Sandy hook not real?

[Soufkackicustom]

I'd hate for it to be a hoax. But the theater shooting is still in the news, and when the compound in Waco burned down, it was news for a long time, same with the VA tech shooter.....it's like sandy hook has been swept under the rug into the history books..........way too fast

[PR CB7]

you cant believe everything you read/watch especially youtube, but to those, that are doubtful you can always research this shit on your own
and come up with your own conclusions

[deevergote]

To be honest, I feel that it's absurd to think that it's a hoax. The most probable answer is often the simplest one... and the simplest answer is that some nutjob kid went to his mom's school to kill her, and decided to take out a bunch of kids and then himself in the process. It's not an unreasonable scenario.
To think that the media, the government, and everyone that was at or near the scene could be part of some humongous conspiracy to pretend such a tragedy occurred is ridiculous. For what? Ratings? Gun control laws? Sheer boredom? Distracting the general public from a more serious issue? Please...

Are some government officials using the tragedy to their own benefit? Surely. Are some medial outlets twisting, sensationalizing, and perhaps blatantly misrepresenting the facts (accidentally or purposefully)? No doubt.

But did some dude shoot a bunch of people? I have no doubt that he did.

It'll take a lot more than photoshopped pictures and videos that string together a bunch of convenient "facts" and assumptions to convince me otherwise.

[H311RA151N]

I understand what your saying Deev and I completely agree but I still think its possibly a hoax.

I think its possible that the reason for it would be gun control laws and/or possibly to destract the general public from something else. If a person would really look at it from the perspective of someone who just made the above statement, I think they would see that its not completely out of question.

Also you said you know there are ways they can benefit from the situation. So the probable cause is there.

And maybe someone did shoot a bunch of people but that still doesn’t rule it being a hoax out in my mind. People have done insane things for money and power. Just look back since the beginning of time. People have killed women and children in cold blood over god, wealth, and power.

But I have a small "criminal history" so I guess the way I am can be expected. I’m always skeptical of people in power.

[deevergote]

The incident polarized the nation regarding gun control, though. I see just as many people FOR gun control as I do AGAINST it. Furthermore, it's brought to the forefront of any political discussion, meaning it's a sore spot for any political party seeking one thing or another.
After such an incident, after having it sensationalized so in the media, the general public is crying out for more gun control or less gun control... either way, the general public is unhappy with the way things are right now.
Nothing is certain. Everything is split fairly evenly down the middle. It's extremely risky banking on 51%!

From a political standpoint, igniting such unrest is a VERY bad way to achieve change. I don't think such a thing could be orchestrated unless it was very certain to achieve the desired outcome.


If the government wanted to change gun laws, they'd have worked those changes into other proposals that were far less likely to draw attention. Faking the tragic deaths of 27 people to achieve their goals could backfire catastrophically... and if it could be proven that such actions were intentionally taken to help pass certain laws, those laws could easily be overturned. Furthermore, the consequences of such a manipulation would be crippling not only to all individuals and corporations involved, but their associated political parties as well.

There's just far too much to lose, and far too many unknown variables for such a hoax to have any significant political benefit. It'd be more feasible to assume that the killer was hired or otherwise manipulated by the government to do what he did than it would be to suggest it was a hoax. It'd be cleaner, easier, and far less risky. 27 lives, even children, are a small sacrifice for the good of a nation, or for the greedy goals of a corrupt politician, no? As long as the killer spoke to no-one, and turned the gun effectively on himself (or was otherwise eliminated before he could speak), it'd be nice and neat. A hoax of this scale has WAY too many mouths involved.




Make it personal... small scale... You want to demonstrate that knives are dangerous. Do you cut yourself? Do you pretend to cut yourself? Do you pretend to cut someone else? Or do you wait for someone else to get cut and then use the momentum of that incident to press your issue? (that's a weighted question, I know... but you get my point!)

[Quashish]

It'd be more feasible to assume that the killer was hired or otherwise manipulated by the government to do what he did than it would be to suggest it was a hoax.

hoax (hoks)
n.
1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
tr.v. hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es
To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.

call it what you will, to me saying it was a hoax means it was still planned.

[deevergote]

And this is why religion should stay off the forum. Yeah its bull shit that people can discuss evolution and not God but that’s the world we live in. Atheists (and others alike) have rights but Christians don’t.

It’s fucked up how I see how someone could be banned for talking about "God" because it might offend someone. Yet people can discuss evolution and satanic shit and it would be seen as offensive to tell them not to.

People aren't banned for talking about religion. People are banned because of the bullshit fights that occur because of such discussions. Because people that are serious about their religion are quick to anger (case in point), and it only starts trouble. Discussions of "satanic shit" generally don't stir up the devout satanists on this forum because, well, I don't think we have any.
I don't have anything against any particular religion myself, but the instant someone says "no, your belief is wrong" we instantly get a flame war (as I have seen MANY devout Christians do on this forum... rarely any of the Muslim or Jewish members, though they are the minorities... and occasionally we'll get an Atheist that wants to put down anyone of faith...)


8ball was banned due to a racial slur in his signature. I'm debating making that ban permanent. His ban had NOTHING to do with his religious statements, and quite frankly, I'm pretty fucking offended that it was even suggested.

[deevergote]

This thread is done.

[owequitit]

To be honest, I feel that it's absurd to think that it's a hoax. The most probable answer is often the simplest one... and the simplest answer is that some nutjob kid went to his mom's school to kill her, and decided to take out a bunch of kids and then himself in the process. It's not an unreasonable scenario.
To think that the media, the government, and everyone that was at or near the scene could be part of some humongous conspiracy to pretend such a tragedy occurred is ridiculous. For what? Ratings? Gun control laws? Sheer boredom? Distracting the general public from a more serious issue? Please...

Are some government officials using the tragedy to their own benefit? Surely. Are some medial outlets twisting, sensationalizing, and perhaps blatantly misrepresenting the facts (accidentally or purposefully)? No doubt.

But did some dude shoot a bunch of people? I have no doubt that he did.

It'll take a lot more than photoshopped pictures and videos that string together a bunch of convenient "facts" and assumptions to convince me otherwise.

Just a little fact checking.

1) Adam Lanza's mom did not teach at Sandy Hook. He had attended the school as a child, but his mom was an investment banker or some such, and they had moved there from the city when he was small. His dad left his mom, and basically made sure her and the kids were taken care of financially.

2) He didn't go to the school to kill his mom. He killed her in her bed prior to stealing her guns and then proceeding to the school. I don't think the details are known yet, but they believe that he killed his mom (I haven't seen anything definitive on how yet), loaded the weapons, loaded his car, sabotaged his computer and then proceeded to the school. He may have loaded the weapons first, or used them to kill his mom. The details have not been clear. It will probably be another few months before intricate details are known, and we may never know some details based on how effective his destruction of his computer apparently was.

3) Psychologically, most profilers are fairly certain he chose Sandy Hook for maximum lethality. Since young children are largely helpless, they are usually the go to age group when maximum damage is desired because they don't fight back.

I hope the FBI is able to recover at least parts of his hard drive, because it would be critical to know what was going on in his head during the planning stages to really answer a lot of questions.

As for a conspiracy? I doubt it. There have been enough gun shootings in the last 2 years to justify legislation on gun control. The liberals support it even without a travesty, and the far right doesn't support it at all. So really, they only have to convince the middle. The discussion SHOULD have started when Rep Giffords was gunned down in Tucson. However, in order for the discussion to begin, the proposed standpoints are also going to have to be reasonable and logical, which so far they are not.

One thing that is interesting with these school shootings is how fortunate it is that they are untrained, otherwise the carnage would be a lot higher. I was talking to my brother-in-law about it, and he was talking about how if someone with training went in to extract maximum lethality, everyone would have been killed. Sort of like Columbine where had the propane bombs gone off, the death toll would have been closer to 500 (488 to be exact) because it would have killed everyone in the lunch room.

[deevergote]

Wow, were the reports in the weeks following the incident really THAT inaccurate?

The story as I read it, assuming the facts had gotten straightened out as to the locations of the parents at the very least, were that the father was shot and killed in the home in NJ, and the mother was shot and killed in the school.
I don't believe in a conspiracy, but if the facts are as you said them, and not as I just said there... then that's shamefully inaccurate reporting! Those details were recounted in reports from reputable sources made at least 2 weeks after the incident.


Regardless, shamefully inaccurate reporting, or the killer's reason for selecting the school, do not suggest a conspiracy. Not one so extreme as to create such an elaborate hoax. Could there be conspiracies worked into the situation following the event? That's possible. That's probable, actually. But doubtfully anything that would affect the general US population.

[owequitit]

Wow, were the reports in the weeks following the incident really THAT inaccurate?

The story as I read it, assuming the facts had gotten straightened out as to the locations of the parents at the very least, were that the father was shot and killed in the home in NJ, and the mother was shot and killed in the school.
I don't believe in a conspiracy, but if the facts are as you said them, and not as I just said there... then that's shamefully inaccurate reporting! Those details were recounted in reports from reputable sources made at least 2 weeks after the incident.


Regardless, shamefully inaccurate reporting, or the killer's reason for selecting the school, do not suggest a conspiracy. Not one so extreme as to create such an elaborate hoax. Could there be conspiracies worked into the situation following the event? That's possible. That's probable, actually. But doubtfully anything that would affect the general US population.

Those were the INITIAL reports IIRC. I don't think the father is dead. The authorities were saying on the 2nd-3rd day of reporting that his mom had been killed in the house before he went to the school. There were also stories talking about how her previous career was finance of some sort and she used to hang out a local bar down the street nearly daily. They mentioned how she spent a significant amount of time there, and how she used to help people in "need" financially. They also talked about how she never really talked about her home life much.

Unfortunately, that is one of the major downsides to the initial media blitz. The early facts are usually scarce and incorrect, the new outfits are desperate to report anything, and the average person remembers what they hear first.

[deevergote]

Apparently the average local reporter does as well. The "mother was a teacher" angle continued in local reports for weeks!

I believe that if anything is to blame for anyone thinking this is a hoax, it's the media's incompetence. They're so pressed for ratings, to be the first to report, that they provide inaccurate information. Then you have multiple versions of the story flying around, some drastically different from each other, and people can't help but think "wow, this stuff could all be made up!"