Editor’s Note: This the third installment in the four-part “Stealth Terror” series that originally ran at MHB in 2013, offers a detailed and provocative examination of the Sandy Hook massacre event–indeed, one that we might see in major media if they were not so overwhelmingly prone to erroneous reportage and misleading “analysis.” See the introduction to the republication in the initial September 9 repost here.
To “defend” our nation by use of weather warfare, instead of more military bases and more enemies around the world, it is necessary that what I want to know for due process reasons be kept secret. An entirely different conflict arises when the technique is used on us domestically, to change our existence as per Carnicom’s analysis of chemtrail content, or for the intentional killing in weather incidents. We see both outline and substance of a police state descending upon us that we, as Americans, should be unable to tolerate.
Before you dismiss this chemtrail conspiracy analysis, consider that Sandy was not just another hurricane, and that Sandy Hook did not just experience another heart-wrenching massacre, but rather contained the elements of another 9/11–the event that took us to a disastrous war. The Sandy Hook affair is taking us further into a police state by deceitfully popularizing a basic element of that status: gun control.
Expanding the Stealth Terror Thesis: Hurricane management
By James R. Hanson
The following Atlantic hurricanes, of those exceeding $10 billion in damage, are the costliest to date. Dollars are approximate, Sandy’s estimates still in flux. Those in bold occurred after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) took responsibility for the weather-control program beginning in 2003.
Katrina $108 billion 2005 Bush 43
Sandy $72 billion 2012 Obama
Ike $38 billion 2008 Bush 43
Wilma $29 billion 2005 Bush 43
Andrew $27 billion 1992 Bush 41
Ivan $23 billion 2004 Bush 43
Irene $17 billion 2011 Obama
Charley $16 billion 2004 Bush 43
Rita $12 billion 2005 Bush 43
Gilbert $10 billion 1988 Reagan
Of the next ten in rank (less than $10 billion in damage but more than $5 billion) Bush 43 had five, thus the majority of the “top 20” hurricanes were during the presidency of George W. Bush. Only one of these, Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, was prior to DARPA’s jurisdiction. Before Obama’s entry with Irene and Sandy, George W. (Bush 43) could claim 69% of the dollar cost of this list. Following from this, those hopeful that Obama would not continue the Bush excesses may find little reassurance.
Another means of comparison of all 32 hurricanes costing more than $1 billion is by the percentage of total cost of all 32. Bush 43 had 62%, Obama had 19%, Clinton 8%, Bush 41 8%, Reagan 3%, Carter a third of 1%
WordPress.com’s Lip Service to “Democratized Publishing” Belied By Censorship & New Executive Hires
Sandy Hook Research Tossed Down Memory Hole
By James F. Tracy (Updated 8/19/18)
The individual who oversaw an across-the-board, content-specific evisceration of WordPress.com-hosted websites is none other than Matt Mullenweg, the 34-year old chief executive of Automattic Inc. and creator of WordPress.com. A supporter of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and purported advocate of “Free Speech” and “Open Source” technology, Mr. Mullenweg caved to a New York Times story highlighting the alleged plight of individuals related to the dubious Sandy Hook mass shooting event.
Mullenweg promotes himself and his companies as alternatives to the “tech giants” and “big platforms” such as Google and Amazon. Yet if the world’s super-wealthy blog czar ever did have the personal integrity and zeal to defend the right of expression and open source philosophy via his enterprises, his recent management appointments and the flagrant censorship of his WordPress clients below indicate that these have clearly been forgotten.
How a Talk Show Host Can Help Defeat the First Amendment
By James F. Tracy
Beginning in April the parents of children said to have perished in the December 2012 Sandy Hook School massacre have filed defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones (e.g. here, here and here) and others claiming the radio talk show host defamed them by repeatedly stating to his audience that the incident was staged. The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified monetary sum from the defendant, claiming he caused them to be harassed and threatened by parties who share Jones belief that the event was a hoax.
In the event these actions are tried they will in all probability not function as a venue where the veracity of the Sandy Hook event itself can be verified or disproven. Nor will the plaintiffs likely have to provide much if any evidence of harassment or pain and suffering.
The parents’ attorneys assert in one suit that “overwhelming–and indisputable–evidence exists showing what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.” This claim is unanimously (though erroneously) supported by Connecticut State authorities and national news media, and has been accepted as settled fact by a federal judge in Lucyv.Richards.
An open question remains whether the suing parties would need to suppress any countervailing evidence. This is largely because over five years after the Sandy Hook massacre event Jones still routinely exhibits uncertainty on whether or not the shooting was real. It is with this suggestion of “actual malice” that he is setting himself up for an untenable position before a jury.
Sullivanv.NewYorkTimes defined actual malice as a primary requisite for a plaintiff to prevail in bringing a defamation suit. In that famous episode the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement with factual inaccuracies produced by 1960s civil rights advocates and carried in the Times had not been published with actual malice. The court ruled that under the given circumstances the newspaper’s staff did not run the ad either 1) knowing it was false, or 2) with reckless disregard for the truth.
In the cases at hand Jones’ would-be confusion about Sandy Hook began just hours after the alleged shooting itself, when Jones, perhaps anticipating the mixed orientation of his audience toward the incident, expressed confusion over exactly what took place in Newtown. At the same time, and without any real evidence, he used anonymous callers’ observations to label the event a probable “false flag.” This ambiguity would continue for more than five years.
In the months and years thereafter substantial evidence emerged suggesting the “massacre” was probably a FEMA drill overseen by the Obama administration and presented as an actual attack to lay the groundwork for strengthening gun control legislation. Some of this data was compiled in the book edited by Professor Jim Fetzer, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
Instead of inviting Fetzer on to his radio program following the book’s publication and subsequent censorship by Amazon.com in late 2015, Jones ran in the other direction, actually deleting a story by Infowars writer Adan Salazar from his website and thus in effect joining forces with Amazon to suppress that title’s revelations.
Jones conflicted stance toward Sandy Hook is now even mirrored in his attorney Marc Randazza’s public remarks. “We are going to be mounting a strong First Amendment defense and look forward to this being resolved in a civil and collegial manner,” Jones’ counsel Randazza explained to the New York Times, where he continues to note “that Mr. Jones has ‘a great deal of compassion for these parents.'”
Such a statement suggests how the Sandy Hook official narrative as defined by the media (and in the minds of any potential jury member) is shared by the defendant himself and his own legal team.
University of Texas law professor David Anderson contends that Jones’ repeated waffling on Sandy Hook makes him especially vulnerable.
What I understand is that he’ll say these things at one point, and then later on, he’ll say, “Of course I know that wasn’t true.” If he says things, and then says he knows it wasn’t true, he’s in trouble. If he consistently says, “I never claimed that to be true,” then he’s probably on more solid ground.
Because Jones’ confusing array of broadcast utterances on Sandy Hook are all a matter of public record it will not be difficult for the “prosecution” to demonstrate Jones’ confusion amounts to a “reckless disregard for truth.”
Further, since Jones’ public persona precedes him and given the fact that jurors are often impressionable and will surely not be avid “Infowarriors,” plaintiffs’ counsel will likely find it easy to depict Jones as a devious and malicious actor. Unfortunately, these are all a jury needs to be fed to affirm the parents’ claims.
Jones’ uncertainty on the Sandy Hook massacre is especially unusual for a figure who is the self-proclaimed “founding father of the 9/11 truth movement,” and who for over two decades been the country’s most prominent “conspiracy theorist.”
Moreover, Jones strongly-voiced political opinions in many areas is what his fans find most appealing. In light of this the broadcaster has waffled so much on Sandy Hook that it’s difficult not to believe that he isn’t a pre-designated foil in a broader play to defeat what’s left of speech freedoms in the United States. It’s at least for certain that Jones is not any truth movement’s most desirable ally.
Editor’s Note: In our view this is not a terribly surprising development. As we have recently noted here, whether it is a matter of being compromised himself or playing the role of an agent provocateur in the Truth community to short circuit research efforts for “the other side,” Jones has been consistently inconsistent and even misleading in statements and analyses of numerous complex events, only one of which is the Newtown Connecticut school massacre. Perhaps this is why an increasing number of his fans and even employees have walked away from “Operation Infowars.”
Instead of attacking the Sandy Hook parents who are bringing a lawsuit against him for defamation–because he has (from time to time) asserted that Sandy Hook was fake and that no children died (which implies that they are BIG TIME liars and frauds)–he has wimped out by making an appeal to pity, which is the elementary fallacy of using the unfortunate consequences of something being true as though it were proof that it’s actually false! He’s not going to get away with it–but why even try?
Sensing weakness–since truth is an absolute defense against defamation, but Alex is not arguing that his observations about Sandy Hook fakery are true–Lenny Pozner and Neil Heslin are not going to back down, even though they are (in the process) opening themselves up to discovery, which would provide an opportunity to establish the fact of Sandy Hook as an elaborate charade in a court of law. Neil Heslin, for example, longs for “a knock-down, drag out fight”, which Alex ought to give him:
As it happens, I have been sending Infowars.com contacts, including Jerry Corsi, samples of proof that it was a staged event–a two-day FEMA exercise, with a rehearsal on the 13th, going LIVE on the14th–but received a cordial dismissal from Corsi and passive reception from others there–which is rather astonishing, since we have proven that the school was closed by 2008 and there were no students there. I recently made a summary overview of the history of research on Sandy Hook:
It began when Ole Dammegard sent me an email a correspondent of long-standing had sent him, which indicated that the “March for Our Lives” had been planned months in advance of the Parkland shooting that had “officially” motivated the march, which would have been required anticipatory knowledge that it was going to happen and therefore impugn the authenticity of the event itself. Here is the email Ole received, which includes the Officer Earhardt’s email address and contact information:
At this point in time, our collaborative research has demonstrated that the Parkland shooting was a staged event, which involved the use of simulated munitions (“simunition”), which explains how it was possible for students who had been shot to experience miraculous recoveries–because they were not shot with AR-15 .223 high-velocity rounds, but with simulated bullets made out of bee’s wax and laundry detergent! When we apply the Principle of Charity to the witnesses, the pieces of the puzzle fall into place: