Was Sandy Hook Elementary School Open?

The preposterous claim – which has since become denier canon – that Sandy Hook Elementary School was closed in 2008 due to non-existent “asbestos contamination” is not based on any actual evidence, but has been made solely out of convenience. Trying to explain how in the world President Obama or FEMA or the lizard people could successfully pull off a convincing phony school shooting in an abandoned school is tricky enough, but trying to solve how they could perform such a feat in a bustling elementary school, full of hundreds and hundreds of children, is infinitely more so. But whether it’s four years or four days, Sandy Hook deniers have flat-out failed to produce even one iota of proof in the three and a half years since the shooting. This is indisputable.

Meanwhile, there exists a truly impressive amount of evidence to the contrary, further re-enforcing the incredibly obvious: Sandy Hook Elementary School was (of course) open and fully operational on December 14th, 2012, when Adam Lanza shot his way into the school and murdered twenty-six people. The school was not shuttered in 2008 (nor 2009, 2010, etc), and those who continue to insist that it was are either liars, out to make a quick buck; the mentally ill; or gullible ignoramuses. But at least there’s a glimmer of hope for the latter, and that’s one of the big reasons that this series of entries – and even this site itself – exists.

As explored in “Sandy Hook Elementary Was Open, Part Ten: 95 More Photos From Sandy Hook School”,  media outlets that typically cover the Newtown area – particularly The Newtown Bee – have written about Sandy Hook Elementary literally hundreds upon hundreds of times since the school was built in 1956. And between the Bee, the Danbury Newstimes, and the Newtown Patch, there have at least one hundred and eighty articles written about the school between the years of 2008 and 2012 alone. There are likely many more, but digging through The Newtown Bee’s archives for the appropriate material proved to be a bit cumbersome, so these results are not comprehensive. Still, in what should come as a shock to absolutely no one, none of these articles paint a picture anything other than an active, functional elementary school, regularly attended by hundreds of children. Not a single one of them alludes to the school being closed, even temporarily (beyond the expected winter and summer breaks). Not one! The CT Post wrote about the end of Monroe’s Chalk Hill Middle School(which – as an actual abandoned school – acted as the temporary home for Sandy Hook’s students), and New Jersey’s Marlton Sun recently wrote about the impending closure of the Florence V. Evans Elementary School in EveshamThe Newtown Bee even covered Newtown’s discussions regarding possibly closing Newtown Middle School back in 2011. So if the school was in fact closed (and it wasn’t), then why isn’t there a single article anywhere detailing the last days of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown? I mean, Iknow the answer.

The FBI revealed that no murders occurred in Newtown

The FBI revealed that no murders occurred in Newtown.

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp:   The FBI has revealed that no murders occurred in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012, inadvertently admitting that the Sandy Hook massacre was an elaborate hoax.

Of course, had the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting been staged deliberately to separate Americans from their guns, one would expect the FBI to be complicit. Should the statistics for crime in Newtown inadvertently reveal a conspiracy of heretofore unimaginable scope, that agency need only explain its oversight as a clerical error, which has not happened.

So it’s a little hard to see how the FBI might have missed this. Looking in the actual UCR reveals the answer

As it turns out, a record keeping anomaly of sorts is at the root of the FBI report’s dissonant statistics for the Sandy Hook massacre. If you followed news of the incident at the time, you may recall that Connecticut State Police (not local city or town police) managed the crime scene in the hours, days, and weeks after the event in Newtown. Accordingly, the Sandy Hook Elementary victims were included in Connecticut’s statewide records, but they were not tallied as crimes of any description in Newtown in 2012. Rather, the deaths were classified under “State Police Misc.” in separate records.

Wolfgang Halbig sixteen(16) questions

2. Why and for what reason would the FBI classify the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting when they did not classify the Columbine shooting which also was a Mass casualty shooting incident?

Any thinking person knows that the question regarding an  FBI procedure is not addressed to Connecticut State Police (CSP). The FBI does not report to the Connecticut State Police.  Who runs the FBI and tells them what to do?  We can all speculate; however, none could fairly claim that the answer is “police officers in Connecticut”.  
 
Back on point, this question is basically a “who and why” of the same question and are answered together, thus:
The answer is Book 2 Document 182743.
 
CSP did a FOIA request to get the FBI report for themselves. The FBI, through Special Agent Kimberly Mertz, responded to the request on July 23, 2013.  A notification from the FBI dated July 18, 2013 advised CSP that the FBI was releasing 109 pages of 173 pages of their report pursuant to FOIPA Title 5, US Code 552/552a.
 
The FBI included a notification that there are three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records that are excluded from FOIA as in USC 5   552(c) .
 

All 109 pages of the FBI report that the State Police received are INCLUDED in the report, downloaded as the above listed document.  In other words, the FBI report is in fact, not entirely classified, and has already been released and may be freely downloaded and reviewed.  Yes, it is heavily redacted; however, that is the FBI, not CSP.

64 pages are classified.  How much does the FBI do in 64 pages? I would think… very little.  

Moreover, that has nothing to do with Connecticut or the CSP, who were equally denied access to those 64 pages.   Who in or above the FBI decided to classify the 64 pages? Who knows! But the question is not for Connecticut.

The fact is, the FBI had little to do with the investigation of Sandy Hook.   This was a state run operation.  

The Sandy Hook report FBI report is freely available.  

3. Who on Dec 14, 2012 was the Incident Commander as required by the Federal Emergency Management Administration in directing the Mass Casualty Shooting Incident at the Sandy Hook Elementary School?
Major Brian Meraviglia, the Western District Commander, was the commander of the crime scene, once a command center was formally established.
This is according to Book 6 # 95772 Family Liaison report/assignments by Capt Dale Hourigan

4. Who and Why did they not request the Life Star Helicopters knowing that children and school staff are seriously injured and clinging to life?

Four wounded people were transported by ambulance. The premise of the question is incorrect because the report is clear, the rest were dead.  

Halbig needs to clarify his question because there were no others “clinging to life”. Who is he talking about here?
5. Who and Why did they not allow the Paramedics and the EMT’S inside the Sandy Hook School to treat the seriously injured or those children and school staff clinging to life?
Again, Halbig’s premise is incorrect, because it is not true that Paramedics and EMT’s were not allowed in the school. 

3 of the most seriously wounded were treated by 2 paramedics and 4 EMTs, within the “first response” time frame.

  • Unit: NEWTA2 Paramedic Robert Velleteri w/Marty Folan and John Burke ALS -female juvi ALS
  • Unit: NEWTA3 – Paramedic Daniel Bradley w/Kenneth Lerman and Laurie Veillete
    BLS to adult female (Hammond) and boy.

Inside the school in direct contact with the deceased were Two EMTs: Sgt William Cario and TFC Patrick Dragon; One Registered Nurse, William Blumenthal; and Paramedics: Director of Danbury EMT, Paramedic Matthew Cassevechia, and two tactical Paramedics, John Reed and Bernie Meehan.

6. Who declared all 18 children and six school staff members legally dead within the first 8 minutes?
The premise is incorrect because no one declared all those people dead in the first 8 minutes. While technically, that answer would suffice to answer Halbig’s poorly worded question, for the sake of clarity, I will pretend he asked a relevant question concerning the legal/procedural aspects of the triage of the casualties.

The legal presumptions of death were made by Cassevechia, Reed, and Meehan, using the SMART Triage System protocols; performing four different assessments on each patient prioritizing them based on their apparent injuries.

Cassevechia maintained phone contact and operated as the senior medical person on scene. The paramedics triaged the casualties operating on the legal authority granted by  Dr. Pat Broderick, Danbury Hospital.

See Book 6: 2113, 2358, 19275
7. Who was the Certified Environmental Bio-Hazard Decontamination company contracted by the Newtown Public Schools to remove 45-65 gallons of blood, skull fragments, brain tissues, bodily fluids, blood soaked carpets and any other decontaminated are a inside the Sandy Hook School?
Clean Harbors, Inc cleaned Sandy Hook as listed in Book 2 198991.
Aftermath Specialists did Yogananda.  Book 2 198985
8. Why does an off duty Lt from the Newtown Police Department refuse to leave his off duty work assignment at a construction site on Dec 14, 2012 when hearing that shots have been fired at the Sandy Hook Elementary School?

Again, Halbig’s premise is incorrect.  He was not “off -duty”.  Book 4 79290.

  He was doing an “extra duty” assignment.  The public record of this shows he received a written reprimand for failing to respond (Google).  I would ask, how is this relevant? He was derelict, no matter what the answer is.   Some people in any place of employment are derelict. He is one.

9. Who at the Newtown Public Schools notified all of the parents in writing as required by CT law that had children attending the Sandy Hook Elementary School as well as every school staff member every school year of all the potential life threatening chemical hazards. The school had high levels of lead paint throughout the entire school, Asbestos in the ceiling time and floor tile, asbestos in the insulation and most of all the school had very high levels of PCB?.
Allow me to educate Mr. Halbig and save him an embarrassing trip demanding answers from the school board.The School Facility report for that time period is available and easily found with the magic called “Google”, without the need for donations.  The summary is posted here:

 http://newtown.schooldesk.net/Portals/Newtown/District/docs/Facilities/School%20Facilities%20Survey/ED050-SANDY%20HOOK.pdf

The notification to parents was made at least by handbook for the immediate proceeding year.
http://newtown.sandyhook.schooldesk.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KSkLZ-fxuvQ%3D&tabid=8068

Page 28 has the required notice.  The school appears compliant with the law in terms of safety, reports, and notifications.  CT dot Gov website also has their specific requirements. My feeling is Halbig did not research this issue on his own.

Internet postings found by Google indicate that that was the Handbook linked to Schooldesk.net at the time of the shooting.

10. 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?
Answer repeated: 

  • Unit: NEWTA2 Paramedic Robert Velleteri w/Marty Folan and John Burke female juvi treated with ALS (Advanced Life Support).
  • Unit: NEWTA3 – Paramedic Daniel Bradley w/Kenneth Lerman and Laurie Lerman
    BLS to adult female (Hammond) and ALS to boy.

Book 2- 260162

I would suggest rewording the question.

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?

I suppose I could fairly answer this question with “Huh?” But since I can reasonably guess at what he is saying, I will give it a try, even though it is based on a faulty premise.Inside the school, triaging the victims were:

  • two EMTs: Sgt William Cario amd TFC Patrick Dragon
  • one Registered Nurse: William Blumenthal
  • three Paramedics: Director of Danbury EMS Paramedic Matthew Cassevechia, and two Tactical Paramedics, John Reed and Bernie Meehan.
All of their statements are in Book 6. My Guide to the Report can be used to find their reports.
12. Why did the parents of the two children who died at the Danbury hospital not allow their children to donate their organs to other children waiting for the gift of life?

This is a disgusting, irrelevant question to ask the parents of deceased children. Further, the answer is beyond the scope of any rational police investigation. What kind of question is this? How do you know they were asked to donate organs? How do you know they didn’t? How do you know if murder victims can donate organs before autopsy or how that plays into it? I won’t waste my time on this question because it is completely lacking a rational foundation.

13. What happened to the 500 children and 60 school staff members from Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec 14, 2012?
While one can imagine an almost unlimited response to this question, to keep it focused on the immediate scene, the survivors were evacuated.  The evacuation is documented in  dozens of sworn statements in Books 4 and 6.  Please read the report and ask a specific question that can be answered with specifics.
14. Who was the police officer calling into the Newtown Police dispatcher stating in his words that he has multiple weapons, he has a rifle and a shotgun and who has the rifle and the shotgun as the chain of evidence should show that was found in classroom eight (8)?

Again, your premise is incorrect; you misstate the officers words here and in every embellished interview you give.However, the report timeline documents that this officer’s name was Officer Leonard Penna. 
See Book 4 -184096

15. Why would a police officer by the name of Lt Vangehle at 9:45:21 am on Dec 14, 2012 from the Newtown Police Department after finding a kindergarten female child in the hallway make her go into room eight (8) and leave her? Room eight is a gruesome crime scene with dead children and school staff. Why?

See Venghele,  Bahamonde, and Penna’s statements. At the time of this incident, none of the officers had been in Room 8, they were unaware there are deceased in Room 8, and were training weapons in the direction of the girl and operating in Active Shooter formation and under those protocols.

Book 6 2060, 44171, and 258086
The interaction may be heard in Rick Thorne’s 911 call.

16. Why would two CT State Troopers enter room ten (10) at 9:55:31 am on Dec 14, 2012 which is a gruesome crime scene with dead bodies of children and school staff and tell a kindergarten boy who they find in the bathroom who’s name is redacted and tell them so it must be more than one to stay and they will be both back when it is safe?

Again, your premise is flawed and your English poor.  You failed to read the report.
 The account of the FIRST GRADE Boy and Girl hiding in the restroom are documented by their rescuer, TFC Smith in Book 6 47345
He is documented as running out with the survivors in Davis’ Dash Cam at 0957:18.  This is listed in the timeline Book 4 184096 and the time line of Davis’ Dash Cam Book 3 55705.
There was no delay in their rescue and they did not wait until the scene was “safe” to rescue them.

Sandy Hook Evacuation

There is a lot of misinformation being spread by Sandy Hook Hoaxer Conspiracy Theorists.  One of their primary contentions is that there are no photographs of children being evacuated. That is untrue.  Hundreds of students were photographed that day.  Many were photographed by Shannon Hicks during the immediate evacuation and many were photographed as they left the fire house.

Many people associate their view from the news broadcasts from after the shooting.   Most news photos are taken well after the evacuation. This is particularly true of the helicopter photos.
The evacuation of students began at about 10:00 a.m.    By the time the helicopters were on scene, the evacuation was over.

 

 

Sandy Hook; Whole City Got FREE Houses! Paid Off on Christmas Day, 2009 (Documents)

deirdre

d

Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists make the claim that some residents of Sandy Hook got given free houses, presumably as some kind of compensation for taking part in some kind of “false flag” event. As evidence they point to local property tax records.

The truth is there are very few Newtowners that DONT have $0 listed on their houses in 2009. Properties that were bought within the last few years show the sales price. All others show $0 sold on 12/25/2009.

This is true of EVERY street in Newtown. and every other town in Connecticut I checked, although other towns have different dates. “Sale Price-$0”

Sandy Hook hoax adherent and former University of Minnesota Duluth Professor James H. Fetzer is one of the chief disseminators of fraudulent information about the tragedy that befell Newtown, Conn. on December 14, 2012.

The Professor’s posts on the thoroughly discredited Veteran’s Today (VT) website are elaborate works of fiction based entirely on the speculation, gossip and other assorted bunkum that emanates from the mouths and keyboards of his many dubious sources.

One of the more outrageous theories Fetzer has helped popularize among fellow hoaxers in recent days is the claim that some Sandy Hook residents were gifted with “free homes” a few years prior to the “event” as partial compensation for the part they played in this so-called “elaborate hoax.”

In a February 16, 2014 article on VT, entitled “Sandy Hook: Free homes and ‘big bucks’ incentives for leaders and players,” Fetzer wrote, “It was astonishing to learn that very unusual real estate transactions had taken place on 25 December 2009, where the homes of 15 of the 20 Sandy Hook child victims, 1-2 of the 7 adult victims, and all 6 of the Sandy Hook adult non-victims (the Phelps, Gene Rosen, the three Selectmen) have the mysterious sale date of Christmas Day and $0 sale price. Although not gifted on that same date, even the home of Nancy Lanza, the purported mother of the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, was bestowed upon her for $0 on 8 February 2011.”

Fetzer does no real research himself but rather collects bits and pieces of litter strewn across the information superhighway and assembles them into one giant incoherent mess.

For this claim, the disgraced Professor links to conspiracy website D.C. Clothesline and a February 14, 2014 article, entitled “The strange purchase date and price of Sandy Hook homes.”

The writer of this piece, known simply as “Dr. Eowyn,” claims to have noticed back in February 2013 that “some of the homes of Sandy Hook victims all had an odd sale/purchase date of 12/25/2009, and an equally odd sale/purchase price of $0. I had found that information on the website of Vision Government Solutions (VGS), a company that calls itself ‘a leading supplier of land parcel management software technology and services to local government organizations, enabling efficient assessment, billing, collections, mapping, and permitting’”

To investigate further, Dr. Eowyn phones the Newtown Assessor’s Office and speaks with administrative assistant Andrea Santillo, who, according to the article, said that the Newtown city government recently had switched to a new computer system and had not been able to enter the property data for all Newtown homes. So the computer used the 12/25/2009 and $0 as, respectively, a ‘filler’ default sale date and price. Ms. Santillo’s explanation seemed plausible, and so I did not pursue the matter any further. But that doesn’t mean I’d forgotten about it.

Flash forward a year. I decided to revisit this matter, and went back to VGS’s database. Lo and behold, the strange sale date and price are still there.”

In addition to checking VGS, Dr. Eowyn claims to have “looked up the price history of those addresses on” Trulio, Zillow (both real estate websites) and the Connecticut Town Clerks Portal, a website of land records — including Newtown’s — which allows only those who have paid a fee to search its records. Interestingly, after I had paid for a 24-hour access to the site, I got this message about Newtown: “The mortgages, liens and probate certificates of the town of Newtown are not available online at this time.”

To verify this claim, I visited the link Dr. Eowyn provided and found that it was not necessary to pay a fee in order to access land records for Newtown, Conn.

Here’s how I did it:

1.) On the top left hand corner of the page, I clicked on the “sign in as a guest” tab.

2.) Once I did, I was redirected to a page with links to various Connecticut towns.

3.) I clicked on Newtown

4.) That delivered me to a search page. 

5.) I elected to search by first last name and entered Nancy Lanza in the appropriate fields.

Voila! Contrary to Dr. Eowyn’s reported experience, I encountered no access restrictions or messages advising that Newtown’s land records were unavailable. Instead, I was taken to a page containing 19 items of real estate activity on Nancy dating back to when she and then-husband Peter Lanza bought the home at 36 Yogananda St. on July 23, 1998.

It was easy to debunk Fetzer’s claim that Nancy Lanza’s home “was bestowed upon her for $0 on 8 February 2011.”

What actually happened on February 8, 2011 is that Nancy’s ex-husband, Peter, filed a Quit Claim Deed, a legal instrument that terminated his right and claim to the property at 36 Yogananda. In other words, he transferred ownership interest to Nancy according to the terms of their divorce.

The records also show that Nancy was still carrying a mortgage from 2004 when she died, clearly disproving the theory that the home was “bestowed upon her.”

Rather than rely exclusively on computer entries as proof, I paid the $7.50 for a 24 hr. subscription that allowed me to access images of the actual documents from various financial institutions, attorneys, courts and various government offices. Many of these documents are forms filled out by hand with signatures from judges, clerks, notaries, witnesses and, of course, the Lanza’s themselves.

Once I concluded that Eowyn and Fetzer’s claim about Nancy was completely unfounded, I moved on to the other so-called recipients of “free homes.”

Those remaining on Dr. Eowyn’s “suspect” list include the parents of 15 of the 20 children that were slaughtered, 2 of the 6 murdered adults and 6 more people who are not victims but had played significant roles in the aftermath of the massacre.”

According to Dr. Eowyn, these 37 people either own(ed) or reside(d) in one of 22 homes showing the strange sale date (12/25/2009) and price ($0)” on the VGS website.

In an effort to determine whether or not this Christmas Day sales date and $0 value was reflected in the Connecticut Town Clerk’s Portal (CTCP), I took the identifying information provided by Dr. Eowyn on all “suspicious” parties, matched them to their land records on the website and determined—beyond a shadow of a doubt—that there was absolutely no corroborating evidence to even remotely suggest that homes were given for free on any day, let alone Christmas Day 2009. In fact, none of the land records for any of those people identified by Dr. Eowyn showed any kind of activity in the entire month of December 2009.

Contrary to what Fetzer and Eowyn would have their gullible audience believe, the CTCP clearly shows that those accused of receiving “free homes” actually bought their properties several months, and in most cases, several years before or after Christmas Day 2009. In fact, a significant number of these homeowners still carry the mortgages they entered into prior to 2009.

According to CTCP land records, individuals that VGS associates with the “suspicious” sales dates and $0 prices actually purchased the 22 properties in question on the following dates:

1970, 1971, 1988, 1992 (2), 1993, 1994, 1998 (3), 2000, 2002, 2004 (2), 2005 (3), 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012 (2).

NOTE: The figure in parenthesis indicates the number of properties that were purchased by implicated parties in that given year.

The beauty of this kind of research is that anyone with a computer can do it RIGHT NOW! There are no applications. No government clearances. No Freedom of Information requests or other bureaucratic red tape. The information is there in its complete form with absolutely no redactions. I would challenge anyone who still has their doubts to investigate on their own. By doing so, they will learn that the CTCP information pertaining to the properties and individuals identified in Dr. Eowyn’s report is in stark contrast to any notion that homes were given away on Christmas Day 2009. The evidence is not just overwhelming—it’s conclusive.

So what’s the meaning of thisstrange sale date (12/25/2009) and price ($0)”?

The only place we find it is on the VGS website. In an effort to ascertain why that is, I called the Newtown Assessor’s Office. As luck would have it, administrative assistant Andrea Santillo answered the phone.

Ms. Santillo told me that in 2009, the Newtown Assessor’s Office (not the entire Newtown city government as Dr. Eowyn claims) “converted” from one data-base vendor, Totalvaluation (which has since changed its name to eQuality CAMA), to Vision Government Solutions (VGS).

One of the problems with the conversion, she said, was that the information in the former data-base did not “translate” into the new format. Because of this, information had to be inserted manually.

Due to the large volume of properties in Newtown, they were only able to input partial information—owner’s name and corresponding book/page numbers—into the “ownership history” block.

Ms. Santillo said that the date of 12/25/2009 was chosen deliberately for the sale date field because it was a “non-working day” and could easily be identified as a default entry, as was the $0 amount in the “sale price” field because, as Ms. Santillo explains it: “You can’t sell something for $0. That goes against the very definition of the word ‘sale.’”

Ms. Santillo went on to say that information is updated, incrementally, when the opportunity presents itself but stressed that deeds and all relevant information to real estate records are maintain with the Town Clerk’s Office.

She also confirmed that the CTCP website I’d been using was the correct portal to access all relevant information on land and land owners in Newtown.

When I told Ms. Santillo that some claim free homes were given away on Christmas Day 2009 based on the VGS data, she acknowledged that she’d received calls about that and then asked me: “In what world does that even make sense?”

Well, it apparently made sense to Dr. Eowyn, one of Fetzer’s many imaginary friends

For those unfamiliar, the Professor’s “experts” primarily consist of bored housewives, naïve kids and other assorted freaks and geeks with names like Professor Doom1, QKUltra and Jungle Surfer.

Then there’s the mysterious Dr. Eowyn Though the name suggests this person comes bearing credentials, it appears they are simply just another costumed fool.

“Eowyn is a fictional character in J. R. R. Tolkien’s legendarium, who appears in his most famous work, The Lord of the Rings,” according to Wikipedia. “She is a noblewoman of Rohan who is described as a shieldmaiden.”

In fact, the website Eowyn primarily uses to post its ridiculous theories is Fellowship of the Minds, an obvious play on Tolkien’s Fellowship of the Rings.

Fetzer describes Dr. Eowyn as a retired college professor though he provides no evidence to support that claim.

Does that surprise you?