction of American sovereignty (such as the SPP, the NACC, NASCO, CANAMEX, NAFI, or NAFTA -- I'd post links describing those acronyms if only they existed, but alas...)?! Or that elements within the US government have ever conspired to mislead the American public into supporting some war or military action, whether by failing to act on intelligence we now know they had ([COUGH]Pearl Harbor[/COUGH] or by seriously contemplating false flag attacks within the United States and abroad [FART]Operations Northwoods, Mongoose, Bingo, and Dirty Trick[/FART]?!

And what 'money trail'? To whom? Is this too something that we'll just 'have to take your word on', like all the motivations and plans of your nebulous 'they'?...

Hmm ...I guess so, since there's never been any evidence to suggest that money has had any influence on the outcomes of elections and stuff, right?

..."Passé dialectic M.O.s", huh? That's so....alliterative! But who, pray tell, is providing the dialogue, the motivations, the 'Passé dialectic M.O.s'?...

How the hell should I know, since virtually no evidence exists to implicate any person or group (lobbyist or otherwise) in the advent of any of the agencies or agendas I've mentioned, right?!

Do you have any line of reasoning that *doesn't* involve you quoting imaginary people that no one else can see or hear?

Come to think of it, I guess not.

Wow. Thanks for showing me the error of my ways, Skylar!

 

[Skylar]

You left out some other creations of the imagination, such as the imagination itself (the existence of which you don't seem to doubt), love (and the entire spectrum of human emotions), also gravity, none of which are directly observable. How do we know they're there? To put it simply, we don't. We believe they exist by way inferences drawn from their effects.

Yeah, but you're attributing *intentionality*. And motivation. And not in a vague, general sense. But with explicit and extremely specific plans, plot twists and alliterative embellishment.

All while citing no one but yourself. J.K. Rowling took a similar tactic with Voldemort. And the existence of gravity didn't make her imagination any more grounded in reality than what you seem to be presenting.

Not to concede the implication that a theoretical something or someone has to be directly observable in order to "credibly describe" them, but I attribute "plausible motives" to my hypothetical 'they' in very much the same way that I attribute principles, properties, and modes of operation to my own mind, feelings, and many of the inferred constructs of the phenomenal world outside of my mind.

Save of course that in the case of inferred constructs of the phenomenal world outside your mind, we can use some pretty reliable processes to establish the existence of what you experience. If you walk off a cliff, we'll all be able to see the 'inferred constructs' of gravity pulling you down to the ravine below. And should any of us choose to repeat your blunder, we could expect similar results. External verification and repeatability are pretty handy.

But in the case of your Sandy Hook narrative.....its just you citing yourself as imaginary people that no one else can see or hear. You can't factually establish that any of them exist. You can't cite any of them. You can't tell us anything about them save what you theoretically imagine. With your sole source being you citing you.

No external verification. No repeatability. With your characters having remarkably specific ambitions....yet nothing save your imagination to back them up. Making your "Passé dialectic M.O.s'' a bit more Easter Bunny that most people would be comfortable with.

 

[Capstone]

Yeah, but you're attributing *intentionality*. And motivation. ...

Only the intentions and motives that have a "connection to reality" by way of real-world events, agendas, and the policies crafted and put into action by the bought-and-paid-for empty suits that occupy offices on nearly all levels of government. The conflicts of interest between those ringers and their financiers have been well documented as very real and quite often detrimental to the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people such shills were supposedly elected to represent, namely the American People. Moreover, the commonality of cause (or alleged bipartisanship) has remained relatively constant on certain issues, transcending not only the borders between so-called liberal and conservative ideologies but also those between states and other sovereign nations along the way. Unity of direction implies ...well, a united group of directors. One needn't know the specifics as to the identities of the bosses to see the common direction their hired drivers have been heading over the past few decades -- straight towards a cliff, at least where America's sovereignty has been concerned. So, the 'real-world evidence' supports the existence of a unified group of globalist conspirators.

...J.K. Rowling took a similar tactic with Voldemort. And the existence of gravity didn't make her imagination any more grounded in reality than what you seem to be presenting. ...

You mean to tell me Rowling's characters were based on real-life events, agendas, and policies in action?! The world is suddenly a scarier place!

...in the case of inferred constructs of the phenomenal world outside your mind, we can use some pretty reliable processes to establish the existence of what you experience. ...

While testing the integrity of our political system is a bit more complicated than verifying the effects of gravity, in that a good many 'controls' are beyond the reach of the average Joe, we can infer the existence and influence of powerful conglomerates by observing certain kinds of effects over time. For example, lobbyists affiliated with the infamous 'Military Industrial Complex' have been enormously successful in recent decades, sometimes while flying in the face of public opinion. It's become a given that the US will continue to fund and get embroiled in both covert and overt military actions, regardless of the dominant party affiliations in government at the time. Because of that unwarranted influence (which is also money-based, of course), the American People have been reduced to voting for narratives. Are we going to war for 'patriotic' or 'humanitarian' reasons? Let the people decide! Because, either way, we're going to war. The "external verification" for what I'm saying is apparent in the history for all to see.

But in the case of your Sandy Hook narrative.....its just you citing yourself as imaginary people that no one else can see or hear. You can't factually establish that any of them exist. You can't cite any of them. You can't tell us anything about them save what you theoretically imagine. With your sole source being you citing you.

There were various witnesses to incongruities on the day of the incident. In one notable instance we have independent corroboration, both by police scanner audio and a number of news reports, of very strange (but specific!) descriptions of multiple suspects in a purple van on the run. That means one could believe that the shootings were carried out by a small black-ops team dressed as nuns with their patsy priest (Adam Lanza) in tow, and the belief would be perfectly consistent with highly credible evidence that is yet to be explained by 'official sources'. That's not necessarily to say it went down that way. Maybe there's a perfectly logical explanation to which the public simply hasn't been made privy, but until the explanation is made, such beliefs will remain perfectly reasonable and in line with the available evidence.

Now, while such incongruities (and there many more) don't identify 'the masterminds' or the motives behind the hypothetical operation, what they do is cast serious doubt on the story we've been told by certain officials and the media -- a story that's been used by legislators at the state and federal levels to prop up a specific agenda. That's not a matter of conjecture; it's a simply a statement of some of 'the facts on the ground' in this case.

...No external verification. No repeatability. With your characters having remarkably specific ambitions....yet nothing save your imagination to back them up. ...

There again, the external verification in favor of the sort of claims I've actually made (not the kind you seem so anxious to ascribe to me) is there for anyone to see for themselves, and they can do so repeatedly ...with no fear of being attacked by the likes of Voldemort or the Easter Bunny.

 

[skookerasbil]

I can't bring myself to read all of the Sandy Hook hoax thread but I've read enough to know that there are some really and truly SICK people posting on this board.

Its bad enough to lose their children to a crazy ass shooter but can't you vile nasty people leave them alone now?

Bubble dwelling is gay s0n.........


FBI stats on 2012 murders in Newtown???!!!!


zeRo

 

[Capstone]

Since you've brought it up in here, Skooks, I think it's important to understand the difference between the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and the Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).

What's missing from the FBI's UCR, at least according to USA Today's Meghan Hoyer, is the SHR data from the Aurora and Newtown incidents.

[. . .]The records are voluntarily submitted by police agencies, and FBI officials say the Connecticut State Police and Aurora police departments initially provided the information on the year's two largest killing incidents – only to request that it be deleted.

In Aurora, Sgt. Chris Amsler says his department provides data to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations monthly. The FBI database contains information on 18 other homicides in Aurora in 2012.

"We checked our records and found that all data related to the theater shooting was submitted," he said, adding that investigators were still trying to figure out why the incident was later deleted from FBI records.

Connecticut's homicide count is correct, but the FBI's detailed supplementary material includes only the shooting of Adam Lanza's mother at her home in December 2012, just before Lanza went to the elementary school. Lt. Paul Vance says his department submitted a six-page report on the Newtown school victims to the FBI but later identified a mistake. Updated data was provided too late to be reflected in the database, Vance says, but the information should be added soon.[...]

In other words, the Sandy Hook murders were included in the FBI's report (see the Table 11 link I posted in the Sandy Hook Hoax? thread), but most of the more detailed SHR data-point entries (specifically everything related to victims other than Nancy Lanza) were reportedly deleted at the request of Lt. Paul Vance.

Here's a blank SHR form from the FBI's website, just to provide some idea as to the kind of information that was reportedly deleted.

Once more for good measure: the murders remain vaguely accounted for in the FBI's 2012 UCR (via the CT. State Police's entry of 36 murders, obviously not all of which were related to the Newtown shootings), but most of the details that could have been used either to corroborate or refute the official Sandy Hook narrative have strangely disappeared (assuming they were ever really submitted in the first place).

Regarding Luddly's contribution to the discussion (not that it warrants a response): if questioning agenda-driven narratives on the basis of the glaring weaknesses of the external bodies of evidence in support of them is "sick", ...I don't wanna be 'well'.