SH_Promiseby Jim Fetzer*

The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are those with something to hide” – Barack Obama (2010)

Redacted FBI report on Sandy Hook

[Tom Bittman of the “Sandy Hook Promise” charity. Image Credit: CT Post]

Let’s start with the FBI.  It has now released its report about Sandy Hook, which has been so massively redacted that it looks worse than a chunk of swiss cheese.  So what does the FBI have to hide about Sandy Hook?

As Dave Altimari reports in The Hartford Courant, “Of the 175 pages released in response to a Courant Freedom of Information request, 64 were completely redacted and most of the other 111 pages were heavily redacted.”

If the official account of a single demented shooter taking out 20 children and 6 adults on 14 December 2012 were true, there would be nothing to redact.  He came, he shot, he died.  There should be no more to it than that. So there has to be more to it than that.

This is reminiscent of the Warren Commission’s decision to classify documents and records about the death of JFK for 75 years on the ground of “national security”.  After all, if a lone demented shooter had committed that crime with 3 luck shots, there is no “national security” aspect to the case. So what’s going on?

Wolfgang Halbig, a former Florida State Trooper, public school administrator and nationally recognized expert on school safety, and I traveled to Newtown to confront the Newtown School Board with some of our findings and questions for the board.  Like the FBI, they stonewalled us and adopted the strategy of silence:

Skeptics met with silence

There are many reasons to believe that their approach (of benign neglect) is not going to work. Articles have appeared in The Connecticut Post and The Stamford Advocate, which are especially striking for the posted comments, where there has been at least as much support for us as criticism. And there is much, much more.

My statement to the Board

In my statement to the board, I identified myself as a former Marine Corps officer, a retired professor and a journalist for Veterans Today. I explained that, in the course of my research, I had discovered that Sandy Hook Elementary School was an outstanding school with a 10/10 rating, that it covered K-4 and that it had 626 students. I explained that that rather astonished me, because if you subtract 20 for the students who were killed, that leaves 606. But where were they at the time of this event? We don’t see them anywhere and, if you assume that buses carry 48-50 students apiece, then it would have taken at least a dozen buses to evacuate them. But nothing like that is visible in any of the footage that was taken on the scene that day.


I also observed that some of the reasons we are concerned include that the final report from the Connecticut State Police does not include the names, the ages or the sex of any of the victims; that the Clerk of Newtown entered into secret negotiations with the state legislature to avoid having to release death certificates for those who were killed; that the Attorney General of Connecticut sought to prevent the release of the 911 calls; and that those who were hired for the demolition of the building were required to accept “life-time gag orders” prohibiting them from ever discussing what they saw or did not see during the destruction of the school. None of these would be expected if the shooting had taken place as Connecticut state officials claim.

Moreover, I noted that, to obtain that 10/10 rating, the school had to be impeccable inside and out, but that even The Newtown Bee had published an article following the shooting explaining that refurbishing the building would have been problematic at best, because it was loaded with asbestos and other bio-hazards. I asked when that had been determined and whether the parents had been notified and made aware that their children were being taught in a toxic waste dump. I observed that, under these circumstances, no children should have been there at all. I closed by explaining that parents and children had been terrified by the reports of this event and that we were here at Newtown in our efforts to determine the truth about Sandy Hook.

The Jeff Rense Interview

After a long day in Newtown, Wolf and I did an hour’s interview with Jeff Rense, which you can listen to here, in which we recounted the major events of the day:

(1) United Way of Western Connecticut refused to allow Wolf to inspect its records, even though they are public as a matter of law.  They called the local police to block access to the building.

(2) The Newtown Police Department refused to allow Wolf to meet with its three ranking officers, who were actively involved in the Sandy Hook event.  They were there but “unavailable”.

(3) The Sandy Hook Fire Station was manned by a lone fireman, who became abusive to Wolf when he asked to meet with the Fire Chief, became aggressive and committed an assault and battery.

(4) No questions were allowed to be asked of the members of the School Board, who heard us out in silence and have made no efforts to response to any of the questions that we have raised.

What was most reveling about these encounters is that none of these four organizations acted as you would expect if they had nothing to conceal: United Way should have welcomed Wolf and assisted him in inspecting its records; the Newtown police should have addressed his questions; the Fire Chief should have met with him; and the School Board should have been responsive to our concerns. Instead, each of them displayed the kind of conduct you would expect if they had something to hide.

Brasscheck TV

Our appearance before the Newtown School Board was picked up by Brasscheck TV, which featured it

Calling the Sandy Hook School Board
on its incomprehensible bullshit

Experts raise serious issues


“This issue is not going away”

Experts from various disciplines ask the Sandy Hook school board to release documents they are currently withholding.

When you hear a summary of the anomalies in the story and the kinds of documents that have been withheld you’re going to be scratching your head, even if you firmly believe that the story happened the way it was reported.

The Newtown School Board

Although none of us knew it at the time, the meeting of the Newtown School Board are live-streamed to the community and they maintain a public comment board.  When I discovered its existence, I posted links to four of my articles about Sandy Hook, in the hope that those unfamiliar with the issues might consider them further:

First comment for School Board

Then it occurred to me that I needed to expand on the questions that the School Board needed to address, where we were not allowed to ask (other than rhetorical) questions during our presentations but where they made a form available for the written submissions of questions, implying that they would respond in an appropriate manner and at an appropriate time:

Second set of comments for board (1)Second set of comments for board (2)

Winfield Abbe’s elaboration

At this point in time, there have been several supportive comments but also an exceptional post by Winfield Abbe, who was a speaker at the recent Academic Freedom Conference:  JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust. Winfield raised many serious questions that I very much doubt the School Board is going to be willing to answer, even though they would largely lay the matter to rest, one way or the other.  Their reticence powerfully suggests that they do not want the truth of Sandy Hook to emerge.

(a) Did any or all members of the Newtown School Board discuss a possible individual or collective response to those raising questions with a lawyer prior to the public meeting? If so, what did the lawyer recommend and why was it necessary to even talk to a lawyer? Do members of the school board feel they have legal liability for their actions or inactions regarding the events in December, 2012 at Sandy Hook School? Did the lawyer recommend all members simply remain silent to any questions even if they have information which might provide enlightened answers? Why is there fear in answering simple questions? Did the lawyer recommend they take the 5th Amendment should questions be posed to school board members in any judicial proceeding? Name the lawyer or lawyers who advised them. Were these lawyers paid by public funds for their legal advice?

(b) Do any members of the Newtown School Board have any information which contradicts or conflicts with the official story line of events at Sandy Hook School in December, 2012? What is that information if it exists? If you fear revealing that information, why do you fear revealing it? Have any of you been intimidated or threatened with reprisals if you revealed such information? If so, when and by whom and in what form?

(c) Do any members of the Newtown School Board have any questions yourselves on the many bizarre events or behaviors of various public officials that day, as for example the strange behavior of the Medical Examiner Carver and others? Do you fear revealing such feelings due to possible reprisals against you or your family by powerful members of government at various levels?

(d) Do members of the Newtown School Board swear under oath, under the penalties of perjury, that any and all statements made by them in answer to questions will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them God? If not, why not? Does not government expect ordinary citizens to always provide truthful statements to government? Therefore should not citizens and taxpayers expect the same truthful response by government officials to events like this one under discussion?

(e) Why all the secrecy demanded of the wrecking company and its employees which demolished the Sandy Hook School? Were they sworn to secrecy in order to possibly maintain a public lie? Were there conditions of the building which would contradict the official story line of the events that day in December, 2012 at Sandy Hook School? In fact why were not members of the public and press invited to inspect the building prior to demolition, and take all the pictures they might desire, to insure total honesty and openness in the collective public mind rather than encouraging various theories of events because information and facts were carefully covered up and hidden from public view? Again, why all the secrecy? What did you have to hide? What facts are you hiding? Secrecy is the enemy of the truth. What did you or your lawyers fear might result if the members of the wrecking company were not sworn to secrecy? What would they possibly see inside those buildings which would be so risky or dangerous to be exposed to the public eye? Was not all the blood cleaned up by then? Were not all the expended bullet shells removed by then? Had not all the body fluids been cleaned up? Etc,etc., etc., You would not be engaged in a fraudulent cover up of a crime scene would you?

(f) Will you provide all relevant detailed utility bills for Sandy Hook School, monthly from 2006 through 2012, including but not limited to water, gas, electricity, coal or oil if used for heating or air conditioning, etc.? Will you provide all monthly bills for all operations like food services, books and stationary services, telephone and internet services, janitorial services, and any other and all such relevant services in the daily operation of Sandy Hook School over this period of time?

Wolfgang Halbit at Newtown School Board meeting

Silence means you aren’t worth a reply

A woman by the name of Sharon Hill has published a blog, “Sometimes silence means you aren’t worth a reply”, in which she maintains that it was offensive that we came to Newtown to confront the School Board about Sandy Hook. She even writes,

Silence means you are shit

But this is a nice example of begging the question by assuming the answer to the issue in dispute. There is no indication that she understands the evidence nor that she has studied the case at all. So I have submitted a comment, which is under review before posting. I am not going to hold my breath that it is going to appear, but she really needs to think this through:

Response to Sharon

*Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight University Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. This article originally published at Veterans Today and is republished here with permission.

Leave a Reply

167 thought on “The Newtown School Board Meeting and the Meaning of Silence”
  1. By Fetzer, Halbig and Lapp going it allows myself when making phone calls to various agencies and they reply by saying “this story is old”, I can now say, “quite the opposite! A research team after gathering evidence for 19 months just met with officials on May 6, 2014.” I just used this statement to a publisher to convince them this needs to be re examined.

    1. Absolutely kelley, there have been many times when i thought public interest was dying in this only to have some random occurence bring it back to the forefront. The biggest obstacle is giving in to negativity!

  2. sandy hook ( the school that didnt exsist) one of the greatest deceptions ever committed against the poor pathetic American people , a TV SHOW, sandy hook the TV SHOW , the school that never exsisted will be the greatest downfall of America & the fools who believe this nonsense.

  3. What I’ve been trying to get across in many of the posts here – in connection with the school board meeting: See Robert’s Rules of Order which the school board must follow. Every board member is supposed to receive their own copy (booklet):

    A “Public Comment” section allows the public to talk about anything, and the board may question them, but no further action or discussion is allowed.

    The silence in terms of asking questions? OK, maybe the speakers were iced out. But, there could be no responses or discussions given by the board. Halbig and his crew performed a little show for them, but could not have possibly have expected answers from this. I would say to publicly shame them into compliance of his FOIA request was about all it accomplished (and some P.R. on their part)

  4. Redacting has absolutely no place in a Constitutional Republic with a bill of rights, and a freedom of information act. This is no different from the Columbine files which are basically unreadable. The next time you have to give an official statement to the police, ask for a sharpie and just black out anything that may be self incriminating. If its ok for them, it should be ok for us too. Redacting is governments way of saying “we do what we want”. If I recall correctly Orwell’s ministry of truth didn’t even have the gall to put out redacted statements, instead preferring to rewrite the whole story so at least the reader had a full and articulate lie to ingest. Welcome to Airstrip One on steroids. I’m sorry I hate the whole “on steroids” thing too. I defer my time to the resident 1984 expert.

    1. Great catch, Rich. I wonder what Orwell would say. In both cases there is an obsessive, outward, dedication to the “rule of law” that completely contradicts it. In Oceania (and presumably the other two empires) they scrupulously maintained historical records that anyone could review in their entirety–although as you say, they are constantly being rewritten, so they are all lies. Everyone is expected to believe lies and never doubt, or else they are tortured until they do.

      In our world, things have not “progressed” to that point (although we have lots of “progressives” working night and day to complete the transition), so actual history is still preserved. And we are still allowed to question, for the most part, the official record, without being tortured (although as you said so well yesterday, they can put anyone away at any time–and do it all the time–if they get you in their crosshairs, so we are well advanced in that score). But as long as we retain the right to think for ourselves, the official scrupulous adherence to the “rule of law” means that they have to release the documents. And after some resistance they usually do, in this bizarre parody version.

      Remember that everyone in the book (outside of the Inner Party) suffers from low grade sickness because of the non-nutricious food they spend their whole lives eating. This makes them dull-witted, and unlikely to resist, much less question. We are wonderfully well along that road, too. The problem though for our masters is that some of us refuse to get with the program; the vast masses might all be maximally fluoridated, chlorinated, vaccinated, eat processed GMO frankenfood exclusively, and are saturated all day long with harmful electromagnetic radiation–but some of us choose to opt out, which helps us to keep our wits about us, and enables us to question officialdom–and even laugh at them (the cops are more and more likely to simply shoot you for that these days, so it’s getting to be a dicy choice). Naturally, the bureaucrats interpret any form of opting out as subversion; drinking raw milk is “terrorism” from the grunts at the FDA’s point of view, and the FCC defends at all costs the “smart” meter invasion and the outrageously high energy output of cell phone towers. So, using the FDA and all its kissing cousins, “progressives” are working day and night to eliminate our possibility of keeping healthy. What good will farmers’ markets be when producing real food is finally made completely illegal, and what good will health food stores be when the bureaucracy’s long effort to ban supplements is victorious?

      On the subject of the tyranny that wishes to render us physically and mentally powerless to resist by means of banning healthy alternatives to the various corporate poisons, it’s funny, in a sick way, how “progressives” empower the state to do these things: they are, paradoxically, a large proportion of those who use natural alternatives to the poisonous offerings most people already accept as normalcy. They seem to have no idea that their delight in empowering the state is in complete contradiction with their desire to live healthy lives. They have no objection to the creation of new bureaucracies (Obamacare, anyone?), and the growth of the horrible existing ones that already are ruining us. They want, in other words, to live like libertarians while strenuously building fascism, and in the most perfect example of doublethink, purchase for themselves “moral insurance” by declaiming libertarianism as “fascism.” The mind reels.

      Most of what goes on here at MHB is, if nothing else, an examination of the growing embrace of doublethink in our time. There are plenty of examples emerging every day, which I suspect means that it won’t be long before they won’t need to redact the official record, and the Ministry of Truth will be hiring eager Outer Party members to cheerfully rewrite the old stories. Ingsoc, English Socialism, in the book; Amsoc developing as we speak. All you have to do is glance at Washington (Mordor, Lew Rockwell calls it), and see how enthusiastically the official world is suppressing the treason at Benghazi in defense of the indefensible “progressive” regime in power there to see it growing metastasizing before our eyes. Proud “progressives,” developing American Socialism, and denouncing “fascism.” I laugh, because it is so damn sad.

      1. Many “progressives” have their hearts in the right place. They make sure that their families are healthy. They choose to empower the government to feed, clothe, and shelter the “little” people. Presumably, bad food is better than no food. And their just isn’t enough money for everyone to eat healthy, right?

        Most are oblivious to the sociopathic nature of those they are empowering. Unaware that they are, in fact, sealing their own fates.

      2. No doubt about. Maestro.By maintaining a reflexive faith in technocracy, they empower their own tormentors without knowing it. They assume the state is essentially good, and they believe themselves to be good when they empower it and strive to make it grow. That can’t notice that this is, in fact, an empowerment of Monsanto and Dupont and Cargill, CAFOs and every freedom-destroying corporation the technocrats in the alphabet agencies run interference for (with the assurance that when they leave government they’ll have a high paying job waiting for them there).

        It is, as I say, Doublethink.

      3. Well said, Patrick, and so true. I read an article the other day where a guy went on and on about a couple of brothers that are very well connected and how they are buying influence, etc. to get their riches. In the same paragraph the guy states the brothers are opposed to universal healthcare.

        Wait a minute! So the same bureaucrats that are bought and paid for are now all of the sudden supposed to handle healthcare honestly and for the people. How this guy cannot see this is beyond my comprehension.

  5. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rich !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…………………………………..

  6. Thank you guys. Great teamwork by a group of egalitarian individuals I.e. everyone got to speak their truth. Even if you guys were a bunch of actors somehow I’d still be stoked. Good job asking questions about an incident that shocked and saddened an entire nation, until some of us channeled our grief into research.. Now I’m shocked and angry, which I guess is an improvement? The psychosphere of the USA, made up of MSM propaganda, hangs heavy over our heads, until people begin to stand up and question it. I must say that was pretty courageous…Go Humans!

  7. Dear Mr. Tracy,

    Thank you again, for keeping us informed with these new articles, links and videos.

    I cannot believe we’re at this point. I cannot believe power, money and some type of status, if you can even call it that, can corrupt so many all the while performing like Key Stone Cops. I feel like a spectator watching a circus unravel.

    I will be vigilant in my prayers for you, Dear Mr. Tracy, and all who support our views. You have enormous strength. You and others who seek the truth have my support.

    May God bless you and keep you safe. May God help us all.

    1. KK, Are you really saying that you understand how a unified public relations machine working with Keystone Cops and others can create a mind control story of their choosing and it is also mind boggling to comprehend the human personalities, morals and integrities that are involved?
      I am thankful that this is such an obvious “poster child” example of mind control magic without loss of children. The Broadway Comedy it needs to become.

  8. They want the Sandy Hook “event” that “played itself out” in their state
    and everything that happened to become the new normal.
    Victims of crime can now become ones without any publically accessible records of them or the actual events that occurred.
    This dovetails with the NDAA and Drone Attacks.
    Government officials can now under the Sandy Hook premise
    commit crimes against Americans and the public has no recourse into the matter at all. This is at the core of why they did this.

    They also want it to become acceptable how they failed to respond to the scene, and the presence and saturation of all the paramilitary there. They want our acquiescense to their crimes and villany.

    Sandy Hook is the roll out and nexus of an upcoming juggernaut of tyranny if it is not exposed and stopped(.)

    We are at war, and they started it, they are the aggressor’s against us,
    they are the criminals…and they work for US.

    They must be and shall be brought to justice.
    These treasonous, lecherous, larcenists shall be brought to justice.

  9. No mention here that the School Board, or Bored, was the same one that existed before the event. Was it? What are their professions and who are they? The redacted report may have had very little to hide but released on purpose to annoy truth seekers. Since the whole event was staged, there was no need for any report except for public consumption.

    1. “The redacted report may have had very little to hide but released on purpose to annoy truth seekers. Since the whole event was staged, there was no need for any report except for public consumption.”

      We can’t be sure that the report was totally fake. The event may have been a hybrid between a drill and a real massacre. The redacted part of the report could be the part that reveals who was actually killed (the names and ages of the children are not listed – therefore there may have been children killed, just not the children of the parents we saw on the news) – and who did the killing. I really would not be surprised if we found out that it was a more evil operation than it appears to be on the surface. Think Franklin cover-up and the McMartin school.

        1. “Your opinion that any children were killed is strange indeed as there’s no proof. Have you been reading all the articles on this blog?”

          Yes, I’ve been following this event very closely since the beginning on this blog and other sites. It’s true that there’s no proof that there were any children that were killed. It’s also true that there’s no proof that children were not killed. I am certain that the parents who were paraded in front of us in the media did not have children that were killed, and that the majority of the people involved in the drill who were parading in front of the firehouse did not think any children were killed.

          But what the heavily redacted police report suggests to me is that this may be an operation like Columbine, where people were really killed, but where the area was so highly controlled that only a very few people saw any bodies. Therefore it’s possible that the stuff that is being covered up is who the additional shooters were, and who the children were. A school that has been closed for years is the perfect location not only for a drill, but for a real operation. The reason for tearing down the school could be not because it would show there was nothing that happened there, but because it would show that the massacre happened, but not the way were were told (that it would reveal multiple shooters). Why did they show a bathroom in the police report with adult-level sinks? Is it because the children’s bathroom, where the slaughter allegedly took place, would have revealed a multiple-shooter incident?

          I’m not saying that this happened; only for me there are two possibilities: a) it was a drill, and b) it was a drill AND a massacre (not by Adam Lanza, and not of the victims that were on the news).

          I’ve done a lot of research on pedophile rings and cover-ups, and this fits pretty well. You would have to know about the numerous precedents for any of this to make any sense to you. I would suggest starting with PROGRAMMED TO KILL by David MacGowan.

          The closest precedent could be Columbine, where there was also a heavily redacted and confusing police report, where people knew about the event prior to the slaughter, where there were multiple shooters identified by witnesses, many of whom mysteriously died soon after the event, where the shooting was blamed on two patsies who allegedly committed suicide although there is solid proof that they were executed, where there was child sexual abuse involved, and all taking place in a CIA-military town.

          Making us think it was a drill would be a brilliant way to cover up the true nefarious nature of the event, if real children were killed.

          I have a feeling that if the graves were dug up, they would reveal no bodies. This still would not be conclusive. Namesnotmary has an interesting video up about an incinerator near the school that people should check out. It is how Satanists have always disposed of bodies – by cremation.

        1. “To butterfly – there was no cleanup if you remember correctly, so no bloody walls at all.”

          Was there no cleanup, or was it that they refused to disclose the name of the company that did the cleanup? I think that Halbig was told that the FBI was in charge of the cleanup, but then when he called the FBI they said they don’t do cleanup. (But perhaps they do).

        2. If there was biohazard and blood at the alleged crime scene then it is likely that a specialized crew from a private company was contracted for this mission. Such a specialized trauma cleaning and biohazard removal company is Aftermath. Can someone from Newtown comment on this? This information should be available to you under your CT constitutional rights.

  10. Thank you JF for your documentation and commitment. At this meeting I was stunned in witnessing the glaringly obvious bodies of silence of the school board/ supportive gov’t agencies, alleged victim families and taxpayers. All the deafening silence further illustrates the fiction of the made for TV SHE drama and begs the question: Can a similar version of fiction, fabricated trauma and behavior modification happen in your town?

  11. Unaccountability and stonewalling is EVERYWHERE in this country, at every level, when dealing with serious concerns and any “government” or “government-like” agencies. Blame our lack of torte reform, teaching our populace that confrontation is “bad” and of course, corruption.

    That said, pls do not bring persons in costumes to serious meetings.
    They discredit all of us.

    I’m glad you guys had a voice, but why nothing raised about the Sandy Hook kid(s) appearing at the Superbowl? (very)Large comparison photos, esp of the most obvious child “Arielle”, would have been filmed, albeit again not responded to.

    The Infowars guy was not helpful. Too long, not sticking with the big points, at times not intelligently argued.

    Pls people. Thank you for inhabiting a platform we share with you but don’t make us look ridiculous and worse.

  12. Having watched many of the newtown school board meetings i can tell you that they never respond to public comment. Thats just the way the meetings are structured. I do think that showing up there and making statements was extremely important and i am very proud of fetzer and halbig. I think the best statement was by a gentleman towards the end who simply said why no pictures of lanza at the school alive or dead since this would serve to bolster their claims. Ive been saying this all along and have even made videos where i directly addressed those involved asking them this very question. They choose to be weasels.

  13. It seems to me that the investigation of Sandy Hook events is at an impasse, not from lack of a concerted effort by Dr. Tracy, Mr. Fetzer, Mr. Halbig, and countless others. This impasse seems inpenetrable by the simple act of stonewalling all legitimate inquiries while projecting an air of moral superiority. Apparently this tactic of “not dignifying inquisitors with a response” is working. They have no defense for their silence so they assume the offense with petty criticism of the individuals who ask the questions all while assuming a posture of snug superiority. Who are these board members? Were they elected by the community? To whom do they answer if not to the public? The Connecticut Post states that the board members remained silent and “refused to take the bait”, that audience members were “disgusted” and that resident Jim Fitzpatrick spoke for the community in this statement, “It’s a shame to see this circus come to town, and I’m offended by the people who have come, and these conspiracy theories. Newtown has conducted itself wonderfully.” The newly installed Superindent, Joseph Erardi, Jr, stated, “I am incredibly proud of the school board this evening.” The Board claims transparency and yet make every effort to obfuscate what happened that day. What amazes me most is that the public seems to accept their nonsense as truth… because why? Because of their proven credibility? Because they’re persons in authority? Because they’re upstanding members of the middle class and the Newton communty? I wonder if they actually believe themselves as apparently does the public at large, or are they actively involved in deceit? I’ve begun to think we may never know, that the stonewalling, the silence, the feinged innocence is even more effective than all our efforts to expose them. Still, we must continue if for no other reason than to maintain our own sanity in this increasingly mad world.

    1. I disagree. I think this was a great way to energize this investigation or forced revealing. There have been many times i thought sandy hook was floundering but every time some thing or somebody came along with some new piece of evidence or some ballsy move. Its happened many times over the past year. The biggest obstacle is a defeatist attitude, all too often expressed (hopefully in the past) by many contributors to these comments who seem to put down any kind of decisive move or anyone who decides to take action beyond their keyboard. The perpetrators of these false flags would be more than happy to see us run around in circles and behave like crabs in a barrel, confining ourselves to a cyber echo chamber.. Lets keep taking positive action folks!

    2. @choose2know: Try going to a board meeting in your area if the subject is one you care about. They are ALL like that! Self-important, usually low level intelligence people who have useless degrees. Arrogant and self-serving people who feel like they’re “somebody” cuz they’re o the board!

      1. Agenda 21 is in place & unless we start fighting it in a much more serious matter then we are now, our country has little chance,our children have less of a chance to have a planet to grow old on, we are being sprayed like cockroach’s in every state in the nation, the ozone layer along with every living thing on the planet is being destroyed by this weather warfare at a horrifying rate by these heavy metal chemicals/carcinogens/molds & virus’s the U.S air force / military is destroying our planet & these sociopathic murderers will not stop unless we make them and too few people are interested , they are brain washed by the TV set that plays these destraction shows about “missing planes” “murders that never where” ” shootings that didnt happen” over & over & over again on the boob tube & these actors that are hired to ‘handle’ these fake meetings & town hall meetings ,’school’ board mettings etc… they are clowns sent out to silence the inquisitive minds ( the only ones with any brains left on the planet) we are living in ZOMBIE LAND & we better figure out a way to stop them all or we are doomed.

  14. Why was Mr Erardi Jr proud of the school board at that meeting? Was he proud of them because they kept quiet?.. they did as they were told? they kept to the premise of looking bored?.was he proud of them because he believes this event actually happened?…. If this meeting was genuine from Mr Halbigs side and I presume it was, as I can see no other concrete evidence to say otherwise, what happens now.?. more stonewalling, and silence?.. something – someone somewhere surely has evidence that what happened that day was contrived. The truth must come out as ‘ choose2know’ says,” to maintain ow own sanity in the increasingly mad world”.

  15. I do not understand the complete and utter silence of the rest of the citizens of Connecticut on this serious issue. Is there not one single honest, truthful, and God-fearing person in the whole state? Why are they not speaking out about this enormous fraud and hoax that has been perpetrated upon them by these thieving hucksters? I would at least think that one lonely Connecticut citizen would be mildly curious enough about this issue to check it out, and thus, learning of the free house escapade on Christmas Day of 2009; the performance of these rotten little liars at Super Bowl 2013; and last but not least, the lottery rigging that has been going on for years in that state. I can guarantee one thing, if I were a lottery-playing person and found out this was going on in my state, someone would be hearing about it!

    I was pleasantly surprised a couple months ago to find out that there really are normal people living in Connecticut, because they value their freedom enough to stand up to the gun grabbers and say NO ~ we will not register our guns and will not sit idly by while they are confiscated. I truly was shocked to find out there are citizens that stood up for the Constitution in the “Constitution State”, no less. Where are these same people when it comes to the Sandy Hook abomination? Why doesn’t someone speak up and tell what they know? Is there not one single person that saw something on 12/14/12 that is willing to come forward? I do not understand this………….

    1. Double down on your comments Mary. In the continuing absence of voices for truth and illumination from Newtown then I conclude it is a town that has separated from the Constitution of CT, in lock down and with “petty tyrants joyous in their ability to consign normal life to the suburbs of hell.”
      *A quote from “In The Spur of Speed”…a five volume set of how we fought the Revolutionary War.

    2. Mary the problem is the same as if you or I stepped up and said anything – it doesn’t matter. It’s not like local people haven’t tried, or aren’t trying – they just have the same uphill road & difficult battle any of us do.

      This is a sham town with sham players. It is all fiction. It’s fake boards with fake minutes and fake news stories.

      Have you noticed how mainstream media has gone silent on Sandy Hook and Boston? I guess the M.O. is let it ride a year and then shut it down. I doubt you’ll hear anything else about either except for Dzokhar’s trial. And that will be limited to fake AP stories about how lawyers want death penalty, evidence supressed, etc. etc. All part of the preconceived story that started many years ago.

      To me, the evidence of the hoax in both these stories is the lack of any video outside the single source newscast. That’s one thing the script writers forgot – that smart phone video would be so prevalent in 2012 & 2013 that it makes no sense that not one video exists of any Sandy Hook Child or any aspect of the Boston Bombing including the shootout in Boston (except the fake versions you may see). No event could happen in 2012 without many many smart phone video records. The one huge faux pas no one in 2007 saw (or cared to see).

  16. Mary, you’ve asked a good question…”is there not one?” and the only answer I can come up with is that only fear is as strong an adversary to truth.. I ‘ve often contemplated my own morality and to what extent it exists. The bar in my mind’s eye is always if I would have stood by and watched my neighbors being herded into train cars suspecting their true destination. Of course I want to believe that I would have protested, loudly, despite having no effect on the outcome, but with brave objection based on moral outrage. I like to also believe that fear for my own safety would not have silenced me and yet I post here with anonymity and the use of a pseudonym. I am more careful now of what articles I share on Facebook, and I am aware that there are certain “trigger” words to avoid while speaking on the phone. I use “masking software” to browse the internet and it concerns me that Youtube now “suggests” that I might enjoy certain conspiracy oriented sites, and Amazon is also aware of my interests as demonstrated by their pro-offered book selections. It remains to be seen if my fears are justified or if my increasing paranoia is legitimate, but yet I know that while I just might summon enough courage to stand my ground my real vulnerability lies in my love for my children. If the much rumored FEMA camps are real, if anything were to threaten harm to my family, I would collapse as a creature without will, unable to sacrifice them for any greater good. Perhaps herein lies the explanation for the muted voices of Sandy Hook. Most powerful perhaps is not simply the obvious monetary gains than some seem to have garnered, but fear of jepordising one’s family. If this fear is valid, and I believe that it is, then is it unreasonable to suspect that this is how silence is maintained? Witnesses and protesters can disappear, car and plane accidents happen, sudden illnesses strike, suicides occur, and IRS probes are initiated. All can be shown to happen with frequency among those who question too vigorously. Dr. Tracy, I pray your safety is secured by your high visibililty and I marvel at your courage and your ability to be that one in academia despite the potential consequences. My children are my Achilles Heel and I can’t help but feel a certain relief that they are still asleep to all of this. Of course the argument can be made that we sacrifice future generations for peace now and it is a valid point, but when I think of any harm, any pain, any consequences falling upon my dear one’s head from my own actions, I am silenced. Your thoughts?

  17. This is the most relevant and on point ive seen this comment section in months. Very refreshing since i used to really enjoy coming here and we made headway many times. Lets keep it up!

  18. I believe at least some of the families, and some CT state troopers, are participating, however tentatively, in the questioning. Last August, the parents of a child listed as deceased called a meeting with police to ask for clarification on several points, including whether their child was transported by ambulance from the scene. How is it that the parents of a deceased student, eight months later, do not know with certainty what happened to their child that day? It is a myth that the Sandy Hook parents all operate as one, and have no question–Mattioli’s father has stated publicly that “organizations” are operating in the families’ names and that some families 1) had not given any permission for such representation and 2) didn’t even know the organization was operating in their names.

    1. This type of thing has been a part of the groupthink here. It is good to be skeptical of everything but the guy who made this video has hardly made any informative sandy hook statements. It is all criticism of other researchers and activists. It is defeatism

  19. The most compelling element of concern, and evidence inconsistent with the “OFFICIAL REPORT” is that there is clear evidence of multiple assailants.

    A man was observed in cuffs in the parking lot and reported by at least 4 law enforcement personnel in their statements.
    This man did not have an explanation for why he was there nor did he have a reason to be there.
    This man was described as wearing a brown jacket which is precisely consistent with the description of the shooter by one of the child witnesses.

    I have yet to find the documentation that identified the relevant facts leading to the apprehension of this man. I was unable to ascertain which officer, or officers, identified this man, where he was caught and under what circumstances.

    A. What we have been able to ascertain in the case file documentation is the following:

    1. The man in cuffs was observed with other “officers” by Lt. Vanghele, Detective VanNess, Sgt Signore and Officer Heibeck
    2. VanNess stated that she observed him almost immediately after she arrived on the scene at 10:01:42. So obviously he was identified and apprehended before that time.

    B. Other observations that may apply:

    1. Penna was escorting a man in cuffs at 10:02:41 but he apparently makes no reference to this in his official statement. Was this the New York man in cuffs taken to the Newtown police department?

    2. At 9:49:16- Cario, Kick and Bahamonde responded to a potential 2nd shooter by the playscape. Cario’s statement notes that he went outside but makes no reference of an encounter and that he was back in a minute. Kick’s statement appears to make no reference at all. I cannot find Bahamonde’s statement.

    3. Fox News Initially reported that a second shooter was taken into custody and that SWAT was deployed to his house and that a body was found there. That report was halted and purged in mid broadcast.

    4. In Vanghele’s statement he directs two Brookfield Officers to search the man’s car. The Lt Vanghele made a rather amazing comment. He did not know the outcome of the search of the man’s car. Can you imagine that Lt Vanghele would not be interested about the outcome of that search? Apparently the outcome was such that it warranted the handcuffed man a visit to the Newtown PD.

    Lt Vanghele was aware that the subject was released from custody and was apparently satisfied with the explanation that the man had an APP that directed him to the school. Would you expect more exculpatory information that that ? Even if that was a reasonable explanation for being there, which it is not, why didn’t the man explain his “APP” story initially? Remember he was there for hours and had no explanation to provide.

    C. Police Statement Documentation References Book 6:
    1. Lt. Vanghele document 00002060
    2. Detective VanNess document 00001113
    3. Sgt Signore document 0040428
    4. Officer Heibeck document 00040345
    5. Officer Penna document 00258036
    6. Sgt Cario document 00026724
    7. Officer Kick document 00258277
    8. Child Witness document 00258277

    D. The children witnesses describe the shooter as “a man the age of a Dad”, “wearing army type clothes”, “wearing a brown jacket” – Interestingly enough that 3 men were apprehended outside the school- a father ( Chris Manfredonia), a man in camo (apparently an armed off duty SWAT officer from another town) and a man in a brown jacket.

  20. This self-congratulatory attitude posted by mangrove is unbelievable. He says what we did in confronting the Newtown School Board “is irrelevant” because he and other students of Sandy Hook have already exposed the truth. BUT THE PUBIC DOES NOT KNOW THAT.

    Wolfgang has done more to make Sandy Hook a public issue than all the rest of us combined, including James Tracy, Sofia Smallstorm and me. HE IS THE REAL DEAL. We did not control or dictate who spoke at the school board meeting. They were there speaking on their own.

    This event–our appearance there–was supposed to be STAGED? Give me a break. Why does everyone assume they are pure in their motives but everyone else is not? That is about as arrogance and presumptuous as it gets. This guy’s attitude is completely wrong from beginning to end.

    1. I wouldn’t have been as reckless as mangrove, Dr. Fetzer, but I would have made a lot of the same points, were I to have made such a video.

      You say: “We did not control or dictate who spoke at the school board meeting. They were there speaking on their own.” But isn’t that the point, in the end? You’re a smart enough fellow, and although outside of a few of your VT articles, the only thing I’ve read of yours is the book about the murder of Senator Wellstone, I’m confident that you were capable of anticipating that. Did you not?

      I’ve heard many hours of you in debates, and on radio, and giving speeches, and you clearly know how to anticipate the argument of the skeptic and the opponent. How did you miss that here?

      First, you chose the most ridiculous forum imaginable to present your case. The board you were addressing has nothing to do with the questions you and Wolf raised, and is absolutely certain not to try to find a way to expand their sphere to address any one of them. Second, you knew that each of you would have only a couple of minutes to speak, and the board would not respond. Third, you publicized your plan widely, so that plants were certain to be there to at best dilute your heartfelt message, and at worst turn the whole thing into a travesty.

      The people I call the pageant masters were no doubt delighted by this spectacle you handed them. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity in pursuing this matter. I do however doubt your instincts when it came to casting your lot with Wolf; whatever excesses certain participants here indulged in while vetting Wolf (and I’m surprised James let it go on as long as he did), lots of valuable–and damaging–information about him came out. I, myself, certainly wouldn’t dream of helping that fellow carry whatever torch he claims to have raised.

      Perhaps you are excitable enough to overlook his dubious aspect, and reckless enough to launch headlong into anything that might create a stir, because you hate the lies and want it all exposed to sunlight. Well, Wellstone is dead, murdered by the state, and you’re the only one who tried to make a point of that. Who knows anything about it, lo these many years later? No one. Why? Because the state controls the press, that’s why.

      Let’s stipulate that you know all that–because, as I said, you’re a smart enough guy to connect the dots. So why did you play into the pageant masters’ hands this way? As I wrote here a couple of days ago, the MSM will keep the footage of your spectacle in the can as long as their masters feel the public is not clamoring for answers, and can pull it out at any time, bring on experts to “debunk” your reasonable questions, and put the public back to sleep. Couldn’t you see that you were playing into their hands?

      None of the issues you raised, incidentally, point to the whole thing being imaginary, which troubles me; if there was any point in “going public” in the venue you chose, it would have involved planting a poison dart that somehow in the future proved the whole thing was nothing but a drill. For example, a commenter here recently brought up the absence of fire alarms going off–an impossibility, were the event to have actually taken place; and a few replies fleshed that out, demonstrating the power of that mystery. THAT would have been a pretty good question–and one that actually would have applied to the school board, so it could be used as leverage later, pointing to the fact that the whole thing was a hoax. But neither you nor Wolf raised any such issue.

      So don’t be all in a dudgeon about mangrove’s reaction/response to your road trip. We all wonder what was on your mind.

      1. I have been anticipating that some of you would show up in your ongoing attempts to debunk our efforts to expose the truth about Sandy Hook, so I am not surprised–except you make it so obvious.

        Wolf and I did not “pre-arrange” our visit and we both believe in free speech. Because a lot of people knew we were coming, some who wanted to support us showed up and exercised their right to speak.

        In case you didn’t notice–and in your eagerness to attack me you do not seem to have read this very carefully–we were not allowed to ask direct questions of the board, so we did so indirectly and rhetorically.

        Wolf, for example, asked why no Med-Evan helicopters were called and present on the scene, which ought to bother any bona fide parents.

        He also observed that there was no surge of EMTs into the building, which reflects a complete failure to respond to an actual emergency.

        I observed that, since the school had around 626 students, if you take away 20, there should have been around 600 more. Where were they?

        And if buses were used to evacuate them, at 48-50 students per bus, that should have required at least a dozen buses. Where were they?

        And why does the final report from the CSP not specify the names or the ages or the sex of any of the alleged victims? That is strange.

        And why did the Newtown clerk enter into secret negotiations with the state legislature to avoid releasing death certificates in this case?

        And why did the Attorney General of Connecticut oppose the release of the 911 phone calls of which about 5 of 115 or so have been provided?

        And since even The Newtown Bee confirmed asbestos and other bio-hazards were present in the school, when were the parents notified?

        And insofar as Sandy Hook School was a toxic waste dump, why were any students at the school at all, which is an extremely good question.

        Since we were not allowed to ask questions, I added 15 more in my post on the page in which this event was reported to the community.

        There are lots like you who adopt attitudes of smug self-satisfaction and what they can to undermine progress. Why is that true of you?

      2. “There are lots like you who adopt attitudes of smug self-satisfaction and what they can to undermine progress. Why is that true of you?”

        I am neither smug not self-satisfied, Dr. Fetzer, and I did not “attack” you, “eagerly” or otherwise. I was simply pointing out the emptiness of your gesture, and I did so in a very even-tempered manner.

        I also made abundantly clear that I think the questions you raised are all good ones; you needn’t have repeated them for my sake, presumably because I did not hear you raise them on the video, or read them in the article. Repeating them is something akin to shouting at a foreigner, as if volume will overcome the fact that he does not speak English.

        And what’s all this about free speech? What does that have to do with anything I said? I pointed out that the pageant-masters knew you were coming, and were ready for you. Actually, that was my whole point: you played into their hands; they used “free speech” to turn the event against you. You write that “Wolf and I did not “pre-arrange” our visit.” Well, that will come as a huge surprise to everyone around here, not to mention all of Wolf’s Facebook “friends,” where it was publicized for months. The conversation here included a lot of speculation about whether he’d actually go through with it. I for one was surprised when he did, because I expected exactly what happened to happen: they were waiting for you. I did not go so far as to specifically imagine a man in a clown suit, but it didn’t surprise me.

        If you believe that you made “progress” that day, that’s fine with me. Objectively, I disagree. How does my opinion “undermine” the progress you made, if indeed that’s what happened? Why do you care what I think? And isn’t the critique of an objective observer exactly the point of a forum like this? I must say, you seem to be awfully thin skinned for a fellow who likes the rough and tumble of debate.

      3. patrickchatsamiably, I don’t find a REPLY button beside your response to my comment about your earlier post. But you appear to specialize in spinning, in this case, negatively.

        My comment about “free speech” and “pre-arranged” meant that he did not determine who could come with us and who could speak. You went out of your way to distort that.

        This event has made national news. It has generated discussion in CT but also throughout the nation via Brasscheck TV and Rense with much more to come. Stick around.

        There was nothing empty about going there and confronting the board. We raised quite a few questions, which you like to suppress. I hope that everyone here sees through you.

        You were obvious to me from the first of your posts. Wolf is the real deal. He is inspiring others and, with a few notable exceptions like you, there is great praise for his efforts.

      4. “a few notable exceptions like” me. Right. Wolf is a giant bestriding, what is it, Brasscheck, like a colossus? The great hero of the “movement,” all are rallying behind, except for a few who unaccountably don’t see the power of his achievement.

        I’ll have to ponder that. I’ll try not to let my chuckling interfere with my pondering.

        1. You remind me of farm animals who make a lot of noise but do nothing to advance the truth. And you continue to burnish your credentials as a special pleader who is grasping after straws of besmirch Wolf and me in our efforts to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about Sandy Hook, which you oppose.

          That much is painfully clear. I gather you are concerned not to lose face with others who have endured your dominating style far longer than have I. The difference is that, coming here fresh and encountering you, the tactics you adopt are all too obvious. I am sorry, but you have been made.

      5. Patrick – you’ve been polarized!!! Referred to as a farm animal – but I definitely don’t think you are a sheep!

        As Fish said once, I wish I wrote as well as you. You have laid out perfectly why the Newtown visit was ridiculous. Logical, honest, accurate – yet somehow (in this newspeak world) you are against truth and you’re opinion is obsolete (keep up man!)

        In case you forgot, I will remind you: WOLF IS THE REAL DEAL!

        1. Yes, if you like straw man arguments (exaggerating the position of your opponent to make it easier to attack, such as that Wolf and I controlled who came to the meeting to speak), special pleading (citing only the evidence on your side and ignoring the rest (such as a photo in which Wolf is laughing, as though it discredited him when it was probably about the police confronting us throughout the entire day) and the ad hominem (attacking the messenger rather than the message, where there is a concerted effort to ignore what we accomplished including the 15 questions I have posted to the school board). If you like these, then you are going to love some of those who are posting here a lot.

      6. Thanks, isee. All appreciated.

        As for Dr. Fetzer’s response to you, let’s break it down:

        “…such as that Wolf and I controlled who came to the meeting to speak)”

        Of course, in my repeated replies to the good doctor I always made absolutely, crystal, clear that I think exactly the opposite; that by telegraphing, months in advance, their plan to attend the meeting the pageant-masters prepared to have any number of fruits and nuts there to turn the thing into a big joke, whatever Wolf and Fetzer’s plan was for that day–Wolf and Fetzer simply played into their hands, giving the pageant-masters the perfect set-up to damage the rest of us, forever.

        “special pleading (citing only the evidence on your side and ignoring the rest (such as a photo in which Wolf is laughing, as though it discredited him when it was probably about the police confronting us throughout the entire day).”

        It is not possible to actually address this, because it is wholly imagined, and bears no resemblance to anything I have written. I have no idea why he said such nonsense.

        “and the ad hominem (attacking the messenger rather than the message,”

        I challenge Dr. Fetzer to find an example of my doing this to him, in these past few days–and I will even extend the challenge to the entirety of my voluminous comments here over the last year. Hint: he will find not one example, anywhere.

        “where there is a concerted effort to ignore what we accomplished”

        Well, that’s merely a difference of opinion. I believe that he accomplished nothing of substance that day, and in fact produced a damaging assist to the perpetrators of the fraud. Holding that view is not an attack on the man, even if it hurts his tender feelings.

        “including the 15 questions I have posted to the school board).”

        As if that accomplished something: reminding the perpetrators of certain aspects of their charade is not an accomplishment in itself of any kind.

        “If you like these, then you are going to love some of those who are posting here a lot.”

        Since none of these assertions are true, or have any relevance or meaning, to extend it to the rest of this community says more about the attributor himself than it does about me, or any of the rest of smart, articulate people who congregate here.

        The fact is, to reject the Wolf faction of the Sandy Hook hoax investigation is a choice any of us are free to make; it does not damage the quest for truth in any way at all. To believe that it is an irrelevant sideshow (as I do) is not an attack; it is only a choice to not join a faction. There is not only one correct way to approach this event in current history. I personally advocate complete decentralization, which is why I am a libertarian; I despise collectivism in all its forms, and am particularly annoyed when some buffoonish fellow blunders into an interesting story and his promoters abruptly expect me to choose between either the new “leader of the movement” or be considered a damager of the “cause.” To select “none of the above” is not an attack, it is simply nobody’s business.

    2. While your support of your colleague, Mr. Halbig, is admirable, you can’t expect everyone to rally around him. There’s no reason to pick sides here, or debate who has the most influence. Certainly no need, in my opinion, to centralize efforts behind any one man.

      What if info were uncovered that discredited Mr. Halbig? Hypothetically. Or forget info being uncovered. What if he were setup to appear to lack credibility?

      How would the Sandy Hook Truth Movement be affected if everyone had coalesced behind this man that you say is the real deal?

      No, a decentralized approach to research makes more sense, in my opinion. I appreciate your efforts, and won’t pass judgement on the credentials of various advocates. I’ll just keep looking at the facts…

      1. I am not dictating anyone’s opinions. But Wolf has the right background and credentials to make the issue important to the public–certainly far more than James Tracy, Sofia Smallstorm or I have been able to do up to this point in time.

        I am all for a decentralized approach, but you should be able to admit when he is making real progress, as in this case, which has not only been covered by many Connecticut papers but by a Rense interview and Brasscheck TV.

        What other event related to Sandy Hook has generated more attention to the case? I just don’t like those who are doing everything they can to minimize real progress, such as our appearance before the Newton School Board has brought.

      1. Larry, I think you are right on the mark. The day of the shooting, by the way, Governor Malloy told the press that he and the Lt. Governor “had been spoken to” that something like this might happen. But what could he have possibly meant by that?

        Either (a) that he had been warned that a shooting of children would take place at a Connecticut public school or (b) that he had been told that a drill would be conducted and presented as though it had been real. Give it some thought. Those are the only plausible alternatives.

        Since he took no steps to protect the children of his state, the answer appears to be (b), not (a). And we know that Eric Holder visited him less than one month before the event. So he must have been the one who “spoke to” him, no doubt on behalf of Barack Obama.

    3. Jim, you have suggested my coming on your show a few times but when i email you i dont get a response. Lets please get this together, i am thoroughly schooled in FOIA and cover up aspect of the case which hasnt been covered much and i think it would make a great show. Lets get this together finally

      1. Jim, I would also love to come on your show (although I have never been invited) to talk about a few salient points which I think you and others may have overlooked.

        Others have looked at my research contribution into this event – including SandyHoaxed 2nd Edition and my other contributions to Sandy Hook. I like to think of myself as “The Real Deal” as well, but for whatever reason I don’t get any voice-time on radio shows such as yours. It is my research into Annie Haddad which is perhaps the most polarizing- because I called out the flesh and blood woman playing Nancy Lanza who is still alive and kicking.

        I am not going to blow my own horn too much, but I have done a lot of work on this subject. I think you may have jumped the gun saying Halbig has done and many other researchers combined such as James Tracy, Sofia Smallstorm (and me).

        I don’t think my statements regarding the Haddad character playing Nancy Lanza will be too out-there for your listeners, as you gave Dallas Gold bug a chance on your show who flat out said JFK was Jimmy Carter and has said Sarah Palin is Tina Fey- so I’m sure my much more well researched and much more obvious comparisons between Mrs. Haddad and “Mrs. Lanza” won’t be too shocking for your or your listening audience.

        I have tried to contact you on a number of occasions regarding being able to get a few minutes on your skype show and hope it happens soon.

        Looking forward to that invite Mr. Fetzer!

      2. Also, Jim, it would have been great if you had gone over to 27 Cobbler’s Mill road, and knocked on the door, and the lady playing Nancy Lanza had opened it.. Now that would have been groundbreaking.. You would probably have to dress up like a Pizza guy or publisher’s clearinghouse check bearer to get her to open the door.

        She’s going by Annie Giorno/ Jiorno/ Haddad/ or Sweeny and also Anne or Annie.. and would have been the expose of the century. Maybe next time you’re in Sandy Hook.

  21. Sorry to be a little off topic here, but here’s another angle on why the school was not in session on 12-14-2012. If you look at the SHS website (just google it) you can click on “calendar’ then go back to 12-14-2014, and one can still see that SHS was holding a week long “PTA geography test”, which was scheduled for ‘all day’, all week. Could this explain why there were so few children at the school that day? Did they take this test at some other school? Someone with the right access code could get the details. Anyone out there with kids at the school might be able to find this info.
    Incidentally, one can see photos of some of the teachers and victims in the “events” section. Some seem to be photoshopped, but I’m not an expert. Look at the 1st grade 100 day parade, and the guest readers photos, among others.

    1. I love it when some of you come to the defense of the School Board with explanations that appear to be fabrications. We are up against the local, state and federal authorities. If you want to believe nonsense, you are welcome to it.

      They are going to do everything they can to cover it up and it looks to me as though you are right there with them. Nothing comes easier to agencies like the FBI and the CIA that to create false documentary records. This could be another.

  22. I just wanted to add that someone who knows how should screen shot that page in the calendar.

    Also James Fetzer, I think that you and Halbig are barking up the wrong tree in trying to prove that SHS was non operational at the time of the shooting. I think it was just not in session that day, and possibly all week. The nonoperational angle looks like a red herring to me.

    We also know that no gun was fired 155 times in the building because the smoke detectors never rang, so the gunshots heard by students and others over the intercom must have been an audio file played over the PA system. Someone came in later and made the holes we saw in the crime scene photos with a drill, an air pistol or something, but certainly not an AR15.

    1. Well, you and your buddies are clearly not committed to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths. Here is a more appropriate reply in response to “Wolfgang Halbig haads for Newton in pursuit of the truth about Sandy Hook” (and there are many more similar to this one):

      March 25, 2014 – 10:39 am(Edit)

      Excellent article!!. And thank you for your continued support of Wolfgang. In my opinion, he’s the best thing that has happened for Sandy Hook truth. Though he’s asking many of the same questions that the rest of us have been asking, such questions carry more weight when they are coming from someone with his background in law enforcement, school administration, and consulting on school safety. I greatly appreciate all of the time and energy he has already put into Sandy Hook, including filing many FOIA requests, and the countless hours he’s spent doing interviews on alternative radio to spread his concerns about Sandy Hook being a “scripted event.” Though I always expected Wolfgang to get attacked from disinfo agents invested in promoting the official MSM/gov narrative, it’s been quite disturbing to seem him get attacked from those who are supposed to be on our side. But hopefully that will change soon.

        1. Non-fallacious comments that make a difference to the truth or falsity of issues under consideration are appropriate. Is that something you don’t know? I spent 35 years offering college courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning and I can tell the difference. Why can’t you?

      1. Well I guess non-fallacious comments are those that agree with you completely. Anybody attempting to ask logical, pointed questions that you don’t want to address you demonize. Unfortunately, most people on this board know the tactic you’re using and it really is sad to see it has come to this.

        I have been on blogs before where we’ve had to take it private due to people trying to steer research, discussion and opinion. This is exactly what you’re doing to anybody who slightly disagrees with you. You heap praise on supporters and attack anybody who doesn’t. This is the same thing happening on Wolf’s page – very rude to people who might not have donated or who ask “unauthorized” questions and treats the ones that support him with high praise.

        The point of most people who post here isn’t to eventually make a trip to Newtown, but to expose the lies we’ve been living (not just Sandy Hook) and to hear different thoughts from people that you might not have considered. We aren’t here to argue – but to discuss, pick apart, debate – you know – critical thinking.

        About your college courses – I think you need to retake them and maybe include an ethics class.

      2. All wonderful, isee.

        You say:

        “The point of most people who post here isn’t to eventually make a trip to Newtown, but to expose the lies we’ve been living (not just Sandy Hook) and to hear different thoughts from people that you might not have considered. We aren’t here to argue – but to discuss, pick apart, debate – you know – critical thinking.”

        I think of this place as somewhere we can observe certain insanities regarding contemporary history, and examine them. I am always taken aback when posters here demand that we explain what we are DOING! In the first place, is that any of their business? Can’t we simply observe, and ponder? Of course we can.

        Sometimes, there is nothing that can be done, and other times, it takes a long time to find out that something can actually be done. And lots of times, when almost all action will be counterproductive, waiting is the best thing to do.

        Any time someone shouts at me: “what are you DOING?!!!, I am taken aback. Maybe I’m just a historian. Maybe I’m just a social critic. Who are these purported “activists” to say that these are not valid roles?

        And if, as I argue, the trip to Newtown was very damaging, not a triumph in any way, wouldn’t it have been better to not have “acted”? Wouldn’t it have been better to have waited, and observed, and continued investigating?

        I hope this lovely space is not being destroyed by Wolfism. I think the guy is a hapless pawn, in the Big Plan to destroy the quiet, decentralized, research we’ve been doing here. But I also fear that this place, itself, has been too effective, and has thus been targeted. I have never accused Dr. Fetzer of being in the employ of those who would wish to do this, all his attacking comments to the contrary notwithstanding, but I HAVE been suspicious of the Wolf thing from the start: it simply drew too much weird emotionalism, and too many trolls. How it is that I, of all people, could have come under attack in this regard is really surprising. Here, of all places.

        But maybe not, if this site itself has come under attack, for doing as much good as it has done. I come under attack with all the rest of it.

        We should all be praying for Dr. Tracy. This is not a good pattern. Perhaps he can avoid the storm by stopping reportage about Wolfism entirely, although it would seem to contradict his intent, which if I understand it is to report what comes into focus as time passes. Still, I’d advise him never to report on Wolf, ever again. It draws too much weirdness.

        In any event, I admire James very highly, and truly hope that this place does not fall apart, however he choses to proceed.

  23. “The people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people who have something to hide.” Wow: Someone should ask Obama to parse that a little. Because in my estimation, he’s one of the biggest liars we’ve had in the White House to date… Maybe it’s just an incremental progression… Little lie, bigger lie, wholesale lie. That old truism that we all know: When you tell a lie, you’ll just have to tell a bigger lie to cover up the first one. And the one before that, and before that… There’s a reason why they’re trying to shut this country down. Why they have developed stealth weapons that can kill people at a distance without disclosure. They are very afraid of us. They have reason to be very afraid of us because they are very guilty. And because we are many. And we have lots of power. You can kill people, but you can’t kill the truth.

  24. The CSP’s own hired audio expert, Paul Ginsberg (whom some of you may have noticed on CNN of late commenting on the MH370 case) submitted his analysis of gunshots heard on select 911 calls. His original analysis listed a very loud, clear shot at 9:46:54, right where anyone who has listened to the 911 calls hears it, too. His list of gunshots which included the “late” (i.e. post-9:40 shot) gunshot is actually included in the Final Report–along with a revised version of some kind which simply omits that shot.

    In reality, multiple shots are heard during the 9:46-9:47 minute–in some cases it really sounds like an exchange of gunfire–and shots are heard beyond that, even, up until 9:51:31 a.m. when Officer Penna stated in front of 800 colleagues in Orland that he personally heard a shot.

    People have tried to explain his statement away, but in fact an acoustic anomaly is heard on Deb Pisani’s 911 call precisely at 9:51:31 a.m.–right where it should be.

    The 9:40 “final shot” is bunk.

    The “ambulances weren’t needed” claim is bunk.

    The “ambulances were never sent in because it wasn’t safe” is bunk.

    1. This sounds very interesting, but I am not quite sure I get the point. I am gravitating toward the position that the Attorney General wanted to suppress the 911 calls because they revealed something important.

      As I understand it, only 5 of 115 calls were released, even after a judge directed that they all be released. I would be that they were staged in advance to support the occurrence of gun shots but got screwed up.

      In the case of 9/11, by the way, we now know that all of the alleged calls from the 9/11 airplanes were fabricated or faked. See, for example, David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”

      So it would be relatively simple to create those in advance, but where I would bet they got their script mixed up and some of those shots do not correspond with the official narrative. Is this what you have tripped on?

      1. Officially, there are six “Newtown landline” calls which have been released, and 50 or so cellphone 911 calls. I put “Newtown landline” in parentheses, because only one of these is actually a landline call–the remainder are calls which began with CSP and were transferred to Newtown. Additionally, of the “50” CSP calls, some are just one long call broken into multiple pieces.

        Nonetheless, the calls are revealing, and one can hear gunshots across multiple calls at the same time point, which is helpful in establishing the number of shots, or fake shots, or however you want to look at it.

        The Courant contacted Ginsberg about the 9:46:54 shot; he said he couldn’t talk about it because he’d signed a confidentiality agreement. But that shot is clear as a bell, and a three year old could identify it.

        Not only are these “extra” gunshots audible, but the 911 callers’, police officers’, and dispatchers’ reactions to them are audible as well. Certainly, everyone on scene thinks they’re gunshots. Keep in mind, again, that this happening seven minutes after the “final” shot.

        At any rate, the 911 call mess is available here, along with a spreadsheet explaining each call–callers are identified where possible:

        That folder also contains all the known audio of NPD, Newtown Fire & EMS, and CSP transmitted that day, as well as a partial transcript (up to about 11:30 a.m.). Hope it’s of use.

      2. I’m not trying to hammer home any theory, by the way. There is far, far too much data yet to churn through for me to be personally comfortable settling on any final big picture. But I’m working on the data available to see what it reveals. For example, at the time Newtown and CSP officers storm Room 10–the time Penna states he heard a shot (indicating that officers probably dropped someone)–officers transmit, “CLEAR!!” and then “We have one suspect down.” Stephen Sedensky’s transcription of that word puts it as “Where?!” claiming Penna didn’t know where the suspect was down, which is ridiculous. In his own words, Penna states, “My first thought was one of our guys shot him.” (That statement was made before 800 LEOs in Orlando). So, I see evidence of Sedensky trying, desperately, to cover up the fact that officers yelled “CLEAR!” before dropping a guy.

      3. There were 6 total Newtown “land line” calls, and 50+ CSP calls. I tried to post a link to a Dropbox folder with the audio of these calls and a spreadsheet explaining them, but I think D’box links aren’t postable here. Happy to provide some other way. All callers names are indicated, where known.

        Both Newtown and CSP (in reality, the obfuscation probably starts with Sedensky) seem to be purposely misrepresenting their calls. The “six” landline calls are not landlines at all, save one (Barbara Halstead’s). The remaining five are actually cellphone calls, transferred by CSP dispatchers to Newtown.

        In addition, the “50” CSP calls provided in Exhibit 349 consist of some calls which are broken up into multiple, short bits–making it seem as if there are more calls. One caller, for example, has her call broken up into no fewer than 24 separate “calls.”

        However, the few calls we do have–roughly 30-40 genuine calls, total, are useful in a number of ways, not the least of which is timing the gunshots. Some shots can be heard across multiple calls, which helps establish the timing beyond reasonable doubt. Because the police audio is audible in the background of many calls, the exact timing of the calls is known (RadioReference archived the police audio from that day, along with timestamps).

        Not only are multiple post-9:40 a.m. (farcical “final shot”) shots audible, but one can also hear the reaction of callers’, first responders, and dispatchers to those shots–after a several of them, a cop on scene yells, “Did you hear shooting?” and a dispatcher asks repeatedly, “Is that the shooter?” and then another Newtown cop changes his request for ambulances, saying the scene is not safe yet.

        For Sedensky to claim–against all evidence–that these are not gunshots is, imo, preposterous.

        You’ll note that Sedensky actually qualifies his declaration, saying the 9:40:03 a.m. shot is “probably” the final shot.

        1. Very interesting. What is your take about them? That they continue to be suppressed in spite of a judge’s order suggests to me that there is information in them that needs to be covered up. Are you someone who thinks there was an Adam Lanza who shot his mother and 26 others before taking his own life? I am interested in your take. Thanks.

  25. I don’t see any of the people that are uncomfortable with Wolf representing the Truth Movement volunteering to take the reigns. He may not be the perfect representative, but he’s the best we’ve ever had !

    1. Larry, this is another nice example of disinformation. Notice that NONE of the points we raised at the meeting is cited, much less discussed. No link is provided to watch or listen to our presentations. This is another example of spinning, where we find several more present in this thread.

      I am amused that the author uses the moon landing as an example of courageously championing the truth. Winson Wu has an excellent blog about the moon landing hoax, advancing some three dozen arguments with lots of proof:

  26. From what I can see, Fetzer is here to start a war. He is doing what he does best. One need only do a search of his name and Dr Judy Wood to see what he does to valid observations, and the people who make them. It will take you about 5 minutes. As you can see the entire Sandy Hook debate is already all about Fetzer. He is right, you are all wrong and he will take it from here. By going to the school board, an argument that should take days, was compressed into three minutes, which will make it so much easier to throw down the memory hole. The big guns have definitely been brought in.

    1. No, Rich. I am only calling out the obvious cases of slanting evidence and distorting facts. If you want to go into JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, check out my recent interview with John B. Well on “Caravan to Midnight”,

      In case you haven’t noticed, there are quite a few attacks on Wolf and me on this blog. I hadn’t paid much attention until James posted my latest, but now that I am here, I am up for doing some house cleaning. I don’t understand why you object to my calling out those offering shoddy arguments, which is not the path to discovering the truth.

      If you think I have something wrong, then specify what I say and why I say it, then explain what I have wrong and how you know. I make no claims to infallibility, but I find too many here want to cite only evidence on their side (like the photo of Wolf laughing) and ignore the weight of the evidence. I am attempting to correct the imbalance.

      Of course, the school board had loaded the dice. We were not allowed to ask them direct questions. And we were limited to three minutes to speak. But surely that does not mean we were not successful in our efforts to bring these issues to the attention of the American people. On the contrary, evidence suggests the opposite.

      1. There’s defending yourself, and then there’s attacking your critics. Not everyone has to take action, nor is everyone required to applaud your actions. There is a role for critics to analyze evidence and tactics and proffer opinions.

        Comparing someone to a farm animal is inflammatory language. Further, it misses the point. Someone who chooses the role of analyst has the right to do so. It doesn’t make them any less integral to the process than someone who chooses to travel to a SH Board meeting.

        If you’re happy with your role and the role of your friend, Mr. Halbig, so be it. I WILL applaud your efforts to continue to do what you think best to further this cause. I would hope that you can appreciate the free discourse here that allows others to criticize your strategies. If anything, hearing dissenting views should sharpen your approach.

        Above all else, I would like to believe that we can maintain a civil tone. I wholeheartedly agree that you have the right to defend yourself against personal attacks. However, I would love to see non-personal criticisms handled in a more even manner.

      2. Jim, My suspicion arises from the fact that Wolf was getting beat up on here long before your post or comments. I never took part in that beating. This leads me to question why you would hitch your wagon to his star? You knew when you posted on this blog you were going to take your turn on the whipping post. You went on the attack pretty fast for an academic who teaches people in critical thinking. It does not surprise me to see you do so, and then run behind the accepted rules of critical thinking, logic, and scientific method, that were created by professors like you. The name of the forum is Memory Hole Blog. It is about questioning things we see in the media. You went in front of the camera, you are in the media, a lot. That makes you suspect to most rational people right off the bat. If you think the blog needs house cleaning, it makes you even more suspect. Like you are looking to get rid of dissenters? Sorry but you are going to get a lot of that around here.

        1. The way I remember the conversation going was, certain people were making accusations against Halbig and Fetzer to suggest that they were setting up some sort of media circus, and involving questionable characters on purpose to fail and to look ridiculous. Fetzer defended himself and Halbig against those claims. Absurd logic and reasoning and ad hominem attacks were then leveled at him, and he called out the flawed logic.

        2. Thanks for this note of rationality. These guys like to work in groups and to confirm each others posts, no matter how ill-founded they may be. The attacks were going on here long before I showed up, which I appreciate your mentioning. I am simply attempting to correct the record and balance the debate with logic and evidence, which have not been abundant on these threads attacking Wolf and me.

        3. Jim, the evidence for Sandy hook being a hoax on this blog has been extensive. You did not mention it being a hoax though did you? I will use my copious time to go make a living now, have a nice day.

        4. Rich, Did we have to use the word “hoax” to present evidence that is was a hoax? Is anyone supposed to take this seriously? And if you are committed to driving the point home, why are you so eager to undermine and minimize our efforts to make this issue well-known?

      1. Rich seems to like bad arguments, which I spent 35 years teaching freshmen to avoid. I had been aware of a lot of irresponsible trashing going on here, but now that I confront it head on, it’s embarrassing to find so many who seem to regard fallacious arguments as though they were sound. Rich, if you can show where I have something wrong about Sandy Hook (or others posting here, for that matter), then do that. But all you have to offer is a series of ad hominems. Very bad. If you can’t do better than that, you should find other ways to spend your copious free time.

      2. Yeah rich it is a good question, care to share some of the research you have done on the actual incident? Care to tell us some of the effective ways you have made more of the public aware of the inconsistencies? Care to tell us a strategy for moving forward with this? I mean obviously your contributions thus far have been stupendous if you are so ready to criticize people who have actually stuck their necks out and put their reputations on the line, right? Im ashamed of myself for never having heard of “the amazing RICH”, warrior of the memory hole comments section. I really must pay more attention because obviously i am totally out of the loop. My measly contributions and pathetic attempts at research are totally overshadowed by the sacrifices you have made to awaken the world.

        1. Exactly, I come here for the great information and discoveries, until now. I never claimed to be Sherlock Holmes. But like your guru, my civility has its limits and now I am running out of nice things to say. So I will have to say… good night.

      3. Haha.. pbutterfly2000.. That was the point all along! Just like the Alex Jones show – it becomes more about the sketch personalities than it does the actual facts and we get nowhere! It become a cult of personality follow the “big names” in the research instead of the research itself.

        That is exactly what myself and others were saying would happen when the “Wolf” showed up originally as the go-to-guy regarding this event out of NOWHERE. Myself and others questioned why he was getting such enormous air-time and such backing.. when he himself had a strange background and showed up on the scene very late.

        What good has come from the Halbig/Fetzer visit to Sandy Hook (and the infowars guy and guy dressed like Benjamin Franklin)? 3 minute videos getting nowhere of them talking to closed doors, getting the Sandy Hook garage door closed on them and weak points brought up at a School board meeting with no replies, so pretty much nothing. I’m not surprised, as that’s what many of us here said would happen.

        Halbig rehashing the same old things he’s said before, acting like there is ANY proof 20 kids died, when there isn’t and attempting to solidify the official narrative that deaths took place.

        How about bringing up the obvious points about how ridiculous the Adam Lanza character is?

        He is afraid to touch metal objects, such as doorknobs, yet he touches multiple guns.

        He’s 120 LBS soaking wet, yet is able to carry multiple weapons and heavy ammo packs and a pullet proof vest, smashing through doors and shooting people with a proficiency even veteran cops couldn’t do?

        The report that he “got in a fight” the day before with 3 teachers, which was then removed

        The fact that the school has a security camera system.

        The fact that Adam Lanza had “no digital record” yet supposedly only communicated with his Mom via e-mail, and wouldn’t even talk to her in the house? That would leave a digital record, there’s no way around it.

        They said he “smashed his hard drive to bits” but in the crime scene photos we see a hard drive which is simply scratched, that would be very easy to get the data off of- when the space shuttle blew up into tiny pieces they were able to get data off those hard drives.

        No family photos existing of the “brothers” or “mom and kids” together at all…

        Fetzer now doesn’t like us using the term “hoax” when it obviously was, and all the while nobody mentions the START triage tarps all being the wrong color and no bodies being on them- not to mention there was no Black START Triage tarp.. I mean, what gives?

        Of course, don’t mention the name Annie Haddad.. she’s black listed, because that might actually get us somewhere, and is the flesh and blood lady playing Nancy Lanza caught red handed and would end this entire event in a minute.. let’s ignore her.

      4. Uh, Paul, I think you just lost any chance of getting on the esteemed professor Fetzer’s fantabulous radio program. Sorry. Take it from me. Next, expect a monster storm of vituperation to descend upon you, the moment he detects this oppositional attitude. He can’t tolerate that.

      5. @ Patrick.. No surprise there really, there was never a chance. I think the people he has on are pretty carefully vetted, not all, but most.

        After all, he brought on frickin Dallas Goldbug and didn’t tear him to shreds, so what can you do? Dallas Goldbug says through his “research” (ear comparisons) he found out JFK was Jimmy Carter.. and Fetzer doesn’t… I I don’t know.. talk about home COMPLETELY FRICKIN RIDICULOUS THIS IS??!!! Not to mention the hundreds of other completely ridiculous and comparisons, where people are 6 or seven inches different heights, and it still flies in Ed Chiarini world.

        There have only been a couple of interviews which were very fruitful on the Fetzer Programming, the Kathy in Tulsa/ Kate Slate one comes to mind and those usually get the telltale Fetzer “audio issues” where he starts playing around with the audio and it gets all quiet after making his little volume changing sounds and he blames it on some shadowy forces behind the scene doing it.. It is hilarious.

        The other “funny” audio issues (there have been many though) occurred during this interview: with Mark S. Mann.. Mark starts bringing up some great points, and the telltale “sound issues” arise almost immediately. Check this one out if you haven’t already:

        Start listeing at 0:36:45 – The sound is fine until this point- listen for Fetzer screwing around with the sound, you hear his “dunk, dunk” sound.. and the interview right when it is getting juicy starts getting bad audio problems, and eventually cuts out.. a lot like the Kate Slate /Kathy in Tulsa interview.

        Check out that interview, and start it at 0:36:45 and listen to how the “audio issues” develop.

        Tell me this is just a funny coincidence.. you can hear Fetzer playing around with the audio right before the “issues” start up:

        Also, he’s using Beatles songs in his podcast, and is selling products, so unless he has some sort of royalties going to Apple Records, last time I checked you would get sued for doing that.

        His choice of Beatles songs is also interesting: “Now Give Me Money”.. “The Easy Way Out”.. Maybe I’m reading into it to much.

  27. The problem with Fetzer’s central claim, that the way back machine proves that there was no internet activity at the SHS website from 2008 to 2012, is that few people understand the technicalities of this argument. Unless and until we are sure that there is no way to game these numbers, this approach remains less than compelling. Here’s a quote from the comment section of Fetzer’s own article in VT:

    “The way back machine evidence isn’t really conclusive as the site may have been moved during that period”.

    And: “A web site administrator would only need to add a few lines to Sandy Hook robots.txt file to prevent the way back machine from archiving all or portions of their website.”

    Personally, I do not know enough about this issue to argue either way, but I think that it is dangerous and unnecessary to premise your whole argument on that kind of evidence. It may have been the case that the school was closed but I am not sure that this evidence proves it.

    Nor does the presence of asbestos, PCB, and lead paint prove that the school was closed. These substances can be encapsulated, to conform, at least temporarily, to inspection requirements. This would be especially true if it was known that the school was to be replaced in the near future.

    As for the school buses not being there, that too doesn’t hold much water. What makes one so sure that school buses are the method of choice for evacuating children from a school shooting scene? What about just walking over to the fire station? Better to have them stand in line to board a school bus? The buses are a non issue.

    However the 600 plus students are, which brings us back to the central question: was the school operational? We still haven’t shown that it wasn’t, only that the children were not apparent anywhere. I think that we are supposed to believe that they were ‘sheltering in place’ and that they were evacuated later, without anyone photographing them. I don’t buy it at all.

    But there is another possibility, i.e. that the students were mostly at home or at another school on that day. For instance, as I pointed out earlier, the SHS website shows that a “PTA Geography Test” was planned for the whole week preceding the shooting. This website seems to cover information for the entire school system, so I have no way of knowing exactly how it pertains to Sandy Hook, but I mention it to point out that there are other ways to empty a school for a day other than closing it down. This could even have been done through private scheduling, without the parents being generally aware of it. This was all that was needed to drastically limit witnesses to the fraud.

    If we put all our evidentiary eggs in the ‘school was closed’ basket we risk loosing the public’s attention and patience with the whole subject, should the basket be overturned by some piece of conclusive evidence that it wasn’t.

    1. This is a classic straw man. No one is “putting all their eggs in one basket” on any issue–not even whether the school was closed. We have multiple forms of proof that lead to the same conclusion, which were included in the article, “Sandy Hook Elementary School: closed in 2008, a stage in 2012”, including the absence of computer activity but supported by absence of ADA (Americans for Disability Act) compliance and evidence the building was being used for storage, which many teachers observed was a common practice for abandoned schools. Then in addition is the fact that it was loaded with asbestos and other bio-hazards. So where do you come up with this “eggs in one basket” nonsense? That have to commit fallacies to make an argument tells me that you are not on the level. I personally find that rather shocking.

      1. The question the school board should be answering is Why haven’t the teachers, parents of victims and other family members ever once questioned the ‘gross negligence causing death’ that first responders displayed by NOT administering first aid and/or getting the victims immediate medical attention once the shooter was down.

        All paid first responders have specific protocols to follow with any emergency response and even the teachers & school nurse have medical response protocols to follow. Not to mention good Samaritan laws.

        This medical first aid ‘stand down’ was in fact a criminal act ….. but if it was a hoax the medical first aid would not have been needed and their non response would be understandable as an oversight.

        1. Wolf has repeatedly observed that this is the first school shooting in which no parents have filed lawsuits for negligence against the school board. Your point and his are further proof that this was a drill and not an actual emergency, which has terrified children and parents across the United States of America. What a disgrace! What an outrage!

  28. Reading through these comments I am astounded at the angry discourse between some of the best thinkers here. It seems to me that the strategy of “divide and conquer” is working quite well at preventing a united front among Sandy Hook “truthers”.

    1. There has been a history on this blog of attacking Wolf and me in order to trivialize our efforts to expose the truth about Sandy Hook. I am not going to take it any more. They are almost entirely based upon weak reasoning and fallacious arguments I spent 35 years teaching college students how to avoid. You figure it out. This is not rocket science.

  29. All I am saying Mr. Fetzer, is that you are at risk of setting up your own straw man by arguing that the school must have been closed. This is a weak premise. I would stay away from it unless it is proven beyond any doubt. As of yet, it hasn’t been. I am not attacking you personally, just pointing that out. If you want to be logical, it is not a necessary premise.

    1. Something I do not understand is that, when I have advanced dozens of proofs that Sandy Hook was a hoax, why do you fixate on this single one? Why don’t you consider the totality of the evidence, even about the school having been closed (that is was not ADA compliant, that it was being used for storage, that it was a toxic waste dump)? Do you think Sandy Hook parents would have stood for that? Even the Bee reported that it was loaded with asbestos and other bio-hazards. Do you really think they would have allowed their children to be there?

      1. Most participants in this forum feel that SH was a hoax/drill, or at least partially so. Each piece of evidence should be thoughtfully considered to see if it supports or disputes that line of thought.

        Many of the points that you put forth have been discussed here for months – and that’s great. In a way, it’s nice to see that independent researchers are noticing some of the same discrepancies. For me, at least, it isn’t important who gets the credit, only that the information is shared.

        Again, I implore you not to take it personally when someone attempts to pick apart portions of your presentation. This kind of fact-checking and analysis is essential. Because someone appears to “fixate” on a single element of your presentation does not mean that they necessarily disagree with your premise. It doesn’t even always mean that they disagree with that element. Many here, like you, are simply working to establish the facts. Admittedly, it can be tedious work.

        1. It’s not that someone was trying to pick apart portions of Mr. Fetzer’s presentation. It’s that people were openly accusing Fetzer of planning who would speak and setting up his presentation to fail, and he set the record straight by saying that this was not so. Why would you “implore” him not to defend himself against lies and character smears? How is defending yourself against lies about your motives “taking it personally?” How is defending oneself a “premise” that others can disagree with?

      2. I find Dr. Fetzer to be argumentative and confrontational about topics that are not personal in nature. Certainly your right to disagree.

        1. Thanks to pbutterfly2000 for an exceptionally clear statement of my position about these attacks, which have been very personal and far from objective. I am not known for my tact and diplomacy and cannot abide those who are assailing those of us who are putting our boots on the ground and bringing the public’s attention to the Sandy Hook hoax.

          If you think I have something wrong, then identify it and explain why I make that claim, then tell me why I am wrong and how you know. I’ve now published a dozen articles about Sandy Hook, which means that I have put in as much time doing research–most of it collaborative and some with James Tracy–so I’ve been at this as long as anyone here.

      3. Mr. Fetzer, you need to pour over hard copy newspapers from the Hartford Courant or the Danbury Newspaper, not the Newtown Bee that cover the time frame of 2008 to 2012. I know that you will not find one word of Sandy Hook Elementary School with the exception of the issue of 12-14-12 in any of those papers. You will find plenty of information on the other Newtown Schools concerning Honor Rolls, budgets, meetings, cancellations, etc. This hard copy proves that the name Sandy Hook Elementary School was not in print for that four year period.

        I have been looking for old Hartford and Danbury Newspapers from the 1980s and 1990s. Old print hardcopy newspapers can’t be forged like internet articles. There is an article in print out there that details the closing of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Key years in those newspapers to check are 1980 around May or June and also 1995/1996 when Fairfield Hills Hospital in Newtown closed. There would be information out there in hard copy world when this school actually closed. When this article is found, the actual newspaper can be used as evidence and made public for all to see.

        Most of us who have researched this event from day one know that the school was clearly closed. Let’s all look for the actual newspaper that mentions this fact. It could have been closed as early as 1980 based on the conditions of the parking lot alone. It could have been closed in conjunction with Fairfield HIlls in the 1990s. Archived articles can be compromised. A Hoarder’s copies of newspapers should still be intact. Government agents are very smart, but they are not perfect.

      4. The online newspaper archives that are available from and don’t appear to have any mention of Sandy Hook School after 1977. I don’t understand this yet, but am still looking through the papers that are available, the Bridgeport Post and The Bridgeport Telegram. There was another tragedy at Sandy Hook–in November of 1974, two 13 year old boys, Jack Leak and Charles Eldridge were buried alive, I guess, at a sand bank the town was mining near the school. A man named Phillip Kopp accused then First selectman Frank DeLucia of ignoring warnings that the site was a hazard. I have yet to find any mention of a lawsuit that resulted from this incident. It sounds like something the town would have been anxious to keep as quiet as possible. If any local researchers could go to the Bridgeport Public Library, hard copies of many other newspapers in the area could be found. There is only so much available online. Thanks to Jon Luv for an excellent suggestion.

      5. So it looks like the archive for Bridgeport Newspapers online only covers up to 1977. The Bridgeport Post published from 1906-1992. How convenient. There was an interesting article in 1976 about a Mrs Howard A Kemmerer, appointed by the First Selectman Frank DeLucia to be the United Nations Day chairman for Newtown.

        “DeLucia called upon all citizens of Newtown to ensure an effective UN Day observance by cooperating to the fullest with Mrs Kemmerer. Mrs Kemmerer has asked Newtowners to participate in one of six ways on UN day Oct 24. Phone 3 people in the phone book after your name to get acquainted, invite someone in your neighborhood you otherwise wold not know for coffee and discuss the community development action plan proposal, answer the opinion poll on the UN at the Library, explain UNICEF to your children as an important part of Halloween, respond to the letter to the editor concerning the UN, communicate with national leaders about UN matters. ”

        In another article on the same page, this quote:

        “Mrs Aasen is part of the observer program for UN representation of Non-governmental organizations whose purpose is to build public support for the UN through more accurate knowledge of what is taking place within the organization and its specialized agencies”

        the link to these and other articles from the Bridgeport Post is:

      6. Susan and James, I have been looking for newspapers in the late May, early June of 1980 era from either Danbury or Hartford. I would never consult the Newtown Bee as I believe it is a fake newspaper. Apparently a time capsule was supposedly buried in 1980 and was slated to be dug up during the school’s demolition in October of 2013. I have found that blurb to be the oddest of all, and a very viable clue.

        Time capsules are traditionally buried during the opening ceremonies of a school, so in this case it should have been buried in 1956 or 1957 and dug up during closing ceremonies. I find it wrong that a time capsule would have been buried in 1980 and not found during demolition. A hard copy newspaper article would definitely tell the truth with this angle. I am certain that the time capsule was actually dug up in 1980 (June) which would have been the last official classes at SHES.

        Also, a quick perusal through May/June 2008-2012 does not list any Honor Roll information, Teacher of the Year, or any mundane stuff at all concerning SHES, yet there is plenty mention of all other schools in the area. I KNOW that the black and white article exists in an intact newspaper, either from June of 1980, June of 1995/1996 when Fairfield Hills Hospital was closed, or any June newspaper from the era 1977 to 2007 that would potentially have that article.

        The fact that a journalist who would have written the article concerning the school’s closing has never come forward leads me to believe that we should really narrow this down to 1977 to 1996. That is 20 years x 30 days in June so about 600 potential newspapers to look through. The Haystack is getting smaller. Since that journalist has not come forward, we can presume that the journalist died several years ago. A search from June 1977 to June 1980 will narrow things even more.

        If we follow the time capsule angle, we only have about 30 Hartford Courants or Danbury newspapers to peruse (June of 1980). There is a very good possibility that the author is long gone, but the black and white article will be authenticated, complete with period ads, dates, names, the works….

      7. Jon, I am not able to find any Danbury or Hartford Courant online archives, and I am very far from CT, but think this is a good path to follow. The local libraries in CT should all have archives with actual copies of the papers in bound volumes, or microfiche. I hope it will be easier than locating a random Connecticut hoarder with stacks of papers and half eaten pizza, cat skeletons, etc.

        The Bee appears no where in any archive that I’ve seen.

  30. I may be wrong and it might be a bit unfair, but it seems that each time Dr. Fetzer adds to this blog, it changes from being helpful and informative to divisive and contentious.

    This is incongruous and defies logic – he fully supports Dr. Tracy, yet gets into major arguments with Dr. Tracy’s top commenters. Jim Fetzer, does this happen everywhere you comment?

    1. I am sorry to jump in and answer you first Benjamin, but when I commented 24 hours ago I basically said that this was what was happening. One need look no further than the state of 911 truth to see that. It is in my deepest ad hominem thoughts that Fetzer jumped on the Hailbig bandwagon after he saw the divisiveness it caused in the blog as we all so well remember. He most likely couldn’t believe his luck when he found out Wolf had told the world in advance that he was going to the school board meeting. Eventually the argument degrades into an argument over the argument. He is not lying when he says he taught this stuff for thirty-five years. He is a master at it. Who else would jump into the shark tank and cry Wolf. Pun intended.

      1. These comments are extremely ignorant and abusive. I learned of Wolf from James Tracy, who had been too busy to follow up. I contacted him and realized he was a precious resource because of his credentials. I did the first interview with him, then recommended him to Dave Gahary at American Free Press, who did the second, which went viral. Wolf has told me many times that I am the reason anyone knows who he is, so the idea that I “jumped on the Halbig bandwagon” is stupid and, in my view. is itself intended to be divisive. I taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years and I cannot abide the superficiality of many of the posts appearing on this otherwise important discussion site.

    2. My painful experience has been that no matter how polite you are with him, if you question him he will attack you viciously, and then strut around acting like a triumphant conqueror of evil. When you reply, asking for specific proofs of his accusations, he opts not to reply. But having ignored the challenge, keeps on staggering around in his victory dance, as if he was never challenged. The lesson: never oppose him, or question him, lest you come under full-force assault.

      I am aware of the backstory that Rich brings up; in fact, I have read a whole, fascinating, book about that strange, sad, episode. But in my recent tussle with the good doctor I scrupulously avoided bringing up anything that might divert attention from his behavior here, now, towards me. Thus, we can see his behavior in isolation. It can be studied as an object lesson.

      Of course, I await his heartfelt apologies for his calumnies against me. When should I stop holding my breath?

      1. The armchair quarterbacks that blog here are hilarious. You want to nit-pick, criticize, judge and condemn Fetzer and Halbig – but only from the safety of your home office. I can’t believe you don’t understand where Dr. F. is coming from. Go out to an appropriate public forum and be heard. Show us the video. Then you might have a leg to stand on.

      2. patrickchatsamiably has yet to recover from someone coming here and putting him in his place. His arrogance and condescension MIGHT be tolerable if he displayed more intelligence and better judgment. It took no time at all to size him up and see that he was out to suppress the most promising developments about Sandy Hook. He is untrustworthy.

  31. Hello:

    Although I’ve never commented here, I’ve been following this weblog discussion since the Sandy Hook story first went out. I’m taking a break at the moment from an essay I’ve been working on about searching for truth amid all that is called as news. It’s a little bit like the Diogenes story. I should be inured by now but I’m still shocked daily by the ongoing war against everything true and/or real. In preparing for the essay I reread the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman as well as some philosophical essays about truth.

    By the way, I’ve recently visited at some mainstream websites that I usually avoid. Among the first things I saw was this:


  32. One of the reasons that I have serious doubts about the SHES being nonoperational is that I know someone who’s very good friend sent her children there through 2006. I don’t think that either of these people would lie knowingly. I know my friend wouldn’t. I will try to find some concrete proof that it was operational beyond this date from my friend’s friend. Meanwhile I think it wise to avoid making the unnecessary assumption that it was closed in 2008.

    With all due respect to James Tracy for posting this article, and indeed it provoked a lively discussion, it seems to me that Fetzer is misleading skeptics of the official narrative with his claim that the nonoperational status of the school has been proven. And while I know that questioning Fetzer’s credibility runs the risk of distracting from the substance of this discussion, it might nevertheless be instructive for readers to look at this article by Kevin Ryan in which he analyses Fetzer’s role in the 911 truth movement:

    I should add that I consider Kevin Ryan one of the most salient and insightful critics of the government’s lies about 911.

    1. Well, there’s a great deal more evidence substantiating that the school closed in 2008. I have just published a new study about that and outing Robbie Parker as an actor/entertainer. Some here may find it of interest: When I come here to defend Wolf and me from unwarranted and misleading attacks, I am not at all surprised at efforts to regroup and regain control of this blog. You all should be focusing on the evidence I present instead of attacking

    2. Christo may think Kevin Ryan is “one of the most salient and insightful critics of the government’s lies about 9/11”, but he made a complete idiot of himself when he attacked me for criticizing Robert Parry for denigrating 9/11 Truth. Do you have any idea at all what was going on in this exchange? You really need to read, “The Debate over 9/11 Truth: Kevin Ryan vs. Jim Fetzer”, By endorsing him in this exchange, you are displaying a complete lack of critical reasoning.

  33. Here’s another video from RedPillRevolution (RPR). It really doesn’t take much to see that RPR is correct in his assessment that Sandy Hook Truth has been co-opted by Di$infowars. Halbig is either extremely naive, or he’s in on the game of guilt by association with the Di$infowars clown shown in this video. Perfect way to marginalize the truth even more than it already is. Anybody really think Halbig’s going to be taken seriously with this world wrestling style dog and pony show? Mission accomplished, apparently.

    1. Your desire for attention and acceptance does nothing to further the truth. It only undermines and distracts. You are being divisive. At least Bidondi, Halbig and Fetzer are trying. Show us the video of you speaking out face-to-face in a live public forum.

  34. KateSlate11 just producer a video about Lenny Pozner sharing Noahs birth certificate. Thing is, none of the names are in ALL CAPS. Aren’t birth certificates, Marriage license, and death certificates in ALL CAPS? I’m.thinking I’m right on this, but what say you?

    1. Thanks for posting this. Some of these guys are so eager to attack me that they are incapable of appreciating what Wolf and I have done. If I have learned anything here, it is that this is a treacherous environment for those who are inexperienced in dealing with shills and trolls.

      1. Just a suggestion, but perhaps if the bulk of your posts didn’t reference some sort of dispute with other posters, you would be received more cordially.

        Personally, I appreciate the info presented by you and many others. The sniping gets tedious.

        1. 10-4 on that Maestro.
          All, an FYI, In Brentwood, New Hampshire, an enabling event may have occurred on Monday, May 12th. The setting is rural, live free or die, gun law resistant NH. Where SHE victim parents have visited state legislators.
          The “official” story is the following- an officer is called to a domestic disturbance, gun shots take place, the house (a duplex in an upper middle class cul de sac). News chopper quickly arrives and the house explodes in flames. News headlines are- All of NH grieves slain officer (part time officer, HS sports coach, warning vs ticket mind set, affable). A second officer is a hero for trying to enter the building to save his comrade.The alleged perpetrator (middle aged male living with father) is being painted as a paranoid loner who taped over his phone camera.
          It was reported that there were no prior disturbances at the home and the perp, had only minor traffic violations.
          Yes, the obvious questions include what do the digital audio recordings reveal, where are the death certs, cause of deaths, cause of fire and explosions, etc. Stay tuned and vigilant. Coincidentally, Brentwood is the adjacent town to Nancy Lanza’s brother (James Champion- NH local/state law enforcement).

      2. James, most here are appreciative of your work. The more time you take responding to attacks the less time you have to do your work, so they win. Don’t respond to an attack unless you absolutely must. By just ignoring they go away. Plus you are not giving them legitimacy.

      3. As an observer of this forum, it’s very very clear that James Henry Fetzer is honest, detailed, and in search of truth. Patrickchatsamiably is a complete fraud who is only trying to discourage discussion and disparage Mr. Fetzer and others who have proven themselves over and over again. If the “chatsamiably” username is online assasination 101. You and your sock puppet allies should just give up on the character assasination of James Henry Fetzer as you only out yourself and agenda with each non sensical accusatory post. Assasinate the EVIDENCE, THE FACTS, and THE COVER UP. Not the man who brings them to you.

  35. Thought this interview with Biondi/Halbig was good, unlike the much edited utube version shown above.

    All the naysayers were questioning why there is no Halbig video, now you have it. The views of the school board members looking down or glaring forward, are quite telling to me.

    Used video meetings extensively in my job, one co-worker, who was extremely obese, commented that I was not very photogenic, yup that is just the way it is for some folks!

    On the fence on whether the Infowars machine is on the good or bad guys side, but do check there to see what they are talking about.

    The Sandy Hook incident was a gov black op in which some innocent person was to be ‘patsy dropped’ to take the blame. That person was supposed to be Ryan Lanza for his connection as the boyfriend of that teacher Vicky, which was to be spun as a crime of passion murder suicide. But since Adam was carrying a copy of Ryan’s driver’s license those operatives picked up and used the WRONG Lanza to patsy drop, who had no connection to be spun into a motive. Meanwhile, after it was prematurely leaked to the press to report that the shooter was Ryan, the real Ryan was online, facebook etc. trying to explain that there was much wrong on the reporting of the incident, blowing the operation’s coverstory. He had to be silenced, so his location was triangulated and he was illegitimately arrested. He hasn’t been seen or heard from since.
    If any of these investigators, Alex Jones included, were actually interested in getting to the bottom of what really happened, they’d be wanting to interview Ryan and wonder how it is that he’s been disappeared rather than feigning amnesia that he ever existed.
    On Alex Jones go to vid @ DailyMotion,com/video/x11q4gd_what-really-happened-at-sandy-hook_news
    starting at 3:45 into the vid shows Alex gatekeeping.
    Also see

    1. Interesting. What was the alleged connection between Ryan and Vicky? Is this something you dug up or has it been reported on elsewhere? Thanks.

    2. Ed, I sensed there was confusion in the script for some time but I did not contemplate your stated scenario. You would think the operatives would have had an ID process more sophisticated than a drivers license. Was the excuse for the mistaken identity that the Ryan and Adam shared an uncanny visual resemblance? Is this possible? Assuming you are correct, was it planned that Ryan be painted with a contributing mental diagnosis?

    3. The script fell apart immediately, and the New Jersey confusion has not been fully examined. I don’t know how they could tie Ryan to Vicky Soto. It’s an interesting theory, but it has some flaws. First of all, the story describes the shooter hitting two classrooms, not just Vicky’s.

      Also, Ryan seems to have had a girlfriend in Hoboken, named Jessica F. O’Brien, who is currently working as an Assistant Occupational Therapist at 249 High St in Newton, New Jersey (973) 383-5600. Her hobbies are drawing, video games – and she writes and records a little music. She has posted all of this.

      Immediately after the SH shooting hit the news, she sent out a public message to Ryan on Facebook, asking if she should pack his stuff for him. Since she must have shared keys with him, she probably knows where he is. I hope he is safe, because I think you are right, he holds important keys to the original script.

      Had this been real, some of the evidence they should have made public would have been photos of Ryan’s ID which was reported to have been in Adam’s possession. THe police report describes Adam’s driver’s license, with no photo of it, apparently found in a wallet in a bathroom drawer in the Lanza home. A photo of that would have gone a long way to quell the masses now questioning this event. Instead, we get the goofy shooped school ID and a AAA car. Really? The absence of legal photo ID evidence does add to my suspicions.

      The most interesting recent phony creation is the posting by Lenny Posner (who did not attend Noah’s funeral.) It is Noah’s birth certificate, incomplete, with missing signatures, on white copy paper. A genuine copy of a CT Certification of Live Birth is rendered on legal document paper with blue detailing surrounding the edges, similar in appearance to a stock certificate – and includes hidden security features. What he created is not even a photo copy of a copy.

  37. Should Sedensky have recused himself? Sedensky is a Newtown parent of children who are/were in the Newtown school system. Should he really have lead the investigation into a mass shooting in his own town involving countless individuals he knew, personally? Isn’t it conceivable that an alternate lawyer should have lead the investigation, someone without so many personal ties?

    How many conflicts of interest could there be in leading a criminal investigation which, by its very nature, would put multiple people you personally know under the microscope as far as liability?

    Think about it – his conflicts of interest are exponential. Educators or first responders he knows personally, and doesn’t have a strong desire to see get into trouble; and then on top of that, his own agency, the State, blocked the roads with state cruisers in the first hour of the response, and he’s probably go no desire to reveal that to his fellow townspeople, or to those who don’t already realize it.

  38. I think, too, we are seeing more and more evidence that the emergency response is the real problem (and if it’s not, they have to respond to it either way): 1) Only 2 ambulances on scene for first hour–both of whom quickly left, leaving none 2) Children transported in police cars due to lack or ambulances, and 3) regional backup rigs not arriving until 10:35 a.m. by the time which Dickenson Dr was hopelessly blocked by state police vehicles. Kehoe said recently, “EMS was swiftly overwhelmed.” That directly contradicts Vance’s claim that all kinds of ambulances were available but not needed. I think that because the FBI director (Comey) alluded within the past few weeks to a fatally flawed Newtown EMS response, we are seeing an uptick in activity by CT state legal offices. To include staging playground sign vandalizations and calls to parents (how did a bumbling truther get a private cellphone number, again?)

    1. Zeph, I am hearing you enumerate the evidence of a significant group of the SHE cast members (emergency medical services, EMS) being absent from the stage and generally lacking in any convincing role.
      Why is that?
      I submit that EMS was simply not contracted as official cast members. The least expensive script would be that ER be excluded from the scene and therefore the payroll. The SHE made for TV movie follows Hollywood protocol- tell the story with the fewest actors.
      With that plan and the inevitable need to describe the obvious inconsistencies in the movie, we see predictably see EMS being portrayed as lacking.
      It is likely that EMS is now being funded and/or threatened to “go along to get along” and keep their jobs.
      Let’s hear from a bonafide EMS that has integrity!

  39. After slogging through this muck for a year and a half, I am convinced that the main body of shillery is working for a legal office–and that that office is located in (or directed from) Hartford, CT.

    I don’t doubt there may be some federal commenters loaned to the cause, but the answer to the question, “Cui bono?” is the State of CT, or that part of the State administration that would suffer from lawsuits.

    What lawsuits?

    Lawsuits stemming from the following suggestions:

    1. There were only two ambulances in the first hour of the Sandy Hook response

    2. Those two ambulances left within half an hour, leaving zero.

    3. Children were transported in police cars as a result

    4. Regional ambulances didn’t arrive until almost one hour after the first 911 call, by which time the road to the school was “completely blocked,” according to FBI director Comey, speaking May 2, 2014.

    5. Some children may still have needed transport but not gotten it once the roads were blocked

    Every, single one of the above suggestions is supported by physical evidence, some of that evidence even appearing in the final report, where it remained findable, but never analyzed.

    Compared the Sandy Hook report to the VA Tech and Columbine reports; notice how much time those latter spend on the emergency medical response. Many, many pages.

    I challenge anyone to find me a page from the 7000 page Sandy Hook report that constitutes an analysis of the medical response. Basically, the Sandy Hook report is silent.

    In Stephen Sedensky’s 32 page summary of the report, he named and quoted countless police officers, giving their badge numbers, activities, and transcripts of their radio transmissions. There is not one, single fire fighter or EMT so mentioned. Not a single EMT’s name appears, anywhere, in that report summary. Not one ambulance is specifically referenced.

    The entirely of the emergency medical response to the mass slaughter of 26 children and educators is:

    “9:51:28 CSP Det Dragon arrives on scene, runs to the front entrance of SHES with his medical bag.”

  40. Speaking as a Newtowner, and someone who is not mentally ill, it’s fascinating to watch circus clowns arguing with each other. We enjoyed your visit and certainly hope you raise more donations from the mentally gullible and visit again. On your next excellent adventure to Newtown, you might consider raising your points to the local 4-H club, planning and zoning, maybe a Girl Scout troop. Or, don’t. It is shocking how quickly someone’s mind degrades. I can’t imagine Fetzer ever having logical, critical thinking skills. He continues to repeat information that is palpably false (like the number of students in the school – not even a critical thinking problem, just a total lack of research skill). Not sure any of the people who babble here would recognize a fact if it beat them on their tinfoil-covered head. There’s a reason you haven’t proven the Sandy Hook tragedy was a hoax – because it wasn’t. You can’t come up with even one piece of evidence that proves your many, disjointed and complex-ridden theories – even though this tragedy involved and affected so many people. Perhaps you are just wrong? 99.9% of the world can see something that you simply cannot, with your tin-colored glasses firmly in place. Your issues may be caused by mental illness or limited mental faculties, but regardless, you are detestable people. Enjoy each other’s company.

    1. If the people of Newtown would answer Wolfgang Halbig’s perfectly reasonable questions (and the questions of millions of people for whom this story does not add up) then there would be no conspiracy theories. As it is, millions of people are watching Newtown now and wondering what the stony silence and police threats mean. Meanwhile, a larger and larger mountain of incriminating evidence which can’t be explained away piles up against the perpetrators of this pre-planned event.

    2. where is the PROOF that sandy hook was even an operating school ? which it wasnt – not 1 student attended much less was “murdered” at this long ago shut down fantasy land ‘school’ that was made up for the tv watching gullable fools who are so easily brain washed to believe what ever the fantasy land TV tells them. nice try ‘sandy’ but ha ha ha ha ha ha ha you are laughable . i hope you are enjoying those multi million dollar donations your sorry ass is living off of donated by a bunch of brain dead zombies who actually believe the garbage lies you are spewing.

    3. Simpler, compelling and more convincing of your claims and identity would be your description of any Smoking Guns of truth. Otherwise the Sandy Hook made for TV movie is self evident as fiction.

  41. Face it, admit it – there is absolutely nothing that would convince you that Sandy Hook suffered a tragedy. Every picture is photoshopped. Every witness an actor. Every document a forgery. Nothing can change the thinking of a zealot. You WANT to believe this was a conspiracy. Asking for answers is lying to yourself – you don’t want answers, you want to find more questions. Why, I have no idea. Halbig’s questions have ALL been answered, but conspiracy hobbyists have a hearing disability – they only hear what they want to hear. You think you are a part of millions of people – sorry, you are a part of thousands of odd people. Billions of people either don’t know you exist, or they find you despicable and sad. Yep, you are one in a million. Even in Newtown, most people – thankfully – don’t realize you exist. That’s how important you are. You want to believe the children didn’t exist, the school didn’t exist, the town doesn’t exist, the state doesn’t exist – nothing outside of your crazy bubble exists – good luck with that. There are 27,000 people in Newtown – exactly how many of them are willing to stand with you on any of your crazy ideas? Can’t you get even one to say Sandy Hook School was an empty building? The answer is no, and yet you still have faith in your conspiracy religion. Well, your religion sucks.

    1. If this was the tragedy you claim it was, and 26 people were killed, then the situation was certainly dealt with in a very shocking way. I could not believe it when I first heard on the news that the children would be left to rot in the school until Sunday, and then I heard that they had been spirited away in the middle of the night on Friday night. I have never heard of children being left to rot anywhere. When people are shot, they go to the hospital. I have never heard of people who have been shot being taken in someone’s Ford Explorer to the hospital instead of by an ambulance. I have never heard of EMTs not being allowed near wounded and dead people who need help. And I have never heard of people being declared in large numbers not by doctors in a hospital, not by EMTs, but by unnamed police officers. For me, it was these shocking things I heard on the news that made me want to understand more about Sandy Hook.

      You may say that everyone’s questions have been answered, but none of the questions about why normal emergency procedures were not followed have been answered. There are only three scenarios possible, all of which point to criminal activity at the Sandy Hook school: 1) children did not die, and it was a hoax perpetrated for to raise millions of dollars for the community and for other unknown agendas, 2) children and adults did die, but the emergency response and the response of parents was shocking, illegal, callous, and inappropriate (this scenario is highly unlikely or impossible given most of the evidence) or 3) children and adults did die, but not the ones we saw on the news, and this is why the ages and names of the children are not in the police report. The operation was a combination of a mass murder of kidnapped and undocumented children and whistle-blower adults, using the closed school and the closed Fairfield Hills Hospital and its tunnels as a base of operations (probably to cover up Satanic activity or as a Satanic sacrifice) AND it was a scheme to make money and pursue other unknown nefarious agendas.

      Since it can’t be scenario #2, let’s hope it’s scenario #1.

    2. “Sandy,” Face it, admit it – there is absolutely nothing that would convince you that Sandy Hook DIDNT suffer a tragedy. Every picture is REAL. Every witness legitimate. Every document legitimate. Nothing can change the thinking of a zealot. And “Sandy,” you ARE a zealot.

      In fact, you are so zealous to protect this Lie that you would threaten me with death by baseball bat for coming to Sandy Hook to speak with the residents re 12-14-12 (my apology if you are not THAT Sandy).

      I have read Stephen J. Sedenskys 44 page report, as well as the police “response” to the school that morning in the appendix to that report. That report was as, if not more, incrimminating than H. Wayne Carvers performance, or Sarah Cox absurd claim that she and Barbara Halstead tucked themselves safely away in a closet, managing to avoid FOUR sweeps by tactical, SWAT and canine units.

      It appears to me that you will not have the courage to accept a genuine challenge, but if you do, go to and click on the media page. There you will hear my page by page criticism of the sates attorneys report. You can correct anything I have said or answer any of the questions I have posed on the comment section of our website, and I will make those corrections available to MHB residents.

      I wont hold my breath though. I know its much easier to toss around the tin foil hat wearing silliness than to actually LOOK INTENTLY AT WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED AS EVIDENCE THAT SANDY HOOK REALLY HAPPENED AS REPORTED.

      Happy listening Sandy.

  42. Well now, this is an interesting story — a mere hour away from Newtown, CT:

    Teachers ”indoctrinated sisters into a cult that celebrates death leaving them with suicidal thoughts and speaking a secret language as part of a coven”

    Excerpt: The girls began having ‘fantasies of suicidal ideation and martyrdom’, according to the suit. They began speaking in a strange language and gathering at Wellesley College in Massachusetts to perform religious ‘whirling dervish’ dances throughout the night.

    Read this, if of interest

Leave a Reply