Michael Chester is retired from his career in industrial technology. After graduating from college, he taught this subject until deciding that he preferred doing the job himself more than teaching it. At various times during his career, he has designed, built, installed, and repaired industrial manufacturing machinery. His specialty was in electrical and electronics controls.

After retiring, he concentrated more on his hobby of cooking and attended one of the top culinary schools in the US. Mike competed in bass fishing tournaments for several years, but had to leave the sport due to an injury. As a certified barbecue judge he gets to taste some of the best BBQ in the country and help select the winner. It is a tough job, but someone has to do it. He lives with his wife of over 30 years, has 3 adult children and 2 grandchildren.

View Latest Posts >>>

Sandy Hook – The Truth, a Cruel Hoax, or Something In Between?

Videos ask and answer the wrong questions.


By Michael Chester


The tragic massacre at Sandy Hook has raised a lot of questions and spawned a lot of theories ranging from the official story that a lone 20 year old carried out the entire incident to the other end of the spectrum where some people claim that the entire incident was a cruel hoax perpetrated just so the president could propose gun control measures.

There have been many opinions with supporting videos on You Tube. I am presenting two such videos below. You may have already seen one or both of them before, but I would ask that you look at them again using maximum skepticism.

Please keep in mind that an important part of a disinformation campaign is use of the “controlled opposition.” Around here we are fond of quoting Vladimir Lenin who said that the best way to control the opposition is to become the opposition. What, exactly, does that mean? When an intelligence agency or group wants to perpetrate a false flag operation or another deception, they often create what appears to be an opposition group whose job is to create false leads that go nowhere or make irrational claims that can easily be proven false. The hope there is that a legitimate person trying to find out the truth will be lumped in with the tin hat gang and not receive the legitimacy that his research deserves. I like to use the example of the Washington Generals Basketball Team. They are the controlled opposition to the Harlem Globetrotters. They travel with them and their job is to make the Globetrotters look good. Of course, most people realize their role is this as it is presented as entertainment.

More subtle uses would include the Hannity and Combs show. The job of Combs was to provide a weak argument against Sean Hannity thus making him look good. That is not an easy task. Further examples are anti-gun legislation written by the NRA just so they can defeat it in Congress and look good to their members.

The first video here presents a lot of questions as to what actually happened that day, but all of the questions asked are, at best, tangential to the case. The real items that need to be answered are not asked. The second video does a pretty fair job of debunking the first video and gives feasible explanations for most of the questions that the first one asks. Watch both of them now and come back here for my take on them.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

YouTube - Veterans Today -

When I encountered the first video, I had many of the same thoughts as presented in the rebuttal video. First, a lot is made of the many changes in the story especially at the beginning. First Lanza’s mother was a teacher at the school, then she was a substitute, and finally she had nothing to do with the school. Lanza was a former student, who only attended for a short time and was then was home schooled. All of this can be easily explained as poor reporting by the first reporters present. With all of the competition in the news business today, it has become more important to get a story out quickly than to get the facts correct. Reporters repeat any rumors or opinions that they hear as facts. Later when the truth comes out they revise their stories.

The producer of the first video seems to be claiming that the whole incident was a hoax to create a favorable environment to pass gun control measures. There are several flaws in that assumption. First, with our current Congress, there is very little chance of any real changes being made in our gun laws. Second, such a hoax would require the total cooperation of all locals, local law enforcement, State law enforcement, and federal law enforcement. The chance of all of these groups keeping this going is very close to zero. Someone would make a mistake and the whole scam would unravel. A more likely scenario is that the massacre really did occur and a select group lied to these groups about what actually happened and they accepted the lies.

The producer of the first video seems to play amateur psychiatrist and claims that the reaction of the parents is inconsistent with grief. As presented in the second video, when you add in the soundtrack of the smiling parents speaking with Anderson Cooper, it becomes clear that they are recounting happy times with their child and their smiles are completely appropriate. I have been at several funerals where laughter broke out when funny or touching stories were told about the diseased. At first, the father outside the police department does appear to be “getting into character” before making his statement, but we have no way of knowing what proceeded this event. Maybe he was also recalling happier times. Some people react with laughter in inappropriate situations as a coping mechanism.

Stories from the neighbor and the nurse seem to raise a lot of questions, but after traumatic incidents, many people have false memories or outright lie to exaggerate their importance. I remember many years ago when I witnessesed a crime in a factory where I was doing some work. As a result of a domestic dispute a man abducted a woman at gunpoint and dragged her down the aisle and up a flight of stairs. There were two gunshots, which turned out to be fired into the ceiling. A sergeant with plant security went up the stairs and took the gun from the man and the State Police were called. When they arrived, a worker who had cowered behind a row of toolboxes during the incident went to the lead detective and told him “exactly what happened.” He included many details that never happened but he was the type of person who wanted to be “THE AUTHORITY.” I suspect that the neighbor and the nurse either deliberately lied to exaggerate their importance or have false memories and really believe their own fantasies.

The first video does raise an interesting “coincidence.” There was a training exercise for this exact scenario scheduled at the same time and near Sandy Hook. For a crazed lone gunman to pick this exact moment would be very unlikely but an organized covert team would take advantage of this exercise to provide cover for their real attack. A person who saw a man dressed in combat gear and carrying a rifle would be assumed to be a part of the exercise and not perceived as a real threat. Many intelligence experts believe that this is exactly what happened in the London bombings in 2005. There was a terrorist drill scheduled that day and it is believed that some of the actors who were hired to play the parts of terrorists were given real bombs and inadvertently became real suicide bombers.

There are many questions that need to be asked and were not in the first video.

1. How did Lanza enter the school which was locked?

2. Why were the children all shot with .223 rounds, but Lanza’s body was found with only handguns present?

3. Why would he shoot the kids, go outside, lock his rifle in the trunk of a car, then go back into the school and shoot himself?

4. Why did he have his estranged brother’s ID?

5. How did he get to the school? There was no car in the lot belonging to him or any member of his family.

6. Chris Rodia is a convicted felon. Why was a car registered to him found in the Sandy Hook parking lot.

7. Who called authorities claiming to be the principal of Sandy Hook and naming Adam Lanza as the shooter after the real principal was already dead?

8. Since Lanza only attended the school briefly 15 years ago and was then home schooled, how could anyone at the school identify him as the shooter?

9. How could an occasional weekend shooter, such as Lanza, shoot groups on his victims that only highly trained shooters can accomplish?

10. If the case is settled, why are American intelligence agents actively pursuing international suspects?

11. Who has the most to gain by terrorizing the American people?


I don’t have the answers to these and other pertinent questions and I don’t know who does, but they deserve answers.

Additional thoughts:

The second video may also be a part of the controlled opposition. It was carefully timed to discredit the first video and by association, others who question the official story. I don’t endorse either video. I presented both of them as a point/counterpoint. I beleive that both are part of a disinformation campaign to lead people to false conclusions and away from the truth. I would like to see answers to the questions that I posted above.



Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on January 21, 2013, With 23124 Reads Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom, Corruption, Government, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

49 Responses to "Sandy Hook – The Truth, a Cruel Hoax, or Something In Between?"

  1. Garibaldi  January 25, 2013 at 8:57 am

    If this is possibly a reply to my comment to beeker about false flags, which has since disappeared, then no.
    No trouble whatsoever. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/19/super-viral-israeli-death-squads-involved-in-sandy-hook-bloodbath-intelligence-analyst/comment-page-1/#comment-465602

    • Garibaldi  January 25, 2013 at 9:51 am

      In the interim, here’s a good feed from aangirfan- {go to Duff (#2)}
      ,,,care to illuminate us any further about those “two teams of three” vamoosing from your “Land of Black Honda Civics”? http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/18/sandy-hook-land-of-black-honda-civics/

    • LoPhatt  February 5, 2013 at 7:38 pm

      Garibaldi, if you’re trying to convince me that Connecticut is crooked, “I believe”. The rest of the “wheels within wheels” dialog is a little confusing. The property records are easier to grasp. They were sold on the same day because they were “taken” under eminent domain. Later they worked out a “deal” whereby the land was to be used for parks and playgrounds and such. How the land got subdivided into housing development and sold to people is the mystery. It’s all rather convenient. Private roads bordering “park land”, mysterious new comers, etc..
      Just like we all know there are “safe houses” and clandestine bases, etc., maybe this is a little Potemkin Village for special projects. Just a thought. They certainly have been able to contain this.

  2. LoPhatt  January 23, 2013 at 9:02 pm

    There’s a lot of truth in the supposition that they want anyone who questions them to be considered “crazy”. It’s another way of saying “truth is what we tell you it is”. I also don’t think any of the anomalies are accidents. They wanted enough obvious disinformation to attract attention.
    All that said, it still leaves the question; “was this a staged event?”. if it was, it doesn’t matter what they want people to do. You can’t accept that as just another part of modern life.
    Look at the storyline. First its “Ryan”, then its “Adam”. Then, we’re told, he shot his mother. How do they know that? Because he lives there? It may be true but doesn’t a statement like that require evidence?
    Then there’s all the bogus stuff about the involvement with the school. All of that is beyond the normal allowable error rate for minor details. Then there is the car mash up and the weapons thing. Then the actors and the “driver” dropping kids at “Genes”.
    Regardless of where we think this is going or what they intend to do with it, it still requires a response. The opposite would simply mean “yep, we’re all brain dead out here in TV land”. You know it wasn’t very long ago that they came out and said they’d be practicing their disinformation skills. Of course they didn’t say they were going to be killing anybody to do that.
    So, I get the idea, it just doesn’t make much difference. If we can be placated back to a sense of security by an “appeal to common sense” in the face of madness, we’re doomed. Take a deep breath and look at this all over again. Now tell me that you think this passes the smell test.

  3. beeker  January 23, 2013 at 9:25 am

    My dog ate the hard drive. It is a school after all.

  4. neodsa  January 23, 2013 at 7:29 am

    There are so many red herrings and so much smoke its unbelievable , people must be doing it on purpose.
    There is only one indisputable fact , that a man was arrested in the woods behind the school , its on video and was witnessed by two separate people on video .
    I have seen it reported in one place only on the net that he was an off duty tactical squad officer from another town but cannot find any other confirmation of this . Surely if there is an innocent explanation for this it is the authorities duty to make that explanation .

  5. LoPhatt  January 22, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    Let’s look at premises. Is the premise that anything the “media” puts out should be believed by default? Is having pre-packaged instant information about events “normal” reporting, or is it “marketing”? What would be a dead giveaway about a “news” event being a psyop? Would that be having a lot of information instantaneously and not only reporting the event but announcing the solving of the case?
    To be honest it would be reassuring to be able to take the “media” at its word. I don’t think that would be a responsible thing to do here. This takes a belief in “faith based” news. I’m not buying it.

  6. beeker  January 22, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Mr. Michael Chester,

    You are certainly not exempt from being considered to be part of the controlled opposition. In fact, after reading your article, I am forced to the conclusion that either you are part of the CO or you are such an emotionally dissociated nerd of the Asberger’s variety, that you are unable to interpret the most basic emotional signals from other human beings.

    It reminds me of the line best exemplified by the late great Richard Prior when he was caught in bed by his then current wife with another woman – “Are you gonna believe me or your lyin’ eyes?” If you cannot see that the purported male parent is a second rate film actor whose natural habit and tendency is to glad hand the stage crew, get a short warning before the “take” during which he uses his training and practice to sink into a role, and then to emote that role, then you really are quite hopeless, and should best be ignored. And as to the second parent couple. Yes, they were recounting happier times with that presstitute, Anderson Cooper. But they did so with the broad brush of second rate actors as in, “Now it is time to show joy in this role.” If this had been your the overwhelming majority of real parents, or a consummate actor like, for example, Meryl Streep, they would have shown a bruised and wistful smile through the tears. This is not what I see. Mr. Chester, please do not give up your day job to become a professional film critic.

    I won’t even attempt to deal with the BS of the second video. The fact that you should post it at all indicates your “fair and balanced approach” approximates that of Faux News. The author of the first video, ThinkOutsideTheTV, does ask a lot of the important questions. I do not think or feel that he is into disinfo. The Powers That Be, which go by a dozen names, but which I prefer to refer to as The Dickheads, which gives them the respect they deserve, do not want any of the questions asked that TOTV asks. Even if all the relevant questions are not asked, this opens up a can of month old dead worms that they can do without. They simply want you to believe, to act upon, and not to question the script broadcast by the presstitutes. That he does not ask all the relevant questions is not particularly material. He states in the video that he doesn’t want it overly long, as that would lose its effect, and apparently edited his video down to 30 minutes before posting.. He has posted a sequel, which he has linked to the original, and which he has labeled as part 2. This video has been up for at least two days, so where is your critique on it? In it he links another set of impugned parents of a murdered child, prominently featured in a press interview, with a married couple of professional actors from Florida. Care to check that one out, Sherlock?

    Furthermore, TOTV was given this lead by someone who had viewed his first video. He is pioneering a new technique which could be tremendously disruptive to The Dickhead – open source investigative video journalism! I will note that he admits that he cannot confirm this material 100% and explains why, but it is certainly interesting.

    It is quite obvious to any thinking person who has pulled out the Matrix tubes, that the Sandy Hook PsyOps was either a typical false flag operation, where the purported victims were indeed murdered, but not by the patsy(ies) but rather by a skilled and ruthless team, an elaborate, fabricated hoax, or something in between.

    I also note, Mr. Chester, that you do not ask one of the most important questions. Were all or most of the parents denied access to viewing the corpses of their children, as was reported? Or is this “fact” another fabrication? As the current and most deserving national paper of record de los Estados Unidos would put it (The National Inquirer), “inquiring minds want to know.”

    • Gordon Duff  January 24, 2013 at 10:33 am

      Michael is exempt from being part of the “controlled opposition.”

      We went to high school together.


    • Gordon Duff  January 25, 2013 at 7:15 am

      I think Mike Harris made this perfectly clear. Do you have trouble mentioning which flag?

  7. Chandler  January 22, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Here we are in the home of the brave, land of the free being hoodwinked by our elected leaders. The greatest country in the history of the entire world, and we are being weakened, and divided and destroyed by insiders selling us out to money mongers with an unpopular agenda. The same who tried to ovethrow FDR, supplied money to Hitler, killed a president, tried to kill another, murdered a senator-presidential candidate, civil rights activists, congressmen, vocal critics/journalists..activists who practice the freedoms we enjoy in this country that our forefathers sacrificed so much for, and here we sit getting trampled by a most cowardice group of people who cannot even show their faces and admit what they are up to. They are so proud of what they are doing, they cannot do it in public. Here we sit, letting it all happen, minding our own business, keeping our noses out of it, thinking all will be well in the end. What a tragedy! thank you for this article. You are a patriot. Do not elect incumbents. Do not allow them to penentrate and embed themselves in the government for too liong. Stop the same-ol same-ol mentality and personnel living off “We the People…” and laughing at us all the way to the bank. Only if we could get organized and coordinated to stop this unethical and childish conduct. All these tragedies have been predicated on lies, lies and more lies.

  8. strutherscat  January 22, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    We have clear evidence that Emilie Parker is still alive. If she’s alive, then, in all probability, no children were killed, and probably no school adults either. Adam Lanza was dead the day before the attack, and the perps probably killed his mother in order to ensure he would serve as the scapegoat. The witnesses are clearly crisis actors… most from the one big Jew family in Florida – the Greenbergs.

  9. shalomjuitsie  January 22, 2013 at 8:23 am

    planned since before the Batman movie came out

  10. clearsite  January 22, 2013 at 5:02 am

    Would yoube granting interviews with mainstream media reps the days after your child was gunned down ina school massacre? Aint normal behavior ..imho…

  11. shalomjuitsie  January 21, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    under house arrest

  12. LC  January 21, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    Thank you Mr. Chester:

    The film above showed a December 10th manual on how to deal with the “Sandy Hook Massacre Tragedy” of Dec. 14th. Also shown was a fundraiser website was set up on Dec. 11th.

    And people wonder why?

    Possible answers :

    1-because Sandy Hoax was originally planned for couple of weeks earlier!!! Perpetrators probably got tied up in other crimes or just needed more time to prepare this.!!!

    2- The advance publications were intentional with intent to examine we the sheeple’s reaction to all this & they are now getting the feedbacks they anticipated.

    3- They are preparing “WE THE SHEEPLE” for their public announcement that Zio-Satanists have the entire planet under their totalitarian control & that no-one can do nothing against them even though they commit all their crimes openly. I am convinced their announcement timeline is 2017-2018 the centennial of the theft of Palestine.

    & by the way: CNN never lies (it just doesn’t give a damn about telling any truth):

    CNN & INVISIBLE soldier caught on video


  13. Charlotte NC Bill  January 21, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    All of the mistakes CAN’T be brushed aside as “sloppy reporting” and all of the strange, bizarre interviews can’t be explained away as “quirky behavior, everybody reacts differently…” Parents chuckling, waiting to be interviewed while other people’s dead kids are lieing in the bldg?..A father smiling big then going into crisis actor mode as he’s told to ” just read from the card”? Ms Soto’s condolence page being posted four days before the massacre? The social security death index showing adam Lanza’s death as 12-13-12? ( The day before the shooting..” The bizarre medical examiner’s bizarre news conference….etc etc…

    • johnsholtes  January 21, 2013 at 6:37 pm

      Come on give them another chance. Like in all hollywood scrips they are entitled to a second take and even more. The jewsmedia should just pull all of their first takes and reshoot. They should perform better with practice.

    • wolf  January 21, 2013 at 7:37 pm

      Sloppy mistakes such as Robbie Parker’s pre-statement smirk, Dr Wayne Carver’s surreal press conference, the clear contradiction about the rifle in the trunk being the murder weapon, etc etc

      I am starting to suspect that these gaffes were intentional. That we were MEANT to pick up on them.
      Why? For one reason, I would guess that it is serving to further divide Americans and that another decisive and catalyzing event my be on the horizon…at which time Sandy Hook ‘truthers’ will be demonized and lumped in with all the other classifications of ‘domestic terrorist’, gun owners, etc.
      There are just WAY too many sloppy and obvious anomalies and inconsistencies. Don’t underestimate these guys. I am sure they must have “gamed” this scenario…and its anticipated results.

    • Michael Chester  January 21, 2013 at 8:03 pm

      This is exactly the point I was trying to make. The goal is to paint anyone who questions the official story as a crazed conspiracy theorist.

    • shalomjuitsie  January 21, 2013 at 8:47 pm

      as long as sheep stay sheep, we look crazy no matter what

    • JeffPrager  January 22, 2013 at 6:52 am

      It’s The Fact That The Footage Exists

      Sandy Hook was a slick setup. Look at the truth community. I’ve blocked 6 people so far and Sandy Hook is working. It’s all in the fact that the footage exists.

      We know the news cycle is controlled rather well. We see what they want us to see.

      Now some people take Prozac, others drink, some people are really strange and I’ve seen people do things I would NEVER do. There’s an article in Scientific American (2007) about a Dr. Bonanno and his colleague Dr. Dach­er Keltner who analyzed facial expressions of people who had lost loved ones recently. The videos bore no hint of any permanent sorrow. As expected, the videos revealed sadness but also anger and happiness. Time and again, a grief-stricken person’s expression would change from dejection to laughter and back again so Robby Parkers behavior was in fact quite normal after all. You have to remember that it’s the fact that the footage existed. Let me explain.

      The goal here was to divide and discredit the truth community and governments plan 25, 50 and 100 years in advance and they have time and they have a lot of patience. The plans to invade Iraq were Syria and Libya were drawn up when? 10 years ago? Some would say more than 30. Governments plan ahead and then it hit me. We see what they want us to see.

      Someone injected a smiling Robbie Parker into the news cycle and then removed his smile portion. That wasn’t an error. We see what they want us to see on TV. Everyone saw Robbie Parker smiling for a few hours, maybe a day or so and then the smiling Parker was edited out because we see what they want us to see.

      So here we have a smiling Robbie Parker and in peer reviewed psychological material it states he’s behaving rather normal even if you and I don’t think so plus the guy was under tremendous stress, had just had a child brutally murdered and was I’m sure, and having owned an advertising agency and a publishing company I”ve seen it happen, almost forced into an interview with “the world needs to know” and “you owe it to the community” or whatever the sales people called producers said to him to get him to do that interview. I promise, he wasn’t paid for that.

      So why did they want us to see Robbie smiling. Why did they want us to think Chris Rodia was involved in this when he wasn’t? Why did they want us to wonder about a guy in the woods “he’s coming my way”? Why was “he was handcuffed on the ground” played over and over for us?

      Cass Sunstein told us. The plan was posted to the internet a long time ago.

      He said, “Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of groups … designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.”

      How do they do that? First they have to give you indefensible theories.

      So our government can just sit back and wait for an Adam Lanza or a James Holmes and insert little bits of bad data within an hour or so after the event and they don’t need to risk hiring bad actors because the thing took off like wild fire on it’s own with both Holmes and Lanza and NONE of the conspiracy theories can be proven NOR can they be wound into any cohesive “start to finish” narrative of what happened. It’s ALWAYS, “well, there should have been this or that” but no explanation of how the event fits in and no way to prove it.

      They insert the lies, like Chris Rodia, the LIBOR scandal, the lie about Gene seeing the casualty list, the man in the woods, Soto’s web site, Parker laughing, etc. ALL provable false but all capable of being manufactured into a disjointed and easily proven “indefensible” lie like the several conspiracy theories I listed above that are lies but look good at first.

      You’ve been duped and they have you running around looking at street signs, video and still images with a magnifying glass like you’re going to find some secret they don’t want you to see.


      This is how they “introduce informational diversity into such groups and expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such”.

    • LoPhatt  January 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm

      Mr. Chester,
      I quite understand your point. Let’s look at the implications of that, shall we? If the MSM puts out drivel, or half-baked stories (real or contrived) and the recipients accept that in silence is it better than being called names? Could it be that the reason people are suspicious of “news” media is because they know they’ve been lied to often and in terrible ways by them? Is it because they suspect they are being manipulated rather than informed?
      You seem to be suggesting that the proper response to this type of thing is silent acceptance. Beyond that, the surest way to end “conspiracy theories” is to stop putting out nonsense and start actually reporting verifiable, realistic information. The government-approved organs of “truth dispersion” are not meeting the minimum requirements of their alleged profession.
      Some of us know bunk when we see it and don’t mind calling them on it. I don’t care if they call me names. It is unlikely in the extreme that they are going to say “oh, I guess you caught us, we’re busted and we were lying all along. If you hadn’t been so careful with your opinions we would have gotten away with it!”.
      No, they lie. They will continue to lie. They will continue to name call. The key to this is to give them exactly the credence they’ve earned which is zero.

    • shalomjuitsie  January 21, 2013 at 8:46 pm

      there is no way to get our country back without a major argument with various parts of America, not gonna happen

    • LoPhatt  January 28, 2013 at 10:13 pm

      Wolf is absolutely right. These “slick’ productions are carefully gone over frame by frame before their released to the eaters. If you saw “Robbie Parker” yuck it up with the rest of the coven prior to his “close up”, it was intentional. How else would it get out there? The point I was trying to make is so what? If you call them on it they say “see, a loony conspiracy theorist”. Well, if you can look at “Robbie” and deny the evidence of your own eyes because some “journalist” says laughing is a sign of grief I guess you’ve pretty much surrendered your own judgement to the controllers.
      Remember kiddies, “cognitive dissonance” is part of mind control. There I go again.

    • LoPhatt  January 29, 2013 at 10:14 pm

      You mean like the game “Clue”? It was Gene in the pantry with a knife? I don’t know what to make of the coroner. They say he once put a pig through a wood chipper in a court room. I wouldn’t want to run into most of the characters in this production on the street.

    • haroldsmith  January 21, 2013 at 7:49 pm

      Exactly. You can maybe take any one odd aspect of this hoax and rationalize it, e.g., perhaps Robbie Parker is just a really strange person…the problem happens when you start stringing all the various unlikelyhoods together, and there are many, whereby you end up with a collectively preposterous narrative; just like that of the 9/11 fraud and the anthrax affair.

    • LoPhatt  January 25, 2013 at 11:29 pm

      Well, I suppose that standard is what defines “insanity” in our society. We usually think we know what constitutes “normal” or “suspicious”. This couldn’t be any more suspicious if there were juggling midgets and tiny ponies with pointy little hats parading in the background. I know, Prager would tell us “the circus was in town”. “It’s all a figment of your silly imagination. Go back to sleep (Hseep).
      Maybe I just don’t have a compulsion to “BELIEVE!”. If it seems preposterous, it probably is. I don’t know about you but I didn’t have to work at all hard to find this thing smelly. What are the odds of virtually everyone shown connected with this thing being “strange”? I know its Connecticut but, come on!
      So now we’ve gone from looking at something definitely weird to questioning our sanity for knowing there’s something wrong? Hey, who ya’ gonna believe, Prager or your lyin’ eyes?

  14. RealWarriorsAreAthenians  January 21, 2013 at 6:03 pm

    Michael, much agree with you on the ‘controlled opposition’ also seems that at least certain msm and others were almost prepared for particular ‘talking points’ and then rolled post-meeting discussions from there.
    For what it’s worth, Nancy Lanza’s tax records do indicate ownership of car.
    I’m wondering is there a possible connection with the initial msm ‘confusion’ reporting of ‘Ryan Lanza’ and Gordon’s satintel and place that within the context of Wade Page/Wisconsin, Aurora, etc
    Was that a prepped (maybe second tier) ‘blind alley’ – Whittaker in trouble 2010
    Someone needs to look at the ‘property records’
    And finally, hell, I’ll even throw in the ‘…occupants…out of state…doing a documentary on owl(?)-hunting in canaan…’ Having a ‘Twin Peaks’ moment?

    • SaQ  January 22, 2013 at 7:24 am

      I didn’t understand the last half of your post. re you saying Nancy Lanza did own that car 720 yeo? Or are you saying she just owned a car? Everything after that didn’t make sense to me………..

    • Garibaldi  January 22, 2013 at 11:55 am

      Can you understand this?-

    • LoPhatt  January 25, 2013 at 11:15 pm

      Garibaldi, the article says that the warrants are for a Beemer and a 2010 Honda Civic. There’s also been talk about an “Accord”. I frankly don’t know. It ought to be pretty easy to find out. Is it normal, even with a dead suspect to just declare that the suspect shot his mother in the face four times? If they know all this why do they need an investigation?
      More importantly, HOW do they know all this? Now, maybe he did, I don’t know. Unless they have this on tape or something how would they? Its just a plausible that someone else shot her and maybe him. Who knows? If they don’t know, why are they reporting this as if there could not possibly be any doubt?
      Well, I think we know why. The more unconfirmed B.S. they can get the eaters to swallow the better. The point being, even if something is true, it is customary to explain the evidence that led to that conclusion. The simple fact that he lived in the house is not enough. If he were alive and on trial I don’t think their conclusions, unless supported by evidence, would stand scrutiny. Why should it here?

    • RealWarriorsAreAthenians  January 22, 2013 at 11:37 pm

      According to digital records in 2011 Nancy Lanza paid tax on ‘2009 BMW 3 Series; 2010 Honda Civic’. (License plates not recorded.)

      Is it credible or just another of the many, many ‘google cache’ grey area/difficulties in this case, or why wouldn’t the ‘planners and executors’ of this use Lanza’s car?

      refer to –
      ‘The goal is to paint anyone who questions the official story as a crazed conspiracy theorist.’
      Michael Chester.

  15. stephanaugust  January 21, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    I wonder what would happen if a person were to film a staged shooting, maybe with a webcam / CCTV cam running 24/7 behind a curtain or inside a car.

  16. haroldsmith  January 21, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    Check out this video:


    It’s very damning, IMO, as it shows a clear propaganda effort to associate Adam Lanza with the school.

    Usually when there’s a mass shooting somewhere – in real life that is – there’s some kind of a connection between the shooter and the place where he starts shooting; dispute with boss and/or coworkers; dispute with family member or ex-wife who works there, etc.

    Thus I can understand why they would try to plant stories that there was some kind of an “altercation” involving Adam Lanza, in the school’s administrative office, the previous day.

    And why would the “reporter” say that the nurse told her that Adam Lanza’s Mother was a kindergarten teacher there? Again, it makes no sense except in the context of a propaganda effort to plant “seeds” in the minds of the target audience to subconsciously establish some link between the shooter and the scene.

    If Adam Lanza actually was at the school the day before, and was involved in an “altertcation” of some kind, then let’s see the video from that incident. Can’t do it? I didn’t think so.

    And why is the “reporter” saying that the nurse and the shooter “met eyes”? That’s an important detail, and the nurse didn’t say that in the other interview. She said she only saw him from the knees down. (And btw if that’s the case, how did she know she wasn’t looking at the janitor’s legs? Just because she heard some kind of noises doesn’t mean that whoever came into the office was a shooter, does it?). In any case, the “reporter” seems to be making calculatinly deceptive statements to subconsciously (in the minds of the target audience) establish a “witness” who impliedly saw and recognized Adam Lanza (with a gun?) as the shooter.

    The whole thing is obviously bullshit.

    • haroldsmith  January 21, 2013 at 8:03 pm

      And how about this (more deception by CNN):


  17. Trapper  January 21, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    The bottom line? No evidence = hoax. The government can quell any to all conspiracies by providing evidence of dead bodies, bullet holes, cam footage, coroner pics, etc. They have provide zero evidence.

    So why do you believeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee? Are you a christian sheep who likes to believeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?

    If you choose to believe any of the narrative then you are a gullible dupe. The Jewish media and government are known liars, they are still lying about 911, so why would any rational person believe in any thing they say? YOUR DNA REQUIRES YOU TO NOT BELIEVE PROVEN LIARS.

    In fact why would any sane rational person watch any Jew owned media? Insanity is caused by watching the jewtube.

    • Michael Chester  January 22, 2013 at 6:40 am

      Did you actually READ the article? In no way am I suggesting that the official version of events is true. What I am suggesting is that videos such as these only serve to take us down a path further from the truth. That is what the are made to accomplish.

    • JeffPrager  January 22, 2013 at 6:48 am

      There are many questions that need to be asked and were not in the first video.

      1. How did Lanza enter the school which was locked?

      He shot the window out with the Bushmaster and walked through the opening as reported in the Hartford Courant at 11:44pm on the 15th, less than 36 hours after Adam fired the last bullet.

      2. Why were the children all shot with .223 rounds, but Lanza’s body was found with only handguns present?

      This is not true, Lanzas body was found with a Bushmaster. Some media got this wrong and some got it right.

      3. Why would he shoot the kids, go outside, lock his rifle in the trunk of a car, then go back into the school and shoot himself?

      He didn’t. He carried the little 8 pound rifle into the school.

      4. Why did he have his estranged brother’s ID?

      Because he lived in the same house and his brothers bedroom became his. It could have been his brothers library card for all we know because they haven’t yet announced what type of ID it is.

      5. How did he get to the school? There was no car in the lot belonging to him or any member of his family.

      This is a lie. His mothers car was found in the school parking lot with a shot gun in the trunk.

      6. Chris Rodia is a convicted felon. Why was a car registered to him found in the Sandy Hook parking lot.

      This is also untrue. Chris Rodias car was ticketed and towed away a distance from the school. The audio you’re listening to is several frequencies and bands and several license plates are checked because police officers pull cars over. Everyone confused the band that announced Rodias car being towed with the announcements being made about Sandy Hook. Different band.

      7. Who called authorities claiming to be the principal of Sandy Hook and naming Adam Lanza as the shooter after the real principal was already dead?

      No one. The Bee called the school and had a brief conversation with a female during the chaos and attributed the quotes, incorrectly, to the principal.

      8. Since Lanza only attended the school briefly 15 years ago and was then home schooled, how could anyone at the school identify him as the shooter?

      Police forensics and homicide teams can identify almost any dead body within an hour or less.

      9. How could an occasional weekend shooter, such as Lanza, shoot groups on his victims that only highly trained shooters can accomplish?

      With 12 children and 2 adults found “huddled” together in the first classroom, a pile of blood and torn flesh, why do you assert incorrectly that it would require a trained marksman? He was standing just feet away from a pile of 14 frightened, whimpering, crying people. He fired 30 rounds at the pile and killed everyone easily.

      10. If the case is settled, why are American intelligence agents actively pursuing international suspects?

      This is not true. Prove it.

      11. Who has the most to gain by terrorizing the American people?

      No one has anything to gain from Sandy Hook but you have an agenda and aren’t letting a crisis go to waste.

    • shalomjuitsie  January 22, 2013 at 8:21 am

      come to the “light” Jeff. Use the Force!!!!! You should have seen him a few weeks ago dissing truthers! LMAO!

    • ha1ha2  January 22, 2013 at 9:27 am

      Thanks for posting the info!

    • sunhunter61  January 22, 2013 at 10:17 am

      Good and sobering info here. But considering your comment below, I do not understand your comment to no 11 above. And also, I disagree with you on that one.
      Somebody has something to gain from Sandy Hook, and they are pulling the strings.

    • Garibaldi  January 22, 2013 at 11:49 am

      You’ve got all the answers, Jeff. Keep on debunking everyone you can, including yourself.

    • LoPhatt  January 23, 2013 at 9:17 pm

      Exactly! I think its safe to say that the readers here are used to the idea that they lie to us. This is beyond the pale. There is a lot more that can be said about this, I agree. For example, how does questioning the official story translate to being heartless toward the victims? I think I read that as “you are either good little boys and girls and believe anything we tell you, or….”.
      It’s insulting. I question everything they tell me and I think that’s healthy.
      If they come out with something plausible tomorrow to replace this garbled account, I won’t feel “ashamed” for having questioned it. That is where you cross the line between logic and psychology. “Facts” aren’t about how you “feel”.
      To me this has been every bit a plausible as those guys who claim that every advancement known are the result of “ancient aliens”. Hey, it’s a theory, not a particularly convincing one, but a theory. The thing is, those guys aren’t hiding behind badges and offices and threatening our rights based on a fairy tale.
      To me, in some weird way, I find it reassuring that others who’ve posted here don’t find this acceptable either.

    • Trapper  January 22, 2013 at 9:33 am

      Yeah I read it and I basically found it sorta ok but really not ok, first you start your essay with an affirmation that something happened:

      “The tragic massacre at Sandy Hook…”

      Accepting anything as valid from the media is a mistake, just like 911 nothing can be taken for granted, we are being fed a storyline. Do we any evidence of an actual shooting? No. How about dead bodies? No. Ok. So why did you write “tragic massacre”? Don’t repeat that ever again!

      Because you probably watch the jewtube and had that meme so pounded into your brain that you accept it on some level. Turn off the TV, it is all lies, as far as we can tell Sandy Hook is a staged hoax.

      I tell you what, lets grab Gordon and a bunch of his marine buddies and go to Sandy Hook and demand we, former military with security clearances, the right to see the evidence. Let a team of citizens see the evidence. We can handle photos of dead bodies.

      I guarantee you no one will ever see one shred of evidence because it doesn’t exist.

    • Michael Chester  January 22, 2013 at 9:52 am

      Would you be happier if I had said, “ALLEGED tragic masacre?”

You must be logged in to post a comment Login