Active Shooter Las Vegas, Mandalay Bay

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
And further to the point of why I was interested...

One of the things which really puzzles me about this event is 'why all the guns?' It just doesn't make sense. Unless, as I've opined earlier, he was trying to make some kind of a statement. He just wouldn't need that many, or anywhere even close.

The magazines would be a pretty good indication of which firearms he intended to actually use vs. those firearms which were brought to the room for some other, yet to be understood, reason.

Same!!!! Why all the guns KNOWING they wouldn't be used unless he expected help... a lot of help.

Also, still will say this in every post to remind everyone..... where is the lady warning people and hour prior to the shootings and where is the security guard who escorted her and the other man she was with out of the venue. How did she know what was to come and why did she say, "THEY are all around, WE are ALL going to f****** die". Did she die???? Where is she ???

a reply to: MamaJ

Any clips out there of that lady?
What about the security guard escorting her out?
Since the answer is no Occam would say their is probably a good reason for that.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Erno86

Simple question for you...

Was Tannerite used in any fashion, for any reason, in the Las Vegas shooting incident? Yes or no?

Clearly....because of the sniper attack that just occurred, the tannerite in the car, was an intent to use or threaten to use an explosive substance in a criminal act --- Though I'm not going so far to say it should be classified as a terrorist act (including the sniper attack) (even though Paddock terrorized these people in a 'evil' act) by a U.S. civilian; but I think that Congress and the POTUS are heading towards that direction.

a reply to: MamaJ

Well, apparently, (believe what you will) authorities are unable to locate any other persons who can corroborate the initial report. So, I guess the story goes...she didn't ever really exist.

I kind of halfway believe this too because it sure seems to me if this really happened there would be people coming out of the woodwork as witnesses.

a reply to: Erno86

So now we should start banning things just because of what might happen????

And just to be clear, wasn't that your initial premise...Tannerite should be banned because this dooshbag had some in his car?

He probably had a cell phone too, should we ban those now too? I mean, he might have called in an air-strike with it, right? Heck, he might have planned on getting in his car afterward and mowing down a hundred more people with it too, so we should ban cars now too, right? (and he still wouldn't have used the Tannerite). Where does this banning things end? Bottom line...it doesn't.

Banning things based on speculation about what someone might do is just plain paranoid and stupid.

P.S. Someone might go stab someone with a fork at the restaurant tonight. So long forks, nice knowin' ya!

DP (again!)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Don't worry nobody will take your tannerite...

Just kidding man but you have me laughing with this insistence on going on about the tannerite

a reply to: erikthegreen

Truth be told, I don't actually use the stuff. Seems like kind of a waste to me. However, Tannerite isn't really the main point. The main point is about "banning" things (any things) based upon what someone "might" do.

Call me anal, but I react to that in every instance I see it. Banning things is not the answer, because there's no end to it. Just no end. And, it's a slippery slope too. Once people start jumping on the ban-wagon there's no limit to what will be be banned. People need to see these events for what they are...a deranged person killing a bunch of people with a tool (be it a hammer, axe, gun or truck) It doesn't matter what that "tool" is, what matters is the person committing the act of violence.

Banning things is not the solution!

ETA...and even though it's a bit cliche', it's like the old saying "I guess we should ban pencils because of spelling errors then." It just illustrates how illogical the whole "ban it" argument is.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

Here is another I found from a different angle, before the shooting. These people seem to get it and start running right at the first volley. Notice during the previous song (3:10) the shooter pops off 3-4 slow, semi-auto pot shots. Then JA tells the crowd to back up, then the 2nd song starts with the first wave of fire.

Damn very interesting

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Erno86

So now we should start banning things just because of what might happen????

Yes, of course. We're banning Muslims from entering the US, because of what they might do.

Might as well ban "things" too.

Once we go down the road of banning people for potential acts they might commit, it's an easy path to ban inanimate objects that might be used by people in those acts.

Note in Las Vegas gunman's hotel room included details of bullet trajectory

A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.

In an interview airing Sunday on "60 Minutes," three police officers who stormed Stephen Paddock's hotel room in the Mandalay Bay hotel tell correspondent Bill Whitaker new details about the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. The officers were the first to see Paddock's body and the arsenal of weapons and ammunition he had stockpiled.

S ource-60 Minutes

Exactly what I was figuring. Though, what else was contained in the notes? Doubt it would be phone numbers-logged into cellphones if not a throw away phone used for other reasons while trying to hide contact info.

"I could see on it he had written the distance, the elevation he was on, the drop of what his bullet was gonna be for the crowd," Newton said. "So he had that written down and figured out so he would know where to shoot to hit his targets from there."

Earlier sources say even if he was a fraction of a percent off he'd have missed the crowd for the most part.

Okay, so this info is released to 60 Minutes and not shared in press release or to general or local news?

Note sure if this has been posted yet so .....

a reply to: dreamingawake

Earlier sources say even if he was a fraction of a percent off he'd have missed the crowd for the most part. 

I might do the actual math later to see what kind of cone puts rounds in the concert ground from that angle. I'm headed for holiday, so I'll try to make some time.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Bullet drop for the .223 is only about 17-18" at 330m. Figure the average person is 5.5' tall...he could be off by 75% and still hit someone. He might be aiming for their head and hit them in the waist or leg...still a hit. Still potentially deadly.

In other words, the 'hold-over' is less than half the height of the average person at that distance. Plus, he was shooting into a crowd where people would be at varied distances within the same range.

I don't believe for a minute there were manual bullet drop calculations on that paper!

Makes no sense.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Erno86

So now we should start banning things just because of what might happen????

Yes, of course. We're banning Muslims from entering the US, because of what they might do.

Might as well ban "things" too.

Once we go down the road of banning people for potential acts they might commit, it's an easy path to ban inanimate objects that might be used by people in those acts.

No they arent banning muslims specifically. They said ANYONE from thos ecountries. and they have mor ethan just muslims.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Nah, I just meant what sort of angular "cone" (box really bc the venue is longer than wide) he'd have to keep the muzzle in to make the rounds fall in the concert area. I've seen footage from the far side of the event where you can hear a few rounds whipping overhead. I'm wondering how much wiggle room he has with recoil/barrel rise (which shouldn't be too bad with a 5.56 and bump stock) to keep the pointy end inside the imaginary box and how big it is. (Ie from H height, into a box in the ground W by L at D distance computing the angles for the cone is simple trig ignoring the drop. We can compute drop at the nearest and farthest edges if we want to make it slightly more accurate, but I doubt it's much bigger a box with drop; the venue isn't that wide.) The angles converge at the breech. We find how many inches he can move up and down from center with the length of the barrel.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: RadioRobert

Bullet drop for the .223 is only about 17-18" at 330m. Figure the average person is 5.5' tall...he could be off by 75% and still hit someone. He might be aiming for their head and hit them in the waist or leg...still a hit. Still potentially deadly.

In other words, the 'hold-over' is less than half the height of the average person at that distance. Plus, he was shooting into a crowd where people would be at varied distances within the same range.

I don't believe for a minute there were manual bullet drop calculations on that paper!

Makes no sense.

A couple things.

While it sounds all good and easy to see it didn't take much calculating to determine what kind of angle he would need, we have to take into consideration what we do know about him, and that's that he is very meticulous, everything he did was very planned out and he was a numbers guy. So this makes sense, and also makes it more repeatable due to him cycling through so many weapons (MSM says the was about a dozen guns jammed)

As for the "why so many guns" question, he likely brought so many for multiple reasons. My theory is, 1 he brought the many to reduce the moving he had to do, example being he could have numerous rifles ready to be picked up once one was jammed or empty and go right back to shooting without switching magazines. 2 also a theory, because he stood back I think he planned for it to go on longer than it did, so he was prepared to just keep going by switching guns out until he was empty then start swapping magazines.

Just my theories.

We have hit the 5th day of the media cycle, back to NK or another story. The truth about Paddock or the goverments implication in a massive bungled operation was never going to be revealed. Now it has been long enough to gradualy bump the story off the front pages.

a reply to: aliensanonymous

Yeah, this one must run real deep. I figured something would come out Friday afternoon or Saturday morning, as weekends are usually when they release critical damning info (so people won't see it).

Not this time.