In this first broadcast of's new Talk Radio show, co-hosts Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley discuss the December 14th 2012 Sandy Hook shooting from a unique perspective. Having carefully analysed the horrific school shooting from a number of different angles in a series of articles, the editors realised that there is actually very little to go on that points directly to any conspiracy. However, when placed within the historical context of similar mass shootings and political assassinations in the U.S. over the past half century, the theory that a conspiracy took place at Sandy Hook elementary school becomes plausible.

Running Time: 02:02:00

Download: MP3

Previous articles on the Sandy Hook massacre:

Connecticut massacre, two shooters? Look to Aurora, Colorado

Sandy Hook massacre: Official story spins out of control

The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions

Sandy Hook hoaxes and the terror of the situation

Here's the transcript:

Intro: You are listening to Radio Free Signs of the Times, broadcasting to the world on the eve of destruction.

Laura: We are doomed to extinction because of agriculture. We have raped and pillaged this planet. There is a disinformation program literally for everyone no matter who you are and what your interests are, what your beliefs are, which way you're focusing, there is a website set up just for you, to take you in and to vector your thinking and attention into the way they want you to think.

...[C]atagories of things in the sky, in the cosmos. If you read the scientific reports that come through and put the pieces together you can see something big is happening.

{End Introduction}

Joe: Hello, and welcome to the first SOTT Talk Radio show. This is a new weekly radio show that will be taking a deeper look at the topics of the day. Your hosts are myself, Joe Quinn.

Niall: And me, Niall Bradley.

Joe: We are both editors for the news and commentary website and for our first show we are going to be taking a look at the Sandy Hook school shooting or school massacre that happened in Newtown, Connecticut last September 14th. The thing about this shooting is, as everyone probably knows, is that it seemed to shock a lot of people, perhaps even more so than any of the other major shootings in recent history. And it shocked us as well. Initially we thought, this was, while shocking, just another tragic event of which we've seen so many similar ones in recent years that somebody basically had just gone postal yet again, with a difference this time, I suppose, and it is a big difference the sense that, this time, it was mainly small children who had been brutally murdered.

In most other shootings, in recent memory anyway, it was generally always, especially with large numbers, it was generally adults. And I'm not going to be too cynical about this, but I think it's fair to say because there's been so many of these shootings, it's fair to say when kids are shot compared to adults, people have a different reaction, you know. I mean adults are, well, adults and they run the risk, I suppose. As adults they have responsibilities for themselves and the world is a dangerous place so these things happen and they happen too often, as we say in America. But kids kid don't are very dependent on their parents and they're vulnerable, they're innocent and it just strikes a chord, a different chord with people and I think that's, as far as I'm concerned, that's the reasonthat there has been or seems to have been such an outpouring of emotion over this event. And that it really has affected people; not just in the US but all around the world in a very personal way.

Niall: Indeed. Although in one way this is not comparable to 9/11, I remember reading statements from people who were there, they were present, perhaps they were relatives or friends of the victims and they sound and said as much themselves, this was like 9/11 all over again because of the sheer traumatic nature of what was going down.

Joe: Yeah, so in terms of the shooting itself, initially just to be honest here, initially we didn't immediately jump to any kind of conspiracy theory analysis although we have discussed potential conspiratorial nature of previous shootings; initially we thought this was what it was being presented as; a lone nut kind of gone crazy, crazy guy, killed, killed, killed kids because he was crazy and we kind of left it at that, initially. In terms of the official story, it seems to be; the official story that's been given at this stage or how it has essentially panned out, it that it's a fairly open and shut case.

This guy, Adam Lanza walked into the school, shot six teachers and twenty kids, and then himself and that was it. But the problem, obviously, with that story is the way that it was presented, initially. And we've written about this in several of our articles, myself and Niall have written about this in several of our articles over the past month about the really amazing amount of media confusion, you could say disinformation. I don't know but that implies some kind of intent, but certainly confusion; a large amount of confusion over this event with completely contradictory information coming out. Information that as far as the official story now is concerned was completely wrong; it couldn't have been any more wrong.

And this is different. I mean I know people say that the media makes mistakes; the media aren't reliable, etc. etc. But as far as we are concerned there was not the level of confusion in...

Niall: In past cases.

Joe: In past cases compared to this case in Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook just stands out on its own. If you think back to the Aurora Colorado shooting, there wasn't at the time this morass of completely crazy theories being put out there about who and what was happening and getting the actual shooters name wrong and what he did, where he came from. All of this at the time, kind of authoritative, these authoritative statements statements coming out about it that then were completely debunked afterwards within a day or even just a few hours, you know. So that...

Niall: That was a big red flag for me. Seeing these reports so completely contradict one after the other what had previously been said. It wasn't just that. It's been pointed out that this is to be expected; confusion reigns when a crisis is unfolding and what not. So there truly wasn't a crisis unfolding because as Joe pointed out, it truly should have been an open and shut case. There was no shooting when the police arrived. They arrived and found a dead gunman believing he had shot himself, lying there on the school floor. They did not have to fire their own arms because there was no situation to deal with, to respond to. It was essentially, I hate to say it but all they really had to do was a clean-up operation in a sense that there was nothing further to do.

And yet we have these reports from the day that come from authoritative sources, at least that's the way they've been reported, by, not just any old Joe blogs on the street, but by Associated Press, by CBS, CNN, NBC. The big media outlets; their reporters either on the scene or back in the studio who are getting messages, reports that they were, bona fide reports, from people telling them specific details. Not just any old details but very specific details to more or less move the story on. "Here's the latest development and here's a development" and you go, 'okay, right...'

But the overall picture was so completely different from what we have now that this was then the first big red flag that something is amiss here.

Joe: Well, at the very least it was something to look at. So we did look and we found; when we looked at the, we kind of put together, just to give you an example, we put together the bits of information or the pieces of information about what actually was going on, what had happened, the individuals involved, how the whole thing transpired. We kind of put that together based on the original reports that were coming out, just to try and compare it to what we have now, just to get an idea of how different these two sets of stories were.

Everyone knows the official story now, that it was basically this 21 year old Adam Lanza, no connection to Sandy Hook school, used one of his mom's rifles to shoot her dead in her home near the school in Newtown. He then took four guns belonging to his mother and drove them, drove to the school in her black Honda civic. He wore no body armor, only a fishing style jacket with multiple pockets in it for ammunition's supposedly, and this is confirmed by police, and then arriving shortly after morning classes, Lanza goes in through the front entrance. He's actually buzzed in, was the official story, initially.

Niall: Initially, this is what we were told.

Joe: Sorry, we'll just continue the official story.

Niall/Joe: The official story is...

Joe: He shot his way through the front entrance, encountered the school principal in the front hallway, he shoots her dead and the school psychologist, he then goes into two classrooms.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And kills the 20 children. He maybe went into one or two other classrooms but that was pretty much the end of it. And he's using this AR15 Bushmaster. And when he is done that he shoots himself dead, and boom that's it, end of story.

So when the police arrive all the shooting is gone, all the shooting has finished, they find all of the dead bodies, they find the shooter dead, case closed. So that is, utterly, the "official" story. Our question now is, if thatis the official story, if that's true, than that's all that was ever happening, that's all that ever happened. There were no other, there is no other reason why anybody at any time would have come up with any other details that simply did not happen. Yet we've had all of these details from the media in the first, it lasted for almost a week, I'd say, until the story was anywhere near to being ironed out. Just to give you an idea of the kind of things they were saying...

Niall: By contrast...

Joe: By contrast to the official story we have now was that the shooter wasn't Adam Lanza it was

Niall: His brother.

Joe: His brother Ryan Lanza. That's been explained by the fact that he had his brother's ID on him, but the point is that they said Adam, i.e. not the shooter, but they thought he was a shooter. They were looking for him as the 2nd shooter. They made that specific statement that there were two shooters involved and that it was two brothers. They mistakenly identified Adam as his brother Ryan and they were looking for the other brother.

The theory or the statement; the explanation of what had happened given to the media by someone was that the two brothers had been in Hoboken, New Jersey where they had killed their father, intentionally had killed two of Ryan's, or two of Ryan's roommates were missing.

Niall: That's right, they said that law enforcement officials confirmed reported, I'm not sure which outlet reported it, but "we've confirmed that Ryan Lanza, the suspect, his girlfriend is missing and his roommate, either her roommate or his roommate is also missing from Hoboken, New Jersey." This report came out that morning...

Joe: Okay so you had the two brothers going down to Hoboken, New Jersey, killing the father, potentially killing or abducting, or whatever, two of the roommates of one of the brothers and driving up to Sandy Hook to the mother's house, killing the mother and driving over to the school. And this is what the (inaudible) said that Adam or Ryan we presume...

Niall: Ryan, I think in this case.

Joe: Ryan arrived at the school in full combat gear.

Niall: Yes.

Joe: Pushed the buzzer.

Niall: There's an automatic security system at the school.

Joe: Yeah, the school, you have to be buzzed in

Niall: The point is he was buzzed in by someone that recognized him.

Joe: Right. Not that he shot his way in but that he buzzed his way in and I suppose then, thereafter he, or maybe both of them, we don't know because both of them were said to be involved, carried out the killings, carried out the shootings and then shot themselves. But obviously it was fairly quickly evident that there was only one shooter in the building. But, that's where the story of the two comes in because one was found dead in the school and the other one was being searched for by police.

Niall: Later actually, later on, the Associated Press reported that they had apprehended the second brother, Adam, in the woods next to the school.

Joe: Yes.

Niall: Caught with bulletproof vest, carrying four weapons and that he'd been arrested in the woods next to the school, which as w'will see later on, was not completely untrue, it was untrue in that both brothers were not there. They later changed the main suspect, that dead gunman they found, to Adam and this other mysterious person who was apprehended in the woods was later; they rectified that story. They said, "No, that was not the second brother." but that was someone whom they did bring into custody.

Joe: So that eventually panned out as the explanation for this, but the question still arises why they would have ever come up with this narrative. Who gave them this narrative if it was not true and was never true? And that's the important point. This was never true. And I know the media can get their facts wrong and stuff, but how did they come up with this narrative of them going to Hoboken, killing the father, potentially killing two roommates, coming back, killing the mother. There's too much wrong there in terms of the story that the media came out with first of all, for it to just to have been, "oh, we made a little mistake here, we got this little fact wrong." They weren't getting facts wrong, they were getting the entire narrative wrong. So that suggests to us that someone was feeding them this information. I don't see any other logical conclusion other than that someone was feeding the media this information for some particular reason which we'll get into later on.

There were other little details that came out as well that are anomalous details of a marooned vehicle with the windows shot out being seen driving away, that the police were looking for this. There was; we'll just go through the main evidence because the fact of the matter is there was not a lot of evidence and I suppose we should make clear here the fact that when we talk about evidence and there not being a lot of evidence; at this point we believe that there is reason to suspect that this was not a lone gunman shooting event, that Adam Lanza did not work alone. But as we're saying, there isn't a lot of evidence to support that but we'll just go through the evidence that we are happy to stick with in terms of presenting, in terms of backing up that argument.

Niall: I should clarify that there is not a lot of evidence from the scene or evidence on what was reported to support either the official story which we have to just take on faith or a lot of the theories that are emerging at how exactly this went down. That's what a lot of people seem to be missing here, that if we're looking at something bigger than a single lone gunman who just goes postal, then whoever 'they' is, a team of people have done a very, very good job of leaving very little behind.

Joe: yeah. The fact of the matter is, is that there isn't a lot of evidence despite what most other conspiracy theorist sites or conspiracy sites, or whatever, I don't know what you want to call them, alternative media sites; despite what all of those sites are saying there isn't any clear of evidence of a conspiracy at Sandy Hook, i.e., that it was a false flag, that there was some kind of other team of shooters involved. There isn't a lot of evidence for this being a false flag conspiracy and that someone else did the shooting. We are admitting that. But we're also saying that we still believe that Adam Lanza was not a lone gunman, and hopefully by the end of the show you'll understand why.

So just to go through the evidence that we are happy to hang our hat on, let's say, as plausible or tentative evidence for there being more than one shooter; there is the evidence from the police scanners - the transcripts or audio from the police scanners of the day, where police arriving on the scene and you had one police officer stating he had a call from one of the teachers saying that she saw two shadows running around the side of the gym. Now this was presented in such a way that this was a suspicious activity. I'm assuming the police wouldn't be reporting on themselves and the police were probably aware where their own officers were. And this was a very early report so it seemed to be, based on the audio, it seemed to be suggesting that this was before any police arrived on the scene or as police were arriving on the scene and this was an update from the dispatcher saying that someone, an employee or teacher of the school had called saying that had saw two people running around the side of the building, of the gymnasium, two shadows. And then, not long after that on the audio you hear a police officer saying "Yeah, they're coming down the driveway towards me." And then a few seconds later he says "I've got one of them, I've got one proned out."

Niall: Which suggests he apprehended one of them and he's pouned out on the ground.

Joe: There is that evidence which we understand as tentative. And that could be explained by, for example there is a report in the newspapers about a parent of one of the schoolchildren arriving that morning, he was scheduled to arrive to help out with a gingerbread man making class for some of the elementary kids and he arrived, heard shooting and then ran around the building. We don't know exactly where he ran but he ran somewhere. His name was Mastrodonia (?) and he, potentially he could be one of these people that was running around the side of the building. We don't know.

The other evidence for more than one person involved was the video evidence of the hill behind the school taken from a helicopter showing police running around the side of the school and up this hill in-between the trees and apparently surrounding a man up there. This has since been explained away as a member of a SWAT team from a local, from a nearby town who just happened to be roaming the hills. I don't know how this guy; there is no explanation as to why he was there but apparently he was a (inaudible) from the Newtown Bee, a local newspaper in Sandy Hook.

Niall: This is a very recent report. This is not something that was clarified at the time. Only a week or ten days ago, the Newtown Bee reported that the, I think they were referring to the second suspect, who had been arrested in the woods and they said this was an off-duty, tactical police officer from out of town. They gave no explanation for why he was there or the fact that he was armed.

Joe: Just that he was there. And the fact of the matter is, this video of this man up in the hill just right behind the school and the police running up the hill to apprehend him, this has been available and talked about on various news websites for a couple of weeks now and it's just in the past four or five days that the Newtown Bee came out with this explanation as to who this guy was.

Of course that still doesn't; I mean because they were so sparse on the details, it doesn't really put our minds at ease as to whether or not this guy or as...

Niall: As to what he was doing.

As to what he was doing or if he was definitively just some good-natured member of a tactical squad from another town who just happened to be there. I don't know. You can let your imagination run wild as to how he managed to get there or why he was out there on his own in the hill behind the school. But that's the official story, that he was there trying to help out and he had heard something about the shooting on maybe a radio. But the fact that he was wandering up around the hills and that he, well, if he was a member of a tactical team from another town means he was probably armed if he was arriving on a scene that he thought was a crime scene.

That's not very satisfactory. It doesn't look good as far as we're concerned and it lends itself to the idea that there may have been more than one shooter and this guy could have been part of a team of people involved in the shooting; until we get a more concrete fuller explanation of who this guy is. I mean there were other eyewitness reports as well; you may have seen these on YouTube, media video reports of eyewitnesses at the scene saying that a guy had been taken down from the school, from the direction of the school in handcuffs. He was wearing camel pants and a black jacket and that he was was sitting, he was placed into a police car, apparently sitting in [the] front [seat] of a police car which would suggest that he was...

Niall: Not in any serious trouble.

Joe: Yes. Exactly.

Niall: And/or he had maybe even presented credentials that passed muster with the emergency responders on the scene.

Joe: Yes, Exactly.

Niall: And if you think about it that way, that is how the officer you just mentioned, the off-duty tactical police office, I mean he just needs to show who he is.

Joe: Yeah, and nothing more is said about it. It's not going to be exposed in the media. In the end, him being there is part of the internal, the official police investigation and they don't feel any need to reveal any more information about him. So...

Niall: Maybe we should just summarize there that we are not talking about the same person being seen arrested in all these cases.

Joe: No.

Niall: We've got on the one hand on the police audio we have clearly, an officer. You can tell by his voice that he's animated, he's on the scene; this is the one who describes "they're coming at me" and just after he says "I've got one proned out." That's one instance of someone being apprehended.

Then we have the guy in the woods of which the video footage appears to be showing that, two police officers running up the hill and apprehending someone. That's the same guy who was then taken down in handcuffs and placed inside the police car. So that's two.

And then the third, there was a young boy who describes, when he was led away from the school, this was a student of the school, he said when they were walking away, they walked past the fire house and there was a guy in handcuffs lying down on the floor of the firehouse which is at the entrance to the driveway of the school. So that would put all those three separate instances at different locations.

Joe: Exactly. One at the school being caught

Niall: (inaudible) three separate people apprehended.

Joe: Yeah, unless it can be explained but it's not going to beecplained at this stage. In terms of looking at the bare facts of it, there seems to be evidence for three different people having been arrested in the vicinity of the school on that day. One of them has been explained as this tactical team member from another town, and that's all we know about him. The other one is potentially, the parent of, the father one of the children, Mr. Manfredonia (?). He plausibly could have been arrested. And then, he could have been, I mean it doesn't really fit. We don't know anything more about him and about whether he was or wasn't arrested. All we know was that he was at the school; he gave a report to the media that he went to the school but there was nothing about him being arrested, so we don't know if he was one of the people arrested.

We do know that three people were arrested. As to who they are, we don't really know, apart from this tactical team member, we don't know if the father was arrested if he's one of them, and there were two other people; the one person who was in the police audio transcript that was proned out and the third guy who was down near the firehouse at end of the entrance of the school who the pupil saw lying on the ground, handcuffed.

I know that Lieutenant Paul Vance has stated that people will be arrested in this kind of a situation until they can prove; you know, people who are wandering around that can't be easily identified are going to be arrested. I know that's the case but that doesn't really explain, that's a bit of a general kind of fob off answer and it doesn't answer what we think are legitimate questions here about who these people were. But put in context, the reason we're suspicious and the reason why we're looking at the possibility of more shooters is because of, like we said, that evidence of two people seen running past the gym, two shadows running past the gym, the fact that a few people were arrested; but also, this story that Adam Lanza, this twenty year-old weakling nerd with little or no gun training could have carried off this kind of a shooting, gone on this killing-spree.

Niall: On such a scale.

Joe: On such a scale with such precision and dexterity in the use of large assault weapons doesn't really...

Niall: ...make any sense. (laughter)

Joe: It doesn't fit together very well in our minds, let's say that. Because, let's leave it up to the listeners. Does that make sense to you? I know, technically a twenty year-old person, male, could go and kill a bunch of kids, but...

Niall: We are talking about a shooting where thirty people were hit. Of the thirty, twenty-eight were killed. So who did this only left two people wounded.

Joe: Yeah, that's one of the things.

Niall: Adam Lanza had no gun training. They did tryto insinuate that Adam Lanza had had [some] gun training because they said that his mother took him to gun ranges, but that had later turned out to be un-true.

Joe: I think we have a call here. We're going to take a call from someone, who. Hello, caller? ... We don't have anybody.

Niall: No.

Joe: We should have somebody but apparently we don't. Hello, hello? We'll carry on.

Niall: What stunned me, when the police arrived they described seeing a mind-numbing quantity of spent shell casings on the school floor suggesting that hundreds of rounds had been fired in a shooting carried out by one person, in at most ten minutes. Although some timelines would agree that's stretching it, I think it could have been a much shorter time span than that. So, we're looking at this and we're thinking is this really plausible? It's not just about...

Joe: I think we might have another caller here. I don't know if it's the same person. Hello?

Caller: Hello.

Joe: Hi, what's your name?

Caller: Hi, this is Lisa Guliani.

Niall/Joe: Hey Lisa.

Lisa: Hi Niall, hi Joe. I just wanted to ask you a question. Not to interrupt your show, this is going really well; this discussion. I wanted to first congratulate you on the launching of SOTT Talk Radio. It's really an interesting discussion. I wanted to ask you to get into Anderson Cooper's debunking of this. But I wanted to comment that the lack of evidence on the scene to support the official story is also another reason why people should question the official story. And it seems to me that Anderson Cooper is doing what was done similarly with 9/11 where they want to try to get people to stop questioning the official story when the official story actually doesn't add up, it doesn't make any sense.

Joe: Absolutely. When I watched that Anderson Cooper hit piece, if you want to call it, on the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists, I was a bit torn in the sense that I know there's a lot of crazy conspiracy theories out there that we don't agree with.

Lisa: Mhm.

Joe: But it was really disingenuous in the way he came across as saying "we usually wouldn't give attention to this, but we are doing it, we're giving some attention to it because it's so insulting to the families." But for me, that was totally unbelievable because the only reason he'd give attention to it is to debunk it, is to in some way spin it, put a negative spin on it.

Lisa: That's exactly what they did with 9/11. They said it was disrespectful to the family members and survivors of 9/11 to question the official story. Essentially they tried to just stifle all questions and get people to stop talking and wondering about it.

Joe: Yeah.

Lisa: And frankly, that other armed gunman, the man they found in the woods; for them to marginalize the fact that he was even there at all and not follow up on that. Just that alone, I keep asking myself why was he there at all? He just responded and they are just going to let that fade out, you know.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. It's very true what you are saying about Cooper. I mean, Cooper has his own CIA, or there's allegations of him having some sort of CIA connection or background. So it's not surprising that he...

Niall: Oh he did. He spent two summers as an internee when he was in his college days with the CIA...

Lisa: Yeah, I thought that was pretty interesting.

Niall: What stood out for me is that in a way Cooper was right, because he homed in on the one thing that is pretty crazy about what's being said in the alternative media about Sandy Hook ; mainly that it was all a hoax. This is what he was focusing on; this idea that there were crisis actors brought in, that the parents were not really who they said they were - they were actually all hired actors - they weren't really upset about what had happened. Of course, he can hold that up as representative of any questioning about Sandy Hook.

Lisa: Correct.

Niall: And then say "look, they are all crazy." And it works.

Lisa: Right, but what they do is they go after the most easily knocked down theories that are being disseminated to the public and I've received stuff about that too; that these are crisis actors, this never even really happened and all this stuff; and they go after all those most easily knocked down theories and then they sort of lump them in with the other more valid, substantive questions being asked and they don't address those, they just go after the straw men.

Joe: Absolutely.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: That professor that had made the comments, he's a tenured professor at Florida Atlantic University, James Tracy, he made some reference to these actors. He wasn't laying it on so thick and his main point was, and I quote him, he says "news media failed to thoroughly investigate every aspect of what happened in Newtown." I don't see that as an inflammatory statement or a suggestion that the news media should do that, and it's a true statement. It's like what you're saying, Lisa. The only real investigation that they do of it, or exposure they give to it, is the official line. They ignore the unanswered questions, and if they are going to go any deeper they are going to go deeper into the crazy conspiracy theories.

Lisa: Exactly. Well, I appreciate you taking the time and best of luck your with new show and I'm not going to hijack anymore of this time.

Joe: No problem.

Lisa: Very good to hear you guys.

Joe/Niall: Thanks for calling, Lisa.

Lisa: Thank you. Take care, bye bye.

Joe/Niall: Bye.

Joe: Lisa gave us a bit of an introduction there, we may as well deal with it right now; these crazy conspiracy theories around Sandy Hook. I mean the most obvious one that this Anderson Cooper person tried to use to tar any independent investigation into Sandy Hook was the idea that's going around that all of the parents of the Sandy Hook children are actors. Some people are even saying that no children were killed at all and that it was essentially one massive big theatre. I really don't appreciate these people at all and unfortunately I was pretty shocked to just to see how far and wide this idea had spread and taken hold. It had taken hold of people that I had previously had thought had half an ounce of sense.

Because, you can't turn around and say "look the parents of these children don't seem to be crying," for example, what's his name, Parker?

Niall: Robbie Parker.

Joe: Robbie Parker, the father of Emily Parker who was shot. Him kind of laughing a little bit to someone before he gave his statement to the press and stuff, and then other parents, family members of the children who had been killed because they didn't have red eyes, they weren't crying, they were kind of smiling and laughing; and therefore they were actors and basically putting it all on.

For a start, these people who promote these ideas seem to have no understanding whatsoever of normal human emotion and the way humans beings will react under extremely traumatic circumstances; under a lot of pressure, under a lot of strain. For example, in situations that are extremely traumatic for a human being there's this phrase, and I mention in one of the article's that I wrote, there's this phrase that I think a lot of people know, which is, 'If you don't laugh, you'll cry.' And that speaks directly to human nature under these circumstances, where you feel like you'rere in such a state of shock or you've been traumatized so much that in order to just try and keep yourself buoyed up and functional for a while, you'll tend to act slightly differently than the way you feel or opposite to the way you feel, like you will try to laugh at things or buoy yourself up a little bit because if you don't laugh, you'll cry, i.e. if you don't laugh in this kind of situation you'll break down completely.

Niall: Exactly. It's a completely normal reaction.

Joe: And they weren't able to come to that conclusion. They weren't able to use their brains and see that the most obvious explanation in this situation was the most simple one. So they just push this idea of actors and even the kids weren't killed at all, it was one giant theatre. But in presenting that thesis they don't even follow it through to its logical conclusion. If you're going to present a thesis, you have to follow it through and explain where it ultimately leads you.

For example, the parents of the Sandy Hook victims were actors. So what does that mean? It means they had brought in literally dozens of people who are appearing on the national and international media, in front of the world, basically, and obviously in front of the local community and claiming to be residents, longish/long-term residents of Sandy Hook when they weren't. They had never been in Sandy Hook; they weren't the parents. So, in that case, how does anyone explain how those people wouldn't be exposed?

What about all the other actual residents of Sandy Hook? Would none of them ever speak up after seeing these fake Sandy Hook parents on TV over and over again and say "hang on a minute, that guy claiming to be Emily Parker's father and his mother, they don't live in Sandy Hook, I've never seen them before, they are not Emily Parker's parents." And for all the other parents that are supposed to be actors.

How did that happen? How do you cover that up? Maybe these people who described these conspiracy theories think that maybe what? they wiped out the entire town of Sandy Hook? They killed all the existing inhabitants and brought an entirely new collection of fake parents and fake kids? Obviously, it leads you to the conclusion that Sandy Hook school itself is a studio set. It never actually existed, because if you follow it through, these are things that you logically have to conclude from this idea, this beginning idea that 'oh they must be actors.' And it's all based on this ridiculous premise that is simply evidence that the people who are putting it forward are idiots! [They] have no ability to think critically for even five seconds.

Now, I'm not going to tar everybody who has bought into that belief, as an idiot, because I understand it's easy for people to be sidetracked by plausible conspiracy theories, especially people who realize just how screwed up this world is and realize the corruption that we all live under, and they're looking for a way to fight against it, to defeat it, to strike a blow against it. It's quite appealing to jump at these apparent opportunities to get a dig in or strike a blow for the truth type of thing, but you have to be extremely careful.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And ultimately it serves the people you are supposedly fighting against, for you to go down this line because they will use it against you. If you jump at the first little piece of information that suggests that you might be able to blow the situation, blow the whole conspiracy wide open here; if you don't do your homework and make sure that it's kind of as hard and fast as it can be, it's going to be used to ridicule you and dismiss you.

Niall: Yeah, you are going to leave yourself wide open.

Joe: You are also going to tar us.

Niall: You are going to tar everyone who sincerely is interested in the truth is going to be tarred by this.

Joe: And of course that leaves open the idea, which is entirely plausible, that someone; I mean CIA and I think you mentioned earlier on, Niall, like the CIA and the FBI, etc. the Intel Agencies in the US have their armies of techno-geeks sitting at computers and infiltrating. I mean It was Cass Sustein who advocated this; a kind of cognitive infiltration of conspiracy theory websites and stuff. So obviously this kind of thing exists. It's not impossible that they would be deliberately creating websites

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And putting out these crazy conspiracy theories that are so completely debunked deliberately to tar everybody who has any real intent or desire to really get to the bottom of it.

Niall: They do perceive you as a threat. They really do. And that's why they've got armies of bloggers at the Pentagon with multiple screens open, multiple tabs open at one time, multiple fake user profiles, pushing these kinds of ridiculous things, some of which are kind of plausible but if you just did a little bit of investigating you'd soon discover that there's nothing, they're are not standing on any evidence whatsoever.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: I remember seeing the first hoax story, [which] was that Robbie Parker had gone up before the press and he was smiling before, so that's therefore proof.

I remember seeing that and saying surely no one is going to run with this, this isn't going to have any legs, this will die soon. But I couldn't believe it had taken off. It had taken off all the way to people saying the whole thing was a complete hoax. The 'Sandy Hook hoax' is now associated in peoples' minds, in let's say, the mass of people's mind, in the mainstream...

Joe: Anybody who is aware of there being a conspiracy by Sandy Hook now has already been discredited in their minds because of these people who have put forward this idea of actors.

Niall: Anderson Cooper, when introduces his show, he says "I wouldn't normally do this." Very disingenuous. Because...

Joe: Oh, yeah. Of course, the media wouldn't normally try to debunk conspiracy theories and promote the official Government version of things. They would never do that, I mean there's no evidence at all for them ever doing that. But, go ahead.

Niall: (chuckling) Well, he also said; he didn't name which video, he said "oh I'm not going to give them any more attention than they deserve, I'm not going to say which video exactly" but he did say there was one particular YouTube video that at that point; this report went out 7th of January, so two weeks ago; had said that this particular YouTube video had had 200,000 views and that's what drew his attention to it. I think the one he's talking about, is the one that now has 11,000,000 views, so he's has brought it into the mainstream and it's been held up as evidence of crazy conspiracy kooks.

Joe: You see, the theory behind this is that Anderson Cooper, being primetime and having a lot of viewers and stuff, comes on and says "I'm not going to give them any more attention than they deserve" which is in his opinion, none. So he's not going to give any links or mention any of the names of any websites. But by doing a program on this, a debunking program, he encourages everybody who's watching to go out and find out for themselves or at least a good proportion of those people will go and do that. It's totally disingenuous. Obviously he's trying to say "I don't want anybody to go and look at these conspiracy theory websites" but by having a program on it, that's exactly what he's encouraging people to do.

Having said all tha,t we're kind of torn here because it was a debunking of the things that we ourselves here at have been debunking, i.e. actors, he focused on the actors and the whole hoaxing, the elaborate hoax around Sandy Hook that is just ridiculous. The bottom line is these mass shootings happen regularly in the US. No one said Aurora was a hoax, no one said that Virginia Tech was a hoax; no one said that Fort Hood was a hoax, where a large number of people were killed.

Why would you say that about Sandy Hook? Obviously whoever is doing this, whoever is carrying out these shootings; and I know it's put down to a lone gunman but we don't believe that and for good reason; whoever is carrying out these shootings is doing it for a reason.

Niall: The reason is not; well, this is a whole other can of worms that comes with the Sandy Hook shooting. A lot of people who conceive that something is fishy with this have jumped to the conclusion the reason for doing this "false flag operation" in quotes, is to enforce stricter gun control. Now, if you look at what's actually happened in the aftermath of the shooting, sales of weapons went through the roof in the US. They increased, they did not decrease. Are we really to believe the minds behind something like would be so smart as to be able to pull off such an operation and yet not foresee a very predictable result that it would actually increase hysteria and increase people's belief in the idea that they can protect themselves from these kinds of forces by acquiring more weaponry?

Joe: No, the whole gun control thing, as far as I'm concerned, is a red herring. Its nonsense and I think it's even being deliberately promoted in an effort to stir-up the population. Just a general stirring of the population, setting people against each other, the pro- and the anti-[gun]. But Sandy Hook has nothing to do with trying to taking your guns away. That idea that it's designed, that Sandy Hook was some false flag to take your guns away is based on a really faulty premise, anyways. Because the premise that the people who ascribe to that idea or that theory; their premise is that it is only with a well-armed citizenry, i.e. every American who wants to have as many guns as they want should be allowed to have them; this armed citizen is the last defense against, tyranny, against corruption, against the Government coming to, I don't know, put you into concentration camps or something like that.

But the problem is, well, for a start, my opinion is that true freedom cannot be safeguarded with a gun because it can't really be taken away with a gun. Obviously, I don't want to get too airy-fairy there but obviously guns can be used to protect yourself. But the fact of the matter is, in terms of protecting civil liberties and rights enshrined in the US Constitution; I mean the most important ones have already been taken away over the last 10-15 years; they've been systematically stripped away and not one gun was used in their protection. So if anybody thinks that by holding onto their guns they are safeguarding US Civil Rights and Liberties and Freedoms; you are fooling yourself; they're already gone; you don't have them anymore. It's all over but the crying type of thing.

Okay, you might say they have put all this police state apparatus in place and they have all of these laws passed where they can indefinitely detain Americans when and where they want, and that the last defense against them coming to take you away will be your gun, but that's not the way it's going to happen. Americans aren't being enslaved and controlled, and will not be enslaved and controlled physically, because they have already been enslaved and controlled psychologically and emotionally for a long time. Basically, the people who are in control of you, know you far better than you know yourself. They are experts in psychologically and they know how to tweak, push your buttons and get you to kind of jump on command and they do it all, are able to do it all, essentially because most human beings don't really understand their own emotions and their own hot buttons.

Niall: Their own biases and what makes them tick.

Joe: Their own emotional reactions; their own emotional thinking. As evidenced by all these conspiracy theorists who talk about actors. They exhibit this inability to really think clearly. They are just emotional reaction machines and that is how you are enslaved.

Niall: I don't know how many times I've seen comments to the effect that "wow, so Sandy Hook was a hoax" or "the official story is blown wide open, we've busted the government, we've got them now, they are running."

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: It could not be more opposite to what actually happened. Sandy Hook has shown to us; and we've looked at it in excruciating detail over the past six weeks; has shown us more than ever that when we are talking about a psychological operation, it is literally that; psychological. And they have it down to a tee. It did not require this massive conspiracy needing lots of people on the scene and very careful management of information afterwards. All it required was maybe two or three people speaking to the press.

Joe: On the scene.

Niall: And making sure certain things were leaked out. All it required was maybe a handful of people somewhere in the Pentagon or who knows where getting this hoax idea up and running because they know that you.

Joe: Are going to jump on it.

Niall: At the least the gullible among us will take it, and give it legs.

Joe: And run with it.

Niall: And make it grow and grow.

Joe: And not only will you make a fool of yourself but you'll also miss the real conspiracy that's going on here, the real details of the conspiracy. And you'll miss an opportunity to understand the real extent of the forces that you're fighting against; just how subtle and almost all-powerful that they really are and the kind of level of control they exert; to understand that and to see that. And you can see it in Sandy Hook if you look closely enough. To understand the depths of the conspiracy, and more importantly, the forces that are raised against us is far more important than going around thinking that you busted open the government and blah, blah, blah.

You need to really see these things for what they are. And like I said, it can be seen in Sandy Hook in the sense that we believe; and we are going to provide more evidence for why we believe this; we believe that Adam Lanza was not a lone gunman, that there were other people involved, that Lanza was probably there as the fall guy and that trained professionals were involved and they did most of the shooting and killing.

Niall: That they were able to get away with it because they answer to a higher power.

Joe: The point that I'm trying to make is that these people were able to do this. They were able to go into a school, shoot dead twenty children and six teachers and [Adam] Lanza and his mother; and they were able to get clean away leaving basically no hard evidence of them having being there, just kind of circumstantial evidence, really. And they were able to do this, walk away and have the entire world believe that it was Lanza. They were able to leave these little aspects of their plan in place, for example seeding disinformation to the media that not only allowed for them to make sure that if there were any little leaks about what really happened, they could cover it up by saying "oh well, in this morass of all this contradictory information coming out in the media" they could sweep a few little..

Niall: Loose Ends.

Joe: Loose ends under the rug and say that obviously that a misreport by the media; one more of the many misreports by the media. Not only by feeding this disinformation could they do that, but they were also seeding the conspiracy theories that have bloomed since. Because it was basically based on this morass of contradictory information that these people were seeding to the media; that is what essentially gave rise to the first conspiracy theories; because people were looking at all this massive contradictory information coming out and that's what made the first people say "hang on a minute, how could they get this so wrong? They said this one minute, they said this the next..." So they started up the whole conspiracy train and then they got in there and ran it off the rails with some nuclear fuel rods thrown into the burner.

And there's evidence we have that we think backs up this idea of someone on the scene feeding information the media is, first of all, the fact there's no other explanation as to why or how the media came up with completely wrong stories; stories that were completely in-factual that had nothing to do with the case. Where did that come from? Why would anyone have made that up? They would have had to make it up because there was no evidence for the idea that Lanza's father was shot by Lanza and his brother down in Hoboken. There is no, and never has been any evidence for that, so someone put that out there.

Also, the fact about the famous gun in the trunk in the car that was sitting outside the car that Lanza supposedly drove to the school. The media in the first few hours, this was during daylight time, the media were saying, daylight time on December 14th, as in a few hours after the shooting and after the police had arrived; the media were saying that the police had discovered an AR14 Bushmaster Rifle in the trunk of Lanza's car. That was eventually corrected to Lanza having that rifle with him in the school. But the problem was the media was saying this within a few hours, but it was only later that night that we see the video evidence of police opening the trunk of the car and discovering a shotgun. So it was only then, after dark, i.e. at probably 5pm and after, on December 14th, that the police apparently looked in the trunk of the car and found a gun.

Yet several hours beforehand the media were reporting that a gun had been found in the trunk of the car. That's a bit of a coincidence. You could say "Well, maybe someone thought there might a gun in the trunk of the car and oh look there was a gun in the trunk of the car." No, it sounds more like someone on the scene who knew a lot more about the situation, who was possibly part of the covert operation, let's say that this was; was feeding that kind of information to the media, deliberately to set up a completely confusing and contradictory situation. Not just one piece of information that they were seeding, they were feeding the media information about Lanza, about Ryan, about his father in Hoboken, that he had been killed, that the roommates had been killed.

Niall: Something I noticed at the time. They seemed to be making a big effort to connect Adam or, actually then, it was Ryan Lanza, any Lanza, to the school. I have here; I'm going to read it out. This is the way it's been described; It's 1:57PM Eastern Standard Time, so it's 5 hours or so after the shooting.

Joe: Four.

Niall: Four hours. "CNN reports that an anonymous Federal Law Enforcement source who says he is in contact with authorities on the scene, informs news media that the suspected gunman had connection to the school but would not elaborate." That is the basis on which headlines were being generated in the first day or two saying there was some connection between Lanza and the school. In other words a rumour backed up by simply clarifying that "oh an anonymous official had told me this."

Joe: And all of these reports about Lanza having been at the school the day before and having an altercation with the staff; that wasn't true. The fact that Lanza's mother; the claim that Lanza's mother was a kindergarten teacher at the school and that's why Lanza went to the school because he was jealous that his mother was giving attention to the kids and he went and shot all of the kids, having shot her first; all of this came from anonymous sources or security forces, sources who wish to remain anonymous, etc.

They were all being accredited to those kinds of sources, to anonymous police sources or anonymous whatever sources by the media. So there were people on the scene right after the shooting happened giving this information to the media and they were basically making it up. Someone was making up this information. And more to the point, there was the Newtown Bee, recently, which is a Newtown local newspaper, initially,shortly after the shooting; they had said that the school principal.

Niall: Dawn Hochsprung.

Joe: That she had spoken to one of the reporters and given some details about what happened.

Niall: Yeah she described the shooting on and on; as in she lived.

Joe: Exactly! Well this was after the shooting and she was still alive, supposedly, but this woman, at the time it was reported was lying dead inside, but the Newtown Bee had since, in the last few days reported...

Niall: It retracted...

Joe: They retracted the story.

Niall: They retracted their original story and they replaced it with another statement.

Joe: Go ahead.

Niall: In which they say "An early online report from the scene at the school shooting quoted a woman who identified herself to our reporter as the principal of the school. The woman was not the school's principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who was actually killed in the Friday morning attack." But that's not just, oh sorry they got the story wrong, that's actually a professional comment from a professional news outlet. That's what they think. It's not that 'we got it wrong' ,it's that somebody presumed.

Joe: What they are basically saying is there was someone at the school in the media circus on the morning of the shooting after the shooting who went up to a media reporter from the Newtown Bee and said "Hi, I'm Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of the school and here's what happened." This is another example of someone on the scene, or, it's more evidence that there were people; very few people is all that it would take, on the scene talking to the media, presenting themselves as people that they were not, and giving deliberately false information to the media that created, as we keep mentioning, this morass of contradictory and conflicting information that came out from the media as a result of this shooting.

And that has not happened in other shootings. Nowhere near to the same extent. If you think back there wasn't this controversy over the nature of the information and the conflicting information over the Aurora theatre shooting or any of the other ones. They were all more or less; they have their own discrepancies but not the massive amount of fake news that came out and completely different narratives about what happened that came out; so this is what leads us to believe that someone was on the scene doing this deliberately and we've explained why they would do it and the benefits of them doing it.

Niall: So, yeah, I think we can speculate even, just for a moment, as to why that would be done. If they're fully aware that Adam Lanza and Nancy Lanza had no connection to the school, they must realize that sooner or later, in fact as it turns out, very soon after, that that will be discovered. Some journalist somewhere is going to make inquiries and actually it will transpire therewas no connection. That got me thinking why would they do that? Surely the truth will out, then that's a risky thing to do.

But I think what something like that does, it creates, it just momentarily, on the day, it creates enough of an association in people's minds; the stories, the breaking story, the reports are coming out thick and fast; the idea of maybe you think of it as a psychological operation is just to create enough of an association in your mind that "oh, okay, that kind of makes sense. Some guy has some connection with the school, had some altercation; had some grievance therefore he goes nuts." It's kind of plausible and it passes even when the truth outs later at the bottom of a report in the Wall Street Journal, last paragraph, which no one will read anyway by that time.

It doesn't matter. By now it's already taken hold. By now it's established there was a lone gunman who was just crazy and that's all there is to it. The truth coming out is not going to damage the official story in any way.

Joe: Yeah, so ultimately the place we arrived at in terms of looking at the Sandy Hook shooting and all the details around it; the place we arrived at was that we had very little evidence for conspiracy, and in true conspiratorial style we decided that the lack of evidence was evidence of conspiracy, and that's more or less what we are saying.

Niall: (laughter)

Joe: But it's in a particular context; it's in a kind of historical context in the sense of our claim that, for example; and we are not saying there were actors at Sandy Hook, we are saying there were people who were involved in the shooting who deliberately spread disinformation to the media and were posing as the school principal, for example.

Niall: Or as law enforcement officials.

Joe: Yes, so this idea of people posing as someone involved in an event; or sorry, someone who is actually involved in some kind of crime, posing as an eyewitness in an effort to feed a particular, or spread a particular version of the story to the media; going up and talking to the media saying "I am whoever, I'm a policeman, I'm an interested party, I was involved. Here's what happened." This is not something that's remarkable. It doesn't take such a leap of imagination to see how it probably does and has happened.

There are all sorts of vested interests in terms of the corruption within the US and the various crimes that are committed by governments and stuff. If governments commit a certain crime and they want to cover it up in some way, they are going to seed information; they are going to try and manipulate the flow of information about that event to make sure that the official story that covers their asses is the one that gets out.

Niall: They anticipate a reaction, and built into their original planning they are going to include responses to that reaction.

Joe: Just to give you a little counter(?)-historical example of this.

Niall: Are we going to play a video? An audio?

Joe: (chuckling) Video? No, no videos on the radio. On 9/11, there was a video report by Fox News when they were down in Manhattan shortly after the towers fell. And there was the reporter, the guy sidled up to the reporter and the Fox News reporter recognized him and named him as Mark Walsh who is a freelancer for Fox News.

Niall: For Fox, yeah.

Joe: And Mark came along and presented himself as an eyewitness to the whole scene; to the crashing of the planes and the collapsing of the towers. I'm just going to let you to what he said here.

Niall: Have a listen.

{Fox News Audio}

"We want to bring in Mark Walsh who is a freelancer for Fox. You live just a few blocks away and witnessed

Mark: Dude, I live on the 43rd floor of a building which is five blocks from the World Trade Centre itself. I witnessed the entire thing from beginning to end.

Reporter: People talk about how it looked like a movie. I know when I came walking down here earlier this morning and saw both towers on fire and people on every street corner, it was, it was, it was like a movie, but you watched the planes hit the towers.

Mark: I was watching with my roommate. It was approximately several minutes after the first plane had hit. I saw this plane come out of nowhere and just ream right into the side of the Twin Tower, exploding through the other side. And then I witnessed both towers collapse; one first and then the second; mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

Joe: Did you catch that?

Niall: Mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense; how could he have known that?

Joe: Exactly. He obviously had some kind of precognition of the NIST Report, the official report on why the towers fell, that came out about three or four years later because that's exactly what they said! And you notice how he said that he witnessed, you know he's using the words "I witnessed the plane crash into the towers", you know. And he "witnessed them collapsing, probably due to structural failures because the fires were so hot" says in the NIST report, so for us that's pretty clear evidence of; I mean a freelancer for Fox News, that's just another way of saying, you know CIA basically.

Niall: (laughter) Aeuphemism for plant.

Joe: Yeah, a euphemism for plant basically. So that's an example of the kind of thing we're talking about. It obviously, more than likely has happened on many other occasions, but it's an example of what we're suggesting was going at Sandy Hook, i.e. there were people on the scene, only a few people, one of them clearly, according to the Newtown Bee posing as the principal who was dead and describing events that went on inside. And then other people, unnamed sources of the mainstream media that CNN and several other mainstream media sources came out and stated were actually unreliable. They said that as an explanation as to why they got things so wrong, was that they had relied on sources that they believed to reliable that proved to be unreliable; which suggests that there were unreliable sources hanging around Sandy Hook talking to the media.

Niall: A really, really big one from that day was journalist Pete Yost for Associated Press. He was the guy who quoted a law enforcement official saying that the; what does he say here? "That 24 year-old Ryan Lanza; confirming that 24 year-old Ryan Lanza had been found dead in the school and that his brother Adam had been held for questioning as a possible second shooter." That right there, for someone to be on the scene, saying that is, is...

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: It's got to send up red flags.

Joe: Federal and State forces told ABC; generally speaking, policemen do not just...

Niall: Speak to the media.

Joe: Talk to the media within a few hours of something like this happening, because they themselves know; first of all they know that they are not allowed to and they'll get in trouble, secondly they probably know that they don't know what really went on; they've only got little snippets of information. So to provide such a complete story as this guy did, and as several others did, sounds like these weren't genuine security officials or police or state sources, that they were someone else; and then that leads you to who they were and it, for us, it ties into our idea that...

Niall: This information is seeded.

Joe: Well, no that's the idea but it ties into the idea that there was a conspiracy around Sandy Hook and that there were people involved based on the unlikely; based on the improbability of Adam Lanza being able to carry out this shooting in the way that it has been described, bursting in Rambo style. He's like 120 lbs or something; bursting in Rambo style through a fairly heavy locked door and then taking out all these people execution style and then shooting himself. And also, by the way he shot himself in the front of the head. He was found with a bullet hole in the front of his head.

Niall: In his forehead.

Joe: Yes in his forehead, in the front of his head. So usually when you get shot as I understand it; when you get shot in the front of the head that means someone else did it. I mean, I looked it up actually. These are the kinds of things that I end up looking up which I would never normally look up.

Niall: (laughter)

Joe: And never normally want to look up, but in terms of suicides, the vast majority of people who commit suicide shoot themselves in the side of the head or in the mouth or under the chin. I think under the chin and the side of the head is the main one because it's just ease of access. I don't know if you even want to do this, but imagine, you know, holding a gun to some part of your head to kill yourself, you know, you're going to do it the easiest way. Trying to hold a gun far enough out to point it at the front of your head, it's a, bit of a; it's a bit of a strange maneuver type of thing. It's not a natural way to do it and it just points to the fact that; or is suggestive of Adam Lanza having been shot by someone else.

So the other thing, just as a little side note, the other thing that pops up here in relation to Sandy Hook is that there were drills going on about 20, 25 minutes away, FEMA drills going on specifically for how to protect children, or deal with children in a disaster situation.

Niall: Specifically, it was an active shooter drill that was taking place in another elementary school, 14 miles west in Carmel, in Putnam County which is across state lines in New York State, but very close.

Joe: No, no, no I'm talking about a different though.

Niall: That was another drill?

Joe: That one you're talking about is across state lines further away. The one I'm talking about I think is in Bridgeport, which is about 20, 25 minutes away.

Niall: That's in Connecticut, okay.

Joe: Bridgeport in Connecticut. It's not far away. It's linked by a kind of main road directly to Newtown and there was a FEMA drill going on there. Of course these kinds of drills have been going on several times, you know, five or six times between the months of November, December in in that area, in the state of Connecticut, I think, or even in that county perhaps. So they'refairly regular; so to some extent it's not strange that there would have been this kind of drill going on. But for a start, this might explain why this guy, I mean it's a plausible explanation as to why this guy who was caught up in the hills in behind Sandy Hook in full tactical gear and stuff, this guy that...

Niall: Can you explain what he was doing there?

Joe: He could have come from there. But, when you put it in context of drills being used as cover for covert operations; and there's a lot of evidence for that. For example, there was a drill going on the same day that the Aurora Colorado shooting happened. There was a drill that day in Denver, Colorado; the University of Colorado. And it posed; one of the scenarios that was part of the drill was actually someone shooting inside a movie theater and this was relatively close to; it was going on throughout the day.

And obviously on 9/11 there were a lot of drills and on several other shooting incidences there were drill-like activities going on that, when you consider it from the idea of this being a possible covert operation by a team it obviously would make it a lot easier for these people to be in the area. It would be an explanation for them, in terms of, if ever they were questioned why they were there. It's basically good cover.

And we have another little audio clip here that I just want to use to illustrate that point. This is an audio clip from around the time of the London bombings; the London tube bombings in 2005. And the guy you are going to hear being interviewed; his name is Peter Power. He is actually a former soldier in the British Army; he was in the parachute regiment, actually. I don't know if anyone knows about the parachute regiment but he was in the parachute regiment from 1969 to 1971 which probably would have put him in Northern Ireland, so don't get me started on that.

He then joined the Metropolitan Police in 1971 and he basically, he was involved after that; he had a long career with the Metropolitan Police in their anti-terrorist branch and, anyway in 1995 he left the police and joined up, or set up his own company in Central London which is called Visor Consultants and they were crisis emergency management consultants; basically what to do in an emergency. And have a little listen here to what he says about what he was doing on the very morning of the London tube bombings.

Peter Power: "The thing that concerns me is that what are we doing for the thousands of men and women actually who are in London working. And I say that because at half past 9 this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations that happened this morning. So I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing uprightly.

Interviewer: So let me get this quite straight. You were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

Peter Power: Precisely. And it was about half past 9 this morning. We planned this for a company and for obvious reasons, we don't reveal their name but if their listening they'll know it and we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time we've met. And so within 5 minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow-time to quick time thinking and so on."

Joe: So there you have it.

Niall: Wow!

Joe: What are the odds?

Niall: A drill going on that morning at the very same tube stations where...

Joe: Well, had simulated bombs going off in the exact same tube stations where the bombs did go off, literally 20 minutes later after they started the exercise. So these are the kind of things that make you go 'Hmm,' and there is a lot of evidence. Obviously if you look at; anybody who's aware of the drills that were going on at 9/11, that is like the Big Kahuna of; (whatever the 'Big Kahuna' means) as the big Kahuna of drill situations in terms of drills being used to cover up, to mask an operation, a covert operations that's going on at that...

Niall: At the same time.

Joe: At the same time. It's a perfect mask. Obviously 9/11 was a major, major operation seeing these major drills which they had; several drills. But then to scale it down to smaller operations like shootings and you have smaller; you obviously don't need the same infrastructure but a drill serves exactly the same purpose of providing cover for operatives involved in the covert operation, because with a drill you flood the area with, you know, police, and out of state police; out of town, out of state police; there's lots of strange people floating around and they don't stand out; it's cover.

Niall: In terms of historical precedence, we might also want to look at some of the more recent shootings as well. We've already mentioned a couple of them. The reason is, because when you see; okay we don't have a lot of hard evidence, what we have is circumstantial regarding what happened at Sandy Hook; but when you put it together with the same kind of things that are said in previous mass shootings, particular in recent ones, the similarities between them are really striking.

Joe: They are really striking but what actually is more striking is the fact that; I have a list here that I found of school shootings in the past 16, 17 years. It goes back to 1996 and there are about 65 of them, and when you read through them, what kind of stands out; well, I'll let you try and figure out what stands out here. 1996, you know one example, 1996; Moses Lake, Washington; two students and one teacher killed. 1997, Alaska, principal, one student killed. 1997 again; there's 65 of these things. West Paducah, Kentucky; three students killed, five wounded. 1998; one teacher, John Gilette killed, two students wounded. 1999; one teacher, three students wounded by a 17 year old student. 2000; one teacher killed by; it just goes on; one teacher killed, two students; two students wounded, one teacher killed; one student, one teacher.

Except when you get to; so basically all of them; ninty-some percent are of that nature; one student killed, two students wounded, one teacher killed, etc., except for some very notable ones that stand out for obvious reasons. Because in all of these other ones where one or two students were killed, it's the same kind of teenage, you know, early twenties, or teenage persons, a student usually or former student that goes into the school and just loses it basically, goes in and just fires of a few rounds, kills a few people.

But the ones that stand out are the ones that have the same type of student, same age roughly, who goes in, but it's not one of two students, it's thirty students, all shot three times in the head and you know, a couple of dozen wounded.

Niall: (inaudible) Yeah.

Joe: For example that is what more or less happened at Virginia Tech when the guy Cho went in and basically went postal. And I mean that's a very strange; in itself it's a very strange shooting. It's not the average shooting, there's a lot of strange details around that including the idea of more than one shooter; there were reports of more than one shooter at Virginia Tech. And you see that's the thing; that makes sense. When it's one or two students killed, there's never any reference to two shooters or more than one shooter. Because when one student walks in and kills one or two students, that's all it is; he kills them and then he kills himself or the police come or somebody overpowers him.

There's never any reference to more than one shooter because it only takes one person to shoot one or two people and then to be either tackled or whatever. But in all of the few, the small number of mass shootings by these kind of lone gunmen, kind of 'disturbed student' scenarios there is invariably reference to more than one shooter by eyewitnesses or even by police. And it makes sense; that makes sense. Because these kinds of mass shootings don't fit with the other shootings; they don't fit as a one person as a lone gunman shooter because everybody who knows anything, and people have stated it after most of them, people who are aware and who know how to use guns and know the problems and the expertise that's needed to use guns properly are all amazed that these young guys with no training can walk in and kill people with such expertise and such accuracy.

So, you know this isn't crazy conspiracy theory; this is a natural, a natural kind of rational thought process. It occurs to us anyway, as being normal. You know two shooters yeah. Well, I'm pretty sure there were two shooters involved in that because that guy with supposedly no gun training killed thirty people. So, the same is true about the Fort Hood shootings. Although that wasn't a school shooting, but again in that there was...

Niall: At Fort Hood we had something like 60 or more people being hit. I'm not sure how many fatalities there were, but there were several descriptions from people at the scene. These would be not just passersby, these eyewitnesses would have been ranking US Army officers describing two, three, and I think in one case a fourth person involved at the Fort Hood shooting, which we now know was pinned on one fall guy, Malik Hassan, I think his name was.

Joe: Malik Hassan, yeah.

Niall: But what these, particularly the recent mass shootings, what they have in common is the multiple reports of more than one person from credible sources who have no reason to make this stuff up. And what they all then have in common is that the official narrative quickly becomes one of just a single, lone gunman having pulled it off. And it stretches; it stretches credibility. And so pointing out we can understand that somebody fires in rage at one or two people but...

Joe: To go in and methodically...

Niall: For James Holmes in the Aurora Colorado shooting; I think he hit 100 people, which technically makes it the worst mass shooting.

Joe: In terms of casualties.

Niall: Yeah, in terms of casualties; on his own, 100 people. In this particular case there were not just reports from eyewitnesses describing; I mean Joe has mentioned a couple of them earlier; as much as eyewitness reports of a second person, but other completely anomalous things that make you go 'what?'. So for example ,the police officer who booked; who either found Holmes first or who booked him, that is he took him to the police station in Aurora, Colorado on the day; he described James Holmes as being completely out of it, that he was staring into space and that it was like there weren't normal emotional responses. And we can probably relate to that because we've all seen either photo or video footage of Holmes with his weird dyed, orange hair.

Joe: And his glazed-over eyes.

Niall: In a courtroom the next day.

Joe: And his eyes.

Niall: He's just zoned out of it. It's like he's not aware of what's going on.

Joe: And he said to his cellmate...

Niall: Well, that was interesting. This report came up just before, oh, pretty much two weeks before Sandy Hook. There was a strange report about James Holmes, the alleged lone gunman of the Colorado Shooting, in which his cellmate at the prison he was taken to that day, a guy called Steven Unruh said he had a conversation with James Holmes, in which Holmes told him that, and I quote "He felt like he was in a videogame during the shooting because he wasn't on his meds." He also said that nobody would help him. Most interesting though, is that he told his cellmate that he had been programmed to do it by an evil therapist.

Joe: An evil therapist?

Niall: That's weird.

Joe: That's very strange. I mean we have already mentioned the other anomalies about Holmes; that he was found in his car.

Niall: Oh yeah, the physical anomalies that doesn't add up.

Joe: That don't add up. And the fact that, I mean again there was evidence at Aurora of two people shooting. And this is like we're saying, that this is a common theme at these mass shootings; that there were reports of two; and the point is that there are always these reports of police looking for or eyewitnesses having seen more than one shooter and they are always at these mass shootings and they are never at the dozens, the vast majority of other shootings where only one or two people are killed. And it makes sense. One person is all it takes to go and shoot one teacher and a couple of kids. It takes more than one person to go in and execute 32 people.

When you're dealing with the same type of person with not a lot of; no expert arms training; no, you know, oh I don't know, we're trying to be logical here, you know, but you're not allowed to be logical, you're not allowed to think logically about this! The whole point is you're meant to think emotionally. But anyways, getting back to Holmes and his crazy; his scary therapist?

Niall: His evil therapist.

Joe: His evil therapist that made him do it. When you look at these people; Holmes, he's obviously, he's been on meds, he's disturbed, there's evidence that he's got some psychological issues.

Niall: He was actually seeing a bonafide...

Joe: A therapist.

Niall: A therapist at his university.

Joe: Adam Lanza supposedly had Asperger's. Don't know but clearly also had some kind of psychological issues. The guy Cho from Virginia Tech also was on meds and had a track record of having psychological issues. I think Hassan also had been...

Niall: I think Hassan, the alleged lone gunman at...

Joe/Niall: Fort Hood.

Niall: Was undergoing counselling and also he had an interesting involvement in psychotherapy himself, but that maybe...

Joe: Yeah, well that would put him in the picture.

Niall: Yes.

Joe: That would give someone easy access to him. But the point here is, is that; the point we are building up to or trying to get at is, to kind of sum up; we are not looking at Sandy Hook in isolation. We are looking at Sandy Hook in context. And as we said; well we didn't say actually yet but as we are going to say now.

Niall: Go for it.

Joe: Most people are aware, at least in the back of their minds if they don't want to admit it to themselves; most people are aware of the idea that the CIA, for example, or some branch of Intel agencies, etc., carry out, kind of covert operations and, you know that they are to some extent above and beyond the government.

Niall: They have a big, long, wide track record of doing it abroad in foreign countries.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: And we do know that covert operations have taken place domestically in the US in the past.

Joe: Yes. So, we're not looking at Sandy Hook in isolation, we're looking at it in the context of past shootings that we have just been talking about and the problems of those past shootings and we're also looking at it in the context of; is it possible; this is the way we're looking at it; the place we've arrived at in terms of how we see Sandy Hook is in this context and also in the context of the question: is it possible that a person could be mind-programmed to either carry out a shooting; to do anything; to carry out an assassination, to carry out a shooting, or just to simply be somewhere at a certain time; involve themselves; to essentially be a fall-guy or the patsy?

I think most people listening to this show, anyway, will be aware that is a possibility and that for example, that most people are aware of the project MK-Ultra which is a codename for covert research operations and experimenting in behavioral engineering of humans. And this was part of the CIA Scientific Intelligence Division. This was going on from the (inaudible). Officially from the 60's and into the 70's and then officially was supposedly stopped but we've no reason to believe it was stopped.

So the idea is that the CIA; and this implicates the CIA and implicates the CIA as an agency that most people I think are aware that they are to some extent or some faction of the CIA are above and beyond control of Congress or government. That very often the President, if you want to call him that, takes his orders from the CIA on certain matters, and the President doesn't necessarily know, and Congress doesn't necessarily, and the Senate doesn't know about everything the CIA knows about.

So there's a general understanding that there is a kind of unaccountable group within the US that operates above and beyond the foresight of government when they want to, and have done, repeatedly in the past. I don't think that's a conspiracy theory. And then there is, as I just mentioned, the idea of project MK-Ultra which was a covert research operation experimenting in the behavioural engineering of humans. You can look it up on Wikipedia if you like; MK-Ultra.

So it seems that this is not science fiction here, this is; we've got two things here. We've got the evidence for a group above and beyond the power of the overt government; above and beyond the Congress, Senate and the executive branches; that does as they please and that they are also have been, officially involved in experimenting in the behavioural engineering of humans, i.e., mind control. It's basically mind control through hypnosis, the application and use of drugs to affect awareness and consciousness; obviously again the idea of a covert group or a covert; or sorry a secret element within the CIA or a black-ops element within the CIA is evidenced by, for example, the JFK assassination. I think in recent polls...

Niall: It speaks for itself. Yeah there was a fairly recent poll in which it was described that 75% of Americans do not believe the lone gunman explanation for what happened.

Joe: That Oswald was the lone gunman.

Niall: That Oswald was the lone gunman. By definition there...

Joe: There's an admission.

Niall: There is a conspiracy.

Joe: By the 75% of Americans that, you know, that there is a power...

Joe/Niall: Above and Beyond!

Joe: Well, that can take out, that can take out a president! I mean that must be in the back of people's minds. I mean if 75% of people; and I firmly believe; I mean because the evidence around the JFK assassination is so, so clear in terms that it wasn't Oswald and it was the CIA and the Military Industrial Complex, if you want to call it that; because that evidence is so clear, I fully believe that 75% of Americans would understand that and accept that Oswald; that it is a bullshit story. I mean at the time I think nobody in America believed the Warren Commission.

And we are just making a point here that this group exists, this power within the US exists to carry out these kinds of complicated and complex operations that are above and beyond; and in the case of JFK, were targeted at the President; the President was the target of the assassination by a group that clearly therefore is above and beyond the office of the President. There is no reason to believe that that group doesn't exist today. There's plenty of reason to believe that they do exist today.

You add in project MK-Ultra and their intense interest in research and experimentation into behavioural engineering of humans, including hypnosis and drugs, etc. and then you put that into context of these disturbed individuals who go along carrying out mass shootings that are anomalous in terms of the other shootings and I think we have just cause to be suspicious in this broader context and I'd just like to let you listen to a little bit of corroborating evidence. This is from; this is a piece of audio from an interview with the...

Niall: The lawyer.

Joe: The lawyer of Sirhan Sirhan who was, who is still in prison on a life sentence for the murder of Robert Kennedy. The lawyers name is Lawrence Teeter and this interview is from 2003 and it's just a short segment, it's a few minutes, but we are going to play it here just to illustrate the point that we've been trying to make. This guy has done a lot of research and obviously knows a lot about Sirhan Sirhan's case and all of what he says has been corroborated by documentary evidence, actually in the form of a documentary called RFK Must Die that you can search on the web for, it's a very interesting documentary and it relies on historical evidence and reliable evidence for the premise of the theory that it puts forward. So we'll just let you...

Niall: Let's listen to what Lawrence Teeter has to say.

Lawrence Teeter: "I am the only attorney Sirhan has ever had who has clearly and quite rightly proclaimed Sirhan's innocence, not only in the shooting, but of any culpability in the act of the assassination. Because I presented evidence in an historic declaration that Dr. Herbert Spiegel and I have worked on together, which establishes that Sirhan was programmed through hypnosis, and as a result of this hypnotic programming, was unconscious due to programming, and lacked any knowledge or memory of the events involving the assassination and was unable to recall the experience of being programmed.

First of all, right after the assassination, Sirhan spoke to a prosecutor and he engages in a very articulate colloquy about somebody else's case. Not his own, somebody else's. And the prosecutor sensing something is wrong with this scenario asks Sirhan questions designed to determine whether he knows where he is. And it quickly becomes apparent that Sirhan has no idea that he hasn't even been taken before a judge to be arraigned. He is totally; he is not oriented, he has no contact with reality. He doesn't know what's happening. This is right after he is taken into custody. That right there is pretty powerful evidence that he is operating in an altered state of mind.

In his cell, Sirhan is met with experiments performed by defense psychiatrist Bernard Diamond. Bernard Diamond holds up a quarter in front of Sirhan's face and Sirhan goes right into the hypnotic trance, indicating to the doctor, according to testimony presented in trial that Sirhan was an experienced hypnotic subject and had undergone hypnosis before the assassination. Well right there, there is a basis for laying a foundation for the argument that Sirhan doesn't deserve the death penalty and that certainly is a basis for exploring the possibility that he was programmed. And then there's more that materializes among these lines.

Dr. Diamond tells Sirhan in trance "Sirhan when I wake you up I'm going to touch my forehead and you are going to climb the bars of your cell like a monkey." So he wakes him up, touches his forehead, up the bars of the cell goes Sirhan and looks down at the doctor with monkey-like expressions. The doctor says "Sirhan who told you to do that? 'No one, I am doing it on my own!'"

A perfect example of Sirhan's high level of hypnotizbility and programmability; he's being programmed to do something he wouldn't ordinarily do, with no memory of being programmed; with no knowledge that he's acting in response to instructions from a programmer. It's a perfect example of how this assassination was arranged. And there are others.

I think that it's reasonable to look at this assassination as a sequel, a follow-up to the JFK assassination. What did the planners of this assassination learn from Dallas? Well they learned we don't want another Dallas, and that's true in a number of respects. First of all Dallas was a public relations disaster for the planners of that killing. Maybe it was the same group or same body or institution. So Dallas was not something that the L.A. crowd wanted to repeat. The ideal way around the Dallas disaster was to have somebody walk into a room full of people and fire away. He's seen in the act, it's open and shut, nobody questions it, it doesn't look suspicious at all, and it certainly doesn't reek of conspiracy.

The problem is how do you get somebody to do that? They're committing legal suicide. They're subjecting themselves to the possibility of a death penalty trial. How do you solve that problem? Well, hypnosis furnishes a perfect way of solving that problem because if you have a hypno-programmed fall-guy, you have somebody that's unconscious, who doesn't know what he's doing at the time and therefore can't describe anything. He can't identify what he did, he can't identify anybody, he can't defend himself; he's helpless. All he can do is babble "I don't remember." and "I don't know." and come across as a blooming liar.

Now there's also another danger the planners of this assassination had to deal with. The other danger is that you can't leave the act of killing Robert Kennedy in the hands of somebody who is in a hypnotic trance. That just doesn't make any sense. They've got to have somebody else to do the deed while their hypno-programmed fall-guy takes the rap. That means multiple guns are going to be in use."

Joe: Multiple guns are going to be in use.

Niall: Wow! That makes a lot of sense.

Joe: And again the point here is putting Sandy Hook and other such shootings in context; in historical context. The historical context is that it has happened before, that the CIA; we're just calling them the CIA but obviously we're talking about a non-public face.

Niall: Probably something you can't put a name to.

Joe: Of a control system, yeah, a deep, black, murky area of the Intel agencies who are operating according to their own agenda and have a lot of control. I mean, I suppose it's a hierarchy and the further you go up the hierarchy the more control you can exert. Below you that would put them above the government; the overt government; therefore they have quite a lot of control over everything below them and that's pretty much everything.

So yes, in context, this kind of group; looking at Sandy Hook in context, this group exists, has existed, there's evidence for it in the JFK assassination, in the MLK; Martin Luther King; there was a trial by jury, I can't remember the state in the US, that concluded that Martin Luther King was killed as part of a conspiracy involving the CIA. You can look that up as well, even though the official records still cites a lone gunman in the Martin Luther King. I mean this lone gunman business is; it's just got to; I mean they are overusing it, you know. They are using it for good reason from their perspective, but...

Niall: The irony is; the origin of the term lone gunman is the JFK assassination. When that was first being used, lone gunman was a pejorative term for the official story because it's like the magic bullet. Remember that one?

Joe: People used it dismissively.

Niall: (inaudible) lone gunman.

Joe: Oh yeah, yeah, lone gunman.

Niall: Now, lone gunman is talked about...

Joe: Well, it's the answer for everything!

Niall: It's the answer for everything.

Joe: So, yeah, so MLK, RFK, JFK, even John Lennon; lone gunman, but all of these events; at least RFK and JFK and even as I said, John Lennon, there's evidence for some kind of hypnotism or mind-programming a la MK-Ultra...

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Being involved here. And it's a reality. It's what they can do. So if this is a reality and it's; I mean nobody...

Niall: It's not airy-fairy...

Joe: Nobody gets a smoking gun but, based on the available evidence any rational person would accept this is a reality and this happens, so given that we do that research, we bring that to the table and then we look at Sandy Hook, not the other way around. Or we don't look at Sandy Hook in isolation and go off on crazy conspiracy theories. We look at it in historical context and bringing in the reality and facts about mind-programming, the ability to hypnotize someone to go to a certain area, shoot some guns as cover and to take the fall, and, I don't know what more there is to say; from our perspective other than the big question.

Niall: Which is why?

Joe: Why are they doing this? What do they achieve by carrying out these kind of ...?

Niall: Horrific attacks.

Joe: Horrific attacks. And especially Sandy Hook, what seem to be; in this context if you are accepting our thesis here, just, you know, humouring us here; if you're accepting this thesis that some covert group carried out this attack, they obviously decided to up the ante and up the emotional trauma level with Sandy Hook. They really wanted to hit people's buttons. I mean...

Niall: Yeah it was a departure from...

Joe: It was! I mean the killing of small children was a departure from other types of attacks because the trauma and the emotional kind of identification for mother's and father's for all around the country and all around the world was so great. I mean, there's something about children that just evokes this need to protect and a sense of fear and nervousness in terms of being unable to protect them because in this crazy evil world; and to hit that sore spot was a really pernicious and ...

Niall: Despicable.

Joe: Despicable thing to do. But they did it and the question then, is why. Well, what's the result? I mean the result; I can cite you one example, in terms of the way that it influenced people's perception; I mean there were plenty of people that I know who do not think that Obama, for example is a nice guy. But when Obama tried to squeeze out a few tears and failed the day of the Sandy Hook shooting and he was on video, I put up on my Facebook page; I put the video up and I questioned whether his tears were real and there were a lot of people who, as a result of the emotional trauma and the emotional effect the Sandy Hook shooting with these children had on these people; they didn't like the fact that I was questioning Obama; whether or not Obama was crying or not and basically being cynical about his alleged tears. And I mean there were no tears, but I basically said how can a guy who signs off on killing children in foreign countries everyday can now turn around and cry about Sandy Hook?

But there was a real identification and the people who challenged me on this; I think they were really identified in terms of their own emotional investments, you know, they were projecting on Obama for that moment. I mean they went back, once they had got over that; Obama, they could see Obama in clear light again. Well some of them could. But this is an example of the effect, the emotional trauma and the emotional effect this event, in terms of killing the children, had on so many people.

And it made them, from our perspective; it seems that it made them afraid. It made people afraid. Fundamentally, at an emotional /psychological level it made people afraid. It made them feel less secure about their lives and their children and their society in the US.

Niall: Afraid and helpless.

Joe: Helpless, yeah.

Niall: And the natural...

Joe: Exactly.

Niall: Fallback from that is to look for help from authority to protect us.

Joe: Yes, exactly. Like in the scene from V for Vendetta, the Chancellor saying "I want everyone to know why they need us!" This is more or less the message that is being put across by these kinds of attacks. It's to remind the people why they need us, and they remind you why you need them, your leaders, by making you afraid, feeling insecure, and obviously the inexplicable nature, according to the official story of the Sandy Hook massacre just feeds into that insecurity because you don't have any explanation. I mean; crazy guy did it just because he was crazy, is not an explanation.

And we don't like those explanations because they do make you feel insecure because, I mean, how can you, I mean, you need to find some rational answer to explain these kinds of shootings so that you can find a way to stop them happening; find a way to make sure it doesn't happen again; but your denied that by the official story of Sandy Hook because they do not give you any plausible or rational or in-depth explanation, they just need a hanging. He might have had Asperger's; we're going to do some DNA tests to see if he's crazy!

Niall: To see if he has some evil genes.

Joe: When can we expect the results from that and what results can we expect from you guys on the basis of that, you know? So this is really part of our motivation. I mean it makes us feel insecure about our work but it's based on our own research and our background in investigating these things. We kind of have a better, I suppose than the average person, a straight up better understanding of what the real source of this problem is and why these kinds of things happen and, yeah, who's behind them.

So, we have a late caller here, I think.

Niall: I don't know do we have time to take it?

Joe: Well, we'll try it.

Niall: Okay.

Joe: Hello? This didn't work the first time. I don't know why, maybe they'll try again but Irish Hem(??), we. We try and get someone on the line here and it doesn't work the first time maybe can you call back whoever's calling?

Niall: We might have to let it go because we're running out of time.

Joe: Well, we have two minutes, yeah, but we're kind of running out of time. You might have to keep that question for the next time caller because we have literally one, one and half minutes left.

Niall: If you do have any questions or comments feel free to contact us either through the SOTT page or through the blogtalkradio, SOTTtalkRadio page and we'll be happy to answer any questions or comments you have.

Joe: Hello?

Caller: Hello.

Joe: Hey, what's your name?

Caller: The name's Brad and I've just been listening to you guys for a little while and I just can't imagine that you guys really believe what you're saying about this whole Sandy Hook thing that it's actually a hoax. I'm just having a real hard time believing that you seriously believe that or your just trying to get a rise out of people, or ...

Joe: Well, we're not saying it's a hoax in the way that you're reading it, the way that other people have been reading it on the net.

Brad: Well it sounds like you think Obama's tears were a hoax then. I don't think his tears were a hoax. I saw tears and he has to be strong for his country just like a mother is strong for her children, I mean he has to be strong for the country, obviously.

Joe: Yeah, but it's hard to imagine how he could really be crying over children when he kind of signs off on drone attacks that kill children in other countries every day. I don't see him crying about that, you know? I mean aren't all children the same everywhere?

Brad: Oh yeah of course they are.

Joe: Or every other human being?

Brad: There's collateral damage in any war and we all know that, that's just part of the stakes.

Joe: Yeah but we're not talking about collateral damage here, we're talking about a real...

Brad: He doesn't; he doesn't target schools, none of our military targets a school that I've ever heard of anyway.

Joe: Well maybe you need to read up on that because in Baghdad when they first launched the first Iraq war they basically targeted all the civilian infrastructure.

Brad: Oh well...

Joe: You might...

Brad: That was under George Bush. That's a whole different story.

Joe: Ah, listen ...

Brad: That was under George Bush Sr.

Joe: Yeah... no

Brad: And I don't agree with that at all it wasn't the ...

Joe: We ran out of our two hour time slot so basically we had to cut that guy off although I'm not sure I wanted to talk to him anyway, but maybe. He was getting into the right/left kind of, you know, democrat/republican thing there and that's a load of bunkum!

Niall: He was clearly not motivated to look at issues based on whether or not it's under one administration or another. Clearly he missed the point we were trying to make that if this is a team involved, it's a team that whatever government is in power at the time; it has no bearing on their motivation and their ability to carry out such atrocities.

Joe: Yeah, anyway we've got to leave this for this week. We're going to sign off and thanks for listening whoever's been listening. We like good questions about all sorts of things...

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And so anybody who has questions, feel free. Next week we'll be here again next Sunday and...

Niall: Same time.

Joe: Same time, same place. So until then, have a good one.