“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Two
By “Dr. Eowyn” (aka Maria Hsia Chang)

“Infowars reporter Dan Bidondi said (5:45 mark), “The school’s been closed down for God knows how long. [Neighbors] can’t understand why there were kids in that building because it was condemned.” pg. 30

Which neighbors? Not a single name is given, and seeing as how this claim comes from a “reporter” for one of the most notorious and profitable conspiracy cranks on the planet (Alex Jones), a grain of salt may not be enough: you may want a shaker’s full before you even consider ingesting this one. The fact is that you can find a number of interviews with area residents all over the place, and none of them seem to be even the slightest bit confused by the fact that children were at the school. Certainly if the school had been closed for some time, as Fetzer claims, someone would ask what they were doing there.

“In 2004, the Newtown Board of Education was told “there were serious problems with the Sandy Hook elementary school roof.” pg. 30

Which is probably why a new roof was installed three years later, in 2007. From a July 13th, 2012 article in the Newtown Bee:

Work on the Sandy Hook School roof began in earnest last week as materials for the $180,000 project were set in position. The project to replace the school’s entire roof won the school board’s nod over a $70,000 offer by Barrett Roofing and Supply Inc to repair leaks in the roof. The town has filed a lawsuit against Barrett for $15,000 in damages after the flat-style roof on the elementary school began leaking. The roof was installed five years ago.

Why would they spend $180k on a new roof for a school that they were planning on abandoning a year later (according to Fetzer)? Good question! Don’t ask him, though!

“Four years later, in 2008, there was yet more bad news: SHES was contaminated with asbestos.” pg. 30

This is simply not true. There was no asbestos “contamination”. From the 2010-2011 Sandy Hook Elementary School handbook:

We have a Tools for Schools indoor environmental resource team that works in coordination with district efforts to monitor and improve air quality. Our building is inspected every 6 months as required by § 19a-333-1 through 13 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, “Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools”; to determine any changes in the condition of identified asbestos-containing building materials. Additionally, the school will be reinspected every three years by an accredited inspector following the same basic criteria as stated in the original plan. Sandy Hook School maintains in its Main Office a complete updated copy of the asbestos management plan. It is available during normal business hours for inspection. The designated person for the Asbestos Program is Gino Faiella and can be contacted at 203-426-7615. We remind you that this notification is required by law and should not be construed to indicate the existence of any hazardous conditions in our school buildings.

“On October 5, 2013, nearly 10 months after the massacre, a city referendum passed by over 90% in support of the demolition and rebuilding of SHES with a generous $49.25 million grant from the State of Connecticut. The reason given for the demolition was ‘asbestos abatement’.” pg. 30

The state of Connecticut offered Newtown a $49,250,000 grant in order to build a new elementary school. Newtown allowed all registered residents – via a referendum – to vote on whether they should use the money “for architectural and engineering services for the design of a new elementary school in Sandy Hook, demolition of existing school and for the construction of said school and the acquisition of two parcels of land for the purpose of relocating the entrance of said school”. If they had voted “no”, Newtown would lose the grant and they would be forced to find “other alternatives would have to be found for the entire elementary school population of Sandy Hook”. Not surprisingly, the referendum passed with 89% approval. You can view the results here:

http://www.newtown-ct.gov/public_documents/NewtownCT_BBoard/News%20Archive/S042FCA83.0/RESULTS%2010-5-13.pdf

The reason given for the demolition was not “asbestos abatement”. That doesn’t even make much sense as asbestos can be abated (lessened or removed entirely, which is the literal definition of “abatement”) without demolishing the entire building. In fact, that was explored as a possibility. The actual reason for the demolition was the cost of making the necessary repairs to the school as well as bringing it up to code, etc, would have been too expensive for the small town. From the referendum Q&A:

Analysis of the renovate vs. build new by the Advisory Committee showed that costs to renovate this 56 year old building, bring it up to code, eliminate the portables, make it energy efficient, provide necessary safety features, and more, generated a cost almost at the same level of new building construction.

The asbestos abatement is for hazardous materials removal, so that the building can be safely demolished without spreading asbestos everywhere.

“Bestech will spend this weekend beginning demolition, working wing-by-wing as asbestos is removed from each section of the school, according to WTNH. First Selectman Pat Llodra told WTNH no materials from the old school building would leave the site.

“It might become part of the base for the new road or the foundation, or you know, the contractors will make the decision how best to use those materials,” she said.

Llodra told Patch abatement, which began earlier this month, is necessary before demolition can begin.

“We have to get rid of the hazardous materials on the site before we can do anything else,” she said.

“Classrooms and hallways were used for storage, jammed with furniture and office supplies.” pg. 32

I want to start out by discussing the 2nd/bottom photo included on this page first, which “Dr. Eoywn” (erroneously) claims is of a hallway being used as “storage”. Firstly, it’s important to note that Walkley’s scene photos are presented in chronological order and there are 760 total pages which places this particular photo, found on page 759, very far along in the investigation process. An almost identical photo, taken of the same area at around the same time, can be seen on page 953 (of 970) of Tranquilo’s back up scene photos #2 (also included in the “22 Assorted Files” archive). Just like Walkley’s photos, Tranquilo’s are also in chronological order.

Here is a much larger, far more readable version of the photo taken from Walkley’s scene photos – the one that “Dr. Eowyn” presented entirely out of context – with some annotations provided by me to act as reference points. Again, this is page 759 of 760. As is the case with all of the photos here, you can click to enlarge in a new tab:From this perspective, the odd numbered rooms are on the left and the even numbered rooms are on the right, with the numbers ascending as they get closer to the lobby. I’ve labeled the height markers that were posted on the lower half of the wall between rooms #3 and #5 as well as the “Warm up to a good story” display between rooms #10 and #12, for further reference:

A blue tarp has been hung between the lobby and hallway while red biohazard bags can be seen on the floor between rooms #10 and #12. Some of the other items here can also be seen in earlier photos: white and blue portable storage racks, like the one seen on the very right, can be seen in Walkley’s scene photos, pages 161-162 (in room #10, which is Victoria Soto’s 1st grade classroom). They can also be seen in Tranquilo’s back up scene photos 1, on pages 167 and 200. Those same photos alsoshow what are likely the same two desk chairs (as well as accompanying computer desk) seen on the left.

Here is the view seen above, represented on Sandy Hook’s floor plan:

And here’s what that hallway actually looked like on December 14th, 2012, not long after the shooting took place. This is page 88 of the Walkley scene photos, cropped slightly in order to make it look more like the photo on page 759. Walkley took that photo while standing between rooms #6 and #8 (or rooms #3 and #5), and this photo was taken a little further away from the lobby, between rooms #4 and #6 (or room #3 and the hallway). You can see the height markers between rooms #3 and #5. I’ve also circled one of Adam Lanza’s clips on the floor and placed a yellow star right around where the photograph on page 759 would have been taken. Mary Sherlach’s body can be seen in the distance:

Visible on the floor by room #5 is SWAT gear (including a helmet), a LifePak 15 defibrillator/monitor, an EMT’s backpack, and a bag containing MCI (mass-casualty incident) equipment. Here’s a closer look at it from page 70 of Tranquillo’s back-up scene photos 1. Again, I’ve marked the height markers between rooms #3 and #5, circled the cartridge, and marked where Walkley would have been standing when taking the picture used by “Dr. Eowyn”:

It should be obvious at this point that the photo used by “Dr. Eowyn” was taken while these rooms were being emptied out, their contents temporarily stored in the hallway, so that investigators could continue their work inside of the rooms, unobstructed. An example of this can be seen in Walkley’s scene photos, pages 563-574, as well as Tranquillo’s back up scene photos 2, pages 151-152, which show a nearly empty room #8. This is corroborated by CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf:

And just in case the above was not enough, here’s a photo from Sandy Hook’s 2011-2012 scrapbook, which shows this exact hallway as it was on January 23rd, 2012. There are no boxes, chairs, or bags to be found:

With all of the above in mind, there can be no question that the hallways were not used for storage. “Dr. Eowyn” and James Fetzer presented these photos out of order. With a reported nine researchers collaborating on this book (including five alleged PhDs), what’s the more likely explanation: that this book was so poorly researched and edited that such an obvious error slipped right by every last one of them or that you’re being lied to?

But what about the “jammed” classroom shown at the top of that same page? Not surprisingly, this one has a similar explanation: intentional deception on the part of “Dr. Eowyn” and ultimately James Fetzer (as this is his book).

What the book doesn’t mention is that this is a picture of room #6, which was the special education classroom. The picture is taken from Walkley’s scene photos, page 249. “Dr. Eowyn” purposely chose a picture of the most cluttered area, located at the back of the room, by the teacher’s desk. Other photos of the same room show that there was plenty of room to run a class. In fact, here’s a composite that I created using those pictures, found on pages 249-251 from Walkley’s scene photos. These are the three photos that come directly after the one “Dr. Eowyn” used, so they can’t claim that they didn’t see them:

Not really as described, is it? Unfortunately for “Dr. Eowyn”, the second composite that I created using four photos taken from the other side of the room, just inside the door (Walkley’s scene photos, pages 244-247), make the room look even less cluttered:

You can see in both composites that there is absolutely no fire hazard here as “Dr. Eowyn” claims. There is a clear, unobstructed path to the door. Furthermore, personal affects, including jackets and water bottles, can be seen everywhere in both pictures. There even appears to be coffee brewing to the left of the previous composite photo as well as a December, 2012 calendar just right of center. Overall, there’s plenty of evidence here that this was indeed an active classroom and school.

So what we’re left with are three distinct possibilities, listed here in order of probability (in my opinion, of course):

  1. “Dr. Eowyn” and James Fetzer intentionally and disingenuously presented photos out of order and out of context in order to create a false narrative and sell some books.
  2. Despite having access to the same exact sources that I did while debunking this claim, “Dr. Eowyn” still managed to make an enormous and embarrassing mistake that went undetected by James Fetzer and his team of researchers.
  3. The Sandy Hook shooting was a very elaborate hoax and the uninhabited school, which had been in use as storage for four years, was made to look like a legitimate crime scene for the sole benefit of crime scene photos that A) included a large number of incriminating photos, B) were presented in reverse order, and C) were made available to the public. Additionally, the scene would have had to have been staged in such a way that it looked authentic, with notebooks and papers scattered, seasonal decorations hung, and personal affects (including water bottles and fresh coffee) strewn about.

“Then there is this photo of a pile of dust underneath an alleged bullet hole in a wall outside Room 1C, which looks suspiciously like the debris from someone drilling a pretend “bullet” hole into the ceramic wall-tile.” pg. 32

I’m actually a bit confused as to what “Dr. Eowyn” is implying here: is she suggesting that a bullet striking ceramic tile would not produce dust? I don’t understand how this could only be made with a drill. Were the numerous bullet holes and dings noted in my article on chapter one also made with a drill? Wouldn’t that be incredibly time consuming? Why not just use a real gun? If the school is abandoned, what’s the harm?

“Arguably, the most compelling evidence that SHES had long been abandoned before the 2012 massacre is the testimony from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine of the school’s lack of of Internet activity from the beginning of 2008 through all of 2012.” pg. 34

Oh, wow. Old people and the Internet, am I right? “Dr. Eowyn” attributes this particular piece of stupidity to either “Jungle Server” or “Jungle Surfer”, though I’m not sure which one is correct because she writes both. How many people had eyes on this thing again?

Anyway, you can read a thorough breakdown of this claim in “The Most Compelling Evidence” In “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” Is A Total Bust.

Please read before commenting.

Comment policy: Comments from previously unapproved guests will remain in moderation until I manually approve them. Honest questions and reasonable comments from all types of folks are allowed and encouraged but will sometimes remain in moderation until I can properly reply to them, which may occasionally take a little while. Contrary to what some of you think, losing your patience during this time and leaving another comment in which you insult me won't do much to speed up that process.

The types of comments that will no longer be approved include the following:

1) Off-topic comments. Articles about The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine are not the place to ask about Hillary's e-mails or pizza shop sex dungeons. Stay on topic.
2) Gish Gallops. Don't know what a Gish Gallop is? Then Google it. And then don't engage in them. They are absolutely infuriating and there is no faster way to have your comment deleted.
3) Yearbook requests. Like I told the fifty other folks asking for them: I don't have them, and even if I did, I wouldn't post them. I'm not about to turn my site into some sort of eBay for weirdos, so stop asking.
4) Requests for photos of dead children. See above. And then seek professional help, because you're fucked up.
5) Asking questions that have already been answered/making claims that have already been debunked. If you want to have a discussion, don't make it paifully obvious that you haven't bothered to read the site by asking a question that I've already spent a significant amount of time answering. I'll allow a little leeway here if you're otherwise well-behaved, but please, read the site. There's a search function and it works fairly well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation