Active Shooter Las Vegas, Mandalay Bay

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

To be fair I can't be 100% sure. But why should we be slamming the SWAT team because of what went down in Orlando?

In this instance he had stopped shooting. And by playing it slow they may have saved more lives. I personally think it was the right call. And I think the whole LVPD deserve credit for the way they reacted to a horrific situation that no one could prepare for.

a reply to: tiredoflooking

Agreed, but this was well after the shooting started (at least that's my understanding). The security guard had already been shot well before this, hence my shock about the delay in determining the room number.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Well, I'm going to let it drop (maybe) after this, but...my point here is, they had no idea if "he" was a "they" when the shooting stopped, and they had absolutely zero insight into whether the shooting would start back up again.

You are basing your position having the benefit of hindsight of what happened. In the moment, they knew none of this. None. And, by not verifying for certain the threat was no longer a threat...they were just delaying.

That, is my point.

Bottom line, I think we agree on most points, maybe just not this one.

ETA...and no, I'm not on the bandwagon of being ready to celebrate their heroics just yet. I've seen (and so have you) examples of heroics on a whole lot of people's parts, many of them just average people. And those represent the majority of some of the heroics. I think Las Vegas as a whole deserves to be recognized, not just LEO's (who weren't on the scene for at least the first 6 minutes after the shooting started). They're not to blame, but they're not super-heroes in this case either.

originally posted by: tiredoflooking
a reply to: KansasGirl

Nope you are not a bad girl and neither am I 🙃 I am the one that added that report to the thread. The sheriff reported it directly at last nights news conference. You read and remembered correctly.

Does anyone feel like this thread is being gaslighted ? Lol not specifically this question but question after question. I know it is hard to read all the way back but try at least people!

New news conference on CNN right now...firefigters I think? Weird...

Gaslighted?

I seriously doubt it. For what it's worth, I've been called a paid shill by four posters who just recently joined ATS and have only posted in one thread (this one). I'd be more pressed to say those folks are gaslighting more than anyone else.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk


I just struggle with the 1 hour for SWAT to be able to act thing. Nothing we can do about it, but just seems a whole lot like they ought to be able to react faster than that.

Posted earlier in the thread: files.abovetopsecret.com...

My first thought looking at that pic is if a responding officer approached close enough to notice that wire trailing the cart, it would well explain the delay to breach. 
Lots of people are especially leary of boxes, carts, mounds, buckets, holes in the road, etc which happen to have little wires leading to them. 
Noone was firing from the room at the time, so the timeline changes.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I just don't think it's right to criticize the SWAT team over something that might have happened.

If they breached immediately and an innocent got killed in the ensuing firefight would you still think it was the right move?

originally posted by: tiredoflooking
a reply to: KansasGirl

Nope you are not a bad girl and neither am I 🙃 I am the one that added that report to the thread. The sheriff reported it directly at last nights news conference. You read and remembered correctly.

Does anyone feel like this thread is being gaslighted ? Lol not specifically this question but question after question. I know it is hard to read all the way back but try at least people!

New news conference on CNN right now...firefigters I think? Weird...

Ah thank you! And thank you for updating us on the contents of the press briefing. I, for one, don't have access to cable/tv, so the info is helpful!

And yes with the gas lighting. Maybe it's not intentional, but there are several things that folks have brought up and inconsistencies which seem pretty important, which have been ignored here. I think some posters only read certain other posters' comments. It seems some of us don't have enough ATS fame/status to warrant real consideration. Or not.....either way I agree with Ya.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
This just has all the hallmarks of a clandestine arms deal...that was either manipulated or went sideways.

Just my opinion...no proof...and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
But I keep coming back to this theory.

I keep asking why would an arms deal gone wrong result in shooting through a hotel window at concert-goers????

a reply to: IAMTAT

Really? What are the 'Hallmarks' of a clandestine arms deal? Have you ever attended one? If you have were all the guns just laying around in a room? Were all the magazines loaded? Did they have a hammer with them to break windows? Were all the guns ready to shoot no assembly required? What about bi-pods were all of those attached.

Since you are so experienced here please can you fill in these details?

Exactly. No one has given a good reason, or any reason, for why the result of a bad arms deal would be to shoot concert attendees. I keep asking. Maybe now since you have, someone will address it.

And agreed about the low quantity. Is this how it works? All of that espionage and planning, for 23 guns?

a reply to: KansasGirl

Exactly. If it was an arms deal gone wrong they wouldn't have taken the time to stage Paddock's death as a suicide and they would've grabbed as many guns as possible before fleeing. They wouldn't shoot 500+ people to draw attention to the fact that their arms deal had gone bad and then flee without taking anything.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: IAMTAT
This just has all the hallmarks of a clandestine arms deal...that was either manipulated or went sideways.

Just my opinion...no proof...and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
But I keep coming back to this theory.

I keep asking why would an arms deal gone wrong result in shooting through a hotel window at concert-goers????

Perhaps the room was the sales/distribution point for 'modified' weapons.

Also, it's worth noting that a big Vega gun show was scheduled for the same week. Criminal/gang/mob/terrorist buyers would already be in town...but looking to him for some 'modified' weapons.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I heard a report that there was something like 10 weapons unaccounted for.
Perhaps they were already sold by him.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I would argue that bump stocks barely qualify as modified. Also, they're 100% legal.

That also doesn't in any way answer her question.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: IAMTAT
This just has all the hallmarks of a clandestine arms deal...that was either manipulated or went sideways.

Just my opinion...no proof...and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
But I keep coming back to this theory.

I keep asking why would an arms deal gone wrong result in shooting through a hotel window at concert-goers????

Why would Paddock have also been looking into Lollapollaza and another rap concert, if he were an arms dealer?

The arms dealer angle makes no sense. It originates from an anonymous 4chan user who misspelled Paddock as Pallock - and it's also pretty odd considering Paddock was eyeballing other hotels which had concerts going on.

Unless if undercover FBI agents regularly make small arms deals (as opposed to from a manufacturer) with known terrorist organizations in public hotels which happen to have concerts going on in the vicinity. Also - Paddock was a regular in Vegas. Why would an undercover-FBI agent be selling weapons to IS in an area where he's well known?

The only explanation for this would be something like "hiding in plain sight," but I'm not buying it? I have a very, very hard time believing an undercover-FBI agent was selling weapons to IS. It seems entirely unlikely.

Why not do it in a desert? The Mohave is desolate. Why not do it there?

Plus, it would make sense considering if the undercover-FBI agent were to be compromised - they're in a desert.

The arms dealer conspiracy doesn't seem logical to me.

ETA: Other posters have made a good point. The guns, and ammo, were left behind? It makes even less sense that this was an arms deal gone wrong.

a reply to: IAMTAT

The only weapon I've heard about being missing is the Ruger. And as others have postulated he may have simply stashed it elsewhere, like the roof. Let's not forget that it's being reported that Paddock originally had an escape plan. So for all we know there's a second sniper's nest somewhere else.

For Paddock...HE may have intended to 'disappear' (police say he contingency planned on escaping)...possibly, Paddock planned on disappearing to the Philippines...to change his name and settle with his gf in the new home he sent her and $$$ ahead to purchase.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

....(Off-color humor warning!)...

Well, maybe they were just so pissed off when they got there and saw all the guns were just crappy old semi-auto AR-15's they just couldn't help themselves from starting to break S# and going on a killing spree!

DP

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: KansasGirl

Exactly. If it was an arms deal gone wrong they wouldn't have taken the time to stage Paddock's death as a suicide and they would've grabbed as many guns as possible before fleeing. They wouldn't shoot 500+ people to draw attention to the fact that their arms deal had gone bad and then flee without taking anything.

Boom.

That might make too much sense for some.