Doomstead Diner Menu => Conspiracy => Sandy Hook School Shooting => Topic started by: peter on January 28, 2013, 07:19:23 PM

Title: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 07:19:23 PM

All relevant material from the Investigation being conducted at Fellowship of the Minds ( (FOTM) will be added here. The thread will be kept locked in order to keep it clean. Feel free to copy and paste material from here that you want to discuss in any other thread in the Sandy Hook Board.

By clean I mean all irrelevant comments will be stripped out leaving only the timeline of the investigation and comments directly contributing to clarifying the investigation. This tread will also have live links to all relevant exhibits.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 08:47:01 PM
How we know a guide on counseling children about Sandy Hook predated the massacre
Posted on January 26, 2013 by Dr. Eowyn | 34 Comments

This is the second piece by guest columnist Peter Offermann, on the Crisis Management Institute (CMI) pdf document puzzle. FOTM is grateful to Peter for giving so generously of his Internet technical knowledge and analysis.

Here is the first part of Peter’s analysis: “An Analysis of Anomalies on (Part 1),” Jan. 22, 2013.

For the background on the CMI document, see “Guide on how to talk to children about Sandy Hook 4 days BEFORE massacre,” Jan. 16, 2013. For FOTM’s other posts on the massacre, go to our “Sandy Hook Massacre” page.



CNN #2 The school these police officers were running into is NOT Sandy Hook Elementary School! See “CNN deception: Live aerial footage of police running into Sandy Hook was of another school,” Jan. 22, 2013.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 09:38:09 PM

By Peter Offermann

I will refer to 3 images in this document that show the anomalies in the Google cache records of The Arlington School’s News Items.

Document 1 ( is an image of a Google cache record showing a published date of Dec 10, 2012 which  states Google recorded it on Dec 18, 2012.

The URL below used to access the page imaged below – it now returns a 404 page error. Anyone that has copies of the image please keep it safe. (

it could also be accessed from

HTTPS:// (http://HTTPS://

by selecting to view the page.

It now returns….

Your search – inurl: … – did not match any documents. Reset search tools

click the image above to see a full resolution version
Document 1 Exhibit (

DOCUMENT 2 ( below is  an image of a google cache record showing a published Date of Dec 13, 2012 which states Google  recorded it on Jan 12, 2013.

As of this writing, January 25, 6:21pm PT it is still available at the url below. (

click the image above to see a full resolution version
DOCUMENT 2 Exhibit (

DOCUMENT 3 (  is an image of a google search return to a document Published  Date of December 13, 2013 the same as in  Document 2 (;sa=media;in=1117).

The link to this page has been disappeared by google as of today. (

DOCUMENT 3 Exhibit (

I am going to explain to you in this article how those document came to appear on the internet on the Published Dates shown, December 10, 2012 and December 13, 2012. I will also explain how the search return came into being.

In order to do this I am going to ask you to suspend disbelief so you can follow the timeline explaining the documents.

Events like 9/11 have demonstrated that news items about them appear almost instantly after such events. Many are complex documents that would be impossible to create in that short a period of time. If someone is preparing a false flag the most effective period to introduce your desired interpretation of the event is immediately after the event while people are still in shock. In order to meet a tight deadline there are many trusted people working in the background preparing documents and then sitting and waiting to pull the trigger and make them public the moment the event is planned to occur. These people are scattered all over and working off their own script with a time to make their information public.

CMI (Crisis Management Inc) which had author permissions on The Arlington School Website as a contractor to upload their material to the website as needed. They could upload, create links to their material, and publish news announcements all from their own offices without anyone from the School being involved.

The School shootings that took place in Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, were originally planned to happen on December 10, 2012.

If you check on a calendar you will see Dec 10 was a Monday and a school day so the event could have been planned for that date.

DECEMBER 10, 2012

Everyone involved with media material had the material prepared referring to the date Dec 10, 2012.

On December 10, 2012 someone at CMI was waiting to pull the trigger and publish the news item (Document 1 (;sa=media;in=1116)) and related documents such as the pdf the news item announces.

For some reason the event was called off at the last moment.

Everyone who had planned to submit material was frantically called to NOT submit their material.

The message for some reason didn’t get through to CMI in time and they submitted the pdf, created the link to it, and published the news item shown in Document 1 .

The other anomalous documents predating Dec 14, 2012 that appeared all over the Internet originated the same way.
(See “Sandy Hook RIP/donation webpages created BEFORE the massacre,” Jan. 8, 2013 (; and “Another Sandy Hook fundraiser that pre-dates the massacre,” Jan. 17, 2013. ~Eowyn) (

Because of a technicality (RSS Feed) that is explained by the developer of the program that manages the Arlington Schools site a record of the document immediately left the site and was submitted to people hooked up to the feed as well as to Google which published the item for availability in their search engine. (see document 3 exhibit (

Google took the opportunity while going to the site to capture the thumbnail of the page seen on the right of document 2 to also put it into their cache database.

In the Technical Discuss Thread at (

Jeremy the developer of the software SpireCMS which the School uses to manage their website stated: “When a news item is created in our system, it is pushed out via an RSS feed and, Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours.”

The above means the article could be found on the Google search engine on that date and also in their cache shown in Document 1.

The search record was scrubbed by Google for this Dec 10, 2012 item, but events that took place on Dec 13, 2012 caused an identical entry to be made only with a published date of December 13th. I’m not sure why it wasn’t scrubbed by Google before today. It is shown in Document 3 (;sa=media;in=1118).

DECEMBER 13, 2012

The Sandy Hook Shooting event was rescheduled to this date and was again scrubbed. It Was a Thursday, also a viable date.

It was again scrubbed for some reason.

CMI  again did not get the word to not publish in time.

They published the news item again, on Dec. 13,  but this time with a published date of Dec 13, 2012 causing another RSS submission creating Document 3 (;sa=media;in=1118)  and also a second cache record (Document 2 (;sa=media;in=1117)).

Jeremy stated above that “Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours” which means Document 1 (;sa=media;in=1116) would originally have shown either “as it appeared on 10 Dec 2012 or possibly 11 Dec 2012.”

The December 13, 2012 (Document 2 (;sa=media;in=1117)) would originally have shown either “as it appeared on 13 Dec 2012 or possibly 14 Dec 2012.”

No one in the loop realized there was an RSS feed on the news items at Arlington School and that the 2 pages (Documents 1 & 2) were recorded in the google cache.


Some bright Internet users discovered the cache records predating the actual events and all hell broke loose.

The people behind the false flag frantically tried to cover up these incriminating cache records  and the search return.

For technical reasons too complex to explain here, it was impossible to erase the records.

Publicly removing the cache document after they were found would also be suspicious.

As a temporary fix someone authorized by Google edited the records as below.

Document 1 (;sa=media;in=1116), which first read “as it appeared on 10 Dec 2012 or possibly 11 Dec 2012 was changed to read 18 Dec 2012” — a date after the events of December 14th. This document was still suspicious but at least is showed it was recorded after the event it announced.

Document 2 (;sa=media;in=1117), which first read “as it appeared on 13 Dec 2012 was changed to read “as it appeared on 12 Jan 2013” — a date after the events of December 14th. This document was still suspicious but at least is showed it was recorded after the event it announced.

To make these changes at Google would take no more than about two minutes. All that needed to be done is to select the records in the database and edit the field that holds the date Google recorded the record.

JANUARY 25, 2013

Google decided that the evidence implicating them in these events were getting too dangerous to leave available and removed them from public view even though that looks very suspicious.

This happened because I stated publicly that it is impossible for a document — published with an RSS feed request to Google — to take 30 days as shown in Document 2 and 8 days as shown in Document 1 after the developer publicly stated at ( :
JEREMY When a news item is created in our system, it is pushed out via an RSS feed and, Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours.”

There is an enormous amount of corroborating evidence that I described before at Fellowship of the Minds.

If you find the information above compelling enough to look further, and if I survive to tell about it, this discussion will be continued.

That Google is currently scrubbing the evidence does not bode well for those publicly explaining it. Although Google can hide the incriminating evidence from the public, they cannot remove the internal traces from their servers. We who made screen captures and didn’t clear our browser histories have evidence they existed to the last date we accessed it. Guard that information well.

I am going to stop here to let you consider what I said.



Peter continues to make his case that the CMI was uploaded online BEFORE the massacre, as a prosecutor would in a criminal trial. Please go to our technical discussion thread about this post, “Sandy Hook Massacre: The People v. Crisis Management Institute,” by clicking here (
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 09:44:12 PM
Jeremy | January 26, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Reply   

Friends, I am the owner of the small web design shop that designed the website and content management tool for Arlington Local Schools. Mr. Offerman wrote this essay only after ignoring a lot of evident I provided that proved his theory was wrong. It’s unfortunate that this evidence wasn’t even mentioned in this biased essay.

Regardless of your position on the larger conspiracy, the situation with Arlington Local Schools is a non-story. The truth is:

Arlington Local Schools (ALS) posted the news item on December 17, AFTER the Sandy Hook shootings.

Their website content management system provided by my Ohio-based web design company has the ability to back-date or more commonly, post-date news items. Whatever date you insert when writing a news story on the site shows up in a feed that’s pushed to Google, and that is the date they display in their search results too.

Because of a glitch with their website, ALS ROUTINELY back-dated news items to make them show up on their website home page. The school back-dated this story for Dec 10 without thinking about the implications of it having a date prior to the tragedy in Connecticut.

They posted a PDF from CMI that, according to my source at ALS was distributed to schools by email on the night of on Sunday, December 16.

CMI has no administrative access to the school’s website. In fact, ALS is a small rural school in Ohio. To suggest that a national organization would somehow post content on thousands of school websites themselves makes no sense. And even if they did for only a handful of schools, would it be one of the smallest rural schools in Ohio?

I provided this evidence in another thread on this site and it was ignored by Mr. Offerman when he wrote this essay. I’ll link to the thread below but first, here is the evidence ignored:

1. Google didn’t find the story in their search results until December 18. I was quoted out of context in the essay above, it usually takes 24 hours for Google to find news items, and the fact it showed up Dec 18 is consistent with a Dec 17 publish date.

2. In the other thread, another reader of this blog named “here” posted a series of links that showed most news stories posted by Arlington Local Schools were back-dated. This demonstrates that it was an ongoing practice by the school to back-date even routine news stories on their site.

3. I provided a video showing the Google Analytics account which tracks all activity on the Arlington Local Schools website. The video shows that no traffic flowed through this news item dated Dec 10 until Dec 17. This video can be watched here: (

4. I suggested a plan where I would post another “test story” and back date it to the date of Mr. Offerman’s choosing so he could study how it gets indexed by Google. He declined to take me up on that.

Once I submitted the third piece of evidence, and suggested #4 above, Mr. Offerman started to discount my credibility as a reliable source. Apparently because it didn’t fit with the conclusion he was desperately trying to reach.

Whether or not you believe in the larger conspiracy, I have provided strong evidence that the news item on Arlington Local Schools’ website was a result of user error, pre-dating a news story.

It’s unfortunate that Mr. Offerman left out all of this evidence when writing his essay.

You can read most of the dialogue between myself and Mr. Offerman here, if you want to subject yourself to boring reading. :) (
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 09:55:34 PM
Peter | January 26, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Reply   

So that I can place all the information I have for you to consider here in an orderly fashion I will present it in the fashion of a prosecutor in a criminal trial.

Because I cannot edit these comments please excuse any typos.

I will number comments that I will refer back to so I don’t need to quote them later on.

At the start of a Criminal Trial the Prosecutor makes a statement explaining what the Crime consists of, who he thinks is the criminal, and outlines how he intends to provide evidence showing that his case is accurate.


On December 14, 2012 there was a School Shooting Incident at the Sandy Hook School. Some days after the actual shootings documents 1 (;sa=media;in=1116), 2 (;sa=media;in=1117) & 3 (;sa=media;in=1118) in the article at the top of this thread were found on the internet. We will examine all 3 very closely to determine how they came to exist.

Documents 1 (;sa=media;in=1116) & 2 (;sa=media;in=1117) were found in Google’s Webcache, a place that records all public documents Google finds on the internet.

Document 3 (;sa=media;in=1118) was found using the Google search engine.

The published dates displayed on all three documents predate the events of Dec 14, 2012.

Document 1 (;sa=media;in=1116) shows Dec 10, 2012, Documents 2 (;sa=media;in=1117) & 3 (;sa=media;in=1118) show December 13, 2012.

Our task here is to examine and present all the evidence available to us in order to determine whether the documents originated before or after Dec 14th, 2012.

The process will have 3 stages.

1) Determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with this investigation.

If there is not enough evidence stop here.

If there is enough evidence go on to stage 2,

2) Determine the date the documents were created.

If the document are shown to originate after the events stop here.

If the documents are shown to predate the actual event proceed to Stage 3

3) Determine who is responsible for creating documents 1 (http://), 2 (;sa=media;in=1117) & 3 (;sa=media;in=1118) as they appear within Google’s servers.

If it is proven the documents did originate before Dec 14 2012 it means that someone had foreknowledge and it was a likely a massive preplanned event rather than a random shooting caused by a deranged individual.

Determining who falsified the documents will point to the guilty party by determining who had the access required to change them and also who had a motive to change them.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 09:56:58 PM
Peter | January 26, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply   


The Arlington School whose Website the documents originated from is a typical American School of which there are many thousands. If the documents in question could only be created by one of the school’s staff it is my opinion the investigation should stop right here or the investigators who continued could rightly be called conspiracy nuts.

To think that someone of the staff at this random typical school would be involved in orchestrating a false flag operation such as possibly occurred at Sandy Hook is an insane thought.

In order to proceed past this point I will present evidence meant to determine if anyone other than the staff of the school had the opportunity to create all the documents needed to cause the three documents 1, 2 & 3 to appear on the Google Servers.

I note proving that someone had the opportunity to create the documents on the School’s site without school staff participating, or knowing about their creation, does not rule out the possibility that school staff also might have created a copy. The contents of all the documents is legitimate and was placed on the website for a valid reason.

What makes the documents suspicious is their published dates and also the dates that google says they were added to their cache.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:02:01 PM
Greengirl | January 26, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Reply   

This isn’t the first false flag as more and more people are realizing. As much as I abhor obama, our government and others running it have carried out these type of (false flag) horrific acts under other administrations, hoping we citizens will not allow our thoughts to tread there, much less question, research and analyze their mistakes. And, they also hope we will find the evidence so appalling and unbelieveable we will question our own sanity preventing us from telling others at the risk of being ridiculed as conspiracy theorist nuts. They want so desperately to disarm the citizenry they finally resorted to killing children, hoping even gun advocates will agree to new legislation and laws as they refuse to seriously address the real issues of gun violence because in many cases they are the direct result of purposeful illegal actions like “Fast and Furious.” Those in control have been working mostly behind the scenes for decades manipulating and placing people in positions of power in order to orchestrate these events to make us think they are random.

My questions are:
Is there any evidence the Homeland Security training activities going on 25 miles away on the 14th may have been originally scheduled for the 10th and were also rescheduled?

How many of the various agency law enforcement task forces were actually allowed to know the real plan?

How many actors were involved?

Is mind control being used with the law enforcement and actors who are involved?

Surely some people in Sandy Hook, whether private citizens/law enforcement not involved with the murders, have to know it was staged. How many of those who have figured it out have had their lives threatened?

How many of our “honest” legislators know the truth about these false flags and have they had their lives threatened?

How can this information be presented more aggressively in order for citizens to understand what is really going on?

Are there any “trusted” agencies and individuals with clout who are brave enough to bring it to the nation and world and expose those behind it?
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:25:08 PM

The Arlington Schools, not school Website functions within computer software called SpireCMS (, The Developer of this Software and most likely the Designer of the website is present here as commenter Jeremy.

I owe him an apology for something I said in Public in the associated Technical Thread. I would say what I said to his face and also to those responsible for maintaining this website. I said what I said in Public because my communication with the staff here is limited. I am only a guest here as Jeremy is. I am ALWAYS open to changing my opinion if I discover I have been wrong.

Jeremy could provide much valuable information about the site in question if he chooses to do so. I hope he does.

I am going to place many urls / weblinks in this thread which will allow you to go to the actual sites being discussed whenever possible. Because of my limited privileges here when ever I place more than one url in a post the post is held back for moderation. This takes some time.

The website being discussed (

Visiting the site shows us the schools are located in Ohio. The website shows an address of 336 South Main Street, Arlington, Ohio 45814 Phone: 419-365-5121 Fax: 419-365-1282

I assume this is their School District’s Office.

There is an Internet Tool called Whois which when used in conjunction with a search engine such as google will return detailed information about websites.

To find out where the computers that hold the Arlington Schools Website are located, I did a whois and checked two different databases.

First whois: (

The results below
This report on Arlingtonlocalschools was ran on January, 01, 2013. Server Details
IP address:
Server Location:
San Antonio, TX in United States
Rackspace Hosting

Second whois: (

The results below
25 other sites hosted on this server. Remember this it will be important.
IP Address:
IP Location:
United States – New York – New York City
Domain Status:
Registered And Active Website

I have not included all the information available only what is relevant here. You can verify that what is here is accurate by using the url’s.

I won’t explain what everything here means just tell you what it tells me in plain english. Other techs are welcome to comment if they feel I am wrong.

The School’s Website is not Physically located in Ohio where they are. Until at least Jan 1,2013 they were on a server located in Houston Texas. The site was recently moved (Jan 1/13) to a server located in New York City.

The above means that when staff at the Arlington Schools Office sit down at a computer to manage the website, they are not working on a Website hosted locally on a computer in their offices. Until Jan 1 13 they were managing their website on a server located in Texas and from that date to the prsent on a server in New York.

Jeremy’s SpireCMS is what easily, without technical skills, allows them to do this.

Content Management Systems (CMS) such as SpireCMS and WordPress, which is used to create and manage this blog, easily allow owners with very minimal technical computer skills to make available to the public whatever information they like.

The staff person at the school in Arlington who maintains the website, could as easily be sitting here beside me in Ocean Falls and do everything they could from their office. Neither location is where the Website server computer is.

All that is required to do this is for the staff person to have a username and password with authorization as an administrator.

Obviously you don’t want everyone who uses the site to have administrator rights as anyone could then possibly do serious damage or steal confidential information.

CMS systems commonly allow a number of different levels of access. I won’t mention all of them here, only enough to illustrate what is needed.

1) End Users such as parents or children who can only comment as we guest here can, they can also possibly access areas of the site not open to the public.

2) Authors Authors are allowed more privileges than End Users but not all the privileges of an administrator. They cannot change the site layout or functioning, they can only create documents and place them where needed. While creating documents they are allowed to upload files from their own local computer to add to the document they create. The uploaded documents can be pretty much anything, a picture, a video, a song, a pdf file.

3) Administrator An admin can do everything an author can plus tweak all the controls on the site.

The link below is live and can be clicked directly to see how authority is set.


It will show the section of the wordpress control panel on one of the sites I manage that allows an administrator to authorize each member with their own unique privileges.

All that the staff person at Arlington Schools would need to do to authorize a trusted person to upload and create content on the site is to go to that members profile record, partially shown above, open the dropbox as illustrated and decide what they will allow that person to do.

That person could then access the School’s website from any internet connection in the world.

Giving such a person any privilege from author up, would allow them to do everything required to create and place the documents 1 (;sa=media;in=1116), 2 (;sa=media;in=1117), & 3 (;sa=media;in=1118) we are discussing, without the intervention from anyone directly associated with the school.

If Jeremy would be so kind as to confirm spireCMS works similarly to this and has the same capability, it would prove someone could place the documents without anyone at the school knowing about it.

If Jeremy won’t confirm this I will ask Eowyn, the owner of this site, to temporarily elevate my privileges so I can demonstrate how it is done.

The above proves to me conclusively that the possibility that someone not directly associated with the school could have uploaded and created the content we are discussing.

If we all agree with my conclusion we can continue on and next try to determine if anyone outside the school had opportunity to create the material by being given such authority.

This will be all for today, its been a long day.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:27:50 PM
Dr. Eowyn | January 27, 2013 at 4:59 am | Reply   


Thank you for the clear, step-by-step Exhibit 1.

I’ve copied-and-pasted your Exhibit 1 to the technical thread: “Sandy Hook Massacre: The People v. Crisis Management Institute.” (

You wrote:
“If Jeremy would be so kind as to confirm spireCMS works similarly to this and has the same capability, it would prove someone could place the documents without anyone at the school knowing about it. If Jeremy won’t confirm this I will ask Eowyn, the owner of this site, to temporarily elevate my privileges so I can demonstrate how it is done.”

But this blog FOTM is hosted by WordPress, not spireCMS. How would your having access to FOTM demonstrate how someone with author or admin privileges on the Arlington Schools site — Arlington Red Devils — tampered with the ARD site?
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:30:33 PM
Peter | January 27, 2013 at 10:01 am | Reply   

I would like to pause this investigation for a moment to discuss a matter possibly related to it.

The world recently suffered a great loss, when it lost Aaron Swartz to suicide?


Aaron was like a beacon of shinning light in a mostly gray and foreboding world. He was highly intelligent and principled. He made all of our lives brighter. He was in the forefront of the fight to keep the internet a place of openness and honesty rather than let it become a closed tool only beneficial to powerful interests such as the mass media now is.

Aaron was directly responsible for helping create the RSS newsfeed standard that caused documents 1, 2 above to be created.

We do not know who first first discovered the existence of those documents. Their discovery was a massive win for internet openness. Whoever that person was would need to have a deep understanding of how and where information is stored on the internet. Also how it is indexed for easy retrieval.

Aaron was that type of individual. He also had the intent to serve Truth and Justice, particularly on the internet.

The events at Sandy Hook were very likely to attract his attention. He very probably started researching on the internet to find the truth using the needed tools, which he was intimately familiar with.

RSS feeds, the standards of which he helped put in place, allow search engines to report news items created on the internet, about important events, almost instantly. Being an expert on how RSS feeds function and where the records that such feeds create are stored, he very likely started to search through those records to see what he could find.

Aaron likely discovered the RSS feed record the Arlington Schools Website sent out that announced rightly or wrongly that the events at Sandy Hook School occurred on December 10th, 2012, 4 days before they actually happened. Discovering the RSS record would have allowed Aaron to find the Google cache record document 1 with only one click.

In the normal course of events it is highly unlikely anyone would ever have found those records. Only the RSS record would publicly show it existed. To initially find the record directly in the cache would require knowing the documents exact URL and name. If no one knew of the documents existence, they would not know what to look for.

Who ever that person was owe them a huge debt of gratitude. I strongly suspect Aaron was the one to discover that record at Google. He likely paid for that discovery with his life.

With that highly likely possibility in mind I would like to dedicate this Investigation to Aaron. Whether or not he was the one who first found these records, his efforts in developing RSS feeds were instrumental in their being discovered.

We all owe it to Aaron to make sure that his efforts to make the world a better place are continued and built upon until the world is a place of justice and honor as he attempted to create.

This investigation would not be taking place without principled people like Aaron struggling to protect everyone’s rights.

Aaaron, Thank you. (
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:39:32 PM
Peter | January 27, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Reply   

I will respond to Jeremy within the ordered structure of this investigation. There are a couple of steps in between. It will likely be two days before I get there.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:41:47 PM
Peter | January 28, 2013 at 11:34 am | Reply   

My apologies for the delays, I was gathering research material in the background.

I had planned to be back before now but have had a second more serious computer malfunction since entering this conversation. My computer is maintained to the level where normal mean times between failure are in the years. Two failures within days during this conversation concerns me to the point where I feel I need to take another couple of hours to further protect my ability to recover from such events.

It is also snowing heavily here which interferes with my satellite link to the internet.

I will resume here later today.

Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:43:28 PM
joandarc | January 28, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Reply   

Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this thought-provoking post. Thank you also Peter for your professional analysis of what is happening in this matter. As to Jeremy stating that posts are pre-dated and post-dated, my question is: What would be the point or benefit for someone to pre-date the Sandy Hook event? What purpose would this serve if this alleged pre-dating was done deliberately?
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:44:21 PM
Dr. Eowyn | January 28, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Reply   


It is not that Crisis Management Institute (CMI) deliberately pre-dated its guide on “How to talk to children about Sandy Hook tragedy”. Rather, Peter has presented the case showing CMI unintentionally and inadvertently pre-dated the guide. Originally, Sandy Hook was planned for Dec. 10, and so CMI and other sites did “their part”, resulting in CMI leaving a footprint of having uploaded the guide onto the Internet on Dec. 10 — which was captured by Google cache.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:45:56 PM
Jeremy | January 28, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Reply   

That’s Peter’s theory. But the fact is, they went in on Monday morning, December 17, after getting an email from CMI on Sunday night, December 16, and published the story, back-dating it for December 10 so that it would show up on their home page… not even thinking about the confusion it would create. The fact that every news story they posted for months prior was pre-dated supports this, and not Peter’s theory.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:47:19 PM
joandarc | January 28, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Reply   

Thank you Dr. Eowyn. I did not understand the pre-dating issue and what happened.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:48:23 PM
Jeremy | January 28, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Reply   

Good question. “here” posted a comment on the technical thread showing that ALS had been routinely pre-dating news posts for months. They did this because of a glitch on their website that was causing news items to not appear on their home page when dated with today’s date. We could have fixed the glitch for them, but weren’t aware of the problem. This was a “hack” way to make the news items show up on the home page.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:49:25 PM
Dr. Eowyn | January 28, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Reply   


Does this comment mean you will accept my invitation to be the counsel for the Defense in our mock “The People v. Crisis Management Institute (” trial? Recall that I had extended the invitation to you by email, but you declined. (
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:52:11 PM
Jeremy | January 28, 2013 at 2:09 pm | Reply   

No. I feel like I have presented my case already, and Peter’s approach is ridiculous. I don’t have time to go through it at that level. When I see other readers that care enough to ask questions, I will clarify my viewpoint with them, as I did here. But I’m not going to go through a process that Peter dictates only to have my credibility and/or existence (!!!) questioned later like he did last time. I’ve laid out tons of evidence, and I am accepting the fact that people will ultimately believe what they choose to believe. That’s why we have blogs, right?
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:54:25 PM
Dr. Eowyn | January 28, 2013 at 2:12 pm | Reply   

“But I’m not going to go through a process that Peter dictates….”

Peter is a commenter on FOTM, just like you. I really don’t appreciate your portraying FOTM as being “dictated” by Peter. My invitation to you is precisely so that you get a forum to present your case, systematically and in your own fashion.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 10:55:43 PM
Jeremy | January 28, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Reply   

Dr. Eowyn, fair enough. I didn’t mean that FOTM as a whole was dictated by Peter. I wouldn’t still be contributing at all if it were. I just meant that this suggested “prosecution” vs “defense” approach allows the prosecutor to set the tone and then the defense must respond to his claims. And frankly, I quit reading what he wrote 3 days ago. When he’s done, let me know. In a few paragraphs, I will then summarize what I already had to say and let readers reach their own conclusions. Thanks for including me.
Title: Re: Sandy Hook School Shooting Clean Version of Investigation.
Post by: peter on January 28, 2013, 11:54:46 PM
Peter | January 28, 2013 at 11:53 pm | Reply

I am up and running again and will be present here most of the day tomorrow.

This material is confusing enough to understand going through it in an orderly fashion. Jumping all over the place makes it impossible. I will continue on in a plodding but orderly way. My estimation currently is that it will take about 4 days to go through the evidence still before us and make sense of it.

I will respond to all the points Jeremy has made when we reach the place in the investigation they apply to. At that point we will explore in detail what he says as well as what happened.

The exploration needs to be as detailed as what I have presented above. Vague statements from Jeremy about what happened are not proof. We will take the computer processes that Jeremy says caused the bug requiring pre-dating of news items at Arlington Schools apart step by step and see if they make sense. If not we will explore other ways to explain the documents in question.

Because this is not an official investigation we do not have the right to gather all the required evidence. We cannot compel anyone to contribute. We will need to work around that problem.

 At times the investigation will be like putting together a jig saw puzzle. It will be acceptable to place pieces on the table that we don't know exactly where they fit, or are true, were we think they might go.

We will then go on and fit as many other pieces around them as possible, that we do know for a fact are true. Eventually the area around the unproven pieces will become so small they can only fit in the puzzle in one way. At the end of the investigation if all the pieces fit together, leaving no holes, or left over pieces, we can assume the result proven.

I am after the truth here not to build a false case. If there is an innocent explanation  for these document, we will come to know that for a fact. Even though I have serious reservations about such a possibility, I hope that is the case. If the documents are shown to prove foreknowledge of the events of December 14th 2012, the list of possible culprits is very small. That is a very scary thought.

If an investigation proving definitely that the Sandy Hook School Shootings were a False Flag ever became public on a large scale, it would be a world changing event.

I will start the morning tomorrow by responding to two points Jeremy made above. One relates to material I presented above, the other relates to what we will explore next.

See you all tomorrow.