Professor claims Sandy Hook massacre 'may not have happened' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39178760]Cool, let's not use critical thinking for anything and accept everything we hear as absolute truth 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] Just like 9/11 conspiracy theorists used critical thinking, right? No, they used a pile of misinformed bullshit that has just the right amount of pseudoscience to sound plausible if you know absolutely jack all about Engineering. I'm sure the women and men who lost children are really happy to hear you're critically thinking that maybe they're part of some conspiracy to lie about losing their children. I'm sure that's exactly what they need to know right now. I mean, everything he brings up can be refuted as "Human error in reporting". Don't get me wrong, it's annoying that journalists will get shit wrong, but it was the biggest event in Murica since 9/11, I bet they didn't have a lot of time to work crap out, reporting on the fly, etc. Claiming it to be a conspiracy is just downright stupid.

I heard on AboveTopSecret that it was an attack perpetrated by Israeli death squads.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39178760]Cool, let's not use critical thinking for anything and accept everything we hear as absolute truth 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] Okay, here's some critical thinking for you: Why would you fake yet another school shooting when there's been so many in the past? Just for one more bit of evidence to be used in the anti-gun debate? Seems pretty elaborate when you could just like, pull up some reliable statistics, argue only what you know to be true, and present your opinions in a calm, objective manner that doesn't anger everyone who reads it. Which leads me to... And while I'm at it, why would they not pay attention to detail when faking the story? If it's meant to rally up a load of people all over the world, you'd think the US government would be able to pull off one measly conspiracy without fucking up and creating a load of inconsistencies. They would have spotted and eliminated these errors before pulling off what's meant to be a world-changing event. "Yeah, we'll just turn them away when the paramedics show up to maintain the maximum amount of secrecy, because that won't look suspicious or anything. Also, we'll have to avoid taking ANY photos of the evacuation even though we have every opportunity to do so, because fuck you cameras are expensive these days. And I bet all these gun nuts who we're discrediting here won't in any way question the appearance or behavior of any of the weapons involved. That'd just be silly, and totally out of character for them to spew out useless facts about ammunition or the firing rate of a weapon used in a shooting!"

[QUOTE=Cone;39178875]Okay, here's some critical thinking for you: Why would you fake yet another school shooting when there's been so many in the past? Just for one more bit of evidence to be used in the anti-gun debate? Seems pretty elaborate when you could just like, pull up some reliable statistics, argue only what you know to be true, and present your opinions in a calm, objective manner that doesn't anger everyone who reads it. Which leads me to... And while I'm at it, why would they not pay attention to detail when faking the story? If it's meant to rally up a load of people all over the world, you'd think the US government would be able to pull off one measly conspiracy without fucking up and creating a load of inconsistencies. They would have spotted and eliminated these errors before pulling off what's meant to be a world-changing event. "Yeah, we'll just turn them away when the paramedics show up to maintain the maximum amount of secrecy, because that won't look suspicious or anything. Also, we'll have to avoid taking ANY photos of the evacuation even though we have every opportunity to do so, because fuck you cameras are expensive these days. And I bet all these gun nuts who we're discrediting here won't in any way question the appearance or behavior of any of the weapons involved. That'd just be silly, and totally out of character for them to spew out useless facts about ammunition or the firing rate of a weapon used in a shooting!"[/QUOTE] This guy gets it. [editline]11th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Marbalo;39178873]Except just because one conspiracy theory was proven false, doesn't mean all theories are instantly invalidated. This is logic 101, why do I have to spell it out for you?[/QUOTE] Conspiracy theories that have a leg to stand on become fact, or are disproven. Fringe nuts screaming "IT'S FAKE! IT'S ALL FAKE!" under the guise of "Critical Thinking" don't even deserve the time of day. Ignorance is not "Critical" in any way, except as a critical flaw in one's character which must be addressed.

Just as it says in the OP, this all has a JFK feel to it. But it's probably just explained by the clusterfuck the media caused with their info.

Woyldn't these inconsistencies be due to the fact, that the mainstream media were to busy reporting on the gunman and not that much on the actual shooting or the victims? Didn't this lack of coverage put the various news outlets in a bad light or something? Sorry, I forget easily, not trying to say those of you pointing these things out are wrong, I'm just curious.

[QUOTE=_Chewgum;39178570]People who come out with these ideas of the government staging these kinda things are always told to be ashamed. I understand that people were killed etc..but what if the government actually did have a part in this, it's not impossible. The government isn't just the nice obama face. also 'may have used the tragedy as a platform to influence the national debate on gun laws.' - sure as fuck they did governments have done this before, read history[/QUOTE] You're retarded if you sincerely believe that governments stage this sort of thing. Insiders leak shit as petty as "This politicians was caught banging his secretary" to the press. How a government would manage to cover up something of this scale is astronomically insane.

I don't think it was staged but, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with doubting of anything you hear or read until you see a solid proof. Also there should be a proper discussion between the sceptics and the other rather than this: [QUOTE]In the wider community however, Tracy has been slammed with one former teacher saying he should be ashamed for choosing the event ‘as a stage for his outlandish conspiracy theories'.[/QUOTE] This is like "no you're wrong" without any further explanation.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;39178642] "why medical personnel were ‘turned away’" Haven't heard much about this, so can't really comment on it. [/QUOTE] Isn't this the standard situation with any incident that is still "hostile"? Its quite common to hear about medical people being held back till something is safe.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39178934]Pulling up statistics and arguing doesn't work anymore. Sensationalism is the most effective weapon to prove a point these days, especially in politics. Meaning orchestrating or subtly encouraging these types of mass shootings is a sure way to rally up massive support for stricter gun control.[/QUOTE] Okay, I can get with that, but I don't really see how the evidence would point explicitly towards this. It seems like an awfully far-fetched conclusion to draw from something like a lack of pictures or a few more dead than you'd expect. [QUOTE]You overestimate the government. They aren't composed of super geniuses who can plot secret operations designed to shock and tip over support for policies on a daily basis. The government, just like any other human being, can make mistakes. And they have made mistakes before. And ARE making mistakes in the present. In fact, they made so many mistakes it's hard to put a number on it.[/QUOTE] But they wouldn't make huge, glaring errors like turning away paramedics and not swearing them off to secrecy. Anybody who's in the position to make such a large hoax would not fuck up so badly, if you've even got the bare basics of logic, you would understand not to do something like that. I can get that they would make a couple of errors - no plot is perfect - but not ones that would expose literally the maximum amount of people who could have been exposed. Like, if you're the government, and you're pulling off a hoax that's quite grand in scale, why would you let some actual paramedics onto the scene, then, very publicly, just tell them to go away? Why not just get some more actors to be paramedics? At least then they'd be in on it and (apparently) sworn to secrecy. If it really was faked, then why involve more people than is demonstrably necessary? The government may not be hypercompetent, but unless their planners are literally chimps, they would not make that kind of mistake.

lol why stage a school shooting when the US has so many of them

[QUOTE=Marbalo;39178934]I personally doubt the government had anything to do with it, but generalizing all conspiracy theories as the mad ramblings of basement dwellers with poor hygiene is childish and dangerous.[/QUOTE] If they share the same methodology in their research however, then they are all systematically flawed. Most conspiracy theories I have seen, are rather quick to shy away from the scientific method. Whilst they may have some stuff right, they don't actually provide proper reasoning and evidence for how they got to that conclusion.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39178760]Cool, let's not use critical thinking for anything and accept everything we hear as absolute truth 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] Craigewan is thinking critically and dismissing the minimal circumstantial evidence that the shooting was staged...

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39178760]Cool, let's not use critical thinking for anything and accept everything we hear as absolute truth 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] Except that every detail of everything was picture perfect (which does not happen in real life), that is just another thing to question about why it's all a secret government cover up and/or aliens this is generally how conspiracy theorists work

The problem with conspiracy claims are that they immediatly go too far. The whole 9/11 inside job thing for instance. Claiming the government did it is retarded. However, claiming it may have known stuff before it happened and haven't done shit about it because they didn't find the threat believable enough is an ok claim in my book.

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;39178684]you understand that's a beretta M93R in that video, right? a fully-automatic pistol. the killer was using a semi-auto pistol at sandy hook iirc. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c&t=27s[/url]

[QUOTE=Swebonny;39178606][url]http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html[/url] Sounds reasonable. It even looks like a shotgun.[/QUOTE] You can even see a shell eject once the officer clears the chamber.

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;39179165]Craigewan is thinking critically and dismissing the minimal circumstantial evidence that the shooting was staged...[/QUOTE] not dude you aren't thinking ~~critically~~ unless you consider both sides for a very long time welcome to american politics

[QUOTE=tyanet;39179514]You can even see a shell eject once the officer clears the chamber.[/QUOTE] It's obviously not an AR-15 in that particular video because the officer is yanking on a charging handle on the side of the receiver instead of from the rear.

Holy fuck, what the hell happened to Facepunch? If anything ever proved the government put stuff in the water to make us stupid, it's that Chewinggum got 17 agrees.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;39179591]Holy fuck, what the hell happened to Facepunch? If anything ever proved the government put stuff in the water to make us stupid, it's that Chewinggum got 17 agrees.[/QUOTE] Questioning events makes us stupid, okay.

I don't think the shooting was staged, but I like the guys attitude towards it. I think questioning what happens around us is a healthy way of thinking.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;39179625]Questioning events makes us stupid, okay.[/QUOTE] I guess you also think George Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans like that other professor thought. Actually, I know you do, because that theory was far more plausible.

Finally, a conspiracy theorist that isn't a total nut and at least provides (some) evidence to back his claim up.

Just another nut, why are we payin him attention? This was his goal, to get reported in to make himself seem significant.

[QUOTE=Wyvers;39179689]I don't think the shooting was staged, but I like the guys attitude towards it. I think questioning what happens around us is a healthy way of thinking.[/QUOTE]Except, frankly, that isn't what he is doing. He's drawing a conclusion, then trying to work the incident to make it fit that conclusion. He's working it backwards. [editline]11th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=wickedplayer494;39179786]Finally, a conspiracy theorist that isn't a total nut and at least provides (some) evidence to back his claim up.[/QUOTE]They almost all provide what you might in some form call evidence. The problem is, they twist it and pervert it so that it fits the conclusion they want.

I can't even read this garbage. Even if it was a conspiracy none of you were there and the only supportive evidence is more than likely on the news or internet. So even if it didn't happen (chances are it did.) the outlet for information isn't exactly 100% reliable. Plus I can't even enjoy it because every new post I read about conspiritors/big foot/9/11 my mind is just like, "BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS." That's my opinion anyway.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;39179716]I guess you also think George Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans like that other professor thought. Actually, I know you do, because that theory was far more plausible.[/QUOTE]Yeah no. We're discussing possible options instead of blindly taking what's fed to us. You don't know shit about what I think so don't spout bullshit please.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;39179889]Yeah no. We're discussing possible options instead of blindly taking what's fed to us. You don't know shit about what I think so don't spout bullshit please.[/QUOTE] You're blindly taking this article.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;39179806]Except, frankly, that isn't what he is doing. He's drawing a conclusion, then trying to work the incident to make it fit that conclusion. He's working it backwards. [/QUOTE] So what conclusion is that? Correct me if I'm wrong but he doesn't say "I believe THIS happened", he's saying "I believe this MAY have happened" which like I said, is simply questioning.