PDA

View Full Version : Revisiting Columbine. Anatomy of a School Shooting.


35Pete
November 28th, 2007, 6:35:42 PM
An interesting perspective into the omissions, half-truths, and distortions produced by the mainstream media.

Anatomy of a School Shooting




Dave McGowan
May 2000
(The following article appears in the book You Are Being Lied To)

On May 15, 2000, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office released the official report on the shooting deaths of fifteen people at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Not surprisingly, the report confirmed the version of events that has been reported ad naseum for the last year by the U.S. press.

The official story (for those who are just emerging from a coma or for some other reason inexplicably missed the saturation coverage of this event) goes something like this: two disaffected teenagers named Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, acting alone with no assistance in the planning or execution of this crime, entered Columbine High on the morning of April 20, 1999, armed to the teeth, and promptly began shooting up the place, leaving twelve fellow students and one teacher dead before turning their guns on themselves.

As with all the 'big stories' flogged by the American media, the various avenues of the U.S. press quickly fell in line behind this story, deftly avoiding any evidence that would tend to cast doubt on the official version of events. So while there has been some minor quibbling over insignificant details of the story (i.e. did the gunmen target athletes, blacks and/or Christians?), few serious journalists have questioned the central thesis that the carnage at Columbine High that day was the work of Harris and Klebold acting alone.

Yet strangely enough, the press representatives closest to the scene, both socially and geographically, have reported facts about the case that don't appear to fit into the official scenario. Both the Denver Post and the Denver Rocky Mountain News, the newspapers serving the greater Denver area (of which Littleton is a part), have provided coverage which has been consistently ignored by the media in general.

For the benefit of those living outside the Denver area, presented here you will find a few facts about the tragedy at Columbine of which you may be unaware and which tend to be at odds with the official report. Take, for example, the issue of how long the rampage lasted. One reporter on the scene wrote that:

"The bloody rampage spanned four hours ... By 3:45 p.m., shots still rang out inside the school (as) more than 200 law enforcement officers and four SWAT teams tried to stop the gunmen and evacuate wounded high school students…." (Denver Post, April 21, 1999). Another quoted Jefferson County Sheriff John Stone, one of the first officials on the scene, as saying: "We had initial people there right away, but we couldn't get in. We were way outgunned" (Associated Press, April 20, 1999).

Echoing this sentiment was Terry Manwaring, commander of the Jefferson County SWAT team, who claimed: "I just knew the killers were armed and were better equipped than we were." The SWAT teams, therefore, made no effort to confront the killers (Playboy, March 2000).

The official report, meanwhile, contends that the "lunchtime rampage ... ended after 45 minutes" and that "Sometime after noon the killers stood near the library windows and turned their guns on themselves" (Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2000). Strange then that there would be shots ringing out some three-and-a-half hours later.

Stranger still is the notion that two teenagers with limited firearms training and armed only with shotguns and 9mm handguns would be able to outgun a veritable army of law enforcement officers, many with advanced paramilitary training and weapons. And you would think that the fact that the two were already dead would at least have slowed them down a bit.

Then there is the issue of the bombs strategically placed throughout the school prior to the shootings. Some of those involved in the investigation of the case were openly skeptical of the notion that the two boys could have transported and placed all the explosive devices that were found. One report noted that:

"The 20-pound bomb found inside the Columbine High School kitchen suggests the two teenage suspects were aided by others in their plot to blow up the school, police said Thursday. Packed inside a duffle bag with a wired gasoline can - and surrounded with nails and BBs for maximum killing power - the propane barbecue tank-bomb points to a wider conspiracy, police said." (Denver Post, April 23, 1999).

Likewise, Jefferson County District Attorney Dave Thomas was quoted as saying: "It is obvious to me that they couldn't have carried them all in at the same time, plus the four weapons" (Denver Post, May 5, 1999). And sheriff department spokesman Steve Davis added that: "From day one we've always felt like there was a very good possibility that more people were involved" (Associated Press, May 14, 1999).

Ultimately recovered, according to the final report, were "95 homemade explosive devices," including two bombs fashioned from propane cylinders (Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2000). Picture, if you will, two teenagers strolling unnoticed into a high school, each carrying two firearms, a propane tank bomb and some fifty other explosive devices, as well as an abundant supply of ammunition.

Picture them then proceeding to carefully place each of these 95 bombs throughout the school, still unnoticed and undisturbed by faculty or other students. Nothing unusual about that. Just an average day at an American high school. Yet the possibility is clearly there that there may have been more people involved. Many of the witnesses, at any rate, clearly think so.

"Jefferson County Sheriff John P. Stone raised the specter of a third Columbine High gunman anew Tuesday, saying some students have named another suspect. ‘There was quite possibly one other person shooting,’ Stone said. ‘We do have witness statements.’ The statements came from ‘students who were witnesses at the scene when this was going down,’ and they agreed on the third person's identity, he said" (Denver Post, May 5, 1999).

In fact, one initial report from Littleton began: "Three young men in fatigues and black trench coats opened fire at a suburban Denver high school Tuesday...," and also noted that a "third young man was led away from the school in handcuffs more than four hours after the attack, and student Chris Wisher said: 'He's one of the ones who shot at us'" (Associated Press, April 20, 1999). This third suspect has, oddly enough, never been identified or even mentioned again by the press.

In a televised interview, the mother of a student who had escaped the attack quoted her daughter as saying that she "looked up and saw a gunman in a black trench coat with a very huge gun ... He had dark brown hair, thick bushy eyebrows and was very ugly," a description that clearly did not fit either Harris or Klebold. When asked if the gunman was a student, the mother replied that: "She didn't recognize him as a student. No. Not as a student" (KUSA-TV, April 20, 1999; transcript posted on The Konformist)

Even more disturbing is a report that: "Dozens of witnesses interviewed by police after the crime claimed that from five to eight individuals participated in the shooting that left 15 people dead, including the killers, and more than 20 injured" (Denver Rocky Mountain News, July 29, 1999). Five to eight individuals? Dozens of witnesses? Something definitely seems to be a bit peculiar here.

It is certainly understandable that some witnesses could have trouble recalling some of the details of the attack. In a situation of this nature, extreme levels of fear and confusion can cloud one's recollection. In the ensuing chaos, some witnesses could easily be confused about the number of shooters.

Nevertheless, there is a considerable difference between two gunmen and eight gunmen - the latter being pretty much a small army. Is it really possible for dozens of eyewitnesses to be mistaken about the additional three to six gunmen? This issue could possibly be cleared up by examining the autopsy reports of the various victims. Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen. It seems that:

"The autopsy reports on the Columbine High School victims will not be released to the public, a Jefferson County judge ruled Friday ... Chief District Judge Henry E. Nieto rejected arguments by 18 news organizations ... The coroner's office, district attorney and the family of killer Dylan Klebold joined the 12 families in getting the documents sealed" (Denver Post, May 29, 1999).

Another question that could be cleared up by the release of the autopsy reports is the alleged suicides of the two shooters, seeing as how "Klebold was shot once in the left side of the head, apparently by one of two 9 mm weapons ... the wound's location puzzles some investigators. They believe that if the right-handed Klebold had shot himself, the wound should have been on the other side" (Denver Rocky Mountain News, June 13, 1999).

Very clever, those investigators. Clever enough, in fact, to come up with an explanation for this anomaly. Some authorities now believe (or claim to anyway) that Harris shot Klebold before shooting himself. It seems just as likely, however, that a third party shot Klebold, and perhaps Harris as well.

Moving on to what is perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the case, we come now to the infamous videotape. You know, the one that was made in 1997, two years before the actual assault, and which "depicts gun-toting, trench coat-wearing students moving through Columbine's halls and ends with a special-effects explosion of the school." The one that was co-produced by "the son of the FBI's lead agent in the investigation" (Associated Press, May 8, 1999).

There's certainly nothing unusual about that. It's actually standard FBI procedure to have your son shoot a training film for a high school slaughter a couple of years beforehand. It's also standard procedure to have your other son on hand to eyewitness the crime. Which is why "(Dwayne Fuselier's) youngest son, Brian, was in the school cafeteria at the time and managed to escape after seeing one of the bombs explode" (Denver Post, May 13, 1999).

It should also be noted that another "student who helped in the production of the film (was) Brooks Brown…" (Associated Press, May 8, 1999). For those not fortunate enough to be home on the day of the shooting watching the live cable coverage, Brooks Brown was the student enthusiastically granting interviews to anyone who would stick a microphone in his face.

He claimed to have encountered Harris and Klebold as they were approaching the school, and to have been warned away by the pair from entering the campus that day. According to his story, he heeded the warning and was therefore not present during the shooting spree. Fair enough, but let's try to put these additional pieces of the puzzle together.

First, we have the son of the lead investigator, who was obviously a member of the so-called Trenchcoat Mafia, involved in the filming of a pre-enactment of the crime. Then we have a second son of the lead investigator being at ground zero of the rampage. And finally we have a close associate of both the Fuselier brothers and of Harris and Klebold (and a co-filmmaker) being in the company of the shooters immediately before they entered the school, this by his own admission.

And yet, strangely enough, none of them was connected in any way to the commission of this crime, according to official reports. Not even Brooks Brown, who should have, if nothing else, noticed that the pair had some unusually large bulges under their trench coats on this particular day. At the very least, one would think that there might be just a little bit of a conflict of interest for the FBI's lead investigator.

This does not appear to be the case, however, as "FBI spokesman Gary Gomez said there was ‘absolutely no discussion’ of reassigning Fuselier, 51, a psychologist, in the wake of the disclosures in Friday's Denver Rocky Mountain News. ‘There is no conflict of interest,’ Gomez said" (Denver Rocky Mountain News, May 8, 1999). And as no less an authority than Attorney General Janet Reno has stated: "It has been a textbook case of how to conduct an investigation, of how to do it the right way" (Denver Post, April 23, 1999).

So there you have it. There was no conspiracy, there were no accomplices. It was, as always, the work of a lone gunman (OK, two lone gunmen in this case). But if there were a wider conspiracy, you may wonder, what would motivate such an act? What reason could there be for sacrificing fourteen young lives?
Many right-wingers would have you believe that such acts are orchestrated - or at the very least rather cynically exploited - as a pretext for passing further gun-control legislation. The government wants to scare the people into giving up their right to bear arms, or so the thinking goes. And there is reason to believe that this could well be a goal.

It is not, however, the only - or even the primary - goal, but rather a secondary one at best. The true goal is to further traumatize and brutalize the American people. This has in fact been a primary goal of the state for quite some time, dating back at least to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on that fateful day in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

The strategy is now (as it was then) to inflict blunt force trauma on all of American society, and by doing so to destroy any remaining sense of community and instill in the people deep feelings of fear and distrust, of hopelessness and despair, of isolation and powerlessness. And the results have been, it should be stated, rather spectacular.

With each school shooting, and each act of 'domestic terrorism,' the social fabric of the country is ripped further asunder. The social contracts that bound us together as a people with common goals, common dreams, and common aspirations have been shattered. We have been reduced to a nation of frightened and disempowered individuals, each existing in our own little sphere of isolation and fear.

And at the same time, we have been desensitized to ever rising levels of violence in society. This is true of both interpersonal violence as well as violence by the state, in the form of judicial executions, spiraling levels of police violence, and the increased militarization of foreign policy and of America's borders.

We have become, in the words of the late George Orwell, a society in which "the prevailing mental condition [is] controlled insanity." And under these conditions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the American people to fight back against the supreme injustice of 21st century Western society. Which is, of course, precisely the point.

For a fractured and disillusioned people, unable to find common cause, do not represent a threat to the rapidly encroaching system of global fascism. And a population blinded by fear will ultimately turn to 'Big Brother' to protect them from nonexistent and/or wholly manufactured threats.

As General McArthur stated back in 1957: "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear ... with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it...."

Perhaps this is all just groundless conspiracy theorizing. The possibility does exist that the carnage at Columbine High School unfolded exactly as the official report tells us that it did. And even if that proves not to be the case, there really is no need to worry. It is all just a grand illusion, a choreographed reality. Only the death and suffering are real.

Postscript: As the dust settled over Columbine High, other high-profile shootings would rock the nation: at schools, in the workplace, in a church, and - in Southern California's San Fernando Valley - at a Jewish community center where a gunman quickly identified as Buford Furrow opened fire on August 10, 1999. The man, who later would claim that his intent was to kill as many people as possible, had received extensive firearms and paramilitary training, both from the U.S. military and from militia groups.

Shooting in an enclosed area that was fairly heavily populated, Furrow fired a reported seventy rounds from his assault rifle. By design or act of God, no one was killed and only a handful of people were injured, including three children and a teenager. None of the injuries were life-threatening and all the victims have fully recovered.

With a massive police dragnet descending on the city, Furrow fled, abandoning his rolling arsenal of a vehicle. Not far from the crime scene, he stopped to catch up on some shopping and get a haircut. Along the way, his aim having improved considerably, Furrow killed a postal worker in a hail of gunfire, for no better reason than because he was Asian and therefore "non-white."

At about this same time, Furrow car-jacked a vehicle from an Asian woman. Though this woman - besides being obviously non-white - was now a key witness who could place Furrow at the scene and identify the vehicle he had fled in, she was left shaken but very much alive. Having taken great risks to obtain her vehicle, Furrow promptly abandoned it, choosing instead to take a taxi.

In an unlikely turn of events, this taxi would safely transport Furrow all the way to Las Vegas, Nevada. Having successfully eluded one of the most massive police dragnets in the city's history (which had the appearance of a very well-planned training exercise), and having made it across state lines to relative safety, Furrow proceeded directly to the local FBI office to turn himself in. No word yet as to whether Dwayne Fuselier was flown in to head up the investigation.

Meanwhile, in Littleton, Colorado, the death toll continued to mount. On May 6, 2000, the Los Angeles Times reported that a Columbine High student had been found hanged. His death was ruled a suicide, though "Friends were mystified, saying there were no signs of turmoil in the teenager's life." One noted that he had "talked to him the night before, and it didn't seem like anything was wrong."

The young man had been a witness to the shooting death of teacher Dave Sanders. His was the fourth violent death surrounding Columbine High in just over a year since the shootings, bringing the body count to nineteen. Very little information was released concerning this most recent death, with the Coroner noting only that: "Some things should remain confidential to the family." (Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2000)

On February 14, 2000, two fellow Columbine students were shot to death in a sandwich shop just a few blocks from the school. The shootings, which lacked any clear motive, have yet to be explained. In yet another incident, the mother of a student who was shot and survived "walked into a pawnshop in October, asked to see a gun, loaded it and shot herself to death." (Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2000)

Unexplained was why the shopkeeper would have supplied her with the ammunition for the gun. Perhaps she brought her own, though if she had access to ammunition, chances are that she would also have had access to a gun. Such are the mysteries surrounding the still rising death toll in Littleton, Colorado.

<a href="http://judicial-inc.biz/Col_Dwayne_Fuselier.htm"><b>A Website That Discusses Columbine</b></a>

Gibby
November 29th, 2007, 1:30:45 AM
:popcorn:

Now pete my boy where does it stop you know as well as I that the NRA and violent video game makers supplied Dylan and and the other looney with the ammo and the training and if guns and games were outlawed then they wouldn't do the crime.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 6:58:03 AM
:popcorn:

Now pete my boy where does it stop you know as well as I that the NRA and violent video game makers supplied Dylan and and the other looney with the ammo and the training and if guns and games were outlawed then they wouldn't do the crime.

Did you read the article Gibby? It'll leave you a little startled. That's for sure.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 8:43:31 AM
OK, Pete, What do you want to talk about?

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 9:27:24 AM
OK, Pete, What do you want to talk about?

Why were the Denver papers reporting information that the major networks found unworthy to discuss? Are the "big leaguers" better? LOL

Lucidvizion
November 29th, 2007, 9:45:45 AM
It's amazing that all of that went down the memory hole.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 9:57:38 AM
It's amazing that all of that went down the memory hole.

Read the article and what the major media DID NOT report. It's quite interesting. A Denver paper did and CNN, ABC, NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and USA TODAY all COLLECTIVELY came to the conclusion that none of the other reports were worth discussing. Those damn greedy media guys didn't want to scoop anyone!! How bout' dat?

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 10:09:31 AM
Why were the Denver papers reporting information that the major networks found unworthy to discuss? Are the "big leaguers" better? LOL

I have no idea why.

Lucidvizion
November 29th, 2007, 10:17:56 AM
Read the article and what the major media DID NOT report. It's quite interesting. A Denver paper did and CNN, ABC, NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and USA TODAY all COLLECTIVELY came to the conclusion that none of the other reports were worth discussing. Those damn greedy media guys didn't want to scoop anyone!! How bout' dat?

I read the whole thing and then skimmed over some of the other stuff on the link you posted.

At some points it seemed like they were grasping at straws (like which side of the head the suicide headshots were... if i had a shotgun and a 9, the 9 would be in my left hand so it would make sense the shot entered the left side), but much of it was pretty inexplicable... two propane tank bombs and fifty other explosive devices? I find it really hard to believe only two people could have done that.

Ru
November 29th, 2007, 10:22:16 AM
Nevermind....sorry

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 10:35:47 AM
I read the whole thing and then skimmed over some of the other stuff on the link you posted.

At some points it seemed like they were grasping at straws (like which side of the head the suicide headshots were... if i had a shotgun and a 9, the 9 would be in my left hand so it would make sense the shot entered the left side), but much of it was pretty inexplicable... two propane tank bombs and fifty other explosive devices? I find it really hard to believe only two people could have done that.

It was 95 bombs. LOL. I think what you see is a bran drain. You look at all the information. Not just some of it. Glad to see that you did. :)

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 12:06:32 PM
I've never read anything about 95 bombs in the school. There were the 2 propane bombs in the cafeteria and they were carrying some pipe bombs in their ammo bags. They also found more propane tanks and gasoline cans in their vehicles.

I also did searches on the evidence and related articles and found nothing about "95 Bombs" anywhere. They are only mentioned in the above article.

They carried the propane bombs into the cafeteria and went back to their cars waiting for detonation, which never came, so they brought their guns and gear into the school and started shooting people. Carrying a sawed off shotgun and a High Point carbine or a shotgun and a Tec-9 along with ammo and pipe bombs is not that difficult.

I think the author is exaggerating to make his conclusion more palatable.

Is there a possibility of accessories or another shooter?

Certainly.

And was there a cover-up by law enforcement?

Yes, there was, but I think it was more to keep them from looking bad because there were complaints made against Harris and Klebold before the massacre and nothing was done.

It was not part of some Orwellian scenario that the author would have you believe.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 12:08:12 PM
I have no idea why.

Pete?

г
November 29th, 2007, 12:25:24 PM
I think the infamous side judge in the Pats game experienced 'bran drain'

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 12:35:54 PM
I did some more research and did find there were more bombs, but they were CO2 bombs.

Empty CO2 cartridges filled will gunpowder and a fuse.

Easily carried in their ammo bag.

г
November 29th, 2007, 12:38:13 PM
A guy at my high school blew off three of his fingers making one of those Co2 bombs. Friggin' idiot...we called him 'stubby' from that point on.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 12:39:00 PM
I did some more research and did find there were more bombs, but they were CO2 bombs.

Empty CO2 cartridges filled will gunpowder and a fuse.

Easily carried in their ammo bag.

But then this makes it sound like the author has an agenda.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 1:02:30 PM
Pete?

Yes?

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 1:02:49 PM
I did some more research and did find there were more bombs, but they were CO2 bombs.

Empty CO2 cartridges filled will gunpowder and a fuse.

Easily carried in their ammo bag.

Can we see that?

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 1:04:44 PM
But then this makes it sound like the author has an agenda.

What an ass. You selectively ask for evidence. Why not ask for moonie's source. I am sure that he has one. I'm not doubting that. But I'd like to see it.

Why do you take some "facts" at face value and demand evidence of, and scrutinize others to death?

My opinion is you've pre-determined this to be crap. Which means that you've closed your mind before the discussion even started.

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 1:05:59 PM
A guy at my high school blew off three of his fingers making one of those Co2 bombs. Friggin' idiot...we called him 'stubby' from that point on.We had this moron up at hunting camp one time. He started making dry ice bombs, whyou empty some soda out of a plastic bottle, put chips of dry ice in it shake it and throw. It takes between 2 and 5 minutes to explode.

This guy gets impatient and walks up to see what's wrong and the thing explodes in his face. He had cuts from the plastic shards and his face looked like a pizza. Lucky he was wearing glasses or he would have been blinded.

Needless to say, he was never invited back.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 1:08:07 PM
What an ass. You selectively ask for evidence. Why not ask for moonie's source. I am sure that he has one. I'm not doubting that. But I'd like to see it.

Why do you take some "facts" at face value and demand evidence of, and scrutinize others to death?

My opinion is you've pre-determined this to be crap. Which means that you've closed your mind before the discussion even started.

I asked you for a response above, and even bumped it, but you have refused to engage me beyond one question.

Can your author suffer from non-agenda syndrome while all those you disdain do not?

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 1:11:16 PM
I asked you for a response above, and even bumped it, but you have refused to engage me beyond one question.

Can your author suffer from non-agenda syndrome while all those you disdain do not?

Hey smartguy. I am at work. (Actually at home now for lunch but returning soon). Is it possible that my posting rate decreases during that period in combination with not undertanding WTF you are asking with the simple question "Pete?".

Christ. You pull this tactic out everytime anEin pounds your argument. He leaves to take care of his lawn, shop, whatever and you accuse him of running away.

I'm going back to work now. I'm not asking your permission to leave the forum.

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 1:13:27 PM
Can we see that?

Bomb Tally:
48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs
27 -- Pipe bombs
11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs
7 -- gas or napalm bombs
2 -- 20 pound propane bombs

http://columbine.free2host.net/weapon.html

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 1:18:52 PM
Hey smartguy. I am at work. (Actually at home now for lunch but returning soon). Is it possible that my posting rate decreases during that period in combination with not undertanding WTF you are asking with the simple question "Pete?".

Christ. You pull this tactic out everytime anEin pounds your argument. He leaves to take care of his lawn, shop, whatever and you accuse him of running away.

I'm going back to work now. I'm not asking your permission to leave the forum.

I bumped my answer to your question.

My follow up post is asking you if that was all you wanted to know.

You asked if I knew why Denver papers reported something CNN did not. I replied that I did not.

Is that all you wanted to know? I mean it could be.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 1:37:10 PM
Bomb Tally:
48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs
27 -- Pipe bombs
11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs
7 -- gas or napalm bombs
2 -- 20 pound propane bombs

http://columbine.free2host.net/weapon.html

You do know that I am not questioning you personally per say. In fact I never denied that you didn't have a source. I don't think you would do that.

So. Indeed. 48 were CO2. That means that 47 were NOT. So, if we divide these equally up into two people what do we get?

24 CO2
27 Pipe
5-6 propane (1.5 gallon)
3-4 gas or napalm
1 20 lb propane.

Moonie. I'm asking you bud to look at this again. Do you see an issue with this?

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 1:56:56 PM
You do know that I am not questioning you personally per say. In fact I never denied that you didn't have a source. I don't think you would do that.

So. Indeed. 48 were CO2. That means that 47 were NOT. So, if we divide these equally up into two people what do we get?

24 CO2
27 Pipe
5-6 propane (1.5 gallon)
3-4 gas or napalm
1 20 lb propane.

Moonie. I'm asking you bud to look at this again. Do you see an issue with this?We already know the two propane bombs (biggest and heaviest) were in the cafeteria. They were taken in in duffle bags and the punks returned to their vehicles. It would depend how big their ammo bags were, but weight wise, carrying 24 CO2 and 13 pipe plus ammo would not be difficult.

The question I still have remaining is about the 1.5 propane and the Anfo (napalm). Were some in the vehicles? That we don't know, although they did throw a molotov cocktail in the school. Maybe that's what they mean by napalm, although a MT and an Anfo bomb are different. Also how big were the cocktails? You can put them in any size glass or plastic container.

I also don't expect web sites or jounalists to know the differences between incindiary devices or even guns for that matter.

I just found some of his assertions were not consistent with the facts and his limited knowledge leads him to draw some dubious conclusions.

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 2:21:19 PM
If this was such a big conspiracy, the perpatrators would definately have used different methods and devices.

I could tell you how the operation should have been done, but I won't.

You don't need to know, but it wouldn't have been that difficult wth 8 people or even 5.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 2:24:27 PM
We already know the two propane bombs (biggest and heaviest) were in the cafeteria. They were taken in in duffle bags and the punks returned to their vehicles. It would depend how big their ammo bags were, but weight wise, carrying 24 CO2 and 13 pipe plus ammo would not be difficult.

The question I still have remaining is about the 1.5 propane and the Anfo (napalm). Were some in the vehicles? That we don't know, although they did throw a molotov cocktail in the school. Maybe that's what they mean by napalm, although a MT and an Anfo bomb are different. Also how big were the cocktails? You can put them in any size glass or plastic container.

I also don't expect web sites or jounalists to know the differences between incindiary devices or even guns for that matter.

I just found some of his assertions were not consistent with the facts and his limited knowledge leads him to draw some dubious conclusions.
Well 1.5 gallons of water weighs 12 lbs. And a 1.5 gallon tank? Well how much would a 1/4 of an inch thick steel gallon jug weigh? 6-7 lbs? So can we assume that the 1.5 gallon weighs that much? One gallon of propane weights 4.2 lbs. And tanks are filled 80%, not 100%. So 4.2*.8*1.5 = 5 lbs. http://www.pmak.org/public/propane_facts.html

That's 15 lbs per tank moonie. 11 of them is 165 lbs NOT including what was used to set them off. So we are to believe that they a.) got the big tanks first, b.) came back and got the pipes, then in one load came back and got the 1.5 propanes, and finally went back and got the CO2s, guns, and ammo. And they placed all this stuff without being noticed? Hmm. I think that's the point that the author is trying to make moonie.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 2:26:01 PM
If this was such a big conspiracy, the perpatrators would definately have used different methods and devices.
I could tell you how the operation should have been done, but I won't.

You don't need to know, but it wouldn't have been that difficult wth 8 people or even 5.

Well. This has no bearing on the discussion. It's based soley on your opinion only. Not trying to be personal. The opinion is worth noting, but doesn't factor into this.

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 2:38:27 PM
Well 1.5 gallons of water weighs 12 lbs. And a 1.5 gallon tank? Well how much would a 1/4 of an inch thick steel gallon jug weigh? 6-7 lbs? So can we assume that the 1.5 gallon weighs that much? One gallon of propane weights 4.2 lbs. And tanks are filled 80%, not 100%. So 4.2*.8*1.5 = 5 lbs. http://www.pmak.org/public/propane_facts.html

That's 15 lbs per tank moonie. 11 of them is 165 lbs NOT including what was used to set them off. So we are to believe that they a.) got the big tanks first, b.) came back and got the pipes, then in one load came back and got the 1.5 propanes, and finally went back and got the CO2s, guns, and ammo. And they placed all this stuff without being noticed? Hmm. I think that's the point that the author is trying to make moonie.Like I said, there were propane tanks that were found in the vehicles. Were they included in that inventory or not?

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 2:42:54 PM
Like I said, there were propane tanks that were found in the vehicles. Were they included in that inventory or not?

You don't find that the mainstream media not reporting any of this to be troubling? I never saw any of this stuff on CNN. They told me a few bombs, some guns, two thugs, and a lot of dead kids. That's about it.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 3:00:44 PM
If this was such a big conspiracy, the perpatrators would definately have used different methods and devices.

I could tell you how the operation should have been done, but I won't.

You don't need to know, but it wouldn't have been that difficult wth 8 people or even 5.

LOL.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 3:02:18 PM
You don't find that the mainstream media not reporting any of this to be troubling? I never saw any of this stuff on CNN. They told me a few bombs, some guns, two thugs, and a lot of dead kids. That's about it.

You consider only TV to be MSM?

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 3:24:04 PM
You consider only TV to be MSM?

No I do not.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 3:26:27 PM
No I do not.

OK. So your own link shows at least two different AP articles as sources, two Denver newspapers and the LA times.

What does that tell YOU?

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 3:35:02 PM
Then there is the issue of the bombs strategically placed throughout the school prior to the shootings. Some of those involved in the investigation of the case were openly skeptical of the notion that the two boys could have transported and placed all the explosive devices that were found. One report noted that:

"The 20-pound bomb found inside the Columbine High School kitchen suggests the two teenage suspects were aided by others in their plot to blow up the school, police said Thursday. Packed inside a duffle bag with a wired gasoline can - and surrounded with nails and BBs for maximum killing power - the propane barbecue tank-bomb points to a wider conspiracy, police said." (Denver Post, April 23, 1999).

Likewise, Jefferson County District Attorney Dave Thomas was quoted as saying: "It is obvious to me that they couldn't have carried them all in at the same time, plus the four weapons" (Denver Post, May 5, 1999). And sheriff department spokesman Steve Davis added that: "From day one we've always felt like there was a very good possibility that more people were involved" (Associated Press, May 14, 1999).

Ultimately recovered, according to the final report, were "95 homemade explosive devices," including two bombs fashioned from propane cylinders (Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2000). Picture, if you will, two teenagers strolling unnoticed into a high school, each carrying two firearms, a propane tank bomb and some fifty other explosive devices, as well as an abundant supply of ammunition.

Picture them then proceeding to carefully place each of these 95 bombs throughout the school, still unnoticed and undisturbed by faculty or other students. Nothing unusual about that. Just an average day at an American high school. Yet the possibility is clearly there that there may have been more people involved. Many of the witnesses, at any rate, clearly think so.

"Jefferson County Sheriff John P. Stone raised the specter of a third Columbine High gunman anew Tuesday, saying some students have named another suspect. ‘There was quite possibly one other person shooting,’ Stone said. ‘We do have witness statements.’ The statements came from ‘students who were witnesses at the scene when this was going down,’ and they agreed on the third person's identity, he said" (Denver Post, May 5, 1999).

In fact, one initial report from Littleton began: "Three young men in fatigues and black trench coats opened fire at a suburban Denver high school Tuesday...," and also noted that a "third young man was led away from the school in handcuffs more than four hours after the attack, and student Chris Wisher said: 'He's one of the ones who shot at us'" (Associated Press, April 20, 1999). This third suspect has, oddly enough, never been identified or even mentioned again by the press.

In a televised interview, the mother of a student who had escaped the attack quoted her daughter as saying that she "looked up and saw a gunman in a black trench coat with a very huge gun ... He had dark brown hair, thick bushy eyebrows and was very ugly," a description that clearly did not fit either Harris or Klebold. When asked if the gunman was a student, the mother replied that: "She didn't recognize him as a student. No. Not as a student" (KUSA-TV, April 20, 1999; transcript posted on The Konformist)


Interesting two AP quotes are in there which does not discount the fact that no mainstream media outlet put together the entire story which might have read "Disturbing Questions Linger in Columbine Shooting". The other's in this sub-clip are local outlets.

What bothers me is that there are a lot of unanswered questions. I mean a lot. And no one here is going to solve it using "brainy reasoning". What it would take is some good old fashioned beat work by investigative reporters.

Such a huge incident in US society and the MSM brushes off a descrepancy infested event with a polished version for the public. It becomes part of the "historical record" with no one bothering to trail the inconsistencies. What's worse is that pre-conceived "everything's all right....there must be a logical explanation....it's all part of life's little inconsistencies" is the suave that soothes. I knew that this was going to get challenged here. It's the nature of the PRS. Just admit that their are unanswered questions and then I can show you more nonsense. But there is no way anyone is going to piece together Columbine on a message board using "deductive reasoning". The point is that the MSM did not tell us everything. And what they filtered they had no right to filter.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 3:35:32 PM
OK. So your own link shows at least two different AP articles as sources, two Denver newspapers and the LA times.

What does that tell YOU?

I just posted below and saw this. See my response. How timely.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 3:37:08 PM
Interesting two AP quotes are in there which does not dicount the fact that no mainstream media outlet put together the entire story which might have read "Disturbing Questions Linger in Columbine Shooting". The other's in this sub-clip are local outlets.

What bothers me is that there are a lot of unanswered questions. I mean a lot. And no one here is going to solve it using "brainy reasoning". What it would take is some good old fashioned beat work by investigative reporters.

Such a huge incident in US society and the MSM brushes off a descrepancy infested event with a polished version for the public. It becomes part of the "historical record" with no one bothering to trail the inconsistencies. What's worse is that pre-conceived "everything's all right....there must be a logical explanation....it's all part of life's little inconsistencies" is the suave that soothes. I knew that this was going to get challenged here. It's the nature of the PRS. Just admit that their are unanswered questions and then I can show you more nonsense. But there is no way anyone is going to piece together Columbine on a message board using "deductive reasoning".

Pete, it is not such a huge incident in US society. It was hugely publicized.

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 3:46:59 PM
LOL.You find that amusing?

Pete believes what this writer says because it fits into his current mindset.

Without much too trouble, considering the author's hypothesis of 5 to 8 people, the school could have been leveled and the death toll catastrophic.

Laugh all you want, but it's not funny.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 3:48:43 PM
You find that amusing?

Pete believes what this writer says because it fits into his current mindset.

Without much too trouble, considering the author's hypothesis of 5 to 8 people, the school could have been leveled and the death toll catastrophic.

Laugh all you want, but it's not funny.

How do you know what I believe? I believe that the writer has demonstrated that the story was not accurately reported.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 3:49:08 PM
You find that amusing?

Pete believes what this writer says because it fits into his current mindset.

Without much too trouble, considering the author's hypothesis of 5 to 8 people, the school could have been leveled and the death toll catastrophic.

Laugh all you want, but it's not funny.

I am laughing that you so easily found information. Pete read some guy and did not even bother to type in to a search engine to see if the guy was blowing smoke up his ass.

I applaud you.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 3:51:57 PM
I am laughing that you so easily found information. Pete read some guy and did not even bother to type in to a search engine to see if the guy was blowing smoke up his ass.

I applaud you.

I am laughing at you for thinking that his information refutes the point. It does not. Not by any means. If anything it strenghens the argument. Do some math on the weight and volume of those devices Mr.Cognitive Dissonance. Think about it.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 3:52:57 PM
I am laughing at you for thinking that his information refutes the point. It does not. Not by any means.

It does not refute anything.

You just posted that we have no idea what you think. Please tell us.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 3:55:18 PM
It does not refute anything.

You just posted that we have no idea what you think. Please tell us.

I did. God. You're a funny guy. You couldn't take 2 seconds to see what I wrote? LMAO.

Green Lantern
November 29th, 2007, 4:12:29 PM
I did. God. You're a funny guy. You couldn't take 2 seconds to see what I wrote? LMAO.

"The point is that the MSM did not tell us everything."

"And what they filtered they had no right to filter."

The first point is too obvious as to warrant comment. The second point is your opinion since they have no burden to deliver any sort of information to you in any particular way.

But the point that always comes under dispute is this: what do you think any of this means?

pmoon6
November 29th, 2007, 4:41:03 PM
How do you know what I believe? I believe that the writer has demonstrated that the story was not accurately reported.The writer is full of shit.

He makes assumptions, distorts facts and doesn't know what he is talking about.

He's drawing conclusions based on what he thinks happened.

Just as you told me about my post.

It's only my opinion so it don't count.

35Pete
November 29th, 2007, 6:02:54 PM
The writer is full of shit.

He makes assumptions, distorts facts and doesn't know what he is talking about.

He's drawing conclusions based on what he thinks happened.

Just as you told me about my post.

It's only my opinion so it don't count.

You still haven't answered the question about all those big bombs. How much does a pipe bomb weigh and what volume would that many occupy? Just asking you to think about it Moonie. Don't get distracted here. You brought up the bombs. I am willing to continue with this.

We can find out even more accurately how much those 1.5 gallon propane bombs weighed. That's not that hard you know.