Multiple shooters in Vegas: the standard progression of events in a staged attack
By Jon Rappoport
---In case anyone doesn't get the point, multiple shooters in
Las Vegas would imply much planning and coordination for a given
political purpose. Not a crazy lone act of a crazy man. The whole scene
would change in an instant. Everything the public knows would be wrong.
In a minute, I'll get to an expert report about the
now-famous taxi cab video, which contains much audio of shots fired at
the Mandalay Hotel. The driver was parked at the hotel when the shooting
began and stayed there for several minutes. But first, I want to
describe the standard progression in false flags.
In several articles, I've established enough probability of
multiple shooters, in the Vegas-concert attack, to warrant a serious and
honest investigation by law-enforcement.
But of course, that's not happening.
There is a standard sequence that is usually followed in these events.
As soon as the attacks occur, reports begin coming in from
the press. There is conflicting information. There were multiple
shooters---no, there was just one shooter. The purported Sandy Hook
shooter, Adam Lanza? His father was killed in New Jersey---no, his
mother was killed in Connecticut.
These discrepancies and bizarre contradictions are pruned
away and discarded by the press as quickly as possible, as the official
line is brought front and center. The contradictions are buried as if
they never existed.
There was a lone shooter. Period. In the majority of cases,
he is dead. Shot by police, or he committed suicide. So he can't speak.
Even when the shooter is arrested, we almost never hear from
him again. He never makes a complete public statement. If there is a
trial, he doesn't testify.
You can bet your bottom dollar James Holmes, the purported
Colorado theater shooter, would have had some very interesting comments
to make, if he could have spoken freely. But no, he was hustled away to a
psych ward, and that was that.
At law enforcement press conferences, the party line is
emphasized: there was just one shooter, we know who he is, and he is
dead (or in custody). Of course, the police or FBI spokespeople claim
they are still investigating.
They throw that bone to the press and public: they're on the
case doing their jobs. In Vegas, we are told the police are carrying out
a thorough inquiry, in order to understand Stephen Braddock's motive
for killing and maiming concert goers. No stone will be left unturned.
Now the press turns to the victim stories, with a few hero
stories thrown in for good measure. Human interest. At the same time, we
hear calls for unity and coming together. No one is sure what that
means, but it doesn't matter. It sounds right.
At this point, political leaders launch their agendas. There
is usually a demand for new gun control legislation, for example. The
leaders know, of course, that the weapon the supposed lone shooter used
was already illegal and banned; or if not, criminals and terrorists are
able to secure those weapons, regardless of any law. Only private
law-abiding citizens, who see guns as a form of self-defense, would be
stripped of that protection.
Until the last year or so of attacks in the US, there was a
fictitious grieving period announced by the press. Candlelight vigils
were played up. There were many photos of flowers and messages placed at
the site of the crime. Now, apparently, the formal grieving is thought
to be less important. The press needs a new story about another subject.
The pace is faster.
That's the basic sequence. There are additions here and there, but that's the basic pattern.
One addition: If the government and the press see there may
be a problem convincing the public that the official narrative is
factual, the networks will send their national TV news anchors to the
scene of the crime, as the story breaks, to cement the party line. The
prestige of these anchors keeps viewers in their usual state of light
trance and acceptance.
Now, here is a report about the taxi-cab video taken by a
driver at the Mandalay Hotel. This analysis of the audio of gunfire
certainly indicates the use of multiple weapons.
It doesn't absolutely rule out the possibility of one man
using those weapons, but it suggests there was more than one
shooter---and any honest law-enforcement agency would consider this
analysis important, and would pursue a relentless investigation based on
that premise. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty.
"...at the very beginning, before the cabby changed
locations, you hear an initial 5 round burst that is very loud. Right
after it stops, within a second, you hear the exact same staccato burst
but from much farther away - like a mirror image. Other than being
surprised at how loud the initial burst was, I think for sure that the
second distance burst was an echo of the first and bouncing back off
another building."
"But, right at 1:08, listen to the 'timing' of the burst
there. There is a 'lone' opening pop before the firing breaks into a
rhythm of a short 7 round burst. Then .5 sec pause and then you hear
the same pattern from a distance. I believe this is an echo. Then,
following, you hear that same delayed lead off shot but this time
followed by a longer sustained burst of about 50 rounds (I believe this
to be from a drum magazine, obviously not a 30 round mag). After it
stops, you continue to hear the distant echo bounce back for about
another 2 seconds. In other words, there is about a 2 second delay to
the echo. That would simply mean that it was bouncing off a building
about 565 feet away (1 second to get to the building and 1 second to
bounce back). Speed of sound is about 1125 feet per second."
"Also, listen to the 'rhythm' of the fire at 3:38. Starts
off with that same delayed first shot, but then continues in a varying
'up and down' speed sort of like someone turning the crank handle on an
old Gatling gun. For SURE, this is not an original full automatic
weapon!!! They don't sound like this and the firing might start and
stop, but while it [is] firing the rate of fire is constant! Dead
giveaway that it was some sort of 'jimmy rigged' weapon like with a bump
fire device. There was at one time a device made that attached inside
the trigger guard and literally had a crank on it so that by turning the
crank each revolution of the crank would fire 2 or 3 rounds. It sounds
exactly like something like this to me!"
"The auto firing could have been nothing more than mostly a
'smokescreen' distraction for the real shooter who was set up like I
described above. That how I would be if I was surrounded by ISIS guys
and didn't want to give away my position. I'd love to know the
coroner's report on the caliber of bullets that hit the people versus
the empty cartridges found in the hotel room - IF we can even believe
THAT! I'm at the point now of only believing something I can SEE with
my own eyes, or something that makes sense to me when I first hear it."
"So, my thoughts are that if this was a setup false flag and
there was a second shooter, that shooter would be firing a semi-auto
silenced weapon from a highly camouflaged firing position and you would
have never heard him. Whether or not they had their 'shit together'
enough to have both the automatic distracting fire and the real deadly
fire be matching calibers, I don't know. But, quite frankly, this day
in time, why would they need this when they can fake just about anything
and no one really knows. There are no real journalists left in
mainstream media as we already clearly know. They are just talking
pundits."
Multiple weapons. Therefore, the strong possibility of multiple shooters. Therefore, do an actual investigation.
Unless that is not the goal.
The police in Vegas have already said there was just one
shooter. They don't explain how they came to that conclusion. They never
do.
At their recent press conference, there was another huge
omission. They didn't name the weapon the purported shooter was using.
Many people (but not the mainstream reporters) want to know.
With audio of gunfire at hand, there would be analysis contradicting the one-weapon theory.
The police spokesman did, in fact, mention people who are
saying there were multiple shooters. He was quick to deny such
"chatter." On what basis?
The police are in charge. They do the investigation. They
decide. They're the professionals. Private citizens and independent
reporters are mere distractions.
He mouthed the worn-out "let us do our job."
No one is stopping the police from doing their job. It's the quality and honesty of the job we're doubting.
No comments:
Post a Comment