Sandy Hook iStock_000013889311_Small

Published on March 13th, 2013 | by Pilot

57

Sandy Hook: Talk about Conspiracy!



If you are new to the Conspiracy game, or just shy about voicing an unpopular opinion,  there are certain pitfalls that can be easily avoided by being aware of how to approach controversial subjects like the Sandy Hook Conspiracy.  This article discusses what you may encounter when attempting to start a conversation around the water cooler about the incredibly bizarre amalgamation of error that is Sandy Hook.

Sometime around Christmas,  I met up with an old school friend who was visiting from out of town.  We don’t speak very often, but have known each other for many years and always slide into comfortable familiarity when we do get together. It would not be inaccurate to characterize her as one of my “home girls”.

Sandy Hook: Talk about Conspiracy

After catching up, and a little gossip about mutual friends, I brought up the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.  I had been following the story since the beginning,  and had been gobsmacked by the shoddy reporting and confusion surrounding the incident.  I told her about Ryan Lanza being named as the shooter, the body of his father having been found in his Hoboken apartment,  and that his roommates were reported missing, all of  which was later retracted.  How such glaring mistakes were even possible is still beyond me, but very early in my retelling she was obviously not keen on that kind of discussion.  When I questioned the veracity of the entire event,  she became angry and defensive.

“So, you think everything is just made up,  everything is fake, a conspiracy!”

Things got a bit heated,  and we both backed off the subject. Our evening concluded on a cordial note, but I was left with an uneasy feeling about that exchange.  How is this not obvious to her?  “Pam” is an educated professional with an active social life, has a vague,  passing interest in current events, and doesn’t dig too deeply into things for lack of time and inclination.  Be that as it may,  the grievous mishandling of the story by the news media has not gone unnoticed by people of all persuasions,  people who would not consider themselves to be in any way a “conspiracy theorist”.

Three months have passed.  I had not spoken to Pam since,  so I thought she might have become familiar with some of the anomalies surrounding the story,  had perhaps heard others discussing it,  seen some dubious coverage, something.  I decided to give her a call.  We chatted pleasantly for a time,  and I brought up Sandy Hook again.  This time I asked if she had seen or was aware of the Anderson Cooper/James Tracy flap, she wasn’t.   l told her about the number of hits “Sandy Hook Conspiracy” garners on Google  (8,220,000 as of today 3/13), and the growing number of people questioning the event.

As before, she became agitated and uncomfortable, saying, “I just really don’t want to talk about it.”  I was not out to convince her of anything,  I assured her, what I was really more interested in was her reaction to the information, why does she find it so distressing?  Pam was willing to offer an analysis of her feelings and she told me that she was suspicious of the motives of people questioning the story,  “they’re just a bunch of gun nuts.”  She used the words “fringe” and “paranoid” on several occasions, and wound up her speech by saying that if the general public came to the conclusion that this Sandy Hook thing was a conspiracy,  then she would “get on board”.

I am distinctly reminded of the shop worn term “sheeple” thrown about all over the alt media.  While it does illustrate the herd mentality rather pointedly,  I do not find it particularly helpful.  No one was born with the ability to sniff out corruption,  we have all had our eyes opened to realities not generally known and experienced shock,  even if it’s something trivial like gummy bears containing animal hoofs.  There has been a sea change, however.  The research conducted after 9/11 has altered the way many view the world.  There are now scores of people on the lookout for false sounding,  propaganda- tinged news reports,  things that Sandy Hook has going for it in spades!

I have noticed, in my ramblings about, that there appear to be different levels of awareness at work when discussing a controversial subject like 9/11,  the OKC bombing,  and Sandy Hook.  I would like to offer a mini-analysis of the three most prevalent types for your consideration:

 The Door Slammer  This Individual will not hear what you have to say.  “No! don’t even go there, the very idea!”  They often  immediately resort to ridicule,  “Tin-foil hatter, troofer!!”  These are best left alone.  Although people are very abusive and nasty sounding in print and on message boards,  unless they have a posse to back them up, I don’t see them hurling this abuse in a one on one exchange.  Do expect dismissal and scorn though.

 The Gatekeeper  Someone who thinks of themselves as an open-minded,  critical thinker.  They invariably balk at the suggestion that there could be unseen forces at work guiding the populace with falsehoods to steer an agenda.  This just doesn’t happen in their world.  Everything can be explained logically, and in conformity with their bias.  They are often intellectually proud, and will humor you, mostly for the sport of debunking.  Think Mythbusters,  but less buffoonish.

The Fence Sitter  These folks are intrigued by investigation,  and get a kick out of speculative discussions, but when an internal line is crossed within them,  they attempt to pull back on the reigns and say,  “hold up, no that wouldn’t be possible,  they couldn’t keep all that a secret for that long…”  and so on.  They try to rationalize the anomalous and inconsistent,  make logic apply within the context of an official narrative.  (These people will wear you out!)

There exists the possibility that any one of these folks, at any time, might see or hear something that will set off an alarm in their psyche.  Something that will peel back the layer of residue left over from the cradle to grave mind washing we endure on this planet.  For that we must have hope and gratitude.

I am acquainted with a man, a regular Joe, who was online searching for information about 9/11 to better be able to explain it to his kids.  During his search he came across one of the many documentaries produced on the subject.  He didn’t say which one, but it was critical of the official story.  He told me that after watching it he felt like he’d been “punched in the gut”.  He did not go mad. He did not go on a rampage.  He carries on with his life as before but with an enhanced awareness of the world we are living in,  an awareness he would not give back for anything.  He also got involved with local politics and sees to it that his voice and opinions are heard.

If you live on this side of the fence,  it is inconceivable that people would prefer to remain in the dark.  Willful ignorance is far more insidious and widespread than I would like to admit.  I can completely understand the person who says, ” Just ignore the media crap, live your life, be happy.  If you don’t pay any attention to it,  it won’t affect you.”  If only.

I may avoid the media manipulation and live my life and be happy, which by the way, I do and am for the most part, but I am surrounded by those who don’t avoid the manipulation, and by virtue of being a part of the human race,  I am not immune.

Questioning authority is an honorable function of civil engagement for which we all share responsibility.  Those of us willing to peer into the dark heart of the control structure are held hostage by the sensibilities of those who are not willing to engage,  not willing to demand accountability from authority, who are content to send a donation,  sign a petition,  and forget.  We are vilified for pointing out the naked emperor,  the lies and obvious corruption because it demands real action.  Ain’t nobody got time for that.

With regard to Sandy Hook,  it occurs to me that people who refuse to look at the evidence that suggests a media hoax are put into the position of essentially saying,  “I prefer to believe that 26 people,  including 20 children, were massacred on December 14, 2012 because it would be more difficult for me to accept the fact that the media and government engage in falsehoods.”

And they call us delusional!

 

The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting – Gun Control



 

Tags: , , , , , ,


About the Author

With a view from the flight deck, Pilot attempts to understand the big picture.





57 Responses to Sandy Hook: Talk about Conspiracy!

  1. -swansong- says:

    Awesome debut, Pilot!

  2. PCGeek says:

    http://youtube.com/#/watch?v=QqzvgYmFZck&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQqzvgYmFZck

    Watch the above video of Noah Pozner’s half sister Danielle Vabner.
    She is definately Mossad Operative albeit a little inexperienced and she gives it away at 1:30 when she goes into a too gleeful response then catches herself and tones it back down to a more somber tone. Then at 2:53 she lets it slip by saying “My Mission” … then quickly stutters as if she knows she messed up. She even also mentions “She won’t sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn’t happen”. And at no point does she show ANY sign of emotion zero nada, because her brother didn’t die.

    • Pilot says:

      Hi PCGeek,
      I tried your link and got a page with a list of videos but don’t know which one you are referring to, would you mind posting it again ??

  3. ~curious~ says:

    Pilot, thanks for the great article. I’ve been on your side of the fence for quite a few years now — about 9 to be precise. My wake-up call was 9/11. My best friend of 25 years, who I’ll call Tom, told me about a “missile hitting the Pentagon.” Tom said he’d send me a video — he believed it completely. After watching the video, I too was convinced, and we shared our little outpost on the same side of the 9/11 truth fence for years, even now. But we started parting ways politically when Tom decided to vote for Obama (I voted McKinney), and from that moment on, he became what I call an Obamapologist. He’d find the smallest morsel, usually a micro-crumb, of something he deemed good about Obama, apparently to justify voting for the guy. Unsurprisingly, he voted for The Great and Powerful O again in 2012. He’s a die-hard “progressive” and politically correct when it comes to guns and other issues that don’t fit “progressive” talking points. So that’s a little background. Now, for the point of this posting:

    Tom does not believe Sandy Hook was a hoax or a conspiracy. To my great dismay, he has chosen sides with Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein, and the lot. It seems Tom was only a conspiracy theorist when Bush was president. I don’t know if this commonly happens — where someone can be open-minded enough to believe 9/11 was an inside job, and then closed-minded enough to be certain Sandy Hook happened just as reported — apparently all from what I deem a brainwashed political perspective. Needless to say, this whole ordeal has strained our friendship to the breaking point, from my vantage point at least. I live in full red-pill world, and I just have no idea how to relate to a blue-pill person (or maybe Tom would be a purple pill person since he’s back and forth, determined by his political biases). We’ve had extensive discussions, to no avail. *sigh* I really need a therapist.

    • Arturo says:

      I was in the same predicament when I lived in California. Many of my friends were hippies and very much followed the conspiracy theories of the Illuminati, Black Brotherhood, 9/11, Jim Jones, etc., etc. They realized that a nefarious force was in control of the US Govt and others, and that this force infiltrated both sides of an issue to further their agenda. Problem, reaction, solution. They followed many researchers such as Maxwell, Coleman, Desborough and others.

      However, as soon as Obama became a candidate and then president, they immediately and conveniently forgot about all of that and embraced him and the rest of the US Govt. It did not make any sense. All of a sudden, the Gubment is benign and has our best interests at heart. It proved to me that most people would rather see their agenda and worldview promoted than the truth. Even so called ‘progressives’.

      • Pilot says:

        It really is amazing watching this phenomenon at work isn’t it.? It has never been more clearly demonstrated than the Bush/Obama see-saw. It is troubling how polarized we have become in this country. Thank you for commenting, it’s an interesting subject that may need to be covered in more detail in the future!

    • Pilot says:

      HI curious- yes, what you are describing is very common. We might call it ‘situational vigilance’, and I think the right is just as guilty as the “Obamapologists”, (I like that!) Bush sure got a pass from the right when all the lefties were screaming about his lack of National Guard duty, on a champagne unit no less! This is why the left /right divide and conquer gambit is so effective. Bread and circuses. Thanks for your comment!

  4. SEO says:

    Interesting coincidence? At around 10:00 into the video they show the yearbook page with Adam Lanza’s name. Look at the name of the kid right below his.

  5. RudyM says:

    I’ve had similar experiences, attempting to talk with people I know about these type of issues (not Sandy Hook, specifically). I had a co-worker, a Ph.D and author of more than one book (i.e., someone whose academic accomplishment, and concrete intellectual accomplishment is beyond mine), tell me that she “just can’t live that way,” meaning she didn’t want to question what the government says about things, in this case the alleged killing of Osama bin Laden a couple years back. She also admitted, without any sign of embarrassment, she had no idea what was being talked about when I forwarded her something about Judge Katherine B. Forrest issuing an injunction against use of the NDAA’s indefinite detention provision. Incidentally, one reason I have attempted to talk with this co-worker about current events is that she is in the habit of bringing up celebrity news or infotainment type news. Which celebrity had a blow-up on a plane and what do we think about it? Etc. She’s perfectly serious and competent when applying her mind to work related tasks, and yet she seems to resist any critical thinking about politics, in the broad sense.

    I have been trying for years to get my older brother to look seriously at 9/11. Maybe I made a mistake by jumping in immediately with some of the more shocking conclusions I’ve reached about it. But I’ve sent him things from many different angles. Sent him a copy of New Pearl Harbor (hardly the last word on the subject, but still the best introduction I can think of in print form). He says he’ll get to it eventually. I also sent my sister, a die-hard G.W. Bush supporter, a copy of the book. She said she was starting to read it and would get back to me within a week. Maybe she thought that’s how long it would take to adequately debunk most of it. I have yet to hear any substantive feedback from her, and it’s been a year and a half. At least she read the book, or read some of it.

    All of this is just whining, of course. I don’t know the secret to convincing people to take an interest in “conspiracy theory,” or just political issues that don’t fit neatly into the existing mainstream boxes. I don’t think the main fact is someone’s intelligence. Intellectual curiosity and a willingness to question authority, all authority, seem more crucial. Along with giving a damn about things. Aside from putting LSD in the water supply (which I do not endorse!–anyway, there’s already too much chemical crap in our water supply), I’m not sure how to generate more intellectual curiosity and open-minded skepticism, but perhaps there is an answer out there in some dusty psychological journal.

    • Pilot says:

      Hi Rudy,

      It seems like a choice is made by people to suspend disbelief and continue to trust authorities who have been proven to have told big fat whopping lies to further an agenda. WMD’s anyone? Some choose this route to avoid taking action, avoid facing an ugly state of affairs, etc. I can’t give them too much of a pass. That’s where we are.

  6. Mike says:

    Let me start by saying I was blissfully ignorant for many years until a friend of mine sent me the Loose Change video back in ’06.As you know,this epiphany was certainly not a joyous one,but very eye opening.I have even made my retired of 26 year Air Force question things.I had a very similar experience involving a friend of 25 years recently when I set out discussing Sandy Hook.She had always indulged my other musings on conspiracy issues slightly bemused.But this one was different-because it involved children.Suddenly,I had gone too far she said.Admittedly,the subject is a touchy one for that very reason(isn’t that why it “took place”?).We finally had to have a cooling off period and we continued on(briefly)talking about more mundane,ordinary things.As I later reflected on the incident I became angry-not only because she was so unwilling to even discuss the matter,but because it seemed almost as she was attacking my character because I had the audacity to question an event where “kids were killed”.
    Just wanted to relate the story and to tell you how glad I was to happen upon this site-never give up.

    • Mike says:

      Sorry-meant to write Air Force father…

    • Pilot says:

      Thanks for your post Mike, I agree, it’s not easy when people shut you down and are freely insulting and disrespectful just because you have a different interpretation of events. If your interpretation of events is based on research and critical thinking, and theirs is based on what they’ve been manipulated into believing by the MSM, it’s pretty outrageous.

  7. Jesse Hahn says:

    I too, have experienced the attack on my character and have been told to stop pushing my opinion on people. I have found that we have to be very careful who we discuss this Sandy Hook false flag with. 9/11 woke me up. I’m not sure how to wake up others.

    A noted psychiatrist explained that people go through three emotion phases when their beliefs are challenged.
    1st is Denial – I can’t believe that “they” would do such a thing.
    2nd is Anger – (as more information is given to them) – How could you believe such a thing? and How could you say “they” would do that!
    3rd is Indignance – (as you explain more) “Just shut up, I don’t want to hear about it!. Go away!

    I think we have to be careful not to attack the “sleeper’s” character during discussion. (don’t ask “how can you not see it?” That will make them feel that you think they are dumb. Be conscious of how they are responding as you are talking. Don’t overload their brain with too much info at once. I think sometimes a simple question to get them thinking might be the best approach. Like, “isn’t it weird that …. (insert anything here, because everything about SH is weird)? Then, let them think about it for a few seconds. If they don’t respond, ask another “Isn’t it weird that….? When they respond negatively, just smile and say, “well, I feel it is not adding up.” Leave it at that. At least for a day or so. – Remember that if you say “I know that….” implies that you got first hand info. The best any of us can say is “I feel that …..” since we’ve been denied true facts and information and our opinions are not clearly backed up by facts…. Yet. Hopefully, soon someone will slip up and the truth will spill out. Non believers will still have a hard time accepting that. A belief is challenged.

  8. rick says:

    Great thread.

    Maybe a simple way of approaching Sandyhook is to produce 10 questions that can’t be ‘de-bunked’ (in an intelligent and logical way). Then just focus on those questions and avoid being dragged into some of the more crazy stuff we are seeing all over the net and on mms.

    As with 9/11…
    1. No plane hitting the pentagon, damage to building could not have been from the airplane suggested.
    2. Hijacker Passport allegedly found at ground zero (that one always makes me scratch my head)
    3. Cell phones being used at 30,000 feet (impossible, FBI changed their story because of this)
    4. All videos of pentagon confiscated – seriously, just show us one video of the plane. Shame on us for not demanding this.
    5. Building 7 – everything about it
    6. 100s of eyewitness reports of explosions
    7. Dick Cheney telling Norad to stand down
    8. Exact same situation being played out in a drill at the exact same time.
    9. Able danger
    10. Plane shot down over field, as accidentally mentioned by Rumsfeld.

    (these are just some I picked off the top of my head, we could go on and on)

    None of the 10 points above can be ‘de-bunked’, rather, people will attack the messenger or use conjecture to get their way out of facing the harsh reality of what happened.

    I would love to see 10 questions put together for Sandy Hook. As it is, many of the arguments I am seeing can easily be debunked – part of me thinks this is intentional.

    Peace out.

    r

  9. JBB says:

    This is a great series of video essays by Rob Ager on the very subject… I highly recommend! Love what you guys are doing over here… wish I’d known about this place sooner…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df5Lyk7WWGw

    • -swansong- says:

      Just beginning to have a peek at this vid.

      Sooner better than later…but later better than not at all…

      Glad to have you with us.

  10. SEO says:

    I (silently) dismissed Truthers, without doing any research myself, for years. I mostly just didn’t give it much thought. Then, about 5 years ago, I was drawn into the Obama eligibility question…and became a Birther. Suddenly I had a lot of empathy for Truthers.
    Note, I don’t put those labels in “quotes”. I feel if you have done the research and found enough evidence to be in that camp, you should wear the title with pride.

    One thing I see in common with Sandy Hook is that we are told to ignore first hand accounts, in particular ignore differing accounts that cannot possibly ALL be true, and just ACCEPT what we are told.

    One that I cannot let go of is the Andrea McCarran (reporter from WUSA in DC) video in which she recounts the story from the ‘school nurse’. Everything she says we were later told was untrue, and there are only 3 possibilities: She was deliberately lying, or she was deliberately lied to; Or she’s a horrible reporter who wasn’t listening and I only add that one because it has to be considered as a possibility but seems highly improbable given the incredible amount of “vivid” detail she gives.
    Which leads to the obvious question: who lied and why?

  11. David Johnson says:

    It’s convenient how you have the three profiles of the dissenters at the top of this page. That way, if I come in here and say, “Uh, you’re wrong about this or that.” you can conveniently file me away as one of the three types of dissenters and you’re free to go on your merry way and pick and choose which information to believe, or which news reports to believe or which things to ignore.

    I’ve found that, while looking across Truther sites and Birther sites and now the Sandy Hook Conspiracy sites, there’s a lot of drum beating out around the edges of the information. There’s no real, substantial studying of all of the footage, or listening to all of the facts.

    You have your mind made up that this is a conspiracy, so you’ll ignore things that don’t make sense, or call them cover-ups or say that the photos are altered or edited in some way.

    It’s human nature to want to believe that some hyper-competent government is behind the scenes pulling strings. Believing in that sure is easier than believing that a few, random people could be truly horrible monsters.

    Also, you don’t have a real story to fall back on, so you tend to bob and weave about what really happened or who’s behind it. What I’d like is a real story from you. A consistent story that tells what actually happened from beginning to end. Show facts that back it up.

    And then, tell us why they did it. A real reason why would be handy. If there’s a conspiracy, it had to be for a reason, right?

    By the way, I was at my own kid’s school this morning, and all of the cars in one part of the parking lot were all facing the same direction. It was two rows of cars, nose to tail. It seems that, in order to avoid driving all the way around the parking lot and going through the bus lane, the teachers pull straight through the lot and fill the first row, and then the teacher who arrive after that will fill the second row. It’s quicker that way. Also, they can leave by pulling forward and driving out of the lot.

    Anyway, you’re free to believe what you believe, but you gotta have better evidence than what I’m seeing on here. The video at the top of this post was laughable.

    • -swansong- says:

      Also, you don’t have a real story to fall back on, so you tend to bob and weave about what really happened or who’s behind it. What I’d like is a real story from you. A consistent story that tells what actually happened from beginning to end. Show facts that back it up.

      And then, tell us why they did it. A real reason why would be handy. If there’s a conspiracy, it had to be for a reason, right?

      But precisely the same issues don’t bother you about the official non-story?

      You have your mind made up that this is a conspiracy, so you’ll ignore things that don’t make sense, or call them cover-ups or say that the photos are altered or edited in some way.

      I have my mind made up? About what, exactly? I’m asking questions. The same thing msm should have been doing. The only thing my mind is made up about is that the information we were provided doesn’t match the available evidence.

      The post to which you refer is all about examining things that don’t make sense, not ignoring them. Also there is NO mention of falsifying evidence or photo manipulation in that article so please don’t attribute meaning or purpose where none exists.

      I honestly don’t understand how you can be critical of an examination of available evidence but perfectly fine with the hack job msm did in reporting it.

    • Pilot says:

      David,

      Bring it. If you have a nit to pick, by all means, the discussion is much more lively when honest skeptics engage with the arguments bandied about by myself and others. We have been paying attention to the details since the story broke. Have you?

      Pilot

  12. RealPerson says:

    You bring up great points about discussions of this kind.

    It seems incredible that anyone can swallow a story reported in the media these days, given their credibility. The media has used obvious editing of such events to promote one side of a story.

    Many people listened to live witnesses on CNN describing a flare going up in the night sky when TWA flight 800 went down. Those eyewitness accounts were never repeated again, but discounted later by “experts” saying that the eyewitnesses actually saw the flare going down and were simply mistaken.

    Even local news ( and I know this first hand) make up facts and trot in bogus “eyewitnesses” who weren’t there, or “friends of the family” that no one in or even associated the family knows. It is unclear whether they are just sloppy or will do or say anything to grab a headline for ratings ( which completely impugns media integrity ) . And that goes with the major media outlets as well.

    But what strikes me most about this Sandy Hook reporting is that something about the story bothered me immediately. It was the same uneasiness I experienced when all the major networks trotted Susan Smith out with her accusations that two black men kidnapped her boys. The story rang false–it didn’t make sense. At the time, I had an inner sense that she had either killed those boys or secreted them away. However when stating that, people reacted like I was crazy or calloused.

    It’s the same with this story. Nothing about it made sense when being reported. And upon reviewing any real factual evidence, it make even less sense- but God forbid one questions the official story, for fear of being branded a crazy conspiracy theorist or an unfeeling individual, creating more grief for the victims.

    It is interesting to note, however, while people who actually believe in conspiracies are labeled as “nutters”, in actuality
    “Conspiracy” is one of the most frequently charged offenses in the arsenal of the United State’s Attorneys Office.

  13. -swansong- says:

    It is certainly affirming and comforting to know that we aren’t experiencing these frustrations and disconnects on our own, eh?

    The one aspect of the resistance that never ceases to amaze is the FACT that more often than not the people that dismiss alternate theories do so immediately and without investigation.

    You are literally debating the merits of a theory with someone that has spent zero time examining them. They knew from the very beginning that “it” happened just as described. Knowing this they had no impetus to investigate.

    No investigation…yet they are more than willing to tell you (someone that may have spent weeks/months/years investigating) why it is you’re wrong…and crazy.

    It’s like someone who has never studied Spanish telling a Spaniard why their pronunciations and inflections are all wrong.

  14. rick says:

    David – there is nothing ‘laughable’ about the video. You are asking us to lay this out and explain every last point with evidence…may we ask the same of you?
    I find it ironic that people who seem to only accept what is on mainstream media defend their perspective by attacking the people who are simply asking questions, rather than actually discussing the issues they raise – like you have done. More times than not, they use conjecture as opposed facts.
    What I find more ironic is how these same people will tell us that we are unable to ‘accept the truth’ and find it easier to make up bizarre conspiracy theories to explain away what happened, as that is easier than accepting the truth…really?
    To go back to 9/11 for a moment…A guy in a cave in Pakistan orchestrated an attack on the most heavily defended nation on earth and was able to have NORAD stand down for 90 minutes in order to do so – what sounds more crazy here, this or covert government involvement?
    Sandy Hook is very similar in this regard – media somehow knew that Adam Lanza did this all by himself as it was still unfolding…as the video above demonstrates.
    David, I have to ask, do you believe everything mainstream media tells you? Let’s take a look at some of the most devastating lies they have been busted making in our lifetimes (I am 40):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg (CNN faking attack in Iraq – it was actually filmed in Atlanta)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8CCJTJCQk (Babies being thrown out of incubators)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war (weapons of mass destruction)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DssnHI-mGVY (no one could envision flying planes into buildings…google able danger)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9LUd83fVAw (CNN censoring programming that clearly shows the atrocities committed by the Bahrain government/royalty)

    To cap this off, how about this seriously disturbing interview on 60 minutes with then ‘Secretary of State’, Madeleine Albright…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

    – I could go on and on, but for the sake of this blog and the great discussion that has come from it, I will end it here.

    David – you are no different to us, you are as intelligent as any of us. We are not asking you to blindly go along with conspiracy theories, but to hold this broken system accountable when necessary in order to protect future generations and to prevent other atrocities from happening again.

    As for me, I am a father of three young girls, I run a large company and I am very involved in my community. I am by no means a guy in my Mom’s basement with a tinfoil hat on my head.

    Don’t attack the messengers, look deeper. Show us what you have asked us to show you, you seem quite confident in your stance. We are simply asking questions.

    Godspeed.
    Rick

  15. ~curious~ says:

    What Rick said — it doesn’t get much clearer or more eloquent than that. Thank you.

  16. jenny says:

    Enjoyed your article, Pilot. Its so true! Look forward to your next work.

  17. Ian says:

    You do realize that claiming this tragedy was a hoax necessarily entails a conspiracy of vast proportions, right? It involves various law enforcement agencies, the entire Connecticut state government, the Mormon church, and pretty much the entire Newtown community. The media do not control all of these entities, and no matter how many things were inaccurate, such events cannot be covered up. Saying this is a hoax is not critical thinking. It is, in fact, conspiracy nuttery. And it is indecent to deny that the lives and deaths of innocent people occurred. It’s profoundly offensive, and the fact that you don’t get that is perhaps most disturbing of all. Just look at your comments. Insanity.

  18. Pilot says:

    Thank you for your comment Ian,

    Aside from the name-calling and generally disdainful tone, you bring up good points, however what we are attempting to do is discover the truth of what really happened. You are right, things don’t stay covered up, as long as there are people willing to uncover them. I think media lies and trickery are much more “profoundly offensive” than truthseeking. If you are not familiar with the instances of deception that occurred during the coverage of this event, then you ought to familiarize yourself with them before making up your mind that all is as they say it is.

  19. Ian says:

    If you were seeking the truth, you would investigate rather than drawing ridiculous conclusions without evidence. The entire viewpoint to which you subscribe is revolting.

  20. Ian says:

    And, no, in preemtive reponse, you have not investigated. You have simply looked at media reports and YouTube videos and fitted them to a belief. Try looking at press releases from the state police, visiting Connecticut state websites, or learning about the families shattered by this horror. Start here and consider carefully whether all of these people are in on the hoax too: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0310/How-one-church-is-helping-heal-Newtown?cmpid=addthis_facebook#.UVzjDxYYwRY.facebook

    There is no hoax. There was a mass murder. It was not a conspiracy. It was a sick individual. There are dead kids. If you really don’t believe that, then identify yourself by name and say it to their parents.

  21. Pilot says:

    Thank you for the link Ian, the Sibley’s story is problematic for several reasons, the hatchback with the doors open and black garments strewn about the car – she didn’t also notice a shotgun in the vehicle – with the doors open? Rob Sibley never stated that he saw the children, it was implied only. The timeline doesn’t match official recordings of the first 911 call.

    The difference between us is that you are emotionally invested in this narrative and I’m not. I’m not convinced anyone died. I won’t try to convince you, you obviously prefer to believe what you believe. If I were presented with proof of a mass shooting, even a grainy security tape of Lanza entering the school, I’d dry up and blow away…but what we have been presented with is a circus. If you don’t take a critical look at what you’re being fed, you’ll swallow anything.

  22. Ian says:

    You haven’t done any real investigation. You are anomaly hunting, just like every other denier. There is a significant difference between inference and evidence. I have an intellectual investment in the truth, and there is no affirmative evidence for any denial claim yet. Emotions do not play into what I believe. I’m not wired that way. There are 26 dead innocents. That’s true. You haven’t found or presented anything to the contrary.

  23. Ian says:

    Just answer this question. Do you deny that 26 people were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School?

  24. Pilot says:

    If you want to discuss evidence Ian, I’m more than happy to engage with you. If not, let’s give it a rest.

  25. PcGeek says:

    Ian,

    The number 1 reason this was a hoax is the lack of emotion by ALL victim families … There is no way in hell that any normal parent would be as joyous after their child’s death.

    Factor in that if it were real there would have been every effort performed to save their live via CPR or advanced medical procedures especially considering the scene was contained in minutes. That didnt happen period. And with the many examples of fictisiously pasted together families the evidence is overwhelming of a staged event. The donation pages and gun control mantra is merely icing on the cake for proof of a hoax.

  26. Ian says:

    So you have answered the question. I was worried that you were being a “Door Slammer” when my last comment vanished and a picture of Robbie Parker took over the screen. That was weird. Do you understand why a friend would not want to engage with you, knowing that you hold this belief? This belief is certainly not in line with the effort at a reasonable tone you applied to your post. For the record, I am familiar with a huge amount of what you consider to be evidence. I do not consider it to be evidence of what you believe. As for parents’ emotional reactions, there is a solid body of scientific research on emotional states in grief, and the reactions of these parents is completely consistent with it. And it is not true that no parents displayed sadness or distress. You need to dig deeper and find credible information. Sadly, I doubt you will, as you have already made up your mind. The difference between us is that I am a skeptic. I will change my mind when credible affirmative evidence of a hoax is produced. You don’t have it, nor do any other truthers, because if such a hoax and conspiracy occurred, it would go to the highest levels. You would already have been diappeared by the perpetrators.

    • -swansong- says:

      For the record, I am familiar with a huge amount of what you consider to be evidence. I do not consider it to be evidence of what you believe.

      Like what, for example?

      • Ian says:

        Like the videos of parent interviews, James Tracy’s blog and personal correspondence, the aerial video of the school, the array of inconsistencies in media reports, the misidentification of Ryan Lanza as the shooter, the off-putting presentation of Wayne Carver in one of his press conferences, the reported absence of Emilie Parker from school pictures, the assertion that Emilie Parker appeared in a photo with Obama after the shootings, the use of Lily Gaubert’s picture identified as Allison Wyatt, the entire controversy about Gene Rosen taking kids into his home after they fled the school, the assertion that Gene Rosen works for FEMA (why that would be a problem I don’t know, but it’s false), the assertion that there was no evacuation, the assertion that the school was not in operation at the time of the shooting, the assertion that the fire house was simply a stage in which people pretended to arrive in throngs but merely walked around and re-entered the building, the lockdown drill at a school nearby, the alleged missing legs and arms of people in photographs, the suggestion that this was a Mossad operation, the suggestion that Newtown is a hotbed of satanists who did it, the suggestion that the Masonic lodge was involved somehow, the assertion that Chris Manfredonia may have been a shooter, the assertion that keeping evidence confidential indicates that law enforcement believe there were additional assailants, the belief that withholding security video is a coverup, the assertion that restricting the release of death certificates is a coverup, the assertion that there was no AR-15 in the building, etc., etc. I can keep going, but what’s the point? None of this demonstrates a hoax or conspiracy, and it’s all been debunked or explained. Nobody has presented any mechanism by which a conspiracy of this magnitude could have possibly been executed. Literally tens of thousands of people, including the President, would have been involved in one of the most horrific plots in history. If you believe that enough to say profundly callous things about people who have lost children, I just think there needs to be solid evidence. None of these things are.

  27. Ian says:

    That was “disappeared,” not “diappered,” though that might happen too.

  28. Ian says:

    I hope that my comments are awaiting moderation and not being removed. I have been civil. Despite your accusation, I have not engaged in name calling. I have not used profanity. A disdainful tone is appropriate and very restrained. If you have blocked me from posting, think long and hard about your own arguments about open dialogue. I am pushing on the points I know you can’t answer, and that should make you think, not shut me out.

  29. PcGeek says:

    Ian ,

    You obviously have the attention of a retarded mosquito.

    That being said a normal reaction at the firehouse would be for a parent to want to get to their child and NOT mingle around while their child might be still alive or bleeding to death. Nobody even tried to help the supposed victims.

    I do have more evidence to be released that will undoubtedly prove that Daniel Barden was fabricated and photoshop was utilized to create his existance using younger pics of James Barden.

    You see Ian i am a photoshop and computer professional and the various filters used to manipulate these fabricated pictures is a little more apparent to myself than the average person.

    But they made mistakes. When i present this evidence it will be undeniable even for a retarded mosquito.

    Stay tuned …

    • Ian says:

      Pc Geek. Obviously I have no attention span to engage with all of this time-sinkage over 3+ months. You have done a penetrating, and, I daresay, eloquent, analysis of my powers. I await your evidence eagerly. Certainly it will be vetted by a number of other experts in your field, with whom I and others will be able to correspond. Also, I anticipate that the evidence will be made available for examination. I will expect no less from a Photoshop professional. If Daniel Barden did not exist, then there will also be no evidence of his life, such as birth and death certificates, SS#, and so forth. I know that you will perform those inquiries as well, just to be thorough. Being optimistic for you here – 1 down, 25 to go.

  30. Ian says:

    This brings me back to the fact that Pilot has still not answered my question, and should read my comment to PcGeek. Do you deny that 26 innocent people were shot to death at Sandy Hook, Pilot? Are you a denier?

  31. Pilot says:

    “The difference between us is that I am a skeptic. I will change my mind when credible affirmative evidence of a hoax is produced. ”

    I will admit my suspicions were erroneous when I see credible affirmative evidence that a mass shooting occurred.

    Are you satisfied Ian?

  32. PcGeek says:

    Count me in Ian as a denier … A full 26 did not die on Dec 14/13 maybe some tokens did and certainly not at the hands of Adam Lanza ….

  33. M.William says:

    Ian, I opened the link you provided. I suppose it could have happened the way it’s described in the article.

    I’m confused on the presense of the “hatchback” in front of the entrance to the school with all the doors open and what Sibley described as “like” sweatshirts strewn around the car. Could you explain what you think she was seeing? What vehicle was this and who did it belong to? Why didn’t she stop and help/ask the children she saw the waving thier arms and trying to flag her down?

  34. M.William says:

    Ian,
    Concerning Lauren Rosseau’s 2004 Honda Civic: What caliber of firearm produced the hole in the passenger side door? Why does there appear to be an exit hole near the passenger upper door frame near the windshield suggesting this projectile was fired from inside the vehicle?
    I know that before I draw conclusions I should wait for the official investigation to be completed.

    Thanks for your input, Ian!

  35. M.William says:

    Ian,
    What is a C183(Firearm) listed in the warrants as Item #612? Was this a typo which meant CZ83(firearm)? Also in the warrants an Enfield Albian(?) .323 was listed. Was this a typo which actually supposed to read .303?

  36. M.William says:

    Ian,
    Could you locate me a Russian made Saiga 12 guage shotgun magazine with a capacity of 35 12 guage shells? I suppose it would have to be a ‘drum” magazine as a stick mag would be about 2 feet long or more. I can only find 10, 15, and 20 round mags at the gunshows.
    Let me know if you have success…but I think this was a mistake don’t you think?

  37. M.William says:

    Correction: 35 round mag probably would not be over 2 feet long…maybe about 15 or so inches

  38. M.William says:

    Word you used to decribe us: not critical thinking, conspiracy nuttery, Insanity, disturbing

    As Woodrow F Call says: ” I hate rude behavior in a man…won’t tolerate it”

  39. Pilot says:

    M William you forgot “revolting”.

  40. dj says:

    you know what is really interesting the year 2009 for newtown, ct.
    I was looking up Sandy Hook elementary and on this website it gives the test scores of the school http://www.greatschools.org/connecticut/sandy-hook/646-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-School/?tab=test-scores but what is interesting when i look up the best elementary schools in small towns it gives me belmont, ma and their test scores are no where near the same percentages as sandy hook http://www.greatschools.org/massachusetts/belmont/186-Winn-Brook-School/?tab=test-scores and if you look up other schools in belmont, ma there are not any that are close to the test score percentages as sandy hook. and this is the test score of the elementary school i went to http://www.greatschools.org/washington/kent/5670-Panther-Lake-Elementary-School/?tab=test-scores

    and then this is a random elementary school in maine http://www.greatschools.org/rhode-island/hope/243-Hope-Elementary-School/?tab=test-scores

    does anyone else find this odd?
    Also if you notice the years why are all the other elementary schools updated from atleast 2011 and Sandy Hook has not been updated since 2009?

    also when i looked up newtown, ct 2009 i found this interesting article
    sandyhooktruth.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/iroqouis-gas-line-through-newtown-ct/

  41. M. William says:

    As soon as Barbara Sibley entered the long driveway of Sandy Hook Elementary School shortly after 9:30 a.m. on Friday, Dec. 14, 2012, she noticed something seemed wrong. Children were outside, running, yelling, and waving their arms as if to signal her. She wondered where their teacher was and drove on to deliver the book her third-grade son, Daniel, had forgotten at home. She parked and found more strangeness: an eerily quiet building, a shattered window, and an old hatchback car parked in front of the school with all the doors left open. Then she heard a series of staccato “pop pops” that sounded like roof construction. Suddenly, she and another mother who was there realized what it was – gunshots.

    “The gunfire started again, and it was just relentless,” Ms. Sibley recalls. “It was right there. We just ran.”

    As Swansong pointed out WHY WOULDN’T YOU ASK THE CHILDREN WHAT IS
    WRONG????

    I know this is old hash but this question needs to be asked to Mrs. Sibley.

Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑