on a Rolla: A Review of “Screening Sandy Hook” by Deanna Spingola

Submitted by “Lophatt”

I recently received a call from a friend who asked,”Did you hear about Screening Sandy Hook by Deanna Spingola”?  My answer decried my ignorance, as I had not even heard of Ms. Spingola to begin with.  After a brief discussion, I learned that Spingola was a radio personality of sorts who hosted a regular podcast on “American Free Press.”  I was advised that she had screeningshpreviously been a skeptic of the official story of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre (SHES), but had recently done an about face on the issue.  Indeed, it seemed that Ms. Spingola had rather suddenly begun to launch radio diatribes at various researchers involved with SHES.  What could have happened to affect such a sudden and complete rejection of her earlier position and compel her to target fellow researchers in such a belligerent manner?

Not having any preconceptions of Spingola or her work,  my friend suggested I might be a good candidate for the task of looking into this mystery. So I began to visit Spingola.com and to listen to some of her earlier podcasts to get a feel for her past and current dispositions.  I ordered a copy of “Screening Sandy Hook” ($23.44) and began to read.

It is indeed a weighty tome, (581 pages)  replete with copious footnotes (1497), and various manufactured acronyms and pejorative buzzwords.  The stated thesis of the book is that “Adam” Lanza, poisoned by pharmaceutical drugs, went on a murderous rampage that resulted in 26 deaths.  Spingola cites several sources who at least suggest that such a possibility exists.  In the tradition of Ann Coulter, she uses footnotes as evidence of research.  Remarkably, the only citations listed are from those who tend to agree with her, (at least partially).

Up to approximately the midpoint of the book, Spingola continues a tedious monologue against all things corporate, government, professional, and the media.  Anyone who has ever been trapped at a bar with someone who is doing a total “mind dump” on the world will be familiar with the narrative.  It isn’t that I necessarily disagree with a lot of what she says: such a diatribe seems too vast and depressing to be the subject of one book.  Many of us already know all about the subjects she raises, although, carrying on as she does, Spingola seems unaware of that fact.  While she acknowledges the work of others in some of the fields she discusses, those writers whom she deems unworthy are unceremoniously dismissed.  It isn’t so much that she disagrees: she rejects the person as well as their idea.  Anyone who holds a contrary view to her own is a paid agent of the pharmaceutical industry or an ignorant dupe.

As an example of her tortured logic, we have her assessment of Robbie Parker:

Robbie Parker is a physician’s assistant originally from Ogden, Utah.  who relocated to Connecticut after living in Oregon and New Mexico.  Connecticut’s Department of Public Health has a licensing verification website, which allows people to search the credentials of any service provider who is required by the state to be licensed, including physician assistants.  According to the website, Parker has a license to practice in that state although his license has a New Mexico address because he lived there when he received his license, issued on September 28, 2011.  A person cannot become a PA-C until he or she has passed the NCCPA-administered Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam, which allows the individual to practice in all fifty states.  Parker lived in New Mexico prior to finding a position in Connecticut.  He is not an actor.  Earning a degree as a certified physician assistant requires passing a rigorous certification exam in addition to obtaining one hundred Continuing Medical Education (CME) hours and reregistering their certificate with the NCCPA every two years.

There you have it.  He’s too well educated to be an actor.  Spingola appears to have a ready, dismissive answer for anyone questioning the Sandy Hook event.  Evidence that cannot be easily dismissed is simply “excused” as mistakes made in the heat of the moment. Early anomalies, such as the alleged call to the “Newtown Bee” from Dawn Hocksprung are simply excited reporting. Criticism by Dr. James Tracy, and others, is deemed “premature” and out of context. Researchers of long standing are simply “hoaxsters” and “disinformation agents.”

“Screening Sandy Hook” author Deanna Spingola. Source: spingola.com

As a running testament on her personal beliefs and the world in general, I suppose this isn’t the first instance of a self-absorbed, self-published “me book.” Generally, such books are written by people who through their reputation, many wish to know better.  Someone who has established a following and is noted for their expertise in a subject might be expected to use their book to clarify their known positions. There are no revelations or keen insights to be found among the ponderous and hypercritical narrative offered here by Spingola, whose website is titled “Spingola Speaks,” I might add.  The book could have been titled: “My Judgement on Everything”.  It isn’t that she is necessarily wrong about much of what she says (with the exception of her serious misunderstandings of Sandy Hook research and the motives of the researchers), it is her annoying lack of any stated logic for her absolutism that begins to wear on the reader.  She is contemptuous of the medical profession, but amazingly, relies on it to support her theories!

Part Five of “Screening Sandy Hook” is reserved for ridicule of all who have questioned the official media story.  While Spingola refers to many researchers indirectly (by way of the ever-present footnotes), she unleashes a special degree of vehemence for Tracy.  She also targets Dr. Jim Fetzer, Alex Jones, Wolfgang Halbig and others as examples of KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) —  a buzzword/acronym invented by her and used the way truck drivers might refer to bad drivers encountered on the roads.  Another favorite term of hers is “hoaxologist”.  This is reserved for those KOLs not in leadership positions.  When referring to certain others, she makes a point of bracketing “researcher” in quotation marks.  This, no doubt, is to distinguish such miscreants from herself.

It seems that Spingola believes (or says she believes) that all of these mass shooter events are real.  They are all caused by pharmaceutical poisoning.  The pharmaceutical industry, in league with government and media, have conspired to hide this fact.  Those in the alternative media and researchers into the recent staged shooting events are either knowing accomplices, working in collusion with “Big Pharma” or ignorant dupes and sensationalists seeking an audience.  Those who discuss their findings online are “hoaxologists”.  Spingola makes some small distinction between “disinformation” and “misinformation” —  a matter of motive and knowledge.  She gives no credence to any who either differ with her drug-induced causation theory or the truthfulness of the events themselves.  I suppose this isn’t too surprising in light of the fact that the object of her personal theory in this case may be a phantom.  It wouldn’t do to have poisoned madmen turn out to be fictional characters or for deadly rampages to become manufactured drill scenarios.

In support of her position that researchers appearing in the alternative media are illegitimate or agents of hidden interests she cites none other than Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  This is especially interesting, in that her other views on other subjects, such as 9-11 would surely be openly condemned by this individual.

….millions of people believe in conspiracy theories and to counter them, (1) the government must understand how they flourish and (2) how it might undermine the ‘identifiable cognitive blunders’.  They said attempts to persuade theorists to abandon their ideas only provided “further proof of the conspiracy”.  Officials decided that they could be most effective by “cognitive infiltration” into such groups and introduce [sic] “diverse viewpoints” and “informational diversity”…to expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such

She even has a section on Anderson Cooper whom she finds very professional.  She claims that the official report of the Sandy Hook incident is thorough, professional and comprehensive.  She chastises others for not reading the report and refusing to rely on official sources.

None of this would be noteworthy but for her former expressed views on SHES.  There are several “hoax busters” on the internet who specialize in ridiculing research.  Indeed she cites W.C. Wade as a reliable authority several times throughout her book.  Those familiar with “American Free Press” may note that it is known for its unorthodox positions on several issues.  Notwithstanding that, Spingola herself was known for her support of Sandy Hook research.  She interviewed several Sandy Hook researchers previously with favorable commentary.  Suddenly, there is a total reversal.  It isn’t simply a rejection of the researcher’s ideas, it is a rejection of the researchers themselves.  What to make of it all?

I confess that I have not reached a conclusion on the original question.  The search has resulted in being introduced to Ms. Spingola’s work in a general sense, and perhaps more importantly, her style.  She seems a decent interviewer.  She allows the interviewee to talk.  Unfortunately that skill does not overcome her tendency to judge and negate others and their information in a capricious and dismissive manner.  She is not discussing ideas; she is judging others’ ideas and finding them wanting.  One gets the sense of a self-satisfied elitist entertaining herself.  Ironically, this is exactly what she accuses the “hoaxologists” of doing — basing opinions on speculation and group think.

It seems that Spingola became aware of the Delphi Method in her readings.  This obviously struck a nerve, and she ascribes all manner of nefarious policies and reactionary conspiracy theories to the machinations of those skilled in its use.  Being no stranger to the method and its uses, I find her concerns overstated and even misapplied.  What Spingola is implying in her tedious way is that conspiracy theories involving media manipulation of reality are all imaginary.  This is hard to square with her other theories that seem not to differ much from SHES research, other than the subject matter.

So, was I able to answer my friend’s question?  Alas, no.  I was able to discern that Deanna Spingola’s method for reaching her conclusions is rather simple.  All she does is declare it so! If a person’s research leads in another direction, he or she is simply wrong.  The reason for her reversal is not apparent in her book, although she has based it on the one shooter hoax most easily exposed.  Her earlier position confirms that she knew of the controversy before deciding to use SHES as her example.  It is beyond question that this (reversal / about face?) is what she has done.  She has simply stated that “Adam” Lanza was either high on drugs or coming off of them and went on a murderous rampage.  Those who think otherwise are simply wrong.  As an example of her superior powers of perception she states that she is not a doctor, but she has diagnosed “Adam” as (initially) the victim of mercury poisoning.  So there!  The rest is more of the same.

As to the original question, it seems apparent that Ms. Spingola may be a product of the company she keeps.  For my money her company can certainly keep her and her book.

89 thoughts on “on a Rolla: A Review of “Screening Sandy Hook” by Deanna Spingola”

  1. She even has a section on Anderson Cooper whom she finds very professional….. spit take, and says it all, the reverse Pinocchio!

    1. Just Because Cooper is really a multi-billionaire Vanderbilt working for the CIA doesn’t mean he works for “them”…./sarc off

  2. The “Spin” is strong with “Spingola.” Return her book to CIA for a full refund. Tell them Langley’s product is defective.

  3. Thanks for doing the work that this particular American would be unwilling to do, lophatt.

    I only became aware of her existence in the comment pages of MHB, mostly concerning her ungallant treatment of Wolf. I could never make it through an entire interview. She seems a nasty shrew. People say she’s not always like that, which I am willing to believe. Some people have tried to point out to her that this particular topic has transformed her on-air persona, and because of it, she’s losing audience–to which admonition she is completely dismissive.

    One asks, why? Did she used to be a “good guy,” in reality? Paranoia about who to trust, who to spend time listening to, increases as we get used to life in the end-game.

    The thing is, Sandy Hook is so perfect an example of the topic of drills/false flags/hoaxes that anyone who wants their reputation to be founded on a defense of the official narrative has got to have something else going on. She’s like a JFK researcher well known for seeing the truth, suddenly becoming the #1 defender of the Warren Commission, and ignoring all the stuff she used to know–and denouncing her former colleagues with vituperation on top of it. There would have to be a reason why.

    Anyway, by writing this essay you have redeemed the time that would otherwise have been spend completely wasted by reading and comprehending her book. We all benefit from your sacrifice. You’re a Catholic, of course, and if you folk still believe in indulgences, well, you earned a few.

    1. What has become of the lady who wrote a book in fictional fashion about 911, Rebekah Roth? It struck me that this lady and this book were simply too slick. Why did she not go the route of truths buttressed by factual evidence instead of going the fiction direction? Has she checked out as being totally verifiable? Is she squeaky clean on all details related to WTC? Or, has her fictional work been put on the same plane as the truth earned by hard work seeking and utilizing provable details?

      Roth had her moments of fame, has anybody heard her being eulogized through her work? Is she a constant guest on radio and TV talks shows? If she had the keys to the kingdom, you’d figure she would be ubiquitous, but she is NOT. Did she do her part as a slickster chaos actor trying to fill some sort of obfuscatory function? Does she have great credibility now, do people recognize her? Was she compromised before writing this book? Did she, indeed, write this book? Has the book been carefully scrutinized for sentence structure, vocabulary, credibility? Why would she write a fictional work and expect it to stick? Because it was easier than trying to wade through massive untruths and shillsters aplenty?

      Where is Roth now? Is she gaining in stature or did she, like Gene Rosen, come and go?

      I get the feeling Fetzer could write 100 books, all right on, and still find that nobody is tagged with the conviction and prosecution that would incarcerate them. We are rapidly approaching a time in our history when the truth will become totally irrelevant. Orwell you magnificent bastard, I read all your books……

    2. Oughta be worth ten thousand years or so off my Purgatory sentence.

      Your sense of what may be going on mirrors mine. It could be the promise of life in the fast lane, or…maybe life! Who knows.

      I confess that I haven’t spent a lot of time hand wringing over this as she is simply not that important to me nor is what she says that she thinks all that important either.

      My time was completely well spent if I saved you the trouble of reading this. I actually thought at one point of ordering copies for everyone I don’t like. I reconsidered, however, as I would only be fattening the coffers of the disinformation industry.

  4. An analysis of local MSM-syndicated media coverage of suspected government conspiracies would illuminate the issue a bit. I’m thinking of Benton K. Partin, a brigadier general in the USAF and explosives expert, who analyzed the Murrah blast on local cable news. He was then shunned by MSM. Initial news reports and initial witnesses (like those who heard numerous blasts at the WTC and Pentagon on 911) quickly go down the memoryhole. I think the early coverage of these events by local media contain what becomes part of a media information blackout within days, if not hours, of the event.

  5. Very glad you wrote this, lophatt. It’s about time someone called out Spingola on her disinformation crusade; that’s the only explanation I can come up with for her lies. I concluded American Free Press was a form of controlled opposition about a year ago, and its stance on Sandy Hook was the main reason why. Hearing that they’ve literally targeted James Tracy further convinces me.

    I suspect that the ‘hoaxologists’ have gained some critical mass which forces Spingola to become one of ‘them’ or us in order to disinform. There’s just too many ‘shootings’ and disbelievers to try to deny that ‘something’s up’ with it all. What I’m still trying to figure is how the ‘psychotropics made him do it’ narrative helps Big Pharma and TPTB, because that line of thinking does almost as much damage as exposing the actual truth would.

    Any thoughts?

    1. http://scoopfeed.net/2015/09/13/psychiatrists-identify-potential-school-shooters-by-applying-language-processing-technology-to-internet-speech/

      Could it be that part of the answer to my question is, medications wrongly prescribed cause these shootings but, the perps wouldn’t be on meds to begin with if there was nothing wrong with them. The conclusion is still that there is some pathological ‘mental illness’ of a sort afflicting these individuals. Further, since medications only make them worse perhaps long term institutionalization is the only solution.

      Just a theory to explain perplexing ‘data.’

      1. Sue, I am always cautious about absolutists. It try not to use the word “all” unless I’ve given it careful thought. I’ve said many times that it isn’t necessary to always have an opinion or a position. If one stakes out a position, however, they should be prepared to explain it.

        There are three things going on in this book. First, while I’m not a big fan of the pharmaceutical industry, these drugs, flawed as they are, have a purpose. I have an adult autistic daughter that has had to use them at times. We would never have done that without reasons.

        It is short-sighted, at best, to believe that if people never used these medications the problems that pushed them in that direction would simply go away. If the choice to keep her from inflicting harm on herself is between having her lashed to a table for days or taking a medication I don’t have to think too long.

        Secondly, we know this is a hoax. Simply calling those who know that “fools” would be bad enough. That isn’t what she does. She says that we are all either working for the pharmaceutical industry, knowingly or otherwise, or have personal motives. I gather that, for those without blogs of their own who are not considered “key opinion leaders” (KOL’s), the rest of us are merely dupes. We’re too stupid to believe authority.

        Lastly, by purposefully using “Adam” Lanza as the main example of her diatribe against all things pharmaceutical, she actually places her main thesis at risk. If “Adam” is not a drug-addled maniac, what support does he bring to her cause?

        By attacking several well known researchers and authors, rather than their ideas, she sets herself up as judge and jury. I frankly don’t know anyone who is eminently qualified for that role. Personally, given all the “anomalies” found in the Sandy Hook Capstone Event, one would have to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary to hold such a stated view as hers. It would be much more excusable coming from someone unfamiliar with it.

        For whatever reason, the folks at “American Free Press” have apparently authorized “controversial” views with regard to the drug industry. Not so with DHS events.

        1. lophatt how does she claim we ‘fools’ are helping Big Pharma? What kinds of ‘personal motives’ does she proffer to explain our perspective on the hoaxes?

          You say “There are three things going on in this book. First, while I’m not a big fan of the pharmaceutical industry, these drugs, flawed as they are, have a purpose. I have an adult autistic daughter that has had to use them at times. We would never have done that without reasons.

          It is short-sighted, at best, to believe that if people never used these medications the problems that pushed them in that direction would simply go away.”

          These drugs absolutely do not have a purpose when prescribed for ‘diagnoses’ that have zero medical basis whatsoever. That is the problem and it is absolute. There just isn’t any such thing as a medical diagnosis without empirical medical proof for it. Your daughter has autism, but I don’t think that’s classified as a ‘mental illness’ so it wouldn’t be part of the pivotal lie Big Pharma’s profits rely on. Asperger’s is not considered a ‘mental illness’ by at least 2012.

          It is beyond short-sighted to believe accepting an unproven diagnosis will somehow ‘cure’ a mystical ‘disease’ that no one can find evidence of. It’s sick. Every person I know who has been diagnosed with bipolar is abused by this lie. They have developmental and contemporaneously political/situational problems – not some physiological organic ‘disease.’ I’ll repeat: they changed the name from manic depression so that they could call everyone ‘mentally ill.’ The evidence for manic depression was that everyone could see it, including the sufferer in between episodes. It has a specific set of symptoms, etc. and is genetic. If we wanted to find the genes, as we have for breast cancer, we could. Big Psych/Pharma doesn’t want to.

        2. Sue, I wouldn’t argue with you. I’m not a champion of the drug industry or psychiatry. If I weren’t in a situation where I’m forced to deal with both of them I wouldn’t.

          I don’t know if there IS a solution. I have known people like my daughter who are helped by medication. It doesn’t “cure” them, but it helps them lead more normal lives.

          For about 35 years she didn’t have any medications. Her behaviors were controlled through behavior management schemes under the supervision of a psychologist. The work if you have a team of people around the clock to do it.

          We have received virtually no help from psychiatrists and only one beneficial program from psychologists. Unfortunately, they have “cornered the market” and what you get is what you get.

          My meaning was that people with problems that they can’t control can be injurious to themselves and others. I don’t believe that most of the shootings we’re seeing are real. They do happen, but its pretty rare.

          When someone exhibits behaviors, such as “Akathesia” that Spingola goes on about, they have that behavior without drugs as well. How do we know that the drug “caused” it? They can aggravate problems or lessen them. The book’s simplistic treatment of the problem is misleading.

        3. Sue, I think what lophatt was saying was that he has direct experience, seeing the benefits of these drugs in his own house. I think he implied that it was a last resort–but the drugs stopped his daughter from hurting herself and others. If I understand him properly, I don’t think, in his case, that it really matters how objective the evidence is, a priori, that the molecule will help her. I imagine the physician was equally frustrated, and admitted so, offering some possible hope, but no guarantees.

          If I’m right about this, lophatt is saying that he knows that in some cases, inexact as the science is, some of these molecules help desperately troubled people sometimes.

          That doesn’t take anything away from the validity of your general theme, regarding the comprehensive abuse big pharma/the psychiatric cartel is engaged it. It’s just a fact, in his experience, that sometimes these things are useful, inexact as the diagnosis/treatment might unfortunately be.

        4. Sue: I am one of those who benefits from psychoactive drugs (Adderall/Concerta). I mean, real, honest-to-God, saved-my-marriage benefits.

          I’m not suggesting kids should be drugged (for all my problems, I’m glad I wasn’t drugged [by a doctor, I mean]). I also appreciate the argument that there are no tests for “mental illness”. But honestly, I’d be locked away by now if I wasn’t medicated.

          I see the potential for abusive prescribing, but there ARE benefits to some.

    2. You are absolutely right Sue, that is my thought on it. It is like old Joe Stalin says, to control the opposition, you become the opposition! 🙂

      As far as the false flags you mentioned I compiled a list which by the way 007 keeps changing the link to. If there are any I missed, let me know and I will add it. It is becoming quite hard to keep up with. The Memory Blog is linked in here several times.

      The false flag review


    3. Yes Sue I have a thought I have been thinking for quite some time re: all these drugs supposedly driving these people to do the unthinkable. They are going to use this to target ALL of us who are on or have been on these type of drugs to declare ALL of us dangerous and unfit to own guns. Alex Jones, Mike Adams and many others in the so called “truther” movement push this agenda. Just my thought.

      1. Someone responded privately to my query:

        “1) Don’t they often say these people “went off their meds,” which would justify forcibly incarcerating suspect people?

        2) Since they are obviously so gravely mentally ill, but since the medicine is not working, they should have been more actively monitored to get the right blend of pharmaceuticals—justifying complete control over targeted individuals.”

        I think both points sound very valid. It’s interesting to consider how the most logical or radical conclusion stemming from the ‘meds made him do it’ theory would be that maybe there’s something fundamentally wrong with the psych system, but that the most logical and here radical conclusion isn’t the one most people come to in some situations. The script writers really understand people and propaganda to a frighteningly genius degree. Instead of overthrowing the psych system’s bogus ‘illnesses’ and ‘cures,’ the failures attributed to it via the ‘meds made him do it’ narrative only wind up further empowering it.

        People on here may not like this, but I’ll state that I think no one really wants to overthrow the psych system precisely because to do so requires facing the fact that the class system in America is fundamentally corrupt and based on lies. To indict the MD’s who aren’t practicing any type of ‘medicine’ means indicting all the initials brigade. Prosecuting the pseudo science of psychiatry would expose how pseudo the superiority of the upper middle and upper class really is. And no one no matter how ‘authentic’ they are who has done okay or even ‘well enough’ in that system will turn it over and admit to themselves they got lucky and profit from the violence intrinsic to capitalism.

        1. From the article and Spingolem’s handlers:

          “Family members have said Simms was suffering from mental illness. She was hospitalized after her son’s death, and had been hospitalized for a brief period in the months beforehand.

          Simms’ mother, Vontasha Simms, said she was “totally flabbergasted” by the decision to bring criminal charges.
          “No one in their right mind is going to sit out there for two days in the elements,” she said, noting that her daughter was exposed to the weather and had no food or water, either, during those two days.
          She said her daughter had just begun taking medication for her mental-health problems a couple of months before, and wondered whether there were problems getting the right medication or dosage. She said her daughter had been complaining of headaches before Ji’Aire’s death.
          “Somehow, somewhere within that episode, time stopped for her,” Vontasha Simms said.”

  6. Wow Lophatt you scared me at first, I thought you were going to be praising Spingola. How relieved I was to find out that is not the case. She has attacked my blog before as I have numerous references and posts indicating I believe Hitler to have been a Rothschild and trained at the Tavistock insitute along with Stalin who was a jesuit priest. It is not just me that believes it however, there are many books on this subject, some by Gregg Hallett. In fact Fetzger interviewed Gregg Hallett, affectionately known as the “Spymaster.” He is from New Zealand, was denied a visa to the U.K. and claims they burned his house down over the books.

    Spingola, Kaminski and Carolyn Yeager take a shot at me whenever possible. They are part of the Hitler fan club. I believe in effect may be deep cover intel working to keep those reparations payments from Germany headed to Israel. Germany must continue with their guilt complex and fork over the money, allow massive integration and never never combine German technology with Russian natural resources and manpower. Can’t have a world government that way doncha know.

    In fact Beulahman joined the fun, throwing around the usual only morons, shills and fools don’t believe Hitler was the greatest thing since sliced bread and bottled beer. He appears here at times I have noticed. He appears with the same on various nazi sites like Spingola and others. They shield vatican involvement in anything at all costs. Les Visible, the Dogman is another in a similar vein and he at times likes to point out how clueless I am. He is carried on the mainstream alternative sites such as Rense.com, What Really Happened and the Truthseeker.

    American Free Press is run by Mark Lane, a Jewish attorney, who some claim to be intel and he was at Jonestown, left just before everyone went Hari Kari. American Free Press also had long running debates on how the Boston bombing was real. They are also Hitler fan boys. When I hear the Boston bombing was real, I keep on scrolling.

    In fact I was fairly besmirched on the site below lately over these same issues and there is somewhat of a discussion if any are interested. The article was written by Carolyn Yeager and she and Spingola as well as Kaminski form quite a team as well as holding very similar views.


    Arthur Tophan the owner of the blog is currently being taken to court in Canada for denying the holocaust and disparaging the eternal victims.

    Kaminsky invited me to his email list at one time years ago. Lo and behold Carolyn Yeager, Spingola and others appeared. It was some of the craziest stuff I have ever seen in electronic print. Just as you say, they begin the name calling and attacks if you do not accept their version of history and current events. I exited that list quite rapidly. It was more of the Israel nuked Fukushima, Haarp is behind everything nonsense.

    In short Lophatt you have a very impressive ability when it comes to connecting dots. My hat is off to you.

    1. This is in response to your mention that you keep on scrolling when someone acts like the BMB was real.

      First, let me admit freely that I have not studied this event closely. I’ve read a little – enough to acknowledge that it seems to be a false flag of some sort.

      I was at a friend’s house in Tennessee recently and we were discussing Sandy Hook. I mentioned the Boston Marathon Bombing and he started telling about a friend of a friend who was injured there.

      His friend was a swimmer at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, and used to swim with Nicole Gross. Apparently Mrs. Gross was featured prominently as a Boston victim. I confess that I had never heard of her.

      So what are your thoughts on Boston? Completely staged, or perhaps partially staged? Should these people have any reason to doubt the story of their friend’s injury?

      1. Hi Maestro I have some thought on it.

        Accused Chechen Bombers Uncle Ruslan Zaindi Tsarni Worked for USAID, Big Sky Corporation, Had Connections to Kazakh Oligarchs (updated)


        Boston Bombing Suspect Linked to Canadian Militant – Reports


        Welcome My Friends To The Show That Never Ends-McGeorge Bundy’s Brother CIA-Mass Murderer Ted Bundy Possibly His Son-Tsarnaev Uncle Ruslan USAID Heavily CIA Fortified-Tsarnaev Married To Russell Skull And Bones-Ruslan Daughter Married To Graham Fuller CIA-Then The Bundy Circus Rancher In Nevada!



    2. How many of us are guilty of ranting on a subject? Answer? All.

      There is no such thing as 100% truth. Things get sticky when we run into the limited hangouts who bedevil us all.

      Spingola, Santilli, and notably Chris Bollyn have come under intense fire over the last 2 years or so, perhaps more. Who believes Gordon Duff totally? Do you?

      In our midst, we have people who take poetic license and those who do same deliberately. Some people make mistakes, others make mistakes deliberately. This muddles the water.

      People may well have the noblest of intentions, but as these stories have been added to and subtracted from, we find they get torturously complex and very hard to trust totally.

      If you find somebody who proffers the truth all the time, send him our way. I’d like to confront the truth, wouldn’t you? I’d like to stare it in the face. I’d like to probe it, pester it, try to find holes in it.

      If truth were some sort of absolute fact and judgment, life would be so easy. But, it isn’t and the characters like Spingolla et al. have twisted matters and caused many of us to go off on tangents all too often.

      Most of us have been called wretched liars before. Fetzer has been called a commie stooge at times. If you get into the truth business, you’ll find defenders of the lies will fight you tooth and nail.

      As such, are we making progress on exposing the truth? Fetzer and Barrett have written a number of books that make it pretty clear they are on solid ground but how many prosecutions do we see taking place as a result of their work? How many citizens adopt the positions of these writers after they read their books? If that were the case, should we expect more from interested citizens?

      In a nastily corrupt world, as soon as we uncover some truths, shillsters come out of the woodwork and lay on a layer of lies and obfuscations that often force people to have doubts aplenty. A shillster does not need to present truths, he only has to create some doubts on the subject matter and that suffices to make people pause and wonder……that hesitation has proliferated since 911 and I really have to wonder whether we’ve made progress or not at all.

      1. Gil,
        One thing to note as you mentioned.

        No One gets prosecuted for anything if your on the right side,

        Zero from 911, Zero from almost 8 years of Obama.

        From War Criminals to Wall Street to just Thugs breaking our laws who work for the Govt..

        No One is ever held accountable and that’s why No One “whistles Blows” anymore.

        They go to Jail for telling the truth.

      2. Amen Gil
        I got a couple of emails from Kevin Barrett. He presents some good material at times. I mentioned however that his backing of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt was hard to understand. The first thing they did was say they would send troops to fight Syria?

        Now I must admit the coup general who is an Israeli is probably not much of choice either.

        I never heard from him again.

    3. Dub,
      Like I said, I was worried at first. As a matter of fact, I thought Tracy was endorsing/promoting her book at first.

      Lophatt, you should have started your article, “I’ve asked the CIA for my money back” but have reviewed this book to spare all of your Brains. I took the hit and read it for the collective…haha

    4. I have no idea who you are dublinsmick and have never been to your blog, let alone attack it. In fact, I do not have the technical ability to attack a blog. Please be specific as to when I supposedly took a shot at you. Carolyn Yeager and I are NOT colleagues but rather quite the opposite. Just because John Kaminski included us both in an email does not make us friends. Yeager, Kaminski and I are most definitely not a team. I last interviewed Yeager on my RBN program on 5/21/2012. I interviewed Kaminski on 6/21/2013 as well as on one of my specials on 6/30/2013 and on the APF program on 12/3/2013 as well as other times. I have had a radio program on RBN since October 2010. The AFP radio network disbanded in July 2014. I was with them from 10/22/13 to 7/07/14. The AFP is run by Willis and Elizabeth Carto, not Mark Lane who functioned as their attorney in a law suit years ago.

      1. Deanna I don’t listen to your program or read your blog. I simply had people come to my blog and say you were defending the usual Hitler built us some roads, built the world’s greatest war machine on the barter system with no big boy financing tried to save Aryans from the commies etc etc.

        They indicated you said I was extremely wrong by promoting the idea that Hitler was a Rothschild. Is that not the case?

        Maybe you could explain how this wrong?


        Mark Lane, the Liberty Lobby, and the Jonestown Massacre (with …
        Mark Lane, the Jewish lawyer and C.I.A. agent who owns Liberty Lobby and American Free Press, was born in New York City in 1927, the son of Harry Arnold …

      2. Deanna
        Are you saying that Hitler was not a Rothschild?

        Do you believe he was a great guy with no Bush or Rothschild financing?

        Do you subscribe the narrative that Hitler was trying to save western civiization and not trained at Tavistock along with Stalin?

        Do you believe that Hitler died in the bunker? If so why does the FBI now say that is not the case and he escaped?

        Do you believe he had four body doubles as Blackraiser asserts? And that post has at times been in the google top ten. It is very well researched.


    5. Mick, thank you. As usual, there’s a lot in your comment. I’ve said many times that I don’t have any “heroes”. I have never been a follower.

      I am interested in people’s ideas, however. I know that there are those who intentionally disrupt and push false information. Most of those seem to be easy to spot as they tend not to be particularly good at it.

      On the other hand, there are many who have different opinions who are well meaning. It can be exasperating when you know what’s wrong with their arguments but they refuse to see it.

      For those who you respect and know to normally be logical, most of the time disagreements come down to premises. They are starting a a point of reference that is different than yours. It is quite common for someone to reach a lousy conclusion using perfectly acceptable logic.

      There are sites that I visit routinely because they are good aggregators. Some of them apparently hold absolutely awful opinions. That doesn’t negate the information that is contained at their sites.

      I have many opinions too. I am a little cautious with them as I know that nine times out of ten what I say will be misunderstood. What I’ve learned to do is to not make it necessary for anyone to agree with me. It’s wonderful if they do, but OK if they don’t.

      You mentioned several persons. I think we are all flawed. I think we all make mistakes. If our motives are pure, it is alright to make a mistake. It is alright to disagree.

      In terms of internet usage, I always have a hard time understanding the fascination some have with attacking others. Obviously, such tactics are not going to change anyone’s mind. If they find what someone says to be intolerable, why don’t they go someplace else?

      There is so much sniping and petty infighting on the Web. Some of it, no doubt, is deliberate and the product of impure motives. Not all of it is, however. Some people have blind spots that are as hard for me to understand as it is for them.

  7. https://www.facebook.com/HoaxAtSandyHook?fref=ts


    Do you in CT not realize the Pain and Fear you have caused to millions and millions of innocent Americans because of your Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Illusion?

    Do you not realize the Intentionally Emotional Distress you have caused on millions and millions of innocent Americans and people from all over the world because of your Sandy Hook School Shooting Illusion?

    Creating intentional Panic and Fear to all Americans for NO cause is called Domestic Terrorism and those responsible are Traitors to their own country.

    They probably have a Obama get out of jail free card for their act but have they no soul or heart in what they did to innocent Americans.

    I have enclosed pictures of what I earned in my life as a Naturalized US Citizen…one of those privileges was to address the entire Florida State Trooper Command Staff at my Graduation.

    You in CT now have painted me as a NAZI not even knowing that my own father spend 3 years in a NAZI prison Camp in Poland, yes he has his own serial number burned in his wrist.

    How sick are you people in Ct?

    I served my country during Vietnam because it was my duty. Your duty as Politicians is to cause NO harm to anyone especially to people who go to work everyday trying to support their families and depend on the news for truthful information which now is gone in light of your actions at Sandy Hook

    Keep drinking your coffee and keep eating your donuts and just keep laughing about how stupid and ignorant the American people are and that is why you did.

    The only problem that I see is that you are the ignorant and stupid Politicians that cause such Emotional Distress and it is every one of you that needs serious mental health counseling.

    This will be exposed because you can only keep a lie for so long. Those children are going to grow up and they will need lots of money , hope you have it.


  8. Lophatt,
    I gotta admit. When I first saw this I was very confused. I know Mrs. Spinboots is a known traitor and I thought you were endorsing her!

    You have to read the post to know Lophatt is NOT in anyway supporting her.

    SB’s comment “Return her book to CIA for a full refund. Tell them Langley’s product is defective.” is hilarious!

    I would like to know more about when and why she “turned”.

    We have seen this before. Money? Threats? Opportunity to “Join” the “Climate Change Crowd” we run everything and you will be set for Life if you Lie with us?

    Kudos to Lophatt.

    1. Vivian and Ric, Bless you, it WAS a slog. I fully expect to get credit for time served in Purgatory.

      As Ric says, I most certainly AM NOT endorsing her or her book. Until I was asked to look into this I had no idea who she was. I’m not a “regular” visitor to “American Free Press”. The few times I’ve gone there have been due to links in other things I was reading. I wasn’t impressed.

      I honestly did not see any “evidence” of why she did such an about face. I can certainly speculate, but that’s all it would be. I think her current position is more in keeping with the website she frequents.

      She seems to be a great admirer of “C.W. Wade”. Anyone who has read him/(her?), would likely call into question who he works for. It’s hard to say what the motive is. It could be threats and/or money. From what I can gather she has been somewhat of a loose canon there and this book establishes her as a “company girl”.

      I suppose everyone needs a hobby but I wish she would take up knitting.

      1. Cool !.

        While I got your attention pls ck my theory of the pentagon projectile. I asked Dub also to “grade me”. Haha

        I know there is going to be kinetic energy from even an unarmed missile that can cause an explosion or fire but I think I may have this?

        It would certainly explain how She and her Son walked out of the “hole” alive.

        1. My comment I asked you to read was on another thread,

          Here it is:

          I think a projectile hit the Pentagon and didn’t “blow up” just penetrated the outer wall to the the inner ring.

          The explosions were just the same ole 911 C-4 or whatever for the Show.

          That’s why that woman that sued that was in the Blast area wasn’t hurt and walked out the “hole” and not a paper on her desk was even singed.

      2. lophatt – for fun the company girl does not knit, she quilts. I used to listen to her until she unmasked herself. She has written several books on The Ruling Elite.

    2. I noticed that her 180° turn on this issue happened shortly after her association with American Free Press (AFP). She also did an interview with the late Michael Collins Piper, where they had a field day poo-pooing SHE conspiracy theorists. MCP was a long-standing reporter/commentator for AFP.

      I was shocked by both MCP’s and Spingola’s stance on this obvious hoax, and lost faith in their reasoning ability insofar as current affairs (including MCP’s) thereafter. I also vehemently disagree with her support of Dr. Judy Wood regarding “energy weapons” used to demolish the obvious controlled demolition of all of the buildings of the World Trade Center.

      That being said, Deanna has very carefully and accurately deconstructed mainstream history and propaganda, including the propaganda created post WWII about Adolf Hitler and the Holohoax, Christopher Columbus (a Sephartic Jew), George Washington (a blatant Freemason) Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Winston Churchill and many other “historical facts”, so I am not inclined to throw out the baby with the bathwater. She has definitely exposed the undercurrent (or underbelly) of political and financial power throughout recent history.

      Deanna’s three main books, also self-published through the same company as mentioned above, because of censorship attempts by major publishers (they wanted her to tone down the mentioning of jews) are all entitled “The Ruling Elite:” with subtitles as follows:

      The Ruling Elite: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation
      The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power
      The Ruling Elite: Death, Destruction, and Domination

      All can be purchased on Amazon.

      I am, however saddened and dismayed at Deanna’s current stance regarding SHE, and I do wonder if some influence behind the scenes is at play.

      1. There simply is no way anyone actually scrutinizes SHM footage to any substantial degree and still thinks it could be real. Sorry Deanna.

      2. THX
        They are allowed to tell the truth to some extent, in fact they have to in order to believable, however at some point they have to fold on a key issue. 911 are key issues they cannot afford to fail on as far as public perception.

        As far as those areas of the ruling elite, how much of that did you know already? You were probably familiar with all of it right? It is called building credibility until a big switch is needed. Alex Jones does some of this and then he turns around and says the Arabs control Hollywood.

      3. The term “controlled demolition” is tricky. There is nothing about it that precludes energy weapons. There is nothing about it that precludes the use of any conceivable co-factor in combination to destroy buildings in a controlled fashion. Perhaps nanothermite was used in conjunction with the exo-weapon. I just don’t see how anyone can watch a 60 story spire turning to dust and just disbelieve it. No physics rooted in Newtonian laws can explain this as an ordinary controlled demolition.

        Conjoinment of methods is nothing new of course. My bet goes on the predominant use of DEW for the towers, and some evidence suggests it’s use in the WTC7 CD. She has claimed that 7 was not fundamentally different than the towers, and the weapon was used there too. It looks like a classic demolition, true, except when one considers the full south side of 7 that is “lathering”, and comparing it with the same phenomenal appearance on at least one picture of tower 1.

        http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/WTC7.html WTC1 lathering fig.34; WTC 7 lathering in Fig. 37, 38.

  9. Is the publication of this 591 page “weighty tome” something new for this woman or has she written such books in the past? BTW, although I guess I can look this up myself, who is the publisher?

    1. Tim, I don’t know if she’s written anything else. The publisher is “Trafford Publishing”, which I understand to be a pay to publish outfit.

  10. I don’t know what Springola’s problem is, but she’s definitely acting as a disinformation agent as far as Sandy Hook is concerned. When she had Wolfgang on her show the first time (not long after he’d appeared onto the scene), she treated him abysmally. She was condescending and nasty more than hard-hitting, and I was really put off by her.

    Springola also Had a bone to pick with Sofia Smallstorm. Rather than confront Sofia personally, she instead devoted considerable time to deconstructing “Unraveling Sandy Hook” on her radio show. I recall her lumping Halbig, Fetzer, and Smallstorm together, insinuating that they had nefarious motives. I can’t recall which show this was, but I could probably find it.

    Lophatt has Springola nailed. Good job.

  11. The book cover looks dumb enough? Is that the front of the brain, or the rear? Does the left brain, or the right put off the blue vibes? Is it some kind of dem-repub statement? Is this judging a book by its cover? Maybe.

    1. It’s a 45 degree shot of the brain from Space Rich..haha

      And yes, You just judged a book by its cover..Shame on you…

      I hope she don’t come after me…

  12. Once again Lophatt great post

    This is OT, off topic and I apologize but very important if true and I believe there may be some truth to it. As you most likely know the United States has moved bombers to Turkey to bomb ISIS supposedly. Germany removed their patriot missiles in Turkey shortly after and I believe this was after a conference with Putin.

    We have seen news reports of Russia moving more technicians and military hardware into Russia. Russia kind of denies this but who knows.

    Now we see this.


    US military revolt against Obama’s decision to support Al Qaeda in Syria.

    A military revolt against the plan of the Obama administration to launch a potentially disastrous attack against Syria is gathering pace, with two senior officers and members of scheduled services who express their vehement opposition to what the United States s ‘entangled in the conflict. The reaction began to spread on social media yesterday with many military posting pictures of themselves holding up signs saying they would refuse to fight on the same side as Al Qaeda in Syria. Others have posted their photos on Twitter with the hashtag #IdidntJoin.


    1. I am shocked they haven’t “rolled” this fool up long ago.

      The Military takes an oath to uphold our constitution.

      I know, Naive dumb Ricky. But there is still good Military Men Obumkin hasn’t fired (yet).

      1. Ric
        It seems we always get some resistance from the military when begin intimating they might be fighting Russia.

        Case in point when (at least the story in Al Manar) talked about the Russian ships who parked themselves in front of Syria during the chemical weapons standoff with various warships of NATO surrounding it. We are told that someone possibly near Spain fired cruise missiles at Syria and they were shot down by the Russians. China had ship in the area also which arrived through the Suez Canal.

        Another case in point, was the flyover by Russia of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea. A Russian fighter disabled Aegis radar on the ship and fried the electronics. Then the plane fly over the ship twelve times breaking the sound barrier and maybe some ear drums at a low altitude. The radar screens went blank and the ship limped back to port in Romania.

        News reports indicated that some 27 US navy personnel tried to resign afterwards.

        Magrav technology is serious business it fries any electronics it comes in contact with and rumors are Iran has it also.

        1. Vladimir Balybine – director of the research center on electronic warfare and the evaluation of so-called “visibility reduction” techniques attached to the Russian Air Force Academy – made the following comment:

          “The more a radio-electronic system is complex, the easier it is to disable it through the use of electronic warfare.”

          Frightening technology Mic. We have it too, I am sure of it. If reports of crew demoralization are true, it is because they knew the jet was coming but were not allowed to defend themselves, ie. take action with their over 50 anti-aircraft missiles on board.

          sailors, soldiers, and airman are trained to fight, and don’t like being used as bait to test the enemies’ offensive weapons systems.

        1. Ric, I posted a reply to your theory on the Rethinking thread. Here it is again:

          Ric, it is physically impossible for a missile to explain the damage to the pentagon. Dave McGowan did a lot of fine work on 9/11. If you go here http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68d.html and scroll down to near the bottom you will find a schematic of the structural columns and the pattern of damage from the outer ring to the circular hole deep in the building. Some of the structural columns were “taken out,” some are damaged, and some remain perfectly intact. You can clearly see that there is no clear path for a missile to have travelled.

        2. Pat,
          I’ve reading Dave’s link you provided. He’s suggesting the “Hole” looks exactly like a cruise missile hole as the one on Kosovo Embassy.

          He’s now moved on to the demolition part Act III.

          My suggestion was like a cruise missile but without an armed warhead.

          The explosions were planted but there still was a lot of kinetic energy from the missile alone without being armed.

          I was just trying to come up with a logical theory as to how that lady with her son walked out of the impact hole moments after impact.

        3. Forgive me, Ric. Here’s my error: I was thinking about the round hole on the far side of the damage zone, and thinking that since people interpreted that hole as evidence of a missile, everyone with a missile theory must have come to the same conclusion. Because undamaged pillars block that path, it could not have gone all the way through.

          If you are saying that a missile punched its way in, and is responsible for, say, the first half of the damage, and everything deeper in is from explosive charges, I stand corrected. That’s certainly possible.

          And if that’s what Dave argued, I forgot it (I’ve not reread those articles in a couple of years, so the details are rusty).

  13. Dub,
    Your in heap of Hurt. haha

    Deanna Spingola caught wind and is coming after you,

    Not Lophatt, you.

    Getting Popcorn………………

  14. Very good article! I should note, as a regular contributor to American Free Press, that the paper has taken a much more objective stance on Sandy Hook since the dismissal of Michael Collins Piper and the resignation of Keith Johnson. Both of those individuals were having a very negative influence on the newspaper, and thank goodness both are gone now! RIP Mike Piper, you were a great man and a great research – it’s a shame your legacy will be tarnished by your ridiculous and entirely unfounded stance on Sandy Hook.

    1. As someone who panned AFP, I’ll state that I’ve no doubt John isn’t writing as controlled opposition. Whether or not he writes under its auspice is another question.

  15. I’m the “PatColo” handle who began the messageboard thread, “Spingola Jumps Shark, Supports Zion.gov’s Official Sandy Hook Story” which Amanda has already linked to below somewhere, but again it’s:


    ^ begun on 1/16/14 the day after Spingola’s 1/15/14 solo podcast in which she recited a treatise outlining her (official/public) view of the SHES event. Thread currently has 250 replies and 17,844 views. Some of the handles you’ll recognize as regular MHB commenters.

    Lophatt, while we agree in spirit regarding the untenable nature of Spingola’s pro media/gov SHES campaign; I must request clarification of your assertion that she flipped from being a former SHES skeptic, to a (post 1/15/14 show) pro gov story advocate.

    You mentioned Lophatt, that DS “interviewed several Sandy Hook researchers previously with favorable commentary”; but you didn’t identify these researchers or the dates of the DS shows in which they appeared & SHES was discussed. This question was examined somewhat in the Spingola/shark thread above, and 2 guests were identified who appeared during 2013, namely Dave McGowan & “Dr. K” webmaster of http://nodisinfo.com

    Thing was, I reviewed these shows and DS was only in vocal agreement with these guests regarding Boston Hoax-A-Thon. When SHES was examined, the guest was allowed to explain their skeptical observations, but DS played her cards much more closely, never coming out vocalizing overt agreement with the guests’ SHES hoax speculations. She mostly just “ooh’d & aah’d” in response to their points. Find both the McGowan & Dr. K shows in question linked here (reply 63),


    …then see the next replies through #70 discussing the matter.

    It could be Lophatt that you’re correct re DS having verbalized a skeptical view of SHES somewhere in the 13 months between the event, and her 1/15/14 show launching her full support of gov/media’s SHES narrative campaign; but I missed it? Could you please source where you got that element of your book review?

    1. In this “Spingola Special” recorded on 4/9/2013 with Andrew S. McGregor, at the top of the interview Spingola says she does not agree with the official story of Sandy Hook… later she goes on to list many of our own objections as her own objections to the official account.


  16. Lophatt thanks for all the legwork and laughs.

    Spingolem was always on the dark payroll lying in wait until the story needed rekindling. We will never know exactly who among us are the paid actors, although I might detect them if I could look into their soulless eyes.

    The plan to redistribute the minions’ wealth is well underway with the invasion of angry, self entitled, sex starved muslim young men through out the western world.


    The media has been mostly successful in concealing the invasion, but patience and funding is running out and soon the bleeding hearts will be shocked to see they are the targets of massive crimes.


  17. Calling names when someone disagrees with you or questions your conclusions is cause for concern. And, even more, is not nice.

    Saying that any part of a project so muddied as Sandy Hook is “proven beyond a shadow of a doubt” is utter hyperbole and naive (at best).

    Present your evidence and let people make up their own minds.

  18. Deanna Spingola comes from a military background and is herself an honorably discharged marine, who had, against the advice of her mother, reconnected with her grandfather at the age of 13. Her grandfather was the aid to General Smedley Butler. Folks like to quote Butler’s ‘War is a Racket’ schtick… but perhaps we should better remember him as the one responsible for blowing the whistle on the Business Plot — a plan to overthrow Roosevelt.


    The Business Plot was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933 in the United States. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans’ organization and use it in a coup d’état to overthrow President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization. In 1934, Butler testified before the United States House of Representatives Special Committee on Un-American Activities (the “McCormack-Dickstein Committee”) on these claims.[1] No one was prosecuted.

    At the time of the incidents, news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a “gigantic hoax”.[2] While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of “wild scheme” was contemplated and discussed.

Comments are closed.