But I don't think the government killed those people "purposefully" at Waco. I think that's kind of where the theme was going.

 

This is where you are dead wrong….but if we want to split hairs, so be it. Here's one: Ruby Ridge…I've got about a handful of others.

 

If anyone cares to read, I never said the government intentionally did anything at Sandy Hook, I said there are questions out there, but numerous people….and then, again, I said the government is capable of doing bad things to it's citizens…and if you don't believe that, you are sheep….

 

Now everyone has 2 more examples of extreme governmental overreach that resulted in the deaths of innocent people…whether you think they are "whack jobs" or not, they are citizens, and I believe, unless someone stripped this fundamental position from our system, that they are entitled to due process of law and of course innocent until proven guilty as judged by their peers……neither of these happened in either Waco or Ruby Ridge.

 

Don't be sheep...

So...one theory is that there was a FEMA active shooter drill going on, and somehow it got "out of control" and went live? Heck, I don't even understand that one.:idunno: And another theory is that it didn't happen at all and many of the interviewees are actors and this whole thing was staged? I mean, those two theories are almost polar opposites of each other.

 

Those two theories are extreme and not what has been represented. Do you disagree that the government in no way, shape or form had anything to do with anything that occurred at Sandy Hook…to include covering details ? I would find that position to be naive at best.

(although you would think actual witnesses would do this much better).

 

Yea. One would think. Crazy, I know. :lol2:

Del

Edited December 15, 20169 yr by Bluegrasscard

Those two theories are extreme and not what has been represented. Do you disagree that the government in no way, shape or form had anything to do with anything that occurred at Sandy Hook…to include covering details ? I would find that position to be naive at best.

 

Then call me naive. I don't see what or why the government would want to hide any information about Sandy Hook that could explain everything that happened on that tragic day. A cover-up makes no sense. It's acute paranoia to think that way as far as I'm concerned.

26 people died, mostly small children. I agree there's questions that need answers. Why did the killer do it? Why did he choose this school? Where did he get guns? What was his mental state? How did he gain access into the building? Did he have accomplices, etc?

I understand questions and answers should be of upmost importance. But the government had no prior warning and wasn't involved in what this mentally deranged man did that day, in my opinion.

Dolomite- it never ceases to amaze me what words people try and put in someone's mouth! I try and tell people about some thing, or explain both sides views, and they want to hang me.... Lol i have argued points on many topics on here even if it's not what I beleive. But like you say, you have to be able to see things from many perspectives to be able to draw an educated conclusion. Most people on here and in the world only see what they want to beleive. That includes conspiracy theorist, and those who laugh at them.

The presence of crisis actors doesn't mean an entire event was staged, see Orlando nightclub, Boston bombing and other events. However, conspiracy theorists say that these actors are used for interviews or other purposes to help control the narrative or story line. A rattled, real life witness is not as controllable as someone who has been groomed to answer certain questions and portray certain narratives. That is the main reason people speculate these "actors" are used, to make the interviews more professional in realistic (although you would think actual witnesses would do this much better).

 

My question would be "to what end?" What is the narrative the government wants to portray?

Yea. One would think. Crazy, I know. :lol2:

 

It's outlandish I know, but if you watch some of the interviews with some of those accused as crisis actors it does sound scripted. Usually they will do multiple interviews and it will almost be verbatim in each interview. I couldn't see actual witnesses repeating their statements nearly word for word.

My question would be "to what end?" What is the narrative the government wants to portray?

 

Details of what happened, what people saw, etc.

My question would be "to what end?" What is the narrative the government wants to portray?

 

The common theory would be that these (overall events) are done to 'scare' people into stricter gun control or as gateway to gun confiscation. Mr. Holder actually provides some level of support to this when he says on video - "We have to brainwash the people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

 

 

If this, and other events were, or would have been, done with the goal of this brain washing it seems it was a very bad miscalculation and a lot of wasted effort.

 

Holder did regret not getting traction after Sandy Hook - even when he left office.

 

Holder: Gun control among biggest failures | TheHill

 

 

“I think the inability to pass reasonable gun safety laws after the Newtown massacre is something that weighs heavily on my mind,” Holder said during an interview aired on CNN.

...

 

“And the thought that we could not translate that horror into reasonable — I mean, really reasonable gun safety measures that were supported by the vast majority of the American people is for me something that I take personally as a failure,” he said, “and something that I think we as a society should take as a failure, a glaring failure, that I hope will ultimately be rectified.”

 

Gun Control was an obsession for some reason with Holder. Obviously he wanted to leverage it and was disappointed in the reaction (or lack of).

 

Of note also is that Josh Sugermann - creator of the term 'assault rifle' as its used today - was from Newtown. Just another of many oddities.

The common theory would be that these (overall events) are done to 'scare' people into stricter gun control or as gateway to gun confiscation. Mr. Holder actually provides some level of support to this when he says on video - "We have to brainwash the people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

 

 

If this, and other events were, or would have been, done with the goal of this brain washing it seems it was a very bad miscalculation and a lot of wasted effort.

 

Holder did regret not getting traction after Sandy Hook - even when he left office.

 

Holder: Gun control among biggest failures | TheHill

 

 

“I think the inability to pass reasonable gun safety laws after the Newtown massacre is something that weighs heavily on my mind,” Holder said during an interview aired on CNN.

...

 

“And the thought that we could not translate that horror into reasonable — I mean, really reasonable gun safety measures that were supported by the vast majority of the American people is for me something that I take personally as a failure,” he said, “and something that I think we as a society should take as a failure, a glaring failure, that I hope will ultimately be rectified.”

 

Gun Control was an obsession for some reason with Holder. Obviously he wanted to leverage it and was disappointed in the reaction (or lack of).

 

Of note also is that Josh Sugermann - creator of the term 'assault rifle' as its used today - was from Newtown. Just another of many oddities.

 

Do you really think our government would send someone into an elementary school to murder a bunch of innocent children to try and get gun control laws passed?

 

If that's not what you were alluding to as a possibility in your post, I apologize, but that's how I read it, specifically the first paragraph of your post.

Do you really think our government would send someone into an elementary school to murder a bunch of innocent children to try and get gun control laws passed?

 

If that's not what you were alluding to as a possibility in your post, I apologize, but that's how I read it, specifically the first paragraph of your post.

 

That would be a 'false flag' instead of a 'hoax'.

 

Obviously lets hope not.

 

If in the future it is ever fully disclosed that SH was different than the current narrative lets hope it was a 'hoax' and not a 'false flag'.

Then call me naive. I don't see what or why the government would want to hide any information about Sandy Hook that could explain everything that happened on that tragic day. A cover-up makes no sense. It's acute paranoia to think that way as far as I'm concerned.

26 people died, mostly small children. I agree there's questions that need answers. Why did the killer do it? Why did he choose this school? Where did he get guns? What was his mental state? How did he gain access into the building? Did he have accomplices, etc?

I understand questions and answers should be of upmost importance. But the government had no prior warning and wasn't involved in what this mentally deranged man did that day, in my opinion.

 

To believe that the government is not involved in multiple "false flag" events, is to certainly be naive.... you must think beyond the event and not think that the event was "staged" per se. The government is typically opportunistic in their approach to any news worthy event, and this would be no different.

 

If you get beyond the mass murder portion of the story, turn your focus away from the intense tragedy of the event, and look at all the discrepancies around the balance, you may get some clarity. It matters not at all, nor do we need any questions answered about the shooter himself, completely irrelevant other than the specifics of the actual shooting event.

 

However, if you only see one side of the same coin that we are all looking at, it becomes impossible to perceive that there were any nefarious organized actions surrounding this event, and others like it. This is not acute paranoia, but rather a healthy respect for the potential that a governing entity may have reasons they want to control the information it's people receive.

 

That mindset provides a ripe environment for a false flag event and manipulation of the emotional response to the situation.

 

That, my friend, is exactly why the government would want to intervene and spin findings....

None/zero, of these theories can be supported from start to finish. Yes you can make video showing someone at the scene of Sandy Hook and compare their pic to an actor that looks like them, claim it is them and thing was hoax. But in none of those videos does it prove absolutely that the parent or agent in question is the actor they show. Also, I've seen a couple of them trying to show how parents of victims were actor. If they were really actors and didn't truly have child that was killed, wouldn't someone at the school or in the community know that?

To believe that the government is not involved in multiple "false flag" events, is to certainly be naive.... you must think beyond the event and not think that the event was "staged" per se. The government is typically opportunistic in their approach to any news worthy event, and this would be no different.

 

If you get beyond the mass murder portion of the story, turn your focus away from the intense tragedy of the event, and look at all the discrepancies around the balance, you may get some clarity. It matters not at all, nor do we need any questions answered about the shooter himself, completely irrelevant other than the specifics of the actual shooting event.

 

However, if you only see one side of the same coin that we are all looking at, it becomes impossible to perceive that there were any nefarious organized actions surrounding this event, and others like it. This is not acute paranoia, but rather a healthy respect for the potential that a governing entity may have reasons they want to control the information it's people receive.

 

That mindset provides a ripe environment for a false flag event and manipulation of the emotional response to the situation.

 

That, my friend, is exactly why the government would want to intervene and spin findings....

 

So what national tragedies/events do you believe were these "False flags" you speak of?

 

There have to be some concrete events you think were concocted by our government to feel so strongly about this.