Ever hear a news report and think, “How is that even possible?” That was my reaction when I heard about the slaughter in Orlando.
Let me clarify. “How is that possible” can be understood two ways. One is the anguished “how could anyone be so horrible?” I have long since learned that people are capable of dizzying depths of cruelty. Even Oxford-trained ethicists argue in favor of infanticide now. It’s a crazy world. This is not the question on my mind.
The “how is that possible” question was the sort that makes you doubt facts as they are presented. The “something doesn’t add up” kind. Others are on record with the same question, but they asked it for their own reasons.
The official story is that our dead terrorist found his way into a nightclub, pulled out some guns, and went on a murderous solo rampage.
There are a couple of problems with this story. How many times did he have to reload? When you’re outnumbered by doomed and desperate people — most of whom are likely men in the prime of life — you have a limited number of bullets before you need to reload. The reloading step is a window of opportunity where the gunman becomes vulnerable to some sort of counter-offensive. That problem with a solo shooter disappears if there is a team. (But the official story is one guy)
There is another issue that struck me as odd. I saw it in kids’ games. Remember when you’re in the schoolyard or gymnasium, and you start a game of tag? What happens? Everyone scatters.
In tag, you get to see a safe kind of chaos, but it is still instructive. Often, in the mad rush to catch *anyone* the guy who is “it” catches no one, because everyone scatters in different directions. If he is only one guy, he simply would not be able to cover multiple escape routes while methodically searching through hiding places (like bathrooms) for more victims. If there is a team, it would explain why so many could not reach safety in time. (But the official story is one guy.)
People who know more about real-life combat and ballistics than I ever will weighed in, too. They had their own “how is that possible” questions. Questions different from the ones I had raised.
They had questions about the logistics of what it would take for even a well-trained soldier to produce carnage like that. See Mike Cernovich’s reasoning in his twitter feed: “Average soldier needs 23 rounds per kill. 50 kills means 1,150 rounds or 38, 30-round mags. That’s not counting the wounded!” “The math on ammo needed to kill 50 and maim 53 does not add up, it would be thousands of rounds. That’s 60-80 pounds of ammo. This clearly leads him to suspect more than one killer. (But the official story is one guy.)
Cernovich goes further still. Unless the evidence of the entire scene becomes public knowledge: the ballistics reports of the victims (do all shots match the known guns? How many total bullet wounds?) all bulletholes being each magazine used, and accounted for (in victims or in property) with corresponding photos, it will have the appearance of a coverup. (Was it really one guy?) (See him make his case more fully here.)
Are there other loose ends that don’t quite fit with the one-shooter theory? Actually, there are.
Like this interview with a witness at about the 49 second mark, mentioning “4 shooters”. (But the official story is one guy.) Or another witness who described bullets coming from multiple directions, and someone else blocking the exit.
“Fifty people were trying to jump over each other trying to exit the place. There was a guy holding the door and not letting us exit. He’s like ‘Stay inside, stay inside.’ As he is saying that, the shooter keeps getting closer and closer and the sound of the bullets is getting closer. Everyone starts to panic. People are getting trampled. Let us out, let us out!’’
There is another article with multiple video links that makes the case for multiple participants from video footage. (But the official story is one shooter.)
If the official story is incorrect, and the officials know it, why would they want to muzzle this story?
Depending on your levels of cynicism, you could arrive at different answers. From least to most cynical, here’s a starter list (feel free to add your own in the comments):
- With no leads and no suspects, announcing that murderers walk among us would just create panic, with no “upside” benefit for announcing it.
- They know there are other participants, but don’t want to tip their hand. If they don’t have quite enough info to capture them yet, and are sifting through evidence, they’d rather not spook them.
- Cover Your A$$ tactics. To admit a terror cell killed or wounded over 100 unsuspecting people, the public would demand quick, decisive action. If all participants are dead, everything is wrapped up nice and neat. If some are still out there, someone in authority will have to pay a personal price.
- Maintain a political narrative. There are so very many ways #4 could play out that it would take forever to name them. Let the post-Benghazi narrative (“we’ll get the guy that made that video”) work as a placeholder for the rest.
After all this, the official story is still “there was one shooter”.
And I’m still asking “How is that even possible?”
*Security Expert, John Renken adds:
Couple of things here. There is quite a bit of research that has been done on Sheep doing what other sheep do. Its called social proof. BRAIN GAMES did a great episode on it called Follow the Leader. Basically without training people will go into overload and do what they see others doing. IE…dying. The witnesses claiming the door was blocked, shots coming from all directions, and 4 shooters can easily be attributed to stress and the inability of people to recall events or to actually claim they saw something that never happened in a crisis situation. Lastly, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that he shot 202 times with 50 dead and 52 wounded. I would have to see how small the bar was but man…that is some damn good shooting. So with the casualty count verses rounds expended account I am asking how did it happen too.