The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed

[greenstang1313]

Ahhhh, you noticed eh? Thanks... I was acting just like the conspiracy theorists themselves... completely absurd....

That said...... the conspiracy theories have been debunked.... nothing to see here.. move on.....

id say that ive seen a couple consiracy theorists that are taking it too far (aka anyone who is actually harassing people in CT) but for the most part theyre just regular people that want answers. labeling these people as "conspiracy theorists" or "truthers" is just a defense mechanism to make them all seem like loons. and they havent been debunked at all, one stupid teenager posting a "debunked" video does not mean its debunked sorry. he made a couple good points but he barely even scratched the tip of the iceberg. so add something constructive to defend your point or move along...

 

[Draiter]

Fujck me , are you Obama's long lost brother, you are deflecting the point I made, I'll repeat it for you , lemme guess you believe jet fuel can MELT steel!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

Question has been answered, read between the lines... if you are going to argue about 9/11, then you are way off the mark.... the proof doesn't lay in the twin towers themselves, but rather in WTC 7... read up and learn a bit..

 

[ndfrspd03cobra]

Question has been answered, read between the lines... if you are going to argue about 9/11, then you are way off the mark.... the proof doesn't lay in the twin towers themselves, but rather in WTC 7... read up and learn a bit..

The trouble I have with your statement is that despite the evidence presented, you are not comprehending facts. If I would buy you books you would just eat them.

 

[Draiter]

id say that ive seen a couple consiracy theorists that are taking it too far (aka anyone who is actually harassing people in CT) but for the most part theyre just regular people that want answers. labeling these people as "conspiracy theorists" or "truthers" is just a defense mechanism to make them all seem like loons. and they havent been debunked at all, one stupid teenager posting a "debunked" video does not mean its debunked sorry. he made a couple good points but he barely even scratched the tip of the iceberg. so add something constructive to defend your point or move along...

Conspiracy theory... debunked.... done... finished. the conspiracy nuts have been proven incorrect as usual... the conspiracy douches have provided no facts, evidence, nothing, only conjecture, misinformation, bait and switch, and opinion.... that is what they do... they prey on the weak minded and gullible and simpletons, because those types are incapable of thinking for themselves and just follow the bull**** as if it were true.. and they themselves spew the same nonsense, so on an so forth. Conspiracy followers are just like the weak minded - brainwashed folks that follow cult leaders, and the cult leaders are just like those that produce the conspiracy themselves.

Why People Believe in Conspiracies: Scientific American

Contradictions Don't Deter Conspiracy Theorists | Psychology of Conspiracy Theories | Princess Diana & Osama bin Laden | LiveScience

Conspiracy theory believers share psychological traits - Miami science news | Examiner.com

The Conspiracy Theory Mindset and its Contribution to the Guardian/CiF World View | CiF Watch

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

 

[ndfrspd03cobra]

well this video shows that 2 guns were pulled from the trunk hahahaha , the media is so ****ed up 2:37


Connecticut School Massacre Briefing from local police - YouTube

 

[Draiter]

well this video shows that 2 guns were pulled from the trunk hahahaha , the media is so ****ed up 2:37


Connecticut School Massacre Briefing from local police - YouTube

WTF are are you talking about? 2 guns... man, that's rich... it's a shotgun, watch the shell being ejected.... Jesus... an ar-15 has a charging handle, pulled from behind the upper handle, not the side.... but you will just ignore that fact now won't you...

Read this ----

despp: ** UPDATE ** State Police Identify Weapons in Sandy Hook Investigation

And to back that up.... from the firing line forums
Sandy Hook ID rifle in trunk - The Firing Line Forums

Debunked: Sandy Hook: The Guns, Assault Rifle, Gun in the Trunk, Handguns

Once again... you set em up, I can keep knocking them down...

 

[ndfrspd03cobra]

WTF are are you talking about? 2 guns... man, that's rich... it's a shotgun, watch the shell being ejected.... Jesus... an ar-15 has a charging handle, pulled from behind the upper handle, not the side.... but you will just ignore that fact now won't you...

Read this ----

despp: ** UPDATE ** State Police Identify Weapons in Sandy Hook Investigation

And to back that up.... from the firing line forums
Sandy Hook ID rifle in trunk - The Firing Line Forums

Debunked: Sandy Hook: The Guns, Assault Rifle, Gun in the Trunk, Handguns

Once again... you set em up, I can keep knocking them down...

Are you blind? @2:37 you can see 2 rifles held by 2 people, Jesus you retard the link you posted has this link where the officers clearly states they have one rifle and one shot gun at 19:55 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ETkrxfYoQtc#t=1194s

 

[bluebosss197]

It is quite clear Draiter is a shill. It couldn't be more obvious. Do not feed the Shill.

 

[9CobraVert8]

Draitor rhymes with traitor, so that makes him a shill. Like blueboss said, do not feed the shill!

 

[01cobravortech]

It is quite clear Draiter is a shill. It couldn't be more obvious. Do not feed the Shill.

"Do not feed the shill" - LOL