Las Vegas Music Festival Massacre

[Rum]

[Forty Two]

Has there been an admission that there was another shooter on the 4th? I haven't watched your video, so I don't know how persuasive it is.

I don't care if there were one or more, but I don't know why the police would be opposed to the reality that there were two shooters if there were two shooters. What's the theory on that? What do they accomplish by hiding that there was an accomplice? Or, is it that the accomplice was a government agent?

[Animavore]

I never mentioned WTC7 or JFK or anything else. Stop talking about random things to avoid the issue at hand. I'm asking for evidence the alleged second shooter is involved with the government and this is a false flag operation. And not just an accomplice to a nutter.

At the end of a performance of "Romeo & Juliet" Aminavore asked "Was Juliet a boy or a girl?" In this new confused many-gendered society I suppose there's room for such confusion. For you, but not for me.

You can squirm & slip & slide to avoid the contradiction between an official pronouncement (of there being only a shooter at the 32nd floor) and the fact that there was a shooter on the 4th. And only you can think that it's just a slip of the narrative missing that 'slight' detail. But Galaxian is not that thick. I prefer keeping my sanity & integrity rather than selling it for the comfort of sucking on mama's tits (the government narrative's comforting pacifier) ...

I'm not avoiding the contradiction. I'm meeting it head on. I'm granting a second shooter for argument's sake and asking how you are going from a second, unidentified shooter to saying this is a false flag operation? How do you know it's not an accomplice to a nutter? Where's the rest of your evidence? Where's all the missing detail? Who are the suspects? Who do they work for? What is there motive?

[Forty Two]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 80696.html

Steve Bannon warns it will be 'the end of everything' if Trump supports gun control

(continued stupidity, thousands of miles away thankfully...)

I think Trump should come out in support of sensible gun control. The problem is that whatever Trump supports will not be enough for the Democrats, and it will be too much for the Republicans. The GOP will seize the opportunity to draw support away from Trump and back to establishment Republicans, and the Democrats will say that he's only doing halfhearted efforts at gun control because what they want is a wholesale gun ban, even though they say they don't.

But, he must avoid worrying about the politics, and speak from his heart. He should come out in favor of stiffer criminal penalties for anyone who modifies a semi-auto weapon into a full auto machine gun. Massive jail time for anyone using or possessing full auto. He should also give a nod to the gun control people by favoring a magazine size limit, and a limit on the number of guns one person can buy (at least an annual limit). He should favor heavy background checks, and the registration of all weapons, closing gun show loopholes and such. It should be easy to get a license (for non-felons and non-crazies) but a license should be required, and anyone with a gun without a license should be subject to extreme penalties.

He should advance some iteration of that, and look the camera in the eye and say, "...this is not going to be enough for the gun grabbers, and I'm not a gun grabber. This is going to be too much for the people who want to be able to own anything they want without any requirements. But, for 90% of you, you'll still be able to own almost any gun, and we are taking steps toward keeping weapons out of the hands of people like Paddock. We have to do something, and I'm doing it. I'm not taking your guns. I'm instituting reasonable regulations, registration, licensure and background checks to try to do something about the shootings. I ask you to stand with me."

[Galaxian]

Has there been an admission that there was another shooter on the 4th? I haven't watched your video, so I don't know how persuasive it is.
I don't care if there were one or more, but I don't know why the police would be opposed to the reality that there were two shooters if there were two shooters. What's the theory on that? What do they accomplish by hiding that there was an accomplice? Or, is it that the accomplice was a government agent?

Yes, Forty Two, there are two videos, by different people, of staccato muzzle flashes from a 4th or 5th floor window. Also the police reporting that the 4th floor was involved. Also periods when there were two (or more) overlapping machine gun rattles (not echoes, since the overlaps were intermittent). Please watch the videos, they are quite short. The evidence in them can not be denied. The flashes are not reflections. They show the same thing from two directions, at the same window.

The police changed their story, that the patrol car reported early on, because it conflicted with the official narrative of "the lone, deranged gunman" (like Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan).

Furthermore, the amount of death & injury from that distance of just one gunman, of low powered machine guns going for 10 to 15 minutes is greater than in a war zone (the duration story has also been changed).

Part of the change in narrative is deliberate: just as in 9/11, they're testing how gullible the general public are. because they don't give a fuck if you see it as a psyop... it's part of the fun.

I doubt that the 2nd gunman was coincidental, or a friend of the first. But it is possible, and that the planners have used it to sow confusion and twist it into a "lone gunman" story to their advantage.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The weapons Paddock used were illegal, and there are significant background check, waiting period, and registration requirements, and such.

I haven't seen a source yet saying that the weapons he used are illegal. Can you cite one?

As I noted earlier in this thread, contrary to what some think, all automatic weapons are not illegal under Federal law, nor under Nevada law. In addition there are legal kits like the Slide Fire and 'bump-fire' stocks that produce essentially automatic fire.

[Forty Two]

Has there been an admission that there was another shooter on the 4th? I haven't watched your video, so I don't know how persuasive it is.
I don't care if there were one or more, but I don't know why the police would be opposed to the reality that there were two shooters if there were two shooters. What's the theory on that? What do they accomplish by hiding that there was an accomplice? Or, is it that the accomplice was a government agent?

Yes, Forty Two, there are two videos, by different people, of staccato muzzle flashes from a 4th or 5th floor window. Also the police reporting that the 4th floor was involved. Also periods when there were two (or more) overlapping machine gun rattles (not echoes, since the overlaps were intermittent). Please watch the videos, they are quite short. The evidence in them can not be denied. The flashes are not reflections. They show the same thing from two directions, at the same window.

The police changed their story, that the patrol car reported early on, because it conflicted with the official narrative of "the lone, deranged gunman" (like Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan).

Yes, but my question was "why?" What's the difference between one deranged gunman, and two deranged gunmen, who acted together. There were two at Columbine. The Pulse nightclub resulted in the wife being found as some sort of accomplice. I don't think the public's reaction would be materially different if it's two.

And, what's the purpose of the operation? To get oppressive gun laws passed? If that's true, wouldn't that be more effective if there were two gunmen? People are less likely to support changes to gun laws if it's one nutjob - a one-off, that can't be prevented - rather than a concerted effort by multiple people who managed to intentionally circumvent current gun laws.

Furthermore, the amount of death & injury from that distance of just one gunman, of low powered machine guns going for 10 to 15 minutes is greater than in a war zone (the duration story has also been changed).

Part of the change in narrative is deliberate: just as in 9/11, they're testing how gullible the general public are. because they don't give a fuck if you see it as a psyop... it's part of the fun.

I doubt that the 2nd gunman was coincidental, or a friend of the first. But it is possible, and that the planners have used it to sow confusion and twist it into a "lone gunman" story to their advantage.

Why? What advantage?

[laklak]

Because the Illuminati like to fuck with us.

[Forty Two]

The weapons Paddock used were illegal, and there are significant background check, waiting period, and registration requirements, and such.

I haven't seen a source yet saying that the weapons he used are illegal. Can you cite one?

They were full auto. Under the National Firearms Act, no fully auto rifle may be registered if it was made after 1986, 31 years ago, and the only full-autos that are allowed to be owned are those made before 1986 and which have been registered with the feds and with tax stamp paid. This guy, say the news reports, used unregistered full autos, apparently modified to be full auto, and were not registered. Illegal.

To buy a legal full auto firearm today, you have to get the current owner of a pre-1986, registered fully automatic rifle, and pay that person for it (going rate is at least $10,000 plus), and you have to get tax stamps from the federal government so they know exactly who you are and they run background checks and the like.

So, while technically legal, they really aren't in any practical sense.

[Forty Two]

Because the Illuminati like to fuck with us.

I thought Trump's election was solid proof that there is no Illuminati.

[Galaxian]

I never mentioned WTC7 or JFK or anything else. Stop talking about random things to avoid the issue at hand. I'm asking for evidence the alleged second shooter is involved with the government and this is a false flag operation. And not just an accomplice to a nutter.

At the end of a performance of "Romeo & Juliet" Aminavore asked "Was Juliet a boy or a girl?" In this new confused many-gendered society I suppose there's room for such confusion. For you, but not for me.

You can squirm & slip & slide to avoid the contradiction between an official pronouncement (of there being only a shooter at the 32nd floor) and the fact that there was a shooter on the 4th. And only you can think that it's just a slip of the narrative missing that 'slight' detail. But Galaxian is not that thick. I prefer keeping my sanity & integrity rather than selling it for the comfort of sucking on mama's tits (the government narrative's comforting pacifier) ...

I'm not avoiding the contradiction. I'm meeting it head on. I'm granting a second shooter for argument's sake and asking how you are going from a second, unidentified shooter to saying this is a false flag operation? How do you know it's not an accomplice to a nutter? Where's the rest of your evidence? Where's all the missing detail? Who are the suspects? Who do they work for? What is there motive?

As 42 asked just after your post. The reply is "why would the well-thought-out police report, over & over again ignore the second gunman, Ignore that their patrol car SAW & heard & reported a gunman at the 4th floor?
The reason is because they were told to shut up! Because it contradicted the desired outcome of a "lone nutter" with a huge arsenal of firearms. At first the arsenal was modest, then it grew at his hotel room, and at his house. At first he had no police record & was an innocuous ordinary guy. Then he developed a police record & was a psycho. At first he was a well off retired accountant, then he became a broke gambler with a grudge.

This guy was no teens or twenty's suffused with testosterone & no sense. He was 64 years old. It is possible that he was a patsy under MK Ultra. It is possible that he was not even involved, that he was simply picked off after the event. WE have NO way of knowing & no right to know. WE are simply sheep for the slaughter. WE are told what we are told simply to keep us amused & shut us up. This is like a sports event, like any other drama on TV.

Just as in EVERY other false flag, psyop, disinfo, whatever you call it, the story keeps changing, and the parts do not fit.

You may say that's just an accident, that it shows the officials are just as confused. Galaxian says that it is deliberate and is testing how naive & gullible people are.

There have been toooo many such disinformation operations. Some REALLY obvious, such as the freefall collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7. Or the London 7/7 underground & bus bombings where a perpetrator had his feet behind a railing, his bum in front of the next rail, and his chest behind the next one! Done deliberately to see who might complain about the hoax. Or the train floor blow UPWARDS by a bomb inside the cabin.

At some point YOU have to decide; when is enough, enough? At what point do you wake up and accept how many times you have been lied to...even by their own admission! And think..."If they admit they lied about this & that & the other, then why am I blindly accepting what they say now??? How much self respect do you have to stop drinking the cool-aid? Truth may not improve your standard of living, but it will improve your conscience.

[pErvinalia]

You can say it whenever you want, because it's about as meaningful a term as the word "toxin" in the diet and nutrition context. You have to get rid of toxins. You have to rid your society of its toxicity. It's absolutely meaningless.

The US actually has, across the board, a very good statistical record with weapons. There's like 310 million guns privately owned in the US. Of those, a very very small percentage are actually used against human beings, and many of those uses are in self defense.

As I've said before, that's a disingenuous statistic. The number of guns is irrelevant here. A person only needs one gun to kill someone. As I mentioned a little earlier, you have a mass shooting every 9 out of 10 days on average. That's fucking woeful. Your society clearly has a problem. I'm not sure what exactly it is, but it's hard to deny there is one.

It's not a disingenuous statistic. It's a statistic. And, it's meaningful in terms of defining the problem. How many guns? What kind? Which ones are used in what crimes and how often? There are problems and there are problems - degrees matter. I don't know the exact stat on the rate of mass shootings. As that term is defined, it's very very high, IMO, and you're not far off, given the stats that I've read, and it is woeful. It's a significant problem in the US, and I said so in my post to which you responded, and I've said so repeatedly before. Nobody is disputing that criminal shootings are a problem in the US, and I'm not sure where you would get the idea that I denied there was one, if that was your implication.

42: The US actually has, across the board, a very good statistical record with weapons.

You can't even maintain your story from one post to another.

Now, that having been said, the amount that are used for ill are a significant problem for our country to deal with, and I recognize that. There have been a lot of mass shootings lately, what with Pulse and this one ,and several others. 2017 is working out to have as many mass shootings as the entire decade of the 1980s. I'm a bit at a loss, because other than banning all semiautomatic rifles, I'm not sure what would stop this guy from shooting out that hotel window. But, I am open to suggestions.

As you and others say, there's so many guns out there, banning them isn't probably going to achieve much. At least not in the short to medium term. All I can think is that you need to change whatever is going wrong in your society. Although, that's likely to be an even longer term solution than banning guns.

Well, first one would have to identify what is wrong. There are many problems, and some of which we've discussed on other threads. I think in the US there has been a change over the last 10+ years in the political climate. Nowadays, people don't seem to be able to tolerate political opposition. Their opponents are "dangerous" now, and need to be taken out -- like that shooter who wanted to kill Congressmen at that baseball game. Our political opponents are not just debate foes, it's now kill or be killed.

I don't know what the motive for this one is, but the motive for most mass shootings isn't political. It seems to me that the movie Falling Down is probably a pretty good summary of what's going wrong. Your society is sick. It breeds sick people.

Basically, your country is fucked.

A bit of an overstatement, to say the least. We have problems, like most other countries. In many ways, we are less fucked than most. In some ways, we are fucked. It's a great country to live in, I'll have you know. I know you don't want to believe it, but people live extremely well here. I am willing to bet that other than the signage and product differences, and accents, there is very little difference in quality of life between here and Oz.

I think you have no fucking clue about the rest of the world. If you're rich or middle class, then the difference is going to be minimal. But if you are poor or disadvantaged, America comes out way down the rankings compared to the civilised world. That's not to say we don't have problems here in Australia, but those problems have been created or exacerbated as we've become more Americanised since the 80's. It's really not a surprise that as you create a less caring and more selfish society, and kick those who are down or struggling, that you wind up with more social problems.

[pErvinalia]

I never mentioned WTC7 or JFK or anything else. Stop talking about random things to avoid the issue at hand. I'm asking for evidence the alleged second shooter is involved with the government and this is a false flag operation. And not just an accomplice to a nutter.

It is as if at the end of a performance of "Romeo & Juliet" Aminavore asks "Was Juliet a boy or a girl?" In this new confused many-gendered society I suppose there's room for such confusion. For you, but not for me.

You can squirm & slip & slide to avoid the contradiction between an official pronouncement (of there being only a shooter at the 32nd floor) and the fact that there was a shooter on the 4th. And only you can think that it's just a slip of the narrative missing that 'slight' detail.

Occam's Razor, dude.

[Galaxian]

Because the Illuminati like to fuck with us.

I thought Trump's election was solid proof that there is no Illuminati.

Yes, the Illuminati like to fuck with us, and most people bend over to facilitate that.
Surely we all notice that Presidents get in under all sorts of pretexts, then swing away from the promises towards even more totalitarianism. Obama promised not to sign a Presidential decree, and ended up signing more than anyone, and most of them repressive (remember Terror Tuesday, Homeland Security & many national snooping edicts?).

Same with Trump, he has been co-opted, or his mantras were bogus, like Obama's, Bush's, Clinton's, etc...

[Brian Peacock]

Trust in no-one but Galaxian. Those who know his name trust in him, for you, Galaxian, have never forsaken those who seek you.