Comment: If you would have told me 2 planes flew into the the...

(See in situ)


If you would have told me 2 planes flew into the the...

...World Trade Center, I wouldn't have believed you. If not for seeing the video myself would I believe such a horrendous event was possible. I know the buildings collapsed. I know the planes hit them. That's all I know. It's all about seeking the truth. For the Newtown Shooting, I know less. All I have is the limited video online from the scene(overhead), and interviews afterwards. We know the old man who found six kids at the end of his driveway is lying because he's given two different accounts of the story. Once, it was a loud male busdriver. Another time, it was a woman. That is hard evidence of him lying. Doesn't mean the rest of the official story is proved false. But, it doesn't help the official story at all. In fact, it should be a red flag. So I ask, what hard evidence is there that supports the official story? We have been given one still photo of teachers and officials leading a line of crying children. We saw security footage from Columbine. Yet, no surveillance video of Aurora, the Sikh Temple, or Sandy Hook. Why? All of these events had witnesses of more than one shooter. Why? Why have we not seen all the photos and video that was taken that day, because we do know that there was a woman taking photos. What was up with the creepy medical examiner? He had conflicting statements. Why would that be? Why would he state the long rifle was used on everyone, yet we're also told Adam had 2 or 4 handguns, and the rifle was in the trunk. No evidence of AR-15, yet that is the main focus of debate. Why? Why were the Emergency Vehicles blocked by a chaotic mess of cars? I know my town police would have towed those cars or threatened the people with arrest to move their vehicles. Why was a suspect (off-duty officer from another town?/father of a student?/wearing camo pants/had a gun/"I didn't do it!") who fled from the scene, chased down, hand-cuffed, yet placed in THE FRONT of the police car. RED FLAG! Even if we was a local police officer, he would still be a suspect. Why did the camera not spin around to see the "non" suspect when the man being interviewed said "He's right over there. Sitting in the front of the police car." Show me one grieving parent laughing and smiling the same day that doesn't have a red-swollen, tear soaked face from shock and grief. And, why is there no witness describing the 100's of rounds being fired that we're told happened. Most witnesses describe anything but "gun-fire", and they only heard a limited amount of "bangs", not the assault weapon style of fire we've been told to believe. And, now our Gov't will most-likely be infringing upon the 2nd Amendment. That has to be taken into account as an answer to "Who would benefit from this crime", which is one of the major questions you always ask. Just like, "What is the motive?" Still, we don't even have an interest in finding out if there was a motive. That seems pretty rare. Along with all the other questions and evidence that only denounce the official story, they don't support it. What is the motive? Who benefits from this crime? These are questions the free press should be asking. And, because the media is not, that is actually pretty convincing evidence of media bias or media driving a narrative. And, you have to ask yourself, why would the media ignore these points? Why was the over-head video of the chase through the woods only aired once? Why don't we see the videos that go against the narrative played on the main stream? You have to go online and research for yourself. So, that's basic proof that the media is being controlled. But, controlled by whom? And down the rabbit hole we go...

-n8