In the chapter entitled, “Top Ten Reasons: Sandy Hook was an Elaborate Hoax,” from the banned book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, Vivian Lee exposes the Sandy Hook Shooting as a psy-op by, among other things, establishing that drill protocols were implemented during that event.

Image: Variety

According to Lee, guidelines set forth by the US Department of Homeland Security require that all personnel and observers of an emergency drill check in with controllers and be issued identification badges. She notes that during the Mass Casualty Event at Newtown, Connecticut, “This protocol appears to have been followed at Sandy Hook, where many participants wore ID/identification badges on lanyards…”

In this video from the San Bernardino Shooting, a group of people with their arms up are ushered from the property where the Mass Casualty Event has taken place. Before they exit the parking lot, a number are called back to hand something over to a man who collects the objects and walks in the other direction. It is possible to see these objects dangling from the hands of some of the people, as if from a cord or elastic.

The footage in this video was recorded from a MSNBC Live television broadcast on the day of the San Bernardino Shooting, and though it would seem unlikely, it appears to be a singular document in that no other copies are available online and newscasts have culled it from their graphics rotation.

The possibility that there is an innocent explanation for the collection of what look like ID/identification badges from people who may or may not be San Bernardino County employees, is undercut by the urgency of the effort to keep this footage off the internet and unavailable to the public.

Leave a Reply

31 thought on “Were Drill Protocols Followed In The San Bernardino Shooting?”
  1. I wonder what it would cost for a licensed private investigator to review the footage and the people in it to California DMV license photographs. It would be easy to drive through the parking lot and get the plates on every vehicle on a Wednesday. Then you could know beyond a statistical doubt (or at least to a 99 percent confidence level) that these people were actors in, and not employees at the center.

    1. Since the people participating as extras in the drill would not have parked in the lot at the IRC you would simply duplicate the people who were normally at work on the day of the drill. Our theory developed here is that the buses took crisis actors to another lot (possibly behind the credit center) or on the street in the area, a mile or two north of the alleged shootout (on the very straight Southern California road). This was their original place to report in in the original call for actors.

      Nobody to my knowledge has a shot of that location and it appears that the parking lot of the closed-down credit center is behind a low wall, so not likely anyone ever got a shot of it, thus preserving the privacy of the participants. Since they signed a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement, they cannot talk.

      I feel kind of sorry for anyone who stumbled into this gig, if in fact they took extras from the general public.

      But So. Cal. is also full of military and their contractors, so it is possible all the actors were drawn from them or from some church or other.

      Anyway, you aren’t going to find the car license plates of the people who left on buses.

      Therefore the only object of your exercise would be to show that there were no outsiders at the facility. If that is what you want to prove, then you are going to bolster the official story. Why bother? They have tons of support already.

      1. It would be nearly impossible, statistically, if all of those “workers” filmed with there hands up did not have a single car parked in that lot within the next month or so. The collection of plate numbers would have to be followed by a comparison to California DMV driver photos. A private investigator, many having connections at places like the DMV, could do this.

    2. I bet it wouldn’t cost much. Does one need to offer any sort of “standing” when requesting info from a PI? Is “nosy” or “just digging around” adequate? What sort of ethics does a PI adhere to? I wonder why a PI (with access to lots of great databases) hasn’t done this research him/herself?

      If I ever get my hands on a fully-subscribed Lexus-Nexis (etc), it’ll be off to the races!

      1. I’m sure any client doing research for a book about media anomalies in the event could provide an adequate basis for such a search. After all, how often is a crime scene, for example, not cordoned off with police tape, and subsequently raided by the press?

        1. There have been some excellent books over the years about anomalies as reported by the media. This one jumped out at me a long time when reading about the JFK assassination after seeking the film in 1990. A woman who followed the whole Cuban thing (she was a “leftist”) back in the 60’s noted that flyers Oswald distributed listed the address of his “Fair Play for Cuba Committee” as being the same (it was a corner building with two different street entrances, thus two names for the same address – not a tall building but smallish) as the offices of Operation Mongoose, with anti-Castro fighters coming and going. It is used in the film, but it is not fictional and was documented by her. These details, including the purchase order for these flyers, would convince anyone who wanted to see the connection between the assassination of JFK and the anti-Castro Cubans who apparently wanted to pin it on Castro so as to justify an invasion (now that the Russian missiles were gone).

          What does such knowledge, and conclusions any sensible person must draw from it, do to rewrite the official history? Very little, since the same people are still in charge.

          More tenuous conclusions might be drawn from the license plate problem, since people have a much easier time parking their cars in random places in California than a lot of other parts of the country. It is not enough of a smoking gun. Another form of investigation might get the actual employees of IRC to open up about what they did not hear until the cops showed up (probably the first moment when anything like violence came on the scene). One might count the people being led out of the building and compare it to employee numbers there that day – surely far too small to represent who would actually have been there. Much like the small number of children portrayed as leaving Sandy Hook. It makes no numerical sense.

          But does anything like this change history in the face of people who are so scared of their own psychic state that they fear they would be insane if they believed in “conspiracy theories”? Why, there have even been people writing about the “problem” of Americans thinking there are conspiracies and noting that this is an old problem, since so many believed Lincoln was shot in a conspiracy. Talk about never reading a history book! “The American people don’t read” said one high government official. I guess that’s about right. Even with all the television specials and movies about Lincoln, showing the hanging of co-conspirators and fellow travelers, they are reluctant to accept that conspiracies can happen, for it would shake them to the core.

          I guess it helps to be older and not to worry if someone thinks you are crazy. Once you are 50 or 60, the default belief is that you are.

          “You are old, Father William,” the young man said,
          “And your hair has become very white;
          “And yet you incessantly stand on your head,
          “Do you think at your age it is right?”

          “In my youth,” Father William explained to his son,
          “I feared it might injure the brain;
          “But now that I’m perfectly sure I have none,
          “Why, I do it again and again.”

          When I first read this Lewis Carroll poem as a child, I took the position that Father William was crazy. Now that I am of mature years, I see his wisdom and cynical view of youthful inexperience. My view of people rejecting the official story of an event has evolved in a similar fashion.

        2. Some other ideas would be trying to get a list of agency employees at the center using the California Public Records Act (unless there is an exemption for this information). A more subtle approach would be to construct a list of Center employees by having a private investigator obtain it from the payroll service (usually ADT or some other big service handles this, or the clearing/wiring bank if payroll is directly deposited).

        3. Yes, of course. I’m too old to worry what others think of me. I think it is a matter of wishing to live an authentic life. Each has to discern truth, analyze what they think they know, and come to their own beliefs about the world around them.

          Life is full of manipulation. I have a visceral dislike for manipulators. Whether its someone trying to steal your money or your liberty it is essentially the same.

          The only way to have a better world is to live your life the way you want others to. I’m afraid that most would rather remain children and avoid responsibility for that. That is a key tendency that manipulators use.

          History does not show a pattern of acknowledgement of revealed truth. JFK is always a good example. Look at how many years have passed. It is an obvious lie, but the official story remains.

          So, correcting the record should not be the reason for our interest. Living authentic lives should be. It is also my vain hope that with enough skepticism and ridicule we can hamper their efforts. I make it a practice never to agree with others assessments of these if I don’t agree. I may say “really? Is that what you think is going on here?”, or words to that effect.

          When some realize that you are not trying to “me too” their misconceptions they want to talk. Many have doubts but are afraid. I tell others “hey, I think its bunk, and I’m still here”.

          There is a tipping point where this approach will no longer serve their needs. We haven’t reached it yet. If we could they’d have to reshuffle the deck.

  2. Something a lil off the topic but related, going back to HOOK…. I have talked to dozens of school teachers in various states…. Not a single one has ever heard of the absurd, “Okay, kids, close your eyes and conga on out,” as a way to flee a crisis.

  3. Absolutely none of their story makes sense this time. As a mother, the concept that a woman with a 6 month old baby would deliberately kill strangers for no reason, and leave her baby childless is ridiculous. Even if someone said that she had postpartum psychosis, it wouldn’t fit because that doesn’t make women kill other people, usually just baby and/or themselves. Even if the rest was verified, this I cannot believe. It’s incredible to me that any of this stuff is swallowed by the public.

    1. yes – I’m really hoping that baby is part of the Story – like perhaps it belonged to a different relative? I never heard an explanation of why the house the news crews invaded was scattered with multiple pieces of ID for Other people?

      1. That Condo was an abandoned Foreclosed unit that had been boarded up.
        Everything in there was staged. Notice the Child’s Toys they show on camera all come out of a Box and are brand new?

    2. The baby thing is really hard to get past. I can’t imagine how a mother of a baby would do something like this. Also, the evidences of life with baby they showed us in the apartment didn’t ring true for me. I know people live all sorts of ways, but what was with the young boy’s shirt hanging in the baby’s closet? Was that supposed to go with the level 2 Arabic workbook they showed? Maybe that was for an optional narrative they nixed at the last minute. If the event is completely manufactured, why would they insert a baby into the story?

      1. and the baby’s closet had about 60 empty hangers, but no clothes…granted, I don’t recall hanging up many baby clothes (maybe a couple dresses) but why all the hangers?

        1. Right. My only thought was that possibly whoever was caring for the baby now had removed the clothes. But not sure how that would be possible on the timeline, since you would think the officials moved in without warning, and next people in the apartment were supposedly media. Have we ever seen footage of the grandmother and baby being escorted out of the apartment?

      2. Easy, authenticity. They want people to connect emotionally. They want them to feel revulsion at someone who would do that to their new child. They want to show that appearing like a normal family is no guarantee of your safety.

        That’s what I mean by layers. This was obviously a drill, at least at one point. Being a “Christmas Party” could easily have been part of the scenario.

        The particulars on the “shooters” is also thematic. This is going to continue. The more “refugees” they import and the more “diverse” the population becomes, the more they will hype the fear. It’s Gladio B.

        These things have a tremendous effect on some people. They simply absorb the impressions and become scared. They want someone to DO SOMETHING to make it go away. Your local parasites are only too happy to oblige.

        Near the end of this road is total dependancy. After that the culling begins. They will expand on this until their “terrorists” are attacking any points of resistance. Your neighbors will turn on you, not wishing to bring attention on themselves.

        Be confident that there was not one element of this that was accidental. They showed you what they wanted you to see. They told you what they wanted you to hear. Every vignette from the “lockdown” through the hands in the air, etc., is there for a purpose.

        How many ask why there are so many Stasi there? Who asks why federal agencies are involved? Who says “by what authority do you do this?”. Instead of increasing anger over the loss of liberty the opposite is happening.

        These stories are simply vehicles. While they arrest our emotions they plant these procedures and responses as “normal”. Not everyone believes them. Most do.

        If nothing else was known about this event the sheer number of cops should be an eye opener. There was an outrageous number of cops. I don’t think that should make anyone feel safer.

  4. The part about the lights/flashers going on just before the shooting intrigues me – reminds me of the slow-driving car that honked outside Oswald’s apartment.

    Has anyone ever seen a shot of this “perp on the ground” Without the face blurred? I’m guessing no –

    1. agree – my conclusion (based on the initial 3 white males report) is that it was intended to be right-wing perps and support the gun control issue, but somehow it was hijacked by rogue elements feeding the ‘no more refugee’ crowd. The whole thing has a cluster-cluck feel to it…I think that’s why we got the speech Sunday night?

      also suspicious how Trump is playing into this so brazenly – if he were Really for the average man, he would be asking the same questions we are

Leave a Reply