Las Vegas: Failed Arms Deal Theory Makes No Sense

The storyline looks full of holes, does look like the CIA was involved....if later on hurts the POTUS, you've got your answer.

My thing with "arms deal gone bad" theory. It seems to me like a Hotel this extravagant is not the best place to make a deal. Camera's everywhere. But perhaps they were thinking about hiding in plain sight.

What if it was a sting gone bad? Ala fast and furious

a reply to: IAMTAT

Surprisingly, a lot of these guys think they're getting out alive.

a reply to: Tekaran

Not only that. Paddock's 23 guns were spread across 10 suitcases that he brought up over the course of three days. Did he expect his buyers to just carry them all out at once?

a reply to: avgguy

Then my initial questions still remain and you've got a lot more to add on. For example, how many 64 year old active field agents are there? The fact that the guns were registered in his name also becomes more nonsensical. I mean, why wouldn't they use previously seized guns?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Good point, though I think it was 7 minutes. But that raises the question, why did Paddock only shoot for 7 minutes when he had all of those guns and ammo readily available? I'm really interested in why the police think he had an escape plan.

a reply to: smurfy

There is a great thread on that story here on ATS.

ATS, Breaking Alternative News (BAN) - Mystery of dead man and his 1,200 guns deepens.

The whole case hit the brakes when the girlfriend lawyered up. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn very slowly.

I'm not following the rumors so never even heard of the gun dealer theory. The FUD factor is high on this shooting is about all I am noticing.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Estimates I've heard have placed it between 9 and 14 minutes. It then took police about six minutes after that to reach the floor. Somewhere in there the security guard approached the door and was shot. Was the security guard the impetus for him to stop shooting? Or maybe it was the fact that he was able to see police entering the building from his vantage point and so was preparing for them. Six minutes seems a pretty reasonable amount of time for someone to enter the casino, reach the elevators, and then get up to the 32nd floor.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

On the age point: at least with the Bureau, an agent may be retained on active service up to age 65, if the agency is willing to jump through hoops to keep him or her. IIRC mandatory retirement kicks in at 56 or 57 if the agent has 20 years or more active service, but could possibly be retained up to age 60 in some cases. I think the Bureau is the only agency that can extend to 65 in some cases.

So the direct answer to your question: very, very few. CIA has some field operatives that are over 65. Billy Waugh was running around Afghanistan into his 70s. But that dude is a legend, hence why he was kept on.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Events like this dont just happen at random, the type of guns involved here had to be brought into and assembled in that hotel piece by piece down to the bolts. I think this is part of the operation to militarize the police around the nation. A white man responsible for terrorizing and killing nearly 50 people and injuring hundreds is not a terrorist? So it only applies for those who are ethnic or foreign so it seems. His face hardly smeared across news and the only photo that is shows him drunk and having fun just like the most of America and thats hard to be afraid of. Perceptions are always mantained and controlled with propaganda through the media all for National Security. Just know that anything can be done when under that name. To me these planned out operations are training the police and white demographics around the country. This event works as a good simulation for working with hostile subjects in highly populated areas. Now the LVPD is forced to prepare, train and mobilize for situations like these. New bills may get passed, old laws may get canned. These are the real terrorists that make the terrorist, not to mention this happened on the 32nd floor and that's just to let certain peoples know.

A survivor speaking on Fox said that most of the exits had been blocked and there was nowhere to go. The whole theory told to the public stinks at best.
a reply to: Xcalibur254

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Probably.
But what if he was selling an entire terror event package: Guns, Ammo & huge pool of sitting-duck victims?

Well, according to the arms dealer theory he's an undercover FBI agent.

So according to many, the FBI is setting up honey-pots referred to as "event packages."

It's amazing the lengths people go to defend the actions of mass murderers.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

For clarity's sake, he said "you have to assume" the shooter had assistance. He didn't state definitively that he did. Unless he's made another statement since the one I saw.

I saw that last night Sham, but he was very worried looking too, calm, but not so calm, he did say, "you have to assume", but that was around five minutes after saying, "you assume nothing" although the context was different, so it could be taken easily out of context...I guess he meant all round, nothing is a fact, until it's a fact, and pursue everything.

One thing that's on the scanners for instance, A policeman calls in, "It's Mandalay bay, I see shots coming from halfway up" there's no mention of his position at that time though...so how definitive was that statement? If that policeman was hugging the ground right near the building...what could look like, "halfway up" from that vantage point?
If he had a full view of the from some distance, that would be unambiguous..it would be halfway up.
The video is lengthy, but the above phrase is at the beginning.


But, can you see the point I'm making? That guy Lash, on the face of it, was just considered a rich crank and the whole thing was put to bed, Paddock hasn't quite got to that stage yet because of the crime...otherwise, the background is so similar, and on the face of it both have fooled a lot of people!

a reply to: smurfy

Pretty much. Everything is possible until it's proven not possible.

As to the radio traffic (I actually posted that the other day and have given it a couple of listen-throughs): I think the first reports came from the concert venue itself. The first report says they have "shots fired at the Route 91." Which makes me think they were the ones first aware of the fire, rather than officers closer to the hotel. I think most of the comms are from officers already on scene (aside from the officers calling en route), that scene being the concert venue. It then took about four minutes for officers to actually radio that they were on scene at the hotel and were still trying to confirm shots coming from there.

Which, while I hope it cleared it up a bit for you, also lends credence to your point about the confusion of things. It wasn't until officers actually went in to the hotel and upstairs that they finally confirmed where the shots were coming from. Which, by that point, was about the same time they started getting calls for shootings at other locations.

originally posted by: fiverx313
just to play devil's advocate for a moment, what if 4chan is full of teenagers who make up crap just to get reactions and some genuine crazy people, and none of them know a damn thing?

just to play devil's advocate for a moment, maybe conspiracy cranks enjoy playing baby sherlock holmes with every big news event because it gives them a special pants feeling, and they lack any kind of common sense or shred of human decency?

i'm just playing devil's advocate.

Well , hades , looks like one of those times you and I agree
Not playing devil's advocate , you are giving a play-by-play.
Well done.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: smurfy

Pretty much. Everything is possible until it's proven not possible.

As to the radio traffic (I actually posted that the other day and have given it a couple of listen-throughs): I think the first reports came from the concert venue itself. The first report says they have "shots fired at the Route 91." Which makes me think they were the ones first aware of the fire, rather than officers closer to the hotel. I think most of the comms are from officers already on scene (aside from the officers calling en route), that scene being the concert venue. It then took about four minutes for officers to actually radio that they were on scene at the hotel and were still trying to confirm shots coming from there.

Which, while I hope it cleared it up a bit for you, also lends credence to your point about the confusion of things. It wasn't until officers actually went in to the hotel and upstairs that they finally confirmed where the shots were coming from. Which, by that point, was about the same time they started getting calls for shootings at other locations.

Eeee! not really, the male policeman at the, 39-49 second mark, (distinctive voice) is quite unequivocal, he sees shots halfway up the building, that means he can see exhaust, and is facing the building, or very near facing. The only question after that, is where his vantage point was, and how close..or how far away from the building, which is important*. Later on in the playback someone else makes a similar observation.

*Mandalay Bay is a 43-story building, while floors 40-42 are called 60-62, and the top floor 43, the restaurant, is floor 63 while rooms 35-39 are the Four Seasons hotel. If the officer had a clear view, room 32 would not be near halfway, but halfway would be nearer floor 21/22.

originally posted by: smurfy

edit on 5-10-2017 by smurfy because: Double.

a reply to: smurfy

Yea I don’t think he was doing math to figure out how many floors up it was. He was giving an area for people to focus on. Telling people it’s halfway up is going to get eyes in the right area quicker than “it’s....17 floors up. No. 16 floors up. Maybe 18 floors.” Somebody looking halfway up a building is more likely to see muzzle flashes than somebody who’s counting floors and windows.

I'm up to date on most aspects, but what makes no sense is the VOLUME of guns. Both the logistics of transporting and concealing them, as well as ....why so many? It makes no sense beyond 3-4 guns as a tactical matter.