Reddit transcribers claim police started fire in Dorner case., page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times
Topic started on 13-2-2013 @ 08:03 PM by VonDoomen

Reddit transcribers claim police started fire in Dorner case.


www.reddit.com
Yeah, that's affirmed.
Copy. Alright [inaudible](chief/Steve?), we're gonna go, uh, we're gonna go forward with the plan with the, with the burner.
Copy.
Want it, uh, like we talked about.
Seven [inaudible](active?)-burners deployed and we have a fire.
Copy: Seven burners deployed and we have a fire.
Ontario, medic engine 6-7.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Christopher Dorner in gun battle with authorities, source says


reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:17 PM by Shamrock6
the sides they're referring to (number 2 and 4 fully engulfed) are the way tactical units number a building when they're setting up. 1 is always facing the road/main entry, 2 is the left side (looking at the building), 3 is the back side, 4 is the remaining side. when they say "3 4 fully engulfed" they're referring to the corner where those two walls meet. they're not (I'm assuming) saying both sides are fully engulfed, but rather that particular corner is now lit up. I'm at work, so I can't listen to the recording right now, but based off the transcripts it appears to be units all around the house communicating whether their area of responsibility is lit up or not.

as for the burners: i won't even hazard a guess as to what those are. i won't say they intentionally set actual fires or not, because I wasn't there and don't know. I will say that there are any number of things tactical units can refer to as burners, from untraceable firearms to smoke canisters to CS canisters. it does NOT necessarily indicate an actual intent to start a fire, but i'm not saying it doesn't either. without knowing the specific equipment used, i would only be guessing. there are different types of gas/smoke grenades that actually burn hot enough to cause combustion given the right circumstances.

again, not offering any opinion on whether they did or did not intend to start fires, simply trying to clear up some of the lingo.
edit on 13-2-2013 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:19 PM by AutOmatIc
reply to post by Shamrock6



From one of the comments:

[–]Oznog99 3 points 4 hours ago CNN carried it as "smoke and/or flash grenades ignited a fire". Which is total, objective B.S. The police radio says "burners", which isn't a term for smoke grenades. In fact you wouldn't use "smoke" because it equally covers the suspect's movement. There's teargas, which would never be referred to as "burners". And they make it clear "fire" and burning the building down is their objective. More to the point is where he stops himself, unwilling to explicitly incriminate himself with something that was understood "that... thing we talked about." WTF?? NO competent officer gives orders in such an indefinite.


They intentionally burned it down.


reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:27 PM by VonDoomen
reply to post by AmberLeaf



Yes, from listening to the video you posted, it seems to be the same scanner content. Thanks for posting a link to the audio.

What I posted is the work of redditors at transcribing that audio. I find it is much easier to read these transcriptions than try and decode the audio myself.


reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:28 PM by Exxon
www.huffingtonpost.com...


I just read this. Ever since I had heard about the fire, it crossed my mind that it would be very easy for the police to start the fire, weather accidentally or on purpose. I had from an earlier article (by the same source) that had said that the police had pumped the cabin full of gas (I had assumed some type of tear gas, but it wasn't specific), then the house was engulfed in flames after the police heard a single gunshot. That in itself seemed reasonably suspicious to me.


reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:30 PM by flyswatter
Originally posted by AutOmatIc
reply to
post by Shamrock6



From one of the comments:

[–]Oznog99 3 points 4 hours ago CNN carried it as "smoke and/or flash grenades ignited a fire". Which is total, objective B.S. The police radio says "burners", which isn't a term for smoke grenades. In fact you wouldn't use "smoke" because it equally covers the suspect's movement. There's teargas, which would never be referred to as "burners". And they make it clear "fire" and burning the building down is their objective. More to the point is where he stops himself, unwilling to explicitly incriminate himself with something that was understood "that... thing we talked about." WTF?? NO competent officer gives orders in such an indefinite.


They intentionally burned it down.


The above is at least partially incorrect. Burner is often used police jargon for tear gas canisters. This isnt to say the fire was intentional or not, but burner is known terminology.


reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:33 PM by VonDoomen
reply to post by Shamrock6



Thanks for the input! I do not understand most LEO lingo so its good to put some of it in perspective.

I really liked one of your statements that you appear to have edited out. Along the lines of giving an order with an indefinite article. Its confusing that they would act/talk in such a manner considering they are LEO. They are usually pretty straight forward


reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:35 PM by VonDoomen
reply to post by Infi8nity


My avatar is the ICP, or Insane Clown Presidents.

Its nothing more than a joke alluding to the ludicrous and crass band Insane Clown Posse. As you can see, they are wearing the ICP style makeup.



reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:45 PM by winofiend
reply to post by VonDoomen



reading it and listening to it is key, as words cannot always relay the attitude of what is being said.

Want it, uh, like we talked about.


sounds like someone asking a question. In the audio, it sounded like someone restating how they want something done.

I rekon they did light the place on fire hoping to drive him out.

Or risk losing him again into the public?


reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 08:47 PM by AutOmatIc
reply to post by flyswatter



"known terminology"? Burner is also used in reference to a gun. So did they plant guns that magically caught fire? It wasn't merely the "burner" comment that made me believe they intentionally burned the cabin down....but quite a few other comments made by the "public servants" such as:

“f**king burn this motherf**ker”

“bring fire”

“burn that f**king house down.”

...I don't believe that we are "misinterpreting" their intentions one bit.


reply posted on 13-2-2013 @ 09:32 PM by six67seven
reply to post by AutOmatIc



so it sounds like Dorner decided to stay in the cabin to burn instead of coming out to surrender?

accidental or on purpose, he decided not to come out... ?

What is the agenda behind this thread, what would you like me to take away from it?
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags
The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags
A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags
Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags
666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags