Adam Lanza the suspected shooter died 1 day before the Sandy Hook event took place.

Nancy Lanza: Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Death Record
Name: Nancy Lanza
State of Issue: New Hampshire
Date of Birth: Tuesday September 06, 1960
Date of Death: Friday December 14, 2012
Est. Age at Death: 52 years, 3 months, 8 days
Confirmation: Proven
[link to www.genealogybank.com]

Adam P. Lanza: Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Death Record
Name: Adam P. Lanza
State of Issue: New Hampshire
Date of Birth: Wednesday April 22, 1992
Date of Death: Thursday December 13, 2012
Est. Age at Death: 20 years, 7 months, 21 days
Confirmation: Proven
[link to www.genealogybank.com]

People on another forum have determined that genealogybank has the correct dates for the deaths of the Sandy Hook victims, and those who've logged in to check it out state they've tested by searching the dates of death of their own relatives & found it to be accurate.

Memorial Sandy Hook Elementary Newton Connecticut
December 13, 2012 - December 13, 2012 Remember what date the shooting took place? 14th of December.

hosting-24974.tributes.com/condolences/v...ies/94935278#4798482

pheony wrote:

I didn't post it in order to sway you from your conspiracy. I posted it because it addresses all the main issues that people have. I thought it would be of use to anybody looking into Sandy Hook so that you can see how conspiracy researchers can just put things together and ignore facts or anything that contradicts that conspiracy. For instance you find a web search saying a witness is a member of SAG but ignore the truth when it turns out he isn't. So the poor guy gets harassed by these conspiracy nuts who think they are noble warriors for truth when most people see them as insensitive idiots


People have gone, very quickly , from "just asking questions" to full blown you tube video thumpers. You don't like being branded as mentally Ill naturally and yet anybody not buying the conspiracy is treated exactly the same way in topics like this on forums like this.

i-baster wrote:
Good job, 'cause why would you? Why would you even be on a forum where there are conspiracy theorists if you were purely out to try and ridicule conspiracy theorists? That would make you a troll, wouldn't it? Unless you were simply using civility & logic to make points - and I've seen precious little of the latter from you in any thread.

i-baster wrote:
No, it actually doesn't, but I don't have time to go through it line by line right now, as I have to get ready for work. I will do later though.

i-baster wrote:
As has been demonstrated, any researchers - very much including those who are taxed with officially informing the public of events - can put things together ignoring the facts!

I'll look further into his acting career later. I've seen lots of clips of Rosen, for example, telling different versions of the story in different interviews, and one where he was apparently auditioning for the role. His entire story (as commented on before) was implausible, even without those slip-ups - to the point of being insulting to ask expect anyone to believe it.

It's one thing to state that you disagree with something because of *insert a reason*, but with so very much evidence that the information given by the authorities is contradictory and full of inconsistencies, I think it's downright ignorant and inflammatory to be here using terms like 'conspiracy nuts'.

Given also that it's been noted on in this thread recently, that there may well be an agenda at play to actually label those who question the official line as suffering from a mental illness, so that they can be silenced with medication at some point in the not too distant Orwellian future the way things are going, I think you should be very careful in your choice of words, because right now, you're looking to me like part of that agenda.

Counter points that have been raised, and that's great (as stated previously, more than once, it's actually helpful in that it assists in evaluating each strand of evidence, of which there's masses, and some of it is very likely to be inaccurate). Start with the mentally ill conspiracy nut shit, and you're the enemy in my book.

i-baster wrote:
'Don't like' is not strong enough boy. Try 'Won't tolerate'.



[quote="i-baster" post=96088... and yet anybody not buying the conspiracy is treated exactly the same way in topics like this on forums like this.[/quote]

Let's be specific, and restrict it to SZ, eh! Complete and utter bullshit!!!

You can believe every lie ever fed to the public, and that's your choice. Continue with the labeling of those who don't believe as being mentally ill, and I'll be arguing a case for why you shouldn't be allowed on the forum.

And it just keeps getting better:



news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/shooting-te...ports-191439016.html

I didn't actually call anybody mentally ill. Your main problem appears to be reading comprehension. You could however argue that a person that does not accept information that does not agree with their opinion and acts hostile towards anybody that suggests an alternative to their views. You could certainly argue that such a closed mind is a mild form of mental illness. It is one thing to ask questions but to only accept things that you can fit into your conspiracy is just ignorant.

You are welcome to call for my banning, it would not bother me.

i-baster wrote:
There's no call for that from where I'm sitting.

i-baster wrote:
That's quite funny coming from you, i-baster.

Don't dance about now - you posted a vid containing the opinion that people not accepting the official line are mentally ill. You were pulled up on it by Phoeny, and defended it. So no, you didn't come right out and say it - you achieved it by a more cowardly route.

And anybody with basic comprehension abilities can see that you've REPEATEDLY been invited to post your alternative views. Not that you post much that even attempts to address the issues.

Claiming people who don't agree with you have closed minds is ridiculous, since you've not presented answers to the anomolies pointed out in the thread.

But - and as always, I find myself needing to repeat & repeat & repeat for you, because you seem to just not get things (or at least you have a good go at pretending you don't, in order to try & distort what's been said) if you continue to push this view that people who don't swallow the crap are mentally ill, I will continue to be hostile towards you. It's a lie that warrants a hostile response imo.

I would call for the banning of anybody who comes on a forum like this claiming its members are mentally ill.

psketti wrote:
Are you happy to put up with people who don't agree with the official line in anything being labelled mentally ill then?

Gilly wrote:
Not at all. I don't think there's any warrent for ibaster to be thrown off either though. Just calling it as I see it.

psketti wrote:
Right well as I said initially, he posted & defended that view, and if he continued to push it, I'd be calling for his banning, and I will. We shouldn't have let Guevarista get away with it.

Threaten me all you want. Clearly you have some issues since you think an article is a video.

i-baster wrote:
Good evasion of the point. What a surprise!

If someone challenged my mental state due to my opinion I'd assume they have no counterpoint to make, not seek their banning.

But I'm mad.

I thought you had a certificate to say that you're not mad.

I didn't realize SZ had it's very own head shrink! Fun!

Personally, I would think that anyone who voted Obama in for a 2nd term could be labeled as mentally ill! But since I'm apparently crazy, I doubt my opinion counts(of course, Romney supporters also seem mentally disturbed).

K-Bone wrote:
I'd say any and all voting constitutes a mental illness of sorts

psketti wrote:
We may need to have a poll so we can vote on the issue.

I'm not saying this proves anything but here is an interesting comparison of the coverage of a school shooting in Brazil & Sandy Hook.

Warning: the news coverage includes some images of bloody kids but not all that graphic.

thedemoniacal.blogspot.com/2013/01/sandy...school-shooting.html

Thought it might be of interest to some folks.

You don't have to believe there is anything fishy with the Sandy Hook tragedy but that doesn't make everyone questioning the events crazy.

The quotes below are from this article:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/sandy-...unked_n_2487427.html

D.J. Grothe, president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, does note that truthers shouldn't be immediately dismissed as raving lunatics, however.

"Political conspiracy theorists are completely wrong [in their conclusions], but they're not crazy," he told HuffPost. "The leading conspiracy theorists ... are right on many of their initial factual claims. Depending on what the theory is, they might even be correct in all of their claims. Where they are wrong is connecting the dots that aren't there."

"We are hardwired to seek order in chaos, make meaning out of data noise, and it is paradoxically comforting to imagine that great tragedy is not just time and chance, but a function of some nefarious, pre-planned grand design," he added.

K-Bone wrote: Cognitive
Dissonance
masonic trigger word.