Rational answers to the irrational Sandy Hook conspiracy arguments

One of our fellow GLPers posted this site, which I found interesting and easy to read:

[link to www.truthin7minutes.com]

Despite my name, I love a good conspiracy, and I do a “gut check” before I decide for or against a stance. My gut told me that there was no conspiracy involving Sandy Hook. Yet, I have looked at everything that has been written on the subject to form a better opinion. I have decided that there is simply no conspiracy here. Coincidences maybe, but no concrete evidence to show that the official story is wrong. So I have taken the major arguments from the website posted above, and I have provided rational responses to those arguments. If someone has something else to add, I would love to consider it.

*****************

Argument: Senseless Motive

Answer: Adam Lanza was a psychopath who did not think rationally like many of us would. Therefore, it would not make sense to say. Psychopaths like Adam Lanza do not need a motive to go crazy. It is in their nature.

------------------------------------------

Argument: 26 people dead in just 3 minutes is too quick

Answer: No it’s not. Not in a cramped elementary school full of panicked children. Teens in high school, maybe it would be a little too quick. But when we are talking about first graders, they are sitting ducks.

------------------------------------------

Argument: Adam Lanza committing suicide while wearing a bulletproof vest does not make sense

Answer: Yes it does. Adam did not want to get caught, but he wanted to kill as many people as possible. He wanted to control his own destiny. He did not want someone shooting him down before he felt like he was finished.

------------------------------------------

Argument: Parents of the dead children and other survivors are smiling on camera

Answer: I do believe that people smile when they are nervous, and so many of these images that are being shown to advance the conspiracy may very well just be nerves. However, I believe that these images of smiling faces are taken largely out of context. I believe they are stills taken while they are recalling fond memories of those that they lost, i.e. happy moments, appreciation, etc. I only see pictures of smiling faces. In order for me to buy into this conspiracy, I would need to see actual footage of people smiling throughout entire interviews.

------------------------------------------

Argument: Fake crying and dry eyes

Answer: I went through and looked at the interviews. All except for Robbie Parker have actual tears. I actually don’t understand this argument. It seems clear to me that there is legitimate crying.

------------------------------------------

Argument: Schools that have active shooter drills have school shootings

Answer: A lot of schools have active shooter drills. A lot of schools have brick walls too. Are you saying that there is a correlation between brick walls and school shootings?

------------------------------------------

Argument: Professional actors were used

Answer: So I have looked at these “crisis actors” and looked at the examples of how they have been used. Like Chloe Anderson and Richard and Jennifer Sexton family. While there are some similarities, they are all far from an exact match. Am I missing out on something?

------------------------------------------

Argument: Children that were initially listed as dead are actually alive and other impossible evidence

Answer: There was confusion in the days after the shooting. No one really knew what was going on, and so there a mix up in stories. Just because people have different versions of events because of a complex situation does not mean there is a cover-up.

------------------------------------------

Argument: Hook-em-horns are everywhere

Answer: I have only seen them in two places. One was with a picture of Emilie Parker, who looks like a little girl just making weird symbols with her hands (no evil intentions). The other was a picture of an old man in the background giving them. So one picture? Come on…

------------------------------------------

Argument: Sloppy imaging from a picture of the Parker family.

Answer: I don’t see what is so sloppy about it. They are saying that one of the Parker girls is missing a leg, but they are both clearly there. One is just handing off the side of her dad’s lap. As with the head being too big, I don’t see what is so big about it. And then they say that one of the fingers is too long, but again, it seems like a normal finger.