20 votes

Infowars reporter Paul Joseph Watson needs your help on Sandy Hook article he's writing

From his facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
I am doing a video on the Sandy Hook issue. Trying to separate the legitimate questions from the BS disinfo. The MSM is about to go big smearing "conspiracy theorists" for harassing the victims. What are the legitimate issues and what disinfo do we need to distance ourselves from? I already knew the LIBOR thing was a hoax from day one, so everything apart from that.

If you don't do facebook: Put up your best links and informative comments from DP here and I will direct him to this thread.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Joyce Riley (Power Hour) has

Joyce Riley (Power Hour) has a very interesting guest on right now talking about Sandy Hook.

http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/powerHour/

https://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100003035859289&sk=info

Illegitimate organization doing a legitimate article?

Interesting.

.

deacon's picture

are we that good?

to be asked this here?
one would think they would have better
resources and more money to get things going
than we do here
ask them to prove it,this site has a search tab
let them read it all themselves
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depressiuon

TwelveOhOne's picture

Or...

Honey pot/fishing expedition? (I'm already on the list.)

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

I think the footage

of the mystery person in the woods should be mentioned.

http://youtu.be/3smLQ1nnZV4

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Exercise: Let's Presume for a Moment

Here's an exercise that presumes the following:

1. That the coroner was truthfully and correctly stating that the weapon used to kill the first 7 victims he examined WAS A RIFLE.

2. That the coroner was truthfully and correctly stating that the first 7 victims he examined had THREE TO ELEVEN WOUNDS EACH.

What has my brain been yelling at me about the last few days?

"Hey dumb host! Go read your DOD field manual for the M16 and M16A1!!!"

So I did that the other night, and I think I know why...

It's that "THREE TO ELEVEN" basis provided by the coroner. While extra shots and pass-through rounds can be used as an explanation for the higher number - it is also quite possible that the THREE is the basis - THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SHOTS EACH VICTIM RECEIVED.

A fundamental difference between a civilian issue semi-auto AR spec non-assault rifle and a military issue AR spec assault rifle is the following:

- The civilian issue is semi-auto only, one round per trigger pull.

- The military issue is semi-auto AND auto via a selector.

When the selector is set to "AUTO" on the M16 and M16A1, the result is a 3-ROUND BURST PER SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER.

For an evil perpetrator who is trying to achieve a maximum victim count in a minimum period of time - shooting each victim with 3 trigger pulls each using a civilian issue AR spec rifle is very inefficient as compared to attempting the same goal with a military issue AR spec rifle with the AUTO 3 round burst option.

In other words, I think my subconcious brain has arrived at a distinct possibility that we need to consider:

Perhaps, the actual gun used when fired was not a civilian issue semi-auto AR-15 owned by Adam Lanza's mother, but rather was a military issue auto 3-burst capable rifle provided by a yet to be determined party.

And of course, it would mean that the mother's rifle was a plant...

...and yes, I do find it rather odd that an off-duty special squad officer from another town was present while the shooting was taking place. Chances are, that officer is licensed to carry and use an auto capable military issue assault rifle.

Everyone here is familiar with Fast and Furious, so I'm not going to review it...however here are two questions for everyone to ponder:

"Is it possible that a military issue assault rifle was used for the actual firing of rounds at Sandy Hook?"

"If so is it possible that a Fast and Furious military issue assault rifle made its way all the way to Sandy Hook?"

I for one would love to see a another petition started:

Petition Requesting an Answer to a Hypothetical Question

"President Obama. If it were discovered that the actual rifle used at Sandy Hook was not a semi-auto AR-15 belonging to Mrs. Lanza, but rather a military issue AUTO capable assault rifle AND that rifle were linked to Fast and Furious, would you and Mr. Holder immediately resign your respective offices?"

What do you guys think?

=8-)

Please pass this on OP...

Thanks!

Conservative AND Libertarian!!!

deacon's picture

already thought of that myself

but not enough proof...yet
so far we have been told the kids were shot
by a long rifle
and we have the cops saying is LANZA only carried
2 pistols,and in another account 4 pistols.
but, always pistols,if he didn't have a rifle on him
then who allegedly shot them people?
there is a picture of car in the parking lot with 2 bullet holes in it
and reports of a maroon van with the back window missing,heading away from sandyhook school
round and round we go
deacon

setting your expectations to high,can cause depressiuon

Beware...

anything from DallasGoldBug/wellaware1. Or anything referencing his work. He's a well poisoner extraordinaire.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I Want to Know the Following

There has been no plausible motive for the murders presented as of yet.

1. Statement by Adam Lanza's physician (if any) who: diagnosed Lanza's mental state, list of pharmaceutical drugs prescribed as a course of treatment, number of follow-up visits, and any referrals to other qualified mental health professionals.

2. Statement by the police identifying any evidence of forced entry into the house or garage including Nancy Lanza’s bedroom, any broken furniture, windows or glass found, any blood found elsewhere in or around the home.

3. The coroner's report on Nancy Lanza's time of death and any drugs found in her body.

4. Statement by the police detailing Nancy Lanza’s recent phone records and who she called and who called her.

5. Statement by the police detailing Nancy Lanza’s recent emails and who she corresponded with.

6. Statement by the police describing what prescription medications were found at the house and who were they for.

7. Statement by the police describing any sign of theft from the house (e.g., cash money, checkbooks, jewelry, laptop computers, etc.).

8. Statement by the police describing any fingerprints found at the house that did not belong to Nancy or Adam.

9. Statement by the police regarding who owns the black 2010 Honda Civic found at the school. If Adam Lanza drove the Honda, his fingerprints should be on the steering wheel. It was reported that Nancy Lanza owned a 2009 BMW found inside the garage at the house.

10. The coroner's report on Adam Lanza's time of death and any drugs found in his body.

11. Statement by the police describing Adam Lanza’s height, weight, etc. and exactly what he was wearing at the time of his death.

12. Statement by the police describing Ryan Lanza's identification found in possession of Adam Lanza and how it got there. A list of any other documents found on the body.

13. Photographic evidence showing how the shooter (Lanza?) entered the school.

14. Statement by Natalie Hammond, wounded survivor at Sandy Hook describing what she saw and heard.

15. Statement by the other unknown wounded survivor at Sandy Hook describing what he (or she) saw and heard.

16. Statement by the custodian who ran down the hallway warning about the gunfire as to what he saw or heard.

17. Statement by the police stating what evidence was found from any video surveillance systems installed at the school.

18. Ballistic report confirming the guns used to murder Nancy Lanza, the children and Adam Lanza and all bullets recovered from the school were from the firearms kept at Nancy Lanza’s home.

Number 9 Answered - Nancy Lanza Owned the 2010 Honda Civic

Here is the tax record for Nancy Lanza (see: https://www.mytaxbill.org/inet/revenue/revenueSearch.do ).

Type in "Lanza Nancy" in the Tax Payer Name box. All the tax records and vehicles will be displayed.

The police still need to confirm that Adam Lanza's fingerprints were found on the steering wheel.

THANK YOU

I'll be adding that to my "Rodia cleared" post. Thanks.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Nancy Lanza's

Affiliation with the school.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Good list

I would add:

1) What evidence is there which apparently convinces police that Adam killed his mother? Seems like the only "evidence" is "because we said so."

2) Why is it we have perhaps 2 minutes total from the entire event as far as video is concerned?

3) Wouldn't it suggest media collusion with the police that they just HAPPENED to be over Rhodia's car when the "long weapon" was found?

4) How is it that Lanza was able to shoot everyone with the "long weapon," then go back out to his trunk to put it away.. then go back into the school and die... all in roughly 5-7 minutes?

5) Isn't it strange that 6 children who just saw their teacher killed were sitting in a "neat semi-circle" at the edge of Gene Rosen's driveway instead of the bus driver getting them home as soon as possible since the parents would obviously be freaking out given the "news?"

(plz don't step on this comment so I can add to this list)

Please stop promoting Alex Jones here

There are plenty of Alex Jones forums, and there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who come here and don't want the forced association with Jonesians.

Thank you for being considerate of individuals within this movement and their right to support Ron Paul without unfairly being linked to Alex Jones.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Why does Ron Paul go on AJ's show if it is such a bad

association?

He went on AJ's show the day after AJ's epic rant / meltdown. This being the case, I'm not sure what your issue is.

Since you're so all knowing and wise, maybe you should send a note to Dr. Paul, and tell him what to do as well.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

Seems like I'm not alone, Michael

I draw your attention to: http://www.dailypaul.com/270763/resident-troll-or-quality-co...

Perhaps we should all be asked to leave, since we're clearly not on board with your current direction.

Even Dr. Paul makes mistakes

Michael,

For starters, let's not presume that Ron Paul is perfect. Just about anyone capable of critical thought can find a laundry list of things that are not perfect about him. He's made less-than-perfect decisions, and his continued willingness to associate with Alex Jones falls into that category. Part of what is both exciting about Dr. Paul and problematic from an image standpoint is his openness in this regard. It's great that he's not an elitist who thumbs his nose at an interview in a college student's dorm room (2007), but he gets himself into some trouble (whether that trouble is fair or not is a separate issue) when he won't reject donations from known white supremacists or when his trust in aides leads to offensive newsletters going out in his name.

You are free to spin this into "if Dr. Paul will talk to him, he's OK" or "if Dr. Paul will talk to him, you're anti-Paul if you critique him." Both of those statements would be fallacious and attribute to a "non-Jonesian" motives which are just not there.

And, Michael, none of us are "all knowing an wise" in the snarky way you put forward. I'm not perfect. You're not perfect.

Still, we all engage in armchair quarterbacking. You do it every day. The fact that I publicly call for people like the Jonesians to keep their conspiratorial views separate from the Liberty movement (you know, the same "Liberty movement" for which you argued DailyPaul.com "remains an important online center" of, YESTERDAY!). If my positions are so offensive to you that you question my loyalty and think I should be silenced, go ahead. You've made it quite clear that this site is your property, and not an open forum.

I have no interest in disrespecting you (because I feel your efforts deserve respect, and I feel uncivil, Alex Jones-style dialog accomplishes nothing). But I also have no interest in parroting your opinions. I speak the truth as I see it. On occasion, my perspective differs from yours.

About the "White Supremacist"

Ever bothered to learn who he is and what he has to say? He is a good man. Sorry you let the media convince you otherwise.
And as for your thoughts that AJ's uncivil ways are detrimental... I would have agreed with you last week. But it worked, so why don't you sit down here next to me and we will just take our lumps together? Dr. Paul makes mistakes, so do you and I. I still don't like to listen to AJ, he just grates on me. But he is shakin' up the sheep, so God bless him.
One last point... "conspiracy theories." In 2007, I desperately tried to educate people about agenda 21. Not only in the street, HERE. I was given a LOT of crap for it, and yet I persisted. Guess what is on the lips of the little old ladies of the GOP all over this country now? Agenda 21. The entire premise of liberty rests upon liberated minds. If a theory has no merit, this is the site where that will be exposed.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

You're seriously going to defend Don Black?

Wow. OK.

This is no longer worth my time.

David Duke

was the controversial contributor.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

If you're so concerned about "forced association"...

...with what others talk about here, then perhaps you'd be more comfortable somewhere else.

Its best to ignore it or

Its best to ignore it or vote.

I choose to speak out

Just as so many on this site do, I choose to make my perspective known. My perspective is that Alex Jones drags down this movement. He is a toxin that inhibits our growth. Since that is my analysis, you are free to disagree.

I am confident that my experience and education in politics, social movements, and political rhetoric has led me to the right conclusion.

Accordingly, I choose to let it be known that:
a) Not all Ron Paul supporters (and not even all those on this site, which has mostly been hijacked by Jonesians) are fond of Jones. This is important externally.
b) There are Ron Paul supporters who would like the Alex Jones faction to modify their tactics. We want to grow this movement and don't want to be painted with a broad brush, and therefore, we'd like the Jonesians to stop dragging their "fringe" (used for lack of a better word to describe the unpopular, unproven ideas Jones espouses that NON-Jonesians of which NON-Jonesians do NOT approve) ideas into mainstream liberty movement discourse. This is important internally.

Jonesians can either be respectful and understand that what they're doing is unfair to non-Jonesians, or they can be belligerent (much like Jones himself) and run over us. But they're being put on notice.

I totally agree with you and like all your posts

The conspiracy theorists have attached themselves to libertarian political thought.

This is helping stop libertarianism becoming more mainstream as we are written off as conspiracy theorists even before our very sane and reasonable positions are put forward.

These ideas are fresh and are ready to build into a world wide movement if we can keep to sensible positions that Dr Paul has put forward in his speeches. This is what attracted me to the Daily Paul in the first place.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Put me down too

Not only are these conjunctures a distraction from real libertarian principles, it is completely harmful towards the movement.

Whats the difference between:
1)The government can make Obama Care work. (liberal)
2)The government can make the military industrial complex work.(Neo-con)
3)The government can engineer a huge conspiracy involving a school shooting. (conspiracy beleiver)

All three statist views put an inordinate amount of faith in the government's ability to do something well.

Michael Nystrom's picture

You are out of line

Please don't tell people how to use my site. Do whatever you want with your own website, but stop acting like you own this pace. You don't.

The reason I took the picture of Ron Paul down was so that people like you would stop this whole "Oh, it is hurting Ron Paul" racket. The election is over.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

"The election is over."

But the liberty movement is not, and its public image still matters.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

True, Mr Nystrom, the election IS over,

but Dr Paul certainly is not!

Wrong direction -- A response to Nystrom

Michael,

Respectfully, I never acted like I owned the place. Given the overwhelming amount of effort you've put into this venture, I understand your sensitivity when someone disagrees with you over direction.

But, and I write this with all due respect, you are the one who is out of line, sir.

Every day, people on this site tell people how to use this site. It could be as overt as arguing for or against a viewpoint (and engaging in personal criticism of another user), or it could be as subtle as making another user (and their ideas) welcome or unwelcome through the "voting" system, which now (sadly) goes so far as to suppress ideas that are deemed unpopular. This wouldn't be as big an issue if not for the tragic groupthink of those who have remained on your site (most of the non conspiracy folks abandoned it long ago).

You are on the wrong side. That's my opinion. When I think and speak of you, I always place your misguidedness in proper context: you fight hard for this movement and have sacrificed much. But effort does not guarantee results. And good intentions do not equal good judgment. I've seen the polling data. I've looked at the reactions of real people who could be on our side. This includes people in places like Iowa and New Hampshire that will be critical to our achievements (or failures) in 2016. Rather than making this site a place to build the larger movement, you've made it an echo chamber for a very specific type of fringe thinker whose views are incompatible with growth in this movement. If you need more information or want to discuss this further, I am happy to do so.

You own this site, and are free to do with it what you choose. Just because I feel what you do is "not right," doesn't mean I wouldn't fight side by side with you for "the right" to do it. So please don't conflate my prescription for what's best for the movement with marching orders.

P.S. It's ironic that you come down on me, yet keep the Fitzgerald quote in your signature. Are you able to recognize both the value of the Paul-Jones "alliance" and its drawbacks? Are you able to hold both ideas (which aren't even all that opposed, mind you) in your mind at the same time? Or would you rather engage in bullying and force in order to sanitize this website so that it reflects your (sadly, misguided) vision?

You've done a lot of good, but now your site a net liability to political success. I've seen your site bring people together (mainly between 2007 and 2010, and I've seen your dark side. I've been to meetings where we've read some of the very disconcerting things you've written to and about key people in this movement and wondered aloud, "What do we do about this guy?" You can talk about taking Ron Paul's picture down as if that really changes something, but it's still the DailyPaul. Yes, it's YOUR DailyPaul, and it is your RIGHT to do with it what you choose (including, if you so desire, censoring any and all ideas you find disagreeable). We all play our roles. Not all of of have the technical ability or the time to do what you have done. Some of us have to play on the weed-infested fields that exist rather than creating brand new ones. If you object that much when people talk about pulling a weed or two, if those weeds are near and dear to your heart and you'd rather banish good players from your domain than hear even the slightest complaint, that's your prerogative. But do so openly. Do so with the full knowledge that people are watching, that people are keeping track of how you handle the power and responsibility that comes with the stewardship of this site, and that you're approaching a point where taking down Ron Paul's picture isn't enough. You're approaching a point where you ought to rename this site DailyJones, honestly.

SanePaulFan's 10 posts on Daily Paul...

An analysis of SanePaulFan's 10 posts/comments on Daily Paul since he became a member approximately one year ago:

8 of them scold Daily Paul members for "promoting" Alex Jones/Natural News/911 truth
1 ridicules the idea that psych meds are a significant player in mass shootings
1 snipes for misspelling a word

Seems like we've got a sleeper with an agenda.... :>

UPDATE: ooops.. they have more than 10 posts.. but still most of them are focused on suppressing questioning the govt

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~