Las Vegas Attack 2017

Because he was a nut case.

That is not really a worthwhile reason, even if it's true.

Swan, you misunderstood the meaning of my post.
Nut case, as I was using it in that sentence, is a figure of speech for someone who comments a heinous crime or does something completely over the top.

Example Hitler was sure a nut case...Or it can also be used to describe Donald Trump, as in Trump is sure a nut case...It does not mean someone with actual clinical mental issues and that's not what I was trying to imply.

I thought it was referring to how he kept pecan through the curtains.

Of course, didn't take it that way either. I know you were probably just making an off-hand remark, but all I meant was if it was motivated by something political, religious or otherwise, surely we'd want to know that?

It was Russian collusion.

Oh OK, thanks Swan for explaining. I see what you're saying...so to answer:

I don't believe he had a motive other than to kill a bunch of people. I was joking about Powered Water's post that we would never find out the motive, as I don't believe in most conspiracy theories, so I don't think he had a real motive.

Only problem with your theory is the fact the Paddock hid or destroyed his hard drives and his phone. That is not the action of someone who has no motive whatsoever. Doesn't even strike me as crazy in the least. No, it's too easy to just chalk it up to him being crazy.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

One year anniversary of the single largest, most covered up, most quickly forgotten shooting massacre in the United States.

Most covered up? Says who? You? What do you think happened exactly and why is it so hard for you to except what the police have already laid out many, many times? And I doubt very much the victims and their families or the people of Las Vegas have "forgotten" the shooting. Enlighten me. I just don't get your post or what you're trying to stir up. I'm sure you're going to say you're not stirring up anything and if that's the case then why continuously take shots at law enforcement? Because that's who you seem to think is covering this up.



Let me ask you something. You ever worked on something, anything, for a long time and then after many many hours of work you had to scrap the whole thing and start over? Only in this case there is no "starting over" because they got the guy. They just don't know why he did it. How is that a cover up and why do you think its fine to sh*t all over a whole police force that I can only assume logged a metric ton of hours trying to piece some answers for the families together?



Sorry if that's harsh but I really don't get it.

There are a zillion very basic questions (many outlined on this thread) that were NEVER answered - and they're ones that could be answered by people who are alive and well, by police or by the FBI.

It seems like they just waited until people got tired of asking questions - then it was just "case closed" and forget about it. The level and speed at which it was forgotten almost seems like mass hypnosis.

Here's a quick question from the zillion: did all the people at the concert who had their cell phones confiscated ever get them back? And of those who had already stated they got their cell phone back with all the info on it scrubbed (such as videos) were they ever given any compensation or an explanation why their phone was scrubbed?

"There are questions we don't have answers to" is not a good basis for a conspiracy charge, because it's really easy to ask questions--even good ones--that are hard to answer. It also carries with it the strange assumption that people not part of the investigation can and should have access to all those answers.

Example, your cell phone question. It's an actual question, right? You don't know if they did or not. So why would the mere asking be evidence? Only an answer, and an answer of "no," might be.

There are questions that we know have answers. Such as the cops later identified as being in the hotel as the shooting was occurring & near the room - yet absolutely no info on who they were, what they did, etc.

As to the cell phones, before most info on this case went silent, the claims were that many people on the scene (and there were 20,000) at the concert has their phones confiscated by law enforcement and never got them back. Couldn't there just be an update on that claim as to if they got them back, or what evidence was derived from them, if any?

And why were people who did get their phones back find them scrubbed of all information?

And if these are misconceptions that were falsely reported by eye-witnesses and the media, then how about some updates that clear them up?

These are simple questions among so many other simple ones that have answers. They're not ideological questions of mystery like, "What was the shooter's motivation?" but rather they are concrete questions that someone living knows the answers to.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have updates, or that the questions don't matter, or that some of them are not strange. I'm pointing out that simply listing questions we don't have answers to is a really flimsy way to try to posit conspiracies. This is exactly how conspiracies thrive: they fill the vacuum of ignorance with speculation. They also thrive on conflicting reports, even though we literally always have those after any event, let alone a traumatic/dramatic one.

In a nutshell, conspiracies should be based on things we do know, not things we don't, since it's pretty easy to not know things and then just supply (or imply) our own answers. It's ridiculously easy to make stuff sound suspicious if you invert the burden of proof and require answers to rule out a conspiracy, as opposed to requiring strong evidence to believe it in the first place.