Deanna talkes about numerous issues and events, including Sandy Hook. The title of today's program is Okay, let’s talk about Sandy Hook. Please view Deanna's Sandy Hook Research and Notes particularly the page titled Wolfgang Halbig Asks Deanna to Stop Asking Questions and Critiquing Smallstorm's Video Delphi/Censorship Operation. After all, truth does not fear investigation!!!! I recommend that people listen to my program of February 20, 2014 about Sandy Hook.
Show-page
www.spingola.com
Adolf Hitler Mega-post
The Holocaust Mega-post
The New Babylon - PDF
Who Controls America?
Download
www.spingola.com
Adolf Hitler Mega-post
The Holocaust Mega-post
The New Babylon - PDF
Who Controls America?
Download
24 comments:
42 minutes in, Deanna said:
"You don't get on the New York Times bestseller list because your book has sold x amount of copies. You get on the New York Times bestseller list because the New York Times editors want you to buy that book, or, see that book is there and say, "oh, it must be true. It must be a wonderful book. I better get that book, or, at least know what they're thinking."
Yet anarchist and Austrian School of Economics poster boy, Tom Woods, doesn't seem to get that, and claims with a straight face that anarcho-capitalism and the Austrian school is a real alternative to the current economic system, despite one of its main proponents, Ludwig von Mises, being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
Woods proudly notes on his site that he is a New York Times bestselling author, and despite ripping into them for being dishonest and refusing interviews, he somehow thinks he got on that list just by his x number of book sales. Could a multiple PhD holder from an Ivy League institution really be that daft?
And speaking of key opinion leaders getting lots of interviews and speaking engagements, that certainly applies to him versus Ellen Brown, who can only get on internet radio and small radio stations, yet Woods actually thinks Austrian economics is a threat to the establishment.
Ivy League PhD degree and multiple Ivy League degree holder, rather.
Once again Deanna sets the octagon stage.
Halbig / Smallstorm vs Spingola..
So now we must assume that Halbig & Smallstorm are working for Big Pharma because they are selling a different view of Sandyhook then Spingola is "SELLING".
The cause & affect of a Drug that gave a 100# Wimp Freak Super Human powers of Strength and Marksmanship skills beyond mere mortal Men!
A SECRET Drug, that if it was Discovered by Americas enemy's would surly result in the Death of all with in 24 hours.
The American Government & Big Pharma knew there was only two people on earth that could hide this Super Drug from the prying eyes of the World,,, Them people could only be Halbig & Smallstorm.. Shit,, who knew??
Personally I could give a Rats Azz what Halbig, Smallstorm or Spingola are payed to sell,,
Sandyhook was a Government operation to kickoff the Great American Gun Grab! FAIL!!
Some people are vested to Hide that Fact that Slaps you in the Face no matter what Drug you are on!!
Deanna said...
I am not sure where people get the idea that I wholly believe 100% in the government's views of Sandy Hook. I have written a 600-page book explaining the government's devious behavior. It seems that once a KOL has perpetuated disinformation about what others, like myself, believe, then that disinformation becomes a major talking point for others who fail to critically evaluate another person's view for themselves.
April 7, 2015 at 4:40 PM
I was anticipating further explanation in this show. If I have to buy the book to find out what part of the government's official story she doesn't buy, guess I will have to take a pass.
SatanicJews; an octagon has eight sides. Apparently you've missed some.
The employment assumption you introduce is spurious; what is relevant is that the best evidence refutes Halbig and Smallstorm's assertions. Your sarcasm is kinda empty; (no offense) but you're presenting another argument demonstrating that you're unable to hear an answer.
Oh, by the way, Deanna has never stated that Sandy Hook wouldn't be used towards gun control. What was it that Rahm Emanuel stated? Something like, "Don't let a crisis go to waste?" But again, and this is a summery point; an addled brain with a gun--that is any weapon--is by far the most effective tool of rogue government to destroy a people.
The Scriptures call this Babylonian-Talmud-methodology, sorcery or witchcraft, markedly present in the passage; "for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived" (Rev. 18:23).
The word "sorceries" here is translated from the Greek word, pharmakeia, from which we get our word pharmacy. The Greek "pharmakeia" roughly means deceptive arts and drugging.
I can appreciate your gun-grab point, but the picture is larger, much larger, as has been painstakingly ferreted-out by Deanna.
The notion that next of kin are only allowed to view the body by photo is something I have never thought about, but, it sure seems wrong. I haven't been the next of kin to anyone killed, and I don't really know anyone who was, so I can't know for sure, but it sure seems wrong to me. If I were to have a loved get killed (either by intention or by accident), and I were notified of that by PHOTO ONLY, I am certain that I would insist on seeing the body right away, and I'd probably get out of control if force were used to prevent that. If they made me wait until the loved one's body was prepared and in a casket, I'm sure I'd harbor a resentment against those responsible (for keeping me away from the body) for a long damned time. So, I am wondering why Deanna says that "it is always a photo..." - that just doesn't sound right, but, I am going to be looking into that from folks who work in that business.
If Deanna is reading this, why would you say "always..." unless you have researched that issue extensively and are absolutely sure loved ones are "always" denied seeing the actual body? Please elaborate on your use of the adjective "always" with respect to this very sensitive issue (viewing of the body by PHOTO ONLY when the body is close by).
Also, she says she called the funeral home and they told her they had eleven bodies, and that satisfied Deanna (I assume that did it, since she didn't offer anything else).
I just can't accept that as confirmation. That is only hearsay, even coming from someone at the funeral home over the phone - it is still only hearsay. A good reporter ought to get the names of those very eleven deceased, and contact the next of kin personally (and with all due respect), and get to the bottom of just what happened with the deceased straight from the mouths of their loved ones (especially those that were denied viewing the freshly killed body - they ought to be eager to get their story out, from sheer bitter resentment from being denied that most fundamental right to see your loved one's body as soon as you get to where it is at) - we want the FULL STORY!
But, even then, that's only eleven corpses in a funeral home - how does that prove anything about what happened behind closed doors at the Sandy Hook building?
And nothing was said about the boy who died twice (at least, the same photo of the same boy appeared as a victim at Sandy Hook AND also at another child killing incident later in another country). That story has disappeared totally - why wouldn't Deanna take that on center stage and find out why his photo showed up TWICE?
None of us who weren't right there can say we are sure about anything - what we can say is that some folks, like Deanna one the one hand, and others on the other, have jumped to conclusions way short of what we normally require to be convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Michzel
WTF.. Should I have said Triangle?
You may have Deanna tattooed on your Azz next to them wort's that should be beat off with a stick, but really,, Deanna is a Big Girl, She can go Toe to Toe with me!
Next you will be telling me Deanna is Jesus Christ.
Fuk it, I respect Deanna, but on SANDY,, Way off!
As a matter of fact, I did use Emanuel's comment in my book: "In November 2008, Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that (is) it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” This is Rahm’s Rule (RR). Simply put, maximize and exploit every situation for political and/or possibilities for profit. The mass murders at the Sandy Hook Elementary School was just such a situation, not just to snatch guns as many people claim, but also to impose a previously conceived mandatory draconian mental health care system on American citizens under the guise of preventing such horrific tragedies in the future. Even before Sandy Hook, officials in Connecticut had implemented many programs designed to place more individuals into the mental health care system, giving more access to drugs."
Deanna, on one of your shows a long time ago, you said that the Boston Marathon bombings were used as a way to divert attention away from Sandy Hook.
But given that it is coming up to the second anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings and it is a current event compared to Sandy Hook, what exactly was it diverting away from compared to wheelchair guy Jeff Bauman whom you admitted was a suspicious character, if you are saying that the government story about Adam Lanza single-handedly killing 20 children is true and that no crisis actors were used?
That doesn't sound like much to divert from compared to Jeff Bauman being a crisis actor faking his injuries and possibly every other injury being fake and the Tsarnaev brothers being framed, and possible foreshadowing of an event there on a Family Guy episode.
Jlynn said: "And nothing was said about the boy who died twice (at least, the same photo of the same boy appeared as a victim at Sandy Hook AND also at another child killing incident later in another country). That story has disappeared totally - why wouldn't Deanna take that on center stage and find out why his photo showed up TWICE? My answer: I can only cover just so many issues (or distractions) in one two-hour program. I did not "take that on center stage" because it was quite obviously the very same picture. The media might was well have put the child's name,Noah Pozner with the words "Sandy Hook" underneath. This was in a BBC video talking about an attack in Pakistan. The image was also in a Pakistani newspaper, The Express Tribune, a newspaper that functions as the global edition of The New York Times. What better way to cast doubt on the Sandy Hook event? The MSM has very subtly done that, as I point out in my book in a number of cases. Who does that mistake benefit - perhaps the $40 billion a year drug industry? The media can cover up a lot of corruption but how do they cover up a mass shooting committed by a twenty-year kid on SSRIs? One does that by convincing a lot of people that it was a hoax, not only believed by skeptics in the "alternative" media but by many people because of such obvious media "mistakes." Seriously, if the government were going to devise a real hoax, such "mistakes" would likely not occur.
I have not focused on the Boston bombing other than making that comment. It takes an incredible amount of time to research any event. I am unable to draw conclusions and too detail-oriented to engage in too much speculation. There are others who have looked at this matter closely and they are better able to address this subject.
If a respected reporter were to investigate that ONE boy (Noah Pozner) the one whose photo appeared twice, and get to the bottom of it with EVIDENCE and TESTIMONY from his next of kin, friends, and other loved ones, then that right there would go a long way towards resolving the Sandy Hook issue. ONE BOY, who was supposed to have been shot dead at Sandy Hook - why can't that ONE death (amongst the many reported) be investigated with the approval AND COOPERATION of his loved ones? One would think that they would be BOILING MAD about seeing a photo of their precious little boy appear in that second shooting - that would make me want to SUE the hell out of whoever was responsible, AND, I'd sure like to have a well-known and respectable reporter interview me and everyone else who could offer something about it. So, why doesn't that happen?
I would pick that ONE "victim" because his photo showed up twice, so we know FOR SURE somebody, somewhere is faking it, and, it shouldn't take too much prodding to find out the whole truth about this one reported death, at the very least. If it turns out that this boy did NOT die at Sandy Hook, then those who lean towards believing the official version would have to take a step back and start questioning the whole story.
On the other hand, if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that this ONE boy (at least) DID die of a gunshot wound at Sandy Hook, and that the coroner was able to convincingly assign the bullet making the fatal wound to a firearm that can be shown conclusively was in the possession of Lanza, and was fired by him so as to make that fatal wound, then, the Sandy Hook hoaxers would have to admit they are off base, at least in this one case, and, by extension, in all the reported cases.
Any undecided reader must be suspicious about this one victim - yes, like Deanna says, it could possibly be a deliberate "mistake" by the press (in using the same photo twice), but, that is a stretch, at least until the complete verified story about that ONE boy is fully investigated and made public.
And what about your stating that "it's always...done...by photo...OK?"
(with respect to next of kin identifying the body)? (at 75:17 in this current broadcast). How did you come to that conclusion, so much so that you claimed it is "always"? That is such a sweeping claim - surely you did a lot or research before carrying it that far? Or were you merely saying it that way for emphasis, and you didn't really mean "always"? I'm not trying to be a nit-picker here, but, that is such a critical issue, and your claim, if held, tends to silence those making a point about not letting next of kin see the bodies at the scene. Not knowing about this, or even thinking about it before, most ordinary folks would assume that there would have to be a really unusual circumstance to deny a viewing of the body as soon as they arrive to where the body is. Something like a great danger and risk of life and limb was still present. But NOT merely for there being too many bodies (20, 40, or so) - that is simply not an acceptable rationale to keep the next of kin away from their deceased loved one - single file, see the body, have a cry, then move on.
Sooner or later, the whole truth about Sandy Hook will get its way out into the public, without so much speculation or blind faith, or focus on imagined concomitant issues (such as drug companies or gun control) - there are too many undecided, but determined, wise folks looking at this for false versions to survive for much longer (I hope). Maybe a good reporter will go after the story behind Noah Pozner and tell us all what he finds.
Sandy Hook is a hoax. Wolfgang Halbig welcomes questions at his phone, 1-352-719-2559.
352-729-2559, correct number
For information on Halbig's credentials and allegations, see http://www.spingola.com/halbignotes.html and http://www.spingola.com/CensorshipOperation.html
Others have also debunked him and his credentials including C. W. Wade; see http://sandyhookfacts.com/
"Sandy Hook: The Deadliest Minute" is a physical evidence and ballistic analysis of the events of the Sandy Hook Tragedy on December 14, 2012. My work is based primarily on an exhaustive look into the final report. My ground breaking investigation is the first and only place where you can find a step by step reconstruction of the attack by the shooter, Adam Lanza. You will not find this information any where else.
This is from C.W. Wade's website. So he too has done "exhaustive look into the final report" and bases his work primarily upon that.
Didn't see anything giving C. W. Wade's credentials. Maybe I missed seeing what is suppose to make his opinions valid and factual.
Deanna and Mark Glen have this similar hypothesis
Deanna says that it is the drug companies who want to cast doubt on weather SH really happened or not to somehow cover up that adam lanza was a used of their products, and that they are deliberately putting out misinformation like the pozner shot in packistan photo
it is plausible that they could have staged the packistan story ,sure
but the thing is that they control the MSM anyways , they are one of if not thee main sponsor,they just do not report that he was on any medication anyways they don't focus on it why wold they when all their sponsor are big pharma
the Glen version says that they are intentionally leaking things like the gene rosen audition tape and the robbie parker video on purpose to
cast aspersions on the 911 truth movement somehow , to brand 911 truthers as crazy conspiracy theorists who buy into SH fakery
this is not as plausible because they can not force gene rosen to act as ridiculously as he does
they an not force robbie parker to smile, what are they going to do?
approach the parents hours after their kids are supposedly slaughtered and say excuse me could you pretend to be happy for the interview so that we can make people question this event so that we can brand them as crazy conspiracy theorists in order to demonize 911 turthers
Glen has attacked me and other viciously for merely even questioning the event
i have always remained polite and composed and have never resorted to any personal attacks or behaved in any sort of disrespectful manner to Mr. Glen and yet i have been attacked for merely questioning and mildly implying that the event was completely staged
i just can not see how you are going to get gene rosens, robbie parkers, lynn macdonnels ,marc bardens ,and soto siblings to go out there days after the "shooting" and behave that ridiculously if it were a real event
the bardens really take the cake though in their katie jew couric interview
that they gave THREE DAYS after the event THREE DAYS!
the fucking kid is not even in the ground and they are worried about being on the katie couric show to promote gun control
im sorry but you will never get me to believe that any antigun activists can convince parents to go on tv before they even bury their massacred child to promote gun control and drag the surviving sibling on tv too
no fucking way
then a bunch of the classmates of the supposedly slain kids go and do Dr. Oz 5 days after the event
an done of them says" we were having a drill" and huffs and puffs and hyperventilates and looks like the cat who ate the canary
i am sure any body language expert could tell straight away he uncomfortable because he was being forced to lie
I explain a lot about how the media interacted with Gene Rosen, someone who would speak to anyone, anywhere and (IMHO) has some memory/mental issues. Yes, he did act ridiculous and is possibly the worst person the media could have used to represent what happened that day or the best person depending on the media's objectives.
Mark Glenn and I have never spoken about Sandy Hook. I have never interviewed him about his views. I have only interviewed C. W. Wade, Michael Collins Piper and Keith Johnson about their alternative views based on their independent research. I interviewed Halbig once. I have tried to remain on the issue rather than focus on a person's character. However, when a person fabricates "evidence" or their credentials, then that affects their credibility. On January 10, 2015, I conducted a guestless program during which I asked Halbig to answer a number of questions in response to some of the claims that he has made. Halbig has never responded which is no surprise. One may see those questions here: http://www.spingola.com/QuestionsForHalbig.html
In answer to Sigil, credentials is not the major issue. I am more apt to trust someone who discloses his exact sources so that one may verify them, someone who does not fabricate evidence or credentials. Halbig claims that the Justice Department called and asked him to investigate Columbine when, in fact, he had nothing to do with Columbine. He used dead referrals on his web site, a site that he took down three days after I interviewed him. He has made numerous other claims. Anyone may obtain one of the same certificates that Halbig has by taking a three-hour class/exam on the Internet. I cover other issues in those questions that I have asked Halbig. In as much as he has asked questions and demanded explanations, I thought it appropriate to ask him some. I do not have all of the answers. I have done a lot of research which takes a lot of effort and time. Halbig claims that he figured the whole thing out within a week. I have offered a free download of an eBook version of my book, a book that I have have totally financed and published without expecting or asking for donations to help me find the truth. I did not write the book to make money but for myself. If people buy it, great, If people do not buy it, great. I have always been more interested in seeking and sharing what I have discovered, even if it is not popular.
i feel that halbig is kind of irrelevant at this point
i kind of wrote him off after you exposed him as supporter of israel on your show
when he said israel was our greatest ally
i had to question his cognitive abilities to discern fact from fiction
plus there are other troubling allegations
but SH being a staged event does not hinge on weather wolfgang halbig is credible or not
he seems to be more of a distraction to the SH
investigation than anything else
putting people in a box to where they only focus on his set of questions
we know people were deliberately inserted into the 911 truth movement as well
weather he is planted or not i can't say for sure
Although Halbig is irrelevant at this point, the doubt he raised is still very apparent which evidently was someone's intentions. He, like Gene Rosen, is a media whore and will appear anywhere and talk to anyone even to the point of giving out his personal telephone number. Seriously, would any sane person give out his/her phone number and invite a barrage of calls?
Deanna says:
"I asked Halbig to answer a number of questions in response to some of the claims that he has made. Halbig has never responded which is no surprise."
I asked Deanna to back up her claim that next-of-kin identification of the deceased is "ALWAYS done by photo", and, like Halbig, Deanna has never responded. What goes for the goose also goes for the gander.
Deanna's statement can be heard at 75:17 in the current broadcast.
Also, what hard evidence is there that Noah Pozner was shot dead by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook? This question isn't about anybody else, or any other issue - only the alleged death of this ONE boy.
Hard, irrefutable, convincing, verifiable, EVIDENCE! Focused strictly on the details of the alleged death of this ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.
Anybody?
I provided web sites where one can see the birth/death certificates of Noah Pozner as well as evidence that the police usually, perhaps not always (poor choice of a word on my part), use photographs in a mass shooting for parents to identify the decedent.
I finally had a chance to listen to this program and was compelled to produce a video response with some clarifications and responses to Deanna's comments and assertions. This is limited just to Deanna's discussion of Wolfgang Halbig, Sofia Smallstorm and myself...
https://youtu.be/_rpc05uXzP8
Excellent video Peter.
Too bad it is buried so far back on Mami's pages.
I must say that some of the comments regarding Deanna were unnecessarily cruel since she has done some excellent work on other subjects.
Deanna suffers from an enormous blind spot when it comes to Sandy Hook and Wolfgang Halbig definitely rubbed her the wrong way from day one.
I have never heard her attack someone's character as she did Halbig's. Whether she admits it or not, definitely tried to destroy the messenger.
Post a Comment