Sandy Hook Shooting Investigation

Politics and religion.

Moderator: JasonNC

User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:00 pm
The Bathroom Hide-Out Story of Teacher Kaitlin Roig - part 2

For 45 minutes, Roig-DeBellis comforted her students, keeping them from any crying outbursts for fear the slightest noise might draw gunfire.

Horror quickly unfolded beyond her door.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/ar ... 853386.php


Image
Above: Roig dressed up for her visit to shake a paw with the president and various politicians

Here is Roig explaining the whole unlikely story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjG97VsBGfM

Observations
1. Her speech seems rehearsed, wooden, and business-like. Listening to her tone, I think she soundss more like the amateur PR speakers we hear in work meetings than someone describing the escape from a school massacre.

2. Strangely, she said there was no time to lock the single entrance door to her classroom. That would take... all of 5 seconds? Instead she closed the classroom door, then had a back-and-forth conversation with her students, oversaw their assembly in the bathroom, then she physically lifted them and repositioned the kids so the bathroom door would close, and finally she wheeled a cabinet in front of the door. Minutes vs seconds. I don't get it.

3. She explained in her own words that the bathroom was 3x4 feet.

4. She said she put a little girl on top of the toilet paper dispenser? What? Wouldn't this make for an uncomfortable kid and a paper dispenser that could eventually break?

5. She claimed to keep 15 children wedged inside a 3x4 space, totally in the dark and trapped, reasonably quiet and sane while 150+ rounds are fired just outside.

I defy anyone to pack -- literally pack -- fifteen 6 and 7 year-olds inside a 3x4 space, locked in the dark, with gunshots going off outside, and keep them from absolutely losing their FREAKIN minds for 45 minutes.

Roig said no one was screaming, complaining loudly, or even crying. They were talking with her. One kid said he'd use karate to save them. Please...

Again, watch this interview with Kaitlin Roig which was conducted on the same day as the shooting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX8V_ZWw ... r_embedded

Diane Sawyer asked Roig,"Did they cry?"

Roig responds: "No, if they started crying I would like take their face in my hands and go 'It's gonna be ok' or 'show me your smile'".

The bathroom and classroom outside were in total darkness, although somehow she was able to find the faces of children and comfort them? Let me see you smile in the pitch dark?
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:06 am
Update, 9 months later.

FEMA/DHS 12/14/12 Plan for “Mass Death of Children at a School By Firearms”

http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/10/08/fe ... -firearms/

Quite a coincidence. A high level drill featuring mass death of children by firearms, including a potential suicide of the shooter, was planned for Dec 14, 2012... the very day of the Sandy Hook event.

A newly discovered Federal Emergency Management-Department of Homeland Security document designated “For Official Use Only” reveals plans for a “Site Activation Call-down Drill Exercise Plan,” otherwise known as a “Mass Casualty Drill.”

The plan, created on October 8, 2012, explicitly references a scenario where the “Mass Death of Children at a School By Firearms” is followed by a “Suicide or Apprehension of [an] Unknown Shooter.”


Download the DHS Explan, or scan the pages via Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR4Snb-TYUs

EDIT: Looks like this info is not real. There have been other several other hoaxes before regarding SH, and I doubt this will be the last.
Last edited by Dorm on Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
User avatar
Woah! Double lightsaber! Double lightsaber all the way!
Posts: 6286
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:42 pm
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:32 am
It appears the documents are a simply-produced hoax.

The forms in question are easily downloadable. The hoaxters have merely added in the conspiracy theory appropriate info.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunk ... -pdf.4656/

The link Dorm added above to the Youtube thread involves the original poster claiming Metabunk hasn't debunked it. Of course, they have just shown how it could have easily been faked.

So...convenient explanation that fits with conspiracy theories perfectly...

...suddenly appears two years later...

...as the perfect too-good-to-be-true "smoking gun"...

...but could have easily been faked with tools available to anyone...

...and features numerous inaccuracies involving individuals, command structure, and documented procedures...

Pull out ye olde Occam's Razor and shred those docs. They're fake.
Image
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:56 am
Good catch. I kind of thought it was a 1) little too convenient, and 2) the Explan (Exercise Plan) was too thin on information.

The hoax-maker did a great job of disrupting inquiry into this important subject. Then again, that's what a good chunk of the internet is for, right? Poisoning the well....

Metabunk is a funny site. I followed it on and off for a while. They're good at exposing a thing like this, but if the admin struggles and genuinely crashes with debunking a poster's research, he will not concede anything and instead ban them and disappear the thread.

Anyway, I'd be happy to hear comments on the more established data I've linked throughout the thread. I think I'm at my best when I use the media and police reports.
Quote
User avatar
Woah! Double lightsaber! Double lightsaber all the way!
Posts: 6286
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:42 pm
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:44 am
Okay, here's one. As to the notion that there were no Sandy Hook lawsuits, that is only partially true. There was a rather highly-publicized petition to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the family of a 6-year-old survivor against the state of Connecticut. The online backlash was so huge (to the point of the lawyer receiving death threats) that the petition was pulled before the suit was brought forward (just over two weeks after the shootings).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/01/justice/c ... k-lawsuit/

Apparently, that cooled off any other attempts.

As to many of the other claims, I point you to Snopes, who should not be considered an authority (because they're not) but who do a pretty good job of detecting hoaxes. Here's their take on the claims from the video way back when that started most of this conspiracyism over Sandy Hook:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

Oh, and here's a more recent debunk of something from Alex "If you take me seriously, I pity you" Jones' own InfoWars site about how the FBI CONFIRMED it was a hoax by showing there were no murders reported in Newtown that year:

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp

If I seem like I'm being a bit more snarky and abrupt about this one (rather than just ignoring the whole "everything's a conspiracy" talk like I normally do), it's because REAL. PEOPLE. DIED.

Real people. Real human beings. Not actors. Not SAG members (as the Snopes article points out).

REAL. PEOPLE. DIED.

It's clear that they died. It's obvious they died. No one whose major confirmation bias leans toward anything other than the conspiratorial would have any trouble recognizing that every shred of the actual evidence points to them dying in a real shooting perpetrated by a really disturbed young man. It's why the conspiracy crap is not all over the news.

Think about that for a second. If there was a shred of truth to any of this, don't you think at least ONE major news organization (like one that doesn't have "Wars" in the name, for example) would be falling all over itself for that scoop? Of course they would. That's what they do. That's how they make themselves feel relevant. They THRIVE on controversy, but they fear being part of it, like being majorly debunked for trying to report something obviously false, like, for example the obviously untrue story that the murder of 27 real human beings that breathed and lived and had names and personalities and families was falsified for some kind of FEMA drill.

And really, when you just say it out loud, "It was all some sort of FEMA drill," doesn't that even sound ridiculous? Isn't is patently, amazingly obvious that human nature would foul something like that up so badly that there's no way that, nearly two years on, it wouldn't be public knowledge by now (especially considering how many people out there are crying "conspiracy," which of course would make it nigh on impossible to hide a real conspiracy). Doesn't it just give you pause for a second to think how ridiculous it all sounds? How paranoid?

Seriously, no hard feelings, Dorm. I'm not angry or anything. But really, why bother commenting? You've made up your mind and you listen to those who affirm your views. That's your prerogative. I don't even mind the fact that you post them here. But this one gets me more than all the other conspiracy rants, because (I'll say it again)

REAL. PEOPLE. DIED.

Rant over.

Now, here's a guy who's been spending the last nine months studying the Sandy Hook massacre. His page is best read chronologically from the beginning back this February when he started his investigation. Happy hunting!

http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/
Image
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:36 am
Okay, here's one. As to the notion that there were no Sandy Hook lawsuits, that is only partially true. There was a rather highly-publicized petition to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the family of a 6-year-old survivor against the state of Connecticut. The online backlash was so huge (to the point of the lawyer receiving death threats) that the petition was pulled before the suit was brought forward (just over two weeks after the shootings).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/01/justice/c ... k-lawsuit/


Darth, if you had read my post on that, you'd see that I already mentioned the lawsuit here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1731&start=298

The lawyer himself withdrew his case immediately, as I wrote. No serious lawyer would jump on national TV, as he did, and 'claim' to run headlong into one of the biggest mass murder cases in modern history involving children, and then withdraw fast because of an unknown number of angry facebook posts. A real lawyer, with a real case and real evidence, seeking justice, would come in and kick butt. He would not be a TV ham and be Chatty Cathy, as he was. Instead, he would keep a tight lip and let his evidence speak for him in the courts in this very serious case.

He single-handedly turned any attempts at litigation into a greedy circus of opportunity.

To this date, no law suits. Maybe some will emerge later, but every 'family' is too really busy organizing their fund-raisers and preaching about guns at the moment. No exag at all.

As to many of the other claims, I point you to Snopes, who should not be considered an authority (because they're not) but who do a pretty good job of detecting hoaxes. Here's their take on the claims from the video way back when that started most of this conspiracyism over Sandy Hook:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp


I've read that Snopes page many times. It's fairly weak sauce. First and most important, several of those "issues" are red herrings, several are already resolved, and do not constitute the main arguments about Sandy Hook. I either avoided them or noticed I had strayed into them earlier, so I corrected myself later.

This is what I wrote last post:
Anyway, I'd be happy to hear comments on the more established data I've linked throughout the thread. I think I'm at my best when I use the media and police reports.


If Snopes can solve all the controversies which the government, media, and witnesses have given to us -- logged in this thread -- then I'd be interested in hearing.

Oh, and here's a more recent debunk of something from Alex "If you take me seriously, I pity you" Jones' own InfoWars site about how the FBI CONFIRMED it was a hoax by showing there were no murders reported in Newtown that year:

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp


I don't believe anything Alex Jones says about Sandy Hook and made that clear in this thread. Second, he did not research that information you're referring to. Third, I saw that FBI info as soon as it came out. I actually had time so I looked into it, and saw that the information is volunteered by local jurisdictions, and many don't volunteer all the stats.

If I seem like I'm being a bit more snarky and abrupt about this one (rather than just ignoring the whole "everything's a conspiracy" talk like I normally do), it's because REAL. PEOPLE. DIED.

Real people. Real human beings. Not actors. Not SAG members (as the Snopes article points out).

REAL. PEOPLE. DIED.


Your argument, if you have one, is based on conviction, and the belief in the apparent Urban Legend of Sandy Hook. So far, there does not seem to be proof that people died. Rather, there is ample proof that several people lied.

Next point. I don't care about SAG stuff, or whatever other red herring. When it comes to Rosen (the SAG focus), I provide data on how he really is an amateur actor. Far more importantly -- in fact the only thing of importance is -- I posted data showing that his story is impossible and contradicting.

It's clear that they died. It's obvious they died. No one whose major confirmation bias leans toward anything other than the conspiratorial would have any trouble recognizing that every shred of the actual evidence points to them dying in a real shooting perpetrated by a really disturbed young man. It's why the conspiracy crap is not all over the news.


Clear. Obvious. Interesting choice of words: "Every shred of actual evidence." Take a step back. Look at the news. Find all that evidence. Hard evidence. Not a story. Then come back here.

Here's another: "...conspiracy crap is not all over the news". The news is overflowing with conspiracy stories, if you haven't noticed. The news goes on and on about the plots of the evil and random foes of our Western societies. It's quite funny actually how one-sided and formulaic it is (and many stories turn out to be false, correct?). The corporate news and the White House tend to hatch conspiracy theories several times a week, and they conspire to keep the stories organized and shaped.

The truth is, there's documented info exposing these, and there's documented info exposing 'events' such as Sandy Hook too. Stories supporting power tend to be glorified as fact. Stories against power tend to be "conspiracy theories", a term designed to peripheralize.

Think about that for a second. If there was a shred of truth to any of this, don't you think at least ONE major news organization (like one that doesn't have "Wars" in the name, for example) would be falling all over itself for that scoop? Of course they would. That's what they do. That's how they make themselves feel relevant.


I assume you have strong trust in major news organizations, even when it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they're inundated by intel forces and their owners are also linked to national security. Not to mention, the news corp owners know each other well. If Sandy Hook were a national security event (which is my best guess, given the evidence), you're saying the news would be falling over itself to destroy their cover and expose it? That's what they do on a regular basis? I think the news tends to obscure, play-down, or get tight with national security events far more than they illuminate and expose them objectively.

And really, when you just say it out loud, "It was all some sort of FEMA drill," doesn't that even sound ridiculous?


Interesting. This thread documents several drills and exercises. There's even a link of one where disguised police invaded a school and shot at teachers with special guns. I don't see that as ridiculous, especially with the drills occurring in and around Sandy Hook.

Isn't is patently, amazingly obvious that human nature would foul something like that up so badly that there's no way that, nearly two years on, it wouldn't be public knowledge by now (especially considering how many people out there are crying "conspiracy," which of course would make it nigh on impossible to hide a real conspiracy). Doesn't it just give you pause for a second to think how ridiculous it all sounds? How paranoid?


The thread documents how mistakes were made and many of the participants screwed up or told very contradicting stories. The news made sure not to raise an eyebrow. The news exposed many of the problems and signs of impossibility. When the police and coroner specialists made their reports, the news was also dead silent on the incredible things they reported. Is that paranoia? It seems that a conspiracy wasn't fully hidden. Rather it was reported in bits and pieces and then ignored in the end.

Seriously, no hard feelings, Dorm. I'm not angry or anything.But really, why bother commenting? You've made up your mind and you listen to those who affirm your views.


Actually, that was my comment to you. The data that shows controversies and lies is in the news, the witness statements, the photos, the police and science reports. I merely linked some of the stuff here. Your beef is with them.

You're trying to partially make this about me -- and making it quite dramatic -- when it's really about the data and analysis in this thread, which you are strangely ignoring.

But this one gets me more than all the other conspiracy rants, because (I'll say it again)

REAL. PEOPLE. DIED.


Well, that's horrible if they did. The public has not been given any direct evidence regarding that, however. Not that they need it, LOL. If you get that evidence, please link it up here. Just not in caps, please.

Now, here's a guy who's been spending the last nine months studying the Sandy Hook massacre. His page is best read chronologically from the beginning back this February when he started his investigation. Happy hunting!

http://sandyhookanalysis.blogspot.com/


I'll give it a look later. Have to sleep. It looks pretty nasty.
Quote
User avatar
Woah! Double lightsaber! Double lightsaber all the way!
Posts: 6286
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:42 pm
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:59 am
Dorm wrote:I assume you have strong trust in major news organizations, even when it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they're inundated by intel forces and their owners are also linked to national security.

No, Dorm. Read it again. I have a strong trust in major news organizations' greed, desire for relevancy, and for their being filled-to-near-bursting with wannabe Woodwards and Bernsteins. Exposing government corruption is gold for a newsguy. You're telling me that not one maverick from ANY major news org has broken step with the party line? Much less anyone in the more "respected" corner of the talk radio sphere?

Sorry, man. That's just too hard to swallow. It doesn't fit with human nature. It doesn't fit with the facts. Are you gonna tell me this is all some sort of play?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1226040

In Bloomfield, Conn., a carriage drawn by two white horses brought Ana Marquez-Greene’s body to the First Cathedral Church.

Harry Connick Jr. and Javier Colon, the Hartford singer who won “The Voice” TV competition last year, both serenaded mourners with soulful tunes.

“We’ve come to celebrate Ana Grace Marquez-Greene,” said Archbishop Leroy Bailey. “The only difference now is that she lives in our hearts.”

Ana’s father, jazz saxophonist Jimmy Greene, and mother, Nelba, sat in the front row as musicians played the Latin music their daughter loved.

The parents even managed to laugh at the memories of Ana singing and dancing.

During the service, home videos were played of Ana singing “I’m a Little Teapot” and “Dame la Mano Paloma (Give Me Your Hand),” her favorite Spanish song.

Mourners said Ana loved music so much she would dance from room to room even where there was no music playing.

“Today, we gather here to say that love has triumphed,” said Pastor Myrta Marquez, who traveled from Puerto Rico to attend the funeral.

The Rev. Paul Echtenkamp said the girl was born with a musical gift.

“Ana had a song. It just came out of her,” Echtenkamp said.

Family friend Charlene Diehl remembered Ana as as a “sharp, intelligent, sweet, curious girl.”

Ana’s service was also broadcast live at the Grant Memorial Baptist Church in Winnipeg, Canada, where the family lived before moving to Newtown.


Hmm, a lot of people in on that conspiracy, aren't there? Amazing how they all go along with it, and none of them break step with it. It's amazing how people are always like that, isn't it? They always go along with the program and are all really good at telling lies. They never get greedy enough to want to spill the beans on their huge conspiracies to some hotshot maverick news agency. But that's human nature for you.

No? That's not human nature at all, you say? Humans are guilt-ridden and greedy? They can't get compromise in Congress or even get along in families at least half the time? Celebrities can't keep their secrets about their nude photos, and politicians can't keep their mistresses hidden? Why yes, I suppose that's true. Well, these must be some extraordinary people involved in this conspiracy.

Heck, maybe they should be in charge. I guess our betters really are running things.

Thanks. I feel better already.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Chief Commander of the Skrull Horde
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:20 pm
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:20 pm
You'd think Greenwald at least would be breaking from party lines to expose the government, no?
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:35 pm
First, I'm comment here.

b0bb33z3r wrote:You'd think Greenwald at least would be breaking from party lines to expose the government, no?


Greenwald is an intelligent, important figure in the media. Here is why Greenwald and most people like him would have not said a word about the subject:

1. He does not have detailed, insider documentation from apparent government sources regarding Sandy Hook

2. If he did, no corporate news agency would cover and reinforce his msg. Career suicide. Even if he's right.

3. He has no interest in the subject to begin with.

4. There's many different kinds of government corruption. For instance, there's proven research on the national security state creating hoax terror attacks, which even the mainstream media has had to cover very quietly and briefly (in order for them to still look relevant and useful). And yet Greenwald has no expertise in the subject. He has chosen to specialize in investigating a particular aspect of national security crime. It takes up nearly all his time, and he has to bear that cross possibly for the rest of his life. I don't see him becoming Mr Research-Everything-Anytime.

5. If he were to exposed to Sandy Hook research, and saw that it was inconclusive, and not air-tight either way, he wouldn't risk pursuing it because any error, large or small, would invalidate all his good research that came before (i.e. NSA crime).

6. Black-listed, he wouldn't get any work.

That pretty much sums almost every reporter, although there's a small handful that have rolled the dice and risked reporting on Sandy Hook and some other questionable, domestic events.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:13 pm
Next up -- part 1

Not only do I research events (with less and less time to do so), I also have no choice but to also research how people react to the data, and how it is sometimes side-stepped. No choice because naturally people will get uptight and defensive if you tell them that the forces governing them and 'informing' them are way bigger liars than previously thought.

The most important thing to mention is this: I don't have all the answers. What I can dig up is when published aspects of a "story" can be proven to be incorrect; when some aspects of the story clearly contradict other aspects; when major witnesses, major authorities, and so on, differ -- sometimes spectacularly -- on fundamental, simple aspects of the story... when no such contradictions should exist if it happened in the straightforward way that we've been told.

That said, in order to 'solve' why the explanations of the participants are in such chaos, I have offered my best guess: That the event was some kind of national security contrivance long in the making. While the event seemed highly controlled and made for TV, it was not perfectly conducted and then presented as a unified, doubtless story to the public. My guesses are irrelevant in the end. The only thing I find valuable is the data.

Darth Board wrote:No, Dorm. Read it again. I have a strong trust in major news organizations' greed, desire for relevancy, and for their being filled-to-near-bursting with wannabe Woodwards and Bernsteins.


That is a great example. First off, it was somewhat well-known back in the early 70s that a giant chunk of the Establishment was against President Nixon. It truly was a nation divided, and an increasing number of guys in high places wanted Nixon out, and they said as much in the end. Woodward and Bernstein exposed the Watergate Scandal, and the national security state helped that exposure happen. It evolved into a mainstream event. However, your example is great because Bernstein went on to explain later that the Corporate Media was absolutely inundated with intelligence operatives. They made up or modified stories. They sometimes conspired with news corporations to orchestrate a false or warped story, and spread through multiple "supposedly independent" news agencies.

More of this was exposed in the early 1970s by Senator Frank Church's Committee. US and NATO-ally Intelligence didn't withdraw and hide away, calling it quits. Instead, they adapted and became more corporate, and they more or less recruited the shrinking number of major Media owners. The merger of corporate and state power is hardly a secret anymore.

Also, interestingly enough, investigative reporters are dying breed in more ways than one. If the ones pursuing very hot stories are not mysteriously suiciding all over the place (so many of those), they're being shut down and pushed out. The alternative media is a cemetery for once possibly celebrated journalists who whose editors refused to publish their stories or air their pieces. Why? Too hot to handle in all sorts of different ways.

The old reporters in retirement said it best: Corporate media control is powerful and linked with government. If the status quo doesn't want very important, damaging things brought to light, then they'll gang up on you and force you out. Risks can be taken to say a variety of controversial, politicized things, depending on the subject. Whereas other things just cannot be said.

Exposing government corruption is gold for a newsguy. You're telling me that not one maverick from ANY major news org has broken step with the party line? Much less anyone in the more "respected" corner of the talk radio sphere?


Let's go to some major, simple examples.

Vietnam, 1964. It was rumoured that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident -- which more or less made the war official -- was suspect, very fishy. How many mainstream news organizations launched a serious investigation, looking for "gold"? The answer: none. It was the biggest story in years, and a war that got so many people killed. As it happens, Tonkin has now since been proven to have been a major hoax. It was perpetrated by the USGov, and insiders had to wait 40+ years to prove it. Thanks, Slavish Media for obeying and keeping us in the dark.

Iraq War, 2003. Every single mainstream media agency bowed down and repeated the lies that launched the war. We're talking everyone. Force Multiplier, as the Pentagon brags. No investigations. Everyone took their pablum directly from the gov. It was disgusting. The few voices in the wilderness who asked important questions were tamped down. Suddenly, a switch was flipped. Suddenly, all the news organizations 180-ed and jumped on Bush. Even FOX News, the last bastion, 180-ed not too long after and agreed and had to come up with new reasons to fight the war. This isn't media operating according to opportunistic, greedy, capitalistic motives. This is media that operates according to powerful PUSHES from inside the elite US system. Despite all the bickering, they tend to parrot each other on certain major national security stories.

Illegal Drug Smuggling involving the CIA & friends, 70s til present. This is one of the biggest stories around, with a generation of research, dozens of essays and books published by police insiders, journalists, professors, etc. The very few mainstream reporters who had the bravery to look into this with an open mind are out of the business or in the ground. The mainstream news in concert dog-piled on any licensed journalist in the small press (Gary Webb, for example, who shot himself... twice... in the head with shotgun) who brought up hard facts about it. The closest the mainstream news has gotten to conceding the truth has been the quiet reporting of illegal drug money laundered by certain major US banks. Where's the real investigative reporting? There's mountains of gold out there. That's off limits apparently. Too scary.

Over the years, I've listed dozens of more examples, moving from global to more domestic. Big lies are constantly being told, and Big Media is more than happy to totally agree, keep quiet, and carry the water. You will usually see this on certain events that aren't pissing matches between elite aspects of society; it's on stuff they agree on. For instance: gun control, pharmaceuticals, security legislation, fear and distrust in society, loving government, etc. They love that crap.

If the elites agree, then big media agrees to keep quiet or PUSh in a certain direction. If the elites disagree, then you see pissy-fight scandals and 'gold' being found.
Last edited by Dorm on Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
PreviousNext

Return to It matters!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron