Hate Week in America: Targeting Sandy Hook Truthers

Writing in Britain's New World Order newspaper of record, the Guardian, New Yorker Oliver Burkeman writes:

There's not much to be said, beyond a generalised expression of incredulous disgust, about the apparently growing Sandy Hook "truth" movement

No, absolutely. Anyone wanting to know the truth about what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, must be utterly loathsome to all and sundry and deserves to be regarded, as Mr. Burkeman says, with nothing but "incredulous" and "generalised disgust."

Further, Mr. Burkeman says, it would be best to ignore such people. But then immediately urges us to read the "excellent reporting" on the subject in a Salon.com article about Sandy Hook Truthers, which begins:

Image source

Yes, there really are Newtown truthers.

Good God, folks must be so paranoid. They don't unquestioningly believe what they are told by the Connecticut police! You know, the guy in the funny Quaker hat warning that anyone talking about the Sandy Hook massacre is liable to prosecution by both state and Federal authorities.

But to continue, Salon's "excellent reporting" turns to a question arising from the work of either an incompetent amateur photo-analyst or an agent of disinformation concerning the death or non death of one of the reportedly slain children:

But in the crazy world of Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, this one may be the worst yet. (Maybe you’ve already heard some of the others, like the one about fantasy ties between the gunman’s family and the LIBOR banking scandal and a related theory about the Aurora shooting and the “Dark Knight Rises.”) Most of the theories are really pieces of a larger meta-theory: that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, perhaps by the Obama administration, designed to stir demand for gun control.

Oh brilliant. Someone asserts that Adam Lanza's father was in someway connected to the LIBOR bank scandal and that proves anyone with questions about Sandy Hook is a nutter. Well, at least we see how the suppression of dissent works. Poison the well with stupid conspiracy theories and anyone who questions the official theory is a stupid conspiracy theorist, i.e., a person to be regarded with "generalised incredulous disgust."

Salon continues its "excellent reporting," by returning to that highly questionable photo evidence concerning the existence or non-existence of one of the slain children:

In the latest angle, theorists think they have found “absolute proof” of a conspiracy to defraud the American people. “You reported in December that this little girl had been killed,” a reader emailed Salon in response to a story. “She has been found, and photographed with President Obama.”*

Oh, yeah. Here we go again. A stupid theory, not entertained by sensible people questioning events at Sandy Hook, which is attributed to anyone who questions the official account of the Sandy Hook massacre: A crude but effective technique for smearing and stereotyping those with questions about Sandy Hook, and discouraging anyone who hasn't so far thought to question the official account from doing so now.

Now to the end game:

The supporting details to the hoax theory explanation are reminiscent of the arcana of any well-developed conspiracy theory. What about the car? What about the rifle? Why does someone off camera allegedly tell Parker’s father to “read the Card” (as in a cue card) before he goes on CNN? Why is he laughing? Who is the guy running into the woods? Why is there police audio referring to multiple shooters? Why does one boy who survived the shooting tell Dr. Oz it was like “a drill”? Why was the principal quoted by a local paper [about events that occurred] after she died? Why do some of the parents look like some of the victims of the Aurora shooting — are they “all actors”? All of these questions have simple explanations, but in each case, the theorists have sided more with less likely, but more nefarious possibilities.

First note that those with questions are now described as adherents of a "hoax theory," which is something quite different from questioning what happened and why there are so many conflicting "facts" in the case.

Then note how stupid questions are equated with sensible ones. What, after all, is so unreasonable about asking: "Who is the guy running into the woods?"**  "Why is there police audio referring to multiple shooters?" "Why was the school principal quoted by a local paper [about events that occurred] after she died?"

"All of these questions have simple explanation," apparently, but Salon's "excellent reporting" offers no suggestion as to what those simple explanations are. So let's think about some of those questions:

The guy running into the woods: Who was he? Why was he armed -- a fact not acknowledged in Salon's "excellent reporting." What was he doing? To ask these questions, according to Mr. Burkeman, over at the Guardian is only to evoke "incredulous disgust."

As for police references to multiple shooters, what about those nuns in their purple getaway van? Oh, pleeeeze! To ask such a question can only evoke "incredulous disgust."

As for "Why was the principal quoted by a local paper [about events occurring] after she died?" that is not the question being asked. The question asked is "How was the principal interviewed by a local paper after she died?", which is an altogether different matter.

Also, how was it that Bing.com spidered the story on December 13, 2013, before the principal had died?

The only explanation for that must be that the valiant principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who died when rushing to challenge the shooter, was gifted with precognition of the events, including perhaps, her own death. But then that's not a "simple explanation," it's a downright nutty explanation that the Sandy Hook truther haters, want to cram down your throat.

But the lib-left, PC, fascist haters have gone beyond Orwell. Hate is now non-stop and directed at anyone who questions the means or motives of the New World Order.

* A more rational hypothesis might be that at least some of those who died, never lived. As suggested, although by no means proved by the fact that the image of victim Allison Wyatt that was originally distributed by the mainstream media was in fact a photo of a child named Lily Gaubert, quite unconnected with Sandy Hook. Such ":mistakes" as this is now claimed to have been, naturally raise questions about other pieces of photographic evidence presented in the media. Indeed, it is not difficult to envisage how any number of fake shooting victims could have been created, which again, is not to make the claim that such fake victims were created, but merely to point out that the question has a reasonable basis. And after 9/11, how can any sane person claim that to ask such question is disgusting. What is disgusting is the mainstream media's efforts to punish citizens of a democracy questioning evidence of a possible state crime against democracy.

** The existence of the man in the woods was confirmed by the local paper, the Newtown Bee, which reported that "A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source" (See last paragraph of linked report). What an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town was doing in the woods at the time of the massacre, naturally raises additional questions that can only give rise to a "generalised expression of incredulous disgust."

See also:

Aangirfan: SANDY HOOK AND THE MEDIA

The Sandy Hook nuns had a purple getaway van

Sandy Hook Massacre: What the MSM Won't Discuss

The Bing Cache of December 13, 2012, With the text of the Newtown Bee's before-it-happened story on the Sandy Hook Massacre

Adam Lanza, Ryan Lanza? Curious Image of Unknown Origin

Fox Prestitutes Smear Professor Who Questions MSM Narrative on Sandy Hook

And a comment by a reader on Oliver Burkeman's Guardian hit piece:

Like a flea confusing a dog with the universe, 'journalist' Oliver is a young lad with no context for the Sandy Hook story—so he believes what he’s told, and passes it on. This, sadly, is what journalism has become.

Meanwhile, the dog is visiting the vet, and Oliver’s life is about to change forever...

Which is funny, except there's not much reason to suppose that "the dog is visiting the vet," or that " Oliver’s life is about to change forever."

Oliver, it seems has chosen the safe and dishonorable course of going with the power. More likely, it is those of us who believe we live in a free society, whose lives are about to change forever.