Nobody Died At Sandy Hook

It wasn’t a School Massacre. It was a FEMA Drill.

A new volume edited by Prof. Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek

Proof it was a drill was right before our eyes:
* the sign, “Everyone must check in!”
* boxes of bottled water & pizza cartons
* Port-a-Potties present from scratch
* many wearing name tags on lanyards
* parents bringing children to the scene

Proof it wasn’t a massacre was also there:
* no surge of EMTs in to the building
* no Med-Evac helicopter was called
* no string of ambulances to the school
* no evacuation of 469 other students
* no bodies placed on the triage tarps

Among the best students and scholars of Sandy Hook have contributed to this collection:

Vivian Lee, Ph.D. Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D. Dr. Eowyn, Ph.D. Nick Kollerstrom, Ph.D. Dennis Cimino James F. Tracy, Ph.D. Kelley Watt Allan William Powell Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.

And featuring Sofia Smallstorm, Paul Preston and Wolfgang Halbig.

Read the book’s entire prologue, “Sandy Hook: Was it real or an illusion?

The essays have been edited by Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., a former Marine Corps officer and Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and by Mike Palecek, who has committed his life to the search for truth and justice. They prove Screen Shot 2015-10-25 at 12.36.05 AMbeyond a reasonable doubt that Sandy Hook was an elaborate hoax to promote the Obama/Holder gun-control agenda. If you want to know what happened, who was responsible and how it was done, you want to read this book.

We have proof of photo fakery; proof of furnishing the Lanza home to serve as a prop; proof of refurbishing the school to serve as the stage. We even have the FEMA manual for the Sandy Hook event.

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” – Mao Tse Tung

Available at Amazon and Create Space 

112 thoughts on “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”

  1. How about no NET activity for years before the fake day happened by a fake perp; not to mention the double dying Noah P.

      1. No InterNET activity emanated from the school for over 4 years or thereabouts prior to the “event”.

  2. Once something becomes embedded in consciousness with this powerful emotive theater it becomes very very difficult to get an individual to re-look. This is the challenge, and we are way behind in this study.

    1. I truly agree, Marvinsannes, that when a narrative is embedded in the sub- conscious of our minds, it becomes tedious for self reflection. But I disagree that “we” are behind in that study.

      I will probably sound like a broken record, on this blog but I firmly believe that all humans can overcome “cognitive dissonance” or mind rape which is being utilized thru these trauma based events.

      My reading/research recommendation is a book call the “Rape of the Mind” by Joost Meerloo. It provides an excellent understanding of how humans can easily be controlled thru constant trauma base events such as Sandy Hook.

  3. And our corrupt government used it to call for more gun control! Imagine that. The purpose of our right to bear guns is to protect ourselves from government tyranny. KEEP YOUR GUNS AND GET MORE AMMO.

      1. Actually, the right to keep and bear arms isn’t a constitutional bill of right: its an INALIENABLE right…the 2nd amendment NEVER gave us that right, since by virtue of being born…we already have that right along with the rest of humanity. Here’s what I mean: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state…the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(acknowledgement that this right already existed prior to this amendment) shall NOT BE INFRINGED”. This might sound radical, but all the 2nd amendment did was make The Militia constitutional, NOT the right to keep & bear arms.

        1. You are quite correct, sir. Said another way “the people will not be disarmed”.

          I find it curious that in medieval times in England, all of the males above the age of twelve were REQUIRED to practice archery. Obviously the King expected that he might need to use them, but he did not fear them.

          When a government, especially one that bills itself as a democracy and is alleged to do “the will of the people” doesn’t trust its citizens to be armed, one must ask, “why is that?”.

        2. Even better: when a government is engaged in “activities” for which the public cannot know about “for reasons of NATIONAL SECURITY”, that is itself a revelation…that the security of The State depends on the absence of The People, and the WILL of some other force. That is the very definition of a SECRET GOVERNMENT.

        3. I have for a better term, a correspondent or pin pal in Ireland. He moved back there from Scotland. He tells me he is very formidable at 35 yards with a crossbow. Only the real criminals have guns in merry ole England.

          In fact the Dando girl who was a media sensation, fiancee to a jewish dentist, until she bought into the wrong story, was murdered by a gun shot. So much for gun control.

        4. And that’s exactly the point, isn’t it: gun control isn’t about keeping people safe, its about keeping people “in a safe”. Get it? When they control the guns & the drugs, they control…US.

        5. Rico you are right on. The whole NSA National Security agenda to keep us all safe is an obvious pretense to justify surveillance and gun control.

          Where are all the terrorists ? Jeb Bush said that his brother kept us safe ??? Really ? Wow I guess allowing the borders to be open floodgates for terrorists to sail through at will was a very effective protection and safety policy huh Jeb ? Do people really believe this BS ?

        6. Actually, America is supposed to be a Republic, NOT a democracy; big difference between the two.

        7. What lophatt said is “When a government, especially one that bills itself as a democracy.” And it DOES do that, every day, all day long.

          You say “America is supposed to be a Republic.” Indeed, but the wrong side lost Lincoln’s war. The steady march to totalitarianism (under the guise of democracy) began the day Lee surrendered.

          When the voluntary union was destroyed, and the United States was transformed into Hotel California (or, better metaphor, the Roach Motel), the Constitution was no more. All pretend, ever since.

  4. Well, that ought to shake them up. I assume that this includes the non-murder of Nancy Lanza. But, then, what happened to her, if there was a ‘her’? I suppose I’ll have to read the book, or wait until the movie comes out.

    Incidentally, I know the Mao quote is common, but he and the communists never believed that power came from guns; it came from the peasants.

  5. Reblogged this on COALITION OF THE OBVIOUS and commented:

    Just as Hurricane Patricia Hoax, the architects of ONE GLOBAL AUTHORITY cannot escape the conversion of experts from all staged events from 911 to crisis shootings to Environmental Modification. We are to find out soon just how serious they are. I predict the tipping point is much closer than we expect. Great work by these people will free the minds of many. Project Bluebeam is the end game and your mind will be the target of the project and the means by which to take you out.

  6. We the American people will never be disarmed not through deception not through executive orders not through false flags. We are one collective group of fighters and survivors. Our guns have stopped our so called leaders from selling the ground beneath our feet. We will never give up our right to keep and bear arms no matter how corrupt our country becomes. The real challenge is to throw out the current liars and install new public servants until they become liars and crooks then our kids will throw them out. The constitution is clear and it’s our responsibility.

    1. I got a better idea. Why don’t we hang a few of these SOB’s on world wide TV as a deterrent to the next generation of psychopaths. No one will really miss them at all, and I got some brand new rope that needs testing.

  7. Fetzer usually hits the nail on the head. I never find much to argue about when it comes to his research.

    Of course Sandy Hooks take place as they don’t want anyone armed when this type dissension arises as we see in Germany.

    Unfortunately the article refers to the demonstrations as fascists, when in reality the German corporate controlled government are the fascist.

  8. I know it is easy, and in this case impudent, to suggest to other people what they should be doing, but if it is possible to get people together to do Sandy Hook, it would be even easier to get together to do the Boston Marathon. Since it is more complicated, it probably would take more time and evoke more disagreement. But it is also more important, since they shut down a city like Boston to hunt an unarmed kid, putting the entire city under house arrest.

    It would be very worthwhile, if possible and convenient, to get a specialist on Chesznia, since the brothers who served as patsies were involved in US foreign policy and intelligence in some way. But this may well be touchy, the murderous CIA having no qualms in interceding in these investigations. Still, it might be possible.

  9. It is a pity that Mr. Fetzer did not engage a competent editor for the book. Many people, I fear, will be put off by the slapdash language and the poor quality of the prose. Books of this nature must be absolutely perfect in their presentation,

    1. I haven’t seen the book, Fogey, but I totally agree with you. In fact, any book seen fit to publish ought to be fit to be professionally edited. Any extra cost is well worth the expense expense. I’ve put down a book due to poor editing…hell, I’ve stopped reading blog entries due to sloppy editing. It’s clear when time isn’t taken even just to proofread (my own posts here are case-in-point). Justified or not, I feel like if an author doesn’t know basic grammar, what DOES s/he know?

      1. You’re very fastidious, Recynd, especially for someone who hasn’t seen the book. My feeling is that creation is so difficult, especially in this area, that it is worthwhile even if expressed in grunts.

        1. I was speaking generally, Folk. Your choice of word (“fastidious”) is an interesting one, as I’ve never considered myself all that hard to please. I would have said “professional” or even “careful”, as in “care-full” or “full of care”).

        2. I think women in general are more conciencious than men, which is why I choose women doctors, etc. But also less ideologically deviant. Generally it’s because women are more intelligent than men, an evolutionary advantage to compensate for the heavy lifting, but usually the men are too dumb to notice.

        3. Pretty clear you are a feminist. It’s obvious you like undressing for your woman doctor, too.

          Are you a guy named Shanley? I’m betting you are.

    2. You have to get accustomed to the fact, fogey, that dissident or rank and file truth will usually lack the bells and whistles of mainstream media deceit. Unfortunately the truth is not pretty, and dissidents do not have the money, time, energy, etc to make it pretty, even if they wished to.

    3. You say that “books of this nature must be absolutely perfect in their presentation”. Tell us, please, how you derived this assumption? Is this belief widely held? Do you think most people reading this book are English professors who “insist” on perfect prose?
      You say many people will be put off, can you quantify how many people you are referring to? Is it an integer, a ratio, a percentage?

      Don’t get me wrong. I feel your pain, self imagined that it is. I do hope this book doesn’t set you too far back, I would just rue it if such a thing would happen, you can trust me on that.

      Perhaps you have some samples of your prose, perhaps references to your books and articles, eh?

      I hope I have not split any infinitives, that could set you off and I don’t want that to happen.

      Apologizing in advance for reasons I can’t fathom,


      1. Sorry, folks, I was just trying to be helpful. When you are trying to show how the “accepted” story is wrong by bringing together detailed evidence to make a case based on logic any defect in grammar, punctuation, or prose undermines the overall argument that you are trying to make. Sloppiness in one aspect of the job calls into question how much you can trust the author in all the other aspects.

        Also, just to set the question straight, I have not read the book, but I did read the prologue that was linked to the post and was surprised to find that Mr. Fetzer wasn’t more careful in how he presented himself and his case.

        1. FWIW, I agree/d with you.

          I mean, seriously, most authors have a significant other or associate that could proof it. Sloppy writing (especially writing intended for a wide audience) indicates sloppy thinking, if not always, generally.

          Again, I’m not referring to Dr. Fetzer specifically (I haven’t yet read the post), but generally. A stray typo can be overlooked, but outright carelessness…

          Now I’m repeating myself.

          I’ll say no more about this.

        2. I welcome well-founded criticism. But I have no idea what you are talking about. How about some examples where I should be “more careful” in how I present myself and my case (which, of course, is not simply “my case”, since there are nine–NINE–contributors, including six Ph.D.s)?

          I discuss the difference between probabilities and certainties, inference to the best explanation, the requirement of total evidence and more in laying out the argument’s structure. And I offer rather powerful evidence of the staging of the evacuation photo that was sent around the world.

          Egad! I even produce a devastating photograph taken before the event in which the SWAT team is already present, police tape is already up, the windows of Classroom 10 are undamaged and Wayne Carver, M.E., is patiently awaiting the arrival of a portable tent! That’s all in the Prologue.

          One of us may be casual or reckless in making their case, but would not be me. We have several printings of AND I SUPPOSE WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON, EITHER? to eliminate typos and such, where we are already working on this. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

        3. I know it will cost money, but it would great if you could somehow get a copy of this book on every congresspersons desk.

        4. I strongly disagree with professor Fetzer in a number of matters, but in this case he is right on point. don’t throw the baby out with a bathwater.

        5. I apologize, Mr. Fetzer. I raised the issue of editing in order to be of some help, as I believe your and your colleagues’ work on this subject is vital and I want the information that you have drawn together to be read and understood by many people.

          Here is just one sentence out of many that illustrates the point I was trying to make: “The occurrence of an elaborate hoax intended to fool the people does not occur often, but there can be no doubt that it does sometimes occur ” My eyes glaze over when I run into such a sentence, and when there are a string of such sentences, I simply put the book down.

          I was happy to see that “Musings” in a comment that appears below understood my point perfectly and expressed my feelings far better than I have been able to do here.

          Best of luck with your book, Mr. Fetzer. I look forward to reading it.

        6. Well, thanks for this. Creating a book with multiple authors on a complex and controversial issue like this poses multiple challenges–and I know the book needs some tweaks. But your example would not be likely to impress anyone familiar with my work. A former study observed that, in my first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (1981), he found a sentence that ran 185 words long (with colons and semi-colons). And he reported to me that he had thought about it and thought about it–and he could not think of any other way I could have said what I had to say. So if that’s the best you can do, I guess I have come a long way. Thank you for posting.

        7. Well, thank you for this. No doubt, the book will need some tweaks–and we are going to take care of them. But your example would not impress those more familiar with my work. One of my students, for example, found a sentence in my first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (1981), that ran 185 words long (with colons and semi-colons). He told me that he had given it a lot of thought and that he could not see how I could have said what I had to say in that sentence in any other way. So if this is the best you can do, then I would infer that I have come a long way.

        8. fogey – I agree with your premise. Part of the job of waking people up is to convince them you are educated enough to have read through the opposition’s propaganda and can thus dismiss it, that you are not just approaching it from the gut instinct, but that you have actually processed the information. If I hired a lawyer, I would want that person to be at least as educated as the opposing counsel.

          Dismissing people as ignoramuses who have gotten all their opinions from tabloids, portraying them as lower class, has been effective in muzzling their opinions. If the reader is put off by the tone or the language of a piece which has been poorly edited (and left some arguments ambiguous because of lack of coherence), then the battle is lost before it is begun. My friends can thus go back to their New Yorker article about Sandy Hook and feel all is right with the world.

          Remember Wolfgang Halbig’s initial letters to the Newtown officials that seemed poorly written and made one doubt his claims of expertise in school security?

        9. OK, musings. What exactly are YOU talking about? I have reviewed the Prologue and can find nothing remotely objectionable about it, either with respect to content or grammar. If you are going to endorse a claim that I have already disputed, WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE? This comes across to me as a feeble attempt to discount a massive, detailed and powerful study of the Sandy Hook hoax WITHOUT EVEN READING IT. That, to me, is as offensive as it could possibly be. So what is your evidence?

        10. It should also be noted that the two previous volumes in this edited series, And I Suppose We Didn’t Go to the Moon Either? and White Rose Blooms in Wisconsin, were essentially flawless productions in terms of editing.

        11. musings,
          You really get the impression that James Fetzer doesn’t come off as “educated enough to have read through the opposition’s propaganda and can thus dismiss it?” That you’re unsure he’s “not just approaching it from the gut instinct,” and that you’re unconvinced that he has “actually processed the information?”

          This is ludicrous. If the battle to wake people up is lost, as you warn, it won’t be Mr. Fetzer’s fault.

          I won’t bother to enumerate the rest of your unsubstantiated insults.

          Let me just say that I’m pretty sure Dr. Fetzer is familiar with the research process, not to mention publishing.

        12. This is Ric the class Clown,

          I think Old Fogey won.

          He started this whole premise of good editing and good grammar and has Never Read the book!

          All were arguing it’s important to come off as educated, dot your I’s and cross your T’s.

          I think you just got trolled.

          I don’t think anyone is dissing Mr. Fitzer.

          Musings was just responding to Old Fogey. (He gets a raise)

          Take it or leave it………….

        13. Opps… I gotta do it.

          Fetzer …But you all ready knew

          That;s why I rarely correct myself. I don’t give crap

          You all get it….Unless I’m slurring my typing..Haha

        14. Don’t take that from me (Class Clown)…..

          When everyone’s going Bananas I try to slip some humor in.

          Of course I’m kidding…

  10. James Tracy,
    You need to check in with Mr. Swing. He hasn’t updated his homepage since 10/20/15 when he made his prediction(s).

      1. Haha..True. I just wonder how he’s dealing with all this. Those were some pretty bold predictions he made.

        Some Fade away..

        Some Double Down….

        I guess I’m just curious as to what he may have to say now.

  11. I would like to congratulate you James Tracy and the other academics on this new research book on “Sandy Hook” .
    But I will highly disagree that this trauma based event /mass casualty drill (MCD) , like many others have anything to do with gun or ammo control.
    As an old jarhead, (don`t judge the youthful demeanor of my photo) like your fellow writer Jim Fetzer, PhD. I once had that patriotic notion, thru constitutional adheres , that the 2nd Amendment gives us the inalienable right to bear arms and defend our soil from foreign and domestic enemies. That belief system I now consider to very delusional at best, and the result of persistent brain washing by a system of governance that is hidden from the view of most Americans.

    No amount of guns/ammo can save the average American from the current police state that has been elected to their fraudulent seat of power.
    My questions to you James Tracy and my fellow bloggers are ?

    Who are “we” protecting ourselves from ? Our next door neighbors or the police state ?
    Who is really benefiting from the recent mass shootings in this country and internationally ?
    Why are schools & colleges being used for these MCD ?
    If the New World Order (NWO) is the end game, how can academic synergism create a cognitive emancipation from the current adheres to the “state” ?

    Here is a few of my objections to the current belief pattern.

    The reason schools/colleges or churches have been used for these MCD or trauma based events is to form cohesion among people thru an emotional conducive event.

    Pedophiles, sociopath and psychopaths control the global economies and pederasty has never being about sex, but control of the individuals mind thru degradation of their physical body and torture. So you say what the does this have to do with these MCD ?
    Most the supposed victims are children and all of their grieving parents create a “fund me” web site for financial gain. Who benefits from these trauma based events ? the parents or those`s who created the idea for these websites ? Pedophiles in power strives on control and fear.

    80% of most weapons and ammo companies in the US are now owned by an Capital investment company knows as “Cerberus Capital Management LP.
    I don’t think the powers that be, care about your collections of guns and ammo; but more about your liberty and free will and the ability to free our minds from mental slavery.
    Links below for review.

    I have been a follower of William “Bill” Cooper for years, but this last video say it all ,pay close attention what he mentions starting 10:45 in the video. I am sure Jim Fetzer will agree with him.

    1. Ted, certainly many of here have said, repeatedly, that this isn’t “all” about gun control. There is a great deal of modeling going on as well.

      I really don’t think that this is lost on anyone associated with the book. It is easier for some who are new to these productions to see the more obvious implications.

      I understand your point about our “gun collections and ammo”. I, for one, prefer not to feel totally helpless and at their tender mercy. I realize that I can’t “win” in a showdown like that. I also do not intend to let anybody haul me away, unopposed either.

      We have been discussing all of the implications of these drills/ productions for some time. Many are extremely nuanced and are not lost on most of us.

      It is indeed a psychological operation. They intend to implement their plan. They would like to do that with the least resistance possible, but do it they will.

      1. Well said, Lopphatt, and it may be regurgitated info , but I sense a major awakening of the new bloggers/ visitors to this site and my reasons for the nuances. I have been a follower since Mr. Tracy started it.

        As I stated earlier that I’m a old jarhead and will go out fighting, but the bigger picture is that “We” the people need to put actions before words, and possibly work on a conference/ retreat to share working ideas/concepts to defeat their plans.
        Teach a man/woman to fish/ hunt and they’ll have a life long skill to share. But the brain-deads in power wants mega cities & pseudo animals rights, hence the big push for the 2030 Agenda. Interesting times we live in.

    2. Hastert, as Speaker, pushed the “Patriot” Act quickly through the House.
      His statement that it shouldn’t be carefully read because the Supreme Court would deal with the problems of Constitutionality later reveals a knowledge of pending troubles for our nation.

  12. This book represents “high noon” for the truth about Sandy Hook, for if the book’s authors are NOT eventually targets of numerous lawsuits, or if the book’s publication results in the sound of legal “crickets”, the sound of that silence becomes deafening.

  13. Although most people to this site and subject know the Sandy Hook playbook frame by frame I’ll still buy it, mostly for the purpose of Christmas gifting sleepy relatives who I enjoy winding up.
    It’s good to see that despite the erosion of freedoms in the US, this book can be published and enjoyed.
    There’s not a single academic here in the UK would dare touch the McCann case for fear of the legal onslaught.

  14. Sadly many people still believe the official story. These are sophisticated people too- it shows how conditioned the public is to believe whatever they are told by the media.

    Eventually the truth will come out on this fraud but the media will not report it will they ?

    At least I was encouraged by the Amazon reviews of Roig’s book.

    One new thought that came to mind is that I recalled that an interview with an EMT responder indicated that when they arrived they were told to wait and that NO CELL PHONES WERE ALLOWED IN THE AREA.

    After giving that some thought we do not have single cell phone picture or video of the evacuation or anything for that matter. So with the hundreds of parents coming to the school we have NOTHING ?

    Also interesting is that we seem to have news footage with video of many victims parents don’t we ? What a coincidence- The Parkers, the Rekos, the McDonnells, the Kowalski’s- out of the hundreds upon hundreds of parents we seem to only have news footage of the victims ?

Comments are closed.