This is my last post on this subject. Yesterday I criticized the people who claim the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. Since then I’ve been sent that “Sandy Hook Shooting Exposed” conspiracy video dozens of times. “Just watch it! Your mind will be blown! You can’t dismiss it until you’ve seen it!” Well I just spent 30 minutes of my life watching it. Not because I wanted to “give it a chance”, but because I wanted to more thoroughly eviscerate it. So against my better judgement I will humor these crackpots and go through each “question” the video raises one by one. Notice that this is what conspiracy theorists do. They ask questions but provide no answers. If you can not respond to each inquiry to their satisfaction, they take it as proof of their hypothesis. And, while they mock you for “believing the media”, there they are parroting a theory formulated by some fat lonely Youtuber. They become rabid disciples of an anonymous internet detective and lambaste you for accepting the basic facts as reported by dozens and dozens and dozens of news outlets and eye witnesses.
In this case, the working hypothesis is that the shooting never happened and it was all staged by the government. Nobody died. All of the grieving parents were actually actors. The emergency personnel were a bunch of lying government agents. Everything was scripted, produced and faked.
And millions of people believe this. Because they saw a YouTube video.
Here are the “questions” brought up by the video and the conspiracy cult, followed by my extraordinarily obvious answers:
1) QUESTION: Why was there a man in the woods during the shooting who was detained by police and then released? ANSWER: Hiking, hunting, walking, jogging. Do I really need to list outdoor recreational activities? You really can’t think of ANY reason why a man might be in the woods? I hike through the woods all the time. I jog through woods surrounding my local high school. Then again, I’m a covert government agent so I suppose I’ve made your point for you.
2) QUESTION: Why were there discrepancies in media reports concerning the number of weapons and the types of weapons used? ANSWER: Because the rest of us aren’t omnipotent like you guys. In the first moments of a catastrophe we might not have every single detail. Sometimes initial reports are inaccurate. In fact, initial reports are almost always insufficient. Have you ever watched news reports covering a natural disaster? You see how many times the story changes? Are hurricanes staged as well? Wait. Don’t answer that. Wackos.
3) QUESTION: Why did Adam Lanza have Ryan Lanza’s ID on him? ANSWER: I hate to scandalize you but, shockingly, many 20 year olds in America are walking around with their older brother’s expired ID in their wallet.
4) QUESTION: Why did Google search results say that a few Sandy Hook memorial pages were set up days before the shooting? ANSWER: Assuming those screen shots weren’t photo-shopped, which is quite a logical leap to make, I can tell you that time stamps on Google search results are imprecise. As someone who runs a blog and who sometimes engages in the narcissistic activity of Googling myself, I have seen my own postings pop up with inaccurate dates. I once received an email on my old work account with a date 6 months prior to my account being set up. This is not rare. It is not infrequent. It is not all that strange.
5) QUESTION: Why don’t the parents of the victims seem sad enough during interviews and press conferences? ANSWER: First of all, you are horrible. Tasteless, crass, unbelievable. Have you ever lost a child? Have you ever lost anyone? Do you understand anything about life and the people in it? How dare you presume to tell the PARENTS OF DEAD CHILDREN how they are “supposed” to act while on camera? You freaking sociopaths. What are you, behavioral scientists? Did you get your doctorate in grief counseling? No? You’re just some anonymous person slandering the mothers and fathers of murdered children. Disgusting. Bouncing between emotions, smiling and then crying, laughing and then weeping, these are EXTREMELY COMMON BEHAVIORS for people going through loss. It’s called shock. It’s called disbelief. It’s called your mortal mind trying unsuccessfully to wrap itself around the enormity of the tragedy that has just blindsided you.
6) QUESTION: If little Emilie Parker was killed at Sandy Hook, why was she photographed with Obama after the shooting took place? ANSWER: Again, you are horrible. Also, that’s not her. It’s her sister. It vaguely resembles her. SHOCK. Can you imagine?! Two siblings that look similar?!
And now that I’ve played the game, I have some questions of my own:
1) If this is a massive, brilliantly orchestrated conspiracy involving actors, movie sets and thousands of people including news media, teachers, community members, local, state, and federal government, EMT workers, police, firefighters and likely most of the people in the surrounding towns, why would they be careless enough to take the totally unnecessary step of posting memorial websites BEFORE the actual event? How does that fit into their dastardly plot? They’re smart enough to pull this off but dumb enough to do that? And why in God’s name would they release that photo of Emilie Parker if they’re trying to claim she was killed when she really wasn’t? Are they toying with us? Leaving a trail of breadcrumbs so that some dude with a Youtube account can get all caught up in a game of cat and mouse? Grow up. Stop involving these grieving people in your stupid Tom Clancy fantasy.
2) If this is all staged why would they have some other guy just hanging out in the woods? And why would they release footage of it? What was he? An actor who got cut from the script the day before and showed up to sabotage the show?
3) Come to think of it, why would they release ANY footage AT ALL that doesn’t fit into their supposed hoax?
4) To be clear, the CIA director can’t even have cyber sex with his mistress without it ending up on the New York Post yet all these agencies of government can work together seamlessly to perpetrate one of the greatest frauds in the history of the world?
5) If you can’t believe even the most basic information reported by every media outlet and eye witness, why the hell do you think you can believe a damn internet video?
6) If they’re all in on it, why didn’t they have their stories straight? Why did they say it was Ryan Lanza in the beginning? Why did they change their reporting on which guns were used? It’s easy to understand how that would happen if this was a real, actual, live event. But I can’t possibly comprehend why the story changes if it’s all scripted.
Here’s the problem, Sandy Hook Truthers, your narrative makes zero sense and it has more holes than the “official story” itself. In fact the video in question was rife with inconsistencies and contradictions. The video claims Adam Lanza shouldn’t have had Ryan Lanza’s ID because they hadn’t seen each other in two years. Hm. How do we know that? Could it be media reports? So you can use media reports to advance your case and then in the next breath claim the media is part of a giant coverup and conspiracy? At one point the narrator, after making the case for 20 minutes that no shooting event actually took place, points out the “plot hole” that parents “were never allowed to see their dead children”. I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID THERE WERE NO DEAD CHILDREN. Which is it? Did nothing happen or did a shooting orchestrated by the government happen? These are VASTLY OPPOSED theories. Either it was all a hoax or it happened but the government did it. But the possibility of it actually being a lone mass killer, like the thousands of other lone mass killers throughout history, has been ruled out? Based on what? Some shoddy reporting and a guy in the woods? And in spite of the fact that your contradicting versions rest on bizarre and wholly irrational conclusions?
I’m done with this.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.