Sofia Smallstorm sounds suspicious, you know. Some kind of shill?
Maybe I should clarify what I mean. I think Sofia Smallstorm is a part of the Sandy Hook plan. It's important that information and attention is steered in the right direction, even after the staged event, and Sofia's job is a part of that post-event plan.
Bullshit. I know Sofia personally and she is thoroughly respectable.
I dont know if she is a shill but something has never sat right with me about her
You shouldn't cast aspersions without evidence.
You sir, are an idiot.
It is a constant problem on these fora not that people raise doubts, but that they do so contrary to all good sense. Sofia is so obviously an advocate of argument and truthseeking, that this is a ridiculous comment about her, even though the person has a right to feel, somehow, the way the person does.It gets really tiring, however, to see such comments about people here.
Some of these people are undoubtedly paid shills who are deliberately casting false aspersions on good, truthful researchers like Sofia.
And you sound like some kind of retard
Hitting a nerve can be a telling sign. ;-)
Lindman? Would you be a Jew by chance?
No, I'm agnostic basically, although I like the Omega Point theory that has been proposed by a Jesuit.
Let me clarify... You sound retarded like a retarded person who's retarded..
There is some fascinating stuff here and this is the best you can do? Give me some discussion of what Michael or Paul Preston has to say. Some of it is sensational.
I was alarmed by Paul Preston's talk about Columbine as if it were 1) a wholly legit event, 2) motivated by pro-Nazi or National Socialist (NS) sentiment, as the media - but not the investigating agencies - initially reported, 3) that he was already monitoring NS websites or messageboards before the Columbine events and had come to know that something like the immediate media version (but not official police version) was about to happen.I think there's masses of evidence now in the public record to show that the first two claims are false - it wasn't legit and Klebold and Harris certainly were not motivated by NS loyalties - so what does that say about Preston's skills as a researcher and authority on these subjects, and, more importantly, about his own more personal recollections relating to claim (3)?Cuz if he really did 'know' beforehand about the false line the media would put out, he is known to be, at best, a useful conduit for crook info (particularly relevant since he claims to have insider Whitehouse, no less, info on SH). And if he's only *pretending* to have known about what turns out to have been a false line the media put out he is not only a poor researcher / authority but a dishonest one. He's either uniformed and manipulated or lying, I see no other possibilities if Columbine were not wholly legit and / or Klebold and Harris were not motivated by loyalty to National Socialist ideals.And I'll post some stuff showing that Columbine was not legit and Klebold and Harris were not NS if the thread isn't quickly flooded by easily sourced evidence for such. It's kinda well-known. But for now it's one of the rare sunny weekends we get in northern England, so I'm going out to play.
Wolfgang was also at Columbine and he talks about it as if it was a legit event. If Columbine was not as we are told, you would wonder how come he could not see through that event.
I have some information on Columbine collated on my blog at youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don't mind people being shills. It's the overall picture I look at and information for that can come from all kinds of sources.
Anders, it sounds as though you know nothing about Sophia Smallstorm the way you talk.
I only listened to a couple of minutes of her talk. That was enough to make me suspicious. I used the gut feeling that she herself has promoted.
It is a bit strange why these people have got such attention . Sofias presentation was alright, but the information that was in the presentation was stuff that other people had been talking about since the day the event happened. Wolfgangs questions are also stuff people have been asking since day one and been doing videos and articles on, so it is curious as to why it is these people who have been pushed to the forefront. Some people talk abut them like, if it had not been for these people none of us would have seen through the story. They are saying what we are thinking about the event so it is easy to follow them. As long as they dont start going about chanting Sandy Hook was an inside job.
"Wolfgangs questions are also stuff people have been asking since day one and been doing videos and articles on, so it is curious as to why it is these people who have been pushed to the forefront. "Not so.Wolfgang's 16 questions were of a very practical nature based on his experience of being right in the middle of similar school-related crisis events over the years.SIXTEEN QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND THE TRUTHhttp://www.sandyhookjustice.com/about-us.htmlI do not know that Mr. Halbig has been "brought to the forefront." He was the first person I encountered in the so-called alternative media who seemed to have no fear and who seemed to be an ordinary patriotic person asking some very interesting questions that none of us had ever thought of asking.
Their were people in the alternative media who were raising questions about this event from the day that it happened. Wolfgang is maybe the first that you seen raising them, but he certainly was not the first. He is definitely the one getting all the attention, as if it is only someone with credentials like Wolfgang who could ever spot a hoax like this. He was at Columbine just after it happened and he thinks that is as we are told, when their are people who have looked into Columbine who would say that that was also a staged event. If it was a staged event and he was there just after it happened and he talks about it like it was real, what would that say about his credibility?
That was my first thought as well as him coming late to the party.
Amanda Price, you have now changed or switched your original claim, which was that the questions people were asking “were also stuff”, that is, the same questions that WH was asking. That is not so. Now you are claiming people were just “raising questions" that WH is asking, and no one is denying that proposition.WH does not have to have gotten Columbine right to have Sandy Hook right. The suspicious facts about Columbine did not surface for several weeks or even years after the event. Sandy Hook was blatantly false from day one. I do not recall WH stating his current position on Columbine.
Amanda Price, you have now changed or switched your original claim, which was that the questions people were asking “were also stuff”, that is, the same questions that WH was asking. That is not so. Now you are claiming people were just “raising questions” and no one is denying that proposition.WH does not have to have gotten Columbine right to have Sandy Hook right. Sandy Hook was blatantly false from day one. Columbine was not.
People might not have worded them as questions exactly as Wolfgang had, but people were raising them issues from the day that it happened. Wolfgang is a latecomer to the party and the points he is raising are nothing new, though structured as questions and worded the way he has done could be new. He structures a question very nicely, well done Wolfgang. Columbine was not obviously a staged event from day one, as people had not come to the idea that events like this could be staged and the internet was in its infancy and getting hold of certain information was not so easy. So it would have been hard to see Columbine as a staged event for people who were not there, but Wolfgang was there. "I saw the blood, I saw the crime scene. Dave you would not believe how ugly the body fluids, the blood, the brain matter, I mean it was everywhere, OK." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEfW9FvLyAg from 24.40And Wolfgang is a former Policeman so he would know what all these things look like. If Columbine was a staged event, how does that square with the statements that Wolfgang makes about Columbine. He also talks about The Boston Marathon bomb, and it was obviously fake from the day it happened, as if it is a real event so it seems that he can only see through Sandy Hook.
In some "staged events" there is much murder and mayhem and real blood. ugly body fluids, and brain matter. Columbine was one of those kinds of "staged events." so when Wolfgang said. "I saw the blood, I saw the crime scene. Dave you would not believe how ugly the body fluids, the blood, the brain matter, I mean it was everywhere, OK" , he was speaking the honest truth.He is an honest person in my opinion.Boston Marathon Bombing and Sandy Hook were not the murderous, real blood, kinds of "staged events."Sure, Wolfgang may not accept those other events as staged events, but he has only claimed to be questioning from early on the Sandy Hook event. He has been sending FOIA requests and making phone calls and sending letters for well over a year, all to no avail and no response. Wolfgang has never claimed to have studied all these other events and has never been "in the conspiracy corner" as many of us have been and for over a decade.I still say you cannot provide one example of any news person or anyone asking a question like Wolfgang is asking. His questions are original and unique and specific.I resent people trying to present him as a Johnny-come-lately who is trying to capitalize on the issue. He is the only person who fearlessly went to Newtown and confronted the evildoers face to face and tried to get some answers in the correct legal way through the system.I will keep defending Wolfgang Halbig because so far I know him to be a sincere honest person.Sandy Hook is a heinous crime in and of itself even if nobody died and even if it was done for the Constitution-destroying goal of gun control.I do not know the legal names of the crime, the charge, of the perpetration of this false event. Perhaps "high treason" or some violation of the RICO racketeering actor "conspiracy to commit fraud." I think planning and perpetration of the Big Lie of Sandy Hook was a big crime in and of itself.
http://memoryholeblog.com/2012/12/24/the-sandy-hook-massacre-unanswered-questions-and-missing-information/December 24th 2012 James TracyMemory Hole Blog.
Jim,I think it's amazing that you all went to Newtown and are sharing with us what happened. Very interesting and it must have been very exciting.Is it possible the families who were settled there were from the FBI/CIA community? They would know what the "rules" are about keeping secrets. Is it possible they believed they were acting in the best interests of the country by participating in this drill in order to pass gun control laws?I think we should all be concerned about the number of secret drills going on all over the country. These drills are being taped and archived for who knows what or when They use actors who are given scripts to follow. They use props such as bandages and fake blood. Many of the pictures are alarmingly real such as a young girl shot in the forehead--dead--a picture I've posted here many times. Terrified Oregon teachers ambushed by masked gunmen in training drill they hadn’t known about - NY Daily News "It was only an emergency training drill.But terrified teachers feared for their lives when masked men ambushed a meeting and fired shots — because they hadn't been told it was fake.Instructors at Pine Eagle Charter School in Halfway, Ore., were left stunned when two raiders burst into their room on April 26.Wearings masks and hooded sweatshirts, they started screaming and shooting.The 15 school staffers looked on in horror as they thought they were about to be killed.But, with the guns firing blanks — and therefore not drawing any blood — they eventually realized it was a test and not a real attack."I'll tell you, the whole situation was horrible. I got a couple in the front and a couple in the back," elementary teacher Morgan Gover, 31, told The Oregonian.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teachers-ambushed-gunmen-surprise-drill-article-1.1334127#ixzz321rYCwII
Yes, Jim, thanks for going.
I am concerned with this Paul Preston. On Sofia's interview he makes it plain that from the outset he was deeply suspicious about the Sandy Hook shootings, and thought early on in the piece that it was a false flag event (I think he said from the time of the infamous Robbie Parker TV interview onwards). At least that was the clear impression I got. Yet on his show "Agenda 21 Radio" dated April 8 2013 he gives every indication that he believes: (i)that Sandy Hook was a real event, (ii) that Adam Lanza was a real person and the one responsible for the alleged massacre, (iii) the victims were real, and (iv) that the parents' grief - as displayed on a 60 Minutes' excerpt he plays on the show - was also real. He expresses not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the official story is true. If you go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_AbkImoOyYand listen from about the 40:00 mark you'll see what I mean.My question to Paul Preston is, how come?
People can change their minds when new evidence is shown. Heck I changed belief from the official 9/11 story to several new versions of conspiracy theories.
Then if that's the case why didn't he simply say so to Sofia? I.e, "I wasn't sure at the beginning, I thought it might have been real but as time went by I changed my mind and came to see it was a hoax."Instead, he's telling Sofia in May 2014 that he was certain it was a false flag event from the day, or second day, after the event, when he saw Robbie Parker's interview, and that he "wasn't buying it". In fact I think he says he was suspicious of it from day one. Correct me if I'm wrong/Yet in April 2013, that is,nearly 4 months after Robbie Parker's interview Sandy Hook, on his own radio show where he has no need to censor his views, he gives no indication of this opinion, but rather expresses the very opposite opinion: that SH was all quite real. No doubts or suspicions were raised at all. And I did listen to the whole thing.Perhaps, Mr Preston is gilding the lily, or speaking with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, or romancing. I don't know. For the sake of credibility he needs to clarify his position. And until he does I would treat whatever he has to say with caution.
That's a very good spot. Point two - both of em very strong - against Paul Preston. And, @ Anders Lindman, do you see the difference between mine and Lenny's criticisms of Preston, based on reasoned and factual problems with his story, and your comments about Sofia Smallstorm?
Nick, anyone could be a shill. I doubt that you could detect something like that from at face value facts. And frankly it doesn't matter much in a case like this since the facts about the event stand on their own regardless of who the messenger is.
Preston is an obvious shill, moreover his guest mother who sobs and sniffles appears to be a crisis actor.
Anders listens to the Smallstorm interview of Preston and says Smallstorm is shilling for Preston; jorge listens and says Preston is shilling for Smallstorm.I don't see any reason to agree with either of them. Smallstrom appears to me a sincere believer in a Sandy Hook hoax, and all I know about Preston is that he's misled or dishonest about Columbine and not clear or dishonest about Sandy Hook. I can't now his attitude to Smallstorm so don't bother speculating.
Let's not waste our time with Anders Lindman. I propose we all simply ignore him.
Oh and I meant to add, going by his radio broadcast Paul Preston also seems to believe that 9/11 was a real terrorist attack conducted by Islamic militants, Al Qaeda, and that real planes hit NY, the Pentagon and Shanksville. Seems like he tells one audience one thing and another audience the opposite thing.
I just re-listened to the podcast with Halbig and Kelly from Tulsa. I must not have heard it correctly the first time or was distracted by the comments here. What you people are doing is just great, Jim. You and your associates are going to be the first to expose Sandy Hook for the scandal that it was involving the President and the Governor on down. It's clear now the reason was to promote gun control legislation. All the town had to do was act out a scenario using a pretend school drill format with the promise no one would be hurt. In return, the town and people in it were promised huge public and private funding for playing along. Those involved probably thought they were doing the right thing by helping the cause to rid the country of guns.Remember the shameless campaigning Obama did immediately following the event and his threatening tone?Unbelievable the 26 parks--one for each child--and of course the huge funding and involvement of United Way. This story must be told. It'll be better than anything Michael Moore has done. I hope you do a full length documentary, and pleeeease have it done by professionals. There is nothing worse than a badly done You Tube video.Also, I keep forgetting to say how much I enjoy Kelly from Tulsa. She has so much spirit and humor about this story and has done much real research. I hope she is featured in any productions you do. You make a great team.
P.S. Jim, It's good that you documented everything on that trip and had legal counsel with you. Having an establishment insider like Alex Jones on your side is a good idea also. The "Liberal" lefties over at PBS who can't get enough gun control won't like you. It's time these wishful thinkers get over the idea Obama will save them. AFP is probably a liability as the Left sees them as "anti-Semitic neo Nazis." but who cares? At least they don't want to see our Constitution destroyed.
For All Latest Hot Current Affairswww.hotcurrentaffairs.com
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth: