Thursday, 31 January 2013

Barry Jennings and family, 9/11 disappearance

Sent by Winston Wu:

Barry Jennings, the last man who exited Building 7 before its mysterious and unprecedented collapse, reported hearing a big explosion as well as stepping over bodies as he was running down the stairs to get out. His testimony is corroborated by Michael Hess, who was also trapped in the building. He later retracted his testimony (probably due to being threatened), but it was recorded and can be seen or heard on YouTube or on 9/11 websites.

Jennings died mysteriously in 2008 under unexplained circumstances. An announcement was given at his place of work, but there was no independent corroboration of it. Chillingly, his family also disappeared at the same time. They moved away from their home and became untraceable. No one knows what happened to Jennings or his family. What's more, investigators were also unable to locate any death certificate or autopsy pertaining to him. Dylan Avery, creator of the 9/11 film series "Loose Change", paid a private investigator to find out what happened to Jennings and his family. But after a week of looking into it, the PI refunded his money and told him to never contact her again, without any further explanation. It would seem that something creepy is going on and smacks of foul play. Again, if the government has nothing to hide, why would they silence key witnesses and their families like that? Or could Jennings and his family be in some kind of witness protection program?

For more on Barry Jennings' testimony, his unexplained death and the disappearance of his family, see these links:

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

Obama's 2nd Inaugueral: austerity: joins Cameron, etc.

Tax the toxic "banking" (flash trades) "1% Wall St Sales Tax 1%"
/ "1% City of London Sales Tax"
/ "1% Bay St Sales Tax" (Canada),


initiate price parity for farms,
no primary home foreclosures,
forgive student debt,
nationalize the central bank(s) -- the Fed, the "National" Bank of Canada, etc.
... force 0% credit tranches to real production,
United Front Against Austerity (UFAA)

Victim fake (missing) photo & missing on tribute video

Allison Wyatt, Sandy Hook child victim turned up to have a fake (wrong) photo, as published in the UK Daily Mail and elsewhere. The photo was taken from another family's open, public Flickr album and the family name is not similar at all. (Part 1 -- of the same video set made by the person below, but censored by Youtube on their own site; was mirrored at this link. Got well known enough, it seems, that they didn't take down the mirror version here.)

The victim name and ANY photo are missing from the tribute video: (Part 2)

If this is a pre-set operation where nobody was supposed to die (or very few), this would make sense ... while the Wyatt photo was in dispute, put up no photo on the tribute video, so as to call less attention to her, for those who can be counted as uninformed public.

Summary of Lanza Newtown SSDI info - for actual links see other post

UPDATE Feb. 5, 2013: they've now changed the death date on SSDI, which feeds to Genealogy Bank. It now says Dec 14. See this for original Genealogy Bank info: (on-screen demo that info from SSDI is fed as Dec 13, just as Intelhub article linked shows in screenshot from SSDI). For an example see 

The fact that it says "proved" for the death on the 13th, is important.

Yet, one thing this article does not deal with is the question of whether it is the SAME Adam Lanza -- clerical error or no, on the SSDI.

Fortunately, we have proven now that it is the same Adam Lanza.

There is an article from New Hampshire, written a little while after the shooting, which discussed a local nurse who looked up Adam, in curiosity. She found the newspaper announcement of the birth. Her cropped image from the newspaper shows the picture of the baby, the date of birth (and weight of baby), full name. And of course the names of the parents would have been given (though they're not in her cropped image from the newspaper).

So: Adam Peter Lanza was born on the same day in New Hampshire as the SSDI Adam P Lanza's age would indicate, whose state of death was New Hampshire.

For the actual proof ...
with links to the New Hampshire article and screen shots, see: )

Note: SSDI uses a double-proof provess; they require the state of death (if died in the US) to issue the forms to them: funeral homes or coroner or local registry, NOT Bureau of Vital Statistics. (To see a death cert, redacted, once it's submitted, one must have the SSN and pay a fee.)

And where are the death certs for the other dead ... ALL of them? I'd love to see those. (If it was a mix of real -- maybe mistakes? -- and phoney deaths -- planned, so there would be no deaths? -- for a covert operation.)

There was a LIVE ("active") school shooter drill nearby, not just a FEMA class on the subject in Bridgeport. Lt Vance of Newtown confirmed the live shooter drill; it seems to have been in St Rose of Lima school. EMS workers complained that there were so many people hanging around, it seemed as if it was a drill.

Saturday, 26 January 2013

Injustice Facts -- Media: Prof Tracy vs CNN

There are 1500 newspapers,
1100 magazines,
9000 radio stations,
1500 TV stations,
2400 publishers,
owned by only 3 corporations.

Anderson Cooper Vanderbilt, you who spent 2 summers in CIA youth camp, watch your face ... your nose and forehead just fell off!!
Isn't it the dead kid who's supposed to have injuries?

Oh that's right, you're on green screen, not at his funeral. Poor Noah Pozner, you and his mom(?) couldn't even make it for his death -- his funeral:

Other ...
Fake news from Anderson Cooper & network, on Syria:

Fake news from CNN in First Gulf War:

SO ..........
A response to Anderson Cooper's Sandy Hook attack on Professor James Tracy, Florida:

Militant subgroups and how to think about them


To all who wonder about Adam ... a guy put up a hoax, making Adam into an "anarcho-Marxist".

This was a hoax, as pointed out by the following:

conspiracycritic729 January 2013 07:05

The guy responsible is named Cole can Google this guy to see his background as a scammer, I also have a post showing screen caps from the Facebook post where he admits it's not real. Also some Lanza comparison photos collaged together...looks to me like 3 different kids. Let me know what you think...keep up the great work!

However,  My points below, due to the important way people get worried about groups or, on the other hand consider these radical forms of groups to be something worthwhile is worth reading. A lot of people jump into assumptions about the person if they're "a Marxist", "a neo-Nazi", "an Anarchist", "an anarcho-Libertarian", "a Militia Radical", "a John Bircher" or whatever.

So, please read the following so you might not be as worried in hearing of some radical type or other, and fall into predictable thinking, which the managers of such groups for false flags, WANT you to be thinking:

To all who might freak out about his saying he's an Anarcho-Communist (just as those other people might freak if they saw "neo-Nazi" or "Conservative Radical") ...

let's remember what these groupings mean.

Most inside each grouping think they're economically and socially saving the world.
The Communists in general point to inequality of top vs. bottom economics; some get radical and WHEN RADICALIZED AND FIGHTING will fight all order, as "Anarchists", thinking it's good to get rid of (or complain about) all governance and corporate economic power.

Same thing occurs, with different overtones, with neo-Nazis and also Conservative radical Liberty/Anarchy groups, again WHEN RADICALIZED AND FIGHTING, will also fight order.

But in the case of neo-Nazis, people think, in general, that the economic and social inequality would be solved with brief anarchy of the streets but organized with intense government crackdowns (in a way, like radical Communists); they also tend to mix it with xenophobia an bigotry in many cases, against the slave class of immigrants or ghettoized poor in their region or a group (often race) through another country, if they think that country is bringing their own down. The neo-Nazis are the least socially liked in their non-radical forms, but my point is that they are seeing an economic problem and social distress; they do, however, blame the victims of the system (immigrant low-wage earners, for example) for being part of what ends up ruining the other victims (higher wage earners). The real solution is not to hate the other victims. (For the accused lone nutter gunman of the Norway bombing and shooting, as an example of a probable nut who was part of a ring: and for the photo from a helicopter which supposedly wasn't in the air that day, NOW TAKEN DOWN, and the police uniform: --- and note the confusion in this article about "Christian Conservatism", as if that's a good thing not a bad one, but in many cases these groups, WHEN RADICAL overlap in ideology: )

The lattermost (the most radicalized "militarized right wing liberty talkers", such as Tim McVeigh was supposedly -- though that doesn't mean he did the damage to Oklahoma City Murrah Building as accused: ) tend to call for revolution (a form of brief anarchy) and even to topple all large-scale government permanently (making them different than the Communist and neo-Nazi anarchists, ironically). But in their case, the flavour comes in that business without government plans telling anybody what to do is fine -- that business, left unfettered, that this is "liberty" in the end, for people, that all government restrictions are mere impostitions.

NO ONE GROUP IS ALL RADICAL AND CRAZY; THEY ALL HAVE POINTS ABOUT REALITY, BUT MIS-ASSIGN THE MEANS TO CHANGE THINGS AND SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS ARE OVER-STATED. That's what is the problem, as to why these groups attract some people who would otherwise not think to do wrong. So a person can be right to point out some of the points the groups make, but if they fall into these things as a group (often infiltrated, even controlled and used), without seeing the whole picture of where their leaders might take them, in a more RADICAL form, they can end up espousing the worst elements.

These are the generalizations which describe these ideologues, when they are RADICALIZED AND FIGHTING. They end up having quite a few similar aspects, in results. Each type is not worse or better, when extreme.

Thus, a young person (or older) who falls into trying to "help" the world and falls in with ANY group which is often controlled or infiltrated by very manipulative ideologues and rogue agents (sometimes the same thing), can end up participating in an operation or fall prey to being a patsy.

Thus, let's not say that Adam is particularly wilder than ANY radicalized and possibly fighting member of a group. Let's understand the kinds of groups that could be behind the Sandy Hook thing, if any.

These groups intermingle in ways which would surprise some of their members. See my posts on Columbine and Satanism, and Columbine and neo-Nazis for examples. (
and )

**Proof** Adam Lanza *IS* dead SSDI guy Dec 13 - SAME ADAM

UPDATE Sept 12, 2015:

Actually, the drill for Sandy Hook event was set for Dec. 13. The manual is now available (leaked). This is why Adam's death date was Dec. 13. The birth notice below is likely concocted and all pictures of "Adam" are of the brother.

The house was empty by every indication. Nancy was Annie Haddad, a teacher at another school (St. Rose of Lima), where also the principal for "Sandy Hook", an empty school itself, was also working.

Those two are probably paid off like the rest of the participants, but in their cases in witness protection (unless, by making plans with crooked intel, they have been killed). is a good short page on the Annie Haddad aspect of this problem.

On April 12, 2013, I commented below in some updates, still assuming Adam was real, but at least the comments directly below give some idea of the sources for the planted newspaper article this post was originally about, and show my thought process at the time. So I am leaving them.

UPDATES Apr 12, 2013:
1. This page is a favourite with many around the world. But first, For persons doubting if the Lanzas exist, let me make a point: Lanza family is not likely to be entirely fake, per this obviously very likely real newspaper announcement below -- i.e., this post itself, about Adam's own birth, as you'll see (and the following: ). True, a whole family can be made up, but too many are rushing to that conclusion without considering the opposite possibility. Note that SSDI records are done Locally only, so when Adam died, whoever submitted his record would be local and likely truly did submit a Dec. 13 date accurately, for whatever reason he died or was murdered. --------- However, if Adam Lanza himself IS a totally fake person, and so is this buried story you'll see below (from Dec. 16, talking to a supposedly distraught New Hampshire archivist and nurse), then fine. Sandy Hook story is so filled with unknowns, let's not be dogmatic. But one way or another, few realized there was any sure connection between Lanza and any early life.

2. Another fact has come to my attention: the GUN SHOP may be a Day Spa, from every available piece of evidence. Now to be torn down, it also has two photos. While it seems there is a light pole in one and not in the other, this could be from angle shift, but the parking lot paint job differs as well. Is this a foreground/background mismatch of Photoshop compositry? The photo with the inconsistent foreground also has night-time lit signs whose size and position don't match the smaller ones in the daytime photo (are they added for effect)?

Now on to the original post ...


Well, looky here. The name Adam Lanza does exist somewhere before Dec. 14. If this image was not created from someone else's newspaper article (faked -- and it doesn't look fake) then Adam was not from Connecticut, but from New Hampshire originally.. The purpose of this post was to show that from this image and the article about it, the SSDI listing of death on Dec 13 in New Hampshire and the "P" in the SSDI listing were indeed linked to our story. The Dec 13 date for this fellow is now changed to Dec 14.

Adam is the same guy as the SSDI Dec. 13 record, as shown on SSDI screen shot (Intelhub) and in Genealogy Bank and (per live screenshot videos on Youtube). The P in the SSDI record and the location (New Hampshire, not Connecticut) for the source, confirm that the SSDI listing of Dec 13 (Edit: now changed to Dec 14 after this post went up) is the same Adam.

Aside: the SSDI does not mean Lanza collected Social Security money; it's his ID number record of death. (Someone was confused about that.)

UPDATE Feb. 5, 2013: they've now changed the death date on SSDI, which feeds to Genealogy Bank. It now says Dec 14. See this for original Genealogy Bank info: and (on-screen demos that info from SSDI is fed as Dec 13, just as Intelhub article linked shows in screenshot from SSDI). For an example, see

It's a crime to fake those. Will they provide any? Let's demand them!!!)

2. Now we CAN FINALLY know that it's the same Adam Lanza: he's dead on Dec. 14 in Connecticut (according to the shooting), and dead on Dec. 13 in New Hampshire (according to the SSDI). How do we know he's the same?

SSDI -- Social Security Death Index -- with an Adam P Lanza dead in New Hampshire on Dec 13, and Sandy Hook's Adam P Lanza MATCH birthdates and state.

The proof is below.

But first,
In case you didn't know, SSDI has Adam P Lanza dead the day before Sandy Hook, in New Hampshire. We didn't know until now, however, if it's the same Adam Lanza as the Sandy Hook shooter. Here is the SSDI info:

Now we CAN FINALLY know that it's the same Adam Lanza: he's dead on Dec. 14 in Connecticut (according to the shooting), and dead on Dec. 13 in New Hampshire (according to the SSDI). How do we know he's the same?

Adam's parents met and married in New Hampshire. And ...
as per here:

Adam P Lanzas birth notice in the Exeter News-Letter, New Hampshire, on June 16th, 1992, same as the Adam P Lanza recently noted as deceased in the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) on December 13th in New Hampshire must be the Adam Lanza responsible for the Newtown shootings. Adams mother and father met and married in New Hampshire. The funeral, a private one, was held for 25 family members in New Hampshire. He wasn't mentioned in his mothers obituary. He had no obituary of his own. The date of the 13th is a clerical error or on the conspiracy theory side. Either way, it's the same Adam Lanza.

[Believe it or not, though he says sometimes I'm disinfo spreading or even an agent myself, this find was provided by Sandy Hook debunker, but conspiracy 9/11 theorist, Jeff Prager.

It is actually typical of sophistic techniques -- in this case, applied by Jeff Prager -- to take remote possibilities and then promote them to probabilities and eventually treat them as certainties. Most persons who do this, do so willfully but not consciously; they slip into it because they want so much for a result to be so. Jeff has thought that collecting possibilities and discussing them is sophistic (my work here), but I am not trying to stretch things beyond a reasonable false flag storyline ... whereas he's taking things out of context and then stretching them. He is not an agent, a disinfo type, as he accuses me of being sometimes, but he is willful. 

It seems he's found this proof of Lanza's same birthdate for Sandy Hook and the SSDI Dec. 13 death record, due to my insistence there's something we have to check out here. Fyi, just for the record, Jeff's idea is that this can't be ON the conspiracy side -- but was a bone thrown to researchers, or even by me deliberately (I didn't make it up or find the SSDI thing), to make us all THINK there was a conspiracy, instead of ITS BEING on that side of the argument. I suppose you could say that about almost -- almost -- any argument. Jeff seems to be willing to explain all things away in a case, except nuclear product in dust, as per the USGS surveys at the WTC area on 9/11 ... which he pointed out to us all, was impossible without some nuclear event going on on that day. ----- But he did find this birthdate info., in spite of his belief that every inconsistency on Sandy Hook has to be thrown to the public to confuse legitimate conspiracy research.]

Well, since I find the idea of an entirely real event presented with false info (such as a wrong SSDI entry) put out just to mess with out heads as researchers, to be stretching likelihood ... and in spite of your horrible assumptions about me,
Thank you, Jeff.

More about the reasoning follows the two screen shots.

Screen shots (2 of them) of the whole article linked above:

Technically, it's possible to have a clerical error. It's stretching credulity to have all the problems we do with the story and the reporting on green screens and so on ... I think ...

But it's technically possible. I think a jury of regular, non-prejudiced persons on either side would agree with the unreasonableness of the Jeff Prager position, but it's not UNREASONED; it's technically possible.

So now, if we do NOT have a clerical error and it's the same Adam ... Satanic cults protected by paramilitary took him out (man behind Soto is a possible indication of the presence of such types and Adam's friend saying he was really into Satanism)? Military assassination took him out? Was sick before? What?

I am not ruling out some Mossad or other involvement, including Vatican ... a man dressed as a priest was reported as entering and being the shooter; nun or priest costume in the van from Duff's sources ... are possibly each true and need consideration in the "maybe pile."

As to Jeff, he really wants a probably dead-too-early Adam -- whom he accused me of not understanding was likely not the same guy -- to have committed this crime. Okay, so maybe he did; but I think not.

Jeff doesn't realize that predictions from a theory are part of how we know it is correct -- at least MUCH of the time, but not always. We could have the wrong theory and happen to be right it's the same Adam, sure, but his accusation of me as being crazy to have even supposed it MIGHT be the same Adam, and then to put me down ANYWAY when he finds out it IS the same Adam is patently unfair.

Even so, let's admit we don't have direct proof exactly that it IS the same Adam, if he wants to be technical about it!!!!!!!!!!!!! Same birth date and state and middle initial, but it's not stated who the deceased's parents are! How about that, for being technical.

But on that, he's willing to cut the cake. Not on conspiracy, but that Adam "must" be the same. Well, Jeff, technically NOT.

In his note to me he even said Adam must be the same and then, hypocritically, added "Duh"! As if that had been his position before.

I have put up his theory on my post, and have also mentioned clerical error. I have also mentioned the fact Adam may well have died before the crime.

So now, if we do NOT have a clerical error and it's the same Adam ... Satanic cults protected by paramilitary took him out (man behind Soto is a possible indication of the presence of such types and Adam's friend saying he was really into Satanism)? Military assassination took him out? Was sick before? What?

I am not ruling out some Mossad or other involvement, including Vatican ... a man dressed as a priest was reported as entering and being the shooter; nun or priest costume in the van from Duff's sources ... are possibly each true and need consideration in the "maybe pile."

Friday, 25 January 2013

Police & Gene Rosen & A Cooper against green screen

Easier and cheaper to do Anderson Cooper with Veronique Pozner not at funeral?
Easier and better lighting to get Gene Rosen inside, instead of at his tree-lined driveway?
Easier and ... ? to get the police (or what?) inside a nice studio?


Gene Rosen's nose and edge of glasses:

Line along police faces:


Note missing forehead (and nose compression) Anderson Cooper (see details about this in previous post, yesterday: ).



And here, shorter examples, including Anderson Cooper in TWO examples, not one (though both are from same shot as post yesterday showed -- but I talked about in more detail of one of the examples, and that video shows that one close up):

Victim Pozner's aunt marries uncle - TWICE: 1=day after shooting

Noah Pozner (a Sandy Hook kid victim)'s aunt marries the uncle Alexis Haller who works for the Vatican, defending it against child abuse crimes, and who is now pushing gun law changes in the US. But they marry both in 2004 AND the day after the shooting, Dec. 15, 2012.

Married twice? Common law engagement and then marriage? Celebrating life, in honour of Noah, when the nephew has just died? --- Or PR stories messed up by agents? --- Or happy to have a whole new infusion of cash into the family?

1. Haller and Alexis Haller got Married

December 15, 2012

[Facebook comments:]
13 people like this.
Allison McDonald One of my favorite spots [posts?]
December 16, 2012 at 12:21am

Shonda Maupin Folsom Congratulations on your marriage
December 16, 2012 at 7:39pm


then right above that! read below ...


Share FriendshipMore

Victoria Haller and Alexis Haller
Victoria Haller and Alexis Haller Timeline

Relationship Status: Married since May 29, 2004


And what about the kids of these Hallers? They supposedly played regularly with Noah and his twin sister. But there are no photos of the kids together.

Is this weirdness ignis fatuus (distracting "ghost ships" for the public, i.e., mistakes during an operation and "false leads") or is it a set of genuine natural oddities?

Also, the Pozner family has a FUND set up, asking for at least $1, to help with the funeral. These Pozner and Haller people are MEGA RICH and don't need a fund. ("Noah's Ark of Hope Fund")

No info on income for Parkers. But they're at least crass: they set up a Credit Union fund the day of the shooting, Dec. 14 -- now defunct.)

Scott Getzinger was prop master of Truman Show movie

Scott Getzinger, property master (props for film) for The Dark Knight film, which had Sandy Hook's name on a map, changed from the initial version (per previews), and who died and lived in Newtown, Connecticut, was also prop master on the Truman show. (For info on the death of this important witness to the inside of the Sandy Hook prop in the Dark Night movie, see this other post here, "Dark Knight Rises: New info SH" from Jan. 9, 2013.)

 "The Truman Show" movie (general info):
This movie about simulated reality -- living a CIA media reality dream of fake news, fake reality, in effect.

Anyone familiar with fake news ... (I'll try to go back and get links of examples other than the one for Sandy Hook and Anderson Cooper on a green screen, but I'm busy right now and wanted to post this anyway) ... Anyone familiar with fake news will know that we have absolute proofs and constant likelihood proofs.

Did he know and was he personally interested in fighting (or helping) fake reality "mass propaganda" or, as it's called by some who loosely lump it in with more direct forms of psychological operations, "mass mind control"?

Technically speaking: does his working on The Truman Show prove a case for Sandy Hook conspiracy? No. But not all things which are part of a conspiracy and persons or mind-sets which helped make it happen are enough to prove the whole conspiracy, on their own, after. They can be things which show a contribution, or a likely contribution. Perhaps Getzinger was interested in or knew of CIA interference in film and TV and news -- was into it or was unhappy with it, or simply knew when Sandy Hook's name was put into the film Dark Knight Rises, and how the 322 (Skull and Bones) and Aurora references got in.

It may well be that he was aware of the fakeness of his medium, even reveled in it, but was killed to cover up his exposing something about the Sandy Hook prop and Aurora highlighted name and 322 Skull and Bones reference on the sports viewing box (?) in the Dark Knight Rises film.

Artists and tech on media productions know things (as some others do) and have a chance to express them; also, they may see or hear things happen in their workplace which are suspicious (as some other people do). Only that artists and tech in media productions also are hearing things which affect millions.

Anderson Cooper Vanderbilt's green screen: missing forehead & nose

UPDATE: March 30, 2013: Someone has written this off as compression problems here:

But they miss the glances which don't add up into normal line of sight or the editing sound clicks (or even the context of other video with clear card-reading and lines round faces; see post from next day to this one). So ... I seriously doubt it's all compression.


The son of Gloria Vanderbilt wasn't on location for the Pozner funeral. There was a green screen.

The video maker focuses on the nose, which compresses at the shadow feature in the architecture visually behind him.

But the real clue that this is not compression from computer glitches is that his forehead a split second later moves past the shadow, skipping it. The forehead's grey scale (colour/ brightness) was of the same level as the shadow in the green screen's superimposed image.

To me, the breeze on Mrs. Pozner looks fake, too. Could be just a nice constant light wind, however.

If not fake news: was he just saving on travel expenses and the image was composited without any other deviousness??

He's reading cards to his right, most likely: he keeps his face expressionless to try to hide it, but he is reading to his right, per his eyes and his pause in movement overall.

BeforeItsNews has an excellent article on how the sound edits also betray the interpolation of Cooper into the shot. Was the mother there either?

Remember, the other grieving mother he interviewed was reading cards to her left (her eye movements shift around, as if thinking, then focus to her left, as if gazing for thought, but they focus, and repeatedly do so).

Could she just be given aids, so her interview -- so smiling, not the odd smiling memory -- goes more smoothly? Or not.
(from 2:40 min's on)

Anderson Cooper spent 2 summers in a CIA camp as a youth. Is this relevant to a possible "left-CIA" (as distinct from "right-CIA") faction coup at Sandy Hook?


And also, the Pozners put up a notice that even $1 donations on Facebook would help, but they're mega rich.

The Parkers put up a donation fund on the day of, with a Credit Union but it was taken down. Too crass and was noticed, eh?

Or not.

Thursday, 24 January 2013

My new show - In contrast to Jeff Prager ...

Here is an accolade for doing a pretty good job in presenting BOTH sides -- not perfect, but I don't claim to be --

From Gary King, today, about a show I did about Sandy Hook, yesterday, on WSGO AM 990 New Orleans, a locally owned talk radio station:

Here is the podcast link... I hope you approve of the liner notes. Thank you for such a great show.  [...]  Clare, I respect everything you are doing and many people called me to comment on your show and were so impressed that someone so young could be that awake as well as approaching the subject so objectively by giving both sides equal consideration. I know it hurts to be ridiculed by people you love not living in the real world and are victims of hardcore propaganda. What will happen is that in a few years the very same people will come to you and say" Ya know you were right about all of those thing" As far as your peers, not many people your age even have a clue, just excuse them for they know not what they say. You are on the level of people with PHD's and 35 years of teaching college level courses. Don't let it get you down, it comes with the territory. I can promise you one thing, there are many people in New Orleans that are interested in what Clare Kuehn has to say. There is a reason I asked you to be on my show. I personally have listened to your shows on The Real Deal several times to make sure I got the most out of it. Do Not Underestimate Clare Kuehn! Do so at your own peril. Gary King

So I say ...
Thanks, Gary!

Jeff Prager plans an attack on me

UPDATE Apr. 9, 2013: Prager has gotten so upset that he's quit formal 9/11 research for now. He has done so at what he interprets as Dr. Jim Fetzer and my idiocy on Sandy Hook, thinking instead that all problems found in the Sandy Hook event, are due to media error and misuse of a real and natural event by propagandists such as Cass Sunstein to mislead good 9/11 researchers such as Jim (he doesn't count me there anyway).


Having gone everywhere from calling me an operative to dumber than a sack of rocks, to saying other more sexually explicit things ...

Jeff Prager has taken the position that all is reporting error and some form of natural grieving process (because we smile, we must hyperventilate and smile again, Jeff, is that it? -- per Robbie Parker).

For honesty's sake, here is Jeff Prager's video about Sandy Hook: His attack on me will come on his blog, he says. You'll see that in the thread below. (Sorry: including a thread from e-mail makes this post long, but I encourage you to eyeball it all the way through.)

Yes, this is the Jeff Prager who's done such a great job finding and promoting the USGS's multiple nuclear product data samples from the WTC area.


He thinks the reporting changes for Sandy Hook were partly to CREATE a suggestion that this was a conspiracy, to make citizen researchers jump, so that they look silly when they go look at other "real" events, such as 9/11, "as distinct from" Sandy Hook. He has also gone so far, at times, to suggest that I am a person who is "deliberately spreading their lies" about Sandy Hook. So the material suggesting conspiracy or mistakes for Sandy Hook reports is set up, in his mind, to suggest that there was a conspiracy for us to jump on and discredit ourselves; also that I, on purpose, as an agent, or due to "psychological insanity" have been spreading this idea. So he thinks that many misstatements or haste from researchers -- such as Mike Powers -- is spread by a government piggybacking on a real Sandy Hook event to make all the conspiracy researchers look wrong.

Prager demonstrates that he doesn't realize Rosen changed his story so much.

He also didn't listen through the WHOLE Mike Powers interview, IN CASE.

He's convinced the gov't is using us as weirdos and bad news reporting and maybe some fake news to throw us into a frenzy and discredit us.

He suggests that Adam doesn't have medical prescription or doctor records because some people (such as Jeff himself) don't; but the whole case now rests on his medicated state.

He says there's a lack of prescriptions for Adam Lanza because Jeff doesn't go for prescriptions himself! But the whole Lanza-perpetrator case is based on no motive except his highly medicated "psychological sickness" profile (now that his mother is not supposed to have been working at the school in any volunteer or official capacity).

He's very afraid that if one is into conspiracy research enough to question everything, as in question so as to basically "run with the conspiracy possibility enough to build whatever case is there and determine if that is so", one will discredit the "legitimate" false flag events such as 9/11. And I do understand that -- but I gave up on judging people outright for mistakes or being into things I thought were weird. I learned from some of them, so I let them be.

He also has the attitude that if facts can fit EITHER side, they ought to be trounced, until something definite pops up on one side. The problem with that, as I explain in the radio show below, is that SOME clincher items in a case show up as CONNECTORS between two maybes, not as individual items alone. He seems to miss this.

He has in fact corrected some facts along the way, as well, and I and anyone reading this blog have him sometimes to thank for corrections I've made. But he has the attitude that my not being careful on every piece as it comes in -- usually I am pretty good with that, but not always -- means that I am an agent, "op"(erative) -- from which he's now backed down -- or psycho. He's said that Jim Fetzer can't argue, since he supported me.

He also has decided, because I do look at some things he considers impossible as possible or maybe possible (MKUltra, free-energy technologies) that I am unable to argue or think. He initially got this idea while we were discussing 9/11 for the Vancouver Hearings this past June. He insisted that people (such as I) who were willing to look at video evidence carefully for 9/11 research were either not hard nosed or were just better at it than he. To me, however, he has now ballooned the idea that it is the former in my case and that therefore, as he put it once, I can't "read any book over 400 pages long". As such, he has insisted, smugly, that he knows 95% of what's out there on MKUltra and that it failed and I didn't figure that out.

He has every right to take the side that all is explained away, since nothing is definite, singular, about the possibility of a conspiracy of rogue elements in gov't and outside it, when it comes to the Sandy Hook event.
In fact, I represented much of his position on a recent broadcast to New Orleans on Patriot Radio show by Gary King, (for the podcast). The radio station it was on is a locally owned talk radio station, WSGO AM 990.

However, I want to point out for the record that his version of considering a position "debunked" is flawed; finding some errors in the case for conspiracy or in the case for natural event is NOT a debunking of either side. It can be, if there is something which holds the whole case together and it's debunked, but there can be something else which crops up which holds a case together again. So we have to be careful not to dismiss EITHER side too quickly or stop looking.

He's called me a fraud or liar many times. Let's see how his fraudulent attitude spills ... in the specific example of Mind Control Assassins. (No, I'm not claiming Lanza had to be one.)

NOTE MY REPLY AT THE VERY END of the thread you'll see below has to still remind him to do due diligence on the topic:

"They don't need MK for everything and seem (Chapman, Hinckley, Sirhan) to use it mostly -- if they did -- for the patsy who doesn't actually do the kill shot, if the person is not a natural killer deep down.

Watch the show."

The show in question is at It is the mentalist/ hypnotist Derren Brown's proof that if dissociated from the idea of doing a kill, if one has made somebody suggestible a decent shot under hypnosis trigger states, with triggers also to forget, then a person who's nice can point and shoot at a person. It's a quite wonderful show on all fronts: bravery, reverse engineering (from things Sirhan said about feeling he was at a shooting range and others saying about him he was a peaceful young man), and watchability (including because Stephen Fry is part of it at the end, too).

Prager claims that he does due diligence on all things and knows it all about a topic when HE says so. He's claimed MK Ultra Mind Control programs failed AND if they did not, it succeeded with people who wanted to commit a crime anyway -- which to him isn't Mind Control.

I pointed out again and again that Mind Control (outside of a semantic argument about "control") is a program referring to manipulation; if someone is managed or manipulated to express a desire they would not have, under hypnosis or shock, and to help them hone their tendency for your purposes, it would be Mind Control.

But he's also hereby claiming that there are NO UNWILLING KILLERS. And this is patently false: by dissociating the person from the MEANING of the crime, the person experiences merely the feelings of shooting and target and excellence of target practice. Derren Brown has proven there are nice people who, as hypnosis subjects, respond to a method for getting them to shoot people: they don't think it's about killing!

Jeff REFUSES TO WATCH IT -- because it came from me. Talk about an ad hominem fallacy.

He calls me a fraud but won't watch it. Again and again won't.


Good try, Jeff.
I hope your efforts to show Sandy Hook was not a conspiracy can TRULY debunk the case for conspiracy. However, having 2 sides valid does NOT mean the nicer explanation is the real one. Plus, I think you're stretching the Newtown Bee's disappearing principle and mask article and the high death success rate ... no squirming people except 2?

Anyway ...

Below is an e-mail thread for example (1st date to last date):


From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:45:59 AM
Subject: Hey Clare

It took me a while. I had to go back to the comment about Nancy Lanza working at the school in your article on Veterans Today to see where that comment originated. [I DIDN'T CREATE THAT REPORT.] It seems that a GREAT DEAL of the false anomalies making their way around the internet originated with you. I didn't realize how active you were right from the very beginning almost within hours of the event you were beginning a Sandy Hook internet footprint.

I've downloaded everything you've ever posted on Sandy Hook on the internet publicly. I spent hours on this yesterday, went to bed late and woke up early and spent more hours making notes and dating your posts. I can see your thought process. I can see where you grab scandalous material like the LIBOR deal in the article on Veterans Today and some other weird web site of yours and you never even checked to see if there was a Senate LIBOR hearing and there wasn't yet you called this a "Major Discrepancy".

You're the one actually starting and perpetuating these nasty lies.

You're not an investigator or researcher.

You're a joke.

From: clare kuehn
To: jeff prager
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

Nancy Lanza was reported in many places working at the school. The general idea was she was a kindergarten teacher ... gave a motive to Adam's shootings.

Has nothing to do with me!

The LIBOR thing I heard of, and passed it on. Mike Powers has done work on it, he says in his interview and now we know (if he's right) that underlings (3) were indicted for fraud under LIBOR or related to it.

As to me ... I didn't know of the Sandy Hook anomalies until the 20th or so. [ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS E-MAIL EXCHANGE, I DIDN'T GO BACK TO CHECK EXACTLY; I STARTED THE BLOG ABOUT THEN.] Someone sent me the list and I thought, if any of this is true, let's get it out there. A lot of it turned out to be true --- of the reports, at least.

Stop your paranoia. [IN IMPLYING AGAIN THAT I'M STARTING LIES, I KNEW HE WAS AGAIN SUGGESTING I'M AN OP / AGENT] You're way worse a paranoiac than those you accuse of being "into finding" conspiracy ----- which, by the way, we all should be enough [EAGER ENOUGH] to really look, in case.

Gimme some truth.  -- John Lennon

From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:39:41 AM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

Your list is dated the 18th. The list is full of shit. There were NO LIBOR Hearings. No one was indicted for LIBOR in the US. It was a UK investigation you dumb ass.




From: clare kuehn
To: jeff prager
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

You are paranoid now.

I started the blog the 20th or so.

Yes, I do think out loud on the internet. I think that's fine. I'm sharing, then I correct or move forward.
It was after the list was sent to me and Jim posted it that I started the blog, so it would have been before, when the list went around. That sounds about right.

Fine, the Libor hearings in the UK. I didn't know it was limited to there -- since the horror is all over. Point was, the father was rumoured to have a Libor connection and -- through underlings anyway -- he did. By the way, where are the usual news briefs, podium chats from the father of the dead Adam? Hm? No camera appearances from any Lanza member?

And no, the list is not full of shit; it's QUESTIONS and you don't seem to see the validity of some of them as questions --- removing bodies at night and everybody died right away except for 1-2? When did that glass door break? 

Anyway, when I say things are suspicious, it doesn't mean they are necessarily "suspicious" in the final accounting if we ever get there; I mean they're ODD.

But you don't get that. Which is fine, for you. Still, you're not correct that there are no suspicious things (not exclusively, but suspicious because so unusual you're now having to say they were done by Cass Sunstein's bunch to sow confusion!).

Gimme some truth.  -- John Lennon

From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:25:06 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

Some of us figured out what happened at Sandy Hook a month ago.

YOU haven't and that you believe "thinking out loud" on the internet with issues as critically dividing as this is OK you're even more nutso than I thought you were. You are spreading rumors on the internet. That's outlandish. It's fraud. You should be banned from the internet.

Almost everything, almost every issue you've raised is dead. Take every valid issue you have left and ask yourself, do these all add up to a vast conspiracy?

What happened to the actor coroner? He lost his acting license?

Your [SIC] nuts. A complete psycho.

Actors? OMG! Don't you think things through and ask yourself how there could be actors inserted into a small town and the townspeople not marching in the streets? Or do you go into a delusional state where you think they could have paid off the entire town?

From: clare kuehn
To: jeff prager
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

Jeff, you think you're so great. Go on.

As to the idea of everything's being dead -- NO IT IS NOT.

There are 2 explanations possible for a lot of it and some of it is HIGHLY UNUSUAL.
As to actors: THERE WAS A LIVE DRILL NEARBY. NOT HARD TO HAVE ACTORS AROUND! THEY'RE ALL ACTORS. Some could have been commandeered or planted.


Gimme some truth.  -- John Lennon

From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:50:07 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

"Some could have been commandeered or planted."

Clare, are you an adult or a small child?

You don't think. You don't.

That you could believe that this might be true is apparent.

And so is the fact that you don't check anything and you believe things until they're proven false.

I work the opposite way. I don't believe anything until it's proven true. I also don't write about anything until I can at least substantiate it rather well. You should try it. Your method is identical to Jims. Jims Mossad essay was premature as I tried to tell him and guess what? So is EVERYTHING you've ever posted on Sandy Hook and that includes every post you've ever posted. They're all "3-man Mossad teams". Every one of your posts. [ SEE BELOW: I DON'T SUPPORT THAT THESIS AND NEVER DID SO FAR, THOUGH I HAVE MENTIONED G DUFF WHO DOES ]


From: clare kuehn
To: jeff prager
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

Whatever. You are paranoid, and you also don't understand proof; you know of only one format.

By the way, you have NOT substantiated your claims on this:

Might do your homework on a very important item. [HE NEVER ADDRESSES THIS.]

I never believed it was Mossad. I am open to the idea but I hate the "Zio-rabble" conspiracy types.

Gimme some truth.  -- John Lennon

From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:20:06 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

I'm posting this today.

Clare Kuehn, Integrity, Personal Responsibility, Facebook & The Web


How People See Conspiracies Everywhere They Aren't
~ by Jeff Prager

From: clare kuehn
To: jeff prager
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

*(:| yawn

Gimme some truth.  -- John Lennon

From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:38:09 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

Clare, I don't care what you think but I have 8,700 readers. I gained over 100 subscribers just because I've posted the truth across 25+ essays on Sandy Hook and an eBook during the past 40 days. What you think doesn't matter dear. [SEXIST CONDESCENSION. HE'S SEXUALIZED THE CONVERSATION IN OTHER WAYS NOT SHOWN HERE ON THE BLOG, TOO.] It's what the people that rely on me think that matters. I post the truth every day and I don't think out loud and you can go back across my last 1000 posts and you won't find errors. Your last 100 posts are ALL errors. I want to warn them about you. While I can't claim you're an operative [HE HAS MADE THIS CLAIM AND THAT I DELIBERATELY MAKE MISTAKES AND LIE -- see above] because I have no proof I do have proof of insanity in the form of your posts. You, as a Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist, are a severe minority. Most people could see easily and quickly that this was in no way a hoax. Some people even studied the psychology of grieving. You are unstable, incapable of discerning reality from fantasy is the best way to describe you. It takes you much, much longer to discern reality in socioeconomic, sociopolitical and generally social situations. I want my readers to associate your name with the words BAD DATA.


From: clare kuehn
To: jeff prager
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:42:33 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare


You have 100 subscribers because people want to hear another side AND people like not to think bad things.
You have not watched about MK have you. You fraud.

(To mirror your language.)

*'@-@ search me

Gimme some truth.  -- John Lennon

From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:36:59 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

I'm the fraud?

You investigated nothing.

You simply acted like a mainstream media repeater and pored the internet and repeated every crazy conspiracy theory you could find. I performed an actual coordinated and systematic investigation with note pads and tons of data inputs. You're the fraud dear [AGAIN A SEXIST PUT-DOWN] and we both know that.

When this all settles in a few more weeks or months everyone that believed Sandy Hook was a false flag and wrote about it is going to feel like the biggest dumb ass.

From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:30:30 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

Let's see, if MK worked they wouldn't have needed 23 Israeli Mossad agents all filmed on CCTVs with fake passports and IDs to kill one Palestinian in Dubai. Duh. Think Clare. If MK worked they could have done this with one person. Just an unarmed guy in Dubai. Could have killed him in the street. Instead they did a risk-benefit analysis, chose the only method that would not only work but that would work without fail and they used it, with 23 agents.

MK Ultra mind control is the stuff of internet lies Clare and you fall for all of this stuff because you're unable to see the reality of the world around you. You believe things because they're on the internet, but not because they're true. Your analysis consists of "does it sound possible?" and that's about it.

I determined that Sandy Hook was not a false flag

AFTER looking at all of the evidence,
after studying the psychology of grieving,
after going to Bushmaster, Sig Sauer and Glock web sites to get weights,
after going to Google Earth and spending several hours examining the school grounds,
after watching 300 FOX, ABC and Reuters videos, in order, from the 14th through the 23rd
after reading dozens of essays on Sandy Hook,
after looking at the DHS web site to determine there were no drills that day but just classes, every day,
after listening to a 2-hour audio 8 times and taking notes
after investigating LIBOR at the proper banking web sites
after wasting my time investigating the Latin Kings in Connecticut
after examining Chris Rodias full charges and his MAJOR charge-Two five milligram Percocets-wowser!
after watching 14 funerals carefully
after collecting every statement ever made by people that knew Lanza-on one page
after spending hours researching gun control legislation
after spending HOURS researching the firearms industry to see if there was a motive, a reason to worry about guns being taken from us-there is not-the firearms industry owns the US, just like the banks.
after over 100 hours Clare of actually investigating. Not repeating. I'm not a repeater, YOU ARE.

I develop my own theories with my own methods that are proven and work. I have a plan for investigating things, a system, a process and it works and I employ it well.

I performed an investigation while you acted like a mainstream media repeater simply repeating every crazy conspiracy theory you could find. You investigated NOTHING. You don't now how. I didn't fail to weigh evidence as you've suggested. It's you who failed to perform an investigation. Had you done so you would have arrived at the same conclusions I did 4 weeks ago.

The MK program was a total failure. There is absolutely no way to program a person to kill another person at a designated time and place.

From: clare kuehn
To: jeff prager
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:42:21 PM
Subject: Re: Hey Clare

They don't need MK for everything and seem (Chapman, Hinckley, Sirhan) to use it mostly -- if they did -- for the patsy who doesn't actually do the kill shot, if the person is not a natural killer deep down.

Watch the show.

Gimme some truth.  -- John Lennon



From: jeff prager
To: clare kuehn
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 5:28:08 PM
Subject: Re: Lanza birth announcement

You're nuts or agenda driven. I don't have time to figure it out and it doesn't matter. The end result of your behavior and Jim[']s is the same. Truthers lose credibility. I managed to stay out of this mess quite well and was right all along about each and every anomaly. Go away.

From: clare kuehn
To: jeff prager
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 5:39:32 PM
Subject: Re: Lanza birth announcement

You didn't debunk; you found alternate explanations for all unusual things; which is fine and necessary, just as asking the possibilities on the other side is. Without one singular absolute, you falter, because your argument becomes strained.

You still don't get MKUltra (negative persons or nice persons, alike). Your due diligence stopped short at an absolute proof on that one for the nice persons, though it's available. And you never acknowledged that saying MKUltra can't be called "control" if it's manipulation of persons with a nasty streak, is merely a semantic claim on your part.

1. You believe the ATF?

2. Many gun ranges in the area OF SANDY HOOK within 60 miles, when called, didn't recall Nancy or Adam. [ ... Despite his claim at times that the ATF has "confirmed" they have some ranges at which Nancy and/or Adam shot]

3. Whatever happened or didn't, at Sandy Hook, you are unfair. I proved to you I didn't "spread" the list as my own, but that wasn't good enough to credit; you had to find flaw in it (because of spreading it at all -- whereas I feel that after 9/11 we have to be careful to suspect first, check each thing in light of THAT, not the other way around, except as we move forward with each piece and check it, but not in the INITIAL COLLECTION OF POSSIBLE ODDITIES).

4. YOU have the true confirmation bias, however. About me and Jim and whatever.
You said it wouldn't be the same Adam Lanza, that I was crazy for thinking it might, and now you find out it is and choose [for the SSDI listing for Adam P Lanza dead on Dec. 13 in New Hampshire] the "it's a clerical error" version - or an apple thrown to all of us in the world to mess us up with wrong theories and discredit 9/11. Technically possible answers, but who has confirmation bias on that? You.

5. You don't dare watch MKUltra work -- not only on someone angry (bring the killer out of the person where it wouldn't have been out, before), but on someone nice.
Try it.
Open you[r] actual emotional mind enough to realize it works, [and] I was right ---- even if I'm "crazy".
When you're done with that, we can go through the serial killers. Some are, and some might be linked to cults, programming, and/or paramilitary/CIA. Some are admittedly linked. Some are maybe not. Some are not.

I do love your voice, Jeff. I wish you'd use it for less hurtful intentions and opining.

Gimme some truth.  -- John Lennon