ed note–in the wake of the disasterous decision by certain persons within the ‘troof movement’ to embrace inane conspiracy theories surrounding Sandy Hook, such as ‘the Mossad did it’ or the equally ridiculous ‘it never happened’ and the manner by which this has now all been given front-page coverage in the JMSM, we can expect more and more instances such as the one described below to take place in order to further alienate/incriminate the 9/11 truth movement and make everyone associated with these groups appear like wackos.
A woman had been arrested for defacing a famous painting at France’s Louvre-Lens gallery, writing ‘AE911Truth’ at the bottom of the painting.
The woman had scribbled the writing, which is related to a website called as ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’, on the celebrated ‘La Liberty guidant le Peuple’ (Liberty leading the people) painting, which was painted by French artist Eugene Delacroix in 1830, New York Daily News reports.
Fortunately, the Louvre had confirmed that it has managed to save the painting as the black marker had not penetrated the upper layer of varnish and has been successfully removed.
According to the supporters of the website which had led to the defacing, they are seeking to establish the truth of the September 11, 2001 suicide airliner attacks on New York’s Twin Towers.
Expressing his consternation over the incident, Vincent Pomarede, head of the Louvre’s painting department, said that the painting has become an icon and a symbol for France and has remained famous throughout the ages.
Pomarede added that it becomes difficult to handle such an incident as the gallery has strong relationships with its paintings.
Painted in 1830, the work was on loan from the main Louvre in Paris to the new 150 million euro Louvre-Lens gallery in northern France inaugurated in December 2012 by French President Francois Hollande.
Delacroix’s “Liberty Leading the People” was painted after the 1830 July Revolution as a symbol of reconciliation following the overthrow of Bourbon King Charles X and the ascent to the throne of his cousin Louis-Philippe, Duke of Orleans.
#1 by Pedro Ali Alves on February 12, 2013 - 4:29 pm
salaam alaikum brothrs and sisters..its me ALI contributor to SHOAH.ORG.UK
see this most recent revelation froma mossad agent on mossads missed target for assassination list of 2012 ,enjoy… .(MERCENARY) MOSSAD AGENT MICHAEL ROSS : Top Ten Missed Targets for Assassination of 2012
1. Bashar al-Assad http://thenakedfacts.blogspot.com/2013/02/assad-1-on-mossad-agents-wish-hitlist.html
then also see… dont miss this list next .. http://israhellhatessyriasassad.blogspot.com/
enjoy ,salaam ,ALI ALVES
#2 by annebeck58 on February 12, 2013 - 5:05 pm
This is ridiculous. Who is this woman? What was her angle?
As an artist, I cannot fathom someone walking into the Louvre and doing such a thing– and in marker? Surely, it is meant to make any and all who don’t accept the (stupid) US government’s story on 9-11 as INSANE. Who, but an insane person, would take it upon herself to deface such a painting?
(She may not be clinically insane, but she has a screw loose, and is probably a bit affected by evil.)
#3 by bostonblah on February 12, 2013 - 7:19 pm
probably a jew or jew put her up to it, or the story is fabricated to demonize the 911 truth movement
not enough information here to know for sure
#4 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 12, 2013 - 10:32 pm
The sense for me here is an Agent Provocateur. Someone with malicious intent towards those who see the various angles & twists by the Jewish fanatic machine at work behind the veil. I am loathe at using labels such as ‘Truther’ ’9/11 Truth Movement’ ‘Conspiracy Theorists’; etc for obvious reasons. Our detractors have been waiting for any opportunity to paint us all into the ‘Silly Corner’ and the use of monickers as above mentioned; play right into their hands. We are most certainly free to express our disdain for such tactics. Same for those who do not put to use their own basic wit. It’s best to go over events like Sandy Hook with a most critical eye before submitting a ‘theory’ on them. But hey; that’s only common sense. If we hope to remain a solid, credible and above all sane ‘group’ as it were it would be wise to slow down and assess everything with a healthy dose of skepticism and an equal measure of critical thinking first! Let’s not give ‘them’ the very weapon we intend to use to shoot down ‘their’ silly conspiracy theories; to be used against us with such ease.
#5 by amerikagulag on February 12, 2013 - 10:38 pm
Gotta go with Boston. Someone put her up to it. An attempt to discredit A&E …..BUT it might backfire if people begin looking into what they have. They’re a very credible group.
#6 by sea on February 12, 2013 - 11:19 pm
I am going to have to disagree with you on this one, Mark.
What greater honour could Liberty’s art have, than a graffiti signature stating AE911truth.org?
Just because you wouldn’t do it, doesn’t mean we’re the crazy ones! =)
ed note–If I was a painter who had spent a LOT of time and energy (and remember, painters/artists etc usually only receive notoriety AFTER they are dead, so we can assume he barely eeked out a living doing what he did) I would be pretty ticked if someone did this.
Furthermore, if I had money and had purchased this painting because I happened to like it a lot, I’d be pretty ticked if someone did this.
If these are the tactics that must be employed in getting the truth out, meaning to deface works of art, in the age of the internet where literally anyone can say anything they want at any time with no one stopping them, then we are in a very sad state of affairs in terms of a ‘movement’ for truth.
#7 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 12, 2013 - 11:36 pm
Well said Mark. The defacing of such works is or in the very least, should be unthinkable. i The are National Treasures, in other words the collective property of everyone and we all have an investment in them. They are not open billboards for our ‘discourse’. That is a given. And anyone who truly understands what it takes to manifest such fine work would never dream of defacing them.
#8 by Daniel Noel on February 13, 2013 - 12:35 am
sea makes a very good point. As much as “freedom guiding the people” was a good idea a few hundred years ago, “9/11 Truth guiding the people” is arguably a better idea nowadays: it is simple, concrete, straightforward. Besides, http://www.global-platonic-theater.com claims to demonstrate that 9/11 Truth is the most pragmatic and most promising guide for humanity.
Love,
#9 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 13, 2013 - 12:51 am
“”Woman defaces famous Louvre painting
Usually only fakes are displayed! A good precaution from thieves and vandals!
BAFS
#10 by annebeck58 on February 13, 2013 - 3:21 am
Absolutely, Shadow; Mark is right.
And people are still droning on about that CT garbage.. It still makes truthers seem amazingly stupid and gullible.
(back to the post).. “The Louvre displays fakes”– not exactly. if ANY art museum displayed fakes, there would be no point going to view same paintings there. The reason to go IS to see (comprehend) the hand of these masters. And one is not going to see that in a FAKE.
That’s probably one of the most ridiculous things I’ve seen written online in a long time.
(Yes, they have very rarely displayed fakes, generally when under construction, but I know of no art gallery or museum that would ever display fakes on a regular basis.. hahaha!)
#11 by sea on February 13, 2013 - 6:45 am
Someone should have gotten a picture of it.
Fnck all material things of imaginary value. See how they care more about a inanimate object, calling it priceless, than they do about the mass-murdering crime of 9/11, and subsequent genocide in Iraq, ww3ot, etc..
Try not to be so lawfully pessimistic =P
#12 by fz on February 13, 2013 - 6:54 pm
most likely a cia, mossad, or mi6 agent. with sandy hook and now this, there seems to be a coordinated effort to discred the truth movement. yes, you are right. but, some folks on this site make too big a deal out of it and spend too much time on sandy hook. keep cool, it will wear off and this new campaign to discredit the truth movement shall fail, just like all the rest.
just enjoy the spotlight. and with this woman putting ae911truth.org, which is a most scientific and most successful site demanding investigation, is a contradiction to this person’s behavior. thus, further increasing the possibility that the woman who has done this is most likely an agent of the system.
#13 by annebeck58 on February 13, 2013 - 7:36 pm
It can have two effects.
Either people who’ve never heard of AE911Truth will look it up.
Or, people who see all truthers as tin-foil hat wearing Troofers, will have more ammo to say, “look at these people- they are crazy, and she IS one of them”.
But, it will blow-over, regardless.
I bet the person who found and/or cleaned it did photograph it. I’d like to see a pic, just to know how large or small the lettering was. Still, I think it’s mostly bad for the truth-movement, even if a temporary setback.
#14 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 13, 2013 - 10:15 pm
Yes Anne! I have never visited nor heard of any Art Museums displaying ‘Fakes’. What a deluded and dumb comment! In any Museum around the world where such fine Art Exhibits can be seen and shared by all; the Artists who created such wonders are honored. Many posthumously. Why would there be a need to display a fake? The very idea is beyond preposterous and anyone making such claims is an idiot.
#15 by Christopher Marlowe on February 14, 2013 - 10:29 pm
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Sandy Hook, and it is kind of retarded to include SH in the opening paragraph. It is equally silly to mock the “Truth Movement” by adopting the “troof” monicker used by the retards who still believe the official story of 9/11.
If this was truly a sort of “false-flag” operation meant to cast AE9/11 in a bad light, it could have been done regardless of anyone’s thoughts regarding SH. Or israel. Or Afghanistan. There are always going to be government disinfo agents disrupting investigations. Look at the Kennedy assassination.
It’s interesting how some people will say that they don’t want to debate Sandy Hook, but will use desperate and baseless arguments like this when Sandy Hook is not even relevant. Is that a sign of a guilty conscience? Passive aggression? Why do all these ink blots look like sex?
–ed note–it has EVERYTHING to do with Sandy Hook.
In its aftermath, a few sane voices amongst the ‘truth’movement were telling people to slow down and not get wound up in conspiracy theories such as ‘the mossad did it’ or the equally ridiculous ‘it never happened’, warning that it was a trap that would eventually be used by the powers that be to discredit the 9/11 movement, as well as all other ‘movements’ dedicated to exposing the official lies of USS LIBERTY, JFK, etc.
Within days of this warning being issued (and ignored) the JMSM was linking ‘Sandy Hookers’ with those who also questioned the official line viz a viz 9/11, JFK, etc. It is now common parlance to link those of the Sandy Hook conspiracy variety with other items where headway was being made in waking up the masses.
So, I ask you, Inspector, WHO stands to benefit from something like the defacing of the Delacroix painting? WHO?
The answer is simple–those who are seeking to discredit the truth movement, and who are also using as part of that strategy linking the absolute inanity of Sandy Hookism alongside 9/11.
#16 by annebeck58 on February 15, 2013 - 12:35 am
Yes, Chritopher; it IS about anything that makes the truth-movement look NUTTS. And this Sandy-Hook Conspiracy (and all of the conspiracies surrounding it) has been put into place, generally by the “other side”, in order to cause problems for all of us.
Once you realise that most of what you’ve read or been led to believe as, “truth”, of Sandy Hook is simply more garbage, and see with a more suspecting eye, you comprehend that staying away from “no dead children”, to, “parents did not cry”, to, “it’s all about gun-control”, is the more intelligent path.
Or, you can keep buying into the trash and making every single truth, including that of 9-11, appear to be INSANE THINKING, by even more insane thinkers. As I said, fairly soon into this, I do not believe Mossad had a thing to do with Sandy Hook, but can they use it? of course they CAN, and I believe they have done so.
#17 by annebeck58 on February 15, 2013 - 12:35 am
(ps, sorry, I meant to go back and fix that: “Christopher”. Mea culpa for my typo)
#18 by Carlos on February 15, 2013 - 7:50 am
Good for that lady. Who cares about a POS painting when your waking people up to the truth. If 10,000 people hear of this story, and 5,000 decide to go to the site, and 2,500 people learn what the site has to say, that would be good. But, what if 1,000 people realize the 9-11 sham and 500 out of them look into other lies like the holocaust, and USS Liberty. If it leads to even 1 person looking to the falsehoods of the public fool system and wondering why evolution is still taught in schools when the data fits the evidences of the Creation model… and that 1 person finds the love and saving grace of God, then who here cares about a picture? If you do then feel free to paint another.
ed note–people ask me often why I have such a jaded view of ‘the movement’ and for our prospects of waking people up to the problems associated with organized Jewish power. The above comment is a prime example as to why.
This stunt is as stupid as those featuring individuals strutting around various towns in america armed with AR15s in the aftermath of the various massacres at Aurora and Sandy Hook. They (as well as a few of the equally-stupid of their followers) thought they were ‘making a point’ in scaring everyone half to death. All they proved was how stupid they are when it comes to strategy.
There is absolutely NOTHING to be gained for the movement with something like this and the proof of it is how much our enemies piss their pants with glee everytime something like this happens, whether it be defacing a painting at the Louvre or strutting around with AR15s in public.
And the fact that this needs any kind of elaborate explanation is reason enough for anyone with half an ounce of sense to disentangle themselves from this ‘movement’ and to try and live a semi-productive/semi-fulfilling life doing something else besides pro-truth activism.
#19 by Christopher Marlowe on February 15, 2013 - 8:52 am
Anne, what does 9/11 have to do with Sandy Hook (SH)? What does A&E9/11 have to do with SH? Or the Louvre? Do you believe in the holohoax? Does that make 9/11 look bad? Do you believe in the moon landings? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0hOiasRsrA
Does not believing in the moon landings make 9/11 Truth look bad?
Does believing that the CNN Hezarkhani video is a fake because a building cannot heal itself up after a plane cuts through it like buttter….does that make 9/11 truth look bad? Does believing that there was no plane at the pentagon make 9/11 Truth look bad?
As for -ed up above: you are referring to the story that Veterans Today ran, and that Press TV picked up. I can’t answer for either of those journals. You would know more about PressTV than I do. But doubting the official story of SH is not the same as blaming a mossad hit squad without any proof. I can give plenty of reasons to doubt the official story of SH, and with good cause. Here’s one: People are “debunking” the story about a second shooter, and claiming that it was just Adam Lanza. But if that were the case, the forensics would be VERY simple. ‘One shooter’ means the path of destruction would have followed AL into the school, and ended with the gun at his temple. But on Dec 27th, the DA of Connecticut files a motion to seal the search warrants to 90 days because of other possible suspects and also the possibility of danger to people cooperating with the investigation. Either: the forensics were not so simple that a single shooter could not be determined after two weeks; or the CT DA is lying. Take your pick. But am I crazy for doubting what the media tells me? It seems to me that I would be a retard if I did believe them. I’m not good at the double think.
So I ask you inspector: just because some lady defaced a stupid Delacoix painting (that glamorizes a stupid revolution that dragged France into the gutter, and that the Blessed Mother warned against http://www.marys-touch.com/Saints/medal/medal.htm)….what does that have to do with Sandy Hook? If Sandy Hook never happened, are you going to tell me that some lady could not have done this? Couldn’t she have done exactly the same thing? You’re nodding your head yes, which means that Sandy Hook had NOTHING to do with this.
Further, even though you and I know that 9/11 was a hoax, that doesn’t stop Gordon Duff or Press TV from writing some story about 9/11 that has no proof to back it up. e.g. Martians did 9/11. So irresponsible journalism does not prove that the story is false or true.
To my knowledge Sandy Hook has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither do the Apollo landings. Or the holohoax. Maybe you should write up a big permission board about what is okay to believe in, and what is not okay. And don’t bother with anything like proof. Just your simple authority should suffice.
ed note–ok, let’s try this again, real slow…
The insane conspiracy theories following Sandy Hook–WHICH WERE NOT BEING ADOPTED BY MERELY A FEW PEOPLE OUT THERE ON THE FRINGE, BUT RATHER BY ENTIRE SWATHS–have now been linked by the JMSM to OTHER ‘conspiracy theories’ such as 9/11, JFK and a whole host of other items that the truth movement has been trying years now to get the public to consider.
The Sandy Hook ‘Truthers’–as they have now been dubbed by the JMSM, are now joined at the hip with those researching/exposing 9/11, USS LIBERTY, JFK, etc. Therefore, when someone scrawls ae911truth across a painting at the Louvre, all the aforementioned groups that were effectively lumped in together in the aftermath of Sandy Hook are silently indicted together.
It is a process similar to the NRA bashing that is taking place now in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. Was the NRA responsible or in anyway involved in SH? No. Does this matter to an easily-propagandized public with no critical thinking skills? No.
And you are just kidding yourself if you think that this process–linking the nuttiness of SH with 9/11 is not taking place.
#20 by Christopher Marlowe on February 15, 2013 - 6:56 pm
Dear -ed, I note that you don’t reply to the points I made because they eviscerate your argument. In re: ‘debunking’ more than one shooter; the motion in support of sealing the warrants for 90 days, signed by the DA of Connecticut two weeks after the Sandy Hook incident unsealing warrants in the Sandy Hook case might “seriously jeopardize” the investigation by disclosing information known only to other “potential suspects.” The DA wrote that unsealing the warrants would also “identify persons cooperating with the investigation, thus possibly jeopardizing their personal safety and well-being.” Maybe you should write the DA and tell him that the case has already been solved, and that there is no reason to HIDE THE INFORMATION.
Your other distinctions are vague and not supported. You say “insane conspiracy theories following Sandy Hook” without distinguishing them from other theories. Is it insane to posit that the government agencies conspired to hide every piece of evidence that a shooting happened at the school? Is it insane to note that the CT police scanner was scrambled, or that the emergency radio network was switched over to a new system 5 hours before the SH incident? http://govtslaves.info/33-changes-to-the-connecticut-statewide-emergency-radio-network-hours-before-the-sandy-hook-shooting/
Or that a woman’s daughter’s photo was taken from facebook and posted by the media as one of the shooting victims? http://govtslaves.info/cathy-gaubert-claims-her-daughters-photo-was-stolen-from-flicker-and-used-as-sandy-hook-shooting-victim/
Or that there were TWO government exercises similar to Sandy Hook taking place at the exact same time and only 30 minutes away?
1. DHS/FEMA “Children in Disaster Drill”: http://www.ct.gov/demhs/ical/calendar.asp?date=12%2F14%2F2012&calendar_ID=0
2. Putnam County Sheriff Active Shooter In a School Drill http://southeast.patch.com/articles/sheriff-putnam-officials-to-talk-school-safety-this-afternoon
Which of those facts is insane to notice? Is it insane to notice that the 7/7 bombings took place at the exact time as a drill that envisioned that exact scenario? Or that the 9/11 commission report mentions a drill involving a plane was was supposed to take off from Dulles Airport and crash into the NRO building at the exact time flight 77 supposedly crashed into the Pentagon?
Please explain why all of these FACTS surrounding Sandy Hook are merely coincidence, but the all of the similar coincidences surrounding 9/11 are significant.
Also you have some measure of a “swath” of people, without offering any proof of how you measured this swath. Is a swath more than a cubit?
Sandy Hook ‘Truthers’ have been joined at the hip with 9/11 ‘Truthers’ by the media, but you fail to note that the 9/11 Truth movement has ALWAYS been painted by the media as nutjobs. The media paints all conspiracy theorist as nutjobs. Perhaps this is due to the fact that ALL of the media is owned by 6 corporations that are controlled by Jews. Is that a conspiracy? Do you think that if people stop talking about Sandy Hook, that the Jews who run the media will sell of their interests and let the goyim run the TV and Radio?
Your next argument is very strange: you are somehow trying to relate the bashing of the NRA to Sandy Hook theorists being linked to 9/11? You are blaming a public with no thinking skills, but you fail to note that they have been PROGRAMMED to lack thinking skills. The public is trained to be perpetually confused by “double think”. This comes from watching the Jewish TV. This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook either.
I don’t question that SH is being linked to 9/11, but the Jewish media has also linked Apollo moon landing theories to 9/11 theories. Questioning the moon landings sounds nutty, but personally, I think that anyone who believes that we actually went to the moon is the one living in a fantasy. Although it might “sound nutty” to question the Apollo missions, the assertion of “nuttiness” actually holds zero substantive value. Asserting that Apollo conspiracies are “nutty” does not prove that the landings were real. Proving something is done with evidence and with logic. I notice that people who lack evidence must rely on ad hominem and specious arguments.
Your argument fails because you can’t show how the lady wouldn’t have defaced a painting even without a Sandy Hook Truth movement; or that the media has ever or would ever take 9/11 Truth seriously. Go check you calendar and find out that 9/11 happened over 11 years ago. After ignoring the facts of 9/11 for 11 years, the Jewish media was not on the verge of acknowledging a 9/11 conspiracy theory just before the “swath” of Sandy Hook Truthers.
ed note–the only thing that has been ‘eviscerated’ is your credibility in posting (a) DELIBERATELY PLANTED ‘evidence’ pointing to a ‘conspiracy’ involving Sandy Hook and (b) pieces of information strung together in the interests of appeasing the conspiracy theorists’ sense of wishful speculation.
As far as Sandy Hook being linked with 9/11 truthers from the beginning–WRONG. Only after a sizable portion of people involved with the 9/11 movement started embracing insane conspiracy theories about the Mossad and about SH being a ‘non-event’ was the link made.
As far as the JMSM being on the verge of acknowledging 911–NO ONE EVER SAID IT OR EVEN INTIMATED IT. The JMSM has avoided the various 9/11 theories for fear of the verifiable information leading reasonable people to speculate Israel’s role in it all, including the 5 dancing Israelis.
Glad you brought up the ‘moonies’ meaning those who who have made debunking the moon landing as their forte–like the Sandy Hookers, these people are also a liability and give the JMSM everything they need to make us look like idiots. The only difference being that there is no sense of emotional attachment and moral revulsion on the part of mainstream America to the moonies like there is towards the Sandy Hookers. As soon as people started claiming that SH never happened, that the parents were ‘crisis actors’ and that there were no dead children, it was a done deal as far as the 9/11 movement’s credibility was concerned.
Depressing as hell that something as simple as this really needs a lot of explanation here.
#21 by annebeck58 on February 15, 2013 - 8:15 pm
Christopher:
What does Sandy Hook Conspiracy and 9-11 Conspiracy have to do with one another? Answer– the PEOPLE who have gone there, over the top, in their assessment(s) of Sandy Hook (and some would argue, 911, too). It’s the people who see, “the devil”, in the smoke from the towers; the same individuals who believe (til this day) that one man essentially skiid from the top (or close to it) of one tower to the ground, and was completely uninjured. It’s those who’ve said 911 was coming and we should have all known this, based on the pyramid and eye on the back of our currency. That IS the problem. They make us 911-truthers look like the troofers we get called so often.
And, funny enough; I drove my son’s car today. He had the radio set to a very popular station, and what came on? Rush Limbaugh. Old Rush was talking about Sandy Hook and all of the crazy theories and he said, “it’s the same idiots who believe in the 9-11 conspiracy theories”, and he went off on the usual tangents that these conspiracy-ADDICTS have come up with. This IS a problem!!
Today, I also received a note from a friend. It included a video (which was so stupid, the uploader and anyone who passes it on should be called, “Stoopit”..) about Gene R (cannot recall the last name), the guy who is a retired shrink and, it seems, has sold a house (they are calling him a real-estate agent!) and happened to be home to find a group of small children outside of his home and took them in to keep them safe. What was the point of the video? From what I can surmise; Gene sold a house. Therefore, Gene is a real estate aegent,and somehoe; Gene IS a “POS Actor”. Now, I don’t know how that leap was made, but it was. I mean, some people have said, “what was this ‘actor’ doing at home in the middle of the day?!?”, like this is proof enough that the guy was and is an actor for the CIA and, probably (based on his Jewish name) MOSSAD! The truth is, in fact, the guy is RETIRED, and if in his retirement he wants to sell his house or help anyone else sell their house(s) or even take a course or two in real-estate, what is so very strange and/or covert about this?
I will never defend the news, and I will never say they get everything/ anything right. They get a LOT wrong, but they rarely get something right. In the moments following Sandy Hook, a lot of rumors, innuendo, and utter garbage was posted online and on the telly, and it turned out much of it was stupid and trash. For people, in the truth-movement, to seize upon errors made by people who all wanted to be the first out there (to have their bylines used by all of the world), and make up the INSANE conspiracies regarding same is, STOOPIT.
And they do make all of us look nutts. These people have no facts, whatsoever, to confirm their theories, yet the put this horrible stuff out there as if they had all the proof in the world.
And, the rest of MSM (trash, of course) grabs that stuff and reports it in kind.
Seriously; the insane blood-bath over mistakes (which ALL media has ALWAYS reported and had to retract) is CRAZY. It makes us all SEEM as crazy by association, too, and this means people won’t listen to us on anything, including– especially- 9/11.
Is this clear, yet?
#22 by annebeck58 on February 15, 2013 - 8:32 pm
Oh, and #4; Shadowhawk,
Completely valid, all of it. Maybe Christopher should read what you wrote, and consider what it means. It seems to me, the truth-movement has been fractured, and Sandy Hook was the implement with which this was done. I don’t know if there’s any way of repairing this, particularly because Sandy Hook craziness is STILL so high on the priority list of those who would work so hard against intelligent thought.
I wish I could get Christopher to comprehend why it is a problem, as well as why this defacing of a master’s work is so problematic; Mark, you, and I, have all tried to explain it. But, it seems we’re getting nowhere. Christopher’s posting of links (to garbage with NOTHING but bunk) is further evidence that the truth-movement, especially the 9-11 truth-movement, is going down the toilet.
#23 by Christopher Marlowe on February 15, 2013 - 9:14 pm
Your main point seems to be that people who have crazy theories somehow make you look crazy. This is somehow related to Sandy Hook. Your theory is not well expressed or well founded.
Your first example refutes your own argument. You note that some conspiracy theories about 9/11, which I assume you know to be a fraud, are nonetheless whacky. So you know that a theories real conspiracy can be made to look insane by unintelligent arguments about the same conspiracy. Yet you are not arguing that people shouldn’t investigate 9/11, are you? Perhaps you are saying that people shouldn’t be stupid about 9/11. But doesn’t that rule hold for…everything? People generally shouldn’t be stupid. And yet they are.
Next you talk about Rush Limbaugh, who apparently was about to confess that 9/11 was a fraud until this Sandy Hook incident. Rush Limbaugh’s comments are not proof of anything. 9/11 has been paired up with every other conspiracy theory: the holohoax, the apollo moon landings, etc… All of your arguments would apply to them as well.
Your next example talks about more stupid people drawing illogical conclusions from Gene Rosen’s story. See my comments above concerning stupid people. The main point about Gene Rosen is that he told several stories that contradict one another. If you contradict yourself, that means you are lying. Rosen’s story is also not credible on the face of it because the children would have run past the fire department in order to get to his house…which is NEXT DOOR to the fire department. We are supposed to believe that this HUGE operation was happening next door to Mr. Rosen, but he was completely unaware. These are two obvious reasons to doubt Mr Rosen. I am not concerned with what stupid people think about him.
Your main argument is that you, as a 9/11 Truth person, are being made to look stupid by comparison to Sandy Hook Truth. But apparently you are unaware that the media has already been trying to make you look stupid by matching up 9/11 Truth to every type of crazy idea. Like UFOs. But UFOs and 9/11 are completely unrelated. As are Sandy Hook and 9/11. You still have not shown how they are related except in a tangential way that everything is related to 9/11.
ed note–the connection between the nuttiness of the Sandy Hook truthers and 9/11 has been made. As Anne pointed out in her recent comment, you had no less than Limbaugh equating the two on one of his recent programs, so we can dismiss your notion that there is no ‘connection’ being made. Your argument and the process by which you are doing it is similar to the pro-aborts who look at the empirical evidence that a fetus is a living, viable human being with the same rights to life, liberty and POH as the rest of us, but who instead deflects the discussion into other less problematic areas such as ‘privacy’ and ‘the constitution’.
Having thus established that your position in this present ‘debate’ is not based as much upon the intellect as it is upon the will means that for me, it is time to move on to bigger fish that need frying.
A Dieu
mg
#24 by annebeck58 on February 15, 2013 - 10:22 pm
Christopher, darling;
You have not paid attention to what I said.
I do NOT care if anyone calls me, “crazy”. Ziopigs do that all of the time for my support of Palestine and displeasure with Israhell– and for detesting what the Ape-Pac (AIPAC) does to our country via their being installed in our government; with their hands in the pockets of each and every congressman, president, and peresidential cabinet, for decades. That does not bother me as I always consider the (brainwashed, generally) source.
No, the point IS; We are all being lumped into this inane debacle called, Sandy Hook. All truthers are seen as, “troofers”, no matter what we say about Sandy Hook (and now, Dorner, in which case the troofers have decided Dorner was not even a real person and the manifesto was made to seem crazy in order to make us all seem crazy- the latter I may agree with, to an extent, but to say Christopher Dorner was not a cop and a navyman and dd not even live, is CRAZY- it’s too far over the top for serious consideration!).
It is difficult, enough, to try and get people to comprehend the truths of 9-11 (and we don’t even have all of that truth and probably will not in my lifetime). When we have this sort of silliness following us and the whooping kind of laughter and ugliness regarding the whole movement is being broadcasted all over the world, via people such as Rush, it prevents those who may be open to waking-up having any desire to hear anything we have to say.
The Sandy-Hook horse has been beaten to death, yet you want to continue assaulting it? Why IS this? Whose side are you on, in fact? Do you simply not read the responses addressed to you or are you only thinking of what your next response will be? The latter seems to be the case, and this is too bad. For me, corresponding with you has been about as difficult as it is each time I run across a Ziotard in youtube or anywhere else. Again; why is this?
Please understand that everything you say regarding, “truth”, is a reflection of and on ALL of us within the 9-11 Truth-Movement. And it makes us all appear as if anything we have to say is senseless and silly. This is what I’m trying to get you to understand, as is Mark trying, as has Shadow tried. What kind of mental block do you have that won’t allow you to understand the one point we’ve all made? And, WHY is this the case??
Seriously; are you Rush Limbaugh?
#25 by annebeck58 on February 15, 2013 - 10:32 pm
Oh, and Shadow?
Perhaps we should plan an, “intervention”, for our friend who sends out these insane Sandy-Hook videos? Either she needs to figure this stuff out, or I cannot keep corresponding with her in email.. I mean; her passing out that trash only serves to get my blood pressure up.
From our conversation, earlier, it seemas as if you feel the same.
(Maybe we should get the whole group together and intervene??)
#26 by Christopher Marlowe on February 15, 2013 - 11:02 pm
-ed said: so we can dismiss your notion that there is no ‘connection’ being made. -
-> BUT that is not MY notion. I never said that there was no connection BEING MADE between 9/11 and SH; I said that there is no connection, much less a connection btw SH and this Louvre story. For example, you are MAKING a connection here.
Your dismissal of my arguments being like Pro-Abortion are attempting to make another unrelated connection and completely substance free. You are paraphrasing my argument in terms of Abortion instead of actually dealing with anything I said? Curious.
-ed said: the only thing that has been ‘eviscerated’ is your credibility in posting
(a) DELIBERATELY PLANTED ‘evidence’ pointing to a ‘conspiracy’ involving Sandy
Hook and (b) pieces of information strung together in the interests of appeasing the
conspiracy theorists’ sense of wishful speculation.
a) You have not demonstrated how anything I posted was deliberately planted evidence. What specifically are you talking about? Did you know that the NDAA made it legal to propagandize the American people? http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5
http://rt.com/usa/news/propaganda-us-smith-amendment-903/
So if this whole Sandy Hook thing was a psy-op, it might help to get a lot of people on board knowing that it is entirely legal.
b) That is a convenient way of dealing with facts. You don’t explain how 9/11 FACTS are evidence of something and SH FACTS are not. SH facts are just “information strung together”. Every argument is “pieces of information strung together.”
-ed said: As far as Sandy Hook being linked with 9/11 truthers from the beginning–WRONG.
Only after a sizable portion of people involved with the 9/11 movement started
embracing insane conspiracy theories about the Mossad and about SH being a
‘non-event’ was the link made.
Make your mind up: is it a “swath”, or a “sizeable number”? How was this number generated? Your argument should be directed towards your buddies at Veterans Today and Press TV. They are the ones who made allegations that they could not back up with evidence.
-ed said: As far as the JMSM being on the verge of acknowledging 911–NO ONE
EVER SAID IT OR EVEN INTIMATED IT. The JMSM has avoided the various
9/11 theories for fear of the verifiable information leading reasonable people to
speculate Israel’s role in it all, including the 5 dancing Israelis.
Well that is my point. If the JMSM has always avoided talking about 9/11 and has always been dismissive of 9/11 theorists, then what harm could speculation about SH have caused? They were never on the verge of talking about 9/11. They never will. Most of the harm you are talking about was that Press TV story.
Glad you brought up the ‘moonies’ meaning those who who have made debunking
the moon landing as their forte–like the Sandy Hookers, these people are also a
liability and give the JMSM everything they need to make us look like idiots. The
only difference being that there is no sense of emotional attachment and moral
revulsion on the part of mainstream America to the moonies like there is towards
the Sandy Hookers. As soon as people started claiming that SH never happened,
that the parents were ‘crisis actors’ and that there were no dead children, it was a
done deal as far as the 9/11 movement’s credibility was concerned.
I’m glad you have a rich vocabulary of pejoratives to use in lieu of facts. You have completely missed the point that the JMSM will try to make their enemies like like idiots no matter what. They don’t need facts either.
Perhaps this emotional attachment is why the Sandy Hook incident is so appealing as a psy-op. Most people make emotional decisions and then try to rationalize them afterwards. A strong emotional attachment to a topic will allow people to ignore all of the facts that disprove their beliefs. Much like you are ignoring everything I am writing.
For example, you bring up “crisis actors” when I did not. You haven’t dealt with anything of of substance about SH that I raised. You are using the weak arguments that I didn’t make. Straw Man.
–ed said: It seems to me, the truth-movement has been fractured, and Sandy
Hook was the implement with which this was done. I don’t know if there’s any
way of repairing this, particularly because Sandy Hook craziness is STILL so
high on the priority list of those who would work so hard against intelligent thought.
Yeah, it’s too bad. The extremely vigorous truth-movement (or as you referred to it: truff?) was so strong and united that we were going to start a 3rd Party and elect the next president. That’s sarcasm.
–Anne said: I wish I could get Christopher to comprehend why it is a problem, as well
as why this defacing of a master’s work is so problematic;
I have no problem understanding how this defacing a painting is problematic. This quite probably could be a psy-op. But I don’t see how you can relate this to Sandy Hook. And no one has demonstrated why a psy-op like this couldn’t have been done before Sandy Hook. You can’t answer so you ignore and rephrase.
–Anne said: Mark, you, and I, have all tried to explain it. But, it seems we’re
getting nowhere. Christopher’s posting of links (to garbage with NOTHING but
bunk) is further evidence that the truth-movement, especially the 9-11
truth-movement, is going down the toilet.
What was wrong with the links? You haven’t refuted ONE THING I said or linked to.
You haven’t established anything. Enjoy your big fish.
#27 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 15, 2013 - 11:44 pm
Our mutual friend has been spoken to on several occasions about this. Sadly she seems to thrive on it like so many others. When I have mentioned it to her, she just shrugs it off. Like Christopher here, she will not listen to reason. At this point I am at my wits end in trying.
#28 by annebeck58 on February 16, 2013 - 12:17 am
Here is the thing, one more time:
The ridiculous things put out there (still) about Sandy Hook, and this defacing of a master’s work, with 911-truth tag, are detracting from the truth of 9.11.
Why is this?
When people come out with fantastic– completely unbelievable tripe, for which there is NO truth or facts to back up their fantasies, and these same people do (seem to) comprehend the government’s and media’s lies regarding 911, and are enjoined with the 9.11 truth-movement, everything they discuss or try to bring to the masses is seen as bunk (and crazy).
I do not know how else to explain it but how I have.
What is/was wrong with the links? They are links to utter FANTASY. There is no basis in fact regarding any of what you’ve posted. The people who upload or write-up this information are simply spreading rumor, gossip, innuendo, and kook-theories. I do not need to look at the links as I get them in my email, too often to count. Not ONE “theory” about Sandy Hook has made a lick of sense, nor has it (again) been backed-up by FACTS.
Now, 9-11 and the lies we’ve exposed and help to continue exposing are backed by fact and by laws of physics.
Yet, the same people (some reasonably large percentage of the 9-11 truth movement) have put this garbage out as if it WAS true and factual. When someone comes to me with that sort of bunk, I have to question just how gullible they are, and what they actually believe regarding 9-11, and especially, what sort of proof they are putting forth regarding 9-11. These same people use the names of intelligent scientists and researchers, and even (the few) ex-CIA and ex-FBI workers who have brought forth some of the truth. So, when they use the names of these brave people, and in the next breath, bring up something that makes no sense, at all, like their theories of Sandy Hook, it causes people who might think twice about the proof surrounding 9-11 to turn-off from hearing ANYthing.
I wish I could think of better or different words with which to explain this to you. For some reason, you’re not comprehending what I am saying, and I really don’t know if it’s that you don’t want to understand or if you’re only reading (with one eye open) bits and pieces of what I;m saying or what Mark’s said, or what Shadowhawk’s said.
When I get the emails about the (STUPID) theories regarding Sandy-Hook, I roll MY eyes. I think the persons sending these emails as gullible and less intelligent with each note received. and, it makes ME not wish to rely on them for truth in anything. It also makes me want to tell them to STOP talking about 9-11 if this is how silly they are, Go to the youtube channel of ANYONE who’s posted a theory on Sandy Hook, and you will find 9-11 truth videos there, too. At this point, you’ll probably find inane conspiracies on Chris Dorner, too. IF you had never considered that our media spouts lies all the time and you were stuck with your head in the idiot-box, 24/7, then you watched a video (like today’s STUPID video calling Gene R, the retired shrink, a POS Actor, with NO evidence to make that assessment), and then went to the channel to see what kind of whacko would post such a thing– only to see that they believe in all sorts of conspiracies, might you turn off from all of what that same person has to proffer?
I know I certainly would.
And this is where the biggest problem lies.
I wish people were not so gullible, but they are, and these same conspiracy-addicts are causing the whole truth-movement to take more than a couple steps backward.
I think this is the last time I will respond as it’s giving me a headache. If you have more questions, just read what has already been written, ok?
#29 by annebeck58 on February 16, 2013 - 12:19 am
Oh, and back to this painting- ANYONE who is crazy enough to mark up a piece of art such as this is CRAZY. And because she (in this case) is nutts, nothing this person says or done should be taken as truth. I would not be surprised if this was someone against AE911Truth, trying to make them all appear to be as nuts as she seems to be..
#30 by Christopher Marlowe on February 16, 2013 - 1:01 am
-Anne said: the PEOPLE who have gone there, over the top, in their assessment(s)
of Sandy Hook (and some would argue, 911, too). It’s the people who see, “the devil”,
in the smoke from the towers; the same individuals who believe (til this day) that one
man essentially skiid from the top (or close to it) of one tower to the ground, and was
completely uninjured. It’s those who’ve said 911 was coming and we should have all
known this, based on the pyramid and eye on the back of our currency. That IS the
problem. They make us 911-truthers look like the troofers we get called so often.
–And then someone claiming to be Anne said: You have not paid attention to what
I said. I do NOT care if anyone calls me, “crazy”.
Anne, maybe I am not the one who is not paying attention to what you are saying..
–Anne said: No, the point IS; We are all being lumped into this inane debacle
called, Sandy Hook. All truthers are seen as, “troofers”, no matter what we say about
Sandy Hook.
Yes, Anne. This is the same point re-hashed. My reply was that the JMSM did not treat 9/11 Truth any better before Sandy Hook. Rush Limbaugh never reverenced 9/11 Truth. The Truth Movement has always been mocked by the JMSM.
—Anne ranted pointlessly about Dorner and Limbaugh…
—Anne said: The Sandy-Hook horse has been beaten to death, yet you want to
continue assaulting it? Why IS this? Whose side are you on, in fact? Do you simply
not read the responses addressed to you or are you only thinking of what your next
response will be? The latter seems to be the case, and this is too bad.
Please show me where you refuted one thing about Sandy Hook that I posted. I responded to each of your convoluted maundering pretend arguments, and in a logical and concise manner. You ignore everything of substance that I write, and then accuse me of beating something to death while you rehash your nonsense.
When you sober up, please go back and read what you wrote.
–Anne Said: Please understand that everything you say regarding, “truth”, is a
reflection of and on ALL of us within the 9-11 Truth-Movement. And it makes us all
appear as if anything we have to say is senseless and silly.
No. Everything everyone writes about 9/11 does not reflect on everyone else. That is just silly. You know what makes you look silly? Repeating your own words back to you.
–Anne said: This is what I’m trying to get you to understand, as is Mark trying, as
has Shadow tried. What kind of mental block do you have that won’t allow you to
understand the one point we’ve all made? And, WHY is this the case?
Please show me one point you’ve made. My mental block causes all of your writing to look like a long rambling piece of nonsense.
I am going to post our conversation on another blog so unbiased people can see how stubbornly you are refusing to engage in any sort of useful discussion. And also as a warning against mixing prescription drugs and alcohol….
#31 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 16, 2013 - 5:58 am
Christopher Marlowe, your rambling so loudly it’s deafening. Please make your point or cease and desist. Quite frankly your posts are quite boring.
#32 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 16, 2013 - 1:59 pm
ART? MASTERPIECE? GARBAGE? 9/11 “TRUTHERS”, SANDY HOOK “KOOKS” …?
A piece of freemasonic garbage worth millions for the money handlers of this world!
THIS ONE IS A REAL MASTERPIECE (in translation!) FOR ETERNITY, AT LEAST SOME OF IT!
Summary List Of The Commandments Of Jesus
I. The Universal Moral Law
A. The Law Of Love
“First, love God your Creator more than anything
else. Then, love all other people the same as you
love yourself.”
B. The Ten Commandments
1. “Do not put anything ahead of God your Creator.”
2. “Do not make or worship idols.”
3. “Do not take the name of God in vain.”
4. “Take one day of complete rest each week, in honor of God.”
5. “Honor your father and your mother.”
6. “Do not commit murder.”
7. “Do not commit adultery.”
8. “Do not steal.”
9. “Do not tell lies against anyone.”
10. “Do not covet other people’s possessions.”
C. The Golden Rule
“Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Traeted.”
II. The Other Commandments Of Jesus
1. “FORGIVE EVERYBODY OF ALL THEIR OFFENSES AGAINST YOU.”
(Forgive, and be forgiven.)
2. “YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN.”
3. “ABIDE IN ME, AND LET ME ABIDE IN YOU.”
4. “LET PEOPLE SEE YOUR GOOD WORKS.” (Do not hide your light
under a basket.)
5. “END DISPUTES QUICKLY.”
6. “WHATEVER CAUSES YOU TO SIN, GET RID OF IT.”
7. “DO NOT SWEAR OATHS AT ALL.”
8. “DO NOT RETURN OFFENSE FOR OFFENSE.” (Turn the other cheek.)
9. “GIVE WHAT PEOPLE ASK OF YOU, AND GIVE MORE THAN IS REQUIRED.”
(Go the extra mile.)
10. “LOVE YOUR ENEMIES AND THOSE WHO WORK AGAINST YOU.”
11. “GIVE TO THE POOR TO PLEASE GOD, NOT TO GAIN APPROVAL
FROM OTHER PEOPLE.”
12. “PRAY PRIVATELY AND SIMPLY, NOT TO IMPRESS OTHER PEOPLE.”
13. “MAKE YOUR PRAYERS BE LIKE THE LORD’S PRAYER.”
14. “WHEN YOU FAST, DO IT SECRETLY, NOT FOR SHOW.”
15. “STORE UP YOUR TREASURES IN HEAVEN, NOT ON EARTH.”
16. “DO NOT WORRY ABOUT YOUR MATERIAL NEEDS.”
17. “DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE FUTURE.”
18. “MAKE GOD YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITY, AND HE WILL TAKE CARE OF
ALL YOUR NEEDS.”
19. “DO NOT JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE.” (Judge not, lest ye be judged.)
20. “DO NOT GIVE HOLY THINGS TO DOGS OR CAST YOUR PEARLS
BEFORE SWINE.”
21. “ASK GOD FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO HAVE.” (Seek, and ye shall
find.)
22. “FEED THE HUNGRY, CLOTHE THE NAKED, SHELTER THE HOMELESS,
COMFORT THOSE IN DISTRESS.”
23. “FOLLOW THE NARROW PATH TO LIFE.” (Enter by the narrow gate.)
24. “BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS.”
25. “EXERCISE POWER OVER UNCLEAN SPIRITS.”
26. “LOVE LITTLE CHILDREN, DO NOT DESPISE THEM.”
27. “DO NOT TAKE THE TITLES ‘MASTER’ OR ‘FATHER’ FOR YOURSELF.”
28. “RESOLVE DISPUTES IN AN ORDERLY WAY, LIKE THIS . . . ”
29. “DO NOT OPPOSE OTHER BELIEVERS IN CHRIST WHO ARE NOT IN YOUR GROUP.”
30. “HAVE TOTAL FAITH IN GOD FOR EVERYTHING.”
31. “BE LIKE THE GOOD SAMARITAN.” (Go, and do likewise.)
32. “LOVE OTHER PEOPLE AS I HAVE LOVED YOU”
33. “EAT BREAD AND DRINK WINE IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.”
34. “WASH ONE ANOTHER’S FEET.”
35. “BE MERCIFUL.”
36. “GO AND TEACH ALL NATIONS, BAPTIZING THEM.”
37. “KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.”
38. “BE PREPARED FOR YOUR MASTER TO RETURN.”
9/11 “Truthers”, Sandy Hook “Cooks”, Louvre Art Lovers, Statue of “Liberty” … what next?
BAFS
Former Manager of the Windsor Hotel in Paris for 13 years (1975-1988) who visited the Louvre dozens of times with tourists, friends and family and have seen the “masterpieces” and “heard” quite a bit about the fakes on display there (at the time) and read about the Jewish speculations on those “masterpieces” transfering millions from one country to the other in the name of Art – and tax-free!
#33 by JG on February 16, 2013 - 5:50 pm
A cross section of Kill-To-Injury ratios of Major Mass shootings suggests that if Adam Lanza acted Alone in carrying out the Sandy Hook Elementary School carnage, He was among The Most Accurate killers in Modern History ( No Survivors), exceeding even the lethal damage meted out by Al Capone’s machine gun-wielding henchmen in the infamous St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.
Yes folks, an autistic, vegetarian weakling (who never owned a gun in his life), left no survivors, and killed 100% of his targets.
The Multiple shooters described by eyewitnesses, helicopter footage, and police scanners surely dont mean anything.
Dont question the mainstream narrative lies, Just Obey Propganda..
We Got it.
‘Indeed, as information recently pointed to by Digital Journal indicates,[2] in a widescale rush to judgment major
news media have neglected vital information and statements from Connecticut state authorities suggesting that Lanza may have had accomplices.
In a December 26 court plea to postpone release of contents yielded through five search warrant, Connecticut State Attorney General Stephen Sedensky argued that unsealing such findings might “seriously jeopardize” the investigation by divulging evidence heretofore known only to other “potential suspects.”
Dont question discrepencies, Gene Rosens’ Lies, Media and eyewitness contradictions, or other anomolies.
911, 911, 911. We got it.
–ed note–most of the drugged up kids who have gone into public places, shot the place up and killed a bunch of people had little to no experience with guns either. And as far as Lanza having had ‘no experience’, what is your source on this?
Besides, how much skill does a person need to kill 20 kids when they are trapped in a room, can’t go anywhere and are paralyzed with fear? Ever heard of the phrase ‘like shooting fish in a barrel’?
God help us.
#34 by annebeck58 on February 16, 2013 - 6:29 pm
AAakkk!
Mark; Fish in a barrell…, just like that.
And, yes; according to those who knew the mother, she has- and no, we don’t know how many times, but how many times must one shoot a gun to know how??- taken the boy out to the firing range as a, “bonding experience”. I don’t know if that is truth as there’s been so very much put out (by MSM as well as by “our side”) that is pure and unadulterated garbage, with no basis in fact.
But, who cares about fact when someone has THEORY??
#35 by annebeck58 on February 16, 2013 - 6:43 pm
And again, this “christopher” has proven my point.
1. Do not read with open eyes what anyone making sense has to say. Instead:
2. Try (try) and pick apart words, without looking at the words together, as a whole.
3. Proffer insane theories, with NO fact to back up same.
4. And when this fails, resort to name calling and assumptions about what the other person does in his or her personal life.
In fact, I do not drink, at all. It’s not my thing. I do not take drugs to get high.. not even pot, as it’s not my thing. I have a clear head and like to keep my wits about me, as opposed to some who cannot and will not think for themselves.
And, Shadow; thanks for having my back. I was sleeping, instead of being up all hours, trying to convince an imbecile why he’s wrong. It’s no longer worth my time, as I said in my last comment to him.
Mark is right. We’ve hit a crossroad in the truth movement, if there was ever one to begin with. Certain folks have remained on the road to rational thought, while others have taken the road to the nut-farm. That I and Mark and you and all of these radio-hosts, in TUT (and other sites) are looking at this with a weary eye (as we ALL should) says plenty about us, but also plenty about those so completely addicted to conspiracy, they trip over their own tongues when trying to put others down. This Christopher guy was not trying to convince me of anything; he was simply here (like Paul) to start arguments.
But, this constant attention to Sandy Hook is causing a major set-back in the movement to get people thinking about and comprehending truth. I don’t know when it will be over, if ever, and when we might increase numbers so that most of the country/ies has had it (finally) with our government/s as ruled from Tel Aviv. All I do know is that the conspiracy addicts have just made it that much more difficult to get ANYONE to look at it with open minds. — not when nutballs go off on INSANE topics that make no sense and that are distasteful, to start with (poking FUN at parents who’ve just lost their children?? Going at a man who happened to be home and took care of surviving children? Are they CRAZY? Yes.)
And so it goes.., as usual.
#36 by JG on February 16, 2013 - 8:35 pm
.
To: ed note
There were also 6-7 adults ALSO killed, not all were locked in a room!
No Survivors, ed note.
Not a single one. Its an impossibility.
An aberration. Handguns arent death rays, ed.
The Austistic, Vegetarian Weakling, patsy got past an elaborate security system, though it, but theres seemingly no video or photos?!!
And autistic weakling vegetarian also hotwired & Stole a Felons car and drove it to the scene & carried 4 Full size handguns on him?
The ‘Other killers’ were JEWs, not Whites-Columbine was a Jew Hit (Klebold & Harris).
Aurora-Mulitple shooters according to eyewitness. Brevik in Norway-Member of EDL & a Jew who had a Nosejob. Loughner a Jew. Andf THEY all Had Survivors.
.
There NO Rifle Used- Conclusionary report.
Ask a Cop. Do some research. Perps get shot and have entire handgun mags emptied into them And live!! No surivors!! yea right.
This was an OP. Its clear for all but the blind to see.
–ed note–I am something of a minor expert on firearms and have even done a little associated police work myself, so no need to throw out a bunch of criteria here in the hopes that it will make you sound more credentialed than you really are.
So, who were these other ‘Jew-killers’? You seem to have it all wrapped up, so please, let us know.
All we have here is some paranoid white-rights type who is reacting in knee jerk fashion to something which he (wrongly) perceives to be an ‘op’ meant to make white maless look bad, pure and simple, no different in its essence than the way that Jews go into damage control mode whenever one of their own is caught in the middle of some embarassing and nefarious business.
And since we are ‘sourcing’ info here, your basis of saying Loughner and Breivik were ‘Jews’? Enquiring minds would like to know.
And by the way, what’s the deal with you using a name like Jonah Goldstein?
#37 by JG on February 16, 2013 - 8:39 pm
Please comment on this, ed note….
Indeed, as information recently pointed to by Digital Journal indicates,[2] in a widescale rush to judgment major news media have neglected vital information and statements from Connecticut state authorities suggesting that Lanza may have had Accomplices.
In a December 26 court plea to postpone release of contents yielded through five search warrant, Connecticut State Attorney General Stephen Sedensky argued that unsealing such findings might “seriously jeopardize” the investigation by divulging evidence heretofore known only to other Potential suspects.”
Qui Bono (Who Benefits) from a mass shooting of White children?
White Christians, Muslims OR Jews?
Ed Note-What did you think of Gene Rosen’s Interview in Spanish, Crying on Queue in Spanish?
Worthy of Academy award, or a just an emotional Jew & Good Samaritan???.
–ed note I don’t think anything of it, because I am in the unusually difficult position of having to trust information and analysis that comes either from–
a) the JMSM, which is know has an agenda and deliberately twists things to assist that agenda, and
b) the ‘Truth’ movement, which is peopled by many unstable individuals driven more by paranoia than by reason.
So what’s an inquiring mind to do?
#38 by annebeck58 on February 16, 2013 - 8:57 pm
I am only responding to Mark, as I am well aware that yesterday’s, “Christopher”, has sent in sillier folk from his, “unbiased site”, to have a go at anyone who thinks his *and their* theories are nutts.
This is all just crazy.
These are the people we worried about taking-down the “movement” from within. They’d rather be right (with no evidence, even) than be smart. Yet, again; there is not one scintilla of fact behind their theories, which is why other people (outside of the “movement”) see them for what they are; nutters and conspiracy-theorists.
Anyone can have a theory regarding any event. Yet, it takes fact to elaborate on the theories, to make them be intelligent or well-reasoned. What we’re seeing in regard to SH is silly and, for those who wish to open minds and hearts to truth, dangerous..
(and, OMG; Rosen spoke SPANISH? Wow, this must mean SOMETHING! Seriously; he speaks Spanish and he wells up when speaking about these poor children and their survivors, at the appropriate time– in a language other than his own? This MUST mean he’s a suspect.. an “actor”, someone other than a man who lives in a state where Spanish is taught in High-School– and in my case, in Grammar School, too; and where a good percentage of the population IS Spanish-speaking. Oh, my; whatever can this mean??? Heck, I speak Spanish, too. I get along fine when I visit Spanish speaking countries, so perhaps I am also guilty of being a co-conspirator, with Rosen. Add to this, I am originally from Connecticut, so there MUST be a connection. OMG, guys; now I’ve been outed, by myself, even!)
ed note–OF MY GOD, ARE YOU SERIOUS ANNE??? Gene Rosen, the Jew, SPEAKS SPANISH???
That settles it then. Something rotten in Denmark about the whole thing. I am sold–the Mossad did it or else it didn’t even take place. I think for purposes of variety, I shall waiver in between those two positions on an every-other-day basis.
#39 by annebeck58 on February 16, 2013 - 9:05 pm
Okay- changed my mind..
JG #36
“no survivors, not one”
Seriously? Who were these children at Rosen’s home, if not survivors? Who were the kids being led out of the school by teachers, assistants, and police, if not survivors? Where are the (other) dead shooter(s), if no survivors? (I know, there are no survivors out of the shooterS, as there was ONE shooter.)
Yes, it is not difficult for a teen to shoot-up a class-ROOM of tiny children and kill them all. According to (some) reports, the children and teacher (and aid, I believe) were pretty much huddled up together, so killing them all with a semi-auto would have actually been a lot easier than shooting fish in a barrel.
Okay, now I am done; tell me why I’m wrong. But, this time; for a change, produce FACTS to bolster your theory or theories. Ok? Questions regarding who, how or what or when do not count as FACTS.
#40 by Christopher Marlowe on February 17, 2013 - 12:02 am
Dear Anne,
Why you no cite anything? Why you no cut and paste the url? Why you rely on only on the attestation of annebeck58? I give you plentygood demonstration now:
There WAS supposedably two survivors that were shot by Adams Lanza: Natalie Hammond. [Watch now I do the magic citation link!]
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-survivor-s-wit-and-will-a-weapon-for-4125396.php
Hammond was supposedably a guest of honors at the State of the Unions Address by Captain Obama: [command v OR Edit - Paste]
http://monroe.patch.com/articles/sandy-hook-shooting-survivor-will-be-guest-at-state-of-the-union-1db16d26
http://www.dailypaul.com/274547/wounded-sandy-hook-witness-natalie-hammond-invited-to-state-of-union-other-wounded-witness-still-secret
Here’s a video of the State of Union with Hammond or the other survivor?
Here’s another possible shot of Hammond at the States of the Unions:
There was also supposedably a custodian who was heard shouting at Adams Lanza and telling him to put his gun down or face the business end of a broom. Kevin Anzellotti was the hero custodian. He is listed at the school site: [magic citation!]
http://newtown.sandyhook.schooldesk.net/Staff/StaffDirectory/tabid/17319/Default.aspx
The story about KA’s heroics are cited to this facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/kevin.anzellotti
But I can’t get on it. I am not on the facebook because it is a jewishcianwonsa site. According to the aangrifan posting, there’s pervy stuff on KA’s site: [This is really easy!]
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2012/12/sandy-hook-simulation-exercise-kevin.html
Here is a link to screenshots of KA’s site: [you must be getting the hanging of this]
http://gonob.com/2013/01/17/blowing-the-lid-off-sandy-hook/
At first the principal of the school was alive and witnessed the attack, but then later she was dieded:
Sometimes people go into the time machines to change history and get dieded.
Also the school nurse was a witness who looked into the killer’s cold and deadly photoshopped eyes….but then later she only saw his feet under a desk…and she only thought that those feet belonged to the son of kindergarten teacher:
There was also suposedably a little girl who survived by playing dead:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/sandy-hook-school-girl-plays-dead-survives_n_2315947.html
But no one has actually seen or talked to this girl. Maybe this “pastor” was speaking metaphorically.
Now you might be wondering why no one is interviewing the people who actually saw the shooter. But that might lead to conspiracy thinking. For some people it is enough to assert there were survivors because Eugene Rosen saw some kids in front of his house talking to a bus driver that was both a man and a woman.
I hope this has been instructive for you
#41 by Ingrid B on February 17, 2013 - 3:16 am
Been trying to stay out of this debate, but I have to say, it`s easy to sneer at those who disagree with your point of view, but, as you yourself Mark stated, “what`s an enquiring mind to do?” I, personally, think that enquiring minds should be given a little elbow room, rather than being subjected to ridicule..
ed note–Ingrid, since this madness began, yours truly, and other ‘inquiring minds’ including the hosts on TUT who disagreed with the ‘prevailing’ wisdom of the ‘hookers’ and their various theories and who chose to express that disagreement have been accused of being Mossad agents, CIA agents, ADL agents, proponents of gun control, supporters of Obama, as well as being coerced, paid off and of having ‘changed sides’.
So, I ask you, which side of the ‘enquiring minds’ has truly been maligned and subjected to ridicule for having a disagreement of opinion?
Furthermore, the bottom line of this thing (as we have made clear over and over and over again) is that there are bigger issues here than simply having a disagreement of perspectives. We have enemies–very clever and cunning ones at that–who will deliberately insert ideas into the movement, knowing that we will run with them–that are in essence ticking time bombs meant to go off later and do damage to all the hard work we have done in trying (I stress TRYING) to amass credibility amongst those lost sheep who we need to bring into the fold.
I ask the readers of this website to consider something here–it has been almost 2 months since Sandy Hook took place. Consider now how much time and energy has been spent on it, discussing this, discussing that, round and round and round and round, etc, etc, etc.
Has anything been resolved?
No. We are still trying to figure out if anyone actually died or not.
At least with 9/11 we knew within days that Israel was involved and had something to go on in formulating alternative explanations as to what happened, and these items–the 5 dancing Israels being just one–have withstood the test of time and continue to bring new people into the movement everyday.
For me personally, if I am going to go fishing, I want to make sure there are fish in the pond before I expend the time and effort involved in such a venture.
#42 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 17, 2013 - 4:48 am
#41 by Ingrid B on February 17, 2013 – 3:16 am
“Been trying to stay out of this debate, …”
I did not try, but I stayed out as there was no debate in my view, but mainly attacks, insults, bullying, and name calling always by the same egomaniacs. And, after all what do I know about Sandy Hook? But, I know a lot more about 9/11 as this primarily concerned me and Muslims directly – and I knew from day one the very second I saw a fake plane penetrating one of the Towers encountering ZERO resistance, an attack already predicted in June 2001 by Milton William Cooper that he said the US government was going to carry out imminently and to be blamed on Usama Bin Ladin. When my French journalist friend (Smain Bedrouni) wrote the same day or the next day on his website The Voice of the Oppressed at stcom.net that Israel was behind the false flag, he was visited (or arrested) by the Police.
Do your homework as to who have been screaming and objecting to other people’s right to free speech, and how often. I am not blind.
This does not concern Mark Glenn as I am not here to cause any inconvenience to my host who has too big a responsiblity to be bothered any further. But, I expect that the day will come when my host will tell me to stop writing because I am being a nuisance (being of no help to the ‘truth’) and I WILL stop immediately without any hesitation! Unlike others, I do not belong to any Truth “Movement”!
I have been writing about the same issues since I was a teenager while others have just begun and now pose as experts and behave as if they had a monopoly on the truth. But, I do not take orders from such individuals who act as if they were the bosses here despite having shown no evidence that they had the required long term expertise on the bigger picture of the problems facing our world today.
Our host called for a moratorium on the Sandy Hook issue. I respected that decision, but sadly it went on and on with more attacks and more insults! As for me I am not interested in the least in Sandy Hook or of an alleged graffito on an art ‘masterpiece’ (evidence seemingly destroyed before any Police investigation?) as I am dealing with more serious issues.
Is it not telling that I did not read the usual shit after I had added the following P.S. to my last commentary?
“Former Manager of the Windsor Hotel in Paris for 13 years (1975-1988) who visited the Louvre dozens of times with tourists, friends and family and have seen the “masterpieces” and “heard” quite a bit about the fakes on display there (at the time) and read about the Jewish speculations on those “masterpieces” transfering millions from one country to the other in the name of Art – and tax-free!”
As a matter of fact, I knew also quite a bit about the inside life of some of the artists of the Crazy Horse, Lido and Folies Bergères, about the French “Ballet Bleu” and “Ballet Rose”, the Jewish sex and pornographic industry, etc.
Basheer
P.S. Mark Glenn has my total approval (100%) to remove any of my commentaries that he sees inappropriate.
ed note–Basheer, I will not ban you from this forum. You have opinions that (sometimes) differ from those of others–big deal, we all do. Otherwise there are subjects where your input is invaluable, as I have told you many times before.
#43 by annebeck58 on February 17, 2013 - 5:43 am
In other words, Ingrid; certain people hear hoof-beats, and they immediately think zebras, while most of us in the US hear the same thing and think, horses… We have horses, which are indigenous to the USA, yet zebras aren’t.
Or, they hear hoof-beats and think and cry, WOLF. Sure, we have wolves in the US, but they don’t make the same clop-clop-clop sound of horses..
#44 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 17, 2013 - 6:30 am
Three words for Christopher Marlowe and his ‘friend’ J Goldstein: Stuck on stupid.
#45 by Ingrid B on February 17, 2013 - 3:13 pm
MG says “For me personally, if I am going to go fishing, I want to make sure there are fish in the pond before I expend the time and effort involved in such a venture.” : that`s my point Mark, I think everyone should be allowed to fish, who knows what sort of sharks are swimming around.. Yes, 9/11 is very important, but one thing I have noticed is, many things CAN be connected. No-one who was not present at SH can possibly know what happened, but everyone should be allowed to speculate, even you, not form opinions without proof, which is a waste of time, but speculate..
#46 by Christopher Marlowe on February 17, 2013 - 5:04 pm
annebeck, that is a good metaphor, except it applicable in this case. Who “heard hoof-beats”, or in this case, who saw Adam Lanza? I demonstrated the lack of eyewitness testimony. Name one person who saw Adam Lanza. You can’t do it. The nurse was supposed to have seen his face, but then said that she saw his feet. The principle told the Newtwon Bee that about the event, but then latter she was dead. Even better, produce the video from the school security camera. Then we can all “hear hoof-beats”.
Here’s a better metaphor: some people hear the JMSM cry “wolf” over and over again, and they still fall for it.
#47 by Christopher Marlowe on February 17, 2013 - 5:04 pm
1bigcree, why don’t you try actually refuting ONE POINT I made. All you do is sloganeering, like you are running a political campaign. There is a difference between reasoning and gathering votes. Use logic and facts and back up your research with citations.
#48 by annebeck58 on February 17, 2013 - 5:16 pm
Here’s what I saw, last night, Ingrid.
On a lark, I decided to look at one of these (sorry, but ridiculous) videos on the “issues” of Sandy Hook. It was about the retired man, Gene Rosen, who’d found a number of small children in his yard following the shooting and took them indoors to comfort them.
Well, someone found a guy (Orange County, a real-estate agent) named, Rosenfeld, who is also a Jew and also has a white beard. There was no other comparison to be made, structurally, to these two men’s faces. Their foreheads, noses, and eyes were quite different. Hairline was different, one from the other. But, someone decided they had “found a KEY” to prove that these two men are the same person and, because they must be the same person, he is an actor. This is the sort of inane postings we’re seeing people go nuts over in regard to SH.
So, what’s happening, now, in the “conspiracy of SH”? Not only is this man, Gene Rosen, being abused by citizens, but they’ve found a man with a similar name and with a similar (not same, but similar) beard, and they are ALSO abusing this man. Emails are being sent to Rosenfeld at his work, calling him all sorts of names and generally harassing him.
This is what happens when people go over the top with assumptions.
If you take the photos of the two (separate) men and put them side by side (something NOT done in the video, of course), it is quite obvious that it is not the same person. I should have thought to opy the “top comments” from that particular video, as maybe it would show you (and others) just how out of hand this has become. Anyway…
Who’s creating this sort of terrible videos, calling out people who’ve nothing to do with anything the least bit SH-related? It’s the “9-11 Truth Community”. When they do this sort of thing, it calls into question every theory they proffer, including the truth(s) of 9-11. And it makes others look at all of us as fools, who’ve only got insane theories to put-forth. it causes other Americans to not want to learn anything, I mean, it’s not the government harassing individuals in the case of SH. No, it’s the 9-11 Truthers., or this is what others see and believe.
We all get lumped into the insanity, is my point.
#49 by annebeck58 on February 17, 2013 - 5:19 pm
(forgot to mention)
Orange County is not even in Connecticut, which is where Newtown is..
And the two men are being harassed in both places because –?? Who knows why?
#50 by ruby22-kate on February 17, 2013 - 6:42 pm
#41: ed note–Ingrid, since this madness began, yours truly, and other ‘inquiring minds’ including the hosts on TUT who disagreed with the ‘prevailing’ wisdom of the ‘hookers’ and their various theories and who chose to express that disagreement have been accused of being Mossad agents, CIA agents, ADL agents, proponents of gun control, supporters of Obama, as well as being coerced, paid off and of having ‘changed sides’.
————————————————————–
excuse my ignorance, could someone explain who the hosts of TUT are, and how were they selected?
my conspiracy antennae are quivering and I’m dreading the answer.
ed note–no conspiracy here Ruby. The hosts at TUT are a follows–
–yours truly
–Keith Johnson
–Mark Dankof
–Jonathon Azaziah
–Sammi Ibrahem
–Max French
–Ron Hall
#51 by Christopher Marlowe on February 17, 2013 - 8:35 pm
This sort of thing started with “Dallas Goldbug” after the Giffords incident in Arizona. Dallas Goldbug is disinfo, most likely a government operative. He makes videos that try to show that famous Hollywood actors are being used as actors in 9/11 and Arizona and other similar incidents. DG will try to say that people like Henry Winkler, Fonzi from Happy Days, is President Amadinijad of Iran…
It’s disinfo and it is meant to confuse and cause trouble. DG is hoping that people will write to famous celebrities and accuse them of taking part in psy-ops.
Dallas Goldbug also has a video that says that israel and the United States are being run by….NAZIS!
But just because there is a disinfo campaign, that does not prove anything about Sandy Hook. If DG says that Henry Winkler was involved in 9/11, that does not prove that 9/11 happened as the government said, does it? Getting caught up in a disinfo campaign by Dallas Goldbug is due to a condition that scientists refer to as “retardednicity”. You haven’t proved anything. You have just shown that there is a disinfo site involving Sandy Hook.
#52 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 17, 2013 - 11:30 pm
#42 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 17, 2013 – 4:48 am
Dear Mark
Thanks for not contemplating to oust me from TUT! (Smile or laugh! Some may cry!)
As for “opinions”, I hate that word. Every Tom, Dick and Harriette can give an opinion. I am not interested in people’s opinions or speculations or visions, but in facts and findings based on solid evidence and experience. I pray that you could really ban me from this forum as this would give me more time to do more serious work as I am doing a lousy job on TUT. I need all the time I can spare as I am still working on my latest essay:
“AKHNATON, ZARATHUSTRA, BRAHMAN, MOSHE, ‘ISA, MUHAMMAD, AND SATAN”.
This will consist of some 50 hours of research or more, of writing, editing, including reviewing my own older essays, etc.
I did not want to check if my latest comment was posted or not because I preferred to go to bed early as I went to bed around five o’clock this morning and had quite a busy day, but curiosity killed the cat!
I would ask the wider readership to, please, note that my relationship with and commitment to Mark Glenn and the other hosts has little to do with The Ugly Truth, but with the SUBLIME TRUTH!
Much love
Basheer
Sunday 17 February 2013
#53 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 18, 2013 - 4:22 am
A final reply to Christopher Marlow: You are only posting content which can only be presented as speculative. It would be better to refrain until conclusive information regarding Sandy Hook can be ascertained. Al you are doing is spinning around in circles and going nowhere. It’s counterproductive and only gives our detractors comedic material of which is used as fodder against us. Enough said. I wish I could even be more ‘liberal’ and grant you an A for effort. But in this case you have failed. Bye now.
#54 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 18, 2013 - 4:26 pm
#42 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 17, 2013 – 4:48 am
“… there are subjects where your input is invaluable, as I have told you many times before.”
Yes, I agree and have not forgotten that Mark Glenn did tell me that many times before!
But, we ‘geniuses’, including Mark, already know how valuable our contributions are and do not expect compliments from others, making THEM look smart, and us (some of us) feeling bad.
In five words: I know my own worth.
Basheer the Great Horn Blower
The Prophet
The Devil’s Advocate
The Real Pain-in-the-neck
Satan’s Adversary
#55 by annebeck58 on February 18, 2013 - 8:34 pm
I wish he would notice I am not responding to him and that my comments since saying I was done are specifically addressed to others. Oh well.
I guess I should have copied and posted the “top comments” from that video (which is the one sent to us by our friend) which were posted by different people, to show that it is not only this one person he’s stated it was (the name on the video was nothing like what he’d said and the guy had a strong Irish accent, anyway.)
The problem may be, in part, those who’re going over the top with these inane assertions. But, it is also those who believe it and respond in comments and, particularly, in going after people who’ve not a thing to do with SH. So many with no connection have been abused via email and telephone, yet the “hookers”, as Mark calls them. don’t see their actions as problematic.
They are problematic because we are all lumped in with this insanity. They associate themselves with us and not us with them (after all of the hullabaloo). Yet, those who look at them as anything but normal will (and do) see us as being a part of this kookiness.
It bothers me. It bothers other sane thinkers. It seems the only people who aren’t bothered are the “hookers”, who don’t see the problem in any of it.
Gosh, I wish it would end, now
Anything I’ve seen of this SH mania has made no sense, at all. To the average person, it looks silly and, of course, kooky. I know that each video I’ve watched, I’ve thought, AND…(?).
#56 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 18, 2013 - 8:55 pm
Anne , I could not have said it better. We who try and maintain a semblance of sanity and rational thinking find ourselves stuck on the same low frequency bandwidth with the ‘Hookers’. A monotone droning low level pitch which barely makes it past the lowest of chakras. Never mind the redundancy of it all. ‘They’ MUST be heard.
#57 by Christopher Marlowe on February 18, 2013 - 9:40 pm
Bigcree said:”You are only posting content which can only be presented as speculative.”
You obviously haven’t been reading what I wrote, or you don’t know what speculative means. Take my first example: I quoted from the motion to seal the evidence concerning the search warrants issued on the Lanza Home, etc… That motion was filed on Dec 27, almost two weeks after the Sandy Hook incident on Dec 14. That motion by the DA of CT stated a reasonable belief that there was other possible suspects and that witnesses could be endangered by releasing the information related to those warrants.
You might make the argument that the DA is speculating, but his reasonable belief must be based on a legal standard: it must be based on “specific and articulable facts”. I am assuming this has the lower standard; it may be an even higher standard of probable cause. Either way, this is not speculative.
I am not speculating that the DA is correct. He might be a big liar as far as I know. But this is the legal document filed by the DA of CT.
The official story is: that the police arrived shortly after the incident, and they found the lone gunman, Adam Lanza, dead by his own hand. All stories about second gunman have been “debunked”.
These two pieces of information are contradictory. Two weeks after finding a murder scene as it has been described, there would be no reason to seal the warrants if there was just one gunman. If the DA is not a liar, he must have specific and articulable facts the would tend to show that there was either: another gunman; or that Adam Lanza had other accomplices. There must be other suspects involved in the “shooting”; and there must be a possibility that witnesses could be in danger.
Now show me where I speculated.
You say that I am “spinning around in circles and going nowhere”, but you cannot point to one wrong piece of information I posted, or even a single logical error that I made. Show me where I failed. Engage in a debate.
#58 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 18, 2013 - 10:00 pm
Christopher Marlowe ‘Debate?’ You are wasting space and are making a fool of yourself.
#59 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 18, 2013 - 10:19 pm
#57 by Christopher Marlowe on February 18, 2013 – 9:40 pm
” Engage in a debate.”?
Basheer
#60 by annebeck58 on February 19, 2013 - 2:23 am
There is no such thing as a district attorney of CT. There would be States’ Attorney’s office, and possibly Attorney General, but not a DA of CT.., or of any state I’m aware of.
As far as getting a warrant two weeks s/p a mass-murder such as this, after (and with) the suspect dead, there are different reasons and absolutely particular items the AG or SA would include in such a warrant. Reason? Here are a few; the first, of course, is to see if there were any co-conspirators with Lanza, and I imagine his personal computer and.or phone, as well as other items (letters, notes, etc..) might rule that in or out. Secondly, it is to give the survivors, in this case of the children and however many adults murdered, some semblence of closure. Finally, the SA may want to help to decide who owes money in the case of any future civil or criminal suits brought against the school or the town, for instance.
I mean, honestly!
Many warrants are sealed. Most warrants that involve children as victims are sealed. There is not a thing about a warrant, alone, or about such a warrant being sealed that bothers me.
WHY are people still reading so much into the minutia of SH?
Can we please use our brains and get over it?
Yeesh.
#61 by annebeck58 on February 19, 2013 - 2:30 am
By the way, were a SEALED warrant filed, by the District Atty (of Newtown) or by the State’s Attorney’s office, it would not be around for anyone to say it was or was not filed, at all.
What do people think sealed means??
#62 by Ingrid B on February 19, 2013 - 2:31 am
“Christopher Marlowe ‘Debate?’ You are wasting space and are making a fool of yourself.” : he`s not alone.. so much for “free speech”..
#63 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on February 19, 2013 - 2:57 am
#57 by Christopher Marlowe on February 18, 2013 – 9:40 pm
I meant a debate with the bum and the shirt or vice versa! Avec “cul et chemise”! French humour – comprend qui pourra!
BAFS
#64 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 19, 2013 - 6:02 am
‘WHY are people still reading so much into the minutia of SH?
Can we please use our brains and get over it?
Yeesh.’
Exactly Anne!!!
#65 by Christopher Marlowe on February 19, 2013 - 7:25 am
Annebeck said: “By the way, were a SEALED warrant filed, by the District Atty (of Newtown) or by the State’s Attorney’s office, it would not be around for anyone to say it was or was not filed, at all.”
Anne, if you poke in the link that I originally provided, it would have showed you a copy of the motion. That is how you would know there was a warrant.
Anne said: “There is no such thing as a district attorney of CT. There would be States’ Attorney’s office, and possibly Attorney General, but not a DA of CT..”
yes, you are right. I should have written the State’s Attorney; Danbury State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky III.
Anne said: “As far as getting a warrant two weeks s/p a mass-murder such as this, after (and with) the suspect dead, there are different reasons and absolutely particular items the AG or SA would include in such a warrant. Reason? Here are a few; the first, of course, is to see if there were any co-conspirators with Lanza, and I imagine his personal computer and.or phone, as well as other items (letters, notes, etc..) might rule that in or out.”
Okay, let’s be consistent then Anne: Either Lanza acted alone or he did not. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot bully people who question whether Lanza acted alone, and then claim that it hasn’t been ruled out. But the media is mocking people (hookers?) who question the story about Lanza being a lone gunman. If you are saying that Lanza might not have acted alone, then you are questioning the official story.
Anne said: “Secondly, it is to give the survivors, in this case of the children and however many adults murdered, some semblence of closure. Finally, the SA may want to help to decide who owes money in the case of any future civil or criminal suits brought against the school or the town, for instance.
I mean, honestly!”
Now you are just making stuff up. Giving people a sense of closure is not a reason to keep a warrant sealed. This is a criminal justice system, not an Oprah segment. The government has to give probable cause in a warrant; afterwards, that warrant is made available to the public, who get to see what the facts were that amounted to probable cause.
Finding out who owes money was not one of the reasons given for sealing the warrant. You don’t have to speculate, you can read the motion yourself:
http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2012/12/28/news/doc50de108060611018562995.txt
http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2012/12/28/news/doc50de108060611018562995.txt?viewmode=2
Anne said: ” Most warrants that involve children as victims are sealed.”
Prove it. You just made that up.
Anne said: “There is not a thing about a warrant, alone, or about such a warrant being sealed that bothers me.”
Maybe it doesn’t bother you because you lack simple logic. Either Lanza acted alone or he did not, correct? If Lanza did not act alone, then the official story is WRONG. Then the people who are questioning the official story are RIGHT.
If Lanza did act alone in the manner described, then there should be no question after two weeks. And there would be no reason to seal the warrant.
#66 by Ingrid B on February 19, 2013 - 7:18 pm
I have to give Christopher Marlowe points, for standing his ground, and trying to make his case.. points too, to MG, for allowing him the opportunity..
#67 by annebeck58 on February 19, 2013 - 9:37 pm
Okay; I am going to explain why i know certain things, regarding warrants (sealed and not) and indictments (again, sealed or not).
First of all, my sister-in-law (who was more like a sister to me than any of my siblings) was an ADA (assistant district attorney) in Austin, Travis County, Texas. She researched and tried all sorts of cases, mainly criminal cases, and, in preparing for these cases, wrote up or accepted information, from warrants. Families/Survivors DO pressure the DA and the police to get these cases cleaned-up, even when the shooter is dead, at his own hand or at the hand of the police. It happens- ALL the time. The main reason I would think, however, that they would seek a warrant for Lanza’s house, is to see if ANYONE knew what he was planning; if he had been corresponding with anyone, at all, in regard to what he planned to do at the school, as well as the murder of his mother. Now, why would a warrant take time, in this particular case? I would surmise that the (now dead) mother was the owner of this home. So, first of all, the police or the DA (if it was the District Attorney of whatever county Newtown is in) would have to figure out who to serve with this warrant and this may not be all that obvious, with the mother (adult occupant of the house) is deceased. Also, trying to figure out where they would find information regarding Lanza’s possible correspondence has to be done, as most warrants are limited to particular items (within a home) and have to be backed up with (at least) theory as to why these items may hold what they’d be looking for.
If nobody gets what a warrant is and is not (as in, is not carte-blanche to seach everything and anything without meeting requirements) you may want to research what a warrant allows…, sealed or not.
And again; Parents, other surviving family members do (absolutely) come into play as far as closing up the case. Even in cases where the suspect is dead, or especially in these cases, they definitely want to know IF anyone else was involved or could have known a thing about this. In the Travis County District Attorney’s office, there are specialists (psychologists) on-site to act as liasons to family members, and to sit with surviving relatives, during trials. I would imagine most D.A.’s offices also provide such a service.
Why else would I know how these things are done? I have served on grande juries, in Austin (and they included crimes specifically in Austin, Travis County, and the entire state of Texas). I was empaneled on one G/J in which we investigated one of the most notorious crimes of Austin and Texas history; the Yogurt Shoppe Murders. And, guess what? Incictments AND warrants were SEALED. This is one case I am not supposed to talk about, even this day (and I don’t.) The case has been a terrible fiasco with the police and the D.A.’s office working overtime to make evidence fit certain people, who then spent time in prison, yet were let out after evidence was discovered to prove they had nothing to do with it.
When my SIL was an ADA, I spent a lot of time at the D.A.’s office as well as in the courthouse. I used to go down to watch trials, especially those cases she was trying, which did include murder trials. And I have served on petit-juries (in courtrooms- look it up), as well as grande juries.
I think someone, Christopher, is pulling small segments of what I have said in order to say I am wrong, or am contradicting myself, when in fact, I have not. I said, “there are DIFFERENT reasons for sealing a warrant”…. and, “here are a few reasons as to WHY”. To take one statement and then another, which would simply apply in differering cases to ttry to say it is a contradiction, without including the statement, “there are different reasons as to WHY.. and here are a few”, is asinine. Seriously, either someone’s reading-comprehension is lacking or that same someone is playing games.
Either way, this is the LAST I will say on the inane comments regarding Sandy Hook. I am DONE with it, now.
ed note–thank you Anne, not only for this very rational commentary, but as well for all those previous you have spent the time to post here.
#68 by 1bigcree Shadowhawk on February 19, 2013 - 11:16 pm
Yes; Thankyou Anne! Common sense and logic. This should be first & foremost. This is not an issue of Free Speech! Come on people!
#69 by annebeck58 on February 20, 2013 - 1:21 am
And, thanks, Mark.. for allowing me to finally explain why I do not feel the constant pulling-out small bits of information (some true, most not true or factual), is worthwhile.
I appreciate posting here, which is why I do try very hard to not have a go at people, and if I do feel the need, in defending my point (or lately, myself), I do work at not calling-names or putting people down. Yet, some few obviously do not get that explaining the why’s (as in why their ideas don’t really work) is the same as calling them idiots. So, the same people have come out with name-calling, just for the fun of it, I suppose.
I did have the idea that this young man, Christopher, might want answers. That is the only reason I decided to (finally) respond to him. But, to those who don’t get why I normally would not; when we allow all to go off the deep end, regarding “truths” and/or “truthiness”, and these are people we regularly associate with, even just on blogs, i feel it’s important to reign them in.
We are seeing a fracture in the truth-movement and it upsets me to no end. The silly game-play set out to bother me, as well as others, is something that is destructive to the movement, as is the lunacy of picking apart stories while not paying attention to the whole of the story.
How is any of this helping anyone to learn anything?
#70 by Ingrid B on February 20, 2013 - 4:10 am
For ten years I was subjected to ridicule by colleagues at work, it started in a small way, with one or two, and ended in a full blown witch hunt, which I am documenting. Nothing was sacred to these people, not even my private life, everything about me was discussed, mostly behind my back, though I did have some idea of what was being discussed, by the questions I was asked. The way I wore my hair was discussed, endlessly, the way I dressed, my make-up, my child, my home, even the method I chose to get to and from work. I didn`t talk like them, think like them, I had different ways of doing things, and I had my own opinions, just like Christopher Marlowe. For me, this discussion had little to do with Sandy Hook, but rather quite a lot to do with the ridicule, by a majority, of a minority, for daring to voice a differing opinion..
I know nothing of what happened at Sandy Hook, I was not there, all I am saying is, everyone, EVERYONE, should be entitled to an opinion, that`s all..
#71 by ruby22-kate on February 20, 2013 - 4:45 am
Here is an example of the integrity Ingrid has always been known for. Bravo Ingrid, never timid or cowardly when it comes down to being fair.
#72 by ruby22-kate on February 20, 2013 - 4:48 am
well #70 is copied to add to the 5 deleted posts I made on this thread. But I’m no conspiracy theorist if they’re really out to erase me.
#73 by annebeck58 on February 20, 2013 - 4:56 am
Ingrid; I think you are misreading what actually happened, and it could be that you’ve not read all of the comments.
I actually did believe Christopher was here to ask questions. When, after I responded twice (without any name-calling or diminutive sorts of slurs), he went off on me, and said he would be posting what I said (or parts of it, as he is fond of picking apart my words to form differing thoughts) to an, “unbiased site”. It was at this point that I said, to him, I was done. When he did respond to what I actually did say, last night, I tried to explain (again) to him why what he was putting out there made no sense. Correcting obvious misconceptions is not the same as calling someone an idiot, though some have taken it this way, and they have, “come back with”, trash-talk.
He was not done, however, and the attacks started with him. I did not attack back. Yet, two others decided it was their turn to name-call and just act the fool. Still, I did not resort to name-calling after what they said.
I will not go over, yet again, how inane I find the whole SH debacle, but I would suggest you take a look at some of the videos in youtube (mainly in YT) to see how weak the “arguments” are.
I really feels like the items brought up are put out there just to cause this rift.
It has not a THING to do with free-speech, but with those from within the “truth movement” acting like they have not thought this through.. And in believing anything some of the, “bigger names”, in this movement say, without really considering how silly it seems, is just as bad as believing the government’s story on 9-11 (which too many Americans still buy into.)
Every news story, particularly bad-news stories, is followed by rumor, innuendo, conjecture, and just plain idiocy. That certain truthers are blowing this way out of proportion with no facts to back-up what they are saying, even when it’s been explained (and particularly when it’s been explained) is bad for all of us. I’ve told you this before, Ingrid; we are ALL lumped in with whatever they say, and when they are flying off of the rails, I would think it’s our duty to reel them back in. I have not told anyone to shut up, nor have I called names. The people you are standing up for cannot say the same.
Okay?
#74 by Ingrid B on February 20, 2013 - 4:38 pm
@annebeck58, it is you who misundersdand what I am saying.. I have little or no opinion, one way or the other, about Sandy Hook.. If there is a hidden agenda, it will, eventually emerge.. All I`m saying is, we all have the right to express an opinion.
#75 by ruby22-kate on February 20, 2013 - 5:39 pm
I have no opinion on Sandy Hook one way or the other, it amazes me that after MG asked politely to leave the topic alone it still continues.
And let there be no misunderstanding of my # 71 post, there is not an iota of sarcasm, my remark was to tell Ingrid how much I’ve always admired her integrity, and her fearless defense of underdogs.
Imho, Ingrid, you are the moral compass on this site and I honor you for that. I wish I could offer more than mere words. kate
#76 by annebeck58 on February 20, 2013 - 6:25 pm
Here’s how I see it, Ingrid; It’s not really about opinion or freedom of speech.
The behaviour toward families who’ve lost their children and others (the six adults, besides Lanza’s mother and Lanza, himself) has been despicable. The “hookers” have been attacking individuals, making up the most inane connections, where none exist, hurting a lot of people at the same time. And, when I give my opinon on how they have blown this out of proportion to the point where you’d not recognise what it is from the actual event, they go off. Have I called names of those who think they know better, yet are posting trash that really means nothing regarding this? No, until now, I have not. Yet, more than a couple of others have done the same to me and to a couple others here.
When Mark said he wasn’t interested, mainly because this debacle has been too much, these same people did not quit. In fact, we’re looking at it continuing by someone who doesn’t even live in the states and has, I’d bet, never been to Connecticut, and probably could not even consider what the layout of the town, as well as the school, is. I spent a good part of a summer, two years ago, in Newtown. I grew up in Connecticut, and most of my siblings (my parents had 17 children) still live in CT.
What I truly detest is that we, including me, are being associated with the behaviour of these particular people. I think it’s dangerous for the truth movement, entirely. Like I said, take a look at some of the videos in youtube, where they call parents of dead children, “lying scum”, “Pieces of sh** actors”, and worse. On top of it, some have been posting of their exploits, for example; “know what I emailed to that P.O.S Actor yesterday? Here it is… (blah blah)”. Some of these individuals have taken to phoning the grieving parents in the middle of the night, just for, “fun”.
They are behaving like a bunch of marauding banshees, and I do not wish to have them associated with me or with any serious 9-11 TRUTH group. They’ve gone too far and this is something they (and we, by association) cannot come back from.
It has not a thing to do with opinion, yet, when I do give mine in regard to their despicable acts, people jump down my throat? Sorry, but I do have experience in a lot of areas of life. I did not sit at home as a housewife, ever. I’ve been involved in my community, so I know a bit of what I speak. Yet I have these people, who seem to have no experience to base their “opinions” (attitudes, actions, foolishness) on,they cannot be swayed to consider factual evidence, and as such will not ever listen to reason.
This is what bothers me, Ingrid. Not opinions, but name-calling, game-playing,and bringing it to different sites all throughout this truth movement. That gets my goat.
(and I am not trying to argue with you, as I was not trying to argue with Christopher. Just trying to get you to see why I don’t want to discuss that folderol any more.)
And to others who seem to enjoy picking at me, I am not interested in hearing from the peanut-gallery, either.
#77 by Ingrid B on February 20, 2013 - 7:01 pm
thanks Kate, maybe we can meet when we pass over, and sit and watch in horror, as this precious planet is destroyed.. though I hope it doesn`t come to that..
#78 by tp on February 23, 2013 - 6:47 pm
Mark,
I have a great deal of respect for what you do and the amount of courage you demonstrate.
But not all people have the talents you do, others, who also have a desire to get the word out like yourself end up doing it like this lady. Not to your approval, but it is her way. And we need EVERY SINGLE person out there to do it THEIR WAY! Because for some people this lady’s way would be more effective than “my way” or your “way”.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING negative comes out of this act. The folks who are already lead by the JMSM will not be impacted by this one bit. It is the FACTS that matter. NOTHING ELSE. If even one single person goes to the website and does some independent research on the subject matter that otherwise would not have, then it was ALL GOOD! It was a random search that lead me here afterall, so I know.
In addition, the other major positive that comes out of it is it gives people who “know” HOPE. There are others that know and are not afraid of going to jail in trying to get the word out. The SYSTEM will NOT keep us silent. You trying to police how people should get the word out there is plain SILLY. Try asking a teenager that is pissed off at this system and does not give a rats ass about some 200 year old painting what he thinks of this lady!
much love and respect