[dandroid]

if we're talking theory it seems to me that if the government wanted to maintain control, using continual false flag events is crazy labor intensive and risky. especially when television in general does a great job of keeping the population sedated.

[TheVrist]

There are different types of "false flags". Many people conflate false flags as being simply staged, or fake, because YouTube whack jobs push "crisis actors" and Hollywood props to create a fake event. So naturally, people equate "false flag" narratives to that.

False flags can be carried out and actually happen, but the perp(s) doing so in an act to make it seem what it isn't.

A guy "converting" to Islam, blowing shit up, could potentially be a false flag. Reality could possibly be that the guy is a devout Christian trying to make Islam look worse (as if needed) is a false flag.

A guy calling Jewish worship centers posing as a neo-nazi, from his house in Tel-Aviv, is a false flag.

In those examples, are social activism at radical levels. That's why people are bouncing all over the place trying to narrow down motive. The left wants this to be about evil inherent racist white gun happy literal nazis kkk supremacy. The right wants it to be antifa, radical liberalism, type shit.

When that gets narrowed down, the next question would be; was it a false flag? Not on a "crisis actors, props, fake blood"- but on a more - was the perp acting on behalf or against the perceived act.

I don't believe in false flags that use fake blood, actors, etc. I do however believe people would die to push an agenda they're totally against. Gun loathing white boomer hippy, killing people in large numbers knowing the narratives it would create possible? I don't see why not.

[dandroid]

be a really weird way to fight for your cause.

[Dylan R]

I was on a bit of a rant the other day, honestly. I can't lie about that. I definitely don't believe most videos anywhere online(omitting this one), but basically I believe that there's no length the gov is not willing to go to in order to lie to people, although often times they are terrible at fooling more observant people. Take for example all the details that the news has shared with us so far, keeping in mind that there would be no reason to not divulge everything. Nothing seems to add up at all. The supposed reason being the poor ability to establish a timeline of the events that took place on the security and law enforcement part. Simply the location in which this all took place tells you enough. If all of it is true, there's simply no reasonable excuse for it happening. It's absurd. The likelihood of the things that would have to line up for the guy to actually do what he did is insane. Yes people were cold-blood murdered, but it most likely wasn't his idea.

[CrunchyCripple]

Originally Posted by dandroid ↗

be a really weird way to fight for your cause.

It’s only weird if you’re sane and can see the path, or lack of, of logic in the thought process.

People who commit things like this and have an agenda, usually have gaping holes in their logic - because they are unwell and not thinking logically.

People often look at the aftermath and say “What? Why didn’t this person look at this situation like I see it? It doesn’t make sense”.

The reason is that not everyone thinks like you or has your logic. Not everyone sees the picture the same.

[mothmon]

It was the most extreme example of a turkey shoot in the history of slaughter on American soil. I go to Vegas at least every 3 or 4 years. Thank God I loathe C&W and consider it the lowest form of music since Pauly Shore did his MTV hit Lisa Lisa (The One I Adore).

[Sibella]

Originally Posted by Dylan R ↗

What, another "fuck off" with no explanation?

That's all Bletch does is fuck off on posts. Don't take offense!

[Sibella]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike ↗

Provide sources. You're the one making the affirmative claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I Googled him, and all I found 5 pages in was a bunch of questionable sources, irrelevant links, and a Snopes fact-check (among one of the first results listed) disputing the connection. I'm interested in what you're seeing that I missed, seriously.

The timeline change with the guard seems sketchy. I can get why the guard was up there investigating a door-ajar alarm, and how Paddock saw him coming and mistook him as a sign that someone was on to his scheme and then opened fire. But after that, the 6 minutes in between the guard getting shot and the actual rampage makes zero sense. There seems to be a major absence of reports concerning what was happening on the 32nd floor throughout all of this.

I don't go in for conspiracy theories, so I'm thinking that someone fucked up and got their times wrong, or that there was some other miscommunication along the way. Knowing when Paddock broke out those windows would clear up a lot; because if they were already broken by the time Campos was shot, then that gunfire would have been heard at the street level outside. And if Paddock really did fire 200 rounds at Campos, then he had to have either reloaded or picked up another rifle after the first 100 rounds because his largest magazines couldn't hold more than that; so there would have been at least one gap in his fire, and that plus the length of that fire would suggest that anyone who heard it also would have had time -- and likely even presence of mind -- to record it.

There's also the possibility that the gunfire directed at Campos would have been audible outside even if the windows were intact at the time. So the same applies there too.

But in all of the videos capturing the actual rampage, there's no 6-minute gap in fire (at least none that I recall). So it seems like the only real record of that encounter happening at the time that they say it did would be on the hotel's surveillance system. And also, how long was Paddock firing at Campos? How much actual firing time should be subtracted from those 6 minutes? Could that have been the gunfire that Paddock's downstairs neighbor reported hearing?

The new story is the one thing making the entire timeline not make sense now. Aside from the fact that it makes the cops and hotel security look *REALLY* bad, it goes against how the original story fit into the footage taken by civilians in the target area and around the hotel.

Well of course stories about the dude had changed well after I made my post, so I don't know

[FunkPumpkin]

Originally Posted by ferris209 ↗

For those who care about facts, "effective range" refers to the accuracy of the weapon at a certain distance. It does not mean the lethality of a round lessens at a certain distance. So, if a weapon has an effective range of 800 ft, that means you can accurately hit an object the size of car at that range 50% of the time based on the weapons design, tolerances, and round.

I doubted a supposed-occasional "CIA guy" who insisted that the AC-130 gunships were using 5.56x45mm (.223) miniguns. At the alleged ranges of those gunships, .223 would be ineffective. Of course, being pelted by those rounds would suck, but my point was that .223 was not the best-possible round for that delivery-system. It would be the difference between "ouch" and "gluck", with the latter being the sound of possible-and-likely-death.

EDIT: There was a .223 mingun shopped around, but nobody purchased it. Admittedly, this guy was a programming-pro who did some sketchy-shit for the CIA, but I call bullshit on that .223 minigun.

[FunkPumpkin]

Originally Posted by Sleepy675 ↗

.....

This photo is pure DR, but I hate it just the same. I can't stop looking at it, but I still tear-up looking at the bodies... particularly that pile of bodies.