How we know a guide on counseling children about Sandy Hook predated the massacre

Rate this post

This is the second piece by guest columnist Peter Offermann, on the Crisis Management Institute (CMI) pdf document puzzle. FOTM is grateful to Peter for giving so generously of his Internet technical knowledge and analysis.
Here is the first part of Peter’s analysis: “An Analysis of Anomalies on (Part 1),” Jan. 22, 2013.
For the background on the CMI document, see “Guide on how to talk to children about Sandy Hook 4 days BEFORE massacre,” Jan. 16, 2013. For FOTM’s other posts on the massacre, go to our “Sandy Hook Massacre” page.

CNN #2 The school these police officers were running into is NOT Sandy Hook Elementary School! See “CNN deception: Live aerial footage of police running into Sandy Hook was of another school,” Jan. 22, 2013.


By Peter Offermann
I will refer to 3 images in this document that show the anomalies in the Google cache records of The Arlington School’s News Items.
Document 1 is an image of a Google cache record showing a published date of Dec 10, 2012 which  states Google recorded it on Dec 18, 2012.
The URL below used to access the page imaged below – it now returns a 404 page error. Anyone that has copies of the image please keep it safe.
it could also be accessed from
by selecting to view the page.
It now returns….
Your search – inurl: … – did not match any documents. Reset search tools


DOCUMENT 2 below is  an image of a google cache record showing a published Date of Dec 13, 2012 which states Google  recorded it on Jan 12, 2013.
As of this writing, January 25, 6:21pm PT it is still available at the url below.

DOCUMENT 3  is an image of a google search return to a document Published  Date of December 13, 2013 the same as in Document 2.
The link to this page has been disappeared by google as of today.


I am going to explain to you in this article how those document came to appear on the internet on the Published Dates shown, December 10, 2012 and December 13, 2012. I will also explain how the search return came into being.
In order to do this I am going to ask you to suspend disbelief so you can follow the timeline explaining the documents.
Events like 9/11 have demonstrated that news items about them appear almost instantly after such events. Many are complex documents that would be impossible to create in that short a period of time. If someone is preparing a false flag the most effective period to introduce your desired interpretation of the event is immediately after the event while people are still in shock. In order to meet a tight deadline there are many trusted people working in the background preparing documents and then sitting and waiting to pull the trigger and make them public the moment the event is planned to occur. These people are scattered all over and working off their own script with a time to make their information public.
CMI (Crisis Management Inc) which had author permissions on The Arlington School Website as a contractor to upload their material to the website as needed. They could upload, create links to their material, and publish news announcements all from their own offices without anyone from the School being involved.
The School shootings that took place in Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, were originally planned to happen on December 10, 2012.
If you check on a calendar you will see Dec 10 was a Monday and a school day so the event could have been planned for that date.

DECEMBER 10, 2012

Everyone involved with media material had the material prepared referring to the date Dec 10, 2012.
On December 10, 2012 someone at CMI was waiting to pull the trigger and publish the news item (Document 1) and related documents such as the pdf the news item announces.
For some reason the event was called off at the last moment.
Everyone who had planned to submit material was frantically called to NOT submit their material.
The message for some reason didn’t get through to CMI in time and they submitted the pdf, created the link to it, and published the news item shown in Document 1 .
The other anomalous documents predating Dec 14, 2012 that appeared all over the Internet originated the same way. (See “Sandy Hook RIP/donation webpages created BEFORE the massacre,” Jan. 8, 2013; and “Another Sandy Hook fundraiser that pre-dates the massacre,” Jan. 17, 2013. ~Eowyn)
Because of a technicality (RSS Feed) that is explained by the developer of the program that manages the Arlington Schools site a record of the document immediately left the site and was submitted to people hooked up to the feed as well as to Google which published the item for availability in their search engine. (see document 3)
Google took the opportunity while going to the site to capture the thumbnail of the page seen on the right of document 2 to also put it into their cache database.
In the Technical Discuss Thread at
Jeremy the developer of the software SpireCMS which the School uses to manage their website stated: “When a news item is created in our system, it is pushed out via an RSS feed and, Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours.”
The above means the article could be found on the Google search engine on that date and also in their cache shown in Document 1.
The search record was scrubbed by Google for this Dec 10, 2012 item, but events that took place on Dec 13, 2012 caused an identical entry to be made only with a published date of December 13th. I’m not sure why it wasn’t scrubbed by Google before today. It is shown in Document 3.

DECEMBER 13, 2012

The Sandy Hook Shooting event was rescheduled to this date and was again scrubbed. It Was a Thursday, also a viable date.
It was again scrubbed for some reason.
CMI  again did not get the word to not publish in time.
They published the news item again, on Dec. 13,  but this time with a published date of Dec 13, 2012 causing another RSS submission creating Document 3  and also a second cache record (Document 2).
Jeremy stated above that “Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours” which means Document 1 would originally have shown either “as it appeared on 10 Dec 2012 or possibly 11 Dec 2012.”
The December 13, 2012 (Document 2) would originally have shown either “as it appeared on 13 Dec 2012 or possibly 14 Dec 2012.”
No one in the loop realized there was an RSS feed on the news items at Arlington School and that the 2 pages (Documents 1 & 2) were recorded in the google cache.


Some bright Internet users discovered the cache records predating the actual events and all hell broke loose.
The people behind the false flag frantically tried to cover up these incriminating cache records  and the search return.
For technical reasons too complex to explain here, it was impossible to erase the records.
Publicly removing the cache document after they were found would also be suspicious.
As a temporary fix someone authorized by Google edited the records as below.
Document 1, which first read “as it appeared on 10 Dec 2012 or possibly 11 Dec 2012 was changed to read 18 Dec 2012” — a date after the events of December 14th. This document was still suspicious but at least is showed it was recorded after the event it announced.
Document 2, which first read “as it appeared on 13 Dec 2012 was changed to read “as it appeared on 12 Jan 2013” — a date after the events of December 14th. This document was still suspicious but at least is showed it was recorded after the event it announced.
To make these changes at Google would take no more than about two minutes. All that needed to be done is to select the records in the database and edit the field that holds the date Google recorded the record.

JANUARY 25, 2013

Google decided that the evidence implicating them in these events were getting too dangerous to leave available and removed them from public view even though that looks very suspicious.
This happened because I stated publicly that it is impossible for a document — published with an RSS feed request to Google — to take 30 days as shown in Document 2 and 8 days as shown in Document 1 after the developer publicly stated at : “When a news item is created in our system, it is pushed out via an RSS feed and, Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours.”
There is an enormous amount of corroborating evidence that I described before at Fellowship of the Minds.
If you find the information above compelling enough to look further, and if I survive to tell about it, this discussion will be continued.
That Google is currently scrubbing the evidence does not bode well for those publicly explaining it. Although Google can hide the incriminating evidence from the public, they cannot remove the internal traces from their servers. We who made screencaptures and didn’t clear our browser histories have evidence they existed to the last date we accessed it. Guard that information well.
I am going to stop here to let you consider what I said.


Peter continues to make his case that the CMI was uploaded online BEFORE the massacre, as a prosecutor would in a criminal trial. Please go to our technical discussion thread about this post, “Sandy Hook Massacre: The People v. Crisis Management Institute,” by clicking here.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “How we know a guide on counseling children about Sandy Hook predated the massacre

  1. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney

    Honest investigators everywhere have secured a mountain of evidence.

  2. Isaiah 13.18 states they will dash you young men to pieces

    • You left out the rest of Isaiah 13:18:
      “Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.”

  3. This thing just keeps getting crazier! Do you think the current administration is behind this, or someone higher up?

  4. How could someone plan to actually kill the children at school, which is what this all sounds like?! (rhetorical question) The children did die, didn’t they? I read news reports about all the funerals; that would be hard to fake. This is really upsetting. Could our govt have actually done this diabolical deed and annihilated these kids for their own purposes? Lord, have mercy. I really dislike how the sham MSM is so weak and effortless at their job; were they to actually expose this type of information, wouldn’t the people rise up?

  5. Friends, I am the owner of the small web design shop that designed the website and content management tool for Arlington Local Schools. Mr. Offerman wrote this essay only after ignoring a lot of evident I provided that proved his theory was wrong. It’s unfortunate that this evidence wasn’t even mentioned in this biased essay.
    Regardless of your position on the larger conspiracy, the situation with Arlington Local Schools is a non-story. The truth is:
    Arlington Local Schools (ALS) posted the news item on December 17, AFTER the Sandy Hook shootings.
    Their website content management system provided by my Ohio-based web design company has the ability to back-date or more commonly, post-date news items. Whatever date you insert when writing a news story on the site shows up in a feed that’s pushed to Google, and that is the date they display in their search results too.
    Because of a glitch with their website, ALS ROUTINELY back-dated news items to make them show up on their website home page. The school back-dated this story for Dec 10 without thinking about the implications of it having a date prior to the tragedy in Connecticut.
    They posted a PDF from CMI that, according to my source at ALS was distributed to schools by email on the night of on Sunday, December 16.
    CMI has no administrative access to the school’s website. In fact, ALS is a small rural school in Ohio. To suggest that a national organization would somehow post content on thousands of school websites themselves makes no sense. And even if they did for only a handful of schools, would it be one of the smallest rural schools in Ohio?
    I provided this evidence in another thread on this site and it was ignored by Mr. Offerman when he wrote this essay. I’ll link to the thread below but first, here is the evidence ignored:
    1. Google didn’t find the story in their search results until December 18. I was quoted out of context in the essay above, it usually takes 24 hours for Google to find news items, and the fact it showed up Dec 18 is consistent with a Dec 17 publish date.
    2. In the other thread, another reader of this blog named “here” posted a series of links that showed most news stories posted by Arlington Local Schools were back-dated. This demonstrates that it was an ongoing practice by the school to back-date even routine news stories on their site.
    3. I provided a video showing the Google Analytics account which tracks all activity on the Arlington Local Schools website. The video shows that no traffic flowed through this news item dated Dec 10 until Dec 17. This video can be watched here:
    4. I suggested a plan where I would post another “test story” and back date it to the date of Mr. Offerman’s choosing so he could study how it gets indexed by Google. He declined to take me up on that.
    Once I submitted the third piece of evidence, and suggested #4 above, Mr. Offerman started to discount my credibility as a reliable source. Apparently because it didn’t fit with the conclusion he was desperately trying to reach.
    Whether or not you believe in the larger conspiracy, I have provided strong evidence that the news item on Arlington Local Schools’ website was a result of user error, pre-dating a news story.
    It’s unfortunate that Mr. Offerman left out all of this evidence when writing his essay.
    You can read most of the dialogue between myself and Mr. Offerman here, if you want to subject yourself to boring reading. 🙂

  6. Could the SICK SATANIC SOB”S have chosen little Arlington because they are the RED DEVILS?

  7. So that I can place all the information I have for you to consider here in an orderly fashion I will present it in the fashion of a prosecutor in a criminal trial.
    Because I cannot edit these comments please excuse any typos.
    I will number comments that I will refer back to so I don’t need to quote them later on.
    At the start of a Criminal Trial the Prosecutor makes a statement explaining what the Crime consists of, who he thinks is the criminal, and outlines how he intends to provide evidence showing that his case is accurate.
    On December 14, 2012 there was a School Shooting Incident at the Sandy Hook School. Some days after the actual shootings documents 1, 2 & 3 in the article at the top of this thread were found on the internet. We will examine all 3 very closely to determine how they came to exist.
    Documents 1 & 2 were found in Google’s Webcache, a place that records all public documents Google finds on the internet.
    Document 3 was found using the Google search engine.
    The published dates displayed on all three documents predate the events of Dec 14, 2012.
    Document 1 shows Dec 10, 2012, Documents 2 & 3 show December 13, 2012.
    Our task here is to examine and present all the evidence available to us in order to determine whether the documents originated before or after Dec 14th, 2012.
    The process will have 3 stages.
    1) Determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with this investigation.
    If there is not enough evidence stop here.
    If there is enough evidence go on to stage 2,
    2) Determine the date the documents were created.
    If the document are shown to originate after the events stop here.
    If the documents are shown to predate the actual event proceed to Stage 3
    3) Determine who is responsible for creating documents 1, 2 & 3 as they appear within Google’s servers.
    If it is proven the documents did originate before Dec 14 2012 it means that someone had foreknowledge and it was a likely a massive preplanned event rather than a random shooting caused by a deranged individual.
    Determining who falsified the documents will point to the guilty party by determining who had the access required to change them and also who had a motive to change them.

    The Arlington School whose Website the documents originated from is a typical American School of which there are many thousands. If the documents in question could only be created by one of the school’s staff it is my opinion the investigation should stop right here or the investigators who continued could rightly be called conspiracy nuts.
    To think that someone of the staff at this random typical school would be involved in orchestrating a false flag operation such as possibly occurred at Sandy Hook is an insane thought.
    In order to proceed past this point I will present evidence meant to determine if anyone other than the staff of the school had the opportunity to create all the documents needed to cause the three documents 1, 2 & 3 to appear on the Google Servers.
    I note proving that someone had the opportunity to create the documents on the School’s site without school staff participating, or knowing about their creation, does not rule out the possibility that school staff also might have created a copy. The contents of all the documents is legitimate and was placed on the website for a valid reason.
    What makes the documents suspicious is their published dates and also the dates that google says they were added to their cache.

  9. This isn’t the first false flag as more and more people are realizing. As much as I abhor obama, our government and others running it have carried out these type of (false flag) horrific acts under other administrations, hoping we citizens will not allow our thoughts to tread there, much less question, research and analyze their mistakes. And, they also hope we will find the evidence so appalling and unbelieveable we will question our own sanity preventing us from telling others at the risk of being ridiculed as conspiracy theorist nuts. They want so desperately to disarm the citizenry they finally resorted to killing children, hoping even gun advocates will agree to new legislation and laws as they refuse to seriously address the real issues of gun violence because in many cases they are the direct result of purposeful illegal actions like “Fast and Furious.” Those in control have been working mostly behind the scenes for decades manipulating and placing people in positions of power in order to orchestrate these events to make us think they are random.
    My questions are:
    Is there any evidence the Homeland Security training activities going on 25 miles away on the 14th may have been originally scheduled for the 10th and were also rescheduled?
    How many of the various agency law enforcement task forces were actually allowed to know the real plan?
    How many actors were involved?
    Is mind control being used with the law enforcement and actors who are involved?
    Surely some people in Sandy Hook, whether private citizens/law enforcement not involved with the murders, have to know it was staged. How many of those who have figured it out have had their lives threatened?
    How many of our “honest” legislators know the truth about these false flags and have they had their lives threatened?
    How can this information be presented more aggressively in order for citizens to understand what is really going on?
    Are there any “trusted” agencies and individuals with clout who are brave enough to bring it to the nation and world and expose those behind it?

  10. Just read on Before it’s News, DOD monitoring Sandy Hook blogs.

    The Arlington Schools, not school Website functions within computer software called SpireCMS, The Developer of this Software and most likely the Designer of the website is present here as commenter Jeremy.
    I owe him an apology for something I said in Public in the associated Technical Thread. I would say what I said to his face and also to those responsible for maintaining this website. I said what I said in Public because my communication with the staff here is limited. I am only a guest here as Jeremy is. I am ALWAYS open to changing my opinion if I discover I have been wrong.
    Jeremy could provide much valuable information about the site in question if he chooses to do so. I hope he does.
    I am going to place many urls / weblinks in this thread which will allow you to go to the actual sites being discussed whenever possible. Because of my limited privileges here when ever I place more than one url in a post the post is held back for moderation. This takes some time.
    I want to keep my individual comments brief which means I often have to wait some time before I can continue. To avoid this problem I will modify some urls similarly to the first presented directly below. This avoids WordPress from seeing the text as a url allowing comments to show up immediately.
    The first 4 characters below need to be “http” not the shown “h**p”
    Visiting the website being discussed h**p://
    To go to the site copy and paste the url below into another window of your browser. Before pressing enter or the continue button, change the ** to tt.
    Visting the site shows us the schools are located in Ohio. The website shows an address of 336 South Main Street, Arlington, Ohio 45814 Phone: 419-365-5121 Fax: 419-365-1282
    I assume this is their School District’s Office.
    There is an Internet Tool called Whois which when used in conjunction with a search engine such as google will return detailed information about websites.
    To find out where the computers that hold the Arlington Schools Website are located, I did a whois and checked two different databases.
    First: h**p://
    The results below
    This report on Arlingtonlocalschools was ran on January, 01, 2013. Server Details
    IP address:
    Server Location:
    San Antonio, TX in United States
    Rackspace Hosting
    Second: h**p://
    The results below
    25 other sites hosted on this server. Remember this it will be important.
    IP Address:
    IP Location:
    United States – New York – New York City
    Domain Status:
    Registered And Active Website
    I have not included all the information available only what is relevant here. You can verfiy what is here is accurate by using the url’s.
    I won’t explain what everything here means just tell you what it tells me in plain english. Other techs are welcome to comment if they feel I am wrong.
    The School’s Website is not Physically located in Ohio where they are. Until at least Jan 1,2013 they were on a server located in Houston Texas. The site was recently moved (Jan 1/13) to a server located in New York City.
    The above means that when staff at the Arlington Schools Office sit down at a computer to manage the website, they are not working on a Website hosted locally on a computer in their offices. Until Jan 1 13 they were managing their website on a server located in Texas and from that date to the prsent on a server in New York.
    Jeremy’s SpireCMS is what easily, without technical skills, allows them to do this.
    Content Management Systems (CMS) such as SpireCMS and WordPress, which is used to create and manage this blog, easily allow owners with very minimal technical computer skills to make available to the public whatever information they like.
    The staff person at the school in Arlington who maintains the website, could as easily be sitting here beside me in Ocean Falls and do everything they could from their office. Neither location is where the Website server computer is.
    All that is required to do this is for the staff person to have a username and password with authorization as an administrator.
    Obviously you don’t want everyone who uses the site to have administrator rights as anyone could then possibly do serious damage or steal confidential information.
    CMS systems commonly allow a number of different levels of access. I won’t mention all of them here, only enough to illustrate what is needed.
    1) End Users such as parents or children who can only comment as we guest here can, they can also possibly access areas of the site not open to the public.
    2) Authors Authors are allowed more privileges than End Users but not all the privileges of an administrator. They cannot change the site layout or functioning, they can only create documents and place them where needed. While creating documents they are allowed to upload files from their own local computer to add to the document they create. The uploaded documents can be pretty much anything, a picture, a video, a song, a pdf file.
    3) Administrator An admin can do everything an author can plus tweak all the controls on the site.
    The link below is live and can be clicked directly to see how authority is set.
    It will show the section of the wordpress control panel on one of the sites I manage that allows an administrator to authorize each member with their own unique privileges.
    All that the staff person at Arlington Schools would need to do to authorize a trusted person to upload and create content on the site is to go to that members profile record, partially shown above, open the dropbox as illustrated and decide what they will allow that person to do.
    That person could then access the School’s website from any internet connection in the world.
    Giving such a person any privilege from author up, would allow them to do everything required to create and place the documents 1, 2, & 3 we are discussing, without the intervention from anyone directly associated with the school.
    If Jeremy would be so kind as to confirm spireCMS works similarly to this and has the same capability, it would prove someone could place the documents without anyone at the school knowing about it.
    If Jeremy won’t confirm this I will ask Eowyn, the owner of this site, to temporarily elevate my privileges so I can demonstrate how it is done.
    The above proves to me conclusively that the possibility that someone not directly associated with the school could have uploaded and created the content we are discussing.
    If we all agree with my conclusion we can continue on and next try to determine if anyone outside the school had opportunity to create the material by being given such authority.
    This will be all for today, its been a long day.

  12. I don’t know how to post this video, but I was copying this from a comment over on Dr. Kate’s blog. The information I posted below was in a follow up comment. Apparently, this woman from Florida said that they were using her daughters photo who was not part of Sandy Hook. She said that it had been stolen from FB. Very scarry……………

    hiyosilver100 1 hour ago
    “That’s not my daughter”?
    One little girl (from Florida, I believe) was presented on a FB ‘memorial page’ as a supposed victim.
    Her mother saw her photo and posted that the girl was indeed live and well. Seems that someone ‘lifted’ the little girl’s photo from the internet.
    Not all of these debunk reports are lies from wacky people.

  13. Sounds like this is going to get so confuseing nobody will believe anybody, its time for the KGB to come in as a outside contractor and sort it out, Nobody in Homeland Security can be trusted, can anybody think of any other Department that has any credibility

  14. Something stinks here somewhere.

  15. I would like to pause this investigation for a moment to discuss a matter possibly related to it.
    The world recently suffered a great loss, when it lost Aaron Swartz to suicide?
    Aaron was like a beacon of shinning light in a mostly gray and foreboding world. He was highly intelligent and principled. He made all of our lives brighter. He was in the forefront of the fight to keep the internet a place of openness and honesty rather than let it become a closed tool only beneficial to powerful interests such as the mass media now is.
    Aaron was directly responsible for helping create the RSS newsfeed standard that caused documents 1, 2 above to be created.
    We do not know who first first discovered the existence of those documents. Their discovery was a massive win for internet openness. Whoever that person was would need to have a deep understanding of how and where information is stored on the internet. Also how it is indexed for easy retrieval.
    Aaron was that type of individual. He also had the intent to serve Truth and Justice, particularly on the internet.
    The events at Sandy Hook were very likely to attract his attention. He very probably started researching on the internet to find the truth using the needed tools, which he was intimately familiar with.
    RSS feeds, the standards of which he helped put in place, allow search engines to report news items created on the internet, about important events, almost instantly. Being an expert on how RSS feeds function and where the records that such feeds create are stored, he very likely started to search through those records to see what he could find.
    Aaron likely discovered the RSS feed record the Arlington Schools Website sent out that announced rightly or wrongly that the events at Sandy Hook School occurred on December 10th, 2012, 4 days before they actually happened. Discovering the RSS record would have allowed Aaron to find the Google cache record document 1 with only one click.
    In the normal course of events it is highly unlikely anyone would ever have found those records. Only the RSS record would publicly show it existed. To initially find the record directly in the cache would require knowing the documents exact URL and name. If no one knew of the documents existence, they would not know what to look for.
    Who ever that person was owe them a huge debt of gratitude. I strongly suspect Aaron was the one to discover that record at Google. He likely paid for that discovery with his life.
    With that highly likely possibility in mind I would like to dedicate this Investigation to Aaron. Whether or not he was the one who first found these records, his efforts in developing RSS feeds were instrumental in their being discovered.
    We all owe it to Aaron to make sure that his efforts to make the world a better place are continued and built upon until the world is a place of justice and honor as he attempted to create.
    This investigation would not be taking place without principled people like Aaron struggling to protect everyone’s rights.
    Aaaron, Thank you.

  16. I will respond to Jeremy within the ordered structure of this investigation. There are a couple of steps in between. It will likely be two days before I get there.

  17. I did not know where to post this, so I’m posting it here. I think this is so important, I just had to post it somewhere. This is currently being censored by an increasingly godless country. I don’t know it any of you have read the Harbinger, but it’s a must read. I could not put it down and was in tears. I feel with all my heart that it will not be long before our Lord Jesus Christ returns. I do believe that our country is currently under judgement and evil is running rampant. After you watch this, then remember the disgusting inaugural speech that was delivered by our pretender to the presidency. Please pray for this evil man….for God to change his evil heart and to lead him to become a Christian leader, to save this nation and it’s people. Pray for the forgiveness of this nation.

  18. This does not belong on this thread, but it’s very important. We knew this was what they were up to. We are in the middle of a coup. I find this quote from the video especially DAMMING! THEY KNOW AND ARE ALL GUILTY OF TREASON!
    “Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what?”

  19. My apologies for the delays, I was gathering research material in the background.
    I had planned to be back before now but have had a second more serious computer malfunction since entering this conversation. My computer is maintained to the level where normal mean times between failure are in the years. Two failures within days during this conversation concerns me to the point where I feel I need to take another couple of hours to further protect my ability to recover from such events.
    It is also snowing heavily here which interferes with my satellite link to the internet.
    I will resume here later today.

  20. Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this thought-provoking post. Thank you also Peter for your professional analysis of what is happening in this matter. As to Jeremy stating that posts are pre-dated and post-dated, my question is: What would be the point or benefit for someone to pre-date the Sandy Hook event? What purpose would this serve if this alleged pre-dating was done deliberately?

    • Joan,
      It is not that Crisis Management Institute (CMI) deliberately pre-dated its guide on “How to talk to children about Sandy Hook tragedy”. Rather, Peter has presented the case showing CMI unintentionally and inadvertently pre-dated the guide. Originally, Sandy Hook was planned for Dec. 10, and so CMI and other sites did “their part”, resulting in CMI leaving a footprint of having uploaded the guide onto the Internet on Dec. 10 — which was captured by Google cache.

      • That’s Peter’s theory. But the fact is, they went in on Monday morning, December 17, after getting an email from CMI on Sunday night, December 16, and published the story, back-dating it for December 10 so that it would show up on their home page… not even thinking about the confusion it would create. The fact that every news story they posted for months prior was pre-dated supports this, and not Peter’s theory.

      • Thank you Dr. Eowyn. I did not understand the pre-dating issue and what happened.

    • Joandarc,
      Good question. “here” posted a comment on the technical thread showing that ALS had been routinely pre-dating news posts for months. They did this because of a glitch on their website that was causing news items to not appear on their home page when dated with today’s date. We could have fixed the glitch for them, but weren’t aware of the problem. This was a “hack” way to make the news items show up on the home page.

  21. No. I feel like I have presented my case already, and Peter’s approach is ridiculous. I don’t have time to go through it at that level. When I see other readers that care enough to ask questions, I will clarify my viewpoint with them, as I did here. But I’m not going to go through a process that Peter dictates only to have my credibility and/or existence (!!!) questioned later like he did last time. I’ve laid out tons of evidence, and I am accepting the fact that people will ultimately believe what they choose to believe. That’s why we have blogs, right? 🙂

    • “But I’m not going to go through a process that Peter dictates….”
      Peter is a commenter on FOTM, just like you. I really don’t appreciate your portraying FOTM as being “dictated” by Peter. My invitation to you is precisely so that you get a forum to present your case, systematically and in your own fashion.

      • Dr. Eowyn, fair enough. I didn’t mean that FOTM as a whole was dictated by Peter. I wouldn’t still be contributing at all if it were. I just meant that this suggested “prosecution” vs “defense” approach allows the prosecutor to set the tone and then the defense must respond to his claims. And frankly, I quit reading what he wrote 3 days ago. When he’s done, let me know. In a few paragraphs, I will then summarize what I already had to say and let readers reach their own conclusions. Thanks for including me.

  22. I am up and running again and will be present here most of the day tomorrow.
    This material is confusing enough to understand going through it in an orderly fashion. Jumping all over the place makes it impossible. I will continue in a plodding but orderly way. My estimation currently is that it will take about 4 days to go through the evidence still before us and make sense of it.
    I will respond to all the points Jeremy has made when we reach the place in the investigation they apply to. At that point we will explore in detail what he says as well as what happened.
    The exploration needs to be as detailed as what I have presented above. Vague statements from Jeremy about what happened are not proof. We will take the computer processes that Jeremy says caused the bug requiring pre-dating of news items at Arlington Schools apart step by step and see if they make sense. If not we will explore other ways to explain the documents in question.
    Because this is not an official investigation we do not have the right to gather all the required evidence. We cannot compel anyone to contribute. We will need to work around that problem.
    At times the investigation will be like putting together a jig saw puzzle. It will be acceptable to place pieces on the table that we don’t know exactly where they fit, or are true, were we think they might go.
    We will then go on and fit as many other pieces around them as possible, that we do know for a fact are true. Eventually the area around the unproven pieces will become so small they can only fit in the puzzle in one way. At the end of the investigation if all the pieces fit together, leaving no holes, or left over pieces, we can assume the result proven.
    I am after the truth here not to build a false case. If there is an innocent explanation for these document, we will come to know that for a fact. Even though I have serious reservations about such a possibility, I hope that is the case. If the documents are shown to prove foreknowledge of the events of December 14th 2012, the list of possible culprits is very small. That is a very scary thought.
    If an investigation proving definitely that the Sandy Hook School Shootings were a False Flag ever became public on a large scale, it would be a world changing event.
    I will start the morning tomorrow by responding to two points Jeremy made above. One relates to material I presented above, the other relates to what we will explore next.
    See you all tomorrow.

  23. Scifake has debunked this article because it was NOT written days prior to the Sandy Hook Shooting. Only a fool would believe it was written prior; however, the article was predated the shooting by mistake and has the proof with screen shots and emails from the person who inserted this article.

    • Scifake this, Scifake that.
      Gosh, isn’t it just fascinating that the URL you embedded in your alias “Ron” is to and the name is also in your e-address? Let me make a wild guess: You are that very same Scifake!
      And for insulting us by calling us “fools” because we actually dare to question the official version of Sandy Hook — even though a federal judge has put a 90-day gag on law enforcement, so nobody actually really knows what happened, INCLUDING YOU — this is your first and LAST comment that gets published on FOTM.

      • 26 minutes ago, FOTM received this hate mail from “Ron”:
        From: Ron Tebo
        Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM
        The title should be “fellowshipofthemisinformedminds”? You’re hitching your wagon to stories that have already been told and it is pathetic. We debunked the Red Devils – Lesson learned! Now go run along because it is recess time and your unsophisticated friends are waiting for you by the swings! Stay hydrated!

  24. This is a quick test post to discover how much html code REPLYS here understand. It may not display properly. I am busy preparing the next segment of this investigation. There will be one other test post after this one.

  25. This is a second quick test post to discover how much html REPLYS here understand. It may not display properly.
    The first test was to see if I could directly display images in the thread instead of just adding the url pointing to them. I cannot, so all images will need to be referenced by only the url I put in the thread.
    This test is to see if standard url’s created by an offline html editor will be properly interpreted within comments here. Because of the severe layout limitations imposed by the ‘comments’ format I am trying to compose my replies offline and then just posting them into a reply.
    Next item after this test is finished is to get back to the subject at hand.
    Link to this thread.

  26. Last quick test, if this works it would make things much easier. hopefully see an image here.

  27. There was a small goof on my part in the first version of this post which will at some point appear above this one if I can’t contact Dr Eowyn in time to delete it. This a first attempt to use an offline html editor to create my posts here.
    Sorry for the double post if it appears. This is the more accurate version. It will appear immediately.
    Last night I posted that I would respond at this point in the investigation to two points Jeremy raised in his first post here. I will actually respond to 3.
    My first response brings up what is likely the most important point of this investigation. To prove how the documents being discussed came to be Google’s cache this point must be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. I intend to go on and do that in the proper place of the investigation.
    Because of the importance of this particular piece of information I have overnight created several resources in the background that will allow us all to see, exactly what was said, where it was said, what it refers to, and where it is answered. That is the only way to definitively confirm who said what. Willy nilly accusations scattered all over the place cannot be resolved.
    The same method of reference introduced here will be used for addressing all crucial points in this investigsation.
    To enable this cross-referencing of statements and evidence, I have created two threads elsewhere to hold important information.
    1) AN EVIDENCE/ EXHIBITS THREAD that holds each piece of evidence, and related information, as a single post. Each EXHIBIT will have live links to all relevant place. Because we will need to examine the documents in question much closer than can be done by viewing the reduced resolution versions available in the original article of this thread, the images in  the EXHIBITS thread can be clicked on to see them at the larger original resolution.
    You will be able to go directly to this thread and view just the evidence. I can then also post direct links here to a specific Exhibit. I will not add such links here yet as I can only add 1 link per post without delaying the posting of my comments. I will reserve the one allowed link for this post to lower in the post where it is more important. You can reference the links I mentioned form that link.
    2) AN INDEX THREAD It is impossible to keep track accurately of all the “he said’s”, and, “she said’s”, and who responded or not, that are scattered all over various threads here, without some kind of INDEX. Last night I started on a index that will allow that. Each question or statement related to this investigation will be posted into the INDEX THREAD.
    Each statement in the INDEX will show…
    a. Who said it
    b. What was said
    c. Provide a link to where it was said
    d. Show clearly if the question or statement has yet been addressed (UNANSWERED / ANSWERED)
    e. Once answered the answer will be displayed in quotes directly below the statement in the INDEX record.
    f. There will be a link to where the answer was introduced into the Investigation thread.
    This all sounds complicated but hopefully it will be easy to understand once you see it.
    JEREMY stated above in this thread, “Google didn’t find the story in their search results until December 18. I was quoted out of context in the essay above, it usually takes 24 hours for Google to find news items, and the fact it showed up Dec 18 is consistent with a Dec 17 publish date.”
    This is a serious accusation Jeremy makes against me in order to discredit me. This is similar to what he says I did to him elsewhere. In time I will clarify all that was said by both of us. Here I will concentrate on his statement above.
    The statement implies I put word’s in his mouth and quoted him out of context.
    To see who said what, where, please go to THIS index record.
    There you will see everything said in context.
    My response is also there.
    I suggest my response proves….
    a. I didn’t put words into Jeremy’s mouth.
    b. The statement I made is totally relevant to unraveling how the 2 documents we are examining came into being in Google’s Cache.
    JEREMY’s accusation is very deceptive. Because of his technical qualifications, and being the creator of the website, and putting the RSS feed in question into place, he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that, “it usually takes 24 hours for Google to find news items, and the fact it showed up Dec 18 is consistent with a Dec 17 publish date”
    a. Only applies to webpages WITHOUT an RSS feed.
    b. That a NEWS item such as the announcement regarding the the availability of the PDF file from CMI is made available to Google in an expedited manner making it available in their search engine for people to find in Quote Jeremy as I did, “When a news item is created in our system, it is pushed out via an RSS feed and, Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours.
    c. Without RSS feeds news items would not be available in search engines until after the first time Google entered them into their cache.
    d. In the case of the document having a published date of December 13, 2012, that would mean google search users would not find a reference to the shooting in the google search engine, until potentially  January 12, 2013, a month after the event occurred.
    e. Search engines compete with each other to be the first to make such information available.
    f. A full explanation of how RSS feeds work is complex and lengthy. I will not tackle it here, it will be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction in the proper place in the investigation.

    • Hold on Peter…. me saying “I was quoted out of context.” is NOT a “serious accusation.”
      This statement I made implies nothing of an intent to mislead. I assumed it was an honest mistake on your part. On the other hand, you saying: “JEREMY’s accusation is very deceptive. Because of his technical qualifications, and… …he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that…”
      THAT… is a SERIOUS ACCUSATION. Why don’t you stop attacking my character, and SPECULATING about what I INTENDED to do! This is NOT (at least I hope it is not) a forum to attack my credibility or integrity.
      Dr. Eowyn? (I’m hoping if this is actually like a court case that you will intervene accordingly. You are the closest thing we have to a judge, and you chose the format.)

      • I repeat what I’d said to you, both in an email on Jan. 26, and in a response to you yesterday:

        I invite you to be the counsel for the Defense. That means FOTM will publish what you put together in an actual post, not as you are doing in comment format.

        But you declined to accept my invitation on both occasions. Instead, you’ve chosen to continue to write comments, scattered here and there on different threads. And now you expect me to keep track of your back-and-forth rebuttals with Peter and be the referee? Furthermore, now you’re accusing me of “choosing the format”?
        You are being disingenuous, and I do not appreciate it.

        • Enough.
          I have opted out of all threads on this website, and I will not return. This is officially my last comment. I stuck around longer than I should have in hopes of protecting my good name / integrity / credibility from being wrongly destroyed by Peter. Now I know that was a fool’s errand on my part.
          I’m disappointed.
          Folks, I know you all mean well, and I pray for each reader and contributor that you would find freedom from being consumed with fear. God is bigger than any real or imagined conspiracy. The “conspiracy” for Arlington Local Schools is NOT real, but clearly it will survive on this site. What’s sad is that as fellow Christ-followers, we’re on the same side in the bigger picture. I will stand before God knowing that I have honorably presented the facts in this case and not attempted to mislead anybody. (I am NOT implying that anybody else has done otherwise). But I answer to HIM, not to you, and I have no obligation to keep participating in your makeshift kangaroo court any longer.
          So long.

          • I want EVERYONE to note and remember that it is Jeremy who “opted out” of this investigation and who, once again, declined my invitation to be counsel for the Defense by presenting his case — systematically, clearly, taking all the space he wants on FOTM.
            I want EVERYONE to note and remember that it is Jeremy who still is not answering my question, which I will repeat here once again:

            By the way, Jeremy, did you ever answer Peter’s question about whether individuals other than you have posting/editing/administrative access to the Arlington Red Devils website?

            The answer is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Why is that so difficult?

      • “quoted out of context” is a polite way of saying I was lying. THAT in my book is a serious matter. The intent is to discredit me.
        I think that if rather than accusing me of attacking your character, you proved your statement JEREMY 1. Google didn’t find the story in their search results until December 18. I was quoted out of context in the essay above, it usually takes 24 hours for Google to find news items, and the fact it showed up Dec 18 is consistent with a Dec 17 publish date.
        If this is indeed true, we would all understand what happened better.
        Showing that what I said below is false would also help clarify the matter.
        You have the technical background to know the truth. Please inform us all exactly why you think I am wrong.
        I’m sorry but I will not stand idly by and let you misdirect people. Either prove what you are saying or stop making accusative statements.
        Yes I accused you, but I also put the reasons clearly on the table in a way that the truth of them can be verified. All I have seen from you are vague unprovable statements.
        “Jeremy – it usually takes 24 hours for Google to find news items, and the fact it showed up Dec 18 is consistent with a Dec 17 publish date”
        Peter below.
        a. Only applies to webpages WITHOUT an RSS feed.
        b. That a NEWS item such as the announcement regarding the the availability of the PDF file from CMI is made available to Google in an expedited manner making it available in their search engine for people to find in Quote Jeremy as I did, “When a news item is created in our system, it is pushed out via an RSS feed and, Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours.”
        c. Without RSS feeds news items would not be available in search engines until after the first time Google entered them into their cache.
        d. In the case of the document having a published date of December 13, 2012, that would mean google search users would not find a reference to the shooting in the google search engine, until potentially January 12, 2013, a month after the event occurred.
        e. Search engines compete with each other to be the first to make such information available.

        You can refer to the index letters to answer them individually.
        People can then decide for themselves whether my accusation is credible.

      • Jeremy | January 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Reply
        Hold on Peter…. me saying “I was quoted out of context.” is NOT a “serious accusation.”
        Not only is it a serious accusation, it is also a lie.
        Click here for links proving it.
        From Jeremy’s STATEMENTWhen a news item is created in our system, it is pushed out via an RSS feed and, Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours.
        From my QUOTEWhen a news item is created in our system, it is pushed out via an RSS feed and, Google has it indexed usually under 24 hours.
        Are these statements identical or not?

        • Sure looks identical to me!
          By the way, Jeremy, did you ever answer Peter’s question about whether individuals other than you have posting/editing/administrative access to the Arlington Red Devils website?

          • Enough.
            I have opted out of all threads on this blog and I won’t return again. I stayed way too long in an attempt to guard my character and credibility from Peter’s biased attacks but it is now clear it was a fools errand on my part.
            Say what you will, this is my last comment. I could see that very few people are still reading this story anyway based on views of the evidence I posted and tracked.
            If anybody has serious questions of my character or credibility after reading my contributions, feel free to contact me via my website.

  28. Because I cannot edit what I say here, anything I miss or get wrong is in the post for good.
    I would like to add one clarification to the above. When you use the link THIS index record. to go to the Index record, the item being discussed here is marked in red “POINT 1 MADE BY JEREMY”

  29. I promise you that the pace of my contributions here will pickup significantly soon. However tonight I will be doing more homework.
    I am going to create two more tools to make keeping track of what we have or haven’t accomplished here easier.
    1) A list of each important item presented in the investigation, in the order it was presented. Each Item will be set either, TRUE, POSSIBLY TRUE, or UNTRUE. That way we can see what is left to do. Each Item in the list will link back to where the discussion takes place. It will also link to a separate open thread devoted to this topic with a poll at the top letting each person select, TRUE, POSSIBLY TRUE, or UNTRUE.
    2)Under individual POLL threads the topic can be argued back and forth by everyone as long as the have the resolve to continue.
    The VOTE/POLL will be set so people can change their minds as they receive new information.
    At the end of this discussion, once we have resolved as many issues as possible, there will be a general poll asking.
    Were the Google Cache Records being discussed created before December 14th 2012, on December the 14th, 2012,  After December 14th, 2012, or UNDECIDED?
    Tonight I will also try to catch up the INDEX thread to where we currently are.

    • I’m am truly interested to learn more Peter . Please please keep at it. I wish Jeremy was more willing to advance his argument in the mock trial format. Seems like a fair solution to me especially when you have made clear that this is not a personal witch hunt against Jeremy or his company. That this is simply about asking questions and looking for information until satisfactory answers are obtained is not in doubt . Fwiw and I’m not sure it matters at this point but I do believe I found another site which had cmi’s PDF posted in advance of the sandy hook fiasco. I will look at it again tmrw and pass along the info if I think it is solid enough.

  30. I have added a new item to the EXHIBITS thread. It is the 3rd post Jeremy made in the technical discussion thread.
    Jeremy’s post introduced us to the video he made presenting some Google Analytics information about the School’s Website.
    As the url shows the video was placed on the SpireCMS developer’s website so only someone actually associated with the firm, or authorized by them, could place it there. This fact tells us that Jeremy is very likely who he says he is.
    To view the EXHIBIT and also follow a link to the original of the post. CLICK HERE
    * While visiting this exhibit you can scroll up and also view any of the other exhibits.

  31. I was called off last night from adding the extra tools to this discussion I mentioned above, in order to help in a local matter. I didn’t get a chance to complete those tasks. That will hopefully happen tonight. Today I have commitments elsewhere for most of the afternoon.
    Before continuing on with the investigation and responding to Dr Eowyn’s questions regarding who might have had access to the school’s website besides school staff and Jeremy, I will itemize what we know about Jeremy at this point.
    Jeremy’s presence here is an important part of the puzzle.
    a. On the internet it is almost impossible to verify who anyone is.
    I think we can be assured Jeremy is who he says he is by evidence I just placed into the EXHIBITS thread.
    The exhibit is a post Jeremy made in the technical thread that contains a link to a video he made for presentation here. The url of the video “h**p://” and attached screen capture of the content of the url, clearly show it is on the SpireCMS developer’s website.
    You can view the exhibit by CLICKING HERE.
    b. Just as in the case of the Staff of the Arlington Schools’ website, accusing Jeremy of being involved in a possible False Flag at the scope of the Sandy Hook School Shootings is tinfoil territory. Such a thought is not credible.
    c. As far as I am concerned Jeremy is innocent of any nefarious involvement of questionable events that might have taken place there. There is no secret code in his software allowing it to be used with ulterior motives. What occurred within his software would also have occurred using any other CMS (Content Management System). We will get back to that topic, and illustrate how that is true, once we are finished discussing Jeremy.
    d. As Jeremy is innocent of any involvement in the original events, his behavior here is very curious. You would think it would be in his own interest to do whatever he can to help clarify this issue. As I will later demonstrate point by point, he has done the opposite. I have asked him numerous technical questions that he, as the developer of SpireCMS, and also as the designer of the Arlington’s School’s Website, is most qualified to answer in a technically explicit manner in order to determine if in FACT a technical flaw in his software caused the glitch, as is being put forward to explain this occurrence, to occur. Yes I think there was/is a flaw in software regarding dating some items, but I intend to prove it could not have caused the items to appear in the Google cache. As we look back through the statements Jeremy made point by point, where they are relevant in the investigation, you will discover he evaded every opportunity to be genuinely helpful.
    e. I asked myself, “If Jeremy is innocent why is he trying to obscure the issue?” The only logical explanation for his actions I could come up with is that his software is being used as a scapegoat to explain this unusual event. He is now being forced to help cover up what happened at Arlington Schools’ Website, even though he was not involved in the original events. A cover up of the Arlington occurrences would likely need his involvement, either voluntarily or involuntarily in order to be credible. He is the only one familiar enough with the actual Website to put forward credible explanations.
    If anyone else can put forward a different explanation, please do so. If what I suspect here is true, then Jeremy is in a very dangerous position. If he were to disappear or suicide at this point it would be further evidence of wrong doing at Sandy Hook. I actually like Jeremy and wish him well.
    I’ll leave talk about Jeremy here for now and get back to where we were in the investigation.
    Next I will answer 2 questions Dr Eowyn had about who had access to the Website. To complete my evidence on this issue I will then respond to another point Jeremy put forward regarding access to the site. That response is as misleading as the first point I clarified above.
    I’m not sure I can complete that post before I need to leave for the afternoon. If not it won’t appear until this evening.
    Thank you,

  32. I am embarrassed by some of the grammatical errors in my post above. I am rushing to put forward this material as quickly as possible and am not taking the time to find all such errors. I am halfheartedly editing on the fly.
    Hopefully the content is understandable even with such errors.

    • Peter,
      I will fix the errors when I find the time to add your latest Exhibit into the “People v Crisis Management Institute” post. But I have other personal matters to attend, which I have grossly neglected.

  33. Good day….
    I have spent my morning creating another EXHIBIT for this Investigation.
    To view the exhibit CLICK HERE
    I will explain it in the reply below.

  34. To keep this investigation thread as short and readable as possible I will only summarize here what the new EXHIBIT mentioned in my post above relates to. The actual proof that what I say here is accurate is in the Exhibit itself.
    To view the exhibit CLICK HERE
    Before I move forward with this investigation and introduce new information I always reassess if the new information I am adding invalidates anything I have previously introduced here. I went through that process last night and discovered another important clue regarding Jeremy’s role here.
    Before moving on in the investigation as planned for today I want to further clarify the issue of mis-information being introduced into this investigation by authorities we assume we can trust.
    The exhibit contains 3 items, and an explanation below the items, demonstrating it IS mis-information.
    The items are….
    1) A screen capture of part of an email I received on January 23, 2012 from a commenter at FOTM who is helping with technical research on this matter. The email included 2 attachments in the form of pdf files. sh
    2) A copy of the cms.pdf attached to the email.
    3) The contents of  CMS.PDF which is attached to the email. The contents is displayed as an image so it can be directly viewed without first opening the pdf.
    The email states that the contents of the pdf is a screen capture taken by Linda Maxfield, the staff person at Arlington Schools responsible for ‘administering’ (managing) the School’s Website. She is an employee of the school not of SpireCMC.
    The screenshot purports to show the page where the news item announcing the availability of the pdf created by Crisis Management Inc, (CMI), is announced to Parents, Students, and Teachers involved with the school, regarding how to talk to children about the Sandy Hook Shootings.
    The screenshot shows where an author would edit or enter such a news item onto the School Website.
    The screenshot partially shows the actual news item mentioned above on screen, in edit mode, where the operator could change the announcement’s wording, or the news tiem’s Published Date.
    The facts of what happened are not important in themselves but it clearly demonstrates again that people associated with the school website are trying to mislead us at every turn.
    I should have time to do another post today. See you later.

  35. Once I make an EXHIBIT public I will not modify the content posted except for small typos. If I have new material to add to an exhibit I will add it as dated footnotes.
    There are subtle points in this exhibit yet to be addressed. This will likely occur regularly with other exhibits as well.
    * There is more information in the screenshot analyzed in the exhibit, which I haven’t revealed yet. I will do that once it becomes relevant.
    My appraisal of the document clearly demonstrates how much information is visible in plain sight on webpages if you know what to look for.
    We will shortly be examining each document in the exhibits with the same thoroughness.  Doing so will reveal when exactly the documents originated and also what they contained at the time they were created.

  36. ================= ADDENDUM TO EXHIBIT   ==================
    The text below was just added to the exhibit just introduced.
    CLICK HERE to view the Exhibit.
    January 31, 2013 2:14 PT by Peter

    I interpreted the section of the analysis above slightly wrong. It is very difficult with screen shots to tell what is a live web page and what is just an image of one. The conclusion I reached above remains the same but what we see is slightly different than what I explained. If anything it is more puzzling.
    Please refer to Arrow 2 in item 3 above. ( The screen capture from the school?)

    What the arrow points at is the status bar in Internet Explorer that shows what the page displayed is currently doing. It says, "Downloading picture h**p://…"

    What the above means is that Linda is currently downloading the image displayed from h**p://

    If Linda was sending a copy of an image she took at the school’s site to Jeremy’s Company the url at arrow 1 would instead read "Arlington Schools" not ‘Spirecms’ and the page status would also show ‘uploading’ not ‘downloading’.

    What the status line pointed at by Arrow 2 actually means is that ANN (sorry not Linda as I said above) Maxfield was logged onto SpireCMS’ version of the school website not her own.
    The download statement likely refers to the code that displays the picker calendar on the screen. The page hadn’t finished loading yet and was still busy downloading part of the calendar code to her computer.
    This is very peculiar for two reasons…..
    1) It is now obvious ANN had screen capture software on her own computer, and didn’t need help from Jeremy, or to go to Jeremy’s Company Site to do the screen capture.
    2) ANN had full access to the school’s live website. Why would she go to the non-public copy of the website at SpireCMS and do a screen capture of it instead of the REAL live version she had full access to?

  37. I have now returned to answering questions raised about how many different people could easily be given safe access to parts of the website without endangering the whole site.
    This will demonstrate how Crisis Management Inc. (CMI) could easily and safely have been given such access.
    In order to explain the above I have added another EXHIBIT
    CLICK HERE to view the exhibit.
    Viewing the exhibit will answer most of your questions.
    Dr Eowyn had two specific questions about this process which I will now answer.
    Jeremy made one statement regarding this which I will correct.
    I’m not suse you’ll see anything more from me tonight. If not I’ll see you tomorrow.

  38. To reassure those of you who might be wondering if I will ever get around to the critical point of addressing the actual evidence in this situation, I will produce a short schedule here of what remains to be done and when each step is likely to occur.
    TODAY Feb 1, 2013.
    Present 2 more pieces of information about the Arlington Schools Website.
    Answer Dr Eowyn’s questions about the site.
    Address a point Jeremy made about the website.
    Move on to demonstrating how Crisis Management Inc. (CMI) fits into the events that occurred.
    All of the above will become important to understand as we examine the actual evidence.
    The (CMI) analysis might bleed into tomorrow.)
    Feb 2, 2013.
    Possibly finish up with CMI
    Demolish the official explanation for the documents that pre-dated the events at Sandy Hook.
    Feb 3, 2013.
    Prove the documents came into existence before the event they  announce occurred.
    Propose how the documents really came into existence using the information presented to date.
    Feb 4, 2013.
    Prove how the documents came to be in Google’s cache.
    Present a summary of how all the pieces of the puzzle presented here fit together, and what that means.
    Present a summary that could be used as a guide to gather further evidence to firm up what has been presented to date from possible and probable to proven.
    The summaries may bleed into Feb 5, 2013.

    1) In the first article I presented here I went on at length about the difference between ‘virtual’ and ‘physical’; towns and/or websites. The article goes on to explain how the Arlington Local Schools (ALS) Website is a ‘virtual’ one.
    To view the article CLICK HERE
    Here I will demonstrate how that ‘virtual’ quality applies to the security of the website and assures far greater privacy, and security, than older ‘physical’ websites, even when giving outside people or organizations some access to the website.
    In the article I stated that in ‘physical’ towns/websites there need only be one map of the town/website as all locations always remain in the same place.
    I further stated that in virtual communities, every visitor can have a different map created to suit their own purposes.
    Such special purpose maps/indexes actually re-arrange the community according to the map/index.
    In the article I give the example of a delivery guy who needs to deliver parcels to two places that are widely separated within the community.  For his purposes he arranges to have the places re-located to be right next to each other, saving him the time and trouble of going through all the other places that normally exist between the two locations.
    Crisis Management Inc (CMI) is a delivery person to the ALS website. In order to make deliveries CMI are issued a username and password. In CMI’s profile record at the ALS website, the site administrator will checkmark the two areas of the site CMI needs to visit in order to drop off information.
    Whenever CMI logs on to their account at ALS, the code of the site quickly creates a map/index of the site that only shows CMI the two places CMI is authorized to visit.
    All the many other parts of the control panel of the site that the administrator sees, in their own map, remain hidden from CMI. This makes it very easy for CMI to make their delivery, while also being very secure for the site itself. No visitors such as CMI can see all the private information on the ALS website.
    CMI can only see the parts of the ALS Website admin panel they need to know about.
    The virtual features of ALS Website will come up again later, and be vital to showing what actually happened at ALS.

    2) DR EOWYN asked “But this blog FOTM is hosted by WordPress, not spireCMS. How would your having access to FOTM demonstrate how someone with author or admin privileges on the Arlington Schools site — Arlington Red Devils — tampered with the ARD site?”
    To view my full response CLICK HERE
    I only summarize below.
    All Content Management Systems share 1 common attribute that makes them much more efficient, and less expensive to maintain, than older ‘physical’ website solutions.
    That most critical attribute, common to all CMS systems, is the ability to allow non-technical users to maintain such websites on a day to day basis, without constantly involving the costly time of the developer of the site.
    No doubt WordPress implements non-technical content management access to a website, differently than SpireCMS does, but both must include this ability.
    Although different in particulars, demonstrating how WordPress allows such access would definitively demonstrate that SpireCMS which is used by the Arlington Local Schools website allows for access similar to WordPress.

    3) On January 28th, 2013 DR EOWYN responded to a question by commentor joandarc
    To view the full interchange above between joandarc and Dr Eowyn CLICK HERE
    The relevant portion of the conversation is below.
    Dr Eowyn

    It is not that Crisis Management Institute (CMI) deliberately pre-dated its guide on “How to talk to children about Sandy Hook tragedy”. Rather, Peter has presented the case showing CMI unintentionally and inadvertently pre-dated the guide. Originally, Sandy Hook was planned for Dec. 10, and so CMI and other sites did “their part”, resulting in CMI leaving a footprint of having uploaded the guide onto the Internet on Dec. 10 — which was captured by Google cache.

    Dr Eowyn answers joandarc’s question well so I will just clarify something he says in his statement which I no longer think is true.
    This is as good a place as any, to announce one clarification that has arisen out of my painstaking analysis of this situation right from square one.
    By the time I got to this point today, when I am about to put forward information about Crisis Management Inc’s (CMI) role in this situation, I realized there is a much simpler explanation for the occurrence on Dec 10th, 2012, than I put forward in the article at the head of this Investigation, that suggests the Shooting was originally planned for Dec 10th, 2012 but was delayed for some reason.
    Such an occurrence would need to involve many people.
    The simpler explanation I now think explains the occurrence at Arlington Schools Website, would only involve 1 employee of CMI making a simple mistake in preparation for the events that will take/took place on Dec 14th, 2012.
    This explanation means there was no general false start for a false flag on Dec 10, 2012.
    On Dec10, 2012, there was only 1 mistake, by 1 person, at CMI, who was involved in the background preparation for a false flag event scheduled for Dec 14, 2012.
    The new explanation does not rule out that Sandy Hook was a false flag, it instead makes my explanation of events much more likely than requiring a general stand down of a false flag on Dec 10th, 2012.
    I won’t explain the above here as it will make more sense once we start investigating exactly what happened on the Arlington Schools Website.

    4) On January 26th, 2013 JEREMY stated…

    CMI has no administrative access to the school’s website.

    To view the statement in full context see POINT 7 at the following link CLICK HERE (POINT 7 was added today and is above POINT 1)
    My response there states…

    JEREMY is correct in this statement but it is very misleading.
    He knows full well that Crisis Management Inc. could be issued a lower level of access to the site without endangering the sites security or privacy.
    His statement implies that only Admin access would allow CMI to do what I said.
    Because he created the site, Jeremy knows for a fact that what he says is inaccurate. This leads me to conclude he was trying to hinder the investigation not help it.


  43. I’m no longer getting emails when comments are added, but I wanted to check in with your progress before leaving the office for the weekend. Because you all remain on my mind and I have been praying for you, I decided to respond to the question about user access.
    There are a total of 3 types of users to the Arlington Local School website:
    1. “Administrators” who have full access to edit the whole site.
    2. “Managers” who have access to edit just certain pages or features.
    3. “Authors” who can only publish news items.
    The system tracks all current and former users, and when they last logged in. Based on this, here’s what I can tell you without risking the security of their website:
    1. There are/have been 3 administrators. All are school officials with school email addresses. They can post anywhere on the site.
    2. There are/have been fewer than 20 managers. All are employees at the school with school email addresses. They each have permission to post to their own pages. A few also have permission to post news releases and/or events.
    3. There are no authors, and never have been.
    Most importantly, there are NO USERS of ANY TYPE (administrators, managers or authors) from CMI or ANY other outside entity, and never have been.
    The ONLY users who have access or have ever had access to the ALS website editor are school employees, plus the database-level access I have to all the sites my company builds as the web developer to assist my clients.
    ALL content ever posted on the site was posted by the users described above — school employees with school email addresses. The news item in question (and accompanying PDF) was posted by a school employee with a school email address. It was posted on Monday, December 17.
    So either I’m lying, or else the news item was posted on the ALS website AFTER the shooting.
    Blessings, Peter. Still praying that you may not be paralyzed with fear but would trust in God. Please don’t address any posts to me, because I won’t be actively reading, but I may check in again in another week.
    “So do not fear, for I am with you;
    do not be dismayed, for I am your God.
    I will strengthen you and help you;
    I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
    — Isaiah 41:10

  44. Peter, I’m glad to see you think it was one individual at CMI who made the mistake and uploaded the pdf too early. That has been my instinct all along. It seems the most likely scenario rather than multiple false starts. Cherie Lovre is a one woman show from all my research despite the frequent use of the plural “we” on her website.
    Fwiw, many years ago there was a character on a soap opera, One Life To Live, which featured for one year a character by the name of Cherie Love. I can’t prove it but I’d bet good money that Cherie Lovre aside from sounding like the name of an adult film star is not Cherie Lovre’s real birth name. Can’t prove a thing, just going on gut.

    • Gosh, that must mean that all those 5 other Sandy Hook RIP and donation webpages with pre-massacre dates also just made a mistake and uploaded the info too early!

      • Hi Dr Eowyn, I’ve given a great deal of thought to all this and I can’t say for sure what the plan was but here is where I’m leaning. It is possible that the person who set up Soto’s page, CMI’s pdf, and the fund raising page on the 10th did all three at once. Hence the same publishing date. Repetitive patterns tend to be the case with psy-ops like what I believe SH was and so there is likely some weird, dark pleasure in multiplicities of the 10th.
        The entire event as macabre as it was has a certain cartoonish, mocking quality to it and so at some level the people setting up sites in advance of the actual event simply do not care to be cautious. At some level those orchestrating this believe they will never be caught so none of it matters.
        I also suspect very strongly that some of these pre-dated items were set up intensionally to draw out ‘conspiracy theorists” so that they might be sandbagged straight out of the box.
        It is important to remember that this is a sick GAME to the puppeteers. I believe they take a sick joy in leaving evidence in plain sight, as if to say, ” Catch me if you can. ”
        I realize this is not an especially heartening point of view but look at what we are dealing with.

  45. Likewise, the cache of the Newtown Bee article recording an interview with Sandy Hook Elementary Principal Dawn Hochsprung about the shooting in which, as it turned out, Dawn Hochsprung was the first to be killed, was dated December 13, 2012. The page, details of which are recorded here, has been deleted from the server.

  46. Interesting analysis Mari. I also wonder about the way in which the “Sandy Hook Truth Movement” (for want of a better term) has come into being in such short order, rather like Anonymous and Occupy, that it too isn’t being manipulated for whatever arcane reasons from the shadows. Perhaps like you say to sandbag “conspiracy theorists”, or to provoke some greater confrontation.

  47. Yes, Lenny. You have nailed it. Aspects of the Sandy Hook Truth Movement are being manipulated. No question in my mind. It is classic co-intel. Listen. SH was a sham. A sick one. I’m still not clear on whether anyone died frankly. I have to assume yes until I know otherwise. Honestly, I worry more about the “fake” deaths. Where are those kids now????? Pracitcing their sigils?
    But its no mistake that SH truthers are labeled as such. It is also a direct attempt to associate them with 911 truthers and discredit the whole. The scumbags who orchestrated 911 know that people are wising up and so Sandy Hook in part was an attempt to gain back some control of the spin. Making the loose ends so obvious is part of the agenda because anybody can see immediately that something is off.
    The more people who can be seduced in, so to speak and then quickly dispatched with as “nutters” and “conspiracists” the better. That is what Anderson Cooper of the disappearing nose in front of a blue screen did with his Rant and Owl picture. ( I used to like Anderson and his giggle. Now I see he is just as corrupt as the rest. sigh. )
    When any story makes the mainstream news these days I question why. Nothing is left to chance these days. Too few people control the media. So, if CNN and HuffPo are giving attention to conspiracists albeit negatively I have to ask why. There is a larger picture to it all.

  48. PETER – PLEASE ANSWER JEREMY’S POST ABOUT – a post that gives an explanation and that refutes your claims. Why are you ignoring him?

    • Peter has never “ignored” Jeremy or any commenter/questioner. But he does not jump just because you say “jump.” He will answer in his own time — carefully, meticulously, and with evidence.

  49. The Twin Towers were empty and no one died – the same tactics were applied at the SH school – it was empty and no one died. Stop falling for the government propaganda.
    BTW – stop using the term/acronym MSM – it implies that there is a free press in America – there is NOT. It also implies that there are news organizations worthy of credibility as opposed to those who are not in the so-called “mainstream. Cable news is not an oppositional alternative to the so-called ‘legitimate’ press. Cable news is as ‘mainstream as all the rest with respect to heavy handed governmental/CIA control control of information. There is NO press in America as the founders spoke of in our founding documents. There is only a PROPAGANDA MACHINE similar to that wielded by the Nazi’s. We are the Nazi’s! (read –> NOT neo-nazi’s but real flesh and blood NAZI’S).

    • And how do we know you aren’t part of the psyops “Nazi propaganda machine” yourself?

      • Peter……..I read all of Jeremy’s material – he’s got you by the balls……….it seems to me as though you are writing self serving article that ignore credible evidence while advancing your own agenda……… remind me of the propagandists that you pretend to be against.
        JEREMY is honest + WINS – PETER is deceptive + LOSES…………Liars always lose L’il pete

        • Instead of rebutting Peter with substance and with even a vague semblance of the same meticulous attention to forensics evidence Peter has shown, you instead resort to childish name-calling. That tells me all I need to know about you.

  50. “For some reason the event was called off at the last moment.” Is it possible that everything was related to the Superstorm “Sandy” that took place 10/29/2010 in NJ?


Leave a Reply

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