If you have "no place to go," come here!

When Facebook Deactivates Your Account

stuartbramhall's picture

Peter Dale Scott, professor emeritus at UC Berkeley and one of the most esteemed researchers of the murky JFK assassination and CIA involvement in cocaine trafficking, recently had his Facebook account inactivated, along with a eighteen other activists who either challenged current US gun control initiatives or the the official version of events at Sandy Hook Elementary School (see * below for full list). After this evoked howls of protest from fellow activists, I’m happy to report Professor Scott’s Facebook account has been restored.

It didn’t occur to me to question that Adam Lanzo was the sole “lone nut” gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School until I learned about the blatant Facebook and Twitter censorship of members who challenged the official story. After doing a little research I discovered that Jim Fetzer, another former academic and respected assassination researcher, has written quite comprehensively regarding the blatant inconsistencies and anomalies in the narrative Newtown police have presented to the public. As Fetzer stresses in many of the articles, it’s clear the real enemy here is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), not the National Rifle Association (NRA).

“Clare’s” blog at provides the most comprehensive and well documented list of Sandy Hook inconsistencies and anomalies. After looking at the massive amount of information she has amassed, I agree with Fetzer: the evidence doesn’t add up.

Fetzer’s co-authored his most recent (December 28th) article SaSandy Hook: Huge Hoax and Anti-Gun "Psy-Op" with Dennis Cimino, a former US Navy electronic systems troubleshooter. The article briefly summarizes many of the inconsistencies in the official narrative. First we are told the mother was a former teacher and Adma Lanzo a former student at Sandy Hook – then we learn neither had any prior link with the school. We are told the principal called the local paper about the shooting – then it comes out she was one of the first victims killed. The police immediately determine there is only one shooter. Yet police radio reports refer to a second suspect being apprehended at the scene and a police helicopter video shows yet a third suspect being tracked in the woods. The article goes on to cite many other embarrassing mistakes that the police have been compelled to correct.

Fetzer also authored a much more controversial article, Did Mossad death squads slaughter American children at Sandy Hook?, in Veterans Today. It seems to have been written in response to an unfortunate headline the Iranian news outlet Press TV gave an earlier article Mossad death squads slaughter American children at Sandy Hook. The Veterans Today article is much more detailed and carefully documented. It cites a substantial amount evidence suggesting the Obama administration is preparing for a massive civil unrest scenario in the US

Among other evidence Fetzer cites (aside from the stuff we already know about, like suspension of habeas corpus and most of the Bill of Rights and Obama’s executive order granting him the right to summarily execute American citizens without due process of law) are the 300+ FEMA camps that have been established, the 30,000 drones Congress has authorized for domestic surveillance and the recent acquisition by the Department of Homeland Security of more than 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber hollow-point ammunition (which is not even permissible in warfare under the Geneva Conventions – see Feds explanation of hollow point bullets.

Since DHS doesn’t conduct operations abroad, Fetzer argues the hollow points must have been acquired for domestic consumption. More over with the recent determination by the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Afairs (3 October 2012) that the US faces no current on ongoing domestic terrorist threat, he reasons they are intended for use against Americans.

His argument that the Mossad was involved in the Sandy Hook massacre, on the other hand, seems a little far-fetched based on the limited evidence. At the moment all he has to go on is evidence of Mossad involvement in similar false flag psy-ops operations. For example 911 (which Ryan Dawson summarizes quite eloquently in War of Deception)

And the attacks on the Benghazi embassy in Libya resulting in Ambassador Stevens’ murder. (See]

That’s not to say conclusive evidence won’t be forthcoming over time. At the very least it’s troubling that Facebook (presumably at the behest of US intelligence) is trying to purge the accounts of bloggers challenging gun control initiatives or presenting an alternative version of the Sandy Hook massacre.

*Kurt Nimmo (account suspended)
Aaron Dykes (account inactive)
Brandon J. Raub (account inactive)
Michael F Rivero (account inactive)
Anthony J Hilder (account inactive)
William Lewis (account inactive)
Richard Gage (account inactive)
William Rodriguez (account inactive)
Infowar Artist (account inactive)
We are Change (account inactive)
Wacboston At Twitter (account inactive)
Michael Murphy Tmp (account inactive)
Robert M Bowman (account inactive)
Peter Dale Scott (account inactive)
Jason Infowars (account inactive)
Mike Skuthan (account inactive)
Packy Savvenas (account inactive)
Sean Wright (account inactive)
Katherine Albrect (account inactive)

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

.... and I'd be a lot happier with if it didn't look like a bunch of InfoWars and Natural News people suffering from epistemic closure.

And personally, I regard both the NRA and the DHS as my enemy. They're both part of the same self-licking ice cream cone.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

this post sounds like disinformation

Submitted by lambert on

What is looks like to me is a consortium of CTers ginning up an issue.

I'd like to take the same methodological approach here that I did with the truthers over at NC (and somebody's suggestion, and I don't remember how; the context is that CT is very hard to moderate for). It is:

Please list the top four inconsistencies that make you question the official story. Give provenance and hard evidence for each.

NOTE Provenance for YouTube is especiially difficult because it's almost impossible to cross check the data, unlike with text. That's why "[Go offsite and] look at this YouTube!" is almost always a tell of CT and disinformation at work. If an idea is good, it can be explained in situ.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

Sounds like the gun lobby wishes the Newtown shooting didn't happen - so they're going to pretend it didn't! And the person who posted this article is willing to help them spread this load of BS.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Please let me know if I need to actually read this, because when people start out talking about JFK assassinations and CIA drug rings as credibility, my CT spidey sense goes into the red zone. Even more so when they seek to "debunk" what is coincidentally a tragic national event with political repercussions.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I saw a video on YouTube (nope, not linking to it) that suggested that the whole thing was a hoax and that the parents had been paid off to let their children go off somewhere and come back after everyone had forgotten about this. No lie is too much for the NRA.

Submitted by dirac on

Surprised to see this here. Yeah, disinfo. The disturbing thing is in that blurriness between reality and fiction. People who rightly don't trust their government could be easily duped by this recipe of Israeli intelligence (Jewish conspiracy[where's the banker/illuminati angle?]), FEMA camps, gun grabbing, etc.

Cujo359's picture
Submitted by Cujo359 on

Check here for some perspective. The author accused Facebook of censoring anything with the word "Twitter" in it. His proof? He typed a virtually identical message many times in a short time, and Facebook removed the messages. It could have been an anti-jabbering filter, as one commenter pointed out. The comments are revealing, I think, of how much confirmation bias can influence one's thinking.

I distrust any social medium run by a corporate entity, but it would take quite a bit more proof than what's been offered here (anecdotes plus lots of conjecture) before I'd believe Facebook is guilty of anything more than raising the suspicions of people who are innately suspicious to begin with.