NO RIFLES Used In Sandy Hook Shooting Only Handguns

[usmc17]

NO RIFLES Used In Sandy Hook Shooting Only Handguns. I didnt see any thread on this.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxaTh1RK4c8[/ame]

 

[buford t justice]

Then you didn't look

 

[HoughMade]

Seriously? You didn't see a thread on this......or any one of of the 10 or 12 threads on this.....and debunking this very early, unsupported report?

 

[possum_128]

You didn't look very hard.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Given that this has been rehashed repetitively, I didn't take the time to scrutinize the video. I played it this time just for fun and realized that the claim is made that this information came from officials involved in the investigation. If this is true, it may indicate that the change is in the .gov story and not just confusion introduced by reporters scrambling for something to stop silence from happening.

 

[ghuns]

Then you didn't look

Kinda like when my kids say we're outta peanut butter and I walk to the pantry, open the door, and pull out a jar?

 

[THard6]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ice_clarify_sandy_hook_weapons_questions.html
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...firm_weapons_used_in_sandy_hook_shooting.html
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ton_shooting_was_done_with_handguns_only.html

 

[Pinchaser]

As fast as the Barack Hussein cronies move to capitalize on a crisis, it would come as no surprise at all if the kid only took handguns into the school and the obamanites told the media to change the story. Wouldn't be a surprise at all.

 

[DRob]

Surprises

There could have been surprises about this. The first surprise would be if the media would EVER get anything right. Positive, negative, or neutral. The next surprise would be if we would all get over it and realize we can't count on them to do so. Positive, negative, or neutral. Last but not least would the surprise if people here could respond to a post without beating up on the OP for starting a duplicate thread. Is trying to belittle somebody all you have to do?

 

[Fishersjohn48]

Wait, maybe this is new important relevant pertinent impotent information that we haven't seen before. Will someone watch the video and report back?

 

[Nemick]

Unfortunately, we have just about reached the point where we really can't believe anything we hear or read anymore. Pretty sad.

 

[lizerdking]

First time I've seen this particular clip.

I did just search it, and this is the fist time someone used the world clip correctly


Clip is from the week of the shooting though, as much as we all want the rifle to have been in the car, it appears to have been the weapon used.

 

[KW730]

The rifle was inside the school. End of story. Stop bringing this up.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Given that this has been rehashed repetitively, I didn't take the time to scrutinize the video. I played it this time just for fun and realized that the claim is made that this information came from officials involved in the investigation. If this is true, it may indicate that the change is in the .gov story and not just confusion introduced by reporters scrambling for something to stop silence from happening.

The story often changes in an investigation, especially early on, because the narrative isn't known. Think of the south side fire in Indianapolis. Did the first reports call it an arson? Did any of the .gov officials early on say it was an arson? I was there, and I can tell you they didn't, because we didn't know yet.

Some people were saying it was a plane crash. Why? Because someone heard the explosion, didn't see it, and got on the radio and ASKED if a small plane had went down in the area while trying to land at the little Greenwood airport. Later, of course, we realized it was a gas explosion and not a small airplane, but that narrative had already been released, so the story changed.

 

[AndersonIN]

NEWS FLASH...................PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY.............STILL DEAD!

WE'LL KEEP YOU APPRISED OF ANY FURTHER UPDATES!

 

[IndyDave1776]

The story often changes in an investigation, especially early on, because the narrative isn't known. Think of the south side fire in Indianapolis. Did the first reports call it an arson? Did any of the .gov officials early on say it was an arson? I was there, and I can tell you they didn't, because we didn't know yet.

Some people were saying it was a plane crash. Why? Because someone heard the explosion, didn't see it, and got on the radio and ASKED if a small plane had went down in the area while trying to land at the little Greenwood airport. Later, of course, we realized it was a gas explosion and not a small airplane, but that narrative had already been released, so the story changed.

You are describing a responsible investigation. My point is that given what was said, specifically that this was official information, one of two things necessarily has to be true. Either the reporter was deliberately lying (as opposed to filling in his own blanks with speculation, as indicating that it was information released by law enforcement officials) or those officials changed the story later for reasons yet to be fully established. This is a long way from something that can be dismissed as the reporter filling in his own blanks.

 

[OWGEM]

My uncle's daughter's nephew said this is not true. My source is as good or better than yours.

NO RIFLES Used In Sandy Hook Shooting Only Handguns. I didnt see any thread on this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxaTh1RK4c8