The tragic massacre at Sandy Hook has raised a lot of questions and spawned a lot of theories ranging from the official story that a lone 20 year old carried out the entire incident to the other end of the spectrum where some people claim that the entire incident was a cruel hoax perpetrated just so the president could propose gun control measures.
There have been many opinions with supporting videos on You Tube. I am presenting two such videos below. You may have already seen one or both of them before, but I would ask that you look at them again using maximum skepticism.
Please keep in mind that an important part of a disinformation campaign is use of the “controlled opposition.” Around here we are fond of quoting Vladimir Lenin who said that the best way to control the opposition is to become the opposition. What, exactly, does that mean? When an intelligence agency or group wants to perpetrate a false flag operation or another deception, they often create what appears to be an opposition group whose job is to create false leads that go nowhere or make irrational claims that can easily be proven false. The hope there is that a legitimate person trying to find out the truth will be lumped in with the tin hat gang and not receive the legitimacy that his research deserves. I like to use the example of the Washington Generals Basketball Team. They are the controlled opposition to the Harlem Globetrotters. They travel with them and their job is to make the Globetrotters look good. Of course, most people realize their role is this as it is presented as entertainment.
More subtle uses would include the Hannity and Combs show. The job of Combs was to provide a weak argument against Sean Hannity thus making him look good. That is not an easy task. Further examples are anti-gun legislation written by the NRA just so they can defeat it in Congress and look good to their members.
The first video here presents a lot of questions as to what actually happened that day, but all of the questions asked are, at best, tangential to the case. The real items that need to be answered are not asked. The second video does a pretty fair job of debunking the first video and gives feasible explanations for most of the questions that the first one asks. Watch both of them now and come back here for my take on them.
When I encountered the first video, I had many of the same thoughts as presented in the rebuttal video. First, a lot is made of the many changes in the story especially at the beginning. First Lanza’s mother was a teacher at the school, then she was a substitute, and finally she had nothing to do with the school. Lanza was a former student, who only attended for a short time and was then was home schooled. All of this can be easily explained as poor reporting by the first reporters present. With all of the competition in the news business today, it has become more important to get a story out quickly than to get the facts correct. Reporters repeat any rumors or opinions that they hear as facts. Later when the truth comes out they revise their stories.
The producer of the first video seems to be claiming that the whole incident was a hoax to create a favorable environment to pass gun control measures. There are several flaws in that assumption. First, with our current Congress, there is very little chance of any real changes being made in our gun laws. Second, such a hoax would require the total cooperation of all locals, local law enforcement, State law enforcement, and federal law enforcement. The chance of all of these groups keeping this going is very close to zero. Someone would make a mistake and the whole scam would unravel. A more likely scenario is that the massacre really did occur and a select group lied to these groups about what actually happened and they accepted the lies.
The producer of the first video seems to play amateur psychiatrist and claims that the reaction of the parents is inconsistent with grief. As presented in the second video, when you add in the soundtrack of the smiling parents speaking with Anderson Cooper, it becomes clear that they are recounting happy times with their child and their smiles are completely appropriate. I have been at several funerals where laughter broke out when funny or touching stories were told about the diseased. At first, the father outside the police department does appear to be “getting into character” before making his statement, but we have no way of knowing what proceeded this event. Maybe he was also recalling happier times. Some people react with laughter in inappropriate situations as a coping mechanism.
Stories from the neighbor and the nurse seem to raise a lot of questions, but after traumatic incidents, many people have false memories or outright lie to exaggerate their importance. I remember many years ago when I witnessesed a crime in a factory where I was doing some work. As a result of a domestic dispute a man abducted a woman at gunpoint and dragged her down the aisle and up a flight of stairs. There were two gunshots, which turned out to be fired into the ceiling. A sergeant with plant security went up the stairs and took the gun from the man and the State Police were called. When they arrived, a worker who had cowered behind a row of toolboxes during the incident went to the lead detective and told him “exactly what happened.” He included many details that never happened but he was the type of person who wanted to be “THE AUTHORITY.” I suspect that the neighbor and the nurse either deliberately lied to exaggerate their importance or have false memories and really believe their own fantasies.
The first video does raise an interesting “coincidence.” There was a training exercise for this exact scenario scheduled at the same time and near Sandy Hook. For a crazed lone gunman to pick this exact moment would be very unlikely but an organized covert team would take advantage of this exercise to provide cover for their real attack. A person who saw a man dressed in combat gear and carrying a rifle would be assumed to be a part of the exercise and not perceived as a real threat. Many intelligence experts believe that this is exactly what happened in the London bombings in 2005. There was a terrorist drill scheduled that day and it is believed that some of the actors who were hired to play the parts of terrorists were given real bombs and inadvertently became real suicide bombers.
There are many questions that need to be asked and were not in the first video.
1. How did Lanza enter the school which was locked?
2. Why were the children all shot with .223 rounds, but Lanza’s body was found with only handguns present?
3. Why would he shoot the kids, go outside, lock his rifle in the trunk of a car, then go back into the school and shoot himself?
4. Why did he have his estranged brother’s ID?
5. How did he get to the school? There was no car in the lot belonging to him or any member of his family.
6. Chris Rodia is a convicted felon. Why was a car registered to him found in the Sandy Hook parking lot.
7. Who called authorities claiming to be the principal of Sandy Hook and naming Adam Lanza as the shooter after the real principal was already dead?
8. Since Lanza only attended the school briefly 15 years ago and was then home schooled, how could anyone at the school identify him as the shooter?
9. How could an occasional weekend shooter, such as Lanza, shoot groups on his victims that only highly trained shooters can accomplish?
10. If the case is settled, why are American intelligence agents actively pursuing international suspects?
11. Who has the most to gain by terrorizing the American people?
I don’t have the answers to these and other pertinent questions and I don’t know who does, but they deserve answers.
The second video may also be a part of the controlled opposition. It was carefully timed to discredit the first video and by association, others who question the official story. I don’t endorse either video. I presented both of them as a point/counterpoint. I beleive that both are part of a disinformation campaign to lead people to false conclusions and away from the truth. I would like to see answers to the questions that I posted above.
Posted by Michael Chester on January 21, 2013, With 0 Reads, Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom, Corruption, Government, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.