Full Disclosure: Evidence Shows Mass Shootings Were Not ‘Lone Wolf’ Attacks
January 4, 2013

Ben Swann’s Full Disclosure looks at eyewitness accounts from the scenes of the Colorado theatre shooting, the Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting, and the Connecticut elementary school shooting.

These accounts indicate that more than one shooter may have been involved in all three shootings.



www.blacklistednews.com/Full_Disclosure%...23415/0/0/0/Y/M.html


I'm curious to know what reason/s people attribute to the authorities apparent determination to have us believe that in each of these cases, a sole nutter was responsible, despite much evidence to the contrary.

There was talk of a second gunman at Virginia tech and reports of a third or fourth at Columbine. I think there is a possibility that there were others involved in one, some or even all of these events but there are also other explanations. Take Columbine as a good example. I have been a strong supporter of the third shooter theory in the past. People interviewed on TV claimed to see a third gunmen. There is however another side to this. People could have seen a third shooter or they could have been confused and thought they saw one.

Joe stare (Sp?) was named in conspiracy literature around Columbine as one of the other shooters based on the information in the witness testimonies. Sometime after Columbine he committed suicide. His sister to this day or until recently at least goes on a famous Columbine forum insisting that he had nothing to do with it. This is despite his links to the "trench coat mafia". Of course a conspiracy mind can say his suicide was because of guilt as a shooter but there are I imagine plenty of other possible reasons he might kill himself.


If there is a cover up of a third shooter or fourth shooter in any of these events we need to ask ourselves why there might be a reason to do this.
The Columbine conspiracy theory is that Eric and Dylan were murdered (officially it was suicide) to avoid them talking, presumably once mind control wears off or something. The question I have though is that if somebody orchestrated Columbine or Sandy Hook etc all then why not just say a third shooter was there and frame somebody else or kill A third shooter or just lie and say yes all 2 or 3 or four were killed?

Now there was loads of information released regarding Columbine. There is a file that goes around Columbine forums known as the 11k which could keep you busy for a long time. My wife is something of an expert. She has read virtually every piece of information out there on Columbine, enough to argue with the likes of Dave Cullen's famous book. Now with all that information released Columbine researchers/fan girls etc still yell and complain about the FBI not releasing the infamous basement tapes.( videos Eric and Dylan left behind recorded in a basement).

Think about Columbine as if it was just a school shooting with no mystery or question. Would you think it would be smart to release tapes made by killers? Give them even more fame? Make them even bigger murder stars. P

Gilly wrote:
Watching footy so no comment on the vid as yet.

A group of people suggests an ill within society, a lone nutter is easier dismissed as just that 'a lone nutter'.

Gilly wrote:
Ah, good old security camera footage not being released. I think I've heard that somewhere before.

oioioi wrote:
Makes for a good news story as well.

Thanks for your observations.

I'll give my opinion when I've seen a few more of yours.

I-baster, while your inclusion of the Columbine massacre is relevant, I won't be addressing that, purely because it's so long since I read about it that my memory of the fine-details is fuzzy. There's sufficient with the 3 cases in the vid to be going on with though.

Gilly wrote:
If there is some kind of nefarious goings on and tighter gun laws is the aim then it doesn't make a great deal of sense as the guns aren't just going to disappear. I read a report about a DNA database being set up to keep a register of gun owners and if that is about stopping more shootings then that won't work either. Is it always the gun owner that goes on a spree?

It's a head banger all right.

I think Columbine has a lot to do with the recent shootings simply by how they are handled. Columbine wasn't even a shooting primarily but a failed bomb plot that failed but we have access to so much information about Columbine and you really can spend months reading and viewing evidence. They got on Time magazine. That photo was everywhere. Parents of victims and parents in general found this to be in poor taste and media were criticized for the platform given to the killers. Now we as arm chair researchers expect that level of disclosure for every big event. I have seen people comment on you tube videos demanding photos of dead kids. Now I remember a world where people would be outraged if a newspaper were to publish such photos because let's face it when is that reasonable? You don't read about people dying in horrible ways and demand photos, imagine if every news story were that way. I know news coverage of war or famine often starts off with a warning and there is good reason to show people the horror of that but imagine if your child were killed horribly. Would you really want there lifeless bloody mess of a body all over TV?

I appreciate your views on that, but please will you try not to guide this thread off topic, I-baster.

What is the topic exactly? I thought I was on topic.

i-baster wrote:
As per the OP, it's about the detail in the vid which identifies the likelihood of there having been more than one shooter involved in each of those 3 cases outlined, and asks the question, why do people think the authorities might want people to believe each was a 'lone wolf' attack.

So why are other such events not totally on topic if they are similar in anyway? After all the three events you talk about are fairly different in various ways. I even explained why I thought other shootings were on topic.

I'm not having a go at you, I-baster. You're just steering it towards Columbine (which your wife is an expert on) and quite understandably raising points about other, connected things. Nothing wrong with that, & I'm not usually remotely bothered about things going off topic. I just wanted this particular thread to be specifically about what it says in the OP, that's all.

tbh i think the guy in the video is worse than the shooter, he's like some parasite extracting the last bit of interest he can get from these mass murders, some rabid vulture picking the carcass of Sandy Hook for something to raise his own profile, he offers nothing new, nothing surprising, nothing radical, just some hearsay and supposition in a slick presentation.

He probably thinks he's doing something good aswell. utter fool.

IMO that Ben Swann guy's a fucking disease with legs and a good production team.

i just seen he's on a Channel called Fox19 is that the same Fox as owned by Rupert Murdoch?
Opportunist scum.

Guevarista wrote:
Well that's your personal opinion on the presenter out the way...

From what I can ascertain, Swann works for ' WXIX Fox 19' in Cincinnati, a locally owned Fox affiliated channel, and hence his employer isn't answerable to Murdoch. That's why he's been able to put together, for example, a video criticising Fox News. I could link it for you, but it would be taking us off topic, and after all, if you're going to make such comments it should probably be based on your research on the matter.

It's curious that you should choose to refer to eye-witness statements from victims, and film footage showing a person running from the scene of the Sandy Hook shooting as 'hearsay and supposition'.

And the question posed in the OP Guevarista?

Guevarista wrote:
I cant claim to know what it is like to be shot, but funnily enough my instincts tell me id rather listen to some guy talking, than get shot.

Maybe im in the minority though?

Firstly I find it odd to lump all of these events together, they are all shootings and all mass killings but they have lots of differences. If we are just focusing on the reports of second gunmen then important things are ignored.

One thing we hopefully can all agree on is that a shooting incident in a temple,school or cinema is a very unusual event to go through, very traumatic to say the least. So relying solely on witnesses and in some cases bystanders is perhaps a bad idea. In such events people freeze or react in ways they would not expect.
I have heard before how descriptions often vary quite drastically in studies.

Now with Aurora none of those witnesses seems to claim seeing a second guy. People might perceive something coming from a certain direction but that doesn't mean it did.

Some of these interviews.were right after the event or even when the event was still going on. It is not always certain what is happening until it has happened. Hard to imagine the confusion but people make mistakes under normal conditions. Also a bunch of people say he got a phone call, I had heard he pretended to get a phone call. He went out the fire escape and let himself back in. People maybe assume he had help. Surely people were trying not to watch this guy if they paid to see Batman and it was dark too.

As for the Temple the one witness is telling you what he heard. Also the event was still going on. Hard to say other than that.

Sandy Hook I covered before but the guy arrested was obviously not a shooter if they let him go. If the other guy was a shooter then maybe the police either didn't know that or they did and didn't want to release the information. may be he was picked up later. Maybe he was accounted for, maybe he was security or a cop. So many possible answers. At that point police probably detain a bunch of people as suspects or witnesses.


As for demanding cctv that is not the role of law enforcement. They don't have to prove what happened to us. In the cases where the shooters are alive the cases will go to trial.

i-baster wrote:
There are other threads for you discuss other aspects of each of those cases - feel free to not ignore them on those, I-baster. As there's a heap of info & disinfo doing the rounds on them, I wish to look at this particular aspect without diversion in 100 directions, wich is why I set up this thread.
i-baster wrote:
So they in your opinion, eye-witnesses should be discredited on the grounds that they're confused. Gotchya. There wasn't just one witness in the temple case btw. It refers to witnesses, plural.
i-baster wrote:
Why would they fail to acknowledge his presence, yet not hush up detainment of others? I doubt it was a cop, rushing form the crime scene before the other police got there?
i-baster wrote:
Law enforcement doesn't seem too reticent to provide footage, or at least release facts regarding footage content when it suits them, which is, I suppose, why it seems odd.