Truthers and Sandy Hook

[Gregg]

And yet, they think that their critical thinking skills are very highly evolved, because they alone can spot the truth hiding behind the screens of disinformation erected by [insert your paranoid choice of villain(s) here], and can come up with a [to them and their cohorts] credible hypothesis on that basis.

This brings me to mind of the posters at Dinar Vets, who have a compound case. The are first so much smarter than all of us because they know about the coming RV and we dismiss it, and among this they alone are smart enough to know that all the gurus EXCEPT Adam Montana (a fake name, his real name is James Wolf) are lying pumper scumbags paid by dinar dealers to inflate sales. Adam doesn't promote dinar sales, never gives a rate or date so he MUST be the honest one.
The honest one who does sell books about how to cash in, evade taxes and set up your ICC, trust and other stupid things you're never going to need because the RV is fake. He charges for access to the VIP section of his website and the suckers are just so smug because they're the real ones "in the know".

[Gregg]

My, it appears I have struck a nerve.

Anybody who goes around sovcit, survivalist, and even NJ cop, forums and websites searching for a way to get out from under the certainties of Obamacare, auto registration, mortgage obligations and Lord knows what else is a good candidate for one having a confirmation bias, which btw is not a psychological disorder.

With your high I.Q. and all you may see yourself as a mysterious and complex stranger in our presence, but the the fact is your bias would be obvious to a grade schooler.

I mean all this in the kindest possible way, of course.

Or it could be someone looking for answers, only an idiot does not question what he is told.

You keep pointing out how my agenda is to run back to these sites that you have stalked me to and gloat in some imagined win.

But yet you seem to come up short on a link to my said gloating/agenda, why is that sparky?

Possibly because your not as wise as your trying to make yourself out to be?

You label me as these types of people only shows your bias friend.

The confirmation bias only works if you found me on sites that people believed the same thing I do, which is close to impossible because I tend not to believe anything.

You see friend it is only someone who knows something for sure that I am weary of.

Some of us see that to understand anything, you have to understand how your mind works, most never will. Sadly, a whole country full of know it all's pointing the finger at each other swearing it was them that brought down the country.

But hey, presume some more about me, say I'm an idiot and pat yourself on the back for being correct.....again,and get on with your life brother, because you my friend have got all the answers.

So, as to your motivation, we're back to you just being an asshole?

[arayder]

. . .We will never know what happened that day, and to speculate whose conspiracy is correct( the government's or the truthers) will never work out.

You have no substantive response. You infer that anything said by anyone to the contrary of your speculation is speculation.

One wonders if you know anything.

[Pottapaug1938]

I spent 6-8 hours a day for 6 months looking at the evidence, a couple of more years debating it online. We will never know what happened that day, and to speculate whose conspiracy is correct( the government's or the truthers) will never work out.

People are set in those beliefs, one way or the other.

Big deal. I've met people who have spent literally decades "looking at the evidence and debating it" concerning the JFK assassination. They are great at, among other things, perceiving anomalies in the evidence; but put 100 of them in a room and you will come up with 100 versions of "who REALLY did it."

Now, here you are, moving the goalposts again. Just what does the WTC bombing in 1983 have to do with the Sandy Hook shootings?

[Patriotdiscussions]

I spent 6-8 hours a day for 6 months looking at the evidence, a couple of more years debating it online. We will never know what happened that day, and to speculate whose conspiracy is correct( the government's or the truthers) will never work out.

People are set in those beliefs, one way or the other.

Big deal. I've met people who have spent literally decades "looking at the evidence and debating it" concerning the JFK assassination. They are great at, among other things, perceiving anomalies in the evidence; but put 100 of them in a room and you will come up with 100 versions of "who REALLY did it."

Now, here you are, moving the goalposts again. Just what does the WTC bombing in 1983 have to do with the Sandy Hook shootings?

By default the only person who would know how it all went down would be someone on the I side.

I can see why you folks need to focus on the topic since you can not follow a conversation for shit.

[grixit]

Some years ago, i spent some time with a conspiracy nut. He told me once about some information that he had gotten from "a secret service agent, breaking confidence" who had met him in some secluded spot. I asked how he was so sure that the man was for real. He answered well, why would a secret service agent risk his life like that if the information wasn't genuine. I absolutely could not get him to consider the possibility that the man was not a secret service agent, just someone having fun at his expense.

[arayder]

I can see why you folks need to focus on the topic since you can not follow a conversation for shit.

PD, I can see why you need to change the topic since you can not follow a conversation for shit.

[Pottapaug1938]

Earlier, I said "(n)ow, here you are, moving the goalposts again. Just what does the WTC bombing in 1983 have to do with the Sandy Hook shootings? Your response was:

By default the only person who would know how it all went down would be someone on the I side.

I can see why you folks need to focus on the topic since you can not follow a conversation for shit.

Look who's talking about "not following a conversation for sh*t". I asked you what the WTC bombing in 1983 had to do with the Sandy Hook shootings -- THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, and this was your response.

[arayder]

PD has also told us that he doesn't really know anything and that after months of research on topics he is unable to get to the heart of a matter. Then, amazingly, he tells us he distrusts anyone who knows something.

It is no wonder our new friend struggles with the very knowable law regarding the authority of the federal government and how auto titles and mortgages work.

It is no wonder our new friend coyly refuses to state a conclusion, or even advance a discussion. He doesn't know anything. . .and he knows it.

Now we know it.

His distrust of the knowable and those who know it explains why he disregards the explanations of every subject he address and insults those who explain things to him.

[fortinbras]

I posted something like this earlier but it seems to have vanished in the ether.

We are now talking (or are led to talking) about a "conspiracy" in Sandy Hook. What conspiracy?! The massacre was the work of only one person, who killed his own mother to get her (legal) guns. No conspiracy, not even a hint this man had an accomplice. Yet at least one person senses a conspiracy in all this.

To me, this talk of conspiracy is just bs tossed up to try to disqualify this school shooting as a talking point for gun legislation.

[Number Six]

I try to approach every problem or theory like this with an open mind. The state did an absolutely lousy job interacting with the public and media in the transparent form that happened with Columbine. Few people suggested a conspiracy there because they handled the investigation and presented the evidence in ways that left no room for theorists to gum up the works. If SH had happened in NY, they wouldn't have botched the situation up like the CT authorities. Look at the Wikipedia page on the event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... l_shooting They also address conspiracies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... y_theories

So you see all types of cockamamie people with too much time on their hands and a computer that jump on the conspiracy bandwagon on sites like Memory Hole blog with a real live professor of communications fueling the theories. In their Manichean world the forces of evil are always pushing for destruction and cover-up where the good guys are usually sidelined. There have been plenty of movies with that theme. And the intelligence agencies with their long track record of obscuring a history of deception does a lot to give life to conspiracy theorists. The fact is that life is fraught with messy events, not some clean battle between good and evil.

[Patriotdiscussions]

[Moderator deletes stuff that has nothing to do with Sandy Hook.]

[Patriotdiscussions]

Earlier, I said "(n)ow, here you are, moving the goalposts again. Just what does the WTC bombing in 1983 have to do with the Sandy Hook shootings? Your response was:

By default the only person who would know how it all went down would be someone on the I side.

I can see why you folks need to focus on the topic since you can not follow a conversation for shit.

Look who's talking about "not following a conversation for sh*t". I asked you what the WTC bombing in 1983 had to do with the Sandy Hook shootings -- THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, and this was your response.

Let me make this easy on you, who mentioned the 93( not 83) bombing first?

Follow the conversation from there.

[arayder]

PD has also told us that he doesn't really know anything and that after months of research on topics he is unable to get to the heart of a matter. Then, amazingly, he tells us he distrusts anyone who knows something.

It is no wonder our new friend struggles with the very knowable law regarding the authority of the federal government and how auto titles and mortgages work.

It is no wonder our new friend coyly refuses to state a conclusion, or even advance a discussion. He doesn't know anything. . .and he knows it.

Now we know it.

His distrust of the knowable and those who know it explains why he disregards the explanations of every subject he address and insults those who explain things to him.

It's a shame you don't even understand your signature. . . .

PD, you play the role of the truth seeker. Your problem is that after all your claimed study you never find it.

[arayder]

Earlier, I said "(n)ow, here you are, moving the goalposts again. Just what does the WTC bombing in 1983 have to do with the Sandy Hook shootings? Your response was:

By default the only person who would know how it all went down would be someone on the I side.

I can see why you folks need to focus on the topic since you can not follow a conversation for shit.

Look who's talking about "not following a conversation for sh*t". I asked you what the WTC bombing in 1983 had to do with the Sandy Hook shootings -- THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, and this was your response.

Let me make this easy on you, who mentioned the 93( not 83) bombing first?

Follow the conversation from there.

. . . which of course has nothing at all to do with Sandy Hook.

[JamesVincent]

I spent 6-8 hours a day for 6 months looking at the evidence, a couple of more years debating it online.

And you wonder why people think you're a screwball living in your mother's basement. Seriously, how could someone who's supposedly gainfully employeed, with any type of life whatsoever, have that kind of time to do anything that they're not getting paid to do? And, better question, why would you? Do you think your internet studies can out match the investigators who were, you know, actually there..... investigating? Did your online debate club choose that particular incident to be the debate of the month or something? I can almost guarantee there was not that much official reports and whatnot to even need that kind of timeframe to read it all. Especially considering I seriously doubt everything involved in that investigation was released to the public. You didn't look at evidence, you looked at pictures of evidence or you looked at statements. Get over yourself.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I spent 6-8 hours a day for 6 months looking at the evidence, a couple of more years debating it online.

And you wonder why people think you're a screwball living in your mother's basement. Seriously, how could someone who's supposedly gainfully employeed, with any type of life whatsoever, have that kind of time to do anything that they're not getting paid to do? And, better question, why would you? Do you think your internet studies can out match the investigators who were, you know, actually there..... investigating? Did your online debate club choose that particular incident to be the debate of the month or something? I can almost guarantee there was not that much official reports and whatnot to even need that kind of timeframe to read it all. Especially considering I seriously doubt everything involved in that investigation was released to the public. You didn't look at evidence, you looked at pictures of evidence or you looked at statements. Get over yourself.

You mean who has that time, when they should be mass consumers living the American apple pie life correct?

Yes my priorities of truth and knowledge over mindless dibble and useless banter that spews from most people's mouth is backwards to you I'm sure.

And I'm sure it would surprise you that me, my wife and two girls do not live with mine or her mother. But never let that stop people from using generalizations and personal experience to form beliefs.

[Patriotdiscussions]

[Moderator deletes stuff that has nothing to do with Sandy Hook.]

Are you getting the message?

[arayder]

I try to approach every problem or theory like this with an open mind. The state did an absolutely lousy job interacting with the public and media in the transparent form that happened with Columbine. Few people suggested a conspiracy there because they handled the investigation and presented the evidence in ways that left no room for theorists to gum up the works. If SH had happened in NY, they wouldn't have botched the situation up like the CT authorities. Look at the Wikipedia page on the event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... l_shooting They also address conspiracies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook ... y_theories

So you see all types of cockamamie people with too much time on their hands and a computer that jump on the conspiracy bandwagon on sites like Memory Hole blog with a real live professor of communications fueling the theories. In their world the forces of evil are always pushing for destruction and cover-up where the good guys are usually sidelined. There have been plenty of movies with that theme. And the intelligence agencies with their long track record of obscuring a history of deception does a lot to give life to conspiracy theorists. The fact is that life is fraught with messy events, not some clean battle between good and evil.

I agree that the circumstances around the Sandy Hook shooting don't lend themselves to conspiracy theories. This has forced some of the conspiracy nuts to come up with some theories that don't pass the smell test.

This spring the New Yorker magazine had a story on Adam Lanza: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/ ... -reckoning

The author talked to the father and did a good deal of research on his own. It is an interesting read.

When I read it the thought occurred to me that one could not sanely believe that any conspiracy could control the unpredictable Lanza household well enough to get a "let's shoot up a school" plan in action.

The thought keeps bouncing around in my head asking what would have happen if Mrs. Lanza had just safely stored the AR-15 Adam, who had OCD, used to attack the school?

The formula of poor mental health + access to guns is like preschooler + matches + gasoline.

[Number Six]

Actually there were plenty of bloggers presenting outlandish conspiracy theories, like this one: http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news677_lanza.html

Others saw the media presentation being stage managed by a crisis actors group including John Goodman playing the part of the chief of police Vance.

Snopes as usual is useful in dissecting many of these dumb theories.