posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:51 PM
OK, so this shooter would have had a hard time getting hold of weapons and ammunition through the Army itself. The solution? He got it for his own
personal use. That is not only possible, it is done all the time. He'd have to plan it a bit, but it wouldn't be all that difficult. So I have to
ask myself, what's more likely - some guy arming himself and going on a rampage, or some amazing conspiracy?
As for this being a "hardened" place - sure, it's got soldiers, who probably react much better under fire than civilians. But they aren't immune
to gunfire. They can be confused and misled. They were mostly unarmed, meaning that even if they knew who was firing, they wouldn't necessarily be
able to take him out. You've got a bunch of guys in uniform, presumably including the shooter. So how can anyone tell who's the bad guy? It
wouldn't necessarily be obvious. By the time you figure it out, you could be getting shot at and have to take cover. There were two pistols that
they know about. There may have been other weapons. One of the pistols was an automatic, which would make it easier to take down a group of soldiers
- unarmed soldiers. Not so far-fetched.
As for the changes of story, that is almost inevitable. Some call it the "fog of war". It happens whenever there is some sort of emotionally
upsetting, catastrophic event. People freak out, they guess about what's going on, they assume things, they hear and repeat rumors, and so on.
Confusion is normal at such times. What would be more suspicious would be a single answer without any doubts at all. That doesn't happen in real
If it's a conspiracy, what would they be covering up, anyway? And why would they want to cover it up? What difference would it make if the shooter
was alive or dead; or there was one shooter, or three? Who benefits from this "conspiracy", and what do they get out of it?