Has anyone spoken to their dentist? It was a dentist's appointment, right? Did they turn up to it?
Some anonymous prick allegedly alleged that Syed Farook was "looking a bit nervous" before he left the reception "in a bit of a hurry". Maybe he left to go to the dentist? Or maybe he had already been to that dentist and his new crown had just come loose? Or maybe his wife was still there and he was worried about her?
I am absolutely serious. Let's hear from that dentist. Or doctor, or whatever the hell he is.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966
Take it with a grain of salt but someone just posted this to Reddit:
Supposedly a picture of the "shooters" back yard with Christmas lights, from a friend that lives behind them.
From the post:
"When my friend asked the police if they noticed the Christmas lights they said "nah, we never even filmed in the back". So basically they were just camped out front to get those shots they needed, and not digging too deep into the back."
Thank for that, OccultariSafari, and welcome to the board. As things stand, I see no good reason to disbelieve that that photo is genuine.* So they were baby-having, granny-accommodating, party-attending, Christmas-celebrating Islamist fanatics. Is there no end to their perfidy?
"When my friend asked the police if they noticed the Christmas lights they said "nah, we never even filmed in the back". So basically they were just camped out front to get those shots they needed, and not digging too deep into the back."
They were too busy planting finding "pipes that could be used to make bombs".
*Can you give us the link to the reddit source?
edit:typos
Last edited by MacCruiskeen on Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966
MacCruiskeen » Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:09 pm wrote:Thank for that, Occult Safari, and welcome to the board. As things stand, I see no good reason to disbelieve that that photo is genuine.* So they were baby-having, granny-accomodating. party-attending, Christmas-celebrating Islamist fanatics. Is there no end to their perfidy?
"When my friend asked the police if they noticed the Christmas lights they said "nah, we never even filmed in the back". So basically they were just camped out front to get those shots they needed, and not digging too deep into the back."
They were too busy planting finding "pipes that could be used to make bombs".
Elvis » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:31 pm wrote:To my own surprise, I'm not all that convinced (trying! LOL) that these people didn't act on their own -- however! -- the fact that SITE is involved (if that is indeed the case) certainly adds some weight to the psyop hypothesis.
What leaves you less-than-convinced, Elvis?
not all that convinced (trying! LOL) that these people didn't act on their own
What makes you think they acted [as gunmen] at all?
Thanks, Mac. I guess that I've been looking at it from the standoint of, 'why couldn't it be just a couple of angry people shooting up a place?' and so far there's a ton of room for speculation and pointing out likelihoods of one thing or another, but nothing is clinching it for me. (Not the best choice of words there, but I'm tired.) Probably I should know better and am being naive, and I haven't really schemed out the possible scenaria, but also a psyops plot as suggested seems like a convoluted operation unnecessarily subject to snafus.
My questions so far—about whether FBI was on video hauling stuff from the house or garage, and why the rental car—are among the known unknowns that are at least keeping me skeptical.
That LA Times interview with the witness seemed awfully cursory (what did they cut?); I would have sat the guy down for an hour or two to ask some proper questions. The media questions are of course all coming from the assumption that 'they done it.'
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
Days before killing 14 people at a holiday party, Syed Farook practised with a rifle during one of several recent visits to a Southern California shooting range, authorities said. Sometimes he was joined by his wife, his partner in the attack.
Farook visited Riverside Magnum Range on Nov. 29 and 30, according to an instructor at the range about 20 miles from the Inland Regional Center, where the couple opened fire on Farook's co-workers Dec. 2.
John Galletta said Monday that nothing was out of the ordinary about Farook's behaviour but that Farook asked a range employee why his rifle might be smoking. He was told it was most likely because it was new.
In a new twist that I think was meant to quiet questions about how a 90 lb women with zero military or munitions training managed to turn into a mass murdering, police fire fighting rampaging Rambo, the FBI said for the first time yesterday that both Farook and his wife had practiced at firing ranges with assault rifles in the weeks leading up the shooting.
But I don't think they thought this little lie through well enough. Would a woman who was supposedly so devout and submissive that she would not drive or ever let anyone see her face really go out to shoot assault rifles at multiple shooting ranges? Had she done so, wouldn't this sight have been memorable to the other people at the shooting range? A Muslim couple, including a tiny women in a hijab and full Muslim dress, practiced shooting with two ATF-grade assault weapons at multiple firing ranges and none of the racists who populate these ranges even blinked an eye?
What? I'm sure there are Muslim women in hijab at shooting ranges everyday in San Berdoo... The fact that both of them took target practice is coming only from the FBI and the owner of one range only identified the male as taking target practice...
A black sport-utility vehicle was seen fleeing from the office complex where the shooting occurred. After receiving a tip from a person in the building who knew Farook and identified him by name to police, officers learned he rented a black SUV and followed up on a Redlands address connected to him.
As officers approached the townhouse, police encountered the black SUV and began a pursuit back to San Bernardino. At one point, the SUV stops and a gun battle begins. The shooters are believed to have fired first; Malik fires through the SUV's back window toward police vehicles, and Farook, the driver, leaves the car and fires at officers. TV footage showed police vehicles close in on the bullet-riddled SUV, and officers in tactical gear were seen stalking through a San Bernardino neighborhood. The gun battle ends in the couple's deaths.
So they happened to be fleeing the townhouse right as the cops pulled up? Then drove, seemingly back towards the center? What happen in the few hours after the shooting is crucial. So the mother/grandmother should have been back at the house? Still absolutely nothing about her...
"why is my gun smoking?"...and then the next week he's a stone cold, cool as ice mass killer?
Remember the bogus 'Oswald shooting range' stories...shooting the wrong target, bragging about the future etc.
Really shitty, lazy scenario writers still using this stuff.
As mentioned, a slight, small, hidjab or niqab wearing woman at a range...with an equally 'muslim garbed' male...would have been reported, called in, investigated.
And the photo someone posted of the wife in a miniskirt on the pavement...c'mon.
Patsies.
(At least the Irish went after Margaret Thatcher; these targets tells you it isn't genuine. Otherwise the PTB would be in massive siege & personal security mode.)
Judging from the photo Barracuda linked, I don't think the "miniskirt" is a skirt, but rather some kind of athletic shorts, or similar thing.
But still...
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
so the guy takes out a $28,000 loan to catch up on his bills and then goes out and does this?
The married couple who killed 14 in San Bernardino borrowed $28,000 before the massacre Reuters Mark Hosenball and Michael Erman, Reuters
Tashfeen Malik, (L), and Syed Farook are pictured passing through Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in this July 27, 2014 handout photo obtained by Reuters December 8, 2015. REUTERS/US Customs and Border Protection/Handout via Reuters Thomson Reuters Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook.
The FBI raided the home of a man believed to have bought the assault rifles used in the San Bernardino attacks WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) — A married couple who killed 14 people in a California shooting rampage the FBI is investigating as an act of terrorism borrowed about $28,000 from an online lender, a sum deposited into their bank account about two weeks before the attack, a source said on Tuesday.
Disclosure of the unsecured loan the husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, took out from San Francisco-based Prosper, a peer-to-peer lending service, offered a new glimpse into the money trail under scrutiny by investigators of last week's mass shooting.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has described Farook, the U.S.-born son of Pakistani immigrants, and his Pakistani-born wife, Tashfeen Malik, 29, as a couple "radicalized" by Islamic extremist ideology.
Malik, who spent a good portion of her life in Saudi Arabia and married Farook there before returning with him to California in the summer of 2014, is believed by investigators to have pledged allegiance on Facebook to the leader of the militant group Islamic State just before the killings.
Authorities say the heavily armed couple opened fire on Farook's co-workers from the county Environmental Health Department during a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center social services agency in San Bernardino, about 60 miles (100 km) east of Los Angeles.
Fourteen people were killed and 21 others were wounded in the assault. The couple died several hours later in a shootout with police.
If the massacre — the deadliest burst of U.S. gun violence in three years — proves to have been the work of killers inspired by Islamic militants, it would mark the most lethal such attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.
While investigations into assaults branded as acts of terrorism often focus on the money behind them, U.S. government officials said the FBI's examination of the couple's finances has not linked them with any foreign group.
San Bernardino shootingREUTERS/Alex Gallardo Investigators examine the crime scene around an SUV where two suspects were shot by police following a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, December 4.
Draining their accounts? Still, one government source told Reuters that Farook and Malik apparently followed a pattern set by other militants who drained their bank accounts and exhausted credit lines before embarking on what they believed would be a suicide mission.
A separate source told Reuters that Prosper, a San Francisco-based online lender, made a $28,500 collateral-free loan to Farook in mid-November. Loans made by Prosper, which processes borrowers' applications and evaluates their credit-worthiness, are originated by the third-party bank WebBank, based in Salt Lake City. Prosper then sells its loans to investors.
Fox News first reported on Monday that a deposit of $28,500 was made into Farook's bank account from WebBank.com on Nov. 18, and that Farook converted $10,000 in cash, which he withdrew from a Union Bank branch in San Bernardino around Nov. 20. Fox also reported at least three $5,000 transfers were made in the days before the shooting, apparently to Farook's mother.
WebBank issued a statement expressing condolences to victims of the San Bernardino shooting but declined further comment, citing confidentiality restrictions.
In addition to the pair of assault-style rifles and semi-automatic handguns they carried the day of the killings, the couple were found to have amassed thousands of rounds of ammunition, along with explosives and other materials for making as many as 19 pipe bombs, according to the FBI.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
so, if you think these people didn't really do it, what would have happened had he not had a fight and left early? "they" would have just framed some other local potential? The only alternative to a frame-up is mind control right? I could see one person being "mind controlled to do it" but it's unusual to see two closely related persons both "mind controlled" in the same way, unprecedented isn't it? I guess it might be possible, but wouldn't their interactions with each other trip it up somehow?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
justdrew » Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:50 am wrote:so, if you think these people didn't really do it, what would have happened had he not had a fight and left early? "they" would have just framed some other local potential? The only alternative to a frame-up is mind control right? I could see one person being "mind controlled to do it" but it's unusual to see two closely related persons both "mind controlled" in the same way, unprecedented isn't it? I guess it might be possible, but wouldn't their interactions with each other trip it up somehow?
Who says they had a fight?
Also if they were set up to be patsies, the real perps could have been manipulating them in any number of ways. (Easily giving them shot about their immigration status is the first thing that comes to my mind). So when they wanted them to leave the party looking stressed or worried, well that's really a simple thing to pull off. They meet the "immigration people" wherever they were instructed to go, and then were required to do whatever the script demanded of them. They probably had zero idea of what had happened.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Elvis » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:31 pm wrote:To my own surprise, I'm not all that convinced (trying! LOL) that these people didn't act on their own -- however! -- the fact that SITE is involved (if that is indeed the case) certainly adds some weight to the psyop hypothesis.
What leaves you less-than-convinced, Elvis?
not all that convinced (trying! LOL) that these people didn't act on their own
What makes you think they acted [as gunmen] at all?
Thanks, Mac. I guess that I've been looking at it from the standoint of, 'why couldn't it be just a couple of angry people shooting up a place?' and so far there's a ton of room for speculation and pointing out likelihoods of one thing or another, but nothing is clinching it for me. (Not the best choice of words there, but I'm tired.) Probably I should know better and am being naive, and I haven't really schemed out the possible scenaria, but also a psyops plot as suggested seems like a convoluted operation unnecessarily subject to snafus.
My questions so far—about whether FBI was on video hauling stuff from the house or garage, and why the rental car—are among the known unknowns that are at least keeping me skeptical.
That LA Times interview with the witness seemed awfully cursory (what did they cut?); I would have sat the guy down for an hour or two to ask some proper questions. The media questions are of course all coming from the assumption that 'they done it.'
What about the wife says first mass murdering woman for ISIS in the history of the Western world to you, Elvis?
What about a workplace shooting says ISIS to you, Elvis?
It's hilarious to me. We'll believe absolute anything they tell us about Muslims without so much as asking for a single shred of credible evidence.
Last edited by stickdog99 on Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
justdrew » 09 Dec 2015 05:50 wrote:so, if you think these people didn't really do it, what would have happened had he not had a fight and left early? "they" would have just framed some other local potential? The only alternative to a frame-up is mind control right? I could see one person being "mind controlled to do it" but it's unusual to see two closely related persons both "mind controlled" in the same way, unprecedented isn't it? I guess it might be possible, but wouldn't their interactions with each other trip it up somehow?
IMHO, the guy's wife was written into the script (probably after she was shot because they were both together when he put 2 & 2 together) just to test the limits of the gullibility of the US citizenry.
The whole thing was sold as another play acting test drill, but he was set up to be the patsy. The "tell anyone else and we will destroy you" story that the SB County higher ups who knew about the live shooting drill were given was that Farook "ruined" the scheduled drill masquerading as drill "live shooter" but with live and deadly ammo. That's why they claimed only one shooter, even though the eyewitnesses all say three. That's how members of the SB police were on the scene within 5 minutes "out of sheer luck." They were there for the mock drill (known only to the higher ups) that was scheduled for that day.
When all the reports of three gunmen reached the media, they realized they needed another patsy, so after the wife was killed, she became the most convenient.
Eyewitness to San Bernardino Terror Attack Still Says ‘three tall white men did it’
By Counter Current News
Global Research, December 08, 2015 Counter Current News 7 December 2015
San Bernardino shooting map location of mass shooting, OpenStreetMap (CC BY-SA 2.5) The controversy over what really happened in San Bernardino last week is just beginning to heat up. Right after the lawyers for the alleged attacker’s family said that they do not believe the suspects did it, yet another eyewitness to the attacks maintained that the real attackers were three, tall, athletic Caucasian men in tactical gear.
“It looked like their skin color was white […] they appeared to be tall”, the eyewitness said.
Investigators with the ATF recovered police issued firearms from the alleged shooters.
This detail was accidentally mentioned by 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina during a press interview. After this was stated, the mainstream media never mentioned it again.
There were also widely-reported active shooter drills that had been taking place near the crime scene. Early reports claimed these were taking place hours before the attack. Later the narrative changed to the day before.
One eyewitness to the attacks, Sally Abdelmageed, was an employee at Inland Medical Center where the attack occurred.
How could she have interpreted two shooters, a man and a petite woman who weighed less than 100 lbs, as three Caucasian, athletic-built military men?
Abdelmageed explained to CBS News that “I heard shots fired and it was from you know an automatic weapon.”
She added that 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,” she continued.
“As soon as they opened up the doors to building three […] one of them […] started to shoot into the room.”
She explained that while she “couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on […] black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side […] long sleeve shirt […] gloves […]huge assault riffle […] six magazines […] I just saw three dressed exactly the same.”
The reporter then asked again, to be sure, “You are certain you saw three men?”
“Yes,” Abdelmageed reaffirmed.
“It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall.”
The CBS reporter then shot down her eyewitness account, reminding views that the FBI just told them that one of the shooters was a woman, and that the third shooter didn’t exist.
“And of course we just learned that one suspect was a woman,” they dismissed.
Watch the video report below…(US only):
Can anyone explain why eyewitness sources are being dismissed in favor of one of the most bizarre narratives in the history of law enforcement and counter-terrorism?
