Posted on 04/20/2007 11:58:21 PM PDT by the scotsman
A survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre has been describing how a colleague died to protect others. Although badly injured, graduate student Waleed Shalaan distracted gunman Cho Seung-Hui to save another person from his bullets.
Waleed saved another student's life.The surviving student, who wishes to remain anonymous, told of Waleed's heroics through an email to his supervisor.
He describes how he was left uninjured after Cho's initial round of shots.
Meanwhile, Waleed had been wounded but was still alive.
However, when Cho later returned to the classroom to inspect for signs of life among his victims, the surviving student struggled to remain calm.
He believes he would have been shot dead were it not for Waleed's "protective movement" that distracted the gunman.
Cho turned and shot Waleed for a second time, killing him, before leaving the classroom.
Randy Dymond, a civil engineering professor, has said the student asked to him to tell the tale "so that the family of Waleed understands the sacrifice."
Shaalan's mother broke down when she heard Mr Dymond's account.
"He was trying to save someone else," she said repeatedly.
Dymond said Shaalan's body was taken to a Blacksburg mosque so classmates, teachers and friends could say goodbye before he was sent to Egypt for burial.'
INFORMATION WE KNOW FROM THE EMAIL (not necessarily factual)
1) Waleed always sat in the front row of Norris 206
2) When students hear shots they jumped to the floor
3) Loganathan & many students are killed
4) Uninjured Graduate (UG) Student survives
5) Waleed is injured
6) Cho leaves room, then returns
7) Cho approaches UG (Heart pounding, lying next to Waleed)
8) At that moment Waleed makes a movement to distract (that distracted) Cho.
9) UG is not noticed and Waleed is finished off by Cho.
Since Waleed is dead he can’t tell us, we are left with the other eyewitness to the scene.
“A” dosen’t know what was in Waleed’s mind either, and we are left with his perception of Waleed’s action.
There will never be, nor could there ever be proof of this.
Now why is there a question regarding this particular observation by “A” when all the rest is taken as accurate and truthful ?
Since it’s quite possible that “A” is correct in his interpretation of events, why the attack ?
Are we given any indication of “feelings of guilt” that Star Traveler insists upon as clouding “A”’s belief ? ... No
... but it appears that Traveler needs something, anything no matter how speculative to launch an attack on this particular portion of a narrative that otherwise is accepted as accurate and truthful - Curious indeed !
It would not be difficult to deduce from the
class roster, names of students who survived
the shooting without injury.
Cub work for a reporter.
“Oh yes we do know that Anonymous Uninjured was “right there” because he said so in the email.”
Read the post - “right there” was Star Traveler’s made-up term for the closeness of the shooter to “A” and Waleed - this distance is mentioned nowhere
Reliving the horror at Virginia Tech
From survivors, scenes they can’t forget
11:46 PM CDT on Thursday, April 19, 2007
By DAVID MARANISS / The Washington Post
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/042007dnnatreconstruct.380b0e6.html
Shouts, cries, sobs, more shots, maybe 30 in all
The first attack came in Room 206, advanced hydrology taught by Dr. Loganathan. There were about a dozen graduate students in the class. The gunman entered wordlessly and began shooting. As the students scattered, a bullet hit Partahi “Mora” Lumbantoruan, a doctoral student. His body fell on top of fellow graduate student Guillermo Colman. Then the shooter picked off people one by one before leaving.
AND THEN THIS...
Mr. Colman, protected by his classmate’s prone body, was one of only four in the room to survive. The others were Nathanial Krause, Lee Hixon and Chang-Min Park.
ANONYMOUS UNINJURED IS ONE OF
THESE FOUR GRADUATE STUDENTS
Colman
Krause
Hixon
Park
You said — “INFORMATION WE KNOW FROM THE EMAIL (not necessarily factual)”
Well, as everyone well knows, we’ve been going over the assumed facts. They are assumed for the sake of discussion, otherwise there would be nothing to discuss.
However, we have come to a troubling point where the presented facts don’t match up with the “belief” of the uninjured student. As I was saying earlier, if one is going to perpetrate a false story, then it must be as close as possible to known facts and then you throw in a “belief” — because one can’t say to that person — “you don’t have that belief”. It may be their belief, even if it is a wrong belief.
So, that ends up perpetuating a story that is considered “unchallengable”. BUT, not entirely, you see... That’s because in analyzing everything (the given facts) we see that it doesn’t match up with the belief. And this throws the whole thing into question.
Even if it didn’t throw the whole thing into question — with reporters these days, making up stories out of whole cloth — we see that things need to be verified, or they are simply in the category of Aesop’s Fables.
And with the knowledge of a lot of college kids to being able to fake e-mails, it’s not inconceivable that there was a fake e-mail sent. Or, the professor may be one of those who believe in the “PC idealogy” and thinks that if there is a Jew who saves a life (and gets on the news) then there should be a Muslim who saves a life and gets on the news, too.
But, he doesn’t have a Muslim story. However, since he knows that there *certainly are* Muslims who do this (in his PC mind), it’s not a bad thing to invent a “literary character” to show the “real PC truth” — that indeed a Muslim would do this. So, a hoax e-mail is created and a literary invention is made — being the “fake student” (who remains, by the way, anonymous).
Until we can verify that this is not a hoax (and the information is *absent* to prove not) — then we must consider this an Aesop’s Fable in the PC world....
Regards,
Star Traveler
No. My quote came from the email at Post #444
Re: Shooting at Virginia Tech from the facebook group ‘In Memory of Waleed Shaalan’ - a student from virginia tech posted this s/he got from an email:
A supervisor of a graduate student who was with Waleed in the class and survived the massacre. I should mention that the description is graphical so I apologize in advance:
The student mentions that Waleed saved his life and wants to convey this to Waleed’s family. Apparently, the murderer came into Norris 206 and shot Dr. Loganathan and a number of students injuring Waleed. Waleed was sitting in the front row where he always sat. Everyone jumped to the floor after hearing the gun shots including the person narrating the story. The murderer then left Norris 206 to go to another classroom.
**********The student that narrates the
story was not shot but pretended to be
dead and LAY ON THE GROUND BESIDE
WALEED who at that time was only injured.**********
The muderer then re-entered the classroom and was checking for alive victims. He had approached the person narrating the story who mentions that his heart was pounding out of fear. Waleed at that instant made a movement to distract the murderer’s attention and was shot for the second time. At that time Waleed died and the murderer left the narrator to search for other victims.
You said — “There will never be, nor could there ever be proof of this.”
What we can go on (assuming for the sake of discussion what we are given is true) are the stated facts.
And those stated facts show us that the killer returned to the room twice looking for signs of life, that the two students (Waleed and the anonymous student) were laying next to each other, that Waleed was wounded, that the killer entered the room once again (in regards to this event), that the anonymous student was playing dead, that Waleed moved, that the killer shot Waleed again, that the killer believed the anonymous student was dead (the anonymous student having played dead fairly well), then the killer left after he finished looking for signs of life and found none (at that point).
The only other thing is simply a “belief” that the anonymous student wanted to believe. And that was that the movement distracted the killer from supposedly killing the anonymous student.
However, if the killer is distracted for the moment and look at Waleed to kill him (since he moved), then the killer simply glances back at the anonymous student (after Waleed is shot deader than a doornail) and sees if there are any signs of life anywhere else. And that anonymous student was right next to Waleed.
And since we see that the anonymous student is not dead, this proves that the anonymous student “played dead” well enough to fool the killer.
Thus, Waleed moves, resulting in his death. The anonymous student plays dead, resulting in him living.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — However, now we have the troubling problem of not being able to even know if this e-mail is a hoax or the professor invented some “literary agent” upon us (the “anonymous student”) in order to perpetrate a “PC Hoax” upon the Amercan public. Since we are not able to verify this — it remains as valid “as news” as Aesop’s Fables are news...
[...“student” remains anonymous)...]
See Post #565
ANONYMOUS UNINJURED IS ONE OF
THESE FOUR GRADUATE STUDENTS
Colman
Krause
Hixon
Park
You said — “It would not be difficult to deduce from the class roster, names of students who survived the shooting without injury.”
Very true. And if we hear nothing of an interview from the surviving students (all a reporter would have to do is ask each one...) — then that would basically show us that this “anonymous student” is nothing more than a “literary fiction” perpetrated upon us by a professor.
In the meantime, this deserves “news category” as much as Aesop’s Fables do...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You quoted — “His body fell on top of fellow graduate student Guillermo Colman.”
I would say that Coleman would be the first one to ask. If we can’t get confirmation from him, then this would indicate that it’s false... (absent any of those others confirming and giving the story).
You said —
ANONYMOUS UNINJURED IS ONE OF THESE FOUR GRADUATE STUDENTS
Colman
Krause
Hixon
Park
They should have university e-mail accounts. I wonder if we can write to them and find out?
The point is, I’m no reporter, yet it was relatively
easy to discover who survived from Norris 206. Now
we can further ask who survived without injuries?
Bingo, we have our Anonymous Uninjured.
Yep, and if it remains “anonymous” then it’s definitely a fishy story...
A typical response from someone who has never seen a muslim except on TV (and maybe at a quick shop). I HAVE had them into my home. I have been to theirs. We could learn something about hospitality from them.
I am not naive about Islam. I am probably one of the few freepers who has actually READ the Koran (remindeded me of the book of mormon). The religion is a producer of hate, violence, superstition, and worse. I have been in muslim communities in Europe and I have seen more than from some news clip. I am NOT impressed. It is a culture of death.
However, my point is that there are mindless hate spewing bigots here who are so fascinated by the "us" v "them" stuff that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge a simple testimony of a non-muslim that some guy did a heroic thing. THIS IS JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY, whether you dress it up in an American Flag or cover it with bible verses. It is conceived in hate, gestated in ignorance, and birthed by appalling stupidity.
What is worse, the nimrods who hold onto this like an inbred dog clutching a bone think themselves uberpatriots and defenders of our Christian heritage. They see anyone who argues that Muslims too can have sparks of decency, heroism, nobility and the common stuff of human kindness is giving into pc leftism. This kind of tripe is so phenomenally idiotic that it sometimes hurts my head just talking with these clowns. What is worse, it is often steeped in a self-righteous pride that stinks the same stench as the filth that comes from the madrassas. No wonder, as they both have the same father.
Am I better off than Muslims? You better believe it. But not better. Just better off.
... and why is this “extremely doubtful” ? Not because of some flaw in the narrative, but that liberal professors are PC in nature and this is something they would do.
Do we have any indication that Dymond IS a liberal professor ? Nope
Amazing that this civil engineering prof could come up with a narrative so detailed that you are able to come up with a psychological profile of his construct.
But I am curious though - just how would Dymond come up with the info that Waleed was shot twice ? A detail like that would have to come from someone who was there and told him ... someone who would know the sequence of events in the room and would also know that “A” did not exist.
AHA! it’s a co-conspiracy ! We have anonymous “B” who was the REAL survivor feeding Dymond the details to allow him to construct his story containing fictional anonymous “A”.
Congratulations Star Traveler ! You’ve cracked the case !
Following is the status of the only four students
who survived the slaughter in Norris 206. Looking
for one who survived without injuries who could be
our Anonymous in this article.
Looks like it’s either Krause or Hixon.
***************************************
COLMAN STATUS: INJURED
Graduate student Guillermo Colman, 38, was shot in the head and shoulder when the as-yet unidentified gunman entered his classroom Monday, according to Ed Blackwell, co-owner of Blackwell Engineering, where Colman has worked for nine years.
http://www.rocktownweekly.com/news_details.php?AID=9816&CHID=1
NATHANIAL KRAUSE STATUS: UNKNOWN
LEE HIXON STATUS: UNSCATHED - PLAYED DEAD
Sitting in a pew was Lee Hixon, one of the survivors of Monday’s shooting rampage in Norris Hall who escaped unscathed. He said the bells captured the fleetingness of life.
“It meant a lot to hear the chimes for each [victim],” said Hixon, 31, flanked by his wife and mother. “The only reason I’m alive is because my wife was praying for me. I have a heavy heart and hope the Lord will comfort those families whose relatives weren’t able to make it out.”
Lee Hixon (center) survived the shooting in Norris Hall by playing dead. His wife, Maria (left), and his mother, Stacy Seaman, accompanied him to Thursday’s service.
http://www.roanoke.com/vtcampus/wb/113872
CHANG-MIN PARK STATUS: INJURED
Parents of Park Chang Min, one of those injured in the shooting, said they are thankful their son is alive.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/271158/1/.html
? You replied to and questioned my use of it in my post 546
My post 546 was a reply to ST who said ...
“The KILLER is already there — right at the uninjured student’s body — who is feigning death.”
I never replied to 444 or commented on it and there was a good chance I never read it.
You said — “LOL - After “proving” that “A” had guilty feelings, you now claim that it is extremely doubtful that they exist !”
You seemed to have missed the repeated part in which I state that for sake of discussion, one only assumes that certain basic presented facts exist. It’s only for convenience of discussing and determining the validity of what is presented — nothing more. That assumption is simply an analytical tool; nothing more. And from that one can learn if the “story” actually holds together. And it appears that it does not hold together for the main premise of the news article.
And having seen that it doesn’t hold together, this questions the validity of the “anonymous student” ever existing in the first place. Since there is no way to even verify if he exists, what his name is, no way to question him — we can easily conclude that this can be a “literary invention” by the professor or by a “hoaxer” sent to the professor.
Of course — “news” — is something that is *verifiable*. It supplies facts that can be cross checked. It supplies names and addresses and/or phone numbers, etc. The whole purpose of that is for fact-checking that anyone would be able to do.
When one finds a news story that is not consistent within itself about the “main story” and then we have no way to verify that someone even exists — then we have good reason to suspect hoax.
That’s what Dan Rather did with the document that was fake but the story was true.
Likewise here, it appears that we have a student that was fake, while we are told the story is true.
.
You said — “Do we have any indication that Dymond IS a liberal professor ? Nope”
We don’t have any indication or proof that he even received an e-mail. We don’t even know if someone hoaxed him on the e-mail. We have a so-called “witness” that may not even exist and is a “literary invention”
If we can’t verify that, then we have the equivalent of an Aesop’s Fable. Until we get verification that the “anonynmous student” even exists, that he even said any of this — it’s simply a fable...
.
You said — “Amazing that this civil engineering prof could come up with a narrative so detailed that you are able to come up with a psychological profile of his construct.”
There was nothing any more detailed, in terms of the general facts of what Cho did in those classrooms than what already existed in the newspapers. Note that it’s not the specific facts of Cho existing that we’re talking about. It’s not the specific fact that Cho shot and killed students that we’re talking about. It’s not the specific fact that Cho returns to classrooms to shoot students again, that we’re talking about. It’s not that some students were playing dead (in other classrooms, too) that we’re talking about. No, this is all common knowledge in several classrooms.
There is only *one main thrust* to this story, that makes it specifically the type of story that it is — and it is simply an “anonymous student” saying that he “believes” (not fact, but belief) that Waleed moved and that resulted in him being saved.
So, there are no facts that we haven’t found in other classrooms. One could make up a story by reading the newspapers. They could use existing and “common” facts and do that.
Like I said before, all one has to do to try and creat an “unassailable” story is put out a “belief” — add the common fact, use an “anonymous student” (who doesn’t exist) and you’ve got your fiction for the news.
But, the story doesn’t hold water, basically in its bottom line analysis. And because of that and the anonymous student and no one being able to ask questions and verify anything — this is no more than Aesop’s Fables and not news...
.
And finally — “But I am curious though - just how would Dymond come up with the info that Waleed was shot twice ? A detail like that would have to come from someone who was there and told him ... someone who would know the sequence of events in the room and would also know that “A” did not exist.”
I don’t know that he was shot twice. I heard the report that everyone was shot three times. So, that’s not been stated. We don’t know if he was actually shot twice or three times or four times. If you find out, then let me know.
Again — keep in mind, as I’ve said all along — if one is to discuss the story “as given” — and then analyze the facts and see if they hold up, you start with what you are given. Then you look for inconsistencies. The main facts are simply generic and applicable to all the classrooms. One or two facts can be supplied by the other specific survivors (like Cho entering twice in this classroom).
However, this story doesn’t hold water within its own given facts and it certainly doesn’t hold water with an “anonymous student” that no one even know exists.
Regards,
Star Traveler
God, you’re an a**hole.
I hope you don’t consider yourself a Christian.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.