Clackamas Town center Shooting Portland, happening now.

Originally posted by EffTheCIA
Bingo! People with no history of violence and no reason to kill going out and slaughtering innocent civilians. Should we believe they're the ones behind it?

Yep because that never happens

Originally posted by aivlas

Originally posted by EffTheCIA
Bingo! People with no history of violence and no reason to kill going out and slaughtering innocent civilians. Should we believe they're the ones behind it?

Yep because that never happens

Thanks for backing me up. Want to respond to anything else from my post?

reply to post by EffTheCIA


Are you saying the bulger case was a plot by tptb?

reply to post by aivlas


Want to stay on topic? Or are you intentionally trying to derail it?

reply to post by EffTheCIA


Your saying I'm backing you up by posting that pic in response to your theory that non violent people can't commit these sorts of crime.

So again, are you saying the bulger case was a set up by tptb? if so please link to that info, if not then how can you say

Bingo! People with no history of violence and no reason to kill going out and slaughtering innocent civilians. Should we believe they're the ones behind it? Or is it the people who are willing to blow up thousands of their own citizens, blame it on fictional terrorists, all so they can start new wars that they can profit off of? The only motive seems to be gun control, specifically to re-enact the Assault Rifles Ban (something Obama has wanted for a long time).

reply to post by aivlas


Why are you on a conspiracy site trying to back up the official story?

reply to post by EffTheCIA


Not how the site works and could you answer the question?

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by EffTheCIA

 

Not how the site works and could you answer the question?

Well I guess I don't understand. You backed me up by agreeing that people without motive rarely commit mass shootings. And then you posted some pictures of some kids, and mentioned some name that doesn't correspond to either of those kids. Honestly I don't understand what you're getting at here.

reply to post by EffTheCIA




Bulger is tied to those kids seeing as they killed him
en.wikipedia.org...
If you still haven't worked it out the post was going against what you were saying

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by EffTheCIA

 

Bulger is tied to those kids seeing as they killed him
en.wikipedia.org...
If you still haven't worked it out the post was going against what you were saying

Oh, sorry, I completely misunderstood. You must understand that sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. In the future, I recommend you expressing your true feelings instead of going about it in a round about way.

Quite an irrelevant case you're comparing this all to. Two ten year old boys who supposedly killed a two year old, who were later released because they didn't get a fair trial? You might want to dig deeper into history. Maybe there's a case from 1950's Russia you'd like to compare this to?

reply to post by EffTheCIA


You wrote

Bingo! People with no history of violence and no reason to kill going out and slaughtering innocent civilians. Should we believe they're the ones behind it? Or is it the people who are willing to blow up thousands of their own citizens, blame it on fictional terrorists, all so they can start new wars that they can profit off of? The only motive seems to be gun control, specifically to re-enact the Assault Rifles Ban (something Obama has wanted for a long time).

I put forward a case disproving this notion that people without a history of violence can't commit violent acts. Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden is another example.

Originally posted by aivlas
I put forward a case disproving this notion that people without a history of violence can't commit violent acts. Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden is another example.

Fair enough my good friend. However, I never said people without a history of violence "can't" commit violent acts. I merely implied that it's more likely that those with a real motive (gun control) and precedent (9/11 being the example I cited) are behind the crime.

Semantics aside, don't you think it was interesting that someone was found in a car wearing all camo and in possession of a rifle? And what about Telemetry's revelation about a bullet casing being found on the scene that originated from the police department? I answered your question, now answer mine for a change.

Originally posted by starviego
The big clue that these kind of shootings are covert ops is the total lack of anything resembling a motive.

You're making assumptions. You not knowing what the motive is does not mean that one does not exist. We simply dont know yet, and making conclusions about this being government sponsored because we dont know everything about it is just plain stupid.

reply to post by EffTheCIA


Links please

I found one person in this thread saying another gunman might be involved

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
guy in car in all camo seen in a truck with a rifle possible additional suspect?

But then they could just be talking about jacob

A masked gunman wearing camouflage opened fire Tuesday in a busy Portland mall

But then maybe not

The shooter, wearing a white hockey mask, black clothing, and a bullet proof vest

Oh dear

He was not wearing a bullet-proof vest as previously reported.

The joy of breaking news and eye witness reports.

reply to post by aivlas


Well considering you are unwilling to do any further research into this incident (presumably for fear that it might turn something up that contradicts the official story), I will listen to the complete police scanner tonight and report back with all the police reports that contradict the official story. Until then, keep up the good *work*.

reply to post by EffTheCIA


I searched through 22 pages and only found that one mention of another shooter and google is failing me and as your suggesting these things it's on you to back it up.

Originally posted by UberL33t
Radio Reference Link

3 shooters, one has a hockey mask was the last transmission.

At 3 times police confirm at least 2 shooters. 14:50, 15:20 and 23:00.

One officer keeps entering contradictory evidence over the radio trying to direct the narrative. At 22:50 a police officer finds the “jammed AR15,” then an officer interjects that the shooter’s wound(s) were self inflicted. Did he club himself to death with the “jammed AR15?”

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by EffTheCIA
At 3 times police confirm at least 2 shooters. 14:50, 15:20 and 23:00.

One officer keeps entering contradictory evidence over the radio trying to direct the narrative. At 22:50 a police officer finds the “jammed AR15,” then an officer interjects that the shooter’s wound(s) were self inflicted. Did he club himself to death with the “jammed AR15?”

www.youtube.com...

You're incorrect here.

At 14:50 they have a reply that says "multiple witnesses have accounts of a single person". This was in response to the question asking if there is any evidence that there could be more than one shooter. A few seconds later there is another response saying that the security guy said the same thing, "guy with the hockey mask and the AR."

Just before 15:20 a copy says "dont know how credible it was, but somebody else by the movie theater said possible two shooters." An officer is then directed to check with the parking garage command post.

At just after 23:00 an officer says "ok, we did get info that there might be two to three shooters"

There is first a discussion asking about any evidence of multiple shooters, and the response was witnesses reported one. There is then an officer saying there was a report of a possible second shooter, then later another officer saying there were reports of two to three.

There is *NOTHING* here saying that multiple shooters was confirmed.

reply to post by flyswatter


Cool. Copied and pasted that from somewhere else, should've stipulated that. You guys sure are "on the money"!

How about the jammed AR-15? How'd he shoot himself with it?