Refuting Wolfgang Halbig, a Sandy Hook “truther”


A few days ago a reader forwarded me a story about a former police officer and teacher, who “served as an expert in the Columbine and other school shootings”, and is now claiming the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre never happened.

This man, Wolfgang Halbig, released an interview in which he listed numerous pieces of evidence which “prove” the event was fabricated. Halbig is a former state trooper and customs agent, plus a onetime educator and apparently a school safety official in Seminole County, Florida. His claims are inflaming those who already believed Sandy Hook was a hoax and pushing those on the fence into the conspiracy camp.

If Halbig’s bio has been reported correctly, it’s pretty impressive. One would think Halbig knows what he’s talking about. If I hadn’t read his list of supposed holes in the story, I might’ve thought he understood school shootings. I’ve Googled Halbig and seen many websites citing his claims, but no refutation from him; in other words, as far as I can tell he did say the Sandy Hook massacre never happened. If he did say that, he’s an idiot; impressive background or not, Halbig doesn’t seem to know the least bit about the realities of school shootings.

Now, a little about me. I’m not a school shooting expert. But I am a 20 year police officer who spent most of my time on night shift patrol in rough areas. I served several years as an adjunct Active Shooter instructor, teaching other officers how to respond to mass shootings. As an instructor I attended advanced active shooter training and played the role of the suspect in numerous exercises. I’m also a 25 year veteran of the Marine Reserve and Army National Guard, and served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a pretty good background in tactics and a decent appreciation of the dynamics of mass shootings.

I’m going to address Halbig’s list of supposed Sandy Hook inaccuracies one by one. I’d ask you to consider my points, compare my background with Halbig’s, and decide for yourself if Halbig’s claims hold any water.


Point 1: “When the police arrived at Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) that morning, they parked ¼ mile from the school’s front door instead of doing what first responders are supposed to do in an active shooter event, which is to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible so as to save as many lives as possible.”

When the official Sandy Hook report was released, I also heard rumors of officers parking a quarter mile away. But some of the responding officers have publicly stated they stopped in the school parking lot, rather than a faraway safe spot.

“They made it in under three minutes, arriving in the parking lot while gunfire could still be heard. ‘I got out of the car and grabbed my rifle and it stopped for a second,’ Officer Chapman said. ‘But then we heard more popping. You could tell it was rifle fire. And it was up so close, it sounded like it was coming from outside. So we were all looking around for someone to shoot back at.’”

Are those officers lying? I highly doubt it. I’ve worked for three police departments, two tiny and one which was among the largest in the country. I’ve also worked with police officers from all over the world as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. One thing I know about the vast majority of American cops: when shots are being fired, we charge toward them. One of the proudest moments of my police career occurred in Kosovo. A local police officer was shot at a hotel, and frantic radio reports rang out. I sprinted toward the hotel. Officers from some other countries weren’t too eager to approach that hotel, and a few went the other way. But Americans charged straight into the danger, as I’ve seen them do over and over here in America. I don’t believe for a moment that police officers in Newtown, upon hearing reports of a school massacre, all chose to park a safe distance away.

Besides that, the official report says this: “Upon the receipt of the first 911 call, law enforcement was immediately dispatched to the school. It was fewer than four minutes from the time the first 911 call was received until the first police officer arrived at SHES. It was fewer than five minutes from the time the first 911 call was received until the shooter killed himself. It was fewer than six minutes from the time the first police officer arrived on SHES property to the time the first police officer entered the school building.”

Doesn’t sound to me like officers had to run a quarter mile from their cars to the school.

Point 2: “Paramedics and EMTs (emergency medical technicians) were not allowed to enter the school. Instead they were kept waiting in the Sandy Hook fire station nearby, 500 yards down the road from SHES.”

This is kind of a “Wow, no kidding” statement. EMS protocol has traditionally been to remain out of the immediate danger area until it’s been declared safe by law enforcement. So it’s believable that EMS wasn’t allowed into the school until police cleared it. Whether that was a bad call or not (I think it was), it’s not the least bit suspicious.

Point 3: “Trauma helicopters, which can provide the quickest and best medical services in an emergency, were not sent to Sandy Hook. Life Star, the medical helicopter service at Danbury Hospital’s Trauma Center, told Halbig ‘we were never called, never asked.’”

In decades as a cop, having been on many shootings, stabbings and major accidents, I can only recall medical helicopters being called in on a few occasions. Helicopters require cleared landing zones, which often means clearing traffic from vital roads. This can’t always be done in an urban area, or at least it can’t always be done quickly. Transportation by road is sometimes faster than by air, when the time needed to get the helicopters into the air, clear a landing zone and move casualties to the LZ is taken into account. Ground ambulances can usually get casualties to a closeby hospital before a helicopter can be brought in.

And there are only so many helicopters available. Even if they had been called, some (maybe most) of the casualties would have been transported by ground anyway.

Point 4: “Where were the ambulances to transport the wounded to hospitals?”

Didn’t he just answer his own question? The ambulances were at the Newtown fire station, as mentioned in point 2.

Point 5: “Why did police declare 26 people to be dead within the first 11 minutes of the shooting, when according to Connecticut law, only a doctor can declare someone to be legally dead?”

What difference does that make? I’ve been on plenty of scenes where cops declared someone “DRT”, meaning “Dead Right There”. That’s not an official pronouncement, it’s the officer reporting what’s obvious to him or her. I once found a man who had been dead in his house for at least a week, and I reported him dead on the radio. The man was badly decomposed, obviously dead, but someone else still had to make the official pronouncement. On another call we had someone decapitated by an air bag. Yes we called them dead, and yes someone else had to make the official pronouncement. That’s not suspicious, it’s just legal procedure.

Point 6: “Why did the FBI classify the Sandy Hook massacre? This has never been done before. Even the Columbine School massacre was not classified information. To this day, the FBI report on Sandy Hook remains classified information, not releasable to the public.”

I don’t know anything about the FBI’s report. I do know that the FBI’s report isn’t the determining factor in whether or not this incident really happened. Local and state officers responded and investigated, and their report has been released. Some of the responding officers have spoken publicly about the incident. Radio and 911 transcripts have been released. Parents have made statements. So if the FBI doesn’t release their report, suddenly the entire incident was faked?

Point 7: “Why did the State of Connecticut wait ELEVEN whole months to issue its official final report on the Sandy Hook shootings to the American public? Note that the final report does not include the FBI’s still-classified report.”

Why did the investigation take eleven months? Probably because it was extremely complicated, with two murder scenes, one of which was more complex than any those officers had previously encountered. And that each of the twenty-seven murders had to be individually and exhaustively detailed. And that there was no rush to finish, because there was nobody alive to prosecute, so no concern about a “speedy trial”. And that the investigators knew their report would be torn apart by legions of “truthers” intent on exploiting anything from typographical errors to 30-second timeline mistakes.

So officers took a long time to issue a report on one of the worst tragedies America has ever experienced? It’s a conspiracy! And what would have happened if they had issued the report quickly? “Truthers” would have considered that evidence the entire incident was pre-planned, with the report written beforehand.

Point 8: “Police transmissions don’t lie because they are made by sworn and trained law enforcement officers. On the morning of Dec. 14, 2012, recorded police transmissions said ‘We have multiple weapons inside the [SH] classroom — a rifle and a shotgun.’ But nobody could find the shotgun in the school. Instead, a shotgun was found in the black Honda parked outside the school.”

Oh, brother. This statement makes me question Halbig’s exalted background as a police officer. Any cop who has been on more than one dangerous, adrenaline-charged scene knows officers make mistakes. Suspects are misidentified. People see things that aren’t really there. Cops call out bad directions (I was famous for that). Someone yells something that turns out to not be true and others repeat it. How many officers have reported seeing a weapon, suspicious object, suspicious person or whatever, and later found out they were wrong? Does anyone recall the search for the nonexistent third suspect at the North Hollywood Shootout?

A friend of mine arrived on a disturbance one night. Within seconds of arriving he was on the radio saying, “We really need an ambulance. I have a guy here with his eyeball hanging out, I think he’s been shot in the head.” When I arrived the ambulance was leaving, just as officers entered an apartment searching for the suspect. One of the officers had a shotgun. We found the suspect, and determined he had kicked the victim repeatedly in the head with cowboy boots. No gun was involved.

I went to the hospital to check on the victim. The paramedics who transported him not only told the emergency room staff that the victim had been shot in the head, but that “shots were still being fired when we were leaving the scene.” When I found the victim in a shock room, a doctor was standing over him explaining to a group of doctors in training, “Looks like the entry wound is here and exit is here. We’re going to treat him with [etc. etc.]”. I told the doctor he hadn’t been shot, he had been kicked in the head. The doctor was surprised. Later he told me I was right, there was no gunshot wound. And what the officer thought was an eyeball was actually a flap of forehead skin that had been torn free and was hanging over the victim’s face.

When I talked to the paramedics later, it turned out one of them had spread the “they were shooting as we left” story. He just got scared; he had a patient who looked like he had been shot, he saw officers with pistols and a shotgun going into an apartment, and perceived something that simply didn’t happen. Paramedics are just as professional as cops, just as interested in determining facts. But this one made a gigantic mistake, which was then repeated by several other people including a doctor. Professionals screw up sometimes.

I haven’t heard the radio traffic about two weapons, but if it happened, so what? I’m not the least bit surprised an officer called out something that turned out to be incorrect. It happens all the time. And it’s usually a result of adrenaline, fear, confusion, conflicting witness reports and everything else that cops encounter at high-stress scenes. If Halbig doesn’t know that, then I suspect that during his time as a “cop” he rode a desk far more than a patrol car.

Besides that, it’s pretty damn ridiculous for Halbig to cite the professionalism of police officers while simultaneously accusing every police officer involved in the Sandy Hook investigation of being part of this “conspiracy”.

Point 9: “At 9:45 AM that day, a police officer found a surviving kindergarten-aged girl in the hallway. The officer sent her back into Room 8 — a crime scene with students and teachers shot dead. What police officer would do that?”

Probably an officer who thought, “The room we just searched is clear, but the rest of the school isn’t. I don’t have extra people around to guard this girl or take her to safety. And there may be a suspect still loose in the school. So I should send her back into a safe room, and report her location on the radio.” Ordering her back into that room was probably the best bad option out of a list of bad options.

This comment reminds me of a debate I had before I deployed to Iraq. According to traditional military doctrine, you never, under any circumstances, evacuated a wounded soldier with a dead soldier. In the early years of the Iraq War some soldiers tried to hold on to that doctrine. But it didn’t always make sense. If a Humvee was hit by an IED and all the crewmen were killed or wounded, and they were under small arms fire, it wouldn’t make sense to have other soldiers make multiple trips into the kill zone when they can evacuate everyone at once. You make one trip in, load everyone you can, and get out. Sometimes war just sucks, and you have to do what you have to do.

In active shooter situations, we expect to step over the dead and ignore wounded who are screaming in agony and begging for help. We can expect some of those wounded to be women and children. The first officers on scene have to focus on finding the shooter and stopping the killing; if that means we have to send a little girl into a room full of dead people because it’s the only safe place, that’s what we have to do. In a situation where everything sucks, sometimes we have to make the least sucky decision. That’s the brutal reality.

Point 10: “Similarly, that morning, two Connecticut state troopers entered Room 10 and found an unharmed boy hiding in the bathroom. The troopers ordered the boy to stay in the room — a room with dead people. ‘That’s not police protocol.’”

See my above comment. Sure, that’s not protocol. So what? Does Halbig, with his alleged police background, think cops or anyone else always follow protocol? Amazingly enough, sometimes people don’t exactly follow the training they’ve received. I’m sure everyone reading this would be shocked – shocked! – to hear that teenagers still drive like idiots even after being taught not to. Or that soldiers don’t always hit their targets even after extensive marksmanship training. Or that cops, in the most terrifying, intense, chaotic, confusing scene they’ve ever been on, when they’re experiencing survival stress reactions like tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time speeding up or slowing down, enhanced visual acuity and loss of manual dexterity, might not follow their training to the letter.

Cops are human. I can pretty much guarantee that none of officers at Newtown had responded to anything like the Sandy Hook massacre before. In the heat of the moment, they didn’t exactly follow protocol. Surprised? Me neither.

Point 11: “’Having investigated and given expert testimony on many school shootings, Halbig says ‘I know what tears look like.’ But the parents of slain Sandy Hook children, as we’ve noted here on FOTM, did not cry. (In the now famous case of Robbie Parker, the father of allegedly slain 6-year-old Emilie, he went from laughing and joking to pretending to choke back tears in the blink of an eye.)”

No joke? Not a single parent of a murdered child from Sandy Hook cried? Who the hell are these people then?



And I’d like to know how Halbig or anyone else knows the parent mentioned above was “pretending to choke back tears”. I’ve been around plenty of family members of murder victims, and it’s not unusual for them to go through intense mood swings.

Point 12: “Sandy Hook’s medical examiner Dr. Wayne Carver refused to let the parents see the bodies of their slain children, and instead gave them photos of the bodies, which is ‘unheard of.’ Halbig knows about the inconsolable grief of parents and is himself a parent. Parents whose children had been shot dead ‘would kick the door down’ demanding to see the bodies.”

I’ve never been on a scene where family members were allowed to see the bodies of murder victims. When the bodies are still where they fell, the area around them needs to remain as undisturbed as possible in order to preserve evidence. Until a body is examined and autopsied, the body itself is evidence that needs to be preserved. People not involved in the investigation aren’t allowed to see murder victims at will, they generally won’t see the body until it’s released to a funeral home after the autopsy.

And reasonable people don’t go kicking doors down to see dead bodies. Yes, I’ve been involved in a murder investigation where a mob did try to reach a dead body at an emergency room, and I know of another case where a mob chased a hearse with a dead accident victim to a funeral home. Neither of those cases involved reasonable people. I’ve been on many other murder scenes where family members patiently followed our every instruction, even if they were distraught.

Point 13: “Why was Sandy Hook Elementary School torn down? This is not the case with any of the other schools where shootings had taken place, including Columbine School.”

In this case, the community decided they didn’t want to continue using the school where 20 children and 6 educators were murdered. I don’t find that particularly surprising. Columbine High School wasn’t torn down, but its library, where the majority of victims died, was walled off.

Point 14: “Who installed the new security system at SHES? This should be a matter of public record.”

If it was a contract made by the city, then I imagine it is a matter of public record. What difference does that make? The security system didn’t enable or stop the massacre, and the school’s locked doors were an easily surmountable obstacle to Lanza. If we don’t know who installed the security system, does that signify something?

Point 15: “The shooting-to-death of 26 people would leave 45-60 gallons of blood. Who cleaned it up? What biohazard company was hired to clean the crime scene?”

Wait…what? According to, a 150-pound body contains approximately 5.5 quarts of blood. With 26 victims that’s 143 quarts. Four quarts make a gallon, so 143 quarts of blood equals 35.75 gallons. And that’s if they were all adults. Children’s bodies hold less blood.

But that doesn’t matter, because when people are shot to death all their blood doesn’t automatically drain from their bodies. Halbig has either never been on a shooting murder scene or he’s completely forgotten what they look like. People bleed out because they have massive injuries and their hearts pump blood out from those injuries. When the heart stops pumping, the blood loss stops. I’ve seen some big pools of blood, but other than in a few serial murderer cases never heard of a murder victim being totally drained of blood.

Yes, that would have been a hell of a mess to clean up, even without the mythical “45-60 gallons of blood”. Was it cleaned up afterward? I don’t know. The school was never reopened, so did it need to be cleaned?

Point 16: “Why is there not even one lawsuit by a Sandy Hook parent against SHES for negligence? Halbig has never ever seen a school shooting without parents suing the school for negligence.”

Is it possible the parents really don’t blame the school for the mentally ill murderer who shot his way through locked doors, killed educators who tried to save their children, then murdered as many people as he could before shooting himself?

Point 17: “Why are there so many fund-raisers for the Sandy Hook shootings? Halbig: ‘I’ve never seen so many fund-raisers’ in the case of Sandy Hook. One fundraising alone, by United Way, netted $17 million, from which ‘every [SH] parent got a big chunk of money.’”

Okay. People donated funds to assist families whose children were brutally murdered. Obviously the incident never happened, because the United Way and others raised money. This proves that United Way was involved in the conspiracy.

I’m just not seeing a reason to throw out a conspiracy flag because Americans raised money to help families who had just suffered unimaginable tragedy.

Point 18: “Alleged shooter Adam Lanza, 20, is said to have Asperger syndrome — a high-functioning (in academics) form of austism. Halbig points out, however, that like those with autism, children with Asperger have ‘very very poor motor skills’ and ‘very poor muscle tone.’ How did Asperger-afflicted Adam Lanza with ‘very poor muscle tone’ carry a rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, and bullets? How did Asperger-afflicted Adam Lanza with ‘very very poor motor skills’ shoot 26 people dead — not wounded — in less than five minutes, firing one bullet roughly every two seconds?”

Unfortunately, I know a lot about autism. My youngest son is moderately autistic. Anyone who thinks everyone on the autism spectrum is affected the same doesn’t understand autism. Yes, some people with autism have poor muscle tone and poor motor skills. That doesn’t mean they can’t operate a weapon. My five year old son could probably hold and fire a rifle (his motor skills are just fine, by the way). There is no reason to believe Lanza was so weak physically that he couldn’t operate a rifle, or carry spare ammunition.

And does Halbig, who is supposed to be such an expert on school shootings, really think anyone needs real weapon-handling skills to murder a bunch of unarmed children? All they need to do is operate the weapon. Unarmed children, especially kindergarteners, aren’t going to do anything more than run or hide. Many would probably freeze in disbelief. Unarmed adults aren’t real hard to kill either, as we’ve seen in many active shooter incidents. Shooting defenseless, terrified people at close range doesn’t require Delta Force skills or even average physical strength.

Besides that, we already know children with little strength can operate an “assault rifle”. We’ve seen pictures and videos of it.

Halbig’s conclusions: “’In my professional opinion [as a school safety consultant], I suspect Sandy Hook was a scripted event that took place, in the planning for two or 2½ years.’…Halbig does not believe any child was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

Halbig sounds like a typical “truther”; he assumes our government, the same government absolutely incapable of even putting a health care website together, can pull off a gigantic conspiracy requiring thousands of willing participants. And these participants wouldn’t all be shadowy, ghostlike federal government Jason Bourne spies, either. Local cops and firefighters, the very people who serve and live in the small community where the massacre was “staged”, would have to willingly lie to the entire nation about it. Children who attended the school would have to lie. All the teachers would have to lie. Local officials would have to willingly play along with a narrative they know is false. People who live near the school would have to lie about hearing gunfire and having children knocking on their doors asking for help. And all these various disparate people, all the cops, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, neighbors, parents, reporters, all the thousands of people associated with the incident, are all in on the conspiracy? They were all part of this “scripted event”, they all knew in advance it was fake? Or did they spontaneously jump into the conspiracy at the first opportunity?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure many people did immediately recognize an opportunity to exploit the tragedy for political gain. Some of them doubtless believe in the morality of their cause, some others probably see it as a way to consolidate their own or their party’s power. But exploiting a tragedy isn’t the same thing as faking it.

The bottom line for me is that I don’t believe a bunch of regular, everyday Americans are lying about this. Why would they? Why would guys just like the cops I’ve served with for decades, teachers like my mom, sister and wife, and paramedics like the guys I’ve seen frantically trying to save strangers on many scenes, willingly lie about this? According to Halbig and every truther who agrees with him, not a single child died at Sandy Hook that day. So every cop on that scene lied about dead children they knew weren’t there. Every paramedic who claimed to have treated a victim knows there were no victims. Every neighbor who reported hearing gunfire knows not a shot was fired. Everyone who worked at Sandy Hook, every student there, knows nobody was murdered. But they’re all in on the lie anyway. Because they all passionately want gun control. Or something like that.

Halbig is reportedly going to travel to Newtown himself, so he can ask questions “eyeball to eyeball”. I’d highly suggest he carry a first aid kit. Because if I had lost a son or daughter at Sandy Hook, and some “truther” came around accusing me of lying about the brutal murder of my own child, I know exactly how I’d react.

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for, Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at or on his Facebook page (

941 Responses to “Refuting Wolfgang Halbig, a Sandy Hook “truther””

  1. 1 Steven

    I also found it a little strange at the lack of photos. In my time, no matter what kind of tarps, shields, blankets etc we erected at the scene of a homicide, someone, usually a reporter, would capture a photo of a body, a sheet covering a body, a gurney or anything and send it to the press for publication.

    I find it hard to believe that not one reporter captured anything of any significant value and then published same. I don’t believe reporters were “holding back” because of the children because everyone knows that in dealing with the media “if it bleeds, it leads”.

    • 2 brian

      Everyone thinks the media arrived soon after the shooting , the few photos that were shown of the kids leaving the school, was shot by a local paper reporter at about 10:00 a.m., the MSN arrived much later after 11:00 and later, in police reports there were news men detained by police for being in the woods, everyone except official people were kept away from the school which really was secluded from any main roads , by noon i believe the media was kept across the street from the firehouse,,as for photos of the victims in which all were inside of the school,there is a couple of them on gurneys ( as seen in hoax videos ) taken at night when the victims were removed ( at Columbine the victims were not removed untill the next day )

  2. 3 Redblues

    There were no photos of tarps covering bodies because there was nothing to photograph. The DOS victims were inside, away from cameras. The victims who were pronounced dead at the hospital were in the hospital morgue. There was no ‘chopper in the sky’ while the victim was being carried to the fire station because the news was not yet on scene and people hadn’t arrived to take photos. Neither the police nor EMS were derelict in their duties that day. Both must follow protocol, which for EMS includes not entering an unsafe scene. Nor would any action after the shooting have saved the lives of the victims had anyone violated protocol to enter the scene early or been able to treat the victims any faster. They all died of multiple gunshot wounds to the head. They did not have survivable injuries, which the responding officers could easily see. So there was no suit to file. against them. However, one family did file a lawsuit, which was later withdrawn (see my above links) & some more families have just filed suit today.

    So what’s with all the conspiracy fantasies? I just don’t get it.

    • 4 Steven

      Redblues…Maybe you and Chris should learn the difference between a CT versus someone who has questions about certain aspects of an investigation.

      Chris…I never said the nonexistence of a lawsuit meant the murders did not take place, I said that in today’s litigious society I find it very strange that someone had not filed suit when there were conflicting reports stating that officials did not do all they could do.

      It does not matter if officials did EVERYTHING perfect…Reports indicated that they did not and this opens the door to lawsuits.

      I understand that you have dealt with CTs for a long time but if you didn’t want to field questions about the tragedy without insulting people, maybe you shouldn’t have started the blog or at least opened it up for discussion in the first place.

      • 5 brian

        the thing about conflicting reports are that since day one the media was releasing misinformation or misinterpreting what was release , If some events weren’t release doesn’t mean it didn’t happen . on the day and days after there were city officials, clergy members, and counselors for the victims families to give them information on what happen , not what was being said on you tube. the theorist try to trick their followers with more misinformation about non existing facts .in which many if not most have been debunked

      • Steven,

        Then what is your question about? You say you don’t doubt the event happened, or that Lanza was guilty (I think). But you find it really strange that nobody filed a lawsuit. What difference does that make? Odd things happen all the time. People don’t always act the way we think they should act. I remember making a death notification about a guy who beat his wife to death and put her in the trunk of his car, then intentionally rammed a parked 18-wheeler at high speed while being chased by police. The guy’s mother and sisters freaked out, but his father just looked down, nodded and quietly said “Okay.”

        That was odd, wasn’t it? Yup. Did it mean anything in reference to the actual crimes committed? Nope.

        So what is your question? More importantly, what is your inference? You claim you don’t doubt the massacre happened, then you bring up two cherished conspiracy theorist “signs of a conspiracy”: “There were no lawsuits” and “There are no photos”. So which is it? Are you an experienced investigator who understands that people don’t always act like we expect them to, or are you a conspiracist pretending to be a cop?

        By the way, some of the Sandy Hook parents sued Bushmaster today. Does that make the entire crime suddenly “make sense”?

        • 7 Steven

          My department has had 5 lawsuits filed against it in the last 2 years (1 legit). The most absurd was for “illegal” checking stations where the plaintiff alleged that his 4th & 5th amendment rights were violated. This was for a SEATBELT CHECK POINT STATION.

          So yes, I do find it very strange that not one parent or spouse (at the time) had filed suit when their loved ones were gunned down and reports initially indicated that officials had dropped the ball.

          As a supposed law enforcement officer if you don’t also find it strange then I “Gotta be honest with you, bro”. You sound like a paid government blogger saddled with the task of convincing people that SH actually took place….while claiming to be a cop and war hero.

          See what I did there?…As soon as my career and or motives were questioned, I immediately questioned your motives and career and insulted you in the progress.

          I do find it interesting however that your #1 rule about blogging is ” I will not talk down to anyone, because I’m in no position to do so” yet, as soon as someone questions something about an incident for which you posses no first hand knowledge, you immediately question their career and accuse them of being a CT. Kind of hypocritical don’t you think?

          Once again, are you maintaining a blog for discussion or a one sided conversation for which you insult people that don’t agree with you or your position? Serious question.

          • No, I don’t find it strange. Who should the parents have sued? Initial reports were that officers responded as shots were still being fired, and the suspect killed himself before officers could reach him. Initial reports were that EMS followed protocol and didn’t enter the school until it was cleared. Initial reports are that guys like Officer William Chapman did his best to save the one wounded child he found. Initial reports said the same about the school staff; they did their best. You tell me, did the police or EMS fail to save someone who would otherwise have lived? If not, should the parents have sued them anyway?

            So again, as an investigator, what are you inferring with your “they didn’t sue anyone” objection? If it’s simply an innocent observation, as in “that’s funny, but doesn’t signify anything important” then I have no argument. That doesn’t seem to be your point though, which is also why you brought up the “nobody took pictures” argument.

            As far as me violating my own rule… guilty. Sorry. Now let’s figure out why you’re here. This thread was started to debunk the ridiculous pieces of “evidence” that supposedly proved the SH massacre never happened. You’ve jumped into it throwing out some of the same alleged evidence CTs are using to support their claims. I’ve allowed all of your comments on this blog (which is a weird thing for me to do, if I don’t want to hear opposing opinions).

            So again, I’m asking you, what are you inferring? Do you believe the SH massacre happened, or not?

          • 9 brian

            what reports are you keep referring to that say officials dropped the ball, is it the media reports, or witness statements you are referring. and as a detective isn’t it true that must witness statements are incorrect during a crisis , and if the media is using so called statements,that they to are incorrect?

  3. 10 Steven

    :”No, I don’t find it strange. Who should the parents have sued?”

    Are you actually being serious? If you ARE a police officer, are you still attached with a patrol division where you don’t have to deal with the day to day worries of administrative complaints and threats of lawsuits on a daily basis?

    The family or Eric Garner plans to sue NYPD for $75 million for a wrongful death lawsuit after a GJ failed to return a true bill of indictment. This is for 1 (one one 1 one) fellow who passively resisted arrest, caught on camera. Will they win, who knows…but a lawsuit will be filed, if it hasn’t already been done b/c the family believes THEY know more information than a GJ panel that heard ALL the info available.

    Are you seriously asking me who they could sue? They can attach every entity involved in this matter (with the exception of individual officers and medics) and let the money fall where it falls. Seriously, you say you’ve been in law enforcement for 20 years and you’re asking me who they can sue?

    They can freaking sue Gene Rosen for not providing a Gluten Free alternative lunch when the kids were at his house and you’re asking me who they can sue?

    “You tell me, did the police or EMS fail to save someone who would otherwise have lived? If not, should the parents have sued them anyway?”

    You tell me..does any of that matter? People sue people every day for ANYTHING and sometimes they receive money and sometimes they don’t. Are they legitimate lawsuits…NOPE. Do people still file them everyday and receive money…YEP.

    I absolutely believe this massacre occurred but I absolutely have questions related to the after events associated with this incident as ANY competent investigator or person would.

    “As far as me violating my own rule… guilty. Sorry”

    No worries but just have to ask…Why is it that you would attack someone’s career and credentials because of questions posed as a result of a blog you created?

    • I didn’t ask if they could sue. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. I can sue you for killing my cat, and I don’t own a cat. “Can they” wasn’t the question. “Should they” was. And anyway, as of today they did. Satisfied?

      Now please tell me what makes the existence or nonexistence of a lawsuit pertinent to a criminal investigation.

    • 12 Steven

      @ Brian said …” what reports are you keep referring to that say officials dropped the ball”

      I’m referring to ANY news report, article, statement, picture or anything…stating or depicting that officials failed to act. Once again, it does not matter if it was true, only if it provides an obscure bit of evidence suitable for a judge to believe that a lawsuit is justified.

      Have you never heard of an unscrupulous lawsuit Brian? Ever?

      Brian said …”as a detective isn’t it true that must (most ,SIC) witness statements are incorrect during a crisis ,

      Certainly, the accounts in the first moments or hours or even days of a tragedy are mostly inaccurate especially dealing with the most serious cases of this magnitude however I was referring to news articles that appeared in print a week or weeks later.

      Brian…my department was sued b/c one of my officers broke the clavicle bone of a DWI suspect while he assaulted my officer on camera. The suspect sued on the basis that that my officer didn’t follow the use of force continuum and failed to employ all levels of that that continuum before breaking the clavicle bone. At the time of the bone breakage, the suspect’s hands were around my officers throat.

      The suspect…plaintiff… received 28.3K cash for what I believe to be a frivolous lawsuit and Yet here we have a whole bunch of children and adults who were killed by a mentally challenged fellow and it is widely speculated that first responders failed to act…according to news reports and not a single suit was filed. (until now)

      I come to a blog for the purpose of discussing this investigation and the the questions I have and instead I am met with accusations regarding my career and credentials

      seems a little weird especially coming from a person who supposedly comes from a law enforcement background.

      • 13 Lynn

        Steven – I don’t understand your obsession with law suits. The only person that should have been sued is Nancy Lanza for arming her mentally ill son. It seems that many of the families of the victims have put their energy into making positive legacies for their loved ones, instead of filing frivolous law suits.

        I think it’s very unfair to judge the actions or inactions of the families that lost their loved ones or the survivors of SHE.

        • 14 Steven

          I do not have an obsession with lawsuits but rather, inaccuracies that do not follow the norm. There is always a reason for everything.

          And it now seems as though many of those same families are following the norm and choosing to file suit.

  4. 15 Steven

    Chris said…(in regards to filing a lawsuit) “And anyway, as of today they did. Satisfied?”

    Absolutely, b/c it now makes more sense as they have fallen within a pattern on the grief stage. You believe “Odd things happen all the time. People don’t always act the way we think they should act”

    Whereas, I don’t believe anyone should act a certain way at all. People are genetically predisposed to act in accordance with their personality.

    IMO, the best indicator of future behavior is past experience. Where you might believe the actions of that father were strange during that death call, they may have been absolutely consistent with his personality and not strange at all.

    IMO, it was (until now) absolutely INconsistent that out of the sheer volume of people affected by this tragedy, that no one filed suit.

    “Now please tell me what makes the existence or nonexistence of a lawsuit pertinent to a criminal investigation.”

    It makes no difference at all other than it was a statistical anomaly that I found very strange, until now.

    I realize that this is a debunking blog however, you should not assume that anyone who has any type of question is a CT or is attacking you. Some people might legitimately want to discuss this event with you.

    • 16 Redblues

      Once again, your are incorrect in saying that nobody filed a lawsuit. One family did, early on and it was dropped.

      So why are you harping on something that is a) factually incorrect, and b) not relevant. Furthermore, all of the lawsuits you use as examples of frivolous lawsuits involve possible police misconduct. As has been stated, over and over, there was no police misconduct. There was no EMS misconduct. Most of the murders occurred before the police ever got there. Just because most of the people you seem to meet are looking to get rich from a lawsuit, doesn’t make everyone else in the world the same way. Nor is it suspicious that a large group of families in a close knit small town wouldn’t blame responding officers for failing to do the impossible. I don’t understand your questions. What do you think your imaginary discrepancies WOULD prove if they happened to be true?

      • 17 Steven

        Redblues said…”Once again, your are incorrect in saying that nobody filed a lawsuit. One family did, early on and it was dropped.”

        I could be wrong but I believe the fellow who filed that suit is the one who quashed it, so technically it was withdrawn by the seeker and not dropped as you would suggest. I didn’t even know about that until you brought it to my attention, so thanks.

        “As has been stated, over and over, there was no police misconduct. There was no EMS misconduct.”

        I never said there was police or EMS misconduct, I said that reports initially indicated that there were. It doesn’t matter that there wasn’t misconduct anyway…The parents are now going to attach themselves to any entity that a lawyer can grasp onto with the exception of individual personnel.

        The State
        The City
        The School Board
        The gun manufacturer

        “Just because most of the people you seem to meet are looking to get rich from a lawsuit, doesn’t make everyone else in the world the same way. ”

        Looks like at least 10 of the families would disagree. I’m not saying they are looking to get rich, I’m saying that this action follows the norm and was/is expected.

        “Nor is it suspicious that a large group of families in a close knit small town wouldn’t blame responding officers for failing to do the impossible.”

        You’re correct, that isn’t suspicious at all even though first responders are protected and can’t be sued as individuals anyway.

        ” I don’t understand your questions. What do you think your imaginary I don’t understand your questions. What do you think your imaginary discrepancies WOULD prove”

        My original question was…why had there been no lawsuits filed? It turns out (thanks to you) I learned that 1 suit had been filed but withdrawn by the seeker.

        Now I find that many many families are filing suit which in turn, no longer seems strange at all.

        The discrepancy I had was satisfied when all these parents did what I thought they would have done much early on.

        • Name one case where the nonexistence of a lawsuit after a murder had any bearing on the investigation.

          • 19 Steven

            Who said the lack of lawsuits had a bearing on the investigation? I simply stated that I found it very odd, strange and or interesting that at the time, no lawsuits had been filed.

            I was later corrected in that 1 suit was filed by a fellow who didn’t even lose a child, but was immediately withdrawn by the seeker.

            You indicated that you didn’t find it strange at all that no suits had been filed. Well, it looks like a whole bunch of families have filed suit now… Do you find that strange? Or, would you rather not answer b/c it too has no bearing on the investigation?

            You created a blog to debunk a fellow with respect to some wild claims about SH. Did you not realistically expect that someone might join your blog and discuss another aspect of the investigation?

            Should future comments be limited to only areas that actually have a bearing on the investigation?


  5. 20 Redblues

    The people who filed the first lawsuit withdrew it. That means it wasn’t dropped?!? Who drops lawsuits except the people who filed them? What exactly do you consider to be ‘dropped’? You think that ‘dropped’ and ‘withdrew’ have two different meanings? Your statement makes no sense.

    • 21 Steven

      “Who drops lawsuits except the people who filed them?”

      Judges do. Depending on the verbiage used, judges can, among other options, dismiss or drop a lawsuits.

      ” What exactly do you consider to be ‘dropped’? You think that ‘dropped’ and ‘withdrew’ have two different meanings?”

      When I first read your post, I took “dropped” to, to mean lack of merit. Withdrew means the plaintiff did not wish to pursue the action

  6. 22 Redblues

    Judges dismiss lawsuits. Plaintiffs withdraw or drop lawsuits.

  7. So now there IS a lawsuit….filled against the gun manufacturer, maintaining
    the use of the firearm in the murder case…..seems to me their recourse would be to prove that there was no crime committed and we will all, both sides of this ” debate” will ride off looking for the next ” issue”!…..finally.

  8. There is no lawsuit filled with the Connecticut courts, therefore there is no lawsuit. Koskoff, Koskoff, and Bieder aren’t returning calls inquiring what the docket number for the case is.

    Any explanations for that?


    • Hmmmmmm… that figures…… we go again…….more fuel to the fire!….. The ONLY way this controversy ends is with people swearing under oath….

      • The lawsuit or lack thereof means exactly jack shit to whether or not the massacre occurred. In no criminal investigation ever does a lawsuit after the fact determine whether the offense happened.

        For the life of me, I don’t understand why you truthers are so hung up on lawsuits.

        • Actually I’m not a truther just admiring your site and catching up on what others are chatting about re sh……do believe getting a testimony under oath would clarify some points of interest…..depending of course what direction the questions pertained…….I realize it has no criminal ramifications ….interesting it would be though.

          • 29 Redblues

            Testimony ‘under oath’ by whom? The shooter is dead. Who, exactly do you think needs to prove, in a courtroom, anything at all related to SH? The dead victims? Their families? Or the town & state officials who do not dignify the insane demands of a bunch of ignorant loons who, for unfathomable reasons, consider themselves entitled to ‘answers!’ and personal information from the families of the victims? Who exactly are you essentially accusing of lying, and for what purpose? What information do you pompously believe yourself to deserve, and what would anyone learn from it?

          • 30 Steven

            Cheech22…I was basically accused of being a truther as well just because I found something to be strange and absolutely out of the norm. My career also came into question.

            What I don’t understand is why someone would have a public blog but then break their own rules and insult people who may have a differing opinion about something as the blogger.

          • Some opinions deserve to be mocked.

            A cherished belief among truthers is that the lack of a lawsuit is proof the massacre never happened. That belief deserves savage mockery. Any homicide investigator knows a lawsuit or lack of one after a murder is irrelevant to the actual investigation of the murder.

            You came in here repeating not just one but two “trutherisms”: “why wasn’t there a lawsuit” and “where are the pictures”. Then you claim to be an experienced homicide investigator, and say you’re not questioning the actual existence of the massacre. Fine, I’ll accept those claims. I won’t believe them, I’ll just accept them.

            In my experience, actual homicide investigators don’t inject irrelevant topics into a discussion about an investigation.

            This blog post was specifically about the stupidity of Sandy Hook “conspiracy” theorists. Those theorists have been attacked incessantly, mostly by me, because they deserve it. You come in here and repeat their “evidence”, then question why your stance is being criticized?

        • Did you actually watch “we need to talk about Sandy Hook” or “unravelling Sandy Hook” Have you given an honest shake to the information being presented? 2. Isn’t it funny how the term “truther” has become a negative term? I am sure you believe every syllable of what CNN feeds you!
          I have spent hours and days, looking at legitimate content, videos that have validity… the official report wins a gold medal for redacted material. It is quite laughable.
          They say follow the money… there is a whole lot of it going to Newtown! What a fucking joke!

          • Oh… I just read, my comment is awaiting moderation?? LOL well that says it all Chris.

          • It’s not my job to prove your claims. Saying “watch this conspiracy video!” isn’t evidence. Since, like all conspiracy theorists, you have no understanding of actual investigations or evidence, I’ll give you a hint: pick one item of substance from the official investigation and present actual evidence to disprove it.

  9. 35 Steven

    “Any homicide investigator knows a lawsuit or lack of one after a murder is irrelevant to the actual investigation of the murder. ”

    Once again, I never said the lack of a lawsuit meant that this tragedy never took place. I said it was a strange occurrence and given the sheer number of people involved, it was completely out of the norm. It appears as though lawsuits have now been filed so it goes along with exactly what I was thinking.

    “In my experience, actual homicide investigators don’t inject irrelevant topics into a discussion about an investigation.”

    Chris, have you ever performed a homicide investigation? I’m not talking about a field interview as a first officer on scene, I’m talking about an actual investigation from beginning to end.

    As a homicide investigator, you absolutely inject ANY topic into a discussion in an effort to come to a conclusion. You brainstorm, you bounce ideas off each other, you reenact scenarios, you hand the case off to fresh eyes, you accept nothing to be truth until it can be proven with tangible facts.

    Once again, the best way to predict the future is to look at past behavior. Past behavior tells me that people act a certain way after a tragedy. One of those strange behaviors have come to fruition while the other hasn’t yet.

    I didn’t realize this blog was specifically dedicated to the stupidity of CTs or truthers. I honestly thought it was more of a blog meant for discussion about this tragedy.

    Not everyone is a CT or truther just because they find a particular aspect of gigantic investigation to be strange or not follow the norm.

    • I have never been a homicide investigator. So you’re telling me homicide investigators inject ANY topic into an investigation? Really? Then name an investigation where the existence or nonexistence of a lawsuit was injecting. Show me one case where a lawsuit being filed made any difference at all.

      You keep saying you aren’t claiming the SH massacre never happened. But you also keep harping on the lawsuit nonissue. This is your 16th comment. Are you saying “The lack of lawsuits doesn’t mean the murders never happened”, or are you saying “The lack of lawsuits is suspicious”?

      I’d also ask if you read the original blog post. The lawsuit deal is one of Halbig’s “points”.

      “Point 16: ‘Why is there not even one lawsuit by a Sandy Hook parent against SHES for negligence? Halbig has never ever seen a school shooting without parents suing the school for negligence.'”

      So if I understand you correctly, you’re agreeing, over and over, that it makes no sense for people to not sue after a school shooting. But you’re also saying the SH massacre did in fact happen. If you believe the massacre did happen, what difference does it make that nobody (until now) filed a lawsuit?

      As a homicide investigator, you might not be surprised to find that human beings aren’t math equations or computer programs. Not everyone reacts exactly the same to the same circumstances. Not everyone responds to a tragedy with tears and anger, not everyone who loses a loved one goes straight to a lawyer and files a lawsuit.

      So if you believe the SH massacre really happened, and you don’t think a lawsuit after the fact matters to the investigation, and you presumably know not all humans react exactly the same way to a given event, why are you still arguing about lawsuits?

      • 37 Wayland

        I expect he imagines you will bar him from the site if he admits he think Sandy Hook could be a hoax.

        • I get that feeling myself.

          • Who cares if you “bar” someone? You obviously take great pains to discredit anything and anyone who does not agree with you, just as you have taken great pains to discredit Halbig. It proves nothing, just as you say that Halbig’s information proves nothing.

          • Obviously you care, or you wouldn’t have brought it up.

            And by the way, I did prove something. Even if you strip away every other opinion I have (all of which are based on actual experience), you still can’t overcome Halbig’s stupid claim about the amount of blood that should have been left in the school, or his complete lack of understanding of what happens to blood when the victim’s heart stops beating. Yes, I proved that Halbig didn’t a clue what he was talking about.

    • I’ll also say, if all you’re really doing is noting the lack of lawsuits as unusual, then fine. I too find it noteworthy when people don’t try to make money from tragedy. It’s not strange though, it’s just interesting.

  10. 42 Steven

    “I have never been a homicide investigator. So you’re telling me homicide investigators inject ANY topic into an investigation?”

    Absolutely. If any crazy, stupid, off topic, strange, unorthodox comment changes a thought pattern and makes a detective think outside the box…then yes….ALL comments are welcomed.

    “Then name an investigation where the existence or nonexistence of a lawsuit was injecting. Show me one case where a lawsuit being filed made any difference at all.”

    I can’t because I never said one existed. I only said I found it strange that, at the time, no suits had been filed.

    This is your 16th comment. Are you saying “The lack of lawsuits doesn’t mean the murders never happened”, or are you saying “The lack of lawsuits is suspicious”?

    I’m saying that I certainly believe the murders took place and I’m also saying that it WAS very strange, not suspicious, that no suits had been filed.

    “Point 16: ‘Why is there not even one lawsuit by a Sandy Hook parent”

    I didn’t know Halbig made this claim. I have yet to view any of his videos. I really can’t comment on this.

    ” If you believe the massacre did happen, what difference does it make that nobody (until now) filed a lawsuit? ”

    Because I find it incredibly strange and interesting that people did not follow the norm…only to find that that actually did.

    “As a homicide investigator, you might not be surprised to find that human beings aren’t math equations or computer programs. Not everyone reacts exactly the same to the same circumstances.”

    If this was a situation where one human being parent lost a child, I would agree with you. We are talking about 30,40, or 50 different individuals with the opportunity to file suit and chose not to file….at first. That did not make sense to me based on my experience.

    From wayland…

    “I expect he imagines you will bar him from the site if he admits he think Sandy Hook could be a hoax.”

    Once again, I don’t believe it was a hoax however I must say that it is pretty asinine to start a discussion blog about a particular subject and then bar people that don’t agree with a particular opinion.

    • 1) I don’t buy for a second that you introduce ANY topic into an investigation. Domestic murder scene, no forced entry, husband says he did it. Do you say, “Wait! What if it was really a nun in a space suit who came in through the chimney, committed the murder and hypnotized the husband into thinking he did it?” I bet you don’t, and any investigator who would inject nonsense like that (or talk about lawsuits as if they have anything to do with the investigation) isn’t worth much.

      2) Did someone bar you from this site?

      • Redblues…..evidently your an idiot…..a lawsuit when filed doesn’t necessarily mean anyone was lying, it’s a matter of determineing where the fault lies and the damages it may have caused…..I was in a suit….I sold a home that had a well…prior to listing the property I had the water pressure tested, flow per gallon per minute….not known to me, but, the purchaser planned on sub-dividing for future development …months later he was forced by the municipality to update the pressure test I provided….it was not acceptable and in fact less that what I had provided….I wasn’t lying, I had the documentation to prove it…..he wasn’t either for the same reason…..the buyer maintained he would not have taken on the task of dividing had he known the water production would not qualify…..we did not proceed directly to court but during discovery all witnesses, evidence and other qualified individuals were
        sworn under oath…..NO ONE lied… had a lawsuit but it was withdrawn or dropped (let’s not start another tiff over terminology)…. another has surfaced ….bushmaster ar-15 should not have been made publicly available because it is a military weapon unsuited for civilian use…..if the suit does proceed, witnesses will be sworn in, under the penalty of perjury …..who will be called I have no idea….what will be asked?…. Again no idea….what the master will allow to be introduced, no clue….which direction the gun manufacturer goes for their defence, nope, don’t know…..but for numerous reasons be of interest to me!

        • 45 Redblues

          Once again, I fail to understand what you think will be learned, or why it’s so important to hear people testify ‘under oath’, (not that you’re accusing anyone of lying of course!) It’s perfectly normal to demand sworn answers from innocent strangers about a crime with which you happen to be obsessed. The investigation hasn’t produced a single answer. You need to hear it in court, again, because nobody is lying, and you believe it happened. I understand. I file lawsuits against people all the time, just because I’m interested in what they have to say UNDER OATH, even though I know they aren’t lying and have nothing to gain by doing so. It’s entirely rational. Do will you be traveling to Connecticut to hear the testimony? Because there is no way you can believe what you read about it, unless the news source also testifies UNDER OATH, even though you know they aren’t lying. I’m sure the courts will give you the VIP treatment you and your curiosity deserve.

      • 46 Wayland

        Yes, you barred me some time ago. Steven is cruising for a barring in my opinion.

        • I didn’t exactly bar you, I just got sick of your ridiculous and repetitive nonsensical assertions. After 80 comments, I figured I’d more than given you a chance to voice your opinion.

          • 48 Wayland

            Thank you for clarifying that nuanced point. I had not appreciated that removing my ability to comment was not the same as barring me. To clarify my original point, I now believe that Steven is treading carefully because he knows you have the ability to remove his ability to comment if you think his comments are ridiculous and repetitive. It seems to me you have already ridiculed some of his comments and he has been talking about the lawsuits for some time. Therefore they are beginning to meet the qualification of “ridiculous and repetitive”. However I am enjoying reading the exchange.

  11. 49 Steven

    “I don’t buy for a second that you introduce ANY topic into an investigation. Domestic murder scene, no forced entry, husband says he did it. Do you say, “Wait! What if it was really a nun in a space suit who came in through the chimney, committed the murder and hypnotized the husband into thinking he did it?” I bet you don’t,”

    1. Of course your example would not be mentioned because I’m talking about grown up police work Chris. I’m talking about a murder scene with no suspect, weapon or motive. When this happens, all types of real ideas are passed back and fourth. If someone were to brainstorm your example, they would be excused from the room. I would like to think you knew what I meant when I said “any topic” and the fact you used the above example makes me think that your credentials should come into questions.

    2. Where in ANY of my posts have I ever said that lawsuits or the lack thereof had any significance on the outcome on an investigation? You are the only one that keeps saying that.

    “Did someone bar you from this site?”

    Not yet

    from wayland…”Yes, you barred me some time ago. Steven is cruising for a barring in my opinion.”


    For believing that something was strange only to find that it came to fruition?
    For having a different opinion than the blogger?

    If so, then I think Chris’ blogging mentor would be disappointed.

    • 50 Wayland

      Steven, I am not saying you deserve to be barred but Chris has just said I was barred because he was sick of my ridiculous and repetitive comments. In your above post you point out that he has just ridiculed your comment which is one part of the criteria. You are also posting a lot, he mentions 16 comments, so he is counting. Repetitive is the other part of the criteria,

    • Steven,

      1) Exactly. You don’t inject an idea into an investigation if it makes no sense. That’s why I argue against the ridiculous idea that no lawsuits = no massacre. It makes no sense and serves no purpose in this discussion. I know you’re not claiming the massacre never happened, but your argument about the lack of lawsuits certainly suggests you question it.

      2) If you don’t think the lack of lawsuits means anything, why did you bring it up in the first place?

      3) Question my credentials all you want. If someone decides they don’t believe I’m not really a cop, it doesn’t stop me from being a cop.

      4) I obviously didn’t bar Wayland, as evidenced by the fact that you just quoted his recent comment. I wasn’t considering barring you either. I just wonder, why are you here? You’ve already shown you didn’t bother to read my original blog post (or else you would have known what a big issue this “there’s no lawsuit” bullshit is to Halbig and his band of traveling clowns). You obviously haven’t read the comments either, or you’d know I’ve allowed numerous people to comment even though they vehemently disagreed with me. You claim you believe the massacre happened but then drop two conspiracy cards: “there’s no lawsuit” and “there are no pictures”. You also alluded to a third conspiracy card, “you’re a paid government shill.”

      So what is it you’re trying to do here?

      • 52 Wayland

        I was not barred;

        Just so you know, I quit approving Wayland’s comments. They were getting more and more ridiculous, and I gave him more than enough opportunity to make his point. He posted 70 comments here, that’s enough.

        And you’re right, people show grief in different ways. But to a truther, humanity is a mystery.
        ” – Chris

        Chris simply quit approving my comments. An important difference I am sure you will agree.

  12. Redblues….I thought you might have picked up along the way, reading all the posts, that some bloggers actually believe the truth has been spoken with forked tongue….and what steve (and others) have to endure after being chastised for stating such… I will get my feet wet….Chris believes the offical story….I (we) have to prove nothing you loons must….if you have concrete evidence produce it….he’s right of course….but without examinations under oath all the truthers have are theories …..which in turn are debunked….case in point….Halbig questions why no lawsuits….Chris says what difference does it make?….Chris went moon dancing when he used a nun from outer space, so let me stretch a scenario ….say a father from CT wants to sue Gene Rosen because every time his kid watched a clip of him on t.v. he got violently sick and had to be taken to the hospital…..Obama care didn’t cover the expense and he wants to recover all or some of the dollars back….somehow this suit is not deemed frivolous and is entered into the system…..under oath Rosen says the reason he comes across as this creepy scaring guy is that he’s an actor and is being paid to create this goof….when he was in character he was truthful and under oath he told the truth….it is unfortunate for the public that we were not told the broadcasts were scripted…..trying not to be redundant, but in a lawsuit one has no idea what direction the defendant will seek when in confrontation with the plaintiff ……such as the arms company……under oath….imperative …

    • So a guy hired to lie to the entire nation who pulls off the lie for years will spill his guts about the entire plot as soon as he’s put under oath?

      That makes about as much sense as Halbig’s belief that a Super MK Ultra Secret government plot to fake a massacre can be exposed by a Freedom of Information Act request.

      • It is such a “tell” when people attack the character of the one who speaks out. Halbig would have never spoken out if it were not for the unscheduled police visit and their threat…

        • Uh huh. And you’re not attacking people when you say they’re deluded and believe everything CNN feeds them.

          But how about this, Mister Investigator: what evidence of this “police visit” exists aside from Halbig’s own claims?

          You talked about this whole conspiracy falling apart if challenged in court. What would happen to Halbig’s alleged police visit in court?

    • 59 Redblues

      Can you please phrase that in logical English? I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

    • May I ask that you stop using ellipsis (…..) as your only punctuation? It makes your comments hard to understand at best and unreadable at worst.

      Do you believe Sandy Hook was a hoax of some type (i.e. didn’t happen—everyone was an actor, kids never existed; everyone in the county was in on it; kids were killed but the Obama Administration did it to enact gun laws that they’ve failed to enact etc)? I honestly can’t tell what you’re trying to say.

  13. 61 Steven

    “If you don’t think the lack of lawsuits means anything, why did you bring it up in the first place?”

    Because, IMO it defies human nature and I found that incredible up until the suits started coming in.

    “I just wonder, why are you here? You’ve already shown you didn’t bother to read my original blog post (or else you would have known what a big issue this “there’s no lawsuit” bullshit is to Halbig and his band of traveling clowns).”

    I actually did not read the original blog as I really didn’t care what Halbig had to say.

    “but then drop two conspiracy cards: “there’s no lawsuit” and “there are no pictures”. You also alluded to a third conspiracy card, “you’re a paid government shill.”

    The first has been cleared up. The 2nd still seems incredible to me and the 3rd was just a little dig.

    “So what is it you’re trying to do here?”

    I thought this was a discussion forum. I was just trying to discuss. I’m good, I don’t need to discuss on your forum anymore.

    Thanks brother

  14. I tried to explain to redblues that not necessarily people are lying but the fact that they are under oath creates truth… obliviously went a mile over your head…..with a reply such as yours I will have to be more defined…’s this for making sense….your caught in a lie and society labels you as a scumbag lout who will stop at nothing to gain success….lier’s can live with that….now under oath your caught and your doing 5 yrs in the state pen….ya maybe to you it makes no sense it does to me….I was a professional football player back in the day and I now love coaching… of my assistant coaches 20 yrs. my jr. was in the nfl for a couple of yrs….he tells me he just got a call from a lawyer who is the head of a class action suit and the California teams are ready to deal on injury claims….my friend played for 2 of the teams….he was told no out-of-the pocket money and it will only take a day and a half of his time….he was sheepish at first….knowing that he came away relatively unscathed…..but found money is hard to refuse….the nfl without doubt could gather witnesses and go to court…a major contentious issue is that the trainers were handing out narc arctics to injured players….team doctors were condoning this without a written prescription ….Tylenol 3 4 and 5’s, Percocet , 292’s, morphine, sleeping pills just to name a few… my 11 yrs I became very close to our trainer we went for beers lots….one time a sports writer was at our table and told “big Al” that there is suspicion and speculation regarding drug availability and is it as prevalent as some believe….Al basically said no…..lier? Or do you put it into context…..say the owner of one of the franchise’s wants to fight these guys because he believes that professional athletes are paid enormous sums of money, pain and injury is an unfortunate aspect of the game….the trainers conundrum under oath?….he wants to keep his job and if ALL the trainers and DOCTORS concur ok but if the cookie starts to crumble he’s tapping cons in the pen….not laughing off a sports scribe in a bar… does that make sense?…. By the way … my buddy signed an agreement with the lawyer who receives 30% of the damages offered by the clubs…..

    • So, the master government conspirators who organized “Operation Fake a Massacre and Take Their Guns” hired regular actors to act like grieving parents, and these actors will break if we just put them under oath?

      For real, player?

    • 65 Redblues

      ‘Oath creates truth.’? Really? Then why do so many people still get prosecuted for perjury? And, once again, who do you think is lying, about what exactly?

  15. Readblues….wtf?….if stealing cars is against the law, why do people do it?….why do people lie under oath…..hmmmmm let me see…..maybe they think they won’t get caught.
    Chris if you really believe being questioned under oath is no big deal, then you surprise me….

    Ya for real……

    • Nice deflection attempt, but you suck again.

      I think an oath is important. Your imaginary actor who’s willing to fake a massacre as part of an elaborate high-level government conspiracy, and maintain his lies for years, probably couldn’t give a rat’s rectum about an oath to tell the truth.

      “Sure I’ll pretend to be a grieving father and lie to the entire country about a massacre that never happened. But violate my oath to tell the truth in court? Never!”

      Yeah, that’s how people work.

  16. Chris….”for real, player?” My answer….yea for real at the end of my deflection…..just in case you misinterpreted …..
    I suck again?…. Shit…. I thought mentioning if there is ever a chance to get the truth about anything is under oath and cross examination…..I guess I should have realized being on this site automatically means I’m a truther if one was to reference a trial…..not guilty……was I curious to the scuttlebutt on the web…..guilty…..can I understand the confusion Steven, Wayland and others have because of the way sh participants acted in certain situations…..guilty…..was I annoyed because of the newtown police threats…..guilty……was I shocked and saddened at the carnage…..guilty….do I believe our coverage by the illustrious media since 9/11…. not guilty…..

    • So you think we can uncover this plot, if one exists, by just putting people under oath and questioning them?

      I guess the conspirators never saw that fatal flaw in their plan.

      • 70 Wayland

        That’s a strawman argument, if there was an attempt to uncover the truth by questioning people under oath then I don’t see why that would be the only method attempted. You surely are not saying that all attempts to uncover the truth are futile because the conspirators are too smart? There is no need for smart conspirators because all inconsistences in the story get debunked.

        • Geez. I’m saying these imaginary master government conspirators aren’t going to break just because they’re put under oath.

          • 72 Wayland

            What you actually said is in post 36. The fact is some people do break when questioned. You would agree that there would be a lot of people in this conspiracy and it would be unlikely they could all hold it together individually. Most SH Truthers see it holding together because they have all the bases covered, school, police, fire, media, parents and locals. The very people you would have expected to blow this if it was a hoax. They very people who would have to be part of this if it were to be successful. It’s not possible to do a hoax of this scale perfectly, nore was it perfect nore need it be. We can see plenty of the holes, all nicely by yourself.

          • Wayland, it’s not just the parents, the teachers, the kids and the “locals”. If this were 1920 and there were few telephones and no internet and people didn’t travel into and out of areas like this fluidly, maybe you could pull something like this off in a very tiny town or on a Hollywood movie set.

            It’s all the people who commute into the area to work, who were in town to visit relatives for Christmas. The members of the local gun clubs.

            How do you propose that the agents of the government contacted all of these people weeks or months in advance and secured 100% compliance without leaving any paper or electron trail?

          • 74 Wayland

            Nothing needs to work 100%. In order for something to work it has to still work when there are problems. You make the task sound more difficult than it is. However I agree it does seem difficult to explain. What is your explanation for the weirdness?

      • Yes that’s exactly what I mean!……how exactly do you accomplish getting the conspirators under oath is the question!

        • First off, you can stop assuming any actual conspirators exist to put under oath.

          You guys crack me up with your “I know it’s a conspiracy and if everyone would just do what I say I’ll actually have evidence to prove it” nonsense.

  17. Your right Chris that’s a possibility especially when the particular witnesses are hand picked…my issue is the importance of testimony….period….no accusations re sh….May I reference jfk’s assanation ( just for sec)…. Over a 100 figures connected with Oswald ended up dead or ended up in other conspiracies ….not many Americans know that in 1976 the United States House of Representatives select committee on assassinations was established to investigate…..their conclusion was Kennedy was probably killed in a conspiracy….on part because of acoustics evidence….not many witnesses not ” chosen” got the chance……George de Mohrenschildt and CIA agent David Ferrie blew the brains out before testifying ( one the night before)…’s one of two…..either people who are detrimental before they testify don’t make it or they are so scared they ” kill” themselves!….but it obviously makes a profound difference!

  18. I’m going to try getting this across one more time to the conspiracy believers in the group: Even if for some reason the Obama administration might want to pull off a fake school shooting (or a real one, as some suggest), THE CONSPIRACY FAILS ON PURELY LOGISTICAL TERMS.

    Let me be clear: It would be impossible to pull off IN THE REAL WORLD because in the real world, time and people with a diversity of viewpoints and free will exist in a technological age that includes instantaneous communication. It might happen on an episode of 24, but that’s in Hollywood on a closed set in which the director controls most of the variables. And it’s those variables—such as the fact that Newtown is the headquarters of the National Sports Shooting Foundation (a pro-gun organization) and several gun clubs that would hardly have been complicit in such a conspiracy either before, during or after the fact.

    Yes, I know I’m being a complete killjoy. It’s uber fun to hash and rehash video “evidence”, construct endless “yeah, but what if” statements, and wallow in ideological joy juice. But the level of coordination, foresight and control necessary to wrangle that many individuals and organizations is simply not physically possible. Remember, this is the government that is supposedly incompetent in any other area, and yet they’re supposed to have been able to account for every individual who might be in or around Newtown in that time window and to have made sure that none of them would so much as tweet about what they were asked to do by some super-duper non-paper-or-electron-trail-producing secret form of communication.

    Please, guys, this clinging to irrational hopes of Machiavellian control by a President who can’t take his suit coat off in the Oval office without raising eyebrows isn’t helping anyone. It will not make you happier, or make America greater, or create more peace and freedom for you and your children. It will only cause anger and hurt and confusion.

    • 81 Wayland

      ” It will not make you happier, or make America greater, or create more peace and freedom for you and your children. It will only cause anger and hurt and confusion.”

      This sentence seems to be an emotional appeal. Surely if it destroys America or makes it stronger nether should be a consideration in whether a hoax should be exposed. If we followed your reasoning then the hoax would be fine if we want to ban guns.

      The official version has very strong supporters such as many of the people on this forum. It is proving difficult to get many people to see the significance of the blunders committed during the reporting of SH. People are very keen to read nothing into Carver’s odd behavior and statements. To see nothing odd in the lack of injured people being taken to hospital. Nothing weird about the media showing a storming of another Newtown school and passing it off as SH. Nothing seems suspicious about web cache dates being the 13th not the 14th or later. Given all of the odd things already then nothing odd about grinding the school into dust.

      There are a lot of individually odd things which if there was one then you would write them off. Since there are hundreds then you would expect an investigation to uncover the truth. But as with all things in the world today the evidence gets locked away for 50 years and any investigator appointed is one of the perpetrators.

      For example the top paedophiles in the UK are all knighted individuals and the people appointed to head the investigation all Knights or Dames too.

      You cannot expect the people who created the hoax to expose the hoax. Yes most of Newtown are in on it to some degree. Who are they gonna call? They will always be kept with as little knowledge as possible but as much guilt as possible. Paid off handsomely but aware of the consequences if they talk. They can’t simply shut down these conversations because that would cause a massive backfire. See how hacking Sony has resulted in The Interview becoming a hit.

      There is a microcosm example of such a conspiracy. The Vatican is actually it’s own country with it’s own laws and it’s own bank. In the book In Gods Name the author investigates the murder of Pope John Paul. He was murdered because he was about to expose massive banking fraud. If it was true then someone would have said something. Well the pop was trying to say something and he was probably the only person with sufficient credibility to say anything and he was murdered before he could.

      The SH hoax is probably OK for the moment but in years to come the children will see these conspiracy theories on the Internet and start to make sense of things they experienced that day. I will be on the lookout for any deaths connected with SH in the coming years. In the case of the Pope there were a lot of deaths including a banker hanging from Black Frias bridge in London. Now where have we seen banker deaths in recent years?

      SH is not something which happened in isolation. It’s happened in a world with increasingly weird news reports. The number of plane crashes and aborted plane journeys reported this Christmas is weird. As is the number of trucks crashing into groups of people last week. Each achieves national news status but not global.

      I am tuned into these things and it seems to me they are really pushing this stuff whilst trying not to make it *too obvious*. For people tuned in it is screamingly obvious. For those who do not want to see it but have it pointed out to them then they can still just about *explain it away*.

      One of the methods used to explain this stuff away is to make out that the government are a bunch of idiots. This is a commonly held opinion because it seems to align with the facts. Policies routinely fail to deliver their stated aim, therefore they failed. However the stated aim my not have been the purpose. Yes things to fail like the naked body scanners. But lets look at that; the underwear bomber nearly blows up a plane then a month later the government has implemented the solution, scanners in airports that can see into your underwear. What an amazing success, hardly your usual blundering government. Was this good luck or was the underwear bomber a staged event to sell the body scanners to the public. If it was then it worked. However it now turns out they don’t work very well after all.

      It looks to me that the government are quite good at creating a problem to which they hold the solution. The solution is then welcomed and the gov looks very good. The solution is not there to solve the perceived problem but to solve a different problem. For instance in the UK a man went crazy and shot a lot of children in a school using weapons he held legally. In retrospect it seems the police knew he was a nutter. A law was written which banned the guns he had used but they said it was to stop criminals using guns. The actual effect is that criminals can still use their illegal guns to shoot up a school but law abiding people have no guns to stop them. We saw this in Scotland more recently were a taxi driver with presumably illegal guns drove round the county shooting people and no one could shoot him.

      The wider links that crazy murderers have with the establishment are worth looking into. The MI6 connection with the Woolwich London killers, they tried to hire them according to the Daily Mail. The CIA connection with the Underwear bomber.

      People ask for proof but nothing is ever proved. If it went to court there would always be people who don’t trust the verdict. What you can do is loosen up your view of the world and try on different ideas as if you believe them and see if they work. Rather than say no conspiracy this large could work try imagining a layered and compartmentalized conspiracy in which the unwitting people such as yourself form one of the lower layers.

      If you think of a large organization with top down hierarchy the people at the top know the big picture and have a good idea how it’s implemented in detail. As you go down the pyramid those people are very good at what they do and what those under them do for them but they have very little or no knowledge about the real goals of the people above them. They are on a need to know basis. They are well rewarded, loyalty is expected of them and sever penalties for defecting.

      The system does not have to be perfect because it’s self correcting and defends itself. They can make some stupid blunders but provided the police turn a blind eye to the journalists shining a light on a crime then no one gets arrested. The journalists will also turn a blind eye to what the police get wrong. The people are at the bottom and are basically supportive during these events and only know what happened via the media. Anyone who does know something they should not, what can they do about it? Are they going to come on YouTube and *admit* that they live in SH and know what happened? If SH is a huge hoax then that could be a suicide note.

      So look out for deaths at SH.

      • 82 Steve

        “Of course the conspiracy theorists have to have learned about the conspiracy, but this entirely misses the point. Conspiracy theorists don’t have actual evidence. They don’t have leaked information, documents, photographs, or any hard or direct evidence of their specific conspiracy theory. As you will see from later responses – they simply believe they have perceived a pattern in events.”

        • 83 Wayland

          “Conspiracy theorists don’t have actual evidence. They don’t have leaked information, documents, photographs, or any hard or direct evidence of their specific conspiracy theory.” – well yes you’re safe for the moment Steve. The theory part is what we speculate is going on. We do however have a lot of suspicious activity and a lot of lies and misinformation and coverups from those involved. So far the coverup is holding but eventually it will be blown wide open. Possibly it has already.

          • 84 Steve

            Anomalies aren’t evidence.

          • 85 Wayland

            As I said, as long as you can maintain that there is no evidence then you can sit tight. As long as those responsible for the cover up don’t investigate anomalies, which they won’t then you’re safe. I regard you as a low level conspirator because you are just glad that anomalies aren’t evidence. Instead of investigating you debunk.

          • 86 Steve

            It’s not up to me to investigate anything. You’re the one claiming it’s a hoax. It’s up to you to prove it.

          • 87 Wayland

            Oh Steve it is up to you to do something about this. You have chosen to support those who I suspect of a crime. That’s your choice, that’s the role you have selected for yourself.

          • Holy shit. You’re incapable of rational thought.

            Bye, Wayland.

          • 89 Steve

            You’re shifting the burden.

          • 90 Steve

            Of course, I’m part of the conspiracy.

          • 91 Steve

            “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
            ― Christopher Hitchens

      • 92 Redblues

        So, your ‘proof’ of a vast conspiracy, is other, entirely different, non-conspiracy events in other countries? And you personally are one of the lucky, brilliant individuals who are ‘tuned into it’? (This despite an inability to write coherently, or punctuate properly?) And we should all ‘watch out for Sandy Hook deaths’ in the coming years because if other people die of natural causes in the same town as a mass murder, weeks, months, or years later, THAT proves some kind of conspiracy?
        This would be amusing if it was not so insulting to the victims.
        Once again, I live down the road from Sandy Hook. It was a real mass-murder, perpetrated by a real sociopath, with real victims, with real families. Questioning ‘anomalies’ (especially when your questions are based on false information, as has been repeatedly pointed out by people who work in EMS & law enforcement) doesn’t make you seem brilliant and insightful, it makes you seem like an ignorant fool off his meds. I have to ask, other than insulting those children & their families, what is your agenda?

      • 94 Gman @

        You sir are an idiot. EMS is always allowed into a scene after the scene is deemed safe. The scene was safe after less than 15 minutes. Trauma helicopters are always staged and utilized in any critical event. You need to get your facts straight.

        • Um…

          A mass shooting scene wouldn’t be declared safe after fifteen minutes. Most agencies follow the ALERRT (Association of Law Enforcement Rapid Response Trainers) protocols, one of which is the “one plus” rule: “if there’s one, there’s two”. Finding one suspect down doesn’t lead officers to automatically assume there was only one suspect. A school would have to be completely cleared before it would be declared safe, and that takes longer than fifteen minutes even if it’s empty. A school full of bodies, evidence, hiding kids and hiding teachers will take much longer to clear.

          Do you have a timeline or some actual evidence showing the scene was declared safe in fifteen minutes?

          Also, I’ve been involved in many, many “critical events”. “Trauma helicopters” weren’t put on “standby” for any of them, and on the few occasions I saw them EMS had to specifically request them. Moreover, air ambulance crews are always “on standby”; they’re at the hospital ready to go as soon as they’re called. Do you expect them to get in the air, fly around aimlessly and burn fuel just in case someone calls them?

          Please tell me what agency puts helicopters “on standby” (and in the air) for every critical event. Quote policy. Quote protocols. Show me some evidence to back your claim, instead of making sweeping proclamations based on no personal knowledge or experience whatsoever.

          You conspiracy theorists love talking out your ass about things you know literally nothing about. It’s really starting to bore me.

        • 96 Redblues

          Actually, it is YOU, “sir”, who are ignorant, and laughably so.
          Trauma helicopters are not “always staged and utilized in any critical event”. No emergency or investigative force anywhere in the country “automatically stages and utilizes trauma helicopters in any critical event”. Not one, no matter what you might see in Mission Impossible movies and Saturday morning cartoons. It is a tremendous waste of resources. First of all, helicopters require space to land. There isn’t enough open space to land helicopters in a densely wooded area. The only open spaces are the (full) parking lots and the highways, which are a 15 minute drive in the opposite direction from the hospital. They are not even called “trauma helicopters”, at least in this state. Furthermore, there are only 2 of them in the state. One is a 1 hour flight away, in Norwich, the other is a half hour flight away, in Hartford. They would never be requested unless specifically needed and requested by EMS (not the 911 dispatcher, or the PD). Since EMS is already stationed in Newtown they would already be on scene long before a Life Star helicopter was even on the way. They can get the patients to definitive care at the hospital long before Life Star is even on scene. That is the whole point of emergency medical care. I am an EMT in CT. Do you know how many scenes I’ve been on in which Life Star was needed? Zero. In this state they are almost always used to transport stabilized patients from one hospital to another which provides specific care needed by that patient, such as a burn unit. Almost ever town in CT has its own EMS. Smaller towns have there own regional EMS. Virtually nobody in the state is more than 15 minutes from the nearest hospital.

  19. 97 MommaD

    1st off, that many people couldn’t keep their mouths shut to pull this off. In the world of social media (twitter, fb, etc) it would be nearly impossible for that many people to stay mum about something this complicated. The Truthers are delusional to believe that our Government could actually pull something like this off with a bunch of ordinary people even if some are actors. I mean unless they replaced everyone in the town with robots (THAT IS A JOKE).

    Secondly, I doubt a lawsuit (although as Chris explains doesn’t mean diddly) against the gun manufacturer wouldn’t put anything to rest for those who are caught up in the Truther delusion. Meaning, a suit against the manufacturer just is another attempt to disarm Americans. (FWIW, I agree with stronger gun laws.) Isn’t disarming Americans the reason the Truthers believe this is a False Flag (or whatever term they are using).

    Disclaimer: I am not law enforcement or a robot. I am a preschool teacher and all I could see is little people’s faces during the coverage of the tragedy. I hugged my children tight and prayed for the families that had to bury their family members. I also believe that these so called Truthers are sad miserable individuals who apparently have no empathy or they’d keep their unfounded opinions to their selves.

    • 98 Lynn

      Well said Maya and MommaD! Thanks.

    • 99 Wayland

      I don’t think you need to call us sad individuals with no empathy. However it serves to allow me to make a point. That even if people are not officially in on the conspiracy they still serve the conspiracy. In spite of the video evidence that we can all see the grieving parents are very cheerful you are saying we have no empathy because we can’t see their sadness.

      You are imagining that you actually see what we know we ought to see, people in deep grief, barely functioning. Then because we don’t see it, it’s our fault for not being empathic.

      Your fall back position is then that this proves nothing and I agree. But we disagree that this is suspicious and needs investigation.

      • Then “investigate”. Find actual evidence. Then come back and post again.

        • 101 Wayland

          I am now investigating Lynn’s suggestion that SH people cannot keep their mouths shut and will be blabbing all over social media. Seeing how many blunders they did on the day and with the social media on the 13th then it follows that they will still be making blunders to this day. It’s just a case of spotting them. If they were really easy to spot then they would probably get removed. The original mistakes have been erased.

          • Translation: “I don’t have any evidence.”

          • 103 Wayland

            Yeah your cover up is still holding Chris. Or rather the cover up is holding so you can continue to imagine that there is nothing suspicious happening. For a policeman you are pretty laid aback about people comitting crimes.

          • 104 Wayland

            Have you seen “we need to talk about Sandy Hook”. That’s evidence.

          • No.

            A conspiracy video isn’t evidence. I’m pretty laid back about allegations of crime that are illogical and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

          • 106 Steve

            You mean “We need to talk about getting you to see a qualified mental health professional if you believe the crap that’s in this video.”

          • 107 Redblues

            Then use a program like Way back to see exactly what was on various FB pages & blogs on the day if theuders, as well as the weeks leading up to and following it. If the ‘mistakes’ have all been corrected after the fact a simple search will prove it. So please, show us evidence, not YouTube rants, innuendo, and conspiracy websites, actual evidence.

      • 108 Steve

        You do have no empathy. What makes you an authority on the correct way to express grief? People who actually are experts, as opposed to people who got their psychology degrees from Youtube University, will tell you that Robbie Parker’s behavior was not out of the ordinary. A year ago my father died. I cried occasionally in the days that followed. I also laughed and smiled a few times, too.
        Not too long ago, I attended a funeral of a friend. He was a Marine. Three Marines in dress blues did a military ceremony, playing Taps and folding and unfolding the flag before presenting it to his brother. During the ceremony, a 3-year-old saw the Marines and shouted “Cops! Bang! Bang!” Just about everyone laughed, including my friend’s widow.
        A meme that I saw not too long ago put it best: “So you think the Sandy Hook shootings didn’t happen? Imagine that it happened near where you live and one of the victims was your child (or if you don’t have children, niece, nephew, cousin, neighbor’s kid, paper boy, somebody important in your life) Now, imagine there were a bunch of jerks on the Internet, calling you a liar and mocking your grief. Feel like as asshole now? You should.”
        That is the problem I have with hoaxers.

        • 109 Wayland

          I am not sure why you are bothering to try and convince me that sometimes people cry and sometimes people laugh when in grief. You have already said that unless a person has a degree in psychology then they have no idea about grief in your opinion. Do you have the relevent qualifications to say what does and does not make people happy? According to you I should be able to imagine how people feel about SH conspiracy theorists but you also just told me I am incapable of knowing that. You seem incapable of thinking clearly, but then I don’t have a degree in that subject so what do I know?

          • 110 Steve

            I might not be an expert, but I’ll take the word of somebody with a degree who has studied these things over the word of somebody whose idea of research is watching Youtube videos.
            Do you know of any actual experts who claim any of the behavior these parents have displayed is fake?

          • 111 Steve

            If you’re wrong about this (and I’m certain you are) you’re intentionally inflicting more emotional distress on these people and dragging their reputations through the mud.

        • Steve, thank you for putting this in a personal and emotional context that perhaps people like Wayland can comprehend.

          And Wayland, the conspiracy theories fail the test of reason and logistics because Newtown is a real American town filled with real human beings and not a closed system. The conspiracists all fail to account for even the most basic realities of daily life in a real American city inhabited and visited by real human beings.

        • I understand how you feel…but, ur just wrong.
          Have you spoken with Wolfgang Halbig about all this? You need to.
          I would suggest that you do some research on this event…on your own.
          Look up ‘crisis Actors’ on the Net…read about what they do and for what they’re used for.
          I know it’s hard to believe…but, you have to wake up, Pal.

          • No. It’s not up to me to prove your theory. You make the claim, you back it up.

            Your hero Wolfgang Halbig doesn’t understand the basics of a murder investigation, and obviously neither do you.

  20. Maya, Redblues, Steve etc….good point regarding keeping an entire town involved, media, officials and such…..hard to get my head around that one!…..”show me evidence”…… What evidence is needed from the truther nation to sway you?

    • 116 Steve

      A Newton resident going into the New York Times newsroom with an uncashed check for $1 million or so and spilling the beans about the whole thing.

      • What evidence? Let’s look at critical paths in the alleged conspiracy to see where evidence might be available.

        No, wait, there are too many critical paths. Let’s look at one: soliciting participation. The government would have to begin some time in advance to find out from every resident of Newtown if they were willing to participate. Even one or two holdouts would blow the whole scheme. In fact, try to imagine that you yourself received a communication asking you to participate in a false flag staged “massacre” aimed at ramming through new gun laws. What would you do?

        Let’s say they offered a tremendous amount of money. Would you simply take it? Do you imagine everyone solicited would take it? So, where’s the smoking gun? Evidence that residents were asked to participate in this hoax might be emails, text messages, letters, callback numbers left on answering machines. But all those things leave trails, Cheech. Every last one of them. So, where is the evidence of this massive communication effort?

        Do you think it’s reasonable to believe any organization could solicit that info from everyone in Newtown WITHOUT RAISING SUSPICION?

        Now, they might be able to do this if no one in Newtown actually is friends with or talks to anyone else in Newtown; they go about their lives without touching. Is that a reasonable expectation?

        One of the conspiracy theories has it that the families directly involved are all actors and the children never existed—or at least not as portrayed. They’re just photos of random kids chosen because maybe they’re already dead. So we have to pay people not to notice that all the Sandy Hook families are brand new to town and that their children have never been seen by anyone. They have never socialized with any of their neighbors. They would not have real jobs in town, so I suppose that might be evidence of conspiracy—that none of the parents of the allegedly dead children worked in Newtown and all had moved into the community very recently and did not fraternize with neighbors. So, another piece of evidence might be that no one knows these people. And no one employs them. But these actors do exist, so, there would be some financial record of the government paying them. They must have come from somewhere, so another form of evidence would be of their alternate lives. There should also be cell phone footage of the various parties rehearsing their parts. The press, the EMTs, the police.

        The problem is, of course, that this is a fruitless exercise: people did know them and their children. And to believe that of all the people contacted by the government to participate not one objected is beyond credulity, don’t you think? The first time the government communicated with someone who was not ideologically aligned with their aims, they’d be outed. So the evidence would exist of a kept text or recorded a phone call. You’d also have testimony from people outside the conspiracy who found they were not allowed to enter Newtown in the days leading up to the event. Anyone not in on the conspiracy could again, bring it crashing down. So, there would be evidence that casual visitors were turned away by law enforcement.

        Do you begin to get a sense of how absurd the whole idea is?

        Bottom line: the only real evidence that would support the conspiracy theory that the kids are someone else’s kids and the parents are actors would be 26 empty coffins.

        I should note that if those kids were not who their parents and everyone else claimed they were, someone somewhere in the country surely would have recognized them, don’t you think? Their photos are everywhere and their faces are unforgettable.

        • 118 Wayland

          So we have no acceptable explanation which fits the facts.

          • 119 Steve

            Actually, we do. A man with mental problems killed his mother, walked into a school, killed 26 people and killed himself.
            We’ll probably never know why he did it, but that’s what happened.

      • Ahhhhhh….. a dude turns in a cool million or so when money is what enticed him in the first place……conscience gets the better of him…..Wayland you guys got a problem.

        • 121 Steve

          I’m just saying sooner or later if the hoaxers are right, there will be a death bed confession. Somebody will get drunk at a bar and shoot his mouth off. Somebody will have a crisis of conscience and decide he doesn’t care what happens to him he’s going to tell everyone what really happened. There will be a freelance journalist who uncovers the story of the century.
          You can’t keep a lid on something like this forever.
          The reason this conspiracy theory bothers me is that if the hoaxers are wrong (and I’m certain they are), they are causing so much emotional distress to people who have already suffered more than enough and attacked the reputations of ordinary, everyday people.

          • 122 Wayland

            It won’t be the story of the century since this stuff is routine now. Publishing the story in the alternative media won’t make huge waves but adding all these together is creating a rising tide. You have this idea that the independent journalist uncovers the story and takes it to his editor at the big city news paper and then the world knows.

            In reality it will be more like the plot of the movie Parallax View. The journalist uncovers an assassin recruitment and training company. He gets himself hired and gathers actual evidence. However he never makes it to see his editor.

            Seriously it would not be easy to blow this open, even with some great evidence. It’s glaringly obvious to many people who have looked into SH that it’s not right. Using peoples feelings as a shield to protect the plot is a smart move. The police would not be deterred but the public swallow it. The police all do what they are told. In the UK the police chiefs are mostly part of paedo rings, probably true in SH. Carver is a right perve, what were the children wearing? “I don’t know, mostly cute kids stuff”, sick fucker.

          • 123 Steve

            Do you realize you’re accusing Carver of a very serious crime without a shred of evidence?

          • 124 brian

            It’s been 2 years and still nothing ,, nothing from a angry teenager on social media , nothing from someone who told someone , nothing from a drunk kid on facebook, nothing from a drunk in a bar ,, it’s been 2 years and with all the people that would have been involve someone would have had loose lips

        • 125 Wayland

          Yeah the million $ cheque does not sound very likely. That would be a top conspirator getting that. Anyone handing over such a large carrot would also have a very large stick. Why would the New York Times publish the story? More likely we would simply see a car crash or suicide.
          There are less traceable ways of paying people. Mortgage cancellation perhaps, then if the person makes noise they will be made homeless. You don’t hand someone the means to hold you to ransom unless you have the means to hold them to ransom. Mutually affirmed destruction. It’s what holds the secret societies and paedo rings together. Powerful people who are also compromised. They are careful not to let evidence fall into the hands of people who can do something with it. That’s not too difficult when you have fooled people like Chris into covering for you.

      • 126 Wayland

        Why would some one do that? Has anyone ever done that? If they did, what happened next?

  21. Maya…”if those kids were not who their parents and EVERYONE else claimed they were, someone would recognize them”…. You mean like Allison Wyatt and Madeleine Hsu alias Lily Gaubert?….. Just saying….Steve “sooner or later there will be a death bed confession”…. Ever herd of Howard Hunt? (JFK)….. Jack shit happened….Brian….angry teenager? Yeah right that should tip it over…..a drunk kid on Facebook …..Chris would buy that one I’m sure….a drunk in a bar?…. Laughable…..your serious?

    • 128 brian

      the mix up with Allison and Lily was in the DAILY NEWS UK a foreign web news site, , the mix up was discovered about a week after the shooting , with many newspapers , magazines tv news stations and other web sites showing pictures of the children , would it be possible that the mothers did not see the DAILY NEWS UK photos until it was told to them.? how many different sites did you see the first week ?

      • Brian…. So lucky that the real mom saw the picture before any other mother, father, relative, friend, acquaintence, next door neighbour or 100 others that knew the kid or who knows how many weeks?…..ever wonder why Lily…..some random girl?….guess they had to pick somebody

      • 130 Wayland

        People tend to look at themselves and their town in the news far more than the rest of world. I would not be checking the news on SH to make sure they had not used my daughters photo where as a victims parents and friends would be. It was pure chance that the mothers spotted the ‘mistake’ but almost impossible for no one in Sandy Hook to have spotted it first. How is such a mistake even possible unless it was a sloppy hoax?

        We are talking two occasions where friends could have alerted SH mothers of the mistake but friends alerted the real children’s mothers.

        Don’t give me that stuff about if it really was a hoax then they would not have made that mistake because someone would have spotted it. Clearly it was spotted and the hoax still stands.

        • 131 brian

          why would anybody from Sandy Hook be looking at a foreign website , It took a week or more to discover the mistake by the website, , If the theorist didn’t start there insane stories about the mistake, would you or any other theorist even know about the DAILY NEWS UK website , so why would the people or friends of the parents know either? would you look in a newspaper from NEW YORK about an car accident in CALIF. no you wouldn’t, so with there being many American news websites and magazines etc no one would be looking at the DAILY NEWS UK,,,,When was the last time you looked there for American news ?

    • 134 brian

      only examples of how if it was a hoax the news would be release, it has been over 2 years and people have died from newtown and sandy hook , no death bed confessions yet

  22. Why did CT police threaten Halbig to stop investigating?
    Why did the school demo crew have to sign nondisclosure agreements? Where was Adam Lanza for the years preceding the event?
    Who was the guy arrested in the woods (law enforcement, that’s who)?
    The person with questions is often more informed than the person who supposedly has all the answers. After the DHS purchased millions of rounds of ammo, and the siege of anti-first amendment legislation proposed, after Benghazi lies and after the phony baloney Korea/Sony Hack story, how many of you schmucks still believe the media. They are proven propagandists and liars of the highest order. Ask questions. It makes you wiser. Americans have been Suckers for far too long.

    • 139 brian

      why would you believe Halbig , ,as a security expert ,why would he not have their names . As a security expert why would he so NO to a radio host who was on the phone with Halbig , when more police knock on his door ,why say NO to witnesses,, There were many people DETAINED not arrested that day for being in the woods , once they were determined to be not involved, they were release and there names are in reports , If you did not have a job ,if you did not go to school, had no bills in your name , or only had a few friends , how many people would really know you ,, you would be off the grid . who release the news that Korea might not have hack Sony ,, THE MEDIA etc. , why did the work crew sign the nondisclosure agreement,, maybe ( my opinion ) people in charge did not want descriptions of the classrooms on how they looked , made up or true to be release in media stories or books ,to protect the victims families , the same reason the bloody photos and videos were redacted , you say the person with questions is more inform then the one with the answers , all that does is make that person a conspiracy theorist who won’t believe the answers that are given to them

    • You truthers are inspiring. You insult “sheeple” for blindly accepting what the government says (which I don’t, by the way), then you blindly accept nonsensical bullshit from truthers heroes like Halbig. Let me ask you, what evidence is there that Halbig was “threatened”?

      • 141 Wayland

        Chris that’s a good point. You are describing a phenomenon known as Sheeple 2.0. Having woken up to the mainstream lies and corruption the truther then falls victim to the backup psy-op of the alternative media. By injecting false evidence of a conspiracy it’s easy to discredit the whole thing. One could say that this is just truthers making up the whole thing but the fact is truthers have enough real weirdness without inventing things. So if Halbig being threatened is an invention then the purpose can only be to discredit the SH Truthers.

        • 142 brian

          where is the proof that halbig was threaten? , why should we believe him? , where is his witness ? he hung up the phone that the radio host would have heard and recorded the threats The only thing halbig wanted was money the same as he wanted in his past flops,

          • 143 Wayland

            So now is motivation for harassing is money? Given all the things that keep you debunkers on your toes don’t you think it odd that Halbig makes this huge blunder of telling an outright lie? Surely that would lose him a lot of money? Perhaps he will make more money by discrediting himself? Would anyone want to see that or would you prefer he retain his cred?

          • 144 brian

            HALBIG did lose a lot of money , when his followers realizde he was a fake ‘,he still has a few followers in his way of thinking,but so does hitler.,,he might have made more money if he knew what he was talking about ,instead of coming up with question that were asked by other theorist who also did not know what they were saying , As an expert why didn’t he research the time line of events instead of believing what the theorist post with the facts , i could go on but the year has just begun and it’s still not enough time to say all that is wrong with him

          • 145 Lynn

            And where did all the money that Halpig collected for his “investigation” go? And how many other scams has he been involved in?

          • 146 brian

   in this video he claims that he paid a lawyer who didn’t do anything for him

    • 147 Steve

      Halbig wasn’t investigating. He may have been a cop at one time, but he isn’t now. He was most likely harassing Newtown residents and the police probably told him to knock it off.

      • 148 Wayland

        Halbig wasn’t investigating, simply harassing? And your reasoning is simply that he is not a police officer. Does the reverse hold, that if he did exactly the same thing but was a police officer at the time then this would then be investigation?

        • 149 Steve

          He’s a private citizen and he’s harassing people. Calling it an “investigation” is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

          • 150 Wayland

            OK thanks for confirming that. I will clarify the implications. We must leave investigations to those in authority over us even if we suspect them of a criminal cover up.

          • 151 Steve

            There is no evidence those in authority are engaging in a criminal cover-up.

          • 152 Wayland

            I said *suspect* them of a criminal cover up. Things which make us suspicious would be destruction of evidence, hiding evidence and telling people they must only listen to the authority for information. Those things are documented facts even if you think it makes them whiter than white, I think the opposite and so does Halbig. Just because you wish to potentially be supporting the coverup does not mean we should all do what you do and pretend everything is fine.

          • 153 Steve

            How about instead of poking holes in the “official story” you give us a plausible explanation of what you think really happened and your best evidence to support it.

  23. 154 Redblues

    Yes. Please give us the Big Truth, that we sheeple who live here are too blind and to experienced, and to well acquainted with the residents and town of Newtown to be able to see.

    • 155 Lynn

      Redblues ~ Exactly! There are no “sides”. There are 26 children and educators murdered by a mentally ill man. No smoke, no mirrors, no conspiracies.

      It’s time for people like Wayland to move on to some other fantasy.

      • Well Lynn, I am going to guess you have not watched or read a lick of anything that questions Sandy Hook. So assuming you have common sense which I would reasonably believe you do, do a little surfing reading watching and don’t lie to yourself… then be objective… you will see that there are more holes in this story that you can count. If you control and environment you can control those involved, there was no freedom of movement in that area… don’t be so daft to think that ALL these people were involved, there is a fine mix of fantasy and reality that made this on up.

        • And again…

          It’s not our job to research or prove your fantastic claims. Your repeated insistence on that we do so shows you don’t understand investigations or basic logic.

          YOU made the claims. YOU prove them.

          Until you come back with actual evidence, your comments will be trashed without approval, because they’re logical trash.

          Spew your unverified nonsense elsewhere.

          • 158 Wayland

            Everyone Must Sign In

            Chris, you wanted evidence of it being a hoax, try this;


            Scroll down to the The Sandy Hook Hoax section.
            You will see in the background of the Gene Rosin picture there is a sign saying “Everyone must check in”.
            Who brought the sign, it seems amazingly well organized.
            Below that is a scan of a document called Exercise Logistics which talks about an evacuation drill for children scheduled for the 13th December. Note the line which says “Everyone must sign in with controller upon arrival”.

            See how that is consistent with the sign for those entering Sandy Hook. Until seeing this, it’s hard to imagine that someone would bring such a sign to a live school shooting.

          • What the hell, I’ll allow this one. It’s actually a good illustration of the truther mindset, and shows how they get things so wrong.

            The National Incident Management System (NIMS) mandates that everyone responding to a critical incident check in upon arrival and check out upon departure. That keeps emergency management officials informed regarding what resources are available. Mention of the check in roster can be found here:


            This NIMS manual was published December 2008. On page 130 of the manual (142 of the PDF) you’ll find the “Incident Check-In List”.

            “8. ICS 211 – Incident Check-In List
            ICS 211 documents the check-in process. Check-in recorders report check-in information to the Resources Unit.”

            At a major crime scene access has to be controlled, and for prosecution and After Action Review (AAR) purposes everyone on the scene must be logged. On any major crime scene, even when the NIMS system hasn’t been used, we cops have to record who’s present.

            The “the check-in sign means conspiracy!” belief shows how desperately you truthers WANT this to be a conspiracy. The sign depicts something absolutely to be expected at a mass casualty incident where the NIMS protocols are being followed. Ten seconds of research on NIMS would show this; however, rather than look for a plausible reason a check-in sign would be prominently displayed in broad daylight in an area easily accessible to photographers, you immediately assume it’s evidence of a massive conspiracy.

            Same thing with “the portajohns prove it’s a conspiracy” nonsense. Part of the NIMS system is arranging for needed resources to provide for all the people spending significant amounts of time on the scene.

            Maybe you guys should actually look for the obvious and plausible answers to your stupid questions before making accusations.

          • 160 brian

   WAYLAND ,,the first link is from CBS THIS MORNING SATURDAY recorded on the 15th , there is no sign in the background ,,, the second link is from the 18th where the photo was taken from in the second listen when the reporter says LAST FRIDAY ,, or at the 10:10 mark when a school bus drives by fill with kids that started back to the other schools on the 18th , also in the photo where are all the cars and trucks that were there in the afternoon of the 14th ?

          • 161 brian

   this is a link recorded on the 15th ,, NO SIGN IN THE BACKGROUND This link is where the photo was taken from recorded on the 18th, listen to the news lady as she says LAST FRIDAY , also if it was on the 14th where are all the cars and trucks that were there on friday

          • 162 Wayland

            Brian, I am confused. Chris is saying it’s standard to have a sign on the day of the shooting but you are saying there was no sign until the 18th. I suppose the sign is unimportant?

          • The check-in would have started on the day of the shooting as soon as the scene was stabilized and the NIMS protocols invoked. That doesn’t mean the sign was immediately brought in. As more time passed and the scene became more organized, more resources would be brought to the scene. In this case, eventually a sign was brought in directing people to check in.

            The sign is evidence of a conspiracy to follow NIMS protocols.

          • 164 brian

            If it WAS a drill the sign would have been there on the 14th , with it being a real event , the sign would be put there for what ever reason , who ever had to go to the school or into the firehouse , the media , staff members to retrieve their cars , who knows ,, but the main thing is the SIGN was not there before the shooting ,as the theorist that know it wasn’t still try and convince you it was

          • 165 Wayland

            Brian, clearly a bit dodgy that Conspiracy Theorists are implying the sign was there on the 14th. That’s what makes this whole thing so weird. OK so I am a bit lazy and just looking at stuff other people have come up with. However the people who did dig this footage out were in a position to know when that sign appeared. It makes me think that a lot of dis-information has been put out. Chris is unconcerned when the sign appeared but you say that no sign on the day means it was not a drill. I will go with that theory, a drill would be organized enough to have the sign on the day.

          • You still don’t get it. The sign is absolutely unimportant. It holds as much significance as what color shoes the responding cops wore. Because you know fuck-all about crime scenes, investigations, emergency management or pretty much anything related to Sandy Hook, you and your truther brethren latch onto anything that “proves” the conspiracy you desperately want to exist.

          • 167 Wayland

            On the contrary, the sign represents control of the crime scene. This means that all the witnesses are accounted for. This also limits the number of people able to video the scene on their camera phones. If it was a hoax you would find this system helpful to control the coverup just as it is helpful for standard police work. You have already admitted that this would be helpful when saying that too many people would need to be in on the conspiracy when infact this check-in system limits those who need to be on the inside.

          • No, because people checking in on a mass casualty scene don’t have their phones confiscated. Actually, cell phones are an important backup means of communication for emergency management personnel.

            Again, you have no proof, and are desperately reaching.

          • 169 Wayland

            I am putting the puzzle together. So we have a carefully controlled environment. Any journalists allowed in would be approved at the check-in. It becomes possible to confiscate phones, not heard of that. It is actually possible to prevent phones and tablets from taking pictures at a scene. Not seen any footage of people struggling with this but then you wouldn’t would you. Sandy Hook lane is isolated, the school is isolated. You have to walk through some woodland to get there other than the lane. It’s starting to get a little clearer how they can pull this off without outsiders interfering. We have seen how some of the reporters who appear to be in Newtown are actually on green screen. This may be a perfectly normal thing to do but it’s still deception and would be useful in a hoax.

          • This deserves its own blog post. It’s a perfect example of how conspiracy theorists think. They take a completely normal action (securing a crime scene) and turn it into conspiratorial “evidence” (“They restricted access to the scene so they could carry out the conspiracy!”).

            I’m done with you again, Wayland. Bring evidence or go away.

          • 171 brian

            I never said the sign wasn’t there until the 18th , the earliest I’ve seen the sign was on Saturday night the 15th

        • 172 Redblues

          The only stories with countless holes are the troofer versions, none of which make any sense, and all of which can be, and have been, debunked, point by point, in this blog, by law enforcement, and in the report. Any average ten year old can debunk your garbage. Nobody with a lick of sense would waste time reading the troofer blogs or watching their absurd YouTube rants. Nobody in Connecticut, much less living in Newtown, can bear the offensive idiocy of your insane, unfounded, and utterly fantastic claims. As has been pointed out repeatedly, your flights of fancy wouldn’t even make a bad novel. Suggesting that people who actually know what happened simply lack your ‘objectivity’ is preposterous. You hate your own government, think you’re smarter and better informed than people who live here, work in EMS, or work in law enforcement, and actually think YouTube rants are ‘evidence’. That isn’t objectivity, it’s self-deluded ignorance.

          • Redblues, you have no concept of how many baseless presumptions your overly confident response contains. If you can bear having a mirror held up to the face of your mind, you should read an insightful exposition that I wrote today in regard to just such a mind-set and the subconscious error that goes detected. It’s title is:
            Conspiracy Theories and their Credibility; the Fallacy of Primary Veracity and Canaries in the Coal Mine

            It will illuminate your conventional thinking to other possibilities that do not naturally occur to you regarding how your mind operates.

            I did not write it as a believer in much of anything regarding Sandy Hook, other than the Wayback Machine screen capture of the school’s web traffic which dried up at the end of 2007, indicating a permanent school closure. So I’m not convinced of what the actual facts are, -only of what they could possibly be.

  24. Seems to me that neither side has any proof……

    • Yeah, except that whole police report with hundreds of pages of documented evidence.

    • 177 Steve

      The people claiming it’s a hoax are the ones who have to prove it. They’re the ones making the outlandish claims. It’s on them.

    • 178 Redblues

      Actually, the hoaxers have no proof. Newtown has medics, police officers, and residents who know it happened. Newtown has families who’s children were murdered, and buried in town. It has living witnesses to the murders. There is no other ‘side’ to it. A bunch of sociopaths who have nothing to do all day but post YouTube rants, are not ‘another side’. They’re gnorant loons with an ax to grind, who do not know how to conduct research or even know what a primary source is. They have no primary sources that prove their outrageous claims, just absurd rants which contradict facts most people can easily look up. All those YouTube rants are proof of mental instability, not proof that a well documented mass murder never happened. I find your arrogant assumption that people who think it was all a hoax are smarter than everyone else to be an amusing illustration of how you really think. All your lives, you’ve been dismissed as ignorant and crazy. Now, making up lies and harassing victims makes you feel important and think you’re smart.

  25. 179 BT

    Chris Hernandez, my hats off to you. You hit the nail on the head with how many people would had to have gone along with this hoax. Citizens, Firemen, Paramedics, Police (Fed., Sate and local), school staff, parents,
    and the list goes on. It’s just plain “impossible”. I have 35 years law enforcement experience at the state level. I agree with everything you stated in your responses to Halbig’s list of inaccuracies. Your right. Some
    peoples opinions need to be mocked, because they are coming from “morons”.

  26. A media fuckup doesn’t equal a conspiracy. If it did, then there have been millions of conspiracies in the last decade. The media ALWAYS screws up initial reporting.

    • 181 Steve

      Exactly. Look at a bar fight or a traffic accident. Ask a half-dozen witnesses what happened, you’ll get a half-dozen different stories. Heck, look at professional sports. In a controlled environment, trained, you have professional officials who know exactly what to look for who are just feet from the action and they sometimes make the wrong call.
      A situation like Sandy Hook is many times more chaotic than either of those situations so it would not be surprising that eyewitnesses will claim to see things that didn’t happen and the media end up reporting those things. A century ago, when all there was were newspapers, they had time to check these things out. They could be wrong about things all day in the newsroom and nobody would ever know as long as they got it right before the presses started rolling. These days, they don’t have that luxury. They’re reporting on things as they happen so naturally, there will be some less-than-accurate information reported that will need to be corrected later..

      • Chris….Is there a reason my comment isn’t in print about Pakistan ?…..seems your reply is in reference to it…..what happened there is NOT a media fuckup… confusing, in the heat of the action, refs blown call…..the person holding Noah Pozner’s picture is supposedly his MOTHER!!!!….. Don’t hand me that shit……the reasoning behind Pakistans fakery is unknown by me but there is NO question that it is fraudulent …..does it have anything to do with sh?….. No….cept trusting governments world wide is a problem…..

        • Jesus Christ.

          So you claim there’s a picture, from Pakistan, of a SH parent holding up her dead white kid’s picture and claiming he was killed in the Pakistan school attack? And you found this picture somewhere other than a conspiracy web site?

          Post a link if you haven’t already. I ignore most of your comments because, like our dear departed friend Wayland, you offer nothing except your bullheaded insistence that “This was a conspiracy!”

          Here’s a guess: you conspiracy theorists are either misunderstanding the picture you’re talking about, or you’re deliberately lying about it.

          I’ve seen pictures from the Pakistan massacre. That happened. So did the SH massacre. The reality of those crimes doesn’t depend on YOUR beliefs about them.

          Post some evidence, or stop commenting. I’m way past sick of your comments, so either post something substantive or go back to

          • Whatever…..

          • In other words, “I have no evidence.”

            By Cheech.

          • 186 Wayland

            Blocking me looks like you have put your hands over your ears. Now you seem to have been blocking Catch22 but allowing some of his comments through

            This page from the BBC shows Noah Pozner from Newtown;

            This page from the BBC has a video with Noah on the wall in the background;

            This article looks at it in detail;

            There is also a YouTube video where a BBC license payer phones the BBC for an explaination. They are dumbstruck.

          • I don’t know why I keep wasting my time responding to you…

            The links you provided seem to prove a picture of a SH victim was shared as a victim of the Pakistan school attack. Which proves… what?

            Someone in Pakistan screwed up, and so did media outlets. Why do you conspiracists act like a media fuckup equals a government conspiracy? The media ALWAYS fucks things up.

            Are you suggesting this media/whoever else fuckup negates the words of the actual cops, EMS and parents from Sandy Hook?

          • 188 Wayland

            I think you should worry less about my inferences about this ‘photo’ mix up and more about what your response says about you. Clearly this is yet another very weird SH incident that you chose not to investigate. Rather than expect me to explain it all to you, you should get closer to the source of the story. Is this just one photo on a wall or was this Pozner photo all over the place? Was his mother really holding the picture? Don’t go on my opinion, go and find out.

            If media ‘screw up’ this much and don’t even apologize when it’s pointed out then how much is even true that we can’t check? The fact that you don’t check anything but assume the official version is the truth whilst stating the media screw up all the time shows something about you.

            Don’t expect this one thing to prove everything. However it’s not one thing, it’s a catalog of things, all of which you have simply smoothed over or ignored.

            So go and find out how such a sickening mistake could have happened. Also don’t assume it’s a mistake. Don’t assume it even happened, find out if it happened. You can see from my web links that the BBC actually agree with it. It’s the weirdest thing imaginable. Try some other links to non-bbc news sites, see if it’s media wide. Why would the school put up this photo? Did they just think, oh this kid did not go to our school but died in a school shooting so that’s close enough? It’s really really weird, if that does not strike you as weird then what chance do you have no chance of investigating anything?

            You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
            I can show you the doorway but only you can walk through it.
            Chris, people have put up some pretty big signposts for you to follow. If you choose not to investigate then that’s your choice. Seriously we can do no more. This Pozner photo is a pretty massive beacon, they don’t get much more blatant and easily spotted than that, even the dead children singing at the Superbowl is not as clear.

          • You twit.

            Someday you’ll figure out it’s not up to me to prove your claims.

            The pictures of Noah in Pakistan, assuming they’re not photoshopped (and they don’t appear to be), prove that someone screwed up. It doesn’t prove, or even suggest, that SH never happened.

            If every media fuckup was proof of conspiracy, then there was a conspiracy against Korea when a media outlet identified a crashed plane’s crew as Sum Ting Wong, Wee Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk and Bing Dang Ow.

            I’m not interested in investigating a media or activist fuckup because it doesn’t disprove events documented by numerous reliable sources. Like your (conspiracists in general) stupid “But there were portapotties at Sandy Hook! That means conspiracy!” claim, it’s both stupid and illogical.

            Bye, Wayland.

          • 190 Steve

            Wayland, how about instead of pointing out anomalies, you do the following:
            “Tell us how the government hired actors, bribed and/or intimidated cops, and orchestrated all the events of that day. Tell us exactly how they hoodwinked an entire town into believing that 26 of their citizens, 20 of whom were elementary school children, were murdered when in fact it did not happen.:


          • 191 Lynn

            Not only a conspiracy for the entire town of Newtown, but also the town of Monroe, where the survivors of SHE are now going to school. What’s your theory on that, Wayland?

          • 192 Steve

            Essentially, they’d have to buy off or threaten all of Southwestern Connecticut.

    After several years and many critical points and questions not being answered, there is a large number of people who questioned and are questioning Sandy Hook. No doubt you are a SME in your own areas, but I have to say I have never been so awake! With Sandy Hook, those who actually step outside what the media feeds them can see the truth in black and white. If this whole Sandy Hook incident had to go through a court process it would not have a leg to stand on. I have watched every interview I could get my hands on and I have not seen one single genuine emotion. It defies logic; study the body language… more is communicated through body language than is presented verbally… to think there is no validity to the questions that have been asked… We know there are false flag events, and no fucking plane ever hit the pentagon. Why are people still asleep? Because they can’t accept that they could be lied to on this scale. They are! We are! Call me a conspiracy theorist LOL ok thanks you ignoramus!
    Sorry Chris, you have not refuted damn thing… they say follow the money… and when simple questions do not get answered well as people we tend to ask more questions… and then we speak out, then more eyes are focused on the situation. Then a breath of fresh air…the real truth starts to show its beautiful smile. You can discredit people call them truthers, but at the end of the day people want and deserve the truth. It will come out! I can’t wait!
    In closing, so many have spoken out, and it is a choice by use of the free will your God gave to you to “choose” to see the truth… and if not, enjoy your eternal nap.

    • Uh huh. Maybe someday I’ll be as “awake” as you.

      You conspiracy guys believe this not because you have actual evidence, but because it makes you feel good about yourselves. “I know the truth! Everyone else is sheep!”

      Try coming back when you have actual evidence.

      • Conspiracy guy? Makes me feel good about myself? Sorry I do not have self esteme issues LOL Thanks for the laugh! So, to answer my question have you actually watched the two videos? Come on Chris, answer the question 🙂 It is just a yes or no.

      • I am going to assume you are very patriotic, and if that is correct there should be a strong motivation to hold the leadership of your country accountable for all their actions… or is that only when it suits your point of view? I find is so interesting that all these people would waste their time promoting some agenda to expose the truth when it all happened “exactly the way the offical story says” Common sense goes a long way.. but I am sure you will just label me, use words like truther and conspiracy tard to discredit… yawn!

        • 199 brian

          this country has been held responsible when it is proven it did wrong , maybe not n all cases , but even regular criminals are declared innocent sometimes , we all know that we live in a messed up world , but according to the theorist it is only the govt. that commits crimes in most cases the bodies aren’t even cold yet and the theorist all calling it a HOAX if you really study the hoax videos many never really say anything with proof ,only their opinions , many say don’t trust the media , but they use the media’s early mistakes to try and prove their point which is easily debunked

    • 200 Lynn

      Colin – Oh, you are such a smarty pants! And I suppose the condo association where Dawn Hochsprung lived is in on the “conspiracy”. There is a memorial bench for her in the little park here. 400 units in the association, not in Newtown. So we’re part of this massive “hoax”?

      And I find it very offensive that you use the word God in your post, as every time you Truthers spout your vileness, you essentially spit on the graves of those 20 babies, yes they were babies, and the 6 adults that tried to save them from the massacre.

      You want to follow the money? Follow the money that Halpig got in donations.

      • I have a right to respond!
        LOL what about the 50 million to build a school, because they bull dozed it and the demo workers had to sign non- disclosure agreements… YAWN please, I am not buying that. Don’t try to discredit Wolfgang because he got a few thousand bucks in donations LOL. Come on Lynn very weak! Offensive, well isn’t that what everyone does? OMG how dare you say it didn’t happen and you used the word God… Please!!! spare me the drama, it is my God too, and I have free will and the God given freedom to choose what I believe. Not one child died at Sandy Hook, if you actually walk in the truth, you yourself become a lie detector. I am offended because people have been lied to. Actually I am not… but I see things differently now with so many things.. Here is a hint, get rid of your cable and your TV….Babies… reading your post reminded me of the type of drama a soap opera serves up.

        • 202 brian

          the one reason to discredit halbig is that whenever his theories or comments are debunked ,he tries to come up with something new , in the beginning he claimed that the check in sign was there on the day of the shooting , that was debunked , now he wants to know who put it there , he claimed to have inspected over 4000 ( some say 8000 ) school districts that would be 20 to 40 thousands schools to inspect , that is impossible ,, it’s not what he’s trying to do , it’s what hes doing to do it , he has been caught in many lies , he is using misread photos to prove his theory ,, he claims to have evidence to expose sandy hook , but why is he not showing it ?

      • Regarding Dawn; how many like her were there? 5? 10? 20? or one? Ask yourself, if you were a part of a harmless fraud that might lead to the banning of deadly weapons, saving tens of thousands of lives, would you be so selfish as to be unwilling to start your life anew with another identity? If you really cared for people, then you would. And that is what motivated those who took part in the fabrication of a hoax for “the Greater Good”.

        Also ask yourself, if it indeed was possibly a grand hoax and conspiracy, a la Fast & Furious, would it definitely have been impossible to pull off? You must answer that it in fact would have been possible to pull off for powerful people who live in the shadows of power and influence, hatching plans in secret and pulling them off in public.
        If it was possible, and there were powerful people behind it, and plenty of money, why not go ahead with such a well engineered plan when it was the only possible means to bring about the long-sought and deeply desire gun control legislation that could supposedly save tens of thousands of lives???

        Would it not be selfish to not set things in motion that could accomplish that goal? Once that question entered the mind of the person or persons who concocted the mass-shooting scenario, like a movie script, what answer could they give themselves except to feel responsible to do what they knew they could do to “save lives”?

        Before one can dismiss the possibility of a hoax conspiracy, one must first ascertain the character, integrity, honesty, and truthfulness of those who wrote the reports and stood in crucial roles vital to the believability of the reports. No one can do that because no one can read minds and hearts.

        People can do the wrong thing for the right and descent reason, and do so on a huge scale, as Obama did with his endless lying about Obamacare.
        So absent any ability to determine the veracity of the “witnesses” and authorities, one must hold everything that is not factually indisputable at arms length, and do so because there are people who were counting on SH to provide the impetus for serious gun control legislation, following such a Pearl Harbor event, and it was exactly that. They knew it was needed to “wake people up!” and it did just that as would be expected.

        • 204 Steve

          Did I miss the investigation that determined Fast and Furious was a “grand hoax”?
          So, you theory is what, that all the first responders were told to report to a school that was closed for a drill and as far as they knew, it was nothing more than a drill? Nobody kept any written memos of the drill? Nobody involved in the drill saw media coverage of the event reported as an actual mass shooting and came forward to say that it was a drill?

          • If it was a grand hoax then a simple rule was in effect; no one was to know that fact unless they were active elements of the hoax, (as with any hoax). Everyone who reasonable minds view as “credible witnesses” were, in that scenario, merely unwitting witnesses to a well planned and executed hoax, playing the role prescribed for them by the grand puppet masters.

            Bear in mind, that such a hoax has everything in common with counterfeit currency. You look at it and you cannot tell it is not genuine. It seems real and you spend it as if it is real, and it is accepted as real, but it is not genuine.
            To prove that Sandy Hook was genuine requires proof that may or may not exist. I can’t say since I have not spent time on it. But I know that such a hoax is a very real possibility although not a believable possibility. That serves to make it even more believable, providing added weight against believing that the unimaginable was not genuine.

            The problem with conspiracy theories is not necessarily the theories but the cocaine-like impact it has on the mind. That impact results in excitation of the thought process, leading to errors of thinking and logic.
            Hyper-alertness tends to fuel the imagination a bit. Adrenalized thought is too quick to jump to conclusions that lack factual or scientific support.
            I suspect that is what led to so much certainly regarding the Moon landing hoax theory. I watched the cable-TV documentary debunking about a dozen of its major claims and could see that things are not always what one expects or suspects or presumes.

            Discerning the truth may be easy when proof is indisputable (testimony is not proof) but otherwise may require some pretty deep thought and analysis, along with flawless logic.
            The problem is that flawed logic always goes undetected because it appears to be flawless. A comparison is that of trying to discern one identical twin from the other. Some can do it and others can’t. And some think they can, are certain that they can, but they really can’t. When great certainty grips the mind, how do you convince one that their certainty is not backed by reality? “I may not be right but at least I’m certain!”

          • 206 Steve

            We don’t have to prove Sandy Hook was genuine. That’s the default position.

    • 207 Steve

      The questions have been answered. That you choose not to accept the answers is nobody’s problem but your own.

    • 209 nate

      It’s standard protocol for shills like Chris Hernandez and Keith Johnson to resort to ad hominem when faced with pressing questions that require logical answers. It’s quite telling in blogs such as these when one person is constantly doing the attacking(Chris), while the other one is addressing the topic issue(Wayland). I guess it’s easier to call someone a “truther” or a “hooker” than to apply critical thinking and ask the pertinent(albeit taboo)questions that Mr. Halbig isn’t afraid to ask(death cert. lack of video evidence, Lt Vance contradictory statement etc.). I’m sick and tired of people like this blogger who assumes that someone who questions the many holes in this story is a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic. It’s lazy and unpatriotic.

  28. Why do you continue to lump everyone who has questions about Sandy Hook together in one basket called “truthers”?

    My guess is so that you can disparage them as a group, rather than dealing with individual points that they bring up.

    Which is curious, because the same thing you keep asking for is at the crux of almost all “truthers” issues with Sandy Hook.

    You ask, “where is the evidence of a hoax”? “Truthers” ask, “where is the evidence which shows a crime took place in the manner described by the official narrative?”

    The only evidence we’ve been presented that supports the official narrative is the testimony of the authorities.

    If you choose to believe authority figures testimony simply because they are “the authorities”, that’s your right.

    Those of us who believe there are questions about what happened at Sandy Hook because we’re unwilling to simply take the authorities word on the matter also have a right to believe as we do.

    However, only one of us is justified in our belief. History, particularly recent history, has provided ample examples of why one shouldn’t simply take “the authorities” at their word.


    • 212 Steve

      So you’re shifting the burden of proof?

      • Actually, no I’m not. In America the burden of proof lies with the acuser. Adam Lanza stands acused by Connecticut State Police (CSP) and the Newtown Police Department (NPD), amongst others.

        Do you honestly think that the evidence put forth so far by CSP and NPD would hold up were Adam Lanza still alive and being defended by a competent lawyer in a court of law?

        By the way, I’m not saying a crime wasn’t committed, nor am I saying that no kids died. I’m saying that there has been so much obfuscation of the truth in this case from the start that no opinion on the matter can be rationally justified.

        There may even be valid reasons for that. For instance, if there were people in the Federal Withness Protection Program involved in this crime, either as victims or perpetrators, the details of the event might justifiably need to be hidden.

        Although there may be valid reasons for the public not to be told the full truth, those reasons don’t excuse various groups manipulating the cover story to “justify” their agenda’s. Agenda’s such as gun control, and in conjunction with the Boston Marathon Bombing, the push to eliminate the Posse Comitatus Act (see

        So the burden of proof remains squarely where it belongs, with Law Enforcement. In my opinion, because the cover story continues to be used to support those agendas and to appeal to the public for donations, Law Enforcement has a duty to meet that burden of proof.

        A duty they have yet to fulfill.


        • 214 Steve

          Yes, you are.
          This isn’t court and if Laza were alive and his lawyers tried to use the “It didn’t really happen. It was a government hoax” defense, they would get laughed out of court. You’ll notice the Boston Marathon bomber’s lawyers aren’t doing that. Connecticut released its full report on the matter, proving what happened. It’s simple. It’s straightforward. A mentally ill person killed 26 people and himself. It’s not the first time it’s happened. It’s wasn’t and won’t be the last. If you think that the government perpetrated an elaborate hoax, that’s an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence.

          • I don’t know where you think I’m shifting the burden of proof to, or why you would think it would rest with me.

            Clearly, I’ve not accused Adam Lanza of a crime. Connetticut law enforcement has done that. I’m simply pointing out that since law enforcement hasn’t released evidence to the public that supports their narrative, there is no reason to believe that narrative.

            You are of the opinion that the full report “proved” what happened. That is only true if you are willing to take law enforcement’s word in lieu of evidence. I’m not.

            If Adam Lanza were alive to be charged with this crime, we have no idea what defense his lawyers would choose. That’s because his lawyers, if they were competent, would file disclosure and get (in theory) every piece of evidence that any of the agencies have. Unredacted evidence.

            At that point, all things being fair and equitable, Adam’s lawyers might tell him that it was an open and shut case, and that he’d better pray they could get a plea bargain or plead insanity.

            Or they might tell him any number of things, given they would have some idea what had happened. In addition, and this is critical, his lawyers would be able and expected to supena and question EVERYBODY under oath.

            The lawyers wouldn’t be acused of stalking the victims families, they couldn’t be waved off with excuses of protecting the memory of the victims, because a man’s life would be at stake.

            Instead of just the memory of a man’s life being at stake.

            I have no idea what that evidence would show happened that day. I personally would be surprised if there were no death’s that day. I would also be surprised if it turned out that this whole thing was some pre-planned event years in the making.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a plan (or plans) years in the making, to take advantage of an event just like this one to support some agenda(s). A “marketing” plan, if you will. Such a plan might be put into motion the next time a “mentally ill person killed 26 people and himself”.

            To be clear, that isn’t the same thing as saying it was all an elaborate hoax.

            At all.

            – aHEMagain

          • 216 brian

            what evidence would you believe , a video of lanza in the school ,( oops that was CGI ) ) Photos of dead kids ( oops just bloody makeup ) the police did show everything except crime scene bloody photos , something they never do in any state ,, how many murder victims have you seen that were release by the police ,

        • 217 Steve

          The report is a matter of public record. You can read it. You can disagree with it if you like, but with the gunman no longer alive, that’s the best you’re going to get. If the suspect doesn’t live, he doesn’t get a trial. And as I said, if he lived to make it to trial and his defense was that it was a government-planned false flag operation, that defense would get laughed out of court.

  29. 218 Redblues

    So how exactly do you self-important loons think it happened? What ‘questions’ do you have that have not been answered, with documentable proof? Do you actually believe that those children aren’t dead? Or that they never existed? Or that the entire state, all of the responders on scene, and every single person in Newtown lied about mass murder, for no reason, and no benefit, and continues to do so, without being exposed? What is it about the ‘official narrative’ that you don’t understand? Mass murder? Lethal weapons? Grief? Emergency services? You seem shocked and offended to learn that 2 years of rumor mongering, lies, and harrasment of the victims by people who are making money and seeking notoriety is dismissed as lunacy by people who can answer all of your insulting innuendos with facts and without once resorting to posting links to unhinged YouTube rants. Once again, your biggest issue with all of this seems to be that people dismiss you as being as crazy, ignorant, & stupid as you really are, rather than as the insightful, knowledgeable, and intelligent individuals you all imagine yourselves to be.

    • 219 Lynn

      Well said Redblues. Thanks!

    • 220 brian even when they see this video ,they still deny it happen

    • And how exactly is your reply not exactly the sort of reply that an inside hoaxer would write? It is exactly the same! So how is one to presume anything about what you write? You may be 100% legit and correct, or 100% bogus and fraudulent. Either way, you would have written exactly the same thing! Get the picture? Your rant does not validate your logic or the presumed facts.
      You point out that photos of bloody crimes scenes are never released, thank God, but that crime scene was like no other before it in all the history of modern Western Civilization.
      An extraordinary claim by “authorities” requires extraordinary proof. Or at least a total absence of question-provoking inconsistencies, redactions, and stonewalling of the public and their right to know things that are rightfully public information.
      To assert that the report has been released and is publicly available is not to show or assert that it is error free, totally comprehensive, addresses all issues, and answers all questions. So why do you true believers pretend that it does all of those things?

      Do you claim that it is the indisputable final word? Was the 9-11 Commission Report the final word? Supposedly it was, but it was NOT in fact because it also contains 28 secret pages that even people in the Congress do not want to read because they do not want to know what they contain. NOT knowing is sometimes the wisest choice.

  30. 224 Steve

    Hoaxers talk about “unanswered questions” Well, Chris spent this whole blog post answering a bunch of questions. If anyone here chooses not to accept his answers, why? Why is your explanation more plausible than his? Why is he wrong?
    Don’t pretend the questions haven’t been answered. If you don’t like the answers, it’s nobody’s problem but your own.

    • The conversation thus far has been contextualized as one where “truther’s” need/try to explain what happened that day.

      They don’t need to. Law Enforcement needs to. Thus far Law Enforcement has failed to provide the public evidence that supports Law Enforcement’s conclusions as to what happened that day, as it rests solely on their testimony.

      Thus holding an opinion on what really happened that day can’t be rationally justified.


      • 226 brian

        what other evidence do you need , that you are willing to accept ?

      • 227 Redblues

        Law enforcement did explain what happened, with evidence. Luckily for all of us, law enforcement does not provide crime scene tours or victim’s bodies to self-important jackasses who want their morbid curiosity indulged. However, the official report is available online. After you read it, I will happily explain all the big words for you if you’d like. But I frankly doubt you have the attention span to read it, much less the patience to keep reading as your insane claims are debunked, one after the other. Just because you hate your own government and imagine that makes you intellectually superior, doesn’t give you the right to march onto random crime scenes on demand, or to harass the families of murder victims.

        • You can’t have it both ways. Either they gave us evidence, or they made sure “morbid jackasses” didn’t have their curiosity indulged.

          What kind of education and upbringing did you have that makes you feel it’s appropriate to take the tone your note does.

          I hope you feel proud to impinge the character of someone you’ve never met by making accusations of behavior I’ve never engaged in. Then to further accuse me of hating my country with no justification indicate that you sir or ma’am, are an uncouth lout.

          • 229 Steve

            And yet you and your ilk have no problem with impinging the character of people you have never met and have no problem with calling people who have lost their children under extremely tragic circumstances liars and actors without one shred of evidence.
            Heck, in the case of Gene Rosen, some of you have no problem accusing him of one of the most serious crimes one can commit and you don’t have a shred of evidence for that, either.

          • 230 Redblues

            Giving evidence without indulging the morbid curiosity of a bunch of ignorant intrusive jackasses is not only possible, it’s exactly what happened. Those things are not mutually exclusive. We can and do indeed, have both of those things.
            What kind of education and upbringing did you have that led you to believe that harassing grieving families, accusing law enforcement, ems, state investigators, the federal government, and all of southwestern Connecticut of inventing a mass murder is some kind of sign of both superior intellect and high moral character? You are obviously proud to malign the character of every single victim connected to the crime and to accuse *them* of a crime. Oddly, you believe your utterly despicable, immoral behavior in doing so is somehow above reproach. Insulting the character of honest people for being victims, and your own government, for an imaginary conspiracy that did not take place, makes you a person of low character who is actually deserving of every insult you have foolishly leveled at everyone else. You can’t have it both ways. Either insulting innocent strangers because you are ignorant is rude, and you should apologize, or else you deserve the same treatment yourself, based upon the facts of which you are proudly ignorant.
            I am quite proud of my tone. (I can only assume you generally confine your arguments to people even more ignorant than yourself, and are unaccustomed to losing to people who are not.) The fact that you are now whining that your poor little feelings have been hurt is a transparent attempt to change the subject from the facts, which you have repeatedly gotten wrong and cannot argue, to your precious feelings, which you ironically believe should be important, despite the fact that you lack empathy for the victims of mass murder, and have maligned the character, morals, and actions of complete strangers, simply for being crime victims.
            I hope you are ashamed of yourself for insulting people you don’t know in a misguided and failed attempt to feel intellectually superior. Of course you aren’t, but you *are* ashamed of losing the argument, and slithering along the low ground.
            That really burns, doesn’t it? You’ve made a fool out of yourself in front of people who know what they’re talking about. Not the ego boost you were looking for, was it?
            In the future, if you don’t want strangers *IMPUGNING* your character, don’t impugn the character of a group of crime victims whom you do not know, or the character of the people who know more than you do about a given subject. And if you dislike your hatred for your government pointed out to you, don’t make up outrageous accusations against it. Don’t insult the people who work for it in various capacities or accuse them of having lied, or of being ignorant of a non-existant conspiracy. Do not call yourself a patriot for doing so. Your attitude displays nothing but contempt for the government and for the citizens it protects, even from the likes of people like you, or W. Halbig.
            One last thing. *NOTHING* makes you look more ignorant or stupid than trying to use a big word you think will impress people, and failing.

            “IMPINGE”-advance over an area belonging to someone or something else; encroach.
            “IMPUGN”-dispute the truth, validity, or honesty of (a statement or motive); call into question.

            I did not “impinge” your “character”. (You have none anyway.) I *impugned* it.

            Now, what is it you wanted to know about my education and upbringing?

    • When I read Cris’s ” refuting Wofgang Halbig” I laughed out loud……he either debunked the points by blaming misinformation, human error, interpretation mistakes or facts that were flippant or non consequential …..then number 15…. I wet myself….” The school was never reopened so why did it need to be cleaned”…. Ever herd of flies?….. The smell attracting all kinds of vile creatures such as rats….in a society that concerns itself with the spreading of disease…air borne bacteria and such…..yeah right….why bother?……so no….I don’t like his answers….

      • 232 Lynn

        Cheech ~ How disturbed are you that you find the SHE massacre something to laugh at? I hope you seek the help that you so badly need.

      • 233 Steve

        Misinformation and human error are a lot more plausible than some elaborate plot with lots of moving parts.

      • 234 Redblues

        Ever heard of ‘winter’? That’s the season where the ground is frozen & the temperatures mostly at or below freezing. In Connecticut, winter begins in the month of December. During the winter there aren’t any flies. Not that it matters. As I understand it, the scene was decontaminated at some point. (And, just as an aside, incontinence isn’t something to brag about, anymore than laughter in the face of someone else’s pain.) We all know you ‘don’t like his answers’. But that is because they destroy your little conspiracy fantasies & make you look like a gullible, mentally ill sociopath, not the genius you like to imagine. You will never look like a genius. In fact, if you never bother to learn basic grammar, you won’t even pass for a somewhat dim middle school student who needs his meds adjusted. By any chance, are you being ‘homeskooold’?

  31. 235 djstcroix

    Chris, I have to say I really appreciate your blog, and wanted to thank you for your service and sacrifice.
    I have been in a discussion with a Truther by the name of Scott Anthony, he has a bog as well called “Flash News Network”. He claims to have been an incident Commander, and claims the Life Star units should have been called in before any assessment of the victims or at the least been called to be on standby.
    My opinion is that an assessment would be made before Life Star would be called in. I’m not in the law enforcement of medical field so I’m just going on what I believe would happen.
    I wanted to get your opinion on the matter and also link you to one of our discussion threads.

    • 236 djstcroix

    • 237 Redblues

      Yes. That is correct. Lifestar is not automatically dispatched to any crime accident or trauma under any circumstances, ever. They must be specifically requested, following an assesment of the victims. (They are NEVER called ‘on standby’. That is a ridiculous waste of resources, & would take a helicopter out of service needlessly. Anyone who claims otherwise has never been an incident commander, and has definitely watched too many movies, and mistaken them for documentaries.) Furthermore, law enforcement is not responsible for assessing the victims & determining the need for helicopters, even if they themselves are certified EMTs. That responsibility falls to EMS. A responding officer might begin CPR if s/he knew the scene was clear. But his/her first responsibility is to clear the scene. For the life of me, I cannot understand the conspiracy loon fixation on Lifestar, as if it’s some kind of flying wizard that restores the dead to life. (It is obvious that nobody obsessed with Lifestar has ever worked on an ambulance or has even the most basic knowledge of EMS procedures.) It is not. What it can do is transport a victim to a hospital faster than ground transport in *certain situations*, which almost never occur in a small densely populated state like CT. A quick look at a map will tell you why it is much easier & faster to transport almost all patients by ambulance & not by helicopter. I’ve already explained all of this, with links to the relevant primary sources. I’m not going to post them again, but you are free to read the commentary posted here, ad nauseum, & follow those links. Once again, nobody in CT is much more than a 15 minute car ride from any hospital. Sandy Hook is about 15 minutes from Danbury hospital by car, slightly faster by ambulance. The nearest Lifestar helicopter (there are only 2 in Connecticut) would take twice as long just to fly to Sandy Hook, not counting the additional time needed to take off, land, and load patients, had there even been a place to land. (There was not.) There were also no victims to transport, as almost all of them were dead on scene. By law, EMS does not transport dead people by ambulance or helicopter. If they are pronounced on scene the coroner removes the bodies. And, before you repeat more Halbig BS, no, doctors are NOT the only people who can declare death in CT. Paramedics can and do, all the time. Any first responder, including cops, firefighters, & EMTs can declare obvious death, such as a victim with multiple gunshot wounds to the head. (Even in a hospital, a nurse can declare death. It does not have to be a physician. The next time some conspiracy loon tells you that “BY LAW! this is how it happens”, check the law. They are either ignorant of it or outright lying about it, & assume, correctly, that you are too busy watching YouTube rants & checking your toothpaste for explosives to bother looking up the actual law.) You can look it up yourself, or follow the previously posted links to the statutes. While there are a number of designated trauma centers in CT, including Danbury hospital, only 2 of them, in Hartford & Norwich, actually dispatch helicopters. The rest only receive them. Hartford & Norwich are both much further away from Newtown than Danbury hospital. Newtown, like most towns in CT, has its own ambulance corps, who did transport 2 children, who were pronounced dead at the hospital, and 2 wounded adults, who survived. All the other victims were DOS, hence no need for ambulance transport, much less Lifestar. In this state, Lifestar is almost always used to transport an already stabilized patient from one hospital to another for specialized care, such as burn treatment. I will post one link, to the Lifestar site, which refutes all the conspiracy loon Lifestar BS not refuted by the statutes that cover EMS procedure. Here:
      You’re welcome.

    • DJ,

      I can’t give a better answer than Redblues. In my experience there is no “putting the bird on standby”; you either call them in, or you don’t. And EMS makes that call, not us.

      What’s the link to the discussion thread?

  32. 242 jarhead1775

    This was a false flag operation designed as an attempt to re-institute the “assault weapons” ban and further erode the constitution. If you can’t see through the bullshit, you’re part of the problem. Wolgang is correct!

    • Yup. And just you saying so is enough. No need for proof, or any other nonsense the US Constitution says we need to have.

    • 244 Steve

      So where is the assault weapons ban?

    • 245 Redblues

      Right. Just look! Nothing but assault weapons bans, on both state and federal levels, one after the other, ever since the Newtown murders. Why, you can’t even buy a slingshot nowadays. The government never just passes those laws either. First they arrange for a sociopath to murder 26 innocent people, and his mother, and then kill himself. The following day, BOOM! Suddenly the entire country swiches from Beruit to Montreal. So clever! By the way, what ‘False Flag’ was the murderer waving, since you know so much about it? What does it look like? Any photos? What happened to it?

  33. 246 Redblues

    If you can’t see through the troofer BS you are the problem, not a part of it, the whole problem. You fools never learned that Hollywood action movies are not documentaries. Neither are paranoid YouTube fantasies.

  34. 247 Joe C

    I’m amazed how otherwise intelligent people will refuse to review information because they choose to blindly trust. That is not how arguments are correctly won. Nor by name calling. No one has yet explained how any of the charity web sites could possibly be posted so soon after the event– nevermind before. Even if we accept the United Way’s site was up the evening of the shooting that itself is a HUGE red flag! Come on people. How can resources be mobilized to publish a working web site of that scale when all the involved parties haven’t even been identified or notified! Even if the United Way itself came up with the idea at the moment of the shooting (not true), that gives them 9 hours to plan, coordinate, collect and generate the artwork and finally publish it online. Nobody works that fast. WAKE UP PLEASE!

    • 248 Lynn

      Now the United Way is in on the “conspiracy”? Sure, along with all the emergency responders, the entire town of Newtown and neighboring communities. Not to mention priests, rabbis, churches and funeral homes.

      Maybe you should get a cup of Joe and wake up.

    • 249 Steve

      These things have been explained. Not our problem that you don’t accept the explanations.
      And if you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.

      • 250 Joe C

        Show me. If you don’t want to think, can you at least point to a link? You don’t “debunk” someones question by avoiding it. And I don’t care about being ridiculed– not one bit.

  35. 251 Redblues

    Links to primary sources debunking Halbig’s BS have been repeatedly posted here. Go back and read them. Not a single troofer has posted a single link proving anything. YouTube rants are not evidence, much less proof, of anything other than mental illness. Do you have proof? Post away. Show us all the primary sources which contradict everything those of us who live in Connecticut, work in law enforcement and emergency services, and know people who were on scene that day have somehow missed, and which contradicts our knowledge.
    Of course you can’t.
    Don’t bother posting another youtube rant. We won’t watch.
    If you don’t know what a primary source is, look it up.

    • 252 Joe C

      What I can absolutely prove without a doubt is how very simple information (which SHOULD make all this questioning simply vanish) is being treated like a matter of national security. Why is that?

      For example: Sheila Mathews of “Ablechild” was not able to subpoena Adam Lanza’s medical records which are very relevant toward helping her organization avoid similar tragedy. Shelia’s reply to Lenny Pozner’s editorial is very well footnoted (follow links to each point being made in the following response):

      Similarly, Wolfgang Halbig’s very simple requests have been sidestepped at every point. These are VALID concerns which should have absolutely no impact on “the sensitivities of the victims” yet are vital toward Wolfgang’s job in school safety assessment. If he had simply been given the information in accordance with normal protocols and not been forced to file FOIA requests and later threatened none of us would even know his name.

      • 253 A mother

        You think Wolfgang is sensitive to victims? Really? By asking why parents didn’t donate organs? By threatening to bring equipment to analyze grave sites? By saying he doesn’t believe children were murdered that day? Oh yeah – he should win an award in sensitivity.

        • 254 Joe C

          Your reply is not relevant to my point. His actions subsequent to the circus which has erupted after HE was threatened and victimized by a series of smear campaigns are well in line with anyone being treated as such.

          • 255 Steve

            Halbig was a victim of a smear campaign? Cry me river. Robbie Parker, Gene Rosen, Lenny Pozner, the Soto family, those are victims of a smear campaign.

          • 256 brian

            lets put it this way , what questions were not answered that had to do with the shooting ? not what the parents did or didn’t do with their children

          • What evidence exists to show he was actually threatened, other than his own claim?

      • 258 brian

        who threaten Halbig , was it the 2 officers that went to his how when there was no one there , or the other 2 officers that went to his house while he was doing a radio interview but turned downed the radio host when asked if he should stay on the phone , that could have been a live witness and record the threat

        • 259 Joe C

          Ok, lets try this again:

          The point is people are NOT doing their jobs. Protocol is ignored. Please try to stay on topic.

          • 260 Steve

            The top is can you prove it was a hoax? If you can’t, shut up.

          • 261 brian

            the link you posted is old news , lanza mental and health and toxicology reports have been release , , is this the letter mention in the pos also

          • 262 Redblues

            The point is, the government is doing its job by upholding the law which precludes the release of private medical records to any nosy stranger who demands them. That is not a conspiracy. The point is you can produce no evidence of conspiracy, much less proof. The point is, you are attempting to insult and condescend to a group of people who actually know what we’re talking about, in a vain attempt to distract us from your lack of evidence, knowledge, or ability to argue rationally. You came here to prove a conspiracy, now do it.
            Try to stay on task.

        • 263 Joe C

          No. The point is people are acting like it is a hoax. I can see I’m wasting my time here. Go back to your footballl or American Idol, or whatever distraction you prefer. If you can’t accept the responsibility to hold CT public servants to the high standards the rest of us expect then I won’t pretend you can. I’m outta here. Best of luck. You’re gonna need it.

  36. 265 Redblues

    A link to a blog is not a primary source, evidence, or proof of a conspiracy. Links within that blog to other YouTube rants are not a primary source, or evidence, or proof of any conspiracy. A state refusal to release private medical records to strangers is not a conspiracy. Strangers are not entitled to private medical records. They have no standing to see them. That is not ‘arbitrary’. It is the law.A bunch of troofers hiding behind a claim that access to those records will somehow ‘protect children’ or ‘prevent future tragedies’ is not even credible, hence the government refusal to release those records to those individuals. Those people had an opportunity to demonstrate how access to those records was necessary. They failed. How long has that group existed? Since Sandy Hook? How many tragedies have they prevented? And how? What other medical records did they access in order to do so, and how exactly did those records make that possible? And how would a lack of those specific records made it impossible?
    Once again, if you can post links to primary sources that show any conspiracy, post away. No YouTube rants. No troofer blogs. No tantrums from entitled busybodies offended that laws prevent them from accessing private information, harassing private citizens, or otherwise behaving as if they have authority over anyone.
    You can’t do it can you?

    • 266 I don't think so...

      Gone are the days where ‘authority’ is taken as truth. Papers, statements, police reports, news clips, and blogs do not provide, nor have ever provided, ‘irrefutable evidence’. All are easily fabricated and backed up by a corrupt system. If you don’t have a body, you don’t have a case. And none of us have seen a single photo or video clip of Lanza in or near the school, nor any dead children or body bags. Yes, I want to see actual videos from the closed circuit system. And we never will, as they don’t exist. We got to see Columbine footage; what’s the problem?

      Therefore, it is a lame tactic to put the burden of proof on the Truthers, as the crux of their argument is the lack of irrefutable proof supporting this apparent fabrication.

      Any non-kangaroo court case will allow discovery of evidence that, for now, is non existing. Thousands of unrelated cases have been settled out of court to prevent discovery! That shows the power of irrefutable, public accessible evidence. I would like to believe this story is true; but so far, the Truthers are raising a lot more questions than the official story provides answers for.

      And as for those of you that claim that hundreds of people cannot keep a secret, I suppose the Manhattan Project, with many thousands involved doesn’t count? How about JFK? WMD’s? How about the writers of the 911 Commission Report debunking their own work? How about the thousands of soldiers in Vietnam who committed unspeakable atrocities against innocent people? Other than My Lai, where are their stories? Where is the proof? So your assertion that it is ‘impossible’ to hoodwink the masses has zero credibility.

      Entertaining site, BTW. The ad hominem attacks counting as proof of the Official Story are revealing, to say the least.

      If the official story is so convincing and bulletproof, why do so many have to publish their defense of it? Shouldn’t the official story stand on it’s own merits?

      The ‘Plausible Believability’ of this event is thin, indeed.

      • 267 brian

        the difference between most of the events that you mention and SANDY HOOK is social media , if someone was to release info about the Manhattan project , it wouldn’t be tweeted or shown on CNN as everything is today , the same with SNOWDEN and the NSA , , There will be someone releasing info with all the media that we have today have you seen anyone ( besides theorist ) posting t was a fake on any social network any neighbors of the families saying that they saw the kids last week , any angry teenager posting that their parents were paid off , any reports of drunk adults mouthing off in bars , there is nothing ,,, did you see the dead bodies of the victims in the MARYSVILLE shooting , or the dead victims in the DC SNIPER SHOOTINGS , I could go on but there are too many to mention,, what columbine footage did we see , video that the media recorded , or from the movie ZERO DAY , made in 2001 ,go back and double check

      • 268 Steve

        1). The “official story” is a lot more probable than any massive coverup that people would have to keep quiet about forever.
        2). The Manhattan project involved people who were carefully vetted and proven to be relied upon to keep a secret for a finite amount of time. They didn’t have to remain silent for the rest of their lives and it didn’t require children among the people who needed to keep a secret. ISandy Hook would be like trying to keep the atomic bomb a secret after it was dropped.

  37. 269 Redblues

    So you actually believe that any death is fabricated unless you personally see the body, or a photograph of one? You certainly are self-important, aren’t you?
    You seem to believe Columbine happened, since you use it as an example, but what exactly did you see, other than film footage of kids walking? Or news articles about the crime? Did you see any bodies? Attend any funerals? How about autopsies? Did you see the victims’s private medical records? Did you exhume their bodies and conduct DNA tests on them? Did you tour the crime scene? So how do you know it happened? Prove to us all that the crime occurred. We don’t have to prove it didn’t. We just have to say so and it’s up to you to prove otherwise, with bodies and crime scene photos.
    You have no right to look at the bodies, the autopsy reports or the medical records of any stranger, ever. You have no authority to even demand ‘proof’ of any crime, unless it’s your job to investigate or try the case.
    To use any of your examples of what you think were conspiracies (none of them were by the way) as ‘proof’ that Sandy Hook never occurred is nothing but a red herring to distract people who know what we’re talking about from your Newtown-related flights of fancy. It isn’t even logical, much less an argument. It’s like saying that alcohol was once illegal in the united states, therefore it is not now and never will be legal. There is just a mass conspiracy to convince people that alcohol is legal. Or you could claim that because Rebecca Schaefer was murdered by a stalker, then Patrick Swayze did not die of cancer, Philip Seymour Hoffman did not die of an overdose, and James Dean didn’t die in an accident. They were all just murdered by stalkers. The fact that we know otherwise is proof of a conspiracy!
    As for your claims that the non-existance of WMDs was some kind of secret, I can only assume you weren’t reading the papers. We all knew there were none. The lack of evidence for any such thing was widely reported at the time. Later reports confirmed what everyone knew all along. What secret cover-up are you talking about?
    Discovery of evidence laws apply to the legal representatives for plaintiffs and defendants in court. Each side is required to turn over any evidence they have that will be used in court. Discovery of evidence laws do not apply to anyone else. They do not apply to nosy strangers who feel like marching into any courthouse and demanding to see crime scene photos or private medical records. Protecting the privacy of private citizens does not make the court a ‘kangaroo court’, as you laughably put it.
    Like it or not, the burden of proof does indeed fall upon the troofers. They are making a claim, without any evidence at all. They are required to produce evidence of that insane conspiracy fantasy. They cannot.
    On the other hand, the people who know the crime occurred have nothing to prove to troofer loons. There are plenty of eye witnesses to the crime and its aftermath. The state has released a comprehensive report on the crime. That is proof. 20 families buried their murdered children. That is proof. Many of those funerals and wakes were attended by hundreds of people. That is certainly proof that those children died. You are correct in stating that blogs are not proof. Nor are they primary sources, hence my refusal to waste time following troofer links to blog rants and innuendos. YouTube rants and innuendos are not primary sources either. The troofers have failed to raise a single valid question that would call any evidence into question, much less all of it. They have however, made a number of misstatements which can be and have been easily refuted with cited primary sources of information, not blogs and youtube rants, but facts. Halbig’s obsession with Lifestar? Ignorance of CT geography, Lifestar operations, and EMS procedure. (I provided a link to Lifestar, explaining in black and white that he is entirely wrong.) His statement that in CT ‘by law, only doctors can declare death’? Entirely false. (I provided links to the relevant law, again explaining in black and white how very wrong he is.) The troofer obsession with lawsuits? They were wrong about none being filed, and I provided links to primary sources about that. In addition to the original lawsuit that was filed and later withdrawn by the plaintiffs, there has since been another suit filed, which took the wind out of that troofer claim again, although I don’t put it past troofers to wait a few months before falsely claiming again that there are no lawsuits.
    ‘If you don’t have a body you don’t have a case.’ isn’t even an argument, it’s a bad line from a movie. It’s also wrong. Cases go to trial without bodies all the time. There were more than 20 bodies in Newtown, including those of the shooter and his mother. So even if that ignorant statement was true, it still wouldn’t apply to the Sandy Hook murders. There was was a murder case. There was however, no trial of the shooter, since he was already dead.
    Once again, show us your *evidence*, not incorrect statements about CT laws, or police procedure, or insults directed at the families of the victims. Show us your irrefutable evidence of a conspiracy, with citations to primary sources. When you’re finished not doing that, tell us what the purpose of this non existant conspiracy was. Who’s lying, and why? How have they benefitted? Who are all those dead kids, and why are they buried in Newtown?

  38. 8 casings found at the school entry door? Who could hear such gunfire and then decide to not only look out into the hall and but to step out into it in full view of an armed attacker loaded with weapons???
    After supposed shooting them after the door, why did the adults in the offices not escape out their windows? Were they like prisons with bars preventing exit? Makes zero sense.
    After hearing all of those additional gunshots, why weren’t the classrooms emptied via windows or barricaded???
    After the first classroom was shot to hell, (80 bullet casings), ask the previous question again. Why the hell would the classroom door to the second class not be barricaded (if the windows were all covered with bars) -blocked with every desk, table, bookcase, and jam under the door that any sane person would have put in place??? The official narrative is totally illogical since it presupposes that the teacher and children would have done nothing at all to preserve their lives. Who would buy such an absurdity?

    Nothing about what I’ve read so far is adequate to convince an objective observer that something other than a drill took place, along with a huge, pre-meditated fraud on the American public.
    What would convince me of its actual occurrence would be evidence of bodies and wounded, and proof of the student and faculty population.
    I’ve seen the internet archive screen-shot of the history of web traffic to the school’s website, and do you know when it ground to an end? Following the Christmas break in 2007. That can only be explained by the school having closed down at that time.
    If so, then everything claimed about it would have been fraudulent, or did it re-open? If so, when? If not, that would explain the absence of a huge student population fleeing the school, which would be because the school was empty.

    • 271 Lynn

      Arnash ~ Just try for one minute to think about your post with some logic.

      You can’t judge the staff and teachers reactions to make split second decisions as to how to escape or barricade doors. This situation was a total surprise that none of them had ever had a reason to prepare for. I doubt the teachers in the classrooms had the physical ability to drag a heavy desk across the room to block the door. They did the best the could to shield their students from Lanza.

      As far as SHE being closed since 2007, that would mean all the members of the CT BOE would be in on the “conspiracy”. You know, budgets, grants, teacher certifications, state and national test scores that would be kept up with by the state BOE. So the “conspiracy” would stretch all the way from village of Sandy Hook to Hartford? Seriously, does that make sense to you?

      • “You can’t judge the staff and teachers reactions to make split second decisions as to how to escape or barricade doors.”

        You need to be very calm and re-read what I wrote because it went right by you. I absolutely CAN judge their reactions because AS I WROTE they had a significant amount of time to react, think, plan and act as over a hundred supposed gunshots were supposedly fired. Even though there is no recorded evidence of such numbers of shots.

        In case you missed it, I addressed my incredulity toward the second classroom, not the first. If the reaction of the second class made no sense, then a huge red flag is raised, and that is the case regarding the entire incident. There is no way in hell that any and every teacher in the world would not have effectively barricaded their class door if their windows were barred.
        And speaking of that, there is no conceivable reason for the windows of such an isolated school to be barred with no way of escape. And besides, that would have to violate any sane fire-escape law. So please, explain why no one named escaped through any window? Talk about not making sense? If there is nonsense on the conspiracy side, it is more than matched and inspired by nonsense on the official story side.

        As for the breadth of the conspiracy, if there was one, it certainly would have stretched beyond Newtown because Boe officials would have known that the school was closed and the story of it being open and functioning was fake.
        Such a conspiracy could not be hatched nor carried out overnight. It had to have a lot of planning, but not enough to prevent reasonable suspicions from arising, since it is rather impossible to pretend that so many people were killed if they really weren’t. That would be difficult to pull off perfectly, hence the withholding of facts, testimony, interviews, records of actions and inaction, etc. Cracks in the facade, breakdowns in the Matrix.

        Today I saw such a flaw in a video of 9-11 which shows the second plane just before hitting the second tower. the flaw revealed video editing of a very deceptive sort, showing the far wing passing behind a building that was about a mile in the distance to its left, revealing a flaw in the layering of the video which meant the plane was digitally inserted into the scene as an added layer. Wow! Reality is sometimes far from what we thought it was.

        • 273 brian

          You made a few comments about why didn’t anyone escape by going thru the windows , but did you research how the windows open , or how far they open , was it far enough for the children to get thru? , looking at the photos of the open windows , they appear to only open a couple of inches

          • There you go arnash…..that’s the mentality you have to deal with…..good luck….

        • I missed this part of your comment last year.

          “Today I saw such a flaw in a video of 9-11 which shows the second plane just before hitting the second tower. the flaw revealed video editing of a very deceptive sort, showing the far wing passing behind a building that was about a mile in the distance to its left, revealing a flaw in the layering of the video which meant the plane was digitally inserted into the scene as an added layer. Wow! Reality is sometimes far from what we thought it was.”

          So now you’re claiming no plane hit the second tower at all. Really.

          You’re officially a gigantic moron. Thousands of people watched the second plane hit. Live news feeds from numerous networks captured the second impact. Many videos of the second impact exist, not just one.

          This one just hit social media:

          People like you watch one video, *think* you see “deceptive editing”, disregard thousands of actual eyewitnesses and many other videos showing an airplane strike, and scream “this proves it was a hoax!”

          You have got to be one of the stupidest people on earth. The kindest thing I can say is that you’re probably mentally ill.

  39. All sentient beings draw lessons from their experience, and that prevents repeating mistakes already learned, but it has an unrecognized side effect, and that is what is known as something like the Fallacy of the General.

    We become conditioned or programmed to draw conclusions from the general truth, -what is generally true, and apply them to “the specific” and that almost always results in a correct assumption about what is true in a given specific situation.
    But in life, as in science, that does not always result in an accurate conclusion regarding a specific situation. But it does result in an accurate assessment so consistently often that our minds apply the general to the specific without us even being aware that we have done so since it is “built-in” behavior.

    But as in science, the fact of the matter is that you cannot be any more certain of accuracy when applying the general to the specific than you can be when applying the specific to the general, which means that just because something is true in a given situation it must also be true of all other situations.
    What works against recognizing that fact is trust. We trust in our experience of the general essentially always being true in specific situations, because it always has been true in our experience. Additionally, we trust in the veracity of grown-ups and authorities. In our experience, they can generally be trusted, aside from politicians, but they fool us all of the time because we are blinded by trust.

    Where our whole subconscious approach to analyzing facts fails is when, one day, out of the blue, we encounter a black swan, or black sheep, Say we’ve grown up in New Zealand, and seen hundreds of thousands of sheep, and we know that sheep are white, so when we encounter a black sheep, we are flabbergasted.
    We believe our own eyes, but what if it was a total stranger telling us that he had seen a black sheep? Would we believe him? Could we believe him, or would we automatically dismiss him as being a wacko? Even when the unthinkable is true, we can’t believe it because of our life-experience pre-conditioning.
    If the unthinkable is a deliberate act or situation, then the perpetrator escapes without our even suspecting that he even exists, thus his deception is total and flawless.
    We can’t believe that the specific situation that is flabbergasting might be a black sheep encounter; the one time in our lives where our path crossed that of a master deceiver who corralled us in his deception.

    Or others are involved and we vicariously are deceived with the assumption that they were not victims of an extremely rare hoax. And why do we believe no hoax occurred? Because we apply the general to the specific, thereby insuring that the perpetrators are never suspected.

    • 277 Steve

      You write so many words but say so little. Is there a point in there somewhere because I don’t see it.

      • The truth is over the heads of pinheads who never learned how to think inside the box, much less outside of it. But I don’t believe that you are what you pretend to be (dense and stupid).
        You understood everything that I wrote,and you could not refute a single statement, so you resort to an approach of ignorance with the hope of making yourself look like an astute observer and my words as the words of a blithering idiot.
        Do you really think that intelligent people fall for such a tactic? It is so totally obvious.

        • 279 Lynn

          Okay, so you agree the “hoax” would have been as far reaching as the state of CT BOE. What would be their motive to engage in such a plot? And all the residents of Newtown and the surrounding towns? The hundreds of first responders? Why would so many people from all walks of life and all sorts of different political, religious and ethical view points agree to pretend that 26 children and educators were gunned down in SHE?

          Again, it’s been over 2 years and not one person has come forward to say they were involved in the conspiracy? Sandy Hook is the considered the poor part of the affluent town of Newtown and surely someone from SH would sell their story to the Enquirer if there was a story to sell.

  40. 280 Prima Facie

    One thing it is important to note in all of this “debunking” jazz is that many of these low level drive-by tautologies are not constructed by complicit individuals engaged in active shilling, but are, in fact, simply useful idiots caught up in the momentum of the psyop. All it requires is a lack of real concern for the macroscopic phenomenology, sub-par investigative skills, and a predilection for white knighting the official narrative. Tragic in this case really as the individual should, from all I can tell, really respect and support the Second Amendment. One will find no reference however in any of the obvious attack writings on those investigating Sandy Hook mention of such school shootings have been used to disarm the rest of the western world. We can overlook the analytical inconsistencies, failure to address key elements that have and continue to make people suspicious of the official narrative, similar and obviously aligned (either synthetic or systemically promulgated events) incidents, the failure to really address the central thesis of obstruction of independent investigation and etc., but what we cannot overlook or fail to find fault with is the sheep-like intent of multiple attack articles. Useful idiocy aside, this is reprehensible behavior to level at people who care enough to put their reputation on the line and ask hard questions. Just as with something like 9/11, it is the real patriots who ask the hard questions – people who care deeply about our integrity as a nation and who are kept awake at night by the implications of false flag psyops.

    One can see many tell-tale canards in the analysis. Such as the old line about how “no such conspiracy could exist because of scope and range, number of people who would have to be involved,” completely dismissing compartmentalization or the extent to which this is one of the key vectors being mapped out by Halbig et al., or, for instance, the successful execution of false flags like the Gulf of Tonkin signal intelligence, or massive government projects involving thousands of people conducted in total secrecy like the Manhattan Project &c.

    It is unfair however to critique this work as if it were that of a shill, who is party to the psyop imo – a rudimentary analysis of the individual should indicate to observers that he likely means well and is merely a useful idiot caught up in the narrative and carried along, as if by the force of a river. This is really not an uncommon event structure and it seems unfair to attack the man or his analysis on the grounds that he is a shill or something of that sort.

    Indeed, this forum is a good opportunity to simply conduct referential citation and to helpfully try to nudge people towards reality. Glad to see many of the key data points cited in the comments above – irrespective of how blithely they were refuted – but a more comprehensive compendium of the extant data is really lacking. Any such compendium should also contain numerous references to other psyops designed to undermine the Second Amendment, as well as explanations of the broader sweep of totalitarian legislation which is based upon such events. Moreover, a clear distinction should be made throughout such a compendium that in many cases, there is an admixture of synthetic psyop and systemically promulgated event – making any given psyop far more than a mere hall of mirrors. A truly successful psyop feeds off of the target population’s own reactions after all and is synthetic only up to a certain point, after which the human (all too human) reactions by people actually fuel the evolution of the event.

    Some of the analysis here is fair critique of Halbig’s statements – but is not conducted in a spirit of actually getting to the bottom of things it seems, unfortunate.

    • I posted a long comment to this that seems to have fallen through the cracks (I posted using my WordPress account, which apparently does work). I’ll cut to the chase.

      The argument that the hoax/false flag/conspiracy is a canard based on Gulf of Tonkin and Manhattan Project is a specious argument for the simple reason that conditions in Newtown did not lend themselves to that sort of secrecy because . . . real world.

      Both of these situations took place in remote places where the core group of conspirators were the only people involved who were anywhere near the events. The sites were under the conspirators’ complete control with access to the areas restricted. They did not take place in the middle of a town with thousands of unknown quantities (relatives, tourists) and potential detractors (the NSSF).

      One other thing: no Internet—that means no cell phone videos, no instantaneous communication.

      I just finished writing a novel involving this type of secrecy. One of the things I had to do was to choose a location for my secret base of operations that would not draw attention to itself and where the comings and goings of non-conspirators could be controlled. Another was to tailor the lives of all participants so that there were no loose connections to the outside world. Even a unified and all-powerful government could not create an American town in which every citizen had been handpicked for the conspiracy. That happens in bad fiction or on the Twilight Zone.

      Mr. Halbig’s hypotheses still fail purely on the grounds that they fail to take into account the laws of physics and the chaos of real life.

  41. 282 Prima Facie

    Would really like to hear a podcasted debate between you and Halbig, C.H. It is only by such contrasting viewpoints openly discussing these things head-to-head that we can all come to a clearer understanding and mature as a culture. Hopefully you do understand that there is a massive push to snatch American’s guns that ranges from the U.N. small arms treaty through to unconstitutional laws like those in NJ being passed and how events like Sandy Hook are used to make the case for disarming law abiding citizens. This is the primary context in which most SH independent research is couched. Hopefully you care about how the western world is being dismantled in real-time and will rally around the principles your forefathers did in conceiving this great nation.

    • 283 Steve

      1). There’s nothing to debate. Adam Lanza killed 26 people. We’ll probably never know why but it did happen. That’s not up for debate.
      2). You have no clue about what the UN Small Arms treaty really involves.
      3). There has been no new gun legislation after Sandy Hook. There were some rather tame reforms suggested in 2013 that never got off the ground.

      • 284 Mal Paso

        I think Halbig was arguing that legislation was taking a backdoor approach to gun control. Connecticutt now allows any parent to homeschool by choice as long as each child undergoes a mandatory psychiatric mental evaluation. Conveniently, he thinks each child will be diagnosed with a condition, however mild, thus disqualifying any of them from ever owning a handgun. Boom. Gun control without having to fight for it overtly.

  42. 286 newby

    I can’t prove or disprove what happened at SH. I actually don’t believe there were any deaths at the school. But for anyone to believe the gov’t would not lie and deceive to the general public in order to get what they want is naive at best. Snowden, Wiki leaks, Clinton/Lewinski, Watergate, slavery and even though it has been a while Manifest Destiny. Just to name a few. Yep, our gov’t is surely trustworthy.

    • You must be guilty of rape then. I mean, people have committed rape before, right?

    • 288 brian

      it works both ways , information on the matters that that you mention was leaked out by a few people people that worked in that field or by friends of people involved , but with sandy hook nothing has been leaked only faked stories by theorist none of the hundreds or thousands of people that would be involved before or after the event if it was a hoax , there is not one word from anyone people from all walks of life , NOTHING , nothing from the kids ( teenagers ) in the town , nothing on social media , If the govt. was to lie , in this day and age that lie would be discovered right away , people have been looking into this for over 2 years and as of now found NOTHING but opinions

      • And THAT is exactly the problem! No one has been able to nail down ANY facts because all that had been “found” is, as you said, “NOTHING”, and hence questions are raised, and the near total lack of response to those questions results in opinions as to why and opinions as to what might NOT have actually happened.
        The problem is not unwillingness to believe facts but a dire lack of facts, or proof. Claims by supposed “witnesses” are not acceptable as “facts” when by logically deduction those witnesses would be lying co-conspirators to hide the fact of an elaborate fraud which took no lives whatsoever.

        • 290 Steve

          You’re arguing from ignorance and special pleading.

          • You are obfuscating by deflection. The facts and their absence are not eliminated by your special logic-class insights. Stick to the subject matter or keep your empty thoughts to yourself. It is not insight into my illumination of the opaque situation that is needed but actual illumination of the situation. You provide none.

          • 292 Steve

            Your position is that because your claims cannot be proven false, they must be true. That’s argument from ignorance.
            I don’t have to prove anything. You’re the one claiming it didn’t happen. It’s up to you to show the evidence.

          • Your characterization of my position is incorrect. It is that since no proof of any kind has been offered or allowed to be made public, there therefore is no reason whatsoever to believe any of the claims. None. I do not need to proof that nothing happened. You and the claimants need to prove your claims that something real actually did happen. You can’t do that because there is no proof and never will be, and the state government has even criminalized making proof available to anyone. Gee, I wonder why?
            Hmmmm…. maybe the 70-100 million dollars that poured into the state and town as a result of its “tragedy”? I wonder if that is a big enough motive to lie, obfuscate, and withhold evidence and records?

            As for proof of fraud, that is found in the internet archive where webpages were online regarding the Sandy Hook tragedy days before it happened. Lot’s of prep-work to be ready for the Pearl Harbor of gun horror that would galvanize the nation into supporting congressional gun control legislation.

            Also, the archive reveals that essentially all web traffic to the school’s website ended at the end of 2007 -indicating that it was at that time that the school was permanently shuttered for reasons that later lead to its demolishment. Do the work orders support that assumption? What work orders? The ones they won’t and can’t make public. They are trapped by the non-existence of work orders and annual inspections that never took place because the school was never going to reopen. Except for a national exercise in despicable fraud.

          • 294 Steve

            For the millionth time, this is not court. Adam Lanza is not on trial.
            If he were and you were his defense attorney and your defense was that the killings didn’t really happen, you’d be laughed out of court.
            You have no evidence that it was a hoax. All you have is a list of things that don’t seem right.
            Your theory is that the first responders were told that it was a drill and to go to a closed school for the drill. But none of them saved the memo about the drill or how they were to take their guns with them and drive to the drill with their sirens on (contrary to normal drill procedure)? Not one of them saw the media coverage of a real shooting and stepped forward to say “That wasn’t a real shooting, that was a drill”?
            People talk. If it was a hoax, eventually someone will come forward and tell everything.

          • Your thought process is not rooted in reality. In an court setting, no one is ever “laughed out of court” because trials are about the submission of proof, of evidence, and there is no evidence that the proclaimers can present.
            The deniers ask for evidence and they get nothing.
            As for your supposedly logical insight into first responders and your iron-clad, unassailable conclusion about the first responders being innocent dupes who would have eventually talked, -that is asinine. Certain ones, a very few, were complicit and they were the ones in control of the “scene”. They will never talk because they were very handsomely rewarded thanks to the tens of millions of dollars that poured into the city. Prove otherwise.

            And why have you not “debunked” what I wrote about the internet archive???? You are pretending I wrote nothing? You are pretending you did not read what I wrote? You are pretending it was all false and yet you dare not mention it???
            Well here’s another piece of kryptonite that you will never want to touch: The call that came into the law enforcement station never mentioned anything about any gunfire or shooting. It mentioned only a commotion of some sort. So there was no panicked call to 911 because there was no shooting. That, plus the fact that there was no real “school” since there were no students or teachers at Sandy Hook except as actors in a drill gone live, -as in pretend live.
            The list of things that are all wrong about the fraud is too long to rehash, but so far I haven’t seen anything that rings of truth or proof.

          • “They will never talk because they were very handsomely rewarded thanks to the tens of millions of dollars that poured into the city. Prove otherwise.”

            No, YOU prove that claim.

          • 297 brian

   if you are referring to the WAYBACK MACHINE not showing any web activity for the school , the problem is that there was web activity from the school during the time period that it claims there was none ,, also why did the person that did the research not bother to compare the results to the other NEWTOWN schools during the same period ? why are there PTA MINUTES posted from the school , why is there a web page called THE SANDY HOOK CONNECTION for the same time period , can you tell me why there was a web site up debunking the shooting on 12/10/2012, ,, look up EYEWITNESS REPORTS:MULTIPLE SHOOTERS AT SANDY HOOK , ,it mentions the nuns and other predated sites ,, the site is a anti sandy hook site, can you explain these photos

          • 298 Steve

            Cases get “laughed out of court” all the time. More than 200 lawsuits questioning President Obama’s eligibility have been laughed out of court.
            This guy’s lawsuit about Sandy Hook was laughe dout of court.

          • Adrien, there are people who were at the school when the shooting occurred and who survived. There is video. There are eye-witness reports, forensic evidence, the testimony of first responders.

            Why do you want to deny that this could have happened, especially given how many mass shootings have happened since then?

            How much more evidence do you want?

    • 300 Steve

      Clinton couldn’t have an affair without everyone finding out about it. Snowden, a low-level contractor, ended up with all sorts of government secrets. Nixon couldn’t keep Watergate a secret.
      What are the chances of something this complex staying a secret?

    • Doesn’t matter whether or not “the government” it trustworthy. The government is not omnipotent. This means it cannot make the laws of physics and reality go away. It would be like trying to herd cats.

      Also, “the government” is not a monolithic entity with a single purpose and a clear path to effecting this level of hoax.

  43. 302 Rich

    Why is there no mention of the FBI classifying the correspondence between the state police helicopter and the ground? Three and a half hours of flight and???????
    Who threatened Halbigs new lawyer? If it’s easy to find the guy who called Sandy Hook and was arrested for harassment shouldn’t it be easy to find out who threatened this attorney?
    These things are red flags, no?

    • No.

      For being such skeptics, you guys buy anything your hero Halbig claims. Other than his accusation of harassment, what evidence exists that any LEO “threatened” Halbig or his lawyer?

      • I think you raise a very interesting issue: how are the same people who are so skeptical of even well-documented information from one quarter become completely credulous when assertions of fact come form a different quarter—one that they like better for whatever reason. That reason could be anything from conspiracies are cool and exciting to political persuasion.

        Skepticism is as skepticism does. I notice that the hoax/false flag/conspiracy advocates are fond of citing movies and TV shows to “prove” points. In the TV show X-Files Dada Scully professed to be a skeptic and that was what we were told she was; Fox Mulder was a “true-believer” we were told. But Chris Carter was doing a marvelous sleight of hand because Scully acted like a true believer—experiencing cognitive dissonance every time her beliefs were challenged, while Mulder was endlessly skeptical about everything constantly questioning his own assumptions.

        And therein lies the difference between a skeptic and a dogmatic—a true skeptic is always questioning their own assumptions and does not automatically believe something simply because it comes from a source they find agreeable.

    • 307 Steve

      No, not really.

  44. 308 Mal Paso

    Oops, Connecticut. Spelling.

  45. Another related story raised a question that I’d like to ask the Sandy Hook CHFF (Conspiracy/Hoax/False Flag) advocates who frequent this blog.

    Recently, Tim McGraw turned one of his concerts into a fund raiser for Sandy Hook Promise because of a personal connection to the situation. His fiddle player, Dean Brown is a close, long time friend of fellow musician Mark Barden who lost his son at Sandy Hook.

    How do the CHFF advocates propose that this connection has not resulted in the whole deal being blown? Does Dean Brown not realize that Mark Barden is 1) a crisis actor paid to pretend to have had a son, 2) a citizen of Newtown who never had a son, but has been hired by the government to pretend he did, 3) has a son who is still alive but in hiding somewhere, 4) had a son who was killed by the government, but is accepting money to pretend that Adam Lanza really did the deed? If he does know one of these things, why has he not come forward? He’s just the sort of person CHFF advocates posit is in a position to blow the whistle on a CHFF of whatever nature.

    Take your pick of the above or advance a new theory, then please respond. How does a conspiracy in an open environment (not hidden somewhere and where traffic from outside is not limited) account for all such connections of people to the world?

    My point is that this connection between a Sandy Hook parent and a high profile friend, who is frequently the limelight and who travels extensively is just one out of thousands that would have to have been carefully researched and accounted for in the plan with contingency plans for every one of them.

    I am sincerely curious to hear some responses.

  46. 313 Priscilla

    The link worked fine for me.
    “Connecticut officials cautioned against the spread of false information on social media sites in the wake of Friday’s massacre.
    ‘Anyone who posts fake material about the rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School or killer Adam Lanza could face arrest’, Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said at a press conference Sunday…Officials are currently working to identify and question those responsible for the spread of misinformation, Vance added.”
    Like Crimson, I would like to know if this is standard procedure.

  47. 314 tretyay

    how much to the pay you for this?

  48. 318 Steve

    This is why this bothers me so much. The people who believe this crap are not just harmless cranks. They’re causing real damage.

  1. 1 Sandy Hook Hoaxer Wolfgang Halbig is Persona Non Grata
  2. 2 What Happened at Sandy Hook? « The Thinking Housewife

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: