San Bernardino - false flag accusations start within minutes....

Status
Not open for further replies.
you would have to contact the Center directly. and you might want to wait a bit and give them time to deal with the aftermath of this tragedy. Service providers such as this facility sounds to be, DO have safety meetings and drills regularly. Although i highly doubt it was an active shooter drill specifically "every month or so".

i wrote the reporter and asked her for her source. i'll let you know if i hear back.

Thank you. Good advice and well taken.
 
I've been looking through the center's website and local newspaper archives as well as the SBPD website, haven't found any mentions of drills before the shooting. Could be that they weren't publicized, or I might be using the wrong tools.
 
Infowars now jumping on the false flag narrative:
External Quote:

At least 14 people were killed Wednesday at the Inland regional center in California, the same location where in days past active shooter drills had taken place.
Now the police say this shooting started because of a dispute at a party, at which point the shooters went home, dressed in what mainstream media calls assault clothing and grabbed assault rifles.

There are also reports of bombs at the scene, which tells me that this is a premeditated attack.

Nurses in the center thought today’s shooting was a drill.

This occurred in a area with gun control already in place and monsters like Hillary Clinton have taken to Twitter to call for more gun control.

The weapons used were illegally obtained, so how can more gun control counter that? This has false flag written all over it. What do you think?
...interesting that they're now more about "asking questions" than outright sticking to an opinion. They like to leave wriggle room in order to hedge their bets just in case they're wrong in these stories now. Kind of cowardly that they won't have the courage to at least make a definite statement about what they think it is.
 
I've been looking through the center's website and local newspaper archives as well as the SBPD website, haven't found any mentions of drills before the shooting. Could be that they weren't publicized, or I might be using the wrong tools.
They are a member of arcanet.org. it seems. but i didnt see any 'association' mentions of any safety training. i didnt read any of their board meeting notes though. If you are interested, that may be a possibility. or you could write them and ask.
 
exactly, make them back up their claims with real evidence. If someone is going to be heard by millions of people every day, then they have a great responsibility to not twist things and scare people for profit.

For me growing up there was a word synonymous with the news. That word was credibility. The current threshold for proof seems to be at best speculation .

This is not a new phenomenon, speculation closely relates to good old fashion rumors and rumors have been around forever. The problem as I see it. Is that now when someone makes a video it magically transform rumors into facts?

Throw in a dash of propaganda to the angriest of the millennium generation. Next thing you know you have a new batch of useful idiots whining down at the doors.

The fault rest's squarely on the doom profiteers. I personally would like to see more slander and liable prosecutions especially when victims and their families are defamed .

I mean my god if Jesse Ventura is allowed to win a suit shouldn't he be held liable for what he says ?
 
Im having an EXTREMELY hard time following the guidelines and staying on topic when we are talking about these people.

Just out of curiosity, I checked Youtube at 9PM (CST) yesterday - there were already at least 12 videos up labeling the shootings a hoax.

As soon as I saw that (another) mass shooting was occurring, I wondered how long it would take... It's bad enough that there are shooters, but people claiming false flag before the shooters have been apprehended and the loved ones have been told? I mean, how much could these, ah, individuals possibly know during an ongoing situation???

One of the more interesting "false flag" posts I saw yesterday took people to task for not seeing the obvious connection between the shootings and the (alleged) fact that the Eagles of Death Metal played one of their songs called "San Berdoo Sunburn" at Bataclan in Paris just minutes before the terrorist attacks hit the venue. I don't know where to even start with that one......
 
They are a member of arcanet.org. it seems. but i didnt see any 'association' mentions of any safety training. i didnt read any of their board meeting notes though. If you are interested, that may be a possibility. or you could write them and ask.
I just read through six board meeting notes, no mention of anything. They do advocate for individuals with developmental disabilities who have been charged with criminal offenses, so it seems perfectly common and natural for them to do drills. On a somewhat personal note, there was an incident in my area in 2001 where a shooting occurred at a behavioral health building. It's not unheard of, especially in areas with a higher crime rate.
 
They do advocate for individuals with developmental disabilities who have been charged with criminal offenses, so it seems perfectly common and natural for them to do drills. On a somewhat personal note, there was an incident in my area in 2001 where a shooting occurred at a behavioral health building. It's not unheard of, especially in areas with a higher crime rate

Exactly - it should be normal to see police training for these incidents. How else are they going to prepare??

TBH, "active shooter" drills are that common these days in law enforcement it would be stranger to not see or hear of a department training it. While it's not so much of a problem in Oz (yet) we are all fairly certain it's just a matter of time before it hits us. Largely due to these incidents in the US my dept has been steadily rolling out and upgrading our training every successive year.

I can imagine that it's permanently in the back of the mind of most officers over in the US.

The paranoid among the CT crowd just see this as 'militarization of police' the bulk of the time, instead of what it actually is - police training to combat an increasing threat.
 
One of the more interesting "false flag" posts I saw yesterday took people to task for not seeing the obvious connection between the shootings and the (alleged) fact that the Eagles of Death Metal played one of their songs called "San Berdoo Sunburn" at Bataclan in Paris just minutes before the terrorist attacks hit the venue. I don't know where to even start with that one......
NOT TRUE...

The set list from the Bataclan was as follows...

External Quote:
I Only Want You
Complexity
(Boots Electric cover)
Don't Speak (I Came to Make a Bang!)
Cherry Cola
Silverlake (K.S.O.F.M.)
Oh Girl
Save a Prayer
(Duran Duran cover)
Kiss the Devil
(cut by terrorists attacks and shootings)
From - http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/eagles-of-death-metal/2015/le-bataclan-paris-france-53f50f9d.html

A search back through the same site shows the band only played San Berdoo Sundown on the west coast US leg of their current tour, and not at all on the European dates.
 
...interesting that they're now more about "asking questions" than outright sticking to an opinion. They like to leave wriggle room in order to hedge their bets just in case they're wrong in these stories now. Kind of cowardly that they won't have the courage to at least make a definite statement about what they think it is.

Isn't that what truthers have always done, though? Ask questions?

On another note, I had mentioned to my husband, who is not really "into" CTs in any way, that I was disappointed that Trump had been interviewed by Alex Jones. My husband had never heard of Alex Jones. I just read him the quote from info wars above and said the Jones believes many recent shooting were a false flag perpetrated by the gov't, and that people who believe that sometimes believe no one died in these attacks. My husband said "that isn't what he says in that quote". Now, a reasonable person who does not like Hillary Clinton (LOL) may agree with that quote and not really pay attention to his "false flag" remark, or not attribute it as much weight as someone listening for the CT. I think this is how some people get sucked into these things.
 
Just came across this.

External Quote:

An attorney for the family of one of the San Bernardino attackers cited conspiracy theories surrounding another mass shooting in trying to cast doubt on accounts of this week’s attack.
“There was a lot of questions drawn with regard to Sandy Hook and whether or not that was a real incident or not,” David Chesley, an attorney for the family of Syed Farook, said in a video uploaded Friday by the Daily Mail.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at...ly-floats-hoax-theory/ar-AAg1xa0?ocid=UP97DHP
 
Just came across this.

External Quote:

An attorney for the family of one of the San Bernardino attackers cited conspiracy theories surrounding another mass shooting in trying to cast doubt on accounts of this week’s attack.
“There was a lot of questions drawn with regard to Sandy Hook and whether or not that was a real incident or not,” David Chesley, an attorney for the family of Syed Farook, said in a video uploaded Friday by the Daily Mail.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at...ly-floats-hoax-theory/ar-AAg1xa0?ocid=UP97DHP
He even uses the term 'smoking gun'. Not sure hiring a conspiracy theorist for a lawyer is the best way to help tamper down antiMuslim sentiment in the USA. :/
 
the BBC are now reporting as terrorism
That might be a little misleading. The headline actually says:
"San Bernardino shootings investigated as terrorism - FBI"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35006404

But FBI Director James Comey also says "...there was no evidence they were part of a network." And "they were 'potentially inspired' by foreign terror groups."




ETA NYT has since posted stronger stuff...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=0

basically saying that they suspect suspects inspired by ISIS, but not directed by them...





Sorry tadaaa...multiple BBC headlines...your point is still well taken...hope I didn't come off as rude...
 
Last edited:
That might be a little misleading. The headline actually says:
"San Bernardino shootings investigated as terrorism - FBI"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35006404

But FBI Director James Comey also says "...there was no evidence they were part of a network." And "they were 'potentially inspired' by foreign terror groups."

It may still be too early to say definitively but the evidence is starting to mount that, whether connected to a network or not, this was inspired by radical Islam. Specifically ISIS.

External Quote:

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (AP) — The latest on the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California (all times local):

10:45 a.m.

The woman who helped her husband kill 14 people at holiday party in California praised the leader of the Islamic State group in a Facebook post just minutes into the attack.

A Facebook executive told The Associated Press that Tashfeen Malik posted the material under an alias account at 11 a.m. Wednesday. That was about the time the first 911 calls came in and when the couple were believed to have stormed into the San Bernardino social service center and opened fire.

The executive spoke on condition of anonymity because this person was not allowed under corporate policy to be quoted by name.

The company discovered the Facebook account Thursday. It removed the profile from public view and reported its contents to law enforcement.

— From Associated Press writer Tami Abdollah in Washington, D.C.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...is-praise-during-attack/ar-AAg1K5w?li=BBnb7Kz

Edit:

External Quote:

9:45 a.m.

An expert says the revelation that one of the California attackers pledging allegiance to the Islamic State group on Facebook suggests the woman was inspired by IS ideology but wasn't necessarily in direct touch with the group.

John Cohen, a former counterterrorism coordinator for the Homeland Security Department and a Rutgers University professor, said those people are harder to detect.

He says the counterterrorism infrastructure is built on preventing tightly organized attacks directed by a specific group, not detecting people inspired by IS but operating independently. He says that means different tools are needed to prevent those types of attacks.

Cohen says IS has aggressively used social media and have "successfully inspired thousands of people."

Tashfeen Malik helped her husband, Syed Farook, kill 14 people at a holiday banquet for his county co-workers before dying in a gunbattle with police.
Same source

**Edit
@NoParty Didn't mean to sound as if you were being rude, I didn't get that from your post either.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that what truthers have always done, though? Ask questions

No. that's what they claim they're doing...But they contradict themselves when they start screaming the word "Hoax" at everything on tv without showing any quality evidence.

There is a big difference between "Asking questions", and doing what they do.

Example

CT: Sandy hook was a hoax and nobody died!
Me: How so?
CT: Hey, don't ask me, im just asking questions.
 
This one had predictable CT legs. But, there is an oddness about how Alex Jones et al change their terminology depending on who they are talking about: If it is a 'patriot' and 2nd amendment fanboy they will downplay weapons and equipment 'what the mainstream media calls assault clothing', but of it is...lets say the Boston Police boxing in the bombers, they are "militarised". That is having your cake and eating it!

Seeing as mass shootings in the US appear to be something of a banality these days, it would probably be criminally negligent of any police department not to run active shooter drills.

Also, there is a thing such as non-affiliated terror, buy which I mean an individual Muslim/Irishman/KKK/Zionist/Black Panther can independently commit an act of terror alone, or in small groups, without any co-ordination from the central structure of the organisation who's cause they feel they are forwarding. It is likely that there may be more of these attacks which are by isolated actors without being given direction and are in essence autonomous actions. The media are falling over each other to find some tenuous connection to something or someone, when in fact they are likely to have dreamt this up themselves, albeit inspired by others.
 
The media are falling over each other to find some tenuous connection to something or someone, when in fact they are likely to have dreamt this up themselves, albeit inspired by others.
Maybe it's just me, but it seemed as if the media in this event were being careful to avoid speculation (at least a wee bit more than usual) and to not let unsubstantiated rumor be presented as fact. If so, kudos to them.
 
Maybe it's just me, but it seemed as if the media in this event were being careful to avoid speculation (at least a wee bit more than usual) and to not let unsubstantiated rumor be presented as fact. If so, kudos to them.
Maybe less jumping to conclusions, but leaving certain facts hanging in the air can also be asking for them to be interpreted: "He prayed at this mosque....." "She wore a hijab...." "She wrote this on Facebook"...
 
I've been needling Sandy Hook truthers about this on Facebook and Twitter. Their less-than-positive views on Muslims clashing with their tendency to see every mass shooting as a false flag must be especially hard for them to comprehend.
 
Just came across this.

External Quote:

An attorney for the family of one of the San Bernardino attackers cited conspiracy theories surrounding another mass shooting in trying to cast doubt on accounts of this week’s attack.
“There was a lot of questions drawn with regard to Sandy Hook and whether or not that was a real incident or not,” David Chesley, an attorney for the family of Syed Farook, said in a video uploaded Friday by the Daily Mail.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at...ly-floats-hoax-theory/ar-AAg1xa0?ocid=UP97DHP

And this attorney is trying to help the situation?
 
The folks at The Washington Post, bless their hearts, wrote an article about the whole false flag phenomenon. I particularly like this quote:
External Quote:
The Internet acts both as the incubator for conspiracy theories, but it also acts as the antidote.
(edit: grammar error theirs, not mine)
 
Last edited:
And this attorney is trying to help the situation?
The family almost certainly believes this (they'd be crazy to hitch their wagon to this horse otherwise), but to be fair, the lawyer may not. His job is not to *believe* his clients, it's to provide the best representation, and openly disagreeing with them is a doomed case. Also, they probably shopped around until they found a lawyer willing to go along with their ideas.

The way to tell would be in their paperwork, which obviously isn't an option. If he took money up front, then he smells a sinking ship and money floats. At the opposite extreme, if he's working pro bono then he's not just a true believer, but he's only taking the case to get a platform to shout his bunk, and that's probably the worst case scenario for everyone involved - the shooter will go down screaming and probably get the maximum penalty, the shooter's family will be a laughing stock, the victims and their families will suffer every indignity they would as targets of a conspiracy theory but on national TV instead of the dark corners of the internet, public discourse and rational discussion will be contaminated with conspiracy talk by weight of attention, etc.
 
The family almost certainly believes this (they'd be crazy to hitch their wagon to this horse otherwise), but to be fair, the lawyer may not. His job is not to *believe* his clients, it's to provide the best representation, and openly disagreeing with them is a doomed case. Also, they probably shopped around until they found a lawyer willing to go along with their ideas.
i think it's highly irresponsible to suggest this without any proof. The family has enough to worry about with anti-muslim sentiments, without unfounded accusations they think the government faked the slaughter of 20 6 year olds!

The lawyer used the term "smoking gun" very naturally. in two different interviews. thats not the kind of term you hear a family use in one sit down with you, and then all of a sudden it becomes part of your natural speaking vocabulary.

in the second interview clip (GMA) this lawyer mentions the woman being "90 lbs" and [paraphrased] couldnt carry a gun or wear a vest. classic SHHoax CT stuff. A normal lawyer, even if the family suggested that possibility to him, would not normally pick up on such a thing and repeat it. If you can carry a 6 month old baby, you can lift a gun. an AR-15 is 8-10 lbs. In the third press conference on this page he explains he is an avid gun person who himself has thousands of rounds at home. Only a conspiracy theorist could have his knowledge of guns and still try to float that theory.

also in third PC, he mentions Homeland security buying all the bullets up. (i wonder if he reads MB, ew). but generally the way he spoke sounds like he is VERY familiar with Sandy Hook Hoax talking points. While the family may agree that SH was 'fake' 1. How stupid could they be to OK the lawyer to say that? 2. You would have to have a seriously stupid family to suggest the idea and THEN you would need a seriously stupid lawyer to repeat it. The odds arent in favor of the family suggesting it.

In the third vid (taken AFTER the SH mentions) at approx 25 mins he is reaching for comparisons of murders that werent religion based and he says "Columbine and Colorado". He doesnt touch SH with a 10 foot pole. He sounds rational throughout in that press conference and only briefly shows his "CT tendencies side" around 33 mins, but he stops himself. I think someone gave him a firm talking to.


3 of his press interviews attached here
http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/04/syed-farooks-family-hired-crazy-conspiracy-theory-addled-lawyer/
 
Watching the discussion unfold, I have mixed feelings about what to do.

But I think that CT claims need to be debunked regardless. At the very least, we have an obligation to the truth


I'll offer this contribution.

From Natural News [original source's boldface]

External Quote:
Get this: The location where the shooting was carried out today in San Bernardino -- the Inland Regional Center -- has been subjected to monthly active shooter drills, we're now learning.

http://www.naturalnews.com/052196_a...rnardino_shooting_Inland_Regional_Center.html


The cited LA Times story [my boldface added]

External Quote:
At first, Dorothy Vong assumed it was a drill -- just like all the others at her work.

At the Inland Regional Center, where she’s a nurse, the staff works with clients and parents of clients who are sometimes angry. They have active-shooter drills every month or so.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...ng-inland-regional-center-20151202-story.html

It is a pretty small point, but important to my mind. Natural News is manipulating information and spinning it ("Inland Regional Center -- has been subjected to") in order to manufacture a story that is not there. This has been repeated on many other websites.

So, for the sake of the truth, I am going to start looking for those active shooter drill schedules. Maybe they were monthly "or so," maybe not.

That does seem a bit disingenuous. Shooter drills are common. Especially right now in America. If they had been taken over by the FBI or something by force I could understand the reference maybe.
 
Google link to search for "Bernardino shooting false flag" - articles and YT vids

20151203-050944-ewe5z.jpg

[Screenshot updated 2015-12-03 05:10AM PDT]

Can't say any more about these ......people......without violating the politeness policy! :(
Your link seems to direct to a Google search without parenthesis. Ie It is a BROAD search and not EXACT. Therefore will include results not directly related. Although I did one as an EXACT and it had 68,000 results. Wow.
 
they cn match ip addresses i'm sure. but yea, sounds fishy to me too.
An executive would likely have that access necessarily. Although they could of got that info from the web security team.

If that was the case, I am surprised they didn't use a VPN.
 
As this is no longer a current event, new topics should go in new threads, and conform to the posting guidelines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top