by Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley
“Truth wears no mask, bows at no human shrine, seeks neither place not applause, she only asks a hearing.” ~ Carl A. Wickland
When 20 children and 8 adults were murdered in the tiny Connecticut community of Sandy Hook we, like most other people, were shocked and horrified at what appeared to be a series of senseless acts of brutality. When a person experiences the tragic and untimely loss of a loved one, particularly in unusual or apparently inexplicable circumstances, the initial intense feelings of grief usually give way to a desire to understand HOW and WHY the tragedy occurred, in an effort to make sense of it and achieve some kind of ‘closure’.
This is a very normal and natural human reaction. We have an innate need to understand the world around us and how things ‘work’. In our modern, technological world, most of what we understand about our world and how it works is provided to us by some authority or other.
And most of us accept the conclusions of those authorities as being true. In some cases, those explanations are true.
In relation to the Sandy Hook massacre; while the HOW of the attack has been explained, as yet, there seem to be few authoritative answers as to WHY the massacre occurred. That is to say, WHY a lone gunman decided to walk into a school and murder 20 children and 6 adults. At this point, three weeks after the event, it seems that the world will ultimately have to accept the narrative that a lone, disturbed individual murdered those children because he was, well, disturbed. Specifically, it is claimed that Lanza had ‘Asperger’s Syndrome’, yet according to experts, people with this condition do not run a higher risk of killing others or themselves and indeed that they ‘rarely harm others‘. The ‘disturbed individual’ answer is, therefore, a rather unsatisfactory one, but it’s an answer nonetheless.
But here’s a question: What if the explanation provided by authorities about how something happened doesn’t make sense in any truly objective way? More to the point, what if you have reasonable cause to suspect that the official version of events may not be accurate? Logically, you’d think that the same desire to make sense of the tragedy and find closure would remain unsatisfied in such a case. But you’d be wrong to think so, because it seems that most people, particularly those affected most directly by a tragedy, will gratefully accept the first plausible official explanation that is offered to them, even if, as in the case of the Sandy Hook massacre, it doesn’t really explain WHY the tragedy occurred. The reason that most people react in this way is probably due to the same desire to find closure and ‘put it behind them’.
With that in mind, we’d like to state that our previous analyses of the Sandy Hook massacre were in no way motivated by any desire to ‘stir up some shit just for the sake of it’ (as several individuals suggested). Our motivation was, rather, to satisfy our desire to find a more satisfactory explanation of HOW and WHY the massacre occurred, a desire that really resulted from our inability to simply ignore the outstanding inconsistencies in the official story.
But first however, we’d like to draw your attention to some of the more outrageous and false claims being made about the Sandy Hook massacre.
Third Party ‘Actors’ and Conspiracy Nut-jobs…….