Josh Heuer
Active Member
That's the information they were given by the police. The police misidentified the shooter as Ryan Lanza initially. That's just how it went down. But that's probably a topic for another thread.
- Status
deirdre
Senior Member.
you mean like "police" "told them" Peter Lanza was dead in New Jersey?
Josh Heuer
Active Member
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you please be a little more specific? And I'm not sure what Peter Lanza has to do with this.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
And that's exactly what you're doing; twisting things around. This is exactly the kind of semantic bullshit argument that perpetuates and adds confusion to this ridiculous conspiracy.
The cops always suspected Adam Lanza, the dead kid with the self inflicted gun shot wounds, to be the killer. They never suspected the brother (Ryan Lanza), and more to the point, they never suspected the parents.
deirdre
Senior Member.
my point is your 'speculation' and the 'no tears' speculation are all based on what particular articles or tv reporters you watched. all based on what reporters CHOSE to show or not show.
if you had prefaced your statement with "the media reported that Ryan Lanza blahblah blah" that would have been accurate. People need to learn not to believe every thing reporters say (or don't say). They need to learn "a source close to the investigation' does not necessarily mean a cop. and maybe we would have less conspiracies. (big maybe, but still)
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Except they found Ryan Lanza's ID and they misidentified the body as being Ryan Lanza. They didn't 'always suspect Adam Lanza' because they didn't know who the body was; having Ryan's ID, they assumed it to be Ryan.
Please get your facts straight if you're going to get angry and use vulgar language.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
I've never speculated about the no tears thing (don't lump me in there to make it look like I did) and I'm not speculating about this. The media got their information from law enforcement who MISIDENTIFIED THE BODY.
It was a mistake. Just like what you guys are making now. It happens.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Sementics.
deirdre
Senior Member.
if that's true, you must have some proof of that.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Semantics? What? That's what happened, for crying out loud!
Josh Heuer
Active Member
The simple fact of the matter is there was a brief period where police had identified the body as Ryan Lanza due to there being his identification on the body. News outlets quickly picked this up, starting with CNN, the rest basically copying the story and following suit. Within hours it was retracted because obviously it just wasn't true. In fact, some of the articles are still out there on the net for you to read.
deirdre
Senior Member.
just saying I heard later on that ryans license was found at the home. I imiagine its in the police files if anyone cares enough to search through them for the real facts on the issue.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
You experts might want to change wikipedia's article on Sandy Hook then.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
Apologies, anyone?Police sources initially reported Lanza's sibling, Ryan Lanza, as the perpetrator. This was likely because the perpetrator was carrying his brother's identification, Ryan toldThe Jersey Journal.[85]
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
No. 
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Psh. I'll let this one slide. But I know I'm right on this one.No.
I just can't believe some of you seasoned debunkers would try to argue against this with no sources or proof.
deirdre
Senior Member.
you have no proof yet. heres an article dec 14 2012 at 5 pm that says RYAN speculated his brother might have had his ID. again I'm sure identifying adam is in the police files if you want to go through them.
But the point is {speculation based on media report} . just like people are doing with the 'no tears' scenario...NOT saying you support the 'no tears conspiracy'!Jersey Journal staff writer Brett Wilshesaid he has spoken with Ryan Lanza, who told Wilshe the shooter may have had his identification http://gothamist.com/2012/12/14/photos_videos_what_we_know_about_al.php
Josh Heuer
Active Member
But the media reports were based on what law enforcement said! Maybe you can create a thread to debunk all the news articles that make that claim...
A source close to the media could just be a police scanner. Police find an ID and run the name while media are listening to the police on the scanners. They hear a name and run with it.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Sorry, but there's really no "there" there.
When authorities reached the scene, there was little question but that the guy with the fatal headshot wound,
--surrounded by a Sig 9mm, a Bushmaster and a Glock--was the shooter.
They had no idea at the time whether his name was Ryan Lanza or Adam Lanza and it did not matter.
One disturbed brother shot up a school, the other had nothing to do with it…any reasonable person can tell the difference.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Of course. We all know that. And the initial thought was that it was Ryan Lanza. It was a mistake. It was corrected very shortly after the fact. But it did happen and it did get into the media. There's no denying that.
That's all I'm saying. Mr./Mrs. Trigger Hippie asked who was suspected of the incident. Initially, it was Ryan Lanza. Fact.
This Ryan Lanza discussion is a bit off topic and really seems like a semantics argument - you can look up in Wikipedia what happened with Ryan. If anyone think's it's important beyond that, then start a new thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
Police sources initially reported Lanza's sibling, Ryan Lanza, as the perpetrator. This was likely because the perpetrator was carrying his brother's identification, Ryan told The Jersey Journal.[85] Lanza's brother voluntarily submitted to questioning by New Jersey State Police, Connecticut State Police, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Police said he was not considered a suspect, and he was not taken into custody.[11][86]
JRBids
Senior Member.
I think the mere suggestion they are "actors" is so absurd as to be dismissed.
JRBids
Senior Member.
What does that momentary mistake prove?
Nothing, and it's off topic.
Bruno D.
Senior Member.
It actually proves A LOT!! It proves how earlyer reports 99% of the times have errors, as expected, and it proves that everyone that claims that late corrections to the story are not "suspicious changes to the story" are potentially wrong, and that when they choose to do not disclose information before getting more data, they are really trying to avoid noise, and not "hiding anything".
You asked twice and none of the Hoaxers replied. Allow me.
Where is the blood? Where is a photo of her dead son? No photo means no dead son so that's why she didn't cry. Proving she is an actor.
It hurts to get inside their heads.
Not a single tear from any family member:
One thing some Hoaxers claim is that you never ever have heard a SH parent mentioning any other issue other than gun control, like school safety one said. I pointed out the prior video to him several times which he admitted watching and he continued to say that he has "never heard any of the SH parents mention anything other than control and not one of them has ever shed a tear." Seriously. I really am starting to wonder who has the bigger problem, conspiracy theorists or the people that talk to them.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Please review the posting guidelines. Throwing up videos with one or two word questions is a violation of them.
deirdre
Senior Member.
it's doubtful that anyone who believes SH could be just a town of bad actors faking it, will click your links. if you need help with screenshots because you are on an internet phone, message me with timestamps and i'll snap them for you.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
What we have here.. is a failure to communicate.
We, as a western society, have gotten SO used to media representations of how people react to disaster or tragedy that we -think- we know how they should act, or not act. Talk to any Cop, or any Detective and they'll tell you there's a difference between being cold and distant and being withdrawn. There is no one size fits all state emotional reaction to situations.. everyone's different. Some people make a huge thing out of it (kind of like you see when a kid gets killed in a Spike Lee film).. and then you have people that show no emotion in public, but fall apart in private.
The second category is much more common than you think... Police, Fireman, EMTs, Paramedics, Doctors ande Nurses are prime examples of how this emotional reaction works. Often times you'll see them laughing or joking around at the scene of a horrible accident, or in the hospital after someone's died when theyve been working to save them for hours. Its how they cope. Sandy Hook, is absolutely NO different. You're taking people and throwing them into a situation theyve never faced, with an emotional burden that overwhelms the mind and the senses. Their entire world just came crashing down around their feet, but people get upset because they "didnt react like they were supposed to."
Having lost some of the best friends Ive ever had in combat, you could say the same thing about me. I didnt wail, I didnt cry, I didnt show any emotion what so ever.. I looked at the person delivering the news and said ... "oh.. well... shit." When I got HOME, on the other hand.. I got drunk and didnt come out of my house for two days. When ppl saw me in public before and after, youd never have guessed.
So for you to sit there and say that its faked JUST because they "dont act right" is about the biggest amount of BS you can come across, and it shows and absolute lack of empathy... period. It doesnt matter whether you believe or not.. you can think its a false flag all you want to.. but until you walk a mile in the shoes of those individuals and then have people accuse you of being an actor for some imaginary conspiracy while you're trying to deal with the loss of your loved one... you might want to think twice about casting judgement or even opening your mouth.
Pyschology is a fickle thing, you cant just LOOK at someone and go "yep, theres no emotion there." It doesnt work that way.. You can learn that on the first day of Psych 101.
deirdre
Senior Member.
I think people are misunderstanding Brocky because of his approach.
based on his videos that PROVE there were (are still) tears/deep pain
and the families don't JUST advocate for gun control,
I'm assuming he meant his first post as 'sarcasm' ...hence the 'it hurts to get inside their heads'.
yea but you'd only know that if you watch the videos which, @Brocky , most people wont do without some text explanation of what's in it.
based on his videos that PROVE there were (are still) tears/deep pain
and the families don't JUST advocate for gun control,
I'm assuming he meant his first post as 'sarcasm' ...hence the 'it hurts to get inside their heads'.
yea but you'd only know that if you watch the videos which, @Brocky , most people wont do without some text explanation of what's in it.
I understand. My reply was to Adac who made the comment "Notice Something" referring to a interview of the Soto family in which no tears were shown. My response to him was posting a video of the Kowalskis with my comment "Notice something" referring to Rebecca Kowalski crying tears that are shown. 1:06 in the video.
I thought the whole quote from Adac with only my two words was sufficient. Watching it again and reading the comment from Deirdre I now understand I was mistaken.
Yes indeed what we have here is a failure to communicate. And it is all my fault for not communicating properly.
I understand perfectly that everyone does not have the same kind of emotional reactions to events and that some people show emotion and deal with emotion differently than others. I've been saying it often to people in the last year. You explain it very well. Myself, when I've lost someone close I've also gotten drunk for two days and not left the house. When people saw me in public before or after they were sure that I was overcome with grief. I can't handle that kind of thing well.
I know for a fact that Sandy Hook was a real massacre. Nothing is fake. I never doubted the first time I heard about it and in the last nearly a year I've looked in depth into all the BS there is about it. I've spent hundreds of hours on it. What the Hoaxers call evidence and anomalies are so ridiculous and elementary that I am ashamed of saying the time I've wasted. I could have just as easily been wasting my life looking for alien reptilian shape shifters on the dark side of the moon. (I don't believe in them and it would be as big a waste of time.) Then I find you guys, who would have saved me much time if I had known about you earlier.
There are some photos and video of some of the parents that were caught on camera on that Friday at the firehouse. You can clearly see that all are showing deep emotional distress and that they are indeed crying. The video camera was across the street from the firehouse and it is not in HD. The tears are indeed there but the shots are taken too far away to see them. It is ridiculously sad that Hoaxers say there are no tears. In all the videos I posted, above, tears are clearly shown. I think deirdre might be posting clips showing the tears or something.
NoParty
Senior Member.
You had me at: "...you guys, who would have saved me much time if I had known about you earlier."
Yes, this site can be a wonderful time saver...discovering that so-called "evidence" from conspiracy fans
was long ago examined and debunked...freeing you to have more free time to run and jump and play.
On the other hand, you risk kicking some of that gained time right back, finding yourself reading up
on a "Quantum Energy Breakthrough" that is absurd...but as hard to turn away from as a train wreck.
Gotta learn to pick your spots.
Welcome, btw.Yes, I was being sarcastic. Blood and dead bodies from a crime scene are never shown to the public as far as I'm aware. But... Hoaxers say it is unusual that no blood or dead bodies from Sandy Hook were shown which means, to them, there wasn't any. You can show them blood in the school and Lanza house and explain that photos of homicide victims, especially minors, are never shown to the public and you still end up exactly where you started. They make my head hurt.
Svartbjørn
Senior Member.
nono.. sorry Brock, that was my bad.. it wasnt meant as a response to you directly but more of a commentary on how people in the US respond to what they see on TV.. I had no intention of that being directed at YOU specifically.. the word you, thats seen in that post, was meant as a collective, not as singular. I was agreeing with your sentiment.
- Status
Similar threads
