Author Jack Cashill speaks up for Sandy Hook skeptics

Beware of the label “Conspiracy Theory.”
Although the definition of “conspiracyis simply “an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act,” the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorists” are equated with “crazy.”
As such, the label is an oft-used weapon to dismiss and discredit anyone who refuses to parrot the party line and instead has the audacity to ask questions about some handed-down “truth”. As if there aren’t real conspiracies: Kennedy’s Operations Northwood Conspiracy, Nixon’s Watergate Conspiracy, Reagan’s Iran-Contra Conspiracy, Obama’s Fast & Furious Conspiracy, and, of course, there’s the criminal Conspiracy called the Mafia.
So much for the much-priced “critical thinking” that’s in the standard publicity literature of U.S. colleges and universities to promote a liberal arts education.
The latest effort to brand skeptics as crazy is over Sandy Hook — the massacre of 26, including 20 first-grade children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012.
The official version of the massacre should be questioned if for no reasons than that:

  1. There are inconsistencies and anomalies in the official narrative, about which there are no answers because —
  2. A judge had put a gag on what police can tell us about the massacre.  On Dec. 27, 2012, State Superior Court Judge John Blawie ruled that search warrant affidavits for the cars and home of alleged lone shooter Adam Lanza and his mother would stay sealed beyond the normal 14-day period, for another 90 days, that is, until late March 2013.
  3. The massacre has serious policy consequences because it is used by the Obama regime to justify infringements on our Constitutional Second Amendment right to “bear arms.” As an example, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) cited the “20 dead children in Newtown” as “a wakeup call” to America when she formally introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 — her bill to ban “assault weapons,” including rifles, shotguns, and handguns  (See “List of banned guns in Feinstein’s “assault weapons” bill,” Jan. 24, 2013.)

We expect the Left to dismiss Sandy Hook skeptics, but we didn’t expect pundits on “our side” to do so.
A writer for Glenn Beck’s site, The Blaze, did a hit piece on January 23, “This is The Blaze’s Point-by-Point Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory Debunk.” Beck himself not only dismissed the skeptics, he went a mile further by making fun of us — just as he had mocked “birthers” as stupid. Mockery is a standard tool used to suppress questions and critical thinking.
A commenter on FOTM said that conservative radio talker and Fox TV personality Sean Hannity also dismisses Sandy Hook skeptics. Hannity evidently did not learn a lesson from having lost about half of his TV audience after last November 6’s election. The leftwing Salon attributes the loss to his viewers being disillusioned because Hannity had predicted a Romney win. Salon, of course, is wrong because if that’s the reason, then other conservative talkers should also have lost their audience. No, Salon, viewers and listeners are leaving Hannity in droves because after the Romney loss, Hannity said the GOP should try to be “more appealing” to women and Hispanics, in effect, by becoming a Democrat Party 2.0. When I heard that on his radio show, that was the last time I listened to Sean Hannity.
Here’s author Dr. Jack Cashill’s rejoinder to those who seek to stifle inquiries into the Sandy Hook massacre.
For FOTM’s posts on Sandy Hook, go to our “Sandy Hook Massacre” page.
~Eowyn

CNN #2 The school these police officers were running into is NOT Sandy Hook Elementary School. Aren’t you at all curious why CNN would do that? See “CNN deception: Live aerial footage of police running into Sandy Hook was of another school,” Jan. 22, 2013.

Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers

By Jack Cashill– American Thinker – Jan. 21, 2013

During the age of Obama, the major media have gone fully AWOL. If they fear that their reporting will lead to inconvenient discoveries, they simply stop their advance, lay down their notebooks, and disappear. This trend began in the Clinton years and picked up momentum after the 1994 electoral debacle, but the Clintons at least worried that the media might turn on them.
If Barack Obama ever had any such anxiety, the nonreporting on Fast and Furious, Benghazi and now Sandy Hook has had to reassure him. Sandy Hook is particularly disturbing because the truth is, or at least should have been, so accessible. This tragedy should never have spawned anything like a conspiracy theory, but it obviously has.
Protecting the major media’s flank during retreat are many and sundry well-funded leftist blogs — Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, Media Matters, and TPM among others. While the major media withdraw, the blogs attack those who might challenge the “narrative” the majors have left behind.
A case in point is a recent multi-media Huffington Post piece titled “Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theory Video Debunked By Experts.” In the video intro, HuffPo editor Meredith Bennett-Smith laughingly dismisses the various alternate theories of what transpired at Sandy Hook. Says Bennett-Smith, “That is what conspiracy theorists love to do. They put out a lot of questions, but they don’t necessarily provide a lot of answers.” When there is a Democrat in the White House, alas, anyone who asks a question becomes a conspiracy theorist.
Like too many alleged fact checkers, Bennett-Smith addresses only the least significant of the challenges to the Sandy Hook narrative: the alleged use of crisis actors, the memorials that predated the shooting, the confusion about what weapon was in Adam Lanza’s trunk. The “experts” she promises in the headline turn out to be other Obama-friendly fact checkers like David Mikkelson, founder of Snopes, and Robert Blaskiewicz, editor of a comparable blog called Skeptical Humanities. Absent in the piece is anyone who knows anything about guns or police work.
Predictably, what the HuffPo piece does not address are the two most troubling inconsistencies in the Sandy Hook reporting: the nature of the guns used and the presence or absence of a second shooter. Both questions have gained importance because of the White House’s obvious political exploitation of a ginned up “assault weapon” hysteria.
As to the guns, on December 15, one day after the shooting, NBC’s chief justice correspondent Pete Williams spoke with Today Show host Matt Lauer. Williams shared “new information” from a “couple of federal officials and state officials.” Said Williams, “They say now that there were actually four handguns recovered inside the school, not just two as we were initially told; four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.” (Italics mine)
Williams said that Lanza also brought an “assault style, AR-15 style rifle” with him to school, but, he added, “We have been told by several officials that he left that in the car.” In the days that followed, the story would shift to the AR-15, not as the exclusive weapon — two handguns remained in the story — but as “the primary weapon used in the attack.” On December 19, CNN reported, “Police say Lanza’s rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.” By January 6, the Hartford Courant was reporting that Lanza used the handguns only to shoot himself.
This shift in reporting may be justified, and Williams’ sources may have been wrong, but why has no one at NBC addressed the discrepancy? The police had plenty of time to establish the nature of the weapons used that first day. Williams cited multiple police sources. He is a seasoned reporter on a show that takes itself seriously. In retrospect, it is easy to see why authorities would want to bend the narrative to an AR-15, but why would anyone have chosen to mislead Williams on day two?
Equally under-reported is the disposition of the second suspect. On day one, the media were reporting that the police had apprehended a likely second shooter. As CBS News reporter John Miller said definitively, “They have a second person in custody.” He pointed out that this was not at all unprecedented given that there were two shooters at Columbine. Fox News described this person as wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants. According to Fox, a SWAT team escorted him out of the woods.
The Alex Jones Channel, although not always reliable, put together a nonconspiratorial video using network news clips of the chase in the woods, the capture, and interviews with witnesses. ABC News interviewed both a well-spoken child and an adult who confirmed seeing the man in custody. “They did walk a guy out of the woods with handcuffs,” said the man. The fellow then pointed the reporter to a police car where the alleged second shooter was still sitting.
Admittedly, the media got much wrong on day one: the name of the shooter, the mother’s relationship to the school, the supposed murder of the father, but the media quickly walked this information back. If they retracted the stories about the four handguns or the second shooter — or even explained the discrepancies — I have been unable to find any clarification, and the Huffington Post piece provided none either.
Until I see firm evidence, I remain agnostic about the official Sandy Hook narrative. My investigations into TWA Flight 800 and the Oklahoma City bombing have taught me to be wary of an “evolving” story line. In those two tragedies, as is often the case, the early reporting was the most reliable.
With TWA Flight 800, for instance, all initial reporting pointed to a missile strike as the cause of the highly visible explosion that killed 230 people off the coast of Long Island in July 1996. In the weeks that followed, without any new evidence, the Clinton Justice Department ignored the 270 FBI eyewitnesses to a missile strike and shifted the storyline from a missile to a bomb.
The FBI talked exclusively to the New York Times, and the Times returned the favor by interviewing none of the eyewitnesses. The cherry-picked evidence led to the following above-the-fold headline four weeks after the disaster — “Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of Flight 800.”
Although not as unnerving as a missile strike, the bomb scenario threatened the peace and prosperity message to be promoted at the Democratic National Convention just days away. Whether coordinated with the White House or not, the Times simply ceased reporting on the bomb. A month later, the official narrative shifted from a bomb to a center fuel tank explosion, a possibility that had been ruled out a month earlier. Like the networks at Sandy Hook, the Times never bothered to explain what happened to the evidence that led to the earlier conclusions.
In a similar spirit, days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the Washington Post reported specific FBI testimony describing “eyewitness accounts of a yellow Mercury with McVeigh and another man inside speeding away from a parking lot near the federal building.” (Italics mine)
The media, however, quickly lost interest in the swarthy John Doe No. 2. The likely reason is that If he proved to be an Islamic radical, it would be harder to blame the “Republican Revolution” for the bombing. At McVeigh’s trial, the Justice Department did not put a single one of the many reliable eyewitnesses on the stand because every one of them saw McVeigh with his foreign-looking accomplice. Again, the media chose not to notice the discrepancy. As Clinton himself acknowledged, Oklahoma City — i.e. the reporting on Oklahoma City — saved his presidency.
Bottom line: if the Democrat-media complex can turn an obvious missile strike into a mechanical failure and lose John Doe #2 to history, turning four handguns into an assault weapon and making a second shooter disappear is small beer.
Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Author Jack Cashill speaks up for Sandy Hook skeptics

  1. Thanks Dr. Eowyn,
    That pretty well sums up my reasons for uncertainty in the Sandy Hook report. And it brings the reminder of 2 other horrors that likewise sport official conclusions that aren’t satisfactory.

     
  2. People don’t hide something if there’s nothing there, just saying.

     
  3. Per theblaze’s debunking article, I found many points weren’t quite refuted. But, as a professional Internet marketer, web developer, and project manager, I was most interested to read what they’d write about, the “MEMORIAL PAGES & ASSOCIATED INTERNET TIMESTAMPS”. These memorial pages cannot be debunked by claiming mere coincidence that multiple webpages surrounding the shooting were apparently posted online before the shooting but in actual fact were dated erroneously. The claim that some of Google’s servers happen to have the clock set wrong is laughable.
    There are so few “mainstream” sources of legitimacy and truth; probably none, in fact. Fox is decently “conservative”, but it’s obviously not unlike any of the other outlets, having the primary objective of advancing the NWO, promoting the use of the Hegelian dialectic.

     
    • Marc, I had blood coming out of my ears from Becks article. Although not written by him you would assume he would know what’s on his site.
      I was so weak, and then when I saw he was using “Snopes” I about had a heart attack.
      I wonder don’t these people read the comments after the article. It was like 100 -1 “Beck you’re a Moron” LOL

       
  4. Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this excellent post. Anyone who has ever dealt with evidence, knows that you do not “cherry pick” the evidence; all evidence is taken into perspective and account and oftentimes it is in the details where the truth is found and corraborated. And, at the heart of finding the truth are the questions! Without questions, the truth cannot be discovered! But one must remember, we are under a regime where an actual king rules this country: so at the onset, questions will never be welcomed or encouraged. This king cannot be subservient to truth because even his own party deliberately and publicly took God out of its platform and out of its party. Therefore, no good or truth can come from this party or this king, because God, who is Truth, has been and is denied. Isn’t it fascinating that only hand guns were involved in this alleged tragedy as first reported, and not assault weapons. Isn’t it noteworthy that a second individual was found in the woods and percipient witnesses saw that he was handcuffed. And yet, we hear nothing about this person. The facts of this incident have been deliberately stifled. If we truly want to protect our children, then why are the facts stifled? We should be able to learn from these facts, unless they are being protected to be disclosed because they are contrived. Dr. Cashill’s points are the same points made by Dr. Eowyn of FOTM. In this matter, there is a big cover up. Why?

     
  5. if you look at “raw helicopter footage” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge030YkRddE), the main thing that strikes you is how peaceful and inactive the front of the school was. You expect to see a constant flood of people running in and out of the building. Not so. We’ve been told that 26 people have been riddled with bullets, so you know there would be blood everywhere. But we don’t seem to see people going in there air to count the shell casing, photograph everything, and clean up the mess.
    Max Malone, I think, has done a video claiming that there is not one frame of evidence that a single child ever left the building. His conclusion is that there were never any children in the building! I have been thinking of how this whole thing is a lot like a David Copperfield production. Is the airplane there or not?
    I hope Jack Cashill will analyze this video and its implications for us.

     
  6. Kathleen Murphy

    Or, if they can get away with saying that the fallen buildings on 9/11/2001 were not controlled demolitions, contradicting the architects and engineers from all over the world who offer scientific proof that they were indeed controlled demolitions… well they (the 1% with both their “right” and “left” puppets) can get away with anything.

     
    • While I firmly believe Sandy Hook to be a false flag op, the assertion of the world trade center being a controlled demolition is utter crap. I was in a meeting @ SRA America on the 45th floor when the first plane hit above me and after getting out watched the whole thing from only a couple blocks away. Don’t you think those of us there would have noticed the miles and miles of required det-cord, weakened structural points, and thousands of shaped shaped charges required to bring the building down? All you need is jet fuel, fire, and an already weakened lattice framework from the aircraft impact to collapse a building. By applying a few thousand degree fire to concrete and steel, within a matter of 30 minutes both materials lose almost 90% of their strength. A great example of this was in Los Angeles two years ago when a gasoline tanker crashed and caught fire under a freeway overpass, and within an hour the fully earthquake reinforced concrete/rebar structure began to fail.
      As for Sandy Hook, I want to thank everyone for all their hard work. It was clear to me that Obama would do anything and everything to achieve his goal of destroying the 2nd amendment. By the amount of views related topics are getting on Youtube… it seems Americans are starting to wake up.

       
      • 9/11 was an inside job. Yes a plane hit both towers but this is exactly how they wanted people to see it. As a random act of terrorism? GATHER ALL THE FACTS ALL THE INTERVIEWS ALL OF THE EYEWITNESSES AND IT WILL SHOW AND TELL A DIFFERENT STORY

         
  7. Maybe the guys in the picture above are running to fetch their guns and protective gear?

     
  8. Pingback: 17 Parkland Dead Sacrificed to Obama-Era Racialist Policy, Jack Cashill: Show Notes, Dangerous Thinkers - Teri O'Brien - America's Original Conservative Warrior Princess

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *