The 'Nobody died at Sandy Hook' conspiracy has been thoroughly dismantled - exposing how easy it was to convince Internet users to pick on the victims without proper evidence they're crisis actors.
Your takeaway from show trials to push horrible legislation is that people who can't find an ounce of evidence that events happened as they are told to us by corrupt mainstream sources is that people have been conned into wrongthink?
Your Substack has become unreadable. It's not interested in getting to the bottom of anything. It doesn't ask any questions. It's just ad hominem attacks at people doing more thinking than you. What the hell's the point? Sad.
I'm challenging your presumptions and you don't like it, predictably. I've detected a pattern of misdirection in these false flag investigations and I'm raising the alarm. Investigate away. Don't let me stop you. Just remember there are traps laid out for you to reach the wrong conclusion. That much should be clear by now. Practically every doco I've watched on these false flags is laced with poison. It's easy to spot after a while. We're seeing two warring satanic factions battle it out and they don't care who they take down to get what they want, including children. Child sacrifice is not an issue for these people, they're not going to go the crisis actor route. Real children were murdered that day in Sandy Hook.
It was TV3 actually but you probably have a point. Yes my mainstream media training meant we had to check everything a few times to avoid being sued or to avoid putting out false information or accusing an innocent person in the wrong. I'm not an amateur sleuth on the Internet. There are rules of engagement. Dodgy narration over carefully selected images won't convince me - too easy to spot the misdirection. Confusion is the name of the game. Old school standards are a way of negotiating tricky terrain. You won't be so easily conned.
I'm not familiar. Is O'Loughlin a former MSM journalist who now substacks about some--but definitely not all--controversial things? Like so many on Substack these days?
How on earth am I supposed to write about ALL controversial things? I go where the road leads. I've found myself on the conspiracy theory side of the fence since the Covid hoax but that doesn't mean I'm down with every other conspiracy. Old school principles still apply. Again I've noticed the victims have been vilified without proper evidence, just speculation.
Well I don't mean to say you need to literally write about all things controversial. But can we have an honest dialogue about how many "MSM Journalists Come-Latelys" there are filling up supposedly alt media hangouts like Substack these days?
We benefit from having people who are new to this stuff in our environment for a lot of reasons, but there are reasons to suspicious when journalists who appear new to this stuff still harbor mainstream-agreeable opinions on things like this.
Also, you're not American and you seem to be strongly disagreeing with the stance of the First Amendment of our Constitution. You should expect a lot of backlash for that stance, but perhaps you don't understand that not being from the USA. I don't mean to come across as terse, but perhaps it's a matter of cultural competency.
'how easy it was to convince Internet users to pick on the victims without proper evidence they're crisis actors.'
Good onya Aisling. Its a tuff number you've taken on but more power to you. Gobbledegook goes back a long time and its still being rolled out - just give it a new name every few years so why not.
Judging by the comments that follow I get why you mention journalistic ethics. Evert time I move away from rants I feel such a relief. 'Keep your powder dry' - I'll stick with the common sense in that.
I feel like Alex Jones has sufficiently apologized for using his first amendment rights to say something that was likely untrue and emotionally hurtful for some. Why does this require 1.5 billion dollars and a reevaluation of our most important right given to us by our constitution? ...as far as I'm concerned, however this verdict goes ...so goes Free Speech...and so go us all.
We ought to be screaming for our freedoms right now, particularly as we've seen how they've been pretty successful at suppressing them over the last 4 years in particular.
There's a big difference between free speech and slander as I've said in the piece. You don't have the right to spread lies and rumours about innocent people. You don't have the right to tarnish a person's reputation with falsehoods thrown around willy nilly. Yes, the $1.5 billion fine is ridiculous and clearly politically motivated but we should be asking why are these actors putting us in this position in the first place through their reckless journalism? It looks deliberate from where I'm standing.
I don't think you adequately differentiated slander from free speech at all, as I don't really believe there is differentiation. It's an unfortunate downside of free speech.
But more importantly you didn't mention how Jones has apologized for his on air remarks ad infinitum. He also never seems to have definitively said that "Sandy Hook was a complete fraud" he explored this idea with callers on his show who said that and he did promote the idea that it was framed in such a way as to create a backdrop for increasing bans on firearms. That's not the wildest thing to say after Sandy Hook, as there were innumerable calls to ban firearms after that incident ..as there always is.
But what I'm hearing is that despite nearly 10 years of apologies from Jones, you actually agree with the verdict and the decison to have him pay 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. For the high crime of speculating on government corruption... Is this really what you believe?
Imagine what the government will do if you dare question the official story on the next pandemic? Sandy Hook accusations will be small potatoes compared to that.
No. I think Alex Jones knew right well the children were murdered from the beginning but played the false flag angle up for his audience, on purpose. He didn't care about the suffering of the parents. He's not the nice guy you seem to believe he is - he did it for ratings and to deliberately mislead his audience so they'd reach a false conclusion - that nobody died at Sandy Hook. Everybody repeats that on this side even though it's untrue. They can't discern reality from fiction because of the programming. The $1.5 billion will probably never to be paid anyway but it's symbolic. Jones has his new platform on X where he can spout on about taking on the globalists, even though he is one. He's just telling people what they want to hear and leading them in the direction of the New World Order along with Musk and Trump.
I don't think he's a nice guy, I don't really have an opinion on him. Frankly, that's unnecessary and would lead to bias. Something you seem to have as you "think he knew" and you assume he did this for ratings. Kind of odd considering it has cost him many losses along the way to this most recent 1.5 billion dollar settlement.
I think Jones was compromised a while back, I don't think anyone can make sense of his unrelenting and largely uncritical support of Trump and Israel otherwise. But with that said, I will never agree with a $1.5 billion settlement over an exercise of free speech. ...in what universe does that make sense?
I think what happened to Jones was a case of,' we don't like what you are saying so we are going to shut you the fuck up'. That fine was not a reasonable or just 'settlement', it was a punishment to demonstrate to all, that you believe the official narrative or else.
Well that's how we've been conditioned to see on this side of the fence. The children were murdered. Jones got it wrong. There's no point pretending otherwise. The evidence is flimsy and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Clearly there was political motivation in trying to strip Jones of his assets. It's nuanced. This is a very good documentary, worth watching: https://youtu.be/Y2HshKzTaAY?si=MWiqHjB_N_xhUp6m
Let's assume you're 100% correct ....why does he have to pay 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS? That's the issue, most people don't even seem to think Sandy Hook is a false flag. Perhaps it's too charitable, but if we listen to what Alex Jones has been saying for the last decade, neither does he.
So the issue really is do we, in a country with a first amendment right to Free Speech, allow people to sue one another because we find someone's speech to be slanderous despite a pretty massive slide on the definition of "slander" be requried in order to enable that in the first place.
Why did the Westboro Baptist Church never have to pay billions for picketing all those funerals for people they said absolutely horrible things about (which I dare not repeat here)?
I suppose in light of the decision against Jones/Infowars we'll all be able to sue as we see fit.
I'm just trying to give the benefit of the doubt to O'Loughlin in my comment here. I personally think Sandy Hook is Sus AF and the fact we're all not even supposed to ask questions about it lest we get our asses sued off seems telling of a coverup. But that's just my opinion.
I'm warning people to question the unofficial version of events as well because there's too much misdirection in there to ignore. Assuming certain players are on 'our side' because they tell us what we want to hear from time to time makes us vulnerable to manipulation.
I suppose it matters in this regard; tyrannies can not happen in an armed society, governments that wish to become tyrannical, and lets face it most do, have to take the Right to own firearms away. History shows this to be correct. Look at Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Nazi Germany, the regime of Pol Pot and Soviet Russia. Prior to the governments becoming violently tyrannical, civilian firearms were banned. In the end, this is what this whole thing is about. A disarmed populace is one that will feel the jackboot of tyranny.
People smile at inappropriate moments all the time, Jonathan. It's proof of nothing. If you could provide some evidence as to what you think happened to Emilie then we might get somewhere.
Imagine feeling so entitled to pick on a father who lost his daughter in a school shooting because you've condemned him over a passing smile. That's screwed up Ricky.
As I have said before, its best to treat everything as a psy op and everyone as a dis/misinformation purveyor until actual facts prove otherwise. I think this bickering style of O'Doherty and indeed this commentator, fails to serve the public interest as much as the diversionary propaganda of the MSM. We have had 4 years of the COVID insanity and the fall-out thereof, right now we are closer to nuclear confrontation than we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis and that is the elephant in the room that we should be focusing on, not all these peripheral things that distract and mislead.
I don't know Diane, I see Alex Jones jumping up and down about World War III and the threat of nuclear war and I just don't trust the guy anymore. He's totally lost it with his adulation for Musk and Trump. It's propaganda. He's a propaganda outfit - which brings me back to his role in Sandy Hook. He misled his audience on purpose to reach the wrong conclusion - that nobody died. He's still up to his ole tricks with all this space travel nonsense. No doubt Sandy Hook was politically motivated to get bring in tighter gun control. I don't trust Obama one bit. But I don't trust Alex Jones either, even though he's said a lot of good stuff over the years. I think it's important to figure out who's playing us and to what end.
My point exactly Aisling! We have to stick to actual facts, click bait from either side has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Trump, do I trust him? No, no more than I would trust those slimy scanks Simon Harris and Mehole Martin,, they all love money more than their country and they all seek power over the lives of ordinary people.
If you wish to understand how power works, Aisling, you need to understand the phenomenon of controlled opposition.
Sandy Hook was staged BUT ALSO the Alex Jones court case is theatre and conspiracy theorists who get things very obviously wrong are often controlled opposition who undermine those who refute official narratives correctly.
It's all theatre. There's one level of the theatre and then there's another level of theatre ... and then.
Oh my goodness you simply do not have a clue. It's really not that complicated.
You only think you have it worked out Petra. I'm after the objective Truth. Were children shot that day in Sandy Hook? The conspiracy theory crowd say no, it's all theatre to bring in tighter gun control laws. They're only half right. Children were killed that day. They're right on the gun control bit but that's not good enough. Too obvious. We need better standards. Yes the Alex Jones court case was a show trial - it was politically motivated to strip him of his assets and go after Infowars. A blind man could see that but back to the primary question: were children shot and killed that day in Sandy Hook? Yes. So once again, the conspiracy theorists got it all mixed up and blamed the wrong people by following misleading narration over images on the Internet. There's a pattern emerging here. I'm challenging your presumptions of what you think you know about false flags and it's uncomfortable but this is how progress is made. Disagreement and debate.
You don't have to be in the conspiracy crowd to work out Sandy Hook, it's all there Hidden in Plain Sight. Here is Robbie Parker, alleged father of a six-year old girl who died the day before published by CNN. This is not a video made by a so-called conspiracy theorist, the video is directly from CNN.
Look at the comments.
Do you see a single person - a SINGLE person - express sympathy for the man who's supposedly just lost his 6 yo daughter the day before?
Do you see a single person - a SINGLE person - berate those not expressing sympathy?
--- The children weren't at Sandy Hook, they were children who were musical and didn't live in the same area, kind of met up at music camp type situation. The Sandy Hook school was closed because of disrepair issues and the real Sandy Hook children were moved to another school
--- The photos presented to us were of the children a few years younger than they were at the time (about 5 years younger) and get this: they sang at a Superbowl concert the following year but looked quite different obviously because they were five years older than represented in their photos. They even made them members of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Choir which doesn't mesh with the children not being from Sandy Hook but I somehow think they weren't from Sandy Hook and they just say they're the SH Choir and if anyone questions it they wave it away just like all the other questions but I don't know. However, they certainly look like the same children.
So the children are out there somewhere with different names so Emilie Parker is out there somewhere ... but not with that name. God knows what the children themselves (now adults) think about things.
Thank you for laying out your arguments so clearly Petra. So if we follow your line of inquiry, that would mean all the parents are lying, all the classmates who survived and graduated from high school this year are also lying and the literally everyone in the Newtown area involved in the case is lying. Do you think Robbie Parker gave his daughter away just to play along with the hoax?
Just to add: I just read in the comments on that Robbie Parker video but can't find it now that Newtown, Connecticut is an agency town, ie, a lot of the people are FBI/CIA, etc and I've also heard a lot of people got houses out of the event - millions and millions of dollars were raised ... but I have no evidence for that claim.
All the parents are lying, sure, no doubt about that one.
With regard to the children it's difficult to say how many children are in the know. If the SH children weren't actually classmates and are from all over then they don't have classmates as a group and because the photos of them were shown of them 5 years younger than they really were that might throw people off. The children who were interviewed as being at the school would have been participating in a drill and would somehow be shielded I think of how they were being portrayed in the media - I don't think any of the children actually referred to their alleged dead classmates by name or anything of that nature - they didn't show grief for particular children.
I find this very strange from the Paley twin boys who were allegedly at the school.
"... and then we hid because everyone thought it was an animal then when we heard gunshots that didn't sound like our army gunshots or our policeman gunshots or school gunshots or animal control gunshots we all hid into my teacher's office and everyone was quiet and my teacher she saved the life and ... she also ... she called Mr Gun, her "l" [sounds like he's going to say a word beginning with "l"], her, her husband, and he called the police and when the policeman came into get us he told us to close our eyes and like on the picture on the news do this [twin demonstrates going behind his twin and putting his hands on his twin's shoulders as if to form a conga line] and just go out. [Just before this twin says "just go out" the other twin says "run".] And he told us to close our eyes because the man was probably dead right there. I don't know what kids got hurt, I just heard that a lot of kids got hurt and we have a couple friends, we had a couple friends in there and we don't know what happened to them."
The video I originally saw of these twins has been removed but a comment on it was:
"It wasn't any of the several thousand different gunshots we've heard in our young lives, be it animal control, SWAT, FBI, bank robbery, East LA gang fights, snipers, gun ranges, domestic violence. It sounded like bullets that would come out of a gun owned by a person that could possibly be named Adam Lanza, but we're not sure, we're only 7."
The involvement of children in these events makes me ill. It's really sickening.
Sandy Hook was an absolute doozy with all of the occult aspects, morbid humor (eg Dr. Carver the coroner, bizarre/creepy/blatant photoshops, Mr Rosen, etc), and a masonic lodge conveniently located next to the school. Gun control/gun terror were the primary objectives and the Aurora CO movie theater mass shooting took place only 6 months prior during The Dark Knight midnight screening with ‘Sandy Hook’ prominently displayed on a map during one of the scenes. (And I’ll never forget how ridiculously bad virtually all the crisis actors were with one young man admitting he abandoned his girlfriend in the theater while he fled in terror/cowardice, only to propose to her the very next day on camera while she fake tearfully accepted, lol)
These psyops are also huge money making scams/charities for the conspirators (occultists/satanists), esp when children are involved. According to Google $12.5M USD poured in within days and there’s a permanent Sandy Hook Promise foundation which focuses on gun control and has raked in tens of millions of dollars... https://www.sandyhookpromise.org
Given we're all in favour of free speech, I'd like to voice my humble opinion that nobody died at Sandy Hook. Feel for Alex Jones having to take it back. Merely a hurler on the ditch of course but have followed the story closely from day one; those who believe in the moon landings, think 9/11 orchestrated by man in a cave from abroad & that vaccines 'safe and effective' would probably find my opinion blasphemous or at the very least 'hate speech' but in the immortal words of Rhett Butler 'Frankly my dears I don't give a damn'
Holy toledo Aisling. I hope you are really this clueless about the govt/deep STATE/CIA/NSA modus operandi in attempting to perpetrate mass psychosis on the populations of the U.S. and countless countries around the world for the past 75 years. Government Kayfabe operatives such as Alex jones mix numerous truths about a government caused calamity with wild easily proven false speculations in order that gullible people will just dismiss everything as a “conspiracy theory”. Surely, surely you’ve heard of a “limited hangout”?
ah thanks; all those years in the Police interviewing psychopaths and lying malignant scum, has obviously coloured my view...
next time one of my innocent children or my grandson is slaughtered, I must remember get into character after a creepy smug chuckle for the TV interview, l wouldn't want anyone to think I was a grifting paid crisis acting shithead!
Be careful! You might have to defend your presumptions and expose that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you have been misled by dodgy online 'research'. It's called debate nkf99. We don't have to do groupthink on here, thank God. I like being challenged. You should too. It's good for you. We get to see who's got the courage of their convictions.
sounds like your baiting to me. i could destroy smiling robbie parker in 2 seconds. you have not done your research. but i don't play chess with pigeons
Just check the homicide stats for Newtown Connecticut for 2012.
Not ONE homicide!
BTW Iain Davies asked you to produce the evidence to support your contention that victims were turning up at Manchester hospitals with shrapnel wounds.
Whereupon - you instantaneously changed the subject!
That's because the deaths were put on a national register. There's always a missing bit that you ignore for some reason. Anyway I'm still up for investigating Sandy Hook, I'm just pointing out AGAIN that people have been misled by dodgy info to reach the wrong conclusion - that nobody died at Sandy Hook. WRONG. They did. Iain Davis followed dodgy info from RDH and reached another false conclusion, no bomb, no victims at the Manchester Arena on May 22, 2017. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It might be time to reassess these false flag investigations. Just sayin'.
So Robbie Parker smiled nervously and you accept that without question but when RDH smiles it's " dupers delight". Are you really impartial enough to be doing this Aisling?
I never mentioned dupers delight in regard to RDH. I can't stand the term. Every second person on the Internet is using it when they see anyone smiling. It's bananas. Humans smile all the time, even at funerals, at the most awkward moments. It's too easy to freeze frame the shot and add your commentary. I prefer to stick to the facts, old school.
Your takeaway from show trials to push horrible legislation is that people who can't find an ounce of evidence that events happened as they are told to us by corrupt mainstream sources is that people have been conned into wrongthink?
Your Substack has become unreadable. It's not interested in getting to the bottom of anything. It doesn't ask any questions. It's just ad hominem attacks at people doing more thinking than you. What the hell's the point? Sad.
I'm challenging your presumptions and you don't like it, predictably. I've detected a pattern of misdirection in these false flag investigations and I'm raising the alarm. Investigate away. Don't let me stop you. Just remember there are traps laid out for you to reach the wrong conclusion. That much should be clear by now. Practically every doco I've watched on these false flags is laced with poison. It's easy to spot after a while. We're seeing two warring satanic factions battle it out and they don't care who they take down to get what they want, including children. Child sacrifice is not an issue for these people, they're not going to go the crisis actor route. Real children were murdered that day in Sandy Hook.
Yet more proof that you can take the girl out of RTE but you you can't take RTE out of the girl
It was TV3 actually but you probably have a point. Yes my mainstream media training meant we had to check everything a few times to avoid being sued or to avoid putting out false information or accusing an innocent person in the wrong. I'm not an amateur sleuth on the Internet. There are rules of engagement. Dodgy narration over carefully selected images won't convince me - too easy to spot the misdirection. Confusion is the name of the game. Old school standards are a way of negotiating tricky terrain. You won't be so easily conned.
I'm not familiar. Is O'Loughlin a former MSM journalist who now substacks about some--but definitely not all--controversial things? Like so many on Substack these days?
How on earth am I supposed to write about ALL controversial things? I go where the road leads. I've found myself on the conspiracy theory side of the fence since the Covid hoax but that doesn't mean I'm down with every other conspiracy. Old school principles still apply. Again I've noticed the victims have been vilified without proper evidence, just speculation.
Well I don't mean to say you need to literally write about all things controversial. But can we have an honest dialogue about how many "MSM Journalists Come-Latelys" there are filling up supposedly alt media hangouts like Substack these days?
We benefit from having people who are new to this stuff in our environment for a lot of reasons, but there are reasons to suspicious when journalists who appear new to this stuff still harbor mainstream-agreeable opinions on things like this.
Also, you're not American and you seem to be strongly disagreeing with the stance of the First Amendment of our Constitution. You should expect a lot of backlash for that stance, but perhaps you don't understand that not being from the USA. I don't mean to come across as terse, but perhaps it's a matter of cultural competency.
'how easy it was to convince Internet users to pick on the victims without proper evidence they're crisis actors.'
Good onya Aisling. Its a tuff number you've taken on but more power to you. Gobbledegook goes back a long time and its still being rolled out - just give it a new name every few years so why not.
Judging by the comments that follow I get why you mention journalistic ethics. Evert time I move away from rants I feel such a relief. 'Keep your powder dry' - I'll stick with the common sense in that.
Meanwhile here's an argument for some cheer:
https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/in-the-fight-against-tyranny-dont?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=152170626&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1fyta&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I was made for days like this Denis! Yes Caitlin is a wonderful writer. I've learned a lot from her on the Middle East.
Aisling hi. Do the descriptions Fat Emperor and Father of Globalism mean anything to you ?
I feel like Alex Jones has sufficiently apologized for using his first amendment rights to say something that was likely untrue and emotionally hurtful for some. Why does this require 1.5 billion dollars and a reevaluation of our most important right given to us by our constitution? ...as far as I'm concerned, however this verdict goes ...so goes Free Speech...and so go us all.
We ought to be screaming for our freedoms right now, particularly as we've seen how they've been pretty successful at suppressing them over the last 4 years in particular.
There's a big difference between free speech and slander as I've said in the piece. You don't have the right to spread lies and rumours about innocent people. You don't have the right to tarnish a person's reputation with falsehoods thrown around willy nilly. Yes, the $1.5 billion fine is ridiculous and clearly politically motivated but we should be asking why are these actors putting us in this position in the first place through their reckless journalism? It looks deliberate from where I'm standing.
I don't think you adequately differentiated slander from free speech at all, as I don't really believe there is differentiation. It's an unfortunate downside of free speech.
But more importantly you didn't mention how Jones has apologized for his on air remarks ad infinitum. He also never seems to have definitively said that "Sandy Hook was a complete fraud" he explored this idea with callers on his show who said that and he did promote the idea that it was framed in such a way as to create a backdrop for increasing bans on firearms. That's not the wildest thing to say after Sandy Hook, as there were innumerable calls to ban firearms after that incident ..as there always is.
But what I'm hearing is that despite nearly 10 years of apologies from Jones, you actually agree with the verdict and the decison to have him pay 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. For the high crime of speculating on government corruption... Is this really what you believe?
Imagine what the government will do if you dare question the official story on the next pandemic? Sandy Hook accusations will be small potatoes compared to that.
No. I think Alex Jones knew right well the children were murdered from the beginning but played the false flag angle up for his audience, on purpose. He didn't care about the suffering of the parents. He's not the nice guy you seem to believe he is - he did it for ratings and to deliberately mislead his audience so they'd reach a false conclusion - that nobody died at Sandy Hook. Everybody repeats that on this side even though it's untrue. They can't discern reality from fiction because of the programming. The $1.5 billion will probably never to be paid anyway but it's symbolic. Jones has his new platform on X where he can spout on about taking on the globalists, even though he is one. He's just telling people what they want to hear and leading them in the direction of the New World Order along with Musk and Trump.
I don't think he's a nice guy, I don't really have an opinion on him. Frankly, that's unnecessary and would lead to bias. Something you seem to have as you "think he knew" and you assume he did this for ratings. Kind of odd considering it has cost him many losses along the way to this most recent 1.5 billion dollar settlement.
I think Jones was compromised a while back, I don't think anyone can make sense of his unrelenting and largely uncritical support of Trump and Israel otherwise. But with that said, I will never agree with a $1.5 billion settlement over an exercise of free speech. ...in what universe does that make sense?
I think what happened to Jones was a case of,' we don't like what you are saying so we are going to shut you the fuck up'. That fine was not a reasonable or just 'settlement', it was a punishment to demonstrate to all, that you believe the official narrative or else.
Well that's how we've been conditioned to see on this side of the fence. The children were murdered. Jones got it wrong. There's no point pretending otherwise. The evidence is flimsy and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Clearly there was political motivation in trying to strip Jones of his assets. It's nuanced. This is a very good documentary, worth watching: https://youtu.be/Y2HshKzTaAY?si=MWiqHjB_N_xhUp6m
Let's assume you're 100% correct ....why does he have to pay 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS? That's the issue, most people don't even seem to think Sandy Hook is a false flag. Perhaps it's too charitable, but if we listen to what Alex Jones has been saying for the last decade, neither does he.
So the issue really is do we, in a country with a first amendment right to Free Speech, allow people to sue one another because we find someone's speech to be slanderous despite a pretty massive slide on the definition of "slander" be requried in order to enable that in the first place.
Why did the Westboro Baptist Church never have to pay billions for picketing all those funerals for people they said absolutely horrible things about (which I dare not repeat here)?
I suppose in light of the decision against Jones/Infowars we'll all be able to sue as we see fit.
What was likely untrue and why does that even matter?
I'm just trying to give the benefit of the doubt to O'Loughlin in my comment here. I personally think Sandy Hook is Sus AF and the fact we're all not even supposed to ask questions about it lest we get our asses sued off seems telling of a coverup. But that's just my opinion.
I'm warning people to question the unofficial version of events as well because there's too much misdirection in there to ignore. Assuming certain players are on 'our side' because they tell us what we want to hear from time to time makes us vulnerable to manipulation.
I suppose it matters in this regard; tyrannies can not happen in an armed society, governments that wish to become tyrannical, and lets face it most do, have to take the Right to own firearms away. History shows this to be correct. Look at Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Nazi Germany, the regime of Pol Pot and Soviet Russia. Prior to the governments becoming violently tyrannical, civilian firearms were banned. In the end, this is what this whole thing is about. A disarmed populace is one that will feel the jackboot of tyranny.
who smiles like that and then gets in to character? bollox
People smile at inappropriate moments all the time, Jonathan. It's proof of nothing. If you could provide some evidence as to what you think happened to Emilie then we might get somewhere.
Imagine thinking that douchebag deserves $120 million.
Imagine feeling so entitled to pick on a father who lost his daughter in a school shooting because you've condemned him over a passing smile. That's screwed up Ricky.
Just the tip of the iceberg for Newtown.
As I have said before, its best to treat everything as a psy op and everyone as a dis/misinformation purveyor until actual facts prove otherwise. I think this bickering style of O'Doherty and indeed this commentator, fails to serve the public interest as much as the diversionary propaganda of the MSM. We have had 4 years of the COVID insanity and the fall-out thereof, right now we are closer to nuclear confrontation than we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis and that is the elephant in the room that we should be focusing on, not all these peripheral things that distract and mislead.
I don't know Diane, I see Alex Jones jumping up and down about World War III and the threat of nuclear war and I just don't trust the guy anymore. He's totally lost it with his adulation for Musk and Trump. It's propaganda. He's a propaganda outfit - which brings me back to his role in Sandy Hook. He misled his audience on purpose to reach the wrong conclusion - that nobody died. He's still up to his ole tricks with all this space travel nonsense. No doubt Sandy Hook was politically motivated to get bring in tighter gun control. I don't trust Obama one bit. But I don't trust Alex Jones either, even though he's said a lot of good stuff over the years. I think it's important to figure out who's playing us and to what end.
My point exactly Aisling! We have to stick to actual facts, click bait from either side has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Trump, do I trust him? No, no more than I would trust those slimy scanks Simon Harris and Mehole Martin,, they all love money more than their country and they all seek power over the lives of ordinary people.
If you wish to understand how power works, Aisling, you need to understand the phenomenon of controlled opposition.
Sandy Hook was staged BUT ALSO the Alex Jones court case is theatre and conspiracy theorists who get things very obviously wrong are often controlled opposition who undermine those who refute official narratives correctly.
It's all theatre. There's one level of the theatre and then there's another level of theatre ... and then.
Oh my goodness you simply do not have a clue. It's really not that complicated.
You only think you have it worked out Petra. I'm after the objective Truth. Were children shot that day in Sandy Hook? The conspiracy theory crowd say no, it's all theatre to bring in tighter gun control laws. They're only half right. Children were killed that day. They're right on the gun control bit but that's not good enough. Too obvious. We need better standards. Yes the Alex Jones court case was a show trial - it was politically motivated to strip him of his assets and go after Infowars. A blind man could see that but back to the primary question: were children shot and killed that day in Sandy Hook? Yes. So once again, the conspiracy theorists got it all mixed up and blamed the wrong people by following misleading narration over images on the Internet. There's a pattern emerging here. I'm challenging your presumptions of what you think you know about false flags and it's uncomfortable but this is how progress is made. Disagreement and debate.
You don't have to be in the conspiracy crowd to work out Sandy Hook, it's all there Hidden in Plain Sight. Here is Robbie Parker, alleged father of a six-year old girl who died the day before published by CNN. This is not a video made by a so-called conspiracy theorist, the video is directly from CNN.
Look at the comments.
Do you see a single person - a SINGLE person - express sympathy for the man who's supposedly just lost his 6 yo daughter the day before?
Do you see a single person - a SINGLE person - berate those not expressing sympathy?
Watch it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4rwdriJpkc
So what do you think happened to Emilie Parker? Where is she now?
What I've seen at various times on the internet:
--- The children weren't at Sandy Hook, they were children who were musical and didn't live in the same area, kind of met up at music camp type situation. The Sandy Hook school was closed because of disrepair issues and the real Sandy Hook children were moved to another school
--- The photos presented to us were of the children a few years younger than they were at the time (about 5 years younger) and get this: they sang at a Superbowl concert the following year but looked quite different obviously because they were five years older than represented in their photos. They even made them members of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Choir which doesn't mesh with the children not being from Sandy Hook but I somehow think they weren't from Sandy Hook and they just say they're the SH Choir and if anyone questions it they wave it away just like all the other questions but I don't know. However, they certainly look like the same children.
https://x.com/vinceflibustier/status/1529214525593067523
I've done a comparison myself which I don't think is entirely accurate but I think most of my matches are:
https://laverite.weebly.com/sandy-hook-children.html
--- Most of their names are made up and they are not the children of the parents
See this video on Olivia Engel
https://archive.org/details/TheUNDEADOfSandyHookOliviaEngel
So the children are out there somewhere with different names so Emilie Parker is out there somewhere ... but not with that name. God knows what the children themselves (now adults) think about things.
Thank you for laying out your arguments so clearly Petra. So if we follow your line of inquiry, that would mean all the parents are lying, all the classmates who survived and graduated from high school this year are also lying and the literally everyone in the Newtown area involved in the case is lying. Do you think Robbie Parker gave his daughter away just to play along with the hoax?
Just to add: I just read in the comments on that Robbie Parker video but can't find it now that Newtown, Connecticut is an agency town, ie, a lot of the people are FBI/CIA, etc and I've also heard a lot of people got houses out of the event - millions and millions of dollars were raised ... but I have no evidence for that claim.
All the parents are lying, sure, no doubt about that one.
With regard to the children it's difficult to say how many children are in the know. If the SH children weren't actually classmates and are from all over then they don't have classmates as a group and because the photos of them were shown of them 5 years younger than they really were that might throw people off. The children who were interviewed as being at the school would have been participating in a drill and would somehow be shielded I think of how they were being portrayed in the media - I don't think any of the children actually referred to their alleged dead classmates by name or anything of that nature - they didn't show grief for particular children.
I find this very strange from the Paley twin boys who were allegedly at the school.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVIiuo5eSyM
"... and then we hid because everyone thought it was an animal then when we heard gunshots that didn't sound like our army gunshots or our policeman gunshots or school gunshots or animal control gunshots we all hid into my teacher's office and everyone was quiet and my teacher she saved the life and ... she also ... she called Mr Gun, her "l" [sounds like he's going to say a word beginning with "l"], her, her husband, and he called the police and when the policeman came into get us he told us to close our eyes and like on the picture on the news do this [twin demonstrates going behind his twin and putting his hands on his twin's shoulders as if to form a conga line] and just go out. [Just before this twin says "just go out" the other twin says "run".] And he told us to close our eyes because the man was probably dead right there. I don't know what kids got hurt, I just heard that a lot of kids got hurt and we have a couple friends, we had a couple friends in there and we don't know what happened to them."
The video I originally saw of these twins has been removed but a comment on it was:
"It wasn't any of the several thousand different gunshots we've heard in our young lives, be it animal control, SWAT, FBI, bank robbery, East LA gang fights, snipers, gun ranges, domestic violence. It sounded like bullets that would come out of a gun owned by a person that could possibly be named Adam Lanza, but we're not sure, we're only 7."
The involvement of children in these events makes me ill. It's really sickening.
https://youtu.be/m6b6qPxAvY4?si=7FN_0o_jGt3IkKbw
Sandy Hook was an absolute doozy with all of the occult aspects, morbid humor (eg Dr. Carver the coroner, bizarre/creepy/blatant photoshops, Mr Rosen, etc), and a masonic lodge conveniently located next to the school. Gun control/gun terror were the primary objectives and the Aurora CO movie theater mass shooting took place only 6 months prior during The Dark Knight midnight screening with ‘Sandy Hook’ prominently displayed on a map during one of the scenes. (And I’ll never forget how ridiculously bad virtually all the crisis actors were with one young man admitting he abandoned his girlfriend in the theater while he fled in terror/cowardice, only to propose to her the very next day on camera while she fake tearfully accepted, lol)
Sophia Smallstorm had one of the better presentations on Sandy Hook and it only covered maybe half of the dubious aspects of the psyop… https://rumble.com/v1e2emn-sandy-hook-in-five-dimensions-by-sophia-smallstorm.html So many great blogs, websites, forums etc were lost during the internet purges of 2015-2016.
These psyops are also huge money making scams/charities for the conspirators (occultists/satanists), esp when children are involved. According to Google $12.5M USD poured in within days and there’s a permanent Sandy Hook Promise foundation which focuses on gun control and has raked in tens of millions of dollars... https://www.sandyhookpromise.org
Given we're all in favour of free speech, I'd like to voice my humble opinion that nobody died at Sandy Hook. Feel for Alex Jones having to take it back. Merely a hurler on the ditch of course but have followed the story closely from day one; those who believe in the moon landings, think 9/11 orchestrated by man in a cave from abroad & that vaccines 'safe and effective' would probably find my opinion blasphemous or at the very least 'hate speech' but in the immortal words of Rhett Butler 'Frankly my dears I don't give a damn'
Holy toledo Aisling. I hope you are really this clueless about the govt/deep STATE/CIA/NSA modus operandi in attempting to perpetrate mass psychosis on the populations of the U.S. and countless countries around the world for the past 75 years. Government Kayfabe operatives such as Alex jones mix numerous truths about a government caused calamity with wild easily proven false speculations in order that gullible people will just dismiss everything as a “conspiracy theory”. Surely, surely you’ve heard of a “limited hangout”?
ah thanks; all those years in the Police interviewing psychopaths and lying malignant scum, has obviously coloured my view...
next time one of my innocent children or my grandson is slaughtered, I must remember get into character after a creepy smug chuckle for the TV interview, l wouldn't want anyone to think I was a grifting paid crisis acting shithead!
That's just Internet commentary though - what have you got to prove he's a crisis actor?
be careful guys i think this women is trying to get you to expose yourself in the comments. i'm unsubscribing
Be careful! You might have to defend your presumptions and expose that you don't really know what you're talking about or that you have been misled by dodgy online 'research'. It's called debate nkf99. We don't have to do groupthink on here, thank God. I like being challenged. You should too. It's good for you. We get to see who's got the courage of their convictions.
sounds like your baiting to me. i could destroy smiling robbie parker in 2 seconds. you have not done your research. but i don't play chess with pigeons
Wow! You must be so smart. So you could destroy my argument but you're not going to because...you actually can't, can you?
Get real Aisliing!
Just check the homicide stats for Newtown Connecticut for 2012.
Not ONE homicide!
BTW Iain Davies asked you to produce the evidence to support your contention that victims were turning up at Manchester hospitals with shrapnel wounds.
Whereupon - you instantaneously changed the subject!
That's because the deaths were put on a national register. There's always a missing bit that you ignore for some reason. Anyway I'm still up for investigating Sandy Hook, I'm just pointing out AGAIN that people have been misled by dodgy info to reach the wrong conclusion - that nobody died at Sandy Hook. WRONG. They did. Iain Davis followed dodgy info from RDH and reached another false conclusion, no bomb, no victims at the Manchester Arena on May 22, 2017. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It might be time to reassess these false flag investigations. Just sayin'.
So Robbie Parker smiled nervously and you accept that without question but when RDH smiles it's " dupers delight". Are you really impartial enough to be doing this Aisling?
I never mentioned dupers delight in regard to RDH. I can't stand the term. Every second person on the Internet is using it when they see anyone smiling. It's bananas. Humans smile all the time, even at funerals, at the most awkward moments. It's too easy to freeze frame the shot and add your commentary. I prefer to stick to the facts, old school.
To be fair it was Miri's comment. Not yours. Yep every second person on the Internet is using it to further their aims.