Adam Lanza's right back pocket was completely torn. He couldn't have carried 2 magazines in it.

originally posted by: Daedalus
jesus christ, all this about a goddamn pocket...and it appears textiles, and basic tailoring are things that escape the majority of you.

ok, look, obviously, none of you own a pair of these pants, or anything like them....i do.

the pocket in question is not like a shirt pocket, or a cargo pocket, where it's just a piece of fabric, sewn onto the pants...it's a regular pocket, like you'd find on a pair of dockers....and then it has a flap over it.

if the ripstop is torn, that doesn't mean the pocket is no longer a pocket...it just means the ripstop is torn, and chances are, people can see your ass. god almighty.

No. I already checked that possibility out. The tear begins on the inside of the stitching that attaches the pocket. and you can see where the flap is folded inside the rip that the pocket is no longer intact along the side.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

looking at the pants from a different angle, yes, that pocket is pretty badly damaged...it would take too long to explain, but it looks like the pocket is intact enough to have been used to store the mags, provided it stayed buttoned, until needed.

i've had a failure similar to that happen to me before...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Did you test it out?

It's not impossible you are simply looking too deep into this.

I fall a lot and have torn my back pockets a couple of times and my wallet has never fallen out.

Sure you have. *eyeroll*

And yes, I just ran a pair of cargo pants against a wall hook and some other items to see if it could catch the pocket and tear to a similar length. I turned the hook in several directions, too. It's not possible, The physics don't work for the reason I stated.

Excuse me but I do fall a lot due to my crippled leg so please roll your eyes elsewhere.


You can believe that cloth never rips all you want it just shows how simple your mind is.

a reply to: MotherMayEye
How could you possibly tell??
Other then telling yourself cause that is what you want to see, you can't say that for sure.

originally posted by: thesaneone

Excuse me but I do fall a lot due to my crippled leg so please roll your eyes elsewhere.


You can believe that cloth never rips all you want it just shows how simple your mind is.

And what are the things that have torn out your back pockets while you've fallen?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Actually I am not going to entertain your wild fantasies anymore especially after I just read some of your past post on the subject.

Peace

a reply to: Daedalus & Sremmos80

Because photo 50 shows how wide the inside of the pocket is (from the front). And you can look into the pocket and see it is open all the way down the length of the tear in photos 51 & 52, given the fact that the interior pocket is no wider than the opening.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Actually I am not going to entertain your wild fantasies anymore especially after I just read some of your past post on the subject.

Peace

lol. Ok then. How convenient for you!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No matter what truth I tell you about my personal experience with torn back pockets and not losing any of my items in said pocket your going to say " the physics don't work" because it's convenient for your theory.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: MotherMayEye

it would take too long to explain, but it looks like the pocket is intact enough to have been used to store the mags, provided it stayed buttoned, until needed.

Ah, too long to explain -- I hear you, this is wasting my time, too.

And you think Lanza buttoned his pockets closed because that is practical given the fact that he had magazines so presumably he wouldn't have to waste time reloading. But taking the time to unbutton and reload was a risk he was willing to take.

It defies all logic, really.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No matter what truth I tell you about my personal experience with torn back pockets and not losing any of my items in said pocket your going to say " the physics don't work" because it's convenient for your theory.

Yeah, well the laws of physics are pretty absolute -- and they happen to demonstrate your theory is wrong. I haven't presented a theory on how the pocket was torn.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: MotherMayEye

it would take too long to explain, but it looks like the pocket is intact enough to have been used to store the mags, provided it stayed buttoned, until needed.

Also, the pocket could not possibly catch and tear on something with the flap closed and buttoned. The opening runs all the way up to the point where the flap folds over. The opening would have been completely protected from catching on something.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

But the weight keeping them weighed down must go against physics as well

a reply to: MotherMayEye

do you own a pair of these trousers, or ones similar to them?

a reply to: MotherMayEye
Do you know if the interior dimensions of the pocket are such that the magazines would have allowed for the flap to have been buttoned...or - would they have protruded such that the flap could not be buttoned?
Thanks.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

yes, it takes too long to explain to someone who not only doesn't want to listen to anything that doesn't fit inside their preconceived notions, but doesn't seem to understand how the trousers are constructed, how the material responds to tears, and what it would take to compromise the pocket to the point of failure.

i own many pairs of specialty trousers, mostly proper, and 5.11...both as issued uniform components, and for personal use. i know what i'm on about.

as to buttoning....if it needed to be done, i'm sure it'd be done...it's not like there's a whole lot of pressure to reload fast, when you're mowing down children....jesus man, think a bit...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But the weight keeping them weighed down must go against physics as well

They were full. There wasn't just weight at the bottom, there was weight in the middle and at the top, too. If he never moved from an upright position and remained relatively still, you might have a point.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: MotherMayEye

yes, it takes too long to explain to someone who not only doesn't want to listen to anything that doesn't fit inside their preconceived notions.

I could say the same for you.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: MotherMayEye
as to buttoning....if it needed to be done, i'm sure it'd be done...it's not like there's a whole lot of pressure to reload fast, when you're mowing down children....jesus man, think a bit...

And risk being tackled by an adult staff/faculty while unbuttoning? jesus man, think a bit...

I have to get some stuff done, but I will come back to this later.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

lol, i have no preconceived notions...as i said, i own a pair of the trousers in question, i've had a similar failure, so i can say with more authority than you can, that your theory isn't sound.

and he could have been tackled by a staff member when reloading the rifle...in fact, if you believe the official account, a whole mess of kids escaped while he was reloading. there's ALWAYS a chance, in a combat situation, that you can be tackled, shot, or otherwise incapacitated, or killed while reloading....when you're a professional soldier, or operator, the odds are reduced, in your favor...but only by a small percentage.

this was not a combat situation, and he was not a professional soldier, or operator.

additionally, i gotta ask you again, do you own a pair of these trousers? it's not hard to unbutton quickly, when you're familiar with the mechanism...