Sandy Hook AR-15 hoax? Still no school surveillance footage released
Why has no surveillance footage been released from the Sandy Hook shooting, showing Adam Lanza blasting away with an AR-15?
Here's why the non-release of this video footage is so interesting:
Every time a school shooting takes place, one of the very first things that gets released to the media is the school surveillance footage depicting the gun and the shooter. The purpose of this is to associate the pain and anguish of the massacre to the image of a scary-looking rifle.
In mere days after the Columbine shooting in 1998, for example, the media received footage from the massacre and began playing it over and over again, hammering home the images of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold with their guns. The same is true with numerous other school shootings as you'll see below.
But with the Sandy Hook school shooting, no video footage has been released. A reasonable person has to ask the question: WHY?
You see, the release of footage of Adam Lanza murdering children with an AR-15 -- if such a thing even happened -- would strongly support the mainstream media's call for banning so-called "assault rifles." It would also:
• Amp up the emotional impact of the fear mongering being carried out by the media.
• Provide visual support for the gun-grabber's plea to ban all rifles.
• Provide a wealth of images to be used by newspapers and magazines to further demonize the image of rifles.
... and yet, for some reason, we see no surveillance footage from Sandy Hook.
Answer: The AR-15 appears to have been left in his car and never even used in the shooting
The real answer to all this -- and this reveals the "Big Lie" of the mainstream media -- is that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle was left in Lanza's car.
It was never brought into the school in the first place. As a result, it was not used in the shooting.
This was openly admitted in an NBC news report that has since been scrubbed and marginalized. But NaturalNews captured the video and posted it on our own private video network which is immune from censorship:
Here's a partial transcript of the video:
Matt Lauer: Pete Williams, our chief justice correspondent, has got some new information as well, good morning.
Pete Williams: Matt, good morning to you. This continues to be a very complex investigation, and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but there is some new information this morning from a couple of federal officials and state officials. They say now that there were actually four handguns recovered inside the school. Not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.
We knew that Adam Lanza... also had an assault-style, AR-15 style rifle that he had taken to the school that was in the car he drove there, his mother's car. But we've been told by several officials that he left that in the car.
Adam Lanza left the AR-15 in the car
This simple fact, which was confirmed by "federal officials and state officials" has been completely scrubbed out of the mainstream media, and replaced with the "assault weapon lone gunman" theory that just happens to fit nicely with the citizen disarmament agenda being pushed by anti-American traitors like Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden.
This is why no video footage has been released. Because the real video footage almost certainly shows HANDGUNS used in the massacre, not a rifle. There may even be other elements in the video footage that they don't want the public to see, including the possibility of multiple shooters.
............................
Shelia Lynn
This entire shooting screams of a False Flag Event. Let's look at it this way, If Gun Control/ or disarming the public was wanted, One would have to create events that could garner a large response. In the past year(s), we have had shootings at, (1) Military Installations ( Fort Hood) Nidal Hasan , (2) Political (Jared Loughner), (3). Religious ( Sikh Temple Shooting , Wade Michael Page (4) Family Oriented,( Aurora Co. Movie Theater, James Holmes.) (5) Elementary School ( Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza). It seems to me, the Powers that be used several situations to garner response, each time in an attempt to really trigger a Major Public Response. After the Aurora shooting, I am sure they felt that the MSM would be campaigning 24/7 for Gun Control as there were many Families, and Children involved in this shooting. It played at the Heart Strings. But when the Media hid the facts, including the numerous reports from witnesses of the Second Shooter and failed to give facts, and the Public Response was not what they wanted , I feel they had to turn up the heat thus hitting a school, w/ small children, two weeks before Christmas, a time where Family Traditions are very strong and generosity is freely distributed. When this happened, of course, it gained the response needed to advance in Advocating Gun Control. In my opinion, and I am not saying that these murders did not happen, what I am saying, is they did not happen the way the Media is telling us they happened, I believe this, ( Sandy Hook) along w/ Aurora, was more " Operation Gladio", it was Pre Planned, Pre Determined.
............................
(I agree something smells like bo. Where is the evidence of the ar-15 etc. It's not about guns it all about increasing the power of the state by taking away your rights under the 2nd amendment. Its all about disarming you. It's about leaving you defenseless against the state. This is exactly why the 2nd amendment was written to protect you from the state!!!
I do know this for a fact, the government has lied in the past. The calls that were said to have been made from the airplane on 9/11 by the solicitor's wife were never made. The FBI testified to this at the trial that is on record. So the government really did lie about the terrorists having box cutters to subdue the pilots. The only evidence of this was the phone calls made to the solicitor general.
He lied about talking to his wife. The FBI testified that NO phone calls were connected. Only one phone call was made and it NEVER connected.
THE US GOVERNMENT LIES ACCORDING TO THE FBI TESTIMONY AT THE TERRORIST TRIAL.) Story Reports
Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
David Ray Griffin
Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2
Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3
However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.
Olson’s Self-Contradictions
Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.
Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6
By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7
However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.
American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version
A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8
In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.
Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI
The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone. (EVIDENCE THE GOVERNMENT LIES!!!!!!!)
Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.
This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.
Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians
Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11
According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15
The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16
Conclusion
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?
The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.
