U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-26-2013, 01:06 PM
 
8,561 posts, read 5,431,362 times
Reputation: 1172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
Never said that he was. I read the whole thing and understand it quite clearly. I've said nothing to make you question my understanding. All I did was post a link for you because you could not or would not find it yourself and I was getting tired of hearing you pester Guy to find it for you. You're welcome.
Why don't you just put me on ignore, please?

 
Old 01-26-2013, 01:08 PM
 
8,561 posts, read 5,431,362 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
The media had multiple sources telling them that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school yet they still got it wrong because they had multiple sources feeding them false information.
WHO was "feeding" false information and WHY?
 
Old 01-26-2013, 01:17 PM
 
4,267 posts, read 5,295,247 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
WHO was "feeding" false information and WHY?
Excellent questions.
 
Old 01-26-2013, 01:18 PM
 
16,990 posts, read 20,594,508 times
Reputation: 33956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
The media had multiple sources telling them that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school yet they still got it wrong because they had multiple sources feeding them false information.
And look how long it remained wrong. It wasn't until a day or two later that it was corrected.

Whether she was a teacher at the school or not should have been corrected within hours.

In fact it should have been cleared up faster than that.

I remember seeing a parent interivewed that Friday night live around 9pm and she stated she never heard of a Mrs. Lanza, that her older children had gone to the school and her daughter was currently a student and she never heard of a Mrs. Lanza.....still no one thought to do any investigation.

The reporter who was interviewing didn't even comment on that.

The shooting occured at that point occured almost 12 hours earlier, a simple fact that is easily verified was still being reported incorrectly.

No reason for that at all.
 
Old 01-26-2013, 01:52 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,670,761 times
Reputation: 478
We know its a staged story in so far as the investigating cops ( not speaking to the exact crime) because with what is known
the exact afternoon of the shooting the cheif or whatever who was giving the press conference was asked if she was a teacher at the school............

he froze....and did not know what to say.......froze , he could of said I don't know, we are not sure yet, just an honest answer

but no

he froze for about 10 full seconds...it handcuffed him, he did not know what to say

how could you not know what to say..? ( if entwined with policing and investigation it would have been immediately known, identified said so ...that question was not supposed to be asked at that point in time...

the only way to not know what to say...is whether or not, what you say will conflict with the prepared story...so he went and talked about something all together different. So there is a problem with what the public is being told in an honest way
They are tailoring a story for the public, theres no doubt about that. The Colorado and Shki Temple was tailored away from even eye witness detail in other suspects....wheres the progress in this exploration of investigation..? there were cameras including the front door...If they knew, no one else entered but the 120lbs drugged delinquent carrying 100lbs of equip- that, would surely have been told.

Last edited by stargazzer; 01-26-2013 at 02:54 PM..
 
Old 01-26-2013, 02:01 PM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,670,313 times
Reputation: 16593
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945 View Post
You know the answers exist in the official investigation. You know the report will be released to the public, eventually. You (and others) keep asking questions that cannot be answered without the info in the official report. Pretty clear why I "make that leap"...
You know that I was talking about what the media reported. You know I didn't say a word about seeing the investigation report before it was released publicly. So, no it was not at all clear why you made the assumption.
 
Old 01-26-2013, 02:31 PM
 
9,065 posts, read 5,591,238 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
He's making the case that censorship is a bad thing saying that he would not use it, and YET asking the newspapers (at that time no Internet or 24 hr news cycle) to "consider" what they report. He's saying that they are giving out too much information and inadvertantly compromising our national security. You really should read the entire speech carefully. He's urging RESTRAINT. He's NOT talking about a New World Order where a group of political elites are seeking to create a one-world government. GuyNTexas' video which he posted, EXCERPTS one part of that speech and uses it OUT OF CONTEXT to imply that Kennedy was warning of the NWO.


He also said this:

"I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests."
There is nothing taken out of context ... the two points in Kennedy's speech, one of which you highlight, and the one you deny are not mutually exclusive. It is you who deliberately ignores the portion of that speech that DIRECTLY pertained to your INANE CLAIM that there is no such thing as New World Order, nor the existence of some "Monolithic" entity ... which, by the way, was the descriptive term Kennedy himself used to define it! And while the intent of the speech was two fold, as Kennedy himself pointed out, he was calling on the press to exercise self restraint in carefully considering what they report to avoid damaging national security ... but at the same time, he was ALSO calling on the press to fulfill it's duty to inform the American people of this covert threat we face from this monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. That is simply the portion which directly applied to our argument that you'd like to ignore because it utterly destroys your position .... and of course, the Kennedy speech was just one example among others the video cited, such as George Bush talking about the New World Order, using those very words .... so don't be such a double talker or con artist .. that doesn't fly with me ... I won't tolerate it, and you won't get away with it!!!

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.


Those words stand on their own merit ... they are not subordinate to, nor in need of clarification from that which preceded, or followed. Some would insist that he was referring to the USSR ... but that's pure nonsense ... there was nothing secretive or covert in the Cold War with the Russians.

No, he was referring to the Globalists ... the one world government proponents that have been active since long before JFK was even born. It's not new ... there is a well documented history which shows this group to have been behind every war since Napoleon. And though I believe Kennedy understood the threat this group of gangsters posed, I think he dramatically underestimated the degree to which their influence had already advanced, and he paid the ultimate price for that.
 
Old 01-26-2013, 03:59 PM
 
8,561 posts, read 5,431,362 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
There is nothing taken out of context ... the two points in Kennedy's speech, one of which you highlight, and the one you deny are not mutually exclusive. It is you who deliberately ignores the portion of that speech that DIRECTLY pertained to your INANE CLAIM that there is no such thing as New World Order, nor the existence of some "Monolithic" entity ... which, by the way, was the descriptive term Kennedy himself used to define it! And while the intent of the speech was two fold, as Kennedy himself pointed out, he was calling on the press to exercise self restraint in carefully considering what they report to avoid damaging national security ... but at the same time, he was ALSO calling on the press to fulfill it's duty to inform the American people of this covert threat we face from this monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. That is simply the portion which directly applied to our argument that you'd like to ignore because it utterly destroys your position .... and of course, the Kennedy speech was just one example among others the video cited, such as George Bush talking about the New World Order, using those very words .... so don't be such a double talker or con artist .. that doesn't fly with me ... I won't tolerate it, and you won't get away with it!!!

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.


Those words stand on their own merit ... they are not subordinate to, nor in need of clarification from that which preceded, or followed. Some would insist that he was referring to the USSR ... but that's pure nonsense ... there was nothing secretive or covert in the Cold War with the Russians.

No, he was referring to the Globalists ... the one world government proponents that have been active since long before JFK was even born. It's not new ... there is a well documented history which shows this group to have been behind every war since Napoleon. And though I believe Kennedy understood the threat this group of gangsters posed, I think he dramatically underestimated the degree to which their influence had already advanced, and he paid the ultimate price for that.
Do you have any quotes from Kennedy, or even anything his friends said after he died, about a New World Order and that particular speech addressing concerns about the press revealing too much AND talking about a New World Order? Is there ANYTHING out there which proves that Kennedy's speech was two-fold, or that he was talking about anything other than the USSR in that speech?

Guess you are talking about the Illuminate when you say the NWO thing started long before JFK was born?

In the late 18th century, reactionary conspiracy theorists, such as Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati survived their suppression and became the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati were accused of being subversives who were attempting to secretly orchestrate a revolutionary wave in Europe and the rest of the world in order to spread the most radical ideas and movements of the Enlightenment — anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism — and create a world noocracy and cult of reason. During the 19th century, fear of an Illuminati conspiracy was a real concern of European ruling classes, and their oppressive reactions to this unfounded fear provoked in 1848 the very revolutions they sought to preven


During the interwar period of the 20th century, fascist propagandists, such as British revisionist historian Nesta Helen Webster and American socialite Edith Starr Miller, not only popularized the myth of an Illuminati conspiracy but claimed that it was a subversive secret society which serves the Jewish elites that supposedly propped up both finance capitalism and Soviet communism in order to divide and rule the world. American evangelist Gerald Burton Winrod and other conspiracy theorists within the fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States — which emerged in the 1910s as a backlash against the principles of Enlightenment secular humanism, modernism, and liberalism — became the main channel of dissemination of Illuminati conspiracy theories in the U.S. Right-wing populists, such as members of the John Birch Society, subsequently began speculating that some collegiate fraternities (Skull and Bones), gentlemen's clubs (Bohemian Club) and think tanks (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission) of the American upper class are front organizations of the Illuminati, which they accuse of plotting to create a New World Order through a one-world government.[5]

New World Order (conspiracy theory) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 01-26-2013, 04:09 PM
 
8,561 posts, read 5,431,362 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
Excellent questions.

And you have no idea WHO was feeding the "media" false information and WHY?
 
Old 01-26-2013, 04:16 PM
 
9,065 posts, read 5,591,238 times
Reputation: 3824
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
Agreed, but obviously it's not. The public gets what it wants, so there must be very few members of the public who feel the way you do. We have become an immediate gratification society. Knowing all of this, it begs the question of why you think it's odd that there weren't more photographs of Sandy Hook.
That's total BUNK ... the public gets fed propaganda that leads them by their falsely informed noses in whatever direction the handlers wish to lead them, period. The public doesn't decide what the news is, or how it will be spun and massaged, manipulated and fabricated. And the public doesn't demand to be lied to, even though it seems we have no shortage of those who apparently love being lied to for some inexplicable reason.

But it's not odd to expect honest, accurate and pertinent information, with pictures simply being one of the best versions of evidence that is subject to independent inspection and verification ... as opposed to just unsubstantiated claims made by authorities. But I'd argue that we've seen more than enough already to label this fraud what it is, and if you don't see that already, another MILLION photographs would do little good.

And I don't think many people even realize the evidence that is already out there in photos ... lets deal with some of that, shall we? Let's look more closely at Nick and Laura Phelps:



These two Sandy Hook parents, and Nick's sobbing sadness ... well, when you search on these two, all you end up with are a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists who reveal who they REALLY are ... and once you look at all of the evidence closely, those conspiracy theorists aren't so nutty looking ... but the Phelps sure do look like Richard Sexton and his wife, Jennifer Greenberg Sexton:

Here's Jennifer:


Here's Richard:


Here's Jennifer and her father, Michael Greenberg (remember this one ... it will be important later)



Here's some side by sides ... Jennifer Greenberg Sexton and Richard Sexton top row, Laura & Nick Phelps bottom row:


OKAY .... now I know what you are going to say before you say it ... "so what? One couple that look like another couple .. big deal!" Right? Well look, do you think I'd consider that evidence? NOOOO! That could be purely a coincidence that Jennifer Greenberg Sexton (Actress) and her husband would look like Laura Phelps and her husband Richard. But now I'm going to tie in Jennifer's father (remember the other picture above?) Here is a guy that looks a lot like Jennifer's father Michael Greenberg who is in the background (flashing the Devil's sign no less!!!) of the picture of Victoria Soto ... one of the teachers who allegedly was killed:



What a coincidence, huh? Yes indeedy we've got us some coincidences going on here. But you don't think these are the ONLY connections this little Greenberg-Sexton clan has do you? Oh no-sir-ree chickadee, there's more .... here's Jennifer again with her real children ... she's got two daughters and three boys:



Here are the two daughters with the three boys:


Now take a long close look at the boy in the center ..... and tell me if he looks even the tiniest bit familiar? Give up? OK ....


Carlos Matthew Soto ... brother of the alleged dead teacher Victoria Soto, who also was photographed earlier with Michael Greenberg in the background flashing the sign of the devil ... that wood make Michael Greenberg - Carlos Matthew Soto's ... errr I mean Jennifer Greenberg Sexton's son his Grandfather!!!!!

This is one freaking family huh? Jesus Joseph and Marry ... these cretins are a one stop Hollywood production company for government staged events ... but you don't think the "coincidences" have come to an end yet do you ..... oh no ... it's even WILDER than MY WILDEST imagination could think to dream up ... it's straight to the moon .... we're talking green aliens from planet pop tart crazy .... but I''l stop here for now and let you digest this and formulate your "debunking plan" ... cuz I'm sure your brain is in Fukushima like meltdown stage right now ....

But as a teaser .... we've got Jennifer Greenberg Sexton and one of her children playing roles in the Batman Shooting in Colorado ... and the Gabriella Gifford's Shooting in Arizona ... and Michael Greenberg (her father) wife serving as one of the dead victims in Arizona too. But that evidence and story is outside the scope of this Sandy Hook thread.

Next up .... the "Parker Family" and the evidence of fraud and photoshopping of their little happy family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top