I read a good portion of the book "Nobody Died At Sandy Hook" via the free pdf (due to its banning from Amazon) and was so captivated that I bought a physical copy via a reprint. It's very compelling and I do believe it. My question is, wouldn't it have been easier for the government to simply arrange the shooting rather than fake it? It seems like a lot less loose ends. My theory is that if the truth ever does come to the mainstream, since the event was a hoax, the gov wouldn't have killed anyone so it wouldn't be seen as such a big deal. What are your guys' thoughts?
Tldr: it's easier to stage an event than fake one, why was Sandy Hook faked rather than created?
view the rest of the comments →
luckyguy ago
That was pretty good. I've know a few people on psych drugs and even a few who couldn't take it anymore and quit that ended up improving. I agree with that Able Child woman. A lot of our psych institution is too inept to be dealing with children as fast and loose as they do.
As for a lot of the media inconsistencies this assumes that the media gives a fuck about their job. It's sad when an alt news production company can out investigate news organizations 1000 to 1. News just takes the low hanging fruit reporting off of what ever article they can find. After a while the system dries up and there is no one actually investigating any thing. When you have 24 hour news they just start relaying any information they get with no filter and sometimes that's from other media outlets that have misreported. It's not like the good old days where you had news at a specific time and a certain amount of time to fit the story into so your goal was to produce the highest quality deliverable to fit in that time slot.
For the time being I'm going to believe alt news if anything as a protest. Why should we believe people who invest less into a story than the average internet viewer but just has a bigger mouth. I wouldn't believe every voat comment I see because of lack of authority, effort, and bias that comes with a voat comment. Why would I believe a news organization that puts less effort in than anyone trying to understand a subject, has no real authority, and has known bias tied to actual money. At least I have pretty good reason to believe that the biases of a voater are just personal instead of paid.
So that brings us to alt news. If you are the only one putting in real effort you should be the only one who gets a voice so as far as I'm concerned Sandy Hook didn't happen.
I'll say this about alt news too. Who is an alt news reporter. He's someone with a youtube. Takes stories, puts together material, investigates, personally tracks down people to talk to, reads other people's opinions on the matter and digests it, writes a script that tells a story over a period of time, provides context, edits it, delivers it over a 10 minute period in one take, produces graphics and visuals, interacts with viewers, publishes media, deals with licenses.
Let's talk about a news room journalist. Dresses up nice, reads a teleprompter. One of these things takes a 5th grade education, the other takes serious professionalism. Any one who says MSM is professional news I laugh. I know in the case of these guys they had a team but some of these guys are one man shows. Which of these people should I respect?