Terror in Las Vegas: Mass shooting at Route91 Harvest music festival

[Ca.]

Stephen Schuck, a building engineer at the Mandalay Bay Hotel, was on the 32nd floor when the Las Vegas mass shooting began. He tells TODAY that he had been called to check on an exit door and was walking down the hallway when “I started to hear shots ring out” and Stephen Paddock “popped out and yelled at me to take cover.” He adds “I am incredibly blessed that somehow I came out of there alive.”

As a clarification this guy said it was Jesus (the security guard) that popped out and told him to take cover, not Paddock as you wrote above.

That's the way the article was presented. Though it adds to the confusion of that quotation.

 

[Ca.]

What a handy little piece of the C's archive -- thanks, H20!

Agree nice work H20.

Q: (L) Our next question is about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Is Wikileaks what it presents itself to be? A grassroots, document leaking organization formed by a bunch of activist hackers and so forth?

A: It was briefly.

Q: (L) You say it was briefly; that means it was probably co-opted fairly early on. So, can you tell us if Julian Assange is an agent?

A: This is a question that you have already answered.

Q: (L) What I mean is, is he consciously an agent?

A: To some extent, yes. But remember programming of both the human and 4D varieties.

Q: (Perceval) Is it true that he had that meeting with the Israelis to agree that he would not release damaging documents about them?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And what is the objective of this Sideshow?

A: You guessed it this afternoon; preparation to accept global control. Or so it is planned.

Q: (L) I guess that means it may or may not turn out the way they expect?

A: It will get close. But remember the ”X” factor.

Q: (L) What is the X factor?

A: Earth changes.

https://youtu.be/olV-57rNMm8?rel=0

Keeping that in mind, Assange's claim that "the FBI's business model is to stage terror plots so they can swoop in and save the day by foiling the plot they created" is embarrassingly simplistic.

Hi Heather, and thanks for your input. I wouldn't say that the above is embarrassingly simplistic, because most people still have no idea that this IS the case and the FBI (as part of the 'deep state') really does need to 'drum up business' in this way to justify their existence. That is of course, not the whole picture, but I'd say it's likely to be a strong rationale behind the many bogus "terror plots" that the FBI has orchestrated over the last 15 years.

Instead, this statement might well go to the history of infighting going on between the agencies (which seemingly continues even in the aftermath of the CIA's post-9/11 FBI presence). Remember, domestic terror is crucial to deep state deception and control. Its traumatizing, demoralizing effect has political and social ramifications that FAR exceed that of a lone agency's self fulfilling business model. Disinformation -- or a poorly contextualized use of real information -- can serve to lose the forrest for the trees, as is seemingly the case in this instance.

Certainly keeping the terrorism mill grinding serves another agenda of state control via the increasing militarization of society, but the two go together rather seamlessly. Character disturbed people in positions of authority throughout the world have long since known, in one way or another, that their jobs depend on the continuing need among the people to be protected by authorities. This is especially true of individuals who only got their positions in the context of a terror threat from which the people needed protecting. Those types are super-motivated to disseminate all manner of threats to the people because, frankly, their paychecks depend on them doing so. So an FBI "special agent in charge" and his superiors know that going out and actively digging up terror plots, aka more or less creating them justifies their positions in at least two ways at the same time:

1) it ensures budgets (their salaries and perks) are justified which allows them to continue the militarization i.e. oppression of society

2) it ensures that the people are reminded of the existence of the "terror plot threat to their lives" which encourages people to place their trust in "security services" and accept more militarization of i.e. oppression of society

Fear sells the programing.

Bloomberg Markets: Hayden Says Russian Election Hack Unfriendly (Running time 09:30)
June 16, 2017 — 9:13 PM CEST
Bloomberg Markets with Carol Massar and Cory Johnson.
_https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2017-06-16/bloomberg-markets-hayden-says-russian-election-hack-unfriendly
GUEST: Michael Vincent Hayden Principal Chertoff Group Former Director of the NSA Discussing the risk of a cyber war and why the Russian hack of the U.S. Presidential election was an unfriendly act because they "weaponized" the date. Vinny Catalano, President and Global Macro Strategist at Blue Marble Research, also participates in the discussion.

Posted (again) for the ZH peanut gallery comments, imho can provide some possible clues of the agenda.

Vegas Hotel Worker Warned Police Of Shooter Before Massacre Began
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-11/vegas-hotel-worker-warned-police-shooter-massacre-began
by Tyler Durden Oct 11, 2017 11:05 PM
Snip:

A police SWAT team got to the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m., and a minute later learned that the security guard was hit and where the shots were fired from.

Mandalay Bay owner MGM Resorts said in a statement that it cannot comment about the ongoing investigation, but raised questions about the timeline since "many facts are still unverified."

The report has raised questions about whether there was a lapse in communication among first responders that delayed their arrival on the scene.

The police's latest timeline means it took 19 minutes for Las Vegas police to learn where the fire was coming from, information that Schuck had already relayed to hotel dispatchers.

In an audio recording of Schuck's dispatch call released by NBC earlier today, Paddock's first shots into the hallway are clearly audible.

CHERTOFF GROUP
_https://www.bloomberg.com/search?query=CHERTOFF+GROUP

Update:

“Big Intelligence” is the real AI
Posted by IDG Connect on October 12 2017
_http://www.idgconnect.com/blog-abstract/28283/-big-intelligence-real-ai
Snip:

This is a contributed piece by Alex Lesser, executive vice president at PSSC Labs

Everyone knows the scenario – after years of development and advancements, machines imbued with Artificial Intelligence somehow become self-aware without the knowledge of their human creators and end up destroying humanity as we know it. It’s a crazy premise, but if you listen to Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and other futurists, it’s a possibility.

Science fiction movies have a habit of predicting doom and destruction, but the truth is we don’t have to worry about this dystopian world where AI becomes something man cannot control. True, there could be unpredictable social consequence much like those brought about by the rise of social media. But in terms of actual takeover and destruction, the odds are slim to none. Rather than fretting about killer robots, it’s time to realise that the AI revolution is actually the proliferation of “Big Intelligence” and its future is much more benign. Big Intelligence is where we are today in terms of automation, robotics and computing – and it bears little similarity to the sentient machines most people think of when they hear AI. What’s more, fear of AI shouldn’t hinder the legitimately useful work Big Intelligence can help complete.

AI is Big Intelligence in disguise
Hardware is critical to Big Intelligence

 

[Ca.]

Jason Goodman Streamed live 8 hours ago (1:02:46)
Las Vegas was only part of it, the Deep State is at war with the people of the United States.

https://youtu.be/FfKTDKOKJqQ?rel=0

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI

" Any person that runs is a VC anyone that stands still is a well disciplined VC"

Atlas Fire in Napa, Solano counties has burned 43,000 acres
_http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/11/as-death-toll-climbs-evacuations-expand-in-wine-country-fires/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=wine-country-fires&utm_medium=email
UPDATED: October 12, 2017 at 1:08 am

1 of 197
Aerial view shows the scope of devastation caused by the Tubbs fire in a neighborhood near Mark West Springs Road of Santa Rosa, California, Wednesday, October 11, 2017. (Karl Mondon/ Bay Area News Group)

Disaster Event
Northern California Major Incident
LNU Incidents in Napa County
Status: Tubs and Atlas
Feed Status: Offline Listeners: 0 Audio Player
_http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/20854/web

View Units Offline: State of California Live Audio Feeds
_http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/stid/6

 

[angelburst29]

Stephen Schuck, a building engineer at the Mandalay Bay Hotel, was on the 32nd floor when the Las Vegas mass shooting began. He tells TODAY that he had been called to check on an exit door and was walking down the hallway when “I started to hear shots ring out” and Stephen Paddock “popped out and yelled at me to take cover.” He adds “I am incredibly blessed that somehow I came out of there alive.”

As a clarification this guy said it was Jesus (the security guard) that popped out and told him to take cover, not Paddock as you wrote above.

That's the way the article was presented. Though it adds to the confusion of that quotation.

An NBC screw-up ... nothing surprising there:

NBC Claims Stephen Paddock Warned Maintenance Worker “To Take Cover” – (He Didn’t)… Wed. October 11, 2017
http://investmentwatchblog.com/nbc-claims-stephen-paddock-warned-maintenance-worker-to-take-cover-he-didnt/

Earlier today President Trump tweeted out a statement that NBC is fake news. The media, and Trump’s political opposition, immediately began circling the wagons to defend NBC.

However, as if on cue, moments after President Trump made the statement, NBC presented video of a Today Show segment interviewing a maintenance worker for Mandalay Bay with a jaw-droppingly false claim about Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock warning the worker. LOOK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khtcXWpetTQ (5:26 min.)

Notice the headline: “Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Warned Me ‘To Take Cover’: MGM Maintenance Man”.

NBC follows with the script to describe the interview:

Stephen Schuck, a building engineer at the Mandalay Bay Hotel, was on the 32nd floor when the Las Vegas mass shooting began. He tells TODAY that he had been called to check on an exit door and was walking down the hallway when “I started to hear shots ring out” and Stephen Paddock “popped out and yelled at me to take cover.” He adds “I am incredibly blessed that somehow I came out of there alive.”

That claim is entirely false. It never happened. The NBC claim is entirely fake news.

No-where in the interview does the maintenance worker claim that Stephen Paddock warned him to take cover. See for yourself; the interview is below. The maintenance worker specifically states the hotel security guard Jesus “Jose” Campos was the one telling him to take cover. Watch:

How many people will read the NBC headline, or read the summary report, and falsely believe what NBC is claiming as fact?

Trump - With all of the Fake news coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for Country!
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/trump-tweet-nbc-fake-news.jpg

 

[Heather]

What a handy little piece of the C's archive -- thanks, H20!

Agree nice work H20.

Q: (L) Our next question is about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Is Wikileaks what it presents itself to be? A grassroots, document leaking organization formed by a bunch of activist hackers and so forth?

A: It was briefly.

Q: (L) You say it was briefly; that means it was probably co-opted fairly early on. So, can you tell us if Julian Assange is an agent?

A: This is a question that you have already answered.

Q: (L) What I mean is, is he consciously an agent?

A: To some extent, yes. But remember programming of both the human and 4D varieties.

Q: (Perceval) Is it true that he had that meeting with the Israelis to agree that he would not release damaging documents about them?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And what is the objective of this Sideshow?

A: You guessed it this afternoon; preparation to accept global control. Or so it is planned.

Q: (L) I guess that means it may or may not turn out the way they expect?

A: It will get close. But remember the ”X” factor.

Q: (L) What is the X factor?

A: Earth changes.

https://youtu.be/olV-57rNMm8?rel=0

Keeping that in mind, Assange's claim that "the FBI's business model is to stage terror plots so they can swoop in and save the day by foiling the plot they created" is embarrassingly simplistic.

Hi Heather, and thanks for your input. I wouldn't say that the above is embarrassingly simplistic, because most people still have no idea that this IS the case and the FBI (as part of the 'deep state') really does need to 'drum up business' in this way to justify their existence. That is of course, not the whole picture, but I'd say it's likely to be a strong rationale behind the many bogus "terror plots" that the FBI has orchestrated over the last 15 years.

Instead, this statement might well go to the history of infighting going on between the agencies (which seemingly continues even in the aftermath of the CIA's post-9/11 FBI presence). Remember, domestic terror is crucial to deep state deception and control. Its traumatizing, demoralizing effect has political and social ramifications that FAR exceed that of a lone agency's self fulfilling business model. Disinformation -- or a poorly contextualized use of real information -- can serve to lose the forrest for the trees, as is seemingly the case in this instance.

Certainly keeping the terrorism mill grinding serves another agenda of state control via the increasing militarization of society, but the two go together rather seamlessly. Character disturbed people in positions of authority throughout the world have long since known, in one way or another, that their jobs depend on the continuing need among the people to be protected by authorities. This is especially true of individuals who only got their positions in the context of a terror threat from which the people needed protecting. Those types are super-motivated to disseminate all manner of threats to the people because, frankly, their paychecks depend on them doing so. So an FBI "special agent in charge" and his superiors know that going out and actively digging up terror plots, aka more or less creating them justifies their positions in at least two ways at the same time:

1) it ensures budgets (their salaries and perks) are justified which allows them to continue the militarization i.e. oppression of society

2) it ensures that the people are reminded of the existence of the "terror plot threat to their lives" which encourages people to place their trust in "security services" and accept more militarization of i.e. oppression of society

Fear sells the programing.

Bloomberg Markets: Hayden Says Russian Election Hack Unfriendly (Running time 09:30)
June 16, 2017 — 9:13 PM CEST
Bloomberg Markets with Carol Massar and Cory Johnson.
_https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2017-06-16/bloomberg-markets-hayden-says-russian-election-hack-unfriendly
GUEST: Michael Vincent Hayden Principal Chertoff Group Former Director of the NSA Discussing the risk of a cyber war and why the Russian hack of the U.S. Presidential election was an unfriendly act because they "weaponized" the date. Vinny Catalano, President and Global Macro Strategist at Blue Marble Research, also participates in the discussion.

Posted (again) for the ZH peanut gallery comments, imho can provide some possible clues of the agenda.

Vegas Hotel Worker Warned Police Of Shooter Before Massacre Began
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-11/vegas-hotel-worker-warned-police-shooter-massacre-began
by Tyler Durden Oct 11, 2017 11:05 PM
Snip:

A police SWAT team got to the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m., and a minute later learned that the security guard was hit and where the shots were fired from.

Mandalay Bay owner MGM Resorts said in a statement that it cannot comment about the ongoing investigation, but raised questions about the timeline since "many facts are still unverified."

The report has raised questions about whether there was a lapse in communication among first responders that delayed their arrival on the scene.

The police's latest timeline means it took 19 minutes for Las Vegas police to learn where the fire was coming from, information that Schuck had already relayed to hotel dispatchers.

In an audio recording of Schuck's dispatch call released by NBC earlier today, Paddock's first shots into the hallway are clearly audible.

CHERTOFF GROUP
_https://www.bloomberg.com/search?query=CHERTOFF+GROUP

Update:

“Big Intelligence” is the real AI
Posted by IDG Connect on October 12 2017
_http://www.idgconnect.com/blog-abstract/28283/-big-intelligence-real-ai
Snip:

This is a contributed piece by Alex Lesser, executive vice president at PSSC Labs

Everyone knows the scenario – after years of development and advancements, machines imbued with Artificial Intelligence somehow become self-aware without the knowledge of their human creators and end up destroying humanity as we know it. It’s a crazy premise, but if you listen to Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and other futurists, it’s a possibility.

Science fiction movies have a habit of predicting doom and destruction, but the truth is we don’t have to worry about this dystopian world where AI becomes something man cannot control. True, there could be unpredictable social consequence much like those brought about by the rise of social media. But in terms of actual takeover and destruction, the odds are slim to none. Rather than fretting about killer robots, it’s time to realise that the AI revolution is actually the proliferation of “Big Intelligence” and its future is much more benign. Big Intelligence is where we are today in terms of automation, robotics and computing – and it bears little similarity to the sentient machines most people think of when they hear AI. What’s more, fear of AI shouldn’t hinder the legitimately useful work Big Intelligence can help complete.

AI is Big Intelligence in disguise
Hardware is critical to Big Intelligence

c.a., why did you re-post Joe's comments, which don't address the later part of the conversation on that matter?

I would add that Assange's comments (which are what I was originally addressing) are at the very least lacking, if not embarrassingly simplistic (I still hold to that) since they reduce the issue of terror in this country to the needs and exploits of a single agency as if that is THE explanation for domestic terror. Of course, 9/11 largely bypassed that very agency so even on that point he's on shaky ground.

As to the workings of the FBI, while it's all very interesting it's an aside to the points I was making about Assange's comments, which take on a somewhat different meaning in light of his being a CIA operative, and in light of the historical rift between the two agencies.

You know, I don't post here that often, and I'm feeling I may stop entirely since what you did here seems like the "buddy" network or something.

My general impression of this forum is that there is a lot of posting of information but not a lot of actual exchange of ideas.

Here was an example of an exchange of ideas, and yet you felt the need to re-cap things with Joe's opinion on the subject. That's what's bothering me.

 

[JGeropoulas]

I'm just wondering about that security guard, Jesus Campos as relates to there being more than one person in Pollack's room (which seems obvious considering many signs his "suicide" was actually a murder, two windows being broken out, phone charger not fitting Pollack's phone, etc.). Whether Campos was shot before or after the concert shootings, he would still have been outside Pollack's door until the police arrived, meaning whoever was in the room besides Pollack would either have been in the room when the police entered it, OR been seen leaving the room after the shootings occurred (assuming they helped Pollack shoot or did all the shootings after killing Pollack). If those "other people" did indeed leave somehow after the shootings and before the police, they would have passed Campos and surely have killed him--unless Campos was in on the whole thing, shot to lend credibility and left to say he saw no one leaving the room. Right? Thoughts?

Another detail that's odd to me is that supposedly Pollack placed a camera on the food cart outside his door. Why would he do that considering he'd have to know the cart would likely soon be removed by the hotel staff? Of course, that video would answer all the questions I've raised, so likely it'll "get lost".

Thirdly, one report said that other guests on the 32nd floor were evacuated by the police prior to their blowing the doors off Pollack's room. Why didn't those guests hear and report the sound of machine gun fire? Same goes for guests above and below Paddock's room? I just heard reference to alternative news investigator, "Queen Tut" saying that every room in the W Hotel had been taken by some Saudi Arabian military training group, which leaves me wondering who was occupying those rooms around Paddock.

 

[goyacobol]

<snip>

c.a., why did you re-post Joe's comments, which don't address the later part of the conversation on that matter?

I would add that Assange's comments (which are what I was originally addressing) are at the very least lacking, if not embarrassingly simplistic (I still hold to that) since they reduce the issue of terror in this country to the needs and exploits of a single agency as if that is THE explanation for domestic terror. Of course, 9/11 largely bypassed that very agency so even on that point he's on shaky ground.

As to the workings of the FBI, while it's all very interesting it's an aside to the points I was making about Assange's comments, which take on a somewhat different meaning in light of his being a CIA operative, and in light of the historical rift between the two agencies.

You know, I don't post here that often, and I'm feeling I may stop entirely since what you did here seems like the "buddy" network or something.

My general impression of this forum is that there is a lot of posting of information but not a lot of actual exchange of ideas.

Here was an example of an exchange of ideas, and yet you felt the need to re-cap things with Joe's opinion on the subject. That's what's bothering me.

Heather,

Let's exchange some ideas. One idea could be that your post was only part of what c.a. posted in which he continues the idea that "Fear sells the programing.".

You seem to want to emphasize the feud between the CIA and the FBI which is not irrelevant but still is only part of their history and may or may not be quite the same today.

You admit that it is:

the "insider's" drama I'm speculating about.

You did read the post by H2O that gives the Cs clue about Assange:

Q: (L) What I mean is, is he consciously an agent?

A: To some extent, yes. But remember programming of both the human and 4D varieties.

Q: (Perceval) Is it true that he had that meeting with the Israelis to agree that he would not release damaging documents about them?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And what is the objective of this Sideshow?

A: You guessed it this afternoon; preparation to accept global control. Or so it is planned.

You replied "What a handy little piece of the C's archive -- thanks, H20".

With that "handy little piece of the C's archive" you still seem to think your "speculation" is spot on and being ignored. What if it is just that others don't agree to the extent you do. I think it was an interesting "piece" of history that you shared about the CIA and FBI rivalry when Hoover was head of the FBI but even that may not be totally accurate for the past or the present.

We all speculate and try to fit the pieces together which seems like a reasonable approach and this forum is more "open" to that than many OSIT. We are all learning together.

Commenting about a thread you started "Are Julian Assange and Edward Snowden MKUltra products?"

In that thread you posted:

Without having to research the subject too deeply I concluded a long time ago that Snowden is nothing more than an agent, but this last video deepens my understanding of just how that plays out in terms of mass perception.

Sometimes we just need to keep researching "deeply". Even then we may not find the answers we are looking for.

Sometimes we just get it wrong as you mentioned:

At the end of the post -- and on another topic entirely -- I speculate as to whether Dick Cheney might run for president in the final hour (!) So, you see, I'm certainly not always right! Still, sometimes it's useful to share one's speculations since it can lead to some good re-evaluation.

What if Assange is NOT a CIA agent? What if he is just a vector that is being used sometimes knowingly (as meeting with the Israelies) and at other times unknowingly?

What if c.a. is not ignoring your post but agrees with part of it? And what a terrible concept that forum members would actually agree with each other and look like "buddies" heaven forbid.

 

[Laura]

I think that Heather may not exactly understand what we mean when we say "agent". It does NOT necessarily mean a fully conscious, bought and paid for worker for a certain faction. When we say "agent" we mean it in the simplest terms: the means by which something is accomplished.

For example, you, Heather, are an agent of a somewhat black and white view of things, and certainly fully convinced of your own rightness.

In the case of Assange, he appears to have some "agent qualities" but those could be simply his own programming/belief systems as it seems to be in your case (unless, of course, you are a REAL PAID AGENT/EMPLOYEE of some agency). And it is also true that an agent of any kind can "turn" because they learn more, see more. I actually think that Assange has learned a LOT in the past 5 years or so and I notice his views seem to be maturing.

 

[Heather]

<snip>

c.a., why did you re-post Joe's comments, which don't address the later part of the conversation on that matter?

I would add that Assange's comments (which are what I was originally addressing) are at the very least lacking, if not embarrassingly simplistic (I still hold to that) since they reduce the issue of terror in this country to the needs and exploits of a single agency as if that is THE explanation for domestic terror. Of course, 9/11 largely bypassed that very agency so even on that point he's on shaky ground.

As to the workings of the FBI, while it's all very interesting it's an aside to the points I was making about Assange's comments, which take on a somewhat different meaning in light of his being a CIA operative, and in light of the historical rift between the two agencies.

You know, I don't post here that often, and I'm feeling I may stop entirely since what you did here seems like the "buddy" network or something.

My general impression of this forum is that there is a lot of posting of information but not a lot of actual exchange of ideas.

Here was an example of an exchange of ideas, and yet you felt the need to re-cap things with Joe's opinion on the subject. That's what's bothering me.

Heather,

Let's exchange some ideas. One idea could be that your post was only part of what c.a. posted in which he continues the idea that "Fear sells the programing.".

You seem to want to emphasize the feud between the CIA and the FBI which is not irrelevant but still is only part of their history and may or may not be quite the same today.

You admit that it is:

the "insider's" drama I'm speculating about.

You did read the post by H2O that gives the Cs clue about Assange:

Q: (L) What I mean is, is he consciously an agent?

A: To some extent, yes. But remember programming of both the human and 4D varieties.

Q: (Perceval) Is it true that he had that meeting with the Israelis to agree that he would not release damaging documents about them?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And what is the objective of this Sideshow?

A: You guessed it this afternoon; preparation to accept global control. Or so it is planned.

You replied "What a handy little piece of the C's archive -- thanks, H20".

With that "handy little piece of the C's archive" you still seem to think your "speculation" is spot on and being ignored. What if it is just that others don't agree to the extent you do. I think it was an interesting "piece" of history that you shared about the CIA and FBI rivalry when Hoover was head of the FBI but even that may not be totally accurate for the past or the present.

We all speculate and try to fit the pieces together which seems like a reasonable approach and this forum is more "open" to that than many OSIT. We are all learning together.

Commenting about a thread you started "Are Julian Assange and Edward Snowden MKUltra products?"

In that thread you posted:

Without having to research the subject too deeply I concluded a long time ago that Snowden is nothing more than an agent, but this last video deepens my understanding of just how that plays out in terms of mass perception.

Sometimes we just need to keep researching "deeply". Even then we may not find the answers we are looking for.

Sometimes we just get it wrong as you mentioned:

At the end of the post -- and on another topic entirely -- I speculate as to whether Dick Cheney might run for president in the final hour (!) So, you see, I'm certainly not always right! Still, sometimes it's useful to share one's speculations since it can lead to some good re-evaluation.

What if Assange is NOT a CIA agent? What if he is just a vector that is being used sometimes knowingly (as meeting with the Israelies) and at other times unknowingly?

What if c.a. is not ignoring your post but agrees with part of it? And what a terrible concept that forum members would actually agree with each other and look like "buddies" heaven forbid.

Hi goyacobol.

Just to be clear, I didn't start the post on Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. I merely contributed to it.

Also, the reason I'm upset is that there was a decent exchange of ideas going on, and c.a.'s post re-wound the clock on that, seemingly to give Joe the final word. If I'm misunderstanding his intentions then perhaps he can clear that up.

As to the rest of your post, it's not at all a sincere exchange of ideas. It's condescending (with all that highlighting 'n such).

Also, why do you say the feud between the two agencies is not at all relevant? In the terms I was discussing it, it is very much relevant.

With that "handy little piece of the C's archive" you still seem to think your "speculation" is spot on and being ignored. What if it is just that others don't agree to the extent you do. I think it was an interesting "piece" of history that you shared about the CIA and FBI rivalry when Hoover was head of the FBI but even that may not be totally accurate for the past or the present.

What do you mean "I seem to think my speculation is spot on and being ignored?"

It's hard to even have this conversation since you are putting words in my mouth and ideas in my head that were never there.

My point was, there was a whole conversation going on, the evolving of which I felt to be deliberately preempted.

Also, when you say regarding Hoover and the CIA - FBI rivalry that "even that may not be totally accurate for the past or the present" -- can we know if anything is "totally accurate?" What exactly is your point?

I feel you are being argumentative, and not sincerely engaged in an exchange of ideas. In contrast I actually was attempting to do that. So was Joe and others.

In any case, I do sometimes feel to be speaking Greek. Perhaps it's to do with how my mind works, and the things I'm drawn to think about. I think it should be a good thing to have people with slightly different perspectives bring that to the table -- not in an argumentative way. I wasn't being argumentative. I was just putting together my thoughts based on my past research and how Assange's remarks struck me when reading them.

By the way, you also misunderstood my "buddy" comment. I have no problem with camaraderie, and could use some myself right about now (!)

Hi Laura, I just saw your post and will respond once I've read it.

 

[goyacobol]

Heather,

I missed the originator of the thread. I had to look for it since there was no link given.

can we know if anything is "totally accurate?" What exactly is your point?

Actually, that's all I am saying too.

Hopefully, we can all dig deeper and learn more.

 

[Joe]

Actually, do you think that Assange isn't an agent? Just curious.

I think there's no way of knowing for sure, but I can't recall a CIA agent who willingly spent 6 years imprisoned as part of an operation just to fool the public. I think they have easier ways to do that. So I don't think it's as simple as 'he's an agent or he isn't'. I don't think he is a conscious agent, but in his line of work, you can be used by forces more powerful than you that play you for a fool and you're none the wiser.

 

[Joe]

The FBI seems to be falling behind while trying to play catch-up on this Las Vegas thing. The FBI manager in Las Vegas is named Aaron Rouse, and he was recently seen standing next to the county sheriff at a news conference, silent but appearing very uncomfortable. (His father in law is John Podesta, who was Killary Clinton's campaign manager last year.)

Megan Podesta's husband's name is Gordon Rouse, Not Aaron Rouse.

 

[Joe]

I would add that Assange's comments (which are what I was originally addressing) are at the very least lacking, if not embarrassingly simplistic (I still hold to that) since they reduce the issue of terror in this country to the needs and exploits of a single agency as if that is THE explanation for domestic terror. Of course, 9/11 largely bypassed that very agency so even on that point he's on shaky ground.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions here and inferring WAY too much from a simple statement by Assange. Assange is quoted in this thread as saying:

“Almost all ‘terror’ plots are created by the FBI as part of its business model,”

As a statement, that is objectively true. By making that statement Assange did not "reduce the issue of terror in this country to the needs and exploits of a single agency" that is what YOU are reading in to his statement, and you have to do a lot of assuming to come to that conclusion. To know his take on this matter, you would have to ask Assange if he thinks that the creation of terror plots by the FBI is the be all and end all of terrorism in the USA or the singular function of the FBI, because he certainly did not say that in, nor can it be inferred from, his short statement.

It's a statement, I might add, that any of us here could make, in fact, I think I have said something similar myself a time or two. Does that mean that I "reduce the issue of terror in this country to the needs and exploits of a single agency"??

 

[Heather]

I think that Heather may not exactly understand what we mean when we say "agent". It does NOT necessarily mean a fully conscious, bought and paid for worker for a certain faction. When we say "agent" we mean it in the simplest terms: the means by which something is accomplished.

For example, you, Heather, are an agent of a somewhat black and white view of things, and certainly fully convinced of your own rightness.

In the case of Assange, he appears to have some "agent qualities" but those could be simply his own programming/belief systems as it seems to be in your case (unless, of course, you are a REAL PAID AGENT/EMPLOYEE of some agency). And it is also true that an agent of any kind can "turn" because they learn more, see more. I actually think that Assange has learned a LOT in the past 5 years or so and I notice his views seem to be maturing.

Okay, now I feel entirely misunderstood, so this really isn't my day (!)

I am not at all a black and white thinking person! Quite the opposite! Sometimes I wish I were, since things would be a lot easier for me then!

I was attempting to stay the course with the points I was making. So, you seem to be picking up on my determination to do that, and not the nature of the points themselves, which I believe to have more nuance than that. Anyway, I'm sorry that that determination appears so black and white to you. (To the extreme, it seems.) Then again, when one is debating an issue one tries to be concise, which might also come across that way.

Oh, hell, I guess I should just start using emoticons (!) As a writer, I don't, since somehow I feel it's "cheating." But maybe I'm just further setting myself up to be misunderstood.

Anyway, I do understand the different ways Assange could be an agent. I would have to look into this further, but I always felt he'd "taken the deal" or was pressured to. Meaning he's largely a conscious one. That there would be unconscious or 4D forces working on him as well would also stand to reason.

Actually, I think this whole conversation does highlight something, and that's the quality of the sources we're referring to, and how that colors the source's information. That's what I was attempting to discuss.

As for me, I've been here a long time, and whether it's apparent to you or not, Laura, I have been earnest and sincere, and hopefully thought provoking in a good sense.

Anyway, I'm not sure how to end this. I mean, you're not exactly rolling out the red carpet here, so I guess I'm going to be feeling pretty bad about things for a while. I have that awful "misunderstood" feeling.

Joe, I see you've made some comments, but I'm not sure when/if I'll get to them. It's not just that I'm a bit wrung out at this point. It's that I have other pressing matters I need to attend to. I really didn't have this time I've taken today with this, so now I'm completely behind with things (!)

Anyway, I've always found you to be on the ground, and good to talk to, even if we don't always agree.

Heather

 

[thorbiorn]

Is it possible - McCarran International Airport and specifically, the two fuel tanks were the main targets, with one shooter aiming at the fuel tanks from an elevated position - while a secondary shooter (or more) aimed into the crowd of concert attendees - as a diversionary tactic? The two fuel tanks give the resemblance of the 911 Tower's?

Somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's unlikely that a fuel tank will explode due to bullet impacts as we see in the movies - especially from that distance.

The idea came that there might exist small caliber ammunition with bullets carrying explosive properties. I looked it up and indeed:

[...][True exploding bullets were first described over a century ago and, although not actually in use at that time, were prohibited under the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which states that explosive or inflammable projectiles, with a weight of less than 400 g, should never be used in the time of war. Examples include the Russian 7.62 mm ×54R machine gun ammunition with an internal charge of tetryl and phosphorus, and later handgun cartridges containing Pyrodex charges, with or without mercury additives.2 It should also be noted that individuals can easily obtain instructions for the creation of their own bullets. The most infamous use of such bullets was the attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1981 by John Hinckley, who used “Devastator” bullets (Bingham Limited, USA) composed of a lacquer sealed aluminium tip with a lead azide centre designed to explode on impact. Although frequently referred to in works of fiction, they are rarely encountered in forensic practice, because sales have been restricted following the incident in 1981.
[...]
A footnote on the topic should include the mention of armour piercing incendiary round ammunition used during recent conflicts that possesses explosive points, such as the Raufoss Multipurpose Projectiles (Nammo, Norway; http://www.nammo.com), which are fired from anti-vehicle guns of varying calibre. These are not designed or produced for use against personnel. In fact, the rounds will pass through the body unexploded and are thus unlikely to be present in bodies from military conflicts. As such, it is also argued that they do not contravene the St Petersburg Declaration.[...]

As an example of a bullet that can go through normal welding steel see this _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6gHCNMSbqQ shooting through 1/4 inch steel, albeit around only at 187 meters, but still. The green tip uses normal steel or metal, but what if one made bullets were made with depleted uranium? Maybe there is proof this was not used, but it would work better than a bullet with a steel core: _https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/18/armstrade.kosovo

The average gun owner might not own such ammunition, but that might also be used as evidence that is was not.