R29, okay, right off the top of my head here are some of my questions.
First of all, how did Lanza get into the school that had recently had a major upgrade to its security system and protocols put in place? Why did he target the school? He doesn't appear to have had any reason for harboring a particular animus toward elementary school children.
I've heard people say he probably got in when someone else went in, but that seems highly doubtful. If you were walking into an elementary school and the person behind you was carrying an arsenal of weapons and was outfitted like a special forces operative, would you hold the door for him?
How did he manage to fire that particular weapon indoors that many times? I agree with the site that it would have been physically difficult, perhaps even impossible, for a single gunman. Lanza was slightly built, hardly a muscular Rambo type. Also, the repercussion from that kind of weapon being fired in an enclosed space like a classroom would have been overwhelming, even for the shooter himself.
A mugger shot me with a .38 when I was inside a car and I lost consciousness momentarily from the concussion. I also lost a chunk of my upper range hearing. It's hard to describe how physically stunning it was.
There are other questions the site raises that I don't know about, such as the teacher's car in the parking lot being damaged by gunfire and a number of other things. I freely admit that I tend to be very skeptical about the official accounts of these incidents. I'm never quite sure about official motives for lying, whether they do it because it's simpler than telling the truth, or if there's something going on they don't want the public to know. I'm rarely impressed by the intelligence of those in the paramilitary/law enforcement community and generally consider their thinking to be less than sound and downright illogical. It's also possible they simply jump to conclusions that aren't supported by facts, something cops are know to do.
Hopefully somebody will come along like the reporter who recently wrote the non-hysterical account of Columbine to demystify this one too.
I used to have an interesting article in which Dick Gregory talked about Patty Hearst's kidnapping a number of years after it happened. In the official account, Hearst was ready for bed and was only wearing her baby doll pjs when she was carried out of her apartment kicking and screaming and without her purse, which was left behind. Five days later, her parents received in the mail half of her driver's license, supposedly serving as proof that the SLA had abducted her. Like Gregory said, most women don't keep their driver's licenses in their pajama pockets when they go to bed at night, so where did the license come from? Gregory had a series of other questions about the official account of that kidnapping; the driver's license was only the beginning.
Dick Gregory's point was that we should never automatically believe what we're told. He said we should not believe him either, to think for ourselves. I've always been grateful to him for that.
It's the little things but sometimes it's also the very big things. So far, it appears to me there are big holes in this story.