There was a FEMA "active shooter" drill going on that very same week in Vegas. Look into it more. It may have overlapped with the real situation to purposefully sow confusion and throw the scent.
Based on developments in England, this reader speculates that laws are coming our way that criminalize independent citizen investigations:
In your October 11 article "More Responses to the Military Surgeon's Letter", you ask "Is the real conspiracy one of establishing official stories as fact regardless of evidence?"
There is a strong case for that contention. I refer you to the October 2 Guardian article titled "Amber Rudd: Viewers of Online Terrorist Material Face 15 Years in Jail." The link to this article is click here
In the article, the Home Secretary is quoted thus: "I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law."
The inclusion of "far-right propaganda" in her statement is ominous. It appears that the stage is being set for the thwarting of all independent investigation in the aftermath of a tragedy, with severe legal penalties for those who do not comply.
And this from England:
Regarding your question "Why then are what clearly seem to be crisis actors employed?"
I'm going to take a wild guess. They are preparing us for war and so they don't want the people to see blood and guts and just how horrendous the injuries are as it might cause people to think about the reality of war. The shocking images would make people fear what war will do to their friends and family and then they will object and oppose the war mongering of the politicians.
They used actors to make being shot seem not so bad -- your clothes stay clean and you are soon up and about again -- so "Let's have a war, it's nothing to worry about."
Once again, the question that should be on our minds is why such a public event as the mass shooting of 573 people is not a completely clear transparent event?
Why the lack of hard evidence? Why instead do we have videos of non-medical personnel incorrectly carrying non-wounded people?
Some claim that the bullets were fired from too far a distance to do much serious damage. This is the answer to why none of the 500+ reported wounded have been reported to have died from complications from their wounds. So, why then did 58 or 59 people die on site from the bullets? Alternatively, how is it possible that automatic fire into a packed audience only hit 58 or 59 people and the 500+ only suffered minor injuries by wood splinters and pieces of concrete thrown up by the bullets, thus, no deaths from the injuries?
Why is it that with these terror events -- Las Vegas, Boston Marathon Bombing, 9/11 itself -- drills reflecting the alleged events were being conducted? Why has the media, not only the US media, but also the world media, never asked this question? How is it that almost every time that there is a terrorist event, a drill of that event is taking place?
After all this time, how can this question remain unasked and unanswered?
How is it possible that 573 people can be shot in a public place, and aware people can have no confidence in the official story?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
4
