Yes I heard the same thing too. The lights going on during the actual shooting is the most disturbing part of the entire story. There was also the audio forensics that also contributes to supporting the multiple shooters theory not to mention a helicopter in the vicinity at the same time. Not to derail this thread because I think this topic needs its own header to begin this discussion, but there is still unanswered questions that needs to be explored further.
I wasn’t on anyone’s case about it, I simply don’t buy conspiracy nut BS.
We know the guy was off of his nutt, we know he looked at several different venues and picked LV.
We know he’d lost a ton of money gambling, a perfect stresser.
We know he shot the hell out of the place.
We know the cops botched the interdiction badly.
We know he killed himself.
We know we’ll never have all of the answers.
Insane people at the end of their rope do things sane, rational people simply cannot understand nor can we fully understand their motives.
This has been the case throughout history and will remain so as long as there are people with mental problems and reach the end of their rope.
They weren’t blocked, they were clogged with panicked people.
As for the rest, panicked people don’t make for very reliable witnesses. You see a bullet impact in the dark it causes a spark, you hear gunshots at the same time, the mind turns that impact into a shot being fired in the panic.
Even if true why would that be disturbing? Cutting the lights obscures the target.
No they were blocked. Chain link fence was put up to block several of the exits. Clearly to keep people from leaving. And clearly it was unplanned because those same exits weren’t blocked previous nights at the same venue.
Cutting the lights? They were being turned on the crowd.
Not that I’ve seen. The videos I’ve seen show people fleeing freely through the entry/exits.
As for the lights, if they were being turned on the crowd it was probably an attempt to identify a shooter or shooters in the crowd.
Personally, my first move would probably be to cut them to make target ID that much harder.
Why? According to the official narrative there were no shooters on the ground. Just a lone shooter on the fourth floor. Who killed himself. What possible reason would anyone have to think there was anyone on the ground shooting into the crowd if the only muzzle flashes were coming from four floors up?
Sure. They also don’t usually corroborate each other’s stories. Personally I trust the “unreliable” testimony of several eye witnesses over the cover story presented by the media who has been caught lying on multiple occasions when trying to push an agenda. But that’s just me.
They did not cuts the lights! OMG, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Was it the 4th floor or the 32nd floor?
They did actually. Then they turned them back on and started pointing them into the crowd. Again, according to MULTIPLE witnesses who were there.
Does it matter? My point was if there weren’t any muzzle flashes from guns being fired on the ground and into the crowd, why would they be looking for shooters on the ground?
Actually it does matter, when considering the Physics element in the forensics analysis in the greater debate that lends to the inconsistencies.
Yes I know that, but they turned them on when the shooting was occurring. I thought you understood that? Semantics?
Fair enough. I wasn’t addressing that. I believe it was the thirty second floor actually. I simply mixed them up because there was also a rumor about a second shooter on the fourth floor. That rumor has been debunked though.
I did. I’m just saying technically, WR isn’t wrong. The stage lights were shut off. Then they were turned back on and aimed at the crowd.
Ok! Thanks for clearing that up, because I follwed this very closely from the beginning, and I do remember a claim that there were muzzle flashes seen from the fourth floor when the argument emerged about a larger caliber belt driven machine gun being used.
So, what part of that do you feel applies to this thread (speaking of reading for context)?
Read again. I was just trying to respond to others on this as I was suggesting to create another thread on this. So what is your problem?