new shooting: Newtown, Conn. details breaking

[Glass]

how can a knife wielder be a drugged up shooter? Has anyone suggested that event was not real?

There is a saying, "drawing a long bow". Why must there be and always is a risk? Has it occurred to date? I'm not sure I'm clear on who the drugged up party is. Is it the accused or the public/spectators.

i suspect it's the public spectators who are drugged up. In which case yes. Not sure of the question but the answer is yes the public is drug fark-head up.

Anyway we must get rid of guns because that will stop people stabbing people.

[Dachsie]

1.
“how can a knife wielder be a drugged up shooter?”


I said…
“We have two big incidents or events (Sandy Hook and Pennsylvania "shooting" - actually knifing in the Penn case”
Obviously I was using the term “shooter” and “shooting” to be synonymous with “knifing” (knife). Don’t you see that the weapon is incidental? In the Penn knifing case, the public is being pointed to the common denominator, the “non-incidental”, of drugs effects on the weapon weilder.
What could this new now pointing to drugs ideas do to serve the purposes of possible behind-the-scenes real perpetrators?
Here is one suggestion.
This new pointing to drugs as the common culprit purports to show all those idiots out there in the public that Sandy Hook did not have as its goal the banning of guns because this Penn case does not even involve guns.
Truth is the banning of guns or more gun control was only one of two or more goals (the perps always have it planned out that they benefit no matter how something plays out and this is related to Hegelian dialectical false choices we are constantly fed) of the Sandy Hook operation. The banning of knives or knife control will probably not play out as a result of the Penn knifing event, but we in the public will be given every reason to believe that the Penn event was a real event caused by drugs.
__
2.
“Has anyone suggested that event was not real?”

“I said…
“and there are no other observations at this time that we know of that point to the Penn. shooting being a hoax"

No one has YET suggested that the Penn knifing was not real and it indeed has the possibility of being real.
3.
“Why must there be and always is a risk? Has it occurred to date?”
But quality investigation over a bit of time may turn up some very valid questions (risk questions) about the event. We have a long string of very suspicious events of the same general nature and careful examination of each of these events points to a pattern of sophisticated “government” planners, plotters and perpetrators of these events. It would be very illogical and negligent of we seekers of truth to not devote some of our time to taking a much closer look at the Penn knifing event.
4.
“Not sure of the question”

I say,
It is no surprise that you are not able to comprehend the question.
5.
“but the answer is yes the public is drug fark-head up.”
I say…
Commeters “Glass” and “Horst Wessel” have chosen to take the same drug – the Blue Pill.
6.
“Anyway we must get rid of guns because that will stop people stabbing people.”
I say…
You are just repetitive harping on the “big error” you think you have identified that I made as I explained in item # 1. above.

This is the same tactic that Michael Collins Piper tried to use against his recent “debate” with Dr. James Fetzer about the Sandy Hook event where Dr. Fetzer at first suggested that Sandy Hook was clearly a Mossad event but where Dr. Fetzer previously in writing in one of his VT articles and twice on that radio show debate acknowledged his initial error but MCP kept trying to use it as his strong argument.

In my case, I do not acknowledge any initial error on my part. I thought that any person of average intelligence could understand the validity of using “shooting” and “knifing” synonymously

[Neuro]

Dachsie, did you ever consider that Glass response may have been sarcastic?

[Dachsie]

No, I did not consider that. I am a bit on the unsophisticated naive side and I usually take what people say at face value and not consider that there is some hidden message.

Perhaps Glass will clue me in.

[Amanda]

It is gradually becoming more clear in my mind how logical fallacies play into the thinking regarding these hoax events and false flag events versus those who claim the event was real as based on "the official story."

It is stinkin thinkin and we all are susceptible to various forms of stinkin thinking and the perps in events know very well how to take full advantage of the kinds of stinkin thinkin that will ensue after and event that they perpetrate.

Here is a Mami's poster is claiming that because the Pennsylvania shooting was clearly a case of a drugged up shooter, then that proves that Sandy Hook also was the case of a drugged up shooter and therefore Sandy Hook was not a hoax.


https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl...60350393948752
Blogger Horst Wessel said...

Was the mass stabbing by a 16 year old at the school in Pennsylvania today also a hoax? These 'sandy hook was hoax' believers are in for a real treat when the American society slips down another rung on the ladder of demoralization and deterioration and the real wackos doped up on big pharma's drugs start coming out the wood work daily. We'll see how much of a hoax it is then...

April 10, 2014 at 1:55 AM

I believe this is what is called the

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this).

We have two big incidents or events (Sandy Hook and Pennsylvania "shooting" - acutually knifing in the Penn case I think) and a drugged up shooter is said to be the "cause" of the event, therefore because the drugged up shooter appears valid, and there are no other observations at this time that we know of that point to the Penn. shooting being a hoax, then that makes the drugged up shooter Lanza valid in the Sandy Hook event.

Of course, there must be, and is, always the real possibility that a real drugged up shooter does commit a mass shooting solely because of drug effects on his mind and the shooter is a real person, not a created false entity.

Yes, much of the information about drugs and their effects on the brain and the kinds of psychotic behaviors that can be caused by drugs is largely true. Jon Rappaport and several of the psychiatrists that are guests on Alex Jones show all inundate us with the facts about drugs and how they can affect behavior. However, Rappaport and Alex Jones and a whole cadre of radio show hosts seem to point exclusively to drugs as being the sole explanation for the "real lone gunman's" actions, and this assumption, heavily immersed in cold hard chemical facts info about the drugs, always inexorably leads everyone to accepting the official government story of the event.

Keep in mind that "we" know very little about "Manchurian Candidates (MC)." "We" also know very little about psych drugs and the exact way they act on the human brain. But it is very possible that "they" know very much about these things.

It seems quite possible to me that a person can be an MC and also be on several drugs, but that it may be what is done to them as part of making them an MC (hypnotism, programmed triggers, surgery etc) that "rules" in determining the actions the MC takes.

I have noticed that, just as I noticed on 9-11 truth seeking, that GCNlive shows hosts and guests seem very much to be pushing the "DRUGS are the cause of these bad mass shooting events" idea and therefore GCNlive is subtly pushing the official stories. GCN's advertisers may have a vested interest in having the official stories being accepted by all and therefore GCN's continued commercial survival depends on keeping their sponsors happy with their show content.

There are other show hosts and networks and publications that are under the same "guidelines" as GCNlive.com

(GCN does tip its hat occassionally to those of us who do not buy the official story and they will do some very brief cursory coverage in airing those contrarian opinions.)

Anyone see any value in my thinking about these things or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Well, starting with your last question first, I definitely see value in thinking about the points you raised, and don't at all see you as barking up the wrong tree.

Now, I'm certainly not the best at naming the logical fallacies, but I think you are correct that the planners of these events know how to take advantage of the flaws in our thinking. I think these people are masters of psychological manipulation, and their task of manipulating the populace through false flags and hoaxes has been made all the easier by virtue of the systematic dumbing-down of the population.

As for the commenter at mami's, I honestly don't know which logical fallacy applies. To me, it just seems like a bit of a jumbled mess. It seems like those of us who see SH as a hoax are always being accused of seeing everything as a hoax, when this is not the case. Though, at the same time, I do acknowledge that there have been other hoaxes, in addition to SH, such as the Boston marathon bombing and the Kenyan Mall shooting. And again we have the drug theme being asserted, when I don't even think that has been established in the PA stabbings (though I must admit that I haven't even looked into it much at all).

As for GCN hosts, as well as other alternative media hosts, I've also noticed that pushing the SSRIs as always being behind the mass shootings seems to be a convenient fallback position. And I'm not in any way defending SSRIs, but I've just noticed that a lot of hosts seem to feel that is an easier stance to take than to actually question the event, especially to the degree of wondering whether the event was actually a hoax. Mike Rivero is a perfect example of this--whenever a mass shooting occurs, he immediately starts promoting the idea that the shooter was most likely on an SSRIs. Later, as information comes out, he is sometimes more willing to question the event. With Sandy Hook, for the longest time, he promoted the idea that the event was real and that Lanza was on SSRIs. It was only several months ago that he finally referred to Sandy Hook as a hoax on his radio show and posted a video that exposed SH as a fraud (he even had the maker of the video as a guest). Nevertheless, even though Rivero acknowledged it was a hoax, he still sometimes reverts back to his SSRI issue, and sometimes brings up how CT authorities won't tell us which drugs Lanza was taking (so, I guess he still tries to play it both ways).

[Amanda]

Okay, here's a short video on Robbie Parker. At a minimum, it captures the fact that at the press conference he specifically stated that on the day of the Sandy Hook event, he was at work before he headed to the school, which means he should have been in work clothes, but as the video shows, he was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. The video also has a Sandy Hook 911 call that sounds like Robbie.

Robbie Parker's 911 call from Sandy Hook



video description: Special thanks to YouTube user AryanEmpires for the 911 call video footage! There was one 911 call that was basically ignored. The caller was not asked his name and has yet to be identified. The 911 call was from a man, (Robbie Parker) who was at the front of the school with a daughter inside. It sure sounds like Robbie Parker but even if you doubt it was him, who was it? A smoking gun for the Sandy Hook Hoax. Note: In the video I say the 911 call was not logged. It was logged, just ignored.


And here's another video that has to do with 911 calls:


Sandy Hook 911 Operator Saying FAKE cleaned up by Michael Rivero - You can hear FAKE well



Published on Dec 6, 2013
Michael Rivero of Whatreallyhappened.com cleaned up the section of the 911 operator saying FAKE in regards to the shooting. He took out the background noise.

Here is the 7 seconds of the cleaned up audio of tape 2 of the 911 calls.

Here is the original video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyftuZu_qVQ


This is what Michael Rivero said once he cleaned it up and posted the information: This sounds like one of those stories that is too good to be true, so in this age of deliberately planted hoaxes to discredit the independent media I went over to the USA Today website and downloaded the Sandy Hook Tape 2 for myself, washed out some of the noise in the background, and created this mp3 file of the relevant portion where we hear the word "Fake" followed by the order to get off of the phone.

[Dachsie]

I wish we had a transcription of the complete words (sentence) of that woman who used the word "fake." I would like to know what she was saying was fake and how it was used in the sentence.

[Amanda]

I wish we had a transcription of the complete words (sentence) of that woman who used the word "fake." I would like to know what she was saying was fake and how it was used in the sentence.

Yeah, that would be ideal. From listening to the one cleaned up by Rivero, it kind of sounds like she says "a rumor it's fake" and then she gets told to get off the phone. Maybe it sounds different to others. I think if there was any way of making it clearer, Rivero would have done so. I'll listen to the longer video (not cleaned up by Rivero) and see if I can pick up anything else.

[Glass]

Sorry Dachsie I was clearly confused as to who's comments are whos in your post. Which came from a forum and which are your thoughts.

I just get the feeling that we are seeing a narrative shift here in this thread. A blurring of cause and effect. It's oblique but it does appear to be happening. I beleive until now we have held each incident up to the light on it's own for analysis without the need to link any of them other than an over reaching agenda of gun control. Sure. Consider the other events as they occur. That's valid to a point. There might be the same players as there were in SH and Boston. The dead teacher becomes a life saving nurse for example.

To me the drugs angle is the Spignola meme.

[Dachsie]

Thanks for reply.

I am still a bit confused.

Could you tell me if you were being as Neuro said "sarcastic", albeit based on not understanding which words were my words.

I tried to put

I said

or

I say
right before my comment on a part of your post.

I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on this statement of yours as I do not quite understand it...

"I just get the feeling that we are seeing a narrative shift here in this thread. A blurring of cause and effect. It's oblique but it does appear to be happening. "

I sure would not want to blur or shift from a clear "cause and effect" idea of this thread, but in truth, the main theme of this thread that I perceive is the common idea that Sandy Hook was a hoax, but I do not perceive that theme as a "cause and effect."

What I want to do is try to analyze WHY so many people that we would think would automatically see Sandy Hook as a hoax are strongly committed to saying it is not a hoax. This seems very odd to me and it is being perceived in some very subtle ways, such as getting the public to start thinking of many of these false-flag type events as being caused by people gone haywire from taking psychotropic drugs.

In the end, the reasons for all of this misdirection regarding Sandy Hook, in my opinion, has something to do with the Zionist agenda as well as big money involved to those who go along with Sandy Hook not being a hoax.

I am trying to seek the truth wherever it may lead. Just as there were many groups and diverse motivations behind the assassination of JFK, it likewise is rarely possible to identify just one cause and one effect related to an event.