Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

929

Remember that? The "second shooter" narrative after every mass murder event? Everyone would get bogged down in the weeds about if there was a second suspect?

And when that failed, they moved onto "xyz wore body armor" or "what about shooters in a helicopter" etc?

Thats what the "missile" narrative looks like to me.

Anyone else seeing the same thing?

Remember that? The "second shooter" narrative after every mass murder event? Everyone would get bogged down in the weeds about if there was a second suspect? And when that failed, they moved onto "xyz wore body armor" or "what about shooters in a helicopter" etc? Thats what the "missile" narrative looks like to me. Anyone else seeing the same thing?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (10).
[–] • 0 pt

I get that. Unfortunately very little hard data is available,

Thats a given to be sure but I'd hardly say 1. a dead body, 2. an rv, 3. an explosion, 4. multiple video angles, 5. at the building processing votes, is "mostly speculation based on minimal evidence."

In a court of law, under any other circumstance, that would be enough to create a suspect list or obtain a conviction.

Sandy Hook? Not so much.

Different amounts of evidence available for each case, same pattern. Split-public-debate to kill it entirely.

Am I wrong?

[–] • 1 pt

You sure there was a body? I'm also doubtful about some of the video.

[–] • 0 pt

I doubt either is genuine, but then, I doubt everything these days.

It used to be, "believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see." Now its "believe nothing you hear and nothing you see." Or at least doubt it twice, always at least twice.