After powering through chapters seven and eight of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”, I wanted to reach out to Allan Powell — who contributed both chapters — to see whether he was willing to clarify a couple of things for me. Mainly, with so many pictures that were not taken on December 14th (according to Powell, of course), I wanted to know when he believed they were taken as well as whether or not there were any photographs in existence he believed were actually taken that day. By forcing him to establish a timeline, I wanted to give him enough rope to hang himself.

Like so many Sandy Hook deniers, Allan’s information wasn’t particularly easy to find. But I was able to locate an e-mail address and I wrote him a short, non-confrontational e-mail. I was surprised not only that he replied, but that he appeared even more clueless than I had expected.

I’ll present the entire e-mail chain, in chronological order. So read from the top down. Powell’s replies are in brown (because what other color would he be?).


From: Me
To: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
Subject: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

Your chapters in James Fetzer’s book reveal that the pictures you included were not taken on December 14th. Are there any photographs or videos that you do believe were taken on December 12th [note: I meant to type the 14th here, but must have typed 12 as I was anticipating writing “Channel 12”. See update below]? That includes the Channel 12 helicopter footage, etc.


From: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
To: Me
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

I do not know.


From: Me
To: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

Thanks for the reply. Do you believe that all the staging was done on one day or do you think it took multiple days? If the latter, do you believe that they were consecutive days? It seems as if the primary staging was done in October or November, correct? I just finished reading your chapters and wanted to follow-up with you.


From: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
To: Me
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

multiple. don’t know but probably. yes.


From: Me
To: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

Thanks. What do you believe was the first phase of staging? And what do you believe was last?


From: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
To: Me
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

who are you


From: Me
To: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

I just read your chapters in James Fetzer’s book and I was hoping to reach out to you to flesh out your ideas a bit. I reached out to a couple of the other contributors for the same reason.


From: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
To: Me
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

And who are you


From: Me
To: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

You certainly wouldn’t know it if I told it to you. I’m just a reader from the US. My name’s Bill.


From: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
To: Me
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

Bill what


From: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
To: Me
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

you are evasive


From: Me
To: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

Bill Heinz. Again, I’m just a reader. I’m not trying to be evasive, I just figured it was worthless information. You wouldn’t know who I am. I just wanted to know more about your research.


And that was it. Allan became a bit paranoid and clammed up, which is a shame. I do find it fascinating that someone who obviously has not fleshed out their own narrative can contribute two chapters to a book on the subject. The authors openly admit they have no fucking clue what’s going on. Hopefully this acts as a warning to anyone thinking of giving the preposterous ideas proposed in this book any serious consideration.

Update 02/10/16: Since I had screwed up a bit and typed “December 12th” when I meant “December 14th” in my original e-mail to Allan, I e-mailed him again (even though he had stopped replying to me before) to clear up any potential confusion. I was once again surprised that he replied. Here’s that exchange:

From: Me
To: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

Hi Allan,

I just realized I made a mistake in my original e-mail. I asked if you believed there were any photos or video taken on December 12th when I meant to say December 14th. If you don’t mind clarifying for me, it would help a lot.


From: Dreadnought1955@gmail.com
To: Me
Subject: Re: Allan, a question about Sandy Hook

I don’t know

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 encouraged and allowed but will often 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. If you want to have a discussion, don't make it obvious that you haven't 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 pretty well.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation