Meet Noor Zahi Salman: The Orlando Shooter's Mysterious Second Wife Knew Of His Plans, May Be Charged

Tyler Durden's picture

While over the past few days, the media has been ignoring Noor Zahi Salman, the now widow of Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen and instead focusing on his first wife who has accused him of beating her, being bipolar, and generally acting deranged and sociopathic. Like in the San Bernardino terrorist case, Noor Zahi Salman and Mateen had a young child together.

Now attention is slowly shifting on Noor.

According to NBC news, Orlando gunman Omar Mateen's current wife, Noor Salman, has told the FBI that she drove Mateen to the Pulse nightclub on a prior occasion and that she tried to talk him out of conducting any kind of attack, officials told NBC News. As NBC adds, law enforcement officials said authorities are considering filing criminal charges against her for failing to tell them what she knew before the attack, but no decision has been made yet.

Several officials familiar with what she has told the FBI said she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster. She also once drove him to the nightclub because he wanted to see it in advance, but that she tried to dissuade him from doing anything, the officials said.

NBC also quotes officials according to whom she is cooperating with the investigation.

Some more details on Noor from her public records:

In 2013 Omar Mateen married Noor Zahi Salman (pictured below). They have a 3-year-old son together.


Noor Zahi Salman, age 30, has scrubbed her social media history:


Omar Mateen lived in St. Lucie County, Florida, with his second wife, Noor Zahi Salman, but it is not clear if they were together or separated at the time of the shooting. Mateen sold his sister, Mariam Seddique, the house in April ’16 for $10 (Quit Claim Deed).

Needless to say, this is a confusing situation for a person who was alleged to be gay by his far more media friendly ex-wife.

Furthermore, this is how the WaPo tried to portray the relationship between Mateen and Noor last night: "Mateen later had a son with another woman who also appears to have left him and declined to comment when reached at her current home."

As a reminder, as the WSJ reported yesterday according to a spokesman for Saudi Arabia’s interior ministry, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen visited the kingdom twice on pilgrimage. Mateen visited Saudi Arabia in 2011 and again in 2012 to perform umrah, a religious pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca. The trips lasted eight and 10 days each. U.S. and Saudi officials aren’t sure yet who Mr. Mateen met with during his visits or whether the trips were connected to the shooting.

It remains to be seen if his second wife was linked in any way to these "religious pilgrimages." It also remains to be revealed if, contrary to numerous eyewitness reports, Mateen was in fact not the "lone wolf" the authorities are trying to make him appear to be.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

The entire affair stinks to high heaven. It has all the signs of being something other than what we are being told it is.

ShrNfr's picture

That's what happens when you wipe your ass with rocks the way their toilet etiquette says to do. Hands are also permitted.

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) ShrNfr Jun 14, 2016 11:27 AM

I knew he was gay the minute they published his birth data.

The bad part is they will spin this that religion is the problem, had he not been influenced by religion

he never would have been so conflicted and violent.

Because there is a much deeper thing going on here, something that wants to wipe out all belief in


Gee what could that be? Do we see symbols of this everywhere now?

Yes we do, this is the biggest war of all.

This secret faggot and the secret faggot in the White House are just small players in this big drama.

Tarzan's picture

As NBC adds, law enforcement officials said authorities are considering filing criminal charges against her for failing to tell them what she knew before the attack, but no decision has been made yet.


They obviously believe our right to remain silent is a bad idea. 


If she's arrested, they will say it's "for failing to tell",


this will be trumpeted through out the land,  to undermine our liberties!

While the truth is, if anything, it will be because she assisted in the attack. 


A little slight of tongue from our captured Press!

Moski's picture

Islamophobic if you do; criminal if you don't.

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) Moski Jun 14, 2016 11:45 AM

Did any of his confirmed gay sex partners know of his plans to kill a lot of people?

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Wife dropped off Omar at Gay Sex Club but did not notice Sig Sauer slung over shoulder or 25kg ammo bag. Did not wonder why husband is frequent Gay Sex Club?

BaBaBouy's picture

Lone Wolf ??? Lone Wife Wolf???

MagicHandPuppet's picture

See... this whole thing could have been prevented if y'all had just given them a trans bathroom!  /sarc

NoDebt's picture

Uh oh.  Allah just took away his 72 virgins.  


UmbilicalMosqueSweeper's picture

Salami lick' more snackbar!


mofio's picture

Israel was following the hijackers of 911 and told the US nothing, wanting it to happen. They were later arrested (referred to as the dancing Israelis) and then released.

santafe's picture
santafe (not verified) mofio Jun 14, 2016 3:53 PM

Actually Israel did 911. The dancing Israelis were just the ones recording the event.

The Merovingian's picture

And replaced them 72 goats. Poor goats.

DuneCreature's picture

He probably concealed it all in his oversized purse.

I'm constantly in awe of what Ms Creature can get stuffed in hers


~ DC v2.0

ebear's picture

"Did not wonder why husband is frequent Gay Sex Club?"

There's an episode of Big Bang Theory where Raj's family tries to arrange a marriage for him with a woman who is gay. Raj's behavior has everyone in India believing he's gay, so the marriage (as the prospective bride explains) is intended as social cover. Behind the humor is a basic truth of life in the Islamic and Hindu world, so the question not asked here is this: is the wife gay as well?

Barney Fife's picture

Television in any form is not good for the intellect as it subconsciously programs you to be stupid. I strongly suggest that you turn off the idiot box hasta pronto.  Not saying that you're stupid, but you will be if you continue staring into that monstrosity. 

ebear's picture

"Television in any form is not good for the intellect as it subconsciously programs you to be stupid."

Really? And exactly how am I supposed to study the effect of TV on human behavior without watching it?

What if i told you music in any form is not good for the intellect as it subconsciously programs you to be stupid?

Would you believe me? Would you stop listening just because I said so?

Jesus, the things you people come up with.

SilverSphinx's picture

Not understanding the power of subliminal messaging and marketing techniques are we?

Start with the known fact that TV commercials work even on subjects that know they are being psychologically manipulated by the commercials. If you watch, you are affected. Your knowledge and will do not negate the effectiveness.

0b1knob's picture

Luis Burbano, the man who admitted on TV that he held the esit door closed (to ensure a higher kill total?) has been outed as an ACTOR.

I've always been very skeptical of the faked massacre / crisis actor theories but this is damning.   Look at the name of the last movie he was in in 2015.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Not sure I read this correctly, but he sells his house to his sister for 10$ (Quit claim) and she thinks that is normal?  

Only normal for some shmuck going to meet allah and try and get his 72 virgins, maybe.

She should be charged as well.

Shad_ow's picture

Every time something like this happens their entire family should be rounded up, charged when appropriate, and shipped out of the country when not.  I don't care where they go, just get out.


Tarzan's picture

Your right, if they assisted in any way, it's obvious to me she and others probably helped, and should be charged.


Those charges would have nothing to do with her right to remain silent!  There is NO LAW that requires you to tell anyone anything that someone else may do, or even anything someone has threatened to do! 


Like it or not, you argue with the law, when you claim remaining silent is criminal.


I never want to see the day when I risk being "rounded up" for what my brother did!

Barney Fife's picture

There is also a degree of spousal immunity to consider. If she was not 100% certain of what she thought that he might do then to rat on him could have caused massive domestic issues, including potentially violence. The State is putting her in a catch 22. 



Déjà view's picture

Looks like a typical happy American family-right Barney...just like Mayberry. Bet they also drank Coke® 

Anchor babies away...

Btw...about that single bullet you keep in your pocket for your empty chamber service revolver...bit old fashioned don't ya think?

Drop out's picture

I don't think the State has or can have one's family in mind. 

Edit: what a stupider thing for me to say.


hxc's picture

Or just shoot their pedophilic-warlord-worshipping asses. Most of em have low IQ's anyway, everyone knows arabs/persians/etc are pretty far down on the relative intelligence scale.

hxc's picture

Must've wanted one last pack of smokes, I suppose... after smoking all that pole, lol.

Max UK's picture

To Tarzan, good comment. But on a related theme...

What do the authorities do, when they receive a tip off that somebody is acting a bit suspiciously? 

So it is not just about criminalising people who turn a blind eye, but supposedly, semi-criminalisation of people who are ALLEGED to harbour dark thoughts.

How do the authorities separate genuine leads, from spiteful slurs? Can we be harassed by te authorities, of thoughts we are alleged to have in our heads, from spiteful current / ex / partners, friends, colleagues etc?

If so, why can millions of us, harbouring these genuine fears, not get our politicians all locked away, for the greater good? 

spanish inquisition's picture

She will be charged for failing to report a precrime.

beemasters's picture

"Her fiancé, Marco Dias, speaking in Portuguese on her behalf, said Yusufiy believed that Mateen had 'gay tendencies' and that his father had called him gay in front of her. Dias also claimed 'the FBI asked her not to tell this to the American media.'"

WHY did the FBI ask her to conceal the truth??? That makes no sense unless the FBI orchestrated the whole thing and didn't want anyone to mess it up. FBI should be charged with intent to suppress information in a criminal investigation.

Handful of Dust's picture

The fbi are all over this case; Low Retta has assigned 6 agents to invesitgate the slaughter of over 50 people and dozens wounded from th eLone Wolf. The other 4738 agents are busy chasing climate change deniers.

Tarzan's picture

When one is suspected of acting suspicious it's perfectly natural to observe them with a cautious eye, even place them on a Government watch list, or maybe a no fly list.


But to remove inalienable rights, and exact punishments for suspicion is unmanageable.  It would be impossible to interpret and enforce with blind justice. It would put the liberties of the people at such a disadvantage to those in power, that tyranny would be sure to follow.  

This appears to be the purpose of these latest series of hobgoblins, the undermining of independent thought, Liberty.

The day suspicion is criminalized, and alleged pre crime punished, will be truly Orwellian!

Blankone's picture

Re Tarzan: " It would put the liberties of the people at such a disadvantage to those in power, that tyranny would be sure to follow. "

And yet you said "it's perfectly natural  ... or maybe a no fly list."  So - you do not think it puts a person's liberty and rights at risk or disadvantage for TPTB to be able to refuse to allow a person fly even though they have committed no crime of terror?  That can easily be extended to subways, trains and buses.  But even doing so for planes can and has been used to punish those who voiced opinions or released information the current controllers did not like.  How about we just confiscate money and assets without due process resulting in criminal conviction - wait, we already do that. 

And these govt powers to take, punish and persecute without conviction are just waiting to expanded a bit to cover other areas beyond suspicion of drugs or terrorist association.  Simply expand them to gang association -  including white based gangs, and gangs who call themselves militia, and of course anyone who says anything antisemetic.  Just have the ADL supply a starter list.

Many years ago I told people they were being stupid to support the confiscation powers. But they said law enforcement would not take anything unless is was really drug profits.  (Of course the poor and isolated segements of society were the ones targeted back then.)  Now look at it.  And it has helped make law enforcement a criminal gang that actively preys on us to steal money.

Tarzan's picture

nobody has a right to fly, it's a privledge earned, by not being suspicious!  You may walk, if your going to bragg about your jihadi friends, chat with suicide bombers, and celebrate mass murders...

Blankone's picture

Then nobody has a right to ride a train, or to ride the subway or to drive a car on public roads or to ride the bus.  Not if you are suspicious --- to THEM.

Member of a white group, militia, NRA, anti war (some real group not code pink bs), deny the holocaust or point things that they determine make you disloyal, a threat etc..  --- well then they can UNprivledge you to the point you cannot function or hold a job.

Tarzan's picture

That's right, you have no right to ride the train, it's a privledge, just like driving a car on the road, if you act like an idiot on the road, that PRIVLEDGE can be removed!

It's the differance between a GOD given right and a privledge earned. The constitution does not gaurantee you can ride on someone's bus, plane or boat. It doesn't even gaurantee you can drive on public roads.

Build your own boat if your going to act like an idiot!

Tarzan's picture

There is a very high standard of proof required before someone's rights can be removed.  Your right to remain silent is gaurded very stringently.  Only in the case of treason is that right removed, and your silence no longer protected.  It's the LAW, look it up.

You have the privledge to do as everyone else, as long as you earn it like everyone else. 

Rights are granted, you don't pay for them or earn them!

Driving on public roads is a privedge that is earned by proving you can do so safely, attaining a license, paying for insurance, etc.  The burden to remove that privledge is very low, like maybe just an unpaid parking ticket...

Same for flying, rights are not purchased, airline tickets are. Flying is a privledge paid for, and earned by good behavior on the plane, gauranteed as long as you continue to meet the airline's requirements.  That privledge can be removed at the descretion of the Airline for what would seem very frivolous compared to the burden of proof required to suspend a constitutional right.

So argue the point all you want, if she is charged with a crime, it will not be for remaining silent.  Even if it's proven she knew all of his plans, her right to remain silent is Gauranteed rock solid, granted not earned, unless they can prove treason.

StychoKiller's picture

Meh, you're a nutjob!  EVERYONE has the right to move around on this planet (but maybe NOT the means!).

Barney Fife's picture

YES you do have a right to air travel. (However the private airline has a right to deny you acess to their property) You're just swishing Kool-Aide around your mouth along the lines of the bullshit that "driving is a privelige". 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

The right to peaceably assemble means the right to access of use of transportation. Peaceable assembly can mean just one more person. It does not necessarily mean assembly for political reasons either. It can be argued that without a driver's license, or the right to fly, that one's daily duties required to live a prosperous and free life are dramatically impaired due to an impingement on their right to peaceably assemble. They are at a distinct disadvantage to those who's right has not been infringed.  

This bullshit "it's a privilege" came from where? Ask yourself that? It came from government propagandists who used the advent of a new technology (motorized transportation) to steal away a right via repetitive muttering of a claim of privilege. 

Additionally, who owns the roads and the air traffic lanes? The PUBLIC, which is you, and me. So the government is saying "you own it, but we are not letting you use it". Say whaaa??

One more thing. Show me exactly WHERE in the US Constitution it delegates the power to the government to bestow privileges? 

So don't give me this kool aide crap about privileges. 


Tarzan's picture

Show me exactly WHERE in the US Constitution it delegates the power to the government to bestow privileges


That's the point barney, there are certain unalienable Rights the Government has no power to give or take away.  Rights endowed by God. 


Your right to drive was granted by the state, after you earned it, the day you recieved a license.


Like it or not, if you drove to your assembly on public roads before getting a license you were breaking the law!  If you fail to pay a fine, or get too many tickets, the State will take your license away, and you can exercize your God given right to assemble by walking to the assembly or hitching a ride with mom!

zeronetwork's picture

Basically in aNWO half the nation supposed to spy on other half nation.

Blankone's picture

That may be, but those who pay attention will see just one more example of why attorneys tell us "do not speak to the police without first meeting with an attorney and only with your attorney present".  If she had kept her mouth shut she would not be so easily charged and she could have asked for imunity before talking.

And if going to Saudi Arabia makes you guilty then list SA as a terrorist nation and sanction it.  If going on the religious trip to Mecca makes you a likely suspect of terror then they need to agree with Trump and block all Arab immigration (and student visas).

The guys first wife (and her father) are very weird.  There are photo's of her doing fashion/selfie type poses or looks.  Not what you would expect from a reserved religious husband to select.  Some stories of how they got together also sounded odd.

Bay of Pigs's picture

I'm wondering how this guy slipped by the FBI twice and was on a watch list yet somehow was able to buy guns and ammo legally without drawing any suspicion? I guess that massive NSA data base in Utah isn't working correctly?

What bullshit.

zeronetwork's picture

It must be a coincidence that Boston bomber including other terrorist met fbi few times before committing terrorism and getting killed in the act.

the late idi armin's picture

The 2nd wife is his handler. they found their guy of middle eastern extraction who is qualified to be a cop. Unfortunately imposing a radical Muslim terrorist identity over the repressed gay spazz personalty hasn't gone so well. 

True Blue's picture

I don't think they can legally do that unless they try to charge her as an accomplice.

Last time I checked the State cannot force one spouse to testify against another.

Pesky 'rights' -they'll be gone soon enough.

And, even if she had reported her suspicions, it seems there was nothing actionable could be done based on that. To illustrate; if someone threatens to kill you, call the cops and they will tell you there is nothing they can do until the person presents a credible threat to your life and actually commits a crime.