Questions Regarding The Fort Hood Massacre By Chuck Baldwin

[link to www.chuckbaldwinlive.com]

*snip*

Question 3: How could one man (with no combat experience) armed with only
two handguns fire over 100 rounds (demanding he reload at least 3 times)
into a crowd of scores and hundreds of fearless combat-trained warriors? I
must confess: this is the question that bothers me the most.

According to the official story, Hasan was the only shooter, and he was
allowed to fire at will into a crowd of America's finest warriors for at
least 4 minutes, reloading at least 3 times, firing over 100 rounds of
ammunition, killing 13 people, and wounding over 30--and was finally taken
out by civilian police officers AFTER EXITING THE BUILDING. I've got to tell
you: I cannot get my brain around this one.

Again, these soldiers are warriors. They not only know how to fight, they
know how to fight unarmed. They are trained to risk their lives. They are
trained to do whatever is necessary to take out the enemy. Had even a small
group of soldiers rushed the shooter (especially if they came at him from
multiple directions) there is no way that Hasan would not have been
subdued--and most likely killed. Yes, a few of the on-rushers would have
been hit, but Hasan could not have gotten them all. That is a fact! And yet,
we are supposed to believe that Hasan was not only unmolested by soldiers
inside the building, but he was allowed to leave the building entirely, and
then get shot by civilian policemen? Again, this explanation makes
absolutely no sense to me. None.

Initial reports said there were multiple shooters. If that was the case, the
scenario is much more plausible. If multiple shooters had opened fire from
various vantage points--especially if they had rifles--it would have made
unarmed resistance extremely difficult. That scenario would make sense. The
"one shooter with two handguns" explanation makes no sense.

I realize that no unarmed man wants to rush an armed attacker. Of course,
some who would do so would probably die, but again, these are trained
warriors. Furthermore, this was an all-or-nothing, kill-or-be-killed
environment: something these men are trained for. If untrained civilian
passengers on flight 93 on 9/11 could rush and thwart armed attackers on
board a commercial airliner from a narrow aisle way and stop a hijacking--a
task infinitely more difficult than for a group of highly trained
professional soldiers outnumbering an attacker by scores or hundreds in a
large building--tell me again how Hasan was able to open fire with only two
handguns, kill and wound scores of people, and calmly walk out of the
building unscathed? Again, this makes no sense.

Of course, all of the above is predicated upon the public accounts of the
events being a truthful representation of what actually occurred. Which,
after trying to comprehend the plausibility of what we are being told, is
becoming increasingly difficult to believe. But then again, I haven't
believed much that the federal government or major news media has told me
since John F. Kennedy was assassinated. And I must say, this story serves
only to further fuel my skepticism.