"Sandy Hoax" Phenomenon

Why is it that there is such a phenomenon of Sandy Hook conspiracies? If you google "Sandy Hoax" you get 1.5 million hits. That means 1.5 million web-pages have been written about the possibility of Sandy Hook being different to the narratives in the media. Why do s many people have this view? I've never seen such a huge truther movement on any subject before.

What do you guys think is the motive behind these conspiracy theories? Obama didn't manage to regulate guns through the massacre, so why the paranoia? I don't get it?

Plain and simple in my opinion, most people are just idiotic, ignorant cunts. Excuse my french.

I think a lot of people just think it's fun to make up all of these conspiracies. But another thing, Sandy Hook was unbelievable to a lot of people. They just couldn't comprehend that someone could do something like that. So I think that probably contributes to these SH conspiracy theories. These "truthers"  find it easier to blame the thing they fear the most; the government, than to accept what happened.

Most of the time I can ignore them, but sometimes these conspiracy theorists really piss me off. For example, a lot of them claim that the parents who are grieving over their kids are "actors". Just because they aren't grieving in a way they think they should be. Truly despicable.

I think its mostly the pro-gun mania and the corresponding anti-Bill-of-rights mania.

If you can sift through the evidence and still think it was just a shooting then I feel bad for you. False Flag operations have deep roots in America starting around the Kennedy era and Operation Northwoods. Do I 100% believe that SH was a False Flag? No I don't, but I'm certain it wasnt just a simple shooting. People seem to fear the "conspiracist" label because of the stigma attached to it. There is NOTHING wrong with questioning something, especially in today's world. At least do some research before calling someone crazy. A lot of it makes sense if you'd just open your mind a tiny little bit.

I have done extensive research on the shooting and Adam Lanza, and I have read all of the conspiracy theories about it with an open mind. If one of them had enough convincing evidence, I would believe it. If you would do your research, you would know that every one of these theories has been debunked time and time again with facts. The deaths of those children was real, and no one was involved except for Adam Lanza.

boringguy wrote:

I have done extensive research on the shooting and Adam Lanza, and I have read all of the conspiracy theories about it with an open mind. If one of them had enough convincing evidence, I would believe it. If you would do your research, you would know that every one of these theories has been debunked time and time again with facts. The deaths of those children was real, and no one was involved except for Adam Lanza.

Amen

Nirvana92 wrote:

If you can sift through the evidence and still think it was just a shooting then I feel bad for you. False Flag operations have deep roots in America starting around the Kennedy era and Operation Northwoods. Do I 100% believe that SH was a False Flag? No I don't, but I'm certain it wasnt just a simple shooting. People seem to fear the "conspiracist" label because of the stigma attached to it. There is NOTHING wrong with questioning something, especially in today's world. At least do some research before calling someone crazy. A lot of it makes sense if you'd just open your mind a tiny little bit.

Nothing bad about questioning the official version of things. Heck, its not like I believe all that Jefco is feeding us either and if people had not questioned Jeffco, we would have never learned a lot of what we knew about columbine (pipebombs detonated by Wayne and whatnot).

Still, my main issue is as always evidence and data. Adam was real. His online interactions with in fact many of us (at the old forum, SILKRAT etc) were real. His phone call to the radio about Travis was real.

I think just by reading his forum posts, youtube comments and listening to his phone calls we can see that he was a troubled person interested in spree killings.

Now, knowing also his family situation and the guns his mom owned, I think its eentirely plausible that he planned and then conducted the rampage entirely alone.

Sure, political groups that oppose the Bill of Rights had used the shooting to further their own agenda and in some ways made adam their anti-poster-boy. But its one thing to see that they abused the case of Sandy Hook, speculating that they in fact orchestrated the Sandy Hook massacre is a totally different story. And imho there's no proof to taht. Adam acted alone.


Again: We at SILKRAT were the guys who identified Adam's youtube account. FBI or anti-gun groups had nothign to do with it. After all, we made the spree killing movie 3 years before Sandy Hook. Then 3 years after Sandy Hook we come forward with new information about Adam lanza.

If you think there is a flase flag operation around Sandy Hook, you must thus conclude that me and SILKRAT are part of it, that we always were a part of it. Otherwise, the whole flase flag theory fails to hold water.

The sad thing about the Sandy Hoax thing is that some jerks are preying on the paranoid and stupid for money. I bet you that the ones that are asking for money don't belive the things they are saying. The ones that really piss me off are the ones that harrass the families of the kids. Noah pozner's father has even recived death threats.

eli27 wrote:

Plain and simple in my opinion, most people are just idiotic, ignorant cunts. Excuse my french.

"C U Next Tuesday" is a pretty good way of describing the tin foil hat wearing bozos:)

fantasykingdom985 wrote:

The sad thing about the Sandy Hoax thing is that some jerks are preying on the paranoid and stupid for money. I bet you that the ones that are asking for money don't belive the things they are saying. The ones that really piss me off are the ones that harrass the families of the kids. Noah pozner's father has even recived death threats.

Yeah that's vivid BS behavior on the side of the people who are obviously deluded. Nufff said.

Fatheroftwo wrote:

eli27 wrote:

Plain and simple in my opinion, most people are just idiotic, ignorant cunts. Excuse my french.

"C U Next Tuesday" is a pretty good way of describing the tin foil hat wearing bozos:)

ahaha

C U Next Tuesday idiots

nuff said!

Personally I think that they just want attention and are idiots. Why would someone fake a mass shooting? Gun laws haven't changed after all of the school shootings that happened after Columbine, so the "to make more gun laws" argument doesn't work.

Another reason is well, despite the victims being kids, so they don't have much of a background to follow up on, whenever it came to Sandy Hook all of the attention went to Lanza instead of the kids. I hardly see their names and faces being remembered, so people started thinking that the deceased children are infact an illusion or don't even exist.

Sorry, been watching quite a bit of Alex Jones on youtube. I intended to laugh at all his rants and freakouts but eventually I started watching all his hoax/conspiracy videos.

shades wrote:

Another reason is well, despite the victims being kids, so they don't have much of a background to follow up on, whenever it came to Sandy Hook all of the attention went to Lanza instead of the kids. I hardly see their names and faces being remembered, so people started thinking that the deceased children are infact an illusion or don't even exist.

How well do you think the Virginia Tech victims were remembered and how much did you see their names and faces in the news in comparison to Seung-Hui Cho?

sscc wrote:

How well do you think the Virginia Tech victims were remembered and how much did you see their names and faces in the news in comparison to Seung-Hui Cho?

Maybe it's just me, but I've seen dedication to victims quite a bit but that's also through my own wanted research. and in terms of VT, Seung himself isn't even discussed much which initially I think it's because he's asian or, not the cookie-cutter cutie to make tumblr blogs about. At this point I see Lanza took the cake to being talked about more than Seung.

.

I have a friend that is really into conspiracy theories and government cover-ups--flat earth, Holocaust exaggeration, 9/11 was an inside job, THERE ARE NO TREES ON EARTH, blah blah blah, you name it--it's almost laughable. I've known him for over a decade and he wasn't always like this; just recently he's become more paranoid and agitated over political plots. While it's seems to be almost reflexive for him (to question everything), there is something admirable about someone that won't ever take something at face value or accept it just because it's force-fed to him. Taking a less-popular view on things.

Knowing I am "into" mass shootings and true crime, he started sharing some info with me on false flags. I'll say that from the get-go, since it occurred, I always had a "weird" feeling about Sandy Hook. Someone above me mentioned that many people do not want to accept it as truth just because of how unfathomable it is to shoot up a classroom full of young kids...and yeah, at first it probably did have something to do with that, that 'NO ONE IS THAT FUCKED' mentality, Dunblane massacre et. al notwithstanding. Then, you know, seeing the pictures of Adam Lanza, to me he looked like he was ...almost posing in many of the photos; all like "LOOKIT ME, I'M THE CRAZY BIG-EYED MAN". A bit too scapegoat-y for my liking.

Do I think Sandy Hook never happened, was a false flag? It's hard to say. I sit on the fence about a lot of things, trying to keep an open mind and seeing both sides, and this is no different. Let's put it this way: I wouldn't put it past the government if they cooked up a massacre. And even the most staunch believers must be able to see just how fishy many aspects of the case appear to be. Either way, Adam Lanza was a real person, and I absolutely relish reading about him, his interests and his (alleged) Smiggles persona. Like the Columbine perpetrators, he seems like someone I would have known personally.

As long as there are horrible events like this in the news, there will be those that dispute the facts and/or don't want to believe it. Who cares, as long as you are secure in what YOU believe? There is always going to be at least two sides, and that's true of every news story. And just because they don't think like you doesn't mean you have to be insulting and whip out the muckraking. This is what makes life rich!

suburbanmessiah wrote:

Then, you know, seeing the pictures of Adam Lanza, to me he looked like he was ...almost posing in many of the photos; all like "LOOKIT ME, I'M THE CRAZY BIG-EYED MAN". A bit too scapegoat-y for my liking.

So basically, you're saying that Lanza was strange looking therefore Sandy Hook might be a hoax. Um, ok.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

Do I think Sandy Hook never happened, was a false flag? It's hard to say. I sit on the fence about a lot of things, trying to keep an open mind and seeing both sides, and this is no different. Let's put it this way: I wouldn't put it past the government if they cooked up a massacre.

Confirmation bias. You're anti-government so you want to believe that the government would "cook up a massacre."

suburbanmessiah wrote:

As long as there are horrible events like this in the news, there will be those that dispute the facts and/or don't want to believe it. Who cares, as long as you are secure in what YOU believe?

This type of thinking perpetuated by conspiracy theorists disgusts me. The reason why believing in this shit matters is because so many people suffered as a result of this. You are either outright denying the deaths of young children and teachers, and completely invalidating the repercussions faced by those affected by the massacre.

All conspiracies theories are made to push an agenda. Take Holocaust denial, for instance. When it comes down to it, it's mostly anti-semites believing that Jewish people are trying to shekel the world out of their money and sympathy. Holocaust denial and anti-semitism is disgusting, and I am so irked by people enabling these unsubstantiated theories that rely on confirmation bias and misinformation. There is a mountain of evidence to prove that the Holocaust did indeed happen, and approximately 6 million Jews died as a result of it.

I know I've veered off topic by talking about the Holocaust, but I wanted to emphasize the issues with denying that these events ever happened.

The biggest issue I have with Sandy Hook is the fact that the people who believe it's a hoax notice some abnormalities/holes and use that to justify their disdain for gun control. That or they just lack rationale. I spoke to a 16 year old who believes in "Sandy Hoax" and here was his justification for it:

• CNN lied about Anderson Cooper being on site. Great journalistic integrity but this isn't proof of anything.
  
• Relatives of those murdered laughing when not on camera, and acting sad when interviewed. People respond to tragedy in different ways. I have personally responded similarly to this in the past.
  
• Reports of multiple shooters. Every single shooting has had similar eyewitness inaccuracies. Including Columbine.
  

This dude is kind of similar to your friend; he's a Holocaust denier, a white supremacist, a 9/11 truther, an Obama birther, etc. Whenever I or anyone else points out to him the overwhelming amount of evidence that disproves his crazy theories, he backpedals.

Quote :

"oh yeah I totally didn't say that only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust, I think it's more like 4 million. And the Soviets did all of it! Everyone hated the Nazis so they pinned the blame on them!"

"And where did you get these numbers?"

"..."

Quote :

"Hillary Clinton killed all of these people against her!"

"Why do you think that?"

"She's a crook, (lists history of corruption)"

"Ok. I mean, she did those things, but there's no proof she arranged for anyone's murder."

"OMG, how can you defend her, you don't even like her!"

Karlie wrote:

suburbanmessiah wrote:

Then, you know, seeing the pictures of Adam Lanza, to me he looked like he was ...almost posing in many of the photos; all like "LOOKIT ME, I'M THE CRAZY BIG-EYED MAN". A bit too scapegoat-y for my liking.

So basically, you're saying that Lanza was strange looking therefore Sandy Hook might be a hoax. Um, ok.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

Do I think Sandy Hook never happened, was a false flag? It's hard to say. I sit on the fence about a lot of things, trying to keep an open mind and seeing both sides, and this is no different. Let's put it this way: I wouldn't put it past the government if they cooked up a massacre.

Confirmation bias. You're anti-government so you want to believe that the government would "cook up a massacre."

suburbanmessiah wrote:

As long as there are horrible events like this in the news, there will be those that dispute the facts and/or don't want to believe it. Who cares, as long as you are secure in what YOU believe?

This type of thinking perpetuated by conspiracy theorists disgusts me. The reason why believing in this shit matters is because so many people suffered as a result of this. You are either outright denying the deaths of young children and teachers, and completely invalidating the repercussions faced by those affected by the massacre.

All conspiracies theories are made to push an agenda. Take Holocaust denial, for instance. When it comes down to it, it's mostly anti-semites believing that Jewish people are trying to shekel the world out of their money and sympathy. Holocaust denial and anti-semitism is disgusting, and I am so irked by people enabling these unsubstantiated theories that rely on confirmation bias and misinformation. There is a mountain of evidence to prove that the Holocaust did indeed happen, and approximately 6 million Jews died as a result of it.

I know I've veered off topic by talking about the Holocaust, but I wanted to emphasize the issues with denying that these events ever happened.

The biggest issue I have with Sandy Hook is the fact that the people who believe it's a hoax notice some abnormalities/holes and use that to justify their disdain for gun control. That or they just lack rationale. I spoke to a 16 year old who believes in "Sandy Hoax" and here was his justification for it:

• CNN lied about Anderson Cooper being on site. Great journalistic integrity but this isn't proof of anything.
  
• Relatives of those murdered laughing when not on camera, and acting sad when interviewed. People respond to tragedy in different ways. I have personally responded similarly to this in the past.
  
• Reports of multiple shooters. Every single shooting has had similar eyewitness inaccuracies. Including Columbine.
  

This dude is kind of similar to your friend; he's a Holocaust denier, a white supremacist, a 9/11 truther, an Obama birther, etc. Whenever I or anyone else points out to him the overwhelming amount of evidence that disproves his crazy theories, he backpedals.

Quote :

"oh yeah I totally didn't say that only 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust, I think it's more like 4 million. And the Soviets did all of it! Everyone hated the Nazis so they pinned the blame on them!"

"And where did you get these numbers?"

"..."

Quote :

"Hillary Clinton killed all of these people against her!"

"Why do you think that?"

"She's a crook, (lists history of corruption)"

"Ok. I mean, she did those things, but there's no proof she arranged for anyone's murder."

"OMG, how can you defend her, you don't even like her!"

You talk to sixteen-year-olds? Whoa. That's cool.

First of all, calm the fuck down and really look at what I was saying. It's always awesome when someone on a forum just takes bits and pieces of what you say, to better suit their post, rather than quote the whole thing. You're very brave.

Hello. I'm just keeping an open mind about things. It might help if you do, too. Nothing will ever benefit ANYONE when we all have a narrow, rigid view of anything; this whole "NOW LISTEN HERE, THIS IS HOW IT IS/THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED, SIMPLETON" mentality when the truth is, YOU can't really say for sure what happened, either. I mean, don't get yer panties in a knot.

I'm not "outright denying" the deaths of children. I just said there might be more to this than what we were meant to see. And who said I was anti-government? I guess it takes practically nothing to be "anti-government" these days, huh? Way to be dramatic. Not to mention presumptive. Er, wait, do you even know what "sitting on the fence" means? I like how I describe someone I know in three sentences and you puff out yer chest like some kind of cartoonish goon and act like you know the both of us. Personally I enjoyed your reasons for why I might QUESTION what really happened at that school that day. That's rich, that's real rich.

FUUUUUUUUCK MAN. There is soooo much I could say to you right now, about how you're presenting yourself and the poor image you've portrayed, but I won't. You see, it's not my style to poo-poo. Yet, what could I expect from someone that tries to change the mind of a sixteen-year-old? If you ask me, no one is right and no one is wrong. As in, those debating the issue will probably never know for sure what occurred that day. I just RELISH the kinds of discussions that come from this sort of thing. Not with people like you, though. APPARENTLY. People who totally lose their shit over someone with a differing point of view. Aww, lookit now, you've made me sound like a goddamned hippie, for crying out loud. I hope you're happy.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

Aww, shoot, that person only has one post? ...now why do I have the feeling that person will never see my win of a response? Darn.

Still here. And I do implore you to respond, even if you do not feel as though you will get a response. I lurk every now and then.

Oops, I'm something special and expected that you didn't write a proper response to my post. My apologies.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

You talk to sixteen-year-olds? Whoa. That's cool.

Yeah, always nice to keep up with the kids on what's hip and happenin'.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

First of all, calm the fuck down and really look at what I was saying. It's always awesome when someone on a forum just takes bits and pieces of what you say, to better suit their post, rather than quote the whole thing. You're very brave.

It was done for readability so you can easily see what I'm responding to. I'm actually doing it right now. If anyone, or even you, wishes to view to OP in full, they are free to do so if they scroll up a bit.

I agree though, that's usually what conspiracy theorists do. Pick and choose to better suit their narrative.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

Hello. I'm just keeping an open mind about things. It might help if you do, too. Nothing will ever benefit ANYONE when we all have a narrow, rigid view of anything; this whole "NOW LISTEN HERE, THIS IS HOW IT IS/THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED, SIMPLETON" mentality when the truth is, YOU can't really say for sure what happened, either. I mean, don't get yer panties in a knot.

Absolutely true! I am open to other forms of political ideology, even though I might not agree with them, or see some of them being fundamentally flawed. The only exception probably being absolute fascism. There is always an unacceptable extreme, hence why I view several conspiracy theories as dangerous ideology to society.

I mean, hey I personally wasn't alive during the Holocaust, but I'm pretty somewhere around 5.8 million Jews died. I mean, all I have are several census records all from different groups, countries, the testimonies of former prisoners, Nazi secret documents and some other things. Guess I should stop being closed minded. All I'm doing by believing the evidence that was presented to me, I mean, I did follow the Irving v Penguin case, so I guess I'm a bit more familiar with Holocaust Revisionism than the average Joe...

But you're right, I wasn't there.

So tell me, where do you draw the line?

suburbanmessiah wrote:

I'm not "outright denying" the deaths of children. I just said there might be more to this than what we were meant to see.

Sorry for saying you, I know it gets super confusing, especially over text. I should be using 'people' more often, and I've had people chew me out for this before... You can kinda see how I used people after that, but yeah. Bad habit.

That being said, the vast majority of 'Sandy Hoax' believers deny the deaths of these people. That's what I meant, and that is what disgusts me.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

And who said I was anti-government? I guess it takes practically nothing to be "anti-government" these days, huh? Way to be dramatic. Not to mention presumptive. Er, wait, do you even know what "sitting on the fence" means?

Personally, when someone "wouldn't put past" the government would "cooking up a massacre" of 20 children and 6 adults, I consider them to be anti-government. Unless of course, you condone that type of behavior. I guess I was being presumptive by assuming that you would be against mass murder, then? ;) My apologies.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

I like how I describe someone I know in three sentences and you puff out yer chest like some kind of cartoonish goon and act like you know the both of us.

Sorry, I was merely sharing a story that seemed relevant. I truly found it (and still find it) fascinating how some people can cling to some baseless theories because they don't, as you say, believe something that's force-fed to them. And that's exactly what my "pal" seems to do, no matter how much he doesn't back down, just backpedals slightly. But still supports whatever theory it is to be a contrarian.

The manner in which I carry myself over the internet is very similar to how I speak in person. I do go on tangents quite a bit since there isn't much room for that in my everyday life. I'm just a really talkative person.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

Personally I enjoyed your reasons for why I might QUESTION what really happened at that school that day. That's rich, that's real rich.

To be fair, you did say, and I quote:

suburbanmessiah wrote:

Then, you know, seeing the pictures of Adam Lanza, to me he looked like he was ...almost posing in many of the photos; all like "LOOKIT ME, I'M THE CRAZY BIG-EYED MAN". A bit too scapegoat-y for my liking.

Your post indicated to me that you were open to "alternative narratives" to Sandy Hook based on Lanza's appearance. Or that along with not wanting to believe someone would kill so many innocent, defenseless children. That's kind of all that you said.

Unless you were referring to the 16 year old's reasoning. I never said you believed it.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

FUUUUUUUUCK MAN. There is soooo much I could say to you right now, about how you're presenting yourself and the poor image you've portrayed, but I won't. You see, it's not my style to poo-poo. Yet, what could I expect from someone that tries to change the mind of a sixteen-year-old?

Go ahead and say it I guess? I'm always open to better myself and my image. I guess there's a good reason why I act so differently when I'm working.

And honestly, I originally wanted to be a teacher until I realized that I wanted to make money (LOL). The other teenagers I speak to are a lot more... open to discourse? I guess you could say. Or as some people would say, open to indoctrination;). I do try to talk to younger people as often I can. See, I'm already going on a tangent.

suburbanmessiah wrote:

If you ask me, no one is right and no one is wrong. As in, those debating the issue will probably never know for sure what occurred that day. I just RELISH the kinds of discussions that come from this sort of thing.

I guess you adopt a postmodernist view of history then? Although even they try to distance themselves from perpetuating and supporting absolute untruth. (read:Holocaust denial)

Disclaimer: I have never accused you of being a Holocaust denier. I know I'm obsessive about it, but it's the extreme end of "no one's right, no one's wrong."

I mean, I understand you enjoy hearing the other side of the story. Conspiracy theories interest me too, especially the crazier ones like fluoride making us drones, how the elite are all lizards, etc. Doesn't mean I believe that impressionable people should be privy to this. I would much rather that society would be more engaged with more productive things. But I guess I'm a dreamer. I mean, the fact that barely any Democrats voted this election kinda shows how damage pizzagate, spirit cooking, bodybags etc. had on Hillary. That, among other things obviously. It's undeniable that these things had an unprecedented impact on the election. Doesn't that concern you?

suburbanmessiah wrote:

Not with people like you, though. APPARENTLY. People who totally lose their shit over someone with a differing point of view. Aww, lookit now, you've made me sound like a goddamned hippie, for crying out loud. I hope you're happy.

Yeah, I lose my shit because I hate it when people harass the families of Sandy Hook victims, when people bring weapons to pizza places because there's some baseless theory that claims that it's an underground child pedophile Satanist dungeon...or something.



HAVE A NICE DAY.[/quote]

Too long; didn't read.

Sorry, I'm just going to sit here and laugh. You were going to be a teacher? Awesome.... Because your comprehension skills are deplorable. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for 'readability' (which is hilarious because 'readable' is LIKE THE FARTHEST THING FROM WHAT YOUR POSTS ARE) but not when it distorts what one is trying to say. You still haven't even realized I'm not someone that thinks this didn't happen at all. Who are you even talking to? No, you know what? I'm not even going to bother. Seriously. You couldn't even properly read a post to realize there was a post before it--not only that, with that you just proved just how difficult and arduous it is to scroll up. Something special, indeed! Go ahead and try to indoctrinate sixteen-year-olds, Charles Manson, but this is the big leagues.

So again, I repeat: HAVE A NICE DAY.

PS. I have news for you. Attempting to shield a point of view, or thinking it should be shielded? That's called fascism. I'm actually kind of aghast over how hypocritical your response is, or what I read of it. Impressionable minds or not, these views must exist.

And no, the reasons you gave me for WHY I now might question what occurred, did not have to do with Adam Lanza's appearance. If you read my original post, I will be the first to admit those were stupid reasons for questioning the event (as in, that was what I thought AT FIRST. Again with the lack of comprehension). It had to do with you thinking I was some kind of "anti-government gun-lobbyist". And no, thinking the government isn't immaculate DOES NOT make one 'anti-government'. And--ahem--certainly you are aware of the fact that when a government 'cooks up' a massacre, no one really dies, right? As in, no mass murder? So are you asking if I condone lying? Not exactly, but no one is above stretching the truth now and then. You really think your government has never lied to you? And if you believe they do, and express this opinion, that makes you anti-government? WTF? Even if I was "anti-government"...that has nothing to do with anything, or why I feel the way I do about this. So go back to the stone age with your apparent black and white views. We don't want you here.

I might be in the minority that never really gave a shit about the whole Sandy Hook situation. Whether it was a hoax or not, I could care less. Who even was Adam Lanza, anyways?

We basically only know him as the stereotypical mentally disturbed, social outcast school shooter that killed his mother before going on a rampage at some elementary school that he had no affiliation with other than temporarily attending there before ultimately transferring. Feel free to prove me wrong since I'm not too sure on this, but I'm not even sure if there were any bullying records from his time at SH.

If this was indeed a hoax, then it wasn't a very good one by any means. It basically felt like something that sort of just happened and was used to promote more anti-bullying programs. Almost everyone I've personally spoken to about SH personally believe it was a hoax without question.

Well one thing the "biased liberal media" said was that Adam reloaded frequently like a video game. The video game argument is used by the NRA. furthermore, this would also make the anti-gun people's high capacity mag argument ineffective.

hate99 wrote:

Well one thing the "biased liberal media" said was that Adam reloaded frequently like a video game. The video game argument is used by the NRA. furthermore, this would also make the anti-gun people's high capacity mag argument ineffective.

Actually, Lanza's massacre is a good example of why some people support banning high capacity magazines. My understanding is Lanza had ten 30 round magazines to use with his rifle. Some of the only people who were targeted by Lanza and able to escape were children who ran from the room as he reloaded.

This is what one report says about the topic of reloading.

Quote :

Further, there is good reason to believe that the nearly ubiquitous presence of assault weapons and
high capacity bullet clips enhances the number of individuals likely to be shot in shooting incidents.
We also know that the period during which a shooter must reload provides an opportunity for others
to stop the shooter or to escape. Jared Loughner’s massacre in Tuscon, Arizona ended only when,
after emptying a 33 round magazine, killing and wounding another, he was subdued by bystanders
while attempting to exchange magazines. In Sandy Hook Elementary School, eleven children escaped
from their classroom while AL was exchanging the clip in his automatic weapon. The smaller the
capacity of the clip, the more reloading episodes there will be, and the greater the opportunity for
escape or rescue by law enforcement.

sscc wrote:

hate99 wrote:

Well one thing the "biased liberal media" said was that Adam reloaded frequently like a video game. The video game argument is used by the NRA. furthermore, this would also make the anti-gun people's high capacity mag argument ineffective.

Actually, Lanza's massacre is a good example of why some people support banning high capacity magazines. My understanding is Lanza had ten 30 round magazines to use with his rifle. Some of the only people who were targeted by Lanza and able to escape were children who ran from the room as he reloaded.

This is what one report says about the topic of reloading.

Quote :

Further, there is good reason to believe that the nearly ubiquitous presence of assault weapons and
high capacity bullet clips enhances the number of individuals likely to be shot in shooting incidents.
We also know that the period during which a shooter must reload provides an opportunity for others
to stop the shooter or to escape. Jared Loughner’s massacre in Tuscon, Arizona ended only when,
after emptying a 33 round magazine, killing and wounding another, he was subdued by bystanders
while attempting to exchange magazines. In Sandy Hook Elementary School, eleven children escaped
from their classroom while AL was exchanging the clip in his automatic weapon. The smaller the
capacity of the clip, the more reloading episodes there will be, and the greater the opportunity for
escape or rescue by law enforcement.

I genuinely didnt know that. There was apparently one mass shooting where they reloaded frequently.

boringguy wrote:

I think a lot of people just think it's fun to make up all of these conspiracies. But another thing, Sandy Hook was unbelievable to a lot of people. They just couldn't comprehend that someone could do something like that. So I think that probably contributes to these SH conspiracy theories. These "truthers"  find it easier to blame the thing they fear the most; the government, than to accept what happened.

Most of the time I can ignore them, but sometimes these conspiracy theorists really piss me off. For example, a lot of them claim that the parents who are grieving over their kids are "actors". Just because they aren't grieving in a way they think they should be. Truly despicable.

It is highly laughable that you think these people deny Sandy Hook because of how tragic it would be if it were real (which it wasn't). I realized your comment was from 2015, but 2.5 years still had already passed by. When something tragic happens, some people may be in denial for up to a week or so, but 2.5 years? I highly doubt it. I might as well be denying the bombings of children in other countries that Obama and Trump have done.

N/A

I personally feel that the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are just from overly skeptical people who hate all of the bullshit and agenda-pushing the news media did on it. I definitely hate their false, idiotic claims and their disrespectful nature, but I think the media's overload reaction to it, along with the push for more gun control made them believe it was faked by the government. That's obviously a load of shit, a whole entire town was at the center of this, people knew Adam Lanza along with all of the victims. The conspiracy theorists just want to deny it because they hate the government and mass media so much (which is understandable).

When Sandy Hook happened, the event sparked a great deal of controversy, little did few know, this would be an ongoing conflict for many years in the future. I believe what happened in Newtown was a life changing event, and no one would have ever predicted that any figure would go into an elementary school and rid bullets into young children. At the time, school shootings weren't an everyday event. At the most, a mentally unstable individual would commit the act once every few years. In my eyes, Sandy Hook opened a gateway. Which many pro-gun activists were angry about. If it isn't obvious enough, information on the school and Adam got released very slowly. When the very few crime scene photos were public, many people thought that wasn't enough. They needed solid proof this wasn't a staged act from the government just to ban assault rifles. I have looked into many of these "Sandy Hoax" theories, and some are reasonable, while others seem to be made by imbeciles who haven't taken the time to research the subject, while ironically enough feeling so strongly about it

smiggles wrote:

I have looked into many of these "Sandy Hoax" theories, and some are reasonable

Well now I'm curious. How can you find these theories "reasonable" despite the fact that - from what I can tell - you think the massacre actually happened?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] poor choice of wording on my part, but some of the theories do prove some points. I could easily see how someone could believe it’s fake.

smiggles wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] poor choice of wording on my part, but some of the theories do prove some points. I could easily see how someone could believe it’s fake.

Quite alright, I was honestly just curious as to whether you saw a more "reasonable" or plausible theory that didn't actually deny the massacre took place. An acquaintance of mine floated a theory to me pondering as to whether or not a Fed might have encouraged Lanza to commit the shooting. I told him that I personally found it unlikely for a number of reasons, but obviously didn't have enough information to completely disprove it.

Another big reason Sandy Hook wasn't a hoax:
If it was made up by "the government" and meant to create more gun control legislation, then why wasn't it successful? Very little gun legislation was passed after Sandy Hook (mainly because the US is so pro-gun and we have the NRA) but "the government" wouldn't be dumb enough to fabricate a mass shooting to promote gun control when they know it won't work.

I think some of these hardcore conspiracy theorists also have a hard time believing anyone can be capable of killing multiple people at once. They believe it's something that "just crazy people" would do, but many believe no humans are capable of that and every mass shooting that's publicized and used to promote gun control was set up that way by "the government". In the end, they're all ignorant dipshits. Very few can be convinced with facts and logic on this case, but some that were a little gullible to misinformation and normally not conspiratorial can.

Carnifex879 wrote:

I think some of these hardcore conspiracy theorists also have a hard time believing anyone can be capable of killing multiple people at once. They believe it's something that "just crazy people" would do, but many believe no humans are capable of that and every mass shooting that's publicized and used to promote gun control was set up that way by "the government".

Yep, it is wishful thinking and motivated reasoning on the part of the "hoaxers". They do not want more gun control, mental health tests and background checks on people owning guns. Adam's case is a vivid example why background checks and mental health tests are absolutely vital for all gun owners. So Adam's case is a very inconvenient precedent for them, so they just "wish it away" by claiming it was a hoax.


I can't speak about all shooters. But with Lanza I can tell you this much: Either he was real, or I myself am apart of the government conspiracy.

Lanza was part of the old forums, where he interacted with a lot of people on many threads including myself. There is also the case of the youtube "fuckcomments" account, which was identified 3 years after the shooting by me and another SILKRAT member as very likely Lanza's account. Then we had Reed Coleman pretty much doxx that account and identify that the user was in fact posting from Adam's geographical area.

As many say, I think people refuse to believe that someone has murdered so many innocent children, the fact that they are small children was also shocking. In addition to the fact that there are few images or videos of the crime scene, it makes them believe that the massacre did not really exist or was in a different way, which is not the case at all. I remember listening to one of these theorists who had heard on the radio that precisely a man named "Adam Lanza" had committed suicide the night before the attack. That sounds so ridiculous, and there was never any data to prove that ... anyway, I think they are just idiotic people, who refuse to believe that there are people capable of doing those acts.

Sabratha wrote:

Adam's case is a vivid example why background checks and mental health tests are absolutely vital for all gun owners.

Honestly, I’m not so sure about the efficiency of mental health tests/background checks as a means of mass shooting prevention. To name one example off the top of my head, Roslyakov was found to be in perfect mental health by a psychiatrist. Many if not most well-known mass shooters would have passed both mental health tests and background checks without a problem. Well, certainly not Nik Cruz and probably not James Holmes, but maybe even Adam would (as crazy as it may sound) - after all, no psychiatrist ever suspected him of potentially being dangerous. Guess some things just aren’t preventable.

Sabratha wrote:

Carnifex879 wrote:

I think some of these hardcore conspiracy theorists also have a hard time believing anyone can be capable of killing multiple people at once. They believe it's something that "just crazy people" would do, but many believe no humans are capable of that and every mass shooting that's publicized and used to promote gun control was set up that way by "the government".

Yep, it is wishful thinking and motivated reasoning on the part of the "hoaxers". They do not want more gun control, mental health tests and background checks on people owning guns. Adam's case is a vivid example why background checks and mental health tests are absolutely vital for all gun owners. So Adam's case is a very inconvenient precedent for them, so they just "wish it away" by claiming it was a hoax.


I can't speak about all shooters. But with Lanza I can tell you this much: Either he was real, or I myself am apart of the government conspiracy.

Lanza was part of the old forums, where he interacted with a lot of people on many threads including myself. There is also the case of the youtube "fuckcomments" account, which was identified 3 years after the shooting by me and another SILKRAT member as very likely Lanza's account. Then we had Reed Coleman pretty much doxx that account and identify that the user was in fact posting from Adam's geographical area.

When did Reed Coleman doxx the account? Got any links pertaining to that?