The Newtown School Board Meeting and the Meaning of Silence

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.

167 thoughts 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?

        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. Thanks, John, will look though.
        To butterfly – there was no cleanup if you remember correctly, so no bloody walls at all.

        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.

  19. The following is compelling. Face it, and don’t be afraid to break free of the groupthink going on here (no offense, seriously).

    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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. “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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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:

Comments are closed.