the 2nd window is key, but I wouldn't say to the 2 shooter narrative. we have multiple indiscrepancies with the 'official' timeline and the breaking of the window in the suite.
In all of the shooting though, how often do you hear two guns at once? Granted, the second window is really strange. Is it possible he planned on another person being there? Maybe Jesus before he backed out? Easiest explanation for all the guns, all the ammo, and two windows would be somebody got cold feet.
LVPD says the second window was used for the fuel tanks. I also don't think Paddock's window was broken during the attack, as photo analysis doesn't show a broken window in his suite during the shooting. Also the fuel tanks thing doesn't make any sense, because he can literally hit the tanks from either window very easily.
what really doesn't make sense about the fuel tanks is the 2 shots; one was a damn perfect snipe at the very tip-top where the fuel vapor would be.. but our 'shooter' wasn't a marksman. i've considered making a post about this.
He also wasn't stupid. You can't just shoot a jet fuel tank and have it explode. You need consistent heat applied to create the pressure needed for it to burst. Paddock would have known that if he considered the fuel tank as a target. Who wouldn't know about the fuel tanks issue? Someone who's trying to set Paddock up, create havok, and shoot everything.
yeah, well, you're asking someone to hit an elevated shot at 600+ yards with a .223 incendiary round. I'm doubtful I hit that shot and I've fired my fair share of rounds.
Yeah so I guess that supports what I'm saying then right? That the hit was a chance shot by someone who thought it would do damage, not an accurate shot by someone who planned it.
the preciseness of the top shot on that tank leads me to believe otherwise. someone who thought it could do damage, but also knew they could make that shot. is it possible it was just 2 shots trying to be on target? sure.
I can't prove intent in the same way the FBI can't prove they were missed shots on the crowd that hit the tanks, by chance. However, they have assumed intent, and I will assume marksmanship beyond our 'shooters' capability.
exactly. only someone that doesn't do their research would shoot the tank. I think if Paddock really tried to incorporate that in his shooting, he would have found out prior that nothing would have happened.
He was a pilot, fire training is a given for anyone with a license, so he would have knew everything we are posting here, that's why I call him Patsy Paddock..
Would he? Would he know the burning point of Kerosene from having his pilots license? I'm trying to see if we can actually prove he was knowledgeable about those tanks.
No sir(or ma'am) I did not think you were, please I ask you and many more; don't let this go, don't click, pray, scroll-on. Ask ??? demand they give us answers, if for no other reason, for the dead there in LV... Godspeed
And what makes even less sense, he was a pilot he knew would take, at minimum, a .50 to pierce those tank at that distance, let alone ignite them. Jet A has a very high flash point, it's K1 kerosene for lack of a better description. A spark won't do it...Now had it been 93 octane, that's a different tale..
Yeah he’s a genius. Too bad no matter what round it wasn’t going to explode. Fuel vapor? Dafuq u talking about. He had a scope. No matter where you hit, nothing is going to explode. He was a dumb old man who was shooting fuel tanks that would never explode and left explosives in his car. He thought he’d escape? He was a moron.
the tanks have to vent off vapors to avoid over-compression and subsequent explosion. having a scope or not doesn't make it call of duty; his sighting would have had to been adjusted correctly, and the distance wasn't a 'gimme' by any means. shooting on a crowd of 22,000 is one thing, whereas hitting a target from 600+ yards out is another. I'm not talking about the shot to the side of the tank, but the one that hit the upper most section. Maybe it was a lucky shot? I'm not discounting that notion. Appears to be odd regardless.
Shooting at fuel tanks doesn't seem like something a smart old guy who flew planes would do. Paddock had to know that kerosene would not explode by hitting the tanks.
If there was 2 guns shooting wouldn't it be noticeable? In the videos you hear one gun, unloading a whole clip then a pause to either reload or grab another. Then unload again. If it was 2 guns you would have no doubt.
yep, even the instances that sound like 2 guns being fired are too few and far between. i would expect the sound of 2 shooters to be obvious and undeniable
imo it looks like the guest room was actually where he planned to do everything from. the laptops were in there, the camera cables went in to there. there is strong evidence the 2nd window was not broken until near the end.
No occums razor shows that the simplest answer is the correct one. So obviously he would want to go back and forth between windows with no change in bullets per minute. It's clearly easier to shoot out of both windows at once than to shoot out of one. It's simole logic.
46 comments
1 uhyeahokwhateva 2017-10-14
the 2nd window is key, but I wouldn't say to the 2 shooter narrative. we have multiple indiscrepancies with the 'official' timeline and the breaking of the window in the suite.
1 36in36 2017-10-14
In all of the shooting though, how often do you hear two guns at once? Granted, the second window is really strange. Is it possible he planned on another person being there? Maybe Jesus before he backed out? Easiest explanation for all the guns, all the ammo, and two windows would be somebody got cold feet.
1 Zenyx_ 2017-10-14
LVPD says the second window was used for the fuel tanks. I also don't think Paddock's window was broken during the attack, as photo analysis doesn't show a broken window in his suite during the shooting. Also the fuel tanks thing doesn't make any sense, because he can literally hit the tanks from either window very easily.
1 uhyeahokwhateva 2017-10-14
what really doesn't make sense about the fuel tanks is the 2 shots; one was a damn perfect snipe at the very tip-top where the fuel vapor would be.. but our 'shooter' wasn't a marksman. i've considered making a post about this.
1 mastigia 2017-10-14
What really doesn't make sense is anything we have been told about this event.
1 Zenyx_ 2017-10-14
He also wasn't stupid. You can't just shoot a jet fuel tank and have it explode. You need consistent heat applied to create the pressure needed for it to burst. Paddock would have known that if he considered the fuel tank as a target. Who wouldn't know about the fuel tanks issue? Someone who's trying to set Paddock up, create havok, and shoot everything.
1 uhyeahokwhateva 2017-10-14
yeah, well, you're asking someone to hit an elevated shot at 600+ yards with a .223 incendiary round. I'm doubtful I hit that shot and I've fired my fair share of rounds.
1 Zenyx_ 2017-10-14
Yeah so I guess that supports what I'm saying then right? That the hit was a chance shot by someone who thought it would do damage, not an accurate shot by someone who planned it.
1 uhyeahokwhateva 2017-10-14
the preciseness of the top shot on that tank leads me to believe otherwise. someone who thought it could do damage, but also knew they could make that shot. is it possible it was just 2 shots trying to be on target? sure.
I can't prove intent in the same way the FBI can't prove they were missed shots on the crowd that hit the tanks, by chance. However, they have assumed intent, and I will assume marksmanship beyond our 'shooters' capability.
1 pastorKG 2017-10-14
Agreed! The flash point of kerosene(aka Jet A) is controlled to be 100°F+ 223 or 308 won't do it... This ain't hollyweird for goodness sake:)
1 Zenyx_ 2017-10-14
exactly. only someone that doesn't do their research would shoot the tank. I think if Paddock really tried to incorporate that in his shooting, he would have found out prior that nothing would have happened.
1 pastorKG 2017-10-14
He was a pilot, fire training is a given for anyone with a license, so he would have knew everything we are posting here, that's why I call him Patsy Paddock..
1 Zenyx_ 2017-10-14
Would he? Would he know the burning point of Kerosene from having his pilots license? I'm trying to see if we can actually prove he was knowledgeable about those tanks.
1 pastorKG 2017-10-14
No sir(or ma'am) I did not think you were, please I ask you and many more; don't let this go, don't click, pray, scroll-on. Ask ??? demand they give us answers, if for no other reason, for the dead there in LV... Godspeed
1 kloular 2017-10-14
I was thinking this too. He may not have known the specifics but he would have had an idea that they don't ignite that way.
1 pastorKG 2017-10-14
Yep, as much as they said he "planned" that certainly would have came up...
1 kloular 2017-10-14
Hmm. Is that truck always there? If not, I doubt it was an original part of it.
1 pastorKG 2017-10-14
And what makes even less sense, he was a pilot he knew would take, at minimum, a .50 to pierce those tank at that distance, let alone ignite them. Jet A has a very high flash point, it's K1 kerosene for lack of a better description. A spark won't do it...Now had it been 93 octane, that's a different tale..
1 helpfuldan 2017-10-14
Yeah he’s a genius. Too bad no matter what round it wasn’t going to explode. Fuel vapor? Dafuq u talking about. He had a scope. No matter where you hit, nothing is going to explode. He was a dumb old man who was shooting fuel tanks that would never explode and left explosives in his car. He thought he’d escape? He was a moron.
1 uhyeahokwhateva 2017-10-14
the tanks have to vent off vapors to avoid over-compression and subsequent explosion. having a scope or not doesn't make it call of duty; his sighting would have had to been adjusted correctly, and the distance wasn't a 'gimme' by any means. shooting on a crowd of 22,000 is one thing, whereas hitting a target from 600+ yards out is another. I'm not talking about the shot to the side of the tank, but the one that hit the upper most section. Maybe it was a lucky shot? I'm not discounting that notion. Appears to be odd regardless.
1 janisstukas 2017-10-14
Shooting at fuel tanks doesn't seem like something a smart old guy who flew planes would do. Paddock had to know that kerosene would not explode by hitting the tanks.
1 PoofartChampion 2017-10-14
maybe he just wanted to make them leak to make it easier for the bomb to blow them up?
1 callmebaiken 2017-10-14
The fact that it was in a different room begs the question if Paddock had rented both rooms we still haven't gotten a definitive answer on that
1 lucklouie 2017-10-14
If there was 2 guns shooting wouldn't it be noticeable? In the videos you hear one gun, unloading a whole clip then a pause to either reload or grab another. Then unload again. If it was 2 guns you would have no doubt.
1 PoofartChampion 2017-10-14
yep, even the instances that sound like 2 guns being fired are too few and far between. i would expect the sound of 2 shooters to be obvious and undeniable
1 lucklouie 2017-10-14
I just watched this whole video. I can't see how people think it's more than one shooter the way he takes his time. https://youtu.be/5vdeHMqCscs
1 PoofartChampion 2017-10-14
this is what made me initially think it was possible, but the explanations sound plausible and there just isnt enough of it for me to think it was 2nd shooter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2oQ65zi-Q&feature=youtu.be&t=775
1 janisstukas 2017-10-14
Two shooters....like Campos and Schuck. I think that idea has crossed my mind.
1 TheRammer 2017-10-14
Wild guesses for second window being broken:
1 litre_cola9 2017-10-14
It really honestly is. There is not nearly enough added range of view to make the time lost in breaking a second window worth the time.
1 PoofartChampion 2017-10-14
imo it looks like the guest room was actually where he planned to do everything from. the laptops were in there, the camera cables went in to there. there is strong evidence the 2nd window was not broken until near the end.
1 RMFN 2017-10-14
No occums razor shows that the simplest answer is the correct one. So obviously he would want to go back and forth between windows with no change in bullets per minute. It's clearly easier to shoot out of both windows at once than to shoot out of one. It's simole logic.
1 Johnny_Oldschool 2017-10-14
Occums razor isn't a, it's a tool, and states a simple answer is "often" correct, not "always correct.
1 RMFN 2017-10-14
Have you ever even logic?
1 Johnny_Oldschool 2017-10-14
Never
1 wile_e_chicken 2017-10-14
Simplest answer that fully explains the circumstance. Not just the simplest answer.
1 RMFN 2017-10-14
So you're saying Christ himself killed those peopleñ
1 wile_e_chicken 2017-10-14
Come again? No idea how to interpret this comment given the context.
1 RMFN 2017-10-14
I'm using occums razor.
1 wile_e_chicken 2017-10-14
You're using a straw man fallacy. Seems out of character for you.
1 RMFN 2017-10-14
Ohh so now I'm supposed to act a certain way?
1 wile_e_chicken 2017-10-14
Rational?
1 RMFN 2017-10-14
That's just not who I am.
1 wile_e_chicken 2017-10-14
You're not a rational person and, as such, you decline to engage in rational conversation. Damn, why so hard on yourself? You can do this.
1 cluckcluckgo_dot_com 2017-10-14
Show me a picture of the second window broken during the shooting...
Every photo and every video that shows Mandalay Bay during the shooting shows only 1 window broken.
1 12fjf12 2017-10-14
My take:
134 was where the "shooting" came from. All the incriminating evidence was in that room.
135 was later staged to show dead Paddock.
1 MAGUSW 2017-10-14
Wow the shills are out in full force tonight with the downvotes. Everyone here is in the neg......wtf.
1 lucklouie 2017-10-14
I just watched this whole video. I can't see how people think it's more than one shooter the way he takes his time. https://youtu.be/5vdeHMqCscs