Sandy Hook: The doors of deception, Part 1&2

Sandy Hook: The doors of deception, Part 1.
Posted on September 26, 2018 by Cinderella Broom


Note: This article is based on collaborative research by Anne Berg, Alison Maynard and the author. For many readers, it will be a rehash. Its value, we believe, lies in evidence that the mainstream media and other official sources effectively confused the public with contradictory reports and photographic overload, on the one hand, and photographic obscurity on the other. It appears that we are supposed to attribute the official sources’ many blunders and mistakes to human error while remaining convinced that only establishment media are qualified interpreters and reporters of the 12-14-12 incident. ~C.
The doors at the Sandy Hook Elementary School were once subjects for rigorous discussion. Think back to those early days when controversy raged over locked bathroom doors and front entrance door cameras. But like Huxley’s “doors of perception,” Sandy Hook’s seem to have had a hallucinatory effect on most, supplanting critical thought with a one-way trip to oblivion.
Those peek-a-boo port-holed classroom doors, for instance, that could only be locked from the outside. How inconvenient if you’re attempting to keep a raging lunatic out. Yet, how convenient if you’re shooting for a particular mortality outcome while constructing a scene from a thriller.
Sandy Hook’s interior doors were perfect for the plot. You could easily picture Adam Lanza’s goggle eyes (with or without sunglasses?), Beatle helmet hair and cartilaginous neck framed in those windows, like a mescaline-induced nightmare.

With the horror behind the doors in the spotlight, the bass-ackwards locking mechanisms were mostly ignored (apparently by [url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0125/Gerald Stomski - Woodbury.pdf]safety-conscious SHES Principal Dawn Hochsprung[/url] as well as the sleepy-headed public), until the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission recommended that school hardware should lock from inside. You have to marvel at such blinding hindsight.
      ABOVE: Room 12 door handles at the Sandy Hook Elementary school as photographed by Gunsalus for the CT State Police report. Room 12 was Kaitlin Roig’s classroom. Left: Interior door handle; Middle: Exterior door handle; Right: Interior closet handle. Why does the closet door lock from the inside while the room door handle doesn’t?
A theme of confusion and illusion. The official/media portrayal of other doors at the school and other buildings involved in the incident deserves a review, too. Through their keyhole, one can spy a theme of confusion and illusion; whether the outcome is purposeful obfuscation or mere carelessness is a matter of opinion.
What was shown? What was hidden? Why a particular door, as opposed to another? Asking those questions so late in the game may actually be well-timed, since all of the mainstream media (MSM) reports are now in.
The doors tell a similar story. So let’s begin at the entrance to the Sandy Hook School, the one described in an excerpt from a police report provided via a FOIA request by Wolfgang Halbig:

That’s the one I mean.
A gaping hole. Nearly everyone has seen the famous Connecticut State Police photo of the Sandy Hook Elementary window near the entrance doors of the school. Nearly everyone knows it was shot out, allegedly by Adam Lanza, to allow entrance either by ducking forward or bending over backward, being careful not to catch one’s crotch on the shards.
The window in the photo is a fright, but the furnishings appear nice and intact, perfectly aligned and tidy. Even the magazines on the table are squarely stacked.
We’re expected to believe that the six-foot+ Lanza (and, later, a limbo line of police) entered this peaceful sanctum through the hole, crunching forward on glass fragments, without leaving the chaotic signs that violence usually marks its territory with. No boot prints. No stained upholstery, no upside-down furniture, no destruction of anything fragile, such as a flimsy magazine rack that Lanza, it’s presumed, painstakingly slid out of the way and arranged at a nearly perfect 90-degree angle to the window.
Here’s one perspective:

ABOVE: From the CT State Police report via Getty Images
According to sworn affidavits in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Reports (CT Dept. of Emergency Services and Public Protection), a long line of policemen entered through the window hole.¹ If that’s true, as Wolfgang Halbig has asked, why didn’t one of them think to unlock the main door for his chums?
Improbable as this scene seems to Halbig (and likely everyone reading this), certain Sandy Hook believers have insisted on its authenticity over the years. From the cleverly named “Crisis Actors Guild,” for instance, a voluminous wag, “Shill Murray,” claims that the magazine rack sustained a bullet hole. S/He even provides the images below:

ABOVE: From Crisis Actors Guild, “Sandy Hook Elementary Was Open,” Part 1
Shill Murray is an urbane enough writer through most of it, until a reader challenges him/her. Then s/he spurts acid and scurrilous language:

[Screen shot above can be found in the Comments section at this link.]
CB: Do you see a bullet hole in the magazines depicted in the photos above? I don’t.
What I do see is a flimsy prop, possibly set in place as a “time capsule” to substantiate the official report that SHES was open in December 2012. All of the magazines but one were 2012 editions, as Shill Murray demonstrates in the first of his/her 15-part series, “Sandy Hook Elementary Was Open.”
Shill is so punctilious in his/her examination of those neatly arrayed magazines that you can’t help but marvel. Such timeliness and orderliness are in stark contrast with the dated-looking, chaotic piles we see in other areas of the school.
(Images below are by Walkley for the CT State Police report, from IMGUR, https://imgur.com/a/sBfhz#HnhZkk9)




So it seems justifiable to place the magazine rack on the already long list of Sandy Hook anomalies.
A shattered door window. A 2017 yahoo.com article provides a very different picture of a SHES door, creating more mental clutter and confusion. Below is the photo and caption from the article:

Note that the caption refers to “a door,” not the front entrance door “of the Sandy Hook Elementary School” damaged in the “shooting rampage.” You might understandably conclude that this door was one of Adam Lanza’s targets.
These brown doors are nothing like the metallic silver doors in the entrance photo shown previously. Yet the Yahoo article treats them as if they were the same doors, with a paragraph directly below the photo referring to “the front doors of Sandy Hook.”
Maybe the confusion created by Yahoo is unintentional; maybe not. But why not show the doors and window being discussed? Surely a hole with the circumference of a tire would get more reader views than a window that simply looks vandalized.
The same brown doors depicted above can be found in several other Sandy Hook Elementary photos from the Connecticut State Police report, identified by IMGUR as having been broken out by police officers.

When were they taken? There are no dates, so we can’t be sure. Nothing specific is provided about these doors in the State’s Attorney report except for this (page 21): “The conditions of windows and doors were documented, but some may have been disturbed by police and emergency personnel during the emergency response and protective sweep of the building.”
But what if the photos were taken before 12-14-12. If so, why? For a commissioned architectural study prior to demolition of the ratty-looking school? It’s anyone’s guess, but if so, vandals could easily have been the door-smashers, given the frangible nature of the glass.
It’s also possible that the vandalism occurred on 12-14-12. According to this article, based on the Connecticut State Police report (which took five years to complete), certain “dignitaries” trampled evidence at the crime scene and “heavily armed officers not clearly identifiable as police” were hanging about. What happens to the thin blue line in such circumstances?
Another shattered door window. The media trotted out yet another Sandy Hook Elementary door perspective in a video that competes with the ones above. This one is compliments of MailOnline. See below, noting that the left-hand door’s glass is shattered while side windows remain intact.

Closer examination reveals that this is an interior view of the brown doors discussed above.
The photo below of the same type of brown door at yet another SHES entrance reveals the interior door’s push-bar handle. (You have to zoom in on the left-hand door to see it.)

Photo Credit: IMGUR archive of SHES, Farr – Scene Photo #9
Interesting, once again, that these doors – ostensibly shot out by police – were featured instead of the front entrance photo with the blown-out window. Why? Perhaps it was because of that dang magazine rack.
Whoever broke through the brown door must have had one heck of a time getting his/her hand through the gap over that nasty-looking shard to reach the inside push bar. Not an easy maneuver.
Circling the doors. Sandy Hook doubters are already familiar with the circle dance performed around the Sandy Hook firehouse that was captured on videotape by a police helicopter. Around and around people went, out one door, in another and out the door again, creating the illusion that there were mobs of people and mass confusion. This deserves much more discussion and readers can still find some of it on YouTube, notably, Sofia Smallstorm’s “Unraveling Sandy Hook.”
Hidden doors. There are more doors of interest at Chalk Hill Middle School (375 Fan Hill Road in Monroe, CT), which was Sandy Hook Elementary’s twin, made into an “exact replica” according to one ABC report. (You may well ask why, given the horrors that allegedly occurred in the school, anyone would want children in a replica environment.)
Chalk Hill is where Sandy Hook survivors were bused a few weeks after the 12-14-12 incident to finish out the school year. And, according to various sources, they were there well before the incident, too, leaving a breadcrumb trail of invoices behind them.
Unlike Sandy Hook, however, Chalk Hill has done a splendid job of hiding its doors in all of the online photos from U.S. news sources that we were able to find. A large metallic overhang makes it next to impossible to view the entrance where SH children were escorted inside before and after 12-14-12.

Photo Credit: Bill Bittar, Patch.com, Nov. 18, 2010
Below is the same school as a Sandy Hook “replica.” Confusing, but at least this is honest. Chalk Hill’s use as a Sandy Hook replica before 12-14-12 was cleverly concealed from the public.

Photo Credit: Bill Bittar, Patch.com, Jan. 3, 2013
It isn’t clear from the above photos whether or not Chalk Hill has any front entrance doors at all. However, here is a photo that proves the existence of Chalk Hill’s back entrance doors, compliments of Google Maps.

ABOVE: Chalk Hill Middle School; Photo Credit: Google Maps
 Insights from Israel. While U.S. media largely failed to capture pictures of the Chalk Hill school’s exits and entrances, Israel succeeded in the window category. Always at the ready to record disasters waiting to happen, the Israeli press (Times of Israel) came up with this beauty (below), crediting AP. Peaked and window-heavy, it bears no resemblance to the shuttered-looking, flat-topped Chalk Hill Middle on Fan Hill Road in Monroe.

The caption reads: “Chalk Hill School in Monroe, Conn., where Sandy Hook Elementary School students from neighboring Newtown began classes on Thursday (photo credit: AP/Jessica Hill).”
It turns out to be Jockey Hollow Middle School in Monroe, photographed by Jessica Hill on Jan. 3, 2013. Ms. Hill either photographed the wrong school despite the likely presence of signs outside – or the sign outside read “Chalk Hill Middle School.” If the former is true, chalk it up to human error. If the latter, you must wonder: Why all of this identity confusion?
Were children in the Sandy Hook and Monroe school systems regularly being shuffled around from one town to the other, swapping classrooms and buildings like germs? Silly notion, but consider the very real evidence that Chalk Hill Middle’s address (375 Fan Hill Road, Monroe) appeared on invoices for Sandy Hook Elementary long before 12-14-12.
Shape-shifting. Sandy Hook Elementary’s identity crisis began long before it became mixed up with Chalk Hill. In a 2003 Newtown Community Facilities document no longer available online, it was once mistaken for Hawley Elementary School.

Cinderella grabbed the above photo and caption from the document PDF early in 2016. Here it is again from a screen capture by researcher Mona Alexis Pressley in her article, “Sandy Hook Had 2 Principals, 2 School Buildings, but 0 CAPT Scores for 2009”:

Big honking typo? Could be – if the Newtown Ministry of Proofreading was on holiday when the document was released.
Or is this part of the same bizarre theme noted above, in which Sandy Hook Elementary was whatever certain people said it was? A school whose doors, windows and magazine racks obeyed certain laws of physics, yet not others; a school on the move, as it were, jumping around from one address to the next, while effortlessly migrating its phone number; a school that could be counted on as a storehouse and a prop for a horror show.
Speaking of props, what about the safety system camera that was supposedly at the front entrance? More about that in Part 2.
~C.
 
Footnote:
¹Excerpted from Connecticut’s Dept. of Emergency Services and Public Protection Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Reports, here are several quotes by various law enforcers on the scene during 12-14-12:
“A group of State Troopers then started to walk into the school from the front door. I believe they walked in through the broken front window. They each had their guns drawn and were asking what was going on.”
 “I entered the school through the broken glass window on the right side of the main doors.”
“TFC Blumenthal and I entered the building through the hole in the glass window.”
“I do not remember how I entered the school, but it may have been through the window.”
“I entered the main entrance of the school either through the front door or the broken window.”
“I am not sure if I checked the doors to see if they were locked but I eventually entered the school through the broken glass windows.”
“We all entered the building through the broken window and entered into the lobby of the school.”
“We entered the main entrance through either the front door or broken window.”
“Utilizing the blown out window, we joined other officers and entered/secured the lobby area.”
“We all entered the building through the broken window and entered into the lobby of the school.”





Thanks to: https://fellowshipoftheminds.com

Sandy Hook: The doors of deception, Part 2.
Posted on September 30, 2018 by Cinderella Broom


Note: This article is based on collaborative research by Anne Berg, Alison Maynard and the author. For many readers, it will be a rehash. Its value, we believe, lies in evidence that the mainstream media and other official sources effectively confused the public with misleading information. It appears that we are supposed to accept the official sources’ many blunders and mistakes as “human error” while remaining convinced that only establishment media are qualified interpreters and reporters of the 12-14-12 incident. ~C.

ABOVE: From the CT State Police report via Getty Images
In Ian McEwan’s novel Atonement, the rough (very rough) draft of a love letter is read by the younger sister of its intended recipient. The ensuing misinterpretations spell disaster for the writer, who is wrongfully accused and imprisoned for rape.
One misinterpreted letter can cause serious repercussions – as true in life as in art.
This is about such a letter. But in this case, the victims are the readers.
Many Sandy Hook researchers have asked why there is no surveillance footage of Adam Lanza as he blasted his way through the SHES front entrance window. From page 24 of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook:
“For example, in an era of ubiquitous video surveillance of public buildings especially no visual evidence of Lanza’s violent entry has emerged.”
Memory Hole Blog recently reposted a series of articles by James R. Hanson, an attorney with a long and distinguished record. Hanson gives as evidence for a hoax the lack of any crime scene photos. He refers specifically to a “new door camera system” installed in the fall before the alleged shooting:
 “A coincidence that struggles for credence is that the new door camera system, proudly announced when installed last fall, did not record an assailant shooting through the glass entryway door and plunging inside.  There is also no photograph of this door.  Has it been replaced?  If so, may we see the door that was in place that day?  Do the school financial records show the cost of purchase and installation of a replacement?”
Wolfgang Halbig asked that same question and prepared FOIA requests to obtain work orders for the system. Ultimately, Halbig found himself the subject of organized mockery and persecution. Persistence is not treated as a virtue when it knocks on the devil’s door.
Yet, the question raised by all three of the above inquiring minds was perfectly legitimate. It was spurred, in part, by multiple mainstream media articles that describe the implementation of a front entrance security system still being tested, based on a letter said to have been written by Dawn Hochsprung herself. (Mrs. Hochsprung was the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary, allegedly one of Adam Lanza’s first victims.)
A letter with a long beard. A conscientious search on the Web turns up numerous articles by news sources that mention the system installation and/or Mrs. Hochsprung’s letter, among them:

• The Washington Post
  
• GLT.org
  
• The Blaze
  
• [url=https://newyork.cbslocal.com/20 %C2%A012/12/14/newtown-conn-school-district-had-recently-installed-new-safety-protocols/]CBS News[/url]
  
• The Hartford Courant
  
• The Huffington Post
  

One of the earliest articles to reference Mrs. Hochsprung’s letter comes from the [url=https://newyork.cbslocal.com/20 %C2%A012/12/14/newtown-conn-school-district-had-recently-installed-new-safety-protocols/]CBS News [/url]article (posted at 7:05 p.m., 12-14-12), which reproduced it in full. See the letter below in quotes (boldface is mine):
“Dear Members of our Sandy Hook Family,
“Our district will be implementing a security system in all elementary schools as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure student safety. As usual, exterior doors will be locked during the day. Every visitor will be required to ring the doorbell at the front entrance and the office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Visitors will still be required to report directly to the office and sign in. If our office staff does not recognize you, you will be required to show identification with a picture id. Please understand that with nearly 700 students and over 1000 parents representing 500 SHS families, most parents will be asked to show identification.
“Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m. Any student arriving after that time must be walked into the building and signed in at the office. Before that time our regular drop-off procedures will be in place. I encourage all parents to have their children come to school and return home on the bus and to remain in school for the entire school day. The beginning and ending of our school day are also important instructional times and therefore we want all our students to reap the benefits of full participation in our program.
“We need your help and cooperation for our system to work effectively. Our office staff is handling multiple tasks. Though they will work diligently to help you into the building as quickly as possible, there may be a short delay until someone can view you on the handset and allow you to come in electronically. There are times during the day when office personnel are on the telephone, addressing student concerns, or in the copy room; there are other times when only one person is in the front office. Please help our staff by identifying yourself and provide your child’s name.
‘Keep in mind we will be following our district guidelines which may need revision once we test the system.
“Please know your involvement continues to be critical to our school’s effectiveness and your child’s success. We continue to encourage and value your presence in our classrooms and are counting on your cooperation with the implementation of this safety initiative.
“Sincerely,
Mrs. Hochsprung”
The letter contains all of the clues necessary to prove that the front entry system was not new, was not capable of surveillance, nor was it the fruit of efforts by “Mrs. Hochsprung.”
Specifically:
1. “700 students”: Four days before the alleged Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, during a Newtown Board of Finance meeting, a report was provided, dated October 1, 2012, with head counts for all of the schools. See below: the SHES head count is listed as 454 students.


In the State’s Attorney Report, we find on page 9, footnote #13 the following: “On December 13, 2012, the student enrollment was 489. Official attendance had not yet been recorded as of 9:30 a.m. on December 14, 2012.”
However, a CityData page provides a census of 776 students at SHES for the year 2006. A lot closer to the “700” mark. This is a big hint that the letter probably wasn’t written in 2012, but much earlier, when the SHES census was up.
 2. “Visual monitoring system.” This means a camera of some sort connected to a “handset” through which people could be observed. There’s no mention of a recording device.
3. “Mrs. Hochsprung.” Dawn Hochsprung usually signed with her full name and title, as shown (from the Sandy Hook Elementary School Handbook, 2010) below. The signature line on the above letter creates the impression that it was a prefab letter generated each year as a reminder, likely in a student rulebook.

The letter was likely written in 2007 by a previous SHES principal (Donna Page). In a 2007 annual report for the Newtown Board of Education (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3-vhpZ_3PTLOHZicm9UTFhuWUE/view), an expenditure of $4,322 was made for a “front entry security” system for Sandy Hook Elementary. The same amount was invested in systems for the Hawley School and Head O’ Meadow School. This is probably the system described in the letter by “Mrs. Hochsprung.” Not a new system, but a relatively old one.
More conflicting information from official sources. Oddly, the State’s Attorney Report (p. 21, following the pagination in upper left) refers to an elderly call box installed in 2005, not 2007. It describes a “camera,” but specifies that it was only for “monitoring,” not “recording.” Convenient.
It’s clear that the letter from “Mrs. Hochsprung” was old, creating multiple misperceptions. Was it fed to the media for that purpose? A non-existent surveillance camera could distract investigators from other glaring inconsistencies and anomalies, such as the doors of Room 5. (More about that in a future article.)
Or did the media find the letter and just spring on it, possibly to make the point that even a security system is no match for a lunatic with a gun?
One thing that’s certain is that a decrepit, shuttered school doesn’t need a new surveillance or monitoring system. In fact, the absence of one facilitated what I believe was a hoax.
Another letter. We also know that Dawn Hochsprung was a real fan of security technology thanks to [url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0125/Gerald Stomski - Woodbury.pdf]another (undated) letter[/url] that her friend Gerald Stomski wrote to the Connecticut School Safety Committee, apparently sometime after 12-14-12. (See “Somebody who really died after Sandy Hook” for more on Mr. Stomski’s tragic death.) Here is an excerpt:
“In 2009 when I was elected as to [sic] the CEO for the Town of Woodbury, I met with then Principal Dawn Hochsprung regarding her writing a grant for security upgrades at Mitchell Elementary School. I questioned at the time, why were school administrators applying for and ultimately setting up security measures for their respected schools. Without possessing the necessary background in the fields of security and safety, I wondered if this was the most logical way of protecting our schools. Upon further investigation it was revealed to me that not only were administrators responsible for this activity, but that school maintenance workers, janitors, teachers and school administrators were responsible for these safety controls. Questionable decisions at best.
“I worked with Dawn Hochsprung on writing a successful grant and assisted her with the proper application and installations of these security controls for her school. Additionally, Dawn Hochsprung and I formed a relationship whereas we discussed on numerous occasions, what would need to be done should a shooter breach the school security, forcibly entering the school, and open firing once entered. Our discussions led to “trying to buy time” to “notify school teachers, staff and students that eminent [sic] danger was in their school”. Dawn and I even had discussions regarding “giving up your life” should it be necessary to protect her school and her children. She stated, “NOT ON MY WATCH”, would anyone be able to enter her school to conduct an act of violence against her school.”
Why settle? Given all of the above, why would Dawn Hochsprung, principal of SHES since 2010, settle for an inadequate security system for her school? Through no fault of her own, she inherited a monitoring system with no recording capability, as well as vintage 1956 windows that weren’t bulletproof at an entrance that was like a fishbowl. But given her proactive stance at Mitchell Elementary (Woodbury), why didn’t she follow suit at Sandy Hook?
Why settle for classroom doorknobs that locked only from the outside? Wouldn’t doorknob replacements be an expenditure that Mrs. Hochsprung would champion, given her past experience in obtaining security controls?
A building loaded with asbestos and black mold was bad enough. If building repairs were needed at SHES, the presence of these contaminants would have posed serious health risks. Given this, it’s fortunate indeed that – as stated in a Newtown school system [url=http://www.newtown.k12.ct.us/Portals/Newtown/District/docs/BOARD OF EDUCATION/BOE Budgets/BOE. approv.budget 2011-2012.pdf]report [/url]– the allotted budget for SHES building repairs for 2011-2012 was exactly $0.
Keyhole. To conclude, the letter signed by Mrs. Hochsprung was ultimately misleading. But the one signed by Gerald Stomski raises the questions we should have been asking all along about the doors at Sandy Hook Elementary.
~C.


Thanks to: https://fellowshipoftheminds.com