Comment: I've been hanging back on all of this, observing

Like most of these big media incidents seem to be - this one is also really strange.

I always take into account the two extremes when watching videos and reading posts analyzing these incidents, and whatever 'evidence' is brought to light:

1) Those who believe *everything* presented by government sources and corporate media, without question, and trust it implicitely

and

2) Those who see conspiracy *everywhere*, and trust nothing at all that comes from government sources and corporate media

Group #1 is totally unreliable as a source of reliable analysis and plausible conclusions. Because they are completely missing the big picture of how anything actually works in the real world.

Group #2 is also unreliable as a source of reliable analysis and plausible conclusions -- although (ironically) slightly less so than Group #1. Why?

Because die-hard conspiracy theorists are always looking for the holes in the narrative. They never accept anything at face value.

They examine every single detail, scour for videos, documentation, recordings and evidence of all kinds and present it.

Where many of them often lose the plot imo, is in coming up with solid plausible theories that account for all of the evidence.

The truth of what actually happens is usually somewhere in the middle. And honestly - within the past 20 years I think it's leaning toward Group #2's version of events more and more.

9/11 was obviously a complete snowjob. There's mountains of evidence.

Once the evil bastards that pulled that off discovered they could do something of that magnitude - and get away with it?

That was the test case. They did that in front of the entire planet and a large population of the earth still believes it.

9/11 let them know that people are stupid enough to fall for just about anything.

And Sandy Hook is looking awfully strange to me. Moreso every day.