New documentary "We need to talk about Sandy Hook" getting banned on youtube

[A4E]

Like alot of people using their own brains I came across enough red flags after the event to conclude that it was a staged event, but in this new documentary there are things I did not see before.

 

There is a working video in this link at the moment.

I found another one aswell, but I liked the audioquality better in the first one.

 

And you could watch it from the creators website.

 

One of the reasons this is important is that governments use it to increase their power. And I hope that is a good enough argument for this community to become aware of atleast why so many internet people question that day.

[shirgall]

It's pretty clear to me that the organizations that benefit from these events simply prepare for the next one but that doesn't imply that they actually conspire to make them. Intelligence agencies prepare for intelligence failures so they can take advantage of the need to spend more on them. Gun control NGOs prepare for the next shooting so they can take advantage of the need to further control the people. Every advocacy organization does this, it doesn't have to be more sinister than that.

[A4E]

You are right about your theoretical world, and I would also have liked it if it wasnt more sinister than that, but all the inconsistencies, lack of any evidence, mistreated emergency, and crisis actors identified, and more red flags says otherwise. That is why so many assumed crackpots like me are speaking out.

[A4E]

I found a well made new redux video of additional perspectives. It also has a shocking treat at the end that I never saw before.

 

In case you are thinking that exposing lies and staged events have no value. One good reason to make people aware of this staged event, is so that people will be better able to recognize new staged events, and put recent events into a more revealing light. A population that is emotionally distressed, pleading to authority, and setting themselves up to be programmed, is a sure way for society, and freedom, to continue downhill. I have accepted this importance, but if you have a good case as to how I am wrong in my assumption, then please show me or tell me, so that I can stop spending time spreading information like this.

 

[utopian]

I have not really looked at any of the videos or information but, knowing what I know about the banking establishment, I am willing to accept it was a staged event. 

 

But so, what do you want to get out of this conversation? Even talking to someone who will accept Sandy Hook as staged, I would not be sure what the goal is here. The average peon is not going to take 5 minutes to look at any evidence suggesting they live anywhere else but candyland, much less one or two hours. Anyone smart enough to bother is probably already in the know.

 

 

 

You know what interests me about Adam Lanza is, they made him out to be the stereotypical video game playing shut in. Congratulations media, you have just targeted anyone who would have enough time on their hands, and just so happens to be in the situation where they can research enough evidence to know Sandy Hook was staged. That also just so happens to be the only demographic that would pay enough attention to care about the media's BS. How is the media going to paint its skeptics as killers, when anyone paying attention would feel targeted?

[pretzelogik]

There is a very strong bias toward accepting what is delivered to us as "news" as factual, when in reality the media has no legal or ethical obligation to provide any truth whatsoever.

 

The mission statement of Newscorp (The Rupert Murdoch conglmerate) was posted earlier in another thread, but it bears repeating:

 

"Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world." 

 

Before their website updated it was featured at the top of the banner.  Evidently, they have a new tag lin:

 

"Delivering extraordinary experiences for our customers and consumers is at the heart of who we are."  (Bold and italics are theirs)

 

These statements should be taken literally, they create news and deliver extra ordinary experiences.  They do not provide facts, facts are by their own definitions contrary to their mission statement.

 

News is created (in any big national or worldwide event that becomes part of the collective dialogue) the same way movies are created, with scripts, actors, sets and street theater added for effect.

 

If an actual event happens that can be spun to benefit the agenda, the set designers and copywriters get an easy week.

 

The reason these conspiracies can go on forever and never get resolved (Kennedy, 9/11) with new wrinkles continually added like sequals to The Hobbit, is because there are no facts to uncover and nail down.  The entire yarn is spun from whole cloth.  When the hour is up and all the digital supernatural effest dissolve into the "News at 6" graphic, an assumption is made that facts are on the way but it's still only lights and sounds, like any show or infomercial and should be assigned the same level of truth value.

[A4E]

 

But so, what do you want to get out of this conversation? Even talking to someone who will accept Sandy Hook as staged, I would not be sure what the goal is here. The average peon is not going to take 5 minutes to look at any evidence suggesting they live anywhere else but candyland, much less one or two hours. Anyone smart enough to bother is probably already in the know.

 

 

I understand what you mean. And I am perfectly aware that there are a lot of people who will not even look at it for 5 minutes, and if this was another forum, would lash out all kinds of profanities and tin foil remarks at me. If there is a forum paradise, this is probably it.

 

I already described what benefits making people aware would have in the previous post, so I am assuming you see the potential benefits, but somehow you think it will not have any effect.

 

So by your reasoning, I don't have to talk about child abuse elsewhere on internet, because the average child abusing parent is not going to spend any time listening anyway.

 

Also, would you be willing to say this:

"But so, what do Stefan want to get out of this conversation? Even talking to someone who will accept child abuse as abhorrent, I would not be sure what the goal is here. The average peon is not going to take 5 minutes to look at any evidence suggesting they are anything other than righteous and good parents, much less one or two hours. Anyone smart enough to bother is probably already a peaceful parent."

[utopian]

Aah, forgive me, I had not read your other posts. 

 

 

I do largely believe that people are largely stuck in their ways, and will not change their opinions until they have really sat down on their own to consider something. Or perhaps, have otherwise been indoctrinated, like children sometimes are in light of things like religion. It is "the matrix" conundrum all over again; if people even had the choice to know they lived in the matrix, would they want to know, or would they just want to be kept in the matrix while malicious entities suck the life out of them? Do people want to know Sandy Hook is an event staged by the government or a corporation in pursuit of their agenda, or do people want to believe America is a great safe place where the government cares about them too much to ever do something like that?

 

 

 

Having the conversation on hand for when people do come looking for answers certainly has its value. My issue is, figuring out how to get people to accept the less than convenient truth. People pay for lies so they can be blissfully ignorant. They rarely pay for the hurtful truth. Surely you can see that with Stephan, where his quest to talk about child abuse among other things is met with a constant lack of donations. It would certainly benefit me for the masses to be aware of how they are being messed with. I'm just not sure how to get people aware.

[A4E]

My issue is, figuring out how to get people to accept the less than convenient truth.

 

The holy grail.

 

 

 

I'm just not sure how to get people aware.

 

And it doesn't help that people like me, if they have been digging enough, finally try to prove the gas chambers to themselves. The next inevitable realization is sure to repel a lot more people in forums or social media if they mention it. I just dive in with everything if I see an opportunity, which might not be the best approach, but atleast im doing something.

 

Ultimately, people choose themselves if they want to look at something. But one big step is presenting the information to them. It doesn't have to be complicated.