A Discussion with the Editors of “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook”

ndashJim Fetzer and Mike Palecek, the editors of the new book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill to Promote Gun Control, join James for the hour to discuss how they put the volume together and why the official narrative of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre doesn’t add up. They also explain recent efforts to undermine the book on such platforms as Amazon.com and how the title reveals the true dimensions of the Obama administration and Connecticut State officials’ efforts to manipulate public opinion.

Jim Fetzer is McKnight emeritus professor of philosophy at University of Minnesota Duluth. A founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, he has authored and edited 30 books on the philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, and analyses of American political conspiracies, including the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the plane crash of Senator Paul Wellstone, and the events of September 11, 2001. Fetzer is a regular contributor at Veterans Truth Network and hosts The Real Deal at Media Broadcasting Central. Additional writings and information is available at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

Mike Palecek is an award-winning journalist, author and peace activist. He has authored or edited over one dozen fiction and non-fiction books, and is the co-editor of the investigative series of titles, Save the World/Resist the Empire, of which Nobody Died at Sandy Hook is the third title. Palecek spent time in federal prison for his peace activism, and worked as a journalist in Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. In 1994 the newspaper he operated with his wife Ruth Palececk won the Minnesota Newspaper Association’s Newspaper of the Year award. Palececk was an Iowa Democratic Party nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, receiving 65,000 votes in a conservative district on an anti-military, anti-prison, pro-immigration platform. He founded the imprint Moon Rock Books in 2014 to publish the Resist the Empire series. He blogs at thenewamericandream.net.


29 thoughts on “A Discussion with the Editors of “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook””

  1. Enjoyed listening to tihs discussion. Thank you.

    Jim Fetzer deserves a medal for his commitment. We are lucky to have him.

    Re: Adam Lanza:

    I’m aware of the doubt surrounding his very existence.

    For me, this confirms that “Adam Lanza” is a fiction.

    Here in the UK, the few folk who owned firearms were disarmed after the false flag massacre shooting at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland on 13 March 1996


    Jim Fetzer is absolutely correct. The only people left with guns in the UK now are the criminals.

    We now have automatic weapons on our streets.

    When talking about Sandy Hook & gun control, the usual suspects have made numerous, albeit, oblique references to Dunblane.

    The “birth date” attribute for the psyop entity known as “Adam Lanza” is 22 April 1992


    As usual, this “birth date attribute” has been constructed with respect to the Dunblane Massacre on 13 March 1996

    On that very day, “Adma Lanza’s” age was precisely:

    = 37 months, 37 weeks, 37 days


    So what significance does the number 37 carry you may ask ?

    No prizes for guessing, what this predictable signature means.


    Hope this helps.

    Mark Gobell

      1. You don’t want to know…Toni.

        And as for Mark/Folk,

        I guess he’s done his job. No one dares to blog and anyone who does is in a long winded Race Argument that Mark always starts but claims
        ( I paraphrase) he’s just “slowly programming us and will move in for the kill” later after our brain washing is complete and we will see things his way”


        1. PS:

          When Folk does one of his rants on me for stating my opinion, I’m handing the response to Pat and Toni. Haha

      2. Only if you can explain to me how I can possibly explain anything to you by typing text, given that you obviously have difficulty understanding textual explanations which you clearly canont understand.

        Go away Toni.

        I haven’t the time for your ilk.

        1. If you can’t summarize it must be concluded that you are unable to, or that you are being deliberately obscurant, in opposition to the liberal diffusion of knowledge.

  2. In addition to the recording, professor Tracy has posted a Memory Hole news item about the trial of one Roy Topham for promoting hatred of the Jews. Jonathon Turley, a liberal-libertarian law professor has defended Topham on the grounds of civil liberties. And I agree that the law is badly framed and that “promoting hatred” against a geo-heritage race or ethnicity is much too vague a charge to support a criminal trial.

    HOWEVER. Promoting racial VIOLENCE politically is a perfectly valid charge and should be subject to criminal law. It is said that Topham argued for the forced sterilization of Jews, a Nazi program. He says he did it ironically. I don’t have the time or patience to determine what he really said or how he said it, and a brief glance did not reveal it. But if he said it seriously and effectively, he should be imprisoned for supporting a political current of opinion that supports political racial violence.

    Consider the difference between a serious attempt to promote racial violence and the disgusting views of Patrick. Patrick maintains that he is not racist, that racism in the USA is a myth, and that the only racists are Blacks against Whites. He supports apartheid Israel so he is only anti-semitic against Jews in spots. He has justified the White police shooting unarmed African Americans on the grounds that they are thugs.

    Should Patrick be prosecuted for promoting racist violence? No. Because what he says is not political effective, no sensible person can take what he says seriously, even if he does effect weaker minds.

    But John Friend, a former interviewee of professor Tracy, SHOULD be prosecuted for promoting political racist violence, if only because he highlights Hitler and Goebbels in his blog, and they obviously led a racist violent movement. And so should Dr. David Duke, a former Klan leader and current Nazi, who Friend admires right next to Dr Fetzer and Dr. Tracy.

    Writing legislation to criminalize the promotion of political racist violence is a complicated task, as is the judging of it. But to permit it on the grounds of “Civil Liberties” leads in Democracies to the formation of Nazi and fascist movements, that once in power, destroys civil liberties. Nazi and racist violent movements must be destroyed before they are too powerful to combat effectively.

    But such a view is no longer liberalism or libertarianism. And the political development of a movement that espouses it does not currently exist, except in embryonic form. It does not even have a name. But I think it is essential in order to combat the current political transformation of the USA into a despotic power, which will inevitably have a strong racist component.

    1. There you go again … using the “guilt by association” technique to drive home yet another thoroughly anti-liberal, authoritarian rant. Probably high time we also condemn other journalists and commentators who might say something we don’t like, or make the mistake of giving ideas we disagree with a platform. For example, someone as dangerous as, say, Phil Donahue.

      What Mark/Folktruther is truly hostile toward is free inquiry and critical thought, for truth can only be understood and appreciated through its distinction with falsity and error. He would be the first person in line at the book burning with a wheelbarrow full of titles with which he finds objectionable.

      1. I made the distinction between racist and anti-semitic drivel, which you characterize as “free inquiry and critical thought,” and that racism that leads to political violence. You didn’t Mention the distinction.

        1. You’re a closet Nazi, FT. Your mien is no different than the ultra-violent Obama you likely worship. When you have a few days of free time, why don’t you analyze the results he’s gotten from his massive anti-white program that has reeked of hatreds that rival yours. You aren’t fooling anybody, FT. Some of the most violent people in the country talk softly and fool you into believing they have only a balsa stick as weaponry. Obama excels in this area of comportment. Does any sentient person believe Obama or does one have to be insane to do so?
          On top of all your hackneyed potpourri of nonsense, you are boring, boorish, and borderline.

        2. Your distinction, folktruther, is that you would punish people because you think they might commit crimes based on something they say.

          Contrary to your formulation that it is civil liberties that destroy civil liberties, it is your demand that the ideas of others be smothered and those people jailed, that provides the interference in individual freedom necessary to obliterate civil liberty.

          Criminalizing behavior that, in your opinion, leads to political violence is a calculation of pre-crime. Outside the future that exists only in your head, no violence, no crime, has been committed.

          That you deem yourself gifted with the fore-knowledge of such criminality, folktruther, is a distinction you seem incapable of questioning. Why would you, above all others, be endowed with this special talent belonging to no one else?

          You fail to see your posture as the very authoritarian stance against which you rail, though it is brought to your attention over and over.

        3. Your post, Toni, and I say this with all due respect, is utter bullshit. A number of Nazi and fascist movements have come to power historically that then eliminated all civil liberties and began killing and brutalizing people. Washington is currently supporting one in Ukraine that has assassinated an number of political leaders and has conducted an odious massacre in Odessa.

          The oligarchy is currently transforming the traditional US political system into a police state despotism, and the police are currently shooting unarmed Black people. The US has historically been a highly racist country and a highly violent one, and a tendency for racist violence appears to be rising.

          If someone states credibly that he is for killing non-White people and is raising a group to join him to do so, he should be arrested BEFORE he does so. That is, his speech should be against the law. It is rarely so clear cut, but the fomenting of violence is not and should not be covered by the tenets of free speech. Just as the Supreme Court ruled that it does not cover falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded room.

          That you posit that I am to judge how such a law should be implemented is the usual deceit around this subject, just as you pretend to be supporting civil liberties while continuing to actually defend the police shooting Americans.

          However what I still don’t understand is how a blog that began by uncovering staged conspiracies turned into one that supports racist violence.

        4. That’s ok, folktruther. I didn’t really expect that you would consider, let alone address, my comments.

          I was just backing up the Professor.

    2. Have I mentioned that I simply adore it that Markie-boy thinks I’m so important that I’m the first one who pops to mind when he wants to identify a “racist”?

      “Consider the difference between a serious attempt to promote racial violence and the disgusting views of Patrick.”

      “disgusting.” Ooh. That’s bad.

      “Patrick maintains that he is not racist,”

      Which of course he does, because he’s obviously not.

      “…that racism in the USA is a myth,”

      No, Mark, as you well know, I contend that America is the least racist country in the world, and that today, the only substantial racism is the brand the likes of yourself have systematically inculcated in the breasts of American blacks, primarily those who migrated to Northern cities after WWII. It was a planned program to create in American blacks a fifth column within America to bring it down. To generate a hatred for America in general, and whites particularly, in black people who previous to that program were happy to be a part of Western Civilization. Your ilk did its job real good. They hate us now. They really, really hate us. Their grandparents are ashamed of them, incidentally, for it.

      “…and that the only racists are Blacks against Whites.”

      You got THAT right, at least

      “He supports apartheid Israel…”

      That would be impossible, because there is no such thing. As I’ve explained to you (and others here) before, only one place in history practiced “apartheid”: the Union of South Africa. It is absolutely, completely, impossible to compare the two situations. A million Israeli citizens are Arabs, with exactly the same rights as any Jewish citizen. The contention is a demonstration of historical ignorance of a most remarkable sort.

      “…so he is only anti-semitic against Jews in spots.”

      Any attribution of anti-semitism on my part, in any form, however restricted, will surely come as a surprise to the vast collection of Jew-haters that visit this place regularly. Some of the really enthusiastic Jew-haters around here, I get the notion, like everything about my ideas except my inability to get with the Jew-hatred program.

      “He has justified the White police shooting unarmed African Americans on the grounds that they are thugs.”

      No, Mark. And while you’re obviously not very bright, I have explained to you this before, in terms a child could easily understand, so you are definitely lying about it, to slander me. When a thug menaces a policeman, unless he is brandishing a gun, the copper can’t possibly know the threatening brute is “unarmed.” I have explained that to you painstakingly. The only way the politzai can find out if the gangster is unarmed is after he’s been shot, and his corpse searched. But you know that, not just because I’ve told it to you before, but because it’s plain logic. It’s obvious.

      Then there’s this, again about me:

      “Should Patrick be prosecuted for promoting racist violence? No. Because what he says is not political effective, no sensible person can take what he says seriously, even if he does effect weaker minds.”

      What this seems to mean is that Mark WOULD hold that I should be cast into the cells if anyone “sensible” listened to me.

      That is the mind of a NAZI. Send in the Gestapo, he’s saying, if ideas he does not agree with gain traction; if it’s just some crank, keep an eye on the loon. But if the “loon” persuades people, his ideas are verboten, and prison (death?) is the correct prescription.

      Mark is certainly a work to behold.

  3. After an immeasurable amount of psychological damage was done to the American people for no reason, one would think those behind the hoax would have the decency to admit it and apologize to the nation. How many innocent children still experience nightmares? How many innocent adults?

    It seems thus far survivors’ lining up to sue the book’s creators equals zero; the legal blowback on the book is nonexistent. In the world’s most litigious society, the legal silence generated with publication of the book – the quiet and peaceful sound of legal crickets – has reached the thunderous level..

  4. Anybody been to Amazon lately?

    The Google search result link to Amazon for the Nobody Died at Sandy Hook book leads to this:
    “Looking for something?
    We’re sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site”

    Search within Amazon itself for the book, and you are directed to a book page for Nobody Died at Sandy Hook with no reviews, as well as some new pricing:
    “Paperback from $46.33
    1 Used from $86.29
    1 New from $46.33”

    Check it out…

  5. A couple of theories in the book are off base. For instance, the Superbowl kids are not the children or their relatives. I do believe they were chosen with care for their appearance and are just a continuation of the psyop. Here is Olivia Engle. I do not have all my graphics made for the others but will come back andpost them when I get them done.


    The child’s mother and MULTIPLE family members sell It Works products


    The woman everyone is pegging as Sexton/Greenberg family is also incorrect. She sells It Works products and is a close associate of the family that put on the Soto skit.


  6. The Wayback Machine results sited here are not scientifically valid.He says they are the most compelling evidence.

    Wayback Machine results and The Hunger Games, thumbs down.Donald Sutherland,thumbs up.

    Absence of internet activity 2008-2012

    Arguably, the most compelling evidence that SHES had long been
    abandoned before the 2012 massacre is the testimony from the Internet
    Archive’s Wayback Machine of the school’s lack of of Internet activity from
    the beginning of 2008 through all of 2012.

    To verify Jungle Surfer’s claim, I searched for SHES’s website,
    , on the Wayback Machine, the result of which is below,

    1. This is the url for the video that proves the Wayback Machine results are not scientifically valid.It did not transfer in the post below.sorry.I hope everyone has a peaceful holidays.

Comments are closed.