I like to think that there are enough people in the world who are able to decipher major events and see beyond the mainstream media and government accounts.
Often there are anomalies which those in power seem to ignore or seem to have no idea about, and which would indicate there is something more to the event than we (the public) are made aware of. In some cases, those in power are implicated in some kind of ‘false-flag’ operation or other underhand and secretive tactic.
Conspiracy theories can range from Elvis is still alive, to governments playing with our weather system. Some have a basis in fact, and others are pure speculation with no solid foundation at all.
For our purposes, we will stick with conspiracy theories which could be closer to the truth than the official version of events.
In the case of 9/11 there is enough real and provable evidence to suggest that other organisations or entities were responsible for the catastrophe. There are also more than enough ‘coincidences’ and series of events which would indicate that there could be ulterior motives involved. Much of the real evidence is provided by professionals in their particular field. It is reasonable to suspect that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ – a false-flag operation.
Similarly, there are so many similarities between the 7/7 London bombings and 9/11 which can not be ignored and cast serious doubt on the official story.
Some of the more recent conspiracy theories include the Sandy Hook shooting, Boston bombing, and the Woolwich incident, all of which have attracted a lot of speculation from the conspiracy theory community.
On 14th December 2012 we were informed of the massacre of 20 elementary school children and six adults at Sandy Hook by 20 year old Adam Lanza, who committed suicide at the scene.
As soon as the story broke on mainstream media, conspiracy theorists started to shout that this was a false-flag operation conducted by the United States government, or organisations/persons close to it.
With no evidence whatsoever, the conspiracy theory spread and became embellished with conjecture and downright idiocy. At the time there was no way that any of those claiming to know ‘the truth’ could have had access to any information which indicated a false-flag operation, but still they perpetuated their theories.
One of the more bizarre theories is that Sandy Hook was a staged event involving government ‘actors’. This makes absolutely no sense at all.
On one hand conspiracy theorists claim the government is full of psychopaths who will do anything to achieve their agendas (which I am in agreement with), and on the other they are claiming that the same government would go to the trouble of staging a very complex event involving hundreds of people – an event they would not want to be exposed as a false-flag operation.
Logically, the simplest and most secure way of conducting such an operation is to use the same old ‘lone-gunman’ strategy. A minimum of people and planning is needed, which would make it very secure. The lone gunman would then be somehow sent into Sandy Hook to massacre real children in a real school. We would then be left with real victims and witnesses within the small community who would be telling the truth, as opposed to ‘acting’ which would have the potential to be exposed.
Again, logically, if we are talking about those in power being psychopaths (in the clinical sense) there would be no compassion, there would be no conscience, so why wouldn’t they choose the simplest and most secure method?
One of the main features of the conspiracy theory surrounding Sandy Hook is the use of actors. One person in particular has come under scrutiny because of the way they presented themselves during a statement to the press.
Robbie Parker and his wife lost their 6 year old child in the massacre, and Robbie Parker was one of a number of parents who issued a statement to the press in front of TV cameras. Conspiracy theorists claim he is an actor because of a ‘smile’ he gave to someone off camera as he walked to the microphones of the waiting press.
Without any knowledge of this person, or any knowledge of his normal behaviour, conspiracy theorists branded him many things, including ‘the most evil man alive’. They have no idea of how this person (or any other in the group) act in such a highly stressed and unnatural situation after the loss of a child. They also have no knowledge of what he was responding to.
What did happen was that those who were critical of his behaviour were projecting their own perception of what a person ‘should’ be like in these circumstances. They were saying ‘I wouldn’t act like that – so no one else should’ and that a person in grief should be solemn all of the time in between weeping.
Just because they wouldn’t act in the way Parker did does not mean that their way is the right and only way people would deal with such a situation. Without knowing the normal behaviour of Parker it is impossible to know how he was feeling, or if the way he was presenting is normal for him or part of something else.
Judging people ‘by averages’ of behaviour is an error.
Further criticism of Parker concerned the way he relayed the statement he made to the press. The conspiracy theorists likened it to bad acting as Parker took clear breaths before each sentence. Again, we have no way of knowing if this is the normal way Parker would handle highly stressful situations, and applying our own behaviour to other people does not have meaning.
Like Chinese whispers, once one ‘theorist’ presented this as ‘proof’ of a conspiracy theory and that Sandy Hook was a staged event, so others saw what wasn’t there, and every appearance of Parker drew people with no knowledge of what they are talking about to comment on tiny nuances of his behaviour. And so the theory expanded out of all proportion with ‘theorists’ attaching meaning to the smallest of anomalies without proper evidence, and sometimes theories which were plain fantasy.
I am not stating that Sandy Hook was not a false-flag operation, especially when one considers the timing of the incident in relation to the government agenda of disarming the nation, but what I am stating is that many of the theories perpetrated about Sandy Hook are total sensationalism with no solid foundation in reality – let alone logic – and that many of the people involved in such conjecture are unskilled in coming to a balanced conclusion based on evidence.
The same is true of many conspiracy theories that we hear about. Total rubbish without a shred of evidence and totally misinterpreted situations made by people who use snippets of information from the press and make them fit their own agenda. Whatever it takes, they will shoehorn anything in to make their point.
Some of the so-called ‘proof’ can be debunked very easily because it is hoax. Documents, photographs, and videos can be very easily manipulated in some way to prove a point, or perhaps by someone trying to make a name for themselves as the ‘discoverer of truth’. So caution is needed when looking at such material.
A good example of this was when the murder of Lee Rigby took place in Woolwich, London. Within hours of footage being released of one of the suspects talking to someone who was recording him on their mobile phone, there were different versions of videos which claimed that one version of the video showed him with blood covered hands, and another showed no blood on his hands.
The video (or a copy of) claiming there was no blood on one of the attackers hands can be seen on YouTube here, and the original video can be seen here. Obviously the ‘no blood’ video has been manipulated.
Again, I am not saying that the Woolwich incident was not a false-flag operation, because there are many inconsistencies in the official account, and one of the suspects had a long history with British security services.
So was Sandy Hook a false-flag operation? We don’t know – it is as simple as that. Until someone comes up with information from a reliable and verifiable source we are just left with speculation about inconsistencies in the official account.
In the meantime, we will no doubt see many claims of conspiracies when a major event happens, or about other activities involving big corporations and governments.
We often find that many conspiracy theories just don’t answer basic and reasonable questions about the subject their theory relates to, which is an indicator that despite the ‘evidence’ the theorists have not done their homework.
We shouldn’t dismiss conspiracy theories by any means, but we need to be careful about the information we believe to be truth.