re: My biggest question about Sandy Hook

quote:

---

So someone messed up on a spreadsheet and you can't find it in the place you personally think it should be.

---

lol thanks for the fodder. You do realize local cops give this info to the bureau correct?

quote:

---

let’s go ask a bunch of I’ll-informed zealots on tigerdroppings? I’m sure they will know.

You are full of it. You posted to get a bunch of thumbs ups to push a deranged narrative.

Pitiful.

---

quote:

---

Finally, I’m not saying Sandy Hook is a total hoax but I am saying there’s a smelly funk to the story we have been fed about it.

---

Like what?

All you had to do is list what you find suspicious about Sandy Hook.

Why didn’t you?

quote:

---

If you want to criticize people who question, what satisfaction to you get here aside from getting handies from one another?

---

oh bullshite - stop trying to defend this asinine OP.

Being critical of government does not mean that every single stupid allegation has to be taken at face value.

You are doing what 'good democrats' do - you look to see WHO is making the allegation and then are satisfied with that level of due diligence.

bullshite - give it up

quote:

---

All you had to do is list what you find suspicious about Sandy Hook.

Why didn’t you?

---

There were lots of things. 10 years later, most of (and I mean A LOT) of the evidence of the suspicious stuff has been deleted, which in itself is suspicious.

So here's the trick you guys play: we list things that are suspicious, from what small remaining pool that remains, then you say "we could possibly explain it by X" or "the MSM/govt has since come to explain this by Y, so that means it's not suspicious". That's bad logic.

Suspicious =/= inexplicable, but here are a few:
The photos and actions of Robbie Parker
The guy that was chased into the woods, then captured, then released
The people walking in and out of the buildings in a figure-8 pattern (I saw it back then, missing now)
The government's seeming use of crisis actors in general
The mention of it being a "drill"
The fact that Adam Lanza's father AND James Holmes's father (and I remember there being a third mass shooter dad that may fit this category) were set to testify in the Libor scandal.

Again, I am agnostic here, but I think reasonable people can question it. The non-hoax defense is just as easy - though much safer - to invent and/or retcon.

quote:

---

Don't be like this "question the narrative" nut.

---

Always question the narrative. Otherwise you're just somebody's bitch.

quote:

---

If you have to generate a narrative in your own mind, is it really something to "question?"

---

Not sure what you mean by this. If you are opposed to one using their own mind, that would explain a lot. If you mean that one just makes up stuff because the narrative can't possibly be true, then that is also bad logic, and I would agree that people who think there is always something hidden aren't using their brains either. I am in the middle - I see how it could be different ways, and I notice patterns and anomalies. I'm not alone in this, but people who are tucked safely into the flock like to cast aspersions against everyone who isn't, as though desperately seeing the assurance (i.e. "handies") from one another - they are much more dangerous than people who see black helicopters everywhere. You've been conditioned to mock them, and you're behaving in a way to make your masters proud.

You mean the “actors” that got rich by their fake kids death?