Sandy Hook shooter had a friend in N.Y

They interviewed this guy for 1 hour and 55 minutes and only came up with three pages, one of which is probably just a generic oath, i.e. only two real pages, max, of statement?

Does this person have a name or does it actually say in the report " met with someone"?

Does this person have a name or does it actually say in the report " met with someone"?
[/quo

Name is redacted

On 8/22/13 at 1810 hours Detective Downs and I met with [redacted] at the North Castle Police Department in Amonk, N.Y for the purpose of clarifying statements he made in an initial statement that he made on 12/20/13
in regards to this investigation.[Redacted] was identified in this investigation as being a friend of the shooter.

Goldylocks had long hair.

What's scary is that disinfo looks to be a growth industry. How many future college graduates will be employed by disinfo firms and projects with corporate/propaganda-state funding? It looks to be the new "reality manufacturing" for the mind control state. Sort of the "black ops public relations" industry. These employees won't view their job as cover-up, but instead something positive and forward like "reality creation." It will be considered a dignified job and worthy of respect, like a CIA agent (Even though we know the CIA does some horrible things and they in no way work for actual Americans, they are respected because most people just deliberately try not to think about what these lackeys for the elite actually do.)

I think SH is a primitive, crude, early attempt that they will try to learn from. Sort of the Wright Brothers event of a newly established marketplace.

Here are some suggested names for firms: "DInfo Resources, Inc." "New Realities LLC," "InfoCraft Associates," "Enhanced Knowledge Systems," CranioCreations." How about "Orwellia Enterprises"?

Is this a misprint? His second statement was made before his first? Are these the dates in the report or just a misprint here? I'm confused.

The 'loner' mass deception in the press is truly remarkable.

Breivik was branded as a loner = had a normal upbringing and friends until the last (less friends as he grew older but well within the average; the average person loses friends as they grow older). Evidently, he is quite a self-confident person, so does not fit the shy and socially awkward stereotypes either.

Loughner was branded a loner = normal upbringing, had many friends at various times; started becoming warped and scared away friends, but pestered them to spend time with them (a joiner) until the end (mother called him a 'bit of a loner', the media struck the 'bit' away from what she said and made it sound like he was exceptionally socially withdrawn (he was not, and may have been socially transitioning) ... a 'bit of a' loner can describe 50% or sometimes more of the population). He also defied the quiet, withdrawn stereotype: he was known for being loud, disruptive and obnoxious.

Wade Michael Page was branded a loner = he had friends, including a girlfriend, and was in the social scene as a member of a heavy metal band. He also, apparently, defied the quiet stereotype.

Holmes was branded a loner = His friends came out and raised their eyebrows at those claims, saying he was 'not a loner', that he simply didn't have time to do a lot of social activities because of educational demands but he was well within the norm for his schooling environment.

Holmes and Klebold were not branded 'loners' but outcasts = They were neither. They had friends they socialized with, and went with to social events. They were also self-confident, not timid, and in some instances evidently loud. They seemed to have a paranoia about what their friends were up to, however, and felt they deserved better or something.

Cho was branded a loner, and with what the media has revealed about his social life in adulthood it seems it may be in order (but I am not convinced they have given it proper examination, they have probably been culturally selective in their little analysis about Cho's isolation; there is evidence that Cho chose friends on a cultural basis, and had cultural friends while growing up and many friends before leaving South Korea as a child) = But the media came out and outright LIED about the contents of a report by the Secret Service called the Safe School Initiative, saying the shooter fit the profile of being a loner when the report concluded there was no profile, there was a danger in even having a profile, and that the majority were not partial loners and the vast majority were not profoundly socially isolated. An idiot 'expert' concluded at the end of the Virginia Tech report that the shooters motivation was social withdrawal, that he had never known friendship in his entire life which was contradicted by the report itself which made it clear he had friends at various points in his life.

It goes on and on. I done some research on this and in the wake of Sandy Hook, found hundreds of pages by supposed 'experts' who blame their social withdrawal for being the trigger for mass shootings. Many experts with phD after their names now say social disconnectnedness causes a loss of reality based on mere assumption, not research. Even Schwarz, one of the sane people on the SH panel, says social alienation is probably a big factor in these shootings.

Why? Lanza and possibly Cho are the two who stand out from the pack of mass shooters, though the populace believes otherwise. Lanza also had 'friends' from 2010 say to the media that was Adam's voice on the radio program. You also had the 'Sandy Hook Elementary School was Adam's life' mysterious guy who seemed to know Adam on an intimate level.

At least some of what we know about Adam Lanza is crafted by the media in their usual sensational fashion trying to paint all mass shooters as socially isolated beyond the norm. (An example is that we were told he dropped off the face of the earth for the last 2 years of his life, but later learn he was still going to malls and playing Dance Dance Revolution with social ease 3 months from the end.) It is difficult to separate this deceit from the investigation.

(Amusingly, there was proper research that sort to dispel myths about mass shootings recently, and it addressed about 10 myths but refused to investigate the 'loner' one, instead saying it is 'surely' true indicating that they didn't even bother looking into the veracity of it and were insistent on continuing to perpetuate that myth.)

These things will have social consequences. Kids are being stereotyped in the schooling and home environments. Can even result in divorce (one article had a mother who didn't want her father taking their future mass murdering 'loner' son to the firing range for bonding, causing the two to split and the poor kid to be demonized by his guardians). The evil media have crafted the profile they want and brainwashed people into thinking it's the trigger, and when this Sandy Hook thing came along everyone was so sure of the link it became this grand logical assumption. The media abuse and persecute millions but when I question Sandy Hook, I'm the evil one.

(It is interesting to note that they won't racially stereotype a certain demographic for being responsible statistically speaking for a higher amount of crimes but are all too eager to stereotype shy, awkward kids who are socially isolated and already miserable enough as it is without any statistical basis for their conclusion; in fact, they will make stuff up to support their conclusion or frame their profile on what some random no name person up the street says about the kid they didn't know.)

Mistake on my part sorry should read 12/20/12.