California shooting WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTO

by eddie Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:58 pm

First topic message reminder :

On BBC news now

Units responding to a shooting incident may be 20 casualties

Nothing further yet

by Original Quill Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The main person who can perhaps shed light on the gaps is Farook's mother.

Now I think she said that Malik at least had a doctor's appointment, but the rest of the family appeared to know that Farook was going off to that meeting at the centre, so she probably knew that too.

So they both went out and left her with the baby. Farook then probably didn't go home to collect his wife because she was already out - either at the centre or elsewhere. They then both went home after the shooting, so where was Farook's mother then? At home with the baby still or out with the baby?

At what point did Farook and/or Malik put the guns and stuff in the car, and at what point and where did they put on those clothes?

And what happened to the ski mask that Farook was allegedly wearing? I know that Farook worked with the program, but I really can't even tell if he was at the party part of the event. (I know his mate said he was at the presentation part, and left his jacket. But the rest?)

And we don't know if Malik was there or not...and if not, there are then two missing men.

by eddie Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:02 pm

Lol I'm most of these "shootings" there's always a police drill going on

Rags I keep telling you: false flag

by Guest Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:08 pm

eddie wrote:Lol I'm most of these "shootings" there's always a police drill going on

Rags I keep telling you: false flag

How many Police drills do you think go on daily throughout the US?

In 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million persons on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers). Agencies also employed approximately 100,000 part-time employees, including 44,000 sworn officers.

You do realise that drills are carried out very much all the time, to keep people up to speed on how to tackle problems?
Can you seriously imagine a Police force that never constantly trained?

Your beliefs to base something as suspicious Eddie is very weak to say the least

by Original Quill Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:18 am

Talk to you tomorrow, Raggs. G'nite.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:35 am

eddie wrote:Lol I'm most of these "shootings" there's always a police drill going on

Rags I keep telling you: false flag

It would be a bit obvious though because anyone can easily find out that there was a drill going on.

You do keep telling me, but you haven't really come up with any proof or feasible explanation of why you think so.

I agree that a few people said there were three men. I'm not convinced they were white men, merely that they were probably not black men. I agree that Malik might not have been at the actual shooting, and that there might be others who were there. However, that doesn't mean it was a false flag, and it doesn't mean that Farook and Malik weren't in it up to their necks.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:22 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:The main person who can perhaps shed light on the gaps is Farook's mother.

Now I think she said that Malik at least had a doctor's appointment, but the rest of the family appeared to know that Farook was going off to that meeting at the centre, so she probably knew that too.

So they both went out and left her with the baby. Farook then probably didn't go home to collect his wife because she was already out - either at the centre or elsewhere. They then both went home after the shooting, so where was Farook's mother then? At home with the baby still or out with the baby?

At what point did Farook and/or Malik put the guns and stuff in the car, and at what point and where did they put on those clothes?

And what happened to the ski mask that Farook was allegedly wearing? I know that Farook worked with the program, but I really can't even tell if he was at the party part of the event. (I know his mate said he was at the presentation part, and left his jacket. But the rest?)

And we don't know if Malik was there or not...and if not, there are then two missing men.

I read that Farook left early at the training/presentation stage. One person said he left just after 8 am, just after it started. Others said he came back at around 11 am and that he'd been gone between 10 and 30 minutes, so they must have thought he left around 10.30 or so. I don't think anyone knew for sure when he left.

Yes, if Malik wasn't there, and there were three men, we're missing two.

I'll have a look to see how many people actually said there were three men, and who saw them with their own eyes. It's possible that one person said it and others just took their word for it and repeated it.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:43 am

So far, I've found reports of two people who said there were three men. The first was Sally Abdelmageed, who I've already discussed to an extent, and the second is Juan Fernandez.

Sally Abdelmageed apparently works at the Inland Regional Centre, and she said that she heard shots outside so she looked out of the window. She said "we" so there must have been others with her, so have they said anything?

“I heard shots fired and it was from – you know – an automatic weapon,” Abdelmageed told the network, adding it was all “very unusual. Why would we hear shots? As we looked out the window a second set of shots goes off [...] and we saw a man fall to the floor. Then we just looked and we saw three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on. They were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three [...] one of them [...] started to shoot into the room.”

I'd like to know whereabouts she worked at the Centre, and whether she had a clear view of the entrance to building 3 or not. I'd like to know if one person was indeed shot outside the entrance. She said they started to shoot into the room. Did she mean they were shooting in the reception area? I don't think the main door goes straight into the conference room where the people were does it?

Juan Fernandez says he saw three men leaving the scene. Now where was he when he saw this? I'd also like to know if he actually saw any of them get into the driver's seat.

If I was either of these two people, and I was absolutely sure that I'd seen three men, I would be down the police station every day, and I would saying it all over the internet and to anyone who would listen.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/eyewitnesses-insist-3-shooters-in-san-bernardino/

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 11:53 am

sassy wrote:Third Eyewitness To San Bernardino Shooting Says It Wasn’t ‘Terror Couple’ Who Carried Out Attack

“It’s not him,” a third San Bernardino shooting witness proclaimed about Sayd Farook and his wife.
The so-called “terror couple” have been accused of masterminding an ISIS terror attack on a Christmas office party where Sayd worked.

Earlier this month, the attorneys for the Farook family maintained that they do not believe the suspects are the ones who carried out the attacks in question.
Several eyewitnesses and family of witnesses and victims initially said that three athletic Caucasian men had been responsible for carrying out the attacks. Police immediately banned them from speaking with the media.
Just days ago, another eye-witness in the office came forward and said that in spite of what the law enforcement and mainstream media narrative is saying, the people who carried out the attack where very athletic, large, Caucasian men, who were three – not two – in number. Farook’s wife, it should be remembered weighed approximately 90lbs.
Now, a third prominent eye-witness, Chirs Nwadike, has stepped up to challenge the mainstream narrative. He recently told reporters he received a phone call from an unknown person around 7 p.m., on the evening of the shooting, who told him that he must say that Sayd Farook was the shooter.
You read that right, he says that he was called and told to change his story and say that Farook carried out the attacks with his wife, even though that is very different than what he witnessed.

Nwadike told reporters:
“No it’s not him [Sayd]. I told them about it. He’s quiet. He doesn’t make any trouble.”
“He was just spraying bullets everywhere,” Nwadike said. But the gunman was not Sayd, or his wife.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/12/third-eyewitness-to-san-bernardino-says-it-wasnt-couple/#

Two videos on the link

Well let's have a look at this bit in bold.

What Chris Nwadike actually said is in this video. He said that someone called him and said the shooter was Syed. He didn't say that the person told him he must say that the shooter was Syed. He also didn't say that the caller was an unknown person. That's very sloppy reporting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWrSdY0NWgg

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:29 pm

Chris Nwadike said that the shooter was spraying bullets everywhere and wasn't looking for anyone in particular. I'd like to know how he saw anything since he was apparently in the toilets at the time and supposedly lay down on the floor or hid in a stall.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:32 pm

I've now read that the shooters came in from the patio straight into the conference room, but I can't find a plan of the centre to establish where this patio was. One report said they came in through the east doors. The doors were unlocked, but how would the shooters have known that?

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:23 pm

What about this guy Enrique Marquez? He bought the guns, converted to Islam a while back, and he allegedly put a rather strange message on Facebook that night.

"I'm. Very sorry guys (sic). It was a pleasure."

He then checked into a mental health facility.

There are questions about his marriage too - I hope they check that out.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-shooting-neighbor-insight-idUSKBN0TT0NA20151210#kkemjMq7Azdboik8.97

by Original Quill Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:54 pm

Turns out Marquez is married to a Chechen national, whose sister is married to Farook's brother.

Enrique Marquez is “married” to Russian born Mariya Chernykh, (aka Mariya Gigliotti).

Mariya (Enrique’s “wife”) is the sister of, Tatiyana Farook (aka: Tatiyana Chernykn, Tatiyana Gigliotti) who is married to Raheel Farook, the terrorist Syed Farook’s brother who served in the U.S. Navy.

However, the marriage between Enrique Marquez and Mariya Chernykh appears -at least on first exam- to be a marriage of convenience, perhaps to obtain a permanent residency card (green card) for Raheel’s sister-in-law.

Media reports indicate Enrique was generally alone and never seen with Mariya (his wife) which would indicate they held no actual relationship beyond the technical marriage.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/12/09/behind-the-san-barnardino-terrorist-attack-is-a-green-card-immigration-scam/

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:59 pm

If the marriage was a sham, would she be legally able to stay there?

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:01 pm

I presume that Mr Marquez had an alibi for the time of the shooting. I do find his remark on Facebook very odd.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:07 pm

Frankly, I think the whole lot of them should be arrested. I don't believe none of them knew what that pair were like, and I don't believe Marquez would have bought those guns "innocently". They're not little tiny pistols are they?

There's no more news about the mother at the moment. I hope they're thoroughly questioning her.

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:12 pm

How heavy are the guns slowed to be? Could a woman of ninety pounds hold one and shoot it for that length of time?
She was ninety pounds
She was still nursing
She had given birth 6 months prior

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:13 pm

eddie wrote:How heavy are the guns slowed to be? Could a woman of ninety pounds hold one and shoot it for that length of time?
She was ninety pounds
She was still nursing
She had given birth 6 months prior

She was allegedly 90 pounds. I don't see why not.

You really don't think she's guilty do you? She was in the back of the car blasting away at the police FFS.

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:14 pm

I didn't see her face so I couldn't say she was for sure.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:16 pm

eddie wrote:I didn't see her face so I couldn't say she was for sure.

You can't say what for sure?

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:16 pm

I'm actually surprised at you rags, though.
Most stories that come out like this aren't watertight.
How come you just believe what you're told and read, with no question?

Facebook accounts with what someone allegedly said?
Well that's proof then!

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:20 pm

eddie wrote:I'm actually surprised at you rags, though.
Most stories that come out like this aren't watertight.
How come you just believe what you're told and read, with no question?

Facebook accounts with what someone allegedly said?
Well that's proof then!

Are you kidding? I've done loads of research, and I've posted loads on these conspiracy theories. I've taken into consideration everything that you and the other conspiracy theorists have said.

What have you said? Oh, that it's a false flag, but you've never backed that up, and you've done no research.

You read she was 90 pounds and you believed that without question.

Farook murdered 14 people - including ones who held a baby shower for him and his disgusting wife. She blasted at the police from the back of the car at the very least.

What did who allegedly say? I don't know what you mean. You're the one automatically believing the bullshit about Farook driving whilst handcuffed and other stuff.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:23 pm

If you think this couple were innocent, then come up with something concrete, not just some vague bullshit.

by Original Quill Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:41 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:If you think this couple were innocent, then come up with something concrete, not just some vague bullshit.

Calm down. If I'm vague, it's because I don't know anything. But unlike others, I'm willing to admit it.

Right now, I am inventorying what I don't know, and I find that I have no concrete evidence that Syed and Milik were even at the Center shooting. Three men, and not a man and a woman, is what I am hearing from witnesses.

Now, admittedly, on San Bernardino Avenue that day, Syed and Milik did fire back. But, it appears that there were two unrelated and different incidents that day.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:If you think this couple were innocent, then come up with something concrete, not just some vague bullshit.

Calm down. If I'm vague, it's because I don't know anything. But unlike others, I'm willing to admit it.

Right now, I am inventorying what I don't know, and I find that I have no concrete evidence that Syed and Milik were even at the Center shooting. Three men, and not a man and a woman, is what I am hearing from witnesses.

Now, admittedly, on San Bernardino Avenue that day, Syed and Milik did fire back. But, it appears that there were two unrelated and different incidents that day.

I wasn't referring to you Quill. You've been doing your research. I've gone out of my way to look at these conspiracy theories, and then I get told by eddie that she's "surprised" I just believe what I read without question! I've asked tons of questions, and she hasn't bothered to even look at them.

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:47 pm

Rags I never once said he drive handcuffed lol
I questioned the fact they were handcuffed after their death and someone (may have even been you) pointed out people were oft handcuffed even after they'd been shot to pieces.
So I left it.

My main concern was the newsreader using the term "actors" - which he bluffed and tried to cover up and backtrack on.
Cass said that newsreaders often refer to shooters as actors - I can't find any evidence for that in th little I've looked.

I have never said I 100% agree with alternative stories - I am NOT calling them conspiracies anymore as that just rubbishes them all unfairly - I merely question something that seems off to me

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:50 pm

eddie wrote:Rags I never once said he drive handcuffed lol
I questioned the fact they were handcuffed after their death and someone (may have even been you) pointed out people were oft handcuffed even after they'd been shot to pieces.
So I left it.

My main concern was the newsreader using the term "actors" - which he bluffed and tried to cover up and backtrack on.
Cass said that newsreaders often refer to shooters as actors - I can't find any evidence for that in th little I've looked.

I have never said I 100% agree with alternative stories - I am NOT calling them conspiracies anymore as that just rubbishes them all unfairly - I merely question something that seems off to me

I addressed the handcuffs point at the time. Why would you even consider some bullshit that he couldn't have driven in handcuffs? Obviously, he was handcuffed afterwards. His body was even in a different position to when he was killed, if you'd bothered to look at that.

People have replied to you about the actors thing. I've asked you at least twice what you read into that specifically, and you didn't bother to explain.

Now if you think this couple were not involved, explain why, but don't accuse me of not questioning anything. I've questioned everything throughout this thread whilst you sat there spouting bullshit about false flags.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:52 pm

I even spent all that time finding out which way they were driving, when everyone said they were driving in the direction of the centre. So don't give me that bullshit about me believing everything I read. I do my own research.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:06 pm

So come on then eddie. A newsman referred to the shooters as "actors". Are you suggesting that someone hired three actors, gave them guns, and told them to go and shoot a load of people?

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:23 pm

Rags if you read the theory behind false flag events, that is what I am referring to.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:23 pm

eddie wrote:Two different newsreaders refer to the shooters as "actors"
Live. On TV

Well?

It sounds like the same guy to me anyway.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:25 pm

eddie wrote:Rags if you read the theory behind false flag events, that is what I am referring to.

Never mind the theory. You don't want me to believe what I read, so why do you do it? Let's have something concrete to go on from you.

Do you really think that someone hired actors to go and shoot a load of people, and that some guy from MSNBC was in on the plot?

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:25 pm

Okay.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:25 pm

eddie wrote:Okay.

Does it not sound like the same guy to you?

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:29 pm

eddie wrote:I'm actually surprised at you rags, though.
Most stories that come out like this aren't watertight.
How come you just believe what you're told and read, with no question?

Facebook accounts with what someone allegedly said?
Well that's proof then!

Where did I say that was proof?

he allegedly put a rather strange message on Facebook that night.

Are you going to claim that he didn't buy the guns now?

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:33 pm

I don't know if he bought the guns just because he apparently said so on Facebook lol

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:34 pm

eddie wrote:I don't know if he bought the guns just because he apparently said so on Facebook lol

He didn't say that on Facebook.

If you want to discuss this, come up with something better than you "know" it's a false flag, otherwise you just look like you're disrupting the thread.

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I don't know if he bought the guns just because he apparently said so on Facebook lol

He didn't say that on Facebook.

If you want to discuss this, come up with something better than you "know" it's a false flag, otherwise you just look like you're disrupting the thread.

I isn't say I know
And how am I disrupting the thread exactly?

Jesus. Is it a full moon today or what? affraid

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:40 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't say that on Facebook.

If you want to discuss this, come up with something better than you "know" it's a false flag, otherwise you just look like you're disrupting the thread.

I isn't say I know
And how am I disrupting the thread exactly?

Jesus. Is it a full moon today or what?

You wanted me to consider the possibility that this was a false flag, so I looked extensively at the theories, and I checked out everything I've read about this shooting, and then you have the nerve to say that I merely believe what I read without question. Apply that to yourself.

by Original Quill Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:40 pm

eddie wrote:Rags I never once said he drive handcuffed lol
I questioned the fact they were handcuffed after their death and someone (may have even been you) pointed out people were oft handcuffed even after they'd been shot to pieces.
So I left it.

My main concern was the newsreader using the term "actors" - which he bluffed and tried to cover up and backtrack on.
Cass said that newsreaders often refer to shooters as actors - I can't find any evidence for that in th little I've looked.

I have never said I 100% agree with alternative stories - I am NOT calling them conspiracies anymore as that just rubbishes them all unfairly - I merely question something that seems off to me

If I may add, I think there may be a couple of cultural differences in language between UK and US. One, is the term 'newsreader'. In America, a newsreader is one who reads a newspaper in the morning, with his wife, while sipping his morning cup of coffee. He is the recipient of news, not the pundit on TV, who in America is a 'newscaster'.

The second is the term 'actor'. While it is true that another word for a thespian is 'actor' or 'actress', the term generally means "a participant in an action or process". Merriam-Webster. The term is from late Middle English, originally denoting an agent or administrator. It is from Latin, meaning ‘doer’, from agere ‘do, or act.’ The theater sense dates from the 16th century, and is more of a colloquialism.

The term is used by police (and hence passed on by newscasters) to mean the principle in a process or crime, a suspect, or someone important to the 'goings on'. A police spokesman is often heard saying, 'This actor was behaving strangely, so he was questioned...' or words like that. Other similar terms are 'perpetrator' or simply, 'perp', and 'person of interest'.

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:42 pm

I never knew that quill.
That's all I ask for; an alternative answer to something I am questioning.

So it may, may, explain the newsreader / anchorman's use of the word.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:Rags I never once said he drive handcuffed lol
I questioned the fact they were handcuffed after their death and someone (may have even been you) pointed out people were oft handcuffed even after they'd been shot to pieces.
So I left it.

My main concern was the newsreader using the term "actors" - which he bluffed and tried to cover up and backtrack on.
Cass said that newsreaders often refer to shooters as actors - I can't find any evidence for that in th little I've looked.

I have never said I 100% agree with alternative stories - I am NOT calling them conspiracies anymore as that just rubbishes them all unfairly - I merely question something that seems off to me

If I may add, I think there may be a couple of cultural differences in language between UK and US. One, is the term 'newsreader'. In America, a newsreader is one who reads a newspaper in the morning, with his wife, while sipping his morning cup of coffee. He is the recipient of news, not the pundit on TV, who in America is a 'newscaster'.

The second is the term 'actor'. While it is true that another word for a thespian is 'actor' or 'actress', the term generally means "a participant in an action or process". Merriam-Webster. The term is from late Middle English, originally denoting an agent or administrator. It is from Latin, meaning ‘doer’, from agere ‘do, or act.’ The theater sense dates from the 16th century, and is more of a colloquialism.

The term is used by police (and hence passed on by newscasters) to mean the principle in a process or crime, a suspect, or someone important to the 'goings on'. A police spokesman is often heard saying, 'This actor was behaving strangely, so he was questioned...' or words like that. Other similar terms are 'perpetrator' or simply, 'perp', and 'person of interest'.

As far as I can establish, it was just one man from MSNBC who used the term when they were showing the aftermath of the shootout live.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:43 pm

eddie wrote:I never knew that quill.
That's all I ask for; an alternative answer to something I am questioning.

So it may, may, explain the newsreader / anchorman's use of the word.

Didn't this get explained to you before? I'm sure Cass explained something like that.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:46 pm

Its a word that news reporters use on a regular basis. They use it to describe people involved in a situation and/or story they are reporting on all the time.

For instance when Russia invaded Ukraine they were constantly referring to the actors in this situation (ie the rebels, Putin, the Ukrainian government forces).

Players is also used. It is also used a hell of a lot in non-fiction literature.

They are not referring to anyone as an actor in the traditional sense.

Quill also made a similar comment, and you wouldn't accept the explanation then. I see you've decided to accept it now.

by eddie Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:I never knew that quill.
That's all I ask for; an alternative answer to something I am questioning.

So it may, may, explain the newsreader / anchorman's use of the word.

Didn't this get explained to you before? I'm sure Cass explained something like that.

No. She said newsreaders in the US often referred to them as actors but didn't explain it like that.

I still stand by what I've said; I have googled it a bit, and cannot find any links or articles or videos where that term "actors" has been used.
So I am still in some doubt about why it was used in this shooting.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:55 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Didn't this get explained to you before? I'm sure Cass explained something like that.

No. She said newsreaders in the US often referred to them as actors but didn't explain it like that.

I still stand by what I've said; I have googled it a bit, and cannot find any links or articles or videos where that term "actors" has been used.
So I am still in some doubt about why it was used in this shooting.

She said pretty much the same thing that Quill just said.

There's another example in the video you posted for a start - from the Commissioner of the Boston police when he was talking about the Boston bombers.

by Raggamuffin Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:59 pm