Smallstorm and Fetzer on Sandy Hook, Fukushima, RF Radiation

Sofia Smallstorm offers a detailed discussion of her recent video presentation, Unraveling Sandy Hook, on Professor Jim Fetzer’s The Real Deal radio program.

The edition aired on Friday November 15 and is also available for listening and comment at The Real Deal’s blog here.

Download mp3

101 thoughts on “Smallstorm and Fetzer on Sandy Hook, Fukushima, RF Radiation”

  1. I had the intuitive feeling right after I realized this event was a hoax (I did so very early) that this was an even that went bad. I think Smallstorm is on the right track. One way to explain this is that the participants are hired by the CIA (or some agency acting in secret) for life and forbidden to disclose this fact. They are bound by contract for life, many are probably born into families who have done this for generations.

      1. Yes, I noticed that too. Not a mark on the walls or furniture. Look at the “Adam” bedroom furniture. Pretty cheesy for rich people. Notice the “Zombi Adam” photo on the “Technical Club” I.D.. Perfect!

        I like to point out that if the “evidence” were believable the point of the operation would be lost. We must believe the unbelievable, that’s the point.

        1. That makes things start to make more sense.

          With respect to the LAX shooting, did you notice that the there were pictures of two very obviously different men being posted as Ciancia?
          At one point on google news, both pictures were posted simultaneously. It’s still very hard to understand how most people don’t seem to notice these things.

        2. Violeta, yes I did. That was another “operation”. They’re coming fast and furious now. These things are not intended to be “studied”. They are all about “impressions” and emotion. While your eyes are missing the fact that “seeing is not believing” there is a comforting narrative describing what they want you to take away.

          Again, it is a form of hypnosis. It is intended to put you to sleep, not to wake you up.

        3. One thing that make no sense in the story is that he bothered to take out the HD out of the computer and smash it with that very manly dumbbell!? Why not just blast the whole computer with bullets, it’s not like he was afraid of shooting indoors (according to the MSM story).

          About the furniture, they do strike me as a bit “hotel like” in appearance. Although I do know that rich folks aren’t always big spenders, the impression is that the home seems very undecorated, I find that is odd for a home where a woman is the only adult in charge. If Adams mom was such a loving and caring person I do not think she’d let him live in a boring place like that! And why is he having such an old and small TV set? (looks like one in a economy hotel room)

          And it is noticeable that all the artifacts that are key in the MSM story are placed so anyone can see them.

        4. Lophatt,

          I couldn’t agree more with your observations. The “Zombie ID” picture of Adam is “perfect,” as you note. It is perfectly positioned in that photo exclusively for the masses because there is nothing else in any of the pictures to connect “Adam Lanza” to the “massacre.” Everything else in what is purported to be photos of the residence at 36 Yogananda Street looks staged. The card, the made bed, the “violent” video games symmetrically aligned on the table… they are visuals presented to support the mass hypnosis.

      2. And notice that “Nancy Lanza the Prepper” did not have so much as an extra water bottle, much less the basement full of canned goods, water jugs, fuel, and other supplies that real preppers maintain.

  2. Present in the Sandy Hook story where the homes are concerned: SIRVA

    From the Forum for Expatriate Management service directory:
    “A leading worldwide provider of relocation and moving solutions, SIRVA, Inc. ( provides more than 230,000 relocations per year to corporations, government employees, and individual consumers. The Company delivers the best mobility experience at the lowest total cost to relocate through complete management of the global supply chain, the world’s leading global operations, industry-leading risk management processes, and full accountability and transparency of all costs. SIRVA’s brands include Allied, Allied International, Allied Pickfords, Allied Special Products, DJK Residential, Global, northAmerican, northAmerican International, SIRVA Mortgage, SIRVA Relocation, SIRVA Move Management, SIRVA Global Relocation, Inc. and SIRVA Settlement.”
    (from the SIRVA website:)
    Government, Civilian and Military Customers Trust SIRVA to Handle Their Relocation Needs
    We know that relocation is never easy – for transferees or their employers – we strive to make every military relocation as smooth as possible for everyone involved.
    GovernmentSIRVA offers a full suite of services for the Federal Government, all customized to meet the government’s regulatory requirements. As an approved contractor under the GSA Schedule 48 Relocation Services contract, SIRVA has assisted with the relocation of thousands of federal employees and their families. SIN 653-1 Home Sale Services
    SIRVA’s Home Sale Assistance program is designed to secure a sale on the employee’s home in the shortest period of time, at a fair market value, and with the least amount of inconvenience to the transferring family.

    SIN 653-4 Additional Services
    Property Management Services – Property Management assists employees on temporary or permanent assignment inside or outside of the United States who prefer to retain rather than sell their homes.

    SIN 653-5 Employee Relocation Services – Agency Customization Services
    Buyer Value Option (BVO) – This is a Home Sale Assistance program without the option of a guaranteed offer to purchase by SIRVA Relocation. This option is offered as one method to assist the government in improving transferee home sale rates and overall transfer time by providing employees, who otherwise would market their home on their own, with professional home sale guidance and complete program assistance.

    SIN 653-5 Special Handling Properties Pricing
    This service accommodates some homes that would not normally fall within the Authority SIN 653-1.

    SIN 653-7 Move Management Services
    SIRVA will manage the packing, shipment, storage-in-transit if needed and delivery of your employee’s household goods. The SIRVA Counselor will monitor the entire process and maintain communication and a coordination role with the employee and carrier until the shipment is complete.
    SIRVA manages multiple networks of agents (Allied Van Lines, North American Van Lines, and Global Van Lines) that provide professional, timely, and worry-free for our valued government accounts.

    Mortgage Services
    Your transferees deserve exceptional service when shopping for a mortgage and as the industry leader — SIRVA Mortgage delivers. Ranked #1 in client satisfaction among national mortgage providers,* SIRVA Mortgage delivers a level of excellence that ensures you and your transferees receive the best mobility experience.

    1. Just because people have Geiger counters don’t mean they know how to use them properly. I do not know if they do or don’t, I just want to make that point. From what I understand, and I am not en expert, to get a true reading one must test some substances in solution!?

    2. CENSORED on the Newtown Patch today:

      BTW – Did anybody notice that Adam Lanza made his bed before going to Sandy Hook School?

      You are correct. Any evidence validating multiple assailants is deleted. The picture of the SWAT guy caught at the scene hiding in the woods always gets deleted too. Too bad huh ?
      Here he is apparently: This is a rather well done documentary on the subject that I found. There can really be little doubt that there were multiple assailants. If there were legitimate reasons for these other subjects to be in the area then why are all of the relevant facts about them being concealed ? To my knowledge not a single identified individual has witnessed Lanza shooting a gun at the school or any where else for that matter. The “apparent” circumstances as we know them are very suspicious. Lanza was found dead at the school, his neighbor was caught running away and confronted on Crestwood ? Another individual fleeing with Lanza’s neighbor toward Crestwood escapes ? Armed SWAT guy caught in the woods? Neighbor that was caught apparently has a daughter in Roig’s class which was not attacked (unconfirmed)? School nurse identified shooter as kindergarten teachers son and goes into great detail that she knew his mother? Tony Aiello reports shooter was recognized as son of colleague ? CNN reports Federal Agents stated shooter was connected to school? No questions or concerns from anybody ? The Sally Cox 911 call will almost certainly corroborate exactly what happened but the call is being concealed by Sedensky for no legitimate purpose. Andrea McCarren and nurse Sally Cox refuse to clarify what transpired between their conversation. Why ? Did Andrea make all that up Tony Aiello’s report corroborates the shooter was the son on a teacher. 4:15 on this video Lt Vance avoids answering the question if the shooter’s mother is affiliated with the school: Keep in mind also points others have made are very valid that Lanza had no motive, no history of violence or anger outbursts and no verifiable history with firearms proficiency at all. I also find it suspect that Nance Lanza would go all the way to a gun store 70 miles away to buy a very common place gun available at most any gun store locally. These are fair fact based legitimate issues and questions please make intelligent responses and refrain from name calling. The children and other victims deserve answers. For the Children please.

  3. I don’t have time to listen to this interview right now. I watched Smallstorm’s video and I think it’s great. Gordon Duff states in this video beneath that he is deliberately publishing false information on Veterans Today.

    Dr. Kevin Barrett and Dr. James H. Fetzer are editors on this site. Will anyone explain to me here how these gentleman’s broadcasts are in any way valid at this point?

        1. Thank you for the responses. I see no defense of the Veterans Today staff here. I don’t think a defense is possible. Purposely broadcasting false information invalidates any news source and anyone on staff there. Ms. Smallstorm and Prof. Tracy, I think it’s clearly wrong to work with the Veterans Today group in light of Gordon Duff’s statement.

        2. If we were to boycott news sources that broadcast false information, then we bury our heads in the sand, or possibly run to the wilderness never to hear news again. Do not agree with the blatant stand the VT has taken on one issue, clearly they are hell bent on that. Do believe that when Sandy Hook turned my world upside down with the reality of the lies taking place, they dared to post articles that confirmed my gut instinct and possibly could of been my first confirmation of the sad truth. Every outlet has their own political goals, skip over the bs and glean what truth is there. When a news story captivates all headlines, know which outlets to go to witness what the gov propaganda is spinning.

    1. I scanned the Veterans Today masthead, speaker’s list and contributing writers for the blog; was left with many questions. Vast array of intel, military wigs, dissident types. I recognized a few. Jeff Rense: serious?
      Why did they leave out Alex Jones??? Like so many online sites, they seem preoccupied with Israel. Ever stop to wonder why? Could be because nothing stirs up the dander like a piece exposing Israel in another naughty, clandestine caper. They are always up to something.

      No other country is so predisposed to such unsavory hijinks–you think???

  4. Hullo Memory Hole. I have followed the Sandy Hook incident since the first day. Today I have attempted to watch : “Sofia Smallstorm’s “Unraveling Sandy Hook” video, but am unable to understand the dialogue due to the very annoying music (sic ) background. Is the video available without the background music? Thank you, Kevin Stiller, Brisbane.

    1. The presentation was given in front of a live audience. Typically, when you write for a live audience, the first few minutes of a work are almost like a preview — to allow people to come in late, settle down, and get ready for the show. Think back to the movies you have seen in theaters … same thing. The first few minutes are not that vital; you can miss them. In this case, the Nutcracker “Waltz of the Flowers” was chosen to accompany an unknown commentary appended (by someone on YouTube) to a bus-ride video to the Sandy Hook school. Classical pieces can have an extreme volume range, from barely audible notes to tremendous crescendos. Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker is a very popular Christmas composition, which goes hand in hand with the timing of the Sandy Hook event. The point is for you to simply take in the intro, not necessarily cling to or hear every word the commentator says, allow the music to carry you (whether you like classical or not — and for those who do, the Waltz of the Flowers is an extraordinary piece), and get to the last few words, which you are certainly bound to hear as they are extremely clear, with an accompanying call-out in text.

      To be technical, there was an odd background drone added to the narrated commentary, which couldn’t be removed and fought against the waltz, so my choice was to raise the volume of the music and let it dominate. The reality is that many people today have no experience of classical music and find it annoying, despite the beauty of this particular piece.

      1. While I very much appreciated the video and the interview, I think it important to realize that people take these things at whatever level they find them. Just as those of us who know that “The 9-11 Movie” was a hoax, we don’t have to be reminded of all the things that point to that conclusion.

        On the other hand, not everyone has landed in that camp yet. I think the concentration on the “purpose” of the operation is crucial. Even for those who struggle with relatively simple plots, when one is dealing with “cognitive dissonance” on this scale, it can be difficult to stay focused.

        I and some others studied this at length over some time. Not everyone was “in the same place” all the time. Some ideas come easily to some and not so easily to others. To me it is very clearly a mind-control operation. All of the disassociated images with the authoritative incongruous narrative that the “media” droned on with throughout was not accidental.

        When one’s mind cannot process what one’s eyes are seeing their brains desperately need an explanation. It is a form of hypnosis. As you point out repeatedly, people are NOT thinking about this. They are processing it emotionally and in a somewhat altered state.

        If there is a benefit from this it may lie in the fact that this is an example of at least one of the ways they intend to control us. Manipulation of “reality” is something that has been studied for a long while. This drill, I think, is designed to see how far they can go with creating a reality and influencing a modeled behavior.

        The Boston Operation was much the same. Lots of “emotion”, lots of unlikely events. The amputations were presented as almost desirable. So, you are correct that it is a “death cult”. It is death to the human spirit and to free will.

        1. @lophatt, would you expand on this:
          “If there is a benefit from this it may lie in the fact that this is an example of at least one of the ways they intend to control us. Manipulation of “reality” is something that has been studied for a long while. This drill, I think, is designed to see how far they can go with creating a reality and influencing a modeled behavior.”

          This is very interesting, but I can’t figure out where they are trying to take us to. Do you think death to the human spirit and to free will is the only purpose?

        2. Violeta, yes. “The death of free will”, that’s what they’re after. Death of the human spirit, ultimately. At the risk of sounding droll, there are many levels to these operations and the central “plan” in general.

          For centuries religion was the primary source of acceptable behavior and for use in forming a conscious. So, if you analyze this from different perspectives you come to see that there is an overall goal here. There are many “players” with different roles. Most do not know why they are being asked to do what they are doing. Some do.

          Most, if not all, are primarily motivated by self-interest. Let’s call them the “users” or “opportunists”. Each, in their way, sees themselves as on a level above the common “Eater”. That’s us.

          Sometimes, their insatiable appetite overloads the tolerance level of the average eater and there is a fracas. What these drills are primarily designed to do is to redefine or condition us to a new level of acceptance. This acceptance must be built upon another standard besides religion or normative current social behavior.

          The training involves reveling in one’s suffering. It involves characterizing personal goals and desires as “selfish”. In SHE the primary goal was the modeling. Under the supposed worst scenario imaginable, they modeled a sick, unnatural form of “loving acceptance”. It isn’t real acceptance. It isn’t normal. But that is what is expected of a “good global citizen” in their twisted world.

          I probably don’t have to say this but I will anyway. These operations NEVER are for one purpose only. They don’t put all their eggs in one basket. The obvious things, like the gun confiscation, are “gimmes”. But like good magicians everywhere, while you’re distracted the real lesson is on full display.

          This is why it is so implausible. It HAS to be implausible for them to know if they succeeded or not. If it was believable what would that accomplish? It would be very easy to simply manufacture evidence in support of their story. Notice that they do not. The point is that you BELIEVE the “authorities” when they tell you something is “true”.

          There are dozens of other twists and turns in this but I think that Sophia’s video really helped clear the air on the primary motive. The Boston thing was more of the same. Relishing amputation. It is “heroic” to be an amputee. Of course, like all of the others, there are a number of other sub-plots going on simultaneously. There is the Fourth Amendment destruction. There was the “shelter in place” meme. But, the spookiest of all were the so-called amputees. Smiling, happy amputees.

          So no, I don’t think that is the ONLY purpose. I think that is the primary purpose. They want their slaves obedient. The only possible way to control that many people is by using other eaters as watchers. They must condition them to do their dirty work. To do that they must abandon their own ideas of morality and preferred behavior.

        3. Just as a post-script to my reply, I’m afraid I won’t be understood properly. ALL of the implications are important. To me, the most important is the death of freedom and personal potential.

          None of this should be effective. It will not stand exposure. If, however, we are preconditioned to watch dully and not think about what we are seeing we can be lulled into a mindless acceptance.

          I see these operations as the physical manifestation of all the studies they’ve done on mind-control and psychology over the years. This is applied mind-control.

          So, I too have feelings about all the various insults to our “personhood” that operations like this represent. The enormity, however, can be lost if we only see the obvious. The fact that they are actually doing this at all, and with some success, is frightening.

        4. But do you think that the mind control is only for those who don’t realize that these things aren’t really happening? I have to think there is some type of mind control for those of us who know about the hoax….. but what, or should I ask how?

        5. It doesn’t work when you know what you are looking at. It only has power when you are arrested and for that instant your brain is trying to make sense of what you are seeing or hearing someone else supplies the narrative.

          When they were doing their experiments with the MK Ultra program, they tried various means to put a person in the “right” frame of mind to be receptive. Torture (both emotional and physical) works, for example. That is generally impractical in the scenarios we are seeing. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done.

          There are experiments using frequencies and lights for example. These are attempts to get your brain to “disconnect” long enough for someone else to interject a desired “solution” for your temporary dissonance.

          So, if someone gets all beside themselves over the thought of murdered kids or amputees their brains are searching for something to make sense of it all. That’s the state that is desirable for those who want to control your thoughts.

          If someone were captured and held they could be subjected to techniques that would have the same effect, or worse. What we’ve been talking about with these operations is more benign. Sometimes the effects are more effective if a subject has been prepared over time. Once you see through this and mentally refuse to cooperate it doesn’t work.

          I hope I understand your question. I don’t believe there is a way for them to involuntarily influence someone via media, etc., if they won’t cooperate. It is the mental state they are after. If you are angry because someone is trying to manipulate you (which is healthy), it is unlikely there is much they can do to get past that.

          This is one of the reasons that make people who aren’t very “grounded”, the “seekers” and such so vulnerable. For all their efforts these type of operations are rather crude. They have a “hook”. If you don’t bite they don’t work.

          They are aimed at people who are likely to say “oh my God, its so scary out there. Somebody do something”. In other words the type who expects others to solve their problems for them. In essence they just want to go suck their thumbs and be irresponsible. Sometimes being “powerless” is an excuse for being irresponsible.

          In fairness this approach has been spoon fed in small portions over a very long time. It too is a conditioned response. I remember seeing footage of purges by the Cheka in the USSR. There were two or three armed soldiers and hordes of people they were executing. They politely lined up and allowed themselves to be killed. It was unbelievable but there it was. Wouldn’t you think someone would at least try to rush them and maybe some would escape? No, being powerless somehow, was more important than life itself.

        6. “This is why it is so implausible. It HAS to be implausible for them to know if they succeeded or not. If it was believable what would that accomplish? It would be very easy to simply manufacture evidence in support of their story. Notice that they do not. The point is that you BELIEVE the “authorities” when they tell you something is “true”.”

          A truly excellent observation lophatt.

          Later, in a follow up, you say:

          ” Once you see through this and mentally refuse to cooperate it doesn’t work.”

          The problem is, very few even WANT to refuse to cooperate. We, who do, are weird outliers.

          The reason it works is because almost everyone believes what they see on TV. The man on the street, of course, will deny that he’s completely accepting of propaganda, swallowing it whole every time. He has his pride, after all. But when you tell him that no one died at Sandy Hook, indeed, the building itself wasn’t even an active school, he’ll say you are nuts. He’ll mention the points of evidence he saw on TV. If you tell him all the so-called “evidence” he was told about on TV could easily have been planted, that he was never shown any proof something actually happened–indeed, that there’s no hard evidence Adam Lanza even existed–he’ll call you a “conspiracy theorist” and stop paying attention to you; perhaps he’ll never listen to you ever again. The taint of the magic words “conspiracy kook” is very powerful medicine.

          I’ve had more than one non-skeptic respond to my comments about 911 in almost the exact same words: “But I saw it happen.” It took me a while to formulate the correct rejoinder: I didn’t know you were in Lower Manhattan that morning; what an astonishing coincidence. And what are the chances that, with all those street-canyons lined with extremely tall buildings, most angles of observation being completely blocked, you happened to be in a spot that provided a direct line of sight! And, compounding that amazing improbability, you were actually looking up (or out a window at the towers) at the exact right time! What caused you to stick around, watching for hours, to take the whole event in? Weren’t you afraid?

          Of course, almost no one saw 911 happen, and no one I know was amongst them. What you saw, I tell the non-skeptic who didn’t really see it happen, was a TV show.

          Don’t believe everything you see on TV. People don’t think they do–they pride themselves on it. But when it really counts, they do. And because they’re so smart, because they know when they are being lied to, when you tell them that they were hoodwinked, it is received as a personal attack, on a deeply subconscious level.

          In Wag the Dog, when the CIA finally figures out the president’s game, and ends the phony war, Dustin Hoffman is beside himself; it’s MY war, and I haven’t ended it–It can’t end till I say so!, he rants. It’s over, Robert De Nero tells him: I saw it on TV.

        7. Hi Lophatt,
          I see what you mean in your statement,”Once you see through this and mentally refuse to cooperate it doesn’t work.

          I hope I understand your question. I don’t believe there is a way for them to involuntarily influence someone via media, etc., if they won’t cooperate. It is the mental state they are after.

          However, I can’t believe that they don’t have a net to catch the ones who have their guard up. What could the net be? Maybe it is nothing more than what Col. Bat said….gaslighting, which term I had never heard before. It is very shameful to doubt, shameful and uncaring.

          It is frightening to believe they are actually carrying these hoaxes out.
          It’s also frightening to think that those carrying them out are those exposing them.

          I have seen something similar to the death of free will with respect to vaccinations. Parents who do not want to vaccinate their children have been called all sorts of negative names, even when their child has already had a bad to reaction to a vaccine. “They” have even referred to mankind as “the herd”, and saying that it’s very rude of those refusing vaccinations and that they should take them for the sake of the herd.
          No one person is of value, but at the same time we are supposed to place all value on the herd. Just another way to kill free will and individual value. However, if you destroy individual value, add it all together for a herd, the herd doesn’t really have any value.

        8. Patrick, all good insights and I totally agree. It is very frustrating. Perhaps we need to recognize that changing some things is not possible. In the end we may have to content ourselves with “knowing”.

          On the other hand, the more “knowers” the better. I think there are a substantial number of fence-sitters out there. They know something is wrong. They know people are trying to manipulate them. We may be able to help them.

          We will never overcome that great herd out there. If we know that the goal should be developing strategies for living with that reality. If we can make meaningful changes we should do that. If something is truly beyond our control we should recognize that and adjust accordingly.

          At the end of the day what’s important is that we live our lives in accordance with our own standards and morality. If someone tries to impose things on us that are counter to that we should become like cats. Every try to herd cats?

        9. Sandy Hook… Boston…. the surviving “victims” are quick to accept, quick to forgive, void of the the natural phases one goes through in the face of such “tragedy,” while the accepting public is just as quick to offer up the $ to fill their coffers and apply the “lunatic” label to those who dare to question. The donation and Facebook pages serve as the magicians’ measuring stick of the events. Welcome to the monkey house.

        10. LoPhatt I’ve read your posts this far and below and I am very impressed! I do not know your background, but it seems you have some knowledge of psychology. Isn’t what you describe a form of “Gaslighting”? I usually think of society as a self absorbed parent – always manipulating and never content!

          “Gaslighting” should work fine on groups of people too I think. Since we are social animals the ones choosing not to be submissive will end up lonely and die out, or be shunned (media is working hard on this shunning process I think – “It is shameful to doubt”). Sooner or later most will conform. The most “nice” and social have already conformed. Our most human traits are used against us.

        11. Thanks all. In rereading what I’ve written I note that I haven’t done an adequate job of explaining what I intended. I was trying to answer Violeta’s question (and not doing a very good job!).

          We all know this is a very big subject and looking at any small part of it somewhat out of context makes it easy to be misunderstood. I did not intent to convey the idea that I thought this was “ineffective”. It is very effective. That is not so much due to the skill involved in applying these techniques as it is in the conditioning and general receptivity of the target audience.

          As “The Col.” points out, most people are definitely followers. In them the herd instinct is strong. It is more important to “belong” than to know. Given the choice they would willingly ignore the evidence of their own eyes in favor of the “authorities” pronouncements.

          This is why, at least by my definition, most people never reach adulthood. They want to be taken care of and told what to do. This tendency is well beyond our ability to change that. It can be improved, but I don’t think it will change.

          Some would call this “human nature”. I’m not so sure I’m one of them. What it really boils down to is that there are those who are “users”, there are those who are used, and there are us (probably at this site) who want to be left alone to figure it all out on our own.

          What I should have said in answer to Violeta’s question is; “none of us here at this site have anything to worry about in terms of being manipulated against our wills”. As discussed later, above, that doesn’t mean that the vast majority of people aren’t extremely effected by these things.

          As an example, an otherwise very intelligent guy who I work with was totally devastated by SHE. It took a long time and careful discussion with him to come around to the point where he now knows it was a hoax. He was absolutely captured by the emotion of it. His thinking was not rational.

          I don’t really have a “cure” for this. I think a huge step would be to turn off the TEE VEE. That is undoubtedly the single biggest source of mass manipulation there is.

        12. I’m not as resigned to dying out for not being submissive.

          I would imagine that many of us here have had some experience which served as an initiation into the mystery of selfhood, when clear self reliance was needed, when we had to keep our own counsel in order to survive and rescue would not be coming.

          In my opinion that inner-directed spirit, not common in our times, much more common among pioneers, motivates us to look around the scenery more than most people do, because if (as at first blush it seemed) these truly horrific things actually happened, then our very survival is at stake.

          If they didn’t happen as they were reported, then there are some very sinister puppet-masters trying to control society – the Boston Strong contingents like Fidelity for instance, which put out its posters almost immediately advertising themselves as such, along with institutions which put out that slogan on a flag in front of a building they control – the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, full of billions of dollars worth of impressionist paintings.

          There’s serious money behind the campaign in Boston. And what are their purposes? It behooves someone in Boston to know, doesn’t it?

          I do know that a Chinese person I spoke with invoked the name of Bo Xilai when I linked the events of the Marathon to the trial of Whitey Bulger (his minions actually poisoned a witness with cyanide before he could be called to trial —- oh dear, said the press, just a coincidence — no important testimony would be elicited from him). Kind of like the last line of Chinatown. I suppose the difference is that people around Whitey died, or so it seems, but people in these events did not. Is there any overlap? Or does it just seem like that because both Bulger and Tsarnaev are tried in the same federal courthouse. Which trial is more of a sham?

          You can get into the tall weeds here. But I think my take-away from Boston is that the dregs of gangland meet up with the highest levels of wealth. And that somehow it is both an old story and a new one, with new techniques for achieving power. Gone is the day for me of earnest pity and sympathy for victims of alleged events, the tendency to offer charity money.

          I take to the sidelines and refuse to do anything but listen, as an old time Freudian listens to a delusional patient rambling on. I cannot be a peer with the believers, today’s patients. I have had my initiation, my analysis if you will. They evidently have not. Nevertheless I am geographically thrust into the center of this stuff, almost forced to play along.

          (I only use the Freudian as a metaphor – it too partook of fantasy, but I identify myself with the quiet listener sitting by the couch while the patient rambles on – be it a dinner party conversation, a reaction to more news about the non-event from a spouse, whoever credits this stuff with truth — I am hearing the make-believe play of small children trying to deal with phenomena they cannot understand yet — I can only hope that they finally do — once again, firemen and policemen are their heroes, which is kind of indicative of regression isn’t it?).

          I still remain curious about whether someone will approach me and try to convince me that it’s all smoke and mirrors. I know a lot of smart people. So far, that hasn’t happened.

          Oh, by the way my plane was recently delayed in DC because it was getting its picture taken with firefighters at the airport, and firetrucks were giving it a welcome with streams of water. Its “livery” was red, and NYFD was on its tail. There was NOTHING on the plane that said 9/11 – but the announcement was that this was to honor 911 First Responders (actually Jet Blue has a lot of liveries with different New York themes – its hub), and everybody murmured “9/11” like good hypnotic subjects. I said I hoped this didn’t jinx the plane and I cried out “Idolatry!” like the good Puritan I am (minus the witchcraft delusion).

  5. Thank you Ms. Smallstorm, you are amazing for the depth of knowledge you have. While you and Mr. Hunt may bring some folks to this site that claim to live there to comment, they have nothing else to add other than asking what proof do we have and what about the other characters reported?. Our evidence of a crime is that there is none. Except, as noted in the comments on your video and most recently on the Thom Hartmann comment by Makky video by Max Molene, the limited seconds of video of the school clearly display it is in ruins. And thank you John Luv, the key is the Chalk Hill, long ago abandoned school was the one actually ground up to dust! Now they have 50 million to build a new school, can we possibly keep it under budget?

  6. Another thorough (and thorough cannot be overstated) investigative piece by Sofia Smallstorm. Very chilling re inplications that the military/industrial complex has been given carte blanche to do whatever it damn-well pleases–in Navy parlance with the usual bravado: “Damn the torpedos; full speed ahead!” All for security purposes, of course.

    The rape of earth’s oceans is being blamed on public consumption. An easy dodge. The truth is, much like the TSA’s trendy body scanners, contrators see a “need” and happily fill it with bogus apparatus or scams. Government money is just too easy to pilfer; the Pentagon budget exceeds the combined treasury of several small countries. And no one seems to be minding the books. However, one cannot dismiss the abject waste involved in demands for shark fin soup. Greenpeace should be on top of that outrage.

    1. “And no one seems to be minding the books.”


  7. Marilyn, my posts responding to Rick are censored so it looks like Rick is responding to no one. The Club OF Rome is legit on CC. The temps weren’t overstated. As the planets requiem proceeds I hope you will be proud you became part of the denier disinfo claims that our children & their children will be terrorized by.

    1. Mr. Gary, those who contribute here do so with the understanding that “Comments are Subject to Moderation.”

      You have 1) initially referenced MHB as a site where “paranoia” is exhibited, 2) Repeatedly called myself and others on the blog “climate deniers” while preaching climate alarmism, and 3) the website url link you have provided is dead. These together suggest “troll” and your comments are treated accordingly.

  8. I don’t like to view videos, being an obsolete print person, so I just saw the last video between Alex Jones and Hartmann. Alex Jones was marvelous. Is he always this good, even with his shirt on? If so, his renown among his adherents is certainly deserved. Not watching videos, I didn’t distinguish his views sufficiently from theirs.

    Hartmann was the usual fake liberal-socialist who Proclaims an opposition while trying to funnel his dupes into the authorized Lefitsh consensus, hopefully the Dem party.

    However. And this bears on the current discussion. With Rich, I think climate change is probably real. There are two aspects. The first, and the most likely according to the scientific consensus, is that the earth’s climate is heating up. To what extent is arguable, and it is argued.

    The second aspect is more debatable, namely that this heating is due to industrial pollution. What James calls anthropogenic. The question is what role does this pollution play relative to the natural variability of the earth’s climate throughout geological history. This is a very complicated question.

    I don’t do complicated, just the simple truth. Although I have a background in math, I don’t know the science necessary to discuss it reasonably, so my views are Faith-based, like the majority of Memory Hole commenters.

    I think that the scientific consensus is somewhat more credible than the Exxon consensus and its money. Industrial pollution does indeed play a large role in smog and other climate changes, so it may be reasonable to extend the notion to world climate change.

    Or maybe not. I don’t really know. But its a very serious question and we have to consider the varying consequences, and that is the way I would lay my money.

    1. Hi, Mark,

      For what it may be worth, on climate change:

      The introduction to the video reads in part as follows:

      “The IPCC has released its latest assessment of the state of climate science, and this time it’s even more dire than their 2007 assessment. Global warming is “unequivocal” and humans are the “dominant cause” to a certainty of 95%. But how are these uncertainties calculated? And how does the IPCC process work anyway?”

      The issue is to my mind a long way from being settled.

      Personally, and this is admitedly merely my own prejudice on the matter, I think that climate is far more complex than the ‘science’ is currently fit to grasp.

      I live in a part of North America where I am told the ice sheet once rose about a mile straight up over my head, and spread out a thousand miles to the north, east, and west of where I live, and hundreds of miles south. This ice is now at least 12,000 years gone, and it doesn’t require much by way of insight to understand that there’s been a lot of consistent warming over many tens of thousands of years to melt all of that ice, and that it may well be that we are still in the grip of that warming trend. I also think it is safe to say that whatever the cause of the most recent de-glaciation of the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere, it was not anthropogenic to a certainty of at least 95%, eh. Climate is variable, whatever effect humans may be having on it, whether in the short or long term. I also note that with the recent de-glaciation, as catastrophic as that may have been for certain biological species that might have adapted to the conditions of the then ice age, much land surface was since made available to other species to proliferate over a greater surface of the earth.

      There are worse catastrophes than a warming climate, and more imminent. I’m thinking NATO and its wonderful wars and things like that.

      I hope you enjoy the presentation from Corbett.

    2. Perhaps we might ask ourselves, “Are climates inherently static?”

      The notion of there being a “scientific consensus” among climatologists needs to be more closely examined. The two studies I’ve looked at alleging such a consensus that are referenced by those on the left to frighten those who might question the “science” are riddled with qualifiers and dubious methods of analysis, not to mention very deep-pocketed sponsors.

      1. Climates are not inherently static. They are in constant flux. To also suggest that that this is part of the ” normal” warming trend is idiotic. You argue that ice decay has happened in the past, why shouldn’t it happen again. It’s not the fact that there is’s because of the RATE. Smarten up.

        And these dubious methods of analysis, Mr. Scientist, what would they be? Go ahead, Professor, speak in hard language rather than these platitudes you and your flock love.

        1. Hi Betty,

          No sure who you are addressing, but since you make a reference to ‘ice,’ I’m assuming it’s me.

          Implicit in my observation that the ice sheet that had enveloped much of the area known as Canada today and to a thickness of ‘miles’ in some places, and that it was all gone some 12,000 years ago, speaks to both an obvious ‘direction’ and ‘rate of direction’ in temperature. In geological terms, which is what is at issue, here, all that ‘ice’ disappeared in the blink of an eye (this is a direct nod to ‘rate,’ Betty). Furthermore, the rapid rate of increasing temperature was obviously not induced by anything that humans were doing back then, when the temperature rose abruptly, causing that de-glaciation. So we at least have an obvious instance when the ‘rate was rapid’ and humans were not the underlying factor of that rapid rate of change.

          So I’m glad that we agree that ‘climate’ is not inherently static. That, too, was a fairly explicit assumption in my post. But sometimes people miss other people’s purport.

          As for the ‘rate’ of climate change being the issue, that would imply at a very elementary level of logic that a) the normal, natural rate of climate change was a known and unambiguously understood ‘fact’ and that b) the current ‘rate’ of change was being measured against the backdrop of that known ‘natural, normal rate of change.’

          Question: can you point me to a ‘scientist’ or ‘a group of scientists’ who know what ‘the normal rate of climate change would be in the absence of human industrial activity on this planet?’ Because if you can’t, to be kind, you are merely spouting.

          I will also point out to you that if you bothered to read and understand what you read, I never made any claims to being ‘scientific’ in my personal opinion on the matter, though it is in part informed by actually having gone and read purported ‘scientific’ views on ‘both sides’ of the debate. Furthermore, why don’t you bother following up the links that I provide before you start foaming at the mouth. You would get a better idea of where I stand on the issue and perhaps more importantly, “why.”

          I get the impression that your reply is less about the issue than about ‘me.’ I have noticed that. Not everyone likes me. But many others do. Not necessarily here. But among my actual acquaintances. It kind of balances out.

          Oh, and by the way, for those of you who might be interested in the issue rather than the inherent stupidity attributed to me by kind Betty, a point of view that I do not contest, a short article that makes plain at least one of the motives behind and driving the IPCC “scientific process:”

          “Climate Change: The Philippines Haiyan Typhoon is not the Result of Global Warming”

          You can find it here:

      2. A bit of grist for the ‘consensus’ mill:

        “Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux.”


        About that article in which Judith Curry’s expertise is being relied upon, she writes,

        “David Rose quotes me in his article (accurately). ”

        You can find both this quote and the text of Prof. Curry’s email to David Rose here:

        (I myself am pilfering references from Corbett’s own efforts on this issue.)

      3. “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.

        Science is the analysis of evidence. Consensus is widely agreed upon opinion. There was once a “scientific consensus” that the Earth is stationary, and all heavenly bodies revolve around it. That opinion, widespread as it was, we now know, was not in accord with the facts.

        If every person on earth believes a false thing, their consensus does not make it true. If one person examines the evidence with a fresh perspective, and figures out that everyone else is wrong, the mob usually persecutes him. In the name of “science.”

        1. Consensus is a ‘thought stopper.’ It is not science. Although unfortunately, we all work from a set of inherited cultural assumptions that we share in common with others, and thus we are ‘all,’ without exception, mired in various currents of ‘group think.’ As you say, the only countervailing influence to that is to strive, however imperfectly, for better methods of analysis and research, and even that striving is subject to the dangers inherent in the phenomenon of ‘consensus.’

  9. Adding Boston Marathon drill here because there’s a recent piece of news that may be related in the aftermath. Boston Children’s Hospital kidnapped a girl and went to court to take her from her parents. Now ten months later both sides are in court.

    Thinking about the non-casualties of Sandy Hook, and Boston – Boston hospitals must have cooperated with fed authorities because there were barely 30 people at the two smoke bomb sites. The 260 reported injured were treated in Boston hospitals where the hospitals must have falsified records and even got reimbursed from insurance, etc.

    Not sure if Boston Children’s Hospital in on the take during the marathon, but clearly feds were swarming Boston and who knows? Maybe the kidnapping is a psyop to show parents – and they knew there would be a lot of publicity like there is now – that they don’t have full control over their kids, not just medical decisions but to keep them secure them at home. The kidnapping is a sterling example of medical, court and gov authoritarian shenanigans.

    1. The ridiculous numbers reported injured in the Boston Marathon are what first alerted me to the possibility of a hoax. And to think that the “Sandy Hook parents” were given a special stadium seating at the finish line – to my knowledge, the Boston Marathon is watched by people on the sidewalk or from their balconies, but stadium seating like for a parade such as the Rose Bowl, where you sit there till the bitter end when the honorary marshall rides by just doesn’t happen with this event.

      After the winners are crowned, you might stick around to see family, but you are not necessarily at the finish line at all. There was something hinky about the way outsiders were led to view the Marathon, as though it was a parade or spectacle, which it wasn’t. There is no excuse for native Bostonians to swallow the story, but they did, maybe because of the shock and awe of the lockdown of several towns a week later. These lessons are rinse and repeat. (I just saw a 9/11 rinse and repeat, reinforcement of pain, which I’ll mention later).

      What would you say if I told you that after Sean Collier the cop was allegedly shot at MIT there was no lockdown of nearby buildings in an attempt to apprehend suspects, just some police walking in to question people? This might explain why the story changed so much – not that they didn’t have it “right”, but that they wanted to create a shimmering image, a moving mirage. Originally, they had the suspects fleeing after carjacking someone very close to MIT (Third Street, East Cambridge) but later changed that story to make other things more plausible. The earlier carjacking story could explain that they had suspects on the run, as could the false story of a 7/11 robbery which they hadn’t first cleared with the 7/11 CEO.

      Imagine too that there is a person shot in a vehicle. What kind of emergency vehicles might you see on scene? Wouldn’t a passerby call an ambulance, if they saw a broken shot-out window, saw someone bleeding in a car? There might be more than one arriving on scene. Can anyone say if an ambulance came early in the process? I believe however that it was police cars on the scene, lots of them, doing very little but flashing their lights, clustered together.

      After seeing the phony guy in the wheelchair, the whole thing had to fall apart. Examining that story with the take and re-take of the speeding wheelchair meant that the entire story was false. Therefore it had to be reinforced by sports teams like the Bruins hosting the guy. It wasn’t the teams but their owners who were complicit. The owners are the key.

      I might say “Borgias”, another person might say “Bo Xilai”. We’d both understand that people of ill-gotten wealth, who have continued to be the sociopaths they always were, have cleverly masterminded this series of take-downs of places like New York and Boston. The only question is – what came before and what will come after. It isn’t the same world.

      You know, Sicily was apparently a nice place once too. But it hasn’t been honest for at least 2000 years (to quote Kay from Godfather). I doubt that this country will be even recognizable or perhaps even remembered if we keep this up. Then again – perhaps we have a new religion in the works. The Church of the Resilient Suffering Masses?

  10. Apart from the obvious implications of Sandy Hook being a contrived event ‘happening’ in order to enforce and implement tighter laws on gun control, there are many factors posed in the aftermath that run a lot deeper. I’m glad that Sofia talked about this in the radio discussion.
    Obviously, it calls for a need for heightened security, protection, surveillance and subservience for those in the majority, who believe this played out as if ‘it happened’, and will ask whatever is needed for a safer environment in which to live.
    I was particularly interested in the ‘planting’ analysis and how the seed, once sown into the conciousness will grow and develop over time. It creates a ripple effect through society where the idea spreads that we perceive to be real, not only distorting reality, but also changing our psychological make up in terms of how we should react and accept fabrication such as Sandy Hook as being a real life episode.
    I’m not really looking forward to the anniversaries of SH and the BMB. A public show of strength, unity and sadness, for what? Nothing.

  11. Apart from the obvious implications of Sandy Hook being a contrived event ‘happening’ in order to enforce and implement tighter laws on gun control, there are many factors posed in the aftermath that run a lot deeper. I’m glad that Sofia talked about this in the radio discussion.
    Obviously, it calls for a need for heightened security, protection, surveillance and subservience for those in the majority, who believe this played out as if ‘it happened’, and will ask whatever is needed for a safer environment in which to live.
    I was particularly interested in the ‘planting’ analysis and how the seed, once sown into the conciousness will grow and develop over time. It creates a ripple effect through society where the idea spreads that we perceive to be real, not only distorting reality, but also changing our psychological make up in terms of how we should react and accept fabrication such as Sandy Hook as being a real life episode.
    I’m not really looking forward to the anniversaries of SH and the BMB. A public show of strength, unity and sadness, for what? Nothing.

  12. But, James, it’s not just scientists who claim or assume global warming or climate change. It’s governments as well, and it is against the interests of the underdeveloped states, since they must argue that they have to pollute to develop.

    You could argue that it is to the interests of China to assume anthropogenic climate change since they will become the leading world power and it would serve their interests to have issues that need world governance. But the underdeveloped countries also assume it, and want the developed countries to do something about it.

    Can they all be wrong? Well, yes, but how likely is it? Don ‘t you think that even with the natural variability of the climate, there might be some influence of increasing industrial pollution. I know that Michel of GLOBAL RESEARCH doesn’t think so, but is it a matter to decide definitely one way or the other.

    1. “Can they all be wrong? Well, yes, but how likely is it?”


      Never underestimate the power of human stupidity, Mark. Widespread delusion is an essential feature the human species is prone to. It’s called superstition. And they kill people who deny the received wisdom. Always have.

  13. Musings, in JFK and the Unspeakable, Douglas argues, plausibly, that the policeman Tippit was shot by an Oswald lookalike in order to enrage the police to shoot the real Oswald, the patsy in the Kennedy assassination.

    In the Boston Marathon bombings, the policeman might have been shot for the same reason, to enrage the police to shoot the younger brother currently on trial for the bombings. They did riddle the boat he was hiding in with bullets, and his throat was cut, but he survived. As did Oswald, which required his murder by Ruby, to prevent reality-based information coming out of the trial.

    1. “They did riddle the boat he was hiding in with bullets, and his throat was cut, but he survived.”

      There is a strong likelihood that the guy they say is him is not.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised, Patrick. It’s a scene right out of Fahrenheit 451, the one in which Montag, after escaping the police chase, watches “himself” hunted down on Granger’s portable TV. Granger explains to a stunned Montag that the authorities have most likely had this “event” planned well in advance, all for public consumption.

  14. I really enjoyed Fetzer’s and Smallstorm’s conversation about Sandy Hook. The end game of that entire faked “capstone event” has consequences I think, beyond our comprehension. I think the mental illness aspect of what’s coming is beyond scary. Will a Tea Party member, a loyal Consitutionalist, a soldier, a Christian, a conspiracy theorist or anyone who merely questions our government be labeled “mentally Ill”?

  15. Due to excess traffic, Dropbox suspended my public folder that had the police audio and transcript of the Sandy Hook police/EMS response. New folder here: It will be very interesting to compare tomorrow’s (anemic summary of the) Sandy Hook report with the police audio and timeline. If you have any problems accessing the files, let me know and I’ll try mirroring it again.

  16. I believe the gunman was implanted with a biochip by the state police. It enables Uberveillance or thought monitoring. Are we to believe that all these recent mass murders are a coincidence. Are people suddenly going insane. See “A Note on uberveillance” by MD Michael. LRAD formerly known as the active denial technology not only blasts sound, but can narrow the beam divergance to direct sound at one person that no one else can hear. See the Audio spotlight by Holosonics. Read “Safeguards in a World of Ambient Intelligence” by Springer. Page 9 talks about the ability to interpret thoughts. The introduction states that the European Union decided to make the technology public. The 109th Congress decided not to make it public.

  17. Myself and others have been exploring this from the start. Sophia has captured a lot of our conclusions and expanded on my belief that this is “modeling” for a role we’re intended by some to fulfill.

    I totally agree that the primary purpose of this is training. I also think that the drill is not over. The manipulation of information is part of the drill. They want to see if and for how long they can create an imaginary scenario and control the dialog.

    I too share the same sense of outrage that Dr. Fetzer tries to express during the interview. While I agree that the “real” show plays out on a “higher” plane, the sheer arrogance of this is maddening. It is also disappointing to see how little notice it receives.

    Other interviews could be done on virtually every aspect of this. The establishment of a new world ‘religion’ is one of them. To me it is obvious that part of this is the image of Satanists, Baha’is and others coming together and blissfully “accepting” what their betters have prepared for them. At one point there was a whole side show of “Up With People” types. This organization also has cult-like attributes and played some role in the operation.

    The feeling I get is that this was a “recital”. They have been putting this together for a long time. The action was “cut” later for the desired effect. It is a study in applied mind control.

  18. I just returned from Dallas where I attended the COPA conf & met with Oswald’s best friend, Ernst Titovits, in the USSR from his defection days & with his mistress from the summer of 63, Judyth Vary Baker. Oswald was clearly framed accd to these 2 close friends of LHO.

    The temp in Dallas was 35 degrees from the 22nd to today the 26th. Why? Climatologists have IDed the collapse of the Arctic’s circumpolar vortex brought about by low pressure @ the north pole due to the huge decrease in the amount of ice. When the Arctic Ocean was fully iced over it produced higher pressures which trapped cold air @ the pole. Less ice results in lower pressure allowing cold air to pour south touching off the Nov. breakout of Illinois tornadoes & extended cold snaps in places like Dallas this past JFK weekend. The jet stream also stalls out resulting in high precipitation events like the 54 inches of snow in the Black Hills of South Dakota in early Oct which is unheard of that early in the season. Human emissions are responsible.

  19. I happen to think that the “science” surrounding “AGW” is “political science”. More appropriately, “Economics”.

    Like so much these days that passes for science, scientists are dependent on grants. Those come from people with agendas. Those agendas are not scientific.

    Even within academia, there are severe pressures to conform. It is not possible to reconcile reports of melting ice with reports of record ice accumulation. Something is wrong.

    So, if we don’t even know for certain that there IS a problem, much less the cause, how will paying “carbon taxes” fix it? It will definitely enrich some proponents.

    So, at it’s simplest, if we’re all doomed how will paying Al Gore correct the problem? How do we know we have a problem? What is that knowledge base on? How do we know it is caused by humans?

    They don’t understand weather well enough to accurately predict it. How are they going to “fix” a “problem” they don’t understand? When I see political parasites getting involved in something like this I smell a rat. It’s not the only rat, but it is a lucrative rat.

  20. Gray said, “Either you are ignorant or you are sowing disinfo for the oil industry. At any rate it is very transparent you don’t have a clue.”

    and also said:

    ” I’m glad you finally understand the issue & agree humans cause global warming. How does it feel to have your 1st eureka experience. I’m happy I was part of your 1st.”

    Does that sound like mind control techniques to anyone else besides me?

    1. BTW Violetta, it is Gary. Don’t make me into an alien GRAY. Typical though, to smear someone that offers better info about AGW than is dished out here.

    2. I don’t know if Gary’s comment could be construed as a mind control technique but it sure reeked of arrogance and condensation. Two things that tend to get in the way of intelligent and productive discourse.

Comments are closed.