National School Safety Expert: Sandy Hook shooting was a fraud

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


Question about the websites predating sandy hook.

Would someone changing an older website to a sandyhook memorial website account for the fact that the website dates predate the attack?

If some one turned there chia pet web page into a sandyhook web page. Would it still hold the date from when the web site was created? Or would it change the date as it was upgraded or changed?

Seems to me the predated websites might just be préexisting sites someone changed to sandy hook sites?

reply to post by ArtemisE


Huh haven't seen that talked about on this thread... Do you have any examples? Like the old site and then the revamped on having to do with sandy hook?
What made you think of this? Were you reading a previous thread and just didn't hit reply or quote?
Seems most of the sites were either changed or created a couple days before, so even if they were old sites just redone, why did they redo them before the event?
It wouldn't matter if they were just old sites revamped, if it got done before the event then it is still highly suspect.

ArtemisE
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE

 

Question about the websites predating sandy hook.

Would someone changing an older website to a sandyhook memorial website account for the fact that the website dates predate the attack?

If some one turned there chia pet web page into a sandyhook web page. Would it still hold the date from when the web site was created? Or would it change the date as it was upgraded or changed?

Seems to me the predated websites might just be préexisting sites someone changed to sandy hook sites?

i have heard that at the time of the event that facebook had a page up 2 days before it happened

but when you search on the internet about this from jfk onwards to 9-11 the naval yard shooting and sandy hoax all seem to have this element of being anounced before they were to happen strange and confusing

reply to post by ArtemisE


The Facebook pages (e.g. "RIP Vxxxxxxx Sxxx") are an element of this event which I can reliably state are NOT a conspiracy.

It works like this:
Someone has a FB group with less than 100 "likes" and less than 250 "members". Say the group is called something like:
“I Love Cats”,
— created on December 12, and has 4 members. Its URL is facebook.com/I_Love_Cats
Now, on December 14, the admin of this unpopular group changes its name to:
“RIP Vxxxxxxx Sxxx”.

So now, someone who goes to the site will see the name “RIP Vxxxxxxx Sxxx”, and also see that it was “created on December 12”.

Now, how the conspiracy stuff came into play was because, unless the admin also changed the vanity URL the "new" group called RIP Vxxxxxxx Sxxx” —> would still have a URL of facebook.com/I_Love_Cats

So what had happened was that this certain page, called “RIP Vxxxxxxx Sxxx”, had a URL of facebook.com/RIP_Vxxxxxxx_Sxxx, and a creation date that was a few days prior to December 14 — people saw that as proof that the page's name had NOT been changed as the owner had claimed.

Well it turns out, you can change the URL, but it's an obscure Facebook setting that the average person wasn't aware of I suppose.
So that solves that.

I cannot comment on the UNITED WAY page...that does not have a similar readily available explanation, AFAIK.

reply to post by Sremmos80


No. I mean someone made a website for something completely unrelated to the massacre. Then after the attack. Redesigned the unrelated website. To be a sandy hook memorial.

I've seen sandy hook memorial sites with the creation date of the site being 2 days before sandy hook. Can't remember the URL....and wold be EASY to fake a screen shot.

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


My thoughts exactly!

reply to post by ArtemisE


So your og post about this was really about facebook then huh?
Should have just come out and said that.
I.C's explanation does make sense, it would be great to be able to see a documented record form facebook about the change of name. I would think they would have something like that.

It doesn't explain united's in any way though, I can not see them having a site set up for something else and them canning that and replacing it.
I am sure they have no qualms with multiple charities going on, I am sure they are quite capable of handling many many collections...

Would you have any theory on that since you brought this up?

You know what's funny?
While I believe that stars/flags are disabled for threads in the LoL forum so that the measure of popularity of a topic will not become evident, it's got this great side-effect of making your "ATS Stats" drop;
–this by way of skewing the posts-to-stars ratio (aka “Karma”).
Before this thread mine was 36.
This made me think that I should try to flatline it, since I haven't seen anyone whose Karma # was "0", which I think would be kinda unique, lol

Apologies for the aside, and moving on to more complicated matters:
According to report, we have this statement about the gun "found" in the trunk of the car:

Testimony of Trooper Combes, Book 6
There was a black Honda, Parked in a fire lane, parked to the right of the main entrance. The front passenger door was open and there were two sweatshirts on the ground on the passenger side. Sometime later, I saw LT Vanghele carry a small child out of the school in his arms and headed towards the ambulance. I then saw female that was being pushed on a chair and put in the back of the Lieutenant's vehicle and then headed off towards the ambulance. Ofc. Penna came over and secured the car and he pulled a long gun out of the second row seat of the Honda Civic is secured it into the trunk of the car. Ofc. Penna then secured the closed the open door (sic —E.C.)

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


Oh man I feel ya on the stats, I killed mine with that page after page sniping match I let my self get into

Man the weapons and where they were found in this case are just crazy.
I had just read that part and was thinking to my self that it is strange they either they called a shotgun a long gun or it wasn't the shotgun that was found in the car but it was in fact the bushmaster.
Clearly someone one was in the school with some type of rifle as there are 5.56/.223 rounds present.
I seem to remember footage of them putting said weapon in the truck but can't seem to find that video.

Based on the video when they pull the weapon out it does not seem as if it was a bushmaster. Seems like a shotgun to me, but since when is a shotgun considered a long gun in the eye of a LEO?
Strange things indeed

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


a search of the social security death list shows none of the sandy hook victims.

spirited75
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


a search of the social security death list shows none of the sandy hook victims.

and his mother did not have any gun's registered to her either ? wtf

NickDC202
I had read about Halbig's efforts on another site and was intrigued enough to listen to two interviews he did about Sandy Hook; I found that he is hoping to gain answers to very important questions regarding the event but at the same time something about the way Halbig presented himself raised some yellow flags in my mind (not red flags, but yellow flags as in be cautious but open-minded).

Today the yellow flags became red flags when a Google search revealed a site called Memory Hole Blog which published Halbig's emails to various Connecticut agencies and federal agencies.

The article notes that:

All of the requests below, spanning from records on Sandy Hook’s routine asbestos inspections to the key FBI crime report on the incident, have been met with almost complete silence.

There are several issues and, frankly, completely unprofessional elements I noticed in Halbig's writings. For example the subject lines of the emails published include:
- "Mike Kehoe your Police Chief should be immediately fired for Negligence"
- "Re: Do I need to get arrested to show the FBI’s negligence in Sandy Hook?"
- "Do I need to get arrested to make my point?"
- "Re: Request a investigative copy if the Sandy Hook School shooting from President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder now."
- "Re: Criminal Investigation is now closed so please provide my FOIA request now."
- "Asbestos in the Sandy Hook School"

The content of the emails published are somewhat harassing and I would bet that most people reading these emails would get the impression that Halbig is a kook who enjoys using salty language.

The biggest problem which causes me to question Halbig's credibility is that he apparently believes that email is the proper procedure to file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests...

I would urge folks to do their due diligence on Halbig before going "all in" on him...

Well, it seems I was right about Halbig from the start:


Apparently he is nothing more than a scam artist trying to get you to give him money-- he's like the movie "Paper Moon" without that adorable Tatum O'Neal

reply to post by NickDC202


Now are we not suppose to fall for giving him a donation or are we to take the questions he ask as BS?
I get the grammatical errors and how they are considered unprofessional, but I'd say the questions he ask still carry some weight and the guy in the begging did in no way easily answer all 16 of them
Most of the questions he would just attack the grammar and then go to the next one when the context of the sentence clearly got the point across.


Seems this request for 100k that was on july 24 of 2012 keeps getting contributed to his SH site as well, I went to the site, I didn't see a request for 100k on there. Seems this stems from that one online comment that he had made on a site
This was mainly the first guy in the video, wasn't big fan of him or his answers to the easily answered 16 questions that again on some of them he made no attempt to answer but only attack the way the sentence was worded
Fair that is very strange that he would be asking for money on his site though, but I am sure he was not the only one behind that idea, I bet some others wanted to get their beak wet off of him

Finished the video, it does bring up some valid points, but only to the point that I know to never give this man any money.
I do feel it is sort of a hit job but it did bring some info I did not know about and does shine a different light on hailbig.

They never address the fact that he was an expert witness on columbine though which IMO says a lot about his credentials that they do attack.


Thank you for bring up the video though, we always do need both sides of the story

As far as him being controlled opposition, that I am not sold on

I`m more concerned with the questions he is asking than worrying wether to trust his credibility.
The point is, these questions need to be answered .

lambros56
I`m more concerned with the questions he is asking than worrying wether to trust his credibility.
The point is, these questions need to be answered .

If you have 15 minutes, I'd highly encourage you to watch the first 15 minutes of the video I shared because it is revealed that many of Wolfgang Halbig's questions have already been answered.

You will also learn that Halbig has a documented history of trying to "help" after events and then making public pleas for donations to "support" his "efforts".

The following comment is not solely directed at Halbig but crowdfunding in general: Am I the only one who has noticed how many people seem to be abusing crowdfunding? Way too many con artists out there scamming peoples money via kickstarter and indiegogo.

reply to post by NickDC202

If you have 15 minutes, I'd highly encourage you to watch the first 15 minutes of the video I shared because it is revealed that many of Wolfgang Halbig's questions have already been answered.

Do you really think he answered all the questions?
He offers answers to the clean up crew which is the only one he really offered a hard answer too IMO,
He does not offer an suitable answer for any of the EMT questions
He says that the cops simply used DRT, which TBH I have never heard of
Our friend Cptknots or what ever gave us just about every acronym that the police on this very thread
See if I can find a written transcript so I can show you the things that I had issues with in his "answers"
I would say he "answered" most of the question by saying that it had bad grammar and really wasn't that important of a question..


I do agree wolf does get some black eyes after the video and some are deserving and peoples eyes do need to opened to them, mainly the donations that he does ask for, I don't see how his request in july of 12 for 100k has anything to do with SH tho and that got brought up a lot, and I mean specifically that number.
The first guy even says he ask for that amount on his SHjustice site but when I went there I did see a fund box but no where a mention of 100k

The two other people on the video were great and provided great stuff, just wasn't to impressed with the first guy

reply to post by NickDC202


Question 1.
Answer is that most of what the FBI does is classified, and is it really in the top 10 questions and then ask about the first guy that got hooked up? I was under the impression the guy they got at the school was chris manfredonia, so we do know who that guy was.... this guy should know that. Now I can't say the same for the 4-5-6 people that were in woods...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
And as far as I know only 1 person was in front of the school hooked up
Agreed those are not camo pants but the guy could have been mistaken on that, since he is wearing a dark jacket
2. Grammar attack then the blanket FBI classifies everything, including some still form columbine.
Which shooting do you think had more information classified? I would say that is the point wolf is making
3. Calls it a basic id request. I don't see how asking who the incident commander was is a basic ID request.
Does not offer an answer or how it would be easily found. Also this is not a question we need to be focusing on. Then states that since he brings up the porta potties that this and the rest of the questions are silly... "Lets move on"
But was the ordering of the porta potties not odd? Why is that a concern, well I do see it being a concern but not very high up...
4. Grammar attack on the "who/why" pharsing.
Now while his answer of the possible lack of landing area is very plausible, I have a hard time with that being the definitive answer. I have seen quotes from hospitals saying they were waiting for the calls and request but just never received them, not that they could not land there. Also aren't those life flights ready to go at a moments notice? He makes a big deal about the prep time it would take for the bird to be ready to go. I don't believe that is the case
5. Grammar attack again... and that is IT... This is a crucial question that he just glosses over... He just said that all these questions are easily answered....
6. The DRT ( Dead Right There).... what does that mean and how does that answer the question of WHO made that call on the 24 victims that never left the building. Again no answer to the easy question
7. He does offer a solid name here for the clean up which was news to me, I can't find anything other then the part he read which seems to be from this site
www.metabunk.org...
So he offers an option but does that really mean they cleaned it up? I can not find that info anywhere
8. He calls it another out of left field question that could be answered in many different ways that he does not go into any detail about. Another easy question that he does not offer an answer to...
9. Grammar.... and fair this question is a little weird and he has proof, well after the shootings anyway and I knew they had posted it then as it was part of the reason they decided to tear it down supposedly. But he does answer this easy question
10. i guess no answer to this question "Who provided the urgent medical care to the two children who were not transported to the Danbury Trauma Center until an hour after the school was deemed safe for that 15-mile drive?"
Guess this must have been a left field question too
11. "Who treated those two children who had been shot multiple times like three to 11 times since they did not allow the paramedics and EMT’S inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School?"
This is kinda the same question as 10 so I guess that is why he did not answer it. Still, if they are so easy then why leave some out?
12. I will agree 100% with the guy in the video, this makes no sense to ask why parents didn't donate the organs
13. They were evacuated... Where was the evac? We have 2 pictures... How do 500 + people get out that fast without any one seeing?
14. So officer Pena says the shooter has multiple weapons in the building and the guy in the video should know that.
Why does he bring up the fact it was found in the car? Was officer pena in the car when he made that transmission?
If not then where did pena see a shotgun(s)? If he saw the rifle then he had to have seen a shooter INSIDE, so where does the shotgun come from? Only one weapon was in the car and he clearly states shotgun(s) and rifle(s)
15/16. He offers a theoretic answer that they wanted to the kids to stay in place....
Does not answer the easy question and does not answer why they would send the one child back into the room full of bodies.
If they theoretically wanted them to stay put... why move them?

So i would say he did not easily answer all of these question.
He may have but 1 to rest, the clean up crew, but all I can find is the same testimony that he found, was hoping he was going off something more concrete

reply to post by Sremmos80


This will simultaneously shed some light on a few of those things while at the same time somehow making them more confusing:

Testimony of Trooper William F. Cario, Book 6

I wish I could highlight this sentence:


Trust me, just read it…

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


Very telling sentence IMO, I see why you would want to highlight that one

I also have to put my foot in my mouth in regards to the pena comment I made above, for some reason in my head the call by pena came before 0955, as at that time he very well could, and was clearing the car and would have found the shotgun, or long gun
It is not found in the trunk tho, but in the passenger seat and then moved to the trunk which apparently they forgot about later that night since it was breaking news when they pulled it out

Testimony of Trooper Combes, Book 6
There was a black Honda, Parked in a fire lane, parked to the right of the main entrance. The front passenger door was open and there were two sweatshirts on the ground on the passenger side. Sometime later, I saw LT Vanghele carry a small child out of the school in his arms and headed towards the ambulance. I then saw female that was being pushed on a chair and put in the back of the Lieutenant's vehicle and then headed off towards the ambulance. Ofc. Penna came over and secured the car and he pulled a long gun out of the second row seat of the Honda Civic is secured it into the trunk of the car. Ofc. Penna then secured the closed the open door

It's patently clear from reading the reports that we're not the only ones with questions.
Here's a theme that comes up often… the parents of the surviving kids being frustrated that their only source for information about what happened that day is the (often contradictory) media reports.

And as seen here, it seems that even the police are unsure about how/where/when many of the kids were evacuated: