I DON’T know anything about “Sofia Smallstorm” other than what you see here. She does a good job of analyzing Sandy Hook in this video from September, 2014, offering a plausible theory for why numerous people may have participated in a fraudulent event and explaining why you, yes you, may be part of a brave new experiment in social engineering. 

— Comments —

Joe A. writes:

I watched this entire documentary today.  (Video at link.  There is a newer, better produced version of this video at YouTube with improved graphics, less “lecture hall”.)

The premise is simple and fairly obvious, at least to a trained social researcher such as myself (I studied strategic marketing and organizational psychology in graduate school).  Sandy Hook and other national tragedies may be very large-scale psychological experiments, conducted with willing participants and unaware flunkies, designed to gauge public reaction to trauma along several dimensions.  Sandy Hook, it turns out, is the home of a bizarre, cult-like outfit whose stated mission is to replace fear and hatred with peace and acceptance, sort of a Post-New Age yogi/guru figure with an M.D. in psychiatry.  It also turns out Sandy Hook is a “destination” town that attracts high earners and high achievers simply for its very progressive public school district.

Is it too much of a stretch to believe our wonderful government would design such full scale exercises, perhaps not even telling the participants more than they need to know, in order to observe, record and analyze their reactions and determine how a “real life” scenario would play out?

There is a lot – and I mean a lot – of bizarre coincidence and other surreal aspects to Sandy Hook, not least of which was the lack of emotion from the parents, the lack of bodies, and the prearranged legislative response by states and the feds.

Is it possible the “victims” were actually government researchers, playing their part in a grand experiment for a cause they believe in deeply, conducted on an unsuspecting local population?  This would explain the absence of bodies, blood, death certificates, hell the absence of tears.  It would explain “family photos” that appear to be from the late 1980s instead of 2012 because these “researchers” were using their own, genuine photographs from their youth.

In a post-Edward Snowden world in which things get more and more bizarre with each passing day, most of it obviously induced by psychological manipulations (e.g., “gay marriage” and the open importation of millions of Mesoamerind peasants), and what we already knew about the secret sterilization of black Americans, non-consented lobotomies on depressives, deliberate infection of the so-called Tuskegee Experiment, near-lethal radiation exposure to U.S. servicemen in the Cold War era and the common lies we hear each night from Washington …

Is it really so far fetched to contemplate that Sandy Hook was a staged psychological exercise in perception and politcal “management” post crisis?

Hell yeah – if I had the wherewithal to do it, this is the kind of data I personally would kill to obtain.

In Sandy Hook, it appears they didn’t need to kill anyone since there are no bodies … but the benefit is just as real.

Laura writes:

I have changed the video to the updated version.

Lydia Sherman writes:

It may be a clue before our very eyes that the white-haired reporter Cooper Anderson is always there at the scene of a fake news story. Check it out. I always wonder if he is part of their team of actors.

Laura writes:

I noticed that he seemed to blush intensely when Mrs. McDonnell was talking about drawing all over her daughter’s casket. (Maybe this is standard practice among New Agers: Graffiti for the Grieving.)

Dan R. writes:

Right off the bat, I’ll confess my bias: I’m not a conspiracy buff and have no patience for them. Nonetheless, watching the first half-hour of the video I noticed a lot of suppositions and very little hard evidence.  Yes, this theory is very far-fetched! As terrible and depressing as our  government is, Smallstorm’s theories, if true, would represent a major leap beyond anything our government has done in the past.

Laura writes:

You watched the first half hour. If you wish to criticize her arguments, please watch the whole thing.

If you don’t wish to devote the time, here is an article outlining the facts that have raised suspicions.

No crime scene photos, no bodies in hospitals, no proof that Lanza was ever at the school — and you criticize Smallstorm for a lack of hard evidence?

Eric T. writes:

Your recent posts highlighting theories that the Sandy Hook “school massacre” in fact was a staged event and not the previously claimed evil deed of a psychopath youth brought to my attention a controversy I was unaware existed.

May I respectfully suggest, if doubts persists in regard to “what really happened at Sandy Hook,” that you investigate the truth of the matter yourself by traveling to Newton, Conn., and ask residents of the town, including parents of children who attended the school, teachers, police, ambulance drivers, hospital workers, pastors, priests, and the owners of the funeral homes the pressing question: Did the massacre in fact happen or not?

After you have visited and talked with people there, I hope you will report back your findings on The Thinking Housewife. It would be a service to your readers.

Laura writes:

Thank you for the suggestion, but, for one, there would be no point in interviewing hospital workers. The children and adult victims were not taken to the hospital. Ambulance drivers were interviewed and some expressed frustration that they were not permitted inside the building. Here is an interview with a funeral director. In the days, months and years after this event, many people in Newtown were interviewed. I look forward to the continued work of enterprising journalists who can perhaps dispel these rampant suspicions. I will not devote months to this subject myself.

By the way, speaking of anomalies, it is odd that no families of the victims have sued the school district and police since standard emergency medical treatment was not provided to the children. I would be outraged if my child had been shot and he had not been immediately evacuated to a medical facility.

There would be no “conspiracy theories” if the victims had been taken to the hospital, as is standard practice; if photographs of the crime scene had been released or journalists were permitted into the building; if the crime scene had not been completely destroyed; if the authorities in charge had not made a number of odd statements; if there had been any documented evidence of hysterical children who had just witnessed a horrifying crime and if the scenario of Adam Lanza shooting his way through the front door of the school without causing anyone to call 911 and firing each of 26 victims three to 11 times in a five- to seven-minute time span were more plausible. (Children who are six and seven years old would not sit passively and allow themselves to be shot. They would definitely have been screaming, crying and running about the room. So Lanza would most likely have been firing at moving targets. Quite an amazing feat for someone who allegedly spent most of his time sitting at a computer.)

Given the extent to which this event traumatized the nation and led to political measures, I am glad that there are journalists investigating the matter and alarmed that we live in a country in which such a terrible event can occur and no independent observers are admitted to the crime scene. There is nothing improper or insane about questioning what occurred that day. That’s what a responsible citizenry is supposed to do, not sheepishly accept accounts produced by highly-centralized news and political authorities.

Anonymous writes:

The reader who suggested that you go to Newtown perhaps doesn’t know that two researchers on Sandy Hook, Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbig, did just that. The way they were greeted were the opposite to the way they should have been greeted had this been a “real” event. He gives all of the details in this video.

Laura writes:

I have no viewed that video yet, although I did see something else involving Mr. Halbig. I find his emphasis on the condition of the Sandy Hook school (it was filled with asbestos and supposedly in bad shape in other ways) odd. He just seems to make too much of it. It must be easy to prove whether or not the school was functioning as a school at the time.

Joe A. writes:

Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Eastasia is our ally.

Eric T. writes:

There was not the huge influx of expected wounded victims because Lanza was very efficient in his aim: He shot to kill and didn’t miss. Wounded were taken to Danbury Hospital – feel free to call the hospital to confirm (I know: they were in on the hoax, too, so what’s the point?). As for the commentator citing Jim Fetzer, among Fetzer’s conspiracy theories is that the Holocaust didn’t happen: He called it “a big lie” (don’t take my word for it, read his writings and listen to his podcasts), so I leave it to you to judge his credibility. I dispute Laura’s assertion that there is “rampant” suspicion regarding Sandy Hook. I submit it’s the preoccupation of few.

I realize there is nothing I and probably anyone else can offer to persuade so-called Sandy Hook “truthers” that they are sadly mistaken. People will believe what they are prone to believe regardless of the facts. I can’t even believe — prone here too — I waded into this morass because it is like going down the fantasy rabbit hole.

Laura writes:

I do not consider myself a Sandy Hook “truther.” I don’t know why you say, “What’s the point?” I certainly am open to counter-arguments, as long as someone has considered the points raised by the journalists included in the two main videos. I just know that there are very strange and disturbing things involved in this case, and I too am trying to figure it out.

Yes, he shot to kill, but it must be understood that what he did, according to the account, was extraordinarily unusual, in terms of the use of firearms efficiently.

As for the wounded, there were, I believe, two people wounded. I do not understand how the police determined, without a doctor, that no one in that building other than a couple with relatively minor wounds could not be saved.

Please follow and like us: