Before you crucify me for even mentioning the films one should at least acknowledge that this sort of insanity is out there. Its kind of like the 911 conspiracies, the we never went to the moon conspiracies, the JFK/MLK conspiracies, holocaust denial and what ever else you want to toss into the alternate history camps. People are doubting everything, and thus believing in nothing with result that what we know about our past is being tossed into doubt just because someone has come up with a better explanation.
To be honest the reason conspiracies such as these come up is that people can't believe and refuse to believe that shit happens. People can't believe that there are evil people out there and that things happen. Worse people refuse to believe that lone nut jobs can do horrible things. Its all a terrible plot.
And some times it is and sometimes it's not and now a days it's impossible to know because the instant something happened there is so much much noise from the instant something happens you can't tell. The moment a tragedy happens the conspiracy boards light up and people, with no facts to go on are telling you why the CIA/FBI/NSA or whom ever is behind it. You have people taking for gospel fact anything that is reported during the event and relying on often incorrect reports as the truth-despite the fact that down the road they will curse mainstream media for not telling the whole story. Witnesses are truthful if they say what they want to hear, regardless of the later found to be lying.
The upside is that everyone is an investigator- which is good because many eyes often find something- but bad because sometimes these investigators aren't checking their sources and take everything at face value or worse cherry picking what they want to see (the film 911 IN PLAIN SITE reference 911 LOOSE CHANGE to back up it's POV that a missile hit the pentagon except that LOOSE CHANGE actually denies that)
All of which brings me around to the Sandy Hook massacre where a classroom of first graders were killed by a lone nut job and people are denying that it ever happened.
Actually there are levels to denial, running from it was a set up to get over a political agenda having to do with gun control, to what happened is not what was reported to it never happened and is a completely false story to not only did it never happen the town and everything connected to it was completely made up. (with that last one you kind of see the disease that is out there)
Because I'm weird and like to look into contrary points of view one Sunday in September I sat down and watched a couple of long form documentaries on the anti-Sandy Hook line of thought. Just because someone takes an opposing stand from you it doesn't mean they are wrong so I figured I'd bite the bullet and take a look. I watched We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook, something called Newtown NUKE! Sandy Hook FAKE FBI On TV (Smoking Gun PROOF), NEW Footage, What Really Happened at Sandy Hook and a bunch of short pieces.
To watch the films is a very weird experience, and that says something because I've been reading on conspiracy theory since I was a teenager. The films put you in a very weird place that kind of is like our world and yet isn't. More so than almost any other conspiracy theory I've run across it's pieces seem to be operating in a vacuum, nothing connects to reality or even it's own reality. I kind of understand why some people take the standpoint that the town doesn't exist because within the confines of the conspiracy its less real than the land of elves and fairies.
I can not and will not list all the conspiracy points one by one. There is simply too many odd bits to counter, but there are a few that are worth mention.
The starting point for many of the docs is that many of the people connected to the victims have theatrical background. Because they are performers they must be acting. Additionally when these performers appeared on TV they seemed to be well spoken and not broken up. Never mind they would be trained to go on, they ween't broken up there for there was no loss. Of course the fact that New Town was picked by many performers because it's in a good location to get away from the grind of NYC is never brought up.
People are bothered by what we see in the various footage aired and released by the police. What we see in one piece of footage doesn't jibe with other pieces. In one piece proof of a conspiracy was hinged on a time coded police dash camera pointing away from the school. Because the time stamp on footage didn't exactly match the released time line of events there is a problem. Worse the filmmakers never assumes that fleeing people may not have gone in front of that one camera.
We have the old story of what is heard on police scanners and TV news reports is gospel truth. One documentary plays a police radio call say there was a report of other people in other locations. the filmmakers assume its true, except that having a connection to law enforcement I know that sometimes the report of something is a misidentification or an error. Guys in the woods could have been students or press or something even other cops. There is no explanation given if any effort to fully work out why the reports was made. People simply assume that any report that came was the truth even before the police checked it out.
The stories told by kids in the school is used to show nothing happened. Because kids in different part of the school had different experiences doesn't mean nothing happened. Like wise the fact that some kids don't seem shaken up means nothing as well because at the time of the interview they may not have anything to be upset about, additionally how kids react is not how an adult does plus we don't know what the interaction was between them and the reporter- were they kibitzing before the interview? We don't know.
We don't know how much about the research, assuming any was, done, While that is always the case with any documentary, this is always a serious question with conspiracy docs because some time a good story is too good to spoil, and because in many cases everyone assumes the guy they are taking the point from did their investigation or knows what they are talking about- sadly that isn't the case . For example I got into a battle over the chemistry regarding the steel in something with 911. The person I was arguing with was taking a certain doctor's word about the chemical make up and melting points and such. They insisted that since they had a doctorate so they knew what they were talking about, until I pointed out the doctorate was in history and they weren't trained in chemistry (of course this didn't mean they didn't know but rather it had to be investigated further)
While the vast majority of the theories presented can be dismissed or have holes poked into there is one point which needs to be explained and really looked at. I know people will be upset for me for saying this, and in the interest of fairness, I have to say that there is only one area that makes raises questions and that is the various Google cache web pages which allegedly show reference to events days before the events. I'm sure there is an explanation, and if it as only one I could dismiss it out of hand but there appears to be several which at least makes it troubling. I'm not saying it means anything but rather its the only point they really have worth investigating.
As for the films themselves they are a messy bunch with jagged editing and serious point of view. They want you to believe what they do and at times you'll feel like you're drowning. The best of the bunch is We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook which looks professional, nicely lays out its points and isn't in your face. If you are going to watch one film on the subject that's the one to do it. On the other hand the film is almost three hours long and interest will flag by the half way point.(Why do so many of these films think that more is more?)
Your choice to see the films is yours-but from my perspective other than a what if game, there is absolutely nothing worth seeing here.