And now a Word from our Debunkers

“What we have here is a failure to communicate”

When did seeking the truth become socially unacceptable? While reading through some interesting articles concerning the after-math of the “incident” it was quite clear, anyone who is not accepting the official line has become guilty of being some kind of wacky “truther” or worse yet a deranged, conspiracy nut.

A quick look at the offending word in the Urban Dictionary:

1. Truther 1108 up, 662 down
Noun- One who rejects the accepted explanation of the events of 9/11. Truthers generally believe the U.S. government committed the acts of terrorism against itself.

BYU professor Steven Jones is perhaps the most famous truther.

[Key terms] tin foil hat kook conspiracy theory nut job crack addict 
by Nobody Too Much Jul 29, 2006 add a video

2. Truther 532 up, 182 down
Is one who rejects the official explanation provided for September 11, 2001. They include professional architects and engineers, scientists, and other scholars, firefighters, pilots, veterans, doctors, the victims families and people from countless other walks of life. People who reject the official explanation live in a paradigm that sees the mainstream media as a tool of manipulation for the masses.

Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth are the quintessential truthers.
[key words] wearechange ae911truth terrorism new world order new paradigm by nobody1010 May 3, 2010 add a video

3. Truther 264 up, 71 down
A now stereotypical, thereby ad-hominem label for an individual who is sceptical about world events. Such *scepticism largely emanated from the events of 9/11.

Some individuals embrace the term while others see it as a convenient label to paint all with the same brush.

Pro: I’m a truther, I look at the empirical evidence that wasn’t in the official 9/11 commission report.

Con: You’re just another one of those “truthers”! Inside job people.
[key words] conspiracy terrorism police state 9/11 truth sceptical
by IAmChange Feb 5, 2011 add a video

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=truther

Apparently the top three meanings of truther are the highest rated by vote not any specific criteria upon the deeper subject of skepticism.  As for the word scepticism, a writer from the UK provides a clearer distinction of meaning:

Scepticism, or skepticism, is neither denialism nor a movement. Based on the Greek skeptomai, which means to think or consider, it usually means doubt or incredulity about particular ideas, or a wider view about the impossibility of having certain knowledge. This uncertainty is a philosophical position, and philosophical scepticism includes attempts to deal with it, through systematic doubt and testing of ideas. [—an early commenter rightly pointed out, the sceptic/skeptic spellings are simply UK and US variants—]

So, let’s be clear. In the US you can be a climate skeptic. In the UK you might consider yourself a Skeptic and approach knowledge in a sceptical way. It also appears that it is possible to be a Skeptic and yet not be a sceptic. Hyde’s parenthetical “Some people won’t believe anything” dismissal of “bad” sceptics suggests very little understanding of what scepticism really means.

This goes to the heart of much recent criticism of Skeptics, often coming from within the movement itself. The charge is that many self-identified Skeptics are not properly sceptical (or skeptical) of the positions that they or their leading figures take up. Rather, a tribalism or group-mentality develops in which – unthinkingly – certain positions are condemned or approved.

A traditional academic essay on the subject courtesy of the  Stanford Encyclopedia :

Much of epistemology has arisen either in defense of, or in opposition to, various forms of skepticism. Indeed, one could classify various theories of knowledge by their responses to skepticism.

For example, rationalists could be viewed as skeptical about the possibility of empirical knowledge while not being skeptical with regard to a priori knowledge and empiricists could be seen as skeptical about the possibility of a priori knowledge but not so with regard to empirical knowledge.

In addition, views about many traditional philosophical problems, e.g., the problem of other minds or the problem of induction, can be seen as restricted forms of skepticism that hold that we cannot have knowledge of any propositions in some particular domain normally thought to be within our ken. [Perception–understanding] 

This essay will focus on the general forms of skepticism that question our knowledge in many, if not all, domains in which we ordinarily think knowledge is possible. Although this essay will consider some aspects of the history of philosophical skepticism, the general forms of skepticism to be discussed are those which contemporary philosophers still find the most interesting.”

Klein, Peter, “Skepticism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = .

I would have liked to have quoted this author, but his restrictions are such I am surprised anyone can actually read what he has to say on the subject without violating his copyrights:

http://www.acgrayling.com/scepticism-and-justification

Nonetheless, his work is quite excellent and well worth the effort to understand the deeper complexities of the subject.

A surprising expert in the field use of scepticism, was Donald Rumsfield:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

He of course was explaining why it was going to be impossible to know where 2.3 trillion in spent funds was knowingly spent, when it was still unknown, how the spending was known to be spent, especially without knowing why, any records to know it was spent, were not known at all. He cannot be blamed for not knowing, he had to know where the money went, while it was unknown, there was known money missing. See it is actually very easy to be a skeptic and not know the unknown answers— or why one can know that— at all.

Thus, while I may not be an expert on the subject, such as Mr. Grayling or Mr. Klien, or even an atheist such as Rebekah Higgitt, I can still agree with her view on the subject and still be quite skeptical about the official narrative, as proposed, by the authorities in charge of the SH investigation. People simply  expressing their opinions, on a subject of great interest, may not be convinced of the official story, for personal reasons, without ever being a “truther” either. This term, which is after all just urban slang, for “doubting government authority” is always an honest representation of the specific knowledge so claimed, may also be viewed as not accepting arguments committing the ‘fallacy of authority’ in order to to convince people of facts which have yet to be proven true. That would be the preponderance of evidence in a Court of law.

How do I know they know what they are even talking about when they fail to prove a single word they say? The trouble is too many unknowns cloud what is known, thus constrict what can be known. People wanted to know more about the reasons why the crime happened as told and the authorities have purposely failed to satisfy the demand for better understanding through constructive knowledge.

This quality of the “communication breakdown” occurs when the listener is asked to suspend, knowledge-based beliefs in order to accept irrational beliefs never expected or suspended in a formal argument.

—Look this man shot up several classrooms—he is guilty as sin of mass-murder. The crime was so horrible no one is allowed to see any evidence. Stop asking us to prove our claims, or provide evidence, that is factually correct.  If you continue asking us for proof, of how and why this crime was committed, you are a despicable truther. Truthers are crack heads and fools for not believing that only the authorities can see or speak the truth.

The authorities are apparently so skeptical about the sceptics they refuse to even address the real contention. Their story simply stinks to high heaven and that is the reason why people do not believe a word they say…  the official story is simply not believable without comprehensive, constructive facts. People have a right to express their opinions without being subject to gross generalizations which confuse legitimate concerns with speculative conjecture, which also serve to insinuate inferiority of intelligence. Well, he must be a nut for thinking the officials are wrong…. or he would be normal just like everybody else.

So why were the guns not photographed properly where found and the photo’s so released? If the authorities were so worried about offending sensibilities they only needed to show the dead-shooter– masked just right– to demonstrate this is the truth. This is very simple. The results satisfy the publics need to know the guilty party is indeed guilty and rightly deserves whole-sale condemnation for his rotten, evil actions. The public can now express its fury without apprehension or the need to suspend belief. This is a positive relief mechanism for Tensions otherwise having no expression. There was no need to lie about the truth. Or diminish proper communication of the act itself.

For the purpose of example lets say, an authority was trying to convince me  ghosts do not exist as a real phenomenon. Take my word for it he says and believe in nothing else. Without any method to challenge the claim, I have no choice but to agree there is nothing left to decide. Authorities may like the idea what they say cannot be challenged, but the assertion itself is already false by imposing acceptance as a condition to avoid any real test of the claim itself.

{I have a well thought out theory on why ghosts are Transient Projections— the mind reacts to a sensory-stimulus which has no dimension and must project the result outwards—because the mind is a reality-engine par excellence. Thus a person sees that which otherwise has no visual cue.  A ripple across the subtle energy-body manifests as a ghostly after-image because it had no dimension to start with as real.

People can decide for themselves, whether or not, what I have to say about ghosts, means anything to them at all and still be quite sceptical of my claim without being mis-named a Truther. To agree with the proposition does not make anyone conversely, an anti-truther in opposition to those that think it is simply a case of superstitious,  mental-born phenomenon.  As defined in Physics– transient–simply means a brief change in the state of a system, such as a sudden short-lived oscillation in the current flowing through a circuit. Where the circuit is awareness and the ghost is a non-local oscillation the mind simply resolves the transient phenomenon as a ghost— moving through the subtle electro-magnetic fields of living consciousness. Naturally, I remain quite skeptical, of any other claim for this phenomenon, until a better explanation for living consciousness proves otherwise.}

Without all of the relevant facts on the table no genuine conclusions can be made from the assertions so provided.

There of course many mainstream media outlets and their writers who espouse the conventional explanations, of what happened at the Sandy Hook Elementary school, some much better than others. I simply chose one, as a representation of the many, due to the writer having a strong conviction of being correct on the subject at hand and the clarity of thought to make a good argument while supporting this conventional viewpoint.

I will start by by quoting his conclusion:

“Part of the reason it’s shocking that these theories are so popular is because many of them are so far-fetched. As BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith points out, a cover-up of this magnitude would “demand massive collusion between hundreds of private citizens, the federal government, local authorities, and the news media.”

Still, such stubborn refusal to take law enforcement authorities or the media at their word will likely persist as long as there is gun control legislation in Washington, or perhaps even longer.

“We are hardwired to seek order in chaos, make meaning out of data noise,” D.J. Grothe, the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation previously told HuffPost, “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.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/sandy-hook-hoax-theories-explained-debunking-newtown-truther_n_2627233.html

Now within the body of the article this author has explained why the Truthers are wrong about specific items of interest:

Here are a few persistent “truther” arguments and explanations as to why they don’t hold up to scrutiny. Choose one of the truther arguments below, or scroll to read through them all.

Sandy Hook School Nurse Sally Cox “Got Her Script Wrong”

[When reached by phone, Cox told HuffPost that she “never said anything about anyone,” although she acknowledged a group of reporters had “descended” on her outside the town firehouse. When asked if McCarren got her story wrong, Cox said “yes” and added that “those [conspiracy] theories are all manufactured lies.”

McCarren provided no public comment at time of publication.]

Now having scrutinized the public accounts and having found the statements to be grossly incongruent– the key point here was never mentioned— she was reported to have made eye contact— with the killer—Truthers did not make this up. No truther put a single word in the Nurses mouth. Her account made even less sense due to the fact she was hiding in a medical supply closet for nearly four hours, along with the un-named woman, subbing for the regular school secretary. This person (Halstead) who was not interviewed, despite the importance of being the only other witness to activities in the office, or prior to the shooters entrance into the school itself. Left completely out of the authors argument are the details which sustain the vital factors of the truth itself.

“In the main office, Halstead had also been hiding under a desk.

“By the grace of God, there were no children in the office, and in my office,” Cox said. Halstead then made a dash for the infirmary and dove under Cox’s desk. She grabbed the office phone and immediately called 911.

“Help, we have a shooter,” Halstead said into the phone. “It’s the school. Get help right away.” Seconds later, the two terrified women ran into the first-aid supply closet to hide. At 11:15 a.m., they opened the closet door a crack. From her office window, Cox looked out into the courtyard where she saw several men wearing fatigues and toting weapons. She said she didn’t know whether they were SWAT team members — or the attackers.” http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/could_see_his_feet_was_ frozen_in_ygbEGJD62s WTIMQlZ9CUFP

What did happen in that office is still not resolved to any degree of satisfaction. In my previous post I added an account of the student hearing and recognizing the school principal crying.  Was this student lying? I tend to give greater weight to statements which have no reason to be false, than those which need to be false, in order to omit another fact, otherwise unseen.

“Rabbi Shaul Praver told MSNBC that Mrs Hochsprung and Mrs Sherlach were killed execution-style.”

Was this rabbi also lying? How did he know this is how these woman died, and why was he quoted in so many articles?

“They ran into the hallway to confront the danger – and were murdered execution-style as a result. The New York Times reports that Mrs Hochsprung buzzed Lanza into the school, bypassing the newly-installed security system – recognizing him as the son of Nancy Lanza. It’s unclear what Nancy Lanza’s connection to the school was, if she had one at all.” http://www.gistvillage.com/too-painful-victims-of-us-primary-school-shooter-revealed-photos/

By this time the connection of Nancy to the school via she was a K-teacher was being removed from the general official narrative. No generalization can blame anyone, as a Truther,  for asking why this abrupt change in the official narrative occurred.

There is no comfort in pointing out these details. The victims cannot be running out into the hallway to be killed, execution style and to be later heard sobbing on the inter-com. This alludes to the conjecture that the time-element of this incident was not reported factually. Were these woman being held as hostages and were they executed only after the inter-com was turned on? Am I now a crack-head for asking a logical question based on witness accounts? Hardly, and to insinuate any one who dares ask a question concerning the incident is a  nutty Truther is actually quite silly.

Now at some point the nurse and the secretary were hiding under a desk and then went into the supply closet. The Nurse never said she turned on the school inter-com. In fact, not a single adult there that day has ever stated WHO actually turned on the inter-com— or for that matter who turned it back off. The two woman hiding in a closet cannot see anything so any testimony from them about any visual activity after entering the closet is not material evidence. They had no idea who was being killed much less where.

However, the interview with Cox was real or it wouldn’t exist and the statements were indeed implied, or no story would have circulated that Nancy Lanza was a sub-K- teacher period. Truthers did not make up the news broadcast, or the story, people simply questioned why such a mistake occurred at all.

The damning fact is Nancy was already reported dead, before her body was officially found. So it is not just a tiny mistake that she was reported as a dead teacher, in the K-class she was teaching and the excuse for this bold-lie is why the Nurse was subject to its consequences,  —-“those [conspiracy] theories are all manufactured lies.” —  but the boldest lie was never started by any conspiracy theory, in fact quite the opposite. Did the net gossipers start claiming Nancy was never a Teacher and was actually killed in her own bed? No…. people were dumb-founded that the story radically changed from one “state” to another with no rational explanation for why the mistake was made at all.

I still wonder— whose body was mistakenly identified as Nancy Lanza the K-teacher dead in the classroom? Does merely posing this question make me a Truther? No… it is a natural question as to how a detective can make such a gross mistake period. Whose ID did they look at to positively identity the body? Who told them a K-teacher was dead in the first place? Were they confused by the lack of identification upon the bodies so found and just made an educated guess?  Mrs Vollmer knew all of the teachers and she was one of the first classes to leave by her own account. The news media reported certain critical elements involving the missing K-students, not Truthers, so why blame the wrong source of the fabrications as presented?

Quite a few people simply looked at the school web-site and soon discovered that Nancy Lanza was indeed not listed as a teacher. Did this make them  crack heads, nutty, or kooky people making up conspiracy theories? Not by any logical argument or a sceptical one. If the school web-site did not list Nancy Lanza as a k-teacher this was a fact not a theory.

Linking Nancy Lanza to the scene of the crime as a victim was a contrivance, to fulfill a meaningful relationship, thus to establish between her and the shooter,  a reasonable Motive for the crime itself. This was not done by Truthers to reject the official claim as reported, so faulting them for not accepting the authorities version of the events, when this assertion was discovered to be false is indeed absurd. The break in accepted belief was caused by the authorities themselves and to say otherwise is a bold-faced lie.

Here is another teachers account(s) from that morning:

“It was a lovely day,” Varga said. “Everybody was joyful and cheerful. We were ending the week on a high note.” The school appeared secure,it’s entrance monitored by closed-circuit camera and opened only when employees in the main office buzzed somebody in. But Lanza wasted no time, breaking through the window and opening the door.

And then, suddenly and unfathomably, gunshots rang out. “I can’t even remember how many,” Varga said. “Someone turned the loudspeaker on, so everyone in the building could hear what was happening in the office.”

“You could hear the hysteria that was going on,” Varga said. “Whoever did that saved a lot of people. Everyone in the school was listening to the terror that was transpiring.”

The sounds reached a room where Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school therapist Diane Day along with a school psychologist, other staff members and a parent were gathered for a 9:30 meeting. http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121216/NEWS/212160338/-1/NEWS14

Can Mr. Varga be classified as a Truther,  for merely speaking his mind and providing testimony contrary to the official story? Because it sure sounds as if the office was already occupied by the shooter, who was the one that turned on the inter-com, and then after hearing the hysteria, the principle along with the school psychologist, ran out into the hallway. The only two people in that office, at that time, were the secretary and the school nurse. The hysteria of that confrontation was omitted from the Nurses statements. The main office is right next to the conference room-9. Across the hallway is room-10 Miss Soto’s classroom.

Soto was in her third year teaching first grade at Sandy Hook, according to her profile on myschooldesk.net. Her profiles reads, “I look forward to an amazing year in first grade with my amazing students of room 10!”

Soto had been at Sandy Hook for five years, the first two years as an intern where she was a long-term substitute teacher for two second-grade classrooms and one third-grade classroom.”

Additional versions of Mr. Varga’s story provided extra details:

—Fourth-grade teacher Ted Varga was reminiscing about the previous night’s school chorus events in a conference room Friday when he heard gunshots, the New York Daily News reports. Varga quickly slipped out of the building through an emergency exit, but then turned back to save his fellow instructors. The quick-thinking teacher returned to the conference room, dislodged a wooden board next to an air conditioner and helped three others climb out the window, the Daily News reports.

“If we didn’t leave when we did, we would have all died,” Varga told the paper. “There certainly weren’t enough places for all of us to have hidden. We would have all been gunned down.”

—Ted Varga, 25, sprinted through a hallway filled with smoke to escape through an emergency exit, then returned to a conference room to help three of his fellow fourth-grade teachers escape through a window. A fifth teacher took cover under a heap of gifts intended for the needy, hoping the killer, jiggling the door to the conference room, would move on.

“She heard heavy breathing,” recounted Varga. “She knew it was him…. It’s a miracle we’re alive, but it’s still such a tragedy. You’re exposed to a myriad of emotions that even now I can’t really understand.”

—There was a happy buzz around the school after the Thursday night choral concert. The five fourth-grade teachers were discussing the event in a conference room when Principal Dawn Hochsprung stopped by with a box of chocolates.

The principal complimented Varga, 25, on his holiday neck-wear before leaving. Minutes later, she was dead in the hallway after lunging at the mass murderer. A janitor shouting outside was the first clue of the impending nightmare, followed by the sound of repeated gunshots.

—“We suddenly realized there was no lock on the door, and there was no place to hide,” Varga recalled. “We’re sitting ducks, waiting to get killed.” The second-year teacher dialed 911 and opened the door, peering into the hallway. “You could taste the smoke in the air,” he said.

“There were so many shots. We suddenly realized there was no lock on the door, and there was no place to hide,” Varga recalled. “We’re sitting ducks, waiting to get killed.” The second-year teacher dialed 911 and opened the door, peering into the hallway. “You could taste the smoke in the air,” he said. “There were so many shots.”

Each version contained the essential elements of his actions, but with a few details missing in one and inserted into another. Vargas never claimed he witnessed the shooter or the actual murders of the adults or children. His 911 call had to have been recorded, so matching his call to the dispatch record along with the Halstead’s call:

09:35 AM – :- “Sandy Hook School, Caller’s indicated she thinks someone is shooting in the building.”

09:36 AM – :- “Sandy Hook School, the front glass has been broken out, they’re unsure why”

09:37 AM – :- “All units, the individual I have on the phone is continuing to hear what he believes to be gunshots.”

09:38 AM – :- “The shooting appears to have stopped. The school is in lock down.”

09:38 AM – : “We’ll stage up the SWAT and go from there.”

09:39 AM – : “Reports that teachers saw two shadows running, past the building, past the gym, which will be rear..58 they’re shooting.”

09:39 AM – :“Yeah, we got ’em. Their coming at me. Gun point”

09:40 AM – : “Shooter’s apparently still shooting in office area. Dickerson Drive.

The dispatch record is not a product of nutty Truthers trying to dispel the official narrative. The natural questions which arises upon hearing, two additional suspects are being confronted in real time, while shooting, quite separate from the “office” where another pair of “shooter’s”  or sloppy speech of ‘the shooter’ is nonetheless, is still shooting, needs to be answered.

To avoid having to answer the obvious questions “authorities” often rely upon nutty reasons to explain away such inconvenient contradictions to previously known data. In this case, the shooters became one which is absurd, when considering the dispatch record of officers confronting shooting suspects. If the dispatch record as recorded in real time is false this implodes the entire official story. Truthers cannot be blamed for “authorities” ruining their own official version of events by playing word games with the truth.

Adam Lanza Didn’t Use An Assault Rifle To Kill His Victims

[The Connecticut State Police released a statement on Jan. 18 with the purpose of showing the public exactly which guns were found and where.

On Jan. 24, Vance, citing “conspiracy theorists” that were “trying to mucky up the waters,” reiterated that Lanza had killed all of his victims with a semi-automatic rifle. Vance emailed HuffPost on Jan. 29 to confirm, again, that Lanza used a Bushmaster rifle in the school, that high-capacity magazines were also found in the school, and that the weapon found in the trunk of Lanza’s car was a shotgun.]

09:56 AM – : “Be advised, we have multiple weapons. Including one rifle and a shotgun”

Without concise, in situ based photographic evidence, there is no way to prove or dis-prove the contentions as made, except that once again it was not the Truthers, who mis-reported the weapons found, no… it was the Networks covering the story. And the source [dispatch record] does not specify where these weapons are exactly only that they are found. Is it too much to ask that the official story matches the official transcripts of the dispatch record?

10:25 AM –:- “We got a large group coming out the front door”

10:29 AM -:- “Roger, closet in the kitchen, it has some victims”

10:32 AM -:- “We are forming up to do a double check of the building”

10:32 AM –:- “One of the places is in the kitchen, there is a teacher and 18 kids there”

10:36 AM –:- “Newtown and all responders on scene, the scene is not active”

If only Truthers ask the natural question of who the teacher and 18 students are as  reported in the kitchen–does this make them fools or crack-heads?  If the on-scene officers cannot be taken at their word as recorded… the simple question is why not? Isn’t their word the truth? Were they simply making things up as they went along for dramatic effect? Leaving out these details to avoid addressing, what happened in the kitchen area, is called omission of facts. What do we call people who omit facts in order to conceal the truth. Let me see…. liars… frauds… truth twisting slime-balls… or how about field negation experts. If Truthers seek the truth, then Avoiders must avoid the truth.

There were several Media articles, that mentioned this specific section of the audio record, but no questions were ever asked and no follow up has ever been publicized. Is the media also avoiding asking the tough questions? If so, is the term media-cowards appropriate to their collective condition?   Apparently, only if you are a skeptic. If it is on the dispatch record then it has to be explained. Avoiding the truth is not a logical argument.

Another article covering the shooting,— By Edmund H. Mahony, Dave Altimari THE HARTFORD (Conn.) COURANT— was one of the very few which gave more specific details in key areas:

The three of them were shot, and they yelled back, ‘Shooter! Stay put!’  ” Becky Virgalla, a reading consultant who was in that meeting, told Reuters. “And they saved my life and the life of four others who were at that meeting.”Hochsprung and Sherlach died; Hammond was wounded but survived.Lanza then turned toward the first classroom on his left, that of teacher Kaitlin Roig. By then, authorities said, Roig had hidden with her students in a closet in her classroom. Before securing the closet door, which opened inward, authorities said she concealed the door behind a movable bookcase.  [Lanza was reported to have continued past her class.]

Lanza then walked past Soto’s classroom into the third one, where substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau was teaching. He shot and killed Rousseau, a special-education teacher, and 14 students.

Lanza then backtracked to Soto’s classroom.http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/12/24/pause-in-gunfire-gave-students-chance-to-escape.html

There is an exceptional knot of contradictions surrounding the actual path of the shooter or shooters as the case may have been. No story relating the incident specified which classroom Rousseau was in that morning. Most in fact, reported Lanza as walking into her class after passing Roig’s. This was one of the very few which had the shooter passing two classrooms to enter directly into Rousseau’s. At least this articles authors tried to explain how six kids left Soto’s class and ended up at a private house.

Adam Lanza Died The Day Before The Shooting

[However, there is no death certificate for Adam Lanza — yet. Lanza’s certificate will become available after it’s been filed with the Newtown Registrar of Vital Records. That will happen once the case is completed, said Debbie Aurelia, the Newtown town clerk. But the case won’t be completed until the toxicology reports are finished, which “won’t happen too quickly,” the office of the Medical Examiner told HuffPost over the phone. (On Jan. 17, CNSNews reported that state police said the report is still “several months away.”)]

The Truthers have no say over what is reported to the SS Admin. and certainly have no control over state procedures. How odd it is that a suspect in a mass-murder is the victim of a records snafu. In fact, what are the odds of the day before, as opposed, to the day after? My money, would have been on the day after, so I would have lost that bet. After all, nobody knew the suspect was going to commit such an unspeakable crime and sure as hell no death certificate can be produced before a body has been confirmed deceased so yeah, this one looks so suspicious it might well be a million to one mistake.

The mistake may not have been made by the Social Security Administration. The Death Master File — a database with information on millions of dead people that is used to prevent identity theft — is compiled from the social security records of Americans whose deaths have been reported to the Social Security Administration. Whoever reported Lanza’s death may have made the error.

The record in question:

Adam Lanza death master  file

Adam Lanza death master file

 

Now that’s what I call circular reasoning. Out of the blue some unknown somebody made a mistake in reporting the death of a young man, who was such a recluse nobody can verify he even existed for the last three years with any real certainty.  But its the Truthers fault for not believing this was just a routine mistake… happens all the time…. yeah, sure it does. Show the news reports of a mass killer being reported dead the day before he was accused of the act itself. How can any skeptic be held responsible for calling BS on such a long shot? Since that toxicology report is going to take a very long time it will be interesting to see how many more impossible probabilities take place to keep the official story from imploding due to its own gaseous emissions.

Memorial Websites And Facebook Pages Were Already Set Up

[As for Facebook pages, if a user creates a page on one day and then changes the title and contents a week or a month later — without changing the URL — the time stamp retains the original date. This seems to have been the case with first-grade teacher Victoria Soto’s memorial page, which allegedly had a date stamp before Dec. 14.]

This is a reasonable explanation. Unfortunately, it is also a wide-spread practice to add additional content to pre-existing web-pages. If experts cannot agree on every specific instance of date-time-stamping errors people need to exercise better judgment before  coming to conclusions based on Google dates. However, this does not explain why there were so many other instances of web-pages published in very specific relations to the incident. To dismiss such incongruities out-of-hand is not an example of critical thinking skills, but actually the opposite. I leave this category of pre-web-pages as too odd not to be true and yet not enough information to be fully resolved.

[Update] In the odd as hell category are images found here: http://www.sipa.com/en/asset/fullTextSearch/search/Connecticut+shootings/page/1 [Use Dec. 13th in the advanced search date field]

This mix up is stranger yet.

This mix up is stranger yet.

The girl in the middle has been identified by her mom as Lily Gaubert and here on the Sipa Press site she is listed as M.  Hsu and not A. Wyatt:

06/15/2012 Rex Features/REX/SIPA

Mandatory Credit: Photo by Rex Features (2034611eo) Victim Madeleine F. Hsu, aged six Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, America – Dec 2012 Madeleine F. Hsu, aged six, one of last of two child victims left to be identified by photograph today at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut…”

All three have the same creation date?

06/15/2012 Rex Features/REX/SIPA

Mandatory Credit: Photo by Rex Features (2034611ep) Allison N. Wyatt, aged six, one of the child victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, America – Dec 20″

06/15/2012 Rex Features/REX/SIPA

Mandatory Credit: Photo by Rex Features (2034611en)
Victim Madeleine F. Hsu, aged six Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, America – Dec 2012  Madeleine F. Hsu, aged six, one of last of two child victims left to be identified by photograph today at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut”

There are some interesting dating of pictures on this page which seem to defy logic…  people can decide for themselves why such pre-dated pictures are highly suspicious.

Why Did Adam Lanza Have His Brother’s ID?

[Ryan told both the police and a former Jersey Journal reporter named Brett Wilshe (who is also reportedly a friend of Ryan’s) that it was possible his brother was in possession of his ID.

Another possibility is that Ryan Lanza’s ID wasn’t at the scene at all. Connecticut State Police spokesman Paul Vance could not confirm to HuffPost that it had been found on the crime scene. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that the confusion arose when “a law enforcement official mistakenly transposed the brothers’ first names.” Additionally, CNN reported, “it was not clear what caused the confusion among investigators.”]

A better question is when did the detectives time-wise positively identify the body they claim is Adam Lanza? By what methods was this done? One only needs to be a minor skeptic to ponder how it is that detectives mis-identified an unknown female as Nancy, then mis-identified another male body as her oldest son. Oddly enough, classroom -10 was passed off as a k-classroom, in many early graphics, so there was something more going on here in regard to identification problems. Ryan after all was very much alive, as was the father, but not the mom. The purposeful confusion was only resolved when a friend of Ryan actually conveyed the older brothers remarks that it was his younger brother— and thus must have had his ID, without specifying which ID that was exactly.

This begs several questions, how did Ryan know for sure his brother whom he had not seen in several years even lived in Sandy Hook? One can assume the mom was telling the older brother he was still there, but that is an unsupported assumption. He did not say his Mom told him Adam was there and was causing her trouble. This also leads to the question of why the older would ever assume his younger brother would be a mass murderer? Was his younger brother so hostile that it made sense to him to make that statement? Otherwise, it looks as if the older fingered the younger for his own protection. Who gained by the actions taken? Certainly not the younger brother.

This snafu of identification will no doubt remain one of the strangest of twists to an already confounding knot of implied motives in a genuinely evil criminal action. If Truthers were the only ones questioning the actual motives does this make them stupid, tin foil wearing fools? Hardly, so why pretend that it does?

Pretending to know what happened that morning is perhaps too kind of words to describe the utter lack of convincing details to the investigation itself. The lack of proper identification of victims to rooms demands the very speculations the officials claim to hate. If officers on scene could actually tell where the bodies were of course, because that seems to be a major problem as well, why were there any mistakes period?

Say for example the unidentified, deceased female was in fact an impostor [Nancy Lanza] and add a few more odd bits of later added info. such as — a teacher was shot near the window— which is why Rousseau’s car was hit. Add this report that Rousseau was shot multiple times in the face…  —“They told me, ‘You can’t see (the body),'” Gilles Rousseau told Radio-Canada, the French-language CBC. “Because most people he shot, it was two or three shots in the face, point-blank.”

This is a description which is really strikes one as unfathomably evil as it also seems to suggest that by destroying the faces of the victims identification would be much more difficult. Motive is in the actions so preserved. What would the primary suspect gain by such an action? The suspect didn’t merely kill these victims he obliterated them.

Going back to the suspect—A male only weighing only 110 pounds when wet, standing 5′ 10″ tall is abnormal…. such a male has no muscle mass or any higher-energy fat reserves to burn during an intense physical altercation.

“Nicole Hockley wonders if her 6-year-old son, Dylan, might be alive if shooter Adam Lanza hadn’t been able to carry 10 magazines that held 30 rounds each into the school that day. Lanza was able to fire 154 shots during a four-minute rampage in the school. But he stopped shooting briefly in Dylan’s classroom to reload, giving 11 children time to escape.” http://www.ctpost.com/news/politics/article/Sandy-Hook-families-bring-emotion-to-gun-debate-4414466.php #ixzz2Pjl4IAZN

Detectives noticed the weight, but for some strange reason no other major physical descriptions were ever actually given. Just how strong is a 110 pound super-weakling? So he fired 154 rounds in four minutes with deadly –several shots to the faces— accuracy— of kids hiding behind teachers huddled in a mass?  Incredulous information to say the least. So this is roughly 38 shots or so per minute? As moving from one room to another, while banging on doors, breathing heavily while jiggling handles, asking questions while wearing ear-plugs and nearly killing every single victim with multiple shots? This is a 110 pound bone-thin weakling? The physical requirements are only exceeded by the mental determination to do such immoral harm.  I simply ask the questions allowing the reader to make their own conclusions.

As for the known Adam Lanza, he had blue eyes, but nobody knew that until some early pictures came out. This goof of identity was entangled with reports linked to the father being killed in Hoboken, the mother dead in class 10 and the younger brother being taken into custody at the scene. An odd twist that both brothers were there, but this last detail quickly vanished.

No Truther was responsible for the ridiculous confusion of facts delivered to the air-waves and web. The excuses for the mistakes only added to the perceptions that the official story was pure bunk. Blaming people for the mistakes of officials is of course nonsense. If officials want people to believe what they say maybe they should start being much more honest when it actually means something.

There Were Multiple Shooters

[As many other outlets have already pointed out, that man was probably Chris Manfredonia, the father of a 6-year-old who attends Sandy Hook, who was on his way to the school when he heard “popping sounds,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper reports that Manfredonia was briefly handcuffed by police after running “around the school” trying to find his daughter. Manfredonia confirmed that fact to CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Also, as Salon points out, the Newtown Bee reported that a local law enforcement official told them there was an off-duty tactical squad police officer in the woods with a gun that day, so it’s possible he was mistaken for an additional gunman.]

The last paragraph is so patiently absurd it is a wonder that any local law enforcement official’s word can be taken at face value.  There may be a trees surrounding the school, but it is all private property of home owners not some wild, wooded forest. There is no excuse for any tactical officer[SWAT] from another town[not reported in this version] to be in somebodies private backyard and armed while a mass-shooting is in progress. Even if that didn’t matter did he not hear all the shooting? Was he too afraid to go and see why? Did he figure hey I’m off-duty, why should I care? So what, that he has no business in that area for any damn reason period, lets just give him plausible deniability ’cause that’s much easier than asking for a real answer. If it smells like a dead excuse it usually is barring some other more significant reason. I see none here at all.

As for Mr. Manfredonia, who was seen in the back hallway by Pam Midlik, just as the shooting began, who was technically fours hours too early for helping in Soto’s classroom, therefore right on time to be in Monahan’s classroom-52… was already inside not outside. His excuse for his actions doesn’t make a damn bit of sense either. If he had simply returned to his daughters classroom he would have been protecting her and by extension her classmates. But he ran outside instead? And he was cuffed by police. The question never answered was where exactly? One single report was that a parent shot and killed the shooter. Considering the gravity of the situation ending the life of a dead-cold killer is an act of heroics not shame. So this bit about Mr. Manfredonia remains unsettling.

All of these odd unsettling facts is what made the skeptical crowd all the more suspicious the official story was puffed up propaganda, to allow a political process to kick-off not unlike a football game. Lost in the glare of media high-lights is the more unsettling problem of what multiple shooters actually means in regards to specific functions of the crime itself.

For example: IF  Rousseau was teaching in classroom-7  that places her right next to the conference room. This is still up from Roig’s-classroom-12 but across the hallway and one down from Soto-10. Who in turn is next to D’Amato’s classroom-8. Kim Wise is probably in classroom-6 the next classroom past  D’Amato. Wexlar perhaps in classroom-5  [He had entered a classroom filled with first graders and opened fire. And then he began heading to other rooms. Mrs. Wexler’s class was just across the hall.]

The following assertion places one of multiple shooters(a) going up the hallway to D’Amato’s class first— where 14 students are killed—and one aid– while another shooter(b) simultaneously went into Rousseau’s class and killed one of the aides—but allowing kids to escape. (I do not believe she was in her class at the time)  The shooter(a) from D’Amato’s (who was not in her class room either) went back down the hallway to Soto’s class, where she may have already been killed by shooter(b), previously in Rousseau’s classroom— distinguished only by the fact this shooter was not targeting children specifically. This shooter allowed more kids to escape from Soto’s classroom.  However, shooter (a) went back into Rousseau’s room and killed six students who had come out of hiding.

During this time another shooter(c) (three all together so far) is cursing, screaming and about to execute the principle and school psychologist. This shooter may have turned on the inter-com to confuse the originations of multiple gun-fire simultaneously in three classrooms. Whether or not Adam Lanza was one of these shooters has not yet been proven. While the office shooter is continuing the “shooting” the other two then went out the kitchen door to escape as police arrived and were seen running past the gym. Who they were shooting at once outside is not answered by any of the accounts.

{But one further observation is the report of the teacher who was killed standing by the window. If shooter(c)  is female and she went into class 10 and was shot from outside by one of the exiting shooters, she is killed and is reported as nancy lanza in room 10— a stretch sure, but so is the rest of the story. This would explain the sounds of gunfire from the front of the building outside after the suspect (adam) has already suicided himself. }

Eye-witness accounts from the gym and neighbors around the immediate vicinity of the school heard gun-fire at about 9:15 am. This gun-fire apparently originated from the kitchen closet—the kids in the gym right next door heard the loud booms— this is where a teacher and 18 unidentified victims were found. There is no explanation period for what happened here or why no public accounting has ever been reported by officials. If no identification has been made it is logical to assume that the teacher and young victims were not SHS faculty/students, but there is no information to make a further determination.

Miss Rousseau was not originally reported to be shot in her classroom. She was reported as killed but officials did not how or where… which seemed so absurd as to be impossible. When did the on-scene detectives actually find her body? And why was it not obvious how she died before being re-investigated perhaps?

This is strictly conjecture—-Did the suspects take a hostage before arriving? Was Rousseau that hostage? Her vehicle had a bullet hole from the inside and was reported by her mother to be riddled with bullet holes. There is no other explanation for a bullet hole from the inside of the car. Who actually took her hostage is the question that cannot be answered from any public evidence. All that can be done is allow logic to guide the theory as best as known facts will support the possibilities.

—-If Rousseau, was taken hostage, the shooter fires off a round to let her know she is in extreme danger, and so she drove to the school? With lots of kids and teachers heading in the suspect only needs to keep a gun to her without drawing attention. They go inside. The suspect has to keep her from giving away the situation.

A female suspect still seems more likely as a female would not cause as much suspicion and perhaps assuring Rousseau no one gets hurt if she does as she is told. This of course begs the question of why is this female there at all. My initial impression of the shooting was a disgruntled former employee targeting specific teachers and staff members.

I simply never found any evidence to further along that idea. But in this case thinking outside the box is the only way to even find any answers to questions no one wants to ask.

At what point did the hostage taker make demands? Is this a better indication of why an argument was actually heard? Were the additional suspects there to intimidate the staff by initially threatening students in the kitchen area? What might have been the demands? Did the escalation of anger leading to violence occur first at 9:15 am after police having been notified refused said demands, or somebody else?

Were only those students in the  cafeteria, during this time period in direct danger? Did the next escalation of violence occur at 9:36 am even as nine officers were just outside the front door?

Prior to the police arriving did four additional suspects arrive in the black Honda, in addition to the suspect  postulated arriving with Rousseau? Did one of these suspects pass herself off as Nancy Lanza? The funny thing is no reports claim a male voice was heard over the inter-com. One can assume they meant to differentiate, but never did so quite specifically.  Would another female cursing and screaming at the principle in furious anger be a significant piece of the missing puzzle? A lawyer for the miracle girl attempted to make a 100 million dollar lawsuit over that very contention. He withdrew that suit soon thereafter.

Pinksy’s client, whom he calls “Jill Doe” in the claim, sustained “emotional and psychological trauma and injury” on Dec. 14 after gunman Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and gunned down 20 children and six adults inside in one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history.

The child heard “conversations, gunfire and screaming” over Sandy Hook’s intercom after someone in the office apparently switched on the system, according to the claim. Pinsky said Saturday he didn’t know whether his client saw anyone die.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/newtown-lawsuit-100-million-irving-pinsky_n_2381733.html

I can only ask the questions. If the media doesn’t have the guts to ask the obvious questions they do not have the higher-moral ground to pompously deride those that do.

Crisis Actors Were Used To Give Interviews To The Media

[Truthers have pointed to a company called Crisis Actors, which, they say, supplies trained professionals for events just like the Newtown shooting. But Crisis Actors, which helps schools and first responders create drills for educational purposes, released a statement saying it doesn’t engage its actors “in any real world crisis events” and that none of its performances are presented “at any time as a real world event.” And in spite of claims that there are “numerous connections” between the victims’ families and the Crisis Actors firm, to date there have been no verified connections between the company and the parents of children who perished in the Sandy Hook shooting.]

This is actually a good example of mixing one specific trend with another for the purpose of ridiculing both. The oddness of the Phelps looking like another family is odd, but not all that important. Finding people who look alike is quite popular, but this not a branch of formal logic or skeptical inquiry. If anything such an element actually plays more into the media circus than actual truth seeking. What better way to ridicule genuine efforts than to mix them up with gross generalizations of the specified group. This would be termed counter-intelligence. After a certain amount of time is passed even real photo proof of some kind of identity swapping would then be characterized as more “Truther” baloney and discarded accordingly.

Separating the facts from the fictions is the goal of discernment where in which scepticism plays a vital role to sharpen those thinking skills and really question what is known as opposed to what is merely assumed to be knowable at all. Therefore, if the intention is know the truth, then the journey to discovering that truth is to ponder the unknowns in order to become a much wiser Soul.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “And now a Word from our Debunkers”

  1. shelly Says:

    Great article, thank you. The vitriol spewing from people who believe this terribly botched story, in spite of the inconsistencies, says more about their willingness to accept anything from authority, and fear of unknowns than any thing. The implications of this fraud are too much for some to bear, apparently.

    Like

  2. Ginger Says:

    I have read this entire series, and I think you did a really thorough, reasonable investigation. I hope the truth comes to light someday. This is the biggest, most complicated mystery I’ve ever heard of.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: