Everything Anderson said, along with his "experts", was carefully measured to sound reasonably objective while inserting all the fear and loathing they could of anyone's respectful questioning of reported inconsistency at Sandy Hook. They chose to pounce on what may be perceived as the weakest link, ie. the crisis actors accusations, to make it sound like the prof. started with that, when the foundation of his questioning began much earlier.
The professor knew that without live coverage, anything he said would be edited so as to serve their media agenda, and so he avoided their snare. He didn't need to conclude with a, "who dun it", to point out a long list of official AND media revision and aversions that are other than what we should be expected if all was likely just as, "the officials", concluded, eh?
They accuse of paranoia, or unreasonable fear and doubt; but will not report this profs list of questions in context, lest he somehow appear more reasonable than they wish to portray him.
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it. - Patrick Henry
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters,